Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


10. Programme of Work and Budget, 1982-83
10. Programme de travail et budget, 1982-83
10. Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1982-83

11. Medium-Term Objectives (Including Agricultural Research in Developing Countries)
11. Objectifs à moyen terme (notamment la recherche agricole dans les pays en développement)
11. Objetivos a medio plazo (incluida la investigación agrícola en los países en desarrollo

As you know, this item, the Programme of Work and Budget, has been discussed in summary since March or even before, by various Committees of the Council, Technical Committees and so on. It culminated in our own discussion of the Summary in June and July when we met, and now, since then, the Programme and Finance Committees have considered the detailed Programme of Work and Budget in their meetings last September and October. I was at the meetings: there were very, very thorough discussions, chapter by chapter, item by item and we are going to listen to the Chairmen of the two Committees who will tell us and guide us in what their Committees have so far done.

There is no need for us to call on the Director-General or the Secretariat to introduce this item again because they have done it, but they are here to answer all questions that you may raise. In our discussions we have to keep in mind that next week Commission II is going to discuss this matter for many days and therefore it may not be productive for us to go into minute details here now. As I indicated yesterday, I hope that we will have a consensus on a Conference level of the Budget. Two weeks ago there was the Heads of State Meeting in Cancún and one of the most important things they discussed was food and agriculture. I think the spirit of Cancún should prevail here so that we start with a consensus which will be favourable to agricultural development, and that of course starts here in FAO which is the lead agency for food and agriculture in the United Nations system. I am sure that we will come up with the consensus which will be pleasing to all concerned.

I have been informed that Item 11, which is put for this afternoon, Medium-Term Objectives, will be taken along with Item 10. I am sure you have read the document and in any case, that too is going to be thoroughly discussed, but those aspects that are relevant to the Programme of Work and Budget will be taken together.

Then, I should like to draw your attention to a relevant document which has been circulated recently, or yesterday. It is C 81/INF/20, entitled Programme of Work and Budget 1982-83. There is some very important information in that document which you might like to read in conjunction with the Programme of Work and Budget itself.

I would now like to call on the Chairman of the Programme Committee to introduce the work of this Committee.

M. TRKULJA (Chairman of the Programme Committee): I have again been asked by my friend and colleague, Mr. Bel Hadj Amor, to introduce the joint parts of the Report and, with your indulgence, I will do it very briefly indeed. Following the well-established tradition, the Committees confined their joint session to the most important general features of the Programme of Work and Budget including, quite naturally, the issue of the Programme and Budget level, an issue of obviously overwhelming importance to member governments. I would say that the Committees could not but start with the urgent need for more rapid growth in food and agriculture in developing countries. In that context we reiterated the unique role FAO had to play in assisting these countries and the international community in that regard. The Committee has again reached full unanimity in regard to the strategies and priorities proposed by the Director-General in both Programme of Work and Budget and Medium-Term Objectives. .The strategies and priorities as embodied in the Programmes and sub-Programmes in our. view reflected faithfully the policy guidance established by the Council as confirmed by Conference in 1976 and 1977 respectively.

Naturally, again, the Committees did not confine themselves to Regular Programme resources only. Of course, taking into account the close inter-relationship between Regular and field programmes and the obvious needs for assisting resources based on its integrity, the Committees expressed concern at the likelihood of decreasing UNDP Fund activities in real terms in years to come. We were also concerned with trends now prevailing in the trust funds which could even lead to reduced support of FAO's Action Programmes.

Briefly, the Committees obviously felt that in considering the Regular Programme, sight could not be lost of the programmes based on extra-budgetary funds.

Coming now to the Budget level, I could not but keep closely to the positions that were carefully phrased out at the joint session. The majority, as we have said in our Report, taking into account the urgency, severity and magnitude of the problems and the reiterated priority given to food and agriculture by developing countries themselves, as well as by the international community, fully supported as a minimum the level of the budget proposed in the Programme of Work and Budget document. Four members - and you can see from the footnote attached to the relevant paragraph that those members were representing Australia, Canada, Sweden and the United States of America - while commending the relevance and efficiency of FAO and supporting the thrust of the Programme, were compelled to continue to reserve their positions at that time, on the level of the budget proposed. In addition, one member stated that his government had not yet taken a position on the budget level. In brief, the situation in the Committees has by and large remained the same as it was in April and May. Though the Committees, at the initiative of the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Bel Hadj Amor, considered the problem of Headquarters accommodation in the Joint Session, I shall leave the whole subject to him, as I realise the detailed views of the Finance Committee on that subject will be presented to the Council later on.

Now, coming to the Programme Committee report, I am afraid I can do very little indeed to avoid repetition of what I referred to the Council last time. The reason is, I think, obvious: both the Programme of Work and views in the Committee have remained in essence the same as compared with the summary stage. What is to a certain degree new is related to the format of the Programme of Work and Budget document and indeed we unanimously concluded that the format was substantially improved as a result of the harmonious relationship between the Committees and the Council on the one side, and the Secretariat on the other. While the Programme Committee was in general agreement with the substance of the Director-General's observation on the world background, in particular with the aspects more or less directly relevant to the FAO Programme, of course full agreement on a broad spectrum of general issues was difficult to achieve. Some members felt that a different shade of emphasis could have been put on such issues as food imports and self-sufficiency, but one member made the point that less stress should have been put on external systems and more on greater self-reliance, including better incentives to farmers and increased orientation to market forces.

We agree, despite the differing views on some issues of a general nature, general agreement was reached in the Committee with regard to the strategies and priorities proposed by the Director-General, particularly to the high priority placed on all programmes for Africa, then emphasis on energy problems, the urgent need for improving international trade in agricultural commodities, the present need for further increase in priorities attached to agriculture in national development programmes of developing countries, etc.

The Committee also welcomed further harmonization between regular and field activities, reiterated its support to special action programmes and expressed again its concern at lack of resources for these programmes.

With regard to the food production growth in developing countries in the seventies of 3.2 percent or 3.3 percent, the Committee felt that it was a substantial improvement over the previous decade, especially taking into account the deteriorating external conditions for development of these countries. However, it was stressed that the growth was still far behind the internationally agreed minimum target of 4 percent.

The views in the Committee diverged to a certain degree with regard to the gravity of the present food situation but nevertheless the Committee agreed that the situation was sufficiently, as we said, serious to call for a broad spectrum of international action and especially calling for the need for more effective and efficient action by FAO.

The Committee welcomed very much the proposed programme increase being mainly allocated to technical and economic programmes. We are also pleased with the proposed continuation'of the decentralization process in general which is intended to make the FAO action at the country level more efficient. Consequently we are satisfied with the restraints on the administrative costs and posts.

We again stressed the need for further use of consultants and national institutions. However, in the same context two members expressed the view that even further savings in administrative costs could be achieved. They specifically referred to FAO representatives and the regional offices.

I failed to mention another point, quite a traditional one, that we agreed fully with the proposed activities in support of ECDC and TCDC activities. It was a very strong point in the Committee.

Now again on the budget level, I have to refer to the majority and the minority unfortunately. As you can see from our report the majority welcomes and was positive the Director-General had fully taken into account the majority view expressed in the Programme and Finance Committees and in the Council and that he realistically reviewed the events subsequent to the last Council Session. With all this in mind the majority did not accept the concept of zero growth, least not as regards FAO. The majority strongly supported the budget level proposed by the Director-General. Two members, however, due to the reasons that they had explained at the Spring session of the Committee reserved the positions of their governments at the budget level. They wanted to underline that in joining in the comments on the major programmes, programmes and sub-programmes, they in no way prejudiced the positions of their governments on the level of the budget, and the voluntary nature, as they expressed themselves, of the character of the contribution to the special action programmes. One member in addition was not able to state the position of his government with regard to the budget level since the formal decision by the government had not yet been taken.

I do not think I could go into any further detail with regard to the programmes and sub-programmes. I would hope that the views of the Programme Committee were self-evident and more or less the same views that we referred to the Council the last time. I want to draw the attention of the Council to only two points, two reservations and one is at page 12 with regard to the FAO representatives and where two members expressed in a way reservation or differing views. They felt that perhaps having in mind the present difficult economic circumstances the proposed extension of the scheme could be stretched over more than one biennium; and another one, on the next page, with regard to the Technical Cooperation Programme, where only one member expresses a view that the Programme could be at the same level in real terms though he fully appreciated the usefulness and efficiency of the programme.

That is all that I feel necessary to say. Of course, I am open to any question or qualification that the members of the Council may wish me to give.

CHAIRMAN: Can you also introduce the medium-term objectives so that we do not have to come back to it?

M. TRKULJA (Chairman of the Programme Committee): Perhaps I was not too explicit in saying that we considered medium-term objectives as it was decided after all by the Council in together with the Programme of Work and Budget and the references were made here and there on the medium-term objectives, though we did not really consider separately the document on medium-term objectives.

I may say perhaps that the Committee felt that the document, of a rather standardized form now, was very useful but with certain weaknesses that have always been recognized by the Committee and the Council. That means the document continues to be presented according to the wish of the Council in a narrative form without quantitative targets and with only a certain fairly loose list of priorities, but in general the Committee was in full agreement with the document and it felt that the document really served its purpose. So that is, very briefly, what I can say on behalf of the Committee with regard to the medium-term objectives document.

M. BEL HADJ AMOR (Président du Comité financier): Les résultats de l'examen du programme de travail et budget par le Comité des finances qui sont soumis au Conseil dans les paragraphes 3.3 à 3.27 complètent en quelque sorte les commentaires du Comité financier présentés au Conseil dans son rapport de la 47ème session du printemps dernier.

En premier lieu, je voudrais faire noter au Conseil que le Comité n'a pas manqué de relever l'amélioration de la présentation du document, qui, par les nombreux détails qui y sont contenus, répondent déjà aux multiples questions soulevées par le Comité à sa session de printemps.' A cet égard, le Comité a suggéré, par souci d'économie, qu'il serait peut-être indiqué de simplifier la présentation sans pour autant altérer la qualité de la substance.

En général, le Comité financier a réitéré son approbation pour les priorités retenues et qui sont justifiées, du moins à son avis, par la situation alimentaire mondiale.

A présent, je voudrais bien attirer l'attention du Conseil sur certains points spécifiques du rapport, et qui sont relatifs bien sûr aux questions présentées dans le document du Secrétariat. Je commence par la question la plus importante à savoir le niveau du budget. Le Conseil a certainement noté que le budget a été recalculé sur un nouveau taux de change, toujours provisoire bien sûr, mais qui tient compte davantage de la réalité des fluctuations actuelles. Au taux de 1 175 lires pour un dollar le niveau du budget devient ainsi 368 016 millions de dollars. D'ailleurs, le Conseil a certainement noté dans le document du Secrétariat qu'il y a d'autres taux de change possibles qui figurent au paragraphe 4.29 du document du Secrétariat et qui donnent une idée de leur effet sur ce niveau. Ce tableau a été jugé très utile par le Comité des finances. A cet égard, le Comité, à l'exception de deux membres qui réservent leur position, a exprimé de nouveau son appui pour le niveau du budget proposé.

Le second point spécifique qui doit attirer l'attention du Conseil concerne la question des frais de soutien. Le Conseil n'est pas sans savoir que ce sujet a toujours été au centre des préoccupations du Comité, eu égard à ses répercussions sur le budget du Programme ordinaire de l'organisation. Ces préoccupations risquent de devenir plus vives quand on considère la nouvelle politique du PNUD en matière de remboursement des frais de soutien, politique qui est reflétée dans le paragraphe 3.9 et qui a fait auparavant l'objet d'examens de la part du Comité et du Conseil.

La situation financière du PNUD ne semble pas particulièrement prospère et je vous renvoie à cet égard aux paragraphes 3.114 et 3.120 du rapport du Comité qui illustrent au Conseil cette situation.

Aussi peut-on assister à une diminution du taux d'exécution des projets FAO/PNUD avec un accroissement des frais de soutien. Néanmoins, le Comité estime que la qualité du soutien à l'ensemble des programmes et projets doit être maintenue sous tous les aspects. Il est également à souligner à l'attention du Conseil que la Conférence aura à considérer cette question et à prendre une décision.

Le troisième aspect qui intéresse le Conseil a trait aux augmentations des coûts. La méthodologie utilisée pour le calcul de ces augmentations de coûts a été illustrée au Comité ainsi qu'au Conseil à leurs précédentes sessions et elle a été étoffée par le document intégral du Programme de travail et budget par des nouveaux éléments qui la rendent encore plus claire.

C'est pourquoi, le Comité confirme son appréciation pour cette méthodologie et la considère toujours valable. Les estimations du coût de la vie du Comité se révèlent acceptables et ce à la lumière des éclaircissements supplémentaires qui ont été fournis par le Secrétariat en réponse aux nombreuses questions soulevées par le Comité.

Le Comité n'a pas manqué de reconnaître l'effort du Secrétariat pour contenir, sinon réduire, les coûts notamment dans le secteur administratif, le personnel, la documentation, les réunions et, à cet égard, il prodigue ses encouragements pour cette politique. Il a obtenu des précisions sur la situation des effectifs, situation qui vous est reflétée au paragraphe 3.16 ainsi que le nombre des reclassements, tout en notant que ces derniers ne concernent que 2, 8 pour cent environ du nombre total des postes au titre du Programme ordinaire.

Concernant la documentation, les réunions et la rubrique des consultants, le Comité estime que malgré les efforts du Directeur général les dépenses restent importantes. Néanmoins, dans le cas des consultants, le Comité reconnaît qu'un certain nombre de facteurs qui vous sont reportés au paragraphe 3.21 justifient l'augmentation en programmes et en coûts proposés.

Par ailleurs, le Comité s'est penché sur les chapitres 1, 5, 6, 7 et 8 conjointement avec les aspects pertinents du document "Objectifs à moyen terme". Des réponses satisfaisantes ont été fournies aux points de détail soulevés par le Comité à propos de divers programmes. En particulier le Comité a décidé d'examiner à ses sessions futures les moyens de réaliser des économies dans certains grands documents de la Conférence et a recommandé que les charges communes soient maintenues a un minimum.

Enfin, à propos des recettes accessoires, le Comité envisage d'examiner à un stade ultérieur les procédures des pratiques actuelles concernant l'utilisation de cette rubrique et éventuellement de les assouplir.

Enfin un dernier mot à propos du document "Objectifs à moyen terme": Un membre estime que, dans la forme actuelle de présentation de ce document, il doit formuler certains doutes quant à l'utilité du document tel qu'il nous est présenté actuellement. Je tiens a préciser que ce n'est pas la première fois que ce membre a présenté des commentaires et je tiens également à préciser qu'aucun des autres membres ne l'a suivi dans cette voie.

CHAIRMAN: The subject is now open for discussion. Could I also say that you can make your comments on the medium-term objectives as well. I do not have any speakers. Perhaps everybody agrees.

G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Nuestra delegación vacila un poco al intervenir esta mañana porque como todos sabemos, este documento que es el más importante pasa inmediatamente a la consideración de la Conferencia, que iniciaremos el sábado proximo. Sin embargo, el Gobierno de Colombia desea reafirmar su más pleno apoyo a las estrategias de la FAO, a la acción de nuestra Organización, a las prioridades, a los nuevos métodos de trabajo y al nivel del Presupuesto. Creemos que lo que se propone es el mínimo con que debe contar la FAO en el proximo bienio. No deseamos ya insistir en las razones que nos han animado, desde junio pasado, para asumir esta actitud de la delegación de Colombia en franco y pleno apoyo a las propuestas del Director General; pero solo queremos reconocer el hecho de que estas propuestas son realistas, basadas en la eliminación de actividades ya superadas o de menor prioridad, y en el reforzamiento de aquellas actividades que requieren alta prioridad, con los cambios correspondientes en la distribución de los recursos; o sea que el Director General ha hecho el máximo esfuerzo para someter sus propuestas a las revisiones que se le han venido solicitando.

Hay algo que particularmente atrae la atención de nuestra delegación, y que fue reforzado por una intervención que tuvimos ocasión de escuchar en una reunion del Grupo de los 77, sobre los orígenes de la actitud, respetuosa desde luego, de quienes propugnan el crecimiento cero y se oponen a este mínimo aumento del programa de nuestra Organización.

Esos detalles que nos inquietan están muy bien reflejados en la introducción del Director General al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto. Decía que atraen nuestra atención porque parece, por lo menos curioso sino un poco paradójico, que mientras se felicita al Director General, se reconocen adecuadas las prioridades de las estrategias y la acción de la FAO, se destaca la gravedad de la situación alimentaria mundial, se hacen llamados para solucionar los graves problemas que padece la humanidad en este campo, por otro lado se nieguen los recursos, mínimos recursos, para que la FAO pueda cumplir las funciones esenciales que todos le reconocen en la solución de esos problemas.

Estos hechos nos han dado la impresión de que ahora se está conformando una nueva modalidad de colonialismo: el colonialismo alimentario, que seguiría al colonialismo político, que después de pasar al colonialismo económico ahora está degenerando en lo que podríamos llamar, repito, colonialismo alimentario.

En el párrafo 14 de la introducción del Director General se afirma que la Reserva Alimentaria Interna-cional de Emergencia es insuficiente, poco segura e imprevisible; en vez de ser auténticamente multilateral, como se ha recomendado, es en gran parte medida de un conjunto incierto de intereses y acuerdos bilaterales.

En el párrafo 17 se dice que la dependencia de muchos países de importaciones de alimentos cada vez mayores sigue siendo peligrosa y onerosa. En el párrafo 66 se afirma que si los países con déficits de alimentos continuaran dependiendo de las importaciones de cereales, su estabilidad política, económica y social estará cada vez más amenazada. Esto dice el Director General en su introducción al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto, y son estas afirmaciones las que conllevan a nuestra delegación a afirmar que estamos en presencia de una nueva forma de colonialismo: el colonialismo alimentario, que no permite que los países que pueden solucionar sus problemas de alimentación y de agricultura, logren mejoramientos porque así perderían la dependencia que se pretende asegurar de los países industrializados.

Unas breves palabras sobre los Objetivos a Plazo Medio. Ya que vamos a tratar conjuntamente también el documento C 81/9, es evidente que este documento, a través de los años, ha ido evolucionando de acuerdo con las directrices de los órganos rectores. En discusiones anteriores se han examinado las ventajas y los inconvenientes de suprimir este documento e irlo incorporando al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto. La forma actual corresponde a la decisión adoptada en el sentido de que, por el momento, se mantenga como documento separado. Sin embargo al leer el documento C 81/9, tenemos la impresión de que por fuerza de los hechos hay redundancias que se pretendían evitar, sobre todo cuando como es recomendable, se lee ese documento junto con el Examen del Programa Ordinario, el Estado Mundial de la Agricultura y Alimentación, y la Agricultura hacia el Año 2000.

Ya el Presidente del Comité de Finanzas hizo alguna referencia a la posición de un miembro que actuó en la reunion de los dos Comités. Nosotros no compartimos las críticas a la forma actual del documento, pero sí propondríamos que se suprima ese documento, que se suprima el documento de Objetivos a Plazo Medio y se incorporen esos objetivos en el texto mismo del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto. El hecho de que los dos Comités en su reunion conjunta y en forma separada lo hayan tratado conjuntamente, que conjuntamente vaya a ser tratado en la Comisión Segunda de la Conferencia, y que conjuntamente lo estemos tratando ahora, ya nos indica la posible conveniencia de que se suprima ese documento y se incorporen los Objetivos en el texto mismo del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto, y ojalá que sobre esta propuesta haya reacción de los miembros del Consejo para que podamos transmitir algunas recomendaciones, en cualquier sentido, a la Conferencia.

H.L. CHAWLA (India): In his detailed introduction to this subject, the Director-General has very clearly highlighted the world background, the world food situation and food security and long-term goals on international policy. It is within this setting that the Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium 1982-83 has been drawn up. The record of previous discussion shows that in regard to the priorities and programmes for 1982-83 there has been virtually complete unanimity from all countries. There could be indeed scope for differences in emphasis when the question of procedures for implementation of work content arises, but one notices unanimity on the objectives and the framework of the programme. Here we want to once again reiterate the stand taken by India in the last meeting of the Council as well as the last Session of the Programme Committee. We feel that FAO's record in regard to efficiency and economy has been outstanding. In fact, for most of the countries, the canvas of agriculture is nearly as wide as life. One cannot ignore the numerous issues which are arising in the context of the growth of knowledge and technology.

Since there will be detailed discussion on this item in Commission II of the Conference, I would not like to go into the details of the Programme of Work and Budget. This concept of zero growth somehow looks a little surprising in the present context. When the concern of the international community on the persistence of hunger and malnutrition on such a massive scale in various parts of world, more particularly recently in Africa, is so deep, it surely calls for acceleration of effort, and I think the concept of zero growth in relation to activities in this vital field does not seem to fit in with the almost universal feeling for improving the situation of hunger, malnutrition and poverty in the world.

To sum up, my delegation would once again extend strong support to the Programme of Work and Budget as well as the level of the budget, which we consider the minimum necessary for fulfilling the task which we have set for the Organization.

F. PETRELLA (ARGENTINA): Voy a ser sumamente breve porque dentro de pocos días vamos a discutir este tema en el seno de la Conferencia.

Quisiera agradecer los informes que han presentado los Sres. Presidentes del Comité del Programa y del Comité de Finanzas y repetir aquí que la posición argentina está en favor del nivel de presupuesto que hemos tenido como proposición, dada la situación alimentaria existente en el mundo y, en consecuencia, por los esfuerzos que er, tai sentido se van a requerir a nuestra Organización-.

M. GHASSI (Syria) (Original language Arabic): I should first of all like to express my thanks to those who have prepared this document on the Programme of Work and Budget. This document clearly and sincerely expresses all the recommendations of our Council at the last Session. We think that the level suggested for the budget is indeed totally in line with the level laid down by the Council decision. This is a level which is a minimum and will enable the Organization to assume the different tasks entrusted to it during the 1982-83 budget year.

Looking at the details of the document, we note that the Programmeand Finance Committees have both approved the level of the budget suggested, and thus we feel that the Council should recommend at its present Session that these proposals by the Director-General should be adopted and that any recommendations in this connexion should be further conveyed to the General Conference.

In this connexion, we should like to launch an appeal to the countries that have made reservations in this regard. We should appeal to them to look at their decision once again, particularly as they accepted the priorities and the strategy proposed, taking due account of the fact that the increase suggested does not go beyond $ 11 million, and the Organization in 1980 on a budget of $ 180 million was able to carry out agricultural projects within the limit of $ 3 million. It has trained 7 000

people in the Member countries and organized approximately 100 conferences, and thus we must pay tribute to the wise policy of the five previous years in the field of savings made regionally, nationally, and also the concentration of efforts in the framework of the use of human activities in the field, and this with respect to the document we have before us, namely C 81 INF 20 on the Programme of Work and Budget for the 1982-83 period.

Annex C, comparison between the different posts created: in this connexion, my delegation would like to mention the recommendations and decisions of the Cancón Conference, where 22 developed and developing countries met, and they unanimously condemned the situtation of poverty and malnutrition prevailing throughout the world and decided to afford priority to agriculture on the national and international levels.

We approve the idea that the budget be developed, because you cannot develop agriculture unless you have continuous support for it. It is our moral duty to give support to the Organization in order to enable it to carry out its task and fulfill its goals, and therefore we do not agree with the zero growth rate.

M.A. AZAMI (Afghanistan): The delegation of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan fully supports the Director-General's Programme of work and budget for 1982-83. The programmes and activities proposed by the Director-General are of high priority and most relevant to the needs and aspirations of the developing countries. The Director-General has asked for a minimum increase without which the Organization could not perform its obligations to the world community.

My delegation fully shares the views of many other members of the Council who have expressed their endorsement of the 1982-83 FAO budget as submitted by the Director-General.

O. AWOYEMI (Nigeria): The Nigerian delegation has studied the Programme of Work and Budget for the 1982-83 biennium and also the documents entitled: "Medium-Term Objectives". The medium-term objectives are in our view very relevant to the harsh realities of today with regard to the State of Food and Agriculture. The emphasis has been rightly placed on striving harder towards self-sufficiency in food in developing countries. The document considers the basic causes of the decline in food production which included frequent occurrence of drought in certain regions of the world, inadequacy of public investments, especially in rural infrastructures and farm inputs, inadequacy of incentives, particularly incentives to encourage farmers to invest in farming, inadequacy of programmes to control crop and animal diseases and pests, and reduction of food losses to a minimum. The medium-term objectives have prescribed solutions to these problems and went on further to deal with specific programmes of sub-sectors, taking into account new developments in the fisheries sub-sector with respect to the sovereignty of nations in their EEZ.

This document, if used as a basis for developing national as well as international programmes in agriculture and rural development, could help to keep in rightful focus the issues facing agriculture. I share the view of Colombia that the medium-term objectives should form part of the Programme of Work and Budget rather than keeping it as a separate document.

Coming to the Programme of Work and Budget itself, it is our view that no major new developments have taken place since the 79th meeting of Council, and therefore the Programme of Work and Budget has not changed radically and therefore does not call for extensive debate once again.

Since our last meeting, the high level meetings in Cancún, in Paris and elsewhere have amply justified the position taken by this Council that the least we can do in the present circumstance of widespread food shortage is to support the programme and budget of this Organization for the 1982 biennium. My delegation therefore supports the programme and the level of budget.

A.Z.M. OBAIDULLAH KHAN (Maroc): Ma delegation est d'accord sur l'ensemble du programme. Elle est tout à fait en opposition avec l'idée de la croissance zero et se rallie à la ligne prévue dans le programme présenté par le Directeur général,

J.M. SCOULAR (United Kingdom): I wondered initially if anyone was going to talk at all about this item of the Agenda.

Dealing first with medium-term objectives, we find this a useful document, but I take the delegate of Colombia's point that it does duplicate the work of the Programme of Work and Budget. However, we think that an overview in the longer term is still valuable, and I would like to speak in detail about this at the Conference.

About the Programme of Work and Budget, as we said at the June Council meeting, we remain strongly in favour of FAO's programmes and work, and we think the objectives of their programmes are well brought out and generally on the right lines. As Founder members, we are participating in the gradual changes in the direction of the developing countries, and we support the orientation of the programmes.

We will talk about this in detail at the Conference itself, but at this stage I would just like to record that we reserve our position about the level of the Budget.

A. EL KADIRI (Bangladesh): I shall be very brief. The Bangladesh delegation fully supports the Director-General's Programme of Work and the level of the budget.

The concept of the area of the work with regard to the FAO is not only inconsistent with the international development strategy or the consensus achieved at Cancun and Ottawa, but it is also against the aspirations of a member country like Bangladesh which is on the threshhold of a breakthrough in food grains production, with the massive support of FAO's technical assistance and Technical Cooperation Programme.

Instead of going into a discussion of the Programme of Work and Budget which will be taken up in the Commission II, I would like to give specific examples of the support which FAO is providing and the need for this support to become wider and more intensive. For example, in the food grains production sector and in the medium-term programme which we have prepared with the help of FAO, seventy percent of the projects which are financed by World Bank or Asian Development Bank or IFAD have been prepared with the help of FAO's Investment Centre. I could go on giving other examples, but I am just giving a simple example by saying that if the first guideline of the IDS is true that each country should try to increase its food production, then the support of FAO is an essential prerequisite for that, and therefore any operation to the modest limits proposed would be really parsimonious to the south and not only to FAO.

J.A. HAMDI (Egypt): The delegation of my country is fully satisfied with the documents submitted to us with respect to the Programme of Work and Budget.

We would like first of all to praise the efforts deployed by the Secretariat, also the efforts made by the two Committees concerned with these problems. The delegation of my country had adopted a decision at the previous session of the Council, and my country continues to support this programme, and also it supports the budget.

We should like further to mention our faith in this Organization and the implementation of its work and programme. This is proven by the document which we have before us.

J.A. GUEVARA MORAN (El Salvador): La delegación de nuestro país apoya el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto, así como las prioridades y estrategias propuestas por el Sr. Director General. Nuestra posición en este Consejo es la misma que mantuvimos en el 79° período de sesiones del Consejo y, por lo tanto, solidaria con todos los países que apoyan el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto presentado con los ajustes que se le han hecho en base a todas las observaciones realizadas en el Consejo.

Comprendemos las dificultades financieras de algunos países que objetan el nivel del presupuesto, pero creemos que las justificaciones presentadas por el Director General son de sobra suficientes para solicitar a estos países que hagan de nuevo un esfuerzo y apoyen el Presupuesto, con lo cual se estará apoyando con los medios que necesita el Director General para llevar adelante el programa que todos los países hemos aceptado.

Consideramos también que resulta de nuevo oportuno señalar la conveniencia de que si van a realizarse disminuciones presupuestarias en toda la familia de las Naciones Unidas que a la FAO se la trate con un criterio más amplio de apoyo dada su alta calidad e eficacia demostradas en el campo de sus acciones.

La posición, por lo tanto, que va a mantener nuestro país en la Conferencia será esa: la de un rotundo y absoluto apoyo a la política, programa, presupuesto y estrategias presentadas por el Director General,

P.A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Quiero expresar mi agradecimiento a los presidentes de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas por la clara explicación que nos han ofrecido.

Nuestra delegación también quiere expresar, una vez más, su apoyo al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para el bienio 82-83 tal y como se nos ha presentado. Estamos satisfechos por las prioridades del Programa de Labores y por el nivel de recursos que se propone.

Creemos muy importante el apoyo que los Comités de Finanzas y de Programa han dado al presupuesto y a las prioridades establecidas, y vemos que el Director General ha seguido lo que le pidió y recomendó el Consejo de la FAO en su 79° período de sesiones de junio pasado y, en consecuencia, nos ha presentado este programa y presupuesto que, repetimos, apoyamos y desde luego lo consideramos como un mínimo para hacer frente a las crecientes necesidades.

D.H.J. ABEYGOONASEKRA (Sri Lanka): At the very outset let me say that my delegation was taking some time to ask for the floor, because from the very inception of FAO Sri Lanka has been and continues to be one of the most ardent supporters of this Organization. We have had the privilege of participating at the many regional conferences, as well as the Conferences held at Headquarters and the specialized committees.

We are now discussing two items - the medium-terra objectives and the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium. Hardly anyone has disagreed with the principles or the policies of FAO. It is sometimes quite surprising for somebody who comes from a developing country, who has confidence and endorses the programmes sponsored by this Organization to hear a discordant note of any kind. Given the conditions prevailing in the world today, particularly the distressing conditions in the part of the world I come from, or for that matter the sub-continent of Africa where my colleagues come from, it is a question of resolving the over-recurring situation of food shortages and difficulties facing communities. This is one problem on which a lasting solution will never be achieved unless there is a continuous effort by everybody in the world community to help in the programmes related to food and agriculture.

I have no doubt that my colleagues from both the developed and developing countries, like me, who have been present at various sessions, share the views of the Director-General and sympathize fully with what he has stated. I suppose it is only left to us to convince the powers that be in the world that unless we devote our efforts towards solving the food problem of the world there cannot ever be lasting peace. We know that in those parts of the world where food shortages take place, due to natural causes or other economic factors, ultimately there is discomfort and misery.

Now, coming to the subject of the medium-term objectives document, we have stated in the Finance Committee and meetings of Council that this gives the background to programmes of FAO.

It may be that not everyone sees as many documents as the officials who attend the Council meetings but to those delegates who attend the Conference every two years it gives a broad outline. In that sense it is a useful document and could be continued.

On the budget, I think this is the minimum the Director-General can do given the constraints. I said once in an earlier session that he is like a Minister of Finance or a Chancellor of the Exchequer, who comes with no secrets. He comes with proposals all of us would like to accept, but unfortunately while we have the heart and willingness to say we will do this, sometimes the purse is not willing. In that sense, perhaps he finds it difficult and he has sought the minimum level where he feels justice can be done to all sectors. I believe, and I am sure all members who have held different views would realize, that we should support the Budget when the time comes for us to pass this resolution in the Conference.

J.E. MENDES FERRAO (Portugal): Nous sommes d'accord avec les principes que le Directeur général a suivis pour l'élaboration du programme de travail et budget 1982-83 et aussi avec les objectifs indiqués. Nous savons bien que l'efficacité de notre organisation ne dépend pas seulement des possibilités d'argent mais surtout de la qualité et de la quantité des techniciens et autres fonctionnaires de la FAO. Mais les disponibilités du budget sont fondamentales non seulement pour obtenir la collaboration des meilleurs techniciens mais aussi pour maintenir et augmenter l'efficacité des services.

Mon pays, comme vous le savez, traverse une situation économique difficile et pour cela nous sommes dans la nécessité de faire de grandes réductions au budget de notre pays. D'un autre côté, nous avons reçu de la part de la FAO une aide très importante. Dans cette perspective et avec la préoccupation de comprendre la situation d'autres pays qui ont des conditions très difficiles, notre position en ce qui concerne l'augmentation des contributions des pays membres demeure la même que nous avions prise lors du 79ème Conseil.

Nous pensons qu'il nous sera difficile d'augmenter notre contribution mais, si cela est nécessaire, nous donnerons certainement une réponse positive et nous pensons que les pays ayant des conditions semblables donneront aussi une réponse positive. Nous espérons que ce Conseil donnera l'appui a. cet égard d'autant plus que le Sommet de Cancún vient de déclarer la priorité absolue de l'agriculture dans les futures négociations Nord-Sud.

Nous ne manquerons pas de faire des commentaires techniques sur le document 81/3 lors de la session de la Commission II de la Conférence.

WANG SHOU RU (China) (Original language Chinese): First of all, the Chinese Delegation would like to thank the Chairman of the Programme and Finance Committees for their introduction of this agenda item. Wë basically agree with the Programme of Work for the next biennium as proposed by the Director-General for we think it keeps in line with the discussion at the last session of the Council. We will not take time here to dwell on the specific comments on some of the projects in the Programme, as we will be presenting our views during the deliberations at the Conference.

We would like to say a few words about the budget for the next biennium. In order to enable the Organization to carry out activities that will help the developing countries improve their food and agricultural situation, the Chinese Government has decided to support the budget level as proposed by the Director-General in document C 81/3, though our country is in a period of readjustment of the national economy and has financial constraints. We believe that the Secretariat will continue to practise economy, better organize its work and make greater contributions towards the development of food and agriculture of member countries.

Sra. M. IVANKOVICH DE AROSEMENA (Panama): Nosostros nos limitaremos a ratificar el apoyo del Gobierno de Panamá al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto debido a que en la próxima reunión de la Conferencia podremos profundizar en el tema cuando se debata en la segunda Comisión.

En la reunión de junio nuestra delegación expresó que Panamá, al igual que los demás países del mundo en desarrollo, afronta en forma cada vez mayor los crecientes problemas que limitan su desarrollo en general, y en el sector agropecuario en particular. A pesar de eso el Gobierno nacional consciente de su responsabilidad internacional cumple con sus compromisos internacionales, y en particular con la FAO,

El Gobierno de Panamá valora la importancia que para los países en desarrollo tiene la FAO como organismo internacional de máxima eficiencia especializado en la agricultura y la alimentación. Por ese motivo compartimos plenamente las estrategias y prioridades establecidas, así como también las políticas y los programas propuestos por el Director General y, en consecuencia, nuestro Gobierno apoya el nivel del presupuesto para el próximo bienio.

Para finalizar, al ratificar nuestro apoyo a nivel de presupuesto, lo hacemos manifestando el reconocimiento del Gobierno de Panamá al Director General por el considerable esfuerzo realizado en lograr un equilibrio realista entre los programas y los reducidos recursos a su disposición, en un intento desesperado por tratar de establecer un nuevo orden económico internacional que garantice una paz duradera y estable.

H. MENDS (Ghana): My delegation, like most of the previous speakers, would like to compliment the Director-General and the Finance and Programme Committees for the thorough work they have done in introducing the Programme of Work and Budget placed before us for our deliberations this morning. We are pleased with the increased harmonisation and leverage of the Regular Programme and field programmes, and the priorities set out in the Medium-Term Objectives. Considering the persisting precarious world food situation which has been most eloquently described by the Director-General in his introduction to the document, my delegation is of the view that although the situation requires rather desperate action to bring about improvements, we are constrained by lack of financial resources to accept the programmes proposed by the Director-General as quite relevant to the solutions needed to improve food production and the supply position in developing countries. After all, FAO is the only specialised agency of the United Nations which is capable of addressing itself in this direction of world food production, supply, security and so forth. It is therefore clear that the low level programmes which we have the privilege to review in our earlier meetings and will most certainly review during the Conference next week, require the minimal budgetary estimates proposed by the Director-General for implementation beyond the 1982-83 biennium.

My delegation therefore fully supports the Programme and the level of the budget and calls upon this Council to adopt unanimously and recommend it to the Conference for approval.

A.G. NGONGI HAMANGA (Cameroon): During the 79th session of the Council held in June the Cameroon delegation supported the proposed level of the budget placed before it in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. We now reaffirm the position taken in June. We do so because the Programme of Work and Budget presented to us in document C 81/3 has been prepared by the Director-General in the light of the wish of the 79th session of the Council that he base his final proposals on the proposals contained in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. This he has done. The proposed budget level is a reflection of the programme priorities which have been approved by the Programme Committee, by the various Technical Committees, by this very Council and by the Conference, and by the many international fora which have high emphasis on agriculture and self-sufficiency in low income food deficit countries. It is very difficult to see how this modest project level for the biennium, and this modest increase can be refused by some Member States, but it is understandable. We do therefore urge that those Member States who were not in a position to support the budget level at the June session and are not in a position to do so at this moment, should, between now and the Conference, think over the matter and give the budget level unanimous support during the Conference.

On the details of the Programme of Work and Budget and Medium-Term Objectives, we shall address ourselves to this during the Conference.

T.J. KELLY (Australia): Australia was one of the Members of the Council who at the June meeting reserved their position on the level of the budget, whilst giving absolute support to its objectives and priorities. It therefore seems appropriate that, with the lapse of time, we should intervene on this occasion to explain to the Council the subsequent evolution of thinking within the Australian Government, particularly in relation to the massive and horrifying problems of hunger and malnutrition, and in relation to Australia's view of the capacity of this Organization to use its programmes and funding, to do something effectively about the problems. As always, the Australian Government finds some difficulty in reconciling humanitarian principles with a hard-nosed and critical approach to the administrative and financial arrangements within international organizations.

In this last respect it is Australia's expectation that within international organizations, including this one, there should be the same rigorous approach to the examination of programmes which occurs in the formulation of our own national budgets. And we have, unfortunately, in recent years been obliged to shave and pare not only administrative costs but even to abandon programmes because of the tightness of our own budgetary situation. At the same time, we are very well aware of the increasing pressure on international organizations concerned with food and agriculture to expand their efforts in response to what are becoming problems so difficult as to be intractable. We see food and agriculture as a focal point in the new international development strategy, in the North-South Discussions and in other international approaches to bettering the world.

The Australian Government in recent months has committed itself in a series of decisions to expanding its own efforts in the direction of contributing to ensuring world food security.

In that context we have looked closely at the FAO budget. We believe that the budget for this biennium has been prepared on the basis of a comprehensive and critical review of all aspects of expenditure. We believe that the Organization has been energetic in reviewing and successfully holding down the operational costs of its support systems, its working methods and its staffing and we see these economies as having been achieved despite the significant pressures on the Organization deriving from the high domestic inflation rate. It follows from all this that we remain very much of the view that nothing but absolute rigour is satisfactory in establishing a budget level. We see that as crucial for 1982/83 and we will see it as even more crucial for 1984/85. The Australian government's position is that given the enormity of the world hunger and malnutrition problem, given the record of this organization in performing in a practical and effective way to do something about those problems, we are now in a position to say that we do support the objectives, priorities and level of the 1982/83 budget.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Having hosted the Commonwealth Conference in Melbourne I am sure this is the least Australia can do to assist the developing countries and I am sure that France, who is now helping 29 African countries, will also tell us something very pleasing.

R. ROUPHAEL (Liban) (langue originale arabe) - Si nous passons en revue le rapport de la session précédente du Conseil exécutif, nous trouvons que le Programme de travail et budget est conforme aux recommandations du Conseil. Le Comité du Programme et le Comité des Finances ont accepté les propositions du Directeur général et demandent au Conseil de les adopter pour qu'elles soient soumises à la Conférence générale étant donné que cela est basé sur des priorités adoptées par tout le monde.

C'est la raison pour laquelle la délégation de mon pays approuve le Programme de travail et budget et estime que le niveau proposé est minimum; elle estime que les pays qui ont exprimé des réserves au sujet de ce niveau de budget reviennent sur leur position car au Conseil comme aux institutions internationales nous ne devons pas en limiter l'activité, nous ne devons pas réduire l'importance de la crise que vit le monde en matière d'alimentation et d'agriculture. Le monde ne peut pas oublier la Déclaration de Cancún qui a donné la priorité absolue à l'agriculture. Le sommet de Cancún a vu participer les Etats qui sont représentés dans ce Conseil. Comment pourrons-nous sans défaut exécuter les programmes que nous adoptons?

J.PILANE (Botswana): I take the floor to register my delegation's support for the Programme of Work and level of budget proposed by the Director-General of FAO. I do support this budget with the full awareness that the level of budget proposed was arrived at taking into consideration the situation prevailing in both developed and developing countries. I also do this well aware that the original budget is now much less due to currency instability. In view of the foregoing we should naturally therefore be arguing for an even higher budget to make allowance for currency fluctuations but I think the budget should be accepted both as a compromise and as the minimum possible.

H.N. MUKUTU (Zambia): My delegation thanks and congratulates the chairmen of both the Programme and Finance Committees for giving us clear views as to what transpired in the deliberations of both their Committees.

If there has been any one time when coordinated international action was required to combat the root causes of poverty, hunger, malnutrition, disease and ignorance it is now. The whole international world is agreed to the sobering fact that many more millions of people are today suffering from the above scourges than they were at the beginning of the decade. Commitments and pronouncements at various international fora, including the recent World Food Rallies, have been made to assist in alleviating the suffering of mankind by improving his productivity.

It is with the foregoing observation that my delegation finds the Director-General's programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium responsive to the enormous task and challenges before it. It is my delegation's considered view that Africa needs greater international support in the next biennium.

It is in this continent that the majority of Seriously Affected and the Least Developed Countries are. It is also the continent with relatively little export capacity to developed countries.

It is the continent with the fastest deterioration in the food situation. I am happy to note, therefore, that in a number of key programme areas budgetary allocations to the African region have been increased.

My delegation fully and particularly endorses programmes 2.1.1 through to 2, 1.8, these being natural resources, crops, livestock, research support, rural development, nutrition, food and agricultural information and analysis and food and agricultural policy. We endorse the general principles, priorities, and the budgetary allocations to the various sub-programmes.

We fully support the proposed budgetary increases on the overall programmes, in particular we would like to stress the need for increased funds for more work on natural resources to enable developing countries to make more use of the land and water resources at their disposal and also to enable more work on soil conservation activities and find the answers to the problems of shifting cultivation.

In the field of crops we endorse more work on food legumes, roots and tubers. Crop improvement and management, crop protection and seed development should also receive greater attention in the next biennium.

There is no doubt that the budgetary allocations in the various programmes of work are the minimum required to meet current obligations and the increased activities to meet the aspirations of the International Development Strategy for the Third Development Decade which foresees an annual growth rate for agro-production during the 1980s. This challenge cannot be seriously faced without further increases in budgetary allocations to key programme areas.

The Director-General needs support from all of us here with regard to the contribution of funds to the budget and my delegation views the proposed budgetary increase as an unambitious and modest amount and in accordance with the present mood and spirit of the international community. With the foregoing in Tiind I appeal to those contributors who may have reservations to review their positions.

My delegation does not support the idea of zero growth. We feel that this idea emanates from the recession going on all over the world. We do not think this applies to multilateral organizations such as FAO which aims specifically at improving the livelihood of the poor. If the idea of zero growth rate refers to the need for FAO to become more efficient my delegation feels that their programme of work for the next biennium is enough evidence of FAO's streamlining of all its activities. My delegation views with fear and suspicion any ideas from many contributors to funnel funds more to bilateral aid. We feel that bilateral aid tends to be fettered and serves a different purpose from that of multilateral agencies. My delegation calls therefore on all member countries to review their positions and support the proposed budget level.

My delegation supports the draft resolution on budgetary appropriations in 1982-83 for adoption by the Conference.

S. DEMARE (Sweden): At the last meeting of the Council in June my delegation inter alia stated that we strongly supported the thrust of the Programme of Work and Budget of FAO and the efforts made by the Director-General to make the work carried out by FAO more efficient. At the same time, however, we also presented some reservations concerning the budget level, mainly because of the additional costs involved in the continued and rapid establishment of new FAO representatives and offices. These views have been further elaborated by our delegate to the meeting of the Programme Committee in September. We are still in the process of scrutinizing the full Programme of Work and Budget, taking into account the views presented in different fora and the general international development and we have not yet taken a final position concerning the budget level. At this Council meeting, therefore, I have to reserve, the position of my Government to the budget level until the question is taken up at the Conference.

A. RACHMAN (Indonesia): My delegation would like to associate itself with the previous speakers to congratulate the Director-General in the first place and then the Secretariat, the Programme and Finance Committees for their excellent preparation and presentation of the documents for this agenda item,

The Indonesian delegation has carefully studied the proposal and we are happy to note the positive proportional change incorporated in Technical Cooperation Programmes in particular and the Technical and Economic Programmes in general which we fully endorse.

All of us here are deeply concerned with the world food and agricultural situation which although we have noted some encouraging indications for the 1981 crop season, mainly for wheat and coarse grains, as a result of better weather conditions the world food situation remains uncertain and even could continue to be critical. In assessing the world food situation therefore a review of the adequate production and food stocks is an important factor and it is necessary to obtain an objective and balanced view of the overall situation. A review of the current world food situation does not seem to give us any reason for optimism, let alone complacency. Increased export prices of food grains aggravated by rising freight rates have put mounting burdens on many developing food deficit countries. To approach solutions various programmes and policy measures tabled out in the Programme of Work and Budget as presented here should be vigorously pursued.

It is for the above reasons that my delegation reiterates its support of the Programme of Work and Budget and the level of the budget as proposed in the document C 81/3, since it represents a modest increase necessary to support fairly our case for agricultural development and food security for all.

T. AHMAD (Pakistan): I wish to convey my delegation's most emphatic support of the level of the budget which we also did earlier in the Council when the Summary Programme of Work and Budget was discussed in the Programme Committee.

Also, speaking very briefly, we would like to urge on behalf of our country that all those countries who have reserved their position on the level of the budget should come forward and unanimously support it. We appreciate most deeply the fact that the Australian Government has viewed the world food situation in a more sanguine manner and has come forward to support the level of the budget.

It surprises us some-times to hear the priorities, the programmes, the strategies, the thrusts, being approved by our Member Nations, not only in this forum but in other international fora in the major world summit conferences - Cancún, Melbourne and Ottawa - all Member Nations. All countries, all leaders of the world realize that there is hunger in the world and that steps should be taken to eradicate it. What surprises us is that these words when they come to be translated into deeds, when action has to be taken, those very leaders, those very countries, those very members hesitate and reserve their positions. That makes us sad. It makes us sad because platitudes and clichés do not fill the stomachs of hungry people in the world, in Africa and in Asia; it has to be deeds and actions and resources.

So we urge all those countries who do declare that there is hunger in the world and something has to be done about it, we urge them to come forward and do it, to help us in eradicating hunger and to support the budget of FAO.

On behalf of my country and my delegation I once again urge all those countries who are reserving their positions to come forward. We feel that the amount of work that FAO is doing in this direction and the momentum that it has gained in this direction of agricultural development and the eradication of hunger, it is very essential that this momentum continues. A small spanner in the wheel would break the steps that we are taking. Therefore we urge that all of us should march forward together and support the level of the budget unanimously.

P. KANGA (Angola): Ma delegation approuve les orientations proposées par le Directeur général sous tous leurs aspects, comme l'observation des stratégies et priorités conformes aux objectifs des Nations Unies et les décisions prises par la dernière Conférence de la FAO: répartition équilibrée des crédits entre les différents programmes, voies et moyens utilisés par le Directeur général et niveau du budget fixé.

Nous tenons à déclarer pour notre part, comme nous l'avions d'ailleurs dit à la dernière session du Conseil, que cette augmentation est très modeste en soi et qu'il nous semble irréaliste de la réduire.

De ce fait, nous demandons à ceux qui ne l'ont pas encore fait d'approuver le programme de travail et budget de la FAO pour la bonne conduite de cette Organisation.

A.P.D. TANOE (Côte-d'Ivoire): Ma délégation a suivi avec intérêt l'exposé qui a été présenté tout à l'heure par les différents comités. Ma délégation appuie sans réserve tout le programme, y compris le budget.

Mrs. L. LAOWHAPHAN (Thailand): Thank you for giving me the floor at this point, since the item under our consideration is one of the most important items on our Agenda.

My delegation would like to express our position as follows. My delegation agrees with the Director-General's view expressed at the Seventy-Ninth Session of the Council that the prospects currently facing the world economy are not good, that there are increasing economic tensions and pressures and that this will have an adverse effect, particularly on the low-income developing countries.

Also my delegation is of the opinion that the world food situation calls for governments to strengthen their support of food and agricultural development, especially through FAO and other relevant international organizations. This means that we must urge FAO to increase its role to meet the needs of the increasing number of hungry and malnourished portion of the world's population.

While asking our Organization to work more and harder we should provide it with enough resources.

Having studied the Programme of Work and Budget for the biennum 1982-83 my delegation is pleased, considering that the Director-General's strategies and priorities as proposed in his Programme of Work and Budget are designed to implement this role. The strategies and priorities are fully in accordance with the Council and Conference policy guidance.

We consider that the proposed budget level and programme increase are very modest, though we recognize the needs of developing countries to apply their economic policies in a world climate of increasing inflation, unemployment and cuts in public expenditure. But why should we ask FAO to work less when the world is affected by inflation and recession ?

The Director-General has capably and efficiently implemented over the past five years the mandate that he gave to FAO to respond to these critical problems. His proposals for the next biennium merely seek realistically to implement what we have asked for. For the above-mentioned reasons my delegation would therefore like to request the Council to agree unanimously on the Programme of Work and Budget as the minimum funds to face urgent and severe problems of world food and agricultural development.

In conclusion, my delegation would like once again to endorse the Programme of Work and Budget as proposed by the Director-General and would like to urge the Council members who reserved their position on the budget level to reconsider the matter in a positive way.

S.I. ALMANNAI (Kuwait): (original language Arabic) We very firmly support the strategies and priorities as suggested by the Director-General. These are strategies and priorities which are in conformity with the very serious situation faced by food conditions throughout the world. We feel that the Director-General has deployed efforts in order to carry out a balance between the Budget and Programme. The savings which have been made and the reductions in administrative costs are supported by us, while we feel that all the strategies and priorities are quite in line with the guidelines given by the Council and the Conference.

We support the Programme of Work and Budget more specifically because this Programme of Work and Budget represents a minimum, and we feel that the countries having expressed reservations should look at their positions once again. That is why we feel that the Council should unanimously adopt the recommendation with respect to the adoption of the budget so that the Conference may adopt it as well.

T.C. RAJAONA (Madagascar): Ma delegation a déjà eu l'occasion, lors de la 79ème session du Conseil, de faire des commentaires et de donner l'avis que lui inspire l'examen du Programme de travail et budget 1982-1983. Je serai donc bref.

Je tiens à souligner toutefois que les stratégies, les priorités et les méthodes de travail arrêtées par le Directeur général découlent logiquement de l'analyse de la situation alimentaire mondiale. Certaines mesures palliatives, concernant le relèvement du fonds de roulement ou le recours à l'emprunt, sont imposées par la situation financière de l'Organisation, situation quelque peu préoccupante. Aussi incombe-t-il aux gouvernements des Etats Membres de faire l'effort nécessaire pour s'abstenir de projeter leurs propres difficultés financières sur l'Organisation afin de ne pas grever davantage sa gestion.

Ma délégation accueille avec satisfaction la position évolutive que vient de prendre le gouvernement de l'Australie et l'en félicite, tout en espérant que les autres pays suivront cet exemple très stimulant.

Je termine en réaffirmant que ma délégation approuve entièrement le niveau proposé pour le budget, bien qu'il lui apparaisse comme un minimum en-dessous duquel il serait difficile à l'Organisation d'accomplir avec efficience sa mission.

G. STREEB (United States of America): First of all, I would like to thank the Chairmen of the two Committees for what we consider to be an accurate and fair potrayal of the work of those Committees, and appreciate that they have both expressed views that were given by various delegations and the differences that were expressed during those meetings.

We have of course examined the Summary Programme and Budget and in general are satisfied with the thrust of the programmes and the priorities that have been established there. As was noted, we did feel that in one particular area, namely that of the regional offices, this issue should be kept under review to determine whether there could not be a more effective use of the resources, especially in the light of the potential expansion of the country representatives that is contemplated.

I have in the last several weeks had the opportunity to meet with virtually every head of every Specialized Agency and Agencies of the United Nations, and I do not think it is any surprise that practically every one of them feels that the budget of that Organization should expand.

I have likewise seen the reports from New York from the Fifth Committee where the views of the representatives of many delegations here on the question of zero growth or low growth in the budgets have been quite amply elaborated on in the Fifth Committee. El Salvador mentioned something about the possible priority to FAO and making the FAO an exception. I do think it is worthwhile looking at this suggestion as to the degree to which one can distinguish between the agencies, but to date, I at least have found that virtually impossible, given, as I say, that the heads of practically all of the agencies feel that they have very serious problems to be dealt with and their agency should receive some priority.

Obviously, and very understandably, in the area of food and agriculture, we have, if I could use the term, a more emotional issue, perhaps I should say a much more serious issue than others, and the problems worldwide are well appreciated by everyone, and I would guess that there is almost no level of the budget which could not very legitimately be considered a minimum.

Even if we doubled the level of the FAO budget, I am sure that most everyone here would still consider that inadequate, given the fact that we do have so many different types of problems to be dealt with worldwide.

Mr. Chairman, you cannot, I guess, point to any conference which the United States would host, but in any case, we have participated in some recent multilateral conferences, and I think it is fair to say that my country has led the way in putting stress on agricultural development as a priority area among the various developmental issues, and you might recall from my statement yesterday, I gave some statistics on the shift in emphasis that we have placed within our own government in the direction of relatively greater support for the agricultural sector among the development issues.

Some will also have noted that President Reagan at Cancún pointed out that within our government we were studying very intensively the types of initiatives we might be able to take to fulfill our desire to give greater emphasis to this sector, and I hope that we will have the opportunity to discuss some of those points during the Conference.

I think therefore it is important to bear in mind that the FAO budget must be considered in the context of the overall effort and should not be looked at in isolation. We were somewhat disappointed that following the 79th Session and the views that were expressed by several delegations there that the Director-General found it impossible to lower the budget projections, because we do feel very strongly that it is a time to pause in the growth of the United Nations system and the Specialized Agencies, particularly when these are viewed in comparison in the last ten years with the growth even in our national economies and in our own national systems. We think it is a time to consolidate the work of the agencies, to rationalize it and to determine where the lower priorities are and to therefore put greater attention on those issues which have highest priorities.

With all of these factors in mind, I have to say that we still remain among those who could not accept the currently projected level of the budget, and we will, of course, like others, give even further details on our position during the course of the forthcoming Conference.

DATO'SERI RADAN SOENARNO bin RADIN SOENARLO (Malaysia): My delegation has studied with great care and interest the Director-General's Programme of Work and Budget for 1982-83 as presented in the relevant document. We do not wish to say much on the subject, as we will be commenting again on the topics during the Conference, but we would like at this Session of the Council to make the following remarks.

We are satisfied that the Director-General has taken into consideration the views of members expressed in the last Session of the Council in preparing his proposals. There is little doubt that the Director-General and his staff have taken into consideration the world food situation and the prevailing financial and economic situation in preparing his proposals, and in so doing, has made the necessary changes to the priorities between and within the programmes in compliance with the advice and views of the 79th Session of the Council.

I would like to add further that the proposed programmes constitute the minimum for the Organization, and further cuts would only injure the overall implementation of FAO programmes for the benefit of Member Nations. My delegation would like to reconfirm my government's support to the Programme of fork and Budget for 1982-83, as proposed by the Director-General.

G. KELLEY SALINAS (México): Mi delegación quisiera hacer patente una vez más el apoyo de mi Gobierno al nivel del presupuesto, a su estructura programática y a las estrategias propuestas. Tendremos tiempo de analizar ampliamente durante la Conferencia estos asuntos, por lo que no abundaremos en ellos ni en las razones c^e motivan la posición de mi Gobierno en este asunto de tanta importancia.

No sobra subrayar, sin embargo, que con este apoyo al presupuesto va también nuestra solidaridad a la Institución, a sus propósitos y al equipo de trabajo que preside nuestro Director General.

A. MOUANGA (Congo): La delegation du Congo soutient le Programme du niveau proposé, car nous savons que la FAO est la seule organisation spécialisée capable d'affronter les problèmes alimentaires.

H.H. CARABAO (Venezuela): La circunstancia de hablar entre los últimos nos evita el tener que insistir en argumentos que ya han sido citados aquí, pero sí queremos reiterar que entre todos los organismos internacionales la FAO ha de tener prioridad, no porque lo quiera el Director General y los que aquí concurrimos, sino por un hecho natural: un pueblo que no reciba la ingesta alimentaria necesaria es imposible que haga programas de salud, de cultura y de deportes, y por eso nos sumamos a la proposición que aquí se ha hecho de solicitar para la FAO cierta prioridad.

Hemos pedido la palabra, señor Presidente, porque queremos identificarnos con todos aquellos países que sin reserva han apoyado el Programa de Labores, los objetivos, prioridades y medios de acción para el bienio 82-83 propuesto por el Director General. Consideramos que el nivel de presupuesto propuesto es realmente el mínimum para que esta organización pueda atender las urgencias de esa comunidad de países que tan urgidos están de recibir asistencia y ayuda. Por todo ello también ratificamos el pedimento que se ha hecho en el sentido de pedir que se reconsidere el concepto del crecimiento cero por aquellos países que lo han formulado. Desde luego, mi delegación no prejuzga acerca de las razones que esos países puedan tener para hacer tal invocación.

T. MIRCEA (Roumanie): La position constante de la Roumanie dans les organisations internationales, y compris la FAO, a toujours été celle de ne pas accepter à la légère les accroissements de budget et d'examiner attentivement les propositions et de voir comment les ressources financières des organisations internationales peuvent être utilisées d'une façon toujours plus rationnelle et plus efficace. Cette fois-ci, l'examen attentif des propositions de programme et budget présentées par le Directeur général de la FAO et les conclusions auxquelles sont arrivés les organismes de la FAO, notamment le Comité des programmes et le Comité financier nous offrent la possibilité d'apprécier que ces propositions sont judicieuses et réalistes. Par conséquent nous sommes dans la position de nous prononcer en leur faveur. Mis à part le fait que nous faisons pleine confiance au Directeur général, qui a fait preuve de hautes qualités en dirigeant les activités de la FAO dans une période non sans difficultés sur le plan international, nous avons vu notamment la spécificité du rôle de la FAO, et le fait qu'elle accorde une assistance aux pays en voie de développement par l'entremise des programmes de terrain principalement est un élément important d'appréciation à prendre en considération sur le niveau assez bas des frais d'administration. Un autre facteur à prendre en considération est la haute priorité reconnue et accordée sur le plan national et international aux problèmes de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation et la nécessité que les efforts sur le plan national soient stimulés et appuyés vigoureusement par l'entremise des organisations internationales qui ont fait preuve d'efficacité et parmi celles-ci la FAO est en tête de la liste.

S. AIDARA (Sénégal): Je voudrais tout d'abord rendre hommage au Chef de la délégation de l'Australie qui vient de nous gratifier ce matin d'une très bonne nouvelle. Je crois que l'évolution de leur position depuis la 79ème session de notre Conseil s'inscrit dans le sens de l'histoire et dans le sens de l'aide que ce pays, comme tant d'autres d'ailleurs, a toujours manifestée à l'égard de la FAO et des pays en développement. Je voudrais donc saisir cette occasion pour la remercier chaleureusement. Notre session est la seconde occasion qui nous est offerte pour exprimer nos points de vue sur le programme de travail et budget 1982-83 avant la Conférence générale. En ce qui concerne ma délégation sa position est connue: elle a été longuement exprimée lors de la dernière session de notre Conseil sur les divers aspects, sur le programme de travail et sur le nouveau budget proposé pour le prochain biennium. Je ne peux donc que confirmer cette position en faveur des efforts et des objectifs de la FAO qui, pour reprendre l'expression d'une délégation d'un grand pays qui a pris la parole ce matin, en l'occurence le Royaume-Uni, sont "utiles et nobles." Je ne pense pas qu'il faille approfondir ici les débats d'autant plus que nous allons vers la Conférence générale où cette question sera discutée dans tous les détails. La noblesse des objectifs de la FAO, son efficacité, le souci d'économie du Directeur général et les efforts de la FAO pour l'eradication de la faim et de la malnutrition dans le sous-développement ne font point de doute; ceci est reconnu par tous les Etats Membres sans exce-tion. A maints égards on a dit l'ampleur et la gravité de la situation mondiale de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture qui nécessite des moyens importants pour y faire face. Le budget proposé, qui est l'émanation du programme de travail et des stratégies et des priorités reconnues valables par la Conférence générale elle-même, constitue à nos yeux un minimum; il se situe à mi-chemin entre ce qui est souhaitable et possible de réaliser. C'est la raison pour laquelle il ne nous semble pas opportun d'appliquer à des organisations telles que la FAO la fameuse théorie de la croissance zéro. Je ne pense pas que la FAO, sans sous-estimer les organisations que je vais citer, la FAO n'est pas l'Organisation mondiale du Tourisme, la FAO n'est pas l'Organisation mondiale pour la protection intellectuelle, Organisation du rente où le Sénégal est représenté. La FAO est autre chose, nous le savons. La FAO s'occupe des questions fondamentales qui concernent l'homme. C'est la raison pour laquelle nous lançons un appel certains des pays développés qui ont encore quelques résistances pour qu'ils tendent à aller dans le sens de la délégation australienne et de convaincre leur gouvernement respectif de ce que cela représente pour les pays en voie de développement; la FAO a une action qui va directement au bénéfice des populations rurales pauvres, d'une part par le biais de ses programmes et. d'autre part par le biais des bureaux régionaux que nous sommes seuls à pouvoir estimer s'ils doivent être maintenus ou non dans les pays étant donné que nous sommes les principaux intéressés. A l'égard de ces représentations nationales et régionales de la FAO il me semble important de souligner que seuls les pays bénéficiaires sont en mesure d'en juger l'opportunité et l'efficacité. J'ose espérer que les délégations des pays réticents à l'égard du niveau du budget viendront à la Conférence générale avec des positions plus constructives car je suis sur que ces pays ne peuvent rester insensibles aux souffrances de ces millions d'hommes, de femmes et d'enfants dont, les yeux remplis de faim seront braqués sur nous la semaine prochaine.

A.Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia) (Original language Arabic): Our delegation will explain its position at the Conference. However, we support not only the budget level but also the priorities and strategies, as well as the methods adopted to restrict centralisation in the Budget.

We would also like to support the Field Programme and the enlarging and expansion of investment in the agricultural sectors of developing countries.

We will give our various reasons for this. First of all, we have examined the Budget in detail in the Finance Committee. We studied these objectives, which are perfectly clear, and which will be very profitable and helpful to all countries without exception: this is first and foremost for the developing countries, but it is also for developed countries although of course this would be in an indirect fashion.

We feel that Australia's approval of the level of the Budget is much appreciated, and we hope that other developed countries will follow Australia's example. As you all know, in Cancún powerful heads of state met. Amongst other things they approved the fact that agricultural development ought to be given absolute priority in the interests of all, not just in the interests of the developing countries. This was decided by chiefs of state, by representatives of the greater powers, and I think that should encourage everybody to give this Organization absolute authority by approving its budget. This Organization is the only organization which assumes the responsibility of providing assistance to developing countries which need aid in order to develop their agriculture.

This all serves to explain that it is not possible to ask the Director-General to reduce the Budget which was proposed to the Council, because there are countries that have enormous needs and even if we were to double or treble the budget level these countries would ask the Director-General to provide more aid for their peoples.

Another point that I would like to make is the progress that has been made, not only for us in Saudi Arabia but also in beneficiary countries as well who have felt the progress made by the Organization in its specialized field. We appreciate the efficiency with which the Organization operates. We have an example before us, and this is contained in Document C 81/INF/20.

I think it would probably be appropriate, after all members have read the document, for the Council and you to send a letter of thanks to the Director-General and the staff for the very efficient way they work, which we can see from this paper. I think in this direction FAO leads the field.

I repeat our support for the Budget level.

P. ELMANOWSKY (France): Tout d'abord, je voudrais remercier le Directeur général ainsi que le Président du Comité financier et du Comité du Programme pour la présentation du document qui nous est soumis et que nous examinons actuellement. Mais, à ce stade du Conseil, je voudrais indiquer simplement que dès la soixante-dix-neuvième session la délégation française avait été amenée à formuler certaines observations, certaines réserves et aussi à formuler certains voeux tendant à ce que des aménagements apportés au projet de budget que nous discutions alors puissent être retenus de manière que lors de la Conférence qui va s'ouvrir dans quelques jours, nous puissions tous d'une manière unanime accepter ce projet de budget.

Nous avons examiné les nouveaux documents qui nous ont été soumis et cette étude se poursuit encore dans notre capitale pour parvenir à une décision finale, quant à la position que nous devrons adopter.

Quoi qu'il en soit, j'aimerais dire que ce projet de budget répond certainement à nombre d'objectifs que nous partageons tous mais qu'il y a encore certaines contraintes qui nous empêchent dès aujourd'hui de prendre une position qui, je vous le répète, sera exprimée au cours de la Conférence.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): The Federal Government has, at various levels of the dialogue with developing countries and developed countries, stressed that it attaches great importance to the solution of world food problems for reasons of justice, humanity and solidarity, but also to help ensure peace and freedom. The Federal Government continues to hold this unchanged position. It is confirmed through its various contributions, at bilateral and multilateral level, to development. I do not wish to go into details in this respect but would just like to mention the following.

In spite of strong budget restrictions of the Federal Government, the development aid'budget was again increased in 1981 by 8.8 percent, and thus was substantially above the average rate of growth of the total budget 1981. Measures for increasing food production and development are areas of priority action.

The Federal Republic of Germany finds itself with its official development assistance contributions amongst the three greatest donor States. With regard to support to least developed countries it is the biggest donor.

Regarding the item before us, my Government cannot but regret that the Director-General has not taken into account the position voiced by my own and other delegations at the 79th session of the Council, to lower the proposed budget and to strive for real zero growth. I have quite a few comments in support of our view but I shall refrain from giving details as you yourself have said, Mr. Chairman, there will be time at the forthcoming Conference to go into the minute details of the proposed Programme of Work and Budget.

However, if you would agree, Mr. Chairman, I could give some of our views for insertion into the verbatim record.

Discussions of FAO's Programme of Work and Budget were still going on in Bonn yesterday and may continue today. The conclusion reached at this stage is the following: the proposed budget increases as well as its structure make it not possible for my Government to lend its support to it. I hope that there will be an understanding that my delegation wishes to reserve its final position until the forthcoming Conference.

W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): 1/ The Director-General proposes the almost unrestricted continuation of all current programmes with full covering of the cost increases. The additional financial expenditure alone on this is estimated at more than US$ 100 million. We feel that the estimates are rather generous and partly also differ from the method normally practised so far.

Another more important factor is the fact that in addition substantially additional expenses are suggested. According to the calculation method applied by FAO the real growth is calculated to be 5.8 percent, while according to the method applied in my country and in the UN-System the real increase would be 8 percent. These values are net values, a relevant gross calculation even leads to a real increase of 8.5 percent, only a very small share of this increase to the amount of about 5 percent (US$ 1 387) should be financed by a reduction of the current programmes.

An expansion of the budget is mainly suggested. In our view these proposals are partly absolutely worthy of discussion. This applies for example to the technical and economic programmes and to the development support programme. It should, however, also be possible here to achieve a lower growth rate. More or less the same applies to the TCP . The increase envisaged for this programme should be more than 16 percent. Thus the TCP would add up to just under 13 percent of the total budget 1982-83, while the organization maintains that the share of the current biennium, that is 11.7 percent would not be exceeded. We do not understand that there should also be increases in real terms in the expenses for the general policy and direction as well as for the support services. Our opinion in principle, however, is that necessary programme expansions must be covered by savings elsewhere.

In this connection allow me a word about the envisaged changes in the personnel sector. My delegation does not believe that upgradings for which no reasons are given will improve the efficiency of the work of FAO. This would not be in line with the efforts of the Director-General to reduce administrative costs. We have to point again to the lack of transparency in various areas of the budget. This applies in particular to the personnel sector, where it is for example not explained clearly that apart from a certain reduction of posts for the coming biennium 18 new posts are envisaged. We wonder, why the process of post reduction in 1982-83 is only continued for posts of the general service, however not also, for the professional service, all the more since the deletion of established posts is compensated by the growth of fixed term contract staff and consultants. Alone for consultants a net programme growth of 15 percent is envisaged and at the same time stressed as the reason that the programme growth for travels must be 11 percent. Apart from the above-average growth in real terms in both areas consultants and travels are described to be particularly inflation cost affected and it is pointed out that past experience shows growth rates up to 70 percent and similar rates are expected for the future. In this connection we wonder, whether the increased employment of consultants is still justified in these circumstances. Finally we should like to suggest again to improve the transparency of the budget in particular also with regard to the country representatives. Here no break-down is made neither according to their number nor according to their grading in professional grades and above and in General Service grades, although on the basis of the data in doc. 75/3, para. 6.2. for 31 December 1983 about 600 posts should be available for this programme. Likewise there are no data on so-called filled posts. Like the other organizations in the UN-System FAO


1/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request

should also inform about how "vacancies" are handled, in other words what actual impact has the established post quota on the budget. In this connection we would like to ask, whether it is true that only 85 percent of the approved post volume are utilized for P-grades and higher and only 88.5 percent for the GS-grades.

We would like to repeat the concerns already expressed on several occasions about a renewed increase in the number of FAO representatives without sufficient evaluation results on their efficiency being available. On this occasion we recall that we have already pointed out some years ago that an increase in country representatives should in any case be accompanied by a reduction of regional offices expenditures. In the draft budget 1982-83 before us a substantial programme growth in real terms is again shown for the regional offices.

To conclude, allow me to point out this: We should welcome the fact if FAO would make greater use of the joint inspection unit. This applies in particular to such programmes which demand substantial parts of the budget and for which overproportionate growth rates are suggested. Under this aspect special attention is drawn to the TCP as well as to the country and regional offices and their relationship to one another.

Concludingly, it can be stressed that the suggested growth rates and the structure of the budget do not allow us a positive attitude.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for reserving the position of your Government which is a very important one. I am sure there will be time to reconsider the matter.

J. GORECKI (Poland): First of all I would like to congratulate the Director-General and the two Chairmen of the Committees which prepared this document. My delegation supports the proposal in general while at the same time we noted with satisfaction that our suggestions and proposals made during the last session of the Council have been included in the present document. We would like to discuss in some detail our further proposals regarding the budget during the general Conference coming in a few days.

L. SMITH (Barbados): The Barbados delegation would like to place on record its support to the budget for the 1982-83 biennium. We take note of the financial constraints which limit the effectiveness of certain programmes; and on examining the document C 81/3 we have noted a programme for the generation of energy from straw. What we have not noticed is how FAO will gain gold from straw. Clearly, if the budget is not supported we will be asking the Director-General to do the latter in order to achieve the former.

At a time when the membership of FAO is increasing and when the world situation is such that there is a demand on the services that FAO provides, and an increasing demand made by under-developed countries for many of the programmes indicated in the budget and Programme of Work, we feel that any country which recognizes this need to support the under-developed countries in areas of increasing their food output could not help but give fullest support to the level of budget, though modest, as prepared by the FAO Secretariat.

A. CONTE MAROTTA (Italy): My Government thinks that the problem of budgetary of FAO is a political one in front of world disaster. This is the reason why, after the Australian intervention, I would like to point at this stage the particular attention with which my Government will decide, trying to provoke similar attention from other States.

A. NAGA (Japan): First of all, on behalf of the Japanese delegation, I wish to take this opportunity to express our deep appreciation and to compliment the Director-General and the Chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committees. I also wish to express our sincere thanks to the staff of the Secretariat for the hard work they have done for the proposed Programme of Work and Budget for 1982-83. Japan has always been a keen supporter of FAO and recognizes the importance of food and agriculture. We have already discussed the level of the proposed budget of FAO at the 79th session.of the Council. At that time several member countries, including mine, explained serious financial difficulties which they are facing and stressed the importance that the budget of United Nations Organizations, including FAO, should be decided with due consideration for the very difficult financial situation of member countries.

The present level of the proposed budget of FAO is slightly reduced from 33.9 percent to 32.0 percent growth in nominal terms owing to the factor of currency exchange. However, its level in real terms has not changed at all since the 79th session of the Council: it is still at the high level of 5.8 percent growth in real terms, compared with other United Nations Organizations.

As Japan's budget growth for the past few years has been almost zero growth, and its budget for the 1982 financial year will be rather tight, the present level of the proposed FAO budget will not be realistic for us to accept. I therefore sincerely urge that the Director-General and the Secretariat understand our severe financial constraints and reconsider the budget level of FAO, again in the direction where we could finally accept it. While desiring and expecting the Director-General's treatment of the budget level in a flexible manner, at this stage my delegation would like to reserve its final position on the FAO budget.

P. J. O'DONOGHUE (Ireland): At the last session of the Council I was not in a position to give any clear indication as to Ireland's line of approach to the budget. This was because an election was in the offing at home. A new government has taken office since. You may be interested to know for the first time ever we have now a Minister of State specially charged with the task of development assistance. One of the first tasks of the new government was to renew and indeed to strengthen its commitment to development aid and this in spite of their stringent budget difficulties at home. It is in this context that I can say that Ireland is prepared to go along with the modest escalation in the level of activity that the Programme and Budget for the next biennium envisages.

A.F.M. de FREITAS (Brazil): Last October 16th on the first World Food Day FAO celebrated its 36th anniversary. Those were 36 whole years dedicated to raising the level of nutrition and the level of life of many people in the world by means of well prepared and well implemented programmes. FAO has been an important instrument both in increasing productivity in the agriculture of developing countries and in promoting efforts to ameliorate food distribution especially in rural areas. Throughout its history FAO has contributed in a fundamental way to the fight against hunger and malnutrition. Its efforts as an agency of international cooperation in food production and in the promotion of food development deserve the appreciation of all member countries.

Today we are living through a particularly difficult period of time. On the one hand the food and agricultural situation, especially in developing countries, is far from satisfactory. On the other hand this situation is aggravated by a very negative international environment crisis, by recession, shrinking markets, high market rates, high costs of agricultural input, especially energy input for agricultural activities. The consequences of such a difficult picture is felt with a particular acuteness in the non-oil exporting developing countries. The balance of payments of such countries is heavily over taxed by new and increasing obligations. It becomes ever more difficult to accept new obligations that will put heavier burdens on the shoulders of such countries. Brazil is one of those countries which face serious problems in its balance of payments.

As regards document C 81/3, my delegation will speak in more detail during the Conference. At this stage I will offer just a few brief comments to help explain the position of my country . A first reading of the document shows that the difficulties I have just mentioned have not been fully taken into account in the preparation of the new Programme of Work and Budget of FAO. In practically all chapters there have been increases due not only to costs but to expanded programmes. Moreover, in purely monetary terms the budget for the next biennium is much higher than the previous one, even the exchange rate on which it is going to be based is now much more favourable. The document also shows a stepping up in activities not directly aiming at any improvement in productivity and an increase in production. It is the understanding of the Brazilian delegation that in the particular international situation in which we find ourselves today FAO should concentrate on programmes leading effectively to increases in production and to better development in agriculture.

In this region the Brazilian delegation wishes to inform the Council that it will not be able to lend its support to the proposed level of the Programme of Work and Budget and consequently it will have to abstain in the vote on the proposal during the next Conference at FAO.

C. LAMBERT (Canada): Nous avons écouté avec grande attention les interventions de ce matin sur le Programme de travail et budget pour le prochain biennium. Je puis vous assurer, Monsieur le Président, qu'il en sera tenu compte dans la formulation de la position finale du Canada. Pour le moment, ma délégation ne peut accepter le niveau de budget qui a été présenté à ce Conseil.

M. MUKOLWE (Kenya): After hearing all the other speakers I would very much like to put on record that my delegation from Kenya are out to support the Programme of Work and Budget as well as Medium-Term Objectives as presented by the Council and by the Director-General. On the opening of the floor for discussion we thought there was silence and probably there was satisfaction but this was not so and there is food for thought in that there is a lot to be done and that is why various people have come up to support the Programme of Work.

Developing countries are coming to an awareness and see a need to increase food production as well as national fora to discuss food production. Kenya is one of them, and the other countries around it. They have produced national food policies and other countries are formulating their own national policy which means that they are particularly aware of the situation and have to do something. In real terms when we look at the inputs that would be required to make the food policies a reality it is colossal and in terms of funds.

After studying the details of the Director-General's priorities as laid down in the Programme of Work we think that we in the developing countries, and especially so in Africa, would like to see an even higher budget level so that the Director-General may carry out his activities for which food is a priority in this planet. Please note that I am talking about this planet.

G. STREEB (United States of America): Briefly I just simply wish to make the comment that my government categorically rejects any insinuation or implication that our view on the FAO budget has anything to do with the hunger of the world. I think our record on whether it is with respect to basic agricultural development or whether it is to the assistance that the government and the many private organizations in our country have given to the large numbers of refugees, or as some prefer to call them, nomads in the world speaks for itself, and I can say that we will not enter the Conference in either an apologetic or a defensive position.

A.PAPASOLOMONTOS (Observer for Cyprus): I would simply like to say, coming as we do from a developing country, that we fully support the proposed Programme of Work and Budget presented to us today. We view both the programme and the budget as a minimum package that can be expected to have a meaningful impact towards increasing agricultural production and activity.

A.G. EXARCHOS (Observer for Greece): Just to say that Greece is always in favour of FAO programmes and projects aiming at the assistance and development of developing countries and therefore she supports the structure, the strategies, the priorities and the thrusts of these priorities as defined in the Programme of Work and Budget for 1982/83 presented by the Director-General.

A.A. KHALIL (Observer for Sudan): We firmly support the Programme of Work and Budget for the 1982/83 biennium as submitted by the Director-General. We feel that the budget suggested is indeed a very modest one if we compare it to the food situation which is worsening. I do not want to speak at any great length because we will be expressing the reasons and justifications which prompted us to support this budget and Programme of Work in the course of discussions in the general Conference.

MAI LUONG (Observateur pour le Viet Nam): Je voudrais d'abord, Monsieur le Président, vour remercier de me donner la parole en tant qu'observateur du Conseil pour que nous puissions renouveler notre appui sans réserve au niveau du Programme et budget 1982/83 présenté par le Directeur général et le Comité du programme et budget, comme nous l'avons déjà fait lors de la 79ème session du Conseil. Nous espérons que ce niveau du budget sera approuvé à l'unanimité au Conseil et à la Conférence. Nous espérons aussi que les pays qui se qualifient champions de la FAO redoublent leurs efforts pour

approuver le niveau du budget qui est encore bien mince par rapport aux besoins de l'agriculture et des pays en développement dans le monde.

P. ROSENEGGER (Observer for Austria): Mr. Chairman, you mentioned, and several delegations mentioned, the Cancún conference. As we all know, one of the results of this conference has been the consensus on the absolute priority that should be given to the problem of food and agriculture. The only specialized international organization in the framework of the United Nations which can give a concrete answer to this result of the Cancún conference is FAO with all its knowledge and expertise. We think that the Programme of Work and Budget for 1982/83 would give this answer. We support it, and we have said so already at the last Council session in June. In accordance with our support to the Programme of FAO, we are also prepared to take our share resulting from the proposed budget level and we sincerely hope after hearing and following the discussion in this Council session that this budget will be approved unanimously at the forthcoming conference.

S. CADENASSO (Observador de Chile): Voy a ser muy breve. Solamente quiero felicitarles por el documento presentado y el trabajo desarrollado y decir, también, que mi delegación apoya el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para el proximo bienio y que, como país en donde se encuentra la sede para lati-noamérica puedo manifestar, con toda justicia, la efectiva labor que desarrolla esta Organización.

Por lo tanto, estamos de acuerdo con el aumento mínimo del presupuesto después de haber realizado el Sr. Director General todos los ajustes recomendados durante el 79 período de sesiones del Consejo. El Sr. Ministro de Agricultura expondrá la posición de mi país después del estudio realizado por los expertos correspondientes.

A.R. SIAFA (Observer for Sierra Leone): Sierra Leone's Observer would like to lend support to the Programme of Work and Budget. This is a very important issue and we would not like to stay silent on it because food is a very prominent subject in our country and in fact the question of food is such a delicate situation that we have to give it the strongest support possible. We believe that the level of the budget as prepared by the Director-General is quite reasonable and is acceptable to Sierra Leone.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and also to thank those who prepared the documents which have been discussed by this Council.

CHAIRMAN: That exhausts the lists of speakers. Before I sum up I would like to give the microphone to the Director-General.

LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les délégués, je voudrais vous dire combien je vous suis reconnaissant du ton constructif, du ton modéré avec lequel vous avez débattu cette question très importante qu'est le Programme de travail et budget pour 1982-83. Il n'y a eu aucune confrontation, et j'espère qu'il n'y en aura jamais, non seulement sur ce sujet, mais sur d'autres sujets.

J'ai aussi apprécié les interventions des délégués qui n'étaient pas en mesure, en ce moment, de se prononcer de façon finale sur le niveau du budget. Je crois que ceci constitue un encouragement pour nous tous en ce qui concerne la discussion à la Commission II de la prochaine Conférence. Je pense qu'avec de la bonne volonté nous pouvons espérer aboutir à un consensus - je ne dis pas l'unanimité. Ainsi les pays qui, pour des raisons qui leur sont propres et que je respecte, ne pourraient pas voter en faveur du budget, ne bloqueraient pas le décision de la majorité, en restant dans l'esprit démocratique qui caractérise les Nations Unies et la FAO. J'ai beaucoup apprécié le ton très modéré et très encourageant de la délégation des Etats Unis. Je m'attendais je dois le dire à une position plus difficile. Rappelons-nous que ce Conseil se situe juste après le sommet historique de Cancun. Comme il n'y a pas eu de documents officiels à la suite de ce sommet il y a une déclaration qui a été lue conjointement par les deux présidents: le Président de la Républiques du Mexique et le Premier Ministre du Canada. Je voudrais me permettre - car il y a évidemment un rapport entre le programme de travail de la FAO' et les problèmes traités par la FAO dont plusieurs ont été évoqués lors de ce sommet historique 7 de lire deux paragraphes qui me semblent pertinents de cette déclaration. Les débats ont en effet montré qu'il existait dans plusieurs cas une entente et une convergence de vues générales sur les

grandes questions concernant la sécurité alimentaire et le développement agricole. ''La faim doit être éliminée dans un délai aussi bref que possible. Cet objectif constitue clairement une obligation de la communauté internationale et se place au premier rang des priorités tant à l'échelon national que dans le contexte de la coopération internationale. La condition fondamentale pour apporter une solution réelle aux problèmes de la faim est que les pays en voie de développement fassent eux-même sur le plan intérieur un effort soutenu et prolongé pour accroître leur autosuffisance en matière de production alimentaire. Cet effort exige néanmoins que soit aussi fourni en temps utile un soutien international technique et financier suffisant en liaison avec les politiques et stratégies intérieures. Ceci est la pensée des 22 chefs d'Etat qui se sont réunis les 22 et 23 octobre à Cancún. J'espère que l'esprit de solidarité qui a prévalu à Cancún. pourra aussi être reflété dans les discussions qui auront lieu à la prochaine Conférence de la FAO, non seulement sur le budget mais sur toutes les autres questions qui vont être débattues.

Je crois que je n'ai pas à ajouter grand chose sur la priorité qu'occupe l'agriculture non seulement dans le sommet de Cancún, d'Ottawa ou de Melbourne, mais aussi dans le cadre des politiques nationales d'aide au développement. Le représentant des Etats-Unis l'a dit, l'agriculture occupe la plus haute priorité dans leur programme d'aide; le Canada l'avait dit aussi, 45 pour cent de l'aide va au secteur agricole; le Japon à plusieurs reprises l'a répété, la Communauté également accorde 40 pour cent, le PNUD lui-même, la Banque mondiale…. C'est la priorité des priorités. Donc, quand je propose 11 millions de dollars d'augmentation d'aide nette pour 1982 pour aborder le problème de la faim et de la pauvreté on ne peut pas dire que j'ai été trop exigeant et on ne peut pas dire que j'aurais dû en juillet diminuer le budget.

Il y a eu 40 pays qui ont demandé en juin que le budget soit préparé de façon plus détaillée sur la même base que les sommaires qui leur avaient été soumis. Je dois tenir compte de ces 40 pays tout en respectant l'avis de ceux qui pensaient qu'on pouvait faire des restrictions. Je me suis donc conformé aux vues de la majorité sinon je ne serais pas le Directeur général de la FAO si je devais me ranger aux décisions minoritaires. Aussi n'ai-je pas à me défendre à ce sujet mais seulement à m'en expliquer. Aujourd'hui d'ailleurs, les résultats que nous avons obtenus montrent bien que cette même majorité de juin est restée la même au mois de novembre sur le même sujet et je pense qu'il est sage de suivre la voie qu'avait alors décidé le Conseil.

Je voudrais rendre hommage, comme l'ont fait beaucoup de délégués, à l'Australie qui a décidé d'appuyer le budget malgré les contraintes qu'elle subit. Je n'ai pas à les citer ou à les expliquer, nous savons de quoi il s'agit, je dois aussi rendre hommage à. l'Irlande qui nous a indiqué aujourd'hui que sa position avait évolué et qu'elle appuyait le budget. Je suis certain que les pays comme la Suède, la France, la Pologne et pourquoi pas l'Angleterre, l'Allemagne, le Brésil qui a aussi indiqué qu'il s'abstenait, que même ces pays donc pourraient au moins ces prochains jours manifester leur sympathie pour la majorit" des pays membres et faire les efforts nécessaires pour appuyer ce modeste budget.

En conclusion je voudrais encore une fois remercier toutes les délégations ici présentes. Nous allons continuer cette discussion dans quelques jours, durant la Conférence, et j'espère que le même esprit d'amitié et de solidarité prévaudra lorsque cet important sujet sera discuté.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Director-General, for this very clear more or less summing up of the reactions by members to the debate on this very vital subject. Next time I think we will hold the Commonwealth Conference in Canada.

Now, 47 members spoke on this subject, which is practically the whole membership, and out of that, 39 clearly indicated their support of the budget, and six more or less reserved their decision now until they go into Conference, but they were encouraging discussions, and out of the two who said they are against, there too the feeling is that they may reconsider their position in the light of Cancun and Ottawa, etc., when they really come to Conference. Therefore, this discussion, as the Director-General said, has not really been a confrontation or anything like that. There is a feeling that everybody here appreciates what the FAO is doing, what the Secretariat is doing, the measure taken by the Director-General to improve efficiency and to really bring up items which are of top priority. This has been considered by all, and the position is this: that although the financial situation is hard on all, it is harder still on the developing countries, the poorer of the developing nations, and therefore the feeling here that something must be done to assist I am sure will be transmitted to the Conference itself. It is an atmosphere that: has to be created and generated, the atmosphere of cooperation as was done at Cancun and Ottawa and Melbourne and all the others, as well as the Conference going on in Paris now.

In our report, therefore, we shall reflect this attitude of Council, there has been no confrontation at all. If I may say so, in almost 20 years of coming here, we have never had complete unanimity on budget. This is a fact. The Director-General knows it, all of you who have been coming long enough know it, and this is only natural, but the fact is that the majority decision is carried. This is a democratic way, and the Director-General has no alternative but to follow what the majority of the members of the Organization vote for or want, and I am sure that the small minority is not opposing anything as such, but governments are governments, they are sovereign and they can take their own decisions; nobody is grudging any government what decision it takes.

Now it is half-past twelve and I think it is better for us to adjourn, but before we do that I have here a note from the Secretary-General that concerns the Chairman and the members of the Drafting Committee. It has been proposed for your proposal that Mrs. Rossi Perotti of Italy be the Chairlady of the Drafting Committee. It is agreed.

Then, it is here suggested that the Latin American Group have indicated that El Salvador will replace Venezuela on the Drafting Committee. Poland is also on the Drafting Committee. If this is agreed, then this now completes the chairman and membership of the Drafting Committee who can get to work perhaps this afternoon. They will have to work this afternoon.

The meeting rose at 12.35 hours.
La séance est levée à 12 h 35.
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.35 horas.

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page