EL PRESIDENTE: Distinguidos delegados en el día de hoy como ustedes pueden observar en el Orden del Día, discutiremos el Tema 16 que está apoyado por una serie de documentos que ustedes pueden reconocer en dicho orden del día. Para abrir el debate voy a permitirme ofrecer algunos puntos de vista; en primer lugar recordarles que estas propuestas se examinaron y fueron presentadas al Comité de Finanzas y Comité de Programas, primero en enero en forma de esbozo y ulteriormente, en abril, se presentó en forma de resumen, que es el documento esencialmente que tienen frente a ustedes. Como ustedes pueden observar también, en la lista de documentos que acompañan a este tema, figuran los comentarios que hicieron ambos Comités respecto de la propuesta de resumen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto. Sus características principales son pues la de que el presupuesto del resumen responde al principio acordado de crecimiento real cero, respecto de 1994-95 y ofrece un nivel de 673,1 millones de dólares. Se abandona también para esta propuesta y el próximo ejercicio, la medida excepcional adoptada en el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1992-93 y 1994-95, en virtud de la cual se tenían en cuenta los pagos extraordinarios previstos de retrasos para financiar el presupuesto.
El incremento de los costos de 31 millones de dólares, que era considerablemente inferior a las estimaciones indicadas en el esbozo de 59 millones de dólares, se estimaron sobre la base de la metodología habitual con un coeficiente de descuento por vacantes del 3,15 por ciento. El resultado es pues, un aumento en las cuotas del 11,7 por ciento al mismo tipo de cambio, de 1 675 liras por dólar con respecto a las cuotas actuales de 1994-95. En 1994-95 las cuotas fueron un 2 por ciento inferiores a las de 1992-93.
En el documento se adopta una nueva estructura del Programa adoptada por los Comités de Finanzas y del Programa. Se indican también las repercusiones globales de las decisiones aprobadas por el Consejo en su 106° período de sesiones, y las economías asociadas con las propias medidas de restructuración imidas a otras iniciativas del Director General, para reducir gastos, permiten una redistribución de los recursos dentro de la cuantía aprobada del presupuesto de 673,1 millones de dólares. De modo que todos los sectores de la Organización estén en condiciones de funcionar en el bienio 1996-97.
Se proponen nuevas medidas de descentralización que ustedes encontrarán ahí, tales como nueve puestos del centro de la División de Inversiones y 15 de la División de Operaciones de Campo. Por motivos prácticos en el documento no se puede presentar el análisis habitual de los cambios en el que figuran las modificaciones propuestas con respecto a las asignaciones indicadas en el presente documento del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto. No obstante, se ha publicado un Suplemento 1, en el que se ofrecen las explicaciones sobre los motivos por los que no ha sido posible hacerlo.
Finalmente, en el resumen se indican las esferas a las que se propone prestar atención prioritaria en la formulación del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto completo, teniendo en cuenta las decisiones importantes en materia de reorientación adoptadas ya por el Consejo.
También se incluye una lista provisional de esferas menos prioritarias, si bien los Comités no compartieron la opinión general con respecto a estas esferas de baja prioridad. Asimismo, se señalan algunas actividades esenciales que no podrían realizarse con un presupuesto de 673,1 millones de dólares y, por tanto, podrían cubrirse con una consignación de créditos suplementaria en caso de que se dispusiera de fondos.
También, como parte del ejercicio del día de hoy, nos referiremos a los párrafos correspondientes de los Comités de Agricultura, Pesca y Montes, que tienen duplicaciones presupuestarias.
Para introducir estos temas y hacer aclaraciones importantes respecto al tratamiento de las implicaciones presupuestarias de estas recomendaciones de los comités, le solicito al señor Wade que tome la palabra.
T. WADE (Officer-in-Charge, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. The Director-General has already provided the Council with the framework in which this budget was prepared in his opening address; that is, no real growth, maximum absorption of cost increases, the reflection of the restructuring of both the Organization and the programme structure, and the applications of the savings which were made in that process to the new higher priorities.
I would like to explain, however, briefly, what this document is and what it is not. First of all, it does reflect the decisions of Council 106/2, and that is its major purpose, to explain to the governing bodies precisely what restructuring meant in budgetary terms. It gives you the new organizational structure that was originally fully explained - the rationale for which was fully explained in Council document CL 106/2, and then it gives a precise structure as for the organigrams in Annex A of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. It also gives you the new programme structure including some quite fundamental changes, and those are fully described in section 7 of the document which actually describes the mission of each new sub-programme as proposed in this structure.
Thirdly, it provides you with the new priorities, at least to the extent that they were approved at the Council at its 106th Session; and, fourthly, it shows the impact of implementing certain new modalities, more cost-effective working methods including the new instruments for TCDC, national professional officers, etc. But it does mean that this is not the normal SPWB. The usual SPWB tends to be a preview of the full Programme of Work and Budget. In this case we expect to see a great deal more change between the summary document and the full document.
The Chairman referred to the fact that the tables do not reflect change from the base 1994-95 to the proposed level in 1996-97 as you would normally expect to see. And in fact, he also referred you to the paper Supplement 1 108/3, which describes why it was not practical to provide that sort of format. I will not go through that document, but if anybody has any questions as to what caused us difficulties in providing such information, I would be happy to respond.
I feel it incumbent on me to also bring to your attention some changes in the cost increase assumptions. We did advise the Finance Committee at the time that we were concerned that we had been very conservative on the cost-increase estimates, and we had heard of the possible changes which might come through the system. And I am afraid to confirm that some of these changes, have, in fact, come through.
The first refers to the General Service salary survey. The assumptions for General Service staff costs are shown in paragraph 47 of the document, sub- paragraph C, page 19 in the English version. The results of the survey, as have been recommended, have the impact of authorizing the release of the usual inflationary increase effective 1 June 1994. Now that is a 4.22 percent increase which we had not built into the Summary Programme of Work and Budget at that date. So the timing of subsequent increases also changes, and to avoid boring you with technical detail, it hurts by US$1.8 million in 1996-97 versus the Summary Programme of Work and Budget.
On the question of post adjustment, the ICSC has made two recommendations which concern professional post adjustment, one relating to an appeal concerning the updating of the pension contribution sub-index which is used in calculation of the multiplier, and the second one concerning the extent to which the out-of-area index is taken into account. Now, the first one we already knew about and we had anticipated that the appeal would be successful; so that has no effect in our costing.
The second one, however, is more significant, and we were not aware of it and had not anticipated it, and we understand - this information is very recent - and we understand that the net effect is a 4.46 percent increase in professional salaries effective the 1 June 1994. That is quite different from the timing that we had anticipated, and, therefore, we see - we estimate around about US$3 million additional cost increases in 1996-97. Now those two areas I have mentioned are certainties and, therefore, we are talking about an additional US$5 million over the US$32.8 million mentioned in the document.
One other issue is referred to in the Finance Committee which is a potential increase in professional base salaries. This does look like it will be coming through, but it would go to the General Assembly in December and is subject to their approval, and therefore cannot be included in the provision for cost increases, and certainly we would not propose to put it in at this time. However, you should be aware that if there was a 5 percent increase in professional base salaries this is no longer post adjustment; this is the base. Then that would cost the Organization a further US$4.5 million per biennium; so while it is not in the cost increases it is something that we would incur in 1996-97, and therefore for which we would have to finally make provision out of the resources that you eventually make available to us.
Mr Chairman, I would like to turn now to the recommendations of the Technical Committees. As you know, COAG, COFI, COFO, CCP, and the Committee for Food Security have all made recommendations which potentially have financial implications. It is not my intention to go through them one by one; it would be too long and it may even be a little irrelevant in the near future; but, going through them in summary, COAG made a substantial number of specific recommendations. We estimate that the specific recommendations - and I refer only to those that were specific, not to general recommendations asking for the strengthening of this or more emphasis on that - these recommendations would amount to some US$4 million and include areas such as further support to IPM, EMPRES, animal genetic resources, the broadening of the mandate of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, IPPC, etc.
COFI also had a number of recommendations and we estimate that these would amount to about half a million dollars and a slightly larger amount for COFO. CCP is to be commended. It was the one committee that came up with specific recommendations for savings and a reduction of US$350 000, although it made a further recommendation for increased country assistance in the implementation of CODEX standards which would offset most of that. The Division estimates approximately US$270 000. Overall, we are talking about increases in the range of five million dollars. I should say again that these are for the specific recommendations. When the departments reviewed all these general recommendations and made their submissions to the Director-General for 1996-97, they came up with a great deal more than five million dollars as being the requirement.
I would like to turn to the World Food Summit. This is an area of specific interest to the Council and we did promise that we would provide some information in this introduction.
First of all, the conditions have changed since the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. For example, the starting date has changed to November 1996 and we have a clearer view of the form of the Summit. There are four categories of costs involved. The first is costs which we see as part of the ongoing Regular Programme of Work. World Food Security is so much a part of the essence of what the Organization does that it is really very hard to distinguish certain things from what is our normal work. For example, the work of the Division of Commodities and Trade in preparing and running meetings for the Committee of Food Security in the development of technical papers etc., is definitely in the category of activities which we would see as being in our normal Regular Programme. Similarly with the technical papers, for example, the technical paper on the Critical Role of Water is part of the normal policy work of the Land and Water Division. The point that I am making here is that there are costs being incurred there. We see them as being part of the Regular Programme, and those costs will be budgeted in those divisions under the substantial sub-programmes for which they are responsible. In fact, it will not be possible to distinguish those costs as being associated only with the World Food Summit.
A similar situation exists in the costs of arranging our facilities for the Summit to be held here. For example, the regular maintenance programme and the enhancement programmes that we have for the building will be modified to concentrate on those areas where we need to support the holding of the Summit. Another example is the Information Division. Obviously its programmes will be directed towards giving priority to the Summit itself.
The second category of costs refers to the Secretariat's staff. As you know, some staff have been seconded for the period of the preparatory work and the running of the Summit, consisting of the Secretary-General, Mrs Killingsworth, and four professional officers. Of course, such secondments have a cost to the extent that the units providing the people may have to be provided with some temporary replacements, but this is not part of what we see as being the direct incremental cost, which is the third category that I would like to turn to now.
Based on the current assumptions as stated in the information note that you have received dated 29 May, we estimate the costs at approximately one million dollars. This includes the costs of the meeting itself, interpretation, in-session documentation, and the direct costs of the Secretariat excluding the staff time for the moment, but including travel, limited funds for consultancies and general operating expenses. However, that estimate did not include any preparatory meetings over and above the planned meetings of the Committee on Food Security and Council and Conference. In fact, I understand that you are working towards an additional Committee of Food Security which would therefore add costs to the original estimate. In the case of that particular Committee, depending on the number of days and the number of languages etc., we estimate a cost of US$180 000. This being the case, I would like to say that I think the direct incremental cost will be held within a ceiling of one and a half million dollars. I think that is a safe figure to quote at this stage.
The last category of cost that we see, Mr Chairman, is what we have classified as external assistance. Here we are, of course, looking to our partners and to you and the Member Nations to see whether you can assist us. Many Member Nations have already offered to assist us in the form of providing staff or, in the case of international organizations, the World Bank, for example, has agreed to make a request to its Board to propose help for us.
What sort of assistance are we looking for? In the case of facilities, we have of course relied for years on the Italian Government, who generously has supported this Organization in its ongoing enhancement of these premises, and we are, of course, hoping that they will continue to do so during this period. In particular, the works that have already been committed to the restructuring of Building E would, if completed in time, very much improve our capacity to be able to handle the large, temporary influx of people during the Summit itself.
Another possibility in the area of facilities is private sponsorship. We will be looking for people to help us in areas such as the need for closed circuit television, which is beyond any facilities that we have, and perhaps some companies would be interested in being associated with this important venture.
A problem that we have seen here in this room is that the presentation of audio-visual materials to large groups can be very difficult. One thing that crossed my mind was that the current oversupply of active matrix flat-screen technology might provide a golden opportunity to fit out one of the major meeting rooms with this sort of technology. I am talking about the sort of thing that we see on major commercial airlines today, and certainly some governments and companies might be interested in that.
On the question of non-governmental organizations, provision has not been made in those figures to budget for meetings or the travel costs that may be needed. We hope that some governments will be able to help us with this aspect so that we can make sure that the Summit has the appropriate balance.
In the area of outreach and promotion, there is a need to ensure that the World Food Summit is indeed a world event and that its outcomes are well publicized, well understood and universally accepted. The Information Division, as I have already said, will be redirecting its limited resources to this sort of work, but additional resources would certainly improve the outreach of the Summit.
Preparatory activities is another area where we do not have a specific budget other than as I have stated. If we want to improve the preparatory work at the national and regional levels, this is another area where some assistance could be given.
Finally, of this long list of things for you to think about and write cheques for, provision needs to be made to ensure that all countries are fully represented. Hence those with the most serious financial problems may not be able to participate as desirable if the outcome is to be truly universal. This again is an area where other nations might be able to help.
Mr Chairman, I appreciate that I am beginning to sound like a salesman, and I suspect that budget work in this Organization is going to require those skills more and more in the near future. However, given some support from you in the manner described, the World Food Summit will be one of the most economical of these events ever held, firstly because it will be held in FAO Headquarters and not, as in many other cases, in other locations which require secretariats to be transferred en bloc to other countries and, secondly, because the preparatory process relies on FAO's existing committees and governing body structure.
Mr Chairman, I am sorry to have spent so much time on this issue but it seems to me to be one to which Member Governments attach great importance and therefore I thought it necessary to go through it in full. That concludes my introduction.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, señor Wade, porque el tiempo utilizado en sus instrucciones ha sido ganado por el Consejo, ya que ha aclarado el panorama que tenemos frente a nosotros. Le voy a pedir ahora al doctor Bommer, Presidente del Comité del Programa y de la reunión conjunta del Comité de Finanzas y del Programa, que nos presente las conclusiones a las que se llegó en dicha reunión conjunta sobre el Resumen del PLP.
D. BOMMER (Chairman, Programme Committee): Mr Chairman, I offer you this additional information which we did not present yesterday when we referred to our meeting of the Programme Committee and the joint meetings with the Finance Committee. Certainly, in the introductory remarks of the report of the Finance Committee reference has already been made to the discussion of the Finance Committee in relation to the Programme of Work and Budget.
I first want to give you some main points of the discussion of the Programme Committee and then our final session with the Finance Committee jointly. We certainly recognize the special circumstances of this biennium including the sections already referred to by Mr Wade in relation to our difficulties, because you also have to link the ongoing Programme of Work and Budget to the proposal under the summary for the new Programme of Work and Budget. The additional information provided by Mr Wade in document CL 108/3-Sup.1 attempts to explain to you where the difficulties are. We certainly hope that information is clearly accessible and understandable for all of us in the FAO Programme of Work and Budget.
Our Committee concentrated on Chapters 4, 5 and 7 of the document of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. Referring to the section on the impact of the restructuring, the Committee welcomed the economies deriving from such an impact. These economies would permit redirection of resources to high priority areas in the full Programme of Work and Budget proposals. It also welcomed the substantial progress in decentralization of expertise to outlying offices. We have had an updated report on this. However, we urge at the same time continued attention to the streamlining of administrative procedures which are ongoing and which are of crucial importance for both Regular Programme as well as effective Field Programme Activities.
In Section 5 dealing with priorities, the Committee expressed broad agreement with the areas of high priorities which the Director-General intended to pursue in the formulation of the full Programme of Work and Budget. It certainly needs to be updated or checked in relation to what is not incorporated in the preparation of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, that is, the proposals made by the three Technical Committees, COFO, COFI and COAG.
In order to offer advice on low priority areas, the Committee felt that more concrete information was needed on the effective impact of resource reductions in the proposed areas as well as other possible areas, including the programme elements intended to be reduced or postponed in order to express definite value judgement. It asks that such information be provided in the full Programme of Work and Budget. The ongoing review of programme activities and much more has been done since the writing of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget to facilitate the identification of lower priority areas at the element and sub-programme levels and to provide the managerial tool to identify opportunities for a reduction in resource allocations.
Finally, dealing with section 7, the Programme of Work and Budget, this section took account of the new Programme structure endorsed in the Joint Session with the Finance Committee in January considering the outline of the Programme Work and Budget and recognizing that an integrated presentation of activities in
Headquarters, Regional and Sub-regional offices is intended, the Committee was reassured that a full Programme of Work and Budget would still permit the identification of perspective budgetary inputs of each global level in the Organizational structure and the activities implemented in the various regions which we had in former documents on the Programme of Work and Budget. The Committee also drew attention to the requirements to clearly indicate the interdisciplinary character of most programme structures, as a new programme structure corresponds with the Organization structure which is very much on the disciplinary nature.
Finally, it was requested that a full Programme of Work and Budget to the extent possible provide clear indication of targets for the biennium, outputs envisaged at element and sub-programme levels. The Committee reviewed the section as time allowed us at the Chapter, Major Programme, and Programme Level. Its comments, suggestions and recommendations are reflected in this Report. I do not want to dwell on these in detail - the debate might turn back on them and they can react to those.
In our full day meeting, jointly with the Finance Committee, we concentrated on several key issues. The result of this debate is conveyed to you in the document CL 108/14, paragraph 1.4 to 1.12. The Committees endorsed the overall approach of zero-real growth in the budget and reaffirmed the principle of excluding the payment of arrears and the recommendation of assessments of Member Nations. They appreciated the lower estimates of cost increases which was that included in the outline; however, emphasized the continued financial difficulties confronting the Organization and recommended further strong efforts in research for economies by seeking to preserve the substantive output of the Organization.
Understanding that more refined priority setting, precise proposed allocations and concrete activities and all programme headings will be available in the full Programme of Work and Budget, the Committees underlined the importance of providing, to the extent possible, clear targets and planned outputs for the biennium for element and sub-programme levels. They emphasized the need to maintain a judicious balance between normative and operational activities. The Committee stressed the importance of pursuing a constructive dialogue in the spirit of compromise with the aim of consensus approval of the Programme of Work and Budget at the next Conference. They felt that a major concern of every Member Nation should be to put the Organization again on a sound financial footing and thereby enable it to sustain the long-term effort of renovation and increased efficiency initiated in the present biennium.
Accordingly, the Committees recommended to the Council that it requests the Director-General to proceed with the preparation of the Programme of Work and Budget, building on the Summary and taking into consideration the views and concerns expressed by both Committees.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias doctor Bommer por la presentación de las partes correspondientes de los informes del Comité de Finanzas y del Programa.
Espero, distinguidos delegados, que con estas notas introductorias estén ustedes más preparados para sostener el debate.
Ms Melinda L. KIMBLE (United States of America): The United States welcomes the documentation provided in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. The supplemental information offered by the Secretariat and the comments of Mr Wade and the Chairman at the Programme Committee are setting the stage for our discussion of this item.
Our debate on the summary budget is occurring at a very sobering time for the United States. It is a time of unprecedented challenges. As a consequence of a bipartisan consensus that deficit reduction must be our first budget priority, we are facing an extraordinary decline in US resources available to domestic and international programmes and, by extension, to the UN System. Our legislative budgetary process has gotten off to a painful start, particularly with respect to the wholesale redesign and downsizing of US programmes focusing on foreign affairs. Congressional proposals are now under consideration to reduce our request for contributions to international organizations by as much as 17 percent for fiscal year 1996 - funds which will pay our calendar year 1995 contribution to the UN, FAO and other UN Specialized Agencies. Even deeper cuts are proposed for future fiscal periods. The situation remains both fluid and extremely uncertain. Final
legislative action to determine the exact budget level is not likely for several months, but we are virtually certain to receive significantly lower appropriations, not only for this year, but for the foreseeable future. Clearly, business as usual no longer pertains to the United States. This means UN budgets, as a whole, must be lower.
The Clinton Administration is pressing for an active and responsible American engagement in the UN System and a reversal of these draconian cuts. We are pursuing all avenues to make the case for full funding of our multilateral commitments. There are no easy solutions or quick fixes available. We are not contemplating a change in the scale of UN assessments. We believe such a change could not be absorbed by the UN political process for sometime.
Given this stark outlook, is it possible to plan rationally for the future? How can we set a more realistic FAO budget level: We can do so by making our priority setting process relevant; by emphasizing programmes FAO does best; and by developing a rational plan for downsizing. In making this proposal, the United States recalls that we joined the near unanimous adoption of the current budget to assure Director-General Diouf of our support for the programme. At the same time, however, we expressed reservations about its structure and foundation. These have proven to be accurate. FAO must position itself now to take what we readily acknowledge will be difficult and painful steps in sharply reducing its 1996-97 Summary Programme of Work and Budget (SPWB) of US$704 million. There is no time to waste.
The United States' views on FAO programmatic activities are well-known. Throughout the UN System, we have been the foremost advocates of a back to basics approach. For FAO, these activities include data gathering and information dissemination, such as AGRIS, CARIS and GIEWS, market analysis and international trade in agricultural commodities (particularly standard-setting under Codex Alimentarius and the International Plant Protection Convention), agricultural genetic resources, integrated management of pests and diseases, and collaborative work with WHO on ICN follow-up activities. The United States also supports work of the Investment Centre as an effective need of leveraging additional resources for development. For too long, FAO has invested too little in forestry and fisheries, but recent changes mean that FAO can now begin renewing essential linkages with its forestry partners through its active participation in the ad hoc Intergovernmental Panel on Forests. This work can set the stage for effective field operations in sustainable forestry management. Thus, sustaining the new investment in FAO's forestry activities now can have both immediate and long-term payoffs.
While we strongly support FAO's work on the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, as is evidenced by our active participation in the Council's open-ended Technical Committee, once this process is completed, FAO must begin the process of renewing that department. Given resource constraints, FAO may need to re-energize the normative operations of the department over two biennia. We believe the normative functions FAO undertakes in the above areas are unique and of real value. As in the case of forestry and agriculture, strong normative work is the vital foundation for focused, effective, field operations.
We applaud the Director-General's efforts to identify programmes of lower priority. We have put forth ideas on areas of substantial savings, and would have provided more suggestions for prioritizing programmes during COAG and other meetings, had adequate documentation been available from FAO at that time. We will work with others to continue to identify areas where we believe more substantial savings can be achieved. In light of the drastically changed financial circumstances, for example, the uncertainty of UNDP and Trust Fund resources cited in paragraph 24 of the SPWB, we believe it is essential to re-examine FAO's field structure. Having approved the Director-General's initiative to strengthen FAO's regional office structure, the FAO members now need to examine where that strengthened structure allows significant cost savings through the closing or downsizing of country offices. In rationalizing the field structure, a major cost savings would be achieved by exploring ways of combining some or all of FAO's Western Hemisphere field structure with that of IICA. This consolidation has been already endorsed by Western Hemisphere Agriculture Ministers and should be pursued. We, the members of FAO, can no longer afford this type of costly duplication.
With respect to the establishment of additional liaison offices, we question whether quantifiable targets for measuring their efficacy and ability to generate additional resources have been determined. At a time of cutbacks and retrenchment, we would want to see evidence that this proposal is the optimal way to expand the Organization's resource base.
With regard to the role of FAO in monitoring, evaluating and measuring the impact of the GATT/WTO Agreement on food security conditions in developing countries, we believe that FAO is in a unique position to assess Round-specific implications for developing countries and to assist Member Nations with technical advice on how to carry out provisions of the Agreement. As best we can determine, the work appears complementary and additional to similar efforts under way in UNCTAD, OECD and WTO. FAO, however, does not have the mandate to re-examine provisions of the Uruguay Round Agreement, nor should it question conclusions reached by members of the World Trade Organization.
In the case of specific agricultural programmes where savings could be achieved, we believe that rural extension and agrarian reform activities are areas where FAO has not demonstrated a clear comparative advantage over national institutions, which are ripe for cost containment.
Turning again to.FAO's fisheries programme, US support for fisheries data and statistics and fisheries policy is well known. At the same time, we believe that there is scope for savings in aquatic sciences and fisheries information, fisheries resources and aquaculture, and fisheries utilization and marketing. We also consider the Sub-Committee on Fish Trade duplicative of other international fora addressing trade issues. Moreover, the Sub-Committee has not attracted the level of participation required to make it viable.
With regard to forestry, we attach great importance to forest resource assessment and community forestry. However, we have reservations about the reference to the facilitation of agreements on sustainable forest management among FAO's main priorities in paragraph 249 of the budget document. The US believes the complexity of the forestry agenda at this stage makes it premature to consider promoting a legally binding global convention on forests. We would hope FAO will use this biennium to strengthen the emerging collaborative international forestry process, advance its sustainable forestry management strategies, and enhance its vital data collection and analysis programmes. These actions are essential to future progress.
With respect to the administration of trust funds, we believe that FAO could achieve considerable savings if trust fund donors paid their full share of the costs of trust fund projects. We recall the results of the 1993 cost measurement study, which disclosed a regular budget subsidy for project activities totalling US$57.3 million, including the subsidy for trust funds. This significant subsidy should cease. In our view, administrative and operational support for programmes funded from extra-budgetary resources should be fully paid by those extra-budgetary resources, and not subsidized by the regular budget.
We note that FAO plans to spend at least 23 percent of its 1996-97 budget on programme management, support services and common services, alone. This is an excessive ratio and reducing it significantly is important to achieving a responsible budget. FAO must explore innovative and creative ways to lower these costs.
In the case of personnel, we note that out of some 1 115 Professional posts, a reduction in this figure of less than one percent is contemplated for 1996-97. This is far too conservative. And we see that there is a continuation of grade inflation, which must be stopped and reversed. With respect to the General Service staff, we note that a final determination on the number of General Service staff requirements has not been made. We would like to see more substantial cutbacks in this area, given that information and communications technology has transformed the way in which business is conducted, reducing the need for a large supports staff. A highly skilled, mobile work force is needed at FAO, with fewer hierarchical levels.
With regard to the financial parameters of the SPWB, we are extremely disturbed by the level of cost increases, US$31.8 million, in the SPWB and those additional costs spelled out by Mr Wade. FAO should fully absorb cost increases due to inflation and biennialization. In particular, the net effect of any changes in grades for both Professional and General Services should be absorbed, a practice common in my own and other governments. Cost increases for consultants, contracts and temporary assistance should also be absorbed.
Given the importance of US financial contributions to the UN, the US finds it essential to clarify as much as possible the difficult budgetary outlook we face. We believe it is accurate to say that international organizations, as a whole, not just FAO, will have significantly lower resources for the foreseeable future. Government agencies in the United States and many other countries are dealing with dramatic cuts in personnel and funding. In some cases, they are finding ways to do the same job with fewer resources. In
others, they are fundamentally rethinking their roles and activities. International organizations cannot be exempt from these pressures, and will have to meet the same challenges in the coming years. Moreover, FAO cannot engage in external borrowing to implement its programme of work. This practice will not work given the extended declining resource outlook and indeed, US law prohibits us from paying our share of the interest costs. We are encouraged to learn that the Director-General opposes borrowing from external sources.
A collaborative approach involving all Member States, the Director-General and the Secretariat in resolving the situation and setting a new budget level is the only viable course. The Director-General has already taken very positive steps by reducing expenditures in the current budget and identifying lower priority areas for 1996-97. We commend the Director-General's efforts to streamline meetings and publications to reduce costs, but much more remains to be done. FAO should consider biennializing, shortening and eliminating additional meetings, including those of its governing bodies. In the case of publications, FAO should look at more creative and less costly options, contracting out work to low-cost private sector firms and using technologically innovative ways of transferring information, such as through greater use of CD-ROM.
Mr Chairman, we came here with suggestions for cost savings. A new era is beginning which requires a major rethinking of the roles and activities of every Agency in the UN System. This is also true of FAO, if it is to make vital contributions and meet new challenges with fewer resources, fewer staff, new working methods, and a more limited, focused set of priorities. We know that other countries will have ideas as well. We welcome the comments of others, so that we can work together to find a constructive solution that, as the Director-General said, "preserves FAO's unique role, consolidates the process of change, and invests for the future." We think this can be achieved with a budget level of US$550 million to US$600 million.
These numbers are not arbitrary, Mr Chairman, nor are they meant to be punitive. The year 1995 is not 1989, when the USA significantly reduced its payments to FAO because of major policy disagreements with the former FAO management. The numbers we are talking about for 1995, and for the 1996-97 biennium and beyond, are realistic numbers, which will apply to most UN Agencies. To be fair to FAO and our fellow Member Nations, in our view, the only message we could offer today is that the FAO budget we approve this year must be realistic. We hope that, by working together, we can achieve this objective and approve the 1996-97 budget unanimously at the Conference.
Alvaro GURGEL DE ALENCAR (Brazil): I will read parts of my statement and, if it is felt useful, I will hand in the whole of it to the Secretariat.
Mr Chairman, our Organization has very clear objectives and in the year of its 50th Anniversary we are preparing ourselves to recall these objectives and to once again endorse them. As regards achieving these objectives, we would like to make some comments on how FAO's programme has been shaped. We believe that in order to achieve its important objectives FAO should continue to expand its operational activities without prejudice to improving its level of excellence. The gathering of knowledge and the improvement of FAO as a centre of excellence cannot be an objective in itself; it is only the means that will allow the Organization to fulfil the ultimate objective of eradicating hunger. Work of a normative character, however useful, should not detract attention in any way from the all-important operational activities. What I am trying to say, Mr Chairman, is that FAO must not become some kind of university or centre for studies or data gathering, aimed at having academic debates on how to deal with hunger. FAO's rightful place is in the field, providing technical assistance, transferring technology and knowledge and cooperating with governments as they request assistance. By the same token, FAO's usefulness has to be gauged by its capacity to improve the working and living conditions of the end users, that is to say, the men and women in the fields.
This is what basics means to us, Mr Chairman, and that is why Brazil supported, as we all did, the Director-General's proposals for the centralization. We therefore favour the increase in the level of resources allocated to operational programmes in field activities. We wish to stress the importance of FAO technical cooperation activities, particularly in areas where the Organization has a comparative advantage.
We believe there is a need to fulfil the provisions of Resolution 9/89 which called for a progressive increase in TCP appropriation until it reached 17 percent of the total budget. We regret this has not been possible and that the TCP appropriation in the next biennium remains at the same level of the current budget.
We support the priorities set out in document CL 108/3 and the general thrust of the proposed Programme of Work for the next biennium and in that context we would like to lay emphasis on programmes aimed generally at promoting food security and agrarian reform.
We also feel that special attention should be given to sub-programme CL 108/3 2.1.4, Rural Finance, and to the Major Programme 2.2, Food and Agricultural Policy Development; in particular to Programmes 2.2.12, Nutrition Programmes; 2.2.13, Food Control and Consumer Protection, and 2.2.15, Codex Alimentarius, Food Standards, as well as to the follow-up to the recommendations of the International Conference on Nutrition and to all activities relating to household food security, food quality and safety, food-based solutions to micro-nutrient deficiency problems, food protection and monitoring, and the work of the Codex Alimentarius.
With regards to the recommendations made in the area of agriculture, we strongly support the following points of document CL 108/9 on page iii: iv, v, vii and xiv; on page vi: xxxiv, xxxix, xii.
In paragraph 2.52 of document CL 108/3 under Programme 2.4.1, Forest Resources, we feel the reference to the harmonization of criteria and indicators at a global level for sustainable forest management is cast in inappropriate terms particularly in light of the report of the last Session of the Committee on Forestry where in paragraph 17 it is clearly stated that some delegates expressed concern about premature attempts at harmonization. In the same paragraph 2.52 we do not favour the use of the expression "greening of the world" which carries mainly a preservationist connotation. In addition it lacks precision and technical content. We therefore think it can be deleted without any loss to the meaning of the paragraph.
In paragraph 2.56 we deem it important that a reference be made to the Convention on Biological Diversity and that all activities undertaken by FAO in this field should be carried out in accordance with the Convention.
Regarding sub-programmes 2.4.21, Wood and Non-wood Products, and 2.4.22, Forest Harvesting, Trade and Marketing and paragraphs 2.6.1 to 2.6.6, we suggest reference be made to the CSD and ILO, appropriate institutions or organizations in the light of their mandate, to examine the relationships between trade and environment.
Turning finally to Programme 2.5, Contributions to Sustainable Development and Special Programme Thrusts, particularly with reference to paragraph 2.77 we think FAO should concentrate on areas in which it has a proven comparative advantage of all the activities already undertaken by other organizations, particularly UNEP.
Sir, may I turn to the question of the Budget? We, in our delegation, would have preferred to have an objective look at the Budget proposal and comment on its intrinsic value only. However, as I know a number of delegations will deem it necessary to look at it in a broader context, allow me to make a few comments of the same nature. Brazil believes, and has so stated in other fora of the United Nations, that it is incumbent upon all of us to fulfil financial obligations in full, on time and unconditionally. Any weakening of this commitment as regards FAO cannot but have detrimental effects on the functioning of the Organization and indeed shake the very foundations of the United Nations edifice.
The occurrence of arrears, regrettable in itself, must not be utilized as a reason for reducing the level of activities but should rather serve as a reminder of the need to strengthen our resolve to again become and stay current in our payments. This is the clearest signal we can give of support to FAO's objective as we prepare to celebrate its 50th anniversary. It is also the best way to avoid increases in contributions as are now being proposed.
Turning now to the Budget proposal itself, Mr Chairman, we feel in spite of financial and other constraints on the part of some countries, to fight against hunger and malnutrition is not an activity where the international community can afford to relent in its efforts as this is the main source of all ills affecting humankind today. However, we remain prepared to accept that the concept of zero real growth be applied once more in setting the level of expenditures in the Budget.
That this means in the proposal before us an increase in level of assessed contributions is entirely another matter. We all know that a substantial portion of this increase in assessed contributions results from the less than wise decision that we made at the last Conference to reduce the level of assessment by some 2 percent in the face of very unfavourable odds. Clearly this must now be made up for in the Budget for the coming biennium. There is no other way. In the end, Mr Chairman, we will have assessed much the same amount in absolute terms for 1996-97 as would be the case if the funding for the current biennium, and therefore the current level of assessment, had been established by the Conference in a more careful manner; except that in the absence of that unfortunate decision the percentage increase this time would have been much smaller - in fact, less than 5 percent. Therefore, we look at the percentage increase in assessed contributions not from the current Budget to the next but over a period of six years and here, I am afraid, I have to suggest a correction to the calculations in document CL 108/3.
We note that the cumulative yearly increase in assessments over that period of six years would be 1.81 percent and not 2.3 percent, as stated in paragraph 5 because, if it is to be seen as an increase per annum, as paragraph 55 says, then, Sir, you have to calculate the cumulative increase year over year and not by biennium over biennium. Of course, biennium over biennium gives 4.7 and 4.6 which is 9.4 percent cumulative for the period, whereas the yearly increase, if calculated, would be a mere 1.8 percent a year over this period of six years.
This is what we are really talking about, Mr Chairman, an increase of only 1.8 percent a year which, of course, is much lower than the rate of inflation in the world anywhere. In other words, Sir, in the six-year period under consideration we will have, as regard assessments, a negative real growth budgeting exercise.
Let us consider that because, much as we may all prefer to pay less rather than more, I find it difficult under the circumstances to ask for less than that. We are certain that FAO will continue to streamline procedures, improve the cost-effectiveness of all programmes and make efforts to reduce administrative and personnel costs which negatively affect the efficiency of related services. This is a never-ending process where FAO should continue to carry out more activities with the same amount of money and to execute existing programmes at lower cost.
It is important to emphasize that total absorption of cost increases would eventually put FAO into a straitjacket leading to an unacceptable loss of its ability to respond adequately to new challenges.
To conclude, Mr Chairman, let me say that my delegation is ready to participate in consultations on the important question of the Budget for the next biennium hoping that fairness and consistency will prevail and that, as they say in French "que chacun prenne ses responsabilités".
Mme Béatrice DAMIBA (Burkina Faso): La délégation du Burkina Faso a l'honneur de prendre la parole ce matin au nom du Groupe africain sur cet important point de l'ordre du jour du Conseil pour exprimer les positions de ses cinquante-trois Etats Membres de l'Organisation sur les principales questions relatives à la préparation du Programme de travail et budget 1996-97.
Qu'il me soit permis, avant tout, de féliciter le Directeur général pour avoir préparé un document reflétant les différents points de vue exprimés lors des examens antérieurs du schéma et de vous remercier, Monsieur le Président, ainsi que Monsieur Bommer, pour les explications complémentaires et précieuses de tout à l'heure. Nous réitérons notre soutien au train de mesures et à la politique de restructuration entreprises par le Directeur général pour donner suite aux décisions de la cent sixième session du Conseil. Nous nous félicitons du fait que le sommaire du Programme de travail et budget 1996-97 ait été établi dans les perspectives d'une vision globale à long terme de l'accomplissement de la restructuration de l'Organisation.
Il nous paraît essentiel de souligner que la préparation du Programme de travail et budget n'est pas seulement un exercice habituel d'examen des ressources et des dépenses; c'est l'occasion de projeter la consolidation des actions déjà entreprises concernant la décentralisation, le redéploiement du personnel, le renforcement des fonctions opérationnelles et normatives, le recentrage des priorités autour de la sécurité alimentaire - toutes choses du reste déjà approuvées par le Conseil.
Je souhaite ensuite exprimer notre gratitude au Comité du Programme et au Comité financier qui ont examiné préalablement le schéma du Programme de travail et budget. Les recommandations de ces deux comités sont d'une qualité incontestable et constitueront sans nul doute une aide précieuse à l'analyse des délégations. Le Groupe africain note avec intérêt que, malgré la complexité des questions étudiées, ces deux comités, composés de représentants de toutes les régions, sont parvenus à un consensus sur des sujets de controverse. Le Groupe africain souscrit à l'ensemble des recommandations du Comité financier et du Comité du Programme en espérant vivement que ce consensus sera sauvegardé, tout au moins dans son esprit.
Depuis la préparation du schéma du Programme de travail et budget, des faits nouveaux sont intervenus au niveau des Etats Membres respectifs dans le système des Nations Unies et au sein même de la FAO. Ces faits majeurs ne peuvent pas être ignorés par le Conseil. Aussi, le Groupe africain souhaite-t-il faire observer, avec un certain regret, que la cent huitième session du Conseil n'aura peut-être pas la possibilité de faire des recommandations claires sur toutes les questions relatives au Programme de travail et budget, compte tenu du caractère aléatoire des informations disponibles. Le rôle du Conseil ne sera pas pour autant minimisé; au contraire, il lui sera possible de concentrer ses recommandations sur un nombre limité de décisions, mais des décisions prioritaires et urgentes.
La complexité de la tâche qui nous attend nous autorise à proposer au Conseil une démarche par étapes fondée sur un élagage progressif des questions de fond, puis de méthodologie, et qui sont à la base de la préparation du Programme de travail et budget. Le Groupe africain, pour sa part, souhaite aborder l'examen de ce point en suivant cette démarche.
En ce qui concerne les questions de fond, le Groupe africain réaffirme son ferme soutien au principe d'un budget à croissance réelle zéro défini sur la base budgétaire du Programme de travail et budget 1994-95, c'est-à-dire 673 millions de dollars des Etats-Unis. Evidemment, cette base budgétaire est loin de couvrir les besoins immenses des Etats Membres vis-à-vis de la FAO mais elle a au moins le mérite de tenir compte de l'environnement économique et géopolitique du monde.
Le Groupe africain appuie, d'autre part, la proposition du Directeur général consistant à ne plus recourir aux arriérés pour le financement du budget. Cette décision vient à point nommé régulariser une situation contraire au règlement financier de l'Organisation. Tout en se félicitant de ce retour à la normale, les pays africains regrettent que des pratiques contraires utilisées dans les budgets précédents dussent se traduire par un accroissement des contributions des Etats Membres, conséquence tout aussi préoccupante que la situation économique et financière des pays africains, qui ne cesse de se détériorer chaque jour.
Le Groupe africain est convaincu de la gravité de la situation créée par les arriérés de contributions et de leur impact sur la mobilisation des ressources et l'exécution du Programme de travail de l'organisation. Ces pays, qui sont les principaux bénéficiaires de l'action de la FAO, sont malheureusement - et précisément pour cette raison - parmi ceux qui ont le plus grand mal à s'acquitter de leurs engagements vis-à-vis de l'Organisation. Néanmoins, ils sauront tirer les conséquences de la présente situation pour consentir les indispensables sacrifices. En effet, la responsabilité de l'Organisation repose équitablement sur tous les Etats Membres, quelle que soit la valeur absolue de leurs contributions. Aussi, les pays africains sont-ils conscients de l'importance du rôle qu'ils seront appelés à jouer dans ce nouveau pacte de partenariat et de solidarité qui devrait exister entre Etats et Organisations Membres de la FAO. Fort de ces convictions, le Groupe africain réaffirme sa volonté politique de soutenir avec fermeté l'Organisation et de participer activement à la recherche de solutions durables au manque de ressources pour la survie de notre Organisation commune, nourricière pour des centaines de millions de vies humaines.
Le Groupe africain, par ma voix, invite les membres du Conseil à se prononcer clairement sur ces principes de base et souhaite qu'une plate-forme minimale consensuelle soit adoptée au cours de la présente session.
Il restera alors en instance la question difficile des accroissements de coûts pour lesquels nous devrons reconnaître une certaine compétence au Directeur général. Tout en nous félicitant de l'effort qui a permis de réduire les accroissements de coûts de 59 à 31,8 millions de dollars, les pays africains, compte tenu des réalités objectives de leurs économies, invitent le Secrétariat à examiner toutes solutions permettant d'absorber au minimum possible les coûts d'exécution des programmes sans toutefois porter préjudice à l'efficacité de l'Organisation vis-à-vis des attentes des Etats Membres, surtout ceux se trouvant dans le plus grand besoin d'assistance.
La tâche du Directeur général ne sera pas facile, surtout dans ces conditions de quasi-absence d'indications claires sur les priorités du programme. Les Etats Membres devront faire face à leurs responsabilités à l'avenir; le Groupe africain est prêt à entamer un débat franc et fructueux pour parvenir à un recentrage des activités de l'Organisation sur les tâches essentielles découlant de son mandat. D'ores et déjà, nous réaffirmons le soutien ferme de tous les pays africains aux activités opérationnelles concourant à réaliser la sécurité alimentaire grâce à un renforcement des capacités nationales.
Dans ce contexte, le Groupe africain voudrait souligner la priorité des programmes suivants: les programmes spéciaux en faveur de la sécurité alimentaire dans les pays à faibles revenus et à déficit vivrier, concentrés en majorité en Afrique; le Programme EMPRES; le Programme de coopération technique; le Sommet mondial de l'alimentation qui, dans le contexte de la sécurité alimentaire, revêt une priorité pour l'Afrique, bien sûr, s'il doit se traduire concrètement par une prise de conscience généralisée et un sursaut face à la menace contre l'humanité; le Programme de gestion des ressources naturelles - la maîtrise de l'eau et la conservation des sols; la conduite et la diversification des cultures - le développement des cultures secondaires et le développement technologique; le développement de l'aquaculture; et la lutte contre la désertification. Je suppose que les pays africains membres du Conseil compléteront la liste au cours de leurs interventions.
L'examen du Programme de travail et budget d'une Organisation comme la FAO est une occasion unique de rappeler la force de la solidarité de la communauté internationale pour faire face aux défis qui s'imposent à l'humanité où le nombre des victimes de la faim - quelque 800 millions d'êtres aujourd'hui - ne cesse de croître chaque année. Notre conviction, au sein du Groupe africain, est qu'aucun conflit d'intérêts ne saurait se justifier aux yeux des nombreuses populations qui ont placé leur avenir et leur survie sur nos décisions.
Jacques LAUREAU (France): Je vais m'exprimer à la fois au nom de l'Union europérenne et de ma délégation nationale. Je m'exprime d'abord au nom de la Communauté européenne et de ses quinze Etats membres.
La Communauté européenne et ses Etats membres ont examiné avec soin le document CL 108/3 et souhaitent, par le biais de leur présidence, faire part d'un certain nombre de remarques qui constituent leur position commune. A partir de celles-ci, plusieurs Etats membres, comme je le ferai d'ailleurs moi-même immédiatement après, interviendront dans le débat pour vous faire part de remarques supplémentaires.
Je pense que nous devons articuler notre réflexion sur deux sujets différents mais liés entre eux: le budget et la base budgétaire, d'une part, et le Programme de travail, d'autre part.
En ce qui concerne le budget, nous sommes évidemment d'accord avec le principe de saine gestion budgétaire qui consiste à ne pas inclure des arriérés dans la base budgétaire. En revanche, nous ne pouvons soutenir l'augmentation très forte des contributions ordinaires qui nous sont proposées à hauteur de 11,7 pour cent par rapport au biennium actuel.
Le budget 1996-97 devrait être la résultante de l'absorpion maximale des variations de coûts par les contributions ordinaires et de la diminution de la base budgétaire de 38 millions de dollars d'arriérés.
La très grave déclaration, qui constitue un élément nouveau, que vient de faire la déléguée des Etats-Unis, préoccupe sérieusement l'Union européenne à cause des profondes conséquences qu'elle pourrait avoir sur le Programme de travail de l'Organisation. La Communauté européenne et ses Etats Membres tiennent à faire savoir dès maintenant et sans ambiguïté que, malheureusement, ils ne seront pas en mesure de couvrir et ne couvriront pas un quelconque déficit de financement qui résulterait de la regrettable réduction de la contribution des Etats-Unis.
Nous voudrions toutefois exprimer également ici notre attachement à ce que les Etats-Unis demeurent un Membre actif de l'ΟΑΑ. Il est clair que la prise en compte de la position des Etats-Unis constituera un élément important de l'exercice de revue détaillée du budget. A l'évidence, cela demande une action des plus urgentes, et nous faisons appel au Directeur général à ce sujet.
En ce qui concerne le Programme, ce tableau des difficultés budgétaires peut nous conduire à nous montrer très vigilants sur son contenu: il faut clairement identifier les véritables priorités et retarder, réduire ou couper les activités non prioritaires. Parallèlement, il faut trouver les moyens d'une efficacité accrue de toutes les composantes de l'Organisation afin d'en augmenter la productivité et d'identifier de possibles économies. La révision des structures et des méthodes de travail des organes directeurs ne doit pas échapper, bien entendu, à cet exercice.
Nous voudrions rappeler certains principes de base concernant le rôle que doit jouer, à notre avis, l'Organisation dans le secteur de l'agriculture, et que nous avons déjà exprimés dans nos déclarations communes lors des dernières sessions des Comités des forêts, des pêches et de l'agriculture.
La Communauté européenne et ses Etats membres considère qu'il convient de favoriser les activités de la FAO qui contribuent à renforcer son rôle de centre d'excellence dans le secteur de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation. "Centre d'excellence" ne veut pas dire, d'ailleurs, que l'ΟΑΑ dispose de compétences universelles mais qu'elle doit travailler en partenariat avec d'autres institutions, comme les débats au COAG, au COFI et au COFO l'ont indiqué. Il s'agit principalement de l'importance du rôle normatif de l'Organisation en tant que forum international de discussion et de négociation, de sa fonction d'information des Etats Membres, de sa fonction de conseil en politiques et, enfin, de sa fonction d'assistance technique, qui doit être très étroitement articulée sur les orientations du Programme ordinaire.
Il s'agit notamment de veiller à la synergie de ce dernier avec le programme de terrain et d'optimiser l'utilisation des ressources extrabudgétaires. Les activités de terrain de l'ΟΑΑ devraient se concentrer sur des programmes ou projets ayant un caractère novateur, pour aboutir à des solutions de développement durable dans les domaines relevant clairement du mandat de l'Organisation.
Dans l'exercice de la sélection des programmes, la méthode du questionnaire n'a pas donné, hélas, jusqu'à présent, les résultats escomptés. Les Etats Membres ont donné des orientations lors des discussions au sein des comités techniques, en dépit de leurs réserves sur le manque d'informations chiffrées disponibles à cette époque.
Il serait cependant bien illusoire de leur demander de trancher parmi les éléments de programmes. Le rôle du Directeur général sera donc bien de proposer les priorités et les réductions d'activités à envisager, thème par thème, en évaluant les gains de productivité et les économies possibles pour parvenir à une plus grande transparence des orientations du Programme.
Le Directeur général a déjà un peu répondu à cette attente au chapitre V du document. Bien entendu, nous pourrions demander des éclaircissements au Secrétariat sur ses choix, mais, globalement, la démarche correspond bien aux contraintes que nous connaissons.
Concernant la mise en oeuvre des deux programmes spéciaux, les volumes budgétaires déjà alloués à ces activités en 1994/95 n'ont permis de financer que des phases préparatoires. Dans le contexte de restrictions budgétaires dans lequel nous nous trouvons, il pourrait être difficile à ces deux programmes spéciaux d'attirer les volumes de contributions extrabudgétaires recherchés. Et ce d'autant plus que leur mise en oeuvre, et je le souligne bien c'est de la mise en oeuvre qu'il s'agit, suscite de nombreux doutes auprès des responsables de la plupart de nos agences de développement notamment quant à leur efficacité et leur caractère novateur, du moins sur la base des informations fournies aujourd'hui.
Dans ces conditions, le réalisme impose de s'interroger sur l'opportunité de réinjecter des financements de programme ordinaire, sans garantie d'accompagnement extrabudgétaire; la sagesse conduirait sans doute, de toute manière, à limiter le nombre de pays bénéficiaires dans une première phase.
Par ailleurs, le Secrétariat ne peut s'imaginer que les principaux contributeurs à la FAO pourront couvrir certaines activités par les ressources extrabudgétaires en lieu et place du Programme ordinaire, notamment celles relevant du rôle normatif de l'Organisation. Ainsi, par exemple, l'exercice de révision de l'engagement sur les ressources phytogénétiques et la préparation de la quatrième conférence internationale devraient aussi être assurées par le budget ordinaire de l'Organisation. C'est également le cas de la refonte que nous savons indispensable des systèmes FINSYS et PERSYS.
Pour finir, Monsieur le Président et Monsieur le Directeur général, nous ne devons pas négliger le volet financier de l'organisation du Sommet mondial de l'alimentation, sur lequel nous venons de recevoir des indications claires, dont les aspects de fond ont été débattus lors de la discussion du point 4 de l'ordre du jour. Nous avons eu des renseignements détaillés et nous vous en remercions.
Je vais maintenant m'exprimer au nom de mon propre pays.
En ce qui concerne le contexte politique et financier, la France est très préoccupée par la situation à laquelle le système des Nations Unies dans son ensemble, et l'ΟΑΑ en particulier, risque d'avoir à faire face au cours des prochaines années. Mon pays considère en effet que les Nations Unies sont aujourd'hui l'objet d'une attaque grave qui risque de déboucher à terme sur une perte d'influence du système dans son ensemble.
La décision que risque de prendre le plus gros contributeur crée un précédent dans le système des Nations Unies en général, et au sein de l'ΟΑΑ en particulier. Cette décision conduit à une situation paradoxale ou un Etat, en fixant de manière unilatérale sa contribution nationale, déterminerait le budget de base d'une Organisation. Il est vrai que cet Etat est le premier contributeur mais il est aussi celui qui a accumulé le plus haut montant d'arriérés, ayant déjà mis l'Organisation en difficulté pour accomplir son programme de travail. La France estime que toute décision d'un Etat visant à réduire de manière unilatérale sa contribution obligatoire est politiquement inacceptable. Seul le recours à des solutions négociées doit permettre de parvenir à une situation prévisible pour les institutions des Nations Unies.
Cependant, ma délégation souhaite rappeler qu'elle estime indispensable que l'Organisation conduise un processus de réforme permettant d'en améliorer l'efficacité et d'en réduire les coûts de fonctionnement. La simplification des procédures administratives, la réelle déconcentration des pouvoirs qui doit accompagner la décentralisation sont des mesures indispensables. Nous souhaiterions que le Secrétariat aille toujours plus loin dans cette voie.
S'agissant en second lieu du cadre budgétaire général, je souhaite faire trois observations: la première concerne les ressources extrabudgétaires. Il ne faut pas, selon nous, espérer un afflux de contributions extrabudgétaires et il nous semble que le document y fait parfois trop souvent référence. Je souhaiterais mentionner, en particulier, deux exemples en dehors de ceux mentionnés dans la Déclaration communautaire: le cas des ressources zoo-génétiques d'une part, le suivi du Code de conduite pour une pêche responsable d'autre part. Ces deux domaines d'action font partie du noyau essentiel d'activités de l'Organisation et il ne convient pas, selon ma délégation, de faire appel à des ressources extrabudgétaires pour les financer.
Ma deuxième remarque concerne le paragraphe 40. On y indique des délais de recrutement qui me paraissent extrêmement longs, montrant le chemin qui reste à faire pour alléger les procédures bureaucratiques.
Ma troisième remarque sera relative aux recettes accessoires mentionnées au paragraphe 51. A ce stade, il s'agit pour l'essentiel de produits financiers. Ma délégation estime que l'Organisation devrait avoir une politique plus active également de recherche de ressources propres et envisager, par exemple, des mesures de valorisation efficace sur le marché en matière de publications ou de diffusion d'informations qui sont excellentes.
En ce qui concerne la quatrième partie du document, "Incidences de la restructuration", je m'interroge sur ses effets bénéfiques déjà atteints dans le cadre de cette restructuration (réduction de frais, économies d'échelle..), qui sont évoqués dans le document. Bien entendu nous appuyons le processus dans son ensemble.
Par ailleurs, sur le plan du personnel, il nous semblerait souhaitable de rétablir une pyramide normale des emplois. Le tableau du paragraphe 70 est particulièrement éloquent. Nous avons une sorte d'armée mexicaine, c'est une expression courante en français qui n'a rien à voir avec la situation actuelle de ce grand pays et je m'excuse par avance auprès de la délégation du Mexique de l'employer. Il présente un ratio Administrateurs/Directeur qui nous semble trop faible (moins de cinq administrateurs par Directeur en moyenne) et il n'y a pas de mouvement dans la pyramide vers un rajeunissement des cadres.
S'agissant.de la cinquième partie du document relatif aux priorités, je ferai deux observations. La première concerne les domaines affectés d'un rang de priorité moindre (paragraphes 105-106) et nous voudrions véritablement saluer ce premier effort, sans précédent dans l'Organisation, réalisé par le Directeur général sur ce point.
Ma seconde remarque concerne la proposition figurant aux paragraphes 107 et 108 visant à proposer à la prochaine Conférence d'adopter une résolution portant ouverture de crédits en cas de versements d'arriérés. Ma délégation ne s'oppose pas à cette proposition mais souhaite rappeler que les arriérés éventuels doivent en priorité revenir au fonds général et financer le programme ordinaire. Seuls les montants excédant le budget de base pourraient être visés par cette résolution.
Monsieur le Président, je souhaite maintenant faire quelques observations relatives aux différents chapitres du budget-programme.
En ce qui concerne le chapitre "Politique et direction générales", le paragraphe traitant des bureaux de liaison nous conduit à rappeler au Secrétariat la nécessité d'une coordination avec les autres instances des Nations Unies pour l'utilisation en commun des immeubles, des bureaux de liaison déjà existants et notre souhait est d'éviter que chaque agence ait sa propre installation. C'est bien entendu vrai également, je le souligne ici, pour le PAM.
S'agissant du chapitre "Programmes techniques et économiques", et notamment du rôle de l'ΟΑΑ en matière de programmes de recherche, il est nécessaire de clarifier la relation de l'Organisation avec ce secteur. Pour nous, le rôle de l'Organisation doit être celui de partenaire actif de la recherche et d'utilisateur de ses résultats. Vis-à-vis des pays en développement, il peut également être d'aider à la formulation de programmes de recherche. En revanche, la coordination des activités relèvera généralement de ceux qui financent cette recherche.
Enfin, Monsieur le Président, je souhaite dire quelques mots sur les programmes spéciaux.
Pour ce qui concerne le programme spécial de sécurité alimentaire dans les PFRDV, je voudrais rappeler notre ferme soutien de principe à ces deux programmes. La France, qui dispose d'un réseau important de coopération dans certains pays entrant dans la catégorie concernée est prête, à condition qu'un dialogue approfondi s'instaure - et ce dialogue n'existe pas encore d'après les informations que j'ai - notamment sur le terrain, à examiner quelle pourrait être sa participation à ce programme. Comme vous le savez, nous n'avons pas de fonds fiduciaires en dehors du soutien des activités normatives de la FAO, mais nous avons un ministère de la coopération, alors que d'autres Etats Membres ici, notamment européens, ont des fonds extrabudgétaires mais pas véritablement de service de coopération installé dans tous les pays. La semaine prochaine, le responsable des programmes de la coopération vient à la FAO et nous espérons qu'il y aura des contacts productifs, car nous avons, je tiens à le souligner - et cela nous est revenu des postes concernés par le Programme spécial -, beaucoup de doutes sur le contenu technique des projets ou programmes envisagés dans certains pays pour qu'il soit acceptable pour nous.
S'agissant enfin du programme EMPRES, nous souhaiterions avoir des précisions sur les résultats positifs qui auraient été obtenus par le volet concernant la peste bovine. Pour ce qui concerne le criquet pèlerin, il est urgent de progresser dans la définition du programme en matière de stratégie de lutte préventive.
Ms M. McCOWAN (United Kingdom): Mr Chairman, I am going to confine my remarks entirely to the budgetary aspects of the Programme of Work and Budget and the implications of some of the statements that have been made this morning. I shall not, therefore, at this stage address programme matters. To save time, the United Kingdom will submit its observations on programmes.
Mr Chairman, the United Kingdom associates itself entirely with the statement made by the European Union Presidency which asserts that the European Union Member States cannot accept the predicted 11.7 percent cost increase over the previous biennium and also with the fact that, not only can we not accept this, but neither are we willing or able to meet any shortfall to the budget brought about by the inability of others to meet their assessed contribution as based on the roughly 705 million dollars budgetary requirement as set out in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget.
In pursuing these points Mr Chairman, the United Kingdom is doing so within the strategy framework that it has adopted for and presented to this and other United Nations Agencies. This strategy is based on the pursuit of management and governance reform and improved agency effectiveness.
In the circumstances, we see no alternative but to ask the Secretariat to reconsider its budgetary estimates with a view to reducing it to a size that would enable all members to meet their assessed contributions without entering into arrears.
Like other members present, we are faced with budgetary stringency at home and the insistence by the political level that efficiency measures adopted within our own public sector are also being pursued by those multilateral agencies to which we contribute.
My delegation is fully aware of the efforts that have been made by the current Director-General to introduce streamlining into FAO and it is also very conscious of the need to avoid, as far as possible, cutting back on programmes at the expense of administration. We therefore consider that the Secretariat should embark immediately on an exercise to find efficiency savings of an order that would meet budgetary reductions which would bring the baseline figure down to around 600 million dollars.
We are also aware that any organization faced with this task tends to start out by believing that no such savings can be found and that there is an in-built tendency to protect the status quo. It is hard to take unpleasant decisions which might affect our colleagues and in these circumstances, Mr Chairman, I suggest that it may be beneficial for FAO to seek external management advice. I am not suggesting some full-blown management review but rather a discrete exercise working to very specific terms of reference which restricts the scope of work to that of finding efficiency savings of the order required.
Where could such savings be found? The Secretariat has made a start in identifying activities of a lower priority in the Programme of Work and Budget, a list with which my delegation would by and large agree, but we will need to go very much further than that. Painful though it is, this Organization will have to seriously review its staffing levels if we are to maintain FAO as a centre of normative excellence and Technical Cooperation Programmes in the field. Mr Wade's introductory remarks, which pointed out the potential post-adjustment and salary increases impact on the budget, simply underline the need for a radical appraisal of staffing levels.
We therefore suggest that any exercise to identify efficiency savings should include scrutiny of the following areas: staffing levels and in particular the ratio of professional to general service staff but including a review of professional staffing levels.
Recruitment procedures and practices. Travel at every level in the Organization. Further radical reductions in the list of publications and a review of the practice of sending out multiple copies, even if this requires amendments to the constitution. We can no longer afford the practice of sending, in some cases hundreds of copies to members.
Mr Chairman, a radical review of administrative overheads at all levels needs to be urgently undertaken. A comparison of the cost of administering FAO's work with that of administering the UK's own aid budget, which is very much bigger than that of FAO, makes it very, very difficult for us to defend the agency to our Parliament.
Any reconsideration of administrative overheads must also include the cross subsidy provided by the PWB for Trust Fund projects. A policy of full cost recovery should be implemented. I realise that this could be unpopular for those who support Trust Funds but it is the policy of the UK in all its dealings and we have pursued this elsewhere and consistently within FAO. Abolishment of that subsidy could indeed find a large part of the savings required.
Co-location with other UN agencies and shared facilities and administrative support should be urgently pursued for country and regional offices, in line with UNGA Resolution 47/199.
My delegation has already announced its intention to launch at the Conference a reform initiative and we have begun, work on these ideas on the basis of UNGA Resolution 48/162 should apply across the UN System. The sorts of things we would include would be the removal of the entire duplication of work as between the Technical Committees, the Programme and Finance Committees and the Council and Conference; the removal of all costly and unnecessary services of these meetings which have long been dispensed with in other parts of the UN system; the drastic shortening of documentation and the duration of meetings. In short, Mr Chairman, a complete overhaul of current arrangements.
We shall also be seeking a greater governance role for Council to ensure that we have proper oversight of administrative matters and that costly mistakes of the past, like FINSYS, are avoided in the future.
Over the lifetime of the next biennium, these reforms would cut drastically the cost of meetings whilst also improving the way we do business.
To conclude, FAO is facing a severe challenge, which is not expected to be of a short-term nature. Zero-real growth can no longer be guaranteed. That is a reality and however much members might deplore this, it is nonetheless a fact of life. My delegation happens also to believe that quite apart from that budgetary reality, FAO is anyway an organization that is in need of streamlining and bringing into leaner shape. Therefore, we urgently request the Secretariat to go away from here and review its budget to return to the Conference with a clear set of proposals for prioritized cuts. This will require surgery and we are suggesting that the Secretariat might need the advice of external consultants working to a very clearly-defined TOR limited entirely to this exercise. We are fully aware of the time-scale but often the best work is done under pressure and what is needed is an outline of proposed cuts that will meet the requirements of funding realities. The Conference should be faced with a clear set of alternative proposals that can be implemented over the biennium period. It is my government's belief this can be done and that a leaner, more efficient FAO can emerge out of this process that will be much easier to defend in what is likely to be a difficult funding future.
Carlos ARANDA MARTIN (España): Además de hacer nuestra la declaración hecha por Francia en nombre de la Unión Europea y sus países miembros, mi delegación quiere aprovechar la ocasión para hacer algunos comentarios en este importante debate.
El Resumen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1996-97, que se nos ha facilitado en relación con este tema del Programa, presenta, como se dice en el propio documento, un cierto grado de novedad, al menos en algunos de sus apartados, para adaptarse a la nueva situación de la Organización, por lo que no es de extrañar que falte experiencia para enjuiciar el mismo. No obstante, creemos que se debe huir de establecer una mera comparación entre el contenido del actual y de los realizados en ocasiones anteriores, especialmente los presentados en los últimos años.
Estamos convencidos, señor Presidente, que lo que se denomina en el punto 3 del documento "fatiga de la ayuda" contra la que tienen que luchar las organizaciones internacionales, tiene una explicable justificación basada, entre otras cosas, en:
- Una situación mundial económica compleja.
Un número, cada vez mayor, de frentes a cubrir: producción de alimentos, conservación del medio ambiente, mantenimiento de la paz, etc.
Una amplia oferta de organizaciones gubernamentales y no gubernamentales para abordar los mismos o parecidos problemas.
- Etcétera.Es por ello, señor Presidente, que los países demandan cada vez más de las organizaciones internacionales que sustentan un esfuerzo auténtico y lleno de ingenio para llegar a más con el mismo esfuerzo económico. La disminución de los gastos administrativos al aprovechar al máximo las oportunidades que las nuevas tecnologías de la informática ofrecen, la reducción de los cuantiosos gastos que las reuniones ocasionan, llevando al mínimo indispensable su periodicidad, duración y nivel, etc., forman parte de esta demanda.
No cabe duda, y así lo reconoce nuestra delegación, que varias de las últimas iniciativas de la FAO en los últimos tiempos, como el Programa de Cooperación Técnica entre países en desarrollo, el Programa de Colaboración de la FAO con centros de investigación y de estudio de los distintos países, el Programa de utilización de jubilados de reconocido prestigio o el de Técnicos locales, van en esa dirección. Es por ello, por lo que nuestra esperanza en estas medidas es alta, y la disposición de nuestro gobierno a colaborar con las mismas está demostrada por el apoyo que viene prestando a todas ellas. El futuro cercano dirá el grado de éxito a que llevará cada una de las mismas.
Dando un salto en relación con el Documento y pasando al punto 81 del mismo, en el que se explica la estructura programática revisada, expresamos, señor Presidente, nuestra aceptación provisional a su contenido, si bien, como indicábamos al comienzo, falta la experiencia suficiente para juzgar ciertos aspectos, como la posible identificación más precisa entre los Programas Ordinario y de Campo, por el hecho de eliminar las líneas presupuestarias identificadas separadamente como "apoyo a los programas de campo", que ahora aparecen en forma conjunta en el Capítulo 2.
Asimismo, señor Presidente, no podemos dejar de hacer referencia a la preocupación a que nos lleva la interpretación que en el documento se da al criterio "crecimiento cero" del presupuesto. Es indudable que los conceptos bienalización e inflación (de fácil comprensión teórica), convertidos en artificios matemáticos, llevan al simple resultado de un aumento de presupuesto del 11,7 por ciento y, a la postre, un aumento de cuota del mismo porcentaje. También se entiende perfectamente que, matemáticamente, el porcentaje de aumento, con relación al bienio 1992-93 haya sido del 9y4 por ciento, y que el porcentaje de aumento anual entre 1992 y 1997 sea del 2,3 por ciento. Pero esta envoltura no evita que a los gobiernos haya que presentarles las cuotas anuales en cifras, 1995 frente a 1996.
Por otra parte y, teniendo en cuenta que es preceptivo aplicar los reajustes de la escala de cuotas de Naciones Unidas, España pasará del 2,26 por ciento en el bienio 1994-95, al 2,55 por ciento en 1996, y al 2,56 por ciento en 1997. Por lo que, si aplicamos este porcentaje al presupuesto total de 693,2 millones de dólares, a España le corresponderá pagar 17,74 millones de dólares en dos años, o dicho de otra forma, tendremos un incremento, exclusivamente derivado del reajuste de las cuotas, del 13,27 por ciento, por efecto del reajuste de las cuotas, en relación con la cantidad efectivamente ingresada en el actual bienio.
De esta manera, nuestro país se consolida como el octavo contribuyente de la Organización, posición que ya ocupamos desde hace varios años pero que a partir de ahora lo será de forma más nítida.
Sabemos perfectamente que éste no es el Foro para discutir la bondad o no del sistema de cuotas aplicado por Naciones Unidas pero, teniendo en cuenta el fuerte incremento que el reajuste de las mismas supone para mi país, hemos considerado oportuno ponerlo de manifiesto, ya que condiciona de forma importante nuestra actitud ante el incremento de las cuotas propuesto.
Siguiendo el razonamiento anterior, de aprobarse el presupuesto que aquí discutimos, con un incremento de las cuotas del 11,7 por ciento, para España se traduciría en un incremento total del 26,53 por ciento, repito, del 26,53 por ciento, lo que se considera, en estos momentos de reajuste presupuestario en nuestro país, un incremento excesivo, y que en consecuencia no estamos en condiciones de poder aceptar.
Para finalizar, señor Presidente, y en base a la invitación que usted hizo ayer a los países miembros, en el sentido de animarnos a pagar puntualmente nuestras contribuciones, quisiera aprovechar la ocasión para comunicarles que mi Gobierno está ultimando los trámites administrativos para hacer efectiva, en los próximos días, la cuota tal del actual ejercicio, con lo que España habrá cumplido, una vez más, puntualmente con sus obligaciones financieras ante la Organización.
Adel M. ABOUL-NAGA (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): I would like to refer to some former decisions we have taken as a Member State in this Organization, whether in this Council or in its subsidiary bodies. We have tried to understand the impact of these decisions on the Programme of Work of the Organization and the activities of its Secretariat and Management.
First, Council decision 106 unanimously adopted, which approved the plan submitted by the Director-General with a view to restructuring the Organization and setting up two new special programmes; one for the reinforcement of food security in least-developed countries and EMPRES, as well as the implementation of decentralization while approving a number of measures and actions with a view to realizing economies and savings in the budget of the Organization. We all know that restructuring and achievement of positive results therefrom need time and effort.
The savings achieved and the rationalization of the different bodies within the Organization have been made while the measures and actions were being implemented. The second decision is the one adopted by the joint meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees held in January this year, where they approved a real zero growth budget for the next biennium. It included a request for consideration of re-costing, taking into account the conditions prevailing in some countries which might face difficulties in increasing their contributions to the level proposed. We have before us the decision adopted by the Finance and Programme Committees in the joint meeting in document CL 108/14 at paragraphs 1.4 to 1.6, which reflects an agreement on the real zero growth of the budget, which reiterates such an agreement while excluding the payment of arrears in the contributions of Member States and welcoming savings resulting from measures for the rationalization of the work of the Organization, taken by the Management. At the same time, it requested renewed efforts to achieve more savings while maintaining the technical output of the Organization. I would like to reiterate this sentence while preserving and maintaining the technical output of the Organization.
We have also decisions taken by Committees on Fisheries, Commodities, Forestries and Agriculture, which Mr Wade has referred to. In those decisions we, as Member Nations, have requested the Organization to provide support for a number of programmes which need additional financial resources. Now that those decisions have been adopted by Council as well as by the different committees and bodies of the Organization, I cannot find a way for this Organization to do anything but respect our former decisions and resolutions without allowing any modifications thereto. If we do that, we risk sending a serious message to the Organization, namely that we have less interest in its achieving its goals and objectives, and we also send a wrong message to the international community to the effect that we do not pay as much attention and as much interest to the performance of this Organization in the service of countries needing the assistance of FAO. I believe that our message needs to be received in various countries but with another meaning, namely that we are concerned to see a tendency towards retrenchment in international action and that all together developed and developing countries have commitments to bear in support of international action, in particular, through our Organization, in the service of countries which need it.
Within my support for what has been stated by the distinguished delegate of Burkina Faso on behalf of the African Group, allow me to note the decision taken by the G 77 in this regard at its meeting on 31 May, when it supported a real zero growth budget for the Organization for the biennium 1996-1997.
I can only recommend to this Council the adoption of the joint recommendation adopted in the joint meeting of the Finance and Programme Committees, which is contained in paragraph 1.1.2 of the joint reports of those Committees, where it is requested that the Council ask the Director-General to continue preparing the full Programme of Work and Budget on the basis of the SPWB before us while taking into account the views expressed by both Committees, as well as the recommendations of the technical committees which held recent meetings.
As the representative of Egypt, I would like to reaffirm our support for some of the programmes within the Agricultural Committee programmes (COAG), which all called for, in particular, biological control and the Desert Locust Control Programme, including the establishment of a reserve fund for intervention in case of emergency, as well as the EMPRES programme, which we have all supported, and also the international management of Animal Genetic Resources and the establishment of a centre on that subject within our Organization.
Aldo PUGLIESE (Italy): The Italian Delegation would like to put forward some comments on the document Summary of the Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97 in addition to the Statement made by the Presidency on behalf of the EU and its Member States, with which we agree.
We are aware that the proposed budget is based on indicative figures, depending on several factors, such as the impact of the fluctuation of the dollar/lira exchange rate and the costs of staff, human resources and operating expenses, which are difficult to forecast with precision.
We wait for more detailed indications, in the final version of the Programme of Work and Budget about the impact of the restructuring process on the different sources of costs. We share the opinion of the Finance and Programme Committees on the need to make further efforts to increase the efficiency of the Organization and to optimize the use of available resources.
We appreciate the efforts already made by FAO to reorient the resources in order to allow the new structure of the Organization to better perform, and to achieve the main objectives approved by the Council.
In this context, we express satisfaction for the strengthening of the capacities of the Division for the Analysis of Agricultural and Economic Development and of the Department for Sustainable Development, which will certainly contribute to the improvement of the normative role of FAO, which has to remain a Centre of Excellence.
We welcome also other important initiatives aimed at strengthening the partnership of FAO with other UN Agencies, the World Bank and some other important institutions. We have already stressed the importance of inter-agency collaboration, in particular with WFP and IFAD, which, we repeat, has to be further strengthened.
Furthermore, we understand that important savings will be made by reducing the number of publications and the duration of meetings and decreasing the number of staff. However, we would like to stress that the mere downsizing of personnel is not always the right and the only solution. Productivity can be increased and, in any case, quality and standards cannot be maintained if cuts are carried out in an indiscriminate way.
We also appreciate the innovations introduced into the structure of the FAO programme, through the reorganization of chapters 2 and 3, as described in paragraph 81. We are aware that these innovations will increase the transparency of FAO activities by identifying also a clearer link between the Regular and the Field Programmes.
We agree with the priorities set out in paragraphs 90 to 104 of chapter 5, whereby an appropriate distinction between main and lower priorities of the Organization is made. This distinction must be kept in account when budgetary reductions affecting financial and personnel resources are made. In fact, as said before, budgetary cuts cannot be indiscriminate. Operational activities should be safeguarded as much as possible.
The Italian Government has always supported the principle of financial rigour. We believe that all organizations belonging to the UN family should elaborate their own programmes and budgets, taking into consideration the financial constraints of the Member States, and seeking to optimize the cost-efficiency ratio.
The amount of financial resources requested by FAO, and indeed by each UN Agency, must be quantified consistently with its real requirements for addressing effectively the priorities that each organization faces to fulfil its institutional mandate. FAO has a relevant role to play and of course we do not want to weaken its capacity. We are not asking for a reduction in the Programme of Work and Budget, which would jeopardize FAO's activities in areas deserving a high priority level.
In conclusion, Mr Chairman, we think that the Secretariat should take into due account the remarks made by this Council on the proposed Programme of Work and Budget and should seek all possible further reductions, bearing in mind that the ongoing programmes, such as Food Production and Food Security; sustainable development and forestry; follow-up on ICN recommendations etc., and other operational activities as a whole, should be maintained at a satisfactory level.
Suharyo HUSEN (Indonesia): On behalf of the Indonesian Delegation, I would first of all like to express our thanks and appreciation to the Director-General of FAO for his comprehensive proposal on the Programme of Work and Budget for the Biennium 1996-97 contained in document CL 108/3 now under discussion. We would also like to thank the Secretariat for an excellent preparation and presentation of the document.
This is the first Programme of Work and Budget the Director-General has prepared for our Organization since assuming office, and the Indonesian Delegation believes he has taken into account every aspect of this Organization, namely administrative, personnel, legal matters, Member Nations' concerns, Headquarters, regional and sub-regional interests, as well as its prospects, revenues, costs and programme priorities. My delegation would therefore like to join other Members of the Council in giving full support to the proposed Summary Programme of Work and Budget 1996-97 for submission to the Twenty-eighth Session of the FAO Conference in October 1995. I also would like to associate myself with the remarks of the representative of Egypt on behalf of the G 77 in supporting its Programme of Work and Budget.
Mr Chairman, allow me to make a few observations on the document before us. First, the Indonesian Delegation fully understands and is concerned by the difficult situation faced by FAO in dealing with the financial constraints, as clearly stated in document CL 108/4 at paragraphs 3.2.8 to 3.4.7.1 very much appreciate the Government of Spain's intention to make its full payment to FAO in 1995, which will hopefully be followed by other members. This is positive news for our Organization and its members.
In this context, I would like to reiterate my statement of yesterday that we should look for alternative ways and means of helping our Organization and ask Member Nations who have not yet met their responsibilities to FAO to do so. Secondly, the Indonesian Delegation welcomes the estimated amounts of US$60 million and US$65 million for extra-budgetary resources to be received from UNDP in 1996 and 1997 respectively, even though those figures are lower than the figures for 1994 and 1995, which were US$95 million and US$79.5 million, respectively.
We appreciate and thank UNDP for their continued support to FAO.
Thirdly, we would like also to thank all donors concerned for the increase of the Trust Funds cooperation project amounting to US$180 million each year for 1996 and 1997 respectively. This is an important component in supporting the work of FAO to assist the developing countries.
Finally, Mr Chairman, my delegation appreciates the proposal made by the Director-General as stated in document CL 108/3 with a limited budget available. This will enhance a new major project, namely the activity on Sustainable Development and a Special Programme Trust as well as a Major Programme Field Operations which places emphasis on technical assistance and EMPRES operations to promote and increase food production in Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries.
Jürgen OESTREICH (Germany): I would first of all like to thank the Secretariat for the careful preparation of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget for 1996/97, Mr Wade, for his introduction and the interesting information he has given us on the financing of the World Food Summit. Likewise, my delegation expresses its gratitude to the Programme and Finance Committees whose deliberations allow us to deal with this agenda item in a thorough and constructive way. I would like to thank Professor Bommer for his introduction to the Report of the joint meeting of these two Committees. These documents reflect the difficult task of preparing the forthcoming Budget within the framework of the still ongoing process of the restructuring of a Secretariat.
My delegation fully associates itself with the statement delivered by France on behalf of the European Union and its Member States regarding the Programme of Work and Budget.
As to the Programme of Work, I will be very short because this issue was dealt with quite extensively in the statement of the European Union and of other speakers. I would only mention two points: firstly, we endorse strongly what the Programme and Finance Committees have stated in their joint Report on the importance of providing to the best possible extent clear targets and planned outputs for the biennium at element and sub-programme levels. Secondly, programme activities should focus on the most pressing demands on FAO and in the areas of undisputed comparative advantage of the Organization.
Mr Chairman, let me now turn to Budget matters and firstly to the execution of the current and secondly to the preparation of the forthcoming budget.
Document CL 108/3, paragraph 17, points out that the deficit in the Budget for 1994/95 is expected to increase further. In view of this, like my distinguished colleague from Brazil, I would like to appeal again to all members of the Organization to honour their financial obligations and, at the same time, appeal also to the Secretariat to keep the expenditure in line with the resources actually available. I know that this is your policy, Mr Director-General. If for financial reasons the programme cannot be fully implemented then parts of it must be postponed or reduced and additional efficiency savings must be made.
We have noted with satisfaction the announcement by the Secretariat in the Finance Committee meeting last April that reductions are made. This is, in fact, necessary because an increasing deficit would ultimately have to be covered by reliable contributors from all regions. It is in the self-interest of the Organization that those contributors should be encouraged rather than de facto be burdened further by their loyal support to FAO.
As far as the Summary Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97 is concerned, I would like to welcome, like practically all previous speakers, the return by the new Director-General to sound financial practices, i.e., not to reduce the assessments by expected, but never fully recovered, payments of arrears. I like to recall that the German Delegation at the last Conference had expressed serious reservations against this approach and had cautioned about the risks involved in this procedure proposed by the Secretariat at that time.
In document CL 108/3 it is stated that there is no real growth foreseen in the 1996/97 Budget. At the same time the expectation is expressed for higher extra-budgetary resources with a view to implementing new activities.
We share the preoccupations in this connection which have been expressed by other delegations and wish to add only that if activities are to be funded from extra-budgetary resources full funding of such activities, including the follow-up costs, must be ensured. No items should be created in the extra-budgetary sector which could cause the need for financing such activities later from the Regular Budget and thus lead to an additional Regular Programme growth.
We appreciate the Director-General's efforts to reduce the estimated costs increases from US$ 59 million to 31.8 million for the 1996/97 biennium. However, we have to face realities. Mr Wade mentioned this morning the increase in salaries which had not been included and my Italian colleague mentioned the other risks that, for instance, when it comes to approving the Budget at the 28th Session of the Conference next October inflationary trends may prove to be different from the assumptions in document CL 108/3; the same holds true of the Lira/US$ exchange rate. Both these factors might increase the financial requirements of our Organization. Consequently, the Member States' assessed contributions, already at present estimated to rise much too much, i.e. by 11.7 percent, may increase even further. We therefore see an urgent need for lowering the Budget estimates by reducing the volume of the Programme in areas of low priority and in areas where FAO has no clear comparative advantage over other organizations and private institutions, as well as reducing the volume by efficiency savings.
Mr Chairman, finally I feel unfortunately obliged to say that we are very concerned about what the delegation of an important donor has said today about foreseeable limitations concerning its capacities for arrear payments, for payments on the current Budget and for its contribution to the Budget 1996/97. We are worried about the consequences this will have for the work and the maintenance of the financial viability of our Organization. We therefore sincerely hope that these concerns will be duly transmitted to the competent decision-makers who carry a heavy responsibility because it is now a very difficult and also urgent task of the Secretariat to develop, under new financial parameters, concrete proposals for the Biennium 1996/97 which accommodate these necessities and limitations. My delegation, in conjunction with the Director-General and other Member States, is ready to cooperate constructively or, as the Delegate of Burkina Faso stated, in a team spirit in these certainly painful exercises which the British Delegation so drastically described as a surgical exercise.
Michael TABONG ΚΙΜΑ (Cameroon): Taking the floor for the first time in this Session of the Council as a new member, my delegation is very happy to work under your pleasant leadership and we thank you for the kind words you said on our re-admission.
First of all, I would like to express our appreciation to Mr Wade and Dr Bommer for their respective excellent introductions and I would also associate my delegation with the statement made earlier by Her Excellency the Ambassador of Burkina Faso on behalf of the African countries, Members and Observers.
After going through all the documentation related to this item on the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, we are very pleased to note that both the Finance and Programme Committees have made a comprehensive and thorough review of this subject and their pertinent and relevant recommendations, which we share in general, as contained in their respective and joint report.
However, the Cameroon delegation would like to add the following comments: Firstly, the 1996-97 biennium will be a historic bench mark in the FAO Programme of Work and Budget in many regards considering, inter alia, that it will be the first Programme of Work and Budget prepared and executed by the Director-General, Dr. Jacques Diouf. There are very unfavourable conditions determining the development assistance and the need to reshape the programmes and activities in order to reflect the new organizational structure approved by the Council at its 106th Session.
Nevertheless, the Cameroon Delegation is confident that the Member States of FAO will translate concretely and eloquently the overwhelming support that they have expressed to the Director-General and to the mandate of the FAO. The Cameroon delegation welcomes and commends the Director-General for the intensive, consultations and dialogue he has established with Member States and with their representatives in Rome in the elaboration process of the PWB. In that respect, while agreeing with the programme of the Finance Committee that the prioritization exercise through a questionnaire to collect governments' priorities on the Organization programmes and activities should not substitute the usual consensus-building process among the Member States within the appropriate bodies, it should be noted that, in countries such as mine, it has yielded very positive effects for it has brought the Government to set up an interministerial committee to undertake the priority-ranking exercise.
So it is our hope that such a survey will be regularly conducted and, in order to achieve greater prioritization and more focused decentralization, similar exercises through appropriate mechanisms should be undertaken at subregional and regional levels.
The Cameroon Delegation welcomes the Director-General's efforts of rationalizing and streamlining the Organization's structure, which would yield substantial costs savings. We are also convinced that these savings would be enhanced, together with the effectiveness of the Organization, by the envisaged measures of programmes and structures decentralization, reinforce national capacities, and intensify technical economic cooperation among developing countries. Thus, we affirm our strong support to the use of National Projects' officers and to the creation of additional sub-regional offices, including one in the Central African region.
On the overall budget for the 1996-97 biennium, we are pleased to note the consensus reached by the Finance and Budget Committee on the overall "real zero growth" in the budget and the exclusion of payments of arrears in the determination of assessment of Member Nations.
The Cameroon Delegation considers that this is a very responsible and realistic basis, taking into consideration the prevailing environment for building up the consensus over the budget all the way through the Conference. In the same line the efforts already deployed by the Director-General in absorbing the substantial costs increases are very comforting prospects for the Council and the Conference decisions. However, it is our view that the absorption of costs increases beyond a certain level puts at risk the Organization's most valuable assets, which are its excellent professionalism and its capacities to respond effectively and adequately to the Member States' needs. We all know that there are some incomprehensible costs such as inflation and salaries increases. As for the staff salaries increases, that is contained in paragraph 3.13 of the document CL 108/14 and confirms it will be certain in the next biennium. I believe that those of us living in Rome face every day this unpleasant reality.
The Cameroon Delegation endorses the priorities as outlined in section V of the document CL 108/3, particularly the improvement of food production and food security in low-income and food-deficit countries. We note that the implementation of the concerned programmes would require consistent extra-budgetary support which we hope that FAO will be able to mobilize through appropriate consultations and coordinations with bilateral and international institutions. However, we would like to point out that certain programmes labelled as "low priority" in paragraph 105 of the same document are essential to the implementation of the high-priority ones. For instance, Programmes 2.1.4 (Agricultural support systems, farming system and work,
small-scale agro-industrial activities, and normative work on marketing and small finance) and 2.2.2 (Food and agricultural information, assistance for preparation of the 2000 World Census of Agriculture).
We would like to have clarification on how the new status of "low-priority area" of these programmes and activities will be expressed. Are they going to receive reduced budget allocation or will they just be cancelled?
Concerning the Programme Budget, my delegation takes note that it has not been possible, at this stage of the process, to present the restructured programmes with the budget allocation for the biennium 1994-95. This would have allowed us to appreciate to some extent the shift in priorities. We welcome the comments made in the final version that there will be some indication. Also, my delegation notes the absence of any reference to the roots, tubers, and bananas in paragraph 145, sub-paragraph 2.1.2.2.
On specific issues, we would like to point out that:
An effective implementation of FAO's policy advice function requires, among others, an adequate level of field operations. That is why we deplore the substantial decline observed in the level of extra-budgetary field programmes, aggravated by the quasi-stagnation of the TCP resources, in spite of the anticipated increases in TCP activities by US$4.8 million as a result of the use of low-cost experts that paragraph 100 of document CL 108/13 refers to.
In implementing the priority areas of facilitation of international trade, we would request that the pertinent recommendations made by the Committees on Food and Security and on commodities problems concerning the assistance required by the developing countries to cope with the impact of the GATT Agreement be fully integrated in the final version of the PWB and implemented.
While endorsing the recommendations of the Director-General contained in paragraph 108, we would like to receive more details of the possible sources of the additional incomes to implement supplementary programmes and activities.
In conclusion, Mr Chairman, I would like to put on record the support of the Cameroon Delegation for the "real zero growth" of the 1996-1997 budget using the 1994-1995 basis. Also, in order to alleviate the burden of the assessments of member countries, we call on the Director-General to pursue his efforts to absorb the cost increases to the extent that it will not damage the Organization's programmes and activities and its capacities to execute its mandate in the most effective and efficient way.
Mr Chairman, be patient with me for only two minutes more, for my delegation now wishes to make a very special and sincere appeal to whom it will concern.
Mr Chairman, if all the men in the world were one man, what a great, mighty man he would be.
If all the trees in the world were one tree, what a mighty, huge tree it would be.
If all the axes in the world were one axe, what a huge, sharp axe it would be.
If all the oceans and seas in the world were one, what a wide ocean of waters that would be.
And if the great, mighty man were to take his huge, sharp axe and fell the mighty, huge tree and let it fall in the wide, deep ocean, then what a deafening splash with tremendous vibrating ripples and ramifications that would be.
Mr Chairman, let me be courageous and call the United States of America the great, mighty man.
The Cameroon Delegation deeply and sincerely regrets the decision of the American Delegation concerning its position on its contribution to the FAO funds. We are mindful of the fact that every sovereign nation gives priority to its own national domestic responsibilities, but still we would appeal to the US Delegation to convey this message contained in this, our short story, to its Government. The effects of its decision will go like wild ripples beyond the Atlantic, the Antarctic, and the Black and Mediterranean seas. It will affect, by and large, the original objectives of the FAO, this establishment, in 1945, to which the United States is a staunch and active member. We feel that if the United States Congress could shift priorities to funding of an organization or those organizations that are dedicated to work for eliminating hunger, poverty and anger and malnutrition
in the world, the US will be the great mighty man, not with an axe but with mighty, wide smiles that will send radiance all over the world.
A reduction of the budget of the FAO by 17 percent will leave the Organization virtually paralysed. In the world of international relations, there is always time to review actions.
We hope that by October, when the Conference will adopt the final Programme of Work and Budget, the US may review its position.
Salah HAMDI (Tunisie) (Langue originale arabe): Avant de donner lecture de la contribution de mon pays, je voudrais d'abord exprimer le soutien de mon pays pour ce qui a été dit par notre collègue, l'Ambassadeur du Burkina Faso, au nom de l'ensemble des pays du Groupe africain.
Après avoir pris connaissance des documents élaborés par le Secrétariat, après avoir écouté avec beaucoup d'attention le discours inaugural du Directeur général lors de la première séance du Conseil, et après avoir également écouté les excellents exposés de Messieurs Wade et Bommer, la délégation de mon pays voudrait apporter sa contribution au débat sur ce point de l'ordre du jour, en faisant part d'un certain nombre de remarques et de propositions.
Tout d'abord, le Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget pour le biennium 1996-97 traduit la volonté de changement exprimée par le Directeur général lors de son entrée en fonction. De même, traduit-il le programme de restructuration approuvé par notre Conseil lors de sa cent sixième Session. Ce programme vise à l'amélioration des méthodes de travail de l'Organisation, à la rationalisation de ses forme d'intervention, au relèvement du niveau d'efficacité et de rentabilité de ses activités dans les différents domaines du développement de l'agriculture, et cela à l'appui de la sécurité alimentaire de ses Etats Membres.
L'élaboration du Programme de travail et budget intervient en une période caractérisée par des restrictions budgétaires et par des déficits financiers auxquels l'Organisation doit faire face du fait de l'accumulation des arriérés et du manque de contribution par certains Etats Membres. Cela amène un certain nombre de pressions pour la détermination des priorités à établir dans le cadre du Programme de travail et budget dans le prochain biennium.
En ce qui concerne les implications de la restructuration et des nouvelles orientations, nous nous félicitons des efforts déployés par le Secrétariat de la FAO en vue de redéployer les ressources humaines conformément aux priorités indiquées par le Programme de travail et budget, sans négliger les facteurs humains et en tenant compte des contraintes personnelles des membres du personnel et des cadres qui seront touchés par ce redéploiement. Nous espérons que les mesures visant à la décentralisations interviendront conformément au calendrier annoncé. De même, nous espérons que la restructuration permettra de réduire au maximum les coûts et les dépenses dans le cadre de la nouvelle approche, notamment en ce qui concerne la coopération technique, et que les économies ainsi générées profitent aux programmes d'extrême priorité.
D'autre part, nous saluons les efforts déployés par le Secrétariat en vue de relever le niveau d'efficacité et de rentabilité du Programme de coopération technique, tout en cherchant à faire ressortir les effets positifs pour les bénéficiaires.
En ce qui concerne l'établissement des priorités, tout en souscrivant à l'établissement ou à la définition de programmes d'extrême priorité, nous estimons qu'il faut accorder leur part d'importance aux autres programmes dans le cadre d'une approche holistique des programmes, et ce dans la limite des ressources disponibles, dans un souci de préserver l'équilibre entre les activités normatives et les activités opérationnelles, notamment les activités de terrain.
A ce propos la délégation de mon pays estime qu'en plus du programme relatif au renforcement de la production alimentaire, à l'appui de la sécurité alimentaire dans les pays à faible revenu et à déficit vivrier, en plus du programme spécial EMPRES de lutte contre les différents prédateurs et les différentes maladies qui touchent les animaux et les plantes, notamment la lutte contre le criquet pèlerin - à ce propos je voudrais souligner l'importance du fond de financement des opérations de lutte contre le criquet pèlerin - en plus de ces deux programmes - et je pense notamment à ce qui a été dit dans le paragraphe 2.25 du rapport du Comité du Programme - il faudrait aussi apporter aux activités relatives au renforcement du développement durable de l'agriculture, telles que la conservation des ressources naturelles, la rationalisation et l'utilisation des
ressources hydriques, le renforcement de la recherche scientifique et le développement technologique, un appui leur assurant leur part d'importance dans les choix programmatiques de l'Organisation, tout en veillant au suivi des implications des accords relatifs à l'agriculture issus du cycle des Négociations d'Uruguay, en vue d'aider les pays concernés à assurer leur restructuration agricole et leur adaptation aux nouvelles dispositions créées par la libéralisation des échanges, et notamment à faire face aux implications pour l'équilibre de leur balance commerciale. Je pense aux pays d'Afrique et du Proche-Orient qui sont importateurs nets de produits alimentaires.
Pour ce qui est du Programme de coopération technique, nous estimons qu'il est nécessaire, dans le cadre des ressources disponibles, de chercher à mettre en application la décision prise par la Conférence lors de la dernière session et qui consiste à attribuer 17 pour cent des ressources budgétaires à ce programme.
De même espérons-nous voir les nouveaux accords de coopération technique passés par l'Organisation avec un certain nombre de pays Membres entrer en vigueur afin que l'on puisse en voir les implications sur le programme de coopération technique de manière à lui faire gagner en efficacité et en rationalité.
Pour ce qui est du budget, notre délégation souhaite réitérer l'expression de sa préoccupation quant à la situation difficile à laquelle se trouve confrontée la FAO et ce, compte tenu du non-paiement des contributions et de l'accumulation des arriérés, situation qui a contraint l'Organisation à choisir l'option du niveau zéro de croissance du budget. Or une telle option ne peut, à notre sens, que nuire à la bonne marche des activités de l'Organisation lors des années à venir et risque d'émousser ses activités dans des domaines que nous considérons vitaux notamment le développement de l'agriculture pour faire face à la malnutrition et à la faim et son activité visant à renforcer la sécurité alimentaire notamment dans les pays en développement. Tout en souscrivant au niveau zéro de croissance du budget, compte tenu de la situation financière actuelle de l'Organisation et dans le cadre de la recherche d'un consensus autour de ce principe au sein de ce Conseil, nous espérons que le Secrétariat de l'Organisation parviendra à trouver les voies et moyens susceptibles de préserver le niveau d'activité des programmes arrêtés dans le cadre des priorités au niveau du Programme de travail et budget sans que cela ne touche négativement les équilibres financiers de l'Organisation et que le Secrétariat parvienne aussi à maîtriser davantage l'augmentation des coûts dans le cadre de son oeuvre inlassable de rationalisation et d'amélioration des méthodes de travail dans les différents domaines d'intervention.
La question de la raréfaction des ressources n'en demeure pas moins posée. Il y va de la survie de l'Organisation et de sa continuation à s'acquitter de son rôle qui consiste à venir en aide aux Etats Membres en matière de développement agricole et en matière de lutte contre la pauvreté et à veiller à assurer la sécurité alimentaire. Afin d'essayer d'apporter des solutions à ce problème nous réitérons notre appel à l'ensemble des Etats Membres afin qu'ils se penchent sérieusement sur le paiement des contributions et le règlement de leurs arriérés afin que l'on traduise la volonté politique réelle qui veut le renforcement de cette organisation à un moment où elle s'apprête à fêter le cinquantième anniversaire de sa création et à un moment où nous nous préparons à réunir le Sommet mondial de l'alimentation dans un climat généralement positif qui s'est reflété favorablement sur les différentes réunions des organes directeurs et des comités techniques de notre Organisation.
Ceci dit, ce que nous avons pu entendre ce matin n'est guère à même de susciter l'optimisme. En effet, il semble que même le niveau zéro de croissance du budget qui a été pourtant approuvé par les comités techniques, le Comité financier et le Comité du programme, ne fait pas l'objet de l'approbation de certains Etats Membres ce qui est certes un motif de préoccupation pour nous. Dans ce sens, j'estime qu'il serait peut-être utile de penser à mettre sur pied un groupe de travail pour étudier la situation financière future de l'Organisation et ce, dans le cadre de l'élaboration d'une stratégie à moyen terme. Ceci permettrait d'ouvrir la voie à un débat franc sur la situation future et de préserver le consensus qui a jusqu'à maintenant caractérisé les débats de cette organisation.
The meeting rose at 13.00 hours.
La séance est levée à 13 heures.
Se levanta la sesión a las 13.00 horas.
