LE PRESIDENT: Nous reprenons nos travaux pour écouter la réponse du Secrétariat et ses éclaircissements sur le point 14 de l'ordre du jour.
Y.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The Secretariat-that is, my collegues and I-were ready to reply to the questions raised yesterday afternoon, but I very much respect the wisdom of the Council to seek these clarifications this morning because although we were ready to give replies, of course a certain time for reflection is very helpful to us. I hope that as a result, the replies will be more clear and more comprehensive. The debate was, as usual, not only extensive, but a very rich one. Firstly, on behalf of the Secretariat, I would like to respectfully express our thanks to the Council for the very serious consideration that it has given to the proposed Summary Programme of Work and Budget.
So many questions were raised that I had to try to put some order in formulating my responses. As an approach, what I propose to do is to deal with all questions that have been raised in clusters of subjects, rather than referring to individual delegations, because the same questions or questions concerning the same subject were very often raised by more than one delegation. I think this may be more expeditious also for the consideration of the Council. Then there were certain comments made which I interpret as part of the dialogue between the members of the Council, which is very much within the tradition of the Council, and this is a dialogue to which, of course, the Secretariat is very attentive and takes note, but it is a dialogue between the distinguished members themselves. So to those comments or expressions which were not precisely addressed to the Secretariat, I would not propose to reply.
Let me start then, first of all, with comments made regarding the document itself. On behalf of the Secretariat, all my colleagues both the ones who are here and the ones who are not here, I would like to express my very sincere thanks for the expressions of satisfaction expressed by the Council. Quite frankly, you will understand that it often gets discouraging to be told, "You are not clear. You are not transparent. You don't know what you are saying. You don't understand anything." Now the Secretariat does try, and I am very, very pleased to see that some satisfaction has been expressed over the improvements made in this document. Certainly, in some cases additional information has been requested to be provided in the full Programme of Work and Budget, and as I always say, we will, of course, do our best to see how we can provide it and provide as much as we can.
There was a precise question asked about the process, and let me be very clear. The debate on the value of the process involving the January meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees is entirely a matter for Member Nations, and I am not commenting on that, but a precise question was raised about the cost of the meeting in January. This meeting cost $ 65 000, and out of that $ 65 000 the cost of travel of the members of the Committees who attended the sessions was $ 28 920. The precise cost of the January meeting was $ 64 905.
Specific questions were asked about the relative importance of the increase proposed for the Forestry Department. Yes, certainly the table on the programme budget impact gives the facts as we have them. Let me say and draw attention to the fact that the programme change, the programme increase for Forestry at 3.1 percent is higher than for any other major programme. The fact is that the share of forestry in the total budget appears to remain at 4.3 percent. However, it needs to take into account the fact that the cost increases have not yet been added. So in the final Programme of Work and Budget you will see a change in the share of the major programme for Forestry in the total budget.
A number of questions were asked about posts, the posts which were frozen, the posts which are being filled and the policy of fixed-term and continuing contracts. Out of the 200 posts which were frozen as a part of the Programme cuts at the beginning of 1988, I can now report Mr Chairman that some 155 posts are being filled. The remainder are not being filled for a specific reason, and that is that we have to consider which posts are going to be abolished in the next blennlum,and therefore where a post is vacant, of course we do not proceed to fill it.
As regards the policy regarding fixed-term and continuing contracts, there is a very very definite policy, an established policy, that any new staff member recruited gets a fixed-term contract, and that fixed-term contract has a maximum of three years, which is then again, if renewed, extended
usually by another three years, but even that does not qualify for an automatic granting of a permanent appointment. So there is a very great deal of caution observed in the granting of permanent appointments.
In terms of the posts, I think it might be interesting to recall that if you look at the Programme of Work and Budget for the present biennium, and there is a table in the last Annex, Annex C, Appendix B, that gives the codification of all Regular Programme posts, and all poets under Other Funds, support costs and so on. From this table Mr. Chairman, you will see that out of the total number of professional posts under all funds 1,568, the posts which are continuing are 392.
An appeal was made about the restoration of publications which were considered of great value by Member Nations. Now here I think I can only give an assurance that in the formulation of the next Programme of Work and Budget and in the review of all the publications which we have in the current Programme of Work and Budget, maximum effort has been made to restore the publications which had to be suspended and I refer, for example, to the publications suspended like CERES, the Food and Nutrition Bulletin, Unasylva and the World Animal Review. In the case of other publications these are being reviewed for their technical justification but I think Member Nations will be pleased to see that the substance of the support that they expect from FAO publications they will see in the full Programme of Work and Budget and, Mr Chairman, you will recall in the full Programme of Work and Budget we have a supplement which lists all the main publications and documents, so you will be able to see them for yourselves in November.
There were some comments made about the changes in resources for regional offices, and I take the point that the last table given in the document before you gives the provision for regional offices for the next biennium but not for this biennium. Of course in the full Programme of Work and Budget you will see the allocation of both biennia, but there is no increase proposed in the provision for the regional offices.
A specific question was asked about a study to be conducted by the Joint Division with the UN Economic Commission for Europe, with regard to forestry. My colleagues tell me that this is the timber trends study which includes policy analysis and non-wood products and will cover a period of four years.
A specific question was asked about TCP projects approved, over a value of $250,000. The document referred to two. You will recall that the increase in the maximum size of the TCP projects was approved by the Council at its session in November 1985, its 88th Session if I am correct. Since that time only two projects of over 250,000 have been approved. One was a project of $310,000 for China for emergency assistance to combat forest fires, and the second was a project up to the maximum amount, that is to say up to $400,000, for the desert locust emergency in the countries of North Africa.
Let me now turn, if I may, to some of the broader comments on which clarifications were requested. Firstly the priority areas. It has been very encouraging for us to see the wide support for the nine priority areas which have been proposed to receive additional resources, and I wish to assure those distinguished delegates who had concerns about these nine priorities being listed in any order of priority that that is not so. If any correlation may be looked for, I think you will find that correlation between the mention of specific fields and the Programme structure itself. So there is no order of priority in those priority areas.
These priority areas were not chosen at random or ad hoc. These priority areas were chosen because they respond to the concerns and the priority needs that have been expressed by you, the Member Nations, in all the various fora, and I take the fora of the Council, the Programme Committee, the Regional Conferences, the technical committees, the whole range.
A specific question was asked: how are the recommendations of the Regional Conferences taken into account? There is in fact a Conference Resolution dating back from many years which established a clear procedure for this which we are obliged to follow, and that is that at the November session of the Council in the first year of the biennium, we report to you on all the recommendations made by the Regional Conferences. You will recall this from your last session; there was an Information Document on the subject. And then at the Conference we submit another document which indicates what has been the response on all these recommendations, and specifically on each recommendation whether it was possible or not for the Director-General to respond to it, to take it into account in the formulation of his Programme of Work and Budget proposals.
I think the Council has very rightly seen that these priority areas cut across sectors. It is not a question of looking at an element or a sub-programme or even a programme. You have seen this very clearly, and as you have requested, we will do our best to give you the information which we have volunteered in the Summary, that in the full Programme of Work and Budget we give you in the most meaningful way possible, Information on these cross-sectoral priorities. But in view of the amount of discussion on policy advice, permit me to take a few minutes to give this to you as an example.
It has been noted that in the Programme 2.1.8, which is under the Major Programme Agriculture, and the title of which is Food and Agricultural Policy, there is a reduction. It seems paradoxical. In fact the reduction under that Programme is only due to the fact that there were certain major activities like the regional study for Latin America and the Caribbean, and the regional study for Europe which were undertaken and have been completed, and so naturally we have to show a reduction for those studies and the costs incurred. But if you want to look at what the range of policy advisory work covers let me say this. Firstly we have to be very clear about the definition. I do not want to include in my comments the kitchen sink and the rest. We do not want to pretend that everything is policy advisory work so it is very important to be clear about the definition, and the definition which I would propose to use is that these are activities which have a direct bearing on the decision-making processes of member countries in arriving at alternative development options and strategies.
Now such policy and planning work covers three main categories. It covers the comprehensive global policy studies and strategies. Secondly it covers the regional and sub-regional policy studies and strategies, and thirdly it covers policy advice and planning assistance at the country level. To give you some examples in the comprehensive policy studies-Agriculture: Towards 2000 and its updating, the agriculture price policy studies, the work on International agricultural adjustment-these studies have long-term policy perspective and guidance. Then there are global sector-still at the global level-sector and sub-sector strategies, whether on rural development, on the TFAP, on the fisheries Programmes of Action, on commodity trade policies and strategies, on pesticides, on conservation, on land use planning and on mechanization. Then there are development methodologies again which are global for policy analysis and planning such as the agricultural and population planning assistance.
The regional studies: I have mentioned some of them, and you are well acquainted with them. And thirdly there is policy advice at the country level, and I think this is one of the aspects which is becoming of most interest to Member Nations, certainly in the debates that we have heard.
Now this policy advice and planning assistance at the country level includes-and I give as examples-sectoral policy advice and planning assistance to individual countries, and we have recently done work for Tanzania and Malta; assistance in relation to structural and sectoral adjustment programmes-examples assistance to Indonesia and Senegal; sub-sector studies and plans-assistance to Guyana, Pakistan, Viet Nam in agricultural research planning; to Ecuador and Tanzania in dairy development; to Indonesia in fisheries policy; to Fiji in a forestry sector review, also to Honduras and Papua New Guinea; and on fertilizer strategies to Pakistan, Ethiopia and Tanzania.
I do not want to take too much time. There are many such examples that I can give, and I am pleased to assure you will be given them in full detail in the next Review of the Regular Programme. In the next review of the Regular Programme which will be submitted to the Programme and Finance Committees in September, to you in November and then to the Conference, there is a special chapter on this very subject reviewing FAO's policy and planning support.
In terms of Regular Programme resources for this cross sectoral work over the last three biennla, that is to say, including the present, we estimate a total of over US$ 81 million. Of the US$ 81 million, US$ 66 million is in the agricultural sector, US$ 9 million in fisheries, and the balance for forestry. In terms of identifiable outputs this work has represented some 1 085 advisory missions, 309 meetings and consultations, 200 training activities, and 611 publications. The work cuts across programmes, and I felt that it was relevant at this time in response to some of the comments that have been made about policy advice and cross sectoral priorities to give this as an indication.
This brings me to the point about cost increases. Certainly this is a matter that is very precise and I would like also to be very precise in my replies.
The Council has the assurance that cost increases proposed in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget were reviewed by the Finance Committee. In this connection I was a little surprised that among those members who raised questions were included one, if not more, Members of the Finance Committee. Certainly the Secretariat tries very hard to give every assurance that the Members of that Committee have the opportunity to have the information they seek. Certainly, as reported by the Chairman of the Finance Committee, this matter was discussed to the satisfaction of the Finance Committee. However, let me deal with the specific questions raised.
Firstly, there was a request that more information be provided in the Full Programme of Work and Budget. That is no problem. I want to assure you that in the Full Programme of Work and Budget you will have more information as you have asked for and which we always try to provide.
There was some suggestion that these figures have been developed off-the-cuff, that they are not reliable. With all respect, I hope I can dispel such feelings if there are any left because we have tried to do this as professionally and carefully as possible.
More Information was requested on the subject of post adjustments and the increases that are shown in the document in the table which appears, Forecast Increases. The cost increases for post adjustments give a base of US$ 27 074 000. They indicated a bienniallzation cost of US$ 12 760 000 and the inflation cost, that is, the additional cost for the next biennium, of US$ 8 068 000. These were considered rather high; they are high, but they are the facts.
The present budgetary provision in the Programme of Work and Budget 1988-89, of US$ 27 million. Based on the lire/dollar rate approved at the Conference of 1 235 to the dollar, this gave us a Headquarters post adjustment class of 8 in January 1988, with two additional poet adjustment classes occurring in July 1988 and 1989. The actual situation was that the post adjustment at January 1988, at the beginning of the biennium, was class 9, so already the Programme of Work and Budget provision was insufficient. A further class became payable as from August 1988, and then multiplier points came into effect in 1989.
There were also modifications to the post adjustment introduced following the finalization of the Programme of Work and Budget, which the Conference approved, and which were therefore unbudgeted. These were changes in the formula for the calculation of the Remuneration Correction Factor, the adjustment reducing the lower limit on the multiplier from minus 20 to minus 5, and changes in the out-of-area price progression factor, with a formula having a faster impact on the post adjustment. The bienniallzation of these changes came to the figure of US$ 12 760 000 which I mentioned.
The same thing on the General Service salaries. The Programme of Work and Budget 1988-89 was prepared assuming salary increases of between 4 percent and 5 percent occurring in February 1987, February 1988 and February 1989. Actual increases occurred in February 1987, and then in August 1987.
The latter increase was announced only in November 1987. Thus it was too late to include them in the Programme of Work and Budget. While the year started with a higher salary level than budgeted for, a further adjustment of 4.28 percent was approved in June 1988, and a further one in June 1989. The compounded effect of this General Service salary increase, which has an effect also on all the allowances which are based on the basic salary, such as the language allowance and non-resident allowance, result in a bienniallzation cost of US$ 2 778 000 which is the figure that appears in the document before you. I give these examples to show that these things are developed very carefully, are reported to the Finance Committee, as the Finance Committee receives at each session a document on the changes in Professional and General Service salaries, the impact of all these changes and the dollar value of the impact, and has the opportunity to ask questions for clarification from my colleagues, Mr Crowther and Mr Bel Hadj Amor.
Have we proceeded in free flight as regards the next biennium? I am afraid not, because the impact is very real. I am not afraid to say what I have to say because they are facts which I hope to provide and to substantiate.
To give you the facts, the inadequacy of the budgetary provision for these staff costs was already felt in 1988. At least one Member of the Council implied that these things need to be looked at carefully and that we must make sure that there are funds and controls, and external auditors looking into this. Our normal process allows all of this. We provide a budgetary performance report to the Finance Committee. This budgetary performance report is attached to the report of the Finance Committee which comes to you. So the figures that I indicate are in that report.
The budgetary performance report for 1988 showed a negative staff cost variance of US$ 8 258 000. In simple terms this means that the costs were higher than the budgeted cost. Was this figure just taken out of the blue? No, this figure has been examined and monitored in relation to every component of staff salaries. The basic salary, non-resident allowance, and the language allowance-the last two apply only to the General Service-showed a negative variance for the Professional staff of US$ 404 000, General Service US$ 795 000. The post adjustment, which applies only to the Professionals, showed a negative variance of US$ 4 770 480. The health and medical insurance: for Professional staff a negative variance of US$ 403 000 and for General Service, US$ 372 000. All of these are facts, and the facts came to a negative variance of the US$ 8 million for 1988.
Α similar analysis has been done for 1989, and this has been monitored month by month. This is the basis for the kind of estimates we make.
A specific question was asked with regard to the post adjustment increases, as to whether this is only for the future posts, the posts proposed, or is it for the posts that are actually filled. I must be very clear. The monitoring of the costs is related to the actual posts filled in relation to the budgetary provision for the posts authorized. For the next biennium we have to take the
posts that are proposed; that will be the established posts. And let me recall that the entire cost of the posts proposed is not provided for. The full cost of the posts proposed is not provided for because we make a reduction of 5.5 percent for the lapse factor. This lapse factor, as I have often said, is among the highest in the United Nations system, and as we discussed it with the Finance Committee at its last session I can confirm that I looked into the situation in most comparable agencies and ve are the highest.
Then there was a specific question referring to the multiplier points that vere indicated on page 23 of the English text where ve said that in making our estimates ve estimated the cost equivalent of class 11 at January 1990, class 12 at January 1991 and class 13 in December 1991. The question was whether this will change in the full Programme of Work and Budget. Yes, very definitely, because these cost estimates vere made at the time the Summary Programme of Work and Budget was prepared. We have assured the Finance Committee that ve will review them. We do review them, and in the full Programme of Work and Budget I think you will see some changes. I believe there is no apology that I need make for it. These are facts, and ve come to you very honestly.
I hope I have thus replied to most, if not all, of the questions on the cost increases, at least on the gist of the questions that vere raised. Let me say that ve are not alone with the fact that the cost increase provision has to be high for the next blennium. The United Nations itself has had to consider a proposal from the Secretary General for a cost increase provision of the same order of magnitude, 12.2 percent. If these cost increase provisions are high, then let us look at the cost increase provisions that vere made for 1988-89 as submitted in the document that vent to you and to the last Conference. We then made deductions; the Director-General reduced the cost increases for this blennlum from the amount of US$ 18 000 000, which he had originally proposed in the Summary, to US$ 13 000 000. He had made that US$ 5 million reduction.
You will recall also, if you look at that table, that wherever possible the biennialization costs were reduced to reflect the actual reality of the preceding biennium. I hope I have not belaboured the point, but I wanted to deal with this with all respect to those who raised the questions.
This leads me to a few final comments.
First of all, about taking into consideration the views of Member Nations. I have conveyed to you the assurance of the Director-General that we have noted this debate very carefully and that everything that has been said will be taken into consideration. But at the same time I do not want, in his name or on his behalf, to give any false illusions or false impressions. You will remember that it was in November of last year when the Director-General said that in all conscience he could not propose a negative budget in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. I am sure you will all remember that.
Having heard this debate, I should say that he has to see his duty; he has to see, not only what one, two or five Member Nations have said at this Council, but what all Member Nations have said at this Council, and he does intend to take into consideration what everyone has said. Therefore, at this stage I consider it imprudent of me to give any impression that the Director-General can find his way to presenting a negative budget or a budget with no increases. I would like to be very clear on that.
A number of questions and comments were addressed dealing with specific programme proposals and shifts in emphasis. Out of respect for the Council, and as a demonstration of the fact that in the preparation of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget we have all worked with the Director-General in its development, I think it much more suitable that Mr. Bonte Friedhelm gives an answer on this matter, as he can deal much more fully than I with the various points raised and respond to your queries·
C.H. BONTE-FRIKDHEIM (Assis tant Director-Ceneral, Agriculture Department): I would like to thank the Council for the debate during the last day and a half. The Council has raised a number of issues and questions which will, in some form or another, be taken into account-either answered now, or reflected in the full Programme of Work and Budget. It will be impossible for me to answer all the questions raised or to respond to all the comments that have been made. I do not think it is my responsibility to do this, because it was a debate among Council Members and not a debate with the Secretariat. However on behalf of all the technical departments I would like to make a very few general comments, and then on behalf of the Agriculture Department answer some specific questions.
The first point relates to the importance and relevance of sub-programmes and programme elements. Some delegates have indicated, directly or indirectly, that it is perhaps time to delete
sub-programmes or programme elements. To us in the Agriculture Department-and I think it is the same in other departments-the sub-programmes reflect a wide range of agriculture. If you look at our sub-programmes, in any good agricultural university you will get a degree in any of the sub-programmes identified in your Summary Programme of Work and Budget.
These sub-programmes hardly ever change. They cannot change, because they reflect agriculture. This time we have added one new Sub-programme, Sustaining Resource Potentials, and I shall come back to that later. Each of these sub-programmes has programme elements. In order to be more transparent and to give a clearer picture, I believe that in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget in front of you we have made more changes than ever before.
We have dropped some programme elements; we have renamed some programme elements; we have combined some programme elements; and we have added some new ones. This is so that those who read it may have a better picture of what is behind a programme element. These programme elements are still rather general, and we will need them in future as well. It is only in the full Programme of Work and Budget that you will find an indication, and not even a full indication or a full list, of the activities and the emphasis of each of these programme elements.
To make my point a little clearer, I would like to use one brief example. I would like to take programme element 2.1.3, Livestock. This has six technical sub-programmes: grassland, forage and feed resources; animal health; genetic resources; dairy development; meat development; and livestock production. Those are the six sub-programmes under the Programme Livestock. Three of those sub-programmes have received increases proposed in the Programme of Work and Budget proposed in the next biennium, and three have received decreases.
If you look at the Sub-programme Animal Health, it has five programme elements. The first is Veterinary Services Development, which is institution-building. The second is Control of Infectious Diseases. The third is Control of Parasitic Diseases. The fourth is Control of Tsetse/Trypanosomiasis. And the fifth is Application of Biotechnology and Animal Health. I would like to know how this Organization, with its mandate, can drop any of those programme elements. It is at Director-General level that we have a certain flexibility, and without that flexibility FAO could not have reacted in the way it did to the unfortunate screwworm infestation in North Africa. As I said, elimination of any of these programme elements as suggested by some would certainly threaten the global technical responsibilities of your organization.
My second general point refers to sustainability. Under the general heading of Sustainable, Sustainability (a word which I understand is very difficult to translate into French) and Sustained, I would like to cover three subjects.
Mention was made a few times in this Council of the Resolution on Sustainable Agriculture. The Resolution in this text refers to the responsibility of agriculture policies:
"-soil degradation, deforestation, desertification:
-loss of land productivity, soil and water pollution and hazards to human health caused by excessive use of agricultural chemicals:
-salinization due to inappropriate irrigation:
-genetic erosion and increased vulnerability of crops to disease and pests due in part to the use of high-yielding varieties."
The Resolution recommends a meeting to prepare for the foreseen UN Conference 1992-Environment Development. This meeting which the Resolution proposes should do three things. It should review the mechaniems for integrating agricultural production and environmental policies worldwide. It should elaborate a World Strategy for Sustainable Agriculture to guide agricultural policies at national and International levels in order to ensure that such policies encourage farmers to adopt practices which are ecologically sustainable. It should also formulate recommendations on the practical action that might be taken by International organizations concerned and in promoting sustainable agriculture.
This Resolution from which I have quoted on Sustainable Agriculture is not a FAO resolution and in its text it notes only FAO's work in Europe on integration of agricultural and environmental policies but it recommends a joint UNEP/FAO meeting and requests that the FAO Director-General be informed of the Resolution so that Council and Conference can consider the Resolution. This official notification has not yet been received, because the meeting was only last month. The meeting that this Resolution asked to be held is not foreseen in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. There is no indication of the costs of this meeting, of how many participants there will be, how many languages, how many days it will last, or where it should be held. If you take this Resolution seriously-and it is a serious Resolution because we totally support its basic emphasis-the work that will be required under this Resolution will be substantial, and I do not know from where and how the funds will be forthcoming if we wish to have a meeting as foreseen by that UNEP Resolution.
Turning to my second point on unsustainable development: unsustainable development is due to three things-to the need for survival by the poor; to the use of inappropriate technologies or lack of technologies; and to the greed of the rich.
Since its early days, FAO has worked to help the poor and especially to find appropriate technologies. Sometimes these technologies did not exist. Sometimes they became inappropriate because of growing pressure of population on land, or movement into marginal areas of land. And sometimes these technologies were just imported from other areas, climatic zones, or soil types, without being adapted to those regions.
The work on sustainable development has been part of most-I dare say of all-the sub-programmes and programme elements of the Agriculture Department, and also of other technical departments in this Organization.
Many delegates stressed the need for sustainability issues to be taken into account in activities of all sub-programmes. Let me assure you again that this is indeed the case, as evidenced by the seven-page list of selective FAO activities related to sustalnabillty, which we attached to the Report to the last Council, a report entitled Report on FAO's Policy Programme and Budget Related to Sustainable Agricultural Development.
If I may turn now to the new sub-programme: the objective of the new Sub-programme 184.108.40.206 Sustaining Resource Potentials is, as stated in paragraph 4.8 of the proposals, to provide a conceptual link for these activities in other sub-programmes, as well as to provide for specific work in areas where FAO has considerable advantage in comparison with other organizations, and finally to undertake work which FAO must do.
The only really new programme element is Analysis of the impact of climatic changes on agriculture. This Organization feels that this is something to which we must make a contribution. Of the $ 560 000 funding proposed in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget only $ 360 000 is new funding, the remainder comes from reallocations from Sub-programmes, in this case 220.127.116.11, 18.104.22.168 and 22.214.171.124.
With reference to the comments on the new sub-programme, which was a specific question from the delegate of Canada, I would like to answer that this new sub-programme is not-and I repeat is not the organization-wide focal point on the environment. That response is assigned to Sub-programme 126.96.36.199 entitled Environment and Energy which also serves the Forestry Department and the Fisheries Department, and has a programme element in it. I quote the name again-Interagency Cooperation and Inter-departmental Coordination in the Environment. In FAO there is an active Inter-Departmental Working Group on Environment and Energy which has a sub-group on sustainable development.
My last point on sustainability is that in the last biennium the Organization has tried to highlight the needs of environmental concerns. In the next biennium we will be trying to focus more than ever before on sustainability issues. Our requests to donors for extra-budgetary resources for these activities unfortunately up to now have had very little positive response.
The next question I would like to answer deals with biotechnology. It has been said-and we agree-that there is no generally acceptable definition. The United States delegation added our total expenditure and arrived at a figure of about $ 4 million in the present biennium, and nearly $ 5 million for the next. This figure included over $ 3 million for the Joint Division, with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna dealing with the agricultural application of isotopes and biotechnology, so it is not purely isotopes and not purely biotechnology; the smaller part is biotechnology. We have added a programme element for molecular biology. This has been added to mainly through shifts of resources and only $ 60 000 of new funds. On biotechnology there will be only one new post in FAO, and that will be in the Plants Division. So the Secretariat has no doubt that FAO needs to assist developing countries in benefitting from biotechnologies, to be trained in these new technologies, to be informed of the developments in industries of other countries, and not to be the losers of science.
To those who say that maybe FAO should not be involved I would answer that there is an International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology dealing with agriculture, livestock and medicine. This International Centre is not under the auspices of WHO because of medicine; it is not under the auspices of FAO because of agriculture or livestock, it is under the auspices of UNIDO.
Questions have been raised here with regard to the cooperation of FAO with the CGIAR system, with the TAC Secretariat of ISNAR. I would like to repeat that FAO is a co-sponsor of the CGIAR system. FAO, is the host of the IBPGR, one of the CGIAR institutes. FAO hosts and pays for one-third of the costs of the TAC Secretariat.
The budget proposal in front of Council at the moment foresees an increase of $ 100 000 for the next biennium for the TAC Secretariat. Personally, I am worried whether that increase will be sufficient because of the CGIAR decision (a) to include forestry research and (b) possibly to include other so far non-associated centres. Therefore, I believe the cost of the TAC Secretariat in the next biennium will have to be increased significantly.
If we look at Sub-programme 188.8.131.52, we can see the shift. We can see some of the programme elements have been dropped because of the involvement of ISNAR in them. Here the question is asked, do we cooperate with ISNAR? My answer is clearly "yes we do cooperate with them on this one". Because we have been able, for example, to drop the review and analysis of agricultural research systems it will not be a programme element in the next biennium any more. In addition, FAO cooperates very well with ISNAR because the Organization is represented on the board of ISNAR.
One final word on the CGIAR system. This system supports one centre in Kenya-ICRAD. This centre deals with two important African animal diseases-theilerosis and trypanosomiasis. The annual budget of this centre in 1988 was about $ 11 million. For all animal health in the budget in front of Council at the moment there is a figure of between $ 2.5 million and $ 3 million for a world-wide mandate·
Questions have been asked about ECLO. This was established in 1986 as an emergency centre to carry out the additional work load created by grasshopper and locust invasion. It has been totally funded from extra-budgetary resources and in that respect I would express our sincere thanks for the substantial contributions received from various donors to the ECLO targets, especially from the Netherlands, the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France and the EEC. In addition to this money, other donors have made substantial contributions to the control campaigns, to whom I would like to express our thanks.
The cost increase identified in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91 is meant to cover one additional post under the Regular Programme to provide better services to member countries in migratory pest control. This person in particular will address improved forecasting and assistance to related field projects, and the post is fully in line with the Organization's responsibilities with reference to the desert locust, as in our Desert Locust Committee, including coordination of research. It is clearly understood in the Secretariat that ECLO is a temporary setup and will be phased out as soon as the emergency is over. I should note that the Regular Programme staff have been actively participating in the work of ECLO.
There was one other specific question on biological nitrogen fixation, and in particular the provision of assistance to various institutions in Latin America and Africa to produce their own rhizobium cultures. Agreements are established for these advisory services to be provided. This work is carried out in cooperation with UNEP and Unesco. In addition we are promoting the use of leguminous fodder crops and trees for grazing land improvement.
A question was raised about the improvement of grazing resources in arid and semi-arid regions. This is an area where progress so far has been relatively so slow, but we have an active programme in the Near East and North Africa for the introduction of new plant species and management techniques. The work is carried out partly through the establishment of Pilot Demonstration Areas which also provide the opportunity for field training. Under the same activity I mention our work on the introduction of drought resistant trees such as Prosopis which has been well received by countries both in Latin America and the Sahel.
I will go quickly through the other questions. There was a question on whether the FAO Secretariat will continue the International Fertilizer Scheme. Yes we will, but it will be amalgamated in an enlarged programme element dealing with efficiently integrated plant systems. We are grateful to the few donors who still provide fertilizers, but we are disappointed by the limited response to our call for input aid especially to Africa. The input study was a follow-up study on our major work in Africa in the next 25 years. We are convinced we will not be able to help the people in Africa if we cannot raise the fertilizer application on that continent.
The delegate of Australia asked specifically about Sub-programme 184.108.40.206, element 6. Our reply is briefly as follows. The element in the present biennium provided for activities to establish a system for the transfer and sharing of experience and knowledge on water development and management in agriculture. We did some preliminary work and had some meetings with a University in Italy, and proposals were put forward for such a system. Then we undertook an internal review of FAO, and examined the proposals and concluded that they were too broad in scope in the light of the financial situation of the Organization. However, the internal review did recognize the importance of technology transfer of proven irrigation development and management techniques, and recommended that initially activities should concentrate on the inventorising and evaluation of available technologies prior to any setting up of a system for dissemination. It was also felt that further
consideration should be given to different methods of dissemination including experience of our very successful CARIS/AGRIS networks. Concentration of initial activities on training technologies was also considered advisable.
As a result of this internal review, in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91, activities for the technology transfer system have been narrowed to allow initial concentration on the inventorising and evaluation of techniques.
The delegate of Colombia asked about UNDP. I would like to reply as follows. First, UNDP's share in the FAO field programme has increased; second, FAO's share in UNDP's programme has not changed noticeably-it is around 19%. It is lowest in the Latin American and Caribbean region. Third, posts-UNDP and FAO as well as other organizations of the UN System fully support new dimensions, wherever possible, sustaining national experts, institutions and government execution; fourth, of the UNDP central, mainly IPF, resources, FAO is the largest executing agency; government execution last year moved to place number three with the United Nations In fourth place, UNDP itself. Fifth, of all the resources, not only central resources but all resources, available to UNDP including IPF, UNDP-administered funds, trust funds, management services, OPS-their own service is the largest executing agent for themselves. Sixth, in the field of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, UNDP/OPS in 1988 delivered nearly $ 40 million worth of projects plus over $ 7.5 million in the field of natural resources. I do not know how much the agricultural share would be in science and technology or in general development issues, policy and planning.
Finally, with the UNDP support to the CGIAR system, FAO is practically excluded. It is going directly from UNDP to the CGIAR institutes. And in field projects where the CGIAR institutes are used as an implementing agency, it is also mostly done without FAO. Our major point-and I made this last time in front of Council-is that on those projects financed within the UN system which deal with agriculture, forestry and fisheries, FAO should get the project proposal or project document. FAO should get the progress report, and FAO should get the terminal report. And this we do not get, and this I think is something to do if we want to remain the world institution in the field of agriculture.
And finally, I would like to thank the delegate of Czechoslovakia for offering training facilities and cooperation with our Remote Sensing Centre. FAO is the recognized lead agency in remote-sensing activities. We will certainly look for the Instruments to benefit trainees from developing countries. He also noted-and since I had a discussion with the Programme Committee, let me say this-he also noted the need not to forget that there is in many countries a sector called large-scale farms and emerging farms which require assistance. In many countries governments subsidize heavily, directly or indirectly, these large-scale farms of emerging farms. We in FAO have a very small programme element on the subject, in farming systems development, and in spite of the overall importance this Organization gives and must give to the small farmer, FAO hopes that this very, very small programme element will also serve the sector of large-scale farms and emerging farms.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Bonte-Friedheim de ses explications très complètes sur les techniques et des réponses qu'il a données aux délégués.
Nous voici arrivés â la fin de l'examen de l'un des points les plus importants de notre Ordre du jour, à savoir l'analyse du Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget 1990-91 qui a été établi en application des nouvelles procédures d'utilisation adoptées â titre expérimental par notre Conseil et après analyse par les comités sectoriels (COFI ET COAG), le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier·
Je voudrais tout d'abord adresser mes remerciements les plus vifs â tous les délégués et observateurs qui ont bien voulu intervenir dans ce débat et enrichir la discussion par leurs contributions. J'ai noté, â cet égard, que le nombre d'intervenants a atteint le chiffre de 48, dont quatre observateurs, et que MM. les délégués et observateurs ont eu l'occasion dans ce débat de s'exprimer sans aucune limitation et sans aucune exclusive sur tous les points qui ont été soulevés.
Je voudrais remercier en votre nom le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier dont les analyses claires ont grandement facilité la tâche du Conseil et ont constitué une contribution utile et précieuse â nos travaux. Les remerciements du Conseil vont également au Secrétariat pour sa participation active et significative à nos discussions.
Je voudrais tout d'abord signaler que j'ai observé que le Conseil, par la voix de nombreux délégués, a souligné avec satisfaction les améliorations nouvelles apportées au contenu du Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget, améliorations qui se sont traduites, d'abord, par des détails et précisions plus fournies que par le passé puisque la confection du Programme de travail et budget a été réalisée au niveau des éléments de programme et, ensuite, par une claire hiérarchisation des
priorités qui sous-tendent l'élaboration de ce programme. A cet égard, j'ai été heureux de noter le consensus général sur les neuf domaines prioritaires indiquée sans que pour autant, comme l'a d'ailleurs affirmé le Secrétariat, l'ordre dénonciation de ces domaines prioritaires soit automatiquement l'ordre de priorité.
Par ailleurs, je pense qu'il n'est pas possible d'enumerer toutes les suggestions présentées individuellement en ce qui concerne les ajustements de programme et transferts de ressources; je suis persuadé que le Secrétariat les examinera avec toute l'attention qu'elles méritent.
En ce qui concerne le Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget, nous avons entendu des réactions différentes au Conseil sur le niveau du budget éventuel. La grande majorité des membres du Conseil a souligné qu'elle appuyait les propositions du Directeur général, même si l'augmentation proposée était modeste alors qu'elle aurait souhaité qu'elle puisse être plus importante. D'autres membres beaucoup moins nombreux, tout en exprimant l'appui de leur gouvernement aux programmes de l'Organisation et en reconnaissant qu'il importe de répondre aux demandes des Etats Membres, ont indiqué que leurs gouvernements se sentaient obligés d'appliquer une politique de croissance 0 des programmes et d'absorption maximale des accroissements de coûts. Enfin quelques délégués ont réservé leur position jusqu'à la Conférence.
A propos des augmentations de coûts, quelques opinions diverses ont été exprimées. Je voudrais indiquer que les estimations provisoires dans le Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget ont été examinées de façon fouillée par le Comité financier auquel j'ai eu le privilège d'assister. Il serait prématuré de tirer une conclusion définitive ce stade. En outre, le Secrétariat vient de nous donner des explications dans sa réponse et nous a assurée que des estimations encore plus affinées figureront dans le Programme de travail et budget définitif.
Compte tenu de toutes ces observations, j'estime que le Conseil dans sa très grande majorité vient d'appuyer les propositions du Directeur général en ce qui concerne le Programme de travail et budget pour le biennium 1990-91. Dans ces conditions le Conseil invite le Directeur général à préparer sur la base du Sommaire un Programme détaillé, le Programme de travail et Budget définitif, qui sera soumis à la Conférence et invite également le Directeur général à examiner les suggestions qui ont été faites â l'occasion des débats.
Je voudrais cependant, avant de terminer, émettre le voeu que la chaîne de consensus dont a parlé le Directeur général dans son discours introductif ne soit pas brisée et que Messieurs les eminents délégués mettront à profit le délai qui nous sépare de la 25ème session de la Conférence générale pour se faire les interprètes actifs de la FAO auprès de leur gouvernement en vue d'aboutir à une approbation par consensus du Programme de travail et budget de l'Organisation lors de la prochaine Conférence.
Je pense que nous avons épuisé le point 14 de notre Ordre du jour.
Il nous reste quelques minutes avant de lever la séance. Nous pouvons aborder le point suivant de l'Ordre du jour.
J. MAZOYER (Président du Comité du Programme): C'est un honneur pour mol d'être ici aujourd'hui pour présenter ce point de votre Ordre du jour.
Lors de sa 57ème session en mal, le Comité du programme s'est concentré sur l'examen du Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget 1990-91, dont le Conseil a déjà discuté ces derniers jours. Il me reste donc â ajouter que, comme d'habitude, le Comité a également examiné un certain nombre de rapports du Corps commun d'inspection des Nations Unies et que vous trouverez le compte-rendu de nos débate dans notre rapport.
Par ailleurs, avec l'aide de mon collègue l'Ambassadeur Bukhari, Président du Comité financier, je voudrais dire quelques mots de plue sur les progrès réalisés par les deux Comités en ce qui concerne l'Examen de la FAO qui a été confié aux deux Comités par la résolution 6/87.
Voue vous rappellerez, Monsieur le Président, que les deux Comités ont déjà fait rapport à la 94ème session du Conseil en novembre dernier sur l'état d'avancement de cet Examen. Encore une fois les comités, par courtoisie et par respect envers le Conseil, ont jugé opportun de tenir le Conseil au courant de l'évolution de leurs travaux.
Tout d'abord, les Comités se sont réunis en session conjointe spéciale à Rome, du 18 au 26 mal 1989· A cette occasion, ils ont examiné les rapports des deux groupes d'experts; l'un de ces rapports porte sur les objectifs, les rôles, les priorités et les stratégies de la FAO et l'autre sur les opérations de terrain de la FAO. Les deux Comitee ont également examiné le rapport dans lequel le Directeur général a présenté ses premières réactions aux recommandations des groupes d'experts sans préjuger de celles qui seront contenues dans le rapport qu'il soumettra à la Conférence.
Tout à l'heure mon collègue le Président du Comité financier vous dira quelques mots sur l'étude de la gestion de la FAO, qui a aussi fait l'objet d'un débat pendant la session conjointe spéciale.
En ce qui concerne maintenant les Rapports des Experts, pendant la session les membres des Comités ont posé de nombreuses questions aux rapporteurs des deux groupes d'experts ainsi qu'au Secrétariat et ils ont obtenu tous les éclaircissements qu'ils souhaitaient. Les Comités se sont sincèrement félicités de la précieuse contribution des deux groupes d'experts. Ils ont remercié les membres de ces deux groupes et ils leur ont donné quitus des travaux qu'ils leur avaient confiés.
Les membres des Comités ont exprimé toutes les vues qu'ils ont jugées opportunes sur les rapports ainsi que sur d'autres aspects de l'examen de la FAO. Les Comités ont toutefois reconnu qu'ils n'étalent pas en mesure, au cours de la session, d'établir leur rapport et de formuler leurs recommandations. Il leur faudra faire cela lors de leur quatrième session conjointe spéciale qui aura lieu à la fin de septembre 1989.
La question de la communication officielle des rapports des experts aux membres de l'Organisation a été soulevée et les Comités ont convenu en général qu'il serait prématuré de prendre une décision en la matière avant que la dernière main ne soit mise à leur propre rapport.
En ce qui concerne maintenant la préparation du rapport des deux Comités, pour tirer profit au maximum des débats de la session de mal et pour préparer la session de septembre, les deux comités ont été d'accord pour que pendant l'été un avant-projet de leur rapport au Conseil soit préparé par les Présidents des deux comités, c'est-à-dire M. Bukhari et moi-même, chacun se chargeant des questions débattues sous sa présidence. Cet avant-projet devra être terminé à la fin de juillet; il sera traduit dans toutes les langues officielles et communiqué à tous les membres des deux comités au plus tard à la fin du mois d'août.
Il a été prévu également un Groupe d'appui rédactionnel, composé des deux Présidents et de six membres des deux Comités. Ce Groupe se réunira dès que possible-fin août/début septembre 1989-pour cinq jours environ. Il examinera les avant-projets et préparera lui-même un document qui sera soumis aux deux Comités à leur quatrième session conjointe spéciale. Dans ce document seront identifiés les points de convergence, les questions qui doivent encore être débattues et les amendements possibles au rapport des deux Présidents.
Finalement, il incombera aux deux Comités, lors de la session de septembre, d'achever la tâche qui leur a été confiée en amendant et en adoptant leur propre rapport sur l'Examen.
Bien entendu, j'apprécie hautement l'honneur que m'ont fait les deux Comités en me confiant ce travail difficile et je les remercie vivement de leur confiance. Mais je ne me méprends pas du tout sur mon rôle. Je sais fort bien que l'Examen de la FAO aura été un travail collectif auquel auront collaboré les organes directeurs et consultatifs, les Etats Membres, le Secrétariat, les experts et maintenant les deux Comités.
Voilà, Monsieur le Président, ce qu'il m'a semblé essentiel de vous rapporter aujourd'hui à propos de cet examen, et je vous remercie de m'avoir accordé la parole à ce sujet.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Président du Comité du Programme de sa communication au sujet des travaux de la session conjointe de mai 1989 relative aux réformes et aux études d'organisation de la FAO.
A. Y. BUKHARI (Chairman, Finance Committee)(original language Arabic): I would like also to thank my colleague the Chairman of the Programme Committee, Professor Mazoyer, who gave the Council a clear-cut view of the joint meeting between the two Committees. Mr Mazoyer referred also to the experts' report and I would like to add to his remarks the following.
Αs for the review, the Committees also received the executive summaries of the consultants' reports on the FAO Management Review together with the related preliminary comments of the Director-General. The comments of the Director-General I repeat were preliminary. In addition copies of the full report as submitted in English, were made available to interested Members.
The Committees recalled that this review, the Management Review, was not specifically called for under Conference Resolution 6/87 and had been undertaken at the initiative of the Director-General. The Committees reiterated their satisfaction with the initiative of the Director-General and in general with the quality of the six reports. The two Committees were also informed that the Director-General's comment contained the results of his first analysis pending more detailed study. Accordingly the views expressed by Committee Members could not be final. They are preliminary views, as I said.
The Committees noted that the Secretariat would review these first reactions and pursue its in-depth analysis of the consultants' recommendations so that further Information on the Director-General's conclusions could be made available in time for consideration at the fourth special joint session in September 1989. The two Committees agreed that a preliminary draft of their Report to the Council on the FAO Management Reviews was also required. The preliminary draft Report should be prepared on the basis of the management consultants' report and the Director-General's preliminary conclusions as submitted to the third special joint session, and also taking into consideration the views expressed by the two Committees at that session.
The schedule for preparation of the preliminary draft Report on the management consultants' reviews would follow the same schedule as that of the preliminary draft Reports to be prepared on the other reviews. So I repeat we will have practically the same schedule.
This preliminary draft would also be considered by the drafting support group mentioned already by my colleague, the Chairman of the Programme Committee. This group, following its reviews of the preliminary draft on the management consultants' reviews, would also prepare a document to be submitted to the two Committees in time for consideration at their fourth special joint session.
This is all I have to say Mr. Chairman, and I hope I have been clear in my presentation.
LE PRESIDENT: Il nous reste quelques minutes. Je souhaiterais que les Honorables délégués qui désirent prendre part à la discussion veuillent bien se faire connaîre au Secrétariat. Après quoi nous léverons la Séance.
The meeting rose at 11.15 hours.
La séance est levée à 11 h 15.
Se levanta la sesión a las 11.15 horas.