D.K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): First, I would draw your attention to the paragraphs cited by the Chairman, 3.71, 3.72 and 3.73 of the Report of the Finance Committee, CL 83/4, relating to the Scale of Contributions for the 1984-85 biennium, including a Resolution recommended by the Finance Committee for submission by the Council to the I Conference. As usual, the proposed scale has been derived directly from the current United Nations scale of assessments, taking into account the differences in membership between the UN and FAO. The practice of deriving the FAO scale from the United Nations scale was established by decision of I the Eighth Session of the Conference in 1955 and confirmed after a very thorough and detailed review by the Eighteenth Session of the Conference in 1975.
While reservations have been expressed from time to time by certain Member Nations concerning the most appropriate basis for arriving at the FAO scale, it has been recognized at all times by an overwhelming majority of Members that the United Nations Committee on Contributions is the most qualified body for assessing Member Governments' ability to pay, as well as the other factors entering into the computation of an equitable scale of contributions. The desirability of harmonization of scales of assessment of organizations within the United Nations system has been acknowledged in order to avoid inter alia duplication of the work of the UN Committee on Contributions. Any break away from use of the United Nations scale as the basis for the FAO scale would have undesirable repercussions throughout the United Nations system.
The Director-General supports the recommendations of the Finance Committee that the Council should submit to the Conference for its approval the scale set out in appendix C of the report of the Finance Committee.
D.H.J. ABEYAGOONASEKERA (Chairman, Finance Committee): Under General Rule XXVII-7 (j) the Finance Committee is required to keep under review the scale of contributions and to make recommendations to the Council of any modifications in the scale of contributions.
During our discussion the Committee was informed that the UN scale of assessments for the triennal period 1983/85 was adopted by the General Assembly. Since the FAO scale of contributions is directly derived from the United Nations scale of assessments as enforced during the year of the Conference session and is applicable to the two following years and since the Committee saw no compelling reasons to deviate from this procedure the Committee recommended the adoption of the United Nations scale. The draft of the resolution to be placed before the Conference, as appearing in paragraph 3.73 of its report is placed before the Council for approval.
A.F.M. de FREITAS (Brazil): Paragraphs 3.71 and 3.73 of document CL 83/4 remind the Council that the FAO scale of contributions derives directly from the scale of contributions of the United Nations, with the necessary adjustments due to the differing composition of the two organizations.
The Brazilian Government has continuously indicated, both in the General Assembly and in recent sessions of the specialized agencies, that it is not satisfied with the criteria adopted by the United Nations to establish the scale of contributions of the member countries. Such criteria are limited to the national income and a discount formula based on the per capita income level presented by the countries.
The Brazilian Government is of the view that such criteria are insufficient to allow a correct evaluation of the relative capacity to pay of each Member Country. Accordingly Brazil voted against the Resolution 37/125 of the General Assembly of the United Nations which adopted the United Nations scale of contributions for the period 1983/85. The Brazilian delegation in the Committee on Contributions in the United Nations and in the General Assembly has proposed in a positive manner and in a constructive spirit proper and more objective criteria for the preparation of the United Nations scale of contributions, according to the principles of the Resolution 36/231.
With your permission I will refer to the criteria suggested by the Brazilian delegation. One, better comparability of national income statistics. As we know, comparability is effected by the existence of different methods of national accounting and also by different inflation rates. Two, the national accumulated wealth should be included in these criteria. The developing countries in general have to face high expenditures in infrastructure works which in the industrialized countries have been amortized long ago. Three, the criteria should also take into consideration the difficulties, the balance of payments of member countries and their different capacity to obtain foreign currency. Four, special attention should be given to countries whose export earnings depend basically on a single or a few products. Five, the criteria should also take into account the multiple circumstances which may actually affect the capacity to pay of Member Countries. Sixth, and finally, special consideration should be given to the developing countries in general and to LDC countries in particular which have to struggle against special economic and financial problems.
I believe that many, if not all of the elements should be taken into account by FAO in its preparation if its scale of contributions. We should try to prevent burdening even more the contribution of the developing countries by adapting mechanically the new United Nations scale of contributions on a purely arithmetical basis.
My delegation wishes to address itself to the Director-General of FAO and ask him to promote a study on the subject with a view to obtaining a more equitable calculation of the contribution of Member Countries. I would appreciate it very much if some information on this subject could be prepared and circulated before the next Council.
My delegation is not in a position to support the scale of contributions as proposed in document CL 83/4. In fact my delegation feels that this proposal merely transposes to FAO the scale of contributions of the United Nations and it does not respect the principle of equality and it does not either take into consideration the capacity to pay of the Member Countries.
My delegation also requests the Director-General to transmit to the Secretary General of the United Nations the concern expressed in the FAO Council with respect to the objectivity of the criteria, the method and the procedure followed by the United Nations in the preparation of its scale of contributions for 1984/85 and their frustration with the present one.
My delegation would also appreciate if the Secretary General could on his part transmit this concern to the Committee on Contributions of the United Nations and request it to establish more objective methods and criteria to determine the relative capacity of the Member Countries, in accordance with Resolution 36/231 of the General Assembly of the United Nations.
W. HERMKES (Germany, Federal Republic of): On behalf of the ten members of the European Community I would like to make the following statement on the scale of contributions. During the discussion of the new UN scale in New York in the Fifth Committee as well as in the General Assembly the members of the European Community, among others, expressed their serious concern about, and their disapproval of, the new UN scale and they voted against that scale. The reasons for our attitude were the procedure chosen by the General Assembly to resolve the problems which had arisen over the scale Through this procedure the independent status and the integrity of the Committee on Contributions had been severely diminished and damaged. The new United Nations scale had not been elaborated on the basis of objective statistical and economic data made available to the Committee on Contributions, nor on the real capacity of Member States to pay, but on an essentially political criteria. The fact that Member States paying more than 70 percent of the regular budget were unable in the General Assembly to support the adoption of the scale is, in our opinion, a clear reflection of the unsatisfactory procedure and the unsatisfactory result in arriving at a new scale. However, the decision was taken by the General Assembly. Consequently, although these reasons are still valid, we accept the new cooperation and consensus between all member states of the FAO which will certainly facilitate and foster the work of our Organization. The members of the European Community on the other hand will continue to support all efforts to come to more objective criteria for the United Nations scale of contributions. We fully trust that the views expressed will be adequately reflected in the report for our Council session. Nevertheless we would appreciate it if this statement were to be annexed to the report.
CHAIRMAN: I think that as regards your request that your statement should be annexed to the report, normally, we have not been adding any statements to the report so I will have to refer to the Chairman and the members of the Drafting Committee. It is a drafting exercise and we do not normally append statements but anyway I will leave it to the Drafting Committee to discuss this issue and come with the recommendation.
A. PEREZ-MARSA HERNANDEZ (España): La delegación española quisiera hacer una declaración en relación con el informe del 51 período de sesiones del Comité de Finanzas contenido en el documento CL 83/4, y en especial a las escalas de cuotas de la FAO propuestas para el próximo bienio.
A pesar de que se nos indica que la contabilización para el cómputo de las cuotas ha sido hecha basándose directamente en las escalas de cuotas de Naciones Unidas aprobada por la Asamblea General en su Resolución 37/125 del pasado 17 de diciembre, mi delegación quiere hacer constar, al igual que hizo en la Comisión de Cuotas de Naciones Unidas, en la que España está representada en la V Comisión, así como la 103 Sesión de la Asamblea General celebrada el 17 de diciembre pasado en la que España votó en contra de la Resolución antes mencionada, repito, señor Presidente, que mi delegación quisiera hacer constar su desacuerdo con la escala de cuotas propuesta y solicita se prevea una revisión de la misma antes de su definitiva aprobación.
Señor Presidente, como usted ya conoce, el porcentaje del presupuesto global de Naciones Unidas que le corresponde a España para el próximo bienio es del 1.93; el incremento de la cuota española respecto del último bienio fue de 20 centésimas; en la FAO, por su menor número de miembros, España partía de una cifra superior al 2 por ciento en su participación al presupuesto de la Organización, y en la escala prevista el incremento de la cuota española es de 25 centésimas. A decir verdad no creo que la situación económica de mi país, comparada con la de otros Miembros en estos últimos años, haya sido tan buena como para que en la revisión de la escala de cuotas a España le corresponda el cuarto incremento en importancia respecto al bienio anterior.
En consecuencia, teniendo en mente la situación económica y financiera de mi país, me permito solid citar la revisión por el Comité de Finanazas de la escala de cuotas propuesta y solicita la búsqueda de otros medios más reales para su determinación.
Por último, espero, señor Presidente, que dicha escala no sea aprobada hasta lograr una distribución más justa y adecuada de las cuotas.
C. VIDALI CARBAJAL (México): Al analizarse en el seno de las Naciones Unidas la escala de cuotas para el trienio 83/85, que es la base para establecer la cuota de todo el sistema de Naciones Unidas, la delegación de México manifestó su inconformidad con la misma debido a los siguientes argumentos:
Primero: Por falta de tiempo dicha Comisión no pudo cumplir debidamente con el mandato de la Asamblea.
Segundo: Unicamente un tercio de la tasación de contribuciones se basó en estadísticas de ingreso nacional bruto proporcionadas por Estados Miembros. En gran parte se basó en estadísticas existentes en la Oficina de Estadística de las Naciones Unidas.
Tercero: Hubo sobrevalorización de tipos de cambio y de estadísticas sobre el ingreso nacional basado en precios constantes, sin tener en cuenta la inflación real.
Cuarto: La nueva escala que se propone para 1983/1985 presenta una transacción anómala e incompatible con los principios de justicia y de equidad.
Por otra parte, es claro que el mayor impacto de aumento se presenta en los países petroleros en vías de desarrollo y los parámetros y argumentos utilizados por la Comisión de Cuotas de las Naciones Unidas no son reales a la luz de la grave situación económica y financiera de los países en vías de desarrollo. Al adoptarla no se consideró la capacidad real de pago y el nivel de endeudamiento de los países, ni otros problemas económicos causados por la desigual relación de intercambio en el comercio internacional que se ha agravado, aún más, ante la caída de los precios de las materias primas.
Por todas estas razones, nuestra delegación en Nueva York se vio obligada a votar en contra de la Resolución 37/125 A, ya que el Gobierno de México consideró que la Comisión de Cuotas no se apegó a las instrucciones que previamente le había dado la Asamblea General en su Resolución 36/231 A.
La posición de Mexico en todos los foros internacionales ha sido siempre congruente, y por lo tanto, tengo instrucciones precisas de mi gobierno de manifestar que México no puede aceptar la escala de cuotas que estamos analizando ya que el porcentaje de contribución que pretende asignársele a nuestro país representa 18 puntos más de los que tiene asignados en la ONU y aun cuando se mantuviera el porcentaje actual de nuestra contribución el aumento de la misma sería aproximadamente 150 mil dólares. Quiero insistir qn que, así como se ha tomado en consideración la difícil situación económica mundial al reducir el porcentaje de contribución de muchos países en desarrollo y algunos desarrollados, la crisis específica de algunos países también debe ser tomada en cuenta para que la escala de cuotas refleje con justicia las posibilidades económicas reales de todos los países.
Es más, insistimos en que en todo caso la adaptación de la escala de cuotas de la FAO no se haga exclusivamente sobre una base aritmética, sino teniendo muy en cuenta factores económicos y financieros. En el caso de nuestro país plantearemos una situación concreta. Por lo tanto, proponemos concretamente que este Consejo no adopte el contenido de los párrafos correspondientes del documento CL 83/4 y especialmente el 3.73 en lo que se refiere a la Resolución para dar así oportunidad a que el Cornitele Finanzas revise nuevamente la escala tomando en consideración los argumentos mencionados y presentándonos una nueva escala al Consejo inmediatamente anterior al próximo período de sesiones de la Conferencia.
Por último, queremos manifestar que apoyamos plenamente en todos sus puntos la declaración formulada por la distinguida delegación de Brasil, dado que se presentó de una manera muy comprensiva y tiene soluciones y propuestas positivas y concretas que esperamos que este Consejo tome en consideración.
A.Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia) (original language Arabic): I think you will remember that two or three days ago we touched upon the scale of contributions. We were addressing our speech to developing countries and we said that we felt that the general tendency now is to burden developing countries. This is clearly borne out in the scale of contributions for 1984/85,
In the Finance Committee - as you well know, we are members of this Committee - we have raised the subject and I was among the first speakers to touch upon this item when it was presented to us. We have asked for clarification. We tried to find facts. At the time we were told that the scale - and we know that this is a fact - was devised and adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations - that is, that the Finance Committee does not have much choice apart from accepting the scale of contributions.
We have listened to some fellow delegates who have just said that this is unjust. We would go even further than that and say that it is totally unjust. It means that developing countries should be vigilant and should look with extreme care at the situation, because in fact this is the first step towards the future of the whole Organization. So we should be vigilant, we should take care, and we should look always to the future. If the increase in the contributions goes only to developing countries without a decrease in the developed countries - and here I repeat, when I speak about developed countries I am not speaking only about rich countries, I am speaking about all these countries which do have money, financial resources, natural resources, know-how, etc. Hence I repeat my appeal for vigilance on the part of developing countries which should always look to the future. Here I am addressing myself to developing countries and I have already informed my government of this situation after the meetings of the Finance Committee.
In the Resolution in front of us, paragraph 3.73, there is one word which raised our attention and we do want to know what is meant by it. In line 2 of this Resolution - and here I am reading what is mentioned - Confirming that the Organization should respect the rule aiming at applying the scale of contributions in the United Nations /subject to adaptation'. / This is the clause that raised my attention. What do you mean by 'subject to adaptation'?
As a representative of my country in this august assembly I do add my voice to those who asked for a reappraisal and a review of the scale of contributions, and I thank you.
CHAIRMAN: I find in the English text what you said probably reads: "As in the past, FAO should follow the United Nations scale of assessments subject to adaptation for the different membership of FAO". That is probably what you call "amendment", so I would request Dr. Crowther at this stage to explain the meaning of this sentence.
D. K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): The adaptation between the UN scale membership and the FAO scale membership is a rather simple one in Chat there are a few Members of FAO that are not Members of the UN, and similarly, there are a few Members of the UN that are not Members of FAO. This has to be taken into account in deriving the final rate.
However, those countries who are not Members of the UN but are Members of the FAO do participate in special UN programmes and have a derived scale established by the UN Committee on Contributions, which we use in establishing the FAO scale. Those are the small adjustments that are made for the difference in membership between the UN membership and the FAO membership.
CHAIRMAN: Is this explanation satisfactory, Saudi Arabia?
A. Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia) (original language Arabic): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I asked the same question in the Finance Committee, but the reply I get here is slightly different. After having listened to this reply I think I understand that it is the Organization which has introduced this change in order to arrive at a percentage of 100 percent. Is this correct? Have I understood this correctly?
D. K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): Yes, it is correct that we must arrive at the 100 percent, and in so doing we accept the UN scale established for those Member Countries who are not Members of the UN who participate in other UN agencies, and that makes up the difference then between the UN derived scale and the FAO derived scale.
CHAIRMAN: Does any other Council Member wish to speak before I give the floor to the Observers?
J. TCHICAYA (Congo): Je m'excuse d'intervenir si tard dans ce débat, mais je voudrais, au nom de mon Gouvernement, appuyer la proposition faite au Conseil par le Comité des finances. En effet, depuis toujours, nous avons adopté le barème des Nations Unies au niveau de la FAO, c'est pour cette raison que, pour notre part, nous ne voyons pas de difficulté à approuver ceci, dans la mesure où l'Assemblée générale elle-même a déjà adopté ce barème. Nous pensons que les adaptations qui ont été faites ici tiennent compte de certaines améliorations des situations économiques dans certains pays, et pour notre part nous pensons que ce barème s'appuie sur une situation de fait, et nous félicitons certains pays qui ont pu réaliser des progrès économiques au moment où la crise sévit. Les augmentations que nous voyons ici témoignent de l'effort fait par ces pays et nous souhaiterions que d'autres pays suivent ces exemples pour que la part de chacun soit la plus modeste possible.
KWANG-HEE KIM (Observer for Korea, Republic of): I am grateful to be finally given the floor. I think it is a pity to confuse you as to which Korea has the floor.
I listened to the interventions of the previous speakers with great interest, especially how to establish the appropriate scale of contributions. I think it is a very difficult task to set up objectively a scale of contributions which would satisfy every country, taking into consideration the various variables which differ from country to country.
Turning to the scale of contributions for my country, we are one of the few countries for which the budget scale is going to be considerably increased during the forthcoming biennium. When we take a quick run-down on the list of the budget for the scale of contributions, the proposed scale for my country is going to be increased considerably by 23 percent, from 0.18 to 0.22 for the coming biennium. This means if the proposed budget level is to be approved as it stands now, we would have to pay $650 000 to $1 million for the forthcoming biennium.
I made just a quick run-down on the list of the proposed budget scale to check where we stand in the order of the budget contributions for this Organization. I found we are between 35th and 40th among all Member Countries. We know although the rates which are going to be applied to my country as the past practice, it derives from the UN assessment.
However, we would like to reserve our position on this matter until we can make our final position known.
S. CADENASSO (Observador de Chile): Mi delegación estima que la nueva escala de cuotas para los años 1984-1985, basada en la escala de las Naciones Unidas que a su vez se baso en estadísticas que no están de acuerdo con la realidad economica que viven algunos países en desarrollo, y me refiero especialmente al nuestro que atraviesa por una crisis economica aguda por motivos de la recesión mundial y por la baja de los precios de su principal producto de exportación: el cobre. Por lo tanto, Señor Presidente, estamos totalmente de acuerdo con lo expresado y con la proposición expuesta por el distinguido Representante del Brasil y, por lo tanto, solicito se realice una revisión de la escala propuesta.
Sra. Dra. M.I. CASELLAS O. (Venezuela): En primer lugar pedimos disculpas por haber pedido la palabra en el último momento.
Hemos estudiado con detenimiento el Documento CL 83/4, en especial el Informe del 51° período de sesiones del Comité de Finanzas en su Apéndice C, en el cual observamos que en la Escala de Cuotas de la FAO, propuesta para el bienio 1984-85, a Venezuela le corresponde un incremento de 5 centesimos, en comparación con la escala de 1982-83.
Al respecto, y tomando en cuenta que este incremento propuesto está basado en la resolución 37/125 de la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas, mí delegación considera necesario hacer del conocimiento de este Consejo lo siguiente: En la trigesimoséptima Asamblea General, durante la discusión del tema relativo a la escala de cuotas de los Estados Miembros para el prorrateo de gastos de las Naciones Unidas, la posición de Venezuela fue la de no aceptar un aumento en dicha escala, en vista de que el criterio utilizado por la Comisión de Cuotas para hacer el cálculo de las contribuciones, fue el ingreso nacional y la escala propuesta, no guardaba correlación con las actuales condiciones económicas de muchos países en desarrollo.
Venezuela expuso en esa ocasión que la escala debería revisarse de forma que se ajustara a los principios de equidad y justicia y a las disposiciones de la Resolución 36/271 A. Expresó igualmente que la Comisión de Cuotas debería dedicar más tiempo a la preparación de una metodología de cálculo y a presentar una nueva propuesta para el período 1984-1986, en la que se tuviera en cuenta, además de los indicadores sociales y económicos, las necesidades de utilizar estimaciones corrientes del ingreso nacional, el efecto de la inflación nacional y las variaciones de los tipos de cambio sobre la cuota. En la votación de la Resolución 37/125 A, Venezuela votó en contra. Sin embargo, se adoptó por unanimidad la Resolución 37/125 B, en la cual se dispone que el criterio fundamental que debe utilizar la Comisión de Cuotas será "la capacidad real de pago" de los Estados Miembros.
Así pues, con concordancia con nuestra posición en la trigesimoséptima Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas, reiteramos lo expuesto por Venezuela en ésta y manifestamos nuestro desacuerdo con el proyecto de resolución contentivo de la escala de cuotas de la FAO para 1984-1985, en lo que respecta a Venezuela. Esperamos, al igual que otros países, que esto sea tomado en cuenta a la hora de redactar el Informe final de este Consejo.
J. GAZZO FERNANDEZ (Observador del Perú): También quiero hacer una observación respecto a la escala de cuotas de la FAO propuesta para 1984-85. Recuerdo claramente, en una reunión tenida en el Comité de Finanzas, del cual soy miembro, expuse mi extrañeza porque existen muchos casos en los cuales algunos países desarrollados tienen disminución de cuota y, en cambio, algunos países en vías de desarrollo y con tremendos problemas en la balanza de pagos y en la balanza económica y con deuda externa, tienen un incremento. Es el caso del Perú que pasa de 0,07 a 0,08, o sea, un país que en este momento, como todos sabemos, tiene problemas de balanza de pagos, tiene problemas de ingresos per capita, tiene problemas de producto nacional bruto, y lo que aquí se quiere es que no se adopten parámetros que, digamos, no guardan relación; si se adoptan parámetros occidentalizados no se puede hacer esta comparación. Por ejemplo, el país sigue figurando con un ingreso por cápita de alrededor de 1 000 dólares por persona; pero este dato es de 1980, cuando el dolar se cotizaba a 400 soles. Hoy en día está a 1 600 soles por unidad. Por consiguiente, habría que pedir a los organismos -en este caso a Naciones Unidas- que se usen otros parámetros para los países en vías de desarrollo.
Manifiesto mi desacuerdo con este incremento de cuota para el Perú. Una cosa es lo que quisiéramos pagar, porque en relación a los servicios que nos da FAO quizá esta cuota sea todavía mínima. Pero otra cosa es lo que podemos pagar en relación a lo difícil de la situación de muchos de nuestros países.
LI HYOK CHOL (Observer for Democratic People's Republic of Korea): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor and I am sorry to say what is not related to the main subject of the debate. I would like to express disappointment when there was a mix-up in the name of Korea, and at the same time I would like to make it clear that the mix-up was not the making of the Koreans themselves, and when the foreign elements are relieved from Korea and Korea is reunified, such disappointment or mix-up will not cause any difficulty or embarrassment to the Council.
CHAIRMAN: We have to consider the Finance Committee's recommendation, and we must consider whether the enabling Resolution mentioned in paragraph 3.73 should be adopted so that it goes to the Conference. The suggestion has been made that a further study should be done and that the Finance Committee should re-examine this question in its September meeting, and that at our meeting on November 1st this matter should come up again. I would like to have the views of Mr. Abeyagoonasekera on this suggestion.
D.H.J. ABEYAGOONASEKERA (Chairman, Finance Committee): We discussed this item in the Finance Committee. I represent a country where the scale has been revised downwards. I did anticipate that there would be a discussion because of the many increases, and that prompted me to not only look into past documents but also to rely upon the experience of the Secretariat to see if there had been precedents in the past when this question could have come up, and whether there could have been expressions of dissatisfaction with the way in which the scale had been calculated. I did a bit of homework in what took place in the 1974/75 biennium budget, when there were similar expressions of dissatisfaction stated by the Council, and the Finance Committee was asked to look into this, particularly the question of whether it would be feasible and possible to have FAO's own scale of contributions. I think on that issue a brief study was done and the outcome of that report is in the Council's reports for the following biennium. The Committee had felt that a further exercise would incur much expenditure. In fact if it was to be based on data to be supplied from the UN Statistical Office and from the FAO here in its headquarters, it would come to something like $85 000 per biennium so the question of cost was considered.
Second, the question of parameters if the FAO is to have its own scale of assessments. What are the parameters? There is agriculture, there is forestry, and fisheries, and rural development; so the question was which sector was going to get priority, and then the question arose what priority do you give in deciding on the kind of parameter that we should adopt.
The other thing, the Committee felt that there should be conformity as far as possible with other UN agencies and the Committee found there were other major UN agencies which did follow the UN scale, and therefore it was more suitable to follow the same scale as has been followed by the major agencies. So the recommendation by the Finance Committee was that we continue to rely on the FAO scale and that there was no need to change it. This question will keep coming up as and when the scales are revised, but as far as past experience is concerned, Mr. Chairman, these are the facts that I have been able to gather, The Finance Committee has not seen any compelling reasons than what I have mentioned, since as the cost of doing the exercise by ourselves, and has decided on the scale of assessments that is applicable to all countries in general.
CHAIRMAN: In the light of this explanation given by Mr. Abeyagoonasekera, can we adopt the resolutions subject to the reservations mentioned by a few members?
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo creo que la conclusion de este debate debería reflejar las posiciones que se han expresado. Entiendo muy bien la posición de nuestro colega y amigo el Presidente del Comité de Finanzas, pero creo que ese Comité, como organo asesor del Consejo, debe tratar de recoger las expresiones que se han manifestado en esta reunión durante el debate. Este Comité de Finanzas podría hacer un esfuerzo más en su reunión de otoño para revisar este asunto y pienso que esa revisión debería estar basada esencialmente en una orientación fundamental: tratar de obtener los medios, las recomendaciones más aconsejadas para que aquellos pocos países desarrollados que tienen disminución en sus cuotas en la escala de contribución no aparezcan en esa situación; è igualmente a los países en desarrollo que están en difícil situación económica no se les aumente su contribución en esa escala.
Basado en estas consideraciones creo que el Comité de Finanzas podría revisar esta situación en la reunión de otoño y presentar un informe al Consejo en noviembre antes de que pase a la Conferencia para su aprobación en el próximo período de sesiones.
A.Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia) (Original language Arabic): I would like to second what we said by the Ambassador of Columbia. I would also like to give my support to what was said by the Chairman of the Finance Committee except for one point, and that is that he indicated that there was a single country among the developed countries, the contribution of which has been reduced in line with this scale of contributions. However, a number of rich developed countries have also had their contributions reduced while the contributions of certain developing countries have increased, and these countries are very poor or depend on the export of a single commodity, so I think that it is wrong to say that it is only one developing country which is rich that is involved.
What made us raise this question was the tendency, or rather the orientation, in the United Nations, and the developing countries in the Council have not raised this question because their contributions were not increased under the scale of contributions, but these countries will find that in the future their contributions are obviously going to be increased. That is what we are concerned about. We are speaking about this trend towards a progressive increase of the responsibility of the developing countries for the budget of the Organization while these countries are poor and have to count on the help of the wealthy countries of the world. If this question is not reexamined by the Finance Committee then I would like the reservations of my country to be embodied in the report of the Council session.
A.F.M. DE FREITAS (Brazil): My delegation would like to support the proposal by the distinguished delegate of Colombia to the effect that the Finance Committee should take up again the study of this topic with a view to trying to restore at least the previous contribution of industrialized countries whose contributions have been lowered in the present scale of contributions, and with a view to lowering the contributions of developing countries which have had their contributions raised in the present proposed scale of contributions.
C. VIDALI CARBAJAL (México): Nuestra Delegación interviene para apoyar enfáticamente, en base a lo que declaramos en nuestra intervención original, la proposición del Sr. Embajador de Colombia en el sentido de que el Comité de Finanzas vuelva a estudiar este problema. Pensamos que es injusto que se trate igual a países con situaciones desiguales; por tanto, esperamos que esta sea la recomendación que salga de este Consejo.
J. MAJCHER (Poland): First of all, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee for his additional explanations which we consider very useful and helpful.
To our understanding the discussions in the UN Committee on Contributions have taken a long time, and it would not be justified to repeat the discussions which our representatives have conducted in the UN Committee on Contributions. These will take us eventually to a difficulty to accept the scale of contributions, even during the Conference, and it seems to us that taking the long tradition and long habit and the sort of cooperation inside the UN family of organizations and also taking into account that some tasks are conducted by some specialized well equipped bodies, I am afraid that even in our case it would be difficult to have all the necessary elements for conducting a really deep, profound discussion on this subject.
Therefore, taking this into account, we consider that it is fully justified to follow the tradition, which means that the FAO scale of contributions should derive from and be based on the United Nations scale of contributions. And, taking the above into account, of course, my delegation is in favor of and supports the Resolution as proposed in the paragraph 3.73.
W.A, GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): The delegate of Poland has made it very easy for this delegation to give its view again on the subject before us. We atated our reservations but nevertheless we agree with what was stated by the delegate of Poland and also the delegate of the Congo, and others. We do feel it would be very difficult to get to a complete assessment between now and the Council, and with all the reservations which we have made, we would therefore support that the proposed Scale of Contributions, derived from the United Nations scale of contributions, as presented to us by the Finance Committee, should find our support at this stage.
P.S. McLEAN (United Kingdom): May I briefly add my words to support the views just expressed by the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany. I am a little worried about the way this discussion is going. We have heard the Finance Committee Chairman's explanation and advice on this matter, based on research and on the very thorough examination which took place in the Finance Committee, as my colleague from Germany has said. The United Kingdom of course stands by the statement which he made on behalf of the ten Member States of the European Community, but in our view we would be making a very grave error if we made any move which was intended to depart from a practice in which the FAO's scale of contributions was based on and related to the United Nations scale.
I say this notwithstanding the reservations which we and others have on the revised scale, as presented from the Fifth Committee and the General Assembly, but I believe that what we should do and indeed I wonder if it is anything other than what we have any alternative to - is to adopt the Resolution and to allow those who have reservations to have them expressed in the terms of the Report.
CHAIRMAN: I will also say, personally, that a number of new criteria for assessment have been mentioned by different delegations and at any rate, we may not be any wiser between now and November. I would therefore endorse the suggestion that we adopt this Resolution, subject to the reservations expressed by Members.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, yo respeto mucho su opinión personal, pero creo que en este asunto debe contar la voluntad de los miembros del Consejo,
Yo creo que la propuesta que hice ha recibido el apoyo de la mayoría de los Miembros del Consejo. La interpretación que da el colega del Reino Unido a la forma como se pueden expresar las reservas eso sería más bien aplicable a ellos, a la minoría. De manera que mi propuesta concreta es que el Consejo decida enviar este proyecto de Resolución nuevamente a la consideración del Comité de Finanzas y que en el informe consten las reservas de la minoría que no están de acuerdo con esa propuesta.
J. TCHICAYA (Congo): Je ne suis pas tout à fait d'accord avec mon voisin et eminent collègue, l'Ambassadeur Bula Hoyos, et je pense que ce n'est pas la majorité qui s'est exprimée ici. Nous pensons pour notre part que nous ne pouvons pas compliquer la tâche du Conseil et encore moins celle du Comité financier. Ils ne sont pas suffisamment armés pour pouvoir, dans ce laps de temps, procéder à une réévaluation du barème. Pour cette raison, nous pensons qu'il est vraiment sage d'adopter ce barème quitte, si le Conseil veut faire des propositions, que pour l'avenir on puisse avoir un barème différent. Dans ces conditions, il faudra mettre tous les éléments à la disposition du Comité pour lui permettre de réviser ce barème. Mais pour l'instant il n'y a pas d'autres solutions que d'adopter le barème tel qu'il nous est proposé.
C. VIDALI CARBAJAL (México): Nuevamente para insistir y apoyar lo expresado por el distinguido embajador de Colombia. Realmente lo que estamos viendo en el seno de esta reunión es que no hay consenso y que de ninguna manera se podía adoptar una resolución si no existe el consenso del Consejo.
Sugerimos, para evitar discusiones adicionales, que este asunto regrese al Comité de Finanzas dado que un buen número de la mayoría de los Miembros del Consejo ha expresado su insatisfacción con esta proposición, y que el Comité de Finanzas nos lo vuelva a replantear en la futura reunión del Consejo.
Concretamente ésa es nuestra propuesta, apoyando a la declaración del distinguido embajador de Colombia.
Sra. Dra. M.I. CASELLAS 0. (Venezuela): Sólo queremos apoyar la propuesta de la delegación de Colombia y sugerimos, al igual que México, que este asunto sea llevado nuevamente al Comité de Finanzas.
B.N. SEQUEIRA (Angola): The delegation of Angola has not intervened on this subject under consideration because we consider that the Fifth Committee in the United Nations in New York has gone in depth into this and has studied all the variables and taken all of the major factors into consideration. That is why we have not intervened, because we consider the main arguments have already been advanced and it would be a needless sort of exercise for us here to repeat them again. That is why we support the arguments advanced by the delegates of Poland and Congo and we accept the Scale of Contributions as proposed.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): We also have not intervened on the subject so far and have been listening to the debate with great interest. We feel this is a matter of crucial importance to Member States of FAO, the scale of contributions; but the way things are, and since it is derived directly from the United Nations system of assessment, perhaps at this moment we have very little option but to adopt the Scale of Contributions as suggested by the Finance Committee.
However, I endorse the words of wisdom spoken by the delegate of Congo that if the Council so decides at a future time, it may look at alternatives other than what is being used now. But at this particular moment, when we have the contributions derived directly from the assessment of the United Nations system, there is very little that the Finance Committee will be able to do; even if we send it back to them and try and get it back by the next Council.
My delegation therefore supports the Scale of Contributions while at the same time we feel it is the desire of the Council to have another look at it; and the whole question of the scale: this can be looked into at a future time.
Sra. Dra. G. SOTO CARRERO (Cuba): Mi delegación, en realidad, no se había expresado en este tema porque entendíamos que se habían planteado aquí los distintos elementos que manejaban nuestros distinguidos colegas. Sin embargo, a estas alturas mi delegación, siendo coherente con su planteamiento en los distintos órganos de Naciones Unidas, acepta la escala de cuotas aprobada en Naciones Unidas y que, tal vez, pensamos que el Comité de Finanzas pudiera hacer otros ajustes con las sugerencias hechas por los distintos Estados Miembros en este Consejo. Pero en lo que sí estamos de acuerdo es que nosotros no podemos, ni vamos a cambiar aquí lo ya hecho en Naciones Unidas.
En consecuencia, apoyamos los planteamientos de nuestro vecino el distinguido embajador del Congo.
O. AWOYEMI (Nigeria): Although my country is one of those being called upon to make additional contributions in the proposed 1984-85 Scale of Contributions, my delegation feels that not much can be achieved by asking the Finance Committee to re-examine the exercise. Even if the former scale of contributions of those that now have to make reduced scales were restored, it would still not make any significant difference in the scale for other delegations.
My delegation therefore supports the suggestion that the Resolution should be adopted. The reservations of certain delegations could be recorded in the Report of the Council.
A. PEREZ-MARSA HERNANDEZ (España): Muy brevemente, señor Presidente. Solamente reiterar mis anteriores palabras apoyando las voces de las delegaciones que solicitan una redistribución más justa y adecuada de las cuotas, rogando al Comité de Finanzas que en su reunion de otoño recoja todo lo expuesto en este Consejo.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La propuesta que había hecho la delegación de Colombia y que ha recibido apoyo por parte de algunos miembros de este Consejo estaba basada en el hecho práctico de que no hay prisa para que este Consejo haga una recomendación a este respecto, porque será la Conferencia de noviembre la que deba tomar la decisión final.
En ese principio estamos basados; sin embargo, como delegado de Colombia queremos ser realistas frente a la situación que se ha presentado ahora a través del debate que estamos celebrando, y particularmente acogidos a lo que ha dicho mi distinguido vecino de la derecha, el embajador del Congo, que fue apoyado por Pakistán, creo que queda flotando como conclusión de este debate, cualquiera que sea nuestra recomendación, el hecho de que convendría en el futuro realizar una revisión de esta escala de cuotas.
A la luz de esas consideraciones y con espíritu constructivo, la delegación de Colombia podría aceptar una solución de compromiso para facilitar a este Consejo la decisión sobre este tema. Podríamos aceptar que se recomiende a la Conferencia esta escala de cuotas que aparece en el Apéndice C del documento, pero que a la vez el Consejo pida al Comité de Finanzas que en su sesión de otoño, o en el momento en que lo considere más oportuno, ese Comité revise nuevamente esa situación basado en el concepto fundamental de que ningún país desarrollado debería tener cuota inferior y de que, en la medida de lo posible, sería conveniente evitar que a los países en desarrollo se les aumenten sus contribuciones; con esta posición la delegación de Colombia puede contribuir a que se tome una decisión acertada, pero repito, en el informe debe constar claramente esa posición nuestra.
A. A. SOW (Observateur pour le Mali): Je suis très soulagé d'intervenir immédiatement après M. I'Ambassadeur de Colombie, parce que je me préparais justement à suggérer à Monsieur le Président, compte tenu des divergences de vues au sein de ce Conseil, d'entendre chaque délégué représentant chaque pays au sein du Conseil. Comme il me semble qu'il existe une certaine harmonisation au niveau des positions, nous estimons que la proposition faite par le distingué représentant du Congo, et qui a été appuyée par le distingué représentant de la Pologne et le distingué représentant de la République fédérale d'Allemagne, mérite d'être considérée, compte tenu du fait qu'il ne serait pas selon moi prudent pour le Conseil d'adopter un barème différent du barème de l'ONU. J'estime que les explications données par le Président du Comité des finances sont suffisamment correctes et en tout cas assez convaincantes. Nous souhaiterions donc que le Conseil ne se hasarde pas sur une nouvelle voie, car cela risque de mettre en jeu l'équilibre qui s'est fait au niveau des Nations Unies et qui a été obtenu difficilement. Je doute que le Comité des finances puisse être capable de
proposer de nouveaux barèmes réunissant le consensus unanime du Conseil et de la Conférence. Il est donc plus prudent de s'en tenir aux barèmes retenus au niveau de l'ONU. Dans le sillage des interventions de différents distingués représentants qui ont conseillé la prudence en la matière, il serait assez sage d'adopter la résolution telle qu'elle nous a été proposée.
Y. A. HAMDI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): My delegation has followed the discussion with great interest. It seems to us that the Council has two questions to settle. First of all there is the approval of the report of the Finance Committee on the scale of contributions, and the Council should express an opinion on this matter and this will certainly have repercussions on the work of the Finance Committee and on the work of the General Assembly. Secondly, it is a question of referring the report back to the Finance Committee so that it may revise the scale of contributions. However, there are questions which arise. Can the Finance Committee actually carry out its task? Can the Finance Committee actually do this? Do they have the possibility of doing it? Can they take into account the criteria which have been mentioned by a number of delegations? My delegation has certain doubts in this respect and therefore I fully agree with the report of the Finance Committee, and I recommend that the Finance Committee should take these recommendations into account in its future work.
C. VIDALI CARBAJAL (México): Nuevamente queremos insistir en que de todas formas no vemos consenso en el seno del Consejo, y normalmente los acuerdos del Consejo se toman en un clima de consenso, en un clima agradable que se presta para el consenso, para que la Organización pueda seguir adelante con sus trabajos.
Por otra parte, lo que estamos planteando es un planteamiento de fondo, es decir, se está utilizando un sistema en base a una extrapolación ilógica de otra Organización que, si bien es la Organización más importante del sistema internacional, tiene características, miembrecia y una composición completamente distintas a la nuestra: en nuestro caso, como se dijo anteriormente hay menos miembros.
Algunas veces los Miembros son diferentes, hay Miembros muy importantes de las Naciones Unidas que no lo son de la FAO y que, por tanto, eso representa una redistribución de cuotas importantes entre muchos de los Miembros de la FAO y pensamos que este caso, si bien se estudió en 1974 y se resolvió en esa manera, lo que está representando es un poco cierta pereza en cuanto a la capacidad técnica y la capacidad de readaptar nuestra organización a sus propias condiciones; en lo que no estamos de acuerdo es en que se hagan extrapolaciones ilógicas; consideramos que se tiene que revisar este tema y no aceptarlo nada más porque es muy fácil aceptar cosas que se manejan en otro foro; tenemos que considerar nuestro propio contexto y muchas veces he oído al Director General de la FAO que la ONU si bien nosotros participamos y tenemos todo el respeto para ambas organizaciones, pensamos que cada una de las organizaciones tiene que tener su propio sistema y sus propios mecanismos para considerar estas cosas. Por tanto, volvemos a insistir en lo que se ha planteado anteriormente, en que esto se estudie nuevamente en el Comité de Finanzas y que en base a nuestras condiciones, en base a parámetros como los que sugería el distinguido embajador de Brasil, pudiéramos nosotros establecer cuotas, inclusive recomendar una metodología a las Naciones Unidas que fuera más adaptada a las condiciones presentes de la economía internacional, especialmente de los países en desarrollo.
M. TATIETA (Haute-Volta): La délégation de Haute-Volta, tout en comprenant les arguments avancés par certaines délégations demandant la révision du nouveau barème, estime néanmoins qu'il serait plus sage de recommander l'adoption de ce barème. En cela, la délégation de Haute-Volta rejoint celle du Congo et d'autres délégations qui estiment à juste titre qu'il serait très difficile de pouvoir réunir tous les éléments nécessaires pour la révision de ce système avant la prochaine réunion.
V. ISARANKURA (Thailand): With your permission, I would like just to ask the Chairman of the Finance Committee what is the Committee going to do if the Council sends back this resolution to them? Is there any criteria they can give us besides the United Nations scale of assessment?
D.H.J. ABEYAGOONASEKERA (Chairman, Finance Committee): I think the delegate of Thailand has asked a very pertinent question. I wish I could give him an answer but I think in trying to work out criteria the time that we have between now and the autumn session is so short, by the time we get through our papers I do not think it can be done, because we do not have a set of criteria as such. Even if we wanted to base it on the kind of thing we have been speaking of today in this forum, then we have to work out parameters for each of them and that would take a lot of time and I do not think we have the technical expertise in the Finance Committee. We would have to rely on
others. That is why I said in my intervention that in 1974-75 when this was discussed they worked out the cost and they said you had to base it on statistics from another unit and that alone, including the cost of travel will come to about $80 000 per biennium. So it can be done but it is a question of time. Whether it is worth doing it, that is an entirely different question, but that is the difficulty we have if we are to do it before the autumn session.
J. TCHICAYA (Congo): En fait le distingué délégué de Thaïlande m'a précédé sur la question que j'allais poser. Effectivement, je crois que nous ne pouvons pas discuter en l'air ici, nous devons avoir des éléments précis, parce que si nous demandons du travail qu'on ne peut pas nous fournir, nous perdons du temps. Je pensais également qu'il faudrait poser la question au Président du Comité financier et au Secrétariat, pour savoir s'ils seraient à même de nous fournir des éléments précis nous permettant de nous prononcer en octobre ou novembre prochain. S'ils ne le sont pas, je pense sage que tous les délégués comprennent que cela n'est pas possible, et qu'il convient d'attendre un peu afin que le Secrétariat et le Comité financier puissent étudier la question en profondeur et nous faire des propositions lors de sessions ultérieures. Mais nous ne pouvons pas lier les mains de tout le monde ici, pour dire qu'il faut absolument que le Comité financier se saisisse de l'affaire. Nous voudrions savoir si cela est possible; dans le cas contraire je pense qu'il convient simplement d'adopter le projet de résolution et, comme je l'ai proposé tantôt, permettre au Secrétariat et au Comité financier d'étudier ultérieurement la question et nous soumettre leurs propositions.
S.A. MAHMOOD (Bangladesh): From the debate that has been going on it appears that it is going to be difficult to reach a consensus, which hopefully we should have tried to reach. It is doubtful even if the matter is referred back to the Finance Committee that they will be able to come up with something workable for the next Council session in November before the Conference. As such. I would support the alternative compromise proposal from Colombia, that the resolution be adopted with the stipulations as suggested.
W.H. ADERO (Kenya): I have listened to the discussions with great interest and have gone through the documents. Given the time that we have left before the next Council meeting it is apparent that we may not end up with any useful changes if we take this back to the Council. The relevant question has been put to the Chairman of the Finance Committee and he has given an answer which I think is very clear. While appreciating the opinions of Members of the Council we feel that the scale of contributions should be looked into again. I wish to support the scale of contributions as given now and I wish to say that the views expressed now could be considered in future recommendations. But my delegation right now supports the scale as it is given now and supports the Resolution as in the document.
F. BREWSTER (Barbados): It seems to me that Council is agreed on two matters here. The first is that we are not going to arrive at a consensus on adopting the Resolution as presented. The second is that we are not going to arrive at a consensus to refer the matter to the Finance Committee. As such the practical situation is that in the light of the time which we have it would be preferable to proceed with the adoption of the Resolution as it is and consider the issues at a future time, and this is what was presented by Congo and others. My delegation's position is that we would support the scale of assessment as presented by the United Nations, as it is one model which we think this Organization should follow. I think we should pursue that line at this stage.
A. ACUÑA HUMPHRIES (Panamá) : Respetando mucho los señalamientos de fondo que han formulado los miembros de este Consejo, la delegación de Panamá considera que este Consejo debe adoptar la Resolución sobre la escala de cuotas para 1984-85. Son razones de orden práctico las que imponen la adopción de esta Resolución, tomándose en consideración las observaciones formuladas por miembros de este Consejo.
M. PHOOFOLO (Lesotho): Having heard all the interventions made by delegates, I find myself compelled to support Congo and Nigeria in their request that the Resolution be adopted as it stands.
Mlle E. RAVAUX (France): La position de la France est identique à celle exprimée par la République fédérale d'Allemagne au nom de la Communauté économique européenne en ce qui concerne les réserves émises à l'égard du barème des contributions de la FAO. Toutefois, dans un esprit de modération, et rejoignant le point de vue d'un grand nombre de délégations, la France estime qu'il est nécessaire de faire preuve de conciliation et d'adopter la résolution en l'état et le barème tel qu!il est retenu pour l'instant.
J. GAZZO FERNANDEZ (Observador del Perú): Nuevamente insisto porque yo me siento responsable, como miembro del Comité de Finanzas, no sólo por haber representado al Perú sino a todos los que me eligieron. Entonces, esa responsabilidad no la puedo tirar por la borda. Yo recuerdo que cuando discutimos la escala de cuotas de la FAO para el año 1984-85 tuve gran sorpresa cuando, tomando como parámetro, por desgracia, porque era el único que tenía elementos de juicio, mi país, que había empeorado en todos los sentidos su situación económica, su balanza de pagos, sus ingresos por capita, etc., tenía un incremento de cuota. Nosotros creemos que más todavía deberíamos dar en relación a lo que nos da la FAO, pero lo que no encontramos es un paralelismo, porque no quisiera ir a lo casuístico, pero voy a tener que ir a lo casuístico. Encontramos que había países como Australia, Canadá, Checoslovaquia, Finlandia, Hungría, etcétera, que habían disminuido sus cuotas. Yo creo que al cien por cien hay que llegar siempre. No es que se quiera que la FAO reciba menos, pero recuerdo, y el Presidente del Comité de Finanzas no me dejará mentir, que yo manifesté una extrañeza porque todos los datos que había recibido de mi país, en relación al año 1982-83, contra la proyección de 1984-85, eran tremendamente negativos. Sin embargo, había un incremento de cuotas que no guardaba relación con el bienestar de otros países a los cuales se les había disminuido la cuota. Ahora, digamos que algunos países tenemos situaciones análogas, tenemos problemas económicos, problemas hasta políticos. El caso, por ejemplo, de un delegado que opina - con toda razón y con toda justicia - apoyando esta metodología y esta escala, es el caso de Polonia que baja de 1,52 a 0,87. Una rebaja considerable. No quiero ir a lo casuístico, pero quiero decir que yo estudio los documentos, yo no voy al Consejo de turista, y esto me llamó mucho la atención y le manifesté al Presidente que yo no entendía este prorrateo. Me fue dicho que era lo que hacían las Naciones Unidas, pero nosotros no debemos adoptar, debemos adaptar. No se trata de que porque Naciones Unidas se equivoque nosotros avalemos el error. Yo creo que no debe ser asi, Sr. Presidente. Ahora, estoy de acuerdo con el distinguido y mi querido amigo- delegado de Colombia en que no queremos hacer cuestión de estado. Debemos aprobar esto, pero que queden claramente las reservas de que cuestionamos la metodología, porque no concuerda el estado real de los países con la cuota que se les ha asignado.
Eso es lo único que queremos hacer, pero no queremos vacas sagradas que nos impongan una cuota y que nosotros a fardo cerrado la aceptemos. Yo creo que FAO es más vieja; ha nacido antes que algunos otros organismos y por consiguiente debemos (no será en esta próxima sesión de noviembre) pero debemos hacernos la firme voluntad de que haya un paralelismo, que no hayan estas incongruencias de que países que están más o menos con cierto bienestar, tengan cuotas disminuidas, y que países que están casi en la bancarrota, tengan sus cuotas incrementadas.
C. DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Observador de Costa Rica): Sí, Sr. Presidente, es muy cierto que la decisión de Naciones Unidas, a la que se refiere este proyecto, ha sido tomada en diciembre; pero según nos consta, esta decisión está basada sobre estadísticas y sobre datos muy anteriores, que son completamente superados, especialmente para lo que a Latinoamérica se refiere por cambios gravísimos en la situación monetaria. Yo creo, apoyando al delegado del Brasil, que la escala de cuotas debería basarse únicamente en la situación actual de los países.
Además, el delegado de México y ahora el delegado del Perú han puesto muy en evidencia el concepto de que hay muchas diferencias entre la estructura y las necesidades de las Naciones Unidas y la estructura de la FAO, la estructura de miembros, la cantidad de miembros, los que son miembros y los que no lo son. Me doy cuenta de que es imposible en este momento cambiar lo que nos viene propuesto, y apoyo plenamente la adopción de la proposición actual, pero con las reservas hechas por el Embajador Bula Hoyos, el complejo de cláusulas que él propuso, o sea, que se mencione expresamente que la escala de cuotas adecuada viene aprobada, pero que después tiene que ser revisada por alguna sección del Comité de Finanzas y en lo sucesivo por el Consejo.
CHAIRMAN: Since some speakers are taking the floor for the second and third time may I clarify the issues which have come out so far. What the Finance Committee has recommended is the submission of the Resolution to the Conference, not adoption by the Council but to forward the Resolution to the Conference. That is the recommendation. Secondly, the suggestion has been made that the Finance Committee may keep this matter under review and study. I would like subsequent speakers to keep this in mind.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Just for clarification. If the Council submits a resolution to the Conference it means that the Council has approved it. It cannot submit it without expressing an opinion. Maybe you could say it had been endorsed by the Council. But perhaps if you would give the floor to Mr. West to answer a question it may help further discussion, because there is some important clarification to be given about the possibility of the Finance Committee undertaking further analysis or not.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: The first point I was going to make if I had to intervene at all - and I can assure you that I was not anxious to intervene in this debate - was that in principle of course the FAO Conference is sovereign, it is not obliged to follow the UN scale. On the other hand, it has always done so, apart from the very beginnings of FAO, for very practical reasons, one of them being that the Members of FAO are members of the United Nations and when their representatives adopt something in the General Assembly, generally speaking they adhere to their decisions and repeat them elsewhere on this very, very important subject of contributions.
The curious thing on this occasion is that there have been some reversals. Some people who voted against the scale in the Fifth Committee have said here today that nevertheless they will accept the scale here, and some who voted in favour of the scale in the Fifth Committee have reversed their position here - and I am not talking about developed and developing, it applies to both, it all depends whether you have to pay more or you have to pay less.
As to the feasibility of making changes, the fact is that the process is a very complicated and lengthy one. I have here with me the Reports of the Committee on Contributions of the UN and they start off by explaining how they came to their conclusions, and the first step they took was to prepare a set of guidelines for the collection and presentation of data by Member Nations, and these guidelines have to be prepared so that the information could be collected on a uniform and comparable basis. For this purpose, inter alia, the United Nations Statistical Office prepared a paper dealing with such subjects as compilation and estimation of national income, related statistics, computations of relative capacity to pay on average taxable income, the question of a low per capita income allowance formula, estimates of national income and national currency, exchange rates for converting them into US dollars and population estimates.
Having prepared these guidelines, they sent out questionnaires to Member States one year in advance of the decision to be taken, and the information covered data on averages with three-, five-, seven-, nine- and twelve-year based periods. From countries in market economies, data was sought on aggregate national incomes at market prices according to the present system of national accounts, etc. etc. There is a lot of this, it is very complicated, it is very technical, it is very extensive. One hundred and ten Member States replied to the questionnaire, but only half or approximately one third of the membership provided complete data.
Then follow many paragraphs examining the difficulties presented by the data and how they tried to work this out for fiscal years starting with or close to the second quarter of the year. One quarter of the data for the previous fiscal year is added to three quarters of the data for the current fiscal year.
I am sure I have already lost you because I have lost myself in this. It is very, very complicated, but in the end, they decided to take a period of ten years as a data base, and then they went into the question of per capita allowance for poor countries; then they went into the subject of mitigation of changes in the scale, at which point we find in paragraph 26 differences of opinion arose in the Committee over the justification of further mitigation, and then it rehearses all the argument.
Then there is a long section of representations made by Member States in writing; there is a long list of Member States who made representations in writing, including some of those who have voted today.
Finally, they presented this scale, and in conclusion they said: "Many Members of the Committee recognized the inherent difficulties in reaching a scale that is satisfactory to all concerned. Nevertheless, they considered the recommended scale the best alternative, given the constraints laid down by the General Assembly. As noted elsewhere, the recommendation contained in the Report was adopted despite reservations by certain countries."
Now, that was not so abnormal, but what happened in the General Assembly this time was that this led to a great controversy which was resolved at the last minute by a sort of mediation based on an intuitive process rather than an analytical process.
To conclude, to sum up, I cannot but echo what the Chairman of the Finance Committee said. The Finance Committee does not and could not possibly have in the time available the information on which any rational formula other than what you had in the past could be based. It could be done perhaps some time in the future, but it would be a long process. It cannot be done in the time remaining between now and September, nor could the Secretariat possibly provide relevant information. We do not have it either, so those are the facts. The decision, is yours.
D. DJIBRIL (Bénin): Après l'intervention de M. West, la délégation de mon pays pense qu'il faut quand même tenir compte des réserves émises par certains pays particulièrement par la délégation du Pérou. Mais, dans un esprit de collaboration et d'efficacité, la délégation de mon pays pense que le Conseil devrait adopter le barème des contributions tel qu'il figure dans le document conformément à ce qu'a dit le délégué du Congo.
C. KAREKEZI (Rwanda): La délégation rwandaise a attentivement suivi les débats relatifs au problème posé pour la période 1984/85. Compte tenu du manque d'éléments suffisants pour réviser ce barème avant la prochaine Conférence tel que cela nous a été précisé par le Président du Comité financier, ma délégation appuie la proposition des représentants du Congo, de l'Angola et autres et demande que la résolution soit adoptée.
A.Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia) (original language Arabic): We all know that the Finance Committee cannot do the impossible. Actually, it can do nothing about this matter. The opinion of the Finance Committee was based on information received from the Secretariat at the time of the preparation of this report. This information might not be sufficient. Hence, we were not able to express our opinion more clearly. Nevertheless, we also know that this Council is the body which decides to accept or not to accept even the Report of this Finance Committee. Then after that, of course, this Council submits the Report to the General Conference, which means in other words that our decision is the final one, practically speaking.
When we discussed this item here I spoke as a representative of my country, not as a representative of this Council in the Finance Committee, so when I touched upon this issue, I was speaking particularly to certain principles, which I presented when I discussed the item, and I did not do that simply because my country is going to be paying more now in terms of contributions. This to us seems secondary if we compare it to the points and principles which I mentioned when I intervened. These principles were mentioned by several Members, and lastly were touched upon by a Member of the Finance Committee and here I am speaking about Ambassador Bula Hoyos who spoke about the principles that should be taken into account by this Council.
I do not want to be lengthy. We will support any decision taken by this Council, and we will not speak again about this issue, but as I have said, if this Council decides to accept the scale of contributions and to submit it to the General Conference, we do ask for our reservation to be included in the Report.
TESSEMA NEGASH (Ethiopia): FAO can be requested to establish its own system, as suggested by Mexico, or adapt the existing UN system to its own situation. However, whether to establish a new system or adapt the existing UN system to its own special situation, one, requires a considerable length of time and, as explained by Mr. West, it is quite a complicated process. Thirdly, even to do so, we should study, analyse and properly evaluate the present existing system.
Until such time, my delegation strongly supports that we adopt the Resolution as presented before us, taking into account, of course, the views and situations of Mexico and Colombia.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): We spoke earlier on the subject, and we do apologise that we have to take the floor again. However, we think that we are going into a very deep and controversial debate. The fact of the matter is that there are certain parameters and a certain scale on which this scale of contributions was assessed by the Finance Committee. Those are obviously derived directly from the assessments of the UN system, as was explained by Mr. West, that in itself was a very lengthy and laborious process.
We would suggest that the mere fact that we want to attempt or duplicate the same process here should be viewed with caution. As far as the shifting in the various contributions of the various Member States are concerned, as long as the yardstick and the parameter are applied uniformly, we personally feel there should be no problem. We do agree that there are some countries whose scale has increased and there are some whose scale has decreased, but that we find not a matter of principle. On principle, we feel that the parameters adopted are a yardstick which once adopted should be applied with a fair hand to all Member States.
We personally - emotionally perhaps - agree and perhaps intuitively agree with the suggestions made by Brazil and so eloquently supported by Peru and Mexico, but rationally, we also have a certain misgiving there and we would advocate a little caution, because if you are going to evolve a scale and a parameter to fit into a certain situation, you will get into a lot of trouble. What you need is a yardstick and a parameter and then apply it fairly. If you want to look first at the end and
then derive a parameter or a yardstick to fit into that, that would create problems not only for Member States who are now finding difficulties but may create problems for Member States who would find difficulties in those scales and then it would become an endless process of mutual recrimination, so personally, we think that we should view the future work we want to do with caution.
As we stated earlier, we can go with the Resolution as suggested by the Programme Committee, but we are willing to go along with some Member States who wish that this question may be reviewed at a future date, but it would be too optimistic to presume that the Finance Committee by the next Council can do anything meaningful on that, so we would advocate caution,
J. MAJCHER (Poland): First of all I would like to state my delegation's appreciation for the clarification given to us by Mr. West, the Deputy Director-General.
It is not the intention of my delegation to repeat the arguments on the position that my country has already stated; we considered it stated already. We are in favour of the resolution as it is submitted.
The purpose of asking for the floor was to give an answer since my country has been called by the distinguished observer from Peru. This answer will be very short in the form of information. For this reason, and only for this reason, I am going to some elements of substance on the discussion in New York when discussing the scale of contributions. For a number of years the Government of Poland has maintained that my country's assessment in respect of the United Nations and other international organizations has been calculated in considerable excess of Poland's potential and capacity to pay. In particular we have questioned the exchange rate applied to convert data on Poland's national income from zloties to United States dollars for the purpose of the scale of assessment. As a result of the application of an incorrect Methodology Poland was in the past substantially over-assessed in the range of too rigid a percentage.
The scale of assessment for 1983/85 adopted at the 37th Session of the UN General Assembly has decreased Poland's contribution. The reduction of Poland's contribution has been welcomed as an act of justice towards my country.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): We have listened with great attention to the debate that is going on on the scale of contributions. We have heard the statement of the Chairman of the Finance Committee that at this time it would not be of very much use to send back the report to them and make a new study, and he categorically stated that there is very little that they can do at this point between now and the Conference.
We heard also the statement of Mr. West about the theoretical difficulties that would be involved if we tried to elaborate our own system on the scale of contributions. In fact in the past this Council has taken the practical course of following the UN assessment. I do not see any other practical course of action at this point. We therefore would like to express our support for the scale of contributions with the proviso, of course, that the views that have been expressed by delegations should be taken into account at some future date.
J. BELGRAVE (New Zealand): I guess first it might be more customary in commercial matters that one should declare one's interests, because the way the numbers fall New Zealand has a slight reduction.
Having said that, Sir, I think Mr. West has explained in very clear detail the problems of trying to unscramble this between now and the end of November. The position of my government is quite simply that we accept the principle of FAO following the UN assessment formula, and as such, support the figures in front of us.
This I do not think, though, would preclude the Council or the Organization at some later date, as has been said by a number of delegations, looking again at whether or not the FAO should follow the UN system or whether it should not, and this, as I think has been said by both the Finance Committee Chairman and Mr. West, is not done over night. 'It may be that if it is decided to adopt the resolution, and as I said my government is in support of it for the reasons outlined, noting at the same time the reservations of those delegations who want them recorded, at this or some other time we could set up a special group, if you like, to look specifically at an FAO scale versus the UN scale on the whole issue, but I do not think it can be done between now and the end of November.
H.F. NAJEB (Iraq) (Original language Arabic): In fact, we did not ask for the floor earlier because the delegates had agreed on the need for the Finance Committee to re-examine this question. Given that there are very clear differences among the views of members of the Council, and such categorical ones, we can only express our support for the proposal made by the representative of Columbia, the compromise that he has suggested and which includes a recommendation according to which we should approve the scale of contributions before us, and ask the Finance Committee once again to examine the scale in an attempt also to examine the various criteria which are applied if we take into account what was said by Mr. West; that is to say that the establishment of the criteria is not made on the basis of a solid scientific analysis.
Finally, the views considered before the Council must be taken into account.
Y.A. HAMDI (Egypt)(original language Arabic): I apologize for asking for the floor once again. I wanted once again to present my country's position which is in full agreement with the view expressed by the representative of Colombia and also by other delegations, that is to say that we approve the proposed scale of contributions and that in the future this question should be examined by the Finance Committee on condition that the necessary funds, information and sufficient time be available. All these data are very complex, lengthy and costly, as Mr. West said, and also as the Chairman of the Finance Committee has already pointed out.
A. PINOARGOTE (Ecuador): La delegación del Ecuador no desea simplemente adherirse a la postura latinoamericana de desconformidad respecto a este tema; fundamentalmente considera oportuno señalar la idoneidad de la última propuesta del señor embajador de Colombia, puesto que recoge el hecho virtualmente consumado de aprobar la escala tal como está presentada por el Comité de Finanzas, y adicionalmente la aspiración de muchos países que no solamente son los latinoamericanos, pues Bangladesh, Etiopía, Pakistán, Nueva Zelandia, Irán, y Egipto, entre otros, han manifestado su apoyo en el sentido de revisar para el futuro esta escala de acuerdo a los parámetros peculiares de la FAO, que no son exactamente los mismos de otros organismos.
No veo ningún inconveniente en adoptar esta recomendación para el futuro, pues si siempre tenemos que resignarnos a los hechos consumados, ocurriría que este Consejo perdería su objetivo fundamental que es el de precisamente aconsejar a la Conferencia y a todos los órganos de la FAO respecto a asuntos de trascendental importancia como éste.
J.R. LOPEZ PORTILLO (México): Agradecemos sinceramente las aclaraciones del señor West, e insistimos que éste es un problema de principios porque es injusto tratar igual, como ya lo hemos mencionado, a países en situación desigual. La aplicación indiscriminada de una base aritmética a la escala de cuotas es a todas luces injusta e inaceptable. Los principios no los podemos pisotear en función de la situación de privilegio o desgracia en lo que cada quien, o cada país, se encuentra.
El propio bamboleo en la posición y las actitudes de aceptación o rechazo de ciertos países que claramente describía el doctor West denotan la forma inapropiada e injusta en que la escala de cuotas se ha aplicado.
No hemos encontrado, en fin, un sistema justo, equilibrado, ágil que responda congruentemente y rápidamente a las circunstancias económicas y financieras de los países y sus perspectivas. Por tanto, no apoyamos, por razones de principio, no de conveniencia, la resolución que el Comité de Finanzas ha puesto a consideración de este Consejo. México, en todo caso, podría aceptar el aumento del presupuesto de la FAO, pero de ninguna manera el incremento propuesto en la escala de cuotas para nuestro país, que representa trece puntos de aumento, pero de cualquier forma, también por razones de principio y de solidaridad con este Consejo, nuestro país estaría dispuesto a que si el Consejo adopta la resolución ésta, se lleve junto con nuestras diferencias, con nuestras reclamaciones a la Conferencia para que allí se discuta nuevamente y apoyamos desde ahora, y lo haremos también en la Conferencia, el que el Comité de Finanzas estudie la forma en que puede aplicarse un sistema más equilibrado para respetar y responder a la situación en la que cada país se encuentra, y evitar así este tipo de bamboleos que afecta unas veces a unos países y otras veces a otros países, y en algunas circunstancias terriblemente a ciertos países.
Estamos conscientes de que este Consejo debe llegar a una conclusión; reiteramos que por razones de principio no estamos de acuerdo, pero que también por razones de solidaridad con este Consejo estaríamos dispuestos a que si se adopta la resolución, repito, se incluya también nuestras reservas y nuestras diferencias y se presenten a la Conferencia.
F.G. POULIDES (Cyprus): Listening to the opinions, I will not enter into details because all the opinions have been expressed, but listening to the opinions expressed by the Chairman of the Finance Committee and particularly the opinion expressed by Mr. West on the complicated system that is applied by the 5th Committee of the United Nations, I am sure we all agree that we are not at all prepared for such a task which, when, and if decided, will need money and time. I consider therefore that at this stage there is no other alternative than to strongly suggest that the Resolution is adopted as it stands. If as a matter of principle we all agree, we might express the wish that the Finance Committee continue its studies for a revised FAO Scale, but without imposing time limits on it.
A.T. KEITA (Observateur pour la Guinée): A l'impossible nul n'est tenu, et à la lumière de la question combien pertinente posée par le représentant de la Thaïlande et de la réponse objective donnée par le Président du Comité financier et par les explications honnêtes et claires données par M. West, notre délégation estime sage d'adopter le barème proposé par le Conseil. Cependant, elle apprécierait beaucoup que la FAO puisse avoir ses propres méthodes de calcul adaptées à ses réalités propres. C'est peut-être là encore faire preuve d'une plus grande originalité. Néanmoins, nous nous prononçons en faveur du projet de résolution et nous nous associons intimement aux nombreuses interventions faites dans ce sens.
M. TRKULJA (Observer for Yugoslavia): It is obvious that my delegation did not want to pronounce itself on this issue. Let me first briefly establish my credentials. Yugoslavia's contribution has increased, so this is in contradiction with what I am going to say, notwithstanding the remarks made by Mr. West. I suggest that the only issue that the Finance Committee should consider in future is the possibility of applying a different scale of contributions to FAO, that is, different from the one adopted in New York. On that issue I think we have to be very realistic. I do not think there is any possibility here in Rome of studying and going through the same painful and difficult procedure and applying a different scale. It would be a futile exercise.
We do not want to influence the position of the Council on this matter but in November we will make our views very clear in that respect, that we have to follow the scale of contributions adopted in New York as a matter of principle in the future. There is simply no basis for FAO and my delegation is very much afraid that if we try something along the lines suggested, then the scale might become one of the overwhelming issues in FAO; and we are painfully aware that there are much more important and tangible things that we have to address than the one of the scale.
I would therefore at this stage very humbly suggest that we do not insert in our Report something on the lines suggested, that we should study the possibility - even just study the possibility - of applying a different scale.
CHAIRMAN: We have had a very intensive discussion on this important topic. Shall I conclude that we accept the recommendation of the Finance Committee as stated in paragraph 3.73, and the Report of our Council Meeting will reflect the various reservations and opinions expressed? Well, I am very grateful to you for accepting; thank you very much.
It was so decided
Il en est ainsi decide
Así se acuerda
A.G. GEORGIADIS (Director, Administrative Services Division): I am afraid I have only bad news to give to the Council. In fact, since the last session of the Finance Committee which ended only six weeks ago, the situation has worsened. But before I give details of the latest developments, I wish once more to emphasize the underlying reasons for which this problem has been on the Agenda of the Finance Committee and the Council for many years, and lately even on the Agenda of the Conference.
It is the main preoccupation of the Director-General that FAO and WFP have been suffering for many years from lack of adequate space. We are of course also providing accommodation to the World Food Council. We are forced to continue to rent office space, and even that is insufficient. In addition to the cost of renting and the cost of duplicating certain essential services, there is a tremendous loss of staff time and efficiency through the constant movement of staff between the two locations, which are six kilometers apart. A conservative estimate of the cost of staff time lost in waiting for buses and travelling between buildings easily exceeds $200,000 a month, representing more than 2,500 man-days every month.
Also, as we are now, there is no possibility of any growth ever. The Organization is choked; it is condemned to inertia for at least the next ten years because, even if decisions are taken now on the construction of a new wing, it could well take ten years - probably more - before it is completed and ready for occupation. So if the Host Government does not take any decisions shortly, the Organization will be in the same position even in the next decade, until the year 2000.
Now to give some details on the latest developments: on the question of building 70 rooms on the 8th floor of building D we have accumulated one more approval in the series of approvals that seem to be necessary in order to implement this project, and that is that the Regional Administration of Lazio has formally communicated to us its approval of the project. But despite assurances, one and a half years ago, by the Ministry of the Treasury that the financing of the construction was secured and that the necessary funds would be made immediately available, after the various approvals of the Regional and Communal authorities were obtained, we have now been told that there are no funds. This has been quite a shock and we can only anticipate that it might take several months before funds can be made available. And this is only in connection with that minimal relief that can be obtained by the acquisition of an extra 70 rooms; and even for that relatively small project, the Host Government is not in a position to this date to give us a concrete timetable for its execution.
The Director-General therefore hopes that the Council will address itself to the Host Government and emphasize the emergency aspect of the problem, requesting once again some concrete action for construction to be initiated without further delay. The cost of constructing these 70 rooms has recently been estimated at 2.5 billion Lire, roughly $1.6 million at today's exchange rate. If there is further delay, the Director-General might well propose to the Council financial arrangements with the assistance of the Organization, in order to speed up construction.
On the other front, the question of the new wing, the situation is far more gloomy. Despite pressures by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at inter-ministerial meetings which we attended, representing FAO, for the Superintendency of Archaeology to complete the excavation work before the previously announced target date of December next - the end of this year - or if possible by September, the Superintendency suspended all activities on the site last month for, again, lack of funds. We are told that additional funds have been requested, but there is no indication whatsoever as to if and when they will be made available; and, if they are made available whether they will be sufficient to complete the excavations.
So, prospects of completing the excavations within this year are now remote and, considering that no other steps can be taken before the Superintendency of Archaeology gives its clearance to the construction project, the Council will appreciate that this is a complete standstill.
It should be remarked here that the Superintendency of Archaeology is generally not well disposed towards any construction on an archaeological site, and that their first report was rather negative.
I should also highlight another point that is quite clearly stated in the Finance Committee Report: that no meeting has yet taken place between the President of the Council of Ministers and the Working Party appointed by the last Conference; and we are less than five months away from the next Conference. The Director-General regrets to have to provide such information. He follows the situation daily, but, despite all his efforts, finds himself in a deadlock with no possibility of solving the problem of Headquarters accommodation during the next five to ten years. The Host Government has not offered us any concrete solution so far. A first possibility of constructing a new building complex away from here has been discarded as too expensive and impractical.
The second possibility - one we have been pursuing for the last two years - of constructing a new wing adjacent to the Main Buildings here, together with the 70 rooms on Building B, seems to be totally blocked at present. It might be remarked here that even if the second possibility were eventually implemented, it would merely serve to house the existing numbers of staff of FAO and WFP. It would only enable us to bring over here the staff of FAO and WFP now located in Building F, without any reserve whatever for the slightest future expansion by either. So it may be necessary to start thinking of a third possibility, and that is why it is extremely important that the Working Party appointed by the Conference should meet with the authorities of the Host Government at the highest level, as soon as possible. The matter is extremely important, it is urgent and it is vital for the Organization to continue its work with the minimum acceptable efficiency.
D.H.J. ABEYAGOONASEKERA (Chairman, Finance Committee): Since Mr. Georgiadis has given you a complete picture of the headquarter problem I do not need to say much. Since the Finance Committee had this item on the agenda at several meetings it is nothing but proper that I voice the sentiments expressed by our members.
Basically the headquarters' problem revolves round two issues, the measures proposed by the Director-General; one is the construction of 70 rooms on top of the eighth floor in building D the second proposal is the construction of a new wing on the side of building C. Now our comments on the progress of these projects are in paragraphs 3.84 to 3.92 in our report. All I wish to state at this stage is that the Committee was very disappointed with the very little, or no progress made in this regard. The Committee therefore requested the Secretariat to keep this item on the Finance Committee's agenda at future sessions as well. It was because of the importance we attach to the subject and the need to press the authorities that we invited the Host Country's Ambassador to FAO to the present at our deliberations. I am sure His Excellency the Ambassador to FAO from Italy, whom I am pleased to see present at this meeting, would have known and felt how very deeply concerned we were on this question. We earnestly requested him to impress upon the authorities the urgent need to resolve this problem by taking speedier steps than now to expedite the approval of the two projects; bring pressure on the several agencies concerned at the highest point or level and also to hasten the allocation of funds and to entrust the work to the appropriate ministry concerned without delay and at the same time to exercise greater control and coordination centrally at all stages to ensure completion of the work with the minimum delay. We also stress once more the need for a meeting between the President of the Council of Ministers and the working group appointed by the Conference since it has taken more than 18 months since the Director-General conveyed the Conference decision with accompanying reminders to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for which there has still not been any response.
M. FRANCISCI DE BASCHI (Italie): J'ai écouté avec grande attention les exposés des directeurs du Service administratif et les commentaires du président du Comité financier. Je comprends très bien le climat d'impatience, peut-être même d'exaspération que pose ce problème; néanmoins je pense que sur ce secteur particulier des locaux du siège on a fait des progrès; il sont partiels, ils ne sont pas définitifs, mais je pense nu'il ne faut pas être trop pessimiste. J'ai fait mon possible dès que j'ai pris cette nouvelle tâche, et comme le Directeur général, je m'occupe quotidiennement de ce problème à mon niveau. Malheureusement, il n'est pas très facile de conduire les procédures et de concilier les compétences des services italiens, surtout dans la situation actuelle. Je peux malgré tout corriger d'une façon substantielle les dernières nouvelles données à ce sujet.
La construction de nouveaux bureaux au huitième étage a fait un progrès remarquable. Les difficultés découlant des différentes lois et règlements italiens ont été surmontées et le Ministère des travaux publics est décidé à accorder les autorisations et les fonds nécessaires à cette construction, évaluée à 2,5 milliards de lires. Donc, puisque le délai de construction a été estimé à 18 mois, puisque d'autre part ces travaux seront confiés à une seule firme pour en accélérer l'exécution, je pense que l'on peut raisonnablement espérer ce projet particulier réalisé vers la fin de l'année 1984 ou le début de 1985. C'est un succès partiel dont il faut tenir compte.
Quant à la construction de l'aile nouvelle à côté des vieux bâtiments, vous savez qu'il s'agit d'un problème difficile, mais pour le moment je ne crois pas qu'il faille envisager une autre alternative, il faut insister et aboutir à une situation claire sur la possibilité de construire ce bâtiment - ou pas - dans ce lieu qui a une très grande importance archéologique. Il est vrai que dernièrement les fouilles exploratoires ont été suspendues par manque de fonds, mais samedi dernier j'ai appris que le Ministère des biens culturels (Ministero dei Beni culturali) autorisait la poursuite des fouilles en fournissant les moyens nécessaires, selon les prévisions établies dans le passé. Je pense que la Surintendance à l'archéologie de la ville de Rome sera en mesure de donner un avis sur la possibilité de construire la nouvelle aile avant la fin de l'année. Il est absolument nécessaire d'attendre ce résultat avant d'envisager une autre solution. C'était mes observations pour le moment.
LE DIRECTEUR GENERAI,: Je remercie M. l'Ambassadeur d'Italie pour les informations qu'il a bien voulu nous donner et pour son optimisme. Nous avons besoin d'un peu d'optimisme.
M. l'Ambassadeur, cela fait deux ans que nous discutons de ce huitième étage. Vous nous dites qu'il faut encore attendre deux ans, cela fera donc quatre ans. Pour ma part, je ne pense pas que dans deux ans nous pourrons inaugurer cet étage. M. Georgiadis a dit à juste titre qu'il faudrait dix ans pour construire une aile de plusieurs étages pour environ 1000 personnes. M. le Président, il s'agit de l'avenir de la FAO et je souhaite que les délégués sentent comme nous l'importance de cette affaire.
Lorsque le building D, l'ancien Ministère des postes et télégraphes, a été évacué comme promis par le Gouvernement italien, il a fallu 10 ans pour que cet immeuble soit débarrassé, remodelé, alors qu'il existait, pour que nous puissions en disposer. Je pense qu'il faudra plus de dix ans pour disposer d'un immeuble de même dimension qui n'est pas encore construit. Donc, je ne pense pas qu'il sera prêt avant 1993.
On rencontre d'ailleurs dans chaque pays des difficultés administratives semblables que ce soit pour restaurer un immeuble ou pour construire un métro, surtout dans les grandes villes, comme Rome. Avec les problèmes de coordination entre les différents services, je pense qu'il faut compter dix ans pour construire cette aile nouvelle, si jamais elle est construite. Par ailleurs, M. l'Ambassadeur, je ne crois pas du tout qu'il soit possible d'obtenir le permis du Service archéologique, et je vais vous dire très franchement pourquoi.
Le premier rapport d'Italia nostra" était négatif, ils ont indiqué très clairement qu'à leur avis il était impossible de construire ici pour des raisons archéologiques, (ils ont trouvé un ancien mur, quelques poteries, etc,). Je crois qu'après avoir dépensé d'abord 32 000 dollars donnés par la FAO, ensuite peut-être 100 000 par le Gouvernement italien, plus environ encore 200 000 qu'ils demandent maintenant, soit environ 400 000 dollars, il sera difficile aux fonctionnaires du Service archéologique de dire "oui, vous pouvez maintenant construire". Ils risquent de confirmer ce qu'ils nous disent déjà, qu'on ne peut pas construire pour des raisons de protection des biens culturels et du patrimoine historique.
D'ailleurs ce ne sont pas eux qui disent le dernier mot puisque d'autres services doivent encore donner leur accord. D'autre part, comme on nous l'a dit, le Gouvernement italien, la ville de Rome en particulier, ne veulent pas voir la circulation s'intensifier dans cette partie de Rome.
Je suggérerais qu'une autre solution soit envisagée parallèlement, toujours aux Thermes de Caracalla, mais ce n'est pas le moment de l'évoquer ici.
Je voudrais rappeler que la Conférence de la FAO, formée de 152 pays, a voté une résolution à l'unanimité, priant le Premier ministre de recevoir une délégation de sept ambassadeurs représentant tous les groupes régionaux. Cette demande est jusqu'à présent restée sans réponse. Je l'ai transmise au Premier ministre. Vous avez émis tout à l'heure deux recommandations, mais nous restons dans la même situation. Nous n'arrivons pas à démarrer et je suis irrité car en tant que Directeur général, j'ai la responsabilité d'assurer l'avenir de cette Organisation. Ce sera la sclérose, si nous ne pouvons pas espérer avoir dans huit ou dix ans de meilleurs locaux et envisager l'expansion de la FAO.
Depuis des années, la FAO est scindée en deux parties. Le Département des pêches et le Département des forêts sont à six kilomètres d'ici, pour combien de temps? Faudra-t-il pendant dix ans encore que ces départements restent ainsi éloignés? Il faut plus d'une demi-heure à un fonctionnaire de ces départements pour quitter son bâtiment et venir ici. C'est une demi-heure de perdue.
Nous avons les mêmes problèmes avec le Programme alimentaire mondial. L'année prochaine, je peux être obligé de dire au Conseil mondial de l'alimentation que je ne peux plus lui donner 22 bureaux ici parce qu'il faut que je les donne au PAM qui en a besoin. Il faudra faire un choix entre le PAM et le Conseil mondial de l'alimentation. L'affaire est donc urgente.
Je sais Monsieur l'Ambassadeur que personnellement vous être animé de la meilleure volonté, je comprends votre situation. Nous sommes à la veille d'élections en Italie. Mais je voulais vous dire ceci, en espérant que le prochain Premier ministre, le prochain Conseil des ministres nous fera l'honneur de nous recevoir quelques instants avec les ambassadeurs de ces septs pays afin que nous puissions porter vraiment l'affaire au plus haut niveau. Nous n'avons aucun engagement écrit du Gouvernement italien qui m'ait été adressé; on me rend compte de conversations, mais il n'y a rien d'écrit. Ce n'est pas seulement une question d'argent; on pourrait procurer une avance de fonds, mais il y a encore certainement des papiers à signer, des autorisations à obtenir. Le ministère concerné n'a pas encore pris de décisions par écrit; il ne nous a encore rien notifié.
J'ai voulu prendre un peu de votre temps pour essayer de vous faire ressentir avec moi la complexité des problèmes et les difficultés devant lesquelles nous nous trouvons. Je voudrais cependant exprimer ma sympathie à l'Ambassadeur qui reçoit tous nos griefs et qui, je le sais, fait de son mieux personnellement et avec qui je suis d'ailleurs toujours en contact. Je le remercie d'avance de tout ce qu'il pourra faire à son niveau.
M. FRANCISCI DE BASCHI (Italie): J'ai écouté les commentaires du Directeur général et je peux comprendre son impatience étant donné l'expérience qu'il a eue et qui est beaucoup plus longue que la mienne. Ce que je peux confirmer, c'est que dix-huit mois ne nous conduisent pas à l'année 2000. C'est une information, certes, que j'ai eue. Peut-être y aura-t-il des papiers à signer, il y en a toujours, mais les moyens financiers ont été affectés à l'exercice. 1983, donc ils sont disponibles. Il faut penser, comme je l'ai dit, que c'est une solution très partielle concernant le huitième étage du bâtiment D qui sera réalisé dans le temps voulu, c'est-à-dire dans dix-huit mois, ce qui nous reporte à la fin de l'année 1984, ce qui ne veut pas dire l'année 2000, c'est une avance de quinze années sur la fin du siècle.
Pour le reste, je pense qu'il serait opportun d'attendre le résultat final des fouilles parce qu'il n'est pas exclu que la surintendance archéologique puisse donner un avis positif. S'il en était ainsi, les choses seraient beaucoup plus faciles. Je suis parfaitement d'accord que si cette solution n'était pas réalisable, il faudrait penser à une solution de rechange dans un autre endroit.
Quant à la visite du Comité du travail nommé par le Conseil, la raison peut-être est tout à fait conjoncturelle étant donné que la situation politique et gouvernementale en Italie est toujours difficile et je pense que le Président du Conseil avant de recevoir le Groupe de travail et vous-même, Monsieur le Directeur général, aurait bien voulu donner une réponse concrète qui n'existait pas à l'époque.
Pour ma part je m'engage à présenter au gouvernement, à la Présidence du Conseil, ce désir exprimé par vous-même et par le Groupe nommé par le Conseil.
Le DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Ayant plus d'expérience que d'autres, comme vous le dites, j'ai de grands doutes sur les possibilités de terminer cette construction en 1984. Personnellement, je ne crois malheureusement qu'aux choses qui sont écrites et je n'ai aucune confirmation écrite que l'argent est disponible et que l'on va nous construire un bâtiment au huitième étage. Je n'ai aucune lettre du ministère des Affaires étrangères avec qui je corresponds comme avec vous-même. Nous n'avons fait, depuis des années, qu'exprimer ici des espoirs.
J'ai l'expérience du même building où le septième étage existait déjà et où il a fallu seulement élargir certaines pièces, refaire l'électricité et pour cela il a fallu dix ans. Alors, construire un nouvel étage en dix-huit mois !...
M. Georgiadis nous a informés qu'il n'y a pas de fonds. Vous dites gentiment que ces fonds existent. On vous a dit ça mais pourrais-je avoir une lettre de confirmation et la communiquer au Conseil ? Vous pouvez nous donner des espoirs. Il faut être réaliste et la FAO est quelque chose de sérieux, de très sérieux. Vous faites une déclaration nous disant : "oui, cela va aller mieux..." parce que ce sont vos informations. Cependant, entre temps, il y a un problème d'urgence. Peut-être certains gouvernements, qui sont pour la croissance zéro, en seront-ils satisfaits. Ce qui signifie que nous n'aurions pas de nouveaux locaux; ce sera également la croissance zéro des' bureaux,mais je dis à ces gouvernements qu'il s'agit seulement de faire venir ici les pauvres fonctionnaires du Département des Pêches et des Forêts qui sont exilés ainsi que le Programme alimentaire mondial à six kilomètres et de plus il faudrait quand même avoir un peu d'oxygène pour les années 2000.
Pour le moment, la situation est vraiment bloquée. Le Service archéologique a écrit un rapport que Monsieur West a étudié, rapport en italien, disant qu'ils ont trouvé quelque chose et qu'ils ne sont pas près de conclure.
Ils vont vous faire dépenser à vous 400 000 dollars pour trouver quelque chose et ils vont dire après : nous nous sommes trompés, il n'y a rien. 400 000 dollars, c'est difficile de dire cela après les avoir dépensés.
M. FRANCISCI DI BASCHI (Italie): Dans le budget italien on a choisi cette procédure qui est la seule à courir. J'espère que ces millions ne seront pas dépensés pour rien, c'est-à-dire que l'avis sera positif.
Le DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Je serais prêt à proposer au Conseil de dépenser 200 000 dollars si l'on nous promet de nous donner le permis de construire. Nous observons ces travaux. J'espère qu'ils vont se remettre au travail lorsqu'ils auront reçu l'argent nécessaire. Un jour ils veulent faire des fouilles dans un sens, et après ils annoncent qu'ils doivent creuser dans un autre sens. Ce sont des archéologues, ils sont obligés de tout étudier. Ils sont descendus à neuf mètres et maintenant ils travaillent plus lentement parce qu'ils sont arrivés à une zone très délicate. Nous suivons de très près ce qu'ils font. Maintenant ils sont arrêtés car ils ont besoin d'argent. Il faudrait quand même étudier une troisième solution. Je crois qu'il serait très apprécié que le Premier ministre nous fasse l'honneur de nous recevoir, même s'il n'a pas d'informations importantes à nous donner, seulement pour nous écouter et peut-être à la seconde visite pourra-t-il annoncer des résultats décisifs.
CHAIRMAN: I wish to thank both the Director-General and the Ambassador of Italy for giving us the present position. Let the Council reiterate our request that the Working Party nominated by the General Conference, and the Director-General may as soon as possible have an opportunity of calling on the Prime Minister to follow up this matter.
We will now adjourn for lunch and meet promptly at 2.30.
The meeting rose at 12.45 hours
La seance est levée à 12 h 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas
