CHAIRMAN: I declare the Fourteenth Plenary Session open, and I call upon the distinguished representative of the Netherlands. As I said yesterday, the Netherlands is the most important donor in the field of Trust Funds for the Field Programme.
P.R. JANUS (Netherlands): First of all, I would like to thank the Deputy Director-General, Mr Shah, for his elaborate introduction of the documentation. I would like to thank Dr Bommer, Chairman of the Programme Committee, for his remarks.
As you said, Mr Chairman, as one of the countries with a large programme of activities, with presently more than 100 projects, and with a yearly commitment level of between 30 and 40 million US dollars to FAO's Trust Fund programmes, the Netherlands naturally has a keen interest in the subject we are now discussing.
We have studied document CL 102/18 as well as the report of the consultant very carefully.
Let me first express our gratitude to the Director-General that he arranged a briefing last June on this subject, thus giving us the opportunity to seek clarification on certain points and to present our preliminary comments on the consultant study.
My Government agrees with the views expressed in paragraph 27 of document CL 102/18 concerning the factors that any new arrangement should take into account. They are similar to the considerations on which the design of the new UNDP support cost successor regime was based.
My Government also agrees that there is a need for transparency in rate calculations, accountability in the delivery of services and cost controls, as mentioned in paragraph 15 of the Executive Summary of the consultant's report. The proposal contained in this report that in each biennium the rates will be calculated and then subsequently the actual support costs reimbursed and expenditures will be calculated will definitely contribute to increased transparency.
My Government also agrees with the conclusion of the FAO review, endorsed by the Conference, that the Regular and Field Programmes are intertwined, both in structure and function, that the Regular Programme contributes to the Field Programme and that in turn the Regular Programme receives data and feedback from the Field Programme.
In view of the benefits that the Regular Programme derives from the Field Programme, including those financed through trust funds, my Government is of the opinion that some degree of cost-sharing between both programmes should take place. That implies that in our view there should not be a full reimbursement of the costs of support services of the Regular Programme to the Trust Fund projects and programmes. This is also what is now, to a certain extent, being proposed. One could, of course, argue about the question of what level of cost-sharing would represent a realistic reflection of the benefits that the Regular Programme derives from Trust Fund activities.
We will not do so, mainly because it will be quite difficult to quantify these benefits. Let me just inform you and the Council that my Government broadly accepts the proposals contained in the document, including the proposed level of cost-sharing. However, my Government is not entirely convinced that these proposals completely meet the requirement that they should be easy to understand and apply. The proposed mechanism is quite complex and we may only hope that its similarity to the UNDP support cost successor regime will facilitate its implementation.
My Government would also like to receive clarification on one point. In paragraph 4 of the Executive Summary it is said that billing of technical support services would be based upon amounts set in project budgets rather than on actual time spent. The question is: How does this relate to the general principle, as reflected in paragraph 12 b of the Executive Summary of the consultant's report that "changes would be made for services only after they had been provided?"
In concluding, of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have to see how the proposed mechanism will work in practice. My Government should therefore like to reserve the right to come back on its position if, after we have adopted and had some experience with this new mechanism, it does not work as well as we hope it will.
Fotis G. POULIDES (Cyprus): Mr Chairman, this is one of the most important issues before the Council since it concerns the Trust Fund programme and since the proposal before us has long-term implications.
To start with, we would like to express our thanks to the Deputy Director-General, Mr Shah, for his usual very clear and concrete detailed introduction of these important items.
Our thanks also go to Dr Bommer for his valuable remarks.
We would also like to express our appreciation to the Director-General for the analysis submitted and to the Programme and Finance Committees for their thorough study and advice on the matter. We are also pleased that since the subject has been studied by external consultants, the consultants' report is before us. We believe that certainly the Council has all the information needed in order to have a thorough debate and to come to clear conclusions.
My delegation is convinced that a solution has to be found to the longstanding problem of Trust Fund programmes not providing the resources needed, with a consequent drain on Regular Programme resources. At the same time, we attach importance to Trust Fund programmes being implemented at the requisite
level of technical support. The quality of this technical support is paramount and should not be sacrificed by inadequate support costs.
It is for these reasons that we support the methodology proposed by the consultant and endorsed by the Programme and Finance Committees.
In view of the issues involved and the position of various Member Nations regarding these, there are two important points to which my Government attaches importance.
Firstly, we believe that the approach proposed is a judicious one. It attacks the root of the problem and provides a reasoned solution. It would be a mistake for the Council to press for the full recovery of all costs from Trust Fund donors. We therefore favour the balance of the approach proposed.
Secondly, we, too, share the fear of some donors that increasing support cost reimbursements may lead to a reduction of the Trust Fund programme. Some fear is natural. We all wish the Trust Fund programme to increase further in order to better satisfy the requirements of agricultural development. However, we should not succumb to fear. I would say that fear does not provide an adequate basis for action. If the problem is not handled, the Trust Fund programme will decline in any case, for two reasons: firstly, because Trust Fund donors and recipient countries will not be satisfied with any decline in the quality of the programme; and, secondly, because we will find it difficult to agree to a continuing subsidy from the Regular Programme at increasingly higher levels.
We therefore urge the Council to unite in a consensus on the proposals submitted to us and to invite the Director-General to submit his firm proposals to us next year so that they can be approved by the Conference and be put into effect without delay.
Jacques LAUREAU (France): Je voudrais intervenir à un double niveau, d'abord sur le plan philosophique et politique, et d'autre part sur le plan technique.
En ce qui concerne le plan philosophique et général, je dirai que cette discussion complexe illustre bien les propos que ma délégation tenait vendredi dernier sur le point 14 de l'ordre du jour, à savoir que la multiplication des contributions volontaires ou négociées, par rapport aux contributions ordinaires, crée des difficultés qui n'existeraient pas si le financement régulier de l'Organisation était ce qu'il devrait être, et qu'on devrait éviter d'avoir souvent recours à cette formule qui aurait dû rester exceptionnelle.
Nous le répétons, notre Organisation ne doit pas être une Organisation à la carte, dans laquelle indirectement le Programme ordinaire, c'est-à-dire les contributions régulières, paierait des interventions particulières. Il serait beaucoup plus simple que les Programmes de terrain soient financés normalement par l'Organisation elle-même. Mais enfin, il est permis de rêver. Soyons pragmatiques, et revenons à nos moutons, c'est-à-dire à la proposition qui nous est faite.
Nous avons examiné avec intérêt l'étude sur les calculs des coûts d'appui des projets financés par les fonds fiduciaires, réalisée par le Bureau américain Griffith et Associates.
Ma délégation remercie le Secrétariat et félicite M. Shah pour sa remarquable présentation qui prouve que c'est bien l'objectif de transparence des coûts des appuis techniques et administratifs fournis par l'Administration qui est suivi dans la démarche.
Cela correspond tout à fait au mandat qui avait été donné par la Conférence, à savoir que les donateurs doivent financer les coûts réels des interventions qu'ils demandent. Cet effort apparaît d'autant plus utile que les projets ainsi financés représentent désormais plus de 45 pour cent du Programme de terrain et contribuent donc de manière importante à la réalisation du mandat de la FAO.
Cependant, le changement de système proposé par le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier soulève, selon ma délégation, des questions de fond auxquelles il faudrait répondre.
Tout d'abord, la prudence nous conduirait à recommander une simulation sur un échantillon du programme financé par les fonds fiduciaires de manière à mieux cerner l'impact réel de ce nouveau mode de calcul sur les différents types de projet. En effet, dans un contexte de compétition croissante entre les opérateurs susceptibles d'exécuter les projets de développement, l'Organisation doit vérifier qu'elle est capable de relever à la fois le défi de la qualité des services qu'elle fournit et celui de l'adaptation de ses mécanismes administratifs.
Deuxièmement, par voie de conséquence, nous nous interrogeons sur les effets mécaniques de la formule proposée sur le porte-feuille de projets. M. Shah nous a dit qu'il ne pensait pas qu'il y aurait une diminution de la capacité d'intervention mais peut-être que l'alourdissement des charges pourrait conduire à beaucoup plus de prudence de la part des donateurs.
Enfin, il nous semble - et cela rejoint ma réflexion générale - que l'intérêt des fonds fiduciaires est plutôt de financer des petits projets qui rentrent dans la vocation même de l'appui technique que peut apporter la FAO. Or les petits projets ne peuvent bénéficier d'économies d'échelle et le système qui nous est proposé ne va-t-il pas avoir pour conséquence d'encourager plutôt de grands projets? Voilà la question que je voulais poser.
Nous aimerions enfin avoir de plus grandes informations sur les modalités d'imputation des coûts d'appui pour des projets interinstitutions réalisés notamment avec d'autres institutions multilatérales.
Ma délégation rappelle, par ailleurs, que le Conseil d'administration du PNUD ne sera saisi de l'examen du nouvel arrangement qu'à sa réunion de 1994. Il nous semble donc opportun de mettre à profit ce délai pour approfondir notre réflexion sur l'impact des mesures préconisées et effectuer toutes les simulations dont je parlais tout à l'heure, qui sont indispensables pour voir les effets des mesures proposées. Cette période de temps devrait également être employée pour comparer ce qui est proposé aux pratiques d'autres institutions et organisations.
Bo WILEN (Sweden): My delegation has studied with great interest the FAO proposal for support cost arrangements for its Trust Fund programmes in document CL 102/18 and its supplement and the study conducted by specialized
consultants. My delegation would like to thank Mr Shah for his very complete introduction to the item on the Agenda.
Let me first make a few general comments. Sweden supports an arrangement that is in line with the spirit of the UNDP support cost arrangement. A support cost arrangement for FAO Trust Funds should be built up in such a way that it will promote cost-efficiency, transparency and accountability, as well as provide the possibility for agency involvement in connection with national execution. Moreover the system should be flexible. The support cost calculation should also enhance more accurate budgeting of the Trust Fund programmes.
My delegation supports the idea that the costs of support services required by Trust Fund programmes should be borne by the Trust Funds themselves and that the subsidies from the Regular Budget should be minimized. Some units in FAO have been established only for Trust Fund activities. The costs of these units must be paid in full from these funds. The reimbursement of costs based on delivery is essential. In this respect: the role and output of the DDR Mobilization Unit and the reimbursement of some of its costs is somewhat unclear to my delegation.
One of the reasons for taking the above position is that, in our opinion, extra-budgetary funding has a tendency to distort the focus on an integrated approach to development activities. The fundamental problem with this is that scarce resources for international development activities are not always directed towards the needs and priorities of the recipient countries.
My delegation would like to make some specific comments on the proposed system of support cost arrangements.
Although the proposed system is complex, it is positive that different reimbursement rates are calculated for different sectors of support activities.
The actual UNDP support cost successor arrangement establishes Technical Support Services at the Programme Level TSS-1 which contributes to achieving a sharper technical focus by agencies and to improving agency capacities for technical support to developing countries. In the first place, FAO should use TSS-1 services to identify the needs of recipient countries. There should also be a high degree of complementarity between the knowledge and quality of services that FAO is developing as an executing agency to UNDP projects and to recipient countries and the knowledge and quality of services that it is offering to the Trust Fund donors.
On the other hand, it is very difficult to measure the quality of TSS-2 services like project preparation, assessment and monitoring. A specialized agency like FAO should concentrate its efforts on improving TSS-2 activities and utilize reimbursements for support costs from Trust Funds to improve the qualifications of its own staff in these fields and hire outside experts only in exceptional cases.
Training and international personnel services are somewhat narrowly interpreted and simplified in the proposal. Very often training is the only element of sustainable development in the programmes, and its quality and quantity vary.
Another question is what will happen with support cost reimbursements in cases where there are several implementing agencies, like another UN agency, a donor or a local NGO. Will the support costs be paid to every one of them, since they all have administrative costs related to project implementation? How about the administrative costs of the recipient government?
All charges related to associate professional officers are already paid by donors and, in the view of my delegation, they should not cause any extra expenses to trust funds.
With those questions in mind, my delegation can accept a decision along the lines of the proposals in the consultant's report.
In conclusion, I will say a few words about the UNDP successor arrangements for agency support costs. As the new system became effective only this year, we cannot expect UNDP to give any thorough analysis of the experiences yet. However, Sweden expects that the Governing Council of the UNDP will receive a report on how the new system works in its session in 1994. After that we can determine whether or not the system needs some modifications.
Harald HILDEBRAND (Germany): This 102nd Council Session has had to make repeated reference, under different items of the agenda, to budgetary problems mainly caused by the financial crisis our Organization has been suffering from over a longer period. Cost reimbursements not covering the actual expenditure of support services for projects funded by UNDP or implemented under Trust Funds have added to this problem. Therefore, my Government supports new arrangements to contain - I quote from the Finance Committee's Report, document CL 102/17, paragraph 3.54 - "the steady increase in excess of actual support cost expenditure over amounts reimbursed" because it represents a growing burden to the regular budget. The reasons for the need to change the current regime appear plausible, hoping that the new system with its methodology will be sufficiently clear to be understood and applied by those having to work with it, although I must admit that Mr Shah has helped us with his traditionally very clear explanation on this complex matter to dissipate some of the doubts we still harbour.
Without going into specific technicalities, I should like to hint at some merits the new arrangements will obviously have: accountability in regard to type, quality and cost services; due consideration of the interests of the parties involved, i.e. donor and recipient governments, as well as FAO; higher quality and competitiveness of the services rendered by FAO.
My delegation looks forward to receiving further details on the viability of the new system and its likely financial consequences for the field work of FAO.
John A. BAILEY (Australia): Australia commends FAO on its prompt responses to the decision of the 26th Session of the FAO Conference to revise the Trust Fund's support cost arrangements. We thank Mr Shah for his comprehensive introduction to this item.
Australia supports acceptance by Council of recommendations prepared by the consultant. However, we note that the consultant has identified a subsidy being paid to the Trust Fund's programme from the FAO Regular Programme in the
provision of services which is not being reimbursed by donors. Australia considers that the arguments for and against the subsidy should be examined thoroughly through the Finance and Programme Committee before a decision is reached on the subsidy's continuation. It would be helpful if the extent of the subsidy were to be calculated and reported to FAO Member Countries.
We look forward to finalizing this matter at the next Council meeting.
J.C. MACHIN (United Kingdom): Let me begin by welcoming this paper and the consultants' proposals on Trust Fund support costs. We think the consultants have done a good job and their recommendations are very much a step in the right direction.
That said, as I mentioned in our intervention yesterday on the approved Programme Budget for 1992-93, we do remain concerned over the increased subsidy from the Regular Programme and the widening of the support cost funding gap. Let me be clear that we accept the concept of some degree of subsidy from the Regular Programme, and acknowledge that the Regular Programme is making its technical and analytical work available to field projects. However, what worries us is the level of subsidy which we consider to be too high.
I do not want to comment in great detail on the proposed approach to new arrangements as set out in the document before us. As I say, we support the basis proposed, particularly such key objectives as the containment and reduction of the Regular Budget subsidy to the Field Programme, the provision for greater budgetary transparency which is absolutely paramount in our view, and also the attempt to follow the spirit of the UNDP's successful arrangements. Whilst we can support these proposals, we also believe that at a time of cost cutting and prioritization of FAO's resources and activities (one of the major themes of our discussion yesterday) it might be worth setting out briefly what my Government considers to be the most appropriate and prudent approach to Trust Fund arrangements. In doing so, I address myself not just to the Secretariat, but to the membership as a whole, because, as Mr Shah said quite rightly this morning this issue affects all of us. We believe that key principles to be considered are as follows:
One, bilateral Trust Fund donors should consider carefully which agency is best placed to undertake a particular project. This may not necessarily be FAO.
Two donors should ensure that any projects to be undertaken by FAO should clearly be within its areas of comparative advantage.
Three, for its part - and I know that it is a very difficult choice to make -FAO should reject those proposals which do not fall into agreed high-priority areas. Failure to take such decisions could lead to the diversion to both staff and programme resources from higher priority core activities funded by the membership as a whole. In fact, this was a point made eloquently earlier by the distinguished delegate from Sweden.
Four, once Trust Fund arrangements have been agreed, the donor should ensure that the project is fully funded and entails no cross-subsidy from the Regular Budget.
These views will come as no surprise to the Council. We have advanced them regularly. However, we do feel strongly that in an area which occupies such a major element of FAO's budget and overall income, which hitherto has not been open to full scrutiny by the wider membership of this Organization, radical changes are required. The consultants' proposal begins to take us in that direction and we can support them, but, as I said at the outset, we believe more needs to be done, particularly in the four areas of fundamental importance which I have just outlined.
Takayoshi ISHIDERA (Japan): Firstly, it seems that FAO is anxious about the decrease in the reimbursement of support costs which the FAO has got through the execution of projects so far. Japan is of the view that FAO should endeavour to ensure its external resources through its intellectual contribution toward the upstream originally required. In order to do so, it is necessary that FAO restructures itself and strengthens the capacity of its experts. At the same time, in particular Japan considers that FAO should make every effort, in the light of the main role of FAO which is to play a catalystic role through international and regional activities. Secondly, with regard to new support cost arrangements for FAO's Trust Fund programmes, since 1981 FAO's Trust Fund programmes have been subject to the standard flat rate of 13 percent. Japan calls in question the fact that FAO easily denies the fact that almost all other agencies in the UN system have applied the standard rate of 13 percent although the basis of 13 percent is lacking in accuracy.
Japan is of the view that the relationship between the Regular and the Field Programmes must be taken into account sufficiently in considering new support cost arrangements. Japan supposes that in future the structure and functions of the Field Programmes will be closer to those of the Regular Programmes, and the relationship will be increasingly intertwined. In this context, the level of the Regular Programme subsidy should not be reduced.
Finally, Japan would like to request the Secretariat to give the whole figure of typical projects to compare with the existing 13 percent although the methodology is explained clearly in appendix CL 102/18. Also, Japan would like to continue to scrutinize in future.
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais souligner que le Japon est devenu progressivement un donateur important en fonds fiduciaires.
Yvan JOBIN (Canada): My delegation would like to confirm the views expressed by Canada at the recent Programme and Finance Committee, which provide a comment on document CL 102/18 and make reference to the consultant's study on Trust Fund support cost arrangements and reimbursement methodology. Canada has consistently supported the principle of full cost recovery from extra-budgetary Trust Fund field project activities, and we continue to hold this view. We have also been alarmed by the growing discrepancy between project costs and revenues.
Therefore, we welcome the consultant's comprehensive proposal. We view this as a rational move toward equitable compensation to FAO for field service activities. As a major donor to the Regular Programme, Canada fully supports efforts to reduce the use of regular funds as a subsidy to cover field project costs.
We note, however, the critical necessity for FAO, under an increased cost recovery scheme, to provide technical assistance on a continuing basis of the highest quality and value. Clearly this underlies the principle, which we fully support, that choice by donors for FAO services will be made increasingly on grounds of excellence in operational and technical services, rather than a low-cost alternative source. Indeed, the Secretariat's estimates, reported to the Finance Committee, of the total costs incurred in support of field projects by FAO, as adjusted to capture fully central and departmental support costs, compare very favourably with the consultant's findings of such costs used by large public and private sector institutions. Assuming the accuracy of the estimates, there exists a substantial comparative cost advantage of perhaps 5 percent in FAO's favour, which clearly obviated the need for a subsidy to contain existing programme levels.
In these circumstances it is appropriate for any attendant technical synergies to accrue to the service provider, as they would represent the only recompense for a service provided at cost and below what the market will bear.
Notwithstanding these comments, we remain somewhat unclear on the implications and possible effects this proposal will have on FAO's budget and organizational activities. We thus look forward to further clarification.
A related matter of growing concern to Canada as a contributor of both voluntary and assessed funding to many multilateral organizations is the tendency of many donors to increase extra-budgetary or complementary funding.
We regard this current trend as a severe threat to the precepts of multilateralism because it challenges the autonomy of the Organization and potentially restricts the fulfilment of strategic objectives and programme priorities decided by the membership as a whole. In this connection, we can associate with suggestions made earlier in this Council Session regarding strengthened membership oversight of Field Programme activities. We would also support the principles articulated by the United Kingdom.
Having said this, and in anticipation of further clarifications from the Secretariat, we believe the proposal before us is a most useful contribution to transparency, cost definition and burden-sharing. It is an important beginning towards shifting the burden of field project costs to the funding source where it appropriately belongs, and which we believe needs to continue towards full cost recovery.
Ni HONGXING (China) (Original language Chinese): First of all, 1 thank the Secretariat for preparing document CL 102/18. This morning Mr Shah gave us a very comprehensive introduction, and I should like to make some remarks here on this Agenda Item.
Not only do FAO Field Programme projects provide direct technical assistance to the developing countries, thus making FAO's presence felt in member countries, but these Field Programmes also contribute to the improvement of Regular Programme formulation and implementation through the feedback of field information and accumulated experience.
It is essential that the Regular Programme provides a subsidy to Field Programmes. However, the crux of the matter lies in how and how much subsidy is to be given. The consultant's recommendations constitute a very good basis
for the further study and discussions of this problem. In our view, the new arrangements for support cost reimbursement should take into account the subsidizing capacity of the Regular Programme to ensure that more and better technical services be rendered by the FAO to Trust Fund projects. At the same time, the specificity of each project and its costs should be borne in mind to ensure a rational distribution of support cost charges among donor countries, recipient countries and the FAO, so as to lead to a continuous growth in the total amount of technical assistance available to the Trust Funds.
Ms Teresa HOBGOOD (United States of America): My delegation would like to express appreciation to Mr Shah for this thorough and rather convincing introductory remarks to this Agenda Item. We would also like to thank Dr Bommer for his helpful remarks as well. As a member of the Finance Committee, my delegation's comments on this agenda item will be brief.
First, the United States welcomes the study of David M. Griffith and Associates on support cost arrangements for projects financed from Trust Funds. We believe that the development of a system that is cost-effective, transparent, and closely related to the cost of services provided to Trust Fund donors is more useful that the current 13 percent charge. While the recommendations of the consultant represent what we believe is a step in the right direction, and these recommendations provide for greater recovery of cost and a reduction of the subsidy required of the Regular Budget, my delegation prefers a financial scheme that requires Trust Fund donors to pay for the full cost of FAO-administered Trust Fund projects.
Daniel Yoman KONAN (Côte d'Ivoire): Le fait que les fonds fiduciaires représentent actuellement la principale source du fonds extra budgétaire du Programme de la FAO mérite d'être à nouveau souligné en souhaitant que cette tendance soit encore renforcée.
L'examen de ce point de l'ordre du jour nous amène à nous pencher sur un problème qui est à la fois d'ordre technique - technique financière et budgétaire - et à caractère politique, s'agissant de l'approche de l'utilisation des fonds fiduciaires qui financent les projets exécutés par la FAO.
Nous n'entrerons pas dans des considérations détaillées surtout après avoir entendu la présentation exhaustive faite par M. Shah ce matin. Toutefois, ma délégation note qu'il s'agit là d'un processus qui a commencé par recueillir les avis de divers représentants de pays donateurs, des services du soutien technique et administratif de la FAO, en tenant compte aussi des nouveaux arrangements du PNUD, tout ceci avec le soutien actif du bureau d'étude David Griffith et associés, ici représenté. Je crois que cette très large base d'information nous garantit la viabilité de la nouvelle méthodologie qui semble également avoir recueilli l'assentiment de principe des Comités financiers et du Programme qui ont eu le temps de se pencher sur ce point.
Nous sommes favorables à ce nouveau système dont l'une des caractéristiques devrait être d'assurer à la FAO des ressources suffisantes non seulement pour maintenir mais également pour accroître la fourniture de services de qualité aux projets - des services du plus haut niveau possible. Tout ceci est à l'avantage des bénéficiaires et améliore la transparence et le contrôle des
coûts et services non seulement de la part des bénéficiaires eux-mêmes mais aussi des donateurs.
Amin ABEL-MALEK (Liban) (Langue originale arabe): La délégation libanaise tient à remercier M. Shah pour sa présentation exhaustive et claire des documents relatifs au remboursement des dépenses d'appui. Elle tient également à remercier M. Bommer pour les éclaircissements supplémentaires qu'il a apportés,
Le problème des dépenses d'appui a suscité l'intérêt de tous au cours des nombreuses réunions et il est d'ailleurs toujours l'objet de discussions et d'opinions divergentes.
Le Liban n'entrera pas dans les détails pour ne pas prolonger les débats d'autant que cette question a déjà été débattue. Toutefois, nous appuyons les propositions du Secrétariat qui figurent dans les documents, propositions que nous avons déjà approuvées au sein du Comité financier. Il existe un seul point que je voudrais souligner, à savoir la nécessité de poursuivre l'exécution des Programmes de terrain dans le cadre des attributions de la FAO. Tout changement en la matière pourrait être préjudiciable à l'Organisation et aux pays bénéficiaires. Merci Monsieur le Président.
Raphaël RABE (Madagascar): Les autorités malgaches en charge des questions relatives aux institutions spécialisées du système des Nations Unies, ont toujours suivi de très près le problème du remboursement des dépenses d'appui pour les projets financés par les fonds fiduciaires, car elles sont convaincues que de leurs résolutions dépendront le succès des opérations de terrain ainsi que l'efficacité et la pérennité des liens d'appui réciproques entre le Programme de terrain et le Programme ordinaire.
En effet, comme il est indiqué dans les documents du Secrétariat, le Programme de terrain tout en utilisant les ressources du fonds fiduciaire, renforcent le Programme ordinaire, mais en revanche il ne peut se passer de l'appui technique et scientifique du Programme ordinaire. Il doit utiliser les systèmes statistiques et centres d'information et de documentation mondiales dont dispose ce dernier.
Les deux programmes devront être en excellente santé et les Etats Membres ont le devoir de veiller à ce qu'il en soit ainsi.
La délégation malgache a examiné en profondeur les documents CL 102/17 et CL 102/18 et en est satisfaite. Elle félicite les Comités du Programme et financier pour le sérieux et la compétence avec lesquels ils ont étudiés le sujet.
Nous rendons hommage à leurs présidents, le Dr Bommer et le Dr Di Mottola.
Nous appuyons totalement les recommandations pertinentes que les Comités nous adressent, notamment celles relatives à la méthodologie permettant de déterminer les dépenses d'appui et celles concernant l'opportunité d'augmenter le taux de remboursement pour avoisiner le niveau réel des dépenses étant entendu que la FAO est encouragée dans ses efforts permanents pour améliorer ses performances.
Compte tenu de l'importance capitale des projets de terrain pour la relance de notre économie et de notre développement, nous estimons, pour notre part, que le budget ordinaire de l'Organisation devrait continuer à prévoir des dépenses correspondant à la prise en charge de certains coûts indirects fixes, participation normale de l'Organisation au Programme de terrain.
Nous convenons cependant, avec les comités, que les dépenses d'appui, en tout cas celles correspondant aux coûts directs, devraient être supportées par les donateurs.
Dans l'évaluation des coûts des projets, ces dépenses devraient être prévues et estimées d'une manière exacte, condition sine qua non de leur réussite.
Nous souhaitons que le Conseil d'administration du PNUD, lorsqu'il se réunira en 1994, puisse partager nos préoccupations et par conséquent approuver les nouveaux arrangements réajustés s'il le faut, tels que suggérés au paragraphe 88 du document CL 102/17. Ceci est d'une importance majeure pour nos pays au moment où nous nous acheminons progressivement vers l'exécution nationale des projets.
Adelaide RIBEIRO (Cap Vert): Tout d'abord, nous remercions M. Shah pour l'excellente intervention introduisant ce point de l'ordre du jour. Ma délégation est d'accord avec la position du Comité Conjoint pour convenir de l'opportunité d'augmenter le taux de remboursement des dépenses d'appui et approuver la méthodologie permettant d'établir les nouveaux arrangements en conformité avec le contenu du paragraphe 27 du document CL 102/18.
Tenant compte du rôle très important joué par les opérations de terrain dans nos pays et tout en reconnaissant le besoin d'assurer de meilleurs programmes et une meilleure qualité des services techniques et opérationnels qui doivent être fournis, nous espérons qu'une entente sera établie entre la FAO et les contributeurs des fonds fiduciaires et que l'on évite un recours excessif au budget du Programme ordinaire.
Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): A l'instar des autres délégations, nous voudrions aussi remercier M. Shah et M. Bommer pour leur exposé introductif et surtout assurer M. Shah que nous l'avons suivi avec une attention particulière. Les détails complémentaires qu'il a bien voulu mettre à notre disposition lui ont donné amplement raison quand il a dit qu'il prendrait un peu de temps pour donner des détails. Ces détails, vraiment pertinents, nous ont permis d'avoir une connaissance un peu plus approfondie du sujet qui est à l'ordre du jour.
Nous voudrions également réaffirmer qu'il existe, entre le Programme ordinaire et le Programme de terrain, un lien indéniable, le Programme ordinaire venant appuyer le Programme de terrain dont l'analyse de celui-ci.
Nous voudrions également dire, comme l'a dit M. Shah, qu'avec une part d'environ 48 pour cent les fonds fiduciaires sont de loin la part la plus importante des Programmes de terrain.
En outre, bien que la définition du cadre du fonds fiduciaire remonte à 1981, nous avons noté que la dernière fixation des taux de remboursement remonte à 1985 et que depuis l'écart entre les frais engagés et le remboursement obtenu des fonds fiduciaires n'a fait que s'accroître. Ce faisant, nous pensons que
le moment est plus qu'indiqué pour qu'une révision du régime des taux de remboursement soit opérée.
Nous nous félicitons de ce que, aux fins des formulations de nouvelles propositions, le Secrétariat ait pris le temps d'engager un consultant qui a fait un rapport que nous estimons très utile pour la poursuite de la réflexion. Grâce aux informations complémentaires que M. Shah nous a données, nous avons noté que cette révision des taux se ferait de façon périodique, en consultation avec le PNUD, pour chaque exercice biennal. Nous ne voudrions pas entrer dans les détails parce que la question est complexe. Je crois qu'au stade actuel, ce qu'il convient de faire c'est d'apprécier la démarche engagée pour arriver à cette révision dont nous sommes, je crois, tous convaincus aujourd'hui.
Pour notre part, nous estimons que les propositions avancées par le Secrétariat pour arriver à la révision du taux de remboursement est une procédure souple, responsable, que nous acceptons, d'autant plus que dans le paragraphe 1.24 du document CL 102/17, sont définis clairement les objectifs poursuivis dans la méthodologie qui est préconisée et qui ne visent pas seulement la révision des taux en tant que tels, mais qui visent le renforcement de la qualité des projets qui bénéficieront des taux fiduciaires.
Pour cet ensemble de propositions, je crois qu'au stade actuel nous ne pouvons qu'appuyer cette démarche et émettre le souhait que le PNUD, lors de son conseil d'administration qui se tiendra en 1994, puisse dans son principe accepter cette révision et se mettre à la disposition du partenaire qui est la FAO afin de discuter de la meilleure manière le taux de remboursement à convenir périodiquement pour chaque biennium. C'est tout ce que nous pouvons faire actuellement d'autant plus qu'il n'est pas question de fixer un chiffre précis. Ce qui est important aujourd'hui c'est la démarche. A ce titre nous appuyons totalement la démarche envisagée par le Secrétariat.
Horacio M. CARANDANG (Philippines): The Philippines delegation wishes first of all to endorse the report of the joint meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees of which it is a member. I wish to reiterate the importance of the Field Programme in its mutual supported role and supported by its links with the Regular Programme.
The Philippines delegation shares the concern of the joint meeting regarding the widening gap between support costs and the current reimbursement rates. The Philippines delegation welcomes the methodology for identifying the support costs. This has been developed by the firm of David M. Griffith and Associates who have conducted the recent UNDP support sponsored costs measurement study to establish reimbursement rates for the UNDP which has been accepted by donors. We believe it is an excellent study because it is applicable to different types of projects and services and increases the transparency in the identification of costs which can lead to a more equitable apportioning of costs.
Furthermore, Mr Chairman, it can strengthen the ability of FAO to provide a high quality service because if a service is underpaid you cannot expect it to be very good unless you have a great level of subsidy which it is always very difficult to maintain. Furthermore, this methodology would enable the governing bodies to determine a level of support which would be supportable by the Regular Programme.
The Philippines delegation, therefore, supports the conclusion reached by the joint meeting that the extent of support costs and reimbursement be increased to cover direct and indirect incremental costs. We, however, accept the principle that some subsidy of the Regular Programme could be acceptable, particularly with regard to indirect fixed costs of the various projects. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Winston RUDDER (Trinidad and Tobago): My delegation intervenes on this particular Agenda Item because of its seminal importance to the funding of programmes and projects which affect the development of agriculture, forestry and fisheries in countries like my own.
Mr Chairman, there is an unanimity of views among the membership of FAO about the importance this Organization has in terms of agriculture, forestry and fisheries development and its unique ability to contribute in this regard in areas and in countries where such support is most needed, and even where there is disagreement in modalities for providing this support there is a convergence of views, but there is an organic linkage between the Field Programme and the Regular Programme underscoring not only the complementarities between the programmes but the need to ensure that these links are maintained and strengthened.
This view of the operation and this approach to the conduct of the mandated affairs of the Organization are not a matter of merely organizational and administrative convenience but it is pragmatic and it makes sense, as we note in paragraph 1.20 of document CL 102/18. Indeed, Mr Chairman, we note too that these Trust Funds constitute 50 percent of the support to the Field Programmes.
What is also important so far as development is concerned, and in so far as those of us who deem ourselves to be worthy of benefitting from such contributions, is the fact that in a situation of reduced financial outlays for funding developments that we need not look askance at the contribution that Trust Funds might make to valid development in our agriculture, forestry and fisheries, wherever.
Therefore, it is absolutely and particularly necessary that the Organization and the Trust Fund donors are at one in their understanding of how the funds are being spent, for what purposes, and that there is a measure of transparency which is satisfactory to all concerned in this regard.
As a consequence, therefore, we note with pleasure the response of the Secretariat to the decision of Conference in 1991. We note the summary of the proposals by the consultants which, in our view, is a step in the right direction and, without commenting on the technical aspects of the report, we look at the principle of the approach that is being suggested to us by the consultants. We look forward to a speedy resolution of this issue such as might facilitate an increased flow of such funds for development activities within the remit of the Organization to which we belong. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.
Vanrob ISARANKURA (Thailand): First of all, I would like to thank the Director-General, Mr Shah, and the Chairman of the Programme Committee for their lucid introduction.
We are all willing to see that support cost reimbursement be increased to cover all direct and indirect incremental costs. Like many previous speakers, my delegation is ready to endorse the proposed methodology for changing support costs to projects financed by funds in trust, as contained in document CL 102/18. On this item, however, I would like to offer a few comments as follows.
First, as the representative of a recipient country, I would like to confirm the fact that was first recognized by the Group of Experts on FAO's field operations which stated that one of the difficulties in providing good technical support is that insufficient funds are provided by UNDP and Trust Fund donors, as mentioned in paragraph 22. There was evidence to support this fact mentioned in paragraph 23. That is, the lack of funding for project formulations and appraisals have adversely affected projects in their critical design stage. In this connection, I regret to note that technical backstopping from Headquarters of these activities is still not covered, as mentioned in the last sentence of this paragraph.
I would like on this occasion to put one question to the Secretariat or to Mr Shah, the Deputy Director-General, that after the Conference has approved this new methodology, Headquarters will be able to provide enough funds to solve the problem.
Secondly, I would like to refer to the method of international expert recruitment. From our experience we have learned that in selecting an expert to work in any country, each time FAO will nominate only one name to a recipient country. Thus, some projects take a lot of time to get a good expert. We believe that if this method could be changed and if more than one expert could be sent for selection by the recipient country, then a lot of time would be saved and the budgets for the International Expert Recruitment Service would be reduced.
LE PRESIDENT: Les délégations du Maroc et de la Libye ont demandé que leurs discours soient insérés dans les procès-verbaux.
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Nous avons toujours considéré que les Programmes de terrain constituaient la pierre angulaire des activités de la FAO, de même que nous reconnaissons les liens étroits entre Programmes de terrain et Programme ordinaire.
D'année en année, l'écart est croissant entre les dépenses d'appui et les montants remboursés.
Au cours de l'examen de cette question par le Comité financier, lors de sa soixante-quatorzième session, nous avons eu à rendre hommage au Directeur général pour son attitude face à cette situation, de même que nous avons eu à approuver l'approche proposée pour les nouveaux arrangements.
Nous sommes en mesure de dire que la méthodologie proposée vise non seulement à déterminer le taux de remboursement des dépenses, mais surtout à renforcer la qualité de la gestion des projets financés par les fonds fiduciaires, et leur rentabilité.
S'agissant du remboursement des coûts supportés par les services d'appui centraux de la FAO, nous considérons que ceux-ci devraient continuer à être pris en charge par le Programme ordinaire et qu'il n'est pas dans l'intérêt de l'Organisation que ces coûts soient intégralement remboursés.
Pour ce qui concerne les dépenses d'appui, ou coûts directs, nous continuons à penser qu'elles devraient être, dans toute la mesure possible, supportées par les pays donateurs1.
Saleh SAHBOUN (Libya) (Original language Arabic): The delegation of my country took note of the document CL 102/18 and its Supplement 1 presented. While my delegation expresses its thanks for the clarification made by Mr Shah in this regard, it seems appropriate, in the light of the complicated nature of the subject and its importance, to allow some time till a future session, to further study, examine and analyze this matter, particularly in the light of the consultative study prepared on this matter.
There are several questions to be posed by several delegations in this hall as well as many other questions that could be raised with the FAO Secretariat for which some information and analysis could be obtained.
This further time would enable us to come out with a careful decision which could have positive, quantitative and qualitative, results upon those who fund the services rendered to executed projects, those who deliver these services and those who benefit from them.2
LE PRESIDENT: S'il n'y a plus de Membres du Conseil qui désirent intervenir su ce point particulièrement important, je donnerai la parole aux observateurs qui désirent la prendre.
Je donne la parole au représentant du PNUD.
Ariel FRANÇAIS (PNUD): Je souhaite tout d'abord vous faire part, au nom de l'Administrateur, de l'intérêt que le PNUD porte au déroulement de vos travaux.
L'Organisation des Nations Unies pour l'alimentation et l'agriculture est un partenaire clé pour la mise en oeuvre des programmes financés par le PNUD, et nous vous assurons de notre attachement à la poursuite de notre coopération.
La FAO doit faire face aujourd'hui à d'importants changements dictés par un environnement international en rapide évolution. Parmi ces changements figurent, entre autres, l'évolution du cadre institutionnel qui régit la coopération internationale et, plus particulièrement, la modification de mécanismes qui supportent cette dernière.
Au sein du système des Nations Unies, votre institution devra apporter une réponse au problème de la transition entre l'ancien systède collaboration
__________1 Texte reçu avec demande d'insertion au procès-verbal
2 Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
tripartite et les nouvelles modalités d'exécution des programmes telles que définies dans la Résolution 44/211 de l'Assemblée Générale, et telles que complétées par les décisions du Conseil d'administration du PNUD pour ce qui est de l'approche programme, de l'exécution par des entités nationales, et du nouveau système de financement des dépenses d'appui des organisations du syntstème.
1 Texte reçu avec demande d’insertion au procès-verbal.
2 Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
Le nouveau régime de coopération tripartite mettra, comme vous le savez, l'accent sur le renforcement des capacités nationales, mais il dépendra tout autant de l'appui critique des institutions spécialisées du système des Nations Unies dans les domaines de haute valeur ajoutée intellectuelle que constitue, entre autres, la formulation d'orientations stratégiques en amont des politiques et programmes de développement ou, encore, la mobilisation d'une expertise pointue pour la conception, la supervision et l'évaluation des activités opérationnelles dans les domaines d'excellence respectifs des institutions concernées.
Cette évolution exigera, à l'évidence, des efforts d'adaptation dont le PNUD est pleinement conscient.
Telle est la raison pour laquelle il a été convenu de ménager aux institutions spécialisées une période de transition entre l'ancien et le nouveau régime.
Les cinq institutions spécialisées sujettes au nouveau mécanisme de financement des dépenses d'appui sont ainsi à ce jour chargées de l'exécution d'une enveloppe de projets équivalente à 660 millions de dollars sur les ressources du cinquième cycle, montant devant être rapproché de l'objectif fixé par le Conseil d'administration de 500 millions de dollars à atteindre au ler janvier 1992.
Comme précisé au Conseil d'administration, en mai dernier, le PNUD et les institutions sujettes au nouveau mécanisme ont d'un commun accord décidé de n'appliquer pleinement les nouveaux arrangements qu'à compter du ler juillet 1992, ceci pour permettre une application en souplesse du nouveau dispositif.
Par-delà les problèmes de la transition, l'évolution des ressources mobilisables par le PNUD, comme les objectifs de programmation auxquels ce dernier doit s'assujettir, peuvent constituer, il est vrai, un sujet de préoccupation.
Ainsi, le taux présumé de croissance des ressources mobilisables par le PNUD a dû être ramené à quatre pour cent par an contre les huit pour cent initialement retenus par le Conseil d'administration pour le cinquième cycle de programmation, partant d'une base de ressources d'un milliard de dollars pour l'année 1991.
De ce fait, les objectifs de programmation ont dû par prudence être réduits, de façon à ce que les dépenses se situent à un niveau de 780 millions de dollars en 1992, 760 millions en 1993 et 730 millions en 1994, par rapport aux 870 millions de dépenses enregistrées en 1991, ceci pour tenir compte de l'évolution prévisible des ressources. A cet effet également, seuls 90 pour cent du montant des chiffres indicatifs de planification (CIP) ont été libérés aux fins de la programmation.
Aux problèmes induits par la révision à la baisse des objectifs de programmation s'ajoutent par ailleurs ceux découlant de la progression de
l'exécution par des entités nationales, sensible dès le quatrième cycle de programmation et conforme aux principes dégagés par la Résolution 44/211. Ainsi, l'exécution par des entités nationales, qui ne représentait que 13,5 pour cent de la valeur des projets approuvés dans le courant de l'année 1987, est-elle passée à 30 pour cent pour l'année 1991 et à 37 pour cent pour l'année 1992. En valeur absolue, les dépenses liées à l'exécution par des entités nationales sont passées de 67 millions de dollars en 1987 à 174 millions en 1991, avec un niveau projeté de 270 millions en 1994.
Les difficultés financières induites par cette évolution, comme celles plus conjoncturelles découlant de l'état des ressources, ne sauraient cependant faire perdre de vue les objectifs essentiels d'une réforme qui vise une revitalisation des modes opératoires du système des Nations Unies. A cet égard, il convient de souligner les progrès accomplis sur la voie de la mise en place du nouveau système.
Les directives requises pour la mise en oeuvre du nouveau régime ont été formulées en étroite concertation avec les institutions spécialisées et soumises pour examen au Conseil d'administration du PNUD. Ces directives sont aujourd'hui pleinement opérationnelles.
Les ressources programmables au titre du SAT 1, à savoir les services d'appui technique au niveau des programmes, sont d'ores et déjà engagées pour un montant total de 25 millions de dollars pour 1992-93. Celles programmables au titre du SAT-2, à savoir les services d'appui technique au niveau des projets, sont d'ores et déjà allouées aux bureaux extérieurs contre une enveloppe globale de 25 millions de dollars pour 1992-93. Par ailleurs, des directives ont été récemment adressées aux représentants résidents pour que tous les projets d'ores et déjà exécutés par des entités nationales soient systématiquement analysés sous l'angle de leurs besoins d'appui technique et que des fonds du SAT-2 leur soient alloués à cet effet.
Un programme de formation intensive, destiné à familiariser les parties concernées avec les nouvelles modalités d'exécution, a par ailleurs été lancé courant 1992. Les 15 ateliers sous-régionaux prévus à cet effet pour les fonctionnaires des bureaux extérieurs du PNUD et des institutions spécialisées ainsi que leurs homologues gouvernementaux seront tous tenus d'ici le mois de décembre. Tous les participants à ces ateliers se sont félicités de la formation dispensée, qui leur permettra d'appliquer avec l'efficacité voulue les nouvelles directives.
Au total, les mécanismes régissant le nouveau régime auront tous été mis en place dans le courant de l'année 1992 et il appartiendra aux hommes chargés de les mettre en oeuvre de les rendre pleinement opérationnels.
Pour conclure, il conviendrait donc de ne pas perdre de vue la finalité des changements en cours, qui vise à faire en sorte que les entités nationales aient la pleine maîtrise de leur processus de développement tout en mobilisant à cet effet le capital d'expertise et de savoir-faire des institutions spécialisées du système des Nations Unies.
Je me permettrai d'ajouter un mot sur le suivi de la Conférence de Rio et la mise en oeuvre de ses recommandations, sujet évoqué la semaine dernière dans le cadre du point 7 de l'ordre du jour. A ce propos, le mandat dont le PNUD a été chargé au plan du renforcement des capacités nationales comme son rôle dans la mobilisation des ressources de la Facilité globale pour
l'environnement font actuellement l'objet de consultations interagences auxquelles la FAO est associée. Ces questions seront évoquées, en particulier, le mois prochain, dans le cadre du Mécanisme de consultations interagences du PNUD, à New York.
Je souhaiterais enfin, pour terminer, répondre aux critiques adressées au PNUD à diverses reprises sur le rôle joué par son Bureau des services d'appui aux projets. Je me contenterai, à cet égard, de rappeler qu'il ne revient pas à ce Bureau, au titre de ses missions, de se substituer aux institutions spécialisées des Nations Unies dans leurs sphères de compétence respectives. Les fonctions assumées par ce Bureau sont d'ordre essentiellement logistique et visent à mobiliser des moyens dans des secteurs qui, soit ne relèvent pas du domaine d'expertise d'une institution spécialisée des Nations Unies, soit appellent des types d'interventions étrangères aux missions de ces dernières. Ni les critiques ni mes explications ne sont nouvelles. Il m'a toutefois paru opportun de faire cette mise au point.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le représentant du Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement. En ce qui concerne le dernier point qu'il a mentionné, c'est un point que j'ai personnellement soulevé très souvent, le rôle du Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement étant d'assurer une répartition financière en se servant au maximum des grandes agences opérationnelles des Nations Unies.
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Excusez-moi, M. le Président, mais j'ai été retenu à l'extérieur de la salle. Je voudrais indiquer que je ferai insérer au procès-verbal de la séance l'intervention de ma délégation sur ce point.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie vivement le représentant du Maroc de bien vouloir suivre une procédure qui a déjà été recommandée à propos d'une intervention du représentant de Cuba. Il va de soi que l'intervention du représentant du Maroc sera insérée dans le compte rendu du débat.
V.J. SHAH (Deputy Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): In order to provide the Secretariat response in as business like a way as the debate which has taken place under your direction, Mr Chairman, may I request that we deal with the response in the following way. If you would kindly agree to give the floor to Mr Gotthainer, the representative of David M. Griffiths and Associates, he is ready to answer those questions which relate to the report of the consultants and the suggestions made in that report. After his reply, I should then like to answer the questions which relate to the Secretariat.
Michael GOTTHAINER (David M. Griffith and Associates Ltd., FAO Consultants): I very much appreciate the opportunity to be here today and to try to answer the questions that were raised by some of the representatives and Council members.
I should like first to answer the question that was raised by the gentleman from the Netherlands concerning the procedures that were suggested for reimbursing technical support services. Our proposal is that the project
budget figures set the amount that would be reimbursed for any specific project, and we made that recommendation on the basis that FAO would have to use the project planning figure as the basis for developing its staffing for technical support services of the agency and therefore that, once an amount is agreed between a donor and FAO as to what services are provided for a project, that is the amount that should be reimbursed. We recognize that there is a slight clarification which will be necessary, because in another case we have indicated that payment will be made after the service is provided. This is because of the question that was raised in the Director-General's report to the Council concerning accountability. We felt it would be very beneficial both to FAO and to the donors that, prior to the actual charging for any specific service, there should be a certification from the service within FAO that the actual service had been provided. The amount billed would be at the budgeted amount, but the billing would not be required to be paid until the service had actually been provided.
The gentleman from France raised a question concerning the possibility of a simulation of projects which might be undertaken. I wanted to point out that we had taken twenty projects and done a simulation of the impact that the proposed new system would have on those existing projects. We received from FAO what we believed to be a generally representative sample of all the projects to try to see what administrative problems might develop because of the system as well as what the impact on the reimbursement would be. Based upon that sampling of projects, we did make some changes, which are included in the report. We hope this type of sampling was useful to FAO, and I am certain they will continue this analysis as part of their study of the proposals that we made.
A question was raised concerning multiple implementing agencies. I want to make one point on that. It was our suggestion, though it was not made very clear in the report, that in such a case a similar procedure be used (in the case of this FAO Trust Fund arrangement) to the arrangement followed under UNDP guidelines - that is, that an agency that continues under the old system would continue to be reimbursed under the old system and one under the new system would be reimbursed under the new system. If there was a sub-contractual arrangement with ILO, whatever arrangement ILO had in connection with the operation of its Trust Funds would continue to be provided under the sub-contractual relationship.
Similar procedures would be in effect in connection with an NGO, assuming an NGO had a formal arrangement for reimbursement of support cost, if not it would have to be negotiated on a project-by-project basis. Again, this is something which I think the Secretariat will have to consider very carefully because there are implications to this which will have to be discussed with other agencies. We did not make that effort as part of this study.
The last thing I should like to comment on is the question of why we chose to make a recommendation that only a percentage of the full cost be recovered and in effect that we isolated those fixed indirect costs as being those costs which should be continued to be supported from the Regular Budget.
I want to point out that we made an extensive effort to compute the total cost, not just the cost that we were recommending for reimbursement. If you have a copy of Annex 1 of our report, the exhibits at the back of the report, that annex shows in connection with the calculation of the charges the actual amount that is recommended to be charged and the total cost. We wanted to make
you aware that that was available to those who have a copy of the report annex.
Our main reason for recommending that the full cost of fixed indirect costs not be included in the reimbursement rate is because we have had extensive experience with this issue in non-governmental organizations, primarily in the US, but certainly with some international organizations. We have found that where extra-budgetary resources are used to finance certain very fixed elements of costs - for example, the operation of a payroll system, or the operation of the central personnel department - significant fluctuations in the level of delivery of services, which impact on the amount of reimbursement received for support costs, can have a devastating effect on the agency's ability within a biennium, particularly when its budget is already adopted. To continue to provide quality services, if the type of issues that were related to the recent changes in the accounting system had been undertaken, where part of the actual operating costs of that system had been financed from support costs, particularly in this period where there are changes in the level of support from some of the major funding sources, like UNDP, it could have been extremely critical if these things had been funded from this type of variable financing. This is the main reason why we recommended that these costs continue to be financed from the Regular Programme.
In closing, I should like to thank the Secretariat for giving us the opportunity to participate in the study. We hope that we have made a contribution to enabling the agency to continue to provide services to Trust Funds, because we recognize that they are of tremendous importance to development projects throughout the world.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the consultant for his intervention and will now give the floor again to Mr Shah.
V.J. SHAH (Deputy Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): First of all, I wish to express our gratitude for the reception given by the Council to the proposals submitted to it. A large number of members, if not all, have particularly expressed their thanks and appreciation to the Director-General. It will be my privilege to convey these to him. By the same token, I should like to express the thanks of the Secretariat for the reception you have accorded our proposals. I should point out that your remarks are addressed not just to me, who was privileged to introduce this item, but also to my colleague Mr Regnier and all his colleagues in the Development Department and to Mr Mehboob, the Assistant Director-General of Administration and Finance, and all his colleagues. In fact, there is a very large number of people involved and who are working on this subject. We are very grateful to you.
Let me now try to answer the specific questions, and then deal with the general issues on which some response is appropriate. I should point out that many of the very thoughtful comments which were made do not, to my mind, require an individual and separate response from the Secretariat, if I may say so, because these were the considered and reflected views of the Member Nations. Those views were not only for the benefit of other members of the Council but were also addressed to the Secretariat to reflect on and to take into account in further pursuing this matter.
Starting with one of the last questions, the distinguished representative of Thailand enquired about the possibility of varying our practice when international expert candidatures for the post of Chief Technical Adviser are proposed to governments and whether we could not submit more than one name at a time as a possibility in order to speed up the process of the government's decision. My colleagues and I well appreciate that sometimes, as a matter of principle, a government considering different candidates would want to see a choice, would want to be given the possibility of a choice. There is, I am told, no absolute rule which prevents us from doing so. We have done so in certain cases. But let me point out two aspects of the difficulties involved. One is that, when FAO submits a candidature, it does so after verifying the interest and availability of the candidate concerned. If we do this systematically with a number of candidates, we shall soon run into the problem of having repeatedly to go back to them and say, "You were not selected after all, somebody else was". I think it is a practical operational problem which we have to bear in mind. Second is the cost aspect. It is fairly laborious work, reviewing rosters, selecting the most appropriate candidate, and all the other actions involved. I hope that the distinguished representative of Thailand, as other members, will understand why we pursue the particular practices that we do.
A specific question was raised, and comments made, about how the suggested arrangements would apply to arrangements for associate professional officers, APOs, projects subject to institutional arrangements and projects subject to arrangements with non-governmental organizations. The suggestions before you, as Mr Gotthainer also implied, did not focus on each individual aspect of these arrangements. In the light of your comments, the next paper that you will see, and that the Programme and Finance Committees will see, will specifically address these aspects.
A question was raised by the distinguished representative of Australia about the subsidy from the Regular Programme being reported to the Finance Committee. There are two aspects I would urge the Council to bear in mind. First of all, the intended Regular Programme subsidy is covered in the Programme of Work and Budget document itself, where there is a provision for Field Programme support under each of the technical and economic programmes of the budgetary Chapter 2. Then you have the post facto Cost Measurement System results, which are supplied to the Finance Committee on an annual basis.
But we realise that with the new UNDP successor arrangements there will be reporting of a more detailed nature on the subsidy to the UNDP and, by the same token, if we are to pursue these arrangements, I can well see that we will report on a comparable and more detailed basis on the subsidy to the Regular Programme, as well.
A specific question was raised by the Netherlands and France about the possibility of a trial period, with a review at the end. I think that is a very wise suggestion. I think this is the kind of issue to which we would give thought and which we would include in whatever proposals the Director- General wishes to submit in pursuance of your debate.
I think that any new arrangement would be well worth implementing on a trial basis to see what experience there is, what the problems are and what corrected measures may be necessary.
I will now deal with questions of a more general nature. There are basically three issues on which I should like to offer a few comments. Firstly, all the comments which related to the technical capacity of FAO: this really is the heart of the matter. It has been asked, why is there a Trust Fund programme at all? It has been asked, do bilateral donors, Trust Fund donors, consider which agency is the best to implement the projects which they wish to fund? It has been asked, do Trust Fund donors ensure that when they decide to turn to FAO with a proposed Trust Fund project, they do so in the areas of FAO's comparative advantage?
It has been suggested that, further to the arrangements of the UNDP with regard to programme and project technical level support, FAO enhances capacity to provide this support to developing countries. All this is very pertinent, but I would say that the technical capacity of the Organization, and questions of comparative advantage, lie very much in the policy decisions you make. If you provide resources on a sustainable and assured basis, you are providing the means to the Director-General to sustain the technical capacity of this Organization.
You have seen over a number of years how the difficulties created by delays and shortfall in contributions do affect the implementation and do affect the management of the Organization. These are ways in which the technical capacity of the Organization is damaged. However, you all want your Organization to be strong, to be technically capable, to be technically competent. This brings me to the question of comparative advantage.
Comparative advantage is, I submit, not something that can be measured merely in terms of constitutional mandate. The constitutional mandate gives the basis for the fields in which the Organization operates. It gives an indication of the roles that the Organization exercises. However, the comparative advantage is a judgement of capacity, is a judgement of quality which is intensely human. An organization can develop a comparative advantage as FAO has done in many fields, and all it takes is a few years of not using it, a few years of damage, and the comparative advantage shifts. It is very much in the hands of Member Nations themselves how they want to keep up the strength of this Organization. I am not being argumentative at all. I hope it is understood that I am only pointing out that this Organization has many comparative advantages which are seen from your own debates, which are seen from the way in which you support this Organization, which are seen from the way you want this Organization to have an extensive and substantial Field Programme. These are comparative advantages which belong to you and which are in your interest.
In this connection some comments have been made about whether the Field Programme affects adversely of whether it distorts Regular Programme priorities. You will recall personally, Mr Chairman, as will many delegates, that this was an issue which was very much debated by the independent experts in the FAO review. It was debated in the Programme and Finance Committees and by yourselves and the Conference. The judgement, if I recall, was that the Field Programme is not at variance with the Regular Programme. Why do extra-budgetary sources of funding turn to FAO? It is because of the substantive competence of the Organization, it is because of the comparative advantages which we have, it is because of the expertise that we have and the expertise, let us face it, is based on the priorities you set in the Programme of Work and Budget.
It is for these reasons that whatever we are asked to do - and let us bear in mind, we talk about UNDP and we talk about Trust Fund donors, but every project, whether undertaken by UNDP funding on Trust Fund donor funding, is at the request of the recipient government and is accepted on the terms proposed by the recipient government.
From this perspective, it is our experience that the priorities that are indicated in the Field Programme are very consistent with the priorities which you jointly, as Member Nations, set for the Regular Programme. The reason why we have an extra-budgetary funded programme - and if I may take one comment made by the distinguished Ambassador of France, why do we have a Field Programme which is extra-budgetary funded? It is because I do not think, unless I am very wrong, that Member Nations are ready to support a Regular Programme with a budget level of US$1.4 billion for the biennium instead of the US$676.9 million we have.
Returning from these comments, I now come to the conclusions and to the gist of my reply. If I have heard the debate correctly - and it is for you, Sir, to tell us so - we are very encouraged by the response you have given. As I said at the outset, the proposals were not submitted to you by the Director-General with the expectation or even an invitation to you to approve them today lock, stock and barrel. No. You have given the kinds of reaction which we sought from you and which we consider very precious in order to develop this proposal further. Over all the reaction has been, as my ears have registered it, a generally very positive one. If that is so confirmed by you, Mr Chairman, we in the Secretariat shall take encouragement from the reaction you have given to develop it further and to submit it to the Director-General for his consideration and for such action as he deems fit next year to the Programme and Finance Committee and to the Council.
LE PRESIDENT: De fait, comme M. Shah l'a indiqué, l'avis du Conseil était demandé au sujet de cet important problème pour lequel il est impossible d'obtenir rapidement une solution définitive. Le Directeur général voulait connaître les réactions des membres du Conseil afin d'étudier le problème d'une manière plus approfondie et de faire des propositions à la prochaine session du Conseil, en 1993, par le canal du Comité financier et du Comité du Programme.
Je voudrais aussi signaler que le délégué de la Libye nous a transmis le texte de son intervention qui, comme celle du représentant du Maroc, sera insérée dans le procès-verbal.
Incontestablement, ce sujet est important et vous me permettrez de faire quelques réflexions sur un domaine aussi important. Vous savez que l'Organisation a connu de graves difficultés financières, ces dernières années, à tel point que certains domaines d'activité du Programme ordinaire ont dû être pris en charge, en tout ou en partie, par les fonds fiduciaires. Et je remercie ceux qui sont intervenus dans divers programmes de la FAO de façon à permettre à l'Organisation de continuer à couvrir la totalité du champ de ses activités.
Je n'ai qu'une expérience limitée du monde mais j'ai quand même eu l'occasion d'avoir de nombreux contacts et de me rendre compte, au cours de tous les voyages que j'ai faits, du fait que les Programmes de terrain sont vraiment le sang et la vie de l'Organisation; que, sans ces Programmes de terrain,
nous deviendrions rapidement une sorte d'académie, un cercle d'études désincarné, sans prolongement. Comment peut-on imaginer être un centre d'aide à forte capacité de réponse dans des domaines techniques extrêmement complexes - que ce soit la télédétection, que ce soit la trypanosomiase animale, que ce soient les problèmes forestiers, que ce soient les problèmes nutritionnels -sans avoir une expérience concrète et pratique des opérations de terrain?
Tout le monde a exprimé le souhait que l'Organisation ait une capacité de réponse réellement valable. S'il n'y a pas de Programmes de terrain, ce serait exclu. Maintenant, doit-on demander davantage à ceux qui font déjà un effort supplémentaire alors qu'on devrait normalement souhaiter que ceux qui ne font pas d'efforts particuliers pour la vie de l'Organisation en fassent enfin et contribuent de manière plus substantielle à la vie de l'Organisation au moyen des Programmes de terrain?
Un certain nombre d'Etats Membres contribuent; d'autres contribuent peu; d'autres ne contribuent pas. Je n'ai certainement pas à apprécier la volonté politique des différents Etats mais je crois qu'il est important que nous soulignions quand même que, sans Programmes de terrain, il n'y a plus de FAO, car je ne vois pas très bien comment, demain, on pourrait envisager ce qui est souhaité par tous, à savoir rester la grande agence opérationnelle de la famille des Nations Unies dans le domaine de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture, sans expérience concrète et pratique de terrain. Qu'il y ait des échecs, je le veux bien. On a fait un certain nombre de suggestions en parlant du Comité des Programmes de terrain. Je crois que c'est aussi aux bénéficiaires à faire entendre leur voix à propos des Programmes de terrain et d'être exigeants sur la qualité des experts. Mais pour avoir des experts bien formés et expérimentés, il faut que ceux-ci aient une large connaissance du terrain et qu'ils soient en contact avec les experts nationaux.
Je n'ai pas l'intention de prononcer un discours sur ce point parce que je crois que le sujet est loin d'être épuisé et que nous aurons encore l'occasion d'en discuter très longuement. Je voulais simplement souligner l'importance de tous les Programmes de terrain. Le Comité du Programme a déjà examiné correctement tout ce qui a été fait jusqu'à présent - la qualité des services, la capacité des experts - et je suis convaincu que nous poursuivrons ce dialogue de façon à trouver, tous ensemble, les formules les plus adéquates. Nous souhaitons tous la transparence, et je crois qu'elle est indispensable. La discussion qui a eu lieu dans cette enceinte est intéressante et importante; les Etats ont eu l'occasion de faire connaître leurs point de vue. Nous avons aussi entendu le représentant du Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement. On a insisté sur la nécessité de la clarté, de la souplesse et de la limpidité. Il faut donc trouver des formules qui ne soient pas trop complexes et qui puissent être appliquées sans travail administratif démesuré.
Je voudrais tout spécialement remercier le Directeur général adjoint, M. Shah, pour son introduction qui a bien posé le problème sous toutes ses facettes, et ce problème devait être posé de façon complète. Demain, je suis convaincu que des propositions pourront être introduites qui ne donneront peut-être pas satisfaction de manière totale à tous, mais qui permettront de trouver une forme de compromis pour sauver ce qui est l'essentiel de notre Organisation. Le Programme ordinaire n'a pas beaucoup de sens s'il n'y a pas ses prolongements dans des réalisations. On parlait ce matin des plus pauvres, des démunis, des transferts de technologie: je crois qu'il n'est pas possible de les réaliser sans expérience de terrain, et l'efficacité du Programme
ordinaire, le rayonnement du Programme ordinaire, est fonction également de la qualité et de la dimension des Programmes de terrain.
Je vous remercie. Je crois que nous n'avons pas épuisé le sujet parce qu'il restera à l'ordre du jour pendant les mois qui viennent jusqu'à la prochaine réunion conjointe du Comité financier et du Comité du Programme en fonction de la prochaine réunion du Conseil. Puisque nous n'avons pas de décisions à prendre sinon à signaler que sera pris en compte l'avis de tous les Membres du Conseil, dans la perspective de la poursuite du dialogue nécessaire, le Directeur général pourra faire ses propositions suivant la procédure qui a été prévue.
Je proposerais maintenant de passer au point suivant de notre ordre du jour si vous n'avez plus de remarques à faire concernant le point 16.
Je considère clos le point 16 de l'ordre du jour.
LE PRESIDENT: Ce point, qui est soumis à notre appréciation pour information, est un point important. Les documents auxquels on se réfère sont le CL 102/4 et CL 102/17.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: In response to a request from the staff associations, the Director-General has agreed to ask the Council through you, Mr Chairman, to receive a statement presented by Ms Margaret Eldon, Secretary-General of the Union of General Service Staff, on behalf of the three staff associations. We would appreciate the opportunity for her to make a statement to the Council.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Directeur général adjoint de sa proposition. Il a été demandé qu'une déclaration soit prononcée par un représentant des trois associations du personnel reconnues par l'Organisation lors de la discussion de ce point 17, vu l'importance du sujet. Vous vous rappellerez que cette question déjà été abordée à la Commission III lors de notre Conférence, il y a exactement un an, en novembre 1991.
Je propose de donner la parole à Mme Margaret Eldon, Secrétaire générale du Syndicat du personnel local et non local de la FAO, qui a été désignée par les trois associations pour intervenir en leur nom.
Ms Margaret ELDON (Secretary-General, UGSS): I should like to thank the Director-General for his permission to address you today and for his unstinting efforts to improve the conditions of service of the staff. It is an honour for me to give this declaration on behalf of the three staff associations, the Association of Professional Staff, the Field Staff Association and the Union of General Service Staff. In their name, Mr Chairman, I thank you for having accepted this intervention.
This time last year the personnel of FAO made a similar address to the Conference. The purpose of that address was to express concern with regard to the continuing deterioration of the conditions of service of the Professional and higher categories, and the negative impact this was having on the Organization's ability to recruit and maintain the level of competence required to carry out its programmes. At the same time, concern was expressed that similar threats were being directed toward the conditions of employment of the General Service category.
The Conference endorsed the view expressed by the Organization and supported by the staff representatives that it was essential that the Organization be able to recruit and retain high quality staff. It urged that the strong concern expressed be brought to the attention of the General Assembly and its Fifth Committee. What has been the result?
With regard to the Professional category, it has now been clearly demonstrated that the United Nations is an uncompetitive employer. A comparative study of the Professional salary and pension systems of the UN and other international organizations undertaken by the Federation of International Civil Servants' Associations shows that salaries in other international organizations that compete for similar staff - that is, the European Community, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the World Bank - are from 30 percent to 41 percent higher for middle-graded Professionals.
In the case of pensions, a staff member in another international organization at a level equivalent to a P-4 can expect a pension over 26 percent higher than his UN counterpart. After 20 years of service the income replacement ratio, that is the ratio of the pension to the final salary, of a UN Professional pensioner, is only 38 percent. This compares to 58 percent in the World Bank.
Based on this technical study, which was officially submitted to the International Civil Service Commission in July 1992, FICSA urged the Commission to recommend to the General Assembly at its current session that the purchasing power lost by staff in the Professional and higher categories be restored. In its report, however, the Commission has concluded that: "Rather than being an uncompetitive employer, the common system was merely less competitive than the international organizations to which it was compared."
It has not, therefore, recommended any effective improvements.
For the Field Staff, in addition to inadequate salaries and pensions, their greatest worry this last year has been the visible shrinkage in the Field Programme as a result of reductions in donor support and changes in donor policy. Yet all around them they and the governments of the countries they serve see the need for technical assistance of the type that FAO is often best and most effective in delivering.
With regard to the General Service staff, this year the International Civil Service Commission has undertaken a review of the methodologies used to calculate General Service salaries and pensions. The Commission decided on several major amendments to the salary survey methodology that will have a noticeable negative impact on future General Service salaries in Rome.
Although General Service salaries should, according to the Flemming Principle approved by the General Assembly, be set according to the best prevailing rates in the locality, this in future will no longer be the case. Lower paying employers, previously omitted from the survey sample, will now be included. The 4 percent language competence factor established for two duty stations where the local language is not an official language of the United Nations - Rome and Vienna - will be eliminated.
Concerning the pensionable remuneration of General Service staff, the Commission decided to introduce, effective 1 January 1994, a new methodology for deriving pensionable remuneration from net salary by using lower staff assessment rate corresponding not to 100 percent of net salary, as it is at present, but to 56.25 percent of net salary - a significant difference. The effect on General Service pensions will be cumulative. An erosion of salaries will automatically result in reduced pensions. To this will be added the effect of using the lower staff assessment rate. It is anticipated that the impact of these two factors on General Service pensions will be considerable over a few years.
Considering that it is now recognized that the UN is an uncompetitive employer, and considering that the methodologies for General Service salaries and pensions have demonstrated their validity over the years and consequently did not require major changes, it is clear that the motivation behind these decisions is to keep down the cost to the UN of the remuneration packages of the staff.
No consideration is being given to quality of service and the ability of the specialized agencies to attract and retain the highly-qualified and motivated staff required to respond adequately to the needs of member countries.
Underlying this situation is a paradox. Several member countries are deeply concerned about the costs incurred in maintaining large UN agencies and the economic burden this places on their Governments at a time of economic recession. At the same time, member countries depend on the UN and on agencies like FAO for peacekeeping, crucial development assistance and emergency aid. If there is insufficient economic support to enable specialized agencies to respond to demands for assistance, it is not only the staff that will suffer but also the credibility of the specialized agencies concerned and the programmes of those nations requiring aid.
The strength of any organization lies in its capacity to secure the highest standards of efficiency and competence. Nowhere is this more imperative than in the United Nations where many of the specialized agencies are directly involved in saving, and promoting the quality of, life. When an agency's ability to attract and maintain staff of the highest calibre is undermined, so too is its capacity to deliver high-quality technical assistance to the programmes of member countries. As staff members leave, enticed by better prospects elsewhere, both the Organization and the Governments they serve, lose the benefit of their many years experience. Extra costs are incurred as new people have to be trained, and the rate of progress is slowed down due to the lack of continuity arising from the high turnover of personnel. Cost control measures made at the expense of the staff are unsound.
Distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, today the situation is very grave. Within the Common System, sufficient serious consideration is not being given to the needs and concerns of the specialized agencies and their staff.
Believing that their participation in the process of consultation with the International Civil Service Commission is ineffective, the two federations of staff associations, FICSA and CCISUA, have withdrawn.
The ACC recently issued a statement to the General Assembly, once again drawing attention to the need to restore the competitiveness of the remuneration package of the professional and higher categories and not to erode that of the General Service. In his address to the Fifth Committee last week, the Secretary-General of the UN, supporting the ACC statement, drew attention to the fact that these issues needed to be given urgent attention and that decisions on them are inextricably linked to the creation of a strong, independent, international civil service.
Distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, we are sure that each of you has at heart the interests of the staff who represents the real capital of this Organization. The staff trust and rely on your help to bring to the attention of the General Assembly the seriousness of the situation in order that corrective measures with regard to the needs of this Organization and the conditions of employment of its staff may be taken.
In closing, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen we would like to stress that action is needed now. The Fifth Committee of the General Assembly has biennialized its work and, therefore, any unresolved problems will not be addressed for at least two years. Lack of concerted action at the common system level can only increase the need for alternative measures at the local level. Distinguished delegates, please give to the Organization and its staff the means to accomplish the tasks that have been entrusted to them.
Mr Chairman, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your kind attention and for your kind consideration of the points we have raised.
CHAIRMAN: I thank Mrs Eldon for her introduction to the problem of Remuneration and Conditions of Service of Staff. Before I give the floor to the Council for their reaction to this problem, I would like to give the floor to Mr Slater, Director of Personnel.
A.T. SLATER (Director, Personnel Division): The item before you, Item 17, Remuneration and Conditions of Service of Staff, there are two financial reports before you and each deal with this question. The first is that of the 73rd Session in May and the document is 102/4 (paragraph 2.60 to paragraph 2.74 refer). The second is that of the 74th Session of the Finance Committee in September and that is contained in document 102/17, (paragraphs 3.66 to 3.86 refer).
Both reports deal with the following topics: (1) the annual reports of the ICSC and the Joint Staff Pension Board to the General Assembly; (2) changes in salaries and allowances; (3) progress report on status of remuneration.
As regards the first point the reports of the ICSC pension board, the May Finance Committee's report provides a summary of the ICSC recommendations to the General Assembly in 1991 and the Assembly's decisions thereon.
In the Finance Committee report in September, there is a summary in the recommendations of these two common system bodies which are currently before the present session of the General Assembly.
You will see from these reports that the Finance Committee noted these developments and expressed concern over the decision of the staff representatives to discontinue their attendance at the last session of the ICSC. The Committee requested (in paragraph 3.74 of document 102/17) that you give further study and considerations to these concerns.
On the issue of salaries and allowances, in both the May and September reports of the Finance Committee the evolution of Professional and General Service salaries and allowances for the period March 1991 to September 1992 are reported.
The Committee took note of these developments.
As regards the final item, progress reports on the status of remuneration, there are issues here which may require closer scrutiny on your part. This item refers to the critical situation in respect of remuneration of staff and its negative consequences. You will recall that at the 26th Session in November 1991 the Conference noted this situation with concern and urged that this concern be brought to the attention of the UN General Assembly.
It further requested that the status report be prepared for this session of the Council. That report is contained in paragraphs 3.78-3.86 of CL 102/17.
I must report with disappointment that, despite the strong concern expressed by the Conference and the continued perseverance and efforts of the Director-General in the various common system fora, the General Assembly and ICSC decisions on salary and pension matters have done very little to improve the conditions of service of staff.
No substantive positive changes are foreseen for the near future. In fact, the recommendations which the ICSC at its recent summer Session decided to submit to the General Assembly do not yet address the basic issue of the loss of competitiveness of the remuneration package granted to staff in the Professional and higher categories. Decisions were also taken at the same ICSC Session for implementation during the next cycle of salary surveys which will result in less favourable pensions and salaries of staff in the General Service category. Further, the General Assembly has biennialized its work programme with regard to personnel matters and therefore, after 1992, no consideration will normally be given to remuneration issues until 1994.
In light of these developments, the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) issued a strong statement to present to the Session of the General Assembly currently under way, requesting that: "in considering salary and pension methodologies for the General Service category any modification should be technically sound and should not result in any erosion of current conditions". Specifically, it requested that the "ICSC recommendations on the methodology for determining pensionable remuneration be deferred until the results of using the new salary survey methodology are known." ACC also requested the General Assembly "to invite ICSC to pursue its examination of the competitiveness of the common system, and in particular that of staff in the professional and higher categories, by considering as a matter of urgency and for consideration by the General Assembly in 1993, an updated application
of the Noblemaire principle so that all relevant features of the highest paid civil service are taken into account, as well as remuneration levels offered by other international employers....".
It is to be hoped that the General Assembly response to the ACC's concerns will be positive. In the context of these developments the Director-General may also consider alternative measures which might be taken in FAO within the framework of the common system to improve the recruitment, retention and motivation of high quality staff. Your continued support of the Director-General in these matters is much appreciated.
If your require any further information, my staff and I are, Mr Chairman, at your disposal.
EL PRESIDENTE: El Comité de Finanzas examinó esos problemas de personal durante sus sesiones de mayo y de septiembre de 1992.
Quisiera entregar la palabra al Presidente del Comité de Finanzas, Sr. Di Mottola.
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Presidente, Comité de Finanzas): Yo me alegro mucho, Sr. Presidente, de que el Director General haya acogido un voto que habla sido expresado en el Comité de Finanzas durante las sesiones a las que usted aludió, de invitar a un representante de las tres asociaciones del personal para exponer la situación del personal, que me parece extremadamente preocupante.
Le aseguro, Sr. Presidente, que las disposiciones, especialmente las más recientes, adoptadas por la CAPI, presentan condiciones que suscitan mucha preocupación. Estas condiciones han sido estudiadas ya por el Director de Personal, que ha explicado muy bien varios de sus aspectos. Se ha reflexionado sobre las pensiones, que es algo que siempre preocupa a los que trabajan, y no es justo que sus perspectivas hayan ido disminuyendo.
Quiero exponer sólo un ejemplo para no adelantarme al examen que de estos problemas van a hacer los señores delegados, y es que ha sido eliminado un factor que reconoce el conocimiento de los idiomas. Esto favorecía al personal que estaba en Roma, ya que el personal que está en Roma tiene que conocer, además de su lengua, algún otro idioma más. Por el contrario en cualquier otra agencia de Naciones Unidas que no esté ubicada en Roma o en Viena, necesita conocer un sólo idioma, ya que las agencias situadas, por ejemplo, en Francia, tienen una lengua oficial que es el francés. Igualmente sucede con las agencias situadas en Nueva York que sólo necesitan el inglés. Sin embargo, el personal que está en Roma tiene que conocer además de su propio idioma el francés y el inglés.
Considero, Sr. Presidente, que seria justo reconocer el esfuerzo de toda una vida, un esfuerzo de cultura y una capacidad más que tiene el personal que está en Roma frente al que está en otros lugares.
Creo, por lo tanto, que el Consejo deberla estudiar muy cuidadosamente el problema y recomendar a la CAPI que tenga en cuenta este deterioro de las condiciones del personal de las agencias de Naciones Unidas.
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais savoir qui demande la parole. Je ne vois que le Chili et le Royaume-Uni qui souhaitent intervenir.
Samuel FERNANDEZ ILLANES (Chile): Me mueve a intervenir en este tema tres aspectos, señor Presidente. El primero, la lectura de los documentos que tenemos a la vista; el segundo, el informe que hemos escuchado de la Secretaria General de la Unión del Personal a nombre de las tres asociaciones del personal y, en tercer lugar, lo dicho por el distinguido Director del Personal.
Las tres son coincidentes, tanto los documentos como las intervenciones, en que la situación es delicada, y hay evidentes muestras de deterioro y pueden producirse consecuencias para el personal que trabaja en la FAO. De extremadas consecuencias negativas. Esto, además, me lleva a recordar que durante la Conferencia última, en la Comisión III, que tuve el honor de presidir, estudiamos los temas, se llegó a la conclusión de que estaba produciéndose una situación delicada y que deterioraba las remuneraciones y demás beneficios del personal, y escuchamos también en esa oportunidad a los representantes de las asociaciones del personal. Se comprueba que la situación no ha variado y que, al contrario, hay elementos que nos permiten pensar que puede aún deteriorarse.
Por ejemplo, a pesar de la importancia que se le ha asignado al tema por el Director General y todo el personal que de él se ocupa, tenemos como un hecho la falta de competitividad, las modificaciones negativas, el ejemplo que recordaba el Embajador Di Mottola sobre los idiomas es elocuente, las pensiones se ven amenazadas, y me tocó y tuve el honor también de integrar dicho Comité, vi su labor, aprecié la enorme labor desarrollada y veo con preocupación que esto pueda deteriorarse aún más.
En consecuencia, mi delegación quisiera expresar esta preocupación y está dispuesta a apoyar las medidas que el Consejo determine en conjunto con lo sugerido y que hemos escuchado, para que las conversaciones se continúen y éstas gestiones prosperen.
Ha pasado ya un año y usted lo recordó muy bien, los temas se mantienen en deterioro y requieren por lo tanto de nuestra acción, la que estamos dispuestos a aportar.
J.C. MACHIN (United Kingdom): I would like to make a statement on behalf of the European Community and its Member States.
Perhaps I could begin by saying that I have listened very intently to the introductions by the Chairman of the Finance Committee and the Director of Personnel Division. You can be assured that we have listened very carefully to what they have had to say.
We welcome the statement just made by the representative of the FAO Staff Associations. It is important in any organization, large or small, that the staff have a view on the organization and that they are able to express their view openly to the governing body of that organization. We, therefore, very much welcome the fact that the Staff Associations, at the suggestion of the Finance Committee, have been given the opportunity to ventilate their opinions and concerns to this Council this afternoon. We were very interested indeed
to hear what the representative of the Staff Associations had to say. Naturally, we will reflect very carefully on her comments and concerns.
Let me add briefly that we accept the need, of course, for staff remuneration to be set at a level which is sufficient to retain and motivate quality staff. This is a fundamental principle, given that the most important asset any organization has is its staff, its investment in human resources.
At the same time, the European Community and its Member States pays full regard to the importance of budget discipline within the United Nations. That is why we want to see the continuation of the UN Common System as the most appropriate means of ensuring budgetary control throughout the UN system, whilst at the same time recognizing and implementing the recommendations of the International Civil Service Commission.
Finally, could I again reiterate our thanks to the representative of the Staff Associations for making known to us so eloquently and clearly this afternoon the concerns of all staff of FAO. You can rest assured that we will make sure these concerns are drawn to the attention of our Governments.
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois qu'il serait utile de faire le point de la situation en ce sens que la Commission de la Fonction publique internationale a établi un rapport qui est actuellement soumis à la cinquième Commission - Monsieur le Directeur du personnel rectifiera si je me trompe -, laquelle sera appelée à présenter à l'Assemblée générale une proposition. Le Comité administratif de coordination a lancé un vibrant appel à tous les chefs d'agences pour attirer l'attention des Nations Unies sur l'importance du problème. Il appartient bien sûr à votre Conseil de déterminer sa position. Chacun des membres du Conseil peut intervenir auprès de ses représentants à New York pour les inciter à accorder à cette grave question tout l'intérêt qu'elle mérite. Cependant il est souhaitable que le Conseil se mette d'accord sur un texte qui pourrait être transmis, dans le cadre de la cinquième Commission, par le Conseil de la FAO, pour mettre l'accent sur ce délicat problème que connaît notre Organisation.
Notre Organisation a le devoir de se pencher sur le problème du personnel mais il est évidemment difficile à ce stade de se mettre d'accord sur un texte. Je proposerai donc de ne pas clôturer ce point, de prendre différents contacts et peut-être de créer un petit groupe composé de membres du Conseil qui pourraient, avec le Directeur du personnel, envisager la possibilité d'élaborer un texte, en accord avec le Secrétaire général du syndicat du personnel, local et non local, des Services généraux, de façon à ce que le Conseil puisse exprimer son point de vue à la cinquième Commission. Il ne s'agit là bien sûr, que d'une suggestion et je vais demander aux membres du Conseil de bien vouloir faire leur déclaration.
Horacio M. CARANDANG (Philippines): I see the predicament you are in, because there are only three delegations which have taken the floor on this matter. I agree that one of the solutions could be the way that you have suggested. Another would be to simply endorse the reports of the Programme and Finance Committees regarding this matter, since this, I think, would reflect the view of the majority of the Council. This delegation would reiterate its endorsement of those reports showing the concern about the deterioration of
the salaries and pensions of staff members and the negative effect this would have on the efficiency of the Organization.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie très vivement M. Carandang de son intervention. Ce problème a déjà été longuement examiné il y a exactement un an par la troisième Commission de la Conférence plénière, et Mme Margaret Eldon a signalé que si une décision réglant le problème ne pouvait être prise maintenant, le problème risquait d'être reporté à deux ans. Il s'agit là d'un problème important et il est difficile de renvoyer la cinquième Commission aux procès-verbaux du Comité des finances de ces deux sessions. Il serait donc souhaitable de se mettre d'accord sur un texte.
Daniel Yoman KONAN (Côte d'Ivoire): Il vous souviendra que notre délégation a pris la parole sur ce point précis qui est l'objet de notre discussion, à la suite du Directeur général qui avait fait une déclaration à l'ouverture de nos travaux, déclaration très significative dans ce sens.
En tant que membre africain du Conseil, je voudrais exprimer notre inquiétude face à cette situation qui risque de perturber la bonne exécution des Programmes de terrain qui sont mis en oeuvre sur notre continent.
En second lieu, je voudrais exprimer notre soutien le plus ferme au personnel de la FAO qui, comme vous le savez, est très compétent et très dévoué à l'Organisation.
Je voudrais également appuyer toute démarche entreprise sur ce point par le Conseil. La suggestion que vous venez de faire, de nous mettre d'accord sur un texte retient mon attention; elle revêt un caractère d'urgence et je pense que tout ce que nous pouvons faire ici en direction de la cinquième Commission et en direction de l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies ne peut être que bénéfique.
Winston RUDDER (Trinidad and Tobago): In the course of our discussions of Council matters, I have been most vociferous in my interventions regarding the support we require from this Organization in the development of agriculture, forestry and fisheries in our respective countries. We look forward to the continued support of the technical, professional and scientific staff of FAO in this regard. Like my colleague from Côte d'Ivoire, we look at the introduction of this agenda item with the implications it will have for development in our countries. We will support anything positive which the Council can do to get the message across to where it ought to go about the extent of our concern at the impact that matters related to the inadequacy of the remuneration system for professional and higher categories of staff are likely to have on development in our countries. We therefore support the view of Côte d'Ivoire on this particular item and would wish the Council to take note of this view and send the message to where it is most required in this regard.
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois qu'il n'y a plus de membres du Conseil qui désire prendre la parole.
La meilleure façon de procéder serait sans doute de préparer un premier projet qui serait soumis à l'avis du Conseil et qui pourrait donc, dans un premier temps, être examiné soit par le Comité de rédaction, soit par un petit groupe formé au sein du Conseil et représentant les différents groupes dans ce même Conseil, de façon à ce que nous puissions demain, en fin de journée, après avoir épuisé l'ordre du jour, tel qu'il est prévu, nous mettre d'accord sur un texte.
Cette solution d'un avant-projet de texte soumis au Conseil permettrait à ses membres d'y réfléchir, notamment dans la journée de demain, ce qui leur donnerait la possibilité d'apporter certains amendements. Le Conseil pourrait ainsi se prononcer en fin de séance, demain après-midi.
Cette suggestion obtient-elle l'agrément du Conseil ou y a-t-il d'autres propositions?
Votre silence est éloquent. Je considère donc que la proposition que je viens de faire rencontre l'accord de l'ensemble des membres du Conseil. Je vous en remercie.
It was so decided.
Il en sera ainsi décidé.
Así se acuerda.
Nous ne concluons pas sur le point 17. Je vous signale que le Comité de rédaction se réunira à la Salle du Mexique immédiatement après notre session et que demain notre ordre du jour permettra d'examiner dès 9 h 30 les points 18 et 19 et également d'entamer le point 20. C'est un point important qui retiendra certainement l'attention des membres du Conseil et dont nous poursuivrons l'examen durant l'après-midi. Lorsque nous aurons terminé ce point 20 nous reviendrons au point 17. Le Maroc demande la parole.
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Tout d'abord une petite remarque avant d'en arriver à la question que je souhaitais poser.
Vous proposez de changer de calendrier, puisque vous pensez déjà qu'au cours de la matinée nous pourrons aborder le point 20, alors qu'hier vous aviez dit qu'il n'était pas question de toucher au calendrier tel que prévu. Ceci n'est pas important.
Plus important est le fait suivant: vous avez parlé d'un groupe qui préparerait une résolution - il faut appeler les choses par leur nom - qui serait portée à l'attention du Conseil demain en concertation avec le Directeur du personnel et les représentants du personnel. Mais comment voyez-vous la composition de ce groupe? Si ce groupe doit élaborer un avant-projet il doit le faire ce soir ou demain matin. Je le répète, comment envisagez-vous l'organisation de tout cela?
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais faire remarquer à M. Sinaceur que je ne change pas le calendrier. J'ai sous les yeux le programme du mercredi 18 novembre avec deux thèmes pour le matin qui risquent de ne pas remplir notre séance. Je vous demande simplement si le point 20 qui est un point important, peut être entamé
dans le courant de la matinée si nous en avons terminé avec les points 18 et 19.
Je vous ferai remarquer que ce matin, après avoir examiné le rapport du PAM, et après avoir entendu son Directeur exécutif, nous avons entamé le point du coût de soutien en fin de matinée et cela a été très utile.
El Presidente del Comité de Finanzas podría quizás hacer una sugerencia a propósito del grupo que podría estudiar ese proyecto de texto.
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Presidente, Comité de Finanzas) : Sí Sr. Presidente es lo que yo quería hacer, por eso me he permitido pedir el uso de la palabra. Yo pienso que el grupo debería ser nombrado por usted ahora y ser aprobado o modificado por el Consejo. Según yo lo veo podría estar integrado por los señores delegados que han intervenido sobre ese tema, porque significa que son los más interesados. Un texto podría ser preparado por uno de ellos, tal vez el Sr. Embajador de Chile podría redactarlo. Lo digo simplemente porque me gustan más los textos redactados inicialmente en español, pero si fuera en inglés sería lo mismo.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias por su sugerencia tan eficaz. Creo que el Sr. Fernández Illanes que fue Presidente de la Comisión III, que es actualmente Presidente del CACJ podría quizás encargarse de unos contactos entre los miembros del Consejo y en relación con Ms. Margaret Eldon podría organizar una pequeña reunión después de la sesión de hoy día o bien mañana por la mañana a las 9.00. No se lo que usted está pensando, pero usted conoce muy bien la materia. Estoy seguro de que el Presidente del Comité de Finanzas está dispuesto a ayudarle.
Samuel FERNANDEZ ILLANES (Chile): Me siento muy honrado con su propuesta. Gracias. Espero contar con la ayuda del distinguido Embajador Di Mottola. Unicamente quisiera explicar que mañana debo presentar ante este Consejo lo relativo a los temas que usted mencionó y tendré que estar aquí. Buscaré el momento oportuno, pero se hará en el curso del día de mañana.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchísimas gracias por su proposición. Gracias a usted creo que hemos visto todo lo de hoy día.
Je remercie les délégués pour leur participation active aux importantes questions que nous avons traitées aujourd'hui, notamment le rapport du PAM, la question des coûts de soutien des fonds fiduciaires de la FAO. Nous avons fait un tour d'horizon des problèmes du personnel, que nous reverrons demain. Il est important que nous arrivions à un accord. Le Conseil est l'organe habilité à envoyer des messages à la Cinquième Commission pour attirer son attention sur l'importance des problèmes spécifiques du personnel de la FAO.
The meeting rose at 17.30 hours.
La séance est levée à 17 h 30.
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.30 horas.
