CHAIRMAN: We will now take up item 15.2, other questions arising from the United Nations and Other Specialized Agencies. There are several papers on this. They are, first of all, C 77/25, Other Questions Arising from the United Nations and Other Specialized Agencies; C 77/LIM/37-Rev.1, Resolution on the World Meteorological Organization, and then there is document C 77/INF/15, UNDP Relations, as well as document C 77/LIM/32 Draft Resolution, Reimbursement of UNDP Overhead Costs. You can, if you like, address yourselves to all these matters together.
I would then ask the Assistant Director-General, Mr. Yriart, to introduce this item.
J.F. YRIART (Assistant Director-General, Development Department): Mr. Chairman, I would like to call to your attention that naturally the Report of the 72nd Session of the Council being a later document, this corresponds to the Council Session immediately preceding the Conference. It updates somewhat the information on document C 77/INF/15 and I would like then to call the attention of the distinguished delegates to paragraphs 28–31 of the Report of the Council, the 72nd Session of the Council. I think, Mr. Chairman, that these brief paragraphs really summarize and focus on what the Programme and Finance Committees,and then the Council itself have thought to be at this stage the most important developments, or pending issues in the relations between our Organization and the UNDP. It is from that point of view Mr. Chairman, that I have seen the Draft Resolution circulated as C 77/LIM/32 which takes up the problem focused on by the Council also at paragraph 30, and reflects, I see, the views of the Council, as expressed in paragraph 30 of its report.
With regard to delivery of the UNDP-assisted programme, Mr. Chairman, I would say that the figure we supplied to the Council of $85 million as total delivery for this year is approximately right. We may reach it, but just reach it. On the other hand over the last 4 to 5 days we notice a little bit of an upswing in delivery, and in terms of both fielding of experts, purchase of equipment, etc. But substantially the situation is very little changed from what is reported by the Council itself.
J. BERTELING (Netherlands): Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank Mr. Yriart for his introduction and for the new facts, or the additional facts he has presented to us. In fact, my delegation has already stated under another agenda item a number of issues of importance on the relationship between FAO and UNDP, and my Government is not really convinced of the present good cooperation between the Secretariat of FAO and UNDP, and we feel this cooperation is of extreme importance. Also, when FAO is receiving more other extra-budgetary resources it might even be important for activities to be entrusted to FAO in the future by bilateral donors. I would, therefore, urge as well the Director-General of the FAO and the Administrator of UNDP and their collaborators to cooperate in an active and positive way in the interests of development in the recipient countries and on the basis of the famous consensus, and on the resolutions adopted last year and this year by UNDP's Governing Council on new dimensions and on the role and activities of UNDP.
I would like to turn now to the Draft Resolution contained in document C/77/LIM/32 and formally submitted by the delegation of the Philippines. The Governing Council of the UNDP decided to establish a working group on overhead costs and invited the Administrator of UNDP and the heads, I repeat, the heads of the executing agencies or their representatives, to participate actively in the work of the group. In the meantime the present arrangements of reimbursements at 14 percent of project expenditure
will continue for 1978/79. In our feeling, Mr. Chairman, adoption of the Draft Resolution as it now stands means (a) prejudging the results and activities of the working group, (b) giving a value judgement before the results of the working group appear by saying that 14 percent reflects and I quote, “partnership of an equitable burden-sharing between UNDP and the Agencies“ (c) that an incorrect statement is made in the sense that a governing council of UNDP did not request, as is implied in operative paragraph 3, the views of the FAO Conference but the view of the Director-General of the FAO, and he is certainly free to do so, (d) to give instructions through this Resolution to our own delegations to UNDP Governing Council sessions. To make it very clear, Mr. Chairman, it is not of importance here and now whether my Government does agree, or does not agree with the present arrangements of reimbursements here. It is only important that the FAO Conference will not prejudge the results in order that we are binding our own delegations, and our own governments hands in the working groups, because we instruct them if we adopt this Resolution. In our delegation's view this Draft Resolution is an excellent example of preventing coordination within national governments, and if this Draft Resolution will be put to the vote my delegation will vote against this Resolution, and will consider adoption as an indication of a negative attitude from FAO to UNDP.
C.J. VALPES (Philippines): Actually all this attention was a bit of a surprise to us particularly the opinion for rejecting the Resolution appearing in C 77/LIM/32 taking the adoption reimbursement of UNDP overhead costs. X would like to invite attention, Mr. Chairman, to the very prayer of the Resolution, the resolutory part summing up all the basis of the Resolution, and I read. The proposed Resolution, Mr. Chairman, merely requests the Director-General to bring the present Resolution to the attention of the working group. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the Philippine delegation is of the opinion that we are not negating, much less pre-empting or prejudging the work of the working group. We recognize it, it is in the Resolution and, as a matter of fact, we are just putting into words what already appears in the Council Report, Mr. Chairman. We are not saying that 14 percent should be, or should not be, but based on the records now it would appear that we have to at least maintain 14 percent for the purposes of stability and budgetary regularity. The overhead costs have gone beyond that and, as a matter of fact, the figures show that there is an excess of $8 million over what has been spent in the servicing of these amounts, and I would probably say that we had some informal conferences with those that have made observations on this Resolution and, Mr. Chairman, I would like to invite attention that if we are here as FAO it would be difficult, of course, and we understand, but at the same time we also see the UNDP in some other role and for this if the country position is to object to the Resolution, Mr. Chairman, then probably to avoid acrimony let those that are in favour just go on record, rather than waste the time of this Conference in a lengthy debate that might deteriorate into donor and donee countries. Probably those that are in favour should just submit it in writing, and those that are against it should submit it in writing, and this be left to the Secretariat to collate, because all we are doing is putting into this Resolution what has already been decided. We are not pre-empting, we are not prejudging and we are not negating the existence of the working group. We just want to have our Director-General say that O.K.,you can go to the working group; you have the backing of your people, of the member countries in the Conference of FAO. That, in short, is what this Resolution asks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
S.S. MAHDI (India): The issues I am going to speak about now relate to document C 77/25, and I know that my intervention will not be in continuity of what has just been said, but perhaps this is the necessary consequence of lumping together so many subjects and so many documents in one debate. We would have much preferred if we had the debate on UNDP separately, with the other important debate on inter-agency matters separately.
With these preliminary observations, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express the appreciation of our delegation of the document C 77/25 dealing with relations and consultations with international organizations. We feel that this is a definite improvement on the documents which have been presented in earlier years, and this response to the request which has been made from this floor, especially. from my delegation in previous years, that the programme running bodies should get a little more information on important happenings in the UN system, so that we could continue to feel that we are a part of the system and wė are not working in isolation. Mr. Chairman, a number of topics have been discussed in this report and, therefore, my attempt will not be to touch on every point. I will confine my comments to six or seven items which are mentioned here, and I can assure you that these comments will be very brief.
With regard to the development objectives of the UN system, starting from paragraph 4, we support the collaboration of FAO with the United Nations and other agencies, in this current exercise. We feel this is useful to relate agriculture to other sectors, and in any case agriculture being a major sector
it should be taken into account in any system launched by the UN organizations. We would, however, like to know a little more from the Secretariat about the results of the working group which is mentioned in the report, and which met in October 1977.
On the next item, which deals with rural development, we note with satisfaction the expiry of ILO's term as the lead agency for intelligence exercise on rural development; FAO has finally decided to take its due place as the lead agency for the coming years. This is particularly important, because of the forthcoming World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. However, we cannot but express our concern that the progress in terms of concrete achievement through this group has been very slow, and we hope that the Intelligence Exercise will assume a more down-to-earth approach and steer clear as much as possible of academic refinements.
As for the coordination of Regular Programme activities in the area of rural development, which is sought to be achieved through this Intelligence Group, we agree with FAO's general approach in paragraph 10 of the document. Such harmonization will yield better results if it is done in clearly defined areas rather than on an across-the-board basis.
We hope that the report which is intended to be made to ECOSOC in December 1978 will be made available for the information of FAO Governing Bodies as well.
With regard to the institutional arrangements relating to nutrition, we again note with satisfaction that the review of the arrangements mandated by the resolutions of the World Food Conference has, after long negotiations, been carried out, and we hope that the new arrangements will prove better than previous ones and will lead to more tangible action in the United Nations system, including FAO.
With reference to paragraph 13 of the document, which deals with the informal tripartite meeting, we would like to particularly underline invitations to the representative institutions active in nutrition from developing countries. They should be invited to the meetings and their experience could be drawn upon.
With regard to paragraph 16 of the same document, dealing with the work programme of the ACC Sub-Committee on Nutrition, while agreeing with the items included in the previous sessions of the Committee, we would like to know more as to how these evaluations, methodologies, and harmonization of approaches had led to better forecasts and action-oriented programmes, and in particular, how they have assisted the countries in their nutrition-related activities.
We find there is a very brief report on the Paris conference, and we commend the discreetly active role which FAO plays in the deliberations of this conference. In this connexion, we would like to request the Secretariat to provide the latest information if possible on the results of the discussion in the 22nd Session of the General Assembly.
As regards the last portion of paragraph 20 of this document concerning the establishment of an FAO Seed Industry Development Programme of at least $20 million, we hope to come back to the subject at the appropriate time when we consider the Resolution in this regard.
Again on another subject - and I am sorry that the various subjects are so disparate, because we cannot help it: these are different subjects, and on each of them many delegates would wish to comment; with regard to the United Nations Water Conference, we recommend the active and substantive participation of FAO in the deliberations of the Conference. This is fitting, in our view, because after all agriculture is a major user of water. We would wish that at a future session of the Council, an analysis of the recommendations of the Water Conference insofar as they have a bearing on the work of this Organization, should be presented. We will of course have an opportunity to return to this subject in future sessions of the Council. We however take note that this is a general conference on subjects like water. Unless the need to mobilize additional resources is particularly emphasized, the results will not be as useful as many developing countries would like them to be.
We find a very brief, concise and useful report in this document on FAO's relations with UNIDO. We are satisfied with this more active relationship in fields of common or complementary interests, and we hope that this collaboration will continue at the working, and especially the field, level; and that developments in this regard will be kept under continuous monitoring by the Director-General.
There are at least half a dozen items which are described in the report. It is difficult to comment on each of them, but I think for the purposes of the report we must do so. Therefore, though not commenting on all the other items, I would like to comment on a few more and then come to the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology. Here I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 67, and I would also like to reiterate that the preparatory period for the Conference and the Conference itself should be aimed at development of the scientific and technological capacity of developing countries.
On decolonization we would like to take note of the action indicated in paragraphs 72 to 77, and in this connexion we are very happy to note that paragraph 74 has been overtaken by events and the Council for Namibia is already a full member of this Organization.
On the question of Aparteid, we know that FAO, in a very limited way - because its mandate is very different - has tried to play at least some role.
Again, in paragraph 77, we note that FAO is providing some assistance to liberation movements, and we will watch with interest the results of FAO's assistance in this regard.
Coming to another document which deals with UNDP and about which we have just heard two interventions: the position of our delegation is that stability is essential for the planning of FAO work, and any move which contributes to that stabilization is most welcomed by our delegation.
A.Z.M.O. KHAN (Bangladesh): I shall also confine myself to only two aspects of the report C 77/25, but before that I would like to make a brief remark on the question of the overhead, which has come up earlier.
The Council Report says that it had to incur in 1974/75 a sum of $8.2 million over the regular budget for supporting the food programme, and that if the whole thing were to be supported it might go up to something about $48.8 million. Without prejudging, preempting or negating any of their work that the Working Group would do to minimize the expenditure, I would say that if it goes beyond 14 percent, perhaps the Programme of Work and Budget which we have taken up is all totally thrown out of the window -and if you want to throw it totally out of the window, then this exercise has been an exercise in futility. I hope the members would not consider their work so far as futile. That is all I would like to say from our Government point of view.
We would like to have stability and stability can only be achieved if the present level at least is not lowered, remembering the inflation that we have at the moment.
The second point is the report of Rural Development. I am quite intrigued by this report, because it really does not tell me much of anything.
Firstly, there is a comment that the Agencies have accepted what is called or termed “the poverty-oriented rural development approach“. Is it true that all Agencies have taken up a common approach?-That was one of the recommendations, as far as I can remember, since I was involved in writing the report myself.
Secondly, there is another mechanization that each Agency will screen its projects in terms of poverty-orientation. Has this been done? If it has not been done, and if the common approach has not been taken up, how can they plan together? We can only do that if there is one single objective.
Thirdly, in paragraph 9, which is very interesting, some progress has been made in carrying out the recommendation to help national governments in building up a rural development programme, and that the missions tried to develop policies and programmes on an inter-sectorial basis. We say that “poverty-orientation“ does not mean “developed policies and programmes on an inter-sectorial basis “, but a policy and programme which will move the majority of the rural poor into the main stream of development. It is not the integration of various sectors - it is the integration of those who are by-passed into the economy. A similar contradiction can be found when one looks at the paper on Medium-term Objectives of FAO which has been presented to the Conference. That paper refers only to technology and production programmes and has no reference to how the rural poor can be integrated into the production programme which one is talking about.
It was very gratifying that FAO is taking the lead in holding the Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development - but again, if one looks at the madium-term objectives paper, the contradiction comes out. There, the question of agrarian reform would appear to be a very minor question in rural development, whereas I feel that that possibly in many countries is a major constraint to integrate the rural poor into development.
Finally, as far as the question of common monitoring criteria and an information repository system is concerned, we are glad that some progress has been made. We would like more details of it, because we would like to know whether the same criteria are being used. I say this because, when the various missions come to my country and hold discussions with me, each of them still have a different criterion for screening or appraising projects, and we are at a loss to know whether the task force as set up has a common monitoring or a common appraisal criterion as far as possible in terms of agriculture.
As far as I know, again, in agricultural projects no criteria have been developed. What we have done is just transfer the criteria developed for the industrial projects by Dr. Sen, and little is being transferred and adapted for the purpose of monitoring rural development projects. I do not believe this should be right.
On relations with UNIDO, again I think this is a most gratifying report because I think, in late 1975 or early 1976, when I wrote to UNIDO about rural development and industrial relations, the answer was that UNIDO had nothing to do with it because industry for rural development means small and rural industries only. It is gratifying that FAO is collaborating with them now, because only then will they understand that it is not a question of small industries - it is question of industry supporting the countryside, or industry supporting agriculture. It is a question of the basic policy of industrialization, of where to locate industries, rather than cottage or small industries - which are really terms for short-changing the rural areas.
F. SHEFRIN (Canada): As the delegate of India said, we have on our plate an accumulation of work - a Swedish smorgasbord. There is much there, and it is difficult to decide what to tackle first; what you can digest and what you cannot digest.
I would say that the document reporting “Relations and Consultations with International Agencies“ is very well put together, is well written, is very useful and it's the kind of document you can use at home to answer questions and I think it is one of those documents we should continue.
There is one special part on which I would like to have a little more detail, if not this time I think it would perhaps make more sense in the November Session of the 1978 Council, and that deals with paragraph 46 on page 9 of the English copy relating to UNEP. It says “FAO is prepared to cooperate with UNEP in the implementation of the Plan of Action “, etc. I think what we would like to have is more of a report on the actual kind of cooperation. Maybe it should not be done in this report but I am using this paragraph as a vehicle for asking for more information on the nature of the cooperation between the UNEP and FAO, the sharing of projects and various activities, and we would be very grateful if the Director-General could provide us with a short report at the next Session of the Council indicating the nature of the cooperation between the two agencies. In respect to the paper on thé UNDP, we are also very pleased to have the additional statistical material, we are also glad to note the tone of optimism coming in and an increase in the flow of resources into FAO from UNEP, and also the flow of delivery projects out of FAO in completion of activities and fulfilling of commitments: being made.
We would like to come now to the question raised by several other delegations and that is the Resolution. If you have a resolution you are supposed to discuss it. The delegate of the Philippines said he hoped there would not be much of a discussion because he could not take up too much time, and I fully agree with him. If he withdraws the resolution there would be no need for discussion. But if he does not there is going to be some need for discussion.
Mr. Chairman, I went back to the material again provided by the Director-General and I looked at the document which provided us with the information on the resolution, the document C 77/INF/15 on UNDP Relations. I looked at Appendix A and that is the Resolution establishing this Working Group we are talking about now, and I read this to see if there was any need for the kind of Resolution which is in effect telling another Agency how they should suck their eggs in a sense, and I looked at paragraph (a), and it said - that is the third paragraph, sub-paragraph (a), ''Decided to establish an intergovernmental Working Group on Overhead Costs, open to participation by all members of the Council as well as the observers, at no additional cost to the ‘’
FAO budget of the UNDP; Invited the Administrator of UNDP and the heads of the Executing Agencies or their representatives to participate actively“ - and I emphasize “actively“ - “actively in the work of the group “.
In paragraph (b) again there is a reiteration which says, “Invited the United Nations Board of Auditors, the ACABQ, and the Joint Inspection Unit, the Administrator and Executing Agencies to submit through the Administrator of UNDP to the President of the Governing Council for submission to the Working Group an expression of their views on the question of overhead including inter alia a clearer definition of the term “overheads“ and the cost elements involved as a starting basis for the work of the group “.
I then got worried about the instability concept, and I think there is very much justification. There is nothing more worrying than trying to work for an organization when you are not sure of knowing what funds you are going to have from year to year, and in the UNDP financed activities there is a need for continuity.
So I looked at the next page under (f) at page A2 of the document C 77/INF/15 and it reads, - because one must try to understand the motivation behind the resolution before we express our views on this subject, - and it says, “Decided that, in the meantime, the present arrangements for reimbursement at 14 percent of project expenditures, together with the existing flexibility arrangements for the smaller agencies will continue for the year 1978/79 and, if after this period no final decision is taken on the basis of recommendations of the Working Group, the present percentage shall be reviewed; further decided that cases of particular hardship due primarily to currency exchange fluctuation and heavy programme reduction shall be dealt with on an ad hoc basis.“ I thought this was a pretty fair expression of trying to cover up against insecurity but obviously the mover of the Resolution, the delegation of Philippines was not convinced, so at this point we felt we had to express the views of our delegation. As you know Canda is a member of the UNDP Governing Council and has participated actively in the arrangements for the establishment of an Inter-Governmental Working Group to study the question of agency costs reimbursement methods and levels. We consider that the FAO, as the largest executing agency for UNDP financed projects, has a vital interest in the work of this group, and has in particular an important obligation to participate constructively in the work of the group to ensure that a solution to all interested parties is reached to the maximum possible extent.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, my delegation cannot accept the resolutions presented in C 77/LIM/32 and will have to vote against it should it be put to the vote. By recommending the adoption of a 14 percent reimbursement rate for the next three biennia, which is six years, the resolution pre-judges the FAO's position on both the methods and level of overhead cost reimbursement. By requesting the Director-General to base the FAO's position on this Draft Resolution, my delegation would be asking the Director-General to close his mind to new approaches to this question which could ultimately prove more beneficial for the FAO in particular and the United Nations development system in general. At the same time, such a request to the Director-General would not be consistent with the position my Government will be taking in the working group, that is to say that all participants, while protecting their legitimate interests, should take an open and constructive approach to the entire subject of agency cost reimbursement.
Mr. Chairman, there has been a relationship with the FAO and UNDP going back to about 1951, before it was called UNDP, and the UNDP has in effect been the main source of extra-budgetary resources. I believe that the Departments of Fisheries and Forestry have more resources through the UNDP than they have from the direct budgetary assessment. I think a resolution of this nature puts the situation in the wrong perspective. It is saying “We don't really trust you guys in UNDP, and therefore our Governing Council is going to tell you how we want to operate. “
My Government is on the Governing Board of UNDP. We have taken a certain decision and require an open approach. We cannot be consistent as a government and say here you cannot take an open approach in the FAO and therefore we are being asked to become a split personality. I think schizophrenia is a bad thing, whether as an agency or an individual, and therefore we would be very grateful Mr. Chairman if the delegation of the Philippines could withdraw this resolution rather than force this exercise to a vote, because it does tend to separate the members in this Conference and there is no need for it.
Mr. Chairman if members want in the record as a resolution, as a report of the Conference, that some delegations, many delegations or a few delegations express the following view, and other delegates have a different view, we have no problems with that because that is a fair procedure, but under this resolution, Mr. Chairman we have no choice and we will have to vote against the resolution as it stands.
D.M. ULNES (Norway): I am going to refer to document C 77/INF/15 dealing with UNDP. On this agenda item I would like to say a few words of a principle nature as well as to comment upon the Draft Resolution which has been tabled on the reimbursement of overhead costs. My delegation have noted with great appreciation that the Director-General on several occasions has expressed that there is a close and good relationship between FAO and UNDP as recently echoed by the UNDP representative in his statement to the Plenary last week.
Now turning to the role and activities of UNDP in its relationship with the Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, as my government sees it one should note that in the decision on the role of activities of UNDP which were based during the 24th Session of the Governing Council of the programme last summer, one of the paragraphs appeals to the government to bear in mind the need for coherence for the United Nations development system in their participation in the Specialized Agencies, including also their governing bodies. My government attaches great importance to this aspect of coherence as the policies of various bodies of the system in the last instance must be determined by the members of their governing bodies.
For our part we try to adopt as coherent a stand as possible. We firmly believe that this is a prerequisite for supplying all parts of the system with coherent policy directives.
Let me also in this forum repeat, in a few words, our view in principle on the basis of the United Nations development system. We see the UNDP as the central and the principal body for the financing of a multilateral technical assistance within the United Nations system as well as for coordinating the delivery of assistance. Furthermore the consensus decision of 1970 should be the guiding principle as far as the overall of planning and implementation of assistance is concerned. In this picture we would also stress the role of the specialized agencies. They all have important parts to play each in their particular field. The attainment of partnership within the system is a common used term for an ideal cooperation among all these various links. We should remember that they are all essential for the final objective, the rendering of optimal technical assistance to the needy countries of the world. In this regard, it is the view of my Government that we have noted with great satisfaction that the Director-General, in his introduction to the Programme of Work and Budget, in paragraph 45, states that he has done all he can do, and will continue to do all he can to ensure that UNDP/FAO relationships are particularly close in the field.
The debate on the role and activities of the UNDP, which was initiated at the 24th Session of the Governing Council, has, of course, great significance for the entire United Nations system. Its importance stems first and foremost from the fact that it is a recognition of the comprehensive, unified approach to development that has been gathering force in recent years, involving a drive for major reconstruction of the world economy. Thus, sectorial objectives and policies, to a larger extent than before, must be judged in the light of global concern and strategies.
Because of this complex international setting, the necessity of constantly improved coordination between the participants in the United Nations system is obvious, in order to make the operational activities as effective as possible.
In the UNDP debate on the Programme's role and activities, my Government underlined the importance of paragraph 9 in the Consensus, which reads:
''In the process of country programming, efforts should be made at all levels to coordinate all sources of assistance in the United Nations system with a view to achieving integration of the assistance at country level.''
No doubt coordination of technical cooperation is most crucial at the country level.
In our view, it should encompass all sources of technical assistance within the United Nations system, and as far as possible other sources of technical assistance outside the United Nations system.
In the coordinating process, the role of the UNDP resident representative is crucial, and we would like to see the provision of paragraph 63 of the Consensus being implemented to the extent possible. We would especially emphasize the role of the resident representative as the central coordinating authority on behalf of all the United Nations organs for their programmes of technical cooperation at the country level.
On the matter of resources, my Government stated in the UNDP session that we would support all efforts with a view to minimizing the uncertainty connected with voluntary contributions, and with the proliferation of funds. As examples of such efforts, we pointed to the need for a more rational understanding, a multi-year planning system, regulations concerning cost-sharing arrangements, and possible undertaking by Member Governments to reverse the relative shift away from UNDP funding on multilateral technical assistance.
Norway is strongly of the opinion that UNDP should continue to be the primary channel within the United Nations system for the financing of technical assistance. On the other hand, it is perhaps unrealistic to expect drastic changes in the present system, which is characterized by limited resources and by other funding channels besides the UNDP. For this reason, we have supported the efforts to improve the substance of the UNDP programmes.
Now, turning to the question of overhead cost reimbursement, as raised separately in document C 77/INF/15, indeed, I agree that it is an important subject. My Government wholeheartedly supported the decicion at the 24th UNDP Session of setting up an interstate working group to study the entire subject without prejudice to the final solution. We still think this is the only appropriate approach at this time. We would therefore strongly advise FAO to cooperate fully in the proceedings of this working group.
It is in this light that my delegation fully shares the opinion expressed by the Netherlands and Canada, and would like to state, for our part, as well, that we cannot agree with the proposed Draft Resolution as it appears in C 77/LIM/32. We would find it particularly regrettable if the Conference were to adopt a resolution which recommends that the present arrangements are to be maintained for at least the next three biennia, and in this way would give the impression that FAO oversees and even seeks to prejudge the work that this working group was established to look at.
We are of the opinion that an adoption of this kind will have serious consequences on the efforts being made to increase greater cohesion an coordination of the United Nations system.
In conclusion, on this particular point, I must say that if the Resolution is taken to a vote, my delegation would have to vote against it.
J. BERTELING (Netherlands): You ordered me to confine myself only to UNDP, in the earlier statement this afternooon. Since other delegations have endeavoured to combine the two -indeed separate-subjects, I would like to thank you for giving me the floor again before I go to the Drafting Committee,
However, one more remark on UNDP in connection with an aspect raised by the distinguished delegate of the Philippines. He said, if I understood him well, that it is a simple input from FAO to the Working Group, In our opinion this could be if no prejudging statements are made like the fact that the present statement reflects partnership and an equitable burden sharing. This is particularly one of the subjects to be discussed in the working group.
Speaking now on coordination with the UN system means that I shall miss the unusually interesting introductory statement of Mr. Walton.
I think that the Netherlands attitude towards coordination within the United Nations system is well known and on many subjects we have, during discussion here at the Conference, and especially at the First Session of the Council, made our ideas public. Now, we have received a good account on many substantive activities of importance for FAO before us in document C 77/25.
My delegation welcomes strongly FAO's activities to contribute to a new development strategy, especially through the project ''Agriculture: Towards 2000''. It is my government's hope that the Working Group of the Committee for Development Planning and the Inter-Agency Task Force can and will do useful work. On rural development, my delegation has spoken already in connection with the forthcoming World Conference.
With regard to the United Nations Water Conference, I would like to recall that my delegation has always favoured the establishment of an Inter-Agency Water Board under ACC. It welcomes the statement that FAO participates fully in the preparation for the Special Session of the Committee on Natural Resources, which, by the way, we hope will be changed into a subject-oriented session of the Economic and Social Council. My delegation would like to be informed on the present situation with regard to the follow-up within FAO of the Mar del Plata Action Plan, and especially on the resolution annexed as Appendix A to Document C 77/25.
Like other delegations I shall not go into the details of all subjects dealt with in the document. This does not mean that we do not consider the other questions important, on the contrary. For example, the consequences of the Desertification Conference and the improving relations between FAO and UNIDO are considered by my delegation as essential. We hope that real coordination on matters of substance between the different organizations will be improving, which is certainly necessary, either in the present structure or after the restructured system.
My delegation welcomes the present collaboration with WMO and is in full agreement with the draft resolution submitted to us in C 77/LIM/37-Rev.1, proposed by the delegation of Saudi Arabia.
R.W.M. JOHNSON (New Zealand): My instructions are to stress the coherence of the UN system to the maximum. Since this follows so closely the eloquent argument just developed by the delegate from Norway, I see no point in developing the details of it.
Our position is that the fundamental principle is the coherence of the UN system, and we would like just to stress that that is our position, and we shall reserve our support of the resolution.
H.A. ISMET HAKIM (Indonesia): My delegation would also like to give its views concerning this important point, that is agency overhead costs.
I think we have discussed this matter during the 71st Session of the Council, and also during the 72nd Session of the Council, before the Conference started. But anyhow I would like to give a brief review of the situation on which we are being informed by the Secretariat.
We note here that the 14 percent effective sharing cost is applicable up to the end of 1977, but then the Governing Council, in its resolution which we have before us, is extending this until 1978 and 1979·
We also noted that the decision by the UNDP Governing Council in 1975 was the result of many years of consideration, and negotiations on the basis of cost measurement studies, especially adapted to the needs of FAO, and FAO has before it considerable time and effort.
We have been informed, and are convinced that this reimbursement system is needed in assuring stability in FAO planning for the most effective use of all its resources.
On the total FAO field programme support, as we have been informed in the Secretariat document on UNDP relations, the total cost in 1974/75 is $48.8 million.
And we also say here that the subsidy from the regular programme to the field programme amounts to 8.2 million and that a subsidy of the same amount will most likely occur in 1976–77. I would like to draw your attention to the Report UNDP Relationships in paragraph 2, in which the Administrator reported to the Governing Council in June 1977 about the four methods of cutting overhead costs, but which specifically mentioned the two main alternatives, that is, one either retaining the present system or including the full overhead cost provision in the regular budgets of the agencies so we have these two main alternatives before us.
Now, let us look at what happened if the second was agreed upon. That means that the full overhead cost provision will be from the regular budgets of the agencies. This means if we take the same amount, 48.8 million will be taken from our Programme of Work and Budget of the 211 million if we agree on that. I hope we agree on that. It means already that 25 percent of the Regular Programme budget will be used for the agency overhead cost. We are fighting here that the budgets are used solely for the implementation of the Programme that we have all agreed to. We do not want the budgets that we agreed to be used for other proposals than we have already established. This is a very big implication. I think this is the reasoning behind why the Philippines proposed this Draft Resolution.
Now, concerning the prejudging of the issues and so on that was mentioned by the Netherlands and others, I would like to stress again here, that we, as the Conference, are the supreme body of this Organization, so it is within our right if we also give our views and if we can give guidance to the executive heads of the Organization.
We understand that the UNDP Resolution invites the heads of the executive agencies or their representatives to actively participate in the Working Group. Now, we as Member Countries here and as the Conference as a supreme body have the right to give guidance to its executive head on what to do. You remember when we were discussing the relationships agreement with UNDP and the World Food Council that the FAO Council and the Conference also give guidance to its executive heads on what matter we are dealing with, when we are going to discuss the relationships with the other agencies, so this is also the same case If we are going to discuss this matter with UNDP. Why not? Why worry as if we are giving instructions to our same delegation. If we have the same delegation and if the same delegation comes from the same country, they should have the same instructions. In this view, we think that it is not prejudging the issues before us, because as the Philippines has already mentioned, this Resolution merely requests the Director-General to bring the present Resolution to the attention of the Working Group of the FAO, of the Organization concerning this matter. So it does mean that the Working Group should adopt this Resolution or this position. It is only to bring to their attention what is the view of the Member Countries in the FAO Conference.
At the end, we would like also to draw the attention of those delegates that this is a Draft Resolution, and we are going to have a dialogue here in the Commission. It does not mean that we all agree or reject the Resolution. I think in the spirit of cooperation and understanding we should have a dialogue among us here so that we can come to a consensus, so I fully regret that many delegates from the beginning have said that they reject this Resolution. I say it is not a spirit of cooperation, of working together among all Member Countries, so in this spirit, we invite the other delegations and who later may have spoken again to consider their decision.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I have been informed of the debate which has taken place on this important issue and I consider it my duty to be with you this afternoon, in order to participate fully in this discussion.
I sincerely hope, as the distinguished delegate of Indonesia has stated, that the spirit of conciliation for which I appealed in my address to the Conference will continue to prevail. I have spent many hours in my office meeting Contact Groups, in order to settle very difficult problems regarding the transfer of $10 million from the Suspense Acoount to the new fund for the Prevention of Post Harvest Food Losses. Through this dialogue, and in a spirit of conciliation, we have found solutions acceptable to all parties. Nobody rejected anything a priori and the aim of our discussions was to reach a compromise. The same applies to the transfer of $5 million from the Suspense Account to a new budgetary reserve account. Heated exchanges, however, would not help us to do so, and I should regret any confrontation.
What I need is the advice of the Conference on this matter. I would be surprised to hear that it is not willing to grant it to me. This is a meeting of our supreme body on an important issue, and I need its advice.
Some delegates do not agree to a reimbursement rate of 14 percent; does this mean that they would like to see our budget increased by $40 million? From where would such funds come? I repeat that I need the instructions of the Conference, no matter whether in the form of a resolution or in any other. I shall follow them when called upon to defend the point of view of this Organization.
The matter is very important. No other specialized agency would be as severely affected as FAO; this subject has already been discussed on so many occasions and my colleagues and I have participated in so many meetings! Even Secretary-General Waldheim himself said to the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly that the figure of 14 percent should be retained, at least for two further biennia. I think the nearest to us is the UN, with 15 percent, followed by others, Unesco, etc., some of them with very minimal shares of 4 percent and less. This is why we have to take this matter very seriously. It is not prejudging the issue at all to tell the Director-General that he has to defend this point of view, and no one ought to be shocked if we, as a separate entity, draw the attention of the UNDP Working Group to our position.
Many delegates will very well remember that, in July 1976, the FAO Council was confronted with a resolution of the UNDP Governing Council, transmitted by cable, which almost amounted to applying pressure on the Council not to support the Technical Cooperation Programme. Although this was not well received by some members of our Council, I must acknowledge that it was the prerogative of the UNDP Governing Council to send their recommendation to our governing body, even when it was in the process of discussing that very subject.
I do not mean to say that everyone should approve the proposed resolution, or report section, but I must stress the importance of the matter. I do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that, even if the question is not going to be settled by consensus, there is a single delegate who would wish FAO's Programme of Work and Budget to be put in jeopardy by the decisions of an external body. We have a very small voice in that working group. Without clear-cut instructions from this Conference, it would be very difficult for us to defend our case before this Group, The ACABQ has acknowledged that this is not, in fact, a technical matter but a political issue, since one can always argue that it should be 14, or 13, or some other percentage. I appreciate the fact that delegates may also defend this Organization in other fora, since, as the distinguished delegate of Canada said, they should speak with the same voice. However, it would not amount to prejudging the issue to instruct me to defend a particular position. I shall need your instructions. If I go to the Working Group without them, I shall be weak; if I have them, I shall be strong. I shall be able to say what my Governing Body is asking me to say.
You may find it necessary, also, in the event of a difficult discussion, to ask the Contact Group, which has successfully solved other problems, to come and review the matter with the Secretariat. I shall make myself available and, with my colleagues, shall be ready to search for a formula acceptable to all. I cannot believe, however, that anyone will ever suggest that we should slash our budget by 10 or 15 million dollars, if not more!
There is a need for us to help by going through the text with representatives of the two groups who are in favour or against the resolution. We, in the Secretariat. are ready to do so, in that spirit of conciliation and cooperation so rightly advocated by the distinguished delegate of Indonesia.
T. GLASER (Suisse) (interpretation de l'allemand): Je voudrais dire quelques mots sur la résolution concernant le remboursement des frais généraux par le PNUD.
Mon avis rejoint celui qui a été présenté par le délégué des Pays-Bas ainsi que par d'autres orateurs qui m'ont précédé. Mon gouvernement s'expliquera sur ce point au PNUD et tiendra compte dans sa déclaration des intérêts de la FAO.
Pour ce qui est de la résolution, je trouve que cette façon de procéder n'est pas très heureuse. Le Directeur général de la FAO se voit prié de prendre une part active au groupe de travail du Conseil d'administration du PNUD. Je pense que les intérêts de la FAO seraient mieux représentés d'une autre manière, car une telle résolution aurait pour résultat de limiter sa liberté d'action. On obtiendrait le résultat contraire de celui que nous voulons. Pour cette raison, je pense que cette résolution n'est pas nécessaire.
Le Directeur général doit, à notre sens, avoir pleine liberté d'action pour ce qui est de sa participa-tion au groupe de travail, de façon à pouvoir défendre au mieux les intérêts de la FAO.
Je ne suis pas d'accord avec le Directeur général lorsqu'il dit que sa position est faible au sein de ce groupe de travail. Au contraire, en ce qui me concerne, je fais confiance à sa capacité bien connue de négociateur.
Quant à la possibilité que le groupe de contact s'occupe de cette question, cela me semble une bonne idée.
B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): Perhaps I should start my intervention by saying that in Brazil we are very happy with the kind of cooperation that along the years has developed among the different units of the UN system. So I must say that sometimes when I hear some of the discussions I feel a certain confusion in the sense that fortunately we have not witnessed, thus far at least, any problem beyond the normal questions which are perfectly understandable, which arise in the normal process of cooperation amongst agencies which operate in the field normally have to find accommodation here and there from time to time when projects are complementary, for instance, or when they are jointly operating in the support of a single project.
I would now comment on the question of the 14 percent. As many speakers before me have mentioned this is a very old story, as old as the discussions go on overhead costs. And, in fact, as old as UNDP. There are, however, a few facts which are important to recall here. The first is what is the actual situation? Is this 14 percent an exaggeration? Is it a reasonable assessment, under or above reality? We feel that at present it is clear that the 14 percent, at least as far as FAO is concerned, and I stress that, as far as FAO is concerned, the 14 percent is under the actual costs. I must say I am very grateful to the delegation of the Philippines for putting before us a very comprehensive text which spells a number of contexts which, I think, have been misunderstood. To some extent the text suggested to us by the Philippines, for instance, points out very clearly the kind of subsidization FAO has been obliged to provide in order to sustain the field programmes at the present level. That is already a clear indication, if there is something wrong with the 14 percent as far as FAO is concerned, and I underline that, that probably the 14 percent is not enough, that is one observation.
The second observation, Sir, and I think it is reasonable to try to look a little into the future, what is going to happen in the future? By the analysis we made the other day from the field programmes and the comments of delegates here on what they expect from FAO, it is quite clear on one point there are different trends, but one point is clear, that increasingly it will be requested from FAO to deliver a more complex programme. That means more sophisticated technological transfer. That means, finally, increased costs of overhead. How much more complex is the kind of technology you are trying to tranfer; obviously the overhead costs become more important. So not only do we have now a situation in which
regular programmes subsidize field programmes, including UNDP, therefore, but also the fact that the trends might be just in the direction of greater costs. For instance there was quite a discussion a couple of years ago on what kind of overhead should be paid WIPO, World Intellectual Property Organization, a prototype of the highly sophisticated transfer of technology. There was agreement that definitely the 14 percent WIPO could not live with, simply because the kind of assistance they were giving required more overhead. There was no way out of that. Those are realities. There are other realities also we must take into account, and again the text presented to us by the Philippines delegation is very clear. It points out a very interesting development, that is the fact that out of extra-budgetary expenditure incurred by FAO, UNDP has now proportionally a smaller share. That means that what we are, in fact, speaking about is also not only the support of the UNDP delivered programme but of programmes of a different nature parallel to UNDP, and entrusted in the hands of FAO. Therefore, in fact, if we insist on keeping down the level of overheads, what we will be doing in reality is charging against the regular programme paid by all of us costs which, in fact, by the philosophy of the donors, should be paid by them voluntarily. It is, that in actual fact, from the smallest contribution to the budget to the highest contribution to the budget, all of us will be financing that kind of programme. I would say, Sir, that is not quite compatible with the philosophy of voluntary contributions which donor countries, the major donor countries so much insist upon. I make this point because it has been a kind of attack on the 14 percent without any reason and I have tried at least on our side to give arguments why the 14 percent is there. It is not now, the question is then the following: We have a working group of UNDP Governing Council to meet, and should we instruct the Executive Head of the Organization to give a clear point of view to the Organization,yes or no. The point of view on which I insist must reflect the peculiarities of FAO, peculiarities in terms of the volume of the assistance of UNDP channelled through FAO. The volume of extra-budgetary resources, programmes financed by extra-budgetary resources in FAO: peculiarities of the FAO programme in the substance and its trends in the future? Should we be shy or not in telling the Executive Director what he should do. Should we take into account the specific condition of FAO. Now my delegation once said that I could only say that we fully support - in fact we are grateful for the Philippines delegation for presenting us with a clear text - I would not at the same time be against a suggestion by the Director-General we move to a dialogue we are here discussing, as I have tried to bring out the arguments. Unfortunately I have not heard the arguments why the 14 percent are not adequate, but we are prepared to follow the suggestion of the Executive Director to try to find a common and an agreeable solution to all members of the Organization. At the same time, Mr. Chairman, if we accept that we also want to make it quite clear we cannot allude some basic facts, and we will be doing a disservice to this Organization if at this stage we will be budgeting its regular budget. We have already difficulty to have approved a certain level of the budget, and it was with quite a considerable effort we finally reached agreement on the regular budget. As the delegate of Bangladesh indicated if we put in question the 14 percent what will be the result; how will the programme in the next biennium be implemented? What will be the effect on it? These are very serious considerations. I must say my delegation, while approving the budget level, and considering it adequate in spite of its constraints, it did so in the belief that the system of 14 percent will be kept, therefore, if there is any prospect of change, then, Mr. Chairman, we have to re-think a number of other things. Therefore, I very much hope it will be possible to have agreement on this in terms of a clear direction provided to the Executive Head of the Organization when dealing with this matter with the UNDP and its working group.
C. WILL (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): Before I come to the main point, that is to say the Resolution on the reimbursement of overhead costs, I would like to give my full support to what was said in particular by my colleague from Norway with regard to the coherence of the UN system, the consensus and the special role of UNDP in multilateral technical assistance.
With regard to the a.m. Resolution my delegation also is one of those, which believe that the procedure which is being used here, is a somewhat unfortunate one. My delegation cannot agree to such a Resolution. We will reject it, and I would like to explain to you why. What we are concerned with here, Mr. Director-General, is not the question of whether 14, 15 or 13 percent overhead costs are going to be reimbursed. This is a question which is going to be solved by a body which had been authorized to do so - with your help, Mr. Director-General, and the support of delegations which share your point of view. It is the concern of the German delegation that governments should speak with one single voice in the meetings of the different specialized agencies and the text of this Resolution certainly does not invite them to do so.
In June 1977 my delegation to the Governing Council of UNDP was in agreement with practically all other delegations represented here in desiring the setting up of a special working group to deal with the reimbursement of overhead costs. Document C 77/LIM/15, paragraph 7, describes precisely what the task of this working group will be. According to that all members of UNDP and all observers will have an opportunity of participating in the work of this group. The executing agencies, however, and this includes FAO, have even been invited to participate actively in the work of the working group and by this the Director-General of FAO has the opportunity of explaining the opinions of FAO and members of the FAO Conference and Council. Herewith has the Director-General the opportunity to have these views included in the June report of the working group. We, as well as other delegations, are not of the opinion that the Conference need to adopt a resolution on this matter. We believe, on the other hand, that the report of the Conference is the proper place for an explanation of the reasons which many delegations have for maintaining the 14 percent level. The report, however, should also indicate that other delegations were not ready to prejudge the decisions to be taken by the authorized working group. You see, Mr. Director-General and Mr. Chairman, we do not just reject a resolution, we propose a procedure which we believe is in agreement with the spirit of compromise, just stressed by a distinguished colleague. I do not think I need to add anything. Other delegations, those of the Netherlands, Norway, Canada and Switzerland, have already dealt with this subject, but I can assure you that my instructions do not allow me to support a resolution on this matter. If there should be a vote, we will have to vote against it. I do not believe that a contact group to deal with this problem would be an advisable solution. This would lead us to the risk of keeping us busy for days. The opinions seem to be fairly firm on the matter.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I apologize for taking the floor again, Mr. Chairman. This is a very important matter. I would like to draw the attention of the distinguished delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany to the fact that FAO is not really a member of this Working Group. This Group is Inter-Governmental and, therefore, FAO cannot be a member. It is a working group of the UNDP and UNDP cannot make decisions for FAO. We are a sovereign Organization and this Conference is its governing body, while we are referring to a different Inter-Governmental Working Group. We are not members of that group; FAO and other agencies will just be invited to participate. We will sit in on the meeting, be given the floor at certain times, but will be asked to retire when certain matters are discussed.
I cannot proceed to this meeting without instructions. I endorse the proposed resolution and commend it to you. Whatever the decision of this Conference, I shall, of course, accept it. Reference may be made to ten years, or to the next biennium, or to two biennia. But we must keep in mind that this is an important matter which concerns the future of our Organization. When I go to the Governing Council, I must be in position to say “these are my instructions” and I would then be able to defend them. But, should this Conference not face up to its responsibilities and leave me without instructions, I would have nothing to go on!
I can see that delegations from some developed countries have very explicit instructions in this regards. However, delegations from many developing countries, for whom the UNDP programme is intended, may not perhaps be quite so up to date on the implications of the rate of overhead costs reimbursement. As a result, this debate may be rather one-sided and the views expressed so far may not really represent those of the majority of Commission II.
In summary, I must repeat that I cannot go to the Inter-Governmental Working Group without instructions from this Conference, which should decide whether it wants a resolution or not. If necessary, we could hold a meeting of the Contact Group in my office and try to come to an agreement on some instructions as to the stand I should take.
CHAIRMAN: Since the Director-General spoke directly to the last intervention by the delegate of Germany, I think it is correct of me to give the delegate of Germany the floor again to reply.
C. WILL (Germany, Rep. Fed. of) (interpretation from German): I welcome the fact that you have given the floor to me again, because there is one point I would like to make in reply. According to the text which I have before me which the Director-General is not only just attending the meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group which means he is only able to speak with special permission. This context states that the executing agencies were invited to participate actively in the meetings of the Intergovernmental Working Group. They shall express their views on the question of overheads. You see, FAO is also invited to participate actively in that work.
The second point to which I would like to return is that we had not been speaking for or against a change in the level of overhead costs reimbursement. I repeat in the Governing Council of UNDP the Federal Republic of Germany was in favour of setting up that Working Group which, with the help of the Director-General and his Organization - and our help in the Governing Council as well as in the Working Group itself - would decide on the maintenance of, or a change in the reimbursement of overhead costs. I believe that this is very important to stress. The third point is that, in our view, the Director-General does not really need instructions from the Conference but arguments of his Organization, to explain his case in a way that could make us support him.
H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): First of all, I should like to recall, and remind this august body, that the Council has already agreed to this proposition and I would like to read the pertinent passage which appears in paragraph 30 of CL 72/REP: “Expressing concern over the potential impact on the substance of FAO's Regular Programme of any reduction in overhead cost reimbursements, the Council thus felt that the present formula of reimbursements being calculated at a rate of 14 percent on delivery should be maintained, also as a tangible reflection of partnership in an equitable burden sharing between UNDP and the Agencies”.
Therefore, this decision has been made, and the 14 percent recommendation will be maintained by the Council. The Council has agreed to this. Many of the delegates who are now speaking against this Resolution were there, and they agreed to this Resolution, because it is a Council decision - and I am a little taken aback by the change of heart that we have noticed at this juncture.
The second point is that this body does not prejudge the result of the Working Party. As the distinguished Ambassador of the Philippines stated earlier, we are just stating that the present cost that is being shared by FAO is above 14 percent, and if we do not believe the figures, then probably it is high time that we re-vamp the system of FAO. That would be a very serious matter; but I do not see anybody questioning the figures that have been given here. All that we are giving here is stating facts. We know that FAO is spending more than 14 percent for the delivery of the Field Programmes. So we are just saying to the Director-General now that he can go to the Working Party and tell them “If costs are 14 percent - please don't let it go down - as the Resolution itself says, maintain at least that 14 percent”. If the Working Party says “you can have 14 and a half percent or 15 percent”, so much the better. That is what this Resolution means: it is to enable the Director-General to tell them “This is costing us this much - please don't reduce it”.
J.S. CAMARA (Guinée): Je partage entièrement le point de vue développé par notre collègue du Brésil. Nous, pays en développement, bénéficiaires des programmes de financement du PNUD et de l'assistance efficace de la FAO ou autres institutions, nous ne constatons pas dans nos pays une absence de cohésion ou de cohérence entre les politiques des institutions spécialisées, car de toute évidence, comme l'a indiqué le Directeur général dans de nombreuses déclarations tant à l’ECOSOC qu'au Conseil même, la décision finale appartient aux gouvernements intéressés. Nous ne comprenons donc pas que chaque fois qu'on traite d'un problème du PNUD, on veuille mettre la FAO sur la sellette et qu'on dise que cette Organisation cherche à créer une cassure entre les institutions spécialisées. C'est un procès que l'on intente en vue d'essayer d'étouffer les nouvelles propositions tendant à l'amélioration de la coopération entre les institutions.
Nous ne sommes pas pour un système de coopération dans lequel une institution serait le cavalier et les autres les chevaux. Nous voulons une coopération loyale, mais si primus inter pares que le PNUD devrait être, il faudrait qu'on donne aux autres institutions spécialisées également leurs responsabilités et leurs droits face aux gouvernements des pays membres.
Au sujet de ce problème de 14 pour cent,c'est presque la troisième fois que j'ai à parler de cette question. Non seulement j'en ai eu l'occasion en tant que membre du comité du Programme, mais également au Conseil d'administration, et aujourd'hui devant la Commission II. Or nous avons toujours entendu les mêmes arguments de la part de ceux qui ne sont pas pour ces 14 pour cent. Mais nous n'avons pas entendu proposer un autre chiffre, ni donner d'informations ou des arguments plausibles appuyant leurs propositions. Ils sont seulement toujours contre. Il faut attendre, attendre...
Nous sommes maintenant saisis d'une résolution qui tend au maintien de ces 14 pour cent, ceci appuyé par les explications fort pertinentes du délégué du Brésil et également par les arguments contenus dans le document 77/INF 15.
Il y a deux ans, nous étions déjà confrontés à ce même problème, et voilà pourquoi nous sommes vraiment peinés d'entendre dire que nous sommes contre cette résolution.
Nous appuyons la proposition du Directeur général tendant à la création d'un groupe de contact qui devrait se pencher sur cette question. Or, la Conférence générale est presqu'à sa fin; je ne sais pas si le groupe de contact aura suffisamment le temps de se pencher sur cette question. Il faut toutefois tenir compte que ces 14 pour cent représentent un minimum.
Si nous considérons le financement du PNUD dans l'aide et que nous fassions la comparaison entre 1966 et aujourd'hui, nous voyons une différence notable dans cette contribution. Nous nous demandons s'il faut que nous payions des frais pour d'autres et pour financer une sorte de propagande qui n'a pas sa place ici.
Nous pensons qu'il faudrait donner au Directeur général les moyens de présenter au PNUD des propositions qui n'affaiblissent pas la position de l'Organisation, mais qui au contraire maintiennent la FAO dans une position qui lui permette de faire face aux responsabilités et obligations qui sont les siennes.
Tout en n'acceptant pas avec beaucoup de conviction la proposition du Directeur général quant au groupe de contacts nous nous y rallions, et nous espérons que le groupe de contact, d'ici lundi ou mardi au plus tard, pourra nous présenter un texte. Mais nous ne voulons pas d'un texte qui ne soit pas une résolution. Nous voulons qu'une résolution soit votée par la Dix-neuvième session de la Conférence, parce qu'une résolution votée dans ce cadre est beaucoup plus pertinente.
Mme S. VERVALCKE (Belgique): On a évoqué suffisamment les tenants et aboutissants de ce problème des overheads que nous voyons malheureusement revenir dans presque tous les ordres du jour des réunions du PNUD. Nous suivons cette question de très près et la FAO sait que, dans l'enceinte du PNUD, nous ne sommes certainement pas parmi les intervenants qui prennent des positions qui ne sont pas extrêmement favorables aux besoins des organisations spécialisées.
Mais nous pensons qu'il y a ici deux problèmes qu'il ne faut pas mélanger. Il y a un problème à long terme et un problème à terme intermédiaire.
Le problème à long terme c'est d'arriver à trouver à un certain moment la réponse, à la fois au contenu, à la définition de ce que nous appelons frais généraux. Et nous avons d'ailleurs insisté pour que le groupe intergouvernemental inscrive cette question à son programme, que l'on sache d'abord exactement de quoi on parle, car nous constatons que plus les années passent, plus on parle de ces problèmes et moins on sait de quoi on parle.
Cette première définition étant donnée, nous savons aussi qu'il importe, si faire se peut, d'arriver à définir exactement quelle est la proportion des frais généraux (gardons cette expression pour le moment), quel est leur montant et comment ils doivent se répartir.
C'est parce que les groupes de travail qu'on a essayé de constituer ne sont pas arrivés à un résultat, qu'on en est finalement venu à proposer la création de ce groupe de travail intergouvememental, Nous estimons qu'au sein de ce groupe de travail intergouvernemental nombreux sont les pays qui se sont prononcés dans le même sens au Conseil du PNUD, c'est-à-dire tous les pays intéressés, et cela sur un pied d'égalité et non pas avec une prépondérance du PNUD, Les représentants des agences et le PNUD doivent pouvoir renseigner au maximum et donner leur avis à tout moment dans le groupe; il faut que la décision qui y sera prise puisse l'être vraiment en toute connaissance de cause.
Ce travail ne se fera pas en quelques semaines; le Groupe doit être conscient qu'il est urgent pour lui de prendre une décision car on doit à tout prix sortir de cette impasse. En attendant, - et c'est ainsi que nous avions interprété le projet de résolution - le Directeur général de la FAO se trouve dans la nécessité de connaître à moyen terme la situation, quel sera dans les mois qui viennent ne disons pas dans les siècles qui viennent, mais à court terme - le montant sur lequel on pourra compter pour poursuivre l'exécution des projets. Nous comprenons très bien qu'il souhaite connaître l'avis du Conseil sur la recommandation que celui-ci peut lui donner pour la défense des mesures transitoires, à prendre hélas périodiquement, tant que la situation n'est pas éclaircie.
Nous ne sommes pas convaincus que la résolution soit nécessaire ni même souhaitable. Nous préférerions qu'il n'y ait pas de résolution mais qu'il soit clairement dit au Conseil ce que nous souhaitons et ce que nous pensons possible de défendre. Il faut tenir compte qu'en prenant cette décision, les pays que nous représentons, s'ils sont conséquents avec eux-mêmes, sont évidemment amenés à prendre la même position dans les autres enceintes, y compris dans celle du PNUD.
Cela dit, quant à la nécessité que nous estimons douteuse d'une résolution, mais quant à la nécessité certaine d'une prise de position, il est en effet équitable que la FAO puisse compter pendant une période, sur laquelle nous allons revenir, sur un montant au moins égal à celui accepté jusqu'à présent. Nous comprenons la position prise sur les 14 pour cent, mais il ne faudrait pas à aucun moment qu'une résolution, si résolution il y a, puisse faire d'une façon ou d'une autre présager ce qui sera décidé finalement. Nous ignorons quel sera le montant. Si nous étions certains aujourd'hui que ce taux de 14 pour cent est le bon, il est évident que nous pourrions parler d'une répartition équitable fixée â 14 pour cent, mais il serait absolument anticipé de donner un jugement de valeur sur ce point. D'autre part, il ne serait pas souhaitable qu'une mesure transitoire, d'une durée minimum de six ans, soit recommandée, car elle aurait comme effet de faire encore traîner les choses en donnant raison à quelque groupe que ce soit sans arriver à une solution rapide; il faut qu'une solution intervienne dans de bons délais. Nous comptons sur un laps de temps qui peut être d'une année, de deux années au maximum, car dans deux ans nous devrions avoir les premiers résultats des travaux de ce Groupe intergouvememental, de manière que, pour le prochain biennium, il y ait une position permettant à la FAO de continuer à travailler.
Au sein du Groupe de contact, si l'on tient compte de la situation actuelle, et non pas de la discussion sur le fond du problème, sur le montant de la contribution finale, il doit y avoir moyen de trouver une solution.
Ms. C. INGMAN (Finland): The Finnish delegation also wishes to make clear its position on this very important issue of overhead reimbursements. The level and method of reimbursement, as mentioned by several other delegates, has been a subject of concern and discussion between United Nations Agencies for a long time. Finland therefore welcomed and supported the decision by the UNDP Governing Council in June 1977 to establish an Intergovernmental Working Group on Overhead Costs. This group is not only open to all Governing Council Members and Observers, but also to the heads of Executing Agencies who are invited to participate actively in the group's work.
Since the Working Group has not yet started its work, Finland feels that accepting a Resolution as presented in the Draft Resolution would, as several delegations have already pointed out, badly prejudge the work and result of the Working Group. To us the Draft Resolution, therefore, does seem both untimely and unnecessary. Finland would rather see FAO cooperate actively with UNDP and other specialized agencies in the Working Group which, to our mind, is the appropriate forum to find a solution for this question, and where the voice of FAO certainly will be heard.
Mr. Chairman, the present rate of reimbursement has in fact been agreed upon for 1978/79, and will therefore be revalued. My delegation feels that an FAO Conference Resolution fixing the present rate of overheads would go against this agreement.
The suggestion that the 14 percent reimbursement rate be maintained for at least the next three biennia, which is six years, is not therefore acceptable to us.
There is also another aspect which gives concern to the Finnish delegation, namely that of the coherence of the United Nations Development System. It is quite evident that the United Nations agencies must be able to work together in a spirit of partnership and cooperation. For this purpose causes of friction between them, such as the question of overhead reimbursement, must be effectively removed. We feel, Mr. Chairman, that an FAO Conference Resolution along the lines of the Draft Resolution presented to us would lead to regrettable consequences for inter-agency cooperation.
In conclusion the Finnish delegation would indeed find it very difficult to accept the Draft Resolution as it now stands.
J. RUTKOWSKI (Poland): Mr. Chairman, I would like very shortly to state our position regarding the proposed text of resolution regarding the reimbursement of the UNDP overhead costs. While we understand the philosophy behind the resolution and the needs of the Organization and we do not see any difficulty to go along with it, on the other hand the wording of the document is such that it gives rise to some misunderstanding and we find it difficult to accept it.
In our opinion this text prejudges the results of the deliberations of the. special Group which is supposed to study the problem. Secondly it expresses concern about something yet unknown, and then it calls for stabilization for a period of six years which is very difficult to accept. On the other hand, many countries represented here are at the same time members of the UNDP Governing Council, so it would look probably as if we are giving instructions, or appearing to do so, to some extent to ourselves. But I have the impression that the differences of opinion expressed in this gathering here are concerned rather with semantics and the style of the document than the substance.
Therefore, I would suggest - and I simply support the idea expressed here - that this matter should be dealt with by the contact group and that after some rewording we could accept the resolution.
M. L. LAPEBY (Gabon): En ce qui concerne le Groupe de travail, si ma connaissance de la langue française est bonne, il s'agit d'un Groupe de travail intergouvernemental. Evidemment, il est question de la participation active des administrations, chefs de secrétariat, administrateurs du PNUD. Je voudrais que vous puissiez me répondre, Monsieur le Président, sur la nuance que vous faites entre les différentes représentations, les représentants de gouvernements à ce Groupe de travail et l'administration, quelle que soit l'organisation. Quels sont leurs deux rôles et quel est le plus important?
Je reviens sur le contenu de la décision du Conseil d'administration. Le Groupe de travail a été prié par le Conseil d'administration de faire rapport en juin 1979. Monsieur le Président, à quelle époque estimez-vous que la FAO doit élaborer son projet de budget pour 1979? Est-ce que la FAO doit attendre le rapport, qui ne sera pas une décision, ou doit-elle pouvoir disposer d'éléments valables sur lesquels 'Organisation peut compter pour élaborer son budget de travail? C'est un problème. La réponse que voudrait le Directeur général - et je me mets à sa place - est la suivante: dites-moi ce qu'il faut faire de façon que dès 1979 j'incorpore, à titre prévisible, parce que la décision ne sera pas prise, les 14 pour cent dans les opérations et dans le programme. Voilà le problème. Si on peut me répondre qu'en 1979 une décision sera prise, quand pensez-vous que le Directeur général pourra élaborer son budget en fonction de cette décision?
Le représentant du Brésil a dit tout à l'heure que les 14 pour cent étaient un taux très faible. Le budget du PNUD a été augmenté pour la période qui va suivre, de 14 pour cent. J'ai dit au cours d'un Conseil que c'était vraiment talentueux de sa part, alors qu'en reprenant les chiffres des dernières années, nous trouvons un budget en 1975 de 410 millions de dollars, en 1976 de 370 millions de dollars, en 1977 de 347 millions. Les chiffres vont en diminuant. Ajoutez les 14 pour cent et le PNUD ne peut plus répondre aux besoins des pays en développement. C'est une certitude, je dirai plus, c'est une évidence.
Devons-nous tabler sur des éléments non encore définis ou devons-nous prendre certaines dispositions et certaines précautions pour que le budget qui nous sera présenté en 1979 soit un budget tenant compte d'éléments fiables?
C'est la première fois que je vois dans une Conférence s'opposer systématiquement à une résolution sans l'avoir discutée. Je regrette cette prise de position et je regrette même que certains délégués aient été jusqu'à dire que ce serait créer deux clans au sein de cette Conférence. C'est un langage que je n'ai jamais entendu jusqu'ici. Or, il y a quatre ans que je siège au Conseil: depuis 1962 j'assiste aux travaux de la FAO. Quand un délégué qui assiste au Conseil, qui connaît les décisions ou les résolutions que le Conseil propose à la Conférence, les met en cause, je peux douter de sa sincérité et je doute même de ses intentions.
Ε. F. MADSEN (Denmark): As may be recalled from our intervention during the deliberations on item 11, Review of Field Programmes, the Danish delegation spoke about the relationship between UNDP and FAO. We would like to refer to our remarks at that time.
Furthermore, we briefly touched on the question of overhead costs and that is what I shall confine myself to in this intervention. It was then- as it still is- our view that since it has been decided to establish an open-ended working group on overhead costs, no international body should deal with the question of overheads in a way that might prejudice the findings of that working group.
We are, indeed, highly surprised by the initiatives behind the draft resolution on reimbursement of UNDP overhead costs. We are surprised because this draft resolution does not respect at all nor take into consideration, and I would rather say it goes against what governments, many of whom are also present in this Commission, have already previously unanimously agreed upon, after, I would add, often lengthy and time-consuming déliberations.
Let me just refer to the resolutions adopted by the UNDP Governing Council at its 24th Session in June this year, later endorsed by ECOSOC's 63rd Session, and also let me refer to decisions taken at the FAO Council meeting in June this year.
Therefore, it would be difficult for my delegation to vote for the text of the draft resolutions as it now stands, because that would be to go against our opinions expressed in other international bodies. It has been decided unanimously, as I have mentioned, to establish a working group and we must not prejudice its work. We must give it time to begin its job. Consequently, like many other previous speakers, the Danish delegation would prefer that no resolution concerning this matter should be adopted at all.
We were happy to hear - if I understood the Philippne delegate correctly in his first intervention -that he would be willing to consider withdrawing the draft resolution. Thus, we hope that it should not be necessary to call for a new meeting of the special contact group, of which my delegation is not a member.
Let me try briefly to explain to the authors of the draft resolution what should be done by FAO with respect to overhead costs, or what the role of FAO is, as we see it. Firstly, according to the decision previously referred to by the UNDP Governing Council, the heads of the executing agencies are invited to participate actively in the work of the working group. We therefore sincerely hope that it is the intention of FAO to respond positively to this invitation and thus show a real intention to cooperate closely with the other international organizations in matters of common interest.
Secondly, the resolution invites the executing agencies to submit an expression of their views on the question of overheads, including a clear definition of overheads and the cost elements involved. This is, of course, an invitation that the Secretariat of FAO must be interested in following up. Only by providing the working group with all relevant aspects of the questions as they are seen by the FAO Secretariat will it be possible for the group to reach a conclusion with which FAO can agree.
Third, and lastly, the UNDP resolution requests the administrator of UNDP and the executive heads of the agencies to render all necessary assistance to the working group in its task. This is what is expected to be done from the side of FAO; nothing more, nothing less.
In concluding, may I just say that my delegation have deliberately - like other speakers before me-avoided speaking on the percentage rates of overhead costs because we find that this is not relevant to this discussion of principle.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor. I regret that I must leave shortly to meet another contact group and should like to make some important remarks before my departure ·
While FAO will be participating very actively in the Inter-Governmental Working Group, we shall take no part in decision-making. We shall be present at the meetings, express our views, and perhaps confirm them in writing before our departure. FAO is not a member of the Inter-Governmental Working Group, which is made up of government representatives - perhaps some of them are present here - who will reach decisions on an issue which is of very great interest to us, I would inform the Conference, therefore, that, whatever is said to the contrary, “active participation” means only that we provide
information and answer questions, but not that we participate in reaching decisions. Our point of view may not be taken into consideration when a vote is taken on any issue ! No matter how strong he is, the head of any agency just has to put his case and leave before the members decide.
The preparation of the budget for the 1980–81 biennium must start in November 1978; after completion of the sessions of all regional conferences. As you know, there will be five regional conferences next year, the last of which will take place in Portugal in October, and I have to take their views into account. Soon afterwards, preparation of the Programme of Work and Budget will be initiated. A decision should be reached on the level of the budget at the beginning of January 1979 and the documents should be ready for printing, at the end of the same month, for despatch in March to Members of the Programme and Finance Committee, who will discuss it in April. At that time, however, I shall still have no indication whatsoever of the decisions of the Inter-Governmental Group, since its report is not expected before June 1979, too late to be taken into account in the preparation of FAO's budget for 1980–81.
It is essential, therefore, to know in advance, whether the $ 25 million which governments would have to pay should be added or not, since I am obviously not prepared to cut FAO's programme to accommodate such an amount. I could, of course, propose this to your Conference, but it is for it to decide whether it can really envisage having to reconsider our Programme of Work and Budget to accommodate, at the last moment, an increase of 25 or 30 million for meeting UNDP Agency costs.
I need, at the very least, to have concrete assurances for the biennium 1980–81, because of the time it takes to prepare our programme and budget. For the time being, we know which overheads we will get for one biennium, but this is not sufficient for reasons of timing. The proposed resolution mentions three biennia; as I have just explained, at least two biennia are indispensable for planning our budget.
If I suggested having a meeting of the Contact Group as soon as possible, it was because this would give us more time to consider the matter. I have made this proposal and it is up to the Conference to accept it or not. If it decides to accept it, we could meet even tomorrow Saturday, and try to reach a consensus. I realize that delegates hold very different views on this issue, but the most basic point is whether a resolution is needed or not. If this could be settled here, it would make things easier, as I would then have instructions as a basis for discussion and negotiation. Even without instructions, I would, of course, still attend the meeting of the working group and reques 14 percent for the two biennia, as I have to protect our Organization, You have elected me to defend FAO and not to accept decisions, made by outside bodies, which could harm this Organization.
I hope that this will not turn out to be a controversial issue, would it be only because, in any case, we cannot make a final decision on it here. Even if the Inter-Governmental Working Group formulates definite recommendations, I am sure that we would still have an opportunity to discuss this matter again in our Conference. The General Assembly, also, is unlikely to keep quiet on this issue; Secretary-General Waldheim may express his views again; This problem does not invlolve only one agency. It is a very complicated and far-reaching issue and I would not be surprised if the Working Group were unable to reach a decision; we shall see next June.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have to leave you because I have another contact group waiting for me in my office. I shall be looking forward to your decision and, whatever it is, I can assure you that I shall accept it and try to comply with it. But I would like to believe that this august assembly is as anxious as I am to preserve the integrity of our Programme of Work and Budget and to defend the interests of this Organization, taking into consideration the views of other agencies, who are our partners and with whom we are trying our best to cooperate.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the Director-General. I am sure we all appreciate the frankness of the Director-General.
Y. LIKE (Ethiopia): I wish the Director-General was here when I speak, because I have some remarks about his statement. First of all, I would like to say that I did not intend to speak on this Resolution initially because I thought that it would pass unanimously. For one thing, the UNDP Council has already approved of the 14 percent, and what the Resolution says really is to strengthen this statement and indicate what the governing body of the FAO feels about it, but hearing statements by such countries as the Netherlands and Canada who have throughout the Session been really sympathetic and in favour of the cause of the developing countries go against the Resolution, then I decided I had better stay behind and listen to what others have to say, so finally I decided I should say something, because it is very near to the cause of not only the developing countries but to the cause of all nations concerned in FAO as it primarily relates to the need to increase food production and to catch up, not only to increase but to catch up all our past failures, but before that, I would just like to comment on the Director-General's statement that we do not know what overhead costs are. I hope he did not mean that in the literal sense, because we do know very well what overhead costs are.
As most of you who work with developing countries are aware, even when we get capital investments, primarily because of lack of overhead costs our projects have failed and they are failing even now, so we do know very much what overhead costs are, but I know what he meant is that we do not have the necessary influence to debate as much as we would like to in such a Conference as this, and really that more information has to bring us up to date and stand by the side of our colleagues here, and so to that extent I think I would understand his position, being in a difficult position as the Director-General and not having voting power in the Working Group. I think he has the right to ask for our mandate and be forceful,at that.
Let me go back to the main issue. I would like to talk on four major issues. One is the question of being inconsistent, which was particularly hit hard by Canada and others, maybe. The other is the strength of the Director-General in the Working Group. The third item will be the need for and importance of a Resolution like this. The fourth item would be whether in fact our discussion here would prejudge the decision of the Working Group, and finally whether or not I support this Resolution, and how.
Regarding the inconsistency, I think having the background of this Resolution and the statements of the UNDP Governing Council, as indicated in C 77/LIM/32 and so on, some of the members of FAO are also members of the Governing Council who, as Canada said, did support the view of the 14 percent reimbursement to FAO, and I do not really see the inconsistency there, if he supports here the same view that we did in that Council. Even if we say it is inconsistent, after all, time has changed. At the time he, or anybody else for that matter, supported the view, it i s sometime back, and as time changes, conditions change, and therefore we are bound to change along with conditions and heartily support our views, whether it is different from our previous condition or not, so I do not believe it is really inconsistent. In fact it is only strengthening the initial view of 14 percent, and this would continue for the next two or three biennia rather than just one, as probably indicated in the Council's statement.
Now, the other point, is a mandate to the Director-General really necessary on this issue? To me, yes. It indicates exactly how the FAO members feel about the need for continued assistance or financial provision by UNDP, and in light of our past discussion that food production in developing countries has been 1 percent as opposed to 4 or 5 percent target which was mandated by this august body sometime back and the UN itself, the entire body, not only the FAO but the UN system, were targeted for increased production of 4 to 5 percent per annum, and this did not take place. We must ask ourselves why it did not and how should we make up for this and so on and so forth.
If we are to positively answer on this, we really need capital investment and all that should be done in order to increase the skills, the manpower skills for the production of this. All this requires financing. We just cannot expect to improve the technological know-how in developing countries by knowing the situation and not doing much about it.
So I think the Director-General necessarily and very much needs the support of this august body, including those members and even more so of those members who participated in the UNDP Governing Council. We believe it is not only the Director-General who presents the case of FAO or this august body but it is also the members of the Governing Council who are members of this body. They have to say more than even the Director-General, who is only a body who defends his case. He does
not have voting power or even his statements would probably merely get sympathy of the members of the Governing Body, but the members of FAO who are also members of the UNDP Governing Council have really a lot to say on whether or not this 14 percent and high can pass and for how long.
The fourth item, is the Resolution necessary? Well, yes. We know that even during this biennium we have passed a Resolution that presumably does not have a budgetary implication. An example is the continuation of European projects, yes. Why did we pass? Because we thought this is going to impress on the FAO that such a programme that has already started within the European Community should continue in spite of even the low budgetary allocation to the European group, relatively low, so I think there is no need for me to go on justifying the need for a Resolution. Anything that has a budgetary implication needs a strong Resolution, not a weak one.
The next one is, do we really prejudge the Governing Council's decision? To me, no. What we are discussing here is what do we do in the next four years and how do we do and achieve our objective in the next four years, and to that effect, the Governing Council has passed some 14 percent reimbursement for FAO's field work, and it comes to anybody's mind supposing we do not get 14 percent, what happens? Well, then we must cut back on our work, and yet we know that our work has not been sufficient enough. This is obvious, not only to the FAO members, but also even outside FAO members, so I think it is proper that we discuss this issue here and should not be taken whatsoever as prejudging the decision of the Governing Council, and I think it is up to us to get the sympathy of the Governing Council regarding our view on this.
The last one is, well, do I support the Resolution? Certainly I do, I think it should be a unanimous support rather than creating unnecessary cleavage and confrontation. We have been working in a harmonious situation so far, and I think there is a need to continue that harmony that has been there during the Session, and I hope it would prevail. If some delegates feel the Resolution is too strong, well, I think, as the Director-General suggested, this is not the first Resolution that needed revision or a Contact Group or otherwise. There has been quite a lot before and there is no reason why this cannot be subject to a similar approach, but what I would like to appeal is, like some of our distinguished delegates who asked the Philippine delegate to withdraw its resolution, on the contrary I would like to ask some of our distinguished delegates to withdraw their statements and go along with the resolution, if they do not seem to go along with the existing set-up of the Resolution. I think, as the Director-General said, let a contact group be established to bring it in line with the interests of all concerned, but let us not break apart on this maybe minor issue where we know all of us heartily support the need for increasing food production, and there is no way to do this unless we have the necessary finance at the right time and at the right place.
K. CHOUERI (Liban) (interprétation de l'arabe): Ma délégation voudrait faire certains commentaires pour expliciter sa position au sujet de cette question. Les données dont nous disposons sont les suivantes:
Premièrement, l'accord en ce qui concerne le remboursement des frais généraux touche à sa fin au cours de cette année;
Deuxièmement, le Conseil, au cours des deux dernières sessions, a demandé le maintien de ce taux de 14 pour cent;
Troisièmement, le Conseil d'administration du PNUD va mettre en application de cet accord pour les deux années à venir (1978–79) ensuite les institutions spécialisées ont demandé d'augmenter ce taux car en fait ce taux de 14 pourcent est insuffisant.
Quatrièmement, certains ont déjà indiqué leur préoccupation en ce qui concerne le volume des frais généraux bien qu'en ce sens un accord ait été passé entre le Directeur général de la FAO et l'administrateur du PNUD, accord qui détermine le rôle de chacune des deux institutions, qui est en fait un rôle complémentaire.
Telles sont les données dont nous disposons. Sur cette base, après avoir pris note des causes qui ont poussé à l'élaboration de ce projet de résolution, notre délégation voudrait demander que la FAO soit l'agent d'exécution principal des programmes du PNUD. La Conférence générale au cours des sessions précédentes avait déjà mis l'accent sur la nécessité du remboursement des frais généraux par la FAO pour appuyer les projets extérieurs, et le taux qui a été admis était le taux de 14 pour cent.
Aussi, le maintien de ce taux de 14 pour cent permettra-t-il une certaine stabilité qui nous permettra de planifier au mieux les ressources dont nous disposons. Le maintien du statu quo au cours des trois prochains biennia est à discuter, et de toute façon cela ne va pas à l’encontre des intérêts de la FAO.
Cela ne va pas non plus à l’encontre des intérêts du PNUD, ni à l’encontre des intérêts du groupe de travail du Conseil d'administration du PNUD. Aussi regrettons-nous la façon dont cette résolution a été accueillie par certaines délégations. Le projet de résolution dont nous sommes saisis n'est pas la manifestation d'une attitude négative de la FAO vis-à-vis du PNUD. C'est pour cela que nous sommes convaincus que la solution existe et qu'elle doit être abordée dans un esprit de coopération et de cohérence. Et si nous adoptons une résolution, cela permettra au Directeur général d'avoir une plus ample marge d'action, aussi sommes-nous d'accord pour la création d'un groupe de contact qui reverrait ce projet de résolution pour rallier l'opinion de tous.
M. DESSOUKI (Egypt) (interpretation from Arabic): Mr. Chairman, we are here as representatives of our country in the Conference of FAO. It is, therefore, not logical that we should discuss here in this forum with another hat on than the one we are here to discuss. We know any reduction in reimbursement of overhead costs would have a negative effect on the FAO budget which has been prepared according to the programme which we have unanimously voted. What we request is to give our support to the Director-General, to give him much more power when he deals with this matter with the Governing Council. The countries which rejected this resolution have not provided us with an alternative solution. We, therefore, Mr. Chairman, propose either that we accept the Resolution before us, or that we request the contact group to find an adequate solution.
S.S. MAHDI (India): In our view, this debate should not be seen as a confrontation between FAO and UNDP. This will be a very drawn slant that some people might give, because for the developing countries both UNDP and FAO are important. Neither, in our view, should this debate be seen as a confrontation between the developed and the developing countries. So if you could get rid of these two attitudes perhaps we could think about this issue in a more logical and cool and practical manner. The simple argument is that the executing agencies, including FAO, cannot perpetually live in a state of instability and uncertainty. This Conference and the Council have on many occasions requested the Secretariat to give a projection of the extra-budgetary expenditure of FAO policy, and this time from this very floor most of the countries, both developed and developing have appreciated the effort that has been made in the current Programme of Work and Budget. In this regard now it is time to reason, without any assurance for a short term or medium term, the assurance of the source, should it be fair on our part to demand from the FAO Secretariat to make such projections in the Programme of Work and Budget, or to plan ahead. This uncertainty is causing lots of waste and lots of - it is sort of a spanner in the wheel of what FAO wants to do, so I should appeal that this question should not be seen as a question of overlapping jurisdictions or conflicting jurisdictions between the two governing bodies. There are many countries which are members of the FAO governing body, as well as of the UNDP Governing Council, so I again appeal that we should look into the logic of this situation, and not the extraneous considerations which lead to confrontation. In view of this, and I am very much prepared to respect and to pay due regard to the views that have been expressed by other speakers, I think it is a very reasonable suggestion that those who feel strongly this way or that way on both sides, they should get together and try to hammer out some compromise on this, and with this brief intervention I strongly support the proposal that there should be a small contact group. You can make it an open contact group if you wish, and we should arrive at some compromise. The basic issue here is that this matter has been raised in the Conference. The Conference also is a sovereign body, this matter is of current importance to the Conference and to the FAO Secretariat. It has very deep implications for the Programme of Work and Budget that we approved, or will be having in future, and therefore, the Conference cannot help but express itself on this matter, and this is the expression of the views of the Conference that is going to be brought to the attention of UNDP. Of course, the Conference is not giving any order, any instruction or any mandate, but the Conference should have the flexibility or at least the capacity to express itself on this matter, and this is the expression of views which we are asking and which is going to be brought to the attention of the UNDP Governing Council. It is for the UNDP Governing Council to reject this view, but I think we should not be prevented from expressing the view.
J.A. BOYLE (United States of America): Like my Indian colleague, I will be very brief because I think many of the arguments on both sides of the question have been well laid out and in detail. My delegation understands fully the concerns expressed by the Director-General and a number of other delegations. We also agree that instability regarding future funds available to FAO can hamper accurate budget planning and programme activities. However, since the Director-General has been invited to participate in the deliberations of the inter-governmental working group, and the draft resolution instructs him to take a fixed position which may, or may not be well-documented, we do not believe the draft resolution is particularly useful or helpful. I would like to associate myself and my delegation with the general views already expressed by the Netherlands, Canada, Switzerland, Germany, Norway, and a number of other governments. We expect the inter-governmental working group to study fully and objectively the question of agency cost reimbursement. We do not believe, therefore, that this issue, since it has now been addressed by the inter-governmental working group, should be prejudged in any facet or aspect. I would also agree with the intervention made by a number of delegates, and particularly by the Director-General, that in the interests of time, and since the issue has been so well ventilated on all sides, that perhaps the best way to resolve this is through the formation of a small contact group which can discuss the issue perhaps with some more objectivity than is possible to many of us, because we are not completely briefed on funding, the financial aspect of it, the problems facing the Director-General, etc.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of the United States, who was the last speaker on my list. Distinguished delegates we have had a rather heated debate, different from the debates we have had in the last few days. I am certain of one thing, and that is that we all have the interests of FAO in mind, and not only the interests of FAO but of the whole UN system, and I think it was very well put by the delegate of India who said we should not regard this as a confrontation between FAO and UNDP, or between donor countries and developed countries. We. seem, however, to disagree on what is really in the interests of FAO and the UN system as a whole. A draft resolution has been proposed by the delegation of the Philippines. Some delegates have spoken for, some delegates have spoken against. Those who spoke in favour underline the necessity of the 14 percent overhead costs which they thought was necessary to ensure the stability, and that it would have serious consequences for FAO's budget if this was changed. Those who spoke against the draft resolution stressed the issue was not a question of whether or not to maintain the 14 percent overhead costs, but rather the question of prejudging an issue which was referred to the inter-governmental working group established by the UNDP Governing Council, and approved by ECOSOC and they cannot, therefore, accept the draft resolution and declare their intention to vote against it. Those who were for the resolution again did not agree that the effect of the resolution would be to prejudge the issue.
Distinguished delegates, you have heard the Director-General who has proposed that the matter should be discussed by a small informal drafting group under his leadership. Those who have addressed themselves to the questions of the contact group, I must say there is a large majority, or seems to be a large majority in favour of such a drafting group. I would, therefore, suggest that we accept the Director-General's proposal and establish such a drafting group and I would like that interested delegations should contact me after we have adjourned our meeting, to discuss the position of this drafting group. The drafting group, I understand, could then if you all agree, meet tomorrow. Are there any objections ? Can I take it you all agree to the establishment of such a drafting group ? It seems to be the case. Then I think we have come to the end of this meeting and, as I say, I would expect delegates who are interested in participating or discussing the position of the group to come to the rostrum after I have adjourned the meeting,
D.J. WALTON (Director, Office for Inter-Agency Affairs): In the course of the discussion of agency overhead the other aspect of this agenda item has inevitably been somewhat eclipsed, but during the early stages of the meeting a number of specific questions were put to the Secretariat, and perhaps you would wish me to reply very briefly at this late stage.
The Representative of India asked three specific questions. First, he enquired what were the results of the task force on long-term development objectives. The task force has held only its first meeting, and for obvious reasons it is not yet possible to report spectacular or even specific results. The task force has merely set in train a programme of design. It will start by examining the situation currently and in the recent past before continuing into the future. A number of development objectives have been set in recent years in different fora. There is an international development strategy approved by the General Assembly, long-term targets have been set by the World Food Conference, the ILO, World and Climate Conference, the UNIDO General Conference in Lima, as well as by other bodies. All these targets will be overseen and examined, in order to lay the basis for improved target setting by governmental bodies in future.
At the same time, a Technical Working Group of the task force will examine in some detail the work under way at Secretariat level for long-term projections and modelling. A number of Organizations are engaged, in this field, including FAO through Agriculture Towards 2000, the commodity projects, and other work. All this work is being examined with a view to bringing the efforts of all the different Organizations' into line with each other.
The second question from the Representative of India related to the work programme set under way again by the ACC Sub-Committee on Nutrition, and he asked whether his work programme had actually resulted in more effective service by the United Nations system to governments.
This is not yet the. case, because the items listed in our document are merely items on which work has to be done before results can be achieved. So, on a future occasion, I am sure I shall be able, to give him a very positive answer on this point - but that moment has yet to come. The work of the ACC Sub-Committee on Nutrition is only starting.
His third question related to action by the General Assembly regarding the follow-up of the Conference on International Economic Cooperation.
The General Assembly has not yet taken action on this subject, although I understand that a Draft Resolution has been tabled by one delegation. It is the subject of discussion between groups, but at the moment it is not yet clear what specific decisions will emerge from the General Assembly.
The representative of Bangladesh had a number of very specific questions relating to rural development. At this late stage, I do not think I would wish to give a very long or exhaustive answer to his questions, but I would say in very general terms that FAO is at the moment responsible only for the agricultural aspects of rural development. When it takes over, at the beginning of next year, an additional role as lead agency in the United Nations system in this field, it will be possible for us In Our lead agency role to give a synoptic view of the role of the United Nations system, but for the moment we are limiting ourselves to agriculture, to one sector. The idea of poverty-oriented approach, which originated, I may say, from the work done by the Representative of Bangladesh himself, wearing another hat a number of years ago as a consultant, has been widely adopted in the United Nations system, but not I would say universally. Clearly, rural development as a subject is becoming poverty-oriented in its approach, but it is not clear, nor is it indeed, I would say, desirable that all agencies of the United Nations system be directed towards poverty-orrented rural development. A number of agencies have much wider mandates dealing with many other aspects of development, with the regulation of all kinds of technical matters in the economic and social spheres.
So far as FAO's own activities are concerned, we have drawn up an inventory of those activities directed towards rural development, and other agencies are. doing the same. The. missions sent to individual countries, as reported in our document, were of an explanatory nature only, and are. intended to Lead to positive action, as stated in the document on an inter-sectoral basis, and not merely, as seemed to be implied by the question of the Bangladesh Representative, in the development of institutions to incorporate the rural poor in the decision-making process. Institutions for this purpose are an important - indeed essential - element of rural development as we understand it, but they are by no means the only element and the concept goes considerably further.
The last specific question addressed to the Secretariat was from the Representative of the Netherlands, who asked what was being done inside the FAO regarding follow-up on the Water Conference.
On the internal plane, the work of the Organization is of course being carried out under the Programme of Work and Budget. I will not go into any details, but I would like to draw attention to three specific activities which are in line with Resolution 3 of the Water Conference on the use of water in agriculture.
These relate to the assessment and planning first, with particular emphasis on investment opportunities and the formulation of strategies for water resources development. The second is water development management, and the third is the conservation and reclamation of natural resources.
The general thrust of these activities and indeed the general thrust of FAO's work in relation to the Water Conference, is to concentrate efforts and resources on those key areas of water management and related agronomic activities which are most responsive to efforts to combine economy of water use with enhanced production of food.
I have answered all the specific questions put to the Secretariat, but may I perhaps remind you that there is another Draft Resolution which is formally before the Conference for adoption under this item, proposed by Saudi Arabia in consultation with the World Meteorological Organization, and which has been circulated by the Resolutions Committee to the Conference.
THE CHAIRMAN: With regard to the Draft Resolution just referred to, I take it that since no delegation has spoken against it this Resolution has been approved.
This concludes, distinguished delegates, our debate on item 15/2. I think we can rely on the Assistant Director to report on Monday morning about the Contact Group.
P.W. DUNKEL (International Labour Organization): Mr. Chairman, since the discussion this afternoon dealt almost exclusively with the issue of reimbursement on UNDP Overhead Costs I considered it inappropriate to contribute a verbal statement on inter-agency relations in general. Therefore, this written statement is being submitted.
During the deliberations of Commission II distinguished delegates have, on numerous occasions, referred to the ILO in relation to rural development activities which concern items in the Programme of Work of FAO. This is an indication of ILO's active involvement in the rural development process within the framework of the UN System. Therefore, in this general intervention I should like to provide the following summary information on my Organization's concern with rural development, and its relationship to the work of FAO. Last year we reported to your Council on the World Employment Conference which was held in Geneva as the central event of the ILO's World Employment Programme. The FAO participated actively in the preparation of the Conference as well as in the formulation of the Declaration of Principles and Programme of Action. Based on this Declaration follow-up action is now in full swing to help developing countries to combat unemployment and underemployment within the national political, economic and social context. Strategies have been developed for the satisfaction of the basic needs of the population in urban and rural areas, with the aim of eradicating poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy, diseases, etc I am very pleased to report that the FAO, together with other UN Agencies, plays an active role in these follow-up measures to the World Employment Conference.
Another world conference was the subject of detailed discussions in Commission II, namely that of FAO on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development to be held in Rome in July 1979.
Having already participated in the inter-agency consultations organized by FAO in February and October, we have noted with great satisfaction the specific arrangements that have since been made by FAO and which have been outlined by the Director-General's newly appointed Special Adviser, Mr. Santa Cruz. I have further noted the support which the Member Countries have undertaken to give to this Conference. The ILO is particularly interested in collaborating actively with FAO in the various stages of the Conference, particularly in fields of its main competence, such as: (a) the organization of rural workers, including cooperatives, for the provision of common services of various kinds and for participation at all levels in the formulation and implementation of rural development programmes, including political negotiations on broad policy and resource decisions; (b) work-oriented education and training in occupational skills, including a variety of specific management skills; (c) the organization of labour-intensive rural work programmes; (d) adjustment of the status, education and employment of rural women and their conditions of work, in ways that will enable them to perform properly their functions in society, without discrimination as compared with men; (e) the promotion of appropriate rural technologies with the aim of minimizing conflicts between economic efficiency and social equity goals for the benefit of the poverty groups; and (f) the improvement of conditions of work and life particularly of the landless and near-landless, including the introduction of social security and occupational safety and health measures.
These items which the ILO Governing Body,at its session last February, had decided should be given priority in ILO's rural development programme, should, within the frame of the FAO World Conference, be seen in relation to agrarian reform measures and should focus on the poorer parts of the rural population.
The concrete form the ILO input into the forthcoming FAO World Conference will take, will need to be determined once the agenda of the Conference is known. We will be in close contact with the Secretariat of the Conference. However, it appears, as was mentioned in the debate, that the FAO World Conference could benefit by drawing on the results of the World Employment Conference and the basic needs strategy. Further, it should be mentioned that in respect to popular participation, reference has frequently been made to the ILO Convention No. 441 and Recommendation No. 149 concerning rural workers' organizations and their role in social and economic development, the adoption of which has been supported by FAO. It is hoped that more countries will soon adopt Convention No. 441 and Recommendation No. 149 as a means to carry out agrarian reform measures more successfully.
Paragraphs 7 to 11 in document C 77/25 deal with rural development, and in particular with the interagency planning exercise for rural development as recommended by ECOSOC and for which an inter-agency Task Force was established. The Task Force formulated a number of recommendations for an anti-poverty
rural development approach based on an assessment of the rural development activities of all agencies carried out in 1975/76. The ILO which followed the World Bank in being the present lead agency of the Task Force has begun implementation of these recommendations by coordinating the relevant work of the UN Agencies. The work of the Task Force is of a long-term nature so that spectacular results cannot be expected immediately.
We agree with the distinguished delegate from Bangladesh that bringing the rural poor into the mainstream of development should be the principal aim of all the activities being carried out by the Task Force.The support from most agencies and particularly from FAO and UNDP, is very encouraging. We hope that under FAO's leadership as from January 1978, the Task Force will make further and perhaps quicker progress and will also provide a valuable input to the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development.
There are other examples of active cooperation between FAO and ILO in the field of rural development, such as, for instance, the work in the field of agricultural education and training coordinated through the FAO/Unesco/ILO Inter-Secretariat Working Group, and that in the field of cooperatives, etc., where the two agencies have been working successfully for years. ILO has also close working relations in fields of common concern with WFP, WFC, IFAD and CGFPI.
On the other hand however, there might be cases where, as the recent discussions in Commission II have shown, compared with purely technical issues, the social aspects and poverty-oriented issues seem to have been neglected to a certain extent, We may recall, for instance, the medium-term objectives of FAO or the priority items in agricultural development under TCDC, to which various delegates have drawn the attention of the audience.
To conclude, I would like to refer to a recent letter from the Deputy Director-General of the ILO, Mr. Jain, to Mr. Saouma, which has been already mentioned in the discussion of the Programme of Work and Budget - in. which, commenting on the FAO's programme and budget, for the next biennium, it is said:
“The immensity of the task and the paucity of the resources available to the UN system make it imperative that we should together engage in a concerted development strategy focused on the needs of the poorest among the rural populations. We are therefore encouraged by your intention to pursue a common poverty-oriented rural development approach. The forthcoming FAO World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, in the preparation of which the ILO intends to participate fully, the follow-up work to implement the recommendations of the ILO's World Employment Conference aimed at satisfying the basic needs of the rural poor, and the ACC Task Force on Rural Development should provide opportunities to develop such an approch together, and to test the effectiveness of our actions”. 1/
The meeting rose at 18.00 hours
La séance est levée à 18 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.00 horas
1/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
