DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Item 13.1 deals with arrangements for the session and the provisional timetable of the Conference. As you will see there are two documents on this, both with the number CL 87/11. One is the normal document and the other is a Revision of two appendices A and B to accommodate certain changes which are proposed in the cover sheet of the Revision.
To deal first with the main document , the first CL 87/11, it is in the usual form covering all the items which are needed to be known to Member Nations when preparing themselves for the Conference. There are no innovations in it. The agenda is set out in Appendix A and on this I would draw your attention to two things, one is what is said in the cover sheet in the Revision about adding to the agenda and to the timetable, first the "Follow-up of Conference Resolution 8/83 and 9/83 - Plant Genetic Resources" which was not dealt with at this Council but should be dealt with at the November session of the Council and then at the Conference. Then, as pointed out there for completeness, item 7.4 on Pesticides should not only be discussed in the Conference but also at the Eighty-eighth session of the Council.
Furthermore I would like to propose a further addition to the agenda for the Conference, the new item 22, Other Administrative and Financial Matters. This is in view of the discussions and decisions which were taken at the last General Assembly on remuneration matters, and in line with what happened there I would like to propose the inclusion under item 22, a further sub-item 22.3 on Emoluments of the Director-General.
The timetable in the Revision has been revised slightly to include the item on Plant Genetic Resources.
It would also need an addition, which it should be possible to accommodate within item 22, which is taken by Commission III. It comes up on page B11 and it can be fitted in on the afternoon of Friday 22nd or at an earlier point. That can be left until we see how the Conference is proceeding. I hope it is now clear. The changes represented in document CL 87/11 Revision and the further change, an additional item 22.3, are as I have just described.
CHAIRMAN: Unless anyone requires any clarification, shall we proceed.
J.R. LOPEZ PORTILLO (México): Señor Presidente, nosotros estamos plenamente de acuerdo con la modificación que ha sido presentada por el señor Subdirector General de la FAO. Teníamos originalmente una duda respecto de cuándo iba a revisarse el Informe de la Comisión de Recursos Fito-genéticos para este Consejo. No fue posible por razones técnicas presentarlo, pero nosotros esperamos que se verá en el proximo Consejo de la FAO en noviembre y finalmente se seguirán las consecuencias o resultados de las Resoluciones de la Conferencia de la FAO. Me refiero concretamente al 8/83 y 9/83 sobre recursos fitogenéticos.
Nos parece, por tanto, adecuado que, dadas las características del carácter programático, en el seguimiento de tales Resoluciones, éstas se incluyan en la Comisión II; sin embargo, señor Presidente, aplicando las mismas razones para el seguimiento de estas dos Resoluciones, a nosotros nos parece que por el impacto programático y presupuestario que el código internacional de conducta para la distribución y uso de plaguicidas tendrían sobre las actividades de la FAO, este código debería revisarse una vez que el Consejo de la FAO, en noviembre, lo haya visto, revisarse en la Comisión II más que en la Comisión I, porque los problemas de carácter conceptual han sido vistos y revistos y seguidamente el Consejo de la FAO hará los últimos señalamientos al respecto y las consecuencias que tendremos con este código serán, repito, de carácter programático y presupuestario. Por tanto, consideramos que este punto de la agenda debería tratarse en la Comisión II y no en la Comisión I. Esas con las dos observaciones que teníamos que hacer.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): Very often I fully agree with what the delegate of Mexico puts forward. But now I beg to differ. It is the feeling of this delegation that the two issues - Code of Conduct as well as the issue of Plant Genetic Resources - should be dealt with in Commission I, as Commission I always traditionally dealt with items concerning agricultural policy issues and so on. I cannot see, so far at least,any particular impact of those two items on the Programme of Work and Budget, and particularly on the budget.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia apoya las propuestas de México.
J. GLISTRUP (Denmark): Just to support what the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany has just said. We also support that matters on agricultural issues should be dealt with in Commission I.
R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): We too would support keeping these two issues in Commission I, as the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany has recommended.
J. TCHICAYA (Congo): Ma délegation partage le point de vue exprimé par le Mexique et soutenu par la Colombie. Nous aussi pensons qu'il est plus judicieux dans ce cas d'espèce, de mettre ces deux points au niveau de la Commission II.
CHAIRMAN: The Mexican proposal is that the items relating to the Code of Conduct on Pesticides and the Plant Genetic Resources should be under Commission II of the agenda. Mr West indicated that they would be in Commission I. Germany, Denmark and the United States have proposed that they should be in Commission I.
J.R. LOPEZ PORTILLO (México): Perdón que vuelva a intervenir, señor Presidente, pero evidentemente no se trata aquí de arrebatarnos unos a otros una parte del Programa. Hay razones que deben fundamentarse para explicar y coincidir sobre dónde debe tratarse un tema. No es por necedad ni por conveniencia, sino por orden.
Las razones que hemos expuesto espero que hayan sido entendidas.
Respecto de los recursos fitogenéticos, como bien ya se señala en el documento CL 87/11, Revisión de los Apéndices A y B, y como se plantea en las medidas complementarias a las Resoluciones 8/83 y 9/83, ya están en la Comisión II por las razones que yo argumentaba, por las cuales también el Código sobre Plaguicidas debería estar en la Comisión II. Si revisamos en la página 9 del documento CL 87/11, Apéndice B, Revisión 1 el tema relativo a medidas complementarias para Recursos Fitogenéticos, ya está en la Comisión II, como bien debe ser. ¿Por qué debe ser así? Porque los problemas de carácter conceptual han sido ya superados, se ha creado una Comisión y esta misma Comisión va a decidir crear un subcomité o una subcomisión. Esto es lo que se debe tratar en la Comisión II, y el programa correspondiente o la forma que se le debe dar a esta subcomisión porque la Comisión ya está trabajando y ella se encargará de los problemas conceptuales y el Consejo lo va a revisar. Lo que nosotros tenemos que ver es el impacto que tendrá sobre el Programa y el Presupuesto de la FAO y cómo desarrollar las actividades de esa subcomisión. No vamos a discutir el Código Internacional o el compromiso internacional de recursos fitogenéticos; tampoco los problemas de políticas relativos, pero sí asuntos estrictamente presupuestarios y programáticos. Esta es la razón que nos lleva a esto.
Respecto al Código de Plaguicidas, se aplican las mismas razones.
Los problemas de carácter conceptual han sido ya revisados; ahora se volverán a tratar en el Consejo de la FAO y la Conferencia tendrá que ver cómo instrumentarlos, cómo llevarlos a la práctica a través del Programa y las asignaciones presupuestales correspondientes.
Nosotros hemos expuesto razones por las cuales confirmamos estas dos ideas que espero sean entendidas por todos y, si no, que nos aclaren porqué no.
R.C. SERSALE di CERISANO (Argentina): Es para apoyar señor Presidente, el criterio que nos ha presentado la Secretaría en el documento CL 87/11 en la Revisión 1 y 2 en cuanto que el punto 15 sobre medidas complementarias de las Resoluciones referidas a recursos fitogenéticos, en la Parte II, referida a actividades y programas de la Organización, entendemos que es el orden lógico después de todo el tratamiento que ha tenido este tema durante el año pasado y antes, mucho antes, aquí en la FAO.
En cuanto al Código de Conducta, entendemos que si ya éste ha tenido una discusión y el debate ha sido saldado, digamos en la parte política y en la parte de aceptaciones, creemos que también debería pasar ya al aspecto de las actividades y programas de la Organización.
G. SOTO CARRERO (Cuba): Mi delegación se referirá solamente a la propuesta hecha por el distinguido representante de México. Nos parece que los argumentos que ha expresado la delegación de México son convincentes y, por consiguiente, mi delegación lo apoya.
R. C. GUPTA (India): We feel that there is a lot of substance and force in the suggestion of the delegate of Mexico that the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides should be discussed in Commission II. By putting this item under Commission I one would get the feeling that even if the Code is approved at the next session of the FAO Conference it remains at a policy level. We are extremely anxious that the Code should be implemented as soon as it is approved by the Conference and we would expect the Organization to monitor its observance and in the next session of the Committee on Agriculture to give us a report as to how the Code has been observed and to what extent member governments and all concerned are willing to go along in the implementation of this Code. This we expect to become a programme in the next biennium itself and we would like some action. With this end in view we strongly suggest that this item be put under Commission II for discussion.
W. A. F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): I am sorry to come in again, but following the last statement this is apparently exactly where there are some different feelings about where the issue has to be pursued. It is not our opinion that the follow-up to the Code of Conduct for example, or the Plant Genetic Resources, has to be a special programme. The issues are to be dealt with in many programmes which FAO carries out. We would rather caution against making them into a special programme. That is why we felt that it has to be dealt with in the overall context of Commission I, which deals with food and agricultural policies and so on. It is very important to know whether it is convenient or not to apply more pesticides, fertilizers and so on, and the impact which they have on food production or not. That is an agricultural policy issue and it does not impede at all that within the Programme of Work and Budget of the Organization. A follow-up to these two important issues is taken into consideration.
R. C. GUPTA (India): I regret I have been misunderstood when I used the words that we expect this to become a programme. I had no intention of saying it would become a separate programme or a sub-programme. I intended to say that it would require some action on the part of the Organization in terms of collecting information, preparing papers, giving information, and pursuing it. It would need action which might involve a certain application of resources. I am not saying it is a separate programme. To that extent it is something on which the Organization would take action and which we would expect to be considered in Commission II.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I think this is a matter for the Council to decide, but I want to make one or two clarifications.
First of all, in the timetable which has been circulated, the follow-up on Plant Genetic Resources is already in Commission II. I trust there is no misunderstanding on this. There is no proposal to transfer it from somewhere else to Commission II - it is already in Commission II.
The proposal was, as I understood it, that the Code of Conduct which is at present shown under Commission I should also be taken in Commission II. In that connection, reasons have been deployed on either side, and I will not comment on those except to agree with the delegate of India just now that if we put it in Commission II, it does not mean necessarily it will figure in the Programme of Work and Budget either more or less or in any particular way. After all, in Commission II we have item 16, Relations and Consultations with International Organizations, and Recent Development in the United Nations System of Interest to FAO. It does not necessarily have any programme or budgetary significance. There are other items like that in Commission II. So I do not want there to be any misunderstanding on the significance of transferring the Code of Conduct on Pesticides to Commission II, if that is what Council decides.
W. A. F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): Following on what the Deputy Director-General has just said, yes, I had not yet proposed that agenda items 4 and 5 should be put to Commission I, but I was going to do so. When I intervened for the first time, I said we would prefer that both items should be dealt with in Commission I.
R. D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): Just to clarify one thing: I was under the impression that what we had before us was a draft; it was a proposal, and therefore it is up to us as a Council to decide. So the fact that the item may have appeared in this document in a particular Commission I do not believe is particularly binding at this stage in terms of what the Council may decide.
CHAIRMAN: You are quite correct. That is why this item has come up for discussion. The Mexican Ambassador has made a proposal. Mr West has clarified the item on Plant Genetic Resources in Commission II, and appropriately so because the whole budgetary position is coming up under the Programme of Work and Budget and also the discussion on Plant Genetic Resources. The question now is whether the Code of Conduct on Pesticides should remain as shown in the draft here, as it is, for discussion in Commission I, or whether we should shift it to the programme of Commission II. Both views have been expressed.
A. F. de SA BARBUDA (Brazil): We support the Mexican proposal.
J. M. WATSON (Panamá): La delegación de Panama desea apoyar a México en su propuesta.
G. FRADIN (France): Ma délégation voudrait appuyer, d'une part, la proposition de la délégation de l'Allemagne afin que le thème sur le Code des pesticides reste dans la Commission I ainsi que sa proposition sur les ressources phytogénétiques afin que ce point soit traité dans une commission qui traite des questions de politiques et de fond.
Ms A. DELLA CROCE di DOJOLA (Italy): My delegation would like to support the proposal made by the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany.
K. SHIOZAWA (Japan): My delegation supports the opinion of the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany that these two matters should be dealt with in Commission I.
D. HUTTON (Canada): Also to lend the support of my delegation to the proposal of the Federal Republic of Germany, and also to note that we are dealing with a provisional agenda. Item 3 on that agenda is the Adoption of the Agenda by Conference, so perhaps the report could reflect this discussion. Perhaps we could leave it like that.
Mame BALLA SY (Senegal): La délégation du Sénégal voudrait appuyer la proposition faite par le Mexique.
F.G. POULIDES (Cyprus): The Cyprus delegation would like to support the Mexican proposal.
A. ABDEL-MALEK (Liban): A mon tour je voudrais appuyer la proposition faite par le Mexique.
M. FERMIN GOMEZ (Venezuela): Brevemente, señor Presidente, para demostrar el apoyo a la proposición mexicana por la delegación venezolana.
Y.A. HAMDI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): I support the proposal made by Mexico.
C. KAREKEZI (Rwanda): Le Rwanda appuie la proposition du Mexique.
P. ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): We wish to indicate our support for the proposal of Mexico.
B. AGBO (Bénin): Nous appuyons la proposition mexicaine.
R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): This is a matter of judgment, but our inclination is to regard the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides as not sufficiently advanced yet to be transferred for consideration primarily in Commission II, but it should be considered in Commission I.
CHAIRMAN: Both views have been expressed, to retain the item in Commission I as shown in the draft document, or to shift it to Commission II. They are both Commissions of the Conference and all members can attend any of the Commissions they wish to. There has been one suggestion from the delegate of Canada to leave the matter as it is and when it comes to the adoption of agenda item 3 of the Conference the fact that a large number of Council members suggested that this item could be shifted to Commission II could be represented in the report, and a final decision taken at Conference time. That is one way of deciding this issue, if Council agrees. As far as pesticides are concerned, our Rapporteur can reflect in his report that many members of the Council would like this item to be considered in Commission II.
J.R. LOPEZ PORTILLO (México): A nosotros nos parece que han sido suficientes las manifestaciones, que seguramente habrá recogido usted, señor Presidente, en el sentido de que la mayoría de los países estiman que es conveniente se aplique un criterio claro al tratamiento de estos temas. Debemos pasar a la acción, ya que seguir con palabras, palabras y más palabras, y más conceptos de aquí al infinito, no puede llevarnos a ningún resultado útil. Hemos hablado, hemos discutido por años estos temas y es tiempo ya de que se tomen acciones concretas.
Los países industrializados, los únicos que se han expresado en contra, no quieren llevar esto a la práctica y a la acción. Aquí se ha dividido claramente la opinión entre los países del Norte y los países del Sur y lo que está detrás, señor Presidente, efectivamente es que ellos quieren que sigamos nada más que hablando, pero nosotros lo que queremos es llegar a la acción.
Respecto a los recursos fitogenéticos hay ya una acción desatada en términos administrativos, programáticos y presupuestarios que es la Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos que ya tuvo una primera reunión. Esta ha decidido crear una subcomisión que debe ponerse en práctica en brevedad. Lo que debe hacer la Comisión II es justamente evaluar esos programas y los recursos presupuestarios correspondientes. Esto es lo que tiene que hacerse y no seguir discutiendo sobre problemas conceptuales, ya que hubo dos Resoluciones, la 8/83 y la 9/83 y ya no debemos tener más palabras.
Respecto del Código se ha discutido desde 1981 y ahora tenemos ya claras las diferencias de carácter conceptual y queremos que se lleve a la práctica a través de un seguimiento por parte de la FAO. No crear programas por órganos más o menos especializados, pero sí que haya una respuesta por lo menos en la información.
Las razones que estamos dando, creo que son dignas de tomarse en cuenta, son justas y son de fondo. Por tanto, y por la mayoría que se ha expresado aquí, le solicitamos a usted señor Presidente, que recoja esta opinión de la mayoría del Consejo y que la plasme adecuadamente en sus conclusiones.
J. TCHICAYA (Congo): Je pensais que votre tâche était facilitée par les interventions en cascade qui viennent d'avoir lieu dans cette salle. Nous pensions, pour notre part, que l'on s'était clairement prononcé, que le Conseil s'est clairement prononcé pour que les problèmes qui ont trait au Code soient transférés au niveau de la Commission II et que les questions touchant aux ressources phytogénétiques restent bien entendu à la Commission II. Je crois que l'on s'exprime ici pour influencer une décision du Conseil et si nous avons pris la parole c'est justement pour faire en sorte qu'une décision soit prise à ce sujet. Pour notre part, nous pensons que le Conseil a décidé, mais nous estimons qu'il est normal que dans le rapport on fasse état du point de vue de la minorité qui a estimé qu'il fallait que tel ou tel point reste ou soit transféré dans telle autre séance. Moi, je crois que les conclusions devraient être tirées dans ce sens là.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): Mr Chairman, on that subject I very much hope that the report will reflect the opinions expressed here in the Council.
R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): I am much surprised that this particular item has engendered such reaction among certain delegates. Certainly, the question of motivation, of why certain delegates had determined to support one procedural approach or another, is not particularly helpful. This is for the work of the Council or, indeed, for the work of the Conference. All of us have at least strongly supported the idea of the Code of Conduct for pesticides. I do not think it is useful suddenly to say that certain delegations or certain governments, because they have chosen a particular procedural approach that makes the most sense in terms of the work of the Conference, have suddenly called into question their own support.
Even for something like the Plant Genetic Resources issue, which we have participated in but have not joined, I feel that is something on which one cannot start impugning the motivation of delegates or governments.
Mr Chairman, as we look at this issue let us try to take it as logically as we can. There are differences of views. I think those differences ought to be reflected, and that we should go forward.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Aunque los hechos incluidos en el debate de esta mañana parecen indicar lo contrario, a nosotros nos complace que se sigan haciendo declaraciones de apoyo sincero, sincero, lo subrayamos, en favor del Código de Conducta.
No queremos profundizar en el argumento, sino limitarnos a apoyar las conclusiones a que llego nuestro colega y amigo del Congo. Dieciseis Estados Miembros del Consejo han apoyado la propuesta mexicana; ocho se han expresado en favor de la República Federal de Alemania. La situación es clara, el Consejo decide recomendar a la Conferencia que el punto 7.4 pase a la parte segunda. En el Informe constará la opinión de la minoría en favor de que ese punto se mantenga en la parte primera y luego la Conferencia, soberana, cuando discuta el tema 3 tomará la decisión final.
Mame BALLA SY (Senegal): Je crois que dans une certaine mesure toutes les délégations qui se sont exprimées ont raison. Le délégué du Congo, appuyé par celui de la Colombie, a effectivement indiqué une tendance d'un plus grand nombre de délégués pour une solution. Je pense que notre Conseil devrait prendre en compte cette décision, d'autant plus qu'il s'agit de se déterminer en faveur d'un ordre du jour, pour lequel, en réalité, une majorité pourrait l'emporter.
En second lieu, Monsieur le Président, je crois que nous avons intérêt à nous limiter à cette décision majoritaire, puisque sinon, nous entrons dans des considérations qui pourraient heurter les susceptibilités. Je pense que les pays qui ont appuyé une position ont pu apprécier, et on ne saurait leur reprocher autre chose sinon que de n'avoir pas les moyens. Mais quant à étudier les documents, je pense que toutes les délégations ici étudient sérieusement les documents et se prononcent en toute connaissance de cause, même si c'est dans les termes les plus brefs.
Je crois, Monsieur le Président, que nous ne devons plus insister sur ce point parce que nous sommes tous d'accord pour le code. L'étude des ressources phytogénétiques a été initiée par la Commission II, je ne vois pas pourquoi on la priverait de la paternité de ce thème qui exige maintenant une autre phase qu'aucune autre Commission que celle-là ne pourrait apprécier.
Donc Monsieur le Président, je pense qu'il convient de faire respecter une décision à la majorité et que peut-être la Conférence pourra librement réformer, comme tel est son droit
CHAIRMAN: We will record the majority wish that this item 7.4 be dealt with in Commission II. Naturally, our proceedings will reflect the views of those who feel that it should remain in Commission I.
As far as Plant Genetic Resources is concerned, I hope that it is unanimous that it should remain in Commission II.
CHAIRMAN: Naturally, it will reflect that a few members felt that it should be shifted from Commission II to Commission I.
It was so decided
Il en est ainsi decide
Así se acuerda
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Monsieur le Président, le point 13.3 est libellé ainsi "Date limite pour la présentation des candidatures à la fonction de Président indépendant du Conseil".
En vertu de l'Article XXIII.1 du Règlement général, c'est au Conseil qu'il appartient de déterminer cette date de clôture pour la présentation des candidatures par les Etats Membres, et aussi la date limite pour laquelle le Secrétaire général doit communiquer ces propositions de candidatures aux Etats Membres.
Il est proposé au Conseil, dans le document CL 87/12,. de retenir comme date limite, pour la présentation des candidatures, le vendredi 6 septembre 1985, à 17 heures, et comme date limite pour la communication de ces candidatures aux Etats Membres par le Secrétaire général, le vendredi 13 septembre 1985.
J'espère, Monsieur le Président que le Conseil pourra se prononcer aisément sur cette question.
CHAIRMAN: I take it that the date is acceptable to everyone.
It was so decided
Il en est ainsi décidé
Así se acuerda
We move on to Item 17 of the Agenda, Reports of the Forty-eighth Session of the Programme Committee and the Fifty-fifth Session of the Finance Committee. Item 17.1 deals with Personnel Matters, paragraphs 3.88 to 3.99 and 17.2 with Other Matters, paragraphs 3.126 to 3.129.
D.H.J. ABEYAGOONASEKERA (Chairman, Finance Committee): I wish to draw the attention of the Council to two important developments which have taken place this year relating to: a), changes in the salary scales and allowances; and b), pensionable remuneration of staff in the Professional and higher categories consequent to recommendations made by the International Civil Service Commission at its Nineteenth and Twentieth sessions held in 1984, and the decision of the United Nations General Assembly at its Thirty-ninth session held in the same year. I refer the Council to paragraphs 3.91 to 3.99 of our report, as well as Appendix C, which is the Tenth Annual Report of the ICSC, and to the table appearing in Appendix D.
The Committee was informed that the International Civil Service Commission had recommended the consolidation of 20 multiplier points of post adjustments into base salaries to meet the imbalance in the tax equalization fund of the United Nations. The Committee was also informed that the General Assembly had also disagreed with the International Civil Service Commission's recommendation for a post adjustment in order to adjust the New York index which is 9.6 percent below. The margin between net remuneration of the UN and the US Federal Civil Service was to be corrected by disallowing the addition of two post adjustment classes. The suspension of two post adjustments for New York which were due in December 1984 was applied to the other duty stations, including Rome. The difference in the remuneration of Professional staff, inclusive of post adjustments between New York and Rome, was about 33 percent.
The Committee was also informed that the ICSC had recommended a new scale of pensionable remuneration for Professionals and higher categories with effect from 1st January 1985. In this regard please see Annex D of the Report. The new scale provided for increases in rates of pensionable remuneration at the P-l and P-2 levels, but decreases at levels P-3 and above. The FAO had no alternative but to apply the new schedule of pensionable remuneration with effect from 1st January 1985 since staff rule 301.061 indicates that provision should be made for participation of staff members in the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund in accordance with the rules of the Fund.
The effects of the decision taken by the United Nations General Assembly on all of these aspects were discussed by the Committee, and we were appraised of the possible effects which would result in their implementation.
Firstly, the suspension of post adjustment would result in the reduction in purchasing power of the salaries of Professional staff by at least 5 percent. The decision to reduce base salaries was unprecedented in the United Nations System. Furthermore, the Organization would find it difficult to recruit suitable competent staff and also to ensure equitable geographic representation.
After considerable discussion the Committee felt that the steps that the Director-General proposed to safeguard the staff of FAO, particularly with regard to cost-of living developments in Rome, and the decision to review this question with ICSC were correct and reasonable in order to prevent any long-term repercussions of an adverse nature.
The Committee also agreed with the proposal of the Director-General that until such time as the final decision is taken on such transitional measures relating to reductions in pensions, he would continue to make such recoveries and payments on the basis of the ICSC recommendation, but would continue the present system by placing the sum in excess of the amount to be recovered from staff and to be paid by the Organization into a separate suspense account subject to the existing financial regulations.
CHAIRMAN: Is there any discussion on Item 17.1? Are there any comments on the information given by the Chairman of the Finance Committee? There are none, so we can move on to Item 17.2. I believe Mr Crowther will indicate the latest position on development in that regard.
D.K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): It was reported to the Finance Committee that there had been difficulties in performing the internal audit activity at the World Food programme for some period of time. As a result of discussions and conclusion by the Joint Task Force, which will be reported to the Council as one of the next items, I am happy to report that the discussions with the World Food Programme have progressed satisfactorily and arrangements are now being finalized to complete that internal audit work which had been delayed. This can be discussed further in the next item, but the progress report at this time is rather positive.
CHAIRMAN: Does anyone want further clarification?
J. TCHICAYA (Congo): Monsieur le Président je ne sais pas si c'est à ce point qu'il faut que j'intervienne mais j'avais une préoccupation à exprimer au sein de ce Conseil; il s'agit des dispositions de l'article XXV-6 du Règlement général de l'Organisation, qui autorise l'Organisation à prendre en charge les frais de voyage de chaque représentant et où il est indiqué qu'il s'agit du chef de la délégation. Je voudrais obtenir un peu plus d'information à ce sujet, parce que je ne vois vraiment pas pourquoi il est précisé dans cet article qu'il s'agit simplement du chef de la délégation. Pourquoi ne pourrait-on pas laisser aux soins des pays membres de pouvoir disposer de ce billet qui est alloué à chaque Etat Membre du Conseil pour qu'il puisse bénéficier de ce billet ? Pourquoi préciser spécialement qu'il s'agit essentiellement ou exclusivement du chef de délégation ?
Je me demande s'il ne serait pas possible d'étudier cette question afin de nous faire une proposition concrète qui viserait à modifier cette disposition ? Jene sais pas si le Secrétariat peut me donner des éclaircissements là-dessus ?
D.K. CROWTHER: (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): That was a rule established some time ago, to reimburse the Head of Delegations rather than members of the delegations. It is a Council decision, in the Regulation, and it has been so established for some period of time. Of course, if the Council wishes to change.
CHAIRMAN: I think the question is not concerning the whole delegation - it is one member of the delegation, but not the Head of Delegation.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Como el señor Crowther lo acaba de decir, esta disposición rige desde hace mucho tiempo, desde cuando no existían prácticamente las misiones especiales de los países en la FAO. Ello, reciente, ha demostrado que eso nos crea ciertas dificultades, particularmente a los embajadores o jefes de misiones de nuestros países en esta ciudad y que a veces, como en el caso de Colombia, limita la ocasión de que el representante de un gobierno pueda asistir a las reuniones del Consejo.
Naturalmente, somos conscientes de que este punto no estaba en la Agenda y estamos seguros de que nuestro colega y amigo del Congo no pretende que ahora vayamos a proponer este cambio, sino que simplemente el Consejo pida al Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos que preparen un texto mediante el cual se proponga este cambio; es decir que los gastos de viaje de los países miembros del Consejo no se limiten al jefe de la delegación, sino a un Miembro cualquiera de éste, y con base al informe del Comité de Asuntos Constitucionales y Jurídicos el Consejo podrá tomar la decisión correspondiente.
Sra. G. SOTO CARRERO (Cuba): Gracias, señor Presidente; Solamente haremos una breve intervención para apoyar lo que ha propuesto el distinguido Embajador de Colombia con relación a la propuesta del Congo.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): The Philippine delegation supports the proposal put forward by our colleagues. We believe that this is a reasonable request. In fact, on many occasions delegations from home are not able to go because they cannot be Head of Delegation. Nevertheless, it is good for a technical man of high rank to come from the country to give advice on country policy to the Head of Delegation whenever the Head of Delegation is from the Permanent Representation here in Rome.
CHAIRMAN: As it now stands, it reads as follows under Rule XXV sessions of the Council. "6. The travel expenses of the representative of each Member of the Council properly incurred in travelling, by the most direct route, from the representative's capital city or duty station, whichever is less, to the site of the Council session and return to his capital city or duty station, shall be borne by the Organization." It says "The travelling expenses of the representative of each Member of the Council" - it does not say "the Head of Delegation". If you approve, we will refer this further.
J. TCHICAYA (Congo): Je respecte la proposition faite par mon ami de Colombie et je pense, après la lecture que vous venez de faire de notre Règlement, que c'est une décision qui n'a pas besoin d'attendre, d'autant plus qu'on ne modifie pas fondamentalement quelque chose. Il est reconnu qu'on prend en charge un délégué. Ce que nous ne souhaitons pas, c'est qu'on mette le chef de délégation. Il suffit de supprimer ce mot "chef de délégation" afin que chaque pays membre puisse envoyer quelqu'un de son choix, qui ne sera pas forcément le chef de délégation. Pour la plupart des pays ici représentés, les chefs de délégation sont déjà à Rome. Nous souhaitons toujours avoir un appoint qui vienne de nos capitales, et cela est important dès à présent. Nous pourrions donc nous prononcer sur cette question et donner des directives au Secrétariat pour qu'il les exécute.
Marne BALLA SY (Sénégal): J'allais justement poser une question au Secrétariat. Dans les documents que nous avons reçus, il est spécifié que c'est le chef de délégation qui a droit à cet avantage, alors que certains de nos pays qui ont envoyé un expert pour aider le chef de délégation qui se trouve sur place avaient déjà soulevé la question.
La question est donc de savoir dans quel esprit le Secrétariat va faire cette précision et dans quelle mesure il est possible de rétablir cette situation. Il y a des pays qui ont désigné un agent venant de la capitale comme chef de délégation pour se faire rembourser, alors que d'autres pays en développement, qui n'ont pas jugé nécessaire de désigner cet agent comme chef de délégation, n'ont pas bénéficié de cet avantage. Ne sommes-nous pas là en présence d'une sorte d'"équité" qui pourrait fausser la règle du jeu?
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: This is a surprise item, so I shall have to call on my memory - but if I am right, this Rule originated from a time when there were no Permanent Representatives and it was assumed that the Representative of every member country would be coming from his capital. Therefore, it refers to the representative of each country, and it is quite possible that also in those dim and distant days, the fortieth anniversary of which we are soon to celebrate, there was only one representative who came. So that is how the Rule was formulated, and in referring to "the Representative" they obviously meant the Head of Delegation, because only one person can be the Representative - the rest are advisers, suppleants, and so on. We now have a different situation, and if the Council wants to change the Rule, I think they have to say "one member of the Delegation", or words to that effect. I think it would be wise to have the CCLM look at it to make sure that we have exactly the correct wording about which there can be no misunderstanding, and it can be put into effect as soon as possible thereafter. So, if the Council wishes to take a decision, it could be just a matter of finding the right wordingîand we would want to consult the CCLM on that.
CHAIRMAN: I think the spirit of the Council is that one member of the Delegation should be meant, so we will request the Secretariat to get it properly drafted and approved by the Finance Committee.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): Mr Chairman, before we move to the next item I just want to clarify the decision taken regarding the amendment to the rules regarding the travel of our members of the Council. As it is stated Rule XLII-2 there are certain provisions for the amendments of this General Rule, and it would require a two-thirds majority of the Conference, and that the Conference would receive, the notice 24 hours before, and that the Conference receive and consider the Report and proposals of the Committee. I understand that the ruling indicates that this constitutes now a proposal of the Council to the amendment to be forwarded to the CCLM and this request would be forwarded to the next Conference for amendment. Is my understanding of your ruling correct Mr Chairman?
CHAIRMAN: Yes, except that I do not know whether there is need to go to CCLM.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I think it is necessary to go to the CCLM for three reasons. One is what we are envisaging is a change either in the Rule or in the interpretation of the Rule. That is a legal matter as well as a financial matter.
Secondly, we want to be sure that if a change in the Rule is to be made the wording is legally sound, because at the moment it refers to the representative and we cannot change that to one representative we might have to change it to one member. Is that clear or not?
The third reason is that the CCLM might decide - I do not know - but it might decide it is not a change in the Rule but an interpretation of the Rule, in which case it need not go to the Conference. But as the distinguished delegate of the Philippines says, if it is a change in the Rule, it would have to go to the Conference.
M. FERMIN GOMEZ (Venezuela): Señor Presidente: Apoyo la posición del Sr. West porque si no se hace ese cambio diciendo "un miembro" y se sigue interpretando que es el Jefe de la Delegación, ocurre que en algunos países envían una persona y la catalogan como Jefe de la delegación, porque ellos quieren recibir ese estipendio. Entonces, queda en una situación bastante desairada el verdadero representante jefe de la delegación que está aquí, en Roma, colocándole una persona por encima de su categoría. Entonces, por esa razón creo que tiene perfecta razón el señor West y, perdónenme el pleonasmo, al decir que se diga "un miembro de la delegación" y no el "jefe de la delegación".
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We will adopt the procedure of Mr West for the CCLM who will then decide whether it is a matter for interpretation or a change of Rule.
It was so decided.
Il en est ainsi decidé.
Así se acuerda.
R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): I would like to take advantage of agenda item 17, and in particular 17.2 to raise an issue of some concern.
Without reopening the procedural discussion that we had yesterday, nor indeed questioning the decision taken by the Finance Committee on the matter of US $15 million to be transferred for African assistance, I would like to recommend that the Finance Committee at its next session look very carefully at the speed with which commitments are being made, under the proposal to transfer US $15 million to the TCP. The reason for doing this is that US $15 million is a large amount of money. My understanding is that under the TCP programme the limitation for project size is US $250,000. If my sums are correct, that means that we are talking about 60 projects that need to be approved very rapidly to meet the urgent needs of African countries in this time of distress.
Therefore, what I would hope that the Finance Committee could do at its next session would be to look at how rapidly commitments are being made, and then to consider whether, given the nature of the requirements, some of these projects may be larger than US $250,000. It might make some sense at that time to reconsider whether using this money via the TCP mechanism would be the most appropriate method, because I imagine some very, very urgent projects which may be larger than US $250,000 might require some rather rapid disbursement.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente: Nosotros tratamos de comprender la preocupación constante del mayor contribuyente en las cuestiones relacionadas con los recursos de la Organización, pero creemos que el Comité de Finanzas es un organismo respetable del Consejo, tomó una decisión basada en los Reglamentos. No quiero aquí repetir los párrafos del informe del Comité Financiero, pero se aseguró que ésto no exigía contribuciones extras, que no afectaban al presupuesto, al bienio en curso, que los proyectos se ajustarían a los criterios del PCT. Todas las salvaguardas posibles fueron tomadas por el Comité de Finanzas. Una actitud contraria a esa decisión, repetimos, contrasta con las decisiones ya tomadas, y parece pérfido ahora que se viene jurando al Africa.
Nosotros creemos, señor Presidente, que, si bien la cifra de 15 milliones en realidad tiene cierta significación, se justifica plenamente por la situación africana. Además, un párrafo del Comité de Finanzas - no quiero volver a leerlo - lo expresa adecuadamente y se hace referencia a la posibilidad de que, al inciar las cosechas en algunos de esos países, esas cosechas se vean afectadas y la crisis se agrave.
De manera que queríamos rogarle al distinguido colega de Estados Unidos que, por favor, no insista mas sobre este tema y respete la decisión del Comité de Finanzas.
R.D. KAUZLARICH (United States of America): I am afraid that perhaps I did not make myself as clear, as I should have and if the distinguished delegate of Colombia will bear with me I will make two points again. I am not questioning in any way whatsoever the decision of the Finance Committee; what I am doing is making, as a member of this Council, a suggestion to the Finance Committee that when it meets again it examines how rapidly this money is being disbursed so that we can ensure that this US $15 million does go as rapidly as possible to the projects that are in need, and my only point is it may turn out that some of the limitations under the TCP programme may frustrate the ability to disburse this money quickly and rapidly to the countries in need. That is all I am suggesting, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
J.C. INGRAM (WFP): Mr Chairman, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, I welcome this opportunity to present this Tenth Annual Report of the Committee on Food Aid Policies and Programmes to the FAO Council.
Mr Chairman, WFP is a very operational organization and the Report before you essentially speaks for this. It contains many facts which I am not going to repeat, but facts which I think show very clearly that 1984 was a year of considerable achievement for the World Food Programme. The approvals for new projects for development and emergencies were at a record level. The tonnage of food actually shipped was a record, up indeed by one-third as compared with the previous year. Purchases, mainly from developing countries, were US$82 million. The share of resources going to theleast developed countries rose to 38 percent and so on.
But there are two facts which are not in the Report, and which I think show rather graphically just how big an organization WFP has become and the first of these is the turnover, the expenditure turnover of the programme which last year was nearly US$800 million. That itselt was up" in dollar figures by 7 percent as compared with the previous year, and when you consider that in 1984 we had the marked appreciation of the US dollar, the actual increase in turnover was very much more than 7 percent.
Another figure is that of projects actually operational, development projects actually operational on the 31st December last, were some 288 in 87 countries, valued at US$2.9 billion, some US$713 million worth of new projects already approved were about to become operational.
Mr Chairman, these achievements speak for themselves but I would like to say something in detail about what the Programme has been doing in Africa. When I spoke last year to this Council we were all deeply concerned about the worsening crisis in Africa and the need for a massive response by the whole international community. WFP has certainly played its part, and I think I can quote the Secretary-General of the United Nations to this effect. He said: "The contribution of the World Food Programme to the United Nations effort in Africa has been particularly significant. The massive aid which it hasprovided has been central to the success of the operation. In 1984 for example, some ten million people, mainly drought victims, will have benefitted from WFP emergency assistance in African countries".
In 1985 that effort has been stepped up even further, so much so that for these first six months the value of new emergency assistance being extended by WFP to Africa has doubled as compared with the same period last year.
I need hardly say that the unprecedented scale of the 1984-85 food emergency in Africa has put considerable strains on the entire Programme. Resources in terms of manpower, food and non-food items needed to deliver that food have had to be mobilized on a priority basis. In effect the
whole Organization has progressively become geared to meeting the African emergency. In addition to its traditional functions of allocation, purchase, transport, distribution and monitoring of emergency food aid, the Programme has taken on as part of an agreed division of labour within the United Nations System the following additional functions: WFP has become a clearing house for information in the field of food supply and food aid logistics for the entire international community. It has also been charged with improving overland logistics through in situ coordination of food shipments in African transit and recipient countries, and also responsible for the elimination of logistical bottlenecks through ad hoc arrangements including new investment and direct subsidies to governments.
Within WFP the focal point for this work is a new unit called the Africa Task Force Secretariat It was established as a focal point at the beginning of this year. Its personnel have been recruited either by theredeployment of regular staff and also by temporary recruitment. At Headquarters that Secretariat has seven Professional officers and in the field it has some nineteen specialist officers who have been recruited largely on a temporary basis. Those 19 specialist officers, specialists in ports, in railways, in other aspects of logistics and also for coordination for food aid flows, are of course assisted by WFP's regular field staff.
As I say, the whole effort of the Organization in Africa has been deployed to support the efforts of the task force, which themselves are vital to the success of the entire United Nations System's operation. In pursuit of those efforts I will not detail all the things that have been done. Many countries will be aware of the detailed computerized reports that are sent out weekly and monthly and which not only bring together essential data but also make recommendations to donors regarding the timing of shipments and so on. But I do want to tell you about the ways in which this effort has brought about some very concrete results.
Let me give you a few figures which show just how dramatic the changes have been. Some of the countries most affected are inland countries and the chain in the food delivery from the port of entry to those countries is a very extended and difficult one. For example, at the beginning of this year the flow of food aid to Chad was 6 000 tons per month. Today the flow of food aid to Chad is 30 000 tons per month, so much so that our fears that we would need an airlift to meet the essential needs of Chad no longer apply.
A similar fivefold increase in flows from the beginning of the year to Burkina Faso have been effected, from 2 000 tons a month to 10 000 tons a month. Through the port of Cotonou to Niger the flow has been stepped up by seven times, from 3 000 tons to 21 000 tons, and from Abidjan to Mali, by road and also by train, we have had a doubling in the flow, from 12 000 tons per month at the beginning of the month.
These vital increases would not have been possible without the commitment of the staff resources I have spoken of. But I would also like to say that during those same first six months of this year the Programme has received and actually spent U.S. $10 million in cash, not on our regular operations but directly in support of what is going on in Africa. Of that $10 million, $7 million has been for capital investment of one sort or another, mainly for ports, railways, handling equipment, storage and so on. The other U.S. $3 million has enabled us to recruit the temporary staff I spoke of and also to provide them with the essential communications - radio, vehicles and so on - needed for them to operate the networks that they currently do in many of the most affected countries.
Of course this U.S. $10 million would not have been possible, we could not have spent it if we had not received it, and I would like to thank very much those countries that have contributed these resources. I mention specifically the World Bank, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United States. I would also like to thank the private individuals and voluntary organizations which have contributed to this $10 million notably in the Netherlands and in Japan, where particularly large sums of money have been raised for this effort.
Now of course when I say that WFP has stepped up the deliveries in this way, again it would not have been possible without the full support and cooperation of the transit countries. Every one of them has cooperated in a most important way and I would like to thank them most sincerely for that effort, which has not been done without some inconvenience to the flow of food and other commodities within their own countries.
I think one can perhaps underestimate just how big this whole operation in Africa has been and is continuing to be. The great Sahelian drought, for which the international community bestirred itself some ten years ago, for that the movement of food was 1.9 million tons. That took place over three years. In this six months of 1985 alone, 3.8 million tons have been delivered, exactly twice as much in six months as was moved in three years ten years ago. So it would not be possible without the full cooperation of the governments affected, the transit governments, the bilateral donors, and of course the organizations of the United Nations family. But even as we continue to devote maximum effort to the timely delivery of emergency food supplies, attention is required to the better use of food aid for the longer term development to sub-Saharan Africa.
The immediate problem is the use of food aid even under emergency conditions in ways which make a maximum contribution to development and avoid disincentives to increase production. On the positive side emergency food aid can be used to expand ongoing food aid development projects as has been done, for example, in Kenya and Botswana, where advantage has been taken of established administrative, logistical and technical management facilities.
New community level food-for-work activities can be organized requiring minimum technical inputs, as is being done in Mali. Settlement in suitable areas for those forced to leave their normal homes can be encouraged and supported with food, as is being done in Chad. And local marketable surpluses of food often exist even in the direst of circumstances and ways can be found to exploit these for emergency purposes as Save the Children Fund, for example, is doing in the Sudan with locally procured beans.
We have a great deal to learn from our experience in this disaster situation, and it is imperative that we learn it, because the structural problems of African agriculture are such that given the frequency with which drought occurs in the normal sequence of years we may expect over the next ten years or so that it will be necessary for us to rally again, as we have rallied on this occasion.
Therefore I would strongly urge that we begin to think already about the lessons, and I have just cited some of the ways in which food aid can be used more effectively in emergency situations. We in the Programme will have more to say about this to the next session of the CFA.
Meanwhile I would like to draw attention to the risk which is now increasing that with the very large quantities of food now on their way to some of the most affected countries, if the distribution of that food is not timed appropriately we may have a situation in which massive distribution is going on at the same time as the crop has just been harvested. Obviously that will have a serious depressive effect on prices. This is a serious problem which is building up and I would urge donors to be thinking right now about the need to provide money for storage, so that the food can be released in ways which do not have these disincentive effects. In some ways we have an opportunity, if we will only seize it right now, to bring about those food security reserves that are so necessary if the problems of the most affected countries in Africa are to be dealt with rationally in the years to come.
There are many other ways in which we should be concerned about the future, but there is only one more at this point that I would like to stress, and that is that food aid, especially emergency food aid, is in fact a growing part of the flow of development assistance in sub-Saharan Africa particularly the poorest countries. This means that because of the risks entailed in using food aid it is more than ever important that we develop sound methods for making good use of food aid in those circumstances. I must say that it is our strong impression in WFP that the effective use for the development of food aid is relatively neglected by national economic planners in Africa, by those responsible for donor coordination groups and, let it be said, by many donors as well. I am sorry to say that donors quite often speak about the need but in practice do something quite different.
For the long term it does seem to me that the route in Africa that needs to be followed in regard to the utilization of food aid is for that employment led growth strategy focusing on rural infrastructure which is described in Part II of the report before you.
We feel also that the innovative experience of using food aid to promote policy change that we have begun in Mali and will shortly extend to Senegal is something that can be applied in many other countries in Africa, and we would hope that the entire international community would join with us in promoting this kind of project where it is appropriate and where governments of the countries concerned see it as appropriate as soon as possible.
Finally, let me just say a few words about the Joint Report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Director-General of FAO on the Deliberations of the UN/FAO Joint Task Force. As you know, the CFA overwhelmingly welcomed the report and stressed the need for its immediate implementation. I would like to inform the Council that good progress in this regard is already being made and I would stress that progress is being made in a spirit of good will and cooperation.
I would like once again to thank the Director-General and assure him of my full cooperation. I think both WFP and FAO have important complementary roles to play and it is imperative that they work harmoniously together. I firmly believe we are now entering into a durable relationship of this kind.
I now commend to the Council the Tenth Annual Report of the CFA for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN: May we thank Mr Ingram for his lucid presentation.
The meeting rose at 12.30 hours
La seance est levée à 12 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.30 horas.