a) Regular Programme 1984-85
(C 87/5; CL 90/17 paras 46-60) (continued)
a) Programme ordinaire 1984-85
(C 87/5; CL 90/17 par. 46-60) (suite)
a) Programa Ordinario 1984-85
(C 87/5; CL 90/17, párrs. 46-60) (continuación)
b) UNDP 1984-85
(C 87/6; CL 90/17 para. 61) (continued)
b) PNUD 1984-85
(C 87/6; CL 90/17 par. 61) (suite)
b) PNUD 1984-85
(C 87/6; CL 90/17 párrs. 61) (continuación)
c) World Food Programme 1984-85
(C 87/7; CL 90/17 para. 62-66) (continued)
c) Programme alimentaire mondial 1984-85
(C 87/7; CL 90/17 par. 62-66) (suite)
c) Programa Mundial de Alimentos 1984-85
(C 87/7; CL 90/17 párrs. 62-66) (continuación)
Mohd. Mazlan BIN JUSOH (Malaysia): We would just like to make a very brief statement but first of all I would like to thank Mr Bukhari for his very outstanding and comprehensive introduction.
My country being a member of the Finance Committee in the person of Mr Jalil, I feel it my duty to state on behalf of my delegation our support to the reports of the Finance Committee as presented by the Chairman of the Committee.
We would also like to thank members of the Council who had expressed appreciation for the work of this Committee and we note various comments made by some delegations about the Finance Committee. We feel that the Committee can benefit from these comments and take them in a constructive light. As mentioned by the delegate of Cuba, there is no such thing as perfection. We have to work continuously towards perfection and I believe that this Organization can benefit by taking these comments in a constructive light.
We also would like to thank Ambassador Pascarelli in announcing the special effort of Italy to alleviate the short term financial difficulties faced by this Organization and would like to echo the part of the report which calls for members of this Organization to try to help solve the problem of arrears in payments of their contributions.
We are very well pleased with the way the discussions have taken place on this item. Even though most matters have been explained in the report, there are certain other matters already been brought up by some of the delegates who have spoken previously, especially with regard to the WFP audited account for 1984/85 which we think the Council will benefit, with further clarification.
This specifically refers to the problem in connection with WFP information system regarding the loss of $3 million and the reasons why steps have not been taken to take litigation against the company.
The second matter is with regard to loss of materials which were supposed to be sent to Member Countries under the Food Aid Programme. Such losses have been said to amount to up to 30 percent.
The last one is with regard to the continued supply of grains to countries which have experienced surpluses to meet their local requirements and some even for export.
I believe these matters have been taken note of by the WFP and we would like to have some clarification on them.
Antoine SAINTRAINT (Observateur de Belgique): Puis-je me permettre d'intervenir très brièvement pour émettre quelques réflexions.
Ne serait-il pas possible d'étudier la possibilité pratique de fixer en monnaies nationales tous les crédits budgétaires qui ne sont pas dépensés en dollars, dans le but de demander aux Etats Membres de liquider en tout ou en partie en lires le montant de leurs contributions correspondant à la part des dépenses liquidées dans cette monnaie? Je sais que cela entraîne un certain nombre de complications sur le plan budgétaire, mais il serait intéressant qu'une étude soit entreprise et mise à notre disposition. Mon pays souhaite qu'une décision rapide puisse intervenir en ce qui concerne les mesures prises pour encourager le paiement rapide des contributions et permettre un traitement plus équitable tous les Etats Membres.
Le règlement financier actuel doit être modifié; une des sept solutions préconisées devrait être retenue. Comme la distribution a lieu au début de la seconde année suivant la fin de l'exercice-c'est-à-dire au début de l'année 1987-, le Comité devrait se pencher sur la question à sa session de décembre. Chaque pays doit pouvoir contribuer le mieux possible au fonctionnement de la FAO; l'avis du Comité sur la meilleure des sept solutions proposées me paraît important: quelle est cette meilleure solution du point de vue du bon fonctionnement de l'Organisation?
Serait-il également possible de savoir où en est l'étude du Comité financier quant aux mesures qui pourraient être prises en cas de paiement tardif des contributions? En l'absence d'un taux au moins égal au taux du marché financier, il existe une incitation aux paiements tardifs des contributions des Etats Membres et cette incitation est évidemment le taux supérieur à celui du marché qui seul imposerait une pénalité.
L'annexe B du document CL 90/17 fait le point de la situation dans les différents organismes de la famille des Nations Unies. L'étude de ce document m'amène à souhaiter une meilleure articulation entre la FAO et le PAM. La restructuration envisagée par le PAM, dont il a été beaucoup discuté, doit se faire dans la perspective d'une bonne articulation avec la FAO et non dans celle d'une séparation ou d'une autonomie plus grande.
En ce qui concerne le Programme de coopération technique, nous y sommes très attachés. Il fonctionne bien et il nous paraît important qu'il ne soit pas sacrifié.
Carlos DINATOR (Observador de Chile): Mi delegación desea intervenir otra vez, señor Presidente, en forma breve y en relación con la situación financiera y, esta vez, a propósito del tema 11 de la agenda referente al análisis de los informes de las sesiones 57 y 58 del Comité de Finanzas.
Expresó mi delegación, señor Presidente, que la publicación del documento CL 90/17 y de otros en el mes de noviembre, no ha permitido a todas las delegaciones examinar con igual detención la situación financiera, tanto en los aspectos de diagnóstico como en los de terapia. Consecuentemente en la actual situación, mi delegación no está en condiciones de pronunciarse respecto de las notables propuestas del eminente representante de Italia, como habría sido nuestro deseo, máxime teniendo en cuenta su llamamiento hecho a los Estados no miembros del Consejo.
En estrecha relación con las actividades y posiciones de tales Estados no miembros del Consejo, mi delegación debe hacer notar que en un primer análisis de esta documentación no ha podido encontrar antecedentes complementarios, que podría enterar el cuadro general de todos los desembolsos de los Estados a la Organización, por cuanto aparte de las contribuciones o cuotas, mi país aporta a la FAO por ejemplo, una suma de dinero adicional cercana a un millón de dólares anuales para el sostenimiento de la Oficina Regional para América Latina, situada en Santiago, y la representación de la FAO en Chile. Antecedentes que no vemos en la documentación entregada.
Deseamos recibir alguna información de la Secretaría acerca de la posibilidad de ampliar en el futuro el objeto o alcance de textos similares al apéndice "A" del documento CL 90/17 y al CL 90/LIM l, para que incluyan todos los aportes y cuotas de los Estados a la FAO por cualquier concepto e igualmente, para que esta clase de documentos den a conocer simultáneamente la exacta cuota básica de cada Estado en el año calendario vigente.
R. G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): I would just like to respond to a point made by the delegate of Colombia. I am not sure whether I got his point exactly as I am afraid 1 was listening in translation. But I thought I heard a suggestion that the comments made by the British delegation this morning were based on information not available to the remainder of the Council. In fact we were in receipt of no information not in the papers available to the Council, and in particular we do not have separate dealings with the British national audit office. This office is completely separate from the Executive arm of government and its audit work retains its own confidences.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous arrivons à la fin du débat. Je remercie tous les orateurs qui ont bien voulu discuter de ce point très important et de la clarté du débat.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Chairman, Finance Committee) (Original language Arabic): I do not have a great deal to add to what has been said. However, I would like at the outset to thank all those who have taken part in the discussion. I thank in fact all the members of the Council without exception. I would like to thank more particularly those who have expressed their satisfaction and their conviction for the contents of the Reports of the Finance Committee which in fact revolve around the basic immediate point under discussion during this session of the Council.
I have a small comment to make here. This is a matter that was referred to by His Excellency the Ambassador of Italy, His Excellency the Ambassador of India, the Ambassadors of Colombia, Venezuela and others. However, as Chairman of the Finance Committee I wish to say that this Committee is not a Committee that simply reads documents. We are not simply there to sit for a couple of hours to read through the documents. We are a Committee that examines very carefully and in a very minute manner every minor and major item in the documents. We examine very carefully everything submitted to us. We then discuss matters, and we sometimes spend days discussing a specific subject if it appears to be necessary to do so.
Some of the members of the Council may think that some subjects are discussed in an hour or so. But I would like to say that sometimes some subjects take up more than a day of discussion. So you can imagine how long we took to review the audited accounts of the FAO and the WFP or the Reports of the External Auditor. I would like you to know that such activities take days on end. We interview most of the officials in charge of the Organization, they sit with us and we put our questions to them and we listen to their replies, the External Auditor also. We discuss and examine with him every single paragraph of his Report and we listen very carefully to his answers. Both parties concerned, that is to say the Secretariat and the External Auditor, sit together and we discuss the whole matter between us. Then we, the members of the Finance Committee, express our opinion as far as the situation is concerned. We support one point or express our sympathy for another and so on. Therefore the activities and the operations of the Finance Committee are arduous. It is a Committee that is responsible here before the members of the Council. You, the members of the Council, are the ones who have established the Committee. We are the Council representatives before the External Auditor and the Secretariat, we are part of you and not against you.
This Committee is composed of members who are known for their integrity, honesty and experience and they discuss all the documents and matters pertaining to the finances of the Organization to facilitate your task for you in discussing sensitive items. We are very proud that we represent such an august body as this Council and we hope that we shall be worthy of the confidence and trust of all the members of the Council.
Criticism is a single word but one that may have one or two meanings. We have constructive criticism, criticism with a subject and a point, and we have destructive criticism. Both sides of this form of criticism are qualified as criticism. However, the manner of criticizing and the very timing of addressing criticism could be construed either as constructive or as destructive. The manner, the means, the timing of criticism, can therefore either be taken as a constructive form of criticism, an objective form of criticism, or a destructive one.
The members of the Finance Committee do not fear criticism but we welcome all forms of criticism to us by members of the Council. We simply wish that it be constructive and that it guide us in our activities. The Finance Committee receives its guidance from the Council and we are members of the Committee. The majority of the members of the Finance Committee are also members of the Council.
So we are an integral part of the Council. As I said, in the Finance Committee's report, the External Auditor provided us with information which was thoroughly examined. He provided us with this information in the form of a report. I believe that the Finance Committee must examine the auditor's report iself. It must not address the report in any different manner.
In the External Auditor's report there are no doubt certain criticisms, but they are constructive ones. There are simplified forms of criticism in all the paragraphs of the report. For example, in paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 the auditor referred to the weaknesses in the review operation in the planning of the budget and so on. As my colleague from Cuba and other colleagues have said, perfection is not something that can be achieved here. We in the Finance Committee can never achieve perfection. Perfection is a divine attribute.
Paragraph 10 of the auditor's report says that certain points could be improved. This is an appropriate and a most courteous manner of addressing criticism. In sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph 10, there is a statement which says that it would be better to monitor manpower. It goes without saying that this criticism is addressed to the Organization. In fact we questioned the Organization as to these points of criticism and obtained the necessary replies. I do not believe that the Finance Committee or any Member of the Committee, would expect us to submit a document of two thousand pages that would in fact contain all the questions addressed to the Secretariat and to the auditor, as well as the replies to these questions. Therefore, we submit to you a report in summary form that will facilitate the work of the Council.
Once again I should like to express my deep thanks my unlimited gratitude to all my colleagues, Members of the Council, and I would simply urge them to be patient and calm, so that the discussion of these sensitive items be constructive, aimed at achieving the good of one and all.
David Lawrence COUTTS (Australia): I should like very briefly to set the record straight concerning one point that was made before lunch by the delegate of Colombia. In his intervention he made reference to the fact that Australia is on the Finance Committee, and as 1 understood it, he seemed to be implying we were raising criticisms that were not consistent with their membership of that Committee. I should like to say that Australia has worked hard on the Finance Committee. We take our responsibilities very seriously in that regard. I thought I had clearly indicated in my intervention, (if it was not clear 1 should like to underline it now) that Australia fully endorses acceptance of these reports and we appreciate the comments of the Chairman of the Finance Committee, and stand right behind him in this regard. What 1 did add, which might have led to some confusion, was only that we were impressed by the detailed work that had been done by several delegates to this Council (particularly the United Kingdom and Canada) that we supported their enthusiasm in looking at these details and that we would listen with interest to the responses of the Secretariat. I thank you for the opportunity to make that clear.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sólo intervenimos porque Colombia se ha puesto de moda en la reunión de esta tarde después del almuerzo.
Queremos, simplemente, agradecer de manera muy sincera al colega y amigo señor Coutts de Australia por la declaración tan positiva y constructiva que acaba de hacer.
Creo que después de este debate no tenemos duda de que el Consejo esta integrado por 49 constructores.
LE PRESIDENT: Après ces bonnes paroles, je vais donner la parole au Directeur général adjoint.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: In the course of the debate on these two items, there have been numerous references to the question of transparency. I should like to say that in the last resort the concept of transparency relates to a climate of confidence. I would like to reiterate the Director-General's intention of persevering in the road traced out in his own closing statement to the Conference, and by the discussions in the Programme and Finance Committees.
If I may now be permitted a personal remark-I was both impressed and depressed by a number of interventions this morning. Impressed by the diligence with which certain documents, (in particular the reports of the External Auditor) had clearly been examined. I was depressed because frankly I have the impression that there was a systematic search for what I would call "Sticks to beat the Secretariat". However, I am rather encouraged to find that the sticks are not bigger ones. If I may continue my personal impressions, I think that if these are the most serious questions for which we can be called upon to provide answers, then the Organization is not doing too badly.
I should like to answer two specific queries myself. The first relates to accommodation for the World Food Council. Here, the Executive Director of the World Food Council and we ourselves, are working to find a solution which will be satisfactory to both sides.
Secondly, I should like to refer to a question regarding the use of the Italian Special Contributions. The representative of Italy expressed the view that it would not be appropriate for the Council to get into a detailed discussion on the use of these funds over the years since contributions first started in 1971. Therefore, I shall merely say that the Italian Special Contributions are all to be used for purposes agreed upon between the Italian Government and FAO. There are still some residual funds left from contributions in the past. We are in discussion with the Permanent Representation of Italy regarding the best use of these funds in the present financial situation. We hope that these discussions can be concluded in the very near future.
On all other questions that have been put to the Secretariat, we shall be glad to provide detailed answers. With your permission, I should like to pass the microphone to my colleague Mr Crowther.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): First of all I have a couple of general comments to make before I get into the very detailed specific questions that were raised. I should like to take this opportunity to thank those delegates who have delved very deeply into various aspects and who have taken an interest in the Finance Committee reports and therefore a continued interest in the Organization.
I should like to reiterate the statement that was made by Ambassador Bukhari, (Chairman of the Finance Committee) and reassure the Council that the Finance Committee does look into every agenda item in great detail. Those of you who are Members, or have been Members, of the Finance Committee have seen the large stack of documents that are provided to each Member of the Finance Committee and additional explanation, analysis and work papers that are provided to the Members of the Finance Committee. It has been, and continues to be, the Director-General's instructions that we shall provide Members of the Finance Committee with all the information that your organization has at its disposal, that the Finance Committee Members ask for. We have attempted to do that in every meeting.
I should also say that the Members of the Finance Committee are very diligent in asking questions; they are excellent members and certainly delved deeply into every aspect of the Organization's business.
I should like to mention also, for the benefit of Council Members on the question of contributions that there have been three payments received since we discussed this subject last week. There have been payments from Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and Brazil. I am very pleased to announce that these payments have been received either in whole or in part from each of the respective countries.
Thirdly, in terms of general comments, I should like to say with respect to the external auditor that it is important as we view the external auditor's reports (which we do appreciate very much) that the external auditor has a basic responsibilitiy, which he carries out very diligently, and that is to review the accounts of the Organization and provide assurances back to the Council through the Finance Committee of their accuracy, completeness, and offer his opinion on their precision.
The Chairman of the Finance Committee has made reference to the auditor's opinion which is included in the document that you have and again this past biennium, (as has been the case in all biennia) the auditor offered an unreserved, unqualified opinion on the accuracy of the accounts. By far, the work of the auditor is taken up for the most part by his review of the accuracy of the accounts during the biennium. 1 do not want Council Members to be misled in thinking that the only things the auditor does is to concentrate on the other items that seem to be of interest to the Council Members that are also included in the reports, because most of the work of the auditor is concentrated on the accounts themselves. Again, he finds them in good order and properly reflected in accordance with the Regulations of the Organization-that perspective was very important.
In adddition to the time that the auditor has available to him, he then ventures into areas that he plans, and reviews management subjects that he refers to as "value for money". Those subjects that he had selected for the last biennium are reported upon, and as you have seen, where he has identified areas that he believes the Organization could improve he has either included the matter under a "Conclusion" or a "Recommendation". The distinction between "value for money" audits and the review of the accounts we think is a rather important one.
If I can turn to the specific questions that have been raised, I think it would be useful if 1 combined a number of the questions that were overlapping to the degree that I can do that, otherwise I shall have to go country-by-country.
The first questions that were raised were from the representative of Germany. One of those questions had to do with the relationship of trust funds and cross-over to the Regular Programme. Mr Shah will direct an answer to that.
The second question had to do with extrapolating from the personnel statistics the equivalent numbers of staff, and he had calculated a projected number of 7 962. That is a little high but it is very difficult to calculate. You have to take a number of things into consideration. One is that the personnel statistics that are shown in the reports that are in front of you include all of the authorized posts. In addition, we have attempted to take those contract employees who are on board and show equivalent numbers. Adding posts and numbers of equivalent employees together is not a completely accurate picture but it does give you an order of magnitude. We always have vacancies within posts, so the number is bound to be a little smaller than that projected, closer to 7 000 than 7 900 odd, merely because of the vacancy rates and the turnovers, because you are dealing with posts in that instance.
Next, the representative from the United Kingdom asked a number of questions, and I shall attempt to deal with them as precisely as we can. The first series of questions had to do with personnel matters and more specifically staff evaluations. He was concerned about how long there had been no system of staff appraisal for headquarters staff. Were our discussions on the introduction of an appraisal system likely to be finalized, and what do we do in the meantime?
The Organization has a number of staff evaluation systems but they do not provide an umbrella system for the entire Organization. That subject has been studied by the International Civil Service Commission and in fact a pro forma appraisal system was proposed in draft form and attempted by most of the agencies of the UN system, but unfortunately it was so complicated that it fell of its own weight. The Civil Service Commission continues to study and attempt to find a better evaluation system that could properly be used by the various UN specialized agencies and the United Nations itself. However, that does not mean that we do nothing by any manner of means. We have a number of systems that are necessary for us to operate our personnel system. For example, we presently have an evaluation system that has concluded in a review of each individual's performance at the end of a probationary period. As we bring permanent employees on, these staff members serve a probationary period of one year and they are reviewed at three periods during that
first year in order to determine whether they should be continued. This system has existed for some period of time. Secondly, there is an overall staff evaluation or staff performance appraisal system for field staff. That, too, has been in existence for quite a long period of time.
We are in the process of developing a performance system for each step in a particular grade level before the next step is automatically awarded. As the Council may be aware, the grading system in the UN system provides a number of steps for each grade. When a within-grade step is otherwise warranted we must have some indication from the supervisor as to whether they have performed well or not in order to be promoted. That evaluation system is being tested, and we hope to have that finalized in the very near future.
One last point on evaluations: the question was raised as to how the internal candidates that receive promotions are evaluated. Most of the promotions that we see within the Organization are as a result of filings for vacancy announcements that happen to become available. Any staff member believing that they have appropriate experience and background to file for a particular vacancy announcement may do so. In so doing, they must receive an evaluation from the supervisor. The supervisor who has the vacancy and who has asked for the announcement receives all the various applications for the vacancy announcement. Then he must go through each of those evaluations that have been made by the supervisor and put forward to the selection committee his analysis of the various performance appraisals that have been made on each of those candidates. I think we have a performance evaluation for almost every condition. There are a few which are perhaps not completed, but we will continue to work with the Civil Service Commission in order to come up with a staff evaluation system that will be universal.
Next, I should like to turn to the question that was raised on inventory control procedures for the Regular Programme. This related to the audit report on UNDP and the criticism that was made there with respect to our accounting for particularly fixed equipment in the field. On UNDP projects, like Regular Programme projects, we do have an equipment inventory that very precisely records from the point of purchase every item that is located in the field or in headquarters. The problem is that that inventory must be updated with a physical inventory on a regular basis. The auditor noted in those few cases where they visited the field that there were some instances when the inventory listing was sent from headquarters to the project for verification, but the organization found it difficult in some instances to get the project manager to take time out from the project to perform the inventory and return it to us. That is very true; it is a difficult task that we have to wrestle with.
The auditor had some specific recommendations, which we have accepted and we have implemented, and we are attempting to find every way we can to motivate those people in the field to count the equipment. From time to time we do send internal auditors as well as other staff members who are in the programme area also to review the equipment that is there. We have an adequate set of internal controls over the equipment, but we accept the criticism levied and have instituted the action necessary to correct it.
We have just recently-in fact, since the conclusion of the External Auditor's Report-implemented an automated inventory system both at headquarters and in the field. During implementation, we are doing a fairly complete test to make certain that we have all the bugs out of the system. We do believe, though, that this will provide the Organization with the assurance of an inventory control system that will be adequate.
While we are on that particular point, a separate question was raised by the representative of Turkey concerning the receipt of the auditor's report on UNDP matters by UNDP. We certainly will continue to work closely with UNDP and make certain that their Governing Body has the opportunity to take up that issue as well.
The representative from the United Kingdom raised a question on the External Auditor's Report on the procurement of word processors. He dealt with a number of very specific questions that I should try and answer first, and I shall try at the same time to answer the questions raised by the representative from Canada.
The question was raised as to whether the manufacturer receiving the award of the contract was one of the three identified by the ISRC Committee. As the External Auditor's report shows, the particular manufacturer that received the award was an addition to those three. When the Organization made a determination to go out for an international tender to buy word processing equipment, it selected a complete listing of qualified manufacturers, including three of the world's largest manufacturers. Each of these was not only a reputable company but provided good hardware, good software and the opportunity to maintain the equipment. Those were part of the substantiation that the Contracts Committee reviewed when they reviewed the list to go out for tender. The fact that an award was made to one of the bidders under the tender, a qualified bidder who was asked to tender who had not earlier been included in the consultants' report on this issue, we believe, and the audi tor also believed, was irrelevant. The important part was that when we went out to tender all the rules of competition in international tendering were followed very closely. I would like to assure you, Mr Chairman, and the Council that all of the rules for international tendering on this procurement were followed and the award was made in accordance with each of those rules. The auditor made it very clear that no violation had been made of any of the rules under the tendering procedure, and I might add that we have some very complicated and technical tendering rules and we must adhere to those very carefully. The Director-General is very keen about that and we are most conscious that we must follow those rules strictly.
We have a Contracts Committee that reviews first the listing of bidders and specifications within the tender. After the tender is received there is a separate evaluation group that makes a full and complete evaluation of the bids received. The recommendations go back to the contracts committee who separately review the recommendation and make a final recommendation for the award. That procedure was followed to the letter in this case. It has been reviewed both by our internal auditors and our external auditors. The criticism that was levied by the external auditor on this particular case was that-even though the Organization selected an alternative bid that was received in the tender in a sealed bid at the same time as the other bids were received, reviewed and evaluated through exactly the same process, and the recommendations were included--the auditor thought that the specifications for future tenders could be tightened up a bit and, while we do not disagree with him, he did not suggest that it was an inappropriate award and that the alternative bid should not have been considered. He did not suggest that anywhere in the report, nor in our discussions with him. So we can certainly reassure both the Council and you, Mr. Chairman, that the Finance Committee reviewed this in great detail, asking questions of the External Auditor himself, and obtained all the information necessary to satisfy the Committee on this issue.
The question was raised as to whether any informal appraisal was made of the winning company's ability to perform under the tender. The answer is an unqualified "yes". A substantial appraisal was made. Both a technical appraisal was made and an economic appraisal was made and included in the results of the tender. The question that the auditor raised in this regard had to do with comparing the alternative bid which was substantially lower than the regular bids with the regular bids themselves. However, I am very pleased to say that an appraisal was performed of even the alternative bid.
The question was also raised as to the level in FAO that a decision was made to waive competition tendering and at what level was this endorsed? There was no waiver of competition in this case whatsoever. This particular procurement was made under the rules of competition which exist for the Organization. There was no waiver of competition in any respect, neither did the Auditor suggest that there was any waivering of competition. Are there proposals to clarify the manual in the circumstances in which competitive tendering is not indicated? The manual does not need changes. It is a question of attempting to identify the specifications which most clearly will provide the type of equipment that you need in high technology where the state of the art is constantly changing. For example, if you have a particular problem in word processing, or data processing, which you wish to solve whether it is a hardware or software
problem, and you are going to tender for the solution, the tendering process requires a fairly precise set of specifications. The Auditor suggested that, it could be useful to the degree that we can make specifications even more precise. We accept that and we are certainly making every effort to do so in those areas where high technology is particularly involved.
Have the recommendations of the Auditor been drawn to the attention of the staff concerned? The answer is an unqualified yes, it certainly has. Both our Procurement Branch, our Contracts Branch and the technical departments are involved. Questions were asked on specific dates regarding the tender and I might refer to this, this particular procurement occurred in 1983. An international tender was issued to a qualified list of bidders on 18 November 1983. The closing date for the tender was 30 November 1983 and the bids were opened the next day on December 1st. The purchase order was issued on 19 December after full and complete evaluation within the Organization. Therefore, there was not only cost evaluation, but also economic evaluation and technical appraisal performed before these were issued.
I have answered the questions of the Representative of United Kingdom, perhaps with one exception. He did make reference to the format of the financial statement of the Organization and he thought that they were not in sufficient detail to provide enough information for analysis by the members of the Council. I wish to call your attention to the fact that we, together with the Board of Auditors and International Civil Service Commission, acting together with the CCAQ (the Consultant Committee on Administrative Questions) for finance and budget are constantly reviewing this question of financial statements, the layout, format and the inclusion of information that is to be there, for all international organizations.
We rigidly follow the directions that have been given to the Organization by the CCAQ and, whilst there are some difference between agencies, we all follow the same basic rules and procedures. There is no way we can all put out precisely the same sets of statements since our organizational objectives are a little different in each case. However, on a particular number of questions within the financial statement, whether it is a discussion on assets, liabilities, surplus expenditure or income our definitions are reasonably uniform to a degree and they are constantly discussed.
The Board of Auditors also discussed this same question and tries to find basic ways of improving the financial statements that they can request of us. The Comptroller and Auditor General of the United Kingdom happens to be the External Auditor not only for the FAO, but for several other large UN organizations. They review the format and layouts in order that the members of Council and, more specifically, members of the Finance Committee, can have a complete understanding of the financial statements as they may wish to have.
We have had an outside consultant to look at some of the details included in our financial statements, including subsidiary schedules which are there and we have received recommendations for improving those. We will constantly strive to improve those and if there is any specific information in the audited accounts which you would like to see changed we would be pleased to receive your recommendations.
With regard to the intervention made by the representative of Canada, I may have covered a number but not all of them. The Representative of Canada requested a general progress report on the implementation of our automated system, FINSYS/PERSYS. In view of the fact that the Finance Committee has heard detailed reports on this progress. I will not attempt to go into detail. We do plan to continue to report on this issue to the Finance Committee at every session, suffice it to say, we did tender for a development contractor to implement the automation of our complete personnel and finance system-we are developing an automated accounting system. The Organization
has long lived with a manual system which does need to be automated and whilst we have the basic specifications, and the implementation contractor now on board, under a fixed price contract, it is progressing quite well. We do expect that the contract will be completed both on time and within the dollar amount that was shown in the contract.
The Representative of Canada enquired about the management group overseeing the development of this large automated system and how that differs from the Information Systems Resources Committee. 1 will only spend a moment on this to say that because this is a large automated financial management and personnel management system, we found it necessary to set up a steering committee of those persons who would largely be affected by this, to make certain that the contractor was developing the type of system in accordance with the contract specifications. That would be most useful, in that we would be able to implement the system on time. This group meets every two weeks and once a month we have a larger group who reviews it, and prepares management reports on it. The Internal Auditor sits as an observer on each of the steering committee meetings and we are watching, very closely, every aspect of this development system. There have been a number of systems in other organizations which have failed because they did not have good management attention on them. We hope this will not be the case in FAO.
This group differs from the Information Systems Resources Committee in that the ISRC is a group of management officials, chaired by the Deputy Director-General, and consisting of the Assistant Directors-General to review automation and information systems development proposals by various technical organizations in the group. There is a technical sub-committee to that group who reviews the technical aspects and who makes recommendations to the full committee. That is a separate issue from overseeing the automation contract itself which is an operational responsibility. This is a policy advisory group to the Director-General and does review automated systems development proposals.
With regard to the audit reports, there may have been a number of additional questions raised by the Representative of Canada, which I did not cover. He welcomed an affirmation by the Secretariat, on our views that we would proceed on a competitive procurement system which would strengthen, where needed, future procurements. I can reassure you that the procurement system which exists in FAO is one of the best systems in the entire UN system. It has been reviewed by other UN organizations. Not only the automated portion of it, but also the internal controls related to it are well-established and well-founded. The External Auditor has reviewed the procurement system from time to time, as well as our Internal Auditor, and we find that we have got an excellent procurement system. I do not think it is the system that needs revising and it is not the recommendation of the External Auditor. In that regard I can reassure the Council and reaffirm that the procurement system is working well. The tendering system is working well and will continue to do so. We have certainly taken the External Auditor's recommendations into account and have implemented the recommendations that he has given to us.
In respect of the technical point the Representative of Canada raised the question of seeking uniformity of competition in this particular procurement of word processing and data processing equipment. The suggestion was made that we agree to compromise on a very early version of a local area network. That such network be placed in abeyance pending further study and that it be a substitute for 19 stand-alone units versus 4 units. The suggestions made were of an early version of such a system.
I believe there may be some confusion over the terminology, but I do not want to dwell on the technical aspect. However, it should be mentioned that the 19 stand-alone units, which were included in the basic bid for word processing equipment, included precisely the same word processing units as we received under the alternative bid. They were the same equipment and the same specifications. The difference was a significant difference in price. Also, the difference was that instead of 19 units that would be connected individually to a reasonably small mini-computer, 19 of them around the house as one proposal was included, we accepted an alternative bid of 4 more modern more up-to-date and more powerful units than each of the 19. The combination of the 4 mini-computers which were selected in the alternative bid at a substantially lower price, gives us much more powerful capability than we would have received had we selected the alternative of 19 mini-computers which would have been connected in individual divisions. We now have the opportunity of connecting them all throughout the entire Organization. It provides us, for the first time, in the history of the FAO, with the capability of putting information into one word processor and
transferring it to printing, or other places, where during Council/Conference, and other sessions of this nature, such information transfers could be extremely important.
We are in the process now of doing the final evaluation for the cabling that would be required to collate these together. After the full evaluation of that a proposal will be made to the Director-General and upon his approval it will be implemented.
I think that 1 have covered the questions that have been raised, with the exception of either three or four that Mr. Shah should answer and there were a couple of questions on the World Food Programme that Mr. Ahmed should answer.
V. J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): There are four subjects on which I would like to address myself to provide the clarifications desired by members of this Council.
Firstly, with reference to the Technical Cooperation Programme, I believe it was the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany, who, referring to the transfer of $15 million from savings to the Technical Cooperation Programme, commented that this transfer gave rise to the high level of unobligated funds carried over into this biennium. It was in my first intervention at this session of the Council on Wednesday of last week that I tried to clarify the difference between unobligated funds of the TCP and commitments, commitments for projects which are approved. Now with regard to the $15 million which were transferred to the TCP specfically for the Agricultural Rehabilitation Programme for Africa, the full amount, and you may remember that this transfer was approved by the Finance Committee in May 1985, the full amount was allocated to projects for Africa, 94 projects in all. I have been reporting on this to the Finance Committee ever since. At the last session of the Finance Committee in September we reported to them on the actual delivery against the project earmarking and the delivery was, at the end of August, 70 percent. By now, at the end of October I would imagine it is a good 10 percentage points over that.
I perhaps will not go into other aspects of the TCP since I gave information on that in my earlier intervention.
The second point I would like to address myself to is the question of what steps are being taken to include project design and this question was raised by the representative of the United Kingdom with regard to our field projects. Project design, we have learned, as I am sure for other agencies and bilateral aid organizations, is really a key aspect in the efficient execution of a project and I do not know of one organization which can come up with a completely clean record and say that their systems ensured perfect project design in every case. In fact, our Review of the Field Programme, which members may remember as we submit it to the Conference every two years, gives extensive information on the project design as assessed by operators, as assessed by FAO representatives, as assessed by evaluation and the key is the effort made in evaluation and in feeding back the results of that evaluation into the project design process. This is something which requires effort across the board. It is not something that can be done only by a small group of people in one unit because it is the experience of field operations, conveyed to project operators in a central unit, whether of agriculture, or fishery or forestry operations, feeding back to the technical staff of divisions; that whole process is a dynamic one and it is based on a strengthening of our evaluation system.
Now what has been done? I do not believe there is any question of my blowing the Organization's trumpet but there happened to be two reports of the Joint Inspection Unit which addressed themselves to this very point, among others, and both reports were considered by the Programme and Finance Committees at their September sessions. They are referred to in their reports. The JIU
reports themselves have been distributed as information documents of this Council. One is a report entitled "Status of Internal Evaluation in Organizations of the United Nations System" and the second is entitled "The Third Report on Evaluation in the United Nations System: Integration and use". The first report gives us, in comparison to the evaluation activities and units, a rather clear commedation, "an ambitious and comprehensive evaluation system" it says, which has been filled out as FAO continues to expand evaluation coverage, refine and expand operation coverage of the system and integrate evaluation with other programme management in oversighted processes. I will not take the time of the Council in going into further detail but both these two JIU reports and the comments of the Programme and Finance Committees draw attention to what steps have been taken by the Organization in recent years to consolidate and streamline the evaluation system in order to ensure a systematic feedback to improve the programme and project design.
The third question which has been raised by a number of representatives is on the subject of programme support costs and reference has been made to the information on programme support costs included in the report of the Finance Committee of its September session. Here we are dealing specifically with the cost of delivery of field projects. There are two points I would like to make. Firstly that our cost measurement system gives us data which are the basis of our report to the Finance Committee and they are as they appear in the Finance Committee's document. These data are perfectly consistent in my view with the data referred to by the external auditor in his report. Reference was made to paragraph 9 of the external auditor's report of the regular programme where it is stated that "Total support costs as determined later under the cost measurement system amounted to 42 million 700 thousand dollars for UNDP, 17 million dollars for the World Food Programme and 39 million 200 thousand for Trust Funds. These figures are identical to the figures given in the tables under paragraph 72 of the Finance Committee Report CL 90/17.
I refer to this matter because the intervention gave some impression of doubt or puzzlement or alarm that there is a Regular Programme subsidy to the Field Programme but this comes more as a surprise to the Secretariat, that there should be such puzzlement. I will not take the time of the Council by giving you an exhaustive history of the matter, but let me briefly recall that the question of project delivery cost for the Field Programme for field projects has been considered not only by the Finance Committee, and the Council and the Conference in the case of FAO, but by the relevant and related bodies of all other organizations in the United Nations system together with the UNDP governing council and the ACABQ, Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, and the General Assembly itself. All these considerations led to, firstly, an acceptance of the principle in the decisions both of the General Assembly, the UNDP governing council, and in our case, the FAO Conference in 1981, that there are certain charges which are applicable and are validly charged to project delivery, whereas there are other charges which are a valid charge to the regular budget. It was based on this principle that the FAO Conference in 1981, at its 21st Session, agreed that the support costs rate for the UNDP, as for Trust Funds, should be at a flat rate of 13 percent. In the case of the UNDP, as you know, there has been an interim period, until January 1987, during which we have received 14 percent, which was the former rate and in the case of Trust Funds there are also provisions for alternative rates or waivers, all established in the FAO manner.
The last point I would address myself to is with reference to the report of the external auditor regarding regular programme monitoring and I would also refer to the views of the Finance Committee on this matter because in order to get the proper balance one has to bear in mind both sets of views and firstly, if I may make a personal comment, there is no reason I feel for me to be defensive, as some of the delegates have perhaps insinuated that the Secretariat may be at times, I am being perfectly open and frank on this subject. The external auditor himself recognizes and these things are said clearly in his report so I will not read them out, in order to save your time, but he says clearly that there is a comprehensive system of budgetary monitoring and planning with clearly documented responsibilities and so on and so forth. The Finance Committee agrees with that. Now when it comes to budgetary monitoring the external auditor made some suggestions about the need for
more detailed monitoring and we said, fine, improvements can, should always be made, but there was rather an emphasis on objective expenditure monitoring and here let there be no doubt, because there are some things which the Finance Committee recognized and which appear in the Finance Committee Report, object of expenditure monitoring is something which the Organization departed from from 1972/73 when it adopted the principle of programme budgeting. Of course, objects of expenditure are important. In order to formulate our Programme of Work we need to have building blocks, how much are we going to spend on staff, how much on travel, how much on consultants, but these are building blocks in constructing a programme budget. The whole emphasis of the programme of budget, and this is all in the record of the Finance Committee and the Council and the Conference discussion in 1970 and 1971, was to say that the essential element, and I am quoting from the report of the Council at its 56th Session, "An essential element in programme budgeting was flexibility in the use of resources" (personnel, consultants, travel, documents, meetings, etc. ) to attain programme activities and that object of expenditure controls would be replaced by programme controls". There are many other references in the same vein all from the reports of the Finance Committee and the Council.
The last point on this matter was that the Conference itself in 1971 changed the financial regulations specifically to provide for monitoring and transfers all to be done on a programme basis.
One final point about work plan monitoring. There, as recognised by the External Auditor and the Finance Committee, we recognise firstly with some appreciation that the External Auditor commends us for the efforts we have made in the way the system is operating and has made some suggestions for improvement as the resources permit. We do not quarrel with any of that.
Salahuddin AHMED (WFP): Certain points were raised or referred to in passing by certain delegates with regard to the World Food Programme. They have been summarised in the statement from the delegate of Malaysia, Malaysia being a member of the Finance Committee. They relate to four points. One is nugatory expenditure of $ 3 million. Another one is not going into litigation against the contractor whose product did not take off. The third one is about the provision of food aid to a grain-surplus country in Asia. The fourth one is about losses in the food aid commodities delivered to another Asian country.
All these items have been the subject of very thorough critical and constructive scrutiny in the Finance Department twice, in the ACAPQ of the UN and finally in the CFA that met only a month ago. Therefore a common membership will be fully aware of the discussions that went on there and the conclusions that are drawn. I must say that the discussions-and here I am particularly referring to the Finance Committee, since the Chairman and some members are present here-were very frank and very candid, and we appreciated it during the Session of the Committee and again recorded our appreciation for the understanding manner in which the Finance Committee looked into these matters.
We have to look at this. I am talking about the management information system in perspective, and that is the perspective of growth, not in bulk or quantity but in quality.
The nugatory experience of the World Food Programme, we view as a very unpleasant experience, a disappointment rather than an operational hazard on the path to progress, progress from an operationally inadequate environment into a sophisticated computerised management information system. A little while ago my colleague, Mr Crowther, referred to high technology and the fast changing state of the art and implying there the risks involved in that. I must say, and I will be forgiven for saying this, that lucky are those who do not experience ups and downs in this march of technology. However, without repeating the words which are known to most governments present here and many delegates who were present at the meeting of the CFA or the Finance Committee, I think I will do best by referring to what the CFA finally observed with regard to both these matters, namely the
nugatory loss of that one about not going into litigation. In doing so the CFA has before it the Reports of both these advisory bodies, the Finance Committee and also the ACAPQ, and of course all of them have before them the Report of the External Auditor. The CFA mentioned this, and since the Report is not before the Committee, I am tempted to quote the relevant parts. I quote: "Concerning the programme's management information system, the previous examinations of that issue by the FAO Finance Committee…" (which is before the Committee, I add) "…were referred to. Committee members agreed that WFP's experience was not unusual and that in several cases their own governments have experienced similar losses. " This is a point that has already been made very clearly by the Finance Committee when the matter was first reported to you in another Finance Committee Session. I proceed: "It was agreed that while the money spent on what turned out to be an unworkable system was to be regretted, the programme had learnt important lessons from its experience, as evidenced by the successful implementation of the first phase in the management information system now in operation. " It goes further, and here I add looking to the present not to the past, looking forward, and I quote again: "The Committee noted that an independent expert evaluation has found the operation technically sound, useful and flexible enough to allow for future expansion as needed. " That is the nugatory experience.
With regard to not going into litigation, I quote a very brief statement by the CFA: "The Committee received a more complete explanation of why legal recourse was not pursued concerning the contractor. It noted that the Executive Director had received expert advice indicating that successful action was unlikely and that he had decided to devote scarce staff and financial resources to moving on with system implementation on a revised and more sound basis, the outcome of which has been a successful operational system. "
Here I must add in document CL 90/17, paragraph 64, that was referred to by certain delegates, there is a very important comment made by the External Auditor when he appeared before the Finance Committee. The External Auditor observed that he was not expressing a view on the decision of the WPP management. I add that the management had to decide whether to get involved in litigation and waste its scarce resource, both in terms of manpower and in terms of cash, or move ahead. It decided to move ahead and the result is before you, positive and looking forward.
Lastly, with regard to waste: "The Committee expressed the full support of the Programme's present information system strategy and welcomed the Secretariat's candour…"-that is, the question of transparency that has been discussed many times-"…in discussing the issue as well as its caution in planning future developments." I hope this will satisfy the Council.
In regard to the two other points, about supplying food to a grain-surplus country in Asia, first it must be recognized that food aid goes in the shape of project aid from the World Food Programme. All these projects, apart from the process of their preparation and scrutiny, are approved by the CFA, and in approving those the CFA definitely determines whether all the criteria applicable for eligibility for food aid are satisfied. They were satisfied and that is why food went there.
Surely what the External Auditor is saying-and again I refer to paragraph 65 of document CL 90/17-is this: shall we carry food to a grain-surplus country, and he said we had better negotiate exchange arrangements-that is point number one-because already not only within the knowledge of the WFP as the right approach but we had already negotiated such a transfer, such an exchange before the examination of the External Auditor was available, and we were effecting that. But I must add here that exchange of commodities is not a very easy task at all. Yesterday while discussing the Report of the CFA to the Council, a point was made that we should think seriously and in appropriate cases about the availability in the food basket of non-cereal foods, such as vegetable oils and others. But it is not easy, it is a very difficult proposition. Even then, we tried it and we succeeded to a point, and gave alternative commodities to that country.
The second point that the External Auditor made was that we should tackle the longer term position by evaluating the prospects of the country in attaining continued self-sufficiency. This is a vital point and it is a valid point and we have it very much in mind. I can tell the Council that in this matter of structural food self-sufficiency and food supplies we rely on the advice of the FAO. FAO has not found that this country in Asia is structurally food-surplus. This country is not also a confirmed food exporter. This country is not rich enough. This country has pockets of poverty and of poor people who otherwise would not have access to food either as part of wage or as part of incentive to certain community works without the help and the assistance of the World Food Programme. Also this country has been very generous in its contribution to alleviate the suffering in Africa during the recent crisis. So we are aware of this point, but there are full justifications when CFA approves a project for food aid for a particular country.
My last point is about another Asian country, where the loss appears to have been stated by the delegate of Malaysia to be 30 percent. If we look at paragraph 51 of document CL 87/7 we will find that the situation is different. Even in that document we say in paragraph 51, page 10, that the average under-payment to workers fell from 13 percent in 1983 to 6 percent in 1984/85, and we reported to the CFA that according to our monitoring records during the middle of this year it fell to one percent and that was due to the combined efforts of the government and the World Food Programme. So that situation is a satisfactory one, though we are very much watchful of any developments through our evaluation and monitoring process and through continued search for improvement in the utilisation of food aid.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Dr. Ahmed de sa réponse. Nous arrivons à la conclusion de nos débats sur ce point très important de nos activités. Je voudrais remercier tous les orateurs qui ont bien voulu participer à nos importants débats puisqu'il y a eu en fait 26 orateurs.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
James D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): I must apologise for not being able to attract your attention before you began your summary. However, I should like to crave your indulgence and the indulgence of the meeting to ask a few further questions which stem from the very helpful replies provided by the Assistant Director-General, Mr. Crowther, and Mr. Shah. I realise the hour is late and I can assure you these will be fairly short questions. The answers in themselves have raised a number of further questions which I feel it is useful for Council to know. Also, there are some original questions which have not been answered.
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois que nous sommes très en retard. Je voudrais faire une suggestion au Conseil: votre délégation devrait s'adresser au Secrétariat et continuer sa discussion. Nous ne sommes pas un Comité financier, nous sommes le Conseil. 11 y a eu beaucoup de discussions sur des points précis et importants. Je vous suggère, si le Conseil en convient, que vous puissiez continuer la discussion avec le Secrétariat et nous aurons donc l'ensemble de ces questions du Comité financier au printemps. Sinon, nous risquons de prolonger le débat indéfiniment. Nous avons encore le Comité du Programme à l'ordre du jour, les points 9, 14, 15, 13…Nous ne finirons pas notre séance avant 21 heures. C'est donc à votre convenance. Je propose de bien vouloir poursuivre cette discussion technique avec le Secrétariat.
James D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): Without hesitation my delegation would like to take advantage of your very sensible proposals, and very sensible offer. We will have discussions with the Secretariat about these issues and the questions which remain unanswered and we will pass this material on to the Finance Committee.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous allons essayer de conclure ces débats et ce point très important qui engage l'Organisation. Personnellement, je remercie les orateurs dont le nombre est important. Les débats ont été très riches, très fournies, très denses, à telle enseigne que la réponse du Secrétariat a été très centrée autour de ce débat, qui a été très utile pour tout le monde. Je peux donc considérer que le Conseil a examiné le rapport du Comité financier pour sa 57ème et 58ème sessions. Il a approuvé ces rapports tout en soulignant l'intérêt attaché à l'utilisation de la situation financière et à un suivi constant de l'évolution de cette situation dans le Comité financier.
Je pense que, si cette approbation était retenue, elle comporterait en particulier l'approbation de la présentation à la Conférence générale de 1987, d'un projet de résolution adoptant les comptes vérifiés aussi bien pour le Programme alimentaire mondial, le PNUD que pour le Programme ordinaire de la FAO. Elle comporterait aussi l'approbation du projet de refonte des statuts du personnel dans les deux pointe qui ont été présentés par le Président du Comité financier, à savoir les points 301. 3 et 301. 33, ainsi que le point 202. 9618.
Elle porterait également approbation de l'élargissement de la participation du Comité mixte pour la Caisse de pensions et de retraite du personnel des Nations Unies. Voilà les points sur lesquels l'avis du Conseil a été expressément demandé par le Président du Comité financier.
On pourrait également noter la ferme intention du Secrétariat d'exploiter au maximum les rapports des Commissaires aux comptes en vue d'une amélioration continue et soutenue de l'effort et du travail de la FAO pour remplir au mieux sa mission.
Enfin, je pense que l'on pourrait noter que le Conseil a renouvelé son appel aux Etats membres pour qu'ils versent leurs contributions dans les délais prévus de manière à permettre à l'Organisation de remplir sa tâche et sa mission dans les conditions les plus satisfaisantes.
Je pense pouvoir proposer au Conseil de remercier le pays hôte des dispositions qu'il a prises en ce qui concerne l'accord de siège et également pour sa décision de renoncer à sa quote-part des excédents de trésorerie pour l'exercice écoulé.
Peut-être y aura-t-il d'autres points qui seront à l'ordre du jour du Comité de rédaction dans les travaux qu'il va entamer ce soir.
Nous pourrions peut-être retenir ces lignes directrices et passer au point suivant de l'ordre du jour. (Nous passons donc au point suivant qui est très important: ce sont les rapports des cinquantième et cinquante et unième sessions du Comité du programme, Documents CL 90/3-CL 90/16. Je remercie H. Bukhari pour son excellent travail et je vais passer la parole à M. Mazoyer pour l'exposé introductif.
Marcel J. MAZOYER (Président du Comité du Programme): J'ai l'honneur, pour la première fois, de vous rendre compte des deux dernières sessions du Comité du programme, à savoir la cinquantième et la cinquante et unième sessions que nous avons tenues respectivement à Rome, en mai et fin septembre-début octobre de cette année.
Conformément au Règlement général de l'Organisation, article XXVI, nous avions ouvert cette année, le cycle quadriennal d'examen systématique des activités de la FAO qui a été établi par le Conseil en juin 1961. Nous avons respecté un calendrier, (que nous nous sommes fixé nous-mêmes, Comité du Programme) à la 47ème session en septembre 1984. Cet examen, (cette revue) systématique et approfondi, consiste à passer une partie des activités de la FAO en revue dans les années paires.
Cette année, en 1986, conformément à l'ordre approuvé, nous avons vu en mai un certain nombre de programmes. Ces programmes sont indiqués dans les deux rapporte qui vous sont soumis: Programmes ressources naturelles, programmes culture, programmes élevage, programmes développement, la recherche et de la technologie, et programmes de développement rural qui sont donc une partie très importante des programmes techniques et économiques de l'Organisation. En septembre, nous avons vu les grands programmes, information et documentation, politiques et direction générale, politiques, direction et planification, questions juridiques et liaisons.
Je voudrais faire quelques commentaires et pas du tout examiner un à un les programmes et les sous-programmes dont nous avons discuté au Comité. Je voudrais faire quelques commentaires généraux.
Pour faire cet examen des programmes, nous nous appuyons bien entendu sur les programmes de travail et de budget. Nous nous appuyons sur la revue du programme ordinaire, nous nous appuyons sur la revue du programme de terrain, qui sont des documents que vous avez déjà examinés, et qui ont été approuvés. En outre, pour chaque programme, nous disposons d'informations particulières et approfondies qui proviennent des exposés qui nous sont faits par les représentants du Secrétariat. Ces exposée portent non seulement sur les programmes et les sous-programme s qui nous sont soumis mais, pour tout ce qui est des programmes techniques et économiques, et je tiens à le souligner ici, ils sont très souvent précédés, même pratiquement toujours, d'une analyse de la situation à laquelle se trouve confrontée l'Organisation et la communauté internationale; analyse de la situation agricole et alimnentaire dans les pays en voie de développement, en particulier, et dans chaque cas, bien entendu, pour tout ce qui concerne le domaine que nous examinons.
C'est à la lumière de cette analyse de la situation et des débats que nous avons à ce sujet que nous passons en revue les programmes et les sous-programmes qui nous sont soumis et les activités présentées. Je voudrais faire remarquer qu'en ce qui concerne les programmes techniques et économiques, nous constatons à chaque fois l'ampleur des besoins, le caractère difficile, dramatique parfois de la situation agricole et alimentaire mondiale; tout cela fait que nous constatons à chaque fois les moyens, les programmes et les efforts que peut faire l'Organisation des Nations unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture et qui, s'ile sont importants, sont pratiquement toujours insuffisants pour résoudre les problèmes qui sont posés. Siles activités attendues de la FAO qu'exigerait la situation sont en général supérieures aux ressources et moyens des programmes dont elle dispose et aux programmes qu'elle peut mettre en oeuvre, on ne peut pas examiner ces programmes en se demandant lesquels on pourrait supprimer. C'est une question qui ne se pose pratiquement Jamais à nous, pas plus qu'elle ne s'est posée à vous quand vous avez approuvé les programmes en cours ou qu'elle s'est posée dans les années antérieures, quand on a examiné les orientations ou les sommaires du Programme de travail et budget. Aussi bien, la manière dont nous en discutons c'est beaucoup plus de discuter de la bonne orientation, de la bonne organisation, du bon usage, de la bonne économie et de la meilleure efficacité des programmes, sous-programmes que nous examinons. Et c'est ce que nous faisons.
Nous avons donc un exposé sur la situation, sur les programmes et leurs modalités et nous débattons des deux, dans le détail et dans la mesure de nos compétences bien entendu. Ceci étant dit, les compétences du Comité du programme résultent des compétences de ses membres que vous avez élus. La plupart des membres sont spécialistes de l'agriculture, de l'élevage, des forêts ou de l'alimentation. D'autres sont des spécialistes de l'économie et du développement. Enfin, il y a les représentants auprès de la FAO, des ambassadeurs très qualifiés, qui souvent suivent de plus près que nous, au quotidien, les activités de la FAO.
C'est donc évidemment dans le temps qui nous est imparti et en fonction des programmes de travail que nous faisons tout ce travail. Je n'entre pas dans le détail puisque vous avez le rapport. S'agissant des priorités, je voudrais indiquer celles que nous avons tenu à souligner de manière générale.
Ayant reconnu que la crise agricole et alimentaire d'un grand nombre de pays en développement s'enracine, que le dénuement économique, technique, voire culturel, d'une très grande partie des producteurs agricoles dans les pays en développement continue, 11 a été recommandé une fois de plus de faire des petits producteurs-ceux qui sont les plus démunis et les plus nombreux-la cible essentielle des activités de l'Organisation, essentielle sinon exclusive bien entendu, si l'on veut véritablement redresser la situation alimentaire, et stopper l'exode rural qui affaiblit l'économie agricole de ces pays et engorge inutilement des villes où règne le sous-emploi. C'est une chose essentielle que nous avons dite et redite cent fois, et nous sommes en accord avec le Secrétariat sur ce point. Mais c'est tellement important qu'on ne le dira jamais suffisamment.
Cela a des conséquences sur le plan technique: une recherche pour le développement, orientée de maniere concrète vers la promotion et le transfert de technologies, progressif et approprié aux besoins de ces producteurs, c'est-à-dire adapté aux conditions techniques, économiques et sociales de ces producteurs, aux conditions écologiques qui régnent dans tel ou tel pays et qui varient bien entendu. Cela doit doit avoir pour résultat des progrès réels. Et quand nous disons que cela doit être progressif, cela ne veut pas dire que cela doit aller lentement; bien au contraire il faut que cela progresse vite, même si c'est par étapes appropriées. C'est quelque chose que je tenais à souligner car cela a été au coeur de beaucoup de discussions techniques.
Il a été fortement recommandé de faire appel aux moyens suivants que vous avez déjà approuvés: la formation à tous les niveaux, la coopération économique entre pays en développement. Le lien peut ne pas être absolument apparent, mais quand on parle de moyens et de solutions progressives appropriées, nous pensons que très souvent une partie de ces solutions se trouvent dans les pays en développement eux-mêmes, et souvent dans d'autres pays que celui qui en a besoin, mais que ce transfert et cette coopération doivent permettre de résoudre ce problème.
Nous n'entrerons pas dans le détail de la présentation des programmes et sous-programmes; vous avez les conclusions et les recommandations du Comité par écrit; en fait il s'agit d'un résumé très simplifié de ce débat. C'est en effet un strict résumé.
Je ne ferai pas de commentaires plus avancés sur les programmes; il y a quelques points sur lesquels nous pensons que nos activités du Comité du Programme nous apportent peut-être quelques éclaircissements qui dépassent ce que nous pouvons avoir dans les autres domaines et je voudrais vous parler de deux choses.
Premièrement, en ce qui concerne les activités du Secrétariat, qui est en relation permanente avec nous, et que nous sommes à même d'apprécier, il nous donne une image qui n'est peut-être pas un échantillon représentatif, mais on voit comment il travaille. Je veux parler en particulier du Bureau du programme, du budget et de l'évaluation.
Je voudrais aborder une seconde question. En tant que Comité du Programme nous avons une expérience nous permettant d'éclairer le Conseil sur des questions qu'il a lui-même posées, et je pense par exemple à la question de la transparence. En ce qui concerne le Bureau du Programme, du budget et de l'évaluation nous avons fait, dans le rapport, des évaluations très précises à la page 10, au point 59: "A cet égard, le Comité a reconnu qu'il était particulièrement bien placé pour examiner le travail du Bureau du programme, du budget et de l'évaluation en raison de son propre rôle au sein du mécanisme intergouvernemental de la FAO. Il a pu apprécier les efforts et les résultats obtenus en ce qui concerne la qualité des documents de planification et du programme, l'attention accordée à l'amélioration des procédures et la transparence des activités de l'Organisation. " Notre opinion sur ce sujet est confirmée par le rapport du Corps commun d'inspection des Nations Unies, rapportée dans le texte français page 15, au point 94, où 11 est dit: "En plusieurs endroits hommage doit être rendu à la FAO pour les grands progrès accomplis: amélioration de l'information sur l'efficacité de la couverture et de la rétro-information, ateliers de suivi et d'évaluation" etc.
Nous avons été contents de voir qu'un organisme d'évaluation extérieur qui faisait rapport sur ce sujet, avait une opinions analogue à la nôtre.
S'agissant de la transparence nous voudrions dire ceci, qui résulte de notre propre expérience (et quand je dis nous, ce sont les membres du Comité du programme; nous avons beaucoup discuté des points du rapport et nous les avons tous approuvés).
Je voudrais dire qu'il y a d'abord les documents, qui sont ceux auxquels nous faisions allusion: le programme de travail et de budget, le programme ordinaire, les programmes de terrain et tous les autres documents qui sont fournis. Ces documents nous paraissent à nous, qui les examinons, convenables; et s'ils ne le sont pas, nous le disons; et dans ce cas, nous constatons, à la session suivante ou au cours des sessions suivantes, qu'il y a des améliorations et qu'on a essayé de répondre à nos demandes. Aucun document n'est parfait, mais la question est de savoir s'ils nous permettent de travailler et si, quand nous demandons une amélioration, on l'apporte. Notre réponse est affirmative.
En ce qui concerne les rapports spéciaux (je veux parler de ceux demandés au Secrétariat par différents organes y compris nous-mêmes, vous-mêmes) et qui portent sur des points particuliers (comme le rapport sur l'emploi des consultants, les voyages, les réunions, la comptabilité, le PCT, les activités de formation, etc. ), ces rapports demandent des délaie qui ne sont pas nuls; cela se fait d'une session à l'autre, d'une année à l'autre, et en général ils apportent les éclairages souhaités.
Il nous semble que nous sommes concrets; je ne nous donne pas automatiquement un satisfecit, mais ne faisons pas non plus systématiquement un procès d'intention; nous-mêmes pouvons demander des informations; on nous les fournit; et si ce n'est pas suffisant nous en demandons davantage et en général, aux délais près, c'est fait. Nous finissons en général par avoir satisfaction, nous le disons; c'est notre activité.
Enfin, il y a des questions et des demandes particulières. Personnellement je ne peux pas témoigner avoir fait des demandes particulières d'information au Secrétariat sous la forme, le coût de ces activités dans tel ou tel domaine, mais je me fie à ce que les représentants auprès de la FAO ont demandé comme informations. Vous tous qui faites partie du Comité du Programme, vous tous avez toujours dit avoir reçu les informations demandées. Cela dit, tant le Secrétariat que certains membres du Comité du Programme ont fait observer que tout cela pouvait aller très loin et coûter très cher. La FAO est là pour fournir des informations utiles en particulier au développement dans les pays en développement: agriculture, sécurité alimentaire. Elle est là pour nous renseigner quand nous demandons des comptes à ce sujet. Maie il ne faudrait pas que son activité dérive entièrement sur le compte rendu de ses activités, plus que sur son activité elle-même. 11 faudrait être raisonnable et nous avons tenu à le dire.
C'est de cela dont on discute au Comité, et c'est ce qui a été mis dans notre rapport.
Nous avons une expérience à propos de la transparence. Quand nous avons débuté au Comité du Programme, nous ne comprenions rien à la FAO, 11 faut le dire. La FAO est compliquée dans son organisation. Nous avions de la difficulté à comprendre au début et ce n'est pas dû au fait du manque d'efforts de la part du Secrétariat. On commence à mieux comprendre après plusieurs comités, quand on s'y est intéressé, quand on a posé beaucoup de questions, obtenu beaucoup de réponses.
La transparence, donc, ne résulte pas seulement des réponses du Secrétariat, mais également des efforts que nous faisons pour savoir ce qui se passe à la FAO et comment cela se passe.
Je suis Président du Comité du Programme, mais je ne suis pas toujours présent ici, et d'une session à l'autre j'oublie des choses; je suis obligé chaque fois de me recycler. Je voulais attirer votre attention sur cet aspect des choses; c'est notre vécu et je voulais vous faire sentir un peu les conditions dans lesquelles nous travaillons, les relations que nous avons avec le Secrétariat.
Amin ABDEL-MALEK (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Je vous remercie tout d'abord de m'avoir donné la parole et je saisis cette occasion pour vous féliciter au nom de la délégation du Liban pour l'excellente manière dont vous dirigez les travaux, pour votre clarté de vision et votre célérité dans l'examen des questions qui nous sont soumises, ce qui prouve votre compétence politique et administrative·
Permettez-moi également de remercier M. Mazoyer, Président du Comité du programme pour sa présentation si claire des documents CL 90/16 et CL 90/3. 11 a présenté ces documents de façon précise, claire et rapide, ce qui ne nous étonne pas de sa part, car il nous a toujours habitués à un travail clair et précis en tant que Président du Comité du Programme dont j'ai l'honneur d'être membre.
Je voudrais également remercier le Secrétariat pour tous les travaux de préparation nécessaires en vue de mettre au point l'ordre du jour du Comité du Programme.
Ce Comité, de par son appellation, oeuvre à la préparation du programme de travail et du budget présenté ensuite au Conseil et à la Conférence générale. 11 est évident que le Comité du Programme examine en détail toutes les questions inscrites à son ordre du jour avant de transmettre son rapport au Conseil. Le Comité étudie également les activités de l'Organisation pour le biennium précédent et les évalue. Les travaux de ce Comité sont conduits de la manière la plus adéquate; il a accordé certaines priorités au rôle des producteurs, au développement rural ainsi qu'à la coopération entre les pays en développement.
Permettez-moi d'exprimer la gratitude de ma délégation pour les réalisations du Directeur général et de son Secrétariat à travers l'exécution des divers programmes et projets couvrant de nombreux domaines d'activités. 11 en découle une amélioration de la situation des pays Membres en général et plus particulièrement des pays en développement.
Je voudrais maintenant faire quelques observations sur ces documents et prie le Secrétariat d'en tenir compte:
1. L'Organisation envoie des experts dans les pays en développement pour les aider dans l'exécution de projets très importants pour eux. 11 me semble nécessaire d'augmenter le nombre d'experts travaillant dans les domaines de la production animale et des pâturages; en effet, une augmentation de la production de viande et de produite laitiers est nécessaire pour améliorer la situation alimentaire des pays en développement.
2. L'Organisation s'intéresse activement à la recherche scientifique; qu'elle en soit remerciée. Nous espérons augmenter l'aide aux pays en développement en matière de recherche scientifique et de consolidation des instituts nationaux de recherche, car c'est là le moyen d'augmenter la production agricole.
3. En ce qui concerne AGRIS, nous prions l'Organisation de prendre les mesures nécessaires afin que la langue arabe soit utilisée dans ce programme et qu'il y ait un renforcement de son utilisation dans les publications. Cependant nous notons avec gratitude les efforts de l'Organisation pour l'introduction de la langue arabe comme langue officielle et pour la publication de nombreux documente en arabe.
4. La création de banques nationales agricoles dans les pays en développement est un facteur important pour l'amélioration de leur situation agricole. C'est pourquoi nous prions l'Organisation de prendre les contacte nécessaires avec les pays riches et les banques internationales pour financer ou aider à financer les banques nationales agricoles.
5. L'Organisation joue un rôle important en ce qui concerne le renforcement du rôle de la femme dans la production agricole et le développement rural. Nous l'en remercions et espérons qu'elle augmentera son assistance, et ce en élargissant les programmes de vulgarisation audiovisuels.
6. Nous remercions l'Organisation pour son recours aux consultants, notamment ceux des pays en développement. Mais nous aimerions attirer son attention sur la nécessité de recourir davantage aux consultante du Proche-Orient. En effet, le pourcentage de consultants de cette région reste bien en-dessous des autres régions, telle l'Europe. Nous savons que les consultants dans cette région sont non seulement nombreux mais d'une qualification scientifique et technique comparable à celle de leurs collègues d'autres régions, et nous accordons à ce point une importance particulière.
7. La délégation du Liban exprime ses remerciements à l'Organisation pour le soutien qu'elle apporte à la publication CERES; nous espérons qu'il se poursuivra. Nous soulignons l'importance scientifique de cette publication dans le domaine agricole.
Enfin je voudrais exprimer ma gratitude et celle de ma délégation au Secrétariat pour l'ajustement des budgets des organes directeurs d'une manière qui nous inspire confiance, sans que cela nuise aux activités futures de l'Organisation.
John GLISTRUP (Denmark): I am speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Let me begin by acknowledging the work carried out by our colleagues, the Chairman, and the members elected to constitute the Programme Committee. During the twenty-third FAO Conference in November 1985 a number of Member States suggested that the time was ripe for reflection over a longer term on the future evolution of FAO's role. This viewpoint is duly recorded in paragraph 197 of the Conference report. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Conference, His Excellency Mr. Yonke of Cameroon, in his address on the occasion of the closure of the Conference, summed up the feeling of that Conference that the time had come to look at the role of our Organization for the next forty years. He even suggested that the system of governing bodies be reviewed and that the Council should examine these matters during the next two years.
May I confirm that the Nordic countries regard the function of the Programme Committee as very important. We have examined the two documents in front of us, CL 90/3 and CL 90/16, and listened very carefully to the excellent and lively introduction of this agenda item. However, we are unable to find any indication that the deliberation on FAO's future role, which is to us an urgent matter, is being initiated. In our view the Programme Committee should feel free to take up matters of programme priorities and take decisions accordingly for further discussions in the other governing bodies.
A few days ago, this Council embarked upon an exercise of making so-called adjustments to the approved programme of the Organization for 1986/87. This was imposed on us due to the national legislation in one big Member State. None of us know the full consequences of such unilateral action. For a long period of time the Nordic countries have called for discussions in FAO concerning the future role of our Organization, including a debate around a more clear set of priorities. It is precisely to avoid an exercise such as the one we are now involved in, caused by a financial crisis, that we advanced the idea of discussing a more orderly process of arriving at sharper priorities than one imposed on us by an emergency situation.
If such a debate is not taking place inside FAO's governing bodies it will flourish outside in smaller groups and in other fora where not all of us may have the possibility of contributing. Setting priorities does not only mean allocation of more resources to up-grade activities or programmes. That is a pleasant task which everyone enjoys. No, the real challenge for priority setting consists, in equal measure, in the painful process of selecting activities which should be scaled down or maybe even terminated.
May I give an example of a possible approach in selecting activities for down-grading. FAO should concentrate on activities where it is able to make a major contribution to sustaining a broad-scale development process with a long term impact. In some specific areas FAO should even be the lead agency within the UN.
In the area of nutrition, the FAO has not fulfilled the task of lead agency. The Nordic countries have, for many years, urged FAO to play that role. As a consequence perhaps we should look to WHO as an alternative lead agency for nutrition. Cuts therefore could be made in FAO’s Nutrition Division and it may be an idea to consider establishing a joint division with WHO, similar to the model used in the relationship between FAO and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Maybe the same approach could be discussed in relation to the human resources sector, vis-a-vis the ILO. This, of course, could be elaborated in much more detail.
Several countries, including the Nordics, have engaged themselves in such considerations in order to prepare themselves for the next sessions of Council and Conference. The formulation of more precise priorities must be based upon a clear understanding of the specific role of FAO in a more long-term perspective within the UN family and as a partner in international development cooperation. This refers to FAO's mandatory duties as a global organization for food and agriculture. However, it is even more important to reach an agreement on how FAO could best serve their developing countries as well as the donor community in the process of development cooperation. Over a time we have witnessed how an increasing part of the FAO's resources has been geared towards activities of a development cooperation nature. At the same time, we have experienced how the environment of, and the approach to, development cooperation has undergone considerable changes. This, to our mind, might not be duly reflected in the work of FAO. In order to allow us, as member countries, to exchange views on the future role of our Organization, we request the Directior-General to present, together with the Summary Programme of Work and Budget for 1988/89, to the Programme Committee and the Council, a specific paper outlining the Secretariat's views on this issue. The outcome of such a preliminary debate in the Council should then be reported to the Conference to allow the full membership of FAO to give their advice. We are convinced that all member countries will be able to contribute, and likewise benefit, from such an exercise.
SRA. Margarita LIZARRAGA (México): La delegación mexicana expresa su felicitación al Comité del Programa y su Secretaría por el excelente trabajo realizado y por la calidad de los documentos, lo cual permite un análisis a fondo de los Programas. Agradecemos asimismo la excelente presentación del señor Mazoyer, que nos permite apreciar mejor el trabajo realizado.
Al dar nuestro voto aprobatorio y de confianza al Programa y todos sus Subprogramas, deseamos asimismo hacer algunas consideraciones sobre algunos de ellos que nos merecen particular atención.
Respecto al documento CL 90/3, nuestra delegación revalida el marco programático de la FAO señalado en el párrafo 9, considerando que la capacitación, el desarrollo y la transferencia de tecnologías apropiadas, el apoyo a la CTPD y CEPD en la proporción y modalidad que mejor convenga a los países, debe dirigirse a los productores y grupos rurales más necesitados. Este, en efecto, debe ser el objetivo fundamental de la FAO.
Nuestra delegación apoya el Programa 2. 1 de agricultura y hace un llamado a la comunidad de donantes para apoyar al Plan Internacional de Suministro de Fertilizantes y para seguir apoyando multilateral y bilateralmente a los programas de prevención de pérdida de alimentos, desarrollo del crédito agrícola y mejoramiento de semillas.
Respecto al Programa de Cultivos, nos complace el reconocimiento que hizo el Comité de la preocupación que en todo el mundo entraña la erosión constante de los recursos fitogenéticos, y demandamos se continúe y acreciente el apoyo al compromiso internacional sobre recursos fitogenéticos, ya que son esenciales para la prosperidad agrícola de los países desarrollados y en desarrollo.
Otro de los programas a los que nuestra delegación ha dado siempre el mayor interés, es el relativo a la promoción de los cultivos autóctonos, ya que éste es el camino más efectivo para lograr la autosuficiencia alimentaria y la esperanza de erradicar el hambre en los países en desarrollo. Por ello damos nuestro apoyo al Subprograma 2. 1. 2. 2.
Acontecimientos varios a nivel mundial ponen de manifiesto la importancia del código internacional de conducta para la distribución y el uso de plaguicidas. Esperamos, por lo tanto, que la FAO pueda fomentar su implantación y que los países ofrezcan su mayor colaboración y apoyo.
Al coincidir con el Programa de Ganaderia, no podemos dejar de mencionar que nuestra delegación, apoyada por otras delegaciones, planteó en las sesiones del COAG y en la Conferencia del año pasado, la necesidad de integrar todas las actividades relativas al sector pecuario en un comité que nos permita analizar todos los problemas del sector y darle el nivel de tratamiento que requiere.
Durante la Conferencia Regional en Barbados, este tema se trató ampliamente, habiéndose endosado la recomendación para la creación de un órgano regional solicitándole al Director General realizara los pasos para su integración a nivel global.
Nuestra delegación le da gran importancia al Programa para el fomento de la investigación y la tecnología, ya que el desequilibrio entre los grupos de países desarrollados y en vías de desarrollo y la repercusión en términos de productividad, y por ende en precios, traen como consecuencia desalientos, falta de competitividad y dependencia. Conminamos a la FAO a que a través de los Subprogramas respectivos, apoye el desarrollo tecnológico de los países, realice una selección estricta de tecnologías experimentadas, impulse la capacitación y preparación de técnicos y contribuya a la CTPD y CEPD para que la transferencia se dé en forma más natural y efectiva. Asimismo, que se coordine de manera efectiva con otras Organizaciones, tanto del Sistema de Naciones Unidas como con otras agencias especializadas, ONGS, y con la asistencia bilateral para hacer más efectiva la asistencia a los países, y en particular llevarla hasta los grupos más necesitados.
El apoyo a la capacitación e incorporación de la mujer deberá ser un factor esencial, y en términos generales la articulación de este Programa con el de desarrollo rural, nos parece también acertado y le damos nuestro apoyo.
Continuamos con el análisis de los programas, esta vez con aquellos presentados en el 51° período de sesiones. Nuestra delegación se complace por la presentación del Programa principal 5. 1, donde se hace un análisis de los cambios y ajustes que se han realizado para hacer más accesible y efectiva la información a todos los niveles, así como las economías que se han hecho o se pretenden hacer en materia de publicaciones y materiales audiovisuales.
Apoyamos los enfoques del Programa de Política, Dirección y Planificación; felicitamos a las dependencias ejecutoras que han sabido adecuarse a las necesidades y demandas de los países de manera tan efectiva y transparente. A este respecto, nuestra delegación considera que sería recomendable contar con un sistema de cuenta por programas a nivel de país, considerando un prorrateo de gastos de la Sede, de la Oficina Regional y de las Representaciones nacionales destacando, por una parte, los recursos del Programa Ordinario y, por otra, los de Campo.
Felicitamos y apoyamos los Programas de Asuntos Jurídicos y esperamos que expandan su labor de capacitación. Concordamos, asimismo, con las recomendaciones del Comité respecto al Programa de Enlace.
Respecto a los informes de la dependencia común de inspección de las Naciones Unidas analizados en ambos periodos, nos complace el reconocimiento del alto nivel del Sistema de Evaluación interna de la FAO, así como el reconocimiento a la FAO por los progresos logrados en la vinculación entre los resultados de la evaluación y el diseño de programas y proyectos de la Organización.
Respecto al "apoyo del Sistema de Naciones Unidas para la ejecución del Plan de Acción de Buenos Aires sobre cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo" nuestra delegación concuerda con los párrafos 140, 141, 142 y 144, pero le preocupa la divergencia de opiniones del Comité expresadas en el párrafo 143 y conmina a que se trabaje más a fondo en búsqueda de fórmulas que permitan dejar expresados en los documentos programáticos la necesidad de incorporar este renglón para lo cual se dé un indicativo del monto o percentaje para ejecutarlo
Respecto a la cooperacion técnica de las Naciones Unidas en América Latina y el Caribe, nos parece adecuado el análisis que se hace y esperamos que la FAO en su campo de acción lo apoye sustantivamente. Si bien en la documentación relativa a este período de sesiones el área pesquera no está considerada, nuestra delegación desea expresar su preocupación porque los recortes presupuestarios no afecten a los programas emanados de la Conferencia Mundial de Pesca a lo que nuestro pais le da la mayor importancia y apoyo.
Nuestra delegación es, asimismo, una de las que más énfasis le da a la utilización de los consultores de los propios países y de las reglones, pues considera que es una de las fórmulas más apropiadas para lograr un mejor nivel de integración. Por ello nos complace que se esté incrementado el uso de consultores regionales y pedimos que se continúe en ese sentido.
Asimismo, mi delegación desea expresar todo nuestro apoyo para que las actividades de la FAO se amplíen, tanto en la capacitación de grupos como en el proporcionar becas y viajes de estudio bien diseñados y con profundo sentido en la selección de los cursos y candidatos.
Coincidimos con el Comité en el análisis y recomendaciones formulados respecto a las actividades operacionales para el desarrollo contenidas en la Resolución 40/211, y nos sumamos al pleno apoyo a las opiniones formuladas por el Director General. Esperamos que los generadores y las Organizaciones que manejan fondos apoyen a la FAO para mejor cumplir con las crecientes demandas de los países en su búsqueda de autosuficiencia y desarrollo en materia de alimentación y agricultura.
Aplaudimos la iniciativa del Director General y el trabajo del Comité en relación con las medidas adoptadas para mostrar la transparencia en la labor de la Organización como medio indispensable para comprender, evaluar y valorar la labor de la FAO. Nos complace que en este aspecto haya habido el reconocimiento ya mencionado de la dependencia común de inspección, y conminamos a que así lo haga también este Consejo.
Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): My delegation would like to thank the Programme Committee for its work and the analysis in the documents before us, CL 90/3 and CL 90/16. We can largely agree with the basic statements contained in them.
We endorse the list of priorities drawn up by the Programme Committee as contained in para. 9 of the document CL 90/3. We, however, feel that the creation of incentives for farmers to produce more at national and, if necessary, also at subregional level is an important point which has to be included in such a list of priorities. The statements referring to programmes 2. 1. 1 to 2. 1. 5 show the efforts which are made to substantially strengthen and to develop food and agriculture by means of a wide range of specific measures in the most different fields. These objectives find our full support. Of special importance seem to us the promotion of small farmers, as stated in para. 15 of document CL 90/3, the strengthening of technical and economic cooperation among developing countries themselves, para 18, the combined use of mineral fertilizers and organic resources, the question of mechanization, and animal health questions.
Questions relating to a closer coordination and cooperation in the research sector, but also between individual organizations of the United Nations system and at regional level in developing countries, are in our opinion of special importance.
The strengthening of public relations work, proposed in paras. 6 to 28 of document CL 90/16, is to be welcomed.
In general, however, we feel that in view of the existing financial situation the greatest possible economy is necessary for all programmes. We propose to presently postpone new activities until we know more about the financial situation.
With regard to plant genetic resources (sub-programme 2. 1. 2) we particularly share the statements in para. 37, first tiret. In our view it is necessary to support the work of the IBPGR and to avoid overlapping with its work. As regards the development of an international information system on plant genetic resources, as mentioned in that paragraph, we would be grateful to the Secretariat for some more detailed information.
Also in this connection a close cooperation between FAO and the IBPGR, as mentioned in para. 60 of the document, should be aimed at.
We welcome what is stated in para. 54 of document CL 90/3 concerning the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. I would like to point out that the compliance with the regulations of this Code is expressly provided for by the legislator of my country in the Plant Protection Act for the Federal Republic of Germany of 15 September 1986.
With regard to para. 139 of document CL 90/3, work programme of the Joint Inspection Unit for 1986, we would have appreciated it if FAO had made still greater use of the services of the Joint Inspection Unit.
We welcome the positive assessment of internal evaluation of FAO, paras. 92 and following paras, document CL 90/16.
We share the opinion expressed in para. 152 of document CL 90/3, first sentence, according to which the operational activities in the United Nations system must be complementary and coherent. We are, however, not of the opinion that the activities of the Office for Project Execution (OPE) of UNDP duplicate the activities of the other specialized agencies of the United Nations system in an impermissible way. These activities are in our opinion complementary to the other measures implemented by the specialized agencies.
With regard to para. 153 we recall that the short-term advisory services of UNDP and the Project Development Facility were established with the full support of the Governing Council of UNDP. From para. 155 of the document we cannot conclude that the coordination of development inputs in the UN system would only be provided for the sake of itself.
We endorse the statements in paragraph 161 of document CL 90/3 which are aimed at a climate of cooperation based on confidence between Member Nations and the Secretariat. We feel that a further strengthening of transparency in the work of FAO must be a continuous process for our present and future cooperation.
As I already had the opportunity to stress when we were discussing agenda item 12, dealing with the financial items, my delegation suggests that we all should make efforts to define the role of FAO and our own within the Organization in the future. I have thus warm sympathy for the ideas of the delegate of Denmark uttered just before, that the Programme Committee should give some more thought to these substantial items of principle in its forthcoming work.
K. Robin HIGHAM (Canada): It will be no surprise for me to tell you that my delegation has a detailed intervention concerning the work of the Programme Committee. The intervention reflects the work done in Ottawa by the three Ministries primarily interested in the work of FAO-that is, our Ministry of Agriculture, our Development Agency, and the Ministry of External Affairs.
It expresses and elaborates Canadian concern at two levels. The first is, to what degree is the Programme Committee able to channel and is effective in channelling membership into the selection of FAO programmes and priorities. Secondly, how much longer is it practical, or fair even, for us to ask this Committee to deliberate on programmes and priorities with so little reference to the financial resources available to execute them. Well, I am going to spare you. I will not burden you with that intervention. But I want to assure members that our preparatory work under this item is as well researched and as well founded and as critical-constructively of course-as the work done on financial matters.
I regret that some have interpreted our remarks today as overly critical or unfounded. If it appears, however, that our statements reflect a profound malaise over a broad range of matters at FAO, not all matters by any means, then alas, so be it.
In light of changing circumstances surrounding the world food and agriculture, and new problems emerging as a result of those new circumstances, we believe that it is important to constantly review the priorities and activities of the Organization. In the present circumstances we believe that such a review should focus on two broad areas. One is procedures for selecting priorities and activities at the level both of governing bodies-that is, the Finance Committee, the Programme Committee, COFO, COFI, COAG, and even the Council-and at the level of senior management. Secondly, we think that the priorities and activities themselves need a closer look.
Given Canada's enfant terrible status today, I do not want to detract from the Nordic statement by endorsing it, but it is a song I wish we had sung first. In particular we draw attention to the comments on the call from the Chairman of the last FAO Conference, the future role of the FAO, the need for application of new, original and modern approaches to development assistance, and the Nordic request for a paper from the Director-General on the subject of the future role of our Organization. I would like to endorse that request.
The phrase 'selection of priorities' must show in the final Report of this Council, or I fear for our credibility as a responsible organ of this precious FAO.
Badr BEN AMMAR (Tunisie): La délégation tunisienne voudrait remercier M. Mazoyer pour l'introduction qu'il a bien voulu nous faire à l'occasion de l'examen de ce point de l'ordre du jour. Elle remercie également le Secrétariat pour la qualité des rapporte et pour les informations qui y sont contenues. L'examen des rapports de la cinquantième et de la cinquante et unième sessions du Comité du programme nous a permis de tirer quelques conclusions dont nous voulons faire part au Conseil.
Nous notons avec satisfaction les efforts fournis par la FAO dans le sens de la production agricole, du renforcement de la sécurité alimentaire et de l'amélioration de la productivité, malgré les ressources relativement limitées dont la FAO dispose, comme cela a été mentionné par M. Mazoyer dans son exposé introductif.
Le paragraphe 9 du document CL 90/3 propose à l'organisation de se pencher davantage dans le futur, sur la formation, la mise au point et le transfert des technologies, la coopération technique et économique entre pays en développement et sur l'impact sur le terrain. Nous appuyons et soutenons cette proposition tout en insistant particulièrement sur la coopération technique et économique entre pays en développement. Une mention particulière est faite au sujet du développement, de la recherche et de la technologie dans le document CL 90/3, qui lui consacre en fait près de 14 paragraphes. Nous trouvons le contenu de ces paragraphes très intéressants et nous voudrions nous référer particulièrement au paragraphe 106 qui insiste sur la nécessité de promouvoir la recherche agronomique dans les pays en développement et le rôle que doivent jouer les établissements de recherche des pays développés en consacrant, je cite, "une partie de leurs ressources et de leurs efforts à l'étude et à la solution de problèmes importants pour les régions en développement" (fin de citation).
Nous soutenons aussi le contenu du paragraphe 108 et nous espérons que des efforts particuliers soient fournis dans le sens de la valorisation, de l'héritage technique des différentes sociétés agraires.
Je ne voudrais pas conclure sans faire référence aux paragraphes 152 et 153 du document CL 90/3, qui stipulent que certaines activités et services du PNUD font double emploi avec ceux de la FAO. En réalité, nous partageons la préoccupation du Comité du programme à l'égard de ce problème et nous espérons que, dans l'avenir, les activités des différents organes du système des Nations Unies soient réalisées dans le cadre de la cohérence et de la complémentarité. Il y va de la crédibilité des institutions spécialisées des Nations Unies et de cette dernière organisation elle-même.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): Comme vous le savez, le Congo, par ma voix, est représenté au niveau du Comité du Programme. C'est pour cette raison que vous comprenez facilement que nous puissions appuyer ces deux rapporte qui nous sont présentés. Avant de le faire, je voudrais d'abord présenter nos félicitations à M. Mazoyer pour la manière synthétique et exhaustive avec laquelle il a présenté les points essentiels qui se dégagent de notre rapport et des discussions que nous avons eues au cours des deux sessions.
Je voudrais tout simplement dire que le Congo, en appuyant ceci, voudrait aussi essayer de répondre à une critique relative aux suggestions qui ont été faites lors de la dernière conférence. En effet, le Comité du Programme n'a pas eu à examiner le problème du rôle futur de la FAO, parce que c'est une question qui n'avait pas été inscrite à notre ordre du jour et, par conséquent, nous ne pouvons pas discuter sur ce sujet. Effectivement, si le Conseil en décidait ainsi, le Comité du Programme ne pourrait examiner la question. Je crois que, à ce stade, il faut d'abord se demander si le moment est opportun pour ouvrir ce débat sur le rôle futur de la FAO. On a dit qu'il ne fallait pas appeler cela une "crise", mais nous connaissons les difficultés au niveau de la FAO. Si ces réflexions sur le rôle futur de la FAO aboutissaient à un programme qui puisse faire que l'on ait besoin de plus de ressources, je me demande si on serait en mesure de mettre cela en application. Je crois également, comme on l'a suggéré que si, à l'avenir, la situation s'améliorait (et je crois que c'est possible), je pense que les suggestions qui ont été faites, notamment par le Danemark, ne peuvent pas être vues d'un mauvais oeil par nous. Je crois que c'est une réflexion qui peut être approfondie. Mais nous pensons que le Secrétariat, dans les années à venir, devra penser à cette réflexion, qui pourrait générer la discussion au niveau du Comité du Programme.
Voilà ce que je voulais dire, et que je tenais à dire, avant de partir à d'autres occupations; je tenais à donner mon point de vue sur cette question qui, je pense, a priori n'est pas mauvaise et qui devrait préoccuper notre Organisation. Nous devons voir à quel moment cela sera possible et dans quelles circonstances.
Kosei SHIOZAWA (Japan): To begin with I would like to thank Mr. Mazoyer, the Chairman of the Programme Committee, for his excellent introduction to this Agenda item.
We have carefully studied documents CL 90/3 and CL 90/16 which are presented before us. We would like to commend this Committee for having undertaken this overall review of the Programme in the field of agriculture, Information and documentation, the governing bodies and so on.
Also we have read with interest the Committee's discussion on UN Joint Inspection Unit Report.
Towards the end of document CL 90/3 under the item 'Any other Business', the document deals with very important programmes, namely the coordination of operational activities for development amongst related organizations of the UN system, and transparency of FAO activities.
I would like to make some commente on these two issues. First, with regard to the coordination of operational activities for development carried out by various UN agencies, my government feels basically that it is important to ensure the utmost effectiveness and efficiency of the activities of the various UM agencies, not only from the viewpoint of the individual agencies but also from the UN system as a whole. In this regard my country has attached much importance to the coordinating role of UNDP at the field level so as to avoid any duplication of operational activities for development on each UN agency and to make sure that these activities are complementary to each other.
We appreciate very much the role which FAO plays through FAOR in such activities as indication of the need for food and agricultural development in the developing countries, advisory services, or the formulation of adequate development programmes and the monitoring and evaluation of the FAO projects. Nevertheless we sincerely hope that all necessary coordination between FAO and UNDP be smoothly conducted at the field level in light of the role of the UNDP recipient coordinator on behalf of the UN system with respect to the coordination of operational activities carried out by the UN system at the country level, which was reaffirmed in the preamble of the General Assembly Resolution 40/211.
Secondly, with regard to transparency of FAO activities we highly appreciate the initiative taken by the Director-General in an effort to create greater transparency in FAO's work. However, it appears to us that the Programme Committee has taken one step further in saying that the Committee could not accept any implication that might be a lack of clarity needed to examine the work of the Organization in paragraph 146 of document CL 90/3. Such a statement gives us the impression that there is no room left for greater transparency. We feel that there is room left for further improvement in this regard. I should like to use an example from TCP, since reference has already been made in paragraph 163 of the document CL 90/3 to the evaluation of TCP.
I should like to draw your attention to the fact that when the report on the evaluation of TCP was given at the 88th Session of the Council, my delegation stressed once again the necessity to have information on the performance of the TCP projects provided with more intensity than any other activities in the regular budget.
I should not like to reiterate the reasons at this point in time. We did also point out that the analysis on the catalytical role of TCP was not sufficiently dealt with in the report made at the time. We hope that the Secretariat will pay due consideration to this matter.
Before concluding my statement, I should like to refer to the comments made by the distinguished delegate of Denmark and other delegates. The content of its proposal, including a review of FAO's role and priority settings in its programmes, are quite meaningful and useful in the light of the present financial difficulties which this Organization is facing. We welcome the submission of such a report by the Director-General and the opportunity for all of us to consider this subject in the next year.
Hermann REDL (Austria): We have studied very carefully the reports of the 50th and 51st Session of the Programme Committee. I should like now to comment on document CL 90/16 and the work done by FAO under Major Programme 5. 1. The information in the document is efficient and therefore deserves our support. FAO's Information materials are useful, well selected, and the Library has made remarkable progress. 141 AGRIS participating centres and 1. 25 million references testifies the importance which is attached to the system. The establishment of the coupon scheme seems to be a good step to facilitate access to the primary documents.
The Austrian delegation appreciates the future use of modern technology in the production of documents and publications. The two Programmes "Conference and Council" and "Conference Services" under Major Programme 1. 1.-Governing Bodies, are undoubtedly well organized, efficient and of great help to all of us.
Turning to Major Programme 1. 2-Policy, Direction and Planning, I express our special satisfaction with the work done under Programme Planning, Budgeting and Evaluation. I would like to underline particularly the existing transparency and results achieved in evaluation activities which include more or less all the existing evaluation techniques in the UN System.
The Austrian delegation is convinced of the activities under Major Programme 1. 3-Legal. However, it has to be stated clearly that the office needs the help of all member countries in providing it with the national cassettes and other texts of law.
Let me now turn to Major Programme 1. 4-Liaison. With regard to the various existing organizations and the importance of collecting and delivering information from and to them, and taking into account the rapidly increasing flow of information, the Office of Inter-Agency Affairs could become more and more of a focal point for Information and coordination.
Concerning the reporte on the Use of Consultants and the UN Joint Inspection Unit Report No. 85/10, 85/11 and 85/9, we fully share the views of the Programme Committee as shown in document CL 90/16.
I should also like to refer to the report of the FAO Training Activities. The Austrian delegation considers training is a central task of FAO and is fully aware of the importance of the development activities. My delegation supports the suggestions of the Programme Committee brought forward in paragraph 109 of document CL 90/16, and would like to underline particularly the importance of technical training.
Concerning the remarks of the distinguished delegate of Denmark, I should like to make the following comments. Austria is a Member of the Programme Committee and would like to draw your attention to Rule Ho. XXVI-7, pages 62 and 63 of our Basic Texts, where the functions of the Committee are clearly defined. We have within the FAO technical bodies like COAG, COFO and COFI, CCP, CFS and regional bodies like the regional conferences, commissions, and working parties which deal with sectoral priorities. The Austrian Government is fully aware of the importance of this matter. However, nearly each body of the FAO, including the Conference and the Council, is dealing with programme priorities. We believe that the Programme Committee has done excellent work, from what we can see in the reports in front of us. Therefore, we see no necessity to change the work of the Programme Committee and especially to change the rules of our Organization.
Mrs Millicent M. FENWICK (United States of America): 1 should like to welcome our Chairman of the Programme Committee, of which I am a Member-Monsieur Mazoyer. I hardly know where to begin, there is so much I would really like to tell you about. In my opinion, it is impossible for the Programme Committee to set policy at the time that we meet in September, without knowing what we are going to be faced with when all the reports have come in.
There is a list of our priorities and we have set them out in some clarity (paragraph 9). It sets out a list of what we consider our most important priorities. There are other aspects. I suppose each one of us has some "bent". I am sure you know what mine is, and I am happy to say that the Programme Committee (if you read it carefully you will find it) places emphasis on the small farmer, emphasis on what is going to be done for those people living, information that has to be geared to their way of looking at things, not to just Information for the serious and educated people and for the universities, not just the middle training information, but down at the bottom. Little booklets that can be handed out so that people can see what they are supposed to do when perhaps they are not able to read so easily. They can see with diagrams which are so clear. That is what we have emphasized in this Programme Committee-information and training which are two of the most essential things that FAO does, eight hundred and plus students a year in all levels of training and education. We are concentrating on getting more and more of the students from the developing countries so that we are not aiming at high pie in the sky, but practical matters that will help the people. I think that the emphasis that we have had on cooperation and supplementing CGIAR, 1 could not agree with you more. I think it was the Federal Republic of Germany that mentioned this part of FAO's work and it must complementary to IBPGR. We all know that that is what FAO does, and FAO has a small group of people who are intent on that kind of cooperation.
However, I should like to say something to my distinguished colleague from the Nordic countries. One of the other things I have been doing in the Programme Committee is to try not to have FAO do what so many others are doing, which is to increase and increase and increase its fields. Nutrition was mentioned by the distinguished delegate from Denmark. Yes, FAO must be in touch with WHO, so we can get from WHO the nutritional "lacks" that are being found. However, FAO should not do nutrition research. They should get the crop that will service the deficiency in nutrition that WHO has the research to do. It is not FAO's business to get too far into that specialized field. FAO is supposed to be food and agriculture, and when WHO tells us that a certain nutritional deficiency is shoving up, it is up to us, yes-we find the crop and encourage its growth in the smallest towns of that particular area where that particular deficiency is showing up. However, we have got to, for heaven's sake, stop proliferating. We can get to be enormous.
Mention has been made, and I do not like to take exception to the distinguished delegate from the Federal Republic of Germany, but I must tell you that if you read the Basic Texts of UNDP, it is only in the final last little line, where they have any permission to do any execution at all. The final little last line after a whole paragraph of what they are supposed to do is, in exceptional conditions they may execute. That it is "exceptional". What are they supposed to do? They are supposed to sit with a pile of money, in the happy position of listening to the government that is not happy, or to the executing agency that is not happy. They have the money and they say "Look, I think you're wrong this time and I think the other one was wrong the other time". They have an irreplaceable role.
What do I think is important about FAO? I think that Information is essential. It has got to be full, it has got to be disseminated. I am happy to say that JIU has congratulated and found that not all (they said) of the UN Agencies are doing the job that FAO is doing. This was on a previous JIU Report. It is praised for its dissemination and collection of information. I think training is extremely important as I mentioned already. Those are two other things, but what are they all for? If FAO takes its mind off that little person at the bottom of the line, those little fishermen going out in the boats, as was described to us not long ago, without any awning against the hard sun, and with no way of cooking. That is what is important, what is happening down there. In the Programme Committee this is what we are constantly trying to keep focused on. I know, and the Programme Committee knows, that I have sometimes found our language banal. "We encourage, we support, we emphasize"-all those things. That is a trifle compared to the real purpose of the programme.
I have made only a few notes because maybe there is something in the long term. But what is it if it is not training and information and a better life, a better nutrition, a better food production for the people who are now living on this earth? I think we are trying to do it in our Programme Committee and I am proud to be a Member.
Gabriel MACKO (Czechoslovakia): On the whole the Czechoslovak delegation has no objections to the adoption of the Report of the Programme Committee and agrees with the view that this Committee fulfills systematically the task of the programme review envisaged by the General Rules of the Organization.
The socialist countries are not represented on the Programme Committee. I should therefore like to take this opportunity to touch on two questions to which the Report refers.
Use of consultants 1984/85: in this part the Committee expressed its appreciation of FAO's continuing efforts to pursue the policy favouring greater use of consultants from developing countries, and my delegation gladly associates itself with that evaluation. However, in the absence of any representative of the socialist countries, the Committee obviously missed the fact that the use of consultants from my country and other socialist countries is not proportionate to the high level of their technical and scientific institutions, their experience with work in developing countries and the reputation of their consultants. I should like to draw attention to the fact that their use is substantially and unjustifiably lower as compared, for instance, with UNIDO or WHO.
Similarly, the question may be asked how many, out of the average number of 58 000 trainees annually, had the opportunity of participating in training in Czechoslovakia or other socialist countries, and whether out of the 824 annual fellowship recipients any fellowship was awarded to the socialist countries. For example, our country has the oldest veterinary university with specialization in veterinary medicine, and a similarly specialized agricultural university, as well as a big cooperative training centre where a large number of both non-degree and post-graduate trainees from developing countries study every year having been sent by other organizations or on the basis of bilateral agreements.
I should therefore like to recommend that due attention be given to the question of more equal allocation of training courses, seminars, study trips and fellowships.
Efforts must also be continued for a greater representation of women and young people in the FAO educational and training projects.
Robbie Ma tongo MUPAWOSE (Zimbabwe): We thank the Chairman of the Programme Committee for a clear summary of the reports before us in documents CL 90/3 and CL 90/16. The documents are very clearly laid out and give confidence in the activities of the Organization.
For a long time FAO has placed emphasis on crops and crop production. There has also been emphasis on fisheries and forestry. The area where we consider effort is needed is that of the livestock area. Here we draw attention to the breeding of both cattle and small stock, that is, goats, sheep, pigs, etc. They are not only important as food but also supply manure. I remember the United States representative mentioning the importance and value of manure which is obtained from some of these livestock. Also, we obtain milk, and there has been the question of nutrition being discussed; skins are obtained and very many other byproducts. The production and management of these animals requires that attention be given to pastures, both improved and unimproved grazing. The introduction of legumes to pastures should be encouraged. There is need to coordinate with work being vigorously carried out by organizations like ILCA and other related organizations.
Related to livestock production there is need to strengthen work on the preservation of crop residues. The Sub-Saharan countries generally suffer from regular droughts, and yet no meaningful food bank programmes have been carried out. When droughts come, large numbers of livestock die, and in some areas livestock have to be moved long distances from one region to another in search of grazing or in search of stored food. In Zimbabwe we have been regularly examining the possibility of setting up fodder reserves. We find that due to climatic conditions the techniques to effectively implement this are very rudimentary, and we would hope to solicit assistance from the FAO and other organizations with both Information and additional techniques.
Livestock production is of great importance to some of our countries. The use of animal draught power in our region, that is both oxen and donkeys, is of great importance. The use of the tractor and the cost of fuel becomes a limiting factor, of course. The appropriate use of these animals with the proper harnesses and adjustment of equipment gives very effective tillage. Work is being done in this area with the assistance of German aid, and we hope that further assistance from FAO will improve our efforts. The results of some of this research in our country and region can gladly be shared with other countries which use such equipment·
The export of beef, both from Botswana and Zimbabwe, is of great economic value. This entails more costs in setting up recognized abbatoirs, and disease control measures. Having committed funds to these required infrastructures, it becomes essential that these exports continue. Any slowing down due to shortage of cattle in the slaughterhouses should not be allowed to take place.
On the issue of consultants, while a beginning has been made in the use of regional and local African consultants, we feel there should be an increase in the use of this manpower. Overseas consultants are not always the most useful. They demand a lot of time from local officials, both technicians and professionals. They arrive and have to be educated and reorientated to local conditions before they begin to ask questions. Of course, there are many very good and experienced consultants, but it has taken much time of some of the local people to bring them to that level of expertise. We believe that the continued use of local consultants can also help to develop a pool of manpower and a pool of expertise in these developing countries which can have long-term effects and benefits for these developing countries.
David Lawrence COUTTS (Australia): We have closely examined these two reports of the Programme Committee with interest, and we commend the Committee for the considerable work it has done in assessing the various and widespread activities of FAO. We were interested to see in the 50th Report a thorough statement of the objectives of the various programmes. We found this most useful. We were also pleased to see in the 51st Report that considerable attention is being given to programme evaluation and review. We regard evaluation as an essential part of programme management, especially in times of severe strain on overall resources, and we support as much attention as possible being given to this aspect of FAO's work.
We would also support the Programme Committee giving even more attention not only to the objectives of programmes but to the measurement and assessment of how successfully these objectives have been achieved, that is, to the impact assessment of programmes. I must confess that when the reports refer to the evaluation of programmes 1 am not absolutely certain what is meant by that, and I should like to ask the Secretariat if evaluation of programmes means that any detailed quantitative assessment of the benefits of such programmes has been carried out.
In the context of programme evaluation, we are also pleased to see recognition in paragraph 10 of the 50th report of the need for priority setting in the context that resources available will never fully match the requirements of member countries. We also note the points in paragraph 9 mentioned by the United States Ambassador regarding areas that the Committee feels should be given priority in future work programmes. This issue has become much more important since the 50th Report was prepared some six months ago. While the need for priority setting is now undeniable, unfortunately the reports in front of us address only areas that should be given greater priority. The question of what might get less priority is not addressed. In saying that, I would not wish to be misunderstood. I understand the difficulties of doing the second task, but it is one that faces us nevertheless.
For these reasons, we give strong support to the suggestion by the Nordic countries that a paper be prepared urgently for the Programme Committee and for later consideration by the Council and/or the Conference that addresses the question of programme priorities.
In the 50th Report we also noted with considerable interest the Committee's comments on transparency within FAO. We appreciate that this matter was considered, as my delegation attaches some importance to it. The praise given by the Committee to the Director-General and the Secretariat is quite remarkable. We have seldom, if ever, seen such an unstinted vote of confidence in the transparency of information systems for any organization. As part of this strong vote of confidence by the
Committee, we are just a little uneasy when we look closely at the report in this regard. We do not question the willingness of the Secretariat to supply information on request, and we fully agree with the Committee's observations that member countries must pay attention to the reasonableness of their inquiries and the cost of extracting and supplying information. However, transparency also involves consideration of the structure of the information produced in the normal course of events and the systems in place. In that context, we feel that there may still be some room for improvement.
Several examples that have already come up at this meeting spring to mind. These include the availability of information on actual expenditure during the biennium by the Organization; the question of what it actually costs to deliver programmes; and aspects of the Technical Cooperation Programme. We have noted the Secretariat's comments on these issues, but can only observe that the continued concerns of some members suggest that either there is a transparency problem of some nature or there is a problem of understanding between delegations and the Secretariat. To the extent that doubts on such matters remain, we urge that they be looked at again by the Programme and/or Finance Committees.
We note the comments regarding the use of consultants from a wide range of countries as possible, especially developing countries. We also noted the comments by Czechoslovakia a few minutes ago. In principle, we have absolutely no difficulty with this approach provided that it is followed in a manner that is consistent with selecting as high a level of expertise on particular issues as possible.
In the fiftieth report we noted the Committee's concern, in paragraphs 151 to 160, over relations with the UNDP, especially in relation to the activities of the Office for Project Evaluation (OPE). We feel that it is most undesirable for these two bodies to be working in a way, which is not fully harmonious, and which would appear to involve some overlap in activities. We should be interested to know more about what action has been taken to resolve these problems and what the latest developments might be.
Finally, we would once again underline that the work of this Committee, as with the Finance Committee, is of critical importance in the troubled times ahead of us. We feel that greater attention will have to be given at its next meeting to the unenviable task of setting some programme priorities to match the Programme of Work to the resources available. To this end, the work of this Committee must link closely with that of the Finance Committee. It may be appropriate to consider if the two Committees should at least meet jointly at some stage. Having made these observations, Australia would not oppose acceptance by the Council of these reports.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sin duda, señor Presidente, el Consejo tuvo un gran acierto al elegir al señor Mazoyer, de Francia, como Presidente del Comité del Programa, ya que todos sabemos la manera tan competente como él viene cumpliendo su alta responsabilidad. La presentación del señor Mazoyer ha hecho que los informes del Comité del Programa faciliten nuestra actitud en el sentido de apoyar completamente esos dos informes a través de los cuales tenemos la convicción sincera de que no hay ningún problema de transparencia en cuanto a las actividades de la Organización, cuya Secretarla suministra todas las informaciones razonables que se le solicitan y estoy seguro de que si existe, como se ha dicho, cualquier problema de comprensión entre la Administración y ciertos respetables representantes, todo ello será superado con buena voluntad y mutua comprensión.
Admiramos siempre las elocuentes y sentidas declaraciones de nuestra colega y amiga Millicent Fenwick, Embajadora de los Estados Unidos y aficionada miembro del Comité del Programa. Apoyamos lo que ella ha dicho en cuanto a los pequeños agricultores y otras inquietudes humanas y sociales porque la señora Fenwick, a quien nosotros admiramos mucho en sus declaraciones, particularmente cuando ella habla con su mente y con su corazón, y no con el telex de Wàshington.
Nuestro colega y amigo el señor Winkel, de la República Federal de Alemania, planteó también algunas ideas que son interesantes y que esperamos se tengan en cuenta. La delegación de Colombia está muy agradecida a nuestro colega y amigo de Dinamarca. La intervención de nuestro colega Kristensen de esta tarde, nos ofrece la oportunidad de volver un poco hacia el pasado. Acerca de lo que se ha dicho en el seno de esta Organización en materia de las revisiones que ahora en cierta medida proponen, la última revisión orgánica, si asi pudiéramos llamarla, de las prioridades de los métodos de trabajo y de la estructura de nuestra Organización, se realizó en 1968, inmediatamente después de que la Conferencia de 1967 eligió al señor Boerma, Director General de la Organización. Se constituyó un grupo ad hoc, integrado por siete de cada una de las regiones de la FAO, grupo en el cual el señor kristensen, ahora Director Jefe de la Delegación de Dinamarca, participó activamente. Al señor Kristensen me une, antes de esa fecha, una amistad de colegage, porque ambos participamos en el entonces Comité Intergubernamental del PMA que él presidia y en el Comité del Programa, del cual yo fui su Presidente.
Pensamos sinceramente que las propuestas de Dinamarca son positivas y constructivas y corresponden al espíritu altruista y generoso que caracteriza a los países nórdicos y que los representantes del gobierno de Colombia exaltamos continuamente.
Igualmente estamos plenamente de acuerdo con nuestro colega y amigo Higham, del Canadá, en el sentido de que las circunstancias cambiantes imponente a la FAO la necesidad de adecuarse continua y progresivamente a las formas más dinámicas, incisivas y actualizadas como nuestra Organización debe afrontar el estudio y la solución de los problemas.
Sin embargo, mi vecino de la derecha, ahora ausente, el embajador del Congo hizo una declaración sensata y reflexiva en la cual se refirió a la incertidumbre actual, que podemos llamar crisis, porque el embajador Pascarelli ha dejado la sala, y ello nos induce a pensar que tal vez no conviene ahora en este momento agregar otra inquietud más a todas las que ya nos causa esta difícil situación, pero sí pensamos que la Conferencia de noviembre 1987, sobre todo al estudiar el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1988/89, puede ser una oportunidad propicia para considerar cualquier posibilidad a ese respecto; porque convendrá recordar también que después de la que he llamado revisión orgánica de 1968, en 1976 inmediatamente después de la Conferencia de 1975 en la cual se eligió un Director General, en 1976, repetimos, como ya lo dijimos en la discusión del tema 4, hubo una reunión del Consejo que convenimos, a la luz de los textos básicos, en que no debía llamarse "especial" pero que sí fue excepcional porque se reunió en julio de 1976, o sea en años pares, cuando generalmente el Consejo en esos años pares sólo se reúne en noviembre. En ese Consejo de julio de 1976 y luego en el Consejo de noviembre de ese mismo año y en la Conferencia de noviembre de 1967, en ese ciclo que hemos citado, los estados miembros todos de la FAO coincidimos, aprobamos ciertas directrices que estaban contenidas en los programas y políticas que nos presentó el nuevo Director General y que contaron con el apoyo unánime de todos los representantes de los gobiernos.
De manera que pensamos, para resumir, debemos ir, al Comité de Redacción con que posiblemente la Conferencia de noviembre de 1987 puede ser el escenario indicado para considerar la posible necesidad de revisar las prioridades, los métodos de trabajo y la estructura de nuestra Organización, y mientras tanto los dos órganos asesores más importantes del Consejo, los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, deben intensificar sus tareas en ese campo dentro de los parámetros, los términos de referencia de esos Comités que ya fueron citados adecuadamente por el colega Redl, de Austria.
El colega y amigo Coutts, de Australia, ha sugerido la conveniencia de que los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas se reúnan conjuntamente. Como dije antes, yo fui Presidente del Comité del Programa y antes miembro también, y por ello creo que sigue vigente la disposición según la cual esos dos Comites celebran por lo menos una reunión conjunta a principios de los años impares, cuando por primera vez estudian el proyecto del Programa de Laboree y Presupuestos.
La señora Fenwick, que es miembro del Comité del Programa, asiente y esto confirma ml aseveración. De manera que todo va bien, las circunstancias continuaron cumpliéndose dentro de ese marco y veremos más adelante qué será necesario realizar, pero por ahora pensamos que no es necesario introducir ninguna modificación.
Adel Helmy EL SARKI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): On behalf of my delegation it is my pleasure to express my sincere thanks to Mr. Mazoyer, Chairman of the Programme Committee for his clear presentation of the two documents under discussion. We wish to express our satisfaction for the interest which the Organization has shown in supporting TCDC, in meeting the needs of the various agricultural systems as well as its increasing interest in subsistence farming, assisting small farmers and the training of personnel. On this basis we fully support the programme: Agriculture and the sub-programmes on crops and rural development. We should also like to commend the Organization's activities aimed at supporting animal health institutions in Africa through the programme entitled "Livestock".
We are pleased to see that the Organization has also been interested in the social aspects of development programmes in view of enforcing the team spirit amongst workers through the publication of the "Workers Bulletin". We also support its efforts to increase public awareness of the activities and objectives of the Organization through the publication of "Ceres".
Document CL 90/16 refers to the increase in the use of consultants from developing countries in 1984/85 compared to 1982/83. We are pleased to note this. However, we request the Organization to increase the number of consultants from the Near East region. We also welcome the increase of contracts with research institutions in developing countries.
My country had the honour of introducing the Arabic language as a working language in the Organization and we are pleased to see that Lebanon has asked for its use in AGRIS and CARIS. We fully support this suggestion.
After having seen the interest of programmes in serving all countries we can but commend the efforts of the Director-General in establishing the general guidelines of these programmes.
Ronald F. R. DEARE (United Kingdom): Could I perhaps begin by thanking Mr. Mazoyer for his very full and informative introduction. I think all of us who have read these reports realize the amount of hard work that is put in by members of the Programme Committee.
I would like to join those who have proceeded me in commending the representative of Denmark for a very significant and interesting statement on behalf of the Nordic countries. There is much that 1 could say about that statement but I think I will simply confine myself to saying that my delegation certainly endorsee the call that he has made for a paper to be put to the Programme Committee and to the Council on the future role of FAO with particular reference to the setting of priorities and I am happy to say in view of what was said in the Nordic statement I have been able to shorten my statement quite considerably, but there is one point which I would wish to make in regard to the role of the Programme Committee, in regard to the setting of priorities·
As I read it it is part of the function of the Programme Committee as set out in the General Regulations and, despite the eloquent intervention of my friend and colleague from the United States, who unfortunately is not here now, I still must say it remains the feeling in my delegation, that this critical function seems not to have formed a significant part of the review; for example, a major programme 2. 1 Agriculture, which is reported extensively in document CL 90/3. At a rough count, there are some 70 instances in this report where the Committee has urged further strengthening of programmes or fully endorsed, or reported the importance and priority of, or priority of programmes, or particular activities and has affirmed or stressed the need for others. I have not been able to find one instance where the Committee has suggested that even one programme or activity might have lower priority than others and might therefore be reduced or terminated. 1 believe that it would be helpful to members of this Council if the Programme Committee were able perhaps to pay greater attention to that critical function, but I do recognize the problem, particularly when examination of the programme is divorced from the responsibility for finance. So perhaps, as has already been suggested this afternoon, it may be the time to consider, and dare I say this, the merger of the two committees so that the one committee deals with both vital aspects of the activities of this Organization. Perhaps this might be something for consideration for inclusion in the paper which has been requested by our friends, the Nordic delegation.
Finally, I had intended to speak at some length on paragraph 151 to 160 of document CL 90/3 on operational activities for development, but in view of the lateness of the hour, I will simply confine myself to say for the record that my delegation cannot subscribe to the points made in paragraphs 152 to 156 of that document where they conflict with decisions taken by consensus in the UNDP Governing Council.
Evlogui BONEV (UNDP): I am very grateful for your indulgence. I have listened with great interest to the intervention on the agenda item before us. The UNDP acquainted itself with the document CL 90/3 specifically under paragraphs which are relevant to UNDP, 151 to 160. As you may recall, the comments of the Programme Committee were sent to the ECOSOC Meeting last July during the session and the UNDP representative there commented on the comments of the Programme Committee of FAO.
I will read the same comments which were read out at the ECOSOC Meeting on behalf of the UNDP. Concerning the UNDP Office for Projects Execution, about which the Committee "expresses serious concern", I wish to point out that the 1970 consensus does not foresee the automatic designation of the specialized agency as an executing agency merely by virtue of that organization's "area of competence"· The choice of executing agent is a matter of consultation between the administrator and the recipient government. Taking into account specific project requirements. Often governments express a wish to obtain sources of experience outside the United Nations system. A large part of the projects executed through OPE provide this additional source of experience which complements existing sources of technical expertise. It needs pointing out that the percentage of properly executed projects funded by UNDP's central resources has remained constant under 7 percent over the past four years, and that the great majority of the projects are government executed while the role of OPE is reduced to merely providing governments with some specific services whenever they need them and whenever they request them. Thus it promotes and encourages the ultimate goal of the recipient governments, self-reliance.
As you can see, the executed projects by OPE are not at all the traditional projects execution type, from those executed by the specialized agencies. It should also be pointed out that in so-called "umbrella" projects of multi-sectoral character executed by OPE, large components have been subcontracted to executing agencies, including-FAO.
Concerning the Project Development Facility, PDF, so called, which was established by the UNDP Governing Council on an experimental basis last year, the Council at its last session extended the facility for another year. The administration has informed our executing agency partners of the purposes and procedures of this facility, making it very clear that agencies are entitled to participate in the use of PDF resources for project preparation. PDF is a supplementary source of financing which does not exclude existing mechanisms that are normally employed by specialized agencies for project development, such as preparatory assistance projects. The Governing Council of UNDP as well as many delegations at ECOSOC in July this year have expressed strong support for this facility.
The FAO Committee also referred to the short-term advisory services established by our Governing Council last year. Under this service, UNDP acts as a clearing house between requesting developing countries and enterprises of industrialized as well as developing countries to provide salary-free expertise. This service does not conflict in any way with existing mandates or activities of United Nations system organizations.
The Committee similarly referred to what it calls "the UNDP Development Fund for Women". I guess that the distinguished members of the Committee had in mind UNIFEM, which is the acronym for the United Nations Development Fund for Women. You may recall that this fund was created not by UNDP, but by the General Assembly of the United Nations with its resolution 31/133 of 16 December 1976, originally as the Voluntary Fund for the UN Decade for Women. The Fund became operational in 1978. In 1984, the General Assembly in resolution 39/125 decided that the activities of this Fund should be continued by the establishment of a separate and identifiable entity in autonomous association with UNDP. UNIFEM is a funding, and not an executing agency, which uses existing capacity in the United Nations system, including FAO, to execute projects. For example, at the present time, ten projects funded by UNIFEM are being executed by FAO. I am sure there are more now because my information is not updated now.
Concerning the roundtable process, its proposed that new procedures reflect the express wish of governments to improve this mechanism by, inter alia, limiting the participants in the roundtable conference itself to the recipient and major donors. However, as explained in the report submitted to the recent Governing Council session (DP 71986/17), sectoral consultations constitute a major element in the new roundtable format. For this part of the consultation process, respective agencies have priority involvement, particularly as regards the preparation of documentation. The report also indicates that preliminary experience with substantive participation of agencies in this respect, have proven to be quite satisfactory. Just to mention a few related to FAO: its involvement in The Gambia for consultations in the agricultural and fisheries sector, as well as in Benin, for consultations in the forestry and rural development sectors, along with its involvement in Burundi, for consultations in fisheries and food crop sectors.
As you have heard on previous occasions by the secretariat of FAO itself, there are ongoing processes of contacts and negotiations between the two secretariats of FAO and UNDP in further enhancing the participation of FAO in this process.
We regret that though UNDP is the largest source of funding for UNDP-executed projects, the UNDP representative is not permitted to participate in the deliberations of the Programme Committee, at which very significant discussions often take place regarding UNDP/FAO cooperation. Had we been allowed to participate, the points which I have made in response to the Programme Committee's comments which were at the Council would have been explained on the spot at the meeting.
I am not able to respond to all the comments which were made by the delegates here in the Council but I hope that the general comments which I made on the comments of the Committee are giving some light on our viewpoint vis-à-vis FAO cooperation.
Akbar Mirza KHALEELI (India): First I have the honour to thank Mr. Mazoyer, our Chairman, for the excellent Report. I had the benefit of participating in the Twenty-First Session and to me it was most educative, both the manner in which it was conducted and the manner in which information from the Secretariat was elicited on all matters where there was some doubt and where importance was attached to programmes. I was not present at the Fiftieth Session, but I would like to assure all those who are not members of the Programme Committee that for the best part of a week, there were very detailed discussions and a rare unanimity under the very careful guidance of Mr. Mazoyer.
The emphasis on information and training, which are two priorities mentioned by the charming delegate of the United States, was very evident. I would also like to mention that the consciousness of the need for economy, even on small matters, was discussed more than once, even though it was not the Finance Committee.
There were certain aspects of publicity where we found that some of the documentation was extremely glossy and certain other types of publications which were very useful to the general public. It was made clear to us by the Secretariat that their main role was to inform the informers, the people who train the public, and FAO could not go around distributing useful pamphlets to the general public. There is a reference to this in document CL 90/16, paragraphs 15, 27 and 44.
Regarding the rather important points raised by the Nordic countries, represented by Denmark and in various forms, supported by a number of very important countries, I think a view might have to be taken at some stage as to what is the role of the Programme Committee, not only in the context of the financial constraints that the Organization faces but in the context of reviewing programmes and priorities. But for the time being, I think the point made by the delegates of Congo and Austria and others, including Colombia, is that the evaluation of the rules and practices being what they are, we are I believe constrained to discuss the Report of the Programme Committee rather than the role of the Programme Committee. Unless we are entitled to go into the actual functioning of the Finance Committee and the Programme Committee, (and of course delegations can pass their comments on various things), it becomes rather difficult mid-course for priorities in agriculture and agricultural policy which have been set by the Conference, to be altered.
Almir F. de Sá BARBUDA (Brazil): My delegation wishes to join the previous speakers in thanking Mr. Mazoyer for the comprehensive introduction of this Item of the Agenda.
We also wish to reiterate our interest in the work of the Programme Committee and to present our support for the review of FAO's programmes, to the findings and recommendations of the Fiftieth and Fifty-First Sessions of the Programme Committee.
We would like to thank once again the Director-General for having brought to the Programme Committee, as well as the Finance Committee, the subject of greater transparency in the work of the Organization. His initiative has been rightly appreciated by the Committee, which praised the nature and the extent of the information available. We agree with what has been said by Ambassador Bula Hoyos that there are really no problems of transparency in this Organization and information has always been provided by the Secretariat.
We appreciate the attention that has been given in both Sessions to the issues of training and economic and technical cooperation among developing countries. In relation to training activities we fully support the observations and suggestions presented at paragraph 109 of document CL 90/16. My delegation reiterates its support for the TCDC activities laid down by the Buenos Aires Plan of Action and FAO's approach to TCDC. We therefore support paragraphs 140 to 142 of document CL 90/3.
My delegation wishes to congratulate FAO for the recognition by the UN Joint Inspection Unit of the high standing of its internal evaluation system within the UN system. We also wish to mention our appreciation with regard to the increase of 7. 9 percent in the use by FAO of individual consultants from developing countries and we hope that this percentage will further increase.
Finally, we want to give our full support to the points raised by the Austrian delegate in relation to the proposal from Denmark. At this point we do not see any need for definitions or new reviews of functions of FAO bodies, functions which are very clearly defined in the Basic Texts.
We agree with the positive statement of Ambassador Fenwick, especially in relation to FAO's functions, which should not increase indefinitely.
Finally, we want to express our support for what has been said in this regard by Ambassador Bula Hoyos of Colombia, the Ambassador of India and other delegates.
Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Nuestra delegación agradece la presentación de los documentos CL 90/3 y CL 90/16 hecha en forma magistral por el señor Mazoyer, Presidente de dicho Comité. Asimismo, encomiamos la labor hecha por los miembros del Comité para presentarnos un documento dirigido especificamente a las actividades principales que debe ejecutar esta Organización y considera mi delegación que para preparar el mismo se han tenido en cuenta las prioridades así como la situación financiera de la Organización, cuestión muy importante en estos momentos a tener presente. Consideramos, Sr. Presidente, que el haber elegido nosotros este Comité de Programas, nos respetamos nosotros mismos por haber depositado en sus miembros la confianza necesaria para la ejecución de su labor, confianza que además merecen. En tal sentido, mi delegación considera que estos informes deben ser aprobados por el Consejo. Quisiéramos referirnos, sin embargo, a algunos aspectos que si bien han sido recogidos por el informe, ameritan que se haga hincapié en ellos, una especie de selección de intereses. En el párrafo 9 del documento CL 90/3 se recogen los aspectos más importantes en que el Comité consideró que la FAO debe hacer énfasis y que mi delegación apoya en
todas sus partes como son, por su importancia, la capacitación a todos los niveles, el desarrollo y transferencia de tecnologías apropiadas y el apoyo a la acción económica y técnica entre países en desarrollo. Sin embargo, repito, consideramos que, por la importancia que tiene, debiera hacerse alguna alusión directa en la globalización de la ejecución de todos estos grandes programas, a la participación de la mujer en estas actividades que son actividades priorizadas, y que en todas ellas participa la mujer en una u otra forma y que debemos intensificar su participación.
Entendemos también que los programas especiales de acción de la FAO verdaderamente revisten considerable importancia para el sostenimiento o aumento de la producción agrícola y alimentaria. Sin embargo, nos parece muy necesario que se evalúen periódicamente sus resultados a la luz de las necesidades de los países y las posibilidades reales de la Organización. Para nosotros es muy importante las evaluaciones periódicas que son las que garantizan que no nos mantengamos durante años discutiendo las mismas situaciones.
Además, nosotros quisiéramos puntualizar en los cultivos, nos gustaría puntualizar el subprograma 2. 1. 2. 1 "Recursos genéticos". Son cuestiones que nosotros consideramos estratégicas en el desarrollo del trabajo de la Organización. Por consiguiente, es muy importante el párrafo 60.
Con respecto a los recursos genéticos, se respalda la función central de la FAO para ayudar en todas las formas posibles a detener la erosión y la pérdida de valiosos recursos fitogenéticos. Esto consideramos que es una cuestión fundamental para la agricultura, ya no especifica de un solo país, creo que estos representan uno de los principales patrimonios de la humanidad que hay que cuidar. El otro día expresé que tenía más temor que a la guerra nuclear a los problemas ecológico que nos van a hacer inhabitable el mundo sin que se tire una sola bomba.
Creemos también que debemos destacar el subprograma 2. 1. 2. 3 "Semillas", y su interrelación con las actividades en relación con la Comisión y el compromiso internacional sobre recursos fitogenéticos, párrafo 41, y apoyamos específicamente también, porque creemos que su control es importante también en función de mantener la verdadera sanidad dentro de la producción, el párrafo 63, que es la aplicación del código internacional de plaguicidas. Creo que es muy interesante su difusión porque uno de los problemas graves que hay en nuestro medio subdesarrollado es la incapacidad para conocer el alcance que puedan tener a favor o en contra la aplicación de los plaguicidas mientras nuestros países no tengan legislaciones internas para su control y mientras seamos pasto de comerciantes que les interesa vender sin que sepamos lo que nos venden o algunos países donde un producto está prohibido y sin embargo, está permitido venderlo. Estas cuestiones consideramos que son muy importantes, Sr. Presidente.
En ganadería, también creo que se discutió con profundidad. Los párrafos nos dicen la gama enorme de puntos que se discutieron. Sin embargo, nosotros queremos hacer hincapié en la sanidad animal, salvar al que tenemos vivo, y al ganado al que tenemos ya en la mano, mejorar los servicios veterinarios y combatir las principales enfermedades infecciosas. Creo que son puntos estratégicos para poder hablar de una ganadería de futuro.
Igualmente, Sr. Presidente, es muy importante la rama de la investigación. Nos complació leer todos los párrafos referentes a la discusión de este punto. Por lo tanto, deseamos destacar el párrafo 106, sobre todo en su ultimo párrafo referente a que era oportuno que los centros de investigación de los países desarrollados dedicaran parte de sus recursos y su atención a cuestiones, problemas de importancia para las regiones en desarrollo. Nosotros consideramos que es una buena señalización por parte del Comité de Programas.
Sobre el desarrollo rural nosotros no nos cansaremos nunca de destacar la necesidad de un subprograma muy importante que surge con fuerza en los momentos de crisis alimentaria, porque, por desgracia, uno de los animales de menos memoria del mundo es el hombre; por lo tanto se le olvidan las consecuencias de los problemas tan pronto pasan. Es el subprograma "Reforma Agraria", párrafos 119 y 126. Creemos que es necesario que se atienda el Programa de Acción de la Conferencia Mundial de Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural para lograr toda una serie de cuestiones que hemos oído referir y escuchado de muchos colegas sobre el acceso de la tierra, el acceso al agua, a la justicia social, la equidad, los precios, los créditos; todo eso debe ser un paquete, un contexto que nosotros consideramos que se llama reforma agraria.
A veces hay un poco de temor, además de falta de memoria, el hombre padece de otra enfermedad que se llama miedo, que le tiene miedo a la palabra. La palabra reforma agraria se ha diversificado mucho, se han hecho muchas malas, porque se han hecho muchas buenas en el papel y a la hora de aplicarla nos hemos rajado entre los agrónomos, los intelectuales, los políticos y los productores de maquinarla, que lo que quieren es vender maquinaria y no ha habido realmente una aplicación correcta de la reforma agraria. Pero una aplicación desajustada no quiere decir que es mala. Hay países a los cuales se les interrumpió violentamente en los procesos de reforma. Todas esas son cuestiones que algunas minorías no permiten que lleguen y, por tanto, las hemos olvidado un poco. Es un punto que nosotros queríamos hacer.
Para concluir, Sr. Presidente, reiteramos el apoyo de nuestra delegación al trabajo del Comité y a los informes presentados considerando que el prisma bajo el cual ha trabajado y que debe seguir valorándose en función de ver en qué medida se pueden perfeccionar, se pueden mejorar, se expresa claramente en los párrafos 163 y 165, que nos parecen un gran colofón de estos grandes informes sobre todo del documento CL 90/3· El párrafo 103 es para nosotros una explicación muy amplia de cuál, realmente en lo que convino el Comité de lo que es el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto, y los exámenes del Programa ordinario, y el 165, el reconocimiento del Comité, que, basándose en su propia experiencia, en la capacidad de comprender, evaluar y valorar la labor de la FAO debe hacer frente. Creo que es muy necesario saber, valorar lo que hace la FAO teniendo en cuenta sus problemas, y, por la otra, las medidas adoptadas por la Organización. Son dos cuestiones que consideramos también de carácter no táctico sino estratégico, porque a veces no nos damos cuenta a la hora de valorar qué velocidad debemos tener sobre una carretera si no sabemos las curvas o los obstáculos que tiene esa carretera.
Creo que el Comité instó a que se prosiguiera la política de accesibilidad y disponibilidad para dar a los programas de la FAO sus efectos, la mayor difusión posible. Creo que éstas son cuestiones muy importantes en estos momentos y nosotros tenemos una gran preocupación con el programa de la difusión. Hemos aceptado y estamos de acuerdo que como alternativa de los problemas financieros una de las cuestiones que más debemos, y se ha planteado aquí, eliminar o tratar de no hacer para no gastar, serian las publicaciones. Es verdad que nadie viene pidiendo libros, todo el mundo viene pidiendo proyectos, pero creemos que, si decimos que la capacitación es fundamental, tenemos también que ayudar a capacitar no sólo a nosotros los funcionarlos sino que esta capacitación de la FAO llegue a las diversas regiones, a las asociaciones campesinas de las cooperativas, de las granjas, de pueblos que se deben beneficiar del trabajo de la FAO.
Danilo VUJICIC (Yugoslavia): I would like first of all to thank the Chairman of the Programme Committee, Mr. Mazoyer, for his excellent introduction regarding the two latest sessions of the Programme Committee. I must express my particular satisfaction that 1 am the first delegate of Yugoslavia who, after quite a long time, can speak freely and express recognition and full satisfaction with the work and the results of the Programme Committee, and particularly of its Chairman. Those of you who have been participating for a long time in FAO activities would guess the reasons for such a refrained attitude of the Yugoslav delegation in relation to the Programme Committee during the last few years. For those who cannot guess, I have to reveal the secret. The fact is that one of my compatriots, whom most of you know well, was the first Member and then the Chairman of the Programme Committee for a decade. On the other side, the natural modesty of ray countrymen has deprived us of the satisfaction of dignifying and praising the work of the Programme Committee in such circumstances. I hope that my statement can be taken by the distinguished audience in its relative and, at least, half humouristic sense event though it may look like rather rude and crude Balkanic humour and not the sophisticated British type of humour.
Coming back to the serious track on which discussions of this subject have gone, I would like on behalf of the Yugoslav delegation to highly commend the work of the Programme Committee at its last two sessions. We fully support their conclusions and recommendations. We particularly appreciate their highly technical and excellently-oriented analysis and conclusions in some major fields of the work of FAO, namely natural resources, crops, livestock, research and technology, rural development and FAO training activities.
I should like also to join the concern of the Programme Committee on the decreasing share of FAO in operational activities of UNDP and its resources, and the ever increasing implementation through the so-called OPE (Office of the Project Execution of the UNDP). My delegation shares the assessment of the Programme Committee that by depriving FAO and other Specialized Agencies in fact, recipient countries are deprived of the accumulated technical expertise and experience of these Specialized Agencies, and these may lead to some kind of wasteful overlaps.
Finally, I cannot help but express my c legation's surprise, and disagreement, at the request by some representatives that our Organization instead of concentrating its full power and resources on implementation of the agreed programmes and priorities, should turn the focus of its attention to the Organization and its inter-governmental bodies in a kind of general self-examination review, and maybe a revision, of the FAO role and programmes.
My delegation does not find it necessary and useful at this crucial moment to waste the time and precious resources on the studies and discussions in inter-gouvernmental bodies which, in our opinion would not contribute to the achievement of the objectives set up by the Constitution of FAO, the World Food Conference, WCARRD, the so-called 1976 Consensus, the last FAO General Conference, and so on. The right time and place to raise this issue, for those who consider it useful, may be only the next General Conference in 1987. At that time the Programme and the Finance Committees and the Council should concentrate their activities on the execution of the programmes and priorities agreed by the last Conference.
Amin ABDEL-MALEK (Lebanon): I am sorry to ask for the floor for the second time at such a late hour, but I found it necessary to intervene on that same point. The Lebanese delegation docs not see any reason to ask the Director-General to make a report as proposed on the long-term function of the FAO, since we have every reason to believe that the major policy consensus reached in 1976, and confirmed unanimously in the 1977 Conference, is still fully valid and should not be reconsidered, especially in the light of the financial difficulties that prevail, in the meantime in FAO.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic): First of all my delegation would like to congratulate and thank most warmly the Chairman of the Programme Committee and the other Members for their good work, which shows the seriousness and the interest they have shown in their deliberations.
The report of the Programme Committee stressed FAO's role in the provision of technical aid and consultation services. This was something that the Joint Inspection Unit stressed. We should like to give our support to the content of both reports from the Programme Committee.
I should like to be brief and to review certain important paragraphs, in document CL 90/16. I should like to refer to paragraphs 103 and 104 of that document. These say that an increasing number of Trust Fund projects which had a training component have been requested by various governments. This is something to which we give our full support.
We are also very pleased with what is contained in paragraph 101, particularly with what it contains about group training, and institution building. We are pleased that there has been continuous and fruitful cooperation between FAO and governmental and non-governmental bodies, particularly DANIDA. Here I should like to come back to the what was said by other delegations, particularly what was said by Denmark about a review of FAO's function, the role of the Programme Committee and the role played by other committees. What concerns us is the enthusiasm and zeal with which these ideas have been put forward and taken up. This gave us the impression that the FAO and the Committees set up by the Council-and I do not know whether Committees set up by the general Conference are included in this idea-are rusted and can have new life breathed into them. I do not really see the reason for all of this. Governments have to seriously reconsider their positions. For our part, we would like to support the opposite point of view, particularly in the situation in which FAO now finds itself. We have to be very careful, particularly because of the difficulties facing the Organization. However, we would echo the appeal expressed by a number of delegations that we do not carry out this review. We have to make sure that the FAO can work properly to the benefit of all countries, particularly to the benefit of developing countries.
Another proposal was made that the Finance Committee and the Programme Committee be merged. We are somewhat surprised, not at the proposal itself but because those who proposed this are fully acquainted with the role and responsibility of both these individual committees.
Humberto CARRION M. (Nicaragua): Si fuera mal pensado creería que durante este 90° período de sesiones del Consejo ha habido una convergencia sospechosa de hechos que negativizan a la FAO y a su Director General, pero como no soy mal pensado diré solamente que han sido coincidencias.
Desde el primer día de labores de este Consejo algunos países industrializados plantearon la alternabilidad en el cargo de Director General de la FAO como si la Conferencia no tuviera la facultad de decidir quien debe ocupar esa Dirección General.
Posteriormente, algunas delegaciones también de países industrializados comenzaron a cuestionar la transparencia de la FAO en la rendición de las cuentas al Consejo, desconociendo el trabajo positivo y satisfactorio del Comité de Finanzas y sus miembros. El mismo Comité de Finanzas reconoció y agradeció la transparencia de la Secretaría de la FAO y del Director General por presentar claramente al Comité toda la documentación administrativa y financiera solicitada por los miembros del Comité de Finanzas para realizar sus trabajos de acuerdo con su mandato.
No necesito insistir aquí en recordar que los miembros del Comité de Finanzas así como los miembros del Comité del Programa son elegidos por el Consejo y que gozan de toda nuestra confianza.
Inmediatamente después de esa critica sobre la transparencia de la FAO en los asuntos financieros y después de que se mencionó la alternabilidad en el cargo de Director General circuló una Nota Verbal que contenía la solicitud de apoyo de otro candidato para el cargo de Director General en las elecciones que se llevarán a cabo en la Conferencia de noviembre de 1987.
Que se entienda bien, señor Presidente, que esto no lo decimos en sentido peyorativo.
Por ultimo, tenemos como un tema de nuestra agenda de trabajo una propuesta de revision del metodo de elección de los miembros del Comité de Finanzas y del Programa, porque durante el 89° periodo de sesiones del Consejo una región desarrollada, compuesta de sólo dos países, no fue elegida para integrar el Comité de Finanzas a pesar de haber presentado un candidato.
Esperamos que las coincidencias que menciono no sean utilizadas ahora para cuestionar el Comité del Programa y a todo el mecanismo de decisión establecido en los textos fundamentales de la Organización.
El Comité del Programa cumple con su mandato de acuerdo a los textos fundamentales y a los asuntos que le somete la Conferencia.
En la situación financiera actual de la FAO, tal como fue debatida en días pasados, el Comité del Programa debe mantener los objectivos prioritarios de trabajo establecidos por la Conferencia de noviembre de 1985, es decir sin modificación, como lo han sugerido muchas delegaciones.
Para finalizar, apoyamos el contenido de los dos informes del Comité del Programa que se han sometido para aprobación.
Philippe PIOTET (France): La délégation française a étudié avec beaucoup d'attention les rapports du Comité du Programme. Elle a écouté également les explications données par le Président du Comité du programme ainsi que celles données par les Membres du Comité du programme qui sont dans cette salle. Nous avons écouté les interventions faisant état du besoin d'une réflexion à long terme sur l'avenir de l'ÛAA. Nous nous demandons si la réunion du Conseil au sujet du Comité du programme est vraiment le lieu où poser cette question, si l'on considère en tout cas le mandat du Comité du programme·
En effet, cela nous pose toute une série de problèmes: cette réflexion est-elle opportune maintenant? Avons-nous les éléments pour préciser les directions dans lesquelles une telle réflexion pourrait être entreprise?
Quelle est l'instance la plus appropriée pour entreprendre une telle réflexion au sein de l'OAA? Avec ce Comité? Avec d'autres organisations? Tout ceci, me semble-t-il, nécessite que l'on se penche de plus près sur les problèmes que cela peut poser. J'en reviens, je crois, et c'est la sagesse, aux travaux du Comité du programme, puisque c'est ce point que nous examinons actuellement. Ce comité a un mandat, comme d'autres comités, dans les domaines de l'agriculture, des pêches ou des produits, et ce que nous devons faire, me semble-t-il, aujourd'hui, au niveau du Conseil, c'est examiner, si, conformément au mandat fixé dans les textes fondamentaux de l'Organisation, ce Comité a rempli sa tâche de manière satisfaisante. Pour ma part, la réponse est positive et nous appuyons les rapports qui sont présentés par le Comité du programme ainsi que les recommandations qu'il nous suggère.
La question a été posée de savoir s'il fallait regrouper ou non un certain nombre de comités, notamment le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier. Je pense, là aussi, que dans la période d'incertitude que nous connaissons actuellement, et les débats de la semaine dernière l'ont montré de manière très nette, je ne pense pas que nous ayons les éléments pour nous prononcer aujourd'hui sur une question de cette nature qui, de toutes façons, nécessiterait des révisions assez fondamentales des textes de base qui régissent nos travaux.
Je pense donc que si certaines délégations persistent dans l'idée de poursuivre une telle réflexion, il serait nécessaire, pour que sur ce point nos travaux soient fructueux, de disposer d'un certain temps de réflexion, de propositions présentées par les organes qualifiés de l'Organisation. Sur tout cela, je dois bien reconnaître que nous n'avons pas aujourd'hui les éléments. Ce n'est, me semble-t-il, que dans une phase ultérieure, lors d'une réunion ultérieure du Conseil et surtout lors de la Conférence que des problèmes de cette nature peuvent être abordés. Je suis quelque peu étonné de les voir évoquer à propos de la réunion du Comité du programme. On aurait pu, aussi, les évoquer sur d'autres points de notre ordre du jour. Je pense qu'il est plus ou moins opportun aujourd'hui de se référer au mandat du Comité du programme et de comparer les travaux et les propositions qui nous sont présentés à ce mandat. Pour ma part, nous estimons que ce comité est engagé dans la bonne direction.
Temel ISKIT (Turkey): I would like to thank Mr. Mazoyer for his presentation and to say that we were not considering taking the floor during the discussion of this item, because my delegation was in agreement with both reports of the Programme Committee and we did not deem it necessary to take up all the subjects and review them one by one. However, as this very important subject was raised and the discussion continued on the subject, (I refer to the subject raised by the Danish Delegation, and supported by other delegations) that is why we deem it necessary to repeat what we have said under item 12. 1 of the Agenda. About three days ago, when we were discussing financial questions such
issues were raised in a different manner and on this question we had to make some remarks I will not repeat them in full but I just want to say that my delegation is ready to contribute to the process of increasing the efficiency of the Organization. At the same time, we think that this an ongoing process, with the full cooperation of the Member Countries and the Secretariat. This ongoing process can be more fruitfully served by debating these matters on the appropriate occasions and in the appropriate fora and by observing the procedures established by our Organization.
We just wanted to make this statement which is only repetition of what we have already said.
Javed MUSHARRAF (Pakistan): I would just like to say that we were not thinking of taking the floor but for a different reason to Turkey, mainly because I am a member of the Programme Committee, I hope one of the much questioned, and not questionable, members of the Programme Committee. I think that our task is merely to stand by the report which we have prepared and there is the need to listen. I am not only a member but a new member and as the chairman has said in the introduction, it takes a number of years to get to know the work and to appreciate it. I am just an apprentice, rather an "enfant" and 1 hope not an "enfant terrible" as Canada has described itself.
The Ambassador of Denmark has made a very thoughful, very provocative and very original statement, as always. We thought that we should also express some thoughts on the matter as an immediate reaction, although not a very considerate and detailed reaction. 1 would like to thank our Chairman, Mr. Mazoyer for his very authentic and special description of the work of the Programme Committee which he gave with such passion the same quality he displays in our meetings of the Programme Committee. 1 would also join with our Chairman in expressing the sentiments of the FAO staff, especially the Programme and Budget wing who have always provided our Committee with all the information. The divisions concerned, when examining their programmes, will come up with detailed presentations and detailed papers. Even colour transparencies are produced in our meetings, in fact, we have not just transparency but transparencies (plural) in fact, a plethora of transparency.
As far as we in the Programme Committee are concerned, we try our best, within our limitations, and with our respective blasses, to do our job.
I come now to the main points of the issues raised by the delegate of Denmark. Firstly, 1 would like to seek clarification that the priorities he mentioned are not the same priorities mentioned by the delegate of the United States of America. It is true that in paragraph 9, priority is given to training ECDC, transfer of technology, etc. However, 1 suspect that what the delegate of Denmark was referring to were not these priorities, but programmes. Whilst training, ECDC, etc. are components of every programme, he was talking of programme priorities, namely fisheries versus forestry, versus nutrition, versus things similar to that. That should be made clear. In saying that, paragraph 9 is also laying down priorities, and I do not think that would satisfy the Representative of Denmark.
Coming to programme priorities which the Representatives of Denmark referred to, one could say that this is already being done by the Programme Committee. It is being done on an ongoing basis at the proper time, but once the programme is set by the Conference, the Programme Committee cannot change its priorities. However, at the proper time, the Programme Committee goes into priorities, and even at improper times, which has happened on the last two occasions which I have attended. At that time priorities were generally discussed or raised. I remember, for example, one member, who is on this floor right now, mentioned the priority of meat and dairy products. Another member of the Programme Committee expressed the fact we would like to de-emphasize this sector. Therefore, the emphasis or de-emphasis on particular sectors or particular programmes defined by the Representative of Denmark is being considered at the proper time, and even at improper times.
Also what to cut down and not just what to increase is sometimes discussed, as pointed out by the delegate of India. There was a long discussion on what to cut down, not to cut down on glossy publications, etc. In the process of the Programme Committee, priorities are discussed and things which are to be cut down are also discussed. Of course, this kind of process has to be strengthened, extended and encouraged to become an ongoing process.
The point raised by the delegate of Austria would be that the Basic Texts certainly do not exclude the Programme Committee, or any other governing body, from examining programme priorities, but of course, at the proper time. The question is, is this now the proper time for doing it? If I am correct, this Council, at this Session, is merely reviewing the work of the Programme Committee, which in itself is only reviewing the programme which has already been approved by the Conference. It certainly seems that neither the Programme Committee, in the last two sessions, nor this Session of the Council, should be examining the programme priorities which are already set by the Conference.
Whilst I agree that governing bodies, including the Programme Committee and the Council, should be examining priorities in the long run, especially at critical times like this, I would agree with the delegate of Congo when he said that perhaps the timing is all right, and with the delegate of India when he said that it should not be done in mid-course. Therefore, perhaps this meeting today should not be doing it.
I now refer to the two programmes which were specifically mentioned by the delegate of Denmark, namely when he spoke of nutrition and human resources. This is not the correct time, but this is a quick response, even though it is the improper time to that. Should the FAO be the lead agency for nutrition? I think the following may be some of the relevant aspects. First of all, let us look at the history. If one can recall, the first Director-General of the FAO was a nutritionist. When the FAO was set up, nutrition was meant to be a very central part of the function and its role. Perhaps it might have deviated from that la id-down path in the course of years. The question is, should it deviate further or should it be restored to the original intention, following the historical path as we see? Food and nutrition is a concept so is health and nutrition. Just as food is linked with nutrition, health is also linked to nutrition. Therefore, both the World Health Organization and FAO seem to have a role to play in nutrition.
As far as the FAO is concerned, the whole reference point of food and agriculture should be nutrition. If one removes that reference point, one can have a situation where you have agriculture without food, and food without nutrition. Removing the central reference point in its original mandate of nutrition would have the dangerous consequence of creating more food without nutrition. Perhaps there is a need to strengthen the nutritional side-the linkage of the Nutrition division with the other divisions of FAO incorporating nutrition as much as possible into all projects of food and agriculture, etc? Should the World Health Organization Be doing this?
My personal observation is that the World Health Organization consists mainly of doctors. Doctors are known to have a bias in under-emphasizing nutrition everywhere. One sees it in hospitals, in doctors prescriptions and in doctors' attitudes. Are doctors the correct people, or are agriculturist s the correct people to be entrusted with the very important task of nutrition? It is a question which we have to carefully examine.
Another question which must be asked is what competence has the FAO built up and what competence has the World Health Organization built up in this field of nutrition compared to all the other bodies? I do not think a judgement is possible at this stage without all the facts being known to us. Another fact is that the World Health Organization devotes only 2 percent of its budget to nutrition. One can perhaps question whether or not it's really concerned much about nutrition at the present compared to the FAO? I would agree with the delegate of France when he said we do not have the facts, and that this is not the proper time to go into it. However, the Programme Committee, the Council and the Conference, in principle, should be doing this.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I ask for thirty seconds because I do not want it thought, after so many speakers and so many lectures this evening, that the absence of a word from the Host Country should be misinterpreted as being indifference or showing lack of interest. Let me only felicitate and congratulate the hard work done by this Committee, especially, the presentation and the leadership by the Chairman, Mr. Mazoyer, and to say that we do not feel strangers to this Committee. By reading these excellent documents we feel a part of this Committee. We fully justify the existence of the Committee and appreciate the discussions and the depth of the discussions which under his leadership took place. We wish to congratulate all members of the Committee for their work.
Carlos DINATOR (Observador de Chile): Gracias por referirse al tema de los informes de los periodos de sesiones 50 y 51 del Comité de Programas.
Sr. Presidente, en el párrafo 105 del documento CL 90/3 se mencionan las actividades del programa que se traducen en la contribución en cooperación con los Estados Miembros para identificar, formular, ejecutar programas orientados a mitigar la pobreza rural. Dentro de este contexto, Sr. Presidente, mi delegación se complace en poner énfasis en la ejecución de programas que tiendan a hacer efectiva la idea del Sr. Presidente de Colombia, Excelentísimo Sr. Virgilio Barco, en contra de la pobreza absoluta.
En Chile hemos enfrentado desde hace algunos años el problema con la denominación genérica de erradicación de los sectores de extrema pobreza, que es preocupación prioritaria de mi Gobierno, incluyendo diversos programas nutricionales y de emergencia con el efectivo incremento del gasto social dentro del presupuesto en los términos abrumadores que este Consejo conoce y con la erradicación de las debidas miserias que se encuentran en disminución igual que la emigración desde el campo a la ciudad.
Sr. Presidente, ral delegación alienta el concepto del CPTD y las conclusiones del Plan de Acción de Buenos Aires sobre cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo, mencionado en los párrafos 140 y siguientes del mismo documento CL 90/3 y exhorta a atender tales conclusiones asociándose a lo dicho por los colegas latinoamericanos.
Sr. Presidente, refiriéndome a los párrafos 30 y 31 del documento CL 90/16, permítame felicitar al Comité de Programas por sus conclusiones en lo que se refiere a los servicios de bibliotecas y de información y, por lo tanto, concordamos con lo expresado al respecto por Austria.
Mi delegación apoya lo indicado por la de Dinamarca en lo relativo a la importancia del papel de la FAO en el campo de la nutrición en coordinación estrecha con otros organismos del sistema de Naciones unidas tales como MS, aspecto en el cual mi delegación se permite agregar a la UNICEF por la invalorable labor de esta organización en el apoyo de la infancia sin que para lo anterior sea necesario cambiar los textos básicos de la FAO y considerando la necesidad de no incurrir en mayores gastos.
Con respecto a los textos básicos, me permito recomendar la lectura del preámbulo y del Artículo de la Constitución de la FAO, en los cuales encontramos cinco veces la palabra nutrición.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Chili et tous les orateurs pour leurs interventions. Nous allons passer la parole au Président du Comité du programme pour qu'il apporte sa contribution à ce débat.
Marcel J. MAZOYER (Président du Comité du programme): Mesdames, Messieurs les Membres du Conseil, je vous remercie des contributions que vous avez apportées à ce débat, et je remercie tout particulièrement parmi vous ceux qui sont mes collègues au Comité du programme et qui ont quelques fois volé à mon secours.
Au nom de mes collègues, je remercie le Conseil dans son ensemble de la large approbation qu'il a donnée à nos travaux, et je leur transmettrai les félicitations particulières que vous m'avez adressées personnellement.
Je vais répondre à très peu de questions qui nous ont été posées. En particulier celles concernant notre mode de fonctionnement. Je ne veux ni intervenir dans votre débat, ni me substituer à vous pour ce qui est de vos opinions sur les programmes et la manière dont nous travaillons. Mais, vous nous dites par exemple: "vous approuvez 70 programmes, ou vous donnez la priorité à 70 programmes" ce qui n'est pas tout à fait la même chose…En effet, si on nous présente 70 programmes qui ont été justifiés il y a un an par le Comité, le Conseil et la Conférence, il me semblerait tout à fait étonnant qu'un an après, dans les conditions que le monde connaît aujourd hui, ces programmes soient tout d'un coup non justifiés. Cela n'a pas de sens.
Vous nous dites: "Vous n'établissez pas de priorité, puisque vous ne dites pas ce qu'il faut sacrifier". C'est exactement ainsi que la question a été posée. Dire ce qu'il faut sacrifier n'a rien à voir avec établir des priorités. S'il y a des programmes, il peut arriver qu'ils deviennent obsolètes ou inutiles et je pense que nous devrions nous en apercevoir et que nous le dirions.
Ce que nous faisons, par contre-et beaucoup plus souvent-c'est, à l'intérieur de la discussion de la situation dans la phase des années paires, d'examiner au fond les questions qui se posent dans le monde, d'examiner ce que la FAO a mis en place avec votre accord. Je vous confirme-même si tous les Membres du Conseil ne le pensent pas-que tous les membres du Comité du programme pensent que nos moyens sont très en dessous de ce qui serait nécessaire. C'est très triste à constater, mais une crise budgétaire se dessine; la crise agricole et alimentaire ne se dessine pas: elle est là depuis 15 ans, et s'aggrave tous les jours; et elle est à nos yeux beaucoup plus importante que la crise budgétaire, même si l'Organisation doit un jour en souffrir.
Soyons clairs: établir des programmes qu'il faudrait supprimer ne se présente pas souvent. Par contre, souvent, au cours de discussions, nous découvrons qu'on pourrait insister davantage sur telle chose et moins sur telle autre, infléchir en quelque sorte le système de programmes que vous avez approuvé. Et cela, nous le disons, et si vous lisez bien le document il décroche assez de ce qui a été dit l'année dernière ou il y a deux ans. Lisez bien le document; il y a sur la recherche, le développement, l'information, les publications, les technologies appropriées, des chapitres qui ne collent pas tellement au passé tel qu'on le lisait dans les rapports à une certaine époque. Nous faisons notre travail qui consiste à éclairer l'avenir des programmes.
Vous nous dites aussi que nous n'avons pas étudié une véritable rénovation de l'Organisation et un nouveau plan d'action mondial pour les questions de la sécurité alimentaire, etc. C'est vrai, mais on ne nous l'a pas demandé et ce n'était pas à l'ordre du jour. Cela ne veut pas d'ailleurs dire que nous serions compétente à tous pointe de vue pour le faire.
Ceci étant dit, je voudrais lever une illusion: si nous n'exposons pas nos analyses de la situation mondiale, si nous n'exposons pas notre analyse des mécanismes qui produisent la crise agricole et alimentaire mondiale, si nous n'exposons pas les raisons pour lesquelles nous pensons que les trois quarts de la paysannerie du tiers monde sont en difficulté, ou en voie de disparition, cela ne veut pas dire que nous ne pensons rien à ce sujet. Cela veut dire que nous pensons que vous êtes peut-être à même de le faire vous-mêmes, que cela a peut-être déjà été dit et redit, et qu'il n'est peut-être pas opportun de rappeler de telles analyses et de telles théories.
Par contre, quand nous disons que nous savons quand même que l'objectif fondamental de l'Organisation est d'établir dans un délai historique, aussi rapproché que possible, une vraie sécurité alimentaire dans ce monde, nous savons qu'il faut le faire sans sacrifier les ressources naturelles de cette planète et donc sous cette contrainte. Nous savons que si il y a une crise agricole et alimentaire, elle est due à la crise d'une grande partie de l'économie paysanne du tiers monde, par conséquent que cela doit être la cible principale. Et c'est à la lumière de cela que nous examinons chaque programme, chaque orientation, chaque question.
Mais nous n'allons pas écrire à toutes les pages: c'est cela et on en tient compte…Si vous nous lisez bien, vous verrez que tous les programmes du Comité vont dans ce sens; nous en avons discuté, même si nous n'en avons pas fait état dans le rapport.
Je voudrais ajouter autre chose. S'il fallait véritablement étudier la situation agricole et alimentaire mondiale, les causes profondes de sa crise, s'il fallait véritablement évaluer les moyens à mettre en oeuvre pour la résoudre, s'il fallait évaluer de quoi aurait besoin la FAO, non pas pour résoudre à elle seule tout cela, mais pour y participer honorablement, je pense que l'on aurait des surprises budgétaires énormes.
On nous a également dit que nous n'examinions pas les programmes dans le cadre du budget; c'est absolument faux. Quand nous examinons le sommaire du programme de travail du budget, et cela a été fait il y a un an, nous le faisons avec le même document que le Comité des finances; et nous savons dans quel cadre budgétaire cela se passe. Cette année, nous n'avons pas travaillé dans un cadre budgétaire étroit; nous avons travaillé dans l'hypothèse où, grosso modo, les ressources de l'Organisation restaient du même ordre de grandeur, ce qui ne suppose aucun doublement des programmes, ni même aucun accroissement de 50 ou 30 pour cent des programmes, et ce qui ne suppose pas non plus une réduction de moitié. Peut-être sera-ce 10 pour cent…15 pour cent si vous en jugez…Nous n'avons pas à anticiper sur des réductions budgétaires qui ne nous ont pas été officiellement annoncées, ou qui ne répondaient peut-être qu'à quelques désire de tel ou tel membre de l'Organisation; nous n'avons pas à anticiper là-dessus. Si vous nous dites que l'année prochaine le programme de travail et budget passera à 50 pour cent de l'ancien programme, bien entendu nous travaillerons dans le cadre de 50 pour cent. Ce n'est pas nous qui fixons le budget à venir, ni les réductions de celui-ci.
Il n'a jamais été prévu que nous travaillions dans l'ignorance des budgets. Bien au contraire, nous en sommes très conscients. Il y a des tas de choses que nous aimerions proposer, mais que nous ne pouvons pas faire. Peut-être est-ce la limite de nos réflexions.
Tels sont les commentaires que je désirais faire pour essayer de mieux faire comprendre le cadre dans lequel nous travaillons, ce que nous faisons, ce que nous pouvons faire, de même que ce que nous ne pouvons pas faire. Peut-être faisons-nous plus que ce qui est écrit dans notre rapport. Cela aussi il fallait le dire.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I think for this side of the podium it is only necessary to deal at this late hour with two specific areas which have emerged in the course of the debate. I would like to speak first of the proposal put forward on behalf of the Nordic countries by the representative of Denmark and supported by a number of other representatives in the course of the discussion.
The time may be coming when the membership of FAO at large will want a complete review made of the Organization's priorities, roles, procedures and programmes. Such a review can be made in two ways. It can be made in a way that is divisive and leads to acrimony, or it can be carried out in a way that is harmonious and leads to consensus. I am sure that the Nordic countries and others who spoke in favour of the proposal would wish the objective to be a series of harmonious and consensus decisions at the end of the line.
Now I would like to make two observations. First of all, what the delegations who spoke on this matter have in mind is clearly a quite radical review of FAO and how it works, not a simple shuffling of priorities. I can just refer to the three examples that come to mind that were given as the sort of things that such a review might deal with. One was the idea of setting up a joint division on nutrition with WHO; another was a joint division on human resources with ILO and the
third was the possible merger of the Programme and Finance Committees. Now I believe it is entirely unrealistic to expect the Director-General simply to come forward in a paper with radical proposals of this nature. Such decisions, if they were to be taken, must surely emerge gradually as the desires of Member Nations crystalize, as they have time to think about these issues and as they come to translate their views into specific proposals. If this is to be handled in a harmonious way I would make the following suggestions. 1987 is the year of the new Programme of Work and Budget. Linked to the Programme of Work and Budget itself we shall be considering the Organization's Medium-Term Objectives. Under a Conference decision, the Medium-Term Objectives are proposed by the Director-General in the document containing the Programme of Work and Budget. It is not only that these objectives will be considered in the Programme of Work and Budget through the Programme and Finance Committees and Council, the question of Medium-Term objectives will also be on the Agenda of perhaps the Organization's most important single technical committee, namely the Committee on Agriculture.
Surely the discussions in the Committee on Agriculture, the Programme Committee, the Finance Committee and the Council will enable Member Nations to express their views and proposals on this extremely important matter. All these views and suggestions, on the one hand the Director-General's views relating to medium term objectives, on the other hand the views and suggestions put forward by Member Nations, will converge in the Conference. Surely then the Conference can decide whether it wishes to launch such a full-scale review. It can set the broad terms of reference and content of such a review and it can establish the procedures for carrying it out. As was recalled by several speakers, this is by no means the first time this has been done in FAO and invariably so far the mechanism has been a Committee established by the Conference. There is no inevitable reason why things should be the same again this time just because they were that way in the past. However, as a general thought 1 would suggest that such a procedure would permit the proposals and views which have been expressed to be handled in exactly the harmonious manner, hopefully leading to a consensus at the end of the line, which I have advocated as the most desirable end.
The second point I would like to mention relates to the section in the Report of the Programme Committee dealing with operational activities. It was paragraphs 151 to 160. These paragraphs, I may recall, went forward to the United Nations Economic and Social Council and were considered in an overall debate on the operational activities of the UN system.
Insofar as these paragraphs have come in for criticism in the course of the debate, I see it as being criticism for the sin of not being bland, of not pretending that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
This section does not hide the fact that there have been and are tensions in the partnership between UNDP and FAO, and incidentally with other agencies also. This fact was brought home to delegates attending the Economic and Social Council, in many cases, I believe, the same delegations who attend the UNDP Governing Council, and it did at least bring home to them the fact that there is another side of the story, that there is an FAO view on the tensions to which I referred.
I believe that this whole exercise may well prove to have been useful in bringing these matters into the open and in leading towards their reduction and ultimately, we hope, in their elimination.
I do not wish to pursue the controversy on this matter, but just in case anybody has the feeling that the story is as simple as was described by the representative of UNDP earlier-and I am sorry he is not here to hear me-I would just recall that there is a gendarme in the UN system, and this gendarme is the Joint Inspection Unit. About three years ago, the Joint Inspection Unit put forward a report that was critical of the UNDP's office for project execution. As far as I know, no action has been taken on the Report of the Joint Inspection Unit. I mention this merely to bring home to the Council that matters are not quite as simple as they might have thought.
I would like to recall that in 1987 there will be a new report on operational activities going forward to the Economic and Social Council. We discussed this under another Agenda item and the Council has already noted the arrangements that will be made for FAO to comment on a short list of specific operational questions put to all the agencies of the system by the Economic and Social Council. So there will be this further report on operational activities in 1987 and the content of the FAO response will be going via the Programme Committee to the Council.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Directeur général adjoint de sa réponse aux deux points importants soulevés par notre Conseil. Notre Conseil a bien travaillé; il a examiné le rapport présenté par le Président du Comité du programme relatif â sa 51ème session.
Je pense pouvoir traduire le sentiment général du Conseil en disant que ce document a recueilli l'agrément de la grande majorité du Conseil et, sauf objection des membres du Conseil, nous pourrons le considérer comme approuvé.
J'ai noté personnellement le choix des activités cibles par le Comité du programme: â savoir la promotion des petits producteurs, la formation et le transfert de technologies, la promotion de la coopération économique et technique dans les pays en voie de développement (point 9) ont été notés avec satisfaction, bien que cela ne soit pas bien entendu la seule possibilité de cibles pour la FAO.
La question relative à la cohérence et l'harmonie des actions de développement entre la FAO et le PNUD a attiré l'attention d'un certain nombre de membres du Conseil. Tout le monde a souligné l'intérêt à renforcer la cohérence et l'harmonie dans ces actions, en tous cas à renforcer la complémentarité entre les actions de développement des deux organisations, étant précisé que le Directeur général adjoint nous a fait part du rapport qui va être présenté dans des réunions ultérieures du Comité du Programme aux fins de suivre cette opération de près.
Pour ce qui est de l'autre question importante, celle du rôle du Comité du programme et du Comité financier de la FAO, et en ce qui concerne le Comité du programme, il y a lieu de souligner que ce Comité se devait de travailler sur la base du Règlement intérieur de la FAO et des programmes approuvés par la Conférence générale de 1985. Nous sommes donc amenés à examiner un rapport établi conformément à ces textes fondamentaux.
Quant à l'idée d'une étude sur le rôle à long terme de la FAO et de ses organes directeurs, j'ai noté personnellement qu'un grand nombre d'orateurs ont dit qu'ils n'avaient pas d'élément pour aborder une telle étude et qu'ils n'étaient pas prêts pour une telle étude. Je pense que le processus proposé par le Directeur général adjoint pour le choix des priorités serait susceptible de constituer une façon fine, souple et intelligente de répondre à la question du choix des priorités avec efficacité et cohérence et de façon à satisfaire les Etats Membres.
Nous pourrions nour arrêter en ce qui concerne ce point de l'ordre du jour.
V. J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): This document is submitted to the Council for information, in accordance with the practice which began a long time ago in 1968. The Council since then requested the Director-General to submit such a document once a year indicating the changes which have occurred in the meetings scheduled. It was approved as part of the Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium. We have tried, over the years, to make this document as clear and as self-explanatory as possible. You will see that during 1986 to date, 34 unscheduled sessions were approved for reasons which are explained for each meeting. Thirty sessions have been cancelled, again with reasons explaining why they were cancelled. In view of the lateness of the hour, perhaps you would prefer me not to make any further comments. However, of course, I am at your disposal if any Member would wish to raise any questions.
LE PRESIDENT: Le Conseil a-t-il des observations à formuler? Nous avons donc pris note des explications de M. Shah et nous le remercions.
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Le point 14 concerne le calendrier révisé des sessions principales pour l'exercice 1986-87. Vous êtes saisie du document CL 90/18-Rev. l, qui expose ces modifications.
Prenant la page 2 de ce document, je voudrais indiquer exactement où il y a des changements et tout d'abord les changements dans les réunions qui ont déjà eu lieu. Nous trouvons, au mois de septembre,
le Comité technique de la Conférence régionale pour l'Afrique qui a fini ses travaux le 6 septembre au lieu du 5. Le Comité du programme s'est réuni du 22 septembre au 1er octobre alors qu'il était prévu à l'origine qu'il se réunisse du 15 au 26 septembre. Ces dates ont été modifiées parce qu'elles coïncidaient avec une réunion du FIDA d laquelle certains membres du Comité du programme devaient participer. Troisièmement, enfin, le Comité financier a achevé ses travaux le 2 octobre alors qu'il était prévu qu'il siège jusqu'au 3.
Voyons maintenant les réunions à venir pour lesquelles il y aura des changements. Au mois de décembre 1986, nous avons, le 15 et le 16, la session extraordinaire du Comité financier dont le Conseil a déjà amplement entendu parler. Il n'y a qu'un changement pour l'année 1987: le Comité des produits va se réunir du 7 au 13 octobre alors qu'il était prévu, à l'origine, qu'il se réunisse du 15 au 21 juillet. La raison en est que la septième CNUCED doit maintenant se tenir au mois de juillet, du 6 au 31, ce qui recouvrait en partie les dates de réunion du Comité des produits. Nous avons donc dû changer le calendrier initialement proposé.
II appartient au Conseil d'approuver ou non ce calendrier révisé.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Secrétaire général au sujet de ce calendrier révisé (CL 90/18-Rev. l). Y a-t-il des observations?
Javed MUSHARRAF (Pakistan): Just a question on a technical matter which perhaps may be in bad taste when we are in open Council. However, I think under the Basic Texts of the Organization, dates are fixed by the Secretariat in consultation with the respective Chairmen. If that is correct, at least in one meeting I notice here the Chairmen were not consulted either in fixing the date for it nor the change in it. If that is the case, perhaps the Secretariat can clarify whether or not the procedure has been followed? I am referring to the Committee on Commodity Problems of which I happen to be the Chairman.
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Je crois que les personnes qualifiées pour répondre à cette question seraient nos collègues de la Division des produits et du département économique et social qui ont la responsabilité première d'organiser les sessions du Comité. Le Service des conférences n'a pour sa part, qu'à exécuter, à prendre les dispositions matérielles voulues et à les communiquer aux Etats Membres. Je ne suis pas en mesure de vous dire si il y a eu ou non consultations entre le Président du Comité et la Division technique chargée d'organiser la réunion, en l'occurrence la Division des produits.
Javed MUSHARRAF (Pakistan): On the point of consultation, they were not consulted because I was one of the parties involved. However, I would not like to put a spanner in the works and say I do not agree with the date. The point is, consultation should have taken place.
LE PRESIDENT: Le Secrétariat à l'avenir tiendra compte de ces remarques. Je pense qu'on peut accepter cette modification.
R. MORENO ROJAS (Dirección de Recursos Humanos, Instituciones y Reforma Agraria): En aras del tiempo reduciré aun más la declaración que la Secretaría desea hacer sobre este tema. Creo que es materia bastante conocida por los miembros y observadores de este Consejo.
Quisiera agregar algo al documento que ha sido circulado, dos tipos de informaciones. La primera destaca que el Día Mundial de la Alimentación de 1986, cuyo tema fue"los pescadores o sus comunidades, " tuvo una gran acogida en los distintos países del mundo dado lo innovativo del tema mismo y el atractivo que tenia para los países en la forma en que ésto podría ser organizado.
Para solemnizar la ceremonia que se realizó aquí en la sede central de la FAO en Roma, el Director General invitó a la señora Presidente de lslandia, señora Vigdis Finnbogadottir, al señor Ministro de Agricultura de Italia, señor Filippo Maria Pandolfi y al Secretarlo General de la Liga de Estados Arabes, señor Chedli Klibi. Ellos, junto con el Director General, se dirigieron a la Asamblea que se convocó en forma plenaria en ese día y señalaron junto con distintos mensajes que fueron recibidos, la prioridad y la importancia de este tema. He de destacar, también, que en dicha ocasión fue leído un mensaje especial enviado por Su Santidad el Papa Juan Pablo II.
El segundo punto que yo quisiera señalar, es en relación con el tema escogido por el Director General para conmemorar el Día Mundial de la Alimentación del año 1987. Es en esta ocasión, señor Presidente, que tenemos la posibilidad de anunciar oficialmente el tema escogido con el objeto de facilitar la preparación a nivel nacional de este tipo de eventos.
El tema seleccionado y que esta muy en línea con lo que ha sido el debate recientemente celebrado, es "El pequeño Agricultor"· Este es un tema que prácticamente en su profundidad tiene una significación en todos los países, la mayoría de las delegaciones se han referido insistentemente a la necesidad no sólo de vincular las acciones nacionales, sino que los distintos programas internacionales a él, y obviamente la flexibilidad que ha venido siendo adquirida en la observación nacional con la vinculación de los Comités nacionales, los organismos no gubernamentales y otras entidades de tipo cultural que existen dentro de los países, estamos ciertos que el tema del pequeño agricultor, o los pequeños agricultores es un tema que realmente podrá ser celebrado en forma adecuada.
Las vinculaciones de este aspecto con la seguridad alimentaria, con la misma discusión que se celebrará en Roma en el año 1987, en la Conferencia General, cuando sea presentado el informe sobre los avances logrados en materia de desarrollo rural y reforma agraria, para los cuales los propios países hoy día están preparando sus temas, tienen una vinculación que obviamente, escapa a lo que en estos momentos yo mismo podría detallar.
Creo, señor Presidente, que puedo detenerme en este momento. La declaración de la Secretaría era más extensa, se la haremos llegar a nuestro colega, el Secretarlo del Consejo, en el caso de que la desee insertar y quiero decirle que en la Secretaria hemos recibido, o estamos recibiendo, los informes de los países respecto de lo que fue la celebración del Año 1986. Por lo tanto, para ganar tiempo, sugiero que, salvo que alguna delegación en forma muy particular lo desee hacer acá, podrían ser entregados igualmente los textos para completar la información si lo desean, al Secretario del Consejo, y ello vendrá insertado dentro del texto de esta reunión.
Hermann REDL (Austria): Owing to the late time and your recommendation I shall try to be very brief. As regards the preparation of information material for World Food Day, it may be remarked that we should try in the future to prepare up-to-date information on the world food situation, agricultural and forestry production and so on, in order to meet the requirements of the mass media. The monthly FAO publications coming out in the autumn, for example, The State of Food Production Year Book could be prepared in the form of an abstract for the media. This could be done, for instance, by means of updated Information sheets. Costs could be kept considerably low. Due to the present world food situation, it seems to be of utmost importance to draw the attention of the public to the world food programmes, and in particular, to the solutions initiated by FAO.
Donat CHINKUMO (Cameroun): J'avais un petit exposé à faire mais je pourrais peut-être le remettre au Secrétariat. Dans cet exposé, je décris l'organisation de la Journée mondiale de l'alimentation au Cameroun, en 1986.
Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): I will do the same, with your permission, 1 will hand in a statement.
LE PRESIDENT: Je pense que tout le monde est conscient de notre contrainte de temps. De toute façon, les interventions du Cameroun, de la République fédérale d'Allemagne et de l'Egypte seront versées au procès-verbal du Conseil et tout le monde pourra en bénéficier.
Donat CHINKUMO (Cameroun): La délégation camerounaise remercie la FAO pour l'institution de la Journée mondiale de l'alimentation; en effet, depuis 1981, cette Journée donne lieu à tous les pays membres aux ONG dont les activités s'apparentent à celles de la FAO, ainsi qu'à différentes couches sociales ici et lâ, à réfléchir et à méditer sur les problèmes de la faim, de la malnutrition et du sous-développement. Ceci conduit les uns et les autres aux solutions possibles et envisageables.
Ces maux se manifestent, Monsieur le Président, de différentes façons d'un pays à l'autre, et dans un même pays d'une région à l'autre: tantôt c'est le problème d'enclavement, tantôt le manque d'eau aggravé le plus souvent par une sécheresse aiguë, prolongée et répétée. Mais l'aspect ou la forme qui se rencontre partout et qui est général en Afrique au sud du Sahara, c'est le bas niveau des niveaux des connaissances des techniques agricoles modernes et le manque des moyens financiers pour s'approvisionner en inputs agricoles et j'entends non seulement les engrais, les pesticides et les semences à haut rendement ou semences améliorées mais aussi les machines agricoles; je suis convaincu que le retard enregistré par cette région du globe en matière de production agricole ne pourra être sensiblement réduit que grâce à la mécanisation. . .
J'ai l'air de divaguer, Monsieur le Président, d'être hors sujet, puisqu'il est plutôt question de la Journée mondiale de l'alimentation. Oui, peut-être, peut-être que par réflexe je me suis tout d'un coup retrouvé le 16 octobre 1985 ou 1986. En effet, durant cette Journée, l'ensemble des Camerounais, soutenus par les médias, presse, radio et depuis cette année télévision, se livrent à une telle réflexion: à savoir
-pourquoi le pays est-il à la traîne des compétitions internationales de production. . .
-comment notre région pourra-t-elle faire pour sortir de cette situation. . .
Certes, certains pays de la région ont atteint en quelque sorte l'autosuffisance alimentaire; mais cela est jugé très précaire et des efforts devraient être soutenus pour la maintenir.
Je vais maintenant parler de l'organisation de la Journée mondiale proprement dite. La Journée de l'année 1985 avait pour thème: La forêt, la pauvreté rurale, l'environnement. Je me permets d'ouvrir ici une parenthèse pour informer le Conseil qu'il existe au Cameroun la Cellule de coordination des manifestations marquant la célébration des JMA.
En examinant donc le thème que je viens de mentionner, la Cellule avait estimé qu'il pouvait être divisé en trois thèmes différents, mais compte tenu de la diversité climatique au Cameroun, ce thème a été adopté tel quel et elle avait retenu que chaque région devrait le traiter en insistant davantage sur les problèmes propres de la localité.
Donc, outre le Séminaire régional JMA 1985 que le Cameroun avait eu l'insigne honneur d'abriter dans la province du Sud-Ouest, séminaire qui s'est déroulé sous la présidence effective du Ministre de l'agriculture du pays hôte, la Cellule avait organisé au niveau de chacune de nos dix provinces, des conférences, des débats et des tables rondes.
Tout cela avait des échos dans la presse parlée et écrite. Autres manifestations prévues et réalisées:
-la fabrication des flammes publicitaires avec comme slogan: "Halte à la destruction des forêts camerounaises";
-la fabrication des affiches illustrant la pauvreté rurale;
-la conception des spots radiophoniques sur la forêt, la pauvreté rurale et l'environnement.
Il importe de préciser que nous avions également mis à profit tout le matériel relatif à la 5e JMA que la FAO nous avait adressé; il s'agit notamment des brochures, des affiches et des timbres JMA.
Je me dois de préciser qu'il a été bien souligné le fait que la célébration de la 5e JMA coïncidait avec le 40e anniversaire de la FAO, ceci tant au niveau du séminaire régional qu'au niveau des manifestations nationales.
S'agissant de la 6e JMA, le 16 octobre 1986, la Cellule a décidé de procéder de la même façon qu'en 1985, bien entendu sur le thème: Les pêcheurs et leurs communautés.
La Cellule a cependant retenu outre les manifestations routinières, puisque nous célébrons la JMA depuis 1981, la réalisation d'un film vidéo sur:-la pêche industrielle,-la pêche artisanale maritime,-la pêche continentale,-la pisciculture. Donc, un film en quatre épisodes.
Comme par le passé, la JMA 1986 a été précédée au Cameroun d'une semaine de sensibilisation ouverte par une déclaration radiodiffusée et télévisée du Président de la Cellule de coordination des manifestations JMA.
Durant cette semaine qui a débuté le 10 octobre 1986, le film a été diffusé à la télévision; autre innovation: jeux-concours radiodiffusés et télévisés organisés au niveau des élèves du primaire et du premier cycle du secondaire.
Comme les autres années, la semaine a été clôturée par une déclaration radiodiffusée ainsi que par un discours également radiodiffusé et télévisé du Ministre de l'élevage des pêches et des industries animales·
S'il n'y avait pas le problème financier qui semble poindre à l'horizon pour la FAO, j'aurais souhaité que le Secrétariat ou le Service de la documentation nous envoie un peu plus d'affiches et de timbres JMA; le nombre d'affiches et de timbres que nous avons reçu jusqu'ici est toujours très restreint et nous avons du mal à les répartir sur les dix provinces.
S'il était possible d'avoir le thème de la Journée un an à l'avance, les manifestations pourraient être mieux organisées et mieux réfléchies. 1/
Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): In our national activities on the occasion of World Food Days 1985 and 1986 we have also noted, as stated in document CL 90/15, a growing public interest in World Food Day in our country. Our observances of World Food Day met with a great response in the news media and among the public.
Because of our Federal constitution we entrust every year another Federal state with the organization of World Food Day. In 1985 the state of Baden-Württemberg was the organizer, in 1986 the state of Schleswig-Holstein. The public interest in this year's World Food Day-as already noticed in previous years-has been increasing again. Federal Minister Kiechle will soon send our national report on World Food Day activities to the Director-General 2/
Adel Helmy EL SARKI (Egypt): The Egyptian delegation always appreciates the efforts of FAO in respect to drawing the attention of public opinion to the dimensions of food deficit in the world, as well as the necessity of achieving food security, through the selection of 16 October of each year to celebrate World Food Day, which we all consider the front which reflects the efforts, programmes, policies and strategies of FAO towards the development of agricultural production. We also appreciate very much the selection of various subjects in celebrating this Day. We are convinced of the vital role played by fisheries, among other economic sectors, in fulfilling the protein gap and providing food. Egypt celebrated this year with that Day. The celebration was attended by His Excellency the Deputy Prime Minister for Agriculture and all the high ranking officers in the Agricultural Sector. His Excellency made a speech indicating the national efforts towards the development of the fisheries sector in Egypt and the role of FAO in assisting this sector. Some fishermen were selected to receive certificates of achievement. In addition to this, a competition was undertaken among the pupils of preparatory and secondary schools in the Arabic language for the best article on the role of fisheries, in order to increase their knowledge with regard to the important role of fisheries, and its impact on the nutritional level in Egypt. The first ten pupils were granted certificates of achievement and prizes. 2/
The meeting rose at 20. 15.
La séance est levée à 20 h 15.
Se levanta la sesión a las 20. 15 horas.
1/ Texte reçu avec demande d'insertion au procès-verbal.
2/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
