CHAIRMAN: Welcome to the Commission II meeting. I am sorry that we are starting a bit late. It will be the last time that we start a bit late. My personal justification is that I have just come from a meeting attended by the Director-General. We should, of course, have anticipated such discussions so we are 20 minutes late today and we will try to make up for that by moving things along a little faster than we otherwise might have. We will start tomorrow morning promptly at 9.30.
Because of the fact that we run up additional costs if we exceed our time by a small amount -- even by only five minutes -- it is just as costly as if we had exceeded our time by three hours. We are going to make a judgement on whether or not to work overtime so that we can have an orderly transcription for the persons doing the translations, and so I would ask you to please bear those considerations in mind.
At this point we normally announce the vice-chairmen and introduce them, but as you may know, they have not yet been elected by the Conference. We will get to that item later.
This Commission has a very full schedule, Part II of the Agenda of the Conference, items 12 through 20. We have sixteen meetings that we foresee to cover these items plus three additional meetings to adopt our report. The timetable is contained in Document C 87/LIM/26. Document C 87/INF/12 which has just been issued providing additional lists for documents for this Conference will be considered and I am sure you will wish to obtain these documents promptly. We will be electing a draft committee to prepare a report and I will be contacting the regional groups in order to make a proposal to you about its composition. If there are no comments we will start to move on to the first item, item 12:
The Secretary has an announcement to make in this connection on a technical item. Will the Secretary please make that announcement at this point.
Ms. Kay KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary of Commission II) I am afraid there is an error in the Spanish version of C 87/30-Sup.l. The reference to the page numbers in Appendix A is incorrect and should read "pages A-56 to A-74" in the Spanish version. The other language versions are correct.
CHAIRMAN: We have many items to discuss and a limited amount of time. We want to provide for balanced, fair and open discussion. As Chairman, I would propose that in the discussion on the reform items for which we have before us a great number of papers submitted by countries we will have views expressed by the prime sponsor of each paper and also, those expressed by persons who did not submit papers. I would suggest that a valid and appropriate form of discussion, here would 'be, rather than running all the countries who have submitted papers together and then having a reaction to them, to try to achieve some sort of balance. We would have the prime sponsor of a paper speak and then recognize a country that was not the prime sponsor of a paper, so that we can have an on-going back-and-forth dialogue, rather than having all one viewpoint at the beginning and all possible variations of that and differences of view at the end. We would then have throughout the discussions on the issue a back-and-forth conversation that will enable all views to be heard
throughout, and not just at the end of the meeting. In other words, during the course of the meeting at any point there will be a pretty balanced presentation of different thoughts. At this point I should like to give the floor to the Deputy Director-General to introduce the item before us.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Mr Chairman, it is not necessary for me to make an elaborate introduction of this item. I would merely recall that it started just about a year ago in the FAO Council at its Ninetieth Session. The events which led up to the submission of the 10 papers before the Conference are related in the first paragraphs of Document C 87/30 and I do not believe it is necessary for me to repeat them. I would like only to draw attention to the remarks which the Director-General made on this matter in his introductory statement to the FAO Conference yesterday. The actual text of his speech is available in the various languages. There is one paragraph in that text in which he summarizes very succinctly the actual issues which are now before the Commission.
The first is whether a review of some aspects of FAO is necessary. If that is felt necessary the Conference needs to agree on the appropriate subjects, the method to be followed, the timetable for discussions and the process of arriving at conclusions. This is a matter which is in the hands of member governments and whatever the final decision may be the Secretariat will collaborate fully and to the utmost of its capacity in carrying out that decision.
There is only one point that I would like to underline very strongly, and this too appears in the Director-General's speech. That is the need for the Director-General and the Secretariat to be very closely and intimately associated with any review process that the Conference may decide to set in train. I believe that is all I need to say at the start of the debate. There may be many questions from individual delegations on this point or that point, and we shall of course be very glad to answer them in due course.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the Deputy Director-General for his statement. At this time I would like to. point out that we try to follow the spirit of the 24-hour principle used in the United Nations organizations. There have been some informal requests about resolutions to be advanced and we would like to have a procedure whereby those resolutions are advanced in an orderly fashion. Reference is made to them today, they are properly translated and then given to all representatives in their language. They can have adequate time to read and study any resolutions that might be advanced, with them of course going before the Resolutions Committee.
At this point are there any resolutions that would be announced not to be discussed or debated today, but to be translated as quickly as possible and made available to you? Is there any country here that. has a resolution?.
H. HØSTMARK (Norway): Since this is the first time that my delegation takes the floor permit me to take a minute of time to extend our heartiest congratulation upon your election to office, Mr Chairman. I am sure that the Commission under your able leadership will reach valuable conclusions on its deliberations. As you have indicated, I have a draft resolution. It has been handed to the Secretariat. I understand that for ease of the members of the Commission it will be preliminarily circulated today. However, since we have not had the benefit of the advice of the Resolutions Committee I formally request you to put off substantive discussion on it until such time as the Resolutions Committee has passed it. If you grant this request, Mr Chairman, I also ask you to grant me the floor again to give a substantive introduction of the resolution at that time.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, we will see that the resolution is properly forwarded to the Resolutions Committee. We will confirm that and urge expeditious translation so that we can have the material before everyone for adequate consideration. At the appropriate point on the Agenda your country will be given the floor to discuss the resolution. Are there any others?
A. GAYOSO (United States of America): Like my Norwegian colleague, allow me to congratulate you, Mr Chairman, on your appointment. This promises to be a very interesting Commission. We have also introduced a resolution and I had the pleasure of delivering a copy of it to the Secretary of the Resolutions Committee this morning. I would like very much if later in the debate I am allowed to make a substantive intervention on the contents of that resolution, but at this time I just wanted to put on the record that we will have a resolution, that it has been delivered, and that it will be in the hands of the Commission as soon as the Resolutions Committee looks it over.
CHAIRMAN: For the benefit of those present, there will be no substantive discussion of any resolution at this point. We have been formally advised that the Norwegian resolution will be available for distribution, possibly later this evening, and I am sure they will be most cooperative in sharing with you the resolution when it is available. I am also advised that the USA resolution will not be available before the end of the day or tomorrow morning and that too will be available to everyone. For the United States the same principle applies, namely that as soon as it is properly in order your right to speak on that issue will be respected by the Chair.
Are there any other countries who have resolutions that ought to be advanced at this point? There is none. The delegate of Libya has caught the attention of the Chair. The Government of Libya is not a prime sponsor of any paper and it would be appropriate to have the delegate of Libya to speak second. At this point the Chair recognizes the delegate of Switzerland and he will be followed by the delegate of Libya.
I. MARINCEK (Suisse): Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais d'abord vous féliciter de votre élection à la présidence de cette Commission. J'aimerais ensuite remercier M. Walt'ôñ pour l'introduction du sujet et du document C 87/30.
Permettez-moi de rappeler d'emblée que la Suisse partage l'avis exprimé par de nombreux pays, à savoir qu'il est temps, après plus de 40 ans d'existence de la FAO, de procéder à un examen en profondeur de notre Organisation, notamment en ce qui concerne son rôle et sa stratégie à long terme.
Nous appuyons également la proposition selon laquelle la Conférence, dans la 24ème session, devrait envisager la constitution d'une commission consultative et temporaire d'experts de haut niveau, qui serait chargée de conduire un tel examen et d'en faire rapport au Conseil et à la prochaine Conférence. Ces experts éminents devraient être représentatifs des régions et choisis par celles-ci. Nous sommes par ailleurs tout à fait d'accord avec le Directeur général sur le fait que le Secrétariat doit apporter sa contribution à cet effort de réflexion. C'est pourquoi nous proposons que la FAO mette à la disposition de cette Commission des fonctionnaires qui auraient pour tâche de l'assister dans son travail comme cela a déjà été fait avec succès lors de l'évaluation du Programme d'assistance à la sécurité alimentaire (PASA).
Permettez-moi également de souligner le caractère consultatif et temporaire de la Commission proposée car il y a eu des malentendus à ce sujet dans le passé. C'est la commission qui devra faire des recommandations; mais ce seront les organes existants, notamment la prochaine Conférence, qui devront tirer les conclusions de l'examen et prendre les décisions.
Et je tiens à rappeler qu'il s'agit de rendre la FAO plus efficace et non pas de la remettre en question. Nous voulons, comme nous l'avons toujours souligné, une FAO plus forte, plus compétente et plus écoutée; une FAO qui n'éparpille pas ses efforts face à sa grande tâche qui est celle de libérer l'humanité de la faim.
Pourquoi des réformes sont-elles nécessaires? Parce qu'un habitant de notre planète sur dix souffre de faim ou de malnutrition; ils sont les pauvres des pays pauvres; ce sont ces individus qui sont la principale raison d'être de la FAO, même s'ils ne s'y trouvent représentés qu'indirectement. Nos déclarations, nos engagements, nos pactes ne doivent pas rester lettre morte pour eux.
Les problèmes sont pressants. On nous dit que plus de 80 pour cent des personnes les plus pauvres vivent dans les campagnes du tiers monde. Demain ces pauvres viendront rejoindre ceux des villes.
Si nous perdons la bataille du développement rural, les problèmes des villes deviendront insurmontables et nous perdrons la bataille du développement tout court.
La FAO n'est pas seule à s'intéresser aux problèmes du développement. Elle doit donc concentrer ses activités sur les domaines de ses avantages comparatifs; et elle doit coopérer au mieux possible avec les autres institutions du système des Nations Unies en vue d'une division du travail et d'une coordination efficace. Les doubles emplois ne coûtent pas seulement cher, ils affaiblissent aussi l'impact des actions.
Le Directeur général, dans son discours d'ouverture d'hier, nous a rappelé que la FAO et tout le système multilatéral traversent une crise existentielle très grave, une crise d'identité. Comment répondre à cette crise qui n'est pas seulement une crise financière mais qui est également nourrie par des doutes et par des déceptions face à la lenteur des progrès?
A notre avis, l'examen proposé est la seule réponse valable à cette crise. Certes, le Directeur général a mis beaucoup d'efforts à réduire les coûts des programmes. Il nous a rappelé les initiatives qu'il a prises depuis 10 ans pour "déb-ureaucratiser" l'organisation. Des coupures linéaires permettent certes de réduire les coûts. Cependant, nous ne nous intéressons pas en premier lieu aux inputs mais plutôt aux outputs, c'est-à-dire aux résultats du travail de notre Organisation. Si les résultats sont plus convaincants, si la contribution de la FAO au progrès peut être démontrée plus solidement, les ressources mises à la disposition de notre Organisation ne manqueront certainement pas.
Pour nous, le vent des réformes est nécessaire pour assister le Secrétariat dans sa tâche difficile de choisir les priorités, de mieux orienter son action, de servir de catalyseur. Le vent des réformes est également nécessaire pour mieux mettre en valeur le personnel de la FAO qui est le vrai capital de l'organisation, comme l'a si bien souligné le Directeur général. Quels devraient alors être les sujets de l'examen proposé? J'aimerais rappeler que mon pays a activement contribué à la discussion sur la nécessité de réformes lors de la dernière séance du Conseil. Nous avons formulé des propositions écrites qui figurent dans le document C 87/30 de cette Conférence. Elles portent en particulier sur les 3 points suivants:
Premièrement, la FAO devrait jouer plus utilement son rôle en ce qui concerne l'analyse et les conseils en matière de politique agricole; les spécialistes de la FAO qui sont chargés de cette tâche doivent jouir de l'indépendance nécessaire pour faire état des problèmes clés et des remèdes correspondants, même s'il est politiquement délicat de le faire.
Deuxièmement, le programme de terrain devrait être soumis à une orientation et à une supervision plus marquée des Etats Membres. A cet effet, serait créé un comité du programme de terrain. Parallèlement les comités des finances et du Programme seraient fusionnés en un seul, de sorte qu'il n'y aurait numériquement pas d'organe additionnel.
Troisièmement, les agriculteurs, qui sont au premier rang des utilisateurs des services de la FAO, devraient avoir plus directement voix au chapitre. Aussi proposons-nous d'examiner si un comité existant pourrait être transformé en un "Comité des organisations paysannes".
Dans le développement on a longtemps misé trop exclusivement sur le transfert des connaissances techniques. On a hésité à donner des conseils en matière de politique, craignant qu'ils pourraient être ressentis comme une ingérence dans la souveraineté nationale des pays. Mais il n'en reste pas moins que des politiques inadaptées sont, à elles seules, un indicateur de sous-développement, qu'elles freinent le développement dans de nombreux pays. L'étude de la FAO sur l'agriculture africaine présentée il y a une année a été claire sur ce point. Trop de projets, trop d'investissements sont restés sans effet durable et n'ont malheureusement pas permis d'obtenir d'autres résultats qu'un endettement croissant, car ils n'ont pas été suffisamment encadrés dans une conception de politique agricole. Les gouvernements concernés doivent mettre de l'ordre dans leur maison s'ils veulent éviter que les critiques à l'égard de l'aide au développement ne s'amplifient.
Ma délégation a donc noté avec satisfaction les propositions pour une nouvelle approche de la FAO dans le domaine de l'analyse et des conseils en matière de politique agricole, propositions qui ont été formulées dans le rapport d'évaluation du Programme d'assistance pour la sécurité alimentaire
(PASA), soumis à cette Conférence. Ces propositions vont tout à fait dans le sens de nos préoc-cupations et nous nous réjouissons de voir qu'elles ont été bien reçues par le Directeur général.
Quand nous parlons de la nécessité de réformes à la FAO, nous sommes bien conscients que les problèmes ont, pour une bonne part, leur origine dans la divergence des expectations des pays membres. Nous devons être moins égoïstes et veiller à ne pas demander à la FAO des activités et services qui la poussent à éparpiller ses efforts et à affaiblir l'impact de son action. Il faut savoir choisir des priorités. Ceci est un processus difficile qui demande des sacrifices de part et d'autre; mais si nous réussissons, la FAO en sortira grandie et les pays en développement seront les premiers à en profiter. Les réformes sont une affaire entre nous, pays membres; c'est à nous de faciliter le travail du Secrétariat et d'en faire le meilleur usage.
Permettez-moi de terminer en rappelant que nos idées de réformes sont données à titre informatif. La 24ème Conférence devra s'occuper en premier lieu de la question de savoir s'il faut ou non entamer un processus de réforme et créer un mécanisme approprié.
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): Before expressing my country's views on this important document before us I would like to make a general comment, with your permission, and it is this: I appreciate the views that have just been expressed on the procedure we are going to follow in discussing this document as you put it forward. However, there is one point with which I would disagree with you, as regards the nature of this document. This document was distributed to all member states, quite recently, but everybody has had a chance to see it so I think all Member Nations should be able to discuss this document because it is one of the most important documents that is before us, so it should not be just a matter of one for and one against and thus have a limited number of statements on the document. This is just on procedure.
Now, as regards my country's views on the substance I would say that my delegation has studied this document with great deliberation. We have considered its medium- and long-term implications and the views that I am putting forward now are the considered views emerging from the fact that we know we have a high degree of responsibility for the success of the work of the Organization, all of us, because the Organization exists to serve the Member Nations. We must therefore be frank and open from the very beginning and my delegation intends to refuse anything that might strike at the balanced position of the Organization or that might hamstring the exercise of the Organization's work.
Now there are some global subjects but they are important, essential subjects or points which are the following: the.consideration.of this problem as out forward by a number of countries who have submitted proposals implies that the Organization has not made progress, or hardly any progress since it was established, that seems to be the suggestion behind these various proposals but we know very well that FAO is a dynamic Organization which has been meeting a lot of challenges, it has been dealing with the needs, the changing needs of Member Nations and the changing economic situation of the world
Secondly, the deterioration of the economies of the developing countries, and also of developed countries, is after all the basic problem which we have now before us and the Organization has had to cope with that as adequately as it could within its programmes and within its budget. However, there is a problem that some Member Nations have not paid their due contributions to the Organization which is really the main cause of the financial crisis, the treasury crisis which the Organization is suffering from at the present time. I think we can say it is a crisis of our own making and now we have to solve it ourselves too.
Thirdly, we too believe certainly in the ideal of constructive reform and we are ready to make all the necessary efforts to strengthen our Organization to make it more vital, more effective, so that it can deal more effectively with the needs of Member States.
Quite frankly, we feel that we must say we refuse and reject reform if such reform fails to respect the sovereign rights of all Member States and if_it_tends to limit the assistance of FAO only to those countries which make a substantial contribution to its budget. This Organization exists to serve all countries and we feel it should go on serving all countries.
In the document that has been placed before us we feel that there is this bias which would negative the spirit which has inspired the Organization since the beginning. In other words', the equality of opportunity, the equality of decision-making and equality for all the Member Nations. Having said that, we would like to stress that we are ready to join in the process of taking all necessary decisions concerning constructive reform which will make it possible for the Organization to be more effective and to serve the developing countries of the world more usefully. In fact, our views do not differ at all from those of the developing countries which have sponsored one of the papers Included in this document now before us under number 10.
We support paragraph 12 of that section which deals with Strategies and Priorities. We also support paragraph 17 of the same document. We have said quite clearly that all reform should take place within the framework of the existing institutions and within the framework of the existing constitution. For this reason we support paragraph 25 in addition. As regards the work of the Organization over the last two decades I think we should appreciate the fact that a lot of changes have been introduced by the Director-General during his term of office in order to achieve much greater economy. Much greater economy has, in fact, been achieved in order to make the Organization more effective. New priorities have been set at various meetings and conferences and then implemented. So, I would say that we support the views put forward by colleagues from developing countries in the written paper which they have submitted.
I should like to add that reform will be effective and useful provided that it truly meets the needs of developing countries and is not limited simply to certain of those countries.
CHAIRMAN: I should like to make a point of clarification on a point raised by the delegate of Libya. He expressed the view he hoped that everybody would have an equal opportunity to speak. That is a valid point, and I assure him that everybody will under the procedures that were laid forth. What we said was that we would try to follow a balanced pattern in having a country which has submitted a paper to speak; and a country which has not submitted such a paper to speak; every country would, under such a procedure, have an equal opportunity to speak. This way you would have an ongoing dialogue. For example Switzerland, which requested the floor is a country which has submitted a paper, and therefore it was recognized. Libya is a country which has not and therefore we went to you second. Following that rotation as we have looked for a recognition the next on our list is a country that is a prime sponsor of a paper; namely paper No. 10. The prime sponsor of that paper is the Government of Mexico and at this point we recognize that country. There is a point of order from Costa Rica
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Sr. Presidente, el método de procedimiento que usted acaba de proponer no está previsto en la reglamentación; usted tiene derecho a proponerlo, sin embargo tiene que ser el conjunto de la Comisión mediante votación quien pueda aceptarlo o no aceptarlo. Mi delegación no está de acuerdo que haya decisiones unilaterales de la Presidencia.
CHAIRMAN: If I can point out to the delegate of Costa Rica that that was not stated as a procedure, but as a suggestion and there was a feeling from the desk here that there was general conformity. You are absolutely right in your point of order. It is for the body to decide. To facilitate an orderly proceeding, the Chair suggested that when dealing with a controversial issue we try to give a balanced presentation to the pros and cons or differences. We present an opportunity for everyone to speak, and we try to do so in an orderly fashion.
If we began with a procedure where we had all the countries who had presented papers speak first we would have nine countries which have said very similar things and then one country, the Government of Mexico as the prime sponsor, coming in tenth and speaking for another view which has been
concurred with by a number of other countries. This would be followed by those who have not. So, the Chair suggested, that it might be an orderly proceeding to follow a balanced approach. Where you have a country which has shown the interest to submit a paper speak and then countries which, for whatever reasons, have not submitted a paper speak and you balance that. I would suggest to the representative of Costa Rica that as a result of that, we would achieve a balanced approach. We had the Government of Switzerland present a view because it had a paper. The Government of Libya which did not have a paper spoke on behalf of views which were expressed in another paper. They endorsed another paper. Then we had next in line the prime sponsor of a paper, the Government of Mexico.
Now was the delegate's point of order simply to state the point of order to have clarification on a consensus? Do you agree with the procedure or not? Do you think it is a fair or orderly system, or are you suggesting it is not a fair or orderly system?
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Me parece que el debate debería ser libre, o sea que las delegaciones tuvieran la palabra en el orden que la pidan, como se hace de costumbre. Disculpe esta insistencia, pero yo creo que es más importante y más sencillo que usted y toda la Comisión tenga una idea clara de dónde se dirige el consenso, si el debate es completamente libre. Sin embargo, puede usted consultar mediante una votación levantando la mano sobre qué procedimiento prefieren.
CHAIRMAN: Let me respond to your Point of Order. The Chair assures you that at the time the Chair made that suggestion there was a general concurrence. There was a question raised by the representative of Libya, I in fact called for an interpretation. I deliberately made a point of clarification to assure him that under such an orderly proceeding everybody has a chance. I simply thought that it would be a good procedure. An informal discussion with representatives of varying viewpoints seemed to concur with the idea that it would be good to try to go back and forth. The interpretation is that one government submitted what you would call a reform proposal spoke first, and a country which had opposed that spoke second. Then a country which has an opposite viewpoint is speaking third. So if anyone were to suggest a bias at this point in the discussion, the bias would clearly be going towards those who do not advocate some of the reform papers. But over a period of a few hours, or a day, of discussion you will have an even viewpoint.
I should like to have a show of hands for a vote of confidence in that kind of an orderly procedure A Point of Order from the representative of Mexico.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (Mēxico): Sr. Presidente, yo le había pedido una moción de orden, no la palabra, hace un buen rato. Usted no me la concedió y le dio la palabra a otra delegación. Yo había pedido la moción de orden, que coincide en buena parte con la de Costa Rica, que en verdad la interpreto como una moción.
CHAIRMAN: You were not denied the floor. The representative of Costa Rica raised a point of order and that takes precedence. He has not, in the judgement of the Chair, nor in his own judgement, finished with his Point of Order. Therefore under the Rules, even if you were requesting a Point of Order you would come after his Point of Order. You were raising your hand also - and please understand the ruling of the Chair - as you were the next in line to speak. If someone else, other than Costa Rica, had sought recognition at that time you would be given precedence because your Point of Order fouled their Point of Order. However, the Point of Order of Costa Rica was first and until Costa Rica's Point of Order is dealt with, your Point of Order must be next in line.
José Ramon LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (Mēxico): Sr. Presidente, yo creo que la Secretaría seguramente puede dar fe de que mi punto de orden, yo había hecho la señal correspondiente, no sé si quiere usted que me levante, que grite o que pegue con mi bandera. Yo no sé si eso será necesario para que se reconozca el momento oportuno cuando pedí la moción de orden. Yo creo que lo hice con suficiente oportunidad, no se me dio la palabra y me esperé por respeto a usted y por respeto al distinguido delegado de Libia que había comenzado a hablar.
La moción de orden mía coincide en buena parte con la de Costa Rica, pero tengo otras mociones de orden que las voy a plantear una vez que se resuelva el procedimiento que usted acertadamente ha presentado a esta asamblea y es que presentara una moción de orden podrá hablar solamente otro delegado en contra y se procede a una votación; una vez terminado eso haré otra moción de orden, Presidente.
CHAIRMAN: While the representative of Libya was speaking, the Chair was informed that Costa Rica had its hand up on a point of order. Under the Rules, he then had the floor. If you simultaneously raised your sign for a Point of Order we thought that you were raising your hand to speak about the issue. We did not think that you were raising a Point of Order. The Point of Order was raised by Costa Rica. Under the Rules he received the floor.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Chavaly S. SASTRY (India): At this stage as a Point of Order and also with your permission I seek your indulgence to place before you a suggestion for your consideration. All of us who have read through the Agenda note C 87/30, realise that this is possibly the most important subject which is to come before the Twenty-fourth Conference. It has been preceded by discussions in the Council in June 1987 and also in November 1986. All this background data has been presented in some detail in this document.
My submission for your consideration would be that in the procedure that you have been good enough to outline each of the speakers on the paper presents only points of view which were contained in the paper - as the distinguished Delegate from Switzerland has done. In this document we find not only all nine papers from the Group of developed countries being presented, but also the tenth paper from a group of some nine to ten other countries has been presented.
Since all this data is available before all of us, while you recognise - you might choose to recognise - first from one group which has presented a paper and another from another group which has not presented a paper, would you like to consider that whoever speaks speaks not only on his paper but all the ten documents which have been tabled for discussion along with the summarising note. Because my submission is: basically the questions before us are: is the review necessary? If it is necessary what are the subjects on which the review is to be taken? Then what is the methodology? What is the timetable and what is the process by which we should get this done? Possibly this would be a compromise and I would specially beseech you not to put a point of order to vote. Let us arrive at the procedure by consensus, this is my special request to you.
CHAIRMAN: The chair appreciates your efforts to be helpful but we would point out one potential defect in your suggestion, and that is the chair does not think it a proper role for the Chairman to tell a sovereign country, when it is their turn to speak, what they may speak about. What the chair is trying to do is set up a procedure an order that would allow for an ongoing discussion that would be balanced, so that you would not just have all of one viewpoint. I must respectfully disagree with your suggestion that it is within the power of the chair to limit a delegate, a
representative of a sovereign country, as to what it chooses to say once it has the floor. I do not think it is our role to tell India, Libya, Switzerland, the United States, Mexico or any country that once it has the floor it may only talk of certain subjects. As far as we are concerned they are representatives of a sovereign country. We simply try to establish a fair, reasonable, orderly method so that everybody has an equal opportunity to speak. It is seen that the balance is a sensible balance. I would respectfully disagree with you. Speaking of time, you are roughly limited to 20 minutes. I would prefer not to take up so much time on procedural matters.
I would suggest that we would be best to back away from the idea of telling them what to say. Is there anybody who thinks it is unfair to have a rotation, so long as everybody has an equal chance to speak and no one is denied the opportunity to speak? I am simply trying to have an orderly basis so that there are no conflicting viewpoints.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Anwar Mohamed KHALED (Yemen, People's Democratic Republic of) (original language Arabic): Mr Chairman I do want to answer your question. I am trying to answer your question. There are problems with the translation. Mr Chairman what I would like to know is whether you would like us to adopt or approve this methodology or this procedure to be used during our discussion. I do not know whether I am to respond to this or whether I am to raise a point of order because I believe that this problem has become very, very complex. We just do not know what to do and at this stage perhaps the best thing, instead of spending so much time on this discussion, because I am afraid that time is gold, I think that we should decide right away what we want to do. If you have a proposal Mr Chairman could we have that proposal? We will discuss that proposal and then if it is necessary to vote we can proceed to a vote.
CHAIRMAN: We have a point of order. I think what we ought to do is proceed rapidly to resolve an issue. We should not spend all our time on procedure matters. The chair suggested that it might be an orderly procedure to simply rotate so that every country that wishes to speak can speak. The suggestion of the chair is that we provide for any country that wishes to speak the opportunity to speak. As best we can balance it so that you have a country which has a proposal speak, a country which does not have a proposal speak. We do not limit it only to countries which have written proposals. We do not have - as you are likely to have - a procedure whereby only those countries who have submitted proposals are speaking and the others are not. We just want to suggest everybody has an equal opportunity to speak - to say whatever the country wishes to say. We do it on a rotating basis. Cuba has a point of order.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Queremos primeramente, Señor Presidente, expresar que nuestra intervención prácticamente no es una moción de orden. Estamos, tal vez, buscando un poco de orden para esta moción. Me parece que el problema no está en estos momentos en decidir.
CHAIRMAN: If you do not have a point of order you do not have the recognition of the Chair. Under the procedure, the Government of Mexico is next in line to speak and unless there is a point of order the next item on the agenda would be the request. Would the representative of Mexico confirm for the Chair whether you also wish to speak? We understood you wish to speak to the issue as
well as your point of order before. Is that correct? I'm sorry. If Mexico does not want the floor to speak we have a request from Bangladesh who is next in line to speak.
Does Cuba have a point of order?
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Lamento, Señor Presidente, que usted no tenga paciencia. Yo estaba diciendo que iba a poner un poco de orden para tratar de organizar la moción de orden. No estaba diciendo que no era una moción de orden.
Mi proposición es que llevamos 24 conferencias en la FAO, esta es la número 24 y, por lo general siempre en las mociones y en las discusiones se abre la discusión sobre un tema. Aquí hay un tema propuesto y este tema debemos discutirlo todos los que estamos sentados aquí y en el orden que lo pidan y en el orden que deseen intervenir. Es posible que muchos de los que han firmado hablen, y es posible que muchos de los que no han firmado hablen no quieran hablar. Creo que pretender organizar quien puede y quién no puede hablar no es correcto, no es práctica usual de 24 Conferencias. Por eso la proposición es que usted abra el debate sobre el tema, ya que usted, Señor Presidente, puede inducir al debate en la forma de buscar el consenso sobre lo que se está hablando, y esto puede crear problemas.
CHAIRMAN: The delegate of Cuba should know we are not trying to say who should speak but to do things in an orderly fashion. The reason you were asked whether it was a point of order or not a point of order was because under orderly rules the point of order would take precedence. If someone is on the list to speak someone else cannot simply decide that they go ahead unless there is a point of order. That is the reason for the interpretation of the Chair.
It was not out of disrespect to your Government but out of respect to the other governments which had first caught my attention. If you were about to speak, had the attention of the Chair, were on our list to speak next and someone else just decided to speak ahead of you, we would have to rule that they were not following proper procedure and it was your right to speak. That was simply the point we were making and that is why we asked if it was a point of order or not a point of order so that we could have an orderly proceeding. The general point you make is well taken and clearly what ought to be resolved at this point is do you or do you not wish to take the floor.
Frankly it does not matter to the Chair, recognizing a country saying a name but it could matter a balanced, orderly, interesting presentation of the issue which gives everybody an opportunity to speak. All that we were suggesting - and thought there was a consensus on - was that there be a balanced approach so that there be one viewpoint expressed for 20 minutes, a different viewpoint for 20 minutes, maybe a little bit different one for the next half hour, then another one, so that it went back and forth. You then avoid a situation in which you had only one general train of thought spoken about for an hour at a time and another for perhaps a couple of hours. The rules are simple and clear. Everyone can speak who wishes to speak and once they have the floor they can say whatever they want to say. We simply thought it would be more interesting to have an approach where you have one viewpoint for a while, another viewpoint for a while and a balance back and forth. If you do not wish to do that it does not offend the Chair. It may make for a less interesting discussion but that is your prerogative. Could I have a show of hands of those who would like to follow an approach of trying to have the country that has presented a paper speak for a while? Is that a point of order? A point of order takes precedence.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
J. AITKEN (United Kingdom): Mr Chairman, I am very mindful of the hour here and I am loath to propose this as a point of order but I think it may be helpful for the meeting if you could adjourn it for 10 minutes to enable people to consider the implications of this and then come back to you.
CHAIRMAN: That is the prerogative of the chair. But I think there is a consensus for that.
The meeting was suspended from 16.00 to 16.10 hours.
La séance est suspendue de 16 heures à 16 h 10
Se suspende la sesión de las 16.00 a las 16.10 horas.
CHAIRMAN: Our adjournment is over.
Mr Shah and I discussed this earlier in the proceedings and I suggested that what we ought to do was simply to have the countries which had submitted a paper speak, followed by countries which had not submitted papers and so try to ensure a balanced "back-and-forth". In view of the informal discussions between Mr Shah and I, we both thought that would be an orderly, even-handed and fair process that would cause no confusion. It would be welcomed as a way for everyone to have the chance to speak in a balanced manner. I made the suggestion earlier in the meeting and concluded that there was concurrence in it. Mr Shah is sitting near to me and can confirm that was our intention when we sat down and discussed the procedures. Is that correct? Very well.
That was the intent. Now it occurs to me that we have a meeting that was supposed to start at 2.30 and to end at 5.30. It did not start on time and it has spent most of its time on basically irrelevant procedural matters. It is going to end exactly at 5.30. It is going to be up to the judgement of the members as to whether you wish to spend most of your time on non-substantive matters or whether you wish to spend your time on important things. The meeting will start tomorrow at 9.30 promptly. It will end at 12.30. It will start at 2.30 in the afternnon and it will end at 5.30. If we fill all those hours with mindless discussion, so be it
If we use our time to try to serve interests that we are here to serve we will all be better for it and so will those persons whom we serve. The Chair, in dealing with the Secretariat, tries to come up with a balanced fair approach that will ensure an orderly process and would ensure that everybody has an equal opportunity to speak up to say whatever its country wishes to say and to do so in a fast-moving orderly pattern and to ensure that all points of view are heard. It is clear to the Chair that there is not a concensus view to proceed in a orderly pattern like that. The Chair would suggest that we proceed in a less desirable fashion and simply go with whoever raises his hand first and the order will be by recognition of the Secretary.
We will proceed to do it in a manner of first come first served. If it leads to a distorted situation where you have only one viewpoint heard for hours on end, then so be it. My conclusion is that is a correct interpretation. Do you want simply to forget trying to balance it and go by raising the hand? How many wish to follow what I would call the balanced approach and how many do not? The question is, who wishes to try to have a balance between those countries - incidentally, not a viewpoint, simply those countries who have not put a paper as prime sponsor and those who have and everybody speaks in that order. Who wishes to do that please raise your hand? Who does not? Who does not care? The don’t cares’ have it. Who wishes simply to proceed on whoever gets the secretary’s attention first? Who does not? The chair rules that we will proceed and whoever gets the attention of the secretary speaks.
M.M. SIDDIQUE ULLAH (Bangladesh): Mr Chairman, I congratulate you on being elected as Chairman of this Commission. Now that you have got over the question of deciding on a suggestion on procedure made from the Chair, I will take this opportunity to review the Agenda before us, particularly the document.
Those of us who attended the Ninety-first Session of the Council know what is behind this document. You will remember that the sentiments were heigh. Points of order were raised, and at one stage there was even a division of the House to decide on a point of order.
Now, it seems that we have started this session with too many points of order. That is apart. It is up to the House to raise as many points of order as they like. But as far as my Government is concerned I must explain my position, that the idea of reform and review which has been tossing around in various meetings and fora of the FAO for quite some time now is not an idea of which Bangladesh is an originator. That gives us some advantages and some disadvantages. The disadvantage is that we do not have a clear idea of what this is all about and we were not alone and that was the reason for which the Ninety-first Session of the Council merely decided that it should be included on the agenda of the next Conference, so that there could be formal discussion. Since there was no document for discussion, there was no basis for discussion at the Ninety-first Session of the Council. It was also decided that some papers on the subject would be prepared by the promotors of the concept, would be sent to the Director-General in time for circulation among the member countries, and the Director-General was also directed to present a summary. Insofar as the summary of the papers is concerned, I think the Secretariat has done its job faithfully in the sense that this is just a summary, nothing less and nothing more. That is my difficulty, because it does not make me wiser the papers present only the authors ' point of view.
Coming to the papers that have been presented, wé find that there are two sets of papers, one in favour of a study or review and the other may be against it, but not quite certain. Insofar as the nine papers which pleaded for a review are concerned, I find that there is considerable difference of opinion in the details. Someone said there is considerable unanimity of opinion in the sense that all the nine papers favoured some kind of a review. But one fundamental question is, why this reform. That I believe is the first question to be answered. Unless a detailed list of justifications for reform and review is presented to uninitiated members like me I am not wiser. When I say that I have a difficulty I am referring to this. Reviews on various aspects of FAO are being held by the FAO Secretariat itself, and during the course of this Conference we are going to study quite a number of such reviews. What is wrong with that? If we can list during the last 12, 15 or 20 years that FAO has been functioning what has happened, what has gone wrong with its functioning or its usefulness? To cause for a review is not clearly brought out by any of the papers, nor by the Secretariat, because the Secretariat was not asked to analyse the papers either way to show what had gone wrong, whether there were imperfections or omissions in them, nothing has been mentioned, and that was so because they were asked only to summarize the contents of the papers. So I do not blame them. But . again I repeat that an uninitiated member of FAO like Bangladesh, we are not wiser by omission of this vital aspect.
The nearest to the point that I am mentioning that the United States paper has gone is a reference to the method of working of the Finance Committee. That is the only thing you can get, and if this Commission accepts the viewpoint presented in the United States paper on the working of the Finance Committee, then that is probably a justification for reforming the budgetting procedure.
But what is wrong with other issues? It seems that issues like objectives, strategies and priorities of FAO issues, the Field Programme, are points of focus in most of the papers; but other issues are also there. Somebody mentioned financial crisis. Another paper speaks of lack of financial transparency. Some say evaluation of programme activities, obviously not satisfied with the evaluation done by the Secretariat. Then the reform of the accounting system, the reporting system, the decision-making process, working of the Regional Offices also mentioned as fit subjects for review. What has gone wrong with all these things FAO, I assume, has been following the established procedure of the United Nations and I believe that there is an elaborate system of training personnel with regard to the system of accounting. Why cannot the Conference direct the Director-General in these matters? Why should an "independent" group be necessary?
This is the point. If there is no justification given for this and if nobody knows what is the justification for reform then why waste time on it? Unless this question is satisfactorily answered, we cannot say whether it should be an independent review or an internal review, because everything
depends on that, the nature of the wrong that has occurred in the present system of working. We do not know whether an independent review would be justified or whether an internal review would be adequate.
Looking to the paper which has more or less opposed the concept of an independent review, it has been underlined in one point in the paper that if a review is necessary, then FAO under its existing system of working with committees, councils, and other bodies is adequately equipped to handle it. But when you say "if it is necessary" you do not deny forcefully enough the need 'for a review. Appreciating the papers before us in this fashion if this Commission agrees then we can come to one conclusion, that there has to be more detailed discussion on the basic question, namely, "is there a justification for a review and what has gone wrong?" Unless that is very clear, at least I am not in a position to answer whether it should be done by an independent agency or internally by FAO, and if it is an independent agency, what is the composition of this agency? Is it another international organization like, for example, the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund, or else how do we translate our concept of independence because I think most of the countries of the world are members of FAO. If you select member governments they cannot be independent because they are part and parcel of this Organization, and so what do you do, what do you mean by independence? Do you mean that it should be outside the Secretariat? A consultant appointed by the Director-General is his man, and he is not independent. Then if it is a consultancy firm, then who appoints him? There are very complicated questions involved here but then I think the first question to be answered as I see it is a justification for the review and that justification should bring out clearly what has gone wrong with the present system. Only then the need for the review, the nature of the review, who should do it, how long it would take, what would be the composition of the committee, what would be the terms of reference, all those things could be settled, and I do not know how we should go about it.
That is why I was not very sure if my intervention was going to be a point of order, as you see I am dealing with points of procedure also. So at this stage I thought I should bring it to your attention and suggest only one thing on behalf of my country and that is, we should try to maintain friendly and cooperative atmosphere in the deliberations and should try to avoid the kind of heat and decision by vote _that we unhappily faced in the 91st Session of the Council. FAO ' s tradition is also to arrive at a consensus, so my country would urge eloquently for developing a consensus on this issue, and as the delegate for India said, this is going to be one of the most important issues in this Conference. I would support the same view and like him, I would also ask for consensus.
Masaaki NOGUCHI (Japan): I just wish on behalf of my delegation and myself to associate ourselves in congratulating you in assuming the post of chairmanship.
My government submitted a paper on an item in accordance with the understanding reached in the Council, as you can see in the secretarial document C/87/30. I would like therefore to state briefly the position of the Japanese Government on this item by explaining what we meant by a paper and some additional ideas we have had after its submission. FAO was established more than forty years ago with the ultimate objective of contributing towards and expanding world economy and ensuring humanity's freedom from hunger, as stated in the preamble to its Constitution.
Japan has always been an ardent supporter of FAO since it joined the Organization in 1951 thoroughly appreciating its activities in the field of food and agriculture. FAO has certainly responded to the changing needs of the international community in carrying out the functions as spelled out in Article 1 of its Constitution in the past 40 years. My government believes FAO should and will play an increasingly important role in combatting hunger and malnutrition and other problems in the field of food and agriculture.
After 40 years of existence, however, it seems that the time has come to conduct a review of its activities. I consider it essential for the Organization to conduct such a review not only to cope with the present problems but also to be able to confront its future more efficiently and
effectively. Such a review is all the more necessary, especially now that FAO is facing financial difficulties. In this connection I would like to remind you that the General Assembly of the United Nations established a group of high level intergovernmental experts, a so-called G.18, to conduct a thorough review of these related and financial matters of the United Nations and that the group submitted a report containing 71 recommendations which was adopted in the 44th Session of the General Assembly. Following this example of G.18 and as many other countries suggest, the Japanese Government would like to propose to set up a high-level group of experts to conduct a review of FAO's activities. What this group should review, in our view, is two things; first, the group should examine what role FAO should play in the field of food and agriculture. FAO is, of course, expected to carry out the functions stipulated in Article 1 of its Constitution.
However, priorities could be different, in accordance with the changing situation of world food and agriculture.
My government considers that FAO should continue to be a central organ for information relating to nutrition, food and agriculture and for giving policy advice in the field of food and agriculture. At the same time as the fact that FAO Field Programme accounts now for approximately two-thirds of its total resources, FAO's technical assistance activities are assuming increasing importance. In view of its vital role, this field of activities should be reviewed for better functioning and management.
Secondly, the high-level group should examine the ways and means of improving the administrative and financial functioning of FAO. I know that FAO has already started to streamline the Organization in reducing the budget increase and the number of staff. However, under the present dire budget restraints, the responsibility should not be left solely to the Secretariat but should be faced by member countries jointly for more efficient and effective management. In this regard the report of the G.18, which I mentioned earlier, would be useful for possible developments.
As regards the composition of the group, I suggest a small number of experts, probably not exceeding 15 and the chosen have individual status. The group should submit a report to the Council and the Conference for deliberation and possible adoption.
I believe that FAO will continue to play a major role in solving world food and agricultural problems. Any organ is in need of a thorough review after a certain amount of experience. I earnestly hope that this session of the Conference will be able to establish the high-level group of experts with the support of all other member countries in order for FAO to play an even more constructive role in the field of food and agriculture.
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (México): En primer lugar, deseamos felicitar a usted por presidir nuestros trabajos, así como a los señores vicepresidentes que le acompañan en esa difícil tarea en esta Comisión cuyos temas y debates son tan delicados.
La delegación de México agradece a la Secretaría la síntesis que presentó en el documento C 87/30 que a nuestro juicio recoge los aspectos más significativos de las diversas propuestas y plantea-mientos.
Recordamos que como el título de este tema lo establece, en esta Conferencia estamos evaluando si es necesario o no emprender la revisión de ciertos aspectos de la FAO, con el objetivo de eventualmente reformarlo.
En los umbrales de un nuevo siglo y a más de 40 años del establecimiento de la FAO, es innegable reconocer el papel que la Organización ha tenido en favor del mejoramiento alimenticio y nutri-cional, y de la producción y distribución de alimentos en todo el orbe. Sin embargo, la brecha que se abre entre las actividades y metas de FAO, y el acelerado cambio de las estructuras de producción y de comercio agrícola internacional, tienden a limitar el efecto de las políticas concertadas en el plano multilateral. Ese cambio ha vuelto permanente un fenómeno antes coyuntural: la inestabilidad de los mercados de alimentos y la insuficiencia alimentaria.
Más aun, la acción de la FAO en la última década se ha realizado en medio de la peor crisis económica internacional desde postguerra y sus efectos sobre la producción y distribución de alimentos. En la esfera productiva se han acentuado las tendencias que favorecen la acción
de las empresas transnacionales y en la esfera comercial es notable el impacto de políticas proteccionistas de los países desarrollados y del control oligopólico de los mercados.
Por ello México reafirma el principio de que el fortalecimiento del papel de la FAO es la única alternativa que permitirá la plena vigencia de los principios y objetivos de su Carta Constitutiva.
Asimismo, señalamos que el funcionamiento de la Organización es susceptible de mejorarse, sobre todo a la luz de los cambios tecnológicos actualmente en proceso, pero que los esfuerzos tendientes a lograr este cometido exigen el respeto de los principios de la Constitución de la FAO y un real y genuino interés de los países por resolver los problemas de la Organización, y del mundo en desarrollo que padece hambre.
En los últimos años, hemos atestiguado que si ha habido un deterioro en la "productividad" o en la capacidad ejecutora de la FAO se debe fundamentalmente a un endurecimiento de la posición de ciertos países industrializados que ha conllevado a la falta de voluntad política para aportar más recursos financieros.
En efecto, nos preocupa y nos llama la atención que recientemente algunos de esos países estén ero-sionando el consenso tradicionalmente alcanzado. Es evidente que el trasfondo del problema no es técnico, sino básicamente político. Preguntamos a esos países que han puesto en duda la estructura, principios y programas de FAO, si todavía suscriben esas conclusiones y acuerdos de los órganos rectores de la FAO y de los eventos internacionales de máxima relevancia, que le ha dado marco a la estrategia y método de trabajo de la Organización, y que ellos anteriormente han aprobado.
Todo parece indicar, que la pretensión de esos países por revisar, entre otros, los objetivos y metas de la FAO, no responde tanto a la necesidad genuina de reestructurar y fortalecer la labor de esta Organización, como a la actitud que han adoptado dichos países en los últimos años de ataque a los organismos internacionales, dando lugar a la crisis del multilateralisme
Conforme a los comunicados de muchos de esos países, todo indica que el sesgo que pretenden otorgar a la Organización es convertirla en un instrumento para la aplicación de políticas que se formularían en otras instancias menos "complicadas". A partir de ese propósito, FAO sería simplemente un órganos técnico que avalaría la "bilateralización" de las relaciones entre países desarrollados y países en desarrollo en el terreno agrícola y alimentario.
Aquellos países han provocado la crisis de liquidez de la FAO para basar sus reclamos. Sin embargo, esa crisis no obedece a una mala administración o ineficiencias de la Organización, sino principalmente al hecho singular de que el mayor contribuyente ha decidido retrasar sus pagos por razones tanto económicas como políticas, así lo han declarado los voceros oficiales de ese Gobierno.
Existen ciertamente otras causas no políticas, como el retraso de los pagos de otros países, pero que representan una parte inferior del faltante total, o la caída del dólar estadounidense y el decremento de otros ingresos.
La restauración de la viabilidad financierade la FAO a partir principalmente, del pago de las obligaciones del mayor contribuyente, y de todos, es el aspecto exclusivo más vital y la condición para que cualquier discusión en torno a la necesidad de reformas tenga sentido y sea útil.
Por ello, nos oponemos a todo intento de usar la crisis inducida de liquidez como pretexto y marco de reformas en FAO, derivadas en verdad de motivaciones políticas.
Si tales presiones financieras siguen ejerciéndose contra la Organización, sus programas, funciones y actividades quedarán de tal manera destruidas, que harían automáticamente improcedente e inútil las reformas buscadas.
En opinión de nuestro país podría ser deseable realizar cambios en la acción de FAO, pero que fortalezcan la orientación y el mandato establecido en su carta básica y fundamentalmente que responda mejor a las aspiraciones y necesidades del mundo en desarrollo, y en particular al logro de un Orden Económico Internacional más justo y equitativo para todos, tal como lo expresa la Resolución 3/75 adoptada unánimemente.
Ese esfuerzo de fortalecimiento de la acción de FAO debe emprenderse cuanto antes, en vista del grave deterioro de la seguridad alimentaria en todas las regiones del mundo en desarrollo. Ante todo esto ratificamos las prioridades señaladas en nuestro comunicado y recogidas en el documento C 87/30, páginas A 61 hasta A 64.
Por otra parte, según se desprende del documento de la Secretaría, algunos países pretenden, en aras de una mayor "transparencia financiera", abrir a debate principios de cooperación internacional acordados desde la post-guerra y reformulados en varias ocasiones desde entonces.
Para México sólo es válido entrar a debatir la reestructuración de la FAO si la meta que se persigue es consolidar y revitalizar el papel de este Organismo como foro internacional por excelencia para debatir las cuestiones agrícolas y alimentarias a nivel mundial, tendientes al establecimiento de un Nuevo Orden Económico Internacional.
En ese contexto México se opone a la propuesta del establecimiento de un grupo de alto nivel para estudiar la reestructuración de la FAO tal y como la proponen algunos países industrializados. Al respecto señalamos que, por mandato de la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, el Consejo Económico y Social (ECOSOC) estableció una Comisión Especial encargada del estudio a fondo de la estructura del sector económico y social de las Naciones Unidas.
Dicha Comisión, que ha venido trabajando desde enero del presente año, prevé terminar sus labores a mediados del año próximo. Así, resultaría en todo caso inútil y duplicatorio establecer un grupo de alto nivel para el estudio de la reestructuración de la FAO, hasta en tanto no se conozcan las conclusiones y recomendaciones de dicha Comisión Especial.
Además, no siendo la razón de la crisis de liquidez por la que atraviesa FAO una cuestión técnica, sino como habíamos dicho, política, no se requiere de grupos de expertos de alto nivel, sino de conjugar la voluntad política de los Estados Miembros y de negociar un acuerdo que haga viable el futuro de la FAO que a todos satisfaga. Ratificamos en ese sentido que la Conferencia es el órgano rector supremo para debatir esas cuestiones, valiéndose de sus instancias constitucionales que son el Consejo y los demás órganos técnicos, particularmente los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas.
En lo que respecta a la forma en que ciertas delegaciones proponen que se interprete el consenso, deseamos que quede muy claro lo siguiente:
Coincidimos, como lo ha expresado el Secretario de Agricultura de México, con que el consenso es un camino deseable para llegar a conclusiones, establecer recomendaciones y decidir diversas cuestiones; pero, de no alcanzarse tal consenso, el sistema de votación por mayoría previsto por la Constitución de la Organización es la fórmula democrática apropiada, aceptada universal y formalmente para resolver controversias y promover el avance.
Por tanto, respecto a las ideas de aquellas delegaciones, estamos de acuerdo de nuevo en que el consenso es deseable, pero en tanto no conlleve, lo repito, no conlleve a un sistema de VETO abierto o disfrazado.
Por ello no coincidimos con las propuestas que sobre la formulación y aprobación de informes, resoluciones y otras decisiones tienen algunas delegaciones. El sistema prevaleciente nos parece satisfactorio, útil y expedito.
En cuanto al proceso de programación y presupuestación, FAO ha dado desde hace mucho tiempo, pasos muy importantes, que otros organismos apenas ahora consideran. No nos queda claro por qué ciertos países presionan más a FAO que a otros organismos con evidentes retrasos en este aspecto. El sistema actual, desde nuestro punto de vista, es satisfactorio, aunque admitimos que todo es perfectible y que puede y debe hacerse un esfuerzo de simplificación y de eficiencia mucho mayor.
Destacamos, particularmente, la conveniencia de elaborar matrices de presupuesto por programa que faciliten el seguimiento por parte de todos, en vez de complicarlo para beneficio de unos cuantos. Esto facilitaría la toma de decisiones y ajustes en los casos requeridos.
Finalmente México enfatiza la distinción que hay entre principios y objetivos de la FAO, conforme se señala más arriba, con aquellos relativos a las cuestiones presupuestarias y de manejo de la Secretaría de la FAO. Este último concepto es y puede ser debatido, y no así los principios y objetivos del Organismo.
Para terminar, la delegación mexicana señala que la FAO no puede ni debe entrar a revisar y menos aun a reestructurar ningún aspecto de los trabajos de la FAO hasta que aquel Grupo Especial de ECOSOC para la reestructuración del Sector Económico y Social de Naciones Unidas culmine su labor
el año próximo. En aras de racionalizar los trabajos no se deberá repetir en FAO un ejercicio que ya se está llevando a cabo en un plano más general.
Sr. Presidente, lo que hemos estado discutiendo ahora no es algo nuevo ni desconocido por ninguno; por tanto, el procedimiento que se ha aceptado de presentar, como se ha hecho, proyectos de resolución no representa, por lo menos de manera justa, los puntos de vista de los Estados Miembros aquí representados. No sabemos del contenido de tales propuestas ni de la forma en que recogen el debate aquí sostenido. Buscamos, Sr. Presidente, el diálogo y la conciliación de todos los puntos de vista aun cuando éstos sean divergentes en una atmósfera libre de presiones.
El hecho de que se hayan anunciado aquí proyectos de resolución que representan el punto de vista de un país, de otro país, o de una minoría y por tanto tenemos que interpretarlos, Sr. Presidente, como una presión. En esas circunstancias no podríamos entrar a una negociación. Exhortamos a través de usted, Sr. Presidente, a todos a no politizar este debate.
En esa tesitura con este punto de vista buscamos un diálogo abierto y constructivo para llegar al consenso. Instamos a los países que han anunciado proyectos de resolución a que consideren el no enviarlos al Comité de Resoluciones; en caso de que tal consenso y tal diálogo que se busca no se pudiera alcanzar y se presenten oficialmente esos distintos proyectos, mi Delegación deberá retraerse de discutirlos y no considerarlos como base de ninguna negociación en busca del consenso.
No pretendemos de parte de usted, Sr. Presidente, nigún dictámen sobre esos anuncios de proyectos de resolución, sino que exhorte a todos a buscar, repito, ese diálogo a la luz de los debates para llegar a un común acuerdo.
Pretendemos también llamar muy fuertemente la atención respecto a que no se lleven tales proyectos al Comité de Resolución. Esperamos que de aquí se recoja un consenso, un punto de vista general y que éste se pueda plasmar en un solo proyecto de resolución, sin presiones y con el ánimo más constructivo en beneficio de nuestra Organización y de todos.
Bernard LEDUN (France): Je voudrais d'abord au nom de ma délégation vous présenter nos félicitations pour votre élection et souhaiter que sous votre direction nos travaux se déroulent dans la sérénité que justifie le sérieux des questions qui sont soumises à notre examen.
Notre organisation aujourd'hui a plus de quarante ans. Au cours des dernières années elle a su s'adapter à des contextes changeants, s'ouvrir à des nouveaux champs d'activités, repenser ses actions en vue de mieux satisfaire les besoins de ses Etats membres.
Ce processus d'adaptation continue s'est amplement manifesté sous la conduite de l'actuel Directeur Général à qui nous devons des initiatives aussi marquantes et dignes d'intérêt que le PCT ou le système mondial d'information et d'alerte rapide.
Les efforts passés, et que la France a appuyés en leur temps, ne dispensent pas cependant d'une nouvelle réflexion. Un certain nombre de facteurs, en effet, rendent cette dernière plus pressante, notamment les perspectives en tout état de cause limitées de croissance des ressources de L' Organisation au cours des prochaines années et la nécessité de faire le tri entre les multiples activités qui, au cours des décennies, se sont ajoutées les unes aux autres en couches successives.
Si un certain nombre d'activités traditionnelles de la FAO, devenues moins utiles ou dont le relais a été pris par d'autres organisations doivent être revues, et, s'il le faut supprimées, à l'inverse, la FAO doit se concentrer, comme elle le fait d'ailleurs déjà, mais de manière encore plus systématique, sur des priorités définies par la Conférence. Notre pays estime, notamment, que la FAO devrait jouer un role plus grand de conseil des gouvernements dans l'élaboration de leurs politiques agricoles, sectorielles ou globales, ou encore assumer un rôle de contre-expertise auprès des pays qui doivent mettre en place, à la demande des institutions internationales de financement, des politiques d'ajustement.
Plusieurs délégations ont décrit quelles pourraient être les modalités pratiques d'un tel réexamen. Nous croyons que l'essentiel est d'associer à la fois les Etats membres et le Secrétariat dans une structure légère et efficace se concentrant entièrement à cette tâche.
Dans cet esprit, et dans le prolongement des positions qu'elle a prises précédemment, la France rappelle sa proposition de renforcer le Comité du Programme et suggère à cet effet que, sans créer un groupe indépendant de toute structure existante, il soit néanmoins fait appel à des experts extérieurs à l'organisation, choisis en fonction de leurs compétences personnelles, pour lui proposer des orientations à long terme.
Sans entrer dans les détails de procédure qu'elle pourrait développer ultérieurement, ma délégation suggère que si la Conférence décide de mettre en place ce groupe d'experts, elle devrait définir son mandat, sa composition et le mode de désignation de ses membres en tenant compte des observations suivantes :
Tout d'abord, pour assurer la cohérence nécessaire entre les travaux de ce groupe d'experts, et les activités du Secrétariat, il serait souhaitable d'y faire participer les Présidents des Comités du Programme et des Finances ainsi qu'un représentant du Directeur général.
Par ailleurs, compte tenu des activités de l'Organisation et de la nécessité de limiter strictement le nombre des experts, on peut envisager de retenir un expert pour chacun des grands domaines de compétence de la FAO.
La Conférence pourrait confier aux Comités du Programme et des Finances le soin de fixer le programme de travail du groupe d'experts, de suivre ses activités et d'émettre un avis sur son rapport final.
Enfin, en dernier lieu, le rapport final du groupe d'experts,accompagné de l'avis des Comités ainsi que de l'avis et des propositions du Directeur général, sera soumis au Conseil puis à la Conférence pour décision.
Tout en se montrant consciente des difficultés rencontrées pour concilier la diversité des besoins avec les priorités reconnues par tous les Etats membres, la délégation française fait observer qu'il s'agit là d'une question que les Comités du Programme et des Finances devraient examiner de façon approfondie avec le groupe d'experts envisagé. Ceux-ci, en raison de leur compétence technique, devraient être bien placés pour proposer des priorités aux Organes directeurs et au Secrétariat.
En faisant cette proposition notre délégation poursuit trois objectifs:
-d'une part contribuer à la redéfinition des orientations à long terme et des stratégies à laquelle une Organisation comme la nôre se doit de procéder périodiquement;
- d'autre part contribuer à assurer un meilleur ajustement entre ressources et dépenses, notre Organisation ne pouvant plus se permettre dans la situation actuelle de disperser ses activités entre trop de cibles à la fois;
-enfin, trouver une solution de compromis entre celles des délégations qui préconisent une réforme en profondeur de l'Organisation, en introduisant des mécanismes que ne souhaitent pas bon nombre d'autres délégations.
Ce faisant, nous espérons rétablir un consensus sur les orientations et stratégies à long terme, consensus, sans lequel notre Organisation ne saurait durablement mener à bien sa tâche qui reste en dernière instance le mieux-être des populations d'agriculteurs à travers le monde. C'est cela l'essentiel auquel tout le reste doit rester subordonné.
Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Nous voudrions intervenir très brièvement sur un sujet particulièrement intéressant et particulièrement vaste.
Comme nous l'avons dit au cours de l'exposé introductif, la position du gouvernement belge est que dans toute organisation quelle qu'elle soit, il y a lieu de s'adapter en fonction des circonstances, des interrogations, des réalités telles qu'elles se présentent. On peut difficilement rêver et imaginer un organisme ou une organisation qui ne cherche pas constamment à se renouveler, à améliorer son travail, ses approches dans tous les domaines d'activités qui lui sont impartis.
Il est incontestable que la FAO a une tâche particulièrement importante et vaste, dans des secteurs et des horizons extrêmement variés, et ses cibles d'activités sont extrêmement différentes; en effet,
on touche à une série de domaines - que cela soit la pêche, la forêt, l'ensemble des problèmes agricoles, les échanges commerciaux, les aspects de commercialisation, qui sont extrêmement importants, les produits divers et variés - et quand on parle de réforme de la FAO il faut d'abord définir de manière très claire ce que l'on cherche et ce que l'on veut. La structure actuelle a fait ses preuves; il est incontestable qu'elle peut être améliorée, mais il faut examiner d'abord différents points.
Nous avons pour le moment un organigramme de la FAO à l'intérieur duquel le Directeur général, le Comité du Programme, ainsi que le Conseil peuvent régulièrement se pencher sur des améliorations possibles à présenter; ce sont des problèmes d'ordre purement technique. Il est possible que des conseillers en organisation, ou en management puissent, dans le cadre d'études spécifiques sur des problèmes précis et concrets, faire des suggestions intéressantes et qui seraient soumises à des instances compétentes, en l'occurrence les différents comités, ou le Conseil de la FAO qui sont parfaitement habilités à se pencher sur des problèmes d'amélioration du fonctionnement de la structure administrative de la FAO.
J'ai toutefois une certaine crainte que dans ce souci d'amélioration et de modification de l'organigramme de la FAO on ne masque un certain nombre de problèmes beaucoup plus urgents, notamment les problèmes financiers; en effet, vouloir améliorer les structures sans régler convenablement le problème des ressources et le problème financier de la FAO ne servirait strictement à rien. Et quand ce matin nous avons dit que nous n'étions pas très partisans d'un comité de haut niveau, c'est parce que nous sommes convaincus que si l'on discute d'un comité d'experts il faudra discuter du profil de ces experts, de leur représentativité, d'un équilibre entre les différentes régions qui composent la FAO, entre le groupe nord-américain, le groupe latino-américain, le groupe africain, le groupe européen, le groupe asiatique, et le groupe du sud-ouest pacifique, et l'on en arrivera à un comité d'experts qui risque de n'en être plus un et d'être tellement dosé et équilibré, qu'il serait par essence un comité politique, alors que la politique doit se faire au sein des instances compétentes de la FAO; et le Conseil est le mieux habilité pour déterminer les lignes politiques.
Mon pays n'est pas opposé à des réformes, qu'elles soient sur le plan de la structure administrative ou du rôle de la FAO - notamment du rôle de conseil à apporter aux gouvernements qui doivent pouvoir s'en inspirer tout en gardant leur souveraineté et leur liberté, et incontestablement la FAO a un rôle très important de conseil vis-à-vis d'un certain nombre de pays tant développés qu'en voie de développement, mais cette approche doit être extrêmement pratique et pragmatique. Elle ne peut se réaliser que dans le cadre des structures existantes. Et imaginer que des experts étrangers à la FAO pourraient apporter une solution d'ensemble au malaise que nous connaissons, et qui est pour l'essentiel d'ordre financier me paraît un leurre.
Ce que nous désirons tous, c'est améliorer le fonctionnement et voir dans quelle mesure les structures peuvent devenir demain plus efficaces et plus souples. Mais je crois que c'est dans le cadre des structures actuelles que les règles du jeu doivent être respectées.
Et s'il est nécessaire que le Conseil, le Comité financier, le Comité des programmes ou l'instance souveraine - en l'occurrence la Conférence - confient les mandats précis et limités concernant des points dont les termes de référence devraient pouvoir au préalable être définis, je crois que nous le souhaitons tous; et nous le souhaitons dans la mesure ou ces contributions extérieures peuvent apporter des réponses à un certain nombre d'interrogations qu'il y a lieu de pouvoir préciser au préalable.
Je crois que c'est un point particulièrement important; et je crois que nous pourrions réellement jouer un rôle efficace et utile si nous travaillons dans cette perspective. Je vous en remercie.
CHAIRMAN: I would caution you that we have a limited amount of time, it will be a lengthy agenda. We have this afternoon spent a considerable portion of our limited time on procedural matters and having to observe the discipline of time to speak on procedural matters the chair moved to go into substantive discussion on a first come first served basis and said we would proceed as persons caught our attention.
Roberto PONCE (Ecuador): Yo comprendo que su intención es loable, es decir, aprovechar de la mejor forma posible, el escaso tiempo del que disponemos para tratar un tema tan importante como éste de las reformas en la Organización. Sin embargo, mi delegación no considera que sea procedente en este instante inducir a un debate cuando muchos de nosotros, muchos de los delegados consideramos que la importancia del tema amerita en este punto un estudio.
Bien puede abrirse en este momento un paréntesis para que todas las delegaciones puedan intercambiar ideas, puntos de vista, sin necesidad de que se presione intervenciones que muy bien podrían ocurrir en el transcurso de las siguientes sesiones que tendremos a partir de mañana.
Ustedes han notado claramente que no hay delegaciones que deseen hacer uso de la palabra y no veo la razón para que esto deba inducirse de parte de la presidencia.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair does not care if no one wishes to speak. The Chair cannot force people to speak. The Chair can simply observe that there is a limit to the time available in which to speak and that we will run up against a point later on when probably more persons will wish to speak than there is time available for them to speak. Therefore a prudent, orderly management of our business would seem to indicate that it would be a good idea to use the time we have for the period we are here. The Chair would observe that the issues before us are not unduly creative issues, but are the results of a long period of discussion. There is before each one of us a package of documents. Each of us knows why we are here and knows in advance what is to be discussed. Each of us knew in advance when we were due to start our discussions. However, you are absolutely correct. There is no one wishing to speak. I understand we now have a resurgence of interest in speaking. Cuba has the floor.
Pedro REYNALDOS DUEÑAS (Cuba): Nos damos cuenta que usted tiene problemas también en la vista, como usted mismo lo dice. Hemos levantado dos veces nuestra insignia y no se nos ha tomado en cuenta. Nosotros queremos apoyar a la distinguida Delegación del Ecuador y pensamos que por el interés de estos temas, es preferible terminar esta sesión y mañana hacer nuestra intervención, y por eso queremos que nos apunten en la lista de mañana.
Sra. Delia CHEVALIER VILLAMONTE (Panamá): Entendemos la preocupación suya por el desarrollo de los debates y el tiempo a nuestra disposición pero sí consideramos también nosotros muy importantes los temas que le toca a la Comisión II, en particular éste, y por ello apoyamos lo expresado por la Argentina y el Ecuador y deseamos que nos anote en la lista para el día de mañana.
Paul Richard BRYDEN (Australia): Mr Chairman, as this is the first time I have intervened since your election, may I congratulate you. I intervene very briefly to say that while I would be delighted to speak, I would prefer to speak tomorrow when I have seen the two draft resolutions which were announced or foreshadowed and which I have yet to receive from the Secretariat. Unlike some delegations, I am unwilling to make a judgement on those draft resolutions until I have seen them.
The meeting rose at 17.20 hours.
La séance est levée à 17.20.
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.20 horas.
