CHAIRMAN: The Secretariat informs me that we now have a quorum. However, the record of never starting anything remotely on time remains unbroken and we are 35 minutes late.
J. DOORENBOS (Netherlands): Reading FAO's constitution already in the introductory lines it becomes clear that the essence of FAO's mandate: "The improvement of agriculture and the condition of rural populations" forms an integrated part with the whole system of natural and physical resources which can enable us to ensure humanity's freedom from hunger. This may seem a little bit of a high-sounding introduction to an item which deals with recent developments in the United Nations system. But as our Canadian colleague has stated, the recommendations and activities of the World Commission on Environment and Development are of main importance for the whole UN system. My delegation wants to promote the idea that these recommendations are followed world-wide and my Government will support activities mentioned in the so-called Brundtland Report.
Why? In the Netherlands, for example, we have experienced for a long time that the relationship between development of agriculture and the countryside on the one hand, and on the other hand, the protection of the natural environment is a fragile but a crucial one. In taking actions and measures for the one, you have to be aware of consequences for the other. This has become very clear in cases such as the lowering of water levels or the manipulation of water resources in general: there are also limits we have to respect in the use of herbicides and pesticides and in the reduction of the surface of land covered with trees, and so on. When the population is growing and the agricultural use of land is getting more intensive, the need for planning of the countryside is more obvious. This is the case now in many parts of the world. It is clear that within the responsibilities of national governments to design development policies, the environmental issue has to be included.
As was agreed in the ministerial meeting of the OECD last May in Paris, environmental concerns have to be given a high priority in government policies in order to safeguard and improve the quality of life as well as to preserve the resource base needed for sustainable global economic, and thus also and specifically agricultural, development. In the field of physical planning this means in particular the way and means of how agricultural activities are related to other functions of the rural areas.
My delegation wants to make it clear that a careful tuning-in of the different consequences of changes in rural areas which result from exploitation and reclamation of natural areas should also take into account the environmental perspective. An old saying, which we surely all know from the recent past, says that there is "only one earth". Relating this to the above-mentioned Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future, my delegation - together with the delegations of Norway and Canada but also, as we have heard, together with a large number of delegations in this meeting - believes strongly in the specific tasks of FAO in this regard. The possibilities of agricultural development to contribute to our common goals - that is to say, the raising of levels of nutrition and standards of living of the global population - depend on the essential ecological integrity of the production systems. My delegation is completely aware of the complexity of the problems concerned. Therefore only international action within multilateral frame-works can make a successful approach.
In this respect FAO is amongst, and together with other international organizations, the foremost bodies to deal with the relationship between agriculture and the environment. It is the opinion of several delegations in this hall that in the middle of so many difficult problems with which this Conference is dealing, this issue surely will get the support of a great majority. Trusting in this, the Netherlands calls upon a broad support, which in good FAO tradition means consensus, to adopt the resolution on Item 20.2.
Nils Ragnar KAMSVAC (Norway): Since our Prime Minister, Ms Gro Harlem Brundtland, chaired the World Commission on Environment and Development, it is with particular pleasure that the Norwegian delegation has noted the wide support the Report and its conclusions has received during the discussions on many of the agenda items of this Conference. This support clearly illustrates the Report's relevance for the work of FAO.
The ecological crisis that threatens not only human well-being but even the life support systems of the earth, challenges governments and people everywhere to create new approaches to the process of economic development. The World Commission introduces the concept of sustainable growth. The application of the concept to the effort to ensure food security requires systematic attention to the renewal of natural resources. It requires a holistic approach focused on ecosystems at national, regional and global levels, with coordinated land use and careful planning of water usage and forest exploitation. The world's agricultural systems were built for a smaller, more fragmented world. In the future new realities will require systems that focus as much on people as they do on technology, as much on resources as on production and as much on the long term as on the short term.
The questions raised in the Report are thus touching upon central goals in FAO's activity. In that connection we would like to commend the work FAO has already carried out in this field so far. We note that FAO in general concurs with the main thrust of the Report and the analysis it contains.
The Report of the World Commission is now being discussed in the United Nations General Assembly. The outcome of those deliberations will serve as guidelines for the further work within the Report in the United Nations specialized agencies. The proposed resolution you now have before you could thus be seen as a prologue for the further work with the Commission's Report within FAO. The wording is therefore general and is meant as an expression of the wide support the Report has received during the Conference. If we are to be able to build a world without hunger, as is FAO's noble goal, we have to be able to establish the sustainable growth the Commission is advocating. We therefore hope that the resolution will meet with unanimous support, thus giving environmental questions an even more prominent place in the work of the FAO.
Václav DOBES (Czechoslovakia) It falls to me to give an appreciation of the excellent introduction on this item by Mr Regnier. According to the view of my delegation, document C 87/9 and Sup.l which have been worked out by the Secretariat gave a good survey of the important facts in the work of the United Nations in relation to FAO. However, these documents were published already seven and two months ago. They have missed some events to which FAO should pay extraordinary attention. I propose therefore that the Report on the Twenty-fourth Conference should include information on the United Nations International Conference on the Problems of the Relation Between Development and Disarmament and the conclusions of this Conference.
My delegation believes that all the FAO member countries, and especially developing countries, share the view that the discussions and the outcomes of that Conference confirmed the realistic possibility of releasing enormous economic resources for the development programmes, if the governments of all countries solve the problems of their relationships thoroughly through peaceful cooperation and understanding. The above-mentioned international Conference was certainly one of the most important events of the year within the United Nations system, and it deserves mentioning in the Report on our Conference.
Let me now add some partial comments on some parts of the text of the present document. In the chapter Operational Activities for Development, in paragraphs 6 and 95, the words "efforts through field activities to promote the role of women" are included among the important subjects. Although the document mentions some sessions concerning this problem, it would undoubtedly be interesting for the Conference and the Council to know the number and extent of the projects associated with this problem within the Fourth Programme Cycle of the UNDP for the 1987-91 period, so far as the programmes executed by FAO are concerned.
As for the role of the United Nations resident coordinators, I would like to draw attention to the fact that with respect to the unification of the Regional Bureau for Arab states and the European Programme in UNDP headquarters, it would be very useful to make efforts to strengthen the European coordinator role and the European UNDP office in Geneva, especially where the regional European programmes are concerned. As far as we know, there is a danger that, unlike as in other agencies, there will be no European regional programme operated by the FAO after 1988. The number of agricultural projects in the European IPF countries is also close to a minimum.
As to the data contained in 8 16, we should like to express concern about the slow course of the programming: sixty UNDP Country Programmes for 1987 (some of them still in a preparatory stage) is too small a number to record at the end of the first current programme year. We would also appreciate information on the projected proportions of FAO involvement in the Country Programmes of the Fourth cycle, i.e, information on the tendency: are the number of agricultural development projects, and the money allocated to them, expected to increase for the FAO, or decline?
Our delegation believes that FAO will use the findings from the Review of the Efficiency of the Administrative and Financial Functioning of the United Nations, from the joint consultations of the Executive Heads of the main agencies with the UN Secretary General, and from the suggestions submitted at the sessions of the supreme bodies of other agencies and contained in the many proposals, including those aimed at the improvement of the administrative structure of the FAO.
I would also like to point out Czechoslovakia's interest and wish that FAO's relationship with UNIDO, the newly converted specialized agency, should develop effectively especially in cooperation in the field of biotechnologies which are expected in the last decade of this century to play an important role in the world agricultural production. The complementarity of both agencies in the development of the foodstuff industry, in the production of commercial fertilizers and pesticides, in the wood-working industry and other segments is also deemed necessary.
In conclusion, our delegation would like to appreciate FAO's interest in the problems of the environment and to point out, in this context, the new initiatives of the Czechoslovak delegation at the UNO General Assembly which is now holding its session. We believe that this year's session of the General Assembly will bring about new ideas concerning environmental problems and that the FAO will be able to implement these ideas in its work programme.
A.K.M. Fazley RABBI (Bangladesh): We also thank Mr Regnier for the presentation of the agenda item.
We know that developments in the United Nations System as a whole have both a direct and indirect bearing on each of the international organizations. FAO cannot but maintain close links with other sister organizations. In this regard, we believe that FAO had been doing its job faithfully and efficiently. The documents on the subject prepared since before the Ninetieth Council Session in November 1986 have been excellent presentations of the developments in the UN and other international agencies. The Director-General and the Secretariat deserve our commendation for this.
Although the document C 87/9 was considered in the Ninety-second Session of the Council, I would like to dwell upon some of the items contained in it as well as in the supplementary paper. First of all, we must express our full satisfaction for the existing good and cordial relationship between FAO and other international organizations. We notice that FAO maintains close liaison with and extends cooperation and assistance to multi-disciplinary activities of the world community, be it UNGA, ECOSOC, GATT, UNCTAD, UNIDO, UNDP, Conference on Drug Abuse, disaster relief assistance, women and development, science and technology development, Environment Programme, etc., etc.
I would like to comment on some of the items/activites as contained in the documents on the agenda item. These are: (a) From document C 87/9 it appears that there is room for further improvement in the coordination between UNDP Resident Coordinators and FAO Representatives; (b) Regarding the relationship with UNIDO, we would like to know the present position of the draft FAO/UNIDO formal relationship agreement; (c) We appreciate the Director-General's personal initiatives in attending the UNCTAD VII Conference and hope that FAO would continue its endeavours in the implementation of the Integrated Programme for Commodities and in the successful negotiations in the Uruguay Round, particularly on agriculture and tropical products; (d) We are appreciative of the FAO activities concerning women in development and promotion of TCDC and ECDC. We hope that FAO will continue to cooperate with the High-Level Committee on TCDC as well as the UNDP Special Unit for TCDC; (e) Lastly, I would like to refer to the subject of biotechnology which has emerged as a potential input for increased agricultural and forestry production, food and non-food processing, as well as animal and human health. Genetic engineering and biotechnology may open up new methods of eradication of hunger and malnutrition from the world, for which FAO has been working for more than 40 years. The FAO, we think, should actively associate itself for collaboration with concerned sister UN organizations and other inter-governmental and expert groups to examine the policy and technical issues of biotechnology.
McDonald Phillip BENJAMIN (Dominica): I will limit my intervention to the aspect of relations with international financial institutions. As we are all aware, the World Bank is the largest lender for agriculture. We note with concern the dramatic drop in lending for agriculture in the period of this last fiscal year, 1987, which accounts for 17 percent of total bank lending in contrast to 29 percent in the fiscal year 1986. Traditionally the bankers lend roughly slightly over 30 percent for agriculture.
Mr Chairman, I would like to invite your attention to the fact that it is not only the volume of resource flows that is significant but equally significant is the question of targeting of these flows, for example towards food crops and towards small farmers.
As is well known, the World Bank has just gone through this big organizational reform, and this is pointed out in this document. One of the consequences of this is a temporary drop in the levels of lending, levels of appraisals in this current fiscal year.
As far as I am aware, also with regard to the Asian Development Bank, the lending for agriculture decreased because irrigation as a main field of lending suffered reverses because countries in the region would not borrow because of the concerns about the prices of rice.
I would like to make one reference to the question of the possible role of FAO in the consortia meetings in Paris. These meetings provide a very fertile ground where FAO could make a very significant contribution on aspects of the agricultural sector, and this sector always looms very large in the Paris discussions.
I happen to have been present in Bangkok when the United States introduced a very bold, and proposed a very bold, initiative for the Asian Development Bank to lend directly to the private sector without government guarantees. My delegation is very pleased to see that this initiative is bearing fruit and that this method of lending has been introduced on a modest scale. Now that this door has been opened for the industry sector, is it too ambitious for us to hope that this door can also be opened to the agriculture sector for lending to agriculture-based groups, such as producer associations, fertilizer distribution agencies, marketing agencies and so on, and peasant associations. As a matter of fact this could well provide a very great stimulant to larger private sector involvement in agricultural development in these countries.
Lastly, we are very pleased to see that the Director-General of FAO has signed a cooperation agreement with the President of the Caribbean Development Bank. We consider this a very positive step forward for the region.
A. SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Je serai très bref, bien qu'il s'agisse d'un domaine particulièrement vaste dont il est difficile de déterminer les contours. Aussi, suite à l'intervention d'un de mes collègues, me limiterai-je à l'examen du rôle de la FAO sur le plan opérationnel dans le système des Nations Unies et je parlerai quelque peu d'un problème dont on pourrait parler à l'infini (dont on parle depuis des années et dont on parlera encore pendant des années) celui do la coordination.
J'ai lu avec beaucoup d'intérêt le rapport de Monsieur Kurt Jansson au sujet des activités opéra-tionnelles des Nations Unies. Il fait le point de la situation avec beaucoup de réalisme et de compétence, et après une lecture approfondie de ce document, on se pose la question de savoir si le problème se situe du côté de la FAO. Compte tenu des remarques faites par M. Jansson, il ne me semble pas que la FAO ait fondamentalement à modifier ses approches opérationnelles, qui ne font guère l'objet de critiques. Et l'on peut se demander si le problème ne se situe pas ailleurs. Les conclusions de ce rapport mettent le doigt sur un certain nombre de vices du système, qui ne se situent pas dans cette enceinte; en effet, comme on a déjà eu l'occasion de le dire, un certain nombre de choses ont été déclarées lors de cette Conférence qui pourraient utilement être déclarées dans d'autres enceintes, dans d'autres Conseils, notamment à New York.
Le problème de la coordination est vaste et complexe et pose un certain nombre de questions de relations humaines, de relations entre agences, et je me demande si la première chose à faire ne serait pas d'essayer à court terme, de manière très pratique et opérationnelle, sous l'égide de la FAO (conformément à ses statuts et aux buts de l'Organisation tels que soulignés par notre collègue des Pays-Bas) je me demande donc s'il ne serait pas opportun d'essayer de regrouper l'ensemble des problèmes agricoles au sein desquels s'insèrent les programmes d'aide alimentaire.
11 serait anormal de parler de coordination de manière tout à fait générale sans s'occuper de problèmes pratiques et concrets de coordination au niveau de Rome. Rome, en effet, est le siège de trois organisations que vous connaissez tous: la FAO, le Programme Mondial et le FIDA. Ne pourrait-on pas, dans un premier stade et avec le concours de la FAO, arriver à une bonne articulation entre ces trois organisations qui poursuivent le même but, celui de l'amélioration du sort des pauvres et des démunis dans le Tiers Monde.
C'est, me semble-t-il, un bon exemple de coordination car on peut parler à l'infini de la coordination d'une manière générale dans le système des Nations Unies, on peut parler de coordination dans la FAO, l'ONUDI, l'Agence internationale de l'énergie atomique, mais ici, sur place, à Rome, se posent peut-être un certain nombre de problèmes. Notre Conseil, nos instances pourraient peut-être faire un certain nombre de suggestions pratiques et opérationnelles; et quand on parle de réformes, ce sont plutôt de petites réformes, pratiques, concrètes dont il devrait s'agir. Plutôt que de vouloir réformer tout un système, essayons de rendre notre Organisation plus opérationnelle et commençons peut-être par l'Organisation qui s'occupe de l'ensemble des problèmes agricoles. Il a été dit à d'innombrables reprises - et tout le monde en est d'accord - que l'aide alimentaire doit s'insérer dans une perspective de développement. Il est clair que les organismes qui ont ces missions en charge doivent se coordonner entre eux.
Telles sont les quelques réflexions que je me permets de faire dans le cadre de ce débat. Je n'ai abordé qu'une toute petite partie des problèmes. Mais s'agissant des problèmes de la coordination, j'ai souvent entendu dire que la FAO ne les affrontait pas alors qu'elle devrait s'en préoccuper. Il me semble qu'au niveau romain, nous pourrions peut-être, sur des problèmes précis et concrets, régler certaines questions de coordination. Ainsi aurions-nous fait un pas en avant.
Gerhard DIETERLE (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (original language German): My delegation thanks the Secretariat for the documents C 87/9 and C 87/9/Sup. 1, the content of which we fully agree with. We are particularly pleased that issues that have not been dealt with before are being discussed here, in particular the improvement of coordination especially at a time when there are problems arising. In addition we are grateful that the role of the resident coordinators as in decision 32.1.97 and 74, which was approved by the General Assembly are fully supported here. As has been shown previously, the cooperation and the division of work between the resident coordinator, on the one hand, and the FAO representative, on the other side, is working satisfactorily, as is the valuation of reports from the various FAO member countries and the reports of the resident
coordinators and the contacts between the representatives of UNDP and FAO which are strongly emphasized. We assume that this cooperation will be extended, that it will be possible for the FAO and the UNDP representatives to work together and that the relationship will not be just satisfactory but good. We are particularly pleased that attempts are being made that the work of the FAO country representative should be coordinated with that of the resident coordinators in order to achieve further harmonization and we feel that this is an ongoing process which should be strengthened.
In paragraph 25 of document C 87/9/Sup. 1 UNDP funding is mentioned. In the original text of the resolution 87/10, paragraph 27 refers to, it talks of the United Nations system of funding which emphasizes the role of the resident coordinator.
In paragraph 28 of document C 87/9 about the efficiency of the United Nations system, we feel that this is positive. We believe that it is important that the whole system of the United Nations should be made more effective in order to free budgetary resources for operational purposes.
We are pleased that the Consultative Committee on Substantive Issues in document A/41/49 has reported favourably on the proposal for the annual meeting of the Director-General with the other organizations under the chairmanship of the Secretary-General and of the special agencies is something that we think should be encouraged.
Thirteen years ago at the World Food Conference in 1974 we suggested something analogous. Wo emphasized the execution in C 87/9, the call for a special session of the United Nations on the critical economic situation in Africa. At the beginning of the 11th legislative period Federal Chancellor Kohl on the 18th March this year made a similar statement. Africa is a very important area for our development policy. They need our support in order to be able to solve their political and economic problems themselves. The Federal Republic will continue to support them.
The activities relating to the misuse of drugs received our full support.
We think that the activities within the United Nations system in trade under UNCTAD VII to be particularly important, in particular paragraphs 66 - 71, and in the Uruguay Round on multilateral trade negotiations in paragraphs 62 - 69, we would emphasize the proposals of the United Nations for the Early Warning System in the case of a nuclear accident and for international agreement on aid to be provided in such a case.
We also think that the activities of the United Nations in environmental protection are very important.
We think that the United Nations is a vital forum for international politics which we. continue to support.
Angus Edward MACDONALD (Australia): I would like to stress at the outset Australia's full commitment to coordinated operation of the United Nations system for development and we urge FAO to apply sufficient resources and priorities to this issue to effect genuine and constructive changes in policy and practice in the United Nations system.
FAO's stated commitment to and involvement in the United Nations system activities to achieve improved coordination in operational activities for development is encouraging. It reflects a clear perception, particularly at field level with key development issues and hence effect projects that often rely on cross-section analysis and implementation.
Some key issues on coordination have been raised by the recent review undertaken by the United Mations Director-General for international economic cooperation, and some of these are discussed in the document before us. C 87/9. I would like now to refer to a number of these issues.
On the value of the United Nations system, the UN DIEC Review shows that recipients do not measure the terms of United Nations system aid solely in terms of volume of funds but appreciate advisory planning and coordination functions.
On the role of the resident coordinator, we do disagree with FAO's assertion in paragraph 10 that problems of UNDP-FAO cooperation in the field are generally the result of personal factors and do not reflect institutional problems. To our mind the situation is the reverse. Personality is important because there are no institutional obligations for coordination. We agree that coordination relies on goodwill and the personalities involved and this point has been emphasized by the UNDP's Conference on Coordination that was held in Stockholm in 1985 but we see a key problem arising when the rank of the UNDP resident representative, who is the resident coordinator, is lower than that of other agency representatives. The UN DIEC report urges an inter-agency agreement on the role and authority of the resident coordinator which Australia fully supports. We have previously stated our support that the proposal of the position of the resident coordinator be rotated around agency heads provided competence and merit are fully taken into account. We are interested in the UN DIEC proposal that a separate resident coordinator office with staff be seconded from the field missions of agencies. The main reservation here is that UNDP field staff in some posts are overloaded with operational responsibilities which inhibit their capacity to undertake their mandated coordination role.
On the United Nations system programming, we believe broader United Nations programming would result in greater coherence and effectiveness of projects selection, design and implementation, as well as simpler and improved recipient country coordination. Specialist agencies, including FAO, have extensive technical operational and analytical skills which should be offered in this process. We consider the joint programming should be undertaken in selected countries on an experimental basis with a view to developing replicable programming models or arrangements for a range of circumstances. The key mechanism in the process is a constructive involvement of all relevant donors, including agencies in coordination meetings, particularly the UNDP roundtable conference and the World Bank's consultative groups.
On the issue of co-location of field officers as far as practicable, United Nations system field officers should be located to facilitate coordination. We believe informal and frequent contacts facilitate relationships.
Due regard should be given to recipient country views of course, although as far as possible minimizing bureaucratic competition for development funds and maximizing internal governmental coordination of a coherent maximum development plan. The issue which is of some concern is that of agency salesmanship or the promotion of sectoral projects within the relevant ministries which disregard national priorities rather than provide objective advice. Recipient countries frequently complain of the complexity of aid coordination because of the diverse procedures, approval criterion, and programming cycles of the multiplicity of donors with which they deal. We believe that it is essential that continuing efforts be made towards simplification and harmonization of operational procedures. We believe it would be useful for the UN System to develop joint mechanisms to feed back on evaluation and other implementation issues in this context.
As regards nutrition, Australia strongly supports efforts to focus coordinated attention on nutrition as outlined in paragraphs 43, 45 and 46 of document C 87/9.
Finally, Australia supports requests that FAO strengthen its coordination mechanism for assistance in disaster situations. We recognize that special programmes of economic assistance for a country should be of limited duration, established and reviewed through the field offices of the UN System. We recognize UNDRO's vital role as a focal point in the UN System of disaster reporting and disaster relief coordination, but affirm that this role should be confined to emergency phase with a smooth transition to other UN agencies for the rehabilitation and reconstruction phase.
CHAIRMAN: The Secretariat has asked the Chair to announce that Commission III, now meeting in the Plenary Hall needs a quorum to adopt a Resolution by a vote. We would ask that those countries represented here which have an extra representative, to please ask one of your members to assist them in meeting their quorum.
Ms Anna Liise KORHONEN (Finland): The Finnish delegation has studied the background documents to the agenda item 20.2, namely, C 87/9-Sup.l with interest. This statement deals only with those documents. Both documents give an excellent summary of international conferences which have taken place recently. For those delegations which have not been able to receive reports from their national delegation to those conferences, the two documents may be useful. On the other hand, to delegations who are familiar with the results of the said conferences, these documents are of less importance.
The main problem my delegation has with the two papers is the lack of analysis ascertained in them when the result of most of these international conferences are described. In order that the FAO Conference would benefit from the reports, they should include a better assessment of action required by the FAO. Also, more important international inter-governmental meetings are reported with the same style as smaller governmental and inter-secretariat meetings. No recommendations to this Conference emerge from these descriptive reports. Therefore, my delegation wonders what is the usefulness of having them in their presnet format. However, Finland considers it important that major international events of interest to the FAO are reported to this Conference. Next time the report should be more analytical, not descriptive. It should point out the important results for the consideration of this Organization, or proposals made by the Secretariat on how to proceed in these matters. It is equally important that the reports better explain what line the FAO has supported in the international meetings. Often a problem-oriented presentation would be useful instead of a descriptive factual account of activities.
As regards the present document, my delegation would like to comment on the part which deals with the operational activities for development which my delegation finds useful. The information on the cooperation between the Resident Coordinator and the FAO Representative are reported to be satisfactory. This is something my delegation welcomes.
The ad hoc survey of FAO Representatives pointed out that periodic coordination meetings at the country level are not held on a regular basis in all countries. The report also states that by bilateral donors and other multilateral institutions, such as the World Bank and Regional Development Banks, should participate in these meetings if the governments so wish. For her part, Finland has often expressed the view that exchange of information with the Resident Coordinator is useful and has provided information on Finnish bilateral aid to these representatives. Likewise, Finland has called for closer coordination between the UN operational system, agencies and the international financing institutions at the country level. The FAO Representative should also actively promote the further use of this mechanism.
This point in the report before us can also be pursued further in the context of the functioning of the UN System in the field of economic and social sectors, and this is something my delegation intends to do.
My delegation has noted with satisfaction that in the future FAO intends to continue to explore thoroughly with governements the most suitable location for FAO field offices and that UNDP premises are given priority in this regard. Likewise, the simplification and harmonization of procedures, and the standardization of evaluation and related reporting procedures of the agencies is a positive development and should also be pursued vigorously in the future. In this context I should like to mention that my delegation fully agreed with the statements made by the Canadian and Australian delegations with regard to coordination issues.
E.V. WADE-BROWN (United Kingdom): The delegation of the United Kingdom intervened on the substance of this agenda item at the Ninety-second Session of the Council and we are content that our views remain in the verbatim records of that meeting. I have now asked for the floor merely to say that my delegation would like to be wholly associated with the thought-provoking intervention made by the delegation of Canada.
Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): My delegation appreciates the reports the Secretariat has provided under this agenda item. They give us all an idea of how the various activities of the UN System fit together. They also give members an idea of what developments FAO
consider important. On the other hand, my delegation agrees with the comments made by Finland to the effect that unimportant (or less important) meetings are given similar attention to the more important ones, and to the fact that there is a lack of analysis in the document.
I will address my remarks to two issues. First, programme quality and effectiveness and secondly, coordination. For my Government concern about programme quality and effectiveness has been a major issue across the multilateral system for some years now. We are struck by the fact that, despite detailed information on the financing situation of many organizations and the UN System reform effort, this concern that the quality of multilateral programmes leaves something to be desired. It does not quite show through. It touches the smallest programmes such as ÜNFPA which has just undergone an extensive assessment, and UN Volunteers where a major assessment of the Programme's effectiveness is underway. This gets only a passing mention in paragraph 34, document C 87/9/Sup.l. It touches also some of the largest programmes, for example, the Asian Development Bank where a high-level group will conduct an assessment; the African Bank where improved country programming was the key issue in the last replenishment; the inter-American Development Bank where programme quality was also a fundamental issue in the replenishment discussions, and the World Food Programme which has had a major review on its management, programme and project review process. Basically, what we are seeing is a questioning by many of whether these programmes, or the programmes of FAO for that matter, are achieving their potential and effectively responding to the critical needs. We are also finding that while some feel it is wrong, offensive event to pose such questions, others find the questions a challenge to see how much has been learned through past experience and how operation can be improved. The jury is still out in the Malaysia Room considering how this Conference should respond to this challenge.
As regards coordination, FAO has been diligent, if not comprehensive in reporting the issue as dealt with in ECOSOC and FAO Council. The report neglected to point out that ECOSOC had requested the Director-General, for development in international economic cooperation in 1986, to undertake some in-country field visits and prepare some case studies. That report referred to as the "Jansson Report" mentioned in this morning's introduction, is now out and under consideration in the General Assembly Second Committee. It makes very interesting reading (as others have noted) and contains a number of recommendations which my Government believe merit serious consideration by members and agencies, for example, the increased use of joint programming by UN agencies; the signing of inter-agency agreements at the country level; the role of resident coordinators with greater emphasis on programming on a sectorial basis, as opposed to a project-by-project basis. No doubt there are recommendations that FAO, or we for that matter, might not favour. On the other hand, we should not use these as grounds to dismises a report that lays out country level problems with such clarity that we are only fooling ourselves if we continue to ignore them. My delegation also found interesting how little mention FAO made of the discussions in the UNDP Governing Council's Working Group in which FAO has participated for about three years, or of the discouragingly accurate coordination paper considered and praised by the UNDP Governing Council. FAO has had ample opportunity to hear the real problems of coordination and programme implementation and to take initiatives to respond in more than just the statements that we hear in New York. We urge FAO to become a constructive participant in these discussions joining in efforts to find solutions to tough, but not intractible problems. My delegation appreciates the report of instructions given to FAO Res. Reps. cited in paragraph 9 of document C 87/9. We noted these publicly at the UNDP Governing Council as an indication of FAO's increased commitment to cooperation and coordination. However, it takes action and steps to show the way, or to set an example, sometimes just in small ways. The Jansson Report stated that a major agency headquarters instructed its field representatives not to provide case study missions with information on the cost of field representation.
My delegation would like to be reassured that this major agency was not FAO and we would like to receive the information that was provided to that mission. Along the same lines, while we agree that personal relationships are key to cooperation in the field, my delegation, like others who have spoken before me, believes that chalking all problems up to imponderable personality differences is taking the easy way out by admitting defeat ex ante. My delegation also wishes that the FAO report had taken note of the guidelines on coordination issued last year by the OECD TAC High-level Meeting of aid agency heads on coordination. More importantly, we hope FAO will call them to the attention of its Resident Representatives, as has the UNDP. These guidelines see the recipient government at the centre of coordination, highlight the need for a clear set of investment priorities, including investment in human resources and institutional development through technical assistance programmes like FAO's, and stress the importance of developing host government capacity. The guidelines have been received with great appreciation by developing country officials responsible for coordinating and planning the use of external assistance.
Ahmed S. HARIRI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): A number of delegations have levelled quite clear criticisms against this and have said there is a lack of coordination between FAO and other UN agencies. They have really upbraided the organization of my country here. Now this is somewhat confusing and it is not at all justified regarding the lack of coordination between FAO and other agencies. We feel that this can not be done unilaterally. There has to be a number of parties involved in this.
Ugo SESSI (Italie): Je voudrais remercier avant tout le Directeur du Bureau pour les affaires interagences, de la présentation des deux documents qu'il nous a faite ce matin; nous les avons trouvés intéressants. Et bien que certaines critiques aient été faites par quelques délégationé sur d'autres informations qu'on pouvait y insérer, surtout dans la partie analyse, nous croyons qu'ils constituant une bonne base de discussion. Ils peuvent bien sûr être améliorés, mais ils sont quand même très valables en ce qui concerne la concision des informations fournies et l'ampleur des problèmes.
Je ne vais pas examiner le problème de la coordination, plusieurs délégations y ont fait allusion. Mais je dois dire que nous partageons bien sûr plusieurs des soucis qui y ont été exprimés. Je par-tage entièrement ce qui vient d'être déclaré il y a quelques instants par l'Ambassadeur de la Belgique en ce qui concerne la coordination ici, dans le pays hôte. Mais il faut quand même reconnaître qu'il y a sûrement eu une amélioration de la coordination au sein des Nations Unies.
Je crois qu'il faut reconnaître le rôle positif que la FAO a joué, tel que les informations qui nous sont fournies le montrent, notamment dans la coordination en ce qui concerne les rapports avec les représentants résidents du PNUD qui restent le vrai moteur de toute l'action des Nations Unies dans les pays bénéficiaires.
Un effort a été fait, et bien qu'il reste encore beaucoup de choses à faire pour améliorer la situation, je crois que l'apport que la FAO a fourni dans cette oeuvre n'est pas négligeable.
Je me limiterai à mentionner quelques secteurs ou parties de ces rapports qui méritent selon nous une attention particulière.
En ce qui concerne les informations qui nous sont fournies sur la CNUCED, nous encourageons la FAO à poursuivre les travaux qui sont en cours à la CNUCED sur les produits de base, et je crois que la FAO peut apporter des informations valables et très importantes, surtout dans le secteur des produits tropicaux, des fibres dures, des bananes, des bois tropicaux.
Nous avons noté le rôle positif de la FAO dans les négociations commerciales multilatérales d'Uruguay. Nous encourageons le Secrétariat de la FAO à participer à ces travaux.
Nous avons pris note avec intérêt qu'elle a obtenu le statut d'observateur dans deux des groupes qui s'occupent des négociations dans le secteur agricole; et nous voudrions que le Secrétariat nous dise si elle a aussi obtenu le statut d'observateur dans le 3ème groupe, c'est-à-dire celui des produits de base des ressources naturelles, à propos desquels on nous dit qu'une décision devait être prise en octobre 1987.
Comme je l'ai déclaré lors de l'intervention que j'ai faite sur le budget, nous approuvons l'effort qui a été fait par la FAO dans le secteur des investissements. Nous avons pris bonne note des informations qui nous sont fournies dans les paragraphes 101 à 105 du document, sur l'effort fait par la FAO dans le secteur des investissements. Nous croyons que c'est un secteur dans lequel beaucoup pourrait être encore fait, surtout concernant la collaboration avec le PNUD, et en particulier avec les fonds d'équipement des Nations Unies, ainsi bien sûr qu'avec le FIDA.
En ce qui concerne enfin le PNUD, nous avons noté le rapport qui nous est présenté sur la session du Conseil d'administration. Ayant moi-même participé à ces travaux, je voulais signaler que parmi les décisions qui ont été prises et qui sont mentionnées ici, il y en a une qui n'est cependant pas men-tionnée et qui est celle du renforcement du groupe consultatif entre agences pour les achats; ce qu'on appelle en jargon onusien - inter-agency procurement service unit - qui va également faire l'objet l'année prochaine d'une étude très poussée de restructuration. Nous croyons que ces groupes effectuent un travail considérable à l'intérieur du système des Nations Unies. Et nous serions très désireux de savoir si la FAO bénéficie des travaux de ces groupes, et dans quel secteur.
Nous croyons que les travaux que le groupe consultatif effectue dans le secteur des achats des marchés internationaux de biens et services, en faveur des agences des Nations Unies, sont très importants; de même qu'ils sont très importants concernant la dissémination des informations au bénéfice des pays qui peuvent participer. Vous savez que c'est un secteur très délicat auquel plusieurs délégations sont très sensibles.
Et je crois quo la FAO aurait tout à gagner d'une participation accrue aux travaux du groupe consultatif, et de l'usage des informations qui sont fournies.
K. N. ARDHANAREESWARAN (India): My delegation would like to compliment the Secretariat on the excel-lent presentation, and also the very valuable documents they have circulated. In particular my delegation is interested in the recommendations of the World Commission on the Environment. This Com-mission has made far-reaching recommendations. The Commission has introduced the concept of sustainable growth. The Commission has also highlighted the need for protecting the environment. We are concerned with the indiscriminate use of pesticides. We are worried about the fall in ground water levels. We are seriously concerned with the over-exploitation of land and water resources, so we fully share the anxiety of the Commission with regard to the environment, and we strongly hope that FAO will accept the recommendations of the Commission and will frame the future strategy for agricultural development keeping in view the recommendations of this Commission. We hope it will be possible to introduce land and water use planning, in particular for ecologically fragile zones.
My delegation is fully in agreement with the recommendations of the World Commission on the Environment. We appreciate the initiative taken by FAO in pursuing the recommendations of the World Commission on the Environment. My delegation sincerely hopes that FAO will frame future programmes keeping in view the recommendations of the Commission.
My delegation fully supports the initiative of FAO in the field of nutrition. My delegation hopes that it will be possible for FAO to pay coordinated attention to problems relating to nutrition.
We also appreciate the action taken by FAO in the Seventh Session of UNCTAD and also in the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. In the developing countries agreement on commodity trade is of vital importance. We strongly support the initiative taken by FAO in securing a fair deal for the developing countries in the matter of commodity trade.
We fully support the initiative of FAO in improving the role of women in development.
My delegation notes with appreciation the action of FAO in accepting the role of Programme Resident Coordinators. We hope this will improve the coordination and also the cooperation among UN agencies and it will also improve the delivery of services and development programmes to various countries. In particular, we would like to emphasize close coordinations between FAO and the UNDP. My delegation hopes that the cooperation and coordination between the two agencies will improve.
With regard to location of field offices, we support the recommendation made in the document. We hope that the host countries will be consulted before a final decision is taken.
We commend the efforts of FAO in the simplification and harmonization of operational procedures. We hope these efforts will go a long way in bringing about effective coordination and improving the delivery of services. We also commend the efforts of FAO in standardizing evaluation procedures. In conclusion, we support the initiative of the FAO in bringing about the effective coordination between the various United Nations agencies.
Adel Helmy EL-SARKI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): My delegation has looked at this document and we would like to commend what has been done by the Organization within UNCTAD and also regarding its cooperation with other United Nations agencies. I should also like to congratulate the FAO for its participation in a number of United Nations meetings. I think we should commend the efforts undertaken by FAO, because these have been quite considerable.
My country is interested in the environment, and we would praise what has been done by the Organization in that area. Similarly, we would approve what it has done by showing its desire to involve women in development. Also we should like to congratulate the FAO for what is stated in paragraph 41 relating to the setting up of a high-level committee to monitor agricultural development in Africa. We think we should give full weight to supporting the African countries so that it should be possible for agriculture to be developed in that continent. We also give full support to the efforts undertaken in respect of coordination between organizations and agencies. We would like to thank you for having submitted to us this excellent document.
CHAIRMAN: Now being distributed to member countries is the draft Report of Commission IT, Part 2. Before proceeding with that we will take a break so that member countries can have some time to read the contents and reflect on them before we proceed to discuss them. We have throe more countries to speak on this topic and then the Secretariat will respond.
Ms Susan ULBAEK (Denmark): The Danish delegation did not intend to intervene on this subject. We found the paper submitted very descriptive and not really useful for discussion. However, I should like to reiterate Denmark's support of the draft resolution on FAO activities related to the World Commission on Environment and Development. We agree that this is an area to which FAO should pay increasing attention in coming years, as the debate at this Conference has indicated.
While I have the floor, the Danish delegation would like to support what was said by Canada, Australia, Finland and the United States on FAO's efforts in the area of coordination. We would also like FAO to more profoundly fulfill the recommendations concerning the coordination of operational activities within the United Nations system as spelt out in numerous resolutions, especially the UN General Assembly resolution 41/171 and ECOSOC resolution 87/11.
Ababacar Waly NDIAYE (Senegal): Permettez-moi tout d'abord de remercier M. Régnier de la présentation très claire qu'il a faite du document C 87/9.
Beaucoup de pays africains, parmi lesquels le Sénégal, ont initié des politiques d'autosuffisance alimentaire. Pour ce qui concerne le Sénégal, après trois années d'expérience de cette politique, il est apparu que l'un des obstacles fondamentaux à la réalisation de l'objectif d'autosuffisance alimentaire à terme se situe à l'aval de la production. Il s'agit de la transformation industrielle et semi-industrielle des produits céréaliers pour choisir des produits finis qui peuvent être livrés à la consommation à des prix acceptables.
C'est dans ce contexte que la délégation sénégalaise tient à encourager une meilleure coopération entre la FAO et l'ONUDI afin d'aider les pays africains à lever cet obstacle majeur à une sécurité alimentaire.
La délégation sénégalaise tient aussi à suggérer que la coopération entre la FAO et l'OMM soit renforcée pour que la FAO soit davantage impliquée dans l'exécution du projet AGLINET, particulièrement durant la phase opérationnelle de ce projet.
Angel BARBERO MARTIN (España): La delegación española se congratula al observar en el documento presentado que ha avanzado de una forma efectiva la coordinación entro la FAO y otros organismos internacionales.
Querríamos hacer especial mención de los aspectos medio ambientales en los cuales para nosotros esta coordinación es fundamental y al mismo tiempo también quisiéramos hacer algunas apreciaciones sobre esta área.
Quizá entendemos que además de esta coordinación en materia de medio ambiente es necesario que los organismos o los países que están encargados de las operaciones y de los trabajos que de alguna manera inciden en este medio ambiente introduzcan los conceptos medio ambientales en su sistema operacional y, por tanto, entendemos que por un lado será necesario elevar la importancia de los sistemas coordinadores, muy en especial de la figura del Coordinador, pero también ir introduciendo el aspecto medio ambiental en todos los proyectos y programas que se realizan, y muy principalmente en la FAO.
Los recursos que hasta ahora se están destinando a los aspectos específicamente medio ambientales son escasos y probablemente lo van a seguir siendo en un futuro próximo. Esto no deberfa ser pretexto para evadir este aspecto medio ambiental; sin embargo, y en todo caso, queríamos recordar que cuando realmente se presentan estos problemas financieros para el medio ambiente existe también la cooperación. El medio ambiente no tiene fronteras, no conoce fronteras administrativas o políticas y los efectos de un deterioro medio ambiental se pueden hacer visibles en cualquier país, en cualquier parte de nuestro planeta.
También querríamos destacar que dentro de los aspectos medio ambientales nos congratula observar cómo se ha dado importancia a la silvicultura y tratamiento de los bosques, especialmente de los bosques tropicales; sin embargo, nos gustaría que este aspecto fuera todavía más remarcado en los programas de la FAO; no solamente en la silvicultura de los bosques que ya existen, sino en la creación de nuevas masas boscosas y también en la restauración de aquellas zonas, especialmente de las cuencas, que sufren erosión y que deberían ser objeto de mucha más atención, porque no solamente el aspecto silvícola tiene una vertiente económica, sino muy importante medio ambiental y por eso dentro de este aspecto creemos que la FAO tiene todavía un papel muy importante por cubrir y debería de ejercer ese papel coordinador, pero también debería de introducir en sus programas y trabajos este aspecto medio ambiental, muy especial en lo que se refiere a los casos de catástrofes y sobre todo las catástrofes naturales derivadas de inundaciones, incendios forestales, plagas, etc.
Creemos que toda estrategia que lleve a mejorar la pronta asistencia de un organismo internacional como la FAO allá donde se haya producido la catástrofe debe ser subrayada constantemente y con más intensidad; también aunque la catástrofe no sea tan visible en algunos momentos, la pérdida de germoplasma en el mundo viene a ser una catástrofe a veces solapadas, a veces ignorada o desconocida por los países. Apoyamos, por lo tanto, las iniciativas que se han realizado en este aspecto y muy en especial de la que ha hablado México, aunque sabemos que más adelante se va a tratar con más detalle.
René LONCAN (Brésil): Ma délégation voudrait tout d'abord remercier le Secrétariat de la préparation du document C 87/9 et de son Supplément 1 ainsi que M. Régnier de l'excellente présentation du sujet
La septième session, de la CNUCED fut un événement de la plus grande importance pour la coopération multilatérale. Le Brésil a participé activement à ses discussions et a accordé son appui inconditionnel à son Document final.
A ce sujet, nous voudrions relever quelques domaines qui font l'objet de ce document auquel nous attribuons une importance spéciale, dont la recommandation concernant le Programme intégré pour les produits de base et la crise de la dette extérieure. Nous sommes tout à fait d'accord avec l'affirmation dans ce document, selon laquelle la crise de la dette est complexe,et une solution équitable, durable et mutuellement acceptable ne sera atteinte que si l'on traite le problème dans le cadre d'une stratégie orientée vers la croissance intégrée et coopérative tenant compte des circonstances particulières de chaque pays.
Nous nous réjouissons également des possibilités encourageantes d'entrée en vigueur du Fonds commun. D'autre part, nous croyons fermement que les négociations dites "Uruguay Round" offrent une opportunité d'amélioration des termes du commerce international.
A notre avis, quelques principes fondamentaux doivent toutefois être préservés: les principes d'un traitement différentiel plus favorable aux pays en développement, la non remise en question du soutien agricole fondé sur les critères sociaux, le gradualisme devant être observé dans le processus d'élimination des politiques de soutien à 1 agriculture et le rapport étroit que ce processus doit garder avec le niveau des subventions accordées par chaque pays; car une élimination
automatique et générale des mécanismes de soutien pourrait entraîner de désastreuses conséquences économiques pour certains pays en développement. Les propositions en ce sens devront donc être opposées.
Nous réitérons notre appui à la participation de la FAO aux négociations du GATT, et accueillons avec plaisir l'invitation faite à notre Organisation d'assister aux travaux des groupes de négociation sur l'agriculture, les produits tropicaux, les produits de base et les ressources naturelles. La treizième session ministérielle du Conseil mondial de l'alimentation a offert l'occasion d'évaluer la situation économique mondiale et ses conséquences sur les conditions de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation des pays en développement.
Le Brésil a participé à la réunion et soutient les recommandations et conclusions de la Déclaration de Pékin dont celles sur l'effet néfaste de certains programmes d'ajustement sur la situation agro-alimentaire des couches les plus pauvres des pays en développement.
Avant de terminer, nous voudrions faire référence à la quatorzième session du Conseil d'administration du Programme des Nations Unies pour l'environnement concernant l'adoption des rapports sur notre avenir commun et la perspective écologique jusqu'à l'an 2000 et au-delà.
Ces deux rapports reconnaissent que la pauvreté augmente dans les pays en développement du fait des prix des produits de base, des politiques de protectionnisme, du fardeau de la dette extérieure et de la tendance au déclin des flux de financement pour le développement.
Ma délégation a signalé, lors de la discussion du point 17 de l'ordre du jour, que tant que l'on n'aura pas pris de mesures effectives en vue d'un nouvel ordre économique international plus juste, les problèmes de l'environnement ne trouveront pas de solution.
CHAIRMAN: At this point, if there is no objection, we can now by consensus approve the resolution submitted for Item 20.2 and refer it to Plenary. The resolution is approved.
It was so decided
Il en est ainsi décidé
Así se acuerda
A. REGNIER (Directeur, Bureau des Affaires interinstitutions): Je voudrais tout d'abord, à l'issue de ce débat, remercier les délégations qui ont pris la peine de s'exprimer et je voudrais ajouter que j'ai essayé dans mon introduction à ces documents - tout comme le Secrétariat l'avait fait - de donner les faits en matière d'événements dans le système des Nations Unies.
Un certain nombre de délégations ont donné leurs opinions sur la coordination et ce thème a dominé et les opinions onuté variées et nombreuses.
Le distingué représentant du Canada a dit que la question de la coordination devait être appréhendée dans l'ensemble du système des Nations Unies. IL est vrai que le mandat et les compétences de la FAO sont très vastes et touchent à l'agriculture, à la pêche, à la nutrition, et nous pourrions cite de nombreux exemples où d'autres organisations du système des Nations Unies - soit centrales soit périphériques - sont tentées d'intervenir dans ce secteur; par conséquent la coordination n'est pas aisée.
On a dit que c'était une question d'attitude; je voudrais répéter au nom du Directeur général que la FAO a pour attitude d'être très positive en matière de coordination mais, en réalité, la coordination est une pierre de Sisyphe: plus vous la montez, et plus on en demande et plus on en a besoin autrement dit, il ne faut pas en faire une fin en elle-même. La coordination doit aussi avoir ses limites du point de vue strictement financier.
Je voudrais revenir, en matière de coordination et de coopération, sur l'exemple du PNUD et de la 4ème cible puisque la question a été soulevée. Le distingué représentant de la Tchécoslovaquie nous a demandé de taire le point sur la programmation indicative et sur la part de la FAO dans les res-sources du PNUD. Sans revenir sur le débat d'hier, sur les questions opérationnelles, je voudrais dire un certain nombre de choses: il a cité le paragraphe 16 du document C 87/9 où l'on dit que 60 programmes par pays ont été définis. Mais nous étions en mai de l'année dernière lorsque ce document a été finalisé; depuis lors, le Conseil d'administration du PNUD de juin a également approuvé un grand nombre de programmes par pays; il en reste une vingtaine, je pense, à approuver, et par conséquent, des progrès ont été fait en ce sens.
Est-ce que la part de la FAO va remonter? D'une part, au cours du troisième cycle le programme était relativement faible: 19 pour cent, pour 1986 mais bien entendu, Il y a eu des variations de région à région. Par exemple la part de la FAO était de 25 pour cent en Afrique; elle n'était que de 14 pour cent en Europe et à l'intérieur des régions il y avait un certain nombre de programmes indicatifs pour le troisième cycle FAO/PNUD qui dépassaient 50 pour cent. Nous avons raison de penser qu'il en sera de même pour le quatrième cycle; pour un certain nombre de pays, nos indications montrent déjà au moins 50 pour cent; ce chiffre est inférieur pour d'autres pays. Mais il faut tenir compte d'un double fait. D'une part, la part de l'agriculture est décidée souverainement par chaque Etat dans les programmes indicatifs qu'il souhaite voir approuver. D'autre part, lorsque ces programmes sont approuvés et que la part de l'agriculture est définie, il faut décider la part qui reviendra à la FAO pour exécution. Mais nous pensons que pour le quatrième cycle, cette part sera légèrement supérieure à celle du troisième cycle.
Quoiqu'il en soit, la collaboration avec le PNUD pour la préparation du quatrième cycle a été intense à tous les niveaux. Cette collaboration intervient sur la participation à des missions de programmation et sur l'examen, par la FAO pour la partie agricole, de toutes les notes que les Représentants résidents préparent pour le programme indicatif, tout au moins lorsque ces derniers nous consultent, ce qui est la majorité des cas. Notre collaboration intervient également pour l'identification et la formulation de projets qui, ensuite, peuvent être inclus dans le programme indicatif du pays.
Il me faut ajouter que dans un certain nombre de cas des projets, préparés par la FAO, sont exclus, par le mécanisme d'approbation soit au niveau du pays, soit au niveau du PNUD, tout simplement parce que les ressources n'étaient pas disponibles, ou parce que les réserves de programmation devaient être plus importantes que prévu. Néanmoins, ces projets sont disponibles et nous avons heureusement pour ces cas des recours possibles à des donateurs en fonds fiduciaires, car nous voulons éviter de perdre des projets qui à l'époque où ils ont été préparés et soumis, sont une priorité. Et je vais prendre un exemple dans la région Asie Pacifique où la FAO a participé, pour la préparation de ce cycle, à dix programmations de revue par pays. En coopération avec la division technique, elle a organisé 124 missions de formulation de projets et dans 3 pays, le PNUD souhaite demander à la FAO une étude de l'évaluation de la situation de l'agriculture: ceci est en fait très proche des conseils que de nombreuses délégations ont souhaité ici voir se développer au sein de la FAO.
J'ai cité la région Asie mais je pourrais le faire pour l'AFrique, ou pays par pays si nous avions le temps. Comment ce travail se fait-il? Il se fait d'abord au niveau des représentants de la FAO ainsi que des Représentants résidents qui, en particulier, s'agissant du quatrième cycle ont été chargés de collaborer ensemble à la définition du Programme indicatif du pays. Des revues globales entre le PNUD et la FAO ont eu lieu à Bangkok et à New York. Pour l'Asie, on a revu pays par pays le programme indicatif en cours d'élaboration. Des revues ont également eu lieu ici à Rome en juillet dernier; les responsables régionaux du PNUD pour l'Afrique de l'Est, l'Afrique de l'Ouest et l'Afrique centrale sont venus ici à Rome discuter de la programmation du programme indicatif pays par pays. Ils se sont largement basés sur les "print-out" de l'ordinateur de la FAO pour les cycles de projets et il a semblé aux représentants régionaux du PNUD que c'était un élément d'information très utile.
Je voudrais dire que,rien que cette année,la FAO a reçu à Rome pour consultation 44 représentants résidents avec lesquels nous avons entretenu une discussion technique avec toutes les divisions intéressées à ces différents projets.
Cela c'est de la coordination au ras des projets, la coordination la plus évidente qui puisse se faire puisque ces représentants résidents retournaient ensuite dans les pays et après une discussion technique nous décidions éventuellement de ce qui restait à faire pour la préparation des projets
leur contenu et le délai dans lequel il fallait le faire. Je ne parle pas bien entendu des discussions plus techniques qui peuvent avoir lieu avec le PNUD sur des questions de principes ou sur des questions plus genérales. Là encore, je citerai deux exemples: l'examen du format des projets du PNUD qui seront mis en application au premier janvier de l'année prochaine; nous en avons discuté ici avec le représentant du PNUD concernant les modalités d'exécution par les gouvernements des projets du PNUD. Nous pouvons donc affirmer que si consultation il y a, en tout cas avec le PNUD, elle est intense et journalière, que cela soit au siège, à New York ou ici. Et si vous regardez les documents préparés par les Représentants résidents eux-mêmes, dans leurs rapports, envoyés à New York,si vous examinez le rapport de M. Ripert sur les relations opérationnelles, ils s'accordent tous à dire que les relations FAO/PNUD sont en général excellentes; bien entendu il peut y avoir des difficultés et il y en a, au niveau des individus; il peut y avoir des difficultés et j'en ai signalé tout à l'heure concernant des projets qui brusquement sont retirés simplement parce que les ressources ne sont pas disponibles; que cela puisse créer des petites tensions, des petits problèmes, personne ne le nie, mais cela relève des questions de personnes et, je ne pense pas, comme l'a dit le représentant de l'Australie tout à l'heure qu'il n'y ait pas d'instructions encourageant la collaboration.
Le document C 87/9 au paragraphe 9 donne un extrait des instructions communiquées à tous les représentants de la FAO lorsqu'ils partent en mission. Ils ont pour instruction de reconnaître le PNUD comme le primus inter pares en matière de coordination. Ils ont pour instruction de mettre à la disposition du PNUD toute la capacité technique dont ils peuvent disposer; en revanche, on présume que le PNUD fera appel à cette capacité technique et à cette connaissance, telles qu'elles sont accumulées à travers la FAO dans les domaines agricoles et alimentaires. On a également parlé des bureaux du PNUD, et éventuellement de la collaboration et de la mise en commun des bureaux des différents agents. Le Directeur général adjoint de la FAO a déjà dit en piénière l'autre jour que c'est une optique que nous considérons toujours. J'ajouterai que dans certains cas les bâtiments du PNUD sont trop étroits ne serait-ce que pour contenir les services des Nations Unies proprement dits, a fortiori ceux des agences indépendantes des Nations Unies et dans certains autres cas les ministères de l'agriculture avec lesquels la FAO collabore jour après jour. Et ils préfèrent parfois avoir la représentation de la FAO dans leur bâtiment car il ne faut pas oublier que le rôle des représentants de la FAO n'est pas strictement opérationnel de l'ensemble du système des Nations Unies; ces représentants ont également des tâches très précises qui relèvent du Programme régulier de la FAO et par conséquent il y a un contact journalier avec le Ministère de l'agriculture ou du développement rural qui est très important.
Concernant le rapport Jansson, la question a été soulevée à plusieurs reprises. Je dirai tout d'abord que le document soumis au Conseil, au moment où le principe de ces études de cas a été décidé, mentionnait très spécifiquement la résolution de l'ECOSOC demandant cette revue. Je ne peux pas vous la citer car je ne l'ai pas devant moi, mais il faut que la distinguée représentante des Etats-Unis sache que nous avions mentionné l'existence de cette requête de l'ECOSOC. Nous avons collaboré aux différentes études de cas menées à travers cet exercice et nous avons donné des instructions à nos représentants dans les sept ou huit pays qui faisaient l'objet de cette étude de cas pour qu'ils fournissent toute l'assistance désirée aux différentes missions; nous leur avons demandé notamment qu'ils fournissent toute l'information nécessaire pour l'évaluation des programmes opérationnels menés par la FAO dans ces pays.
Nos représentants nous ont indiqué le sérieux avec lequel les missions ont été entreprises et l'intérêt qu'ils ont pris avec nos propres représentants.
Le distingué représentant de la Belgique nous a demandé si nous étions d'accord avec ce rapport; dans l'ensemble, le rapport Jansson he nous pose pas de problème; c'est un document très complet qui n'est peut-être pas très représentatif de l'ensemble des opérations des Nations Unies puisqu'il ne touche que sept pays. Mais dans l'ensemble, nous sommes dans une large mesure en accord avec ses conclusions et, à l'intérieur du système des Nations Unies, ce n'est pas la FAO qui fait des critiques sur ce rapport.
Une autre question a été soulevée concernant la coordination, par le distingué représentant de la Belgique, qui nous dit: "mais ne faudrait-il pas commencer concrètement, d'abord au niveau de Rome, où il y a plusieurs agences". Comme je l'ai dit dans mon introduction, le Ministre de l'agriculture du Mexique présidant le Conseil alimentaire mondial a, durant cette session du Conseil et de la Conférence, réuni toutes les agences des Nations Unies actives dans le secteur agricole.
CHAIRMAN: What we are supposed to be doing at this time is to reply to questions asked by members. Please try to state a question that somebody raised directly to the Secretariat and respond to that question rather than do an additional report or fill in the report. I think the function here is to respond to the questions of member countries. Please try to stick to that.
A. REGNIER (Directeur, Bureau des affaires interinstitutions): Oui, Monsieur le Président, la question était: pourrait-on commencer par la coordination au niveau des agences à Rome? Et la réponse que je voulais donner était que le Conseil alimentaire mondial, à l'occasion de la réunion dont je viens de parler, a décidé do préparer un document pour sa prochaine session, sur la convergence des différentes organisations à Rome traitant de l'agriculture.
Une autre question soulevée concerne l'ONUDI: on a demandé où en était l'accord formel de relation avec l'ONUDI. Le texte final de ce projet d'accord est à Vienne, auprès de l'Organisation; il sera probablement adopté début 1988, puis soumis au Conseil de la FAO en 1988 et à la Conférence en 1989.
Une autre question concernait la participation de la FAO au troisième groupe du GATT. Nous avons nous-mêmes exprimé le souhait d'être invités en tant qu'observateurs; nous attendons la réponse et espérons qu'elle viendra sous peu.
La participation à l'IAPSU, le Comité interagences pour les questions d'achat, a été soulevée. Nous y participons; c'est un sujet important et je pense que ce Comité peut faire un travail utile.
Je voudrais pour terminer ajouter deux choses: en premier lieu, nous souhaitons effectivement participer autant gue faire se peut aux réunions du Conseil d'administration du PNUD et de ses organes lorsque nous y sommes invités. Je réponds ici au distingué représentant des Etats-Unis; c'est un moyen pour les agences de faire entendre leur point de vue et de mieux comprendre le point de vue du Conseil d'administration du PNUD.
Enfin, il a été dit que les deux documents étaient peut-être informatifs mais peu analytiques; je répondrai que nous sommes forcés d'être sélectifs. Les Nations Unies touchent un nombre considérable de points et de secteurs et nous devons résumer les points de vue; mais, dans la mesure du possible et sur des sujets particuliers, nous nous efforcerons à l'avenir d'être aussi analytiques que possible mais dans des limites car l'objet de ces rapports est d'informer le Conseil et la Conférence sur les événements qui ont lieu au sein du système des Nations Unies.
CHAIRMAN: Before going to have a brief introduction on item 20.3 are there any other comments on item 20.2.
Ms Joan DUDIK GAYOSO (United States of America): My delegation may have missed it but we are still waiting for an answer to the question of what the field costs are, the costs of field representation, and are waiting to hear FAO's assurances that they were not the agencies that instructed their field representatives not to provide this information to the missions that were doing the case studies.
CHAIRMAN: With the indulgence of the United Stataes and in the interests of time the Chair would suggest you try to figure out the answer to that question while we go on to the next question and we will come back to that. Canada, you are next in line with a question and after yours has been responded to we will go back to the United States question, if we have an answer to the United States question.
Marc-André FREDETTE (Canada): I will not comment on what I think was the response of the Secretariat, which was not in the form of a reply to some of our comments but quite frankly more in the nature of a lecture.
I would like to introduce two specific questions, however, along the same lines as the American colleague. I will introduce a brief quotation and then lead to the specific question which has to do with numbers and we do have some indulgence if the Secretariat does not have these numbers at hand always, but the quote is as follows: "There is an excess of field establishments. It is sometimes doubtful whether all country representatives are fully occupied in the field and the overall pattern of representation does not make complete sense." I am sure nobody in this room would be stunned if I told you that this was from a Canadian statement, but it is not. This is a quote from a JIU report, a report of the Joint Inspection Unit in document A/41/424.
There is a further comment in paragraph 421 of that same report which says that FAO began setting up country offices in 1977 and at the time the report was written there are now at least 70 of them. At the end of 1983 country offices had total staff, and we presume there is an increase since then, of 117 international professionals and 513 general service staff. During the corresponding period the number of FAO experts, the heart of FAO, declined from 1,964 to 1,719. I would like to have the most recent figures in those two cases, that is the number of international professionals and general service staff in the country offices and regional offices on the one hand, and on the other hand the corresponding figure in terms of FAO experts. The reason I raise this here is that one of the objections that has been raised to increased coordination is that it is going to be costly. Well, I think there is an interesting point made here, not by a Canadian but by the Joint Inspection Unit of the United Nations.
CHAIRMAN: Secretariat, please respond to whichever question you have an answer for, the American or the Canadian.
A. REGNIER (Directeur, Bureau des Affaires interinstitutions): Je m'excuse d'avoir eu à consulter pour répondre à la question de la distinguée représentante des Etats-Unis. Nous avons effectivement indiqué à nos représentants dans les pays, la où les études de cas devaient se passer, qu'ils devaient fournir toute l'information nécessaire, y compris l'information chiffrée, sur les opérations de terrain. Et la raison, claire, en est que les représentants de la FAO ont des activités bien plus nombreuses relevant du Programme ordinaire et qui étaient elles-mêmes forcément en dehors des termes de référence des études de cas entreprises à la suite de la résolution de l'ECOSOC.
En ce qui concerne la question soulevée par le distingué représentant du Canada, je voudrais dire d'une part...
CHAIRMAN: Just let us finish one question at a time. Did that answer the question of the United States delegate?
Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): I do not know. I did not understand the answer. It sounded to me that instructions were given to the field staff but that some activities that the resident representatives or the field officers were doing did not have anything to do with what the case studies were doing. That would raise for me another question, if I understood correctly, but I still do not know whether the resident representatives were given instructions to provide information on the field representation costs to the Jansson case study teams.
CHAIRMAN: That is the question, were they or were they not?
A. REGNIER (Director, Office of Inter-Agency Affairs): I think I answered- in saying we gave instructions to the FAO representative to give all those figures related to the field activities, which was the terms of reference to the Jansson report missions.
CHAIRMAN: Does that answer your question?
Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): Maybe I am just being very dense today but the numbers of field activities to me refers to the amounts of money spent for field programmes and my understanding is that what was not provided, and I do not know if it was FAO, I hopo it was not, what was not provided was the costs of the field representation. So if what you are saying is that resident representatives were given instructions to provide information on the numbers, the amounts of money for field activities, that would make sense because the case studies would not have amounted to anything if the missions did not know what the value o[ the programmes in the countries were, but the question has to do with the cost of field representation. Nowhere in the report was there a complaint about the lack of information on the size of the field programme. The issue has to do with the cost of field representation. I think in FAO it is called the office of the FAOR.
CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to elaborate? The Chair in such exchanges here, in trying to be an intermediary between the question asked and the answer given, can do a limited amount of interpretation of it, but the Chair has to leave to the judgement of the member country as to whether or not their questions were answered. That is why 1 repeat that. Was your question answered? Are you satisfied with the answer?
Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): No, I will not press the point further because I think it has already got embarrassing enough, but I would state for the record that my delegation does not feel that the FAO has indicated whether it provided to the case study missions done for the Director-General the costs of field representation in those seven or eight countries.
CHAIRMAN: There is some confusion up here. Can you state your question in a way that can have a yes or no answer, and then we can move on to Canada.
Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): What 1 would like to do is to look for a quote, so if you go on to Canada I will look for the quote.
A. REGNIER (Directeur, Bureau des Affaires interinstitutions): En ce qui concerne la question du Canada, je voudrais tout d'abord dire que pour ce qui est des représentations de la FAO, nous n'avons absolument pas l'impression qu'elles doivent être assimilées à la citation qu'il vient de faire. Toutes nos représentations ont vraiment un full time job, et nous en sommes vraiment persuadés au travers du système reporting auquel nous soumettons ces représentants, et qui font bien entendu l'objet d'un examen sérieux ici au siège. S'il m'avait demandé hier les chiffres précis, lorsque nous discutions du Programme de terrain, j'aurais pu les lui donner; je les lui ferai parvenir ou je les communiquerai à la Commission dès que possible. Je les avais hier, je ne les ai plus aujourd'hui, ne sachant pas que ce genre de question aurait pu être posée.
CHAIRMAN: The answer is that you will have the specifics tomorrow.
Ms Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): On page 24 of the Jansson Report the following statement occurs: "The missions attempted to obtain information on the cost of UN field representation. This turned out to be difficult. One major agency declined to give information to the
missions upon instruction from headquarters." My question presented in my statement to the Secretariat is, was this agency FAO? My statement said that I wished to be assured that it was not the FAO and I requested that the information FAO provided on the cost of field representation would be provided to my delegation.
CHAIRMAN: The question concerns the agency referred to in that quote - is that FAO or is it not FAO?
A. REGNIER (Directeur, Bureau des Affaires Interinstitutions): Nous n'avons pas donné cette information parce qu'on ne nous l'a pas demandée. Nous avons donné à nos représentants l'instruction de communiquer tous les chiffres disponibles concernant les opérations de terrain. Et comme nous avons des opérations qui ne sont pas de terrain mais qui relèvent du Programme ordinaire, il n'est bien entendu pas possible d'indiquer la totalité du coût de la représentation qui doit être attribuée aux opérations de terrain. Et nous avons dit que le siège pouvait donner des instructions et des indications plus précises sur demande si la question nous était spécifiquement posée, avec le détail. Ces chiffres sont disponibles mais ils ne peuvent être que misunderstood.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any further questions? There being no further questions we will proceed to the next item.
CHAIRMAN: There will be a brief introduction of that item.
A. REGNIER (Directeur, Bureau des Affaires interinstitutions): Pour ce point de l'ordre du jour, la Conférence dispose du document C87/17 sur les relations avec les organisations inter-gouvernementales et les organisations internationales non gouvernementales. Ce document expose, dans ses grandes lignes, les principaux faits nouveaux survenus au cours du biennium, en ce qui concerne la coopération avec ces organisations. J'aimerais également attirer votre attention sur le document C 87/INF/1 qui fait rapport sur la réunion officieuse des organisations inter-nationales non gouvernementales qui s'est tenue le 10 novembre dernier.
Le principal document qui vous est soumis n'a pas la prétention de faire rapport sur l'ensemble et dans le détail de la coopération avec les organisations internationales intergouvernementales et non gouvernementales. Cela aurait représenté une tache presque impossible. Le document fait état des principaux développements qui caractérisent le biennium en cours. Comme dans le passé, ce document est surtout destiné à l'information de la Conférence et ne soulève aucune question appelant une décision.
Avec votre permission, je souhaiterais, cepondant, faire quelques commentaires sur le contenu du document. Je dois, en premier lieu, souligner l'importance que l'organisation attache aux relations avec les organisations intergouvernementales. Comme vous le savez, les textes fondamentaux prévoient les arrangements qui peuvent être arrêtés avec ces organisations. A ce jour, 103 organisations intergouvernementales ont établi des rapports officiels avec la FAO à la suite d'un échange de lettres ou d'autres instruments appropriés. Par ailleurs, 175 organisations internationales non gouvernementales ont également des rapports officiels avec la FAO. Un répertoire des organisations internationales ayant des rapports officiels avec la FAO est publié régulièrement
et rais à jour. Il est distribue, entre autres, aux missions permanentes à Rome et aux bureaux des représentants de la FAO. Les rapports officiels entre la FAO et les organisations intergouvernementales peuvent prendre la forme d'un échange de lettres ou d'un accord formel. Ces accords fournissent un cadre pour la coopération et prévoient, en général, un échange de documentation et d'information, la participation à des réunions, des consultations réciproques sur la programmation et l'exécution de programmes techniques d'intérêt commun.
Le document C 87/17 reflète l'étendue des rapports de coopération avec les organisations intergouvernementales, A cet égard, je souhaiterais souligner l'étroite collaboration qui existe avec un grand nombre d'organisations régionales et sous-régionales, particulièrement, mais non exclusivement, en Afrique. A titre d'exemple, il me suffira d'indiquer l'excellente collaboration avec l'Organisation de l'Unité Africaine (OUA), notamment à l'occasion des préparatifs de la session spéciale de l'Assemblée générale sur l'Afrique. Le document qui vous est soumis fournit de nombreux autres exemples de collaboration avec les groupements économiques/régionaux.
J'en viens maintenant à la coopération avec les organisations internationales non gouvernementales. Ces organisations peuvent avoir des rapports officiels sous la forme d'un statut consultatif, consultatif spécial ou de liaison. Ces rapports officiels permettent à ces organisations de participer à certaines réunions, à recevoir de la documentation, etc. Ces organisations peuvent également, sous la responsabilité de leur organe directeur, soumettre des exposés écrits sur des. questions concernant le programme.
Les contacts et la coopération avec ces organisations ont un caractère continu. A titre d'exemple, je mentionnerai la réunion officieuse organisée à la FAO en septembre dernier entre la Division des produits et du commerce international et la Fédération internationale des producteurs agricoles (FIPA).
D'importants développements doivent être mentionnés concernant la coopération avec les organisations non gouvernementales. En premier lieu, sur le plan interne, un groupe de travail, rassemblant l'ensemble des divisions et bureaux concernés, a examiné dans le détail, en 1986 et 1987, les arrangements et la pratique actuelle concernant la coopération avec les ONG, y compris au plan opérationnel. Ainsi, par exemple, en juin 1986, le département des pêches a organisé une réunion informelle avec les ONG concernées sur la collaboration dans le domaine du développement des pêches artisanales. Dans le domaine des forêts, dans le cadre du plan d'action pour la forêt tropicale, un renforcement du rôle des ONG aux niveaux international et national est prévu. A la suite de la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural, la collaboration s'est intensifiée, en particulier en ce qui concerne la participation populaire.
La Journée mondiale de l'alimentation offre un autre exemple d'excellente coopération avec les ONG. La première réunion internationale sur la Journée mondiale organisée en juin dernier à Milan a rassemblé des représentants d'ONG et des comités nationaux de quinze pays.
Enfin, la Campagne mondiale contre la faim|Action pour le développement constitue également un instrument pour la coopération avec les ONG. Il convient de signaler qu'en 1987, 99 projets dans quarante pays, pour une valeur totale de 7 millions de dollars, ont pu être mis sur pied grace à l'aide des ONG. 160 projets représentant une contribution des ONG de 4 millions de dollars sont en cours de préparation.
Dans ses activités, la Campagne mondiale contre la faim|Action pour le développement met l'accent, notamment en Afrique, sur l'identification d'organisations de paysans qui ne bénéficient d'aucun appui extérieur. L'objectif est de les aider à formuler et gérer leurs propres projets avec l'assistance financière d'ONG des pays industrialisés. Cette assistance s'est élevée pour l'Afrique à 2,6 millions de dollars au cours du présent biennium.
En Asie, le bureau de la Campagne mondiale organise depuis de nombreuses années des activités de formation et d'échanges pour des participants, en particulier les femmes, engagés dans des tâches de développement. Du matériel de formation a été préparé dans les langues locales. En Amérique latine, la Campagne mondiale s'appuie sur un important mouvement d'ONG. En 1987, les activités qui y ont été conduites l'ont été surtout dans le domaine de la formation. 35 projets, qui mettent l'accent sur l'utilisation des ressources locales, sont en cours de préparation.
La FAO est pleinement consciente de l'importance des organisations non gouvernementales, à la fois internationales et nationales. J'espère que les documents qui vous sont soumis et cette présentation reflètent suffisamment cette importance et faciliteront votre discussion.
Raul LOPEZ LIRA (México): Mi delegación desea comunicar la presentación de un proyecto de resolución tendiente a brindar apoyo y coordinación entre esta Organización y el recientemente creado Comité de Acción sobre Cooperación y Concertación Latinoamericana en materia de germoplasma vegetal a la luz de las enormes pérdidas de germoplasma vegetal que atenta contra un gran número de variedades útiles para el ser humano. En él se destaca el entendimiento establecido entre el Director General de la FAO y el Secretario Permanente del SELA, en el cual se dan las directrices de colaboración entre ambos organismos y en su parte de resolución se expresa la satisfacción por la constitución de este nuevo organismo, y la decisión de prestar apoyo al CARFIT;
Se pide al Director General identificar medidas tendientes a respaldar sus actividades y se solicita de la Secretaría establezca los contactos necesarios con la Secretaría del CARFIT para coordinar sus esferas de acción conjunta. Todo esto en base a la resolución 8/83 sobre compromisos internacionales sobre recursos fitogenéticos.
CHAIRMAN: We do not have a list of speakers but we have a statement on behalf of a group of Non-governmental Organizations and there being no objection that will be inserted in the record at this time.
Ton A.J.M. OOMEN (Netherlands): First of all, we want to thank Mr Régnier for his introduction of this item. As Mr Régnier stated in his introduction FAO is undertaking several programmes in the field of improvement in collaboration with NGO's in the field and local level. However, we want to add something. As regards document C 87/17, and C 87/INF/1, my delegation wishes to state the following: first, we want to express our satisfaction with the organization of the informal meeting of international non-governmental organizations on 10 November last. In his keynote address to COAG last April, our Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, Minister Braks, stated that cooperation between farmers which influenced government policy and market development had been one of the major corner-stones of Dutch agricultural development. To have a policy establishing favourable conditions for agriculture, it is the opinion of the Netherlands Government that the creation of effective mechanisms for participation of and cooperation with farmers' organizations is the prerequisite.
Since FAO's mandate is to act as a policy advisor to governments and to assist them in food and agricultural programmes, the Organization has increasingly taken to recount the value of the contribution of relevant NGOs in these areas. It is our opinion that FAO should systematically include those NGO s such as farmers' organizations, rural workers' organizations and other types of local NGOs in the design and implementation of policies and programmes for social economic development at country level. The capacity of the above-mentioned NGOs to represent the interests of farmers' communities and other rural poor groups and to assist FAO and governments in technical field activities will benefit those target groups.
In this way those groups can be offered improved access to production factors, income and employment opportunities, training and extension, credit facilities and also effective participation indecisionmaking processes at governmental level. In this set of cooperation, promotional donor NGOs based on social, maybe religious and community involvement, are able to play a complementary role.
The observations my delegation want to put forward concern the recommendations of document C 87/INF/1. In paragraphs 26 and 27 we endorse the recommendation for - in the first place - the organization of regular joint consultations between technical FAO divisions and relevant NGOs and secondly for having a focal point within FAO divisions for the collaboration between FAO and NGOs.
Flexible but clear guidelines within the FAO organization based upon a coherent policy framework would facilitate the realization of this goal.
Perhaps I may draw your attention to a recent development within UNDP where a division for the collaboration with both local and promotional NGOs has been established, working on such a base of flexible guidelines and combined with appropriate resources.
As regards what is mentioned in paragraph 29 of the document on involvement of NGOs in field activities by FAO representatives, my delegation wants to stress the importance of partnership-relations with NGOs, carrying on responsibilities in spin-off activities as the result of FAO field programmes.
We want to endorse the idea presented in paragraph 30 on the provision of small-scale technical assistance to NGOs to be contained in the Regular Programme budget of relevant technical divisions of FAO.
My delegation wants to refer to what has been stated by the delegation of Switzerland and what my delegation wholeheartedly endorsed in Commission I on item 9 of WCARRD concerning the establishment of a FAO committee of farmers' organizations.
Speaking of NGOs in this respect we would consider the idea to include not only farmers but also agricultural workers, rural women and cooperatives. And it is our opinion that the next COAG could provide the momentum for a follow-up discussion on the above mentioned issues.
Vaclav DOBES (Czechoslovakia): Referring to document C 87/17, I would like to say that, with respect to the facts described in the report on the progress of conclusions from the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, the contacts with the trade unions and cooperative unions are assuming increasing importance for the FAO. They provide an occasion to encourage peasants, landless people and farm workers to unify and organize. In this respect the trade unions and cooperative societies can do much good work and we deem it useful for these organizations to know the intentions and objectives of the FAO.
The document says that FAO is maintaining regular contacts with 178 organizations. Although this is only a fraction of the high number of organizations active in the field of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, we believe that the Secretariat will establish further relations at the level of Liaison Status. However, according to the view of my delegation, an excessively high number of international non-governmental organizations with this consultative status might be too large a burden to the FAO administrative system.
Sami SUNAA (Jordan) (original language Arabic): I must express my gratitude for the interest which the Organization has shown and the efforts that it has deployed for the development of cooperation with inter-governmental organizations and the support that it gives to the international non-governmental organizations. We feel that these organizations could be a major tool in the development of agriculture if the necessary assistance is provided to them and if their Action Programmes enjoy coordination with our Organization. For many years FAO has undertaken measures for establishing rural organizations in various regions of the world - Africa, Asia, the Caribbean region. I would like to mention some of these unions: the National Union of Agricultural Credit which brings together more than 30 agricultural organizations in this region and which enjoys assistance not just in terms of training hundreds of leaders who work within the context of these organizations in different areas of specialisation but also for the translation of a number of documents which are used for training. They hold symposia on the major problems which arise for these institutions and the solutions to these problems, based on the current situation and the experiences acquired. These organizations may receive financial assistance from IFAD. Technical assistance is also available for meetings which are organized by regional and international organizations. I wanted to give an example of this to the meeting because it is an example of what can be achieved within the context of the assistance available to such organizations, thanks to the initiatives undertaken by the Organization and by the sort of assistance which could enjoy priority, both technically and financially.
On this occasion I should also like to emphasise the current cooperation being set up between nongovernmental organizations and governmental and intergovernmental organizations, which is a reflection of the consultations which are going on within the Organization, and we feel that it should be possible to develop this type of cooperation within a broader context by inviting such unions or federations to. put forward their viewpoints on the various issues within their field of interest, and these
viewpoints ought to be taken into account when action programmes are being developed by the Organization. We want to emphasise the importance of following up assistance and of the cooperation of our Organization with these inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations, in view of the importance of these for carrying out development programmes. This cooperation could avoid duplication and achieve the joint objectives of our organizations and these organizations.
CHAIRMAN: We had a statement by Mexico and in their statement they introduced their resolution.
Marc-André FREDETTE (Canada): Very briefly, I would like to ask the Secretariat to explain to us what might be the cost implications of this Resolution if adopted, and what precedent, if any, it might create in terms of relationship between the Organization and such a body.
A. REGNIER (Directeur, Bureau des Affaires interinstitutions): A ce stade, il est difficile d'évaluer le coût éventuel. Tout dépendra bien entendu, du volume des activités qui se développeraient en liaison avec ce comité d'action. îl est certain que, selon la progression du volume de ces activités, les coûts augmenteront. On pourrait peut-être parler de 10 000 dollars ou plus. Tout dépend, avec le temps, de l'importance des activités qui se développeront. Il y aura certainement un coût financier, mais il est trop tot pour l'évaluer.
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Lamentamos que por razones ajenas a su voluntad el delegado de México haya tenido que ausentarse de la sala. Como bien se expresa en esta resolución, está siendo promovida por los países latinoamericanos, me permitiré explicar brevemente en qué consiste este Comité de Acción.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair would point out to you that the representative of Mexico is in fact here.
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Agradezco que sea el representante de México quien presente este proyecto de resolución.
CHAIRMAN: The representative of Mexico already did present this Resolution.
MAPELA NGA-MA (Zaire): Monsieur le Président, je vous suis en français et je crois que nous sommes toujours sur le point 20.3. C'est sur ce point que je voulais demander la parole. J'avais peur que vous ne parliez d'autre chose.
CHAIRMAN: We have you down listed to speak on item 20.3. The Chair thinks it might be easiest just to cover this Resolution. Maybe it would be worth having a couple of moments here to ask the delegate of Mexico briefly to summarize his Resolution and then we would take the other speakers who have caught our attention and will take them in order.
Raul LOPEZ LIRA (Mexico): No voy a repetir lo que ya dije en la presentación, sino que voy a explicar un poco en muy breves palabras lo que es el organismo al que estamos haciendo referencia. Es un organismo creado por el SELA con el propósito de crear bancos de germoplasma regionales a partir de los cuales se conserve y se investigue, se evalúe y se aprovechen, y se usen los recursos fitogenéticos de la región para beneficio de los agricultores y de la seguridad alimentaria en general. Eso es todo lo que podría yo agregar a mi presentación.
HAPELA NGA-MA (Zaïre): Je voudrais tout d'abord féliciter M. Régnier et à travers lui tous les membres du Secrétariat pour la qualité et la présentation du document que nous examinons.
Ma délégation tient à remercier la FAO pour la contribution très appréciable qu'elle apporte dans le cadre des relations qu'elle entretient avec les organisations intergouvernementales et avec les organisations internationales non gouvernementales. Nous encourageons la FAO à continuer à collaborer et à assister toutes les organisations africaines, notamment l'OUA, la CEA, le Centre régional africain des technologies, l'Organisation africaine du bois, le Centre de développement rural intégré pour l'Afrique, la Communauté économique des pays de grands lacs, etc..
C'est effectivement de par son rôle de chef de file en matière d'alimentation et d'agriculture que la FAO doit tout mettre en oeuvre pour renforcer ses relations avec ces organisations.
Sra. Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Mi Delegación Señor Presidente, pidió la palabra simplemente para preguntar el número del documento que estábamos considerando, pero ya lo tenemos.
E.V. WADE BROWN (United Kingdom): Like Canada, we are somewhat worried about the cost implications of this and we would like to propose an amendment to the resolution which would include something like "implementation would be within existing resources".
CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection on the part of the sponsor of the resolution to the amendment being accepted?
Raul LOPEZ LIRA (México): Sí Señor Presidente, para mí no sería un obstáculo.
CHAIRMAN: Could the United Kingdom clarify the wording and could you tell us where you think the amendment ought to be placed?
E.V. WADE-BROWN (United Kingdom): Yes, we would propose at the end of the paragraph 3 to delete the full stop and to continue the sentence with the words: "The cost of implementation to be within existing resources".
CHAIRMAN: Does Mexico accept that language?
Raúl LOPEZ LIRA (Mexico): Asiente.
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Yo no me adelantaría mucho. Quisiera opinar sobre este aspecto que se acaba de discutir. Quisiera explicar que este Comité de Acción en el marco del SELA es un Comité de Acción autosustentado, tiene una Secretaría protémpore que se sustenta por los propios países. Por consiguiente, no creemos que los factores financieros puedan tener un peso significativo si esto constituye una preocupación para algunas otras Delegaciones.
Quisiera hacer una introducción, una ligera modificación en el párrafo romanito cuatro, en el torcer renglón donde dice: "en materia de recursos fitogenéticos, inclusive el estudio; la prospección." Esta sería nuestra adición: Estudio, la prospección, la identificación. Todo lo demás seguiría igual.
Respecto del párrafo 3, quizá la nota pudiera, si la distinguida Delegación del Reino Unido lo considera pertinente, después de nuestra explicación, tal vez se pudiera suprimir esta nota. No creemos que sea determinante dentro del marco de la Resolución.
Roger P. LEWIS (United States of America): Regarding the resolution proposed by Mexico calling for the FAO to provide support to the Action Committee on Latin American Cooperation and Consultation on Plant Genetic Resources, we support the amendments proposed by Canada and the United Kingdom. We are encouraged that FAO is arranging its PGR activities to complement those of the International Board on Plant Genetic Resources and we are pleased that the relationship between FAO and the IBPGR has improved since February 1987 at the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the two organizations. We note that existing FAO mechanisms such as those in place for quarantinabile plant materials represent an area where FAO involvement is valuable. However, the United States does not support proposals that would establish an international network of base collections: nor are we in favour of FAO establishing an international fund for international plant geneoic resources. Both these activities would appear to be unnecessary initiatives that infringe the work being accomplished by the IBPGR and other international research centres. To the extent to which the proposed resolution does not envision these activities and with the amendment proposed by the delegate of the United Kingdom, the United States could support this resolution.
Ms Susan ULBAEK (Denmark): I must admit we are a little puzzled about the sudden appearance of this resolution. We have no documentation and so far as we remember it has not been discussed in the proper forum, which is the Commission for Plant Genetic Resources. We would therefore like to have more information. Could the Secretariat perhaps explain what "back-stopping" means? I should like to come back to this later because if we are going to support the resolution we think we may add some amendments to it.
Temel Iskit, Vice-Chairman Commission II, took the Chair.
Temel Iskit, Vice-Président de la Commission II, assume la présidence.
Ocupa la presidencia Temei Iskit, Vicepresidente de la Comisión II.
Sra. Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Mi Delegación entiende de la lectura de este proyecto de resolución, Señor Presidente, que lo que se pide a la FAO en este caso es que realice una función más que nada coordinadora de esfuerzos del CTPD que están emprendiendo los países de América Latina y el Caribe.
En ese sentido, entendemos que está dentro de las funciones básicas de la FAO, prestar tales aseso-ramientos y no creemos que este tipo de reforzamiento de sus tareas de CTPD esté fuera de lo que está previsto en el presupuesto para el bienio próximo, como apoyo a actividades de cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo.
En consecuencia, no entendemos de ninguna manera la enmienda que acaba de ser propuesta por varias Delegaciones en el sentido de introducir la frase de que esto debería ser hecho con los recursos existentes.
Obviamente, la FAO como no tiene todavía la posibilidad de contraer prestamos de ningún lado, no va a realizar absolutamente nada fuera de los recursos existentes. De manera que para la Delegación argentina la frase no tiene sentido y no debería ser introducida.
Ms Anna-Liisa KORHONEN (Finland): Like Denmark, my delegation is also a little surprised to see this text in front of us without specific documentation, with other delegations who are not very familiar with Latin American scenery, it is difficult for us to know what the objectives and activities of this new institution are which we are, according to this resolution, to support fully. My delegation has no references, for example, to find out where to learn about the objects and activities of this institution. So I think that we need to have more specific references to the background of this institution so that we can decide with additional information how to formulate this resolution.
CHAIRMAN: I see no other speakers, but Denmark and Finland have directed questions to the Secretariat and I think Mexico is also concerned in this reply. With the indulgence of the United Kingdom, I will revert to their proposal, to be commented on by Argentina and Mexico later.
L. BRADER (Director, Plant Production and Protection Division): I think in principle it is more appropriate that the delegations who have submitted this resolution should reply to certain detailed questions, but I can at least answer the questions of Denmark and Finland. For the Secretariat, back-stop" means to provide technical support for activities. With respect to Finland's question of what this institution stands for, this is a network of collaborating institutions working on plant genetic resources in Latin America. They have decided to collaborate more closely in future for the benefit of further development of plant genetic resources work in Central and South America. In that sense the activities proposed by this network are in line with the activities undertaken by FAO in relation to the International Board for Plant Genetic Resources and guided by the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources. I hope I have answered the questions
Ton A.J.M. OOMEN (Netherlands): In addition to what Mr Brader has said, we would like to have further information. My delegation would like to know what are the additional activities to be undertaken to answer the requests in the operative paragraphes 2, 3, and 4 of the resolution. My delegation is convinced that the wide range of activities of FAO already being undertaken will benefit from what the resolution is considering. We would propose that the Latin American group at this stage could perhaps put the contents of the resolution in the report of Commission II. It is also our opinion that the resolution is in general following the lines of what FAO is already doing. In our opinion, that is one of the most important fields of activities of FAO.
For my delegation, it is difficult to recognize where the quotations come from. It is important to know that, because the context in which they are used could make it clearer as to how we should read the resolution. My delegation has no major objection to the resolution. As a matter of fact, FAO is the foremost international organization to deal with these activities. However, we should like more information because without it we wonder what would be the use of the resolution.
Ms Susan ULBAEK (Denmark): I do not think 1 have an answer. I ask the same question. I want more information on what are the activities that FAO is going to backstop.
Ms Anna-Liisa KORHONEN (Finland): I think the reply from the Secretariat was most helpful but I would still like to know the name of the document where I could find exactly the information that was just referred to.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Finland. Can the Secretariat reply immediately?
L. BRADER (Director, Plant Production and Protection Division): I can reply immediately. There is no conference document in which this matter is clarified. So far as I know, the matter was not discussed in the conference, so we cannot refer to a specific document.
CHAIRMAN: A number of questions were asked and I think perhaps more than the Secretariat the sponsor or sponsors of the resolution can give explanations, and since Cuba has asked for the floor, I give him the floor with this expectation.
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Como ha expresado la Secretaría, Señor Presidente, no hay un documento en debate en la Conferencia que explique esta Resolución; sin embargo nosotros quisiéramos brindar algunas infonnneiones adicionales.
Un conjunto de países de América Latina y del Caribe en el marco del SELA promovieron un proyecto regional para la prospección, conservación y estudio de los recursos fitogenéticos. Este proyecto está poniéndose en marcha en el marco del SELA y con financiamiento del SELA y de los países.
En el marco de este proyecto se creó un Comité de Acción. Este Comité de Acción a que se hace referencia en la Resolución, y celebró su primera reunión en los primeros meses del año 1987 en la ciudad de México, acordando tener una Secretaría protémpore; es decir que el país sede que acoge la reunión regional se haría cargo de la Secretaría y correría con ios gastos que implique la gestión de la Secretaría. La asistencia a esta reunión del Comité de Acción también es financiada por los propios países. Por consiguiente, no vemos las implicaciones que del punto de vista presupues-tario de la FAO pueda tener el que se establezca una mayor coordinación entre este Comité de Acción en el marco del SELA y la FAO, toda vez que la FAO ha creado, ha convocado una Comisión de Recursos Fitogenéticos. En todo caso, nos parece que fue muy clara la expresión de la distinguida delegada de Argentina cuando se refirió a que lo que aquí se pide es que la FAO actúe también en esta acción de coordinación para evitar duplicación de acciones, evitar duplicación de gastos para ciertas acciones, y poder facilitar dentro del marco de América Latina un intercambio mayor de información. Esto es el principio que anima a esta Resolución, y que anima a los países patrocinadores, teniendo en cuenta la importancia que reviste para la Región los Recursos Fitogenéticos.
Por consiguiente quisiera reiterar nuestra solicitud a las distinguidas Delegaciones que han pedido una enmienda en el párrafo 3, porque esta idea que se lanza aquí, esta petición al Director General, está encaminada en el sentido de fomentar las actividades de coordinación entre los países, la Oficina Regional, el SELA y el Comité de Acción sobre Recursos Fitogenéticos.
Sra. María Isabel CASELLAS (Venezuela): Solamente quería apoyar lo dicho por la Delegación de Cuba y por la Delegación de Argentina en cuanto a la Resolución presentada por México.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, but I would like to ask a question of Cuba and other Latin American countries, sponsors of this resolution. The suggestion was made by the delegation of the Netherlands whether the group sponsor of this resolution, would be content with including the whole resolution in the report. So first I want to hear the reply of the Latin American group to this and on this reply we can continue to deal with the resolution.
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (México): Perdone, Sr. Presidente, pero no comprendí muy bien su pregunta.
CHAIRMAN: It is not a suggestion of the Chair. I have just repeated a suggestion by the delegation of the Netherlands based on certain hesitations for lack of information of many delegations. The suggestions was whether the sponsors of this resolution would be happy to see the resolutions text not as a resolution but as an insertion in the report of Commission II. I wanted to have your reaction to that before continuing. Is that clear?
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Está claro, Sr. Presidente, que desde el punto de vista de la voluntad de los países patrocinadores de esta Resolución y desde el punto de vista de la conveniencia y necesidades de una mayor y estrecha cooperación entre la FAO y el SELA, teniendo en cuenta los recientes contactos entre el Director General de la FAO y el Secretario General del SELA, teniendo en cuenta estos últimos contactos, la Resolución podría establecer un punto de reforzamiento a estas actividades de coordinación. Consideramos que esto pudiera otorgarle un mayor peso desde el punto de vista de la acción que van a tomar los países en el ámbito de la región latinoamericana.
CHAIRMAN: Do I infer from that, Cuba, that you want to maintain the resolution in its present form and you appeal to the delegations who expressed certain - I would not say reservations, but hesitations, about the content of the resolution to reconsider joining the consensus, if there is one? I recognize Mexico for further comments on this point.
Raúl LOPEZ LIRA (México): Mi delegación desea hacer algunas observaciones, a ver si con esto se puede aclarar un poco la duda que tienen algunas delegaciones. Este organismo es un organismo de reciente creación, que se ha creado a la sombra del SELA, con apoyo de la FAO. La FAO, tengo entendido, que en ocasiones, en una ocasión anterior ha prestado su apoyo a este organismo. Lo único que se pretende con este Proyecto de Resolución es darle un poco de fuerza y apoyo a un organismo de reciente creación en Latinoamérica, que tiene como interés hacer un esfuerzo en materia de biotecnología, de bancos de germoplasmas y que el propio Comité Fitogenético de la FAO ha expresado que desearía se reprodujera en otras regiones. Entonces, no veo yo cuál es el problema que ven las otras delegaciones para apoyar una cosa de esta naturaleza. Yo apelaría a ellas, a ver si pueden acceder.
Raphael RABE (Madagascar): Notre délégation joint naturellement son intervention aux déclarations de l'Argentine, de Cuba et du Mexique pour lancer un appel aux délégations qui ont soulevé le problème de l’incidence financière. Nous ne comprenons pas l'insistance sur cet aspect de la question dans la mesure où il a bien été expliqué par la délégation de l'Argentine que de telles activités de la FAO rentrent bien dans le cadre du CTPD. Et nous savons tous que dans le budget ordinaire (dans le PCT), des montants et des crédits sont prévus dans ce cadre CTPÜ et du CEPD, et que nous avons tous encouragé le développement des activités du CTPD et du CEPD.
Aussi nous voudrions lancer un appel aux délégations pour ne pas insister davantage sur cet amendement et que l'on puisse aller de l'avant dans l'adoption de cette résolution.
CHAIRMAN: I turn to the delegations who have expressed hesitations, and in particular to the United Kingdom first, who made a proposal for amendment on the basis of avoiding any misunderstanding on the cost implications. Would the United Kingdom respond on the basis of explanations given by Mexico, Argentina, Cuba and others, that there are no financial implications?
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): Of course I will respond but before I do so I would just like to make one observation, my delegation has not in fact seen this resolution until today and we really do not believe it is helpful to the efficient conduct of our business to ask the delegations to deal with something like this at least without some background information and certainly without giving time to consult our responsible authorities if this is necessary.
We assume from reading this resolution, as I say for the first time today, that it was intended to be a call for support from FAO in practical terms. This is certainly how we read operative paragraphs 3 and 4 of the draft resolution. Given the financial situation of the Organization, which has taken so much of our time over the past two or three weeks, we in this delegation at least are reluctant to impose additional burdens on the Organization's finances and therefore we were seeking assurance that this in fact was not what was intended. This is the purpose of our amendment. Now of course, if either paragraphs 3 and 4 were to be redrafted in a way which made it guite clear that there was no question of any audit Joua 1 expenditure being incurred by FAO over and above what is already provided in the approved budget, or if the Secretariat can now give us a categorical assurance that the approval of this resolution will not in fact involve the Secretariat in additional expenditure over and above what is already provided in the Programme of Work and Budget we shall be ready to withdraw our amendment. Otherwise we wish to maintain it.
CHAIRMAN: I think the intents are the same but some delegations want a clearer assurance, if I understand it correctly. So may I ask the Secretariat whether the Secretariat can give the assurance asked by the United Kingdom.
L. BRADER (Director, Plant Production and Protection Division): After having heard the various views on the matter I can definitely assure the Commission that it will not lead to additional expenditures on our budget. On the contrary, after having heard the various arguments, it might even alleviate our costs because as it is certainly our intention to cooperate with various countries on the matter of Plant Genetic Resources and as the Latin-American region is a very important region for plant genetic resources we will probably take advantage of this mechanism and in that sense our costs may be reduced. 1 certainly do not see any reason why the costs would be increased.
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): In the light of that assurance from the Secretariat we will withdraw our amendment.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your very helpful attitude.
Ms Anna-Liisa KORHONEN (Finland): The concern of my delegation has not been so much related to the extra financial costs of this resolution, but I am also happy to hear the assurances of the Secretariat on this point. But my question relates much more to the background of this agreement or the objectives of this new organization and I think that it is a question of clarity: if a reference can be made in this resolution to a document, if it is not an FAO Conference document, but anyhow to a document where the objectives and activities of the CARFIT can be located.
Roger P. LEVIS (United States): We remain somewhat concerned about the financial implications of the proposed resolution, notwithstanding the assurances of the Secretariat. We also share the concerns expressed by our colleagues from the United Kingdom and Finland and elsewhere that there has been an inadequate amount of time provided to study this question. We are particularly concerned with the proposed scope of activity envisaged by the proposed resolution and would like to know some more of the specifics in that regard. We think the resolution frankly is ill timed.
E. Patrick ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): Apparently the comment we have just heard from the Secretariat about the possible implications on the budget of FAO on this resolution may assist in bringing this matter to finality fairly quickly but given the facts, given the nature, the issues which have been raised in the debate in Council and otherwise with regard to this matter of plant genetic resources, perhaps at. this point in time it is reasonable, if this is in fact so, that the Secretariat would indicate no implication but given the importance of this matter to agricultural
development world wide, given the comments we have just heard from the Secretariat, the importance to the region for plant genetic resources, I think it is a bit unwise to tie down this matter so finitely and we trust that this is not a projection for all time so that if and when it becomes necessary that we will recognize the importance of this issue, the importance of the region and that there will be some flexibility with regard to financing of any related activity on this matter.
CHAIRMAN: I think your remarks are well noted.
Sra. Margarita LIZARRAGA SAUCEDO (México): Mi delegación agradece mucho la última internvención que ha hecho nuestro distinguido colega de Trinidad y Tabngo. En efecto, se trata aquí de un reconocimiento a un trabajo que se realiza en la región latinoamericana y que ha sido concertado dentro del sistema económico latinoamericano con un grupo especial, que es este Comité de Acción sobre cooperación y concertación latinoamericana en materia de germopiasma vegetal. Como bien dijo el Dr. Brader, la región le da una gran importancia a este aspecto,y ha habido reuniones especiales que han concertado justamente esta iniciativa para reforzar a nivel regional y subregional esta asistencia y apoyo a la formación de bancos de germopiasma y otras acciones, dirigidas justamente a la conservación y a la utilización óptima de estos recursos. En ese sentido y después de que el Dr. Brader ha dado la explicación sobre que no hay una implicación de recursos financieros, que se trata de un apoyo, de una colaboración que ya ha sido suscrita en una causa de entendimiento, como aquí se especifica, en el romanito iii del Considerando. Nosotros creemos que la Conferencia no tendría inconveniente, por lo menos así lo esperamos, a que las distinguidas delegaciones que han tenido alguna duda al respecto... Se trata de una cuestión de carácter regional, subregional que quiere vincularse al sistema internacional como una forma lógica y que no vemos nosotros cuál sería la consecuencia para otras regiones y otros países, de apoyar esta iniciativa de nuestra región. En ese sentido pedimos que se nos apoye y, vista la aclaración dada por el Dr Brader.
Angel BARBERO MARTIN (España): Nuestra delegación sólo vuelve a tomar la palabra para reafirmar lo que dijo refiriéndose al punto anterior de este orden del día, simplemente en apoyo de esta iniciativa de los países latinoamericanos porque nos parece que no puede traer más que beneficios, tenien-do en cuenta el acervo de especies vegetales que se dan en este continente y la utilidad de este intercambio con otros países y otras organizaciones que de alguna manera tienen alguna iniciativa en este sentido, y una vez que se ha aclarado la implicación económica que esto puede tener, repito que mi delegación se ratifica en este apoyo a esta iniciativa.
Humberto CARRION McDONQUGH (Nicaragua): Deseamos adherirnos al apoyo de este proyecto de resolución Ya se ha aclarado suficientemente su objetivo, sus antecedentes, sus implicaciones financieras las cuales no existen como tales por parte de la FAO.
Quiero también reconocer que hay delegaciones que tienen razón cuando solicitan alguna cita o referencia a un documento que especifique qué cosa es el CARFIT. Hay delegaciones que les podemos asegurar que no tendremos problemas en introducir incluso en el texto de esta resolución el documento de referencia en cuestión; estamos precisamente tratando de localizar el título exacto y su procedencia para poderlo incluir; en el caso de que no lo podamos hacer en este momento será cuestión de tiempo y lo podemos hacer para cuando aprobemos esta resolución en la Plenaria.
Ton A. J. M. OOMEN (Netherlands): Of course, we accept gratefully the explanation of Cuba, Mexico and the Secretariat and several other delegates but it does not help my delegation to the extent that we can base our opinion on appropriate documentation and discussion and there is no shadow of doubt in my delegation but that it is a very important issue of plant genetic resources. We think that this item also deserves proper preparation. It is therefore that my delegation appeals to the sponsor and the co-sponsor to reconsider the drafting of the resolution and provide us with the do-
cumentation before they decide to insist to have it proposed in Plenary. Also without this information that several delegations have asked for it seems to us that a decision has too many unconsidered aspects and it is the opinion of my delegation that the best effect of the objectives of the resolution will be that the objectives of the resolution will be adopted, can be the insert of the content of the resolution with the indication of the support inserted by the Drafting Committee on adoption in this Commission in the official report of the Conference.
Getachew TEKLEMEDEHIN (Ethiopia): Knowing the role of FAO in the implementation of agricultural development, though some point of clarification and additional information was sought, my delegation would like to support the resolution presented.
Roberto PONCE (Ecuador): La delegación ecuatoriana quisiera, aparte de apoyar el proyecto de resolución presentado, llamar la atención hacia el hecho de que si bien las delegaciones de algunos países han expresado sus dudas en relación a las implicaciones de carácter financiero o quizá operacional que podría traer la colaboración que pretende establecer el Comité de Acción del SELA en materia de germoplasma vegetal con la FAO, nos parece que lo que se está poniendo en duda es el principio de la cooperación internacional. No vemos la razón por la cual algunas delegaciones pretenden que se someta este proyecto de resolución a un período mayor de maduración cuando en realidad los objetivos que persigue son muy claros, no tiene ninguna implicación financiera y, conforme lo han expresado algunas delegaciones como la honorable delegación de España, tal vez lo único que va a traer como resultado inmediato son beneficios.
América Latina es un continente rico en materia de recursos fitogenéticos, en tanto que hay otros continentes por razones que solamente podrían explicarlas los técnicos y científicos, que no tienen esa misma riqueza y el establecer una colaboración entre una entidad, un organismo latinoamericano que posee los recursos y la FAO no podría servir sino exclusivamente para que todos los avances que en esta materia se hagan estén difundidos a nivel universal, de tal forma que no vemos las preocu-paciones de algunas delegaciones en el sentido de pretender que se demore el estudio de una resolución que lo único que pretende es establecer un vínculo de cooperación y nada más, es una expresión más de cooperación a nivel internacional y nos parece realmente que eso es lo que se está poniendo en duda.
Rodolphe de POÜRTALES (Suisse): J'ai écouté avec beaucoup d'intérêt le débat relatif à ce projet de résolution et je dois dire que je ne comprends pas mieux qu'au début le sens de la résolution. Il me semble que les paragraphes de son dispositif n'apportent rien de nouveau. Comme l'a précisé le Secrétariat, il s'agit d'activités qui existaient déjà et, s'il fallait adopter une résolution pour entériner chaque activité de la FAO, la Conférence ne se terminerait jamais.
Je voudrais appuyer, en ce sens, la délégation des Pays-Bas pour introduire l'énoncé de la résolution dans le rapport final.
Talaat DADA (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Nous voudrions appuyer vigoureusement le projet de résolution présenté par le Mexique. Nous lançons un appel à tous les participants pour que ce projet soit adopté à l'unanimité car il s'agit d'une question très importante pour les pays d'Amérique latine et des Caraïbes. Par ailleurs, nous savons que ce projet de résolution n'aura pas d'incidence financière.
Frank Mensa K. DENYOH (Ghana): It is unfortunate that we do not have background information on this Resolution. In any case, we have been advocating that FAO should cooperate and coordinate any work concerning agriculture. We are under the impression that the work going on in Latin America is scientific work and the Secretariat has already explained that it is not going to involve FAO in
any extra funding. We believe that Africa would benefit if this kind of scientific work is carried out because Africa and Latin America share species of plants. crops and animals and therefore we would encourage such scientific work to go on for the benefit of the African region. Therefore, Ghana will support this Resolution so long as it does not have an adverse effect on FAO or any member country.
Roger P. LEWIS (United States of America): We would like to associate ourselves with the statement of the Netherlands.
Yacoub Y. AL-YOUSUFI (Kuwait) (original language Arabic): Since we began this meeting and this Conference, people have asked for and encouraged technical cooperation between member contries and different organizations. That is the first point. Secondly, those who presented this Resolution belong to the Third World, to the developing countries, who are trying to accede to development. They are trying to benefit from the spin-off of this Organization. Thirdly, the Secretariat told us very clearly that there were no financial implications involved in this Resolution. Fourthly, this is an integral part of the work done by FAO which is so experienced in this field. Fifthly, this Resolution would be of benefit to all countries and to ail areas. Those countries who presented this Resolution have pledged to give all possible and imaginable references. That is why we support this Resolution.
CHAIRMAN: On my list of speakers I have three more countries, now four with Algeria. After those four countries I beg your indulgence. I think we have reached a point where I can try at least to reach some conclusions because if every country speaks on the Resoultion perhaps we will stay here for another half an hour. We have to come to a decision on the Resolution.
Ahmed S. HARIRI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): We are very much surprised to see the hesitation shown by certain delegations in supporting this Resolution because just an hour ago when we were discussing agenda item 20.1 and 20.2, the same delegations were unhappy and dissatisfied about the coordination and cooperation between FAO and other institutions. Now, when we are calling for further cooperation and coordination for this Resolution, it is being criticized. We appeal for general support for this Resolution.
Arrow Solomon OBURU (Kenya): We wish to ask one or two questions. Lack of resources is limited not only to Latin America, but spread particularly in Africa. The work which could be done in the Latin American Centre would be useful to give the information which Africa needs. We would have preferred this Resolution to call for an enhancement of this kind of activity which was not limited to Latin America alone. It should have been spread to all the areas concerned, particularly in Africa, or in the case of Ethiopia with coffee and Kenya with grass - that would have encouraged us more. The question I would have wished to ask concerns sub-paragraph 3 of the proposed Resolution, namely: the fact that there is already a memorandum of understanding signed between the Organization and SELA. However, at paragraphs 3 and 4 (page B.2), we are asking for back-stopping on specific problems. It is here that we think detailed documentation would be useful as to what the memorandum of understanding covers and the deficiencies that should now be topped up by back-stopping, or specific problems. It would enable us to come to a conclusion as to really what it is that we are supporting. I do not know whether the Secretariat has an answer to that.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Kenya, we will come back to your question.
lbrahima KABA (Guinée): Ma délégation souhaite intervenir à propos du projet de résolution présenté par le Mexique.
Compte tenu du rôle reconnu à la FAO dans le domaine de la coopération en matière de ressources phytogénétiques et vu l'intérêt considérable que la région concernée accorde à la question et les efforts que les pays de cette région déploient dans ce domaine, nous pensons qu'il est opportun que notre Commission adopte ladite résolution. Nous pensons également que, dans le cadre de la coopération technique entre pays en développement, notre région pourrait valablement profiter des travaux de ce Comité.
La délégation guinéenne appuie donc le projet de résolution du Mexique.
Mlle Faouzia BOUMAIZA (Algérie): Nous intervenons très brièvement sur ce point de l'ordre du jour pour exprimer notre soutien à ce projet de résolution. Notre appui découle de l'intérêt que nous portons à ce. genre de question, à savoir celle des ressources phytogénétiques.
Nous pensons également que les résultats des travaux de cette Commission pourraient être utiles à l'ensemble de la communauté internationale.
Eduardo Tomás MIRANO (Angola): Mon intervention ne sera pas longue puisque, comme le Président l'a dit, l'Algérie devait être le dernier orateur.
Je voudrais simplement exprimer l'appui de mon pays à ce projet de résolution. Ce débat a pris un temps convenable et nous ne voyons pas pourquoi nous devons continuer à discuter sur cela puisque ce projet n'entraîne aucune incidence financière.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Angola, Kenya has asked a specific question. Is the Secretariat in a position to answer?
A. REGNIER (Director, Office for Inter-Agency Affairs): In fact the Director-General of FAO and the Permanent Secretary of SELA have signed not a Memorandum of Agreement, but what is called an Exchange of Letters, in March 1985, and the content is rather broad in scope. It foresees the possibility of cooperation through exchange of documentation and information; through invitations to meetings; through undertaking possible joint studies and may be even programmes and any other activities agreed between the parties. It is because it has been framed in such a way it is broad in scope. This is the technical information that I can give on the matter.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Régnier. Does that satisfy Kenya?
Arrow Solomon OBURU (Kenya): We would stop there for the time being but with the declaration that a memorandum of agreement has been signed which is misleading so far as this paragraph is concerned.
CHAIRMAN: Just to solve the latest difficulties - start with the latest difficulty ... from the declaration of the Secretariat I understood that paragraph (iii) is not a question of a memorandum of agreement but is an exchange of letters. So may I suggest myself that we change the second line, or we change this paragraph as follows. At the end of the line after "have" we continue by saying "had an exchange of letters." I repeat, instead of "signed a memorandum of agreement" we delete this
part and we say "have had an exchange of letters" and then continue as it stands. If there is no objection on the part of the sponsors then perhaps we can adopt this amendment, just to concur with the facts. I see no objection. This is amended as I said.
Now I will try at this stage to sum up, or try to sum up the situation a little bit. We have this Resolution before us. Some countries at first expressed some hesitations about the financial implications. I gather that these hesitations are overcome on the basis of the explanations of the countries concerned - that is the sponsors - and on the basis of the explanations of the Secretariat. But still some hesitations remain on the following points. First, the general comment was made that countries have only had the opportunity to study this Resolution at very short notice; that such Resolutions should be based on the documentation which should be circulated beforehand. These general comments I think do not concern only this Resolution but are valid for any Resolution to be discussed by our Commission or by the Conference in general. So I think this general comment is well noted.
Secondly, hesitation was specifically expressed concerning the operations etc. of the organizations of which this Resolution speaks. 1 think this is also a valid point but perhaps the delegations concerned can pursue the matter afterwards, and 1 will say in what way.
A third point was also made - that since this Resolution does not bring any new element into the cooperation between FAO and the organizations mentioned, perhaps we should not need a Resolution at all, but we may serve the same purpose by inserting the same wording in the report of our Commission.
However, all these hesitations having been noted I think I have felt a strong feeling on the part of many countries that they want this Resolution to be adopted as a Resolution and not to be included in the report because of the wish of these countries to give a special emphasis to the cooperation between FAO and the organizations concerned. So on this basis may I appeal to the delegations who have expressed some hesitations whether they can go along with the general consensus, however having of course the right to enter general reservations or make declarations reiterating in full or in part the hesitations to which I have referred already. So again may I appeal to these delegations first, and then we will see what will happen. If there is no objection to that we can take it for granted that the hesitations expressed as to the form and the content of the Resolution will of course be included in our report. But may I gather that, with this proviso, the Resolution is adopted by consensus?
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): I was with you until you used the words: "this Resolution is adopted by consensus." I explained earlier that certainly for my delegation I needed a little more time to consult. 1 still need that time. I certainly do not want to stand in the way of this Commission sending the Resolution forward to the Plenary, but my position is totally reserved, as I made clear in my statement, until I have instructions.
CHAIRMAN: Of course I recognize your position. Of course it is not, let us say, a nice thing to invite a delegation to enter specific reservations, but can you go along with what you have just said, that this reservation on the part of the United Kingdom, is on the grounds that they did not have time to study the Resolution?
Roger P. LEWIS (United States of America): In the absence of a clear statement within the Resolution requiring the proposed plant genetic research activity to be carried out within existing budget resources, and lacking adequate information concerning the scope of work envisaged by the proposed Resolution and an inadequate amount of time to study the implications of the Resolution, the United States would like to ask that the record reflect that it reserve with respect to the Resolution.
CHAIRMAN: There is no doubt about that.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Como usted mismo trato de expresarlo hace poco, no es éste el primer proyecto de resolución que se presenta a una Comisión sin una antelación considerable. Se han aclarado las repercusiones financieras, que no existen, se ha explicado muy adecuadamente que se trata de actividades de coordinación. De manera que, sinceramente, no vemos que diticulíades puedan existir para dejar reservas sobre este Proyecto de Resolución. Sin embargo, naturalmente respetamos la posición de los dos distinguidos países: Reino Unido y Estados Unidos y entendemos que ambos, por lo menos el último, aceptó que sus reservas consten en las actas; si ésta fuera también el caso del Reino Unido, muy lamentablemente y muy a nuestro pesar, tendríamos que proceder así; pero consideramos que será necesario adoptar ya este Proyecto de Resolución.
CHAIRMAN: That is in fact what Î am trying to do.
Michael Joseph RYAN (Australia): I am afraid the Ambassador from Colombia will have to respect the Australian position as well. We have exactly the same problems as have been expressed by the United Kingdom and the United States. We do need more time to study this Resolution before we decide one way or the other, and they have said all that needs to be said on this. We reserve on this as well.
Sra. Margarita LIZARRAGA SAIXHD (Mexico): Lamentamos que por problemas internos de nuestra Delegación no contábamos con las citas y los documentos solicitados aquí por algunas de las Delegaciones. Ahora nos han llegado las citas de estos documentos. Uno es el Programa Latinoamericano de Recursos Fitogenéticos, Reunión de Mexico, y el otro es el Programa Regional de Recursos Fitogenéticos para América Latina, la tercera, un documento sobre la creación de una Comisión CARFIT que es apoyo para lo que está mencionado aquí como título del Comité.
Estos documentos podrán estar libres mañana si logramos hacer algunas fotocopias, pero los documentos existen y, como les digo, desafortunadamente no pudimos traerlos.
CHAIRMAN: I think it is helpful, especially for the intention of delegations who have asked for further information. But at this point I think - again I say I think and I hope - that the Resolution can be considered as adopted by consensus with of course the reservations expressed by the delegations concerned, and certainly the report will reflect these reservations. It is so decided.
Shigeki YAMAMOTO (Japan): Japan has the same problem as the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. This Draft Resolution has been submitted quite suddenly and unexpectedly. That is why, before we give a final decision, we need instructions from the government. That is why we reserve.
Ms. Anna-Liisa KORHONEN (Finland): On this occasion I am speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries. Like the previous speakers, United Kingdom, United States, Australia and Japan, our delegations feel that we had very little time to study this issue and therefore we would like to register our reservation on this Resolution.
CHAIRMAN: Canada, you want to enter another reservation?
J LYNCH (Canada): We will enter a reservation.
CHAIRMAN: Germany - the same point?
Wolfgang A.F. GRAMSCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of:) (original language German): For reasons just put. forward by the distinguished delegate of Japan and also of Finland, and already by other delegations, we too must enter a reservation to this Resolution. I would like to remind you of the Netherlands idea that was put forward. Would it not be useful to include the main objectives contained in this Draft Resolution as well as the essence of the discussions into the report of our Commission. That would be the new balance which would then probably carry the reservations which other delegations and we are now compelled to make.
CHAIRMAN: I want to reiterate that the suggestion of the Netherlands was put to the floor and there was a strong feeling on the part of the sponsors to keep it as a Resolution so I do not want to reopen this debate.
Rodolphe de POURTALES (Suisse): Je dois me joindre aux delegations qui ont parlé avant moi pour exprimer certaines réserves concernant cette résolution dont le contenu n'est ni clair ni précis et dont les conséquences ne sont pas mesurables à l'heure actuelle. Je tiens à préciser que la délégation suisse ne veut pas du tout faire d'obstruction à une collaboration ou à une coordi-nation de la FAO dans le domaine des ressources phytogénétiques; bien au contraire nous pensons qu'il s'agit d'une partie de son mandat, mais nous ne pouvons pas nous déclarer satisfaits do cette résolution.
E. Patrick ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): I think what we are experiencing - that countries are requesting their democratic rights to be clearly expressed - is reasonable. I only hope that the report of this Commission on this particular matter will be well-written and balanced. It should emphasize the major issues as indicated in the resolution. For the record, they are: cooperation and consultation among the group of countries and an initiative on establishing collaboration between SELA and FAO. Finally, this is an initiative designed to establish or strengthen the abilities of the developing countries in this matter.
CHAIRMAN: That concludes the review of this resolution. I repeat that the resolution was adopted by consensus, with the reservations expressed by the following delegations: United Kingdom, United States of America, Australia, Japan, all the Nordic countries, Canada, the Federal Republic of Germany and Switzerland - with the hope that many of the reservations will disappear when the subject comes to the Plenary. That is an addition on my part. Therefore that concludes matters concerning the resolution but of course we have not yet concluded Item 20.3.
It was so decided
Il en est ainsi décidé
Así se acuerda
Cedric FERNANDO (Observer for the International Confederation of Catholic Organizations for Charitable and Social Action): As Chairman of the Informal Meeting of International Non-Governmental Organizations held on 10 November, I should like to make a few comments on the document C 87/INF/1 which is the Report on the meeting.
The theme under discussion concerned the contribution - actual and potential - of NGOs to the identification and implementation of rural development programmes in collaboration with FAO and Member Governments.
The meeting, and the report on it, in effect, represent concrete examples to hand of FAO-INCO collaboration: the document presents, in synthetic form, specific information on initiatives under way which involve collaboration by NGOs, Member Governments and FAO - initiatives which cover a range of activities already wide and which, in recent years, have become more numerous.
It is hoped that the trend towards greater involvement of NGOs in rural development programmes and projects will continue: NGOs are often in a position to be able to involve and motivate rural populations and thus to contributo in a definitive manner to the success of the operations. Moreover, in recent years, NGOs have shown the capacity to be able to mobilise and effectively to utilise an increasing quantity of development funds. It appears highly desirable that a substantial proportion of these funds be directed to the rural sector.
For these reasons, representatives of INGOs welcomed the increasing interest shown by FAO in the contribution of NGOs to rural development. This, amongst other things, has been evidenced by the favourable consideration hitherto given to the proposal of the Ad Hoc Group of INGO representatives in Rome to include an item on the agenda of the next COAG regarding people's participation in agricultural and rural development.
Specific proposals have, moreover, been put forward by Member Governments (and are still under discussion) for intensifying the involvement of representative organizations of groups of rural people (particularly women) in the planning and execution of development projects.
If NGOs are to be involved in a more intensive manner, however, it seems essential that further efforts be made to improve channels of communication between FAO and NGOs. The present difficulties in this respect are specified in the Report and proposals for overcoming them are put forward.
It also appears to be very important - as is underlined in the document - to recognize the great diversity in character amongst NGOs as a group. This diversity must be taken into consideration in suggesting lines of action.
In conclusion, therefore, it seems important to emphasize, on the one hand, the progress already.made in involving NGOs in rural development programmes; on the other hand, it is necessary to recommend a thorough, unprejudiced and well-documented consideration of the as yet unexpioited potential of NGO action. 1/
Almir F. DE SA BARBUDA (Brazil): I wish to have a clarification from you, in relation to the resolution on the environment. I have been informed by the Secretariat that the resolution has been approved by consensus. My delegation did not notice that it was approved by consensus. I have consulted with other delegations in this room which also did not know that the resolution had been approved. Could you tell me what is going on?
CHAIRMAN: That puts me in a little difficulty because I was not in the Chair at the time but I am told that these resolutions were indeed approved by consensus. I hope that at that time there was a quorum in this room. I do not think I can give any other reply on this.
Almir F. DE SÁ BARBUDA (Brazil): In that case, I just want to let this Commission know that we are going to present a reservation on this resolution when it is taken to Plenary.
Sra. Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): La información que usted nos acaba de dar hace que la Delegación argentina quiera dejar en actas su reserva formal con relación a la Resolución, al Proyecto de Resolución que figura en el Documento C 87/LIM/44, Apéndice A, que se dice que fue aprobada por consenso
____________________________
1/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
en esta sala y en esta tarde. Mi Delegación, no obstante, quiere dejar aclarado qué tiene reservas de fondo con relación a la terminología y a los conceptos utilizados en esta Resolución, y que expresará, si es posible reabrir el asunto en este momento, dichas reservas, y si no lo hará en Plenaria.
CHAIRMAN: 1 want to underline that it is not in my power to reopen the discussion. It was adopted and finished; but of course there are other instances where any delegation who wishes to do so may enter reservations - but not here. I am sorry.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Colombia se suma a las reservas de Brasil y Argentina.
Arrow Solomon OBURU (Kenya): Kenya is rather baffled at the way in which we are going about discussions on resolutions on the environment. We do not really understand how matters discussed here and properly concluded, with decisions made, can be reopened several hours later and we start entering reservations. If we start doing that to matters which have been concluded, for example, three days ago, it could be that we might have received instructions which are different from the positions that we took, and then open discussions to enter reservations. In Kenya's view, those delegations which might not have voted either for reasons which were beyond their control or because they were absent from the discussion should feel free to raise these matters in the Plenary. It is my wish that we do not enter into matters that are finished and concluded and long gone.
CHAIRMAN: I think I made this point when replying to Argentina. I repeat those words.
Washington ZUÑIGA TRELLES (Peru): Des pués de que el Proyecto de Presupuesto B ya se había aprobado, usted aceptó que otros países hicieran sus reservas. Entonces, con el mismo criterio de equidad, los países que han presentado sus reservas al Inciso A, están con todo el derecho de hacerlo, y yo también quisiera sumarme a Colombia, Argentina y Brasil y formular mis reservas oportunamente.
CHAIRMAN: I will try once again to clarify matters. There is a big difference between entering reservations to a resolution after the resolution is adopted, but under an item that is being discussed, and trying to enter reservations on a resolution concerning an item on which the discussions are finished. The resolution under Item 20.2 was discussed and this item was concluded. Item 20.2 is concluded. So it is not possible, according to the rules, to reopen the item about the resolution. We cannot reopen Item 20.2. However, to reply again to your comments, the reservations to the resolution we are discussing were entered when the item was under discussion. I tried to make this difference clear and I appeal to the delegations of Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Peru - this is a suggestion on my part - that they should enter their reservations in the Plenary. I can tell distinguished delegates that we have now concluded our consideration of Item 20, with all its sub-points. It is almost seven o'clock and in the work of our Commission there remains part of the discussion on Item 15. On the list of speakers the item was introduced - the discussion had already begun - but it was deferred until after the discussion of Item 20. With your permission, we will continue because I have ten speakers ready on my list and we hope we can listen to them within a reasonable limit of time, and then conclude the item with replies from the Secretariat. I see that Saudi Arabia has a point of order.
Ahmed S. HARIRI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): It is not really a point of order but just a question for the Secretariat. Are we going to proceed to Item 12 after finishing this one?
CHAIRMAN: I think your question is not directed to the Secretariat, but to ourselves. I would remind the distinguished delegate that this Commission has established a contact group to facilitate the discussion of Item 12.So far as my personal inclination is concerned, the Contact Group is pursuing its work.
I assume it will come back to this question at the Commission level when this Contact Croup hopefully arrives at a positive outcome. I hope that answers your question, but in any case I do not see any possibility for us to come back to this item today.
CHAIRMAN: I will first read the list of speakers so that everyone knows when they will take the floor. The first country will be Swaziland, followed by Egypt, Guyana, Philippines, Mexico, Bangladesh, France, Cuba, Chile and Argentina. Also Î see Germany. For the moment let us leave matters like this.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Moción de orden. Sr. Presidente, como usted sabe, ésta es una etapa muy movida, muy agitada de la Conferencia. Quisiéramos saber, Sr. Presidente, antes de volver a este tema, cuáles son sus planes.
¿Hasta qué hora va a trabajar esta Comisión? Habrá interrupción, o no? Porque todos necesitamos organizamos.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Colombia. I think 1 have made my intentions clear when I said that I had ten countries and I have expressed the hope that these ten countries will speak within a reasonable time limit, and then we will hear the Secretariat's replies and we will stop at that. Also I had replied to the delegate of Saudi Arabia that I do not see any possibility of proceeding further on Item 12 and Item 12 is in fact the only Item left. So let us hope that we finish Item 15 in one hour's time. Perhaps I am too optimistic. So I give the floor to Egypt.
Adel Helmy EL-SARKI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): The Egyptian delegation has studied this document in great depth and we welcome the measures taken by the Director-General in order to cope with the negative impact of paragraph 3, liquidity problems.
Paragraphs 5 through 7 deal with the extent of financial problems and we fully agree that non-payment of contributions is the basic reason for this Treasury crisis. My Government has paid all its dues convinced, as it is, of the programmes and targets pursued by FAO and also in order to promote international cooperation. We take this opportunity to urge all countries despite all their financial difficulties to pay their contributions and thus make it possible for FAO to fulfil its task.
After having studied the summing up of action taken, paragraph 12 onwards, and having taken note of the reactions on the part of Council and subsidiary bodies, paragraphs 22 through 28, we fully support paragraph 28, describing the tackling of the situation.
Neil o. PIERRE (Guyana): My delegation feels obliged to be brief on its comments on this agenda item. The three main factors responsible for the Organization's budgetary shortfalls are very clearly stated.
My delegation especially understands the need for meeting the constitutional obligations for the payment of contributions, particularly since my own country now finds itself in the situation of arrears. We note however a significant distinction between the willingness to pay and the inability to meet that obligation directly and effectively as a result of extenuating conditions beyond the control of our own national authorities. Notwithstanding, my delegation fully shares the difficulties and underlying causes contributing to a state of delinquency on the part of some Member States.
There have been several suggestions In earlier debates almed at addressing or overcoming the crisis. Among these I note, firstly, the suggestion of denominating the budget in two or more currencies, secondly the consideration of the use of basket of currencies, including the SDR, thirdly a selective approach to savings according to properly defined priorities, and fourthly the examination of possible income generating activities. My delegation recognizes that particular difficulties may exist in each of these suggestions. It is our view however that they may each be worthy of some further considérâtion.
My delegation would like to register its concern for the priority attached to selective programme reductions under the current budget. We note especially the impact of the crisis on the forestry programme, as stated in the document before us. This particular programme we consider of major importance.
Finally, we highly commend the actions adopted by the management of the Organization in meeting the shortfalls. We fully endorse the course of action proposed in paragraph 28 for dealing with anticipated abnormalities, bearing in mind of course the necessity for proper accountability.
It is our hope that the Conference will adopt these proposals.
M.M. SIDDIQUE ULLAII (Bangladesh): An analysis of this financial problem and its impact on the Regular Programme activities during the 1986-1987 biennium presented in document C 87/23 is very informative. Some of the figures are not up-to-date but up-dated figures would not change the position substantially. The document shows that the total shortfall in the estimated income was of the order of US$ 136 million. Three factors contributed to it and they are as follows: shortfall in miscellaneous income, US$ 12 million; shortfall in contributions US$ 94.4 million; loss due to depreciation of exchange rate, US$ 29.8 million. However, the impact of the shortfall on Regular Programme activities has been limited to just about US$ 25 million. This has been achieved through skilful management action and we believe that the Director-General deserves our congratulations for facing this situation with wisdom and foresight.
But the measures taken show that FAO's activities had been protected for the current biennium only if the financial problems persist. The activities will have to be curtailed drastically during the next biennium. There would be no Special Reserve Fund next biennium to fall back on in case of further depreciation of the exchange rates. There would not be enough elbow room in the Working Capital Fund to provide a cushion for diminishing cash flow. Generous Member Nations who agreed to relinquish or defer their claims to cash surplus could not be expected to do so again and again. Therefore correcetive measures to restore the shattered financial position of the Organization are urgently called for.
I supposed Commission III would have discussed these problems and found solutions to them by now. But one or two observations bearing on these problems in this Commission would be relevant.
An analysis of the factors which contributed to the present financial situation of FAO would show that delay in payment of contributions by certain member countries not only meant a shortfall in cash flow to the extent of the amount of those contributions, it also indirectly produced a shortfall in miscellaneous income by reducing the size of short-term investible fund. This we urge be taken note of by the Member Nations while considering the timing of the payment of their contributions in future.
We believe that freezing the growth of FAO's activities is one thing and delaying payment of agreed contributions required to finance an agreed programme is another thing. In the first case one can plan for adjustments according to priorities, in the latter case you are taken unaware and by surprise. More importantly, in the latter case you not only suffer by curtailment of specific activities, but also by rendering other activities infructuous. Because many of these activities are complementary and inter-dependent 1 think this has been focused in the concluding part of the document under consideration.
We therefore urge that Member Nations concerned appreciate these implications in depth while deciding upon the timing of payment of their contributions.
Delay in payment of contributions in certain cases had been explained in terms of foreign exchange difficulties. In this connection I wish to invite the attention of the Commission to document C 87/LIM/38, which presents a statement of the payment position of each member country. A close look at the list lends one to wonder in the case of how many countries' delay in payment is explained fully by foreign exchange difficulties. We should like to leave it to the members concerned to find an answer.
There is a reference in paragraph 8 of the document that the national need for meeting budget deficit posed a problem in payment in certain cases. There is nothing unusual about meeting a budget deficit by retrenchment of allocations. The right principle to follow in such cases is to go by priority. From that point of view contribution to an organization dealing with the problems of food and hunger of the world does not appear to be the most suitable case for retrenchment of expenditure. If we agree upon this approach we all should try to adopt this priority.
We are aware that the question of delayed contributions is a very sensitive question, yet we have decided to offer some comment only to show this forum how countries like Bangladesh look at this problem. We have no intention, in this intervention, of ignoring the problem faced by several countries in finding the resources to pay up their contribution. We have also no intention to question decisions taken by sovereign national parliaments in their best interest. In this intervention we are entirely inspired by our anxious consideration of this need for making a joint undertaking of all nations effective and fruitful.
I have taken a little time of the Commission but we have not made too many long interventions.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): This is not the first time that member countries look at this issue - "The Impact of Financial Problems on Regular Programme Activities of 1986-87". Hence many delegations have already voiced their views on this issue. This is perhaps the reason why the debate on the item started the other day hesitatingly, haltingly.
This, notwithstanding, the Philippine delegation wishes to offer the following comments:
I. First of all, the Philippine delegation commends the Secretariat's efforts to safeguard the most essential aspects of FAO's programme, taking into account the absolute priority attached by member nations to the technical and economic programme. The countries' priorities after all are not unknown to the Secretariat since these have been aired on various occasions not only in the technical bodies but in the Council and Conference as well.
In this connection, the Philippine delegation agrees to give the necessary authority and flexibility to the Director-General for the implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget the Conference would eventually approve for 1988-89 along the lines of the authorization given to the Director-General by the Council in the 90th Session, to take actions as appropriate in the current biennium. Also connected with this is a resolution that is still to be passed in Commission III regarding the transfer of authority to the Council to make adjustments on the current budget.
II. Regarding the factors at the origin of the income shortfalls, I should like to express the view that perhaps these may not have the same effect on the Programme of Work and Budget of the forthcoming biennium as on that of the present biennium.
The first factor noted by document C 87/23, the overestimate of the miscellaneous income, may not perhaps recur in the forthcoming biennium.
This time the estimate of the miscellaneous income is more prudent and modest in line with the guidance by the FAO governing bodies and governing Council. As you know, the income of the miscellaneous income was very much less than the estimated income in the current biennium.
The third factor, that is the arrears of Member Nations apart from the largest contributor, are in the same level as in the previous biennia, as noted by other delegations who spoke before me. FAO has been able to handle these arrears in the past and I do not see why FAO should not be able to handle them now or in the future.
Now, regarding the depreciation of the dollar, as we all know this has had at least three results: number one, it has increased the proposed budget level by many millions, about US$40 million; number two, it has cost the complete depletion of the Special Reserve Account amounting to U$22 million; third, it has cost an additional loss of US$7.8 mi Ilion, which has to be met from the regular budget. In this connection the Philippine delegation wishes to reiterate its view which it has already expressed during the debate on item 13, which is as follows: the depreciation of the U5$ dollar vis-à-vis the Italian lira has had adverse effects on the implementation of the budget. It has also caused an increase in the assessments of member countries in dollar terms.
Some member countries, however, whose currencies have revaluated in relation to the dollar are going to pay much less in terms of their national currencies for the 1988-89 biennium than they paid for the present biennium. The Philippine delegation would therefore like to request the Director-General to approach the Member Nations, to encourage them to continue paying at the same rate in their national currencies as they paid in 1986-87. In this way this would lessen the pressure on the assessment of the Special Reserve Account and also on the budget. I should also like to suggest that the Finance Committee study alternative possibilities of having burdens of payments more equitably distributed in the future, taking into account the so-called currency factor. The objective of this request is not to subsidize those who have not yet paid their contributions but to achieve a more equitable distribution of the burden
Furthermore, in order to avoid the possible adverse effects of currency fluctuations the Organization could perhaps hedge by keeping its liquid funds in SDRs or ECUs. IFAD, for example, has been able to maintain the value of its investments by keeping a high portion of its funds in SDRs. I believe the Finance Committee should look into this at its next session or as soon as possible.
Then in spite of the care taken by the Secretariat to safeguard the essential aspect of FAO's programme, we notice an overall reduction of FAO's technical programme. It has affected important programmes such as the programme for advice for trypianomiasis control, improvement of management of agriculture, fisheries resources assessment and development planning, as noted in the document C 87/23.
An observation has been made that representation expenses did not seem to have been cut. Well, during the previous biennium those who came to the intergovernmental groups must have noticed there were receptions given on the first evenings on intergovernmental meetings. This served the useful purpose of allowing delegates to get to know each other, especially those who came from the capitals and the representatives from business. These receptions have been abolished in this biennium. Also, for example, the members from the contact group or the drafting group worked all" evening from 6 o'clock sometimes up to 3 o'clock a.m.We are not even given any food. We have to work all these hours without even being given coffee or sandwiches. 1 think it is part of the austerity. So I believe that cuts have been made and I believe they have been made with seriousness and system but there is a limit to an orderly process of programme and budgetary adjustments.
The estimate of the present biennium shortfall is between US$40 million to US$80 million. I do not know how much it will be for the next biennium. The financial crisis of the Organization apparently will continue unabated unless appropriate actions are taken. It is within the power of Member Nations to take appropriate action to solve these problems of arrears. We hope this action will be taken so that FAO may be able efficiently to continue its mandate.
Sra. Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Mi delegación ha leído con atención el documento C 87/23 relativo a este tema de nuestra agenda que expone sucintamente a la Conferencia los motivos y el alcance de los problemas financieros que afronta la Organización.
En adición a lo que manifestáramos en ocasión de la consideración del tema 14, que no repetiremos en honor de la brevedad, quisiera hacer unos cortos comentarios.
En primer lugar, el documento no tiene la precisión que hubiéramos deseado, lo que se aplica no sólo a su formato y conclusiones, sino también a algunos de sus párrafos entre ellos el 6, el 8 y varios otros. Estimamos que las razones de economía invocadas en el párrafo 20 no justifican la falta de presentación a la Conferencia de un detalle completo de las actividades no cumplidas y que fuera encomendadas por ésta a la Secretaría en noviembre de 1985.
Del párrafo 16 y siguientes y de los informes del Consejo surge que éste concordó con lo actuado por el Director General. Mi delegación ya expresó su acuerdo en términos generales con lo actuado por el Director General en ocasión de la consideración del tema 14. Mi delegación estima, no obstante, que es de competencia de la Conferencia entender en estas cuestiones y ratificar cuales quiera medidas adoptadas debido a circunstancias imprevisibles por otro órgano de esta Organización.
En consecuencia, quisiera dejar constancia que si bien respaldamos el criterio general con que la Secretaría procedió a los a justes en ios programas, mi delegación siente que haya algunas actividades que revisten prioridad y debieran haber sido mantenidas y que la región de América Latina y el Caribe ha sido tal vez desproporcionadamente afectada por aquellos ajustes en los programas. En particular nos referimos a las actividades relativas a la CEPD, a las mujeres, a la sanidad animal, otras que involucran actividades de extensión y capacitación en beneficio de pequeños agricultores y las que tienen que ver con intervenciones nutricionales en zonas urbanas de América Latina mencionadas en los documentos CL 92/3 y CL 90/23.
Respecto de los ajustes introducidos quisiéramos que la Secretaría nos informara cuál es el porcentaje de reuniones, publicaciones y actividades de campo canceladas que han sido incluidas en el nuevo proyecto de labores y presupuesto, qué prioridad se le ha otorgado.
Finalmente, quisiera dejar constancia que mi delegación expresa su disconformidad con la manera en que quedó reflejada en el informe de esta Conferencia relativo al tema 14, la falta de pago de una parte sustancial de la cuota del mayor contribuyente. Mi delegación entiende que dicha falta de pago lejos de ser una consecuencia necesaria de problemas financieros o económicos o de factores relativos al proceso de presupuestación nacional tiene su raíz y razón de ser en las consideraciones que originaron la llamada enmienda Kasclbaun, teniendo a modificar los procesos de adopción de decisión a ios organismos internacionales a que se hace referencia en el párrafo 8 del documento C 87/23.
La delegación Argentina une su voz a las otras delegaciones que han lamentado los efectos perjudiciales sobre las organizaciones internacionales de esta legislación.
Por último, quisiéramos hacer nuestras las reflexiones de la delegación de Filipinas en lo que respecta a las medidas futuras para aliviar a los países en desarrollo de las consecuencias de la fluc-tuación de los tipos de cambio.
Raúl LOPEZ LIRA (México): Se tienen ciaros los problemas que enfrenta la Organizaciûn (atraso en el pago de las contribuciones de Los países miembros; devaluación del dólar, moneda en la que basa el presupuesto; y reducción de los ingresos derivados del pago de interés sobre los fondos de la Organización). Factores todos que están fuera del posible control de la Secretaría a la que, junto con los Comités de Programa y de Finanzas, agradecemos por la diligencia con que se ha dedicado a estudiar y analizar posibles formas de enfrentar la crisis de liquidez y hacer las propuestas por los canales adecuados para que los países o el Director General cuando esa autoridad le es delegada por el Consejo o la Conferencia, tomáramos, la decisión final respecto a las medidas que tendríamos que tomar.
En estos momentos existe un déficit por ingreso de cuotas de alrededor de 100 millones de dólares, que representa más del 26 por ciento de las cuotas asignadas para el presente bienio, por lo cual se han realizado ciertos ajustes y economías al Programa Ordinario por un total de 25 millones de dólares, viéndose afectados con ello los Programas de Cooperación Técnica en un 7 por ciento.
Ante esta situación, lamentamos divergencias en los puntos de vista de cómo abordarlos; algunos países desarrollados, desean que estos ajustes sean el marco que posibilite la aplicación del concepto de Crecimiento cero" o bien se dejen inconclusos diversos programas que estos países no consideren prioritarios.
Los países en vías de desarrollo reaccionamos distintamente porque, además de los efectos sobre nuestras contribuciones (por efecto de la devaluación de nuestras monedas frente ai dolar y el peso de la deuda), nos afecta en la disminución del apoyo en nuestros esfuerzos en busca de nuestra seguridad alimentaria y desarrollo de nuestra agricultura. Nuestra delegación y muchas delegaciones nos hemos ya referido a estos aspectos en los temas 13 y 14. Sin embargo, queremos enfatizar respecto al im-pacto financiero en la ejecución de los Programas de Cooperación Técnica, pedimos a la Conferencia el cumplimiento do los ya emprendidos y que se introduzcan otras medidas de racionalización, que, lejos de afectar negativamente a los mismos, eleve la eficiencia de sus operaciones.
Deseamos volver a precisar que es indispensable distinguir con toda claridad que la razón por la cual los países miembros con memores recursos hemos debido retrasar el pago de nuestras contribuciones, obedece estrictamente a los graves problemas financieros y la situación económica interna por la que atravesamos. Ello debe separarse de la tendencia del mayor contribuyente a limitar y condicionar con sus contribuciones para presionar por cambios en las políticas de los organismos internacionales del sistema de Naciones Unidas, a fin de que estén más acordes con sus posiciones que son ampliamente co-nocidas entre ellas, particularmente a través de la enmienda Kaselbaun, y que tienen una franca vin-culación del pago con el voto ponderado y otros aspectos que lesionan las prácticas democráticas del sistema de Naciones Unidas.
Por ello volvemos también a exhortar a tal contribuyente a que reconfirme la voluntad política y bus que mecanismos para pagar en su totalidad y a la brevedad posible, sus contribuciones.
Ese es el principal problema financiero que enfrenta la FAO y que, por tanto, está totalmente fuera de su control.
Por otra parte, recordamos aquí la preocupación y en cierta medida la inconformidad de los Estados Miembros, que con motivo de la crisis monetaria han visto devaluar sus monedas y, por tanto, sus contribuciones en dólares se han incrementado, Al respecto, volvemos a plantear, como lo hemos ya planteado junto con otras delegaciones durante ios temas financieros, nuestra solicitud al Director General, de que entre en contacto con aquellos Estados Miembros que han visto reducir sus contribuciones en moneda local, para que hagan un mayor esfuerzo de solidaridad aportando sus pagos a la misma tasa que en el bienio 86/87.
Asimismo, insistimos a que el Comité de Finanzas estudie las alternativas para hacer una distribución de las cargas entre los diversos países tomando en consideración los movimientos monetarios, de tal suerte que se logre una mayor equidad en las cargas en el futuro.
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Quisiéramos Señor Presidente, en primer lugar saludar al Sr. Shah por la clara presentación del Tema que nos ha hecho y a la Secretaría por el documento presentado que con suficiente precisión nos presenta uno de los momentos presupestarios más difíciles por las que ha tenido que atravesar la Organización.
Señor Presidente, los párrafos 6 al 9 del Documento 87/23, explican claramente las causas que motivan el déficit para el presupuesto del bienio 1986-87. Sin embargo, desearíamos que la Secretaría nos aclarara si el orden en que han sido expuestos los factores causales responden en ese mismo orden a la magnitud de la afectación por cada uno de ellos. Está claro que el párrafo 9 del mismo documento podría ser mucho más extenso y explícito sobre las causas que determinan la escasez de divisas en los países en desarrollo, tales como la devaluación del dólar estadounidense, la abultada deuda externa, y el pago de sus servicios y las persistentes condiciones de intercambio desigual en el mercado internacional de productos agrícolas y de materias primas producidas en los países en desarrollo.
Es lamentable asimismo, que el presupuesto ordinario tenga que verse afectado en casi ocho millones de dólares de Estados Unidos aun después de haberse agotado la cuenta especial de reservas con afectación directa de actividades ya aprobadas por la Organización. Como consecuencia de estas afectaciones el Director General adoptó medidas atinadas y racionales tratando de no afectar rubros prioritarios y máximas necesidades para ios países; y me refiero entre otros al Programa de Cooperación Técnica.
Permítame pues, felicitar al Director General por estas decisiones. En consecuencia, mi Delegación desea respaldar la decisión del Consejo en el sentido de conceder al Director General la autoridad y flexibilidad necesarias para la ejecución del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto que ya fue aprobado para el bienio 88-89.
Rainer PRESTI EN (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (original language German): I prefer to speak on this item on the agenda tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegate of Germany it was my intention to conclude this item now, so perhaps you would reconsider?
Rainer PRESTIEN (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (original language German): Having put my name on the list of speakers I now withdraw.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your cooperation. Only Swaziland remains on my list of speakers and this delegation is absent. I think they will reserve their right, if they wish to submit a written statement. I have also a written statement from Chile and this will be duly inserted in the records. As I do not see any other members wishing to speak, I think Mr Shah would like to make the epilogue.
Pedro OYARCE YURASZECK (Chile): Permítame expresar nuestro agradecimiento a la Secretaría por la preparación del documento C 87/8 y sus suplementos. Deseamos igualmente felicitar al Sr. Shah por su completa presentación.
Mi delegación desea sumarse a las numerosas declaraciones que han expresado su preocupación por las consecuencias que la crisis de liquidez genera en la Organización. Sobre el particular, consideramos apropiada la forma que la Secretaría ha procurado preservar con elementos limitados, la acción de la FAO concretamente en relación con los programas de campo en intereses de ios países en desarrollo. A este respecto mi delegación formulará algunas observaciones al abordarse el tema 16.
El Programa de cooperación técnica (PCT) continua siendo uno de ios mecanismos vitales de la FAO en el marco de la cooperación para el desarrollo. Si se mide el impacto de este Programa en los países receptores, en terminos de movilización de recursos humanos, materiales, de capacitación y trans-ferencia de tecnología, es fácil comprender la tendencia percibida en esta Comisión en el sentido de alentar un incremento en sus fondos.
En este contexto, como ya se ha planteado, advertimos la necesidad de que la FAO juegue un rol sustantivo en el intercambio científico y tecnológico entre países en desarrollo, explorando fórmulas que faciliten la investigación y capacitación en el marco de la cooperación Sur-Sur. En ese proceso es indispensable utilizar la capacidad disponible en áreas puntuales. En el caso de mi país, contamos con una infrastructura técnica y recursos humanos suficientes en el sector forestal y pesquero.
Otro aspecto de carácter general que deseamos comentar es el referente a la limitación del comercio por efecto de barreras sanitarias. Nos parece indispensable que la FAO promueva en las negociaciones internacionales la uniformidad de políticas relativas al control sanitario, ello facilitará el acceso a los mercados. Lo anterior, como complemento a la asistencia técnica específica que la Organización ha realizado y ejecute en esta esfera.
Señor Presidente, mi delegación desea brevemente referirse a dos puntos concretos: en primer lugar, a la importancia de analizar el programa relativo a la reducción de pérdidas posteriores a la cosecha Sobre el particular, nuestro país está implementando, en los últimos cuatro años, un proyecto con la FAO para disminuir las pérdidas post-cosecha en granos, producto básico de consumo nacional.
En segundo lugar, on cuanto cl documento C 87/8 Suplemento 3 "Evaluación del PASA", consideramos que este constituye un instrumento adecuado en la búsqueda de la seguridad alimentaria, como un concepto amplio que cubra la producción, estabilidad y acceso. Nos parece importante reforzar sus actividades para lo cual es valioso contar con un apoyo renovado de los donantes.
Por último, mi delegación desea compartir la inquietud de algunas delegaciones en el sentido de solicitar al Director General que explore fórmulas apropiadas para que los países desarrollados, cuyas monedas se han reevaluado, consideren este efecto en sus aportes a objeto de facilitar el reestablecimiento del equilibrio financiero de la Organización.
Paralelamente creemos útil requerir al Comité de Finanzas que estudie las posibles alternativas para lograr una mejor repartición de las cargas financieras en el próximo bienio. Ello en atención a la devaluación monetaria que sufren los países en desarrollo, especialmente afectados por aquellas variables macro-económicas, en ios cuales no tienen posibilidades de influir. 1/
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I hope that my answers will be such that they do constitute the epilogue to this discussion. 1 will certainly try to respond to the questions which have been raised, and at the same time out of respect for your injunction that the members of the Commission be brief, I will also do my best to be brief.
The first question raised in the debate on 18th November when we discussed this item was a question from the distinguished representative of the USA, about the countries who are in arrears with their payment. He requested that the names of these countries be read. We certainly have this information, but in the interest of time I wonder whether it may not be enough to state that the situation of arrears is given in the document which has been referred to by the distinguished delegate of Bangladesh. The document is C 87/LIM/38 which gives the name of every country and indicates the outstanding contributions as at 17 November relating to the 1987 assessments and relating to the arrears.
The distinguished delegate of Canada raised the question about a workshop with respect to forestry, which was one of the activities affected under the programme adjustments and he expressed surprise considering the fact that the Tropical Forestry Action Plan is one of the priorities for the corning biennium. I can only respond by saying that while The Tropical Forestry Action Plan is a priority for the coming biennium, and in fact, a great deal of work has been done in this biennium as well, where we have found that there was certain finite activities that could be postponed or cancelled depending on the timing of that particular activity and the state of preparations which had already been undertaken, we have to review everything. Therefore, it was a question of considered judgement. Just because a Tropical Forestry Action Plan, as a major programme priority, is certainly one which has to be shielded as much as possible from programme adjustments did not mean that everything was untouched. I think the same comment can be applied to our examination of all the programme activities in the priority areas.
The distinguished delegate of India asked a question about what the income shortfall would be because the document at the time of its preparation referred to income shortfall in the range of US$ 40 to 80 million. I well understand the remark of the distinguished delegate of Argentina who said that this is the kind of imprecision she would not like to see in such a document. My explanation for that is that I hope the Commission will understand and appreciate that when it comes to making forecasts of this nature, we are so very much in an evolving situation. When this particular document (C 87/23) was prepared we had to make certain major assumptions, for example, about what would be the possible payment, an important payment. At he time of its preparation we still held out a hope that an amount of US$ 40 million might be hoped for. At the time of the preparation of another document which was submitted to the Conference in Commission III yesterday, a document which was, in fact, prepared only two days before that, we were able to come out with a more precise figure. The more precise figure that we gave in that document is an income shortfall of US$ 73.4 million.
There was a related question by the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom about whether there would be a cash deficit at the end of this biennium. I believe that the distinguished delegate has already been satisfied by the discussion in Commission III so I will not go into details of that matter.
__________________________
1/ Texto incluido en las actas a petición expresa.
Another related question was raised by the distinguished delegate of Cuba about how financial factors which created difficulties could be ranked in terms of magnitude. I wish to avoid making any kind of value judgements, so let me just give the figures as they are in the last estimates. I think to understand this one needs to look both at the income situation and at the expenditure situation. Let me explain. On the income side there are three factors; the contributions for the current assessments for the current biennium, here the shortfall according to our latest forecast is US$ 90.3 million because, according to the approved budget we expected assessed contributions being paid of US$ 396 million. We expect to receive US$ 305.7 million. SO, there is a current assessment deficit of US$ 90.3 million. Then there is the payment of arrears for the previous biennia of US$ 20.7 million which reduces by that amount the current contribution deficit. Then the miscellaneous income shortfall which, at the time of preparation of the earlier document was estimated at some US$ 12 million, in the final analysis we estimate at US$ 3.8 million. So the total income shortfall is US$ 73.4 million all on the income side. The problem created for the Special Reserve Account is on the expenditure side because of the depreciation of the dollar. Due to additional costs which we had to cover we used up the full amount of the Special Reserve Account - just under US$ 22 million - and expect to use another US$ 7.5 million by the end of the year.
Then there were some non-financial questions raised - a question raised by the distinguished delegate of Australia about the possible scope for revenue-raising or income-earning side of FAO's activities and he gave two examples - commercially oriented publications and the use of the Organization's staff on a consultancy basis for which we would be reimbursed. My reply would be in three parts: firstly, that it is true that certain organizations in the UN system - the UN itself has two big examples of revenue-raisong activities. It has a postal administration and it has quite a noticeable revenue from visitor service - guided tours, etc. We are not in that business. The UNICEF programme, as we all know, also has revenue-raising activities for its own needs. On our side certainly there are revenues from publications and those are explained and indicated in the Programme of Work and Budget document where there is a table giving the revenues of the publications' revolving fund and the use of that revenue.
As for the use of staff as consultants, for which the Organization would be reimbursed, I must say we consider ourselves an inter-governmental organization, given a mandate to carry out a particular task with funds appropriated by Member Governments and through extra-budgetary resources. So I have personally not heard it suggested before that FAO turns itself into a consultancy outfit or a consultancy firm which would use staff to raise revenue.
Then there were questions from the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom about posts, and his comments suggested that perhaps posts were frozen indiscriminately - that there was no judgment as to their freezing and that there was no judgment exercised in how to deploy staff or how to unfreeze posts that are needed for priority activities. I hope I can correct that misconception because in fact in considering the posts which could be frozen, even when we started out this exercise with the initial package of US$ 16.4 million at the end of last year - we examined 248 posts, of which 159 were professional and 89 general-service. Not all these posts could be frozen, for obvious reasons. There were priority activities going on - ongoing work which heeded to be continued, and therefore both in the initial examination and with every post as it fell vacant since that time, there has been a very careful examination of the size of the unit, the post involved, what work would be affected if that post was not filled. There were full programme aspects which were taken into consideration.
The distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom then asked a specific question about the distribution of these posts and the split between professional and general service. Out of the 170 posts, 121 are professional and 49 general service. The distribution - and if I may give it by department -in the Agriculture Department 28; the Economic and Social Department 46; Fisheries 4; Forestry 14; Regional Liaison Offices 6; Development Department 14; the Department of General Affairs and Information 33; Administration and Finance 13; and the units which form part of the broad Office of the Director-General like the Office of the Legal Counsel, Internal Audit, my own office, 12.
I believe these were the main questions raised. There was a question also by the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom about TCP spending but as I tried to respond and 1 gave fairly full responses in Commission III, I hope 1 do not need to repeat them now and 1 am glad to see that the distinguished delegate considers that satisfactory.
A question was raised about entertainment, and the distinguished delegate of the Philippines referred to how he has personally been affected by this. There were no written directives given but 1 can tell you that the department heads were requested in a formal meeting - a management meeting - to exercise restraint. So the large part of any effort to reduce on hospitality is a question of personal responsibility and oral injunction and not the subject of any administrative memorandum. But as requested let me give you the figures comparing 1986 and 1987. The budgetary provision for hospitality for the biennium was US$ 293 000. Now one would expect that to be spent roughly evenly or perhaps slightly less in the first year and slightly more in the second because of the number of meetings and the nature of meetings in the second year of the biennium. In the first year of the biennium 1986, the allotments issued were 145 000 at the beginning of the biennium but the actual expenditure was US$ 100 000. This year, despite the different nature of the year as I said, the second year of the biennium - meetings like more sessions of the Council, Conference itself, I estimate expenditure for this year to be US$ 90 000.
I hope I have not neglected any other questions which were raised. I am sorry, there was one more raised by the distinguished delegate of Argentina, about the proportion of cancelled activities.
As far as posts 1 have been able to give you some quantification. As regards meetings - the Programme of Work and Budget for this biennium and Supplement 2 gives a list of meetings - had 366 meetings. So just under one third - about 27 percent - have been affected and in terms of publications the total number listed in Supplement 1 to the Programme of Work and Budget of this biennium was 386. But those are 386 of the main publications main documents - so when I say that about 200 publications have been affected you cannot compare 200 as a proportion of the 386. But that brings me again to the comment which is the concluding one in the document before you - that it is only after the biennium is completed and when we do our review of the implementation for this biennium that we will be able to be much more specific and undertake to provide this specific information in the next review of the Regular Programme.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Shah for your analysis. I see three delegations, perhaps having more questions - or even more delegations.
John COOK (United States of America): The United States can understand Mr Shah's concern for brevity and his preference for not responding to the United States request for a reading of the list of countries with contributions in arrears, but the desire for brevity in these proceedings has not prevented lengthy references to the major contributor being in arrears in contributions. Therefore I am under instructions to request the Secretariat please to read for the record the names of all Member Countries in arrears with their contributions.
CHAIRMAN: We have a document on that so do I understand correctly that Mr Shah reads out the whole document? Can you reply please because we have the document before us which was distributed about a month ago. Can you repeat your request?
John COOK (United States of Anerica): It is not necessary to read the entire document. It is not necessary to read any figures. The request is simply to read the names of the countries in arrears with their contributions.
CHAIRMAN: All right. If these are your instructions. Can you please read them?
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The list of countries with arrears For 1986 and prior assessments as given in the Appendix to document C 87/LIM/38 is as follows: Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Burundi, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Cuba, Democratic Kampuchea, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Islamic Republic of Iran, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Mauritania, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, St. Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone;, Somalia, Suriname, Syria, Tanzania, Turkey, Uganda. Then there is a list of countries for whom the Conference had authorized arrears to be paid in instalments or in arrears: Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Democratic Kampuchea, Nicaragua, Paraguay. And continuing then with the list of other countries, that is to say without instalment payments: United Arab Emirates, and United States of America.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): I should like to welcome the response of Mr Shah to our questions. It is extremely helpful. I am afraid I find myself rather in the position of Oliver Twist. Having been given some gruel, I come back for more. I was very interested when he gave us the figure for expenditure on entertainment in the current biennium of US$ 293 000. I should like him to identify this. Î must confess I do not have the budget document with me at present but I would be very interested to know what the comparative figure is for the next biennium, 1988-89. Could we identify that figure within the budget? I should also be interested in clarification as to whether that figure includes representational allowances which are, of course, personally granted with emoluments. I see from document C 87/LÎM/35 that, depending on the decision of. Conference, we could be adding another US$ 8 000 to the bill for entertainment for the coming biennium. I must confess that I feel, given the nature of our discussions and the strength of feeling within the Organization about the problems posed by income shortfall in terms of operational programmes, surprised that there has been no statement in writing to staff generally, asking them to exercise restraint over entertainment. Finally, may T ask the Secretariat if they have any plans to issue such a statement?
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The first question was about the comparable figure for 1988-89, and where this can be found in the Programme of Work and Budget document. We do not give a figure for hospitality se parately in that document. It is part of the operating expenses figure and I must say I did not come prepared for this detailed question, so I do not have the figure with me.
The second question, if I understood it correctly, was whether the representation allowance of the Director-General is included in the figure for hospitality. No, I believe not. The hospitality element is one which is distributed throughout the Organization, whereas the representation allowance is more of a position-related expense which comes under the costs covered under salaries and common costs.
Thirdly, may 1 clarify that although there was no administrative memorandum - I believe I said there was no administrative instruction - issued in relation to hospitality, there certainly was an injunction or advice given to departmental heads at a formal management meeting, and so it was equivalent to an injunction to exercise restraint. On the last question as to whether it is envisaged that we shall issue a written instruction, I do not know whether it is envisaged. Certainly the same restraint will be urged for the. foreseeable future.
Sra. Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Yo no sé, tal vez haya sido un problema con la interpretación. Agradezco que el Sr. Shah nos ha aclarado que se acepté el 27 por ciento de las reuniones previstas. La pregunta nuestra fue específicamente dirigida a saber si, de las actividades que fueron canceladas en el bienio 86/87 ¿Cuál fue el porcentaje de estas actividades que fue incorporado en la previsión de gastos para el bienio 88/89? Mi pregunta tiende a saber por ejemplo, si las reuniones que no fueron efectuadas están previstas, o si han sido sustituidas por alguna otra reunión a la cual se le ha dado mayor prioridad.
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): As is stated in the Programme of Work and Budget document, the Director-General made a conscious decision that whatever had to be cut during this present biennium would not be automatically incorporated in the Programme of Work and Budget of the next biennium. 1 think that members would not find it very satisfactory to look at specific programme activities and try to rediscover them, because in the process of formulating the present Programme of Work and Budget we went through all the proposals. Very often it is not the programme objective that changes but the elements and the groups of activities and their constituents. For example, you may have the same programme objective for training in a particular field and in one biennium you may have activities consisting of workshops or study tours, and in another biennium these may be in a different form. For example, there is the preparation and publication of a training manual. Because of that process, I would find it hard to assure the representative of Argentina, or any other representative, that there has been a reprogramming in exactly the same way.
J. LYNCH (Canada): I have three questions. First, in responding in his introduction to questions, Mr Shah responded to a specific part of a general question we had asked. Our general question was intended to get an idea of the policy to be pursued with respect to programme adjustments during the coming biennium. In document C 87/23, paragraph 24, there is a statement saying that on the whole across-the-board cuts have been avoided and measures have been based on a re-examination of programme validity and the possibilities actually available for saving, In his statement to the Conference Mr Walton indicated that the basic approach of the Secretariat would be linear cuts with priorities providing preservation for particular items of great interest to the Organization. It strikes me that between that paragraph in the document describing the policy followed in the past biennium and Mr Walton's statement for the coming biennium there is a significant difference, and one that I should like to have explained. This is not an attempt to point out differences between Mr Walton and Mr Shah: it is not an attempt to be smart in any way.
My second question concerns a small point which has been passed to me by my colleague, the permanent representative, Mr Musgrove. He noted that substantial money is earned by the Investment Centre and cost-recoverable money is expended on feasibility studies for projects which are subsequently financed by the World Bank or other donors. He noticed that similar feasibility expenditures are carried out under the Technical Cooperation Programme. But why are they not likewise cost-recoverable in those cases where no donor is found? The third question has already been asked: it concerns the cost per hour of meetings. I believe that someone may be in the process of estimating that, but I would guess that it is about US$ 5 000. It is well known that a great deal of time has been lost just waiting for a quorum to be found. I myself believe that in the last few days I have spent three hours waiting for quorums, and 1 would expect that the cost of interpretation would be US$ 15 000. That was in one Commission alone and I would suspect that in the other Commissions we could have lost in the last few days US$ 45 000 - that would, I would expect, run one person for one year. I believe there is a general feeling at this Conference that the way the meetings have been organized was a mistake and that significant savings could be made by reorganizing the way the Conference is held. Has any work been done on finding out the cost per hour, and are there plans for future savings?
Finally, the last comment would be to say that we echo the United Kingdom's comments about entertainment costs. I believe there is a request for an increase in the entertainment allowance for the Director-General. Although he is of course well entitled to that, I wonder whether, in a time of such financial austerity, it might not be appropriate to cut allowances. I know that in our own service the first thing to go is all the representational and entertainment allowances. What they always do is to balance approval for that type of thing very high up, so that in our own department assistant deputy ministers have to approve entertainment even by directors general. So those are the four points: three are questions and one is just a comment which need not be answered.
CHAIRMAN: I give the floor to Australia. These are comments which may well concur with Australia's.
Paul Richard BRYDEN (Australia): I am beginning to feel like a player in an orchestra performing Haydn's "Farewell" Symphony. Fairly soon we could be down to the quartet part - and you know the last to leave is the conductor. But seriously, if I could just respond to Mr Shah's comments on my intervention, of course 1 was aware of the revenue-raising activities of the publications area. That was partly why I was thinking that it could perhaps become even more commercially oriented. Can this be extended?
Secondly, regarding the thought of a super consultancy, of course that is not the idea I had in mind: not were the examples that I gave examples of that. Our universities and the Commonwealth scientific and cultural research organizations have very small units organizing this. At any one time it would only involve a very small number of people but it is a means of earning revenue and also indicates the type of stimulation which people can get from outside involvement. 1 appreciate this is an intergovernmental organization, but we need to be careful not to close our eyes to any new possibilities. I would certainly encourage all delegations to come forward with ideas, because we are in a situation where innovations and a readiness to change and adapt are needed if our Organization is to be strengthened and to prosper.
CHAIRMAN: Although your intervention was not in the form of a question, I am sure that your thoughts will be well noted.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): I shall be brief. My Australian colleague made a musical reference to Haydn's "Farewell" Symphony. 1 keep on being reminded of the Rolling Stones' hit for those of you who are old enough to remember it "I Can't Get No Satisfaction". I have just two simple points. I take it from Mr Shah's answer that at present there are no plans to issue an administrative memorandum. I would leave that question hanging, and perhaps direct the Secretariat to feel the temper of the meetings.
The second point is more specific. Mr Shah also said, and 1 quite understand, that he could not give us the comparable figure for 1988-89 for the entertainment allowance within the budget. We would be quite happy if we could have this information some time later on during the Commission's meetings.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Maybe I could start with one or two of the questions and then pass the microphone to Mr Shah. Perhaps the most appropriate musical comparison for this evening might be Eine Kleine Nachtmusik.
On the question of programming which was raised by the delegate of Canada, I think I should expand a little to make clear the difference between the current biennium and the next as we see it. For the next biennium we are going to have to take a view of the range of resources available to the Organization, and I think the events of the last few days have confirmed what I said earlier in this Commission, I think when we were on this item before, that there are a number of factors of uncertainty which make it very difficult before the Conference is over to put all the facts together and make a reasonably reliable forecast of what resources we can solidly count on for the next biennium. This should then be followed, I suggested, by a process of orderly reprogramming, and I repeat that you cannot avoid starting with the concept of a linear cut. Perhaps that is not the most felicitous phrase. Perhaps what T should have said was an average target reduction, that is what I mean, that is what we are talking about. We have to see how much the Organization has to cut expenditure, if indeed it does have to cut expenditure at all. Given that figure you can then work out the areas of protection as Î said, areas of priority, and perhaps areas of negative priority, areas where you have to make deeper cuts than the average. What happened inevitably in this biennium was a much higher degree of improvisation where we had to freeze posts as they became available. We would hope that for the next biennium if there has to be a reduction in the level of the programme, departments and divisions will be able to programme it deliberately and not have to become, I do not say victims, but at any rate have to be seriously affected by the random factor of which staff are going to retire and so forth. Therefore I do not think that there is any difference between Mr Shah and myself. I think we were just talking about two separate biennia, the approach that had to be taken in this one and that which we envisage taking in the next.
On the question of entertainment or hospitality or representation, this is administered by senior members of the staff, and an oral injunction by the Director-General to these staff members to exercise responsibility and restraint seems to me a perfectly adequate thing to do and 1 do not see why there should be any issue of whether oral or written directives are issued: the effect is exactly the same.
As for the representation allowance of the Director-General in the next biennium, this was a recommendation from the General Committee and not from the Director-General. Perhaps Mr Shah could take over.
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The delegate of Canada referred to the Investment Centre activities of DDC and whether there was any parallel between those and the revenues which were earned by the DDC and assistance in investment promotion carried out under TCP projects. I think there is a very basic difference. In the case of the Investment Centre there are really two types of arrangements, on the one hand the arrangement with the World Bank, which is that of a set cooperative programme with a fixed proportion of contributions from the World Bank and FAO, and on the other hand arrangements with funding institutions, regional development banks, IFAD, where we have agreements for reimbursement of costs in varying proportions depending on the nature of the activity, whether it is a project identification or a project appraisal or project formulation. These are very substantial feasibility exercises, whereas in the case of TCP projects, although investment is one of the categories in which TCP provides assistance, the average TCP project is still under US$ 80 000 and at this level of operation it cannot undertake an entire feasibility study leading to investment in the immediate or in the relatively near future in the same way as a -proper investment feasibility study carried out by teams of people jointly from FAO and a funding institution. That is one big distinction which I would make.
If the question was to say if there are investment promotion projects under the TCP why do they not raise revenue, again I would say that the assistance given under the TCP is not for the purpose of raising revenue but is one category of assistance under that programme.
I believe there is little more I can say on this subject.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Since I do not see any other flag up I accept that of Australia.
Paul Richard BRYDEN (Australia): 1 feel very diffident about entering into the hospitality, but when you spoke you gave some figures and a large amount seems to be missing. Maybe you forgot to mention it. You said that in 1986-87 the appropriation was 293 000, you said that 145 000 had been allocated to 1986 but that actual expenditure was 100 000. You then said that the estimate for 1987 was 90 000. If you add the 100 000 actual plus the 90 000 estimate it gives you the 190 000 against an appropriation of 293 000. Is the 103 000 savings? I think it might be useful to have that on the record to save further questions.
CHAIRMAN: It was not me who gave these figures. I guess you were addressing Mr Shah.
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I am sorry, I gave the figures, but the delegate of Australia draws the proper conclusion, that in fact this is part of the savings, the economies that were made.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Shah. I really hope now that there arc no other delegations wishing to speak and that we may conclude this item of our agenda, which is item 15. I said a while ago that we were hopeful of finishing within a reasonable time limit. I think it is still reasonable although we have this "Nachtmusik" already in our ears, and at this hour I will not attempt, any summing up. There was a lively discussion, a good dialogue between the Secretariat and the Member Countries, and since this item was for information the Commission may consider itself satisfied at least to some degree. So with these words I declare discussion on item 15 concluded.
That also brings us to the end of our work today. Tomorrow we will resume our work at 9.30 as usual to take up the second part of our report, which is contained in document C 87/II/REP/2 and with the hope that, we may have some other reps. So we will consider the discussion of the reports.
Mile Faouzia BOUMAIZA (Algérie): Après votre proposition de réunion pour demain matin à 9h 30, comme vous le savez peut-être nous avons des problèmes de quorum un peu partout, dans toutes les commissions parce que bien souvent nos délégations sont très minces et doivent assumer plusieurs charges à la fois. Ne pourrions-nous pas examiner la possibilité de retarder l'examen de l'adoption du rapport? Notre délégation, particulièrement, doit être également, par exemple, à la Commission III et à la Commission 1.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: it is not planned tomorrow to run more than two parallel meetings of Commissions. That is in recognition both of the difficulties facing many delegations and also of our rapidly diminishing number of interpreters. I would add that tomorrow may well be a very long day, so I would urge delegations to bring picnic baskets with them. 1 would also point out that there is a general strike tomorrow which is expected to affect transportation in the city of Rome so I would warn those who are not aware of it to take precautions in advance to arrange some form of transportation.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Walton, for this not very heartening information.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo comparto la preocupación de nuestra colega Faouzia de Argelia, y tal vez sería dificultad de interpretación, pero no entendí bien si las tres comisiones han sido convocadas para mañana a las 09.30, como tenía yo entendido, o no se convocaran las tres para la misma hora.
DEPUÎY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: The arrangement is that Commission II will start its work at 9.30 and will just carry on until it completes its work. Separately Commission I will complete the adoption of its report and will be followed, in the same room probably, by Commission III which has both to complete its substantive discussion and also to complete Its report. So Commission II will have the whole day to itself and Commissions I and III will have to split tomorrow, I am afraid.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for this good news for our Commission. We have the whole day as you have heard, for ourselves, and may I repeat on the basis of this information that we meet tomorrow at 9.30 in this room to continue our work. If there are no further comments, the meeting is adjourned
The meeting rose at 20.30 hours
La séance est levée à 20 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 20.30 horas
