EL PRESIDENTE: Muy buenos días, distinguidos delegados, señoras y señores. Declaro abierto el 109° período de sesiones del Consejo y doy la bienvenida a los varios ministros y altos funcionarios de gobierno que se encuentran entre nosotros. Asimismo, el Consejo se honra en contar con la presencia del Señor Director General, Jacques Diouf.
Antes de iniciar la reunión quisiera hacer una breve comunicación. Como ustedes saben, la Comunidad Europea participa en esta reunión, de acuerdo con los párrafos 8 y 9 del artículo II de la Constitución de la FAO. Desearía llamar su atención sobre la declaración hecha por la Comunidad Europea y sus Estados Miembros, que se encuentra en el documento CL 109/INF/11, ya distribuido a todos.
Como saben ustedes, este período de sesiones es corto -dos días- y el programa provisional es largo -16 temas-. Desafortunadamente no hubo otra alternativa. Esta reunión del Consejo es, por tanto, atípica; se ubica entre la Reunión Ministerial para la celebración del 50° Aniversario de la FAO, en Quebec (Canadá) y la 28a Conferencia de la Organización. El motivo de comprimir en dos días los trabajos del Consejo, que normalmente se celebrarían en los cinco días previos a la Conferencia, es la de permitir que los Excelentísimos Ministros que asistieron a la celebración de Quebec pudieran inmediatamente después desplazarse a Roma y asistir a la Conferencia de la FAO.
Me apresuro, por tanto, a decir que esto no sienta un precedente en los trabajos y calendarios futuros del Consejo. Sin embargo, reconozco la insatisfacción que varios delegados me han expresado a título personal respecto a tener procedimientos tan incómodos y apresurados durante este período de sesiones. Espero, sin embargo, que podamos, aun así, llevar a cabo una revisión serena y útil de los múltiples temas puestos a la consideración del Consejo.
Este Consejo tiene la responsabilidad de formular recomendaciones claras y a punto a la Conferencia. Creo que esto es factible, a pesar del poco tiempo, porque mi esperanza está fundada en el hecho de que el Consejo ha venido mejorando sus métodos de trabajo y su forma de reportarlos, ha enfocado mejor los temas de discusión, se ha limitado la extensión de las intervenciones y se ha centrado más en los aspectos medulares y resolutivos, se ha adelgazado y adecuado la documentación de base a un formato más escueto y más propositivo, se ha ocupado más de los problemas y de las propuestas de solución que requieren aprobación. La presentación de los temas de la agenda del Consejo se ha reducido también, mientras que la Secretaría no hace ya intervenciones introductorias salvo que se trate de cuestiones nuevas. Asimismo, el Consejo ha venido produciendo informes cada vez más ejecutivos, concentrándose más en recomendaciones claras en vez de párrafos narrativos y en identificación escueta de puntos divergentes.
Todo esto, distinguidos delegados, me da la confianza necesaria para afirmar que el Consejo no faltará a su alta responsabilidad de hacer recomendaciones inteligentes y útiles a la Conferencia.
Asimismo, estos comentarios que evocan en parte el contenido del párrafo 1.9 del informe de la Reunión Conjunta de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, el documento CL 109/4, donde se hace referencia al mejoramiento del sistema de gobierno del Consejo. Aprovecho la oportunidad para informar a este Consejo que he tomado debida nota del contenido de dicho párrafo y de dichas discusiones, en las cuales estuve presente, y de las sugerencias concretas. Asimismo, con el Secretario General estamos estudiando las medidas necesarias para llevar a cabo dichas sugerencias. No obstante, pienso también remitirme a la nota sobre los métodos de trabajo del Consejo, documento CL 109/INF/4, que contiene importantes indicaciones en este sentido. Espero que todos ustedes aprecien que este Consejo se ha movido en la dirección adecuada y que, desde luego, continuaremos en ese sentido.
Distinguidos delegados, creo que todos ustedes, el Consejo entero, debe expresar su más profundo agradecimiento al Gobierno de Canadá, a la provincia de Quebec y a la ciudad de Quebec por la espléndida organización de la celebración del 50° Aniversario de la FAO. Creo que todos coinciden conmigo en que dicha celebración fue un éxito, que los temas que se trataron allí sirven de plataforma para la celebración de la Cumbre Mundial de la Alimentación, de noviembre de 1996, que hubo un importante consenso en torno a
los temas que allí se tratarán, y que se identificaron claramente las posiciones divergentes y coincidentes que permitirán una discusión útil y sobre todo el que se desaten acciones muy concretas para la Organización y por parte de los Estados Miembros de organizaciones privadas no gubernamentales y del sector privado.
Por tanto, distinguidos delegados, si ustedes lo tienen a bien, este Consejo en su informe expresará el agradecimiento al Gobierno de Canadá, a la provincia de Quebec y a la ciudad de Quebec por la forma en que se organizó y se celebró el aniversario de nuestra Organización.
Me permito ahora, distinguidos delegados, pasar de inmediato a los puntos concretos que nos atienen. Tenemos poco tiempo en estos dos días. Les propongo, por tanto, que nos concentremos en los temas para debate y decisión más importantes. Aquellos temas que son para información, sugiero que se pasen a la Conferencia directamente, al igual que los temas para tomar nota, aunque éstos, tras una introducción por mi parte. Ustedes verán en el programa provisional que se distingue entre temas para información y temas para tomar nota. Los temas para información no serán introducidos, los temas para tomar nota serán introducidos brevemente. Considero que ustedes reconocerán, junto conmigo, que, en vista de que la Conferencia tratará varios de esos temas, no será necesario abrir aquí un debate abundante al respecto; quizás algunas cuestiones, quizás algunas sugerencias, pero no un debate de lleno.
EL PRESIDENTE: En primer lugar, tuvimos que cancelar el tema 14.4, Cambios en la representación de los Estados Miembros en los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, porque efectivamente no hubo cambios desde nuestra última reunión de junio. También, bajo el tema 15: Otros asuntos, tenemos que añadir el subtema: Nombramiento del Segundo Presidente Suplente del Comité de Apelaciones de la FAO, como figura en el documento CL 109/LIM/2.
Como dije anteriormente, la agenda queda todavía bastante cargada. Les hago notar que algunos temas de nuestra agenda, que figuran también en el programa de la Conferencia, podríamos tratarlos muy brevemente y posponer los debates al respecto hasta la Conferencia. Me refiero, en particular, a los temas 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 y 11. Espero que estén de acuerdo conmigo en esta sugerencia y, si no hubiera ninguna observación, podríamos tratar el calendario de nuestras reuniones.
Después del tema 1 trataríamos el 2, 14 y 3, e inmediatamente después entraríamos de lleno en el 12, Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1996-97. Verán ustedes que los temas 10 y 11, Informe sobre la ejecución del Programa y Plan a plazo medio aparecen inmediatamente después del 12 y con asteriscos, indicando que se deberán tratar de manera conjunta.
Y es que, distinguidos delegados, la idea es que en sus debates toquen ustedes estos dos temas de manera concomitante. Así harán referencia a dos elementos que enmarcan el PLP 1996-97, el pasado inmediato, que es el Informe sobre la ejecución del Programa 1994-95, y la visión futura de las actividades de la FAO, es decir, futuro y presente.
Les hago notar que en el Programa provisional y en el calendario aparecen también las referencias específicas a los párrafos de los informes del Comité del Programa y de Finanzas y de su reunión conjunta que tocan estos temas. Espero que todos ustedes tomen debida nota de ello para que conjuntamente se discutan todos estos puntos. Continuaremos todo el día de hoy hasta votar el tema 12, acompañado, repito, del 10 y el 11. Después entraremos en el tema 9: Proyecto de Código de Conducta para la Pesca Responsable, que es para debate, y luego trataremos los otros temas de los informes del Comité del Programa y de Finanzas que no fueron tocados bajo el tema 12. Está prevista una sesión nocturna para el día de hoy. Quizá hasta las 8, 30 de la tarde o incluso más, si así se requiere.
Los otros temas que son para información y para tomar nota se tratarían el día de mañana.
La discusión de los temas 10, 11 y 12 y del 9 permitirá, en particular, que el Comité de Redacción comience a trabajar desde mañana por la mañana en la primera parte del proyecto de Informe del Consejo. Esa parte podría ser aprobada por nuestro Consejo en una sesión vespertina o nocturna, si fuera necesario, de tal suerte que podría transmitirse esa primera parte de dicho Informe a la Conferencia y, en particular, a la Comisión II desde el inicio de sus trabajos. La otra parte de nuestro Informe sería tratada por el Comité de Redacción en una sesión nocturna a partir de las 19.00 horas del viernes 20 de octubre, y se entregaría al Consejo en su última sesión que, en principio, está propuesta para el sábado, día 21, a las 19.00 horas. Ahí terminaríamos con la aprobación de la segunda parte de nuestro Informe.
Entiendan ustedes, distinguidos delegados que, en vista de la brevedad de las sesiones, no hay tiempo para que concomitantemente se reúna el Comité de Redacción, se presente el Informe y se apruebe el Informe del Consejo, a menos, desde luego, que estén ustedes preparados para trabajar hasta las 12.00 hs. de la noche, o más tarde, el día de mañana.
Distinguidos delegados, espero que con estas observaciones estén ustedes en posición de aprobar el Programa y el Calendario del 109° período de sesiones del Consejo. Estoy desde luego a su disposición para cualquier aclaración que deseen ustedes formular. Si no hay ninguna, queda aprobado el tema 1.
EL PRESIDENTE: Empezaremos con los Vicepresidentes. Después de consultas con ustedes, con los grupos regionales, hemos podido recabar los nombres de tres candidatos a ocupar las tres vicepresidencias de este 109° período de sesiones del Consejo.
En primer lugar, la señora Elena Suett-Askerstam, Representante Permanente de Estonia; el señor Ahmed Suleiman Al-Aquil, Representante Permanente del Reino de Arabia Saudita, y el señor Che Ani Bin Saad, Representante Permanente Alterno de Malasia. Si no hay ninguna contrapropuesta, por aclamación pido a ustedes que nombremos a estos tres Vicepresidentes.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
EL PRESIDENTE: Igualmente, tras consultas realizadas entre los grupos regionales, hemos logrado concluir la lista de miembros propuestos para el Comité de Redacción de este Consejo. Estos son: Alemania, Australia, Canadá, Egipto, Francia, Japón, Siria, Camerún, Uganda, Honduras, Brasil, República de Corea y Tailandia. El Presidente del Comité de Redacción será el Representante Permanante de Francia. Si no hay ninguna contrapropuesta u objeción, igualmente por aclamación nombremos a estos miembros del Comité de Redacción.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL MATTERS
QUESTIONS CONTITUTIONNELLES ET JURIDIQUES
ASUNTOS CONSTITUCIONALES Y JURIDICOS
EL PRESIDENTE: Este documento informa a los miembros del Consejo de las solicitudes de Estados no Miembros de la FAO recibidas por el Director General. En primer lugar, para participar en este período de sesiones del Consejo está el caso de Ucrania. Para asistir a otras reuniones de la FAO, -como se indica en los párrafos 6 y 8 del documento-, en el párrafo 9 se dan los nombres de los Estados no Miembros que han asistido a reuniones de la FAO desde la última reunión del Consejo. Si ningún miembro del Consejo quiere hacer uso de la palabra, concluiríamos con este tema.
EL PRESIDENTE: En el documento CL 95/10-Sup.l se observa que desde nuestra última reunión, en junio, el Director General ha recibido la solicitud de ingreso de la República del Tayiquistán. Ahora el Consejo toma nota de que la Conferencia, en su próxima reunión, votará sobre la admisión de cinco países, a saber: Azerbaiyán, Georgia, Moldova, Tayiquistán y Turkmenistán.
EL PRESIDENTE: Como todos ustedes saben, distinguidos delegados, y perdonen por tener que hacer marcha atrás, desde el Consejo de junio el Director General se puso en contacto con los gobiernos y recibió los acuerdos pertinentes respecto de las candidaturas para la Presidencia y Vicepresidencia de la Conferencia. Esas candidaturas quedaron desde entonces corroboradas y ahora simplemente el Consejo tendrá que reconfirmarlas. La recomendación a la Conferencia es la siguiente: Para Presidente de la Conferencia, el Excmo. señor Costas Petrides, Ministro de Agricultura de Chipre. Para Presidente de la Comisión I, el Señor Thomas Yanga, Representante Permanente Alterno de Camerún ante la FAO. Para Presidente de la Comisión II, el Excmo. señor Jacques Laureau, Representante Permanente de Francia ante la FAO. Para
Presidente de la Comisión III, el Excmo. señor Thomas Austin Forbord, Representante Permanente de los Estados Unidos de América ante la FAO. Si no hay ninguna observación, este tema se daría por aprobado conforme se había determinado.
EL PRESIDENTE: El artículo 24, párrafo 5.b, del Reglamento General, especifica que el Consejo deberá elegir los 11 Estados Miembros que han de componer el Comité de Candidaturas. El Presidente de dicho Comité sería el señor Kutaiba M. Hassan, de Iraq, y después de varias consultas entre los grupos regionales, los miembros propuestos son: Canadá, República Popular Democrática de Corea, Croacia, El Salvador, España, Iraq, Libia, Perú, Reino Unido, Mauritania y Zimbabwe.
Para las Comisiones se han propuesto dos Vicepresidentes para la Comisión I, y éstos son el señor Mohamed Said Mohamed Ali Harby, de Sudán, y el Excmo. señor Jan Bielawski, de Polonia. Para el Comité de Redacción las propuestas son que lo presida Países Bajos, el señor Holman, y estaría integrado por los siguientes miembros: Canadá, Nueva Zelandia, Japón, Francia, Siria, Irán, Malasia, Sri Lanka, Etiopía, Argelia y dos países de América Latina. Todavía no tengo los nombres de dichos países de América Latina. Se comunicará posteriormente.
Para la Comisión II, los dos Vicepresidentes propuestos son el señor Shahid Rashid, de Pakistán, y el señor Kenyi Siboutu, de Japón. El Presidente del Comité de Redacción se propone que sea Egipto, el señor Adel Mahmoud Aboul-Naga, y el Comité de Redacción estaría integrado por Egipto, Estados Unidos, España, Australia, Japón, Alemania, República de Corea, Filipinas, Libia, Kenya, Guinea y dos países de América Latina de los que se les informará posteriormente.
Respecto de la Comisión III, los dos Vicepresidentes que se proponen son el Sr. Carlos di Mottola, de Costa Rica, el señor Ernst Zimmerl, de Austria. Todavía no tenemos el Relator, que será identificado ulteriormente.
Me informa la representante del Grupo de América Latina que, para la Comisión I, los dos representantes son Panamá y Haití y para la Comisión II, Brasil y Venezuela. Asimismo he recibido una aclaración de la representante de El Salvador y Presidente del GRULAC, en el sentido de que los dos miembros del Comité de Redacción para este Consejo por parte de América Latina y el Caribe serían Honduras y Chile. Espero que hayan tomado debida nota de este conjunto de candidaturas, y si no hubiera ninguna aclaración ulterior, concluiríamos con estos temas para pasar de inmediato al tema 12 de nuestra Agenda, acompañado de los temas 10 y 11.
11. Medium-term Plan 1996-2001
11. Plan à moyen terme 1996-2001
11. Plan a Plazo Medio, 1996-2001
EL PRESIDENTE: Como ustedes saben, distinguidos delegados, éste es quizás el tema más importante de nuestro Consejo y seguramente también lo será de la Conferencia. El enfoque que se ha seguido es el siguiente. El Director General, como ustedes saben, ha seguido la orientación ofrecida por la mayoría de los miembros del Consejo en su período de sesiones de junio de este año. Por consiguiente, en las propuestas se mantiene el marco de crecimiento cero, adoptado ya en el esbozo y en el resumen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto. Se incorpora una asignación reducida para aumentos de los costos, 24, 7 millones de dólares de Estados Unidos, es decir, únicamente el 3, 7 por ciento con respecto a la base de 673, 1 millones de dólares y se prevé la absorción necesaria de unos incrementos adicionales de costos que podrían ser de hasta 20 millones de dólares como mínimo. En tercer lugar, se recomienda un retorno a la práctica normal de financiación, es decir, que el presupuesto efectivo de trabajo se financie con las cuotas e ingresos diversos. Estos, a propósito, se estiman en 11 millones de dólares de los Estados Unidos.
Con el mismo tipo de cambio adoptado en el último período de sesiones de la Conferencia para el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto 1994-95, es decir, de 1.665 liras por dólar de Estados Unidos, el presupuesto efectivo de trabajo que se propone para 1996/97 asciende a 697, 8 millones de dólares. Las cuotas se cifran en 686, 8 millones de dólares de Estados Unidos, lo que representa un aumento de 10, 64 por ciento con respecto a la cuantía de 620, 8 millones del bienio en curso, debido, sobre todo, a la eliminación de 38 millones de dólares de Estados Unidos de atrasos incorporados en la presente fórmula de financiación. La presentación que se hace a este Consejo responde a un conjunto de esfuerzos especiales para seguir mejorando el formato y la presentación de las actividades principales de la Organización, con lo que se han sentado las bases para realzar la presentación de los informes y la rendición de cuentas en particular ofreciendo listas detalladas de los resultados. Los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas han hecho referencia con satisfacción a estos puntos.
En torno a los aspectos principales del Presupuesto, se ha tratado de conseguir dos objetivos: Uno, era asignar los créditos presupuestarios necesarios a todas las dependencias, de manera que la Organización reestructurada funcione a pleno rendimiento en todos los lugares a principios de 1996. En segundo lugar, el propósito era atender las necesidades de recursos de las actividades más prioritarias. Entre éstas, se recoge lo que ustedes han señalado, es decir, el Programa especial sobre producción de alimentos en apoyo de la seguridad alimentaria en los países de bajos ingresos con déficit de alimentos, la Cumbre Mundial sobre Alimentación, la continuación de las actividades de los componentes de EMPRES relativos a la langosta del desierto y la sanidad animal, los recursos fitogenéticos y zoogenéticos para poder, entre otras cosas, aplicar las recomendaciones de la Cuarta Conferencia Técnica Internacional sobre Recursos Fitogenéticos e iniciar, al menos parcialmente, las actividades del Centro Mundial para la Diversidad de los Animales Domésticos.
También se incluye un incremento neto ulterior para el Programa Principal 2.4: Montes, con respecto a la cuantía indicada en el resumen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto que, a su vez, era superior al del actual Programa de Labores y Presupuesto. Con ello se beneficiará, entre otras cosas, la labor de la evaluación sobre Recursos Forestales y la ejecución de planes de acción forestal nacionales. La aplicación del Código de Conducta para la Pesca Responsable, en el amplio sector del asesoramiento para el fomento de la pesca y la acuicultura, aunque la consignación del Programa Principal 2.3: Pesca, sufre, como ustedes pueden ver, una reducción neta con respecto a la del resumen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto.
Otro elemento es el fortalecimiento ulterior del Sistema Mundial de Información y Alerta y la realización plena del WAICENT y el fortalecimiento de la labor de la división mixta FAO/OIEA.
Los temas que no se incluyen, como ustedes pueden ver, son los siguientes: En primer lugar, como se observa, al Director General no le fue posible incluir varios temas de importancia para los Estados Miembros, entre otros la sustitución total de los actuales sistemas de administración financiera en la Organización; es decir el FINSYS y el PERSYS. La creación de nuevas oficinas subregionales para el Cercano Oriente y América Central, como se había pedido en las Conferencias Regionales correspondientes, así como elevar el nivel de las consignaciones del Programa de Cooperación Técnica al 14 por ciento del presupuesto efectivo, como se invitaba, y ustedes lo recordarán, en la Resolución 898 de la Conferencia.
En el documento se incluye una resolución sobre consignaciones complementarias que habrán de examinar los Estados Miembros y transferirse a la Conferencia para su aprobación.
También se incluye en este tema, como ustedes pueden observar, las opiniones expresadas por los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas. Ello se incluye en los párrafos que están identificados en el Programa y Agenda Provisional de este Consejo.
Lamentablemente, como pueden observar, en los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, las tres posiciones generales que se habían declarado en el último Consejo de junio de nuestra Organización, se habían mantenido básicamente sin cambios, con una amplia mayoría que apoyaba la cuantía del presupuesto con arreglo a la propuesta formulada originalmente por el Director General. La posición de un miembro que propugnaba una cuantía cosiderablemente menor y la de algunos otros miembros que eran partidarios de una cuantía intermedia.
Sin perjuicio de los resúmenes que presentarán los Presidentes del Comité del Programa y de Finanzas, cabe señalar que los Comités prestaron atención a las oportunidades de realizar ulteriores economías. Incumbe, pues, ahora al Consejo, a pesar del breve tiempo disponible, tratar de acortar la distancia que sigue existiendo entre las previsiones tan divergentes sobre el PLP 96/97.
Bien, distinguidos delegados, me gustaría también hacer alguna presentación de los otros dos puntos, el 10 y el 11, pero creo que sería un tanto redundante. He hablado más de 40 minutos y pienso que deben estar ustedes saturados de mi voz. Creo que no es necesario que presente esos dos temas que acompañan los debates sobre este punto; sin embargo, considero que es particularmente importante para este Consejo escuchar al Director General sobre este tema tan importante de nuestra Agenda.
Me honro en otorgar la palabra al señor Diouf, Director General de la Organización.
LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Je vous remercie, Monsieur le Président, de bien vouloir me donner la parole.
Vous avez indiqué que votre session serait courte, compte tenu des circonstances particulières qui ont amené à rapprocher la date de la Conférence afin de permettre aux ministres qui ont assisté au cinquantième anniversaire de la FAO, à Québec, de pouvoir se rendre directement à Rome. Je voudrais naturellement saisir cette occasion pour exprimer notre profonde gratitude au Gouvernement du Canada, à la province du Québec et à la ville de Québec pour les services extrêmement importants qu'ils ont mis à notre disposition et qui ont permis à ces cérémonies d'être célébrées de manière éclatante.
Je serai très bref. Je voudrais tout simplement dire qu'au niveau du Secrétariat de l'Organisation nous avons essayé d'aborder cette question de l'ordre du jour en tenant compte des conditions générales ainsi que des directives et des orientations de nos instances. Nous avons essayé de présenter un budget à croissance réelle zéro en essayant d'absorber au maximum les coûts. Comme vous le savez, nous avons effectué des économies qui s'élèvent à 38 millions de dollars. En plus de cela, nous comptons absorber une partie des augmentations de coûts. Nous avons examiné la possibilité de faire des économies supplémentaires qui n'affecteraient pas les programmes et nous devons avouer humblement que nous n'y sommes pas parvenus. A l'exception de quelques possibilités qui seraient offertes en diminuant le grade de certains postes, nous ne pouvons pas dire que des économies supplémentaires n'affecteront pas les programmes.
Nous sommes naturellement à votre disposition pour que, quel que soit le niveau de consensus auquel nous allons aboutir, le Secrétariat veille à identifier les diminutions qui auraient l'impact le moins négatif. Nous sommes prêts à en prendre l'engagement. Mais, après avoir économisé 38 millions de dollars sur un budget, sachant que nous risquons d'avoir 16 millions de dollars de coûts supplémentaires résultant de l'augmentation des salaires qui est proposée par la Commission de la Fonction publique internationale à l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies, connaissant aussi les risques de change qui vont éventuellement peser sur la question budgétaire du fait du taux de change de la lire par rapport au dollar, nous ne pouvons pas prendre la responsabilité, en âme et conscience, de vous dire que nous allons faire des économies supplémentaires qui n'affecteront pas les programmes.
Voilà la situation. Le Secrétariat a le devoir de présenter les choses telles qu'elles sont, de présenter la situation telle qu'elle est, et de ne pas vous dire, pour satisfaire des soucis légitimes, que nous pourrons faire certaines choses et que nous pourrons prendre des engagements que nous ne serons pas en mesure de respecter.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, señor Director General, por sus palabras y en particular por la franqueza con que ha hablado al Consejo. Creo que los puntos que usted ha mencionado son muy importantes y en particular el hecho de que la Organización ha hecho sus máximos esfuerzos, y continúa haciéndolos, para absorber los costos en la mayor medida posible, pero también que más allá de esos esfuerzos, toda intención de absorber costos tendrá un impacto sobre el Programa de la Organización. De ese impacto todos los Estados Miembros aquí presentes han tomado nota de que será su responsabilidad identificar y aprobar en última instancia, si así se acordare. Es grave e importante que lo tomen en cuenta en sus debates.
El Presidente del Comité del Programa no se encuentra aún aquí entre nosotros para exponer los párrafos correspondientes del Comité del Programa y de la reunión conjunta, relativos a la presentación de este tema 12. Me pregunto, sin embargo, si el Presidente del Comité de Finanzas estaría en posición de exponer algunos puntos relativos al informe de dicho Comité en torno a este tema.
Espero, distinguidos delegados, que hayan tomado debida nota de estas informaciones de los párrafos correspondientes. Me permito ahora abrir el debate en el entendido de que harán ustedes igualmente referencia a los temas 10 y 11, que son para tomar nota.
Tony WADE (Officer-in-Charge, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Mr Chairman, the Director-General had asked me to respond briefly on the issues raised by the Programme and Finance Committees so as to avoid a range of questions which would have to be repeated.
As the Director-General has already described, the current Programme of Work and Budget document does give a pretty clear explanation of the cost savings that have already been made and incorporated into this particular series of budget proposals. You will find those in paragraph 124 of document C 95/3 and following. As he indicated, they are very considerable.
However, the Programme and Finance Committee has made a number of suggestions. The question that has been posed is whether further savings can be made. What I would like to do is go through the possibilities one-by-one so that we are aware of the realities that we face at this time.
The first area that was brought under consideration was that of travel. We are in the process of examining the whole business of travel costs and seeing whether we can find ways to reduce costs while maintaining the level of functionality that we require in this particularly important area. We have gone as far as to review our entire contractual relationships and we have even given notice of the termination of the contract with the current supplier of these services, but we have a long way to go in the process of determining what the consequences of these actions will be. We need to determine the benefits of the various recommendations that have been made by going to tender for new arrangements. We cannot tell what the impact of each of these complex changes will be until we have offers from different suppliers of these services, from agents, from airlines, etc. This exercise will take some months to complete and I am not in a position to say what these savings would be. However, I would like to indicate what costs we are talking about so that you can see the scope for savings. The total costs to the Regular Programme of Travel in 1994 was about US$33 million. Of this amount, about 55 percent was for fares and transport costs, whereas the balance was for subsistence allowance.
I think the first important point to establish is that subsistence allowance is not determined by FAO but established by the International Civil Service Commission in accordance with Article 11 of its Statutes. FAO is bound to follow its rulings in this regard.
If we just look at the fares portion, therefore, which is where we have some scope, we find that the Regular Programme incurs about US$36 million per biennium. I have to emphasize that this is after an already substantial discount under the current contract which is entered into through public tender. I would like to tell
you what the discount is but it is commercially very unwise to do so because this would disclose our starting point in any future tenders, but I should say that it is significant.
In addition, we have to remember that of the US$36 million at least US$8 million is used specifically on TCP projects. If we assume, as the Director-General does, that any savings made on TCP expenditure would have to be ploughed back into TCP under the provisions of Resolution 9/89, then we have to conclude that the base from which any savings can be made, in effect upon the total costs to the Organization, is about US$24 million; so you can see that the scope is not that large.
I would like to move to the second key area that was submitted by both Committees, which is the issue of the contribution that the Regular Programme makes to the Field Programme. The argument was derived from data in the Programme Implementation Report (document C 95/8), which is also covered under this discussion, in paragraph 43 Table 2.7. This reports that the total support costs incurred exceeded the reimbursements received by US$49 million in 1994 and therefore that there are theoretical savings of US$98 million per biennum if we get full cost recovery.
However, we have to examine this figure because this is not a realistic proposition. The first point is that support costs refer to the cost of all Field Programmes. However, the issue of full cost recovery is really only applicable to Trust Funds, because the rate of recovery from UNDP is determined by you as Member Nations in your roles as members of the UNDP Governing Council. We are in fact obliged to follow the recovery arrangements for support costs that are established by the Governing Council. Therefore, the question of additional income is only applicable to that part of support costs which can be attributed to Trust Funds. Trust Funds made up 58 percent of the total delivery in 1994, which gives you a feel for how this figure is being narrowed down.
Within the cost of supporting the Field Programme, there are two important elements. The first is administrative and operational support and the second is technical support services. Administrative and operational support to projects is running at about 16.8 percent of the delivery as is demonstrated in that Table. The standard for project servicing cost rates is 13 percent for Trust Funds and about 10 percent for UNDP. There are some exceptions. Emergency projects are exempted and there are a few others which are given special rates under the rules and regulations of the Organization.
Following the last Conference, which rejected the Secretariat proposal to increase the charges for project servicing costs, the Director-General consulted informally with Member Nations and concluded that there was no consensus amongst member nations and further that the Organization could not afford to lose the support of Trust Fund donors, and therefore that there was no alternative other than to reduce costs rather than to increase the rate of charge. That view was supported by the Council at its 106th Session, and since that date determined efforts have been made to reduce these costs. In fact, the most significant one is the decentralization of our operations to the Regional Offices. Here, we hope to take advantage of the fact that the cost of support staff in our Regional Offices is very much less than the cost of support staff in Rome. At this stage it is proposed in the budget document to decentralize that part of the operations units dealing with Asia and the Pacific. This is being done on a trial basis but it is assumed that it will be successful and that the whole process can be extended to the rest of the operations of the Organization.
Therefore, in conclusion on administrative and operational support, the Director-General is of the view that we have an approved approach, that we should follow it and that he does not intend to propose an increase in Trust Fund Support cost rates until we can test the results of this exercise. I should say that we are hopeful that costs will be brought down to somewhere close to the 13 percent that is charged.
The area of technical support to projects, however, does offer a little bit more scope. In general, recipient countries, donors and the Organization agree on the importance of technical support being provided to projects. The Director-General intends that the process of planning for technical support be made much more explicit in the whole process of project design and in developing project budgets. By this means he would be aiming for such event-driven services, by which I mean specific services that you can identify such as missions to the projects for appraisals etc., to be identified and eventually to be charged subject to the agreement of the donors concerned.
The amount for technical support services in the Programme Implementation Report for 1994 was US$28.4 million. 58 percent of that, if we assume that its proportional delivery relates to Trust Funds delivery, which means that there is potentially US$16.5 million worth of technical support services. But let us have no illusions - not all of that is chargeable. That includes project identification, for example, which is and has always been recognized as being a Regular Programme function. It includes some rather vague services such as technical back-stopping and monitoring from Headquarters which are really going to be very hard to charge because the donor does not see a specific service. It does, however, include design and formulation, for which some donors are prepared to pick up the charges; it does include technical appraisal, which is another area for which charges might be accepted; and it does include evaluation and audit. So again there may be some opportunities here. We do not know at this stage how much of it will be possible to charge because we have not consulted the donors and we have got to change project agreements and project budgets before we can charge. However, it is important to be clear that the maximum scope there is very much less than the US$98 million that is rather casually quoted on occasions.
Mr Chairman, if I can move to the other items very briefly, further restructuring is, of course, an ongoing process. The AF Department is working on streamlining the implementation of MSUs, revision of delegations and improving support to the infrastructure for all of that process, which includes adding the controls which will be derived out of local audits and the systems work for FINSYS, but this is a long process and the benefits will not be seen in the short term. Despite that, you should note that this Programme of Work and Budget document already includes substantial reductions and savings in the AF Department. Some 67 general service posts have been removed, some admittedly transferred into the MSUs in other Departments, and some 12 professional posts, so there is no immediate scope in this particular area until we have managed to improve our systems.
The GI Department has issued its first report on its proposal for a Corporate Communications Policy and the restructuring of GI, and that is now under review, but it does not address the financial issue at this stage. That is the next stage of the process, so we have to address that during 1996-97. The only point that I would like to make here is that the Director-General has, as he has mentioned in the document in paragraph 107, sought your approval to continue with the process of restructuring and to implement it during the biennium of 1996-97 as long as it is done within the constraint of the resources that exist at that period, and of course that any financial consequences would be handled in accordance with the requirements of the financial regulations of the Organization.
Another area which was raised, and which I would say has already been included in the budget, is the regrading of professional posts with a view to trying to design the structure so that it promotes the recruitment of young professionals. Here the Programme of Work and Budget already includes the benefit of a substantial reduction in the number of P5 posts which have been redescribed in particular to reduce the number of years of experience, thus allowing lower grades to be applied and for us to be in a position to attract young graduates with state of the art qualifications.
The same paragraph of the Programme of Work and Budget - and I refer to paragraph 114 of C 95/3 -referred to a similar exercise which was underway but not complete for P4 to P3 posts. That is almost complete now. We have identified some 30-plus posts which would probably fall into the category of being able to be regraded at P3, although I have to say that the application of the ICSC standards has not been completed yet. However, assuming that it all goes through, that would produce savings of about US$1.3 million per biennium.
Mr Chairman, there were suggestions of measures to increase income. We are looking at these but you will appreciate that they are long term. There was mention of non-staff human resources. There were two suggestions made by the Committee. The first suggestion was concerning the use of the new arrangements, i.e., academics, retirees, the TCDC and TCCT. The Director-General has issued instructions to accelerate the implementation of these plans, but I have to emphasize that the Programme of Work and Budget already includes a very ambitious reduction of US$8.4 million for the implementation of these programmes.
We have to be a little cautious about assuming that all of the problems of modalities can be resolved overnight. The other suggestion was that we should change the ratio of staff to consultants because consultants, generally speaking, are cheaper per working day. This is again reflected in the current budget. It is interesting to note that if we take the ratio of the amounts budgeted for staff costs to the amounts budgeted
for consultants, in dollar terms for convenience, from 1994-95 to 1996-97, we see a reduction in that ratio of 16.7 percent. In other words, the Organization is already moving to a much greater proportional use of consultants under the new arrangements than in 1994-95. We will however continue to give attention to the suggestion throughout 1996-97 with a view to trying to identify a prescriptive level for the relationship. Here the request for economy drives one towards a higher proportion of consultants, whereas the quest for effectiveness may well demand adequate supervision for consultants' work to ensure the achievement of the objectives set in the first place. Connected with that, of course, one of FAO's major comparative advantages is the experience of its staff. There is a balance to be found there which we have to treat with care.
The other major issue raised was cost of governance. This issue is, frankly, a little confused at the moment. The budget document already allows for several reductions arising from the Director-General's own initiatives to reduce the length of meetings, etc. Further proposals were discussed at the Finance and Programme Committee but a consensus has not emerged. There was a suggestion on the Summary Programme of Work and Budget and the Outline that an expanded Outline replace the Summary Programme of Work and Budget which was proposed by the member who originally proposed the inclusion of the Outline. There are savings on that if the Conference eventually decided to adopt it. It would save US$82 000 for the meeting and about US$50 000 for the documentation. I should add that that proposal was not endorsed by the committees and therefore could not be implemented unless Council and Conference rule that the relevant financial regulations be suspended. Of course, there may be room for further cost savings there depending on the Council's own work, but we have no basis on which to make those judgements.
Finally, Mr Chairman, the other side of the coin. There are some illusions as to what was achieved in 1994-95 and, as you have included the Programme Implementation Report in the agenda item, I would like to mention some new information which has emerged since the committee reviewed that report. You will recall that the committees had a problem with the report because 1995 is entirely forecast in this document. Those forecasts were prepared before the departments were aware of the sudden reduction in their allotments which arose out of the fact that we were informed that we would not be receiving arrears payments that had been expected and relied upon in the development of the budget for 1994-95. In fact, there was significant reported under-delivery in the Programme Implementation Report. It already noted that training was down by 17 percent, that meetings participation was down by 43 percent and that publications were down by 6 percent. Since that time, we have carried out a review with the Assistant Directors-General and Division Directors throughout the Organization to identify what further damage has been done. I will give you a few examples; I think it is important to give you some so that we are aware that 1994-95 was not a successful implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget and why that was the case. For example, under Programme 2.1.1., Natural Resources, we were obliged to postpone completely the work on fertilizer supply and price information which we were going to produce for a publication and provide to the World Bank. We were obliged to postpone the implementation of the scheme for conservation and rehabilitation of African lands. Work has been much slower there than intended. Under crops, for example, support to the Asian Regional Network on Tropical Vegetables was delayed. The testing for the use of a conceptual framework in planning for post harvest interventions was also postponed. We eliminated the work in livestock on diseases communicable to man, especially rabies, which we were meant to be working on with WHO. For trypanosomiasis the training manuals which we intended to issue were not issued and the small research contracts were suspended. Several publications of the results of surveys on animal genetic resources, which we intended to put out in non-original languages, could not be. In the area of food and agricultural information analysis, the Food Outlook and Foodcrops and Shortages were reduced from monthly to bimonthly publications. I am afraid that the methodology work on statistics, including method price comparability and integration of East European data, was not carried out and the production of statistics was cut back from four issues per year to two. We did not complete the analysis on the impact of the Uruguay Round that was intended and we did not complete the integration of fisheries data into WAICENT as intended. Fisheries work on stock assessment in the Caribbean was suspended. In the case of forestry we had to eliminate the work on the development of a forest wetlands conservation system and delay the work on the update of forest resources assessment for 1990, which weakens the information for the report on the State of the World's Forests.
These are examples only. I have lists of things that were not implemented. I think it is important that the Council be aware that we cannot implement the 1994-95 programme if we have US$20 million less resources than we expect.
Finally, Mr Chairman - I am sorry to have been so long but I think the issues are important - there are risks in this budget, which the Director-General has referred to. I would like to put the figures on the risks. The risks are that we have proposed in the document to absorb US$12 million worth of cost increases. Since we made that estimate we have revised it upwardly to US$16 million at the Programme and Finance Committees. That was as a consequence of the International Civil Service Commission's recommendations on professional salaries to the General Assembly. We do not know at this stage what level will be approved. In fact, we have now updated all these estimates based on the more detailed information we have from the Commission, and the total costs that we are absorbing are about US $19.5 million. That includes US$16.3 million of staff costs and about US$3.1 million of non-staff costs. In addition to this, this morning's exchange rate was Lire 1 597 to the dollar. That means we have to add US$9.1 million to all the figures being discussed if that is the exchange rate on the day that you vote your budget in the Conference. So now we are talking about US$29 million to US$30 million worth of risk, and that is assuming everybody pays.
Mr Chairman, I can only support and repeat the Director-General's conclusion, which is that the US$697 million that is sought already has enormous cost-saving reductions included in it. Any further savings that we could possibly make have to be used to offset the risks that we are aware of and therefore any reduction has to be seen as something that is bound to have an impact on our programme.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias señor Wade, por la información adicional que le ha ofrecido a este Consejo. Yo, desde luego, no abrigo la esperanza ilusoria de que este Consejo pueda resolver estas cuestiones tan difíciles, en donde los Estados Miembros se encuentran en posiciones tan divergentes. Quizás éstas no cambiarán, y quizás tampoco podremos ni siquiera formular escenarios específicos para recomendar a la Conferencia, pero sí creo que aquí pueden aclararse muchas cuestiones de manera que el humo que tenemos enfrente se vaya disipando y podamos hacer una contribución útil a la Conferencia. Creo que deben destacarse dos puntos fundamentales de lo que hemos escuchado esta mañana. En primer lugar, que en vista del impacto de la propia reestructuración y de la necesidad de realizar ahorros forzosos en virtud de la prudencia financiera con la que se ha manejado la Organización en estos dos últimos años, esto ha tenido un impacto inevitable en la ejecución y entrega del Programa. Ustedes están viendo el efecto de esos ahorros forzosos impuestos a la Organización.
En segundo lugar, que el Director General ha atendido al llamado de los Estados Miembros para que la Organización absorba, en la mayor medida posible, el impacto del aumento de costos y que el nivel de presupuesto que está presentando y ofreciendo a los Estados Miembros ya contiene muy buena parte de esa absorción y, por tanto, que niveles sustancialmente inferiores tendrán necesariamente un efecto negativo sobre los programas de la Organización. Creo que estos elementos son importantes a considerar en la formulación de sus comentarios, en las aclaraciones que quieran ustedes solicitar y, desde luego, en las posiciones que mantendrán y negociarán en los trabajos de la Conferencia, en particular a través de la Comisión II.
No quiero explayarme más sobre estos asuntos y les ofrezco de inmediato la palabra.
Milad Abdessalam SHMEYLA (Libya) (Original language Arabic): Mr Chairman thank you for giving me an opportunity to express the view of the Libyan Jamaharya at this Council Session. At the ministerial conference at which the ministers were present in Quebec and I would use this opportunity to congratulate Mr Diouf Director-General of the FAO for the success of the Conference, but at the Conference we realized that most speakers stressed the seriousness of the world food situation, particularly difficult for many people on the planet in poor countries in particular which need more aid to be able to become self-sufficient in food and to carry out autonomous development. Most speakers at the Quebec Conference congratulated the FAO for its efforts to prevent food, famine and hunger and undernourishment. We would say that these efforts being made by FAO need to be consolidated in coming years and should not be reduced because of budgetary restrictions as seems to be proposed. Many poor countries put all their hopes in FAO to be able to resolve their food difficulties. The expectations of these countries have to do with technical assistance and projects to provide food security. As for the level of the budget, the Libyan delegation considers that we should not reduce it further. Indeed we feel that such a reduction would only be harmful to the interests of the developing countries and would weaken the efforts being made throughout the world to eradicating hunger and malnutrition. We have noted that there is a propensity to reduce the budget that doesn't affect FAO alone, it affects other international organizations but if the reason evoked for reducing the FAO budget is the need to
reduce costs, we heard the Director-General Mr Diouf say that the organization cannot go any further in cost reduction and increase absorption. In the light of what Mr Diouf said this morning, we know that he cannot promise further cuts without it having harmful effects on the execution of the FAO programmes. In light of that, it is clear that we cannot envisage further budget cuts and I would like to put a question to the Chairman of the Finance Committee: I would like to know what are the reasons for a budget reduction. Is this because of the difficulty the developed countries find in honouring their commitments under the budget which is a modest budget in comparison with the huge sums spent on other things. Was it noted in the Programme Committee that certain programmes of the FAO are not very useful? I would ask the Chairman of the Finance Committee to cast light on this.
Saeed NOURI-NAEENI (Iran, Islamic Republic of): Mr Chairman let me start by expressing my happiness of seeing you once again on the Chair and wishing you success. Mr Director-General, Distinguished Delegates and Observers, at the outset I would like to extend my Government's appreciation and thanks to the Director-General for his brief and important remarks and to members of Programme and Finance Committees and Secretariat for preparing comprehensive and down to the point documents for this very important Session of the Council. Documents 95/3 8, 9 CL 109/4 and the Supplements.
Mr Chairman, since saving is so fashionable these days and the repeated recommendation for more and more savings let my Delegation save time by going to the core issues of the document and make the following brief observations.
First, it should be noted that we are considering the Programme of Work and Budget of the Organization and therefore it is not logical to add to the list of the Budget without direct reference to the volume of work which we are expecting to be performed. In other words every adjustment in the budget should be matched by consistent parallel adjustment in the programme of work.
Second, we, like almost all others in several official meetings, have accepted the principle of zero real growth as a minimum which can maintain a meaningful level of programmes in the coming biennium. We once again repeat the same as our belief.
Third, we appreciate the level of costs absorption and savings which is foreseen in the document. Although except in medium and long run based on comprehensive study, there might be possibilities for further savings and increased efficiency, but having recent explanations provided by the office of programme budget and evaluation in this session, we believe that at present there is not much room left for further savings without negative impact on the level and quality of our organization's services to the Member Nations.
Efficiency needs optimal resource allocation and any other programme is associated with the specific proportionality of different resources. Any savings beyond this limit would create additional capacity for some resources and would have negative impact on the level of savings and arrears of the Organizations.
Fourth, exclusion of the arrears from the base period of the budget is not only a back way of breaking our promise or acceptance of zero real growth principle and not only negatively affects the level and quality of the programme but it also carries the danger of making precedence which could be destructive. As we all know there always will be some arrears and if we continuously deduct them from the base of the budget it would cause an ever defeating budget and ever shrinking organization, so there to allow us.
Fifth, although we have reached consensus on priority work of the Organization, this does not mean that less priority activities can be decreased or eliminated. The concept of priority here is like the ratio among air, water and food for our life. Air has the priority because we can live only a few minutes in its absence. Without water we can live a few days, so it will be the second priority. Without food we can live a few more days longer. And therefore, we assume it as the third priority. But under any conditions we cannot reduce or eliminate the use of any of these goods beyond their minimum and still expect a healthy and productive life. The same is true for Programme of Work and Budget of FAO during 1996-97.
Six, since 1994 we have always supported the restructuring and decentralization of our Organization and we are still of the strong belief that there is much to be regained from these changes; the special comment from the Organization for the usual administration of national provisional officers programme and the introduction
of national correspondence programme. New initiations our partnership with member countries are highly welcome by my Government and we have high hopes for the Organization to benefit especially from TCDC, TCCD programmes and Euro-Scientists for economists and certain institutions.These organizations give the necessary momentum to the implementation of these activities which relate to the Organization and self reliance and development to the developing countries.
Seven, we strongly support the special programmes introduced by the Director-General that is, food production, in support of food security in the LIFCD's and EMPRES.
Eight, the very fact that, in spite of generous food aid by developed countries, there are still billions of unsecure and malnourished and hungry people in our global village shows that we have to shift from this creative approach to a preventive one, that is, we have to show the developing countries how to produce more food and assist them to do that in their own farms. As was mentioned by one of the honourable African delegates in the Quebec meeting which I quote "do not give us food aid give us aid to produce food". Such food production must receive high priority. This only can be done with continuous financial support and all FAO Member States to the plan of Work and Budget of the Organization. In addition including our awareness of competent decision makers all over the world can play a major role. We are confident that the World Food Summit scheduled for November 1996, will be a milestone in this regard.
Mr Chairman, let me conclude by reminding ourselves that two days ago we adopted a declaration in Quebec. We affirmed among other important promises that the invitation to the principles on which FAO was founded, that is to help build a world where all people can live with dignity, confident food security and ensure humanity from suffering hunger. Let us support this promise by adopting the proposed Programme of Work and Budget 1996-97 by consensus and show that the Quebec Declaration is a solid promise by the large consent and not a ceremonial show at the meeting.
Jaime GARCIA y ΒADIAS (España): Me complace expresarme sobre este punto de importancia capital para la Organización en nombre de la Comunidad Europea y de sus quince Estados Miembros. La Comunidad Europea y sus Estados Miembros han estudiado atentamente el documento que hace referencia a los temas presupuestarios y desea, por medio de esta Presidencia, hacer llegar una serie de observaciones que son su posición común. A partir de éstas, varios Estados Miembros intervendrán más tarde en el debate para comunicar observaciones adicionales. Agradecemos sinceramente los esfuerzos emprendidos por el Director General para reducir los aumentos de costes, para tomar las medidas adicionales de ahorro ya realizadas y las medidas de racionalización estructurales adoptadas. Por desgracia, esto no es suficiente y es necesario hacer esfuerzos adicionales. Estamos íntimamente convencidos de que pueden conseguirse ahorros sustanciales sin poner en peligro el programa de trabajo que ha sido presentado. El Comité de Finanzas ha indicado ámbitos en los que pueden hacerse ahorros sin afectar el contenido de las actividades previstas en el Programa. Solicitamos a la Secretaría que profundice en estas posibilidades, sobre todo en lo que se refiere a los gastos administrativos y de personal. Una reducción en este ámbito supone esfuerzos adicionales de racionalización de las estructuras y, en particular, la fijación de objetivos de trabajo con el fin de mejorar la productividad del personal. Me refiero a los gastos de viaje, a los gastos relacionados con la publicación y distribución de documentos y a los gastos relacionados con la descentralización. La descentralización, señor Presidente, es un ejercicio que da lugar, tradicionalmente, a un aumento de los presupuestos de las administraciones que ponen en marcha ese proceso. La FAO está obligada a desmentirlo. La descentralización debería ir seguida de una reducción paralela de las actividades ejecutadas en la Sede. Toda duplicación debería evitarse.
Hubiéramos deseado disponer de informaciones relativas al nivel de ahorro que puede hacerse sin afectar al Programa, tal como solicitaron en su día el Grupo OCD y el Grupo de los 77.
Hubiéramos deseado, también, disponer de estimaciones de la Secretaría acerca del impacto sobre el Programa de los diferentes niveles presupuestarios que pueden preverse.
Esta información nos parece indispensable para llegar a un consenso sobre el presupuesto de la Organización. Por ello solicitamos a la Secretaría que nos proporcione por escrito estas informaciones.
EL PRESIDENTE: Quisiera hacerle notar, distinguido delegado de España, que respecto de las preocupaciones manifestadas por usted a nombre de los países que preside, la Secretaría de la FAO ha hecho ya algunas aclaraciones en torno a las implicaciones que los esfuerzos de absorción de costos en la Organización conllevan y también a la posibilidad de realizar esfuerzos adicionales y, asimismo, al hecho de que la posibilidad de absorber ulteriormente costos se dificulta y tiene obvios límites y que éstos, de continuarse, tendrán un impacto inevitable sobre el Programa.
Espero que hayan ustedes tomado nota de las aclaraciones hechas por la Secretaría de la FAO. Obviamente éstas pueden repetirse en mayor grado de detalle, pero el Director General, a lo largo de estos meses y en vista de las posiciones manifestadas en las reuniones de junio del Consejo y luego por el Comité del Programa y de Finanzas, ha atendido estas propuestas y ha hecho un esfuerzo adicional.
Espero que ustedes lo reconozcan y que lo consideren en sus declaraciones y en sus ulteriores preguntas y aclaraciones.
Wilberforce A. SAKIRA (Uganda): We thank the FAO Secretariat for the documents provided and those who made introductory remarks on this Agenda item.
Uganda remembers that during the 108th Session of the FAO Council in June this year that the majority of members, including all the members of the Group of 77 and some Member Nations from other regions, felt that there was a need to retain the zero growth budget principle within the Budget because the Rio reductions would inflict far-reaching repercussions on FAO's activities.
We note that the Director-General has proposed a budget which respects this principle, a budget totalling US$697.8 million which includes US$673.1 million being 1994-95 Programme of Work and Budget and US$24.7 million being cost increases. That is reflects 3.7 percent over the base budget.
We have also noted that the proposed Budget will lead to a cost saving of US$38 million. Our delegation therefore supports this budget level. We believe it should not be reduced further, especially in view of what the Director-General has presented in his introductory statement this morning.
We support the higher priority areas proposed, particularly those concerned with food production and the implementation of conduct on responsible fisheries, agricultural development and global and strategic analyses for fisheries.
We also strongly support the Technical Cooperation Programme and programmes related to sustainable development as well as the development of services to Member Nations. However, we have taken note -- this is important -- that, because of budget constraints, there are some important programmes within the economies of developing countries which have been accorded low priority or are likely to be reduced or even eliminated completely. These include post-harvest loss in intervention, development of cooperatives and diversification in agriculture. These are important programmes. There is a possibility of shifting or rearranging resources so as perhaps to allocate them for these important programmes. Listen to us now, Mr Chairman. It is our strong feeling that the guidelines in the base text FAO, which are not and should not be negotiable, should be adhered to and that all Member Nations should strive to provide conditions that will enable the Organization to fulfil these objectives. It is imperative that we, for our part as Member Nations, abide by the regulations and obligations of the Organization.
Adel Mahmoud ABOUL-NAGA (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): I wish you every success in carrying out the hard task that you have before you, which is to try and cope with all the items on this agenda in a short period of time and to implement the resolutions which we adopted on these matters. I am beginning to wonder whether it was really wise or not. I congratulate the three Vice-Chairmen who have been elected.
In my first statement at this historic session of the Council I would like to recall that we are not only celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the foundation of FAO; we are looking forward to future years. We would like to congratulate the Secretariat, the Organization and the Director-General on their international support which we all witnessed at Quebec, together with support from all members of the Organization and
the representatives of its 154 countries. Ninety-five of those delegations were led by the ministers who have the highest authority on food and agriculture in their countries. All these countries wanted to make it quite clear that they stand squarely behind FAO and support the Director-General and the Secretariat. They believe in the purposes of this Organization to make sure that we can meet the problem of international food security which is becoming ever more acute day by day.
Perhaps this opening to my statement will sound out of place here. It is quite relevant to what we are doing at present. What are we doing now? What are we discussing? We are discussing the Programme of Work and Budget of the Organization for the coming biennium, the programme of work to implement the targets we have set for the Organization. We then need to discuss the financial resources which will be needed to make it possible for FAO to do the job. If we really mean what we said in Quebec at that very high level when we spoke in support of the Organization, of its management and its staff, and if we mean that the Organization should be able to do the job, then the least we can do is provide the necessary means for the Organization to perform these tasks.
We have spoken loudly and clearly. Let us now do something that is consonant with that and not just cut costs and budgets all the time.
Having said that by way of introduction, I would like to comment in the way that you have requested and be specific.
First, my delegation supports the budget level proposed by the Director-General. I am speaking not just as a representative of my own country but as the representative of the Group of 77, which adopted a resolution in support of this budget level, having become convinced that the Programme of Work and Budget before us is something which has been prepared taking into consideration the requests we made at the last session to the effect that the budget should be done in accordance with the principle of zero growth. We have all noted the efforts made by the Director-General and his staff to absorb the maximum amount of expenditure and cost compared to what was proposed in Summary of Programme of Work and Budget.
Second, we support the guidelines for rationalization that the Director-General summed up at the session of the Finance Committee. These initiatives are taken specifically by the Organization to take into account comments made by a number of Member Nations. At the same time I would like to ask the Director-General and the Secretariat to make sure that any saving that is introduced will not harm progress, particularly economic and technical programmes. These must be of paramount consideration.
Third, we support the limitation of the Programme of Work as set out in the document, in particular with regard to the Technical and Economic Programmes, without any cuts or major deletions from any one of those programmes. I bear in mind what was said at the meeting of the Programme Committee in connection with improved rationalization of work and activities within the framework of those programmes.
We also support the allocation of certain sums to a number of particular items and to giving low priority to certain activities, while stressing post-harvest losses and the improvement of the position of women in agricultural activities and making better use of marginal lands.
Fourthly, I would like to stress the priority which not only my delegation but all countries attach to the special programmes of the Organization, the one on Food Security in Low-Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCS), which is surely the least that should be done by this Organization to help those countries, which are really in a very difficult situation as regards food security. This is something which we discussed at great length at the Quebec meeting. We also support the EMPRES programme.
The fifth and last point is that my delegation attaches considerable importance to the efforts made to develop a consensus position on the Programme of Work and Budget at the forthcoming Conference session, and I hope that we shall achieve that consensus.
D. Sands SMITH (United Kingdom): Mr Chairman, may I start by saying that the United Kingdom does have points to make on the Programme Implementation Report and Medium-Term Plan. However, I recognize that our attention this morning and at this meeting is very much on the Programme of Work and Budget. We
will therefore make our comments on the Programme Implementation Report and the Medium-term Plan at the Conference at the appropriate time.
Mr Chairman, the United Kingdom has major concerns regarding the Budget Proposal before us. At the Council in June we stressed the need for the budget to match expected payments of assessed contributions and we underlined the need for substantial savings, indeed the scope for substantial savings. Since then the Secretariat has come forward with nothing that is concrete. What we have heard the Director-General say this morning and what we have heard Mr Wade say gives us cause for serious concern. I think we all recognize that further savings have to be found. We need imaginative proposals and options from the Secretariat even if these involve pain.
I would add that I greatly regret that Mr Wade's detailed statement this morning was not circulated before this meeting and I trust that it will be available now.
Mr Chairman, we now have to ensure that we proceed in an orderly manner and that we act responsibly. For the UK, this means ensuring that we agree on a budget figure which fully accords with anticipated payments and contains no financing gap. To do otherwise would be irresponsible and would only perpetuate the unsound financial management of the 1994-95 budget on which the UK was compelled to abstain. We cannot vote for a budget requiring more money than will be forthcoming but what we can do is to ensure that the present substantial costs of staff and administration in particular are reduced and reduced drastically and that the focus is put firmly on the core functions of the Organization with the elimination of marginal activities and those activities that are better left to others. We all have to accept that the Organization cannot do more than the payments we make permit. FAO cannot do it all nor should try to do it all. We should adhere to the core activities set out in the Constitution and, as I have already said, not become involved in areas where other players perform the same function. This principle is at the heart of the ongoing process to make the United Nations more effective and efficient.
Mr Chairman, in making this statement I wish to stress very much that the United Kingdom strongly values FAO and is of the firm belief that it has a vital role to play, and equally it is essential that it plays that role effectively and efficiently. It is in the interests of Member States and indeed of the Organization itself that it should do so. I hope that our concerns and criticisms will be seen to be constructive and not destructive. We are most concerned that they should be accepted and acted upon.
Perhaps I can remind you of the warning that we gave in 1993 on the proposed figure for the 1994-95 budget, a warning which I am sad to say proved to be only too true. No Member State appeared to heed our warning, at least formally at the Conference, and this time we hope that other Member States will reflect carefully and recognize the logic of what we are saying.
I would repeat that there is no sense in a budget beyond expected means. That is an unacceptable proposition in any organization, public or private sector. There is every sense in making sure that we have less, that we focus on what is essential, and that we seek to do more with less by ensuring that there is maximum efficiency and effectiveness. These rigors apply to us all.
Mr Chairman, quite clearly we shall return to this question at the Conference in a few days' time. When we do so, we shall continue to be guided by the dictates of sound financial management. We hope that others will as well. Otherwise - and there should be no illusions about this - there will be serious problems sooner rather than later. This involves painful decisions now, but let us take them in order to preserve a long term financial soundness for FAO. This is in the interests of recipients and donors alike, as well as FAO and its management and staff.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, distinguido delegado del Reino Unido. Para aclarar mi suposición y para entenderlo yo bien, ¿nos está diciendo usted que el nivel de presupuesto debe identificarse conforme a la declaración de contribuciones totales y ajustar a ellas el programa total, y no a la inversa como se hacía originalmente que era identificar un programa y ponerle a éste un presupuesto? ¿Es eso sustancialmente lo que nos está indicando, distinguido delegado?
D. Sands SMITH (United Kingdom): Mr Chairman, let me clarify. Quite clearly the Organization cannot have a budget which is beyond its means. I believe it is fairly apparent to us that those means are going to be constrained. In those circumstances, we have to work to secure maximum savings so that we reach a figure which is commensurate with anticipated payments in the coming two years. Otherwise we face a situation which will be disastrous for the Organization.
Salah HAMDI (Tunisie): Le Programme de travail et budget de Γ Organisation retient notre attention depuis plusieurs mois à travers les travaux des deux Comités: le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier, et les travaux du Conseil. Ceci, certes, en raison de l'importance capitale de la question, mais aussi à cause des difficultés surgies au sujet de la définition du niveau du budget, difficultés dues elles-mêmes dans une large mesure à l'accumulation des arriérés des contributions affectant sérieusement la situation financière de l'Organisation.
Des actions de réforme et de redressement ont été proposées par le Directeur général, adoptées par le Conseil et mises en oeuvre de manière progressive depuis le début de l'année dans le sens d'une amélioration des procédures et des méthodes de travail et d'une augmentation de la rentabilité et de l'efficacité du Secrétariat.
Evidemment, ces actions n'ont pas encore apporté les résultats escomptés, puisqu'elles viennent à peine d'être engagées.
Le Programme de travail et budget reflète, dans la nouvelle version proposée, l'ensemble de ces réformes et actions et, selon toute logique, il aurait fallu donner le temps nécessaire au Secrétariat, à travers ce premier Programme de travail et budget de la nouvelle Direction générale, pour mettre en oeuvre les actions envisagées dans les meilleures conditions matérielles possible, sans pour autant faire abstraction totale des contraintes financières.
Le Programme de travail et budget soumis à notre examen a été préparé selon les recommandations de la dernière session du Conseil, sur la base d'une croissance zéro en valeur réelle avec une absorption maximale des accroissement de coûts supplémentaires par rapport au Sommaire présenté initialement.
L'on enregistre avec satisfaction et intérêt que lors de leur session conjointe, les Comités du Programme et financier, les 11 et 12 septembre derniers, ont apporté "leur plein appui aux priorités de l'Organisation et ils ont convenu dans l'ensemble qu'il fallait préserver la substance du travail de la FAO".
Toutefois, on note avec préoccupation que les deux Comités n'ont pas évolué vers le consensus souhaitable au sujet du niveau du budget, qui permettrait justement de préserver les programmes, compte tenu de l'entente globale au sujet de la priorité et de la substance du travail de l'Organisation.
Si bien que, à ce stade, à deux jours de l'ouverture de la Conférence, nous sommes toujours en présence de trois positions différentes, mentionnées dans le rapport de la session conjointe des deux Comités, qu'il faudrait rapprocher en vue d'aboutir à un niveau de budget préservant les programmes et donnant au Secrétariat les moyens adéquats pour les mettre en oeuvre.
Dans ce cadre, et dans la mesure où dans l'ensemble les programmes semblent bénéficier de l'appui global de l'ensemble des groupes, la délégation tunisienne plaide en faveur d'un niveau de budget adéquat tel que proposé avec certains ajustements garantissant la crédibilité de l'Organisation, finançable par tous les Etats Membres, et mettant ainsi le Secrétariat à même d'assumer ses fonctions avec le maximum d'efficience et d'efficacité.
Une telle démarche n'exclut pas évidemment tout effort louable tendant à identifier de nouvelles opportunités d'économies, cela dans toute la mesure du possible, et en tout cas sans que cela se traduise par une réduction des programmes techniques et économiques ou par des compressions de moyens affectant les capacités du Secrétariat pour la réalisation de ces programmes.
Nous demeurons à ce propos sensibles aux indications fournies ce matin par le Directeur général et aux explications fournies par le Secrétariat qui démontrent qu'il est pratiquement impossible d'aller au-delà pour réaliser des économies substantielles.
La délégation tunisienne lance un appel à tous les Etats Membres, dans un esprit de véritable partenariat, pour faire preuve de suffisamment de flexibilité en vue d'aboutir au consensus souhaitable pour sauvegarder les programmes de l'Organisation et préserver les capacités du Secrétariat pour les mettre en oeuvre.
Ce faisant, nous restons fidèles à notre volonté politique en faveur de l'Organisation, telle qu'on vient de la réaffirmer solennellement dans la déclaration de Québec à l'occasion de la commémoration du cinquantième anniversaire de la FAO.
Nous donnons par là même le temps et les moyens au Secrétariat pour mettre en oeuvre les réformes adoptées, aboutir aux objectifs recherchés, approfondir éventuellement les opportunités de redressement et réunir ainsi toutes les conditions requises pour parvenir à l'efficience, à l'efficacité recherchées qui se traduiront nécessairement par une meilleure maîtrise des coûts pour le futur.
Jacques LAUREAU (France): Monsieur le Président, vous comprendrez que devant présider le Comité de rédaction, et ensuite la Commission II, je m'abstienne de manifester une préférence dans les différentes opinions exprimées ce matin.
Cela étant, du point de vue de la France, je voudrais dire que mon pays ne trouve absolument pas scandaleuse la proposition du Directeur général d'un budget de 697, 8 millions de dollars sur une base inchangée de 673, 1 millions de dollars avec une augmentation des coûts qu'il a limité progressivement à 24, 7 millions de dollars, le calcul effectué excluant, comme demandé par plusieurs Conseils, 38 millions de dollars d'arriérés.
Il nous paraît difficilement acceptable que le principal contributeur revoie de nouveau ses engagements en manoeuvrant pour faire baisser le niveau de la base budgétaire à celui qui correspondrait à sa contribution possible, c'est-à-dire sa contribution multipliée par quatre.
Malheureusement, nous sommes obligés de constater que d'autres pays sont également responsables de la situation où se trouve l'Organisation aujourd'hui, avec d'importants arriérés de contribution.
Le tableau qui nous avait été distribué au 5 septembre 1995 indiquait que 82 pays, c'est-à-dire près de la moitié de ses Etats Membres, étaient dans cette situation, 40 d'entre eux étant susceptibles de perdre leur droit de vote. Dans la liste des pays en arriérés on notera souvent des pays qui ne sont pas parmi les plus pauvres.
Même si des progrès ont été accomplis en matière d'arriérés, puisque d'après des informations récentes en août 1995, 60, 97 pour cent des contributions étaient rentrées contre 48, 12 et 57, 8 pour cent pour les années précédentes, les arriérés restent trop importants. C'est un des facteurs essentiels sur lesquels il faut réfléchir.
Il y a d'ailleurs une sorte de contradiction entre ceux qui demandent constamment à l'Organisation d'en faire plus à leur bénéfice et leur attitude en matière d'arriérés.
Cette situation contribue indirectement à augmenter les contributions des principaux bailleurs de fonds, ce qui crée un problème et notamment aux principaux contributeurs. L'universalisme de l'ΟΑΑ est donc mise à mal. Ceci je voudrais le signaler. C'est une idée simple, mais c'est une idée de coresponsabilité de l'ensemble du Conseil et de l'ensemble des Etats Membres.
Je ne vais pas prendre parti sur le débat qui a été engagé concernant les mesures futures d'économies possibles, mais il est exact que les faits sont têtus et qu'après avoir reconnu la validité juridique de la base de 673, 1 millions de dollars il faut réfléchir pour éviter une situation qui s'est déjà produite en 1991. A l'époque, il y avait eu un décalage important entre le montant du budget-programme proposé et celui des crédits qui pouvaient être ouverts.
On a parlé d'économies en matière de fonctionnement. Le rapporteur a donné des explications, mais comme l'ont dit certains délégués, le Président de l'Union européenne, notre collègue britannique, mais d'autres aussi puisque le représentant du Groupe des 77 et la Tunisie en ont parlé, je pense qu'il serait utile d'avoir une évaluation chiffrée et écrite des mesures d'économies que vous concevez comme étant possibles. Vous nous
avez donné des explications générales mais vous ne nous avez pas donné de chiffres. Donc, il faudrait avoir des chiffres pour favoriser le débat que nous allons avoir en Commission II.
Je terminerai mon intervention par un appel de mon pays au principal contributeur pour qu'il essaie de voir s'il n'est pas possible de faire mieux, et un appel aux pays en arriérés pour qu'ils honorent leurs contributions.
John Bruce SHARPE (Australia): I would like to start by thanking yourself, the Director-General, and Mr Wade for the introductory and the explanatory comments given to this meeting. I will refrain from making comments here on the Programme Implementation Report under Item 10. As a member of the Programme Committee, Australia has made its views known regarding that report and those views in most cases are reflected in the Programme Committee's report, to be considered later in the Conference. Depending on that debate, we may wish to add further comments at that time.
On the Medium-term Plan, under Agenda Item 11, we support the main thrust of that plan as set out in chapter two, which includes food safety and quality, responsible fisheries, trade-related activities, sustainable agriculture, forest management and conservation. We support the existing frequency of the Medium-term Plan, that is, every two years, which is a question raised in the plan itself to be addressed by the Conference. We believe that the agreed longer-term priorities should not be lost sight of as a result of short-term priorities introduced in reaction to changing and perhaps temporary circumstances. We would therefore like to see the Medium-term Plan remain on a regular two-year basis.
On the level of the budget, we too consider that it should be a realistic one, based on likely receipts from contributing members. Australia remains in the middle group which has been referred to on the question of the level of that budget. We believe that efficiencies and some savings could still be made within the Organization and in its activities and that these could be used to lower the level of the budget being proposed without adversely impacting on FAO's ability to carry out its mandate. We have noted the comments made by Mr Wade as regards efforts in the direction of cost savings. We hope that he will have greater success and that he will continue along these lines. We would like to add our voice to those who have asked for a written evaluation of the cost saving measures proposed.
On the question of support costs, we thank Mr Wade for the information he has provided. My delegation remains among those who support the concept of full cost recovery for projects carried out by FAO under trust funding. Mr Chairman, Australia looks forward to joining a consensus on the budget level, which we hope will emerge in the next week or so.
On the question of priorities in the Programme of Work, we will go into these in detail in the Conference discussion but, in general, we view the priorities listed in the programme of work positively. One exception would be the decline in allocation to the fisheries programme. I say that on behalf of the small island states of the Southwest Pacific which I represent on this Council.
In conclusion, Mr Chairman, I would like to echo the comments made by the United Kingdom on the value it places on the work and the contribution that FAO makes.
Alvaro Gurgel DE ALENCAR (Brazil): We in the Latin American Group have, of course, like others, given serious consideration to this problem. We have discussed this at our meetings and in consultations with other colleagues, both within the Group of 77 and outside, and we have come up with a number of criteria which we believe should guide our discussion in this matter. They basically derive from the overriding principle that all countries should fulfil their financial obligations towards the Organization in full, on time and unconditionally. We believe it follows from that that all arrears are due and cannot simply be written off. We do not think there is any validity in trying to classify arrears into two categories, expected and unexpected. Arrears are arrears, they are due, they cannot be written off, and there is no such thing as expected or unexpected arrears. Of course, we also believe that what was done at the last Conference is not according to the best financial management practices, because those sums had already been considered as a source of financing of a previous budget and they should not be considered again and again as a source of financing. Once a budget is established, Mr Chairman, we do not think there is such a thing as expected and unexpected
arrears. As far as we are concerned, all of them are expected, should be paid and that is it. My country was until recently among countries in arrears. We have practically liquidated these arrears, and I am not going to make a big deal of it. It is our obligation, and that is it, and we wish everybody else would do the same.
Coming down to more practical notions which we believe should guide the discussion of this question, we feel that the consideration of the budget, and in particular the level of expenses in it, should not be conducted in a manner that would be tantamount to forcing upon the membership the equivalent of a concept of negative real growth. I suspect that this is what is being hinted at, that we should now move into a new concept of negative growth. This, Mr Chairman, we are not prepared to accept; let us make that very clear. We further believe that, in setting the level of expenditures in the budget, the starting point should be the level of the budget approved by the last Conference and not a lower level, regardless of how people try to arrive at that lower level. At the same time, Mr Chairman, we are firm believers in striving for greater efficiency in this Organization. We believe that FAO should continue its effort to streamline its procedures, improve cost effectiveness of all programmes and make efforts to reduce costs without negatively affecting the implementation of the programme.
This is a very important issue and we look forward to further exploration of the petition involved if that is possible, but we must at the same time caution and we wish to place stress on that, that total absorption of cost increases is not possible; it will eventually put the organization in a straight jacket. It will not allow FAO to respond to new challenges which received needs and it will eventually turn into a shrinking organization with a continuously reduced programme of work. We believe that the level of the budget should reflect the financial requirements to execute the programme of work. We do not think that it is possible to arrive to a conclusion of the level of the budget by saying that this biennium we are not in a position to pay, we are paying one half or one third or whatever our assessed contribution or we are not going to pay arrears, we can only pay seventy percent and then set the level of the budget on the basis of these intentions. This is simply not the way to go about the budgeting exercise. We are prepared to work seriously towards arriving at a consensus of this matter as was clearly stated by the Chairman of the Group of 77 and we hope that we are all seriously, and I am not dramatizing the situation, discussing the matter objectively, clearly and candidly and that we will arrive at a solution which would be acceptable hopefully to all.
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): Thank you Mr Chairman, like other delegations we will provide detailed comments on programme implementation and medium term plan to the appropriate Session of the Conference and not repeat that material here this morning.
I first want to associate the United States Government fully by the statements made here this morning by the European Union and the United Kingdom. They both provide sound guidance to this Council, and to the Secretariat. Like our European colleagues, we are still waiting for the detailed information from the Secretariat that has been repeatedly requested on the impact on the programme of different budget levels that have been proposed. The member countries need this information if we are to reach an agreement on the Programme of Work and Budget and we are disappointed it has not been made available to date and we hope that it will be made available in time for the beginning of Commission II.
Mr Chairman, the United States Government is seeking adoption of a budget level at FAO between US$550 and US$600 million. This is a level predicated on a realistic revenue stream and the maintenance by FAO's core mission. We recognize that the proposed PWB is the first of our new Director-General's and we acknowledge his positive effort to minimize some costs. Unfortunately budget constraints will preclude the United States from accepting the Director-General's proposal at the current level since it does not reflect a realistic revenue stream.
At the end of August, eighty-two Member Nations of the FAO were in arrears and forty of them had such large arrears that they were subject to loss of vote. We anticipate that US$100 million or more in contributions from Member Nations to finance the current budget will not be paid by the end of September. In the face of this shortage of resources, rather than pressing for an increase, FAO should propose a budget level that is significantly lower in nominal terms than the 1994-95 budget proposal which, as we heard this morning, will not be implemented. A budget level much closer to the implemented level is realistic and we believe that it is the implemented level of the current budget that serves as an appropriate base for the coming budget. It makes no sense to talk about real growth from a budget that was a fiction. I hope we are writing a
budget not writing addition fiction. We must collectively seek ways of reducing the 1996-97 budget to an affordable level and the United States will make many specific suggestions in this regard during the Conference. As has been said already today, Mr Chairman, there is no sense in a budget beyond the expected needs to finance that budget.
In this year of fiscal austerity, the United States is requesting our government to support these efforts to reduce the FAO budget to a realistic level. We are not in a need to decimate FAO's programmes, rather we believe FAO's core activities can be maintained by a much smaller budget. We wish to work closely with all countries and with the FAO Secretariat as we seek to shape a restructured and reinvigorated association equipped to address the challenges that lie ahead. I would like to ask a question base on Mr Wade's presentation this morning. He cited some US$30 million of risk in the proposed budget and said addition savings, if any, must be used to cover these risks. Included in the US$30 million of risk, he cited US$9 million in the exchange rate adjustment. Does this mean the Secretariat plans to absorb possibly US$9 million exchange rate adjustment within the proposed budget level allowed with the other increases that are included in that US$30 million? We hope that the answer is yes.
There are two proposals in the report of the joint session of the Programme and Finance Committee that I think the Council will want to specifically react to in its report to the Conference. In paragraph 1.9 of that report the Joint Session urged Council to consider ways of achieving a goal of increased savings and efficiency gains in governance. As this issue will also be of great interest to the Conference, which has an overall responsibility to the Organization, we hope that the Council report will seek the Conference's mandate to pursue this goal. Secondly, the Joint session of the Programme and Finance Committees in paragraph 1.10 gave unanimous support to the proposal made by the Chairman of the Finance Committee, my colleague, Mr Saleem Khan of Pakistan, that the FAO contract for a detailed management review to determine appropriate staffing levels and staffing structure for the Organization. Again, Mr Chairman, I ask that our report from this Council indicate the Council's endorsement of this very important recommendation.
Alhaji Mai M. JIR (Nigeria): Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman we commend the Director-General for taking into consideration the reality of time and situation in making the 1996-97 budget proposals.
Mr Chairman, we are talking about actions to attain Global Food Security and it would be an irony if we should go below a minimum which would affect the very programmes meant to assist in realizing the food security which was just affirmed in Quebec, Canada.
Mr Chairman, Nigeria therefore supports the budget level proposed by the Director-General for 1996-97. We wish to urge Member Nations to pay their arrears and assessed contribution for the Organization to realize the goals set for it by the members. We also urge for consensus on the 1996-97 proposals. We must start the journey to the centenary on a good note. Thank you.1
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I intend at this stage to make comments. There are a number of statements that have been made which would require some clarification. First no governing body of the Organization has ever asked the Secretariat to prepare a document on the impact on programmes of different levels of budget proposals. The second point is that a reference has been made to a recommendation of the Programme and Finance Committees to contract a management review. Let me read exactly what is in the report. "The Committee recommended that a detailed management review be undertaken to determine the appropriate staffing level and staffing structure of the Organization". This is what it said. Mr Chairman, let me also clarify another point. The Secretariat is your Secretariat. It will implement whatever decision you take, but the Secretariat has to be honest with you. If a budget level is approved, as I said in the beginning, whatever that level may be we will propose in all conscience what we believe would be the best way to use those resources without severe negative effects on the programme. We would try to minimize the negative effect. However, to be asked, as has been done, here after we have made US$48 million worth of savings and have indicated that we would have to support the risk of a US$28.5 million cost increase, to be asked to come and make proposals to you for additional savings that would have no impact on the programme, this is something that we are not prepared to say because it would not be honest, it would not be true.
__________
1 Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request
When we went to the Committees, we listed the programmes in the order of priority, as reflected in the answers we got to questionnaires that we sent to member countries. We asked the Committee to indicate where cuts are to be made. We got the report back indicating that no cuts that should be made so why should the Secretariat come and tell you now what is to be cut? The Secretariat has to operate within the rules and regulations of the Organization. The Secretariat has to be guided as far as programmes are concerned and as far as finance is concerned by the Programme and Finance Committees of the Organization. The Secretariat has prepared proposals in line with the guidance that has been given by the Governing Bodies. It is up to each of us to assume his/her responsibility. I would like to be told in fifty years of existence of the Organization when has it ever been proposed that there be a US$38 million saving within the Organization? Let someone tell me. Now on the question of arrears we also have to state what the facts are. One single country owes two thirds of the arrears of the Organization, this is a fact.
Great efforts have been made by countries to pay their arrears. I have here a list of countries which, over the past three months, have made great efforts and have paid. In August we had Angola, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, Paraguay and Latvia. In September we had Papua New Guinea, Panama, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Yemen and Poland. We also had poor little Haiti with the problems they have in their own country. We had Mexico - and we know the financial situation in that country - and Ecuador. In October we had Lithuania, the Central African Republic and Brazil, which had substantial arrears and paid them. We had Zaire, Uruguay, Congo and Mauritania. These countries, despite their financial situations, have made the effort to pay.
Payment is also a matter of political will. It is a matter of respecting the commitments made to this Organization. I repeat, your Secretariat is at your disposal and, in all fairness, the Secretariat will implement whatever you decide, but, when you want your Secretariat to take the "butter money" we will tell you it is not possible. No-one can expect that, after the savings we have made, we will come and propose to you additional savings and that there will be no impact on the programmes. It is normal to be clear about what we did and did not do, why we did it and why we did not do it.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias por estas aclaraciones. Espero que hayan ustedes tomado nota de ellas. Distinguidos delegados, creo que en la medida que el Consejo plantee bien los problemas, en esa medida podrá también encontrar soluciones; y plantearlo significa hacerlo de manera clara y llamar a las cosas por su nombre. ¿De qué vale tratar de identificar recortes efectivos al Programa como ahorros cuando en verdad son recortes al Programa?
Distinguidos delegados, yo no quiero abundar a estas alturas en torno al debate. Son las 13 horas. Espero que tengan tiempo ustedes durante el almuerzo para reflexionar sobre lo que aquí se ha dicho, sobre las palabras del Director General, y que podamos en la tarde hacer planteamientos y preguntas más precisos que nos lleven a identificar la alta responsabilidad que están ustedes tomando al establecer el nivel del presupuesto y el programa de labores de la Organización.
Es responsabilidad de este Consejo hacer recomendaciones claras a la Conferencia y a esta última tomar la responsabilidad plena respecto del futuro que le espera a la Organización y a sus trabajos.
Sin más por el momento declaro concluida esta primera sesión de trabajo y les convoco a estar aquí presentes a las 14.30 horas.
The meeting rose at 13.00 hours.
La séance est levée a 13 heures.
Se levanta la sesión a las 13.00 horas.
