A.G. NGONGI NAMANGA (Cameroon): It is indeed a privilege to be the first speaker for this afternoon's session and though I will probably have the difficult task of setting the tone for this afternoon, as the distinguished Ambassador from Colombia did this morning, when we were almost near unanimity on the validity of all the priorities and programmes and we had only very little disaccord on the level of the budget. So I do hope that this afternoon we will almost come to complete unanimity.
The item before us, the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, is certainly one of the most important items on the agenda, and, as you have said, Mr. Chairman, it is probably the most important. The Director-General will present his full proposals for the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium before the Conference in November. That, of course, is his constitutional responsibility. However, this is the last occasion the Council has to express its views on the proposed Programme of Work and Budget, views which will surely be taken into consideration when the final document is being prepared.
Before making comments on the document, let me, first of all, express appreciation to the Programme and Finance Committees for the thorough job they have done in reviewing the Summary Programme of Work and Budget from both the programme and financial aspects. Their views as presented to the Council are clear and should help us greatly in focussing our attention. The Chairmen of both committees have made very informative presentations.
During the first two days of this Session, the Council reviewed the world food situation and found that it is in a state of deterioration. Many of us identified priority areas and outlined strategies which would result in increased food production and assure world food security. The priorities and strategies proposed by the Director-General are consistent with the views expressed at this session and are in accordance with earlier policy guidance of the Council and Conference, We therefore fully support the proposals of the Director-General.
As the Director-General has acknowledged, the proposed Programme of Work and Budget is inadequate in view of the magnitude of the world food and agriculture problems. His proposals are in fact modest. They take into consideration the views of all Member Nations and are presented in an integrated and balanced manner. Tampering with the balance of the programme activities would result in great distortions. Indeed, we were tempted to tamper with the programme balance; we were tempted to ask that more resources be directed towards agriculture, that is, to programmes aimed at improving shifting cultivation, ground and root and tuber crop production, the control of the tsetse fly and the development of areas liberated from the tsetse fly. As you know, Mr. Chairman, these programmes are of importance to Africa in general and to my country in particular. We would have liked to see a larger technical cooperation programme. However, we realized that if each country pressed for its own priorities, we would never be able to reach a consensus. My Delegation therefore supports the views of the Programme and Finance Committees that the Summary Programme of Work and Budget is the minimum necessary. The budget level is the minimum which will be able to carry out the Programme of Work which we have all identified as giving the right priorities.
In endorsing the budget level we also endorse the proposals of the Director-General for increasing the budget by $10.1 million in order to provide for cost increases. We hope that there will be little disagreement on the level of the budget. Our Conference has repeatedly affirmed the principle of full budgeting to cover the total costs of the programme of work, The budget level proposed contains legitimate costs which have been properly identified using accepted methodologies, These costs must therefore be included in the budget.
My Delegation is particularly concerned to note the effects of unbudgeted cost increases on the approved Programme as shown in CL 79/3 - Sup.1. In past biennia, unbudgeted cost increases were substantial but manageable. It is, however, unacceptable that for the present biennium unbudgeted cost increases have amounted to $17.5 million causing a programme reduction of $6 million despite legitimate drawings on the Special Reserve Account.
Permit me, Mr. Chairman, to say a few words on the budget level in the light of fluctuating currency values. Whether we are experts on the functioning of international currency markets or we are just plain ignorant of their controlling forces, as I am, we have all surely realized that developments in the currency market have reached a scale rarely witnessed before. It makes no sense to talk of a budget level based on 820 lire to the dollar when the existing rate is close to 1.200 lire to the dollar; and who knows what the rate will be at the time of the Conference? We urge that the Director-General be given some flexibility in the matter so that in the preparation of his final proposals he will be able to propose a lire rate which will be appropriate at the time.
Finally, my Delegation urges the Council to fully support the Programme of Work and Budget proposed, together with the addition for increased costs. We do so in full awareness of the current worldwide economic problems, the need for budgetary restraints, and the policies of some countries calling for zero growth in the budgets of international organizations. Without going into the merits of such a policy, let me just point out that any policy, no matter how right it may be, cannot be applied indiscriminately. If I may just refer to a generally held principle, law, or Commandment, it says: "Thou shalt not kill", but if I were to list how many exceptions there are to that rule, I think we would be here until tomorrow. The FAO is an organization dealing with food, the priority of priorities, and the budget increase asked for is very small. We are also aware of the efforts of the Director-General to reduce costs. His actions convince us of his sincerity, and we encourage him to strive for greater efficiency. We do call on you, on the entire Council, to support the proposed Programme of Work and Budget as a sound basis for the preparation of the final proposals of the Director-General and we urge that the budget level requested be recommended to the Conference.
R. S0RENS0N (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA): I want first of all to express our appreciation to the Director-General and to the Chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committees for their excellent presentations and the overviews. My Government has studied the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, CL 79/3, with great attention. We would like to note at the outset that the presentation of this Summary Programme of Work and Budget continues to improve. We commend the Secretariat for its work. We welcome this progress and we urge further efforts in the direction of clearly identifying sub-programme objectives, programme increases and the re-programming of funds.
Speaking frankly and in general, we find much in the draft Programme of Work and Budget to commend. The priorities are realistic and they lead to a mix of programmes which we believe responsive to the needs of Members. We particularly like the relative emphasis on substantive programmes and the tight control of support activities. The balance between the action programmes of immediate benefit to Members, and long-term programmes which increase the intellectual capital of the Organization and guarantee its continuing usefulness to the international community is, in our view, appropriate. We note with approval that the budget provides for continued emphasis on FAO's services to the international community such as statistical data, standard setting and other basic activities of the Organization.
The main emphasis, however, is on action-oriented programmes to assist developing countries and this is an emphasis we approve. We note further that the Budget affords increased priority on the problems of the African regions and we feel also that this is fully justified.
Finally, however, we share the views expressed by the delegation of Sweden with respect to the need continually to cull from the programmes those activities which have perhaps served their purpose or been overtaken by new developments. Specifically we feel that the expansion of the country representatives in numerous countries increasingly calls into question the utility of the regional offices. Thus we share the desire of some of the other delegations to see this question studied prior to the establishment of twelve additional country representatives,
While we are thus in general agreement with the general priorities and the agreed orientation of the - proposed Programme of Work, any Budget is an interaction between needs and resources. The delegates to this session are well aware that the world economic situation, especially in the industrial countries, is characterized by high rates of inflation, low and even negative rates of real growth and high unemployment. This situation has made it necessary, for my Government, and a number of other governments, to adopt strict austerity measures. For example, in the United States Department of Agriculture the target for budget reductions in the fiscal year 1983 now under preparation is 20 percent in nominal terms. In the Department of State, which happens to be my employer, a 10 percent personnel reduction will be fully implemented by September 1982. I am sure you will appreciate that when Member Nations are forced to make substantial entrenchments in domestic programmes it becomes imperative that international organizations, including those of the United Nations system, share in the burden. International organizations in our view cannot escape these economic and political realities. Just as domestically we can no longer make commitments that grow at a faster rate than our tax resources, so international organizations must also be responsive to the financial situation of their supporters.
Placed in this general economic context FAO cannot be an exception, however much we may regret it. Its programmes must reflect the availability of resources and not only needs, which are infinite after all.
Aware of the importance of adjusting FAO's budget to the difficult economic situation a number of specific contributors informed the Director-General early in the current cycle of budget preparation of their concerns and urged that real growth in the budget under preparation reflect their view that it be in a range between zero to two percent. These same governments, after high level consultations among themselves on what they could realistically commit in the way of resources to the United Nations system, have recently delivered a revised message that in their view the time had come for a pause in budget growth throughout the system, that is throughout the entire United Nations system, not just FAO. This message transmitted to the directing authorities of the agencies and organizations which are components of the United Nations system also stated that it might not be possible in all cases for international organizations to be completely protected from the adverse effects of inflation and exchange rates fluctuations. Needless to say, the United States government was fully associated with this recent initiative which represented the views of governments which provide about three-quarters of the assessed resources of the United Nations system.
I would like to assure the Council that zero budget growth does not mean stagnation. New programmes can be instituted as conditions require but we all know that programmes also remain in the budget out of simple inertia, after their priority has declined over time. In fact a zero budget growth is a stimulus to a dynamic, focused programme mix fully adapted to current realities. Certainly we have found this to be true in the case of our own administrative system.
In light of what we are asking from the United Nations system as a whole in response to the difficult economic environment, we regretfully cannot give our approval to the proposed FAO budget, as outlined in CL 79/3 which is 7.9 percent, in the way that we calculate it, higher than the budget formulated on the principle of zero growth. It is also apparent that since we cannot lend our support to the overall budget level proposed by the Secretariat we cannot agree to the additional cost increases which are presented in CL 79/3 Supplement 1. This negative position is not callousness on our part, nor does it reflect disinterest or lack of concern for FAO's programme or the problems of developing nations. It is dictated rather by the unpleasant necessity to face economic reality and to bring commitments in line with our resources. We have been living beyond our means too long. This is the only basis on which the continuation of the mode of international cooperation which is formalized in the United Nations system can be assured.
It would seem to us that the proposed increases in the budget could be reduced without seriously damaging the major priorities and lines of work. We would note, for example, almost half of the total programmes increase is proposed for the Development Department and another large increase for the Economic and Social Policy Department. These should be looked at closely for possible savings. Criteria for TCP projects could be tightened up and the establishment of new representative offices might well be stretched out.
Therefore we urge the Director-General to re-examine his draft budget and submit to the Conference a scaled-down proposal which reflects the imperative necessity of a balance between programmes and resources. We know this is a harsh message, but essentials are at stake. We must restore health to the world economy if any of our ambitions are to be realized. This imperative must take priority. We cannot continue to spend more than we earn. The time to face reality is now, for tomorrow things will be worse.
I. MARGINEANU (Roumanie): La delegation roumaine a examiné avec beaucoup d'attention le document CL 79/3 et les suppléments 1 et 2 se référant aux principales orientations pour le biennium 1982-83 du Programme d'activité et de budget de l'Organisation, et se déclare d'accord avec la stratégie et les politiques proposées par le Directeur général,
La Roumanie attache une importance particulière à la mise en pratique par la FAO des programmes orientés vers le développement de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation des pays en voie de développement, dans l'esprit d'un nouvel ordre économique international et des relations nouvelles basées sur l'égalité et l'équité parfaites entre les Etats.
La Roumanie s'inquiète de la situation alimentaire mondiale qui devient chaque année plus grave en raison des crises et du manque de sécurité alimentaire, en raison des causes de l'inflation dans certains pays qui mènent à un déséquilibre économique mondial.
Dans ce contexte, il est indispensable que la FAO prévoie dans son programme de travail et de budget les moyens nécessaires pour la solution des problèmes liés au développement de la coopération économique et technique internationale dans le cadre du processus d'édification d'un nouvel ordre économique mondial.
Nous pensons que le programme de travail doit se développer dans la direction de la diversification de la coopération entre les pays en voie de développement, de telle sorte que ces pays aient un large accès aux conquêtes de la science et de la technologie modernes. Il faut leur donner la possibilité de se créer une infrastructure scientifique pour la formation de personnel national rendant possible le développement d'une large coopération scientifique internationale, ce qui mène à un plus large échange d'informations et au transfert des technologies modernes.
En ce qui nous concerne, nous agirons en vue de développer la coopération avec les pays en voie de développement et avec les autres pays en vue de la mise en pratique de tous les programmes orientés vers l'augmentation de la production agro-alimentaire.
A.HAKIM (Afghanistan): We have to examine this item in the context of overall food situation now and the decades ahead and the leadership role FAO is expected to play. We do not see the outline of Pro-gramme of Work and Budget from the viewpoint of an accountant.
The current and future prospects are not very encouraging. Food security, a goal worked out by the international community in 1974, has not been assured. The modest food aid target of 10 million tons a year has not been achieved; now there is apprehension that in the next few years it has to be not 10 million tons but may be 17 to 18.5 million tons. The status of people below the poverty line, if anything, has deteriorated.
The International Development Strategy recently set out by the international community envisages 4 percent growth rate in agricultural production, not easy to achieve on a sustained basis without adequate and unstinted international support. The various scenarios of document Agriculture: Toward 2000 do not give cause for comfort.
We consider the role of FAO vital as a watchman of food and agricultural situation, as promoter of innovative experiments, as drawer of world conscience to the plight of hungry and malnourished millions and as one stimulating programmes for the well-being of the disadvantaged in the poorer countries. FAO's strategies and priorities, worked out with full participation of the developing countries, are in harmony with the International Development Strategy.
To play such a role, FAO deserves our full support. We are impressed by the very critical scrutiny the Director-General has made of all elements in the programme before making his modest proposals for drawing up the full Programme of Work and Budget.
On the question of overall budget level for 1982-83, like all countries we too begin with a concern. In terms of real, not figurative, sacrifice, we, in the developing countries, would make a more substantial contribution. But we do not see how the Director-General could have done otherwise, considering the constraints he is working under and without damaging the effectiveness and efficiency of FAO's programme itself.
We have been told that the Director-General has been consistently reducing the percentage of expenditure on established posts, from 77 percent in 1974-75 to 60.9 percent in 1982-83. He has not accepted an increase of post without a corresponding decrease in the headquarters posts. A reduction of 300 posts over the past few years is a remarkable performance. The cost increases 34 percent or more in 1982-83, he has no control over. On the programme side we should keep four years in mind, not two years. The real programme increase he has proposed and which we fully support is just 5.9 percent. This is not excessive at all considering that the major part of 5.3 percent increase suggested in the current two year period has fallen victim to cost increases not contemplated. Any reduction in the programme increase will damage such programmes as support to multilateral investments, TCP, special programmes, decentralization and forestry development which we feel strongly should be encouraged and expanded. We may have some comments later on the individual priorities.
Considering the exchange rate situation, we are inclined to agree that the budget level should be based on near Lit. 1180 = US$ 1, and not on 820, which is unrealistic.
For these reasons we support the budget level proposed and agree with the Programme and Finance Committees that the budget is the minimum neccessary in view of the urgency, severity and magnitude of the problems of food and agriculture which confronted the international community'. We would appeal to all members and particularly to developed countries to stand by the commitments made by them through the approval of the International Development Strategy and the priorities and strategies of FAO to reinforce this agreement by full and practical support to FAO's budget and the Programme.
Finally I would like to make some remarks on FAO's evaluation methodology. We did not well understand the remarks which seemed to suggest that FAO's evaluation methodology was inadequate and that we should follow the examples of other UN organizations. We can easily agree that FAO's evaluation can and should be improved within its present resources. However, any expansion of the evaluation requires more resources. It is however surprising that Sweden seems to consider that FAO's evaluation is less advanced than that of other organizations.
We believe that the JIU has stated that «FAO has taken considerable strides to make its internal evaluation system more comprehensive' and is 'using evaluation more to focus on programme effectiveness'.
It goes on to say that these actions appear to have considerable potential for strengthening FAO operations and accountability in a comprehensive and systematic way'. The JIU report also confirms that the internal evaluation system has the advantage of significantly reducing add-on costs of a more elaborate and sophisticated system. This is surely important in an era of budgetary stringency.
The Organization also prepares two Reviews for every session of the FAO Conference, namely the Regular Programme and the Review of Field Programmes. These two Reviews analyze and assess the performance and effectiveness of activities, including the in-depth reviews of selected programmes, sub-programmes and special topics. In the past both Reviews have been well received by the FAO Conference. We look forward to receiving the new versions.
H.L. CLAVERIE RODRIGUEZ (Venezuela): El tema de presupuestos que hoy estamos tratando es, sin lugar a dudas, el más importante en la Agenda de esta sesión del Consejo de la FAO. Hemos oído con verdadero y gran interés no sólo la resumida presentación del Director General en esta mañana, sino la que a su vez han hecho los distinguidos presidentes del Comité de Finanzas y del Programa. El Director General, igualmente, al iniciarse las sesiones de este Consejo nos ha abundado con interés y generosidad sobre este tema tan importante, no sólo ya para la organización sino para todo el mundo, y especialmente para las gigantescas masas hambrientas y necesitadas a niveles y en grados no acordes con el desarrollo que han alcanzado los países que hoy concentran la mayor potencialidad económica e industrial.
Nuestro país ha visto con gran simpatía la forma como el Director General ha focalizado la programación de las actividades de la FAO para cumplir con sus mandatos fundamentales y el ordenamiento administra-tivo que ha considerado necesario instrumentar a fin de cumplirlo dentro de límites de sobriedad y amplia seriedad administrativa.
Esto no obstó para que en el pasado y en una circunstancia similar a la presente calificáramos de poco agresivo el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto que se nos ofreció a consideración al inicio de su mandato. Comprobamos con gran preocupación hoy, que las mismas razones que expuso en aquella ocasión, son las que con algunas variantes tratan de obligarlo hoy, no sólo a reducir la función productiva de la Organización, sino a estancarla.
Obviamos especular sobre las catastróficas consecuencias de que prevalga una tal posición. El crecimiento cero no es ciertamente la vía que por ningún concepto Venezuela pudiera aceptar. Inútil mencionar que no sólo los países desarrollados contribuyen a los fondos de la FAO. Cada uno de los países aquí representados lo hacen en una proporción equitativa y proporcional a sus posibilidades, y todos, sin excepción, enfrentamos gravísimos problemas. No creemos que existan dudas sobre quién sufre con mayor gravedad los términos de la crisis económica mundial, de la cual los más simples análisis económicos hacen librar de toda responsabilidad a los países pobres o en vías de desarrollo.
Las acusadoras masas hambrientas del mundo no entienden mucho los sofisticados análisis que les hacen motivo de condena para continuar sufriendo su perenne necesidad. A veces el destino ofrece curiosas ocasiones de reflexión.
Hoy precisamente, cuando en esta misma ciudad, cuna de civilización notable de la humanidad, muchos países industrializados entre ellos claman en alto al hambre y condenan al hambre y endemia, al mundo y a la muerte, que este mismo mundo absurdo enfrenta en forma cierta e indispensable, en esta misma ciudad, digo, el instrumento idóneo y unico que la propia comunidad internacional se dio para atacar al hambre y malnutrición, como es la FAO, esté, enfrentando esta absurda situación de que se quiere limitar al máximo su función humanitaria.
La delegación de Venezuela apoya al Director General de la FAO y a su Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1983-83, considerando que es lo mínimo que ha podido ofrecer con los instrumentos y recursos a su disposición. Sin ánimo de beligerancia, con la mayor amplitud y comprensión, hacemos un llamado a los países que han declarado reservas a este presupuesto para que las levanten, incorporando de esta manera en forma indubitable y sincera su voluntad de ayuda desinteresada a la solución de los proble-mas del hambre y subdesarrollo.
M. ZJALIC (Yugoslavia): My delegation fully supports the Programme of Work and the priority accorded to specific fields of activity, such as food security, energy in agriculture, crop and livestock production, research. Plan of Action of WCARRD, food and agricultural information and analysis, forestry and fisheries. Also we endorse the high priority given to the activities in Africa.
The Programme of Work is basically aimed at attaining the goals and objectives of the International Development Strategy, particularly through intensified cooperation of Member Nations in the implementation of their national development plans. We elaborated our position and proposals in detail at the meetings of standing committees. We supported further improvements in regional cooperation programmes, and stressed our interest for continuous participation in European regional activities.
All countries, and particularly developing ones, need FAO as the only organization in the domain of food and agriculture for its counsel, information, policy and material help.
In the last five years FAO participated in expertise and elaboration of several agricultural programmes and projects in my country, whose value can be estimated at nearly $ 1 billion.
In the next biennium my country will strongly rely on FAO assistance and expertise in promoting economic and technical cooperation with other developing countries in the food and agricultural sectors.
It was announced by our late President, President Tito, that our economic growth in the near future will make it possible for Yugoslavia to become a net donor. Indeed, from year to year we are increasing our contributions to multilateral development organizations, such as IFAD, regional development banks, and organizations in the UN system, as well as our bilateral aid.
We all agreed that the world food situation has not improved in recent years. Hunger and malnutrition are still the reality for hundreds of millions of people. We all subscribe to the need for new dimensions and accelerated actions in the eradication of hunger and malnutrition.
Regular and Field Programmes linked with national programmes and priorities are an important contribution to the efforts of developing countries aimed at increasing their own food production. In the light of this my delegation supports the Summary Programme of Work.
The Programme of Work is a result of broad consultations among Member Nations, particularly in standing committees. We noted with satisfaction that the consensus was reached with regard to the programme and priorities. That is why it is difficult for us to understand zero growth approach, simply because we all know that financial means are needed for the implementation of the programme.
The international and national economic situation has compelled my government and parliament to resort to budgetary restrictions at all levels. Just for information, the last news from Belgrade is that the budget for the Federal Ministry of Agriculture has been reduced for two digit percentages.
Servicing external debts absorbs 20 percent of our export earnings, our balance of payment is assessed to be at nearly $ 2 billion level this year. Contribution to the Regular Budget of FAO presents a serious burden to our national budget as well as to the budgets of other Member Nations. But on the basis of the merits of the programmes and sub-programmes proposed by the Director-General and on the basis of all Member Nations equally contributing to the FAO Regular Budget according to their economic capacities my government supports the level of resources for 1982-83.
A. DOUEDARI (Syria) (Interpretation from Arabic): I am very grateful to you, Sir, for giving me the floor at this juncture of this very important debate which is before this House today.
In starting my statement I cannot but state clearly and categorically that my delegation is fully in support of the Programme of Work and Budget proposed for the period 1982-83 as introduced by the Director-General.
We also support the details of the Programme of Work, by which I mean the priorities as set, which reflect the primary aims of the National Development Strategy as adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations at the time and as endorsed by the FAO Conference at its last Session.
I should also like to state that we feel that the allocations of funds as between programmes are appropriate and we feel that the programme as proposed is balanced and dynamic whilst at the same time showing an evident concern for economy and for cost effectiveness. We feel that the figure of $ 440 millions, which is the basic figure proposed, does not go beyond the 5.9 percent increase for the next biennium, which is a reasonable level. This is, of course, at the rate of 820 lire per dollar, but we know very well that this in fact is not likely to be the rate at which the final budget will be approved, and like previous speakers, we want to stress that the budget increase is extremely modest; if anything it is unrealistic because it is too modest, so in no case must we cut it back further, since this budget is in fact far from the aspirations of the developing countries. It is only the minimum that can be done in all modesty and reasonableness.
We have been very surprised to hear the remarks of Sweden regarding the Regional Offices of the Organization and their continued usefulness. Most projects of the Organization are regional projects, and obviously, a Regional Office is very useful, not to say necessary for a good part of the regional projects. If we do away with the Regional Offices we would in fact be increasing the cost of the implementation of Regional Offices and we could not really ensure that they are successful. How can we have, for instance, regional fisheries cooperation without a Regional Office? How can we undertake all sorts of regional projects which are very expensive, if we do not have cooperation at the regional level which can be guaranteed through a Regional Office? In addition, we in the developing countries, we who are the interested countries, the beneficiary countries, know how useful those Regional Offices are to us on many and many an occasion. We are sure that the formula which was proposed by the Conference is the ideal formula for assuring decentralization and for guaranteeing total and direct coordination between the Organization and all countries. We therefore request that more Country Representatives' Offices should be opened without diminution of the Regional Offices and I would like to stress that doing away with Regional Offices is not an efficacious measure. However, let us hear countries in other regions, see what they think about this measure. I am sure they will speak with a full knowledge of the situation. Some of you may disagree with me in the light of the world economic crisis, and there may be some countries which prefer to wrap themselves in a cloak of isolation and turn their back to the world, but we do not feel that this is the way that points to the future. We are worried to hear sometimes representatives of well-known countries say that - and this is no secret for anyone - saying that they want to reduce or even stop the flow of assistance to countries through international organizations. The reasons they give are really based on purely political considerations. There are however also humanitarian considerations that must weigh in the balance, moral considerations and scientific considerations which must be taken into account and which surely show the paltriness of the purely political situations. We of course would not presume to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, but I feel that it is my duty to make these comments at a time when we are discussing such an important subject. It is natural that the activities of international organizations should differ from one to another and that each international organization should follow its target in the most appropriate way. I think that here we must recognize that FAO is in a special position and is deserving of special consideration. All we members of the Council here must submit to our Governments our objective and scientific evaluation and assessment of this special situation, and this objective and scientific assessment of the situation and of the value of the Organization's activities will show how positive these activities are and we must not allow ourselves to be panicked by the concerns brought forward by some countries. We cannot ignore the tremendous efforts made by the Director-General of this Organization which have led to varied successes in spite of the difficulties. By patient labouring he has been able to give an ever-stronger humanitarian impulse and ever-stronger pattern of the Organization with all Member Nations. We cannot ignore and deny the role of the Organization and the efforts it is making to achieve the humanitarian targets which are its own.
As regards the question of expenditure, the documentation showing costs and cost increases makes it clear that since 1976 FAO has made every effort to limit, to cut its expenditure to the bone, without diminishing its effectiveness. If we just look at the number of permanent posts in the Organization, for instance, we see that over 600 posts had been accepted under the Regular Programme and then were dropped, and now we are being told that the last 36 posts are disappearing for the 1982-83 period. This shows the economic and stringent approach, this shows that unnecessary costs are being cut whenever possible to the benefit not only of the Organization but especially and primarily to the benefit of the Member countries of the Organization.
But now we see and hear some countries which seem to systematically oppose the budget, which find austerity inadequate, that propose that certain posts be reduced or cut, but they want more meetings, for instance, when this suits their convenience. This surely is inconsequential.
In any case, to sum up, I felt that I had to speak at some length on this to make clear that we fully support this Programme of Work and Budget and why we support this Programme. Many of us have high expectations of the Organization to help us increase our productivity and our production, and those who are hungry and those who are thirsty around the world turn their eyes full of hope to this Organization. This is why I appeal to all countries, especially to all those that are hesitating at the moment on the brink of accepting a Programme of Work and Budget as proposed, to make an effort of understanding, to see things as they truly are and accept this Programme of Work and Budget so that the Organization may go ahead with its work and do its duty and achieve fruitful and beneficial results.
P. KANGA (Angola): Je souhaite préciser d'emblée que ma délégation se range parmi les partisans les plus tenaces et les plus enthousiastes du Programme de travail et budget pour 1982-83.
Ma délégation approuve les orientations proposées par le Directeur général dans tous leurs aspects, à savoir: 1 observation de stratégies et priorités conformes aux objectifs des Nations Unies et plus particulièrement aux décisions prises par la dernière Conférence de la FAO; la répartition équilibrée des crédits entre les différents programmes; les voies et moyens utilisés par le Directeur général pour contenir l'augmentation des coûts dans des limites raisonnables; enfin, le niveau du budget fixé provisoirement à 414 millions de dollars et représentant une augmentation du programme de 5,9 pour cent, à 820 Lit.
Nous tenons à déclarer pour notre part, comme l'ont déjà fait de nombreuses délégations, que cette augmentation est très modeste en soi, et qu'il nous semblerait irréaliste de la réduire.
Je suis cependant conscient que ce point de vue est loin d'être unanimement partagé. Sans nul doute, le climat de récession et de tension prévalant sur la scène internationale conduit certains pays à se replier davantage sur eux-mêmes.
Beaucoup d'entre nous sont très préoccupés de relever assez régulièrement dans la presse les déclarations de certains responsables qui ne font nul mystère de leur intention de réduire, et même dans certains cas de supprimer, le montant de la contribution de leur pays aux organisations internationales. Les raisons invoquées sont diverses, mais il faut reconnaître qu'elles relèvent de considérations politiques plutôt que strictement financières.
Il n'appartient pas bien sûr à mon gouvernement d'interférer dans les décisions internes d'autres pays, cependant ma délégation juge essentiel d'apporter certains éclaircissements à l'occasion du débat qui nous occupe en ce moment.
Il nous semble utile de rappeler que les activités des organisations internationales sont bien distinctes et qu'elles sont gérées par des méthodes qui sont propres à chacune d'entre elles.
Le cas de la FAO devrait selon nous être examiné en soi, et il est du devoir de notre assemblée ici réunie de faire part à nos gouvernements respectifs de notre appréciation sur les performances de cette Organisation.
Force nous est de constater que le bilan est extrêmement positif. Mieux encore, si l'on devait se situer dans la perspective des préoccupations exprimées par certains gouvernements, il n'y a vraiment pas lieu de s'inquiéter en ce qui concerne la FAO.
Nul ne pourrait en effet ignorer les efforts constants et couronnés de succès du Directeur général pour sauvegarder un climat d'entente et de compromis entre tous les pays membres et ce, en dépit de sérieuses dissensions politiques qui opposent parfois certains d'entre eux. Je n'ai pas besoin ici d'il-lustrer ce propos en évoquant à titre d'exemple certain épisode bien présent à nos mémoires où des débats pénibles ont été évités dans l'intérêt général grâce aux efforts conjugués du Directeur général et de tous les pays concernés.
Venons-en maintenant au chapitre de l'austérité financière que certains souhaiteraient voir mieux ob-servée par les organisations internationales. Les documents que nous avons sous les yeux, suffisent à dissiper toute inquiétude à" ce sujet.
Depuis juin 1976, la FAO n'a jamais cessé de restreindre sévèrement ses dépenses de fonctionnement et ce, malgré l'accroissement parallèle de programmes approuvés.
Regardons les chiffres concernant le nombre total de postes permanents du cadre organique et des services généraux: Plus de 300 postes initialement approuvés en 1975 au titre du Programme ordinaire, comme l'a dit mon collègue de la Syrie, ont été supprimés et une nouvelle suppression de 36 autres postes est proposée pour 1982-83.
La même tendance à l'austérité peut être notée en ce qui concerne le nombre des réunions et des publi-cations qui est sérieusement réduit et contrôlé.
Ces résultats sont d'autant plus remarquables que nous connaissons pertinemment les pressions continuelles auxquelles le Directeur général doit résister pour maintenir sa ligne de conduite. Je ne crois pas vous étonner, Monsieur le Président, en vous faisant remarquer que certains pays ne voient nulle contradiction à plaider tout à la fois pour de sévères restrictions budgétaires et contre la suppression de certains postes ou réunions quand ils sont directement concernés.
Ces considérations m'amènent en conclusion à demander aux pays industrialisés de changer leur position et d'approuver le Programme de travail et budget de la FAO pour la bonne conduite de cette Organisation.
D.H.J. ABEYACOONASEKERA (Sri Lanka): We have had the opportunity of examing the financial implications of the budget during the deliberations of the 49th Session of the Finance Committee of which we are priviledged to be members.
My delegation would like to state that we agree with the strategies and the priorities identified by the Director-General as those which should guide this Organization in planning its future programme of work. We note that almost all the responsible committees of the Food and Agriculture Organization have endorsed those strategies and priorities, and that they are in keeping with the International Development Strategy adopted by the UN General Assembly and the regional conferences of the FAO as being the crucial areas for further development through international assistance.
While we do not wish to single out any programme as being more important than the others, what concerns us mostly is that year in and year out the priorities and areas of concern affecting the developing countries keep on increasing, and that the gap between the availability of resources and these demands is ever-widening. These programmes which we support in the Budget are dependent on the willingness and ability of member governments to support them by making available the resources, whether they be membership contributions or voluntary contributions during the period within which the Programme is to be implemented.
The proposed budget levels would not adequately meet the demands to a degree which would satisfy all members, particularly those of the Third World. Within the resources available, the allocation of resources by the Director-General, therefore, is an exercise which calls for very careful analysis of the proposals and a judicious allocation of funds, thereby avoiding increases or over-runs which would have to be met anyhow by the participating member governments.
We note that the net programme increases in resources are at a very modest figure of 5.9 percent or $22 312 million, which in many ways shows to what extent the Director-General has had to review the activities before making any increases in those programmes which deserve the highest consideration.
We would also like to commend the Director-General for restraining the continuous growth of staff at Headquarters and deliberately diverting such resources to activities in the field. Likewise, the reductions in the number of meetings with a view to eliminating unnecessary deliberations and duplication of work is also commendable. In singling out priorities, my delegation would like to go along with what was said by most delegations from the developing countries that the increases proposed for the Technical Cooperation Programme, which remains equivalent to the current biennium's apportionment of 11.7 percent of the budget, prove once more the acceptance of its usefulness and the direct impact it has had on the beneficiaries. Its continuation in the coming biennium as an active programme of the FAO certainly merits certain increases in resources.
The decentralization of the Organization which began in 1976 will by the end of 1981 result in the opening up of 62 Country Offices, and is now to be continued until 74 offices are established at the end of 1984. In our own experience, these offices have proved to be useful. They have enabled member countries to liaise immediately and intimately with the Organization through its representatives. In the event of the UNDP taking measures to reduce their staff in the field in the next planning cycle, due to resource problems, the FAO country representative offices could bridge this gap and assist the UNDP in performing these services.
We also note that the investment activities carried out by the Investment Support Programme is to be increased by considerable financing. The work done by the Investment Centre has been useful but it needs further strengthening. The fact that other institutions like IFAD and the Arab Fund have sought its cooperation to plan and mount missions to developing countries is a clear recognition of its important role.
Although we have singled out only a few areas of activity in this Summary Programme of Work and Budget, this does not imply that the other sectors like fisheries, including acquaculture, forestry, rural development and the need to find alternate resources as substitutes to overcome energy-oriented inputs in agriculture such as chemical fertilizers and farm machinery, are less important.
The meaning of the budget in so far as the developing countries are concerned will be assessed in terms of the actual delivery and the extent to which any unmet needs, whether they be in the form of technical assistance or the formulation of projects for financing through international financial institutions, have been successfully achieved. The proposed budget level stands at $404 541 million, but the actual cost of carrying out the same level of programmes will definitely be higher. The current biennium's increase over the previous biennium, which was 5.3 percent, was sufficient to cover unbudgeted inflation; in actual fact, the increase was virtually written off.
It is therefore vitally important to us that FAO's Programme of Work and Budget should be treated as a special case. We are the only institution in the United Nations system which talks of Food and Agricultural Development, without which there can be no development in any other area, be it social or cultural.
It is with apprehension that we view the cuts in aid, including contributions to multilateral financing institutions such as the UNDP and IDA. It is for this reason that the member governments of this body should consider the budgetary proposals as something both important and typical, particularly when we are told that the international efforts in achieving targets of agricultural development and food production in most parts of the world are nowhere near levels which could be described as being satisfactory.
Having listened to the comments of those colleagues who have been talking about the need for zero-growth, the need for restrictions in spending and cutting down expenditure, I would like to add that in developing countries like my own, we too have our share of problems. We are not alone in facing these problemes. We have had cuts in our budget which cause severe burdens on the people of the country. Interest rates are very high. Major projects through which we hope to achieve self-suf-ficiency in food would have to be curtailed or postponed. We have enforced cuts but I think, whether we like it or not, we shall be asking for their restoration soon.
What we really need in a forum such as this is to convince Member Nations, who may have different views, of the need to appreciate our problems. It is the duty of our colleagues to convince their home governments that our problems are real and that the Director-General is doing his best at the moment. He is in a very unenviable position, because unlike the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a country, he has no secrets to hide in this budget. What he has in the budget is a reflection - in the true sense of the word - of the problems of food and agriculture. I feel very sorry for the Director-General and it is for the same reason that my delegation would support the budget and I would call upon all members here to support it.
G.M. KIMANI (Kenya): As most of you recall, during the past two days of the 79th Council Session matters relating to the current world food situation and food security were discussed at length, and the picture which emerged is a very gloomy one particularly in regard to hunger and malnutrition in developing countries.
It is noted that the countries which are affected are doing their utmost to overcome hunger and malnutrition, but owing to the scarcity of resources, both financial and technical, etc., external assistance is desperately needed to complement national efforts.
The Summary Programme of Work and Budget 1982-83 in document CL 79/3 outlines the various pro-grammes which support developing countries in the fight against hunger and malnutrition.
Programmes such as the fertilizers, food security assistance scheme, prevention of food losses, seed improvement and development programme, control of trypanosomiasis and crop pests, official development to express just a few, seem to respond to short-term needs as well as dealing with long-term solutions for the food problem.
The multiplying effect of such programmes can not be lost sight of. Most of the programmes outlined in document CL 79/3 call for more resources than are provided for in the proposed budget. The reason for this, I believe, is the recognition by the Director-General of the difficult economic situation that countries all over the world are facing at the moment.
The Summary Programme of Work and Budget has taken due cognizance of the current problem of inflation, recession, etc. which affect all countries with varying degrees of severity. Overall, the Programme of Work and Budget is very modest indeed, and if it is hoped to eliminate hunger and malnutrition by the year 2000, full support of the proposed Programme of Work and Budget is an important step in that direction.
The Kenya delegation would wish to give the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, and the priorities set therein, their full support.
F.H. HAWHAR HAYAT (Kuwait) (interpretation from Arabic): At this late stage, after lengthy debates, I have very little to add to what has been said by previous speakers. I wish to insist, however, that my Government would fully support the contents of document CL 79/3 and its appendices giving the Summary Programme of Work and Budget for 1982-83. This Summary has been carefully examined by my Government. It is very clearly balanced in its presentation. It satisfies the requirements and priorities of the Organization. It tries to satisfy these aims at a minimum expense.
The members of the Finance and Programme Committees have lengthily discussed the Programme of Work and Budget during their meetings. Following their approval, it is too late to object to it. What is more, those Committees include members representing the various regions and that is why we wholeheartedly agree that we should ask Council to ratify the programme as we read it in the Secretariat document before us.
The arguments put forward by developed countries concerning the economic difficulties they are having to face, although they do not entirely convince us, nevertheless we feel they should not hinder us or prevent us from saying these countries have never committed themselves. They have never respected the figure we decided, that is the total amount that they should allocate, which is .7 percent of their income, in order to help developing countries. These countries need an intensive programme of work and budget which would enable them to cut down or reduce the gaps between them and the developed countries. We accepted 2 1/2 percent to help other developing countries.
Millions of children throughout the world are suffering from hunger. They do not know what inflation means, they do not even know what a dollar is. All they know is that they want something to eat. How can they find food? How can they obtain what they need to satisfy their hunger on such a humble, modest budget in an organization which has committed itself to feed them? How on earth can these children realize what these economic problems are which are represented by inflation? How can we solve these problems at the cost of these starving children? How, I ask, Mr. Chairman, can we provide some welfare for these children if we are to satisfy ourselves with such a budget?
I wish to echo all those speakers who have supported the budget. I suggest that the debate be brought to an end and that we unanimously support this document.
A.SAMI QUREISHI (Pakistan): Mr. Chairman, since you have not given any ruling on the plea made by the Delegate of Kuwait, I presume the debate is continuing!
We have studied the Summary Programme of Work and Budget 1982-83 with great care and keen interest. We would like to compliment the Director-General and the Secretariat on the painstaking efforts which have been expended on presenting this realistic and balanced programme. In our view, self-imposed discipline and constraints are evident throughout the document CL 79/3.
The FAO has been charged with the responsibility to eradicate hunger, poverty and malnutrition from the world. We are nowhere near this cherished goal of ensuring the basic human need of food to all the peoples of the world, but we are moving in the right direction. When the objective is so laudable, the goal so clear, the effort also has to be undiluted and enthusiastic. What is needed, therefore, is unstinted support to FAO in its laudable efforts. I cannot see any reason why any government in the world would hesitate to join the battle against hunger, particularly when so much has been done, yet so much more remains to be achieved. The momentum which the world community has built up in the last few years has to be maintained if we are serious about achieving the breakthrough.
It has been repeatedly stressed by distinguished speakers in this very forum that the problem of hunger cannot be resolved unless the developing countries will themselves increase their productivity and adopt and implement policy measures to achieve the objective. That some countries have the will, the natural resources and the capacity for doing so has been demonstrated by the achievements of certain countries, including my own, in recent years. Developing countries with this kind of potential are spread in all the regions of the world. What they lack most is financial resources. Such countries would expect the resources gap to be met from outside. To ensure that their needs are realized, identified and met at least partly, international agencies such as FAO must be adequately funded in the first instance. By supporting a realistic budget for FAO we would in fact be supporting realistic development programmes all over the world which would bring us closer to the declared objective.
In the present atmosphere of serious food situation, rising population trends and galloping inflation, an increase, in arithmetical terms, percentages and so on, means very little in real terms. We should therefore not shy away from arithmetic increases but must press for an increase in real terms of a level necessary to push on at an accelerated pace towards the universally accepted role. In my view, in the field of food and agriculture there is no way of staying put: you either move ahead all the time to keep pace with increased pressures, or you fall behind and are overtaken by multiplying population and inflation and pushed back by several years.
For this reason, my delegation supports the broad outlines of allocation proposals contained in the budget documents. I would deliberately refrain from making any comments on the details because in the overall context when the stakes are so high, it is immaterial whether there is one P-l more or one P-5 less. In these matters my delegation has full confidence in the judgement of the Director-General, and we are sure that he has already taken care of these administrative and contingency expenditures and has ensured correct allocations for development and project expenditures.
My delegation is also aware that the world just now is plagued by economic problems and some of the donor countries - as was pointed out by the Distinguished Delegate of the United Kingdom this morning-have to grapple with inflation, unemployment and decreased output in their homelands. We appreciate the economic difficulties of some of the developed countries, but just imagine the plight of non-oil producing, food-deficit countries when they have to import food and fuel, live with the nightmare of adverse balance of payments and at the same time make earnest efforts to reach the target of 4 percent agricultural growth by pumping their limited resources into the agricultural sector. The situation of some of the African and Asian countries where millions of people are under-nourished, and yet some of these countries have to feed millions of refugees, also, is even more alarming. The pinprick of inflation for the developed countries is a sharp two-edged weapon for the food-deficit developing countries.
My delegation is therefore sanguine that, appreciating the problems of developing countries, there will be no hesitation in supporting the Organization's efforts by going along with the pragmatic and realistic level of the budget presented by the Director-General. The oft-quoted figure of 4 percent annual growth in agriculture is far from having been achieved, but undeniably a momentum is now being built up. If we minimize the support now, we will slide back into the old position of stagnating growth rates and the number of hungry in the world will increase day by day. A much greater expansion than proposed in the resources of FAO would be justified under the circumstances, but we appreciate the global economic realities and support the level of the budget as contained in the document before us.
J.A. GUEVARA MORAN (E1 Salvador): Como todos sabemos, acá, en este fóro estamos analizando dos cosas: una de ellas el Programa de Trabajo para el bienio 1982-83;y la segunda, el presupuesto necesario para realizar eficaz y eficientemente dicho Programa.
La delegación de El Salvador considera que estamos analizando una cosa seria, sumamente seria. En es-te momento, en este par de días que todos estamos dedicando toda nuestra capacidad, toda nuestra inteligencia, toda nuestra honestidad, toda nuestra serenidad, toda nuestra prudencia y toda nuestra madurez y responsabilidad creemos que la posición definitiva que tomemos marcará en la historia del mundo un hecho histórico que no vamos a poder rebatir en el año 2000. Sobre el particular pueden adoptarse dos posiciones. La primera que sería la de apoyar el Programa pero no aprobar totalmente el Presupuesto. Y la segunda, aprobar coherentemente ambas cosas. A nuestra delegación le llena de mucha preocupación el hecho de que la primera posición supere a la segunda, porque todos hemos felicitado al Direc-tor General por el excelente programa de trabajo que nos ha propuesto, pero no hay unanimidad en este Consejo en cuanto a los recursos necesarios para emprender dicho plan.
No encontramos que sea muy razonable que no haya coherencia y concordancia entre nuestras posiciones sobre el Programa de Trabajo y sobre el Presupuesto para poder desarrollarlo. Creemos que el Director General con mucha justicia pudiera preguntarnos ¿Cómo quieren que cumpla las metas si no me proporcionan los medios mínimos necesarios que les estoy solicitando para lograr alcanzar dichos objetivos y dichas metas a nivel mundial y erradicar el hambre en el mundo con honestidad, con eficiencia y con eficacia?
Los argumentos que se han esgrimido, a nuestra delegación le llenan de profunda sorpresa, quizá por-que somos una delegación de un país subdesarrollado, no conocemos aún la terminología y es uno de los puntos que quisiéramos aprender, porque si lo logramos vamos a ir a aplicar a nuestro país esos conceptos a la realidad. ¿Cómo dar un nuevo impulso a una actividad? A mí me agradaría, como Minis-tro de Agricultura y Ganadería, darle nuevo impulso a las actividades del Ministerio con una política tan austera como es esa que se ha esgrimido de crecimiento cero. Me agradaría profundamente, y si alguien me lo puede explicar, me haría un gran favor. Yo estaría sumamente interesado en poder aplicar esa metodología en El Salvador.
La necesitamos con urgencia; somos un país sumamente pobre, y cada peso que invertimos debemos hasta de soñar despiertos cómo sacarle el mayor provecho posible para eliminar el hambre.
Aquí se ha discutido y se ha hecho ver que no son muy necesarias las Oficinas Regionales. Odio la burocracia; personalmente la detesto, pero hay cosas que son indispensables. No podemos pedirle al Director General que elimine los puestos de aquí, de la Sede, y que tampoco establezca un mecanismo organizacional que le permita el control, la vigilancia, la eficacia, la eficiencia de lo que se está haciendo allá, después del Atlántico, donde no sabe qué pasa, o después de cualquier otro lado. Me refiero a después del Atlántico, porque soy latinoamericano.
Por experiencia propia, yo he trabajado mucho como contraparte de expertos de la FAO y no me gusta resaltar les méritos de nadie porque muchas veces se malinterpretan estas cuestiones, pero para nosotros en El Salvador, la Oficina Regional es un punto de apoyo de la que nos hemos valido para poder obtener alguna ayuda, algunas veces llegando hasta la vehemencia para eliminar el hambre, y para ésta las Oficinas Regionales y nacionales nos han servido de gran apoyo. Incluso salí triste de la ofici-na del Director General, quien voluntariamente, haciendo esfuerzos de su tiempo, me concedió una corta audiencia y me notificaba que nuestro representante en El Salvador tendrá que retirarse presto.
Yo incluso aquí, señor Director General, quisiera pedirle vehementemente, que si no es posible que nuestro actual representante en mi país se quede, que por favor, así con esa capacidad que le carac-teriza, nos pudiera seleccionar otro señor Samarriego en El Salvador.
Sr. Presidente, como estamos discutiendo una cosa seria, muy seria, yo le suplico, le imploro, que por favor me conceda un poco de tiempo porque quiero también permitirme analizar aunque sea someramente, el Programa presentado por el Director General. Nuestra delegación considera que el resumen del Pro-grama de Labores y Presupuesto para 1982-83 constituye la base para la preparación del futuro Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para dicho bienio, y que éste es la piedra angular de nuestro Programa de actividades en este período. Consideramos en cuanto a las estrategias, que ante todo han sido apoyadas en todos los órganos competentes de la FAO, desde la última Conferencia pasando por los principales Comités técnicos, hasta el Comité del Programa y el Consejo. Esas estrategias también han sido res-paldadas en documentos aprobados por órganos externos autorizados, especialmente la Estrategia Internacional del Desarrollo, aprobada recientemente por la Asamblia General de las Naciones Unidas, los documentos de las Conferencias Regionales de la FAO, he aquí de su importancia, el Plan de Acción de Lagos de la OUA, otras estrategias y políticas mundiales establecidas por conferencias internacionales, y los planes nacionales correspondientes.
En relación a las prioridades, en la última Conferencia de la Organización hubo consenso en lo tocante al apoyo de las prioridades de la FAO, y en consecuencia, las prioridades para 1982-83 se basan en la misma estructura, como puede verse en la sección quinta del Anexo del resumen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1982-83, que con tanta calidad nos ha presentado la Secretaría.
Vemos que la bases en que se fundan las prioridades correspondientes en forma resumida a las actividades complementarias en relación con los siguientes aspectos: estrategia internacional del desarrollo en lo tocante al desarrollo alimentario, agrícola, pesquero y forestal; la seguridad alimentaria mundial inclusive la ayuda alimentaria y el Programa Mundial de Alimentos; la Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural, especialmente el papel de la mujer en el desarrollo rural; la asistencia para la producción alimentaria y el desarrollo rural inclusive las inversiones y los pro-gramas especiales de acción de la FAO.
Sobre las asignaciones que es el tema más duro, y ya lo preveíamos aquí, nosotros consideramos que se han examinado todas las actividades y no solamente las propuestas para aumentar las asignaciones. Se admitieron esas propuestas a ciertos niveles, pero únicamente son propuestas paralelas de reducciones. Las decisiones se basaron en una selección de las reducciones y los aumentos de distinto alcance y magnitud. Incluso se han eliminado reemplazándolas por otras prioridades importantes, muchas actividades concretas incluso en el marco de programas que tenían alta prioridad.
De esta forma ha sido posible mantener la cifra del aumento neto real de los recursos de los Programas a un nivel muy modesto, 3,5 millones de dólares, aumento real neto, frente al correspondiente al del Programa del bienio corriente.
De otro modo, el incremento hubiera tenido que ser mucho mayor para hacer frente a las exigencias a que está sujeta la Organización en lo tocante a la aplicación de las prioridades mencionadas antes.
Con relación a los medios, columna vertebral de nuestra discusión, nuestra delegación ha visto con mucha satisfacción y lo ha analizado, y mi Gobierno considera que desde que ocupó su cargo a principios de 1976, el Director General ha aplicado constantemente la política no sólo de poner coto al continuo crecimiento de la burocracia en la Sede, sino también de reducir de hecho la cifra total, aunque el Programa ha seguido aumentando.
Los recursos de la FAO se han dedicado cada vez más detrayéndolos de la financiación de personal en la Sede a actividades sobre el terreno, o sea, actividades de campo y a intensificar el uso de los servicios de consultores e instituciones nacionales, especialmente de los países subdesarrollados. Así, se ha registrado una disminución progresiva des porcentaje de los gastos correspondientes a los puestos de plantilla respecto del presupuesto total del 77,2 por ciento en 1974-75 al 70,9 por ciento en 1982-83. De hecho, si no se incluyen en los cálculos los sueldos del personal de las Oficinas Regionales de enlace y de los representantes de la FAO en 1982-83, tendríamos un serio problema y consideramos muy seriamente que disminuiría la eficiencia y la eficacia de nuestra Organización.
También puede apreciarse la coherencia de la política y la gestión del Director General a través del hecho de que en 1976, la plantilla total aprobada de puestos de las categorías profesionales y de Servicios Generales, en el marco del Programa Ordinario, era de 2 769, en tanto que a fines de 1981 sólo era de 2 467. En 1982-83 se proyecta eliminar otros 36 puestos. Se registra igualmente una constante reducción del número de reuniones; esto sí es burocracia, definitivamente, ya que hay otras organizaciones que ese es su rol fundamental; y aunque han aumentado mucho los gastos de las publicaciones, porque éstas sí son necesarias, se ha limitado estrictamente la expansión del volumen de dicha documentación.
En el intervalo de cinco años y medio, desde que el Director General ocupa su cargo, se ha duplicado el volumen de los proyectos de inversión formulados por la Organización. La FAO sigue siendo el principal organismo de ejecución de proyectos de campo financiados por el PNUD y con cargo a los Fondos Fiduciarios. Los Programas Especiales de Acción de la FAO siguen recibiendo apoyo de los donantes, inclusive nuevos donantes entre los miembros de la OPEP, así como de la honorable República de China.
Así pues, los recursos del Programa Ordinario, especialmente los aumentos propuestos en el marco de las actividades para 1982-83 no se destinarán simplemente a estudios y reuniones en la Sede, sino para prestar servicios directos a los Estados Miembros, sufragar los gastos sobre el terreno y movilizar un considerable volumen de fondos extrapresupuestarios para su utilización directa sobre el terreno.
Quisiéramos, ya que estas reuniones deben ser de completa solidaridad humana, referirnos a algunas cuestiones especiales, y no solamente de América Latina, sino a todo el mundo que atiende la FAO. Como ya se ha indicado, no es probable que las prioridades sean objeto de controversia; sin embargo, hay algunos aspectos a los que se debe prestar atención. Por ejemplo, se observará que aunque han aumentado las cifras correspondientes al Programa de cooperación técnica, se mantendrá la misma proporción del presupuesto total que en bienios anteriores. Se propone un aumento de las oficinas de representantes de la FAO de 62 a 74. Se prevé que con ello que concluirá el proceso iniciado en julio de 1976, y que a partir de 1984, este importante aspecto de la descentralización podrá estabilizarse en un altísimo grado y eso repercutirá, como decíamos antes, en mucha mayor eficacia. Es decir, vamos a alcanzar los logros que nos hemos propuesto.
Se propone nuevamente un importante aumento de las actividades de inversión realizadas por el Programa de apoyo a las inversiones. Una cooperación totalmente financiada por la FAO, con cargo al Programa Ordinario. En relación con la pesca, se prevé un crédito entre otras cosas para una conferencia mundial sobre ordenación y desarrollo pesquero, tal como se dispone en la Resolución 4/79 de la Conferencia aprobada por ésta en su 20° período de sesiones. Esa Conferencia de nivel ministerial debe velar porque se preste plena atención en los planos nacionales e internacionales a las políticas y los aspectos técni-cos de la pesca, así como a la responsabilidad constitucional de la FAO en esas esferas. Además, se seguirá haciendo especial hincapié en los principales sectores de la pesca inclusive el desarrollo de las pesquerías de aguas interiores y la acuicultura. En el sector de la energía constituirá una priori-dad importante la labor económica y técnica de la FAO en el próximo bienio y también a mediano plazo.
Las principales actividades en este sector será la evaluación, planificación y vigilancia de los sistemas energéticos de la agricultura, las silvicultura, la pesca y el desarrollo rural, así como la presta-ción de asistencia a los países para que puedan aumentar la eficacia en el uso de energía y la conservación de ésta, e inclusive la explotación de otras fuentes posiblemente renovadoras de energía y la producción de ésta a partir de la biomasa.
El Comité de Agricultura ya ha acogido favorablemente en su período de sesiones celebrado en marzo de 1981 las propuestas correspondientes. En el sector de la silvicultura, y aparte de la importancia atribuida a la energía, que en mi país, para citar un ejemplo, el 65 por ciento de la energía que consumimos es leña se intensificarán las actividades del programa relativo a la silvicultura, al servicio del desarrollo rural y se prestará asistencia para mejorar la ordenación y diversificación del uso de los recursos de los bosques tropicales, teniendo en cuenta los problemas de la agricultura migratoria, las industrias forestales, apropiadas a la silvicultura de las zonas áridas y otros importantes temas forestales.
Las propuestas abarcan las principales prioridades identificadas por las Conferencias regionales, con especial hincapié en los países menos adelantados.
Con mucha satisfacción, y a pesar de ser miembro de un país subdesarrollado, nuestra delegación, que tengo el honor de presidir, mira con muchísimo agrado que muchos de éstos son de Africa, en las actividades complementarias del Plan de Acción de Lagos se da prioridad al apoyo a los países de este Continente. Con todo, las prioridades importantes de otras regiones están previstas en los programas de las Direcciones de la Sede, así como las respectivas Oficinas Regionales. Así en América Latina se desplegarán esfuerzos ulteriores para promover las redes y zonas de demostración de varios eco-sistemas y en distintas situaciones socio-económicas; la utilización de la pesca, el aprovechamiento y la utilización de los recursos forestales, la cooperación e integración regional, los sistemas alimentarios y la colaboración con varios planes regionales y subregionales.
En Asia y el Pacífico se intensificarán las actividades en diversas esferas, inclusive la asistencia para la capacitación de pequeños agricultores y pescadores, el uso de residuos y desechos de origen animal, las actividades complementarias y el refuerzo de la Secretaría de la Comisión Regional de Producción y Sanidad Animal para Asia, el Lejano Oriente y el Pacífico Sudoccidental. En el Cercano Oriente se proyecta seguir haciendo hincapié en varios sectores de la producción alimentaria. Los problemas de las zonas áridas y marginales, la producción y sanidad animal, las pesquerías oceánicas y de aguas interiores, la silvicultura, la desertificación y el desarrollo de los recursos humanos.
En cuanto a Europa se propone reformar los sistemas de investigaciones prácticas y apoyar las actividades relacionadas con la mano de obra rural incluso las pluriactividades, la participación de la mujer en el desarrollo rural y la creación de un sistema regional de emergencia.
Sin pretender tratar de convertirnos en analistas de los fondos destinados a los organismos especializados de la familia de las Naciones Unidas, debemos reconocer, que si la intención que prevalece, es la de aplicar indistintamente, oigase bien, indistintamente, el crecimiento cero a todos y cada uno de los miembros de dicha familia, no es menos cierto que la seguridad alimentaria que eliminará el hambre, si así lo deseamos, si así actuamos, es el mayor desafío al mundo contemporáneo, cuya resolución no admite postergamiento ni justificación de orden financiero.
Dentro de este contexto, la FAO debe de tener prioridades dentro de esa distribución de recursos; me parece que esa debería ser una resolución, señor Presidente, y así lo solicitamos con muchísimo respeto. Dentro de esa prioridad deberá de hacerse esa distribución de recursos para que ese crecimiento cero sea a nivel global, pero no a nivel de nuestra Organización, por lo que nuestra delegación, con profundo convencimiento declara, que si lo inevitable llega, la FAO debe de recibir el apoyo presupuestario solicitado, dado que sus objetivos y metas son sin lugar a dudas, de una primerísima prioridad y, además, nuestra Organización actualmente se desempeña con excelsa capacidad.
En base a lo anterior nuestra delegación solicita, con todo respeto, el apoyo unánime de este Consejo y fundamentalmente de aquellos países que pueden aportar más, que se apruebe el proyecto de presupuesto presentado por el Director General como una muestra clara - y que no se vaya a tomar como que somos poco serios -, de solidaridad, común y unánime de nuestra comunidad, para el desarrollo eficaz que le corres-ponde realizar a la FAO en todo el mundo.
Perdone, señor Presidente, que hayamos sido tan extensos, no hemos querido convencer, solo hemos querido resaltar hechos.
Finalmente, con profunda satisfacción deseo expresar que nuestro país apoya, aún dentro de lo modesto de su posibilidad que le tocará cumplir sin ninguna reserva el programa y el presupuesto presentado por el Director General.
Mine G. ROSSI PEROTTI (Italie): Je voudrais débuter mon intervention en remerciant le Directeur général de la FAO, M. Saouma, qui, dans son introduction à nos travaux, a voulu mettre en évidence les efforts accomplis par mon pays pour augmenter considérablement l'aide publique au développement. C'est un fait désormais reconnu, l'Italie est en train de déployer des efforts exceptionnels. Je dirai même plus: mon gouvernement est probablement celui qui fait le plus recours aux organisations internationales pour l'utilisation de cette aide. Selon des calculs récents, plus de 90 pour cent de celle-ci est acheminée à destination par l'intermédiaire de ces organisations. Je voulais vous faire part de ces considérations pour mieux pouvoir vous éclaircir ce qui suit:
Je trouve, dans un document que nous avons déjà examiné, le CL 79/2, une phrase très lucide à la page 27, que je voudrais citer à cette occasion: "Les pays donateurs peuvent difficilement augmenter leur aide aux pays en développement à une époque où ils s'efforcent de restreindre leurs dépenses intérieures". Je dois malheureusement inclure mon pays parmi ceux qui souffrent à présent de graves difficultés économiques, soit conjoncturelles, soit culturelles.
Cette situation a contraint mon gouvernement à prendre des mesures drastiques sur le plan intérieur pour comprimer les dépenses publiques et réduire au maximum le déficit du budget public; mais, vous le savez bien, nous ne sommes pas les seuls. La communauté internationale tout entière est confrontée aux mêmes difficultés. Voilà pourquoi nous avons accordé une attention toute particulière aux documents que nous sommes en train d'examiner et relatifs au budget 1982-83, à savoir le CL 79/3 avec les suppléments 1 et 2.
Dès le mois de septembre 1980, mon gouvernement avait communiqué au Directeur général de la FAO les difficultés sérieuses qu'il rencontrerait si le budget était fixé à un niveau qu'il considérerait trop élevé.
Les documents sortis au mois de mai n'ont pas, hélas! soulagé nos préoccupations, bien au contraire. Voilà pourquoi nous avons à nouveau attiré l'attention du Directeur général sur ce problème, il y a quelques jours à peine.
Malheureusement, dans ces conditions, je dois dire que ma délégation n'est pas en mesure à ce stade d'appuyer le niveau du budget qui nous est actuellement présenté.
Ceci dit, nous sommes tout à fait conscients de la grande portée des problèmes si critiques que la FAO affronte dans son inlassable lutte contre la faim et la malnutrition, lutte dans laquelle doivent être engagés tous les hommes et toutes les femmes de bonne volonté. C'est ainsi que si, d'un côté, nous jugeons indispensable que le secrétariat de la FAO tienne en dû compte les lignes politiques que les Etats eux-mêmes ont décidé de s'imposer dans des circonstances graves et après de graves sacrifices nationaux, d'un autre côté je voudrais indiquer que mon gouvernement renouvelle sa pleine confiance à la FAO en lui attribuant des fonds extra-budgétaires pour la réalisation concrète des buts de l'Organisation.
Pour vous donner une indication de l'importance que l'Italie attribue à ce type d'intervention, je me permettrai de mentionner que des négociations sont en cours avec le secrétariat pour allouer au cours de l'année 1981 une somme de plus de 6 millions de dollars dans le cadre des fonds fiduciaires pour des projets de développement rural et de formation professionnelle à plusieurs pays, surtout de l'Afrique, et que 2 millions de dollars ont été annoncés comme contribution à l'International Fertilizer Supply Scheme, dont l'Italie est un des principaux soutiens.
LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Je souhaiterais m'adresser à Madame la déléguée italienne et dire combien je regrette la position qu'elle vient d'annoncer. Le principal bénéficiaire de l' augmentation du budget de la FAO, est sans doute l'économie italienne. Nous dépensons 66 pour cent de notre argent ici, en Italie. Nous avons 1 500 fonctionnaires italiens. Nous avons 4 000 fonctionnaires dont les familles vivent toutes en Italie; 15 000 personnes qui viennent assister à nos réunions et aux conseils, chaque année, ici, à Rome, et nous avons peut-être aussi 50 à 60 millions de dollars dans les banques italiennes.
Ces chiffres peuvent être vérifiés dans la brochure "La FAO et l'Italie". Alors, peut-être la position de la délégation italienne est-elle un geste de solidarité avec d'autres pays? Mais j'espère beaucoup qu'au mois de novembre prochain cette position inexplicable pour moi - parce que le gouvernement italien est extrêmement généreux sur le plan extra-budgétaire - pourra être modifiée. Il y a quelques jours, j'ai été invité par le maire de Bologne. C'était un événement historique. J'ai reçu 128 millions de lires, contribution de la population de Bologne. Aucune autre ville au monde n'a fait ce geste en faveur des pauvres et des affamés et ce sont des contributions données par des individus, par exemple 50 lires, 100 lires par personne. J'ai été très fier de représenter la FAO et de recevoir ce chèque.
D'autre part, Monsieur le Président, la position américaine, qui a été exposée cet après-midi, est malheureusement encore plus négative que je ne le pensais. Elle revient à exiger une croissance moins que zéro puisqu'elle refuse d'approuver les 10 millions de dollars que je propose pour couvrir des coûts additionnels de l'inflation. Comment s'expliquer alors que les Etats-Unis avaient voté le budget de l'Organisation mondiale de la santé, qui demande une augmentation de 2,2 pour cent? Ce budget est de 465 millions de dollars. Ceci est également vrai de la Grande-Bretagne, qui souhaiterait que notre budget ait une croissance zéro, alors qu'elle a voté le budget de l'OMS il y a un mois à Genève.
Bien sûr, Monsieur le Président, je respecte pleinement les positions de chacune des délégations ici présentes. Cependant, j'ose espérer que l'attitude des gouvernements que je viens de citer sera plus favorable au budget proposé en novembre prochain.
Merci Monsieur le Président.
K.S. BINGANA (Botswana): Thank you for allowing me to intervene at this time. I want to comment briefly on the. clear and concise document prepared by the Director-General and the Secretariat. The Summary Programme of Work and Budget 1982-1983 is fully supported by the Botswana delegation and we want to support all those previous speakers who clearly and decisively expressed support for the proposal. As was mentioned by the speakers, all Member countries contribute to the support budget of FAO, and the marginal impact on poor countries for supporting the proposed increase will be greater than the impact on the developed countries. Many developing countries have difficulty in finding foreign exchange to pay their subscription, while this is not a problem for the major developed countries. During the first three days we have been reminded several times about the marginal food supply on a global basis, and we have also been reminded that the greatest impetus to improve the situation must come from the developed countries. If you cannot produce food, but through its help, given the necessary support, this Organization can provide assistance to the developing countries to find the way to help themselves.
Botswana has had the good- fortune of help from the FAO Investment Centre which provided expertise for the preparation of a major project to be presented for IFAD financing. This project will serve as a primary basis for a major part in increasing food production in the country. We are now waiting for a mission from the FAO International Scheme for the coordination of dairy development to help us prepare a project for increased milk production. In a country which is a net importer of grain and milk products this is very useful.
Ì would also like to join those who suggested that the Technical Cooperation Programme budget be increased as soon as practical. Availability of funds assigned to a flexible programme has been useful to Botswana, and from the remarks made by many other distinguished delegates here, many other countries must have been helped in times of need.
Lastly, I would like to express my appreciation on behalf of my Government for the useful work of UNDP/ FAO Project Preparation Mission which recently visited Botswana to prepare projects for the next UNDP funding cycle. Even though more projects were prepared than could be financed, they formed a basis for negotiating funds from other donors.
In closing, I repeat my delegation's support for the proposed Programme of Work and Budget. The increase, no matter how the percentage is calculated, is small and it would be unfortunate and ill-timed if FAO were bound to a zero growth in its activities when it serves the needs of the poorest and fastest growing populations of the world.
ABU BAKAR bin MAHMUD (Malaysia) : My delegation considers this agenda item, the Summary Programme of Work and Budget 1982-1983, as one of the most important items in this session of the Council. Support and approval or otherwise on the Programme of Work and Budget set forth in the document before us will determine to a very great extent the future of food and agriculture and rural development in the entire world, particularly in developing countries. My delegation has read the document with both interest and concern, and judging from the contents, it is evident that the Director-General and his staff have formulated the proposals with great wisdom and judgement, bearing in mind the urgency and magnitude of the problems concerning food, agriculture and rural development today and in the future. I would like therefore to congratulate the Director-General and his staff for having presented to us today a meaningful and practical proposal for the 1982-1983 biennium. The proposals are clear, with supporting reasons and justifications. They have been closely examined by both the Programme and the Finance Committees, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chairman and Members of both the Committees for having done an excellent job. A thorough analysis of the proposals has confirmed my conviction that FAO is being run both economically and efficiently. Nevertheless, we are surprised to note that despite the need to increase and intensify the Organization's efforts in food production and rural development, there is a substantial reduction in the total establishment of posts under the Regular Programme, as indicated in document CL 79/3. The percentage expenditure in the total budget on established posts has declined steadily from 77 percent in 1974-75 to 61 percent, as proposed for the next biennium. This had led me to ask a very fundamental question. How could we expect our Organization to provide the needed services and assistance and implement the myriads of programs and projects with decreasing manpower resources cast against the background of a bleak world food scenario, as already echoed by the Director-General in his statement at the opening of this session. My delegation is convinced that the Director-General and his staff has judiciously applied to the maximum the essential control and economical measures in formulating the proposals for the 1982-83 biennium. Any further cuts and restrictions from the proposals are not only undesirable but detrimental to the effective execution of programmes and projects that are already in the pipeline and may affect the well being of the FAO itself in terms of ability and capability for accelerated food production, agricultural and rural development for the benefit of teeming millions of the poor and malnourished. My delegation supports the proposal of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget and the need for changes in the budget for 1982-1983 to cater for a normal increase in costs as well as for unbudgeted costs. However, my delegation would like to make it clear that given the justification for these additional cost estimates, it should not be a subject for further debate. If between now and the time of the Twenty-first Conference in November, additional factors come to bear on the cost estimate, we would like to urge the Director-General to take these fully into account in submitting his final proposals to the Conference so that we do not start the next biennium with further cuts in the Programme approved by the Conference. We would also like the Director-General to express the budget proposals at the rate of exchange which he considers most realistic so that Member countries are more accurately aware of the dollar value of the budget they will be approving.
P.J. O'DONOGHUE (Ireland): Since this is my first intervention at this meeting, I would like to say how happy Ireland is to be back with a seat on the Council once again after a lapse of a number of years. I would also like to reassure all those assembled here of Ireland's continuing strong commitment to the ideals and the work of the FAO and of its support for the Director-General in his efforts through this Organization to combat poverty, hunger, starvation and death throughout the world.
We in Ireland have a particular commitment - always have had - to these ideals. We have had in our own .history a period over one hundred years ago when our people as a result of crop failures died by the millions, so we feel a very deep concern for all people who are hard hit.
I would like just to say these few opening remarks and I now address myself very briefly to the agenda item before us. Here I would like to say as a newcomer to this forum how impressed I have been with the documentation that we have been presented with. It has been extremely good and clear and I found no difficulty in following it, and I think all concerned should be congratulated on that.
As to the main thrust of the Programme and Budget for the coming biennium, Ireland will go along with the priorities and indeed the main ideas that inspired this budget, We have heard some reservations from a number of delegations around the table here about certain aspects of the Programme that they have some reservations about. I cannot judge whether they are correct or whether their reservations are ill-founded or not, but I would think that it would be well worthwhile for us all and for people who have to go back and justify these to our own governments and for governments who have to justify them to parliaments that we can be reassured on issues that have been raised, in other words, that the work can be done, and progress made by judicious pruning here and there without cuttings back on the main objectives before us. I do not know whether this can be done or not. I do know however, that it would help us all to be reassured on these issues, if reassurance can be forthcoming.
But I would wind up on this note: that I don't think that we can prolong or hold back our effort to help starving people throughout the world. It is not something that we in Ireland could find ourselves subscribing to.
NGUYEN ANH VU (Observateur du Viet Nam): Monsieur le President, à ce point important de l'ordre du jour qui est le point 11, la délégation de la République socialiste du Viet Nam voudrait se joindre à d'autres délégations des Etats Membres du Conseil qui ont déjà pris la parole, d'abord pour féliciter l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture de son aide très positive aux pays en développement, parmi lesquels il y a notre pays, pour ses programmes prioritaires, pour la qualité des services assurés aux gouvernements des Etats Membres, pour le souci d'économie et l'efficacité dont elle a fait preuve dans l'exécution de ses activités.
En étudiant le sommaire du Programme de travail et budget 82-83, ainsi que le rapport de la session conjointe du Comité du programme et du Comité financier qui figurent dans les documents si bien préparés par le secrétariat CL 79/3 et CL 79/4, en écoutant avec attention la présentation très claire, très détaillée et surtout très convaincante des deux Présidents du Programme et du Budget, notre délégation est très confiante dans la stratégie et les priorités, les politiques et directions générales pour 1982/83. A ce propos, nous voudrions rendre hommage au Comité du Programme ainsi qu'au secrétariat pour avoir élaboré des programmes techniques et économiques très adéquats, très prenants, embrassant les points cruciaux de l'agriculture, de la pêche, des forêts ainsi que d'autres activités de la FAO comme le Programme de coopération technique PCT dont nous voulons, en passant, notifier son activité pratique, son efficacité qui se fait vite sentir, ses résultats très encourageants qui ont été obtenus dans notre pays surtout dans le domaine des semences. Cela a été dit d'ailleurs par le représentant du Congo ce matin et il y a quelques instants par le représentant de Sri Lanka.
Ce programme d'action de la FAO pour l'exercice 82/83, selon notre délégation, est le minimum nécessaire qu'il faut faire de la part de la communauté internationale de cette Organisation chef de file qu'est la FAO, dans le domaine de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture, pour attaquer de front les problèmes cruciaux de déficit alimentaire, de manque de nutrition, de la faim dans le monde et pour faire face aux crises successives de l'alimentation et de l'énergie, à la multiplication de catas-trophes et des situations d'urgence dont le tableau concret a été brillamment brossé dans la fameuse Déclaration d'ouverture du Directeur général, M. Edouard Saouma.
Monsieur le Président, un tel programme d'action minimum demande aussi à être couvert par un budget opérationnel minimum nécessaire que le Comité financier et le Directeur général ont déjà présenté, et cela en ne tenant pas encore compte des effets négatifs de l'inflation, des augmentations de coûts, des coûts non prévus au budget, etc. La délégation de la République socialiste du Viet Nam formule l'espoir que cette 79ème session du Conseil sera totalement d'accord avec le niveau du budget prévu par le Directeur général et le Comité financier pour le recommander à l'approbation générale de la 21ème Conférence de la FAO qui aura lieu en novembre de cette année.
Vouloir limiter le budget d'action de la FAO pour l'exercice 82/83 par n'importe quel argument, lui donner seulement une croissance zéro pour les ressources financières serait malheureusement freiner la capacité de travail de la FAO, son aide précieuse pour les pays en développement. Ce serait influencer son prestige, sa confiance grandissante à l'égard des millions et des millions d'êtres humains parmi la population rurale dans le monde. Ce serait influencer son palmarès historique.
Monsieur le Président, nous terminons notre brève intervention en formulant encore une fois aux membres du Conseil une approbation entière et complète du programme de travail 82-83 et du niveau du budget proposé.
NGA NA MAPELA (Observateur du Zaîre): Je voudrais d'emblée dire que nous appuyons fermement ce qui a été dit par les nombreuses délégations qui nous ont précédés, notamment ce qui suit:
1) Le niveau du budget proposé pour 82-83 constitue un minimum nécessaire en vue de réaliser le programme prévu pour la même période, programme dont les activités viennent d'être reconnues à l'unanimité par les membres de ce Conseil comme étant des activités prioritaires.
2) En même temps qu'il sert à mettre en oeuvre la nouvelle stratégie internationale pour le développement, ce budget sert aussi à aider les pays africains à mettre en oeuvre le Plan d'action de Lagos. L'idée de la croissance zéro en ce qui concerne le budget de la FAO et des autres institutions des Nations Unies n'a pas de sens, à notre avis, car, comme nous le savons tous, ce n'est ni la FAO ni les autres institutions des Nations Unies qui sont la cause de la mauvaise situation économique internationale.
Pour ce qui concerne les bureaux de la FAO tant au niveau des régions qu'au niveau des pays, nous appuyons ce qui a été dit par des membres du Conseil, à savoir que c'est en conformité avec les désirs ardents exprimés par les Etats Membres que le Directeur général doit veiller à ce que la FAO soit présente au niveau des pays en développement, aussi bien par le biais de ses représentants au niveau de chaque pays, que par le biais de ses représentants régionaux.
On a parlé d'améliorer l'évaluation au sein de la FAO. Tout en appuyant la déclaration faite à ce sujet par le distingué délégué représentant de l'Afghanistan, je voudrais rappeler que le meilleur moyen de procéder à l'évaluation des activités de la FAO est de s'adresser aux gouvernements des pays dans lesquels ces activités sont entreprises, afin de recueillir leur avis au sujet de l'efficacité de ces activités.
Pour terminer, Monsieur le Président, nous pensons nous aussi que c'est à juste titre que le Conseil doit recommander le Programme de travail et budget pour 1982-83 à la Conférence pour que cette dernière l'approuve.
C. NTSANE (Observer for Lesotho): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your kindness. Sitting here as a desperately helpless observer, I cannot help but feel with the millions of hungry women and children who are waiting knowingly or unknowingly, but nevertheless they wait, to hear the outcome of this deliberation and the fate for the next two years of the only leading organization which gives expression to the united will of the world to give a helping hand to the desperate efforts they make in self-determination within the context of agricultural and rural development. To them, this fate and the united will of the world, come in the form and magnitude of the continuing and growing support of their efforts, as reflected in the Programme of Work and Budget in document CL 79/3 and its supplements.
The notion that because the weather has been clement and there are bumper harvests in most parts of the world, the threat of famine has suddenly gone away, is an unfortunate one, because then it means the world can easily forget about the recent past and the wellknown bleak future, which is highlighted in para 2.17 under Section II, World Background.
A full appreciation of the objection or reservation on this relatively modest programme, .001 percent of the world's budget on armaments, has not been easy. It leaves us all with some speculation.
We know from our experience with those who apply discriminative policies that one of their biggest fears is that if there was to be equal sharing of the resources there might not be enough to go around according to their affluent standards. If this is what motivates the serious objections to the progressive growth of the Programme of Work and Budget of this Organization, then sheer numbers in the Third World are a threat to international economic stability, and perhaps it would be more fitting to agree on the appropriate application of the zero growth concept to population so that there can be enough for everyone. We would like to agree with the Chinese delegation on their suggestion regarding population control.
Mr. Chairman, if you were a discriminated and harassed citizen of Southern Africa, and suddenly some of the leading countries declared that your molester was their ally, would you not feel betrayed? Would you not feel like running someplace else for support and consolation? Would you not feel that the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations is a more secure refuge? And if that Organization was crippled and emasculated through budget cuts and promises of zero growth by the same force, would you not feel doubly betrayed? If you would find these feelings natural, Mr. Chairman, then you know exactly how those of us who are the less fortunate in the Third World feel at this moment.
We believe that bilateral assistance arrangements are a sovereign and singular prerogative of the countries concerned. We also appreciate how much progress has been achieved on that basis. It is, however, important to note the comparative advantage offered by multilateral assistance which provides security, stability and continuity. The latent danger of bilateral assistance is that it can easily be reduced or withdrawn at the sole discretion of the donor.
In multilateral relations in development assistance, the sovereignty and integrity of all members are effective, and within the scope of negotiations, adjustments and modifications of levels and types of assistance can be made to the satisfaction of all concerned without leaving any bitter tastes. We hope that this will be the case after these deliberations at this meeting.
The modesty shown by the leadership of this Organization on the Programme of Work and Budget is like mockery when it is viewed against the magnitude of responsibility. Paragraphs 6.1 - 6.6 in Section IV, Objects of Expenditure, bear witness to this observation.
Finally, in acknowledging the fact that in the final analysis the onus is on hungry but developing countries to solve their own problems, my delegation would particularly like to welcome paragraphs 3.2 - 3.4, Investment; 3.13, New Dimensions; 3.14, Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries, all under Section III, Field Programmes, because these will bestow a legacy that no one will ever take away from the people of the world.
Having said this, we hope the Council will recommend to the Conference the approval of the Programme of Work and Budget.
p. ROSENEGGER (Austria): We are only modest observers to this consultation, and therefore I feel obliged to be as brief as possible in order not to take too much of the Council's time.
We have very carefully followed the debate today and the issue under discussion is so important to us that we would like also to voice our position.
Austria, of course, has always been affected, just as many other countries, by the serious world-wide economic situation due to recession and to inflation. However, in view of the urgency and magnitude of the problem of hunger in the world, we feel it necessary to keep FAO, the world's leading agency for food and agriculture, as efficient and strong as possible.
My delegation, in saying this, simply wants to be coherent in what we discussed and stated during the biennium in various FAO sessions and meetings about the delicate world food situation and so on, and when it comes to discussing the budget of FAO we appreciate particularly the efforts of the Director-General of FAO in stopping the growth of bureaucracy at Headquarters, and reducing considerably the meetings and documentation in favour of an action-oriented policy.
More action on food and agriculture becomes daily more urgent. My delegation is confident that the proposed Summary Programme of Work and Budget for 1982-83 as set out in document CL 79/3 will contribute to this aim. We shall therefore support it at the forthcoming Conference in order to enable FAO to fulfill its important and vital tasks in the coming years.
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Le Président du Comité de rédaction m'a demandé d'informer les membres de ce Comité qu'ils devraient se réunir immédiatement à la clôture de cette session. Une réunion du même Comité est prévue pour demain matin à 8 h 30 dans la salle de l'Ethiopie au second étage du bâtiment C. La raison en est que le volume des projets du Rapport qui est sous considération par le Comité est en voie d'accroissement et le rythme de vos réunions, d'après ce que l'on dit, est aussi appelé à s'accélérer. Donc, vous êtes invités à vous rendre dans la salle de l'Ethiopie après la clôture.
The meeting rose at 17.20 hours
La séance est levée a 17 h 20
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.20 horas
