Atif Y. BUKHARI (Chairman, Finance Committee) (Original language Arabic): In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful: Mr. Chairman, once again I have the honour to address the distinguished members of the Council, and it gives me great pleasure to see you chairing this session of the Council while considering this important item on the agenda.
Under consideration are the audited accounts and the External Auditor's Report for the 1986/87 biennium.
I have already mentioned yesterday in my introduction of item 14, regarding the reports of the 62nd and 63rd Sessions of the Finance Committee, that the Committee reviewed in depth these audited accounts of the Organization and the WFP. The programme accounts are contained in document C 89/5 and corrigendum 1. The United Nations Development Programme in document C 89/6 and the World Food Programme in document C 89/7, and corrigendum 1.
The Committee also reviewed the accounts of the various programmes operated by FAO and WFP, and obtained from the Secretariat all information which it deemed necessary for its comprehension and judgment. The Committee also heard the presentation of the External Auditor on these accounts, and had a full exchange of views with him on the various points in his reports.
As a result of these deliberations, the Committee recommended that the Council approve and submit for adoption by the Conference the following accounts: Regular Programme 1986/87, United Nations Development Programme 1986/87, and the World Food Programme 1986/87. Document CL 94/4 includes the corresponding resolution, together with the views of the Committee in paragraph 4.57.
CHAIRMAN (Original language Arabic): I thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee for a clear and excellent presentation of this document. Before we open the floor for discussion of this item I deem it appropriate to consider the sub-items under item 15 separately. Therefore, I do appeal to you that in your various interventions you take into consideration the appropriate separation between the Regular Programme, the UNDP, and the WFP because this will enable members of the Secretariat to be present, and, therefore, to respond to any queries and explanations you deem appropriate.
Ms Gunilla KURTEN (Finland): The delegation of Finland has carefully studied the report of the External Auditor on the FAO accounts for the financial period 1986/87 contained in document C 89/5. The part of the report dealing with the administration of the trust fund projects is of particular interest to us, since we have been financing a rather large number of trust fund projects, with FAO as the executing agency, during a long period of time.
We would like to express our support for the recommendations of the Auditor summarized in paragraph 106 and especially those dealing with the importance of improving project formulation and the project document. The project document should include clearer statements concerning the development objectives and immediate objectives of the projects and their beneficiaries. The outputs should be consistent with the inputs, planned activities and objectives to be achieved. This would also make more effective monitoring possible, because the progress reports could then be required to provide more analysis of progress against defined targets.
One aspect the Auditor does not mention in this context, which we think is essential, is the integration of women. When the objectives of the projects are defined, it should be made clear how it affects women and this gender-segregated approach should be applied throughout the document in respect of the beneficiaries, outputs, inputs and activities. It should then, consequently, also be applied in the progress reports and the monitoring process as a whole.
Another important question that should not be forgotten in connection with the project formulation is how sustainable development is promoted in the projects. We fully agree with the Auditor that the detailed guidelines contained in the UNDP manuals on project administration could be very useful to FAO and subscribe its recommendation that FAO consider the applicability of these also in the administration of trust fund projects.
John COOK (United States of America);, We would like, first of all, to thank the External Auditor for his opinion that FAO's financial statements have been presented fairly for the period ending 31 December 1987, and we approve these accounts.
We would also like to convey our appreciation for his reports. We have a few comments, though, on the reports: first of all to the report concerning the Regular Programme. In this report the External Auditor made a number of useful recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of FAO operations and to control costs, particularly in the area of manpower resources. These are important recommendations, since nearly 63% of the 1986/87 Regular Programme budget was devoted to staff resources.
We learned from the Secretariat yesterday that management consultants have been contracted for, and we know two of their subject areas of study are finance and personnel. We would like to reiterate our suggestion that the Secretariat arrange an early meeting between the consultants and the External Auditor's Office in as much as a number of subjects covered by the External Auditor in his report on the Regular Programme would clearly be of interest to the consultants.
Furthermore, we would also like to reiterate our suggestion that the reports of the External Auditor be provided to the experts participating in the review of FAO, and we would appreciate the Secretariat's follow-up on this suggestion. In view of the on-going work of the experts, the work of the consultants, which is just beginning, and the responsibilities of the Programme and Finance Committees for preparation of their report on the review next year, it would be premature to take decisions at the present time on implementation of the recommendations of the External Auditor in the report on the Regular Programme. Rather, the question of implementation of these recommendations should be addressed at a later date in the context of the results of the review of FAO.
Giesberg GRAF VON WESTPHALEN (Germany, Federal Republic of): We would like to thank the External Auditor for his report. We welcome the fact that the External Auditor also carried out a programme of examination, apart from auditing the accounts and the normal financial transactions. We are also grateful to the External Auditor for the precise conclusions he has drawn from his findings. If these conclusions were taken into account in future by the Organization, FAO's effectiveness and efficiency would be improved. We recognize, however, that FAO's main capital is vested in the quality of its experts, and we state with regret that the present financial crisis has caused already certain losses. We urge the Director-General and his staff to do everything to minimize further negative impacts.
My delegation notes with interest that the standard manpower costs in the last biennium consider a lapse factor of 5.5%; in reality, however, an overbudgeting of several million dollars occurred due to a greater number of vacancies. Add to this that, in the case of more realistic budgeting in the parallel post-sector, a reduction of the 1986/87 budget of more than one million dollars would have been possible.
In this regard, the statement also seems remarkable to us that the total number of posts was reduced, but at the same time the number of Professional positions and General Service positions substantially increased in the upper grades. My delegation considers this policy very doubtful in view of the present financial position facing our Organization. We are concerned about the findings of the external auditor that 21 percent of Professional positions and 70 percent of General Service positions remained vacant for more than 2 years. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the lapse factor should be corrected accordingly.
In the field of trust fund projects the external auditor comes to conclusions which are of interest to my delegation. We do not deny at all that additional problems may arise from the necessary cooperation between donors, recipients and FAO in project formulation; implementation and control and strictly target-oriented action may become difficult. The findings and the recommendations of the external auditor in this respect offer, however, useful approaches to improve FAO's project work.
The recommendations of the external auditor are of great importance to my delegation. We take them very seriously, also in connection with the current processes of review both in the United Nations System and in particular for FAO. My delegation is interested to know how these recommendations are being implemented by the Secretariat and suggests that the Programme and Finance Committees be informed accordingly at their next session by the Secretariat and the Council next June. Moreover, my delegation wants to suggest that a follow-up be undertaken by the external auditor in the foreseeable future.
Earl W. WEYBRECHT (Canada): My delegation wishes to thank the external auditor for the quality and timeliness of his report as outlined in Document C 89/5. We also note his appreciation for the comments and assistance extended by the Director-General and the staff of the Organization. Many of the remarks in the document before us echo suggestions made by representatives of my government over the last decade. This Report serves to reinforce our concerns.
We have noted as well the comments made in the Finance Committee at its 63rd Session on the audited accounts in its report CL 94/4. We believe the Council should clarify, in particular, how the external auditor's recommendations are to be implemented and whether we require further progress reports.
On the question of the management and control of manpower, the external auditor has found that no procedure exists for zero-based manpower planning. We agree that it may not be realistic to review the need for all existing posts in each biennium. We do, however, believe that the FAO should make provision to review the need for all established posts over a period of time. Changing circumstances, up-grading of other posts in the same unit, and consolidation of responsibilities within divisions may, over time, create opportunities to abolish or transfer posts. Some of the process already takes place; it is a question of creating an independent mechanism to ensure that the process is carried out in a thorough and orderly fashion.
The external auditor has also found that the vacancy rate has been running at up to 15 percent in the Professional category and up to 7.6 percent in the General Services Group over the last 3 biennia. The Organization had, however, only budgetted for a 5.5 percent lapse rate resulting in an additional and unnecessary assessment of $5.2 million dollars on member states in 1986-87. In preparing the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91, we believe that the Director-General should determine a lapse rate which is much closer to the actual rate experienced in recent years.
We are attracted to the external auditor's recommendation that procedures be introduced to review the continuing need for posts; that all post descriptions are kept up-to-date and that post grade be considered for parallel posts which are likely to exceed two years duration. Perhaps the Secretariat would like to comment. In the area of job classification, we also like his suggestion that the FAO carry forward its initiative, begun in 1986, to develop its own master standards for the General Service category; and that the FAO step up its assessment of Professional positions against the International Civil Service Commission standards. This would be a useful measure which would assist in strengthening the UN Common System to which my government attaches importance. We welcome the assurances given to the Finance Committee that the Director-General intends to implement the auditor's recommendations in this area. We would appreciate an update at our next session.
On the administration of trust funds, the Canadian delegation is drawn to the external auditor's conclusion that greater use of UNDP standards for project design would result in improvements to project design and execution. The trust fund donors are urged to consider the merits of this conclusion. We noted with appreciation that. the FAO is reviewing the UNDP guidelines with a view to possible standardization of field project procedures.
It is discouraging to note that few of the projects studied met all of their targets. A need has clearly been identified to strengthen the administrative function within large projects and FAO should insist that donors make adequate provisions.
We have noted that the UNDP requires more detailed project reports on planned and actual activities and that, in the external auditor's view, this would allow more effective monitoring of progress in the case of FAO-administered trust funds. In this regard, we share the Secretariat's hope that the introduction of the PROSYS System will lead to improved and more consistent monitoring of the field programme and projects.
My delegation noted with particular interest the sections of the report dealing with evaluation. The external auditor has found that compliance with the existing FAO system is not consistent; that the evaluation service is not fully informed of planned evaluations and reviews; that there are deficiencies in the quality of reporting by evaluation missions. We were, however, pleased to learn that the FAO is taking steps to ensure the independent appraisal of projects and the timely receipt of project reports. It would be of interest to have a progress report of this as well at future sessions.
We believe that the Council should determine and give guidance on how it would like to see these reports implemented and followed up. We acknowledge comments made in the debate under Item 13 by Mr. Crowther that the auditor's comments have been drawn to the attention of the experts engaged in the review of field operations and the consultants examining personnel matters. We would welcome assurances that the Director-General will report to the Finance Committee on the implementation of the auditor's recommendations. We clearly require some device to allow the Finance Committee and the Council to be apprised of follow-up to the reports and my delegation is prepared to support constructive proposals along these lines.
Igor MARINCEK (Suisse): J'aimerais tout d'abord remercier le Président du Comité financier, l’Ambassabeur Bukhari, pour son introduction de cet important point de l'ordre du jour. J'aimerais également remercier le Commissaire aux comptes et son équipe pour leur travail considérable d'examen et pour la qualité de leur rapport.
Permettez-moi de souligner d'emblée l'Importance que mon pays attache aux fonctions du Commissaire aux comptes pour ce qui est d'assurer une certaine évaluation permanente et extérieure en matière de management·
Une première remarque concerne les états financiers. Nous ne remettons pas du tout en cause leur exactitude mais il nous est quand même difficile d'en tirer tous les enseignements voulus, par exemple par rapport à la solvabilité de l'Organisation. L'utilisation de termes comme”engagements non liquidés" ne dit rien sur le degré d'engagement ni sur le moment attendu du payement probable. Un projet est-il seulement signé ou est-on en train d'engager du personnel? Y a-t-il du matériel commandé ? Les engagements se transformeront-ils en dépenses dans un mois, dans six mois, dans deux ans ou même plus ? Nous n'en savons rien. Et pourtant, 11 serait intéressant d'en savoir plus, surtout dans la situation financière critique de l'Organisation.
En ce qui concerne l'examen portant sur le contrôle des effectifs, j'aimerais faire les remarques suivantes. Tout d'abord, nous saluons l'examen effectué par le Commissaire aux comptes et nous nous félicitons du fait que plusieurs de ses suggestions ont été déjà acceptées par le Secrétariat. Cependant, nous ne comprenons pas la réticence de l'Organisation devant un examen indépendant de l'utilisation du personnel, réticence qui est exprimée au paragraphe 23 du document à l'examen. Nous le comprenons d'autant moins que, ce matin, nous avons entendu M. Shah dire que les rigidités dans le domaine du personnel semblent être parmi les obstacles principaux à une application des priorités dans les décisions prises pour ralentir les programmes, ralentissement imposé par la situation financière de l'Organisation. Nous espérons que le fait de s'être engagé dans l'examen de la gestion de l'organisation, et notamment du secteur du personnel, marque une ouverture du Secrétariat sur ce point important.
J'ai une question à poser concernant le paragraphe 46: le Secrétariat peut-il nous donner plus d'informations sur le nouveau système informatisé de gestion de personnel appelé PERSYS ?
Quelques remarques maintenant concernant l'examen de l'administration des projets financés par des fonds fiduciaires. J'aimerais tout d'abord rappeler que mon pays est un important donateur de fonds fiduciaires. Nous y contribuons pour environ 5 millions de dollars par an, et cela depuis une quinzaine d'années.
J'aimerais faire une remarque au sujet du paragraphe 61 du document. Quant à l'harmonisation des descriptifs de projets à partir du nouveau modèle du PNUD, ma délégation est très favorable à la consultation proposée par M. Régnier, ce matin, en utilisant à cet effet le CCQF et le CAD de l'OCDE afin que l'harmonisation souhaitée porte sur toutes les institutions spécialisées et tous les donateurs à la fois. Au paragraphe 83 nous saluons la mise en application du système PROSYS et espérons qu'il répondra aux attentes liées à l'Introduction de ce nouvel outil.
A propos de l'alinéa b du paragraphe 104, j'aimerais souligner l'importance d'une liaison claire.. entre apport, activités, résultats et objectifs dans les projets. Au sujet de l'alinéa f du même paragraphe, j'aimerais souligner l'intérêt primordial que représente un”feedback" systématique des enseignements tirés des évaluations.
Au paragraphe 105, il est question de l'examen préalable des propositions de projets effectuées par des experts n'ayant pas participé à leur formulation et cela seulement quand les ressources le permettent. A notre avis, cette étape ne doit pas être conditionnée par les ressources; il faut lui réserver systématiquement une fraction appropriée des ressources disponibles.
Enfin, nous soutenons les conclusions du Commissaire aux comptes contenues dans le paragraphe 107.
Laissez-moi terminer en tirant la conclusion suivante du rapport du Commissaire aux comptes, et notamment de son travail d'évaluation: l'examen des deux sujets - contrôle des effectifs et fonds fiduciaires - montre clairement les avantages d'une meilleure organisation du travail à l'aide de procédures appropriées et la nécessité d'appliquer celles-ci avec rigueur. Les experts de l'examen en cours de la FAO voudront sans doute examiner et commenter ces aspects du travail de l'Organisation.
Pour ce qui est du Conseil, nous proposons qu'il soit tenu également au courant du suivi donné aux recommandations du Commissaire aux comptes.
Raul LOPEZ-LIRA NAVA (Mèxico): Déjeme saludarlo y congratularlo porque esté usted dirigiendo los trabajos en esta oportunidad. Quisiera aprovechar también para saludar al Sr. Bukhari y felicitarlo por su amplia exposición del tema.
Mis comentarios sobre este punto van a ser muy concretos, por lo cual deseo preguntarle si pudiera hacer yo una intervención general al término del punto 15 tocando muy brevemente los puntos nΩ 1 y 2, ya que se centrará mi intervención sobre el ultimo punto del Programa. Es una pregunta que le hago, Sr. Presidente, porque no quisiera tomar la palabra tantas veces.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): I would like to begin by congratulating you on your assumption to the Chair and also thank Ambassador Bukhari for his presentation of this item. We would like to compliment the External Auditor on the quality of his report. We find this a very helpful and revealing document and perhaps one of the best we have seen from them for a number of years.
However, before commenting on the Audit Report may I comment on the format of the accounts as given in C 89/5, the accounts of the Regular Programme. These accounts show quite clearly one of the weaknesses that we have talked about on previous occasions in the presentation of information about FAO's financial activities, FAO's finances and their spending. The problem we have yet again with this presentation is that there is no clear indication of actual expenditure as distinct from expenditure and commitments. I make no apology for stressing this point again because obviously this information must be available in a separate form and it is aggregated for the purposes of the accounts. We would hope at some point Council or the Finance Committee could be given a disaggregation. If I understood him correctly yesterday, Mr. Crowther said this information would become available and that it would be available in the form of a budget presentation. Perhaps he could confirm this at the end of the debate.
The reason I raise this again is partly because I would like to do so in conjunction with some remarks made by Mr. Shah earlier this morning when he spoke about the problems of managing cuts and managing the programmes because, from the other side of the platform, one of the problems for us is understanding where the cuts fall and what programmes spend as distinct from what programmes are committed and then not spent. I will return in more detail to Mr. Shah's remarks later on, but I particularly welcome his remarks about protecting the operational programme. It would help us all to understand the very difficult task of the Secretariat and the successes in it if we had some cash spending figures for, for example, the Technical Cooperation Programme which would enable us to see exactly what had been spent as distinct from what had been committed and whether, in fact, the cuts had fallen heavily on the Technical Cooperation Programme. If this information could be available
to us just now in the sense that we could have some feel of this in terms of the accounts, we would be very grateful. Falling this, this will come out when a statement is made to the Finance Committee. I dwell on this because it provides a good illustration of what we find to be the problems of dealing with the accounts in their present format.
Turning to the actual audit of the Regular Programme, we would like to confirm our endorsement of the Summary and Conclusions of the External Auditor given in paragraph 97 of C 89/5. I would like to highlight one or two items in the Audit Report. We note the comments of the Auditor on project delays and the role played in project delays by the procurement process. We were therefore rather concerned to learn from paragraph 79 of C 89/5 that measures to improve procurement procedures are under consideration but no decision has yet been taken on their introduction. If I remember rightly, these measures to improve procurement have been under consideration for some time and I think arose at one time when we commented on the previous report from the External Auditor.
My first question on this to the Secretariat is: can they tell us when the new procedures will be introduced and whether they will involve the amalgamation of any of the existing departments within the Organization which deal with procurement?
Turning now to one of the main parts of the Audit Report dealing with the control of manpower, here both the member states and the Secretariat have to thank the Auditor for his study which we see as an extremely useful contribution to our knowledge of the Organization. Equally important in our view, it provides the Secretariat with a basis for taking action to improve personnel management within FAO. By this I mean that the Audit Report provides a number of pointers on how the rest of FAO can help the Personnel Division to fulfil its tasks. You will be aware that in the past at previous Councils we have made a particular point of stressing the importance of the Personnel Department and providing it with the resources to fulfil its role effectively. We are also aware of the onerous task which it has at present because of the weight of the problem of retrenchment.
One aspect of the Summary is of particular concern to us. That is the procedures for the review of the continuing need for posts dealt with in paragraphs 18 to 23. This point has already been touched on by our Swiss colleague. I make no apology for returning to it because it seems to be central to our discussions and symptomatic of the problems that we have in actually having a meeting of minds with the Secretariat on the important issue of where retrenchment falls, where the savings are made. Mr. Shah this morning referred to the problem of making sãvings and how it was not possible to do it simply on the basis of ranking priorities. There were practical limitations to this. We accept that there are practical limitations to this sort of action, but It seems to us to be rather odd that ranking of the priorities seems to have less importance than some other practical limitations in the Organization. In effect, Mr. Shah was saying,”Well, we have these staff and they have these particular skills and therefore as an Organization we have to do those tasks which reflect the skills of the existing staff." One can understand this up to a point, but there are some other elements. One of these elements is that over the past decade the ratio of contract staff to permanently employed staff in FAO has increased. In other words, more people in the Organization are now serving in short-term contracts. We have certainly supported this trend because we were under the impression that it gave management considerable flexibility and enabled them to avoid being locked into a particular set of skills. Therefore, it comes as something of a surprise to us to hear from Mr. Shah that management finds itself committed to and locked into a particular set of skills despite the fact that so many staff serve on the contract basis.
The other thing that concerns us in this is that we feel that in pointing to the value of the review of posts the Auditor has, in fact, given senior management a very useful tool to enable it to trim the operations of the Organization to enable them to meet priorities and to redirect efforts. It therefore comes as a considerable surprise to read of the very informal nature of the review process referred to in paragraph 20. Apparently, it does not seem that records are kept of these in a form that could perhaps be used - these decisions on how to review existing staff. This is paragraph 20 of C 89/5. It also comes as a particular surprise to learn that the people who would be responsible for reviewing posts and thus advising the Secretariat on where they could find savings and redirect resources, that that group of people - the classifiers in Personnel Division - have less than half the full strength of their complement. I see from paragraph 21 that in April 1988 Personnel Division had one and a half classifiers in post against its authorized complement of three and a half. We were equally surprised to read the comments in paragraph 23, given what we have heard from the Secretariat about the difficulty of finding areas for economies and redirections,”Accordingly, the Organization stated, it could not support a proposal for further strengthening of the review of staffing needs." This was because the FAO told the Auditors they had no demonstration that a further independent review of the use of manpower would strengthen the present system. This does sound rather odd in view of the circumstances we were told of earlier.
This leads me to draw everybody's attention to the comments made in sub-paragraphs b and c of paragraph 97 of the report concerning the process of classification and the absence of any regular systematic independently planned review of posts. Therefore, there will be”no guarantee that all
posts will be reviewed over a period of time". These are not my words, they are the Auditor's words. I repeat”no guarantee that all posts will be reviewed over a period of time," - no regular systematically planned review of posts. I submit that this procedure is not really good enough for an Organization faced with the problems that FAO currently has. In our view it weakens the quality of the answers that we have been receiving from the secretariat on the question of how the cuts in the programme are arranged, and the problem of assessing priorities.
We very much welcome learning that the views of the Auditors will be given to the group of experts advising the Programme and Finance Committees and will also be made available to the consultants undertaking the various management studies. We certainly endorse the view given by at least one distinguished delegate, that the Director-General should present the Programme and Finance Committee at its next meeting with a report on progress and implementation of the Auditors' recommendations.
Finally, I should like to associate my delegation with the comments on evaluation made by the distinguished delegate of Canada.
Premanandu TRIPATHY (India): Very useful comments have been made by the External Auditor in paragraph 106 of document CL 89/5 relating to the regular programme of FAO for 1986/87. Paragraphs 4.39 to 4.41 of document CL 94/4 make it clear that the Finance Committee has already reviewed the findings and recommendations of the External Auditor and has observed that FAO plans to take action to implement the tests recommended by the Auditors for control of manpower. The Finance Committee has also observed that FAO is reviewing the guidelines for monitoring the activities and output of projects with a view to effecting possible standardization of field project procedures. Against this background we recommend the acceptance of the accounts for the year 1986/87.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sr. Presidente, Sr. Vicepresidente, distinguido colega y amigo Bashir Said de Libia: Ud. sabe la satisfacción que nos causa verle dirigiendo los trabajos de nuestro Consejo esta tarde. Hemos asistido a una serie de comentarios detallados y posiblemente competentes sobre los cuales preferimos abstenernos, para limitar nuestra declaración a apoyar lo que acaba de decir nuestro colega de India en el sentido de que damos nuestro consenso para la aprobación de estas cuentas.
D.K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): A number of questions have been raised on several Issues in the accounts. I shall try and respond to them collectively rather than individually, but try and address each one nevertheless. First, let me say that the External Auditor has accurately reflected in his report first the accounts and the certification thereof, and the Council has rightly noted that there are no qualifications to the statement whatsoever. Secondly, the reports that are included on both the manpower section and on the Trust Fund section are also accurate reflections of both the discussions and correspondence that the External Auditor has had with the Organization.
With regard to the manpower section there were a number of questions raised, particularly on one point which concerned the regularity of the review of posts. As can be clearly seen from the report itself, there was disagreement between the Organization and the Auditor on the original approach taken, but we did come to agreement in the end and accepted the recommendation. Without going through the complete trials and tribulations of the progress that took place, let me say that the Organization has used a system for many years in which it places the basic responsibility for review of its manpower upon the line-managers. This is a process that is used by many organizations and many governments. It is probably the most predominant type of review that is used in most large organizations The Auditor has suggested that such a process may not include therefore, a complete review of every post over a period of time. With the financial condition that the Organization has found itself in for the last three years (and certainly by 1989 it will be four years) every manager has had to incur substantial reductions in the number of professional staff and general service staff that they have had available to them. This has caused the managers to look very carefully not only at the post, but at the people in the post and how they were contributing towards the programme. Therefore, I can certainly assure Council members that absolutely every post has been looked at. The question that the Auditor is raising is that particularly during the budget process we would prefer to see a separate independent objective review prepared or performed by an additional group.
We had a little trouble accepting the fact that we should support an additional group to review posts when we did not have the money to support the line-posts that were already expected to carry out the programme. Nevertheless, the Auditor has properly agreed to say, and the recommendation
reflects, that they understand the position taken by the Organization, and therefore have recommended a test be performed to see whether or not such an independent objective system would yield assistance and better information to management to allow us to make even more efficient decisions with regard to posts and people. We have agreed to that and have accepted that recommendation and we have implement it. The results of that implementation will be reported to the Finance Committee.
A question has been raised concerning the lapse factor and I shall ask Mr. Shah to address that matter at the conclusion of my remarks.
An additional question was raised concerning parallel posts and the vacancies that occur, how they are staffed by means of parallel posts and the fact that some of these vacancies may occur over a two-year period and should be given consideration for cancelling. Also the suggestion is made in the External Auditor's Report that there could be as much as US$ one million savings a year if our parallel posts were always graded and filled at a grade less than its parallel. This bears some degree of explanation for parallel posts were used primarily as a mechanism to allow the Organization to continue to operate its programme while we were filling a particular vacant post.
In the last few years that has been less of a problem because we have not filled that many vacant posts. Nevertheless it is still a very viable, functional process that is used not only by FAO but most of the UN organizations. The process is that once you receive notification that an individual will be vacating the post either at the end of a fixed term, retirement or just termination, if it is decided that the post is to be filled, a vacancy announcement is put out and the process goes forward. Depending on the specific skills required, and certainly taking into account geographical representation requirements that the Organization certainly adheres to, it is easy to envisage that that post will take somewhere between three to six months to fill and sometimes longer. During that period of time, if the programme must continue in that specific area, as most of our present posts should, we set up a temporary parallel post to what I shall refer to as the”mother post". Sometimes we can move a person in a different post that is less critical and give them additional duties and have them serve in the parallel post for a period of time while we are filling the mother post. However, we cannot always do that. Sometimes the post must just remain vacant.
During this process the recruitment function goes forward, advertisements are put out, contacts with Governments are made, interviews are performed and people are brought to Rome for interview. After several turndowns, as is the case in many instances, we finally fill the post. If there had been a parallel post the parallel post is then cancelled and the mother post is filled. The notion that every time we are filling the post we set up a parallel post at a grade less to create savings, does not include the full thrust of what we are attempting to do. Quite frankly, we are attempting to fill posts not entering into a way of finding additional savings during the vacancy process. We are more interested in saving money than most organizations are and we have looked at every possibility. Nevertheless, having said that we accept the Auditor's recommendation and it shall be implemented. I do not want to have the Council misled on the term and the use of the word”savings" in filling parallel posts.
A number of delegates who took the floor made suggestions that consultants meet with or be provided information about the External Auditor's reports. We have accepted that recommendation and have made reference to that in a prior session. I should also confirm that in the case of the personnel review by management consultants we have already provided both the External Auditor's reports as well as the specific recommendations included with a request from us to the management consultants to look into that technique for finding ways of implementing the recommendations. So we wish to confirm that.
Some questions were raised concerning the financial report. The United Kingdom delegate raised a question as to whether or not in future reports information could be included separating out expenditure from obligations. There again, we confirm to the delegate that this information will be regularly reported to the Finance Committee, but with regard to what information may be reported in future reports to the Governing Bodies, we would like to reserve position on that until the management consultants have had full and complete time to review this aspect. It is in their charter, they have been asked to review it, and they will take into account suggestions that have been made.
I would like to explain, however, that there may be some confusion in the minds of some of the delegates, I do not think in the case of the United Kingdom because they have looked at this question very carefully, but the question of commitments versus obligations may not be clear in everybody's mind.
The question was raised by another delegate concerning the length of time that commitments can be outstanding before they are paid. It is indicative in the Basic Text that appropriations made for the Regular Programme expire at the end of the biennium unless a legal obligation has been entered into at that point in time, other than the TCP programme - I will explain the TCP exception. But first let me say that if an obligation has been entered into, let us say on the last month of the biennium, then the Basic Text provides that that obligation must be concluded within the next 12 months and payment issued. Now, what is legal obligation? It is either that a contract has been entered into to hire a consultant, expert staff member, etc., or a purchase order or contract has: gone forward for the purchase of goods or services. If a legal commitment therefore, in our terms an obligation, has been entered into within the time of the biennium, before the biennium expires, the Organization is committed to conclude that legal obligation and carry it forward. We would expect to have the services delivered and then paid for. The Basic Text does foresee this and it allows for a 12 month period. That is why it is necessary for us properly to reflect into accounts at the end of the biennium, the amount of legal obligations that we had entered into, and while we do not have a problem separating that out from cash expenditure, it is still important for the Organization to identify that those legal obligations exist and must be satisfied.
With respect to the TCP programme the Basic Text specifically makes an exception that the appropriation made for the specific biennium is allowed to expand over two biennia before it is finally expended. At the very end of the second biennium that TCP appropriation then is required to be fulfilled by the same rules as any other obligation - that is if an obligation has been entered into within the second biennium it must be satisfied within 12 months following. But it cannot be just a whim in someone's mind: it must be a legal obligation. That means that a document has been signed, contracts entered into, purchase order exchanged or a specific contract for employment has been entered into. So the same rules govern TCP at the end of the second biennium as govern regular obligations but nonetheless I pointed this out because I think it is very important that the accounts of the Regular Programme properly reflect all the expenditures, because we use the term expenditures to include both cash disbursements and legal obligations that have been entered into. It is very important for the Organization to understand and certainly for the Member Governments to understand.
There is one point left on the procurement process. In the Auditor's report reference is made to an ongoing review of our procurement process to find ways of streamlining it, and the question was raised as to when they can expect a conclusion to that review and whether or not it would include amalgamation of two of our existing procurement units. The answer is that the matter has been under review for some time, decisions have been taken periodically during that period of time, and this past year we extended the local procurement authority - that is, for both local purchases on projects as well as within certain FAOR offices. Where they had $10,000 purchase authority to be made locally it has been increased to $20,000. That was a major aspect of the procurement. It gave us a great deal of concern because of the question of control that must be exercised over those. That step has been taken. An Administrative Circular has been issued and auditors have recognized that that has taken place.
There are some other aspects of that that have not been completed including an inventory process as part of the purchasing system. It is under review and, as shown in the Auditor's report, it will be implemented in the third quarter of next year. It means very substantial change in a number of things that we are doing. We have a process, people have been assigned and they are working on it now.
With regard to the two units, however, we have looked at that carefully again. Our Contracts Branch, and our Purchasing Branch are both reporting to the same division director and there are good reasons for keeping them separated, so we have already concluded at this point that for internal control purposes we are much better off to keep the two units separate at this point in time.
I think that concludes the questions that were raised except those that Mr. Shah should address.
V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): A number of questions and comments made reference to the lapse factor, whether this was of the right level, whether there was over-budgeting and all this in the light of the information submitted in the External Auditor's report, and in particular reference was made to the number of vacancies.
I should like to point out that the number of vacancies such as given in the table on page 13 of the English text of the document, which shows the vacancies in December of each year, both for the Professional posts and the General Service posts, is a snapshot; it gives the number of vacancies at
that date but if you want to look at the savings involved of those vacancies it is not snapshot which would help, but of course taking into account the duration of each individual vacancy.
In terms of 1986-87, the biennium which has been examined by the External Auditor, he found that in fact there was a saving over and above the lapse factor, but this should come as no surprise and the Secretariat should not have to apologize for it or defend it because this is precisely because of savings that had to be made. So I hope there is no misunderstanding on that score.
The question of the lapse factor also requires the explanation that the lapse factor is applied by all organizations in the TIN system to take account of the fact that the complement of staff in an organization has an annual rate of renewal through resignations, retirements, and the replacement of those staff requires some time, so the posts should not be funded for 12 months. In our case the lapse factor is five and a half percent, so for all the posts which are provided for in the budget the budgetary provision is reduced by five and a half percent, by what it would be as the total annual cost. To my knowledge there is no other organization in the UN system which has a higher rate - to my knowledge. I would want to look into this but I believe that FAO is among those which has the highest rate, or we are still in line with others. When it comes to changes there are indeed organizations such as the UN, where discussions are under way. They have not been concluded, so I should not say what they would be, but discussions are under way because the Secretary-General has proposed for the next biennium 1990/91, that the lapse figure for professional posts be reduced to three and a half percent, and that for General Service posts there should be no lapse factor deduction at all. I think that these are all matters which will have to be followed by Member Nations for whatever position that they want to take in each Governing Body but I think for the time being this is all I need to say by way of explanation.
Some comments were made by the delegates of Switzerland and the United Kingdom questioning whether what I said this morning on the approach to cuts and savings was Inconsistent with what appears before you, and I understand of course that what I had said was only at the end of your debate this morning and you have not had an opportunity of seeing the Verbatim Record but I trust that when you see the Verbatim Record there will be no reason to find any inconsistency. What I have said was that we found that we could not make the cuts and savings purely by starting on a ranking of priorities, and I still say that. I still say that in making these cuts we had to look at the staff posts that were vacant, which were about to be vacant, to see what the flexibility was to make savings and then to see in programme terms what keeping a post vacant would involve, in not doing certain work, carrying out certain priority activities.
The delegate of the United Kingdom said that the fact that there is an increasing number of fixed-term posts, or shorter-term posts, increases the flexibility. I cannot deny that, but I think that this is something that is for the evident improvement for flexibility, that to the extent that posts are filled by long-term contracts so that the Organization does not have the possibility of reducing its staff complement without breaking those contracts, it certainly makes it easier for the Organization to adjust whenever posts are filled by people with shorter-term contracts or when the posts are vacant.
The last point I would like to refer to is with regard to evaluation, and a number of comments were made about the advance planning of evaluation missions. There I think, as the document shows, and as we agreed with the External Auditor, in fact there is no perfect system of advance planning of evaluation missions. The ideal would be to have evaluation mission plans fully a year in advance, but in practice units are not able to give these advance plans because of the requirements of projects and governments themselves, both the donor governments and the recipient governments. Therefore, I stand by what we said, that we will make every effort to improve these plans and to increase the participation of the evaluation service in these missions.
Regarding the last point, which was with reference to the quality of participation in evaluation missions, there again I do not wish to sound defensive. Evaluation missions involve usually three parties, and what we are saying is that the quality of the evaluation mission report depends very much on the most suitable level of participation from all parties.
D.K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): Other delegations had to do what we referred to as”grade creep". The indication has shown that the average grade levels, particularly for professional staff, is gradually getting higher and higher over time and the auditors have rightfully pointed this out. This is reflective of a position we find ourselves in from a recruiting and pay and emolument standpoint. As you know, the professional staff has not had an increase in their base pay since 1975. No increase whatsoever. Secondly, the post-adjustment system has been frozen in the base city New York for the last three years and was only released on June 30 with no substantive retroactive increase in post adjustment. This causes a substantial difficulty to the Organization in recruiting. From many countries we have
a number of people who are interested in positions that are advertised and, when they receive the salary quotation, the emoluments and understand the cost of living here in Rome, we have turndowns. The rate of turndowns is so significant, as soon as you find someone who Is interested and think they can live with the pay, it is always one of the in-grade steps at a higher level than step one. It is almost a demand that if we are to recruit people we can no longer recruit at the lowest level of the professionals, P-l and P-2.
The general service salaries have now reached a point where they overlap professional salaries in several categories. In fact, the highest level of our G-1 is the lowest pay that we can make to someone entering the Organization in the G-series, but they have ten steps in their grade G level and if they are at the highest step the pay for that step now comes very close to overlapping the first step of professional in P-l.
It has reached a point now where it is almost very difficult to recruit anyone at the P-l and P-2 level. If you have someone who has just graduated from college, from many places around the world, it is very difficult to recruit them at those levels. The geographic representation problem comes in there as well, because the demand from the under-represented countries creates a great deal of pressure on the Organization to hire more nationals from their countries. Some of our major donors are well under-represented but we cannot hire people from those specific countries because of our pay levels and our pay structure and compensation.
That is the reason we are beginning to see pay creep. There is no question that we are paying more than step one in the respective pay scales, which shows overall the average is creeping up. I am sorry; that is the explanation. Until some changes are made in the base compensation there will probably have to continue to be some type of an Increase of that nature.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): I wish to speak regarding an answer by Mr. Crowther to a point raised by my delegation. My delegation did not question at all the financial statement, nor the utilization of a term like”obligation", nor its accordance with the Basic Texts. That was not the question raised. The question expressed rather a wish from the point of view of my delegation to have a better insight through the Auditor's report into the cash and cash-flow situation of the Organization. So we ask in fact if it is possible to differentiate a little bit this term of”obligations". We ask the question: are there different degrees of obligation? You answered that projects must be signed. That was certainly an answer. However, there is another question: are the obligations for the full amount of the project which is signed, or are they for some element, and how do you consider them in the whole cash-flow situation?
If there are elements of payment that are not immediately effective, a differentiation could help our understanding. The question was presented against the background of the difficult financial situation and of our concern for the Organization, really for our desire to better understand the situation. I just wanted to add that.
D.K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): I am sorry, I either did not fully understand or did not fully answer the question. I would like to add just a few very brief comments on that. In making the point that an obligation must be entered into by the end of the biennium, or the cash will lapse, perhaps I did not differentiate there as sufficiently as I should between the ΤCΡ programme and the regular obligations.
If I can review that very briefly. At the end of the biennium, the first two years of any biennium, regular obligations will expire unless they are legally committed by 31 December of that year, no further degrees of obligation. They are either an obligation or they are not. But we do have twelve months following that date to liquidate that obligation, and then the appropriation will certainly expire.
With regard to the question concerning amounts, there may be some small variation in the amount because, if you enter into a purchase order for a delivery of a piece of equipment for six months later, let us say, to a project, and while you will have a firm quote in the equipment itself, the cost of delivering insurance probably will not be firm until the equipment is actually delivered. Therefore the estimate of the amount of insurance and transport cost will have to be adjusted to actual, usually a fairly minor adjustment.
Finally, the TCP programme does extend for an additional four years, but the rules governing the conclusion of those obligations are identical to. that of the Regular Programme. I hope that helps clarify a little bit the question. I am sorry I misunderstood.
CHAIRMAN (Original language Arabic): That bring us to the end of our examination of the Regular Programme 1986/87. Thank you for your co-operation. Your contributions were most constructive, and useful. Obviously we are not here and now about to change into a drafting committee, because of the very many issues raised. The Secretariat in fact have answered your questions, and I think provided the additional information you have asked for.
I have some general remarks, however, I should like to make. I would say that, as a whole, the Council welcomed the excellent evaluation provided in the report by the Auditor, and also the Director-General's report on the audited accounts, as we see in the Secretariat document. The Council also noted that the Auditor has put forward a number of conclusions and constructive recommendations, especiallv regarding improvement, implementation of projects. Indeed, some members of the Council stressed the need to pay special attention to any measures aimed at a greater integraton of women-in-development projects and programmes.
The Council has also noted with satisfaction the fact that FAO is studying the guidelines concerning the implementation of projects, operational projects. Several members of the Council also drew attention to the fact that the Auditor's report should be submitted to the expert group asked by the Finance and Programme Committees to carry out their special task, and the Secretariat have promised that they will make this report and all the other necessary documents available to the experts so that they can carry out the work that Is expected of them. We would, therefore, warmly thank the Organization for this.
Attention has also been drawn to the need to consolidate efforts in order to increase the rational use of manpower. Request has been made for progress reports on the basis of the Auditor's report, and the Secretariat in this context has provided adequate information. The Drafting Committee will take into due account all the remarks and questions that have been voiced by distinguished members of the Council. I trust that the conclusions or work of the Drafting Committee will reflect this debate.
Giesberg GRAF VON WESTPHALEN (Germany, Federal Republic of): I could state some words on the external auditor's report on UNDP, if that is acceptable.
Given the fact that FAO is the largest implementing agency for UNDP, according to the note of the Secretary-General on comprehensive statistical data on operational activities for development for 1986 comprising 19 percent or $129 million of total UNDP delivery, we are grateful to the external auditor that he has looked into the procedures of the administration of the UNDP projects by FAO.
One of our major concerns in the relationship between UNDP, to which we contribute 130 million Deutsche marks in 1989 and the agencies which implement projects on behalf of UNDP, is the question of accountability. We have expressed this concern in the General Assembly and in the Governing Council of the UNDP. The background to this is that our budgetary regulations would hardly allow us to allocate funds to an institution such as UNDP, which forwards the bulk of these funds to other organizations, while not being in the position to hold them responsible should the necessity arise to do so. We have examined the existing standard and agreements between UNDP and the agencies and found them, at least in this regard, not sufficiently legally binding. We do express our conviction again at this Council that this matter deserves urgent attention.
I raise this point because some of the observations of the auditor relating to the quality of project feasibility, paragraph 11, appraisal within FAO; paragraphs 14, 15 and 17, documentation; paragraph 15, lack of coordination between outputs, objectives and activities; the obvious concern with mere technical questions, paragraph 16 and above all the absence of poor definition of output targets in 64 percent of cases examined by evaluation obviously do support our view. The auditor's observations in fact give us the impression that more attention should be paid by FAO in the implementation of UNDP projects. The Federal Government has stated at the ECOSOC what we expect from UN organizations in the implementation of operational activities and I reiterate, we are convinced relevance in project performance can be achieved if project objectives are precisely
defined and subsequently thorough project preparation and tight monitoring are done. Lessons have to be drawn from results and have to be applied to new projects. The key to produce success, according to our experience is the establishment of the feasibility and the responsible preparation of projects. Both imply that a thorough assessment of needs has to be done.
James AlTKEN (United Kingdom): I would like to make some brief comments on the audited reports of the UNDP. Most of the points my delegation were going to make have been subsumed in the comments made by the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany. We would simply summarize this and say that it does appear to us that there are still a number of areas in which FAO's management and implementation of the UNDP projects could be tightened up and we look forward to receiving a report through the Finance Committee on how the Secretariat intends to carry out the recommendations of the auditor.
On one specific issue, it would be helpful I think if we could have some more details, because it may be that the figures are actually wrong, but it is misleading, but It is paragraph 24 on Document C89/6 and this refers to problems in project planning and it refers to a project in oil palm breeding, where there was initially a budget according to the paper, this is on page 14 of C89/6, in this project there was originally a budget of $5 000 for germ-plasm. After two years when the activity fell behind schedule, we now see that the estimated costs are now in excess of $200 000. These figures seem to us to be a little bit peculiar. Perhaps there is some printing error here. Alternatively, that sort of increase does seem rather large. Perhaps we could have some sort of explanation. It may be that the $200 000 refers to the cost of the whole project rather than the cost of the germ-plasm but it would be helpful if somebody could comment on this.
Paul R. BRYDEN (Australia): I listened with interest to the comments of our colleague from the Federal Republic of Germany. Clearly FAO's administration of UNDP projects represents a substantial portion of FAO activities. My delegation considers it is important that FAO is effective in its administration of UNDP projects and we would hope that FAO takes account of the auditor's recommendations in developing more efficient administrative procedures with respect to UNDP.
CHAIRMAN (Original language Arabic): If there are no other speakers on this sub-item, I shall give the floor to Mr. Rinville.
F. RINVILLE (Sous-Directeur général du Departement du développement): En réponse au Représentant du Royaume-Uni, je dirai qu'il est exact que les chiffres concernant la fourniture de matériel prévu initialement ont augmenté en cours de projet, les besoins ayant augmenté pendant l'exécution de ce dernier.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): As I understood It, it was confirmed that the project costs increased from $5 000 to $200 000 and we have just been told that the figures are correct and it is because the needs increased. Does this mean that the whole increase was taken account of in an increase in needs, in other words instead of one piece of germ-plasm at $5 000, we needed 40 pieces at $5 000 each? In fact, was there a price increase? The other question that seems to come from this: do you actually have time-based estimates and spending profiles as part of your general management procedures on UNDP?
CHAIRMAN (Original language Arabic): Representative of the Secretariat, do you have any further light to shed on this?
F. RINVIILE (Sous-Directeur général du Département du développement): En cours de projet, les besoins de celui-ci ont été modifiés; il ne s'agit pas d'une augmentation du prix. A la demande du gouvernement, il y a eu une modification de la méthode adoptée pour parvenir aux fins du projet et les besoins en matériel végétal se sont avérés plus importants que ce qui avait été prévu initialement.
James ΑITΚΕΝ (United Kingdom): I apologise for coming back on this but there were two parts to my question. One was the part about whether this is a unit cost increase or an overall increase, which has been accurately answered by the representative of the Secretariat. The second part was simply to ask If as a matter of course you have a system of time base spending profiles for all your projects as part of your tools of project management.
F. RIWVILLE (Sous-Directeur gènèral du Département du développement): Je ne comprends pas bien cette deuxième question. Ma réponse à la première, c'est qu'effectivement, en cours de projet, il peut y avoir une modification dans le cadre de cette discussion tripartite qui est menée de bout en bout entre le Représentant du PNUD, le Représentant du gouvernement et la FAO.
Sur le plan de l'échéancier des paiements, je ne vois pas comment je peux donner une précision. Je ne vois pas comment le problème de l'échéancier des paiements peut-être impliqué dans cette opération particulière.
D.K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): Let me assure the delegate of the United Kingdom that in each project, trust fund or otherwise, there is a spending plan that begins with a multi-year budget and an individual year budget that projects the procurement requirements, the staffing requirements, the day they both should come together when the experts should be there, and finally when the review and evaluation should take place. Most of that information is also included in the project document itself before the government even signs, but from that the implementation plan that must occur and the in-house responsibilities that we have with the project control do include time base spending plans. I can confirm and reassure you that that is part of the normal ongoing management responsibilities, project by project.
It also triggers a number of other things, including calls for funds and related types of things. The hiring that goes on and the procurement that goes on have to be coordinated both among divisions as well as between the field and Headquarters and with the donors. It is rather a complicated process but certainly it does include those.
CHAIRMAN (Original language Arabic): As regards the UNDP section of item 15, I think we can say that the Council has noted with satisfaction the fact that the Secretariat will take into account the whole set of the Auditor's recommendations.
James INGRAM (Executive-Director, WFP): In relation to the World Food Programme, the Council has before it the Report of the External Auditor on the accounts of the Programme, document C 89/7 as well as the relevant sections of the Finance Committee's Report of its Sixty-third Session contained in document CL 94/4. The relevant section of the Committee's Report begins on page 20 and covers paragraphs 4.43 to 4.56 inclusive.
The first part of the Committee's report, paragraphs 4.43 to 4.52, are concerned with a statement made to the Committee by the representative of the Director-General in relation to the submission of material on the accounts. Since the Finance Committee has decided to consider this matter at its 1989 spring session, I will not comment on the substance. However, I would like to say that the matter having been raised, WFP welcomes the Finance Committee's decision. I do so particularly since the Committee's review Is intended to encompass”the manner in which the Member Nations intended the Joint Report to be interpreted." It is governments which must ultimately decide how they wish these questions to be resolved. The CFA will no doubt take into account whatever comments the Finance Committee wishes to make. The ACABO - that is to say the Finance Committee of the United Nations which was closely involved in the events leading up to the appointment of the task force and has taken a keen interest in the implementation of its recommendations - will also no doubt wish to advise the CFA.
The second part of the Committee's report, that is paragraphs 4.53 to 4.56, relates to the External Auditor's comments on the Programme's management of development projects. I stress that these comments relate to management and not to the financial accounts which have not been commented on or qualified by the External Auditor. The External Auditor's detailed scrutiny of project management is a fairly recent phenomenon, and you may recall that it was this Programme which encouraged him to do this. Indeed, his project management investigations began with WFP. The reason why I encouraged the External Auditor to undertake such audits is because, as the person responsible for the management of the Programme, it is of great help to me to have as much information as possible about.. aspects of the running of this very large and very complex operation. Inevitably, such investigations turn up problems - that is their purpose. In this same sense, WFP's own evaluation reports of projects, which are candid in revealing shortcomings as well as successes, are seen by many as a model within the United Nations system. Indeed, the External Auditor has relied heavily upon them and on internal WFP working documents in preparing his analysis.
I therefore welcomed the findings and conclusions of the External Auditor as a useful tool to help me in the continuing task of making WFP more effective and efficient. In this regard, I am sure that, if asked, he will attest that in receiving his findings the Programme was cooperative and In no way defensive. This is, of course, consistent with my policy of openness on all financial and management issues.
I would not have felt impelled to say this or make this intervention if it were not for the possibility that there could be some misunderstanding of the import of the External Auditor's findings. As those professionally concerned with such matters know, it is a common problem in any form of evaluation or assessment to achieve a balance between favourable comments and criticisms. Criticisms tend to absorb an undue proportion of comments and the impression can so easily be given, because of this, that the operations under consideration are generally unsatisfactory. It is, therefore, quite easy for a general reader - that is someone with no detailed knowledge of how this Programme works - to be unduly influenced by the apparent preponderance of critical comments in the External Auditor's findings. The External Auditor realized this. Thus, he informed the Finance Committee that he did not consider his report on the management of WFP development projects to be unduly critical or indeed significantly different from his comments on the management of FAO and its Trust Funds. He also pointed out that most of the weaknesses that he had indicated had already been identified by WFP itself, and action had already been taken to counteract them.
Further, the External Auditor has also stated in his report that in his review of 26 selected projects - out of some 300 operational projects altogether - the implementation of food-for-work and direct feeding schemes was generally satisfactory. Most objectives were being achieved or likely to be achieved. The focus of his criticisms was on projects involving the utilization of funds from the sale or exchange of commodities. Indeed, this matter was raised in the discussion yesterday on the WFP report. Overall, however, these account for less than 15% of development expenditures. Thus they constitute a disproportionate share - namely 50 percent - of the sample examined by the External Auditor.
The fact that much of his report dealt in detail with problems arising in these projects - that is to say those involving the utilization of funds from the sale or exchange of commodities - tends to obscure the overall success of our operations which he himself attests to. I am personally convinced that WFP as a development agency is encountering exactly the same problems in project implementation that virtually all other development agencies - whether multilateral or bilateral -are facing. For example, the great difficulty of ensuring that project achievements match project goals. I will go further and say that our own problems are compounded because WFP is a high-poverty orientated agency with 80 percent of our operations concentrated in low-income and food deficit countries who are facing serious economic and financial difficulties. Indeed, WFP faces an additional problem inherent in the very nature of food aid distribution direct to beneficiaries. The distribution sites for WFP food aid are often numbered in the thousands and scattered widely throughout countries, many of which are bigger than Europe's largest countries.
As I mentioned yesterday, the new WFP project cycle, which is now in full operation has contributed a great deal to more rigorous project preparation. The results of this have already been seen in the project documents prepared and presented to the CFA for approval. I am convinced that they will also, in due course, be reflected in improved implementation, for example, a better match between project achievements and goals.
Moreover, unlike most other agencies in the United Nations system, which execute their own projects, recipient governments themselves are the executing agencies for WFP projects and it is the governments who are responsible for reporting to WFP on them. With shortages of staff, of funds, of vehicles, of fuel and of money to pay travel allowances, and so on, many governments today find it virtually impossible to ensure that reports are promptly prepared and transmitted to the capital for consolidation before being presented to WFP. Other UN agencies either produce reports themselves or provide the funding for them.
As the External Auditor has mentioned, WFP is indeed undertaking a comprehensive review of project reporting requirements In recognition of the difficulties being faced by governments and I am convinced that it Is essential to ensure in the future, that reporting responsibilities laid upon governments are within their personnel and logistic capability to deliver.
As regards the External Auditor's specific comments about the delayed submission of audited accounts on projects, I should explain that in each WFP, Plan of Operations the recipient government is required to submit annually to WFP audited accounts in respect of project implementation and also at. the termination of WFP assistance to the project. These accounts, which have normally to be audited and certified by the Government Auditor, are quite separate from - indeed in no way connected with - the WFP accounts before you. They show the quantities of each commodity received by the governments from WFP, losses and stock balances at each storage centre, the quantities distributed and the number of beneficiaries to whom they were distributed. Such audited accounts are expected to be provided by governments within 90 days of the end of the accounting period. For the reasons given already it has proven difficult in practice for Government Auditors, who are invariably under-staffed and often preoccupied with parliamentary obligations, to devote attention to WFP's requirements. The result is that many governments provide these audited accounts late or not at all, in spite of constant urging and reminders by WFP country offices. However, as noted, we are giving careful attention to this matter in order to work out more realistic reporting requirements·
To come back to the problems regarding utilization of funds from sale or exchange of commodities, these problems were, in fact, identified in detail several years ago by WFP through detailed questionnaires to our country offices. However, in many cases, these generated funds cannot be effectively used without availability of foreign exchange to finance particular inputs, as I explained yesterday morning to the Council. This is indeed another aspect of the formidable problems that developing countries, particularly the poorest, find themselves in as a result of the current economic climate, the debt crisis, and so on.
I should add that in the current situation, where many beneficiary countries face serious economic and financial difficulties, a continuous exercise of judgement is required by WFP management to strike a balance between, on the one hand, insistence on the application of very stringent rules and, on the other, reasonably satisfying ourselves that food is reaching intended beneficiaries and that project objectives are being attained. To take an inflexible stand could lead the Programme to have to suspend a good many projects. The poor, whose circumstances are worsened by their current situation, could be put In an even worse plight.
Clearly, we cannot be parties to placing even further burdens on developing countries especially low income, food deficit, ones. If we insisted too rigidly on the fulfilment of reporting requirements in circumstances when governments really cannot meet them, we would leave ourselves no option but to suspend our aid. Clearly this must be a last resort.
However, the Council may be assured that our field staff are instructed to give close attention to monitoring food distribution and project implementation. There is no complacency In WFP about the importance of this vital function.
I apologize for having taken up the Committee's time on this matter. But I wanted to reassure anyone who may have had doubts about our efficient management of project food aid and our deep and continuing sympathy for the plight of developing countries. I also wanted to underline that we are not resting on our laurels and that we remain committed to improving our management performance. Of course, the CFA has yet to examine the External Auditor's report and I will be able to give further information on all of these matters, at that time, including of course, progress on implementing his findings and conclusions.
CHAIRMAN (Original language Arabic): I thank Mr. Ingram, the Executive Director of the World Food Pogramme, for his valuable statement. I am quite sure that this statement will certainly help a great deal of you in your own statements. I should like to appeal to you to be brief because we still have a great deal of items to deal with before the end of the day.
Raúl LOPEZ-LIRA NAVA (México): Antes de nada, quisiera agradecer al Sr. Ingram su exposición. Será muy breve. En lo que respecta al documento C 89/5, mi Delegación apoya las opiniones del Auditor Externo. En relación al tema 15.2, documento C 89/6, igualmente mi Delegación apoya las sugerencias escritas en dicho documento.
Sobr el punto 15.3, Sr. Presidente, permítame señalar que México siempre ha insistido en la necesaria coordinación de actividades entre las agencias de las Naciones Unidas, particularmnente en el ámbito de la agricultura y la alimentación. La disciplina absoluta de agencias co-patrocinadoras, como el PMA, es una exigencia que debe respetarse al pie de la letra. En épocas pretéritas, notamos con gran preocupación el intento del PMA de lograr una autonomía de tipo político de la FAO, y entonces insistimos en la inconveniencia de tales propuestas y en nuestra oposición a ellas. Por el contrario, México insistió, y hoy lo reiteramos, que el PMA debe regirse por una política de ayuda alimentaria estrictamente congruente y coordinada con el concepto, el pacto y estrategias de seguridad alimentaria determinadas en la FAO; y que en el seno del CSA debía evaluarse la coherencia y eficiencia de las políticas de ayuda alimentaria aplicadas por el PMA a la luz del contexto de la seguridad alimentaria mundial. Todo esto, sin demérito del CPA, que era el órgano rector en materia de ayuda alimentaria, pero que por razones obvias no podía estudiar el vínculo de ese asunto con otros planteados en FAO.
Respecto a la transferencia de otras funciones de carácter administrativo y de personal, México ha sido muy escéptico; pues, independientemente de aquellas cuestiones relativas a traslapes y a eficiencia administrativa, podría cruzarse fácilmente la frontera de la independencia total y, por lo tanto, de la indiferencia respecto de la”función paraguas" coordinadora y rectora de la FAO en materia alimentaria.
Por todo lo anterior, nos preocupa mucho el tipo de incidentes como los descritos en el documento CL 94/4, en los párrafos 4.43 a 4.52, y damos nuestro pleno apoyo al punto de vista del Director General y de la Secretaría de la FAO. No consideramos ni útil ni conveniente que a estas alturas se transfieran al PMA nuevas funciones relativas al personal y a la administración. Exigiríamos, eso sí, la pronta y eficaz respuesta del PMA a las preocupantes observaciones hechas por el auditor externo, como se recoge en el párrafo 4.53 y que, como se pide en el 4.56, en su siguiente informe, el auditor externo incluya los progresos hechos por el PMA en la aplicación de las recomendaciones hechas por dicho auditor.
Por otro lado, apoyamos el párrafo 4.57, a fin de que las cuentas comprobadas a las que se refiere sean presentadas a la Conferencia de 1989.
John COOK (United States of America): We have a few comments on the External Auditor's Report on the World Food Programme. The USA assigns high priority to the establishment of a fully operational and effective system for project identification, design, monitoring and evaluation within the World Food Programme. We note that the Finance Committee requested that the External Auditor include in his next report an update on the World Food Programme's progress towards implementing his recommendations on the World Food Programme, project preparation and implementation·
In this connection, we plan to suggest in the CFA that a thorough review of WFP implementation of project cycle reforms be conducted in 1989, and that the results of the review be presented to the CFA at its session in May 1990.
This review therefore would be available for the External Auditor's report. Although we note that the implementation of Food for Work and direct feeding projects was considered as generally satisfactory by the External Auditor, it is incumbent upon the WFP to correct the shortcomings identified in the Auditor's report. Many of the shortcomings are not unique to WFP projects. Our own bilateral feeding programmes at one time or another addressed these same problems, such as slow project start-up, delays in counterpart funding, and underaccomplishment of project objectives. These are not easy problems to resolve but if they are not resolved it will be the poorest people of the poorest countries who suffer, and this is unacceptable.
At the same time our experience tells us that the problems identified by the External Auditor can be corrected and we believe that many of the operational changes necessary to correct the problems have already been set in motion by WFP management.
We especially note the problems identified by the External Auditor in the implementation of projects involving the sale of commodities, and the project cycle review we will suggest to the CFA should certainly address these problems.
We are particularly concerned about the continuing failure of recipient governments to submit progress reports and annual audited accounts on a timely basis, and we would appreciate a full report on the results of the World Food Programme's Review of Reported Requirements which was initiated in November 1987.
We suggest that WFP project evaluation documents and requests for project expansion include a section on the recipient countries reporting performance and action taken to correct deficiencies.
We are pleased that the WFP Operations Department has undertaken an expanding programme of management review and appraisals to supplement the work of the evaluation service, and we strongly encourage continued progress in the implementation of an enhanced monitoring evaluation system for development projects.
We are especially pleased by the greater emphasis being given by WFP to broader sectoral and thematic reviews and suggest that such reviews include information on project impact derived from systematically conducted ex-post evaluation of projects.
We look forward to a follow-up of the recommendations in the External Auditor's report and we will pursue this both in the CFA and with the External Auditor when he gives his progress report to the Finance Committee.
Amin ABDEL MALEK (Liban) (langue originale arabe): J'ai pris connaissance du document C 89/7 concernant le Rapport et les états financiers du Programme Alimentaire Mondial pour la période biennale 1986-1987· J'ai également étudié le document CL 94/4 et plus particulièrement le passge concernant la session du Comité financier ainsi que celui concernant les comptes certifiés du PAM pour 1986-1987, à savoir les paragraphes 4.43 à 4.56; et j'ai également écouté l'intervention du Directeur exécutif du PAM, Monsieur Ingram, et compte tenu de tous ces éléments, je voudrais faire les remarques suivantes.
Monsieur Ingram se dit ouvert aux critiques relatives à l'ensemble des projects du PAM. Je voudrais rappeler à Monsieur Ingram qu'il a été dit dans le Rapport du Commissaire aux comptes que neuf projets sur dix ont échoué; ce pourcentage nous paraît considérable, et cet état de chose n'est pas rassurant. Je ne pense pas que l'on puisse justifier un tel taux d'échec.
Il est toujours facile de se jeter la responsabilité de l'échec sur une tierce partie, et c'est exactement ce que Monsieur Ingram fait lorsqu'il rend les pays bénéficiaires responsables de cet échec.
M. Ingran s'est également plaint de procédures de mise en oeuvre et d'élaboration trop lentes, de rallentissement dans les décaissements des fonds assignés aux projets; il s'est plaint de certains retards dans les rapports faisant état de la mise en oeuvre des projets et de leur évaluation.
Que Monsieur Ingram veuille bien prendre mes remarques dans un esprit tout-à-fait ouvert: j'ajouterai que le Directeur général n'a pas signé les comptes vérifiés du PAM; il semble qu'il y ait divergence de vues à ce sujet la raison apparente étant que le Directeur général n'a pas été saisi des rapports qui aurait dû lui être soumis par le Directeur Exécutif du PAM. Nous savons qu'un accord a été conclu en 1985, dans lequel on précise les règles à suivre en ce domaine. Outre le règlement financier, nous avons à notre disposition le règlement général de l'Organisation, et d'après ces textes - notamment l'article 7 du règlement financier du PAM - le Directeur général est le”gardien" des finances du PAM. Or, nous savons que le Directeur exécutif n'a pas communiqué ses rapports au Directeur général bien que ce dernier lui ait ecrit à ce sujet.
L'autorité déléguée au Directeur exécutif par le Directeur général, implique plusieurs conditions, notamment celle, selon laquelle le Directeur exécutif du PAM doit tenir le Directeur général de la FAO au courant de la façon dont cette autorité a été utilisé afin d'éviter tout abus.
Or, cela ne s'est pas fait si le Directeur général s'est montré tolérant pour éviter de gêner la transmission de ces rapports au Conseil. Il ne faudrait pas que cela crée un précédent qu'il soit interprété comme un abandon par le Directeur général de son mandat et de ses prérogatives.
La réaction de la Conférence à la non signature par le Directeur général de ces rapports nous paraît tout à fait normale. Nous réitérons notre confiance en ce Comité qui envisage d'étudier à fond cette question à sa prochaine session et d'en faire rapport au Conseil en sa session de juin 1989.
En conclusion, la Délégation du Liban réaffirme la nécessité de voir le Directeur général exercer ses prérogatives et son mandat sans concession.
Hans-J. HERMENS (Canada): In our statement yesterday on agenda item 9.1 my delegation dealt in a comprehensive way with Canada's objectives regarding the need for the WFP to continue to seek improvements in the quality of its development projects. We note that the External Auditor has made similar comments and his examination is detailed in document C 89/7. To be objective we must
stress, however, that the projects examined by the External Auditor were approved by the CFA and initiated by the WFP before the improvements in planning implementation, monitoring and evaluation as reflected in the procedures of the new project cycle had been put into practice. The External Auditor states this clearly in paragraph 13 of document C 89/7.
We were of course pleased to hear Mr. Ingram's comments yesterday which confirmed WFP's intent to apply all elements of the new project cycle on all project developments as quickly as possible. In this connection we note the request of the Finance Committee in paragraph 4.56 of document CL 94/4 to the External Auditor, and I quote”to include in his next report WFP's progress towards implementing his recommendations made over the past few years". While we do not consider this to be an unreasonable request we wish to support the proposal of our USA colleague on this matter. His suggestion, as I recall, was that the CFA request the WFP Secretariat to undertake during 1989 a thorough review of WFP's implementation of project cycle reforms and that those results be presented to the CFA at its May 1990 session. This review would then be available for consideration by the External Auditor when he prepares his report.
Another matter which is raised in paragraph 4.51 of CL 94/4 implies action on the part of the Finance Committee which is not particularly clear to us. I do not wish to engage in speculation on the substance of discussion on this matter between the Director-General of FAO and the Executive Director of WFP. I would like to emphasize, however, that it is our hope that the heads of the two organizations develop as soon as possible a satisfactory and lasting solution to the problem that is being cited.
Concerning the involvement of the Finance Committee the Canadian view is quite clear. Members of this Council will recall that the report of the UN/FAO Joint Task Force on WFP relationship problems was submitted to WFP's Governing Body, the CFA. Furthermore, reports on the implementation of the recommendations contained therein have been dealt with in the CFA in three successive sessions. My delegation therefore is of the view that any further follow-up of the recommendations of the task force or the issues raised in its report to the CFA should in the first instance be dealt with by the CFA.
I would like to make one more comment, and perhaps I was not following the translators quickly enough when the delegate of Mexico made his suggested comments. If I recall, he suggested that this Council undertake a review of food aid policies which should guide the operations of WFP. We do not wish to diminish the importance of this body in areas of food and agriculture but it is our view that it is the CFA that deals with operational and policy issues as they relate to the World Food Programme·
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): We would like to welcome document C 89/7 as a good, informative piece of work. We particularly welcome that part of the Auditor's Report which deals with the administration of development projects. We were very pleased to see, from paragraph 42, that the Auditor concluded that the programme operates many diverse and innovative development projects and has taken action to remedy identified procedural weaknesses. On the evidence of the report we believe this is a true and accurate assessment, and we endorse the report and the accounts.
Some issues still require further follow-up action. Clearly WFP has taken energetic steps in other areas to improve things. We also endorse the Auditor's statement that the presentation of project documents has improved. We note observations were based on the examination of 26 projects, i.e., less than 10% of the total active projects. We would be interested to learn how these were selected and whether the auditors were satisfied that they were representative.
We recognize some delays in planning and appraisal of projects are inevitable (these are referred to in paragraphs 8 and 9) but an average period of 22 months between initial requests and the start of commodity distribution seems a very long time to us, particularly since in some cases 14 months is sufficient. We ask the Executive Director to do what he can to speed up the process. In this connection, we regret the CFA rejected a proposal to consider projects three times a year instead of twice.
On the question of overall resource allocation, referred to in paragraph 15 of the report, we find that paragraph 15 is not altogether consistent with the fourth paragraph of the Executive Director's statement. If WFP policy is to give priority to projects in sub-Saharan Africa - a policy we fully endorse - it is disappointing that only 37.5% of WFP's assistance goes to this region. It Is also difficult to see why some 80% of the Programme's resources can go to the least developed food-deficit countries when, according to the Executive Director, 79% is directed to low-income food-deficit countries.
Most food aid donors have also faced problems of slow utilization of counterpart funds referred to in paragraphs 21 and 22. We are pleased that steps have been taken to draw the attention of the
field staff to the importance of this aspect of project control. However, since some delay is almost inevitable, what has been done to ensure that such funds are held in interest-bearing accounts? I would be grateful for an answer to this point (referred to in paragraph 22).
We would like to stress the importance of completing the review of reporting requirements as soon as possible. It is important that these are kept to a minimum, but are then enforced with vigour.
We would also be grateful for explanation of reduction of professional staff in the Evaluation Service. We stress the importance we attach to the broader social and climatic reviews, and the difficult question of feed-back to project planning and policy formulation and development.
Turning to administrative matters, we consider it entirely appropriate for an Executive Director to sign a certification of financial statements and the letter of representation to the External Auditor regarding the WFP accounts. It is right, in principle, that the person who is responsible for the implementation of the Programme should also assume full responsibility for financial matters. We would be prepared to consider possible amendments to the additional financial procedures in due course if these are felt necessary to regularise the position.
Finally, we would like to join with other delegations who said that the proper forum for detailed discussion of WFP issues is, of course, the CFA.
Thomas YANGA (Cameroun): Monsieur le Président, nous sommes particulièrement heureux de prendre la parole à ce moment du débat, alors que vous présidez nos travaux.
S'agissant du point que nous examinons, la délégation du Cameroun considère que le satisfecit délivré par le Commissaire aux comptes après examen des états financiers du PAM constitue une preuve supplémentaire des capacités de gestion améliorée aussi bien sur le plan administratif que financier. La délégation du Cameroun s'en réjouit vivement et tient à féliciter le Directeur exécutif du PAM ce sujet.
S'agissant des rapports entre la FAO et le PAM, il est de notre avis que les responsables de ces deux institutions qui jouent un rôle primordial pour des millions de personnes doivent continuer la collaboration qui a toujours existé entre eux, dans le sens constructif, pour une plus grande efficacité du PAM lui permettant de remplir sa mission, qui s'est traduite dans des domaines autres que financiers, par des ententes qui sont allées au-delà des dispositions contenues dans le rapport conjoint du Secrétariat des Nations Unies et de la FAO.
Cela dit, le Cameroun se félicite de la disponibilité du PAM et de son Directeur exécutif à mettre tout en oeuvre pour répondre aux observations relativement négatives à notre avis que le Commissaire aux comptes a mentionnées dans son rapport.
Nous accueillons, par ailleurs, avec intérêt l'appel á la flexibilité lancé par le Directeur exécutif aux représentants du PAM sur le terrain concernant l'annulation des procédures réglementaires dans l'exécution des projets. En effet, les situations sur le terrain concernant les projets d'aide alimentaire sont si diverses et si imprévisibles que cette flexibilité est absolument indispensable.
Joao Augusto de MEDICIS (Brazil): I promise to be very brief, as my delegation would like only to endorse the statement of the delegate of Mexico in what concerns the political relationship between the World Food Programme and FAO. My delegation deems it is of the greatest importance that those links remain intact and untouched, irrespective of the occasional response from the administration of those institutions. That does not imply any change in the role of CFA, in the opinion of my delegation, although we believe its membership could be reviewed to reflect better active distribution among various geographical regions.
Akbar Mirza KHALEELI (India): I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I think it is necessary to refer to two different aspects of this particular item. One relates to what the report itself says regarding the functioning of the WFP, and we have heard with great interest and, on the whole, agreement what the Executive Director has mentioned. The other is about the relationship between WFP and FAO and, more specifically, the responsibilities to be shared between the Executive Director and the Director-General of FAO.
The extremely constructive suggestion by the distinguished delegate of the USA, backed by Canada, regarding the project cycle and the other points for improving the functioning of the WFP would be agreed by most people. In any case, no organization is perfect, and every organization has to keep improving Its performance along with the evolutionary situations it faces. So, we do not wish to do anything but commend the performance of WFP though, here and there, there may be some occasional reservations.
What concerns us here is that the WFP evolutionary relationship is not only with FAO; it is with: the situation it has to deal with. WFP was created because it had a very specific action-oriented role and, if it has to develop greater powers and flexibility in dealing with the situation on an emergency basis, certainly it may require additional powers. However, as things stand, while we may wish to regularise certain powers, it does not look as though that is exactly the case. Therefore, if we go by the letter of what has been agreed to, there appears to be some need for the Director-General to see these things and sign these certificates.
We do not want this to become an inter-departmental or inter-organizational problem. Both are doing excellent work, and we have great respect for their respective heads. However, I think, whether it is for the Finance Committee or the CFA to discuss these matters, we should place on record our interest in seeing that, in the interest of co-ordination between two very important UN organizations, these matters are sorted out amicably.
We do not wish to take sides on these matters, except that if something has to be regularised, it has to be regularised. So far, it has not been regularised. In terms of the letter of the law, I think the Director-General has certain custodian responsibilities which he is not able to discharge, unless there is that mutual accommodation between two sides.
Gonzalo BULA HOTOS (Colombia): A pesar de algunas tendencias afortunadamente superficiales, tendencias desalentadoras, los Representantes del Gobierno de Colombia, seguimos creyendo en que se van a mantener y fortalecer los resultados que se obtuvieron a través del Grupo Mixto de Acción Naciones Unidas/FAO. En reuniones pasadas de este Consejo y del CPA sobre todo, hemos hablado de la luna de miel que empezó a partir de 1985 y siempre expresábamos el deseo de que esa luna de miel no fuera coyuntural, sino que se consolidara hasta convertirse en permanente.
Parece, Sr. Presidente, que todo funcionaba muy bien hasta abril de 1988. Se autorizó la firma de las cuentas, se prometió espontáneamente considerar la delegación de nuevas facultades y no sabemos qué es lo que ha podido motivar algún cambio de actitud, pero a esto es necesario que no se le dé mayor trascendencia. Pensamos que corresponde a todos nosotros como miembros del Consejo contribuir a que esas dificultades se solucionen en un clima de serenidad. La posición del Gobierno de Colombia, no sólo en esta oportunidad, sino en tantas otras ocasiones, Sr. Presidente, queremos confirmarla hoy en el sentido de que toda controversia entre organismos a los cuales pertenecen nuestros mismos países, controversias entre organismos que usan los mismos recursos para la cooperación, son desafortunadas, porque hacen siempre víctimas a los países en desarrollo, cuyo mejor servicio es el objetivo común de todas esas organizaciones. De manera que pensamos que no conviene echar leña al fuego sino por el contrario, conciliar oposiciones, contribuir a que se superen controversias; y pensamos que este Consejo debe hacer la recomendación fundamental -ya lo ha dicho con elocuencia admirable el distinguido Embajador de India- la recomendación fundamental de que la FAO y el PMA, ambos organismos, superen las diferencias, traten de analizar en un clima de serenidad y objetividad los problemas reales o aparentes que hayan podido surgir y que sigan cumpliendo todos los elementos que obligan a una y otra Organización a la luz del resultado del Grupo Mixto de Acción Naciones Unidas/FAO.
Los Representantes de Colombia, como siempre, hemos recibido con gran atención y oído con mucho respeto las palabras del Sr. Ingram, Director Ejecutivo del PMA. El Sr. Ingram habló de manera clara, objetiva y ampliamente informativa. Y queremos apoyar lo que dijo el colega Embajador de la India.
El PMA es un organismo sumamente importante; lleva a cabo una tarea valiosa y compleja, de magnitud y significación considerables. Es por lo tanto apenas natural que se puedan cometer humanos errores. Lo esencial está en la voluntad y el propósito de rectificar los errores, y en eso confiamos plenamente, en cuanto ha manifestado el Director Ejecutivo, con honestidad y franqueza.
Desde el punto de vista procedimental, Sr. Presidente, creemos que todo está claro. A nuestro juicio el Auditor firmó las cuentas; luego no hay ningún problema en su contenido. Esperamos que el PMA presentará el Informe que se le ha solicitado sobre la manera progresiva como cumple las recomendaciones del Auditor Externo, y que el Consejo tiene su propio Comité de Finanzas que en abril de 1989 se volverá a ocupar de este asunto.
Queremos apoyar lo que dijeron los colegas de Canadá y de Reino Unido, entre otros, en el sentido de que se han planteado aquí algunas cuestiones que solo podrán ventilarse de manera adecuada y competente en el seno del CPA que es el organo rector del Programa Mundial de Alimentos.
Paul R. BRYDEN (Australia): We thank Mr. Ingram for his informative and clear introduction.
Regarding the Auditor's report, in our view the report is not very critical or significantly different from other financial reports considered by the Finance Committee though such an impression was in fact heightened by the precision of the figure quoted and the emphasis on problems rather than on successful aspects of performance. We note that this was only a very small proportion of the total of WFP's operational projects which were diverse and innovative, and the conclusions arrived at must be seen in perspective; not all factors were totally within WFP's control and the projects were mature and had been approved and initiated before the new procedures had been put in place.
We are pleased with the new project cycle and have already noticed the improvement in project formulation. We believe this will resolve any problems arising in previous practices, as noted by Canada in drawing attention to paragraph 13 of the Auditor's report.
We consider that studies of food aid should be carried out by the CFA as our responsible body for such issues.
We support the reference to the Finance Committee as regards the issues regarding the signing of the accounts suggested in paragraph 4.51 of Document CL 94/4.
Finally, the WFP works in some of the least-developed countries and in the least developed parts of those countries; the environment is difficult, the need is overwhelming and adherence to strict and formal procedural guidelines is problematic.
Bernard LEDUN (France): Contrairement à ce que j'ai dit hier, je souhaite aujourd'hui dire l'accord de notre délégation sur les propos qui viennent d'être tenus par le distingué représentant de la Colombie, et je souscris entièrement aux paroles qu'il a prononcées. Ma déclaration sera donc très brève·
Namukolo MUKDTU (Zambia): The Zambian delegation wants to associate itself completely with the comments and the views expressed by Cameroon, India and Colombia.
Sra. Miriam INZAULGARAT GARCIA de PEREZ (Cuba): Vamos a ser muy breves pues en el día de ayer, el Jefe de mi Delegación se pronunció sobre el Programa Mundial de Alimentos resaltando la eficiencia, capacidad y atención del Programa a las necesidades de los países en desarrollo.
En la tarde de hoy, hemos escuchado a varias delegaciones y la mía quiere asociarse a las palabras pronunciadas por los embajadores de la India y Colombia, esperando que la capacidad y experiencia de los máximos dirigentes de la FAO y del PMA contribuya a despejar este malentendido transitorio.
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (Observador de El Salvador): En mi calidad de Observador y como representante de un país que sufre mucho, que se enfrenta día a día con grandes dificultades, como Representante de un pequeño país que necesita de toda la ayuda que puedan proporcionarle Organizaciones como la FAO y el PMA, permítame decirle cuánto lamento situaciones como la que estamos observando.
Mi delegación se une a la esperanza planteada por el Delegado de Canadá en el sentido de que se encuentre a la mayor brevedad posible solución a las divergencias existentes. Esto redundará más que todo en beneficio de los países en desarrollo. En el tema anterior se habló mucho sobre la coordinación. Esta hay que lograrla a todos los niveles.
Assefa YILALA (Observer for Ethiopia): Our delegation would like to thank Mr. Ingram, the Executive Director of the World Food Programme for the exhaustive introduction that he provided on the item being considered, the item on Document C 89/7· As we were members of the Finance Committe, we have discussed the matter when it was presented to the Finance Committe during its last session.
As was indicated by the Executive Director, the Report of the Finance Committee could be categorized into three parts and namely those parts referring to the reporting of the custodian issue, paragraph 4.43 and downwards, and parts referring to the response of the World Food Programme, paragraphs 4.48 to 4.51, and the last part referring to the discussion by the Finance Committee on management and we agree with categorizations that were set by the Executive Director and feel that the Finance Committee during its spring session in 1989 will consider the issues of the two parts, namely the issue of the custodian and also referring to the responses of the World Food Programme. I feel this should be kept until the exhaustive and detailed discussions are held by the Finance Comiittee and the Council will have a chance to examine it at a later date.
With regards to the comments of the auditors, it was reported that steps are being taken to overcome the shortcomings indicated and it is not long ago and long enough to evaluate the outcomes of these improvements and moves taken by the Programme. The new project cycle is just one of those steps taken by the Programme to alleviate some of the shortcomings that are prevailing in the auditor's report that we have before us.
Having said that I would like to say that our own views are similar to the views that were expressed by Colombia, India, Cameroon and others.
Masuhla LETEKA (Lesotho): The importance my Government attaches to both FAO and WFP cannot be overemphasized. Their services to the developing countries, and mostly to the low-income and food-deficit countries, including my own, are commendable. In the same breath, we wish to associate ourselves with the comments of India and Colombia.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Chairman, Finance Committee) (Original language Arabic): As Chairman of the Finance Committee most certainly I have to speak during this discussion and there are a few points I would like to specify if I may in order to remove certain misunderstandings and to dissipate certain erroneous interpretations. As to the interpretation of our Committee's Report, the report of the external auditor was an ordinary report, such as we very often receive from the external auditors. We thanked the auditor for the report which we considered to be very clear and at the end of our deliberations and discussions we entertained the opinions and the views of the World Food Programme and we took into consideration all of the various opinions expressed.
The report as such is an ordinary straightforward report and there were comments relative to that report. On the report itself comments were tabled, were voiced, so that was the normal way of doing things as established. The Auditor had to take all that into consideration otherwise he would not be a true External Auditor.
However, a certain number of points have been raised. Certain questions have been asked. For example, on paragraph 4.34 all the way through to 4.52, it was observed that the audited accounts were not signed by the Director-General according to the expected procedure and as is laid down in the general rules of organization and in the general rules of WFP. It is quite natural that the Finance Committee would make a comment on that state of affairs because it represented a certain rather important change in procedure, a somewhat different procedure from that ordinarily followed. Hence, it was at that point that we began to discuss that specific matter very closely and attentively. We listened to the representative of the Director-General and then we listened to what the representative of the Executive Director had to say on that. We had to do that. That was our responsibility as the Finance Committee. We listened to the two sides of the story, as they say, and we learned that there had been reports relative to the accounts which stipulated that the Executive Director was to submit certain documents to the Organization - something which he had not done. According to certain texts, the Executive Director has to submit reports to the Organization. The Finance Committee was not totally convinced of everything that it had heard, and as you know so very well the Finance Committee in so far as being in permanent and constant dialogue with the various parties concerned, obviously only takes into consideration the facts, the realities and the figures. We keep to that logical line. We were not entirely convinced on what was before us. Therefore, we asked that discussion on that point be terminated. We asked that the pertinent documents be submitted to us. We asked for the pertinent documents relative to this whole issue of the actual signature of the Executive Director on the accounts instead of the signature of the Director-General.
The reports would then be submitted to the Finance Committee during the later session. At that time the Finance Committee would be able to look deeper into the whole question and delve into its investigation. We did not really discuss this whole question. The Finance Committee did not just sit there and discuss things. All we did was entertain the comments of the representative of the Director-General. We entertained the comments of the representative of the Executive Director. Therefore, the possibility of discussing all of this in depth was something that the Finance Committee did not actually have. We postponed it until later.
I do not think it is necessary to be that pessimistic. I have the distinct impression that this type of matter can be dealt with in a very natural way. We will find a solution to this.
The Finance Committee noted another anomaly. It noted something which had to be considered as well, but I do not think the Director-General has a prerogative which allows him to transfer a responsibility assigned to him by the member states to any type of body or organ without reporting back to the member states. I do not think the Director-General can delegate authority or a prerogative that has been assigned to him without making a report thereon to the member states. We spoke about this in paragraph 4.51, at the end of the paragraph if I am not mistaken. Since we invited the Director-General not to take any measures geared or designed to delegate that authority to any other body, in the final analysis I would ask delegates if they would be so kind to understand things distant from any spirit of tension, pessimism or polemics. We are fully convinced that the Directors of the two Organizations will be able to come up with an auspicious solution, with an appropriate solution, which will place things back in a natural order.
That is all I wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, and through you I wish to thank the Executive Director.
Janes INGRAM (Executive-Director, WFP): Apart from the fact that it is late, perhaps some of the problems in understanding what WFP actually does and the nature of some of our problems are revealed a little by the fact that I see in front of me a somewhat different cast of characters than I addressed yesterday. In some ways that is a pity because if you had been here yesterday, those of you who were not, you would have formed an impression of very considerable - indeed almost overwhelming - support for the Programme and the work it does to help developing countries. We had very generous tributes yesterday from many developing countries, as we have had, I suppose, for every meeting I have been to whether it be in FAO, whether it be in the United Nations or whether it be the CFA. I was a little disappointed that that note, which has been so evident, was lost through some interventions this afternoon which somehow seemed to suggest that WFP was some sort of hardhearted taskmaster which was always putting the blame on developing countries.
I am not going to burden you with a long recital of our benefits and what we do and what we do not do, but of course if delegations actually read the three reports of the External Auditor and compare precisely what is said about WFP, for example, on project achievement, on delays in reports from recipient governments, you will find - and I have all the quotations here and I will not go through them - that the External Auditor made precisely the same sort of criticisms. As I said, we welcome them but we also expect delegations to accept that this Programme operates entirely in good faith. Our record shows it. Our record of support for all developing countries without fear or favour is known to all. I will not name some of the countries which receive more assistance from the World Food Programme which, shall I say, are politically controversial, than they get from the rest of the United Nations system combined. This is a programme which by its record has demonstrated its unwavering support for the principles of the United Nations and for the interests of the developing countries.
There were a number of detailed questions raised. As I said at the end of my opening intervention, this report of the External Auditor and the Finance Committee has yet to be considered by the CFA. It will be considered by the CFA, and it seems to me that the people who are most directly concerned with the work of WFP will be able to be informed at that time in so far as they do not already know the substance of our position. But if I can just single out, as I say, one or two things that struck me as quite important, the priority to Sub-Saharan Africa is absolute. But again, as I explained yesterday, we face - as every agency faces - very great difficulties in preparing projects for Sub-Saharan Africa for all the reasons I have given. These governments are under such strain. There is no contradiction between what is said by the External Auditor and the actual position of the Programme. We provide 80% of our assistance to low-income, deficit countries with an absolute priority to the least developed countries and to the food deficit countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. Approximately 20% goes to the middle-income countries in keeping with our mandate of focusing on the poorest people. We try to concentrate on the poorest regions of middle-income countries. This has been so for years. There is a great stability in the respective shares. They go up a little bit from year to year. Generally speaking the division reflects the interests of the member states. It is not something that the Programme is manipulating or changing. It is something that has general and indeed wide acceptance everywhere.
The variation from the average in terms of the time taken for food to reach beneficiaries of some projects is quite wide. There is a big variation between the average and most extreme cases, but if you look at each individual case you will always find very good reasons. Even the donors, of course, sometimes cause delays. We have to call forward the food from donors. We do not own the contributions. It may happen that there are delays in actually finding a donor with the commodities we need for the particular project. The whole thing is a very intricate operation. Our average time is, we feel, very hard to beat over time and certainly compares well with any other development institution.
In truth, the actual recommendations of the External Auditor are few. The main one really relates to asking us to pursue as energetically as possible the review of reporting. As I said in my answer, we are completely committed to that. We are completely committed to trying to make the reporting requirements more realistic in terms of the burdens placed on developing countries by the present system.
If you look at the rest of it there are really not very many recommendations, none that are very clear as such, because in effect he is saying that the Programme has in fact noted these problems and has already done something about it. Of course, over time we will see if what we have done about it is sufficient. By all means, we are very happy at any time to report on the progress made in improving our whole project cycle - there is no problem at all
Our goal is one of continuous improvement and our practice has always been to inform the CFA in detail of the progress made. My intervention in relation to the issue that has been referred to at some length by some delegates, that is, in relation to the signature of the accounts, eschewed entirely any comment in substance, absolutely. All I said was that I welcomed the decision of the Committee to look at it again in April. Of course, I pointed out that the Finance Committee has no absolute rights as regards to these issues. This is a Joint Programme, it is not an FAO Programme, it is not a United Nations Programme it is a very unique institution, different from either. This means that other bodies, and I mentioned the Finance Committee of the United Nations, will also have to look at this matter as will the CFA. But, I made no comment whatsoever on the substance because I thought it would be inappropriate to introduce into this evening's discussion any disharmony. So, I was really very surprised indeed that, notwithstanding that restraint on my part, some very tendencious interventions were made.
Let me mention very briefly the actual situation. The actual situation is readily documented and has been supplied subsequently to the Members of the Finance Committee. Because the accounts were prepared in agreement with FAO, entirely by WFP - these financial accounts were prepared entirely by WFP. It was apparent to the accountant staff (the practical people of both Organizations) that it would not be practicable or desirable for the Director-General to sign them. I put this position in writing to the Director-General in a letter of 31 March which has been given since to the Members of the Finance Committee, and I suggested that I should sign the accounts under delegation from him. The Director-General agreed to this, namely, that I should sign them. Subsequently, he wrote to me on 7 April confirming he would rely on my certification for the 1986/87 accounts. He did not say that he would rely on my certification for all time. However, he said that he would rely on it for the 86/87 accounts and he went on to say that he would consider further delegation.
Let me quote from that letter of 7 April, he will”give serious consideration to possible additional delegation of authority with respect to oversight and certification of WFP accounts" indeed the FAO Representative informed the Finance Committee that”The Director-General had authorized the Executive Director to sign the accounts." Well, if he has authorized signature of the accounts, granted it was not a blanket delegation for all time, one has to wonder, and ask oneself as to why this issue was raised at all. It was certainly not WFP that brought it up. It came as a great and total astonishment to WFP that it was brought up.
On this related issue of the provision of reports, the WFP has provided all the Financial Reports required except for the audit working papers which the Director-General in his letter of 7 April agreed not to require. It seems to me, now that I have suggested It, that it is the result of some misunderstanding, therefore, I fully support (and so indicated to the Director-General) that these issues should be sorted out. But, for some reason it was dumped - if I can put it that way - in the laps of Governments in what I feel is a way which misrepresents the actual situation. I am equally in agreement with all those who have called for resolving these problems between the two of us. That has been my policy throughout. The distinguished representative of Colombia this evening referred to the honeymoon. I do not know how many of you were present at this meeting last year, or present in the FAO Conference, or in the CFA, but you will have heard me say at every meeting that the relations with FAO were excellent, that is what I said on every occasion. They were very harmonious indeed. The honeymoon did not end in April. In April the honeymoon was still going, that is when I got this letter of delegation. The honeymoon ended in July in fact when an issue arose which came up yesterday in this Body - some of you were here some of you were not - in relation to the provision of headquarters for WFP. I will not go into that matter again,
but negotiations which were on the verge of finality, were suspended at a day's notice without any consultation with me at all, without any advice direct to me. There was no notice just suspended when they were on the point of finality. That seemed to me to be an extraordinary step to take. Since then, there have been other things including this, in a sense, nonsense in the Finance Committee which need never have happened.
I regret all this. I am a person who believes in solving issues by consent. I have shown my good will, through the whole of 1987 and the first part of this year, and that remains my position. I wish to resolve these matters and work them out. They waste a lot of your time and they certainly waste a lot of our time. Indeed, I have put a concrete proposal to the Director-General which he said he will consider and which I hope will obviate any future fuss about the signature of accounts, or related issues.
Mr. Chairman, you and the Committee have been extremely patient. I came this evening not intending to say any of this. The intervention I made cast no blames or aspersions on anyone. I regret having to say all this, but let us heed the advice of those voices of reason that we have heard this evening and let us work all these things out like sensible grown-up men.
CHAIRMAN (Original language Arabic): I would like to thank the Executive Director very much. I would ask you ladles and gentlemen not to reopen the discussion on this matter.
Amin ABDEL MALEK (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Je remercie particulièrement Monsieur Ingram pour l'éloquence avec laquelle 11 a répondu aux questions posées et relatives au sujet sous considération. Je n'ai pas dit que le Directeur général ne lui avait pas donné de délégation de signature, j'ai dit que cette délégation était conditionnée et que le Directeur exécutif devait préciser au Directeur général la façon dont il entendait l'utiliser, afin qu'il n'y ait pas d'excès; c'est exactement ce que j'ai dit; je ne veux rien dire de plus.
D.K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): I also regret that it was necessary to get into the substance of this issue in this Body, because the Finance Committee had already agreed that it would go into the matter in detail in its Spring Session. Certainly, the report of the Finance Committee and the External Auditor's Report will be provided to the CFA, to the ACABQ and the relevant sessions of the Council.
Having said that, I have to indicate that WFP basic documents establish a responsibility of the Director-General, which is unique and is a very responsible one. In the basic document itself it calls for the Director-General to set up the original Trust Fund for the World Food Programme. Secondly, it calls for him to remain the custodian of that Fund. As such he is responsible for reporting to this and other bodies.
When an issue of the relationships between the Organization and WFP came up, originally in late-1984, and a Joint Task Force was established to resolve that and a report was subsequently issued in 1985, it was placed before the CFA, before Council as well as the Finance Committee and the ACABQ. The question of the WFP accounts itself is dealt with in the report before you and was considered in the Finance Committee. As indicated therein, the organization had to explain why the WFP accounts and the Letter of Representation were for the first time in history signed by the Executive Director and not the Director-General as foreseen in the basic legislation governing the World Food Programme.
Under this legislation, and particularly, general regulation 27 of Article 7 of the additional financial regulations, the Joint Report of the Secretary-General approved by the CFA and Council in 1985, the Executive Director is obliged to send certain reports to the Secretary-General and the Director-General. There is a considerable number and they are listed and contained in the report. As can be seen from the Annex to this Joint Report these are not long complicated reports which require a great deal of time and effort to prepare especially for the purpose, but for the most part they are routine lists, many of which would be prepared in any case and a mere copy would serve to satisfy the responsibilities to be carried out by the Director-General.
The purpose of the provisions for such a report is that the Secretary-General and the Director-General should have the minimum information to enable them to exercise the general responsibility and oversight which the basic texts of WFP accord to them, and in particular, as regards the Director-General to enable him in good conscience to make his signing of the accounts more than a mere act of rubber-stamping. This does not in any way infringe upon the responsibilities or efficiency of the World Food Programme.
In this connection, may I recall that the decisions of 1985 brought about a comprehensive change in the previous arrangements giving the Executive Director much greater authority and flexibility than had been held by any of his predecessors. For the first time, WFP could purchase equipment and supplies, obtain contractual services, make decisions on personnel, including recruitment, appointment, promotion, transfer, termination, and establishment, and have its own internal audit as well as carrying out many accounting operations. The granting of such wide and full extensions of the authority of the World Food Programme to conduct its own affairs, did not, however, alter the ultimate or immediate responsibilities of the Director-General. On the contrary, it reinforced the need for at least a modicum of reporting, particularly in the financing and accounting sectors. Nor was there any explicit or implicit agreement that provision of the agreement would be progressively relaxed and certainly not by the World Food Programme unilaterally. Since 1985 FAO has scrupulously observed the terms of this Joint Agreement. Indeed, since then further authority has been granted to the Executive Director for example, to appoint Dls without consultation with the Secretary-General or the Director-General and to procure non-food items.
However, I regret to say that since the agreement was decided upon the Executive Director has not rendered to the Director-General the reports which he was required to provide. As a result the Director of Finance did not feel that he was able to advise the Director-General that the Director-General was in the position he need to be to sign the accounts or the letter of representation to the External Auditor. Furthermore, the WFP made it clear that failing to provide these reports was not an oversight which could be corrected but was a deliberate end as a result of a unilateral decision by the Executive Director. The position taken by the Director of Finance was not that the accounts were necessarily wrong or that there was any wrongdoing, but that he was not in possession of the reports which should have been provided and as a result he did not have the material upon the basis which he could properly advise the Director-General to sign. That the Director-General then delegated the authority to sign to the Executive Director was not, as was suggested to the Finance Committee, part of a mutually agreed evolutionary process but an act forced upon us, if we wished, as we did, to avoid holding up the process of the external audits and approval of the World Food Programme accounts.
We look forward to discussing this matter further at the spring session of the Finance Committee and we are as anxious as the members are to resolve the issue. The Director-General must carry out his full responsibility in this regard and it does require the submission of a number of reports by the World Food Programme to the Director-General and the Executive Director.
CHAIRMAN (Original language Arabic): Mr. Executive Director, you have the floor, and I hope that we shall not continue indefinitely with this discussion.
James INGRAM (Executive-Director, WFP): No, Mr. Chairman, I will not take up a lot of time. Just to repeat what I have said, that WFP has provided all the documents relevant to the issue of the signing of the accounts, except the working papers of the Internal Auditor which as far as I am concerned were specifically exempted in the letter of 7 April that I read from - that is, all documents relevant to the accounts have been provided except for one which is the one which is exempted.
What Mr. Crowther has done now is to move from the particular to the general and he refers to a great list of reporting requirements. Indeed, as far as I am concerned the World Food Programme has complied substantially with all those requirements also by mutual agreement. Some of them are really not needed or they are available if you just press a button on the FAO computer, they pop out on you. They have to be introduced, for example, into the payroll system in order for the staff of WFP to be paid.
I go on and say this is absurd really. There are some of this incredibly long list of reporting requirements that FAO does not in fact comply with. It has just become silly. It is simply no way to be trying to conduct relations between two organizations. The WFP is a billion dollar a year operation. Who Is held accountable for its work? It is the Executive Director of WFP. He does have indeed the responsibility, he has most of the authority, and the Director-General made a delegation of further authority, agreed to make a delegation, said he would consider making further delegations.
Mr. Crowther, before 20 or 30 people, said only in June - I said the honeymoon ended in July - in June Mr. Crowther said in my presence and I followed him as a speaker and I quoted what he said, he said there must be an evolutionary relationship between FAO and WFP. So I leave it at that. As I say, I think this is a totally inappropriate place for discussing this kind of thing. It was not my idea. I have not got any text to read. I came in a spirit of goodwill.
CHAIRMAN (Original language Arabic): I would like to thank all those who took the floor on this item. Of course, quite a few questions were asked. A lot of positive suggestions were made about this important report. Of course it is very difficult to sum up everything that was stated during this session. However, in a very general manner I can say that the Council has reviewed the report of the auditors after having listened to the very important statement made by the Executive Director of the WFP.
The Council takes note of the fact that the auditors reports are excellent. They contain many suggestions about the preparation of projects. The Council, as I have understood, congratulates the fact that the programme Implemented all the recommendations made. Various delegates spoke about the relationship which exists between FAO and the World Food Programme and the importance of having excellent relationships between the two organizations, since this has been official to developing countries.
We hope that all the relevant bodies, be it the Finance Committee or Council, during future meetings will arrive at recommendations which will serve the common interest.
I would like to reassure Mr. Ingram of the fact that certain statements by some delegates are far from being critiques: they are just requests for clarification on the part of governments. I would like to reaffirm to Mr. Ingram that this does not mean in any way that member countries, be they developed or developing, do not acknowledge the very effective role played by the World Food Programme in hunger and malnutrition control throughout the world.
All delegates have paid tribute to the role played by WFP in favour of developing countries and I think I speak on behalf of the Council when I say that the Council wishes to appeal to all specialized agencies within the UN family and especially to FAO and the World Food Programme to strengthen their collaboration within the framework of their mandate. Therefore on your behalf I would like to express my most sincere thanks to Mr. Ingram for the clarifiation he has given to us.
After this summary, I would like to bring an end to the review of item 15 of the agenda and I would like to invite you to deal with the following agenda item which is item 16.
Lassaad Ben Osman, Independent Chairman of the Council, took the Chair.
Lassaad Ben Osman, Président indépendant du Conseil, assume la présidence.
Ocupa la Presidencia Lassaad Ben Osman, Presidente independiente del Consejo.
S. JUM'A (Assistant Director-General, Regional Representative for the Near East) (Original language Arabic): Mr. Chairman, distinguished delegations, ladles and gentlemen: At this late hour after a long and difficult day of discussions, I am duty bound to be as brief as possible on this subject. I shall attempt not to take up too much of your time and I will proceed immediately by introducing the document under discussion, document CL 94/17. This document, submitted by the Nineteenth Regional Conference, is entitled Examination of Proposal Regarding Regional Office for the Near East and concerns the resumption of that Office's operations from the region itself.
I would like to recall here that the General Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization in 1979 had adopted a resolution concerning the FAO Regional Office in Cairo, closing down that Regional Office. The Conference gave the Director-General far-reaching powers to proceed with the implementation of the programme and regional activities from regions and locations outside Cairo, be it from the region itself or at the Organization's Headquarters here in Rome.
Since that, a decision was adopted by the Twentieth General Conference in 1979. The Organization proceeded with the Implementation of regional programmes and projects for the Near East from Headquarters here in Rome. The Regional Office proceeded with such activities through cooperation with the various branches and divisions of FAO. This has been the situation for the past nine
years. During that period the countries of the region on various occasions had pointed out that they wished for the Regional Office to return, commence its operations and be operated from within the region itself.
The last request was the one made at the Nineteenth FAO Regional Conference for the Near East that was held in Muscat, Oman, in March of this year. The delegations at that Conference unanimously expressed their desire that the FAO Regional Office for the Near East be returned to the Region and be operated once again from within the region.
Since the countries of the region are aware that such a decision must be taken by the General Conference of the Organization, as it is the sole authority and the only one responsible for such decisions, the Regional Conference therefore requested the Director-General to include on the agenda on the forthcoming General Conference, (the Twenty-fifth Session, which will be held in November of next year), therefore an item related to the Near East Office and its return to the region.
The Director-General has responded to this request and has agreed to include on the agenda of the forthcoming Session of the General Conference in 1989 an item related to the question of the Near East Regional Office and its return to the region.
In order to pave the way for such a step, the Director-General has requested the preparation of a preliminary document, which is being submitted to you today, to inform you of those steps and the latest developments on this subject, on the one hand; also, to have the matter discussed and debated here, and for Council to address any special requests it may find necessary to the Director-General when he is formulating a more precise request that will be addressed to the Ninety-fifth Session of the Conference to be held next year.
The Director-General has also received a formal letter from the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt. This letter was forwarded by the Egyptian Embassy here in Rome, requesting the Director-General to seek to transfer the Regional Office back to its original headquarters in Cairo. The Egyptian authorities have expressed their full preparation to provide all the necessary facilities to achieve this end.
In response to this request, I went to Cairo on the basis of the request of the Director-General, met with the officials there, and informed them of the possibilities related to the adoption of such a decision in the future. I also examined with them on a preliminary basis the preparations and the steps that will need to be taken once such a decision is formally adopted with a view to facilitating the transfer of the Office back to Cairo. This, of course, is on the basis of the General Conference approving such a step next year at its session.
Therefore, we have started to prepare some preliminary assessments and estimates of the cost of such a transfer; that is to say, if the Regional Office were to be returned to the region. As you note, some expenses are to be incurred, but they are one-time only expenses, one-time costs which will cover the transfer of staff members who work in the Near East Office from Rome to the future headquarters of the Near-East Office, be it Cairo or another city.
These one-time costs will also cover the necessary equipment - typewriters, photocopying machines, office furniture and other office requirements - for the new office to start operations. I would like to stress that this Is a preliminary statement. It may exceed or in fact be less than the original costs, which represent about US $ 750 000. In addition to this, if this relocation does take place, it will also entail the appointment of a number of general staff members, and the expenses Incurred by such appointments have not been assessed or estimated yet, even though we are planning to take such costs into consideration when the next detailed document is prepared on the subject.
The forthcoming Session of the Conference of the Organization, when it examines this item, will have to choose between or, rather, consider three options. The first one is to retain the Regional Office in Rome or maintain the status quo, that the Regional Office therefore remain where it is at present. The second option is to relocate the Regional Office in Cairo. The third option is that the Regional Office be relocated elsewhere in the region, providing that a host country comes forward and undertakes to provide all the necessary facilities for such a relocation.
It is quite normal and natural that the Conference will, when choosing one of these three options, have to take into account all the comments and requests and proposals that you may make either now or at one of the future sessions of the Council, before the whole subject, with your recommendations, is submitted to the Conference by the Director-General to help the Conference itself take the appropriate decision.
Therefore, in summary form, this is an outline of the contents of the document submitted to you. The purpose of submitting the document at this Session is, first and foremost, to inform you of the
latest development on the subject, and to find out whether there are any special instructions or special measures to be taken by the Council which the Secretariat must be taking into account when it prepares the detailed full document for the forthcoming Sessions of the Council.
This is, therefore, a summary of the contents of the document, and the subject is now submitted to you to be discussed in the manner you deem fit.
LE PRESIDENT: J'ouvre la discussion sur le point 16.
Ms Hoda EL MARASSY (Egypt) (Original language Arable): Before I make a few clarifications on document CL 94/17, I hope you will allow me to express a special word of thanks to the Director-General for the attention he has accorded to the request made by ray country for the relocation and the reopening of the Near East Regional Office in Cairo. I would like to thank the Director-General for the positive and practical steps he has taken so far.
First of all, and as far as paragraph 1 of document 17 is concerned, I would like to inform you of the following. The Conference decision adopted in November 1979, closing and removing the Regional Office from Cairo, and in fact moving the administration of that Office from Cairo to Rome, pending the adoption of another decision, that Conference decision was taken for political reasons relating to the breaking off of diplomatic relations between Egypt and a number of countries of the region. This in fact gave rise to the belief that it would reflect negatively on the performance of the Office and its ability to provide the necessary services to the other countries of the region. This, therefore, led member countries to request the closing down of the Office and transferring its activities to the Headquarters of the Organization.
That decision was therefore made on the basis of a request of the member countries of the region and not upon the initiative of the Egyptian authorities. Neither was it taken for reasons related to some shortcoming or failure in the Office's performance of its duties or in the services it provided to the member countries of the region. It is also worth noting that, since June 1980 until March 1988, no decision was made by the General Conference to transfer the Regional Office to any other country of the region. The more so as that previous decision of 1979 had closed down the Office without, in fact, abrogating the Headquarters agreement concluded between FAO and the Arab Republic of Egypt on the hosting of the Near East Regional Office and which, in my opinion, is still valid.
Those political reasons that led to the member countries of the region requesting the removal of the office from Cairo no longer exist and diplomatic relations have been restored between Egypt and most of the countries of the region.
As far as part 2 of the document is concerned, the Nineteenth FAO Regional Conference for the Near East held in Muscat Oman in March 1988 expressed its desire that the Regional Office for the Near East be returned to the region. The Arab Republic of Egypt in March 1988 had expressed its desire and welcomed the return of the Regional Office to Cairo on the basis of the letter I personally presented to the Director-General at the time. It would appear to be quite logical to link up between what happened in Muscat and what happened in Egypt as one wish or desire has been expressed and been met halfway by a desire expressed by another part and this would lead to a study as to the practicality of the implementation of this decision.
When Egypt expressed the desire of the return of the offices it did not do so on a personal basis but in response to what it had been informed of by officials in most of the countries of the region as for their country's desire for their office to return to Cairo and their desire that Egypt express its welcoming of that decision. I need not point out here the desire expressed by Egypt and the decision of the Muscat Conference does not mean or preclude the right of any other country in the region in requesting to host the Regional Office if it deemed so fit.
As far as Part 3 of the document, as far as the former Headquarters of the Regional Office in Cairo and the deterioration of the building to its closure for nearly ten years, I would like to point out that the Government of Egypt is quite ready and willing to provide all the facilities and material facilities necessary and available locally to restore and recondition the building in order that the Regional Office may undertake its duties appropriately.
As for Part 6, the conclusions of the Document point out the need and the importance of the Regional Office resuming its activities from the region and the need for the General Conference to examine the subject on the basis of the request made by the Arab Republic of Egypt. It goes without saying that the Council will have before it the three options set out before it in this part of the
document and this in the light of the estimates of the costs of relocating the office in Cairo or relocating it in any other country of the region should any country come forward with such an offer to host the Regional Office.
Here I would like to point out that the decision to transfer the Regional Office contained references to sums submitted for covering the expenditure of closing down and relocating the office. Therefore, it may be appropriate for the Director-General to examine the possibility of using the remaining funds to cover the expenses of reopening and relocating the office. Of course, this will have to be discussed with the countries that originally donated the sums and this will, in addition to the sums put forward by the Egyptian authorities, help the Organization in its present dire economic circumstances.
I would therefore, like to request the Council to recommend to the Director-General to include the question of the reopening of the Regional Office and its relocation to include this question on the Agenda of the Conference and refer to the request made by the Arab Republic of Egypt. Of course, the Director-General will also have to take all the necessary measures to examine and determine the necessary costs that will cover the costs of reopening the Regional Office. We also hope the Director-General will also inform the Conference of any other country offering to host the Regional Office in addition to the Egyptian authorities.
Atif Y.. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic): I would like first of all to express my thanks and gratitude to the Director-General for the attention he accorded to the request expressed by the member countries of the Organization and those attending the Nineteenth FAO Regional Conference for the Near East held in Muscat, Oman on 17 March 1988. It goes without saying that the relocation of the office in the region itself is an important matter. We have stated this and I believe all the member countries of the region have pointed this out, that is to say the need for the office to be operated from the region itself. We therefore support this move, that is to say, that the Near East Office be relocated in the Near East Region itself.
The Ambassador for Egypt referred to several major and important points and it goes without saying we fully support all the points she set out in her statement. I would also like to point out here and stress that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will not object in any manner to the relocation of the Office in the Arab Republic of Egypt but as the Ambassador stated Eygpt's request for the relocation of the Regional Office does not in any manner preclude the right of any other country in the region of offering to host the Regional Office. Therefore, with all due respect and appreciation, we wish to request the Director-General to contact all the member countries of the Near East Region to determine their desires and opinion on the matter and request him that the matter be very carefully examined and studied from all its social, technical and practical aspects so that we may ensure that the office will return to the region and be operated most actively and appropriately.
We would also like to request our colleagues, the members of the Council, to support and endorse the Director-General's request for the inclusion of this subject in the forthcoming session of the General Conference and that he undertake an in-depth study of the matter.
Tawfik A.H. AL MESH-HEDANI (Iraq) (Original language Arabic): We wish to express our appreciation for the attention the Director-General accords to the matters related to the Near East. I may not be as eloquent as the Ambassador for Egypt, however, I wish to point out in my statement the following points: the Headquarters of the Near East Office in Cairo was closed at the time on the basis of a request by the majority of the member countries of the region due to the highly complicated and difficult circumstances prevailing in the region and in the Arab region specifically. On that same basis, and for the same reasons, we had to transfer the office to Rome. That decision was a sound one.
We wish to express our esteem and appreciation for the efforts undertaken by the various divisions here at Headquarters for having helped in assuming the tasks and duties of the Regional Office and we wish here to commend the efforts of Mr. Salah Jum'a who supervised the implementation of those programmes. However, on the other hand, we must also admit and point out that the implementation of programmes and projects would be far better to be undertaken from the region itself.
A great deal of change has occurred in the circumstances prevailing in the region and they may be described as being more positive and therefore in our opinion, it would be more conducive for the Regional Office to return to the region in order that it may perform its task in a better manner and help the member countries of the region.
For this reason, we wish to express our support for the request made by the Nineteenth FAO Regional Conference for the relocation of the Near East Office in the region of the Near East.
The closing down of the office in Cairo was not meant as a punishment for Cairo but the main purpose was to help the Cairo authorities to overcome the difficult conditions prevailing in the region and now considering that the circumstances have changed and that a number of the obstacles have been overcome and considering that the Cairo authorities have put out a helpful hand, a friendly hand, we wish to express our support for the request and the offer made by the Egyptian authorities in fact to host once again the Regional Office and we are convinced that the Egyptian authorities will be as generous as they have always been.
We therefore, formally support the return of the Near East Office to the region and support the request of the Director-General to include this item in the forthcoming session of the Conference Agenda and we are awaiting for his report that will be submitted to the Council at the forthcoming session. We also support the request made by the Egyptian authorities for the reopening of the Regional Office in Cairo.
Bashir EL MABROUK SAID (Libya) (Original language Arabic): First of all I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. Salah who is the Director for the Regional Office. I would like to thank him for what he said about the Regional Office for the Near East. Since the Headquarters of the Regional Office was moved to Rome, the delegation of my country has never ceased to ask for a return of this Office to the region since we felt that this situation was not normal and had no reason to be. We believe that the Regional Office is just a link in the chain which links us to the Organization and therefore, we believe that the Regional Office should be in the region. This is the normal situation if we want to develop the region and its agriculture. This is something we always said. This is what we said during the Regional Conference in Muscat, Oman. The delegation of my country believes that the introduction of this item on the Agenda of the forthcoming Conference is a positive step and therefore we thank the Director-General for this.
We recognize that the region has suffered quite a lot from the transfer of the office to Headquarters in Rome though this office has certainly been able to benefit from the experience here in the Headquarters.
Many efforts were made by Mr. Jum'a and his co-workers, but all this was done against the wish of the Organization that has always called for decentralization. This was supported by the General Conference·
The wish that the Regional Office for the Near East be relocated in the region is the unanimous wish of all the countries in the region, and that is why we would like the Council to adopt a recommendation urging the Director-General to introduce this item on the Agenda of the forthcoming Conference and also ask the Director-General to consult the countries in the region so as to relocate this office in one of the countries in the region, one of the countries that have given their views on this point.
Premananda TRIPATHY (India): The Indian delegation would support the proposal for relocating the Regional Office for the Near East in the region itself. We know that FAO's financial position is not very good. However, we would suggest that the proposal be put before the forthcoming FAO Conference and the decision be implemented expeditiously with FAO mustering the necessary funds for the purpose.
Taghi SHAMEKHI (Iran, République islamique d): Au nom de Dieu, je remercie Monsieur Salah Jum'a de sa bonne introduction du document et pour avoir a respecté le désir exprimé à la dix-neuvième Conference de Mascate; nous sommes reconnaissants á Monsieur le Secrétaire général de donner cette importance aux désirs des pays de la région.
La question est que la réinstallation de ce bureau régional dans la région implique des frais importants; pendant sept ans cette organisation a été installée á Rome et le processus de déménagement demandera des changements importants. Et tout cela se ferait dans une période où la réforme du programme et des finances de l'Organisation est en étude et où le résultat de ce travail devra définir l'organisation du travail à la FAO.
Il me semble donc logique d'attendre le résultat de cette étude et, une fois la nouvelle ligne approuvée, de soumettre la question de l'installation du Bureau régional à la discussion.
Sra. Harían INZAULGARAT GARCIA de PEREZ (Cuba): Mi Delegación ha examinado el documento CL 94/17 y ha escuchado al representante de la region del Cercano Oriente y a la estimada Embajadora de Egipto. Teniendo en cuenta la importancia que revisten las oficinas regionales de la Organización para una adecuada coordinación y apoyo a los países y que, a su vez, los representantes de la región del Cercano Oriente han manifestado su interés de reabrir su oficina regional durante cierto tiempo, después de que otros representantes de esa región han hablado, mi Delegación apoya ese interés, así como el de la Delegación de Egipto por acoger la sede, y finalmente, que este tema se incluya en la agenda de la próxima Conferencia.
Hamukolo MUKUTU (Zambia): Zambia enjoys most cordial relations with all our Near East brothers and sisters. We therefore have no difficulty in supporting in principle a return to Egypt of the Near East's FAO Regional Office if the political reasons which led to its movement have now been resolved. If all member states in the Near East agree on the subject, the matter should be endorsed for decision by the next FAO Conference.
The Zambian delegation believes that the incremental financial costs are minimum and will be outweighed in the long run by indirect cost savings.
Ray ALIEN (United Kingdom): The proposal in paper CL 94/17 to include on the Agenda for the forthcoming Twenty-fifth Session of the Conference the relocation of the Regional Office for the Near East is, in our view, premature. We support the comments made by the distinguished delegate of Iran. We think that any decision to relocate the office should be postponed until after Conference in 1989. This should enable Member States to give full consideration to the proposal, taking full account of the review of FAO. The review may well have implications for the role of regional and country offices and we think this principle should apply to all such proposals.
We have heard a lot at this Council about the financial difficulties facing FAO. We are told that the preliminary estimate to relocate the office in Cairo would be US $ 730 000. In addition to this, would be the cost of major restructuring of the premises.
The comments made by the Administrative Committee on Coordination of the Report of the Joint Inspection Unit entitled”Field Representation of Organizations of the United Nations System: Structure and Coordination", circulated as paper CL 94/LIM/13, mentions in paragraph 6 that all engaged in operational activities are particularly aware of the need in the present circumstances of financial stringency to ensure that administrative costs are kept to a minimum, so that the largest possible share of their resources is directly devoted to programmes and projects that benefit developing countries.
Paul R. BRYDEN (Australia): I will confine my remarks in what is essentially a preliminary discussion of this issue to two points, both of which have been raised by previous speakers.
Firstly, I think it would be sensible if in our report of our brief preliminary discussion at this Council we did reflect that there is a review going on which will be discussed, of course, and considered fully at the next Conference. We are not being asked to take a decision here, of course.
Secondly, with regard to the question of financing the move, we wonder whether there could be some cost-sharing arrangement, perhaps a trust fund arrangement as set out in Resolution 20/79, whereby the region be assisted by FAO at that time in the winding-down process; or perhaps it could be set as a priority activity in the allocation for the Near East Regional Programmes.
The point here is that the closing of the office has nothing to do with the FAO but has to do with members of the region. We have heard that. I do feel that in this time of financial restraint on our Organization perhaps they should at least assist in sharing the burden perhaps more than equitably.
Abdoul karia camra (guinea): La Délégation guinéenne remercie vivement le secretariat général pour l’introduction de ce point important à l’ordre du jour de notre conseil. Il est inutile d’insister sur l’importance de cette question eu égard au role considerable que joue le Bureau regional dans cette region.
Etant donné que la dix-neuvième session tenue à Mascate avait décidé du retour de ce Bureau régional dans cette région, la Délégation guinéenne demande que cette question soit inscrite â l'ordre du jour de la Conférence générale de 1989.
Omer ZEYTINOGLU (Turquie): Nous avons accueilli favorablement la proposition formulée par la dix-neuvième Conférence régionale pour le Proche-Orient, en vue du retour dans la région du Bureau. régional pour le Proche-Orient.
Je tiens également remercier M. Jum'a de son introduction ainsi que Mme. l'Ambasseur d'Egypte pour les explications détaillées qu'elle a données ce sujet.
Avec le retour du Bureau dans sa région, une situation exceptionnelle va disparaître. Comme vous le savez, tous les autres bureaux régionaux opèrent dans leur région. Il ne fait aucun doute que le retour du Bureau dans la région va faciliter énormément les choses. Je ne veux pas dire que le Bureau ici ne fonctionne pas efficacement, au contraire.
Bien sûr, il y a le coût de ce transfert mais je crois que l'on peut envisager ce coût qui, par la suite, entraînera des économies.
A la lumière de ces considérations, nous appuyons l'inscription de ce point à l'ordre du jour de la vingt-cinquième Conférence générale.
Issam Eldin M. EL SAYED (Observer for Sudan) (Original language Arabic): First and foremost, I would like to thank the Director-General for the interest which he has manifested with regard to the wish and the desire on the part of the countries in the region to bring about the relocation of the Regional Office for the Near East in the region itself. Sudan is part of the Near East region and does feel that the Regional Office could work in a much more effective way were it located in the region itself, and in that way ensure a better coordination of the agricultural- and food-oriented activities undertaken by the countries in the region.
Therefore, we would support what was said by the Ambassador from Egypt, and we feel that since circumstances have changed, the Regional office for the Near East should ordinarily return to its premises in Cairo. Therefore we are in favour of including this item on the Agenda of the next general Conference.
Jaime GARCIA Τ BADIAS (Espaňa): Muy brevemente, en aras del tiempo en que estamos quisiéramos hacer un par de precisiones a lo que estamos discutiendo, en el sentido de que no hay duda de que la proximidad de un técnico o de una oficina regional al sitio donde se producen los problemas siempre reduce y aventaja la solución de estas cuestiones en grado máximo, ya que si la oficina que atiende estos problemas se encuentra lejos de la ubicación donde se producen, nunca la eficacia podríamos decir, que sería máxima u óptima. Somos concientes de que una oficina regional puede significar un aumento de costos y que la situación de la Organización pasa por unos momentos en los que no puede permitirse según que situaciones. Somos concientes también, de que una nueva oficina regional en su sitio originario disminuiría los costes en la Sede central en Roma, ya que aquí en estos momentos es donde se asume la responsabilidad de la oficina.
En consecuencia, nosotros creemos que si se hiciera un pequeño análisis, no pretendemos un gran estudio, de la disminución de costes en la Sede central, el incremento de costes que podría significar la nueva oficina regional, posiblemente la diferencia económica no fuese elevada. Digo, posiblemente, desconozco con exactitud el importe que podría significar el ahorro de la oficina actualmente en la Sede central de Roma. Si efectivamente esta diferencia de costes es baja, pequeña o no muy significativa nuestra delegación cree que, en aras al beneficio que podría reportar la oficina en la proximidad a los problemas y en la eficacia que esto siginificaria, daríamos nuestro apoyo a la nueva ubicación, o a la ubicación en su antigua sede en Fl Cairo.
Mohamed ABDELHADI (Observateur de Tunisie) (langue originale arabe): Je serai très bref pour dire que nous ppuyons totalement le principe du retour du Bureau regional pour le Proche-Orient dans la règion cari l y a tout á gagner, en efficacitè, avec ce retour et les pays de la règion en bènèficieraient grandement.
Il est tout á fait batyrek qye ke Bureau regional pour le Proche-Orient oeuvre dans la règion et c’est pour cela que nous appuyons tout ce qui a ètè dit par notre collègue, le Reprèsentant du Royaume d’Arabie Saoudite.
D.R. KAMAU (Kenya): The Kenyan delegation observed that the closure of the Near East Office in Cairo arose from reasons which were peculiar to the region at the time. It is appreciated that the factors which gave rise to that position have changed substantially, and that the majority of the members within the region now support the relocation of the office to the region. The Kenyan delegation supports the proposal that this issue should be referred to the Twenty-fifth Session of the Conference. The resultant initial financial implications, if found to be beyond the ability of the host government, could be shared along the lines suggested by the distinguished delegate of Australia.
S. JUM'A (Assistant Director-General, Regional Representative for the Near East) (Original language Arabic): First of all, I should like to thank all the distinguished delegates who have taken part in the discussion on this Agenda Item. I should like to assure them that we will take into account all of the comments which they have made when we draw up the final report. These comments and observations will also be taken into consideration when the Director-General prepares the definitive document, a detailed document which will be submitted to the Council during its June meeting, or during the meeting scheduled to take place on the eve of next year's General Conference.
On this occasion I should like to say once again that we will establish contact with the countries of the region itself, the countries which still have assets in the capital and we feel that these contacts will be most fruitful. In the very near future you will be informed of the outcome of such contact and discussions. When we prepare the final memorandum for your consideration we will also establish contacts with all of the countries in the region in order to know whether or not any of those countries would be willing, or would want, to host the regional office, if the General Conference adopts such a recommendation and resolution. All of that information will also be contained in the final document.
Some delegates who have spoken, raised the problem of including this Item in the Agenda, because it was pointed out there might be certain difficulties from a procedural point of view. Perhaps we should not examine that question as such because if we envisage the whole question of the Regional Office during the review of FAO, then that would not necessarily mean that we are going to deal with the Regional Office for the Near East. Therefore, I do not think that we have to wait for the end of the review process to deal with this very timely issue. I do not think we have to wait for the next General Conference of FAO.
With regard to the financial facts of such a relocation, one of the delegates said it is also a question of the restoration of the premises. If we were to go back to Cairo, such a refurbishment of the premises would be conducted in very close cooperation and collaboration with Cairo. As her Excellency the Ambassador for Egypt pointed out, it would be the Egyptian Government which would assume the expenditure for restoration work, it would not be FAO who would have to pay, nor would it fall on the FAO budget. If the General Conference were to decide to re-install that office in Cairo the restoration work on the premises would not be a cost to FAO.
On this occasion we would like to say it is up to the General Conference to decide the whole matter. The General Conference is the supreme Governing Body which can decide in this area. However, we considered it good and proper to speak with you now about this matter to bring you up-to-date on the recent developments in this field. We will then clarify our thoughts in the light of what you have said by knowing exactly what you feel. In that way we would also receive some guidance in our efforts. In any case I am of the opinion that the final decision is up to Conference.
In conclusion, I should like to state that with regard to expenditure, the costs and expenses which would be incurred as a result of such a relocation exercise. I think certain facilities were granted to that office when it was established at Headquarters here in Rome, especially with regard to transfer costs, and the general service staff, a certain amount of savings were made. US$3 - 4 million were actually saved (at the rate of $400 000 a year) due to the fact that the office was relocated here at the Headquarters of FAO. However, from the point of view of the countries in the region this is rather an abnormal situation. It was due to a temporary political situation and at the present time the situation has changed. It is no longer necessary to keep the Regional Office for the Near East here at headquarters. It is quite natural that a Regional Office works in the region itself. It would be most appropriate to bring the Regional Office back into its own region and it is quite legitimate for the countries of the region itself to want to see their Regional Office physically returned to the Near East.
It is quite evident that this decision is not up to the countries of the region. I have said a number of times that the decision is one which falls upon General Conference. That is all I have to say. I beg your forbearance if I have omitted any points. If you have any other comments I am at your disposal to field those comments and I could speak again if were you to consider it necessary·
Paul R. BRYDEN (Australia): On a point of clarification, in my very brief intervention, I spoke about the costs. Of course I was referring to the costs of relocation of dependents and so on. Perhaps had I expressed my delegation's appreciation of the generous offer of the Egyptian delegate to refurbish the building that might have been clearer.
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois que les explications données par M. Jum'a sont claires. On peut dire qu'une majorité des membres se prononcent en faveur de la proposition tendant au retour dans la région du Bureau régional pour le Proche-Orient et à la préparation du document qui sera élaboré par le Conseil, à sa prochaine session, en vue de l'inscription de ce point à la vingtième Conférence générale.
Bien entendu, nous attendons les résultats de l'enquête que fera l'Organisation auprès des pays de la région pour avoir un document plus charpenté qui nous permettra de faire une proposition définitive à la prochaine Conférence.
LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Nous nous basons sur la décision du Conseil d'inscrire la question à l'ordre du jour de la prochaine session du Conseil, puis de la Conférence. Nous allons prévoir, dans le Programme de travail et budget, les dispositions nécessaires pour que, lorsque la Conférence décidera du transfert de ce Bureau, celui-ci puisse avoir effectivement lieu. C'est tout ce que je voulais dire.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous avons achevé nos travaux pour aujourd'dui.
The meeting rose at 19.30 hours.
La Seance est levée á 19 h 30.
Le levanta la sesión a las 19.30 horas.
