CHAIRMAN: We will now open the floor to any countries which wish to speak.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): I would like to make a general comment as regards a point of order. As regards the organization of work of this Commission, it has been the practice that the commission would elect Vice-Chairmen in order to organize our work, and this we expected when we started our session yesterday. However, this has not taken place. Therefore I would deem it appropriate before we start on the agenda to dispose of this item of the agenda, namely the election of the Vice-Chairmen. I have contacted in an informal manner some of my colleagues, and the majority believe that this is the prerogative of this Commission and not the prerogative of the General Committee.
CHAIRMAN: On your point of order, the Chair is advised by the Secretariat that the practice has been that it is in the General Committee where those decisions on the Vice-Chairmen will be made and that it will be reported to us. They are now meeting on this issue. That is the practice that has been established over the years according to the Secretariat and that practice is now in process. We fully expected to have it first thing this morning. As I indicated to you, we certainly want to have that just as quickly as possible. The reference on that is Rule XIII (2).
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Deseamos intervenir, como punto de orden, sobre la organización de los trabajos.
Esperamos que el Comité General nos transmita candidaturas que permitan darle a usted dos magníficos vicepresidentes; pero en cuanto al Comité de Redacción entiendo que esa sí es una función exclusiva de los miembros de esta Comisión. Por ello, quisiéramos preguntarle a la Secretaría si ha iniciado los contactos necesarios para que se constituya cuando se considere este tema en el Comité de Redacción y se le elija un buen Presidente.
CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken. That is a prerogative of the Commission and the answer to your question is yes, those steps are in motion.
Carlos DI MOTTOLABALESTRA (Costa Rica): Honro en presentar la posición común y unánime del Grupo Latinoamericano y del Caribe.
Primero. Manifestamos que estamos abiertos al diálogo y a la negociación concertada, libre de todo tipo de presiones.
Segundo. Enarbolamos el consenso tradicional que reconoce a la FAO su liderazgo y labor efectiva en el sector de la agricultura y la alimentación, y la voluntad permanente de fortalecerla para que res-ponda mejor y prioritariamente a las aspiraciones y necesidades de los países en desarrollo.
Tercero. Nos preocupa que siendo esa la voluntad reiterada, algunos países pongan en duda en los últimos tiempos, diversos elementos de la Organización y busquen reformarlos, aprovechando, en buena parte, los efectos de la crisis de liquidez por la que atraviesa la FAO.
Cuarto. Coincidimos con la opinión generalizada en que la principal causa de esa crisis es el retraso e incertidumbre en los pagos del principal contribuyente, que obedece particularmente a razones políticas. Ello contrasta con las causas económicas que han obligado a países en desrrollo a retrasar sus contribuciones. Esta situación se agrava además, por la devaluación del dólar norteamericano.
Quinto. De continuar tales presiones financieras, los programas y la viabilidad misma de la FAO quedarían muy vulnerados,- y todo intento de reforma carecería de significado y utilidad.
Sexto. El caso de la FAO no es exclusivo. El Sistema de Naciones Unidas enfrenta la crisis del mul-tilateralismo que se deriva también de intereses políticos.
Séptimo. En este contexto, hay procesos de revisión general en el Sistema de Naciones Unidas que no deben anticiparse ni duplicarse en la FAO, visto el costo económico y político que ello implicaría.
Octavo. Refrendamos que los órganos rectores y técnicos de nuestra Organización son los foros apropiados y facultados para evaluar y dirimir estas cuestiones.
Noveno. En consecuencia, nos oponemos enfáticamente a la creación de cualquier tipo de grupo de expertos de alto nivel.
Décimo. Si lo que buscamos es la concertación de voluntades, habríamos preferido proponer conjuntamente un proyecto de resolución único que conjugase los diversos puntos de vista manifestados en el debate, en vez de proyectos de resolución unilaterales que harán más difícil la discusión y la negociación.
Undécimo. A este respecto, comunicamos, que en vista de esta situación someteremos un proyecto de resolución.
Pedro OYARCE YURASZECK (Chile): Permítame en primer término felicitarlo a usted, Señor Presidente, por su designación. Asimismo queremos aprovechar esta oportunidad para agradecer a la Secretaría por la preparación del documento C 87/30.
Mi Delegación desea formular brevemente algunas observaciones generales en relación a este tema. En efecto, la iniciativa que aparece detrás del tratamiento de este punto de la Agenda, como se percibió desde el inicio de su debate en el Consejo, nos llena, al igual que a otros países en desarrollo, de legítima preocupación. La presentación de las propuestas contenidas en el Documento antes mencionado comprometen el destino y la marcha futura de la FAO. Se pretende una reestructuración para perfeccionar la Organización. Sin embargo, no es evidente que la FAO necesite una reorientación que afecte su marco de acción fundamental, prioridades, programas de labores, métodos y procedimientos administrativos.
Lo que algunos sectores ven como debilidades del sistema general, no es sino un reflejo de la crisis económica internacional, de problemas presupuestarios acentuados por una contracción en el cumplimiento de las obligaciones que como contribuyentes tienen los Estados Miembros. Este hecho limita los servicios de asesoría, asistencia técnica y proyectos de campo, actividades intrínsecamente
vinculadas a la esencia y al mandato constitucional de la Organización. En suma, Señor Presidente, más que un conjunto de propuestas que envuelvan una reestructuración, la Organización requiere con urgencia que los Estados Miembros asuman plenamente el cumplimiento de sus compromisos financieros.
En el caso de nuestro país, no obstante dificultades y limitaciones, que son conocidas, se ha hecho un esfuerzo para pagar siempre nuestra contribución regular y el aporte a la Sede Regional. De allí que mi Delegación se opone decididamente a la idea de establecer un grupo de cualquier naturaleza, tendiente a promover un funcionamiento diverso de la Organización. Creemos que si, con todo, se busca examinar o evaluar ciertos aspectos puntuales de la marcha de la FAO, debe utilizarse la es-tructura y capacidad disponible en la Organización, en especial los Comités del Programa y Financia-miento, así como los órganos básicos establecidos en sus Textos Fundamentales. En el marco de estos organismos estamos dispuestos a buscar mecanismos que permitan realizar un análisis más de fondo de las prioridades y programas de la Organización. Por otra parte, cabe recordar que un grupo de alto nivel como el que se quiere establecer particularmente para esta Organización, ya existe dentro del ECOSOC por mandato de la Asamblea General con el objeto de estudiar la estructura del sector económico y social del Sistema de las Naciones Unidas en su integridad, lo que obviamente incluye esta Agencia especializada.
Parece, en consecuencia, altamente inconveniente que en un período especialmente crítico y sensible financiera y políticamente para el Sistema de Naciones Unidas, que la Agencia especializada más comprometida con las necesidades vitales del hombre, proponga un ejercicio que implica duplicidad y probablemente tenga un impacto financiero innecesario.
Mi Delegación estima inútil en esta instancia examinar en detalle el sinnúmero de propuestas circuladas ante esta Comisión y desea renovar aquí su adhesión a las conclusiones de la Comunicación presentada por un grupo de países en desarrollo, que figura en el Apéndice A del Documento C 87/30.
Igualmente mi Delegación suscribe plenamente la Declaración del Presidente del Grupo Latinoamericano y del Caribe. No obstante lo anterior, Señor Presidente, creemos que es posible con voluntad política abordar las propuestas que tiendan a un perfeccionamiento y ajuste determinado en las funciones y programas de la FAO, en un ejercicio conducido a través de los órganos rectores y sujeto a las disposiciones de sus Textos Fundamentales. Este es un foro intergubernamental y es obvio, Señor Presidente, que no es procedente tomar decisiones y aprobar resoluciones que lesionen, entre otros principios, la igualdad jurídica de los Estados y la soberanía de cada uno de ellos.
Por último, mi Delegación desea formular un llamado a los mayores contribuyentes y a los Estados donantes, a fin de que reflexionen con pragmatismo sobre la viabilidad política de sus pretensiones. Al mismo tiempo, confiamos que los países en desarrollo defiendan con vigor los principios generales establecidos en los Textos Fundamentales de esta Organización, irrevocablemente comprometida con la causa del Tercer Mundo. La solidaridad, la cooperación internacional y el multilateralisme, son conceptos indivisibles e intransables.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair now recognizes the representative of Saudi Arabia who has a report from the Resolutions Committee.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Chairman, Resolutions Committee) (original language Arabic): I would like to extend this for your attention and i would also like to congratulate you on your election to chair this important Commission. I wish you to be most successful in your work.
In my capacity as Chairman of the Resolutions Committee I wish to inform you that the Committee itself held its first meeting this morning at 9.00 a.m. and during this meeting we had three draft resolutions on the agenda; one submitted by Norway on behalf of the Nordic countries and that is draft resolution C 87/LIM/27. The second draft resolution was submitted by the United States of America, it is contained in document C 87/LIM/28. The third draft resolution, an ordinary draft resolution, which has to do with the World Food Programme.
The Resolutions Committee, as you all know, has well-defined tasks and a well-defined working method. Draft resolutions are submitted to the Committee before they are presented in Commission or in Plenary. They are submitted to the Resolutions.Committee for discussion, approval, and then for submission to the relevant Commission. The Resolutions Committee does not discuss the essence of the resolutions. It just deals with all the formalities so as to check whether they are well drafted according to the rules, so we really are not in a position to accept or reject any draft resolutions.
Unanimously the Committee noted that these three draft resolutions are acceptable, valid, formally and legally and we also note that these draft resolutions should be passed on to Commission II. This is all I have to say for the time being.
CHAIRMAN: As a point of clarification the Chair would like to remind the Commission that in the remarks of the delegate from Costa Rica he indicated that Latin America and the Caribbean countries will also be presenting a draft resolution. to be submitted to this Commission.
Horacio MALTEZ (Panamá): Señor Presidente, al felicitarlo por su elección, la Delegación de Panamá augura que las responsabilidades y delicadas funciones por usted asumidas se llevarán dentro de una gestión ecuánime y fructífera.
Nuestra intervención relacionada con el tema 12 de la Agenda, se ajusta a los lineamientos y orientaciones que nuestro Jefe de Delegación, el Ministro de Desarrollo Agropecuario, presenta en esta mañana al Plenario de esta Conferencia.
En los actuales momentos en que se observa una marcada tendencia en contra del multilateralismo y de los organismos que lo practican, nuestra Delegación reitera su plena identificación con los principios y objetivos fundamentales que regulan el Sistema de las Naciones Unidas en general y en particular los objetivos fundamentales de la Constitución de la FAO.
La Delegación de Panamá expresa asimismo, su convencimiento de que las orientaciones, estrategias, prioridades y estructuras de este Organismo, responden cabalmente a las aspiraciones y exigencia del conjunto de países aquí representados, constituyendo una garantía para el desarrollo y el bienestar común de la colectividad internacional.
Para nosotros es evidente e indiscutible la validez del mandato de la FAO y de sus órganos rectores, de su constitución y su reglamento, por lo cual apoyamos vigorosamente las actividades que ejecuta para el mejoramiento y fortalecimiento de sus programas en el marco de la solidaridad y en el reconocimiento de una realidad pluralista.
A la luz de este orden de ideas, nuestra Delegación, sin descartar la posibilidad de un diálogo constructivo que tenga como finalidad mejorar la eficacia de este Organismo y adecuarlo a las exigencias de un determinado momento, manifiesta su decidida oposición a cualquier intento de utilizar la actual crisis financi era de esta Organización como pretexto y marco para eieccuar reformas a la FAO. Máxime cuando consideramos que esta crisis financiera tiene profundas connotaciones políticas provocadas tanto por el principal contribuyente como por otros países desarrollados para avalar sus propuestas reformas. Creemos firmemente que cualquier reforma que se quiera introducir a la estructura de la FAO debe ser considerada sin precipitación y, mucho menos, con fines de debilitar el multilateralismo.
En este contexto, Panamá se opone firmemente a la creación de un grupo de expertos de alto nivel o de cualquier otra estructura similar. Estamos convencidos, en caso de que fuere necesario, que la FAO posee dentro de sus estructuras los órganos idóneos para analizar, revisar, modificar y decidir las políticas y orientaciones convenientes para el conjunto de sus miembros, y que estas estructuras responden, a juicio de nuestra Delegación, a las aspiraciones y necesidades de nuestros países en desarrollo, así como para propiciar el establecimiento de un Orden económico internacional más justo y equitativo.
La Delegación de Panamá, Señor Presidente, reitera su plena identificación y apoyo al Comunicado presentado por los Países en Desarrollo, y que se incluye en el Documento 87/30, así como declaraciones de nuestro Presidente del Grupo Latinoamericano y del Caribe. Para nuestro país el diálogo y la conciliación son conceptos inherentes a la idiosincracia de nuestro pueblo, razón por la cual lo propiciamos, siempre que se practique en un marco de tranquilidad, respeto mutuo y voluntad de entendimiento. Consideramos las presiones y las amenazas, directas o veladas, como instrumentos inadmisibles en cualquier proceso de negociación.
Por tal motivo y a nuestro juicio, todo entendimiento o pronunciamiento debe ser el resultado de un documento debidamente negociado, resultado de la opinión de amplios sectores de. países, razón por la que estimamos inútil la presentación de resoluciones a título individual.
En nuestra opinión el consenso es la forma ideal de cualquier proceso de negociación. Sin embargo, de no ser posible, existen otras fórmulas para llegar a acuerdos igualmente válidos. Siendo el voto una expresión democrática prevista en los textos fundamentales de esta Organización, resulta perfectamente viable en el caso de no llegar a resultados que satisfagan las partes.
Para terminar, a nuestra Delegación le resulta difícil comprender cómo es que países fundadores de esta Organización, que propugnaron e impulsaron su creación y que aprobaron sus principios y objetivos, hoy busquen pretextos para destruir la esencia misma de la FAO.
Igualmente nos llena de congoja que países que se han siempre identificado con las necesidades y los anhelos del mundo en desarrollo, en estos momentos de crisis económica internacional en los que se hace más que nunca indispensable su comprensión y apoyo, hoy integren corrientes adversas al principio del multilateralismo.
Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Nos sorprende que usted haya dicho que nadie hubiera pedido la palabra, y usted mismo leyó una relación de oradores en la cual Cuba aparecía en tercer lugar; de todas maneras no haremos problemas con eso, Señor Presidente. Queremos primeramente expresar nuestro apoyo total a la declaración de la distinguida Delegación de Costa Rica, como Presidente del Grupo Latinoamericano y del Caribe, queayer en la tarde, en una reunión histórica, con la participación de toda la reunión, por no decir todas las regiones, ratificamos, acordó el documento que ha leído el Excelentísimo Embajador Carlos Di Mottola.
Para obviar tiempo, porque creo que nos va a hacer falta hoy tiempo para discutir en profundidad esta importante materia que se nos presenta, queremos decir lo siguiente: el documento 87/30, que es el que tenemos en la mano para analizar, comienza diciendo: posible. La palabra "posible" creo que en todos los idiomas de la FAO es clarita. Examen de algunos aspectos de las metas y opera-ciones. Ya esto está dando a entender, al que quiera entender, que la discusión en el Consejo fue una duda grande de que podríamos entrar a analizar lo que se llama proceso de reforma. Por lo tanto, creo que la primera pregunta que debemos hacernos aquí y decidir es: ¿La reforma es necesaria? ¿Podemos así, o no? Para no discutir por gusto. Aparte de eso queremos expresar que sí estamos de acuerdo en que se pueden analizar los 40 años de la FAO. Esto es el mandato y facultades que tiene esta Conferencia para analizar todo el proceso de la FAO.
Podemos analizarlo, podemos analizar sus actividades, podemos inclusive revisarlo nosotros los miembros y representantes de los gobiernos que legítimamente sostenemos esta Organización.
A través de los órganos que legítimamente se han creado sobre bases multilaterales, que son los que tienen la atribución y la capacidad para realizar el objetivo de análisis. No creemos en independencias de organismo ninguno, fuera de los que están elegidos en este contexto.
La otra cuestión que creo que hay que dejar clara, es que en el mundo, hoy, producto de un sistema económico y financiero injusto contra el cual se está trabajando en las Naciones Unidas desde hace mucho tiempo para ver si podemos lograr un nuevo orden económico internacional más justo y equitativo, está demostrado que en el mundo hay suficiente producción para que coman, no sólo los habitantes hoy, sino el doble de los habitantes que pueden existir.
No hay ninguna cuestión demográfica que nos pueda subvertir el tiempo, en coger el tiempo de las cosas fundamentales. El problema en el mundo es la justicia en la distribución y la crisis financiera y económica que es producto de esa situación, y es mundial. La baja del dólar es un mecanismo para exportar la inflación o reexportar la inflación porque se esta reexportando la inflación para Europa y para Africa. Entonces esa situación rebota en FAO. No podemos reexportarle a FAO la crisis del sistema financiero, económico y social. Por lo tanto, no aceptamos ni podemos entrar a aceptar la discusión de reformas sobre bases de presión financieras de pago o no pago.
Los miembros deben de pagar todos de acuerdo con sus posibilidades y pagar, y entonces discutir y realizar. Buscar más eficiencia en FAO es posible. FAO es un órgano vivo, tan vivo que acaba de demostrar que con 94 votos, la gran mayoría de los miembros sancionan la política de FAO durante los últimos doce años, por lo cual creo que sería improcedente entrar ahora, después de haber sancionado esa política con abrumadora mayoría, a querer reformar aspectos internos. Creo que es contradecirnos, o deseo de entretenernos, discutiendo para no resolver nada.
Quiero expresar, finalmente, que hay que trabajar o revitalizar la FAO en medio de la crisis mundial, no para destruirla ni fabricar otra FAO, y que tenemos que trabajar seriamente por la implementación de una resolución de FAO, la 3/75. Que nos compete a nosotros implementar el nuevo orden económico internacional, dentro de la agricultura y la alimentación en FAO, acuerdo soberano y unánime de esta Organización en el año 75.
Gerald Phirinyane KHOJANE (Lesotho): As this is the first time our delegation has taken the floor, we wish to congratulate you on your election of Chairman to the Commission. We are confident that you will lead our discussions to a successful conclusion.
The Lesotho delegation has read and carefully assessed different submissions on the need to renew certain aspects of FAO goals and operations, including the need for reform in the programme and budget process as reflected in Document C 87/30. We have listened attentively to the views expressed formally and informally by different delegations, before and during the Conference, and also to the remarks of the Secretariat during the introduction of this subject.
In our view the consolidated submissions in favour of the reform can be summarized as follows: 1) There is a concern about clarity of goals and priorities, financial and managerial control systems and distinction between FAO's Regular Programmes and its field activities; 2) There is a feeling that FAO's projects often tend to be ad hoc activities not clearly laid to government plans of investment policies; that coordination with UNDP, recipients, other UN agencies and non-government organizations is unsatisfactory, and that there is a lack of transparency with regard to the evaluation of FAO activities; 3) It is observed that the current FAO procedures for review and appraisal of the Programme of Work and Budget need to be modified to permit more in-depth consultations among members, and between members of the Secretariat, to allow for a better determination of budget level and priorities among programmes proposed by the Director-General; 4) It is suggested that during FAO meetings decisions are not taken but the written reports are drafted in such a way that members appear to have taken such decisions; 5) The calibre and ratios of representation on the Finance Committee are still being questioned while at the same time keeping Programme and Finance Committees separate is deemed as not the right approach to enhance effectiveness; 6) Finally, there is a feeling that the process of seeking concensus in the drafting committees does not always allow adequate reflection of minority views in the final reports of the Committees.
It is not an exaggeration to assert that the above mentioned consolidated points in favour of reform exercise are thought to have reached such proportions that their solution needs nothing short of creation of an independent high level group to analyse and advise on the appropriate course of action. While it would not be an unusual step to appoint a high level group to review the operations of FAO, we are of the view that at this point in time the proposal is ill-timed. In the first place taking the submissions individually one cannot deduce that there is unanimity on the problem areas which justify a need for review by an independent body outside the governing bodies of FAO for that matter. Secondly, even if there was unanimity on the problem areas, such problem areas would first need to be discussed by the appropriate governing bodies of FAO as provided for in the Basic Texts. There is no evidence from the submissions that this available avenue has been exploited. Thirdly, we feel that if complaints are not looking for hypothetical answers most of the expressed concerns have been answered in the documents before this very Conference.
Even if we were to give the promoters of reforms a benefit of doubt we would still have the following comments to offer with regard to the claim for need of reforms as outlined in their submissions: we commend Japan for acknowledging that FAO has set priorities on its programmes within the budget limitation and has endeavoured to implement them efficiently and effectively. Any suggestion that FAO is operating without clear objective and strategy is therefore out of step. Japan also made a positive observation that the recommendations of the Group of 18 of the United Nations include some useful suggestions and that FAO has already taken some measures, which, in fact, reflect the spirit of recommendations. Guided by this observation we believe a pragmatic move would be to allow some time to the FAO management to take full advantage of the recommendations of the Group of 18 before considering to set up an independent body to conduct a full review.
At the request of the Director-General, the issue of transparency was discussed by the Programme Committee early this year. It has been reported that the committee concluded that the nature and extent of information made available to it, by FAO Secretariat, was satisfactory in the exercise of its mandate. It was content that every request for supplementary information or clarification was met fully and promptly. The Delegation of Lesotho finds no justification, therefore, to challenge the conclusion of the Programme Committee.
The proposal to modify procedures for review and appraisal of the Programme of Work and Budget to permit in-depth consultations is simple and straight forward. In our view it can be considered and concluded by relevant governing bodies right away without recourse to a high level group. We therefore invite the delegates to submit a specific request to the Secretariat to work out the modalities of having this matter fully considered by the appropriate body.
The Government of Lesotho is satisfied that FAO has responded to its requests based on its plans and policies. We believe many other developing countries share this experience. If this is the case, a view that FAO projects tend to be ad hoc activities cannot but be too simplistic and not based on substantial facts.
The suggested improvements of coordination with recipients, UNDP, other UN agencies and non-government organizations cannot be the function of FAO alone but a joint responsibility. There is so far no evidence that FAO is not cooperating in the efforts to improve coordination channels. How then can a review in this case be confined to FAO alone?
It is already mentioned somewhere in document C 87/30 that the Joint Inspection Unit of the United Nations in its report of July 1986 has confirmed that the process of self-evaluation, established in 1979 in FAO, allows for efficient feedback into the system. Secondly, the proposed mechanism to ensure independent evaluation of FAO activities would in our view be a duplication of efforts since this is also satisfactorily done by external auditors.
According to our experience, there are always drafting committees which scrutinise reports prepared by the Secretariat and rapporteurs to make sure that such reports reflect what transpired in the meetings. Suggestions to have texts of meeting reports amended by individuals without debate makes the whole mockery of discussions in the drafting committees to reach agreed conclusions.
The suggestion to secure adequate representation of the major contributing countries in the proposed Programme and Budget Committee can only be interpreted as an attempt to impose veto powers on those who have more money or to directly introduce weighted voting in FAO. We are opposed to any form of manipulation to disturb the present healthy democratic character of FAO.
This leads us , to a similar conclusion with the group of developing countries reflected in their submission in document C 87/30 that "... The background to the problem of reforms is not technical but basically political ... What is required, therefore, is not high level expert groups, as suggested by various countries but united political will among Member Nations and the negotiation of an agreement that would make the future of FAO viable and satisfactory to all. .. The Conference is the supreme body for discussions of these questions making use of the Council and other technical bodies".
Ábdal Halem AL NOMAN (Iraq) (original language Arabic): I would like first of all, if I may, to congratulate you, Mr Chairman, on your election and thank you for giving me the floor at this stage in the debate. I congratulate you on being elected to the chair of this Commission in particular because it is one of the important commissions of the Conference as it has to deal with a problem which is of great importance to all our countries. Now this document has been studied very carefully by us and of course we respect all the opinions expressed therein quite naturally. But we would like to give also our own view - the view of my Government - on this matter which has to take into account the best interests of the Organization. My country does not feel that it is necessary to undertake an overall reform exercise of the Organization at the present time and we support all those delegations that have spoken against such wholesale reform, because the Organization has demonstrably been working effectively, implementing all the decisions that were taken at successive Conference sessions and we have always, all of us, participated at these Conference sessions and we heard the Director-General say the other day that the Organization has in fact in the last decade or so been improving a lot of its activities and stream-lining itself quite considerably, precisely in order to meet the needs of the changing world. There is something however which we would like to suggest and that is this: we certainly could undertake some changes if they are demonstrably necessary, and of course everything human can be improved, but what is important is that any changes should be introduced through the existing governing bodies of the Organization because these are by definition the governing bodies, they are in an excellent position to evaluate what is going on and what is being done and what needs to be done, and in this way we would not need to establish any additional bodies; we would not spend very much additional money, if any, because we would be using existing machinery. So we feel that the Organization, through its existing bodies and machinery, can undertake whatever study may be felt to be necessary and the result of this study would be submitted in due course to the Council and then to the Conference for consideration and decision. But as I say, of course, the bodies carrying out such an exercise must take into account all the views that have been expressed as regards the question of providing services to the countries that need them and not in proportion, for instance, to their contributions to the budget of the Organization. We must always work on a basis of equality.
Thomas YANGA (Cameroon): My delegation is very pleased to attend under your leadership the session of this important Commission and we take this opportunity to congratulate you for your election as its Chairman. I would like to restate here that the principle of reviewing the functioning and the method of work of any institution is constant in the policy of the Cameroon Government. Concerning the item of the agenda, on which we are having a very interesting and positive exchange of views, I would like first of ail to thank the delegations of countries which referred to the closing statement of the Chairman of the 23rd Session of the FAO Conference which happened to be His Excellency Jean-Baptiste Yonke of Cameroon. It is not that we want to bring you back, on the contrary we are very concerned with the future of our Organization and we stand for the principle we believe strongly in. Before coming back to that statement I would like to remind the honourable delegates present here that this is not the first time and probably will not be the last one that the functioning and structures of this Organization are considered for review by CL Committee of experts. The basic frame of the present structure resulted from the proposal of a seven-member committee designated by each region which was established in 1968 to review certain aspects and activities of FAO, in which my country had the great honour to represent Africa. The position of my country has not changed for almost two years and as part of our contribution to the debate it is with pleasure and a great honour that I am going to remind the distinguished delegates of the precise and concise substance of the statement made by Mr Yonke of Cameroon as Chairman of the 23rd Session of the Conference, and that we make ours today.
To avoid any misinterpretation, I will quote him. He said: "A number of statements in the Plenary and in the Commissions have not only praised the activities and performance of our Organization in the past 40 years but have also requested us to look at the role of our Organization for the next 40 years." I here, Mr Chairman, want to draw the attention of the Commission to the last part of this sentence that underlines the review of the role of the Organization in the next 40 years. That means, in other words, that our delegation is looking forward from the present as FAO did very well in 1986 with its reference study on African agriculture: The Next 25 Years, and from which it brought up the future role of FAO in the field of rural development of Africa for the medium and long terms. Then our Minister went on with what we see as fundamental and permanent questions of any institution or organization, whatever its size, specificity and activity
and it was: What should FAO do and how should it be done not only in the regular but also in its field programme? Among many subjects he chose to talk specifically about the system of the governing and advisory bodies which should be reviewed and, for example, the procedure of adopting the Programme of Work and Budget and the Conference proceedings itself in which - and this can be confirmed through its present session - Ministers come at the beginning; they deliver their statements, hold a few meetings and then depart without personally participating in the deliberations of the Conference, thereby leaving many important decisions to be taken by their alternates who are really not in decision-making positions.
My country is in favour of genuine multilateralism clearance and we will fight strongly for the preservation of its basic principles. In this regard we hope that some important issues like the one we are debating now will find, easily and quickly, when most of the Ministers are still here, compromised and consensus solutions.
Finally, we fully agree with the Director-General that FAO is perfectible and we believe that changes are necessary. They are taking place all around us and those who do not change, in other words stand still, will regress and not progress. The only purpose of our processes should be -and we are glad to notice that this seems to he the line of our debate so far - the wish for FAO (our FAO to all of us), to progress, in spite of new and more complex challenges of the future, in order to serve better the ideas of its founders.
Thank you for giving me the floor and we might need to take it again to clarify some of our positions.
Anwar Mohamed KHALED (Yemen, People's Democratic Republic of) (original language Arabic): I would like to congratulate you on your election to Chair the proceedings of this Commisssion. As regards the document under consideration, I would like to express the viewpoint of my delegation, namely that we are not aware so far of the essence and the justification behind an in-depth study of some aspects of FAO's goals and operations and the formation of a high-level group to consider the goals, objectives and priorities as referred to in this document. We note that these papers highlight two particular incidents, namely the 40 years in the life of the Organization, together with the financial crisis of the Organization. Why is there a need after 40 years to reconsider, why not after 30 years or after 50 years? The length or the duration of the period for which the FAO has operated throughout the past 40 years was positive in the effort that the Secretariat, its leadership, the Conference, the Council, these mechanisms and this management have. given of understanding and displayed the ability to adapt itself and its methods of work and it has evolved in a changing world. And the leadership of this Organization has proven during the past period, especially during the past decade, it has displayed the ability to respond quickly and it has also displayed flexibility to respond to the requirements of the developing countries, in order to eradicate hunger and to increase productivity, and to surmount the various difficulties that stand in the way of developing countries. Why do we think of the financial crisis as a factor for reform? The means to solve this crisis is basically the payment of contributions. These obligations should be honoured by those countries still in arrears. Also we should increase the support to the Organization in order to enable it to assist developing countries in these difficult circumstances through which we are all passing. Therefore the delegation from the People's Democratic Republic of Yemen supports what has been said by previous delegations and particularly by the Chairman of the Near East Region and the Chairman of the Latin American Group. We believe there is no need whatsoever to embark upon a study of review of the objectives and priorities of this Organization, or even the formation of a high level group for this purpose.
We can see that there is a need to continue the dialogue and to air the various points aimed at strengthening the Organization and developing the cooperation within the Organization. However, this should take place within the framework of the Organization's existing institutions and through constructive dialogue, exchange of views and working towards understanding instead of the formation of external bodies alien to the Organization.
Sami SUNAA (Jordan) (original language Arabic): I should like at the outset to congratulate you on your election as Chairman of this Commission and express the hope that we shall be able, through serious discussions under your able leadership, to reach a unanimous resolution, of this critical issue.
We have considered these various proposals calling for a review of some aspects relating to the goals and operations of the Organization. We have noted that a majority of them stem from the financial difficulties suffered by the Organization at present and the potential problems. Therefore we believe that the current crisis faced by the Organization, which we hope will be temporary, does not at all justify the review of the objectives and goals of the Organization, because it would be a mere reaction. However, we definitely see that this crisis may require some changes as regards the priorities and. programmes of work that take into consideration the requirements of countries facing special problems. We believe this task can be undertaken through the existing framework of the Organization and that the general Conference can highlight the required issues and entrust the Secretariat or the Director-General to implement them through the formation of a Committee, or any other procedure he may deem appropriate.
There is no harm in relying on external experts if they are not available to the Organization. However, we believe that the recruitment of external consultants to evaluate a highly specialized organization is not at all justified because we believe that the Organization, with its existing organs and its long expertise and regional offices, is well capable of ascertaining the facts and proposing ways and means of improving its operations and methods of work.
Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): As I announced yesterday, I wish for the membership of the Commission to have before it overnight, for study, the draft resolution that I announced. However, it was not technically possible to get it out last night. It is out this morning and therefore I would ask your indulgence in introducing it now.
Twenty-two years ago when our fathers founded FAO in Ottawa they had both vision and practical sense. Their practical sense was expressed in establishing the mandate for an organization that should be the focal point of this cooperation. Both are equally important and equally valid today. But - an important but - the world is not a static place and our founding fathers recognized this by providing our Organization with a Charter that allows it to change with the times, and the times have changed. The aspirations of the developing world have taken their rightful place at the centre of our attention. The role and the needs of women have been brought to the fore. That is to mention only two of the major manifestations of this process of change, and our Organization has also changed. Their emphasis today is on development and integration; and rightly so. I do not believe that any of the distinguished representatives in this room would have wanted it otherwise.
CHAIRMAN: Could Norway hold for just a moment? India has just raised a Point of Order.
V.K. SIBAL (India): I should like to have your ruling on this. We have commenced this debate with a certain history. At the last meeting of the Conference we were well aware of the circumstances in respect of this particular item, on which no consensus was possible, which was referred to the Conference to take a view on whether we should have reform in FAO, to identify specific areas for them and to consider the methodologies which should be undertaken to carry on the process. I want to have your ruling, Mr Chairman. Should we start discussing resolutions at this stage? I thought that that would come after the debate had really progressed and the conclusions were to be distilled, and at that stage various resolutions would come. However, if we start debating resolutions perhaps the focus of the debate will shift to the wording of the resolutions rather than to the views of Member Countries of the conclusions and recommendations of the Council as put to the Conference. I should like to have your ruling.
CHAIRMAN: The resolution before you, the Chair would rule, cannot be voted on today because of the twenty-four hour ruling. However, nothing in the Rules prohibits or inhibits anyone who wishes to introduce a resolution from doing so, following the proper procedure. Then when it comes back from the Resolutions Committee it is perfectly able to be discussed. We have two resolutions today that meet the criteria. One would presume that tomorrow we will have an additional one introduced by Costa Rica on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean Group. It would be perfectly in order to proceed today with the discussion on this. It would be possible to vote on it tomorrow - not today. Tomorrow would be perfectly possible if the Latin American and Caribbean Group wishes to discuss their resolution and to say anything about it, to do that tomorrow. It would not be in order to vote on that resolution until the following day.
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): I am in full agreement with India on this point. As for your observation, I regret to say that the Near East Group would also like to submit a Draft Resolution. I hope this will be taken into consideration when we consider these resolutions either today or tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN: On that Point of Order, nothing can be discussed today. It could be introduced today and discussed as early as tomorrow and voted on as early as the following day.
Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): As I was saying, our Organization has changed. The emphasis today is on development and integration and rightly so. I do not believe that any of the distinguished representatives in this room would have wanted it otherwise: nor would the nations that they represent.
The changes and the consequences have been many and positive but as they have evolved they have been added and our Organization has become like a strong tree that has continually grown new small branches, producing fruit. And the wise gardener recognizes that in order for a tree to continue to bear valuable fruit it must be tended. Some branches should be trimmed and some shored up; its direction of growth judged and adjusted.
The Chairman of the Twenty-third Session of the Conference, the Honourable Minister Yonke of Cameroon recognized this. At the close of that Session he called on the membership to use the coming biennium to examine the role and priorities. Heeding this call and motivated by our interest in multilateral development co-operation and our interest in FAO, the Nordic countries have during the past two years been actively discussing the future structure and activities of our Organization.
I mentioned that FAO operates in an ever-changing environment. Issues at the top of the agenda yesterday maybe have to be replaced by new priorities today. Appropriate stability and continuity must at the same time be ensured. To achieve an appropriate balance it is essential that main priorities are clearly defined on the basis of the aspirations of the membership and the comparative advantages of FAO.
As an example of changing priorities I would mention the Report from the World Commission on Environment and Development, the Bruindtland Commission. It has as a central message that environmental crisis can only be properly managed through a comprehensive programme for growth and sustainable development. Economic growth must enhance the resource base rather than degrade it. In this context FAO has an extremely important role to play and it should be regarded as a basic document when talking about the revision of basic priorities. Let me briefly mention six points which should be among those which are central in a continued discussion:
1. In addition to collection and dissemination of statistical and other basic information, FAO has a special role to play in the areas of policy development and advice, given the Organization's Mandate and comparative advantages. Accordingly FAO's analytical and norm-setting functions should be strengthened.
2.The technical assistance provided by FAO is small in quantitative terms. Thus, FAO's technical assistance should be linked to planning and policy development in the recipient country, and be characterized by high quality.
3.FAO is part of the UN family, and operates in a field where a number of multilateral, bilateral and non-governmental organizations are active. These organizations have specific mandates and comparative advantages, and ideally their work should complement and strengthen each other. Unfortunately, the situation is not ideal, as coordination and division of work has not been given sufficient attention. In the case of FAO we are especially concerned about the insufficient coordination with the UN resident coordinator at country level.
5.FAO cannot adapt its goals, objectives and strategies in a dynamic and flexible way without active participation from its member countries. For the member countries to be able to do this it is essential that the information and material we receive from the Organization is presented in a clear and transparent manner which clearly shows the link between priorities and allocation of funds. This we hope will improve in the future. Further, for FAO and the member countries to be able to assess the impact of activities independent evaluations are essential. The purpose of evaluations and reviews is to learn from experience to improve future performance.
6.FAO should aim at being the lead organization on agricultural issues in international debate including, in cooperation with UNDP, environmental issues related to agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and in cooperation with WHO, nutritional questions. In the late 1980s the global threat to environment and natural resources should be subject to special FAO attention. To FAO this means that the Organization will have to overcome the present fragmentation between forestry, agriculture, livestock and fisheries. Further, a greater reliance on local resources and improved farming systems calls for renewed initiative and participation. This is also the case in such areas as soil conservation, agroforestry and people's participation, including the role and need of women.
Our purpose has been to stimulate discussion among the members, to analyze issues and raise questions, not to provide the final answer. That can only be done in a more global frame where all the members participate and broad agreement achieved. The work of the Nordic countries has been conducted openly, our preliminary results transmitted to the FAO Secretariat, discussed during the process with a wide range of members and finally transmitted to the full membership through Conference document C 87/30 for the discussion that is taking place here today.
I mentioned that part of our motivation was our strong interest in multilateral cooperation in the UN system and in strengthening this system. The system can be strengthened in two ways, both by increasing the resources available to it and by using those resources more effectively. There is no contradiction between them. We believe that both of these should be pursued. When speaking of resources permit me, Mr Chairman a slight digression to point out that to the extent that our Organization's financial problems are caused by late or non-payments of contributions to the Regular Budget, this is in contravention of agreed principles for multilateral cooperation in the UN and in contravention of accepted obligations and as such unacceptable to my country. We do, however, also believe that FAO will have to deal with a situation of scarce resources in a wider context and in a longer frame of time.
In this wider context one of -the strongest arguments for achieving increased resources may be that the Organization shows that these resources will be used effectively and efficiently in accordance with clearly defined priorities and regulations. This is a continuing process, naturally, but at certain points it is necessary to make a special effort to consider the complex issues involved, an effort that is wider than the daily management activities allow. There are several possible ways of doing this and ongoing work in other parts of the UN system shows that the same need has been felt but dealt with in different manners.
In the Conference document which is before us and which I mentioned earlier the Nordic countries have presented their concerns and pointed to several issues that we strongly believe should be examined and discussed on a broad basis, including all member countries, including also the Secretariat.
We believe that this could most effectively, most appropriately, be done through this Conference establishing a special ad hoc interim body of eminent persons to consider the future activities and structure of the Organization.
As a practical way for the Conference to achieve this we have presented a draft resolution whose text is currently before you. This suggests details of the organization of such a group, including mandate and mode of work.
But let me strongly underline that in making our proposal we believe it must be a cooperative effort by all members and that we accordingly are open for discussion, changes and modifications that may be presented, discussed and agreed upon.
I would also, in view of some of the comments made earlier in this debate, underline that our proposal is not meant for any radical change of the basic frame of our Organization, it is not meant to shift influence from the members to any outside group, it is not meant to decrease the development activities of the FAO. It is, however, meant to, and only meant to, provide a way through which the best possible analysis, the best possible proposals for necessary future funding of our Organization can be placed before the full membership at our next meeting for decisions to be taken by the full membership in a spirit of agreement and cooperation.
With this, Mr Chairman, I recommend the draft resolution to you. I reserve my right to speak again if there should be need for further clarification and answers during the debate.
Sra. María Isabel CASELLAS (Venezuela): Queremos, Señor Presidente, referirnos a la Declaración expresada por el Presidente del GRULAC, Embajador Di Mottola, la cual apoyamos plenamente. Esta Declaración es el fruto de la posición común adoptada por todos los países de la Región. Después de un extenso debate, no consideramos necesario abundar en ella. La apoyamos en cada uno de sus puntos; sin embargo queremos llamar la atención en el punto 2, que se debe considerar como incluyente en lo expresado en la Resolución 3/75, aprobada por consenso y relativa al establecimiento de un nuevo Orden Económico Internacional, justo y equitativo.
Jorge A. Santos OLIVEIRA (Guinée-Bissau): Prenant la parole pour la première fois, j'en profite pour saluer votre élection à la présidence de cette Commission.
Au sujet du point 12 de l'ordre du jour sur la nécessité d'une réforme de procédure du budget du Programme, notre délégation estime qu'une investigation extérieure ne sera pas nécessaire pour modifier les priorités du Programme de travail et du budget de la FAO.
Pendant plusieurs années, ces programmes ont été approuvés par consensus. Au cas où il s'avérerait done nécessaire de procéder à des changements dans une telle situation, les organes directeurs de l'Organisation ne manqueront pas d'en tenir compte.
Cependant, dans le cadre d'une amélioration constante du fonctionnement interne de notre Organisation, nous pensons que toutes les propositions positives venant des Etats Membres et allant dans ce sens doivent être mises en pratique par les organes directeurs de leur organisation.
Pour terminer, notre délégation réaffirme son accord total avec la position du groupe de travail des pays en développement.
Sra. María Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Permítame en primer lugar, felicitarlo por su elección, felicitación que hago extensiva a los otros miembros de la mesa.
Hemos escuchado con atención Los debates sobre este tema, tanto en esta Comisión, como en el Consejo. Debates, que como bien dijo otro delegado, se refieren a un posible examen de algunos aspectos de las metas y operaciones de la FAO, incluida la cuestión de posibles reformas a la Organización.
No ahondaremos, en las cuestiones que con tanta propiedad han sido expresadas por otros delegados, queremos recalcar, sin embargo, que no vemos la necesidad de crear un grupo de Alto Nivel para estudiar estas posibles reformas. La FAO, se ha siempre adecuado a las diversas situaciones para responder adecuadamente a las necesidades de los países, reformando las cuestiones que ha sido necesario reformar.
Estas modificaciones han sido fruto, sin embargo, de las diferentes conferencias, comisiones y otros órganos de la FAO. No nos oponemos a analizar estas reformas, no nos oponemos al diálogo abierto, pero dentro de los órganos rectores de la FAO, creados sobre bases legítimamente multilaterales y buscando siempre el consenso. En este sentido deseamos ratificar en todas y cada una de sus partes, la declaración que ha hecho el delegado de Costa Rica, Embajador Di Mottola, en nombre del Grupo Latinoamericano y del Caribe, y que refleja la posición común de nuestro grupo.
Para finalizar, apoyamos decididamente lo expresado por el Delegado de India respecto a la orientación que deben seguir nuestros debates.
Primero tenemos que decidir si son necesarias o no las reformas que algunos países plantean. Debemos expresar los criterios y elementos de juicio en favor o en contra de estas reformas y después decidiremos.
Rolleo IGNACIO (Philipppines): The Philippine delegation wishes to congratulate you, Mr Chairman, on your election and also your vice-chairman.
The Philippine delegation has studied carefully the paper submitted by member countries on the item under discussion. In our view the proposals can be classified under three general headings. Number one, another review or a review of specific aspects of FAO's work or structure, such as the FAO's Field Programme administration, FAO's future-orientation, priority setting, coordination with other agencies, regional activities, operational priorities, management, etc. Number two the concrete proposals for reforms, such as the establishment of financial envelopes related to activities of secondary importance which could be implemented if resources from arrears are forthcoming; reform in the programme budget process; reform in the manner of reporting in the inter-governmental meetings; change in the representation in the Programme and Finance Committies, and so forth; number three, the establishment of a high-level committee.
In connection with the proposals under these three headings the Philippine delegation would like to make the following comments: number one, like some other delegations who have taken the floor before us we submit that the need for the reform proposals have not been proven, the rationale and justification for the reform changes have not been substantiated. Number two, the Philippine delegation believes that FAO has to keep up with the times. It has to adapt itself to changing conditions, it has to be able to face the new challenges. FAO cannot be static. We believe, therefore, that the present set-up can be improved but we do not understand why an overall review, a review of the various aspects of the FAO, cannot be undertaken in the present set-up of FAO's governing bodies and its subsidiary committees. There is in FAO a continuous process of examining the programmes and priorities of the Organization in the regional conferences, in the technical committees, the Committee on Commodity Problems, the Committee on Fisheries, the Committee on Forestry, the Committee on Agriculture, the Council and its subsidiary bodies, and finally, the Conference. Likewise FAO has been responding to proposals to adapt the Organization set up to conform with the agreements reached in the various international fora, particularly the World Food Conference, the world conferences on agrarian reform and rural development, on fisheries management and development, on new and renewable resources of energy, on forestry, on certification, on United Nations decade for women, on least developed countries, the new international economic order and the critical economic situation in Africa. We have serious doubts about the usefulness of establishing yet another body in addition to the existing set-up in the form of a high-level group. We believe that the establishment of the financial viability of the Organization is a pre-condition to any serious discussion of the future orientation and programme of FAO. It would be an exercise in futility to discuss a programme of action which cannot be implemented because of substantial arrears in the receipts of assessed contributions.
E. Patrick ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): Mr Chairman, may I also on behalf of my delegation add my congratulations to your selection as Chairman of this Committee.
Our delegation regards this item as crucial to the future of FAO, its very survival, its relevance and its effectiveness, both in the near future and in the long term. However, given the present situation we shall not be lengthy. Given the calendar of events, given the content and the tone of the debates in the Council which has led up to this point, my delegation feels that this matter must not and cannot be dealt with by a process of confrontation. We are told that we already have three draft resolutions on this matter. We know that there are at least two more to come and perhaps even more.
We must all be grateful to the Secretariat for C 87/30. It puts together the various proposals in a manner which facilitates comparative review. We are concerned, in fact we cannot accept any conclusion which speaks of immediate and significant review of administrative and financial structures of FAO in the absence of clear and convincing reasons for such changes in what are undoubtedly or, shall we say, crucial decision processes of the Organization. The continuous call for transparency by some delegations leaves us with a sense of uneasiness. I have followed the comments on this matter within Council since June and so far virtually no kind of response from the Secretariat seems to satisfy those delegations which have continually emphasized what they consider to be an inadequacy of transparency. The bottom line on the matter therefore is that some of the major contributors are not, and would not be satisfied or indicate satisfaction in the ongoing circumstances. The real problem is, of course, that these countries, a few countries which have not so far been able to convince the majority of Member States that there is a crisis of transparency. Our delegation is not opposed to change, any kind of change which is in the real interest of FAO and which will promote the goals, the objectives such as are desired by the majority of Member Nations and more so by the developing countries which were at the core, which were the point of focus when FAO was established more than four decades ago.
We have no difficulty with the call for a review. It is healthy to look backwards at the past, objectives, process and output and, of course, resources in order to plan for better performance in the future. The question is how and it is in this regard that we do feel that in the first instance we must exploit fully the in-house mechanisms and capabilities of the Organization. If the Organization must be so directed, let us do it. If we have some concerns about process let us examine these.
The submission by the Netherlands has some interesting comments. The comments by Australia on the Drafting Committee, are noted and the question arises are there other known or established procedures which can assure reflection of a higher degree of satisfaction. _
I must say that our delegation considers that the suggestion of Switzerland for some voice of the farmers within the Organization may well have some merit. Sometimes I have felt that as we quibble for hours over words in the Drafting Committee or even in Plenary that if we had a solid band of farmers looking over our shoulders we might behave somewhat differently.
In essence our delegation does not say no to evaluation or review but we say reforms only if they are necessary and that the suggestion of reform must not come up front when so far there are no clear grounds or any indication of direction in respect of reform for this Organization.
May I finally say that the delegation of Trinidad and Tobago is generally supportive of the position taken by the Ambassador Carlos di Mottola, the Chairman of the Latin American and Caribbean Group.
Temel ISKIT (Turkey): Allow me to start by congratulating you, Mr. Chairman, on taking this high responsibility as Chairman of our Commission. My delegation also thinks that our work here is very important, even crucial for the future of our Organization. Our views on the proposals of reform have been made known yesterday by the head of our delegation, by the Minister ٫ but I still deem it perhaps useful that I reiterate our general approach in this Commission II.
The first point we make is that although the requests or the proposals for reform have coincided in time with the cash flow crisis of our Organization, the Turkish delegation does not see any direct link between this crisis and the necessity for reviewing FAO's work.
As to the reform proposals themselves we believe that this Conference is the supreme body of our institution, indeed provides the appropriate forum where all members should be able freely to discuss any idea tending to enhance the efficiency of our Organization. However, we think that the deliberations on this subject should be guided by certain principles. We should have a basis, and in the opinion of our delegation the following principles should be the guide in our work.
First, the obvious one, we should strictly adhere to the principles and provisions of the United Nations Charter as regards the decision-making process, including, of course, the one country one vote principle. We should also have full respect for the provisions of the Basic Text of FAO. We should respect the prerogatives of the principal organs of FAO with respect to planning, programming and budgetary process. We should recognize the need for all Member States to participate in the Programme budget preparation in all its stages. We should respect the decisionmaking matters of our Organization, including of course, the priority given to reaching decisions by consensus. We should also recognize the fact that FAO evolved in the 42 years of its existence as response to and in line with the consensus reached at its governing bodies and that this general satisfactory process should continue to be adhered to.
This being said, of course, we as the Turkish delegation see the merit in considering certain aspects of the proposals which may, and in our eyes which can, contribute to the better functioning of this Organization but we repeat this, provided that they meet with the consensus of the Member States. Improvements can and should be brought. As we have stated at a previous Council session, the Turkish delegation wants evolution not revolution and we do not think that the difference between the degree of adaptation of FAO to changing conditions in the world justifies a revolution. Of course, on our part we stand ready to participate in the debate in the most constructive way possible but bearing always in mind that it is us, all the member countries which bear the main responsibility for the future of our Organization and we do not think we can delegate this responsibility to any one.
Now more specifically turning to the proposals contained in document C 87/30 the Secretariat did a very good job of summarizing them and especially classifying them. We have a different set of proposals. We have proposals concerning objectives, strategies and priorities. We have proposals concerning the Field Programme. We have proposals concerning programming and budgeting process and indeed this is a separate issue, as also indicates the title of the item. There are of course other issues which we may call miscellaneous issues. In the time imparted to us, it is not easy to handle these proposals and especially when they are different. We may run the risk of mixing pears with apples. However, we should, at the end of our deliberations, decide on a certain kind of process which may enable us to sift through these proposals to find the ones which really have the value of contributing to the efficiency of our Organization, providing they meet with our consensus. This is our real job here at this Commission. Of course, we have proposals and draft resolutions. At this stage, of course, my delegation does not have the opportunity to comment on them as we have received them only today, and only one of them has been introduced.
I have a question concerning our future deliberations on this matter. According to the timetable the item finishes today and we should like to ask when and where these resolutions will be discussed. Secondly, concerning the substance of these discussions I may say we have a suggestion which has already been made by some delegations that it would be much better to discuss these resolutions more generally than the proposals on the table, perhaps.during informal contact. This is an idea which my delegation suggests, although I am in your hands and in the hands of the Commission. I finish my intervention with this suggestion which I hope will be helpful in our future work.
CHAIRMAN: Since there was a question put as part of your intervention I would just say that we will try to see how the discussion unfolds and at some time perhaps later this afternoon, we will try to make a judgement about the timetable. Also on that point, that is the very reason why the Chair has emphatically stated that we should start on time.
Mourad BENCHEIKH (Algérie): J'ai l'impression, Monsieur le Président, que nous sommes en train de tourner en rond. Nous sommes en train de tourner en rond parce qu'il y a manifestement une très grande complexité du débat. Il y a une petite minorité qui demande des réformes; il y a une grande majorité qui refuse ces réformes. L'Algérie a eu l'occasion de s'exprimer au sujet des réformes durant la session du Conseil. L'Algérie refuse ces réformes d'entrée de jeu.
Pourquoi? Parce que L'Algérie considère que, globalement, les objectifs fixés par les fondateurs de la FAO sont atteints et continuent d'être atteints. La délégation algérienne refuse également ces réformes parce qu'elles ont été présentées sur un fond de crise et que cette crise a été créée de façon artificielle. La délégation algérienne avait constaté que nous pouvions très bien surmonter cette crise si les contributeurs réglaient leurs arriérés.
Je regrette qu'une question aussi importante se soit placée dans un contexte de confrontation. Ce n'est dans l'intérêt ni des pays du tiers monde ni des pays industrialisés. A mon avis, si nous continuons à mener les débats comme nous les avons menés jusqu'à présent, c'est-à-dire une partie des délégués recevant les pressions de l'autre partie des délégués pour les faire entrer sur le terrain des réformes, alors, je crains que nous n'arriverons à rien du tout.
Je crois qu'avant de parler de réformes, il faut déterminer - et en cela, je rejoins tout à fait le représentant de l'Inde - si, oui ou non, ces réformes sont nécessaires.
Encore une fois, la délégation algérienne refuse d'entrer dans une discussion de résolutions. Cela n'aurait pas de sens parce que cela voudrait dire qu'une logique a prévalu sur une autre logique. Je crois donc que٫ pour gagner du temps - car je ne pense pas que, pendant la session actuelle, nous puissions résoudre ce problème - nous devrions nous concentrer sur les mécanismes à mettre en oeuvre pour déterminer de façon objective si, oui ou non, nous avons besoin de réformes. Je pense que, si nous nous concentrions sur la façon de dégager ce mécanisme, nous pourrions avancer et fixer un certain nombre d'échéances. Autrement, je crains fort que nous nous engagions dans une impasse d'où je ne vois pas très bien comment nous pourrions sortir, compte tenu du fait que les deux positions sont absolument tranchées et que je ne vois pas de composition permettant de trouver une solution satisfaisante.
Je répète: concentrons-nous sur le moyen de dégager des mécanismes destinés à déterminer de façon objective si, oui ou non, la FAO a besoin de réformes.
CHAIRMAN: Keeping in mind your suggestion we do have a number of other speakers who want to avail themselves of the opportunity which you have just had.
E.D. MUYANGA (Zambia): I will be very brief. May I start by congratulating you on your election as Chairman of this Commission.
My delegation has read document C 87/30 and have found it to contain issues which would affect greatly the future operations of FAO. My delegation does not feel strongly about the need for a review. This standpoint may be a result of insufficient information on the part of our delegation concerning the way FAO operates in its numerous functions.
In the areas where we have been operating with FAO we have found the Organization to be efficient and therefore would not like any new system which would weaken its efficiency, especially with regard to introducing more bureaucratic procedures which would make FAO unresponsive to immediate emergency demands of developing countries. With that background my delegation is hesitant to support the proposed measures for reform.
LI ZHENHUAN (China) (original language Chinese): Let me congratulate you on your election to the Chair of Commission II. As other delegations, the delegation of China would like to contribute to the success of the discussion in our Commission.
Allow me now to make a few comments concerning the principles regarding Item Il of our agenda. The delegation of China believes that since its establishment, and therefore for over 42 years, FAO has never ceased to adjust its goals, its targets and its programmes in conformity with the evolution of the economic and political scene. I should like to recall the World Conference on Agricultural and Agrarian Reform, the conclusions and recommendations of which had an impact on the
Programme of Work of FAO. Since then, the field programmes of FAO are aimed more and more at country activities. This trend has contributed to promoting food production in developing countries and also to securing world food security. Therefore, we should positively appreciate the evolution in the work of our Organization.
I should like to stress my second point concerning reforms within FAO. In our opinion since 1975 we have been carrying out important reforms within FAO including for instance the establishment of a Technical Cooperation Programme aimed at providing developing countries with support and assistance and also establishing further activities in member countries. Bodies have become more streamlined, programmes have been restructured and economic principles have been adopted to restrict administrative expenses in carrying out"the priority activities of FAO. In the field of food and agriculture policy principles have been adopted to foster agricultural production such as food security and international agricultural adjustment.
In 1979 FAO launched a new appeal to carry out agrarian reform and foster rural development. FAO also set up technical cooperation and policy advice operations in the field of forestry and fisheries. Now all this contributes to those efforts aimed at attaining the objectives set out in the Constitution of FAO and to promote agriculture in the various countries of the world. Many developed countries have submitted position papers about reforms in FAO. The delegation of China supports any reform which is aimed at implementing the objectives of FAO and improving the efficacy of the Organization. We endorse all proposals aimed at eliminating the obstacles to FAO's work. We likewise hope that FAO, in strengthening its technical assistance, will extend its mandate in the collection of data and consultation and technical analysis. We hope that the Secretariat will be able to draw up a balance sheet of all the activities carried out in the past, that it consults member countries and hears their opinions, and finds inspiration in the useful experience of other organizations of the UN system, so as to carry out reforms in a more effective manner.
I would like to stress in particular that in strengthening reform, all member countries -- and especially the major contributor -- should honour their financial responsibilities with the Organization. Otherwise the reforms we are currently discussing will never attain the expected results.
And to conclude I would like to speak a few words about the high-level expert group. Among the nine developed countries that have submitted proposals, eight countries have suggested the establishment of a high-level group composed of a minority of experts, the terms of reference of which will be really based on discussing the various proposals submitted. These proposals have raised a number of different issues including strategies, objectives, FAO administration, etc. The delegation of China is of the opinion that all important matters concerning the strategies, goals, objectives of the Organization -- which is to say all the important policy matters -- should be discussed within the statutory bodies of FAO, such as for instance the Council, the Programme Committee, the Finance Committee and the Conference. In the proposals of the eight countries special mention was made of the importance of selecting the members of this high-level group but any expert -- and after all these experts are a minority, and no matter how intelligent, how competent and skilled an expert çan in no way replace Council because Council is made up of 49 Member States -- because the matters which will be discussed by the few experts will be extremely complex. With regard to other concrete matters concerning reform such as methods and procedure for reform, the delegation of China would like to hear the comments of all parties concerned.
Milutin TAPAVICKI (Yugoslavia): First of all I would like to congratulate you on your election as Chairman of this Commission. In accordance with the consensus reached within the FAO Council the Conference of FAO should primarily decide whether there are any grounds for the submitted proposals for reform or not. The Yugoslav delegation feels that requests for a comprehensive review and revision of FAO are neither grounded nor justified, as elaborated in greater detail in the paper of the group of developing countries. Indeed we do not see what to review and why. Have we ever established that something is wrong? We are not aware of any indication or evidence that the Organization is suffering from any major deficiency. The FAO is facing a serious and worsening liquidity crisis as are other organizations in the system of UN but it has nothing to do with the orientation and efficiency of FAO. In our view all talks about accountability, transparency and evaluation have never been substantiated with concrete evidence. Therefore we consider nothing is fundamentally wrong - without saying that everything is ideal. The Yugoslav delegation believes
that the aggravated international economic conditions call for the further improvement and strengthening of certain aspects of FAO's activities addressing the immediate needs of the developing countries in their efforts to resolve their outstanding problems in this sector. In our view a consensus is both necessary and feasible in adopting a conclusion to the effect that the general Conference invites the Director-General to carry out the necessary analysis in the light of the discussions conducted and proposed, in which arrears of FAO's activities, appropriate measures or possible reforms should be initiated so as to further promote FAO's efficiency. This analysis and suggestions should be considered by the FAO technical bodies and Council.
Abdel Moniem EL SHEIKH (Sudan) (original language Arabic): I would like to join the other speakers who preceded me in congratulating you on your election to the chair of this Commission and I hope you will be successful in your work. We all know that this Organization was established to serve principles and objectives in the field of agriculture to help countries that have problems in this sector and also to develop the agricultural sector in the countries concerned. These principles were and still are the principles of this Organization because the agricultural sectors are meeting with a great many difficulties. They are countries that are suffering under-development and famine. There is no doubt that the Organization of FAO is totally concerned in developing the agricultural sector throughout the world and hence we reject any reform in this Organization. Of course the world situation has changed since 1945 when the Organization was established. Nonetheless all these changes should in no way be conducive to questioning the way in which the Organization is dealing with world problems and should not lead us to change the modalities for FAO.
And furthermore, the area of activities of FAO and priorities have not changed. Priority is always given to developing countries to promote the agricultural sector, to support international cooperation either directly or indirectly by transferring agricultural development means to the agriculture ministries of the countries concerned so as to respond to the agricultural needs of the country itself.
I shall now move on to the Field Programmes. These programmes have developed and have gone beyond the financial means of the Organization but these programmes are necessary because the countries concerned need these programmes to resolve the problems they are faced with and therefore the development of field programmes is essential. But this is not a problem. The real problem lies in the way these programmes are managed and therefore to make the Organization more effective and lessen the burden of the Organization the countries concerned could be involved in the management of the programmes themselves so that these programmes become fully respondent to the needs of these countries. And therefore we believe that it is necessary to develop field programmes to take account of such matters as training, for instance so that the countries concerned may benefit from them fully. The programmes should become complementary to the programmes implemented by countries themselves and to programmes which are implemented thanks to bilateral agreements or other forms of agreement. All this can be done thanks to consultation among parties concerned.
I. am coming now to the Programme and Budget. The two matters are closely connected because the importance and scope of the programme are dependent on the size of the budget which in turn is dependent on the payment of contributions on the part of all member countries. The Organization can only be successful if all countries pay their contributions on time. The Organization has always tried to adjust its structure to conform with international developments. The Organization has thus carried out certain budgetary cuts and has tried to tap its resources in the best way possible-
It would be necessary for member countries to help the Organization in its task as much as possible. We are not against reforms if they can improve the effectiveness of the Organization but we believe that these reforms can be achieved thanks to the main bodies of the Organization and constructive consultations and a dialogue among these different statutory bodies. Therefore, we do not think it is necessary to establish a special experts committee as proposed by some delegations. We believe that all this work could be carried out by the statutory bodies themselves-
Antonio R. PIRES (Cap-Vert): A mon tour, permettez-moi d'associer ma voix à celle des honorables délégations qui m'ont précédé pour vous féliciter de l'effort et du succès des travaux que vous avez dirigés au sein de cette session très importante ainsi que de tous les travaux de cette Commission II de notre Conférence.
Qu'il me soit permis également d'adresser mes très heureuses félicitations au groupe des pays en voie de développement qui ont fait un travail louable, fouillé, conduisant à la présentation du mémoire présenté par ce même groupe et qui figure au document C 87/30- A57.
La délégation Cap-Verdienne soutient pleinement toutes les propositions y figurant. L'honorable ambassadeur d'Algérie, la délégation de la Zambie, celle de l'Inde, de la Chine, qui m'ont précédé ont déjà dit ce que je voudrais dire et je tiens à associer ma voix et à soutenir les positions qu'ils ont très bien exposées dans cette auguste assemblée.
Je tiens d'abord à dire qu'il y a une question de mécanismes à définir ainsi que l'a indiqué mon collègue de l'Algérie: est-ce que cette Conférence est d'avis que cet arbre, très grand, a besoin de réformes? Telle est la question de principe qu'il faut définir. Mon pays, depuis son accession à l'indépendance, a suivi avec beaucoup d'attention tous les travaux de la FAO. Nous connaissons parfaitement tous les organes qui existent dans cette maison; les pères fondateurs de notre Organisation ont fait une tâche louable et cruciale en faveur du monde et plus particulièrement des pays en développement; ils ont proposé certains objectifs dont on dit aujourd'hui qu'ils sont atteints, ce dont nous nous félicitons.
Les choses doivent se passer graduellement. Quand on dit qu'il faut tailler les arbres, en tant qu'agronome j'en suis tout à fait convaincu. En effet, j'ai fait mes études dans les pays du nord, et c'est là que j'ai appris à tailler les arbres; on ne taille pas les arbres quand ils sont grands; on doit commencer à les tailler dans les pépinières, faire une taille de formation, une taille de fructification, de floraison, etc… mais il est très dangereux (et je l'ai appris dans les écoles allemandes) de tailler les arbres quand ils sont en fructification ou en floraison; c'est quelque chose à ne pas faire. Voilà donc cette réflexion que je fais en tant qu'agronome diplomate.
J'ai dit tout à l'heure que cette Organisation qui nous est très chère avait graduellement fait des réformes, au juste moment et au moment venu. Combien de fois nous foudra-t-il répéter que le Programme de coopération technique (le PCT) est d'une très grande utilité, que ses projets sont parfaitement adaptés à nos besoins. C'est là une réforme. Il faut que cesse à son encontre une suspicion et une accusation que nous ne comprenons véritablement pas. A moins - et ce que je dis est très important -que l'on ne veuille retirer aux pays du tiers monde le droit le plus élémentaire٫c'est à dire celui, d'identifier les projets de leur propre développement. Il nous semble très important que les mécanismes permettant de créer dans nos pays des bureaux de la FAO qui sont d'authentiques conseillers de nos gouvernements, qui permettent des contacts entre nos gouvernements et le Secrétariat, nous pensons que ce sont des réformes capitales.
L'honorable délégué de la Chine vient de dire - et je souhaite le soutenir - l'importance des études faites par la FAO sur l'aide en nature: n'est-ce pas là une réforme adaptée à la situation concrète des pays africains? Cela apporte des inputs permettant d'arriver à la sécurité alimentaire: n'est-ce pas une réforme?
Cela fait suite à la remarquable étude sur l'agriculture africaine présentée à Yamoussoukro en Cote d'Ivoire, lors de la Conférence ministérielle du Sommet des ministres africains. Ce fut une étude remarquable, de même que les épargnes administratives en faveur des travaux de terrain, surtout de la décentralisation dans les régions.
Il me semble d'après tout cela que la FAO a: fait,pas. mai de réformes et nous-refusons : toute - proposition comme l'a très bien dit mon ami de l'Algérie - qui tendrait à affaiblir notre Organisation.
Eduardo Tomas MIRANO (Angola): Nous voudrions en premier lieu nous joindre aux délégations qui nous ont précédés pour vous exprimer à vous, Monsieur le Président ainsi qu'aux personnes qui constituent votre bureau, notre grande satisfaction de vous voir à la direction des travaux de cette Commission dont l'ordre du jour revêt un caractère fondamental pour la survie de cette Organisation, étant donné la conjoncture du moment au sein de la FAO, et la situation de l'économie mondiale qui sévit chez certains de ses membres.
En ce qui concerne notre sujet d'aujourd'hui - le document C 87/30 - il est un fait que certains pays membres ont manifesté leurs préoccupations à l'examen éventuel de certains aspects des buts et opérations de la FAO; nous pensons qu'il n'existe aucun lien entre la situation financière de l'Organisation et son rôle; c'est une hypothèse à écarter purement et simplement car son rôle, ses programmes et ses priorités ont fait l'objet d'un consensus et ont été approuvés par ses instances compétentes.
Les objectifs, les stratégies et les priorités actuelles répondent effectivement à la situation du moment des pays en développement, et nous ne voyons pas pourquoi il serait nécessaire de réexaminer à fond l'ensemble de la FAO, ce qui constituerait une distraction et une perte de temps, temps qui nous est précieux pour nous attaquer aux problèmes clés de l'Organisation qui sont ceux de sa liquidité et de sa solvabilité pour faire face à l'exécution de ses programmes conçus selon son rôle,-ses priorités et ses activités à la lumière des circonstances nouvelles de l'évolution des besoins et des tendances de la coopération pour le développement.
Nous partageons les vues exprimées au paragraphe 10 de ce document où il est dit qu'à chaque rencontre internationale il a toujours été arrêté certaines stratégies pour améliorer la situation mondiale de l'alimentation et les activités de la FAO. Bref, c'est dans différents forum que sont analysés les objectifs à court, moyen et long terme de cette organisation, et c'est sur la base des priorités définies par la politique gouvernementale, et adaptées à la conjoncture de chaque pays membre, que sont déterminées les stratégies et priorités de la FAO qui lui permettent évidemment une évolution harmonieuse que nous devons reconnaître en toute honnêteté et en toute objectivité.
La nécessité d'accorder une priorité considérablement accrue au rôle consultatif de la FAO dans le domaine des politiques n'est pas un facteur indispensable si nous voulons vraiment atteindre l'objectif d'une réforme adéquate.
Quant au fonctionnement du Secrétariat de la FAO, celui-ci a toujours fait preuve d'efficacité dans la réalisation de ses tâches et personne ne l'a mis en doute. Sur ce, nous ne voyons pas la raison pour laquelle d'autres organisations se chargeraient de l'élaboration d'une partie des documents.
Nous souhaiterions cependant un réajustement structurel et fonctionnel qui s'avère nécessaire.
Avant de terminer, nous ne pouvons pas laisser passer cette opportunité sans faire allusion à l'intervention du délégué du Costa Rica ce matin à cette session, pour nous allier également au groupe de l'Amérique latine et des Caraïbes et pour appuyer également sans réserve le document des propositions du groupe des 77 qui a été élaboré et présenté à cet effet.
Paul Richard BRYDEN (Australia): FAO's mandate remains as valid today as it did forty-two years ago. As a founding member we have been strong supporters of its work. There is nevertheless a clear need for a thorough review of FAO's management and operations to ensure that its programmes, objectives and priorities are clearly delineated and responsive to changing needs and to ensure that there is effective co-ordination in programme delivery.
This issue was first raised by the Chairman of the Twenty-third Conference and concerns not only donor countries but developing countries also. Indeed it is worth recalling that we are discussing the issue today at Conference as a result of the discussions of the Ninety-first Council. Our discussion and my delegation's views cannot be seen in any confrontational context. My own Minister was very interested to hear the Ministers of many Commonwealth delegations support the process of review and reform of FAO during Commonwealth discussions on this issue to make FAO more efficient and more effective in respect of their agricultural development efforts.
We have no hidden agenda for this review. Our concern is simply to enhance FAO's effectiveness. We have submitted some views on the ways in which that could be achieved, which are contained in document C 87/30. We are encouraged to note much common ground and shared concerns emerging in that paper, including many of the views put forward by the Group of Developing Countries. The key issue for our Commission is how to bring those views together and establish clear and effective means to carry the process forward.
The review of our Organization's objectives, strategies and programmes is on the basis of flexible innovative management. The last major review of FAO was almost twenty years ago. We see the review as examining the directions and adaptation of the Organization. These are times of rapid change and the Organization must adjust to meet developing challenges against the objectives and strategies approved by Council and Conference. We see the need for independent advice, against which Conference and Council can determine the future direction of the Organization. My delegation emphasizes that the financial crisis is not the basis of our interest in reform.
I should like to make some remarks on FAO's Mandate. While the Mandate remains valid - a view shared by the developed countries which submitted papers, key areas need re-emphasizing. We see the single most significant area as policy analysis and policy advice to governments. Close cooperation and dialogue with government ministers would ensure that an economic environment conducive to agricultural development is established. We appreciate FAO's activities in this area and are aware of constraints, but in our view there is a need to move beyond FAO's originally conceived objectives of combatting undernutrition and of focusing on the technical dimensions of food and agriculture,to the more political arena of poverty, and the relationship between underdevelopment and agricultural policy. We are pleased to note support for this area of FAO's activities in the developing country paper.
The traditional role of collection, analysis and dissemination of information concerning food and agriculture should be recognized as one of the basic functions and as an integral part of the policy formulation and advising role. We note this view is consistent with the developing country paper.
Turning to the long-term goals of our Organization, the development of longer term goals and priorities is necessary to guide the formulation of FAO's immediate objectives and priorities in the biennial programme. This should be done in a way which would allow progress to be reported and measured on a regular basis against the original aims set for the programmes. Organs such as the Finance Committee and the Programme Committee must be given clear instructions to set priorities. We consider that a mechanism needs to be developed to distinguish the essential from the less essential in the corresponding budgetary allocations, while protecting staff morale. Governments are capable of doing this in their own programme budgeting process.
Turning to the life of our Organization, both the membership and the Secretariat, my delegation sees a need for: improved responsiveness of FAO to the views of the minority countries; satisfactory project evaluation and staff assessment programmes; realistic attention paid to the financial crisis by a sensible review of programme priorities to match financial resources (as a general comment the Australian Government supports zero real growth in the budgets of UN agencies and supports constant reassessment of priorities); greater openness in debate and discussion; improved cooperation and coordination between FAO and other international agencies, a view shared with the developing country paper; improvement in the operation of the Finance Committee and drafting groups.
Looking now at Australia's particular concerns, my government put forward some ideas and concerns which are in document C 87/30. We did not see much value in merely echoing others or cataloguing everything. We focused on one or two areas in order to encourage a wider ranging discussion. Our principal ideas as set out in that document have less to do with finances or the Organization itself but more with us, the members.
We see need for a more open budgetary process and an enhanced role for the Programme and Finance Committees. We are concerned, as we have noted in Council, that although the opportunities are there for significant dialogue between Member Nations, and the Secretariat on the Programme of Work and Budget, we are not using them to full advantage. After extensive consultations modification of the initial draft budget is in fact minimal. Are we having a time-consuming and expensive dialogue of the deaf, or at least the hard of hearing? Similarly we feel that the Finance Committee has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the necessary process of priority setting, injecting new ideas and perspectives. In this regard we place special value on representation from capitals, as indeed is envisaged in our Basic Texts. Enlargement of the Finance Committee, more fully to reflect donor views, perhaps focusing on a smaller range of key issues, could be advantageous and could remain within existing costs by pruning the sessions.
We have also expressed concern to see drafting committees, which are not mentioned in our Basic Texts but which are vital arteries of our work and discussions, should not seek consensus at the expense of clarity. We should aim in our reports to provide Member States with substantive evidence of the issues and views put. This would in the view of my delegation contribute positively to subsequent discussion of issues elsewhere in the Organization and perhaps help to correct the drift and occasional acrimony that has developed in recent years in this vital, practical aspect of our work. Reports of meetings are just that, not binding international treaties, yet we at times seem to treat them as such.
I would Like to make a few remarks on what we would see as the way forward. There will be in the course of our debate many differing views, many shared views. In the time available for our debate it would be unrealistic to expect Conference to sensibly debate, consider and formulate detailed and far-reaching recommendations and decisions. We think that to further the process in a comprehensive and coherent way a high-level group of individual eminent experts, as proposed by the Nordic delegations in their draft resolution C 87/LIM/27 before us, makes good sense. Such a group would allow wide opportunity for all members to contribute in a measured and coherent way. It could report to Council next year through the Programme and Finance Committees.
We would envisage individuals chosen for their special eminence and competence in fields related to the Organization's activities, administration and management to bring a balance of insight and ideas We see merit in each region providing a nominee, thereby achieving balance and consistency with the normal workings of our Organization. We have had good experiences with such small, high-level groups, both domestically, where such an approach has often proved a very effective way of dealing with complex issues, and internationally, in the Commonwealth context. They would of course need and call upon the full cooperation of the Secretariat, without whose support such a group could not function.
For our part we commend the draft resolution and keenly hope it will be supported by a positive consensus and the active involvement of the membership. We are confident that through such a process will emerge a more effective and authoritative FAO, energetic, vital and nourished by a recommitted membership.
Mention has been made of a review process involving technical experts corresponding to the major technical departments of FAO, reporting through and involving the Programme and Finance Committees. This is an interesting proposal and one on which we would like to reflect further, but our initial reaction is that on balance we do not consider such a process an appropriate or adequate response to the concerns expressed by many members. It is not the technical excellence of FAO which is under discussion, indeed I am sure we all agree that FAO's professional staff represent the Organization's most precious resource and greatest contribution to addressing its mandate. Rather the concerns lie in overall direction and priority settings, and management of change, including the budget process. We need guidance and wisdom rather than technical advice.
I would like to record that some of the issues of concern to my delegation, such as' the Finance Committee and drafting groups, are up to us, the members, not a high-level group. We hope our Commission Report might reflect these concerns regardless of the process by which reform is carried forward.
In concluding, I would like to observe that the task and demands which could fall to FAO are unlimited. Objectives must be clearly defined, strategies agreed, and priorities, targets and methods of measurement of achievement identified to ensure that maximum progress is made with the limited resources available. This process must be coupled with the development of budgetary accounting and reporting processes which make the operations of the Organization clearly transparent and accountable.
Without these changes there is a risk that donor countries faced with many priorities of their own and confident of the transparency and accountability of their own organizations will drift to bilateral rather than multilateral actions. We are all faced with demands within high priority programmes and services which we cannot meet in our national budgets. Establishment of a clear, independent and high-level group will provide an important signal of the responsiveness and maturity of our Organization and its continued vitality and ability to manage change.
Finally, I would like to reserve my delegation's right to intervene later in the discussion of the draft resolution C 87/LIM/28 on the budget process.
HAN DEA SUNG (Democratic People's Republic of Korea): Mr Chairman, my congratulations go to you on your election as Chairman of Commission II, which is a very important Commission of the 24th FAO Conference.
I would like to express my delegation's view on the item we are discussing now. The delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea joins other delegations in supporting the proposals made by the Group of 77. The delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea do not oppose the review of the FAO work, since it is a 40-year long history of work in the fields of food and agriculture. FAO’s governing body, as set up on a multilateral basis, has the authority and capacity to carry out our task should it be concluded that some specific reforms are desirable, and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea thinks that the present FAO set-up is quite capable of doing this work. Thus the Democratic People's Republic of Korea do not see any reason to establish a high-level committee, or a similar one, to review the objectives, strategies and priorities of the Organization's work.
Our delegation thinks that certain Member States, in spite of trying to create a climate of reform of the Organization by deliberately bringing about financial difficulties in the FAO by delaying their contributions, should have their contributions to the Organization made in time.
In conclusion, in the light of the consensus achieved on FAO's present orientation, priorities, programmes of work, methods, and administrative procedures and its evaluated efficiency, the delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea reiterates the position that there are no elements and criteria for undertaking a process of reform in certain basic aspects of the Organization and fully supports the proposal made by the Group of 77.
The meeting rose at 12.30 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.30 horas
