LE PRESIDENT: Honorables délégués, je vous propose de reprendre la suite de nos travaux. Nous avons pour le moment dix délégués inscrits.
Javier TANTALEAN (Peru): En primer lugar, quiero felicitar a la FAO como institución, lo mismo que a los Comités por el proceso de trabajo efectuado tanto en su forma como en el contenido en relación al Examen de la FAO. Entiendo que el valioso Examen de la FAO es un documento de referencia realizado por un grupo de expertos. Partiendo de esa premisa, resulta un hecho importantísimo el Examen en su conclusión al afirmar que la FAO sigue siendo una institución sólida y dinámica que viene cumpliendo con sus fines, objetivos, funciones y sus mandatos, según ese Examen.
En este Examen se proponen algunas medidas de fortalecimiento que nuestra delegación comparte primeramente, en materia de desarrollo sostenible y cuestiones ambientales, en lo que respecta a la conservación y control de suelos y aguas, evaluación planificación de tierras, el manejo integrado de plagas, los recursos genéticos, la telepercepción y la ordenación de los recursos pesqueros y de las cuencas hidrogáficas. Y se sostiene algo que compartimos; en materia ambiental, la intervención de los gobiernos es fundamental no pudiendo quedar esto a merced de los mecanismos del mercado libre. También compartimos las sugerencias del Examen del Comité y del Director General en materia de apoyo a los programas de desarrollo rural integrado, sobre todo en la necesidad de valorizar el rol de la mujer en el sector agropecuario y valorizar lo que son los campesinos y agricultores jóvenes para que puedan quedarse en las tierras y no emigrar en busca de nuevas condiciones de vida.
Asimismo, compartimos la necesidad de que la Organización tenga un plan de mediano plazo que podría ser éste de seis años. Consideramos en lo que se refiere al ámbito de los recursos genéticos que la FAO debería ampliar sus actividades a nivel de los peces y de los animales, estableciendo una coordinación con el CIRF siempre y cuando se reconozca y mantenga el liderazgo de la FAO en materia de recursos fitogenéticos. En los asuntos de pesca, nosotros estimaríamos que sería muy importante una asistencia técnica de la FAO a los gobiernos para incrementar los recursos pesqueros pelágicos que hoy se orientan a la pesca de consumo humano indirecto, como es la harina de aceite de pescado, y orientarlas hacia el consumo humano directo. No es posible que millones de toneladas de los recursos pelágicos a nivel mundial se quemen y no se distribuyan como alimento directo en las poblaciones, y no se vendan como recurso directo a las poblaciones más necesitadas de los países, sobre todo subdesarrollados.
Respaldamos asimismo la sugerencia para una participación muy dinámica de la FAO en la próxima Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo. La solución de diferencias sobre obstáculos al comercio en el marco del GATT, en la Convención Internacional de Protección Fitosanitaria y la incorporación de principios de información y consentimientos previos en el Código Internacional de Conducta para la Distribución y utilización de Plaguicidas y las medidas para luchar contra las plagas y las enfermedades.
En materia de política los expertos sugieren, y esto lo compartimos, que la FAO, haciendo uso de su capacidad instalada, debiera participar en los asuntos relativos a los programas de ajuste estructural desde sus inicios a solicitud de los gobiernos y que no debería adoptar: "servilmente los diagnósticos del Banco Mundial y el Fondo Monetario Internacional". Aquí pienso que si bien no existe en la FAO toda una experiencia en el manejo macroeconómico, lo existe en el sector agrícola y subsectores correspondientes, y podría entablarse una perfecta coordinación para que los programas de ajuste estructural consideren, y en esto FAO pudiera tener una labor importante, el diseño de programas, proyectos y políticas de compensación social en favor de los más pobres, sobre todo de los campesinos y agricultores cuando se establecen estos programas de ajuste estructural.
Asimismo sería una oportunidad para, con la coordinación con el Banco Mundial, ejercer una presión y así deberíamos hacerla los gobiernos sobre el mismo Banco Mundial, para que no sigan disminuyendo los préstamos al sector de agricultura. Y quisiéramos eso sí, preguntar a los expertos de la FAO su opinión sobre las perspectivas y tendencias de la agricultura mundial, porque para los expertos de la FAO, el período futuro se caracterizaría por excedentes mundiales de alimentos y no por escaseces. El factor limitativo no sería la capacidad productiva sino la demanda efectiva. Mientras que el Grupo de Expertos que ha hecho el Examen sostiene que ese punto de vista se puede poner en duda, que en los próximos 10 ó 20 años las expectativas se inclinarían hacia una mayor estrechez en el mercado por problemas de oferta más que de demanda. En este aspecto nos gustaría conocer la opinión de los expertos de la FAO.
Por otro lado, si logramos superar la crisis financiera actual de la FAO creemos que todos los países deberían hacer un esfuerzo para cumplir con los gastos prioritarios presentados en el Informe por el Director General en las páginas 18 y 19, para atender las tres categorías de gastos propuestos.
Mi delegación sostiene que luego del examen realizado, se ha dado término a una etapa necesaria, pero que luego del informe resulta innecesario seguir haciendo más exámenes y lo deseable sería ver cómo implementar las recomendaciones del Director General y de los Comités. Por eso respaldamos al Director General en lo que ha solicitado sobre el fortalecimiento de las relaciones con el GATT en cuestiones fitosanitarias. Nos preocupa que la crisis financiera de la FAO debido a los atrasos en las cuotas afecte y deteriore los recursos humanos con que cuenta la FAO. Por eso es atinado lo que el Director General expresó relativo a la capacitación del personal y reciclaje. Lo mismo apoyamos la sugerencia de él sobre cómo debería de ser el nuevo proceso de presupuestación que conllevaría a un ahorro de recursos.
Hannu HALINEN (Finland): The review process of FAO covering the last two years and the discussions on strengthening the Organization, stemming from a much longer period of time before, are now reaching a crucial point. The member countries are expected to make a decision on what is the role and what are the functions of FAO at the moment. How is the Organization to respond to the challenges of the 1990s and beyond; and it what way should we strengthen FAO as a whole and in concrete terms? In other words, we need to formulate and sharpen our vision of the important work of FAO now and in the future. Helping us in our task is an abundance of information. We have the views and comments of the Director-General; the report of the Programme and Finance Committees; the reports of the two expert groups; and the reports of the management consultants. Above all, we have our own ideas and views based on our own work and consultations with other member countries.
We all agreed and have confirmed on many previous occasions how important it is to reach a consensus decision on this process so essential to FAO's future and to all our governments. Considering the variety and complexity of the issues contained in the documentation before us, it appears that we first need to come to a common understanding of the scope and nature of a decision that could be agreed on at the forthcoming Conference. In the light of that understanding, we are able to see in what way this Session of the Council could best contribute to making such a decision possible. At the last Session of the Council in June, my delegation stated, and I quote: "We are concerned that the SJS report on the review will probably not be distributed under the latter part of October. This leaves the Member Countries with very limited time to reach a substantive consensus on these important issues. In our view, it is therefore important that the informal contacts between member countries are continued with a view to preparing elements of a consensus decision at the Conference in November".
All this remains valid, even more so at the moment. Although we regard the Review and its results as a process, we find it important that the conclusions of this ongoing exercise begin to take shape for the benefit of the Organization. The forthcoming Conference should be able to exchange views and agree on the framework and guidelines for the work of the FAO in the future. In this regard, we expect from the Conference the discussions, decisions on, firstly, priorities and priority setting of FAO. Secondly, a mechanism for medium-term planning as a consequence of, and follow-up to, the priority setting. Thirdly, programme and resource implications as well as possible amendments to the decision making process of these priorities and medium-term plans as applicable.
These issues have been reiterated by the Nordic delegations throughout the debate on the Review and reform of our Organization. My delegation is prepared to discuss these points with any delegation as well as to listen to the concerns of the other delegations with a view to finding common ground and outlining an approach that could be acceptable to all at the Conference.
In my view, it is our task here at the Council, to accomplish this type of preparatory work to facilitate the proceedings at the Conference. Most of the recommendations contained in the report of the Programme and Finance Committees are acceptable to my delegation. Specifically, we would like to refer to para. 2.54 in the report which, as we read it, goes along these lines which we indicated earlier. The experts and the SJS have presented their proposal for the guidelines for the priority setting. The task left to us, the governing bodies, is to elaborate on the guidelines and to actually set the priorities for the Organization to the effect that its operations are based on them.
The Director-General in his comments is mostly limiting himself to a number of detailed calculations of the resource implications of the SJS recommendations. Doing so, we understand him being largely influenced by the financial constraints of the Organization. We find this most unfortunate, since at this stage we would have welcomed a somewhat different approach. The Conference would still have greatly benefited from hearing his vision of how the Organization best faces these challenges and fullfils its tasks in the future. My delegation is also looking forward to his comments on programme implication and adjustments at the Conference.
At this stage Finland finds it premature to focus attention exclusively on the issue of additional resources on the basis of the document prior to the recommendations contained therein. Priorities are being defined at present. Their eventual financial implications must duly be taken into account. If we were to start our deliberations by addressing ourselves to the possible financial implications of a number of detailed proposals, we could completely distort the point of view needed to fully comprehend the responsibility that is on our shoulders and on the agenda of the Conference. My delegation does not oppose expenditures if they are found justifiable and agreeable by the Member States.
We strongly believe that many, if not all, of the recommendations based on the SJS and experts, can be implemented without additional costs as a result of programme adjustments within existing resources.
Let me add that this is the only reason why my delegation in its statement on the PWB wanted to leave the possibility open to see if something can be done already at this Conference for the next biennium in this regard. They seem to us a more logical way of organizing our work. I recognize at the same time the assurance as expressed by India, among others, that the required modifications to the budget figures can also be made by the relevant governing bodies after the Conference.
The documentation before us is difficult to digest within the short time available, yet our aim is to achieve a comprehensive decision by consensus at the Conference. Therefore, it is the sincere hope of my delegation that we would not waste time by focusing solely on the financial implications of certain specific recommendations or any minor points of the Review. Instead, we must be able to concentrate on preparing a framework that could serve as a basis for a constructive debate and decision-making at the Conference and result in a unanimously adopted resolution on the Review.
LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: En réponse à ce qu'a dit le délégué de la Finlande, par déférence pour lui et pour les membres du groupe nordique qui a toujours accordé une grande attention à l'examen de la FAO, je voudrais dire qu'il ne m'est pas possible et qu'il n'est pas dans mes intentions de présenter un autre budget avec un ajustement de 26 millions de dollars. Vous avez souhaité que je le fasse, mais je ne peux pas le faire. Je présente un seul budget. L'Acte constitutif me demande de faire une seule proposition et je n'ai pas les moyens de greffer 26 millions de dollars sur 570.
Ensuite vous avez dit que je me suis limité à présenter les coûts. Ce n'est pas exact. J'ai présenté ce matin quatre propositions nouvelles et je me trouve d'accord avec les experts et les 20 pays membres. Je ne veux pas inventer des choses sur lesquelles les pays membres ne sont pas d'accord. Si vous voulez avoir mon point de vue, je proposerais peut-être 100 millions de dollars. Je trouve ridicule qu'avec 26 millions de dollars on puisse renforcer la FAO pour les prochaines années. Je l'ai dit ce matin. Vous dites d'autre part que vous n'avez pas eu le temps de lire le rapport. Le rapport vous a été remis le 12 octobre. Nous sommes le 8 novembre, cela
fait 26 jours. Quelques pays membres d'un certain groupe se sont réunis à Londres avec une copie du rapport les 8 ou 9 octobre. Cela fait un mois. C'est à vous de juger s'il faut plusieurs mois pour lire ce rapport. Vous avez tous reçu également le rapport des experts. Donc en ce qui concerne le temps, je trouve que ceux qui se préparent depuis deux ans sur cette question-là pourraient trouver le temps nécessaire.
En ce qui me concerne, je ne peux pas présenter un autre budget ajusté pour les 26 millions de dollars. La Conférence décidera. Je ne sais pas ce qu'elle va décider. Ce sont deux questions différentes, mais elles ont un lien. Je suis responsable de ce rapport. J'en suis fier. C'est un rapport clair, limpide, bien écrit, bien analysé. J'y ai mis toute mon expérience. C'est à vous de juger.
Muhammed d Saleem KHAN (Pakistan): It is indeed a matter of immense satisfaction, and, if I may say so, also relief that the review process which has been overshadowing proceedings in this Organization over the past two years has reached a concluding stage. We should like to express our gratitude and congratulations to the members of the Finance Committee, the Expert Groups and the managing consultants who assist them, the FAO Secretariat and the Director-General and, not least, the two Chairmen, Ambassador Bukhari and Mr Mazoyer, for devoting their energies and time in presenting us with a concise but most complete report on this important subject.
My delegation had always shared the widely held view that FAO was an efficient organization which, over the years, has successfully adapted itself to providing a variety of growing technical assistance to member countries and that there was nothing seriously wrong with its mandate, role, goals, strategy or operations which warranted a special examination outside the normal process of scrutiny and examination. However, in the general interest of consensus within the membership, we had accepted the setting up of a separate process with an objective of further strengthening FAO so that the Organization could become even more responsive to the needs of the Member States. We are pleased to note that both the Committees and experts hold similar views. Nevertheless, the review has resulted in some very important conclusions for the future work of FAO, the implementation of which could further enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the Organization.
The implementation of most of these recommendations, however, would cost substantial amounts of money, which we understand it is not possible to find at existing resource levels. It will now be up to the Council and Conference to find ways and means for implementing these conclusions in order not to allow more than two years of efforts and over two million dollars in costs to be wasted.
It is also a matter of satisfaction that, for the most part, the report is unanimous and that even on the remaining parts there is a broad consensus, which makes the job of reaching a decision much easier for the members of Council and Conference.
While each of us has a sovereign right to our own independent view on any aspect of the review, we hope that, in the true democratic spirit and the spirit of cordiality and mutual accommodation which has normally prevailed in the process of decision-making within the intergovernmental bodies in FAO, we shall be able to reach a mutually agreeable decision.
My delegation had come fully prepared to exchange views here with other delegates on specific aspects of the review process and debate the differing points of view in order to arrive at a satisfactory consensus. However, we now note that there seems to be a hesitancy on the part of some of us to venture upon this course and a desire to restrict ourselves in the Council to generalities, while wanting certain opinions to be reached in informal groupings outside.
We are disappointed. In the 94th and 95th Council sessions impatient demands were being made to bring the experts' report before the Council, even before the Finance and Programme Committees had finished their deliberations on this. Now that the complete report is before us, we want to refrain from examining it in the Council. The holding of informal discussions between members is a prerogative which they can always exercise without the need for sanction from the Council. However, such exchanges, and, for that matter, any contact group, can only be useful once the different views become known in the Council and later in the Conference. A contact group, as we see it, facilitates the bringing of divergent opinions onto a convergent plane, but needless to say, we have first to know whether there is any divergence in views. The current trend, I am afraid, does not give any encouragement for the setting up of a contact group. Ipso facto, any
deliberations on the drafting of a resolution would be tantamount to putting the cart before the horse. We do not rule out the need for a resolution at the end, but such a resolution will have to take into contention the recommendations of this august body, the views of the heads of delegations expressed in the Conference and the deliberations in Commission II on the various aspects of the review and report.
The second general point we should like to refer to is the scope of our discussions today. We are ready and willing, on our part, for any negotiations or discussions within the terms of reference of the Review as set forth under Conference Resolution 6/87. We feel that the two Committees have done an excellent job within this scope, and the introduction of any new issues at this stage, or the revival of proposals which the two Committees had not considered necessary, would be unproductive and should be avoided.
Coming to specific aspects of the Report, as I mentioned earlier, we were keen to express our thoughts here for an exchange of views, but, like several other speakers before me, we are now constrained to reserve our views, if an opportunity is to be provided later in the Session.
Meanwhile, we should like to associate ourselves with the views expressed by the delegation of Madagascar and several other delegations from Member States of the Group of 77 which have spoken before me.
Having said that, I should like to make observations on a few points. We fully share the view already expressed by several delegates that all three roles of FAO are mutually complementary, interlinked and necessary, an opinion which is also held by the two Committees and the experts. We would not support any steps for a reduction of any one role at the expense of another. The technical assistance role of FAO, and more specifically the Technical Cooperation Programme, has beyond doubt proved its usefulness and needs not only to be maintained but to be further strengthened. This by no means implies that FAO's other two roles should be weakened but that all three be carried out within the present equation of complementarity.
The other point I should like to speak upon is the issue of resources. We discussed the Programme of Work and Budget yesterday, and we were made aware by the Director-General of the rather frightening financial situation. The position is clear: the additional resources required for the implementation of the review results cannot be located within the existing budgetary level. Therefore, without ruling out the possibility of utilizing any available savings, on which I am sure the Director-General will inform us in due course, we must explore avenues for meeting the bulk of the requirements for extra-budgetary and supplementary resources.
Before ending, I should like to seek from the Secretariat an explanation on a point which has been raised by some of the delegates regarding the prioritizations contained in the tables at page xviii as to what criteria has been adopted in this prioritization.
Finally, we would appeal to all nations to get together to take the review to its fruitful culmination and not turn it into a monster with ever-spreading tentacles.
Norboru SAITO (Japan): I should like to express our thanks to Professor Mazoyer and the Director-General for their informative introduction to this very important agenda item. I should also like to pay tribute to those people in the Secretariat and the members of the SJS and review experts who have been involved in this important and hard task during this biennium.
We are now facing the last stage of the FAO review. During this Council and the forthcoming Conference, we must finalize the FAO review and decide on the FAO reform based on it. The FAO reform should aim at strengthening FAO in order to be able to respond efficiently and effectively to the challenges of the future. In this respect, the final decision on FAO reform should be made by unanimous agreement of the Member States.
For this purpose, my delegation believes that the main job of this Council should be to facilitate the reaching of such consensus among members, to be finalized at the forthcoming Conference, and that such efforts should be continued from this moment on, through the Conference. In this regard, the suggestion made by the United Kingdom delegation earlier this morning, namely the setting up of a contact group at an early stage, is fully supported by our delegation.
I would like to make some comments on the SJS report and the Director-General's comment on it, in the hope that these comments will be taken into account to the maximum extent in formulating the final decision on FAO reform.
The review of certain aspects of FAO's goals and operations was initiated to examine the FAO's role, priorities, objectives and strategies in the food and agriculture field, taking into account the available resources for FAO. Our delegation understands that the FAO review aims to achieve maximum utilization of FAO's function and roles in food and agricultural production through consideration of the priority, objectives and strategies of FAO. From this standpoint, the FAO review is not for approving additional expenditure for the future priority fields summarized by SJS meetings.
My country is of the view that the resources needed should be obtained through allocation of current existing budgets from low priority areas to high priorities. For example, computerization of field programme management will surely contribute to cost reduction.
We share the same views, in that the report gives equal weight to the three major roles of FAO: information-providing functions, a forum for exchanging views on food and agriculture and production consumption, and technical assistance to developing countries. These major roles are interdependent and should be equally strengthened.
My country supports the idea that policy advice function should be strengthened since the establishment of food and agricultural policy is a pre-requisite for promoting development of food and agricultural production in developing countries using their own efforts.
In research and development of technical aspects, FAO's cooperation with international agricultural research institutes, especially the CGIAR institutes, is indispensable. Technology development and its application in the field must be carried out smoothly by cooperation between CGIAR and FAO. My delegation feels that technology development should be achieved with due precaution in order to ensure the harmonization of agricultural production and environmental protection, considering the sustainable development in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. My country strongly supports the importance of small farmers' participation in development of agricultural and rural areas.
Concerning mid- and long-term working plans, it could be beneficial for FAO to make such plans because it could be regarded as the Programme of Work and Budget process to clarify the future targets of the Organization. But, we are not in a position to agree to make financial commitments for the future years beyond the biennium. By this planning we hope that information with more specific details will be provided for members at an early stage.
We support the proposal that the role of FAO country representatives should be strengthened, including the transfer and/or commission of authority to the representatives. Although this report does not give much positive appreciation of the roles and function of the regional offices, RAPA, for example, performs good works as regional focal points for information exchange and a forum for exchange of views on agriculture. This brings us to the conclusion that necessary steps for strengthening regional offices by transfer of authority should be taken, considering the actual regional situation.
Finally, as far as strengthening the coordination with other international organizations Is concerned, my country considers it necessary to take measures to avoid duplication and to improve efficiency, such as having periodical consultations with other international organizations.
My delegation again stresses the importance of unanimous agreement between the Member States on the finalization of FAO review.
K.P. ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): My delegation wishes to indicate its appreciation to the very able and distinguished Chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committee, Professor Mazoyer and Ambassador Bukhari for having guided this difficult review exercise to completion. The deliberations and management of negotiations in order to arrive at this report which is before us now must have taxed their diplomatic skills to the hilt. We are satisfied that their personal reputations, for which this Council has the highest regard, must have stood them in good stead.
A review of this kind - four and a half decades after the founding of this Organization - is an historical landmark. Therefore, I feel it necessary to emphasize that in all the circumstances when most of the delegations depart from Rome at the end of the Conference, the names of our illustrious independent Chairman who has served us well, together with our two Committee Chairmen, will be securely etched in the historical records of the important events in the life span of this Organization. Your efforts will be appreciated for many generations.
Debate on this item ought to be made somewhat easier if we continuously remind ourselves that there was a common goal on which there was consensus with respect to this review. In summary, all countries wanted a strengthened FAO, a lead agency in world agriculture and an Organization with increased efficiency which is able to face the challenges of the 1990s and beyond.
I have some reservations as to your level of success for the forecasting of this debate, as you have indicated, chapter by chapter. It has to be understood that final comments and ultimate positions of delegations will, to some extent, follow Ministers' statements and further exchanges of views amongst delegates. This delegation is in agreement with the views and recommendations on FAO's roles and functions. In particular we wish to underline the emphasis given to technical assistance. The problems of food and agriculture, the data we have on hunger and starvation in the context of expanding populations and environmental degradation, do not provide support for any suggestion that this Organization be allowed to entertain directions indicating a shift of technical assistance towards greater emphasis on information gathering and analysis.
However, we are not denying the importance of these activities. Yes, we support FAO's activity and role with respect to global information and policy advice, but not at the expense of technical assistance.
In a recent issue of Time magazine, there was an article concerning the problems of development of a particular developing country. There was a photograph accompanying this article. On one side there is an individual with all indications of wealth - jewelry, etc. - surrounded by three well-dressed servants - an indication that perhaps on the other side, maybe across the valley are large numbers of people under seriously disadvantaged circumstances. If, for example, FAO were sending a mission to such a country, it would not be difficult to determine who would be happy to proceed with lengthy discussions on policy and general information. But, we can surely understand what will happen when we approach the millions who are under disadvantaged conditions - perhaps even tell them "let's go back to the rural countryside and discuss policy matters".
Let me emphasize that this delegation does not negate the significance of policy advice in the medium and long term. We feel very strongly that paragraphs 2.16 to 2.20 of Chapter 2 are very important. A number of developing countries are now reeling under the heavy hand of structural adjustment, regardless of which agency, or agencies working in concert, demand a direct structural adjustment or the situation may originate on the basis of internal national analysis and prescription. It is perhaps inevitable in many instances, that is to say without an alternative, but the constant here is one of strategy. Even the international institutions accept deficiency in the packages they have imposed and further accept the need to modify or adjust their adjustment recommendations.
Given the significance of the food and agriculture sector on the lives of the majority of the people in many of our countries, and the negative impact experienced in many countries as a result of maladjusted strategies, or badly managed implementation, it is easy to understand why we are already late with FAO's contribution to design, management and monitoring of such strategies.
I will make a few brief comments on the research and transfer of technology, not only in developing countries because the developed countries also need assistance in this area. We all need the knowledge of FAO with both feet on the ground. For example, yesterday we witnessed Mr Bonte-Friedheim, the Assistant Director-General, provide some corrective and timely technical backstopping to one delegation on important technical matters such as biotechnology, mutation, breeding, etc.
FAO's activity also provides considerable information and guidance for the bilateral programmes of some countries. I would like to make a supplementary comment on agricultural research, namely, the developing countries need a neutral hand in the matter of research, coordination and guidance. The developed countries are contributing, and with a recognized degree of generosity, to the international agricultural research centres. However, the fact is that many of these countries have surpluses today.
On my way here (through London) I saw an entire page of a major newspaper taken up with comments on what was felt perhaps to be a dismantling (maybe "rationalization" would have been a better word) of various research stations and related programmes in agriculture. Some of these countries are at the point where they have to take land out of food production. As I said before, they are surplus producers. Also, and there is no need to raise eyebrows at what I am going to say, one of the world's most renowned agricultural economists of a highly respected institute in the United States, John Mellor, suggested two years ago that as a result of serious food surpluses, developed countries may well not be willing to continue allocating resources generously to agricultural research in developing countries. This underlines the importance of FAO to
developing countries in many areas of research, including bio-technology. Imagine, if we are not careful we will soon have to send our orders for large quantities of plant and material for use in developing countries to cultural laboratories in developed countries. This would include coffee, cocoa, oil palm and even our own indigenous ornamental plants. All we want to ensure is that research progress is not moving in one direction.
It cannot be overemphasized that research technology and related areas are crucial areas of activity for strengthening FAO's programme of work. In those circumstances one can understand that while we must accept the importance of priorities and the focusing of our activities, ultimately we must leave the Organization with considerable flexibility in order to deal with the diversity of requests.
Therefore, in summary, this delegation is supportive of the recommendations of the Programme and Finance Committees. The problem, of course, is the task of the Director-General in carrying the Organization forward in the absence of adequate financial support. Over the past few days the Director-General has been called all kinds of names, - "financial juggler" - and yesterday someone called him a "special kind of UN housewife". But, as the distinguished delegate from Australia pointed out yesterday, we have come to the end of the road of belt tightening. The show is almost over. Let us hope that ultimately our delegations can open up their minds to the reality of the situation. Let us not unduly quote diversionary procedures by any name such as groups, special resolutions, etc. Let us deal with the report.
At this time our delegation is very supportive of the recommendations of the Committees. It has been almost two years in the making. Let us give it a good try. We must compliment the two committees on the level of consensus reached in the conclusion, and the recommendations are indeed very revealing. The Council has also benefited considerably from the hard work and continuous advice and views of the Director-General. Hopefully, flexibility and a generosity of spirit will move us forward in the Conference to the desired consensus.
João Augusto DE MEDICIS (Brazil): I can be very brief as I would be ready and willing to propose that this Council adopts this report and endorses its recommendations by consensus. We are sure that the other delegations which participated in the preparation of the report will share my position as it was by consensus that the SJS agreed on this report after lengthy and detailed analysis of the issue, following an equally detailed analysis of the study by the experts. The result is a positive one, as expected, and the SJS concluded that rather than reducing we should enlarge the scope and activities of the FAO.
Nevertheless, let me say a few words on this chapter to note that the Review, which aims at the strengthening of FAO, supports the roles, strategies and priorities of the Organization as expressed by our founding fathers and implemented in the last 45 years.
A special reference could be made to the importance that developing countries attach to their essential role, as stated in the report, of providing technical assistance. This is a major role, if not the major role of our Organization. This is a role that directly affects the lives of hundreds of millions of destitute people in the Third World.
Special attention should also be given to the process and criteria for priority setting. We should take into account that, to use the experts' words, "decisions on priorities take several factors into account", and are therefore very difficult to reach.
The Committee was particularly careful in drafting this recommendation as most members considered that priority setting required a deep analysis and should not be interpreted as yet another excuse to reduce the scarce resources available to development activities of the Organization.
To conclude, we are prepared to support the recommendations contained in paragraph 2.64 of the chapter. We expect that this Council will find it possible to convey them to the Conference with its positive evaluation.
Finally, on the United Kingdom proposal, we believe that we should wait for the discussion by the Conference. The United Kingdom representative himself rightly pointed out that we should hear the views of those countries which are not members of the Council. In any case, I do not believe that we have much time as the Conference is starting in three days.
LE PRESIDENT: Avant de passer la parole au prochain orateur je demande instamment aux délégués qui vont prendre la parole maintenant de bien vouloir prendre position sur les recommandations inscrites dans le Rapport du Comité conjoint; je souhaiterai qu'ils nous disent s'il y a des recommandations sur lesquelles ils ne sont pas d'accord, car il faut que dans le Rapport final nous sachions quels sont les points sur lesquels il y a des réserves.
David COUTTS (Australia): Mr Chairman, I shall certainly try to confine my remarks as you have suggested. In speaking I think I will follow the example of other delegates and cover the whole spectrum of what I wish to say on this report, although I was prepared to go along with your earlier ruling and take it section by section. However, as I have heard almost nobody conform to that suggestion I think it is right that we do it the other way.
Australia gives high priority to the matters covered by this report. Indeed, we think it is of the utmost importance, along with the 1990-91 Programme of Work and Budget, and the decisions made by the Twenty-fifth Conference should set the scene for FAO for years to come.
In broad terms, we can accept the SJS report. We do not fully agree with every point made in it, but on the whole we accept it as a good compromise for the disparate viewpoints that had to be brought together. It would be remiss of me if I did not say at this point that I feel the reports of the two expert groups were of immense help to those of us on the SJS. I should like to thank those who participated in those groups for the excellent work that they did. In particular, I would pay tribute to the two rapporteurs, Dr Faaland of Norway and Mr Sastry of India. I would also thank most sincerely the Director-General and the Secretariat for the help and cooperation that was given throughout this process. I will not dwell on those points because others have mentioned them, but having been in the SJS I really felt that I had to say that.
I also have to say the job done by the two Chairmen and the approach and attitude of all other members of the group was exemplary in my view. That is why we managed to reach a report that I think gives the Council and the Conference the opportunity to agree on something worthwhile out of this exercise. I would add that one of the reasons why I think we reached near consensus was that we did confine our focus pretty carefully to the matters under review, and I was very pleased to hear the suggestions earlier that the Council, and hopefully later the Conference, might follow that example in how to orientate their remarks, because if we can confine ourselves fairly closely to the sorts of issues in the mandate of 1987 we may manage to find a way through.
While we can accept the SJS report on a whole there are some particular points in it which I should like to underline.
One, while the report endorses the major objectives in paragraph 2.6 and the sub-objectives as mentioned in paragraph 2.7, it is agreed in paragraph 2.8 that nonetheless the Organization must carefully choose its specific programmes and activities, because the justifiable needs and objectives of members will far exceed the possibilities of the programme. To us this underlines our view that for efficiency and effectiveness even more careful selectivity must be exercised by FAO in the formulation of its programmes.
Secondly, we fully endorse the three major roles of FAO set out in paragraph 2.9, that is, information, promotion of action and technical assistance. A number of delegates have commented on those roles. In a sense, I think it is understandable that somewhat more emphasis is generally given to the technical assistance role by the developing countries which have spoken. After all, while countries like my own openly acknowledge and endorse what is in the report on the importance of technical assistance in terms of direct impact on us, it is the information role and perhaps special action roles that are most important. In a sense, the fact that we were trying in this report to give a balanced view or a fairly even-handed view of these three roles does reflect the sort of consensus building that we had to do, because the positions countries are coming from are a little different. I think what we have to get out of that is that everybody agrees that technical assistance is very important. That point should not be lost in disagreements about the relative merits.
Thirdly, we fully endorse the support for FAO's policy analysis and advisory role set out in paragraphs 2.15 to 2.20. We would only underline the point in paragraph 2.20 that FAO must speak out when it sees scope for improvements in policies that bear on objectives to which assistance is being provided. This implies to us that FAO needs to do more than merely respond to requests from individual countries for advice, especially in conducting appropriate analysis on a global or perhaps regional basis so that it can help countries to put their own policy objectives in the appropriate global context.
Four, this implies to us that FAO must be prepared to comment on the policies of both developed and developing countries. For example, we consider it pointless to advise developing countries to develop agricultural export industries when world markets for those products are distorted by protectionist policies of other countries.
Five, in this connection we are pleased to see the endorsement of FAO's role in supporting development of free trade, as set out in paragraph 2.38.
Six, we agree strongly that FAO has a very important continuity role in helping countries realize the potential of the results of agricultural research and in facilitating basic research in areas where it is needed. This is set out in paragraphs 2.21 and 2.23. We also fully endorse the special emphasis that should be given to the emerging area of biotechnology, as mentioned in paragraph 2.24, to help ensure that the potential benefits are effectively shared by developing countries. That comment applies to other emerging areas of research and technology.
Seven, we strongly endorse the support for FAO's role in promoting sustainable development and environmental protection, and commend the views set out in paragraph 2.35.
Eight, we are a little less certain about the merits of a formal medium-term plan. I know that we are perhaps a little out of agreement with some other countries on that. This was an area that the SJS had some difficulty with, especially in relation to the effort involved in such an exercise and the way it might be linked to the resources necessary to carry out the priorities which would be identified. However, we are prepared to go along with a consensus to try this approach.
Nine, in relation to the setting of priorities, we support the use of the guidelines set out in paragraph 2.54.
Ten, we support continuation of the additional stage in the preparation of the Programme of Work and Budget. I would want to think a little more about the Director-General's suggestion, but I do thank him for offering that thought because we need to think about the most efficient way to run the whole process, and it may be possible in a sense to combine the May and January parts of this.
Eleven, in relation to Trust Fund activites, we endorse the view in paragraph 3.23 that FAO must be even more selective in its choice of projects to ensure that its support facilities are not stretched beyond the level at which they can cope effectively.
Twelve, as concerns TCP, we agree that it should be retained as a vital element in FAO's programme, but cannot agree that this necessarily implies significant increases in resources for TCP. The arguments on this point are set out in paragraph 3.32.
Lastly, we would have liked to see the establishement of a new committee to overview the field programmes. We feel that existing bodies will have some difficulty in finding the time and expertise to carry out this task, which we feel needs strengthening in an adequate fashion. However, again in the interests of consensus, we agreed in the report to join a consensus to try out the proposals set out in paragraph 3.42, which would give this extra responsibility to the existing committees.
In relation to the recommendations in the report for strengthening the Organization, we are prepared to join a consensus that supports pursuit of these ideas. However, we do not accept that this necessarily implies an increase in overall resources. In our view, most of these initiatives must be taken up by reallocation of existing priorities. We know that this approach is a painful one for many, but in present and foreseeable budgetary circumstances we feel that it would be quite unrealistic to expect any other approach.
I would just add that to me this is the critical and focal point of what the Council and the Conference has to do. It is where this whole process could come unstuck. There is a quite remarkable degree of agreement, consensus and flexibility being shown on what is in the SJS reports, but if that leads us to some sort of enforced supplementary assessment to pay for these things, then I really fear for the implications and ramifications of that. That is not a threat; it is just a fear. We have a situation at the moment where many members of this Organization are unable or unwilling to pay their contributions. Without mentioning names, I would say that some of the members who have spoken strongly about increasing the resources are members who have not been able to pay.
I do not quite see the sense in the Organization then voting itself an extra 26 million dollars, or whatever, to carry out these proposals. I think another way has got to be found. If agreement can be reached on additional funds then that is very good, but unfortunately I do not see the sign. I do not know what solutions there are. I have been looking closely at what the Director-General has been proposing, although his proposals are all couched in terms of additional resources - and I understand fully his position there. As I said before, the show is nearly over in terms of juggling. However, maybe there are some other ideas. I do not know. I do not know whether it may be possible to consider some sort of appeal; if member countries really feel that extra funds are needed to do these things, then perhaps some sort of voluntary contribution could be called for, and we could see how many countries are prepared to back up what they say. Anyway, that is something which has to be discussed a lot more.
In relation to the Management Review, we consider there are many good ideas put forward by the Consultants. Many of these ideas are technical in nature. The SJS looked at them quite thoroughly, but felt that at this stage it would be better to keep that consideration on a fairly broad basis and to seek further in-depth consideration as the next biennium progresses, and we fully support that approach. We do think there are some very good ideas in there, many of them involving more money as well. We would strongly support, nonetheless, that the Director-General, with the assistance of perhaps the Finance Committee in the main, would continue to look at those.
If the Conference endorses the proposals in the SJS Report, we feel that the other really critical point is the process that we follow from now on. I do not want to go over the same ground as one or two of the other delegates have gone over, except to say that I am very concerned that if we wait until Commission II convenes, is one or two days into its discussion on this item - we really are very short of time to find the sort of compromises and consensus that we are going to need to get a good result on this, a result that is going to be positive and build towards a more harmonious and more effective Organization in coming years.
Therefore, we would support some process between now and when Commission II actually meets, to try at least to draw out the ideas that people have on what sort of resolution the Conference might take up. This does not need to be a formal process. I personally think a contact group or a discussion group or something would be the right way to do it. However, perhaps, that could be worked out when something is decided, but I do feel very strongly that some process is needed. I am quite perplexed at the opposition to that suggestion. I really fail completely to understand the logic of the objections. We have got to come to that point eventually. I predict that the general tenor of what will happen in the Conference will be very similar to what has happened here. That is not to belittle what happens in the Conference, of course, and some additional ideas probably will emerge, but at least the core of it will be similar to what we have heard here today.
I have just one last comment, Mr Chairman. Some comments have been made about the fact that this Review has cost us 2 million dollars. All that has done is to show us what we - that is some particular delegations - know anyway. I must say that I object very strongly to that line of thinking. Of course, it is up to the delegations concerned to hold that view, but I really think that to push that line of thinking is most counter-productive. Of course, this process was not exactly as everybody wanted it. The Resolution that was adopted in 1987 was not the Resolution some countries wanted. It was a compromise. Therefore, presumably the result is somewhat deficient in certain ways to what they were looking for. I feel, however, that what has come out of it has, in many ways, been very, very useful. It has identified a large number of things which, while they do not demonstrate any fundamental problem with FAO, I think are very positive in increasing FAO's efficiency and helping it to play its role more effectively in the future. I think also, if we can find the right approach through the Council and the Conference, It will help very much in building the sort of harmony and consensus that we are going to need in coming years. That is the very sharp edge that we are walking on, Mr Chairman. I do hope that we can find the right answer to that.
That is all I want to say, thank you very much, Mr Chairman.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Délégué de l'Australie pour les réponses qu'il a apportées aux différents points du rapport.
Effectivement, je crois que la meilleure formule est que les Délégués parlent de l'ensemble du rapport puisqu'il y a des interactions. Cela leur permet de développer l'ensemble de leurs idées notamment sur le problème des ressources qui est très important pour éclairer la suite des événements.
Ilja HULINSKY (Czechoslovakia): Mr. Chairman, Czechoslovakia has approached the review process of Certain Aspects of FAO's Goals and Operations currently being undertaken in accordance with the general Conference decision from the three following prepositions.
Firstly, we respect the spirit and letter of Resolution 6/87 of the Twenty-fourth Session of the FAO Conference. That is why we have been waiting for the joint official report of the Programme and Finance Committees, as well as for the views and comments of the Director-General, to take our position on the substantive questions of the Review on the basis of their recommendations to the Council and to the Conference.
Secondly, we consider it indispensable that all the emerging problems of the review process must be grasped within the framework of the whole Organization, and within its Constitution.
Thirdly, we take it for granted that the positive results of the review process could be reached only in seeking a collective solution of all the problems relating to the present exercise, in close cooperation with all FAO Member Nations. We sincerely share the notion that the central objective of the review process is to strengthen the FAO so as to increase its capacity and effectiveness.
We strongly hope that the wide-ranging consensus which has emerged within the Programme and Finance Committees, while drafting the final Joint Report, would be maintained through the deliberations of both the Council and the Twenty-fifth Session of the FAO Conference.
In saying that, I would like to add that, throughout all the review exercise, we have been opposing the unconstitutional approach that has been trying to influence the results of the review process by financial pressure. The Czechoslovak contribution to FAO's budget is much higher than that to other Specialized UN Agencies. We strictly fulfill our financial obligations, but we would not make an inter-connection between our constitutional duties and the outcome of the deliberations in FAO, although we do have our problems and difficulties within the present structure of FAO and its functioning, issues to which we would like to seek a satisfactory reaction.
Mr. Chairman, let me turn now to the document under discussion. The Czecholovak delegation shares the basic conclusion of the Programme and Finance Committees that follows from the Joint Report, namely that the main orientation of the FAO's Goals and Operations, that the FAO's constitutional and programme documents remain relevant and valid, and that there is no need for their substantive, far-reaching changes. We do agree in general with that. That does not mean that we oppose in principle the possibilities of particular changes, if needed. Quite the contrary; as I have already mentioned, we too see issues to which we should like to seek the solution inter alia.
The Czechoslovak delegation subscribes to the point of view expressed by many delegations, that FAO, as one of the important agencies in environmental matters, should continue to give consideration to sustainable agriculture, and that there is a need for a more concrete definition of the very concept of sustainable development to be included in the Basic Texts.
The Czechoslovak delegation subscribes to the ever-increasing interest to the fundamental principle, that of just rotation and balanced geographic representation in all FAO organs and bodies. We support the Brazilian initiative, looking for a review and redefinition of the politico-geographic groupings prevailing in FAO to be in conformity with the usual groupings in all the UN system. We also see an urgent need for tackling the issue of drafting the most desirable means of achieving the objective of just representation of all various regional systems on all the main bodies of our Organization, that of more equitable representation among the countries constituting each region when electing the main FAO Committees. The Czechoslovak delegation is also of the opinion that more energetic steps should be taken by the Director-General to ensure the principle of the equitable geographic distribution of FAO's Professional staff, both at Headquarters and in the Field.
The Czechoslovak delegation strongly supports the position of the Group of 77 that FAO should strengthen its Field Programme and thus improve its efficiency and effectiveness. We do share the concern of the Group of 77 countries that, without an active and world-wide field programme, FAO would become merely an academic institution. As a matter of fact, Czechoslovakia has always supported the just interests of developing countries in safeguarding the importance and essentiality of FAO's technical assistance role, in FAO providing a variety of growing technical assistance to them, and we will continue to do so in the future. Czechoslovakia considers it desirable that FAO activities be further oriented towards the objectives of the New Economic Order in FAO's field of competence. As a result of the review exercise, FAO can and should play an enhanced role in this respect.
Having stated our position of principle, it does not mean that we do not see the necessity of making other FAO activities more sound and useful, in the European region for example. The Czechoslovak delegation supports all of those delegations who would like to see that the forthcoming FAO European Regional Conference in Venice should concentrate on the task of making the activities of the Regional Office for Europe more effective and, as a matter of fact, of making all FAO's regional activities in Europe more effective. At the same time, we have to stress, once again, the necessity of closer coordination of the FAO's European activities with those of the UN Economic Commission for Europe in the field of agriculture and nutrition. Allow me to mention here just en passant, that Czechoslovakia has proposed to host in Prague, the next 18th European Regional Conference to be held in 1992.
To the Czechoslovak delegation are acceptable to the conclusions of the Programme and Finance Committees that FAO's practice of priority-setting is adequate and that it normally allows for Member States to be consulted in good time, separately in each region and collectively in technical committees and in the governing body. We have endorsed the nine priority areas outlined in the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91, the selected priorities being obviously based on analysis of such extensive consultation. Having listened to the statement of the distinguished representative of India, we would like to subscribe to his well-taken remarks on the problem of priority setting. We share his point of view that the order in which the priorities are listed in the PWB does not apply necessarily to the order of their preference. We share also his doubt on usefulness of applying these priorities rigidly to all the FAO's activities worldwide.
The Czechoslovak delegation supports the notion of the Nordic countries that there should be greater involvement of the member countries in the FAO's decision-making process as well as increased cooperation of FAO's activities with other UN bodies. Let us face it, certain problems do exist in the present decision-making processes in FAO; within the FAO's main organs and governing bodies. We have to deal with the problems if we take seriously the task of making all the FAO more effective. We share also the opinion that new efforts should be undertaken to ensure better coordination of FAO activities with other UN specialized agencies to minimize the duplication of work and to secure the best use of resources. We subscribe to the view that FAO Regional Offices should work in close relations with the UN Regional Commissions. We understand the concern expressed by the group of Nordic countries, that FAO countries offices' resources are spent too broadly and we understand also their suggestion for a redefinition of the role of the FAO Representatives.
We are open to further discussions as for the mechanism, how all this can be achieved, especially, how to achieve the greater involvement of member countries in the FAO decision-making process. For example, we share the opinion that the new arrangement proposed by the Programme and Finance Committees for discussions on field operations by the governing bodies should be approached as an experiment to be refined on the basis of experience. We have taken note of the suggestion of setting up a field inspection unit to reinforce the evaluation service and focusing mainly on project management. The idea, recommended by the Programme and Finance Committees, that of reintroduction of medium term covering three biennia, deserves also to be approached seriously. But, as a matter of principle, we are of the opinion that any decision concerning an improved mechanism of FAO's decision-making process should be taken in full conformity with the present FAO Constitution; should not involve extensive financial implications; and last but not least, should ensure the implementation of the just geographical representation.
It is not the intention of the Czechoslovak delegation to comment on other ideas and many concrete suggestions contained both in the extensive detailed Joint Report of the Programme and Finance Committees and that of the Director-General at this stage. We need not to comment now on the recommendations of the so-called FAO Management Review, provided by various private consultants either. There is nothing in all of those documents we would principally oppose, though there are certain concrete ideas and recommendations we do not necessarily share or on which we could differ either on their interpretation or on suggested ways and means of their implementation. Just in the case of the so-called FAO Management Review, my delegation would like to put into the records that we do not see justification for the future, to waste FAO resources in engaging private agencies on tasks that can be easily fulfilled in a qualified manner by the relevant FAO organs and bodies.
Before concluding, let me repeat, that Czechoslovakia is very much interested in the positive result of the current review of certain aspects of FAO's goals and operations. FAO, as a living organism, is certainly in need of periodical "check-ups" and in need of regularly adjusting itself to the demands of changing times. It goes without saying that the basic questions of the constitutional goals of FAO, as well as those of orientation of its programmes and operations, of its structure and methods of functioning, do belong to the exclusive competence of the Member
As regards the very important item, namely sustainable development, the Federal Government is of the opinion that in the future FAO must become more active, and we fully endorse the activities suggested in the several reports. In this regard, the Federal Government does not hold the view that a state of competition exists between sustainable development and food production. In our opinion there is a long-term positive trade-off between the careful use of natural resources and a sustained improvement of the living standard of many people especially in the rural areas of this world.
In our view FAO's field work must be concentrated to a greater extent on the real core area of the activities of FAO. The individual trust fund offers and requests for aid of single countries which do not fall fully within the mandate of FAO, should be discussed with other potential implementing agencies in order to ensure that the relevant projects are implemented by the Organization with the greatest project-related expertise.
The expert group II also notes that Member States are inadequately informed about FAO's field work. Therefore, we suggest measures be taken in order to increase the information flow to interested member countries. It was also stated that project quality and implementation speed must be the most important criteria for field operations. We wholeheartedly agree with this point.
The development of FAO's activities, from our point of view, should be realized within the framework of proper medium-term planning, especially concerning priorities of the Organization. For this reason it is desirable to draw up a rolling six-year plan which reports on new priorities as well as on the deletion of completed programmes.
This review process started in November 1987 with Resolution 6/87. We expect that it will come to its conclusion through another resolution which, in our opinion, is one of the main tasks of the forthcoming Conference. However, such a resolution will only be of practical value if it is carried by the broadest possible consensus amongst the members. To achieve this consensus will certainly not be an easy task. Considering the circumstances and the workload before us, we would welcome our Council's recommendation to the Conference that from the beginning of the discussions in Commission II a group of interested countries be formed in order to discuss elements for a draft resolution for consideration by the Commission and finally the Conference.
Tawfik Ahmed Hassan AL MESHHEDANI (Iraq) (original language Arabic): I would like to thank the Director-General for the concise manner in which he presented the reports of the Programme and Finance Committees. I would also like to thank the members of the Programme and Finance Committees as well as the Chairmen of those two Committees for their great efforts in arriving at the conclusions, recommendations and proposals which have been presented to us. We are especially satisfied because we have completed this Review in the allotted time. This Review has been prepared according to Resolution 6/87. All the conclusions therein point to the fact that the objectives of the Organization follow the guidelines of the Organization as far as concerns food.
The Organization's role is always to work in an efficient manner, and this is the opinion of the experts as far as concerns the well-being of this Organization. The Review has concluded with positive results in order to consolidate the Organization's role as well as its efficiency. Consolidation of this role is the reason why we have arrived at a consensus in order to adopt Resolution 6/87. We should also arrive at consensus on matters which might lead to the strengthening of the guidelines of this Organization. For that reason we have approved the conclusions, recommendations and proposals which the two Committees have made to us, as well as comments made by the Director-General.
The methods used to reach consensus should not be used to waste time and undermine the Conference objectives. We should follow the Organization's rules closely. I do not wish to go into the detail of the review as my country's delegation will make a statement on this subject at the Conference. However, I should like to point out the various roles of the Organization which interact with each other. We think that technical assistance is closely linked by two other aims of the Organization through field operations. The Organization can put its objectives and aims into practice and it is the practical laboratory for converting words into deeds. It enriches our objectives and, for this reason, we think that the Technical Cooperation Programme is so important and it should have more funds. We also think that the role of aid and technical assistance should be strengthened rather than weakened for any reason. The recommendations of the two Committees require a large amount of funds. This fact cannot be ignored. We can accept
the idea that this should be financed from the ordinary budget. This might have a negative impact on the programmes of the various countries. On the other hand we think we should try and obtain additional funds outside the budget which might allow developed countries to play a modern role in showing their support for these programmes.
The Director-General's proposals are very important because they deal with the Organization's role in providing aid to developing countries and the need to coordinate with activities carried out by other organizations. We also believe it is important to increase efficiency and therefore we would like to say that we approve the proposals made by the Director-General and we think that the general Conference will, hopefully, take the right decision on this subject.
LE PRESIDENT: Avant de passer la parole au prochain orateur, je me permets de vous signaler que nous avons encore 17 délégués inscrits: Lesotho, Malaisie, Suisse, Philippines, Italie, Mexique, Canada, Guinée, Etats-Unis d'Amérique, Liban, Gabon, Colombie, Congo, Algérie, Inde, Indonésie, Kenya.
Il me semble qu'il faudrait donner la parole à ceux qui ne l'ont pas encore prise. L'honorable délégué du Royaume-Uni a demandé la parole, ainsi que l'Argentine, le Nicaragua et l'Arabie Saoudite.
R.G. ΡΕΤTIΤΤ (United Kingdom): I have one simple point which I did not have occasion to raise in my earlier intervention. It will not take a minute at the end.
LE PRESIDENT: J'insiste à nouveau sur l'intérêt à ce que les délégués nous fassent savoir s'ils sont d'accord ou pas sur tout ou partie des recommandations du rapport car, lorsque nous allons transmettre le rapport final à la Conférence, il faut qu'on y retrouve nos observations et commentaires. Il faut absolument que nous connaissions vos observations, et sur le contenu du rapport, et sur les observations du Directeur général.
M.A. LETEKA (Lesotho): First, will you allow my delegation to make an observation that when the idea of a review was first introduced in the last Conference it seemed to suggest that there were very serious loopholes in the FAO which, as we were made to understand, resulted from the inefficiencies and incompetence of those in a position of authority in the FAO. Even though many Member States opposed at that time the idea of a review for reform of FAO suggested by those who were Member States, they did so with all honesty and determination to preserve the dynamism of this Organization. Nothing, we hope, could suggest that those Member States acted in a desperate vein, since they were all developing countries, to oppose any authority thereof. Instead, they were a group of sovereign states who always jealously guarded the survival of this Organization which is engaged in the struggle to eradicate the vagaries of malnutrition and hunger.
As we gather here today to discuss this issue again, my delegation is more than convinced of the need for Member States to rededicate their commitment to uphold the ideals of FAO.
The exercise of the Review of FAO is over, and it is now this Council's duty to recommend to Conference that the proposals by the two Committees and the Group of Experts could be implemented without suggesting any further adjustments to the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91.
We are all agreed on the critical financial position now facing our Organization. We would hope that there will be constructive suggestions from the proponents of the review, and willingness to arrive at consensus on the basis of what is reported in the document before us.
We wish to congratulate the two Committees and the Group of Experts on a job well done. We also appreciate the constructive and solid comments of the Director-General which have above all suggested possible lines of action on the findings of the Group of Experts. My country supports the notion that FAO should always act as a lead agency and coordinate all activities in its field of competence, especially considering its long-standing experience in activities which have a bearing on agricultural development. It is a well known fact that the contribution of FAO to the welfare of the poor in developing countries goes beyond the principle of multilateralism. This is why the lndispensability and importance of FAO's technical assistance role cannot be over emphasized.
Many developing countries, including Lesotho, have from the beginning of the 1980s been forced to pursue the painful but necessary - according to the sponsors - process of structural adjustment against the background of general economies characterized by massive debts, unemployment, irrelevant agricultural and economic policies and other related negative factors. We are expected to rejuvenate and revive our economies at all costs without paying attention to or considering elements of environmental concerns which in essence could threaten our resource base. FAO has since advised us that this development can be sustained for it to have effective and long lasting results. Of course, this would mean extra-budgetary resources over and above those given by the IMF and the World Bank. We believe that it is the FAO which should get directly involved in the policy guidance and assessment of possible costs required in order to integrate environmental concerns into development projects of developing countries.
We believe that this and many others, including women in development, priority setting, development in biotechnology and TCDC operations fall within the sphere of competence of FAO, and it is right to participate in all the round-tables; formulation and implementation stages should be respected.
My delegation would like to conclude by putting on record that even as we agree with the findings and recommendations of the Group of Experts, and all those who are involved in this critical exercise, we would oppose any moves which would suggest that the implementation be based on the proposed Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91. At the same time, we would like to assure you of our flexibility where reasonable proposals are made.
Bahar MUNIP (Malaysia): I should like to take this opportunity to thank Professor Mazoyer for his introduction and Doctor Saouma for his views and proposals relating to the review. I shall try my best to follow the format that you have suggested, Mr Chairman, in the following intervention, that is FAO's objectives and roles, field operations and so on.
My delegation is happy to note that the Committees recognized that the activities of the Organization and the objectives it pursued were in uniformity with its mandate and that it fulfilled, within the limitations of its means, the three major roles of information, coordination and technical assistance which were assigned to it. We are fully supportive of these three major roles. The activities carried out by FAO all along confirmed the validity of these objectives.
We are happy to note that the Committees underlined the importance of the request for strengthening FAO's role as expressed in the Review reports and that these requests are justified considering the present situation in developing countries and the foreseeable trend. We wish to underline the recommendation that means be sought to ensure the necessity of strengthening FAO to face future challenges and that FAO should play the leading role in agriculture, at present and in the future.
Permit me now to refer to some specific points.
My delegation agrees with the proposal that FAO promote actively sustainable development aimed not only at conserving national resources but at improving them. Malaysia has been very concerned with the impact of agricultural activities on the environment and sustainable development, on soil degradation, on water pollution, on the greenhouse effect, on acid rain and on the need to protect the flora and fauna of treasured tropical rain forests. In this respect, my delegation wishes to inform the Council that in the recent Commonwealth Governments' meeting in Kuala Lumpur at the beginning of this month we initiated the formulation of the "Langkawi Declaration on the Environment" which could form the basis of international dialogue globally, both north and south, on the question of environmental preservation and sustainable development.
Apart from the above we are fully supportive of the recommendation that attention should also be given to biotechnology, genetic resources, an appropriate funding system and to modernize agriculture through TCDC.
Regarding FAO's role in relationship with GATT, the Director-General dealt at length with the increasing scientific role that is to be played in GATT. Malaysia had the privilege of attending some of the GATT meetings and Codex Alimentar lus in Geneva in July. It was proposed that FAO should be one of the reference points in terms of sanitary and phytosanitary and other similar
trade disputes. Apart from these scientific reference points which deserve our full support, FAO should in our opinion positively assist developing countries in their negotiations with GATT and speak out, loud and clear, against protectionism, against trade distortion, against market inaccessibility, and against other measures which prohibit trade from developing countries.
While still on the subject of objectives and roles at FAO, we agree with the Committees' comment that the format used in the preparation of the 1990-91 Programme of Work and Budget be used for some time yet, so that its value can be judged over a longer period of time.
The Committees also stress the importance of new project identification and that FAO provide more training for national personnel in this field. My delegation fully supports this recommendation. But what about the training of the trainers themselves? What about training of the FAO staff themselves? This does not mean in any way questioning the competence of FAO staff; indeed, far from it. Should FAO be dependent on external sources all the time in fulfilling this training obligation?
The best asset that any organization can have is human resources. It is very important therefore that these human resources be developed at all times in order to cope with the latest demand in technology and similar fields. Staff training is a priority activity involving considerable expenditure conducted by both the private and public sectors world wide. It comes as a surprise therefore to our delegation that we in the governing body have neglected this very important role for the benefit of the Organization. My delegation therefore finds it pertinent to lend support to the suggestion made this morning that allocation be made for staff training. We believe it is fully justifiable.
Could I turn my attention to field operations? The Committees have identified a number of measures to strengthen their effectiveness for the benefit of member countries. We are happy to note that the Organization has carried out its technical assistance functions, thus contributing directly to the efforts of member countries in their development programmes, budget constraints permitting. We therefore find no difficulty in accepting the recommendations made by the Committees to ensure the effectiveness of the field programmes: among others, that TCP should continue, that the field inspection unit in the Evaluation Service be strengthened, that government participation be encouraged through training and so on.
My delegation is also happy to note that the Committee stressed, on the basis of its comparative advantages and experience, that FAO must be recognized as the leading agency and coordinator for the sectoral and sub-sectoral reviews in the field of food and agriculture. FAO should be represented in all multilateral coordination meetings, and the working relationship between FAO and other international agencies, both within the UN system or otherwise should be strengthened.
Implementation of the review will involve financial considerations and this should not be extracted from within the existing resources which are already far over-stretched, as we already realize from yesterday's discussion. It is at this juncture that my delegation feels that the concept of medium-term planning be given due consideration. The Organization could choose among all the recommendations and implement them in stages depending on the availability of resources.
Finally, Malaysia wishes to stress that if members want FAO to continue to be a dynamic and solid institution, then they should be confident in the Organization, should provide the support needed and should strive to ensure that it is able to play its mandatory role.
Roger PASQUIER (Suisse): Permettez-moi une remarque préliminaire inspirée par ce qu'a dit le Représentant de l'Allemagne fédérale.
Le Parlement suisse a décidé récemment aussi de soumettre l'ensemble de notre administration à un examen, en vue de réformes, assuré par une firme internationale de consultants. Ceci à l'exemple d'un exercice effectué avec succès pour la ville de Zurich qui a conduit à de grandes améliorations.
Cela dit, je voudrais revenir au sujet de notre débat. Les propositions de réforme que notre Conseil examine en ce moment doivent être considérées dans la perspective de l'évolution des besoins des 20 années à venir. Cela n'empêche qu'elles comportent des mesures qui sont applicables les unes â bref délai, les autres graduellement, d'autres peut-être à titre expérimental. En tout cas, une organisation dynamique comme doit l'être la FAO doit faire preuve d'une certaine hardiesse. Les organes directeurs de notre Organisation auront toujours l'autorité d'ajuster ou de remplacer certaines mesures le moment venu, à la lumière de l'expérience.
Par ailleurs, les propositions qui nous sont soumises doivent être examines en ayant toujours à l'esprit la relation input-output, c'est-à-dire le plus grand service â rendre aux pays membres par million de dollars dépensé.
En Suisse, les instances concernées ont examiné le rapport du Comité du Programme et du Comité des finances, les avis du Directeur général, ainsi que les rapports des experts. Ma délégation tient à remercier ici les auteurs de ces précieuses contributions.
Certaines mesures proposées par les deux Comités sont acceptables telles quelles à notre avis. D'autres vont dans la bonne direction, mais doivent être élaborées davantage pour être opérationnelles. Enfin, l'une ou l'autre de ces propositions divergent d'avec l'analyse suisse. Il y a également les propositions additionnelles du Directeur général sur lesquelles je reviendrai.
Dans le sens souhaité par l'Honorable Délégué du Pakistan, ma délégation voudrait exprimer de manière précise sa position sur les principaux points que nous avons à examiner.
Je voudrais m'arrêter d'abord à la recommandation qui émane du paragraphe 3.51 du rapport des
deux Comités concernant le renforcement du rÔle des Organes directeurs et des Comités concernés dans
l'orientation des programmes de terrain.
La Suisse avait proposé dans le même but, à la Conférence de 1987, la création d'un comité des programmes de terrain, solution que nous continuerions à préférer, mais nous trouvons acceptable la recommandation différente qui est faite par les deux Comités. Mais le contenu de cette recommandation doit être complété si l'on veut qu'il donne lieu à une décision qui soit vraiment opérationnelle. Je me permets du reste de présenter maintenant la position suisse au sujet de quelques recommandations des deux Comités sous la forme d'éléments de décision éventuelle de la Conférence, ce qui permet d'être plus concis. Il est clair que la Conférence décidera à la lumière de ses propres débats ce à quoi elle veut conclure.
Premièrement, le Conseil consacrera chaque année une semaine de sa session ordinaire exclusivement à l'examen, à l'ajustement, à l'approbation de politiques applicables aux programmes de terrain et aux relations avec les autres agences des Nations Unies et des donateurs en la matière.
Deuxièmement, les Comités de l'agriculture, des forêts, des pêches et de la sécurité alimentaire consacreront 30 pour cent de leur temps en moyenne à examiner dans leur sphère de compétence les programmes de terrain.
J'ouvre une parenthèse: vous voyez que j'introduis simplement ici une certaine quantification, au lieu de dire "ils porteront une attention particulière" car nous craignons que, si la décision est prise sous cette forme-là, elle risque de s'enliser en cours d'année tandis que, si elle est quantifiée, à notre avis, elle deviendra opérationnelle.
Troisièmement, les recommandations et conclusions synthétisées et commentées conjointement par le Comité du programme et le Comité financier, avec l'aide du Secrétariat sont soumises au Conseil.
Quatrièmement, le Comité du programme, assisté par le Secrétariat et si nécessaire par quelques experts, organisera le fonctionnement de ce système. L'éventuel recours à des experts ne dépassera pas trois mois au total. Là aussi, souci de quantifier.
Cinquièmement, des économies sur la durée totale des autres réunions de la FAO viendront compenser l'allongement des sessions du Conseil et l'éventuel allongement des sessions des autres organes susmentionnés.
Sixièmement, après deux bienniums, les organes directeurs examineront si les changements ainsi adoptés sont suffisants ou si d'autres mesures doivent être envisagées; par exemple, l'établissement d'un comité de programmes de terrain.
Septièmement, tous les deux ans, la Conférence procédera à un examen des programmes de terrain, comme cela a été fait jusqu'ici.
Ma délégation remettra volontiers ce texte à ceux qui désirent l'avoir.
Je vais maintenant aborder la question des priorités: en premier lieu, je voudrais dire que ma délégation se réjouit de constater que tout le monde souhaiterait un rÔle renforcé de la FAO en matière de politiques agricoles et de développement rural. Ainsi, ma délégation approuve pleinement le paragraphe 2.20 du rapport des deux comités, qui résume leurs recommandations sur ce sujet.
Je voudrais, par ailleurs, appuyer la priorité recommandée par l'Espagne tout à l'heure concernant le rÔle des organisations paysannes, et cela dans le cadre du suivi de la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural. Mais les deux comités, en cinq passages de leur rapport, font référence à la nécessité de concentrer davantage l'ensemble des activités de la FAO sur des domaines prioritaires et ils proposent, à cet effet, des lignes directrices. Le Directeur général, dans ses commentaires, en juin dernier, nous a de son coté affirmé que lui aussi serait prêt á considérer un certain déplacement des efforts (shifting, en anglais) en faveur des domaines prioritaires mais qu'il fallait, pour cela, que les pays membres se mettent d'accord sur les priorités à réduire ou á supprimer.
Ayant à l'esprit ces avis que nous partageons, nous pensons que la Conférence devrait prendre une décision qui conduise à une concentration bien marquée et que le Conseil doit élaborer des propositions en ce sens, ou en tout cas enregistrer des propositions. C'est à cette fin que ma délégation désire présenter ici les éléments de décision que voici. Selon nous, il pourrait être décidé, premièrement, de réduire un certain pourcentage (ce n'est pas vraiment un projet de décision comme l'autre, c'est un peu plus conditionnel, comme vous le verrez, mais cela pourrait être transformé assez rapidement en un projet de décision), par exemple, 20 pour cent du nombre des activités au niveau des 310 éléments du chapitre 2 du Programme de travail et budget, voire de sous-programmes des autres chapitres, et cela pour le Programme de travail et budget 1992-93 et non pas celui qui vient immédiatement; il s'agirait donc d'une réduction de 20 pour cent de ces éléments du Programme de travail et budget 1992-93 par rapport à ceux du Programme de travail et budget pour 1990-91. Cette réduction n'affectera par le niveau du budget 1992-93 et permettra ainsi de redéployer un montant significatif d'années de travail au profit d'activités prioritaires dans lesquelles la FAO dispose d'un avantage comparatif incontesté. Les demandes touchant aux activités ainsi éliminées qui parviendraient au Secrétariat de la FAO par la suite seraient transmises par lui, dans un esprit de coordination et de division du travail, à d'autres institutions, y compris des institutions nationales, scientifiques, etc., pour y être traitées.
Deuxièmement, on déciderait de focaliser les activités de l'Organisation qui auraient été conservées en les incorporant très largement dans les programmes d'action spéciaux prioritaires. Le choix et l'orientation des programmes d'action spéciaux se fera en accord avec les lignes directrices recommandées par les deux comités pour l'établissement des priorités
paragraphe 2.64 (viii) du rapport. Ces programmes d'action spéciaux s'inspireront dans leur approche du modèle du Plan d'action forestier tropical.
Troisièmement, on limiterait le nombre total des programmes d'action spéciaux ainsi sélectionnés à six ou sept, c'est-à-dire qu'il y aurait un certain regroupement. Il y en a actuellement 14 mais certains sont de très petits programmes, parfois même un peu symboliques. Ce serait donc des programmes beaucoup plus importants. Le deuxième en préparation, comme chacun le sait, est celui de la sécurité alimentaire.
Quatrièmement, on allouerait 60 pour cent des ressources financières du Programme ordinaire sans le PCT et 90 pour cent des ressources financières des programmes de terrain avec le PCT à ces six ou sept programmes d'action spéciaux.
Cinquièmement, pour donner suite à cette décision, la Conférence chargerait une commission ad hoc
puisque les pays membres ne peuvent s'entendre à 150 sur des sous-programmes à choisir parmi ces 310 - d'élaborer des propositions correspondantes. Cette commission ad hoc serait composée, par exemple, comme suit: un membre désigné par le Directeur général, un membre désigné par le Secrétaire général des Nations Unies, un membre désigné par l'Administrateur du PNUD, et deux membres désignés par le Comité financier et le Comité du programme. D'autres solutions peuvent être imaginées, en effet, pour procéder à ce choix, mais celle-ci nous paraît avoir un certain équilibre et assurer d'emblée la liaison avec l'ensemble du système des Nations Unies.
Sixièmement, cette commission ad hoc présenterait ses propositions et conclusions à la quatre-vingt-dix-huitième session du Conseil de la FAO en novembre 1990.
Septième et dernier point, la quatre-vingt-dix-huitième session du Conseil de la FAO en 1990 examinerait ces propositions et donnerait des instructions au Directeur general et au Secrétariat de la FAO pour la préparation du Programme de travail et budget pour 1990-93 en accord avec cette décision. Je rappelle en passant que les deux comités, en cinq passages de leur rapport, ont évoqué cette nécessité de renforcer les priorités d'une façon ou d'une autre. Je ne peux pas répéter ces cinq passages; ils sont faciles à repérer. Ma délégation tient également le texte que je viens de lire à la disposition des intéressés.
Je voudrais aborder maintenant un sujet dont l'un des aspects importants est laissé de côté dans le rapport des deux comités et les observations du Directeur général. Il s'agit du surcroît de travail des fonctionnaires chargés des projets et de ceux chargés de l'appui technique. Je me réfère au paragraphe 3.17 du rapport des deux comités. On nous y informe que les fonctionnaires chargés des projets traitent chacun en moyenne d'une quarantaine de projets - des projets de dimension de plus en plus réduite financièrement parlant et aussi de plus en plus complexe. Le Directeur général propose, à cet égard, l'engagement de 10 fonctionnaires chargés des projets et de six fonctionnaires techniques. Nous ne sommes pas opposés à l'engagement de quatre ou cinq fonctionnaires supplémentaires en vue d'une meilleure qualité du travail puisque cette situation de surcroît de travail ne pourra pas changer du jour au lendemain. Mais ce qui manque pour corriger cette situation, ce sont des mesures de rationalisation. Nous pensons qu'il faut adopter l'objectif qui consiste à remplacer graduellement la multitude de micro-projets dans une très large mesure par des contributions importantes de la FAO à des programmes sous-sectoriels, par pays, planifiés sur cinq ans. Un fonctionnaire chargé de projets s'occuperait alors de quatre ou cinq contributions de ce type en plus de deux ou trois petits projets pour un montant total de même importance ou plus élevé qu'actuellement. Ces programmes sous-sectoriels correspondent, du reste, aux programmes d'action spéciaux du nouveau type, c'est-à-dire du type Plan d'action forestier tropical dont je viens de parler.
Parmi les propositions additionnelles du Directeur général qu'il nous a rappelées ce matin, nous pouvons soutenir d'emblée celles qui concernent le renforcement de la collaboration avec le GATT. En ce qui concerne les autres, nous n'avons pas encore de position définitive.
Quelques mots maintenant au sujet de la Stratégie internationale du développement. Le Conseil a reçu un avant-projet de contribution de la FAO à cette stratégie. Nous sommes d'avis que cette contribution de la FAO devra être remaniée pour refléter pleinement les décisions de la Conférence sur les réformes avant d'être soumises à la session du Conseil de juin prochain. Ainsi remaniée, elle pourra être considérée effectivement comme la stratégie de la FAO ainsi que le proposent les deux comités et le Directeur général.
En ce qui concerne l'aspect financier des réformes, il faut distinguer deux niveaux: celui du Programme de travail et budget et celui du financement extrabudgétaire. Au niveau du Programme de travail et budget, il doit y avoir un redéploiement des ressources au profit de la mise en oeuvre des réformes et aux dépens d'activités moins prioritaires à réduire ou à éliminer selon notre proposition de tout à l'heure. Au niveau des ressources extrabudgétaires, nous prévoyons que des réformes convaincantes attireraient surtout pour leur application dans les programmes de terrain des ressources qui vont actuellement à d'autres secteurs moins prioritaires de la coopération internationale. Pour ce qui est des ressources extrabudgétaires que la Suisse fournit au Programme de terrain de la FAO, ressources qui sont de l'ordre de 6 millions de dollars par an actuellement, nous pouvons annoncer au Conseil que leur volume futur sera influencé par le résultat de l'examen de la FAO, selon que nous jugerons les réformes très satisfaisantes ou peu satisfaisantes. Et nous savons que d'autres pays donateurs ont une position similaire.
Pour terminer, nous voudrions faire savoir que notre délégation serait heureuse d'échanger ses vues avec d'autres membres du Conseil, en particulier sur les éléments de décision suggérés. Pour le reste, ma délégation appuie les propositions de la délégation du Royaume-Uni relatives au processus pouvant le mieux conduire à des décisions de la Conférence qui représenteraient un réel consensus.
Bruce J. TOLENTINO (Philippines): I should like to note first that some countries have raised questions about doing the review in the first place and I think they are strange, because the Conference in Resolution 6/87 did order the review. We should now congratulate ourselves for undertaking this review and thank the Director-General and the Programme and Finance Committees for undertaking the review. It takes courage to undertake reviews and I hope we all recognize the effort as well as the risks involved in the review. Now is the time to take responsibility for the recommendations that have been raised and have the will to implement those recommendations
One thing we would like to note is that it is clear that the demand for FAO's services for technical assistance greatly exceeds the supply of technical assistance. The major question then is how to maximize the cost effectiveness of FAO's work. We look at this question knowing that there is a background and that background is outlined in the first Annex of the report which looks at the situation in trends and agriculture. This annex points out the international organizations of agriculture in all countries and underlines the interdependence of all countries, the interdependence within all sectors, within all countries, within the economic and also that national economy in the context of the world, trade and agriculture, as well as other commodities. Also in the background, we ask questions and we say that we want the FAO's services to be of very high quality and that quality ought to be one where that service gets results the first time it is provided. Also, when FAO provides that service, we would like that we are able to sustain the effects of that service and transfer the capacity of policy analysis or whatever other service that is to the Member Nation so that that Member Nation can undertake the effort for itself without growing a continued dependence on an outside entity even though it is a sympathetic entity like the FAO. It is against this background that we would like to raise a question about the role of the country and regional office. In paragraph 3.33, the experts and the Committee have recommended the strengthening of the country offices and also they have pointed out the need to institute the programme of decentralization of decision-making and capacity to the country offices. The Director-General has already said yes to this programme and he said we will try to implement this over a number of biennia. The question is the cost of strengthening country offices as well as decentralizing and creating the capacity in each of these offices will cost a lot of money and for one biennium alone, the Director-General estimates that he needs at least 5 million dollars per biennium to implement the strengthening of the country offices.
We would like to forward the proposal then that we ought to review the recommendations to strengthen the country and the regional offices and in reviewing the resources allocated to such strengthening, we would like to say that perhaps those resources can be re-allocated to three other areas. First, perhaps at this time to take into consideration the item that has been mentioned that the quality of Headquarters staff has been going down and perhaps those resources should be allocated towards strengthening and upgrading of Headquarters staff to increase its capacity and quality to service the needs of the member countries. Second, sound resources meant for strengthening country regional offices could be allocated to country policy studies as noted in paragraph 24 of the Director's report.
The idea is that, if these studies are carried out, and if the technology is transferred to national staff, as already mentioned in paragraph 62 of the Director-General's report, then the cost effectiveness of FAO's services can indeed be upgraded. The resources allocated to the strengthening of country and regional offices can perhaps be moved over to, first, upgrading the quality of headquarters' staff; second, increasing resources for country policy studies; and, third, training of national staff in the countries themselves. We should say, however, that, while reviewing the role of the regional offices, the role of FAO in providing assistance to member countries with regard to trade and economic integration issues is critical. These are issues which have to do with the new international economic order, as mentioned in paragraph 29, trade issues, paragraph 25, and the GATT, paragraph 35, not to mention issues with regard to the European Economic Community, through the Cairns Group and the Uruguay Round.
Turning to another item, we support the recommendation that Intensification of the monitoring and streamlining of the management of field programmes should be paid attention to, as already mentioned in paragraph 3.42. However, if the intensification of such monitoring of operations is done through the creation of new bodies, new committees, new positions in the Organization, this again will increase the costs of operating FAO. Why not carry out the task of overseeing the work of field operations by extending the functions and responsibilities of the existing committees? We have committees for agricultural commodity problems, fisheries, forestry and food security and the important committees of Programme and Finance. If we ask these committees, which are all composed, anyway, of Member Nations with a concern for the efficiency of FAO Itself, to absorb these overseeing functions, then we shall not need to increase the costs of that exercise.
It is on this item that we should like to emphasize the link between the regular and field programmes, as already noted in paragraphs 3.2 to 3.4. The Director-General himself says in paragraph 18 that FAO's field programme should draw upon, and feed into, the regular programme. That sentence summarizes the symbolic and systemic relationship between the regular programmes and the field programmes. The field programme in itself is an extension of the regular work of FAO that is carried out in the member countries. This is developed in the process of deciding within the Council and the Conference and the staff itself. Thus there should be a logical connection between the expertise developed in the regular programmes and the work carried out in the field programmes. For example, the TCP is used to build the linkages between the regular programmes and the activities in the countries themselves.
Finally, we should like to make a general comment about the global role that FAO plays. FAO's assistance is very critical in a world where, unfortunately, there is now a lot of suspicion about the assistance being provided by some other international agencies. For example, many accusations are made by developing nations undergoing structural adjustment about the quality, objectives and motives behind the work undertaken by agencies such as the World Bank and the IMF or even agencies like USAID. We are not in a position at this time to say whether or not these accusations are deserved, or whether they are right or wrong, but the fact is that such suspicion exists. However, in this regard FAO is seen as a neutral, sympathetic and more transparent source of assistance, and thus we should use and strengthen the capacity of FAO to provide that assistance.
In summary, in general we endorse the programme in the recommendations provided by the Review. However, we would ask for a second look at the areas where greater cost effectiveness may be attained in a review of the role of the country and regional offices and in asking why we should or should not strengthen these country offices and maximize the benefits from existing committees for oversight functions and, finally, maximize the benefit we can derive from linking clearly the regular and field programmes.
Gian Luigi VALENZA (Italie): En tant que membre du Comité financier je ne pense pas que mon intervention sur les travaux et les résultats de réunions conjointes des deux Comités, qui se sont tenues tout au long de ces deux dernières années, doive être trop longue ou détaillée. Il est en effet vraiment très difficile d'être à la fois rédacteur partiel et critique acéré.
Tout en confirmant néanmoins le fruit de nos travaux, je me limiterai ici à deux brèves observations.
Tout d'abord, mon gouvernement espère qu'un consensus pourra être trouvé le moment venu grace à l'aide de toutes les délégations, faute de quoi un vote ne pourrait être que regrettable voire négatif.
Quelques orateurs qui ont pris la parole avant moi ont évoqué le programme de coopération technique et ont souhaité son maintien, voire son renforcement.
A ce propos, il m'est agréable aujourd'hui de vous donner ici une bonne nouvelle. Nous avons tenu hier une réunion spéciale du CIC à notre direction générale de la coopération, avec la participation personnelle du Ministre des affaires étrangères. En surmontant certaines difficultés il a été décidé à cette occasion et dans cette enceinte que les 15 millions de dollars que l'Italie avait prévu de donner à titre exceptionnel pour le programme de coopération technique de la FAO seront payés sans faute avant la fin de l'année en cours.
Nous espérons que cela sera de bon augure pour d'autres paiements et pour le futur financier de cette Organisation qui, je crois, doit préoccuper tous les pays membres.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
LE PRESIDENT: Les applaudissements du Conseil reflètent mieux que tout autre chose l'appréciation de notre Conseil et de notre Directeur général pour la bonne nouvelle que vient d'indiquer M. le Délégué d'Italie et l'offre généreuse du Gouvernement italien que nous remercions.
Sra. Margarita Lizarraga SAUCEDO (Mexico): Nos complace haber escuchado cuan responsablemente se ha ocupado usted de seguir el proceso de examen de ciertos aspectos de la FAO que la Conferencia encomendó conjuntamente a los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas apoyados en un Grupo de Expertos. Esto testimonia una vez más la seriedad con que usted ha ejercido su función.
Agradecemos por su conducto al Profesor Mazoyer, Presidente del Comité del Programa, su pragmática presentación de la forma escrupulosa como se dio cumplimiento al análisis, conforme a lo dispuesto por la Resolución 6/87, y nos complace saber que el consenso en torno a la gran mayoría de las recomendaciones emanentes del análisis fue logrado.
Asimismo agradecemos al Director General quien nos ha informado, de una parte, de su participación en apoyo de todo el proceso y la presentación de sus comentarios al estudio conforme a la citada Resolución. El nos ha proporcionado informaciones adicionales sobre algunas recomendaciones y nos ha llamado a que las decisiones sobre el tema, por su implicación, se tomen por verdadero consenso; aspecto sobre el cual mi delegación compromete su mayor esfuerzo.
Nos toca pues, ahora, como Consejo, analizar los resultados de este Examen, pronunciarnos sobre ellos para transmitirlos a la Conferencia donde tendremos un debate más amplio. Sin embargo, un buen trabajo como el que ya hicieron en su turno los Comités conjuntos del Programa y de Finanzas puede facilitar la discusión y llegar a los resultados que nos planteamos consensualmente como base del Ejercicio: reforzar la FAO para que pueda hacer frente a las necesidades crecientes en materia de alimentación y agricultura en los años venideros. En ese contexto debo decir que nos ha decepcionado un poco que se haya tenido que colocar como Anexo la información que sobre la protección del entorno mundial, la alimentación y la agricultura se deben dar a fin de enmarcar la actividad de la FAO.
Se reconoce sin embargo que el análisis de todos los elementos lo comprenden intrínsecamente. Mi delegación se complace de la constatación hecha por todos los que participaron en el Examen, de que la FAO es una Organización sana que ha sabido irse adaptando a los cambios de las necesidades de sus países miembros. Esto pone de manifiesto las razones por las cuales la mayoría nos oponíamos a la necesidad de hacer esta revisión. Sin embargo, la aceptamos como fórmula de diálogo y concertación; y por ello nos complacen las conclusiones a que se ha llegado por lo cual las aprobamos puntualizando aquí que damos por concluido el Ejercicio.
Ahora bien, en lo que toca a la aplicación de los recursos, mi delegación si bien considera que la recomendación puede ser en general positiva para la Organización y para nuestros países, nos plantea el dilema de que en su mayoría las recomendaciones requieren de financiación y el problema es que nuestros países ya están haciendo su mayor esfuerzo para financiar el Programa de Labores bianual que democráticamente y conforme a las instancias establecidas por los Textos Básicos van estableciéndose. Si bien no todo lo que pedimos en las Conferencias Regionales y los Comités técnicos podemos obtener, porque hay que limitarnos a un mínimo de recursos, por lo menos vemos de cierta manera reflejado, y esperamos cada vez que lo que quedó pendiente, la próxima vez pueda quedar incluido.
Es por ello que a menos que se encontrase una fórmula para que este proceso, en donde se pronuncien todos nuestros países, pudiese cumplirse en el año anterior a la Conferencia, no aceptamos que se interfiera con una instancia de aprobación temprana en donde la representación de los países es mínima y se vaya a condicionar a los órganos gubernamentales. Existen, evidentemente, muchos elementos valiosos expresados en el informe que hemos visto, como ya la Secretaría está plasmando en superación, y en otros que nosotros mismos iremos incluyendo en nuestra actuación en los foros, como forma de aceptar toda mejora posible.
Sin embargo, hay un gran numero de recomendaciones que inevitablemente tienen un costo; costo que nuestros países en vías de desarrollo no estaríamos en la posibilidad de financiar y que tampoco estaríamos dispuestos a canjear por rubros que ya tienen su expresión en el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto, en su nivel actual de recursos. En suma, no podemos aceptar más reajustes. Esto no debe interpretarse como falta de voluntad de diálogo. Es sólo que no podemos ir más allá de nuestras limitaciones económicas. Nuestra expresión de diálogo trataremos de plasmarla a continuación al pasar al análisis de los diversos capítulos del Examen.
En lo que toca a las funciones coincidimos en que todas son válidas e importantes, y si bien los países en desarrollo, por necesidades prácticas, consideramos prioritariamente a la asistencia técnica, reconocemos la importancia indudable de los foros de donde emanan las directrices de política para definir las estrategias y planes de acción sectorial, que contribuyen incluso a establecer el marco de programas a mediano y largo plazo, así como el papel de la información por lo que apoyamos la creación del Waicent. La función de la FAO en el establecimiento de políticas nos parece un elemento importante. Sin embargo, consideramos que esto es un aspecto vital y sensible que requiere profundizar en su aplicación. Hemos analizado en el Comité de Seguridad
Alimentarla los efectos negativos de muchos de los programas de reajuste estructural emanantes de la vinculación a los créditos del Banco Mundial y del Fondo Monetario Internacional, y por ello queremos que la FAO, recogiendo las posturas de los países y la experiencia de sus departamentos técnicos, produzca alternativas viables que se configuren en proyectos bancables cuidando que no se hagan proyectos o análisis sectoriales en nombre y con las políticas y condiciones de los Bancos. La gran experiencia y prestigio de los Departamentos de Pesca y de Montes, Agricultura, etc., deben ser los que generen los elementos en los que se apoye el Centro de Inversiones.
Con respecto al comercio internacional nos complace que tanto las conclusiones y recomendaciones de los Comités coincidan con el propio GATT respecto al papel de apoyo que puede y debe darle la FAO en beneficio de todos. Esto conlleva a la importancia y prestigio del CODEX Alimentarius y a la validez de los acuerdos y establecimiento de unidades y programas interagenciales. Mi delegación los apoya con gran interés.
De la misma manera, apoya las iniciativas relativas al reforzamiento de las actividades de investigación y la tecnología en donde la FAO, por la cualidad que le da su carácter intergubernamental, debe contribuir en la orientación de los centros que componen la red del GCIAI.
La FAO, con arreglo a su mandato debe continuar desempeñando una función de primer plano en la conservación y ordenación de los recursos naturales, así como también la diversidad biológica y genética. Dicha tarea debe ser emprendida en estrecha cooperación con otras organizaciones basándose en el espíritu y los principios que constituyen el fundamento del Compromiso Internacional sobre Recursos Fitogenéticos.
A este nivel del proceso, evitaré decir en detalle la lista de los aspectos contenidos en el Examen. Me limitar a referir dos aspectos fundamentales. De una parte, las operaciones de campo que son la expresión misma de la presencia de FAO en nuestros países. Mi delegación considera que deben hacerse todos los esfuerzos posibles por instrumentar las recomendaciones para reforzarlas dentro de las necesidades prioritarias definidas por los Estados Miembros, los cuales deberán participar activamente en todas las instancias.
Aceptamos la recomendación de la reintroducción de un plano a plazo medio que abarque tres bienios en la medida que contenga una indicación de los recursos por programas que se adapte a las necesidades crecientes para que sea realista, y se tomen en consideración las estrategias y programas de acción ya adoptados por las conferencias sectoriales celebradas en el seno de la FAO, así como programas vigentes como PASA, Plan de Acción Forestal, Plan de Acción para la Integración de la Mujer en el Desarrollo, etc..
Apoyamos la celebración de la Conferencia Mundial de la Nutrición y la elaboración de algunos programas de acción como pueden ser el desarrollo sostenible y otros.
A esta altura de mi intervención, me permito expresar que, en diferente forma y estilo, al expresarnos estamos ejerciendo la voluntad de diálogo. No debemos tratar de quemar etapas que le resten transparencia al proceso.
Ahora que estamos llegando a la fase final, recordemos que el Consejo es un órgano subrogado de la Conferencia y que en un tema tan trascendente como éste, todos los países tienen derecho a ser escuchados antes de tomar la decisión final. Sólo en esa instancia se puede definir la fórmula de plasmar los acuerdos, entretanto, respondemos a la invitación del distinguido Embajador de Brasil. Nos unimos al consenso logrado en los Comités, felicitándolos por el buen trabajo realizado.
Agradecemos al Director General su gran voluntad para armonizar las Conclusiones y Recomendaciones, muchas de las cuales incluso han sido ya incorporadas también por haber presentado un cuadro de costos indicativos e incluso alternativas para su implementación. Mi delegación reitera su acuerdo de la Implementación de las medidas convenidas por los Comités, dentro de los límites establecidos y en los términos de la Resolución 6/87 y que no impliquen ni adición ni absorción de costos o cambios al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto.
Finalmente, mi delegación expresa atenta pero firmemente, que esperamos correspondencia a nuestra flexibilidad en la aceptación del Ejercicio en aras de reforzar a la FAO y mantener el espíritu de diálogo, con una posición congruente respecto a los recursos que se requieren para su financiación, y en pleno respeto a los procesos democráticos. Lamentamos que a esta altura del proceso se quieran introducir enmiendas de fondo en temas sustantivos, que no podemos aceptar. Finalmente, todo nuestro agradecimiento al anuncio que acaba de hacer el distinguido representante de nuestro país huésped, Italia. Posiciones como éstas pueden hacer de nuestra Organización una organización más sólida.
Karl W. WEYBRECHT (Canada): I wish to thank the Chairman of the Programme Committee and the Director-General for their introduction to this agenda item. We would like to pay a tribute to the Chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committees for their dedication, confidence and patience in conducting the proceedings of the Special Joint Sessions that led to the report we have before us.
The Council has before it the conclusions and recommendations of the Programme and Finance Committees along with the Director-General's comments on the study of FAO's Roles, Priorities, Objectives, and strategies as well as field operations and certain administrative issues. As I believe was pointed out in the introduction to this item, Council has been asked in Resolution 6/87 to submit its own views to the Conference along with the SJS report and the Director-General's comments.
The report points out that the Programme and Finance Committee held four Special Joint Sessions to implement the Resolution. The acronomyn "SJS" has become firmly entrenched in FAO's vocabulary as the result of the attention that has been focused on this exercise.
My Government attaches great importance to the successful conclusion of the review exercise and has, on several occasions, set out the objectives it wishes to see accomplished. We were pleased to have had the privilege of participating directly in the various stages of the process, as a member of the Programme Committee. The scope of the Review is very broad and the range of individual issues is often highly complex. While views differ on some issues, as the Director-General pointed out in his comments, the Committees were able to reach a broad degree of consensus. It is only natural to expect, however, that in the course of discussion in Council and Conference additional views and ideas may emerge. Of course, it will be for Conference to decide on how to respond to the recommendations of the SJS taking into account the views of the broader membership.
The Conference will need to develop a clear course of action of implementation of the results of the Review process, including identification of possible follow-up actions. We share the wish that full agreement be reached so that ultimately the conclusions of the Review can be adopted on a unanimous basis. The decision taken by the SJS to attach reports of two group of experts to its own report is very much welcomed. The experts made a valuable contribution to the review. It is appropriate that member countries are given this opportunity to examine the conclusions and recommendations of the experts in making their own assessment of the SJS report.
My delegation would like to highlight a number of areas that we consider of particular importance in the reform process. We support the strengthening of certain of FAO's roles as set out in the report, including its role as a global information centre, its policy role as well as its involvement in promoting sustainable development and the stress that needs to be placed on the role of women in development. Canada attaches importance to improved priority setting, including greater Member State involvement and decision making, in particular in the area of field programmes. We are encouraged by the recognition given by the SJS report to the needs for greater involvement of governing bodies in field operations.
We have supported the view expressed in the report by some members that FAO should focus resources on areas where it has a clear comparative advantage. Strengthening inspection and evaluation of FAO's activities is also an area that we support. In this regard we are not clear about the Director-General's comment in paragraph 49 on page XI, where it is suggested that it would be premature to decide the location of the field inspection unit before its detailed terms of reference have been decided. The Committee's proposal to establish a field inspection unit as a part of the evaluation service stems from the expert recommendation that a monitoring inspection mechanism be established and attached to the office of the Director-General. Indeed we had initially expressed a preference for a fully independent inspection mechanism. Therefore, we are not clear on why the location of the inspection unit has been reopened. We note the Director-General's proposal that if the outline of the Programme of Work and Budget is maintained, the Summary of the Programme of Work and Budget will be unnecessary. The implications of this will need to be examined closely in the light of the Director-General's supplementary comments this morning. My delegation may have further comments to make on this matter in discussion in Commission II of the Conference.
Closer inter-agency cooperation is a key element of the Review process. We note the proposal of the Director-General to facilitate a dialogue between Rome-based food and agricultural agencies to share information and to coordinate activities. On the surface this would seem to be a constructive proposal that presumably would not require additional resources. However, it would have been useful to have had the preliminary reaction of the other agencies concerned with this proposal.
We support efforts, as part of the administrative review, to improve the financial management of the Organization in pursuit of increased transparency and accountability. Steps to facilitate the availability of the provision of financial information, including regular up-to-date information on programme and sub-programme expenditures would be an important step in this direction.
In reviewing the comments of the Director-General concerning the SJS report, extensive emphasis has been placed on the resource requirements to implement the various recommendations. The resource dimension is the subject of a separate chapter of the report, where differing views were expressed.
My delegation associates itself with the view that when considering the resources needed to strengthen the Organization the main focus should be on a reallocation of priorities. Frankly, we are concerned, that the emphasis placed on the need for additional resources to cover the reform issues will divert attention from the substantial issues that need to be addressed by Council and Conference. Some important reform proposals would not result in substantial additional costs. We would urge the Director-General to reconsider whether some shifting of resources and economies could not be achieved with a view to making room for SJS proposals within the current Programme of Work and Budget. This may make it easier for some large contributors to show flexibility on the budget itself.
To facilitate a unanimous agreement we see considerable merit in the proposal put forward by some others that a process of contact be established. We share the view expressed by the delegate of Australia over the short period of time available to reach an overall satisfactory conclusion to the review. Members of the Council have clearly stressed the importance which they attach to reaching a consensus in our decision-making process for the Review. Consensus will require close dialogue between Member States. Therefore, we believe the suggestion made by the UK this morning would promote an understanding of all points of view.
Ibrahima ΚΑΒΑ (Guinee): La Délegation guinéenne se réjouit de voir les résultats auxquels sont parvenues les investigations minutieuses qu'a exigées la Résolution 6/87. Je vous épargnerai une longue énumération des conclusions déjà bien analysées dans les rapports soumis à notre examen et que nous approuvons dans l'ensemble. Je ferai état de quelques brèves observations générales qui reflètent la position de notre Délégation en attendant la Conférence. L'obtention d'un consensus a permis l'adoption de la Résolution 6/87. Deux années de recherche, de nombreux hauts fonctionnaires et des experts indépendants mobilisés, deux millions de dollars dépensés, pour conclure que notre Organisation fait bien son travail et qu'elle est bien gérée. Mais comme on peut toujours mieux faire, de nouvelles propositions nous sont soumises. Pour notre part, nous avons foi en la FAO et en ses objectifs. En tout cas, dans mon pays son action est hautement appréciée. Nous faisons confiance au comité conjoint qui a été mandaté par la Conférence pour mener à bien l'examen. Cela dit, il est clair que le renforcement des activités de notre Organisation nécessite logiquement le renforcement de ses moyens d'action dont le principal est constitué par le moyen financier. Aussi la mise en oeuvre des nouvelles activités exige 26 millions de dollars. Or, nous savons que pour la mise en oeuvre des anciennes activités il manque de l'argent, au point que ces activités ne sont exécutées qu'en partie.
Comme c'est à la Conférence qu'il appartiendra de se déterminer sur ce point, nous le ferons nous-mêmes devant cette instance.
En ce qui concerne cet autre point, le renforcement du rÔle d'assistance de la FAO revêt à nos yeux une importance toute particulière. Quant à la nécessité d'instituer un corps d'inspecteurs pour les programmes de terrain, nous nous interrogeons sérieusement sur l'opportunité d'un tel organe si l'on pense à l'aspect onéreux des voyages pour une organisation qui a tant besoin de ressources. En tout cas, dans mon pays, l'exécution des projets FAO est contrôlée par les experts du Département de tutelle avec la participation des organismes de financement.
Nous saluons la suggestion du Directeur général quant à l'institution de rencontres périodiques et informelles entre les organisations s'occupant de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture ici à Rome.
Comme nous l'avons dit plus haut, ce ne sont là que des observations préliminaires.
Ms Joan DUDIK-GATOSO (United States of America): The US delegation wishes to thank the two expert groups, the SJS of the Programme and Finance Committees and their Chairmen, the Drafting Support Group, and all those who have laboured so intensively during the past two years to bring us to the point where we can recommend specific actions to improve the operations and the efficiency of FAO.
The documents are considerable and complex. One can support any point of view by selective quotation from them. They do indeed testify to the importance of FAO's work. They testify to the professionalism and dedication of the staff of the Organization. On the other hand, they also make recommendations for important improvements which themselves testify to the necessity and the value of the review process itself, and the need for specific improvements in FAO's operations and structure to strengthen it and enable it to move ahead to meet future challenges. Let me cite a few examples from the annex - Appendix 2, the larger volume of C 89/21 - and the one on which the SJS based its work.
The Experts' Report of the field programme noted in paragraphs 45, 65, 70 and 81 on pages 97, 105 and 106 that field operations do not get the required attention by governing bodies. More information is needed by donors and recipients, they said; there is need for revised arrangements for providing policy direction by governing bodies; more work is needed here by us, the members of FAO.
Paragraph 48 on page 98 refers to the need for improvement in FAO through organizational and management measures at headquarters and in the fields.
Paragraph 75 suggests the need for clearer focus of FAO's operational activities.
Paragraph 52 notes that technical support was considered a problem, a main factor affecting the quality of FAO's performance. This, in the view of the United States delegation, is not simply a matter of resources; it is a question of how resources are used.
Paragraph 80 recommends improvements in the structure to improve FAO's effectiveness.
Paragraph 81 lists a series of practical improvements to improve field operations. These are well worth noting.
In paragraphs 90, 91 and 94, regarding the role, quality and competence of FAO Representatives Offices, there is an indication, we would say in English, of "mixed reviews", i.e. of varying quality of field staff and the suggestion that the selection criteria for staff need review.
Paragraph 57 refers to FAO's limited capacity to maintain a substantive dialogue with governments, and notes that this is a matter for further consideration in headquarters and in the composition of the fields structure.
Paragraph 61 says that FAO representatives in most cases are not equipped to provide policy advice and analysis to governments.
Paragraphs 72 and 73 suggest that better planning of the TCP would release pressure on TCP resources. They also suggest - and my delegation supports - the increased delegation of authority to field officers and grouping projects into more coherent packages. We note that the size of FAO projects is declining, and we are concerned about the management burden on FAO and on the governments themselves of many small projects.
In the report on the Role, Objectives and Priorities of the Organization, also in the same annex, paragraph 7.5 notes signs of overlap with other agencies. Paragraph 7.6 points out the scope for strengthening FAO, reinforcing its data and the information collection role, strengthening its capacity of independent policy analysis, and upgrading its work on the environment and in support of sustainable development. It also suggests ensuring that field projects remain within a set of objectives and priorities.
Paragraph 7.24 recommends that FAO exercise selectivity in field projects and suggests guidelines and priorities.
Paragraph 7.36 suggests important improvements in the way the Programme of Work and Budget is presented, showing links among programme elements and sub-programmes, inter-programme coordination covering major areas of work and the contributions of various programmes and sub-programmes to various themes or areas of major thrust.
Concerning the work done for us by the SJS during last year, the Council has an important role. Resolution 6/87, as others have noticed, instructs us to transmit the SJS report together with the Council's views to the Conference. If the Council does not present its views along with the views of the SJS and those of the Director-General, we are rejecting the instructions of Resolution 6/87. We are duty bound to express our own views in a way that we assist the Conference in coming to a decision. We also would seek a consensus, but we cannot just endorse the SJS report since, as others have noticed, the SJS report also includes areas where no consensus could be reached in the SJS discussions. This might be a good place on which to focus our attention.
While this agenda item is entitled "Conclusion of the Review", we wish to state clearly at this time that while it is the conclusion of one phase it is also a beginning. First, our actions will begin the implementation phase of this process, for if we do not promptly implement the recommendations we make, as others have already said, we can properly be accused of wasting our time and FAO's resources for the past two years. Second, it is a beginning, according to the recommendations in the SJS report, of the increased responsibility for oversight, monitoring and follow through for the governing bodies, the members of FAO. This may require a re-examination of the procedures of those governing bodies, bringing improvements, for example, in the decison-making process, in order to make those bodies more efficient and capable of carrying out these increased responsibilities.
Finally, let this be the beginning of a new FAO, ready for, and capable of, regular seIf-improvement, and thus more capable of meeting the challenges of an uncertain future.
The Experts' reports represent an excellent foundation on which to build. These documents point out, for example, that of FAO's three major roles, two - collection and dissemination of agricultural information, and promoting agricultural policy - are virtually unique to FAO and are critical to the whole agricultural system. The reports note that the regular programme and field programme are inextricably entwined in the field and suggest that they should be programmed to reinforce each other. We think this is a useful guideline for improving the effectiveness of the TCP programme. The reports give detailed guidance on the process of priority setting in Chapter A. Moreover, the reports, while finding FAO on the whole healthy, effective and of immense value to the world agricultural system, also point to the danger in the future that "The spectrum of responsibilities and activities has grown so large as to endanger the quality of the Organization's work: a loss FAO must not accept and cannot afford".
Thus the reports reaffirm our awareness of FAO's value, instruct us in our duty to protect and preserve that value, and guide us in means to fulfil that duty.
The SJS has built well on that foundation, identifying improvements which a wide sample of FAO's membership can support. In addition, we have the Director-General's own reflections in this document. This review has sometimes been presented as divisive: the efforts or desires of some members at the expense of others.
The Experts' Groups and the SJS, representing all regions of FAO's membership, have demonstrated that many areas of agreement can be found, and have presented specific recommendations on those areas. Other areas they left for this Council and Conference to come to agreement on. Still other areas, they concluded, require further study and later action. While there was no universal agreement on all issues, they demonstrated that those who wish FAO well can unite, rather than divide, for the good of the Organization and those whom it benefits. We would like this process to continue. Although, as some have noted this afternoon, this review process was more limited than we had wished and was not adopted by consensus, the US participated seriously in these painstaking efforts. While the end product is itself the result of compromise, we can, and do, endorse the recommendations made. We note that work remains to be done at this Council and Conference to come to agreement in at least three areas - the clarification of the role of FAO, determining the process by which the Governing Bodies help determine the priority setting of FAO, and, most important, determining the steps and mechanisms for the implementation and follow-up to the recommendations approved by the Conference.
These documents do not pretend to be perfect, complete or all-encompassing. By accepting them, we are accepting a challenge to begin to assure both that FAO's programmes stay in line with the needs of its Members, and that the membership shares a clear view of FAO's role, capabilities and limitations. As we consider and move towards implementation of these recommendations, and other recommendations still to be made by Members of this body or of the Conference, we will learn how better to strengthen FAO. Throughout the various steps of this review, the US has placed a great deal of emphasis on the process itself. Let us address the specific tasks before us. The Conference has the final authority to approve recommendations, but this Council has a role in the process, as we said. We are all aware that the Conference has a full agenda. We do not want to
end as we did in the closing hours of the 1987 Conference, regretting that there was just not enough time. We need not end up in that position if we start now. We are duty bound to express our views here in this Council in such a way that we assist the Conference in coming to a decision on this review.
Specifically: first, the SJS Report is not in the form of a resolution or decision, and cannot yet be acted upon. We here, as well as at the Conference, must work together, listen to each other in open and thorough dialogue, to draft a decision on the results of the review process set in motion by Resolution 6/87 two years ago, that can find support among all members.
Second, we must ensure that the decision resolution contains follow-up resolutions to ensure that what we decide is fully implemented in conformity with the desires of the Conference, and that the membership is fully involved in the process.
Third, we must examine carefully those areas where the members of the SJS were unable to reach full agreement, so that we may present to the Conference, to our Ministers who will be with us next week, clearly drawn issues for decision. These are heavy and time-consuming responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, we have ideas for a decision and are sure that others do also. We have just heard some specific proposals from Switzerland. We would like to have ample time to explore these ideas with other members. For example, the report recommends that the budget outline be continued for at least one more biennium. That phrase "at least" recommends no specific end point. We would propose that it would be made a part of FAO's normal procedure to continue until a future Conference determines a change is necessary. The Director-General has also endorsed the budget outline, but this morning suggested that, in exchange, the Summary Programme of Work and Budget be eliminated. We applaud the efforts to find savings to finance a proposed recommendation, but we have reservations about this proposal that we think it would be worthwhile to discuss. From our point of view, we see two problems with the suggestion. First, the Summary Programme of Work and Budget is the primary document used by members of the COAG, the Committee on Forestry and Fisheries for their deliberation. The budget outline, because it does not go into programme details, cannot be used for this purpose. Also, the Summary Programme of Work and Budget receives much wider distribution, while the budget outline is available only to members of the Programme and Finance Committees. We need to ensure that all members are aware of, and able to contribute to, the budget formulation process. We recommend that both the budget outline and the Summary Programme of Work and Budget be retained.
We also wish to draw the Council's attention to paragraphs 2.26 to 2.28, which lay out the issues regarding the concept of comparative advantage. The SJS was unable to reach agreement on a recommendation on this issue, but recognized its importance. We ask members to take note of the Director-General's call for realism in planning FAO's future, and draft a recommendation that FAO's activities be strictly focused on those areas where FAO has a clear comparative advantage, avoiding overlap with other agencies which have greater expertise in a particular area. Only through such a step can we be sure that FAO's resources are used most effectively to assist its Member Nations, and that other assistance is obtained from those best able to provide it.
Another area on which neither the SJS, nor the Experts, produced recommendation is that of the management structure of the Organization. As the Experts noted in paragraph 59 of the Report on FAO's Field Programme, FAO's management structure has not changed since 1974. They noted that this raises questions of FAO's operational effectiveness. They pointed out that organizational structures have not changed in step with changing need and conditions at the country level, and with new methods in development cooperation. How FAO is structured is a function of the role of FAO. An effective structure is that which supports the primary roles of an organization. If we are to re-examine the role, and if we are to re-examine the activities, we should also re-examine the management structure, to ensure that it is, and remains, appropriate to the role and activities of the Organization.
This is an area where outside expertise, picking up on the management issues the Experts highlighted but had no time to address in depth, would be a useful part of the follow-up and implementation of the review's recommendations. A few moments ago the Philippines mentioned the role of country and regional offices, an issue on which the Experts offered a number of thoughts but came to no definitive conclusion. On a broader theme, when we consider the priorities of FAO, we believe the recommendations of this Council should state clearly that the Regular Programme activities and Field Programme activities should be integrated as much as possible, mutually reinforcing, complementing each other, rather than operating independently.
Wé also feel that the Regular Programme activities should be governed by the principle of comparative advantage. For example, FAO should and must collect and disseminate the results of research, but other organizations are better structured to conduct the research.
In view of these open items, Mr. Chairman, the US requests that you find a way to facilitate informal dialogue among those with specific ideas to contribute during the remainder of this week. I hesitate to suggest what to call such an informal dialogue, but I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that you in your wisdom will find the right name for it. For example, you could schedule and provide a space, and, if possible, Conference services for discussions. This should help us use our time to greatest advantage, and to prepare the way for the work of our Ministers in the Conference.
Beyond that, the US would like to see the Report of the Council include the recommendation that intensive consultation on this issue during the Conference begins the first week of the Conference, in parallel with the work of Commission II, which has additional important issues to consider. Various mechanisms are possible, but the difficult drafting job is unlikely to be successfully completed unless additional time is devoted to it. Again, we need to make the time if we want to avoid regretting the lack of time later.
Mr. Chairman, a final word about the resource issue: the SJS did not reach a conclusion on this issue, but rather laid out a number of options on page 41 of the Report for finding the necessary resources for implementing the recommendations. The US is strongly of the view that strengthening FAO to meet successfully the demands of its members is of overriding importance, and notes that an important set of the recommendations deals with the area of priority setting. It is our conclusion that Option II, which involves requesting the Director-General to examine priorities so as to find resources as necessary for implementation, will in, and of, itself begin the implementation of this set of recommendations, and so we commend this choice. A number of Member States have indicated their difficulty with increased assessments. Our position on this point is well known. It is unreasonable to expect even greater resources in this era of budget stringency. We, therefore, face difficult choices. In our view, we must find the necessary resources through re-directing resources towards higher priority activities which reflect the Organization's comparative advanatage vis-à-vis other institutions.
Mr. Chairman, these are out comments for the first round of this debate. We would expect to discuss detailed elements of the specific recommendations, preferable in the consultations we have asked you to arrange with other delegations without taking further time of the Plenary.
LE PRESIDENT: Il est 18 h 45. J'avais envisagé de continuer la séance jusqu'à 19 heures et de reprendre la réunion demain matin. Nous avons un programme chargé et il faut laisser le temps au Comité de rédaction de travailler. L'important est de respecter l'ensemble de l'ordre du jour. La parole est au délégué du Gabon.
Jules Marius OGONEBANDJA (Gabon): Ma délégation voudrait d'abord féliciter le Directeur général de la FAO pour les excellentes orientations qu'il a bien voulu nous livrer quant à l'examen de certains aspects des buts et opérations de la FAO. Nous voudrions également féliciter le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier pour l'excellent rapport qu'ils ont élaboré sur la base des conclusions des experts.
Nous voudrions enfin associer pleinement à ces félicitations le Professeur Mazoyer pour son introduction très claire du document déjà bien détaillé. En ce qui concerne l'examen, je ne voudrais pas entrer dans le détail car nous y reviendrons. Nous sommes cependant heureux de constater que les trois grands roles assignés à la FAO dans son Acte constitutif ont été confirmés vitaux pour le développement de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture dans le monde, sans qu'il soit souhaitable d'établir entre eux un ordre de priorités.
Nous appuyons les recommandations des Comités et les choix des priorités proposées, et soutenons plus particulièrement l'assistance technique, la formation, la recherche et le transfert des technologies vers les pays en développement, les programmes d'action sociaux et les efforts en faveur du rôle de la femme dans le développement rural et durable. Nous appuyons également les recommandations visant à promouvoir le rôle de la FAO en tant que contribution dans la mise en place du nouvel ordre économique international, notamment au sein du GATT, et souhaitons une plus grande liaison entre les organisations ayant les mimes objectifs installées à Rome. S'agissant des ressources nécessaires à la mise en oeuvre de ces recommandations et des différentes solutions préconisées, mon pays, frappé par une crise soutenue, éprouvera de grandes difficultés
à affronter de nouvelles augmentations de contribution, comme nous l'avons déjà indiqué. A ce sujet, nous appuyons les propositions d'autres délégués visant la mise en oeuvre à moyen terme et par étape en fonction des disponibilités financières. Cependant, nous ne saurions pour l'heure arrêter une position définitive à ce sujet et sommes persuadés que nous pourrions intervenir plus amplement lors de la Conférence.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vais demander au Directeur général de bien vouloir nous donner un supplément d'information qui nous permettra peut-être de réfléchir et d'arriver à un consensus.
LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Je répondrai d'abord à la question très importante soulevée par le délégué du Pakistan qui m'a demandé sur quelle base j'avais décidé de ce que certaines recommandations étaient prioritaires. Il a demandé si j'avais fait une liste des différents types de recommandations·
En fait, j'ai utilisé mon jugement, mon expérience de 14 années à la FAO en tant que Directeur général.
Les critères étaient les suivants: nécessité d'appliquer certaines recommandations pour la préparation du Programme de travail et budget de 1992-93, ce qui est à moyen terme un équilibre entre les trois rôles de la FAO, etc.; il y avait dans les priorités certaines recommandations qui concernaient le rôle de la FAO comme centre d'information, d'autres comme tribune internationale, d'autres en tant qu'assistance technique.
J'ai aussi tenu compte du fait que les deux Comités ont appuyé plus particulièrement certaines recommandations; et de toute façon, je n'ai fait que des suggestions qui n'étaient là que pour relancer le débat.
En effet, toutes les recommandations ne sont pas du même niveau; certaines peuvent être réalisées en deux ans, d'autres en trois ans, ce qui en plus peut faciliter la gestion des ressources.
Beaucoup de pays développés ont parlé de la possibilité de moduler le Programme de travail et budget 1990-91 en fonction d'une partie ou de toutes les recommandations. Il est certain que tout Programme de travail et budget possède en lui-même une certaine flexibilité à condition que les contributions soient payées. Et en ce qui concerne la flexibilité du Programme de travail et budget, tout dépendra du principal contributeur. En effet, si ce dernier paie une partie importante de ses arriérés, il y aura de l'argent; mais s'il ne paie pas, il est inutile de parler de tout cela. Il y a 142 millions de dollars, je dis bien 142 millions de dollars. On parle de la possibilité de payer 10 ou 15 millions de dollars cette année. Nous avons besoin d'au moins 100 millions de dollars pour l'année prochaine pour fonctionner. Alors ne me parlez pas de flexibilité. Nous avons des dettes de 100 millions de dollars; il n'y aura aucune flexibilité s'il n'y a pas paiement du principal contributeur.
J'aurais aimé que la déléguée des Etats-Unis me dise clairement si elle est d'accord avec les propositions que j'ai faites ce matin en réponse à une demande du Ministre de l'agriculture des Etats-Unis de renforcer la coopération avec le GATT. Je propose 900 000 dollars. Si les Etats-Unis ne sont pas d'accord avec cette proposition, je suis tout prêt à économiser ces 900 000 dollars et à les utiliser ailleurs.
Il est facile de citer tous les paragraphes où l'on critique la FAO. Evidemment et heureusement, nous ne sommes pas parfaits, nous ne sommes pas des anges. D'ailleurs, tout ce que les experts ont dit à ce sujet, c'était à la suite de conversations avec nous. Le problème est celui du financement. Je sais très bien que l'on pouvait avoir des inspecteurs, mais on n'a pas d'argent. Je sais très bien qu'il faut davantage de personnes dans les divisions techniques, mais on n'a pas d'argent.
Je n'ai pas de réponses à donner en ce qui concerne le Programme de travail et budget. Je suis d'accord avec la délégation des Etats-Unis. C'est une affaire dont 11 faut parler au cours des réunions des deux Comités. Nous ne ferons rien sans vous le demander. Nous avons d'autres propositions qu'un sommaire, mais si vous pensez qu'un sommaire doit rester, nous continuerons à le faire. D'ailleurs, nous sommes obligés par le Règlement de présenter un sommaire. C'était simplement une idée à débattre.
Quant à la question des inspecteurs, là aussi je suis très ouvert. Il y a une inspection faite par le Vérificateur interne, il y en a une faite par le Département du développement, toujours pour les activités de terrain, et il y a une évaluation faite par le service dévaluation. Là aussi, je veux simplement clarifier les choses. Je ne vois pas d'inconvénient à ce que ce soit le service d'évaluation, mais je veux moi-même être convaincu que ces trois types d'inspection se complètent et peut-être en supprimer l'un et renforcer l'autre. Il s'agit d'ailleurs de types différents d'inspection.
Le délégué de la Suisse a lancé un avertissement aux dix pays qui reçoivent une aide de la Suisse à travers la FAO, comme quoi la Suisse n'augmentera pas sa contribution pour le financement de projets d'assistance technique au-delà de 6 millions de dollars si la Suisse n'est pas satisfaite des résultats d'enquêtes. Il a dit qu'il parlait aussi au nom de plusieurs pays donateurs. Je trouve que ce n'est pas gentil de sa part. Soyons un peu sérieux. Ces petites menaces ne sont pas très gentilles.
Roger PASQUIER (Suisse): Je pense que Monsieur le Directeur général interprète mes paroles dans un sens que je n'ai pas voulu leur donner. La Suisse peut augmenter ou diminuer sa contribution. Et je ne parle pas de pays, je parle du Programme de la FAO.
Pour ce qui est des autres pays, je ne parle pas en leur nom, mais je sais tout simplement que d'autres pays ont cette position.
João Augusto DE MEDICIS (Brésil): Peut-on savoir quels sont ces pays?
LE PRESIDENT: Non! Ce sera fait en dehors du Conseil, si vous le voulez.
Nous nous réunirons demain matin à 9 h 30. Il reste encore onze orateurs. Après leurs interventions, nous entendrons les réponses du Président du Comité et du Directeur général ou de ses adjoints.
The meeting rose at 19.00 hours.
La séance est levee à 19 heures.
Se levanta la sesión a las 19 horas.
