LE PRESIDENT: Nous reprenons la suite de nos travaux. Nous allons écouter une communication de M. le Secrétaire général du Conseil, relative à la présidence des trois commissions de la Conférence.
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Nous revenons donc au point 3 de l'ordre du jour, et plus précisément à la partie du point 3.1 qui restait en suspens. Nous avons maintenant reçu les propositions suivantes: pour la présidence de la Commission I, l'Inde; Commission II, les Etats-Unis d'Amérique; Commission III, la Pologne.
Le Conseil va maintenant être invité par le Président à indiquer s'il décide de proposer ces candidatures à la Conférence.
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libye) (Langue originale arabe): Je voudrais une information: pour les candidatures aux fonctions de présidence, est-ce qu'on indique le nom des pays ou le nom des délégués? Nous avions l'habitude de désigner des délégués et non pas des pays.
Y. BUKHARI (Chairman of the Finance Committee) (original language Arabic): We are talking here about the three commissions. I think we nominate countries and then the countries themselves chose the candidates. I believe that the Secretariat is aware of the nominees. We can have these names. Maybe the distinguished representative of India can give the name of his candidate, and the same applies to the USA and to Poland.
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Suivant l'Article VII du Règlement général de l'Organisation, le Conseil propose des candidats aux postes de président de la Conférence, de président des commissions de la Conférence, ainsi qu'à d'autres positions. Il semble donc que le Conseil doive désigner des personnes. Pour le moment, le Secrétariat a reçu communication d'un accord qui semble s'être fait sur les pays auxquels devra aller la présidence des trois commissions de la Conférence mais n'a pas encore reçu des pays intéressés confirmation du nom des personnes dont la candidature sera effectivement proposée. Il faudrait que nous ayons ces noms pour que le Conseil puisse prendre une décision définitive.
LE PRESIDENT: Il faudrait que nous ayons de la part des trois pays concernés des propositions précises de candidat. Donc nous proposons aux honorables représentants de ces trois pays, l'Inde, la Pologne, les Etats-Unis de nous donner les noms des Candidats qui seront présentés à la Conférence. D'ores et déjà, pouvons-nous admettre que le Conseil est d'accord sur le choix des trois pays?
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Lybia) (Original language Arabic): A point of clarification please. Nominations to the General Conference - do we mention the names of countries, or do we mention the names of delegates? I think we used to nominate delegates and not countries.
Roger LEWIS (United States of America): The United States will nominate Ambassador Fred Eckert for that position.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous avons donc Monsieur Josaf Wiejaez, Ambassadeur de Pologne, et Monsieur Fred Eckert, Ambassadeur des Etats-Unis auprès de la FAO pour la Commission III et la Commission II respectivement. Il nous reste à attendre le nom du candidat pour la délégation indienne. Pouvons-nous d'ores et déjà avoir l'aval du Conseil et sa réaction sur les deux propositions pour gagner du temps? Il n'y a pas d'observations, donc je me sens fondé à considérer que notre Conseil est d'accord pour ces deux noms. En attendant que l'honorable délégué de l'Inde nous fasse connaître le nom de la personne qui sera candidate pour le poste de Président pour la Commission 1, avec votre permission nous allons passer à la suite de nos travaux. Nous passons à la suite des interventions par l'écoute de l'honorable délégué du Mexique.
José RAMON LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (Mexico): Agradecemos al Sr. Crowther y al Sr, Shah la presentación de estos temas. La delegación de Mexico desea felicitar a la Secretaría y en particular al Director
General, al Sr. Shah y a sus colaboradores por la preparación del documento que nos ocupa porque permiten penetrar más a fondo en las formas y mecanismos contables con que la Organización es manejada y por la que proporciona una prueba adicional de transparencia y de eficiencia.
Me voy a referir en primer lugar al tema 11.1 y posteriormente abordaré de manera general el resto.
Nuestra delegación es parte de la gran mayoría de países que hemos condenado la forma en que se ha presionado a los órganos rectores, así como a la Secretaría, para que se vean involucrados en ejercicios técnicos contables, reiterativos, innecesarios; mediante esas presiones se ha buscado demostrar una y otra vez ineficiencias y dudas sobre el manejo y gestión de la Organización con propósitos pocos claros.
No obstante que en las dos últimas sesiones del Consejo se hizo patente la satisfacción de la gran mayoría de países miembros por el análisis presentado por la Secretaría y el Comité de Finanzas, una delegación apoyada por pocas otras ha llegado a preparar el análisis que se presenta en este detallado documento del tema 11.1 que ha pasado de nuevo por el examen del Comité de Finanzas con parabienes para la gran mayoría.
Aquel país ha insistido por carta en la inclusión del tema, está en su derecho; sin embargo debemos subrayar que la mayoría, como se certifica en las actas de consejos anteriores, si bien se interesa por ese aspecto ha considerado correcto y conclusivo ios cálculos y métodos que emplea la Organización y de los cuales los mantiene periódicamente y convenientemente informados.
La mencionada comunicación que se incluye como Anexo II deja ver, como se resume muy bien en el párrafo 9, que la validez de los cálculos depende mucho del grado en que se está familiarizado con los trabajos que lleva a cabo la Organización O entidad que se examine, y del íntimo convencimiento que se tenga de ellos.
Evidentemente, la aplicación indiscriminada de criterios tomados de otros conceptos es improcedente y desvirtúa los resultados. Así, pues, el análisis de costos debe llevarse a cabo teniendo siempre presente la finalidad y el mandato de la Organización.
Coincidimos totalmente con las premisas básicas planteadas por el Director General en el párrafo 12 cuando establece que las cifras del Programa y del Presupuesto constituyen el conjunto de datos financieros más apropiados, más fácilmente disponibles y más ampliamente comprendidos para alcanzar ese objetivo.
En consecuencia aprobamos la metodología empleada en el detallado análisis que hace el documento y que se ilustra en los cuadros respectivos, en el enfoque, en el análisis comparativo y en los ilustrativos ejemplos que permiten emprender los razonamientos y aceptar y aprobar los resultados y conclusiones.
En este contexto apoyamos totalmente las conclusiones contenidas en los párrafos 74 y 75 del capítulo de conclusiones. Expresamos una vez más nuestro aprecio por el trabajo de la Secretaría en aras de lograr la concordia general para la cual ha tenido que adicionar una mayor carga de trabajo para sa tisfacer exigencias de pocos países.
Consideramos que el tratamiento de este tema ha ido mucho más allá de lo justificable, por lo cual esperamos y exigimos que aquí quede finiquitado.
Finalmente, ya que estamos tocando el tema de estudios financieros que interesan a algunos países, nuestra delegación y muchas otras, como ha quedado certificado, constatado en las actas de consejos anteriores, hemos planteado la necesidad de optimizar el uso de los recursos financieros y el aprovechamiento de técnicos y equipos de los propios países en desarrollo. Estamos, por tanto, muy interesados y pedimos al Director General que realice un estudio de rentabilidad de las contribuciones, es decir sobre cuánto les rinden sus contribuciones a los diversos tipos de países en términos de servicios, personal, equipo, etc., que usa la FAO en sus diferentes áreas. Ello nos ayudaría a todos a orientar y alentar nuestras participaciones en esas distintas secciones.
Respecto a los otros puntos del tema 11 haré comentarios breves en vista de que el documento 92/4 nos llegó tarde y mi gobierno no ha podido terminar de sopesarlo.
Nuestro reconocimiento al Director General por sus esfuerzos para presentar una propuesta de Programa de Labores y Presupuesto en busca del consenso. Nos unimos a lo dicho en el párrafo 3.17. Coincidimos con la preocupación expresada en el párrafo 3.8 del documento respecto a los aumentos resultantes de las contribuciones en dólares de aquellos países cuya moneda Se davalúa eri relación al dólar.
En cuanto a la propuesta de pocas delegaciones que pedían se formulase un programa de labores en dos partes, nos oponemos enfáticamente a ello: aceptarlo llevaría a desmantelar actividades que son prioritarias, que son eficaces, la FAO se destruiría quizá más allá de todo reconocimiento.
Además tales planteamientos parten de una premisa pesimista y que a la luz de la información a la mano no se justifica. Si aceptáramos un mecanismo como el que esas delegaciones proponen se formalizaría, se promoverían y por tanto se tolerarían las demoras en los pagos de las cuotas de los Estados Miembros; es decir, iríamo en contra de los propios textos básicos.
Coincidimos, por tanto, con los párrafos 3.13, 3.14 y 3.15 en oponernos a una fórmula que va en contra, repito, de la norma y que acepta el incumplimiento de obligaciones implícitamente.
Las cuotas corrientes reflejan principalmente la decisión unilatéral del mayor contribuyente de retrasar sus contribuciones a todos los organismos de Naciones Unidas, tanto por razones económicas internas como también políticas, como lo han declarado públicamente diversos voceros de ese gobierno.
Por otra parte se hace patente que por razones diversas, no políticas, muchos países, en su gran parte en desarrollo, nos hemos visto obligados a retrasar el pago de nuestras contribuciones en vista de la permanencia, y peor aún, el agravamiento de la crisis financiera y económica por la que atravesamos.
Reiteramos, por tanto, aquí que la prioridad número 1 para resolver los problemas financieros es el exhorto a todos los países porque cubran a la brevedad los pagos pendientes.
Nos preocupa lo dicho en el párrafo 3.47 sobre él agotamiento del fondo de operaciones y coincidimos con el 3.50 en que los problemas actuales del flujo de fondos de la Organización han sido provocados fundamentalmente por atraso de los contribuyentes, particularmente del mayor de ellos.
Reconocemos la facultad del Director General de aplicar sucedáneos financieros tales como la contratación de crédito para enfrentar eventuales emergencias de liquidez. Es alarmante que la devaluación del dólar haya lastimado y agotado la fuente especial de reserva. Debemos evitar que esto ocurra en el próximo sexenio y fijar un tipo de cambio lo más realista posible.
Coincidimos con lo dicho en los párrafos 3.56 y 3.57.
En cuanto a las resoluciones de los párrafos 3.60, 3.71, 3.75, 3.76 y otras cuestiones financieras y de personal nos reservamos hacer nuestras observaciones hasta la próxima Conferencia.
Angus MACDONALD (Australia): My comments will be short and general in nature, but in so delivering I should like to reserve my delegation's right to provide more detailed comments when these items are discussed in the Conference Session.
Referring specifically to agenda item 11.1 On programme delivery costs, I should like to say that my delegation has considered that the information provided by the Secretariat to date on the costs of delivering FAO's programme in the field has been extremely useful and considered that some mechanism for regularly reviewing programme delivery costs -- for example regularly in the Finance Committee -- would be a useful mechanism. We are supportive of the UK proposal to have the Secretariat involved in speaking to the Joint Inspection Unit of the United Nations in preparing any future papers that might be delivered on this topic.
On agenda item 11.4 on the cash surplus, it is Well known that Australia is a prompt and full contri butor to FAO and therefore is not prepared to Support measures at the Conference which will require further contributions to compensate for partial or non-payers. Accordingly, we would not support deferring the payment of cash surpluses, which is only another way of asking paid-up contributors to
subsidize non-payers. Neither do we support delegating to Council the authority to defer cash surpluses if needed. We oppose the concept of borrowing as an alternative to programme cuts. Borrowing against future contributions is not a sensible response to the budgetary problems facing FAO. What is required is a tailoring of the Regular Programme of Work and Budget to a realistic assessment of contributions that will be received.
On item 11.5, the Working Capital Fund, we oppose any increase in the fund unless such an increase is met by further reductions in the regular Programme of Work and Budget and not by further impost on contributors.
On 11.6, the Special Reserve Account, we believe that this item to replenish the Special Reserve Account cannot be considered in isolation of the overall budget proposals. We therefore urge the Secretariat to attempt to find offsets to enable the special Reserve Account to be replenished without imposing any additional burden on existing members.
KUMAR (India): I should like to intervene briefly on some of the issues. Most of the issues being debated have already been comprehensively discussed, in our opinion, earlier in the Council and to that extent what we are seeing and hearing is a replay of what we have seen and heard before.
As regards item 11.3, the proposal on which the resolution regarding measures to deal with problems of delayed payments of assessed contributions is based, already stands endorsed by the Council at its last session. We support the resolution and hope that the linking of the interest elements in the cash surplus with timeliness in payment of assessed contributions will encourage countries to pay on time and not allow arrears to accrue.
As regards item 11.4, again the Council has supported the proposed amendment of the procedure for application of cash surplus to alleviate the negative effects of budgetary and financial uncertainties. The proposal to delegate authority to the Council has our support.
The resolution for an increase in the level of the Working Capital Fund also stems from a Council decision earlier to protect the Organization against the adverse effects of delays in payment of assessed contributions, and this constitutes a proposal in favour of which the Council has expressed itself already.
On 11.6, as regards the proposed replenishment of the Special Reserve Account, we agree that the replenishment could reasonably be through a special assessment or payment of arrears. The proposal made is a compromise proposal and in our view reasonable and worthy of support.
On 11.1, regarding the programme delivery costs, this issue has been discussed and deliberated extensively and frequently. The Finance Committee has again looked at the matter and reiterated its previous views. It has agreed with the secretariat methodology and was satisfied with its analysis.
This is a complex, technical issue which is not easy to decide in a meeting of generalist non-experts. Any analysis of this cost requires agreement on various assumptions, such as the definition, terms, methodology, classification of expenditure of items, classification of activities of certain posts and divisions of FAO, etc. The Finance Committee has looked into the matter in depth, we see no difficulty in accepting their conclusions. However, if there are still any doubts in the minds of any distinguished members, they could perhaps discuss those issues bilaterally at a technical level with FAO's technical experts.
It has been stated that the Programme of Work and Budget does not reflect priorities. Unfortunately, in an integrated and organically Structured programme, such as the Programme of Work and Budget there are and perhaps cannot be any clear cut priorities between what is essential and what is non-essential. A more rational assumption, perhaps is that all programmes are valuable from one point of view or another. If we have to make clear choices between programmes, we get into complex relativities, and if programmes have to be sacrificed for want of money, it will not be flab and fat of our excessive programme which will be eliminated, but the muscle and bone of a lean programme involving both blood and pain.
Nga-ma MAPELA (Zaïre): Monsieur le Président, ma délégation voudrait appuyer fermement votre intervention de ce matin dans laquelle vous nous rappeliez la position que notre Conseil avait adoptée sur certaines des questions que nous sommes en train d'examiner et nous pensons que nous devons tenir pleinement compte de cette position, c'est-à-dire celle que nous avons adoptée à ce sujet.
A titre d'exemple, je prends la page 43 du document CL 92/4 où je lis, en ce qui concerne le projet de résolution de la Conférence concernant la modification des procédures d'allocation des excédents de trésorerie, ce qui suit:
"Le Comité" - c'est-à-dire le Comité financier - "a rappelé que dans le rapport de sa dernière session... il a proposé à l'examen du Conseil une modification des procédures d'allocation des excédents de trésorerie en vue d'amortir l'effet négatif des incertitudes budgétaires et financières actuelles et futures.
Le Comité a noté que le Conseil, à sa quatre-vingt-onzième session, a souscrit à cette proposition. . ."
Je m'arrête là. je tiens à dire que ce que nous avons dit ne date pas d'il y a un an mais d'il y a quelques mois. Cela dit, ma délégation estime que le projet de résolution contenu dans le document CL 92/4 constitue une bonne base pour nos discussions et que nous devons le recommander à la Confé rence pour approbation.
Pour terminer, je voudrais féliciter tous ceux des pays membres qui se sont acquittés de leurs obligations vis-à-vis de l'Organisation en versant les contributions dues, je dois vous dire qu'en ce qui concerne, par exemple, notre pays, si nous pouvions verser notre contribution dans notre monnaie, qui s'appelle aussi le zaïre, nous serions prêts à le faire le premier mois de la période pour laquelle le budget est voté. Mais comme il s'agit de ce que l'on appelle une monnaie "non convertible", nous souffrons, nous devons acheter des dollars et nous le faisons donc au prix de sacrifices .
Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): No pensábamos que este punto se repitiese otra vez, las mismas discusiones; es fácil recoger para nosotros los papelitos de las anteriores discusiones y repetirlo, por lo menos a ver si la repetición nos hace aprendernos algo.
Para nosotros, la documentación presentada es una documentación suficiente para dar respuesta a las inquietudes y a las discusiones de este tema durante ya un año y medio. Para nosotros el CL 92/4 podemos apoyarlo en todas sus partes. De paso, decimos que felicitamos nuevamente a los miembros del Comité del Programa y Comité de Finanzas por el esfuerzo y los resultados obtenidos en la presentación de estos documentos. Nosotros creemos que para ahorrarle tiempo al Consejo, como dijo la distinguida representación de la India, de no seguir viendo otra vez la misma película aunque en estas películas hay tantos actores que, a veces, nos cambian los actores y nos parece que es una película distinta; pero es el mismo tema el que estamos discutiendo con diferentes actores; hay muchos, la Metro Goldwyn Mayer es muy grande, tiene muchos actores.
Nosotros podíamos totalmente apoyar las intervenciones de muchos delegados que esta mañana hicieran aquí planteando su apoyo a la documentación presentada. Específicamente, podíamos hacer nuestra totalmente la intervención de la distinguida representación de Italia que consideramos fue muy clara y precisa.
Y en esto y por la tarde, apoyamos totalmente la declaración de la distinguida representación de México. Podemos apoyar la metodología, apoyamos las conclusiones, apoyamos el nivel de operaciones. No podemos apoyar el pesimismo, el pesimismo que está implícito, por no decir de otro modo, de proponer dos presupuestos. Creemos que esto sería antirreglamentario. Creemos que debe mantenerse el presupuesto como está previsto en nuestros mecanismos. Esto realmente es producto de que también pudimos oír esta mañana algunos colegas que mantienen una posición de adivinos, un poco con premoniciones agoreras de que no va a haber nunca un presupuesto mayor para la FAO. No sabemos de dónde salen esas premoniciones. ¿O será acaso que los adivinos saben que el dólar no va a restablecer su credibilidad más nunca? ¿Será acaso que su descenso es definitivo?
Si ellos lo saben, Sr. Presidente, por favor, en familia podrían decírnoslo y dedicarnos a buscar otras soluciones; porque hay soluciones; el mundo nunca se queda sin soluciones. Repito que nos parece que hay un poco de crisis de fe; una crisis de fe en los que manejan el dólar, y podemos jurar por todos los dioses que nosotros ni tenemos dólar ni hemos manejado el dólar. Por lo tanto, la crisis de fe está en aquellos que manejan el dólar, porque sabemos que lo manejan, tienen cartera muy alta para manejar en todo el territorio del globo.
De otra forma, no se justifica el bloqueo que se está presentando, porque para nosotros, en la forma, en que se está discutiendo familiarmente, por qué no, pero se está discutiendo ya reiteradamente, esto prácticamente es un bloqueo a las soluciones propuestas por la Secretaría de la FAO, con espíritu de optimismo, de vida, de mantener la FAO no su muerte.
En esto, nosotros un poco en familia como estamos, pudiéramos decir que en cierta ocasión le pedí dinero a mi abuelo para ir al cine. Mi abuelo me dijo que estaba lloviendo; que no podía ir al cine. Me asomé a la puerta; no estaba lloviendo. "Abuelo: no está lloviendo, me das dinero para ir al cine". "No, pero no te han preparado ropa, no tienes ropa". Fui a ver a mi abuela y le pregunté y me dijo: "Sí hijo, sí tienes los calcitos ahí preparados", "Abuelo, tengo preparada ropa y no está lloviendo; me puedes dar dinero para ir al cine". "No, no te voy a dar dinero; no puedes ir al cine". 0 sea que no son razones las que tenía mi abuelo para no dejarme ir al cine. Era que no quería darme dinero sencillamente. Y en estos momentos, creemos que está ocurriendo esto de que mi abuelo lo que realmente no quería era darme dinero.
Qué vamos a hacer, y más cuando realmente, honestamente, podemos escuchar que no tienen, que tienen dificultades; las aceptamos aquí; en un marco ya serio, creemos que todos aquí honestamente decimos realmente nuestras dificultades. Sin embargo, queremos recordar también para estimular un poco al futuro, para eliminar un poco el pesimismo, que en algunas delegaciones ya se están dando pequeños pasos, pequeños pasos hasta ahora, pero se están dando pasos por países desarrollados para utilizar los gastos en armamento en atender los problemas de desarrollo en el mundo. Cuando se elimine la deuda externa y el mundo marche para garantizar la vida y no la muerte, todos los valores se van a elevar, con dólar o sin dólar.
Bernard LEDUN (France): Je limiterai volontairement mon intervention car, sur ce point comme sur d'autres qui sont soumis à l'examen du Conseil, les intervenants qui m'ont précédé ont déjà largement contribué à éclairer le débat aussi bien, d'ailleurs, au Conseil du mois de juin qu'à ce présent Conseil et parce que, d'autre part, cette question fera l'objet de longs développements au moment de la Conférence.
Je me bornerai donc à dire que certaines propositions du Secrétariat visant à compenser le défaut de paiement du principal bailleur de fonds de l'Organisation reviennent à faire payer par les bons payeurs, tels que la France, les Pays-Bas ou l'Italie, qui ont d'ailleurs différé le reversement du montant de leurs excédents de trésorerie, les conséquences de l'attitude des pays qui ne s'acquittent pas de leurs obligations. Ceci est, bien entendu, difficilement acceptable et pourrait constituer un encouragement à ce que se généralisent les attitudes négatives de certains Etats.
Nous sommes donc d'avis que l'effort financier supplémentaire tel qu'il est demandé aux Etats Membres en raison de la situation de trésorerie de l'Organisation n'affecte que marginalement les pays qui s'acquittent correctement de leurs obligations.
Sur les points 11.5 et 11.6, "Augmentation du fonds de roulement" et "Reconstitution du Compte de réserve spéciale pour 1988-89", nous réservons donc pour le moment notre position et nous nous proposons de faire connaître plus précisément notre avis à l'occasion du débat qui portera sur la situation financière de la FAO, au moment de la Conférence, et au cours duquel nous ferons état de propositions spécifiques.
Avant de conclure, notre délégation renouvelle sa proposition de diversification de l'unité monétaire utilisée par l'Organisation, soit en employant l'ECU européen, soit en utilisant parallèlement le dollar et la lire italienne. Je note d'ailleurs que l'ONUDI, à Vienne, utilise comme monnaie de référence le dollar et le schilling autrichien.
MARINCEK (Suisse): J'aimerais seulement souligner que, du point de vue de mon pays, la question des réformes n'est pas et ne doit pas être liée à la situation financière actuelle de l'Organisation Ce sont là deux questions différentes. Il est évident que, pour pouvoir travailler solidement, la FAO a besoin d'une base financière saine et prévisible et la faute de la situation difficile des contributions n'incombe pas à l'Organisation.
Nos propositions de réforme visent l'orientation à long terme des activités de la FAO. Il s'agit donc d'un exercice de longue haleine. Nous voulons faire de notre Organisation un meilleur outil dans la lutte contre la faim. Pour nous il ne s'agit pas d'aider moins mais d'aider mieux. C'est aussi pour cette raison que la hauteur du budget proposé ne nous pose pas de problème.
A notre avis, la situation financière doit donc être assainie par le paiement des contributions dues par tous les pays concernés. Il est clair, cependant, que l'Organisation doit adapter au mieux ses dépenses aux recettes. En ce qui concerne les quatre résolutions proposées, ma délégation aimerait encore réserver sa position. J'aimerais soutenir les propositions de la délégation du Royaume-Uni concernant le traitement futur de la question des coûts d'exécution des programmes au Conseil.
Almir F. de Sa BARBUDA (Brazil): We wish first to congratulate the Secretariat on the preparation of document CL 92/8 on Programme Delivery Cost and to reiterate our support for the conclusions of the Finance Committee that the overheads for FAO's Regular Programme Deliveries seem commendable.
We learnt with appreciation that the Finance Committee re-confirmed last September its views on the matter and concluded that no further action was needed for the time being. We fully agree with this remark and with what has been said about it by the Ambassador of Mexico. We hope that these discussions on the issue will now be closed.
On the other hand, we deeply regret the persistance of FAO's financial insecurity and also agree with the Finance Committee that the current cash flow problems are precipitated mainly by delays in the receipt of assessed contributions from the largest contributor. Apart from the shortfall which represents almost 70% of the total outstanding amount, the present rate of receipts of contributions is actually the most favourable rate for this period in many years.
As has been pointed out by the Ambassador of Mexico, a clear distinction must be made in this regard between the countries which do not pay for political reasons and the ones which cannot pay as promptly as they would like for financial and economic problems caused mainly, as you well know, by a very unjust international economic order aggravated by a huge service of our external debt.
We also regret, therefore, that the measures proposed to deal with problems of delayed payment of assessed contributions will add to the already very severe economic and financial difficulties of developing countries. Shortfalls have previously occurred but were confined to the rules of international organizations and justified by the currency situation of developing countries. These countries should not, to our point of view, be penalized by a new situation to which they have not contributed. We cannot therefore support these measures.
Similarly, my delegation has some reservations in relation to other measures that will result in a direct additional increase in our contribution which is already too high and, in fact, the eleventh of this Organization.
However, taking into account that the proposed measures are directly linked to the budget and to the level of contributions of Member Nations, we should prefer to defer our decision and to disclose it during the next Conference.
DONG QING SONG (China) (original language Chinese): The Chinese delegation has taken note of the draft resolutions concerning financial issues submitted by the Finance Committee in the report of its 61st Session. In order to ensure the availability of adequate cash flow for the implementation of FAO's Programme of Work and Budget we urge Member Nations to pay their assessed contributions on time.
The draft resolutions concerning the amendment of procedures for application of cash surpluses and measures to deal with problems of delayed payments of assessed contributions are necessary positive steps. The Chinese delegation accepts and supports these ideas. At the same time, the Chinese delegation is ready to accept the consensus on these issues.
Concerning the increase in the level of the Working Capital Fund, the Chinese delegation agrees with the views expressed by some delegations that we should increase the 1988 level to US$ 20 million.
As for the replenishment of the Special Reserve Account and the three draft resolutions, the Chinese delegation will elaborate its position on the financial issues at the Conference.
Rainer PRESTIEN (Germany, Federal Republic of): Allow me to thank Mr. Bukhari and Mr. Crowther for their informative statements on the document before us.
Let me first comment on the financial position of our Organization. With a shortfall in income to the amount of US$ 122 million, of which almost US$ 72 million is for the current year alone, the financial situation cannot be described as favourable. We all know the factors which have led to the present financial crisis. You know that the present situation cannot be explained by one single reason. All Member Nations are called upon to meet their obligations towards our Organization, in particular their obligation to pay their contributions.
Mr Chairman, you will find us open to the measures designed to deal with the problems of delayed payments of assessed contributions. We do not oppose improved regulations in the hope that these will increase the incentive for a punctual payment of annual compulsory contributions. First and foremost, I should like to recall that we must first restore the financial situation of our own Organization so that it can realize a Cash Surplus at the end of the biennium before talking about the modalities for a possible Cash Surplus distribution.
I agree with the delegate of Japan that the Council still needs some clarification of the details of the envisaged resolution.
With regard to the envisaged measures to partly or fully retain a possible Cash Surplus, we cannot see any possibility of a Cash Surplus arising in the short or medium term. Even though a similar regulation was approved by the 22nd Conference Session of FAO in November 1983 with regard to the surplus of the 1982-83 biennium we see no need to amend the existing regulations of the Constitution in the present situation.
The proposal for an increase in the Working Capital Fund in two stages, from US$ 13 250 000 to US$ 26 million did not receive our support at the 91st FAO Council Session. In our view, such an increase could only be financed from special payments of the Member States. Thus those Member States providing special funds would make payments for those who have not fully or partly paid their contribution. The present level of the Working Capital Fund suffices for short term shorfalls in payments to bridge the gap. For longer term shortfalls it is an unsuitable instrument to provide security. For this reason we cannot adopt the resolution suggested.
The same applies to the replenishment of the Special Reserve Account, It is our view that a replenish ment on the basis of special payments is not justified as long as the Member States in arrears do not pay their delayed contributions. As soon as the outstanding contributions are paid, the Special Reserve Account would replenish automatically, also without special payments from Member Nations. We cannot adopt the resolution proposed. We hope that all Member States will soon meet their financial crisis.
Let me come to the question of programme delivery costs now. My delegation would like to thank the Secretariat for the presentation of document CL 92/8 dealing with programme delivery costs. We also share the opinion of the Finance Committee reflected in the introduction to the document that the analysis undertaken contributes to a greater transparency of FAO's activities and facilitates the dialogue with member governments. Furthermore, we think that this kind of analytical work should continue on a regular basis in future years.
We are also in agreement with the Finance Committee that the overheads of 18.8 percent for Regular Programme deliveries is a reasonable figure in view of the characteristics of the Organization. We endorse the statements in the document to the effect that it is very difficult to make comparisons with other Organizations in the UN system. Efforts were repeatedly made in this respect by the Joint Inspection Unit but the JIU had to come to the conclusion that the structures of United Nations organizations are so different that the data it had collected during its investigations on programme delivery overheads were not comparable.
The figure of 18.8 percent programme delivery costs in the Regular Programme gives rise to an examination of whether the support costs at the present basic rate of 13 percent should be raised. This idea, which may be gathered from page 2 of the document, is expected to cause difficulties in realizing it because decisions of other UN bodies also have to be taken into account which were taken over by the FAO. Nevertheless, we feel that these questions should be discussed, for example, in the UNDP Governing Council and the UN General Assembly.
The mathematical approach to calculating costs can be chosen in different ways depending on the respectivedefinition. My delegation, therefore, particularly welcomes the fact that a joint document could be adopted in cooperation between the Secretariat and one delegation. We likewise welcome that alternative mathematical approaches are outlined on page 3 of the document.
The Member States could observe in the last few years the efforts made by the Secretariat to save overhead costs, in particular also staff costs and thus to lighten the overall cost burden. These activities led to favourable results, in particular in the staff sector. This does, however, not mean that the Secretariat should now discontinue its efforts towards a permanent reduction of costs. On the contrary, the Organization is being faced with a financial situation which does not allow major increases in expenditure. All possibilities for savings must rather be seen and exploited. To achieve reductions in costs in big organizations is a difficult task. My delegation would therefore like to encourage the Secretariat not only to continue but to strengthen its efforts for additional savings. We are of the opinion that the Secretariat and the Member States must be open to all realistic proposals for cost-reducing measures. In this regard we agree with the distinguished delegate of the UK that some guidance by the Joint Inspection Unit would be useful on the question of how to calculate such costs.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I should like to start by thanking the distinguished Representative of Japan for his announcement, which results in an immediate injection of cash into the FAO economy, which will then become an advance for the next biennium.
When we look at the series of four important financial issues which are before the Council and which are heading towards the Conference, I would draw a distinction between the three which went to the Council at its last session and the other one, the Special Reserve Account, which has landed here for the first time in this particular cycle.
I would first recall item 11.3 Measures to Deal with the Problem of Delayed Payment of Assessed Contributions. I would recall that at the last session the Council had a debate in which disagreements were expressed and recorded. At the end of that debate the report reads: "In conclusion, the Council endorsed the Finance Committee proposal and requested the Committee at its next session" - that is the Finance Committee - "to prepare a draft resolution for consideration by CCLM, the Council and the Conference".
The Council's request to prepare a resolution for the Conference has been carried out and today's debate has brought over areas of agreement and disagreement. It does not appear possible, in the very short time available for this Council session, to attempt to negotiate any form of consensus that might emerge in Conference, so I venture to suggest that the Council again record in its report the views which have emerged today, and send the draft resolution forward for final decision under somewhat less pressure of time in the Conference.
I am going to make an identical suggestion in respect of Item 11.4, Amending Present Procedures for Application of Cash Surplus. Here again, the Report of the last Session reads: "The Council by majority therefore supported the adoption of this proposal and requested the Finance Committee to prepare, at its next Session, a draft resolution for consideration by CCLM, Council and Conference along the lines of Resolution 14/83 adopted by the Council in 1983 on this subject."
So here again the practical way forward, I suggest - although of course the Council can take any decision that it wishes - but as a practical suggestion, perhaps again the Resolution could go forward to the Conference with the Council Report carefully recording the different views which must, in one way or another, be reconciled in the Conference.
On the Increase in the Level of the Working Capital Fund, the Council's last Report reads: "The Council therefore requested the Finance Committee to prepare a Draft Resolution for consideration by CCLM and the Council at its next Session and submission to the Conference for adoption." Here again, the Council Report can record the contrary views from the debate.
So these three issues clearly can only be resolved in Commission III of the Conference.
Replenishment of the Special Reserve Account: It is true that the Report of the Finance Committee does quote two options for filling up the Special Reserve Account - that is, through the payment of arrears, or through a special assessment. It sounds very good to fill it up with the payment of arrears, but unless and until there is a very serious assurance that arrears will be forthcoming on a very large scale, I am afraid it becomes indispensable, for the health of the Organization, to get fresh funds into the Special Reserve Account, otherwise we are going to be starting the next biennium entirely at the mercy of a very violently fluctuating dollar.
Other proposals which have been mentioned in the course of the debate have been looked at by the Finance Committee, such as the use of split currencies. However, there is no specific proposal before the Conference on this matter, and the Finance Committee felt that more experience needed to be gained on how the split currency contribution system worked out with UNIDO in Vienna before any final decision was adopted for FAO. This becomes a possible option for future biennia beyond 1988/89. As of now, there is no worked-out proposal before the Conference, and the traditional rules and the present system must inevitably apply.
Of all the issues which are listed in this section of the Finance Committee's Report, I would say that the replenishment of the Special Reserve Account is the one that is most important - and indeed, quite vital if the Organization is to hope to sail, if not unharmed, at least without serious damage through the probably troubled waters of the next two years.
Yet again, I may add, in the course of the debate, we have had suggestions that the Budget should contain clear provisions distinguishing what were called, I think, at one stage, "essential" and "non-essential" activities, so that non-essential activities could be cut out in the event of a serious income shortfall. There are many arguments that I could put forward against this, but I would now like to advance just one:
I would like anyone to explain to me how we can hope to retain competent, qualified staff in any area that is designated as non-essential, and is therefore subject to being axed if the income falls short
I would like to conclude this section of my remarks with an appeal to all concerned, all Members of of Delegations who have been involved in this discussion and who will therefore enter the Conference with considerably more advance knowledge of the issues which are rather technical and quite complicated --- I would plead with Members of Delegations here in Council to help, in the Conference, in attempting to work out agreed solutions which can be adopted by unanimity in the course of the Conference itself.
I would now like to say a few words about Programme Delivery Costs. This discussion started with the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom telling us an anecdote about the first night of a much-wedded couple, and after this lead-in I reflected that in a way I was his partner in this matter. I waited with mounting excitement for the Consummation of this relationship. I am sure you will understand if I draw a veil of discretion over my assessment of his performance! - but I do hope that my present statement is pregnant with significance, and will enable the Council to give birth to an immediate decision on this matter.
We feel that the suggestion that the matter be looked at again by the Finance Committee in the next biennium is a very reasonable one, in view of the widespread interest shown in the matter; but we would suggest that there be no decision a priori at this stage on the periodicity with which such reviews should be carried out in future. This could be left to the Finance Committee to consider and the Council to decide perhaps in the next biennium, in the light of the situation which emerges according to the extent to which there are actually changes in the analysis which has been put forward.
The issue of whether our Programme Delivery Costs are low or high can only be decided - as we have repeatedly insisted - through a comparison with other organisations. On the one hand, we have no desire to precipitate our fellow agencies into what could be troubling internal examinations of this matter: it is up to them to decide whether they want to go into it or not. But at the same time we recognise the value of a common methodology, in so far as this matter is pursued across the UN system. We would therefore propose to take up, in one of the appropriate inter-agency bodies of UN system, the desirability and feasibility of a joint approach on an inter-agency basis to the JIU, to suggest a methodology for identifying and measuring Programme Delivery Costs, and I trust that this, which seems to us the most rational way of handling it system-wise, will also be acceptable to those Delegations which have brought the matter up again here.
Mr Crowther will have some additional answers.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): Only a few specific questions were raised, and a couple of comments. As at least four Delegations raised the question of the meaning of the formula for distribution of cash surplus under the proposal and under the Resolution that has been included, I would ask Delegations to turn, please, to paragraph 3.76 on page 42 of the English text, and more importantly to the Resolution which follows.
There, in the operative paragraph of the Resolution which begins with the words "Decides that ...", under (a), "the interest income element of any cash surplus shall be allocated", and therefore the most important section of this is "i) only among those Member Nations that have paid their assessed contributions in full by the end of the financial period; ii) on a weighted basis, in accordance with the amount and the timing of payment of their contributions during the financial period."
Perhaps we have over-simplified the Resolution. It is purely a linear formula; it is based on two criteria - the timing and amount of payment, solely and completely. There are no other curves that would be involved; we have studied the other curves which have been considered as a basis for weighting, and this seems like both the simplest and most straightforward and equitable.
My only point in turning to this is that some delegations have reserved their positions on this point pending further clarification; and, while the words themselves are reasonably clear, what was probably not clear is that it is not intended to have any further weighting basis that is not included in this description.
Secondly, mention has been made by a number of delegations of alternative currencies, some with consideration to the Lire and the Dollar as currencies, others to various baskets of currencies. In the Finance Committee's Report, it has been made clear that the Finance Committee will continue to study this problem, and try to come up with an equitable solution. We must say that the Finance Committee has reviewed this matter on several occasions already, and has been unable to find a proper solution which seems equitable, and does not have an inordinate risk about it. Obviously, if you have at least two currencies - and even more so if you have a basket of currencies - there is an element of conversion that would be involved: whatever currency is acceptable for receipt of contributions may be required to be converted between all the other currencies. There is an inherent risk in that conversion, obviously, as the market fluctuates and changes; nonetheless the Finance Committee in its deliberations has thought that there are some good ideas which may be very useful to the Organization, and will continue to study this, and ferret out the possibilities that can be presented to the Council.
Reference has been made to cash forecasts for this and the next biennium, by programme and sub-programme, and while those types of cash forecast have been provided to the Finance Committee and discussed in a great deal of detail, they are rather complicated and technical - nonetheless, it is a question for the Council to decide whether or not they wish to have cash forecasts provided to them. Obviously they can, and if that is the case, then perhaps consideration can be given to providing this information, even during Commission III - but that is something which the Council will have decide upon.
A question was raised on interest income and whether or not it can be separately accounted for and the amount that was attributable specifically to interest income in the 1984/85 biennium cash surplus. The answer certainly is, yes, the interest income element can be and is separately accounted for, as interest on deposit accounts resulting from contributions received is very carefully recorded and reviewed periodically. The amount related to the 1984/85 cash surplus was approximately 80 percent of that cash surplus, or just over $ 28 million. Now we should like to be in that position again, but interest rates, as all of you know, have dropped consistently. At the time of the Conference in 1985 interest rates on dollar accounts were running at about ten and a half percent and currently they are running at seven to seven and a half percent. The fluctuation in the interest rate makes it difficult, therefore, to say that the predominant factor in miscellaneous income or in future cash surpluses that we would hope to see some day may continue to be interest income. It depends so much on the interest rates prevailing at that particular time.
Finally, the question of unrealistic income projects was raised, and here we submit that it is difficult to project precisely what each country will pay. As we have heard in the debate today, a number of countries have pointed to the economic problems that they face in their own countries. The problem of telling the precision of the timing and the amount of payment is difficult, no question
We have a concern over attempting to project cash flows on a monthly basis to reflect the amounts that are likely to be shown. The Organization certainly is aware of the desires and actions of each of the Member Nations with regard to contributions, and we would hope that as the call letters go out for next year's contributions, early on each Member Nation could make it known to the Organization just when and how much they can pay at the specific time. That would help projections of cash flow and at a time when cash will be extremely short, it would help us in understanding precisely what expenses must be incurred or cannot be incurred. The timing of those contributions is inevitably going to be very important to us.
Nonetheless the projections that you have seen here in the Finance Committee document and that are constantly being studied by the Organization, do reflect the trends that have been existent even during this past year and prior years. We try to take into account the best information that is possible. The accuracy of that depends, obviously, upon the final results of each contributing country.
I think that concludes the things that I need to say. I hope that I have dealt with each of the questions that have been raised. If not I shall certainly be willing to go further.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie Monsieur Dean K. Crowther pour ses explications. Je crois que nous avons eu un débat très intéressant, une discussion très approfondie sur l'un des sujets les plus intéressants que nous avions à l'ordre du jour, à savoir la situation financière de l'Organisation, et ce à la veille de la Conférence générale.
Je crois pouvoir dire que le Conseil souhaite qu'on lance un appel pour que les Etats Membres fassent un effort pour régler leurs contributions dans les délais prévus par l'Organisation, et que, en tout état de cause, tous les Etats Membres sont soucieux de permettre à l'Organisation de continuer à disposer des moyens d'action dans un esprit d'équité et d'efficacité.
Je pense que les remarques qui ont été faites par Messieurs les délégués permettront à la Conférence lorsqu'elle aura examiné les différents projets de résolution sur les points relatifs au retard dans les versements des contributions, à l'allocation des excédents de trésorerie, à l'augmentation du Fonds de roulement ou à la reconstitution du fonds de réserves spéciales, toutes les remarques que
nous avons entendues ce matin permettront aux participants à la Conférence générale et aux responsables de disposer d'éléments d'appréciation précis. Ce qui est très important c'est que tous les Etats Membres et tous les délégués se présentent à la Conférence avec le souci d'aider l'Organisation et de lui permettre de disposer des moyens financiers nécessaires pour poursuivre sa mission dans la clarté et dans le respect des engagements pris vis-à-vis de l'Organisation.
Je pense que nous pouvons retenir la proposition de Monsieur Walton qui consiste à ce que l'on enregistre toutes les remarques qui ont été faites ce matin, qui sont très importantes, et que l'on puisse les joindre au matériel qui sera disponible pour la Conférence, afin de lui permettre d'être éclairée sur la position des Membres du Conseil.
Je note que pour le coût du Programme une proposition concrète a été présentée par M. Walton, à savoir que, dans un souci d'harmonisation des différentes institutions au sein des Nations Unies, il y aura un rapport avec le Corps commun d'inspection en vue d'un effort de méthodologie pour essayer de définir les frais annexes et les frais connexes aux investissements directs techniques de chaque institution afin de pouvoir apprécier le coût de chaque investissement direct.
Je crois également que certains délégués ont demandé, hier et aujourd'hui, que l'on puisse disposer d'un relevé des liquidités de l'Organisation pour les travaux de la Commission III, et je pense que si le Secrétariat était en mesure de préparer ce travail, il pourrait probablement aider grandement la discussion au sein de la Commission III.
Ceci étant, nous pourrions passer, avec votre permission, aux autres questions à l'ordre du jour de manière à permettre au Comité de rédaction de commencer à travailler dès que nous aurons fini la plénière, et nous donner un projet de rapport pour la discussion qui pourrait avoir lieu lors de la séance de demain matin.
Mais au préalable je crois que nous pouvons maintenant présenter à notre Conseil les noms des trois candidats pour les trois Commissions de la Conférence générale.
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Nous sommes enfin en mesure d'indiquer au Conseil le nom des personnes qu'il lui est proposé de présenter comme candidats aux postes de président des trois Commissions. Ce sont, pour la Commission I: M. Sastry, Secrétaire du Gouvernement au ministère de l'agriculture de l'inde; pour la Commission II: Son Exe. Fred Eckert, Ambassadeur des Etats-Unis, et, pour la Commission III: Son Exe. Josef Wiejaez, Ambassadeur de Pologne.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
LE PRESIDENT: Il s'agit d'uri point traditionnel. Y a-t-il des délégués qui veulent prendre la parole sur Ce point?
Thomas YANGA (Cameroun): Je crois savoir que le Secrétariat nous a soumis un document concernant ce point 15, à savoir le choix du lieu du prochain Congrès forestier mondial. Je ne sais pas si le Conseil a fait son choix, sinon je voudrais en être informé.
LE PRESIDENT: Je m'excuse encore d'être passé assez vite sur ce point. Je donne la parole au Directeur général adjoint.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: The question of chosing the place for the next World Forestry Congress is not on the agenda of the Council. It was at one stage envisaged that it would be, but since there are numerous candidatures, it has been the general feeling that time should be left for informal consultations behind the scenes in the hope of finding agreement among the various candidates for the World Forestry Congress which is still several years away.
Bernard LEDUN (France): Comme le délégué du Cameroun venait de soulever la question, je pensais également, de mon côté, m'exprimer sur ce point. Mais comme le Directeur général adjoint vient d'indiquer qu'il n'est pas inscrit à l'ordre du jour du Conseil, je retire l'intervention que je me disposais à faire à ce Sujeté
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Con la propuesta para presidentes de las tres Comisiones, pensamos que se concluye el tema preparativo para la Conferencia. Sin embargo, no hemos podido seguir permanentemente esta reunión y quisiéramos saber si en relación con el párrafo 14 del documento C 87/12 i Disertación en Memoria de Mc Dougall, si la Secretaría tiene alguna información que transmitir o en fin si ya lo hizo.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: For the McDougall Memorial Lecture, the choice has fallen on Dr Jean Mayer, President of Tufts University, who is one of the world's leading nutritionists. He has been associated for many years with FAO and international organizations in the field of nutrition, and not only in the field of nutrition but in the general world of development, as one of the leading figures and writers. Perhaps I should not really anticipate what will be said in introducing Dr Jean Mayer in the Conference itself, but the choice of Dr Mayer has a certain, I would say, nostalgic significance because, although he has been chosen entirely on his own merits, he is the son of André Mayer who was the first chairman of the FAO Council, he who gives his name to the André Mayer Fellowships which are awarded by FAO every biennium. Earlier in his career he was briefly a FAO staff member, so it will
be the only time when a FAO staff member has given the McDougall Memorial Lecture, The choice of the McDougall Memorial Lecturer is made in consultation with the Chairman of the Council, the Chairman of the Programme Committee and the Ambassador of Australia, Australia being the country of origin of Frank McDougall.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Walton de ces précisions et je donne la parole au délégué de l'Italie.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italie): Je demande la permission de faire une annonce concernant une invitation adressée par le Ministre des affaires étrangères de l'Italie à MM. les chefs de délégation et leurs épouses - et, bien entendu, aux dirigeants de la FAO ainsi qu'à vous-même, Monsieur le Président - pour le 14 novembre. Il s'agit d'une visite au Centre de nutrition de l'Université de Viterbe, avec le déjeuner sur place et une visite de la région. Le départ serait à 9 h 30. Nous nous excusons d'envoyer seulement aujourd'hui les invitations, mais je voulais prévenir tous les "fellow delegates" de cette invitation pour le samedi 14 novembre, en accord avec le Secrétariat de la FAO.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous remercions notre ami italien pour son aimable invitation. Nul doute qu'elle sera appréciée par l'ensemble des délégués.
Y a-t-il d'autres questions ?
Nous pouvons donc passer au point 16 et je donne la parole à M. Savary.
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: En fait, le Conseil s'est déjà prononcé sur cette question lors de sa session de juin. Je ne surprendrai donc personne en disant qu'il est prévu que le Conseil tienne sa quatre-vingt-treizième session ici même, dans cette salle, le 27 novembre ou, si d'aventure la Conférence terminait ses travaux avant le 26, un peu avant cette date, s'il n'y a pas d'objection de la part du Conseil.
LE PRESIDENT: Y a-t-il des objections à cette date ? Je crois que c'est traditionnel et nous sommes, bien entendu, à la disposition de la Conférence pour la date définitive.
Le Conseil se réunira demain matin, à 9 h 30, pour approuver le rapport du Comité de rédaction.
The meeting rose at 16.15 hours
La séance est levée à 16 h 15
Se levanta la sesión a las 16.15 horas
