CHAIRMAN: I had intended to give the floor to Italy at the end of the morning session but was not possible, so now I give Italy the floor.
Mme G. ROSSI-PEROTTI (Italie): Il est possible que ma declaration d'hier ait produit quelque equivoque. C'est pourquoi, au nom de ma délégation,je voudrais exprimer plus clairement la position italienne sur l'attitude de mon gouvernement en ce qui concerne le document CL 79/3 et ses supplements 1 et 2 en rappelant une fois de plus que, pendant ces dernières années, l'Italie est un des pays industria-lisés les plus touchés par la crise économique.
Je voudrais à nouveau mettre en évidence que la considération la plus attentive a été attribuée à certains aspects des documents en question. Toutefois, le Gouvernement italien lui-même ne peut s'abstenir de mettre en oeuvre tous les moyens concrets pour s'adapter aux instances idéologiques en faveur de la lutte contre la faim dans le monde qui ont inspiré les cabinets précédents et qui, certainement, seront présentées dans le cabinet qui doit être formé très prochainement.
Ainsi, ayant á l'esprit que l'Italie est pleinement consciente du privilège d'être le pays hôte de la FAO, cette Organisation étant en première ligne dans la lutte contre la faim, l'attitude du Gouvernement italien sera sans doute, au moment opportun, inspiré par une spéciale compréhension dans l'esprit d'être suivi par d'autres gouvernements.
LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Je voudrais remercier beaucoup Madame la déléguée de l'Italie pour la déclaration qu'elle vient de faire. En effet, notre présence en Italie, à Rome, est très stimulante, comme elle l'a souligné. C'est en Italie que les parlements européens ont commencé pour la première fois à discuter de la façon dont leurs gouvernements pouvaient aider à lutter contre la faim. Une discussion a eu lieu au Parlement italien, au Sénat, ensuite au Parlement européen et, il y a quelques jours encore, il y a eu un manifeste sous l'inspiration du Groupe radical italien signé par 50 récipiendaires du Prix Nobel. Il n'y a aucun appel qui. porte autant de signatures de récipiendaires du Prix Nobel et je crois qu'il serait opportun, peut-être, vers la fin de la session ou, si ce n'est pas possible, plus tard, de faire circuler une copie de cet appel très émouvant qui a été d'ailleurs communiqué à plusieurs parlements et au Parlement européen. Je voudrais simplement vous lire le premier paragraphe, la première phrase de cet appel qui illustre bien sa portée.
"Nous, soussignés, femmes et hommes de sciences, de lettres et de paix, différents les uns des autres par la religion, l'histoire et la culture, qui avons été distingués parce que nous honorons et célé-brons la vérité dans la vie et la vie dans la vérité, afin que nos oeuvres soient un témoignage universel de dialogue, de fraternité et de commune civilisation dans la paix et le progrès, nous adressons un appel à tous les hommes et à toutes les femmes de bonne volonté, aux puissants et aux humbles, chacun d'eux avec ses propres responsabilités, pour que soient rendus à la vie des dizaines de millions d'êtres humains que la faim et le sous-développement font agoniser, victimes qu'ils sont du désordre politique et économique international qui règne aujourd'hui."
CHAIRMAN: We are not going to close today until we have finished; so I leave it in your hands. The debate is to be wound up today. We have had two days of it and it has gone very well. I do not see any difficulty in finishing it today.
A. RACHMAN (Indonesia): I have listened with great interest to the statements made by the previous speakers and I appreciate the frankness with which many of them expressed their views.
In discussing the matter of Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium we must take into account first of all the necessity of the international community to take effective measures towards the elimination of hunger and malnutrition in the world. This is an immense task in which FAO is directly involved. FAO is the leading organization in the UN system entrusted with this responsibility, as indicated earlier.
In the document before us in paragraph 2.17 the Secretariat reports that the prospects of the world food situation for the next few years are sombre, and worse still that hunger and malnutrition will grow. This is very alarming indeed. Such a situation will directly worsen the condition of the daily life of hundreds of millions of poor people in many parts of the world. I think all Members of the Council will agree with me that hunger and malnutrition in the world can only be eliminated through the production of enough food in our countries. It is the primary duty of every country to feed its own people. But many developing countries have not been able to produce enough food for their population owing to many causes, such as natural disasters, crop failure, inadequate farm techniques, lack of expertise, lack of funds, lack of inputs, etc.
The emergency situation calls for immediate action on a world-wide scale. It implies that FAO should play a more active role than before to help remedy the situation. For this reason my delegation endorses the strategies and policies proposed for the next biennium, including the special measures taken to assist those African countries which are most seriously affected. Of course the plight of countries in other regions which have the problem of hosting large number of refugees should also be considered. I am certain that FAO will be able to do more if it has at its disposal enough financial resources.
In this context, what has been proposed for the next biennium should be considered very modest and therefore there exists no other logical option but to endorse it. Of course there are always reasons for pruning the budget, but we must also take into account that budgets are not an end in themselves. Budgets are an instrument necessary to achieve certain goals. In a spirit of international cooperation the more fortunate countries should have an idea of the terrible and indescribable misery in which the poorest among the poor people are starving, the assistance of the richer nations of the world must be such as strongly supports our earlier pledges that in the decade ahead no man, woman or child should go hungry.
In order to facilitate the work of FAO at a country level, FAO should have representation in a large number of countries. Indonesia is fortunate to have this and hopes that many more countries will manage to get the advantage of such representation soon.
In the same context my delegation is also in favour of any effort to strengthen the FAO regional offices in order that it can function to achieve the principle of decentralization as agreed upon by the Organization.
We are satisfied to note that proposals have been made for an increase in the Technical Cooperation Programme from US$ 32 million to about US$ 40 million. Since its creation the TCP has shown its usefulness and efficiency. We hope that through this Programme FAO can do more for its Member Nations in the near future.
With regard to priorities, my delegation is in general agreement with the proposals presented but we would like to see that increased Programme support related to the eradication of pests and diseases should be relevant to the African countries, while the ASEAN and Latin American countries would be more in need of more comprehensive efforts to improve storage facilities and other distributional aspects. So some regional differences should therefore be incorporated in designing programmes.
With these remarks I should like to reitterate my delegation's support for the Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium 1982/83 as proposed by the Director-General.
J.E. AKO-NAI (Ghana): The Government of the Republic of Ghana attaches great importance to the work of the FAO, an organization committed to the eradication of hunger, malnutrition and poverty affecting a large portion of the world's population. In fact my Minister, who holds the portfolio for agriculture had intended personally to lead the Ghana Delegation and to participate fully in the deliberations of the 79th FAO Council Session, particularly on the item relating to the approval of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget of the 1982/83 biennium. Unfortunately, certain pressing domestic commitments had to engage his attention at the last minute. Consequently the Minister of Agriculture was unable to be present.
My delegation has been given a full mandate to add its voice to those of the overwhelming majority of delegates who hold the conviction that their hopes and aspirations can best be fulfilled through the implementation of the proposals in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget as contained in document CL 79/3 and the Supllements attached thereto.
It is not my intention to bore this august gathering with repetition and unnecessary detail at this advance stage of the Council. Permit me, however, to highlight a few salient points. So far all delegates without exception agreed that the Director-General's presentation is of a very high quality and that he should be congratulated. Aware of the grim picture portrayed by the current world food situation, delegates have expressed the desire that immediate steps should be taken to avert a very serious crisis which would otherwise occur. In the light of this, delegates see as realistic the Director-General's proposals which are in conformity with agreed priorities. Since all delegates who have spoken so far are agreed on the above points, my delegation feels that there need not be a problem about giving unanimous approval to the Summary Programme of Work and Budget.
Against this background, my delegation sees as unfortunate the expression of reservations by some delegates. Certainly, they are entitled to express their views, which my delegation respects, considering that they contribute about 80 percent of the FAO budget. My delegation, however, believes that it will be extremely difficult for any Member nations, develop or developing, to deny the effects of inflation Recession, unemployment, cuts in the budget expenditure and stringent monetary restraints have been more disastrous on the economies of the developing nations than on those of the developed industrialised countries. For this reason, my delegation is of the view that if food-deficit countries are to manage the effects of the rather bleak global economic situation, more far-reaching proposals than have been presented are desirable, but this cannot be done, and my delegation appreciates the limitations of the Organization. It is therefore in the light of this that my delegation supports the acceptance of this rather modest increase.
On the subject of the twelve additional regional and country offices, my Government appreciates the vital role of the execution of the FAO field programme and the inspiration they provide in maintaining the momentum of that programme in implementation. My delegation therefore seconds the support that they should be implemented.
Finally, my delegation believes that the FAO is the only competent international body with the full mandate of Member nations to implement programmes that will bring relief to millions of the world's population by solving the problems of fundamental human needs. It is but fair, therefore, that the FAO should be given the means and the wherewithal carry out the Programme of Work and Budget which my delegation fully supports.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): Mr Chairman, I am sure that you want me to be as brief as possible. I will therefore refrain from saying nice words about the Secretariat's preparations and documentation of the work of the Programme and Finance Committee and so on but concentrate on a few points.
Firstly, the Government of my country attaches great importance to the solution of the world food problems. Rural development has therefore for long enjoyed priority in our fruitful cooperation with developing countries. We endeavour in various ways to support the self-reliance of developing countries to increase their own food production and to reduce the dependence on imports. On the extent of our endeavours, I have already made some remarks under Agenda item 4. I can therefore abstain from repeating them again. Allow me nevertheless to recall our large contributions to and our cooperation with the World Bank Group, UNDP, IF AD, FAO, the World Food Programme and other organizations.
Secondly, the rather unfavourable economic and financial situation with which we are at present faced throughout the world forces us to make drastic savings at home, to give fresh thought to our worldwide international cooperation and to concentrate our efforts even more strongly than so far on priority measures. Out of the wide field of food and agriculture activities, above all those find our support which aim at increasing food production, particularly in developing countries with a food deficit and balance of payments difficulties.
Thirdly, it might be helpful to recall a conclusion of the Committee for Programme and Coordination ofthe Economic and Social Council of the United Nations at its Twenty-first Session this May on theproposed programme budget for the biennium 1982-83, which states: "There is no necessary relationshipbetween the priority of activities for one sector and the volume of resources required to conduct them.High priority activities may require fewer resources than lower priority activities". In fact, agricultural policy measures, for example, through an adequate price policy may be an incentive to ahigher agricultural production. Also, agricultural education and training as well as research can be
concentrated more strongly on the agricultural sector by shifting personal and financial resources.
Fourthly, the today's unfavourable economic and financial situation throughout the world - for example, in our country - results in sharp cuts in traditional public service sectors. In our cooperation with developing countries we will, however, try to avoid such interference as far as possible. We hope that our population will understand this exception. We can, however, only expect such an understanding if the international organizations apply similarly strict standards to their programmes and budgets as we have to do. The UN system as a whole is therefore today exposed to a greater critical scrutiny in budgetary issues than ever before. My Government therefore expects from international organizations in general that they take account of the changed situation and base their budget proposals on economic and financial realities, that is to say, concentrate their programmes strictly on activities of real priority, follow zero growth in real terms and absorb part of costs due to inflation and exchange rate fluctuation. Activities of lower importance must also just as at national level be postponed or even cut, duplication and a waste of energy be avoided.
Fifthly, at the outset I pointed out that my Government attaches great importance to the world food problems. In this respect, we consider the work of FAO of particular importance. We have always actively supported its work and are determined to continue to do so notwithstanding the present difficulties. We remain commited to strengthen FAO as an indispensable instrument for international cooperation to meet the food problems faced by many developing countries. In these days this asks for an increasingly rational utilization of the financial resources available and an increasing sense of budgetary stringency in the organization. My Government therefore refers to its aforementioned expectations on budget policies of international organizations within the UN System and urgently appeals to FAO to follow the same line. It was already voiced yesterday that this view is shared by other countries. Under the given circumstances we here and now cannot but underline again this position and have to state that the proposed budget level cannot be supported by us. At the same time, we express our hope that the Director-General will find ways and means to present a modified and substantially reduced Draft Programme of Work and Budget for 1982-83 to the forthcoming Conference, which we then will consider in the same constructive spirit as we did in the past.
My delegation appreciates the efforts made by the Director-General to change priorities within and between programmes towards more action-oriented activities, taking into account Council and Conference decisions. We, like others, also appreciate his efforts for enhancing the efficiency of the work of the organization. Whilst agreeing in general to the proposed programme activities for the biennium 1982-83, we nevertheless find that there are not production-oriented areas and programmes covered in particularly by the Economic and Social Department and the Development Department where, in view of my delegation, reductions could be made without unduely curtailing priority activities. Another area are general administrative costs.
Before concluding we would like to add some more specific remarks. They are first of all clarifying questions which no doubt can be answered by the Secretariat here or explained in the final draft budget document.
We appreciate the Director-General's efforts to absorb part of the effects of inflation in 1980-81. We are, however, not convinced that this procedure necessarily has to have the effect of cancelling out about half the real programme increase adopted for 1980-81. These absorptions normally should affect he entire budget and first of all its administrative part.
We would not only like to see in the summary document figures concerning the decreases in established posts but also the figures for post increases which result from the proposed additional FAO country representative offices. In this connection, we understand from the report of the Finance Committee that the proposal is an addition of twelve offices and not twelve plus five more dual offices. A conclusion which may be drawn from the second paragraph of the explanations for sub-programme 3.4.
The proposed further strengthening of the decentralization process, on which we share views expressed by Sweden, the United Kingdom, and others, should not be seen separately but in the context of the division of work between Headquarters, Regional Offices, and Country Offices, and an eventual re-deployment of work, staffs, and allocations.
We trust that the complete draft Programme of Work and Budget to be presented to the 21st Conference will give us the necessary details on which we can base a better assessment of this issue.
A.F.M. de FREITAS (Brasil): The Council has been discussing during these days what we all considered to be the most important item on its agenda, namely, the Summary Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium 1982-83.
The document before us and the different meetings in which most of us took part - the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on Fisheries, the Programme and Finance Committees - gave us enough familiarity with all the elements that made the structure of the Summary Programme as presented to us in the document CL 79/3.
All of the important topics of this document have been commented on, either by the Director-General on different occasions and especially in his opening statement to the present Session of the Council, or by his staff who so ably took part in the recent meetings of the Council. Most, if not all, of us had abundant opportunities to express all our thoughts on the strategies, the priorities and the programmes contained in the document.
Therefore, on this particular occasion I shall limit myself to a few comments on topics which my delegation considers are of special importance. First, my delegation agrees with the difficult World Background as described in Chapter II of the document. We had an extensive discussion on this subject during the examination of item 4 of the present agenda. Nevertheless, some points deserved to be mentioned, especially the situation in Africa, the rise in field imports and prices, the special difficulties of developing non-oil-producing countries, and the decline in the special food aid.
On the other hand, I would like to mention the efforts made by the developing rural countries in the last months to organize their own action in the international sphere and help shape the international development strategy for the Third Development Decade. The present international climate of recession, inflation, protectionism, and the capital aid as such, encouraged cooperation between the developing countries, both in the economic and technical field.
The recent meetings in Geneva, New York, Rome, and Caracas highlight the determination of all countries to make efforts in order to change the situation, especially in the areas of food and agriculture.
As my delegation stated on different occasions, we support the strategies outlined in document CL 79/3. We are grateful to the Director-General for the way he has been responding to the requests made by the Council regarding the active participation of FAO in the negotiations of food and agriculture as a part of the new global negotiations.
We are also aware of the efforts made by FAO at the regional level, and my delegation believes they go in the right direction. We also encourage the work of the Organization at the national level, both through its own representatives and through the framework of these missions.
Coming now to priorities, my delegation would like to select a few of them to underline the special interests of my country. Being a non-oil-producing developing country, Brazil is particularly concerned with energy in agriculture, not only in the production, but also in the processing and distribution of food. My delegation believes that FAO should be involved in the assistance to countries as regards increased efficiency and conservation of energy in the field of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, as well as in the efforts to develop alternative sources of energy.
My delegation also approves the emphasis on natural resources, especially the use and management of soil and water, in particular soil conservation, irrigation and the use of fertilizers.
As for crops, we agree that intensive efforts should be made for the production of staple cereals and with the pilot scheme in four African regions, with a view to improving the production of cereals.
In the area of livestock, we take a special interest in the control of animal diseases, especially African swine fever which in the past has brought so much damage to animal products and trade in several countries of Latin America, Now, thanks to the assistance of FAO, the diseases are under control in Brazil, and the same success in this can be foreseen for other countries similarly affected.
Concerning forestry and fisheries, my delegation believes a much greater production of food can be promoted in those areas, and we support the efforts made by FAO in that direction. Brazil has a special interest in those fields of activities, and particularly in what concerns fisheries; my delegation had an ample opportunity of expressing its views during the last session of the Committee on Fisheries.
There are a great many other topics which deserve our attention in the description contained in the Summary Programme for the coming biennium 1982-83. We have been listening with great interest to the debate which has been taking place on this important item on this agenda. My delegation respects all the different important opinions put forward on this subject, and we would like to express the hope that a common understanding could be reached in order to permit this Organization to fulfil its role in the best possible manner.
J.E. MENDES FERRAO (Portugal): La delegation portugaise désire exprimer son appreciation pour le document CL 79/3, document fondamental de ce Conseil et manifester l'admiration pour l'équipe qui, sous l'orientation du Directeur général,a travaillé clairement, objectivement et utilement à la préparation du document. Comme j'avais dit lors de mon intervention du premier jour mon pays traverse une situation particulièrement difficile du point de vue économique, considéré comme priori-taire mais non exclusif. Tous les efforts qui seront faits pour faciliter et rendre plus rapide le développement des pays qui ont des problèmes agricoles et alimentaires plus graves.
Selon notre opinion, c'est une solution internationale qui doit consolider et fortifier cette situation. Mais on dit dans mon pays que la faim est un mauvais conseiller et nous devons faire le maximum pour le développement au nom de la paix comme l'a dit le Pape. Ma délégation est tout à fait d'accord avec ce principe. Le problème des peuples moins développés n'est pas dans la plupart des cas le manque de terres, d'aptitudes agricoles ou d'autres consitions semblables. Nous pensons que les problèmes qui existent sont aussi d'une autre origine, notamment l'insuffisance d'appui technique qui est très important pour augmenter la production bien qu'il faille surtout des transports, l'introduction de variétés améliorées, des engrais, la lutte contre les maladies des plantes, la conservation et la transformation technologique des produits agricoles. Il y a beaucoup de pays et de régions qui pourraient être plus riches, ou moins pauvres, s'il y avait une aide internationale plus forte orientée vers les petits producteurs et donner une partie plus importante de la valeur ajoutée avec des transformations technologiques; transformer un pays en simple exploitateur de matières premières qui seront transformées et valoriseraient beaucoup les pays importateurs. Les cas du café, du cacao, déjà cités dans cette réunion, sont-ils des exemples bien évidents de ce que l'on pourrait faire au titre d'une aide inter-nationale aux pays moins riches?
D'un autre côté, nous pensons que le développement passe aussi pour la sélection des activités agricoles adaptées à des conditions écologiques, sociales et économiques de chaque pays ou région bien qu'elles ne seront pas obligatoirement et seulement des cultures alimentaires. Nous croyons qu'il est très important de tenir compte que le développement des pays du tiers monde ne doit pas être seulement basé sur les cultures alimentaires. Il y aussi les cultures industrielles, qui techniquement bien appuyées pourraient faciliter l'obtention de moyens matériels pour acheter à l'étranger des produits alimentaires dont notre pays pourrait être excédentaire. Il nous reste à obtenir la collaboration compréhensive des pays riches pour agrandir ou maintenir la stabilité des prix au marché international des produits agricoles non alimentaires. Comme il a déjà été ici affirmé par un illustre délégué, il ne faut pas utiliser un esprit de mercantilisme avec des pays dont la faim est installée dans leurs territoires. Nous voulons féliciter le Directeur général pour l'énorme travail qu'il a toujours fourni pour harmoniser les points de vue qui parfois ne coïncident pas entre eux. Les pays les plus riches doivent montrer un esprit plus compréhensif aux pays les moins riches.
Nous pensons que la stratégie et les priorités fixées au sommaire du Programme de travail et budget sont présentées dans la ligne de nos considérations et reflètent la grave situation économique et constituent de graves préoccupations. Nous devons reconnaître que le Directeur général ne pourra que continuer à faire de grands efforts pour trouver le juste équilibre entre les besoins des pays en voie de développement et en même temps d'obtenir une aide des pays donateurs qui sont les principaux piliers de l'Organisation. Mais cependant nous avons constaté durant les débats que les champs se trouvent divisés avec les pays riches, très hésitants sur le niveau du budget et des pays en développement trouvant même l'aide qui leur est proposée insuffisante. Il faut pourtant voir les choses avec objectivité. Nous demandons trop, mais nous avons confiance en la sagesse des pays principaux donateurs qui connaissent très bien les difficultés des pays du tiers monde.
Nous sommes convaincus qu'avec la médiation et les bons offices du Directeur général, nous parviendrons, lors de la prochaine Conférence, à l'accord que nous souhaitons.
Le Portugal a suivi les travaux de cette organisation depuis le premier jour de son existence et il aimerait tout faire pour mieux et plus profondément coopérer avec la FAO.
Mon pays entretient depuis plusieurs centaines d'années des contacts avec quelques régions qui vivent actuellement des difficultés alimentaires et de développement. Nous aimerions maintenir et renforcer nos relations d'amitié avec ces régions.
Mon pays aura quelques difficultés à faire face à l'augmentation de la contribution qui nous est propo-sée, mais je suis convaincu que nous parviendrons à donner une réponse favorable si cela s'avère nécessaire au nom de la solidarité internationale.
Pour terminer, et revenant au point indiqué dans le Programme, nous constatons qu'il tend chaque fois à favoriser en priorité l'action sur le terrain et l'assistance directe aux pays moins développés. Ma délégation voudrait souligner l'importance qu'elle accorde aux chapitres concernant les pêches, les forêts et l'énergie.
K. DEVAHASTIN (Thailand): My delegation has studied in substantial detail the Summary Programme of Work and Budget 1982-83. At first it might appear that the level of the budget for the next biennium was rather high but after careful study on the basis of the information supplied in the document and relevant supplements, one could hardly identify the areas for reduction. The allocation of this budget has been made on the zero base which we accepted as most appropriate for the restricted financial condition with which we are associated. We appreciate the fact that the proposed budget is very much in line with the strategies,policies and programmes as unanimously agreed by the last Session of the Conference. However, should there be some delegates able to identify areas for budget cuts - which is unlikely - the specific activities and programmes should be clearly identified as as well as indicating the reasons for reductions. Without these conditions the Director-General will have great difficulty in readjusting and reallocating the budget.
My delegation would also like to draw the Council's attention to the statistical table on page 29 of document CL 79/3 which indicates a favourable sign that there has been a downward trend in the expenditure on established posts since 1972-73. We believe that all delegates here will be pleased with this trend and perhaps want further decrease. If we agree to cut the budget level this time, it means a change of direction to another upward trend in expenditure on established posts, since we cannot reduce the cost of salaries and related benefits. As a result, many FAO staff will work less for the same salaries, which is of course undesirable.
The Thai delegation is convinced that the budget for 1982-83 as proposed is a minimum necessary to face the urgent and real problems of world food and agricultural development. For this reason my delegation joins others who have expressed their full support for the Director-General's proposals.
However, while expressing our support to the budget proposal, we need clarification on some specific points concerning Asia and the Pacific Region. First,, the budget allocation for technical and economic programmes of this region, as shown in the document, particularly on page 47, has decreased while there is an increase in all other regions. Secondly, the budget allocation for rural development as shown on page 59 is unchanged, which means another decrease, considering the rate of inflation. We should like to know the reasons for these discrepancies and hope that this is not because of the regional staff's inactivity as compared to the staff in other regional offices.
My delegation also notes with appreciation the sentiments expressed in this forum to effect the maximum economies possible in our organization. Delegates from the People's Republic of China, the United States and Sweden, for example, stressed this theme and we fully agree with this approach. In our desire to conserve our scarce resources, let us be wary of false economies, that is, savings made at the cost of other equally vital concerns. One example of this would be to nullify the policy of decentralization by attempts to circumscribe the work of Regional Offices. I can speak only for the Regional Office in Asia and the Pacific by noting that the Royal Thai Government has acknowledged its effectiveness not by words but by serving as host Government for the Regional Office in Asia and the Pacific. In fact, my Government has appropriated $400 000 to improve the office facilities for this Office and we shall open a new wing for FAO use later this year; nor has the Thai Government charged any rent for the use of the building thus provided.
C. GOODING (Barbados): My delegation would like to take this opportunity to make a brief comment on this agenda item and in particular on documents CL 79/3, and CL 79/4 so ably prepared and presented. We note with great concern the current world food situation, as so aptly described in CL 79/2 which was presented to this Session of the Council on the opening day. Indeed, it is significant that there seems to be general agreement with the tone of that document and also with the concept that one of the most appropriate means of reducing or even removing the world's food problems is by providing every possible assistance and encouragement for food deficit countries to produce more of their food requirements at the earliest possible time.
For these reasons we feel compelled to reiterate the need for urgent and positive action, if the problems of hunger and malnutrition currently facing the less fortunate countries of the world are to be reduced or perhaps even removed. On numerous occasions during the course of these deliberations we have heard calls for FAO to continue to take the lead in the fight against hunger and malnutrition. My delegation therefore feels very strongly that it is only by effecting meaningful programmes with proper priorities that the Organization can even begin to do justice to the very difficult task before it. Indeed, it is against a background such as the one just outlined that we feel that the document CL 79/3 - that is the Summary Programme of Work and Budget 1982-83 - should be analyzed. It is our sincere view that, as stated in the Report of the Joint Session of the Programme and Finance Committee, that is CL 79/4, the budget as presented represents the bare minimum with which the Organization could ever hope to make a dent in the problem before it.
In this connection we feel compelled to join with others in applauding the Director-General for the severe restraint he has shown in the presentation of the budget. It is indeed remarkable - if not unbelievable - that he has been able to restrict real programme increase to under 6 percent. In spite of this, we feel it our duty to state the view that this severe restriction of the real programme represents a bigger bill for those countries among us - and I mean developing countries - which are so dependent on FAO for its invaluable assistance insofar as efforts to provide satisfactory levels of food and nutrition for their respective populations are concerned. We would nevertheless like to take this opportunity to express publicly our appreciation for the work done by the Organization.
As far as the Field Programme is concerned, we feel that the so-called "New Dimensions" aspect of operations, as mentioned in document CL 79/3, paragraph 3.13, should be viewed with considerable satisfaction since, as stated, the capabilities of developing countries themselves are increasingly being utilized in project execution. We would therefore like to join other delegations in commending the Director-General for effecting such a worthwhile re-orientation of the Field Programme activities.
Another area we feel compelled to highlight is the prevention of food losses programmes. We are indeed disappointed to learn that although this programme is considered an important one, severe difficulties are being faced in respect of other pledges. We express the hope that those countries that are in a position to give assistance in this area will see the wisdom not only of supporting efforts to increase food production but also that of preventing or reducing losses in food which has already been produced.
We feel that the general programme is another area warranting our comments. In this connection there are two items to which we wish to refer. The first is the Technical Cooperation Programme. It is significant that so many countries have found it necessary to reiterate and even to praise the flexibility and usefulness of this particular Programme. My delegation therefore wishes to express its disappointment that this Programme could not be significantly expanded at this time.
The other item which we want to address you here is on the decentralization policy, more specifically the establishment of representative offices. It is necessary to state that my country has been able to realize tremendous benefits as a result of the implementation of this decentralization policy. We feel that it has resulted in considerable improvement in so far as programmes go and delivery is concerned. Thus this delegation feels a sense of duty in joining with those delegations which have already expressed support for the policy. With these few remarks my delegations would like to stress its support for this obviously modest and restrained budget which has been presented to this Council. We would also like to take this opportunity to urge those countries thus far expressing their reservations to view their positions in light of the deteriorating nature of the problem of malnutrition and hunger now facing the world. If the theory of what we might choose to describe as negative growth is to be applied then let us apply it, not to the budget now before us but rather to the problem of hunger and malnutrition facing the more unfortunate countries.
M. DERNAIKA (Liban) (interpretation de l'arabe): Je vous remercie de m'avoir donné la parole afin de me permettre d'exprimer les points de vue de la délégation de mon pays en ce qui concerne le document CL 79/3, à savoir le sommaire du Programme de travail et budget pour l'exercice 1982-83. Je vais essayer d'être bref.
Ce que je crains le plus, c'est qu'on s'arrête seulement dans nos débats aux chiffres et aux statistiques qui ne vont pas dans le sens des intérêts des gouvernements que nous représentons ici et de nos peuples. Il va de soi que tous les gouvernements, qu'ils soient riches ou moins riches, adoptent une politique d'austérité pour ce qui concerne toutes les dépenses; mais je ne pense pas que la participation de nos différents gouvernements au budget de cette organisation constitue un poids énorme pour ces gouvernments. Il serait donc malheureux que nos discussions s'arrêtent à des considérations uniquement financières. Personnellement, j'ai analysé le document 79/3 et les suppléments 1 et 2 à ce document en me référant à trois questions que je me suis posées au sujet des propositions contenues dans ces documents.
Le première question, qui est la plus importante à mon sens est: le Programme de travail qui nous est proposé et le budget qui nous est proposé également par le Directeur général vont-ils lui permettre et vont-ils permettre à la FAO d'assumer toutes les responsabilités face à la situation alimentaire mondiale que nous connaissons, situation qui se détériore de plus en plus?
Ma délégation voudrait, au sujet de cette question, dire qu'elle considère comme inquiétant de voir l'Organisation ne pas pouvoir faire face à cette situation alors que nous savons que le Directeur général tire la maximum de profit possible des ressources financières qui sont à sa disposition. D'ailleurs, un exemple éclatant à cela: les activités du Centre d'investissement de l'Organisation. C'est un centre qui est connu pour être dynamique, pour être efficace avec un nombre restreint de fonctionnaires, mais de fonctionnaires compétents.
La deuxième question que je me pose est relative aux priorités qui sont indiquées dans ce document et, si ces priorités sont bien choisies, je pense personnellement qu'elles seront bien équilibrées. Elles donnent une certaine priorité à l'Afrique, qui a besoin d'une attention toute particulière, étant donné l'ampleur des programmes auxquels elle doit faire face. Il m'est agréable de noter ici que les mesures de réforme qui ont été adoptées en 1976 l'ont été jusqu'a présent et elles s'appliquent à quatre domaines: l'augmentation des investissements dans le domaine agricole, la poursuite de la politique de décentralisation, éviter le plus possible la bureaucratie et en dernier lieu le renforcement du Programme de coopération technique. Le renforcement de ce programme appelle une remarque de la part de ma délégation. Nous aimerions voir ce programme disposer de plus de ressources financières. En effet, l'expérience a prouvé que ce programme peut intervenir très rapidement et de façon efficace surtout pour les cas d'urgence. Nous comprenons les raisons pour lesquelles le Directeur général a proposé un programme assez limité, mais nous voulons dire dès à présent que nous demandons, d'ici deux ans au maximum, que les resources financières du Programme de coopération technique soient augmentées, surtout si on nous dit dès maintenant que la politique de la FAO devrait être une politique d'austérité qui sera suivie aussi bien par la Banque mondiale que par le PNUD et autres agences des Nations Unies.
La troisième question qui se pose est de savoir si l'augmentation de 5,9 pour cent du niveau de budget sera suffisante pour deux ans. Les propositions qui ont été formulées par le Directeur général ont été très modestes. A notre sens, cette augmentation ne constitue que le minimum requis, et si ce minimum n'est pas accepté, il nous sera difficile d'adopter le programme de travail.
Voilà les observations que je voulais faire et qui aideront, j'espère à rejoindre l'accord que recherchent tous les délégués.
M. ISHAQUE (Bangladesh): The Director-General of FAO has a message which is entitled "What World Food Day can Do" and with your permission I read a portion from it. The words are "The effort to diagnose persistent hunger and recurrent famine in the human condition and to prescribe their treatment has filled libraries with thick volumes of fact and opinion But it has not yet altered the unpalatable fact that for much of humanity, each day, every day, is a grim trial of desperate drudgery from which they hope to gain the bare minimum of food needed to survive. Not always are these hopes realized."
Indeed, there is a note of depression in the above words of the Director-General. To achieve the goal to remove hunger and malnutrition actions are needed but the actions which result in filling the libraries only I am afraid will cause more people to have depression. Certainly we do not like it. Therefore we should plan for actions, programme our activities, support those of our action programmes with men, material and money, which give and promise to yield the end result, that is the removal of hunger and manutrition. It is in this light we should view the proposals for work and budget of the Director-General.
During the week we were discussing the world food security position. There is no true opinion on this point, that the world will be secure of its food requirements when there will be production rises. Indeed, the world has the potential to raise the production and there have been demostrations and evidence of this in my country, Bangladesh and many other countries. This has been possible due to positive and productive actions taken in those countries. If we want to remove hunger and malnutrition and we do not want the millions of children to die of malnutrition, plunging their parents to grief, we have to implement many more of those productive action programme. The hungry parents and their children have no chance of survival waiting for the clearance of the inflation hazard. Nor will they continue to breathe until the recession in the developed countries is removed.
In the interest of the hungry millions in the developing countries, programme activities are needed now, and I repeat, now. The programmes that have been implemented have been instrumental in advancing towards the goal of increasing food production. The ultimate goal, however, is still far away. Should we not increase our activities? Should we be 'on the double' or should we 'take it easy'? I am sure, the answer is, 'on the double'. Therefore we have to increase our programme efforts and this cannot be done without increased budget support. If we do not go for the growth and keep it at zero we are to stagnate. The pace of population growth will certainly overtake our up-to-date achievement and we will not stagnate, we will be behind. Will there be any chance to catch up again? Indeed not. There cannot be zero growth and advancement at the same time. There can be zero growth only with stagnation and if we give any consideration to the idea of zero growth in FAO activities I and my delegation see only gloom, regression and ruin for the future; more hunger and malnutrition, deaths and no chance of removing hunger, poverty and malnutrition. I should think the proposal of zero growth is a proposal for more hunger and malnutrition. Certainly the Council cannot accept any such proposal. We must face hard realities and we can not negotiate with hunger. The whole aim of some increased activities in the future is to feed more and more hungry, starving people. It would be unethical if in this noble cause the Organization's activities are retarded by budget restraint.
Yesterday morning our colleague the delegate of Colombia started our discussion on the Summary Programme of Work and Budget by drawing your attention to the appeal to combat world hunger which has just been issued under the signature of some 53 Nobel prize winners. The Director-General has mentioned it today. The international press has reported about this appeal being issued also in a number of other major capitals. We should take heart and be inspired. The subject which is so much our concern is equal in a global form to the voices of a large number of Nobel prize winners. It is a striking fact that this appeal was issued in Rome, the city of our Organization, at the very time we meet here. I request that the text of this appeal be made available as soon as possible as a document for information.
It is appreciated that the world economic situation is not in a position to double up the efforts but certainly cannot stand at ease. The Director-General's proposal of programme and budget have been very cautious indeed and the increase proposed has been rather too small in the context of the gigantic activity the world needs to avoid hunger and malnutrition. This small increase has been proposed keeping the economic situation of the world in mind. In such a situation the only thing to do is to set priorities. This has been done and my delegations wishes to express its satisfaction, having found the priorities in the right order.
I would mention further that the FAO country offices should be more in the world. It is satisfying to note that there has been a proposal to have 12 more country offices. The earlier they are functioning and more established the better will be the field result.
We cannot and should not speak of reducing the country offices. We were planning and we need increased activities in the field. I would further like to suggest that the country and regional offices should be given more authority to identify and launch development programme activities within that country directly within the framework of the general programme and sub-programmes. I suggest this because country officers and experts can quickly and more effectively identify the needs, and quick action in implementing the needed programmes of development will result within a very short time. This will be quite in order with the spirit of decentralization.
The Bangladesh Delegation emphasizes the need for the implementation of the production increase oriented programmes in proper priorities which the Summary Programme of Work and Budget has laid down. At the same time, my Delegation is seriously in favour of austerity measures and the reduction of management expenditure and support services to only the unavoidable minimum. It is heartening that there are in the proposals of the Director-General serious attempts towards this end. My delegation has great confidence in the wisdom and leadership of the Director-General. We respect his sense of caution, pragmatism and rationale. It is with these that the Director-General has presented to this Council the proposals for the Programme of Work and Budget for 1982/83, including the realistic cost " increase.
Finally, having heard the Director-General and my esteemed colleagues from other countries, both developed and developing, examining the proposals of the Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium 1982/83 given in document CL 79/3, taking into account the world economic situation, appreciating that the Director-General had to be cautious in proposing the Programme of Work and Budget keeping at the minimum increase, the Bangladesh Delegation with sincere commendation for the Director-General, his colleagues in the Programme and Finance Committees, and the Secretariat, would urge that the Council recommends the Programme of Work and Budget given in document CL 79/3 and the Supplements.
A. NAGA (Japan): First of all, my delegation would like to express its sincere appreciation to the Director-General and his staff for the preparation of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget 1982/83, and also appreciates the good work of the Chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committees.
It is common recognition in the world community that the food problem in one of the most important problems of the 1980s.
My Government has been positively pushing forward economic cooperation in order to fulfil its obligations to the world community.
Now faced with serious financial constraints, Japan is tackling the problem of financial reconstruction.
The nominal growth rate of our budget was 12.55 percent in the 1979 fiscal year, 10.33 percent in 1980, and this year we had only a 9.86 percent growth in nominal terms. If we take into consideration the inflation in our country, which was 7.8 percent in 1980, the increase of our budget in real terms is almost zero. Furthermore, the budget for the 1982 fiscal year, which is now being prepared, would become rather more tight. We think it is impossible to isolate international organizations from the constraints which governments have to impose in their expenditure in their efforts to improve their difficult economic situations. International organizations are not an exception!
The Secretary-General of the United nations, Dr. Waldheim himself, proposed a budget of zero growth in real terms for the next biennium. My delegation highly appreciates and supports such an attitude, which could be a good example for FAO and other Specialized Agencies in the United Nations system.
I would like to make a few brief comments on the real Programme increase proposed by the Secretariat. According to document CL 79/3, page 37, Table 1, establishment of new FAO country representative offices with an increase of US$ 3,111,000, approximately 15 percent up, and the Technical Cooperation Programme increase of US$ 5,272,000, approximately 16 percent up, are very high compared to the 1980/81 budget.
We feel that the FAO country representatives offices should be established in the coordinated linkage of the whole UN system, so that the duplication with the UNDP Resident Representives could be avoided. Although the Japanese delegation has no intention to deny any good aspects of TCP, the current level of TCP share in the 1980/81 budget should be maintained for the next budget from the view of avoidance of duplication with UNDP.
I should like to refer to relevant documents on the budget before us, and our delegation would be very pleased if the Secretariat could give us explanations and information so that we might get a clearer picture of the budget.
My delegation would appreciate if we were furnished with the following information:
I regret to say that we cannot support the proposed level of the Programme of Work and Budget for 1982/83, presented now before us. Therefore we strongly urge the Secretariat to propose a revised budget acceptable to us at the next Conference in November, taking into account the views of the countries represented here at his Council and the budgets of other Specialized Agencies such as WHO and ILO.
In conclusion, my delegation reserves its position on the budget level at this stage.
F. PETRELLA (Argentina): Deseo brevemente fijar la posición argentina en esta etapa de las discusiones sobre el Resumen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1982-83.
Para ello, tenemos en cuenta los siguientes elementos: la importancia de la función que desempeña FAO dentro del sistema multilateral internacional; las necesidades alimentarias reales de muchos sectores del mundo; la difícil situación coyuntural por la que pasan los países industrializados, así como también las tensiones existentes en otras áreas; los planes de trabajo fijados que no han sido objetados en este Consejo; el interés del Grupo Latinoamericano y el Grupo de los 77 a los que Argentina pertenece y que constituyen una de las mayorías dentro de este Consejo.
Por las circunstancias expuestas y por el hecho de que sería lamentable que por justeza de recursos el Plan de Labores sufriese restricciones, mi delegación respalda el aumento presupuestario propuesto.
Lo dicho no excluye la permanente necesidad de revisar posibilidades para efectuar economías, dada la legítima preocupación claramente manifestada por los principales países contribuyentes de esta Organización.
Para concluir y como reflexión de tipo general, nos parece que el sistema multilateral tal como diseñado a fines de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, responde a un pacto entre los países. Ese pacto no debería sufrir alteraciones sin que las mismas sean discutidas, y sin que las opiniones de todas las partes interesadas en el Sistema sean escuchadas y tenidas en cuenta.
CHAIRMAN: This concludes the first round. Everybody has spoken now in this debate, and there are still a few delegates that asked for the second time.
S. AIDARA (Sénégal): Je vous remercie de donner une nouvelle fois à ma délégation l'occasion d'exercer son droit de parole.
Dans ma première déclaration, j'avais dégagé la position de mon pays sur cette importante question que nous discutons en ce moment.
J'ai eu la possibilité d'écouter toutes les déclarations qui ont eu lieu au cours de ce débat. Il ne m'appartient pas d'en faire ici le résumé. Je vous laisse ce soin et je suis persuadé que vous saurez vous en tirer.
Je ne voudrais nullement ouvrir une polémique sur ce point. Vous me permettrez tout de même de faire référence à certaines déclarations de pays développés et de relever certains arguments qui nous semblent contenir quelques éléments de contradiction.
Nous respectons leur point de vue mais nous nous en étonnons. En effet, en même temps que certains de nos amis des pays développés approuvent et demandent de développer les priorités et stratégies du Programme de travail, et qu'ils disent accorder la priorité à l'agriculture et à la lutte contre la faim, en même temps qu'ils prétendent accorder leur plein appui et leur pleine confiance au Directeur général et à la FAO, ils demandent parallèlement de réduire le budget, préparé pour tenir compte justement des priorités et stratégies du Programme de travail.
Il nous est franchement difficile de comprendre que la croissance Zéro n'équivaut pas à une stagnation comme le prétendent certains et que, de surcroît, elle peut même constituer un stimulant.
La croissance Zéro ne peut en aucune façon constituer un facteur de progrès. Et nous ne saurions voir cette théorie appliquée à la FAO.
Ce n'est pas sans beaucoup d'inquiétude que ma délégation a entendu les commentaires et propositions de certaines délégations de pays développés, en ce qui concerne les bureaux régionaux de la FAO, ainsi que le réseau de représentants de l'Organisation dans nos pays.
Je ne voudrais pas revenir ici sur les mérites de tels bureaux qui ont été longuement développés avec une rare éloquence par les Distingués Représentants d'El Salvador et de l'Inde. Je pensais, Monsieur le Président, que nos amis des pays développés avaient compris l'importance primordiale que nous attachons, en Afrique notamment, à toutes les institutions régionales et sous-régionales, outils essentiels de nos efforts vers le développement économique et 1'autosuffisance de notre Continent.
Qu'il s'agisse d'organismes continentaux tels que l'OUA ou la Commission Economique pour l'Afrique d'Organismes économiques sous-régionaux; tels que la CEAO ou la CDEAO, visant à la mise en valeur des grands bassins fluviaux tels que l'OMVG ou l'OMVS, je pense pouvoir dire que l'Afrique offre un plus large éventail d'organisations régionales que tout autre continent.
Vouz pouvez imaginer aisément que ces organisations ont besoin d'un interlocuteur, d'un conseiller, hautement qualifié dans le domaine agricole, entendu au sens le plus large et plus spécifiquement dans le domaine de la gestion des projets. C'est là, à nos yeux le plus important des rôles que nous souhaitons voir jouer au Bureau régional de la FAO pour l'Afrique.
Dans ces conditions, nous comprenons très difficilement, Monsieur le Président, que les mêmes pays qui se disent disposés à nous aider dans la voie de la réalisation de nos objectifs de développement et dans la voie de la coopération technique et économique entre pays en développement, tentent, dans le même temps, de nous priver des moyens indispensables d'une telle action, parmi lesquels le Bureau régional d'Accra figure au tout premier plan.
Mais il ne suffit pas d'agir au niveau régional; sur le plan national aussi, nous avons besoin d'une présence constante de la FAO dans nos pays, pour nous aider à traduire en termes concrets la priorité que tous nos Gouvernements ont décidé d'accorder au développement de leur agriculture et à l'auto-suffisance alimentaire de leurs peuples.
Il est, dans ces conditions, à la fois naturel et satisfaisant pour nous de noter que plus de 40% des bureaux de représentants de la FAO se trouvent en Afrique. Nous tenons à remercier le Directeur général de cet effort particulier. Vous comprendrez donc, Monsieur le Président, qu'il soit inacceptable pour nous de voir remettre en cause l'existence de cet outil essentiel de notre développement, qui découle du reste des grandes orientations définies, comme chacun le sait, en 1976 pour tenir compte des impératifs de la Décentralisation.
Tout en étant nouveaux sur la scène mondiale, les peuples africains ont acquis, Monsieur le Président, assez d'expérience des pratiques gouvernementales pour savoir que, lorsque l'on veut tuer un projet de loi, on le renvoie en Commission, et lorsque l'on veut mettre un terme à une activité existante, on décide de l'évaluer dans une lumière aussi critique que possible.
Mais cette évaluation des bureaux de la FAO, elle a déjà été effectuée, Monsieur le Président, par la plupart des Gouvernements africains qui ont demandé au Directeur général d'ouvrir des représentations dans leurs pays, de renforcer celles qui existent et de combler les quelques lacunes qui subsistent encore.
Qu'il s'agisse des bureaux régionaux ou des bureaux de la FAO dans les pays, j'espère que les pays développés voudront bien comprendre qu'il s'agit là de structures destinées essentiellement au bénéfice du Tiers Monde, et nous laisserons donc le soin de juger de leur valeur.
En ce qui concerne mon Gouvernement, ce jugement est déjà fait, et il est totalement positif. C'est pourquoi, ma délégation appuie la proposition tendant à maintenir, à développer et à renforeer ces bureaux tant au niveau national qu'au niveau régional.
A, HAMAAMBA (Zambia) : My delegation would like to make an observation on the question of the country offices. Our country office has now been in existence for about three years, and since it was established there has been a very happy change in the relationship between FAO and the relevant government organization because of the direct contact with the Director-General's representative. Matters affecting projects are now dealt with speedily, unlike in the past. In fact, bureaucracy has been considerably reduced. There is now effective and direct communication between the government and FAO. It would be a pity and a retrogressive step if we went back to the time when the Senior Agricultural Adviser worked through the UNDP Resident Representative.
With regard to the suggestion that an evaluation be carried out, my delegation doubts the value of this exercise at this stage for two reasons : firstly, many of the country offices have not been in existence for a long time, and secondly, governments where these offices exist are really the best judges of the usefulness of these offices, as they would be the first to object if the existence of these offices did not prove useful, because there are budgetary obligations on the part of the host government. Besides, the Headquarters staff visit Member countries where these offices exist at regular intervals to exchange views with government officials on how to improve the effectiveness of the country offices. There is therefore a constant reappraisal of the operation of these offices.
Lastly, my delegation would like to give its full support to the views expressed by India on this matter.
M. GUERRAOUI (Maroc): Merci de me donner la parole pour la seconde fois. Ma délégation a écouté ce matin avec grand intérêt et une extrême attention le distingué représentant de la France et a apprécié la forme éloquente et particulièrement brillante de sa déclaration. Il semble cependant à ma délégation que le délégué de la France n'ait pas accordé la même attention à notre intervention et qu'il ait écouté d'une oreille peut-être distraite les propos que nous avons formulés au sujet des bureaux régionaux, sans cela, il n'aurait pas donné à nos propos une interprétation inexacte.
C'est pourquoi je me dois de rappeler ce que j'ai dit ce matin à ce sujet en évoquant l'aide rapide et efficace apportée par notre Organisation dans le but d'atténuer l'effet de la sécheresse. Nous avons estimé que cette aide aurait été encore plus efficace et bien plus rapide si nous avions disposé à Rabat d'un bureau régional ou local de la FAO, ce qui nous aurait permis surtout dans ce cas de gagner du temps. Figurez-vous que j'essaie depuis vingt-quatre heures d'entrer en contact avec mon ministère à Rabat sans succès et ceci parce que les réseaux sont en dérangement. Or le facteur temps est prioritaire sinon déterminant dans des cas d'espèces. Loin de moi l'idée de cantonner les bureaux régionaux dans un rôle limité aux situations d'urgence et aux catastrophes naturelles. Je ne voudrais pas donner une interprétation inexacte de mes paroles au cours de mon intervention, j'ai dit que nous voulions des bureaux régionaux et locaux pour rapprocher notre Organisation des réalités avec tout ce que cela comporte: souplesse, rapidité, efficacité des contacts, mais aussi possibilité d'être rapides à l'élaboration de cette stratégie nationale de développement conforme à l'orientation de la stratégie internationale d'aide à la promotion, à l'identification et à l'évaluation de projets de développement, etc. Je ne m'étendrai pas davantage sur ce point; d'autres orateurs l'ont fait suffisamment avant moi. Mais au-delà de tout cela, nous voyons pour notre part, dans la création des bureaux régionaux et locaux, l'engagement d'un processus irréversible de décentralisation dont la finalité en fin de compte rejoint le souci de la recherche de l'économie et de l'efficacité.
Voilà les raisons très brièvement exprimées qui font que notre position est en faveur de l'extension du réseau des bureaux régionaux et locaux.
J. TCHICAYA (Congo): Lors de ma première intervention d'hier, j'avais évoqué les principaux problèmes soulevés dans le sommaire du Programme de travail et budget pour la période biennale 1982-83. Je vais donc soumettre au Conseil un examen complet de cette question, mais comme vous avez pu le constater, certaines questions qui nous paraissent déjà réglées, puisqu'elles avaient fait l'objet de débats animés lors de nos dernières rencontres et avaient abouti à un accord général, ont été déterrées. En effet, je ne m'attendais pas à voir la question des représentants de la FAO auprès des pays membres et des régions mises en cause. Ma délégation ose espérer néanmoins que la déclaration du délégué de la Suède et de ceux qui l'ont appuyée a été faite dans le sens d'obtenir des informations quant aux services réels rendus aux pays bénéficiaires par les bureaux nationaux et régionaux.
S'il en est ainsi, ses inquiétudes ont dû être apaisées par la brillante démonstration faite ce matin par le délégué de l'Inde. Aussi m'abstiendrai-je de faire d'autres commentaires qui iraient strictement dans le même sens.
Cependant, il importe à notre délégation de porter à l'attention du délégué de la Suède, qui sans doute ignore l'apport concret de ces représentations dans nos pays, quelques éléments qui s'inscrivent dans ce cadre. Souvenez-vous que les pays en développement ont besoin d'assistance technique et les représentants nationaux jouent en permanence ce rôle. C'est pourquoi je me bornerai à appuyer sans réserve ce que le délégué de l'Inde a exprimé à ce sujet avec éloquence et à porter à la connaissance de tous les délégués que le Congo compte parmi les pays qui bénéficient d'une telle représentation, et mon gouvernement s'opposera à toute tentative de refus de déploiement, encore moins de démantèlement de telles structures dont le rôle est déterminant dans l'appui qu'elles apportent aux gouvernements en matière de développement de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture. De ce fait, la représentation de la FAO dans notre pays, qui rend d'importants services au gouvernement, est considérée désormais comme partie intégrante de nos structures nationales.
A la demande du Directeur général, mon gouvernement a accepté que son représentant ait la double accréditation pour appuyer la politique d'austérité de notre Organisation.
Autant que pour les bureaux nationaux, les bureaux régionaux reçoivent également notre appui, car ils contribuent entre autres à promouvoir la coopération interrégionale.
Quoi qu'il en soit, nous sommes aujourd'hui plus qu'hier partisans de rapprocher les structures de la FAO des pays membres et nous pensons que la décentralisation est une réponse très utile à cet objectif. Comme on le voit, aucun chapitre n'est en trop dans ce budget, et les affectations en ressources modiques proposées ne peuvent être amputées sans porter un préjudice suicidaire à la majorité des pays bénéficiaires.
Nous sommes pour une politique d'austérité au regard de la situation économique mondiale, mais nous ne pouvons pas accepter que les restrictions aient la même ampleur dans tous les secteurs et, en tout état de cause, ne peuvent concerner les aspects alimentaires, donc vitaux, pour la survie de l'humanité.
Ma délégation est persuadée que les réticences de certaines délégations à accepter le niveau du budget proposé relèvent de raisons qui ne nous ont pas été révélées ici et qui peuvent susciter de notre part une totale réprobation, surtout si elles visent à diminuer la souveraineté de nos pays et, à cet égard, nous invitons les pays développés à agir de manière à ce que leur aide multinationale prenne le pas sur l'aide bilatérale.
La contribution au budget 1982-83 de notre Organisation renforce cette conviction et c'est pourquoi une large majorité devrait l'appuyer, car elle nous aide à nous passer de l'aide, donc à favoriser la réduction des contributions des pays membres, par conséquent à nous rapprocher de la doctrine de croissance zéro dont certains délégués qui ne connaissent ni la faim ni la misère se sont faits lesardents défenseurs au cours de ces débats.
E. PH1RI (Zambia): I would like to apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Council, for taking the floor again so soon after you had just given it to us. The reason why we had asked for the floor is that the Group of 77 had asked me to make a statement to the Council on its behalf.
We have listened to the intervention of Council Members and Observers representing the different views of this agenda item - that is the Summary Programme of Work of Budget - and I wish to inform you that the Group would like me to explain our position.
We have been disheartened to note that some efforts appear to have been made, or are being made, to reduce the level of the proposed Programme of Work and Budget by introducing the concept of the so-called zero growth in the budget level. We are aware that the Finance Committee as well as the Programme Committee have approved the proposed budget level, which is a minimum necessary for implementing the proposed Programme of Work, and the Group is aware that the Programme and Finance Committee has fully endorsed their approach to the concepts of the priorities, as well as of programmes and sub-programmes proposed in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget as placed before this Council.
However, the Group observed that indirectly efforts were being made to allow the Council to reconsider all the details of the reports of the Programme and Finance Committee as presented, on the assumption that reservations had been made earlier by a few countries before and after the adoption of those reports.
We consider FAO to be an effective international tool available to developing countries for promoting agriculture and food production, and we believe that any reduction of the components of the proposed Programme of Work and Budget would have harmful effects on agricultural, development in developing countries. The Group is aware of the economic difficulties facing the developed countries in order to maintain their high level of standard for their people while the people of the developing countries are striving to provide daily sustenance for their populations.
The Group appreciates the helpful statement made by the delegate of one of the industrialized countries on the first day of this Council Session regarding the intention of his new government to reconsider the foreign assistance policy for developing countries. We also appreciate the comprehensive and fair report of the Committee on Cooperation among the developed and developing countries. FAO's standard of efficiency is now, to say the least, one of the highest in the UN system. Its responsibilities to developing countries are very demanding economically, technically and financially. It is therefore discouraging to observe that a consensus on this Programme of Work could not be reached, or that there appears to be some resistance to reaching one.
We wish to state clearly that this so-called zero growth concept which is gradually being imposed on FAO is totally unacceptable to the Group because it negates the efforts we are now making towards increasing production in developing countries. While saying this, we do not ignore the difficulties of the developed countries. We are aware of high inflation rates, recession, the soaring of unemployment rates in these countries, but when we listen to delegations from developed countries we get the sense that they do not seem to have an adequate and thorough understanding of the difficulties the developing countries are facing economically, socially and politically, largely as a consequence - and in some cases because of - their own problems.
The impact of their inflation on the cost of goods and the services they sell to us, and the growing national self-sufficiency and the protectionism on the part of some of them, had a damaging effect on some of their economies, and even our ability to contribute to FAO and other international organizations.
We say all this just to explain that our difficulties are far less in comparison with those that developed countries are facing. We do, however, support the budget level, despite the fact that governments of developing countries have been compelled to restrict their budgetary growth, or have even cut down on national budgets with the painful readjustment of national priorities, and despite the fact we all contribute to FAO's national budget more or less equally according to our economic capacities.
The opening address of the Director-General bears witness to the fact that he is meticulously appraised of relevant factors and is fully aware of all constraints, and it is the opinion of the Group he was even more pre-occupied with the constraints of the developed countries than probably he was with the problems that we in developing countries are facing.
With all these factors in mind, we would therefore earnestly appeal to all delegations from developed countries not to adopt an attitude - or if they have already adopted this attitude, at least to shed it - that can only be construed as a negative one. We want to avoid the misinterpretation or misconstruing that this negative attitude towards FAO's Programme of Work and Budget is intended to strike a blow against the hungry and malnourished people in the world and particularly in developing countries. We do, however, know - it is common knowledge - that most governments as well as the people in developed countries, in spite of temporary difficulties, are resolved to increased their support of the efforts of developing countries to eradicate hunger and malnutrition.
We therefore do not understand why, with that kind of goodwill, they should now come to talk about the Programme of Work and Budget and particularly the level of the budget as being unacceptable. The Group of 77 firmly endorses the Director-General's policy of decentralization, particularly the establishment of the Offices of the Country Representatives in the presence of already existing Regional Offices. This policy has proved to be a step forward in the right direction and the collective efforts to be made by countries within identical geographical, economic and social parameters, seems to be of benefit to developing countries. The Group also believes that the establishment of these Offices of Country Representatives has improved the work of the Regional Offices and greatly improved the relationship between FAO Headquarters and the respective countries in various fields of emergency and development situations, programmes and projects. The successful results of which have been self evaluating.
The preceding points are vastly confirming the awareness of the Group of the multiplying effect of FAO's invaluable work which has positively identified the Organization as one of the most important cornerstones in the overall struggle against mankind's worst enemies: hunger and malnutrition.
The Group of 77 therefore wishes to state here that we support the Director-General's proposed Programme of Work and Budget for the 1982-83 biennium as a sound basis for the preparation of the final Programme of Work and Budget.
L. H. VALDIVIA AVALOS (Observador del Perú): Mi delegación piensa que no es justo hablar de costo elevado cuando nos referimos a la necesidad perentoria de combatir con las armas del desarrollo el hambre y la desnutrición en el mundo y consideramos que este combate es prioritario sobre cualquier otro. Creemos que no debemos restringir los medios a esta Organización creada exprofeso para liderar este combate.
No creemos armónico opinar favorablemente del Programa de Labores, de sus estrategias y prioridades sin apoyar también el Presupuesto en que se basa.
Los trabajos preparatorios sobre el tema que nos ocupa se analizan por los Comités especializados y luego por el Comité de Programas y de Finanzas donde se ha examinado minuciosa y concienzudamente la propuesta del Director General; como miembro que soy del Comité de Finanzas puedo afirmar que allí hemos sido muy cuidadosos en el análisis y que en el Proyecto presentado ya se habían tomado las medidas para velar por la economía y la más eficiente aplicación del dinero que aportan nuestros gobiernos.
Mi delegación apoya el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto en su integridad y desea hacer especial mención de su satisfacción por el Programa de Cooperación Técnica para el cual nos hubiese agradado un aumento sustancial del Presupuesto, y por el establecimiento de representantes de la FAO en nuestros países, dado que consideramos que ello contribuye a descentralizar a la FAO, a ruralizarla, si cabe esta expresión, a dinamizarla y fortalecerla y solicita se estudie el otorgamiento de más y mayores atribuciones a estos representantes.
Finalmente, respecto a la prioridad de las acciones en ciertas regiones, mi delegación apoya vivamente la intensificación de la ayuda internacional a aquellas regiones donde la necesidad se presenta con apremiante urgencia, pero a la vez espera que se haga sin perjuicio de la satisfacción de las necesidades de aquellos pueblos y regiones que también lo requieren y desean seguir recibiendo la ayuda eficiente de esta casa.
B. TILAHUN (Observer for Ethiopia): I am indeed very grateful to the Chair for giving me the opportunity to speak on the position of my country to this distinguished assembly in regard to the subject under discussion, FAO's Summary Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium 1982-83. This subject has already been discussed and supported by the great majority of the representatives in the Council in the light of my country's interest. I shall therefore limit myself to a few general remarks.
As my country is among the least developed countries of the world, it has great attachment to FAO and its formidable, task. This is a result of many years' experience as a direct beneficiary of its fruitful development concern and assistance, primarily in food and agriculture and in related fields. On many occasions it was proved to us that since the establishment of this Organization its developing Member countries all over the world have benefited from it in terms of its technical assistance which has helped to reshape the development approaches and modalities to meet their respective conditions. FAO has been highly practical and operational to us in the light of our priorities. Of course, it is highly constrained by the limited, meagre resources put at its disposal by the international community. On the basis of our experience over the past six years, we have no doubt that a great many positive achievements will certainly be attained in the developing countries if the international community is willing to support the Director-General's minimal programme growth.
The problem of food scarcity in developing countries, particularly in Africa, which is due primarily to factors such as extremely archaic agricultural practices, decline of trade for agricultural produce favouring certain countries as a result of ever increasing protectionist tendencies and energy prices, and aggravated by natural and manmade crises, has at present exposed some 150 million people to the spectre of famine.
Various reliable findings indicate that agricultural production in most African countries decreased by 20 percent while the population increased by 3 percent in the rural areas and 10 percent in urban centres- In times of drought, agricultural production of those countries cannot even satisfy the needs of the peasant farmers themselves. In the light of this situation, practically all Member countries of FAO wholeheartedly supported the calls and concern of the Director-General as immediate and long-range solutions to reverse the current mounting imbalances in food production and consumption in the world on many occasions. Paradoxically, however, some countries from the North fail to support the level of budget while it is actually in agreement with the proposed actions which they have endorsed on a number of occasions.
My delegation wishes to view this as an attitude of recent development to curb the effectiveness and acceptance of multilateral efforts, since this would have complementarity to the current hunger plague, the great majority of us need to resist any effort of this nature directed at the leading United Nations body in food and agriculture. This is because the threat of this new strategy and zero growth is posed to adequate food production in developing countries and ultimately to peace and stability in the whole world.
Our position and support towards FAO is a sign of positive appraisal of its past performance and future. attempts and concerns in regard to mounting food and development problems facing the developing countries of the world. Such positive results achieved by the Organization would bring great satisfaction to both developed and developing countries and encourage the Director-General and his staff to progress further ahead.
FAO has and will have serious set-back from inflationary and similar problems. These problems and their remedial measures have thoroughly been analysed and presented in the document by the Director-General for the third time now. My delegation again joins the great majority of the members of this august session of the FAO Council who supported the proposed increase and use of the special reserve fund to meet unbudgeted costs. We are also extremely happy to learn that there is no special opposition to instruct the Director-General to authorize the use of this fund.
But proposing zero growth for the next two or three years with the excuse of inflationary difficulties that need to be met in specific countries -as though inflation were not a more serious problem for developing countries- astonishes us most of all. Moreover, the escalation of the armaments race is indeed a major concern to us, since the place for using the already existing sophisticated arms has never been in those countries where they were produced. This would add further difficulties and displacement to the already seriously affected population of the world through hunger and malnutrition.
We also give top priority to FAO's decentralization scheme as very well discussed by the Representative of India. We fully acknowledge and support the views expressed by the delegates of India and France. These countries have always been helpful in sharing with us their vast experience with great sincerity on many occasions. My delegation has the highest regard for them.
Finally, my delegation would like to conclude by saying that international assistance to developing countries, particularly through FAO, IFAD and similar bodies, should be substantially increased by all developed and able countries to resolve the growing crisis of hunger and malnutrition in these countries. These agencies must be protected against any sort of machinations and manoeuvres with no direct or indirect relevance to the need for the international community which is mainly the eradication of hunger and malnutrition from our continent.
My delegation has listened with great interest to the opening address of the Director-General of FAO. It is a reflection of true personal conviction towards the responsibilities and duties he is charged with and to humanity at large.
We endorse all of his proposed actions and conclusions in both the opening address and the document in front of us CL 79/3, with no reservations.
Mme F. LARBI (Observateur pour la Tunisie): Monsieur le Président, étant déléguée d'un pays en develops pement pour qui l'agriculture demeure la première priorité, non seulement dans le plan quinquennal en voie d'achèvement, mais également dans celui qui sera adopté l'année prochaine par la Chambre des députés, il ne sera surprenant pour personne que je déclare notre appui au sommaire du Programme de travail et de budget proposé pour le biennium 1982-83.
Le sommaire soumis à notre réflexion montre une politique de cohérence et de pragmatisme réaliste à laquelle nous a habitué le Directeur général.
Le Comité du programme, le Comité financier ont, d'après les rapports de leurs Présidents respectifs, fait un examen long et détaillé du document du secrétariat. Ils ont abouti à des remarques largement positives quant aux principaux objectifs et politiques indiqués par le Directeur général. Ces politiques visent à renforcer l'activité de la FAO sur le terrain en vue d'en faire un instrument plus efficace au service de pays membres.
Certes, il ne s'agit que d'un sommaire, mais nous pouvons d'ores et déjà mettre l'accent sur certains de ses traits saillants. Nous n'avons aucune difficulté à exprimer notre approbation sur les priorités et stratégies telles que décrites au Chapitre 5 du document CL 79/3 et à mettre l'accent sur certains programmes, notamment le programme d'assistance à la sécurité alimentaire, le programme de prévention des pertes alimentaires, le suivi de la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural, l'intensification des activités et services du Centre d'investissement de la FAO.
D'une façon générale, nous souscrivons aux conclusions des deux Comités techniques. De l'avis de ma délégation, il ne faudrait pas oublier le but essentiel de ces politiques, à savoir la projection de la FAO vers le terrain et sur le terrain, au lieu de favoriser le joug académique et les études.
Ainsi, passant de la théorie à l'action, la FAO ne peut se passer des initiatives concrètes ou les interrompre, débouchant nécessairement sur le renforcement du Programme de coopération technique et la poursuite de la décentralisation au niveau du pays.
Puis-je souligner, à propos de ce dernier point, l'appui de ma délégation à la déclaration de l'honorable délégué de l'Inde, qui a eu par ailleurs l'appui d'un grand nombre de délégations.
Ces initiatives prennent d'autant plus d'importance que nous assistons à une crise imminente des ressources des principales agences de financement, et notamment le PNUD. Nous déplorons cette situation et espérons que la tendance vers la baisse pourra changer de courant dans un proche avenir.
Puis-je ouvrir une parenthèse à ce sujet, pour m'étonner de constater l'incohérence de ceux qui réclament la restriction et l'austérité dans la lutte contre la faim. D'une part, ils se montrent, pour des raisons légitimes que je respecte, réticents à encourager les actions concrètent mais de portée financière modeste qu'entreprennent les institutions spécialisées, et notamment notre Organisation la FAO, et d'autre part, ceux-là même n'hésitent pas à se complaire à soutenir toute multiplication de mouvements de coordination et autres mécanismes de ce genre dont la finalité pour les pays développés ne peut être qu'un surcroît de contributions aux dépenses administratives sans cesse croissantes, du fait de ce phénomène, et pour les pays en développement un manque à gagner en ressources à allouer aux projets sur le terrain.
Pour revenir à notre programme, je dois souligner qu'en général la planification dans le pays veut que l'on envisage la programmation selon les besoins du pays. Aussi semble-t-il difficile à notre Organisation de concevoir ces activités, non selon les besoins, mais selon les ressources qu'on voudrait bien lui réserver.
J'en viens maintenant au niveau du budget. Dans les administrations nationales, le Ministère des finances n'accepte pas toujours avec joie les augmentations proposées par les départements techniques, nous le savons tous, mais il se rend à l'évidence que les activités ne peuvent rester statiques, car le besoin croît de jour en jour.
Nous devons reconnaître volontiers que le Directeur général a fait des efforts pour contenir ses requêtes à un niveau raisonnable. Certes, d'aucuns formulent certains doutes quant à quelques aspects des activités, d'autres bien au contraire les appuient. Mais l'Organisation est tenue de répondre aux voeux de ceux qui sont dans le besoin et qui nécessitent une intervention, c'est-à-dire la majorité.
En principe, il n'appartient pas au secrétariat de suggérer des réductions ou des coupes, mais aux membres du Conseil d'évaluer ce qui est proposé, à la lumière des besoins que l'Organisation doit affronter dans les pays.
Je ne veux pas dire par là, Monsieur le Président, que nous n'avons pas confiance dans le secrétariat et dans notre Directeur, d'autant plus que cette confiance lui a été témoignée par toutes les délégations. Mais leur remettre la responsabilité d'amputer un programme déjà si modeste sans tenir compte de la voix de la majorité, ne serait pas, à notre avis, un bon témoignage de notre volonté de les aider dans leur lourde tâche.
Monsieur le Président, il y a eu un débat et il n'y a aucune ambiguïté. Il ne sera pas difficile au secrétariat de voir si la tendance majoritaire se dessine pour l'altération du programme ou pour son maintien, même si tous les pays ne versent pas le même montant de contribution, et ce n'est que sur cette base que l'on peut demander au secrétariat de considérer les activités.
Aussi, je pense que le Conseil pourra formuler des encouragements pour les propositions qui lui sont soumises, et pourquoi pas ? exprimer son approbation, ne serait-ce que par un consensus.
La charge supplémentaire de ces propositions n'en sera que plus légère pour tout le monde puisqu'elle sera partagée entre tous les membres de l'Organisation.
Pour conclure, Monsieur le Président, notre souhait est de voir certains de nos Etats Membres nuancer leur position lors de notre prochaine Conférence, et ce, malgré les difficultés économiques, pour apporter leur soutien aux activités de notre Organisation, aux objectifs de laquelle ils n'ont jamais cessé de croire.
H. CARRION (Observador por Nicaragua): Como este tema ha sido motivo de activo debate entre los miembros del Consejo y se han expresado por muchas delegaciones conceptos, que compartimos plenamente, me limitaré a hacer una intervención breve y de carácter genérico.
Mi país reconoce de manera absoluta la importancia que tiene la FAO como organismo internacional cuyo objetivo principal es la erradicación del hambre y la desnutrición en el mundo.
Asimismo reconoce el dinamismo, la capacidad y efectividad que su Director General ha demostrado en la consecución de su objetivo.
Creo que todos los aquí presentes somos conscientes de estos hechos; que la FAO es una Organización de la Comunidad de las Naciones que persigue un difícil pero noble fin alcanzable con la concurrencia de la voluntad política de todos los gobiernos miembros de FAO.
La FAO en la ejecución de sus labores ha demostrado que ha cumplido con seriedad, eficiencia y economìa y que es digna de nuestra confianza. Por esa razón apoyamos el Programa de Labores para este bienio 1982/83 y su presupuesto tal como está contenido en el documento CL 79/3 ante nosotros.
Nicaragua, como en la mayoría de los miembros de los Comités de Programas y de Finanzas, y como la mayoría de las delegaciones aquí presentes, considera que el Presupuesto propuesto para las labores de FAO durante el próximo bienio, es el mínimo necesario para tratar de eliminar el hambre y la mal-nutrición mundial, precondición para el desarrollo. Las ideas vertidas en este Consejo por algunas delegaciones sobre el crecimiento cero es inaceptable. La sóla precaria situación de la seguridad alimentaria mundial, sobre todo en Africa, nos demuestra su inaceptabilidad. Sin embargo, existe otro hecho actual alarmante que es la reordenación económica y financiera interna para favorecer industrias de armamento de guerra en detrimento de los programas de cooperación internacional.
Permítame hacer una alusión particular a mi país. Nuestro gobierno tiene la firme voluntad política, los productores y la tierra suficiente para hacer de nuestro país un productor autosuficiente y hasta un exportador de alimentos. Pero nos hace falta la técnica y financiamiento, los insumos, la infraestructura para almacenarlos y distribuirlos. El país que financiaba y apoyaba incondicionalmente el régimen político anterior, ahora ha suspendido la colaboración a nuestro gobierno popular aduciendo justificaciones que han sido desautorizadas por sus propios medios internos de prensa. Esta es una fuerte razón por la que tornamos a la FAO para solicitar sus solemnes servicios para el desarrollo de nuestro pueblo. Todos los países miembros contribuímos en mayor o menor medida, según nuestras propias capacidades al Presupuesto de FAO. Debido a circunstancias particulares conocidas por todos, actualmente, nosotros hacemos un esfuerzo y sacrificio para cumplir con obligaciones financieras con el organismo, y estamos conscientes de que el Presupuesto de FAO debe ser suficientemente alto para cubrir las necesidades de países en desarrollo.
Las delegaciones de los países miembros que han expresado reservas al Presupuesto 1982-83, aungue no al Programa, transmitan a sus respectivos gobiernos las inquietudes expresadas en este Consejo, para que sean considerados detenida y justamente antes de la próxima Conferencia, en noviembre de este año.
H. CARANDANG (Observer for Philippines): I have listened with great interest to the intervention of the various delegations on this important issue and discussion. The representatives of the developing countries, one after the other, have given their full support, without any reservation, to the Programme of Work and Budget. Some of the developed countries, however, have indicated that they were not in a position to give any decision on the level of the budget at the present Council session and that they hoped that they would be able to do so only at the Conference. A few developed countries have indicated that at a time when their governments were unable to provide for real growth in their domestic spending due to the realities of the economic situation it was hard to justify real growth in the budget of international organizations, and therefore they have expressed the wish that in the FAO Programme of Work and Budget real growth should be zero.
The realities of the present economic situation, the problems of economic recession and inflation affect developing countries more seriously and more severely since this creates also unfavourable terms of trade for the developing countries. While the imports of the developing countries are adjusted to the inflation rate the prices of our exports are falling, thus placing a heavier burden on our debt-heavy economies. Prices of commodities exported by developing countries, as everybody knows, are down. By way of example, for 1980 up to the present, prices of copra are down by 50 percent, cocoa 20 percent, copper by 26 percent, rubber by 62 percent and so on and so forth. The realities of the present situation are hitting developing countries in a more severe way than the more developed countries. They will find it more difficult to pay for the present budget than the developed countries. Yet if the developing countries are giving their unanimous support to the budget there must be some real reason for this. In this connexion I would like to stress the following: first, that while it is the prime responsibility of the developing countries to increase agricultural and food production and achieve self-sustaining growth, we believe that FAO has its own role to play and can contribute in a significant way by their own efforts. To achieve the 4 percent growth in food and agricultural production to keep up with the population growth as stipulated by the IDS we need greater efforts, not less. A zero growth budget means stagnation at the level which has already been found to be insufficient. Secondly, I do not know if the economies that will be achieved by a zero growth budget will really mean an economy to those who advocate it. We know that development efforts have to be sustained; otherwise we cannot get any satisfactory results. Cutting the budget may mean stopping some development efforts and this may mean greater expenditure to start these anew later on. The economies that will be achieved by imposing a zero growth FAO budget will not solve the economic problems which those countries which advocate this are facing. Considering the amounts that are involved, this cannot have more than a marginal effect.
Finally, we should realize that what happens to the developing countries in the long run will also affect the developed countries. As Mr. Sayed Marei in his speech to the Novi Sad Session of the World Food Council stated very eloquently: "The Third World is already a vast market for goods for the developed countries. The figure is one-third for the exports of North America and Western Europe, it is nearer one half in the case of Japan. This means that what is happening in the poor countries is bound to reflect on the rich ones, and increasingly so. The demographic balance is such that the net additions to the world population in the next two decades 90 percent will be in the Third World. These are the future markets for the developed countries. So one faces the situation where two parties have clearly shared and converging interests, yet independent and self-interest production by each alone to solve their own problems is bound to affect the other party adversely. If one is to pursue self-centred rescue policies the result will be serious."
In view of this, this delegation respectfully submits that those countries which have made reservations in the budget will reconsider their own positions so that when they come back to the Conference they may be able to join the consensus.
CHAIRMAN: We have now gone through the list of speakers, both of Member and Observer countries. I will therefore give the floor to Mr. West to reply to some of the technical questions which have been put by some Members, after which the Director-General will have the floor.
E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I will first deal with the question of priorities. My colleagues and I have been ready to answer questions on priorities. There have not in fact been many, rather few. There was one general question on priorities and that was about a lack of detail. This connects with another general point raised, the need to examine activities carefully to eliminate those of low priority, marginal usefulness, and so on.
As one of the delegates remarked, this is a Summary Budget, and I do not think that anybody was asking for more detail in this document. But I would like to assure you that the process of preparing this document was extremely detailed. In my cupboards in my room there is a stack of submissions half a meter high going down to the programme elements. The number of pages - and I had one unfortunate member of my staff count them - was 1150 pages of narratives and tabular information. The number of programme elements considered was 1370, excluding those dealing with the accounting and servicing areas. Those were all examined in close collaboration with the officers concerned and a great deal of sifting, adjusting, reducing, cancelling and transferring was done; and only one example of the process is something of which another delegate complained, namely that in one or two sub-programmes there seemed to be a reduction or stagnation. I do not think that description is necessarily justified. It is rather a reflection of a judgement of how much is needed to carry out a priority, and as one other delegate remarked, just because something is of high priority does not mean that it always needs an increase. I see that certain delegates are nodding, but I will come back to that point in a moment. The process was intensive.
Some details have been requested on the subject of regional offices and FAO representatives. In that connexion I should like first to recall the decentralization process as it began in 1976/77. At that point we had had approved unanimously a budget providing for enormous increases in the regional offices as well as in Headquarters plus our share - quite a substantial share - of the then 62 senior agricultural advisers/country representatives. If that budget had not been changed in favour of transferring resources, principally to the Technical Cooperation Programme and to the new system of FAO Representatives at the country level, and we had gone on just at that level of increase, but no more than was originally proposed, we would now be expending $61,165,000 on those regional offices and on those SAACRs. So the transfer of resources to FAO representatives has not been a total addition to the budget, it has been a net addition and, in fact, it resulted in 100 percent coverage in 1978/79, nearly 80 percent coverage in 1980/81, and even in 1982/83 it will be nearly 60 percent coverage of the cost of the FAO representative scheme. This has meant some sacrifices. One is some sacrifice in the regional offices. I do not want to provoke further defence of or proposals for increases in regional offices but I must admit that the rate of increase in the regional offices in the last two or three biennia has been fairly small.
As regards FAO offices, the number of requests we have received from the start of the scheme has been 95, and 62 are now established or almost established. That establishment has been done on a carefully phased basis, as requested by one of the delegates and in fact it has been calculated that the average life of the 62 offices to date is less than 18 months. The proposed new 12 offices will not be established all at once, they too will be carefully phased. Details of the functions, the performance and the number of staff of those offices will be found in one of your Conference documents when it is largest contribution will be delayed very considerably during 1982/83, and this will greatly affect the cash flow of the Organization. So when we come to discuss the financial situation of the Organization next week, we will be putting before you the question of reviving the previously approved resolution for authority to borrow. But the point I am making now is that this situation does threaten the optimistic estimate for Miscellaneous Income.
Then when you are considering the question of contributions you also have to take into account the currency factor to which the Director-General referred this morning. You can't measure your contributions unless you assume a certain currency level, and this morning we started with the rate of 1197, which means that the budget level will be around 364 million if it stays at that rate, and that is the real budget level.
Two or three delegations referred to the subject of cost increases. One delegation asked to be told what was the rate of inflation used in calculating the cost increases. Obviously, we have failed in our explanation of the budget, at least as regards that single delegation, because I did try in that chapter to make it clear that we did not under any circumstances ever use one rate of inflation; we examined every category of item of expenditure and calculated the factors applying to that particular item, and I can assure the delegate that this was gone into in considerable depth by the Finance Committee. I can give you one or two details that they were given showing how we calculate the cost increases item by item.
Now let us take travel. The increase in Rome-New York-Rome -- and unfortunately, my colleagues and I have to go to New York a great deal to attend coordination meetings -- the increase in the fares between January 1980 and April 1981 was 44 percent. If you look at changes in unit costs in certain operating expenses -- I will read out at random from a list of nearly fifty increases during the coming biennium up to date; fuel oil for heating, 37 percent; methane gas,123 percent; maintenance of lifts, 51 percent; moquette -- that is the stuff you tread on -- 57 percent; toilet paper, 5 percent, but on the other hand, liquid soap, 45 percent, which is a rather fair proportion, I think; alcohol, 18 percent (I don't what that's doing there, I don't think it means the Commissary); Olivetti typewriters, 121 percent; the cupboard in which I keep these programme elements, 39 percent; executive chairs, 85 percent; secretarial chairs, 62 percent -- that's discrimination; rental of buses, 63 percent, and I am glad to say the rental of photocopying machines, minus 17 percent; filing cabinets, minus 7 percent, so I think the Finance Committee in reaching its judgement has had a fair amount of information on which to do so.
The details on page 32 we will go into with the Finance Committee again. We will try and explain them more clearly in the full Programme of Work and Budget.
How much did we spend in lire? 60 to 65 percent.
A very interesting question was raised about full budgeting, and it was suggested that we were perhaps too alarmist. The delegates should study the figures given in Supplement 1, because that shows that if we have been guilty of bad judgement, it has been totally on the other side. We have in the last ten years always underestimated rather than overestimated, so I really feel that we can justify ourselves on that account. It is attractive to think that we might be in the same position as the United Nations and be able to come to you or the Conference every year to get $100 million in supplementaries for cost increases, but I think we are much more modest than that, and we have therefore proposed only to expand the special reserve account on a rather modest basis. You will be dealing with that next week. Now, some suggestions were made that we should cut administrative and servicing costs,, and I could not agree with that more, and we will go on trying to do this in order to feed any savings into the substantive programmes. But as many delegates have pointed out, we have proposed serious cuts in administration, and I think that we are unique in the UN system, even in these times, in proposing cuts in public information. I think this should be noted in various quarters. Furthermore, our expenditure on public information is directed very much to the problems of disseminating information about the world food and agricultural situation, about the development process and to development support communication.
The delegate who was talking about full budgeting also made some comments about coordination, and I will resist the temptation to join in his schizophrenia, his self-admitted schizophrenia, except on one point that I can't resist. One of the savings in this area of administration happens _to be also in the area of coordination, and this concerns the IOB, the Inter-Organization Board. Along with all other organizations in the United Nations system, we unanimously agreed that this Board was not fulfilling the functions for which it had been set up, could not do so, furthermore it had no hope of doing so ever, given the budgetary amounts involved, and therefore should be cut down very considerably. This was a decision of the ACC. Nevertheless, the Committee on Programme Coordination in New York got very angry about the matter and under the leadership of three countries from the developed world said that we must not do it, and this means that a million dollars over the system will not be saved, and the implication is that ten million more will have to be spent. Now, this is indeed schizophrenia. Can we make more cuts in administration in order to adjust the priorities? Frankly, I think that this is more a matter of cliche than of anything else. We cannot reach zero growth or any other target the Conference might set by tinkering with evaluation and administrative savings. One has to face up to the fact that the $22 million proposed programme increases are for certain substantive programmes. It is a matter of policy whether you want them or not and whether you want to pay for them or not, and on that I will defer to the Director-General as being his field rather than mine.
DIRECTOR GENERAL: Mr. Chairman, this has been a full and for me very interesting debate. I have listened very carefully to what has been said. I shall take it in account in preparing the full version of the Program of Work and Budget. I should like to make a few comments on some issue that have been raised.
I am very glad to note that the overwhelming majority has fully endorsed the programmes and priorities, and the balance of allocations between them and the budget level, and I wish to thank all those who have supported my proposals. I am happy for this support. I appreciate how they not only saw these proposals as responsive to worlds, regional and national situations, but obviously spoke from their heart about the worth of FAO.
I would also say that I appreciate the position of the few delegations who have apparently not closed their minds but are genuinely reserving their position until the Conference. This holds out the hope that by then, by the time of the Conference they will have re-assessed the real and comparative cost of what I have proposed and will reach a positive conclusion in due course.
To others who have been less positive in some respects, I recognize that they have the duty - indeed they doubtless have strong instructions - and the right to express their Governments' views, whether they find themselves in a majority or minority.
It is my duty to pay heed to the views of all Member Nations. In this connection, I would like to stress that I am fully conscious of the difficulties facing the developed countries at the present time.
Some of these difficulties spring, of course, from differences between themselves on economic and trade issues, as well as from internal problems.
However their difficulties also have very serious consequences for the economies of developing countries. We all, without exception, regret this state of affairs and want to work together to bring about a better situation, but in this context, the question of FAO's budget level is hardly of ' primal significance. I will say more on this point in a moment.
I have the feeling that much of the discussion about economic problems as applied to FAO's budget has been symbolic. The Organization is, however, also a symbol. It is a symbol of the efforts of the people of all nations to tackle the grave problems of the world food situation, particularly in the case of a large number of African countries, beset by inadequate food production, emergencies, disasters, large movements of refugees, and suffering from malnutrition.
In the past few years, we have seen a number of Governments brought down by popular discontent with economic hardship, in particular food shortage and high food prices. More recently, we have noted reports of serious political problems and even of riots focused on attempts to achieve more ralistic pricing policies.
The Organization is much more than a symbol. The Regular Programme of FAO is in fact essential to the fulfilment of FAO's basic roles as a world centre of information, a policy forum, a centre for technical advice and assistance, and an executing agent of large extra-budgetary programmes.
Yet, despite this and despite FAO's proven successes, the Organization has for a number of years had a smaller budget and - as a number of delegates have pointed out - a lower rate of growth than those of other comparable organizations.
I did not however base my proposals for programme growth in 1982-83 on such pre-conceptions. My proposals were based on concrete conclusions that I reached after into account the need to steer a careful course between the pressures constituted by demand for FAO's services, the economic and financial circumstance not only of the major contributors, but also of the poorer countries.
The poor countries have made it clear that they are more than willing to pay their equal shares of a modest increase. They have fully, supported the budget level as the minimum required.
I am therefore very sorry that, as revealed in certain statements at this meeting, a certain group of countries in a letter last October, in Press statements in April, and in a more recent letter, has perceived FAO' s situation solely in terms of an "across-the-board" zero-growth position.
It is for this reason that I now therefore want to place before them and you one simple fact which I believe is compelling.
Their demand was and is for zero-growth in programme. They never raised the question of currency rates. At 820 lire to the dollar, the total budget I proposed was $414 million. Of this, $22 million is for programme growth, plus $7.6 million for costs thereon, let us say $30 million in all.
Very well, let us deduct $30 million from $414 million to get the equivalent of zero-growth. The result is $384 million. This is zero growth.
What level am I in fact proposing in real dollars? Am I proposing $384 million? No, Mr. Chairman, I am proposing only $366 million at yesterday's lire/dollar rate, perhaps it will be only $360 million at the lire/dollar rate in a few days' or weeks' time.
I was hoping that this group of countries would be satisfied with this development which results in not just a cut of $30 million, but a cut of $50-55 million in the budget level.
I repeat Mr. Chairman, surely with good will, the doctrine of zero-growth could be adjusted to the actual fact, as I have just described to you, here in FAO.
I feel confident,knowing the sympathy of our friends here for FAO, that they will faithfully report to their Governments and that before instructions are finalized for the forthcoming Conference, all Member Governments will review the position fully and sympathetically, bearing in mind when they so do the views of the great majority and the true facts.
I venture to hope that in the event all Governments will manifestly continue to demonstrate in tangible form the past noble and distinguished character of their support to the Organization and its Regular Programme.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion I would like to thank you and all the delegates for all their views, and especially for the many kind remarks they have made.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Director-General, for this very good summing up.
This debate which we have been having for the past two days has been a great encouragement to me, and I am sure also to the Director-General. You are all delegates, and you represent your governments, and as the Director-General said, it is your duty to state the policies of your governments. This you have done.
In the past we used to have very heated discussions, mud-slinging and very bad temper at budget sessions, and this is understandable because we are talking about money, and the world is divided into rich and poor and the rich do not like to give so much and the poor want more, and so on -- so this is understandable. But this year we have behaved in a way which shows that we are all human beings dedicated to one objective -- that is the eradication of hunger and malnutrition -- and FAO through this modest budget is in fact contributing to this aim. Even if delegates are against or do not support the budget fully, there is no bitterness and no real enmity or anything like that towards the budget, and on the part of those who want more there is no bitterness either, and what this goes to show is that we, you, can influence governments in the way you talk to each other and the way you hear each other talk because you each have your own point of view which is discussed freely in a calm atmosphere.
The summing up of the debate itself is very simple because there have not been the usual acrimonious exchanges. But still there are a few things which have stood out quite well which I would point out to you.
There was no detailed discussion of items or sub-items, etc; which are technical issues, and this is quite rightly so because your technical committees -- your committees on Agriculture and Fisheries, etc. and the Programme and Finance Committees, have gone into great depth on these technical points. They have reported freely, and some of the reports we are going to take later. Therefore it is not surprising, and it is proper, that you concentrated on policy issues.
There are two policy issues that stood out very clearly. One is the question of implementation of the decentralization to the country level, the completion of the programme of establishment of country representatives. Some delegates have said that this programme should be slowed down. From my observation, these delegates are from developed countries who do not have these offices in their countries. On the other hand, the great majority of people, all from the developing countries, have spoken against this, and they have urged that the Programme should be completed, that they want these Country Representatives, and that they want the regional offices.
This is also not a very difficult matter to decide, because if the country offices are not serving a useful purpose nobody would think they should be there. And therefore the fact that not a single developing country has spoken against them is, I think, proof that these Country Offices are serving a useful purpose. In any case, the great majority of Members wish the Director-General to complete this programme.
The second issue on which there was a basic debate is of course the level of the budget, and this revolves around the zero growth views of some Members. I took careful note of all the debates, and all 49 Members spoke. Now of the 49 Members, 40 supported the Director-General's proposals, and they spoke against zero growth in the budget. Of the 9, 4 did not reject the budget, they reserved their position; and 5 definitely said they did not support it. However, I think we can take this as a fact that "no" -as one delegate put it - does not really mean they would not meet their obligations when it came to the time to pay. This has always been so: the countries that pay the most, of course, feel the pinch and they always complain and they groan and they never say: yes, we will give you everything you want now. But they have always paid and I think this is the most important thing.
So we have heard all this and you all have expressed your views. You do not doubt the difficulties and I am sure that those who cannot now make up their minds, as the Director-General has said, will, when they go home, try to convince their colleagues in the Ministries, who are very hostile. I know this; they are very hostile and it is very difficult to imagine how much pressure is put on all of you to support one or the other view, especially those who are opposed to any increase. They are very difficult to deal with, but I am sure that what has happened in the debate will strengthen the resolve of those Members to talk to their colleagues; and, if necessary, I volunteer - and this is sincere - I will come to any country and talk to any parliamentary groups, because if they say the Director-General is building an empire, I am not. I can talk to any group so that we will be able to show them that what FAO is doing is sincere. There is really no waste in it, there is nothing hidden in it.
Therefore, these are the two very important issues which will, I am sure, come out in our report. But I can say in summing up that the Director-General has got a firm directive from us, from the Council to go ahead and prepare the full Programme of Work and Budget for submission to Council in November and to Conference from us. He can, with the mandate, with the debate that has taken place, go ahead and prepare the full Programme of Work and Budget so that we can, when we come back, look at what he has done in detail, what Mr. West and his colleagues have done, in detail, and debate again, if there is anything that he does not like.
This brings us to the end of our debate on this item and I wish again to thank you for your patience.
The meeting rose at 18.00 hours
La séance est levée à 18 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.00 horas
