Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page

IV PROGRAMME, BUDGETARY, FINANCIAL AND AMINISTRATIVE MATTERS (continued)
IV QUESTIONS CONCERNANT LE PROGRAMME, LE BUDGET, LES FINANCES ET L'ADMINISTRATION (suite)
IV ASUNTOS DEL PROGRAMA Y ASUNTOS PRESUPUESTARIOS, FINANCIEROS Y ADMINISTRATIVOS (continuación)

16 Summary Programme of Work and Budget 1998-99 (continued)
16 Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget 1998-99 (suite)
16 Resumen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1998-99 (continuación)

EL PRESIDENTE: Se abre la sexta Sesión Plenaria del Consejo. Estamos todavía con una lista importante de oradores, en particular tengo aquí a cinco observadores que desean hacer uso de la palabra, pero antes de otorgársela pregunto a los miembros del Consejo si hay alguna delegación que desea agregarse a la lista.

Paul PAREDES PORTELLA (Observador de Perú): En relación al Tema 16 de la agenda, relativo al Resumen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1998-99, nuestra intervención se centrará en demostrar la necesidad de aprobar un presupuesto con crecimiento real positivo.

En primer término, en cuanto a las prioridades, debemos señalar que ajuicio de mi delegación, los programas principales y los programas en sí en ningún caso deben ser afectados cualquiera que sea la decisión respecto del presupuesto. En este marco de análisis, mi delegación coincide con lo señalado por la Representante de los Estados Unidos, en el sentido que en toda formulación de presupuestos, los recursos deben estar vinculados a los objetivos programáticos, de forma tal que se puedan verificar mejor los resultados de los gastos, gastos que nosotros consideramos deben estar orientados más bien a promover el desarrollo socio-económico de los países beneficiarios.

Al igual que la Delegación de Estados Unidos, nosotros entendemos que el PCT podría muy bien acoger proyectos vinculados con la Cumbre así como con el Plan de Acción de Leipzig; en cuanto al PESA, los países son libres de involucrarse en él.

Finalmente, dejamos constancia que para nosotros es fundamental el fortalecimiento de las oficinas regionales, lo que está en la línea de la descentralización de la FAO, de la optimización del uso de los recursos y del reforzamiento de los programas operacionales.

En segundo término, creemos que se debe dar prioridad a las actividades operacionales, sobre todo aquéllas que tienen un carácter normativo. Esto, no obstante la interacción que existe entre ellas y el vínculo dinámico que deben guardar entre sí.

La razón, señor Presidente, para esta afirmación, es que se deben favorecer las actividades en el terreno y el real impacto de los proyectos de la FAO en los niveles socio-económicos de las poblaciones, que son las beneficiarías finales.

Dentro de este enfoque es crucial destacar la validez de los programas PCT, del TCO y del TCI, vertientes de la cooperación de la FAO y que están llamados a asegurar su vigencia en tanto que centros internacionales de excelencia en la conducción de proyectos de cooperación destinados a promover el desarrollo agrícola de los países receptores.

Señor Presidente, al definir el tipo de presupuesto que debemos asumir, dejamos constancia de nuestro apoyo a lo expresado por las delegaciones de Cuba, Brasil, México, Chile, así como por la de Filipinas, delegación que intervino en nombre del Grupo de los 77.


En este contexto, nosotros creemos que la única propuesta de presupuesto que absuelve los requerimientos mínimos de la FAO para el cumplimiento de sus objetivos es el crecimiento real positivo; las otras dos opciones, crecimiento nominal cero y crecimiento real cero, en realidad significan decrecimiento, la reducción una vez más del presupuesto.

Consideramos que al presupuesto de base de 650 millones de dólares habría que incorporar factores tales como los aumentos de los costos de acuerdo con las tasas de inflación, a lo que necesariamente se debe añadir el riesgo del tipo de cambio, en un sistema volátil de paridad de monedas. A esto hay que sumar un crecimiento mínimo de las más importantes actividades de la FAO, en general las de carácter operacional, además del mínimo que se requiere para que el seguimiento del Plan de Acción de la Cumbre tenga visos de credibilidad.

En este marco, sólo un presupuesto con crecimiento real positivo para el bienio 1998-99, de por lo menos 700 millones o más, podrá atender, y decimos bien a un nivel mínimo, los requerimientos de base de la FAO.

Tenemos al respecto tres argumentos que consideramos de peso: el primero, que todos los programas de la FAO deben mantenerse al menos al nivel actual. A este efecto hay que retener dos elementos que muestran a la FAO como organismo internacional eficiente en la asignación de recursos y que viene sufriendo una seria reducción en su presupuesto. Nos referimos a los ahorros de eficiencia de 22 millones de dólares del bienio 1996-97 en el marco de la reducción presupuestaria de 57 millones de dólares para ese mismo bienio.

El segundo, que la Cumbre Mundial sobre la Alimentación debe ser ejecutada plenamente en su Plan de Acción, si no queremos que la Cumbre y su seguimiento periódico se constituya solamente en meros ejercicios retóricos, llenos de bellas palabras, buenas intenciones, pero ausentes de acciones y efectos en la realidad.

Por último y más determinante aún, desde nuestra perspectiva, resulta necesario un presupuesto tal para que la FAO mantenga su credibilidad, en cuanto a su mandato en el marco del sistema multilateral a largo plazo, así también como para asegurar su vigencia como órgano internacional competitivo y solvente en cooperación internacional, con vistas al próximo siglo.

Todo enfoque restrictivo, como el de las propuestas de decrecimiento que ya hemos enunciado, no hará más que presentar, como bien dijo el día de ayer el Presidente del Grupo de los 77, señales equivocadas acerca de lo que es la FAO y su razón de ser, tanto al nivel de sistema multilateral y de los gobiernos, cuanto al de los pueblos necesitados de la tierra que demandan el mantenimiento de los programas de cooperación de la FAO. Todo ello, sin contar a los 840 millones de seres humanos que padecen hambre que ahora pueblan el orbe y que, a la culminación de la Cumbre, soñaron con un mundo mejor ya no para ellos - la vida humana es efímera - pero sí al menos para sus hijos o los hijos de aquéllos.

Quiero decir también, señor Presidente, que dejamos claro en este punto que sólo a efectos de conciliación y en el último de los casos podríamos contemplar un presupuesto de crecimiento real cero de 689 millones de dólares para el bienio, a efectos de cubrir aumentos de costos por 39 millones de dólares, como lo informó el Director General en su intervención inicial.

Dicho esto, creemos que nuestros fundamentos, llenos de buena voluntad y sentido común, deberían traer consigo impulsos de una nueva voluntad política de los Estados Miembros, destinada a revitalizar la FAO y a reafirmar su rol en el mundo en cuanto cooperación multilateral.

Un punto de partida inicial en la dirección correcta será cuando los países cumplan con el pago de sus cuotas. Y es que en realidad la falta de pago de las cuotas a tiempo ha traído consigo la difícil situación financiera presupuestaria actual que vive la Organización. En este contexto, el Perú es


muy sensible a este tema y, en la medida de sus posibilidades, acaba de hacer un nuevo pago parcial de sus cuotas. Sobre este punto cabría, señor Presidente, encontrar fórmulas de solución que absuelvan el entrampamiento presente, como por ejemplo prever un doble cálculo presupuestal, teniendo en cuenta en uno de ellos los pagos efectivos del presupuesto y en otro la inclusión de los adeudos a la FAO, estando a que éstos, de toda forma, son recursos exigibles. De esta manera, podrían mantener su curso los programas de base, mientras que otros se activarían en función del pago de los adeudos.

Señor Presidente, va nuestra invocación a todos los participantes en este 112° período de sesiones del Consejo, para que este debate nos conduzca a encontrar soluciones responsables por la vía de lo razonable y de lo necesario a fin que la aprobación del presupuesto, en un marco de consenso, se efectúe bajo la forma de un crecimiento real positivo, que, como hemos mostrado, es el único que recoge los requerimientos mínimos para un funcionamiento normal de la Organización.

Horacio SO ARES (Observateur du Cap-Vert): Permettez-moi tout d'abord de vous exprimer notre satisfaction. En effet, nous sommes devant un ensemble de documents préparés par le Secrétariat qui nous apportent certainement des informations et qui sont vraiment très bien préparés. Deuxièmement, je voudrais commencer par vous dire que nous soutenons entièrement toutes les informations du Président du Groupe des 77 dans la mesure où elles constituent les préoccupations du Cap-Vert. Troisièmement, je voudrais vous dire que, pour ce qui est du budget, nous sommes prêts à soutenir un budget à croissance réelle zéro dans la mesure où nous considérons ce budget comme un budget établi par une organisation qui vient de faire un certain nombre de changements assez importants pour se rendre plus efficace, pour mieux servir tous les pays. Nous l'acceptons ainsi dans la mesure où, avec ces changements, il faudrait sans doute un an pour consolider tous ces acquis et apporter les changements complémentaires qui s'avèrent nécessaires. Néanmoins, je voudrais faire certains commentaires. Depuis un certain nombre d'années, le Cap-Vert a participé activement dans un certain nombre d'événements des Nations Unies, entre autres: la Conférence de Rio pour le développement et l'environnement, la Conférence de Copenhagen, les négociations des conventions sur la diversité biologique, sur la lutte contre la désertification, et sur les changements politiques.

L'an dernier, avec la réalisation du Sommet, les engagements qui ont été pris nous ont semblé comme un chapeau à tous les engagements qui ont été pris auparavant au cours des événements dont je viens de parler. Cela a comme conséquence que le Programme spécial pour la sécurité alimentaire essaie de faire une coordination de tous les efforts de développement de nos pays parce qu'il n'y a pas de développement sans eradication définitive de la pauvreté et de la malnutrition.

J'ai essayé de faire fonctionner la FAO, disons, en tenant compte de cela. Le Cap-Vert, et je pense la plupart des pays, a fait un certain nombre de changements: changements structurels, changements dans les politiques de développement y compris tout ce qui est rattaché aux problèmes de l'ouverture pour la démocratie. Nos populations attendent que l'on puisse travailler dans le sens de la construction d'un avenir meilleur où la justice sociale serait une action fondamentale. Nous pensons qu'un renforcement du budget de la FAO, qui nous espérons sera fait dans les prochaines années, pourra jouer un rôle très important dans ce sens. Nous espérons que la FAO puisse devenir une organisation équilibrée qui puisse utiliser rationnellement ses avantages comparatifs, et nous défendons l'équilibre entre une action normative, une action sur le terrain, condition sine qua non pour beaucoup de pays, parmi lesquels le Cap-Vert, pour faire face aux effets d'une production alimentaire structurellement déficitaire. Dans ce sens, ma délégation voudrait dire qu'elle fait des efforts pour assumer ses responsabilités par rapport à sa contribution à la FAO, pour apporter des changements nécessaires pour recevoir un soutien de l'extérieur, dont celui de la FAO, pour mieux s'organiser dans tout son processus de développement. Mais, dans ce contexte là, il est absolument nécessaire que dans l'avenir nos partenaires puissent comprendre qu'il y a des actions qui, faites seulement au niveau bilatéral, n'apportent pas les résultats qu'on pourrait escompter. Il faut faire


des actions au niveau multilatéral dans l'ensemble des problèmes à considérer aux niveaux régional et même sous-régional afin d'obtenir un meilleur résultat.

Ceci dit, je voudrais terminer par vous dire que le Cap-Vert continue à espérer que tout cela sera fait dans la mesure où ses priorités pour le développement dans le sens agricole en général vont à la lutte contre la désertification, la gestion des ressources hydriques et la pêche qui sont des domaines essentiels et fondamentaux pour la sécurité alimentaire.

EL PRESIDENTE: Antes de dar la palabra al siguiente Observador, deseo informarles que el delegado de Camerún, igual que los observadores por Suecia y Gambia han entregado a la Secretaría, por escrito sus declaraciones, las cuales se incorporarán en las Actas del Verbatim.

Mohamed Said M. ALI HARBI (Observer for Sudan) (Original language Arabie): In the name of God, the merciful and compassionate, thank you, Mr Chairman.

Being an Observer, and since you have been kind enough to give me this opportunity, I will try to be very concise.

My delegation, supports a real zero-growth budget as recommended by the Chairman of the Group of 77, and which is also supported without any reserve by the developing countries. This is our goal, in this Organization, to concretize the recommendations of the World Food Summit, namely, to alleviate hunger and poverty in developing countries, and eliminate them from the world.

We believe that the TCP is a top priority for this Organization and it is very important for agricultural development in our countries. However, I do support the distinguished delegate from the United States when he referred to the Codex Alimentarius, International Plant Protection Convention, the Global Information and Early Warning System, and the Waste Centre. I do support these priorities, since these activities have a positive impact on agriculture and, therefore, adequate allocation of resources should be given to these activities.

In my intervention two days ago, I spoke in support of the Special Programme for Food Security and I congratulated the 15 countries which benefitted from this Programme. Then, we expressed our hope that we would benefit from this Programme as well. However, unfortunately, we see that some countries not suffering from food security problems, and not giving specific food aid to this Programme, despite this, they do object to this Programme very clearly.

Sudan is a country based on agriculture and animal resources. We have a very important animal resource, which is a source for food and hard currency gains and, therefore, we would like to express our regret when we see proposals aiming at cancelling some posts in the Services dealing with meat and dairy products, which are beneficial to developing countries.

In order to live up to the Commitments of the World Food Summit, and to the Commitments of our leaders, and in order to rescue millions of people from the clutches of poverty by the year 2000, we should establish a budget which would enable FAO to meet its obligations. This could only be achieved through the proposal of the Group of 77, namely, through the real zero-growth budget.

I do apologize, I did not previously pay tribute to what has been stated by my colleague from Uganda, namely, when he supported the Telefood initiative. Such a programme would have a positive impact at the national levels, since it would raise the awareness of these countries concerning the importance of food. We do hope that adequate resources would be given to this programme, starting from this year.

Finally, I should like to congratulate you, once again, for your sound leadership of this Council, which is characterized by wisdom and transparency.


Horacio MALTEZ (Observador de Panamá): Al referirnos al nivel del presupuesto, mi delegación desea en primer lugar apoyar las declaraciones del Presidente del Grupo de los 77 así como lo manifestado por el Presidente del GRULAC y otros distinguidos miembros de los países en desarrollo, tanto de mi región como de otras regiones.

Señor Presidente, nuestra delegación considera de suma importancia resaltar algunos aspectos que ya fueron tratados durante el día de ayer por el distinguido Representante de Cuba, hablando a nombre del Grupo Latinoamericano y del Caribe. Me refiero, entre otras cosas, al extraordinario esfuerzo realizado por la FAO durante la ejecución del ejercicio presupuestario actual que permitió determinar una cantidad de ahorros por eficiencia de poco más de 22 millones de dólares a fin de adaptarse al presupuesto ajustado. Estos ahorros por eficiencia, y cabe señalarlo y evidenciarlo, no se efectuaron sin grandes sacrificios y se tuvo que pagar un costo social y de nivel programático. En este contexto hay que recordar cuántos importantes programas tuvieron que ser eliminados o reducidos o que corren aún el riesgo de ser reducidos todavía más. En mi tierra se dice que para muestra basta un botón y es por ello que deseo hacer mío un ejemplo planteado por el Grupo Asiático y por otros, que se refiere al caso del importante programa de la carne y la leche.

En este orden de ideas, mi delegación considera necesario que se efectúen todos aquellos ahorros por eficiencia que sean posibles y necesarios, sin embargo, estimamos imprescindible llamar la atención sobre el hecho de que para todo hay un límite, un límite físico más allá del cual los ahorros por eficiencia se traducen sencillamente en una reducción inaceptable del nivel de calidad o en una inanición, artificialmente forzada de los fondos operacionales o medios normales de acción. En nuestra opinión debemos tener mucho cuidado al hacer estos ahorros por eficiencia de no superar ese límite.

Deseo también recordar, como lo hiciera el Presidente de nuestro Grupo Regional, que nosotros apoyamos firmemente el Programa Especial de Seguridad Alimentaria (PESA), programa que muchos de los países de nuestro grupo están apoyando materialmente en forma de cooperación entre países en desarrollo o en otra forma.

En nuestra opinión y respetando la opinión de los otros, como es nuestra costumbre, el PESA es un programa de suma importancia para los países más necesitados, en especial para los países PBIDA, así como para muchas áreas particulares de los países en desarrollo por lo que consideramos que el mismo no debe ser obstaculizado en ninguna forma y apelamos a los países que tengan inconvenientes a que comprendan la importancia que le concedemos a este programa.

En este contexto, yo quisiera también hacer mía y apoyar aquellas declaraciones hechas por el distinguido Representante de Uganda y recientemente la de mi colega de Sudán para apoyar lo referente al ALIMENTEL que consideramos una actividad de gran importancia para obtener recursos para este programa. Esto no es una cosa nueva, las otras organizaciones tales como la UNESCO y la UNICEF lo vienen haciendo.

Mi delegación considera además de suma importancia resaltar la acción catalizadora del PCT que en todas las áreas pertinentes de la cooperación técnica incluyendo los recursos genéticos entre otros, apoya decididamente este programa.

Por último señor Presidente, deseamos manifestar nuestro apoyo al establecimiento de nuevas oficinas subregionales, en especial, como lo dijese el distinguido Representante de Chile, de la Oficina Subregional para América Central. Asimismo, consideramos que es importante reforzar las oficinas regionales de la FAO y la instalación de nuevas oficinas en los países donde sean necesarias para el mejor desempeño de las labores de la Organización y la debida coordinación con los países que las necesitan, sobre todo en el marco de la descentralización.


Martin KENFACK (Cameroun): Monsieur le Président, je vous remercie, au nom de toute ma délégation, de votre élection comme Président indépendant ainsi que tout votre bureau.

Notre pays a, à plusieurs reprises, bénéficié du Programme de coopération technique (PCT). Nous pouvons à juste titre dire à tout le Conseil que ce Programme (PCT) qui a des règles propres est une bonne chose pour nos pays en développement. Mon pays souhaite que ce Programme continue à recevoir des ressources suffisantes car il est là pour tous les pays qui en font la demande dans le respect des règles. J'appuie l'intervention de l'Ambassadeur du Sénégal ainsi que celle du Président du Groupe des 77. Je suis convaincu que le projet de budget proposé par le Directeur général est une limite inférieure au-delà de laquelle nous risquons de ne voir aucun programme se réaliser. Le PSSA, qui est bien différent du PCT, demeure un programme prioritaire et nécessaire pour nos pays. Ce programme devrait bénéficier d'importantes ressources pour être efficace. Mon pays, le Cameroun, compte beaucoup sur ce programme (PSSA) dont la première mission vient de séjourner dans notre pays il y a quelques semaines. Mon pays est donc très engagé pour ce programme. Mon pays souhaite être parmi les premiers pays par où démarre le programme après les quinze premiers.

Nous voudrions que les pays les plus nantis se sentent concernés par ce programme (PSSA) et lui accordent des moyens suffisants. Nos pays voudraient aussi disposer des denrées alimentaires en quantité et en qualité suffisantes. Nous devons faire des efforts pour ne plus recourir à chaque instant à l'aide alimentaire extérieure.

La sécurité alimentaire devrait être une réalité chez tous. Le Sommet mondial de l'alimentation a montré l'importance de la sécurité alimentaire pour tous.

La FAO est l'Organisation la plus prestigieuse du secteur agricole dans le monde. Mon pays pense qu'il faudrait lui donner les moyens de répondre à ce prestige. Le budget de la FAO devra être toujours vu à la hausse. Je pense que le budget à croissance réelle semble répondre à cette préoccupation. Nous devons tout faire pour avoir le consensus sur ce problème du budget et éviter que la Conférence de 1997 ne soit comme la précédente.

Je remercie le Directeur général pour la qualité du document présenté au Conseil. Je vous remercie, Monsieur le Président, pour votre doigté dans la conduite des travaux de cette réunion dont l'importance n'échappe à personne.

Encore une fois, j'invite au nom de mon pays les membres du Conseil à approuver par consensus le budget 1998-99 de notre Organisation (la FAO)1

Rolf AKESSON (Observer for Sweden): We wish to endorse the statement made by the European Union, as well as the statement by Denmark, and our delegation would like to put forward the following additional points.

The Swedish delegation's emphasis on programme of work rather than budget means that our final position on budget level will be taken when the contents of the definitive draft PWB is available.

The primary function of all specialized UN agencies concerns the normative tasks as spelled out in the Nordic UN project on reform in the economic and social fields and included in the EU proposals for UN reform: we find few signs in the draft PWB for a long-term overall change towards a strengthening and vitalization of the normative tasks and some signs in the opposite direction.

[1] Texte reçu avec demande d'insertion dans le procès verbal.


Regarding transparency and governance, progress is mixed: the new format of the PWB is a significant step in the direction of an open and clear presentation of all activities' total costs. On the other hand the Member Nations' influence on the PWB process in the substantive committees during spring 1997 was constrained by the late arrival of crucial documentation, lack of necessary information, insufficient time for discussion.

Implementation of Agenda 21 and WFS is the main general objective: while we see several encouraging signs that more emphasis is placed on sustainability, it is not evident that all that can be expected from the Secretariat has been done in that respect. We are disappointed by the narrow, production-oriented interpretation of global food security that is apparent in the follow-up so far of the WFS.

The implied change in the allocation of resources between agriculture, fisheries and forestry is contrary to what could be expected in view of the several substantive and high politics problem within FAO's mandate in fisheries and forestry.

Taking for granted that normally cost increases will be absorbed by efficiency gains, any budget increase - national as well as international - nowadays requires convincing and forceful reasons: the above arguments present no such case for a budget increase.

The FAO Secretariat's proposal for zero-nominal growth does not meet our approval in its present form since it involves a significant decrease in the already unfavourable ratio between substantive work in the technical and economic programmes and non-substantive work (i.e. management, administration, policy direction and planning), as well as a further reduction of Member Nations' possibilities to express their views and influence the decision-making process by severe and systematic reductions in costs for meetings of the Programme and Finance Committees (30 percent), of substantive committees (20 percent) and of Permanent Representative, (27 percent).

We find it possible and desirable to achieve the crucial objectives of the Organization by stricter prioritization of activities and an even better utilization of the available competence and resources that we are proud to have at our disposal.2

Ismaila B. CEESAY (Observer for the Gambia): My delegation wishes to register its disappointment over the numerous acclaims by previous speakers that pinpoint to supporting a zero real growth and/or zero nominal growth in the Programme of Work Budget of the FAO for 1998-99.

At the last November World Food Summit members have agreed to improve the pertinence and significance of FAO in helping towards ensuring that by the year 2015 there can be food for all mankind. Against this background it is inconceivable that this objective can be capable of achievement with a zero nominal growth in the Organization's budget. The least we should ask for is a real growth consistent with inflationary norms - using the current year as the benchmark for such an assessment.

My delegation is worried that in our drive to instil efficiency in resource utilization we are, in tandem, forcing FAO to scale down its project interventions in order to be seen to be spending less. The strategic involvement of FAO as foreseen by the output of the World Food Summit is amplified; the need to attack programmes, aimed at alleviating poverty, with the requisite drive and financial base, is a sine qua non to the success of the current world drive to providing food security for all.

2 Statement inserted in the verbatim record on request


My delegation would lend unqualified support to FAO's submission which is, in general, consistent with the overall general mandate set for the Organization by the declarations of the World Food Summit.3

Aidan O'DRISCOLL (Ireland): I would ask if you could give the floor to the Netherlands, to make a second intervention on this item on behalf of the European Community and its Member States.

EL PRESIDENTE: Con mucho gusto señor Representante y conforme a lo que hemos acordado en este Consejo le voy a dar la palabra al Observador por los Países Bajos quien hablará a nombre de la Comunidad Europea y sus Países Miembros.

J.B. PIETERS (Observer for the Netherlands): I can be very brief now. You invited us to be more specific on how we think the FAO Secretariat should proceed in order to enable Members to reach a consensus on the Programme of Work at Budget at the Conference.

We are preparing comments on your invitation and I would like to come back on this issue during our statement on agenda item 18.

Igor MARINCEK (Observer for Switzerland): It is a matter of fact that actions pursued in collaboration, in a well-coordinated manner, and with a network approach, yield more and give better results than the same actions would if they were carried out in an isolated way. Synergies are at work when one plus one results in more than two. The winners of tomorrow will be the ones who know how to work in a synergetic way. This holds true both for private companies and public organizations.

In times of limited resources, we have to look at all possibilities of improving the output-input ratio. My delegation supports the calls for further savings and efficiency increases; for concentration of activities on priorities and on comparative advantages; for better synergies between the different programmes and divisions of FAO; and between the normative and operational activities of our Organization.

When looking for synergies, we must, however, not limit our focus on this Organization alone. We must also look beyond FAO. My delegation, therefore, invites the Secretariat to provide us, in the full Programme of Work and Budget, with information on proposed cooperation with other international organizations, in particular, with the UN family, the World Bank, and the CGIAR group, and to tell us about the expected synergies from this cooperation. We would like to have this information programme by programme.

In line with this proposal, my delegation would like to underline that cooperation and networking with other Organizations should not be the responsibility of a special unit, as proposed in Major Programme 1.3, but should be part of the responsibilities of each division and programme, since this is a cross-cutting issue.

Synergies are obtained at the working level and they can only be obtained by doing the business in a changed way. This way is characterized by networking, both within and beyond FAO.

Carlos di MOTTOLA (Observador de Costa Rica): Me permito de hacer una referencia al pasado. En el pasado cuando se discutía sobre el Programa de Labores y de Presupuesto nunca se hablaba de disminuciones ni de aumento, ni tampoco de situación estática. Se adoptó siempre el concepto de aumento simbólico, ya sea debido a que las necesidades del mundo crecen y crecen las

3 Statement inserted in the verbatim record on request


necesidades de asesoramiento. Por el momento las previsiones y las estadísticas dan un gran aumento de población normal durante los próximos decenios. Está previsto que la FAO deba tener mayor actividad, la disminución es absolutamente un absurdo. Me opongo también al concepto de crecimiento real cero, porque el crecimiento real cero no corresponde con lo que son las necesidades del mundo.

Después de la Cumbre, salir con un presupuesto que fuera menor del presupuesto precedente, es una contradicción que desprestigia totalmente la FAO.

Me permito apoyar también lo que dijo el Representante Observador de Panamá respeto al aumento del PCT.

Me permito concluir que yo soy completamente favorable a que de esa Asamblea surgan una, dos o tres opciones para presentar a la Conferencia y que a la Conferencia se indique únicamente la posibilidad de un aumento aunque mínimo. Por eso la FAO no puede transformarse en un centro de referencia. La FAO ha surgido un día o dos antes de las Naciones Unidas. La FAO es la coordinación de todas las actividades del mundo. Yo creo que la FAO tiene que seguir adelante. No hubo ningún cambio de Estatuto. El Estatuto es el mismo que se adoptó hace 50 años. También ha mejorado muchísimo. Tiene que atenerse al Estatuto y aprobar un presupuesto de crecimiento real.

Tony WADE (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Thank you also to the delegates for organizing for the main debate not to finish before lunch and give me time to organize my thoughts, because there was an extraordinary range of questions and comments.

I would like to start off with the general area of priorities, if I may. 1 was a little surprised at some of the remarks about priorities and the lack of prioritization. Both Netherlands and Australia suggested that the ZNG, (zero nominal-growth) budget proposal demonstrated across-the-board cuts; France argued that the methodology for determining priorities was inadequate; and others suggested that there was no evidence that the Council's criteria had been followed. Let me work backwards through those.

First of all, the Council criteria were rigorously followed, both in the zero real-growth and in the zero nominal-growth version. Every programme element, which is one level below the information you have available to you at this stage, the level of information that you get in the full Programme of Work and Budget, was scored against the seven criteria on a scale of zero to four and then the scores were added up, weighted by the value of each programme element, to come to a composite weighted average for each sub-programme. This exercise was carried out twice, once in the first exercise for zero real-growth, and then reviewed when it came to trying to identify what programmes to cut in the zero nominal-growth. We have reported the scores in Annex A to the Supplement 1 and you are, of course, free to ask any questions about the results. However, we should not be too surprised to see that many of the scores are close to four. I would respond, however, to the suggestion that came up yesterday, and again today, I think from Canada, that maybe the criteria themselves need to be refined and reevaluated a little bit, and we will indeed make suggestions in that regard.

With regard to the comment that cuts were across-the-board, if you speak to the ADGs they will complain very much that they were not across-the-board. They in fact varied a great deal. You can see in Annex A -- this is at every level by the way -- in Annex A you will see a range of percentage reductions by sub-programme, as low as nothing in the zero nominal-growth scenario - no cut at all - to almost 30 percent in the case of some sub-programmes. When you look at the programme level you will see that the cuts range from, for example, Forest Planning, which was only 2.1 percent, to as high as 7.5 percent with livestock. Here I am talking about the technical programmes. Finally, if you look at the highest level of major programmes, you will see that Forestry was relatively protected at 4.2 percent whereas Policy Assistance, for example, was cut by 8 percent.


Now you may not agree with the priorities that were selected, but that was the net effect of the whole exercise of applying the criteria. There were no across-the-board cuts.

Regarding the question on methodology by France, I hope my response has relieved you somewhat that we did look at it seriously. I think, however, that the suggestion that the Programme Committee go through every element may be a little burdensome. I do not know if the Chairman will want to comment on it, but there are a full 560 programme elements at the lowest level of detail in our system. I do not know how many minutes you would allow for each one, but it is really not very practical to delegate that to the Programme Committee. You have to leave some things to the Secretariat.

On specific priorities there were several valuable comments. I would like to assure the distinguished delegate of Denmark that gender issues are indeed receiving the highest possible priority and the greatest attention. FAO has, before and after the Beijing Conference, taken major initiatives to mainstream gender and women in development issues in the work of all Divisions in the Organization. This was done in a consultative, participatory process to ensure accountability and to have achievable targets and instruments for implementation. As I mentioned yesterday, in fact we will demonstrate this in the full PWB, because there were requests from both the Programme and Finance Committees that we show exactly what is being done. This is one of those examples of a cross-sectoral activity where you will see the women's group in Propgramme 2.5 under Sustainable Development, who are responsible for coordination but not carrying out the actual mainstreaming themselves. That is done in every Division. So we hope to be able to demonstrate that in the full PWB. Incidentally, there will be a full report on the progress being made in the whole implementation of the Plan of Action for the Conference.

The Special Programme for Food Security also attracted some attention. I think I already mentioned yesterday that there will be a similar table about the Special Programme, where the resources are. Of course, the resources for the exploratory missions and the pilot projects are identified as a particular line in the budget under Programme 2.5.6.

As you also saw, we have identified throughout the document where Technical Programmes are contributing to the Special Programme. The Special Programme has a cross-sectoral element to it as well and, therefore, there are contributions elsewhere, and we will identify those for you as requested. I must say that the comment that was made that the data were being hidden was not really appropriate. This is not a question of a lack of transparency. What we have to do is to find a way to present the budget to you. We have a programme structure which you have approved and we present it in those terms. Cross-sectoral or thematic subjects always present us with some problem but, of course, if you want information on a particular cross-sectoral theme you will be provided with it.

With regard to the question from the distinguished delegate from Germany concerning the relationship between the Global Information and Early Warning System and FIVIMS, the Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping System, I should say first of all that there is full cooperation between these two programmes. The databases, software, and the mapping tools were developed by the Global Information and Early Warning System and they will be used by FIVIMS as much as possible. The resource allocations to the new sub-programme for the Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping System already take into account that, and the transfers have occurred appropriately between the relevant units. I am reminded now that someone was concerned about the move of resources out of nutrition. It was exactly the same thing. It was taking the data that relate to FIVIMS out of that programme and putting them under a new sub-programme for FIVIMS.

The distinguished delegate of Denmark, on the same subject, expressed concern about whether we were fully involving other agencies, whether this was a cooperative effort instead of FAO going on


its own. The report of the Committee of Food Security, which is given to you in CL 112/15, actually refers to this. For your information the technical consultation that is referred to there was attended by IFAD, UNICEF, WHO, UNCHR, the World Bank, WFP, UNEP, UNDP and ourselves. In addition, GTZ, CIDA, the Canadian CIDA that is, INRA, Save the Children Fund and the Helen Keller International Foundation attended. So we are not going on our own on this particular exercise.

TeleFood was mentioned a number of times, although it is not an item in the budget, I should say, and I would like to emphasize that. This is not in the current biennium's budget. It is not in the next biennium's budget as a proposal. The only relationship to the budget is that there is an element in the budget for World Food Day activities and there have always been activities for World Food Day. It has often involved the Director-General appearing on television, it even involved a musical show last year. But there is no incremental cost of TeleFood itself in our budget.

There was a question from the distinguished delegate of Chile, who was a bit concerned about the increase in programme management under Policy Assistance, that is Programme 3.1.9. I should clarify that that is a technical adjustment. There was a problem in that, with the decentralization to the regional offices of the policy assistance groups, we happily transferred the cost of those groups to those offices but we did not reattribute the programme management cost in those offices across the programmes being managed. This we have corrected in the current budget. In fact that is also part of the reason why Programme Management goes down in Chapter 2.

Several delegates commented on, well two delegates actually, commented on the increase in Programme 1.3.1.3, which is Coordination. This is entirely due to the appointment of Ms Killings worth as the Senior Adviser to the Director-General on Follow-up to the Summit. A point of coordination was felt necessary at the highest levels of the Organization, so as to ensure that this is given the priority it requires. That level of resources covers her costs and that of a secretary. So this is not opening up the whole question of a central point coordination for every subject - it is really just to do with the World Food Summit.

A minor correction, and I would be happy to discuss it with the UK representative outside the meeting, and it regards what he said that only 50 percent of our Programme is technical. My calculation would be 77 percent, but I can see how we can calculate it many different ways. I would be delighted to agree to a definition with you on that.

There was a lot of discussion on normative versus operational activities. I am not sure it is useful to explore it in any depth because it really reflects the great divide of interest in the Organization. We do try to integrate them. We do try to make sure that the normative work benefits from the operational, and that the operational work benefits from the normative. It is not something that requires great effort. It is very natural to the whole process of the Organization and we get concerned when any of the programmes go out of balance.

I think the greatest criticism on priorities, however, was that the technical programmes got damaged in the zero nominal-growth proposal more than the non-technical programmes: the administrative programmes. I can only say that the Director-General regrets even more than you do that he has to present a proposal along those lines. It is simply that, given the time we have had available, we have not been able to make further efficiency savings of the type that you believe are possible. I feel I ought to explore it a little bit because it is important that you have some confidence in the Secretariat's efforts to continue to make efficiency savings.

Starting with some of the facts, the distinguished delegate from the United States of America made a couple of comments concerning what had been achieved, or rather what they felt may not have been achieved. In particular, there was a reference to the 465 posts which we have reported as having been reduced. Can I say that those 465 posts are fully reconcilable against the number of


posts that appeared in the budget on 1 January 1994, and represent the improvements made between that date and the date we published the information, I think probably in the document "Reforming FAO". You will see a larger number for net change when you examine the full Programme of Work and Budget which has the tables of posts. When I say the net change, a larger number for net change, I mean between 1 January 1994 and what is proposed for 1998-99. Were some of the posts vacant? Yes, they certainly were vacant. We made every effort to ensure that as many were vacant as possible, because if they were not vacant, we would have been paying large separation costs, we would have been damaging individuals' lives. The Director-General's policy, from the day he got in, from 1 January 1994, was to cease all recruitment of General Service staff and to become selective on recruitment for Professional staff. Subsequently, recruitment of Professional staff has been accelerated with the receipt of arrears-payments from the United States of America but no recruitment, with the exception of one or two very specialist categories, such as nurses and one or two technicians in the General Service category, has been made from external sources since 1 January 1994. I do not think there is anything wrong with those posts being vacant. That money is still a saving against the budget that you support.

In the case of Management Support Units, there was the suggestion that they had been created without savings and without transfers from the Central Administrative Departments. I have here an internal note from myself to Mr Hjort, dated 3 November 1995, because he insisted on my identifying precisely how much he had saved by being thoroughly unpleasant to various people around the Organization, and the savings were US$ 6.3 million. I would add that you can see the transfers out of the AF Department by looking at the adjustments to the 1996-97 Programme of Work and Budget, where you see enormous amounts of money coming out of administration, US$ 4.6 million out of US$ 43 million, part of which was due to the transfers to the MSUs.

Mr Hjort will comment on the policy aspect of FAORs. I would like to remind you, however, that we have not been slow to insist on savings in the FAORs. The Director-General's policy was not to cut down coverage, because he felt coverage was important, but to achieve the whole process of providing that coverage, preferably even more coverage by country, at reduced cost. And in the previous budget we managed to take out US$ 7.6 million, which is about 10.6 percent of that programme while maintaining the coverage. You will recall that that involved the replacement of international experts with National Professional Officers. That saved about US$ 8 million. You will recall we eliminated 67 General Service posts in the offices, that was another US$ 1.6 million, and various other adjustments, including the downgrading of Professional posts, FAOR posts, that remained in those offices. Within the current budget, there is another 3.9 percent reduction. So I think what I want to be able to convince you of, is yes, this is an expensive programme which provides a lot of services to Member Nations, but what we are trying to do is to make it more efficient and not reduce the services. If I may quote one of the delegates "more output for less input".

There was a comment concerning whether the Regional Offices and the Sub-regional Offices were effectively empowered, whether they were in fact able to operate and therefore whether it was an efficient operation. This was a concern internally, I might add, because there were some misunderstandings about what authority a Regional Representative or a Sub-regional Representative had. Recently the Director-General had to clarify that in a memorandum to all of those offices, making it perfectly clear that they have the flexibility to respond to requests for short-term policy advisory services and for technical support and for travel in the region. In fact, in summary, to respond to Member Nations' requests within their own region. So I would like to assure you that they do not come back here for approval for that sort of response.

I think the distinguished delegate of Germany commented on video-conferencing. I am pleased to say that we are in there with the World Bank at the front of it. I have to thank the distinguished delegate of the Netherlands and the Government of Netherlands because they very kindly refurbished the Queen Juliana Room - I do not know if you have seen it - with complete and up


to-date facilities for video-conferencing which we have been using. We are now doing a trial to see whether we can afford to implement it efficiently in Regional offices and Sub-regional offices, and that trial is currently underway.

Regarding the revisions of procedures, Ireland suggested that we should have a root and branch review of procedures. Can I say that that review has been completed? The implementation is a bit slow because much of it depends on us improving our financial and administrative systems which, as you are probably aware, are currently being rebuilt, but this is a project which takes several years so unfortunately some of the procedures have to remain in place until the systems are there to support the necessary changes. However, we take your point and it is being given attention.

Finally, on the question of efficiency, I'd like to say that we are still working towards efficiency savings as we indicated in the document. Last time, in the adjustments to the Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97, and the Director-General mentioned this in his speech on Monday, he commented on the fact that we had managed to make 70 percent of the total US$57 million out of savings which were either pure efficiency savings or were through reductions to our administrative departments. We will not be able to do it again this time. I am not saying we cannot make more efficiency savings, we can, and we are still working towards it, but we do need time and I would take the point South Africa made. South Africa said in their intervention that - if I can just find it -- they made a point which I think is very important to us all because we risk damaging the capacity of the institution. They said that progressive reductions with no end, that is excessive fiscal pressure at this stage, may do more harm than good. FAO needs time to rebuild and consolidate for the benefits of decentralization and efficiency gains to be realized - and it is so true, you really do have to give us a bit of time.

That is why you will see cuts in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3 when you would really like to see them in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6, but I am afraid that we will not be able to change that a great deal between now and the full Programme of Work and Budget if you require us to propose a zero nominal-growth scenario.

I am sorry I am taking so long. On the question of format, first of all, thank you for the comments about the improved format with regard to the inclusion of Other Income and also for the model that we have been presenting on Programme 2.1.1. It is appreciated. A lot of effort has gone into those changes, in particular to the new programme model. I do not know if you realize what that sort of change this means, but it means implementation or introduction of cross-sectoral projects within a division. That means that territory within the division has to be reassessed and reassigned. It is a very difficult process. Those people have worked extremely hard to try and come up with concrete ideas which will work, and I have to say that I fear the total implementation a little bit because there is just so much work involved in it. On the other hand we are determined to make it work and we will continue to pursue it with your approval.

There were a couple of concerns mentioned with regard to the format. One delegate commented that there was a lack of focus on results. Another, I think it was the distinguished delegate from Ireland, who asked whether we could give a clearer picture of what outputs we had produced and how they would contribute to the achievement of objectives. I would like to say the full Programme of Work and Budget will address that very fully. We will list all the main outputs. We are, as I mentioned yesterday, trying to do this analysis of cause and effect between outputs and objectives. We are trying to better define the objectives for each element. So I hope you will be at least better satisfied with what you receive there.

The question was also raised as to whether we could show extra-budgetary data at the sub-programme level. We will do that in the full Programme of Work and Budget. That was planned. We were not intending to show Other Income at the sub-programme level. That was discussed in some detail with the Finance Committee and they were worried that it would clutter the tables up


too much and that it was not very useful. If Council would like to have it, we have no problem providing it but it does make the tables a bit more complicated. My recommendation would be not to put it in the main tables, because I think you will find it confuses them. If you want it you may have it, it is not for any reason other than simplicity of presentation.

The distinguished Observer of Switzerland brought in a reference to, or the need for references to, coordination and cooperation and was hoping to see this in the Programme of Work and Budget. We have in fact discussed this on a number of occasions and I share his concern that we ought to be able to show how we are working with partners in the implementation of our Programme. We have not resolved how we will show it. We are bringing it into the project documents in support of the new programme model, so I will leave the question open about how we present it but we are not ignoring the question.

I am now moving on to a couple of peripheral issues, issues that do not fit into the previous three categories. The first is the question of arrears which was raised by the United States of America. If I recall the suggestion, it was that the Secretariat look at the flow of resources that might arise if a budget was approved at the level whereby everybody paid their arrears. I will not comment on what I think that budget level would have to be but let me just give you the arithmetic so that you know where we would stand. I have to use the figures at the beginning of this biennium because it is only in the biennial accounts that you truly calculate the deficit and you can see the whole picture.

The deficit at the beginning of this biennium was US$ 113.6 million. By the way you will find these figures in paragraph 59 of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget. The arrears at that time were US$ 213 million. If you received all the arrears then you would US$ 100.6 million surplus. So this is the net possible one-time benefit of getting all the arrears paid. If zero real-growth was approved we would get US$ 690 million. If the US figure of US$ 610 million was approved that would be an US$ 80 million difference. You can see from the figures that what worries me about it is that this is a one-time gain of US$ 100 million versus a permanent biennial loss in the base of US$ 80 million. So I am not sure it is all that inviting a proposition. Add to the possibility that we may wish to use arrears to fund After-Service Medical Coverage liabilities which have accrued, and noting that they total US$ 154 million for the Regular Programme and support costs, you then start to see that the room for movement is not that enormous.

Several delegates raised the question of UN reform and Mr Annan's letter to the Director-General of 17 March. If you do not mind, I think the Deputy Director-General is best placed to handle that.

I would just conclude that zero nominal-growth means substantial cuts to the substantive programmes of this institution. We cannot avoid it. We do not want it. This is the last thing we want to propose to you but we cannot avoid it. I cannot give you illusions that we can cover it all up and make it fine. We cannot. So I have to conclude on that slightly pessimistic note.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I will try to be brief. I would like to go on at some length and talk about some of the topics that I have talked about before but I am convinced that it probably would make no difference. In this context, I refer to the fact that we took an abnormally heavy reduction in the current biennium, the fact that inflation rates are different, significantly different, from country to country, and the fact that currency ratios change and differ by location, by currency. Therefore, a policy of zero nominal-growth is not, by any means, an equitable policy. It discriminates against certain organizations and of all in the UN system, taking those factors into account, it is so that a zero nominal budget would penalize us to a greater degree than the others in the UN system.

As I said, I am not going to dwell on that because these points have been made before and I see no evidence that those who propose a zero nominal budget are willing to take those fundamental and basic facts into account in coming to their conclusions on budget level.


I want to speak very briefly in response to the comments that were made about reform within the UN, simply to note, as the Chairman has already reminded you, that we have, in the public arena, a document that tells what this Organization has done in the name of reform. We also, of course, have the strategic compact of the World Bank. We are fully familiar with the work of the Executive Board of WFP. We have the letter that the Secretary-General sent to the President of the General Assembly.

The important thing to note about these other documents is that they are proposing what they intend to do or are doing. We have already reported to you, and this Council has complimented the Director-General on the reform initiatives he has taken. In your not recognizing this in your proposals for the next biennium, you of course are running the serious risk of penalizing the Director-General for being out in front on reform.

I have noted that you are quite pleased to report the actions that are being taken now by the others, after leadership has been shown by the Director-General.

Related to this is a puzzle, because those who have mentioned reform have, in the next paragraph, or so, spoken of a reduction in the country offices. They have linked that to our increase in the Sub-regional and Regional Offices. Certainly, the Members of this Council are aware that the functions of the technical specialists at the Sub-regional and Regional Offices differ very substantially from the functions of an FAO Representative.

I would note that there is a common theme in the reform proposals within the UN system, World Bank and so-forth. For example, I quote from the World Bank's Statement: "to move forward with further efforts during 1997 and beyond, to decentralize the Bank's operations in order to improve the quality of our services and responsiveness to our clients. This would include consideration of placing a significant number of Country Directors and staff in local offices and putting in place the necessary enabling processes at Headquarters."

You recall, those of you who have reminded us of it, that the Secretary-General's letter, the only time he speaks about the country level, he speaks about strengthening the offices at the country level. That is part of his reform process. Decentralization, I can assure you, is a very common topic throughout the System, and it means strengthening, not weakening country offices.

Finally, a footnote in connection with the cooperation and collaboration that is always a topic. The Director-General asked, and we finally have distributed, but somewhat late, an information document, C 97/INF/20, that gives, in a very summary way obviously, FAO's cooperation with UN System Organizations, Bretton Woods Institutions, Regional Banks, the CGI AR and in emergency and humanitarian assistance. That document, I understand, has been distributed to you. It does not answer the questions that were being raised by the Representative in Switzerland but I do believe that it has useful information for you, to see the scope of the cooperation and collaboration that we are engaged in with our partners.

J.C. MACHIN (United Kingdom): I have just three comments.

Can I take it that although Mr Wade, in his very helpful response, did not mention my request for a table dealing with the impact of inflation he has taken that request on board.

Secondly, and I certainly do not want to debate the question of UN reform in this forum, I have just looked very quickly at what the Secretary-General did say about the UN at the country level. It is certainly true that he talked about strengthening the UN at the country level but that does not mean providing additional resources. He talked about integration and sharing common premises.


Thirdly, the European Group and the North American Group had a very interesting meeting with the Director-General at 2 o'clock. After it, some of us were talking to the Director-General about this whole question of the FAOR and activity at the country level. He made some extremely interesting comments which found a great deal of synergies, certainly with the approach of my authorities to UN reform, in the sense that the approach is a differentiated one, that there is not a template which will fit into all countries. Country requirements are different and, therefore, the representational approach is different. The Director-General was talking about the implant of FAO's specialists in Ministries of Agricultures to help Ministers of Agriculture on policy, direction and formulation, very much in FAO's normative area.

I think what the Director-General said was very welcomed by those of us who were talking informally. Some of the information was actually relatively new to even those of us who have been associated with FAO for some years.

What I was going to ask was whether it would be possible for the Secretariat or the Director-General to produce a short paper, actually setting out that policy because I think it would clarify a lot of the questions that were raised in the debate today about FAO's approach to its representational infrastructure. It might dispel some of the perceived misconceptions and I think it would also help us, if it could be included, to clarify exactly how these costs fall, because they will be different from country to country.

The synergy between what the Director-General was saying and what we were saying was that the approach is a case-by-case one. If it is case-by-case, which I believe it is, then self-evidently the cost will vary. I think some kind of elaboration of that approach might actually help the Secretariat in its search for re-priortization, efficiency savings where changing priorities and requirements are in FAO's Member Nations.

I would very much welcome a response to those three points.

Jorgen Skowgaard NIELSEN (Denmark): Thank you very much to Mr Wade and Mr Hjort for a very exhaustive explanation.

However, on one point in my statement I do miss a reaction. I cannot recall if I got an answer concerning genetic resources. I do recognize that this is, to some extent, dealt with in another Agenda item, but the reason why I pursue it here is that here we are dealing with what I called a "core normative activity" where FAO is supposed to deliver to the UNCED follow-up process, to the Convention for Bio-diversity, to the CSD system, to the UNCTAD which is going to take place in a couple of months.

If FAO does not give sufficient attention to this duty to deliver to these processes, even though it is well-fitted to do it, then it will get out of business and somebody else will take over. Therefore, I think it is important to get a reaction on these questions.

EL PRESIDENTE: Antes de darle la palabra al Secretariado, deseo informales que también el Observador de Camerún y de Gambia nos han mandado por escrito sus comentarios que van a ser incluidos en las Actas del Verbatim.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: With respect to the comment about the country offices. I assume that what was being referred to is what we call National Correspondents. Let me go back. You will recall that we have an authorized complement of 78 FAO Representatives. They are accredited, at the present time, to 111, maybe now 112 countries. In other words, there is multiple accreditation.


We replaced the internationally-recruited Programme Officers with National Professional Officers. The authorization was 65, we have 8 of those posts in reserve. In a good number of countries where we have not had a representation, to use as an example, Central and Eastern European countries, a National Correspondent is selected where, at a very low cost, the government nominates a person to handle the communications and the liaison, if you will, with that government.

We have had communications with all these countries. Some of them have responded, I do not have with me at the present time how many have actually been established. It is still in process. This is a way to get coverage at minimum cost, if you will.

I trust it helps on those points. Did you ask a question too about the premises, the Country Office premises?

J.C. MACHIN (United Kingdom): Thank you for that response, Mr Hjort.

It is interesting to know that and, obviously, it is a low-cost option. We were actually talking about FAO's presence overall in a particular country and how it differed in some countries. Where there is a lot of programme activity there will be a FAO Representation, which is doing things like backstopping and supporting projects. In some countries, where that kind of activity is not taking place, there is an FAO expert actually in the Ministry of Agriculture, working with senior officials and the Minister of Agriculture on that country's agricultural problems and dealing with whatever advice the government looks to FAO for.

It was not simply the National Corespondent which, as I understand it, is a link between the country and FAO. It was about a much more substantive level that we were talking and it was that differentiation between the role of FAO in different countries that really encouraged our debate and prompted some questions, including the differentiation of costs and how one might, if one is prioritizing in one's programme approach to countries and as their needs change over time - and they clearly do change over time - then if you take an in-depth look at the arrangements, the relationship, that FAO has with that country, there may be scope for re-assessing the whole operational approach to particular countries and perhaps deciding whether you no longer need to do business in one way, but rather in another or, indeed, whether you need to do business at all because many of us in this room would like to have diplomatic representation in every single country, but we cannot afford it. Therefore we have to concentrate and focus our activities on priority requirements. That was the shape of the debate we were having.

DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I gather from that then, that you are speaking not only about national correspondents but also about project staff that happen to be in the country. At the present time we have about 600 of those, in the various countries around the world. I mean, many many more project staff, of course, than we do have FAORs. They are working within the country, usually they are out in the field, somewhere, on a project but they do provide the opportunity to respond to technical issues that the government might have, on short notice. They are, therefore, an alternative and as a matter of fact, the Director-General has said, let them be the first port of call for the FAOR when there is a problem or an issue to be addressed, to look first within the country to see what experts are there and then, go to the Sub-regional Office or the Regional Office or Headquarters or consultants.

Kezimbira Lawrence MYINGO (Uganda): I just wanted some clarification on the issue that has been raised by the United Kingdom. I would like to know which of the countries would be the ones to qualify for the country representative if we had that option. The one that has a very poor agriculture and is developing or the developed country that is well off, would qualify for that office?


Tony WADE (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I think the last question was probably hypothetical.

I wish to respond to two questions which I missed and apologize. To the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom, I heard your question and I actually wrote it down to answer, and then I skipped it.

The problem is that the inflation rate is not one rate, whereas the exchange rate is, as we only adjust the Lira, but the inflation rates are a whole series of complex rates that are built into the cost increase calculations - there is no one rate. So, for example, the rate for Professional salaries is different from the rate for General Service salaries. The General Service one matches the expected rate of wage increases in Italy but it does not obviously apply to everything we have. We use for goods and services the US inflater. For equipment purchases we use 50 percent of the US inflater because we believe, that through international competition, we get better than average prices and benefit from that. So, actually it would be quite complicated to come up with a simple rate. What one can do, of course, is work backwards and say, well if the net annual percentage increase was 3 percent, the cost increases would be this and if it was 3.5 percent it would be this much more, at 2.5 percent this much less but I cannot easily relate that average rate to all the individual rates that are in there. I do not know if I have responded to that question adequately but that was the hesitation in raising it.

On the other point from the distinguished delegate of Denmark, yes, there is no question about the priority that genetic resources deserves. In the case of plant genetic resources, I am not sure whether you were talking about the negotiation for the Undertaking but we are meeting with the Secretariat of the Convention of Biodiversity next week to try and work out what the next step should be there, so I cannot give you a straight answer for 1997. The budget does include, for animal genetic resources, resources for the Working Group on Animal Genetic Resources in 1998. So, I hope that responds, at least in part, to what you were asking.

EL PRESIDENTE: Si no hubiera ninguna otra observación, creo que debemos cerrar este punto. No quisiera dar la impresión, y yo esperé que del debate no resultara, que aquí se trata de una especie de football de relevo donde la pelota nos la vamos pasando del Comité del Programa y Finanzas al Comité del Programa y Finanzas, de ahí al Consejo, del Consejo al Comité del Programa y Finanzas, de ahí otra vez al Consejo y de ahí a la Conferencia, para que ésta luego, incapaz de resolver el programa de labores, la vuelva a mandar al Comité del Programa y Finanzas. Creo que este partido, así jugado no tiene sentido.

Por eso yo espero que puedan ustedes concordar conmigo en llegar a ciertas conclusiones muy firmes, para permitirles a los Comités del Programa en su próxima reunión, dar un paso adelante efectivo para facilitar el consenso.

Bien, al recordar la importancia y la trascendencia de la Cumbre Mundial de la Alimentación y las graves y, en muchos casos crecientes, carencias alimentarias y el alto grado de pobreza que abate a una parte muy importante de la humanidad, la mayoría de los miembros del Consejo manifestó el papel crucial que debe jugar la FAO en este contexto y la necesidad de reforzar, y no de debilitar, sus capacidades y sus acciones. Se recordó que la FAO había sido una pionera en el proceso de reforma que ahora lleva a cabo las Naciones Unidas y, también, en la reestructuración y en la afinación de sus programas.

Ello, se recordó también, había llevado a la FAO a ofrecer un producto mayor con base en insumos menores. En ese contexto, se hizo la reflexión de que los ahorros en la dimensión llevada a cabo en el pasado, serían difíciles de lograr en el futuro.


En sus intervenciones, los miembros del Consejo se manifestaron por una o por otra de las opciones del nivel de programas de labores y presupuestos para 1998-99, mientras que una delegación subrayó su posición de buscar un nivel presupuestario inferior al nominal cero.

Teniendo en cuenta todo esto, el Consejo no pudo llegar a un acuerdo por consenso sobre un único nivel presupuestario para el próximo bienio, aunque sí, la mayor parte de sus miembros se pronunció en torno al crecimiento real cero. Se recordó qué tan indeseable sería repetir los eventos que llevaron a la Conferencia del 95 a no poder aprobar el Programa de Labores para la Organización, el mismo que quedó suspendido por varios meses y negociaciones de última hora tomaron lugar allí.

En la búsqueda por acercar las diversas posiciones, el Consejo reiteró su petición al Director General de continuar identificando formas de minimizar costos y también de lograr más ahorros y eficiencia en los trabajos de la Organización, mantener la disciplina presupuestaria y tomar en cuenta el efecto del ajuste monetario derivado de los efectos del tipo de cambio sobre el PLP; espero que ustedes puedan estar de acuerdo con esto.

Asimismo, les pregunto a ustedes distinguidos miembros del Consejo, si pueden estar de acuerdo con esta conclusión, es decir, si podemos acordar que se pidió al Director General proponer, en la formulación futura del proyecto de labores y presupuesto, formas para absorber el costo del Seguro Médico Post-Servicio sin afectar el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto o en todo caso minimizando su impacto. Yo espero, sinceramente, que podamos estar de acuerdo en principio con estas cuestiones. De esta manera podríamos entonces decir: se coincidió en la importancia de aproximar las opciones en torno a las cuales la gran mayoría de los miembros del Consejo se pronunciaron. Me refiero, muy en particular a la del crecimiento cero y la del crecimiento nominal cero.

El fundamento para una recomendación de compromiso para la preparación del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto completo, podría buscarse mediante la aceptación de la recomendación formulada al Consejo por los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas en su reunión conjunta de abril próximo pasado, y como creo que del debate se desprende, podríamos entonces decir, que el Consejo hizo suyas las recomendaciones contenidas en el párrafo 1.16 de dicho informe conjunto de los Comités de Programa y de Finanzas. Esto permitiría entonces a la próxima reunión conjunta de los Comités de Programa y de Finanzas, trabajar sobre los escenarios del Programa de Labores y Presupuestos y presentar sus conclusiones al 113° período de sesiones del Consejo, el cual se esperaría podrá hacer una recomendación definitiva o más aproximada al consenso a la Conferencia de noviembre.

Tras apreciarse el nuevo formato y también el modelo de presentación de su programa 2.1.1. en este Resumen de Programas Labores y Presupuesto, los miembros del Consejo expresaron diversas preferencias por actividades que consideraban prioritarias en un sentido o en el otro. Se acordó que se reflejara en el proyecto de programa de labores final, las conclusiones a las que llegaron COAG, COFI, COFO, CPPB y CSA. En sus intervenciones, los miembros del Consejo señalaron expresamente los sectores que según ellos requerían fortalecimiento; me voy a referir simplemente a unos cuantos de manera muy general. Obviamente el debate fue mucho más rico que esto que voy a decir, pero se mencionó por ejemplo el sector forestal, el pesquero, recursos genéticos, diversas actividades normativas, el papel de la mujer en el desarrollo, el PESA, EMPRES, el PCT.

A la luz de los resultados de la Cumbre y de la Guía sobre Prioridades que se derivan del Plan de Acción, la mayoría de los miembros concluyó que la importancia de esos programas merecía expander las actividades de la FAO en vez de contraerlas y que ya se había llevado a cabo también, en el pasado, una sustancial reducción. Entre otras se había tenido que mantener una reducción en los puestos de la Organización y también en la categoría de los mismos.


Estas delegaciones concordaron en términos generales con la forma en que las prioridades habían sido traducidas o aplicadas a este Resumen de Programa de Labores y Presupuesto 1998-99, aunque enfatizaron sus preferencias y en particular el necesario equilibrio entre los aspectos operativos y normativos de la Organización. Argumentaron que si bien la FAO no es un agencia de desarrollo, sus actividades de campo y operacionales tienen efectos muy significativos, que llevan a ser multiplicados y expandidos por otras instancias y por gobiernos nacionales, entre otros, haciendo aquellas actividades fundamentales para el desarrollo agroalimentario de los países en desarrollo. Ello obligaba, desde luego y en consecuencia, a un necesario equilibrio entre los aspectos normativos y operacionales de la FAO.

Al recordar los objetivos establecidos en el 110° período de sesiones del Consejo para fincar prioridades, varias delegaciones señalaron la necesidad de afinarlos más y de identificar un número menor de prioridades de tal suerte que, en función de ellas, se identifique qué partes del Programa de Labores podrían ser sacrificadas sin afectar lo importante; en particular, para responder a las ventajas comparativas auténticas de la FAO en la lucha contra la pobreza y la inseguridad alimentaria, el logro de un desarrollo sostenible, el impulso a la cooperación internacional, el papel catalítico de la FAO en la coordinación y cooperación con otras agencias, tanto de Naciones Unidas como de la sociedad civil y, en fin su papel como centro de excelencia.

Lamentaron, entre otras cosas, que en la propuesta de crecimiento nominal cero se afectaron más a los programas técnicos que a los no técnicos y se pidió que se revisara esta situación. Las prioridades así revisadas deberían no solamente ser menores y más precisas a partir de una programación estratégica, sino responder también al papel de la FAO en el contexto de otras conferencias internacionales que atañen al sector agrícola y alimentario, de la seguridad alimentaria, así como en la búsqueda de una mayor sinergia dentro del sistema de Naciones Unidas. Una mayor sinergia también entre los aspectos normativos y operativos de la FAO.

A partir de estas prioridades y sinergias recomendaron que deberían identificarse los recortes al programa que fueran necesarios, en vez de aplicarlos en toda la línea a modo de porcentaje. Esto conduciría a identificar metas en el tiempo cuya consecución sea evaluable en el contexto de una programación estratégica.

Asimismo, hubo varias declaraciones entorno a aquellas esferas en las que podrían efectuarse ahorros, en particular se mencionaron las Oficinas de Representación de la FAO, a la luz del proceso de integración y cooperación de Naciones Unidas, así como lograr ahorros ulteriores derivados de una mayor sinergia dentro de los sectores y subsectores, de evitar la duplicación de actividades con otras organizaciones y de lograr mayores eficiencias en la entrega del programa.

Distinguidos delegados, se hicieron muchos otros comentarios, unos ya han sido respondidos por la Secretaría y yo no me voy a referir a ellos. Estoy seguro que su informe los va a incluir. Simplemente permítanme terminar diciendo que a la luz del conjunto de los comentarios expresados por los miembros del Consejo y en particular atendiendo a la recomendación 1.16 del informe de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, se pidió a la Secretaría preparar la base para la discusión de la próxima reunión de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas y de su reunión conjunta, con la finalidad de acercar las posiciones y de aplicar los criterios y prioridades de manera más transparente.

Dichas conclusiones, o las conclusiones a las que lleguen los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, serán transmitidas entonces al Consejo en su 113° período de sesiones, que esperemos pueda contribuir aún más a la búsqueda de un consenso en torno a esta cuestión tan relevante para el futuro de la FAO.

De nuevo, sé que me encuentro en una situación difícil, pantanosa, no he reflejado todos los puntos de vista y, quizás no lo he hecho de manera equilibrada, lo reconozco. Pero al menos he intentado


llegar a algunos puntos de acuerdo que permitan dar pasos hacia adelante. Yo espero que tengan un poco de paciencia y, que además, estos comentarios que he hecho y que posiblemente ayudarán a preparar el informe serán revisados por todos ustedes a la hora de su aprobación. Si no hubiera entonces, ninguna otra observación de parte de ustedes, distinguidos delegados, después de ello concluiré este Tema 16.

D. BOMMER (Chairman, Programme Committee): Actually, I think after this very comprehensive reply by Mr Wade and Mr Hjort, it remains for me to say that the Members of the Programme Committee have certainly very carefully listened to a rich debate which gave us some impression on the type of discussion expected for September.

The question was actually made by Mr Wade to me. I should support his views, if we are not going to discuss elements within sub-programme and programme levels. I think it is certainly true, that there would not be enough time in those few days in which we need to go to each element. The elements are certainly being considered when you look to the sub-programme to which they belong and their interrelationships. I think the answer is partly yes and partly no.

Actually, the reply was considerably whole and we are very happy to see that they are following our past recommendations. I think that the programme planning and presentation are moved towards better timing, activities, indicators and targets. It is facilitated to discuss elements and even to have an opinion of relative importance, or relative priority, should one have to consider any adjustments. Thus, I wanted to mention here, and certainly, in relation to the Special Programme on Food Security, as many members of this debate have pointed out to this office, the Summary comes up so often that we become confused.

As Mr Wade confirmed, we requested to have this effort put forward. We were ensured that it will be the full Programme of Work and Budget where full information of the contributions from various parts within the Programme of Work and Budget to the Special Programme are being identified. What is very important is that you have been absolutely assured that the services provided by various services and units within the Organization are being compensated, and in their turn, provide inputs in missions, inputs in reviewing, etc.

Therefore, it is being handled in the same way as services provided to TCP and services provided to any UNDP project, when funds from extra-budgetary nature come into the Organization. I think this is something very important to keep in mind. The impression was that it was slipping away, but it is, I think, a compensation in which certainly the respective programmes should be in a position to carry on their agreed programmes, in addition to the services they provide to the Special Programme on Food Security.

These, I think are the major points I heard today and tried to give an opinion on. However, Mr Chairman, I have the feeling that the debate very much scales to the points in which we summed up our debate. I know now, and this is very important, if you have clear guidance, that we might even further improve the formulation of the priorities which have been rightly referred to by Mr Wade, as those established by the Council. They looked into this again and found it more innovative in the priorities. So you will look to us for advice on the final development, or the final judgement and advice we have to give to Council on the full Programme of Work and Budget in September.

Ronald ROSE (Canada): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, and please express my congratulations for the excellent job that you did do in summing up what was, in fact, a very long and rich debate. You have done an excellent job in fact in covering the views in a balanced way.

My point relates to only a minor part of your summary in which you had noted that there was an agreement on aspects of the After-Service Medical Costs, particularly that they not be used in a certain way, and it is my delegation's intention to address the After-Service Medical Costs as we get


to the report of the Finance Committee. So, I am hoping that you will permit further debate on that particular point.

19 Review of FAO Statutory Bodies and Panels of Experts
19 Examen des organes statutaires et des groupes d'experts de la FAO
19 Examen de los Organos Estatutarios y Cuadros de Expertos de la FAO

EL PRESIDENTE: Distinguidos delegados si no hay otra observación daría por concluido el Tema 16 y pasamos ahora al Tema 19, Examen de los Organos Estatutarios y Cuadros de Expertos de la FAO.

Lamentamos que el señor Hjort tenga que dejarnos porque es tarde, pero estoy seguro que el señor Wade hará la parte que le corresponde a la Secretaría al introducir este tema.

Bien distinguidos delegados, como ustedes recordarán, el Consejo encomendó a los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas el mandato de examinar las posibilidades de economías y eficacia en el ejercicio del gobierno, aspecto que se estudia ahora en este tema.

Tenemos ante nosotros dos documentos, el CL 112/14 y el CL 112/20. Estos documentos son, considero yo, muy informativos y útiles. Tienen mucho material analítico, en particular se solicita la opinión del Consejo sobre el párrafo 26 por lo que sugiero, que ustedes en sus intervenciones hagan referencia a este punto. Además, es oportuno señalar que los comités examinaron diversas opciones para mejorar el calendario de los períodos de sesiones de los Comités Técnicos del Consejo, con objeto de evitar el problema de la acumulación extrema registrada este año y que muchos de ustedes recordarán. Estoy seguro que no tendrán dificultades para refrendar estas propuestas, en virtud de que ellas derivarían en una organización más racional y una mejor aplicación de la orientación de estos comités sobre las prioridades en los respectivos sectores.

Deseo también llamar su atención al hecho que ciertas medidas examinadas por los comités, tales como la eliminación de la Sesión Conjunta en enero en los años en que se celebra la Conferencia, requieren enmiendas en los textos básicos que deberían por tanto ser examinados por el Comité de Asuntos Jurídicos y Constitucionales.

Como recordarán, el Consejo ha tomado varias iniciativas para reducir el costo de las sesiones de los Organos Rectores, la duración de las mismas y el volumen de documentación. Los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, siguiendo las orientaciones del Consejo, elaboraron directrices designadas a economizar recursos y a mejorar la eficacia de nuestras reuniones.

Deseo también llamar su atención al documento de información CL 112/INF/12 en donde estas metas se han alcanzado ampliamente. El documento informa, en particular, sobre el Consejo y la Conferencia, pero yo sé que la Secretaría tiene a la mano información detallada respecto de los otros Organos Estatutarios de la Organización.

El Consejo debería manifestar su aprecio, su reconocimiento a la Secretaría por los resultados obtenidos y valdría quizá la pena, mencionar dos o tres cosas al respecto. Me refiero a la recomendación hecha por el Consejo, en el sentido de que la búsqueda de mayores economías no debería en ningún modo perjudicar la calidad de nuestros debates ni poner en peligro el proceso de reflexión, de intercambio de ideas, que es fundamental para la toma de decisiones o para afinar la toma de decisiones en la Conferencia sobre temas tan importantes como los que trata el Consejo.

Tengo la impresión, y quizás ustedes coincidan conmigo después de ver esta información, de que hemos llegado a un punto límite en hacer reducciones que podemos introducir en nuestros instrumentos y métodos de trabajo como los documentos, los informes, el tiempo a disposición para nuestros debates, etc. y, por lo menos en algunos casos, ir más allá en ese camino, podría conducir


a tener sesiones inconclusas o a tomar decisiones apresuradas o inclusive a la falta de claridad y objetividad que son fundamentales para la buena marcha de la Organización.

Les invito por tanto a que a la luz de este tema, y de las cifras que nos proporciona la Secretaría que son de por sí elocuentes, ustedes se pronuncien. Solamente para mencionar algo, creo que ustedes deberían tomar nota del hecho de que esta reunión del Consejo comparada con la reunión que se celebró hace dos años, le ha costado a la Organización 51 por ciento menos; menos de la mitad. Creo que esto es un logro importante, pero estoy seguro que coincidirán conmigo en que no podemos lograr otro 51 por ciento porque tendríamos que desaparecer como Consejo. Estamos por tanto en una situación limítrofe.

El Presidente del Comité del Programa tiene muchas observaciones que hacernos, él presidió este difícil punto y le voy a dar la palabra para que introduzca plenamente el tema.

D. BOMMER (Chairman, Programme Committee): I do not want to make many comments, actually I only wanted to draw your attention to the recommendations which we have made.

First of all, I wish to define paragraph 26 regarding recommendations, decisions and so on. I am advising you that we have established a Contact Group and Belgium has taken on her to coordinate this group, to advise us for the next meeting in September, on the proposals contained in Annex 2, related to the Commission and Committees, that is Groups C and D, the Expert Committees and Panels. I think this needs careful checking with regional representations and you might ask, maybe, a resident representative you know to inform the Council where we stand on this issue. We felt that it is important not to rush, but to look carefully at those bodies as much as we could to promote savings, and to have unnecessary and dead bodies cut out. Dead bodies do not cost money you know! I just wanted to clarify this. This was my point to add to your introduction.

EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, doctor Bommer y creo que además el Consejo debe reconocerle a usted y desde luego agradecer a los miembros del Comité de Programa y de Finanzas por el trabajo realizado en torno a este asunto tan delicado.

Le corresponde, entonces, al señor Wade presentarnos por parte de la Secretaría este tema.

Tony WADE (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): In fact the Director-General, in his introduction, made reference to the progress achieved in increasing savings and efficiencies in governance under the guidance of yourself and the Council. As you, Mr Chairman, and Dr Bommer have really covered most of the elements of it I will just refer briefly to the paper CL 112/20 which is the one on the Review of Statutory Bodies and Panels of Experts.

We would emphasize this is a review of the bodies by the Governing Bodies themselves so, the analysis is being conducted using a methodology which was endorsed by the Council. The views expressed by individual Members and the Regional Groups have been taken into account and are summarized in Annex I to this report.

We would comment that the timeframe for the implementation of changes is likely to be rather long. At least two biennia, when you think about it, because it probably would be most productive if Council and Conference have, before they take final decisions, the views of the Committees of Council, COFI, CCP, whoever, and where appropriate, the Regional Conferences and the Codex Alimentarius Commission. It is not that this is necessarily legally required but you would want to consult the Commissions themselves, if you are to eliminate their subsidiary bodies.

We believe that this should not be allowed to dilute the process. The Committees will need clear guidance and should then, in turn, consult the bodies under study for their views. In addition, a


number of bodies could be eliminated or modified by the Council and the Conference at its forthcoming sessions, where there is general agreement on the course of action.

The thrust of the paper is to suggest that more use should be made of ad hoc task groups or interim bodies with a limited life, rather than creating statutory bodies. Recommendations include the following: First of all, to eliminate the formal statutory status of many subsidiary bodies and encourage their work to be carried out through ad hoc, task or interrelated groups with greater networking; then, to encourage an increase in bodies operating with autonomous budgets and a substantial proportion of member funding; and then, to simplify the statutes, the terms of reference, etcetera, so as to decrease formality and increase efficiency. Now, these bodies are primarily in Annex 2, and those are the bodies that are subject to the Contact Group that has been set up by the Programme and Finance Committees.

Mr Chairman, you have already drawn attention to the recommendations in paragraph 26, so I do not think it would be fruitful to repeat those. We look forward to receiving the Council's instructions.

EL PRESIDENTE: Creo que sería útil también para el Consejo conocer algunas cifras adicionales que se exponen en el documento CL 112INF/12, sobre los otros Organos Estatutarios, y le voy a pedir al Secretario General, señor Pérez de Vega, que haga uso de la palabra para presentarlo de manera resumida.

SECRETARY-GENERAL: The Council has already been provided today with a number of figures and percentages and I certainly do not want to add to the burden of the distinguished delegates.

As you have requested, Mr Chairman, the Council may note from the information document CL 112/INF/12 that we also make reference to the savings achieved in running the Conference, which are considerable. Between 1993 and 1995 the total cost of the Conference went down from 5.2 million to 3.6 million, about a 30 percent decrease, accompanied by a corresponding decrease in the duration, from 20 days to 14 days, of which twelve were effective meeting days. We expect, it is a bit too early to say, but we expect that this year, within the same duration, we will be able to bring the costs down a little bit more through efficiency savings, particularly in documentation.

If you permit, Mr Chairman, the Council might perhaps be interested in some data related to the Council Committees, the Programme Committee, Finance Committee, CCLM and the Technical Committees. I am referring to three years which are comparable because the three of them are Conference years in which the agendas of these Committees are more or less similar.

The combined duration of the Committees in 1993 was 72 days, in 1995, 63 and in 1997, 54. The corresponding costs decreased by 10.5 percent in 1995 over 1993, and in 1997 we expect a further saving of 10 percent over 1995. It should be pointed out that this also absorbs a considerable increase in one of the Committees, the CFS, for obvious reasons, having been both the main preparatory body to the Summit and the body in charge of its follow-up. The savings in the nontechnical committees are slightly higher than those in the technical committees. In 1995 there was 14 percent savings in the Programme and Finance Committee sessions. With reference to 1993, and in 1997, a further 12 percent savings is estimated.

If I may just give you a general overview considering Conference, Council and all the Council Committees together, in other words what you would call governance as a whole, in 1993 the total number of meeting days were 108, in 1995 this figure went down to 91 and the corresponding decrease in cost was 18 percent. In 1997, the 1995 figure which was 91, will come down to 76 by the time we finish the year, with a further decrease in cost of 13 percent over 1995. I am sorry if the figures may sound a bit confusing, but I thought you might be interested at least in the order of magnitude.


Régine DE CLERCQ (Observateur de la Belgique): Vous voyez que nous nous entendons très bien dans la Réunion conjointe du Comité du programme et du Comité financier. En effet, Monsieur le Président, les Comités de programme et financier ont bien voulu me désigner comme coordonnateur d'un petit groupe de contact qui examinera les propositions contenues dans le document qui est présenté au Conseil (document CL 112/20) et notamment celles qui se réfèrent aux groupes C et D de l'annexe II de ce document.

Le Comité a estimé qu'il était nécessaire d'établir un tel groupe de contact parce que, en effet, cette annexe qui se réfère notamment à ces deux groupes contient une très riche information; au fond, j'ai compté le nombre de recommandations et de constatations, elles sont à peu près 700 au total; il aurait été sans doute très difficile pour le Conseil d'examiner tout cela un par un, et le groupe de contact s'est chargé de faire ce travail qui est un travail de moine, Monsieur le Président, j'espère que tout le monde s'en rend compte. Le petit groupe de contact a déjà eu une première réunion, qui était une réunion procédurale, où nous avons établi la composition du groupe, ainsi que notre méthode de travail et notre calendrier. Bien que tout le monde ait été très chargé nous sommes parvenus à nous rencontrer et à établir cela. Nous allons tout de suite prendre la vache par les cornes après le Conseil et nous aurons déjà notre première réunion le 12, c'est-à-dire la semaine prochaine, pour en avoir une deuxième au mois de juillet, ceci parce que nous voulons associer à notre travail le Secrétariat et notamment M. Markie de la Division de l'évaluation qui a préparé le document. Nous pensons que nous pourrions bénéficier largement de son "input" dans notre travail mais il sera absent du 15 juin au 15 juillet.

Nous espérons pouvoir terminer notre travail à temps pour pouvoir faire un rapport aux prochains Comité de programme et Comité financier et ainsi de faire également bénéficier le Conseil du travail que nous aurons fait. Je vous remercie beaucoup de m'avoir donné la possibilité d'expliquer ce que nous entendons faire.

EL PRESIDENTE: El Consejo ha tomado nota de los trabajos de dicho grupo de contacto, de su intención de reunirse en dos ocasiones y reportar ulteriormente a los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas. Esta información que usted nos ha dado seguramente aparecerá también en el Informe del Consejo y es útil porque sabemos entonces que en el próximo Consejo dichos comités reportarán al Consejo sobre los resultados de su trabajo.

Adel Mahmoud ABOUL-NAGA (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): I would like simply to reaffirm that the Finance and Programme Committees have dealt with this Agenda item in a crystal-clear manner, and we did have an agreement on these issues in order to achieve the best possible efficiency.

I have a number of observations concerning the main bodies, namely, the Council, the General Conference and the Finance and Programme Committees. I believe that, as some have said, we have reached the maximum limits of savings and efficiency and, therefore, if we go beyond that level, we would affect the work itself. As for the main committees and bodies, I believe that there might be room for saving and we would listen to the recommendations of the Secretariat in this connection.

As for item 1.13, concerning regional conferences and the idea of holding these meetings once every three years, we believe that this is a very long period indeed, and we do hope that the present timetable will be upheld, that means once every two years.

David BEEHAN (Ireland): I would ask if you could give the opportunity to the Netherlands to make a statement on behalf of the European Community and its Member States.


J.B.PIETERS (Observer for the Netherlands): The fact that, at the request of two Council Members, you have given the floor to two observers at the beginning of this debate shows the relevancy of the discussion on statutory bodies.

On behalf of the European Community and its Member States, I would like to thank the Secretariat for its efforts to compile the information on statutory bodies and panels of experts, and present it in an easily accessible way in document CL 112/20.

We welcome the opportunity to review the structure of FAO bodies, in view of the changing internal and external conditions, on the basis of this document, which contains a great deal of useful information.

The approach taken in this review has some drawbacks which we should be aware of, when drawing conclusions or making recommendations for further action.

Firstly, insufficient evaluation of the functioning of the bodies has been carried out, in terms of work undertaken and its relevance to the mandate of the Organization.

Secondly, the ratings given by the Secretariat's technical staff on the usefulness of the various bodies in the tables of Annex II are helpful in so far as they reflect the FAO Secretariat's views. In our view, it is essential, however, that Member Nations of the statutory bodies express their views, and make their own assessment of the usefulness of these bodies.

We welcome the setting-up of a Contact Group of the Joint Programme and Finance Committees to that effect. We find a number of interesting and good ideas in the document, which will contribute to a more flexible and efficient Organization and a better governance. I would like to make a few comments.

With regard to the technical committees of the Council, such as COAG, COFO, COFI, CCP and CFS, significant steps have indeed been taken to obtain cost reductions and other economies. This process can still be continued. The bodies should indeed meet earlier in Conference years.

The Secretariat proposes that these committees become less involved in Programme of Work and Budget issues, which should, in the Secretariat's view, be left to the Programme and Finance Committees.

We are strongly opposed to this idea, because these technical committees are the only bodies with open-ended membership which can review the proposals for the PWB, before being submitted to the Conference. These committees have, besides other duties, the important task to comment in depth on the subject matter of the PWB proposals in their respective areas, and this should be maintained. In reviewing the activities of the Organization, they should address normative as well as operational activities. They have to meet once in a biennium, have an agenda that covers the full range of their mandate, and have documentation that is concise and to the point. The sessions of the committees should continue to be of interest to experts and other representatives of Member Nations, by allowing them to discuss substantive items.

The document does not address the work of the Programme and Finance Committees in relation to that of the Council. If, as we propose, the technical committees maintain their important task with regard to the Summary PWB, there may well arise a need for reconsidering the task and functions of the Programme and Finance Committees. Such an exercise needs to be linked to the functions and composition of the Council. We fully agree that increased flexibility and dynamism should be sought for subsidiary bodies and expert groups by increased task orientation and sunset clauses.


Concerning funding, we find that the general principle should be that they receive funding from the Regular Programme. In particular, we support efforts to facilitate and encourage an arrangement for some statutory bodies to move to autonomous, self-funded budgets. Regular Programme funding should include a certain flexibility with respect to priority subjects, such as the necessary Extraordinary Meeting of the Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, proposed to be held before the Conference in November this year and, in any case, before the next CBD session in May 1998.

Greater participation by civil society in the statutory bodies of FAO is recommended in paragraph 23.5 of the working paper. Although this is often to be welcomed and encouraged, it is a matter which the membership of each statutory body should consider on a case-by-case basis.

The benefits of further change can best be captured if the action is initiated from within the statutory bodies themselves, in accordance with existing criteria. This is, in particular, important if incremental costs are increased by such arrangements.

We recommend that the Committee on Mediterranean Forestry Questions be merged with the European Forestry Commission or, as an alternative, that it be fully funded by its Members.

Secondly, that the funding of the European Commission on Agriculture should be reviewed, and that there be a redefinition of the future role of the Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission before accepting the strong endorsement of the technical staff assessment, as expressed in the working paper.

The European Group expressed the view, as contained in Annex I of the document, that the Commission on Fertilizers and the FAO Fertilizer Advisory Committee of Experts addressed an important subject matter area, and FIAC provided a repeatable example of private sector cooperation. The Secretariat proposes, in Annex II, to merge the two bodies as a new Commission on Plant Nutrients with mixed government, private sector and NGO membership. Whereas we concur fully with both memberships proposed, we have doubts whether the subject warrants the setting-up of a new commission. In our opinion, plant nutrients is typically a subject that falls within the mandate of the Committee on Agriculture. This will make the work of this technical committee more substantive, the need for which I indicated earlier in my statement.

If necessary, plant nutrient issues could be discussed in a sub-committee of COAG. After all, the Commission on Fertilizers has not met since 1990, despite the highest ratings by FAO technical staff on the usefulness of that body.

Provided that the above-mentioned remarks are taken into account, the European Union can generally accept the procedures proposed in the document on actions to be taken by the Secretariat, in considering and submitting proposals to the Conference.

Ms Lynnett M. WAGNER (United States of America): The United States commends the Secretariat for undertaking this extremely valuable review. It gives us an excellent overview of the wide range of bodies that has gradually evolved over the years. Clearly, it is opportune for the Council and Conference to carefully deliberate and see how we can make this array of machinery more effective and efficient in our decision-making process. We also welcome the formation of the Contact Group.

This process reinforces the important principle of instituting sunset provisions when bodies are established. We appreciate the efforts which have already been made to reduce the length and frequency of many meetings, and to sharpen the focus of meetings by curtailing documentation and reducing the number of agenda items. We agree with the suggestion in paragraph 7 that more can be done in this area, including the posting of supplementary annexes on the WAICENT website.


However, Member Nations should be notified when this is done.

The United States has a number of general comments to offer, but let me first turn to the specific actions that are being requested of the Council in paragraph 26. We generally support all of the proposals listed, although we do have a few concerns and questions. Sub-paragraph (b) of 26.5, which refers to the relationship of FAO's technical committees to the UN Commission on Sustainable Development, is somewhat unclear to us. Before we can agree to reassert the role of the technical committees, we need to clarify what that role is.

It is also somewhat unclear what the Secretariat's message is regarding having standing items at meetings. Paragraph 9 indicates that items covered by regional statutory bodies could be standing agenda items at regional conferences, but paragraph 23.4 informs us of the resulting inefficiencies of forcing standing agenda items on meetings. We tend to support the latter view. Standing agenda items reduce the flexibility of bodies and should normally be avoided. We would also like to know what FAO's plans are with respect to integrating food security discussions into the regional conferences.

We agree that efficiency measures should not damage the substantive value of meetings. The United States believes that expert groups and technical consultations are essential to a science-based organization such as FAO. Nevertheless, we should continue to seek ways of utilizing them more efficiently without detracting from their fundamental substantive role.

This Council needs to be very careful about pre-judging the outcome of the revised International Plant Protection Convention. We believe that one of the results will be a greater role for Regional Plant Protection Organizations in developing and reviewing plant quarantine standards, but it will be some time before the revised IPPC goes into effect, so we suggest that no action be taken regarding the RPPOs at this time.

The proposal to formally abolish most Codex committees, which have adjourned sine die, appears to have merit. We believe that the Council should encourage the Codex Alimentarius Commission to take such action.

We are very supportive of the actions taken by the Committee on Commodity Problems during its last two sessions to rationalize and strengthen the functions of the Inter-Governmental Commodity Groups.

COFI and COFO agreed on a number of proposals to strengthen the regional structures; we also support this, as well as the approach outlined in paragraph 23 of moving more to task-oriented networks as a less formal mechanism of backstopping major bodies, and we believe that no body should be referred to as "permanent".

Obtaining the views of civil society partners is essential for much of FAO's work, as recognized in paragraph 26.5. Better ways need to be found to provide civil society with the opportunity for a meaningful input. They frequently have technical insights beyond what government officials can contribute at meetings. On the other hand, we fully understand that FAO, as a UN Specialized Agency, requires decisions that only governments can render.

With respect to paragraph 14, which would require combination of the plant nutrient and fertilizer bodies, we are raising the question that there may be problems combining an inter-governmental group with an industry advisory group. We would also like to know how the other sectors of civil society involved with resource conservation and stewardship aspects of fertilizer use and plant nutrients will be addressed by FAO.


Several Member Countries had given financial support to the conduct of both statutory and non-statutory bodies and we trust that this practice will continue. However, we must assure funding of those meetings that are most essential to the decision-making processes.

Finally, we realize that most of the details of the document before us are contained in the annexes. Like most Council Members, we are familiar with some of the meetings referred to, but clearly not all. We look forward to continuing work by the Contact Group in following up on these recommendations.

Shahid RASHID (Pakistan): We are pleased to note that the review of statutory bodies and panels of experts has been initiated with the desired seriousness of purpose. We trust that this review will be conducted with due thoroughness so as, at least, to meet the twin objectives of increasing not only the savings, but also the efficiency of the statutory bodies.

As was stated earlier in our intervention on the previous item, we also believe that there is a limit to the extent of savings that can be effected without compromising the capacity of this Organization to perform its mandated functions.

We have also noted that a Contact Group has been established by the Programme and Finance Committees to have an in-depth look at the various recommendations contained in the document CL 112/20. We have just heard a preliminary report from the representative of Belgium and shall be eagerly looking forward to the result of the work of the Contact Group. Therefore, at this stage, we would not like to go into the details of the different proposals but would just like to make a couple of submissions.

First, we believe that there is considerable scope for reducing the repetitive debates, particularly on the Programme of Work and Budget, in the Committees of the Council: the Programme Committee, the Finance Committee, the Council, and Commission II of the Conference. This is an area which must be examined in detail with a view to reduce duplication and repetition and to streamline the process so as to seek efficiency and savings.

Secondly, regarding the regional conferences. We believe that this is a useful forum where the regional orientations are explicitly brought to the front. This is a beneficial arrangement which helps the Organization to develop its strategic orientation, keeping in view the regional considerations. So it is important to maintain the current frequency of the regional conferences of meeting once a biennium, and any longer duration would be detrimental to this process.

The recommendations contained in paragraph 26 of this document are ones on which we can generally agree, and we endorse the proposed scheme and the measures that are envisaged.

With these brief comments, we would just like to state that we shall be submitting our comments on the detailed proposals through our representatives in the Contact Group.

Alan AMEY (Canada): Canada wishes to compliment FAO on the initiative shown in the review of statutory bodies and document CL 112/20. Canada supports the general conclusions in paragraph 26, concerning the elimination, modification, mergers, etc. for bodies which are moribund or recommended for change. We also support the legal framework and existing rules for setting or eliminating bodies in paragraph 26.

Like the EU, I would like to support the observations of the Programme and Finance Committees, to spread out further the budget process so that the observations of one stage in the process can be reflected in the next.


Canada appreciates the efforts of FAO to make the meetings shorter, have less lengthy documents and provide a presentation which is action-oriented by focusing on recommendations. As can be seen in the supporting documentation the savings are substantial.

At the same time, Canada also has some observations about some of the provisions indicated in paragraph 26. In paragraph 26, point 3(d) for example, we support the inclusion of civil society organizations in as wide a scope of FAO bodies as possible. We view them as valuable partners who can contribute to and enrich our discussions. Concerning regional bodies, Canada supports the recommendations of COFI and COFO that these regional bodies take more responsibility for their support and funding. However, Canada recommends that the implementation of these decisions be referred to the regional fisheries and forestry commissions involved.

On Codex-related bodies, Canada would like to refer the recommendations of the study to the forthcoming Codex Executive Meeting so that they may consider these recommendations in more depth.

With regard to the specific bodies to be altered and changed by the recommendations, Canada would like to support the more detailed work of the Working Group of the joint Programme and Finance Committees which is being chaired by Belgium.

Finally, I would like to support the suggestions made by the EU and USA, that sunset clauses be built into any new bodies created.

José ROBLES AGUILAR (México): Durante los últimos años, nuestra Organización ha sido objeto de un proceso continuo de reforma. Hemos apoyado estas medidas en cuanto han contribuido a incrementar su eficiencia.

En relación al ejercicio actual, deseamos reiterar el acatamiento a los principios básicos que se deben considerar plenamente. En primer lugar, el respeto de la estructura establecida por los documentos básicos de nuestra Organización; asimismo deseamos que la parte del ejercicio subsiguiente se realice con la mayor participación de los Estados Miembros.

Por lo que respecta a las instancias estatutarias, Conferencia, Consejo y sus Comités Técnicos, consideramos que se ha llegado a una situación en la que, como han señalado los distinguidos Delegados de Pakistán y de Egipto, cualquier situación de reducción adicional podría poner en juego su eficiencia, por lo que consideramos que no se debe adoptar ninguna medida adicional en cuanto a extensión y frecuencia de sus reuniones y de la documentación.

Nasreddine RIMOUCHE (Algérie): Dans le cadre de la recherche de plus de gains et d'efficacité et des économies, il est proposé dans le document CL 112/20 la suppression ou le fusionnement de certains organes au Comité ou Commissions au groupe. Mais nous rappelons ici la recommandation de la Session conjointe au mois d'avril, du Comité du programme et du Comité financier contenue dans le rapport quant à la prudence et à l'examen approfondi vis-à-vis de la prise de décisions au sujet de certains fusionnements et certaines abolitions. Nous recommandons également qu'il faudrait solliciter l'avis de ces Commissions, notamment régionales ou sous-régionales avant toute décision qui soit prise dans ce sens.

Moussa BOCAR LY (Sénégal): Les Nations Unies à New York ont entamé depuis longtemps un processus de réforme intergouvernementale qui a encore à faire son chemin. Il se trouve que la FAO, après que son Directeur général ait engagé un processus de réforme du Secrétariat, s'engage maintenant dans cette voie de restructuration intergouvernementale. Je crois que c'est le Représentant du Brésil, qui n'est plus aujourd'hui parmi nous, qui avait lancé la première fois cette idée, il y a un an de cela. Voilà donc que nous nous trouvons dans le cadre même de ce processus.


Nous l’accueillons avec intérêt dans la mesure où cela peut conduire à l'efficacité. Mais avant d'engager le vif du sujet, laissez-moi avec les Représentants de l'Egypte, du Pakistan et du Mexique souligner que nous sommes arrivés, nous semble-t-il, à un seuil en ce qui concerne les économies en matière de réunions, et nous devons faire attention car nous devons être efficaces. Ceci dit, laissez-nous au niveau des remarques préliminaires nous concentrer un instant sur une question qui nous importe dans la sous-région d'où nous venons, la lutte contre le criquet pèlerin et nous sommes un peu inquiets du paragraphe 15 qui propose que les pays desservis par l'OCLALAV puissent participer aux travaux de la Commission FAO de lutte contre le criquet pèlerin en Afrique du Nord-Ouest. A priori, nous ne voyons pas de problèmes à une participation des pays de l'OCLALAV aux travaux de la Commission FAO en Afrique du Nord-Ouest, mais nous pensons également que la FAO doit aider l'Oclalav car, si ses Etats Membres ne participent pas on connaît toutes les raisons -qui sont des raisons financières- qui font que ses Membres, bien qu'intéressés ne puissent pas y participer. Est-ce-que la situation changerait si les Etats Membres de l'Oclalav étaient invités à participer à la Commission FAO de lutte contre le criquet pèlerin en Afrique du Nord-Ouest ? Je crois que c'est une question fondamentale qu'il suffit de poser.

C'est bien beau de faire des propositions, mais il suffit de voir encore les possibilités de réalisation de celles-ci. Nous pensons d'ailleurs que compte tenu de la gravité des problèmes dans la région de l'Afrique de l'Ouest, il faudrait même qu'on se demande pourquoi la FAO ne constituerait pas une "Commission FAO de lutte contre le criquet pèlerin" en Afrique de l'Ouest car, depuis ces dernières années, la situation ne cesse de s'aggraver.

Ceci dit, de même au paragraphe 17, on nous parle de la Commission de trypanosomiase animale africaine qu'il est proposé d'abolir. Nous voudrions connaître les raisons. Toujours est-il que nous pensons que les pays africains les plus concernés, surtout dans la partie equatoriale de notre continent, devraient être consultés pour que l'on puisse prendre une décision motivée. Cela m'amène d'ailleurs à souligner après d'autres délégations, l'importance que le Groupe africain que le Sénégal préside, accorde au respect de la périodicité de la tenue des conférences régionales, car elles ont montré leur importance en ce qui concerne la coordination des politiques dans la région, et je crois que cela a été amplement démontré du reste lors de la tenue du Sommet mondial de l'alimentation. Nous pensons que c'était un forum de haute importance qu'il ne saurait être question de réduire dans sa périodicité.

Ceci dit, laissez-moi en venir au paragraphe 26. D'une manière générale, nous trouvons que les recommandations sont intéressantes et pourraient être appuyées; nous voudrions toutefois nous joindre aux interrogations posées par la Représentante des Etats-Unis au petit b) du paragraphe 26.5 où l'on parle de réaffirmer le rôle des comités techniques dans le débat sur les politiques internationales en tenant compte de la répartition du travail qui se profile avec la Commission du développement durable et ses Groupes d'experts. Est-ce-qu'on pourrait être plus explicite car nous avons nous-mêmes la même interrogation que l'éminente Représentante des Etats-Unis.

Nous voudrions fortement appuyer le paragraphe 26.5 (c) qui vise à amender les fonctions du Comité de l'agriculture, des pêches et des forêts pour réaffirmer le rôle dans l'examen des priorités sectorielles et grandes orientations et de la FAO tout en évitant, et nous soulignons cela, de s'engager dans un débat approfondi du Programme de travail et budget qui a lieu au sein du Comité du programme, du Comité financier et du Conseil. En effet, nous avons regretté et déploré, Monsieur le Président, que ces comités techniques, lors de leur dernière session, aient passé une majeure partie de leur temps à s'intéresser au Programme de travail et budget d'ensemble de notre Organisation. Nous pensons que ce n'est pas là le lieu et que cela a été un débordement de leur mandat, et nous voudrions mettre un terme à cette tendance qui est tout sauf souhaitable. Voilà en résumé, les affirmations que je tenais à faire au nom du Groupe africain.

Juan NUIRY SANCHEZ (Cuba): La region de América Latina y el Caribe estima que cualquier ejercicio relativo a la economía y eficacia en el ejercicio de gobierno debe estar orientado


fundamentalmente a aspectos que no contradigan el mandato de la Organización, que respeten su estructura básica de gobierno y que deberán ser decididos por los órganos intergubernamentales correspondientes.

Resulta importante, señor Presidente, la aplicación de los acuerdos de la reciente Cumbre Mundial sobre la Alimentación y consideramos que las agendas actividades y presupuestos de las diferentes instancias de la Organización deberán adecuarse a los acuerdos alcanzados en este relevante evento.

Particular importancia para nuestra región revisten las actividades operacionales de cooperación que realiza la FAO. Consideramos que se debe efectuar un estudio analítico de las mismas, incluyendo una evaluación del proceso de descentralización y someterlo a consideración de los gobiernos con objeto de mejorar cualitativamente y cuantitativamente dichas acciones que para los países en desarrollo significan un aspecto medular en su relación con la FAO.

Entendemos, señor Presidente, que toda reforma debe significar ante todo una evolución, que se debe traducir en una mayor eficiencia, cualquier ejercicio de esta naturaleza además de que debe tener en cuenta las medidas previamente aprobadas deberán ser concluidas al respecto. La región de América Latina y el Caribe ha participado con sus criterios en estos procesos que la Organización ha impulsado durante los últimos años.

Estimamos que cualquier tipo de medida que se acuerde sobre el particular deberá ser debatida en el marco de las competencias respectivas de los diferentes órganos de la FAO, aquéllas que corresponden al Consejo y/o la Conferencia, deberán ser discutidas plenamente en las mismas. No consideramos adecuado que se adopten decisiones con órganos que no estén facultados para ello.

De igual manera estimamos que los temas y el alcance de los mismos deberán orientarse según las decisiones y el marco establecido a tal efecto por los órganos competentes. Esto fue analizado y elevado a la Secretaría de la FAO, manifestando nuestras consideraciones como región. Además, a la luz del debate, queremos manifestar que sobre las conferencias regionales entendemos apoyar su reforzamiento, mantenimiento y periodicidad cada dos años como ejercicio necesario para nuestra región. Esto es una oportunidad que calificamos como única, muy particular y, repito, muy necesaria.

Finalmente, señor Presidente, nos unimos a lo que han planteado anteriormente Egipto, Pakistán, México y Senegal, que hay que observar con mucho cuidado que las economías no pueden ser un obstáculo para el desarrollo normal y eficaz de la FAO, fundamentalmente en aspectos que se han señalado muy concretamente.

Roberto O. VILLAMBROSA (Argentina): Mi delegación concuerda y apoya firmemente lo decidido por el Grupo Regional de América Latina y el Caribe que fue expresado hace un momento por el señor Embajador de Cuba.

Mi delegación ha apoyado el examen de los Organos Estatutarios y Cuadros de Expertos de la FAO y la revisión de su marco jurídico con vistas a mejorar el ahorro y la eficiencia, sin perder de vista los objetivos de esta Organización.

Creemos que un debate en los órganos que corresponden en el Consejo y en la Conferencia para mejorar la transparencia sobre las medidas que se tomen, debe ser fundamental para que todos los gobiernos tengamos presente cuales son los elementos que estamos tomando en cuenta en nuestras acciones futuras.

Quiero referirme a dos puntos. Uno al de las conferencias regionales que fue ratificado por algunos miembros. La región, mi región, América Latina y el Caribe considera importante que las conferencias regionales se realicen tal y como está previsto cada dos años y es consciente también


de la necesidad de las actividades operacionales como herramienta fundamental de la Organización para la cooperación internacional.

Quiero referirme ahora, señor Presidente, al párrafo 26 que nosotros, en general, concordamos con los lineamientos generales del párrafo, en particular con el punto de la necesidad de crear un marco jurídico para darle una mayor flexibilidad a la creación o eliminación de órganos que puedan llegar a proporcionar una creación de grupos ad hoc para favorecer las actividades de la Organización.

Una rápida lectura del documento al cual damos la bienvenida y que nos presentó la Secretaría, nos hace ver que en algunos casos, hay órganos que hace algo más de 20 años que no tienen reuniones y, que creemos que no ocupando específicamente el presupuesto, si en más de 20 años no se han reunido, debe haber alguna razón para ello y en consecuencia el grupo de trabajo y la Conferencia tendrá que tomar nota para sacar las conclusiones que correspondan.

El párrafo 26.13 sobre la flexibilidad para el funcionamiento de los órganos, también es un elemento importante para el análisis del grupo de expertos para tener la transparencia necesaria en los órganos correspondientes.

Creo que como elemento importante para el análisis podríamos ver que la experiencia de las reuniones de este año fue la siguiente. Voy a tomar algunas al azar, en las que mi delegación y, en particular, yo estuve en condiciones de participar. En el COFI nosotros establecimos, le dimos mandato a la Secretaría para que comenzara a elaborar dos estrategias, tres planes de acción y varias actividades. Todo esto, si yo no me equivoco, el sector pesca tiene seis o siete funcionarios. ¿Cómo van a hacer con este presupuesto? No lo sé señor Presidente. Es deber de todos nosotros responder.

La Comisión de Recursos Genéticos que acaba de terminar, examinó el compromiso intergubernamental al cual todos le dimos una gran prioridad, estableció dos grupos fitogenéticos y zoogenéticos. Si yo no me equivoco, señor Presidente, seguramente la Secretaría estará en condiciones de corregirme. Luego de esta prioridad que le establecimos todos los gobiernos para el próximo programa y presupuesto del bienio que viene, esta comisión tiene menor presupuesto que lo que tuvo hasta ahora. ¿Cómo va a hacer señor Presidente? No lo sé, pero creo que un documento de presentación de cuáles son las prioridades que nosotros mismos hemos establecido y cuáles son las necesidades presupuestarias, es algo que nos debe llevar a reflexionar. Le fijamos prioridades a la Secretaría pero al mismo tiempo estamos retaciándole los fondos necesarios para que la Secretaría opere las prioridades que nosotros mismos le estamos estableciendo.

Quiero con esto hacer un llamado a la reflexión señor Presidente, que es para todos y, una última cosa menor, que es evitar la duplicación de actividades con otros órganos y agencias del sistema. Me parece que este es un tema menor en relación a lo que acabo de expresar, pero es un tema también a tener en cuenta para mejorar la eficacia de nuestra Organización.

Ralph BOYCE (Barbados): Let me associate myself with all the Caribbean countries which ours represent, with the comments from our colleagues from Cuba and Argentina about the need to review and carefully analyse the functions and rules of various bodies of FAO but, at the same time, bearing in mind the key objectives of the Organization. I do not think we should simply cut and reduce for the sake of cutting and reducing and, in this regard, I must mention that we need to bear in mind the needs of the particular regions of FAO. Again I refer to the Caribbean and Latin America and in cutting we hope you will not reduce, if anything you should try and increase, the support to these particular regions. So in terms of the reductions of the meetings, we would definitely not be in favour of a reduction of meetings. At least once in two years would be adequate. Indeed often that is not often enough, but I do not think we should cut beyond that.


As to the question of groups which are existing, as the Report said, only on paper. These should really be disbanded almost immediately. This comment has implications for the monitoring of these groups, and I would suggest that in future groups should be required to report. There should be a careful monitoring of the work of these groups because where a group can be out of existence for 20 years, that has serious implications for the role of the FAO central executive, central bodies in monitoring the work of these particular committees.

It seems to me that in our countries the suggestions about ad hoc groups is also a very good one. I think very often groups can be set up to do a particular job, within a particular time.

I like the phrase "sunset provisions", but sometimes sunset does not come at all, there are clouds and you cannot see it, it has extended further than it should really be. I think a group should be given a very careful, clear time limit within which the work, and at that time they should, if they want an extension then they get an extension and request it. I do not think it should be set up as we call it "open-ended". I agree that no group should be regarded as permanent, except in the context of the use of the word permanent in our region. In Barbados the Permanent Secretary is, in fact, not permanent and is rotated and moved quite a bit, as a hangover from the British terminology. So that is the only way we would agree to permanent in the context of moveable. But in the normal English use of the word we should not have any group that is permanent, that is it should not have an existence that is open-ended, it should be given a deadline in which to do its work and to report.

To get back to my original point, there should be very careful monitoring because, if a group can exist outside of its usefulness - as we say in English -- if it can outlive its usefulness, then something is wrong with the persons who have actually been supposedly monitoring these groups.

Again let me close as I started to support the views of Cuba and Argentina in the need for careful review of the bodies but bearing in mind the objectives and the raison d'être of FAO so we do not -- as we say in English - "throw the baby out with the bath water". We need to only throw out those things which have'outlived their usefulness, which are no longer functional.

Indeed we may well set up new bodies by looking at the rules and functions of existing bodies very carefully and seeing where we could collapse or combine the roles of two or three in one and after that use ad hoc groups to do particular tasks within specific stated deadlines.

Ibnu SAID (Indonesia): First of all, on behalf of the Indonesian delegation, I would like capitalize a statement by our colleagues from Pakistan and Mexico.

Secondly, the Indonesian delegation would like to extend its appreciation of the Secretariat's review on FAO Statutory Bodies and Panel of Experts contained in the document CL 112/20.

We would like, also to make a brief statement in particular to the conclusion in the document contained in paragraph 26. In general we agree with the conclusion to amend the function of the technical committees COAG, COFI and COFO to reassert the role examining the mandate of CFS to monitor the follow-up of the World Food Summit.

Kezimbira Lawrence MIYINGO (Uganda): I will be quite brief. All along we have been talking about the process of decentralization and the new system that the Organization is developing. In the system of decentralization decision-making becomes the responsibility of the small units that are involved in the solutions that are being evolved. I think if we are decentralizing and making Regional Offices more responsible to decide on issues that concern them, then we need these Regional Offices to have regional meetings at the frequency that I think right today is not too much.


The Statutory Bodies that exist in most of the Member Nations and which fall within the regional areas, I think are arms that are going to help these Regional Offices in order for them to be able to measure up to the tasks that they face within their Regions.

Therefore, I would like to propose and support the idea that before these bodies are scrapped or are removed, there should be a bottom-up discussion within the regions and the countries concerned as to the rationale of removing some of the bodies, if at all necessary before we summarily remove some of the bodies.

Unless we do this, I think we might end up with the desire to strengthen our decentralization but at the same time weaken it if we remove some of these bodies which are intervening for the weak developing countries.

EL PRESIDENTE: No hay ningún comentario que desea hacer la Secretaría y por tanto podemos de inmediato resumir esta parte del debate. Tenemos que decir en primer lugar que el Consejo tomó nota con satisfacción de los documentos presentados para este tema del debate, en particular el informe de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas así como del documento de la Secretaría que contenía información muy rica en datos y análisis respecto del examen de los Organos Estatutarios y Cuadros de Expertos de la FAO. Asimismo, el Consejo tomó nota con agrado del hecho de que en su reunión conjunta los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas crearon un grupo de contacto para revisar lo correspondiente al Anexo 2 del documento CL 112/20.

El Consejo reconoció asimismo, que la parte substantiva del examen de los Organos Estatutarios y Cuadros de Expertos había sido ya realizada, así como de sus métodos de trabajo y de la documentación e información pertinente. Señaló no obstante, que habría algunos otros ahorros que llevar a cabo y que éste debía ser un proceso de evaluación y de revisión permanente, que debía asegurar la transparencia, la pertinencia, en fin, la utilidad de estos órganos y de esas reuniones para contribuir a los cometidos de la Organización. Era necesario en este sentido que los Estados Miembros jugaran un papel activo en dicho proceso de examen en donde parte del afán debería ser evitar duplicaciones, no sólo dentro de la FAO, sino también en el contexto de otros organismos de Naciones Unidas, entre órganos afines.

El Consejo en su conjunto coincidió en que se debería llegar a un justo medio donde no sólo se busquen ahorros sino que se garantice la máxima eficacia para los fines de la FAO.

Se indicó también la importancia de que la Secretaría cuente con el personal y con los recursos necesarios para contribuir y para apoyar los trabajos de estos órganos y de sus reuniones, de la documentación y la preparación de sus informes.

Los Miembros del Consejo en sus participaciones hicieron múltiples recomendaciones sobre la reducción o eliminación de reuniones, la revisión de temas para debate en órganos técnicos, así como la fusión o eliminación de órganos. A la luz de esas consideraciones, el Consejo aprobó el contenido y las recomendaciones del párrafo 26 e instruyó al Grupo de Trabajo creado por los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas a que revise a la luz de los comentarios aquí expresados los temas correspondientes.

Bien, distinguidos delegados, creo que esto es lo que respecto al debate podemos decir y, si no hay ninguna otra observación, damos por concluido el Tema 19.


17 Reports of the 76th (Rome, 28-29 January 1997) and 77th (Rome, 21-29 April 1997) Sessions of the Programme Committee
17 Rapports des soixante-seizième et soixante-dixseptième sessions du Comité du Programme (Rome, 28-29 janvier 1997 et 21-29 avril 1997)
17 Informes del 76° (Roma, 28-29 de enero de 1997) y 77° (Roma, 21-29 de abril de 1997) períodos de sesiones del Comité del Programa

D. BOMMER (Chairman, Programme Committee): As you have noted, from the debate you had, there is no need for me to introduce this document at great length.

Both reports on both meetings were included in your discussions on the Programme of Work and Budget, besides the Summary. Certainly, the attempts to find a way of accommodating our joint meeting culminated in decisions in the joint meeting with the Finance Committee on the Programme of Work and Budget.

I can only say that our debate, related to the Programme Evaluation Report and related to the Medium-Term Programme, have been fully reflected, I think, in the debate you had, and I have noted what you discussed here. Again, this is not the Programme Committee alone, it was a joint meeting with the Finance Committee and the statutory bodies.

Finally, I wish to call the attention of the Council to the brief note on a number of JIU Reports. We had made some remarks on this issue at the time. It has not been available for very long in order to discuss those Reports, but we have heard that we can find support for most of them in the time to come.

May I ask, Mr Chairman, if you would just ask the Council to adopt, if there is not any major controversial view, the two reports from the Programme Committee.

EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias Dr Bommer. Creo que antes de hacerlo el Consejo debería agradecerle a usted y a los Miembros del Comité del Programa por el esfuerzo que llevaron a cabo en presentarnos este Informe que tanto ha nutrido nuestros debates de los Temas 14, 15, 16 y 19 y, desde luego, ahora, sobre los otros puntos que usted ha mencionado y que están contenidos en el Informe. Someto a la consideración del Consejo la aprobación del Informe de las dos sesiones del Comité del Programa. ¿Hay algún Miembro que desea hacer uso de la palabra? No habiendo ninguno, el Consejo aprueba el Informe del 76° y 77° período de sesiones del Comité del Programa.

18 Reports of the 86th (Rome, 28-29 January 1997) and 87th (Rome, 21-29 April 1997) Sessions of the Finance Committee
18 Rapports des quatre-vingt-sixième et quatre-vingt-septième sessions du Comité financier (Rome, 28-29 janvier 1997 et 21-29 avril 1997)
18 Informes del 86° (Roma, 28-29 de enero de 1997) y 87° (Roma, 21-29 de abril de 1997) períodos de sesiones del Comité del Finanzas

18.1 Status of Contributions
18.1 Situation des contributions
18.1 Estado de las cuotas

18.2 Budgetary Performance 1996
18.2 Exécution du budget, 1996
18.2 Ejecución des presupuesto de 1996


18.3 Scale of Contributions 1998-99
18.3 Barème des contributions 1998-99
18.3 Escala de cuotas para 1998-99

18.4 Other Matters Arising out of the Reports
18.4 Autres questions soulevées dans les rapports
18.4 Otros asuntos planteados en los informes

EL PRESIDENTE: Pasamos ahora al Tema 18 de nuestra agenda, los informes del 86° y 87° período de sesiones del Comité de Finanzas que tiene 4 puntos: el estado de las cuotas, ejecución del presupuesto 1996, la escala de las cuotas para 1998-99 y otros asuntos planteados en los informes.

Como ustedes saben, el Comité de Finanzas examinó y comentó temas que han sido ya tratados en nuestros debates sobre el Tema 16, el 19, el 14, el 15, pues ustedes los tienen a la mano y creo que ya han sido discutidos con suficiencia. Sobre los cuatro puntos de este tema yo creo que sería conveniente que el señor Forbord, en representación del Presidente del Comité de Finanzas, los presentara y los aclarara. Son temas importantes. Ya hemos escuchado que algún grupo de países va a hacer aportaciones adicionales para facilitar el consenso entorno al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto y estamos desde luego esperando esos y otros comentarios.

Le paso la palabra al señor Forbord para que presente el informe, en el entendido de que en su tratamiento los vamos a tomar todos en conjunto, es decir todos los puntos 18.1, 18.2, 18.3 y 18.4.

Thomas Austin FORBORD (Chairman, Finance Committee): The Report of the Finance Committee provides both considerable information to the Council, on FAO's financial position, on its personnel matters and on other administrative issues. It also presents a number of issues on which the Council will need to make decisions or to provide guidance to either the Secretariat or the Conference.

The information Items you can read, you have already. Let me, in introduction, simply highlight the decision issues that the Council now faces.

You are asked to review a Draft Conference Resolution on FAO's Scale of Contributions for 1998-99. In keeping with established practice, the proposed FAO scale is derived from the UN Scale of Assessments, taking into account the slight differences in membership. The draft scale that you have in the Report is based on the UN Scale adopted in 1994.

A major issue discussed by the Finance Committee was whether to use the 1994 scale or, instead, to use the UN scale which will be adopted by the UN General Assembly this year. The Council, in its examination of this issue, may also want to look at that question.

Secondly, the Council needs to express its views on the Director-General's proposal to abolish the Incentive Scheme on Payment of Contributions, which was begun in 1993 on an experimental basis.

The Finance Committee, in its Report, notes that the impact of the Incentive Scheme on the cash-flow of FAO has not been significant and that the cost in terms of reduced income, reduced miscellaneous income and, therefore, higher assessments for Member Nations has been considerable, reaching more than US$2 million this year.

Some Members of the Finance Committee supported the Director-General's proposal to abolish the Incentive Scheme while other Members did not.


Council should provide guidance on the Director-General's proposal and may wish to prepare a Draft Resolution for Conference's approval in November.

A third issue, one with even greater budgetary implications, on which Council should focus, is the financing of the after-service benefit plans of FAO employees, and more specifically, the financing of accrued liabilities of FAO for the After-Service Medical Coverage Plan. The Finance Committee made a number of recommendations on ways of dealing with this problem. They are contained in paragraph 3.77 of the Committees' Report.

For Council to consider those recommendations it will, however, need further information from the Secretariat on the cost of implementing the recommendations.

In his introduction to the budget debate yesterday, Mr Wade indicated that a "set-aside" for After-Service Medical Care would cost US$17 million in the next biennium, but he did not indicate whether that was the implementation of the Finance Committee recommendations or some other method of dealing with the problem. Before deciding whether you want to pay US$ 17 million per biennium, you will want to find out what you are buying.

Finally, I want to refer to a remark that Chairman López Portillo made in his summary of the debate on the PWB. He said he felt the Council wanted the cost of dealing with the accumulated After-Service Medical Cost Liabilities to be absorbed without impact on FAO Programmes. I suggest to you that US$ 17 million in additional costs per biennium cannot be absorbed without impact on FAO Programmes. You need to keep that in mind as you consider this issue.

EL PRESIDENTE: Gracias por su introducción, distinguido señor Forbord, que seguramente va a ser útil para los debates. El Tema 16 está cerrado y los comentarios que hice, quizá usted los haya mal interpretado al hacer esta observación; yo lo que he hecho fue preguntarle al Consejo, en ese momento, si estaba de acuerdo en recomendar al Director General que estudiara opciones para absorber el costo del seguro médico post-servicio sin afectar el PLP o buscando minimizar el impacto sobre el PLP. Ahora usted viene a plantear un asunto, a abrir un asunto en este Consejo, que está ya tratado y que es una recomendación del Consejo que no voy a permitir que se reabra. Esa recomendación está hecha. Pueden hacerse aquí otras, pero ese debate está concluido. Yo creo que el Director General puede, y esa es la manera de facilitarnos el debate, puede hacer recomendaciones que sean útiles, que puedan considerar ustedes para acercar las diferencias entre las posiciones sobre el PLP que se han planteado. Yo reconozco que como parte del Informe del Comité de Finanzas hay un tratamiento de este tema, que se trata además en el 1.16 del Informe Conjunto, pero yo creo que ese aspecto en particular no es útil volverlo a debatir en esta ocasión y menos bajo la consideración de que no será posible no absorberlo sin afectar el PLP.

Tengo que hacer estas observaciones porque, repito, la forma en que procedemos tiene que ser ordenada y debemos darle al Programa la validez que merece y en el tratamiento de los temas tenemos que remitirnos solamente a lo que estamos estudiando, en el mismo momento en que lo hacemos.

En todo caso, distinguidos delegados, está abierta a la consideración de ustedes los puntos 18.1, 18.2, 18.3 y 18.4 sobre Estado de las Cuotas, Ejecución del Presupuesto 1996, Escala de Cuotas 1998-99, y Otros Asuntos planteados en los informes salvo, desde luego, volver a abrir el debate sobre temas concluidos.

Les quiero advertir también que tengo planeado interrumpir el debate sobre este punto a las 19.00 horas para permitirle al Coordinador del Grupo Oficioso de Trabajo de Composición Abierta, que celebró una reunión hoy en la mañana de 9.00 a 12.00 horas y que concluyó sus trabajos, que presente a este Consejo las conclusiones a las que llegaron. Es indispensable que lo hagamos a esa hora porque, conforme me han informado muchas delegaciones, los expertos que estuvieron


presentes en el día de hoy y, entre otros, el propio Coordinador de ese Grupo de Trabajo, tendrán que partir hoy en la noche y no podrán estar con nosotros mañana por la mañana. Es por eso que tendremos que dar la entrada al Tema 11 de nuestra agenda hoy a las 19.00 horas y si no concluimos los trabajos sobre este Tema los continuaremos el día de mañana a las 9.30 horas.

Bien, distinguidos delegados, pregunto al señor Mehboob si tiene alguna otra observación que hacer, en ese caso ofrezco la palabra en el entendido, repito, de que este tema se tomará en conjunto.

David BEEHAN (Ireland): I would like to ask again, Mr Chairman, if you could give the opportunity to The Netherlands to make a statement on behalf of the European Community and its Member States.

J.B. PIETERS (Observer for the Netherlands): Mr Chairman, you had just made mention of the fact that we should not re-open the debate on Agenda Item 16. However, I announced that I would like to deliver an additional statement on that Agenda Item, but, it is very relevant for this Agenda Item as well. It is very brief so I am asking you whether I am entitled to deliver it.

EL PRESIDENTE: Desde luego la idea que usted nos ofreció en ese momento fue que contribuiría a afinar el propósito de lograr el consenso de manera que es bienvenida su intervención.

J.B. PIETERS (Observer for the Netherlands): As you invited this, on behalf of the European Community and its Member States, I would like to return briefly to your question with a few ideas on how we think the FAO Secretariat should proceed in order to enable Members to reach, at Conference, a consensus on the PWB.

We are of the opinion that we must try to avoid a repetition of the situation we were in two years ago. We should leave Conference later this year with a budget and a programme for the next biennium. The European Community and its Member States would like to contribute to this.

We want to stress, again, the necessity for the FAO Secretariat to seek, in the first place, efficiency gains and fully support, in this connection, the suggestions made in the joint meeting of Programme and Finance Committees with respect to synergies, identification of duplication and process-related efficiencies.

At the same time, in our opinion, it is necessary to pursue the systematic review of every basic activity of the Programme and thoroughly prioritize those activities on the basis of the criteria identified by the 110th Session of the Council. Those criteria should be strictly applied and updated, if necessary. The results of the Review should be presented to the Programme Committee and to the Council.

We already paid attention to the Country Offices. As far as these Country Offices are concerned, we recommend that the FAO Secretariat proposes objective criteria, in order to decide which Offices have to be maintained or not.

As far as after-service medical coverage is concerned, we would want further information on the implications of the recommendations made by the Finance Committee, in particular regarding: firstly, the way arrears which should be paid could be used for liabilities incurred in the past; and secondly, the way personnel could participate in the sharing of surface costs.

Finally, on how to proceed further, we support the recommendations contained in the conclusions of the joint meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees, but only insofar as they respect the parameters set out in our earlier statement, focusing on efficiency, savings and possible cuts in non-substantive activities.


May I now turn, to the Report of the Finance Committee as such. Only some brief comments.

Firstly, the budgetary performance. We note with concern the projected transfer of resources from the technical programmes to general policies and direction support and common services, and share the Finance Committee's concern that this trend should be reversed. These transfers have been exercised without prior consultation of Member Nations and are not always in line with the priority setting which should remain the guideline.

Secondly on the Scale of Contributions. I have already pointed out that the European Community and its Member Nations contribute 38 percent of the total Regular Budget. Discussions are underway in New York on the revision of the Scales of Contribution, which involve a number of political questions. In our opinion it would be premature to anticipate, in FAO, on the outcome of those negotiations.

Thirdly, and to conclude, the incentive scheme for early payment. We recognize the impact of this Scheme on the cash-flow of the Organization, but cannot accept that it would be withdrawn and that no distinction would be made between early and late payers. Arrears cost money. We, therefore, regret to see that a total of US$ 134 million, which represent as much as 41 percent of the budget for one year, is in arrears. Late payers create additional costs for the Organization and, therefore, for all of us, as well as delays in programme execution.

EL PRESIDENTE: Hemos tomado nota de su declaración sobre todo de la parte pertinente para el debate del Tema 16. Pero desde luego no voy a reabrir de nuevo el foro para tratar esos temas en esta ocasión. Además habíamos ya advertido en el Tema 16 que usted haría comentarios adicionales al respecto.

Ronald ROSE (Canada): Let me assure that it is not my intention to reopen debate on Agenda Item 16 and risk your ire.

My delegation wants to respond to two of the points raised in the report of the Finance Committee. The first point deals with the Incentive Scheme to encourage early payments, mentioned in paragraph 3, point 66. The Incentive Scheme was put in place to deal with a particular problem, Mr Chairman, that of regulating the cash flow of the FAO and encouraging Members to pay their assessments early. We are somewhat surprised, therefore, by the conclusions which the Finance Committee drew from the evidence which was provided to it. We note that a table was provided to the Committee, that table which is reproduced in paragraph 3, point 66, showing that the number of countries making their payments, within the first three months of the FAO year, has increased from 22 to 41, that is, by an annual rate of increase of some 17 percent, since the Scheme was introduced. That seems to be a rather successful performance. We also note that the funds provided have grown from $79 million to $102.6 million, an annual rate of increase of 8.4 percent; and, in fact, increased to $150.4 million in the current year. A figure which represents a full 46.9 percent of assessed contributions.

These figures sound quite positive, yet the Finance Committee concluded that the impact had quote "not been significant since its inception in 1993". My delegation cannot agree. On this point, Mr Chairman, we would like to ask a simple question of the Secretariat. Has the need for the Scheme, that is, the need for countries to make early payment, disappeared? Is the Organization not still running short of cash in the first couple of months of the year? In this regard, I recall Mr Wade's comments yesterday morning, in responding to questions concerning staffing, that: "we did not have the money coming in fast enough, it is a problem of ensuring that contributions come through in time". Before the Council can give guidance on this issue it would be helpful to know whether the requirement for early payment still exists, if it does not exist, I am sure that a number of countries would be quite happy to revert to the previous practice of keeping the funds in their own treasuries and earning the interest rather than providing those funds to FAO.


My second point deals with paragraph 3.70 to 3.77, dealing with the After Service Medical Costs. Canada recognizes that the External Auditor has recommended that the FAO adopt policies for "a more balanced funding of such liabilities". However, after reviewing the documents made available to us, we are not convinced of the need for funding these long-term liabilities at the moment. Currently, the United Nations does not fund its After Service Medical Liabilities and we believe the same approach could be examined for the FAO. We would like to remind delegates that accounting for a liability and funding a liability are not the same, and they relate to two different objectives. Funding decisions, are management decisions, which must be made in the context of the current financial situation. Accounting decisions are based on recommended practice to provide information to the users of financial statements of organizations to help them better understand the financial picture of an organization.

In the case of FAO, this financial picture could include, among other things, information on the long-term liabilities relating to the After-Service Medical Plan. Although we can agree with improved accounting practices, we do not believe that Member Nations should bear the costs of setting aside funds now to cover future payments.

One, last, further point on this issue, Mr Chairman, we are concerned with the recommendation contained in paragraph 3.77(a), to the effect that FAO, and that means the individual Members, all of us, assume the responsibility for the accumulated liability of individual Trust Fund donors. As a Member which does not impose additional costs on the Organization, through Trust Funds, and one which is already called upon to subsidize Trust Fund activities, we very much disagree with this proposal.

We urge the Finance Committee to revisit this issue, to find a method such as perhaps a surcharge on the administrative fee, currently charged to Trust Fund donors, which would properly allocate the accumulated costs to these countries responsible for the existence of a portion of this charge.

We are also, extremely, concerned by the suggestion in paragraph 3.77 (g), to use the arrears to fund the After-Service Medical Costs and we would like some clarification from the Secretariat about the regulations which apply to the use of arrears and whether this is, in fact, consistent with that.

Kezimbira Lawrence MIYINGO (Uganda): I will be very brief, I just wanted to refer to the question of incentives for all payments. Whereas this is a very good thing to reward anybody who comes early and pays, but I see that it is eating deep into the resources of the Organization. This morning we have spent time trying to argue on a budget that was not to be reduced and now, if we are going to eat into the budget through these incentives, I see this as counterproductive.

Since this is an Organization where we render support to each other, we really appreciate the Members that sometimes pay much earlier than others, but I think it is support to the others when these others pay, if they do not abscond from their duty, the money still does the same work that it is meant for. On this note, I would like to refer to 18.1, document CL 112/LIM/1 and point out that, on the list of contributions, Uganda appears to have an outstanding of US$30 822. May I inform that as of yesterday, we have paid.

EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias distinguido delegado de Uganda. El Consejo aprecia mucho el hecho de que su país se haya puesto al corriente.

Ms Melinda L. KIMBLE (United States of America): In connection with the April Report of the Finance Committee, we would like to make several comments regarding the following five issues: the status of our payments to the UN System; the text of the draft enabling resolution on the Scale of Contributions in paragraph 3.63 of CL 112/14; FAO's Incentive Scheme; proposals related to the After-Service Medical Coverage Plan; and the work of the Internal Auditor.


The Administration's fiscal 1998 budget request reflects the firm commitment of the United States to meet its financial obligations to the United Nations System including FAO. The fiscal 1998 funding package for assessed contributions to international organizations, now under consideration in the Congress, totals over US$2 billion. This figure includes: annual assessments of US$ 1.023 billion to 49 international organizations and US$1,021 billion for arrears to international organizations and United Nations peacekeeping.

With respect to the arrears, we are requesting these funds to be paid over a two-year period. US$100 million in 1998, fiscal year 1998 that is, which begins in October 1997; and US$921 million in fiscal year 1999. For FAO, our arrears package includes US$105 million.

Based on a congressional calendar, action on this package could take place as early as July or as late as September. We would hope to have a clear indication of how much would be available by the time we reach the Conference this November. In addition, for fiscal year 1998, for international affairs, we are requesting another US$2 billion in voluntary contributions to international organizations and programmes, including: UNDP, UNICEF, the World Food Programme, IFAD and UNHCR. Our funding request of US$100 million for UNDP represents an increase of nearly 25 percent over 1997, and will reinforce its central funding and coordinating role in United Nations operational activities.

For the multilateral development banks, our fiscal year 1998 request totals US$1.5 billion including funds to clear our arrears, as evidence of our firm and renewed commitment towards development assistance, particularly in Africa and the least developed countries.

Bilaterally, the United States is proposing a new trade and investment initiative for Africa, and our follow-up process for the World Food Summit is aimed at examining new international partnerships, that can be developed in support of the Summit commitments. Our budget is designed to restore an important measure of US assistance in support of global efforts for sustainable development.

We are working closely with the Congress to reach agreement on our arrears package for international organizations. This is among our highest priority. Discussions are at a critical stage, we hope to have the main outlines agreed on and be in a position to pay soon. This important effort can be achieved, only if fiscally sound and sustainable budgets are adopted throughout the multilateral system, and the responsibility for payments is spread in a more rational manner.

Regarding the latter point, the UN Committee on Contributions is meeting in New York, at the present time, to discuss a total of eight proposals for the 1998-2000 Scale of Assessments. On 3 March the United States tabled one of the eight proposals at the high-level Working Group on Finance, concerned with revising the United Nations Scales of Assessment, to simplify and make more equitable the current UN Scales methodology. In our view, the United Nations Scales of Assessment must be adjusted to increase Member Nations' participation in the international system, and reduce excessive dependence on one contributor. Our proposal calls for a reduction in the ceiling rate, from 25 to 20 percent.

In light of the work underway in New York, we believe that it is premature for this Council to recommend that the Conference adopt a Draft Resolution based on the UN Scale adopted in 1994, found in paragraph 3.63 of document CL 112/14. In fact, as a final decision on revision of the Scale could occur anytime after September, it would be appropriate that FAO should plan to prepare the Scale of Contributions for the years 1998 and 1999 to reflect the new Scale of Assessments for those years, fixed by the United Nations General Assembly, this year at its 52nd Session, in accordance with established principles for adjusting the Scale at FAO to take into account differences in membership.


Turning to the Incentive Scheme to encourage prompt payment of contributions, we support the Director-Generar s efforts to end the Scheme, given its impact in reducing Miscellaneous Income. While we recognized the percentage of contributions paid as of 31 March, increased significantly compared to previous years, the reason for this increase appears to be unrelated to the existence of the Scheme.

With respect to the After-Service Medical Coverage Plan, we appreciate the information which has been provided by the Secretariat, but we will need more questions answered, before we can make any decision to fund the amortization of accrued liabilities in the 1998-99 biennium, since a decision will have significant implications for the entire UN System and we believe a common policy is essential. For example, we would like to know how other UN agencies are treating these costs. We would also appreciate knowing how much of the total liability will be FAO's share, and whether discussions with UNDP and IBRD have been initiated to determine their willingness to provide funds for posts paid from their resources. Have IFAD and ICCROM accepted any liability for their share of the cost? How much funding is included in the current budget for medical costs, and how are these expenses apportioned among budget chapters?

With respect to Trust Funds, like Canada, we believe that FAO should weigh carefully, before assuming responsibility for the accumulated liabilities of Trust Fund donors and, given a substantial accrued deficit of US$ 29.8 million that the Organization is proposing to absorb on behalf of these donors.

We can support the Committee's recommendations to combine all separation plans into one fund, for management purposes, but we would expect separate accounts to be maintained and reported on separately, should the need arise.

Finally, regarding paragraph 3.92 of CL 112/14, we are pleased to learn that the Director-General has agreed to make available to Members of the Finance Committee, a copy of the Internal Auditors 1996 Annual Report. Given the increased significance of FAO's work and its decentralized operations, a strong, effective and independent oversight mechanism is essential.

EL PRESIDENTE: Muchísimas gracias distinguida delegada de los Estados Unidos por su declaración que es muy útil para los miembros del Consejo. Desde luego no hay que repetirlo, Estados Unidos de América es el mayor contribuyente y también el país que tiene más atrasos en el pago de sus cuotas. Nosotros nos unimos a usted en la esperanza de que el pago de atrasos pueda acelerarse lo más pronto posible, aunque sabemos las dificultades por las que atraviesa su país.

Son las 19.00 horas y creo que tenemos que asegurar que el Tema 11, para lo cual varios expertos vinieron y estuvieron presentes, se pueda concluir en el día de hoy.

Por tanto les pido su compresión para suspender el debate respecto de este importantísimo punto de nuestra agenda para permitir al coordinador del Grupo de Trabajo Oficioso de Composición Abierta, que se reunió hoy, nos presente las conclusiones a las que llegaron. Inmediatamente después entraremos de pleno al tratamiento del Tema 11 de nuestra agenda para lo cual se hará una introducción por mi parte y por parte de la Secretaría.

Distinguidos delegados, suspendemos el tratamiento de este Tema 18 y pasamos al Tema 11 de nuestra agenda.


III ACTIVITIES OF FAO AND WFP
III ACTIVITES DE LA FAO ET DU PAM
III ACTIVIDADES DE LA FAO Y DEL PMA

11 Report of the 14th Session of the Committee on Agriculture (Rome, 7-11 April 1997)
11 Rapport de la quartorzième session du Comité de l'agriculture (Rome, 7-11 avril)
11 Informe del 14° período de sesiones del Comité de Agricultura (Roma, 7-11 de abril de 1997)

EL PRESIDENTE: Vamos a abrir de inmediato el Tema 11 que es el Informe del 14° período de sesiones del Comité de Agricultura, documento CL 112/9 y al presentar este informe creo que es necesario que el Consejo centre su atención en los temas que requieren una decisión o una recomendación, así como los formuló el COAG. Me refiero, en particular, a tres puntos: el examen de las normas para la armonización de la cuarentena de las plantas, las recomendaciones del Grupo Especial de Expertos sobre los Recursos Zoogenéticos y, desde luego, el tema principal, por el cual hemos suspendido el tratamiento del Tema 18 y es la revisión de la Convención Internacional de Protección Fitosanitaria.

Sobre el examen de las normas para la armonización de la cuarentena de las plantas, principalmente lo que el Consejo tiene que hacer es aprobar las normas tal como han sido enmendadas, ustedes verán en el informe del COAG las partes relevantes.

Respecto a la recomendación del grupo especial de expertos sobre recursos zoogenéticos, la tarea del Consejo es, desde luego, informarle a la Conferencia sobre este tema, aunque quizá es difícil delinear en este momento una fórmula definitiva respecto a la Comisión de Recursos Genéticos para la Alimentación y la Agricultura y, sobre todo, antes de que concluya la reunión de la Comisión. Pero en fin, el tema fundamental que ha sido tratado en la Comisión de Recursos Genéticos, está a la vista de todos. Sabemos que este es un esfuerzo que está comenzando y que muchos de ustedes han querido apoyar de manera prioritaria.

Finalmente, en lo que se refiere a la revisión de la CIPF, así como lo determinaron ustedes al principio de nuestros debates, se creó un grupo informal, abierto a todos los miembros para que trabajara sobre el texto de la Convención; esto con miras a que la Conferencia esté en una posición para aprobar este texto y ponerlo en práctica a la brevedad posible.

M.A. HOLTZHAUSEN (Chairman, Working Group on the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)): The informal open-ended Working Group met this morning. Twenty-eight countries and the European Community participated in the discussions and our deliberation. We considered document CL 112/9-Sup. 1, and the following agreements were reached.

If we look at the Preamble and the first indent, we insert the word "international" between "their" and "spread" in the second sentence, and we deleted the bracketed text. If I may just read the second sentence: ".. products and in preventing their international spread and especially their introduction into endangered areas".

We also decided to insert a sixth indent in the Preamble, to read "Noting the agreements concluded as a result of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, including the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures".

In Article II, where we have the "Use of Terms", the term "Protective area" was then deleted from the text, as it is not necessary any more.

The change in Article III, para. 1, the second sentence, the words "functions and" are to be deleted.


I will read the second sentence: "plant protection organization with the following main responsibilities set out in this Article".

The change in para 2(c) is the deletion of the square bracketed text.

In Article VI, para. 5, in the last sentence, a comma was added after the word "use".

I will read the last sentence: "or other specific use, of plant and plant products and other regulated articles, and of plant pests".

The next changes were made to Article X, in para. 2(a). The first line, the word "international" was inserted between the words "their" and "spread" and the words in square brackets were deleted.

In Article XIV, regarding "Territorial Application", the square brackets were deleted, and in the first sentence of both paras. 1 and 2, the words "state, or" and "that is a member of FAO" were deleted. Para. 1 will read: "Any contracting party may at the time of ratification ..." and para. 2 will read: "Any contracting party which has communicated to the Director-General of FAO ...".

The last changes were made to the Model Phytosanitary Certificate. Under I. "Description of consignment", in the third sentence of the paragraph, the words "are considered" were deleted and that sentence reads, from the third line: "importing contracting parties and to conform with the current phytosanitary requirements of the contracting party include those for regulated non-quarantine pests".

The Model Certificate for Re-Export, again, in the second to last line of the paragraph, the words "importing countries" are replaced by "contracting party" to have consistency in the text.

With these changes, we were able to provide a revised text for the International Plant Protection Convention, without any square brackets, for the Council to consider for approval.

EL PRESIDENTE: Yo creo que el Consejo debe en primer lugar manifestarle a usted y a los participantes en el Grupo Informal, su agradecimiento por este importante paso hacia la afinación de un texto final que puede eventualmente ser aprobado por la Conferencia. Deseo informarles que el texto estará disponible con las correcciones el día de mañana, para que ustedes puedan tomar nota y eventualmente enviarlo a sus capitales.

También, como ustedes saben, el procedimiento a seguir es que este texto se envíe al Comité de Asuntos Jurídicos y Constitucionales de la FAO para que este lo revise. Este comité, una vez hecho su trabajo, lo enviará al Consejo en su 113° período de sesiones y el Consejo lo enviará a la Conferencia.

El señor Asesor Legal me ha pedido también hacer uso de la palabra para introducir un cambio en el texto revisado.

LEGAL COUNSEL: Since the discussions this morning, there have been further informal consultations on one issue, on which I have been asked to report. The issue concerns the relationship of the revised Convention with other international agreements including, in particular, the SPS Agreement.

Following these informal consultations, and on the basis of these informal consultations, I would now like to put forward to Council the following new wording, which could be included as a new Article III of the revised Convention, or elsewhere in an appropriate place in the Convention, if Council should so decide.


The wording would be as follows:

"Article III - Relationship with other international agreements.

Nothing in this Convention shall affect the rights and obligations of the contracting parties under existing applicable international agreements."

I appreciate that it may be difficult for delegates to pronounce themselves formally and finally on the proposed new wording. We would therefore suggest that, if Council is, in principle, in favour of the inclusion of such a clause, the attention of the CCLM should be drawn to the new clause, with the request that it advise on the legal implications of the clause, and that it review the precise wording from a legal point of view, as well as its most appropriate location in the text of the revised Convention.

To reiterate, we would propose that this new clause be included in the draft text of the revised Convention, not in square brackets, but as a full Article in the revised text; that it be sent to the CCLM; that the attention of the CCLM will be drawn to the clause; and that it be asked to respond to the questions that I have just indicated.

EL PRESIDENTE: Distinguidos delegados está a su consideración el Tema 11 en su totalidad y, desde luego, son bienvenidos sus comentarios, no solamente respecto a la revisión del texto de la Convensión, sino también sobre los otros aspectos del Informe del COAG. Lo que tiene que hacer el Consejo está claro y espero que ustedes nos den sus instrucciones al respecto.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Adel Mahmoud ABOUL-NAGA (Egypt): Let us finish with the revised IPPC, because it is related to COAG, and it is important to us. Therefore, rather than handling the whole item of COAG, let us finish with that, and conclude it, so that we can open the rest of the items on COAG.

This is my proposal for Council.

EL PRESIDENTE: Quizás tiene usted razón y es la manera más eficaz y ordenada para proceder. La acojo, por tanto, y les pido que se pronuncien en torno a los resultados de este grupo informal y del texto revisado y desde luego del procedimiento, que ya les he anunciado, de mandarlo al CACJ y luego al Consejo de la FAO. Tiene usted la palabra respecto a los resultados del grupo de trabajo informal y del texto revisado.

David SANDS SMITH (United Kingdom): This is somewhat unconventional, but is an example of Anglo-Irish cooperation. David Beehan, my Irish colleague, has had to leave. May I therefore, on his behalf, ask, as we have been doing throughout the day, that you should give the floor to The Netherlands as the European Union Presidency.

J.B. PIETERS (Observer for the Netherlands): Thank you, United Kingdom, for the floor in this new procedure, in the absence of Ireland.

First of all, we welcome the agreement reached on the IPPC.

Secondly, we can agree on the proposed handling of the text on a new Article III, as proposed by the Legal Counsel, Mr Moore, and certainly we would like to make a short statement on behalf of the EU and its Member States, for the records.


With reference to Article VII, para 2(a), regarding the reporting of the occurrence, outbreak or spread of pests, the EC and its Member States understand that the reports will have to be supplied as under the current IPPC to FAO or, more precisely, to the Secretary. They attach, and that is the EC and its Member States, great importance to the establishment of relevant procedures applicable to this reporting, as referred to in these provisions, and hope that high priority is given to this work.

Yoshihide ENDO (Japan): The Japanese delegation also would like to express its appreciate of the efforts made by the Secretariat and the experts who took part in this very elaborative work, in order to reach a consensus of the revised text of IPPC. Japan is also very happy to see a revised text and also welcomes the newly proposed article, I would like to refer to that newly proposed article.

Japan is one of the countries who proposed this article and, reading through the revised text, we realize that we have to keep a consistency, maintain a consistency, with relevant international agreements, including SPS. This proposal is quite appropriate and I fully support the procedure proposed by Mr Moore.

We are very flexible to the wording, to the procedure through which this article is being discussed. I would like to reiterate that the main content is very important and this is not going to incorporate new ideas or new institutions, but this article is trying to explicitly stipulate hidden ideas or ideas which are written between the lines. Therefore the intention of this article is not going to raise a new issue for the concern with other Member Countries, I sincerely hope.

Moussa Bocar LY (Sénégal): Monsieur le Président, au nom du Groupe africain, nous nous félicitons de l'esprit de collaboration et de coopération de tous qui a permis à nos experts de pouvoir se réunir ici même à Rome pour examiner cette Convention importante pour l'avenir de nos pays et nous voudrions solennellement marquer notre accord à cette Convention dans la mesure d'ailleurs où elle favorise le commerce international des produits agricoles qui sont d'une importance capitale pour notre continent, et dans la mesure où elle vise à protéger la production agricole africaine des dommages que provoque l'introduction de nouveaux organismes nuisibles. Nous voudrions également, par votre intermédiaire, remercier les Pays-Bas qui ont rendu cette consultation possible et également remercier le Secrétariat de la FAO pour les services de qualité fournis à cette réunion.

Monsieur le Président, nous voudrions cependant nous référer à l'Article XIX sur l'assistance technique pour prier le Conseil de recommander des mesures dans ce sens. En effet, notre continent est préoccupé quant à la capacité des pays qui le composent à remplir les conditions indiquées dans la Convention. En effet, celle-ci nous demanderait d'améliorer nos infrastructures nationales et de mieux faire comprendre, au plan des infrastructures nationales, au niveau de l'élaboration des politiques, l'intérêt de faciliter le commerce international tout en protégeant l'agriculture nationale de nouvelles introductions qui imposeraient des interventions coûteuses. Nous restons convaincus en tant que pays africains que la coopération aux niveaux à la fois sous-régional et régional devrait être renforcée afin de respecter les dispositions commerciales aux plans intra- et inter-régional. Nous savons que des mesures doivent être prises pour mieux faire comprendre, au niveau national, les risques en matière de quarantaine dans le commerce et les échanges internationaux. Mais pour ce faire, nous avons besoin de l'assistance internationale et nous pensons que, pour que cette Convention ait vraiment un sens, il faut que l'on puisse aider les pays africains, sinon nous aurions à participer à l'élaboration de cette convention sans qu'au niveau de la participation pratique nous puissions répondre à l'appel. Aussi nous sommes sûrs que le Comité international qui a permis l'émergence de cette Convention retiendra cette nécessité, aussi bien au niveau de la FAO qu'au plan de la coopération internationale, d'apporter toute l'assistance nécessaire aux pays en développement régional et aux pays africains en particulier dans la mise en oeuvre des différentes dispositions pertinentes de cette Convention.


Dans le même ordre d'idées, Monsieur le Président, nous envisageons avec intérêt mais également préoccupation la période intérimaire avant l'entrée en vigueur de la Convention: c'est-à-dire la période qui couvre l'adoption, par la Conférence, de la Convention révisée et l'entrée en vigueur des révisions elles-mêmes. Cette période pourrait en effet s'étendre sur plusieurs années. C'est pourquoi nous voudrions souligner la nécessité de l'adoption de mesures intérimaires pour commencer à mettre en oeuvre la nouvelle procédure d'élaboration des normes, permettre l'emploi de nouveaux certificats phytosanitaires et entreprendre l'élaboration de normes pour les organismes nuisibles réglementés non soumis à quarantaine. Il faudrait dans ce cadre, nous semble-t-il, prévoir la mise en place d'une commission intérimaire sur les mesures phytosanitaires par la Conférence de la FAO. Voilà, nous semble-t-il, en nous félicitant encore une fois de l'aboutissement de ce processus qui aura été long, complexe mais utile pour l'avenir de nos pays et de la coopération internationale, les informations que nous voulions soumettre en espérant que celles-ci pourront être traduites en recommandations pour la Conférence qui va adopter cette importante contribution à l'élaboration du droit international.

Peut-être un petit mot concernant la proposition qui nous a été lue par le Conseiller juridique et qui figure à l'Article III, en anglais d'ailleurs, "Relations avec d'autres accords internationaux". Peut-être le contenu de ce projet pourrait venir après l'Article XX parce qu'il nous semble qu'au niveau de l'Article III c'est peut-être trop tôt déjà d'engager ce point de la relation avec d'autres accords internationaux; de même, nous nous posons la question de la pertinence de l'utilisation du terme "existing" dans la mesure à notre sens, sous réserve de ce qu'en pensera le Conseiller juridique M. Moore, où nous pensons que "existing" est superflu dans la mesure où l'on se réfère déjà à "applicable". Cela m'étonnerait que quelque chose d'"applicable" n'existe pas et au plan juridique d'ailleurs je ne vois pas la pertinence de ce mot "existing". Après l'Article XXI, m'a dit mon collègue, plutôt que l'Article XX c'est l'Article XXI qui parle d'entrée en vigueur. Donc nous voudrions poser la question au Conseiller juridique de la pertinence de ce terme "existing" dans la mesure où il semble déjà couvert par le mot "applicable". Enfin, peut-être qu'il a une autre interprétation juridique sur ce plan-là.

EL PRESIDENTE: El Consejo desea transmitirle como Presidente del Grupo Africano, su agradecimiento por el trabajo del grupo de expertos de la región africana sobre este tema y la colaboración positiva para afinar el texto. Le agradecemos también el apoyo al texto revisado como ha sido presentado y, desde luego, también sobre la enmienda que ha planteado el Asesor Legal. Usted recibirá una respuesta respecto al uso de esa expresión, "existentes" en vez de aplicables pero lo importante de su declaración es el apoyo al texto y, desde luego se toma nota de la relevancia de la Cooperación Técnica y de que esta sea una recomendación para que se pueda instrumentar el texto del convenio.

Veo que hay un Punto de Orden por parte del distinguido representante de Egipto.

POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN

Adel Mahmoud ABOUL-NAGA (Egypt): All these interventions are just comments. I am proposing that we clear the IPPC by acclamation. If we do that, then, we can open the floor for any comments. This is a result of a long, long procedure and we are all happy to achieve it. Let us agree it and if we have any comments, anything to be recorded, let us have it afterwards. This is my proposal for the Council.

EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias por su propuesta. Lo que puedo hacer es pedir a los distinguidos delegados que hagan uso de la palabra en la medida en que sea relevante para la aprobación de este texto por parte del Consejo a fin de que sea enviado al CACJ.


Si no tienen nada substancial que agregar o que enmendar, les pido que no hagan uso de la palabra para poder terminar en tiempo nuestra reunión.

John GRIEFER (United States of America): I will be very brief. I just want to affirm basically the movement forward on this. The United States views at the final revised draft text is a success and as such, we support the recommendation made in the COAG Report that the final revised IPPC draft be submitted to Conference.

David SANDS SMITH (United Kingdom): Can you please pass the word to The Netherlands European Union Presidency.

J.B. PIETERS (Observer for the Netherlands): The statement for the record. I made a mistake. I was saying Article VII, paragraph 2 (a), but it has to be 1 (a), and because it is the statement for the record, we have to be very precise.

Secondly, it was explained to me that the proposed text by the Legal Counsellor is a standard clause, common to many environmental agreements and it is under this understanding, that we agree with the proposed handling of this subject. Furthermore, the location and the wording of the new Article 3 has to be dealt with in the Commission on Legal Matters, therefore, for the record, I have liked to have assurance from the Legal Counsellor that what I am saying is correct.

Kezimbira Lawrence MIYINGO (Uganda): I am in agreement with the text of this document but I wondered whether there could be an improvement in the certificate. I see, under the certificate, the mode for sanitary certificate, Annex 1.14, the words -- if you go to below the area to be filled in -"...this is to certify". I see that, for example, there is "..this is to certify that the plants and plant products, as stated herein, have been inspected and all tested according to appropriate official procedure and are considered..". I wonder whether the word should be "considered" or "have been found".

"Considered", is as if one is guessing, rather than "have been found", because it would be a technical person examining this who, I think, should be able to say for certain, rather than "consider". At least this is the way we do it in veterinary practice and I thought a practitioner should be able to say "I have found" and stand by his word over that, rather than "are considered", which is speculation. This is what I wanted to point out. I do not know whether it is pertinent.

EL PRESIDENTE: Yo no se si esta propuesta es tan relevante que nos lleve a abrir el debate de nuevo sobre el texto. Yo preferiría que la dejáramos a un lado y que nos concentremos en lo importante del texto y esto es, que ha sido acordado por consenso y hasta ahora sin corchetes. Yo espero que usted entienda el compromiso delicadísimo en el que estamos.

Voy a pasar la palabra al señor Asesor Legal antes de proceder, como había dicho el delegado de Egipto, de adoptar este texto por aclamación para ser enviado al CACJ.

LEGAL COUNSEL: Yes, I would just like to confirm that, in fact, the wording of the new Article III, or wherever it is to be located, is in fact a fairly standard clause that is to be found in most, if not all, of the new multi-lateral agreements, including particularly those relating to environmental matters, and I refer to agreements such as the new Desertification Convention and a whole host of others.

In fact, just last week, I was in Geneva, and we were dealing with the proposed new international legally-binding instrument for the application of the prior-informed consent procedure and there the Legal Drafting Committee was involved in drawing up a draft on relationship with other agreements which reads very similarly to this: "The provisions of this conventual shall not affect the rights and obligations of any party deriving from any [existing] international agreement, etcetera".


There are, of course, differences in the wording of the various clauses. Always, there are some differences in the wording. The concept, I think, is the most important thing. But I think the distinguished delegate of Senegal was very right to query whether it is necessary to have the word "existing" as well as "applicable". I think the word "applicable" refers to the requirement that the agreement is pertinent to the subject matter and "applicable" as among the parties. The word "existing" refers to whether the other agreements are already in force and very many of the agreements do, in fact, use both of these criteria. However, I think this is a matter that perhaps you should refer, as has been suggested, to the CCLM, to look at the precise wording, and whether it is necessary to have the word "existing", or whether that should be taken out. This is really a legal matter which the CCLM can decide, together with the location and the other legal implications of this provision.

EL PRESIDENTE: Distinguidos delegados, yo espero que con esta aclaración y en virtud de que este texto va a ser revisado por el CACJ - en donde esta cuestión en particular presentada por Senegal va a ser estudiada - este Consejo pueda acoger por aclamación el texto revisado para someterlo al CACJ y de allí enviarlo al Consejo. ¿Están de acuerdo?

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

EL PRESIDENTE: Bien, distinguidos delegados, cerramos esta parte del Tema 11 que queda concluida. Le debemos agradecer al señor Holtzhausen por sus esfuerzos así como al Grupo de Trabajo que se reunió el día de hoy en la mañana y felicitarnos, congratulamos, como lo expresaron ustedes por este avance importante hacia la adopción final de la Convención Internacional de Protección Fitosanitaria. Muchas gracias a usted, muchas gracias al Asesor Legal y vamos a pasar ahora a los otros temas del Informe del COAG, en particular, como les había dicho, el examen de las Normas para la Armonización de la Cuarentena de las Plantas y las Recomendaciones del Grupo Especial de Expertos sobre Recursos Zoogenéticos. ¿Hay alguna Delegación que desea hacer uso de la palabra al respecto? ¿No? El Consejo entonces toma nota del Informe del COAG y lo adopta.

Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos

The meeting rose at 19.50 hours
La séance est levée à 19 h 50
Se levanta la sesión a las 19.50 horas

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page