Κ. SHIMIZU (Japan): My delegation wishes also to join other speakers by commending the efforts of the members of the Programme and Finance Committees and wishes to take note of the reports with appreciation. However, my delegation would like to seek further information or clarification on the following issues.
First, on the reform of the two departments, namely, Administrative and Finance Department and the General Affairs Information Department. To my recollection, the reform of the two departments was not clear, while other departments were under the reform process. The reform plan of the two departments had been awaited. It seems to me that no information about the result or the plan of the reform has not been given to the members of this Organization yet. If so, the House should be enlightened and if not, the reference would be appreciated. It is also recalled, Japan suggested to merge the two departments into one. If it is difficult, another suggestion would be to downgrade one of the departments to a lower level unit, including one of the ADG posts to a lower level. This suggestion is based on the reflection that there is not much difference in numbers of senior posts despite some reductions in numbers at Ρ post levels. If we are looking into the standard field structures which is also another area, in future, for review.
Secondly, on the PERSYS and the FINSYS programmes, I raised the question on the programme of the systems, at the last sessions, and expressed some concern over the seriousness of the problem. It had involved a considerable amount of resources which had not been effectively used and as a result, now the programmes are to be replaced with new ones. The information or explanation given to the House by the Secretariat was not satisfactory. My delegation, and some others as well, were not convinced. My intervention, again, is based on the conviction that the problem, as such, should not be repeated. To my understanding the replacement process is now going on. If that is the case, I wish to put a few questions to the Secretariat, through you, Mr Chairman:
How are the past lessons or experiences reflected in the replacement process?
Are the views or opinions of the staff members studied or reflected?
Is responsible management or operational restructure reestablished to avoid a repetition?
Are progress reports on the replacement process regularly submitted to the Programme Committee as well as to the Finance Committee?
When is the replacement process to be complete, including the information on the total replacement cost and on the resources expended so far?
Lastly. What are the probabilities of the success of the replacement programme?
Franco GINOCCHIO (Italy): The Italian delegation would like, first of all, to thank Mr Bommer for his clear introduction to Agenda Item 11 concerning the process of adjustment to the Programme of Work and Budget for 1996–97.
In this regard, after the May session of Programme and Finance Committees, Italy expected that the adjusted Programme of Work and Budget would be implemented in an orderly manner and in conformity with the proposals adopted by the two above mentioned Committees. We actually consider it important that budgetary reductions are absorbed through a combination of efficiency savings and rationalization measures in the structure of offices and departments of the Organization, as well as, as a last resort, through selective reductions under various budgetary chapters which were estimated at nearly 0.7 per cent of the whole Programme of Work and Budget.
Now, after reading the report of the last session of the joint meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees, we realize that it has not been possible to protect all economic and technical FAO programmes. Consequently, we hope that the budgetary reductions in the technical and economic programmes of great importance, will be only temporary, and we would like also to suggest exploring the possibility to replenish the resources allocated to the priority programmes in case extrabudgetary resources might become available. In this context, Italy is awaiting with great interest for the next progress report on the implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget for 1996–97, which might be issued in April 1997, in order to have a more detailed picture of the impact of the process of adjustment on the staff and on the output of the Organization. As a matter of fact, Italy considers it important to protect the priority programmes of FAO and we think that the priority activities of the Organization have been highlighted in the Medium-Term Plan approved by the last Conference.
Finally, we hope that FAO will receive sufficient financial support from Member States in order to be able to carry out, in the best way, its activities as a centre of excellence in the field of food and agriculture, including also an adequate level of technical cooperation activities.
Inge NORDANG (Norway): Thank you for giving me the floor at this late hour in the debate. Like other Members of the Council, my delegation can support the conclusions from the Programme and Finance Committees. I just meant a reduction to budget realities is important even if we, like others, would have liked to see a situation where such cuts had not been necessary.
Norway has, together with the other Nordic countries, for a long time advocated a higher priority to the forestry sector. We therefore support the statement made by the United States and others, that we would have liked to have seen a larger protection of these programmes.
FAO is, as we know, engaged in very important normative work in the forestry sector. My delegation holds the view that the Organization needs to engage in field activities in order to perform its normative functions in a satisfactory manner. In this respect, I wish to point out the fact that there are discussions going on with donors to the field programme, on modifications of the reimbursement scheme for support costs. In this regard, I would like to point to paragraph 2.21 in document CL 111/14, and the need for attracting extra-budgetary resources in support of technical and economic programmes. My delegation is concerned that any increase in support costs reimbursement as indicated in paragraph 2.19 of the same document might have a negative effect on the mobilizations of such funds.
P.K. CHEPKWONY (Observer for Kenya): Allow my delegation to congratulate Mr Bommer, the Chairman of the Programme Committee, for presenting a concise and lucid introduction to Agenda Item 11 on adjustment to the Programme of Work and Budget of 1996–97, as contained in document CL 111/14.
The Kenya delegation would like to add its voice of support to the concerns raised by the Uganda delegation, amongst others, regarding the net budget reduction on important issues for developing countries. These areas are education, extension and training, and others, as referred to in paragraph 1.6 of CL 111/14. My delegation considers these elements critical to the improvement of not only agricultural productivity but also human resource capacity. In this regard, we call upon FAO to continue finding ways and means of addressing these issues in favour of developing countries.
D. BOMMER (Chairman, Programme Committee): A very concrete question I have been asked by the distinguished delegate from Japan and these questions are directed towards the Director-General and his colleagues and I am happy to leave it to Mr. Hjort to reply to those.
But I would like to say that, on behalf of the colleagues of both Committees, Finance and Programme Committees, I am certainly glad to know that our work has found satisfaction of the Council Members in a very difficult and important task which has been entrusted to both Committees. It is a good example, if we talk about improvement of governance, how a kind of distribution of responsibility and preparatory work for specific discussions can be performed in this Organization without necessarily going into repetitive debates on specific issues.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: First, let me respond in general to comments that were made about the budget reduction process being underway in a widespread manner including among Member governments. The first point I wish to make here is that this Council will recall, from its meeting in June of 1994, that the move toward improved efficiency and effectiveness of this Organization was initiated before we had to confront the budget reduction process. At a very recent meeting of the UN system agencies, where reform and review is very much on the agenda, it became evident to all of those participating in that meeting, that FAO was in the lead on this matter.
The other point I wished to remind the Council, although I know you are aware, among the UN system agencies, the reduction in FAO’s budget for this biennium, compared with the previous biennium, was larger than for any of the other members of the system.
The second point I wish to mention is the human factor. The Chairman mentioned this point. It was noted in the joint meeting that our documents did not sufficiently address the human factor associated with this process of reduction. That was a valid concern on the part of the members and I wish to report to the Council that the human factor is very much in mind in the process of trying to find a solution to those many people that were on posts that have been abolished. The Director-General established redeployment task forces. One for the professional and above, and another for the general service.
The task forces include representatives from the staff bodies in both cases. The approach has been to search for every possibility to redeploy the staff member that is in this situation, including making available resources for retraining, to move them into a occupational category where they have an aptitude or some background, some experience, or could, with some training, be moved into another occupational group.
The Director-General has accepted proposed agreed terminations on a case by case basis. An agreed termination means that the staff member agrees to the terms and conditions associated with their leaving the Organization. In this process, clear priority is given to humanitarian cases and to those who have a health problem. We also consider agreed terminations from people that are on the redeployment lists, and in certain occupational groups, where there is a very difficult problem in redeployment, the agreed termination approach has been used with people not on the list but in the occupational group, to free up a post for the person that needs to be redeployed.
Nevertheless, there are some occupational groups-fortunately now very few-where the situation is extremely difficult. We have tried to avoid having to go to the step of non-renewal of fixed-term contracts. If we do, the Director-General has instructed that, even in this case, to make certain the human factor is taken into account. I would close on this digression by saying that the people that have been involved in the redeployment process have, in my view, performed a marvellous task. They have not completed their work, but by the end of September they had made far greater progress than I believe anyone could have expected, and we all are appreciative of that.
Just a footnote on regrading of posts of the Organization. I simply want to remind the Council, as I did the Programme and Finance Committees, that for some years in previous biennia, the Organization was upgrading posts so we ended up in a situation, by the beginning of 1994, with a grade structure that was not defensible. The structure was compressed and we had people in some cases only in the top two grades of the professional categories.
The comments made about forestry in particular, maybe fisheries also, I will ask Mr Wade to respond, but it is obvious from the comments that were made that there is a misunderstanding, as no programme reductions were made with respect to forestry but that can be explained in more detail.
We were encouraged to use Internet. We have been on Internet for some time. WAICENT is there. We are getting twenty-five thousand hits a day on Internet. I might note here that I noticed in the news releases from the UN that they were going to start doing so last week. We do have, as you have seen in these documents, a strong push toward electronic dissemination of documents and information. However, we have some Member Nations that cannot make effective use of information in that form and so we certainly will continue to provide hard copies of information for those countries.
There was a comment about cash flow but I believe that will be reviewed in a forthcoming agenda item, so I could now turn to the questions that came from the representative from Japan.
The first with respect to the AF Department and the GI Department. The review of the General Affairs and Information Department has been largely completed and the results of the review were presented to the joint meeting and they, in turn, approved the abolition of one of the largest Divisions in this Organization and the transfer of certain retained functions to three other Divisions, two in that Department and one in the AF Department. Roughly, one half of the abolished posts in this last exercise, if I remember right, arise from that GI Department. So there is a substantial downsizing and outsourcing in turn to take care of the work.
The management review of the AF Department is in process. Mr Mehboob is here and can explain in more detail if the members would so wish. It is scheduled to be completed by the end of this year, and hopefully in time, for the results to be incorporated into the proposals for 1998/99. No decision has been made to merge the two Departments. Nor has any decision been made to downgrade one of the ADGs. I would point out, if my memory is right, that so far in terms of the reduction in posts, that the biggest percentage reduction has taken place in D-2s. The D-2 category which is one step below the ADGs, the next highest is P-5s.
Concerning the replacement of FINSYS/PERSYS, the specific questions I will seek to respond, hopefully in an adequate way, but somewhat more general, and again if you wish further information Mr Mehboob is here to respond to any questions you might have.
First, have the past lessons been reflected upon? The answer is yes. As a matter of fact, to avoid or to minimize, the potential problems that we faced in connection with FINSYS/PERSYS, the Director-General insisted that the replacement be something that had been tried and tested. You will recall that when the FINSYS/PERSYS system was developed, we were not in a situation such as we
are today that is there were no package solutions available and one basically had to build the system and, that is what was done. Today there are packages available and the search was on, including through the tendering process, for packages and a package was selected: the ORACLE package which was judged to be the best alternative that existed.
Have the staff members been consulted? The staff members have been consulted since the first day of the FINSYS/PERSYS in the sense that it is staff members that bring to the attention of the managers problems with an existing system.
The structure to avoid repetition or any problems? It is a more comprehensive structure. Mr Mehboob chairs a group that contains high-level officials from each of the Departments of the Organization. There is a link with the users and they are fully involved in this ongoing process of replacing the system.
Regular reports are being submitted and we certainly will be reporting to the Governing Bodies when it is complete and even as the process continues.
As far as resources expended, I do not have the exact numbers but I am sure others do. The only point I would make here is that it is a fraction of what is being mentioned for systems elsewhere in the UN system or in Member Governments.
What is the probability of success of replacement? I would say very high. As I said it is a package solution. It needs some fine tuning to fit our particular circumstances but we are making a very serious effort to see if polices and procedures can be changed to accommodate the package, rather than programming or augmenting the package in some way to fit present procedures. In other words, there is the back and forth between policies, procedures and the capabilities of the package. The completion date is 1 January 1998. The schedule calls for the testing, in effect almost a parallel system operating during 1997, but the key should be turned 1 January 1998.
Mr Chairman, I believe that takes care of everything, with one possible exception, that one of the members made a policy statement with respect to the future budgets of organizations. I note, for the record, that I assume that statement is made with respect to the policy of the existing administration.
Khalid MEHBOOB (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): Mr Hjort has, in fact, answered all of the questions. I just want to give one or two details, particularly on the first question about us having learned from past mistakes. The lessons we learned from the failure of FINSYS/PERSYS were that FINSYS/PERSYS was developed without the procedures and business practices of FAO having been reviewed. So, the old practices and the old procedures were computerized. That was one of the major reasons why the system failed, because it was reflecting too cumbersome a process.
The second aspect of the failure was that there was not enough user consultation. We have taken care of both these aspects because we have done a review of our procedures and processes to streamline them before developing our requirements to implement this package.
Secondly, the user consultation process has been formalized. In fact, we have nine user groups reflecting the whole spectrum of the Organization and we operate through workshops wherever there is a problem: to analyze, to thrash out solutions, we establish workshops involving people from other divisions. In addition, there is the formal structure of the Steering Committee, etc.
On the question of the probable dates, as Mr Hjort said, there are two dates: one is January 1997, when a configured system for the Human Resources Management aspects and the accounting and financial aspects would be delivered to users for testing, data conversion and parallel runs, etc. for the system to go live on 1 January 1998.
Tony WADE (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Very briefly, there were two questions on the budgetary side of the issue. The first concerned the need to protect Forestry, in particular, and also Fisheries was mentioned. The Director-General shares your concern and, in fact, throughout this whole process insisted that no posts be reduced from either Forestries or Fisheries; that is neither Professional nor General Service posts, throughout the adjustments to the budget. These were the only Departments that were protected in that way. With an 8.1 per cent reduction, you can imagine it was quite difficult to achieve.
The only reductions the Departments did face were in two areas. First of all in the areas of travel and in the areas of publications where, in the processes, certain suggestions were made about places where funds could be saved without excessive programme damage. Secondly, all of the efficiency savings which could be applied, were applied across the board. So, for example one aspect of this was that we reduced the cost of publications by changing the whole structure of the Publications Division and outsourcing more of our work at a much lower rate than it was costing us internally.
In the adjustments to the budget we took 15 per cent off the cost of publications. In fact, we have done little better than that in practice. We took 15 per cent off in the adjustments and that adjustment was made also to Forestry and Fisheries. I should say that adjustment was therefore made without programme impact; it did not reduce the outputs that those Departments can produce. The same is true of all of the other efficiency savings, for example, the change in travel contractual arrangements, etc.
So, I would like to emphasize that the Director-General does share the priority that the Council shares for Forestry and for Fisheries and had taken specific action to protect these programmes as much as possible.
Very briefly, in response to the comment from the distinguished delegate of Bangladesh concerning publications and the need to maintain publications and rationalize them rather than cut them, I think that is exactly what we are doing. The vast majority of the reduction in publications comes from a reduction in the production cost of publications. There are some other reductions that were chosen by the Departments themselves as being those lower priority areas which they felt they could manage without. But, as I say, 15 per cent of the savings comes from reducing the production costs through the various means described in the documents that went to the Committees.
Adrian CIUBREAG (Roumanie): Je voudrais au nom de mon pays dire quelques mots d'appui au rapport des Comités du Programme et financier respectivement (documents CL 111/14 et 111/15), qui visent dans leur substance l'ajustement au Programme de travail et budget 1996–97. Nous apprécions vivement le vaste processus d'analyse et de consultations et les efforts déployés par le Directeur général afin de préparer un programme à partir d'un budget de 650 millions de dollars, approuvé par la Conférence. La méthodologie adoptée nous a parue bonne. Une forte proportion des économies ressortissait du gain d'efficacité (39,1 pour cent du total) et les chapitres budgétaires 1, 5 et 6 couvraient essentiellement des domaines administratifs et de soutien (30,7 pour cent du total). Nous partageons l'opinion, exprimée dans la conclusion du rapport de la session conjointe du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier du 8 mai dernier, qu'il faut continuer à rechercher des gains d'efficacité. Ce qui nous intéresse c'est de préserver, en toutes circonstances, la capacité de notre Organisation d'assurer à l'avenir une activité au service du développement et, par voie de conséquence, des programmes techniques et économiques dans le cadre de programmes de coopération. En ce qui concerne le rapport de la session qui s'est tenue du 6 au 10 mai dernier, du Comité du Programme, nous sommes tout à fait d'avis que le rôle de la Division du centre d'investissements doit s'accroître dans la formulation de projets d'assistance technique complexes, et cela en coopération avec les institutions financières partenaires (paragraphes 2.17 du rapport). Nous manifestons une certaine réserve au sujet de la conclusion du rapport (paragraphe 2.20) sur les conséquences possibles, probablement jugées négatives, de la réorganisation de la Division des publications. Ceci pouvant être source d'économies supplémentaires, surtout dans la distribution
sans affecter les actions techniques et économiques. Un chapitre important pour un pays comme la Roumanie, qui est sous-représenté dans le Secrétariat de la FAO, est celui concernant les postes vacants. Une bonne et équitable politique de personnel doit assurer aux pays membres le sentiment de parfaite égalité. Il y a encore beaucoup à faire en la matière. La délégation de la Roumanie considère que notre Organisation dispose de ressources et de volonté suffisantes pour assurer à chacun un accès adéquat à sa vie fonctionnelle et administrative.
EL PRESIDENTE: Con esto concluye el debate sobre el Tema 11. Quisiera advertir nuevamente que mi resumen no prejuicia el informe que prepare el Comité de Redacción que presentará a la Plenaria el día 10 de octubre.
El Consejo agradeció al doctor Bommer, Presidente del Comité del Programa, la presentación de este tema y también la dirección atinada de parte de los trabajos de las reuniones conjuntas del Comité del Programa y de Finanzas. Pidió transmitiera este agradecimiento al señor Salim Khan, Presidente del Comité de Finanzas, así como a todos los miembros de ambos comités.
La decisión de la Conferencia de aprobar el presente presupuesto para 1996–97 fue excepcional y representó un gran reto para la Secretaría de la FAO, así como para los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas que tuvieron que responder de manera rápida y eficaz para la aprobación del programa de labores para el corriente bienio.
Se reconoció que ningún país podía estar satisfecho con los recortes. Los ajustes al programa aprobados por ambos comités son la base para la realización de las actividades para este bienio y, los informes de dichos comités y el debate del Consejo, arrojan la impresión positiva de que la ejecución del programa marcha adecuadamente. El Consejo, no obstante, está en espera de un informe de avance y de su ejecución.
El Consejo tomó nota con satisfacción de los ahorros y eficiencias logrados por la FAO y también de los cambios organizacionales que fueron incorporados en el ajuste del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto. Estos tienen impactos importantes sobre el personal de la Organización, el cual ha absorbido el impacto con un esfuerzo mayor a fin de minimizar la parte negativa de este proceso difícil; el factor humano de estos efectos es primordial y se dieron seguridades, de parte de la Secretaría, de tenerlo en cuenta al cancelar puestos. Las naciones manifestaron sus preferencias por priorizar unas u otras actividades. Al referirse a las ventajas comparativas de la Organización, algunos delegados destacaron la necesidad de potenciar el trabajo normativo de la FAO como el más ventajoso; muchos otros insistieron en la importancia de un equilibrio entre la esfera normativa y la operativa y, destacaron la importancia de la asistencia técnica al desarrollo y de los programas de cooperación técnica.
También el Consejo tomó nota de la importancia que para algunos países representaban ciertos programas técnicos; en lo que se refiere al forestal, se dio la seguridad de que éste había sufrido algunos recortes pero en menor medida que otros programas. Se hizo un nuevo llamado para que todos los países paguen por completo sus atrasos y se pongan al día en sus pagos. Esa, reconocieron, sigue siendo la fuente de las dificultades financieras de la entrega del programa para este bienio.
Al tomar nota con satisfacción de los logros alcanzados se hizo un renovado esfuerzo para continuar aplicando medidas de ahorro y deficiencias internas y así mismo para evitar duplicaciones, reducir el costo de reuniones, descentralizar la administración aún más, eliminar órganos y paneles de expertos en la medida en que sea necesario y conveniente, y porque no cumplen más con un propósito prioritario, continuar reduciendo gastos de viajes y de publicaciones.
Algunos delegados solicitaron conocer el plan de reforma de algunos departamentos de la FAO, tal como el GI y la reorganización de los niveles de puestos.
Asimismo se tomó nota de los planes para reemplazar FINSYS y PERSYS y se indicó que no debía caerse en los errores anteriores, mientras que debía crearse una estructura más eficiente rindiendo informes de progreso regulares.
Se planteó también el uso de sistemas electrónicos informáticos para reducir costos en la distribución de documentos en la comunicación, pero esto en la medida de lo posible y en la medida que fuera conveniente, de acuerdo a las capacidades de cada país.
Se insistió, en que se siguiera dando un tratamiento igualitario a todos los idiomas de trabajo de la organización.
Hay algunos otros puntos seguramente que no he recogido yo, pero éstos, el Comité de Redacción, los tomará en cuenta.
Bien distinguidos delegados, si no tienen ustedes ninguna otra observación, concluimos el Tema 11 y pasaremos al tratamiento del tema 17 que espero lo resolvamos rápidamente.
S. HAMDI (Président du Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques): C'est moi qui vous remercie, M. le Président, et vous prie de m'excuser si j'ai peut-être introduit quelques éléments de perturbation dans votre programme initial. Je vous remercie beaucoup, et vous suis très reconnaissant M. le Président, mes chers collègues, honorables délégués, de me permettre de vous présenter très brièvement le rapport de la soixante-cinquième session du Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques qui a eu à examiner lors de cette session deux petites questions. Il faut dire que c'était deux questions assez simples et dont l'examen n'a pas posé de problèmes particuliers.
Le premier point concerne le regroupement des activités des deux comités en un seul comité. Il s'agit donc du Comité consultatif de la pâte et du papier et du Comité des panneaux dérivés du bois. La proposition a été présentée par le Secrétariat au Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques pour essayer de «fusionner» les activités de ces deux comités parce qu'il existe des relations assez étroites entre ces activités d'une part et cela peut correspondre-c'est du moins ma
perception-aux efforts de restructuration, aux efforts d'économie et de coûts déployés depuis plusieurs mois par l'Organisation et ses organes directeurs.
Il est donc proposé au Conseil d'essayer d'adopter la proposition du Comité visant à élargir le mandat du Comité consultatif de la pâte et du papier en vue d'y inclure les activités du Comité des panneaux dérivés du bois à ce comité, et la conséquence immédiate de cet élargissement du mandat rejaillit au niveau du libellé du «nouveau» Comité. Nous aurons ainsi un nouveau libellé intégrant le Comité consultatif du papier et des produits dérivés du bois, voilà le nouveau libellé du Comité après inclusion des activités du Comité des panneaux dérivés du bois dans le mandat du Comité consultatif de la pâte et du papier.
Ce regroupement ou cette restructuration aura également une action au niveau de la composition du nouveau comité et sera composé d'un nombre de 15 à 25 experts choisis par le Directeur général qui participeraient à titre individuel et à leurs frais. Comme mentionné plus haut, ce regroupement des activités va se traduire par la suppression du Comité des panneaux dérivés du bois et sur le plan coûts, par des réductions des dépenses assumées auparavant par l'Organisation pour financer les réunions et les activités des deux comités. Le Comité soumet au Conseil cette question-qui s'est avérée après examen conforme aux textes fondamentaux de l'Organisation-pour approbation avec le Projet de résolution qui consacre cette proposition du Comité.
Le deuxième point, soumis à l'examen du Conseil après examen du Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques, concerne la modification du titre de la Commission des forêts pour l'Amérique du Nord. Il semble que la proposition vienne du Comité lui-même donc des pays intéressés, à savoir les Etats-Unis d'Amérique, le Canada et le Mexique et il semble que la proposition tienne un peu au terme anglais "forestry" qui avait pris une connotation quelque peu négative. Par conséquent, les membres et le Comité proposent de changer le nom de ce Comité par "Commission des forêts...". Remplacer le mot "forestry" par le mot "forest" en anglais. Je crois que cela n'a aucun impact sur le titre en espagnol. Cela ne concerne également pas le titre en français et bien sûr le titre en arabe. Cette question également n'a pas posé de problèmes lors de son examen et surtout elle n'a aucun impact du point de vue de sa conformité aux textes fondamentaux et je vous soumets cette proposition pour approbation.
EL PRESIDENTE: Señor, deseo aclararles también que hay un error en el texto de la Orden del Día, en cuanto que este tema 17 dice que es nada más para debate; en verdad, como han ustedes escuchado, es también para decisiones. Ustedes tiene que decidir dos cuestiones, una, respecto al subtema 17.1, aprobar el Proyecto de Resolución que aparece en Apéndice C del documento CL 111/5, a fin de que se pase éste a la Conferencia y, posteriormente, el Consejo lo aprueba y, en segundo lugar el cambio de la denominación del título, que afecta aparentemente solo el inglés, de la Comisión Forestal para América del Norte.
Si ninguna delegación hace ninguna observación esto indicaría que ustedes aprueban estas dos cuestiones que someten para su decisión.
Nasreddine RIMOUCHE (Algérie): Permettez-moi d'abord de féliciter le Président du Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques, M. Salam Hamdi pour l'exposé qu'il a bien voulu nous présenter et qui reflète clairement les décisions qui seront prises aujourd'hui. Nous avons examiné avec intérêt le document du Secrétariat concernant le rapport de la soixante-cinquième Session du Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques. Nous avons pris connaissance dans ce document et notamment dans le paragraphe 7, du rôle du Comité consultatif de la pâte et du papier, et avons conclu qu'elles sont importantes. D'autre part, le document brosse un tableau des différentes activités du Comité des panneaux dérivés du bois et, par conséquent, une trêve dans ces activités est enregistrée depuis 0 en raison du manque de ressources financières et de personnel au niveau de la Division des produits et aussi de 1 Organisation. Pour ces raisons, il est proposé de supprimer le Comité des panneaux dérivés du bois et, par la même occasion, d'élargir le mandat du
Comité consultatif de la pâte et du papier pour qu'il couvre d'autres produits forestiers. Ceci nous amène à dire que des prérogatives du Comité des panneaux dérivés du bois seront transférées au Comité de la pâte et du papier. Et nous approuvons cette proposition car elle correspond à l'esprit de la décision de la cent-dixième Session du Conseil visant à entreprendre un examen des organes statutaires et constituer une liste d'experts afin de réaliser des gains en efficacité. Enfin, nous approuvons que le projet de résolution soit soumis par le Comité des questions constitutionnelles et juridiques.
Monsieur le Président, nous souhaitons attirer l'attention du Secrétariat sur une situation qui nous préoccupe, c'est-à-dire celle qui concerne la suppression de ce Comité due essentiellement au manque de ressources et de personnel. Il ne faudrait pas que cette pratique soit un exemple à suivre pour d'autres comités et il faudrait que les raisons de suppressions soient objectives. Par la même occasion, nous approuvons sans aucune difficulté, la deuxième proposition qui nous est soumise, partant du fait que cette modification est de nature terminologique et que la proposition émane des pays concernés.
Pereira A. SILIMA (Tanzania): The Tanzania delegation has studied the report and recommendations of the 65th Session of the Committee on the Constitutional and Legal Matters as presented in the document CL 111/5 and in the Resolution 30/59 of the 10th Session of the FAO Conference on Pulp and Paper Development, as well as in the Resolution 3/43 of that 43rd Session of the Council on the FAO Committee on Wood-Based Panel Products.
My Delegation welcomes the recommendations to broaden the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Pulp and Paper and the abolition of the Advisory Committee of the Experts on Wood-Based Panel Products. The Delegation fully endorses the idea and approves the Resolution.
Mr Chairman, the proposed action will reduce total costs of the Organization in supporting only one committee and it is likely to enhance efficiency. My Delegation sees that decision as more justifiable since the Advisory Committee of Experts on Wood-Based Panel Products has failed to meet since 1990.
YUAN HAIYING (China): The Chinese delegation is in favour of the first proposale, which is to abolish the Advisory Committee on Wood-Based Panel Products and expand the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Pulp and Paper and its functions so that it will include sawn timber and other products and also change its name to the Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products. We also agree to the composition of this Committee.
Here we want to stress one point, which is that we hope this Committee will focus more on the interests of the developing countries and make efforts to facilitate extension, production and research and make a positive contribution in these areas.
As a person specialized in forestry, I also hope this Committee will strengthen its connection and cooperation exchanges with China. Here I have a small question and need clarification. In today's agenda, item 17, there is a little mistake. It says "Abolition of the Advisory Committee of Experts on Pulp and Paper". It seems this is not correct.
LEGAL COUNSEL: The distinguished delegate of China is of course correct -- there was a mistake in the agenda item. The correct names are on the draft Resolution in Appendix C.
YUAN HAIYING (China): There is also a mistake in the Chinese version, which contains the same mistake.
EL PRESIDENTE: Distinguidos delegados, con esto ustedes han aprobado la resolución del Apéndice C del documento CL 111/5, al igual que el cambio en la denominación de la Comisión Forestal para América del Norte.
Si no hubiera ninguna otra consideración desearía yo, a nombre del Consejo, agradecer al Presidente del CACJ por su presencia y por los trabajos realizados por su Comité.
EL PRESIDENTE: Con ello se cierra el tema 17. Ahora pasamos al tema 12 de nuestra agenda que, como ayer ustedes mismos aprobaron, comprenderá también en subtema 14.1, que es la revisión de los órganos estatutarios y cuadros de expertos de la FAO, documento CL 111/12. Como les comentaba yo hace un momento, el doctor Bommer nos va a informar sobre esta parte relativa a los informes del Comité del Programa, y los temas que conjuntamente con el Comité de Finanzas discutieron. Entre ellos figuran el examen de la gestión para determinar los niveles de estructura de personal apropiado de la Organización que el Consejo aprobó en su 109° Período de Sesiones y, acerca de los cuales los Comités recibieron informes, y en segundo lugar, un nuevo modelo para mejorar la planificación y presentación de los programas para facilitar la evaluación de los mismos, según lo solicitado por el Comité del Programa a la Secretaría. Como les decía, los dos comités también examinaron en sus períodos de sesiones de mayo y septiembre, el tema de las economías y eficiencia en el ejercicio del gobierno. El subtema 14.1 fue tratado en la reunión conjunta de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas en su reunión de mayo, en donde como se reporta, mantuvo un debate sustantivo y profundo sobre este tema. Pero la misma reunión conjunta de septiembre, tuvo un debate mucho más breve al respecto.
Se tomó nota de que ya se habían comenzado a aplicar algunas de las directrices encaminadas a reducir los costos de las reuniones y se discutieron otras, que se encuentran en el documento CL 111/15 que tienen frente a ustedes. Llamo la atención, en particular al párrafo 1.19 de dicho documento, en donde se hace referencia a que, en virtud de que las propuestas de los Estados Miembros fueron recibidas con atraso, los Comités proponen que éstas se entreguen organizadas, a partir de cada región, a más tardar el día 31 de diciembre de este año, con el propósito de que la Secretaría pueda preparar un documento en el cual todas las opiniones sean organizadas en los apartados oportunos y, en donde se señalen los aspectos de estas propuestas en donde hubiera convergencia y obviamente, donde hubiera también divergencias. Este documento deberá entregarse
con sesenta días de anticipación a la reunión de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas que se celebrará en la segunda parte de abril de 1997, y a la vez, los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas enviarán su informe al Consejo, el que estudiará este tema en profundidad en la reunión de junio del próximo año. Debo aclarar que el documento CL 111/12 no fue considerado por los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, puesto que los miembros no lo recibieron a tiempo.
Se decidió entonces, que este Consejo tendría que dar orientaciones a la Secretaría sobre el proceso que se habría de seguir para completar el examen de todos los órganos estatutarios y cuadro de expertos. Yo quiero darles a ustedes todas las garantías de que existe la máxima voluntad para que este asunto se trate en la próxima reunión de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas en abril de 1977 y que este Consejo igualmente, lo estudiará en junio de ese año. Desde luego, esto implica contar con su colaboración para enviar las propuestas relativas a la brevedad posible y no más tarde del 31 de diciembre y según la recomendación del párrafo 1.19, organizadas a partir de cada región.
Bien no quiero abundar más y deseo que el Dr Bommer presente los informes del Comité del Programa relativos.
D. BOMMER (Chairman, Programme Committee): Thank you very much Mr Chairman. Actually you do not need an introduction from my side because you have introduced it already. I can only support what you have said but I would like to repeat four major items.
First you have noted in the joint report, after the adjustment which we discussed under item 11, we had discussed the progress of the Management Review we had requested and the Council endorsed to be undertaken on the staffing in the Organization, including the grade structure, etc. Some of you referred to this already this morning. It is a progress report that we have received and the review should be in 1997 and then I think we will have the full report. I would like to draw your attention to two points.
The first, I think, is important because there were many of you who had referred to the recourse to external advice. We have been assured that external advice is being sought on the review of the Administrative and Financial Department, which will become part of the total Management Review. At the same time we had identified that there is certainly a whole range of other issues on which such a Management Review -- related only to staffing -- impinges. These issues are listed just for your information, I think for future progress in this area.
The second was under agenda item 14.1 on Savings and Efficiencies of Governance. There we seek to ascertain the progress going on, and the Chairman has said already what FAO did on three points. Because we received the document, CL 111/12, Review of F AO's Statutory Bodies and Panels of Experts too late, it could not be discussed. We seek the advice of the Council on how you wish to handle it, which certainly includes looking into this document and possibly approving two items.
Number one: this whole exercise should be completed because the first part you have -- "the Director-General has undertaken"-deals with all the bodies established by the Council, its Subsidiary Bodies and the Director-General. The second part was considered to look into all the bodies established by the Conference. As now time has elapsed, the question is would you agree that we ask the Secretariat to complete this and combine both documents in one document?
Second, in the document you have a list of criteria against which the evaluation had been made by the Director-General, and you have seen already that some of the results of this review and the recommendations made by Director-General have been quoted. So these two points actually need to be agreed upon by the Council or advice given.
The Chairman stated too that, in reviewing the improvement of working methods of FAO, we had made an attempt in our May meeting to request further inputs from additional Governments because we had received only a few views, which were to be provided through the regional groups to the Secretariat for compilation and presentation to us. Only one regional group actually followed this procedure, but even this material came too late. It was not available in the respective languages and, if you think of the debate you had earlier, we could not discuss it.
So we repeat now this request, which is that country which wishes to advise on possible improvements in governance and in the methodology of work of those bodies should please provide these through their regional groups. If possible, they should be compiled already in a kind of sequence to avoid unnecessary duplication, for presentation to the Secretariat by 31 December. The Secretariat will then prepare its final document, which will be submitted to our meeting in April to follow up on the request you have made to the joint committees for consideration.
These two points are very important to underline so that the work can be performed. We have listed a number of items in the document you have received, and I would like to add a few other points which I think governments might be requested to give their views on: the procedures and modalities of various bodies, such as agendas for meetings, preparatory documents, conduct of meetings, form of report and length of report, etc., to name a few.
Finally, if any Government wishes to make recommendations on the change of mandate and structures, although these should be listed, our Committee agreed it is not our business to discuss mandates and structures, but I think it is something you, the Council, will have to discuss finally. This is the request which is clearly expressed in the report as you can see.
The question is now if, Mr Chairman, you wish to finish this item before we move to item 12. I will continue here with the additional work the Programme Committee has performed. Remember that in our normal review we have to undertake a non-Conference year programme which included a whole list of major programmes, but we had in addition requested that two specific items should be reviewed. You agreed to this proposal and we had in the May meeting a review of the Relationship between Regular and Field Programmes. It is contained in paragraphs 2.22 and 2.25 of document CL 111/14, and here the Programme Committee emphasized the importance of the continuing synergy between the Regular and the Field Programmes. I think this came out very clearly, including essential and invaluable feedback from the field to the normative activities of the Regular Programme. Nevertheless, the Committee stressed the importance of selectivity as field projects were not homogenous in the degree of their contribution to the synergy intended, with further selectivity needed.
It noted also the improvements made to recover support costs; something has been achieved. Certainly 13 members voiced their conviction of full recovery but you know this controversial debate which goes on for some time.
The second item we had requested and which we handled in the September meeting, was an In-depth Analysis of one Selected Programme as a Model to Improve Programme Planning and Presentation and to Facilitate Programme Assessment. This is reflected in document CL 111/15, paragraphs 2.6 to 2.16. We benefitted here from excellent preparation by the Secretariat, but in particular from the participation of the Land and Water Development Division, using the Natural Programme 2.1.1 to plan its activities according to the new model which is being worked out by the Organization and presented to us. We felt that there are a lot of advantages such a revised programme planning activity. The modified approach has the potential to better meet the demands of the Governing Bodies, in particular it provides transparency, accountability and interlink of planning, implementation and evaluation, and it provides the much easier possibility within the Organization of planning on an interdisciplinary basis, to depart from this narrow disciplinary view which had prevailed in the history of the Organization.
There are a number of other aspects involved particularly in that the project idea is prevailing; in that technical programmes, normative technical activities are considered within a clear timeframe, with clear objectives and a clear output formulated, including the resources necessary. Another type of activity, which is more continuous in nature, -- such as the statistical work of the Organization and the so-called Service Agreements -- would facilitate provision of the input of various units in such a programme to plan, on a much better basis, and to make it transparent to Member Nations.
Any change of this nature also carries with it difficulties, especially for those who are used to the old structure and would find it difficult to live in the new one. Therefore, we have stressed the need for continuing consultation. Before a full application we would recommend that, in future biennia, the result of a parallel exercise applying the revised approach to this programme, 2.1.1 Natural Resources, be presented to you in the Programme of Work and Budget for 1998–99 together with the normal programme planning done in the normal form you have been used to in the past. So you have the possibility of comparing the new format with the old format and seeing its advantages, and then the decision might be taken in future biennia to plan the total Programme of Work and Budget of the Organization based on these new approaches or these new models.
It was my intention to draw your attention to this important aspect. Related to this is the list of criteria you have sanctioned and established for the adjustment process, which had been used also by the Secretariat in trying to set priorities for the selection of various programme items. Here it has been clearly shown that some modification is necessary to make it fit into the various programme levels, without trying to add too many additional criteria, thus making more difficult the individual weighing-up of criteria used in this planning process, to either accept or reject a particular project idea which is being presented within the programme planning.
So this is the second special item we had discussed. The programme reviews we made, the normal ones related to the Major Programme 2.2 Food and Agriculture Policy Development and to Major Programme 2.1 Agricultural Production and Support Systems, you have in the Report. I wish to state here that the Committee was generally satisfied with the status of implementation of these programmes, in spite of a number of problems which had to be faced in a period of considerable structural changes and programme adjustments.
In this context it addresses some general aspects which warranted further attention at future sessions. I wish to refer here only to one-there is considerable time required to fill vacancies. The Committee urged the Secretariat to seek further improvements in this area, in addition to the improvement which has already been made and inserted. This is still a considerable stumbling block in order to be forward looking in the planning and the performance of the Organization.
Adel Mahmoud ABOUL-NAGA (Egypt)(Original language Arabic): Mr Chairman, Mr Bommer as usual has introduced this Report in a clear and very transparent way and I cannot but support what he has stated so far. However, I would like to refer to some points which are important in this connection.
The first point is related to the Committee's appreciation of the staff members of the Secretariat, those who had to carry out supplementary work because of these activities, and of the determination of the staff of the Secretariat to carry out their duties in a proper way. I believe that this was highly appreciated by the Committee and I feel it should be stressed here in front of our august Council.
Secondly, with regard to the savings and efficiencies in governance, Mr Bommer referred to the proposals which ought to have reached the Secretariat from the various regional groups: the groups were preparing for the World Food Summit and therefore they were unable to send their proposals or they sent their proposals late. However, despite this, we reached a conclusion whereby we have to consider a number of principles submitted by the Secretariat. These principles are to be found in document BC 75/3, in addition to our agreement on a number of principles referred to in paragraph
121 of this document. Therefore, I do not see the need to enumerate these points because these paragraphs are very clear and, therefore, these principles are important as a preliminary conclusion for solving this matter.
The third point, Sir, I should like to raise is the new approach suggested. We have supported this approach, as was stated by Mr Bommer. Of course this new approach would increase the transparency of our work and it would further clarify our objectives and the best ways and means to achieve these objectives together with a better preparation for the projects. In addition, this approach would present a clearer view to the Governing Bodies of this Organization and, therefore, we can be fair when we deal with the various projects submitted to the Organization. So, if we support or adopt a programme we have supported the whole range of elements included in that project, meaning that if we adopt a programme we cannot go back on certain elements in that programme or project. This was unfortunately the case with a number of projects in this Organization and the output of these projects has been affected.
Mr Chairman, we would like to adopt such an approach, and we hope that this approach will be adopted with regard to the budget and the various project possibilities of this Organization. Furthermore, we should like to stress the following. When we discuss these sub-projects, particularly those on agricultural management, the members of the Committees stressed the importance of the various programmes, namely crops, animal resources, support systems or the agricultural applications of isotopes and bio-technology. As I have stressed during the deliberations of the Programme Committee, I do hope that this will be borne in mind when we adopt the Programme of Work and Budget so that we do not adopt a contradictory position whereby we adopt and support these programmes and, when we discuss the budget, we go back on our position and ask for cuts in these same projects and programmes. I believe that we have to be logical: either we give the relevant importance to these programmes and thereby allocate the necessary resources or we decide that they are not important and therefore we delete them altogether. We cannot morally support these projects and negate our financial support as this would be a contradiction in our position.
David SANDS SMITH (United Kingdom): If I may I would like to join Mr Aboul-Naga of Egypt in expressing gratitude to Dr Bommer for an introduction which I think, if I may say so, was masterly. It drew our attention to all the key elements in exactly the way in which it needed to be done and I think we should be grateful to him for that. I would like to mention three points. The first one, savings and efficiencies in governance; secondly, Statutory Bodies; and thirdly the new programming model. I can be brief on all three.
As far as savings and efficiencies in governance are concerned, I think it unfortunate that it was not possible to pull together all the comments as rapidly as we might have hoped. On the other hand, as Mr Aboul-Naga has rightly pointed out, we are very much concerned with other work at the moment and there are a number of us who feel we cannot do everything at once. However, I do very much hope that work can be completed and, on the basis of whatever comments the Secretariat receives by the deadline set, that there can be a substantive discussion in the Programme and Finance Committees. I would point out that we have, in fact, already achieved some very useful changes in our procedures which I believe make our governance more effective. I think there is scope for further work in this direction and I think it is excellent that the Council has agreed this is a standing item in the future for the Programme and Finance Committees. So our work will move forward but I think that the deadline you, Chairman, have set this afternoon for comments to be provided to the Programme and Finance Committees is the best way forward to ensure that they have those comments and then they can conduct their discussions at their meeting in April next year.
I would then turn to the question of the Statutory Bodies and so far as the Statutory Bodies are concerned I would only make one comment. This relates to the criteria which are listed in the paper
that we have before us and rightly the first one of these is centrality to FAO's mandate. I am sure that must be the case. I would add only one point to that: I think it should be exactly that, also, looking in each case at the comparative advantage that the Organization has in the area concerned and the work that may be going on in other areas-indeed that is referred to in criteria N° 5 under the element of overlap. So it is already effectively there.
Thirdly, the new programme model, if I can use that name for it. The model to improve programme planning. I must say that I think this is an excellent initiative, I commend the work that has already been carried out. Clearly a great deal of thought has gone into this and it does seem to me, and to my authorities, that the way forward as proposed, with the experiment with one programme and running in parallel, is an excellent way to go forward so that we can see one model against another and then decide whether at a future date this represents a sound basis for us to adopt, whether adaption is needed or, whether we stay with our existing arrangements. However, I do regard this as an excellent way in which to proceed and, I would repeat I think that the work that has already been done on this is to be commended.
Franco GINOCCHIO (Italy): I would like to deal with Agenda item 14.1 concerning the Review of FAO's Statutory Bodies and Panels of Experts.
The Italian Delegation considers it very appropriate to review the various Statutory Bodies and Panels of Experts, in order to identify and to eliminate possible duplication of activities in order to increase the efficiency of their work. In this regard the Italian Delegation would like to thank the FAO Secretariat for document CL 111/12 and for the pertinent comments on the individual Statutory Bodies that give guidelines for the measures to be implemented.
In this context we realize that further work has still to be carried out by the Programme and Finance Committees in order to allow the FAO Council, at its next Session, to examine the possibility of presenting concrete proposals to the FAO Conference next year. We think that this exercise could be useful, taking into account that the Organization has already started the review of its Statutory Bodies and Panels of Experts.
In this regard the decision taken by the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters to broaden the mandate of the Advisory Committee on Pulp and Paper, in order to include wood-based products, constitutes an example of the possible elimination of duplication of activities and further streamlining of Statutory Bodies and Panels of Experts.
With regard to the review of the Bodies created by the Conference, which will take place in the second phase of this exercise, we agree in principle with the criteria set out in paragraph 9 of document CL 111/12.
Alan AMEY (Canada): I would like to touch on a few points that Dr Bommer has brought to our attention and give the Canadian viewpoint.
As far as the criteria for the review of Panels of Experts are concerned, I think we are in agreement with it; it is a good set of criteria to use. In terms of the review of working methods, I think all countries should agree to forward their comments by 31 December; I think that is a viable way to work. We need not necessarily be confined to regional views but perhaps more than one region at a time might apply.
With regard to the venue for discussion of the decisions once the review is completed and the criteria applied, Dr Bommer has brought up the possibility of the Programme and Finance Committees in 1997 and I think we would approve of that. I believe that once both phases have been completed, Council and Conference will be in a position to make up their minds finally on the abolition or retention of these Bodies.
Finally, regarding the management review, we are pleased with the progress so far and look forward to further progress.
Daniel BERTHERY (France): La délégation française tient à marquer sa satisfaction de voir engagé le processus d'examen des Organes directeurs de l'Organisation dans une perspective de rationalisation. Elle tient à saluer et remercier à cette occasion le Secrétariat pour le travail déjà produit à cette fin, notamment la préparation du document CL 111/12 et le répertoire des organes statutaires et groupes d'experts.
Ces organes ne sont pas indépendants les uns des autres, ils sont complémentaires et s'inscrivent dans une hiérarchie de mandats. Il est donc nécessaire, à notre sens, d'avoir une vue globale de la situation, "un état des lieux" complet permettant une analyse critique de la pertinence de chacun d'eux et de la cohérence de l'ensemble et d'identifier les éventuelles duplications.
Les résultats de la seconde phase nous seront donc nécessaires pour nous prononcer sur cette question importante.
Dans l'immédiat, et dans l'attente de disposer de tous les éléments qui nous permettront d'avoir cette vision globale, au plus tard à la date annoncée par le Secrétariat, nous suggérons de concentrer nos efforts sur les aspects relatifs au fonctionnement des Organes directeurs et divers Comités en faisant appel aux techniques éprouvées pour la conduite des réunions et l'animation des groupes.
Nous proposons de rassembler dans un guide pratique à l'intention des participants à ces comités et à leurs Présidents, les nombreuses propositions pertinentes évoquées à de nombreuses reprises sur le thème de l'amélioration du fonctionnement des Organes directeurs, propositions dont certaines ont déjà fait la preuve de leurs mérites.
Un tel guide pourrait s'articuler autour des cinq chapitres suivants:
a) la maîtrise des ordres du jour par les Organes eux-mêmes (rôles respectifs du Secrétariat, de la Présidence, et des membres éventuellement consultés dans le processus d'élaboration de l'ordre du jour);
b) la préparation de la documentation par le Secrétariat (contenu structuré des documents et présentation adaptée aux besoins des membres des Organes directeurs, pour une préparation plus efficace des travaux par chacun);
c) la conduite des réunions par la Présidence et la nécessaire discipline des participants;
d) le relevé des conclusions, en séance par les Présidents et la rédaction de rapports fidèles;
e) l'évaluation systématique des performances, en termes de coût/efficacité.
Ces idées font partie de la contribution de la France à la reflection engagée au sein de l'Union européenne et, plus largement, au sein du groupe "Europe".
Maintenant, Monsieur le Président, la délégation française voudrait attirer l'attention du Conseil sur l'usage d'une seule langue de travail au sein du Sous-Comité consultatif de l'écoulement des excédents. Notre délégation partage notre préoccupation commune de réduire les coûts de fonctionnement en faisant des économies; mais cela ne saurait, comme de nombreuses délégations l'ont rappelé aujourd'hui, conduire à déroger au principe d'égalité de traitement entre les langues officielles de l'Organisation.
EL PRESIDENTE: Deseo indicarle a los distinguidos delegados que como hemos visto sus distintas propuestas, su posición respecto de esta revisión de los órganos estatutarios y cuadros de expertos de la FAO, la deberán presentar ustedes por escrito, para organizar la discusión de este tema y que el Comité del Programa y de Finanzas lo pueda revisar exhaustivamente en su reunión de abril y luego el Consejo en junio del próximo año, de manera que no es imperioso ni necesario que ustedes declaren ahora cuales son sus puntos de vista respecto de este tema, simplemente indicarnos si están de acuerdo con el procedimiento que vamos a seguir y que se describe en el párrafo 40 del documento CL 111/2 respecto de la revisión de todos los órganos que serán revisados por la Secretaría de acuerdo a los criterios allí descritos, para ser sometidos a la reunión de abril de los Comités y, en segundo lugar, si están de acuerdo con el procedimiento propuesto en el párrafo 1.19 del documento CL 111/15.
E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I think we can oblige you on this request.
First, we agree with comments made earlier by our colleagues from the United Kingdom and Canada.
Second, the document on the review of FAO's Statutory Bodies and Panels of Experts provides a number of useful proposals and we would be delighted to submit those as you have requested, in writing. We find ourselves in large agreement with most of the proposals and we also concur with the suggestion that FAO present a comprehensive package of proposals for adoption by the Council at its next Session.
Briefly returning to the idea of preparing a revised approach to the Programme 2.1.1 on Natural Resources during the 1998-99 Programme of Work and Budget process, in addition to the regular presentation, appears to us to be quite innovative and a move in the right direction and we support this. The exercise will no doubt result in a number of refinements as we go forward in future biennia but it is a good place to start.
Christophe KIEMTORE (Burkina): Permettez-moi de souligner deux points à ce stade du débat. Je crois que ceux qui ont participé aux travaux des Comités du programme et financier - et ils pourront eux-mêmes le confirmer - ont convenu que les comités restreints avaient besoin d'un message très clair de la part du Conseil. C'est pourquoi dans ce sens je voudrais appuyer ce que la délégation française a évoqué il y a quelques instants et dire que dans le laps de temps imparti jusqu'à l'échéance du 31 décembre et pour les travaux de 1997, l'attention du Comité soit concentrée sur l'analyse et l'examen du fonctionnement des organes. Il est très important que le message du Conseil soit très clairement exprimé pour que les comités puissent concentrer leurs efforts sur un aspect particulier, et que l'examen puisse se faire étape par étape vers une finalité tout à faite cohérente. Je pense donc que la délégation française a été plus exhaustive que moi à ce sujet, et nous pourrons éventuellement, si le Conseil est d'accord, nous référer à ce qui a été dit par cette délégation. Voilà le point sur lequel je voulais insister.
Khairuddin Md. TAHIR (Malaysia): Malaysia supports FAO's efforts in reviewing the various Statutory Bodies and Panel of Experts in FAO. We believe that there are some commissions and intergovernmental commodity groups that have not met for many years and some whose responsibility and scope of work have been overtaken by events. Therefore, it is indeed appropriate to review the relevance of these bodies.
In this context of relevancy, Malaysia feels that there is a need for consideration and area of relevance to both developing and developed countries of a group of commodities called the Tropical Fruits. We understand that there are commodity groups within FAO handling such fruits as bananas and citrus, but their concern is specific and restricted and do not include other equally important fruits such as papaya, mango, pineapple and avocados. The tropical fruit status within FAO is still
at consultation group level and Malaysia had the honour to host, jointly with FAO, the 1st International Consultation on Tropical Fruits in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, last July. It was attended by 22 Member Nations from both developed and developing regions and other relevant international bodies related to tropical fruit trade.
Mr Chairman, Malaysia would like to propose to the Council the feasibility of upgrading this Consultation to a Commodity Intergovernmental Group, which we feel is of little extra cost to FAO but of enormous benefits for Member Nations, especially the developing countries. The trade of these tropical fruits exceeds US $ 1 annually and it is important to the economies and nutrition of developing countries. Two other countries, at the last Consultation, have indicated their willingness to host the next two sessions in 1998 and the year 2000. The development of tropical fruits will inevitably contribute to world food security and international trade.
Fernando José MARRONI DE ABREU (Brasil): Muy rápidamente, quisiera apoyar con todo énfasis lo que fue propuesto anteriormente por la delegación de Malasia.
Dennis GEBBIE (Australia): Just a few comments on the Statutory Bodies and Panels of Experts. Like others, we think the criteria are reasonably sound and a good basis for doing that.
We had a question about the coverage of Phase 2. There is a reference in the document in paragraph 41 to all sub-committees which, we presume, includes those also addressed under Phase 1. We would appreciate clarification of that.
We have a number of comments on the agencies reviewed in Phase 1, which we will submit to the Secretariat in writing, but there is one area I would like to refer to briefly, and this concerns the effective functioning of the World Trade Organization Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary Agreement, which depends very much on the development of international plant and animal quarantine and food standards. The implementation of the SPS Agreement has greatly increased the significance of the role of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Now, some of the proposals for improved efficiencies include a suggested reduction in the time available for sessions of the Executive Committee of the Codex Commission. We believe this would create considerable difficulties for the Commission in meeting the expanded responsibilities now expected of it. In that context, Mr Chairman, I would note that at the last meeting of the Commission, it was unable to consider all of the items on its agenda, so I think that is an important one we may need to look at closely, to ensure that we are not undermining the important enhanced international role expected of the Commission.
Saeed NOURI-NAEENI (Iran, Islamic Republic of): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will be extremely brief. I want only to fully and strongly support the proposal made by the distinguished delegate of Malaysia.
E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. We wanted to comment specifically on the proposal made by Malaysia and so far supported by Brazil and Iran.
We are not in favour of the Council making any recommendation regarding the possible conversion of the existing Consultation on Tropical Fruits into an Intergovernmental Group on Tropical Fruits. As these Delegations, I hope will recall, this item was deliberated extensively at the last Session, I believe in April of 1995, of the Committee on Commodity Problems and my recollection is that that same Committee, when it meets in February, will discuss this item again. We need cost information, we need a specific recommendation from the Director-General on the matter: given what the Committee on Commodity Problems agreed would be the process. We feel it is completely inappropriate for the Council to make any such judgement at this time.
Wilberforce SAKIRA (Uganda): Mr Chairman, contrary to what has been stated by the US Delegation, Uganda would like to associate itself with, and support strongly what has been stated by, the Delegation of Malaysia with regard to tropical fruits.
Chamnong VATHANA (Thailand): Mr Chairman, the review of FAO's Statutory Bodies and Panels of Experts is indeed necessary at this stage.
Very briefly, my delegation would like to express our support to upgrade the Tropical Fruits Consultation Group to an Intergovernmental Group on Tropical Fruits, as proposed by Malaysia.
José ROBLES AGUILAR (México): Queremos retomar en esta parte algunos elementos que mencionamos en el marco del tema anterior, particularmente por lo que se refiere al ejercicio de revisión de los órganos de la FAO. Coincidimos respecto a la importancia de que se respeten los criterios, creemos que éstos son unas guías importantes para que haya una evaluación correcta y objetiva sobre la utilidad de los órganos subsidiarios, particularmente de aquéllos que en este momento están siendo objetos de consideración. Estos son elementos importantes que se deben considerar a lo largo de todo el ejercicio y en este marco, señor Presidente, nos gustaría también apoyar la propuesta de Malasia respecto a la conversión de éste, en un grupo intergubernamental sobre frutas tropicales. Esta es un área muy importante para varios países, principalmente países en desarrollo y varios países de la región latinoamericana.
EL PRESIDENTE: Respecto de este punto, efectivamente, me confirma la Secretaría que este tema será revisado en la próxima reunión de la Comisión en febrero de 1997. Entonces, si ustedes desean tratar este tema en ese momento, creo que ese es el lugar adecuado y no bajo este punto.
A.M.M. SHAWKAT ALI (Bangladesh): After getting the clarification from the Secretariat that this will be discussed at the next meeting in February, I do not think I will make an elaborate statement but simply point out that the subject matter raised by our colleague from Malaysia merits attention of the Council. It is in no way irrelevant, because what we are discussing now is the review of FAO's Statutory Bodies. It is only a question of procedures whether the Council would have to wait till it is brought up at the next February meeting of the Committee on Commodity Problems. If that is the requirement under the procedures, I will not speak further on this. If that is not the requirement, I would like to make a further statement on this issue.
EL PRESIDENTE: Creo que debe aclararse cual es la cuestión de procedimiento, porque efectivamente, el Consejo no puede tomar una posición en este momento, respecto de este punto. En la posición que algunos países están manifestando y el interés que seguramente reconfirmarán en la reunión de febrero de la Comisión, el Consejo recibirá ese informe ulteriormente, pero para aclararnos la situación del procedimiento le pido desde este momento que el señor Hjort tome la palabra.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I am operating from memory but it is my recall that at the last meeting, held in the region, there was again the recommendation that there be an IGG established for tropical fruits. The Chairman of the CCP has agreed, in consultation with the Director-General, to include the matter on the agenda of the forthcoming meeting of the CCP.
The CCP is a main committee of the Council, and the CCP will consider the matter at its next meeting and in its report will have its recommendation to the Council or its conclusion on this particular matter. In fact, as far as the inter-governmental groups are concerned, the CCP itself has a good deal of authority to establish or to abolish the working groups. The basic texts state "the Committee may, when necessary, establish sub-committees, inter-governmental commodity groups and ad hoc subsidiary bodies, subject to the necessary funds being made available in the relevant chapter of the approved project over the Organization". So, in fact, the matter is one for the CCP,
at least in the first instance. And as I just read out, the CCP itself has the authority to consider subsidiary bodies. So that will be the forum. The CCP will be the forum to consider this matter.
The report of the CCP will contain the conclusions of the CCP with respect to this matter; the report will be considered at the June 1997 Session of the Council.
EL PRESIDENTE: Yo entiendo que es un asunto muy importante para muchos Países Miembros de la Organización, entiendo desde luego que es muy posible que en algunas de las propuestas que someterán el 31 de diciembre, uno de esos puntos será éste, pero también han escuchado que el tema se tratará por completo en la reunión de CPBB de febrero de 1997. Quizás sea esa la ocasión para abundar en ello.
Alan AMEY (Canada): Mr Chairman, I think you stole the words out of my mouth as you were speaking earlier. The Terms of Reference of the Review are in paragraph 2 of the document and I think the Terms of Reference are clear -- it is just to give a review -- and in paragraph 41 there is procedural advice on where to proceed from here, so I think the decision of the Council is clear.
David SANDS SMITH (United Kingdom): Like Canada, I hardly need to take the floor because you and Mr Hjort have said virtually what I was going to say, that this afternoon we are looking at the question of whether we move to a Phase 2 of the review of Statutory Bodies and what the should criteria be. What I have heard so far this afternoon indicates that, indeed, we should be doing that but we are not, I think, this afternoon, looking at the question of particular products.
Pedro A. MEDRANO ROJAS (Chile): Muy brevemente porque lo principal del tema del procedimiento ya se ha señalado. Quisiera simplemente asociarme a la delegación que manifestó su preocupación, en relación a la recomendación para suprimir o reducir la duración de las reuniones del Comité Ejecutivo, de la Comisión del Codex Alimentarius. Creo que para todos, es evidente que, después de los acuerdos de la Ronda de Uruguay, la Comisión del Codex Alimentarius está llamada a tener un papel muy importante y, en tal sentido, creo que la responsabilidad de la Comisión del Codex Alimentarius será aún mayor, de manera que entrar a definir la reducción de las reuniones del Comité Ejecutivo en un contexto en el cual todavía no se evalúa del todo cuales serán las mayores responsabilidades y costos que incluso podría implicar el que, la Comisión del Codex Alimentarius cumpla adecuadamente su mandato, me parece prematuro. Recordará señor Presidente, que incluso durante la discusión del presupuesto, distintas delegaciones plantearon la necesidad de incrementar los recursos de la Comisión del Codex Alimentarius. En tal sentido, yo quisiera manifestar, nuestra posición en el sentido de que esta recomendación no sea considerada antes que no se haga una evaluación de las reales necesidades de la Comisión del Codex Alimentarius en esta nueva fase.
Khairuddin Md. TAHIR (Malaysia): When Malaysia raised this question it was within the broader contexts of the review of the FAO Statutory Bodies. If the procedure says that the decision has to be brought up by the CCP, we will accept it but I hope the support we have received from many countries is reflected in the Council report.
EL PRESIDENTE: Bueno distinguido delegado de Malasia, podría reflejarse en el informe, pero yo creo que no cumpliría con ningún propósito, en vista de que el Consejo no puede tomar una posición al respecto, aunque desde luego, puede reflejar la posición de algunos países que indicaron que esto debería ocurrir. Pero esto no prejuicia lo que va a discutirse en el CPBB en febrero del próximo año, y la decisión que, en consecuencia, se tomará del informe que revisará el Consejo en junio.
K. SHIMIZU (Japan): At this juncture I must recall the statement made by my Delegation at the last Council Session on the importance of the "scrap-and-build principles" to be applied when
addressing issues such as those before us. The principle is, namely, to establish new units by abolishing the existing ones. This principle should apply to issues such as thos before us.
D.P.D. VAN RAPPARD (Observer for The Netherlands): According to the Order of the Day, we should deal this afternoon with agenda item number 17, including agenda item 14.2. Item 14.1 should be dealt with on 8 October. This agenda is causing a few problems and we would like to come back later on: we should like to ask for your indulgence.
EL PRESIDENTE: Distinguido delegado observador de los Países Bajos, como se sabe el Consejo ha tratado el tema 17 en sus partes 17.1 y 17.2. El Presidente del CACJ ha presentado su informe y las dos decisiones han sido ya tomadas por este Consejo. Lo que se refiere al tema 14.1 lo estamos tratando en este momento junto con el tema 12 y si usted tiene algún comentario en relación a los informes del Comité del Programa o a la revisión de los órganos estatutarios y grupos de expertos de la FAO, con mucho gusto le invitamos a hacer sus comentarios.
D.P.D, VAN RAPPARD (Observer for The Netherlands): The point I was going to make is that we are not prepared to speak on this issue at this moment because 14/1 was scheduled later on during the Council meeting.
EL PRESIDENTE: Sí, reconozco distinguido delegado que en el calendario original así estaba, pero el día de ayer, al aprobar el calendario, acordamos que el tema 14.1 se trataría conjuntamente bajo el tema 12, así fue acordado por este Consejo y así se está haciendo en estos momentos, de manera que le pedimos su indulgencia por esta equivocación, este error que según usted fue transmitido a su delegación pero, el Consejo acordó tratar estos dos temas conjuntamente.
D.P.D. VAN RAPPARD (Observer for The Netherlands): The Netherlands are in favour of bringing about reforms of the decision making process within FAO and enhance simultaneously cost-effectiveness.
The following ideas and suggestions may be offered towards:
Conference and Council: A stricter division of labour and responsibilities between Conference and Council seems desirable. More than is presently the case, the Conference should engage itself in framing and polishing the broad policy directives within which FAO should operate. The Council should concentrate more than present on action oriented follow-up. The Conference, as the eminent organ of FAO should express itself clearly on broad policy issues. The instrument for this is the Resolution. Strategies with underlying policy considerations for the FAO family are to be embodied in the expressions of the supreme legislative body.
The Council is to work on the action oriented decisions specifying resolutions in programmative details, time schedules, etc. A more effective debate in both organs will be the result, saving both Conference and Council meeting days.
Council: In our view, the above calls for an optimal representativity within the Council. A more balanced allocation of Council seats over and within the different electoral groups is sought. Adaptations of the present electoral groups are in our opinion overdue.
Programme Committee and Finance Committee: Because of the intricate relationship between Programme Committee and Finance Committee a coherent approach of programmative developments, budget formulation and financial and administrative implications is indeed not easy to achieve. The very option of integrating the two bodies deserves further study and consultation. Here too, rotation of membership could be increased. Furthermore, meetings should become public.
Reporting: The need of clarity and adequate reference is not sufficiently met through the present practice of incorporating decisions throughout the texts of the (summary or full) reports. It is highly preferable to adopt a reporting system, in which a clear distinction is made between, on the one hand, observations and opinions of memberstates (as well as the secretariat) and, on the other hand, the conclusions, recommendations or decisions of the meeting concerned.
Field Programme Committee/Technical Committees COAG, COFO, COFI: Although the main FAO bodies have not been prominent in their views in multi-bi cooperation and otherwise extrabudgetarily funded field operations of FAO, the plea for establishing a Field Programme Committee did not yet materialize. However, the need of an open and regular exchange of views on FAO's field programme has not diminished, based-as it should be-on the cross fertilization between the regular programme and normative functions of FAO and its field operations, which constitute actual investments in problem solving. To fill this gap, the mandates of the main technical committees may be stretched up so as to cover in their respective activities also the relevant field operations. FAO's Programme Implementation Report and Programme Evaluation Report (which deal with both normative and field activities and usually appear on the agenda of the Conference) should be brought before the technical committees. Conference and Council could henceforth restrict themselves to considering concise synthesis reports.
Drafting of agendas: Present practice allows Member Nations only little influence on the drafting of agendas, their composition and their contents. These matters are largely determined by the secretariat. Ideal would be that all FAO bodies plan well ahead their future activities, master their own work programmes and draft their own agendas for forthcoming meetings. An intermediate solution, with different and additional merit might be the establishing of an advisory committee of permanent representatives. This to consult and cooperate with the Director-General and his secretariat in outlining the different (draft) agendas for the next biennium.1
Mohamed Said Mohamed Ali HARBI (Observer for Sudan) (Original language Arabic): I was not in the hall. I came in late and when I sat down, the Malaysian Delegate was speaking about the tropical forests. What he said is absolutely right, and he mentioned the production of fruits in tropical areas. Since my country falls within these tropical areas, I would like to make observations on what has been said by Malaysia.
We have made leaps and bounds in this field, in meetings within this Organization to which the former Representative of Malaysia to the Organization contributed greatly. The information given us by Mr Hjort-and he is an expert, an old hand in this Organization -- affirms the importance of this said Committee on Tropical Fruits.
EL PRESIDENTE: Seguramente debido a que no se benefició usted con la discusión anterior, no pudo enterarse de que la propuesta de Malasia relativa a un grupo intergubernamental sobre los frutos tropicales era un tema que trataría el CPBB en febrero de 1997, pero que ha sido apoyado por varios delegados. El Consejo ha tomado nota de este apoyo, pero también ha reconocido que esta cuestión deberá tratarse en febrero del próximo año y entonces transmitida a través del informe de dicho Comité al Consejo de junio de 1997.
D. BOMMER (Chairman Programme Committee): First of all I would like to say, that I am sure the members of the Programme Committee and of the Finance Committee will be happy about the support we have received and I hope that the deadline of 31 December can be met. At the same time, with regard to the preparation of the full review of the Statutory Bodies I just wanted to draw the attention of the French Delegation, and I think it was also Burkina Faso, to the fact that it gives a complete list of all the statutory bodies, including their origin and their length of session and even
1State inserted in the verbatim records on request.
an evaluation. This was available in August 1996 and it is regularly updated. So, at least, I think there is an important piece of information available which can be used to refresh our minds when we wish to look into these bodies.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL: I just wanted to follow up on that statement to remind that in my statement on Tuesday I informed, and I trust I was informing you properly, that a copy of the Directory was in your boxes.
Two other points. There was a question about the interpretation of 41, on the scope of this review and the application of the criteria. What we intend to do, with your approval, is to subject all of the statutory bodies and panels to the criteria that are proposed in paragraph 40 so that we can include in the material that we provide to the Programme and Finance Committees in April and, therefore, as a basis for their report to you for consideration in June, information on all of the bodies. It will not exclude those that are referred to in document CL 111/12.
The second point is simply to encourage you to make the submissions that are mentioned in paragraph 1.19 of the report you are considering-the views of governments through their regional groups -- available to the Secretariat in written form not later than 31 December 1996. The reason for that deadline is because we were late with our report on this matter to the Programme and Finance Committees last time. That got us into a considerable amount of difficulty. We would just as soon not get into that difficulty again. The reason we got into difficulty is that we did not have submissions from most countries right up until the day of the meeting. So, I would encourage you to make those submissions to us on time and we will put them together and we wish to have them available to you, to the members of the Programme and Finance Committee, on a timely basis.
EL PRESIDENTE: Bien, si no hubiese algún otro comentario me permitiría resumir muy brevemente nuestros trabajos de la siguiente manera. En primer lugar el Consejo agradeció al Dr Bommer por su exhaustiva y clara presentación de los informes del Comité del Programa, así como los relativos a la revisión de los órganos estatutarios y cuadro de expertos de la FAO, comprendidos en el subtema 14.1 y como parte de las reuniones con el Comité de Finanzas y, asimismo, el Consejo elogió su labor al frente del Comité del Programa el cual ha sido guiado de manera excelente; el Consejo, con ello endosó los informes del Comité del Programa. Se expresó satisfacción por los progresos realizados en relación con el examen de gestión incluido el uso propuesto de asesoramiento externo en determinados aspectos y se tomó nota, de que se habían conseguido logros notables en los últimos tiempos para reducir el número general de puestos y racionalizar la estructura organizacional de la FAO y, el Consejo espera en una conclusión satisfactoria de este examen. En cuanto al nuevo modelo, marco de programación, se tomó nota de que el Comité del Programa expresó su amplia satisfacción y que se les darán ulteriores consultas. De hecho, el próximo programa de labores y presupuestos tendrá la misma presentación que en 1996–97, aunque se reconoció la utilidad de la revisión del tema seleccionado 2.1.1, Recursos Naturales, paralelamente al procedimiento actual, con el fin de que se pueda adoptar una decisión más definitiva en el próximo bienio.
En relación al subtema 14.1, el Consejo decidió que todos los órganos serán revisados por parte de la Secretaría de acuerdo a los criterios expresados en el párrafo 40 del documento CL 111/12. Esto será revisado por la Secretaría y presentará un documento con la antelación requerida a la Reunión de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas de abril de 1997, los mismos que ulteriormente presentarán su informe al respecto al Consejo en su reunión de junio del próximo año. Asimismo se decidió que, las propuestas serán presentadas por los grupos regionales y sometidas a la Secretaría de la FAO a más tardar el 31 de diciembre de este año, de acuerdo a la guía del párrafo 1.19 del documento CL 111/15. Con esto hay otro punto, el Consejo tomó nota también del interés de varias delegaciones, de crear un grupo intergubernamental sobre frutos tropicales aunque también tomó nota, de que este asunto será discutido por el CPBB en febrero de 1997 y, su informe transmitido al Consejo en junio de 1997 cuando se tomará una decisión relativa.
Bien distinguidos delegados, reconozco que hay otros temas que ustedes plantearon y que son importantes; no los he tomado en cuenta en mi resumen pero el Comité de Redacción tendrá toda la oportunidad para atenderlos.
Como tenemos todavía algunos minutos y si no hay ninguna otra observación, le voy a pedir al Vicepresidente y Presidente Encargado del Comité de Finanzas si tiene a bien presentarnos los informes correspondientes bajo el tema 13, a fin de que podamos de inmediato, comenzar con este punto el día de mañana y, agradezco al Dr Bommer por su presencia en esta sesión del Consejo.
El Consejo le da la bienvenida al señor representante de los Estados Unidos, el señor Thomas Forbord como Vicepresidente del Comité de Finanzas, quien ha aceptado nuestra invitación para presentar el tema 13.
Thomas Austin FORBORD (Vice-Chairman, Finance Committee): I am pleased to be here to introduce the reports of the three Finance Committee meetings which took place since the last meeting of the Council.
The Secretariat has prepared for me introductory remarks indicating that this type of introduction is the tradition of the Council. This prepared text is seven pages long, single spaced, and it will take me about a half an hour to read this to you.
Chairman, I think the Secretariat must have been thinking of how the Council used to operate before you introduced, with the full support of F AO Membership, many efficiencies and cost-savings. Therefore, as you and I discussed, I am not going to read that statement. It repeats what is in the Finance Committee reports which have been distributed to all F AO Members.
Instead let me highlight only the one issue that the Finance Committee has forwarded to the Council for a decision today. Last month the Finance Committee examined the F AO and WFP 1994–95 audited accounts and recommended that the Council submit them to the Conference for adaptation. The External Auditor has expressed unqualified opinions on both sets of biennium accounts.
The Committee's report to you in paragraph 3.35 of document CL 111/15 has a draft Conference Resolution for your consideration. It refers only to the FAO accounts; after the WFP Executive Board has reviewed the WFP accounts there will be an amendment to that Resolution which includes WFP accounts as well. I, or the Secretariat, would be happy to answer any questions on the reports of the Finance Committee.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, señor Forbord, Presidente Actuante del Comité de Finanzas, por su breve y clara introducción de este tema. Todavía tenemos algunos minutos de interpretación. Si ustedes consideran que están en posición para comenzar a tratar este tema yo les daría la palabra en el entendido de que no cerraré la lista de oradores el día de hoy. Obviamente continuaremos con este punto del orden del día mañana por la mañana.
Nasreddine RIMOUCHE (Algérie): Désolé de prendre la parole. Ce n'est pas pour intervenir sur le point de l'ordre du jour, mais pour savoir quels sont les points qui feront l'objet de discussions
demain pour les deux séances. Il y a eu une petite modification et on voudrait bien connaître les points pour se préparer en conséquence.
The meeting rose at 17.30 hours
La séance est levée à 17 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.30 horas
