TemelISKIT (Turkey): I have the dubious honour of being the first speaker after lunch, so I hope that my speech will be heard by the majority of the Council. Given the time constraints, I will try to be as brief as possible, but I cannot fail to thank Mr Shah and the Chairmen of the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee for their brilliant presentations this morning.
The revised Programme of Work and Budget which is before us is, we think, somehow our own -- I mean the member countries' Programme of Work and Budget -- because it is the result and the reflection of a very long and intense process of preparation. Starting with sub-committees and regional conferences, it underwent a very intense process to the main committees of the Council. At the Council we had very detailed discussions on the Summary Programme last June. Then it went through intense discussions in the Programme Committee and in the Finance Committee, as we have heard today. So our delegation's approach is that since we have had the time and opportunity to contribute to this process we cannot but approve the priorities and the content of the Programme of Work and Budget.
Of course, there is the financial side in these proposals, and we have had the opportunity to pronounce on that side too, but we are happy to note that at the last moment efforts have again been made concerning the budget level, and the impossible was realized by again reducing the level of the budget to -- use the words -- negligible level. We welcome this last moment development too.
As far as the overall approach of the Programme of Work and Budget itself is concerned, we have already commented on it on the basis of the Summary Programme, We approve the approach to maximize resources for technical and economic programmes.
We welcome the revising of programme priorities, and we again observe with satisfaction that these priorities were again refined at the last moment, including the priorities which Turkey supports. We approve of the cost-pruning effort, and of the triming of cost increase. Of course, during the discussion at the Conference, we will have an opportunity to comment on the details of the Programme itself.
Having said this, I would like to make some comments -- perhaps prompted by the comments pronounced by certain delegations this morning. These concern the relation of the financial difficulties of the Organization with the preparation of the Programme of Work and Budget, and how it will be possible, in view of the looming danger of the continuation of the difficulties, to prepare a Budget on the basis that these difficulties do not exist,
I would like to express our general approach to the question. We do not think that it is possible for a manager to prepare a budget based only on the hypothesis that the resources which are expected for this organization or company will not be forthcoming. It is just not possible -- especially when we bear in mind that FAO is not a company, and its only resources are the commitment of the member countries. This approach is not suitable because -- as was said by, I think, the delegation of India -- firstly, it will not be constitutional -- it will involve a shifting of burden-shared among member countries. We do not therefore really see the possibility of taking this hypothesis as a base.
But, of course, we would say that we should be realistic: this may not be forthcoming, so why not take this into consideration, and why not prepare a core budget? I am coming to this proposal. It was put under titles of "core budget", "emergency budget", or "contingency budget". In a realistic world it is perhaps possible to consider these proposals: but we still think if we continue along the way of these proposals that it will involve a reopening of the process which we started at the beginning and which continued for more than a year. It will involve further discussion of priorities: -- and when we say "priorities" that means the priorities -- the common denominator of 158
countries. If we reopen this debate, and if we try to, let us say, separate some priorities as having more weight than others, then I am afraid that we will need another two years to repeat the process.
This is a practical consideration but there are also other considerations, namely: suppose that we separate some part of the Budget and start spending money according to that part of the Budget. We know that FAO does not function on a monthly basis: there are immediate term projects and long-term projects, and if we try to manage these projects and programmes on the basis of what will come at the end of the month (like a salary), I do not think that FAO's activities will continue in the way that they have in the past. The efficiency of the Organization will be eroded to a large extent.
I can of course continue this argument, .but I know that we are under a time constraint. We reserve our comments on this specific question -- which is vital -- to the relevant Commission of the Conference.
Before concluding, I would like to say a few words about the Technical Assistance Programme. Many delegations have referred to this important programme, and I would like to reiterate Turkey's position: that we attach very great importance to this programme and its continuation, under criteria under which it presently operates.
We were pleased to hear this morning that the United Kingdom very much supports this programme; but we were, I'm afraid, hesitant to agree with them when they said that at least ninety percent of this programme should be pre-planned. Given the nature of this programme, which was created to address short-term immediate needs and unplanned needs of developing countries, we find it very difficult to follow this idea of pre-planning everything. Turkey is one of the countries which has benefitted from this programme in the past, and this benefit was based on the fact that it met our immediate needs which arose at a given point in time. Therefore, we do not think that it can be pre-planned -- but again thank the United Kingdom delegation for their support of the Technical Assistance. Programme.
In the interests of saving time, I shall not continue my intervention -- and I conclude by thanking you, Mr Chairman.
João Augusto de MEDICIS (Brazil): My delegation would like to recall the Ninety-first Session of this Council when we expressed our congratulations for the improvements the Secretariat presented in the Summary of Work and Budget. We do welcome the additional information provided on proposed shifts of resources and programme changes as well as on the planned distribution of resources among developing tegions.
The Brazilian delegation does regret the constraints faced by the Organization during the current biennium which led to drastic reductions in the services rendered by the institution. In the same line, Mr Chairman, we do regret the perspectives of further reductions due to the uncertainties vis-a-vis the fulfillment of constitutional obligations by the largest contributor. This voluntary and negative attitude should in no way be confounded with the difficulties faced by developing coun-tries, imposed by the burden of their external debt and the deterioration of the export prices of their production. We must, therefore, reiterate our position, as stated during the previous session of this Council, rejecting any attempt to propose alternative budget or contingency plans, solutions which we consider to be absolutely inadequate to deal with the forecast difficulties of FAO.
As to the 0.257% increase which is submitted to us, Mr Chairman, we do recognize it to be rather symbolic. However, it is the feeling of my delegation that whereas it will represent a reduction in real terms of contribution for a great number of developed nations, having in mind the appreciation Of their currencies in regard to the US dollar as has been pointed out by Dr Shah in his presentation. This increase shall otherwise be an additional burden for developing nations, with adverse consequen-ces on their economies. My delegation would therefore endorse the proposal made by the Delegation of Argentina that this increase be shared by those most-favoured Countries.
For these reasons, Mr Chairman, we are not in a position to express our definitive view on the Pro-gramme of Work and Budget during this meeting and reserve our position to the next Twenty-fourth Session of the Conference.
We would not like to have the above position lead to the impression that we do not favour the proposed Programme of Work, and we wish to state that, from our point of view, it presents sound and valuable proposals. We particularly want to mention the importance for developing countries of the TCP thac most continue to receive our total support.
Brazil fully believes in the cause of multilateralism, but we wish to register in the records that in our opinion the sharing of the financial burden of international organizations in general is not being undertaken in a fair and adequate manner by developed countries and by developing countries according to their possibilities.
E.P. ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): The delegation of Trinidad and Tobago also wishes to indicate its appreciation of Mr Shah's delivery, made in his now well recognized and anticipated style, and of course, the contributions of the Chairmen of the Finance and Programme Committees. May I say at the outset that our comments relate to items 7, 8 and 9.
The delegation of Trinidad and Tobago places considerable importance on what emerged from this meeting of the Council and its debate on the Programme of Work and Budget for 1988/89. To some extent, we are even tempted to feel that the relevant discussions of this Council - and of course the Conference - may have a profound and possible long-lasting effect on the future of this Organi-zation. Our delegation recognizes and understands the particular circumstances which determine the general atmosphere in which budgetary matters related to the major United Nations organizations are being formulated. However, we consider it the obligation of our delegation and of each Member nation as a whole to remember that the true and real concerns of FAO are not matters which can be deferred, and if we need to be reminded, we need only read the Preamble and the Constitution of the FAO which is printed on the cover of the Programme of Work and Budget and even the Review.
The provision of food for mankind, the funding and implementation of programmes and budgets, projects which affect the very survival of millions of poor and destitute people of the world should not -and ought not from a humanitarian point of view - be subjected to political gymnastics on the basis of comparative global and financial power.
Many of us will remember the debates of the June Council meeting, but I would venture to say that social analysts and developmental economists of the next generation will find it interesting reading. In the passage of time - a few months - there is a ray of hope in that payment of political core contributions, had, we are told, improved.
Finally, I return to the imagery which I used in June: it is not that we can now say that the sword of Democles no longer hovers over our heads but rather that there is some hope on the horizon. But let us be positive, in that the trend of increased payments is a positive one which must be welcomed.
Our delegation considers that the Director-General and his staff have responded in depth to all the appeals for restraint, considering the real programme increase of US $ 1.1 million, or 0.25 per cent over the re-costed Budget.
We must ask ourselves, can we and, in fact, must we, ask for more. Let me quote the Director of the Office of Programme Budget and Evaluation, Dr Shah, who said this morning that it is the lowest net increase ever requested by FAO. We think it is unfair and unrealistic to accuse Dr Shah and his staff of not taking into consideration the real and current financial situation of FAO at this time. Budgeting inevitably implies some risks and this applies to every country, every organization and every individual. In some respects there is no doubt that FAO staff ought to be complimented on their financial wizardry for keeping us afloat even in the ocean of uncertainty which has constantly shadowed our budgetary efforts. Our delegation endorses the Programme priorities indicated as summarized at page 2 of the Introduction to the Programme of Work and Budget. No one ought to have any difficulty with budget construction which makes judicious cuts at administrative expenditures and focuses attention and resources on technical and economic programmes. Our delegation, as before, supports the United Kingdom in its concern that the very useful and effective TCP programmes must be maintained and protected. At the same time we also say that any request for a higher level of pre-planning is a 'no go'. In this Council developing countries have consistently said that they appreciate and want the TCP programme on a continuous basis and I think it is not unreasonable to request that there be some recognition that they have the capability of determining what is good for them.
The Chairman of the Programme Committee reminded us this morning that we cannot continue - and I quote him - these constant incisive reductions of resources to critical programmes. We must be concerned, for example, with the reduction of plant production and animal production programmes. We note the level of staff cutting but the various documents also tell us of deficiencies in expert technical backstopping in the field. We take note, and perhaps I am stepping over into the next item when we observe that at pages 6 and 39 it is now globally recognized that women are significant activists in the production and preservation of food. Their importance in the impact of nutrition programmes is also recognized. Therefore there is a logical and urgent need to focus resources on women. This is not an emotional matter. There is a reason why they are referred to as the forgotten farmers. Yet there are no real increases for resources in this direction. Our delegation, as we have done elsewhere, wishes to emphasize that failure deliberately to design and maintain programmes relevant to environmental protection may lead to undesirable results which even this generation may live to regret.
We have been told that the set-back experienced by FAO as a result of the financial situation is such as has never been experienced before. However, perhaps of even greater significance is the real fact that the negative effects will reach far into future biennia.
I have one final point. Some time last year in a publication from a very prestigious research organization in the United States it was suggested that the mounting surpluses of food in some countries may lead to policy decisions by those countries such as would lead to a lowering of support for programmes in increasing food production in developing countries. Our delegation considers such conceptual projections unacceptable. We trust that this Organization, FAO, will never witness the impact of any action by any member nation such as would suggest a reality to this line of thought.
Finally, our delegation hopes that the total response by the Director General will provide a platform for consensus on the budget, and that whatever action member nations prppose and ultimately decide upon in the context of in-depth study or restructuring if proved necessary for the future, we ensure, as the distinguished representative of Switzerland said, the strengthening of this Organization for future years.
Ghulam Mohammed BAHRAM (Afghanistan): We appreciate the information presented by Dr Shah and the further comments given by the two Chairmen, namely of the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee; the Programme of Work and Budget. The priorities are supported by my delegatipn.
However, the Afghan delegation is of the opinion that sound mobilization of natural resources of the developing countries should accelerate food production and equal distribution to meet the increasing requirements of the populations in the developing countries. However, due to financial, managerial and other various problems in such countries, the mobilization and utilization of natural resources certainly demand international and regional technical and financial cooperation for meeting their real needs, particularly of the poorest segments of the population.
The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, with its vast agricultural resources and potentialities, is one of the developing countries which needs financial and technical help in sufficient quantity and duration in the form of some multi-purpose projects and TCP programmes which have been proved very useful in agricultural growth and development.
Bernard LEDUN (France): L'intervention de notre delegation sera relativement brève, car le Programme de travail et budget va faire, comme vous le savez, l'objet de longs développements lors de la Conférence.
Avant toute chose, nous souhaitons exprimer nos sincères remerciements au Comité du Programme et au Comité financier pour leurs travaux ainsi qu'à leurs Présidents respectifs, .M. le Professeur Mazoyer et M. Bukhari, pour le compte rendu qu'ils nous ont fait. Nous appuyons, pour ce qui nous concerne, les travaux de ces deux comités qui, dans la période difficile que connaît actuellement la FAO, jouent un rôle utile qu'il conviendrait de renforcer, A ce sujet, nous serons amenés à faire des propositions concrètes à la Conférence, qui iront dans le sens d'un renforcement du rôle du Comité du Programme que nous souhaiterions voir assisté d'un groupe d'experts indépendants, désignés en fonction de leurs compétences echniques par un organe directeur approprié, comme le Conseil par exemple.
Sans anticiper donc sur les débats de la Conférence, certaines parties du rapport du Comité du Programme apparaissent mériter un appui particulier. Premièrement le Programme ordinaire. Nous approuvons l'effort fait pour améliorer le contenu de ce Programme ainsi qu'il est défini au paragraphe 2.3 du document CL 92/14. Nous reconnaissons l'impact négatif des mesures d'ajustement qui (je cite le paragraphe 2.7) "ont ébranlé les bases d'une saine programmation".
Pareillement, nous reconnaissons la nécessité de renforcer les liens entre la recherche et la vulgarisation, ainsi qu'il est exprimé au paragraphe 2.18, et nous reconnaissons l'intérêt de définir clairement les objectifs des réunions d'experts, ainsi qu'il est dit au paragraphe 2.25.
Deuxièmement, sur les programmes de terrain, nous appuyons le paragraphe 2.49, qui souligne les liens entre Programme ordinaire et Programme de terrain ainsi que le rôle à renforcer du Programme ordinaire en tant que cadre conceptuel et méthodologique pour la conception et l'exécution des programmes de terrain.
Troisièmement, sur le Programme de travail et budget nous appuyons le paragraphe 2, 63 dans lequel le Comité du programme souligne - et je cite - que les programmes ne peuvent pas faire indéfiniment l'objet de "vagues" successives d'ajustements et déclare que l'on devrait recourir à des mesures financières plutôt qu'à des ajustements de programme pour remédier aux difficultés financières.
Nous nous réservons, bien entendu, d'intervenir plus longuement et de façon plus élaborée sur tous ces points au moment de la Conférence et nous y ferons des propositions précises dont nous préférons garder la primeur pour la Conférence.
Avant de conclure, notre délégation tient à indiquer qu'elle regrette les propositions émanant de certains pays visant à réduire l'activité du PCT. Tout en reconnaissant le besoin d'une sélection rigoureuse imposée par la nécessité d'ajuster les dépenses aux ressources, nous estimons, pour notre part, que le PCT constitue néanmoins l'un des axes essentiels d'action de la FAO en raison des services qu'il rend aux pays en voie de développement au niveau de l'établissement de leur programme de développement agricole.
On ne doit pas réduire la FAO à un rôle de simple banque de données à moins de trahir sa vocation originelle et d'ignorer les besoins fondamentaux des pays du tiers monde. Mais sur ce point aussi, nous reviendrons plus longuement lors de la Conférence.
La France, à plusieurs occasions, a souligné la nécessité pour la FAO de concentrer ses activités sur, d'une part, les domaines définis par son mandat en dépassant les questions polémiques comme, par exemple, le protectionnisme, ou traités dans d'autres instances directement compétentes comme, par exemple. le "Uruguay Round" sur les négociations commerciales et, d'autre part, certains besoins prioritaires comme, par exemple, la vocation à satisfaire la contre-expertise auprès des pays qui sont confrontés à des politiques d'ajustements vis-à-vis des institutions financières internationales et, autre besoin prioritaire, l'assistance aux pays en développement dans le domaine des politiques agricoles.
Tout en nous montrant conscients des difficultés rencontrées pour concilier la diversité des besoins avec des priorités reconnues par tous les Etats Membres, nous voudrions faire observer qu'il s'agit là d'une question que les Comités du Programme et des finances devraient être en mesure d'examiner de façon approfondie avec le Groupe d'experts que nous avons brièvement évoqué, groupe d'experts qui, en raison de sa compétence technique, devrait être bien placé pour proposer les priorités aux organes directeurs et au Secrétariat.
Enfin, nous voudrions faire observer que si le Programme de terrain et le Programme de coopération technique de la FAO ont, par nature, vocation à répondre à des besoins précis des Etats Membres, le Programme ordinaire devrait, de son côté, se concentrer davantage sur un nombre limité de domaines prioritaires qui pourraient être définis par la Conférence.
La FAO, comme toutes les organisations internationales, se doit d'exercer un contrôle rigoureux sur ses dépenses, donc de sélectionner parmi ses activités celles qui correspondent le mieux à ses objectifs et aux besoins des pays en développement. Nous ne pouvons, pour notre part, que déplorer l'impact du défaut de versement de sa contribution par le premier contributeur de l'Organisation, qui coïncide de sa part avec une critique d'un budget pourtant majoré de 0, 25 pour cent seulement. Faut-il rappeler ici que, si le même pays honorait ses engagements financiers, nous serions sans doute moins tentés de voir une simple relation de cause à effet entre le non versement de sa contribution et son appel à l'austérité?
Mourad BENCHEIICH (Algerie): Je voudrais, en exergue à ce que je vais dire, indiquer que la délé-gation algérienne entend naturellement revenir point par point au Programme de travail et budget à l'occasion des travaux de la Conférence et qu'elle se contente à présent de faire simplement quelques premières réflexions qui lui paraissent indispensables pour clarifier le débat.
La délégation algérienne considère que, contrairement à ce qui a été dit, un effort très sérieux de réflexion a été entrepris tant au niveau du Conseil que des Comités concernés pour arriver à une adéquation entre la nécessité de continuer à travailler avec efficacité et l'austérité financière à laquelle certains Etats Membres se voient obligés de faire face par nécessité mais à laquelle d'autres Etats Membres font recours pour des raisons qui ne sont pas trop claires.
Je dirai, en ce qui concerne le Programme de travail, que la délégation algérienne l'approuve dans ses grandes lignes et notamment dans certaines de ses actions qui correspondent aux priorités de l'agriculture algérienne: l'utilisation de techniques de pointe au service du développement agri-cole, la lutte contre la désertification, la lutte contre les ravageurs dont, hélas, nous avons eu quelques essaims en Algérie tout récemment. Tout cela entre en droite ligne dans nos priorités et nous ne saurions qu'approuver, par conséquent, ce qui a été dit et ce qui est écrit dans le Programme de travail.
S'agissant du budget proprement dit, je crois - c'est ma conviction intime, après avoir entendu un certain nombre de délégations - qu'à l'heure actuelle, on fait un mauvais procès à la FAO. On ne peut pas à la fois ne pas payer ses contributions et dire que, pour un million de dollars, nous devons faire des prouesses d'austérité. Je crois qu'à la réflexion et à la lumière de ce que nous avons entendu ce matin et cet après-midi, le délégué algérien a le devoir de signaler ici, au Conseil, que ce mauvais procès que l'on est en train de faire à la FAO à travers le budget recouvre d'autres préoccupations. Quand j'entends un délégué dire, par je ne sais quel mystérieux calcul, que le budget a augmenté de 19 pour cent, alors qu'il n'a même pas tenu compte de l'inflation ni de l'érosion monétaire, je me demande sur quelle logique économique on s'appuie pour démontrer l'augmentation indue ou exagérée du budget.
Le Programme de coopération technique qui, comme l'a dit le délégué de l'Italie, est le fleuron de la FAO, n'a pas été épargné dans cette attaque de flanc ou frontale.
J'en arrive à une autre considération qui, celle-ci, m'inquiète considérablement. Lorsque certains délégués parlent de l'établissement du budget cas par cas en fonction des ressources disponibles, il s'agit d'une remise en cause intégrale de tout ce sur quoi la FAO s'est fondée jusqu'à présent. Le délégué algérien que je suis considère que les jeux sont désormais clairs. Le débat Se pose en ces termes: voulons-nous, oui ou non, sauvegarder la FAO? Et si nous voulons sauvegarder la FAO, il faut y mettre les moyens et il faut que tout un chacun y mette du sien, faute de quoi nous allons nous engager sur la voie de l'affrontement qui ne conduira à rien d'autre qu'à une plus grande misère et à de plus grandes difficultés dans le monde.
Milutin TAPAVICKI (Yugoslavia): Mr Chairman, the Yugoslav delegation would like to give a few comments on the Programme of Work and Budget for 1988/89. We share the unanimous appreciation expressed by the Joint Session of the Programme and Finance Committee for the Director-General's further efforts to generate a platform for consensus among Member Nations. In this direction, he suggested a reduction of the net programme increase to a mere 0.25 percent and a reduction in the total number of established posts by 25. Our delegation appreciates the reasons which motivated the Director-General to propose a symbolic real term increase. The Yugoslav delegation shares the view and considers that the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium is balanced and reasonable, taking into account the constraints faced by Member Nations. It provides a well reasoned and realistic response to often conflicting expectations of individual countries. In this regard we welcome the fact that the full Programme of Work and Budget provided considerably expanded information on the priorities and programme proposals.
In connection with the suggestion by some delegations of having special emergency planning, our delegation fully supports the stand taken and explanations given by the delegation of India. In any case, the idea has already been rejected by the Programme and Finance Committees as well as by the Council.
Taking into account expressed views and conclusions by the Programme and Finance Committees, the Yugoslav delegation has no difficulties in giving full support to the recommendation that the Council endorse the proposed Programme of Work and Budget for 1988/89 with the hope for its approval by consensus by the 24th Session of our Conference. At this stage we will not go into detail with regard to individual programmes and sub-programmes because we will have an opportunity to do this at the forthcoming Conference.
George H. MUSGROVE (Canada): We, too, would like to acknowledge and thank Mr Shah for his presentation on this item and Mr Mazoyer, as Chairman of the Programme Committee, and Mr Bukhari, of the Finance Committee, for their exposition of deliberations in those committees with respect to the Programme of Work and Budget. We recognize that we have in the Council a very compressed schedule and that discussion of this item must of necessity be rather brief, and, as we have made very extensive remarks in earlier meetings at the Committee on Agriculture and at the June Council and will be addressing the matter in considerable detail in Conference in Commission II, we shall confine our remarks to a very brief collection of observations.
In spite of the fact that there is opportunity in Council, in the committees and at the Conference to discuss the Programme of Work and Budget, our country is not satisfied that it has sufficient access to the appropriate forum to talk in detail on the formation process which leads up to the Programme of Work and Budget or on its financial provisions. We say this particularly because we are not a member of the Finance Committee nor is our representative of North America a member of that Committee, either.
Our problems with the budget are a number of concerns. First is the concern at priority setting and the subsequent build up of programmes to address such priorities as are identified. We should like to preface that discussion with an acknowledgement of the improvements that have been made in this year's Programme of Work and Budget. Indeed, those improvements started with the Summary Programme of Work and Budget and its presentation. There were references to priorities; there were considerably improved explanations of how the budget was formed and how the priorities were sought. We liked the explanations given in the Programme and sub-Programme elements that tend to sharpen the understanding of how these programmes address priorities. We feel that these improvements are a start and indeed reflect some of the comments that have been made in past meetings, not only on the present Programme of Work and Budget proposal but on the one that we discussed two years ago. We feel there is very much room for improvement in this particular area, and it would be something that we would be seeking in more detail, perhaps, in the context of review and reform of the budgetary system.
The second concern that we have relates to the word "transparency". I hesitated to use it because it has drawn considerable provocative riposte when used. We still think there is considerable room for clarification of expenditures as they apply to specific or discrete activities.
The third concern is one relating to the financial situation. We, like others, would draw attention to the convergence of a number of unfortunate circumstances having to do with the interest rates, with the currency exchage rate, and with the failure to realize the assessed contributions that might have been anticipated. We hasten to regret, of course, that there are such delayed contributions and would urge those countries in arrears to come forward with their payment as soon as possible. However, I do not think that we can ignore the financial concerns arising from operations in the present biennium which will impact very largely on the budget in the next biennium. We feel that the proposal has not adequately addressed these and, though we have been told that discussions have been held in the Finance Committee on possible alternatives, we are concerned that an effective contingency has not been put forward. Our concern is at the level of the budget. Here again we appreciate the efforts which have been made to keep the proposal modest in its financial provisions and indeed the Director-General has gone through some reduction in this proposal from his summary suggestion earlier on.
Nevertheless, we are cognizant that one, two or three of the other sister UN agencies have put forward proposals containing an element of negative real growth. That is cost increases have been absorbed in part within the budgets proposed. We do not want to see a reduction in the Organization's activities; we feel however that there is room to pull in a bit and try to get somewhat more effective delivery out of a somewhat less resource.
Our country is one of those who have suffered with the currency exchange situation rather dramatically. Our contribution will, on the projection of things, rise very, very substantively in 1988, perhaps as much as 20 percent. We are aware of other countries whose increase in payment in terms of local currencies will be very much more than that. In and of itself, for our country it is not a serious situation, we cannot expect sympathy with the ability to pay, but we can say that within the context of limited budgets to pay assessed contributions to the many, many agencies across the board, we are rapidly running into an inability to meet all these.
If I could just revisit a little the item on transparency, I would like to note the observations made by the Chairman of the Finance Committee, or the Programme Committee, Mr Mazoyer, this morning that his Committee had sought some increase in clarity in the presentation of the Programme and was pleased to have received it in the Programme as it came down to them in their Committee.
I would very much like, to commend him for that clarity which he sought and the clarity he recognized as being received because we had been concerned, a year and a half ago, that reports from the Programme Committee indicated such clarity, such transparency, was already fully evident within the Organization and no improvements were needed.
Without going into detail, because there is no time for it here, we would nevertheless like to flag just a number of issues within the programme. One would be to support the observations made by our colleague from Trinidad and Tobago that there does not seem to be an increase in emphasis in terms of resource put on the role of women in development. The forgotten farmers, while treated in the prose, may not have been treated with increased resource and activity. We also feel in totality that perhaps the very valid concerns with respect to the environment - and I am thinking here of the recent report of the Brundtland Commission - which have been addressed at most of the principal FAO management meetings over the last several years may not have been given adequate treatment in terms of resource applied. We think particularly that may apply to the fisheries programme and to the forestry areas.
We have advocated over the last several years increased emphasis on the policy advice that the Organization may be able to give and despatch to member countries, particularly those who are going through a substantive period of adjustment. We feel that additional attention could be given to that.
Finally, our colleagues the delegation from the United States, drew attention to the proposals for country representatives, an increase of four. We, like that delegation, cannot support the proposal at this time, particularly at the stage when the United Nations is again looking at field representation and possible cooperation in that area. The North American Regional Liaison Office has come in for a very substantive cut and we find that somewhat erratic in so far as the budget for the present biennium had proposed and indeed included a rather substantive increase for that office. Such on-again growth and off-again cuts seem to me a little erratic. However, as was mentioned earlier, if there is to be a substantive cut in the Washington liaison office, perhaps other regional offices and country representatives could also suffer some economies as well.
In closing, we would like to commend the quality of presentations put forward by a good many delegates today, and most particularly our attention was drawn to that put forward by the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Denmark for the Nordic countries. Many of the concerns which they have outlined and indeed the concerns which we have outlined we feel can be addressed in a review and reform execise. We note that that will be a subject for discussion at the Conference and we can speak in more detail at that time. As it is, our country cannot support the budget, for the reasons of the concerns that we have put forward and we shall continue our dialogue on this item in Commission II of the Conference.
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (Mexico): La Delegación de Mexico le felicita a usted por la forma excelente con que viene dirigiendo nuestros trabajos. Agradecemos asimismo a la Secretaría, a los Presidentes y Miembros del Comité del Programa y de Finanzas por el excelente trabajo que han venido realizando. Ellos son los artífices de complicados ejercicios de valoración técnica en la atención a las propuestas expresadas por nuestras delegaciones en los órganos rectores y subsidiarios y lo más ambicioso en la compatibilización entre necesidades mayores y disponibilidades de recursos menores. Todo esto sin embargo, Señor Presidente, lo subrayo, agravado por manejos poco correctos de ciertas Delegaciones que hoy se arrogan el derecho de exigir más transparencia y ajustes pero que aportan o amenazan con otorgar sus pequeños recursos.
Nuestra felicitación especial al Director General por la presentación equilibrada y conciliadora del documento principal. Dicho documento y las conclusiones del Comité del Programa buscan zanjar las diferencias entre aquellos que, insistimos, es un programa más poderoso para atender el creciente deterioro de la seguridad alimentaria mundial, y de las necesidades de asistencia multilateral para el desarrollo, y aquellos que inflexiblemente preconizan el crecimiento cero. De hecho, en términos reales, estas últimas Delegaciones han logrado más que el crecimiento cero. Conforme a otras estimaciones, resulta evidente una reducción real en el presupuesto para 1988-89.
La situación de muchos países en desarrollo, cuya crisis se perpetúa, agrava nuestra incapacidad económica para salir al encuentro del presupuesto con más recursos.
Es inequitativo que países como México debamos cargar el peso de los ajustes monetarios del dólar y de otras circunstancias. Por ello nos reservamos hasta la Conferencia nuestra posición respecto al nivel presupuestario propuesto. Al reiterar lo dicho en otras ocasiones, coincidimos con Argentina en que deberíamos estudiar otras alternativas en la distribución de las cargas.
Hemos examinado a fondo la documentación proporcionada por la Secretaría que cada vez perfecciona la extensión y la calidad de la presentación y del análisis. Esperamos que este renovado esfuerzo llegue a satisfacer las existentes demandas y críticas de ciertas Delegaciones que insatisfechas más allá de lo justificable siempre piden algo más. Ello sin considerar los costos y el tiempo que todo eso implica y sin reconocer que el nivel de presentación y el formato son ya suficientemente explícitos y, por tanto, apropiados para la gran mayoría de los miembros de la Organización.
Nuestra Delegación reconfirma su apoyo a las prioridades del Programa propuesto tal y como lo expre-samos en el 91 Período de Sesiones del Consejo cuando se presentó en su forma resumida. El Programa refleja el consenso o la posición mayoritaria que los propios Estados Miembros hemos alcanzado en los diversos foros, Nuestra Delegación constata así su apoyo a las prioridades de tal Programa y reiteramos dos cuestiones específicas, y una de carácter general, a la que debe darse mayor atención y fortalecerse.
Mencionamos en específico el Subprograma de Recursos Fitogenéticos y también la necesidad de continuar estudios más profundos y de caso sobre el papel y la influencia de las empresas transnacionales en el sector agrícola y alimentario; y en términos generales, y por ser una cuestión de gran importancia para la mayor parte de los países, el fortalecimiento del PCT que ha probado ser apropiado y efectivo para responder a nuestras necesidades.
Nos complace notar el comentario hecho por el Comité del Programa en su sesión de septiembre, que a la luz de las narrativas que aparecen en la versión final que hoy estamos analizando, ha reiterado el énfasis en la asistencia a los grupos más desfavorecidos de las áreas rurales y a la conservación y mejor aprovechamiento de los recursos naturales.
Nos sumamos también al Comité en afirmar que los problemas de liquidez sin precedente han afectado muy gravemente la ejecución del Programa bienal y la capacidad de la Secretaría para responder eficazmente. El posible futuro empobrecimiento de la competencia técnica de la FAO, resultante de la continuada limitación de los medios operacionales del personal y de las así llamadas oleadas sucesivas de ajustes en el Programa, afectarían peligrosamente su actividad y el éxito del programa regular. Por ello, Señor Presidente, debemos reconocer que la prioridad número uno de todos los Estados Miembros de nuestra Organización consiste en exhortar al mayor contribuyente, así como a todos aquellos que están en mora, a que paguen a la brevedad. Debe quedar muy claro que el punto de partida de las dudas y las objeciones de carácter financiero de algunas delegaciones en contra del Programa y del Presupuesto, radican precisamente en los retrasos en el pago del mayor contribuyente y de los efectos monetarios de la crisis económica de tal país.
Esos son abrumadoramente los principales problemas que enfrenta la FAO, y no la existencia de inefi-ciencia o ineficacia en la preparación y ejecución de sus programas. Basarnos en previsiones pesimistas u optimistas a priori, nos parece simplista, irresponsable e inaceptable. El Comité del Programa y de Finanzas han hecho, por tanto, un trabajo responsable, profundo y congruente con las circunstancias y con los pronósticos más serios a la vista; Aplaudimos y enarbolamos como ejemplo para el mundo la actitud altruista del Gobierno italiano que quisiéramos ver emulada por muchos otros.
Finalmente, nuestra Delegación desea reconocer el esfuerzo de conciliación que representa el programa propuesto en el Documento 87/3, los análisis del Comité del Programa en su sesión de septiembre, contenido en el Documento CL 92/4. Nos reservamos la ocasión de comentarlos en detalle durante la Conferencia, en la Comisión II.
Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Deseamos felicitar sinceramente al Señor Shah por la presentación clara y precisa a la cual ya nos tiene acostumbrados. Queremos felicitar también al Señor Mazqyer y al Señor Bukhari al informarnos a nombre del Comité del Programa y de Finanzas, respectivamente. La Delegación de Cuba quiere hacer su reconocimiento al trabajo realizado por los Comités del Pro grama y de Finanzas.
Consideramos que, teniendo en cuenta la situación financiera por la que atraviesa la Organización, la labor de ambos Comités es aún más digna de elogio.
Nuestra intervención tenía una intención muy breve y sencilla, .que era expresar nuestra aprobación a la documentación presentada y solicitar el consenso para que pasara a la discusión de la Conferencia.
Creemos que el Programa de Labores que se presenta, a nuestro modo de ver es un programa equilibrado que es lo mejor que pueda presentarse, con un presupuesto prácticamente similar al del bienio anterior. Quiero advertir que las necesidades del bienio anterior con relación a este bienio se han casi cuadruplicado, y no por culpa de la FAO, no es la FAO la que crea las necesidades de los países en desarrollo; si bien consideramos que se han debido limitar las labores de la Organización, estamos conscientes también de la limitación financiera de todos los países y, por consiguiente, entendemos las restricciones que han debido hacerse para presentar un presupuesto en el que se han tenido en cuenta los criterios de todas las partes.
Mi delegación ante tal situación considera que este Programa de Labores y Presupuesto es lo mínimo que este Consejo debe presentar a la Conferencia, esperando que se logre un consenso en la aprobación del mismo.
Específicamente, y habiendo oído con detenimiento las intervenciones anteriores, creemos que podemos expresar que va a ser muy difícil afirmar con razones que la FAO se ha desviado de su alto nivel de competencia y de efectividad en sus labores, estamos esperando esas razones.
Se ha hablado de cierto fatalismo en cuanto á que la FAO en el futuro tendrá un presupuesto más bajo, ya estamos tratando de crear un futurismo o adivinanzas, no sé; nosotros sabemos que la crisis económica mundial es una realidad, y seguirá siendo realidad mientras no tomemos cuenta da cuál es la real forma de trabajar entre todos, no unos contra otros, sino entre todos, y como el mundo, según dijeron literatos latinoamericanos, más bien centroamericanos, creo que era Alegría que nos dijo que el mundo era ancho, pero era ajeno, no podía pertenecer a nadie en particular y que en todas partes de ese mundo vive gente.
La crisis es una realidad, tenemos que solucionarla todos en conjunto, no unos contra otros. No creo que sb tenga que programar ni planificar la muerte; la muerte creo que nos debe sorprender, hemos de tratar de vivir, saber vivir y que ella nos sorprenda pero no planificarla, eso es pesimismo.
El crecimiento cero no es un concepto razonablemente humano, no; vivir con pesimismo es falta de fe en su propia acción, a no ser que sea deliberada la búsqueda de la muerte. Por lo tanto, nos oponemos como concepto al crecimiento cero; si discutimos entre nosotros a lo mejor buscamos, de acuerdo con la situación real de la crisis en el mundo de hoy, a lo mejor encontramos un presupuesto más bajo que el que tenemos y estamos de acuerdo en que no podemos tener otro porque la situación es crítica para todos; pero como se nos impone una raya, una línea, ya nosotros no nos sentimos tranquilos con que se nos quieran imponer posiciones. Sin embargo, estamos de acuerdo con el nivel del presupuesto presentado como solución coyuntural.
En otra cuestión queremos también recordar a algunos colegas que, un poco también pesimistas, han hablado del programa de cooperación técnica; es un instrumento valiosísimo para los países del Tercer Mundo que son los que lo reciben, no creemos haya razones tampoco válidas para capidisminuir-las ni rebajarlas. Es un mecanismo que nos garantiza una auténtica multilateralidad v no casi bi-lateralidad. como algunas contribuciones voluntarias o fiduciarias, como se le llama; por lo tanto, en nuestro afán de rechazar toda tendencia a la presión, no creemos que la bilateralización y el condicionamiento del destino de las contribuciones voluntarias puedan utilizarse como precondición para avanzar hacia dimensiones de asistencia más equitativas.
Finalmente, queremos expresar que hemos vivido, hemos sido testigos de todas las vicisitudes que ha atravesado el presupuesto y el Programa de la FAO en los dos últimos Consejos y las dos últimas Conferencias; hay muchos documentos disponibles; hay muchas evaluaciones, auditorías ejecutadas, hay mucha información para los que realmente queramos tener una información real de un organismo intergubernamental. Consideramos que todos los presentes aquí representamos a un gobierno legítimamente constituido y cada uno de nosotros nos respetamos a nosotros mismos, por lo tanto creo que este organismo debe resolver internamente con sus representantes legítimos sus problemas. Querer sacar de esta contexto toda esta discusión nos parece que se pueda atravesar los linderos de la multilateralidad y caer en problemas ya no técnicos sino básicamente políticos. Si eso es lo que se quiere en realidad ha de ser otro tipo de discusión, porque la causa de la crisis financiera de la FAO no estriba en la mala administración o en la ineficacia, sino que como ha sido destacado en el 90 y 91 período de sesiones del Consejo las causas reales son los atrasos de los pagos del mayor contribuyente, que además han sido acompañados por un mecanismo, también inducido, de la caída del dólar de los Estados Unidos y del decrecimiento de otros ingresos.
Por lo tanto, todo planteamiento de ese tipo enfáticamente nos hace a nosotros oponernos porque creemos que usar la crisis financiera de la FAO como pretexto y marco para atacar a la FAO no es legítimo, puede ser útil para algunos intereses, pero no legítimos.
Nuestra delegación considera que la documentación presentada, la exposición y las exposiciones de muchos colegas de este Consejo nos garantizarán llevar a la Conferencia este documento con el objetivo de hacer una amplia, abierta y fraternal discusión en la Conferencia.
Paul R. BRYDEN (Australia): First of all, I should like to thank Mr Shah and our two Committee Chairmen for their clear and helpful introduction to this item.
Australia is unable to support the budget as currently formulated. In our view it does not address the likely deficit of $47 million and is premised on full payment of contributions over the next biennium, which is not likely to happen, and it will axe any set of priorities. Like a character frpm Charles Dickens, Mr Micawber, we appear to be simply waiting for something to turn up. An effective deficit budget with no indication of how to fund the deficit based on income projections which are unrealistic would not pass muster in my own parliament. We cannot support one here.
A word on the budget process: the Programme of Work and Budget has been through the Committee on Agriculture, the Finance and Programme Committees, the Council, back to the Finance and Programme Committees, and now back to Council. The result of this consideration, which is an impressive flow chart, is marginal: a reduction of US$ 1.1 million. We are rearranging the deck chairs but will we avoid the icebergs?
Mention has been made of the national currency implications of the Programme of Work and Budget at a time of currency fluctuations. Regardless of the causes, a 50 percent increase in assessed contributions in national currency terms, as is the case with Australia, cannot easily be ignored by my Government, nor by the taxpayers of Australia, at a time when sacrifices are being made in a range of governmental activities to reduce Government expenditures. Many other countries face this situation.
My delegation shares the concern of the delegation of Japan regarding the actual US dollar increases in the budget, particularly when the proposed additional assessments for the Special Reserve Account and the Working Capital Fund are included. While consideration of the Special Reserve Account and Working Capital Fund will take place later on our agenda, we continue to feel that the argument for special assessments has not been made.
My delegation shares the views of the Swiss delegation concerning the need for FAO to re-emphasize its policy development role. Never before has the need for good, focussed, agricultural policy advice to policy makers been more pressing. This is an area of FAO's role and mandate which needs greater recognition.
Mention must be made of arrears: $67 million is attributable to the largest contributor, but $ 31 million is owed by other countries; indeed, in percentage terms - that is, arrears as a percentage of contributions - 31 countries are ahead of the United States in a sorry list of members to meet their commitments: the Organization would be in far better shape if they did.
Finally, my delegation looks forward to participating in full, frank and constructive discussions of the Programme of Work and Budget at the Conference. I must stress that, in contrast to many delegations which are satisfied with the Budget but which are not paying their bills, Australia will meet its obligations fully and promptly.
Adel Helmy EL-SARKI (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): In the name of Allah, the most merciful and compassionate. After hearing the excellent and very clear presentation by Dr. Shah of this document, I wish to express our thanks to him and to Mr Mazoyer, Chairman of the Programme Committee, and his Excellency Ambassador Bukhari, Chairman of the Finance Committee, for the very clear and sincere presentations of this subject.
My delegation values very highly the constructive and continuing efforts which have gone towards preparing this Programme of Work and Budget 1988/89, in spite of the difficulties of FAO's present situation. We would also like to praise the perseverence with which it is attempting to meet the wishes of various countries, particularly developing countries in spite of FAO's current financial crisis which we hope will soon be settled.
My country fully supports FAO's emphasis on technical and economic programmes which benefit developing countries, particularly in the TCP, which was supported by the majority of delegates who asked for it to be continued. We in Egypt have great hopes for the positive effect of the assistance provided by the agricultural development programmes, and we fully support the Programme of Work and Budget for .1988/89, as we have already stated at the Ninety-First Session of the FAO Council.
Some speakers asked for a study of the possibility of an alternative plan should FAO not receive payment of all contributions. We, because of our belief in FAO's objectives and our close relationship with FAO itself, do not see any problem in this principle being considered, so long as it does not have a negative effect on the programmes which are intended to help developing countries. We also hope that we will achieve agreement by consensus.
My delegation reserves the right to make more detailed comments on some programmes during the Twenty-Fourth Session of the general Conference.
Finally, we would also like to congratulate the three Vice-Chairmen on their election.
Felix SABAL LECCO (Cameroun): On dit que tard vaut mieux que jamais, je voudrais donc remercier toes collègues d'avoir honoré ma délégation en élisant un de ses membres, justement en ma modeste personne, comme Vice-Président du Conseil. Je voudrais à mon tour m'associer, au nom de la délégation du Cameroun, à tous les orateurs qui ont adressé leurs félicitations sincères à M. Shah, Di recteur du Programme et du budget, pour la qualité des documents qu'il a élaborés, ce qui a grandement facilité les travaux des Comités financier et de Programme. Nous adressons nos remerciements au Président et aux membres pour le travail qu'ils ont accompli en examinant avec perspicacité les documents budgétaires et de programme qui leur ont été soumis. Enfin le Secrétariat général du Conseil et de la Conférence, et plus particulièrement son chef d'orchestre M. Paul Savary, véritable cheville ouvrière de cette Organisation, mérite également nos chaleureuses félicitations pour la qualité constamment améliorée de l'ensemble des documents soumis à notre examen. Ceci dit, la délégation du Cameroun, qui se réjouit des réductions des coûts administratifs et de personnel et de l'augmentation des ressources des Programmes économiques et techniques, approuve globalement les stratégies, les
priorités et programmes soumis à notre examen dans le document C 97/3, et en particulier le maintien, bien qu'une augmentation nous aurait davantage comblés, des ressources du Programme de coopération technique. En effet, le PCT, tout le monde le sait peut-être, est très apprécié dans nos pays en développement, parce qu'il contribue de façon efficace et rapide à résoudre des problèmes importants et urgents auxquels nos pays à économie essentiellement rurale ont à faire face. Pour terminer, la délégation du Cameroun, par ma voix, tient à féliciter le Directeur général de la FAO d'avoir eu le courage de ramener la croissance du budget du futur biennium de 0, 4 % à 0, 25%, ce qui est une décision tristement réaliste, puisque d'une part les ressources des pays en développement, comme vous le savez tous, sont de plus en plus amenuisées du fait de la détérioration des termes de l'échange et de la situation de crise actuelle, et d'autre part parce que les pays gros donateurs semblent de plus en plus fuir devant leurs engagements et leurs responsabilités, sous des prétextes qui ne trompent personne.
J.K. KIAMBWA (Tanzania): Firstly, the Tanzanian delegation wishes to express its appreciation for the excellent introduction by Dr. Shah for this item under discussion, the Programme of Work and Budget. I also wish to thank the chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committees for their elaborate clarification of their deliberations, and of what they have agreed upon. The Tanzanian delegation has considered Document CL 87/3, and is convinced that this is comprehensive, balanced, and has thoroughly exhausted all the points raised in the different committees. We feel that the Director-General has carefully taken into account the observations of Member countries with the objective of striking a balance. Indeed, my delegation would wish to have the Budget ceiling increased; but having taken into consideration all the parameters which the Director-General has seriously taken into account, we are of the opinion that the Programme of Budget for 1988/89 is balanced, and we would therefore go along with other Member countries in supporting it.
My delegation supports the plea by the distinguished delegates of Zambia and the United Kingdom that the Technical Cooperation Programme - TCP - should be given the necessary support, given the fact that it is an area in which great assistance has been rendered to developing countries. My delegation therefore strongly objects to the request of some delegations that TCP should be one of the areas where savings could be made. We are convinced that the areas where the Director-General has already suggested us to accommodate the proposed Budget proper, and the Budget therefore deserves the support of the Council. However, the request by some Member countries that there be an increase in the contribution by Member countries does not receive my delegation's acceptance. Indeed, even with the current assessment, several countfies are still in arrears, and this has been one of the main causes for cutting down the Budget. Once again, on behalf of my delegation, I wish to thank you, and hope that the Council will endorse the Programme of Work and Budget and recommend it to Conference for approval.
Sahadojj BAWA (Niger): Ma delegation se réjouit de prendre la parole à ce stade de nos travaux pour tout d'abord vous féliciter pour l'excellente conduite des travaux de la quatre-vingt douzième session du Conseil de notre Organisation qui se déroule sous votre bienveillante autorité.
Nos félicitations vont également à vos proches collaborateurs et nous formulons des voeux ardents pour la suite heureuse de nos travaux.
C'est avec un.vif intérêt que ma délégation a pris connaissance du document 92 C/4 qui traite du Programme et du budget de l'Organisation. Ce rapport reflète parfaitement les soucis et le souhait que nous avions exprimés lors de notre précédente rencontre.
Après avoir écouté les exposés très brillants, parfois même vibrants des orateurs qui nous ont précédés, ma délégation est heureuse d'exprimer ici toute sa satisfaction quant au contenu du Programme de travail et du budget qui lui ont été soumis. Ma délégation souscrit en conséquence pleinement au soutien inconditionnel et responsable que le Conseil se doit d'apporter au Programme et au budget.
S'il est vrai que les rapports qui nous ont été présentés ont reflété nos soucis majeurs, ma délégation est cependant préoccupée par certaines orientations que l'on cherche à faire prendre à notre Organisation. Ma délégation aura à intervenir sur ce point le moment venu.
Toutefois, nous tenons d'ores et déjà à manifester notre préoccupation sur l'inadéquation flagrante des problèmes importants du développement de l'agriculture, d'une part, avec les programmes de travail et, d'autre part, avec les ressources financières disponibles.
Sur ce point ma délégation, tout en faisant siennes les déclarations des honorables délégués qui nous ont précédés, notamment de l'Italie, de la France, de Madagascar, voudrait déplorer ce courant nouveau qui veut que la FAO soit une Organisation théorique et à la fois une simple banque de données. Nous voulons une FAO opérationnelle et dynamique.
C'est pourquoi, tout en apportant notre appui total au Programme et au Budget qui nous sont présentés, ma délégation souligne en passant qu'il s'agit là d'un minimum vital car toutes les concessions ont été faites pour rester dans la ligne que nous impose la conjoncture internationale.
A ceux qui voudraient encore un amenuisement du programme et par conséquent une réduction du budget nous sommes tentés de dire qu'ils veulent nous conduire à la catastrophe. En ce qui concerne le PCT, ma délégation déplore son niveau actuel et voudrait proposer que la Conférence étudie la possibilité de son augmentation. Le PCT, pour nous pays en voie de développement, c'est le ballon d'oxygène. Nos pays en voie de développement, principaux bénéficiaires du PCT, savent parfaitement le rôle important que celui-ci a joué et continue de jouer dans leur plan de développement économique et social. Nous ne saurions suffisamment plaider pour la survie de notre organisation, la FAO, chargée de cette noble mission, à savoir veiller à l'alimentation correcte et suffisante de l'humanité entière, dans la paix et la concorde, dans un élan de solidarité internationale entre les peuples, sans considération de langues, de couleurs ni de religions.
Pour terminer, ma délégation voudrait renouveler l'attachement de notre pays aux idéaux de l'Organisation, la FAO, et souhaiterait inviter tous les pays membres à en faire autant en commençant par s'acquitter honorablement de leurs obligations budgétaires car les déclarations ronflantes ne suffiront jamais à remplir les caisses de l'Organisation. Le document C 92/LIM/1 reflète bien l'état de la situation financière. Il est donc grand temps que l'acte soit joint à la parole, c'est sans doute la plus douce musique que notre Organisation souhaiterait aujourd'hui écouter.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia está agradecida a nuestra colega y amiga Petersen de Dinamarca por haber sido la primera en señalar la situación financiera como uno de los aspectos principales que debe preocuparnos en la consideración del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto. Esta mañana nos pareció, ojalá estemos equivocados, que el funcionario de la Secretaría que presentó el tema asumió una actitud olímpica, indiferente; no se refirió a la situación financiera como si todo fuera normal, que los Estados Miembros vienen pagando sus contribuciones y no está pasando nada.
A la luz de la seriedad y competencia de la administración, no podemos pensar que la FAO esté contenta o resignada con esa situación financiera que quisiéramos conocer actualizada. En cambio, encontramos muy acertada la reacción del Sr. Profesor Mazoyer, Presidente del Programa, siendo su opinión personal en el sentido de que los reajustes tienen efectos destructores; esta fue la traducción que nos llegó.
Convendrá entonces preguntarnos: ¿Será realista y objetivo adoptar un Programa de Labores y Presupuesto sobre bases inciertas de recursos que sigan conduciendo a constantes y considerables reducciones en los programas? Preguntamos: ¿Cuál será la situación financiera de la Organización al final del presente bienio? ¿Habrá déficits, y de cuánto? Desafortunadamente la declaración que hizo el representante de un importante país esta mañana no ofreció muchas esperanzas.
La delegación de Colombia reitera su opinión en el sentido de que la falla fundamental de este Programa, lo que falta es la indicación clara de lo que la FAO no podrá hacer en 1988/89, si como parece, el marco financiero continuará deteriorándose. Si el primer contribuyente no terminará de pagar sus cuotas en este bienio, ¿quién podrá asegurar que una situación acumulada, igual o peor se presentará en el bienio próximo?
La delegación de Colombia piensa que todos los Estados Miembros deben pagar puntualmente sus contribuciones, y este Consejo debe insistir al respecto en su Informe, sobre todo en relación con el primer contribuyente. Pedimos al Embajador Pascarelli que transmita el Gobierno de Italia el reconocimiento del Gobierno colombiano por la actitud siempre constructiva de nuestro país hospedante.
Hay que ser realistas; se deben definir mejor las prioridades a la luz de la situación financiera para evitar que en 1988/89 como en 1986/87 se haga necesario introducir cambios, reajustes y reducciones con notables perjuicios para los países en desarrollo. Las reducciones que ahora se proponen en relación con el presupuesto, todas, todas esas reducciones afectan la política de decentra-lización. Al retardo de los cuatro nuevos representantes de la FAO en los países, se suma lo ya decidido de suprimir el cago de D 1 en la oficina de Ginebra, justamente ahora cuando la FAO se propone participar activamente en la Ronda Uruguay.
La delegación de Colombia apoya, una vez más, la política de decentralización, y dentro de esa política, apoyamos las Oficinas Regionales y las Oficinas en los países. Sin embargo, pensamos que convendrá vigilar severa y constantemente a fin de que en las Oficinas Regionales y en los países se cumplan adecuadamente las funciones para las cuales esas oficinas han sido establecidas, y sus funcionarios no se dediquen a otras actividades.
La delegación de Colombia comparte plenamente con nuestro vecino y amigo de la derecha, el Embajador Ariza Hidalgo de Cuba, el apoyo al Programa de Cooperación Técnica. El promedio de 75 000 dólares es muy bajo. Será necesario además vincular los PCT a formas subsiguientes de asistencia técnica o financiera para consolidar y prolongar sus beneficios y alcanzar el originalmente llamado efecto multiplicador.
La delegación de Colombia apoya plenamente el nivel del presupuesto, aunque seguimos pensando que dentro de ese nivel pueden hacerse reducciones en algunos aspectos marginales pero que suman y cuya eliminación tendría buena presentación. Este documento será discutido a fondo en la Conferencia. No vamos a prolongar nuestra declaración. Sin embargo, hemos pensado siempre que el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto es la Biblia, la guía insustituible de nuestros trabajos en cada bienio.
Por ello consideramos necesario concluir esta declaración con algunas breves y concretas consideraciones de orden político. El Gobierno de Colombia presentó una candidatura cuyos objetivos principales estaban enmarcados en el concepto de renovación, y en la necesidad de que, cada vez más, los representantes de los Estados Miembros estén en condiciones libres, sin limitaciones ni temores, de expresar su opinión sobre los Programas y las políticas de nuestra Organización. En relación con esa candidatura, el Gobierno colombiano recientemente tomó la decisión ampliamente conocida, pero seguimos pensando que esos objetivos básicos de renovación y de cambio político siguen vigentes, particularmente ahora cuando la FAO vive uno de los momentos más difíciles, críticos e inciertos de su historia.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I shall be very brief since we shall have the occasion to make comments on the details of the Programme of Work and Budget during the Conference. The Philippine delegation merely wishes to express its agreement with the medium-term objectives, the programmes and priorities proposed. These have been discussed at length in the technical committees of FAO, the subsidiary bodies of the Council, the CCP, the COAG, the COFI, the COFO and the Programme and Finance Committees. The last Council also had occasion to look out the Summary Programme of Work and Budget on which the full Programme has been based.
The Philippine delegation concurs also with the comments made by developing country members on the Programme of Work and Budget, particularly on the TCP. The Philippine delegation also expresses its concern regarding the negative effects of arrears on the Programme of Work and Budget. We believe the Council should once more appeal to member countries to honour their constitutional obligations to the Organization. Some members have referred to the substantial increase of some member countries' contribution in terms of their local currencies. In this connection the Philippine delegation wishes to express its concern that, at a time when it is experiencing economic difficulties, its scale of contribution has been increased according to the New York scale of assessment which has been adopted by FAO.
However, at the same time there are some countries whose assessments have actually been decreased in terms of their own strong local currencies. I was wondering whether these countries could follow the example of generosity of the host country so that they would maintain their level of contribution in terms of their local currency at the same level of the past biennium.
Finally, the Philippine delegation expresses the hope that the Programme of Work and Budget can be approved by the Conference by consensus.
Mohd. Mazlan bin JUSOH (Malaysia): We apologize for coming in so late but, since this matter is of great importance, we feel we have to make our statement. We take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretariat for preparing such a comprehensive document, which was brilliantly introduced by Mr Shah. We also wish to thank the Chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committees for their equally lucid presentations. In times of financial difficulty it must be an extremely difficult task for the FAO Secretariat to balance the figures and come up with a budget as presented to us today. We appreciate this difficulty and the limitation of financial resources. However, we are strongly supportive of this proposal in its entirety. The budget increase proposal of 1.1 million, representing 0.25 percent, is actually just a symbolic increase and is far short of the actual requirement. In fact, given adequate financial resources, we should like to see at least a 10 to 15 percent increase in the budget of this Organization. We understand that member countries would be hard pressed to maintain their contributions to this budget, especially the developing countries which are afflicted with heavy debt problems and other economic reverses. If these countries are willing to support the budget, we do not see the reason for the reluctance of the richer and well developed countries to do the same.
My delegation is also appreciative of the efforts of Organization to streamline the cost increase, originally estimated at $18 million, to around $13 million. The effort taken to reduce some $5 million, based on measures such as trimming of administrative costs, cutting of publications and meetings and the freezing of numerous posts are commendable to meet the financial crisis. Inevitably, some of these cost-cutting measures will have some detrimental effects on the delivery capacity of the Organization. We have heard that the Organization is finding it extremely difficulty to keep its core of expert personnel and finding it equally difficult to attract other experienced experts to join its ranks. We hope that this situation Will not persist for a longer period than necessary, otherwise the Organization will suffer an irretrievable loss in expertise and a reduction of its capacity to implement projects.
My delegation is appreciative of the direction taken by the Organization in increasing the allocation for the technical and economic programmes while reducing the general and policy direction, developmental and support programmes and support services. We believe that these proposed changes are in line with the desire to perform better in implementing technical and substantive projects and effect savings in administrative services. Such a direction is desirable and would in the end, result in a much healthier and trimmer Organization. These policy changes would be in conformity with the call for reform made by Various member countries.
Regarding the programme priorities that have been stipulated in the budget document, we feel these priorities are in line with the present needs of member countries. Definitely it is logical to expect that there should be concentration in the effort to increase agricultural production in severe food deficit countries.
While on the subject of the budget, we strongly support the proposal of the Secretariat to maintain the level of allocation for the TCP. In many fora we have continuously heard the strong support of member countries for the TCP. In fact, some of us have expressed the desire to see the allocation of this programme increased but, due to the limitation of financial resources, we have to be satisfied with maintenance of allocation at the level of the previous biennium.
Nga-ma MAPELA (ZAïre): Ma delegation prend la parole pour la deuxième fois, conformément à ce que nous avons dit ce matin, à savoir que nous nous réservions le droit de reprendre la parole à tout moment opportun. Soyez sûrs que je serai bref.
On a parlé ici des bureaux de représentants de la FAO dans les pays. Il y en a un dans mon pays qui, jusqu'à ce jour, fonctionne à notre entière satisfaction. Mais si un jour on venait à adopter l'idée avancée par certains pays développés, à savoir que l'on applique le système d'un Bureau de la FAO pour plusieurs pays, ma délégation pense que cela posera beaucoup de problèmes. En ce qui nous concerne, nous ne pourrons pas appuyer pareille idée.
Ainsi, ma délégation demanderait qu'afin d'éviter une telle situation, nous approuvions la proposition du Directeur général de créer quatre nouveaux bureaux lors du prochain exercice biennal.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Mr Chairman, I remember in my very early days in UN service hearing a speech by a retiring senior official of the UN, and he said that presenting the budget of a UN organization was like a government submitting a budget to parliament in which every single member belonged to the opposition. In our case the Director-General's budget proposals were indeed criticized by some for being too high and by others for being too low, but I have been very glad to note that we have a very strong groundswell of support from the members of the Council at the end of this very long process of consultation and iteration which has led up to the document before you today and which is going to the Conference.
This debate has sent a number of very useful and interesting signals on the position of governments which they will be expressing in the Conference. At this stage I think the debate is not so much a debate with the Secretariat as a debate between Member Nations themselves. I would not wish to anticipate replies or additional information that may be given in the Conference itself, in Commission II, but I would like, before passing over the microphone to Mr Shah, to say something about three separate issues which were mentioned by several delegations in the course of the debate, and I mention these purely for information in case there are misunderstandings that it will be useful to dispel before the debate takes place in Commission II.
First of all, I should like to say something about the question of obligations, disbursements, amounts carried forward and cash flow. FAO has a financial system which has been enjoined upon us by the Member Nations, and this financial system requires us to fully fund all obligations that we make. We cannot run the Organization, we are now allowed to run the Organization, on a simple cash basis. The amounts carried over from one biennium to the next are in two distinct categories.
For the normal, regular Programme, excluding TCP, there are, of course, obligations carried forward because you cannot pay your December bills or your December obligations by the 31st December. It is physically not possible. There is a 3 month's delay and we shall be carrying forward obligations for settlement until the end of March 1988. We have been making elaborate analyses to work out in relation to cash flow exactly how much we shall be carrying forward for actual expenditure in the first three months of next year from the resources of this biennium.
For TCP the situation is somewhat different. TCP, as the members of the Council are well aware, is a very special kind of development programme. Funds are set aside - the technical phrase we use is "earmarked". Funds are earmarked as soon as a project is approved. Projects are approved by the Assistant Director-General of the Development Department. The approval of a project does not, however, by itself carry financial obligations. A project involves the provision of services or equipment, and you only make a financial obligation when you enter into a contract with a company to provide the equipment or with an individual to provide consultant services, let us say. Projects in themselves are of short duration but they may run for a year. Consequently it is clear from the very beginning that the 31st March deadline could not be applied to TCP projects and it was therefore decided and embodied in the rules of the Organization that the actual expenditure under TCP projects could proceed through the following biennium. Therefore, although we show in
our reports funds from TCP carried forward into the next biennium, for which we use the phrase "unobligated", they are nevertheless earmarked for specific projects. It is just that financially they have not been either disbursed or obligated, committed, in the narrow technical sense.
The reports on our actual cash out-turn - that was the phrase used by the distinguished representa-tive of the United Kingdom - the results of the last biennium in terms of cash out-turn are available in the audited accounts of the last biennium, which are before the Conference.
So far as concerns the current management of the Organization in a time of financial crisis, what matters is not the very highly detailed situation sub-programme by sub-programme but the total cash situation of the Organization, the ability of the available cash resources to cover the actual obligations that we have made, so that we tend to deal on aggregated figures for the Organization as a whole. I or one of my colleagues would be very glad to steer the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom to the actual documents and details which have been made available publicly to the Conference or we can make available additional details which have been given to the Finance Committee on the actual cash flow situation, which I think is the crux of what he was getting at.
The next point I should like to say something about is the policy role of FAO. This was mentioned by a number of speakers and, although it does not perhaps properly relate to the budget as such, it was mentioned so often that I should like to say something about it because of its obvious importance to the general view of FAO activities by a number of contributing nations.
FAO has for many years been providing advice of a policy nature to individual member governments and also on a sub-regional basis. If we have a fault in this it is, I think, that we have not been beating our own drum sufficiently loudly so that what we have been doing is not sufficiently widely known.
I would just like to give three examples of the type of activity which I believe could be called a policy role and which is or has been under way. In the field of forestry, the Tropical Forestry Action Plan has been mentioned several times today and in the case of many countries which have requested assistance under the TFAP it has involved a sector review leading to the identification of investable projects. This is designed to lead to the development of a pipeline for financing by multilateral and bilateral programmes. The TFAP is one example where policy-type activities are being worked out in cooperation with national governments.
Similarly in the field of fisheries, for instance, in the management of exclusive economic zones and in much of the work under the Programmes of Action adopted by the World Conference on Fisheries Management and Development just a few years ago. This is another example of national level policy advice.
In the field of agriculture, which is of course very much broader, I should like to give just one example. Delegations will certainly remember the study on agricultural price policies which was submitted to the Conference not long ago. This has been followed up by assistance provided on request to a very considerable number of governments in the development of their national price policies. These are just three examples, but there could be others.
Now we are currently in the process of bringing together the work which we do on what we call sector and sub-sector analysis because of one particular development. Delegations will remember that for follow-up on the UN Programme of Action for African Economic Recovery and Development, the follow-up mechanism at the national level is in many cases the UNDP Round Table. The Round Table explicitly deals with policies and plans. Initially, there was considerable doubt whether FAO and other technical agencies would be expected or even allowed to play a role in the Round Table process. While the process itself is still in an early phase with many teething problems, the recent signals which we have been receiving are encouraging in that governments and UNDP and other agencies expect that the specialized organizations and in particular FAO, because of its responsibility for agriculture as by far the largest sector in most African countries, will make a contribution to the Round Table process. This involves taking a view considerably above the project level and here we can talk about sector and sub-sector work.
All this, I must reiterate, is done at the request of the governments. There can be no question
at all of FAO playing the role of policy adviser in the sense of recommending policies which have not been requested. Indeed, it is perfectly obvious that many developing countries have reached a quite advanced stage of development. Probably the last thing they want is advice from FAO on how to handle their agriculture policies. The situation varies country by country and the organization makes its input only on request.
Therefore, I would like to leave the thought that the policy role has been underpublicised but not perhaps underexercised.
Finally, I should like to make my third point which is a very much more delicate one. I am sorry that I have not had a chance to discuss it in advance with the delegation of our largest contributor, but it was implied by some speakers today that the budget should be reduced because we could not expect to receive the full contribution from the largest contributor. I think there is a considerable misunderstanding on what is actually happening on the part of the largest contributor and I hope I may give some helpful remarks which will not be inaccurate.
What has been happening is the following. The United States administration has put forward requests to Congress for funding of contributions to a whole series of international organizations which are grouped in one single section of the budget. There are in fact 46 organizations in this particular chapter, at least I counted them myself and that was the figure I reached. Of these 46 organizations, only 12 are in the United Nations family. They include the United Nations itself and all the specialized agencies of which the United States is a member.
The contributions to these 46 organizations add up to a total figure which is specified in the documents before Congress. The cuts which have been made have not been made organization by organization throughout this list. What Congress has been doing is making an overall cut at the bottom, underneath the total line there is an entry, "overall reduction". These reductions have been made for a series of reasons including originally discontent with certain aspects of United Nations activities and above all budgetary difficulties and internal conflicts between financial requirements for different purposes.
The essential point for the entire system of international organizations - and this is not just FAO but all 46 international organizations concerned - is the need for clarity at the end of the line on what will in the future be the way our largest contributor will participate in all these organizations. At the present stage, it is simply not a solution to cut our budget request. That is not really the issue. In this entire process we count extremely on the support of the United States administration. The process which I have described is set off by a request by the United States administration to Congress and without the full support of the U.S. administration this of course will not be launched.
I would therefore urge those delegations who have suggested that because of the uncertainty over the level of future funding the budget should be cut, that this is not a useful or appropriate approach. This will be discussed further in the Conference in the light of the information which will undoubtedly be provided by the United States delegation and the matter can hopefully be clarified at that stage.
I very much hope that these remarks will be helpful and that I have not in any way conveyed inaccurately the process which is under way. Thank you very much. At this stage I would like to ask Mr. Shah to answer a number of other questions.
Fred J. ECKERT (United States of America): The United States would just like to say that there is no need for anyone other than the United States of America to explain United States budget policies. If anyone has a question on United States budget policies, the United States delegation is fully capable of answering them.
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Together with my senior colleague, I have taken very careful note of the high level of debate and the very precise reactions which members of the Council have expressed during consideration of the proposed Programme of Work and Budget.
As many members themselves have said, this is a prelude or a preview of the discussion which they, together with other Member Nations, will have in Commission II of the Conference. I am very aware that the questions posed have been limited for that very reason.
My response, taking into account the time constraints upon the Council, will therefore also be very limited and I trust that the Council will recognize that this is not in any way to be interpreted as a lack of courtesy or lack of interest in responding to the debate.
One of the first questions asked was about the effect of different currency rates on the budget level, if we went beyond the rate of lire 1250 to the dollar which is indicated in the document. To recall, at lire 1250 to the dollar the proposed budget would amount to US$ 490 860 000. At lire 1225 to the dollar, the budget level would be US$ 493 360 000 and at lire 1200 to the dollar, it would be US$ 495 860 000. Thus for a lire 50 drop there is a difference of exactly US$ 5 million.
A number of delegations have referred to figures of percentage increases. Percentage increases, of course, are frequently referred to but can easily cause confusion because an individual delegation may look at certain figures from one perspective, whereas those who listen to that statement may not be aware of the same figures, or may not assume the same basis. Some have said the effective working budget would grow by 19 percent; for some, or at least one, that in terms of the national currency of that country the increase would be 50 percent. I would urge that for sober consideration, all Member Nations would help each other if they referred not only to percentages but to the figures they considered because, after all, you do not pay in percentages, you pay in dollars and in dollar convertible currencies.
As far as all Member Nations are concerned, what do we have? We have an effective working budget for this biennium of US$ 437 million. We have a proposed budget which at lire 1350 - and I give that just because it is in the document - would be US$ 481.7 million. The increase as I calculate it - and we all do so - is 10.22 percent.
The first remark I would make there is that such an increase in the effective working level of the budget, substantial though it is, is not that extravagant in relation to some of the Programme of Work and Budget of other sister agencies in the UN system which have already been approved. It would perhaps be odious if I were to cite their names and cite their percentages, but we have them.
Secondly, the assessments of Member Nations: we are all aware that the effective work budget proposed after a deduction of Miscellaneous Income involves an increase in assessment. Nobody is hiding that. You are all able to see the effect in dollar terms and in terms of your national currencies. But here there is a great divergence of positions, which is inevitable. There are Member Nations which would wish in principle to contribute more because they would like to see this Organization strengthened and be of greater assistance. That is their sovereign prerogative. There are other Member Nations who say they are not prepared to see an increase in contributions. That is their decision. That is a dialogue among you, members of the Council, and among the Member Nations. I cannot comment on that.
It is also true that there are certain Member Nations which have benefited from the appreciation of their national currencies in relation to the US dollar. It is also true that others find it an enormous burden because of the further depreciation of their national currencies.
I will not lecture - heaven forbid! or bore you with figures, but if I may follow the example of my senior colleague I would merely say that this is very much a matter between Member Nations. The Secretariat respects that, and we shall be happy to assist in any further debate that you have in Commission II of the Conference. Our hope - and here I very much reflect the hope of the Director-General - is that the body of support which exists for this Organization will once again manifest itself in a consensus and a firm approval of your Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium.
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I am most grateful to management for the careful comments which they have made upon some of the points which I brought forth in my national statement. I am particularly grateful to Mr. Shah for giving me the specific figures in relation to the exchange rates for which I asked. That is useful and something we need to bear in mind as this debate proceeds.
I think both the management speakers indicated that we were having a debate among members rather than with management. I do not see it quite like that. I believe that there are important issues here which many of us raised in relation to the way in which management has prepared the documents which we are asked to consider, and although there may be further discussion during the Conference I do not feel it is right to expect that management should leave us on our own to deal with these questions.
I should like to thank management for what they said in relation to the cash flow point. Of course, we are very well aware of the documents which were recited. It is evident, therefore, that those do not meet the needs to which we were pointing. I should like to explain why.
When it comes to analyzing priorities, when it comes to considering the competing requirements of different priorities, when it comes to flexibility in the face of expected or unexpected financial contingencies, this too is very clearly not enough. It is for that reason that we believe that members Of the Conference are entitled to have the detailed figures in relation to out-turn on the programmes and sub-programmes for which we made a formal request.
I will illustrate this again by reference to the TCP. We have listened very carefully to the anxieties expressed around the meeting, which we have shared, about the need to maintain that, and I would link that with the possible impact upon the TCP of any unexpected or expected financial contingencies. It is obvious that if there is money which is unprogrammed and unobligated it must be a "sitting duck", to be colloquial, when one runs into financial stringencies. That is a concern which we continue to have despite what management have now said.
I think that the points which have been made clearly reinforce the unease we feel not about the need to programme the budget at a lower level in case, but rather to make sure that the priorities within that budget are very carefully and clearly expressed so that we can see for ourselves what is likely to have to be deferred and sacrificed if we get into difficulties later.
It is for that reason, in a spirit of realism, that I should like to reiterate the request, and of course expect that we shall come back to this in the full Conference.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I will only make a few brief remarks as I realise it is late, but I should like to express my Government's heartfelt thanks to the Deputy Director-General for what he has just explained to all of us. It was quite to the point that we should know from him what the situation is in view of some of the interventions that have been made here. Since I have the honour of representing not a minor contributor I think it is right for me, and indeed for all of us, to have the explanations which have been given. We are most grateful to him for what he has said, as well as to Mr Shah.
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois que nous avons assisté à un débat très fructueux, très approfondi, sur un point essentiel de l'ordre du jour, à savoir le Programme de travail et budget. Diverses opinions ont été émises, je suis persuadé que le Secrétariat va bénéficier des observations formulées par les différentes délégations quelles que soient leurs sensibilités.
Je crois comprendre que le Conseil dans sa majorité recommande d'envoyer le Programme de travail et budget tel qu'il est avec la majorité qui l'a approuvé, et certains délégués ont exprimé leur incapacité à l'heure actuelle, de soutenir le budget, faute d'éléments d'appréciation sur les contributions ultérieures et les montants réels que pourra percevoir l'Organisation.
Si vous n'y voyez pas d'inconvénient, nous pourrions donc considérer que ce point de l'ordre du jour a été épuisé. Il restera bien entendu à la Conférence générale de l'examiner, notamment à la Commission II, en toute souveraineté, et de prendre les mesures qu'elle croit devoir prendre pour vider cette question de manière définitive.
Si vous le permettez, nous pouvons passer à un point important que le Secrétariat va nous communiquer; il s'agit de la Commission des candidatures,
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Je reviens au point 3 de l'ordre du jour du Conseil. Celui-ci a laissé en suspens plusieurs décisions qu'il a à prendre. Il s'agit d'une part, de proposer des candidats pour les postes de présidents des trois commissions de la Conférence, le Secrétariat n'a reçu jusqu'à présent aucune proposition à ce sujet. Il serait nécessaire que le Conseil puisse se prononcer au plus tard demain matin sur cette question. Nous demandons instamment aux chefs de groupe intéressés de nous présenter des noms.
En second lieu, le Conseil doit élire, et non plus simplement proposer, les 11 membres de la Commission des candidatures. Nous avons reçu une liste de 11 noms que, Monsieur le Président, vous voudrez peut-être soumettre à l'approbation du Conseil. Il nous est donc proposé comme membres de la Commission des candidatures: la République fédérale d'Allemagne, les Etats-Unis d'Amérique, la France, la Gambie, la République islamique d'Iran, la Libye, le Maroc, la Nouvelle-Zélande, Trinité-et-Tobago, le Venezuela, et la Yougoslavie. C'est au Conseil de dire s'il approuve cette liste.
LE PRESIDENT: Est-ce que le Conseil a des observations? Est-ce qu'il approuve cette liste qui a été le fruit de contacts entre diverses délégations des sept régions de notre Organisation?
S'il n'y a pas d'observation nous pouvons considérer que notre Conseil a élu les 11 Etats mentionnés par le Secrétariat général comme étant membres du Comité des candidatures.
U was so decided
Il est ainsi decide
Así se acuerda
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The Council has before it the Review of the Regular Programme in the format and in the presentation with which by now you are well acquainted, but this time the Council also has before it the three reports of the Independent External Evaluation, that is the Evaluations of Special Action Programmes for the Control of African Animal Trypanosomiasis and Related Development, Seed Improvement and Development Programme, and Food Security Assistance Scheme.
As the time of the Council at this session is limited and so as not to presume on the time which is available to the members of the Council themselves for substantive debate, my introduction will be extremely brief.
To deal with the review of the Regular Programme, we have continued to respond to the directives of the Conference, the Council and the Programme Committee in our efforts to make the review more analytical and informative, with a focus on implementation of achievements and results.
Since the Review first appeared in 1979 we have now covered a substantial part of our technical programmes and activities through indepth reviews and thematic reviews. Thus, 2 programmes, 21 sub-programmes, that is over one third of the total, 5 programme elements and 9 thematic topics have been systematically reviewed over the course of the years since 1979.
The Review is in three parts. Part One of the Review is the performance report, which gives quantitative information to the maximum extent possible. It also raises issues which derive from an assessment of what has been implemented. Part Two covers the in-depth reviews of four sub-programmes: the selection this time covers both large and small sub-programmes and is based on an assessment of activities ranging from 3-7 years. The most evaluated part of the Review is Part Three which this time contains a thematic review of FAO's extension activities and an assessment of Category Three meetings - that is, meetings such as sessions of panels, for meetings and working parties.
Turning now to the three independent external evaluations: these evaluations of the Special Action Programmes were commissioned in order to have an objective and independent assessment of their performance, and to have recommendations for future improvements. The evaluations were conducted by teams of senior external consultants of international standing. Among them, there is one distinguished representative on the Council.
Each evaluation comprises three phases: firstly, a comprehensive desk review of the Regular and Field programme activities; secondly, a series of field visits; and finally, the preparation of the reports. All three evaluation reports are before you, as submitted by the external consultants, and in relation to each of these reports we submit comments of the Director-General of the findings and recommendations, and his proposals for follow-up action.
In closing, may I remind the Council that all these documents were considered by the Programme and Finance Committees at their last sessions in September. The Programme Committee in particular devoted a great deal of attention to them. The Council's attention has been drawn to their reports, and the Secretariat is very pleased that the Chairman of the Programme Committee himself, being present with us will convey to you the views of the Programme Committee on the entire subject.
M.J. MAZOYER (Président, Comité du Programme): Tout d'abord, je tiens à vous remercier, au nom de mes collègues, membres du Comité du programme, de l'attention • que vous avez bien voulu porter à notre travail et des observations que vous avez bien voulu formuler.
Concernant maintenant l'examen du Programme ordinaire j'essaierai, compte tenu du temps, d'être aussi bref que possible. Je voudrais seulement souligner quelques points importants du Comité du programme portant sur ce document et sur les trois suppléments que vous examinez maintenant.
Dans l'ensemble, le Comité du programme a, bien entendu, apprécié le document qui nous était soumis, les informations et l'analyse qu'il contient, comme vous avez pu le faire vous-mêmes. Cependant, il a été également demandé que l'on essaye d'approfondir les comptes rendus et les évaluations en indiquant plus clairement dans quelle mesure les objectifs prévus à l'origine avaient été atteints ou non. Dans le même ordre d'idée on a pensé que la section de ce document consacrée aux perspectives et aux problèmes aurait pu soulever quelques questions plus précises.
J'examine maintenant la première partie du document. Tout d'abord, nous avons remarqué que cette première partie n'est pas une véritable évaluation mais qu'en vérité il s'agit d'un rapport d'activité. D'autre part, nous faisons observer qu'elle a été rédigée avant que l'impact des ajustements de Programme ne se soit fait pleinement sentir et donc si nous en avons discuté c'est à partir d'autres informations également.
A ce sujet, j'ai donné déjà l'opinion du Comité du programme sur les conséquences de ces ajustements et par conséquent je passe.
En ce qui concerne la deuxième partie de l'examen du Programme ordinaire, elle contient les examens approfondis de quatre sous-programmes: Utilisation et commercialisation du poisson, foresterie communautaire (comprendre par là foresterie au service du développement rural), programme animal et politiques nutritionnelles.
Ces examens approfondis sont extrêmement précieux et ils ont vraiment permis qu'une série de questions très importantes et des débats d'un grand intérêt aient lieu au Comité du programme. Vous en trouverez les reflets dans les avis que nous avons donnés sur ces questions dans notre rapport. C'est certainement là une partie très importante et c'est un exercice que nous souhaitons voir se renouveler.
Dans la troisième partie, le document contient les évaluations d'activités qui recoupent en fait plusieurs programmes et plusieurs sous-programmes. C'est le cas des activités de vulgarisation et des activités concernant les réunions de la catégorie 3. Nous voudrions à ce sujet attirer l'attention du Conseil en particulier sur le chapitre relatif aux activités de vulgarisation à la FAO. Nous avons pensé qu'il s'agissait là d'un rapport d'évaluation interne de très grande qualité et que ses conclusions méritaient une large diffusion en raison de leur qualité et de l'importance du sujet.
Toutefois, nous avons fait observer à ce sujet que les thèmes à vulgariser ne doivent pas seulement, comme on le pense souvent, provenir de la recherche et des transferts de techniques Nord-Sud mais qu'également il faut pour cela puiser dans les ressources techniques immenses de toutes les agricultures du monde et dans les capacités d'innovation mêmes de la paysannerie, elle-même en relation avec les vulgarisateurs. Nous avons même employé - je ne sais plus si c'est dans notre rapport, mais je me permets de l'employer - le mot recherche-développement. Enfin, quant aux trois suppléments à ce document qui contiennent les trois évaluations indépendantes des programmes d'action spéciaux, nous avons longuement discuté et nous avons approuvé le fait que le Directeur général ait pris l'initiative d'organiser ces évaluations. Nous avons estimé qu'elles constituent un instrument de travail extrêmement précieux.
Nous sommes tombés d'accord pour que ces évaluations extérieures de programmes importants puissent continuer, même si en fait elles Coûtent cher et que quelques réserves en raison de ce coût aient pu être émises.
Mais je voudrais dire par exemple que l'évaluation interne sur la vulgarisation montre qu'une évaluation peut être indépendante même si elle est interne, qu'elle n'a pas besoin d'être externe et coûteuse. Le travail sur la vulgarisation réalisé par le Service d'évaluation interne donne des résultats équivalents, pensons-nous, et nous voulions aussi le dire parce que c'est assez remarquable et c'est utile à savoir.
En ce qui concerne l'évaluation du Programme pour le contrôle de la trypanosomiase, je prends le premier des rapports d'évaluation externes. Nous avons appuyé les recommandations de l'équipe d'évaluation ainsi que les actions proposées par cette équipe et retenues par le Directeur général.
Nous avons voulu, et je vous le dis ici, attirer l'attention des pays membres concernés sur les recommandations qui leur sont adressées et qui ne concernent pas la FAO mais qui sont d'une importance capitale pour la réussite de ce programme.
Pour ce qui est de l'évaluation du Programme Semences, la conclusion des évaluateurs mérite d'être appuyée et les pays donateurs devraient y prêter attention. Mais nous avons exprimé le voeu que l'Organisation centre peut-être davantage ses activités en matière de ressources génétiques et d'amélioration des variétés sur les cultures locales et qu'elle réponde au plus près aux besoins des agriculteurs. En effet, les programmes de multiplication de semences ne peuvent réussir que si ce qu'ils multiplient et distribuent correspond véritablement aux besoins et est adapté aux conditions locales.
Finalement nous avons estimé que le rapport sur le programme d'assistance pour la sécurité alimentaire était le bienvenu et donnait matière à ample réflexion. Nous avons souscrit aux conclusions de l'équipe d'évaluation, conclusions qui font apparaître que le concept élargi de sécurité alimentaire n'est pas en général pleinement mis en oeuvre. Il. s'agit de conclusions assez dures, il faut les prendre en considération et nous avons donc appuyé ces conclusions qui sont acceptées d'ailleurs par le Secrétariat.
En ce qui concerne les recommandations, il nous a semblé cependant que la proposition du Directeur général de mettre en oeuvre ces recommandations de manière plus progressive que ne le disait le rapport était justifiée. En effet, la mise en oeuvre pleine et entière du concept de sécurité alimentaire ne dépend pas que de la FAO, elle dépend aussi des politiques des pays et il faut que ces politiques soient elles-mêmes adaptées, qu'il y ait une décision politique dans ces pays pour que la chose puisse être faite.
Par ailleurs, cette mise en oeuvre exige aussi sans doute un soutien plus important de la communauté des donateurs.
Cependant il faut bien conclure et nous avons pensé que les activités de programme d'assistance pour la sécurité alimentaire, le PASA, devaient être poursuivies et renforcées en souhaitant qu'ainsi, et malgré les difficultés qui continuent d'exister, qui ne sont pas entièrement le fait de l'Organisation, la FAO puisse jouer quand même le rôle catalyseur maximum en la matière. Ce n'est pas très facile à expliquer, je m'excuse d'avoir un peu insisté.
Voilà quelques observations et une esquisse très rapide des résultats de ce débat qui a duré trois jours et demi au Comité du programme. J'ai conscience de l'insuffisance de ce compte rendu mais vous avez un compte rendu écrit plus circonstancié et vous avez certainement lu ce rapport.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Président Mazoyer, Président du Comité du programme, pour son exposé clair et précis.
Raphael RABE (Madagascar): La délégation malgache remercie M.Shah pour la présentation de ce point important de notre ordre du jour et elle félicite le Comité du programme pour l'examen approfondi du sujet - trois jours et demi, nous a-t-on dit. Nous voulons réitérer notre appréciation sincère à l'endroit de son Président pour le complément d'informations précieuses qu'il a bien voulu nous prodiguer.
Notre délégation sera très brève, eu égard au nombre impressionnant de sujets que nous avons encore à traiter. Mais tout d'abord, nous voudrions féliciter le Secrétariat pour la qualité des documents soumis à notre examen. De tels documents devraient pouvoir satisfaire les délégations qui veulent connaître en détail les réalisations de l'Organisation. Les informations qui y sont contenues devraient lever les doutes sur l'efficacité et la clarté des interventions de la FAO et sur les résultats qui sont obtenus.
L'examen du Programme de terrain que nous allons aborder tout à l'heure vient naturellement en complément des informations qui sont contenues dans le rapport sur le Programme ordinaire. Par ailleurs, les évaluations de programmes d'action spéciaux devraient combler la soif de connaître de tous les délégués. Malheureusement, de telles évaluations coûtent souvent cher et l'on ne pourrait pas les multiplier puisque le niveau de notre budget est ridiculement bas. Nous le regrettons.
Nous anticipons un peu en disant que la mise sur pied d'un système de suivi informatisé des projets - et notamment des projets de terrain - ne pourrait qu'améliorer la performance de l'Organisation
Enfin, notre intervention porte surtout sur la lutte contre la trypanosomiase dont le Président du Comité du Programme a fait mention tout à l'heure, ce dont nous le remercions. Nous voudrions relever avec regret que l'école de lutte contre la trypanosomiase animale africaine est confrontée à de nombreuses difficultés financières. Nous voudrions donc lancer un appel aux différentes sources de financement afin qu'elles appuient encore plus intensément les activités de cette école.
José Ramón LÖPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (México): Agradecemos a la Secretarla la preparación y présentât ción de los Documentos 87/8 y Suplementos, y al Comité del Programa sus sabias observaciones y con-clusiones. E1 examen del Programa Ordinario 86-87 representa un esfuerzo de información y evaluación transparente. Los resultados del último bienio nos confirman, una vez más la capacidad de nuestra Organización para alcanzar niveles de eficiencia mayores y para transformar sus actividades y estructura de manera firme y paulatina, conforme a las prioridades que el consenso internacional marca.
No obstante, observamos con preocupación, que los problemas de liquidez incidieron negativamente en el cumplimiento de varios programas, por lo que reiteramos el imperativo de evitar que reducciones drásticas de los recursos y del personal puedan vulnerar la reconocida efectividad de la FAO. Por eso insistimos en que, en caso de necesitarse, esos ajustes se concentren en las esferas administra-tivas y no en los aspectos técnicos de los programas.
Es necesario que la Organización continúe identificando los mecanismos quele permitan optimizar la utilización de los recursos disponibles. Las condiciones financieras que prevalecen en la Organización han obligado a priorizar actividades. Subrayamos por tanto, que debe otorgársele la màxima
importancia a aquellos programas que responden a las necesidades y prioridades de los países en desarrollo con especial cuidado de la debida vinculación entre actividades de asistencia técnica y las necesidades de cada país. La eficiencia de las operaciones de campo dependen en gran medida de la solidez, amplitud y calidad del Programa Ordinario.
Coincidimos con el Comité del Programa en confirmar la eficiencia con que el Director General ha introducido los cambios en los programas a la vista de las limitaciones financieras impuestas y en que al respecto no podían aplicarse meros criterios de costo beneficio (párrafos 2.8 y 2.9).
En el Programa de Agricultura 2.1, nos preocupa la reducción de las actividades de capacitación, y que no haya aumentado el apoyo técnico a proyectos de campo. Subrayamos la importancia que en el Programa 2.1.1 y su reflejo en el 2.1.4 han alcanzado los trabajos y la investigación en materia de recursos fitogenéticos. El avance de esas actividades representa un importante paso hacia adelante en la modernización de las funciones de la FAO y en una mejor respuesta a los intereses estratégicos de los países en desarrollo e industrializados, de lograr una mayor seguridad alimentaria mundial viable y sostenida. En esa empresa quisiéramos ver involucrados a todos los países, en particular a los que más pueden ofrecer en este sector dada su experiencia y poder económico.
Respecto al Programa 2.1.5, y a pesar del reconocimiento que han merecido las actividades vinculadas a la promoción de resultados de la CMRADR, su impacto parece ser todavía exiguo.
Nos congratulamos, de que en el Programa 2.1.8 se le haya dado una mayor atención a los tubérculos, raíces y plátanos, que son tan importantes para la agricultura y para la autosuficiencia de la alimentación.
Otro Programa que ha recibido un importante impulso, es el de la Pesca, que representa también un paso trascendental en la transformación y actualización de la FAO, en respuesta a una realidad que exige una explotación más racional y sostenida de los recursos pesqueros, y de una alimentación más diversificada, rica y segura.
Un tema que ha experimentado una explosión en la conciencia universal es el de la crisis de los ecosistemas, la degradación del medio ambiente y la preservación de las selvas tropicales y, por tanto, el de la necesidad de convenir una estrategia de largo plazo de conservación y aprovechamiento racional de los recursos naturales y el cuidado del medio ambiente. De ello depende en buena parte la viabilidad futura de la agricultura, la pesca y la silvicultura.
Este tema con razón se ha concentrado, entre otros, en el mal llamado Programa de Montes y quisiéramos verlos atendidos con mucha mayor fuerza por otros programas. Nuestra Organización debe influir para evitar que intereses económicos de corto plazo, sigan imponiendo su lógica miope a un proceso que, de continuar así, compromete la sobrevivencia misma de la humanidad.
La cooperación técnica y el PCT han probado año tras año su gran utilidad. Ello se ha plasmado en este examen en donde se refleja el entusiasmo de los países receptores por esos programas, y también, las enormes necesidades que impelen a ampliarlos.
Reconocemos, en particular, la atención prioritaria a la región de Africa, que continúa atravesando por una crisis agrícola y alimentaria estructural.
Llamamos la atención sobre el hecho de que los recursos de aquellos programas, y en particular del PCT, se han ejecutado con eficiencia y transparencia y que responden a necesidades manifiestas y a la exigencia de un uso mejor de recursos escasos.
Nos complace que salvo cuatro representantes se esté culminando la red de representaciones de FAO, y que su eficiencia y utilidad haya aumentado en beneficio de una asistencia técnica a los países y un apoyo operativo a los proyectos.
El Programa de Información y Documentación, sigue siendo una de las actividades más significativas de la FAO. Aplaudimos que el proceso de automatización y simplificación, en el procesamiento de datos y otorgamiento de servicios, particularmente este último a través del FINSYS y PERSYS, permita ahora una mejor gestión interna y un mayor acceso a la invaluable información de la FAO.
Agradecemos a la Secretaría el examen de los cuatro Subprogramas contenidos en la segunda parte, así como el de las actividades de extensión que consideramos un aspecto clave para la FAO y los gobiernos nacionales, como lo expresa el Comité del Programa en el párrafo 2.21. Tomamos nota del examen de las reuniones de categoría tres de la parte tercera, que han probado su utilidad; pero coincidimos con el Comité en que deben precisar en cada caso más claramente sus objetivos.
En cuanto a los tres programas de acción evaluados, confirmamos también su importancia y claridad.
Respecto a la lucha contra la tripanosomiasis, al que damos alta prioridad, nos limitamos exclusivamente a indicar que la capacitación e investigación de nuevas fórmulas preventivas y combativas debe alentarse.
El programa de mejoramiento y desarrollo de semillas nos merece también una gran importancia, pues directa o indirectamente, consciente o inconscientemente, se pueden promover a través de él efectos económicos, sociales y ecológicos deseables o indeseables.
Tal podría ser el caso de la promoción de semillas que necesariamente vienen acompañadas de insumos: fertilizantes, plaguicidas, maquinaria, sistemas de riego, etc., que pueden terminar beneficiando una agricultura de carácter comercial, haciendo más dependientes a los países en desarrollo, desplazando a pequeños agricultores y ganaderos, erosionando la diversidad genética y causando daños ambientales y ecológicos severos, como puede ser la degradación de ls suelos.
Debemos recordar que actualmente la industria semillera comercial está concentrando rápidamente en grandes corporaciones que han buscado así combinar e inducir la compra de insumos agrícolas y el control del mercado de los productos agrícolas. Ese es el caso, por ejemplo de corporaciones petroleras y petroquímicas que así han incrementado el mercadeo de sus productos: fertilizantes y plaguicidas, particularmente.
Este programa debe adecuarse, por tanto, para evitar esos efectos nefastos y para impulsar una invest tigación de variedades y el mejoramiento y desarrollo de semillas que no conlleven a una mayor dependencia externa y que respondan a las condiciones agroclimáticas, sociales y económicas de los países en desarrollo, y a su variedad de cultivos y alimentos autóctonos. El programa debe ser explícito en cuanto que la introducción de semillas conlleva la introducción de insumos y de sistemas y métodos de producción y de mercadeo.
En cuanto al PASA, reconocemos que se han iniciado algunos progresos importantes, pero lamentamos que aún no se haya convertido en un programa completo. En ese sentido, al responder al concepto ampliado de seguridad alimentaria, debe dársela toda la atención a la comercialización, producción, acceso y uso de insumos agrícolas y al objetivo de que los países en desarrollo alcancen una mayor independencia económica y tecnológica del exterior.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, el tema es importante, los documentos son, con razón, muy voluminosos y el tiempo a su disposición es muy reducido. Por ello vamos a dejar nuestra intervención a fondo sobre este tema para la Conferencia.
Sólo deseamos referirnos al Documento C 87/8 Sup.l: Evaluación del Programa de Acción para la Lucha contra la Tripanosomiasis Africana de los Animales y Actividades de Desarrollo Conexas, para apoyar, firmemente, la declaración que hizo nuestro colega y amigo el Señor Rabe, de Madagascar, en relación con que en su informe este Consejo haga un llamado para fortalecer una importante escuela: la escuela de Bobo-Dioulasso, de Burkina Faso, escuela que está dedicada a formar técnicos de niveles intermedio y que desgraciadamente tiene dificultades por falta de recursos.
En este informe de evaluación en el párrafo 18 de la parte E se dice que el Director General comparte estos puntos de vista con los consultores, de manera que, ojalá Señor Presidente, se diga en nuestro informe al PNUD y también a los donantes actuales, los generosos gobiernos y altruistas de Francia y de la República Federal de Alemania, así como otros donantes, que potencien y ofrezcan sus recursos apoyando a esta importante escuela.
Igor MARINCEK (Suisse): J'aimerais remercier M. Shah et M. Mazoyer pour l'introduction de ce point de l'ordre du jour.
Je voudrais limiter mes commentaires à l'évaluation PASA tout en rappelant que mon pays est l'un des contributeurs principaux de ce programme. Permettez-moi de rappeler d'abord que la Suisse est aussi parmi les pays qui pensent qu'il est temps, après plus de quarante ans d'existence de la FAO, de procéder à un examen en profondeur de notre organisation, notamment en ce qui concerne son rôle et sa stratégie à long terme.
Comme il est clairement stipulé dans le préambule de l'Acte Constitutif, nous avons donné à notre Organisation comme premier objectif d'affranchir l'homme de la faim. Pour suivre cet objectif de manière efficace, il est nécessaire, à notre avis, d'avoir une réorientation des activités de la FAO. Comme nous l'avons déjà dit ce matin, nous pensons que la FAO est trop axée sur l'assistance dans le domaine technique et que le rôle qu'elle joue dans le domaine de l'analyse et des conseils en matière de politique agricole est inadéquat. Vu donc l'importance que nous attachons aux aspects de sécurité alimentaire, nous saluons l'initiative du Directeur général de soumettre le PASA à une évaluation afin d'en mesurer les réalisations, d'identifier les domaines dans lesquels un renforcement est nécessaire et de définir la portée que devra prendre ce programme dans le cadre du concept élargi de sécurité alimentaire. Cette évaluation a été bien menée. Nous notons avec satisfaction les propositions des évaluateurs relatives à une nouvelle approche de la FAO dans le domaine de l'analyse des conseils en matière de politique agricole. J'aimerais souligner que ces propositions vont tout à fait dans le sens de nos préoccupations et de nos idées de réforme, un fait qui devrait rassurer les délégations qui évitent d'aborder le sujet de réforme par peur de s'engager dans une voie inconnue.
Ma délégation se réjouit également de voir que les propositions des évaluateurs du PASA ont été bien reçues par le Directeur général. Nous sommes donc intéressés d'entendre le Directeur général nous dire, lors de la prochaine Conférence, quelle suite il entend donner aux recommandations de l'évaluation en plus de ce que nous pouvons lire dans le document. Cela concerne également, notamment, l'importance accrue qu'il faudrait donner à ce programme dans la structure organisâtionnelle du Secrétariat. Dans ce contexte, nous éprouvons cependant des difficultés à comprendre les propositions de changements organisâtionnels dans la Division des produits et du commerce international, propositions que nous trouvons dans le document C 87/3-Sup.3.
Permettez-moi de souligner que l'évaluation du PASA devrait également constituer sans doute un élément précieux dans l'examen plus vaste de la FAO que nous proposons avec d'autres pays.
Une dernière question: le PCT ne pourrait-il pas être mis à profit pour soutenir les activités d'un PASA élargi dans le domaine d'analyse et de conseil en matière de politique agricole ou de politique de sécurité alimentaire?
John R. GOLDSACK (United Kingdom): We should like to thank the management for its clear introduction to document C 87/8, the Review of the Regular Programme. The introduction to the Review of Field Programmes, which we will discuss under the next agenda item, refers, quite rightly, to the close links between the Regular Programme and the Field Programme. Indeed, in the debate on the Programme of Work and Budget for the current biennium two years ago we were reassured by the Secretariat that all the funds available to the Organization - Regular Programmes, Trust Funds and UNDP - were taken into account when considering the total resources allocated to particular activities. It is thus disappointing that these documents are not accompanied by an overview explaining how this process is worked out in practice and how successful the activities have been in meeting the overall objectives set out in the Programme of Work and Budget. We are also disappointed that, with the exception of the external evaluations and those covered in Part 2, by and large the documents present us with a catalogue of activities without any detailed attempt at qualitative or quantitative analysis of the results. In the absence of this information, it is very difficult to judge how successful overall FAO has been in fulfilling its mandate.
Under the previous item the United Kingdom advocated a much more purposeful approach to the advanced planning and regional distribution of the TCP. Several speakers thereafter took the view that the TCP must remain unprogrammed because it is designed essentially to deal with unforeseen emergencies
of course, that is not so. Emergency assistance from the TCP formed only a small part of its total commitments last year. The relevant figure, which you will find in paragraph 1.32 of the Review of Field Programmes, is only 22 per cent. Elsewhere there are encouraging references to the use of the TCP for training and for project work related to that of the Investment Centre so there can be no obstacle to the bulk of this programme being preplanned to benefit chiefly the poorest countries and the poorest groups in those countries.
Because of the constraint on time, and because there will be opportunities to discuss some of these issues at Conference next week, we offer detailed observations on only two of the topics.
On the Forestry Programme, Chapter Three, we congratulate FAO on the launching of the TFAP which is closely aligned with the broadened forestry development strategy, with its increased emphasis on the contribution of forestry to human welfare, which was endorsed by the Twenty-first Session of the FAO Conference in 1981. The strategy enhances the potential contribution of the Forestry Programme to the overall objectives of FAO for sustainable development, and the TFAP, which is the combined efforts of the tropical countries and the donor community, provides an effective framework for the intensified and coordinated action.
The review shows that the balance between the four technical sub-programmes and the balance between the main categories of activities is in line with the strategy. The increased need for direct support for developing countries associated with TFAP missions and sector reviews and the establishment of the central TFAP coordinating office were not budgeted for in the 1986/87 biennium and dependence on trust funds has further increased. At the same time the funds available for meetings and publications have been squeezed and, while there is merit in rigorous examination of the need for, and value of, meeting and publications, both have a particular role to play at this stage of the TFAP development.
Looking to the future, there are major areas in the forest resources and environment programme, for example in the field of forest resource assessments and the selection and conservation of genetic resources, for which high priority is correctly claimed in the Review and in which actions are needed urgently as deforestation continues. The important roles of forests and trees in agricultural production and sustainable land use is the basis for the re-examination of the priority given to the forestry sector by national governments in the context of the TFAP, and FAO, which has accepted the central responsibility for the TFAP, should undertake a critical review of the internal allocation of the resources available in the Regular Programme aimed at a substantial increase in the share of the Forestry Department, which stands at a little over four percent.
Great hopes are now being placed by member countries on the TFAP, and the quality of FAO'S own performance will be critical to the success of the plan. This is not only a matter of financial allocations but also of manpower allocations to ensure the dynamic and imaginative leadership and the dedicated support for the action taken by tropical countries and the donor community in our respective contributions to coordinating international action.
If I may turn finally to the Evaluation of the Action Programmine for the Control of African Animal Trypanosomiasis and Related Development, the United Kingdom has a long and continuing major involve-ment in tsetse and trypanosomiasis control research and training programmes. This evaluation study has, therefore, been of considerable interest to us, and we congratulate the authors upon the fullness and detail of their report, which not only highlights the success of the first ten years of the Action Programme but also draws out many of its weaknesses, particularly the failure of the Inter-secretariat Coordinating Group and the declining participation of affected African states in the Commission on African Animal Trypanosomiasis.
We see the FAO's principal role as that of promoting, advising, guiding and assisting in the coordination of rational agricultural and livestock developmental policies and programmes. Where implementation of these requires action against trypanosomiasis, then FAO should call upon its specialist Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis group to investigate and advise upon the appropriate chain of actions required to evaluate properly and, if justifiable, reduce or remove this constraint.
From this report, however, we cannot escape the impression that the Action Programme has given such impetus to the Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Group as to encourage role reversal. That is to say, removal of the trypanosomiasis constraint has tended to become the primary motivation, and appropriate development programmes are then being sought to justify it. Whilst we realize that there are many instances where fine distinctions cannot be drawn, we wish to emphasize that tsetse and trypanosomiasis control should generally be undertaken only as a justifiable component of an overall agricultural development plan. If these ultimate goals and benefits are not clear and realizable, then the trypanosomiasis control programmes will themselves suffer since they will not be accorded the priority and timely financial support that is so often critical to their full effectiveness.
We fully support FAO in its concern over any possible environmental pollution or degradation associated with, or following upon, tsetse control activities.
In conclusion, therefore, we reiterate that we welcome this Evaluation Report and are in general agreement with its findings and many of its recommendations. However, despite the geographical size and seriousness of the trypanosomiasis constraint:, we do not agree with the suggestion that the Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Group needs further Strengthening and upgrading into a programme secretariat.
We are pleased to see, therefore, the Director-General's confirmation in paragraph 28 (a) that the manpower strength of the Group will remain the same.
We believe that the current understaffing of the Group offers FAO the opportunity to reconsider the role activities and priorities Of this Group, both within and outside FAO, before its manpower strength is restored to full complement.
Ghulan Mohammed BAHRAM (Afghanistan): I thank Dr Shah for the fuller explanation of the document. Self-sufficiency in food production is important to my country. It comes from sound agricultural growth and development.
The Afghan delegation believes that intensified international cooperation for liberal assistance on research, manpower training, equipment, etc., is the basic necessity for sound agricultural growth and overall development with a proper link to agricultural extension. Therefore, some concrete measures in the form of technical cooperation to Speed up advanced research activities and extension work in the developing countries would bring about positive changes in all aspects of agriculture and food production.
Afghanistan gives top priority to agricultural research and extension and therefore substantially needs international cooperation, including exchange of research materials and financial support and training in order to scientifically utilize its vast resources.
Improved seeds play a key role in boosting agricultural production. The Afghan delegation also proposes that the International Board of Plant Genetic Resources should organize consultations on plant genetic resources and study the possibility for extending further cooperation to the countries in the Middle East.
Afghanistan, being rich in the natural plant genetic resources, appreciates such initiatives and requests the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources to support the Plant Genetic Bank of Afghanistan.
Adel Helmy EL-SARKI (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): My delegation would like to join all the earlier speakers in addressing to Messrs. Shah and Mazoyer our thanks for the excellent presentation of this agenda item. We shall Come back later in the general Conference to these matters.
We approve of the computerization of the data in FAO and we are also extremely interested in the battle against trypanosomiasis. We support what was said by Madagascar and Colombia with regard to the budgetary resources and the need for overcoming the obstacles which these two programmes confront.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I would appreciate it, Mr. Chairman, if you would express my gratitude to Professor Mazoyer for the excellent job he did in introducing this report. As a member of the Programme Committee I was fortunate enough to be able to take part in the very detailed discussions which the Committee had on the review of the Regular Programme and particularly the three external evaluations. I can assure the members that the discussions were quite detailed and certainly quite productive from the standpoint of the various members. I look forward to further discussions of this at the Conference when we shall have the luxury of somewhat more time.
I should also like to express my appreciation to Mr Shah generally for the excellent evaluation work reflected in document C 37/8 as well as the supplements thereto. I should also, perhaps parenthetically, like to express my congratulations to Mr Ayazi who is not op the podium.
It should come as no surprise that the United States very much welcomes the use of evaluation in FAO. This has been a position which we have maintained for quite some time and we are very happy to see the documents before us. Particularly in the present climate, we feel that evaluation is a good means to identify programme areas where efforts need to be concentrated, concentrated efficiently and also those areas where perhaps FAO's involvement can be limited or even reduced in the light of the results which have been attained.
In any event, the areas which have been evaluated in the documents before us we consider to be all quite important. The internal in-depth evaluation of the extension programme particularly is something we welcome very much and we also welcome the format changes which have allowed us to have a more in-depth appreciation of the subject. We believe that such internal evaluations in this form should be continued in the future.
We especially welcome external evaluations which should come as no surprise also, and we were very happy to see that the Programme Committee recommended that in spite of the expense involved with external evaluations, such evaluations should be undertaken in the future.
We consider the three evaluations before us to be generally quite good. We also recognize that external evaluations can be particularly useful in mobilising donor suppport. I should like to underline that point because I know that this is not a completely uncontroversial subject.
Because of the limits on time, I will confine myself to a few comments on the animal trypanosomiasis programme. This is not, however, because we attach less importance to seeds or the FSAS, but I think that a number of other delegations have focused on animal trypanosomiasis so perhaps we may add our two cents also, as it were.
The United States strongly supports the need for FAO assistance to African countries in controlling both the tsetse fly and trypanosomiasis. We agree with the recommendations made in the evaluation before us.
The United States believes that the lack of support from the Programme member countries is perhaps due to the general disintegration or decentralization of their national veterinary and animal health services. I would recall that this was also a point made by one of the African members of our Programme Committee or at least to some extent made by him in our discussion.
Regional disease control programmes will not succeed, in pur view, without strong centralized animal health services. The United States recommends that the African Animal Trypanosomiasis Programme adopt the programme components which are aimed at revitalizing national veterinary services.
The U.S. also recommends that recipient countries be selective on the basis of their level of enthusiasm and commitment shown towards the Programme. We support the creation of an umbrella project in order to prevent unwise expenditures being made when isolated attempts are made by smaller projects.
Finally, we would be remiss if we did not comment on the reorganization proposed in the C 87/8 Sup.3 of the Commodities and Trade Division. We generally support it, especially in so far as it should give a clearer identity to the global information and) early warning system, and especially to the sub-programme on food information and early warning systems.
Rainer PRESTIEN (Germany, Federal Republic of): First of all let me thank Professor Mazoyer and Mr Shah for the presentation of this fifth review of the Regular Programme. My delegation largely agrees with the statements in the document and the conclusions drawn in it.
Please allow me a few general remarks. We welcome the clear albeit traditional structure of document C 87/8 consisting of three parts: the performance report on the major programmes in Part I, the Special Action Programmes in Part II and the training activities of the Organization in Part III which we consider of special importance. Moreover, we welcome the evaluations meanwhile already undertaken of the Action Programmes for the control of the African trypanosomiasis of animals, document Sup.l, of the Seed Improvement and Development Programme, document Sup.2, and of the Food Security Assistance Scheme, document Sup.3.
Let me now make a few comments on some important points in the documents mentioned. We welcome the preparation of the study on "African Agriculture, the next Twenty-five Years" within the framework of the programmes of the major Programme 2.1, Agriculture. Moreover, we also support in this connection the strengthening of the activities in the field of technical cooperation among developing countries, TCDC. In this respect, we regret that financial constraints have also curtailed the Organization's activities within the framework of the major Programme, Agriculture, in particular in the field of training, paragraph 1.9 and table 1.2.
As we have gathered from paragraph 1.16 of the document, in 1986 over 1, 600 work/months financed from the major programme 2.1 were utilized to support field projects under the Regular Programme. My delegation knows and appreciates the fruitful interrelation between the activities within the framework of Trust Funds and those of the Regular Programme which have proved to be an important source of knowhow over the last 40 years of FAO's work. Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that 1600 work/months is a very high figure to backstop field projects.
We would like to ask the Secretariat to make every effort to ensure that the servicing of the core tasks under the Regular Budget does not suffer from the workload of not backstopping special programmes.
We feel that the budget allocation of just over 14 percent to the TCP is too high. Under the agenda item Review of Field Programmes, we should also point out that the UNDP is the central agency for handling multilateral development cooperation in our view.
We shall make further comments on specific questions in particular at the Twenty-fourth Conference Session.
We can largely agree to the results of the special programme evaluation. We consider the evaluation report on the control of African trypanosomiasis a suitable basis for expert talks among possible donors. In this connection, we support the request for the establishment of national coordination committees. Details should be discussed among experts.
We attach great importance to seed development and give our support to such projects in many partner countries. We believe that only a longer term commitment in that field will ensure lasting success. The willingness for dialogue must therefore continue on a long-term basis. We particularly welcome the external evaluation of the Food Security Assistance Scheme, FSAS. The Scheme is judged positively, and this is also confirmed by the evaluation report. However, we have doubts about an extension of mandate as proposed by the consultants. From our point of view, it would be sufficient to continue the action programme as so far and to eliminate the weak points which exist, in particular in the field of coordination between donor countries, FAO and recipient countries.
João Augusto de MEDICIS (Brazil): The Brazilian delegation congratulates the Secretariat on the preparation of documents C 87/8 and on its three supplements, recognizing the effort to convey a precise image of the programmes and activities of FAO during 1986-87. We are also pleased to acknowledge the careful and thorough evaluation of that document which was undertaken by the Programme Committee and which is reflected in document 92/4.
Repeating what my delegation already mentioned during discussions on the previous agenda item, we wish to second the Joint Committee Session's view as expressed in paragraph 1.4, reiterating our regret that unprecedented liquidity problems due to factors beyond FAO's control had negatively affected the implementation of the current Programme of Work, with the ensuing curtailment of approved activities.
We also acknowledge the report of the 53rd Session of the Programme Committee and the thorough and comprehensive analysis it performed on the Review of the Regular Programme. In that regard, my delegation also appreciated the integrated manner with which Regular Programme and related Field Programme activities were covered in the Review, and particularly useful was the inclusion of extra-budgetary resources along the Regular Programme allocations.
Special attention should be drawn to the findings of the Committee in paragraph 2.21, regarding the key role played by extension activities in FAO as well as in national governments policies. My delegation supports the three issues underlined by the Committee in this paragraph as deserving emphasis, namely participatory action/research process; targeted approaches; and adaptability and flexibility of methodologies.
With regard to Chapter XI of the Review, dealing with Category 3 meetings my delegation is also prepared to endorse the findings of the Programme Committee, contained in paragraphs 2.22 to 2.25, underlining that no doubt these meetings, provided they have clearly defined goals, play a valuable role in guiding both FAO and member countries through the important exchange of different views and experiences, which cannot be substituted by other means of action, such as surveys and publications.
Finally, we also have gone through the External Evaluation of the Special Action Programmes: 1) Control of Animal African Trypanosomiasis; 2) Seed Improvement and Development; and 3) Food Security Assistance. My delegation can easily go along with the findings of the Programme Committee regarding those three documents.
I should like to call special attention in this regard to the proposal of a School for the Fight against tsetse, anti-tsetse Elat, to be set up in Bobo-Dioulasso in Burkina Faso, to prepare technicians of intermediate level for the francophone countries which are facing a lot of difficulty and lack of finance.
All in all, my delegation welcomes the presentation of the Review of the Rugular Programme 1986/87 and is prepared to endorse it for submission to the Twenty-fourth session of the Conference.
Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Vamos a ayudarle ya que el tiempo no es mucho. Nosotros queremos, en primer lugar, expresar que este tema del programa para nuestra delegación tiene mucha importancia, al cual siempre hemos atendido con mucho cuidado. Tenemos preparada una gama de análisis con vistas a su participación en la Conferencia. En este sentido queremos específicamente felicitar al Sr. Mayozer por la presentación del tema, y considerar que la exposición nos dio todo un alcance del esfuerzo del Presidente del Programa y de la FAO en presentarnos las tareas de Programa que la FAO está realizando y puede realizar.
Nosotros lamentamos que los programas no puedan tener más fondos a su disposición, péro es conocida la situación a que está sometida la Organización por una crisis económica ajena. Aprobamos en todas sus partes la exposición. Sin embargo, queremos unirnos específicamente a la exposición amplia, brillante y concisa que hizo la distinguida delegación de México sobre varios temas del programa, específicamente en cuanto a la crisis del ecosistema, al Programa de pesca, a los problemas de análisis de la situación de las semillas y de los recursos fitogenéticos, y en específico, a la cooperación técnica y a los PCT, que para nosotros constituyen la expresión más clara de multíla-teralismo y asistencia técnica que garantiza que la FAO ayude directamente a los gobiernos en forma práctica, rápida y con un interés nacional que nos aleja bastante del bilateralismo.
Nosotros queremos específicamente apoyar también la llamada que nos hizo la distinguida representa ción de Madagascar sobre la situación que está atravesando la lucha contra la tripanosomiasis africana; su priorización y específicamente la situación de que el PNUD pueda ofrecer su apoyo a la Escuela de Lucha anti-tse-tsé Elat, que está situada en Bobo Dioulasso en Burkina Faso; una escuela que pueda garantizar la formación de técnicos y de personal intermedio para la ayuda a ese
continente que necesita de la formación de estructura de técnicos para continuar una lucha que vie ne desempeñándose con mucho esfuerzo, y debe tener el apoyo de toda la organización internacional al respecto.
Esto específicamente para decirle que estamos de acuerdo y que en cada tema tendremos un análisis cabal en la Conferencia.
Anastase MUREKEZI (Observateur du Rwanda): La délégation rwandaise se réjouit de la qualité des documents présentés par le Secrétariat sur ce point relatif à l'examen du Programme ordinaire 86-87, y compris les évaluations indépendantes externes sur les trois programmes présentés.
En ce qui concerne précisément ces programmes, ma délégation appuie totalement les conclusions et les recommandations concernant le concept élargi de sécurité alimentaire. Pour nous, le Rwanda, pays essentiellement agricole, le Programme de sécurité alimentaire se confond avec le concept d'autosuf-fisance alimentaire qui pour noUS signifie la valorisation rationnelle des ressources naturelles, en préservant l'environnement, de façon à dégager les ressources indispensables pour nourrir la population et à dégager en outre les Surplus pouvant servir à l'acquisition des moyens de production tout en évitant à la population nationale de Consommer ce qu'elle ne peut pas produire facilement sur place. Et c'est dans ce cadre que les évaluations portant sur la trypanosomiase' africaine et l'évaluation du Programme semences en rapport avec l'accès aux ressources phytogénétiques rencontre l'assentiment de la délégation rwandaise. Il est souhaitable effectivement qu'en voulant valoriser le capital semencier l'on fasse également appel aux potentialités énormes qui sont contenues dans les zones des pays du Sud. Mais je voudrais faire remarquer aux honorables délégués que l'accès aux ressources phytogénétiques est devenu un problème assez sérieux, qui est en relation avec le transfert à la fois de ressources mais aussi de technologies du Nord vers le Sud mais également entre les pays du Sud.
Pour ce qui concerne la balance à établir entre les activités de terrain de la FAO et les analyses et les conseils que l'Organisation doit donner aux pays membres, je voudrais lancer un appel en me joignant par ailleurs aux nombreuses autres délégations pour que la FAO puisse disposer de moyens financiers supplémentaires, de façon à continuer à renforcer son Programme de terrain tel qu'il apparaît au vu des évaluations tout à fait Satisfaisantes, et que la FAO puisse effectivement, comme l'a souhaité l'honorable délégué de la Suisse, procéder en profondeur aux analyses et aux conseils à donner pour le réajustement des politiques agricoles nationales.
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): We are very grateful to the Council for the reception it has given to the document and more particularly to the external evaluation of the three Special Action Programmes.
I think the points which I would draw from your discussions are, first, the recognition - we are gratified - of the seriousness of the work we are trying to do. That is the first point.
Secondly, there is the fact that external evaluations can be extremely valuable, and we shall continue to have resort to them within the limits of resource availabilities because, as you all recognize, these are very expensive exercises; but their value is undisputed.
The third point I would stress is the fact that, as you have recognized in the debate, there is an open willingness on the part of the Director-General and his Secretariat to recognize the feedback from this evaluation. I can give you three instances of this. One is a willingness to accept recom-mendations when it is seen that these are aimed at improvements which are feasible. Secondly, caution in accepting those recommendations which involve structural changes or changes of such a nature that we cannot accommodate within the foreseeable future, as has already been recognized, for example, in even a relatively small recommendation like the strengthening Of a particular unit dealing with trypanosomiasis. When it is not possible to accept it in an immediate future we honestly say that it is not feasible to do so. A reverse example is that of the minor reorganization in the Commodities and Trade Division where we feel that the change proposed should be accommodated and can be within the proposals for a biennial Programme of Work and Budget.
Two questions were raised about the Food Security Assistance Scheme, There was a question raised by the representative of Switzerland as to how the increased resources of F$AS would be used. I should like to state that the main use of the higher donor contributions would be to prepare more comprehen-sive food security programmes, for interested developing countries. In these comprehensive programmes there would be elaborated an analysis as full as possible of the food security problems in the broader context, including production, stability, and the issue of access.
Mr Chairman, I have elements for a more detailed reply, but with your permission I would refrain from going into a more detailed reply at this stage in view of the time constraint. May I also suggest, with your agreement, that since the Council found the views of Programme Committee useful in considering this subject, and since Member Nations will be devoting more time to this subject in Commission II, we can very well arrange for the views of the Programme Committee to be brought to the attention of Commission II when you consider this item, Mr Chairman, I hope I have done justice to the debate.
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois que nous avons fini avec le Point 6. Je pense être l'interprète des membres du Conseil pour dire que le Conseil a apprécié le travail fait par l'évaluation externe des programmes 86-87 et considère qu'il s'agit là d'une méthodologie qui porte ses fruits et a permis au Conseil dans sa majorité d'appuyer les conclusions de cette évaluation. Cependant, malgré la contrainte du temps, et compte tenu du fait que cette question va être examinée plus en profondeur à la Conférence, le Conseil a quand même pu fournir quelques appréciations sur les trois Programmes qui ont fait l'objet d'un tri, à savoir: Programme de sécurité alimentaire, celui de l'amélioration du développement des semences, et celui de la lutte contre la trypanosoroiase, qui a retenu l'attention de nombreux délégués. Je pense donc que nous pourrions adresser ce document à la Conférence, en soulignant l'importance que l'on a accordée à un bon développement du Programme ordinaire de la FAO, et qui se trouve donc être au centre des réflexions de la Conférence, dans le cadre de la FAO.
Nous en avons fini avec le Point 8, par conséquent, de l'ordre du jour.
Adel Helmy EL-SARKI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): Having heard the extensive and fruitful discussions on this subject, we urge you, Mr Chairman, to adjourn the meeting so that we may prepare the next set of items to be discussed by the Council, the more so as there is a meeting of the . Drafting Committee to be held immediately after the adjournment of this Council meeting.
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (Mexico): Creo que es oportuna la propuesta que ha hecho el delegado de Egipto. Hemos estado aquí sentados un buen rato, Sr Presidente, y creo que merecemos un descanso y se nos podría convocar pronto para continuar con nuestras labores.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous pourrions peut-être proposer au Conseil un compromis. Nous devons terminer l'examen de ce point aujourd'hui puisque nous devons finir nos travaux, demain. Est-il possible de proposer au Conseil une suspension de séance d'une demi-heure à trois quarts d'heure? Mais je souhaite très vivement que nous nous retrouvions ensuite avec le quorum pour examiner les points suivants. Le Conseil est-il d'accord avec cette proposition?
The meeting was suspended from 18.30 to 19.30 hours.
La séance est suspendue de 18 h 30 à 19 h 30.
Se suspende la sesión de las 18.30 a las 19.30 horas.
LE PRESIDENT: Je demande à M. Lignon de bien vouloir introduire le sujet.
R.S. LIGNON (Sous-Directeur général, Département du développement): Le document C 87/4, examen des programmes de terrain de la FAO pendant le biennium 1986-87 qui est soumis aux membres du Conseil, a déjà été examiné par le Comité du programme et le Comité des finances au cours de leur dernière session. Le résultat de ce double examen se trouve dans les paragraphes 244 à 248 du rapport du Comité des programmes et dans les paragraphes 324 et 330 du rapport du Comité des finances dans le document CL 92/4. Ce document est divisé en quatre chapitres qui se réfèrent successivement aux ressources, tendances et perspectives, c'est le chapitre 1, à l'évaluation des projets de terrain, chapitre 2, aux activités de la FAO dans le domaine de l'aide aux services de planification et de programmation, c'est l'objet du chapitre 3, et enfin ce document présente dans le chapitre 4 quelques réflexions sur l'évolution des activités de terrain de la FAO.
Brièvement, puisque ce document figure au programme de la Conférence, je voudrais soumettre à l'attention du Conseil les conclusions les plus importantes de l'examen des programmes de terrain.
Les activités de terrain de la FAO ont continué à se développer au cours du biennium puisque les dépenses se sont élevées à 315 millions de dollars en 1986 et atteindront environ 320 millions de dollars en 1987. Vous pouvez comparer ces chiffres aux dépenses des années précédentes qui se trouvent dans le tableau n° 1 annexe au rapport.
On note, et c'est un point important, un renversement de la tendance à la baisse de nos activités financées par le PNUD. Les dépenses financées par le PNUD s'élevaient à 109 millions de dollars en 1984, atteignent 128 millions de dollars en 1986 et un niveau proche en 1987 tout en notant que 1987 est la première année de la mise en oeuvre du quatrième cycle et à ce titre, est en général une année de transition délicate entre deux cycles du PNUD. Si l'on considère le niveau des approbations de projets, on constate que notre coopération très étroite avec le PNUD dans la programmation et la formulation des projets a donné de très bons résultats, grâce aussi au niveau très élevé des ressources du Programme. A ce propos, je voudrais vous dire que la pledging Conférence se tient actuellement à New York, c'est la Conférence de financement. Je ne peux pas vous donner le chiffre exact mais il est très élevé, de l'ordre, avec les organisations satellites, de plus d'un milliard de dollars alors que le montant des projets approuvés et appuyés par la FAO s'élevait à 112 millions de dollars en 1986 et on pense qu'il atteindra 150 millions de dollars en 1987, soit une augmentation de 33 pour cent environ. La part des dépenses financées par le PNUD devrait donc s'accroître fortement dans le prochain biennium.
Je voudrais souligner aussi que les activités financées par des fonds de dépôt continuent à se développer normalement, comme vous pouvez le noter en observant les courbes qui sont dans le chapitre 1, avec des irrégularités dues à l'intervention quelquefois de gros donateurs, par exemple le Gouvernement italien, par exemple le fonds de dépôt avec l'Arabie Saoudite, qui se signe une fois mais ne se signe pas constamment à la même hauteur. Mais la tendance générale est à une augmentation régulière de la coopération FAO/Gouvernements pour une coopération dite multi--bi, et ceci grâce à la confiance que nous accordent nos partenaires et peut-être aussi, je crois, grâce à une intense coopération entre la FAO, les pays donateurs, que je remercie ici très sincèrement et les pays bénéficiaires.
Enfin, les activités du Centre d'investissement continuent à se développer, soit dans le cadre du Programme FAO/Banque mondiale, ceci malgré les difficultés ou malgré les retards apportés à cause de la restructuration assez radicale de la Banque mondiale, soit dans le cadre de notre coopération avec les autres agences de financement comme le FIDA, les Banques régionales de développement et autres institutions financières, y compris le Programme FAO/Banques, qui intervient surtout dans le cadre de la promotion du secteur privé. Je voudrais souligner à ce sujet que le montant des investissements sur la base des projets préparés par la FAO s'est élevé à 3 milliards de dollars en 1986 dont la moitié provient des financements des institutions internationales.
Dans le chapitre 2, nous avons essaye de présenter une évaluation qualitative globale aussi objective que possible de nos activités de terrain. Comme vous le savez, les représentants de la FAO jouent un rôle important dans ces activités, soit dans une préévaluation des requêtes qui leur sont soumises par les gouvernements, ils adressent au Siège une information systématique sur le déroulement de nos activités de terrain. Ces informations sont analysées et synthétisées dans la première partie du chapitre 2. Dans le même temps le Service d'évaluation a mis en place un véritable système qui permet de procéder maintenant à l'évaluation de près de 100 projets individuels annuellement ainsi qu'à des évaluations thématiques dont les résultats sont dans la deuxième partie de ce chapitre 2, et en particulier vous avez noté deux évaluations sectorielles, l'une dans le domaine de la mécanisation, dans le cadre d'une évaluation faite avec le gouvernement donateur, c'est-à-dire l'Italie, et l'autre dans le domaine des engrais, avec le Gouvernement hollandais.
Nous avons mentionné les difficultés rencontrées dans ces activités, dans les activités de terrain, et nous essayons constamment d'en tirer les leçons pour une plus grande et une meilleure efficacité.
Cette recherche permanente d'une meilleure efficacité s'est traduite par des améliorations régulières et progressives qui ont été apportées les années précédentes, par exemple l'introduction de plans de travail standardisés, des mesures pour améliorer lereporting, c'est-à-dire la préparation et la distribution aux personnes concernées, aux institutions concernées, des différents rapports de projet.
A la suite d'une longue étude, et profitant des possibilités de l'informatique, nous sommes en train de mettre en place un système global d'information et de surveillance de l'ensemble de nos program-mes de terrain. Quand je dis "l'ensemble" je veux dire qu'ils soient financés par le PNUD, qu'ils soient financés par les fonds de dépôt, qu'ils soient financés par le POT, et ce système global, couplé avec d'autres systèmes informatisés de la FAO, constituera sans nul doute une étape importante dans ce processus continu d'amélioration de l'efficacité des programmes de terrain. Le Chapitre 3 est un examen plus détaillé des activités de la FAO dans un domaine qui a été évoqué à plusieurs reprises au cours des débats du Conseil d'aujourd'hui et d'hier, celui de l'appui de la FAO aux institutions de planification et de programmation de développement rural permettant ainsi aux pays de jouer un rôle plus efficace dans la définition des politiques de développement rural et aussi un rôle plus important et plus efficace dans la coordination des aides qu'ils reçoivent. Dans le cadre de ces activités, nous avons mis l'accent sur la valorisation des ressources humaines, c'est-à-dire la formation du personnel de ces institutions ainsi que leur Organisation.
Corrélativement à ces activités, la FAO a renforcé et développé - Monsieur le Directeur général adjoint y a fait allusion - les études sectorielles et sous-sectorielles, tout en apportant un appui aux gouvernements pour mettre en place des politiques d'ajustement nécessaires. Ces activités permettront aussi de renforcer les interactions des programmes de terrain avec les programmes réguliers de la FAO, mais aussi la coopération entre les programmes multilatéraux et bilatéraux dans les secteurs intéressés.
Dans le chapitre 4, nous avons cherché à mettre en évidence des aspects particulièrement importants de l'évolution de notre Programme de terrain. Vous savez que, actuellement, il y a des changements très importants dans les politiques, les niveaux, les situations des pays en voie de développement et donc les besoins en assistance technique évoluent très rapidement. Nous avons mentionné dans ce cadre l'orientation de nos projets vers le développement des capacités nationales, ce qu'on appelle les nouvelles dimensions, par l'utilisation croissante de ces capacités dans l'exécution de nos projets et dans les opérations de coopération technique entre pays en développement. D'autre part, nous avons rappelé que les objectifs de la Conférence des Nations Unies sur la réforme agraire et le développement continuent de servir de cadre de référence à notre action, comme servent de référence à notre action le Plan forestier tropical, le Plan d'action découlant de la Conférence mondiale sur les pêches, ainsi que les programmes d'action spéciaux dont vous avez déjà parlé. Le développement de ces capacités nationales concerne les groupes les plus pauvres de la population qui sont la cible principale de nos projets, et plus particulièrement les femmes. Une partie du chapitre 4 est consacrée à ces aspects de notre Programme. Nous avons aussi mentionné le rôle croissant des organisations non gouvernementales dans le développement des communautés rurales, la participation populaire, en soulignant la coopération fructueuse qui s'est établie sur le terrain avec les organisations non gouvernementales locales, de même que l'aide que nous apportent certaines organisations
non gouvernementales à l'exécution et au financement de certains de nos projets. J'espère, Monsieur le Président, que cette brève introduction facilitera la tâche du Conseil dans l'examen de ce document qui couvre une partie très importante des activités de l'Organisation. Je voudrais en terminant insister sur l'extension géographique et lacomplexité croissante de notre Programme de terrain et sur les efforts que nous faisons pour améliorer sa gestion et sa planification.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie Monsieur Lignon pour ses explications et son exposé très clair.
Nous ouvrons le débat. Quels sont lès délégués qui souhaiteraient prendre la parole?
Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): My delegation would like to thank Mr Lignon for his lucid introduction to document C /84. Weshould also like to thank the Secretariat for the presentation of document, "ReView of Field Programmes 1986-87". To begin with, a few remarks on the document itself: we appreciate the traditional structure of the document, as also applied last year. This method allows comparisons of the information material presented in previous years.
The document in terms of contents provides US with a wealth of positive statements, such as on the activities of the Investment Center which we had already discussed when reviewing the Regular Programme, the strengthening of the training activities, the support of TCDC and ECDC as well as follow-up to WCARRD.
We welcome the renewed increase in field project expenditure, as shown in Table 1.1. In 1987, too, field programmes are expected to conclude With an, even though moderate, increase. It seems to us that the priorities have been established rightly within the framework of the field programmes - I mention table 1.3, graph 1.4 - following traditional weighting as well.
The evaluation of the projects undertaken in Table 2.2 and diagram 2.1 shows that on an average more than three-quarters of the projects have to be rated as good or at least satisfactory. My delegation would like to encourage the Secretariat to continue its efforts to promote increased project and programme evaluation. A greater evaluation allows conclusions to be drawn on how to further reduce the low share of Unsatisfactory projects and thus to increase the Organization's efficiency. We believe that improved coordination at country level could make a considerable contribution in this respect.
For the Government of my country the Development Programme of the United Nations (UNDP) will continue to be the center for multilateral technical cooperation. We, therefore, feel that the share of the TCP in the Regular Programme which has been increasing for years should not further increase. My country is granting technical coopération through its own development agencies. Rural development has an important place in that programme. The share of this field of cooperation continuously increased in the last calendar year to 39.4 percent of our technical and financial cooperation.
The Federal Government will also in future continue its fruitful cooperation with the developing countries.
John R. GOLDSACK (United Kingdom): We would like to thank the Secretariat for document C 84/4, Review of Field Programmes.
We are disappointed to be able to identify in the document such little evidence of the use of field programme to support the agricultural sector in the adjustment programmes being implemented by many of the poorest member states. There are references to this in the paragraphs dealing with the Investment Center. But the apparent general absence of systematic programmes designed to help agriculture play its part in the adjustment process in the poorest and most heavily indebted countries points to a serious gap in FAO's approach to field activities.
We welcome the emphasis on Africa in the distribution of spending of the field programme shown in page 13 of the document. However, the rest of the table does not suggest a pattern of help for the poorest people in the poorest countries which one would wish to see and we believe truly reflects FAO's mandate.
The table on page 7 showing the falling share of UNDP expenditure passing through FAO is revealing. Under the UNDP system recipient countries choose the sector to which they allocate UNDP funds. I should stress that this allocation is a reflection of country choice and is not the responsibility of UNDP. I think we have to ask ourselves why the figure has declined. Statements by delegates here in Rome claim a high priority for all FAO programmes, and yet decision-makers in capitals seem to have less definite perceptions. Perhaps there is a message somewhere here about the relevance of some of the skills offered by FAO. This point was touched upon by the Director-General in his address to the June Council when he said that the content of FAO programmes was to some extent shaped by the available staff skills.
However, the main weakness in the document is that from it we gain no feeling of how activities funded from different sources - UNDP, TCP, Trust Funds - complement each other.
We are left without any real sense of focus of all FAO actions at the country level. To us this seems to suggest that the time may have come to consider a revision of the management structure which would bring all elements of FAO's field activities into a much sharper country focus.
As with the previous agenda item, we shall have the opportunity to discuss some of the issues next week and at this stage I wish only to comment briefly on the special trust fund activities for locust and grasshopper control. During the recent locust, grasshopper and army worm emergencies in Africa, FAO has attracted and directed very substantial donor aid to the National Plant Protection Agencies of affected countries. This has enabled them to perform more effectively their traditional role of protecting proper areas: that is tactical pest control. Far less assistance has been sought or directed by FAO to regional pest control organizations which are traditionally the front-line task forces concerned with destroying pests at source outside crop areas and before they multiply and spread to the crop areas. That is strategic pest control. While the 1986 and 1987 harvests have been assured through tactical campaigns costing donors some $80 - 100 million, not enough has been done at the strategic control level to prevent the recurrence of epidemics and upsurges in 1988 and future years which could require similar levels of expenditure by donors.
This is a theme to which we shall return in greater detail at Conference next week.
Hasim ÖGÜT (Turkey): At the outset I wish to thank Mr Lignon for his lucid introduction to the review of field programmes 1986-87. As this subject is also on the agenda of the Conference, I will confine my statement to a few aspects of the review which we consider to be worth mentioning at this stage.
First of all, I should like to express our satisfaction at the steady growth which the Trust Fund Programme has registered over the past years. Regarding the components of the Trust Fund projects, we are pleased to note that the multi-bilateral funds continued to take the largest share. However, we feel that showing the unilateral trust funds as a component of the overall Trust Fund Programme gives us a wrong impression on the general level of this programme, because the unilateral Trust Fund programmes address the needs of only a few countries. In other words, they do not have any global or regional significance. Therefore, we suggest that in the future reviews unilateral Trust Funds should be presented separately but with some greater details.
We appreciate the initiative taken to strengthen the capacity of FAO to monitor the field project implementation at Headquarters through the establishment of a computerized system. We believe that FAO country representatives also have a significant role to play in the monitoring of these projects. Therefore, we would like to stress the importance of integrating the country representatives into the planned field project monitoring system referred to by Mr Lignon.
We attach great importance to using, to the greatest possible extent the national capacities in the execution of field projects. We suggest that this point should be given further importance by FAO so as to increasingly meet the consultancy and training needs of the projects by means of establishing contracts with the national experts or institutions.
In this connection we also wish to see increased TCDC arrangements aiming at procuring equipment and recruiting consultants from developing countries.
Lastly, we should like to underline the significant contribution of the TCP to the overall field programme activities of FAO. In our view, however, the TCP funds, which indirectly contribute to the field programme, should be kept at a certain balance. In this way, such direct involvement as project formulation assistance can be taken care of through the Regular Programme resources and thus the impact of the field activities under the TCP can be further enhanced in direct involvement in the form of action-oriented projects.
Raúl LOPEZ LIRA (Mexico): La delegación de Mexico se une a la satisfactoria acogida que dio el Comité del Programa al incremento en los programas FAO/PNUD, y al crecimiento constante de los fondos fiduciarios. Esto prueba la confianza que tenemos tanto los organismos como los países a nuestra Organización, en las materias de su competencia. Asimismo, aplaudimos las medidas adoptadas por la FAO para mejorar la gestión y vigilancia de los programas de campo, entre los cuales destacan los trabajos en materia de computarización, detrás de los cuales inevitablemente está el factor humano.
La voz de la delegación mexicana continuará haciendo sentir lo expresado en el párrafo 3.126 del documento 87/4, respecto a la disminución de la proporción de actividades ejecutadas en la región Latinoamericana y del Caribe, a pesar de que se indique que están fuera del control de la Organización. Alzamos nuestra voz particularmente en un período en el cual la crisis económica motivada por el pesado servicio de la deuda externa, el deterioro de los términos de intercambio y del comercio, y el creciente proteccionismo, hacen que el flagelo del hambre y la malnutrición haga presa a las masas de nuestras poblaciones. Requerimos hoy más que nunca de un apoyo serio y continuado para evitar la degradación ulterior de nuestra seguridad alimentaria.
Aplaudimos la actitud del Comité del Programa en su aprecio a los esfuerzos hechos a través del PCT para apoyar la CTPD y la CEPD. Esos esfuerzos están en el corazón mismo de nuestra Organización y quisiéramos haberlos visto fortalecidos.
Finalmente, insistimos en que en la aplicación del Programa de Campo deben aprovecharse los recursos materiales y humanos de los propios países beneficiarios. Con tal propósito deberá reclutarse preferentemente al personal nacional radicado en esos países, en lugar del personal extranjero.
Del mismo modo se podría favorecer la creación de cuerpos técnicos a través del uso de equipo y de capacitadores nacionales, los cuales podrían multiplicar y extender el impulso y efectos que se derivan de la aplicación de programas.
Otro elemento que deberá contribuir a elevar el nivel de eficiencia y aprovechamiento de los programas de campo consiste en la posibilidad de que los gobiernos determinen, orienten y evalúen las tareas que realizan los Representantes Permanentes de la FAO ante los países. De esa forma, esos repre sentantes se involucrarían en tareas prácticas y no preferencialmente administrativas como ha venido ocurriendo.
Ronald MACINTOSH (Canada): Mr Chairman, in our usual balanced and constructive fashion, we are here to pay some tribute to the Review of Field Programmes document. We have in the past had some comments to make about the quality of the document. We felt there had been some improvements in the last edition and we feel that there have been some further improvements in this edition. We compliment the efforts made by the Secretariat in assembling the materials. The initial part of the review contains some quite extensive descriptions of FAO activities in a variety of sub-sectors. There is a great amount of useful information on the quantity of assistance delivered, on sector shares, on geographic shares and on the source of the funding.
For us, the most important chapter is Chapter Two, the Assessment of Field Projects.
There also has been some improvement in the efforts to evaluate the quality of the projects. We are told that the work of the Evaluation Service and of the Field Programme Committee has been strengthened.
On the whole, we felt that the Assessment chapter demonstrated a greater degree of objectivity and analysis. In fact, we felt that the analytical tone adopted for the individual case studies that were mentioned in the Review showed a great deal of objectivity in the examination of the practical problems faced by mounting and executing programmes in the field.
If we could make one comment - on this I return to the balance in our intervention - which I hope will be regarded as constructive, we would hope in the future for a more extensive discussion of the problems of programme management in FAO.
As we have stated in previous meetings, we are also concerned that there remains apparently little emphasis on impact assessment or other forms or post-project monitoring in FAO's approach to evaluation.
We shall have an opportunity at the Conference to address in greater detail consideration of reform and review of FAO, and certainly the Canadian delegation will be treating field programmes very prominently in its own interventions on that subject. For the purposes of this Council, I should like to flag three areas that we shall be addressing in the Conference, and we hope that again this will be taken in a constructive spirit.
The first problem is that we feel that there is not enough opportunity for members to exert an in-depth consideration of field programmes in FAO. We feel that we must find facilities which engage the membership more actively in considering all the problems that field programmes face. We do not feel that two days every two years at the Conference is quite enough for this purpose.
Secondly, we have touched briefly at the last Council on our view that there needs to be in FAO a more consolidated approach to field programme delivery. Indeed, what we should like to see progressed towards is a unified field programme delivery structure. We very much believe that there should be conceptual coherence, conceptual unity, between the Regular Programme and the Field Programme. However, we believe that there is a strong case to be made for some operational distinction. We believe that this would lead to a greater measure of transparency in the area of financial accounting and also in the area of personnel deployment. We also feel that a distinct structure for field programme delivery would assist in the efficiency of the delivery systems.
Thirdly, we would like to see - as other speakers have noted - a much greater emphasis in the area of policy advice. Mr Walton has explained that it is a little difficult to do this sometimes if the governments do not ask for this sort of advice. I should only like to compliment the FAO on what ability they have, and that ability is, in fact, to sell services they possess. We believe that, if an identifiable unit were available in FAO that made clear FAO's capacities in this field and the priorities that the Organization attaches to policy advice, particularly in the context of economic adjustment, there would be more requests and FAO's programmes would be more relevant as a result.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italie): Je regarde l'heure et je serai bref, comme d'habitude. Je n'ai pas de papier à lire, mais je ne peux manquer, au nom de mon Gouvernement, de féliciter sincèrement M. Lignon pour ce qu'il a dit et pour ce qu'il a fait, surtout, ainsi que ses collaborateurs qui sont en contact étroit avec mon Gouvernement.
Nous nous enorgueillissons d'avoir le fonds fiduciaire le plus massif. Nos relations sont donc étroites' et nous en sommes très heureux. Nous n'avons pas de critique à faire; nous ne faisons que recevoir celles qui ont été faites par les organes compétents qui ont discuté beaucoup plus longtemps que nous ne pouvons le faire ce soir sur ce magnifique examen des programmes de terrain.
J'ai eu le temps de relire ce que nous avons conclu au Comité financier et au Comité du programme et je souscris entièrement aux louanges qui ont été adressées à ces programmes de terrain, tout en notant ce que nous avons cherché nous-mêmes à corriger, c'est-à-dire le déséquilibre entre les fonds destinés à l'Amérique latine et aux Caraïbes et les fonds destinés à notre continent. Or, en tenant compte avec le maximum d'attention des besoins constants de ce continent, nous avons commencé - et M. Lignon peut en témoigner - à diversifier aussi nos contributions. Et la preuve de notre confiance dans ce magnifique service de la FAO, c'est l'accroissement constant de notre fonds qui atteint maintenant un sommet jamais atteint jusqu'ici. Je félicite M. Lignon et je vous remercie.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): El distinguido colega y amigo, el Embajador Pascarelli de Italia además de confirmar que nuestro país anfitrión se coloca cada día más a la cabeza de la asistencia para el desarrollo, lo cual complace vivamente al Gobierno de Colombia, además de ello decimos, tuvo expresiones de elogio y reconocimiento al Sr. Lignon, Asistente del Director General Jefe del Departamento de Desarrollo y a sus colaboradores, y opiniones favorables que los representantes de Colombia compartimos plenamente.
El Sr. Lignon y quienes le acompañan en su Departamento cumplen una excelente tarea, y este documento así lo confirma. El debate sobre este tema fue iniciado por el distinguido colega y amigo Dr. Winkel de la República Federal de Alemania quien hizo algunas consideraciones importantes y serias que compartimos. Es circunstancia también propicia para pedirle al Dr. Winkel que transmita al Gobierno de la República Federal de Alemania el reconocimiento y la gratitud del Gobierno de Colombia por la valiosa asistencia que recibimos de ese importante país.
Compartimos igualmente alguna de las apreciaciones hechas por nuestro distinguido colega y amigo Sr. Ogüt de la República de Turquía. Quiséramos referirnos a la evolución de las actividades de Campo que se presenta muy bien en este documento, para apoyar sobre todo la nueva orientación que debe darse en la FAO a la calidad de los expertos y a los períodos de su utilización.
Estamos de acuerdo en que ya algunos países en desarrollo han alcanzado grado intermedio y pueden prescindir de la asistencia técnica tradicional para que ésta les sea remplazada por expertos de altos niveles a corto plazo. Naturalmente estamos también de acuerdo con el documento en que todavía hay algunos países que necesitan esa asistencia técnica como se venía ofreciendo en el pasado. Y quisiéramos preguntar a la Secretaría, si en la FAO, en el Departamento de Desarrollo particularmente, disponen de una lista de expertos especializados en disciplinas varias relacionadas con las necesidades de los países en desarrollo; lista que debería estar a disposición de los gobiernos, sobre todo en relación con la frase que aparece en el primer párrafo de la evolución de actividades que es cuando dice que muchos países necesitan todavía formas de asistencia en un momento dado. Creemos que esto sería conveniente. Seguramente existe, pero nos gustaría constatarlo. Atribuimos particular importancia a las actividades de formación y por eso nos complace que en los últimos diez años se hayan formado aproximadamente 500 000 personas, entre ellas muchas mujeres, y que ahora a las mujeres se les esté dando mayor participación en importantes proyectos multidisciplinarios.
Apoyamos lo que dijo nuestro colega y amigo Lopezlira de México sobre la necesidad de que la FAO revise su actitud frente a la asistencia técnica que debe ofrecer a los países de América Latina y el Caribe. Pensamos que se ha ido procediendo en los últimos años con base en cifras y en indicadores obsoletos que es necesario revisar y actualizar.
Esto no quiere decir que no estemos de acuerdo con las prioridades que la FAO concede, sobre todo al Africa y a otros países menos adelantados; pero será conveniente que la posición de América Latina y el Caribe sea ahora analizada dentro de un marco diferente. Esperemos que a este respecto, el estudio sobre nuestra Región, que se solicitó en la pasada Conferencia Regional de América Latina y el Caribe celebrada en Barbados, estudio sobre el cual sabemos que trabajó con intensidad y competencia la FAO, ese estudio esperamos, repito, pueda reflejar esas cifras que justifiquen lo que dijo México y nosotros apoyamos.
También queremos apoyar al colega mexicano en la necesidad y conveniencia de que la FAO intensifique, porque ya lo viene haciendo en cierta medida, el mayor uso de expertos nacionales y de instituciones nacionales. Este documento indica que ya muchos nacionales de los países beneficiarios han asumido con competencia la dirección de importantes proyectos, y creemos que debe seguirse en esa buena dirección.
Igualmente queremos apoyar la importancia creciente que la FAO está dando a la CTPD y CEPT. Creemos que eso es fundamental. Otra observación importante nos lleva a las relaciones entre el PNUD y la FAO. A pesar del decrecimiento que ha sufrido la participación de la FAO en la ejecución de proyectos financiados por el PNUD, nuestra Organización sigue siendo la primera agencia de ejecución del Programa de Naciones Unidas, y a la vez el PNUD sigue siendo la primera fuente de recursos para los proyectos de la FAO.
Por eso, nos interesan las cifras y los comentarios que aquí se consignan a este respecto. Observamos en el gráfico 1.2 que han descendido considerablemente las asignaciones del PNUD a la FAO, después de que en el segundo ciclo esas asignaciones alcanzaron un nivel muy alto, han ahora descendido considerablemente para el cuarto ciclo; y nos inquieta un poco la tímida información que hay en el párrafo 1.12 donde dice que esos recursos no han sufrido fluctuaciones, y en general han disminuido. Creemos que tendríamos que ser aquí más afirmativos, más realistas, aunque no sea muy agradable decirlo; es decir, que en realidad ese descenso ha sido considerable y preocupante. Frente a eso, también consideramos un poco no muy realista la afirmación que se hace en el párrafo 1.15 donde dice que hay razones para creer que la parte correspondiente a la FAO se estabilizará o mejorará, se estabilizará o mejorará. No creo que nosotros debamos aspirar a que la parte correspondiente a la FAO que sobre el cuadro 1.2 ha descendido del 31 por ciento en 1972 pueda estabilizarse al 19 por ciento de 1986. Sobre todo, no deberíamos conformarnos con esa estabilización frente al hecho de que afortunadamente los recursos del PNUD han comenzado a mejorar notablemente a partir de 1986, y posiblemente en 1987 se dispondrá de mil millones de dólares.
Somos conscientes de que entre las relaciones del PNUD y la FAO, las decisiones de los gobiernos son factor determinante. Con base en esa premisa, quisiéramos preguntar al distinguido amigo Sr. Lignon cuáles han sido las causas, a juicio de la FAO, que han determinado ese decrecimiento de ejecución de proyectos por parte de nuestra organización. ¿Podría acaso influir el 6 por ciento que ahora se atribuye a los gobiernos, gobiernos que ejecutan directamente los proyectos? ¿Acaso se debe también en parte a que en el seno del PNUD se están también ejecutando algunos proyectos, sobre todo multidisciplinarios?
En general, nos interesa saber cómo han sido las relaciones entre la FAO y el PNUD en los últimos años, y sobre todo cómo se prospectan esas relaciones ahora en el cuarto ciclo que va a iniciarse o que se está iniciando justamente en 1987. Y todo esto sería conveniente saberlo porque la delegación de Colombia piensa que en nuestro Informe convendría insistir ante los gobiernos en la necesidad de que concendan más alta prioridad a la agricultura en sus planos nacionales de desarrollo, para que así el PNUD reciba de los gobiernos las orientaciones y las directrices indispensables, a través de las cuales se destaque, se confirme la importancia de la agricultura, y la FAO pueda tratar, por lo menos si no de volver al nivel anterior, sí de mejorar considerablemente el bajísimo nivel actual.
Ngá-Ma MAPELA (Zaïre): Nous félicitons le Secrétariat pour la qualité du document que nous sommes en train d'examiner. Nous félicitons également M. Lignon pour son exposé introductif à ce document.
Ma délégation voudrait remercier tous les pays donateurs qui contribuent par des fonds à travers la FAO à aider les pays en développement à mettre en oeuvre un programme de terrain qu'ils ont préalablement défini. Nous nous félicitons de la bonne coopération qui existe d'une part entre la FAO et le PNUD, d'autre part, entre la FAO et les institutions financières, dans le cadre de l'exécution de projets que le PNUD et ses institutions financent. Nous pensons qu'il ne pouvait en être autrement car la FAO possède une longue expérience dans l'exécution de projets sur le terrain et comme l'a si bien dit la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural, la FAO demeure l'Organisation des Nations Unies chef de file en matière d'alimentation et d'agriculture.
Nous voudrions solliciter et encourager la FAO dans sa politique d'utiliser en priorité les capacités des pays en voie de développement dans les projets de terrain. De la même façon nous appuyons les efforts que déploie la FAO pour rechercher les voies et moyens de relever la part de pays en voie de développement dans les commandes d'équipement.
Lorsque nous parlons d'évaluer les programmes qu'exécute la FAO sur le terrain, nous ne devrions pas perdre de vue que les premiers évaluateurs qu'il faut écouter sont les gouvernements des pays bénéficiaires de ces programmes. Il en est de même de la coordination des activités des organismes des Nations Unies dans les pays en développement, coordination qui relève, nous le savons, de chaque gouvernement du pays où se déroulent ces activités.
Almir F. de Sá BARBUDA (Brazil): While going through document C87/4, my delegation verified that even though a moderate increase was achieved in the biennium, the field programmes are still much behind desirable levels, especially considering the magnitude and complexity of the problems faced by developing countries. We would like to underline the importance of TCP projects and all other FAO activities aiming at fostering ECDC and TCDC.
We also welcomed the presentation in Chapter 2 of this document, the careful and detailed analysis and evaluation of six project examples. We recognize the efforts undertaken by FAO to improve the performance and efficiency of its field programmes through the strengthening of the evaluation service and we extend our support to further initiatives in the same line.
In Chapter 4 of the document we had the opportunity to verify the evaluation of FAO field activities in view of the changing nature of the necessities of recipient countries. In that connection, we would like at the same time to support and express our wish for the tendency towards an ever increasing number of national project professionals as well as for the government execution of projects.
On document C92/4 specifically on the views of the Programme Commit tee regarding a review of field programmes, 1986-87, my delegation acknowledges its conclusions. Many of the conclusions were dealt with above, but we would like to bring the contents of paragraph 2.47 to the attention of this Council, namely when it regrets the declining allocations of extrabudgetary funds for activities in Latin America and the Caribbean, a fact which has already been mentioned by the Ambassador for Colombia and the delegate of Mexico. We regret this fact, even though it is also noted in the document that our region benefited from a range of TCDC activities under the TCP.
On the whole, the considerations expressed by the Programme Committee coincide in general with those of my delegation and we can thus briefly state our endorsement and appreciation of the work done and the conclusions in paragraphs 2.44, 2.58.
By way of conclusion, we would commend the work done by the Secretariat in the Review of Field Programmes 1986-87 and we also think it deserves approval by this Council and by the Twenty-fourth Session of the Conference.
Salim SARRAF (Liban) (Langue originale arabe): Permettez-moi très brièvement d'exprimer mon sentiment. Tout d'abord, je voudrais remercier M. Lignon et à travers sa personne tout le Secrétariat pour l'excellente préparation et présentation du document C 87/4. Je le remercie, le Secrétariat également, pour les efforts déployés dans ce domaine que nous apprécions hautement et qui ont visé à améliorer ces programmes de terrain du point de vue du contenu et du point de vue de la présentation.
Comme ce document sera débattu longuement au cours de la prochaine Conférence, je me contente de dire ici même que nous l'approuvons entièrement sur ce point.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Perhaps I may again say two or three words before passing the microphone over to Mr Lignon.
First, I should like to make a correction on something that I said under an earlier agenda item. My information was incomplete and slightly misleading. When we were speaking about commitments and disbursements I said that under non-TCP sections of the Regular Programme disbursements had to be
completed by the end of March in the year following the biennium. The exact situation is that by the end of March in the year following the biennium the books have to be closed and handed over to the external auditors. However, the actual physical writing of cheques can continue until the end of December. That is the complete factual situation.
There are two points only that I want to mention on this item, both linking in to earlier discussions. First of all, on the question of country focus, there are a number of FAO programmes which have what I would call a horizontal focus or a subject matter focus, including most of our action programmes, some of which we have already looked at, such as those for food security assistance, trypanosomiasis control or seed improvement. Those are the horizontally focused ones.
On the question of country focus or, so to speak, vertical focus, the shape which this problem takes varies enormously courttry by country and subject matter by subject matter. In many cases what FAO is actually providing is a very small part of the assistance which fits into a much larger government national development plan, or sectoral or sub-sectoral strategy.
It is important for all concerned - and this is fully recognized by all concerned - that such FAO assistance, which is relatively small, should have a multiplier effect by fitting into a country focus of this nature. I do not think that this hinges in any way on the administrative arrangements for the Field Programme. Those will be looked at in a rather different context, I think, under another agenda item which is before the FAO Conference.
Still on the question of country focus, it links up also to the discussion on the policy advisory role of FAO, and to that I think the chapter on planning assistance in this document before the Council and the Conference is extremely relevant. The objective of FAO in providing policy advice, short-term, medium-term and long-term, must be to build up the capacity of the countries concerned to do this job themselves. Training is an essential part of the whole undertaking, and there is a lot of work under way on this, described in the report. I would draw attention, as a very interesting recent example, to the project funded by Italy which has been started in recent months, implemented by FAO and headquartered in Argentina, for the training of agricultural development planners in Latin America and the Caribbean, agricultural planning at macro- and at micro-level.
The second point to which I want to refer is the strategy for the locust problem. The exercise which we have undertaken together with governments to deal with the locust and grasshopper problem has been of an emergency character. Nevertheless, from quite early days we have been working on a strategy for longer term prevention measures. Of course, this will be coming up at the Conference, but I should just like to mention now that the situation between locusts and grasshoppers is very different. Grasshoppers travel rather small distances. They breed over vast areas, and the strategy has to be crop protection against infestation by grasshoppers. The strategy is not the eradication of grasshoppers wherever they may be breeding. For locusts the situation is almost the other way round. Locusts travel over enormous distances and the strategy is to attack them in their breeding grounds. This is essentially an international problem, a regional problem, and the long-term solution is the building up of regional organizations, of which a number have been in existence for many years but have had serious difficulties lately.
FAO, the World Bank and the UNDP have been in discussion on this matter for almost a year. There have been discussions with donors and with the representatives of the regional organizations and of African countries. There will be further discussions next month in December at the next donors meeting, and we shall be going into this matter further in the Conference.
At this stage, perhaps Mr Lignon could take over.
R.S. LIGNON (Sous-Directeur général, Département de développement): D'abord je voudrais remercier les délégués qui ont apprécié ce document, qui nous ont fait des commentaires extrêmement pertinents dont nous tiendrons compte à l'avenir. Je pense que ceci contribuera encore à améliorer la présentation de ce document dans les années prochaines.
Brièvement, je voudrais répondre à deux questions essentielles qui ont été soulevées par plusieurs orateurs.
La première, c'est le problème de la participation de la FAO dans les projets financés par le PNUD. Je crois qu'il y a une chute qui est due à un grand nombre de raisons. Je voudrais les mentionner comme ceci. Si l'on part par exemple du tableau 1.2 qui démarre en 1972, à ce moment-là la Banque mondiale n'avait pas de rôle particulier dans la fourniture en assistance technique en agriculture. Vous savez qu'actuellement la Banque mondiale est probablement l'Organisme qui a la plus grosse capacité financière en terme d'assistance technique, une partie importante étant consacrée à l'agriculture. La Banque mondiale exécute souvent elle-même ses programmes d'assistance technique dans le secteur agricole. Ensuite il y a l'apparition, depuis une date plus récente, de l'exécution par les gouvernements. Je crois que l'on ne peut que s'en féliciter, même si cela diminue notre part dans les activités financées par le PNUD, je crois qu'on ne peut que se réjouir de la part plus importante que prennent les gouvernements. Ceci implique la mise en oeuvre d'autres méthodes de coopération, mais diminue "le chiffre d'affaires" si je puis dire.
Troisièmement, je pense qu'il y a aussi le fait que le PNUD a créé le Bureau d'exécution des projets. Dans le cadre de ce Bureau d'exécution des projets, nous avons dû, à plusieurs reprises, faire des commentaires auprès du PNUD, dans la mesure où le Bureau d'exécution des projets d'abord ne doit fonctionner que dans le cadre du consensus, qu'après que les Agences spécialisées du système aient exprimé leur point de vue sur le sujet, et surtout leur incapacité passagère ou plus longue, pour exécuter les projets multisectoriels, et deuxièmement, parce que les pays opèrent en sortant la plupart du temps dans des contrats du système des Nations Unies dans le consensus de 1970.
Enfin je crois qu'il y a un autre aspect du problème aussi qu'il faut souligner, c'est que les pays donateurs sont souvent en terme d'assistance technique (je ne parle pas en terme d'investissements) plus intéressés par les programmes d'assistance technique dans le secteur rural, que ce soit sur un plan bilatéral ou même multilatéral, et que par conséquent le PNUD en tient compte dans les exercices de préparation du Programme par pays, en sachant que l'agriculture sera privilégiée.
Récemment, au cours d'une table ronde dans un pays africain, le Ministre du Plan disait: "ce n'est pas la peine de trop s'occuper des problèmes du développement rural puisque mon collègue du Ministère du développement rural trouve beaucoup de crédits pour exécuter ses propres projets".
Je crois que cet ensemble de raisons fait qu'il y a une diminution de la part de l'agriculture dans les projets financés par le PNUD.
Ceci étant dit, nous pensons que dans l'effort de programmation, le travail que nous avons mené avec le PNUD a permis d'obtenir des résultats plus satisfaisants dans certains pays. La part de l'agriculture dans les programmes, du PNUD représente entre 35 et 50 pour cent. Voilà ce que je voulais dire à ce propos. Je crois qu'on ne peut pas espérer revenir aux chiffres de 1970-72, à une époque où n'existaient pas de nombreuses autres organisations qui, plus ou moins, peuvent s'intéresser au moins partiellement aux problèmes de développement rural. Pour répondre aussi à une autre question, nous avons naturellement des fichiers informatisés, des rosters comme on dit, que ce soit au Centre d'investissement, que ce soit dans les divisions techniques où nous entretenons les listes, le plus possible à jour, des experts auxquels nous pouvons faire appel, et je crois que dans ce domaine cela nous permet d'augmenter l'utilisation des spécialistes des pays en voie de développement, notamment dans les opérations de coopération technique entre pays en développement. Je crois que ce sont les questions les plus importantes.
Très brièvement, pour dire que le Programme de coopération technique a un rôle catalytique important, si je peux citer simplement deux ou trois pourcentages: 42 pour cent des projets du Programme de coopération technique ont directement débouché sur des projets de suivi financés par le PNUD, les fonds de dépôt, ou des institutions de financement. Un autre chiffre aussi pour vous montrer son effet catalytique, et notamment pour répondre à une question par le délégué de la Turquie, les projets de formulation, qui ne dépassent pas 3 pour cent en valeur des dépenses du PNUD, ont eu un effet multiplicateur qui varie entre 20 et 30 pour cent.
Voilà, Monsieur le Président, les quelques questions auxquelles je souhaitais répondre maintenant, étant bien entendu que nous pourrons revenir sur l'ensemble des questions qui ont été soulevées par les honorables délégués lors de la Conférence.
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois pouvoir être l'interprète du Conseil en disant qu'il se félicite des améliorations constatées dans la présentation du Programme de terrain 1986-87 de la FAO.
J'émets le voeu que ces efforts soient poursuivis pour avoir encore des améliorations supplémentaires qui permettent de répondre à toutes les questions sur la répartition des efforts à travers les pays ou les continents et également de voir encore plus clair dans le pourcentage des activités agricoles de la FAO dans les programmes PNUD et dans le pourcentage du financement par le PNUD des programmes FAO.
Nous devons continuer à rechercher de manière soutenue tout ce qui est de nature à augmenter le pourcentage de l'agriculture et les activités de développement international et je pense que cet effort qui commence à porter ses fruits depuis quelque temps mérite d'être poursuivi activement et que nous devons tous prendre en considération une harmonisation maximum des activités tout terrain entre les deux agences.
Nous pourrions passer maintenant au point 10 si le Conseil en convient. Le Comité de rédaction doit commencer à travailler. nous nous limiterons donc aujourd'hui au point 10 et peut-être pourrions-nous passer la parole au docteur Shah pour présenter rapidement ce point. Il s'agit d'un point pour information et je propose que le docteur Shah nous introduise le sujet.
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The document before the Council for this item is CL 92/3, which is the Second Report on Unscheduled Sessions in the 1986-87 Biennium: for information. The practice for submitting these documents to the Council dates back to 1973, and it is usually at the Autumn Session of the Council that you receive this report for information. In the report which had been submitted to you last year, we reported that there had been 34 unscheduled sessions approved and 30 sessions cancelled in 1986. In the document now before you, we update that information for 1987, and the results will not come as a surprise. I refer to the fact that there were only 11 unscheduled sessions approved, and 80 sessions cancelled.
Even since this document was set for processing, 4 other sessions have been cancelled and I state them specifically because, according to your practice, the whole list of these sessions appears as an annex to your Report.
The 4 sessions cancelled since the document was finalized are: 1. AGP 717-8 - FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Specifications, Registration Requirements and Application Standards (Programme 2.1.1). The reason for its cancellation was that there was insufficient time available for the follow-up to the last meeting of the Panel and for revision of the resulting guidelines. 2. RNEA 807 - Regional Consultation on the Role of NGOs including Agricultural Trade Unions in Rural Development in Near East (Programme 2.1.5). The reason for cancellation of this meeting was that the Agreement was not ratified by the required number of countries; the meeting would therefore not have been warranted. 3. RAFR 702-5 - Joint FAO/WHO/OAU Food and Nutrition Commission for Africa (Programme 2.1.6.). This meeting, by agreement of all the sponsors, has been postponed to the next biennium. 4. REUR 803 -Technical Consultation on the European Cooperative Network on Durum Wheat (Programme 2.1.2). Cancellation of this meeting was recommended by the European Commission on Agriculture at its meeting held in June 1987.
This essentially is the report before the Council which the Council may wish to note. I am of course at your disposal for any clarification which may be required.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Shah. Est-ce que Messieurs les délégués ont des questions à pos M. Shah sur cette information?
Nous pouvons donc remercier M. Shah pour cet exposé clair et complet.
Et maintenant avant de lever la réunion je voudrais informer le Conseil de ce que l'Ambassade de l'Union soviétique, le 4 novembre 1987, a communiqué au représentant régional de la FAO pour l'Europe le désir de son gouvernement d'être invité à la quatre-vingt-douzième session du Conseil en cours.
Une invitation du Directeur général à participer comme observateur a été envoyée le 4 novembre en vertu des paragraphes B.l et B.2 des Principes régissant l'octroi du statut d'observateur aux Nations. Ces paragraphes stipulent que les Etats que ne sont pas membres ou membres associés de l'Organisation mais qui sont membres de l'une quelconque des institutions spécialisées des Nations Unies ou de l'Agence internationale de l'énergie atomique peuvent, sur demande et sous réserve des dispositions énoncées au paragraphe B.4, être invités par la Conférence ou par le Conseil à se faire représenter par un observateur à une session de ces organes.
L'admission de l'Union soviétique en qualité d'observateur à la quatre-vingt-douzième session du Conseil est soumise à l'approvation du Conseil. S'il n'y a pas d'objections, nous pouvons considérer que l'Union soviétique est admise à participer comme observateur à la quatre-vingt-douzième session du Conseil. Il n'y a pas d'objections?
L'Union soviétique est admise à participer comme observateur à la présente session du Conseil.
The meeting rose at 20.45 hours
La séance est levée à 20 h 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 20.45 horas
