Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page

14. Inter-Agency Relations and Consultations on Questions of Common Interest (continued)
14. Relations et consultations interinstitutions sur les questions d'intérêt, commun (suite)
14. Relaciones y consultas con otros organismes sobre asuntos de interés común (continuación)

(a) Developments Regarding the Ad Hoc Comisittee, on the Restructuring of the Economic and Social Sectors of the United Nations Systotu : (continued)
(a) Faits nouveaux intéressant le Comité ad hoc sur la restructuration des secteurs économiques et social du système des Nations Unies : (suite)
(a) Novedades relativas al Comité Especial sobre la Reestructuración de los Sectores Ecoaómico y Social del Sistema de las Naciones Unidas ; (continuación)

(d) Other Questions Arising out of the UN General Assembly, ECOSOC and ACC (continued)
(d) Antres questions découlant des travaux de l'Assemblee generale des Nations Unies, de l'ECQSOC et du CAC (suite)
(d) Otras cuestiones derivadas de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, el Consejo Economico y Social y el CAC (continuación)

J. BERTELTNC (Netherlands) : I would like to recall the statements of my delegation under items 14.b and 16. They are of particular relevance, also to this item and especially on the important role of FAO within the United Nations system. We hope that especially the project "Agriculture Towards 2000" will be of value for the preparation of a new development strategy. I shall participate on this question in the Economic and Social Council and in the preceding meetings and the joint meetings of the Committee on Programme Coordination and the Administrative Committee on Coordination in July. This project can only be of great value. It provides real leadership in the United Nations which now is lacking. Our attitude also within the Ad Hoc Committee of the General Assembly on restructuring, on which I myself represent the Netherlands Government, is especially directed to the importance of this leadership, of course without jeopardizing the position of the Specialized Agencies.

I may indicate here that my delegation has always been and is still in favour of the presence of agencies at the Committee's deliberations. Unhappily enough, this is not possible.

I welcome FAO's growing participation in many fields of inter-agency activities, e.$. the FAO's leading role in rural development. This growing participation is also clear from the letter of the Director-General to the Ad Hcc Committee on Restructuring which Mr. Walton has read in his Introduction this morning. Active and constructive participation of FAO in these fields does really contribute to the important conceptualizing role of the United Nations.

And, finally, I welcome the Report of che ACC meetings on Nutrition. As the Secretariat is aware, ny delegation preferred another solution in the Meeting of the Protein and Calory Group last January in New York, and it was supported, by or it did support, the FAO representative on the Secretariat issue and on the intergovernmental organs. However, another solution was preferred, and the ACC accepted that one which is now under consideration in document CL 71/INF/10.

At this stage, I am glad to announce that my Government will support the proposed arrangements on Nutrition, and will do the sane next month in the Economic and Social Council.

P.J BYRNES (United States of America) : I know, Mr. Chairman, you were, anxious to conclude this sub-item this morning, and as one of those who held up your work, I apologise.

I would like to make a few brief comments on the Ad Hoc Committee on the Restructuring of the Economic and Social Sectors of the United Nations System. I am very grateful for the views of the Director-General which Mr. Walton explained this morning, and we will study these carefully as they appear in the Verbatim Record. We would hope since the views have been presented here this morning that it would be possible for the governments who desire it to submit perhaps additional comments for the Dirrc.tor-General to consider as he follows up his representations with the Ad Hoc Committee.

We agree with our Dutch colleague that FAO should be involved directly in the work of this Coirciittee, and we hope the Director-General will find means, perhaps through consultation with the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee, of keeping Members informed of the developments as they proceed in this Ad Hoc Committee work.

S. JUMA'A (Jordan) (Interpretation from Arabic) : I believe that it would be appropriate and suitable that the Council should express its regret that the Ad Hoc Committee could not arrive at any definite recommendations which it could submit to the ECOSOC at its next Session next month. Likewise., this FAO Council will not be in a position to study these recommendations or to comment thereon as there would come at such a late stage that it will no longer be possible or praticai to introduce any amendments to these recommendations or to make any comment on them. Therefore, the work of such Committees will be incomplete, because the result thereof is submitted at an inappropriate time to the specialized agencies for them to comment on them within a reasonable period:

Nevertheless, I believe that the remarks expressed by Mr. Walton in the name of the Director-General are remarks which are worthy of serious attention, and I do hope that these remarks will be submitted to us in the form of an official document of the Council, and that we do not confine ourselves to having them put on the Verbatim Record, as it would be unsuitable for such remarks by the Director-General to be taken ss if they are coming from the Council itself.

The Jordanian delegation is very happy to give its full support to what we have heard from the Director-General, and we hope the Organization, through the Director-General will be given the opportunity of participating at such conferences as may clarify the. position of the Organization with respect to joint subjects and joint projects with specialized organizations.

Therefore, I would welcome it, Mr. Chairman, if you could explain to us where we can obtain this information, tomorrow if possible, so that we may officially declare our support of the contents of it.

S.S. MAHDI (India): Like the previous speakers I would also wish to express the appreciation of our delegation for the very brief and very concise statement submitted by Mr. Walton to the Council. We agree that this statement should be circulated as a Council document, but perhaps we should not go to the extent of expressing our complete endorsement of the entire contents of the document, for the simple reason that the matter is still, so to say, sub judice in a Committee of the General Assembly, and also of course the Council has not been able to apply its mind to the various aspects that have been touched on in the document.

This does not mean that we do not find ourselves in harmony with a number of points that have been made in this statement given by Mr. Walton, but perhaps, and I would repeat, to go to the extent of endorsing the entire document by the Council may not be correct because this is a matter which is still under consideration. Having said this, I would suggest that the Council should take note of the statement, and also, if it so wishes, may underline a few aspects which have been raised in the brief statement submitted by Mr. Walton.

As far as cur delegation is concerned, we would like to underline two concepts which have been discussed in the statement - first, the concept of a lead agency. This is a valuable concept, and we feel that its full potentials are yet to be explored by the United Nations system. It often happens that Whenever a system is faced with a new problem, or an old problem with renewed intensity, ve find the easiest way of creating a new institution,which may not always be very healthy. The concept of lead agency will help in avoiding proliferation of agencies in the United Nations agencies.

The second point that this delegation would like to emphasize is that there are risks and dangers in consolidation of operational activities or funds. I cannot express it in a better way than has been already done by Mr. Walton. We agree that consolidation of funds increases the vulnerability of the whole system to pressures, and also we feel that on a selective basis in appropriate cases, new funds become a source of additionally. Perhaps we should not lose these inherent advantages. On the other hand, maybe the tendency to proliferate small funds, must be discouraged. In principle however, we are not in favour of unification of all the funds in the United Nations system.

These are the two points which I wanted to underline in the statement which has been made, and now I will pass on to another subject, the Institutional Arrangements for Nutrition. We do realize this is again another matter which is sub judice and which could be considered by the next session of ECOSOC, but we cannot refrain from saying these arrangements are the result of very prolonged negotiations between all the parties concerned, and it has taken more than a year to arrive at the delicate balance which is reflected in the information document circulated to us. We would be ready to support it, if there is an occasion for us to support it.

At the same time, we feel that the institutional arrangements only provide a framework, and the contents will be provided by further strengthening the nutritional activities of FAO, especially in the context of the new responsibilities which will devolve upon FAO in the light of these arrangements.

EL PRESIDENTE: Creo que sobre el primer apartado a) las novedades relativas al Comité Especial sobre la Reestructuración, podríamos en primer lugar tomar nota de la decision del Comité del Programa, Comité que dice en su informe que no pudo ocuparse a fondo de esta cuestión, debido a las incertidumbres de la próxima reunion de ese Comité sobre la Reestructuración, fecha sobre la cual nos hablo el Sr. Walton esta mañana.

Podríamos también, si el Consejo está de acuerdo, recoger lo que expreso el Sr. Ministro, Sr. Juma'A, de Jordania, en el sentido de que lamenta que la decision del aplazamiento de esta reunion coloque en posiciones difíciles a los órganos rectores de las agencias. Igualmente creo que el Consejo está de acuerdo en que sería útil buscar la forma práctica y conveniente de la participación de la FAO en las reuniones de ese Comité sobre la Reestructuración.

Creo que en términos generales, también el Consejo comparte los comentarios que a nombre del Director General manifestó el Sr. Walton esta mañana. El Sr. Walton ha dicho que su declaración está disponible y que si los miembros del Consejo esperan podrá ser distribuida. Espero que esto no nos ofrezca problemas .

Sobre el apartado d), es un documento para información, el CL 71/INF/10. Creo que por ahora corresponde al Consejo tomar nota del contenido de este documento en espera de la nueva disposición institucional que tomará el ECOSOC. También creo que convendría saber qué resulta de la próxima reunión del Consejo Mundial de la Alimentación, que tendrá lugar en Manila y que se ocupará de la nutrición, y todo ello justifica, como aceptó y recomendó el Comité del Programa, que se aplace la reunión que debía celebrar el Comité Especial de Políticas Alimentarias y Nutrición. Creo que así podríamos terminar los apartados a) y d) del tema 14.

I. OROZCO (México): En primer lugar, le pido disculpas por haber llegado un poco tarde y haber perdido parte del interesante discurso de los temas que acaban de pasar. No me pareció escuchar si ese informe que se ha preparado acerca de las últimas novedades en materia de nutrición será transmitido al Consejo Mundial de la Alimentación. Nosotros consideramos que sería un documento básico que debería el Consejo Mundial de la Alimentación examinar y tomar nota.

D. J. WALTON (Officer-in-Charge, Economic and Social Policy Department): At the time of the Preparatory Meeting of the World Food Council the document CL 71/INF/10 had not yet been published, so it was not available when the Preparatory Meeting took place here. It could be reproduced as a background document for the ministerial meeting in Manila and this question I can take up with the World Food Council secretariat because it is up to them to decide on it. But it would in any event only be a background document to the discussions. I do not think that the Ministers will in any formal sense review it. They are only called upon to look specifically at the draft resolutions that have been submitted to them.

EL PRESIDENTE: Espero que esto satisfaga la adecuada observación de México y que oportunamente se tome la decisión correspondiente. Podemos pasar ahora al apartado c) del tema 14. Parece práctico que sobre este apartado c) que comprende cuatro subpuntos, nos ocupemos en primer lugar de los tres últimos subpun tos que figuran en el orden del día conjuntamente. Es decir, de los tres Informes de la Dependencia Común de Inspección y dejemos para el final la continuación de la Dependencia Común de Inspección. 0 sea, espero esté claro. Nos ocuparemos en primer lugar de los documentos 71/14 y el Suplemento 1 de ese mismo documento; CL 71/15 y el Suplemento 1 y CL 71/16. Al final trataremos separadamente la continuación del DCI.

(c) UN Joint Inspection Unit Reports
(c) Rapports du Corps commun d'inspection des Nations Unies
(c) Informes de la Dependencia Común de Inspección de las Naciones Unidas

- Fellowships in the United Nations System
- Bourses octroyées par les organismes des Nations Unies
- Programas de becas en el Sistema de las Naciones Unidas

- Country Programme as an Instrument for Coordination and Cooperation at Country Level
- La programmation par pays, instrument de la coordination et de la coopération au niveau des pays
- Programación por países como instrumento de coordinación y cooperación en el plano nacional

- Technical Cooperation Provided to Integration Movements in Asia and the Pacific,
- Coopération technique fournie aux mouvements d'intégration en Asie et dans le Pacifique
- Cooperación técnica prestada a los movimientos de integración en Asia y el Pacífico

R. W. PHILLIPS (Chairman, Programme Committee): I shall do my best to deal with these three reports in turn. Taking first the report on Fellowships and beginning with paragraph 2.144 of the document, you will see that the Committee did not have time to study the comments of the executive heads fully because they had not been completed in time but they had no hesitation in endorsing recommendation 45 which related to the establishment of an Ad Hoc standing group. Incidentally, the Committee had some trouble in understanding what an Ad Hoc Standing Group is.

As for the report itself, the Committee felt that it contained a great deal of useful factual information about present procedures that were being followed in the planning and execution of fellowship programmes. The report contains a large number of recommendations and as you will see from the end of paragraph 2.146 the Committee was informed that all of these recommendations had been carefully reviewed by the fellowship officers in the UN system and that to the extent they were considered feasible they were being implemented. The Committee wished to focus on what it considered to be the most important single recommendation, that is the recommendation which proposed that there should be a reorientation of training activities to country and regional levels.

Turning then to the report on Country Programming as an Instrument for Coordination and Cooperation at the Country Level, there was some feeling in the Committee that it was inopportune to have this taken up at a time when the whole question of country programming was under review in the UNDP Governing Council itself. On the other hand, it is perhaps useful for the Council to be aware of the problems that are being discussed currently at the Governing Council meeting in Geneva.

You will see from paragraph 2.152 that the Committee felt that the most objectionable aspect of this report was that except for a few passing references it virtually ignored the fact that it was governments which formulated their own development plans and took the decisions regarding the sources and types of external assistance and coordinated such assistance.

Also, in paragraph 2.153 the Committee pointed out that the Inspectors appeared to advocate a monolithic structure at the country level. I think I need say no more than that and just point to that paragraph for your attention.

In paragraph 2.156 you will see that reference is made to a number of comments of the executive heads which were before the Committee in draft form and which they generally endorsed, but there are a number that are listed there which the Committee considered to be of special importance. Again, I will not take the Council's time to repeat those but only to bring them specifically to your attention.

Turning then to the report on Technical Cooperation Provided to Integration and Cooperation Movements in Asia and the Pacific, the Committee found that this report provided useful information on the existing regional and sub-regional organizations and made a useful contribution by focusing attention on some of the possibilities for an expanded programme of assistance to the integration and cooperation movements in that region. The Committee felt that the report suffered from some inadequacies which are mentioned at the end of paragraph 2.158.

With respect to the Inspector's recommendation that the system should provide assistance in strengthening the secretariats in a number of ways the Committee felt that FAO should adopt a less formalistic and more pragmatic approach. The Committee also felt that this report did not give adequate recognition to the FAO efforts that were already under way giving support to these integration and cooperation movements in the region. There was also a recommendation that focal points be designated within the various organizations to deal specifically with matters of integration and cooperation. Here too, the Committee felt that this could be handled within existing structures and that new support units should not be necessary for that purpose. I think that is all I need to say on these three reports.

EL PRESIDENTE: Al conceder la palabra al Sr. Bel Hady Amor, Presidente en ejercicio del Comité de Finanzas, quiero, en nombre del Consejo, dar la más cordial bienvenida al Presidente titular del Comité de Finanzas, al Sr. S. Ahmed, colega y amigo, quien debido a las altas funciones oficiales que cumple en Bangladesh, su país, no pudo estar con nosotros la primera semana. Todos le conocemos y apreciamos ahora su presencia en el Consejo.

M. BEL HADJ AMOR (Président par intérim, Comité financier): Je voudrais d'abord faire une remarque générale en ce sens que bien que des quatre rapports qui nous sont soumis un seul ait des implications financières directes pour l'Organisation, je dois souligner que le Comité n'a pas manqué de consacrer des débats assez longs à tous ces rapports.

J'en viens maintenant au rapport concernant les bourses.

Le Comité a retenu que ce rapport contient un ensemble d'informations utiles sur la planification et l'exécution des programmes de bourses. Il a relevé avec satisfaction que les diverses observations de l'inspecteur concernant la FAO pour ce qui est des programmes de bourses et de formation collective sont favorables.

De même, le Comité a donné son approbation à l'avis des chefs de secrétariat concernant la recommandation 45 sur la coordination inter-secrétariats. Il considère que le moyen le plus efficace, et surtout le plus économique, d'assurer la coordination est de prévoir des réunions régulières des fonctionnaires responsables des bourses.

Le Comité s'est penché également sur les deux recommandations qui concernent respectivement l'évaluation des activités consécutives, ainsi que la nécessité de réorienter les programmes de bourses en faisant une large place à la formation au niveaux national et régional. A cet égard, le Comité estime qu'un système automatique d'évaluation des bourses est essentiel. De même, il retient comme objectif prioritaire la formation au niveau du pays et de la région, la formation des formateurs et le renforcement des institutions nationales et régionales.

Enfin, à propos de ce rapport, le Comité a exprimé ses regrets pour le fait que le secrétariat n'ait pas fourni un commentaire des sections du rapport où la FAO est explicitement citée. Il a recommandé que cela soit fait à l'avenir pour tous les rapports du Corps commun d'inspection intéressant l'ensemble du système des Nations Unies.

Concernant le rapport sur les activités de coopération technique en faveur des mouvements d'intégration et de coopération en Asie et dans le Pacifique, le Comité financier a considéré ce rapport utile mais non exhaustif. Il note que ce rapport ne rend pas justice aux efforts présents et passés de la FAO en faveur des dispositions d'intégration et de coopération de la région.

Aux. paragraphes ,3.105 et 3.106, le Comité fait siens les observations et les avis exprimés par le Directeur général concernant ce rapport.

Enfin, au paragraphe 3.107, concernant la désignation au sein de la FAO de centres de coordination pour les questions relatives à cette matière, le Comité estime que ces- centres de coordination sont nécessaires, mais qu'en tout cas il faudrait éviter de créer un service indépendant.

Me référant au rapport sur la programmation par pays, instrument de la coordination et de la coopération au niveau des pays, je dois souligner qu'on peut prendre note de ce rapport, sans pour autant se prononcer, étant donné que les questions y relatives font actuellement l'objet de discussion. Cependant, je me permets de signaler les points de vue exprimés par le Comité durant les débats préliminaires qu'il a eus au cours de sa dernière session.

Il faudra noter que le Comité partage les opinions qui ont été exprimées par les chefs de secrétariat. Nous trouvons cela aux paragraphes 3.110 et 3.111.

De même, le Comité relève dans ce rapport un certain nombre de défauts assez graves. Ces défauts et ces lacunes sont signalés au paragraphe 3.112. Je note en particulier le fait que le Comité ne peut pas accepter le postulat fondamental des inspecteurs, à savoir que la programmation par pays ne devrait être considérée que comme un instrument de coordination et de coopération au niveau des pays, visant à renforcer la conception unifiée du développement.

De même, le Comité a relevé que le rapport présente une incohérence dans sa conception des relations entre le PNUD et les institutions. Car cette conception semble être en conflit direct avec celle d'association consacrée par le consensus de 1970.

J'attire l'attention du Conseil sur le paragraphe 3.114 où le Comité déplore l'emploi par l'Inspecteur de. termes catégoriques dans sa critique de la programmation par pays. Il relève que cette critique, en ce qui concerne notre Organisation, ne repose pas sur des faits exacts et ne favorise pas l'amélioration des relations au sein du système des Nations Unies. Il a estimé également qu'il se peut que ces critiques soient expliquées par la conception fondamentale de la programmation par pays, de la part des inspecteurs, à savoir qu'il s'agit d'un instrument de la planification globale du dévelomment et, comme je l'ai dit auparavant, le Comité n'a pas accepté cette conception.

Enfin, je souligne le paragraphe 3.115 dans lequel le Comité estime que la réorientation des politiques et programmes de la FAO proposée par le Directeur général et approuvée par le Conseil correspond davan tage aux besoins des pays en développement que la plupart des propositions contenues dans le rapport du Corps commun d'inspection.

EL PRESIDENTE: Han oído ustedes las dos presentaciones sobre estos tres informes. Al iniciar la discusión tal vez convenga recordar que, como en el pasado, todos los miembros des Consejo que así lo deseen pueden referirse ampliamente a los textos mismos de los informes, pero podría ser conveniente que de manera específica también se refirieran a los comentarios del Director General y como los Presidentes del Programa y de Finanzas han hecho a su vez comentarios a este respecto, sin duda pondrá a los miembros del Consejo en condiciones prácticas para intervenir en este debate.

J. BERTELING (Netherlands): During the debate on Item 14 (b), the Special Adviser of our delegation said he would have preferred to go deeper into the question of country programming. If you will allow me, I shall now make these remarks that he promised to circulate. They refer especially to the Joint Inspection report on country programming.

My Government sees the issuance of the Joint Inspection Unit report as a very timely one and generally agrees with the analysis. However, there are a number of shortcomings and the recommendations do not always very clearly fit into the analysis. Furthermore, as has been said earlier by my delegation, the vital role for country programming has to be played by the recipient countries; on that part we certainly agree with the Programme and Finance Committees.

The first point we should like to make is that country programming should be considered as an instrument for making the support of the United Nations system for national development plans, programmes and projects as effective as possible. A country programme should be established within the development framework set by the national authorities, but there can be no doubt that the United Nations system has its own responsibility in the sense that its contribution, if desired by the national authorities, to the total national development effort should be optimal.

Second, in the light of this basic aim, country programmes should not only consist of UNDP contributions but should be established on a system-wide basis, so as to prevent a possibly scattered and uncoordinated effort from the different organizations and agencies within the United Nations system. Therefore, besides UNDP projects, World Bank group programmes sud projects, the.programmes of the agencies and the various special funds should also be included. Finally, it would also seem desirable for bilateral aid to be put within the framework of this comprehensive programme in order to ensure that this aid, together with multilateral aid, is geared in a coorcinated and efficient way towards the needs of the developing country in all relevant fields, as expressed by the country programme.

Third, a comprehensive country programme is not a static concept: it needs constant adapting to changing circumstances, ideas and instruments. Therefore, periodic consultations should be held between all participants who work, together in formulating, executing and evaluating the programme at the country level, under the chairmanship of the competent minister in the developing country. Critical monitoring would seem to be particularly necessary.

Fourth, in order gradually to improve the extent of integration of the work of the different participants of the United Nations system at the country level, they should all work as partners in a common endeavour of the entire United Nations system, under the leadership of a single United Nations representative, preferably appointed by the Secretary-General in his capacity as Chairman of the ACC and operating as a single United Nations team in which the vast and diversified knowledge existing within the United Nations organs and organizations can be effectively pooled.

Fifth and last on this matter, the general spirit of the conclusions of the report of Inspectors Ilic and Bertrand seems to be correct and they provide a first impetus towards reorganization at the country level, although the report could have laid more emphasis on the important role the World Bank group and the bilateral donors should play in the country programming exercise.

I should now like to make one or two remarks on the Joint Inspection Unit reports on technical cooperation in Asia and the Pacific. In paragraph 12 of the Director-General's comments it is said that FAO and ESCAP were carrying out negotiations. While supporting the attitude of the Director-General, my delegation would like to know the results of these negotiations.

Secondly, in line with what I said on country programming, my Government is of the opinion that, in accordance with the principles of self-reliance and technical cooperation between the developing countries, more use should be made of regional organizations outside the United Nations system. My delegation can therefore subscribe to the comments of the Director-General and the Programme and Finance Committees.

EL PRESIDENTE: Oportunamente se responderá a la cuestión planteada por el delegado de Países Bajos.

M.L. CAMERON (New Zealand): I wish to refer to the last of the sub items, technical cooperation provided to integration movements in Asia and the Pacific, and particularly to the South-West Pacific region, and of course to the South-East Asia region, as there are very close links and we work together very closely. The Director-General commented on the differences in cultures and ethnic groups and so on, in these regions; and this is very true. Many of them are island nations with vast distances between them; some are small and new nations. I think on this question it is equally important to remember that the cooperation movements are relatively young. Integration is important but I think that we need to have some patience, to let them develop their roles and settle in. And, of course, too, the bilateral programmes add another dimension to this. I can sympathise with anyone who has difficulty in maintaining an overview of all the various organizations and their programmes in order to make an effective contribution when work programmes are being developed in the various bodies; we certainly do. We would also support the Director-General's view that FAO should take a lead role in agriculture. The dilemma, I think, is that we now see rural development, the production systems, the infrastructure, education, health and so on, as being part of a whole, as all requiring simultaneous attention if we are to make real progress; and in some ways the specialization of agencies can create difficulties, especially when you get down to the small farmer level where the changes have to take place.

We do not see an easy solution to these problems. In many ways we are captives of the institutions that we have created, but I do think there are two things that we can do, and the first is this. I think we have to keep the institutional boundaries quite flexible. We need to accept that the lead role can come from various sources and that the other organizations should fall into line and play their part. If we try to institutionalise everything, I think we will continue to have troubles and I think it is wise also to remember that there are finite limits to the resources that are available for these programmes; and if we do not make a real effort to make them work, to make them efficient, then those who benefit from them will benefit less.

The second thing that I think we can do - and Dr. Phillips referred to this in his comments - is that in the final analysis, the countries themselves are in the best position to see what can be done, where there is a need for coordination, where the right priorities can be set. And I am quite sure myself that very important - and in the final analysis, the best - results will come when the countries themselves can see that they have a very important, a very active part to play in integration and coordination.

P.J. BYRNES (United States of America): I would like to comment or two of the reports, first that of Fellowships in the United Nations system. My delegation agrees,as the Programme and Finance Committees concluded, that the JIU Report on Fellowships will be useful particularly to the fellowship officers throughout the United Nations system. It is understandable to us that such a comprehensive review might include questionable references or implications but these should not affect the overall usefulness of this document. We have somewhat uncertain views on the proposed creation of the ad hoc standing working group. However, the conflict might be in regard to that title.

Instead of this mechanism for ensuring standardization of fellowship procedures my delegation would favour a course of periodic meetings of those fellowship officers in various agencies and exchange of information as appropriate. In this regard we notice that executive heads have spoken of annual meetings. We would recommend some flexibility here so that it be not too rigid one, so the meetings may not be held if not absolutely necessary.

With regard to country programming, although we note that the Programme and Finance Committees appear to have been somewhat critical of the inspector's report, we think the document has contributed to fresh dialogue on country programming and is timely in view of the discussions that are either underway or soon scheduled in various United Nations bodies. We think it unfortunate that the joint comments of the executive heads were not made available to us prior to coming here to Rome. We look forward to studying these in detail, as we will study the comments of the delegation of the Netherlands which he will make available.

Since these matters are under consideration in other bodies, in view of the importance of the item and the expectation that additional views will be available to us later on, we would concur with the view of the acting Chairman of the Finance Committee on this particular item. We might merely note the study, note the views of the various committees and return to it at a subsequent date in the light of additional information that will then be available.

M.P. MASUD (Pakistan): Very briefly I would like to draw attention to paragraphs 37 to 46 of document CL 71/16 regarding regional cooperation for development. Agriculture is one of the largest sectors in the region in terms of numbers of people employed, its contribution to national income and share in foreign trade. It has been observed that the typical backwardness and poverty of the agricultural sector relevant to others demand that it be directly included in the joint action of countries to improve the condition of the people and that it would be unfair to exclude people dependent on agriculture from the direct benefits of integration. We would urge the Council to give this matter its most sympathetic consideration.

B. MIYET (France): Je serai moi aussi très bref sur ces deux questions. Au sujet des rapports qui nous ont été soumis, nous voudrions dire, en ce qui concerne le premier rapport sur les bourses, que nous sommes d'accord avec les conclusions du Comité financier et du Comité du programme pour reconnaître qu'il s'agit là d'un document très utile.

Quant au deuxième rapport, dont nous regrettons comme les autres qu'il soit arrivé un peu tard et que nous n'ayons pas eu ainsi suffisamment de temps pour les étudier en détail, nous sommes d'accord avec le Comité lorsqu'il dit qu'il faut en prendre note et remettre leur étude plus détaillée à plus tard. Cependant, nous voudrions faire remarquer que, comme nous l'a dit M.Bel Hadj Amor et M. Phillips, le problème du rôle des gouvernements a peut-être été mal perçu par les Inspecteurs. Cependant, le document nous paraît très intéressant et nous voudrions associer notre pays aux remarques qui ont été formulées par les Pays-Bas sur cette question.

F. REDA (Egypt)(interpretation from Arabic): I shall not take much of the time of the Council but I am merely interested in dealing with two main subjects. First, is training in connexion with fellowships and then the second is decentralization. We find that in dealing with such systems as training or decentralization the concept may vary from one organization to another, particularly because of the role that such organizations play in the development of human society and considering that there is no fixed system, nor can we arrive at such a system easily, therefore, we support the conclusions of the Programme and Finance Committees in connexion with their preference for holding one annual meeting of a shorter period, so that we may have a standing committee to deal with fellowships and in the same way we support the present policy of the Director-General in regard to decentralization and the conversion of present regional office representatives into country representatives in the future.

J.P. BHATTACHARJEE (Director, Policy Analysis Division): I will deal very briefly with the few points raised on the JIU report on the integration movements in Asia and the Pacific and Mr. Sager will deal with the other questions on the other reports.

I was very much pleased with the sort of views that have been expressed by a number of the delegates here on this report. In particular, the representative of New Zealand I think put the situation of the integration movements in this region in its proper cultural, linguistic and general social perspective. This view has been exactly reflected also in the way the Director-General has examined the report and offered his comments. I think the Director-General makes it clear in his comments that for the reasons that the representative of New Zealand mentioned it is important for FAO and in fact for all the United Nations agencies to take a pragmatic view about their relative role and this pragmatic view goes along fairly well with the flexibility that the representative of New Zealand was asking for in regard to the relative roles, jurisdictions, etc., of different agencies. So I believe the comments of the representative of New Zealand are perfectly in harmony, if not in support, of the view taken by the Director-General. Also in this connection there can be no question about the extent to which the movement can succeed because of the restraints on resources, both within the region as well as at the level of the United Nations system agencies also and of course the Director-General believes as much and as strongly, as the representative of New Zealand said, that it is up to the countries themselves and their governments to decide on the pace, nature and extent of progress they would make in the direction of cooperation and integration movements.

Having said this I take it from the comments that the general view of the Director-General on this particular report is fairly well endorsed here at least as far as we can judge from the comments.

Before I conclude there is only one other point on which very specific information was sought by the representative of the Netherlands. This puts me into a bit of an awkward position because there is going to be at some stage, possibly in the next meeting of the Council, a separate report by the Director-General on the negotiations at present in progress between FAO and the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. The negotiations are going on and they are more than half way through and the Director-General expects that the final agreement which will lead to the exchange of letters will be reached in a few weeks, certainly within the next few months, and therefore a report on this probably will come to the next meeting of the Council. Given this I can only provide informally one or two points of information without in any way tying the future report that the Director-General is going to present.

At this stage there has been the general agreement between the two organizations, that cooperation between FAO and ESCAP should be on a wider basis than the very narrow base of the joint provision that existed before. Now in view of the expanding role of of ESCAP in the field of agriculture, in other words activities which cover not only agriculture but even technical fields, the past arrangements have ceased to be appropriate. Accordingly, the new line which the Director-General proposed and which we believe the Secretary-General of ESCAP agrees, is that in future the cooperation between the two bodies should pass through the larger framework of the FAO regional offices and not through the joint division. Accordingly, steps have been taken to wind up the joint division and arrangements for joint programming discussions have not only been instituted but are in progress. But as I said, this is just a very little advance information and I would suggest that the Council in this matter may better await that the Director-General should present his full report on it, possibly at the next session.

J.F. YRIART (Director General Adjunto, Departamento de Desarrollo): Muy breves palabras, simplemente en relación con el informe en cuanto a la programación por países. Solamente quisiera decir, como queda bien claro en la respuesta conjunta preparada por el sistema, que el Informe en efecto fue oportuno; lo que ocurre es que desde el punto de vista de las Agencias y PNUD tiene dos defectos principales: Primero, que los comentarios son desproporcionados al ejercicio a hacer programación por países, porque los comentarios se basan en un ejercicio que estaría dedicado a una planificación del desarrollo en el país y eso no es lo que hacen las Naciones Unidas; eso lo hace el Gobierno; nosotros cooperamos en la planificación de utilización de los insumos y de la técnica, así es que hay una desproporción.

Segundo, que, como se ha mencionado en el Consejo y lo han dicho muy bien los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, creemos que no hay una cabal comprensión de la autoridad de los Gobiernos. Es decir, los cometidos que ellos tienen y que nosotros no podemos ejercer por ellos; pero aparte de eso el Informe es útil, llega en un momento oportuno en que estamos, como hablamos el otro día al tratar de las relaciones con el PNUD, en un intenso diálogo, especialmente entre el PNÜD y las Agencias sobre las relaciones mutuas.

Un capítulo importante de ese diálogo es el de la programación en los países. Creo que las breves acotaciones que han hecho los distinguidos señores Delegados sobre esa materia son también una buena contribución que nos orientará en las conversaciones que continuaremos en el ámbito de las discusiones del PNUD y posiblemente alrededor del documento que discutimos el otro día sobre el rol y las funciones del PNUD.

La único que me queda por decir es que queremos, en efecto, que la programación por países, en cuanto que tiene que ver el sistema, sea un trabajo de cooperación entre todos, PNUD y Agencias; pero, repetimos, que allí la nota, el tono en cuanto al ámbito que se puede cubrir, lo completo de este ámbito eso lo marca el Govierno y en esa programación sólo podremos considerar aquellos insumos y aquellas metas que el Gobierno esté de acuerdo en considerar.

EL PRESIDENTE: Creo que, en general, los miembros del Consejo se manifestaron de acuerdo con las opiniones del Director General y de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas sobre estos tres informes de la dependencias común de Inspección. Naturalmente, se expresaron algunas opiniones que constan en las actas y serán utilizadas adecuadamente por el Comité de Redacción. Sin embargo, quisiera hacer una breve referencia a cada uno de los tres Informes en relación con los puntos que fueron destacados por algunos miembros del Consejo.

En relación con las becas, entiendo que el Consejo está de acuerdo en que son útiles y que deben celebrarse con flexibilidad las reuniones entre los funcionarios de los Organismos interesados cuando esas reuniones sean necesarias.

En cuanto a la programación por países creo que el Consejo está de acuerdo en que debe ser el propio país beneficiario, aquel que tenga la función principal en esa programación el que debería incluir otros programas, así como la ayuda bilateral y que esa programación debería cumplirse bajo coordinación y vigilancia adecuadas, que será conveniente que las Agencias de las Naciones Unidas actúen en forma integrada a nivel del país.

Sobre la cooneración técnica creo que todos estamos de acuerdo en que, como lo ha dicho el Director General y fue apoyado por Nueva Zelandia y otras Delegaciones, la FAO debe ser la Organización líder en el campo de la agricultura y que debería tratarse también de que a través de esta cooperación técnica se transmitieran beneficios directos a los agricultores.

Creo que esto es lo esencial y si el Consejo está de acuerdo podríamos, entonces, pasar a lo que nos resta del tema 14, o sea la continuación de la DCI.

- Continuation of the JIU
- MâTntîêiT du CCI
- Continuaciónde la PCI

EL PRESIDENTE: Además del documento básico CL 71/17 recordarán Vds. que hay algunas referencias también en el CL 71/5, el Informe del CACJ, y hay comentarios también en el CL 71/4 que es el Informe de los Comités de Programa y de Finanzas. Espero que las presentaciones que harán los tres Presidentes de estos Comités situarán adecuadamente a los miembros del Consejo en cuanto a esta discusión.

En primer lugar, voy a conceder la palabra al Sr. Embajador Borin, Presidente del CACJ, quien se referirá a la Sección 4a del documento CL 71/5, párrafos 46 a 55.

O.R. BORIN (Président du Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques): Le Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques a noté que l'Assemblée genérale des Nations Unies a sa trente et unième session a décidé de maintenir le corps commun d'inspection et a approuve pour cet organisme un nouveau statut prenant effet au 1er janvier 1978.

En approuvant ce nouveau statut, l'Assemblée générale a invité les organisations du système des Nations Unies à notifier dès que possible au Secrétaire général leur acceptation du statut et à prendre les dispositions voulues pour utiliser ces services du corps commun d'inspection.

Le Comité rappelle à cet égard que le Conseil, à sa soixante-dixième session, a prié le Directeur général de soumettre un rapport sur les incidences qu'aurait pour la FAO l'acceptation de ce nouveau statut. Ce rapport a été soumis au Comité en raison de ses aspects juridiques et constitutionnels et de manière à ce que le Conseil puisse être saisi des recommandations de tous les trois Comités.

En examinant le nouveau statut du corps commun d'inspection, le Comité juridique est particulièrement attentif aux points suivantes:

Premièrement, la procédure constitutionnelle que doit appliquer la FAO pour accepter le statut et, deuxièmement, la question de savoir si l'on peut estimer valide le paragraphe 2 du statut et compatible avec la constitution de la FAO.

A cet égard, le Comité prend note des observations du Directeur général énoncées au paragraphe 3.10 de son rapport.

Le Comité des questions juridiques et constitutionnelles fait sienne l'opinion du Directeur général selon laquelle l'acceptation du statut doit être examinée par la Conférence étant donné qu'il s'agit d'une question relevant de l'article 12, paragraphe 2 de l'Acte constitutionnel en vertu duquel les accords déterminant les rapports entre l'Organisation et les Nations Unies sont soumis à l'approbation de la Conférence. Le Comité souscrit également à la suggestion du Directeur général selon laquelle les opinions du Conseil devraient être enregistrées sous forme d'une recommandation soumise à la Conférence lors de sa dix-neuvième session.

En ce qui concerne le premier paragraphe du supplément au rapport du Directeur général où est consignée la proposition prise par le CQCJ sur cette questionna savoir si une action ne pouvait pas être proposée en raison des différences existantes entre les dispositions constitutionnelles des diverses organisations et que, par conséquent, des décisions devraient être prises par leur organe directeur respectif et que le Comité devrait en prendre note.

Le Comité est également d'avis que le corps commun d'inspection tel qu'il a été établi par l'Assemblée générale ne relève pas de l'article 6, paragraphe 2 de l'Acte constitutif de la FAO, ce dernier ne contenant aucune disposition qui permette de considérer le corps commun d'inspection comme un organe subsidiaire des organes directeurs de la FAO.

Le CQCJ a été informé de l'opinion, qu'il a pu entièrement exprimer par les Comités des programmes, qu'un organe tel que le Corps commun d'inspection ne peut pas être à la fois indépendant des organes directeurs de la FAO et être un organe subsidiaire ou subordonné en même temps.

Enfin, le Comité est d'avis que le fonctionnement du corps commun d'inspection et le maintien des relations appropriées entre celui-ci et les organisations participantes ne souffrirait en rien si la FAO et d'autres organisations qui se heurtent à un problème constitutionnel analogue n'étaient pas en mesure d'accepter cette disposition particulière du statut.

Pour ces raisons, le Comité approuve les conclusions du Directeur général telles qu'elles figurent au paragraphe 10.29 du document CL 71/17 selon lesquelles les organes directeurs lorsqu'ils adopteront le statut devraient exprimer cette réserve que la FAO n'est pas en mesure de donner effet à la seconde phrase de l'article I, paragraphe 2.

Le Comité est d'avis qu'une telle réserve serait acceptable pour les Nations Unies étant donné qu'elle ne peut pas nuire au fonctionnement du corps commun d'inspection.

R.W. PHILLIPS (Chairman, Programme Committee): Let me begin by calling attention to one sentence in paragraph 2.134. That sentence reads: "There appeared to be a clear and continuing need for a completely independent inspection body in the UN system, and by its very existence, the Joint Inspection Unit, at least in part, met this need". I make that point at the beginning to emphasize that the Programme Committe was in no way calling into question the desirability of having a Joint Inspection Unit.

On the other hand, you will see from the remarks of the Committee that the Committee did not feel that an inspection unit should itself be above being inspected as regards the nature and quality of its work.

The Committee noted that the reports which had been issued, many of which were of considerable length, had varied widely in quality and in the relative importance of the subject matter and in the viability and feasibility of the recommendations.

The Committee also observed that one of the characteristics of the reports was the degree to which they appeared to reflect the particular interests and approaches of individual inspectors. In the earlier years, they had been directed largely to field projects; more recently they had tended to emphasize system-wide matters such as programme planning, budgeting and so on, and they had selected some subjects which were in the Committee's view not of priority importance or which dealt with matters already under examination at the inter-agency level.

One common theme was evident in many reports; that was coordination and the establishment . of a variety of mechanisms to achieve it. On several occasions in the past, the Committee has called to the attention of the Council the Unit's preoccupation with coordination seemingly as an end in itself. In looking over the work of the JIU during the last nine years, the Committee could not avoid coming to the conclusion that it had to express some disappointment at least in respect to the contribution that the Unit had made in practical and discernible ways to the work of FAO and had expressed the hope that there would be an improvement in the services rendered by the JIU in the future.

Regarding the question of subsidiary organ, there is no disagreement between the view of the Committee and that expressed by the Chairman of CCLM. I would call your attention to Paragraph 2.138 in the first line; at least in the English version there is an error. It should refer to Paragraph 2 of Article 5, not Article 3. And in this Article, the Committee wished to question in particular the emphasis on coordination and strongly recommended that the Council again reiterate its opposition to the adoption of coordination as a major aim in itself; no objection to coordination where it is desirable and increases the effectiveness, but there does seem to be an undue preoccupation with it in the Unit at present. I think it is fair to say that there is at least some danger of a burgeoning of the function and staff and cost of the Inspection Unit, which of course would be of concern to the Council as it looks down the road.

Also directly related to costs and perhaps equally important is the question of the length of the reports. The Committee has found as it reviewed these that many of them were unduly long, and a little inspection of the length of the reports would be a useful exercise for the JIU to undertake.

The Committee considered that it was important for FAO's governing bodies to maintain the work of the JIU under continuing review to satisfy itself if the investigations and evaluations carried out were not duplicative or in conflict with other activities and were commensurate with the direct and indirect costs involved, but with these qualifications and reservations the Committee recommended the acceptance of the statute on a de facto basis for a two-year period commencing 1 January 1978

M. BEL HADJ AMOR (Président par intérim, Comité financier): Pour ma part, je dois dire que le Comité financier a considéré ce rapport avec un oeil beaucoup moins favorable que celui du Comité des programmes. Je suppose que cela est très compréhensible, étant donné que ce statut ne manquera pas d'avoir des implications financières pour notre Organisation.

A cet égard, je voudrais souligner le fait que le Comité financier a fait siennes les observations et les recommandations du Directeur général à propos de l'acceptation de certaines dispositions, mais avec des réserves. Je voudrais souligner à ce propos surtout l'article 1, paragraphe 2 du statut et l'article 5, paragraphe 2, relatifs au rôle du corps commun d'inspection dans la coordination, ainsi que l'article 12.

Je pense qu'il faut surtout attirer l'attention du Conseil sur le paragraphe 3.96 du rapport du Comité financier, qui exprime les préoccupations du Comité concernant les incidences financières quant à l'acceptation de ce statut pour l'Organisation. Le Comité n'est pas du tout convaincu que des arguments suffisants aient été présentés pour démontrer de manière irréfutable que le rapport coût/bénéfice de la participation de la FAO aux dépenses afférentes à ce corps justifie les augmentations progressives du budget du corps commun et des contributions de l'Organisation à ce dernier. De même, le Comité a fait part de ses préoccupations quant à l'expansion des activités du corps commun et de l'accrois-sancement des effectifs. A propos de ces activités, le Comité craint qu'elles ne puissent faire double emploi avec celles d'autres organes chargés de procéder à des enquêtes et à des évaluations.

Cependant, le Comité a été enclin à recommander aux organes directeurs de l'Organisation l'acceptation de ce statut, compte tenu de ses préoccupations et des réserves formulées par le Directeur général.

J. BERTELING (Netherlands): Since item 14 was divided into separate sub-items, I have to apologize for requesting the floor again, but I would also like to make a number of comments on this issue.

Two years ago I believe the Council and the Conference decided to favour the continuation of the Joint Inspection Unit. I note now that this position has not been changed. Mr. Phillips made this very clear in his Introduction. The discussions in the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly last autumn on the Draft Statute have taken quite some time. There were inputs from the Joint Inspection Unit, from the Programme Coordination of the United Nations, from the Administrative Committee on Coordination and from the ACABO, and all the interested parties could make statements on the different draft texts.

Therefore, I am so amazed now to learn from the comments of FAO that the particular paragraph raises some difficulties. I know that the FAO representative in New York was specifically requested more than once to intervene on this subject. He never did, and now the text is accepted by all our governments. I may specifically draw the attention of the Council to paragraph 50 of the Report of the CCLM in which it is said that neither the ACC nor the ACABO has submitted proposals on this very question. I have been informed that the Legal Counsel of the United Nations has given an explanation of this Rule implying that it is not contrary to the constitution of any of the agencies.

Mr. Chairman, for this reason also I do not believe that this is a major question. The question does not, as it is said in a different document, affect the working relations between the FAO and the Joint Inspection Unit. My delegation, however, is against any reserve on the part of FAO, but can accept an interpretative statement like the one of the Legal Counsel of the United Nations that the Joint Inspection Unit is not a subsidiary organ of the FAO under Article XII of the Constitution.

With such an interpretative statement, my delegation feels there would be a notification on behalf of FAO of its acceptance of the present Statute. FAO has not intervened in New York in time, and has therefore lost, in the view of my delegation, and I do not feel it has a moral right to go beyond this.

A.E. HANNAH (Canada): I would just like to make a few comments on behalf of the Canadian delegation. The Government of Canada has observed with great interest the work of the Joint Inspection Unit since it was established on an experimental basis by the Resolution of the 21st Session of the United Nations General Assembly. The role established for the Joint Inspection Unit at that time, of course, was a laudable one, and one which is much needed in a large international or national organization.

In 1976, as the delegate for the Netherlands has point out, the Fifth Committee recommended the adoption of a Resolution establishing the Joint Inspection Unit on a continuous basis. This Resolution was adopted, and as well they increased the mandate to include programme evaluation functions. Although the Joint Inspection Unit has not been as effective as Canada would have wished, and in fact serious questions have been raised as to the utility of its continuation, the validity of its intended role remains, and our delegation recommends that FAO del nuevo estatuto, nos permitimos hacer simple-question of the Joint Inspection Unit as a subsidiary body, Article 1 paragraph 2 of the Statute, we do not object to the Director-General's proposal that reservations be entered.

We would also support a review of the decision to participate in a Joint Inspection Unit in 1979. This is consistent with the Canadian delegation's stated view to the United Nations General Assembly, where they question some aspects of this Statute.

I. OROZCO (Mexico): Nosotros debemos confesar nuestra falta de un conocimiento más profundo que hubiéramos deseado tener en estos momentos para hacer una aportación más útil al debate. Sin embargo, de la lectura tal vez superficial de los informes que a este respecto se nos han presentado, tanto por el Director General como por los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, acerca de la Dependencia Común de Inspección y su aceptación por la FAO del nuevo estatuto, nos permitimos hacer simplemente una observación muy general.

Nosotros quisiéramos ver una apreciación más positiva de la aportación que podría hacer la Dependencia Común de Inspección para hacer de los organismos especializados, no como leemos aquí en uno de los párrafos de los informes, hacer de la coordinación como un fin en sí mismo. Nosotros no pensamos que se haya tenido en mente hacer de la coordinación un fin en sí mismo cuando se creó la Dependencia Común de Inspección. Por eso nosotros más bien preferiríamos un enfoque más positivo y hacer un mayor uso de ella.

Nosotros hemos visto las aportaciones bastante considerables que hace la FAO para su Presupuestación de la proporción que le corresponde y nosotros percibimos que hay muchas áreas de acción donde la propia Dependencia Común de Inspección podría tener un papel muy útil.

Tenemos una serie de novedades muy interesantes que nosotros obviamente respaldamos dentro de la Organización, y en esto respaldamos al Director General, y una serie de innovaciones, como el Programa de Cooperación Técnica.

Nada más deseo mencionar entre otras áreas, por ejemplo, el área de la nutrición donde hay otras agencias que tienen una participación también conjunta al lado de la FAO y una serie de cuestiones; que nosotros quisiéramos ver una participación más positiva de coordinación, no como fin en sí misma, sino como un medio que nosotros consideramos en ese sentido y si es cierto, si me disculpa vuelvo un poco atrás sobre mis ideas del Programa de Cooperación Técnica, en donde se ha hablado del PNUD como un organismo de desarrollo, que nosotros, desde luego, consideramos muy ambicioso, que el PNUD puede ser un organismo de desarrollo, sí le corresponde formular estudios de esa naturaleza, que permitirían tener una apreciación general de conjunto y en el que la Dependencia Común de Inspección podría proporcionar informes muy valiosos.

Los aspectos de desarrollo y como los distintos organismos especializados están interconectados vis a vis el PNUD como un órgano de financiación en el sistema de las Naciones Unidas. Si cito este ejemplo puedo citar el de la nutrición y de otros que irán surgiendo a medida de las necesidades. Ciertamente sí es claro que hay aspectos constitucionales, como se aprecia aquí a lo largo de los informes, y que el próximo período de sesiones de la Conferencia tendrá una mayor oportunidad de analizar. Nosotros quisiéramos dar un respaldo más positivo a las labores que realiza la Dependencia Común de Inspección y también dejando a salvo si en la Conferencia resulta que hace esa reserva, pues hacerlo cuando llegue la oportunidad. En todo caso, tendremos una mayor ocasión de hacer un análisis de la Dependencia Común de Inspección y de todas sus implicaciones.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Federal Republic of Germany): On the subject before us, I have just a few comments. First, my delegation notes with satisfaction that the continuation of the Joint Inspection Unit is not being questioned. It seems to be the general feeling that an independent inspection and evaluation system within the United Nations is needed.

Secondly, concerning the work of the Joint Inspection Unit, my delegation can subscribe to many of the useful comments concerning that issue put forward in the Report of the Joint Meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees, and recalled by the Chairman of the Programme Committee.

We too feel that the work can be improved, in particular by shortening the reports, by better timing when inspections and meetings are being held with different agencies and perhaps also by dealing in a more precise way with some of the issues which are taken up.

Thirdly, with regard to the constitutional question my delegation would also recommend that FAO accepts the statute of the Joint Inspection Unit and, if the recommendation made by the delegate from the Netherlands is accepted with an interpretative statement by the Director-General, perhaps the difficulty spelt out also by the CCLM could be overcome. We would favour this. If this were not possible then we would say that in giving an answer on behalf of FAO, FAO should spell out that it will continue to make use of the Joint Inspection Unit for its governing bodies as in the past.

My fourth and last point is that we have sympathy with what was said by the Chairman of the Finance Committee mainly that a positive cost/benefit ratio is difficult to see and to work out so far but, on the other hand we must say in this context that this applies also to national evaluation services and we should not overemphasise that point.

B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): We have been silent thus far in this debate and will be intervening only briefly on this point knowing that a decision has been taken by the General Assembly in relation to the continuation of the JIU. However, in order to bring a proper balance to the comments of the Council I think it would be appropriate to utter some cautionary words. Some years ago my delegation commented in the Economic and Social Council that the JIU reports had one record - the record of not being read. They were very voluminous documents and very seldom read. Even today it is interesting to note that the different speakers and practically all the apencies differed substantially from some major trends in the reports now before us.

Of course, we understand that in this case FAO has no alternative but, to go along with a decision of the General Assembly which, I understand, was taken by consensus. However, it is important that this Organization uses these reports in a very critical way. It is also important that the financial resources of the Organizations are not unduly burdened by costs which might not prove to be justifiable.

Therefore, we should like to put on record our caution that while making use of the JIU reports and following the practices of the United Nations System, in the utilization of the JIU reports there should be a selective approach to the contributions of the JIU in the future.

P.J. BYRNES (United States of America): My delegation strongly supports the continuation of the Joint Inspection Unit although I should frankly state that we think the reports have not been uniformly good; neither have they been uniformly bad - some of them have been quite good.

To a somewhat lesser degree than the Programme Committee we admit to disappointment over the Unit's work in the last nine years but we conclude, as did that Committee, that there is a clear and continuing need for a completely independent inspection body in the UN System.

With regard to the question of the stature of the JIU as a subsidiary body we were prepared to accept the report of the CCLM concerning this, but having heard the views of the delegate of the Netherlands here this afternoon and being apprised of developments in New York, we would like, if at all possible, to find a way of avoiding having some reservation made by the Director-General or the Conference concerning the recommendation that this be a subsidiary body. Perhaps the interpretative language which the Dutch representative mentioned would be our way out . We would strongly urge the Legal Adviser of FAO to work with the United Nations to see if something along these lines could not be concluded between now and the time of the Conference.

We think, as did the two Committees, that the JIU should not place an undue burden on staff time, interfere with the work of the Organization, or require financial demands not justified by the end product. We believe, however, that such issues can be avoided largely by some greater degree of mutual and sincere cooperation between the unit and the specialized agencies.

I should like to make a brief comment now about the views expressed by the delegation of Brazil. It is quite right that the Joint Inspection Unit reports are not read as fully as they should be. There are several reasons for this. One is the structure by which the reports are presented. They first go to Agencies before being sent to governments. This results in delay and sometimes because of this they have not been timely. The Committees and delegates have also mentioned that the reports in the past have been too lengthy and that the recommendations should be more concise so that delegations can address themselves to the specific recommendations. We would hope that in the future our own Committee in commenting on such reports would try to present their recommendations more briefly to us so that we can also focus upon them when we come here. Frequently although the Joint Inspection Unit reports are issued far in advance, we do not have the views of the executive heads in time and most frequently do not have the reports of the two most important committees of our Council sufficiently in advance of the Council.

Mrs. A. AUGUSTE (Trinidad and Tobago): My delegation has studied with some interest the documents that are before the Council on the continuation of the JIU. Whatever the arguments that might be advanced in the abstract as to the need for an independent inspection unit serving the entire United Nations System, certainly we could not escape the conclusion that the prédominent view of the JIU that emerges from the Director-General's report, as well as from the reports of the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee is that the JIU is almost some kind of a nuisance that the Organization has no choice but to live with and even pay for to the tune of $200 000 a year in the forthcoming biennium which the Organization should also strive to ignore as far as possible.

We would be tempted of course, to discuss the merits or demerits of the JIU but as has already been pointed out in the brief discussions that we have had in this Council, a decision has been taken in the Fifth Committee and at the level of the General Assembly and by that decision the JIU is a permanent feature of the UN. Therefore, in all honesty, we doubt whether this Council on this occasion could make any significant contribution to the future life of the JIU. In the circumstances, therefore, we propose simply to confine ourselves to accepting the recommendation which emerges from all the reports and all the statements that we have heard so far that the statute of the JIU be accepted with the reservation of the FAO as regards paragraph 2 of Article I in whatever way that reservation can properly be expressed, be it by a formal reservation or by some kind of interpretative statement, as was suggested this afternoon, and also with the understanding that in 1979 the Council will engage in a further debate to try to evaluate the work of the JIU.

F. REDA (Egypt) (Interpretation from Arabic): I should like to start where the Chairman of the Programme Committee left off with regard to the need to take into account cooperation and coordination between the different United Nations agencies. As a number of delegates have said, the various reports which have been submitted on this subject are reports which contain recommendations which we could have done without in most cases. The report of the CCIA is also one which is usually presented at an inopportune moment. I think.that we might also refer to paragraph 2 which indicates that the Joint Inspection Unit is free to choose the subject with which it is to deal and to study in detail. We cannot oppose this choice of subject.

The last point I want to make is on the finance which is provided by our Organization for the JIU which represents about 16 percent of the total finance of the Unit. We feel that the share paid by our Organization has been calculated on the basis of a distribution of costs which was fixed beforehand. That will need to be revised because all the other agencies should pay at the same rate.

S.S. MAHDI (India): It is a fact of life that nobody likes inspectors, least of all those who are inspected, and even less those who have to pay for it. But it is equally true that some kind of an independent body is required for a complex system such as ours. Therefore, we endorse the conclusion of the Finance and Programme Committees, however grudgingly arrived at, that there is a need for the continuation of the Unit and that FAO should subscribe to it. In this connexion, a number of criticisms have been levelled at the working of the Joint Inspection Unit. One of them is that it concentrates too much on coordination. I am not perturbed by this because, by definition, a unit which is common to the whole system and to which all the agencies subscribe has to give more attention to coordination. The fact that on many occasions the reports of the Joint Inspection Unit have not been found satisfactory should be balanced against the fact that on many other occasions these reports have been very useful. Sometimes they have provided insight into the working of the entire system, and sometimes they have been a useful as compendiums of information about the system which is not available at any one place.

Therefore, I am a little disturbed with the predominantly negative tone of the report of the Programme and Finance Committees. In fact, it is true that we have sometimes to evaluate the evaluators, but maybe this should be done with adequate preparation.

Another argument has been given about the expensiveness of the Unit and in this connexion the question of cost/benefit has been raised. First of all, we should like to see how much of the cost increase is due to general inflationary factors everywhere. I realise that the cost has increased because of the addition of three inspectors also, but I assume that most of the cost has been increased because of inflation and we should also see, when we talk of about $400 000 as to what percentage this amount represents of the total budget of FAO. If the percentage of the expenditure for the Joint Inspection Unit has increased for the last four to five years as the total of the percentage of the FAO budget, then perhaps there is some cause for concern. But even then it may not be so easy to arrive at cost/ benefit ratios for an item such as the Joint Inspection Unit.

Another point has been made by the delegate of Brazil that the Joint Inspection Unit reports are not read. We cannot blame the Joint Inspection Unit for this. We should do our homework and read these reports, and we should give our comments on them. Having said this, I agree that there is need for improvement in the working of the Joint Inspection Unit and their reports. Let us remember that this is a rather recent institution which was recommended by a history-making committee of the United Nations in which all of us participated. So let us give it a chance. If we have any suggestions about improving the working of the Joint Inspection Unit or its reports, we are free to do and we should do so. In fact, we should take more interest in this work because after all this Unit is supposed to report to the governing bodies of the different agencies and, as such, it has the potential of providing assistance to the work of the governing bodies not only of FAO but others as well.

We should also like to know from the Secretariat as to what has been the approach at least of other major agencies in this regard, what difficulties they have faced in continuing to subscribe to the Joint Inspection Unit, and about the cost. Again oh the cost, a point has been made that FAO has to pay about 13 or 16 percent of the cost of the Joint Inspection Unit. I certainly know that this is built in, it is according to some kind of CCAQ formula according to which costs of joint ventures like the Joint Inspection Unit are shared by various agencies according to their size, their budget and their staff; so perhaps there is not much flexibility there.

I should now like to turn to a few points which have been raised in the report before us. First of all, about the Joint Inspection Unit being a subsidiary body of FAO: I must admit that this is a highly technical question and we have no competence to give any opinion. Usually in this respect we are guided by our Legal Counsel. Here also I find that there is some divergence of opinion between our legal advice and the advice that has been rendered by the United Nations Legal Counsel. I treat this as a purely technical matter which does not affect the working relationship of the Joint Inspection Unit with FAO, and this should be resolved in the best possible technical way that could be devised. So here I have no particular opinion. Of course, if it militates against our own Constitution, then I will be the last to insist that it should go as it is; but if some way could be found we would be very happy.

Secondly, in the document before the Council attention is drawn to certain gratuitous remarks in the Statutes which, if they are interpreted too strictly, do not properly reflect on the executive heads. We are not very happy with this kind of wording in a solemn document such as the Statutes, but perhaps they are addressed to all the executive heads and perhaps they make a situation explicit where it does not need any explanation. About that also, if the Council feels that we should give ''a piece of our mind" to the Joint Inspection Unit, I will go along with that.

Lastly, I wish to emphasize two points: that the quality of the work of the Joint Inspection Unit depends on the quality of the inspectors. As has been said from the podium, sometimes the personalities of the inspectors do find reflection in "the reports and to our regret we have found that in certain reports that is the case. In this respect we find that the new statutes are slightly different from the old ones, where the executive heads were consulted in a more meaningful way by the Secretary-General in the appointment of the inspectors.

We understand that the Secretary-Gene ral has the intention even now to continue such consultations and we should like to emphasize - and if the Council agrees, this could find reflection in the report also - that within the mandate which is given in the Statutes, the Secretary-Gene rál should make every effort to consult the executive heads in the appointment of the various inspectors.

Secondly, to make up for the neglect of the reports we have not read, and all that, we can exercise our minds and we could suggest ways and means of improving the reports. Also this governing body could suggest items on which the Joint Inspection Unit should concentrate. They should respond to the felt needs of the governing bodies of different organizations, and there we would have to take a more active rather than a passive role.

J.M. SCOULAR (united Kingdom): Like India, we in the United Kingdom delegation start from the premise that inspectors - any inspectors anywhere - are never a popular body of men. They are distrusted, looked upon with suspicion, they are never loved anywhere, any time. So when we consider the future of this small but slowly growing band of outcasts, the first question that comes to our minds is: do we need the JIU to continue at all? The answer, I think, must be: yes, it has, in a body like the United Nations system, a real function to perform. If we are agreed on this, then the next question is: do we agree with the new Statutes? Do they represent a proper updating of the previous situation? Again, this question was, we understand, exhaustively discussed and the delegate of the Netherlands, for example, gave a resume of the number of expert bodies that had already looked at this question.

From our reading of the Statutes, with their imperfections they still represent a fair degree of progress. Therefore, we on our part would support the recommendation of the Programme Committee that the new Statutes be accepted on an effective basis from January, 1978.

L. VELAY (France): Ma delegation a déjà fait savoir qu'au total elle estimait positif l'apport du Corps commun d'inspection. Donc, nous sommes heureux de l'appui que les trois comités de l'OAA concernés ont apporté au maintien de cet organisme.

En ce qui concerne les aspects institutionnels de la question, nous pensons qu'il suffirait certainement, comme l'ont fait remarquer plusieurs délégations, en particulier celles des Pays-Bas et de la République fédérale d'Allemagne, d'accepter le statut tel que l'a adopté l'Assemblée gérérale en lui adjoignant une déclaration interprétative précisant que le CCI ne peut pas être considéré comme étant un organe subsidiaire de l'OAA.

A.H. SAGER (FAO staff): I will leave to the Legal Counsel the question of the legal aspects of the Joint Inspection Unit being a subsidiary organ of FAO, but I would like to clear up one misunderstanding raised by the Netherlands and repeated, I think, by Germany. It is true that there were, in a sense, exhaustive discussions at the Fifth Committee about the Statutes. Prior to that, however, there had been exhaustive interchanges of views between executive heads, and their views on the new Statute were presented to the Fifth Committee in a document from ACC. Also, before the Fifth Committee was a version of the Statute prepared by ACABQ; and also before the Fifth Committee there was a version of the Statute prepared by the Joint Inspection Unit itself.

From the beginning the Joint Inspection Unit had pressed for the idea of the Unit becoming a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly of the United Nations. With this none of the executive heads had any questions. It was only during the debate of the Fifth Committee that it came to our knowledge that the Joint Inspection Unit was itself proposing that it be a subsidiary organ of the legislative bodies of the participating organizations that we then explained, indeed by telephone, through to the Chairman of the Committee, through our office in New York and to the Chairman of ACABQ that this Organization from a legal point of view would have serious difficulty and the fact that we, like at least one other organization, would have legal difficulty, was registered at the debate of the Fifth Committee.

Now this is a legal matter, but we have never considered, the Director-General has never considered it a serious one. The fact is the Legal Counsel will inform you that it is not possible for the Joint Inspection Unit to be, in the legal sense, a subsidiary organ of this Council or of the Conference, but at the same time the fact that it is not a subsidiary organ will in no way affect our relations with the Joint Inspection Unit, will in no way jeopardize harmonious relations, the efforts of the Secretariat to cooperate with the Inspection Unit. As the Council may know we are cooperating with the Joint Inspection Unit beyond that of many other organizations, by seconding a member of our staff for nine months to Geneva to participate with them in a study on the role of experts. It is the Director-General's intention to cooperate as fully as possible with the Joint Inspection Unit and he can do so and we will do so whether or not this body is a subsidiary organ so from this non-legal point of view it is to us an issue of no importance whatsoever. Further than that we have reason to believe that the General Assembly will have no question, will raise no question were our governing bodies to accept the statute with this reservation in view of the fact that it will not affect our relations.

The delegate of India has, I believe, responded to the question raised by the delegate of Egypt. It is true that the 14 percent, the contribution we make to the Joint Inspection Unit, is based upon a formula which governs our contributions to all similar inter-agency bodies. This is a formula that has been arrived at by the CCAQ and it is based upon the revenue from each organization from all sources of funds. This means that we contribute, we are the second largest contributor to the functioning of other inter-agency bodies like the International Civil Service Commission. We are second to the United Nations which contributes, I believe, something of the order of 40 percent. This is not a flexible arrangement and it would not I believe be appropriate were the smaller agencies to contribute at the same level as the larger organizations.

I think I should make it clear that the Director-General, reflecting the wishes of this Council at all of its previous sessions and the Conference, has always supported the Joint Inspection Unit and I would like to make it also clear that we have always cooperated fully with the Joint Inspection Unit. There were some remarks about the delays in this Council receiving reports from the Joint Inspection Unit. I can say, as I have been responsible for these reports, that the Secretariat has always followed the procedures established for the study, the timing and the study of the reports and we have submitted them to you. True they have arrived to you sometimes late, but we are under instructions to study reports within a certain period of time and to submit them to governing bodies within that period of time. That may coincide even with a meeting of the Programme Committee or Council.

One final remark, and I do not mean to mention this in any negative term, in any negative way, the Joint Inspection Unit between the 1st July and the end of December this year will issue 13 reports, notes and reports, 10, perhaps 11 of these will have to come to you, to the Programme and Finance Committees and to this Council. I mention this as only in support, shall I say, of the Programme Committee's suggestion that these reports and notes, if they are to be properly studied should, if at all possible, be reduced in length. With the growth in the Joint Inspection Unit's staff, 11 instead of 8 inspectors, certainly we can be sure that you are going to receive more reports. It is our hope that these reports, these studies will be addressed to matters of importance and of concern and it is equally our hope that the reports themselves will be sufficiently short and are directed to policy matters so that you can study them. We in the Secretariat do feel that many of the reports that have been issued in the past have been unnecessarily lengthy which in large part accounts for the indirect costs of our participation in the Unit.

LEGAL COUNSEL: As a result of the observations made by the delegate of the Netherlands, several other delegations, in particular those of the Federal Republic of Germany, of India, of France and of the United States have taken position on the Director-Generai's proposal that acceptance of the new statute of the Joint Inspection Unit should be accompanied by a reservation regarding Article I, paragraph 2.

Tying on to what Mr. Sager said, I would say, to start with, that it is not really a question of a difference of opinion between the United Nations Legal Counsel and the FAO Legal Counsel. I have read the legal opinion given by the United Nations Legal Office and I must say that it was very cautiously worded. Occasionally, I have myself been in a position to give an interpretation of the United Nations Charter or of the WHO Constitution in some meeting where questions were put, and I may assure you that it is with considerable trepidation that I engaged in this task. All the more so even must it have been with the United Nations Legal Office to give a collective interpretation of all constitutions or basic instruments of the participating organizations. It is, for another reason, not a question of divergence of opinion between the Legal Counsels. You have before you, and the Chairman of the CCLM has explained in some detail, a study that the CCLM made of the constitutional implications of the proposed provision regarding the status of the JIU as the subsidiary organ of the FAO and other participating organizations. FAO is in a somewhat particular position, although it is shared with certain other organizations as Mr. Sager said, precisely because a specific provision on the establishment of bodies or organs jointly with other intergovernmental organizations is contained in its Constitution. This provision may be regarded as exhaustive and therefore we have reached the conclusion that it would not be correct legally to consider the Joint Inspection Unit an integral part of FAO in the sense that it would be a subsidiary organ of its governing bodies, that is of the Conference or the Council. As has been pointed out, none of the functions of the Joint Inspection Unit in relation to FAO, nor the channelling of its reports or their consideration by the governing bodies will in any way be affected by the definition of its status.

I would say that it is to some extent at least a question of terminology, whether the Conference, if it decides to accede to the statutes of the Joint Inspection Unit, will request the Direetor-General to express a reservation, or a declaration of interpretation as was suggested, and we shall certainly, in further discussions in the Secretariat and with the Director-General, examine the possibility of substituting an interpretative declaration for a reservation, if that formula were more acceptable to the Council and to the Conference.

S. S. MAHDI (India): Just a brief word to set the record straight about the JIU being the subsidiary body of FAO, the Indian position is not the same as that of the Netherlands and the Federal Republic of Germany. What I said is that it is a highly technical and legal matter and we hope that this will be resolved in the best possible way which may include entering a reservation also on this matter as has been suggested in the Secretariat document.

EL PRESIDENTE: Después de la declaración del Sr. Asesor Legal, creo que no habrá dificultad para concluir este tema.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): First I wish to make clear that my delegation did not speak on the comments so far given by the FAO Secretariat to the United Nations Secretariat on the constitutional question. It. was not my delegation that spoke on that question.

Secondly, my delegation notes with satisfaction that the Legal Counsel is prepared to come out with a proposal which might overcome the difficulties and hopefully will lead to a consensus on this question being reached at the forthcoming FAO Conference.

We are glad that the Legal Counsel mentioned that whatever this proposal will be and whatever the interpretative statements would contain, it would by no means affect the continuation of the use made so far of the Joint Inspection for FAO, in particular as regards the channelling of the reports, the consideration of the report by its governing bodies, etc. We thank the Legal Counsel for this clarification.

EL PRESIDENTE: Creo que no hay duda de que el Consejo está de acuerdo en apoyar la continuación del c). Se hicieron sugestiones actuales sobre la manera cómo se podía mejorar la función de esta tendencia, particularmente con la elaboración de informes breves y recomendaciones concisas que facilitaran la lectura y las consideraciones de los informes por los representantes de los gobiernos.

No hay duda de que el Consejo apoya la continuación de la Dependencia Común de Inspección, sobre la cual se hicieron útiles sugestiones en el sentido de mejorar esa Dependencia, tal como la conveniencia de que se elaboren informes breves con recomendaciones concisas que puedan facilitar la lectura, comprensión y estudio de esos informes por los representantes de los gobiernos en los órganos rectores de las distintas organizaciones.

En resumen, el Consejo recomienda a la Conferencia, de acuerdo con la posición del Comité del Programa, que se acepte el Estatuto de la Dependencia Común de Inspección para el período de dos años, a partir del primero de enero de 1978.

El punto más ¡debatido en relación con la segunda frase del Artículo I, párrafo 2, sobre si la Dependencia puede ser o no un órgano subsidiario de los órganos rectores de la FAO, creo que la declaración del Asesor Legal facilita su solución. Entiendo que la mayoría de los miembros del Consejo están en favor de que se acepte el Estatuto tal como se ha propuesto y que desde ahora hasta la Conferencia, que será el organismo superior que tendrá la decisión definitiva y el Asesor Legal de la FAO, en consulta con el Asesor Legal de las Naciones Unidas, y desde luego todo bajo la vigilancia del Director General de la FAO, encontrará la fórmula de una posible declaración interpretativa que ponga a salvo la posición de nuestra Organización. ¿Es esto aceptado por todos?

IV - PROGRAMME, BUDGETARY, FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (continued)
IV - QUESTIONS CONCERNANT LE PROGRAMME, LE BUDGET, LES FINANCES ET L'ADMINISTRATION (suite)
IV - ASUNTOS DEL PROGRAMA Y ASUNTOS PRESUPUESTARIOS, FINANCIEROS Y ADMINISTRATIVOS (continuación)

17. Structure and Content of the Review of Field Programmes (including Section on Technical Cooperation amongst Developing Countries
17. Examen de programmes de terrain: Structure et contenu (y compris la coopération technique entre les pays en développement
17. Estructura y contenido del Examen de los Programas de Campo (incluida una sección sobre Cooperación Técnica entre Países en Desarrollo

R.W. PHILLIPS (Chairman, Programme Committee): The Committee reviewed a proposed outline for the review of field programmes, and that outiline is reproduced in paragraph 2.93. The Committee after having studied this agreed that it represented an acceptable balance between a broad sweep over the entire spectrum of field activities carried out by FAO and a critical examination of carefully selected segments for more substantive discussion in the Conference.

The Committee also wished to note and call to the attention of the Council the fact that the 1976-77 review would attempt to bring into focus the relationships between the regular programme and extra-budgetary activities in relation to training, investment promotion and the TCP, The broader relationships between these two sides of FAO's programmes would be covered in the presentation of Programme of Work and Budget.

I will just pass over quickly paragraph 2.96, but you will note there an expression that was brought to the attention of the Committee that FAO had not pursued with sufficient vigour the promoting of technical cooperation amongst developing countries. The Committee did not agree with this impression and felt that it should be corrected.

In regard to the section of the proposed review on training, the Committee recommended that owing to the growing importance of milk and meat production in developing countries, the training associated with animal health and production programmes should be handled in a separate section.

Also, the Committee felt that to the degree possible, the review should provide some indications on future trends in FAO's field programmes.

I think that is all I need say by way of introduction from the Programme Committee's side.

J.F. YRIART (Director General Adjunto, Departamento de Desarrollo): Respecto al bosquejo del examen de los Programas de Campo, no tengo nada que agregar a los comentarios hechos por el Comité del Programa, que fueron formulados hace apenas un mes y son perfectamente actuales. Permítame, sin embargo, referirme al párrafo 2, punto 96 del informe del Comité del Programa, al cual también se ha referido el Presidente del Comité y en el cual se dice que en ciertos sectores, o se cita, la opinión de ciertos sectores en el sentido de que existe la impresión de que la FAO no ha perseguido con vigor el objetivo de promover la cooperación técnica entre los países en desarrollo.

El Comité del Programa en el mismo párrafo, da una explicación de por qué podría existir esa impresión, que en el fondo no la juzga exacta. Pero en este momento se realiza una discusión doble en la reunión del PNUD en Ginebra sobre la cooperación técnica entre los países en desarrollo, sobre la cual creo que debo informar sucintamente al Consejo.

En este momento está reunido el Comité del Consejo de Administración del PNUD sobre Cooperación Técnica entre Países en Desarrollo y la semana pasada se reunió el Grupo Interagencial sobre Cooperación Técnica entre los Países en Desarrollo encargado de la colaboración con el PNUD para la preparación de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas y debo decir que salimos de la reunión del Grupo Interagencial considerablemente desilusionados y preocupados. La reunión fue breve. Fuimos informados de la documentación para la Conferencia que se celebrará en Buenos Aires, como se ha anunciado, ha sido ya contratada con consultores internos y las agencias del sistema tendrán la oportunidad de comentar, sólo de comentar, sobre los borradores de esa documentación en la segunda reunión de la Comisión Preparatoria de la Conferencia, que tendrá lugar en Nueva York el 12 de septiembre próximo.

A pesar de la deferencia que siempre las delegaciones gubernamentales muestran a las representaciones de los organismos intergubernamentales, no escapará a su fina percepción que no vamos a poder monopolizar una reunión intergubernamental para comentar exhaustivamente los documentos preparatorios para la Conferencia. Así que tenemos aquí un problema sobre el cual debo llamar la atención del Consejo, pues es posible que el Consejo desee que la representación de la FAO haga tentativos nuevamente para buscar canales mejores de colaboración en la preparación y celebración de la Conferencia.

Por otra parte, contrariamente a la impresión que se cita en el párrafo 2.96, al que ya he aludido, nosotros tenemos la impresión de que nuestra Organización está efectivamente muy activa en materia de cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo, y realmente prácticamente activa. Quiero recordar que el examen de los programas de campo anterior, de 1974/75, ya incluyó un capítulo especial en el cual hablamos de aquellas actividades de la Organización que tenían elementos específicos de cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo. Quiero ahora llevar a vuestro conocimiento que estamos en la fase final de un ejercicio importante, en el cual han colaborado todas las Divisiones de la Organización, todas las Oficinas Regionales, por lo cual hemos buscado de compilar conocimientos e iniciativas en los sectores de la agricultura, de la pesca y de los montes sobre actividades que se prestaban especialmente para la promoción de la cooperación técnica entre los países en desarrollo en sí.

Debo también informar que en las reuniones de París, que mencioné el otro día, de los grupos del PNUD, la FAO anunció que preparaba esta contribución, que consistirá en una serie de iniciativas estudiadas y compendiadas que podrían tomarse de base para actividades concretas de cooperación técnica en los sectores agrícolas.

Hasta el momento debo decir que tenemos unos catálogos si usted quiere de 101 propuestas, que en este momento se está terminando su análisis previo a la formulación, que posiblemente como somos exigentes sobre la viabilidad de estas ideas las rebuscaremos algo, pero que esto es lo que la FAO ofreció dentro de su sector como de utilidad para la Conferencia Mundial. Sin embargo, en la forma en que se prepara la Conferencia Mundial hasta el momento sólo se atacan problemas conceptuales. Evidentemente, esto es muy importante también, pero no es exclusivamente lo que hay que hacer y por nuestra parte tememos que sería incompleto que la Conferencia, y en la preparación de la Conferencia, además de los problemas conceptuales y aptitudinales sobre la cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo, los países no tengan también la oportunidad de discutir claros ejemplos que, como fruto de la experiencia que tienen las Agencias, les puedan presentar de actividades concretas que podrían desarrollar.

Esto es a lo que nos gustaría de alguna manera poder contribuir. Quiero decir que la FAO, además, siguiendo las instrucciones de sus órganos rectores, como ha informado el Director General, está empeñada en una labor de utilización de las instituciones nacionales, tanto en el ámbito de las actividades del Programa Regular como del Programa de Campo. A nuestro juicio, el fortalecimiento, cuando es necesario, de actividades nacionales es un prerrequisito para la promoción de la asistencia técnica entre países en desarrollo. En muchos casos es sólo cuando existen instituciones nacionales de excelencia que es posible desarrollar actividades de cooperación entre los países en desarrollo.

Además, creemos que al concentrarse el sistema de las Naciones Unidas en la utilización de las actividades nacionales les va de esta manera también a facilitar, cuando es necesario, medios que suelen no tener, no medios intelectuales, pero en algunos casos recursos financieros, recursos de material e información sobre las actividades de instituciones en otros países y que de la utilización por los Organismos Internacionales, en este caso la FAO, de las instituciones nacionales les facilitaría también irse preparando para después de ellas poder cooperar de institución a institución entre países. Creemos, por tanto, que la política de la FAO sobre la utilización de las instituciones nacionales es un paso no sólo eficaz, sino que es imprescindible para que las instituciones nacionales entren en lo que podríamos llamar el mercado internacional, es decir, que ellas puedan colaborar entre sí en el desarrollo de proyectos de cooperación técnica entre países én desarrollo.

Evidentemente, esto resultará, y así lo mencioné el otro día, en que será uno de los motivos por los cuales, como Agencia ejecutora de programas de cooperación técnica, vamos en futuro no lejano a ejecutar menos proyectos, por ejemplo del PNUD, pero bienvenido sea el que ejecutemos menos proyectos que están siendo ejecutados por los Gobiernos o por las Entidades nacionales; ya estamos empeñados en buscar fórmulas diferentes y flexibles para poder seguir al servicio en cuanto puedan requerir aseso-ramiento técnico, de alguna manera esas Instituciones que serán las propias ejecutoras de sus propios proyectos.

Está claro para nosotros, por el estudio que estamos terminando de análisis que se han hecho dentro de la Organización sobre ejemplos clásicos que se prestan a la cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo, que vamos a presentar ideas de proyectos en los cuales tenemos buena experiencia, y quiero mencionar brevemente algunos de los rubros en que vamos a presentar proyectos: por ejemplo, control de la langosta, control de plagas y enfermedades vegetales y animales, investigación agrícola en materia de cultivos, el desarrollo de cuencas fluviales que se prestan especialmente para cooperación entre países, y la utilización conjunta de recursos hídricos. En materia de pesca: intercambio de plasmas, de acuerdos de productos, de adiestramiento y educación tanto en pesca como en agricultura y materias forestales, en materia de políticas a formularse en cuanto a ajustes agrícolas, etc. Proyectos muchos de ellos que al ejecutarse como parte de cooperación entre países en desarrollo, tendrán también el posible efecto secundario beneficioso de ir promoviendo ya en la práctica una cierta armonización de políticas y de puntos de vista.

Creo que en este momento vamos a ganar verdaderamente una orientación que nos es necesaria por el estado de la preparación de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cooperación Técnica entre Países en Desarrollo, pues la Organización en esta materia ha estado trabajando activamente, como he dicho; pero en cuanto a Buenos Aires lo hemos hecho bajo la autoridad e iniciativa del Director General y querríamos oir si el Consejo comparte los puntos de vista del Director General en cuanto a la verdadera cooperación y la más útil colaboración que la Organización puede dar a esa Conferencia.

R.A. CURA (Argentina): Permítaseme, señor Presidente, comenzar diciendo que lamentablemente me he visto obligado a llegar con retardo a este 71 perido de sesiones del Consejo, pero he venido siguiendo con mucho interés el desarrollo de los debates pues he estado permanentemente informado del curso de los mismos.

En este sentido deseo expresarle señor Presidente, mi honda satisfacción por la aprobación general prestada por las delegaciones aquí presentes al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto lo cual demuestra que el mismo contempla adecuadamente las nuevas políticas establecidas en la Organización y las aspiraciones de los países miembros en cuanto a la orientación de las actividades de la FAO.

Con relación a la propuesta para evitar pérdidas de cosechas, a la vez que confirmo cuanto ha dicho mi delegación, confío en que el Comité de Redacción sabrá encontrar una fórmula que satisfaga a todas las delegaciones sobre su financiación y permita la aprobación inmediata y total de esta propuesta que tanto interés y entusiasmo ha concitado entre los participantes de este Consejo.

En relación con el examen de los programas de campo, mi delegación opina que el documento que se nos ha presentado representa un buen equilibrio entre lo que podría ser un exhaustivo análisis de todas las actividades de campo realizadas en el bienio actual, y un juicio crítico sobre algunos sectores seleccionados.

Mi delegación está de acuerdo en que al efectuar el examen de las actividades de campo, se ponga bien de manifiesto las relaciones que existen entre el Programa Ordinario y las actividades extrapresupuesta-rias, en relación con cuestiones de capacitación, inversiones y programa de cooperación técnica.

Con alguna preocupación hemos analizado la opinión del Comité del Programa en el sentido de que puede quedar la impresión de que la FAO, no ha perseguido con vigor el objetivo de promover la cooperación técnica entre los países en desarrollo. Por ello consideramos que se deberían adoptar medidas concertadas para modificar esa impresión teniendo en cuenta el creciente interés que sobre este tipo de cooperación tienen los países en vías de desarrollo, y la prioridad que se ha atribuido al uso de instituciones nacionales. En definitiva, creemos que debe hacerse una evaluación objetiva de cuanto se viene trabajando en este campo que abarque en lo posible a todas las regiones en desarrollo.

Deseo referirme ahora, señor Presidente, al Proyecto de Resolución que mi país ha presentado dentro del tema 17, sobre cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo. Ante todo me es grato aclarar que el Proyecto de Resolución aludido debe ser considerado como una propuesta del grupo Latinoamericano que ha manifestado una unidad de criterio respecto a la iniciativa de apoyar esta idea de la cooperación entre países en desarrollo en el ámbito de la FAO.

Mi delegación se complace en destacar este hecho demostrativo no sólo de una positiva solidaridad latinoamericana, sino particularmente de la conciencia que existe en toda la Región sobre las amplias posibilidades que el tema encierra y el rol importante que el mismo augura a los países de América Latina que han avanzado y siguen avanzando en forma sostenida en el desarrollo de la producción agrícola.

Por cierto señor Presidente, que nos complacería que otras delegaciones quieran unirse a América Latina para copatrocinar este Proyecto de Resolución.

La cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo constituye una nueva dimensión en el terreno de las relaciones económicas multilaterales. Hasta el presente, la asistencia técnica del sistema de las Naciones Unidas ha sido realizada de manera tal que se ha concentrado en el traspaso de servicios de expertos, consultorías, becas, pasantías y suministros de maquinarias y equipos a los países en desarrollo, provenientes de los países desarrollados.

Sin embargo, el crecimiento que los países en desarrollo han alcanzado en general, en base a sus propios esfuerzos y a la a aplicación de la tecnología que han recibido, los ha llevado a una nueva etapa de maduración y comprensión de los problemas internacionales que les ha demostrado la conveniencia y necesidad de intercambiar entre sí sus experiencias y sus capacidades técnicas de manera de contribuir en forma concreta a mejorar sus posibilidades de asegurar un nivel de vida más digno a sus poblaciones .

Este esfuerzo constructivo, señor Presidente, nos permitirá a su vez participar en forma más activa en las relaciones internacionales de cooperación técnica y economica.

Fue la percepción de los hechos apuntados arriba, lo que indujo a mi país a presentar en el vigésimo séptimo período de sesiones de la Asamblea General, la Resolución que lleva el número 2974 por medio de la cual se introdujo el tema de la cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo, como una prioridad en el accionar de los organismos internacionales del Sistema de las Naciones Unidas y del Programa de las Naciones Unidad para el desarrollo.

La FAO, a nuestro entender, tiene un importante papel que jugar a este respecto, ya que por sus importantes actividades está en estrecho contacto con las instituciones gubernamentales y privadas de los países en desarrollo en la esfera de su competencia.

En efecto, consideramos que une de las áreas prioritarias para esta nueva forma de cooperación, es el campo agrícola y el de la producción de alimentos. Hasta el presente las soluciones avanzadas en los foros y organismos internacionales no han alcanzado los resultados esperados. Por ello estimamos que la participación creciente de los países en desarrollo en los proyectos de cooperación técnica de esta organización, constituirá un nuevo paso en un área que aun brinda grandes posibilidades para una acción que, encarada con vigor, sumará esfuerzos a los que estos vienen realizando por cuenta propia y llenará vacíos en la asistencia otorgada por los países desarrollados.

Sabemos que el Consejo, salvo casos excepcionales, no aprueba resoluciones y lo habitual es que iniciativas como la sometida en esta ocasión sean motivo de un párrafo en el informe.

Sin embargo, nos permitimos insistir en que la misma sea objeto de una resolución independiente a fin de que constituya la piedra fundamental de un proceso de promoción de las actividades de cooperación técnica horizontal dentro de la FAO, en el cual avizoramos importantes logros para los países en desarrollo, y a la vez permita a mi país circularla desde ahora entre todos los países del mundo que participarán en la Conferencia de Naciones Unidas sobre Cooperación Técnica entre países en desarrollo.

Estamos seguros que la FAO así lo concibe y que no escatimará esfuerzos durante los preparativos de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cooperación Técnica entre los Países en Desarrollo que tendrá lugar en mi país en el año 1978, a fin de asegurar que la misma sea todo lo exitosa y efectiva que esperamos.

Por ello, al mencionar la próxima realización de la Conferencia sobre el tema de nuestro país, aprovecho también esta oportunidad para extender a todos los distinguidos Delegados y representantes de la Secretaría nuestra más cordial bienvenida a la República Argentina.

EL PRESIDENTE: Gracias Sr. Delegado de Argentina. Estoy seguro de que el Consejo quiere agradecer al Sr. Viceministro de Relaciones Exteriores, Sr. Cura, de Argentina, la amable invitación que ha hecho a los representantes de los Gobiernos y registramos aquí complacidos la presencia del alto funcionario del Gobierno Argentino.

B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): The Group of 77 has consistently indicated the importance it attaches to cooperation among developing countries. In our joint statement at the beginning of this session of the FAO Council we made precisely that point. We are conscious also of the importance of promoting cooperation among developing countries in the fields of food and agricultural production. We are aware, moreover, of the importance and scope of the United Nations Conference on Technical Cooperation which will be held in the capital of Argentina, Buencs Aires. On that point I should as the Brazilian delegate, like to indicate specifically our satisfaction with the initiative of the Government of Argentina to host this conference.

That being said, I should like now, in the name of the Group of 77 to indicate our support for the initiative of the Latin American Group presented by the representative of Argentina moments ago on the draft resolution to be adopted by the Council.

Sra. P. DE CASTRO MONSALVO (Colombia): Quiero expresar el apoyo de mi Delegación a la importante inter vención que acaba de realizar el Delegado de Argentina, Sr. Subsecretario de Relaciones Económicas Internacionales, Sr. Racura. En particular, deseo dejar aquí constancia de nuestro reconocimiento por los importantes esfuerzos que la Delegacióit de ese hermano país ha realizado tanto aquí como en otros foros de las Naciones Unidas, tales como 1? Asamblea General, en materia de cooperación técnica horizontal.

Coincidimos plenamente con él cuando señala que dicha forma de cooperación representa un importante paso al frente en la historia de las relaciones internacionales de cooperación técnica y económica. Por ello consideramos que los Organismos del sistema de las Naciones Unidas, especialmente la FAO, no pueden permanecer ajenos a esta importante nueva prioridad de los países en desarrollo destinada a maximizar sus esfuerzos de apoyo mutuo y colectivo con el fin de asegurar un orden internacional más justo y equitativo.

Creemos que el Director General de la FAO debe participar activamente en los preparativos de la Conferencia y estamos dispuestos a apoyar cualquier iniciativa que sea presentada a esos efectos para su aprobación por este Consejo.

Finalmente, la Delegación de Colombia desea reiterar sus agradecimientos al Gobierno de la República Argentina por el interés que ha concedido a este asunto y por las facilidades que estamos seguros ofrecerá para el buen éxito de esta reunión.

EL PRESIDENTE: Creo que conviene ahora que la Secretaría lea el texto del proyecto de resolución que fue presentado originalmente por Argentina, copatrocinado por todos los latinoamericanos y apoyado por el Grupo de los 77 según ha dicho su Presidente.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: I will read the draft resolution.

DRAFT RESOLUTION ON TECHNICAL COOPERATION AMONGST DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

THE COUNCIL,

Noting the important remarks and suggestions made during the discussion; Aware of the importance of the United Nations Conference on Technical Cooperation amongst Developing Countries (TCDC) which will be held in Argentina at the beginning of 1978; Bearing in mind General Assembly Resolutions 2794 (XXVII) of 4 December 1972, 3251 (XXIX) of 4 December 1974, 3461 (XXX) of 11 December 1976 and 3l/179 of 21 December 1976, which requested inter alia the coordination of the activities of the organizations of the United Nations system with respect to technical cooperation among developing countries,

1. Expresses its gratitude to the Government of Argentina for its offer to host the forthcoming United Nations Conference on Technical Cooperation Amongst Developing Countries,

2. Requests the Director-General to ensure active and substantial participation in the preparations for the Conference in order that due account be taken of agriculture and food aspects,

3. Requests the Director-General to bring paragraph 2 of this resolution to the attention of the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee of the United Nations Conference on Technical Cooperation amongst Developing Countries,

4. Further requests the Director-General to submit to the Conference at its Nineteenth Session, through the Council at its Seventy-Second session, a report regarding FAO participation in the above Conference and FAO's programme of action on TCDC including measures taken or contemplated to make appropriate adjustments in policies, procedures, and programmes of the Organization to accelerate TCDC in all its aspects,

5. Invites the Conference to give priority consideration to the report of the Director-General mentioned in paragraph 4 above and for this purpose to include in its provisional agenda an item entitled: "Technical cooperation amongst developing countries in the field of agriculture and food.''

EL PRESIDENTE: El texto leído será distribuido para mañana en que continuaremos la discusión del tema 17.

The meeting rose at 17.55 hours.
La séance est levée à 17 h 55.
Se levanta la
sesión a las 17.55 horas.

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page