Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page

IV. PROGRAMME, BUDGETARY, FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (cont'd)
IV. QUESTIONS CONCERNANT LE PROGRAMME, LE BUDGET, LES FINANCES ET L'ADMINISTRATION (suite)
IV. ASUNTOS DEL PROGRAMA Y ASUNTOS PRESUPUESTARIOS, FINANCIEROS Y ADMINISTRATIVOS (continuación)

14. Summary Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91 (cont'd)
14. Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget 1990-91 (suite)
14. Resumen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto (continuación)

Sra. Laurie CORDUA CRUZ (Nicaragua): La delegación de Nicaragua ha analizado con atención el resùmen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para el bienio 1990/91 contenido en el documento CL 95/3, así como los documentos complementarios para la consideración de este tema de nuestra agenda. Agradecemos al Sr. Shah y al embajador Bukhari la clara presentación que nos hicieron el día de ayer.

Mi delegación, Sr. Presidente aprecia la ardua labor que ha realizado el Director General para conciliar, como bien lo ha señalado el mismo, las cada vez más crecientes necesidades de la mayoría de los Estados Miembros, que desearíamos un aumento mayor del presupuesto, y aquéllos que desean limitar todo aumento presupuestario.

En el transcurso de estos días hemos escuchado intervenciones de casi todos los miembros de este Consejo y analizado varios documentos que reflejan, de forma generalizada, preocupación por la crítica situación de la agricultura y la alimentación en el mundo, situación en la cual confluyen una serle de factores naturales, económicos y políticos que ponen en peligro no sólo el desarrollo, sino la subsistencia misma de amplias masas de población que sufren hambre en el mundo en desarrollo.

La delegación de Nicaragua, Sr. Presidente, considera que la FAO es la Organización mundial que con eficiencia y responsabilidad ha venido, dentro del límite de sus posibilidades, contribuyendo a enfrentar y dar respuesta a la crítica situación que mencionábamos, apoyando el desarrollo de la economía agrícola, poniendo a disposición de los diferentes países adelantos técnicos fundamentales en todas las áreas de su atención.

En fin, cada vez son más las áreas en que la FAO influye positivamente en el desarrollo de nuestros pueblos, y hay que fortalecerla.

En consecuencia, mi delegación, Sr. Presidente, está por principio en contra del crecimiento cero y se opone a cualquier recorte que puedan sufrir los programas que, como es de todos conocido, ya han sufrido amputaciones a lo largo de los últimos bienios que ascienden a 45 millones de dólares.

Como ha sido destacado por el Director General y otras delegaciones que me han precedido en el uso de la palabra, el aumento de presupuesto propuesto es insuficiente para subsanar los efectos de los recortes de años anteriores, pero constituyen un esfuerzo por mantener un mínimo de crecimiento que impida un deterioro mayor de nuestra Organización. En este sentido nos unimos a otras delegaciones en el llamado a alcanzar un consenso sobre el mismo.

Mi delegación, Sr. Presidente, apoya el aumento de recursos propuesto para los programa técnicos y económicos·

Por lo que se refiere al Programa de Cooperación Técnica, mi delegación considera que es de importancia fundamental como instrumento eficaz para dar respuesta a las necesidades urgentes de nuestros países, por lo cual apoyamos un incremento mayor de los recursos asignados a este Programa, y esperamos que en el futuro se mantenga una tendencia creciente.

La delegación de Nicaragua, Sr. Presidente, esta de acuerdo, en general, con las prioridades señaladas en el resumen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para el próximo bienio y entendemos, como ha sido expresado por las Delegaciones de Brasil y Argentina, entre otras, que el orden en que han sido presentadas no implica un orden de precedencia.

En cuanto al establecimiento de las prioridades, Sr. Presidente, la Delegación de Nicaragua considera que la elección de las mismas debe continuar basándose en las recomendaciones que emanan de los órganos rectores de la Organización, los principales Comités Técnicos y las Conferencias Regionales·

Hemos escuchado aquí, Sr. Presidente, intentos de vincular los resultados del examen de la FAO a la aprobación del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para el próximo bienio y consideramos, como lo expresara el distinguido delegado de Arabia Saudita, que son elementos totalmente independientes y no se deben vincular.


Para finalizar, Sr. Presidente, nuestra delegación reafirma su apoyo al Resumen del Programa de Laboree y Presupuesto que nos ha sido presentado como un importante esfuerzo de consenso y considero que constituye una buena base para las propuestas que finalmente serán presentadas a la Conferencia.

Daniel R. PHORORO (Lesotho): The item under discussion is indeed the solar plexus of our patient-FAO. The patient, nearly reduced to a state of impotence over the last biennium, is convalescing, to use the apt description of the Director-General.

The nature of the convalescence has been presented to us with a high degree of professionalism by Dr. Shah and His Excellency Ambassador Bukhari. My delegation enlists its support to a consensus of acceptance of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91, and we trust that this consensus will prevail at the forthcoming FAO Conference in November.

However, Mr. Chairman, we adopt the Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91 with some sense of trepidation and disappointment. The Director-General in his presentation reminded the Council Members that he had done everything, sometimes with a heavy heart, to reach a reasonable budget. Throughout the Reports of the Programme and the Finance Committees this heaviness of heart is not disguised. It is one that is caused by contradictions and ambivalence. We talk about savings and programme adjustments, zero growth, maximum absorption of cost increases and allocation of non-existent resources to selected priority areas. Mr. Chairman, how can insistence on these unclear ambivalent terms not result in a proposed increase of one percent turning into another negative growth budget to the detriment of most Member Nations.

We must admit Mr. Chairman that we have pushed the Director-General and also the Secretariat against the wall, with their backs against it, to apply some surgical patchwork to the budget of an Organization that we all applaud, and recognize its eminence in the field of agricultural development.

We must also admit that we have committed and compromised the Director-General and the Secretariat into an unenviable position of violating the accepted norms of financial and administrative jurisprudence. And this we do at the obvious risk of hurting further the majority of poor in the developing countries at the time when they are faced with all complex odds in the context of economic, environmental, natural disaster-related and social challenges.

We recognize, Mr. Chairman, that extreme financial discipline and efficacy must be relentlessly exercised to make optimum use of available resources, but in our case, as FAO Member Countries, even those resources are not forthcoming at the most crucial time.

We uphold the principle of cutting our cloth to suit our needs, but at the same time that cloth must be sufficient to cover the vital parts. Can we not concede that we are reaching a stage when our Organization's vital parts are being exposed? Several speakers at this Council meeting have justifiably advocated a close collaboration with other appropriate UN and non-UN agencies. To do so effectively it is imperative that we collaborate from a position of financial strength. The beneficiary member countries of FAO are individually weak in financial terms, and they look forward to the financial strength of FAO. My delegation is convinced that the potential and resourcefulness is not wanting but we must all honour our obligations to our Organization which has distinct competence in all agricultural development issues, including fisheries and forestry.

Under the circumstances, the prioritization of nine activities, with the continued policy to direct increased resources to FAO's technical and economic programmes, is a move in the right direction. And we give it our full support. But the overhanging cloud of relatively minor real increases and interprogramme budgetary transfers make us wonder how effectively the goals will be reached. Under the circumstances, there is the need to clearly translate budgetary provisions into well defined priority activities.

In order to make a good job out of a bad situation, we fully agree with the Programme Committee's call on FAO to support the trend towards increased direct government involvement in field projects as in paragraph 2.121 of document CL 95/8. Nonetheless, we must not ignore the manpower and recurrent cost constraints that characterize staff and budgetary resources of these governments. Similarly, we agree with the Committee that the FFHC unit should shift from Information sharing and exchange towards providing assistance and training to developing countries from NGOs based in developed countries. This, in essence, would strengthen the role of women in development. Related to this issue is the recommendation of the Committee for FAO to seek extra budgetary resources to expand and evaluate an assessment related to Sub-programme 2.1.4.5 of Energy Technology Development. We support this recommendation as well as urging a strong link between the International Agricultural Research Centres and national ones in a way that will enhance the capabilities of the latter.


In conclusion, my delegation has already made positive comments regarding the importance of TCP. We are happy that the Committee has noted the high demand for TCP assistance with overall priority in Africa. The catalytic nature of TCP in generating larger and long-term assistance has been the main feature of development assistance in Lesotho with regard to the UN Capital Fund, UNDP and other bilateral and multilateral follow-up funding programmes. We feel that this function can complement an important FAO role of providing advisory expert service on policy issues to Member countries. We note with satisfaction that resources within the Programme of Food and Agricultural Policy will be increased substantially.

Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): Tout comme les autres délégations qui se sont exprimées avant elle, la délégation congolaise aimerait pour commencer remercier et féliciter à son tour Monsieur Shah, qui avec son brio habituel nous a fait l'exposé introductif du document principal pertinent pour ce point 14 de notre ordre du jour, â savoir le document CL 95/3 consacré au Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget 1990-91 de la FAO.

Nos remerciements et félicitations vont aussi â Son Excellence Monsieur l'Ambassadeur Bukharl qui, en sa qualité de président du Comité financier et au nom de Monsieur Mazoyer, Président du Comité du programme, qui a été empêché, nous a présenté les excellents comptes rendus des débats qui se sont déroulés au sein des deux Comités â propos du sujet qui nous occupe.

Pour notre délégation, la profondeur et la pertinence de ces comptes rendus témoignent suffisamment, s'il en était encore besoin, du sérieux avec lequel ces deux Comités s'acquittent de leur difficile mais passionnante mission.

Ces deux exposés liminaires auxquels nous avons ainsi eu droit ont, de l'avis de notre délégation, jeté beaucoup de lumière sur les documents soumis â notre examen.

Notre délégation apprécie à leur juste valeur tous les efforts déployés par le Directeur général de la FAO en vue de parvenir à l'adoption par consensus, au sein de ce Conseil, du Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget 1990-91 de l'Organisation. Ce consensus, nous l'appelons nous aussi de tous nos voeux et espérons vivement que nous pourrons y parvenir.

Au terme de son examen profond des considérations introductives de ce Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget, telles qu'exposées par le Directeur général, notre délégation a abouti à la conclusion selon laquelle la situation de l'Organisation, compte tenu des dernières réductions opérées exigerait plutôt une augmentation substantielle des ressources pour répondre â l'attente des Gouvernements des Etats Membres qui ont de plus en plus recours aux services de l'Organisation pour faire face aux besoins des quelque 80 millions de bouches de plus â nourrir chaque année et pour inverser la tendance â la baisse de la production agricole.

En effet, malgré l'augmentation sporadique de la production vivrière relevée en 1988, les gouvernements des pays en développement rencontrent encore toute la peine du monde pour contenir l'expansion de la pauvreté, ce qui n'est pas sans inconvénient sur les bases du développement durable qu'ils tentent d'instaurer.

Pareille situation, conjuguée au traitement défavorable que reçoivent les principaux produits exportés par les pays en développement dans le commerce International, ne peut justifier une baisse des ressources et, partant, un ralentissement des activités de la FAO. Tout au contraire, face aux difficultés de plus en plus nombreuses des pays en développement, le renforcement et l'expansion des activités de l'organisation deviennent plus qu'une nécessité.

C'est en passant par ce renforcement que nous pouvons espérer encore remettre cette Organisation en état d'accomplir correctement son mandat après la récente crise de liquidité qui lui a volontairement été imposée de l'extérieur, crise qui l'a conduite â réviser à la baisse certains programmes tout aussi essentiels aux pays en développement.

A travers toutes ces considérations, nous voulons aussi vous dire combien nous sommes préoccupés de constater que ce Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget passe l'éponge sans l'ombre d'une seule hésitation sur la situation qui prévaut en asseyant ses prévisions sur une base qui ne permettra pas à l'Organisation de répondre aux besoins urgents ressentis pas ses Etats Membres en développement mais qui tient simplement compte de leur capacité limitée â tenir leurs engagements de contribution. Cette logique ne devrait pas continuer á guider le Secrétariat dans l'élaboration de ses propositions futures car, si elle se poursuit, cette logique risquerait, à terme, d'amoindrir la capacité de la FAO à accomplir son mandat.


Nous avons suivi avec une oreille attentive les arguments développés par le Directeur général pour justifier ce niveau du budget. Notre délégation les admet en se disant qu'il s'agit ici d'un budget charnière après la crise et que le Secrétariat n'a pas pour autant définitivement opté pour la croissance zéro, principe dont le charme ne nous a pas encore séduits. Persuadés que les augmentations des coûts ont largement été sous-estimées, nous notons que c'est plutôt à une croissance négative que nous avons á faire dans le cas présent. Nous déplorons qu'une augmentation plus élevée n'ait pas été proposée pour le PCT, programme auquel nous tenons, et nous espérons qu'un réel redressement des ressources de celui-ci ne tardera pas á survenir.

Le personnel qualifié: voilà bien là le capital le plus précieux de l'Organisation. Ce faisant, celui-ci ne doit pas continuer à servir de parade à la crise financière imposée de l'extérieur à l'Organisation. Pour cette raison nous demandons qu'il soit mis fin dès à présent aux suppressions des postes budgétaires qui de leur caractère exceptionnel sont devenues une pratique permanente.

Au sortir de la Conférence en novembre prochain, la nouvelle procédure d'élaboration du Programme de travail et budget de la FAO aura accompli son premier cycle de mise en oeuvre. Selon que cette nouvelle procédure aura ou n'aura pas contribué à atteindre facilement le consensus, il faudra nous prononcer sur le devenir de cette expérience.

Au sein des Comités techniques qui se sont réunis avant la présente Session du Conseil nous nous étions prononcés sur les activités ordinaires de l'Organisation qui avaient notre appui; ce sont les grands programmes d'Agriculture, Pêche et Forets. A ce stade nous n'avons pas l'intention de les repasser en détail sous-programme par sous-programme. Ceci étant dit, pour contribuer aussi à l'accomplissement du consensus que nous souhaitons tous, mais aussi par réalisme, nous souhaitons pour terminer, donner notre appui à la palette des neuf domaines prioritaires qui nous ont été proposés pour le prochain biennium 1990-91 et qui répondent bien aux recommandations des organes directeurs de l'Organisation, à savoir les Comités techniques et les Conférences régionales.

Dans ce même esprit, visant le consensus, nous donnons notre accord pour le niveau de l'augmentation du Programme et budget 1990-91 proposée. Nous ne sommes pas d'avis que l'approbation même par consensus du présent Sommaire de Travail et budget 1990-91 au sein de ce Conseil soit subordonnée par les résultats de l'examen des activités de la FAO.

Sra. Grafila SOTO CARRERO (Coba): En primer término, la Delegación de Cuba agradece al Sr. Shah y al Embajador Bukhari por la presentación de este importante tema. Nuestra Delegación ha estudiado con sumo interés los documentos referentes al tema que nos ocupa; tema que, sin lugar a dudas, es de los más importantes, sobre los cuales debe pronunciarse nuestro Consejo. Se trata, a nuestro entender, de la espina dorsal de nuestra Organización. Con las decisiones de la reunión conjunta de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas celebrada en enero de 1989, se nos preparó un resumen del Programa de Labores para el bienio 1990-91 y un presupuesto para su ejecución, que se somete a nuestra consideración.

En realidad, la tarea no es fácil. Se trata de conciliar todos los intereses. De una parte, como bien lo han expresado otras delegaciones, se encuentran las necesidades y los intereses de nuestros países, los países subdesarrollados; y, de otra, las posibilidades y la voluntad de los países donantes, que también estamos conscientes de que atraviesan dificultades objetivas. Lógicamente, los más afectados somos los países subdesarrollados, ya que un incremento mayor en la cuantía del Presupuesto, si bien podría hacer frente a la ejecución de un programa más amplio, significa también, como lo expresara muy claramente la distinguida Delegación de Argentina en el día de ayer, un incremento de las cuotas que con grandes dificultades tratan de poner al día. La mayoría de nuestros países, por no decir todos, se encuentran abrumados por el enorme peso de la deuda externa, lo cual empeora más nuestra posición para cumplir nuestros compromisos con los organismos internacionales.

Si bien hemos manifestado nuestro acuerdo con las asignaciones a los diferentes programas en las reuniones de los respectivos Comités que antecedieron al Consejo, nos parece oportuno indicar los criterios generales sobre los cuales se formularon las propuestas de Programa de Labores, así como los sectores prioritarios que han de desarrollarse, en especial destinar el incremento a los programas técnicos y económicos. Nos referiremos brevemente a algunos de ellos.

Sobre el "desarrollo soetenible", la Delegación de Cuba considera que debe utilizarse una terminología más precisa. "Soetenible" nos da una idea de que tal vez se lleve a cabo; para nosotros sería más preciso el término "sostenido", que representa una acción concreta. En tal sentido, proponemos un cambio del término "soetenible" por el término "sostenido." A nuestro entender, no se trata de un aspecto solamente formal, sino de fondo, y de ahí nuestra propuesta.

Sobre la biotecnología, entendemos que en este campo se pueden ejecutar acciones de mucha importancia para el desarrollo. Mi país ha hecho ingentes esfuerzos en este campo, obteniendo consiguientemente modestos logros, que ponemos a la disposición de la FAO y en especial de los países en desarrollo, tanto de nuestra reglón de América Latina y el Caribe como de otras regiones.


Otro aspecto al que quisiéramos referirnos es el de las actividades regionales. Consideramos que en la región de América Latina y el Caribe el trabajo de las redes de cooperación técnica ha jugado un papel muy importante, especialmente en las actividades de cooperación entre países en desarrollo.

Asimismo la Delegación de Cuba considera muy pertinente la asignación programada al Programa de Cooperación Técnica, que sin duda alguna ha demostrado su eficacia en los países en desarrollo. No queremos dejar pasar esta oportunidad para agradecer nuevamente al Gobierno de la República de Italia por su generosa contribución a este importante programa.

Hechas estas observaciones, la Delegación de Cuba, muy consciente del compromiso que asume, considera que el Programa de Presupuesto que se nos presenta constituye una base aceptable para la elaboración de un presupuesto definitivo, que nuestra Delegación apoya y que deberá recibir el total apoyo de la próxima Conferencia General, a celebrarse en noviembre próximo.

Nos resistimos a aceptar que con la situación que atraviesa la FAO y con las necesidades que afrontan los países en desarrollo se hable aún en esta sala y se hagan loas al crecimiento cero. Para nosotros es una muestra más de la falta de voluntad política a la contribución al desarrollo y una muestra más de la cruzada emprendida contra el multilatéralisme y contra el sistema de las Naciones Unidas. Aunque consideramos también que el incremento propuesto sobre la base actual es absolutamente insuficiente para atender las necesidades que afrontan nuestros países, esperamos que de la misma forma que la mayoría de los países subdesarrollados hacemos enormes esfuerzos por disminuir el monto de nuestros adeudos con la Organización, los principales países donantes, y en especial el principal contribuyente, cumplimenten sus compromisos, lo cual sí tiene un elevado peso en el desarrollo de las actividades de nuestra Organización y en el cumplimiento de los objetivos fundamentales de la FAO, los cuales están desde hace años bien definidos, y que si bien pueden estar sujetos a mejoras, no consideramos que deban condicionarse las llamadas revisiones de las actividades de la FAO con la aprobación por la Conferencia de este magro Presupuesto que hoy analizamos en el Consejo.

J.E. McGOWAN (Canada): We thank Mr. Shah and Ambassador Bukhari for their introductions to this item and for putting our discussion in the context of earlier deliberations.

As a member of the Programme Committee and of the Committees of Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry and Commodities, Canada has already provided its substantive suggestions on programming aspects and, in general, we are satisfied with the shape of the Programme, and its planned evolution, over the next blennlum. The Canadian delegation, nevertheless, wishes to contribute to the work of the Council, in clarifying priorities, and the parameters of the 1990-91 Programme of Work and Budget.

My delegation supports the nine priority areas identified for the coming biennium. These quite accurately reflect the suggestions presented by many Member Nations. Canada also recognizes the importance of some on-going activities which may not be identified as a priority area, such as those in support of rural income generation.

We welcome the establishment of the new sub-programme, "Sustaining Resources Potentials". We hope that it will better place the FAO to contribute to the integration of environmental principles in agriculture, forestry and fisheries production methods and practices, both in regard to FAO's own projects and as regards the policy advice it may be asked to provide by Member States. This new unit would be instrumental in the dissemination of information and relevant experience through publications, demonstration projects and training in such areas as environmental impact assessment, sustainable development of drylands, environmental aspects of biotechnology and land tenure solutions to population pressures. We believe that this new unit should also facilitate coordination with UNEP and other agencies working on sustainable development. It could also play a key part in the development of sustainable development guidelines for new projects which could be useful for operational activities throughout the UN system.

Canada also recognizes the important role of research and technology development in agriculture, forestry and fisheries in terms of the proposed new programme element (2.1.4.1) to support national research systems regarding policy planning and information. The Canadian delegation would be interested in comments from the Secretariat on coordination of this proposal with the international system for national agricultural research of the CGIAR. We would also welcome Information on how this would relate to the FAO's contribution to the CGIAR's Technical Advisory Committee which is noted in the Programme Committee's report (paragraph 2.61).

Paragraph 4.27 of the financial framework chapter of the budget provides a table on resource shifts in technical and economic programmes. While this is helpful it would be even more useful if the priority areas identified in paragraph 4.6 of document CL 95/3 could be brought out more clearly. It is clear that some activities are being discontinued and new ones introduced. Specific information on discontinued or downsized activities or declining priorities would help governments


to justify their support for new priorities. Some of this information is included in the report of the Programme Committee. Perhaps it could be assembled next time so that the Committee and Council could have a clearer picture of trends and their impact in terms of cross-sectoral activities. It would be useful to have in one place a summary of what FAO is doing in areas such as policy advice to governments, and sustainable development.

Policy advice in the area of food and agriculture is a promising area for FAO activity, especially in areas related to monitoring the impact of structural adjustment policies and offsetting the impact on the most vulnerable groups such as women and children and small farmers. The area of women in development will become an FAO priority in the next biennium. The UN system-wide medium term plan for women in development for the period 1990-95, ratified by ECOSOC, calls for the coordination of activities among the UN agencies. Considering the important role that women play in agriculture, Canada would like to stress the need for FAO's active contribution to the implementation of this plan, consistent with its own programme priority to be adopted at the forthcoming Conference.

Regarding sub-programme 2.1.2.1 and the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, Canada maintains that the Commission should avoid consuming most of the resources of the Sub-Programme Genetic Resources at the possible expense of other programme elements. We believe that the mandate of the Commission should remain within a manageable scope. Consequently, Canada is not convinced that further additional resources for the Commission are required at this time.

With respect to Sub-Programme 2.1.3.3, Animal Genetics, the Canadian Government would be willing to share its expertise with the FAO and its members on the applications of biotechnology in animal breeding and genetics. This would include technology concerning embryo transfer, especially in dairy cattle. The Canadian ministry in question, Agriculture Canada, is also interested in the concept of networking in relation to developments in (a) biotechnology, (b) derived diagnostic methodologies for animal diseases under its mandate and (c) in other related areas.

In the area of fisheries, my delegation supports the Programme Committee's suggestion that the full Programme of Work and Budget document more fully reflect the work being done by FAO with regard to the protection of the aquatic environment. We also endorse the view that FAO should monitor the negative impact on the conservation of fish resources by long-distance fishing fleets. As we have noted under the COFI item, some savings might be achieved in this general area by programming the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade at the same time as COFI itself.

The modest increase to the Forestry Programme, in particular to the Tropical Forestry Action Plan, has our full support and was unanimously endorsed in the Programme Committee. In this general area we are concerned with moves on the part of private interest groups in some developed countries seeking the banning of tropical timber products. In our view this would have the effect of discouraging rational management and sustainable development, since it would remove the commercial incentive to harvest selectively and to re-plant. Can the FAO's public information programme and its network not do more to educate public opinion about the down-side of the overly simplistic solutions being proposed? This would be consistent with the spirit of sub-programme 2.3.2.3 which views harvesting as an integrated activity in the planning of forest management.

In the area of development support programmes, Canada believes that a uniform and consistent approach to the use of trust funds is required to ensure that they are consistent with Regular Programme priorities and that they will help FAO to reach its objectives. The FAO should be selective in accepting new projects and might develop guidelines to ensure that it does not disperse its efforts. For these reasons, the Canadian Government would encourage FAO's development of special action programmes in various sectors based on the tropical forestry action plan model. In this way, bilateral trust funds will make it possible to carry on with a large variety of projects in line with long term goals and programme priorities. Many of the reductions noted by the Programme Committee have only been possible because of the availability of trust funds.

The Canadian Government also places much importance on the evaluation of the field projects/programmes so that the Organization can learn from its successes and past difficulties, and so that new programmes can be better designed. More effort on FAO's part to document and disseminate the results of field experience to the governing bodies in our opinion would be useful.

The Canadian delegation appreciates the efforts of the Director-General to exercise restraint, and acknowledges his efforts to promote a consensus. It is apparent, however, that even the present levels of the budget pose difficulties for many members. The Finance Committee was told that more than four out of ten members are in arrears of assessments relating to 1988 and previous years. Many Member Nations, including Canada, are undertaking major public deficit reductions that will undoubtedly Influence the level of resources available to the national and international agricultural sector and for official development assistance. In our view, the allocation of resources to new priorities, including any reform measures to be proposed, should be consistently financed by reallocation from lower priority areas, and not necessarily from additional assessments. We have taken a similar position in the United Nations itself and other specialized agencies. For this reason Canada must reserve its position on the level of the budget until the Conference.


We would like the Secretariat to identify for Conference areas where possible additional savings could be realized including potential savings resulting from the management review exercise. That is under consideration by the Programme and Finance Committees.

We do question whether all of the activities suspended last year should automatically be re-costed and whether some could not be discontinued. We continue to believe that some savings could be possible by adjustments to the 5.5% lapse rate used by the Secretariat in calculating the budget. We believe that it could be brought closer to the actual level of staffing (I believe there are about 200 vacancies now) without further impact on programmes than is currently the case. We look forward with interest to the Finance Committee's further report on this question. Although we do not question the priority of many members for the proposed increase in the Technical Cooperation Programme, we are concerned with the little information that has been provided in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget to governments in support of the proposed increase in the Technical Cooperation Programme's share of the regular budget and look forward to more information in the full Programme of Work and Budget.

We do believe that progress has been made since the last blennlum in the sound technical work of sectoral committees, in the opportunity for the special joint session to comment on the budget outline, in the presentation of the document and the comparative tables, in the priorities identified and in the general shape of the Programme. I hope that it will help to build a consensus at the Conference and look forward to continuing the discussion with the benefit of our Ministers in November·

Antonio BROTONS DIE (España): Felicitamos al Sr. Shah y al Sr. Bukhari por sus brillantes presentaciones de los documentos CL 95/3 relativo al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto previsto para los años 1990-1991, y CL 95/8 sobre la Reunión Conjunta de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas del pasado mes de mayo.

Del anallele del documento CL 95/3 nos permitimos hacer algunas consideraciones inmediatas, que se deducen de la propuesta que el Director General de la FAO hace al Consejo, ratificada por los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas en su ultima reunión.

La consideración que nos merece el nuevo sistema de presentación del anteproyecto de Presupuesto del bienio, es muy positiva, en razón a las ventajas que supone, de una parte por las nuevas incorporaciones de transparencia y claridad, y de otra la presentación previa, a manera de declaración de intenciones, de un esbozo de la línea de actuaciones y prioridades para el examen de los Comités de Finanzas y del Programa, a la que sigue el presente anteproyecto presentado nuevamente a los Comités citados y al Consejo, que es el momento que nos ocupa ahora mismo.

Esta representación se complace en ver cumplidas con esta presentación del Resumen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto sus indicaciones reiteradas de mayores niveles de transparencia y claridad formuladas en sesiones anteriores del Consejo.

El nivel de incremento de la presupuestación que propone el Director General, es evidentemente modesto, al no representar más que un 1% sobre el Presupuesto actualizado del bienio 1988-1989, en base a aumentos por bienallzaclón y por inflación estimada en el bienio 1990-1991, y cuyo volumen total de recursos supone 60,1 millones de dólares; es decir, un 12,2 por ciento sobre la cifra aprobada en la Conferencia General de la FAO, en noviembre de 1987.

En el documento de presentación se aclara que esta actualización de créditos probablemente es insuficiente, e incluso se estiman cantidades adicionales por inflación de gastos de consultores, reclasificación de personal de la Organización, reajustes por lugar de destino y otras actualizaciones, que suponen en total otros 4,9 millones de dólares, e incluso se afirma en la exposición que pueden surgir otros incrementos como consecuencia de la encuesta sobre sueldos de los servicios generales en Roma.

Es todavía pues, un poco pronto, para un análisis del total de los gastos necesarios para mantener en el próximo bienio el mismo nivel del Programa que el aprobado para 1988-1989, pero en todo caso estimamos que el aumento neto propuesto, después de la actualización total de gastos, que se cifra en 5,5 millones de dólares, es oportuno y favorecerá el consenso solicitado por el Director General.

Del análisis de la situación financiera de la Organización, que figura en el documento CL 95/8, se deduce la persistencia de algunos países en retrasar el pago de sus cuotas, lo que ya ha obligado a hacer ahorros a la FAO por un montante acumulado de 45 millones de dólares en los últimos ejercicios, y de no cambiar la situación es de temer que tuviera que seguir haciendo nuevos recortes en los programas. Queremos, pues, hacer un llamamiento a los países con retraso de sus obligaciones con respecto a la Organización, para que regulen su situación a fin de mantener los niveles de financiación necesarios para llevar a cabo el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto que resulte aprobado en la próxima Conferencia.


En orden a las esferas prioritarias establecidas en la documentación presupuestarla, debemos dejar patente como ya lo han hecho otras representaciones de distintos países, que su orden de enunciado no debe prejuzgar mayores niveles de prioridad, sino actuaciones equiparables en la consideración de la FAO.

En esta línea de actuaciones prioritarias, conviene recordar una vez más el interés que tiene mi país en que la FAO asuma una posición de liderazgo en el camino de conseguir una agricultura que sepa conjugar el desarrollo con la conservación de los recursos naturales. Apoyamos decididamente las actuaciones encaminadas a la mejora de las estructuras agrarias, la formación cooperativa, principalmente de los jóvenes agricultores, y la utilización de este medio también para incorporar a la mujer plenamente al desarrollo. Esta postura, tradicionalmente la hemos venido preconizando y la reiteramos.

Apoyamos las medidas encaminadas al desarrollo de la teledetección, empleada para conocer las variaciones climatológicas, así como la calidad y cantidad de recursos naturales; las medidas encaminadas a mejorar la lucha contra la erosión y la desertización, y el impulso a la agrosilvicultura y los sistemas agroforestales, así como las explotaciones conjuntas agrícolas y ganaderas en zonas áridas y semiáridas, cuyos desequilibrios causan muchas veces el fenómeno de la desertización.

En cuanto a pesca queremos significar el interés de nuestro país en el desarrollo de la actividad de loe Organos Regionales de Pesca de la FAO, la potenciación de los medios del Consejo General de Pesca del Mediterráneo, y el interés para que la FAO establezca el marco jurídico y financiero que permita la continuación del proyecto CPACO (Comité de Pesca para el Atlántico Centro-Oriental).

Paul R. BRYDEN (Australia): At the outset my delegation notes, as Council is aware, that Australia supports the principle of zero real growth and maximum participation in cost increase. As other speakers have commented, many International organizations have achieved zero real growth or even below. Suggestions have been made by several delegations for sensible reductions in certain programmes in the light of recent developments which have been favourable and which perhaps reduce the demands on FAO. We also endorse the view of some delegations-notably Switzerland-that this approach is not simply to save money, but is to improve performance and delivery of FAO's efforts particularly to developing countries.

In the past, the meeting of COAG has been our first opportunity to consider the likely shape of the budget for the next biennium. Therefore, we welcomed the meeting in January, albeit on an experimental basis, of the Special Joint Session on the Outline of the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91. We believe the Special Joint Session was very useful in allowing members to look at the overall shape and size of the budget proposed by the Director-General at an early stage, and to inject their views into the process.

Turning now to the Programme of Work and Budget, we need a broad approach, and priorities for this were canvassed by the January Special Joint Session. The document is admirably clear and original in presentation, and provides a sound basis for the examination of the Programme of Work and Budget by the various branches of FAO.

That said as a general comment on the Programme of Work and Budget, there do not appear to be substantial or marked alterations to the work being undertaken, notwithstanding the gross percentage changes shown on page 16 at paragraph 4.27. There are some changes at the margin to reflect increases in emphasis in some places and less in others, but generally we have the feeling there is a certain stability in the work being carried out. We are concerned that there are few signs in the document of programmes ending and new ones beginning. There are some new ones, and some known changes. There are some transfers, but few substantial deletions. Innovation and adaptability are seen as keys to the development of a dynamic and responsive FAO. Unfortunately, there is little evidence in the PWB of purposeful steady change. This is not to argue for change for the sake of change, but rather to suggest some set provisions be a regular part of programme design and evaluations be more transparent and rigorous. it is, of course, appreciated that many activities have a long and at times difficult gestation period. They may enjoy widespread support and are useful over a long period of time. However, we would like to see more evidence of evaluation and further details on the assessment of each programme. A few detailed examples of how a programme is evaluated, reassessed and ranked would be useful.

Turning to Chapter 2, Field Programmes, presumably FAO field activities will be influenced by consideration of the expert brief reports of the SJS. That said, the Field Programme can be expected to remain a major FAO activity. My delegation would like to see country offices given a stronger role in supporting field activities with FAO Representatives selected accordingly. We feel that urgent action should be taken to decentralize project support functions, keeping in mind the


need for accountability at all levels. Where possible, we think country offices should perhaps install facsimile machines and computer facilities, perhaps in common with other UN agencies. We see such upgrading as an investment in enhanced productivity and efficiency which will not only help lower running costs but also help speed up programme delivery, including TCP, and assist in the systematic two-way flow of technical and policy Information between developing countries and FAO. We also see value in future etablishment of the small field inspection unit to deal with field operations from a management and organizational rather than technical perspective, with field operations also being monitored by COAG, COFO and COFI.

Regarding Chapter 3, the Financial Framework, we would note that the overall situation for contributions seems better than in recent years, and we are cautiously optimistic that a cash flow crisis can be avoided. Miscellaneous Income Is exceeding expectations, and the Working Capital Fund and Special Reserve Account will be up to level by the end of the blennium.

Turning to Chapter 4, Programme Framework, we note that in formulating proposals for the budget, programme managers within FAO were asked to clearly justify high priority areas and to identify lower priority areas so as to accommodate proposals for resource increases. We welcome FAO's endeavours to assign priorities to their activities in agriculture and to take account of possible offsetting savings, but I believe that more needs to be done in this area.

We support the activities proposed within the broad priority areas in Programme Framework Section 4, which were accepted by the SJS in January. We note in particular the increased emphasis on environmental protection and climate change under sustainable development, the steps to be taken to strengthen the Organization's policy advisory role and the role of women in agricultural development·

The proposed programmes for Forestry and Fisheries appear sensible. We note that the level of budget for the Regional Offices is set to remain at essentially the same level as in 1988-89. While the role of Regional Offices will be considered in the context of the current review, the developing countries of the Southwest Pacific value the work of the Regional Office in assisting development and providing technical assistance and expertise.

We also note the greater use of computers in the budget preparation process. We support the use of such technology and hope that increased computerization will assist FAO in responding to members' requests for Information on the budget and other financial matters, thereby improving the transparency of the Organization.

Turning to Chapter 5, on the Programme Budget Impact, we find this to be a useful summary of a major programme at para. 5.3. Actual expenditure or out-turn figures for the previous blennlum and if possible, the immediately preceding year, would be helpful in monitoring performance.

Turning to Chapter 6, Cost Increases, again we find the papers offer a useful explanation of cost increases, especially the summary at paras. 6.9 to 6.19. We note that some cost increases have been absorbed and wonder whether such absorption could be greater.

Turning to Chapter 7, Objects of Expenditure, again there is a useful exposition of establishment changes. However, we do find it somewhat difficult to reconcile the concern that was expressed at the last Council that the Organization was haemorrhaging with proposed increases in professional posts. Information on actual occupancy rates would help provide a better picture of the Organization's staffing situation. With regard to a specific point, we notice that 27 General Service staff are proposed for the Near East reopening. Is this the full complement or partial implementation of the 47 General Service staff envisaged in document CL 94/17?

Turning to Chapter 8 on Comparison, our position remains that of seeking to achieve the principle of zero real growth.

I move now to the Annex at pages 34-129. Programme Proposals by Major Programmes provides a useful précis of priority programme changes and proposals for agriculture. One minor editorial improvement could be to paragraph numbers to make it easier for cross-reference.

While document CL 95/3 gives a good broad description of the types of activity to be undertaken by the Organization in the next blennlum and indicative costing, we must admit we have had difficulty in assessing individual programmes and in drawing comparisons between the 1988-89 budget figures presented and those given in the Programme of Work and Budget for 1988-89, Conference Doc. C 87/3. We would also query the way some changes in programme elements are presented. For instance, under Sub-programme 2.1.1.4, the work of Programme Element 6 has been changed from "establishing an intergovernmental system for technology transfer and Information sharing on water development and management" to "carrying out an inventory of proven operational techniques and methodology in irrigation and development". The way this element is presented in the table at page 43 suggests that funding was approved in 1988-89 for the new work proposed. We believe a more accurate way to


reflect what has happened is to show transfer of funds to a newly created programme element for the proposed inventory instead of simply changing the programme element name. We wonder what has happened to the technology transfer network. Has it been established or completed, or will some of the funding for Programme Element 6 go towards continued work in this area? It would be helpful if some of these presentations were clearer.

My delegation shares the reservations of a number of delegations regarding the TCP. My delegation supports the suggestion of the UK delegation that the merits of an average exchange rate being adopted for the budget be explored, possibly by the Finance Committee. Any mechanism which helps to remove uncertainty and smooth fluctuations is worthy of consideration. Indeed, such an approach is quite normal in many, if not most, International organizations. We also note the comments of a number of delegations, notably Japan, regarding cost increases flowing from the Review. There will, of course, be savings and improvements in efficiency, and at this stage we should keep an open mind until the SJS reports are in.

Reference was made by the Director-General to a donkey being starved by its owner who then expressed surprise that the animal expired. Clearly, the donkey needs regular, predictable feeding on a sustained basis. We call on all members to contribute their share in full and promptly. But we members also need to examine the load we put into the saddlebags. In our view, we need to maintain a balanced load, to check that it is gold, not lead, in the saddlebags, and ensure that as new nuggets are put in the bags, that we do not break the donkey's back. We should recognize that there are more in the team than 40 years ago. FAO is not the only entrant. This gives FAO the opportunity to share the ever-increasing overall burden, pulling in the same direction as other International agencies, playing a leading and at times unique role, but not responsible for all activities. This metaphor outlines our view that FAO and we members should establish clear priorities, focus resources on what FAO does best, and live in realistic balance and harmony with its budgetary resources. The saddlebag should balance the feedbag.

In summary, my delegation remains attached to the principle of zero real growth and maximum absorption of cost increases, regards the document as an excellent basis for mature and constructive consideration of the Director-General's proposed Pogramme of Work and Budget, and is hopeful that a full consensus can emerge by Conference and that the 25th Conference that we all working towards will be characterized as the Conference of consensus.

Gian Luigi VALENZA (Italie): Je ne peux évidemment pas m'associer aux précédente orateurs pour féliciter le Comité des Finances et son Président du bon travail qu'ils ont effectué puisque je fais moi-même partie de ce Comité. Ce serait évidemment un péché d'orgueil.

Je dois par contre exprimer ici l'appui du Gouvernement italien aux grandes lignes du Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget pour 1990-91.

Je voudrais toutefois évoquer le fait que plusieurs délégations ont demandé de maintenir le Programme des engrais qui est d'une importance toute particulière pour les pays en voie de développement·

Nous sommes par ailleurs heureux de constater que la situation financière de la FAO a progressé au cours des douze derniers mois, et qu'elle peut aujourd'hui justifier un prudent optimisme. La plupart des pays contrlbuteurs en effet, et surtout les plue importants, n'ont pas manqué cette année de faire leur devoir en répondant â l'appel du Directeur général en particulier et du Secrétariat en général.

Je ne voudrais pas manquer de remercier le Directeur général pour sa remarquable introduction au document CL 95/3, et le féliciter aussi d'avoir pu éviter de recourir à ces emprunte que plusieurs délégations dans cette même salle, 11 y a plus d'un an, avaient déplorés.

Je désire terminer ma brève intervention en confirmant que le Gouvernement italien considère que l'augmentation de programme dans la limite d'un pour cent de la base budgétaire recalculée pourrait obtenir un consensus en la matière.

C. Srinivasa SASTRY (India): The Indian delegation has followed carefully the discussion in the Council on this agenda item which, as has already been pointed out, is always one of the most important items of the June session of the Council and the Conference year. We have also carefully studied the three important Council documents, CL 95/3, 95/4 and 95/8 relating to this agenda item along with the corrections to the documents in CL 95/3 and 95/8. We would like to commend the statement made by the ADG, PBE, Mr. Shah while introducing this agenda item which was brief, clear and precise and was characteristically well modulated. We would also thank the Chairman of the


Finance Committee for his remarks which have placed the issues before us in the correct perspective. As you are aware Mr. Chairman, India is also a member of the Programme Committee. In that capacity we have been participating in the discussions being held since January 1989 on the work relating to the Programme of Work and Budget. We participated in the joint session of the Programme and Finance Committee in January and February 1989; the COFI where we were on the drafting committee; the COAG where also we were on the drafting committee; the Programme Committee meeting in May, and the joint meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees in May. Our views on the Programme of Work and Budget were placed before these bodies and meetings, and are fully reflected in the three main documents now before the Council. We do not want to repeat these views which already stand well documented.

We would only add that we support the Programme items not only in relation to agriculture and fisheries but also the items relating to forestry and, more particularly, to the Tropical Rain Forestry Programme.

Another comment we would like to make on a specific Programme item is to sound a word of caution about a suggestion made by one of the distinguished delegates to step down the allocations for the locust programme. As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, the threat of locusts can materialize suddenly and unexpectedly. We would therefore suggest that the programme should be continued as a prophylactic measure. Should the locusts not materialize, the monies would remain unspent and could be reallocated.

Having said this Mr. Chairman, with your permission we would like to make some comments on a few other matters which are related to the broader issues before the FAO. We would like to deal with them in the larger perspective without necessarily going into the details of priorities and individual allocations for each Programme item or Sub-programme item.

Before I deal with these other issues, we would like to especially recognize and compliment the management of FAO, represented by the Director-General and the Secretariat under the overall guidance of the Finance Committee, on the skills and dexterity shown by them in managing FAO's finances in the current and the last biennium, when cuts to the tune of US$20 million and US$25 million had to be given effect to. This lopping-off exercise by the FAO management must have been hard and painful, but what in our view is more impressive is that the FAO management has been able to tide over this period without recourse to any borrowing, even though the DG had been given the power to borrow when the dimensions of the financial problems that FAO was likely to face emerged clearly during 1987 and were considered by the governing bodies of the FAO. In this process of managing the severe financial crunch it is clear that the FAO has been cut to the bone. However the technical competence and expertise of FAO have, by and large, been preserved, although to our regret there was a decline in the capacity and effectiveness of the FAO in delivering the technical support programmes required by the developing countries. Notwithstanding this we feel that the DG and his team deserve to be specially congratulated on their prudent financial management during these two biennia which were indeed very difficult.

Having tided over this very critical period, and going through, as the FAO is, the Review exercise which was agreed upon in the November 1987 session of the FAO Conference-the results of which should be going before the November 1989 session of the Conference-it is appropriate that the budget levels of FAO should be restored as quickly as possible so as to usher in a period of normality and a new era of stability. In the proposals before us the total budget is envisaged to grow from US$492.36 million in 1988-89 to US$558.256 million in 1990-91. Of this only US$5.75 million is a real programme increase. The balance of US$60.146 million in the cost increase is due to factors beyond our and FAO's control.

Even this proposed real programme increase of US$5.75 million turns out to be a notional figure since the budgetary figures do not include the additional cost of about US$3 million for consultants, travel and reclassification of posts which is proposed to be absorbed in the overall cost figure. Allowing for this 3 million, the Programme increase we are considering is a sum of only US$2.75 million or a token 0.45 percent.

The viewpoints which we have heard in the Council we find have also been reflected in the documents before the Council, be it "the zero real programme growth" or "the maximum absorption of cost increases", as also reserving the final position till "the overall situation, including with regard to cost increase and review process" emerges.

During the discussion Mr. Chairman, certain questions were raised about the reliability of the figure US$60 million cost increase. This computation involves, as was documented, certain informed guesswork, though the document does say that these are not based on what was referred to as speculations. These are questions based on computations which are normally done by the FAO Secretariat. On the basis of data that is available to us we find in the last seven biennia there was at least one other blennlum where the cost Increase was more than $65 million. Out of the last seven biennia in percentage terms the cost increases were higher than the percentage that is being


tabled this time, which is 12.2 percent, but I am sure this is a matter of detail where the factual position can be worked out to mutual satisfaction between the Members who have raised the doubts and the FAO Secretariat.

Mr Chairman, considering that the projected cost increases are over US$60 million and the real growth in the Programme is only US$2.75 million, it would be evident that if the view relating to maximum absorption of cost increases were to be pressed, there would be a substantial negative growth in the budget for the next biennium. This would cause serious disappointment to the developing countries and would not be quite realistic. We would therefore urge that in keeping with past practice in the FAO, the Programme of Work and Budget should allow for the cost increases in full.

Leaving aside for the moment the "real zero growth concept" as mentioned by some distinguished delegates, we are happy to find Mr. Chairman that in the budget formulation exercise the Director-General seems to have followed the "zero based budgeting concept" which is a well known and widely used concept and tool in budgetary and financial control. This is clear from paragraphs 4.2 and 4.3 on page 12 of document CL 95/3 which gives the modalities and the basis of which this exercise has been done.

Mr Chairman, among mathematicians there is some controversy as to which old civilization first introduced the concept of zero. India also does lay some claim to this distinction. Despite this Mr. Chairman the delegation from India is not trying to suggest that the zero in the zero based budgeting concept could conceivably substitute for the zero in the real zero growth concept.

Coming back to the Programme of Work and Budget, we would submit that the discussions in this session of the Council should appropriately be looked at in the background of, and linked with, the developments in the governing bodies of the FAO for the last three years and more. Mr. Chairman, you yourself are fully and personally aware of these developments since this is the fourth year of your distinguished tenure as the independent Chairman of the Council. During the discussione in the various fora and the governing bodies of the FAO, some members have often raised five major issues which they perceived as very important and about which they felt genuinely and deeply concerned. These are: (1) the procedure for formulating the proposals for the Programme of Work and Budget; (2) prioritization; (3) adequacy of documentation and transparency; (4) TCP; and (5) the size of the budget.

With your permission I will briefly deal, Mr. Chairman, with these five issues in sequence. The first relates to the procedure for formulating the Programme of Work and Budget. You are aware that we have introduced a new procedure after the last Conference where we have gone through five to six steps for considering this, starting with a two page document on outline which went before the joint Programme and Finance Committees, which went into all the aspects like format, procedures, priorities, approach, selected priorities, TCP, cost increases and budget level, and arrived at a conclusion giving directions to the Secretariat and the DG as to how the exercise was to be carried out. This was followed by a COFI meeting which accounts for $31.32 million out of the Programme items. The third step was the COAG meeting in April/May where a total of $183.976 million of Programme was gone into in detail Programme wise and Sub-programme wise, it should be noted here Mr. Chairman that COAG and COFI between them account for $215.296 million out of $236.937 million of the Programme element. This accounts for 91 percent of the Programme content.

Thereafter we had the Programme and Finance Committee meeting-separately by the Programme Committee which went into the Programme over 24 pages of this Report and in 133 paragraphs. This was followed by the Finance Committee which went into this in 10 paragraphs and two pages. This was followed by the Joint Programme and Finance Committee which went into this in considerable detail and reached a conclusion as to how the exercise is to be completed.

Now Mr. Chairman, the papers are before the Council. Therefore it would be conceded that there is general agreement on all sides that the procedure we have followed this year provides for full consultation, discussion, involvement of Member Nations and evolution of a consensus.

However, here Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to the point raised in paragraph 2.7 on page 6 of the proceedings of the Programme Committee where the implications for the new procedure have been gone into. This aspect has also been referred to by other distinguished delegates. In our view Mr. Chairman final view about making this procedure permanent should be taken at the next Conference. Basically this exercise introduces a lot of work in terms of paper and manpower on behalf of the Secretariat, and it would have something to recommend itself if, through this process, we are able to evolve a mechanism for hammering out a consensus. If we succeed, this procedure has something to recommend itself. Otherwise I would submit Mr. Chairman this question will have to be reconsidered. Therefore we suggest that while a decision on making use this experimental measure permanent may wait, we would submit that the new procedure has definitely facilitated the participation of all Member Nations in the budget making process.


The second question is the prioritization. We agree Mr. Chairman with the nine priorities listed by the Programme Committee and also in the Budget document, though we would underline the point made by the Programme Committee in para 2.19 where they said the priorities are not supposed to interse priorities among themselves.

The Indian delegation is conceptually in favour of prioritization but we would like to emphasize that the limitations of global priorities in the work of an organization like FAO should be clearly recognized. We would submit that the global priorities may not be valid in a national setting. Indeed, in a large country like India even the national priorities for the Government of India do not always fit in with the regional and sub-regional priorities. The FAO has perforce to take into consideration the national priorities notwithstanding the nine global priorities. Further, these nine priorities are not immutable and they have to be kept under review as the situation, being dynamic, keeps changing. They have, however, a limited use in terms of giving a broad focus to the programme activities of the FAO.

However, we should resist the temptation-and we recommend to FAO that the temptation must be resisted-of putting all the programme activities of FAO into the straitjacket of these nine priorities. We would suggest that in document CL 95/3, while taking action on cross-sectoral priorities referred to in paras 4.32 and 4.33 of the document, our views may kindly be kept in mind.

I would also seek your indulgence in that Mr. Shah in his introductory remarks did make a reference to this paradox as follows: "while the demands of Member Nations for FAO support and services continue to span an extensive range of sectors and activities, and each individual Member Nation looks to FAO to have its priority needs met, Member Nations as a whole look for a concentration of additional resources in a limited number of priority areas.". I believe this is a paradox that has to be recognized.

However, we are happy that the point of prioritization which was made by a number of Members in the discussions in the Governing Bodies, has been fully and satisfactorily met.

The third point la the adequacy of documentation and transparency. This figured repeatedly in the discussions in the governing bodies. We are very happy to note that many Member Nations participating in the discussions yesterday and today have complimented the FAO Secretariat on the changes in the format and presentation, and as a result they consider that there is an increase in transparency. We are happy with this trend and hope that it will continue.

However, we would submit that the Governing Bodies have to balance the need for detailed Information and transparency with the costs and effort involved. We should agree on a consensus about the optimum level of transparency. Such Member Nations which need additional information and data could always obtain the material directly from the FAO.

Subject to these observations, we would submit that the requirements for documentation and transparency are being largely and progressively met.

The fourth point relates to the TCP. We noticed that the views reflected in the discussions have come before the Council in the document CL 95/4, pages 3 and 4, paragraph 1.19 and 1.20, in the Programme Committee document CL 95/8; in the Finance Committee document CL 95/8, and in the Joint Meeting also. These reflect the well known positions which the Member Nations have been taking in the fora of the FAO whenever the TCP comes up for discussion in the Governing Bodies.

At this stage we would like to react to a point that has been made this morning by one of the delegates that a specified percentage of the TCP should be reserved for the nine priority programmes that have been indicated in the Programme of Work and Budget. We would strongly suggest that this suggestion should not be accepted because this will be striking at the very root of the concept of TCP in terms of doing away with the flexibility and nullifying the quickness of response, which has so far characterized the activities taken up under the TCP.

Mr. Chairman, you are aware that perceptions about TCP differ depending on the geographical location and the size of a country, its state of development, and its financial position, particularly in relation to its foreign exchange reserves based on the balance of payments and trade.

We would urge that the consensus that has been arrived at on the basis of the discussions that have gone on be taken as the basis for further action allowing for the symbolic or token increase for TCP that is provided for in the documentation.

With due respect, here we will make references to a point that was made in relation to the regional offices and country offices during the course of the discussion. We feel, with due respect to the point of view expressed by the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany, that it may not be worthwhile to await the results of the ongoing review. These are time-tested programmes that have been going on for some time in the FAO, and the recommendations contained in the Programme of Work and Budget should be supported without waiting for the results of the ongoing review.


Lastly, the size of the budget, Ultimately, the question Is what is the ideal size of a budget. We have to agree and concede that this involves a subjective judgement keeping in view the realities of the situation, although the historical growth rates should not be forgotten. The historical growth rates would indicate that in almost all of the seven biennis preceding this one there has been a sizeable increase in the real programme increase ranging from US$ 31 million in 1976-77 to US$ 22.312 million in the 1982-83 biennium. It is only in the last three biennia when FAO entered into a particular phase of crises that the increases fell substantially. Keeping this in view, we would suggest that the proposed programme increase of US$ 2.7 million or 0.45% for 1990-91 is to be viewed in the historical perspective.

Having seen the relative stagnation in terms of budgetary levels during the last six years, would we as a Governing Body like to see a negative growth to top six years of relatively stagnation or should we go for a symbolic or token programme increase of US$ 2.75 million or 0.45%, or should we go in for a negative growth which would be the result should the view that the concept of zero growth also includes maximum absorption of cost increases-which we know are estimated conservatively at a little over US$ 60 million-be finally adopted.

Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, it is a moot point as to what is consensus in a body such as FAO and how it can be reached in the Governing Bodies in an organization such as the FAO in the United Nations system. This itself could form the basis for a detailed and long discussion. Keeping in view the wide variations in the needs, capacities, perceptions and attitudes of the Member Nations, and particularly keeping in view the scale of contributions by the 158 Member Nations for 1990-91, as documented in pages 66 to 70 of document CL 95/8, we would submit that the Member Nations, particularly from the developing countries, have done their utmost to ensure that the views of all the Members have been accorded due importance in the decision making process. Further, we would submit that the sensitivities, views and opinions of all the Member Nations have been given as much Importance and weight as possible in the procedure and decision-making processes that we have been following in an organization such as the FAO in the UN system.

Mr. Chairman, in your distinguished career in your country, you have been a Minister in your own country, an office which we refer to in India as a political executive. I myself have been a civil servant dealing wih the political executive, and so have most of my distinguished colleagues, where we take orders from the political executive. As civil servants all of us would like as far as possible to deal with an authority, be it a senior civil servant or be it a political executive, who issues clear directions for their work after duly considering all the possible alternatives and attaching weight to them. While discussions and deliberations are important in the decision-making process, a stage comes when decisions are required to be taken and cannot be postponed. I presume that the FAO Secretariat, which consists of international civil servants, who work as per the decisions taken and the directions given by the Governing Bodies of the FAO such as this, also have similar perceptions and reactions about whom they report to and at what speed decision making is accomplished·

We are all aware that the documentation and meetings and discussions have a cost factor, particularly in terms of man hours. Now that we have had almost six months of discussions in different fora of the Governing Bodies on the Programme of Work and Budget, may I propose that the Summary Programme of Work and Budget before us, which has been formulated based on the widest possible discussions with the Member Nations, be adopted as the basis for the full Programme of the Work and Budget to be placed before the coming Conference. We especially request all of the delegates who have participated in the long discussions since January to use their good offices and influence to convince their governments that the best that was possible in the circumstances in the FAO has been achieved and has been sought to be obtained through consensus, and use their persuasiveness and advocacy capabilities to induce their governments to support this consensus in the shape of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, 1990-91.

Mr. Chairman, you will note that in this rather long intervention we have not referred to any specific programme, priority or allocation. This is because, as I mentioned earlier, we have done that in the respective fora. May I therefore conclude by requesting that the delegates of the Council join the consensus that has evolved around the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, and I plead with them that the Director-General be requested to formulate the full Programme of Work and Budget on the basis of what the COAG, COFI, the Programme Committee, the Finance Committee and the Joint Finance and Programme Committees, and this Council have said in relation to various programmes, sub-programmes and activities included in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget.

Gonzalo BULA HOTOS (Colombia): A estas alturas del debate, nuestra primera reacción es la de que resulta contradictoria, para calificarla benévolamente, la actitud de algunos distinguidos representantes de países desarrollados, que han elogiado y felicitado a la Secretaría por la presentación de este documento, que han sugerido nuevas actividades y mas evaluaciones, que después


de participar en las reuniones de los comités, son países poderosos, miembros de todos los comités, estuvieron presentes en las sesiones especiales de enero, en las estatutarias de mayo y ahora están aquí en el Consejo y sin embargo dicen que todavía tienen que expresar reservas y que no entienden los argumentos con los cuales se justifica este modesto incremento propuesto.

Si aceptásemos ese razonamiento, ¿qué podríamos pensar de la posición de aquellos países en desarrollo que no son miembros de los comités y que ni siquiera tienen recursos para disponer de una oficina en Roma? Y luego agregan después de todo esto que la FAO no puede seguir trabajando con la mutilación que le han impuesto y además que la FAO debe realizar todo lo que ellos proponen con los recursos existentes y aun lograr más ahorros e insisten en el funesto e inaceptable principio del crecimiento cero.

Para no incurrir en generalizaciones, debemos reconocer que algunas declaraciones de colegas eminentes de países desarrollados han sido razonables y casi constructivas. Pero no podemos ocultar nuestra sorpresa,porque algunos distinguidos y eminentes representantes de respetables estados industrializados han llegado a hacer la afirmación increíble de que también sus países se encuentran en situaciones económicas difíciles. Nos han conmovido profundamente esas manifestaciones. Proponemos formalmente que, en la medida en que la FAO vaya recibiendo el pago de las cuotas atrasadas, se asignen a esos pocos países desarrollados algunos proyectos dentro del Programa de Cooperación Técnica, algunos PCT que pueden, a lo mejor, tener niveles de asignaciones un poco mayores que las que se conceden a los países en desarrollo, en fin alguna asistencia que pueda contribuir a que esos estados sigan siendo más ricos y más poderosos.

¿Cómo es posible que se desconozcan las condiciones verdaderamente adversas de los países en desarrollo que padecen una enorme y creciente deuda externa que loe ha convertido en exportadores netos de capitales a esos estados y que, en el caso de América Latina y el Caribe, el sólo costo del servicio de esa deuda absorbe la totalidad de los ingresos por la exportación de los principales productos agropecuarios?

Los representantes de Colombia pensamos que algunas, repetimos, algunas de esas actitudes son negativas y contrarias a los más elementales principios de la cooperación internacional. Después de la lamentable situación a la que han sometido a la Organización, a la luz de la clara y franca declaración inaugural del Director General, comentarlos como ésos representan a nuestro modo de pensar juicios críticos en la función de la FAO, que nosotros rechazamos.

Loe representantes de Colombia deseamos expresar al Director General de la FAO, nuestro más profundo y sincero reconocimiento por la forma pragmática, inteligente y acertada, como ha podido manejar la difícil situación financiera de la Organización, afectada por la crisis debida a la carencia de liquidez, causada por la falta de pago de algunas contribuciones, bien conocidas.

Igualmente, manifestamos aprecio positivo a aquellos Gobiernos que han pagado oportunamente sus contribuciones y que así evitaron que esa crisis adquiriera mayores proporciones. Como pudimos comprobar en la reciente reunión del Comité de Agricultura, los 45 millones que debieron ser reducidos, impusieron el aplazamiento de muchas actividades, la supresión de otras y, en general, afectaron muy negativamente los eficientes servicios que la FAO viene ofreciendo a nuestros países.

Los representantes de Colombia pensamos que este Consejo debe decir claramente en su informe que hechos tan desafortunados como esos no deberán repetirse en la ejecución del Programa para el bienio 1990-91.

Admiramos el esfuerzo del Director General para presentarnos propuestas dirigidas a obtener un consenso·

El modesto, casi simbólico aumento propuesto, no tendrá el alcance suficiente, ni siquiera para compensar las reducciones anteriores y mucho menos para dar nueva vitalidad a aquellas actividades que debieron ser suprimidas o detenidas.

Frente al siempre preocupante estado de la agricultura y de la alimentación en el mundo-como podremos comprobarlo en la discusión del tema 4-y en relación con la inmensa magnitud de los problemas y también de las cifras que se asignan a otros organismos, ¿qué puede representar, para una Organización como la FAO, el modestísimo incremento propuesto?

El criterio adecuado del Director General ha concentrado ese pequeño aumento en los Programas Técnicos y Económicos, sobre todo en el Programa Principal-Agricultura-y el capítulo IV, Programa de Cooperación Técnica.

Los programas técnicos y económicos son aquellos de mayor interés para los países beneficiarlos, pero consideramos insuficiente el incremento de tan sólo 3,5 millones de dólares.


El Programa de Cooperación Técnica ha venido superando todas las pruebas y evaluaciones que se han solicitado y hoy goza del apoyo casi total, con unas pocas excepciones confirmadas en este debate, de países desarrollados y en desarrollo, que han llegado al convencimiento de que el PCT es un válido y eficaz instrumento de servicio a los Estados del Tercer Mundo.

Por primera vez, la preparación de este Resumen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto, fue precedida, a título experimental, de la reunión conjunta de los Comités del Programa y Finanzas, que tuvo lugar del 30 de enero al primero de febrero de 1989, cuyo informe, documento CL 95/4, indica que ese experimentos-al cual nos opusimos en el Consejo de noviembre pasado-no produjo nada nuevo, nada distinto a lo que leemos siempre en los informes de esos dos Comités.

En efecto, ese documento CL 95/4 refleja las mismas tendencias sobre el nivel del presupuesto, como ocurre cada vez que esos Comités se ocupan-tradicionalmente-de este asunto en sus estatutarias reuniones de la primavera de los años en que hay Conferencia:

"Un pequeño numero de miembros-dice el párrafo 1.29,
"algunos otros miembros" párrafo 1.30
"la gran mayoría de los miembros" párrafo 1.31.
¿Dónde está el consenso que se decía que se iba a lograr con esa sesión especial?

Expresiones como esas han confirmado nuestras reservas en cuanto a que una reunión de ese tipo no contribuiría a facilitar el consenso, sino que, por el contrario, constituyó una ocasión más, una oportunidad anticipada para que algunos representantes de países desarrollados, ya desde enero comenzaran a insistir sobre el funesto e inaceptable crecimiento real cero y la necesidad de una absorción máxima del aumento de gastos", como dice el párrafo 1.29.

En esas condiciones, justo es reconocer la actitud honesta de los Comités, cuyos miembros, después de recordar una posible solución de "consultas por correspondencia" párrafo 1.10 del documento 95/4, consultas que habían sugerido México y Colombia particularmente en el Consejo pasado. Ahora los Comités en el párrafo 1.11 llegaron a la conclusión de que "no estaban en condiciones, de recomendar una línea de acción definida con respecto a la continuación del procedimiento".

Los representantes de Colombia opinamos que el contenido del propio informe conjunto de esos dos Comités confirma la inutilidad de ese procedimiento, que no deberá seguirse aplicando. Nada más de reuniones conjuntas anticipadas, costosas improductivas, contraproducentes, embelecos, imposlslones, oportunidades para imponer nuevas limitaciones.

Como dijo el Embajador Pes queir a de México esta mañana, no es posible que aceptemos la supresión de reuniones técnicas, verdaderamente utiles a los países en desarrollo y que continuemos apoyando la celebración de sesiones especiales de los Comités, que cuestan muchísimo y no sirven para nada. Tal vez algunos miembros del Consejo no saben que esas reuniones especiales implican gastos de pasajes y viáticos de 20 miembros, desde el mítico Lejano Oriente, India, China, las atractivas antípodas, Australia, las maravillosas pampas argentinas, América del Norte, Europa, Polo Artico. La vuelta al mundo, la vuelta al universo, la vuelta a la tierra. A la tierra que es redonda como el cero del crecimiento que ellos propugnan.

Nosotros quisiéramos que la Secretaría nos diga exactamente cuánto costó esa sesión especial de fines de enero a principios de febrero pasado. Así como también desde ahora, para facilitar el trabajo de la Secretaría, quisiéra que cuando lleguemos al tema, aunque sea para información del examen, se nos diga cuántos millones de dólares costó ese ejercicio que ya ha culminado en la redacción de ese documento. De todo lo que hemos dicho nos impresionó la declaración anterior a la nuestra, del distinguido colega y amigo Sr. Sastry de India, y por eso estamos de acuerdo con el colega de la India que, si en la Conferencia de este año se realizara el milagro de lograr el consenso en torno de las propuestas del Director General-cuyo esbozo esos Comités conocieron desde enero de este año-entonces, después de haber votado la resolución sobre el nivel del presupuesto 1990-91, se podría acaso pedir al Consejo, que se reunirá inmediatamente después de la Conferencia o aún al Consejo de noviembre 1990-hay tiempo,-que considere la posibilidad de adoptar la misma solución, siempre transitoria, para enero de 1991·

En el párrafo 2.7 del informe de los dos Comités, de sucesión, no ya especial sino estatutaria, en el documento CL 95/8, algunos miembros del Comité del Programa expresaron que "la fase intermedia del esbozo podría resultar algo redundante".

Estamos de acuerdo con ellos: hay que escoger entre el esbozo y el resumen, lo demás es inútil duplicación de actividades. Nosotros preferimos el resumen, porque, si seguimos con el esbozo, sin pasar por el resumen, prácticamente volveríamos al sistema anterior, cuando se presentaba directamente el texto definitivo del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto a los comités y al Consejo, y


no alcanzaban a reflejarse algunas prioridades, sobre todo no podían tenerse en cuenta las opiniones de los Comités Técnicos COAG y otros que se reúnen en el primer semestre del año impar de la Conferencia. Las nueve prioridades que se indican merecen el apoyo de los representantes de Colombia, pero en el entendido de que el orden en que aparecen no tiene carácter jerárquico, como lo dijo el Embajador De Medicie, de Brasil y como lo dicen los Comités en el párrafo 2.19 del documento CL 95/8. Decimos esto porque sobre la primera prioridad citada: Desarrollo Sostenible, tenemos algunas observaciones que desearíamos fueran tenidas en cuenta por la FAO.

El Desarrollo sostenlble, está de moda, sobre todo bajo el justificado y loable impulso de algunos estados desarrollados, que tienen los grandes recursos y la alta tecnología para poder escoger las formas de desarrollo que preserve el medio ambiente.

Distinta es la situación de los países en desarrollo, que no pueden dedicarse a la protección y conservación del medio ambiente, "en medio de las angustiosas condiciones sociales y económicas que afligen a nuestros pueblos y que son agravadas por una coyuntura internacional cada vez más adversa", como lo declararon los ocho jefes de gobierno, entre éstos Colombia, miembros del Tratado de Cooperación Amazónica reunidos recientemente hace poco más de un mes en Manaos, Brasil donde aprobaran la Declaración de Amazonia, que como dijo nel Embajador de Brasil ha sido distribuido a este Consejo como documento: Información 16.

Pedimos, pues, que la FAO no desvíe ni disperse esos recursos en actuaciones que no sean esencialmente prioritarias para los países en desarrollo, a la vez que apoyamos todas aquellas actividades que siendo altamente prioritarias para nuestros Estados, puedan incluir importantes componentes de desarrollo sostenible. Dados los escasos recursos de nuestra Organización, convendría que se tuviera en cuenta que en relación con este tema, se ha creado recientemente en el Banco Mundial un fondo para proyectos de desarrollo sostenible, cuyo primer contribuyente es Japón. Preguntamos si está ya la FAO participando en algunos de esos proyectos de desarrollo sostenible dentro de ese fondo del Banco Mundial ¿Acaso el respetable y honorable país del Japón pudiera también en el seno de la FAO asumir actitudes positivas y con otros Estados desarrollados ofrecer a nuestra Organización recursos para que se lleven a cabo esas actividades?

Otra de las prioridades: La biotecnología, parece pertenecer también al dominio de los países desarrollados, cuya implementación exagerada podría contribuir a acentuar más el desequilibrio ya existente entre esos estados y los nuestros, en la producción, el comercio y los precios.

La FAO debe preocuparse esencialmente porque la biotecnología favorezca a los países en desarrollo, mediante la capacitación del personal nacional, el fortalecimiento de nuestros institutos, centros de investigación, las instituciones en general, y facilitar y estimular la necesaria transferencia de tecnología en condiciones de fácil y objetiva asimilación que hagan verdaderamente aplicables con resultados positivos y viables las nuevas tecnologías.

En biotecnología, las actividades de la FAO deben estar completamente al servicio de los países en desarrollo. Su acción debe adelantarse particularmente a través de la División Mixta FAO/OIEA y en cooperación con la ONUDI. Nuestra Organización debe seguir estimulando a los poderosos centros Internacionales de Investigación Agrícola para que hagan mayor uso de la biotecnología en la investigación en favor de los estados del tercer mundo y la FAO debe reunir, publicar y difundir la más amplia información posible sobre todos aquellos adelantos de la biotecnología que sean de interés para los países en desarrollo.

"Asesoramlento en materia de políticas". Como representantes de nuestro Gobierno en Roma, somos testigos directos y conducto regulares de las constantes y crecientes solicitudes de asistencia que nuestros países dirigen a la FAO, todo lo cual confirma el aprecio positivo y el reconocimiento de la experiencia y competencia de nuestra Organización.

Por ello nos complace que como se dice en el párrafo 4.15 del Resumen: "La FAO se halla en buena posición" para asesorar a nuestros países en materia de políticas. Reconocemos la atención permanente que la FAO ofrece a esas demandas de nuestros países, aunque a veces nos decepcionen ciertas respuestas negativas que, posiblemente, sólo obedecerán a la escasez de recursos.

La mujer en el desarrollo es otra prioridad que merece el pleno apoyo de la delegación de Colombia. Nos complace que según recientes declaraciones del Director General, la FAO esté seriamente dedicada a implementar la Resolución 1/94 del pasado Consejo y la ejecución del Plan de Acción para integrar a la mujer en el desarrollo agrícola y rural. Los representantes de Colombia hemos atribuido siempre gran importancia a las actividades de campo, y por ello apoyamos la concepción del Director General sobre la "Interacción entre el Programa Ordinario y el Programa de Campo de la Organización".

El documento básico señala "una vigorosa reactivación de la entrega FAO/PNUD" después de las preocupantes reducciones, años 1981 a 1984. Sin embargo los gastos totales en proyectos del PNUD sieguen siendo todavía considerablemente inferiores en comparación con los niveles máximos alcanzados en los años 1980 y 1981.


Algunas preguntas. No obstante estos vaivenes ¿sigue la FAO siendo la principal agencia de ejecución del PNUD en proyectos agrícolas? El incremento de los fondos del PNUD, a la luz de los resultados de la Conferencia de Contribuciones de noviembre pasado, de 805 millones en 1987 a 1300 en 1989, ¿ese incremento permitirá que la FAO vuelva progresivamente a recuperar su posición anterior en cuanto a proyectos con fondos del PNUD? ¿Sigue el PNUD incrementando la proporción en la ejecución por sí mismo de proyectos agrícolas?

¿Viene la FAO apoyando la tendencia del PNUD a facilitar la ejecución de proyectos de los propios gobiernos beneficiarlos, cuando esto sea posible y conveniente?

Sr. Presidente, los representantes de Colombia pensamos que al llegar a la conclusión de este tema hemos afrontado un debate difícil en el cual han sobresalido la falta de comprensión y la carencia de voluntad política. Para entender las dificultades a que se ha sometido la FAO y ofrecer los recursos y los medios que permitan su recuperación. Pero el burro no va a morir, el burro cojea, el burro está herido, el burro ha sido maltratado y conocemos quiénes se han ensañado contra ese burro bueno, noble y generoso; pero el burro debe sobrevivir con el alimento del apoyo que le suministrará la contribución generosa y positiva de la gran mayoría de los estados industrializados y de toda la Comunidad Internacional.

Los representantes de Colombia opinamos que este Consejo debe sumarse al llamado que ha hecho nuestro colega y amigo el Sr. Sasty, de India, y apoyar todas las propuestas del Director General para que podamos así recomendar a la Conferencia un nivel de presupuesto que sea sólido, monolítico, sin desmoronamientos como en el pasado, sin fallas, que ojalá no vuelva a causar como en los años recientes desafortunadas e inaceptables reducciones en los Programas, después de que la Conferencia adopte el Documento definitivo sobre el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto.

En nombre del Gobierno de Colombia reiteramos nuestro más pleno apoyo al Director General de la FAO y le alentamos a que prosiga en medio de tantas dificultades la tarea valiosa que realiza con inteligencia y acierto a fin de que la FAO pueda seguir ofreciendo cada vez más y mejores servicios a los países del Tercer Mundo.

Abdul KUDDUS AHMAD (Malaysia): My delegation would like to express its appreciation to the Secretariat for the way in which the subject is presented in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91· We would also like to thank Ambassador Bukhari, Chairman of the Finance Committee for his valuable contribution.

The effort of the Director-General and his staff in proposing a modest increase of the budget of US$ 5.5 million or 1%, deserves our full support, although we note that in actual fact, a much higher increase is desired. Any budget director would tell us that a 1% increase on US$ 5 million is tantamount to zero growth considering some costs, inflation and other unavoidable expenditure.

My delegation takes note that the cost increase deliberately excludes factors such as cost increases for consultants, duty travel, normal staff upgrading and the possibility of increase in staff services as a result of the UNGA Comprehensive Review of the Conditions of Service of U.N. Staff. If I might digress, one must not forget one of our principles, namely, good working conditions for staff for the good of the Organization and its programme.

Turning back to the Programme of Work and Budget, we feel there should not be any serious problems in getting the Summary Programme of Work and Budget endorsed by Council. We must also bear in mind that the Director-General has carefully taken into account the observations of member countries as well as the prior guidelines of FAO governing and advisory bodies with the objective of reaching a consensus.

My delegation would like to take this opportunity to reiterate our strong support for the importance and value attached to the Technical Cooperation Programme, TCP. Its importance cannot be too often emphasized since it has been proved to be one of the most effective means of assisting member countries, especially developing countries.

My delegation shares the views and concerns expressed by other members regarding the fall in the share of TCP in the total budget from 14.1% to 12.8%. TCP is essential for the development of the agricultural sector and as far as possible should not be cut in a budget of this size. We hope that this situation will be reversed and that TCP will be given continued support in the next biennium.

Malaysia would also like to express support for the priorities proposed in which the bulk of the additional reserve are being directed to the technical and economic programme. We fully subscribe to the idea that priority programmes should concentrate on the activities which FAO can do best, and for which it has a clear comparative advantage. In fact, this will enable FAO to use its services to the maximum and therefore strengthen its capacity. My delegation also feels that FAO could readjust its priorities without the need for the complete elimination of any programme or sub-programme.


While agreeing to the need for programme increases, my delegation believes that the proposed budget level should avoid imposing an impact on the assessed contributions of the developing countries in view of the present economic and financial difficulties faced by many of these countries.

In conclusion, on behalf of my delegation we endorse the Summary Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91 and believe that consensus should be reached.

Mohammad Saleen KHAN (Pakistan): The Pakistan delegation received the Summary Programme of Work and Budget with mixed feelings of disappointment and welcome. As we highlighted in our intervention under Item 6, the paucity of resources does not make it possible to cater for programmes according to their actual requirements based on the growing needs of developing countries. Few new programmes can be included and budgetary provisions for highly important programmes like TCP have to be pitched at levels well below requirements.

While we feel disappointed on this account, we welcome the proposals contained in the document which have been prepared and prioritized endeavouring to lay maximum emphasis on critical areas and programmes. Moreover, the modestly increased Summary Programme of Work and Budget has been prepared with due regard to the sensitivity of a group of members of the Organization and with an interest in reaching a consensus amongst all members.

In this spirit, my delegation generally supports the Summary Programme before us and the modest increase of 1 percent proposed. However, having said this, we despair to hear in some statements from the floor today emphasis on zero real growth and comparisons to the negative UN General System Budget. While noting the need for adequate financial support on a general basis to all UN and other multilateral organizations, each of which is equally important in its respective sphere of work, nevertheless, the sphere of work of FAO relating to the most basic need of human beings, cautions against such comparisons and such cuts. We heard speakers welcome the considerable improvements in the presentation of the Summary Programme while calling for numerous additional Information and details in future presentations. We appreciate that while all such information and details certainly bring about improvement and more transparency, it entails additional efforts in terms of manpower and considerable costs thereto. The Secretariat has also been called upon to further strengthen several areas of development, which would be difficult without commensurate additionaliy in resources. FAO has done a tremendous job in accommodating so much within the proposed modest increase. Further squeeze on the Organization, to say the least, would be an unfortunate demand. We appreciate the realism with which a number of distinguished delegates from developed countries supported the modest proposal relating to 1 percent growth. We hope the great feeling of mutual accommodation and interest of consensus with which several delegates from the beneficiary countries acceded to accept a small growth in the budget, would receive a corresponding response from the member countries whose generous contributions over the years have enabled FAO to boast of considerable success.

We have studied the document with keen interest. We welcome the emphasis placed on technical and economic programmes, albeit with modest increases. We would have liked to see the TCP being raised to its earliest peak levels but are willing to agree to the 2.8 percent increase proposed and hope during the course of the coming blennlum these resources will be supplemented by extra-budgetary resources as has so commendably and generously been done by the Italian Government this biennium. In this respect we fully associate ourselves with the large number of members from developing countries who unanimously voiced their views on the extreme usefulness and responsiveness of the Technical Cooperation Programme to the needs of developing countries. We hope the views of the beneficiaries would be given due weight in determining their needs vis-à-vis the TCP.

It is becoming a convention in FAO and WFP meetings to quote anecdotes. Giving into this temptation, with your permission I would like to relate one which recently came into my view. This one, I assure you, contains no mentions of a donkey or even or an elephant. This one relates to human beings. However, any similarities to human beings living or dead, actual or implied, are merely coincidental and in no case are so intended. With reference to strong-willed personalities, the anecdote relates that one such personality, along with a group of co-workers, visited a restaurant for lunch. In response to an enquiry from the waiter regarding his or her preference for the main course, the reply came, "Beefsteak, please." "And the vegetsbles, please?" asked the waiter. Back came the reply, "They, too, will have beefsteak." So you are at liberty, if you desire, to think of us as vegetables, but please do let the vegetables exercise their prerogative to decide what they would like to have.

My delegation also finds no difficulty in endorsing the areas of priorities, with specific recognition of biotechnology, crop protection, women-in-development, policy advice and TFAP, even though not in that order or the order given in document CL 95/3.


We welcome the effort of FAO to absorb, to the extent possible, the shortfalls in administative costs and other overhead costs. This has partly manifested itself in reduction in the number of posts. We note from the first paragraph on page 27, under Objects of Expenditure, that such reduction has "been accompanied by an increase in reliance not only on consultants but also on national institutions." We understand the rationale for the line of action adopted by FAO. However, we would like an assurance from FAO that the approach of continuing reductions in staff and the increased reliance on consultants and national authorities in effect would not impair the quality and effectiveness of the Organization and its programmes. In fact, we would like to ask FAO whether any study has been carried out on this aspect and if not, to ask for at least a brief study and assessment of the implication of this approach to be placed before the next Council and Conference sessions.

We have noted the point of some members that the 12.2 percent increase in costs is on the high side and the particular reference to increases on post adjustment costs. But we agree with the Ambassador of Mexico, and most recently with the distinguished representative of Malaysia, that welfare of the Organization staff cannot be ignored if we do not desire the Organization to lose the service of experienced hands who have for so long been working with utmost competence and dedication for the noble goals of FAO. The increasing workload coupled with continuing staff reductions unhappily do not create a good working environment. Denial of the minimum justified increases in emoluments would further compound the situation. We would, therefore, emphasize that due consideration be given to any increases in benefits proposed in the document. On the point of cost increases it is being proposed to absorb against savings cost increases amounting to $ 2.34 million. In addition, there are cost increases which cannot be estimated at this time but may have to be ultimately adjusted during the next biennium. We feel that despite the voluntary spirit of compromise and sacrifice shown by FAO, it may be difficult to actually absorb such a large uncovered expenditure against available savings during the biennium. We would therefore request further elaboration from the Secretariat in this regard.

Before I move to some other points raised in the session and matters related to but not directly under the ambit of the Agenda Item, I would like to express the satisfaction of my delegation over the new spirit of consensus and mutual accommodation which has been progressively gaining ground amongst the membership. It is evident inter alia from the improvement in payments of assessed contributions to 76.65 percent in 1988 and also in the payment of arrears. We are most pleased by the positive announcement by the distinguished delegate of the United States earlier today in regard to contributions and clearance of arrears of the United States of America. We would like to congratulate the US Government and look forward to further positive development in this regard. We also welcome the increases in the levels of UNDP and Trust Funds. All this augers well for the future and shows us a semblance of light at the end of a dark tunnel which we had entered in 1987.

Finally, we heard several delegate linking in their interventions issues relating to the review process to their comments on the Summary Programme proposals. We feel that a process was set in momentum by us at the last Conference, and in all fairness we should await its outcome before we commit ourselves to comment on the reports of the experts or suggest changes within FAO. At least my delegation would like to await the report of the Joint Session of the Programme and Finance Committees before venturing in expressing our views thereon. Likewise, we have noted the comments in relation to the additional step on the budgetary process, but in terms of its institutionalization we look forward to an objective examination and discussion during the forthcoming Conference.

In the end, but not the least, I would be failing in my duty if I do not thank both Mr. Shah and Ambassador Bukhari, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, on their presentations on the Agenda Item yesterday. Our thanks also extend to the members of the Finance and Programme Committees for their excellent review of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget.

Pisan LUETONGCHARG (Thailand): First of all, my delegation wishes to join other previous speakers in commending Mr. Shah and Ambassador Bukhari, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, for their very clear presentations. On this item, my delegation would like to express our views and positions as follows.

First, I would like to recall that at the last Conference, the Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives, the leader of the Thai delegation, suggested that we should accept the idea proposed by the Group of developing countries relating to the principle of budget allocation that was that FAO should allocate at least 17 percent of the total Regular Programme to the TCP. Today we are very regretful to note that the proportion of the TCP appropriation to the total budget is below the past levels. In para. 1.7 of document 95/8, it indicates that it has fallen from 14.1 percent to 12.8 percent and could fall further, despite the net increases proposed for 1990-91. This is of grave concern for my delegation because it would be very difficult for us to support such a Programme of Work and Budget at the next Conference.


Secondly, my delegation would like to draw your attention to para. 1.6 of the same document. This paragraph tells us that the Programme and Finance Committees take account of the need to restore FAO's technical capacity to a level more comensurate with requirements and would permit a relaunching of FAO's action and initiative as decided by Member Nations. But when we look at the proposed budget which the net programme increased only 1.1 percent, we are very doubtful. For example, the Director-General has told us in his opening statement that the Organization had to cancel dozens of publications. On this occasion, my delegation would like to know from Mr. Shah whether FAO can maintain the number of publications with the budget as proposed to us now. My delegation always considers that all FAO publications provide great benefit to developing countries like Thailand. They give us a lot of the basic data and information concerning agriculture. Therefore, we would like to suggest that enough budget should be allocated to this service in order to help FAO maintain the number of publications. However, in the spirit of cooperation, my delegation can go along with the other delegations to support the Summary Programme of Work and Budget and requests the Director-General to proceed with the preparation of the full Programme of Work and Budget with the hope that some amendment should be made in line with our suggestions. We reserve our right to reconsider this matter in the next Conference.

Bassin ALWHAB (Iraq) (original language Arabic): Mr Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Shah for his excellent and clear introduction of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. My thanks also go to the Chairman of the Finance Committee who informed us of the points of view of both the Finance and the Programme Committees on the Summary Programme of Work and Budget proposed by the Director-General. My delegation thinks that the document under discussion clearly reflects the activities and the basic duties of all the bodies of FAO. At the same time these programmes reflect the hopes and the aspirations of the Member Countries made known during the various committees and expert groups' meetings.

My delegation thinks that the proposed increase mentioned in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget is modest. It does not offset the various cuts effected during the last two biennia. We propose that this token increase be used to finance the technical and economic programmes. We support the proposed increase for the Technical Cooperation Programme although modest, because this programme is the vital programme, and it will help us achieve our objectives.

I would also like to say that we support the delegates who said that we should find additional resources to combat locusts in the next years.

Mr. Chairman, my delegation would like to appeal to all delegations when they are dealing with the adoption of the Budget and the Programme of Work to be guided by the spirit of peaceful coexistence and international cooperation for the progress and well being of our respective countries. We shall not set conditions. There is only one condition in respect of the Articles of the Agreement establishing FAO endorsed and ratified by our respective countries.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate our support for the Summary Programme of Work and Budget which we consider the minimum for carrying out an effective cooperation with this Organization.

Javier TANTALEAN (Perú): Los comentarios que voy a realizar están en consecuencia con una función de liderazgo a nivel mundial que la FAO debe tener en materia de alimentación y de lucha contra el hambre, y van a ser comentarios sobre aspectos muy puntuales.

Luego de la evaluación realizada del Programa de Labores y Prespuesto para 1990-91, apoyamos los trabajos realizados por los delegados de los palees y los esfuerzos puestos en ello. Estoy seguro de que con el devenir del tiempo este Presupuesto por programas y subprogramas vendrá acompañado de metas cualitativas y cuantitativas. Yo creo que, a estas alturas del debate, no podemos dejar de pronunciarnos sobre el tema del "presupuesto cero" planteado por algunos países desarrollados. Nos parece que es algo paradójico: si la FAO fue creada, entre otros, por estos países para combatir el hambre y la subnutrlción, ¿vamos a congelar a la herramienta de lucha contra el hambre y la subnutrlción, cuando los pobres y hambrientos van creciendo en términos absolutos en el mundo? Esto es algo que yo personalmente no lo entiendo.

También se han criticado los programas de cooperación tecnica y los programas de campo, haciendo aparecer como si las cifras fueran un poco exageradas. Nosotros pensamos, desde el punto de vista de los intereses de los países del Tercer Mundo, que estas cifras resultan muy estrechas. Nos parece también importante mencionar el rol fundamental que debe tener la FAO en los próximos años, en el diseño de políticas, programas y proyectos de compensación social frente a los programas de ajuste, generalmente impuestos por el Fondo Monetario Internacional.


Hemos escuchado también algunas críticas a los organismos regionales de la FAO, organismos que abarcan espacios técnicos culturales similares. Permítame, Sr. Presidente, hacer una defensa de estos organismos y, sobre todo, justificar su existencia. Es muy importante-y pienso en la experiencia latinoamericana-que exista un organismo encargado de coordinar y planificar con otros organismos de la misma región, para repotenciar la lucha contra el hambre. En América Latina tenemos el caso de la Junta del Acuerdo de Cartagena, el SELA, la Comisión del Pacífico Sur, etc. De otro lado, los organismos regionales están compuestos por hombres y mujeres oriundos de la propia región, que conocen los problemas a fondo. Y además, los organismos regionales son una ayuda a la desconcentración y descentralización de la FAO. También nos parece muy conveniente del asesoramiento que la FAO brinda a los gobiernos en el tema del comercio internacional, como el mitin de la Ronda Uruguay.

En síntesis, aprobamos la modesta tasa de crecimiento prevista en el proyecto de presupuesto, puntualizando que, de todas formas, es mucho menor a las demandas existentes por parte de los países del Tercer Mundo.

Sra. Mercedes FERMIN GOMEZ (Venezuela): Vamos a ser breves, porque pienso que nuestra intervención obedece sobre todo a la obligación moral de respaldar, en primer lugar, los documentos que están en discusión y al apoyo que vamos a dar claramente a la presentación del Sr. Subdirector General de la FAO, especialmente a los puntos mayormente controvertibles que se han planteado aquí, que son los mismos que se vienen planteando desde hace uno o dos años atre.

Quiero referirme especialmente a las intervenciones que plantean la necesidad de que la FAO deje de ocuparse de algunos programas que fueron magníficamente desarrollados por la FAO, que corresponden a su iniciativa lo, pero que hoy sería mucho mejor que lo hicieran otras organizaciones. 0, lo que es lo mismo, que la FAO es un buen pionero, al que se le debe reservar el papel de un buen explorador, que va descubriendo aquellos campos en los cuales es necesaria cierta actuación y los beneficios para determinadas poblaciones, pero que una vez que ella ha tenido éxito y que ha señalado el camino debe dejar ese campo a otros, y concretamente sería muy bueno que se dedicara a su trabajo de recolección de estadísticas, de confirmación de cuáles son los éxitos y cuáles son los fracasos, para desempeñar mejor su papel.

En cierta manera, resulta algo así, indirectamente dicho, como un desmantelamiento de la FAO. Pero resulta que la FAO fue una Organización creada fundamentalmente para ocuparse de la agricultura y de la alimentación, y en este caso no pensamos, porque no fue así la expresión de sus fundadores, que fuese para dedicarse a la agricultura como un negocio ni a la alimentación de los grandes países desarrollados, que están más que satisfechos alimenticiamente. Fue precisamente para aquellos países que estaban en el llamado Tercer Mundo, necesitados de satisfacer su hambre, sus necesidades, de elevar un poco su condición humana, porque realmente no era una condición humana en la que ellos estaban en el año en que se creó la FAO, para poderlos convertir en hombres productivos, en hombres capaces de valerse por sí mismos en lo más elemental de la vida que es la satisfacción de la necesidad de comer. Esta fue la misión de la FAO, y esta es la misión de la FAO que hoy más que nunca está cumpliendo con efectividad, porque ya ha demostrado que numerosos países de ese mundo desheredado han recibido, por virtud de la FAO, el aliento, la posibilidad de actuar, la esperanza, la confianza en que ellos por sí mismos pueden levantarse de aquella situación de minusválidos a la condición de ser capaces de valerse por sí mismos. Y ¿por qué entonces, ahora que la FAO está cumpliendo esa tarea, que hay millones de seres en el mundo que gracias a la FAO hoy pueden comer-que nos lo digan si no los africanos que estuvieron prácticamente en vías de desaparecer si no hubiese sido por el Programa de la FAO, que nos lo digan aquellos países a quienes hemos escuchado aquí confesar su verdadera resurrección como naciones gracias a los programas y a la ayuda de la FAO-hoy que FAO está cumpliendo con esta tarea, hay países que piensan que ya basta? Que mejor es que la FAO se dedique a proporcionar estadísticas y a hacer planificación de proyectos para que los realice otra gente. Pero es que la FAO no fue creada para proveer de estadísticas a los países que quieren hacer negocios. No fue para loe países poderosos que la FAO fue creada, sino para los países menesterosos. Y éstos todavía la están necesitando. Todavía no han recibido totalmente de ella el verdadero apoyo para el sostén de sus vidas. Por esa razón no compartimos la posición, por ejemplo de Suiza o de Canadá o de Alemania Federal. No podemos compartirla, porque nosotros estamos del lado de los países que necesitan de la FAO.

Venezuela, mi país, no había llegado a recibir nunca un proyecto de FAO, porque no estaba calificada entre los países cuyo ingreso per capita estaba por debajo de la línea de los países menesterosos. Lamentablemente, hoy Venezuela necesita un proyecto de FAO y nosotros estamos en la línea de los paises que necesitan la asistencia técnica de la FAO. Por eso estamos en la línea de los países que necesitan el Programa de Cooperación Técnica de la FAO, que es el Programa más efectivo, el programa más eficiente y el más necesitado por ese Tercer Mundo y por los países en desarrollo que no quieren llamarse Tercer Mundo, pero que lo son también.


Por eso, si voy a tomar la palabra es para apoyar ese programa, así como el Trabajo de Campo. Son dos programas indispensables, porque solamente la FAO ha podido llegar al Sahel y enterarse de qué es lo que estaba pasando en el Sahel. Solamente la FAO ha podido dar con el verdadero meollo de lo que ocurre con las langostas en el desierto. Nosotros fuimos invitados a ver un documental y a enterarnos de que para poder combatir la langosta en el desierto hay que ir al propio agujero en donde se crían las larvas y depositar allí el insecticida que puede evitar que éstas evolucionen. Y ese trabajo no lo va a hacer una empresa capitalista. Ese trabajo lo hace el campesino africano que sufre las consecuencias de esa langosta, a quien la FAO entrega en sus manos el producto y el lo pone de agujero en agujero, para que la langosta no procree. Es éste el trabajo de campo. Conocer la realidad in situ, conocer la realidad en el verdadero terreno en donde se producen los problemas y enviar allí a los técnicos de la FAO, para que capaciten a los campesinos o a los desheredados éstos, que no son ni siquiera agricultores, porque algunos de ellos no han aprendido todavía las técnicas de cultivo. A ésos es a quien la FAO entrena, educa para que puedan convertirse en defensores de su propia situación.

No es posible pensar que estos programas se suspendan. Sin embargo, hay aquí representantes que piensan que sí, que ya basta de programas de esa naturaleza, y que es mucho mejor que la FAO provea estadísticas y provea de técnicas de otra índole. Pero ¿para quién? ¿Qué necesidad tiene la gente del Sahel de estadísticas? Las estadísticas les hacen falta a los países desarrollados que pueden promover sus negocios, que pueden promover el incremento de sus capitales. Esos sí necesitan estadísticas, es decir, ellos también son beneficiarlos de la FAO, pero del otro extremo. Los otros necesitan a la FAO porque son hambrientos, y éstos necesitan a la FAO porque tienen demasiado y quieren incrementar su capital. Para los dos es util la FAO, para los dos grupos, y por eso no podemos prescindir de ella, pero para eso no es necesario desmantelarla. Para eso no es necesario que hoy le quitemos el PMA y mañana le quitemos otro proyecto, y otro día le quitemos el otro. Dejemos a la FAO integralmente constituida, porque es de esa manera como puede hacerlo. Cualquiera de esos programas nace en el Trabajo de Campo, nace, continua y se desarrolla en la Cooperación Técnica, pero no es posible que la Cooperación Técnica y Trabajo de Campo trabajen para que luego otra organización asuma la responsabilidad del desarrollo de los programas, porque sería realmente desvalijar a la FAO. Por eso no estamos de acuerdo con estos planteamientos que han hecho los representantes que me han antecedido en el uso de la palabra con estos criterios.

Nosotros vamos a apoyar las prioridades establecidas en el documento, especialmente vamos a apoyar la idea y el propósito del desarrollo sostenido, pero del desarrollo sostenido hasta donde sea posible hacerlo. Este es el desarrollo que ahora se llama soetenible, pero que hace 30 años en mi país se hablaba de desarrollo sostenido, y era la expresión con que lo ambicionamos a poner en práctica. Pero cuando hablamos de desarrollo sostenido, no es que nosotros le vamos a fijar un nivel: hasta aquí nada más les ayudamos. Vamos a hablar de los campesinos, de los llamados conuqueros, que van desforestando los bosques de la región tropical, porque ellos no pueden encontrar tierra donde sembrar. Naturalmente, ése desarrollo sostenido lo apoyamos los países en desarrollo, porque es necesario que estas gentes tengan tierras que sembrar. Pero el otro lado, que hoy y ahora se está preocupando por el bosque tropical. Ahora después de que durante tantos años, prácticamente despojaron a la corteza terrestre de casi todos los bosques, ahora estamos preocupados por el desarrollo sostenido y por la conservación de los bosques tropicales, porque ahora nos da mucho miedo que nos vayamos a quedar sin el ozono y nos vamos a quedar sin el oxígeno, pero nosotros necesitamos el desarrollo sostenido para estas personas que necesitan vivir, para estas personas que necesitan el sustento de cada día de sus hijos y de sus familiares. Por eso nos interesa el desarrollo soetenible.

También vamos a apoyar la prioridad sobre biotecnología, y eso podría yo decir que por razones obvias. Pero quiero explicar porque: debemos apoyar, sí, la prioridad sobre biotecnología, con cautela, porque ya hay países en el mundo, que no quiero nombrar, que ya experimentaron lo que significó la biotecnología cuando les cayó la gran novedad de la revolución verde. Nosotros sabemos lo que significó la revolución verde en Africa, en Asia principalmente. No fue realmente una bendición del cielo. Parecía que iba a ser la solución de todos sus problemas, pero sabemos bien que de las múltiples y numerosas variedades de arroz que existían silvestres en la India se redujeron a muy pocas, porque solamente ellas pudieron ser desarrolladas con la revolución verde. Y asimismo nos va a pasar con los países que todavía no han llegado a la plena desforestación de sus bosques, en donde todavía tenemos algunas plantas y recursos silvestres. Si no ponemos atención a lo que la FAO está luchando con este compromiso de los recursos fitogenéticos, podemos quedar también desprovistos de nuestros recursos fitogenéticos y de los zoogenéticos, por lo cual apoyamos el otro día la posición del Perú. Porque por ese camino, según los compromisos bilaterales, han sido desposeídos muchos países de importantes recursos, hoy totalmente exhaustos. Por eso la biotecnología es un arma de dos filos y tenemos que usarla y aceptarla, pero estudiarla con mucha cautela a ver hasta dónde puede sernos beneficiosa y hasta dónde no.

Voy a terminar diciendo que vamos a dar nuestro apoyo a todo lo relativo al programa de la mujer en el desarrollo. Ha sido éste un leitmotiv de mis intervenciones aquí en la FAO desde años atrás y naturalmente hoy no puedo dejar de decir que estamos totalmente de acuerdo con que la mujer debe acceder a, no solamente ser entrenada para trabajar en el campo, sino que debe ser educada para


participar en las labores de su comunidad y para convertirse realmente en un líder capaz de educar a sus hijos y de educar a los otros miembros de la comunidad. Esta sería la manera de expresar nuestro apoyo y, por lo demás, voy a remitirme a los conceptos emitidos por el connotado Emabajador de Colombia, que ha dicho esta tarde uno de sus mejores discursos y por eso le aplaudimos, aunque lamentablemente no encontramos eco en quienes pensaban como yo. De manera que respaldamos la posición de Colombia, pensamos que efectivamente sas son razones ciertas y válidas para apoyar esto y termino-yo siempre para llevar la contraria-dando las gracias al Sr. Shah y al Embajador Bukhari por sus excelentes documentos, terminando finalmente por expresar nuestro total apoyo al documento del Director General de la FAO.

Antoine SAINTRAINT (Observateur de Belgique): Il est peut-être quelque peu outrecuidant pour un modeste observateur d'intervenir dans ce débat important mais, si je me permets de le faire, c'est pour deux raisons: tout d'abord parce que, lorsque j'en al l'occasion, j'aime exposer mon point de vue et ensuite parce que, si beaucoup de choses intéressantes ont été dites, je crois que tout n'a pas été dit.

En effet, depuis mon arrivée à Rome, il y a plus de deux ans, j'ai toujours été frappé par la dimension et l'ampleur des discussions concernant le budget de la FAO, budget qui se situe entre 500 et 600 millions de dollars E-U. et qui représente, pour deux ans, à peu près le montant du budget dont un pays comme la Belgique dispose dans le domaine de la coopération pour une période d'un an, ce qui veut dire que ce budget est quand même globalement un budget réduit; mais il a une caractéristique essentielle dont nous devons tenir compte, c'est que ce budget sert de moyen et de levier pour obtenir des ressources extrabudgétaires. Je crois que c'est là le point le plus important et qu'il faut donc l'examiner dans l'optique de la mobilisation de moyens beaucoup plus importants qui proviennent d'autres sources de financement: banques de développement, Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement, différents fonds fiduciaires dont des fonds bilatéraux.

C'est pour cela que, lorsqu'on parle de croissance zéro, on peut donner des définitions à l'infini de cette croissance zéro. Pour moi, cette croissance zéro, dans un monde en pleine évolution, c'est essayer de réduire au maximum les frais administratifs inutiles pour consacrer un maximum de moyens, de façon efficace et utile, au tiers monde qui en a un pressant besoin. Alors, cette notion de croissance zéro doit quand même être mise au regard d'un autre engagement pris par un certain nombre de pays développés, qui est l'engagement d'atteindre-et l'on en parle depuis plus de dix ans-le niveau de 0,7 pour cent du produit national brut. Un certain nombre de pays-nombre, hélas, trop limité-ont atteint cet objectif mais bon nombre d'autres pays sont loin de l'avoir atteint. Si l'on parvenait déjà à remplir ce modeste engagement, on ferait plus que doubler les moyens financiers dont on dispose à l'heure actuelle. Or tout le monde est d'accord sur la priorité à réserver à l'agriculture et au développement rural.

Je crois donc que cette notion de réduction ou de croissance zéro doit être examinée de manière globale et qu'il faut savoir, dans le cadre de la famille des Nations Unies, quels sont les postes essentiels et prioritaires: agriculture, santé et un certain nombre d'organisations qui doivent recevoir notre attention spéciale. Il y a peut-être certaines branches qui se sont développées et qui peuvent présenter accessoirement un intérêt touristique ou autre mais qui pourraient éventuellement être quelque peu réduites. Je ne suis pas sûr que toutes les organisations internationales doivent recevoir la même priorité.

En tout cas, de l'ensemble du débat tel qu'il s'est déroulé, j'ai la conviction profonde que tous les participants sont bien d'accord sur la priorité à accorder à la FAO, qui est un instrument absolument indispensable. On discute beaucoup des objectifs, des priorités-des "priorités prioritaires", des "priorités non prioritaires"-, de la possibilité de renoncer à certaines activités ou éventuellement de les privatiser; mais je crois que l'optique et la philosophie d'action à adopter devraient pouvoir s'examiner dans un programme à moyen terme qui serait normalement un programme d'une dizaine d'années.

A la veille du troisième millénaire, nous avons un objectif: nous pourrions peut-être définir les grandes lignes d'un programme pour la FAO pour les dix ans à venir, de 1990 à l'an 2 000, et intégrer les cinq budgets qui vont suivre pour les bienniums qui vont s'écouler pendant ces dix ans. Cela permettrait peut-être de ne pas remettre en cause un certain nombre d'objectifs fondamentaux. Encore faudrait-il parfois savoir préciser clairement de quoi il s'agit.


Je croie aussi, et cela me paraît particulièrement significatif, qu'il serait extrêmement important, pour la sécurité du travail de la FÂO et pour une certaine forme de garantie pour le personnel de qualité qui doit assumer sa tâche au sein de cet Organisme, de disposer pour les années qui viennent de ce que j'appellerai une sorte de planification des versements des contributions.

Un certain nombre de pays ont cette année et l'an dernier fait un effort pour accélérer leur procédure de versement. Est-ce que cet effort, dans le cadre d'un développement durable, ne pourrait pas être maintenu pour les dix ans qui viennent? Est-ce qu'il ne serait pas possible de prévoir une programmation des versements qui permettrait une politique de trésorerie á moyen et à long terme, sans devoir être perpétuellement confrontés à une série de problèmes immédiats?

Un autre point que je voulais aborder parmi beaucoup d'autres parce qu'il me paraît très imporant, est la nécessité pour l'administration de la FAO de disposer de ce que j'appellerai un corps de budget suffisant. J'ai un peu peur-et nous en sommes tous coupables, mon pays également-de voir que progressivement certaines activités importantes ou essentielles de la FAO, qui tiennent à la structure même de l'Organisation, sont financées par des fonds fiduciaires et ne relèvent pas directement du caractère international que la FAO doit continuer à garder. Il y a incontestablement un danger á voir certaines activités de la FAO financées par des fonds fiduciaires et non par le budget de la FAO. Il serait intéressant qu'un jour nous puissions avoir une plus ample discussion sur ce point ainsi que le relevé des postes et activités qui sont actuellement financées par des fonds fiduciaires. Mon pays, par exemple, finance le secteur de la météorologie. Plutôt que de développer cette tendance, il serait souhaitable que la FAO puisse assumer par son budget propre tous ces services essentiels.

On a parlé du rôle de catalyseur, et on a parlé assez bien d'ailleurs du PCT que nous avons toujours défendu. Le PCT n'a pas de répercussion immédiate dans ses prolongements sur le budget ordinaire puisqu'il vise essentiellement à stimuler des investissements et des sources de financement autres que les sources de financement du budget de la FAO. Cela me paraît essentiel. Mais dans tout ce qui a été déjà dit, 11 y a une chose qui n'a pas été soulignée peut-être suffisamment, c'est que le PCT devait répondre à des interpellations urgentes, á des besoins des pays. Un certain nombre de pays se trouvent confrontés à des problèmes angoissants et ils sont en droit de demander à la FAO d'apporter une première réponse en préparant des projets qui peuvent être financés par d'autres sources. Si cette phase de préparation des projets ne se réalise pas, un certain nombre de projets ne verront jamais le jour. C'est pourquoi ce Programme de coopération technique est essentiel. J'en entends parler depuis très longtemps. Je me souviens qu'à une réunion de notre groupe, j'avais proposé, avec l'accord du Directeur général, que les fonctionnaires chargés du PCT fassent un exposé sur le fonctionnement de ce Programme. Cette proposition est restée sans écho et la réunion avec les fonctionnaires du PCT n'a jamais eu lieu. Je me demande parfois si on a la volonté de transparence, la volonté de voir clairement des problèmes qui pour moi n'en sont pas.

Je crois également-et sur ce plan nous avons tous une fonction importante à remplir-que la FAO doit pouvoir se situer dans ses différents rôles. Madame l'Ambassadeur du Venezuela l'a expliqué de manière très claire. La FAO a trois fonctions essentielles: la fonction d'information et statistique, la fonction d'analyse que tout le monde considère comme irremplacable, mais également la fonction d'opération sur le terrain où on laisserait la libre compétition aux différents organismes·

Or, je sais que M. Bonte-Friedheim est d'accord, la fonction d'information, la fonction d'analyse ne se conçoivent pas sans les opérations sur le terrain, sans une alimentation permanente de l'information et de l'analyse par l'expérience qui se réalise dans le concret tous les jours avec ses qualités, ses défauts, ses échecs qui sont inévitables. Il y a des leçons à tirer des échecs et se baser sur un certain nombre de projets non réussis ne sert à rien dans la mesure où on ne tire pas les leçons de l'échec. Sur ce plan-là, il y a incontestablement un vaste travail à faire.

Il ne peut être question de renoncer à certaines activités sans savoir à quoi on renonce. Nous tous avons un rôle à jouer non seulement dans cette enceinte mais dans d'autres enceintes: les banques de développement, le Fonds international de développement agricole, le Conseil d'administration du Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement, pour que le rôle central opérationnel de la FAO soit clairement précisé et déterminé. En effet, ses autres fonctions ne sont que des fonctions subsidiaires qui doivent être réellement alimentées par sa fonction principale.

Monsieur l'Ambassadeur de Colombie a parlé tout à l'heure avec beaucoup de brio de l'âne. Cet àne ne se justifie que dans la mesure où il traîne des charrettes: c'est l'ensemble des programmes de développement dans l'ensemble des pays du tiers monde.

Comme observateur, je peux me déclarer heureux d'avoir assisté à l'ensemble de ces débats qui traduisent d'abord une volonté de confiance. Le budget est par essence un acte politique et un acte de confiance en ceux qui dirigent, sur le plan de l'exécutif, le destin de la FAO. Nous leur avons


fait confiance. Nous continuons â le faire. Nous sommes persuadés que tous ensemble nous pourrons améliorer une situation qui dans le passé a souvent présenté certaines lacunes.

Hermann REDL (Observer for Austria): Like previous speakers, I would like first of all to thank Dr. Shah and Ambassador Bukhari for their excellent introduction. I have listened very carefully to this extremely important discussion, and I shall try to avoid repetition-especially at this late hour.

Agriculture and the agricultural policy are faced with serious crises, the appearance of which varies in individual regions which may jeopardize the existence of many farmers. The situation is contradictory on a global level, just as within Europe. Reorientation of agricultural policy is of great importance, also beyond the borders of agriculture. Agricultural policy is at the same time an economic, regional, social, and environmental policy. Agriculture has to present its indirect performances and its new tasks for the entire society as completely as possible. From the viewpoint of Austrian agriculture, we say that FAO should make efforts to pave the way for a socially balanced agricultural policy, geared to the demand of economy and ecology.

Regarding our position: we have raised our voices during the sessions of COAG, COFO, and other committees. I personally, as a member of the Programme Committee, had a chance to present our position in a clear and precise way. It is not my intention now to repeat what was said there; here, I would only underline that we fully support the nine priority areas which in our opinion are well selected. We especially welcome the foreseen activities in the field of environment, policy advice, biotechnology, the role of women in agricultural development, and forestry-and here especially the activities of the Tropical Forestry Action Plan. We believe the training in agriculture and forestry is of the utmost importance.

As a representative for the European Region, it is a pleasure for me to support what has been said by Council members this morning concerning the improvement in cooperation between Rome and Geneva. We would be pleased if the activities of the European Commission for Food and Mouth Disease were mentioned in the Livestock chapter of the Programme of Work and Budget, because these activities are very important, not only for the European countries. We would welcome a larger contribution by WHO to the important activities of the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius.

We fully support FAO's research activities-but not in sub-programme 3.3.1. We believe that research should be carried out by the appropriate bodies of FAO.

In summing up, I would like to say that my country supports the proposed Summary Programme of Work and Budget, and we hope that consensus will be reached during the Conference in November this year.

C.B. HOUTMAN (Observer for the Netherlands): First of all we would like to thank Mr. Shah, as well as the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Ambassador Bukhari, for their introduction to this agenda item. Indeed, we have often requested emphasis on certain programme areas and the reflection of these in the Regular Programme. We are therefore pleased to note that nine priority areas are proposed to receive increased allocations. All nine areas are areas to which the Netherlands attach great importance. But as always, it seems that satisfaction does not necessarily mean that no remarks or wishes are to be made-and this time is no exception. We indeed have some remarks, additional wishes, and some questions.

Firstly, policy advice is one of the nine priority areas, thus allowing for increase in resource allocation. When looking at the various sub-headings it appears that only global strategy and policy Programme formulation-of a type such as the Agriculture Towards 2000 studies and the policy analysis and planning which was the basis for that-are having increases in resources, to a large extent as a result of reallocation in the same sub-programmes. Looking at the sub-programme on food security we see even a decrease of funds, whereas we think food security policy should be one of the cornerstones of policy advice.

Secondly, during COAG there was a general concern, which was expressed by our delegation as well, at the decrease of training activities in the developing countries as well as at Headquarters. The Council documents did not succeed in taking away this concern.

Thirdly, the priority setting for Women in Development is wholeheartedly supported by our delegation. On the other hand we felt a little uncomfortable when, during the COAG Report discussion, Mr. Dutia said that because of the emphasis on the Action Programme for Women in Development, the Action Programme for peoples' participation factually was "put in the fridge". In our opinion programmes on cooperatives and other agricultural institution-building especially require an integrated Women in Development component so that those two Action Plans should be taken up concurrently and sometimes even integrated.


Fourthly, we are happy with TFAP as a priority area and with the broad support this has received from Council members here.

Fifthly, as to those Regional Offices-who account for almost ten percent of the budget-we are disappointed with the same level of expenses. We acknowledge the regional efforts for fisheries and forestry, but for many agricultural activities we would wish to have these activities decreased. From the savings effected by this, activities at the country level could then be increased. Even sub regional activities concentrated in an extended country office look more effective than activities carried out from a regional office. Thus, decrease of activities of regional offices is not meant for budgetary savings. We see this as just a reallocation of funds from regional offices to country offices.

Sixthly, we consider the TCP Programme still important. With almost 13 percent of the budget, it covers just over two pages in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. Is this a sign of transparency or just the opposite? We hear often that the objectives of the TCP are not questionable-but the way in which allocations are being made calls for questions. This is mainly because it is just not known how and on what bases TCP projects are approved-and we all know that things which are not exactly known are not loved. We could imagine that when in future, for instance as a result of the Review, a Field Programme Committee will be established, TCP matters could also be discussed in such a committee. This takes away all uncertainties and so-called "lack of transparency"; it could even lead to an acceptance of a higher proportion of TCP in the Regular Budget. But until such a situation exists we think that the present level of TCP is sufficient for emergencies, as the Belgian Ambassador has said (for instance the response to the screw-worm fly in Libya) and for bridging purposes.

Seventhly, we have spoken a great deal about more resources, but we missed phasing out of activities which are less needed because of actuality or because other organizations are better equipped to carry them out.

Such exercises should be done in a rolling-over medium-term planning process. We strongly advise the Secretariat to make arrangements for the establishment of such a process.

Also, occasional review of almost institutionalized and important joint activities could lead to a decrease in costs for FAO. Take, for example, the important work of the Codex Alimentarius, to which the delegate of Austria referred. In 1968, 21 years ago, the cost-sharing of 80% for FAO and 20% for WHO was established. Nowadays we know that emphasis is increasingly being placed on the health aspects of food and such happens also in the framework of the Codex. Would this not lead to a more equal distribution of the costs for both organizations?

Eightly, like the delegation of Kenya, we have always thought that the Investment Centre is a good working unit which deserves our support. We are surprised to see that 8 positions were abolished (5 D-ls and 3 P-4s). Is something wrong with the cooperation with the World Bank? We hope not. We hope that FAO and the World Bank will continue to cooperate on the same high professional level, and request FAO to do what it can to prolong this cooperation.

Finally, Mr. Shah said-and the Indian delegation has referred to this already-that an amount of nearly US$ 3 million was not included in the US$ 60 million cost increase. Is this US$ 3 million part of the US$ 5.5 million programme increase? It is not clear to us why this is not added to the US$ 60 million. We hope it is not an accounting magic solution-hiring consultants to compensate for the frozen posts.

We express the hope that we can all work together to adopt a budget based on the zero growth option in the Conference to come.

Evlogui BONEV (UNDP): Allow me at the outset to reiterate the importance my Organization attaches to the activities of FAO, regarding it as a close partner in our efforts to assist the developing countries in one of the top priority fields-that of agricultural development. FAO is a major executing agency of UNDP funded programmes and projects, and we follow with interest the programme of work of this Organization, as we consider it an important prerequisite for concerted coherence and well coordinated action for the benefit of those we serve.

We studied with attention the documents prepared by the Secretariat on this agenda item, as well as the relevant reports of the Programme and Finance Committees, and the excellent introduction by Mr. Shah. The spokesman of the two Committees, Mr. Bukhari, further illuminated this important issue. I should like to comment briefly on document CL 95/3 and more particularly on Part II-Field Programme of FAO, the latter being of direct relevance to UNDP/FAO cooperation.


In our view the programme priorities advocated by the Director-General of FAO in the document presented for your consideration merit the full attention of the Council. Generally, they are in line with the overall priorities of my Organization as well, and we are prepared to join efforts with FAO (within the limits of the mandate of UNDP, of course) to the extent that recipient governments assign priority to these programme areas, and to give our full support to the attainment of the objectives of the proposed programme of work.

The success of the programme will no doubt depend very much on the level of resources forthcoming during the biennium as was rightly pointed out by the Director-General.So far as UNDP resources are concerned, as you are well aware, Mr. Chairman, the past few consecutive years' pledging conferences proved a stable uptrend which we very much hope will be maintained by the world community, thus allowing full implementation of all country, regional and inter-regional programmes funded by UNDP during its present Fourth Programming Cycle.

Council may have noticed that the end of the UNDP Cycle coincides with the end of the biennium programme of FAO which is the subject of your consideration now. Mr. Chairman, you may recall that in anticipation of additional resources for the present cycle over and above the large amount initially established by the UNDP governing Council, the latter decided at its session last June to distribute an additional amount of US$ 600 million, at the same time making sure that it is advantageously benefitting the neediest countries and regions. A major portion of this additional allocation will no doubt go to the agricultural sector which, as Council will be well aware, rates as first priority in the majority of the countries' regional and inter-regional programmes. Evident proof of this trend is the record increase of 24% of UNDP funded and FAO executed projects reached in 1988 against the volume for 1987. UNDP participation in the operational activities of FAO during the last year represent 50% of the total FAO delivery, and is thus back to the level it used to be in the past This result compares even more significantly under the prevailing circumstances of advancement in applying new modalities in project implementation, such as the execution of government projects, the increased use of national project personnel and so on. I need not overstress that this increase has been the final result and expression of the priorities set by the recipient governments themselves, they being the only masters of their UNDP funds allocated through their IPFs.

Turning to the negative trends observed in the years 1982 to 1986, as mentioned in paragraph 2.7 of document CL 95/3, it should be recalled that the Third UNDP Programming Cycle, falling exactly in this same period, suffered a serious setback in resources, imposing an across-the-board decrease of all country, regional and inter-regional IPFs by 45%. Thus, most of the executing agencies of UNDP suffered a similar decline. On the contrary, the present cycle tends to be promising in respect of resources and we hope the forthcoming Fifth Cycle will continue the same trend. Hence, all partners of the tripartite partnership, recipient governments, executing agencies and UNDP should be well in advance in preparing the meet the challenges.

For your information, the Administrator of UNDP has presented at the current 36th Session of the Governing Council in New York his first report on the preparation of the Fifth UNDP Programming Cycle. The preparatory process will continue through this year and the final decision is expected at the 37th Session of the Governing Council in June 1990 in Geneva.

In his Opening Statement to the current 36th Session of the Governing Council, the Administrator of UNDP said, and I quote:

"Our report on the future role of UNDP proposed closer association with the specialized agencies in the programming of UNDP assistance to a country. Our ultimate goal is that all projects will be executed by governments themselves, but we shall continue to ensure that the experience and expertise of the agencies are utilized in the monitoring, implementation and selection of project components Innovation and the creativity of the specialized agencies will be encouraged through the possibility of linking project formulation and implementation Increased use of specialized agencies is also foreseen for Information projects, related advisory services for Information and consultancy networks and for research and analysis of technical cooperation issues. For all of these, enhanced understanding of the capacities, potentials and new roles of specialized agencies is needed."

We ask FAO to participate actively in the preparation of the Fifth Programming Cycle by assisting governments of developing countries to assess their needs and formulate their requests for technical assistance in the agricultural sector, thereby ensuring that the latter receives due priority. Closer cooperation of the FAO Representatives with the UNDP Regional Representatives in the field is of paramount importance in this respect.

Regarding the issue of support costs reflected in paragraphs 2.16 to 2.20 of the document, we are pleased to note the useful Information provided by the Secretariat on the state of affairs. Council may be aware that the governing Council of UNDP at its special session in February this year approved the terms of reference for the Expert Group and selected the individuals as members of the same as follows:


- Mr. William Eric Armstrong (Barbados),

- Mr. Christoph BerInger (Federal Republic of Germany) who is well known by most of the participants of this Council as a former Senior Officer of FAO,

- Mr. Abul Naal A. Muhif (Bangladesh), and

- Mr. Gerben Ringuaida (Netherlands).

All these distinguished experts are known for their extensive knowledge of development issues, whether on the side of the donor, the recipient or the U.N. agencies.

I wish to reiterate that the study scope of the so-called successor arrangements will not be limited merely to determining the percentage of agency support costs in future. The study will actually be a very broad and comprehensive study in which the Group is expected to consider a wide range of issues, including the role and functions of the partners in the tripartite arrangement; the capacity of the U.N. System to provide all the essential elements for technical cooperation; the proliferation of funding arrangements for technical assistance and alternative arrangements for support cost reimbursement, and so on.

The Expert Group commenced its work at UNDP headquarters at the beginning of April 1989. It is envisaged that its work programme for the next few months will include visits and discussions with several agency headquarters, selected field offices and member governments of the programme. No doubt FAO is among the first of the agencies to be consulted. I should like to suggest that the FAO Secretariat take full advantage of this visit so that the views and concerns of the agency can be fully taken into account. The Expert Group is expected to present its report for the consideration of the UNDP governing Council at its next 37th Session in Geneva next year.

Finally, I would like to assure this Council that the views expressed during this meeting relating to UNDP/FAO cooperation, as well as the relevant parts from the reports of the Programme and Finance Committees, will be duly conveyed to my headquarters. We shall spare no effort in further strengthening cooperation between FAO and UNDP for the benefit of the developing countries.

LE PRESIDENT: Nous avons terminé notre débat qui a été fructueux et important sur le point central des travaux de notre Conseil. Je suggère que, compte tenu de l'Importance de ce sujet, de la richesse des observations des délégués, la réponse du Secrétariat ait lieu demain matin afin que vous soyez en mesure d'avoir le temps de préparer les réponses circonstanciées pour un maximum de questions. Je me permets de donner â cette affaire l'Importance qui lui revient et si vous êtes d'accord, nous allons lever la séance. Nous nous retrouvons donc demain matin à 9 h 30 pour permettre au Secrétariat de répondre aux interventions des délégués.

The meeting rose at 18 hours.
La séance est levée â 18 heures.
Se levanta la sesión a las 18 horas.


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page