G. CAMELARIS (Cyprus): Immediately the Programme of Work and Budget for 1984-85 constitutes the most important single item on our agenda for the very simple reason that the realization of the goals and objectives of the Organization are directly conditioned by the level of its budget and by the structure of its programme. We have given due attention to the documents pertinent to the Progranane of Work and Budget and wish to express our appreciation for the clarity with which they present the budget and the programme of work. We have noted with satisfaction the Director-General's success in coming up with a more balanced budget, taking into consideration hardpressing economical realities on the side of contributing countries and expanding real needs on the side of developing countries. In this connexion we express our full appreciation that though the overall increase of the budget is rather symbolic, just about 0.5 percent, yet technical and economic substantive programmes show an increase of 3.6 percent thus enabling the Organization to respond effectively to the real and expanding needs of its developing member countries.
We would like in particular to commend the Director-General's success in maintaining an increased flow of financial resources to such practical and effective programmes as the TCP which indeed has been so effective in responding quickly to acute needs and emergencies in developing countries. Cyprus is highly indebted to the Technical Cooperation Programme for assistance extended in a number of fields, especially in its water drilling programme at a time of high and urgent needs.
We are also in agreement with the programme priorities as established by the Director-General such as research and technology development, follow-up to WCARRD, fisheries and forestry and Africa from a geographical point of view. Obviously the 3.6 percent increase in technical and economic programmes has been made possible through further upgrading in the efficiency of the Organization, a process which has been successfully going on for some years. Indeed, this is an achievement in itself for which the Director-General deserves our best comments because it has a direct reflection on the level of the budget through the release of financial resources tied up in administrative issues to be used up more productively in the fields where they are mostly used. However, I would like to express my delegation's concern as to how far this counting down of administrative expenses can go. Obviously the margins are narrowing with time but definitely the efforts to upgrade the Organization's efficiency should go on. This is and should be a continuous process but unavoidably so they cannot constitute the norm through which resources can be provided to finance future FAO budgets and give them the necessary rate of growth.
We wish to congratulate the Director-General for his proposals on the FAO Programme of Work and Budget for the coming biennium. We therefore convey our full support thereon and expect that they be approved unanimously
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): The Yugoslav delegation has in fact had a number of opportunities to express its views on the salient features of the Programme of Work and Budget and I think that we can be reasonably brief. First and foremost we are in full agreement with the decisions taken by the Council. We especially welcome the incorporation of the Medium-Term Objectives into the Programme of Work and Budget. It immeasurably contributed in our view to the comprehensiveness of the document.
We also want to express our compliments to the Director-General and his staff, most directly to Mr Shah and his small but very a’ le team who have immeasurably contributed to this excellent presentation and it is in our view quit . an improvement even if compared with the high standard of documents in the past.
Let me only voice our agreement with the modified programme structure. First of all we welcome very much the change which reflects the recent support. We are in full agreement with the subsequent small changes in programmes 127 to 128 which are in full compliance with the principle that we always underline, the discrepancy between programme and organizational schemes should be kept as close as possible and the two schemes should depart only if it is fully justified on the direction of the Director-General who balances in our view the realistic assessment of the whole array of factors that are more or less directly relevant to the FAO for the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium.
We are in agreement with the Strategies and Priorities proposed for the next biennium. In our view it represents only a further logical step along the same lines, the basic policy guidelines that the whole FAO Membership approved in 1977.
With regard to the Programme framework I would like to reiterate our serious concern with the downward trend in extra-budgetary resources, in particular to the deepening crisis of UNDP. We hope that the Conference will again make a very strong appeal to all donors to increase their contributions, particularly contributions to UNDP in compliance with the already established target of 14 percent gross annually.
With regard to the overall resources we have no difficulties to agree. We feel that the Director-General really deserves our compliments for being able to propose appreciable increases in major FAO programmes at the expense of administrative support services. I want to underline that the same process certainly could not be repeated and extended in the long run and the same scale could not even apply in the subsequent biennium, that is to say 1986-87.
Finally the issue of rates; we want to advocate realism. In our view that means that we have to take fully into account the past year's dollar rate to be applied to the next biennium.
I. SZABO (Hungary): Concerning the document C 83/8, the Director-General's Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium 1984-85, I would like to express the appreciation of my delegation. After a careful examination of the main parts of this document, as we shall state in the afternoon in the Plenary, the Hungarian delegation shares the opinion of all the others who have supported it. In our opinion this Programme of Work and Budget can be considered as a realistic one and we hope that its targets can be achieved in the not so far future. We particularly welcome the fact that a reduction can be experienced in administrative support and common services. My delegation also endorses the strategies and priorities for the 1984-85 biennium.
S. ZAHARIEV (Bulgaria): The document which we are discussing now is well prepared and indeed needs to be complimented.
The Programme of Work and Budget of every organization and institution is the most important item for the success of this Organization during the current year. For FAO it is even more important because this Programme of Work and Budget is directly concerned with existence and life and well-being of the millions of people in the world. As it was stated yesterday morning by our Minister, our delegation would like to see FAO as effectively directly orientated to the needs of the Organization. We believe the Programme of Work and Budget is in line with these wishes and that is why we directly support it.
M.E. JIMENEZ ZEPEDA (El Salvador): A pesar de que seré muy breve, permítame felicitarlo en nombre de mi delegación por su elección a la Presidencia de esta importante Comisión. Estamos seguros que, bajo su acertada dirección, llegaremos a resultados muy positivos en nuestro debate. Agradecemos asimismo la clara exposición realizada tanto por el Sr. West como por el Sr. Shah.
El Programa de Labores y Presupuesto que el Director General somete a nuestra consideración merece nuestro más entusiasta apoyo y deseamos felicitarlo en esta oportunidad por el justo equilibrio logrado, haciendo hincapié en el reforzamiento de las actividades técnicas y económicas debiendo, sin embargo, sacrificar algunos recursos destinados a los servicios administrativos de apoyo.
Los cuatro objetivos básicos que guiaron al Director General en la selección de las prioridades del Programa no pueden ser más acertados y consecuentes con las prioridades fundamentales de los países en vías de desarrollo.
Apoyamos plenamente los programas indicados como prioritarios y para los cuales se plantean incrementos netos adicionales. Entre ellos, quisiéramos manifestar nuestra complacencia por la importancia dada al Programa 2.1.5 "Desarrollo Rural", y, en especial, al hecho de destinar importantes recursos a la promoción de las actividades de la mujer en la comercialización permitiendo su gradual y efectiva incorporación en la vida económica de nuestros pueblos.
Asimismo apoyamos los esfuerzos de la Organización por atender las urgentes necesidades de nuestros hermanos de Africa cuya situación alimentaria nos preocupa enormemente.
Unimos nuestra voz al llamdo realizado recientemente por el Director General y confiamos en una respuesta adecuada de todos aquellos países capaces de ayudarlos.
Estamos conscientes, señor Presidente, de las dificultades que implican definir prioridades y distribuir los recursos de la FAO entre las diversas necesidades que tienen nuestros países; por ello, compartimos la opinion del Director de la FAO y apoyamos fuertemente el reforzamiento del Programa de Cooperación Técnica, el cual ha demostrado, sin lugar a dudas, ser un instrumento eficaz que permite atender con prontitud las necesidades y prioridades específicas de cada uno de los Gobiernos.
Para finalizar, señor Presidente, confiamos en que esta Comisión remitirá a la Plenaria este Programa de Labores y Presupuesto tal como nos ha sido presentado y que el mismo obtendrá el apoyo unánime que se merece.
M. FENWICK (United States of America): First I would like to congratulate my friend on his election as our Chairman. We have all looked forward to it and welcome it and his work here now among us. I cannot resist, although he has left the room, saying a word about the Chairman of our Programme Committee, with whom we all worked so happily.
But I have a thought, and I hope that you, Mr Chairman, and my colleague will forgive me if I bring in a little personal note from my own experience that I would like to share with my colleagues. I spent eight years in the Congress of the United States and more years before that in my State Legislature. Those of us who live by the vote of our fellow citizens subject to dismissal every two years in the Congress have a problem, which is that we cannot depart too far from the beliefs and feelings of our people. We have to say what we think is true and right and if our heart leads us too far ahead of what they believe we are not there any more. That is one of the things that I would like to bring to the attention of this august Assembly, the family of mankind, all of us here together working for something that we believe to be right, the elimination of suffering and how we can best do it.
Very often you may wonder why certain countries do certain things. Very often their heart is longing to do more, but their ability to do more is limited by the beliefs of the people they represent.
I would like to congratulate, as others rightly have, the Director-General and the Chairman of the Programme Committee. We have a budget here that represents considerable cuts in administrative costs and protection of the programmes which are the heart of the work of FAO, in addition to the statistics and the information that must be made available to those who are trying to join FAO in this endeavour. We are concerned of course with improvements, research in crops, germ plasm, and all the aspects that would improve production of food, and we have other concerns too of course. The terrible scourges that have threatened small farmers in various parts of the world, rinderpest in Africa, swine fever in Latin America, these terrible animal diseases that can wipe out the whole assets of a small farmer who may not have more than five head of cattle and sees them in danger of being killed by this hideous disease. So we have, I am glad to say, gone to meet that emergency.
I would like to say a little something also about forestry. I think that many in the forestry field are concerned perhaps that the budget was not reflective of some of the needs there. We are indeed facing a hideous situation if the present forestry conditions continue. The increase in population has made the demand for fuelwood, simply to cook food for families to eat, and that means an increasing destruction of the forests and in many places it means destruction and erosion of the hillsides where trees kept the earth back. It means that in the valleys crops are destroyed by terrible floods. We have countries dependent - if you look at it in a regional situation - on the slopes of mountains in another country because some of the rivers flow so directly and damage so such in the neighbouring country when the floods come down. So there are many considerations and many needs and I think we all know what they are.
I think we must examine all the funds and resources of the FAO and all the other Agencies to see how we can best meet the needs of the people we are trying to serve. There is nothing that is exempt, there is nothing that is so perfect that we cannot look at it and always with that point in mind, how do we better serve the people that we are trying to help - the word 'help' is the wrong word - they are the people that we want to work with, our partners, as the Minister of Mali said. I thought those were the two mont significant words that have been said since I have been listening here.
I would like to say a word about the Technical Cooperation Programme, in which I have an enormous personal interest. I think it has moved quickly to respond to urgent needs and I think that everybody would agree that the projects are well conceived and well executed. But my Government shares the concern of Canada and some others lest too much of the assessed funds be used in that way rather than leaning on the voluntary funds. My Government and I support funds for the UNDP and all the others that FAO can lean on for this endeavour.
Finally, we will continue our support for the UNDP. I would like to say a word though. I think we have seen in this budget the kind of work we can and should expect and have a right to expect from these Agencies. We have a combination of intellect and heart. We have a common sense which says this is the way we think it can be done, but we have a heart that says we are concerned about people, and we will not give up that concern, and we will somehow manage to meet the needs. That is the important thing from my point of view in this Programme or Work and Budget that is being submitted.
I think the Director-General and the staff have done wonderful work. Their responsiveness to our inquiries has been generous and full and accurate and I am impressed with it. I am new here and I only want to say I am very happy to join you all.
H. MALTEZ (Panamá): La Delegación de la República de Panamá desea unirse a las delegaciones que nos precedieron en el uso de la palabra y felicitar al Sr. Presidente por su elección y por la excelente dirección con que conduce las sesiones de esta Comisión II de trabajo.
Nuestra Delegación desea asimismo agradecer y felicitar al señor Director General Adjunto y al Sr. Shah por sus intervenciones al inicio de esta reunion y por lo acertado de las mismas.
Sr. Presidente, nuestra participación tiene como proposito fundamental expresar la aprobación y el apoyo de la Delegación panameña al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para el bienio 1984-85 y efectuar algunas breves y concisas observaciones al respecto.
El primer comentario que le merece a la Delegación de Panamá en el análisis del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto es el reconocer que dicho documento ha sido presentado en cuanto a estructura y contenido de manera superior al del bienio anterior, lo cual permite que el mismo sea examinado en forma ágil y eficaz.
Por otra parte, nuestra Delegación considera que los criterios en los cuales se basó el Director General para formular su propuesta, así como las prioridades en esta contenida, permitirá, en gran parte, el logro de los objetivos propuestos, además del logro en economía, eficiencia y mejor administración de los recursos disponibles.
Sr. Presidente, la Delegación de Panamá, sin embargo, desea expresar una vez más su preocupación por la política de crecimiento cero propugnada por algunos Estados Miembros y se auguró que ello no sea el preludio de una próxima tendencia a una posterior reducción presupuestaria ya que ello tendría funestas consecuencias para la lucha contra el hambre en el mundo. Nuestra Delegación desea manifestar además su preocupación por la posición adoptada por algunos países y que se interpreta como una tendencia a reducir al Programa de Asistencia Tecnica y considerar que, de continuar la misma, tendríamos un regreso de importantes actividades de una organización como FAO en la cual hay puestas muchas esperanzas y depositada tanta confianza.
La República de Panamá es un país pacifista por tradición y por convicción. Es por ello que aprueba y adopta ya el planteamiento del Director General relacionado con los recursos destinados al armamento en vez de destinarse al Programa de Desarrollo.
Nuestra Delegación, Sr. Presidente, está firmemente convencida que la seguridad alimentaria es sinónimo de paz.
Sr. Presidente, para terminar, nuestra Delegación desea manifestar que se reserva el derecho de intervenir nuevamente, si ello fuera necesario, durante los debates de carácter particular a fin de aclarar los conceptos aquí emitidos u opinados sobre nuevas ideas que se presenten.
M. PIOTROWSKA (Poland): The Director-General in his introduction to the proposed Programme of Work and Budget for 1984-85 presented a very interesting analysis of the general and economic situation in the world and very convincing arguments supporting the priorities of the Organization for its activities in the coming Biennium.
Concerning the zero gross concept, in view of the existing difficulties, both social and economic, in a number of countries, it is in our opinion the only possible approach at present. We are supporting this concept and we have noted with satisfaction that the number of established posts at headquarters is being reduced and a decrease is envisaged in the amount allocated for administration and other support services at headquarters.
As a matter of principle we are against the setting up of new units or divisions, as this normally provokes further proliferation of bureaucracy. However, as the Research and Technology Development Division will only constitue an amalgamation of the already existing units, we raise no objection in this respect. Research and new technology in agriculture are of such importance that the establishing of a new Division is justified and might only be considered as proof of the attention paid to this problem by the Organization. The strategies and priorities for FAO activities in the field of agriculture are very clearly spelled out, and to a large extent they constitute a continuation of the programme initiated previously. All important areas of agriculture have been covered in the document under discussion, and we feel, therefore, that it would be of little value to repeat them or to discuss them in detail. We would like to reiterate our views expressed on many other occasions, that top priority should be accorded to research and technology; training of farmers, and formulation of sound agricultural policies, which might have great impact on increased yields; growth of production; access to means of production of small farmers, and equitable distribution of income between different groups of population.
We also welcome the stress laid on the concept of self reliance in food,.especially in view of the growing protectionism and barriers to the trade. The programme for the prevention or reduction of food losses in developing countries is directly linked to the idea of self-sufficiency. We have noted with satisfaction that IFAD and the Regional Development Banks are using more and more the services of FAO Investment Centre. This is certainly a confirmation of the high professional level of services rendered by this unit. As for FAO representative, we share the opinion that the number of countries covered by this scheme is large enough, and there is no need to consider the establishment of additional country offices in the years 1984-85. This concept of multi accreditation has been supported in the past by a large number of Member Nations and they should be further expanded when additional governments request, and FAO are in their countries. Further consolidation of the programme is in our view more warranted than its expansion. The TCP programme has proved its value to many countries over the past years, and the proposed increase of funds for this purpose will probably be welcomed by most countries. As a word of caution we would like to stress that principles governing the use of TCP funds should be well known to the governments and strictly adhered to when approving the projects.
Finally, Mr Chairman, I would like to make a few comments on the programme for Europe, which is of utmost interest to us. We have noted in the present Programme of Work and Budget some prominence is given to the research and technology development in Europe. We have always supported the Organization of scientific research networks in different fields of agriculture, and we are glad to see that more and more scientific institutions, both from Europe and outside Europe, are joining the existing networks. Research on the energy resources for agriculture and soya conservation appear to us extremely important at present. Thank you, Mr Chairman, for your attention.
M. MAZOYER (France): M. le Président, la délégation française tient d'abord à s'associer aux félicitations unanimes qui vous ont été adressées pour votre élection, ainsi qu'aux compliments et aux remerciements adressés à M. Shah et à M. West pour la présentation qui a été faite au début de cette Commission.
La délégation française se félicite des orientations générales, des objectifs et des priorités qui sont proposés dans le Programme de travail et budget, ainsi que des efforts qui sont entrepris en matière de renouvellement des analyses, des méthodes et des moyens d'intervention de l'Organisation. En effet, nous considérons que les orientations mises en avant par le Directeur général depuis quelques années sont essentielles. L'aspect le plus important et le plus difficile de la situation agricole et alimentaire mondiale réside aujourd'hui dans la crise que traverse une fraction très étendue et croissante de la paysannerie des pays en développement. Cette crise est essentiellement concentrée dans les pays les moins avancés dont l'agriculture constitue souvent la seule base économique. L'affaiblissement, voire la destruction de la paysannerie, alimente aujourd'hui le chômage et la marginalité urbaine. Elle compromet gravement l'équilibre alimentaire et,partant, l'équilibre économique des pays en développement.
En outre, si l'aide alimentaire reste indispensable à court terme, nous pensons qu'à plus long terme la sécurité alimentaire des pays en développement passe nécessairement par le développement prioritaire des productions vivrières de ces pays. Par conséquent, nous pensons que la restauration de l'économie paysanne, et en particulier le sauvetage de sa fraction la plus menacée, à travers une politique paysanne e' vivrière volontaire, constitue bien l'axe principal d'une stratégie efficace visant à l'instauration d'une sécurité alimentaire véritable.
Parallèlement, les systèmes d'agriculture forestière qui sont concentrés dans beaucoup de pays du Sud doivent jouer un rôle essentiel dans l'élaboration de cette stratégie. Dans la zone intertropicale, ils sont en pleine évolution sous le triple aspect d'une croissance démographique, de l'extension des économies de plantations et de la puissance des moyens mécaniques de défrichement, de la deforestation qui s'est opérée anciennement sous d'autres latitudes et qui sont ici aujourd'hui en marche.
Dans ces conditions, la mise au point de systèmes agricoles, sylvicoles et pastoraux équilibrés, capables de satisfaire les.besoins en aliments et en bois, capables de produire la fertilité et de préserver le bioclimat, reste à découvrir et à promouvoir.
Dans ce contexte, il est clair que les programmes techniques et économiques, et en particulier la mobilisation des résultats de la recherche, de même que le programme de coopération technique à l'appui des actions sur le terrain, sont prioritaires. A cet égard, nous appuyons donc tout particulièrement le renouvellement des analyses et des méthodes proposées et qui devra être poursuivi. Ainsi, l'étude des systèmes d'économie paysanne, l'étude de leur origine, de leurs structures, de leur fonctionnement et de leur dynamique est indispensable. Ce sont ces études et elles seules qui permettront d'identifier et de réévaluer l'héritage technique de ces sociétés, d'en déterminer les besoins et d'orienter les recherches vers les technologies les plus appropriées à la situation et aux possibilités techniques, économiques et culturelles des sociétés paysannes.
Pour être appropriées, ces techniques devront être d'une part plus économes en privilégiant systématiquement l'usage des ressources renouvelables, et elles devront être plus autonomes en utilisant en priorité les ressources locales. Elles devront être enfin plus progressives en favorisant une meilleure protection de leur environnement et elles devront être plus faciles à reproduire et à entretenir localement.
A cet égard, la création de la nouvelle Division du développement de la recherche et des techniques prévue par le secrétariat, ainsi que la réorientation qualitative des activités de recherche, peuvent jouer un rôle décisif pour animer, coordonner et renouveler les problématiques d'analyse et les méthodes d'intervention de l'Organisation. Nous pensons que l'efficacité future de l'OAA en dépend.
La délégation française se félicite et félicite le Secrétariat de l'esprit d'économie, de la volonté de rigueur et du souci d'efficacité qui ont présidé à l'élaboration du programme de travail et budget. Nous apprécions l'orientation prise par le Directeur général et l'encourageons vivement à poursuivre ses efforts. La croissance réelle du budget global de l'Organisation de 0,5 pour cent environ se traduit par une réduction nette de 41 postes pour le programme ordinaire et essentiellement pour le Siège. A cet égard, il convient de noter l'évolution favorable de la part des dépenses consacrées au personnel qui passe de 77 pour cent en 1974-1975 à 58 pour cent dix ans après.
Toutefois, le net ralentissement de la croissance des dépenses et les réductions de personnel ne devraient pas affecter le volume et la qualité des opérations. En effet, la ventilation des accroissements des programmes proposés s'effectue pour l'essentiel au bénéfice des programmes techniques et économiques et du programme de coopération technique.
En ce qui concerne les bureaux régionaux, nous avons constaté avec satisfaction pour la première fois depuis le biennium 1978-1979, une réduction réelle des programmes par rapport au biennium précédent alors que les représentations de l'OAA dans les pays sont maintenues à leur niveau actuel. Toutefois, cette réduction qui a été limitée à 1,1 pour cent aurait pu être plus importante.
En effet, lorsqu'en 1976 la délégation française a donné son aval à l'instauration des représentants de l'OAA dans les pays, elle avait demandé que dans le même temps soient réduits le rôle et la taille des bureaux régionaux. Toutefois, s'il nous paraît justifié de réduire la part des bureaux régionaux dans le budget global, nous ne sous-estimons pas pour autant l'importance des activités régionales. Nous appuyons la priorité; qui a été accordée dans ce document aux programmes du Siège, qui ont un impact régional et ceci tout particulièrement pour l'Afrique. Nous apprécions donc l'effort de rigueur budgétaire qui a été porté sur ces bureaux régionaux et les dépenses administratives et de soutien. Nous espérons que cet effort sera poursuivi dans ce sens.
Enfin, si le regroupement au sein d'une nouvelle division du développement de la recherche et des techniques est effectivement de nature à accroître l'effort d'efficacité et de soutien au développement des recherches nationales et d'une plus grande coopération entre institutions nationales et régionales, cet effort d'unification doit s'accompagner de la mise en évidence des liens existants entre l'OAA et les thèmes de recherche et de formation prioritaires.
Je voudrais faire aussi quelques remarques sur la présentation du Programme de travail et budget. Il aurait été souhaitable de faire apparaître plus clairement les efforts faits et proposés par l'Organisation en faveur des pays les moins avancés, et ceci conformément aux recommandations de la Conférence des Nations Unies sur les pays les moins avancés, tenue à Paris en août 1981.
En conclusion, la délégation française tient à souligner que les priorités annoncées en faveur du soutien des productions vivrières et de la revalorisation des sociétés paysanres, en particulier les sociétés les plus pauvres, rejoignent les analyses et les orientations de la politique française d'aide au développement. L'effort de rigueur budgétaire entrepris peut être poursuivi dans le contexte international actuel. Les politiques de maîtrise des déficits budgétaires, mises en oeuvre par beaucoup d'Etats membres de l'Organisation, justifient en effet pour les années à venir une plus grande modulation et une rationalisation dans l'emploi des fonds mis à la disposition des organisations'internationales,même de celles qui, comme l'OAA, ont une finalité qui correspond aux priorités essentielles de la communauté internationale.
Pour terminer, à titre personnel, je tiens à témoigner que les conditions de travail qui ont régné au sein du Comité des programmes que nous avons aujourd'hui sous les yeux ont été excellentes, et je remercie mes collègues et le secrétariat qui nous ont aidés dans notre travail.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the distinguished delegate of France. As distinguished delegates will have noted on page 1 of the Order of the Day, which is C 83/DJ/4, Plenary will suspend for the arrival of the President of Sudan, and his subsequent address. We are to follow suit. Therefore, we will suspend and go to Plenary. But we will resume as soon as the President of Sudan has delivered his statement, and Plenary resumes its normal operations.
The meeting was suspended from 10.45 to 12.15 hours
La séance est suspendue de 10 h 45 à 12 h 15
Se suspende la sessión de las 10.45 horas a las 12.15 horas
F. LARBI (Tunisìe) '(langue originale arabe): Je vous adresse tout d'abord, Monsieur le Président, ainsi qu'aux deux Vice-Présidents, nos vives félicitations pour votre élection à la présidence de cette Commission. Je voudrais aussi exprimer notre reconnaissance à M. West et à M. Shah pour leur présentation claire et précise du point inscrit à notre ordre du jour. Je remercie également le Secrétariat pour la qualité du document C 83/3. N'étant pas membre du Conseil, ni du Comité du Programme, ni du Comité financier, ma délégation a l'honneur d'exprimer sa satisfaction quant à l'introduction franche et objective faite par le Directeur général et fait siennes les stratégies et priorités adoptées pour le biennium 1984-85. Ma délégation est consciente des choix difficiles auxquels s'est trouvé confronté le Directeur général et approuve pleinement la limitation des charges financières et la réduction des postes au Siège ce qui a permis le transfert de ces ressources vers des programmes techniques, programmes de developpement de la recherche, de la formation et du transfert de technologies appropriées. Ce sont là des moyens très appréciables qui répondent aux besoins effectifs des Etats Membres. A ce propos, ma délégation voudrait rendre hommage aux efforts déployés par le Directeur général et ses collaborateurs, en vue d'améliorer encore l'efficacité de la FAO et de veiller sur la bonne gestion des ressources disponibles.
Enfin, ma délégation appuie sans réserve le Programme de travail et budget proposé par le Directeur général pour le biennium 1984-85. Nous remercions le Directeur général pour avoir donné la priorité à l'Afrique, et nous faisons appel à tous les Etats Membres pour que la Conférence approuve à l'unanimité le Programme de travail et budget proposés.
H. TAKASE (Japan): First of all we would like to add our congratulations on your election and the election of the two Vice-Chairmen, and we would also like to express our appreciation for the efficient explanations of the document given by Mr West and Mr Shah yesterday morning.
Mr Chairman, we appreciate that the Programme of Work and Budget for 1984-85 formulated with the maximum of effort by the Director-General and his staff to take into consideration and coordination both requirements, that is more strengthening of international assistance to the recipient countries in the field of food and agriculture, and the severe financial constraints of the major contributors. We especially appreciate that the Director-General has reduced the real programme growth to nearly zero and cut heavily the administrative costs to divert more resources to high priority areas such as technical and economic programmes.
Nonetheless we would like to say that it has been explained in the Conference document that the cost increases are calculated not only by the inflation rate in the host country or worldwide, but also by various factors relating to FAO expenditure. However, this explanation itself is not persuasive enough for us. We are considering that it would be helpful for us if FAO could show us in the Budget document for the next time some concrete calculation process on a few items that are outstanding in their growth of the cost increases. We also hope that FAO in relation to cost increases will endeavour to reduce also the nominal growth rate further, taking into consideration that under severe financial constraints each Member Nation is striving to cut the total cost of each budget by a maximum effective use of resources.
We would now like to seek some explanation on the following points. According to the Council document CL 83/3 page 33, the details of the cost increases are estimated to be 34 757 000 biennialization and 48 700 000 in inflation.
On the other hand, in the Conference document C 83/3 on page 41 it is estimated to be 34 503 000 in biennialization and 48 261 000 in inflation. In both of these estimations the estimated total costs are the same, that is, 82 764 000. However, we would like to know why, in detail, such different estimations occurred.
We would now like to comment on the Technical Cooperation Programme. We appreciate in general that TCP is very useful and effective in meeting unforeseen and urgent needs in the developing countries,, The Programme of Work and Budget is in principle formulated on the programme budgeting system. In such a system only the TCP is exceptional as an unprogrammed budgeting item. From this viewpoint we believe it would he desirable to set up certain upper limits at TCP level. We cannot agree with the unlimited increase of TCP more than what it already is at the present level.
Another point I would like to mention is that according to the breakdown of TCP projects in each category in 1982, the funds were diverted as follows: 31.3 percent for training facilities and 19.2 percent for emergencies. We think that in its original nature, more funds should be diverted to emergencies.
As for training activities, the technical and economic programmes are also widely extended for this purpose. We are inclined to think that some part of the TCP activities might be well replaced by some of the activities of the technical and economic programmes. We feel that from the viewpoints of ensuring the efficient implementation of TCP, it would be helpful to prepare more clear and detailed criteria and to have enough information supplied in order to monitor the criteria to see that it is adequately functioning at the stage of TCP planning. It has been explained that TCP is not duplicated with the other activities of UNDP. We hope that FAO will endeavour further to provide us with the necessary information on this point.
Notwithstanding what I have said, we are happy to say that my delegation is ready to support in general the Programme of Work and Budget 1984-85 and Medium-Term Objectives.
S. OKWAKOL (Uganda): My delegation fully supports the Programme of Work and Budget as presented in document C 83/3 and we would like to express our appreciation of the fact that this Budget is so constrained, in view of the financial and international crisis currently prevailing throughout the world. We would like to record, however, our concern as to the zero growth of the Budget in that we feel that this should not form a precedent for further declining budgets in future.
We also wish to record our support for the emphasis put upon technical cooperation programmes, especially for the developing countries.
Furthermore, we support the cutback on the administrative costs and support services as presented to us for our approval. We are behind the Programme of Work and Budget as presented to us and we wish it to be unanimously approved by the Conference.
On behalf of my delegation I would like to congratulate you, Mr Chairman, on your election to preside over this important Committee. We also wish to thank the Deputy Director-General Mr West and Mr Shah for their presentation of these documents and we also wish to thank the Director-General for the excellent document C 83/3: Programme of Work and Budget which has considered in detail the general strategies and priorities which are important to the Organization. Due to the very critical international food situation which reigns which is marked by imbalance and crises throughout all the countries of the world, we can but give our full support to the Programme of Work and Budget and the various programmes which would help the Organization achieve its basic goals. We hope that it will be possible for the Organization in the future to have a Programme of Work and Budget which will receive full support and which will be satisfactory and meet the needs of all.
We now wish to express our full support to this Programme of Work and Budget because it is a means of ensuring that the new concept of food security presented by the Director-General will help us eliminate the problems of hunger and malnutrition throughout the world.
CHAIRMAN: I wish to thank and congratulate delegates on the efficient use of the five and one half minutes at their disposal. They have exercised restraint in these times of zero growth, even on time!
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): A number of questions and requests for clarification have been made in the course of the very interesting debate. I shall address myself purely to these.
First of all, some comments which can be satisfied, I hope, with very brief explanations. The delegates of Italy and Canada - mainly them, perhaps some others as well - referred to the information given in the document on the net elimination of posts and they wondered why more information was not given on the units in which new posts are proposed to be added, and those in which posts are proposes to be eliminated. The tables on pages 30 and 31 of the document in the English text give only the net result, the net changes. It was wrong to think that the posts to be eliminated or abolished amount to only 41. In fact, 32 professional posts are proposed to be abolished, and offsetting these against 15 new posts to be created, you have a net reduction of 17.
For general service posts, 29 posts are to be abolished, 5 new ones created with a net reduction of 24. Combined, you have a net reduction of 41.
The Annex II to which I referred yesterday, the organizational Annex, gives for each Department by Division the grade of the post and the title of the post, both of the new posts and the abolished posts. For example, if delegates would turn to page 265 of the English text which gives information for the Agriculture Department, I do not need to make any further comment except to draw attention to the information given there.
A number of delegates, in particular those of Belgium and Norway, asked for information on extra-budgetary funds by programme, and here let me firstly point out that each programme narrative in the programme budget has a total at the end which indicates for that programme the extra-budgetary funds expected during the biennium under UNDP, government programmes, other trust funds, World Food Programme and other programmes in the UN system. I emphasize the word'expected' because we can only go by the indications available to date on extra-budgetary programmes which have been approved and which FAO may be expected to implement. As far as the present biennium is concerned information on extra-budgetary funds by source is given in the document, Review of Field Programmes which you shall be considering later, document C 83/4. Here I should point out, of course, that the biennium is not yet over so whatever figures are indicated for 1983 are only provisional.
Then a question was raised about the share of the Technical Cooperation Programme in the total budgetary proposals and the delegate of Pakistan referred to the proportion of 12.7 percent. He is, of course, referring to this figure of 12.7 percent which is given in the table of Summary of Estimates by Chapter at page 48 of the document. You will recall that for the present biennium 1982-83 TCP's share in the total budget is 12.9 percent and then when you add the real programme increase proposed by the Director-General and the cost increases related thereto you come to a total figure of 57 470 000 dollars, which is 12.7 percent of the overall proposed budget. But that is, as I explained yesterday, at the rate of 1 190 lire to the US dollar and if you take the budget at a more realistic rate, as indicated to the Finance Committee and the Council, let us say of 1 600 lire to the dollar the overall budget comes down to 422 million dollars but in dollar terms the TCP share remains the same and that comes to 13.6 percent. So I would invite the Commission's attention to the real dollar figure and not to the percentage which may be calculated at different rates of exchange.
A number of delegations indicated the priority, the importance they attach to our work on research and technology development and we were very gratified to take careful note of these comments. May I here draw attention to a document which members might find particularly useful to bear in mind, not only in the second round of discussion that you propose to have on this item, but also when we consider the Reviews of the Regular and Field Programmes, and that is the document C 83/INF/17 entitled National Agricultural Research. This document is a study which results from a joint evaluation undertaken by FAO and UNDP, an evaluation and the experiences of 91 agricultural research programmes in 25 developing countries. We think this is quite an important evaluation. You will note that it is not only done by FAO but jointly with UNDP and its context can be seen also in the fact that over the last decade or last, say, 11 years FAO and UNDP have assisted some 800 projects with a total financial commitment of over 750 million dollars. This study may therefore be of interest and relevance when the Commission looks in more detail at our proposed work programme on research and technology development.
The Federal Republic of Germany requested more information on the Technical Cooperation Programme and specifically wished to have lists of projects by country. This information was certainly given by the Deputy Director-General a few months ago to a representative of the Federal Republic of Germany but in your presence I would now like to convey to him these lists of TCP projects not only for the year to date but also for the last 3 or 4 years. They give exactly the information that he has sought in every detail imaginable.
The delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany also requested information about grades of staff in the offices of FAO Representatives and referred to a promise that was apparently given to provide this information in the budget document. I will recall the discussion at the Eighty-third session of the Council and in fact have even checked the verbatim record. There is no reference in the reply given by the Secretariat that this specific information would appear in that specific table but, of course, we are entirely ready to meet the delegation interested and discuss exactly what information they want and how it can be of use to them. I would only make a general point that posts in the ffices of FAO Representatives should not be seen in the same way as established posts under the Regular Programme for each unit as described in the Programme of Work and Budget. The grading of a post,let us take the grading of an FAO Representative in a particular country, is according to the programme that FAO has in that country. It varies also according to the experience and the seniority and the capabilities of the individual. It also depends and takes into account the fact that a gradé is given to an individual for a particular assignment. So these are all general factors that we should bear in mind. And if anyone is troubled by the total number of staff in the offices of FAO Representatives, which is given in the Annex III to this document, I believe the number is 642. This, of course, covers not only the FAO Representative and not only the Programme Officer and not only the secretaries, but also the sweepers and the nightwatchmen and in fact anyone who may be on the payroll and even at local rates.
A specific question was also asked about the exchange rate benefits to the Organization in 1982-83. This information as usual was, of course, conveyed to the Finance Committee and is in the report of the Finance Committee to the Council, document CL 84/4, and it states that during the first 20 months of the biennium the average lire/US dollar rate applied by the Organization was 1386 to the dollar as against the 1190 approved for the budget and the cumulative savings resulting from this amounted to $11 027 000, every penny credited to the Special Reserve Fund and at the end of August, as reported to the Finance Committee, the balance of the Special Reserve Account stood at $29 359 000. This figure will, of course, rise during the remaining months of this year.
The subject of cost increases invited some very interesting comments from a number of delegations, including those of Italy, the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan. Firstly I would like to try and clarify the issue of the rate of inflation in Italy, our host country, and how that affects cost increases. The document tried to show clearly, in fact it does say so but it may have escaped notice, that the cost increases proposed are not built up purely on the factor of inflation in Italy and that is because the expenditure covered under the budget covers many items, many categories the cost of which is dictated not by prices and costs in Italy but by the standards which are established elsewhere and even outside the Organization. For example, professional salaries; they are established by the Civil Service Commission and endorsed by the General Assembly. I give this only as a brief example, the full explanation is of course given in the document. The rate of inflation in Italy we of course follow very closely because there are expenditures related to the prices in Italy and we all hope, I am sure the Secretariat as all Member Nations, that our host country's Government will contain the rate of inflation according to its declared policies. I do not need to go into any discourse on this except to draw to your attention the fact that even a paper this morning, and I shall restrain myself from giving the name of the paper, has an article about inflation and salaries in Italy and the difference between the projections and the targets.
I stated just now that there are certain expenditures which are particularly related to costs in Italy and one example of this would be the expenditures for general service salaries. May I draw attention to figure 5 which is a graph given on page 35 of the Programme of Work and Budget. This graph in the second half of the page shows that in fact our estimates for inflation in Italy for this biennium were extremely modest and were not borne out by events. The hardline in the graph shows the provision made in the Programme of work and Budget for 1982-83. According to this general service salary increases should have occurred in April 1982 for the first time; in fact it occurred a month earlier. The second one in June; in fact it occurred in May. I draw attention to this graph only to show that the estimates we make and the provision we make is, if anything, on the conservative side.
Talking of general service salaries, there is an important point to bear in mind also that the cost increases provisions which are included in this document are those based on sound and realistic assessment of the facts. There is no provision made for cost increases which we expect will occur, we can guarantee will occur, but the magnitude of which we cannot estimate and to give you the most significant example, there is going to be a survey of general service salaries in 1984.
It would be rare for a salary survey to show that salaries should be reduced. We can take it as responsible people that there will be an increase which will be the result of this survey and which will be applicable during the biennium; at what stage we cannot say yet. You will recall that this is exactly what happened in 1980-81. There was no provision made deliberately for the increases which would result from the General Service salary survey at that time, and as a result of the survey and the increases approved by the Council some $7 million had to be added. We have specifically not added any such amount because the Director-General believes very strongly that he should not prejudge, and not even give any hint of prejudging, what the results of the survey would be.
The delegate of Japan raised a question about why there is a difference between the cost increases as shown in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget which was reviewed by the Council in June and the cost increases as given in this Budget document on page 41. The reason is very simply that the Summary Programme of Work and Budget was prepared in January and sent to print in February; so we were considering the very early information then available to us, whereas the full document before you was prepared during July and August, so we have been able to take the latest information, the latest trend and indicators. I can say equally clearly that if there is a difference - and there is a difference , as the delegate has pointed out - in the figures for biennialisation, that is because the document is based on more realistic figures and we were able to bring down our estimates for biennialisation from $34.7 million to $34.5 million.
But then he asks, how come the total figure does not reflect this difference. The reason is that the total figure was deliberately kept to the overall level as a deliberate decision of the Director-General. It would have been perfectly possible to show greater cost increases on the basis of the later information we had available, which would have increased the total amount, but it was a policy decision of the Director-General not to increase the overall amount and that is why we have contained it within the amounts you see before you in the document.
A number of delegations requested information, particularly the delegate of New Zealand, on the elimination of low priorities and what are our criteria for eliminating low priorities. First I would point out that, as the Director-General himself has stated in his introduction and in his policy statements, he pays the closest attention to every recommendation made to him on Programme matters from the whole range of technical bodies under the auspices of FAO, from the Council Committees, the Programme and Finance Committees, the technical committees, the Regional Conferences, the Conference itself from its previous session, all these are taken into very careful scrutiny and account. But they do not always resolve our problem because every recommendation is usually for higher priority. There is every urging, every request for what should be done more and what are the greater needs that FAO should respond to. So when we come down to formulating the package, helping the Director-General to formulate his package, it is a question not only of considering the recommendations but of seeing how everything that can be done can be fitted into the package. Then there are questions which are addressed, such as what is the urgency of the proposed Programme and activity, what is its cost, what is its rationale, is it feasible to implement, what are its links with other FAO activities and priorities, what is the role of FAO - because let us not forget, no matter what effort the Organization makes to help resolve problems of world food and agriculture it only plays a role among many other partners - and finally the cost effectiveness of a particular proposal. So in determining lower priorities I would add one word of emphasis, that it is not a question of giving lower priority to certain Programmes, but eliminating certain activities and reducing costs.
The same delegation and some others had also very interesting comments to make about evaluation, but if you will permit me I will not respond to those, as there will no doubt be other comments also relating to our reviews of the Regular and Field Programmes which could be handled at the same time.
Finally may I take a comment made by the delegates of the Netherlands and Norway which referred to General Assembly Resolution 37/234. I am no stranger to this Resolution because as honest professionals my colleagues and I try to follow developments both in the United Nations and other organizations which are relevant for us and we had in fact studied the contents of the Resolution when it was adopted. It deals with programme planning and it establishes the guidelines which the General Assembly has given the Secretary-General on the whole range of operations governing programme planning, the programme aspects of the budget, monotoring of implementation, methods of evaluation, and medium-term plans.
First, I need hardly stress that the Director-General follows the instructions given to him by his governing bodies - that is, by yourselves, by the Conference. It is very interesting to note what other governing bodies do in other organizations, but of course we are not bound by them.
Secondly, this very interesting and comprehensive Resolution, it may interest the Commission to note, has not resolved problems for the United Nations. In fact it is no secret that when the Secretary-General presented his Programme of Work and Budget Proposals for 1984-85 this Spring, they went in May to the Committee on Programme and Coordination, it is no secret, it is in the records of the Committee of the Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly that the proposals were not ready and that the Committee could not commence its work on time and had to meet in extraordinary session during the summer. I am not commenting on the whys and wherefores, I am giving you the facts. The Secretary-General acknowledged this in his statement to the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly when he presented his Programme of Work and Budget on 12 October, if I recall correctly. He expressed his regrets for the delays in the issuance of the Programme of Work and Budget and he ended by saying:
"I therefore appeal to you to declare a moratorium for this session on organizational changes or on further detailed programme, budget and personnel regulations. The time has come, I think, for the Chief Administrative Officer to conduct a searching look into these issues".
It may also interest the Commission to note that this is a subject that the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions, ACABQ, a committee of the General Assembly, follows very closely, and I was privileged to be able to accompany the Deputy Director-General when he met with them on 8 September this year.
One of the subjects that they wanted to explore in depth with each Agency representative was the arrangements for programming, budget medium-term planning and evaluation. They were very interested to know about our methods, our arrangements, the role of our governing bodies, the specific role of the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee and the Council, and their report is fairly clear. I do not go into the details which describe what FAO does, but suffice to quote two paragraphs. First:
"The Advisory Committee cautions that harmonization of the arrangements among Agencies in respect of programme planning, budgeting and evaluation does not appear necessarily a desirable or feasible goal".
And at the conclusion of their report I quote again:
"No two Agencies have exactly the same arrangements for programme planning, budgeting and evaluation. Rather the particular arrangements in any organization have been tailored to the needs of that organization. On the other hand, all Agencies are aware of the need for careful programming, budgeting, financial control and evaluation in order to ensure the optimum use of limited resources and each has developed its secretariat and intergovernmental structure with that end in view".
We shall of course continue to follow and collaborate with our colleagues in other organizations on ways of improving our methods, our performance, our accountability, but I felt that this was information which I should draw to the attention of the Conference at this session.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Shah, for your very forthright replies.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I just wanted to say on behalf of the Director-General at the conclusion of the general debate how happy we are that there has been complete support, except perhaps from one delegation, for his proposals and I look forward to the remainder of the debate on the item with pleasure.
CHAIRMAN: Before we adjourn I would like to remind delegates that we will be starting this afternoon on detailed discussion of the eight chapters in document C 83/3 and that those delegations that have not had a chance to say something during the general discussion could be allowed to make one or two introductory remarks of a general nature before we go into the detailed discussion. So do not feel restrained. At this point I want to congratulate you on the completion of the general discussion.
The meeting rose at 13.00 hours
La séance est levée à 13 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 13.00 horas
