LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais vous signaler que nous sommes arrivés à un accord en ce qui concerne le Comité de rédaction et en ce qui concerne la présidence du Comité de rédaction. La composition du Comité de rédaction serait la suivante, si vous marquez votre accord (la consultation des différents groupes). Feraient partie du Comité de rédaction: Australie, Canada, Japon, Espagne, Royaume de Suède, République d'Argentine, République de Colombie, Egypte, Indonésie, Kenya, Pakistan, Tunisie et Royaume d'Arabie Saoudite.
Je crois qu'un accord est intervenu sur la présidence du Comité. Le Président du Comité de rédaction sera M. Shahid Rashid, Représentant permanent suppléant du Pakistan.
Donc la proposition faite est d'attribuer la présidence du Comité de rédaction à M. Shahid Rashid du Pakistan.
Je vous ai donné lecture de la composition du Comité de rédaction, de la proposition faite en ce qui concerne sa présidence.
Est-ce qu'il y a des remarques ou observations que vous souhaiteriez faire?
John Bruce SHARPE (Australia): Mr Chairman, I apologize for my lateness, but I have been having lunch with Mr Rashid, and I should like to endorse his nomination as Chairman of the Drafting Committee.
LE PRESIDENT: Donc, nous pouvons considérer que le Comité de rédaction est constitué. Et nous souhaitons bon travail au Comité de rédaction. Le Comité de rédaction devra travailler vite, puisque après-demain après-midi, nous devrions approuver le rapport. Je remercie d'avance le Président de bien vouloir réunir le Comité de rédaction. Et l'on vous fera une proposition en ce qui concerne la première réunion de ce Comité de rédaction dans un avenir très rapproché.
E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America) : We thank Mr Shah for his rather brief but very useful introduction. As other Council members have noted, the Programme Implementation Report is a useful addition to the family of documents prepared for eventual Conference review. Since the Council has not had an opportunity to discuss this or any other Programme
Implementation Report on a previous occasion, it is appropriate for us to do so, but for future biennia we question the value of an abbreviated Council review of the Programme Implementation Report only a week before it goes to Conference.
Regarding the two options being explored for future PIRs, option one seems to make it more relevant. We support Australia's review in that regard. It is essential that we review the performance of the current biennium as an integral part of designing programmes for the coming biennium.
The United States is somewhat uneasy about the document's assertion that it is not an accounting document. This is a rather defensive posture, and does not give credit to some useful information provided in the Report on expenditures. In our view, it is most appropriate to reflect how resources are being apportioned among the programmes implementing during the biennium.
In assessing the complementarity between regular and field programmes, we are pleased to see many examples of how the programmes interrelate. However, it is similarly evident, as noted by Canada, that FAO Governing Bodies do not have as much to say about the utilization of regular programme resources to support field programmes as they do about resources programmed under the regular programme. The increased role of technical committees, especially COFI, COFO, and COAG, in reviewing their field programme activities, hopefully will augment our appreciation of the relationships described in the Programme Implementation Report.
We would also like to support comments made by Canada about the usefulness of targets and benchmarks as mechanisms in future reports.
Let me reiterate that, whilst this document can become even more valuable with some fine tuning, we are delighted to see this initial Report. During Conference we will provide more detailed comments on some of the Programme-specific material contained in the various chapters, especially noting our support for the recommendations contained in Chapter 6 on FAO's work relating to sustainable agriculture.
Before concluding, we have a few comments on the supplement to the Programme Implementation Report relating to operational activities. General Assembly Resolution 47/119 was a major effort on the part of Member States to strengthen the integration, coordination, coherence and delivery of all UN field activities. We welcome the preparation of the supplement to this Agenda item as an important addition. FAO's contributions to the UN system's effort to implement this Resolution are critical and must continue. Development is a process and this Resolution should reinforce all UN development activities. This document illustrates welcome efforts to achieve programme complementarity. It gives us an even better perspective on programme implementation and should be an integral component of future Programme Implementation Reports.
Aguinaldo LISBOA RAMOS (Cap-Vert): Je dois tout d'abord vous dire. Monsieur le Président, ma satisfaction de vous voir à nouveau présider cette très importante session du Conseil.
J'aimerais joindre ma voix à celle des orateurs qui m'ont précédé pour exprimer mes vives félicitations à M. Shah pour son excellente introduction et remercier le Secrétariat de l'excellent travail accompli, et qui est
condensé dans un document très complet et riche, de facile et agréable lecture.
La présentation conjointe des réalisations du Programme ordinaire et du Programme de terrain permet d'avoir une idée plus précise de ce qu'a été l'ensemble des activités de la FAO pendant l'exercice 1992-93 et de l'interdépendance de ces deux programmes, ce qui facilite leur suivi.
En analysant les deux options proposées par le Directeur général pour les futurs rapports d'exécution, ma délégation, tout en préférant l'option I, est d'avis que l'on pourrait approfondir l'analyse dans le but de trouver une solution intermédiaire qui prenne en considération les avantages de l'une et de l'autre.
Musa Mohamed MUSA (Sudan) (Original language Arabic): I would like first to thank you for giving me the floor and wish to join the previous speakers who praised the Programme Implementation Report introduced by Mr Shah for the biennium 92-93. This report has been submitted for the first time in a clear and comprehensive manner. Thus, it has underlined the role and responsibilities shouldered by FAO, as well as the resources available to the Organization. Hence, the Member States are in a better position to evaluate its effectiveness and its interaction with the development requirements.
In this regard, the Sudan delegation highly appreciates the valuable efforts and stresses the importance of their continuation which essentially deal with the monitoring and evaluation of achievements in the light of priorities and thus the march could be rectified. I would like to note that option one is the better option at this particular stage as already mentioned by other speakers this morning.
In this respect, I would like to make reference to the remarks make by member countries regarding the limited resources available to the Organization from different sources and the consequent cut in programmes as a result of the level of Trust Funds. This had its impact on the three major programmes in agriculture, forestry and fisheries and resulted in a reduction in field programmes.
I would say that it is certain that all recent biennia have witnessed a turning point in as far as the interests and priorities of the Member States are concerned. Their commitments to a minimum level of resources and their consequent developed capacity in training, organization and planning. In my opinion, this deserves a new outlook of the Organization, since it is involved in wider fields that are coping better with this phase and reality.
In this connection, I would like to stress what has been mentioned by the delegate from India, particularly with regard to the future role of the programmes proposed during two important external conferences held last year, i.e., the UNCED and the International Conference on Nutrition, as an example of priorities.
Since we are still dealing with the limited resources, and following the references made by many members to the comparative advantage of FAO and the limited resources, a great deal could be achieved if a greater coordination could be achieved between FAO and the international development
institutions such as the World Bank, the UNDP and the other programmes of the UN system.
My delegation highly appreciates the role played by FAO at all levels and in all fields, but we have a request from the Organization, i.e., to give higher priority to the transfer of technology and to improved agricultural sources in rural areas and to the conservation of natural resources in the next phase. We will deal with some of these issues in fuller details during the Conference meetings.
Chadli LAROUSSI (Tunisie): Je tiens tout d'abord à féliciter le Secrétariat, et plus particulièrement M. Shah pour son exposé oral dans lequel il a" synthétisé ce document. Je tiens à dire combien nous avons apprécié - et je l'ai déjà signalé au sein du Comité du Programme - la clarté de la présentation de ce document et les tableaux synoptiques qui nous ont permis d'avoir une idée claire de l'exécution du Programme 1992-93.
S'agissant de la proposition du Directeur général de l'option un et de l'option deux pour les versions futures du Rapport d'exécution du Programme, je rejoins ce qui a été proposé au Comité du Programme, à savoir une option trois qui allierait les avantages des deux options, tant il est vrai que les estimations sont relativement grossières et ne permettent pas une analyse fine du Programme; mais elle a quand même l'avantage d'être plus actuelle que l'option deux. Une option qui offrirait les avantages des deux options proposées serait donc la bienvenue.
Je voudrais également insister sur l'aspect très positif du chapitre 1, qui donne une vue d'ensemble de l'action de la FAO, ce qui permet à ceux qui ne suivent pas de très près le programme de l'Organisation de connaître ses orientations essentielles. Bien entendu, ma délégation appuie les orientations des exercices futurs quant à la mise en oeuvre du Programme "Action 21" de la CNUED et des recommandations de la Conférence internationale sur la nutrition.
Je voudrais néanmoins insister sur une option qui, dans les années futures, doit attirer l'attention de la FAO et qui, à mon avis, sera essentielle compte tenu de l'évolution que connaît le monde à l'heure actuelle et de l'universalité de l'économie. Il faut accorder une attention particulière à la question des échanges agricoles au niveau mondial pour assurer au commerce des produits agricoles une intégration dans cette approche mondiale de l'économie en tenant compte de la spécificité des produits agricoles qui ne sont pas des produits comme les autres, d'une part, parce qu'ils sont à la base de l'alimentation, qui est un droit fondamental pour l'homme - et l'accès à la nourriture devrait être garanti, autant que possible, dans les meilleures conditions à l'humanité tout entière et en particulier aux classes les plus défavorisées - et, d'autre part, parce que la production agricole est tributaire, dans une large mesure, de conditions naturelles qui sont loin d'être identiques d'un pays à l'autre, ce qui fait que le coût de cette production varie d'un pays à l'autre; cet aspect important, qui d'ailleurs relève de l'écologie, devrait être pris en considération quand on parle des échanges internationaux de produits agricoles. Voilà les remarques fondamentales que je voulais faire. Bien entendu, ma délégation aura un certain nombre de points à approfondir lors de la prochaime Conférence.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous en arrivons au terme de la discussion du point 5 de l'ordre du jour. Avant de faire quelques commentaires, je vais demander à M. Shah, Directeur général adjoint, de bien vouloir répondre brièvement aux quelques questions qui ont été posées. Mais auparavant je vais donner la parole à la Représentante de Cuba.
Sra. Ana María NAVARRO ARRUE (Cuba): Quisiéramos entregar a usted, Señor Presidente la intervención de la Delegada de Cuba, Señora Grafila Soto, que en estos momentos no se encuentra en la sala porque se ha sentido mal. Así que, en aras de la brevedad, le entregamos los comentarios por escrito.
EL PRESIDENTE: Recibiremos la intervención escrita a fin de que conste en las actas de nuestro Consejo.
Sra. Grafila SOTO (Cuba): La delegación de Cuba también agradece la clara presentación que nos hiciera el Señor Shah sobre la ejecución del Programa 1992-93 y, al igual que otras delegaciones, opinamos que este documento que nos ofrece el Director General es de gran utilidad ya que en él se constata la forma en que la Organización maneja los recursos, al tiempo que nos refleja el amplio abanico de actividades que la FAO ha desarrollado. Referente a los aspectos concretos de las opciones que se nos presentan a consideración para versiones futuras del informe de Ejecución del Programa, consideramos que ambas propuestas tienen aspectos positivos y que si bien hemos notado una preferencia por la opción 1, que nos parece apropiada, consideramos que la opción 2 tiene ventajas reales que no podemos obviar y, en tal sentido, debe tenerse en cuenta la posibilidad de combinar los aspectos positivos de ambas opciones, la 1 y 2, según se plantea en el párrafo 2.20 del documento CL 104/4.1
V.J. SHAH, Deputy Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): As always, wishing to obey your directives, I will be brief in my response. This is all the more possible because in this way I can respect the preliminary debate that the Council has had on this document. Indeed, a number of members of the Council, while offering their very thoughtful comments, made it clear that these comments were preliminary and they would elaborate on their views in greater detail during the Conference. I think it is only correct, therefore, that on the side of the Secretariat I do not try to respond to every comment made in any way which may be considered definitive or pushing the point. Of the few issues I would like to address, firstly, there are the general issues which are covered in the Director-General's Introduction, because a number of members referred to the issues of the comparative advantages of FAO, the issues of cost efficiency and methods by which the work of the Organization could be better quantified and ways in which the assessment of this work could also be better quantified.
I owe it to the Director-General to make it very clear and, without being in the least defensive, to say that the views expressed by the Director-General in his Introduction on these issues are views that he holds very dear and very clearly. He is not in the least defensive about
1 Texto incluido en las actas a petición expresa.
them. He has wanted to share these views with you and with Conference in the usual courageous and direct manner for which he is famed.
Turning now to the issues of the timing of this document, the options that have been put before you and will be considered by the Conference, let me offer a few comments which I hope will assist all Member Nations in developing their own decisions which they will take in the Conference. It has been very clear to us that most members who have addressed this issue prefer option one. Many of these members welcome the suggestion of the Programme Committee that option one be pursued in such a manner that the next Programme Implementation Report, the next report that will cover 1994-95, will cover the whole biennium 1992-93, so you have actual facts for this biennium, and cover the first year of the next biennium, starting in 1994, with facts. The second year of the next biennium would, of course, have to remain with estimates. That is fine. If that is the decision that Conference takes, with your advice the Secretariat will do its best to implement it in the manner that you desire. In this connection it has been suggested that it would be useful for the next Programme Implementation Report to be considered by the Technical Committees of the Council such as the Committees on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. There is a problem here. There is a problem not of our making but in the very nature of things because the next Programme Implementation Report for 1994-95 would only be finalized around June of 1995. We cannot do very much better because we have to take the first year of the biennium and make the estimates for the second year of the biennium. In this manner, it is impossible for us to present this document to the Technical Committees of the Council. What we can do, and I would respectfully invite all Member Nations to take this into account, is this. When the meetings of the Technical Committees are held in early 1995 we can try to ensure that the documents which normally go to these committees on implementation, on the field programme, even on evaluation, are modelled on the same report as this Programme Implementation Report.
We cannot say that this same document in its next version would go to the Committees but we would try our best to make sure that the Technical Committees get information in a way which is consistent with the next Programme Implementation Report.
This brings me to a comment which was made this afternoon by the distinguished representative of the United States of America. If I understood him rightly, he expressed concern that a document such as this could only be considered by the Council at this session, days before the Conference but I would respectfully point out that, in fact, in the preceding arrangements the Reviews of the Regular and Field programmes only came to the Council at this time. It was because of this difficulty and this concern that the last Conference decided that the Programme Evaluation Report should come to the Council in June, so that Council would have some more time to consider it and that the Programme Implementation Report should come to it now. The reason why it has to come to it now is, of course, purely because of the time period that we have to cover.
Having said this, may I express on the part of the Secretariat our gratitude to the Council for the consideration that it has given this document, despite very little time at this session of the Council, because in the past when dealing not only with reviews of regular and field programmes but also with the Medium-Term Plan, very often the Council has tended to say, "Oh well, we will be considering these issues in the Conference anyway so we do not need to debate them to any significant
extent now". This time we are very gratified to know that although you will be considering this in Conference and many of you will comment on it in more detail, the Council has given us a very clear reflection of its views. Those views I would sum up in a nutshell by saying they are a favourable reaction to this first Programme Implementation Report.
A specific question was raised by the distinguished Ambassador for France in relation to the work of our Investment Centre with the World Bank through our Cooperative Programme. On this I would like to assure the distinguished Ambassador, as well as the Council, of course, that we give the same assurance to the Council that we gave in the Programme Committee. That is to say, that the provision that the Director-General has made in the next Programme of Work and Budget for the Cooperative Programme with the World Bank is to maintain the present level of collaboration.
The second aspect to bear in mind is that the changes in the Investment Centre which are described in the Programme of Work and Budget are all aimed at improving the quality of this collaboration.
The third aspect is to inform you, Sir, that the consultations between the World Bank and ourselves are still going on concerning the subject. I do not think it would be prudent either for us or for the Council to prejudge the eventual outcome.
I think the important point is that as far as assistance to Member Nations in the field of the Investment project preparation is concerned, the Director-General's proposals aim at maintaining the level of this assistance.
I do not believe that there are any other issues which need a specific answer at this stage. In concluding, may I, on behalf of the Secretariat and all my colleagues, express our very sincere appreciation and our gratitude to the Council for the support it has expressed for the first Programme Implementation Report.
E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America): I have two further comments on what Mr Shah has said. I think that we do view the initial discussion by this Council of the Programme Implementation Report as something that is needed because we have not as a Council had an opportunity ever to do it before. If my recollection serves me right, there has been a recent precedent in the Council before the Conference of deferring the discussion of the regular and field programme reports to the Conference. It became almost a ritual of putting these on the Council agenda and then deferring them.
Also, while I am sure that our comments are of value to you and may be in terms of what you will say at the outset of the Conference, what I seriously question is whether or not the judgement of this Council will be of any use to the 120 members who are not members of the Council come next week.
V.J. SHAH (Deputy Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I hope that my answer will help the Council. The fact that this report is before you is, of course, because of the Conference directive that it be submitted to the Conference through the Programme and Finance Committees and the Council. It is not for the Secretariat, it is
for you, to judge whether the discussion has been useful, but in this connection may I make a supplementary comment which I hope will satisfy the distinguished representative of the U.S. and which may be useful to all of you.
In many interventions today on this report there was a reference to the views of the Programme and Finance Committees. Indeed, the Programme Committee, as you know, made a very thorough review of this report. If you will agree, Mr Chairman, I would like to suggest that the views of the Programme and Finance Committees be brought to the attention of the Conference, together with the views of the Council. This can be done very easily. Normally, we would prepare a LIM document - a limited document -for the Conference, giving the views of the Council on the subject. I think the point raised by the distinguished representative would be well met if, in the same document, we incorporated the views of the Programme and Finance Committees.
LE PRESIDENT: Le document important qui contient l'exécution du programme 1992-93 a fait l'objet d'un très large examen du Comité du Programme. Ce n'est pas un organisme subsidiaire de la Conférence mais du Conseil et il me paraît normal que le document qui a été longuement examiné par le Comité du Programme retienne l'attention des membres du Conseil. Un certain nombre d'observations ont été faites par les membres du Conseil. La position de la majorité des membres, en ce qui concerne l'option 1 et l'option 2, serait de combiner les deux, encore faut-il voir de façon précise comment on peut réaliser cette symbiose entre les deux options.
On a beaucoup parlé de la crise des fonds fiduciaires. Je ne crois pas à une crise profonde des fonds fiduciaires. C'est une légende qui semble destinée à persuader les membres du Conseil. Les fonds fiduciaires sont essentiels pour les programmes de terrain. Peut-être certains pays se montrent-ils réticents à la technique des fonds fiduciaires, encore faudrait-il les encourager, leur donner tous les apaisements, voir si certaines organisations ne pourraient pas progressivement augmenter des interventions, réduites à l'heure actuelle, qui pourraient devenir plus substantielles à l'avenir. Il y a une très grande espérance que la technique des fonds fiduciaires permettra l'augmentation des programmes de terrain qui amélioreront les programmes ordinaires. Les deux programmes sont unis et la qualité du programme ordinaire est fonction de la qualité des programmes de terrain, de même que la qualité des programmes de terrain est fonction de la qualité du programme ordinaire. C'est un point important, qui mérite d'être soulevé.
Le document complémentaire reflétant l'avis des membres du Conseil, de façon à le soumettre à la Conférence avec le document particulièrement substantiel, bien fait - que j'ai relu encore ce matin - du Comité du Programme, permettra de donner à tous les membres de la Conférence, qui n'ont pas suivi de la même façon les travaux que les membres du Conseil, un éclairage global sur le rapport d'exécution du programme qui, malgré de grosses difficultés financières, peut être considéré comme un succès et je crois que dans l'avenir la nouvelle approche et la nouvelle technique utilisée restent très prometteuses.
Nous allons passer à un point important de notre ordre du jour, le point 6, qui traite du Programme de travail et budget pour l'exercice 1994-95. Nous nous référons à deux documents: Le C 93/3 dans la dernière version qui nous est soumise, et le CL 104/4 qui contient les rapports du Comité financier
et du Comité du Programme et de la session conjointe du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier qui s'est penchée avec beaucoup d'attention sur le Programme de travail et budget 1994-95. On en a parlé lors de la dernière session du Conseil, en juin, et très longuement. Je me souviens de tous les débats qui ont eu lieu, de toutes les explications qui ont été demandées et de toutes les réponses qui ont été données. Il faudrait peut-être éviter de répéter des questions qui ont déjà été posées pour éviter d'entendre des réponses qui ont déjà été données. Il serait souhaitable que notre débat aille à l'essentiel. Je demanderai donc aux membres du Conseil d'être particulièrement synthétiques.
Avant de donner la parole à M. Shah, Directeur général adjoint, je vais faire la liste des orateurs qui désirent s'inscrire sur ce point important de notre ordre du jour, le point 6.
Nous avons donc l'Ambassadeur de Chypre, le Japon, le Canada, le Royaume-Uni, le Pakistan et l'Allemagne, La Suède, la République islamique d'Iran, le Kenya, la Chine, l'Australie, la France, Madagascar, le Cap-Vert, le Mexique, l'Espagne, les Etats-Unis d'Amérique.
Y a-t-il des observateurs qui désirent prendre la parole sur le Programme de travail et budget?....
De toute façon je ne clôture pas la liste; si d'autres membres désirent s'inscrire, qu'ils le fassent savoir au Secrétariat.
Je demanderai maintenant à M. Shah de nous présent une brève introduction.
V.J. SHAH (Deputy Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The summary Programme of Work and Budget which the Council considered at its session in June was a document of some 120 pages, whereas the Programme of Work and Budget - the full document - that is before you now, and will be before the Conference next week, is three times as long. However, let me reassure you that my introduction to the Programme of Work and Budget to the Council will be one-third of my introduction to the summary Programme of Work and Budget.
Naturally, since you have considered the summary and had extensive discussions, my main task now is to draw attention to those aspects on which the Council expressed views on the summary and the manner in which the views of the Council have been taken into account by the Director-General in finalizing his full proposals. There are, indeed, very few points which I need to make at this stage.
Firstly, I would like to point out that, as agreed in the Council in June by the large majority of members, the Director-General has kept his full proposals with no real growth, no programmed growth, over the level of US$ 676.9m of the approved Programme of Work for this biennium. This is a matter which was commended by the Council and the Director-General has adhered to that first aspect.
The second issue is that of priorities and the allocation of resources within the Programme of Work. The Council has expressed its agreement that among the priorities which continue in line with the medium-term priorities of this Organization, for the next biennium there are two priorities which transcend all of these. The first is the follow-up to the UN Conference on Environment and Development; and, secondly, the follow-up to the International Conference on Nutrition. These priorities have been reexamined by the Programme Committee in the full Programme of Work and Budget and, as you will have noted, not only the Programme Committee but also in the joint meeting with the Finance Committee, the Committees unanimously endorsed the proposed priority thrusts in the Programme of Work and Budget. This is a matter, therefore, where the Council may find considerable satisfaction.
On the allocation of resources within the Programme of Work, there have indeed been many concerns expressed in the technical committees of the Council, which were repeated by the Council itself, at the fact that for the major programmes - forestry, agriculture and fisheries - lower resources for this biennium were proposed, and concern and regret that the proposals for the resource for the Technical Cooperation Programme were not in response to Conference Resolution 9/89 on the TCP.
On this matter, the Director-General has reacted decisively. What he has done is to reflect on the full Programme of Work and Budget as proposed to you that the resources for forestry, where your concern over the decline was most strongly expressed, that these should be reversed. As you will have noted, Mr Chairman, forestry is now proposed to receive an increase in resources over the current biennium. The Summary of Estimates would now give a Programme change, Programme increase of US$ 330 000 for forestry in Chapter 2 of the Technical and Economic Programme. This compares with the proposal at the stage of the Summary where forestry was scheduled to receive a decrease of US$ 469 000 - so instead of a decline of US$ 469 000, it has now an additional US$ 330 000
Fisheries, in the Summary, were scheduled to receive a decline of almost US$ 700 000. Now that decline is much less - it is only US$ 145 000.
In the Summary, agriculture was proposed to receive a decline of US$ 2.8 million and now that decline has been reduced to US$ 1.1 million from US$ 2.8 to US$ 1.1.
The TCP was supposed to receive a decline in the Summary of US$ 1.9 million, and now it is US$ 908.000. When one is talking about a budget of US$ 676.9 million with no increase overall, I trust that the Council will see its way to appreciating how much these shifts mean. They mean shifts in the substantive programme in order to make what may appear to some as relatively small adjustments.
Another word about TCP, because I know one aspect of the TCP which concerns Member Nations very much is the share of the TCP in the total Programme of Work and Budget. In the document Council has before it, the share of the TCP for the next biennium is indicated at 11.2 percent of the total proposed budget, but the proposed budget as given in the document is, of course, at the budget rate of 1 210 lire to the dollar - that is the budget rate which the Conference set for this biennium. At the budget rate that the Conference may have expected to approve on the 17th November, if that budget rate is at all near to the exchange rates which are in the currency markets today, the total Programme of Work and Budget would not be
US$ 752 000 000 - it would be much less. Also, the share of the TCP in the budget would have increased, and instead of being 11.2 percent, the share of the TCP would be 12.3 percent or 12.4 percent. So the Director-General hopes that this is also an aspect which, while not fully satisfactory to those Member Nations who would like to see the TCP share in the total budget at 14 percent or 17 percent, at least it would improve over the level of this biennium.
The next point again gives the Secretariat considerable satisfaction because of the positive nature, positive developments on the issue of cost increases. At the stage of the Outline Programme of Work and Budget we had estimated the cost increases for the next Programme of Work and Budget at US$ 85 million. We did it soberly and in a way where we were prepared to justify every aspect of this. At the stage of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget we brought down these cost increases from US$ 85 million to US$ 81 million, and the Finance Committee was pleased with this, as was the Council. In the full Programme of Work and Budget document, the Director-General has brought down the cost increases from the US$ 81 million of the Summary to US$ 76 million. That is the substance which it gives us satisfaction to draw to your attention, but it gives me as much satisfaction to draw to your attention the fact that the Finance Committee which examined these cost increases in detail was itself satisfied and expressed agreement to it. So this is yet another issue where the Council may wish to commend this aspect to the attention of the Conference.
This brings me to another financial issue, but one on which there is not such unanimity as on the cost increases - that is, the issue of the lapse factor. The Director-General presents these proposals in accordance with the directives that the Conference has given. He sees no reason to vary the lapse factor from the rate set by the Conference at three percent. Nevertheless, in deference to the views of any Member Nation who may wish to discuss this aspect, this was discussed by the Programme and Finance Committees at their joint meeting in September. The Report of this joint meeting, and in particular on the lapse factor, is very clear and I draw your attention to paragraphs 1.10 and 1.11 where the views of both Committees are very clearly reflected. This is a matter which perhaps will be discussed today, and I have no doubt will be discussed by some in the Conference. All I need say is that the Director-General has followed the directives of the Conference, and maintains them. This issue of the lapse factor in a way is something which may be discussed not only in this biennium but in the next, in the manner that the Programme and Finance Committees have recognised in their report.
I would point out also that this aspect of the lapse factor basically has its final implication in the total level of the budget, the level of an appropriation and the level of assessments of Member Nations. This is an aspect I would like to return to at the very end of my introduction.
Another aspect discussed by the Council in June and repeated in the discussions of the Programme and Finance Committees was the question of the method of funding of the budget, by which, as is explained in the proposals before you, the Director-General presents his proposals on a Programme of Work of no growth, and as in the past accounts for using arrears payments and estimated miscellaneous income before arriving at the figure of the budget which would rely on Member Nation contributions. The views of the Programme and Finance Committees on this matter, as those expressed in the Council in June, show the very clear acceptance by the vast majority of Member Nations of the proposals submitted by the Director-General.
I wish to draw the attention of Council to what is before you all in terms of the bottom line in today's terms. I mentioned that the proposals in the document are given at the rate of 1 210 lire to the dollar. As proposed in the document, this means that the Programme of Work would have a grand total of US$ 752 million. Mr Chairman, I appeal to you to ignore that. This is given for consistency, for transparency, to show what the proposed Programme of Work and Budget is at the budget rate which applies for this biennium.
What is the exchange rate today? This morning it oscillated between 1 644 to 1 647. Let us take 1 650 as a nice round figure. If the Conference approves the next Programme of Work and Budget at the rate of 1 650 lire to the dollar, the approved Programme of Work which for this biennium has been US$ 676.9 million would in fact be lower. It would be US$ 675.7 million. So the Programme of Work with no real growth would cost less 675.7. What matters to Member Nations - quite rightly - is what you have to pay. What will your Ministries of Finance consider in allocating funds. For the present Programme of Work and Budget the level of assessed contributions for Member Nations was US$ 633 560 000. The proposals before you now at 1 650 lire to the dollar would mean a funding of the budget at US$ 623 700 000, a reduction of US$ 10 million - US$ 9 860 000 to be precise.
I imagine that these are the kinds of issues which are crucial in enabling Member Nations to take decisions at the sovereign level. For those, if any, who still find the proposals too onerous, let us, as we are always being urged to do, examine the situation in other organizations of the UN system where you, the Member Nations, have already pronounced yourselves.
In the case of ILO and WHO, where the Programme of Work for 1994-95 has already been approved by their general conferences, the approved budget of ILO requires an increase in assessed contributions of 14.98 percent on Member Nations and, in the case of WHO, an increase of 15.23 percent. In the case of the United Nations, the General Assembly has still not taken action - it will do so during its current session - but the proposals of the Secretary-General, would, if accepted, result in an increase in assessed contributions of 11.6 percent. By contrast, the proposals of the Director-General for FAO would mean a decrease of 1.6 percent in terms of assessed contributions.
There is so much that will be discussed, not only in the Council and in the Conference. For me it has been an honour, as always, to present the proposals of the Director-General, proposals in which every colleague is fully involved, and we look forward to the reaction of the Council and stand ready to assist your debate as you wish.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci M. Shah pour cette intervention importante. Beaucoup de questions: vous avez parlé des programmes de coopération technique, vous avez parlé de la transparence, vous avez parlé de l'abattement de mouvement de personnel, de toute une série de questions sur lesquelles déjà votre Conseil s'est penché lors de sa dernière session. Et j'ai eu l'occasion depuis le mois de février de suivre tout le cheminement du programme de travail et du budget. Et il est incontestable que nous avons consacré un nombre d'heures considérable, notamment sur certains points qui n'auraient pas pu être débattus de manière aussi substantielle; car quand M. Shah parle de l'abattement de mouvement de personnel, il y a une décision très claire qui a été prise par la dernière Conférence en 1991. Et je crois
qu'une organisation aussi démocratique que la nôtre doit admettre que quand une large majorité s'est prononcée, il faut pouvoir s'incliner devant la décision de la majorité; parce que je crois que si l'on remet en cause des décisions prises par une large majorité, on risque de détruire le caractère démocratique de notre Organisation. Aussi, il est très important que la minorité, surtout quand il s'agit d'une petite minorité, puisse accepter les règles qui nous régissent, c'est-à-dire la règle de la majorité et d'une volonté clairement exprimée en ce qui concerne un certain nombre de points. En ce qui concerne l'abattement de mouvement de personnel, je crois qu'on en a délibéré à suffisance dans le passé, ce qui a permis de prendre une décision très claire lors de la dernière Conférence, décision qui n'a plus à être reprise à la présente Conférence de la semaine prochaine. Je donne la parole au représentant de Chypre.
Fotis G. POULIDES (Cyprus): My delegation has already had the opportunity to express its views on the Summary Programme of Work and Budget last June. As some basic features of the Summary are also reflected in the present document, I can keep to the essential in my intervention today. My task is facilitated by the fact that the introduction by the Director-General does address these essential points in a very convincing manner.
Thus, my delegation notes again the absence of net programme growth. This is not fully in line with the demands placed on our Organization, but we accept this as a reasonable compromise. Incidentally, my delegation reiterates its understanding that the base level for the 1994-95 biennium should be US$ 676.9 million. We cannot accept any other reasoning which would mean a decrease in substantive activities for FAO. My delegation also supports continuation of the lapse factor at 3 percent, as approved by the FAO Conference.
Besides these basic features, we are pleased to note a number of positive developments since the Summary. We welcome the lower estimate for cost increases, down to US$ 76 million. Perhaps the most impressive development is the impact of the proposals on assessed contributions, in view of current exchange rates between the Italian lira and the US dollar. Can we indeed remain insensitive to the prospect of an increase in assessments over the present biennium of only 0.6 percent - here, I quote directly from the Director-General's introduction - or even perhaps nil, if the dollar continues on its high course? Let us reflect on this soberly. Member Nations would not need to pay any more in 1994-95 than they were asked to contribute in 1992-93.
As regards the substance, we are pleased that it was possible to increase provisions for forestry and fishery activities and also welcome the additional US$ 1 million for the TCP. We view this only as a small step towards what our countries all desire, i.e. future strengthening of the Technical Cooperation Programme.
All this augurs well for the discussion on the Programme of Work and Budget at the Conference in the coming weeks. We are confident that unanimity among Member Nations will be reached in adopting the budget resolution as proposed by the Director-General.
Akira NIWA (Japan): First of all, we should like to express our thanks to Mr Shah for his introduction. Japan recognizes that FAO has been taking a leading role in food and agriculture areas, seeking stable food supply to
all the people in the world, and this esteemed purpose is still valid as a reflection of the most basic human aspiration. The efforts to realize the task should be further strengthened, but articulated by environment-and-nutrition oriented considerations. FAO should adopt more cross-sector or holistic approaches than ever.
The interpretation of this new challenge needs strengthened and effective organization. However, FAO's resources have been continuously stagnated and tightly constraining, reflecting the financial difficulties and tightness of each Member Nation, including Japan, which is still under strong recession. We cannot build upon our programmes based on optimism or illusion on the future availability of resources.
We have been of the view that FAO, when it formulates the Programme of Work and Budget for 1994-95, should cut the unnecessary and non-urgent programmes and streamline its activities, as well as prioritize the works of FAO, including coordination with other international and UN organizations to avoid overlapping, with a view to efficient and effective use of resources and reallocating the resources to the areas of high priorities.
Bearing in mind the foregoing, my delegation wishes to make some comments on this Programme of Work and Budget 1994-95.
Firstly, we welcome the Director-General's directive to formulate the Programme of Work and Budget for 1994-95 on the basis of no real budget increase and also appreciate the Secretariat's efforts towards reappropriating more resources for forestry and fisheries programmes in response to the wishes expressed at the 103rd Session of the Council.
Secondly, my delegation supports the setting of the follow-up of UNCED and ICN as priority areas for the new biennium. UNCED, which was a highlight of historic events in the last part of the twentieth century and has enlightened us to review and realign development strategies and lifestyle towards sustainable ones, requests FAO to cover the wide range of areas of Agenda 21.
In this regard, my delegation strongly supports FAO in assisting developing countries to establish their own agriculture against hunger through sustainable natural resources management. My Government is worried as to whether or not the reduced budget in technical and economic programmes, including forestry and fisheries, could meet urgent needs. ICN was also a successful event in the last year. Japan supports its follow-up activities by FAO to alleviate hunger by comprehensive and integrated approaches.
Thirdly, concerning TCP, Japan, as the second largest contributor, is of the view that transparency is needed for planning and implementation of the projects as well as for their evaluation, as TCP plays an important role in responding to urgent and emergency needs.
Fourthly, on transfer of posts, we should be careful to absorb some posts under the Regular Budget from Support Costs. The ratio of personnel costs increased from 54% in the 1988-89 biennium budget to 67% in the 1994-95 biennium, which is exceptionally high in the history of the Organization. The high ratio will be likely to lead to the loss of financial flexibility and result in cost increases in future which may add a further financial bearing on member countries. My delegation now has the feeling that the situation has reached the stage where action should be taken to stop
further development of the trend. The Secretariat should identify a reasonable or appropriate level of personnel costs in the regular budget, with the help of outside wisdom, and submit necessary ways and means to correct the trend. In the meantime, we may be able to consider temporary measures to cope with the situation.
Fifthly, on lapse factor, we understand that the 25th Session of the Conference approved the lapse factor of 3 percent. However, Japan still has some difficulty in using this factor for the sake of flexible management as it prevents transparency of the budget.
Finally, with regard to budget levels, the most sensitive subject to discuss here, Japan favours the US$ 645.6 million as a base level for the forthcoming biennium.
Before finishing our statement, we would like to refer to the International Conference on Sustainable Contribution of Fishery to Food Security, which we believe belongs to this Agenda item.
World fisheries make a major contribution to human nutrition as well as to its social and economic progress. Since 1989, however, the world production has been on a plateau. Only a small increase in production, with present levels of fisheries management and technologies in the sector, can be expected. It has been projected by FAO that the likely demand for food fish will reach about 110 million tons in 2010 as a result of the increase in population. Total fish production is not likely to exceed greatly 100 million tons. The likely supply-demand gap cannot be filled without appropriate management for fishing resources, further development of aquaculture and stocks enhancement. This gap will be further increased if the present rate of degradation of coastal areas and inland waters by non-fishing activities is not halted.
International fora, from UNCLOS to UNCED, including the 1984 World Fisheries Conference, the International Conference on Responsible Fishing held in Mexico in 1992 have recognized the principle of sustainable utilization of marine living resources as the basis for sound fisheries management policies. In the light of increasing population pressure in many countries, the finite nature of fishery resources, increasing environmental degradation and the concerns expressed about this degradation in many quarters, there is a need for understanding by all parties in the political, economic, social technical and ecological complexities which have to be taken into consideration when establishing country policies.
In this context, Japan would like to propose holding an international conference on sustainable contribution of fisheries to food security in 1994 or 1995, under the auspices of the Japanese Government. The purpose of the conference would be to discuss the mechanisms of the marine ecosystems and methods to determine appropriate levels of exploitation in order to provide a sound basis for the effective implementation of policies and measures for conservation, management and utilization of marine living resources, including the development of aquaculture and culture-based fisheries. The conference would also look into different geographic, socio-economic and cultural aspects of fish consumption. The aspects relating to making good supplies more secure and improving access to low-cost fish through reduced post-harvest losses and using presently underutilized species would also be discussed.
FAO has the mandate to draft an international code of conduct for responsible fishing and to submit this to the Twenty-first Session of FAO's Committee on Fisheries to be held in 1995. FAO also has the mandate to provide periodic reports on the progress achieved in implementing the Strategy of the 1984 World Fisheries Conference.
All these commitments can be linked to the international conference on sustainable contribution of fisheries to food security. We trust that the international conference will provide opportunities for identifying the necessary adjustment and changes to the Strategy of the 1984 World Fisheries Conference to reflect changing world realities.
In closing, we are pleased to inform you that the proposed idea to hold an international conference on sustainable contribution of fisheries to food security was strongly supported in the Fourth Session of the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade held in Rome in October 1993. My delegation sincerely hopes that the Council members will give their support to this undertaking.
David SHERWOOD (Canada): I should like to thank Mr Shah for this introduction and for succinctly summarizing the changes which have occurred in the Programme of Work and Budget document.
Our delegation is pleased with the fact that this Programme of Work and Budget responds to the expressed concerns of the membership respecting certain funding issues identified in the outline Programme of Work and Budget. This is an important expression of the link between consultation and action which is the foundation for success in multilateral institutions. Specifically, we would acknowledge that a number of Canadian concerns have been reflected in the document before us, notably in respect to the rescinding of cuts originally proposed to the forestry and fisheries programmes.
In the agriculture area, we welcome the discussions that took place at the 68th Session of the Programme Committee, and we await further details about work on plant genetics aimed at ensuring that the Programme of Work agreed to by the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, and approved by the 103rd FAO Council Session, will be fully implemented. Of specific interest are the status of preparations for the Fourth International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources, and of work on the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources.
Canada is also very interested in and supportive of FAO's work in animal genetic resources. Recently, a senior FAO officer associated with this work visited both Ottawa and Washington and impressed the research community with the importance of FAO activities in this area. Although one of the reasons for the special action programme in animal genetics is to generate outside funding, we would urge the FAO to identify sufficient core resources to ensure that this important programme is also appropriately funded from within. Unless the resource levels provided for in this Programme of Work and Budget are improved, we fear there exists considerable risk that the important animal genetic work of the FAO may not progress to the pilot stage, let alone attain critical mass. We would note, in this respect, the potential for strategic alliances and burden-sharing with regional organizations such as the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture which, we believe, could be a productive and complementary collaborator in this programme.
In the nutrition area, we note the range of activities proposed as follow-up to the International Conference on Nutrition and look forward to further elaboration of the recommendation in future programme activities.
As the GATT round approaches a hoped for successful conclusion, we look forward to an intensification of work within the Codex Alimentarius Commission as it engages an increased collaboration with GATT.
In the statistics area, we eagerly await the implementation of WAICENT. In the face of ever-increasing electronic transmission of documents and publications of all kinds, we look forward to major improvements in electronic delivery by the FAO since this will be a key element in the effectiveness of this programme.
In the commodity area, we strongly support the medium-term projection work and the extension of analysis to processed food products. As regards the Committee on Commodity Problems, we would stress our support for the proposal to re-examine the groupings of the Inter-Governmental groups on commodities, and stand ready to contribute to that re-examination.
Canada is pleased to note that its own efforts and those of the members of COFO and of the Council, respecting the need to re-balance the priorities and budgets of the FAO, particularly as regards the Forestry Programme, have yielded certain results.
We consider that the partial re-establishment of the forestry budget represents a useful first step. However, the disparity between that portion of the regular budget dedicated to this activity, and its centrality within the mandate of the FAO, remain unsettling. While within the present fiscal climate we can understand FAO's limited margin for manoeuvre, we would conclude by recalling the unanimous recommendations of the 103rd Council Session, among which was that Member Nations must give consideration to increasing the forestry budget in future biennia. This is a point for continued action.
With respect to the Programme and Budget framework, we would highlight a number of points of continuing concern: the question of arrears is a continuing worry requiring attention. The document offers little optimism in its suggestion in paragraph 16 (f) on page 25, that receipts against contributions may have peaked in the 90 percent range. In order for any organization to plan and to function effectively, there needs to be greater transparency and clarity between the cost of formal, planned, budgeted activity and the actual operational level of activity based on revenue, or in this case payment of assessed contributions.
I would underline the critical importance for members to honour their obligations by giving material substance to declarations of support for FAO.
In this regard, we support the wish of all member countries for FAO to implement its Programme of Work and Budget as fully as possible, without compromise.
The absorption of support cost posts is also a concern, particularly in the context of zero real programme growth, a projected reduction of 24 percent in extrabudgetary activities and a vacancy rate for professional staff almost six times that of the provision of the lapse factor. There are difficulties, quite frankly, in accepting this proposed transfer without
comment. Therefore, we would reiterate the expectation, as articulated by the Programme Committee that such a situation should not recur. We would also appreciate a detailing of the cost to the Regular Budget of this transfer.
The lapse factor was the subject of a detailed exchange in the joint session of the Programme and Finance Committee. These discussions did not, in the view of several participants, yield explanations sufficient to eliminate the concerns they had expressed. These concerns related to the large divergence between the vacancy rate and the lapse factor and the ensuing budgetary and operational consequences. Accordingly, we strongly endorse the proposal that the External Auditor review this matter in the next biennium and report to the Finance Committee.
The budget level is a thorny issue on which we have commented at past meetings. At this point we would simply reiterate our views as expressed at the 103rd Council Session, with particular stress on the need for decision on the budget level which leaves no room for interpretation as to the intentions of the Conference.
This Programme of Work and Budget does provide considerable detail. However, it does not justify a very large transfer of resources within the Technical Programmes. This makes it difficult for member countries to reach informed judgments and provide direction in respect of choices that are being suggested.
We would underline the need for this important omission to be addressed in future versions.
Finally, with regard to the use of this document, we view it as the essential link in a comprehensive accountability exercise towards which both member countries and the FAO, we feel sure, aspire. This objective was reflected in the concluding remarks about intervention this morning on the Programme Implementation Report.
Ray ALLEN (United Kingdom): I will not enter into lengthy or detailed discussion of the document before us today. We have already had a chance to comment on the document in summary form at the Council meeting in June and will be discussing the full document at the Conference Meeting next week. I will therefore confine my intervention to an outline of the major topics which will be addressed by my delegation at the Conference.
First, I would like to compliment the Secretariat on their efforts in producing the document C 93/3 before us and to thank Mr Shah for, as usual, his very clear introduction. Each biennium sees an improvement in the format of the document as it steadily becomes more "user friendly". Nonetheless, it remains an intimidating document requiring a great deal of detailed attention.
We are very pleased to see that the full Programme of Work and Budget has taken account of some of the concerns expressed by a number of delegations regarding the level of resources directed to the technical programmes, in particular the Forestry Programme. These were first voiced in the technical committees, COAG, COFO, and COFI, and again at the June Council and it is a vindication of the system of governance in FAO that these views are taken into account in the Programme of Work and Budget presented to the Conference. We must, however, strive to make more information available to
these early Committees if we are to succeed in taking the technical experts' opinions fully into account.
My delegation is fully aware of the difficult choices that must be made in the budget process. We would, however, like to have seen a more robust approach to priority setting. In our view, the time has come for FAO to undertake a fundamental review of what it can hope to achieve, given the budgetary constraints, the increased demands on FAO services and the difficult international financial climate.
I will not comment on the detail of the programmes. These will be addressed at the Conference.
The document claims to show a zero real growth budget. This, of course, depends on the base figure used and not everyone is in agreement that US$ 676.9 million is the base that should have been used. My delegation has difficulty accepting the assertion in the document that at the Conference in 1991 approval for the 1992-93 PWB was based on an understanding that there was expected to be a substantial payment of arrears. This implies that Member States sanctioned the use of arrears to fund the US$ 32 million gap between the level of the programme and the assessments on Member Nations. In our view, this was not the case.
We are pleased to note the reduction in cost increases from US$ 85 million to US$ 81 million and now to US$ 76 million. The reductions are welcome and we would urge that these cost increases continue to be absorbed to the maximum extent possible.
We have long advocated that the proposals for future biennia should be presented in a format that would enable comparisons to be made. We suggest that the inclusion of expenditure details would help to clear a bit of the fog and would undoubtedly enhance transparency.
We note from the Finance Committee's Report that the Joint Inspection Unit intends to carry out an United Nations system-wide study on lapse factor practices and that the committees agreed that there would be merit in further examination of this issue at their future sessions. We welcome these comments and we also support the suggestion that the External Auditor reviews this aspect and reports back to the Finance Committee.
In his introduction the Director-General states that "the expectation of budgetary restraint is a fact which must be squarely addressed", he goes on to mention "the burden of assessed contributions on Member Nations". My delegation fully concurs with these sentiments but we have been forced to conclude from the document that neither the budgetary restraint nor the assessments on Member Nations has, in reality, been "squarely addressed". What we have in this document are short term solutions. The assessments on Member Nations are kept down - but for this biennium only. This is also based on an assumption that arrears in sufficient sums will be forthcoming. A repercussion of this budget is - as Mr Shah pointed out in his introduction - a possible decrease in assessments because of exchange rate gains. But those gains are quite unique, the real repercussions of this budget are that Member Nations will face massive increases in the future.
The repercussions of this budget are, as Mr Shah pointed out in his introduction, a possible decrease in assessments because of exchange rate gains but these gains are quite unique. The real repercussions of this budget are that Member Nations will face massive increases in the future.
I will not repeat the arguments I put forward in June again today BUT let none of us be under any illusions that whatever we agree on the Budget for the forthcoming Conference will have unpalatable implications for the future.
Shahid RASHID (Pakistan): At the outset my delegation would like to compliment the Director-General and the staff on the considerable efforts that have been directed towards the presentation of the Programme of Work and Budget proposals for 1994-95 which reflect as closely as possible the aspirations of the vast membership.
We have seen these proposals evolve during several stages, from the outline to the summary and the full Programme of Work and Budget. I am pleased to say that positive changes have taken place in response to suggestions of the membership.
The Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium indicates an acceptable distribution of resources for the various chapters, particularly the Technical and Economic Programmes.
Our regret at not seeing any real programme increase has been stated earlier. Despite a better understanding of the hard economic realities, our regret persists. This regret is a little more violent as FAO approaches its 50th Anniversary in the next biennium. It would only have been right to see this programme grow and keep in step with the multitude of challenges before us. However, we do recognize that, given the resource availability, the allocations to different chapters are quite judicious. The allocation for TCP remains far short of the target, our expectations and needs but we are gratified to note that a slight increase over the initial proposal has occurred.
We are also pleased to note that cost increases have been reduced considerably from the initial estimates of US$ 85 million to US$ 76 million.
We welcome this reduction.
With regard to the lapse factor, we endorse the rate of three percent and consider it the appropriate rate.
Regarding the budget level, we wish to reiterate our unequivocal position that the level of US$ 676.9 million is the proper base level. We do not detect any ambiguity on this point. Any other interpretation would be unacceptable, simply because it would be incorrect.
Our delegation would also like to take this opportunity to express its appreciation for the efforts made by the largest contributor regarding settlement of its arrears. This is a most welcome development and will certainly go a long way to compensate the Organization and its membership for past deprivations. This will also provide a much needed boost to the programme of the Organization which can only be carried out satisfactorily through the equitable and timely payment of contributions.
In conclusion, we would like to extend our full support and endorsement for the Programme of Work and Budget for 1994-95.
Jürgen OESTREICH (Germany): Like others, I would first like to thank Mr Shah for his short, clear and concise introduction.
The main objective of the debate in this Council session is to help to pave the way for the Programme of Work and Budget to be approved by the forthcoming Conference. The Secretariat has been working on this important document since the June Council session. My delegation would like to express its thanks for the efforts made to consider the numerous suggestions by Member Governments to harmonize two factors, on one side the need to give maximum attention to urgent problems in member countries, particularly those still lacking the ability and means to overcome them on their own, and on the other side the limited financial capacity of this Organization.
My delegation feels that the Programme of Work and Budget for 1994-95 now seems to be reasonably balanced, while reflecting due recognition of priorities. In this regard, we find it highly important that the major programmes for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries do make sensible contributions to the follow-up processes to UNCED and ICN. Following the suggestions by a number of Member States, resources have been shifted to strengthen activities in Forestry and Fisheries. I know this has not been easy.
This also applies to such important sub-programmes and technical priorities as integrated plant nutrition, soil conservation, plant and animal genetic resources, integrated pest management, marine resources and environment, TFAP implementation and forest resources assessment.
On the other hand, care has been taken to retain or even strengthen those activities that provide FAO with the required data, expertise and knowledge, the very basis for its major role in policy advice and strategic action.
FAO has passed through a difficult period of financial constraints in recent years. The situation regarding payments of assessed contributions and information on the payment of arrears does not yet allow us to feel fully optimistic about the future.
Against the background of serious national budgetary constraints many FAO member countries continue to be faced with, my delegation expressed during the June Council session concerns on some aspects of this agenda item. However, we are of the opinion that this Organization should be enabled to develop activities which meet, to the highest possible degree, the expectations and needs of member countries. With this in mind, my delegation hopes that a consensus regarding the adoption of the 1994-95 budget proposal will be achieved by the Twenty-seventh Conference.
Rolf ÅKESSON (Sweden): In anticipation of a more extensive and substantive discussion during the Conference, we very briefly would like to indicate here some concerns we have regarding the draft Programme of Work and Budget. Basically, these concerns involve the general direction of the proposals which, in some respects, are not what we had hoped for or expected. The redirection from substantive activities to administrative ones is an obvious example. More important perhaps is the reallocation away from the normative work which, in our minds, is the raison d'être for UN specialized agencies.
Furthermore, it remains for us to be convinced that the challenge presented by the follow-up work to UNCED in Rio is really taken on board by the Secretariat with all the force, determination and devotion that is required. In addition, in cases where indeed we have noticed moves in directions which we have been asking for, especially a reallocation in favour of forestry activities, we are not entirely pleased and satisfied since they represent fairly small steps forward, and a continuation of that fairly slow pace would require a very long time to reach acceptable levels in these regards.
We will give further examples later in the Conference, but in conclusion for those reasons it is not easy to support a proposal for a Programme of Work and Budget which still has considerable cost increases in it.
Parviz KARBASI (Iran, Islamic Republic of): Mr Chairman, it is my pleasure to see you once again chairing our Council. May I also thank Mr Shah for his clear and excellent introduction to this subject.
On the subject of our present discussion - the Programme of Work and Budget 1994-95 - I wish briefly to comment on some issues of great concern.
First, we believe that we should give authority to the Director-General of the FAO, if necessary, to change the Budget between the chapters, in consultation with the Programme and Finance Committees or a selected group from those two committees.
Secondly, the next Conference of FAO will celebrate its 50th Anniversary and we are getting very close to the end of the century. It is time for a real revitalization of the FAO. We believe that FAO should emphasize strongly human resource developments in the fields of agriculture, forestry and fisheries. In this regard we believe that TCP should be revitalized on this issue. To effect this revitalization, it is necessary to expand a new programme in TCP which is the exchange of experts on the basis of room, board and pocket money. There are many scientists in developed countries who would like voluntarily to help these developing countries, and there are many scientists in developing countries who are able to offer short-term consultancies. This would create South-South cooperation and North-South dialogue in their real meaning. It seems reasonable to allocate a certain budget for travelling expenses by the TCP, and the internal cost should be paid by the host country for the exchange of experts and scientists. We believe this is one of the windows and the breath of fresh air needed for steps towards the revitalization of the FAO.
The Regional Office of the FAO in the Near East has started to implement this idea which we appreciate, and we support their activities.
Regarding the issue of environment and sustainable development, it should be noted that both causes and consequences of environment and natural resources degradation in developing countries are different from developed countries. More specifically, environment and natural resources degradation in developing countries is primarily caused by rural communities in order to meet basic needs and requirement for living. In developed countries, on the other hand, for instance, the excessive use of agricultural input is one of the main causes of environmental degradation. In developing countries, therefore, more emphasis must be placed on development, particularly on socio-economical development, in comparison with environmental issues, and in our view this approach should be seriously
considered in all FAO's activities, especially in related programme and sub-programme of three Major Programmes of Chapter 2, - namely, Technical and Economic Programme.
With regard to natural resources, we are of the firm opinion that natural resources on the one hand are the main basic source for and support of every development. On the other hand, it is the main component of the environmental resources of each country. Accordingly, natural resources have a vital role both in terms of environment and development, particularly in the agricultural development of each country, and increased attention should be given to the conservation, rehabilitation and sustainable use of natural resources in every region of the world, especially in developing countries.
Therefore, in general we fully support the natural resources programme of the major agricultural programme of the Programme of Work and Budget for 1994-95.
Regarding the major programme on forestry, as our delegation actively participated at the 11th Session of the Committee on Forestry (COFO) we fully support the programme areas that have been mentioned in related documents. However, I would like to emphasize some programmes which are closely related to the same key objectives of the forestry programme, namely poverty alleviation through the socio-economic development of forest-dependent populations; launching of National Forestry Action plans; strengthening of institutional arrangements; development of human resources; research and training capabilities; enhancement of community forestry; and the integration of forests and trees into land-use systems.
With regard to the Regional Forestry Action Programme, as we have stated in our interventions on several occasions we believe that every regional forestry action programme must be implemented through the strengthening and implementation of a National Forestry Action Programme of each country. In this regard, we appreciate FAO's efforts to establish a Mediterranean Forestry Action Programme. However, it should be noted that it could be implemented successfully if it is being dealt with through the NFAP of countries involved, particularly the developing countries of the region.
We would like to support the suggestion of the distinguished delegate of Japan regarding the International Conference on Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security.
LE PRESIDENT: En me référant au point 3.108 du document CL 104/4 j'invite le Conseil à examiner une éventuelle modification du libellé de ce point de l'ordre du jour; et au lieu de parler à l'avenir de "revitalization", on parlerait de l'examen des méthodes de travail du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier. Vous vous souviendrez qu'en juin lorsque sur ce point, à la demande de deux cousins, en l'occurrence les Etats-Unis d'Amérique et le Royaume-Uni, il a été fait la proposition de revitalisation et, en cours de travaux, on a proposé de changer le terme "revitalization" par le terme "review", alors la proposition a été faite par les comités (nous en parlerons demain) d'oublier la revitalisation et de remplacer le terme "revitalization" pare le terme "review".
Gideon NYAMWEYA NYAANGA (Kenya): On behalf of my delegation I would like to thank the Director-General for the commendable effort that he has made in
faithfully giving full consideration to a wide range of concerns expressed on the Programme of Work and Budget proposals brought before the 103rd Session of this Council in June. The concerns we shared with others then, with regard to reductions in several important technical programme areas, we are pleased to note have been satisfactorily addressed to the extent we consider possible.
We are particularly pleased to see the restoration of resource levels to the major Programmes of Forestry and Fisheries and the crucial elements of the Agricultural Major Programme. We further share the Finance Committee's expressed regret that the level of TCP, even with the revised increase, still remains considerably short of the levels established by Conference Resolution 9/89. This, we hope, can be revised with possible later improvement in the financial situation in later biennia.
We note that a lot of work and consultation has gone into this document, but we reserve our right to discuss some elements of the Programme of Work and Budget at the Conference when necessary. My delegation also welcomes FAO's determined efforts to implement the UN Resolution pertaining to national capacity building, including national execution of national FAO assisted programmes.
Finally, my delegation would like to commend the contribution of the Government of Japan to enhancing sustainable development efforts, and in this context we wish to record our support of Japan's offer to hold an International Conference on the theme of Sustainable Contribution of Fisheries to Food Security in 1994-95.
XU NANSHAN (China) (Original language Chinese): First of all, I should like to thank the Secretariat for document CL 93/3 which is extremely informative. We have noticed some changes in it as compared with the summary version of the Programme of Work and Budget for 1994-95.
Mr Chairman, you will remember that in the 103rd Session of the Council we looked at the Summary. Cost increases have been cut back, and the amount of resources for major programmes such as agriculture, fisheries and forestry has been increased. In particular also funding for TCP has been increased, which is very welcome to the developing countries. We note with pleasure that this has been increased to some extent as a result of the Director-General coordinating and readjusting a number of headings in the Programme in accordance with the recommendations formulated by the technical committees, and we are happy that he has been able to do so.
We have carefully noted the views put forward by the Programme and Finance Committees in their joint report now before the Council. We agree that the full version of the Programme of Work and Budget should be submitted to the Conference for its consideration and approval. At the Conference session in Commission II we will make our make our views known in detail. We want to work together with other countries to ensure the Programme of Work and Budget is adopted by the Conference.
John Bruce SHARPE (Australia): My delegation thanks Mr Shah for his introduction. As indicated when this Council last discussed the Summary, Australia has little difficulty with the Programme of Work and Budget for 1994-95 as prepared by the Director-General.
We have examined this more detailed document now before us and are pleased to note a number of changes which have occurred since the Summary. One is the increase in the estimated level of miscellaneous income which has risen to US$ 14.3 million, something all member countries, I am sure, will appreciate. Another is the level of estimated cost increases which have been reduced further from the 12 percent contained in the Summary to 11.2 percent, or from US$ 82 million to US$ 76 million. Australia is in favour of maintaining cost increases to the maximum extent possible. We note that this estimated level of cost increases compares favourably with the 14.4 percent determined for the current biennium and is below that of a number of other comparable United Nations organizations.
An important element of the Programme of Work and Budget is the Technical Cooperation-Programme. It is an essential mechanism for responding quickly to real needs for small-scale emergency assistance. It has the strong support of the Australian Government.
A positive development since our last consideration of the Summary is that there has been a proposed increase of around US$ 1 million additional funds allocated to the TCP. We are pleased to see this reallocation take place. This level now represents over 11 percent of the Regular Programme. We regret that it could not have been more. However, during our discussions in the Programme Committee, and in his introduction, Mr Shah pointed out that as currency fluctuations only affect staffing components of the budget, a higher exchange rate to that on which the proposed budget is based could result in an increase in the TCP rate - and I understand the figure Mr Shah quoted was 12.3 percent.
There is no denying that the challenges facing FAO in meeting the world's food needs are immense. One of these challenges is the need to address the existing imbalance. While the world produces enough food to feed its increasing population, there are many areas which are in a desperate situation - and in particular, I refer to the needs of Africa.
In going through the Programme of Work and Budget, it is pleasing to note areas where there have been increases in allocations for Programmes in Africa - for example, soil management and land conservation under Item 2.1.1.5. In others, it is disappointing to note that there have been reductions - and here I put forward as an example studies on Item 2.1.8.1 to develop a common agricultural programme for Africa. While this is the situation in the short-term Programme of Work and Budget, it is heartening to note that in the Medium-term Plan covering six years, FAO will continue to respond to the urgent demands of African countries.
It is noted that of the technical and economic programmes in this Programme of Work and Budget, agriculture accounts for 37.1 percent, and that fisheries and forests account for only 6.5 percent and 4.6 percent respectively. In developing its programmes, FAO should not lose sight of the considerable importance of the forestry and fisheries industries to the economies of many member countries.
In the Programme Committee and during the last Council, Australia joined with those members supporting an increase in the summary allocation to the forestry programme. We are therefore pleased to see an increase in this programme is now proposed. We acknowledge the expertise of FAO in forestry, and its prompt response to the challenge of UNCED by integrating the outcomes into its programmes and priorities.
Our positive attitude to the involvement of FAO in responsible fisheries management through the agreement on the flagging of vessels fishing on the high seas, and the code of conduct for responsible fishing will be covered under other agenda items at next week's Conference. We will speak on these matters.
We are pleased to see an increase in the Programme of Work and Budget for research and technology development. Australia strongly supports international agricultural research, which holds benefits for both the developed and the developing countries. As John Kerin, former Chairman of the FAO Conference and then the Australian Minister for Primary Industries has pointed out, about three-quarters of Australian wheat grown today uses genotypes derived from international research. The value of increased wheat productivity since the varieties were introduced in Australia in 1974 is conservatively estimated at US$ 2 billion.
Amin ABDEL-MALEK (Liban) (Langue originale arabe): Pour commencer, je voudrais remercier M. Shah de l'excellente introduction qu'il nous a faite, à la fois brève et éloquente, de ce document - et cela n'est guère étonnant de sa part.
Je serai bref. Je voudrais intervenir sur trois points particuliers. Le premier, c'est que la position du Liban à l'égard du Programme de travail et budget n'a pas changé depuis que nous l'avons étudié à la session conjointe du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier aux mois de février, mai et septembre 1993, ainsi que lors de la session précédente du Conseil, en juin dernier. Nous ne sommes pas du tout d'accord pour que l'on opte pour le niveau de croissance zéro, car il n'est pas possible que notre Organisation continue de jouer son rôle sans qu'elle dispose des ressources nécessaires pour cela. Cela dit, nous sommes amenés, à contre-coeur, à cela: à accepter le projet de Programme de travail et budget présenté par le Directeur général, et cela surtout dans le souci de maintenir le consensus.
D'autre part, nous estimons que l'augmentation des ressources allouées au Programme de coopération technique, bien qu'elle ne réponde pas à notre attente, est un pas positif pour ce programme vital lancé par le Directeur général en 1979 dans le but de venir en aide à ceux qui en ont besoin, dans les situations d'urgence. Nous formulons l'espoir que les ressources allouées à ce programme augmenteront davantage à l'avenir.
Troisièmement, le Liban insiste pour que l'on maintienne le niveau de trois pour cent pour la facteur d'abattement.
Jacques LAUREAU (France): Je voudrais tout d'abord remercier le Secrétariat à propos de ce document et dire que celui-ci est aussi bien présenté que celui concernant l'exécution du budget actuel; je tiens à souligner l'interrelation entre ces deux documents et, évidemment, le troisième qui est la Planification à moyen terme.
Comme l'avait demandé le Conseil la dernière fois, les priorités affichées pour 1994-95 en faveur de la CNUED, de la nutrition et des pays d'Europe orientale ne se traduisent plus désormais par un recul au niveau des deux grands programmes: Forêts et Pêches. Nous constatons que des ressources ont été dégagées au bénéfice des sous-priorités que sont les ressources phytogénétiques et zoogénétiques dans le grand programme Agricole. Nous en
félicitons donc le Secrétariat car c'était un exercice difficile que de trouver ces ressources supplémentaires qui corrigeaient, en quelque sorte par l'annulation d'autres programmes, l'orientation générale du prochain budget. Le Secrétariat y est parvenu d'ailleurs en proposant une réduction des moyens mis à la disposition du Centre d'investissement à hauteur de six millions de dollars. Cela nous paraît dommage mais c'était la seule façon de procéder.
Dans le même ordre d'idées, après cet effort, on ne peut que constater que la base de 676,9 millions de dollars est, tant pour des raisons juridiques qu'opérationnelles, la base dont il faut partir. Je lance donc un appel à tous les membres du Conseil pour que les membres de la Conférence ne voient pas dans cette base un point de friction.
En troisième lieu, nous nous inquiétons de l'accumulation d'arriérés puisque 29 pays désormais ont des arriérés supérieurs à deux années de contributions, ce qui est particulièrement préoccupant. Nous nous tournons vers le principal contributeur pour le remercier des efforts qu'il a faits pour rattraper ses arriérés. Cela étant, nous partageons l'avis émis par le Comité financier sur le retour au fonds général des arriérés et non sur une utilisation un peu spécifique de ces arriérés.
Quatrièmement, nous voudrions rappeler non pas nos préoccupations mais nos réflexions sur la relation qui existe entre le Programme ordinaire et les programmes de terrain. Bien entendu, nous ne sommes pas hostiles aux programmes de terrain car nous considérons - et cela a été rappelé ici à maintes reprises - que la FAO ne doit pas être simplement une académie de réflexion scientifique; mais en même temps, il faut arriver à un niveau de remboursement des dépenses d'appui suffisant pour que le Programme ordinaire ne soit pas détruit, en quelque sorte, de l'intérieur, par l'appui donné à des programmes de terrain qui seraient un peu exagérés par rapport à la dimension du Programme ordinaire.
Je tiens à souligner que la question de la méthode de remboursement et des paramètres à prendre en compte n'a malheureusement pas évolué depuis la dernière réunion du Conseil. Et je me tourne vers M. Shah pour lui demander si, sur ce point-là, il ne pourrait pas nous donner des assurances sur la possibilité d'une consultation informelle avec un certain nombre de donateurs de manière à mettre au point un système de prélèvement simple, reposant évidemment sur des paramètres compliqués mais qui, lui, ne soit pas trop complexe. Or la méthode de prélèvement que l'on nous propose continue d'être trop complexe, même si elle justifie une plus grande transparence.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Laureau de son intervention bien complète dans laquelle notamment il lance un appel en ce qui concerne la base budgétaire de 676,9 millions de dollars. Je crois que la base qui a été établie lors du biennium précédent était tellement claire que l'on ne comprendrait pas que l'on continue d'en discuter.
Il a également fait appel au principal contributeur et, là, nous sommes certains que les engagements pris par ce dernier seront en toute hypothèse respectés; il les a d'ailleurs réitérés à diverses reprises.
Raphaël RABE (Madagascar): M. le Président, à l'instar des autres délégués, nous nous réjouissons de vous voir présider nos travaux. Nous remercions également M. Shah de sa présentation très claire du sujet.
Faisant suite à votre recommandation de concentrer les interventions sur les points saillants du sujet, ma délégation sera brève. En fait, nous avons déjà eu l'occasion de nous exprimer amplement sur la question lors des sessions des comités techniques et lors de la cent troisième session du Conseil. Nous sommes reconnaissants au Directeur général d'avoir tenu compte de nos suggestions et observations.
Bien entendu, nous ne sommes pas totalement satisfaits des redressements effectués mais il fallait aussi prendre en considération les propositions des autres délégations. Toutefois, nous regrettons assez profondément que le Centre d'investissement ait vu ses ressources diminuer parce que, pour nous, il s'agit d'un outil précieux. C'est un bureau d'études multilatérales très efficace pour nos pays. Bien que le million de dollars supplémentaire ne représente que 11 pour cent, nous sommes encore très loin des 17 pour cent prescrits par la Conférence.
Nous enregistrons avec optimisme l'effort du Directeur général de faire passer les augmentations de coûts de 85 millions à 76 millions de dollars. Nous sommes tranquillisés par les mesures qui vont être prises pour contenir les contributions car, déjà, à leur niveau actuel, de très nombreux pays, y compris le mien, éprouvent des difficultés énormes pour faire face à leurs obligations. L'augmentation de 0,6 pour cent par rapport à l'exercice actuel n'est pas exhorbitante, mais sera quand même ressentie.
Nous souhaitons vivement que les quelques divergences concernant le niveau du budget à prendre en considération ne vont pas entraver l'adoption à l'unanimité du Programme de travail et budget à la Conférence dans la mesure où le niveau proposé par le Directeur général correspond parfaitement aux besoins financiers requis par le Programme.
Nos comités spécialisés, à savoir le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier, ont travaillé pour nous sur ce point et nous recommandent d'aller de l'avant. Au paragraphe 1.15 du document CL 104/4, on relève que ces comités recommandent que les propositions du Directeur général soient entérinées par le Conseil et approuvées par la Conférence et qu'elles reçoivent le soutien unanime des Etats Membres. Faisons-leur confiance.
Aguinaldo LISBOA RAMOS (Cap Vert): Nous adressons nos remerciements au Secrétariat pour la remarquable qualité du document qui nous est soumis dont la clarté de l'exposé et la richesse des données et informations facilitent énormément la tâche du Conseil. Comme par le passé, M. Shah nous a fait une introduction brillante et détaillée.
La délégation du Cap-Vert partage les propositions du Directeur général contenues dans sa Note d'introduction étant donné le contexte politique et économique dans lequel elles nous sont présentées. Il nous est agréable de constater que, tout en demeurant au niveau de base 676,9 millions de dollars établis par la vingt-sixième session de la Conférence et tenant compte des avis et recommandations des divers organes de la FAO qui se sont réunis au cours de l'année, le Directeur général a introduit des changements au Sommaire permettant que des ressources complémentaires soient allouées aux programmes Agriculture et Forêts et que les crédits au grand programme Pêches soient maintenus à leur niveau initial.
En ce qui concerne le PCT, nous regrettons que, malgré les efforts déployés qui ont permis une faible amélioration (11,7 pour cent) du biennium 1992-1993, le niveau de 17 pour cent décidé par la Conférence à sa session de 198 9 soit encore loin d'être atteint.
Ma délégation souhaite vivement que, dans les futurs "programmes de travail et budget, la Résolution 9/89 soit dûment prise en considération. Il n'est pas nécessaire de revenir ici sur l'importance de ce programme pour les pays en développement et sur son efficacité et son utilité dans les situations d'urgence.
Dans un monde en profonde transformation où les besoins et les demandes sont de plus en plus variés et pressants, la FAO est appelée à répondre aux priorités déjà établies pour le suivi de la CNUED et de la Conférence internationale sur la nutrition, sans oublier celles qui découlent de ses activités normales indiquées dans le plan à moyen terme. Ma délégation note donc avec satisfaction l'attention que la FAO continue d'accorder, entre autres, à la participation des populations et à l'intégration des femmes à l'environnement et au développement durables, à la CTPD, aux ressources phytogénétiques et zoogénétiques, aux problèmes de l'environnement, à la lutte contre les ravageurs des cultures, aux activités du PFAT, etc.
Dans ce contexte, seuls, d'un côté, les énormes difficultés qu'éprouvent les pays en développment, ce qui les empêche de s'acquitter en temps voulu de leurs responsabilités financières, et, de l'autre, la récession, l'insuffisance de ressources et le chômage que subissent les économies des pays développés peuvent justifier l'adoption d'un Programme de travail et budget sans croissance, c'est-à-dire un programme dont le taux de réalisation sera le même que l'exercice en cours. Nous espérons que cette situation ne se répétera pas et que le budget pour 1996-97 tiendra compte des réels défis posés par la nécessité de promouvoir une agriculture et un développement durables.
Nous donnons aussi notre accord à la proposition du Directeur général d'utiliser une partie des versements attendus au titre des arriérés des contributions pour financer le budget ordinaire en conformité d'ailleurs avec les Textes fondamentaux de l'Organisation. Cette mesure, avec la révision des augmentations de coûts dont la prévision est passée de 85 à 76 millions de dollars, allégera la charge que constitue pour les Etats Membres le paiement de leurs contributions.
Pour terminer, la délégation du Cap-vert voudrait entériner le projet de résolution sur les ouvertures de crédits pour 1994-95, avec les ajustements estimés nécessaires en conséquence des variations du taux de change dollar/lire, et lance un appel aux autres membres du Conseil pour qu'ils l'appuient sans réserve.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie Monsieur Lisboa Ramos, Ambassadeur du Cap-Vert, pour son intervention et pour le soutien qu'il a apporté au projet de résolution qui doit être transmis à la Conférence pour l'approbation du Programme de travail et budget et les ouvertures de crédits pour 1994-95.
Ricardo VELAZQUEZ HUERTA (Mexico): En esta intervención. Señor Presidente, la Delegación mexicana desea reafirmar su disposición de contribuir ampliamente al funcionamiento de la FAO para que esté en posibilidad de alcanzar los objetivos que todos nos hemos propuesto. Aprobar el
presupuesto de la organización es una de las actividades más importantes de los Países Miembros. Nos satisface constatar que la gran mayoría se pronuncia a favor de un presupuesto de 676,9 millones de dólares, cantidad mínima indispensable, que no suficiente. Nos sumamos a esta aprobación cuando ello se dé.
Todos los temas que integran el Programa, y que deberán satisfacerse con el presupuesto presentado, son sumamente importantes y, en todo caso, el único esfuerzo que nos anima es el de fortalecer a la Organización. Cualquier disminución de sus recursos preocupa hondamente a la delegación mexicana. En la Conferencia aportaremos nuestros puntos de vista nuevamente, siempre bajo el principio del fortalecimiento de la Organización.
Baste ahora; y de manera breve, señalar solamente tres temas que nos parecen importantísimos y que desearíamos tuviesen una mayor atención tanto desde el punto de vista técnico como de su presupuesto: los recursos fitogenéticos, los Programas de Cooperación Técnica, incluido un posible intercambio de expertos, y las cuestiones pesqueras.
Sobre este último renglón México auspició la Conferencia Internacional de Pesca Responsable, uno de cuyos resultados fue la propuesta de integrar un Código Internacional de Pesca Responsable.
Nuestro compromiso para integrar este Código es urgente e impostergable. Cualquier esfuerzo que se haga en torno a ello, para nosotros es bienvenido. Apoyamos, en este sentido, la propuesta de Japón de realizar una Conferencia intermedia y también aquella del Comité de Pesca, presentada a la Dirección General por su Presidente, de implementar una vía rápida para el procedimiento del Código. Nos ha dado buen resultado este Procedimiento en lo que se refiere al abanderamiento de barcos y pensamos que todos los capítulos que pudiesen integrar el Código Internacional de Pesca Responsable y que se tratan por esa misma vía, deben incorporarse de manera rápida al Código Internacional. Con estos tres puntos, y en espera de nuestra intervención en la Conferencia, concluimos nuestra intervención.
Rafael CONDE DE SARO (España): Quisiera, como todos los que me han precedido, en primer lugar, felicitar al Sr. Shah por la excelente exposición de esta propuesta del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para el bienio 1994-95. En España tenemos un dicho, que es: "Lo bueno, si breve, dos veces bueno". Dicho eso, quisiera subrayar también, que del análisis de este documento se deduce una mejora sustancial en la presentación y en el contenido, que hace más fácil la consulta y más documentado el propio contenido de los distintos programas que lo componen.
Con respecto a los criterios para la selección de prioridades, creemos que las derivadas de las actividades complementarias de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo así como de la Conferencia Internacional de Nutrición, están justificadas. No obstante esto, consideramos que la prioridad fundamental para esta Organización debe ser mantener su nivel de calidad en los servicios técnicos que desarrolla.
Quisiéramos también, resaltar la gran importancia que tiene para nosotros la actividad prevista por el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto en materia de montes. Apoyamos la necesidad de ordenación sostenible de los bosques, tanto en los países con bosques tropicales como en los países industrializados. Asimismo, consideramos de gran importancia la lucha contra la desertificación mediante planes que controlen la erosión de las
cuencas, disminuyan los efectos de los incendios forestales y recuperen la cubierta vegetal en los terrenos desnudos.
El trabajo que está realizando la FAO en el área de los recursos fitogenéticos nos interesa vivamente, y apoyamos todas las iniciativas que la Comisión de Recursos fitogenéticos y su grupo de trabajo fomenten. En esta línea España es consciente de la gran trascendencia que tendrá para este área la Conferencia Mundial sobre Recursos Fitogenéticos, de próxima celebración.
Con relación al programa de Cooperación Técnica presentado, mostramos nuestro acuerdo con el mismo, tanto por su dotación presupuestaria como por los criterios establecidos por los órganos rectores de la FAO en las solicitudes de los países para tener acceso a este tipo de asistencia. En este sentido, destacaríamos la exigencia de que las solicitudes hagan hincapié en el aumento de la producción alimentaria y agrícola, pesquera o forestal, con el fin de incrementar los ingresos de los pequeños productores y trabajadores de las zonas rurales.
Como bien saben, concede gran importancia a los temas pesqueros y agradece vivamente el esfuerzo y el trabajo realizados a nivel de presupuesto por la Secretaría en apoyo de este sector.
Ahora bien, sí quisiera mencionar dos temas concretos: el primero en relación con el Consejo General de Pesca del Mediterráneo. Mi delegación agradecería que el Director General tuviera en cuenta la petición formulada por el propio Consejo, en junio, en la reunión anual de Malta, en el sentido de dotar a este Organismo de los medios necesarios para llevar a cabo sus cometidos de gestión, evaluación y conservación de los recursos pesqueros del Mediterráneo. En este sentido, y para hacerlo, sería necesario adecuar, sin modificar las cantidades, los presupuestos previstos para cubrir las prioridades y objetivos que se decidieron en esa reunión por el propio Consejo. Finalmente, España desearía subrayar la importancia que concede a la elaboración del Código de Conducta de Pesca Responsable. España ha apoyado decididamente este valioso trabajo que se está llevando a cabo por la FAO y se congratula por los resultados ya obtenidos o en vías de obtención, y el apoyo proviene del hecho de que consideramos que tiene carácter prioritario e insustituible. Por ello podrán contar, y así lo haremos manifiesto durante la Conferencia con este apoyo español para continuar en este trabajo de tan fundamental importancia.
Ms Melinda L. KIMBLE (United States of America): The United States delegation would like to thank Mr Shah for his introduction to our discussion on the Programme of Work and Budget, and also to thank both him and the Secretariat for the steadily improving quality of presentation of the Programme of Work and Budget.
However, we note that any programme planning process can be improved by presentations that incorporate not only earlier estimates but actual expenditures, by chapter as the plan was implemented. This gives us a more detailed picture of what actually occurred versus what we thought would happen. The next cycle's planning process can then be better adapted to expenditure patterns, external factors and overall reality. We would welcome future Secretariat efforts to link these elements of planning and implementation processes.
The United States has also raised detailed concerns about the 1994-95 Programme of Work and Budget in the June Council and the joint sessions of the restricted committees. Most of these concerns remain, but I will recap some of them briefly at this time, reserving more detailed comments for our Conference discussion on this item.
We continue to have concerns about the proposed financing mechanism. Whilst we hope all Member States will be able to meet their regular contributions on a predictable schedule, continuing domestic budgetary pressures on many members, including both developed and developing states, could well limit the ability of countries to pay, and especially to reduce arrears.
Given this situation, we continue to question the achievability of this Programme and the sustainability of future programmes when assessments must increase as arrears are eliminated.
Beyond these concerns, this budget continues an evolution, noticed in earlier budgets, of rising administrative costs, higher levels of unprogrammed resources and relatively minor increases in actual programme. We are thus spending more and getting less. This is a difficult and troubling trend which runs counter to efforts elsewhere in the system.
Given its Agenda 21 mandate, FAO must aggressively reprioritize in line with the post-UNCED agenda. FAO must invest more resources particularly in plant and animal genetic resources and sustainable agricultural activities.
Whilst we welcome the progress made in this effort between the initial Summary Programme of Work and Budget at the June Council and this final Programme of Work and Budget, in our view these efforts do not go far or fast enough in this direction. Every investment made in building key genetic resource databanks today will pay dividends in the next century; investments not made today will yield nothing, and even negative returns, at great risk to future food security.
We support the views expressed by Canada that FAO must allocate more core resources to these absolutely critical activities. We also believe that there is much more scope for strategic alliances and joint funding with other institutions, including regional institutions such as Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA).
Beyond investing in priorities, FAO must establish performance benchmarks in order that Member States can better assess the results of activities undertaken as each biennium progresses.
On the plus side, we note the recent step at the September session of the Programme and Finance Committees to recommend the appointment of a new External Auditor. This gives FAO a chance to take a fresh look at all fiscal management procedures and practices. Regular rotation of External Auditors is a proven and effective management tool. My Government believes an early report by the External Auditor to the Finance Committee of FAO's use of the 3 percent lapse factor would be a useful step in examining what lapse factor might be most appropriate for FAO's future planning.
We have mentioned these concerns previously and cite them again in the spirit of contributing to what has proven an extremely productive Member State dialogue on how best to allocate FAO resources. At the same time, a key objective of the United States is to develop a consensus on both
Programme actions and resource allocations that are sustainable and result-oriented in this key United Nations system organization.
My delegation is here to work constructively with all members of the FAO Council and Conference to build on the positive foundation established with the consensus adoption of the 1992-93 Programme of Work and Budget.
LE PRESIDENT: En ce qui concerne la désignation des auditeurs externes, nous pouvons parler de leur rôle à l'occasion de cette discussion.
Winston RUDDER (Trinidad and Tobago): In other chambers with which some of us are familiar a budget debate provides the widest latitude for discussion of almost anything under the sun. As necessary and as essential as the solar system is to our food, agriculture, fishery and forestry systems, I will not bore this honourable chamber with such comments. However, speaking on behalf of the thirteen Member States of the CARICOM sub-region of Latin America and the Caribbean, permit me first of all to express my gratitude to the Council for electing me to serve as Vice-chairman to your distinguished self, Mr Chairman.
Secondly, allow me to make a few comments on the topic under discussion. We have followed very closely the debate on the 1994-95 Programme of Work and Budget from its inception. We are particularly pleased to note the adjustments the Director-General and his Secretariat have made with respect to the observations of the Council and its committees on the outline and summary Programme of Work and Budget. We note in particular the adjustments made to major programmes for forestry and fisheries. Whilst in some sense we may conclude that these adjustments are symbolic rather than substantive, in the circumstances of the funding arrangements I think we could have expected no more.
We also note the additions and the complementary funding which has been made to the TCP which as yet - and we must comment - does not leave us essentially satisfied. However, again in keeping with the circumstances of the finances of the Organization, I think it is acceptable.
We commend the Organization for keeping cost increases to a minimum, and we note the reduction from the US$ 85 million figure of a few months ago to US$ 76 million now. Hopefully, we may even get it down lower. We do not know.
We are particularly grateful for the explanation with respect to the lapse factor. In all the circumstances, we believe that the figure being used of 3 percent makes sense in the current circumstances. No doubt the further reflections which will be made by the External Auditor will give some additional information which may cause adjustments in later budgets.
Although we have much to be grateful for in terms of where we have reached in the 1994-95 budget, I think this opportunity must be taken to make a comment with respect to FAO's Programme of Work and Budget, a comment which no doubt will be elaborated upon in more detail in Conference.
This Organization has a responsibility to its entire membership and, because of its composition, perhaps a different responsibility to the developing world at this time. What agenda affects the developing world at this time? I venture to suggest that it is in the area of policy responses.
to the embattled developing countries which are struggling with structural adjustment programmes, which are quivering under trade liberalization and trade reform policies, macro-economic adjustment policies which are impacting on the agricultural sector, and such countries, particularly the small developing countries with a dearth of human resource capability and capacity to respond in a pro-active way to these visitations. It seems to me, therefore, and to my delegation, that whereas we observe in the 1994-95 Programme of Work an intent to capture the high ground in so far as FAO's responsibilities are concerned for providing policy advice, increasing the policy analytical work for taking on in a more serious way sectoral studies, we would wish hopefully in future programmes of work and budget that the balance as between programme and project development and assistance and policy analytical work and advice, would be more in that particular area, because that is the critical area. The programmes and projects, whatever they may be, will be constrained by the nature of the policy framework and the context in which they are posited. That is the area, if I may say so, where we have great difficulty in responding.
I wish, therefore, to end by saying that we would have more to debate on the Programme of Work and Budget in the Conference. For the time being, however, we are very pleased to note the comments that have been made by and large by Council thus far. We believe we do have a very good basis for consensus on the 1994-95 Programme of Work and Budget. We sincerely hope that consensus follows us into the Conference.
Sra. Ana María NAVARRO ARRUE (Cuba): Al oírlo a usted plantear, Sr. Presidente, que sobre este asunto del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto de la FAO, los Miembros del Consejo ya habíamos discutido ampliamente el mismo y que la mayoría de nosotros lo habíamos, en principio recomendado favorablemente en el 103 Consejo, dudé en pedir la palabra, pero aunque estoy segura que la Delegación que viene de mi país a la 27 Conferencia de la FAO aprobará igualmente esta propuesta y formulará consideraciones aún más en detalles, no obstante eso, la Delegaciion de Cuba a este 104 Consejo desea reiterar su apoyo al mismo como efectivamente aceptó esta propuesta en el 103 Consejo de la FAO.
Aunque en aquella ocasión manifestamos nuestra petición de que se reanalizaran los montes destinados a los programas principales de agricultura, pesca y montes, así como los concernientes al Programa de Cooperación Técnica.
Hemos oído, Sr. Presidente, atentamente al Sr. Shah, al cual agradecemos su amplia exposición y queremos expresar nuestra complacencia al escucharle de que se ha hecho un reanálisis con relación a los asuntos antes planteados: agricultura, pesca, montes y Programa de Cooperación Técnica; así como el logro de una más efectiva armonización de las prioridades.
Este PLP, Sr. Presidente, tiene un carácter estratégico, ya que el mismo servirá para facilitar un diálogo abierto entre todos los Estados Miembros sobre las orientaciones y prioridades de la FAO, y también responde a las orientaciones recibidas por la 26 Conferencia, teniendo en cuenta además la complicada coyuntura de la cooperación internacional en el mundo de hoy. Opinamos que la FAO ha tenido una acertada vinculación entre los programas ordinarios y de campo por lo que apoyamos la existencia de la FAO, recabando que la misma tenga muy en cuenta la creación y desarrollo de las capacidades nacionales.
Reiteramos el apoyo a las prioridades intersectoriales, refrendadas en el 103 Consejo y estamos conscientes de que en las tareas prioritarias, la FAO tendrá muy presente los objetivos del programa 21 del PNUMA, el Plan de Accion aprobado en la CIN, así como la continuidad de importantes acciones como el seguimiento del Plan de Acción de la Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural, así como la parte que le corresponde en el Plan de acción de Nairobi sobre el adelanto de la mujer.
En lo que se refiere al asesoramiento sobre políticas, opinamos que es un instrumento muy importante para los países en desarrollo y sus respuestas. Por ello, el papel de las oficinas de la FAO en los países puede ser fundamental, ya que por los vínculos tan estrechos que mantiene con los Gobiernos respetando la soberanía del país podrían ayudar a reforzar las capacidades nacionales en materia de competencia de la Organizacion partiendo siempre, repito, de las prioridades establecidas por los Gobiernos.
Sobre la Cooperación Técnica y la Cooperación Económica entre países en desarrollo, Cuba le confiere a este tema una gran importancia, y es favorable a que se continúen haciendo esfuerzos paralelos de parte de la dependencia de la Sede, de las oficinas regionales y las representaciones de la FAO en los países en aras de lograr una orientación precisa hacia los mecanismos y procedimientos del CPPB y CEPD debiéndose fomentar también contactos más estrechos con los órganos regionales y otros mecanismos de cooperación existentes a fin de activar su utilización selectiva como un instrumento de cooperación evitando así duplicidad de esfuerzos.
Permítame en este contexto, Sr. Presidente, destacar el papel importante que han jugado en nuestra área de América Latina y El Caribe, las redes de cooperación técnica que actualmente están funcionando mediante la activa labor de la Oficina Regional de Santiago.
Sobre el PCT la delegación de Cuba saluda el esfuerzo tendiente a elevar aunque tímidamente el presupuesto del PCT. Nuestra delegación siempre ha insistido en la necesidad de redoblar los esfuerzos con vistas a que se respete el cumplimiento de la Resolución 9/89 y tiene dificultades en aceptar la propuesta de sufragar el costo de la dependencia coordinadora del PCT, con la ya escasa asignación a ese Programa, ya que esto entrañaría en la realidad una reducción de las recursos para proyectos.
Finalmente, Sr. Presidente, mi delegación desea reiterar a la FAO su reconocimiento por el difícil ejercicio realizado en la presentación de esta propuesta y aprecia su voluntad por hacer del mismo un instrumento equilibrado, real y transparente en favor de los países más necesitados del mundo.
LE PRESIDENT: Il me reste maintenant quatre orateurs inscrits: Arabie Saoudite, Inde, Colombie et Philippines. Je n'ai pas l'intention de prolonger la séance aujourd'hui. Nous commencerons notre réunion de demain matin en entendant les quatre représentants des pays que je viens de citer, dans l'ordre si possible, en essayant de commencer à 9h30 précises. Nous entendrons ensuite la réponse du représentant du Secrétariat aux questions posées et nous aborderons les autres points de notre ordre du jour, c'est-à-dire le rapport du Comité financier et du Comité des programmes, ainsi que le rapport du Comité des produits. Durant l'après-midi, nous examinerons d'autres points et je signale pour information qu'il entre dans
les intentions du Président du Comité de rédaction de réunir le Comité de rédaction demain en fin d'après-midi.
Il me reste à souhaiter à tous une excellente soirée, en vous remerciant de toutes les interventions particulièrement substantielles et intéressantes. Et il me reste à vous dire à demain.
The meeting rose at 17.40 hours
La séance est levée à 17 h 40.
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.40 horas.
