Roberto PONCE (Ecuador): En homenaje a una puntualidad que parece difícil de alcanzar y. en razón del corto tiempo del que disponemos para los debates seré breve.
En primer lugar, mi delegación desea expresar su apoyo a la declaración formulada por el honorable representante de Costa Rica, Presidente del GRULAC, que recoge claramente la postura mantenida por los países de América Latina y el Caribe frente al tema que estamos debatiendo.
En segundo lugar, quisiera hacer unas pocas y breves consideraciones respecto a este asunto.
Mi país piensa que durante más de 40 años la FAO ha cumplido una labor satisfactoria y consecuente con las necesidades de los países en desarrollo, y sobre todo ceñida a los objetivos y propósitos establecidos en su Carta Fundamental. De ahí que resulta sorprendente, por decirlo de alguna manera, el deseo de revisar tales objetivos y la forma, la metodología de alcanzarlos a través de reformas propuestas por un pequeño grupo de países.
Debo señalar que mi país por principio no se opone a cambios, pero es absolutamente indispensable conocer en forma clara y precisa qué se pretende cambiar y por qué motivos.
Consideramos que la FAO, como toda obra humana, es susceptible de perfeccionamiento, pero también pensamos que no bastan propuestas que, tras un enunciado general de una supuesta crisis y una necesidad de reorientar objetivos y establecer una escala de prioridades más ajustadas a ciertos deseos, se esconden motivaciones de orden político y no técnico. No deseo en este momento referirme a esa supuesta crisis, por que todos los aquí presentes saben en qué consisten y a qué se deben los problemas que atraviesa actualmente la Organización. Si deseáramos hablar de alguna crisis deberíamos referirnos al resquebrajamiento de los principios en que se basa el multilatera-nismo como forma de concertación y sobre todo como expresión de solidaridad y cooperación internacionales. De tal forma que no creo que sea necesario hablar de esa crisis, en la cual mi país no cree.
Finalmente, deseo reafirmar aquí el convencimiento del Ecuador de que la FAO tiene las instancias adecuadas, de que posee los órganos competentes para tratar sobre cualquier problema que afecte a la Organización y, por lo tanto, rechaza considerar siquiera la posibilidad de crear un grupo de expertos extraorganización para estudiar cualquier posible reforma; no vemos por qué alguna delegación en esta mañana atribuyó a personas de fuera de la Organización las cualidades de equilibrio, madurez y experiencia que muy bien se pueden encontrar dentro de los representantes gubernamentales que a través de largos años de experiencia en la Organización han llegado a adquirir los conocimien tos y las cualidades necesarias para estudiar cualquier propuesta de reforma.
Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): I wish to join all those who have congratulated you on your election to the Chair of this important Commission and I hope under your guidance we will be able to come to a successful conclusion.
My delegation would also like to thank the Secretariat for presenting document C 87/30. I would also like to thank the Director-General for the introduction he has provided for this paper. We had hoped that there would have been more written submissions to the Secretariat on this matter but perhaps there was not enough time and that is why there have been fewer submissions.
I should first of all like to comment on the summary in part I of the paper. First, we fully agree with what is stated in paragraph 8, that FAO is the lead agency in the UN System responsible for all issues related to food and agriculture.
Secondly, amongst the Member Nations there are different views as regards whether a long-term review of objectives and strategies really is necessary or not as is outlined in paragraphs 9 and 10 of document 87/30. We have a very open mind on this: the long-term review of objectives and strategies of an organization is a task which the members of such an organization have to currently carry out. As a general need which we find as a tacit item on the agendas of Conference and Council meetings, we feel there is no doubt that a long-term review of objectives and strategies is useful and necessary at any time. We feel that the bases of our Organization are thus not put into question. I would like to refer to the tree that was mentioned this morning here by the distinguished delegate of Cape Verde. He talked about how he learned pruning in Germany. He did learn properly but I must point out that there is also a post graduate course which does say that even old trees may be pruned to make them younger, as it were, and of course, compared to the ancient oaks we have in Germany FAO is only a very young tree so we are still in time to prune this young tree that is FAO. "Prune," I say, not "cut down." We love this tree that is FAO and we want it to flourish. So this long-term review of our aims and purposes we do not feel should in any way put into question the foundations of our Organization.
Thirdly, as regards the setting of priorities (paragraph 11) we in our own submission pointed out that we cannot consider FAO to be primarily a development agency because this would not comply with the long-term function and importance of the Organization. For us FAO is primarily the big United Nations specialized agency responsible for food and agriculture which represents a unique forum for discussions of world agricultural policy issues.
Fourthly, Part I as well as the submissions from Member States also deal with the field programmes of the Organization. In this connection we have expressed our doubts about TCP which still continue. We feel that technical assistance must be given above all from voluntary contributions from Member Nations, not from compulsory contributions. So we feel this programme should not any further increase.
Fifthly, we consider that FAO is first and foremost a technical organization and therefore our main interest is that its work is practice-oriented and in line with practical needs.
Several delegations mentioned today, and I am thinking particularly of the People's Republic of China, that the Organization in the past has in general done qualified work and meets the tasks set to it. Within the framework of the Programme of Work and Budget it is important to us to make the budget procedure and budget document still more transparent. And in our submission in addition we requested also greater clarity of the staff structure.
Sixth point: as regards the question of the establishment of a high-level group, we did not express our views on that in our submission. There is a reference to it in paragraph 26 of the document. The fact that we have not said anything does not mean that we are not in favour of setting up such a group. As our Federal Minister Kiechle, in his statement in Plenary yesterday, did go into this question, we would find it useful to convene such a high-level group particularly in the light of the recommendations of the Group of 18 to the General Assembly of the United Nations. One member country in fact attached an excerpt from these recommendations to their submission. We also feel that the recommendations of the Group of 18 to some extent are also transferable to FAO and we feel that the proposals contained in them are worth taking into account.
Allow me to thank the Secretariat too for the description of the developments in the Programme and Budget sectors within the United Nations system which have meanwhile taken place. We feel that our Organization, as part of the UN, should have a share in these developments.
Finally, we feel that all Member Nations of our Organization must work together closely in the continuous process of improvement and reform of FAO. If we pull together we can solve all the problems of our Organization.
Paragraph 44 of the document before us refers to this and I hope that we in our Organization may be able to achieve the consensus which the UN General Assembly itself has achieved as well as the Executive Board of WHO and the governing body of ILO have also achieved. I hope here too that that kind of spirit can prevail.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): La délégation congolaise se réjouit de vous voir présider les travaux de cette importante commission de la Conférence. Elle exprime le voeu de voir nos travaux couronnés de succès sous votre direction. Elle félicite le Secrétariat pour la qualité du document qui nous est soumis.
Je tiens également à rendre hommage au Directeur général adjoint pour sa brève et claire introduction d'hier.
Le Congo, vous le savez, est co-auteur du mémoire présenté dans le document qui nous est soumis, et comme ceux qui m'ont précédé depuis hier ont longuement exposé les motivations qui l'ont inspiré et les buts qu'il vise, je m'attacherai, ici, au cours de cet exposé, à donner notre point de vue sur le problème qui nous préoccupe cet après-midi.
Comme nous l'avons dit hier en plénière dans notre déclaration générale, la délégation de mon pays est quelque peu inquiète de voir la Conférence focaliser son attention sur un problème, certes important, mais dont l'urgence reste à démontrer.
En effet, comment ne pas s'étonner - et sur ce point je rejoins ce qu'a dit hier le délégué de la Belgique, mon collègue et ami l'Ambassadeur Saintraint - que nous puissions laisser au second plan les problèmes financiers qui accablent l'Organisation, et qui interpellent l'ensemble des Etats Membres et singulièrement le plus grand contributeur, pour détourner notre attention sur des questions qui, de toute évidence, auraient tout à gagner à être débattues dans un climat qui résulterait du règlement des arriérés.
L'Organisation traverse une période difficile de son existence. A un moment où plus que jamais elle devrait jouer pleinement son rôle d'aide aux Etats Membres en développement dans leur combat contre la faim et la malnutrition, la FAO, dont les structures ont montré une souplesse grâce à laquelle elle a su s'adapter aux conjonctures mouvantes qui caractérisent notre époque, la FAO est à notre avis une Organisation reposant sur une base solide.
Cependant nous ayons dit que nous étions ouverts au dialogue constructif; et nous sommes attentifs aux initiatives susceptibles de permettre à la FAO de renforcer ses activités de terrain et d'accroître son efficacité car nous croyons nous aussi que tout est perfectible.
Mais si tout le monde est d'accord sur cette nécessité d'améliorer ce qui peut l'être, les moyens pour y parvenir divergent sensiblement. Et à cet égard nous ne partageons pas l'avis de ceux qui pensent que le mécanisme approprié à conduire ce travail qui est un comité de haut niveau d'experts, soit à même d'y apporter une solution viable, d'autant plus que la question est avant tout politique.
Outre cela, nous pensons pour notre part que, sans être opposés à la nécessité d'apporter des améliorations sur le fonctionnement de l'Organisation, il importe d'attendre les résultats de la commission spéciale des Nations Unies dont la mission est précisément la restructuration du secteur économique et social du système.
Il est clair, aux yeux de ma délégation, que la création d'un comité de haut niveau semble superflue en ce moment, puisque les organes existants de l'Organisation ont souvent été à l'origine des ajustements et des améliorations de l'exécution des programmes, ainsi que des modifications d'orientations. Nous nous étonnons qu'au moment où certaines de ces orientations commencent à donner leurs fruits - comme l'indique l'évaluation faite tout dernièrement pour le PCT - on puisse déjà amorcer d'autres réformes. Nous croyons qu'il faut d'abord évaluer les résultats de toutes ces réformes passées avant d'entreprendre d'autres réformes en profondeur.
Bref, nous pensons qu'il convient de poursuivre le dialogue au sein des organes de la Conférence qui ont su s'adapterèaux changements de priorités, de stratégies et de programmes.
En vérité, je crois sincèrement que le foisonnement de résolutions qui nous sont soumises ne semble pas pouvoir arranger la situation. Nous croyons sincèrement qu'il importe de créer au sein de cette commission un mécanisme approprié susceptible de débattre en profondeur de cette question. Je vous remercie.
Ruyat WIRATMADJA (Indonesia): Firstly I would also like to congratulate you, Mr Chairman, for your election to chair this very important Commission.
After carefully viewing the debate on this agenda so far, the Indonesian delegation believes that the review of certain aspects of the FAO operation need to be pursued, but leaving the mandate, the goal and objectives as they are in the charter. On the method of review itself at this stage our delegation does not see any need to appoint outside consultants or a high-level group of experts. We feel that this high-level group of experts will not be better than the Council, attended by well qualified representatives of its member countries.
The Conference just appointed the Director-General for another six-year term, the time span which is long enough for an organization to look at its internal matters. Therefore our delegation suggests that the Director-General be assigned to look at the need for internal review to consider the state of the present world food and agriculture, and other related matters that are always changing, so as to always make FAO an effective organization that can respond to the needs of its member countries.
Furthermore, the Director-General should also be assigned to report its findings on the need for this review in the coming Council meeting, and be sent to all member countries for their comments.
Ernest MULOKOZI (Tanzania): Thank you for giving us the floor. Allow me to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election to the Chair of this Commission. I am confident that you will guide our discussions to useful conclusions. Let me say at the outset that the principle of review and reform is a part of our national character. However, such a review and reform must arise from felt needs and the aim to improve efficiency.
As regards the subject matter before us, my delegation has studied document C 87/30. In our view it envisages reforms on two broad but interlinked aspects of the FAO. These are, first, financial viability of the Organization and, secondly, its operational efficiency. On the former, the immediate need is for the Member States to discharge their responsibilities to the Organization. No amount of reforms or their intensity can make FAO do this if they have no resources. As regards the latter point, my delegation feels that not only has the need for the proposed reforms not been justified but the internal organs of the Organization, including its management, have not been sufficiently utilized.
It is for this reason that my delegation does not support the proposed study by an external group. Apart from the implied financial costs of such a study, a group of this nature, in order to do its work satisfactorily, must of necessity receive the cooperation of world member states, including those who receive its services. It is not evident that such cooperation will be forthcoming. Any reforms would only be meaningful if they enhanced the efficiency and effectiveness of FAO in carrying out its functions. Most important, however, is that such reforms must aim at meeting expressed needs of the developing countries.
There is no substitute for a process of dialogue between the Organization and those who enjoy the services it provides. Let me briefly refer before concluding to one aspect of the reforms contained in one of the papers submitted by the developed countries. I refer to the proposed formal link between FAO and the IMF. Should this proposal be implemented I foresee great danger ahead. It will mean moving from a position whereby this Organization responds effectively and quickly to the needs of the rural poor to a position whereby there will be need for institutionalized paper-
work, including country policy framework papers, as indicated in the text. I feel this is a dangerous path for this Organization.
Finally, for the reasons I have briefly outlined, my delegation would like to record its support for the position of the Group of 77 and the paper on Reforms, as submitted by the Group of Developing Countries, and particularly its conclusion.
Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): The United States is convinced that after 40 years there is a need for a significant review of FAO's administrative and financial structure, its goals and objectives, its monitoring approaches, its vast accomplishments and the effectiveness of its Field Programme in order to prepare the agency to meet the challenge of the late 1980s and the early 1990s The United States proposal contained in document C 87/30 addresses the need for immediate change in some key decision procedures in FAO, as well as the need for a comprehensive longer-term look at FAO as a technical and development oriented institution.
Before going into the substance of our position, however, I should like to comment on some of the assertions that have been made during the debate with regard to the proposals for reform contained in document C 87/30. In our view, none of the proposals now reflected in draft resolutions C 87/LIM/27 and C 87/LIM/28 calls for a revision of the Basic Texts of FAO: neither do they undermine those texts. Furthermore, the need for a comprehensive review which is called for has nothing to do with the financial constraints currently faced by the Organization. Improvement in the management orientation and efficiency of FAO are worthwhile in their own right. We find it difficult to understand, to say the least, how such proposals for improvement can be seen or characterized as subversive. We also fail to understand how the exercise of our right as members of this democratic body to offer thoughts and ideas for debate and decision can be considered as pressure, to be resisted and/or rejected. Our proposals for changes in FAO's budget programme procedures must have a relationship with the scale of our payments. Under current United States legislation, the United States Government must show the Congress how the United Nations programme and budget procedures have changed towards a more open and participatory mode of operation before our Congress will appropriate the resources necessary for a full payment of our contributions. Thus we have presented a proposal that will facilitate member countries' increased participation in the Organization's budget and priority setting process. This proposal, I should add, does not go further than similar decisions in central United Nations as well as other specialized agencies in the United Nations such as the World Health Organization and the International Labour Office, to which all member countries attending this Conference agreed in those fora.
Some delegates have referred to the special Commission of ECOSOC which is now reviewing the structure of the economic sectors of the United Nations as a reason why any efforts to review FAO would be duplicative and useless. A special commission is looking at this Organization in terms of what its basic functions are and how these relate to each other, with the aim of consolidating functions across the system and, when possible, eliminating institutions and/or programmes which are obsolete or superfluous. The Special Commission is not - and I repeat not - looking at an agency's management or efficiency. In fact their work is based, inter alia, on the submissions made by the agencies themselves. One could hardly expect an agency to tell ECOSOC that they are inefficient or superfluous. The aim of our proposal is the improving of FAO's internal efficiency and programme effectiveness: nothing that ECOSOC is focusing on.
That said, I should like to summarize the basic elements of our proposals. We believe that current procedure followed in preparing and reviewing the Programme of Work and Budget do not allow sufficient time for member countries to conduct a substantive review of the budget proposal, the funding level and its implication for each Member. These procedures also do not permit an in-depth review of priorities proposed and/or implied. We believe that as member countries we have the responsibility to participate fully in providing the FAO Secretariat with clear guidelines regarding the budget levels and the Organization's priorities.
Our proposal, fully consistent with the Basic Text, would significantly improve the current shortcomings. The Resolution before you in document C 87/LIM/28 and our proposal in document C 87/30 fully supports the idea and restricts support for this Resolution from all member countries.
I should like to refer to the second part of the United States proposal in document C 87/30. The United States believes there is also a need to make a thorough review of FAO as a technical and developmentally-oriented institution in order to improve its effectiveness and efficiency in the years ahead. The review, to quote our proposal, should boldly look at FAO's roles, priorities and objectives in the context of current and projected world agricultural needs, as related to the work of the United Nations and other international co-operation programmes in this area. We believe that the best way to conduct this review is to entrust it to a high-level group of independent experts, eminent in the field of agricultural development. We believe that the Nordic proposal contained in C 81/LM/27 fully addresses our concerns and the aims of our proposal. The United States supports it.
The United States also concurs with the delegate of Australia regarding the need for wisdom, as against the need for technical advice contained in some other comments.
To end my remarks, sir, it is important to note that our proposal and that of the Nordic resolution calling for a review do not prejudge the results of the review. The only conclusion a priori is that after more than 40 years and much change in the world a reassessment is needed.
Clifton E. MAYNARD (Barbados): Mr Chairman, I too would like to congratulate you on your election and wish you good luck as you seek to guide the work of this very important body.
The head of my delegation in an intervention in the Plenary session yesterday made some comments about this item which will form the political chapeau of what I am about to say. My delegation as a member of the Latin American and Caribbean group obviously agrees with the position taken by that group. However, I believe that it is necessary to put into this debate some specific comments as I see them from the Barbados point of view about the proposals before the Committee at this time.I shall deal with them under some precise headings and make my comments as a result.
The proposal regarding programme budget procedures and decisions, there could obviously be no difficulty about wider participation in that process and therefore joint meetings which do take place between the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee are possible. However, I have some difficulties with the arrangement for this committee, or joint committee, to determine the future budget level, for I believe it would breach the principle that the decision involves all member nations in the Conference and therefore cannot be delegated to a restricted group. The proposal probably could be considered if it is stated that the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee were limited to making recommendations.
Again I should like to suggest that there is a mandate and the rules of procedure of the two committees do provide for joint session. Therefore it is at the discretion of the members of both committees and subject to the Council's guidance to the committees that they could consider the work as a joint body. A change in the representation in these committees on the basis of donor and recipient countries would in my view be totally contrary to the principles of representation in FAO bodies. To come to. the priority to be attached to policy advice in FAO programmes, there should be and cannot be any doubt that policy advice is one of the core components of FAO's mandate and it has always enjoyed in my judgment a high priority. 1 think there needs to be some specific form as to the criticism about selecting these priorities. For arguments sake, obviously the work of selecting priorities is done at the global level by major global studies such as Agriculture: Toward 2 000, various global technical papers on conceptual studies, international trade and commodities studies, and with both major advisory work at regional level, even at the sub-regional level, either on the basis of meetings or on the basis of technical papers.
From my own standpoint I would like here to suggest that as far as coordination of programmes at the country level is concerned it is the resident representative of UNDP who is responsible for coordinating activities. Therefore it is from my own experience and judgment up to him to ensure that the coordination is there. My experience tells me that the resident representative of FAO is always available to those coordination meetings. However, there are some serious problems when you talk about this reform that one has to look at, because it is strange that FAO and some other agencies are excluded from UNDP round tables and consultative groups, these are vital bodies in terms of providing
inputs and policy guidance, therefore to exclude FAO because of its constitutional responsibility in the field of agriculture seems to me to be something that needs to be corrected.
One of the important aspects that one must remember at this time is that FAO's advisory assistance and its programmes have increasingly been oriented towards training and strengthening institutional potential, and this is an area that must be developed, it cannot be retarded in any way.
In the context of the long-term strategies, objectives and priorities, I would like to say first that as I understand it the baseline of FAO's long-term strategies, objectives and priorities has emerged from a number of important international events - World Food Conference, WCARRD, the World Conference on Fisheries Management and Development, and the process of refinement within the baseline orientation continues and is the basis of studies such as Agriculture: Toward 2 000 and the two studies that are being undertaken now or are proposed to be undertaken in the next biennium in the context of finding out the process of agricultural development in Latin America and the Caribbean. Indeed one must recall that the Regional Conference in Latin America and the Caribbean made specific recommendations to the Director-General as to how Latin America and the Caribbean agriculture should be developed and should proceed in the medium term, and that Conference was held only in August last year.
Secondly, there is the process of the inter-governmental technical bodies, and it is on the basis of all these that the medium-term and the longer-term objectives which find a way into the Programme of Work and Budget develop.
Indeed I must mention that until recently there has always been full consensus of FAO membership on the long-term orientation and strategy of the Organization, and the call for an ad hoc review of long-term strategies, objectives and priorities without even attempting to provide some tangible-reasons as to why it is necessary does not seem even to justify the review.
With regard to the field programmes, generally it must be said that the field programmes do not belong to FAO, and do not consist of FAO projects. The policy framework for field programmes is given by the recipient governments' requests and the funding institutions are because of the fact that the government provides funds. Therefore a consistency with policies established by FAO is ensured only through the technical acceptance by FAO to assist governments in implementing their projects, such acceptance only occurring when projects reflect the policies laid down by the FAO governing bodies. Indeed the impact of FAO policies on food programmes is especially evident in the special action programmes and Member States represented here must know that these priorities are established by the Conference and the Council and they thus enable the donor countries and the donor community to be able through FAO to respond in favour of specific areas of activities and of course to ensure the closest possible linkage between regular and field programme activities. The present structure of rules and functions of the field programmes were established after review by the Conference in 1976 and in 1977. Therefore if another review is necessary certainly the governing bodies, the Council and the Conference, can ask for such a review now, another reason why I cannot accept the need at this time for a high-level body to look at these questions.
In my judgement an ad hoc high-level group can only be viewed as a contingency mechanism, a sort of last resort in the face of a major crisis in programme orientation and our management, and I would like to exclude from that crisis the present one of cash flow. This is in my judgment the basis on which such a request could possibly be justified. The fundamental question to be raised therefore is whether countries do indeed have any serious indication or evidence of a major orientation or management crisis which could justify a suspension of the existing review and evaluation mechanisms by a high-level group.
All that is known which is accessible to Member States, such as the reports of the United Nations Joint Inspection Unit, internal and external evaluation reports and the systematic reviews and evaluation by the Programme and Finance Committees and other inter-governmental technical bodies, the Committee on Agriculture, the Committee on Fisheries, the Committee on Forestry, leave no doubt in my mind that FAO is well oriented and comparatively speaking a highly efficient UN organization. Indeed until recently this Organization was held up as the model that other UN agencies should use to develop programmes and for management.
Of course, as my Minister said in the Plenary session, it is necessary to renew the mechanism which allows Member States to reach decisions by consensus. I think that it would be good if we could use this opportunity to redevelop that mechanism of cooperation that indeed in my view is inherent in the whole development of international organizations.
I should like to add that I make these comments as a result of my experience as a member of the Programme Committee over two biennia and participation in the United Nations General Assembly as the member of the Fifth Committee for five sessions.
Goran WIDE (Sweden): The delegate of Norway has previously in detail explained the motives which have inspired our countries to put forward the proposal you have now in front of you. I would therefore restrict myself to a few supplementary remarks on behalf of the Swedish delegation.
First of all I wish to point out that we recognize that the Organization has an important role to play on one hand in contributing to the development of the agricultural, fishery and forestry sectors in member countries and on the other hand on carrying out the global functions as indicated in its Constitution.
As is well known Sweden and the other Nordic countries have since many years been advocating the need for certain reforms. The proposal we have put forward now is consequently not directly linked to the financial problems which the Organization is facing presently. I especially wish to stress that our intention is not to promote through this proposed review the principle of zero growth. As certainly is well known Sweden does not accept zero real growth as a principle. The programmes should be judged on their own merits.
The proposal which you now have in front of you is an expression of our conviction that a review is needed in order to strengthen the Organization to meet the challenges in a continuously changing environment and enable it to fulfil in an optimal and most effective way its objectives and functions as spelt out in the Constitution, to permit the receiving countries to profit in an optimal way of the programmes of technical assistance. We strongly believe in the multilateral cooperation system and it is an expression of our wish to enhance this cooperation that the existing proposal should be seen.
I wish to point out that the review according to our opinion should be undertaken within the framework of the Basic Text. We believe that the constitution of FAO is still valid as a general frame of reference for the activities of the Organization. As the Norwegian delegate declared in his introductory statement we believe that an adequate mechanism for the undertaking of this review could be an ad hoc high level body.
Finally I wish to underline that the Nordic proposal should be seen as a framework for an open discussion on this matter between the Member Nations.
Kou CHANSINA (Laos): Monsieur le Président, tout d'abord, permettez-moi de vous féliciter pour votre élection à la présidence de cette importante Commission.
En ce qui concerne la proposition de réforme de la procédure du budget-programme faite par certains Etats Membres, ma délégation veut faire les remarques suivantes.
Comme vous le savez, depuis sa création, il y a maintenant quarante-deux ans, en dépit de la situation économique mondiale et des échanges parfois instables et difficiles qui ne favorisent guère la production alimentaire et agricole, la FAO a néanmoins fait des progrès remarquables dans différents domaines, en particulier dans ceux de l'agriculture, des forêts, des pêches, du développement rural et de la nutrition, au cours de son existence, et surtout à partie des années 80.
Aussi, les problèmes de la faim, de la pénurie alimentaire et de la pauvreté rurale touchant des centaines de millions d'hommes ont-ils fait l'objet d'un examen attentif en vue de les résoudre graduellement, au cours de ces dernières années. Non, ce n'est pas par pure autosatisfaction que
je constate cette réalité. C'est plutôt pour dire que les mesures et les orientations qui ont été adoptées par la FAO pendant ces dernières années sont, il faut le dire, correctes et que les résultats obtenus doivent nous encourager à nous unir autour de la FAO afin de poursuivre notre lutte contre la faim, la pénurie alimentaire et la pauvreté, ces maladies chroniques qui sont en train de défigurer le monde du vingtième siècle, comme le répète inlassablement notre Directeur général.
La délégation laotienne est heureuse de constater que la FAO n'est pas une organisation intergouvernementale figée mais une organisation qui se perfectionne sans cesse dans ses politiques, ses priorités et ses modalités d'intervention. L'exemple du programme de coopération technique qui s'avère être utile pour un pays comme le nôtre, celui de la mise en place progressive d'un réseau de représentants dans les pays membres etc., en sont les preuves.
C'est dans ce contexte que ma délégation entend examiner la mise en oeuvre de diverses réformes proposées par un certain nombre de pays membres, et portant sur divers aspects des buts et activités de la FAO, y compris l'élaboration du budget.
Nous félicitons les pays membres qui ont ainsi présenté une large gamme de propositions destinées à améliorer le fonctionnement de notre Organisation. Ces propositions constituent une preuve éloquente de leur foi dans le rôle essentiel de la FAO. La République démocratique populaire du Laos partage cette conviction.
A ce tout premier stade de nos discussions, il est compréhensible que ces propositions, toutes bien intentionnées, soient nombreuses et même dans certains cas contradictoires. Beaucoup sont excellentes. Certaines méritent un examen approfondi.
Ma délégation considère que, participant à cette Conférence, nous pouvons jouer un rôle très utile si nous parvenons à délimiter le domaine où s'appliqueront les modifications. Nous devons préciser les domaines qu'il convient d'étudier pour y apporter des améliorations. Ceci constitue une tâche que nous ne pouvons déléguer à aucun groupe de travail quel que soit son niveau ou la valeur de ses membres. Je considère que les représentants qui constituent cette Conférence sont les mieux informés des besoins de leurs pays et de la façon dont l'Organisation peut au mieux y répondre à l'avenir. De plus, nous devons, dans toute la mesure possible , utiliser nos propres structures et nos propres moyens.
Ma délégation n'est pas disposée à accepter quelque proposition que cela soit qui viserait à réduire les prérogatives de la Conférence en ce qui concerne la définition de la politique de notre Organisation.
Reza ASKARIYEH (Iran, Islamic Republic of): We wish you and the Commission a successful conclusion. Also I would like to express my appreciation and gratitude to the Secretariat for the preparation of the valuable document C 87/30.
Today, after a lengthy debate, we are finally here to review certain aspects of FAO's goals and operations , especially the need for reform in the programme and budget process to re-adjust and meet the challenges of the next decade.
With respect to the Member States who do not wish to use FAO as a means to oppress the underprivileged countries for their own further eco-political gains, we urge the developing countries to express more attention and effort to bring about changes necessary to mobilize FAO for its future tasks.
In view of considerable food security deterioration in most developing countries, and worsening international economic and financial crises due to inflation and devaluation of the U.S. dollar, if the role of FAO is to be of any significance to a certain extent to remedy these crises we must have an FAO with efficient programming and budgeting processes.
During the course of this Twenty-fourth Session of FAO Conference we are looking forward to the approval of a series of measures relating to the structural planning, programming and budgeting processes. Therefore, we would like to express our views as follows: concerning document C 87/30 we would like to declare that the position of our Government in the line of experts for reviewing the objectives of FAO does not seem to be necessary. We would like to pose the replacement of "reform" by "improvement" since any principle reform requires change in the Constitution of FAO which in itself does not seem easily plausible.
As mentioned above, any improvement for the benefit of the developing countries requires more decentralization, and in this regard, we would like to propose the following suggestions:
We would like to support the conception of the establishment of regional offices of FAO and FAO representation in the countries. In this regard we strongly request from FAO and His Excellency the Director-General an increase in the number of the aforesaid offices. It is to be mentioned that the establishment of four offices proposed by Dr Saouma does not seem to be sufficient.
Along with the presence of these offices each country would be in a position to collaborate with FAO representatives in line with the country's objectives and requirements. In this respect the role which FAO can play in the implementation of these objectives could, therefore, be defined and planned.
FAO should allocate a global yearly budget to each country in order to plan their programmes and budgets.
Programmes linked to government plans that are in accordance with the general guidelines set forth by FAO, UNDP, TCP, and the like, will also be prepared and planned by each state at FAO's MSCA (Member State's Central Agency) with greater reliance on local resources, improved farming systems and socio-economy.
FAO will feed greater specialized statistics and analyses to each country's "FAO's MSCA" emphasizing their own situation, location, resources, etcetera, as well as providing them with policies and guidelines.
A draft summary of the Programme of Work and Budget produced by each country, with the collaboration of FAO representation, should be sent to the regional FAO office for further consideration along with other countries of the region. Then, the summary should be passed to Headquarters for final technical revision. Afterwards the Secretariat takes the necessary actions and should finally send the draft Programme of Work and Budget to FAO Council and then to FAO Conference for final adoption.
Amador VELASQUEZ GARCIA-MONTERROSO (Perú): En primer lugar, Señor Presidente, reciba usted nuestra felicitación por su designación como Presidente de esta Comisión. Voy a ser muy concreto y puntual.
Sobre el tema en cuestión mi país siempre ha sido, y es, partidario de las reformas que persiguen el mejoramiento de las instituciones a las que pertenecemos; pero, a su vez, consideramos que el perfeccionamiento, en el entendido de que todo es perfectible, debe hacerse dentro del marco legal y orgánico y la Constitución misma a la que nuestra Organización se debe.
Por ello, y en vista de que varios oradores han fundamentado las valederas razones de esta posición, reitero la adhesión del Perú a la Declaración de mi Grupo Regional, vale decir del Grupo de América Latina y el Caribe.
Ibrahima KABA (Guinée): La délégation guinéenne vous félicite de votre élection au niveau de la présidence de notre Commission. Ma délégation considère ce point de réforme éventuelle avec unintérêt tout particulier parce que touchant le fondement et les objectifs de notre Organisation.
La Guinée pense que depuis la création de la FAO cette Organisation a connu de nombreuses améliorations qui ont abouti à la qualification que nous lui connaissons aujourd'hui, et dont les pays membres en développement se félicitent. Le principe d'égalité entre les membres, et celui de participation de l'Organisation au développement par le biais de l'assistance technique et de la présence effective des représentations dans les pays, sont des facteurs éminemment positifs.
Nous estimons que le problème réel qui se pose est celui volontairement créé par des pays membres qui retardent de s'acquitter de leurs obligations vis-à-vis de notre Organisation; de ce fait, celle-ci connaît des difficultés quant à la réalisation de l'ensemble des programmes d'action qui lui sont confiés par les pays membres.
Nous ne pensons pas que le moyen de la pression financière soit approprié pour faire prévaloir une soi-disant nécessité de réforme au sein de la FAO; en effet ses méthodes actuelles de travail se caractérisent par une extrême souplesse lui permettant de s'adapter aux différents événements économiques, politiques et sociaux dont les Pays membres sont le siège. Nous ne pensons pas que la question de réforme en profondeur soit une préoccupation prioritaire et urgente; certes nous ne la rejetons pas mais nous estimons que la poursuite de la discussion doit être opérée au niveau des différentes instances de notre Organisation jusqu'à maturité du problème posé, et surtout jusqu'à ce que la situation des liquidités soit équilibrée au sein de notre Organisation.
Hermann REDL (Austria)(original language German): First of all we should like to congratulate you on your election and I should like to express my best wishes for success. I should also like to thank the Secretariat for preparing document C 87/30.
Austria endorses the principles contained in the basic text of the Organization. If we are discussing thoughts today it is because the objective we have in mind is to contribute to attaining these objectives by best using the means and resources available. This is essential.
In all our debates and considerations we must take into account all UN decisions and the decisions of the various bodies within the UN family. I should like to recall the decisions of the World Food Conference held in 1974, the WACARRD and the Fisheries Conference as well as the World Conference on Forestry. We also accept the consensus principle. We attach great importance to it. It should be retained. We also believe that some measures are necessary to strengthen the activities of FAO and to avoid any overlapping of activities to guarantee the best and optimum use of the available resources. I am thinking especially about FAO collaboration with the relevant bodies of the Economic Commission in Geneva.
New problems are arising and new problems are there to be coped with. All these problems must be taken into account when discussing FAO activities. We believe that the necessary bodies to do this exist and whenever necessary these bodies should be strengthened or important criticisms should always be constructive and conducive to positive results. We reject any form of destructive criticism.
Now I should like to come to the draft resolution. We have not received them all and this is why I would like to be given a chance to talk about them later.
Douglas LINDORES (Ganada): Let me join the others who have congratulated you as Chairman of this Commission.
Two years ago at the Twenty-third Conference of the FAO Canada outlined in its submission, in Plenary and in this Commission, both its support for the FAO and its concerns about the evolution of this Organization over its recent history. I do not intend to review our concerns in great detail at this time - many of them were well expressed by our Australian colleague this morning. We can certainly associate ourselves with his submission. In addition, we have had numerous occasions over the past two years to explain them to many who were kind enough to listen. Let me simply underline the basic objectives which we have been pursuing as were outlined this morning in our statement to Plenary.
We believe that we should all benefit within the FAO from a greater clarity in the substance and process of priority setting that we believe this Organization should become a more dynamic forum for the exchange of views with a tolerance for differing opinions on the problems that face world agriculture. We believe that our agency should be most appropriately organized to achieve the priority objectives that we have established. We believe that our council and committees should play a more effective role in governing the activities of our Secretariat and in allocating our limited resources. We believe that the FAO's daily management functions should be achieved with the benefit of the modern managerial concepts and tools that are now available to us. We believe that our programming process should more properly reflect the increasing need to lower costs while enhancing impact.
Finally, we believe that FAO should assume its full responsibility as a cooperative and integral partner within the broader UN system.
Those seven objectives - rather simply stated, I admit - entail scores of detailed questions on which we will not try your patience by addressing today.
In the complex process of managing multilateral institutions we believe that it is from the management that the leadership must be forthcoming if the process of adapting to changing priorities is to be achieved with the minimum possible level of controversy. High on this list of changing priorities is a much clearer view of the links between resources used and results achieved. From the statements made at this Conference and elsewhere it is apparent to us that the current management of the FAO is essentially satisfied that it has responded by and large properly to the evolving needs of the FAO's Member States. The debate in this Commission on this item and events earlier in this Conference indicate that the majority of Member States agree with that assessment. It has been pointed out to us that it is a lack of political will to provide resources to the FAO that is the institution's primary problem and not any shortcomings on its own part. This is, in our view, a rather simplistic position with which we do not agree. Although my country has never failed to meet its assessed payment obligations to the FAO on time, recently, we have not used the FAO in any major way as a delivery channel for our voluntary development assistance funds. These funds will continue to be channelled through those organizations in which we have greater confidence as to the development impact achieved.
I would like generally to conclude by underlining our strong support for the resolution tabled by the Nordic countries this morning. We can also associate ourselves with the statement of our Norwegian colleague in which he outlined the reasoning behind the Nordic countries' resolution. It would be difficult to over-estimate the importance of this issue for us.
We are also grateful for the innovative proposal placed before this Commission by the distinguished representative of France. This is a thoughtful proposal which seeks to bridge the gap that obviously exists between some of the governments in this room. We appreciate that effort, and are prepared to give that proposal careful consideration. Our initial reaction is, nevertheless, that the French proposal would not lead to the required injection of intellectual leadership that the question of meaningful reform in the FAO now demands. Canada will not abandon its goal of a FAO universally respected for its competence and efficiency in addressing world problems of hunger and malnutrition. We will continue to work towards that goal. The most fundamental elements of our policy towards the FAO will, of course, be heavily influenced by the extent to which we are able to continue to share common objectives with the majority of FAO's membership.
Carlos DELPIAZZO (Uruguay): Señor Presidente, la Delegación de la República Oriental del Uruguay desea reafirmar la posición manifestada esta mañana en nombre del Grupo Latinoamericano y el Caribe por su Presidente.
Pensamos que ésta es una de las mejores formas de manifestar nuestro apoyo y nuestra confianza en la Organización y en sus posibilidades de ajuste y dinamismo en su modo de actuar. Lamentablemente, no tenemos el honor de compartir algunas propuestas de reformas realizadas en este ámbito.
En primer lugar, con relación a las propuestas de modificación relativas al procedimiento presupuestario, pensamos que las mismas no se ajustan al marco regulador actualmente vigente en nuestra Organización, particularmente no se ajustan a la Constitución de la FAO, no se ajustan a su reglamento general de organización y tampoco a su reglamento de finanzas. No puede decirse que el nivel presupuestario y el orden de prioridades no sean conocidos con antelación, por cuanto, en cumplimiento de las normas actualmente vigentes, todos los Estados tienen conocimiento de tales documentos con suficiente antelación al momento de iniciarse cada período de sesiones de la Conferencia.
La delegación de la República Oriental del Uruguay, tras un examen primario de estas propuestas entiende que cualquier ajuste en el tema presupuestal debe realizarse, en todo caso, en el marco del reglamento y de la Constitución vigentes. No podemos propiciar ni acompañar mecanismos indirectos de modificación de las reglas constitutivas de nuestra Organización. Si queremos mejorar la Organización, como creo que todos los Estados que la integramos aspiramos a que ocurra, debemos empezar por cumplir las normas de la Organización, y no establecer por vías indirectas, procedimientos que por su complejidad y su extensión, más que agilizar, pueden burocratizar y, por ende, debilitar nuestra Organización.
En segundo lugar, Señor Presidente, tampoco tenemos el honor de compartir la propuesta de integración de un grupo de alto nivel. No creemos conveniente la creación de un grupo de estas características, porque confiamos en la propia Organización, en cuanto a su capacidad para examinarse y para revisarse a sí misma.
La Organización, Señor Presidente, la FAO, somos nosotros, los Estados que la integramos, y nuestra voluntad debe manifestarse a través de nuestros representantes en el marco de las normas actualmente vigentes para la FAO.
Finalmente, a fin de no agobiar a la Comisión, en consideraciones de tipo jurídico, que estaríamos en condiciones de añadir, en caso de que la Comisión lo juzgue necesario o conveniente, queremos ratificar el apoyo de nuestro país y nuestra confianza en la FAO, y proponemos exhortar a los órganos ejecutivos y a los servicios de la FAO para que dinamicen su gestión.
Son muy importantes los fines que nos proponemos alcanzar a través de la Organización para que distraigamos nuestro tiempo discutiendo aspectos formales, que como tales son necesariamente secundarios.
J. Augusto DE MÊDICIS (Brazil): During the 91st Session of the Council, held last June, the Brazilian delegation agreed that any proposal aiming at the improvement of FAO and the enhancement of its work should be dealt with by the Conference, which should as well decide on its opportunity, scope and methodology of work. We are, therefore, open to dialogue and ready to discuss sound and truly multilateral proposals that take into due account the interests of the Organization and of all its member countries. From the start, however, we reject any attempt to disregard the "one-country-one-vote" basic principle.
Unfortunately, Mr Chairman, this seems to be the main concern of most of the proposals presented and summarized in document C 87/30. The shortfall in payments by the largest contributor, which is the main cause of the present financial difficulties, is often invoked as a reason for the alleged need of reforms. Some other countries go so far as to defend "more realistic" approaches to ensure greater influence of major developed contributors in the preparation of the Programme of Work and Budget and in the overall decision-making process. Even in this sensitive area there are, however, conflicting proposals. Thus, for instance, while some advocate longer and deeper discussions on the Programme of Work and Budget, another country wishes that, after the approval by the Finance Committee, the Programme of Work and Budget be no further questioned by the Council or by the Conference. However, the renewed confidence in the Finance Committee would only take place, according to that proposal, after an increased participation of developed Member States in that Committee.
The enhancement of FAO's work, and not its tighter control by a few main contributors, must be the aim of any discussion. Above all, Mr Chairman, the present financial difficulties should not be used as an excuse for additional pressures on the Organization and for new challenges to multilateralism. The anticipated shortfall is not a "symptom of disaffection on the part of numerous FAO Member States" as suggested in one of the proposals. Member States unanimously recognize the importance of FAO and the great majority fully support its activities. Delays in payments, with one exception, result from economic difficulties.
On the other hand, it seems highly contradictory to us that amongst the present financial difficulties, some of the main contributors confront us with a series of proposals that will lead to larger and mostly unnecessary new expenses. We are referring specifically to the creation of highlevels groups to examine the budget process, management and objectives of the Organization; the engagement of external consultants and experts; and the proliferation of new bodies, such as the "Committee of Farmer Organizations" and the "Field Programme Committee".
My delegation believes that the objectives, strategies and priorities of the Organization reflect Member States' interests and have progressively adapted to needs and circumstances. We are, however, ready to discuss, in the competent fora of the Organization, some sound suggestions presented in the papers under review. As stated in the Japanese paper,"the FAO Secretariat has already taken some measures which, in fact, reflect the spirit of the recommendations" of the Group of 18, of the United Nations. We would add that some of the measures being proposed by the papers are under implementation or consideration by Member States. In this case are some of those related to the Working Capital Fund and to delayed payments. This is a better way of discussing issues of common interest and of proceeding to changes and improvements in the Organization.
We agree, as stated in the document presented by the developing countries, that "what is required is not high-level expert groups, but united political will among Member Nations". More than a thorough
review of the Organization, we need deeper discussions and decisions on the main factors Leading to the widening of the economic gap between developed and developing countries. Political will must be shown in relation to solutions to the foreign debt problem, to the dismantlement of protectionist policies and to building a fairer international economic order. In FAO, we need greater support to the TCP and to ECD/TCDC activities and a genuine commitment from the developed member countries, to the Codex Alimentarius standards and to truly multilateral projects in the field.
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I have the idea that this discussion is taking place without any really serious thought being given to the issues that were brought to the attention of Member States as long ago as the last Conference, as was mentioned by the distinguished delegate for Cameroon. I also had the impression that those who say that there is no need for a review have not been listening to the general debate in Plenary. I myself have heard several forceful interventions in favour of change, and they are certainly not confined to the representatives of the developed countries. Nor do I think we are considering in a serious way the implications of the new international atmosphere and the new mood of self searching within the United Nations family as a whole and within other international development institutions. It is certainly not necessary to await the outcome of the decisions within the United Nations itself. Decisions to make a review of structure, objectives and other issues which are related can and should be taken by each institution at the earliest practicable moment. Such a decision in fact has only recently been reached by consensus at UNCTAD VII within UNCTAD.
The reasons for Britain's consistent support for review and reform within FAO were set out very clearly by my Minister to Plenary earlier today and therefore I will not repeat his remarks. However, they are an integral part, and indeed the basis of my country's position. For us this is also, and has always been, divorced from the budgetary crisis or from any other issue. Every competent institution should have the capacity for its governing bodies to conduct and oversee critical self-examination. The idea that everything in the garden is lovely in itself betokens a very dangerous complacency. When consultancies are taken into account the total number of staff employed by FAO in the field and Headquarters amounts to nearly 7 500 but of this figure only just under 2 000 are employed full time in the field programme.
I will illustrate this theme further by reference to the debate so far on priorities, and especially priorities in relation to FAO's individual country actions. It is useless to pretend, as I have heard some delegates pretend, that national resource and investment priorities can be set by reference to a set of international guidelines agreed by this or that technical conference. Guidelines of that kind are useful in helping us all to consider where to put our strategic priorities and how to do it over a period of years. They are no help at all in considering when to do it and what resources should be devoted to this or that activity, when we are trying to refocus our constrained national resources for the immediate future.
It is clear also that misunderstandings persist in this Commission. It is even suggested, as now, I think, by the distinguished delegate from Brazil, that there are threats to the supreme role of the Conference and to the one country one vote principle. Anyone who has actually read the Nordic Draft Resolution could not possibly make such a nonsensical statement. The chief problem to us, and the chief requirement, is for a more effective deployment of FAO's efforts tailored to the precise changing and short-to-medium-term needs of each country.
With due deference to the distinguished delegate of Barbados, it is just not true that this is only a matter for the UNDP Resident Representatives alone. Indeed the Trust Fund and the TCP must be more effectively geared to the urgent priorities of each country. Urgent priorities are not the same as emergency needs. Proper pre-planning of the bulk of the TCP is an essential element in a more effective FAO field strategy.
Some have mentioned the importance of the Basic Texts and their observations. We agree the basic elements in those Texts must be sacrosanct. There must be no changes in the essential structure of the governing bodies. Nevertheless, it is not inconceivable or wrong to look at some of the more detailed rules that are bound up in that single volume. If I might for a moment compare this to the Christian Bible, there are parts of the Texts that are rather like the Ten Commandments and there are other parts that are like the lists of genealogies. Not every comma is sacrosanct, and the suggestion that some procedures might be looked at with a view to their improvement should not be treated as a heresy worthy of burning at the stake.
The Nordic Proposal that has been put to us today by the distinguished delegate of Norway offers clear, comprehensive and well-linked suggestions for our consideration. My Minister has already made it plain in Plenary that we think that it is excellent and that we should back it one hundred percent. It does no violence to the Basic Texts. It offers a proper role to each Member State to make its own reflections on the future. It proposes a fixed but reasonable timetable. It proposes - and this is also essential - close links in all the work with the management of FAO. It does not pre-empt or prejudice the answers to the questions that we should be asking ourselves. It does set those questions out clearly and puts forward a sensible method of reviewing them.
The questions have to include the issue of management organization, as both African and developed country Ministers said in Plenary today. You cannot settle what you ought best to be doing without also examining how best to do it. My delegation reserves the right to revert to detailed discussion of the Draft Resolutions at a later stage. Meanwhile let me only say, as was said to my delegation elsewhere in this building yesterday - and I quote - that: "reform within FAO is now unavoidable".
Antonio MAGALHÃES COELHO (Portugal): Monsieur le Président, ma delegation vous félicite de votre élection à la présidence de cette Commission.
La délégation portugaise a bien présent à l'esprit le rôle important que joue la FAO dans l'aide apportée aux pays en voie de développement. C'est dans ce sens que nous pensons qu'il est nécessaire de maximiser les ressources de son budget de telle sorte que la plus grande part de l'argent disponible soit acheminée vers des projets sur le terrain et que ceux-ci fassent l'objet d'un schéma rigide de priorités prenant en compte les aspects d'ordre social et de reproductivité des investissements .
Sans vouloir mettre en cause les efforts et les hauts mérites du Comité du programme et du Comité financier, nous pensons que la FAO aurait des avantages si leurs travaux pouvaient être canalisés par des experts extérieurs à l'Organisation et qui ne seraient pas influencés par le travail quotidien de la FAO. Mais, d'un autre côté, nous pensons qu'il ne faut pas mettre de côté la compétence et le dévouement du personnel de la FAO qui, statutairement, réalise déjà ce travail.
En tenant compte de ces points, la délégation portugaise donne son adhésion à la constitution d'un comité mixte d'experts de l'extérieur et de la FAO pour réaliser l'évaluation mentionnée.
Ugo SESSI (Italie): Monsieur le Président, je répondrai très volontiers à votre appel à la concision. Je voudrais vous féliciter de votre élection et je vous prie de transmettre mes félicitations au Vice-président quand nous aurons le bénéfice de l'avoir avec nous dans cette salle.
Nous sommes à un moment très important de notre travail. Nous examinons un point de l'ordre du jour vital pour la FAO. Je tiens à remercier le Secrétariat d'avoir préparé ce document C 87/30 et surtout le résumé des vues et suggestions présentées par les Etats Membres. Nous l'avons trouvé très utile pour l'examen de la question.
A la lecture de ce document et à la suite du débat qui a eu lieu aujourd'hui, je dois dire que deux mots émergent surtout de la discussion, à savoir la nécessité d'une transparence plus poussée pour la FAO et d'une restructuration. Ce sont des mots cruciaux, des mots à la mode, si je puis dire. Tous les jours, dans les journaux, vous pouvez lire ces deux mots dans une autre langue - transparence et restructuration - se référant à un grand pays qui, hélas, n'est pas membre de la FAO. Il y a donc la nécessité d'une plus grande transparence et d'une réforme de la FAO. Nous pensons que tout est perfectible. On peut toujours améliorer la situation.
C'est la troisième fois que je suis les travaux de la Conférence générale. Je suis actuellement les travaux de la Commission III et, même si je ne suis pas un des plus anciens à la FAO, je dois dire que j'ai trouvé le fonctionnement de cette Organisation considérablement amélioré au fil des années. On pourrait citer, comme exemple, l'institution du PCT et la décentralisation, le taux décroissant des dépenses consacrées au personnel au bénéfice des dépenses sur le terrain et, enfin, l'informatisation, toujours plus poussée à la FAO.
A notre sens, l'Organisation a démontré qu'elle est un organisme vital capable de changer au fil des années et de répondre au défi des demandes toujours accrues qui lui parviennent du monde en développement. Pour nous, donc, comme l'ont dit plusieurs orateurs, une réforme, une restructuration partielle pourrait être mise en place. En commençant une oeuvre de restructuration, il faudrait, selon nous, élaborer un programme de travail très clair et identifier, en premier lieu, les objectifs finals à atteindre, en second lieu, les moyens pour le faire et, en troisième lieu, le processus à utiliser. Ces trois facteurs ont été mentionnés dans l'intervention que le Ministre de l'agriculture de mon pays a prononcée, hier matin. Je vais donc élaborer très brièvement sur ce concept.
En ce qui concerne les objectifs finals, il ne faut pas remettre en cause et en discussion, bien sûr, les Textes fondamentaux. Je crois qu'il existe là un consensus général chez toutes les délégations, à savoir que le rôle de la FAO dans le domaine de l'aide au développement agricole mondial doit rester tel qu'il est énoncé dans les Textes Fondamentaux.
En ce qui concerne les moyens, il nous semblerait inopportun et injuste d'exclure le Secrétariat, le personnel de la FAO de ce travail. Il y a dans cette Organisation un remarquable patrimoine d'expérience, de travail, de connaissances, qu'il serait malheureux d'évincer d'emblée.
Quelle que soit la restructuration que l'on va étudier, le Secrétariat devrait y être associé le plus étroitement possible. En outre, il ne faut pas oublier les organismes intergouvernementaux qui existent à l'intérieur de la FAO et qui, selon nous, auraient à jouer un rôle fondamental dans ce processus; nous pensons en particulier au Comité financier et souhaiterions un élargissement de la composition du mandat de ce comité; nous voulons dire par là qu'il faudrait lui donner des moyens plus concrets et plus prégnants d'intervention dans le processus budgétaire et dans le travail de l'Organisation.
Enfin, concernant le processus, il faudrait choisir une approche pragmatique, qui se situe dans la ligne du fonctionnement régulier, normal, de l'Organisation. Nous n'aimerions pas avoir des conférences extraordinaires, ou autre chose de ce genre, mises en place pour approuver des rapports des comités d'experts ou d'autres organes intérieurs.
Il faudrait prévoir un processus qui passe par les organes internes, le Comité de programme, le Comité financier, le Conseil et la Conférence.
Je limiterai ici mon premier commentaire en me réservant le droit d'intervenir dans la suite du débat.
Sra. Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Permítame, Sr. Presidente, en primer lugar hacerle llegar la felicitación de mi delegación a usted y a los vicepresidentes de la Comisión por su elección.
En relación al tema que nos ocupa la delegación argentina quisiera expresar sólo algunas ideas básicas.
En primer lugar, quisiéramos manifestar que hemos intentado aprehender en todo su significado la información y propuestas contenidas en el documento C 87/30 presentadas por varios países industrializados. No obstante, debo confesar que este ejercicio, que significó un notable esfuerzo de análisis, no ha tenido como resultado, en nuestro caso, la formación de un juicio completo y definitivo acerca de las cuestiones planteadas.
Uno de los principales impedimentos para esto fue la cantidad de contradicciones que entre estos mismos papeles fue posible detectar.
Con relación a la necesidad de proceder a realizar reformas sustanciales en la FAO, la delegación Argentina estima que el concepto "reforma" es demasiado amplio y demasiado radical, motivo por el cual se opuso en ocasión de la introducción del tema 11 en la agenda de esta Conferencia a su inclusión en el título del tema.
Al respecto, debemos hacer constar nuestra coincidencia con lo expresado por la delegación de Bangladesh en el sentido que no nos convencen los argumentos adelantados hasta el presente para proceder a una reforma de tan vastos alcances, como algunas delegaciones pretenden.
Permítame en consecuencia referirme a estas cuestiones en términos de "necesidad de examinar" y no de "necesidad de reformar.
Con relación al alcance del examen pasaré revista brevemente a las cinco más grandes áreas que los países industrializados proponen que se examinen. En primer lugar, están los objetivos y función de la Organización. La mayor parte de las propuestas sobre estas cuestiones escapan al denominador
común de las reformas solicitadas hacia el presente en otros organismos internacionales. Si bien el documento de la Secretaría aclara que todas las comunicaciones reconocen la validez indiscutible del mandato, de la Constitución y de los documentos básicos de la FAO, el documento de Suiza pone en duda la existencia misma de dicho mandato sugiriendo que éste debería ser difinido sobre la base de la resolución de la institución de una economía de la abundancia aprobada por la Conferencia de Hot Springs en 1943.
Mi delegación estima que los objetivos y función de la Organización que técnicamente no son otra cosa que el mandato de la organización están perfectamente definidos en el preámbulo y en el Artículo I de su Constitución.
Nos parece sumamente aventurada la aseveración de Suiza y queremos dejar expresa constancia que no nos parece pertinente su revisión. La FAO ha cumplido y cumple un rol destacado; en los esfuerzos para erradicar el hambre y la desnutrición, su valor y vigencia está más allá de toda duda; sus objetivos, tanto para el corto como para el mediano plazo son válidos y a nuestro juicio se ajustan a las necesidades de los países en desarrollo.
Entrando ahora en el segundo gran área en la cual se están pidiendo reformas, que son las estrategias de largo plazo y las prioridades de la FAO; estimamos que la elección de los medios para lograr los objetivos y el establecimiento de las prioridades son patrimonio exclusivo de los Estados Miembros que deben actuar a este respecto con el asesoramiento y la información que le ofrecen la Secretaría y los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas.
Coincidimos en que existe la necesidad, atento a la crisis de liquidez que sufre la Organización en este momento, de proceder a una formulación clara y precisa de las prioridades, tarea en la que los países miembros deben poner el máximo de buena voluntad y espíritu de colaboración.
En lo que respecta a las que han sido incluidas en el documento C 87/3 para el próximo bienio, estimamos que en definitiva ellas son de las que los propios Estados Miembros hemos fijado en los diversos foros. La Secretaría de FAO sólo ha reflejado en el citado documento la voluntad mayoritaria de sus miembros.
El tercer área de preocupación es la reforma del proceso de adopción de decisione s. Señor. Presidente, si bien mi Delegación puede entender las razones invocadas por algunos países para esta propuesta, estimamos que la necesidad de esta modificación debe ser acordada en razón de la voluntad de los que adoptan las decisiones. En consecuencia, creemos que deben ser ellos mismos, dialogando en éste y en otros foros intergubernamentales los que decidan el modo y la oportunidad de proceder a su examen y eventualmente sobre la base de un documento de la Secretaría que describa los métodos utilizados por otras organizaciones.
Con relación a la reforma del proceso de programación y presupuestación, hemos notado que todas las propuestas de los países industrializados acentúan este punto, que fuera el originariamente plantea do por la Delegación de los Estados Unidos de América en ocasión del 91o Período de Sesiones del Consejo.
Las sugerencias que aducen la necesidad de mejorar la transparencia financiera, tienden a asegurar una mayor participación de los países miembros en el proceso inicial de preparación del proyecto de Programa y Presupuesto, a la vez que concentrar las decisiones últimas sobre prioridades y asignación de fondos en un único organismo intermedio que aglutinaría las funciones de los actuales Comités del Programa y de Finanzas. Países Bajos propone que este cuente, con "adecuada" representación de los países donantes y que sus recomendaciones sean prácticamente vinculantes para los órganos deliberativos.
A este respecto, Señor Presidente, quisiéramos dejar constancia desde ya, que no consideramos adecuada ninguna modificación en los procedimientos que tienda a otorgar a algunos miembros, o grupos de miembros, un voto ponderado, una voz más potente, o un poder de veto sobre éste o cualquier otro área en que se adopten decisiones en esta Organización.
Al respecto, apoyamos lo dicho hace unos momentos por el distinguido Delegado de la República Oriental del Uruguay.
El Programa de Campo de la FAO. Respecto de esto, la Delegación argentina estima que algunas de las propuestas pueden ser interesantes y merecerían un estudio más detenido por parte de la Secretaría y los órganos intergubernamentales. Apoyamos los pedidos de una mayor coherencia y coordinación con otras agencias o programas y con los esfuerzos de los propios países beneficiarios.
Comprenderá usted, Señor Presidente, que la magnitud de las sugerencias nos imposibilita de comentarlas todas. No obstante, permítame en primer término aclarar que el no mencionarlas no implica de ninguna manera que las consideremos aceptables o inaceptables.
En segundo lugar, quisiera dejar aquí sentada la posición de mi Delegación respecto de la posibilidad de examinar el funcionamiento administrativo y financiero de FAO, para intentar reforzar su eficiencia y la eficacia e impacto de sus programas. Estimamos que toda Organización es perfectible, y que los países miembros utilizando mecanismos adecuados, por medio de sus órganos intergubernamentales y con el apoyo tecnico de la Secretaría, pueden y deben atender a estas cuestiones. Contará, para ello con la experiencia de otros organismos, otros órganos u otros grupos. Podrán analizar las recomendaciones del Grupo de los 18 de Naciones Unidas, las conclusiones a que arribe oportunamente el ECOSOC en su examen del sector económico y social del Sistema de Naciones Unidas, y las opiniones de órganos técnicos como la Dependencia Común de Inspección.
No es necesario, a juicio de mi Delegación, proceder a la creación del propuesto grupo de alto nivel. Coincidimos al respecto con lo manifestado durante el día de ayer por el distinguido Embajador de Bélgica.
Señor Presidente, no necesitamos un diálogo político de alto nivel. Podríamos, en cambio, ganar algo si en su lugar utilizamos nosotros mismos los recursos humanos, los insumos técnicos, el sentido común y la voluntad política para emprender los exámenes que creamos pertinentes.
Permítame por último, Señor Presidente, referirme al modo y oportunidad de adoptar decisiones respecto de este tema. La Delegación argentina quisiera que todas las Delegaciones aquí presentes dispongamos de todo el tiempo necesario para agotar las consultas, pues apresurarnos no sería, a no dudarlo, beneficioso para el resultado de hoy, ni para la FAO que queremos en el mañana.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sobre este tema, Señor Presidente, la posición de Colombia fue expresada adecuadamente esta mañana por el distinguido Embajador de Costa Rica, Presidente del Grupo de América Latina y el Caribe. Los brotes de espíritu reformista no son.nuevos en esta Organización. La FAO no se ha mantenido estática en sus 42 años de existencia.
Para referirnos tan sólo a los últimos 20 años, convendrá recordar que la Conferencia de 1967, mediante un Grupo de Trabajo, aportó ciertas ideas que en 1968 contribuyeron a mejorar los trabajos de nuestra Organización. Ocho años más tarde en 1976, empezó una nueva era en la vida de la FAO. El Director General elegido por la Conferencia de 1975 propuso una serie de reformas que recibieron amplio apoyo y han tenido notorias consecuencias benéficas.
Particularmente los colegas de Laos e Italia se refirieron a dos aspectos principales: el Programa de Cooperación Técnica y la Política de Descentralización, mediante designación de representantes de la FAO en los países como funcionarios propios de nuestra Organización. Hoy, en 1987 doce años después, la FAO no se ha mantenido dormida. Por el contrario ha estado atenta vigilante cómo todos los hechos que han tenido cumplimiento en la comunidad internacional debieran reflejarse sobre las políticas y los programas de la Organización. Esa actitud dinámica y permanentemente innovadora del Director General de la FAO ha venido recibiendo el pleno apoyo de los órganos rectores, particularmente Comité del Programa y de Finanzas, Comités Técnicos, Consejo, Conferencias Regionales y Conferencia, organismos en los cuales han participado representantes de todos los Estados Miembros. Estos hechos conforman la posición neta y convencida de la Delegación de Colombia en el sentido de que todo deseo de reforma no podrá interpretarse como censura ni crítica a lo que se ha hecho hasta ahora. Por el contrario pensamos que toda reforma deberá estar dirigida a fortalecer las buenas realizaciones logradas.
Dentro de esa concepción, la Delegación de Colombia considera que nuestro país está abierto al diálogo para introducir algunas reformas moderadas, prudentes, sensatas y objetivas, basando cualquier cambio en la condición inmodificable de que todo ello deberá significar mejores y más eficaces servicios
para los países en desarrollo ¿Cómo podríamos oponernos a reformas que encaucen, por ejemplo, mejor el uso de las nuevas tecnologías? ¿A reformas que condujeren a que se evite en el futuro el incumplimiento del compromiso que adquieren todos los contribuyentes para que así la FAO no siga sometida al asedio constante de reajustes de programas con tan lamentable beneficio para los países en desarrollo? ¿Cómo podríamos oponernos a reformas que puedan fortalecer el carácter multilateral de nuestra Organización? ¿y a traer así nuevos recursos a parte de los del Programa Ordinario, Fondos Fiduciarios o contribuciones voluntarias que permitan a la FAO ofrecer nuevos y aun mejores servicios a los Estados del Tercer Mundo?
Hemos seguido con atención el debate sobre este tema y encontramos apenas natural la controversia que se ha desatado. Es un tema importante, cuya conclusión tendrá repercusiones en el futuro de la Organización. Dentro de este debate hemos, seguido con atención el espíritu constructivo y el ánimo sensato que han guiado a los países nórdicos, uno de cuyos líderes, nuestro colega y amigo de Noruega, Harald Høstmark hizo una declaración sincera y convencida, aunque algunos de los aspectos de las propuestas nórdicas, hechas con espíritu pragmático, no recibieron apoyo suficiente como parece. La Delegación de Colombia desea transmitir a los colegas de los países nórdicos el mensaje de comprensión y reconocimiento del Gobierno de Colombia, pidiéndoles que no se desalienten y no se sientan frustrados y seguros estamos de que cualquiera que sea el resultado de este debate los países nórdicos seguirán a la vanguardia en la defensa de los principios y las aspiraciones del Tercer Mundo. Igual confianza quisiéramos tener en todos los demás representantes de los países industrializados en esta nueva era de la FAO, para la cual el Director General ha demandado la unidad de todos los gobiernos. Han proliferado numerosos proyectos de resolución y seguramente seguirán aún muchos otros.
La Delegación de Colombia apoya lo que dijo hace poco nuestro colega y amigo vecino de la derecha, el Embajador Tchicaya, del Congo, sobre la necesidad y conveniencia de que a través de un mecanismo, como lo dijo ayer nuestro colega y amigo López Portillo, de México, se logre adoptar por consenso un solo texto, una sola resolución, que matice las distintas opiniones que aquí se han expresado.
La Delegación de Colombia confía en que usted, Señor Presidente, y los más caracterizados voceros de las diversas tendencias, encontrarán el mecanismo, ése fue el término usado por el colega del Congo, el más adecuado y eficaz para que en un ámbito más reducido, más limitado, más tranquilo y más sereno que el pleno de esta comisión, tal vez en un grupo de contacto, un grupo de trabajo o como quiera llamársele, le puedan preparar un texto que sea plenamente aceptable para todos.
La Delegación de Colombia piensa que en esta oportunidad, como tal vez en ninguna otra anterior, se requiere la unidad y el apoyo pleno de todos los gobiernos para que la FAO siga siendo un instrumento válido al servicio de los países en desarrollo.
Jung Joo KIM (Republic of Korea): To begin with the delegation of the Republic of Korea would like to express our congratulations on your election as Chairman of Commission II which is very important for the issues for the FAO.
In order to save time the delegation of the Republic of Korea would like to point out what we can agree with amongst the suggestions submitted by the Member Countries.
First, the establishment of the committee for field programme is necessary_in order to.minimize inefficency of the FAO projects and also the committee for farmers' organization should be established in order to cooperate and help to solve the problems of agriculture more effectively in parallel with FAO's reports.
Secondly, a reasonable level of independence and flexibility should be allowed to project host countries in the process of the implementation of the projects of FAO.
Lastly, considering the role of the FAO, the ECDC/TCDC activities should not be merely maintained but even be expanded in the future.
Antonio BROTONS DIEZ .(España): Señor Presidente, felicitamos a Usted por su elección como Presidente de esta Comisión.
La delegación española ha analizado detenidamente las propuestas de los distintos países que se incluyen en el documento C 87/30 respecto a la necesidad de reformar el proceso de presupuestación por programas de la FAO.
Creemos que se debe recordar aquí que a lo largo de los últimos años la FAO ha ido reestructurando sus actividades, acomodándolas a las necesidades nacidas de la realidad agraria mundial, tanto desde el punto de vista de la producción y de las relaciones comerciales, como de la consideración de los recursos renovables y conservación del medio ambiente.
Algunos países han expresado claramente que la crisis financiera de la Organización, en nada tiene que ver con la conveniencia de una reforma en profundidad de sus estructuras.
Creemos sinceramente, que aunque este extremo es cierto en gran medida, lo cierto es que debido a estos problemas financieros, y en particular a la crisis del valor del dólar con respecto a otras monedas, es aconsejable establecer con mayor énfasis los programas prioritarios, que permitan reajustes automáticos en las actividades a desarrollar por la Organización. Cabe recordar, como experiencia, los recortes que han sido necesarios para el presupuesto de FAO 86-87, realizados por el Director General, que han conllevado disminuciones posteriores a la aprobación del presupuesto de ese bienio.
Sin duda, estas modificaciones presupuestarias deben basarse en un sistema de prioridades claramente definidas y muy en especial de los objetivos a plazo medio.
Es nuestro deseo, y de acuerdo con el principio de máxima transparencia, que la FAO siga en una línea de perfeccionamiento de su presupuesto, en el que cada día es más necesario el establecimiento de las prioridades en sus actividades y proyectos, a la par que su presentación deba permitir un sistema de evaluación permanente de sus metas conseguidas y de sus objetivos previstos.
Poonsup PIYA-ANANT (Thailand): I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you, jointly with other delegates, on your election as Chairman of this Commission.
It is the belief of my delegation that improvement in some aspects of the budget would strengthen the FAO's budget in conformity with the spirit of the Programme budgeting process. Thus projects supported should be in harmony and integrated well with the planning, programming and budgeting framework of recipient countries while keeping a high regard for the achievement of the project targets and objectives of the projects. Projects approved should be based on a sound system which is conducive to establishing a parcel of projects according to the needs and priorities. In addition, a sound monitoring and evaluation system needs to be adopted to be able actually to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of the projects, with special emphasis on the achievement of the project's goal.
Without such improvement it is doubtful how we are actually able to utilize our limited budget and how the developing countries can be assisted to be self-reliant in terms of food and development with the budget constraint and the negative growth of budget, after taking into consideration the inflation and the decreasing value of the U.S. dollar. My delegation therefore believes that there is an urgentneed for a budget system improvement.
V.K. SIBAL (India): At the outset we should like to congratulate you on your election and we look forward to your chairing this meeting today and in the days that follow.
We are very heartened by some of the statements that have been made but before we comment on them we should like to make the point that we seem to be having a very preliminary discussion. It is very customary for us in our meetings to have very detailed papers giving close and deep analysis of the matters under discussion before us, and we take our decision in the light of our reactions which are also aided in a substantial way by the material presented before us. In this case we are seriously handicapped because what we have is a compendium of suggestions and not the analysis which is necessary to take a balanced view on the suggestions made. Having said that, we should like to express our appreciation for the assurance given to us that what is intended is that there should be no amendments of the basic text - we take that point.
As we go into detail, I am sure that we will be able to concert together and avoid any pitfalls in the shape of amendments of the basic text which may present themselves while we are pursuing in detail some of the suggestions that have been made to us. We should also like to express our appreciation for a very appropriate point made earlier in the course of this debate namely, that what have been presented for consideration are suggestions for action and not pressure. We take note of that point.
When we go into the history of the present debate let us refer for a moment to the Ninetieth Session of Council when a few delegations raised the issue of reform of the FAO, its objectives, its priorities and its role. The record shows that most members did not share this view, but what is significant is that even those who suggested this suggested that the issue should be pursued through the Programme Committee and Council and that the reviews should be done in these fora. Of course, within the space of one year, the situation seems to have changed radically when the arena for working out the advisability of accepting or not accepting, what has been proposed is sought to be taken deliberately of this very arena in which it was initially sought to be presented.
I also beg your indulgence to revert to the Ninety-first Session of Council when these issues were raised in a big way and where it was not possible for us to arrive at a conclusion which could be subscribed to generally by the Council. We took note of a situation brought to our notice by the largest contributor and it was stated that this matter should be pursued and that would help the FAO in the difficulties it is undergoing. We had taken note of that and in a spirit of compromise and positive cooperation it was thought that even though there was no concensus on this issue let us not apply the brakes, let us present the issue to the Conference. This will give us time for reflection and a chance of having the issue debated in this Commission and in the Plenary at the Conference, so that the larger representations available in these fora may help to guide us in the further course which we are to pursue.
When we read these papers we get the feeling that we have a series of suggestions without adequate justification, a series of remedies without adequate diagnosis, a series of generalizations unsupported by adequate and concrete data and a case without adequate evidence.
One paper asks for a thorough reappraisal of FAO as a technical and development institution. We understand that the protagonists of this idea are convinced of this. However, the facts and the evidence which have led to this conviction we feel need to be shared with this Commission and with this Conference before the bodies can commit themselves to what looks like a wholesale review. Such a review would be protracted and expensive if it is to be effective, and if we are to keep in view the dictates of prudence and economy -- which are very, very important and about which we hear such a lot -- we deserve to know the case on which the reform on specific aspects of FAO's function is based. A few areas of the largest common concern on the basis of agreement would need to be identified so that further consideration could be given to what ought to be done in these areas. The suggestion that there must be a review simply because 40 years have passed is, we are afraid, rather over-simple and will not bear a close scrutiny. If an institution is broadly efficient, resilient, flexible and useful but 40 years old, what it might be needing is greater financial and operational strength and not overall reform implying that the institution is not good enough.
FAO's goals, priorities and objectives have not been plucked out of thin air. These are based on an international consensus to which all of us were a party at one time or another; they flow from the decisions of the Governing Bodies of the FAO and the decisions of international conferences in the area of food and agriculture and related areas.
A number of proposals have been made in this document which do not imply an overhaul of the Organization but shifts in emphasis on which there can always be more than one view. FAO is an organization with a membership which can and will differ in its approaches and views on the matters coming before it. Considering the shades of perspectives represented here, some may believe that the policy advisory role of the FAO should have greater priority. Policy advice is a part of FAO's mandate and operations. If there are different perceptions about its weight vis-a-vis the decentralization programme what is needed is not a case of reform but a detailed discussion within the Organization to achieve concensus on the weight to be assigned to various programmes.
Environment and depletion of natural resources are the concern of FAO today and if that needs to be more or less it is a matter again not for reform but for discussion. Sometimes there are similar suggestions; namely let us define FAO's priorities more precisely or identify objectives more clearly. Now, if we are to pursue these ideas then we need some information on what are the imprecisions troubling us and what is the lack of clarity which is causing us a problem? If we want more work on forestry and biomagic technology as has been suggested, by all means we can take a view after a debate. But, we are not clear how this makes out a case for reform. Forestry is a very concern of FAO. There is a whole division doing nothing else. Bio technology has been stated to be an area in which there is an explosive potential for growth and the FAO is working on that. In the perception of some of us there has been an appropriate shift in the balance between the global and the decentralized concerns of the FAO and the shift should become even more pronounced and emphasis on TCP and training needs to be sharpened even further. However, this too is only a point of view. It must interact and compete with other viewpoints and be modified or shared more widely through debate rather than raise any issues of reform.
We have suggestions which are very acceptable, for example more active dialogues in the UN fora -- yes, by all means we should have more active dialogues. Improvement in appraisal, evaluation and feedback which have been suggested are integral to FAO operations. By all means let us look at specific proposals. The centralization of the field programme responsibilities has been suggested. Is it always better? There is a big debate always on the relative meeting of decentralization and centralization.
Let us study what is wrong with the current setup. Let us bring up these points more openly and then have a view. There is a suggestion concerning a Field Programme Committee -- There would be an excellent case for this if the Field Programme was being neglected, was not being reviewed and not being looked at. But the Field Programme is not being neglected, it is an important programme. It is being reviewed. The Programme Committee reviews it. The Council reviews it and the Conference reviews it, so we are not very clear as to how the Field Programme Committee -- I am not necessarily saying that the Committee should not be there -- constitutes a case for reform because when you talk about reform you are talking about rejection of certain institutions and mechanisms which either become decrepit, irrelevant or useless and you want to replace them with something much better.
The planning and budget process is a very important area which we are considering. We see the good intentions behind the proposals. We are having some trouble about the proposed decision by consensus. We have the assurance that amendments of the Basic Texts, are not envisaged. Within the UN also there is a reference about establishing a broad area of agreement in the budgetary process. I think we have to keep all these points in view before we commit ourselves because there is a constitutional obligation on the Director-General of the FAO to present a budget at a level which he considers appropriate. We feel that there are not enough reasons to change the situation because if you do that, the constitutional obligation is affected. If the budgetary process is to be changed the decision making process within the budgetary process should not be changed. The role of Director-General should not be attenuated. In the UN also the Secretary General's role has been preserved and the principle of one vote one country has been protected.
There is a suggestion that the Finance Committees should have representatives from the capitals who should be experts in finance and administration. Again, the intention is all right: there is no problem there, but the assumption is that the people who are available here should be excluded because they may not be experts in finance and administration and we do not know if that is a valid assumption. If the countries are to choose who should represent them,need we circumscribe their discretion to choose those experts in finance or administration whom they think can best project their viewpoint. How will it be ensured, as has been suggested, that the experts, the representatives who will be appointed, will be working in their individual capacities when they are appointed by governments?
A very interesting suggestion has been made that the Finance Committee should be reconstituted on the pattern of the CFA to strike a balance between donors and participants. We must confess that we are totally confused and puzzled at this suggestion. We do not see the FAO as an institution of donors and recipients. Everyone here is a donor and everyone here is a recipient. It is an institution which is working for global welfare within the mandate which has been assigned to it. If this kind of suggestion is pursued it could well represent a retreat from multilateralism.
Another suggestion is that there should be retrospective review of the budget of the last five biennia. Again this seems to be a very unusual suggestion. We have heard of reviewing, the budget of the last biennium, that we can understand, but to go back as far as five biennia seems more an exercise in historical archives than anything else. We are not aware of any other institution which has this kind of review and if there is we will be very grateful to be informed about it.
But some of the suggestions which have been made are very interesting and these need to be looked at, for example the suggestions for providing incentives for timely payments of contribution and those for a larger Working Capital Fund. Some create difficulties, like a greater member country control over the transfer of funds, or member country shared financial management. Such suggestions may not be conducive to better management. The Council is really a policy-making body which reflects various national standpoints. It is not a managing body and if this role gets confused we may have a lot of difficulties in operations. There is also a suggestion that proposals should be decided by consensus or by a two-thirds majority. This is changing the decision-making process in the FAO and making it less democratic. What has happened in the WHO, the ILO and the UN needs to be closely kept in view and whatever we decide should be based upon what has been done there and not ignoring it. We are for collective decisions, we are for reconciliation; we are for acting in concert, and we would seriously suggest, with all humility, that it will be better if we can get together and work out, in smaller groups perhaps, as to how we should proceed further in this matter. A suggestion has been made that FAO's work should be complementary to the UN organization. A high-level group would look at the issue. The group will study the work of the other UN organization also, because they may be doing work which the FAO should be doing. So we will have to be very clear and specific about the kind of terms of reference of any review.
We should have a small contact group which can look into the issue before us. We have heard from a distinguished delegation that everything in the garden may not be lovely. This may be true but the garden may also not be all weeds and briars and slithering entities.
We are saying let us look at the garden together with the gardener and try to improve it with our skills and resources in which we have not lost faith, and that the state of the garden is not such that we need outside help of eminent gardeners.
CHAIRMAN: We are now past our time but we have four more countries on the list to speak: Nicaragua, Denmark. Netherlands and New Zealand. We are going to have to carry them over until tomorrow. We would like to spend a limited amount of time tomorrow on item 12 so that we can get to item 13 as promptly as possible. Item 13 is a serious problem for us because we have a specific deadline that we must meet or we will cause inconvenience to the entire Organization. We may well suggest early tomorrow after we go through a little bit, that we suspend for a while, go on to the budget issues which are deadlined and assure that we will come back to item 12, and in the interim we will try to have the sort of informal discussions occurring that the representative of Turkey referred to earlier. This concludes our business for the day but before adjourning the meeting I should give the floor to the delegates of Brazil and Barbados who have asked to exercise the right of reply.
RIGHT OF REPLY
DROIT DE REPONSE
DERECHO DE REPLICA
J. Augusto DE MÉDICIS (Brazil): Very briefly, Mr Chairman, since my delegation has been singled out by the distinguished representative of the U.K. for its "unsensible remarks", may I indicate that we were not referring to the Nordic countries' draft when it mentioned the attemps to disregard the one-country-one-vote principle. We should say however that if an attempt is reflected in another resolution which proposes that the Conference agrees to the approval by consensus of the budget, thus implying the possibility of a veto by one country or group of countries, what my delegation has in mind and would like to emphasize now is the general trend permeating some of the papers
contained in document C 87/30 that favour a privileged role in the decision-making process for major contribution such as "securing adequate representation for the major contributor countries" or "taking into realistic account the views and concerns of donors", in the review of the membership of the Financial Committee for instance. Can I also refer to a statement recently quoted in the international press by a high-ranking officer of a major contributor, in the sense that the whole purpose of this exercise of reforms in the UN system is to give a greater voice in the decisionmaking process to the major contributors. May I finish by saying my own fears are not seen to be so unfounded as a number of other delegations from developing countries refer to the same attempts.
Clifton E. MAYNARD (Barbados): I will detain you and the Commission for half a minute. The distinguished representative of the United Kingdom suggested that I had spoken about the Technical Cooperation Programme. Indeed I never mentioned the Technical Cooperation Programme in any part of my intervention. I have specific reasons for not doing so. I have specific reasons for not going into detail about UNDP. I shall do so at the correct time. I always accept technical assistance from anyone and indeed we do in Barbados, but on this occasion I would like to reject the technical assistance offered by the addition - or the suggested addition - to my intervention which the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom made.
CHAIRMAN: Let me clarify. Tomorrow wé have four countries on the list: Nicaragua, Denmark, Netherlands and New Zealand. We will commence activities tomorrow with the continuation of this discussion. We will try to limit it as best possible because we must proceed to item 13 as quickly as possible too because on item 13 we face a very serious deadline and on that issue we must be finished by Friday and we must have our drafting committee to work by Monday night. We must have a report on Tuesday - we must report back or else we will inconvenience others.
Probably tomorrow after these countries have spoken we will talk about suspending further discussion on that item 12, getting on to the business of item 13, and having met our deadline on that serious issue we can then re-open, and will re-open, further discussion on item 12. So everyone will have an adequate opportunity. You will have your opportunity on item 12 tomorrow and I would recommend to you highly, as I have before, that we start promptly.
The meeting rose at 17.40 hours.
La séance est levée à 17 h 40.
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.40 horas.
