EL PRESIDENTE: Declaro abierta la segunda sesión plenaria del 109° período de sesiones del Consejo. Este Consejo tiene el honor de otorgar la palabra al señor Assad Mostafa, Ministro de Agricultura y Reforma Agraria de Siria.
Assad MOSTAFA (Syria) (Original language Arabic): Mr Chairman, we had very positive impressions in the course of the Quebec meeting. You yourself saw the unanimity and the total commitment on the part of countries there present in their support of the programmes of this Organization. Appeals were launched in an effort to improve the working horizons of this most important Organization. As you yourself saw, Mr Chairman, we were given copies of the signatures on the contract setting up this Organization and there was a comparison of the situation which prevailed at that time, when FAO was established, in 1945, the situation fifty years ago, when the needs were very pressing, and the situation now, when the needs of the world of agriculture are also pressing. This comparison was a very objective exercise indicating that what is required, even more so today, is a greater degree of solidarity to reinforce the programme activities of this Organization. There can be no doubt whatsoever that efforts are being made, and it is the responsibility of all parties concerned to reach agreement on the Programme of Work and Budget, and the budget, so that it can respect the commitments for this Organization as well as field its programmes. This is a collective responsibility because the execution of programmes is in the interest of all the countries of the world, rich as well as poor. It is quite true that the poor countries are the direct beneficiaries of this Organization's programmes but when we reach agreement on the execution of programmes and on a budget, this is something which pertains to our collective responsibility and we must all agree on these matters.
The Director-General and the Chairman of the Council have given us a very clear illustration of the situation and have done so in most realistic terms. They have outlined the consequences of a reduction of the budget. The Director-General has made efforts for which we are most grateful to reduce the expenditure by US$38 million. This is a substantial figure which constitutes a real effort in the right direction. This is in order to respond to the needs of member countries and to the wishes of Council Members. We thank the Director-General for the efforts he has made and hope that he will continue such efforts as far as possible and in such a way that the execution of this Organization's important programme is not hampered.
With regard to the total absorption of cost increases, we feel that this is a very difficult issue, a matter which would have negative consequences, and we would like to make that quite clear from the very outset. The delegation of my country, Syria, is also in the Near East Group, which has met and decided that it will not approve the reduction of the budget but support maintaining the budget as submitted, that is, the zero growth budget. This also means that we support maintaining what is set forth in the programme. We trust and hope that discussions will make it possible to maintain the budget as submitted for our consideration.
There is no doubt as we see it, that the general orientation we followed in Quebec, as I said at the outset of my comments, focused on pressing appeals relative to expanding programmes. As a beneficiary country, we can very well understand the importance thereof for those countries which are direct beneficiaries of the Organization's programmes. We talk about expanding or extending the programme, and then we hear proposals to reduce the budget while we are requesting the execution of the programme and full respect for priorities within the budget. All of this would be impossible were we to reduce the budget as well as the sums allocated. If the budget were reduced the sums allocated would be reduced, the programme would not be executed and a good number of countries in the world would lose a lot of the assistance from which they benefit. This Organization, which works as a body made up of many Members, has to be able to continue, and would be able to continue but not with the same degree of effectiveness or efficiency were the budget to be reduced. I do not feel that any delegation aspires to that end, hence it is necessary for us to give strength and energy to this body, this Organization, as expressed so clearly at the celebration of its 50th anniversary.
Now, quite obviously Sir, I wouldn't want to delve into the details of the Programme of Work and Budget, I would just like to point out that there are a large number of projects which can only be executed through coordinated regional endeavours and the programmes that were presented by the Director-General, as we see them, are rather striking examples in that area. Mr Chairman, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the payment of arrears in contributions is a quite natural duty approved by this and these contributions and duties support the basis of prior agreements and our basis of budgets presented and approved in the past. We trust that the countries that do have arrears in contributions would pay the outstanding amounts before other decisions are made by this house. In by way of conclusion, Mr Chairman, I would quite naturally like to extend my thanks to all my colleagues that have taken the floor thus far and to have supported maintaining the budget level and have also spoken about the proposals of maintaining the programmes contained in the budget of work and we trust and hope that with a true, frank dialogue it will be possible to reach an agreement on this budget situation.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias señor Ministro Assad Mostafa. El Consejo ha tomado nota de su importante declaración, que le agradecemos.
Raphael RABE (Madagascar): Mon intervention sera brève car ma délégation fera, à la Commission II, une déclaration circonstanciée comportant tous les détails requis pour justifier notre appui aux propositions pertinentes du Directeur général, mais aussi, et surtout pour convaincre les autres délégations de la nécessité de soutenir les dites propositions.
Je voudrais remercier le Directeur général pour les informations très précieuses qu'il a voulu nous communiquer de vive voix, avec la clarté et la franchise qui caractérisent ses interventions.
M. Wade nous a indiqué que le Directeur général lui a demandé de nous fournir plus de détails sur certaines questions soulevées par des délégations, lesquelles, à notre sens, devraient être satisfaites au vue des informations communiquées. Il est à signaler par ailleurs que plusieurs des questions posées par ces délégations, à notre sens, auraient dû être soulevées durant les sessions du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier au mois de mai et au mois de septembre. Elles auraient déjà eu satisfaction et nous pensons que leur position aurait pu être moins négative.
Nous sommes convaincus qu'une lecture approfondie des documents C 95/3 et C 95/8, CI 109/4, 195/9, est impérative si l'on veut comprendre les propositions et se prononcer de manière pertinente sur les propositions du Directeur général. En effet, c'est dans ces documents que l'on peut constater tout ce que le Secrétariat a fait pour être plus performant, les mesures draconiennes déjà prises pour contenir les coûts et réduire les dépenses. C'est dans le document C 95/9-Plan à moyen terme, notamment aux paragraphes 44 à 47 que l'on peut prendre connaissance du programme proposé par le Directeur général pour réaliser des économies très substantielles.
Il est cependant utile d'attirer l'attention sur le fait que, parmi les mesures à prendre, beaucoup relèvent de la compétence des organes directeurs. Il faut que les Etats Membres prennent leurs responsabilités au sein de ces organes. Les délégations de l'Iran et de la Libye ont indiqué à juste titre que le Comité du Programme et le
Comité financier devront à l'avenir se pencher sur ces questions et identifier les actions et mesures qui peuvent être prises dans le sens des économies et des réductions de dépenses sans mettre en péril l'Organisation.
Au stade actuel de nos travaux nous jugeons pour notre part que le processus de préparation du Programme de travail et budget, précisé et défini par l'acte constitutif de l'Organisation, a été suivi et respecté.
Le Directeur général a dûment tenu compte des observations et recommandations et suggestions des Etats Membres au sein des Comités et d'autres organes intergouvernementaux subsidiaires. Il a déclaré avoir fait le maximum possible pour donner satisfaction aux exigences des pays membres, mais il a précisé et réitéré que le niveau de 697 millions de dollars est le minimum au dessous duquel des programmes devront malheureusement être sacrifiés.
Le Président du Groupe des 77, et de nombreuses délégations qui se sont exprimées avant nous, appuient ce niveau. Ma délégation joint sa voix aux leurs et voudrait elle aussi lancer un appel à toutes les délégations pour que la Déclaration de Québec, dans laquelle les Ministres réclament qu'un soutien politique soit apporté à la FAO, trouve une application effective et immédiate d'autant plus que la Conférence qui va s'ouvrir devra l'adopter, c'est-à-dire, la faire sienne. La déclaration du Ministre de l'agriculture de Syrie vient à point nommé et nous l'appuyons très chaleureusement.
Christophe KIEMTORE (Burkina Faso): Le Burkina Faso a eu la chance de participer aux travaux du Comité financier et sa position a été exprimée dans le point de vue de la majorité, tel que cela ressort du rapport du Comité financier et du Comité du Programme. Cette position a été très brièvement rappelée ici par un certain nombre de délégués et la liste en est longue. Je voudrais simplement citer la délégation de l'Egypte, du Brésil en particulier.
Notre position n'a pas évolué et nous restons donc convaincus que le Programme de travail et budget qui nous est présenté est réaliste et mérite le soutien des Etats Membres.
Ceci étant, ma délégation n'exprime pas une position de principe, mais notre attitude est basée sur un certain nombre de considérations que je voudrais rapidement évoquer pour permettre de comprendre notre position.
La première considération est basée sur l'environnement mondial actuel. Là, nous n'allons pas tergiverser ou développer des thèmes que toutes les délégations connaissent. Le nombre de personnes qui souffrent de la faim ne diminue pas. Donc rien ne nous permet de voir un avenir meilleur. La situation alimentaire de beaucoup de pays ne fait que s'aggraver. C'est le cas des pays qui se trouvent dans le continent africain.
Il faut ajouter à cet environnement certaines positions prises au niveau international et je voudrais me référer à la toute dernière déclaration de Québec où on a reconnu que tout cela n'est pas de la fiction, c'est réel et que nous sommes en face de besoins croissants.
Donc, partant des considérations liées à l'environnement, ma délégation ne peut pas justifier le fait que nous revenions à une position de recul. Si l'on ne peut pas faire face, on peut tout simplement faire ce que nous avons déjà fait au cours du biennium précédent. Voilà la première considération.
Une deuxième considération est liée au constat que nous observons depuis un certain temps et que nous appelons un souffle nouveau de restructuration. Il est en cours à la FAO, mis en oeuvre par le Directeur général et il vise à restructurer l'Organisation pour lui permettre de se mettre à la page, et à la hauteur des besoins pour lesquels elle est toujours sollicitée. Certains Etats Membres et notamment le Burkina Faso ont déjà apporté leur soutien à cet effort de restructuration. Nous n'arrivons pas non plus à justifier que ce soit en ce moment précis que nous tentons de défendre un programme de travail en baisse. Le Directeur général et le Secrétariat méritent plus surtout si nous sommes unanimes à leur reconnaître une certaine efficacité. Je crois que la FAO mérite plus qu'un budget en régression.
Il y a une troisième considération qui provient du fait que nous devons examiner la proposition du Directeur général. Nous nous sommes attardés sur les programmes qu'il formule et nous n'avons pas constaté de programmes superflus ni de programmes qui nécessiteraient certaines coupures et notre position est d'ailleurs
partagée par les comités restreints, tels que le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier et cela ne nous permet pas non plus de justifier des coupures de programmes.
Une quatrième considération se réfère aux mesures d'économie suggérées par le Comité technique et par un certain nombre d'Etats Membres. D'ailleurs ma délégation estime que ces questions sont tout à fait pertinentes et méritent effectivement d'être posées au Secrétariat. Ma délégation estime que toutes ces nouvelles idées font déjà l'objet d'une application au niveau du Secrétariat, et pour la grande majorité d'entre elles, la FAO a besoin de réaliser un certain nombre d'études pour déterminer le niveau de réajustement qu'il convient de faire. En fin de compte toutes ces mesures ne peuvent pas être mises sur pied séance tenante mais nécessitent que l'Organisation prenne du recul et c'est à ce niveau là que je tiens à me référer au rapport des sessions conjointes du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier du mois de septembre 1995.
Dans les paragraphes 1.9 et 1.10 de ce rapport, le Comité "recommande qu'une étude sur la gestion minutieuse soit entreprise pour déterminer la dotation du personnel et la structure effective qui conviendrait à l'Organisation". Je crois que cette recommandation va dans le sens d'une reconnaissance de la nécessité de faire quelque chose. Mais, avant d'agir, il convient de disposer d'un certain nombre d'études pour ne pas entreprendre des actions qui ne se justifient pas.
Et, au titre des initiatives déjà prises par le Secrétariat, ma délégation souhaite en rappeler un certain nombre. Il a déjà été question de cette économie de 38 000 000 dollars, évoquée ce matin même par le Directeur général, et de la restructuration en cours. Nous souhaitons qu'elle nous permette de faire des économies et que le redéploiement du personnel s'effectue comme convenu. Il s'agit-là d'une demande émanant de certains pays. Il convient de rappeler que ces mesures sont déjà en cours d'application au niveau du Secrétariat. Ainsi, la réduction des publications a été proposée par le Secrétariat lui-même avant que les Etats Membres lui en fassent la demande. Nous soutenons cette perspective. Nous avons, en fait, l'impression que le Secrétariat est beaucoup plus en avance sur certains points. Il est en avance par rapport à certaines préoccupations de ses organes directeurs et vous conviendrez avec moi que le Secrétariat a déjà pris des initiatives que nous devons plutôt encourager.
Je souhaite également faire un bref commentaire sur le concept même de l'élaboration de notre budget. Nous avons entendu ici certaines délégations nous donner l'impression que la préparation du budget doit procéder d'une sorte de contribution annoncée des Etats et que c'est sur la base des ressources que l'on établit un programme. Ma délégation tient à rappeler que la FAO n'est pas le Programme alimentaire mondial pour souligner que ses ressources ne sont pas basées sur des contributions volontaires mais sur des contributions obligatoires statutaires. Autrement dit, ce n'est pas sur la base d'annonces de contributions d'un certain nombre de pays que la FAO peut élaborer son programme mais plutôt le contraire et vous conviendrez avec moi qu'il y a là un problème de définition et d'approche et je crois que ces délégations seront d'accord avec moi pour ne plus voir les choses de cette façon-là.
Le dernier point concerne la situation des arriérés. La position du Burkina Faso sur cette question est claire. Le Burkina Faso sait qu'il est redevable vis-à-vis de l'Organisation, il connaît ses obligations. C'est pourquoi mon pays s'est engagé par des voix plus autorisées que moi à régulariser sa situation financière. Mais ce n'est pas la position du Burkina Faso qui est importante. Il convient plutôt de souligner que le Directeur général a confirmé que des dispositions ont été prises par plusieurs pays en vue de régulariser leur situation financière vis-à-vis de l'Organisation. Je pense que cette attitude devrait être interprétée comme un message à l'adresse de tous les Etats Membres en ce moment où nous négocions notre budget. Nous souhaitons que les efforts individuels réalisés dans le domaine des contributions soient perçus comme une attitude positive afin d'être intégrées dans les négociations du budget 1996-97.
Nous rappelons que notre délégation soutient ce budget afin que l'Organisation puisse accomplir sa mission.
Suharyo HUSEN (Indonesia): On behalf of the Indonesian delegation, I would like to thank the Secretariat for making available comprehensive documentation for this 109th Session of the FAO Council.
Having heard your explanation, the additional information of the Director-General and the clarifications of the officer in charge of the Programme for Budget and Evaluation, and further explanation and information, the Indonesian delegation would like to share the views of previous speakers on this agenda item.
First, the overall aim for zero real growth in the budget with the maximum absorption of non-discretionary cost increases should be kept. Second, the reduction of the cost should not damage the Programme of Work of the Organization as agreed by the 108th Session of the FAO Council. Third, the savings could be made without lowering the Organization's capacity to implement the Programme of Work as presented by the Director-General. Fourth, a consensus of a more realistic level of budget for 1996-97 would be reached by at least the 109th Session of FAO Council to be submitted to the 28th Session of the FAO Conference for its decision.
My delegation noted that there are two figures arising in paragraph 3.17 of Part III of document CL 109/4 but, unfortunately, not one of them explains the reasons clearly to this Session of the FAO Council except the one based on the 1994-95 budget level by reducing the arrears amount of US$38 million and the other maintained its Government's view.
Having considered all the explanations in the document before us and in the information provided by the Chairman, the Director-General of FAO, the Secretariat and Members who have spoken, at this stage my delegation feels that the budget level as proposed by the Director-General is an appropriate one on which there should be a consensus.
Mario MOYA PALENCIA (México): En nuestra importante reunión de Quebec, que fue organizada con tanta diligencia y con resultados tan positivos por el Gobierno del Canadá, de la provincia de Quebec y de la ciudad de Quebec, nos asomamos a los 50 años pasados, describiéndolos, en términos generales, como años de lucha y de logro por parte de la FAO en favor del desarrollo agropecuario del mundo, en favor de la suerte de la humanidad en su conjunto.
Fue aquélla en realidad una fiesta memorable que abundó en coincidencias y en reafirmaciones. Sólo dos días después, señor Presidente, nos enfrentamos a una amarga realidad. Después de haber cumplido 50 años ¿subsistirá nuestra Organización? ¿Están vivos los elementos de voluntad política que le dieran vida? ¿Habremos ya llenado nuestros objetivos? ¿Ya no serán importantes los fines para los cuales la creamos? ¿Aquellos 44 países, México uno de ellos, que se reunieron en 1945 en Quebec, más los otros más de 130 que después se han sumado a esta importante labor, podrán dar ya por concluido el esfuerzo? ¿No se mantienen las obligaciones y los compromisos que hace 50 años, después de la terrible segunda Guerra Mundial, hicimos para crear las Naciones Unidas y la FAO como una de sus más importantes Organizaciones? ¿Siguen vivos los principios del derecho internacional, de cumplimiento de los pactos, de igualdad jurídica de los Estados, de respeto al multilateralisme como una forma de concurrir en la resolución de problemas mundiales o regionales?
Todos estos principios, todas estas finalidades, todos estos objetivos, todos estos anhelos tenemos que revivirlos hoy, señor Presidente, a la vista de que nos parece dividir un problema de presupuesto cuando en Quebec demostramos en realidad que estamos unidos en los fines y en los programas de la Organización. Sería terrible que, frente a la unanimidad en el cumplimiento de los objetivos y los programas de la FAO, ahora una discrepancia sobre los medios y los recursos nos nuble el horizonte y parezca que cambia, en sólo unas horas, la perspectiva de nuestra Organización.
Algunos piden realismos, señor Presidente, como si no existiera en nosotros, como si esta Asamblea fuera un conjunto de soñadores o de irresponsables que no hubieran hecho su tarea o no tuvieran conciencia del problema que manejan. Y yo diría que para ser realistas en los problemas presupuestarios, que no por ser medios no son importantes para el desarrollo de la Organización, tendríamos que echar una mirada, así fuese superficial, sobre el papel que ha jugado el presupuesto de la FAO en el desarrollo de la humanidad.
Aquí tengo algunos datos que será bueno recordar. Para no ir muy lejos, en 1974, señor Presidente, el presupuesto total efectivo de trabajo de la FAO fue de 106 millones de dólares, en números redondos, cuando la población del mundo era de 2 000 millones de habitantes. En 1984, diez años después -que se celebró por cierto la Segunda Conferencia Mundial de Población- el presupuesto ascendió a sólo 421 millones cuando ya en el mundo vivían 3 500 millones de habitantes.
En 1996 el señor Director General nos presenta un programa de 697 millones, cuando la humanidad ha ascendido a 5 500 millones de habitantes.
Esta comparación sólo tiene por objeto que reflexionemos en la relación que hay y tiene que haber entre la magnitud de la tarea que la FAO, aunque no sea la FAO sola, la FAO y otras Organizaciones multilaterales tienen frente al problema del desarrollo agropecuario y de la seguridad alimentaria y los recursos de los que tiene que disponer para hacer su parte.
El problema, según lo vemos nosotros, no está en el presupuesto, sino en su financiamiento; pero hay que preguntarse, señor Presidente, qué tan barato cuesta el impulsar un justo desarrollo agropecuario en el mundo y qué tan caro cuesta el hambre, la inestabilidad política y económica, el posible rompimiento de la paz.
Por eso mi país apoya el nivel de gasto presupuestado y presentado ante nosotros por el señor Director ya como una muestra de flexibilidad y de realismo. Porque si fuéramos inflexibles e irrealistas, pediríamos, señor Presidente, un presupuesto mucho mayor que estuviera acorde con el crecimiento de los problemas a los que la FAO debe enfrentarse.
Hemos aceptado el llamado crecimiento cero, pero en realidad, como se ha dicho esta mañana, ese crecimiento cero, es un decrecimiento, o como dicen algunos economistas, un crecimiento negativo de los recursos de los que dispone la Organización. Por tanto hemos hecho un esfuerzo realista y generoso al aceptar ese nivel. Pero todavía se quiere que ese crecimiento negativo, o ese decrecimiento, sea mayor y se abra aún más la brecha entre las responsabilidades y objetivos de la Organización y los medios con que cuenta para desarrollarlos. En esto no podemos estar de acuerdo. Simplemente, señor Presidente, hay que recordar que en un reciente documento emitido por la Dirección General se revela que el mundo en desarrollo está invirtiendo 144 mil millones en su seguridad alimentaria, y que necesitará inmediatamente otros 31 mil millones para poder, más o menos, compensar las graves deficiencias de alimentos que esa parte, que es las tres cuartas de la humanidad, tiene.
Cómo es posible que estémos discutiendo por una cantidad aproximada de cien millones de dólares, si aumentamos o reducimos aún más los medios que tiene la FAO para colaborar con el mundo, y especialmente con el mundo en desarrollo en esta tarea tan ingente.
Se nos habla de ajuste, pero las teorías de ajuste, las más modernas, las preconizadas por el neoliberalismo, siempre hablan por lo menos de dos parámetros. Uno es, ciertamente, la racionalización de las inversiones y de los gastos. El buscar que las inversiones sean las prioritarias y los gastos los indispensables o necesarios. Esto lo estamos haciendo, y éste ha sido el criterio que ha presidido la acción de los órganos rectores financieros de la FAO y de la Secretaría General.
Por otro lado, señor Presidente, esa misma teoría habla de que en un país, en una Organización que se haga esto, se tiene que hacer al mismo tiempo lo otro, que es lograr el cobro efectivo y puntual de los impuestos en un caso, de las contribuciones o recursos en otro. No se puede emprender un programa de ajuste solamente por el lado de los recortes que fatalmente llevarán al no cumplimiento de los programas y no, en cambio, a la exigencia del cumplimiento de las obligaciones jurídicas y económicas que tienen que proveer al Estado o a la Organización, en este caso a la FAO, de sus recursos para subsistir y laborar.
Ya el señor Director General esta mañana nos habló del esfuerzo que han hecho muchos países pobres y medios en los últimos meses para ponerse al corriente o cerca de ello, de sus obligaciones económicas. Este esfuerzo debe ser secundado por los países económicamente más provistos. Debe ser una obligación el que ninguno de los países miembros deje de cumplir ya que, como se ha dicho aquí, no se trata de países donantes voluntarios, sino de países contribuyentes que están vinculados por una responsabilidad internacional, por un tratado, por un ejercicio jurídico y económico que nos vincula.
Nos ha dicho también el señor Director General que ya no se pueden reducir los gastos sin afectar los Programas. Es obvio que el impacto que tendrían reducciones de 50, de 100 millones o más, en el presupuesto de la Organización, tendría que ir a acortar totalmente algunos Programas y afectar la parte general de los gastos, que sirve de sustento a todos y cada uno de los Programas. Muchos de los cuales no se pueden individualizar por programas y son gastos y ejercicios que van en el conjunto mismo de la Organización.
Por todo ello no podemos partir de las llamadas previsiones de pago para formar el presupuesto. Es, como se ha dicho aquí, realizar el presupuesto al revés. Un presupuesto es la expresión numérica de un programa de gobierno o de un programa de acción. Es qué tenemos que hacer, cuánto necesitamos. No cuanto tenemos que podemos hacer, porque hay varias fuentes de financiamiento de las cuales la más importante es la contribución sin duda, que nos pueden apoyar para realizar el Programa. Esto es lo primero que tenemos que tener en consideración los Países Miembros: que no se agoten y que no se desmantelen y que no se acepten los Programas de la FAO, especialmente aquellos en beneficio del mundo en desarrollo. En beneficio de las legiones famélicas de Africa, de Asia y de América Latina que han recibido de la Organización en este medio siglo una importante contribución técnica y económica para el desarrollo de su seguridad alimentaria.
Creo también, como se ha dicho aquí, señor Presidente, que si procediéramos de esa manera estaríamos buscando como apoyo para el cumplimiento de las obligaciones de la Organización, el incumplimiento de las obligaciones de algunos de sus miembros. Este es un principio que jurídicamente no es admisible. Nadie puede alegar su propio incumplimiento para justificar que los demás varíen su conducta. Es un principio básico del derecho público y del derecho civil. Por tanto, nosotros lo que tenemos que hacer, como señaló un distinguido delegado esta mañana, emprender un problema de corresponsabilidad en el pago de las contribuciones que ligue sin excepción a todos los países para que la Organización pueda contar con los elementos necesarios para realizar y aun ampliar sus programas vistos para que antes de que llegue el primer tercio del Siglo XXI, la humanidad tendrá ya 8 000 millones de habitantes y como nos dijeron las conclusiones del Seminario que se realizó antes de nuestra Reunión ministerial en Quebec, las perspectivas de que se puedan alimentar y mantener en condiciones de nutrición mínima esos 8 000 millones de habitantes o, por lo menos la parte de ellos que nacerán en el Tercer Mundo, es más bien difícil.
Sus conclusiones, como usted las oyó, fueron negativas, fueron pesimistas. Tenemos que hacer todos los países y todas las Organizaciones Internacionales, un esfuerzo muy especial en los próximos lustros. No se compadece ese panorama con la discusión que estamos teniendo. No parece que el mundo esté reunido aquí para pelear por cantidades irrisorias frente a la magnitud de las tareas y de los esfuerzos que tenemos que hacer actualmente y más de aquellos que nos aguardan.
Como también se ha afirmado aquí, ningún adeudo es ni puede ser cancelado. Todos son un haber de la Institución y ésta no podría, sin incurrir en responsabilidad internacional, renunciar a ese patrimonio. Tampoco los Países Miembros podrían basar sus decisiones dentro de los Organos de la FAO como es su Consejo y su Conferencia, en una renuncia de ese haber, o en una legitimación de que las contribuciones no se paguen. Quienes así piensen reflexionen también en que estas actitudes producen lo que con razón se ha llamado aquí, una desmoralización financiera.
Países que siempre han sido buenos contribuyentes están reflexionando si ellos deben seguir pagando sus cuotas frente al abandono de sus responsabilidades de países que notoriamente tienen capacidad económica para hacerlo. Qué bueno, en cambio, que, como comentó el señor Director General, otros países, incluso el mío, que estamos padeciendo una severa crisis económica, estemos haciendo esfuerzos para cumplir nuestras responsabilidades en la Organización, y lo seguiremos haciendo porque es un principio imperativo atributivo de que una nación responsable no puede abdicar.
Estamos dispuestos a poner de nuestra parte la mayor flexibilidad; pero la flexibilidad no puede significar el abandono de los principios ni el incumplimiento de las normas. Por eso apoyamos el nivel de presupuesto y, sobre todo, del Programa de Labores del señor Director General. Los ahorros que ya nos manifestó pueden hacerse sin lesionar esos programas. La prioridad que se le da precisamente a ciertos programas especiales, como los Programas de Seguridad Alimentaria en países de bajos ingresos y con déficit de alimentos y también en todo lo que signifique un conveniente enfoque de género que ayude a la mujer, especialmente a la que vive en el campo a superar plenamente la malnutrición.
Este es uno de los compromisos que la mayor parte de los países contrajimos recientemente en la Conferencia de Pekín y que debe verse reflejado en nuestros programas y en nuestras acciones.
Apoyamos también que se mejore la eficiencia de la FAO, pero siempre y cuando las medidas para lograr esta finalidad, que debe ser en realidad un ejercicio permanente, se tomen, sin perjuicio de las obligaciones de pago, y encaminadas a robustecer a la Organización y no a entorpecerla.
Creo, señor Presidente, que con un ejercicio de voluntad política y con una ratificación de los objetivos y de los fines que nuestros mismos países dieron a la FAO en su creación, es posible que salgamos de un impasse que visto y considerado frente a la magnitud de las tareas del desarrollo agropecuario del mundo, es verdaderamente irrisorio.
K. SHIMIZU (Japan): My delegation would also like to speak about the Medium-term Plan and the Programme Implementation Report at the appropriate time during the discussion at the Conference. My delegation greatly appreciates the efforts of the Director-General to produce an effective budget. We are also glad to note progress on arrears. My delegation supports the budget based on a zero real growth rate. However, Mr Chairman, reality is reality. It is advisable to suppress the budget level as much as possible to avoid further disruption. My delegation is of the view that we must consider the problem in a pragmatic and flexible manner in light of the uncertainty that still exists as regards the financial situation. There are two approaches to the difficulties. The challenge we now face has not only temporary but long-term perspectives. We may find a temporary solution at this juncture based on the suggestions made by the joint meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees as contained in document CL 109/4 and other suggestions made during this discussion. We must address an eventual solution to establish a solid and sound financial base.
In the latter approach the following areas may be addressed. First, a workable budget level. It may not be appropriate to consider a budget based on zero real growth. We must find a more acceptable budget level in the future. Second, the review of the structure on a post-wise basis, including senior post adjustments, not just P-level posts. At the last Council meeting my delegation suggested the merging of the Financial and Information Departments or that one of the ADG posts should be downgraded to a D-level post. Third, effective measures to prioritize activities. This is necessary as a result of the reduced budget in the future. Fourth, a review of services Member Nations are now enjoying. We have taken various services for granted: publication, interpretation, conference messenger services as such. Fifth, a review of the field operations system as a whole. We have never reviewed the field structure. There may be a possibility of looking into joint offices with other international organizations, for example, UNDP, resident coordinator of the United Nations system at country level. The resolution has already been adopted at the General Assembly to that effect. Alternatively we could share the responsibility of the cost of field offices with the host country. Sixth, improve the transparency of our administration and management based on past experiences. My delegation is concerned in particular about the experience of FINSYS and PERSYS, which has involved the loss of a huge amount of money. Seventh, measures to cut down arrears, including severe measures. We can probably cut down the provision of documentation or other services. In short, it may be time to establish a solid and sound financial base for this Organization according to the real situation of limited resources and establish a more effective and efficient Organization.
Aguinaldo LISBOA RAMOS (Cap-Vert): Nous venons de participer à Québec aux célébrations du Cinquantième anniversaire de la FAO et à la Réunion ministérielle sur la sécurité alimentaire qui ont été précédées du Symposium sur le développement au coeur de l'humain. Ces manifestations ont souligné la difficile situation dans laquelle vivent des centaines de millions de personnes qui souffrent encore de malnutrition et de la faim. Elles ont montré comme l'avenir des prochaines décennies se présente nuageux et incertain si des mesures fermes et décisives ne sont pas prises pour augmenter de façon durable la production des biens alimentaires. La communauté internationale a bien répondu à l'appel du Directeur général et la presque totalité des Etats Membres étaient à Québec représentés par des délégations de très haut niveau.
Le Programme de travail et budget et le Plan à moyen terme qui nous sont soumis sont de précieuses contributions à la recherche de solutions à ces défis dans l'esprit de la Déclaration de Québec. Le document C 95/3 nous présente un programme de travail bon et élaboré et un budget de 697, 8 millions de dollars pour sa réalisation. Ce budget est conçu sur une base de croissance réelle zéro en tenant compte du fait que, malgré les immenses besoins des Etats Membres, et particulièrement de ceux en développement, les réalités du monde d'aujourd'hui ne permettraient pas l'approbation d'un chiffre plus élevé.
Ce programme répond aux orientations de la 108è session du Conseil tant en termes financiers qu'en termes de priorité. Le Directeur général, le Président indépendant et M. Wade ont donné aujourd'hui des éclaircissements détaillés sur tous les efforts faits pour absorber davantage encore les coûts en nous soulignant
les risques que des économies plus grandes pouvaient entraîner pour l'exécution des programmes ainsi que pour l'efficacité et la crédibilité de la FAO. Et nous tous savons combien un effort efficace et crédible est important pour ses Etats Membres.
En effet, nous sommes convaincus qu'il s'agit d'un programme minimum pour une période de deux ans et que le budget est réaliste. On ne peut pas penser à l'hypothèse de ce que l'on pourrait appeler "la croissance négative". Sans préjudice de la continuation des études en cours sur la rationalisation, la délégation du Cap-Vert considère donc que l'on peut approuver la proposition du programme de travail et budget qui nous est soumise et elle espère qu'un consensus soit obtenu dans la perspective d'une responsabilité totalement partagée et solidairement assumée.
J'espère évidemment que le budget sera approuvé par consensus par tous les Etats Membres.
Mrs Marasee SURAKUL (Thailand): With regard to the Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97, my delegation has listened carefully to other delegates and has reviewed document C 95/3 with great interest. It is not therefore my intention to repeat what has been said. I simply want to indicate briefly my government's position. First, we support the principle of zero real growth for the 1996-97 budget. Second, we appreciate the efforts of countries in reaching a consensus on the budget level for 1996-97. However, it is not the case that the activities and programmes should not be cut totally. We urge FAO to consider seriously the need to find ways to save costs in administration bearing in mind the cost effectiveness of Member Nations paying their arrears as soon as possible to keep FAO moving ahead. Finally, further consultation amongst the parties concerned should continue until the coming Conference.
Mme Régine DE CLERCQ (Belgique): Avant de pouvoir attaquer la question du programme, il nous faudra éclaircir la question du budget, et mon intervention se limitera donc à cet aspect.
Ma délégation a pris très bonne note de la déclaration du Directeur général au sujet du budget et des importantes économies qu'il a déjà réalisées. Nous nous en félicitons.
Nous avons aussi entendu M. Wade qui a indiqué les domaines où des économies supplémentaires pourront être réalisées. M. Wade a indiqué que toute économie supplémentaire devrait être utilisée pour compenser des coûts supplémentaires, ces derniers étant estimés à quelque 30 millions de dollars.
Il reste dans mon esprit quelques questions. Jusqu'à quel point sommes-nous certains de ces augmentations de coûts escomptés par M. Wade? Les décisions au sujet des coûts du personnel prévus ou à décider par l'assemblée générale, qui ne sont donc pas de la compétence du Directeur général, ces décisions ne sont pas encore connues et leur impact est un peu incertain. Peut-on nous donner plus d'informations précises à cet égard? Quand je dis "précises", je veux dire "chiffrées".
D'un autre côté au sujet des économies supplémentaires, nous applaudissons les efforts déployés par le Directeur général pour identifier ces économies, et mon pays, comme d'autres, espère avoir rapidement des indications précises et par écrit à ce sujet.
Nous comprenons que certaines choses ne peuvent pas être encore indiquées avec précision parce que certaines études sont encore en train de se faire mais des indications nous aideraient beaucoup. Nous avons besoin de ces indications pour progresser dans le processus de décision fixant le niveau du budget.
Toutefois, d'après les premières explications données par M. Wade ce matin, pouvons-nous espérer que quelques économies supplémentaires de quelque 50 millions de dollars pourront se réaliser, sans que cela n'affecte sérieusement le programme de travail? Est-ce un chiffre réaliste? Je conviens qu'il est indéniable qu'une telle économie devra entraîner un effort considérable d'efficacité de la part des chefs de l'Organisation de la FAO mais aussi des chefs de ses organes directeurs.
Si une telle prévision pouvait se vérifier, le niveau du budget qui en résulterait correspondrait pour mon pays au maintien de façon dynamique et flexible, du principe de croissance zéro avec absorption maximale de coûts.
Si par contre nous ne trouvons pas facilement un consensus au sujet du niveau du budget, même après avoir identifié le paquet d'économie que nous pouvons espérer, il nous faudra sans doute passer à une autre phase d'analyse, c'est-à-dire qu'il nous faudra sans doute réfléchir collectivement à des économies sur les programmes qui soient acceptables par tous.
Nous avons déjà essayé cet exercice. Nous avons essayé d'identifier des programmes non prioritaires. Cet exercice n'a pas très bien réussi. Il me semble que le résultat de cela était plutôt une augmentation du budget qu'une diminution.
Peut-être devrions nous faire autre chose, c'est-à-dire identifier des critères que nous soumettrons au Directeur général pour trouver les programmes sur lesquels, lui, pourrait faire des économies. A un tel effort, il y a certainement une contrepartie.
Je voudrais réitérer ici l'opposition de mon pays à toute légitimation des arriérés. On ne peut pas exiger de la FAO de faire des économies supplémentaires sans avoir en même temps un comportement crédible en matière de paiement des contributions. A cet égard, je ne crois pas qu'il y ait besoin de répéter ce qui a été déjà dit par plusieurs orateurs cet après-midi. Les contributions des Etats Membres sont une obligation internationale. Le budget de la FAO est fixé par la Conférence. Les barèmes de contribution qui l'accompagnent sont fixés par une décision de l'Assemblée générale et ces décisions nous lient collectivement.
Enfin un point précis: celui des Support Costs.
Il est important pour nous que l'Organisation puisse maintenir des fonds extra-budgétaires. Je suis d'accord avec le Secrétariat au sujet des frais liés à la question des programmes. Il faut attendre les résultats des mesures qui sont envisagées, dont on espère qu'ils vont diminuer ces coûts, parce qu'il est vrai qu'actuellement la gestion de ces programmes est très coûteuse et il importe donc de la rendre moins coûteuse.
En ce qui concerne les coûts liés au soutien technique des programmes fiduciaires, la Belgique est disposée à examiner toute proposition faite par le Secrétariat à cet égard en attirant l'attention sur le caractère inter-dépendant du flux des ressources extrabudgétaires et des frais d'exécution que la FAO imputera aux donateurs.
En conclusion, compte tenu de ce qui a déjà été dit par tous les orateurs qui m'ont précédée, et en attendant de recevoir des réponses aux questions posées, mon pays réserve sa position finale sur le niveau du budget en espérant pouvoir joindre le consensus.
Mrs Mària KADLECIKOVA (Slovakia): Mr Chairman, thank you for giving me the floor. Distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen. Just yesterday we came back from Quebec City where we celebrated the past 50 years of FAO's existence. The atmosphere from this meeting I think to visible results of the Organization on the way to secure enough food, was impressive. After 50 years the mission of the FAO founders is still sound. All of us felt that the Organization has a full right to a future inside the United Nations System. There is no room for scepticism because it is a huge humiliation for the reasonable part of human beings to suffer poverty and hunger.
Today we face the hard reality of crucial problems of the financial position of the Organization. Not surprisingly, confrontation has taken place and it was impossible to avoid this process. Purification of the attitudes on this form is correct. An endeavour to achieve consensus within the Member Nations has been launched.
My Government had dealt with this problem in its session. Reasonable attention was dedicated to it. The official statement on this issue will be expressed in the address of the head of our delegation.
I would also like to point out that FAO already made welcome steps with reasonable savings. The achieved amount is not enough for the decisive solution. Further savings are unavoidable. In this point the Slovak Republic associates itself with the statement of the European Union.
At this moment the interest of my Government does not meet precisely the quantitative proposal prepared by the FAO Secretariat. In particular, we are very cautious on the FAO major programmes and our interest is to protect them by making savings. FAO submitted a statement regarding this possibility. I would like to assure FAO's Council that we are open and ready for productive dialogue and for reasonable steps to achieve consensus. We are aware of the difficulties that are made by it. It is obvious that Slovakia with its lasting social and economic difficulties cannot decide to solve this serious problem but we are, in accordance with our supportive humanitarian approach against afflicted people, in favour of maintaining the FAO mission and helping the world poor to meet their daily commitments without the burden of how to feed themselves.
Atul SINHA (India): Thank you, Mr Chairman. We have very carefully studied the Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97 and we have seen the concept of zero real growth. We have been talking about this for a very long time and we would still like to reiterate that given the aspirations and needs of the world, there is no escape for at least zero real growth budget. We support fully what Mexico said recently that the demands of the world are such, the problems of the world are such that perhaps we should have gone in for a substantial increase over the previous levels but then, given the problems of financing which many countries are facing, the minimum that we can have is a zero real growth.
Therefore, for the reasons which have been identified by several speakers, notably Egypt, the Chairman of the Group of 77 meeting and also by Brazil and many other developing countries, we would also like to support the concept of zero real growth as recommended by the Director-General and as examined by the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee. While doing that we do realize the problems in financing which are coming up. I do not repeat what was said by the previous speakers about the need for consensus, we also would like to help in that process, but at the same time we must remind this assembly that the needs and aspirations of the people all over the world are such that we probably would not be satisfied with anything less than this and therefore the time has come when we must see what we can do about the concept of zero real growth.
First of all, I would like to congratulate the list of countries which was stated by the Director-General who have, in spite of their difficult financing positions, tightened their belt and made their payments. Perhaps this would be a signal which would probably be copied by an estimatable amount of countries and also by other countries who have some arrears which they are finding difficult to meet. It only shows that if you have the will probably the funds do come.
At the same time I would once again repeat what I have been saying in the past. We have spoken at length about the need for countries to make their payments and we are finding that countries are finding it difficult to meet their arrears at the present level. We are also noting that the kind of increase you are planning which the Director-General proposed for the contributions and funding is something which is going to be a very big problem for the developing countries, particularly because if at the present level they are finding problems financing their contributions they would still have a bigger problem if that kind of increase is imposed on them, but at the same time we should be looking very strongly at the other side of the point and that is if we cannot increase contributions we should try to increase the income of the Organization. I have every reason to believe that the Organization with so much strength in terms of capabilities and in terms of excellent organizing abilities in terms of vast experience of fifty years in handling agriculture issues, can guard a number of resources by giving advice collectively. I must be very clear and say I do not propose that FAO should start to charge for its advice and assistance to countries. What I am aiming at is that FAO should charge some of their institutions, some of their bodies, which want technical advice it should be in order and FAO should enter that area so that it can maintain its own resources. Unless we look at new methods of financing FAO I am afraid we are going to have this problem year after year where countries will find it difficult to meet their contributions and at the same time we would be spending a lot of time at this end trying to find out what can be done. So I am afraid perhaps this concept has to be given more thought and we would expect the Organization to come up with concrete suggestions and be in the field of reassessing for the concept particularly so that it can get some increased resources for itself and thereby reduce the burden on other countries. I would like to indicate about the arrears. A lot has been said about arrears and the fact remains that the recoveries are still nowhere near our expectations. Perhaps the idea would be that the incentives which are being offered today for the arrears are not enough, so I may suggest that instead of keeping these vast arrears and missing out on the opportunity of its capital it is much better if the level of the incentives which are being offered for early payment could be increased. We were told last time that this was
provided but it is not proving sufficient. Perhaps the time has come when some better incentives could be offered to see if that can help because I suppose if the problem of arrears are met, a lot of the problems can be solved.
I will comment briefly on the TCP. Some issues were raised about the level of TCP appropriation which must be 17 percent of the total budget. India now recognizes that perhaps that level will be less than ideal and may not be achievable in the near term. At the same time I would like to stress that the Technical Cooperation Programme is of the utmost importance to developing countries, particularly the large number of countries which are now slowly liberalizing and some in other parts of the world, particularly in Africa, which depend on this. This Programme should be at the centre of FAO's activities. There is no question of reducing its outlay; it must be increased. Although we might not reach the 17 percent level, that must be an ideal.
We also welcome the Director-General's resolution which states that US$15 million would be allocated for this Programme if additional funds become available in the form of payments of arrears and voluntary contributions from interested Member Nations. This is a reassuring concept. We are happy that this initiative has been taken. We hope that voluntary contributions from interested Member Nations will be forthcoming for this notable purpose.
As for regional offices, we merely indicate that we are happy that two regional offices have been established. We would like to make a plea for sub-regional offices for Asia, in particular South Asia, given the number of people who live in that part of the world and the number of countries whose main source of sustenance is agriculture.
We support the programme for Food Security for Low Income Food Deficit Countries. We appreciate the initiative that has been taken. I would like to mention a couple of important points for the future. One, all programmes, and particularly this one which is at the centre stage of FAO's future thrust, must involve a substantial degree of consultation with the countries involved and with people or countries who have had experience in running similar programmes. We notice that there are special food production programmes. We find that there are several elements which have been the focus of several other programmes propagated by other donor countries. I name in particular Denmark and Norway who have run large numbers of programmes in the Nordic countries as well as in my own country. They have the requiried experience. If we were to interact and find out their experience, perhaps we could cut out a lot of flab and introduce certain items which have been learnt through experience. We must not forget the Untied States of America in this matter which has funded several programmes through USAID. Perhaps the greater interaction with them for a better thrust for this programme would be in order.
In passing, I would like to mention that we would like greater support for fisheries development. We support Australia on this matter. Australia made a good plea. Our own interests are to support activities in small island nations where fisheries are important.
India supports strongly a greater outlay on fisheries. If that outlay is forthcoming, some of it should be earmarked for small island nations. In that way perhaps there will be a greater focus on those nations.
I will mention the steps taken on TCDC. India was the first country to sign the agreement for TCDC. Our commitment to this programme is absolutely total. I point out that we are very happy to note that this programme has started to move in the right direction. I understand that some experts have moved and others are in the process of moving. I am absolutely certain that the programme will gain momentum over the coming months. I hope that the desired thrust from the Director-General will sustain the programme and put the programme into top gear in the shortest possible time because if TCDC gets going the cost benefits will come into play and we will start having cost savings benefits in the near term and the programme will be a success.
I am happy to note that the programme has started moving as we had hoped it would. At the same time I would like to make an impassioned plea to all my colleagues to enhance their efforts and ensure that the project proposals are finalized quickly. This will contribute much to this programme and more experts who are already on line will be able to go to the countries and provide benefits to the TCDC programme. This will not only be a concept but a galloping programme which will benefit both FAO and the developing countries.
The National Professional Officers Scheme is a good concept. I do not know whether it has reached the levels which are expected. Perhaps here also some greater effort is required. Once again I request that my colleagues, who have not provided their lists, to provide them now to the their organizations so that the National Professional Officers can be placed in position. In particular we would like to commend the scheme. We wish it every success.
The recently established Department of Sustainable Development is a concept we welcome because sustainable development is at the heart of the scheme of things. We would like to caution that this should not become a duplication effort. Therefore, very close monitoring in the initial years will be necessary so that the total benefits which have been emphasized are realized in the short and medium term.
We support the concept of zero growth and hope that the resource mobilization comes through. We also hope that a consensus on this will emerge to the benefit of every member of FAO.
B. N. NDIMANDE (Zimbabwe): With regard to the 1996-97 Programme of Work and Budget, presumably nobody would quarrel with the efforts made to cut all operations which can be done away with without causing a negative impact on the implementation of programmes. However, I hope that we will not continue cutting budget in the future to the extent that we render FAO programmes ineffective and inadequate to help the poor of the world.
It is clear to all of us that FAO is facing a difficult situation with regard to its 1996-97 budget level. Without an appropriate budget being approved, appropriate that is to allow for the full implementation of the FAO Programme of Work for the coming biennium, essential programmes and activities of FAO will surely be negatively affected. At a time when we should be pulling together for the ultimate goal of FAO and in pursuit of its "food for all" objective, we might find ourselves quite seriously divided over the very lifeblood of the organization - the level of its budget.
There can be no quarrel at all in principle with those who seek change and the more effective use of resources and better value for money but change in an organization of the size and complexity of FAO does not come about overnight. It cannot simply be imposed. Long-standing programmes and priority areas cannot simply be cut, downgraded, or eliminated. Millions of people depend on these programmes. Unilateralism on the part of any of us here has little place in a multilateral context. For any one of us to ignore or turn our back on the fundamental principles upon which FAO and the broad UN system is based is an action, the full consequences of which would be difficult to foresee, not only with regard to FAO, but for the broader UN system as well.
Leadership in whatever context within our organization brings with it a certain status, certain privileges and a certain prestige. It also brings with it undeniable obligations. Prime among these obligations is to set a good example for donor commitment and to abide by the rules and, above all else perhaps, to act always in the very best interests of the Organization.
All of us here have such obligations. The extent of unpaid arrears provides a clear indication. However, that many of us here are to be found wanting in fully meeting some of them clearly brings about a situation which cannot continue. We urge everyone who is in arrears to make serious efforts with their capitals to redress this most unfortunate state of affairs. It would be hard to envisage how we can all continue to expect a big output from FAO if we do not give it the necessary resources it needs.
Now possibly as never before in the history of FAO the Director-General needs our fullest possible cooperation and support. The Organization has embarked upon an extensive programme of restructuring and centralization which of itself and as it is implemented will generate a certain degree of temporary instability. The FAO does not deserve, nor cannot it afford, the innate and uncertainty which our failure to reach agreement on appropriate and a fully adequate 1996-97 budget level would certainly generate.
None of us is opposed to change. The broad mandate for far-reaching reform given to the Director-General is clear evidence of this, but agreement upon these changes to be introduced gradually and implemented came about through a wide range of consultations and negotiations. The result has been positive; it reflects a situation with which we can all live and from which the FAO will definitely emerge stronger and more effective. Surely if other changes are desired or required we must follow that same tried and tested path of
consultation and negotiation and the gradual implementation of whatever changes might be agreed upon. Our overriding concern, each and every one of us, must be for the well-being and future of the Organization itself. It is this consideration above all else which must motivate and temper our actions.
Klaus GARKE (Germany): Opinions regarding the adequate level of the FAO budget for 1996-97 differ enormously. The draft budget proposed by the Secretariat contrasts with the much lower budget proposed by the largest contributor. We consider it necessary for the Governing Bodies of the Organization to draw the necessary conclusions from this discrepancy. We are prepared actively to participate in finding a solution for the Organization. However, we must be aware that it is necessary for the Conference to adopt a realistic budget, one which does not ignore the actual income which is foreseeable for this Organization.
My delegation calls on other delegations not to disregard this point. In the interests of the proper fulfilment of this task, the Organization must not draw up a Programme of Work and Budget knowing that the revenue which is envisaged and required for important elements of the programme will not be available.
The consequences of such a procedure would be irresponsible. This would also be a waste of financial resources as projects already in progress would have to be discontinued either completely or in part.
Mr Chairman, we cannot be sure that all states will make their contribution in full. Thus it is no longer guaranteed that the budget will suffice to carry out the programme of work. The question which crops up is how any shortfalls which might occur can be compensated for. We are not willing to fill the gap. We also said so at the 108th Session of the Council. Therefore, we must take precautions for this case. Provisional budget freeze must be envisaged up to the amount of the expected non-payment of contributions. Beyond this point no further expenditure would be permitted. The freeze could be lifted at the time and to the extent that higher payments of contributions come in. This could take place automatically in order to avoid further discussion by the Conference or by the Council.
Mr Chairman, let me come to another point. In paragraph 195 on page 67 of document C 95/3 the Secretariat proposes that the additional costs to be expected for salary increases are not to be financed through the regular budget but instead through transfers through the Special Reserve Account and yet only the question of financing would be clarified here. If salary increases for the common system were to be adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, then the Organization would still not yet have the budgetary appropriations necessary according to the financial regulations. Therefore, we deem it necessary for the cost increases in salaries to be accounted for in the 1996-97 budget. Only thus can we ensure a fair treatment of expenditures to be expected. Financing of these salary increases takes place, as suggested by the Director-General, through the Special Reserve Account, yet only to the extent actually required. This means budgeting these costs, so that Member States assessment in contributions is not higher than envisaged. We assume that this is accordingly reflected in the budget resolution.
Following the draft resolution of the Secretariat in paragraph 55 on pages 32 and 33 of document C 95/3, the Director-General is to be authorized to implement further measures beyond the envisaged programme of work which are to be financed from arrears. Mr Chairman, this would mean passing a sort of blank supplementary budget. We would thus be opening a secondary budget besides the regular budget, and this limits budgetary transparency. Yet the suggested method of financing is also very questionable. This is certainly not the time to hope for greater payments of arrears. These payments, should they come in, are urgently needed for the regular budget. By financing through payment of arrears, we would be making a mistake similar to the passing of the regular budget of 1994-95. Germany had already warned against it then. Let us not repeat this mistake. The FAO financial regulations state that all contributions, including those on arrears, are to be credited to the general fund. For good reasons, we must insist on adherence to these regulations. For all these reasons therefore, we cannot endorse this draft resolution.
My delegation would like to draw attention to one priority area of the forthcoming programme of work, namely sub-programme 2.1.2.1., Conservation and Management of Plant Genetic Resources. Document C 95/3 clearly states the major tasks involved, namely implementation of the global Plan of Action on the basis of the world's report on plant genetic resources and, secondly, a revision of the international undertaking on plant genetic resources and its harmonization with the Convention on Biological Diversity.
I think the Council is aware that these tasks are of the utmost importance for the future competence of FAO in this field which is closely related to sustainable agriculture and food security. Critical in this respect is the Fourth International Technical Conference next year in Leipzig. It must be carefully prepared to achieve these objectives which go beyond the 1996-97 biennium. Of course, Germany feels particularly committed to these tasks and appreciates the great support that it gets in this respect from many other countries. Primarily our concern is to ensure that the Conference outcome will be concrete and strong enough to reinforce global, regional and national efforts for the conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources.
This we see also in relation to the World Food Summit and in particular the 1997 review by the Commission on Sustainable Development of the UNCED follow-up process five years after Rio.
For these reasons, we ask the Council and the Secretariat to seriously consider the following: first the main output in our opinion to result from Leipzig should be a technically solid prospective and politically well-balanced global plan of action including prioritized cost programmes, projects and activities. The Leipzig Conference Agenda should therefore foresee also the implementation and financing of the Global Action Plan.
Secondly, under agenda item "Progress Report and the Revision of the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources", in our view the Leipzig Conference could discuss options for the solution of the outstanding questions, i.e., scope of the international undertaking, access to plant genetic resources, the realization of farmers' rights, support for developing countries and institutional aspects, but this depends on the progress that we will be able to make with the further preparations and on the readiness of all member countries to do so.
Thirdly, a suitable deadline for the revision of the international undertaking should be sought. 1997, when the Commission on Sustainable Development will review the UNCED follow-up, could be appropriate, and then the Twenty-ninth Session of the FAO Conference could approve the revised undertaking.
Mr Chairman, the Leipzig Conference is also expected to provide a major input for the World Food Summit in November 1996. Therefore the Leipzig Declaration should include political and operative elements, the latter reflecting the main contents of the Global Plan of Action. This aspect is related to the still valid idea of a high-level segment of one day for the Leipzig Conference. My delegation favours this intention to give the event the political level that it deserves.
The German authorities, in close cooperation with the Conference Secretariat, are fully engaged in the preparatory arrangements for the Conference. Following the appeal by the FAO Secretariat, my country has considered possibilities for funding and participation of representatives from certain developing countries in the Leipzig Conference. I may announce that arrangements are being made for the participation under these terms of representatives from 25 countries.
Finally, I would like to urge the Secretariat to take the necessary steps so as to ensure that the document for the Leipzig Conference will be available on time.
EL PRESIDENTE: Se ha tomado nota, distinguido delegado de Alemania de sus peticiones y propuestas.
Pedro Alfonso MEDRANO ROJAS (Chile): Tal como lo señalara el distinguido representante del Brasil, el Grupo Latinoamericano estableció un grupo de trabajo presidido por el distinguido Embajador del Brasil, para estudiar y analizar las propuestas respecto del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto, y estableció algunos criterios y algunos principios, que creemos que pueden ayudar a resolver los problemas que aquí se han planteado.
A estas alturas del debate, señor Presidente, creemos que es urgente y necesario al menos tener una metodología para resolver el problema actual y examinar para el futuro una solución más estable. Francamente, nos habría gustado que la propuesta del Comité de Finanzas y del Comité del Programa, fuera una propuesta más concreta, más propositiva que se pudiera endosar y proponer a la Conferencia para su aprobación, y no enfrentar a la Conferencia al tratamiento del problema en su conjunto.
La pregunta que nos formulamos a esta altura del debate, es qué le vamos a proponer a la Conferencia. La Secretaría ha hecho lo que se le había pedido. Ha presentado un programa de presupuesto y hay propuestas concretas de ahorro.
Respecto de esta propuesta, basada en criterios y prioridades aprobados por los órganos rectores de la FAO, tenemos que pronunciarnos. En tal sentido nuestra delegación expresa su apoyo a esta propuesta, particularmente al nivel del presupuesto indicado.
Queremos reafirmar algunos criterios que nos parecen básicos para cualquier solución, y lo queremos señalar con mucha claridad. Como lo expresara el distinguido Embajador de México, el derecho internacional es la base de la convivencia de la Comunidad Internacional y el cumplimiento de las obligaciones que conlleva la participación en los organismos internacionales, constituye la base moral en la que se funda el sistema internacional. El respeto de estos principios es lo que permite el funcionamiento de la FAO, de los Organismos Internacionales y el cumplimiento de las obligaciones internacionales. Es basado en este principio elemental por lo que nuestros países pagan sus contribuciones, cumplen, por ejemplo, sus compromisos con el Fondo Monetario Internacional, con el Banco Mundial y con la deuda externa.
En tal sentido, señor Presidente, las cuotas atrasadas deben ser pagadas y deben figurar en el activo de la Organización. Asimismo, queremos reafirmar el principio de que las decisiones de los Organos de Gobierno, de los Organismos Internacionales, en este caso, de la FAO, deben ser igualmente respetadas. Excusar su incumplimiento por razones de política interna, no contempladas en las Normas de la FAO, abre un camino extraordinariamente peligroso para la moral financiera internacional.
Igualmente el presupuesto de la FAO no puede ser fijado unilateralmente por un país al margen de lo que acuerden todos sus Estados Miembros. Del mismo modo que los que cumplen con sus obligaciones no pueden absorber los costos de los que no las cumplen, y menos aún si son económicamente más débiles, ya que no hay base jurídica ni moral para exigirlo.
Por otra parte consideramos que el nivel de ejecución del Presupuesto no puede ser tomado como punto de referencia para establecer el nivel presupuestario. El nivel de ejecución está íntimamente relacionado con el pago de las cuotas. Si no se paga, o se paga atrasado, el nivel de ejecución será, ciertamente, afectado. Por esta vía bastaría que no se pague a tiempo, o se pague poco, para ir reduciendo en el futuro el Presupuesto de la FAO. Esto, señor Presidente, consideramos que no puede ser afectado.
En lo que respecta a los ahorros y a las medidas de mayor eficiencia, pensamos que estos pueden ser utilizados para fortalecer los programas prioritarios o programas especiales, pero no utilizados como un instrumento para reducir el presupuesto. Así nuestra Región, la región de América Latina y el Caribe enfrenta enormes problemas y desafíos como consecuencia de los acuerdos de la Ronda Uruguay, en particular los productores tradicionales y la seguridad alimentaria. Se requiere de un gran esfuerzo para modernizar la agricultura tradicional, aumentar su competitividad y apoyar la producción local de alimentos.
En este campo la FAO debería aumentar sus programas de asistencia técnica y, particularmente, y lo señalo a vía de ejemplo, el presupuesto de la Secretaría del Codex Alimentarius. De conformidad, justamente, con los acuerdos que establecieron la Oficina Mundial de Comercio, las Normas del Codex Alimentarius constituyen puntos de referencia para la aplicación de las medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias y del acuerdo sobre obstáculos técnicos al comercio.
En este campo nuestros países requieren fortalecer los programas de asistencia, por cuanto será la única forma en la cual se pueda efectivamente participar equitativamente en el comercio mundial.
Se podrían igualmente mencionar otros programas, como los que ha señalado la distinguida delegación de Alemania, los compromisos que se derivarán a partir de la Cumbre Mundial o de otros eventos que están en programa; pero creemos que un principio básico para conformar el presupuesto, es que éste se haga teniendo en cuenta las prioridades que nosotros mismos hemos definido. Es en este marco conceptual que estamos dispuestos a sumarnos al acuerdo o consenso que se pueda lograr. Estamos seguros de que en base a estos criterios es posible lograr acuerdos, pero pensamos también, señor Presidente, que la situación financiera de la FAO debe ser examinada y quizás sea ésta la ocasión para hacerlo, en una perspectiva de más largo plazo. Por eso nuestra delegación se permite sugerir a este Consejo que considere la posibilidad de estudiar a fondo
el problema financiero de la Organización, examinando incluso posibles formas de financiamiento, el tratamiento o el uso que se le debe dar a las cuotas atrasadas, e incluso examinar los métodos de trabajo, de composición y funcionamiento del Comité del Programa y del Comité de Finanzas. Pensamos que ha llegado el momento de enfrentar seriamente este problema y en tal sentido hacemos esta propuesta para que tal vez este Consejo pueda considerar. Estamos convencidos de que ésta es una tarea ineludible. En esta parte de nuestra intervención nos quisiéramos limitar simplemente a formular estos criterios, porque todo otro debate parece superfluo. Podemos discutir sobre niveles de presupuesto, podemos discutir si tomamos en consideración, como punto de referencia, el presupuesto aprobado por la última Conferencia, pero, en definitiva, lo importante es saber si estamos todos de acuerdo en enfrentar el problema con criterios comunes y a partir de ellos derivar una solución. Eso implica reafirmar los compromisos que tenemos con la Organización. No quisiera repetir lo que todos han señalado, pero ciertamente la pobreza rural, como lo señalara el distinguido Ministro de Siria, es un problema que nos interesa a todos. La pobreza rural tiene lugares y se expresa mayormente en los países más pobres, pero afecta igualmente a los países desarrollados.
No quisiera señalar cifras, pero sabemos todos, al menos desde que existe registro histórico, que el problema del hambre es, en definitiva, lo que compromete mayormente la estabilidad de todos los países. Hay, hoy en día, países altamente desarrollados de Europa que gastan más, destinan más recursos, a mantener una población migrante o que busca posibilidades de trabajo, que el total que se destina a los programas de ayuda al desarrollo. Tiene, en consecuencia, más sentido fortalecer organismos que tienen por función y finalidad justamente producir desarrollo y, en definitiva, tratar de mitigar esos efectos.
Robert F. ANDRIGO (Canada): As others have noted, we confine our remarks to the Programme of Work and Budget. However, we do intend to provide more detailed comments on the Programme Implementation Report and the Medium-term Plan as well as comments on the programme of work itself, but here we will confine our remarks to the budgetary issues. I should like to begin, as others have, by thanking the Secretariat for the additional information that they have provided to us today. This information is in response to queries raised previously in the Programme and Finance Committee and I would have hoped for a more timely release of this information in order that it might have more appropriately informed the debate and decisions taken in this body. As with others, I would join in the request that this information be put down in writing as soon as possible so that we consider the implementation of what we are doing.
Turning to the budgetary issue before us, Mr Chairman, my delegation fully appreciates the candid way in which the Director-General has explained the situation that we face. We also recognize the very difficult task that we and the Organization face and the difficult choices that lie ahead. These choices would have been much more difficult had it not been for the significant and successful efforts by the Director-General and the Organization to capture efficiency gains. I also acknowledge the necessity to tailor the quality of our decisions respecting the priorities and resources to the enormity of the challenges the Organization is asked to address, but here there must be an attendant recognition of the broader fiscal and financial context of which we are a subset and of the limitations, constraints and competition inherent in that context.
Our work and that of the Director-General is not facilitated by the wide gulf in membership views on the question of resources and specifically on the level of the budget. While we understand the reasons for elaborating a zero growth budget, we would have thought that the important numerical minority that had spoken on the need for a lower budget level, a need that was acknowledged by the Director-General himself in these documents, warranted and justified the presentation of a considered Programme of Work and Budget alternative to help focus our assessments and decisions. That said, our task remains that of reconciling and bridging our differences in a manner that protects the viability of our Organization. This can only be done first and foremost by securing the core normative work of the Organization against any potential erosion. It also means that the outcome of our work must be a wholly reliable and predictable flow of resources. This, in our view, means a budget level that we are certain can and will be financed in full. Nothing less is acceptable.
The fiscal and financial context in which we function and the membership payment record are such that this flow of resources will necessarily need to be at a lower level than that proposed in this document if we are to meet the criterion of full funding of the Programme of Work and Budget. Again, I recall the Director-General's comments in acknowledgement of this fact. Our task is to define that level and, as we address this problem, it is important to recall that the delivery capacity of this Organization defined as human and financial
resources voted to it by the membership has been protected against erosion, attested to by actual out-turns against these votes. I note here the projected shortfall in delivery in this biennium, which holds its own object lesson for responsible financing. Indeed, this capacity will progressively improve by virtue of the capture of productivity gains which I believe the Organization has effected. Thus, our starting point is decidedly positive relative to that experienced in most institutions within member countries. Here, let me illustrate. In our own situation, the budgets passed by my government in March of this year encompassed a comprehensive attack on budget deficit reduction, calling for cut backs in real terms over the next three years of 15 percent for the Department of Foreign Affairs, 20 percent for the Department of Agriculture, and 21 percent in the international assistance envelope. This trend is not expected to be reversed in the foreseeable future. In this budget assessed contributions to multilateral agencies have been sheltered, with the allocation provided remaining unchanged in absolute terms relative to the level of the previous year. The clear implication of this situation, which we know to be replicated in other Member's budgets, is that we must engage in a Programme of Work and Budget exercise which realistically addresses the capacity of the membership to pay within a sober appreciation of the limits as defined by the fiscal environment I have described. We believe this to be the only feasible approach if we are to reach a consensus on the programme directions that our Organization is to embark upon in the coming biennium. In Canada's view, this makes it impossible for us to agree to the 10.4 percent increase in assessed contributions over the previous biennium which is proposed in the Programme of Work and Budget. Similarly, we cannot agree to engage in a budgetary exercise that inflates nominal budget levels to compensate for the anticipated delinquencies of others.
Thus, we need to rethink the proposed budget before us in order to arrive at a level that reflects actual capacity to pay and avoids any inducement to further arrears by virtue of its departure from this principle. We believe that this objective can be achieved without sacrifice to the essential programmes that the membership expects our Organization to deliver in the operationalization of its critically important mandate.
As has been stated by others, we too believe that there remain significant efficiency gains to be realized within our Organization such as to preclude programme reductions. This is not to suggest that shifts in programme priorities, including the termination of programmes and activities that have fulfilled their mandates or have proved to be ineffective, should not take place. Indeed this must be a major objective of any exercise aimed at achieving a budget that is publicly defensible on the basis of a demonstrably effective performance in finding solutions to the global problems that we have asked the FAO to address. Our thoughts on this are captured in the full range of suggestions contained in the PC reports, and I won't refer to them. Essentially these efficiencies in the way FAO does what it does, not only in terms of updating of skill profiles and applied technologies but perhaps, and most importantly in terms of the streamlining of administrative and managerial structures, procedures and practices focused on value added within each level and empowerment borne of devolution of decision-making. All of this within a clearly defined set of results oriented accountabilities an element which we believe to require particular attention in this regard is staffing levels since the 1980-81 biennium have been characterized by a vacancy rate among Professional staff in excess of 17 percent and a ratio of General Service to Professional staff that is higher than other major Specialized Agencies (UNESCO, IAEA, WHO, ILO). In this regard my suggestion would be the optimal balance sought by the Director-General which was referred to this morning between the level of staff and non-staff resources has not yet been achieved and addressed on a priority basis given the US$4 000 a month differential which was contained and was referred to before us. Thus we too strongly endorse the unanimous recommendation of the Joint Programme and Finance Committees and, as recalled by the United States, for an external management review of staffing and the associated structure of the Organization.
Mr Chairman, we would also like to note the intention to absorb an additional US$29 million in costs as detailed by Mr Wade this morning. I know this is a very encouraging line of development. We would like to enquire about the details that underlie this projected absorption which I am sure hosts low impacts for the programme of work. Interestingly and importantly I would expect that to the extent to which the additional cost increases described this morning by Mr Wade in association with this cost absorption do not materialize, then the Organization effectively will be realizing the efficiency gains implicit in this proposed Conference and thus deliver the proposed programme of work at a cost potentially US$29 million less than US$697.8 million than the 1996-97 mandate we had before it and if my interpretation is wrong I would welcome the evaluation of what Mr Wade said this morning.
Concerning support cost recoveries, my delegation believes that the financial situation of the Organization is sufficiently urgent to require action at this point. Assuming that administrative and operational support and technical support are essential to programme and project delivery we do not understand why those who avail themselves of those services can refuse to accept the financial responsibilities implied. I would also remind that to the extent to which this the subsidy is to remain unchanged in a context of increasing budget constraint, there is growing danger that the core activities of this Organization may be sacrificed to maintain a given level of Trust Fund activities. We therefore call on Trust Fund donors to consider this issue prospectively and comprehensively and assume the full responsibilities implied by their generosity.
Finally, Mr Chairman, I should like to endorse the core contained in paragraph 1.9 of the Joint Committee Report respectively the need for further efficiencies in government structures of our Organization and of the proposal by the distinguished delegate of the United States that we recommend to Conference that it issue an instruction to Council that this matter be perused as a matter of priority in the coming biennium.
I would conclude, Mr Chairman, with a question to have a joint debate on this issue which should include 124 and 125 in the Programme of Work and Budget. There is detailed a series of savings and new programme proposals. The savings included in this paragraph, US$33.3 million, include growth contained in that paragraph, a difference of US$6 million. However, this morning we heard several references to savings of US$38 million that had been included in the Programme of Work and Budget document I would appreciate an explanation by the Secretariat as to how these figures be reconciled.
EL PRESIDENTE: Permítanme simplemente indicarles que respecto de los comentarios formulados por la Secretaría esta mañana, éstos estarán disponibles a partir de los documentos de verbatim mañana en la mañana. No es una documentación que se les entregó con anticipación, pero el día de mañana ustedes tendrán estos comentarios por escrito. La Secretaría ha tomado debida nota de su pregunta específica y se va a responder con toda claridad.
Dato' Ahmad Zabri IBRAHIM (Malaysia): Mr Chairman, the Malaysian delegation would like to join other delegations in congratulating the Director-General and the Secretariat for having presented an innovative Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium period of 1996-97, at a time when the UN system is undergoing close scrutiny from its member countries. My delegation supports the programme mix and no-growth level of budget as proposed in document C 95/3.
My delegation would like to put on record our extreme satisfaction of the efforts in the restructuring of the Organization and harmonizing programmes on budget to ensure maximum efforts and impact. This is done despite resource constraint and rising expectations from member countries. It is undeniable that in this transitional period, some conceptual and operational dislocation may occur that would affect programme continuity and development. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence and assurance in the document that there is a built-in flexibility in programming to accommodate for regional and individual member country priorities and needs.
The Malaysian delegation supports the major programmes proposed under the chapter on Technical and Economic Programmes especially those aimed at improving food security, particularly in Low-Income Food Deficit Countries (LIFDCs). efforts should continue to provide these countries the necessary agricultural infrastructure, technology and support system capability to ensure increases in productivity. Income and quality of life for primary producers would also increase if prices of commodities continue to improve.
With regard to the Fisheries Programme, my delegation supports the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries so as to bring about an orderly and sustainable exploitation of our marine resources. Besides this, the wider application of Hazard Analysis of Critical Control Points (HACCP) would result in better post-harvest handling and fish quality assurance. Aquaculture is fast becoming a major protein supplier and income generator in developing countries. However, there is urgent need to provide the necessary technical assistance and to disseminate appropriate technology in aquaculture health management as well as to undertake studies on the environmental impact of large-scale aquaculture activities.
Another priority area of the chapter on Technical Economic Programme of increasing concern to my delegation relates to sustainable water resource management and development. There is growing competition in water use for agriculture vis-a-vis industry and domestic consumption. Water for agriculture, in turn, has not been efficiently utilized, hence requiring a comprehensive water use policy, up-to-date legislation and innovative water user institution. My delegation urge that FAO include this particular area in its policy discussion and that appropriate budget be allocated within the main budgetary framework.
Mr Chairman, as regards the Chapter on Technical Cooperation Programme, my delegation urges FAO to continue providing technical inputs in the form of experts and consultancy services and short-term practically orientated activities. It is hoped that donor countries and agencies would respond positively to the request by developing countries in their need for such assistance. At the same time member countries receiving such assistance should work closely towards better follow-up in implementation including developing viable action-plans. The formalization of Technical Cooperation among Developing Countries (TCDC) by FAO should be commended. Malaysia urges that experts should be sourced from a wider range of developing countries as compared to previously where experts tend to be concentrated from a few targeted developing countries.
The proposed 1996-97 budget figure for the chapter on Support Services is US$71.3 million. This represents an increase of 10 percent over the budget base of 1994-95. While my delegation recognizes the importance of FAO having efficient and up-to-date information and documentation including programme management such as the World Agriculture Information Centre (WAICENT), my delegation would like to suggest a thorough review of the Support Services in order to streamline the FAO output in publication to a few selected but integrated publications. Not only would the cost be reduced by FAO publications but it would be more comprehensive and time series information and its scientific-based information can be easily kept at many different places within a country, thus allowing wider application of world data and information by national planning agencies, universities, research centres, and the private sector.
Mr Chairman, turning now, to the chapter on Common Services, my delegation believes bigger savings could further be afforded in Communication and Central Records; Buildings Maintenance; Procurement Services; and Security, Safety and Staff Assistance Service. My delegation recognizes the many sacrifices already made by the various departments and divisions and units of FAO, as a result of the trimming of expenses and expenditures charged under this chapter. However, under the present circumstances where Member Nations themselves face demand of reduction in the similar budgetary chapter at home, it is necessary to pass on this message to FAO, an Organization which has high esteem. It is proposed that the budget for Common Services represents not more than 5 percent of the biennial Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97.
Lastly, Mr Chairman, notwithstanding the views expressed and suggestions made, my delegation would like to register my country's support of the PWB for 1996-97 to be US$673.1 million, at zero real growth. My delegation would like the savings and cost trimmings that are possible from our proposals to be transferred to the budgetary chapters on Technical and Economic Programmes, and Technical Cooperation Programmes.
J.K. MHELLA (Tanzania): In going through the proposed Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97 and taking into account the reports of the Programme and Finance Committees, we have noted the Director-General has fully responded to the request of the 108th Session of Council by preparing the Programme of Work and Budget on a zero real growth basis, and by proposing the additional absorption of cost increases. He has identified areas from which savings are to be made without negatively affecting programmes. We express our appreciation and full support for the Director-General's efforts to propose this realistic budget which at least maintains the level of last biennium's budget. Furthermore, the Director-General has assisted this Council by drawing its attention to the negative effects the Organization would face if the budget level was to be further reduced.
I would not wish to see more programmes and sub-programmes projects cut, which we note is a wish of almost all delegations which have so far taken the floor.
To sum up the Tanzanian delegation supports the Programme of Work and Budget as proposed by the Director-General and the level of zero real growth and looks forward to its adoption by consensus.
We support the programme priorities proposed, and we discourage any efforts that would lead to further reduction of these programmes.
We are also supportive of the wide range of measures introduced by the Director-General to improve the efficiency of the Organization, stemming from Council decisions, and we urge Council to give the Director-General the necessary support to carry out the Organization's mandate.
Finally, we urge Member Nations with arrears to take the necessary steps to pay and fulfil their obligations.
Ms Turid KONGSVIK (Norway): Having listened to most of the interventions, by now it is fair to conclude that there has not been much movement amongst the membership in terms of the budget question, which is, I submit, the core issue we are addressing. We still seem to be faced with three diverging views though there is one positive element and that is that the profusion of creative ideas as to savings has been put at the forefront. Perhaps if we have all these calculated it will solve our problems, but that remains to be seen.
In the meantime I would also like to note positively that there seems to be, as stated in the joint meetings of the beginning of the Finance and Programme Committee, a desire for a consensus budget. The question I pose myself is whether this Council can do something positive to arrive at that consensus. What role can we play?
Our concern is that we will start the Conference with the same point of departure as six months ago unless we do something. I have learnt that in other UN organizations with similar problems mechanisms have been devised to reach a solution in an orderly and transparent way, transparent in terms of the membership's knowledge and ability to follow the process and in terms of impact of the budget level arrived at. I wonder whether Council could or should recommend to Conference that right from the start of Conference a mechanism be established or a framework for a consultation process under the agency of Commission II. It could even be done under your guidance, Mr Independent Chairman. We might combine to unite friends, or even enemies - perhaps first and foremost enemies -to get them together and see whether we can arrive at a solution, as I said in a transparent and orderly way.
We talk about the budget in abstract without seeking programme implementations of various alternatives. In that respect I would like to join with others who have underlined the important role of the Secretariat in playing a constructive part and coming up with figures and suggestions to place priority on the various items.
I pose this as a question. Should we have a recommendation from Council or should we just plant this as the seed of an idea for Conference to arrive at an early decision so that we try to work towards the consensus which everybody wants and that we do it in an orderly way with the Secretariat helping us and do not wait until we get a budget level from I know not where and then come up with a programme of work which would reflect that budget level. That would be a less productive way in terms of the governing role of the Council and Conference.
Noah M. NKAMBULE (Swaziland): The Swaziland delegation would like to commend the Director-General on the laudable effort he has made towards the preparation of a realistic 1996-97 budget of FAO.
It is encouraging to note that a number of concerns and observations of the 108th Council meeting were taken into account in preparation of this budget. We welcome the substantial savings amount to US$38 million. For this and other reasons, my delegation fully supports this budget which is now before Council for consideration. We are in full agreement with the Director-General's position that any further reduction in the current budget level will impact negatively on the business and general mandate of this Organization.
We further note with concern the growing sentiments for cost savings regardless of possible negative impacts of such action on the millions of disadvantaged people in the low-income food-deficit countries.
We all aspire to the augmentation of efficiency levels in all the organs of FAO Organization. We remain strong advocates for an efficient and effective organization which is capable of delivering the services for which it was created. However, we do not believe that the reduction of the current budget will automatically transform FAO to an efficient and effective organization overnight.
Improvement of efficiencies in any organization has to be multidimensional. We believe that the current efforts of the Director-General, including inter alia the on-going restructuring programme will contribute immensely towards the realisation of improved efficiency levels in this Organization.
The recent improvement in the payment of arrears by many countries, particularly those facing serious economic problems, is very welcome indeed. My delegation firmly believes that such a gesture is a very clear indication of political support to this Organization. In conclusion, I wish to pledge my delegation's full support for the 1996-97 budget as presented by the Director-General.
Hernando AGUDELO VILLA (Colombia): Señor Presidente, el señor representante del Brasil expuso en nombre de los países latinoamericanos y del Caribe nuestros puntos de vista, y los señores Embajadores de México y Chile complementaron esa presentación en términos que realmente complementan esa primera presentación. Espero no ser redundante en los puntos de vista que voy a exponer muy brevemente.
Me preocupa señor Presidente que el debate que estamos adelantando no se esté conduciendo a buscar los términos para llegar a un consenso. Lo preocupante es que los criterios que pueden llevar a ese consenso son muy disímiles y lo he constatado con las intervenciones de delegados de los países desarrollados y de los de en vías de desarrollo. A mí me parece que el gran esfuerzo que hay que hacer en estas pocas horas o en estos pocos días que nos faltan, más que aproximarnos a unas cifras es aproximarnos a un entendimiento sobre los criterios para llegar a esas cifras. Yo llamo criterios irracionales, no con términos descomedidos, puntos de vista como los siguientes que nos apartan de muchos de esos puntos.
Yo considero que es irracional, desde todo punto de vista, tratar de reducir en estos momentos un presupuesto para la FAO. El señor representante de México, en forma muy elocuente, ha presentado unas cifras conturbadoras, y esa es la realidad. La FAO se está quedando en una entidad realmente enana. Es una entidad con 700 millones de dólares de presupuesto para un mundo creciendo en necesidades de sus sectores rurales cuando hay 800 millones de personas con hambre todavía, cuando está declinando la producción de alimentos en los países en vías de desarrollo.
A mí me parece irracional, y lo digo con toda energía, proponer que la FAO en estos momentos reduzca su presupuesto. No se trata de una sola entidad. Yo no conozco un Estado, una entidad que pueda reducir, si realmente es dinámica y quiere crecer su presupuesto. Otra cosa es y nadie se está oponiendo a ese criterio que se hagan recortes y que existan mayores prioridades, de que haya mejor juicio en la aplicación de los recursos; pero sostener en este momento que lo indicado es recortar el presupuesto de la FAO frente a las múltiples necesidades mundiales, me parece que es, un criterio irracional.
Creo, señor Presidente, que no es un buen criterio tratar de reducir un presupuesto de un tajo. Decir que si el presupuesto está en 700 lo bajemos a 600 o a 500, es matar la entidad. Las personas que hemos tenido responsabilidad en el manejo de la hacienda pública, sabemos que la reducción de los gastos de cualquier entidad tiene que hacerse con unos criterios de prioridades, de estudios muy severos, para poder llegar a la conclusión de cuáles son las partidas que se deben recortar y cuáles aumentar y no decir que se ha hecho una gran labor cortando de un tajo un presupuesto en un 20 o en un 30 por ciento. Repito, para mí ese es un criterio irracional. Está urgida ya la entidad, y en eso no podemos equivocarnos, de poner en proceso un mecanismo para estudiar la Organización en sí misma, su organización interna. Cómo no va a tener defectos, cómo no va a haber supergastos, cómo no va a haber burocracia en una entidad que lleva 50 años?
En todas partes se encuentran esos errores y equivocaciones y todas las entidades y todos los Estados se preocupan por establecer mecanismos que sean capaces de decir dónde están las deficiencias en el manejo del gasto y dónde se deben reorganizar los servicios; pero sostener que nosotros podemos de un día para otro, en ocho días, decirle a una Conferencia, que es la que fija la política, que arbitrariamente hemos llegado a un recorte de 100 ó 150 millones de dólares porque hay que recortar por un criterio mal entendido de eficiencia, me parece que es un criterio irracional.
Este es otro criterio, y lo quiero decir sin palabras descomedidas para ningún país. A mí no me parece razonable que los países deudores puedan decirnos que hay que reducir el presupuesto. La entidad FAO tiene en su haber y en su activo unas cuotas atrasadas, y esas cuotas atrasadas no son una dádiva, es una obligación que debe ser cumplida por el respectivo país miembro y no se puede perdonar. De modo que cuando la
entidad va a fijar su presupuesto no pueda hacer borrón y cuenta nueva y decir: no tengo en cuenta las cuotas atrasadas, empiezo de nuevo y hago un presupuesto, desconociendo que tiene un activo muy importante detrás.
Yo considero, señor Presidente, que es irracional el criterio de que se nos pida, por parte de quienes tienen cuantiosas deudas atrasadas, que rebajemos el presupuesto de la entidad.
Repito, señor Presidente, que me parece irracional el criterio de que un país se pueda comprometer en una entidad, una entidad dirigida por unos criterios y unas normas generales de las Naciones Unidas y se adquieran unos compromisos financieros para sostener esa entidad y que a mitad del camino se pueda decir que, por dificultades internas de ese país, no se cumplen las obligaciones financieras adquiridas y emanadas de los Estatutos Generales de las Naciones Unidas. Me parece también, y lo digo con todo respeto, un criterio irracional. Igualmente es irracional, y lo he oído decir aquí, aprobar un presupuesto sin recursos. Yo no creo que aquí nadie esté pidiendo que aprobemos un presupuesto sin recursos, pero una cosa muy distinta es aprobar un presupuesto con los recursos que se deben recibir, porque los miembros están obligados a aportarlos, y otra cosa es que esos recursos no entren. No se puede hacer un presupuesto sobre la base de que lo hagamos sobre lo que se ejecutó el año anterior, ya que esto es un presupuesto falso. El presupuesto hay que hacerlo sobre la base de los ingresos que vamos a recibir. Qué pasa cuando los ingresos no entran? Si los ingresos no entran transitoriamente, se puede recurrir al crédito; si los ingresos no entran definitivamente por una calamidad, o porque se compruebe que realmente el país quebró, se pueden aplazar programas.
Oí al señor Director esta mañana decir que había aplazado unos programas porque no tenía recursos suficientes para cumplirlos. Este es un buen criterio, pero no podemos nosotros aceptar que se nos fije un presupuesto sobre la ejecución del año anterior que no se cumplió porque no entraron más cuotas atrasadas.
Quisiera, señor Presidente, que llegaramos a un consenso. Me parece que vamos a tener que llegar a una votación para que haya un presupuesto con criterios racionales y no unos votos caprichosos que digan que porque quieren bajar el presupuesto, se baja, cuando la entidad necesita todos los días más recursos para poder subsistir y poder cumplir sus obligaciones.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): Mr Chairman, thank you for letting me speak here as an Observer. As a member of the Finance Committee I have listened with much interest to today's debate on this crucial issue of the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium. I have four points to make.
The first point is that the position of my country with respect to the budget level is very similar to the one expressed this morning by the European Community. Let me recall that the budget level of approximately US$640-650 million would have as a consequence an increase in assessments by US$10-20 million over the present biennium. I would like in particular the countries in arrears to note this. This means that we do not propose a budget level which would cost us less than the one in the present biennium - on the contrary. The challenge is to agree on a realistic budget built on reliable assumptions regarding financial flows. On the one hand we must reduce the budget to a realistic level; on the other hand, and parallel to this, we must take resolute steps to improve the payment discipline of all, both the big and small contributors. Let me also add that regarding the financing of the budget I find merit in the proposals of India to look into other possibilities of income.
My second point. Let me recall that we are considering here the regular budget of the Organization. We are not discussing the budget for FAO's programmes. Let us not confuse this. Only a limited amount of the budget, namely the TCP, directly provides operational assistance to developing countries. FAO's regular budget is about the core activities of this Organization. The question of the budgets for development assistance should be discussed where these budgets are decided upon - the UNDP, IFAD, the World Bank, Regional Development Banks and so on and so forth. Let me underline in this connection that my country is not decreasing its development assistance budget and does not plan this for the future.
Mr Chairman, we should not forget that FAO's regular budget is only about 0.5 percent of the total ODA of the OECD countries. FAO needs a budget which allows it to perform its principal functions. We should
discuss FAO's budget and programmes as part of the greater effort for improving food security and we should discuss FAO's specific role in this. Unfortunately, however, the documentation does not provide us with the information for discussing this key issue.
My third point. The Director-General this morning mentioned that savings of US$38 million are already included in the Programme of Work and Budget proposals. Could the Secretariat tell me where we can find this figure? According to the document which I have received - and I refer to paragraphs 124 and 125 - the Programme of Work and Budget proposal includes economies which add up to US$43.3 million, and I must admit that you cannot find this figure in the document. You have to make the addition alone.
My country welcomes and supports these savings and we thank the Secretariat for its efforts in this direction. The US$43.3 million savings means that the Secretariat has identified savings which allow the present budget of US$673 million to be implemented for a budget level of US$670 million, and this without cutting programmes.
In its further proposal the Secretariat then proposes to reallocate almost the totality of these savings, more exactly the amount of US$37.4 million for financing of extended or additional programmes. We end up with a net saving of US$5.9 million, which is the difference between the two figures. The US$37.43 million proposed for additional programmes is therefore net programme growth and must be considered as real growth. We therefore do not have before us a zero growth budget proposal. We rather have a budget with a positive real growth of US$37.4 million above the re-costed budget base. I would like the Secretariat to comment on this.
Finally, in order to be able to know where we stand financially with this Organization, it would be useful to have information on the Regular Programme expenditures in the present biennium. Can the Secretariat inform us how much has been spent on the regular budget to date and how much it expects will be spent until 31 December this year? I believe that the clarification of these issues is necessary and would be very helpful for our discussion of the Programme of Work and Budget at the Conference.
To end, I would like to refer to paragraph 1.9 of the Joint Report. Like others, my delegation is in favour of further steps for improving governance. Regarding paragraph 1.10, the last sentence refers to the proposal to undertake a management review. My delegation's point on this is that we understand that this would be an outside management review.
K. SHIMIZU (Japan): May I clarify that my delegation wished to make specific comments on the Programme of Work and Budget but will do so in the Conference.
EL PRESIDENTE: Usted está, distinguido delegado, en posibilidad de hacer los comentarios ahora o directamente a la Conferencia. El Consejo, obviamente, no va a tomar una decisión respecto de este asunto, y si usted desea remitirlos igualmente al verbating, puede hacerlo indicándolo a la Secretaría General. Hemos tomado nota de que usted hará una intervención en la Conferencia sobre este punto.
Mohammed Said M.A. HARBY (Observer for Sudan) (Original language Arabic): The more I study the documents submitted by the Secretariat, the more I feel happy and confident in the future of this Organization. We are led by a strong man and we like strong people. However, strength does not mean arrogance. The distinguished delegate of Brazil referred to the issue of the expected and unexpected contributions. However, the Director-General clarified this matter. Apparently, the deficit countries and the poor countries are making every effort to pay their contributions whereas the same does not apply to the rich countries, the powerful countries, which are able to pay their full contribution. Political will, goodwill, was the driving force of the developing countries in shouldering their responsibilities towards the Organization. However, what are the powerful countries doing in this matter? The Director-General advises us not to play all our cards in one game, namely the budget. The budget he submitted to us in a clear-cut manner because he is a professional, an expert in financial and economic issues. This budget has been prepared not on his own whimsical views but as a result of studies and surveys, and we believe that the Director-General set up this budget allocating the relevant resources to each programme without any excess or shortfall. This budget has been submitted to
us to reflect the mission of this Organization to help poor and hungry countries in contrast to what the rich countries have been doing so far to the developing countries. We have a number of programmes which are very useful to the developing countries; the EMPRES, the Low Income Food Deficit Countries Programme (LIFDCs), which is to be implemented in more than 15 countries. This calls for optimism, and we highly appreciate these efforts undertaken by the Organization.
Having shared our experiences in the beautiful city of Quebec, celebrating together the anniversary of this Organization, I should like to call on all of us here not to create a FAO for the rich countries and a FAO for the poor countries. We want it to be a strong, cohesive and efficient Organization based on cooperation and solidarity so that future generations will be able to celebrate its golden anniversary in the year 2045 in Quebec.
Jacques LAUREAU (France): Je vais prendre la parole comme futur président du Comité de Rédaction et président de la Commission II.
Le débat d'aujourd'hui me paraît clair: il n'y a pas du tout de consensus entre les Etats Membres. Nous n'avons accompli, hélas, aucun progrès et aucun pont n'a été jeté d'une position vers l'autre. Il s'agit là d'une situation préoccupante, et je ne pense pas que des efforts de rédaction d'un côté et d'un autre des prestations qui seraient unilatérales, permettraient de sortir de cette situation.
Je voudrais simplement appeler tout le monde à réfléchir à la marge de flexibilité que les uns ont vis-à-vis des autres, car à défaut de consensus il faudra passer au vote. Je voulais rappeler cette vérité qui est tout de même importante.
EL PRESIDENTE: Permítame no concurrir con usted en que no se ha avanzado nada. Yo creo que hay información sobre la mesa que es útil. Obviamente esa información adicional no ha permitido que las posiciones divergentes se acerquen sustancialmente. Obviamente no somos esclavos del consenso. Es deseable, como ustedes lo han expresado, pero no indispensable. Esta Organización prevé formas para resolver los casos en que las divergencias son incompatibles. Usted, como Presidente de la Comisión II, seguramente hará su máximo esfuerzo para permitir esa convergencia, por lo menos entre las posiciones que quizá son aún conciliables. En todo caso, la Conferencia tendrá que votar su presupuesto y lo hará con toda responsabilidad de las implicaciones y consecuencias. Ahora el señor Hjort responderá a algunas de las preguntas.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: First let me express appreciation for the comments and suggestions that have been made. I will respond to some comments that we are not directly budget related and questions thereon, and hope to cover most of them. There was a comment about the Special Programme on Food Production in Low Income Food Deficit Countries and a suggestion made, as I understand it, that we might find it of benefit to be in consultation with the Nordic countries and USAID. I wish to inform India and the Council that we are in consultation with potential partners on the special programme and that this is a high priority activity. Not only are we in contact with them here in Rome but also in each one of the 15 countries where the special programme is in operation.
Second, there was a question about the progress in recruiting national professional officers. The authorized level is 65 at the present time. Only seven have been selected but as of last night there were a total of 43 in process. The Director-General has given instructions that this matter be concluded as soon as possible, and for a large majority of these 65 authorized posts, the candidates will be selected in the next few days.
There were also comments about accelerating the TCDC and TCCT programmes. That is also a very high priority objective. The Director-General is taking whatever steps and actions he can to move them forward, as has been noted in the document itself, and as Mr Wade mentioned this morning we have incorporated certain savings because of these special agreements. Progress has been more satisfactory with respect to the retired persons so far than the TCDC experts.
I took note of the comments that were made about the 4th International Technical Consultation on Plant Genetic Resources and thought that the proposal to have the implementation plan for that plan of action for consideration by the next Conference to be a very reasonable proposition.
There were also comments about WTO. I think the specific reference was to the work of the Codex Commission. I might report to the Council that, in particular with the WTO Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary measures, I have recently been in consultation with the Deputy Director-General of WTO. As I am sure you realize, the WTO does not have either mandate or resources for the preparation of standards. The standards that will be considered by that Committee are ones that come through the Codex Alimentarius process or the IPPC process or the OIE process. These are the three standard-making bodies. The Conference will have before it three standards from the IPPC. It is hoped that they can be approved because in this area there is only one standard in operation.
I believe those were the specific programme-related questions. Before turning to Mr Wade, I wanted to note that it seemed to me that, even at this late stage in the process of formulation of the Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97, only a few days before the Conference, some members of this Council do not fully understand what the programme level is for this biennium. The programme level is $673.1 million, and if anybody is talking about a figure below that, they are talking about something below zero nominal growth.
Now are any of you talking or contemplating voting for a budget that is below the nominal level in any other place in the UN system? Not that I know of, the ones you have voted for certainly, were above the nominal level. The Director-General in this context has indicated that we are trying to find ways to absorb US$28.6 million. That figure keeps going up as the currency ratio changes and as other things happen as Mr Wade has explained and I will not go through again.
There is the US$38 million issue. I have said before that hindsight is always better than foresight and I guess the lesson is that you should not have given yourself a break on the assessed contributions the last time. You should not have passed a programme of work and budget which you thought could be funded with a reduction in the assessed contribution. That also was unique. I do not believe you experienced a reduction in your assessed contribution anywhere else in the UN system. Even if we would have put the US$38 million in the assessed contributions, the increase would only have been about 4 percent. I refer to the General Assembly document which you are familiar with that shows that this Organization has had the smallest increase in nominal terms for any Organization in the UN system over the last three biennia. I believe that even with a four percent adjustment this conclusion would still hold. We talk about how much savings can be made. The figure of US$43.3 million has been mentioned, which is the total for savings in paragraph 124. In addition to this US$43.3 million we are facing the possibility of having to absorb perhaps US$28.6 million, or a total of US$72 million. How many of your governments have improved their efficiency and effectiveness by 11 or 12 percent from one biennium to the other. Not many.
Tony WADE (Officer-in-Charge, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Thank you Mr Chairman. If I may just go through the questions. The first question which was put towards the end of this morning by the distinguished delegate of the United States and also a question from the distinguished delegate of Canada concerns FAO's plan to absorb the US$9.1 million currency adjustment. May I say we have no plans to absorb it. In the intervention that I made this morning I said that in looking at savings we need to recognise the risks that the Organization is facing at this moment in time and the risk is that next Friday. (I do not mean the day after tomorrow, I mean Friday next week, we will vote on the budget) the budget will be adjusted upwards by the US$9.1 million. If certain member nations say that it makes no difference how much is voted as to how much they will pay, then that is the consequence that we have to be concerned with. It is certainly not the plan of the Organization to absorb any of it.
The distinguished delegate of Japan made certain suggestions. I will not go through everybody's suggestions. We will look at all all of them seriously and try to take advantage of the ideas that came forward. For example, the reviews of the services that we provide and whether they can be chargeable, the review of field operations, and the use of joint offices as well.
The merger of GI Department and the AF Department, would create an extraordinarily large department. We had a quick look at it. With over a thousand posts it would represent 25 percent of the Organization. I think that this is going too far it is going to be too big and cumbersome to manage.
The distinguished delegate of Belgium raised a number of points. To what exact are we certain of the amont of cost increases that were referred to. There were several questions about the cost increases and what they consist of and here people are talking about the US$19.5 million additional cost increases which, at this stage, we are planning to absorb. First of all we would like to say that we were not planning to absorb US$19.5 million. When we started out the process it was only US$12 million and when we started the process we also knew that the Special Reserve Account would sufficient to absorb some of those expenses. Now unfortunately the figure has grown and we are faced with a fait de compii because it is unlikely that you would accept a larger budget than is printed in the document before you. The figures consist of, as I said this morning, a US$16.3 million worth of staff costs of which US$13.9 are attributable to the ICSC decisions. How certain are we of those figures. Of course the decision has not yet been made by the UN General Assembly and they may adopt the recommendations or reject the recommendations or come to a compromise. The only answer I can give to that question is that we are much more certain of this expenditure than we are of the savings which everybody is asking us to quantify.
The reason we have not quantified savings in certain areas is that we just do not know. If I take the example of travel, I really do not know what percentage of that US$24 million can be saved because, to know that, I have to know what the difference will be for single airline contracts, that the differences will be for endorsable tickets and what the difference will be for the decentralization of travel purchasing. We are not in a position to advise you on that. We have to go out and do the work, find out what the cost difference is and see what happens. Now I think that is a lot more uncertain than the figure that we are getting from the ICSC.
Your follow-on point to that matter, was that you would hope you would get precise and written indications of smaes and you attached it to the idea that these indications would be used for decisions. That is precisely the Director-General's point. He cannot give you figures for you to make decisions on. He himself cannot rely on the figures. If he does not trust figures, he would be behaving incorrectly in giving you ideas of figures which you would then rely on and on which you would base your decisions even though we know they are not good. What we have to review, and I hope this is clear, is the base against which such savings would be made. If you see travel, the expenditure we are talking about is US$24.3 million. At this time, we cannot guess the percentage savings. You are free to guess yourselves but you carry that responsibility.
You asked a specific question, can we save US$50 million. The answer is no.
Where do we go from here? If one is looking for a reduction of US$50 million, as some delegations are, and you cannot find it through savings which is the case, then you are talking about programme reductions and you suggest that the Council should be giving advice to the Director-General on criteria.
I think it is worth mentioning we do have a set of criteria to which you can contribute more if you thought it was useful which are used in the budget planning process. There are five of them and it may be worth reading them out so you know what was used to establish the priorities that exist in this document. The first is that activities must be clearly defined where in the problem has been identified and FAO's role in its resolution has been articulated. The second is FAO's mandate indisputably covers the Organization's intervention in the prescribed area. The third is the conclusion following the examination of the activities, is that FAO has a the comparative advantage over other institutions providing services in the field of activity in question. The fourth is that the outputs or impact of the activity are such that it will benefit abroad segment of FAO's membership; and the fifth is that the proposed activity is fully compatible with a recognized high priority area as defined by our Governing Bodies.
Of course those can be expanded on but they do seem to cover the essence of what is required. The Council paper CL 108/4 paragraph 2.27 is clear that the priorities sought are very much in line with what the Governing Bodies sought and in fact, to this effect the majority of Committee members agreed that the Programme of Work and Budget should be implemented as proposed. It noted that the selection of substantive priorities embodies in the proposals was the result of cumulative guidance by intergovernmental and export
bodies. While there were possibilities for savings in on-going programmes, the majority of members felt it was not advisable to suggest any revision of priorities or to identify any programme or sub-programme for elimination. The point I am making is that the criteria seem to work.
On the question of arrears can I just briefly respond to the delegates of India and Switzerland who raised points on incentives to reduce arrears. This is the subject of the Finance Committee's Report and I would refer them to paragraphs 3.48 to 3.54 which discuss the scheme as it stands at the moment and the Committee's response to it.
The distinguished delegate of Germany asked a question regarding the Special Resource Account and wanted to clarify the financing mechanism used to absorb cost increases. There is a provision in the Special Reserve Account which states that one way in which it can be utilized, is for unbudgeted, unforeseen cost increases subject to prior approval of both the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee. The wording of that is rather critical as to how it will be used and I will read the wording to you.
It states: "Subject to the prior review and approval by the Finance and Programme Committees, to finance un-budgeted extra costs of approved programmes due to unforseen inflationary trends to the extent that such costs cannot be met through budgetary savings without impairing the implementation of such programmes".
The legal opinion on that is that that can only function and make sense if the cost increases that are funded under that provision are in excess of the authorised expenditure level. That was the opinion from Legal Counsel when the question was asked in the Finance Committee.
Canada commented on the absorption of US$29 million. I repeat that I was referring to the risk of this US$28.5 million. Canada also raised the question of field programme support and why the donors can refuse to pay. I think our problem here is not that donors necessarily refuse to pay; it is that we have in flow projects with an average life of three years which already have signed agreements and contracts. You cannot just change these overnight. If donors are willing to consider the process, for example, of charges for technical support services, then change can occur, but it takes some time to implement it.
There was a question of this external management review. It was referred to as "external" by some delegates. In particular, one delegate or even more, wanted it in the Report of the Council as a recommendation to Conference that an external review be carried out. I need to spend a little bit of time on this, Mr Chairman, because there is a problem with it.
I am sure the Chairman of the joint session at that time will confirm that it came up very late in the debate. Interpretation time had run out. In fact, the Director-General's views, or those of his representatives, were not sought during that debate, so this was not discussed at all in that sense.
The Director-General's reaction to it now is that he is just a little concerned about where it is all going. First, there was a review of FAO, which he considered when he came. As a consequence of that he established an external team which provided advice on a whole series of issues to do with organization and structure.
He then went into the process of restructuring, during which he reviewed the structure itself; he established new functional statements for every division and department in the organization, actually for every branch and service as well. These are available. We re-wrote the post descriptions for every post that changed. We examined the ratios of professional to general services, and have implemented remarkable reductions, as you will see. For example, 231 General Service posts move out of Headquarters or are abolished; that is a 13 percent reduction. He has done what I would have thought would be described as a review of staffing patterns, or whatever terminology you wish to use.
What is it that is being sought now that is in addition to that? Furthermore, why are we trying to go external when the Committee itself agreed that it would be internal? May I say that there are grave reservations that we are about to move into something that could be costly and repetitive of what has already been done. You may not get much out of it because a lot has already been taken from the current structure.
The question is left open at this stage from the Secretariat's point of view in that the Director-General does not recommend that we spend a great deal of money on this at a time when everybody is saying, "Cut the budget", and he is concerned that we do not spend too much more time on the restructuring processes but that we should get on with implementing the results of the restructuring process.
The question is put back to you to say: what is it that you are trying to achieve from this that has not already been achieved and that has been demonstrated in the documents you have before you?
There is one comment that comes through from the distinguished delegate of Canada. It may have been reflected elsewhere as well. It is that FAO's productive capacity has been well protected over recent years. I think this implies a definition which Switzerland was pursuing as well, that the definition of growth is in outputs and not in inputs. Of course, such a definition is possible. You can ask whether, if you measure the output of the Organization, our capacity has gone up or down over the years. Frankly, it is very difficult for us to respond because we have to add together apples and oranges. A training course is very difficult to add to policy advice. It really is difficult to quantify outputs in that arithmetical way. I would say that the definition that the governing bodies of this Organization have always applied has been the resource levels, the real resource levels available to the Organization in real terms. Those have not grown. In fact, a GAO (General Accounting Office of the United States of America) study did an independent review of FAO's rate of cost increases comparing them to indices of average inflation factors and came to the conclusion that we were under-charging slightly in terms of cost increases.
I do not think there is any case that there has been real growth in resource inputs available to the Organization. That we are using them better is another case altogether. That we are producing more, it is possible that we are. In this budget the Director-General is trying to produce more outputs for the same resources because that is precisely what you decided at your 106th Session he should do. He made a whole series of proposals to you, the Special Programme, EMPRES, restructuring itself, the cost of restructuring. You said, "Yes, but do it with the same resources", and that is what he has done. I do not think it is all that equitable to come back and say, "Give us back the savings".
There has been a small problem with the figure of US$38 million. The Director-General referred to US$38 million as the savings. I have to say that I have a problem with the figure myself. The figure to which I believe he is referring -- and I have not consulted him on this -- is the figure on the utilization side of that calculation. Actually it is US$37.4 million. You are quite correct that the savings add up to US$ 43.3 million and the difference in fact, as we indicate in the document, has been spread over other programme priorities within Chapter 2. We did not attempt and are not in a position to be able to give you all the pluses and minuses on every programme; it would be very artificial because many of them are netted off against each other. The real figure in terms of savings, if you are quoting a figure, I think should be US$43.3 million.
As to the question by the distinguished delegate of Switzerland on expenditure, I do not have the figure for today. The forecast to the end of the biennium was US$653 million, which is US$20 million below the authorised level. That arises from the fact that at the beginning of this year the United States of America indicated that it was not likely to be able to pay any of its arrears in excess of US$70 million. Therefore, a programme of reducing expenditure below the US$673 million was implemented and hence some of the problems you have seen in the subsequent reporting on the Programme Implementation Report.
Chairman, I have a suspicion that I have missed something but I have tried to cover everything.
Mohammed Saleem KHAN (Chairman, Finance Committee): I should have responded to this earlier. The distinguished delegate of Libya spoke early this morning on this subject. There is also a question which I believe has been answered, not only in the reports but also in this morning's Council session. It was: what are the reasons for the budget reduction? Is it because of organizational efficiencies or because of resource constraints? Is it because some of the programmes are not necessary? He asked this question and I think it was quite evident from the responses that it seems it is mostly because of resource constraints. There are other contributing reasons but it is mainly because of resource constraints and people saying that the budget should respond to the resources available. That seems to be the opinion of those who were asking for budgetary cuts. The same opinions were expressed in the session of the Finance Committee.
While I have the floor, Mr Chairman, I would like to make one correction to a statement which was ascribed to me by the distinguished delegate of the United States of America. I did this in the joint session of the Programme and Finance Committee also. Yes, the suggestion was made by me regarding the management review but the suggestion must be seen in its context. The proposal was that we freeze or abolish all the posts that were vacant on that date to bring in certain savings. I suggested that any cuts or abolishing of posts must be on some rational basis. It must be linked to certain information which should perhaps emanate from a management review and that we might wish to have such a management review before we make a decision saying, "Cut across the board all posts that are vacant". There are certain posts which are necessary and might be vacant and other posts which it might not be necessary to cut but are filled.
That was the context in which I put forward the suggestion in Finance Committee. It was not in the Finance Committee report. I believe it was discussed at greater length in the joint session of the Programme and Finance Committee but I was not able to attend the last day of the session. I think that the Chairman of the Programme Committee might like to shed more light on what is in the report itself.
Robert F. ANDRIGO (Canada): I thank Mr Hjort and Mr Wade for the explanations that they have given us.
I should like to put some supplementaries so that I fully clarify that my understanding is correct. Originally I had understood Mr Wade to refer to the risk inherent in further reductions to obtain at the point at which the US$29 million, which is a possible additional increase, would need to be implemented, in other words, the point at which savings need to be greater than the US$29 million. In effect, it seemed to me that he was suggesting that US$29 million should be absorbed and that if we go above US$29 million we are in trouble. Do I now understand that in respect of the actual cost increases that can be absorbed the figure mentioned by Mr Hjort of US$38 million is in fact the maximum figure and that anything over and above that, any part of that US$29 million, cannot be absorbed by the Organization by absorption and that the intent is that there would be no increase in the budget level and that at the same time this would be accompanied by no effect on the programme? I would like clarification on this point.
On the question of support costs, I fully understand - and I do not think I indicated otherwise - that the present arrangements between Trust Fund donors and the Organization are difficult to renegotiate but I am not talking about present arrangements; I am talking about future arrangements which, in effect, sow the seed of future obligations. We are intending, I believe, and it is projected that we will engage in US$530 million of additional Trust Fund activities, extra-budgetary activities in the coming biennium of which 60 percent or thereabouts would be Trust Fund activities. Implicit in that is an element of subsidy. The comments that I made indicated that there are opportunity costs in respect to funds from the regular programme that are spent in a time of budgetary restraint in support of these Trust Fund activities, and that therefore that Trust Fund donors should assume the full responsibilities that are implied by their generosity. In saying that I had assumed - and I still believe it is relevant - that both the administrative support costs and the technical support costs are valued services to the Trust Fund donors.
Tony WADE (Officer-in-Charge, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): To try and get this clear on the "risks" as I call them, that statement was made in the context of trying to describe a framework for savings. Very few figures for savings were identified. I think US$1.3 million for downgrading was the only specific savings figure but the framework was given for the other areas as well. You therefore have this rather uncertain area where there may be more savings. What the Director-General is saying is that even if there are more savings, you should be aware that there are some very significant risks there. The ICSC has made a recommendation etc.
On the cost increases of US$19.5 million, that is our estimate of the uncovered cost increases, the Director-General is saying "Yes, I will find some way to absorb it but bear in mind that if I get into trouble I will come back to you for the SRA". He has said that in the document. He will try not to, he will try to absorb without damaging the programme, but if it looks like it is going to damage the programme he will come back to the Programme and Finance Committees because these are unbudgeted, unforeseen cost increases.
On the US$9 million, the story is a little bit different. It is still a risk but here the risk is whether it will be covered. In fact, the appropriation will have to be adjusted for the US$9 million but it depends whatever adjustments are made, if any, between now and the vote day on Friday week. From the point of view of resource requirements and assessments, etc., that US$9 million is sitting there hovering as an additional risk or threat at this moment in time.
I do not think I will respond on the question of field programme support and the contribution of the Regular Programme. I think we understand the issue.
On the review of staffing, there may not be a difference between us. If the issue is looking at the relationships of staff levels versus non-staff human resources, consultants, etc., it is something that we want to do anyway. It is something that we have not done in any great depth at this stage. I do not think the comparison with your own experience in the Canadian Civil Service - and I am sorry to use a specific national example but it was used to put the argument - can really be applied here, because why did we have all those vacancies? Not because the Canadian Government did not provide the money. In your situation, when you have a departmental budget you get the money nine times out of ten, I hope. In our situation unfortunately that has not been the case in recent years, so the plan is always distorted by the fact that certain contributions have not been paid. The period that you cover is the period where the Organization has had problems, so I do not think the comparison of vacant posts to establishment is going to reveal anything but the fact that there was a conscious management decision to reduce the number of field posts. That is not going to help us in identifying whether there are surplus posts in one place or another.
H.W. HJORT (Deputy Director-General): I just want to make a comment on the support cost matter. I want to make two comments. In all the discussion about expenditure from the Regular Programme to the Field Programme we forget that we have a fair amount of Trust Funds that are used to support the Regular Programme activities or, in our new terminology, normative, activities, an example being the Forest Resources Assessment Activity. Trust Funds have been used for this essentially normative activity. This is not unique; there are a good number of such cases. We tend in our discussions to be looking at the matter in one way instead of in a balanced way. I believe that what we should be considering is the balance - a no-win-or-loss situation rather than looking only at the funds going from the Regular Programme to the Field Programme. I do not like to use the word "subsidy" but the fact of the matter is that the Trust Fund donors are subsidizing the Regular Programme and in some respects the Regular Programme is subsidizing the Field Programme.
In view of the comments that were made by the Representative from Canada, I would just remind that, as Mr Wade said this morning, the Director-General's objective is to reduce the costs for administration and operations in order to bring them within the 13 percent as soon as possible. A good number of his actions have an impact and in particular, as was noted, the forthcoming move of the operations people from Headquarters to the regional office.
I would also like to make the point that as far as technical services are concerned, there is no disagreement with the view that it is in the interests of donors to see to it that the budget itself provides for the technical backstopping support that is needed. It does not make any difference if that support comes from a consulting firm in the country of concern or from some other organization or from FAO. It is essential to the donors to have adequate technical services provided for the project. Where we have had difficulty in covering the so-called subsidy is with respect to project preparation, which normally is not covered in the projects. You agree to fund a project after it has been prepared; we do not have a project preparation facility. A lot of other organizations do. The World Bank a few years ago had 100 or so Trust Funds for project preparation but we do not have any to speak of, so we cannot recover these costs to the Regular Programme.
EL PRESIDENTE: Creo que ha llegado el momento de cerrar los debates respecto de este punto. Podría facilmente resumirlos, como lo ha propuesto el señor delegado de Francia, indicando que las diversas posiciones no han cambiado mucho. Sin embargo me voy a tomar la molestia de ser un poco más específico con el ánimo de recoger más detalladamente lo que ustedes han formulado.
El Consejo debatió este tema, el Tema 12, sobre el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto, de manera conjunta con los temas 10 y 11, conforme los documentos y los párrafos señalados en el Programa adoptado por el Consejo.
El Consejo tomó nota de la declaración del Director General de la FAO en torno a los esfuerzos que había llevado a cabo para cumplir con la petición de los miembros del Consejo en junio y las formuladas por los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas en el sentido de llevar a cabo economías y ahorros adicionales para absorber en la mayor medida posible el incremento en los costos sin afectar la ejecución del Programa.
Asimismo expresó su firme convicción de que más allá de cierto límite, toda pretensión de absorción ulterior de costos tendría un efecto irremediable sobre los programas, de tal suerte que estos se verían recortados.
El Consejo tomó nota de la forma en que la FAO había atendido a las recomendaciones hechas, por el Consejo y los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas y que el Director General, a la luz de ello, y una vez ofrecidas las medidas para absorber, en la medida de sus capacidades, esos costos, proponía un presupuesto de 697.8 millones de dólares. Esto implicaba en principio el respeto al criterio adoptado para el próximo bienio y para bienios anteriores de mantener un crecimiento real cero.
El Consejo tomó nota de la información proporcionada por la Secretaría, conforme al párrafo 124 del documento C 95/3 en la que se nos ha informado que la cifra de ahorro en el presupuesto montaba muy probablemente a 43.3 millones de dólares.
Entiendo que el estimado corriente de aumentos de costos a absorber llega a algo así como 28.6 millones. No estoy seguro, la cifra correspondiente la podría mencionar el señor Wade después. En todo caso esto lleva un total de ahorros, entiendo, de alrededor o más allá de 70 millones de dólares.
El Consejo tomó nota de los cambios en la presentación del Programa y Presupuesto y en la identificación correcta de las prioridades por parte del Director General, conforme lo habían señalado los Estados Miembros en ocasiones anteriores.
En cuanto al nivel presupuestario, hubo de nueva cuenta una gama de posiciones y de matices que, al igual que en el Consejo de junio me permito reducir a tres grandes grupos. Obviamente esto no implica que no hubiera matices en donde las fronteras entre estos grupos se confunden, quizás, un tanto. El primer grupo está constituido por pocos países que indicaron que el nivel presupuestario debería ser sustancialmente menor, inclusive propusieron una cifra que se ubica entre 100 y 150 millones de dólares por debajo de la propuesta por el Director General. Ello conllevaría, obviamente, recortes sustanciales en el Programa.
Un segundo grupo de países expresó en torno a los esfuerzos realizados por el Director General de absorción de costos, que existía un ámbito para realizar ulteriores ahorros sin afectar los programas de la Organización y reiteró, entre otros, los puntos mencionados en el Informe de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas.
Insistió ese grupo en la importancia de que se evitaran duplicaciones con otros organismos de Naciones Unidas, Instituciones Internacionales y en la posibilidad de llevar a cabo reformas estructurales y administrativas que lleven a un mayor ahorro.
Algunos países sugirieron, igualmente, que el eventual aumento de sueldos en Naciones Unidas sea absorbido dentro del Fondo Especial de Reservas.
Al escuchar las aclaraciones de la Secretaría en torno a la absorción de los costos en los varios ámbitos, que van desde el transporte hasta la asistencia al Programa de Campo, indicaron que esas cifras podrían aún revisarse.
Se confirmó su posición, como expresaron en el Consejo de junio pasado, en el sentido de que el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto debe establecerse a partir de una base presupuestaria que excluya los 38 millones de dólares que se adicionaron al financiamiento del PLP 1994-95 con cargo a atrasos entregados a la Organización.
Esta práctica, obviamente, ha sido considerada inadecuada y no deberá repetirse.
Es evidente por tanto, distinguidos delegados, que este grupo, si bien guarda una posición intermedia, propugna por un presupuesto menor que el presentado por el Director General y, según lo que hemos escuchado, esta posición conllevaría también la necesidad de hacer recortes al programa.
Finalmente un tercer grupo que comprende a la mayoría de los Miembros del Consejo, confirmó su coincidencia con el criterio aplicado en bienios anteriores de mantener un crecimiento real cero en la Organización, que se expresa en mantener los recursos utilizables por la Organización en términos reales y en que continúen haciéndose los esfuerzos necesarios para absorber en la mayor medida posible los aumentos de costos que parece aún se suman a los que ya han sido realizados.
EL PRESIDENTE: Se reconoció asimismo, que a través de la FAO, además del Programa Ordinario se realizaban otra serie de actividades, que la ecuación de las actividades de la Organización era mucho más grande que el propio Programa Ordinario, entre otros el Programa de campo, y los efectos multiplicativos que la acción de la FAO tenía, en compañía de otros organismos de las Naciones Unidas e instituciones financieras internacionales, organismos regionales, gobiernos, sector privado y organizaciones no gubernamentales. Esa acción multiplicadora de la FAO formaba una parte inseparable de su papel.
En otro sentido, algunos Estados Miembros insistieron en que la FAO debía adecuar sus programas y actividades a las contribuciones que efectivamente recibiría. De otra manera, advirtió ese grupo de países, la FAO quedaría afectada por graves efectos financieros y sería irrealista la posibilidad de ejecutar sus programas futuros. Afirmaron que, de otra manera, los recursos seguramente no estarían disponibles.
Varios países confirmaron que no estaban en posición de cubrir los faltantes anunciados por algunos contribuyentes, en particular por el principal contribuyente.
Muchas delegaciones insistieron en que el procedimiento de establecer el nivel presupuestario de manera a priori y sin compaginarlo de manera consistente con el Programa a llevar a cabo en 1996-97 era inconveniente, incongruente e inaceptable, y rechazaron la pretensión de que algunos principales contribuyentes fijaran el nivel presupuestario a partir de la aportación que estarían dispuestos a otorgar a la Organización. Indicaron que las contribuciones, una vez establecidas por los órganos rectores de la FAO, y conforme a sus estatutos, conforman una obligación jurídica e inescapable para todos los Estados Miembros y, por tanto, los retrasos, así como los faltantes, no eran condonables. Ellos, reiteraron, forman parte de los haberes de la Organización, y los adeudos y las contribuciones no podían ser cancelados.
El Consejo, en consecuencia, insistió en que todos los Estados Miembros debían pagar sin excepción ni disculpas la totalidad de sus contribuciones.
Se insistió, por parte de muchos países, en que no se podía pedir a la organización hacer un esfuerzo de recortes sin estar en posición de pagar la totalidad de las contribuciones. De igual manera, algunos países señalaron que tampoco era justificable que se exigieran niveles presupuestarios mayores cuando muchos Estados Miembros no estaban en posición de pagar a la Organización.
Se expresó, sin embargo, la esperanza general de que podría llegarse a un consenso en torno al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1996-97 y que ulteriores aclaraciones por parte de la Secretaría y las discusiones que se celebrarían en la Conferencia podrían, de preferencia, llevar a un consenso. Sin embargo, el consenso no era privativo o exclusivo de la Organización y había otras formas de dirimir estas divergencias, específicamente a través del voto si fuera necesario.
Se expresó también la importancia de que en este Consejo se establecieran criterios más afines, criterios comunes y reconocimientos de que la función dura de la FAO, su viabilidad, era prioritaria ante las responsabilidades inmediatas de los Estados Miembros. Según una mayoría, esos criterios comunes debían partir del reconocimiento del abismo persistente entre las necesidades que enfrenta un mundo donde se reproducen situaciones de inseguridad alimentaria y una menguante asistencia al desarrollo agropecuario y agroalimentario en particular, así como una declinante ayuda alimentaria, insuficientes esfuerzos hacia el logro de la sostenibilidad agrícola, pesquera y forestal y de una inversión pública decreciente, como fue mencionado en la reciente Reunión Ministerial de Quebec.
Todo esto se inscribe en el contexto de la pobreza que expone a más de 800 millones de seres humanos al hambre crónica y esto justificaba, según aquella mayoría, que la FAO mantuviera muy en alto sus capacidades para hacer frente a estos retos, que implicaban una situación inaceptable.
Otros países abogaron por que la FAO se ajustara a condiciones financieras hoy por hoy muy distintas y más difíciles y aseguraron que esto no necesariamente afectaría su impacto y sus actividades en concordancia con su mandato. Una organización ajustada, una organización que respondiera de manera realista a sus disponibilidades financieras efectivas, que podía de manera mejor, según ellos, hacer frente a su mandato.
En cuanto a las prioridades, éstas se reiteraron conforme lo expone el documento C 95/3. Se destacó la decepción de parte de muchos Estados Miembros porque el PCT no había aumentado proporcionalmente, conforme lo indicaba la Resolución 9/89 de la Conferencia, a un nivel del 17 por ciento. Se destacó el papel de la CTPD y la CEPD. Se acogieron los programas que el Director General había propuesto y el Consejo de la FAO ha destacado en torno a darle prioridad a la producción y productividad agrícola en Países de Bajos Ingresos y con Déficit de Alimentos, al Programa EMPRES. También se reiteró la importancia de asignar los recursos necesarios para el apoyo de la Conferencia Técnica Internacional de Recursos Fitogenéticos. La FAO debía al respecto prever que todos los aspectos estratégicos para la celebración con éxito de tal Conferencia debían quedar asegurados con miras a la realización futura de un Plan de Acción y la revisión correspondiente del Compromiso Internacional de Recursos Fitogenéticos. Esto, y los efectos de la Cumbre Mundial de la Alimentación, deberían tomarse en cuenta en cuanto al impacto del programa presupuestario de la FAO.
Prácticamente con esto concluye mi resumen. Faltaría mencionar, obviamente, que se reiteró por parte de todos la importancia de que la FAO continúe ofreciendo un esfuerzo constante de mayor eficiencia y ahorro sin perjuicio de la ejecución de sus programas y actividades.
Permítanme, finalmente y de manera muy cándida, expresar mi preocupación de que, independientemente del nivel presupuestario que ustedes en la Conferencia decidan aceptar, y en particular en atención a la petición de algunos Estados Miembros sobre el realismo financiero -y es una posición muy personal de la Presidencia del Consejo- que aun así, después de esos esfuerzos no se llegue a una posición financiera que salve las dificultades que hemos encontrado en bienios anteriores, es decir, que se continúe con atrasos en las contribuciones y que no se paguen los atrasos que ya se han acumulado. Esto preocupa, porque proyectado al futuro, dentro de dos años nos encontraríamos con una organización que ha recortado ya sus programas pero que aun así no ha encontrado los recursos suficientes para financiar ni siquiera éstos. No existe ninguna garantía de que aun cumpliendo con el realismo financiero que algunos de ustedes han insistido en respetar, esta Organización tenga los recursos necesarios.
Por otra parte, también quisiera mencionar que la ecuación de lo que es la FAO va mucho más allá del Programa Ordinario y que ello debe llevar a la búsqueda de una acción más enérgica en otros ámbitos, en particular en los programas de campo de la Organización y en su interrelación con otros organismos internacionales, regionales, con gobiernos, el sector privado y organizaciones no gubernamentales.
Permítanme también decir que un recorte precipitado de los programas de la Organización sería quizá un ejercicio difícil de llevar a cabo en el corto plazo. Es como pedirle a una persona que reduzca su peso sustancialmente en 20 kilos en dos días; la única manera que tendría para hacerlo es cortándose una pierna o quizá la cabeza. Creo que es difícil que la FAO pueda, en vista de un presupuesto sustancialmente menor, hacer un esfuerzo congruente para eliminar programas, subprogramas, etc. Todos estos han sido producto de años de consenso, de afinaciones, de declaraciones, de definiciones por parte de la Organización y la eliminación de unos tiene efectos en otros. Si el Consejo, y luego la Conferencia, propone un recorte sustancial, quizá estaríamos más bien hablando de una reestructuración muy de fondo de la FAO, y yo me pregunto si eso es factible hacerlo en tan corto plazo, quizá es tarde.
Finalmente, permítanme confirmar que quedan obvias cuestiones por resolver, que este Consejo, si bien ha dado algunos pasos para obtener información adicional respecto a las preguntas que ustedes han formulado, no ha podido acercar sustancialmente las posiciones distintas que presentan, pero cada vez más está claro el esfuerzo que ha realizado el Director General para absorber costos y también las implicaciones negativas que pudiera tener un recorte en los programas. Estoy seguro que con este debate la Conferencia recibirá un informe que le ayude de manera más clara a tomar decisiones responsables. Estoy seguro también que ningún país actuará al respecto irresponsablemente, pero también que ninguno tiene derecho a utilizar su posición
para convertirla en una posición de amenaza o de chantaje. Esto vale obviamente para todos los Estados Miembros. Las reglas que nos gobiernan son claras. Estoy seguro que los Estados Miembros saben respetarlas. La Constitución de la FAO y los compromisos jurídicos que todos han adquirido al ser miembros de esta Organización así les obligan. No tengo yo que repetirlo, es simplemente un hecho.
Les repito que mi resumen, y obviamente mis opiniones personales, no tienen que expresarse en el informe, no tienen que afectarlo de ninguna manera, pero, obviamente, este es un punto delicado que a mí, tanto como a ustedes, me preocupa.
Con esto doy por concluidos nuestros debates.
Pasamos de inmediato al tema 9 de nuestra agenda, que es el Código de Conducta para la pesca responsable. Damos por concluido los temas 12, 10 y 11.
EL PRESIDENTE: Respecto del Código de Conducta para la Pesca Responsable, les recuerdo que en la última sesión del Consejo se estableció un Comité Técnico de participación abierta, con objeto de asegurar la finalización del Código de Conducta y facilitar su adopción en la próxima sesión de la Conferencia. Dado el avance en la formulación y la negociación del Código, el Consejo endosó la mayoría de los artículos, acordó que el Comité quedase operativo para celebrar una segunda reunión los días 25 a 29 de septiembre y, de requerirse una tercera sesión antes de la celebración de este Consejo, se realizaría, con el objeto de finalizar en particular los artículos 6 y 7, una vez que la Secretaría hubiese llevado a cabo su armonización, conforme a los resultados de la Conferencia celebrada en Nueva York, en las Naciones Unidas. El Comité debería, asimismo, finalizar los elementos dejados pendientes en otros artículos y proceder a una revisión final general del Código en su totalidad, incluida la armonización legal y lingüística, para las cuales la Secretaría prepararía también propuestas, a fin de que este Consejo pudiese cumplir con su mandato de remitir un texto finalizado y endosado, para facilitar su adopción por parte de la Conferencia. El Comité Técnico celebró, como convenido, su segunda sesión, concluyendo todos los trabajos encomendados y dejando instrucciones precisas a la Secretaría para la edición del proyecto final del Código.
Voy a pedirle, a continuación, al Dr Krone que nos explique cómo se procedió para llegar a este texto, a fin de que el Consejo pueda tomar la decisión, si así lo tiene a bien, de transmitirlo a la Conferencia.
W. KRONE (Assistant Director-General, a.i., Fisheries Department): Thank you, Mr Chairman, in view of the advanced time I think I should keep my introduction very short. As you have already said, your technical committee was able to complete the negotiation of the text of the Code and it is now in front of you as document C 95/20-Rev. 1. Since that Committee only met about two-and-a-half weeks ago, the formal distribution of the revised text I am afraid was somewhat late. However, the original document was already distributed in June. Those of you who attended the meeting in September did receive a copy of the revised text at that time. The present version is exactly the same except for a very few minor editorial and language adjustments. I should like to extend the Secretariat's appreciation of the very tremendous work done by the Technical Committee, in both formal and informal sessions, sometimes until early hours of the morning. Countries were very well represented and issues were resolved in the spirit of compromise. I believe that we have a very balanced instrument representing all interests towards achieving the objectives of responsible fisheries. The Technical Committee underlined at its completing session that it regarded this text to be negotiated until the end and the attempts which were made at that meeting to reopen the discussion were refused. The Secretariat was also requested to prepare a Draft Resolution for adoption of the Code by the
Conference including an appeal for the prompt gratification of the compliance agreement which was adopted at the last Conference here. If your Council endorsed this request the Secretariat will proceed accordingly and have the draft resolution ready for consultation for the resolutions committee next week.
Mr Chairman, your Hundred and Second Session in November 1992 instructed formally the Secretariat to proceed with the elaboration of the Code for Conduct of Responsible Fisheries and we are happy to be able to report after three years of work that that work has been finalized.
The Council is now presented with this Code and you should now decide on its endorsement and transmission to the Conference on this point for its final adoption.
Mario MOYA PALENCIA (México): La Delegación de México tuvo el honor y el privilegio de presidir durante sus últimos períodos el Comité Técnico abierto del Consejo sobre el Código de Conducta para la Pesca Responsable que, durante sus sesiones de fines de septiembre último, concluyó sus trabajos satisfactoriamente con el proyecto de código que está ante la vista de todos nosotros en el documento C 95/20-Rev.l. Este proyecto de código es un verdadero ejemplo de como es posible que, laborando y negociando de buena fe, la FAO, no sólo en su importante campo de cooperación y ayuda sino también en el campo normativo, cubra sus responsabilidades internacionales con acierto, con eficiencia y con celeridad. Después de que esta idea nació en la Conferencia de Cancún, en México, en mayo de 1992, prácticamente en tres años o un poco más, se llegó a este proyecto que es altamente satisfactorio pues, como dice aquí este documento, contiene una fórmula válida donde se recogen los intereses de todos aquellos que tienen como objetivo la pesca responsable. Y hubiera podido ser más rápida la elaboración del Código -que si bien es un documento indicativo y voluntario, tiene una alta calidad normativa- si no hubiese sido necesario esperar, -como usted lo ha manifestado y también el Dr Krone-, a que se realizara en Naciones Unidas -lo que se hizo en agosto de 1995-, el acuerdo sobre la aplicación de las disposiciones de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Derecho del Mar, relativas a la conservación y ordenación de las poblaciones de peces transzonales y las poblaciones de peces altamente migratorios.
Nótese que desde agosto de 1995, que se concluyó la negociación de este código, que sí es vinculante, al 29 de septiembre, que se aprobó el Código de Conducta de Pesca Responsable, sólo transcurrió poco más de un mes. Quiere decir que la eficiencia de los países que contribuyeron a las negociaciones fue de muy alto grado.
Por eso, en nombre de mi país, en tanto Presidente de este Comité Técnico abierto, quiero agradecer profundamente el valioso apoyo de la Secretaría a las labores del propio Comité, y sobre todo la actitud responsable, seria y, como he dicho de buena fe, de todas aquellas naciones que en este Comité abierto -que fue muy amplio- pusieron lo mejor de su capacidad y de su buena voluntad para llevar a feliz término este documento que, estoy seguro, en la medida de que fuese aprobado como lo deseamos y se aplique, va a ser un instrumento normativo muy importante en las relaciones pesqueras internacionales.
Por tanto, señor Presidente, agradeciéndole a usted sus palabras y a la Secretaría las suyas, y su auxilio, así como a todos los países que contribuyeron a hacer posible este documento, le solicito formalmente, a reserva desde luego de escuchar a los distinguidos delegados que han pedido el uso de la palabra, que el Consejo ratifique este proyecto de Código de Conducta para la Pesca Responsable y que la Secretaría prepare un proyecto de resolución para que la Conferencia apruebe el Código de Conducta sobre Pesca Responsable, cuyo proyecto de resolución contenga los elementos correspondientes de aplicación y seguimiento del mismo documento. Este proyecto podría así, ser distribuido a través del Comité de Resoluciones de la Conferencia.
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): The United States supports adoption of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
The United States believes that the Code will contribute significantly to the sustainable development of fish resources worldwide and help nations meet their food security needs.
The United States appreciates the efforts undertaken by the Secretariat to prepare the Code, and the work done by the Committee on Fisheries and the Technical Committee of the Council to finalize its text.
The United States acknowledges with appreciation the efforts of the Government of Mexico in initiating the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and in chairing our negotiations for the last few years.
The United States intends to become a party to the FAO Flagging Agreement as soon as possible, and considers it to be an important, integral part of the Code.
With respect to the trade-related provisions of the Code, the United States understands that these are not intended to add to or diminish the rights and obligations of the WTO Members under the WTO Agreement. The United States views this language as a loose paraphrase of the WTO Agreement. Furthermore, since there is some possibility of inconsistency between the trade-related language of the Code and obligations under the WTO Agreement, the United States understands that the Code intends the language of the WTO Agreement to be dispositive. Furthermore, since the Code is intended to paraphrase the WTO Agreement, and since the WTO Agreement is much more detailed, the United States is of the opinion that there is no need for the elaboration of technical guidelines by the FAO Secretariat for the traded-related provisions of the Code.
The United States fully supports a recommendation by this Council to the FAO Conference that it adopt the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries.
M.L. DELGADO (CE): Tengo el honor de realizar la presente declaración en nombre de la Unión Europea y de sus Estados Miembros, en nombre de los cuales desearía expresar nuestra satisfacción por la rápida conclusión de las negociaciones mantenidas en la última sesión del Comité Técnico de septiembre. La culminación del Código de Conducta permitirá a la próxima Conferencia proceder a la aprobación del texto de acuerdo con los plazos establecidos.
La Unión Europea y sus Estados Miembros han participado de una forma muy activa en las negociaciones, expresando nuestro compromiso para una coherente y responsable gestión de los recursos pesqueros en lo que se refiere a la legislación internacional, la cooperación internacional y los enfoques y soluciones multilaterales de los problemas.
Concedemos una gran importancia al Código de Conducta, ya que, a pesar de carecer de naturaleza legal obligatoria, tendrá un gran impacto político en el futuro del mundo pesquero. Junto con UNCLOS, y todos los acuerdos internacionales de relevancia, el Código constituirá el marco de las políticas que deberán ser aplicadas en el futuro.
Nos gustaría también, señor Presidente, recalcar el objetivo global y el reconocimiento universal del Código de Conducta. Teniendo en cuenta estas dos características esenciales del Código, el papel de la FAO en el seguimiento y la aplicación del mismo, así como en sus efectos sobre la pesca, será sin duda alguna crucial. Para nosotros, el Código de Conducta es aceptable y podemos por tanto aceptar los compromisos políticos que este Código representa.
El Código es el resultado de un debate largo y a veces difícil, así como de largas negociaciones. Consideramos que refleja, de una forma general y aceptable, el consenso que existe entre los Miembros de la FAO. Por estas razones, solicitamos a los delegados que no abran puntos que han sido acordados a través de un compromiso delicado. De otra forma, el balance general del documento corre el riesgo de ser alterado y, por tanto, comprometería su adopción final.
Permítame, señor Presidente, que felicite a todos los que han contribuido, bajo las directivas del COFI, al resultado final con sus propuestas e ideas y, en particular, al secretariado de la FAO por su asistencia técnica y logística que ha sido siempre tan valiosa. Al Gobierno de México, por supuesto, que estableció los cimientos para la elaboración del Código cuando organizó la Conferencia de Cancún. Al Presidente del Comité Técnico que, de una forma directa y eficiente, condujo las discusiones, y al Presidente del Grupo encargado de la revisión jurídica y lingüística del documento final, en sus versiones en las lenguas inglesa, francesa y española.
Finalmente, señor Presidente, quiero reiterar nuestra aceptación del Código y del Acuerdo de conformidad de la FAO, que forma parte integral del Código, y nuestra disposición a proceder a la ratificación del mismo una vez que hayamos finalizado nuestros procedimientos internos.
Sra. Virginia PEREZ PEREZ (Venezuela): Para mi país es un honor y una responsabilidad hacer algunos comentarios en relación al proyecto de Código de Conducta, no sólo por la gran importancia que asignamos al tema sino también por la activa participación de nuestra delegación en todo el proceso negociador.
Señor Presidente, la intensificación descontrolada de las operaciones pesqueras hizo tomar conciencia de la necesidad de definir políticas y desarrollar normas técnicas y legales capaces de preservar y explotar racionalmente los recursos vivos marinos y evitar la depredación de los mares.
La integración de la pesca en el marco de consideraciones ambientales más amplias, como el desarrollo sostenible, y la toma en consideración de la evolución de la explotación de los recursos pesqueros, hicieron pensar en la necesidad de actuar una práctica responsable de la pesca. El avance determinante de estos conceptos fue dado por la Conferencia Internacional sobre Pesca Responsable, convocada por el Gobierno de México, cuyo resultado final fue la Declaración de Cancún, en la cual se definió la pesca responsable y se emanaron novedosas concepciones que constituyeron el primer paso de un gran movimiento internacional a tal fin.
A la FAO le correspondió elaborar y redactar el Código Internacional para la Pesca Responsable, cometido en el cual se ha venido avanzando en forma segura, hasta llegar al excelente y coherente documento que está ante nosotros. Este proyecto es producto de numerosas reuniones de consulta y negociación.
Señor Presidente, este documento no es el resultado de acciones aisladas de los Estados ni de la imposición de la voluntad de unos sobre otros; es el resultado de la labor conjunta, concertada y convenida de los países que, al perseguir un fin común para beneficio de la comunidad internacional, dan lo mejor de sí mismos.
Resulta evidente que el Código tiene carácter global, pues abarca todos los aspectos de la conservación y utilización de todos los recursos bioacuáticos, marinos y de aguas dulces, incluyendo los cultivados, desde la fase de ordenación y gestión hasta la fase de postcaptura, y además todas las entidades involucradas, ya sean gubernamentales así como no gubernamentales.
Puede considerarse que este documento, por su carácter universal, constituirá en los próximos años un punto de referencia obligado para la adopción, a nivel nacional e internacional, de políticas relativas a la conservación y uso sostenible de los recursos bioacuáticos.
Señor Presidente, considero necesario resaltar la extraordinaria labor que ha desempeñado la FAO en este proceso, recordando que la adopción del Código es sólo un punto de partida, pues queda aún mucho trabajo por realizar. La Organización deberá presentar el conjunto de directrices relacionadas con la aplicación del Código, así como la entrada en vigor y subsiguiente revisión del Acuerdo de 1993, sobre cumplimiento. Quiero aprovechar esta ocasión para subrayar, desde ahora, la necesidad de dar prioridad a este tema en el programa de trabajo de la FAO a mediano y largo plazo.
Señor Presidente, para finalizar y a la luz de los planteamientos antes expuestos y apoyando lo dicho por la Delegación de México, mi Delegación sugiere que el Consejo recomiende a la Conferencia la aprobación del Código por consenso.
Robert F. ANDRIGO (Canada): Canada participated actively and constructively in the negotiation of this particular Code both in terms of the agreement that we have before us and the preparation of certain of the technical standards that will underlie the Code. Obviously we accept the thrust of the contents of this particular Agreement.
I think that our thanks in particular must go to the Government of Mexico for the very important role that it has played both in the initiation and completion of this agreement. I think that similarly our gratitude goes to the Secretariat which at times has worked in difficult circumstances to ensure that the Code and work on it was kept constantly before the membership. I think to the Secretariat goes much of the credit for the success we have achieved in reaching this particular Agreement.
I am pleased to hear that there are countries in this room or members of this Organization that are preparing to accept the Compliance Agreement. This is an agreement which has been on the books and has been approved by the Organization two years ago, and I think that the substance of our commitment to preservation of the resources of the sea is in fact best demonstrated by acceptance of these agreements. I am encouraged by what I have heard today and I hope that the community procedures are completed early so that they may sign the Agreement. In this respect I would like to support the proposal for the preparation of the Resolution to be put before Conference to accept the Compliance Agreement.
As regards the consensual endorsement of this particular agreement for adoption by the Conference, I regret that because I had not received and had not seen this document before yesterday, I cannot agree with the consensus that it be recommended to the Conference that it be adopted as it is. This is purely a technical reserve. I do not believe that there is any point of substance but I believe that it is important that we first ensure that the texts are indeed those which were negotiated. On that basis, I do not anticipate any problems but I am afraid we will have to ensure that there is complementarity between the text that was agreed and the text that we have before us.
EL PRESIDENTE: Tomó nota de su reserva de carácter técnico para apoyar el consenso en torno al Proyecto de Código de Conducta sobre Pesca Responsable.
Hiromoto WATANABE (Japan): I wish to join the other delegates in their appreciation of the enormous and sincere efforts made by all the delegates involved and by the Secretariat in the long process of establishing this Code of Conduct. We support the adoption of the Code of Conduct together with the appeal for early ratification of the so-called Compliance Agreement.
In conclusion, I wish to express my expectation that FAO will continuously support the implementation of the Code as a centre of excellence in the field of fisheries.
Andrew Keith PEARSON (Australia): Australia notes that the finalization of the Code of Conduct is a significant achievement and represents the results of a substantial cooperative effort by the FAO Secretariat and member countries, particularly Mexico, and we wish to join others in congratulating them on their efforts.
While the Code is voluntary, it provides important principles for the management of fisheries, including fisheries operations, aquaculture developments, integration of fisheries into coastal area management, fair trade practice and fisheries research. Australia therefore hopes that the Code can now speedily be adopted at the Conference.
EL PRESIDENTE: Con esto concluye la lista de oradores. Pregunto si algún otro delegado desea hacer uso de la palabra. En caso negativo le pregunto al Dr Krone si desea hacer algún comentario. Veo que no.
Entonces podemos resumir este debate indicando que de las explicaciones ofrecidas por la Secretaría y constatadas en sus intervenciones, se confirmó que en la sesión del Comité Técnico concurrió una muy amplia representación de expertos pesqueros, tanto técnicos como juristas y administradores, lo cual daba un peso decisivo a las conclusiones alcanzadas por dicho Comité.
El Consejo tomó nota de que un miembro indicó su reserva por razones técnicas para concurrir al debate y al consenso alcanzado en el Consejo en virtud del retraso con que recibió el proyecto del Código de Conducta. Otro miembro señaló que, si bien apoyaba el consenso en torno al proyecto de Código de Conducta, interpretaba que el texto, o parte del texto de dicho Código, no era totalmente compatible con las disposiciones en materia comercial de la OMS y que esto debía ajustarse.
La gran mayoría indicó que conforme al consenso alcanzado, el Consejo debía pronunciarse por enviar una señal clara a la Conferencia respecto a que el texto contenido en el documento C 95/20-Rep.l representa un
paquete que mantiene el equilibrio; un equilibrio delicado de intereses y posiciones dentro de un contexto general del articulado y de los principios que sientan las bases para los logros de una pesca sostenible y responsable.
Atendiento a los acuerdos establecidos en el seno del Comité Técnico, debe considerarse que el Consejo consideró que la negociación había sido concluida y su texto finalizado. La gran mayoría, que estuvo en posición de contribuir al debate y hacer una recomendación concreta, recomendó a la Conferencia que tomando en cuenta el detallado análisis de las múltiples instancias, la transparencia en todo el proceso de negociación y, en particular, las dificultades expresadas por muchos países miembros, que han participado anteriormente y que probablemente no podrían tener una representación a nivel técnico en la Conferencia ni en número ni en representación a nivel global y regional, consideraran como un paquete el proyecto del Código de Conducta y que era importante no reabrir su contenido por lo que reiteraban su recomendación a la Conferencia de que se adoptara el Proyecto del Código como se presentaba.
La mayoría de los miembros del Consejo hicieron suyas las recomendaciones del Comité Técnico respecto a que la Secretaría prepare la respectiva resolución para la adopción del Código para la Conferencia y para conminar a los Miembros de la Organización a firmar el acuerdo de abanderamiento que forma parte de dicho Código, esto conforme a lo aprobado por la Conferencia en su última sesión, y al que sólo se han adherido hasta la fecha siete países de las 25 ratificaciones requeridas para su entrada en vigor.
Si no hay ningún otro comentario por parte de ustedes concluiríamo, así el Tema 9 y con ello esta segunda Sesión Plenaria del Consejo.
Thomas A. FORBORD (United States of America): Mr Chairman, I was just a little concerned about some of the language in your summary. I realize that you were trying to be very cautious, but I think the suggestion that only a majority of the Council has supported the Code is excessively cautious. I think there was unanimous support for the Code. One country has made a technical reservation while it compares the exact text, but I would hope that the report shows unanimous support for the Code.
EL PRESIDENTE: Le agradezco mucho, distinguido delegado, el que me haya hecho esta observación que, obviamente, la reitero y en el Informe, si no hubiera inconveniente, aparecería que el Consejo unánimemente recomienda a la Conferencia la adopción del Proyecto de Código de Conducta sobre Pesca Responsable.
Distinguidos delegados, si no hubiera otra observación, y veo al distinguido delegado de Canadá que dice que no, quizás en el Comité de Redacción donde va a estar representado podrá discutir la palabra correspondiente de unanimidad o mayoría.
Robert F. ANDRIGO (Canada): Mr Chairman, I think the United States formulation was right.
The meeting rose at 19.45 hours.
La séance est levée à 19 h 45.
Se levanta la sesión a las 19.45 horas.
