25. Other Administrative and Financial Matters (continued)
25. Autres questions administratives et financières (suite)
25. Otros asuntos administrativos y financieros (continuación)
25.2. Replenishment and Level of the Working Capital Fund (continued)
25.2. Reconstitution et niveau du Fonds de roulement (suite)
25.2. Reposición y cuantía del Fondo de Operaciones (continuación)
CHAIRMAN: Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to this Session of Commission III. We are still on the item of the increase in the level of the Working Capital Fund. This morning we had quite a number of speakers who have stated their position on the matter, and we have come to the stage where the decision will probably have to be taken to a vote.
In front of us we have the original Resolution as in document C 87/LIM/12, but from the discussion that has been going on yesterday and today the Chair has the feeling that the amendment suggested by the distinguished delegate of Italy has received quite a fair measure of support, and I would wish to clarify what the amendment is.
As we understand it, the amendment as it was clarified by Mr Crowther this morning is with respect to the last paragraph of document C 87/LIM/12, in which the two figures have been amended. The first figure in the second line of the last paragraph of the English text "US$ 20 million" has been amended to "US$ 17 million" whilst the next figure of "US$ 26 million" has been amended to "US$ 20 million". The amendment reads as follows:
"Decides that the authorized level of the Working Capital Fund shall be US$ 17 million 'as from 1 January 1988 and US$ 20 million as from 1 January 1990" - and so on. Since we have this amendment before us as well as the original text, I would like to know if the meeting wishes to make a formal vote on the original amendment or on the amended version.
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): I am not an expert on procedure, but as I understand it we should first deal with the amendment in a vote and then deal with the resolution as a whole. I suggest that that might expedite proceedings if you first put the amendment to the vote, by show of hands I suggest, and then, if the amendment is accepted, there should be a vote by show of hands on the amended resolution, or if the amendment is rejected a show of hands on the original resolution.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your constructive proposal. If that is agreeable to members present I can go ahead and call for a vote on the proposed amendment. I see no objection to that. However, there is a technical hitch here because if we vote on the substantive part of the proposal, which is the amendment, then the rules say that there has to be at least half the membership of the Organization present in this hall. As it is we do not have such a quorum. In that case, I request the Secretariat to make an announcement in the other Commissions so that they can send their people to make up a quorum here, and we can then proceed with a vote.
John LYNCH (Canada) : I think we are going to have trouble getting sufficient people for all of our sessions. Would it not be wiser to deal with all the agenda items and then take together all the items which need a vote and deal with them in one session? There is a certain amount of interlinkage between the various items on our agenda, and it would be helpful in getting sufficient people to turn out for a vote if we tried to group items altogether. We have lost time. I do not see any compelling reason why we have to have the vote right now. If we wait until more people come, we will all be here until close to 5.30 in the morning.
CHAIRMAN: That is a constructive suggestion.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): Obviously there is some merit in the proposal by the distinguished delegate of Canada, because we cannot have a vote now in any event. Before we proceed too far away from the subject there ought to be a quorum call made throughout the building so we can try and finish this item. I do not agree that we should proceed with too many other items before we conclude this one. It seems to me we need to proceed in an orderly way and conclude items as we go through them. So far in our Commission we have not wrapped up much of anything; we keep putting things over and putting things over. I understand your hands are tied, Mr Chairman, because we do not have a quorum, but I do not think we should vote on everything all at once, even if that is the only way we can have a quorum. It is not the fault of the delegates who have participated this far that we do not have a quorum. This is a very bad situation in that our procedures are tied up this way. We ought to try and do something about it besides just postponing the item indefinitely.
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): I wanted to say something very similar to what has just been said by the distinguished delegate of the United States of America. I realize the predicament in which you find yourself, Mr Chairman, and sympathize, but my concern is that if we do not try and conclude these items when we come back to the vote we will have the discussion all over again and we will never finish the Commission. We have already experienced this once on the subject of the Working Capital Fund, when we thought we had finished and then we went over it all again. If we postpone the vote we will just go through it all over again so I urge that consideration be given to the suggestion made by the delegate of the United States. If we cannot proceed, then obviously we will have to think again. But in my opinion we are in danger of turning this Commission into a bit of a muddle if we do not actually conclude one or two of our items.
CHAIRMAN: I am as anxious as everybody to conclude at least one item, otherwise I stand to answer to my Chairman.
Mamadou CAMARA (Mali): Je pense que l'on n'a pas intérêt à toujours reporter car le problème risque d'être enlisé. Il nous faudra toujours revenir à la même chose et donner des explications aux nouveaux qui arriveront. Je pense que l'on remettra toujours ce que l'on doit faire au lendemain.
CHAIRMAN: To try to come to a decision on the Working Capital Fund and before we proceed further, I would like to explain the situation so that everybody in the room fully understands the situation and what we are voting for.
We have document C 87/LIM/12 entitled "Increase in the Level of the Working Capital Fund". We discussed this matter yesterday, this morning and part of this afernoon, and the Chair feels that from the sense of the debate that has been going on there has been a slight majority supporting the Resolution, although there is a strong objection to the Resolution. But then there was also an amendment being proposed by the distinguished delegate of Italy concerning the level of increase. Instead of increasing to the S 20 000.000 as from January 1988, it was proposed to increase up to S 17 000 000 and the $ 26 000 000 as from January 1990 should be amended to $ 20-000 000. This in effect would be an increase of $ 3 750 000 for the first biennium, and another $ 3.000.000 increase for the second biennium. That is the understanding of Mr Crowther. Maybe there is a misunderstanding. May be we should clarify this position first.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): Mr Chairman thank you for giving me the floor. But I have been quite clear. It is not a question of understanding English or not understanding English as this morning. I said very clearly that 1 did not care what happens from the 1st January 1990. I hope that God will help us and we will not need the second increase. My proposal was to make two instalments of the first increase; in other words to reach $ 20 million fot the next biennium in two instalments, the first instalment bringing the Working Capital Fund from $ 13 250 000 to $ 17 million for the year 1988, and this because it is quite believable - I mean realistic - to expect the first dfficuities of the Organization in the first of the two years of the biennium and not in the second. Then to increase from 1st January 1989 for the remaining $ 3 million, and to leave to God whether we need or do not need the extra $ 6 million in the other biennium. This, I thought, was the sense of: my amendment: to take into account the views of some countries who think this is too much money to have to pay all of a sudden.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to give the floor to Mr Crowther so that he can clarify this matter and propose appropriate wording for it.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): If understand Mr Pascarelli correctly on this point - and I believe I do - the two changes in the amounts remain as they were, but there is a change in the date. The $US 17 million as from 1 January 1988 would remain and the $US 20 million would be as from 1 January 1989. That is the only other change I believe, Mr Chairman, except that in the last line we have the same date problem -instead of 1990, that should be 1989 as well. With those two changes in the date I believe we have the proposal to be considered and I think the Commission must decide whether it wants to take up the proposal before voting on the substance.
CHAIRMAN: Just to clarify matters, I shall read out again the amendment so that everyone has it. This refers to the last paragraph of C 87/LIM/12, on page 2 of the English text: "Decides" that the authorized level of the Working Capital Fund shall be $US 17 million as from 1 January 1988 and $US 20 million as from 1 January 1989 and that member nations shall be reassessed in accordance with the provisions of Financial Regulation 6.2(b) (iv) and (v) as from 1 January 1988 and 1 January 1989 on the basis of the Scales of Contributions then in effect." If that is agreeable to the delegate of Italy - I see him nodding -
Yan HEIDSMA (Netherlands): As a matter of clarification; it is my understanding that member states are supposed to pay their assessments also for the Working Capital Fund I take it at the beginning of the biennium, that is to say, certainly within the first year. My question is, if accepted what would this amendment mean for the actual assessment? Are countries going to be assessed again after the first year of the biennium, or will the assessment or the increase for the second year already be included in the assessment in the first year of the biennium? - which would not then make any difference if we had the amendment or not. I do not exactly understand what would be the consequence of this.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): Under the terms of this resolution as it has been amended this would mean a second call for contributions for the second tranche of the increase in 1989. So with regard to contributions due in January 1988, the first portion would be due at $US 3 750 000, and the second $US 3 000 000 would not be due until 1 January 1989. That is the way the resolution has been prepared. Therefore, the Organization would be bound by that resolution and would make a second call on 1 January 1989 for the second part as well.
Sra. Doña Silvia CARBALLO VIVES (Cuba): Muchas gracias, Sr. Presidente. Mi Delegación apoya la propuesta de la distinguida Delegación de Italia, la cual muestra interés en conseguir una posición conciliatoria para que la Organización de la FAO pueda contar con un Fondo de Operaciones que le permita hacer frente a las diversas actividades. Gracias, Sr. Presidente.
CHAIRMAN: At this stage I will remind delegations that I do not wish discussion to be reopened on this matter. We must proceed with the vote.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Temei ISKIT (Turkey): On a point of order concerning the vote, I do not want to complicate matters, but my impression is - and I do not know if my understanding is correct - that since we have an amendment we will first have to vote on that amendment. According to the results of that vote, whether the amendment is accepted or rejected, we will then vote on the resolution itself. I stand to be corrected.
CHAIRMAN: As I have just mentioned, we have a few alternatives. The first is whether we want to vote on the original resolution, to choose between the original resolution or the amendment. The delegation of the United Kingdom earlier made the suggestion that we vote on the amendment whether we agree or not to the amended resolution.
Temei ISKIT (Turkey): When I made this point of order my impression was that we did not have any choice. According to our rules we must first agree on the amendment and then vote or agree on the resolution itself. I do not think we have a choice. I stand to be corrected.
CHAIRMAN: We must vote on the amendment.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I am sorry to take the floor again because on this item I have done so more often than I should; I recognize that. But I am in a little dilemma here because the understanding I came away with from the session this morning was different from that which we have before us now. I understand these things occur,but unfortunately I am in a position where I had gotten agreement from my delegation to support the position we had this morning. So I am wondering now whether I can give as an amendment to the amendment put by the Italian delegation that we revert to the position at the end of this morning. It was clear to those of us who were here what the amendment was, so I move that we take this amendment. I believe this should then be put forward as the first item for us to consider.
CHAIRMAN: At this stage I will call on the Legal Adviser to advise us on how to proceed.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Just before coming down to this meeting, I heard the delegate of the United Kingdom announcing the situation quite correctly. You have a proposal which is in the document before you. Another delegation has proposed an amendment to the original proposal. You vote first on the amendment. If that amendment is accepted, then the original proposal in this instance disappears -it is superseded. If the amendment is rejected then you vote on the original proposal. It is quite simple. I gather there is an amendment to the amendment. When there are a series of amendments, as we have had in other sessions during this Conference, you start with the amendment which is furthest removed from the original proposal and work backwards to the original proposal if that one is still valid. So of the three, you have a proposal and two amendments. I am not quite sure what the precise text is, but the one which is furthest removed from the original proposal is put to the vote first, and then you work backwards.
CHAIRMAN: I am not giving any more time for discussion otherwise this meeting will never end. I will ask Mr Crowther to clarify the first amendment made by the delegation of Italy and then the amendment to the amendment put forward by the delegation of the United States. After that ve will have a vote. I do not want to delay this matter any longer.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): As I understand it, and I hope my understanding is correct, the original proposal that is included in the resolution called for increasing the Working Capital Fund to a level of $US 20 million in 1988 and $US 26 million in 1990. The first amendment that was proposed - although it may have been misunderstood, but nonetheless it was the first amendment that was proposed - was to increase the level to $US 17 million only on 1 January 1988 and to $US 20 million on 1 January 1990. No - the first amendment was 1990; it may be, but that is the way the proposition was put before the Organization. The delegation of Italy has clarified that, and that has now become the second amendment. If I understand correctly, that is the last amendment which should be determined first. I shall repeat that part of it. Therefore, the last amendment is the one read out last. It is that the Working Capital Fund would be increased to $US 17 million as from 1 January 1988 and to $US 20 million as from 1 January 1989. That was the last amendment proposed. That should be determined first. Then the earlier amendment, which is a change in the year only, is taken, and then you go back to the resolution. That is my understanding.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Ismael DIAZ YUBERO (España): Perdóneme; quizás esté confundido. Creo que lo que vamos a votar en estos momentos es una resolución; una resolución que ha tenido que seguir una tramitación determinada, pasar por un Comité de Resoluciones, etc., etc. Creo que es así. Que yo sepa, en estos momentos, por lo menos a la Delegación española no le ha llegado nada más que una resolución. Una resolución.
Yo no sé si se pueden votar enmiendas a resoluciones sin haber pasado previamente por el Comité. Si es así, le rogaría que lo aclarásemos, y entonces procederíamos en consecuencia. En caso contrario, Sr. Presidente, yo le pido que termine ya el debate y procedamos a votar las resoluciones que en estos momentos tenemos sobre la mesa.
LEGAL COUNSEL: In reply to the delegate of Spain, the voting on the amendment does not depend on the draft resolution going to the Resolutions Committee. The Resolutions Committee has a formal task. It deliberates on the receivability of the resolutions it has before it and questions of form, but not of substance. The amendments proposed now are questions of substance upon which the Resolutions Committee would not be competent to pass judgement.
Ismael DIAZ YUBERO (España): Después de la información que nos ha dado el Sr. Roche, yo le rogaría que procediésemos según establece el Reglamento, pero que procediésemos ya a votar. Cabe la posibilidad de que, dentro de un poquito de tiempo, como sigamos así, tampoco vamos a tener quorum, y no vamos a poder votar ni éstas ni ningunas otras. Muchas gracias, Sr. Presidente.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Definitely, that is my first intention, to put the matter to the vote straight away. Before we vote, we have to be clear because there is a resolution as presented to us and there are two amendments. There is the first amendment and then there is an amendment to that amendment. According to what Mr Roche said just now, the amendment furthest removed from the original resolution has to be voted on first. To make things clear, I would like Mr Crowther to read out the amendment furthest away from the resolution because that will be the amendment that we shall vote on.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): The amendment furthest away from the original resolution was the one that Ambassador Pascarelli explained just now, and I shall read it out to you. That is, therefore, the one we should take first. The amendment that is being considered would read, in the last paragraph of C 87/LIM/12:
"Decides that the authorized level of the Working Capital Fund shall be US$ 17 million as :from 1 January 1988 and US$ 20 million as from 1 January 1989 and that Member Nations shall be re-assessed in accordance with the provisions of Financial Regulation 6.2(b) (iv) and (v) as from 1 January 1988 and from 1 January 1989 on the basis of the Scales of Contributions then in effect".
CHAIRMAN: I hope all members are clear on what we are going to vote on now, that is on the amendment to the resolution as just read out by Mr Crowther.
Vote by show of hands
Vote à main levée
Votación a mano alzada
The amendment was aproved by 32 votes to 19 with 1"8 abstentions.
L'amendement est approuvé par 32 voix contre 19 et 18 abstentions.
Por 32 votos contra 19 y 18 abstenciones queda aprobada la enmienda.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): Please I am not questioning the outcome of the vote but I wish to refer to the Rules, the Basic Texts, page 32 of the English text of the Rules. Please correct me if I am wrong, Mr Roche. There it talks about a required majority for any decision being one more than half of the votes cast. It seems to me that we had certainly more than 52 votes cast. I do not know how you count absentions. That is my question. It seems to me that it should be more than half of the yes votes. I apologize for putting it so inelegantly.
LEGAL COUNSEL: The interpretation of what is meant by "votes cast" is defined in Rule XII, paragraph 4 (a) which reads: "For the purpose of the Constitution and these Rules, the phrase "votes cast" shall mean affirmative and negative votes, and shall not include abstentions or defective ballots".
CHAIRMAN: I hope that clarifies the matter.
John LYNCH (Canada): Just to avoid further confusion - and we are already really confused here - are there enough people in the room to have qualified for a vote? Is that a valid vote according to our rules?
LEGAL COUNSEL: Mr Chairman, when you began the voting the Secretariat did check to see whether you had a quorum. I do not know whether in the meantime, in the course of the voting, the quorum disappeared, but the number of votes for, against or abstaining does not necessarily mean that you do not have a quorum, because some delegations may have preferred not to vote at all.
Vaasatia Poloma KOMITI (Samoa): The distinguished delegate of Canada has made the point I was going to raise. According to the rules, the vote on a financial matter requires the majority of the members. According to my count, only 79 voted and that is one less than the majority that was required.
Mourad BENCHEIKH (Algérie): Je ne voudrais pas ajouter à la confusion, mais quand même; je suis en train de constater qu'il faut vraiment insister pour avoir la parole. Cela m'est arrivé ce matin, lorsqu'on a discuté du budget, cela m'arrive avec vous. Je ne sais pas si c'est une question de disposition de la salle, mais il semble que tout ce qu'il y a à votre gauche, vous ne le voyez pas.
Cela dit, je pose trois questions. La première: est-ce-que ce vote par pancarte . levée donne la garantie que ceux qui sont sur l'estrade ont vu toutes les pancartes qui ont été levées? Je n'en suis par sûr. Seconde question: est-cé-qu'il n'y aurait pas nécessité de procéder à un vote par appel nominal pour être tout à fait sûr? Troisième question: est-ce-que, s'agissant de problèmes financiers, le Règlement ne prévoit pas un vote aux deux tiers? Il s'agit après tout d'une augmentation de contribution. C'est un problème financier et je pose la question à notre jurisconsulte.
CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to other speakers, maybe I should refer the matter to Mr. Roche to respond.
LEGAL COUNSEL: To reply to the various questions of the delegate of Algeria in the order in which he presented them, the first one was whether a raising of hands guarantees that all hands raised are counted. I think we can trust the Secretariat, which has long experience in this matter, to see all the cards which are held well above the heads of the various delegates.
After all, you will bear in mind that this is the normal way of voting, both in the Council and in the Conference. This is the normal procedure, and I do not think it has created any problems in the past.
The second question was whether there was a quorum. As I said before, the Secretariat counted the delegations before the voting began and found that there was a quorum.
The third question is whether a two-thirds majority is required. This is not required in the Commission. Therefore, a simple majority vote is perfectly valid.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I do not want to raise the same complaint as did my Algerian colleague, because I am very close to you, so I do not want to raise anything like a point of order: but I would like to make a brief remark on this vote. Ever since I was at primary school I was taught that a quorum must be verified if challenged before, but not after the vote.
Mourad BENCHEIKH (Algérie): J'ai écouté les explications de Monsieur Roche. Il a répondu: à une question que je n'ai pas posée. Je n'ai pas parlé de quorum. J'ai demandé s'il ne serait pas préférable, compte tenu des doutes que j'avais exprimés sur la capacité du Secrétariat ou de l'estrade de voir toutes les pancartes, s'il ne serait pas préférable de procéder à un vote par appel nominal afin d'avoir la certitude que tout le monde dit bien ce qu'il veut bien dire.
T.F.F.MALUZA (Zambia): My question is very simple - where do we go from here? Are we still going to vote on this one and the next proposal? - or is this the last one? I understood you to say when we began that we would deal with the one furtherest. away-and' then with the;second one, and I am:not very clear as to whether this is the last vote or whether there is another one.
CHAIRMAN: I think we should have the matter clarified by Mr Roche.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Perhaps I should answer the last question. Under the Rule - paragraph 26 of Rule _. XII - if the adoption of an amendment implies the rejection of the other proposals, then they are not put to the vote. I believe in this particular case that it is fairly clear that the amendment which was adopted does exclude the others, because certainly both the figures $17 million in 1988 and $20 million in 1989 are different from the original proposal; therefore, if you have accepted $17 million in 1988 and $20 million in 1989, you have quite clearly discarded the original proposal. The intermediate proposal was $17 million in 1988 and $20 million in 1990. The first two figures are the same, so that means that half of the intermediate proposal was accepted automatically, because it is the same; and $20 million in 1989 clearly excludes $20 million in 1990. So much for that particular point.
I do not know whether the delegate of Algeria is wishing to challenge the results of the vote that has just been taken. I do not believe that that is the case. I think - if I interpret him correctly - that he is just wondering whether that was the best way of carrying out the vote. Had he at the time believed that a roll call would have been more appropriate in the circumstances, then he was of course free to propose that, and under Rule XII.7(a) it would have been compulsory to have followed the roll call vote procedure.
CHAIRMAN: If everyone is agreeable with that clarification by Mr Roche, I take it that this Commission has agreed. to this amendment and that there is no further need to vote on either the original resolution or on the intermediate resolution.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
- 66 -
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): We voted on the amendment - we have not yet voted on the substantive resolution as amended. Surely we proceed now to a vote on the resolution as a whole as amended. If it will assist the delegate of Algeria, I would be prepared to support a call for a roll call vote on it.
CHAIRMAN: I beg the delegates in this room not to leave the room! We may need to vote again. The Secretariat is making a count now; I am told that there is now a problem with the quorum. The numbers present have fluctuated, and some people have left the room. There are now 76, and we are short of a quorum for a vote. In that case, we shall have to wait for a while and make some effort to bring more people into the room to try to finish with this matter.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Carlos DELPIAZZO (Uruguay): Es una cuestión de orden. Esta' Comisión se ha pronunciado en una votación perfectamente legítima, nos guste o no nos guste su resultado. De modo que para poderla revisar, la única vía sería reconsiderar esa votación y votar, por lo tanto, que se reconsidere lo que se ha resuelto. De lo contrario, esta Comisión se ha pronunciado con un quorum perfecto y con una mayoría suficiente.
Muchas gracias.
CHAIRMAN: If I had my way I would like to agree with what you have just said! Unfortunately though there is some disagreement.
Igor KIPMAN (Brazil) I cannot agree with the distinguished delegate from Uruguay. I would however support the view of the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom. According to this vote, which was done in a room with an adequate quorum, we have approved the amendment, and now we should put to the vote the resolution as amended. This is just a procedural form of bringing the resolution to approval.
Sra. Maria Eulalia JIMENEZ (El Salvador): Muchas gracias, Sr. Presidente: Mi delegación está de acuerdo con lo que acaba de expresar el delegado de Brasil. Tenemos que votar el texto completo de la resolución. Hemos votado únicamente esta modificación propuesta por Italia.
Gracias.CHAIRMAN: I have been discussing this matter with Mr Roche, and he also thinks that another vote can take place on the amendment itself. It is quite true though that we have now voted on the procedure .
Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): I also feel the same way as the previous three speakers, United Kingdom, Brazil and El Salvador. We have voted on the amendment and so will still have to go through the endorsement of the amendment itself.
CHAIRMAN: As we are waiting for a quorum perhaps Mr Roche could clarify the matter of this proceudure.
LEGAL COUNSEL: The way I understand it is that the vote that you have now taken is on what the operative paragraph is going to look like - what the figures are that you are going to have in that paragraph. If you are all in agreement with the rest of it, and there was a majority in favour of the operative paragraph, it is likely that it will be carried; but that is something which can only be told once you have voted on the resolution as a whole. There may be other parts which are not acceptable to certain delegations and you may get a different result when you vote on the entirety of the resolution.
Therefore, in my view, the decision that you have reached is on what you would like the operative paragraph to contain, provided that the resolution as a whole is acceptable. Then, when a quorum is achieved, you will vote on the resolution as presented, with the operative paragraph as amended as a result of the vote which has just been taken.
CHAIRMAN: I hope that that explanation has clarified the matter to the members of this Commission.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I have a question. I take it that until we have a quorum this resolution cannot go anywhere - we cannot do anything with it? I suggest that we ask the Secretariat once again to spread the word through Commission I and Commission II to try to find some people to join us, because I am somewhat appalled to see that one of the sponsors of one of the amendments has apparently decided to absent himself from the room. In the time spent deciding whether wè have a quorum, we could have had four or five roll call votes. Not that I am calling for a roll call vote but I think we should get on with it, and try to finish -our business.
Antoine SAINTRÁINT (Belgique): Je crois que cette proposition est très satisfaisante. Je proposerai également que l'on discute de tous les points différents qui sont à l'ordre du jour de notre Commission et que nous groupions ultérieurement le vote sur tous les différents points sur lesquels on n'a pas encore voté. Cela permettra d'atteindre un quorum et ce quorum servira pour tous les votes sur les différents points sur lesquels nous avons à nous prononcer. On pourrait ouvrir la discussion sur le fonds de réserve spécial et les autres points qui sont soumis à notre ordre du jour et nous grouperions tous les votes ensemble et à ce moment-là on battra le rappel pour avoir une fois pour toute un quorum qui permettra une série de votes groupés.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, distinguished delegate of Belgium. As a matter of fact, there was such a suggestion previously, but there was also some disagreement on that suggestion. The idea is to dispose of this matter first and then go ahead with the other matter next so as to avoid further confusion.
Ladies and gentlemen, we just had the quorum. We have one extra, 81. Before we proceed I would like to give the floor to Mr Roche who will clarify what we are voting for and how we are going-to proceed with it.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Mr Chairman, you are now about to vote on the resoulution contained in Document LIM/12, the last paragraph of which is amended in accordance with the vote that you have just had a little while ago before we lost the quorum. So it is on the resolution as a whole. The question of how you are going to vote - I do not know whether a roll call vote has been formally proposed. If it is not proposed, then the normal way of voting is by a show of hands.
Mourad BENCHEIKH (Algérie): Je voudrais simplement dire que j'ai cru entendre, et je le remercie de son aide, le représentant du Royaume-Uni proposer un vote par appel nominal. On ne peut pas passer sous silence la proposition qui a été faite.
Ronald DEARE (United Kingdom): Mr Chairman, there was obviously a slight misunderstanding in the interpretation. What I said was that I would be willing to support the delegate of Algeria if he called for a roll call vote. I am not myself calling for a roll call vote but I would die in a ditch to defend the right of any other delegate to call for a roll call vote.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom. If there is no formal move; from any other country for a roll call vote then I suggest that we proceed in the normal way of voting which is by a show of hands. I give the floor to the delegate of Barbados.
Clifton E. MAYNARD (Barbados): Mr Chairman, I am voting.
CHAIRMAN: We have waited for a long time for this. Okay, in that case we will proceed with the vote.
Sra. Mercedes FERMIN-GOMEZ (Venezuela): Gracias, Sr. Presidente. Usted no tiene que hacer sugerencias. Usted pone a votación, si está sugiriendo; usted es el Presidente. Eso es lo que estamos esperando que haga. Gracias.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished delegate of Venezuela.
Vote by show of hands
Vote à main levée
Votación a mano alzada
- 69 -
The resolution as amendedwas approved by 53 votes to 19 with 11 abstentions.
La résolution telle qu'amendée est approuvée par 53 voix contre 19 et 11 abstentions.
Por 53 votos contra 19 y 11 abtenciones queda aprobada la resolución con la enmienda.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Secretary. Before I give the floor to member countries I would like to get Mr Roche to say whether the vote is according to the rules of the Organization.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I do not think there is very much I can add to what has been said by the Secretary. The required majority has been obtained and therefore the Resolution has been adopted in this Commission.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr Roche. Then I declare that the Resolution as amended, is approved.
The Resolution as amended, was approved
La resolution, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
La resolución, así enmendada, es aprobada
25.6. Personnel matters
25.6. Questions de personnel
25.6. Asuntos de personal
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): I would like to take the opportunity to introduce document C 87/14 which I believe each of the delegations have before them. I would like to make a statement on this very important matter relating to staff on behalf of the Director-General.
The Director-General in his opening remarks to the Conference, and similarly to Council and to several other bodies, has evidenced his strong concern over the deterioration of conditions of service for the staff. He is very worried about the unfavourable and worsening conditions of the professional and higher categories. As the Director-General stated in his opening remarks, it has also been recognized by members of Council and Conference that the real capital of the Organization lies in the expertize and experience of its personnel, without whom the Programme of Work approved by the Conference could not be carried out. Efforts to improve the effectiveness of staff service are continuous through personnel management programmes, including staff evaluation, training, career development, planning, etc.
Nevertheless, we are facing at present a steady exodus of our most experienced staff through resignation or early retirement, due almost entirely to the continuing erosion of conditions of service and certainly of possible future position, with further adverse effects on conditions of service.
For the same reason, it is becoming evermore difficult to contract suitably qualified persons to serve the Organization. As delegations will be aware, our Constitution enjoins us to recruit from all our Member Nations in an effort to achieve and maintain an equitable geographical distribution among staff. The terms and conditions of service we are able to offer are becoming less attractive and in some professional categories we are no longer competitive in a considerable number of countries. Yet we cannot consider lowering the quality of expertise we need.
The staff of this Organization are not seeking a privileged status in the common system, but simply recognition of the economic difficulties the staff face, particularly when working in field locations. The staff are only too well aware of the financial difficulties the Organization is facing and the need for stringency, but as the Director-General has constantly pointed out both in the FAO governing bodies and in other competent United Nations organs, it is shortsighted and ultimately counterproductive to seek to counter difficulties at the expense of the staff.
Therefore, the Director-General wishes to appeal to Conference through Commission III that Member Nations perceive and respond positively to the situation of staff in the political fora where personnel matters are discussed. As the governing body of the Organization, the Director-General also wishes to be assured of your full support when he addresses these matters in the appropriate bodies in which he represents the Organization. Such expression of support for the staff by the Conference would engender a climate of confidence among the staff that their continued dedication is appreciated and consciously rewarded.
As part of the deliberations this afternoon we thought it would be helpful, with your permission, to have a representative of the Association of Professional Staff here at FAO to address the audience and to describe the level of difficulties as the staff organizations see it. I believe Mr Freeman, the Executive Secretary, is here and would be willing to address you, if that would be useful, before the discussion on the paper or following it, whichever delegations would prefer, Otherwise, we are perfectly willing to answer any questions that the debate might bring.
E. J. FREEMAN (General Secretary, Association of Professional Staff): Mr Chairman, distinguished members of this Commission, Mr Director-General, on behalf of the President of the Association of Professional Staff, Mr Michael Taylor, myself as the Association's General Secretary and Mr Egbert Conze, Chairman of the Field Staff Association, I wish to thank you for the invitation to address this meeting and to thank the Director-General for making it possible.
The meeting was sought by our Associations to inform you, our governing body and as such our employer, of the crisis - if not the collapse - of staff morale brought about by the continuing erosion of our terms of service and to caution that if this is not halted the Organization's performance must deteriorate, perhaps irreversibly. The Administrative Committee on Coordination, a body which comprises the heads of all United Nations organs, recently warned that the true worth of the organizations to Member States, developed and developing alike, is entirely dependent on the quality of the services and the expertise they provide. The Committee said that executive heads were faced with an increasing number of resignations and early retirements of senior advisers, technical specialists and programme managers, depriving the organizations of valuable expertise which adversely affected their work, particularly in the field.
The Fifth Committee of the UN General Assembly, which determines our terms and conditions of service knows little about the specialized agencies such as FAO. Time after time the Fifth Committee has made decisions based purely upon political considerations.
There are now many, many FAO field staff who are having serious personal financial problems. In July 1987 post adjustment was negative in no fewer than 41 duty stations: staff there receive even less than the base salary, which itself has not been increased since 1975. In various major duty stations, the real value of professional salaries has fallen by 20 per cent or more since the early 1970s, a trend aggravated in the last three years by the post adjustment freeze imposed by the General Assembly and by the weakening of the US dollar vis-à-vis the local currency.
There has been no increase in professional salaries since 1975 and the number of years that professionals have been without a real increase now stands at 12. The results of this "freeze" policy on the salaries of FAO professionals in Rome is that there has been a 17 per cent loss in purchasing power (uncompensated) in the past four years. Recommendations to improve the education grant and child allowance were not even considered.
In 1985 the General Assembly did nothing to correct the continuing deterioration and' erosion of our salaries but made things worse by illegally reducing our pensionable remuneration. In 1986 they turned their attention to a second reduction in pensions which, coupled with the loss in the value of the U.S. dollar, has meant a substantial decline in local currency pensions for professional staff at most major duty stations. If the present decline continues, by 1990 benefits expressed in
terms of several European currencies will have fallen by more than 30 percent from their January 1986 level. In other words, these two reductions in the pensionable remuneration for the professional and higher category staff mean that the longer they remain in service the lower will be their pensions. At the same time the Group of 18 in New York urged the General Assembly to reduce the applicability of the education grant to secondary schools only and lower the number of leave days per annum, while throughout the world employers were doing just the opposite by increasing the number of leave days.
As you well know, the professional's salary is compared with that of the most favourable national civil service. This comparison is called the Noblemaire principle. For many years, that is since 1945, the comparator civil service has been that of the United States, although reliable information in our possession today indicates that it is no longer so. Since 1975 the comparator civil service has received seven salary increases and is scheduled for another, effective 1 January 1988, while UN professional officers' salaries have remained static, since 1975.
The overlap in salaries between General Service and Professional categories has so grown in recent years that the overall FAO grade structure has become meaningless and results in gross inequities. In fact, officers in grades P/1, P/2 and P/3 receive a compensation considerably lower than that of the General Service staff they are supervising. In many cases an incredible situation has arisen by which those staff promoted in the past from the General Service to the Professional category receive a remuneration which is actually lower than if they had not been promoted. The different treatment of the two categories of FAO staff members has resulted in an unacceptable, inequitable and degrading situation which finds no equal in any other pay system and is in contrast with the basic principle of the right to equal treatment of staff. Yet certain member governments systematically criticise the salary levels of international professional staff. At the same time no one has been able to explain why it is so difficult to hire the nationals of these countries and why it has become impossible to satisfy their quotas unless they receive substantial sums of money as supplementary payments. To illustrate this point we may mention the case of a D2 Director in this Organization who returned to his former civil service post after 4 1/2 years service and found a supplement of the order of U.S.$ 80,000 awaiting him. Similar supplementary payments are being made to nationals of several other governments working, or willing to work, in the UN system. The International Civil Service Commission has requested these governments to cease this practice but so far without results. Comparisons of total compensation, including expatriate benefits, show that in duty stations like Geneva, United Nations remuneration is only about 80 percent of that of United States civil servants, and in field duty stations, such as Bogota, may be as little as 54 percent.
Many of the expatriate FAO staff are seriously reconsidering whether they can remain in service due to the enormous increases, particularly for English-speaking schools, in education costs that have taken place since 1983. To be precise, these costs have increased by 85 percent whereas the education grant has remained unaltered.
On 5 June this year we received a major setback when the International Labour Office Administrative Tribunal, our independent court of appeal, gave its decision on the appeal against the reduction of pensionable remuneration. The Tribunal's judgement has placed us in the position of having no legal recourse against decisions which are in violation of established legal principles, not least the concept of acquired rights, at least when such decisions are made by the General Assembly.
Therefore, it should now come as no surprise that in early September the APS held an Extraordinary Assembly (the first in our thirteen years of operation) and all Professional staff from both FAO and WFP mandated us (by acclamation) to obtain approval from the Director-General to address you on these matters. The colleagues we represent are no longer willing to accept the continuing deterioration in our terms and conditions of service to the detriment of both the professional staff and the organizations which they serve.
In the limited time available to us we have endeavoured to impress on you the extremely serious situation for the staff and the Organizations arising from the present unfavourable and noncompetitive terms and conditions of service in the UN in general and FAO/WFP in particular.
We ask this Commission to express its concern about the present situation in the interest of its employees who have until now disregarded their security and their personal obligations and suffered serious economic losses to maintain the programmes of FAO. Firstly, we suggest a cable be sent to Mr Amnaeus, Chairman of the Fifth Committee, stating the importance the FAO Conference gives to a positive reaction to the ICSC and Pension Board recommendations which were formulated at the Twenty-sixth Session of the ICSC meeting in New York in July.
The recommendations are: first, the Washington/New York cost-of-living differential should be retained and the other changes in the margin methodology decided in 1986 should be implemented; the effect of this recommendation will be to end the post adjustment freeze in New York early in 1988.
Second, the post adjustment system should be modified, so as to soften its adverse impact on field duty stations with low or negative post adjustment, and in no case should the post adjustment be allowed to fall below minus five.
Third, annual leave and the scope of the education grant should remain unchanged, notwithstanding the cuts recommended by the Group of Eighteen.
Fourth, as an interim measure, floor exchange rates for calculating local currency pensions should be established, based on the average ratio between local currency and dollar pensions in 1987, thus ending the absurd state of affairs in which the pension gets smaller the longer the official works.
Fifth, the level of education grant should be increased to US $8 000 per child per year from the present level of US $6 000, which would mean an additional US 500 to those staff members who qualify.
Secondly, we ask you to be fully informed of the serious state of staff morale and the inability of many of us to continue our work under the old phrase "business as usual".
Mr Chairman, Commission members, we want to work with FAO Management and with you its governing body, without political middlemen in faraway places. We are proud to be part of FAO, but we have our self-respect to maintain and our personal commitments to honour. We cannot help others if we cannot help ourselves. We wish to have our conditions of service at a level where we may again dedicate our full experience and efforts to ensure that the ideals and goals for which the FAO was formed will be carried out. The sands of time are running out rapidly.
We have explored every other avenue without success. You, our employers, at this stage seem to be almost the last court of appeal for FAO's professional officers.
We urge you to support and endorse, in the ways we have outlined, the dedicated work of those who provide what the heads of UN agencies have described as "the Organization's true worth".
Copies of this statement will be available in English outside the Plenary Hall. We regret however that there was not sufficient time to effect translation into the other official languages.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr Freeman. I would now like to open the item for discussion. Are there any comments?
John LYNCH (Canada): I would like merely to indicate my Government's appreciation for the work of international civil servants, including those of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, and to express the commitment that we must all be alert to the need to improve the conditions of employees and staff. We will, of course, take the comments made by the representative of the Professional Staff today, and bring them back to our headquarters and our representatives on the Fifth Committee who deal with these matters.
If I may at the same time under this agenda item refer to something which is related, but for which no presentation has been made: As you are probably aware and as many delegates in this room are probably aware, my Government is strongly committed to the improvement of the status of women in the United Nations Specialized Agencies - this has been one of my Government's highest priorities of action. In this context, we would appreciate receiving from the Secretariat, additional information, which perhaps Mr Crowther could provide after dealing with the situation of employment of staff and their remuneration, as to the status of professional women within the Secretariat of ' the FAO, particularly with respect to any comparisons you may like to make with the fact that the United Nations itself, in the General Assembly, has established a target figure of 30 percent of women professionals, in the United Nations Secretariat by the year 1990.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I would like to express my appreciation to the Secretariat for arranging this presentation made by the representative of the APS, and also directly to Mr Freeman for his presentation. It frankly would have been helpful to me if we had perhaps been informed in advance that there was going to be a statement along these lines - I think this is true, not only because it is difficult to react to something when you hear it for the first time, but also because the points that have been made are, I think, relatively detailed points, and most of my colleagues here, like myself, are not completely familiar with all the aspects of statements just made . It is therefore difficult for me to address my mind to the question of whether we, as a Conference, should undertake any action in the way of communicating with the Fifth Committee or anything like that. However, I think it is a very constructive element if the APS make a direct representation to the governing bodies. I believe that there is a need for dialogue between government and staff, and I can certainly say that on the part of my delegation we place very high importance on high staff morale because, after all, FAO is nothing if it is not a dedicated staff of professionals.
That being said, there are some points raised in the presentation with which I did not entirely agree. I think it is perhaps not exactly appropriate to compare expatriate benefits with the benefits received by civil service in itself - but that is perhaps not something that we need to spend time on here. In my opinion we should focus as a Commission on the fact that there is a need for dialogue between the staff and governmental bodies, and we welcome the opportunity that we have had to hear this presentation. There is also a need I think for us, as a governing body, to perhaps urge the Secretariat to look into measures which are within the scope of our Organization in order to improve staff morale.
My delegation believes that FAO should maintain its adherence to the common system, and nothing should be undertaken that may lead to a departure from the common system. It seems to me, however, that there are avenues which could be explored within the house which would lead to improved morale. These may seem quite trivial things - perhaps expanding the commissary or something which may have a physic input, if you like - I know that is not exactly what the representative of the APS says, but I do believe that it is difficult for us as the governing body of FAO to react to something which has an impact in New York. Certainly, I, like the representative of Canada, will convey to my colleagues in New York the views which have been expressed here.
I must say that this is an important step that we have taken today: as far as I know it is the first time that such a presentation has been made. We will therefore look at it as a positive development, and we hope to continue this dialogue in the future.
Mrs Astrid BERGQUIST (Sweden): Like my previous colleagues from the United States and Canada, I would like to express the appreciation of my delegation for the work of the FAO staff. We know that they are very hard working and dedicated, and we certainly appreciate all the constraints they have suffered because of the financial situation. As for my delegation, I shall certainly promise to convey the message back to my Government, and through it to the Chairman of the Fifth Committee, who happens to be a compatriot of mine.
Finally, I would like to associate myself with the question raised by the delegate of Canada on female/male ratios within the FAO staff, and what measures are taken to increase the number of female staff within FAO. This is a question which has been brought up by my delegation over the years, and which was also referred to by a colleague of mine within Commission II when the budget issue was discussed.
Manuel DE GUZMAN PEREZ (Ecuador): La verdad es que escuchar informes como los que nos han presentado en la tarde de hoy los señores empleados de la FAO debe llevar una meditación profunda de cuál es el sistema de reorientación que debe primar a nivel administrativo. Desgraciadamente, yo comprendo que la posición, al haber realizado una exposición pública por parte de la Asociación de Empleados ante esta Comisión; debe de buscar el que esta Comisión dé un soporte a la Asociación de Empleados, o a los empleados de la FAO en general.
Muy lamentablemente, como Comisión, no estamos nosotros en posibilidad de establecer ningún mecanismo que permita adoptar medidas que pongan solución a este tipo de problemas. De ahí que mi recomendación es, única y exclusivamente, en el sentido de que se solicite al Comité de Redacción de esta Comisión que incluya en su informe un párrafo mediante el cuál, vista la exposición realizada por los señores empleados de la FAO, inste a la Asamblea General, o a la Conferencia, en el Plenario, a que la Administración de la FAO tome en cuenta la situación financiera que están viviendo los empleados y se tomen las soluciones pertinentes, a través los distintos comités.
Rainer PRESTIEN (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): The Government of my country agrees with the previous speaker, that the staff of FAO has over the past years done excellent work. I would gladly support the argument put forward by the representatives of the United States and Sweden. The problems described by Mr Freeman just now were submitted a couple of days ago to Mr Kiechle, our Minister by German staff members, so we were already aware of the situation. Federal Minister Kiechle promised that the Government would look into the problems and difficulties of FAO staff. We will investigate this: we cannot of course commit ourselves at this point.
Here I must concur with previous speakers, who have remarked that we have no instructions at this point, no briefing to enable us to make any promises at this stage, today. Nevertheless it is a problem which we shall not forget, and certainly in the appropriate fora and committees which are competent to deal with these matters, we should continue our considerations. I believe that this concerns the International Civil ervice Commission and the General Assembly of the United Nations - I think that they are competent to discuss and ponder on these matters.
Mounir KHORAYCH (Liban) (interpretation de l'arabe): La déclaration que nous venons d'écouter il y a quelques instants au nom des fonctionnaires de la FAO nous indique que la situation dans laquelle se trouvent les fonctionnaires n'est pas encourageante. Comme l'a dit Monsieur Crowther les fonctionnaires de la FAO constituent notre capital le plus précieux au sein de cette Organisation et si les conditions adéquates ne leur sont pas fournies pour accomplir leur tache ceci ne manquera pas d'avoir des effets négatifs sur l'action de l'Organisation. Nous sommes attristés par cette situation et nous nous engageons à appuyer tous les efforts que le Directeur général consentira pour résoudre ces problèmes, car nous considérons qu'il s'agit de problèmes cruciaux pour l'intérêt général de l'Organisation.
Clifton E. MAYNARD (Barbados): I am particularly grateful to Mr Freeman for this statement. The staff of the Organization, or indeed all international organizations, work hard and they are entitled to adequate reward for their labour. I cannot believe we could sit by and allow 12 years to pass without improving the emoluments of the staff in any place, I have to say so because in my system
there is an understanding that every two years public servants get an increase in salary, Indeed, one is due from the 1st of April 1988, and we know whatever the situation, it is going to come. The most difficult part to accept is that people, after having put in long years of service, find that at the end of it the value of their pension, when they need the money most, has been eroded to nothing. I see no reason why this body, this Conference should not accept the responsibility to send a message to the 5th Committee in New York of the importance of looking positively at the proposals that they have before them. I can see absolutely no reason why it cannot be done.
Srta.Mery Cecilia SALAMANCA (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia agradece al Sr. Presidente la oportunidad que le ha brindado como Secretario de la Asociación de Personal para que, a través de él, como vocero de las justas causas, explique a esta Asamblea las condiciones desventajosas y desmo-tivadoras que padece el personal de la FAO.
El buen administrador no sólo debe tener en cuenta el capital, sino también el lado humano de su empresa. Un personal motivado, con servicios y beneficios, producirá más en favor de laOrganización.
Apoyamos entonces todos los esfuerzos del Director General en pro de las justas causas de los trabajadores.
T.F.F. MALUZA (Zambia): Mr Freeman has given us a very good insight to the problems which are facing the professional staff in FAO. We are all aware of the good work, the quality work which FAO has been doing in our respective countries. We all know that in most developing countries FAO is taken as an Organization of excellence. The deteriorating conditions of service of FAO professional staff I think will have a very bad effect on the future work of the FAO staff. There is every reason for the Conference to take action on this matter. It is unfortunate that the document before us did not actually suggest what this Conference should do, with the exception of paragraph 12 which reads, "In view of the importance of this matter for the future of FAO, the Conference may wish to urge member nations when participating in discussions of these matters in the convening bodies of the UN Common System to be alert to the need to improve the conditions of employment of the staff, in particular those working in the field."
To my delegation, Mr Chairman, it appears as if this Conference or the governing body of FAO has nothing it can do to further the cause of the FAO professional staff. I do not know, but that is the notion I am getting. I would suggest that maybe the Secretariat actually could advise exactly what role could be taken. In addition to this, my delegation is suggesting that the Director-General of FAO should do everything possible. I know he has been doing a lot on this. He has addressed us on many occasions during the Council and the other Committees on the deteriorating conditions of the service. But I think we should give him more mandate to further his efforts in the quest for a solution to this problem.
Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Quelques mots rapidement si vous le permettez. Je désire insister sur l'importance que revêtent les problèmes du personnel. Comme tout le monde le sait, et nos collègues le savent pertinemment, les décisions ne sont pas à prendre dans le cadre de cette enceinte. Je crois que tout le monde est d'accord sur les problèmes qui se posent. Nous savons aussi que les services de la FAO, et notamment le Directeur du personnel, Monsieur Bel Adj Amor, sont parfaitement conscients des problèmes et des difficultés que le personnel de la FAO, tant sur le terrain qu'au siège, rencontre actuellement; nous souhaitons vivement pour tous, que les discussions à New York se poursuivent de façon à ce qu'elles puissent aboutir dans les meilleurs délais afin de remédier à un certain nombre de problèmes qui se posent. Je crois que nous n'avons pas à examiner le détail de ces problèmes. Nous les connaissons dans leur ensemble. Nous insistons pour que les représentants de la FAO qui discutent des questions du personnel à New York puissent obtenir satisfaction dans un délai raisonnable. Il nous appartient de communiquer cette information à nos gouvernements de façon à ce que nos représentants à New York soient sensibilisés comme ils doivent l'être aux problèmes du personnel non seulement à la FAO mais dans l'ensemble de la famille des Nations Unies.
Ernst ZIMMERL (Austria): I think that the reasons for the staff today are very important, and some of those have already gone into retirement and left FAO. Those who have remained should be taken care of. If they are not satisfied with the situation in the future, then the situation will not improve and people will leave. Now as someone said, what can we do? We can make beautiful words here, but that does not help the staff. What can the Commission do? Perhaps someone could give us some suggestions.
Jar ORZESZKO (Poland): My delegation is grateful for having the possibility of hearing at this forum the competent presentation about the situation of the FAO professional staff. We share the opinion expressed by many speakers about the necessity to take necessary action by the Conference as it was proposed by the distinguished delegates from Ecuador and Barbados.
Ismael DIAZ YUBERO (España): Yo también comparto la opinión de Ecuador y de algunos otros países que se han expresado en estos mismos términos, pero creo que el representante de Zambia ha hecho una pregunta que a mi parecer es muy importante, y me gustaría que fuese contestada. El representante de Zambia ha dicho qué podemos hacer y dónde lo podemos hacer: en esta Comisión, en el Plenario, en qué circunstancias.
Creo que no es un momento de hacer bellas palabras, de pensar en lo importante que son los funcionarios y qué es lo que esta Asamblea, esta Comisión, el Plenario, pueden hacer por los funcionarios y qué necesidades exactas y concretas pueden ser solucionadas por nosotros, si es que pueden serlo, o si no, en Naciones Unidas.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, distinguished delegate of Spain. Are there any more speakers who wish to take the floor on this matter? Since there are none, I would now like to give the floor to Mr Crowther to answer some of the questions raised.
Dean K. CROWTHER: (Assistant Director-General, Administrative and Finance Department):"I would like to say that we deeply appreciate the receptivity to the problem that has been raised before you. We also deeply appreciate the response given to having the General Secretary of the APS come here and address the Commission. There have been some very specific questions asked that I would like to respond to. One is, what can this Commission do to assist FAO and its staff in the problem that it faces? Another relates to what has been done and what is being done with relation to the problem of improving the number of women within the Organization.
On the first question, there are probably three very specific things this Commission could do. The first, in fact all three, relate to the problem that is in New York rather than in Washington. But each of the delegates here has representatives in New York. Under the Common System, I am sure that most of you are aware that the decisions on staff emoluments are taken either at one of two levels. The International Civil Service Commission has the authority to take a decision on a number of emoluments, but there are some that it does not, including such matters as pay, pensionable remuneration and some other rather important emolument matters. Those decisions ultimately are taken by the General Assembly in New York. There are several questions that will be before the Fifth Committee first for deliberation and reporting to the General Assembly. And secondly, the General Assembly will take those matters up and decide upon them in this current Session. Influence from anyone of the membership here directly to your counterpart representative and your colleagues in New York certainly will make a difference. It is difficult for a representative housed in New York to understand the problems of conditions of service in FAO or any other of the specialized agencies, and more particularly of the problems that we face with our field staff and the conditions of service there. So obviously, contact in New York with your respective colleagues is a very important aspect.
Secondly, with regard to the International Civil Service Commission itself there are a number of decisions that the International Civil Service Commission can take. The Commission is composed of 15 representatives and those representatives come from countries, most of which are represented here in Rome today. The President of the Commission Mr Richard M. Akwei is from Ghana. The Vice-Chairman of the Commission Mr Carlos S. Vegega is from Argentina. There is a representative on the Commission from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic, from Japan, from Pakistan, from France, from the United States, from Mauritania, Nigeria, Czechoslovakia, Brazil, Belgium, Egypt, Greece and India. These represent the Commission that in fact decides upon a number of emoluments directly, and those that they do not have competent authority to decide upon, they do make specific recommendations to the Fifth Committee and ultimately then to the General Assembly. Contact with those representatives who may come from their respective governments could also be extremely important.
Finally, I think, Mr Chairman, the part that the FAO must play in all of this is to constantly sensitize the Governing Bodies here. We have not made efforts to sensitize at the Conference level other than just to bring the matter of the Finance Committee Report to you each conference. However, the matter of personnel salaries and staff emoluments is brought to the Finance Committee at every session. The details, the difficulties, the problems that FAO faces are brought before each session. The Finance Committee deliberately then reports these to each session of the Council. I must say that certainly the last two sessions of the Council have had very strong messages included in their report about their concern for the deteriorating conditions of service. I think the part that each of you may play, or the representative who represents you on Council plays, in emphasizing this problem is an extremely important one.
The Director-General has shown continued concern and has asked that the ACC, the Administrative Coordinating Council which is composed of the heads of all the independent agencies and is chaired by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has asked that this Body in each of its meetings include as a continuing item on its agenda the problems of personnel. They had a special session in Geneva of the ACC heads last June, in fact during our Council meeting, and the Director-General had to leave the Council meeting and go to Geneva and spend a day to discuss these items.
I think every effort is being made from the FAO's point of view but frankly it is not enough. As the secretary of APS has reported to you the conditions of service continue to be deteriorated. The decisions that are taken in New York by the Fifth Committee and the General Assembly have constantly deteriorated these conditions of service to a point where it is very difficult for us now to hire members from a number of countries. There are a number of countries represented here who are dramatically under-represented. Recruiting from those countries has become a very difficult task. Getting people who are here from those countries as staff members to stay on and continue in their position is equally as difficult.
I think those are the suggestions I would have, that either you contact your representative in the Fifth Committee or the General Assembly, or, if you have a representative from your country in the International Civil Service Commission it could be most helpful. And secondly, if we can include an item in the Commission's report to the Conference, that too would emphasize the problem and certainly would support the hand both of the Secretariat and the Director-General in his efforts to make everything possible that he can to improve the conditions of service.
Turning to the other question that was raised concerning the status of women in the FAO actually as at this point. Well I have the specific figures and I have them for a number of years. I would like to preface this with a very brief remark Mr Chairman, that hiring women in FAO is complicated by the problems that I have just mentioned for all staff. It seems it is doubly complicated because in many instances we are looking for technical people in categories that in many instances women are not attracted to, whether it is forestry or fisheries or in our agricultural areas.However, there are a few areas in FAO that we find women are attracted to, and we make a very strong effort to recruit professional staff members who are female in those various categories. We have been successful in increasing our percentage each year during the past several years, and at the beginning of 1987 we had a percent of professional staff of 16.5 percent. That is a very low percentage but in comparative terms it is probably much higher than many others. It is certainly not the highest.
Mr Chairman, every effort will continue to be made to find ways in which we can improve both our conditions of service and the opportunities that are available in FAO for women, whether at headquarters or in the field. Attempts will be made to find better ways of recruiting, and with the help of those members who are here from those countries, if they can put good candidates forward for vacancies that are announced and can considerably concentrate on the need to improve the numbers of women that we have in the professional categories, that too would be most helpful. Every effort will continue to be made to recruit more women and improve the percentage that are here. While we are certainly not ashamed of the figure of the percentage of women that are here, we certainly would like to see it improved, but unfortunately we cannot do that alone; it does require a great deal of recruiting from a number of countries.
I think that concludes the questions that were raised, and again I wish to thank the delegates for the strong sentiments of support that were given, and I hope those indications of some actions that can be taken will be helpful.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr Crowther. I do not wish to sum up the debate on this matter because it is very clear that many of the delegates who have spoken have given a sympathetic ear to the plight of the professional staff of FAO, and I believe this Commission can do something, as suggested by Mr Crowther, to make contact with the Fifth Committee members of the General Assembly and also maybe this Commission can put up a small report to the Conference regarding this matter so that the Conference might be aware of this problem.
I see the delegate of Zambia asking for the floor. I hope this is the last speaker on this item because I would like to proceed to the vote on the previous item as soon as possible.
T.F.F. MALUZA (Zambia): In the light of what has been said by Mr Crowther and in addition to the proposal that our Commission should have a paragraph on the issue, I am proposing that the proposals which have been put down by Mr Freeman in his statement should also be included in the report of this Commission. I think he made a number of proposals which could be forwarded to either the Fifth Committee or the International Civil Service Commission or something like that. That is my proposal.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your constructive intervention. I believe we can leave that to the Drafting Committee to work out.
Clifton E. MAYNARD (Barbados): I would just like to thank Mr Crowther for the information he gave, but I wonder whether he could advise me whether one further effort is not possible, i.e., that this Commission requests the Director-General to convey its concerns, the concerns expressed here, to the Secretary-General of the United Nations immediately so that he can bring them to the attention of the Fifth Committee before it continues its work for this Session.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your very constructive proposal. I give the floor to Mr. Crowther.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): The answer is certainly an unqualified yes. That would be an excellent gesture and we could do that, and hopefully it will be a good way of bringing it before the Fifth Committee. But it is also helpful, when the Fifth Committee discusses it, if their delegates have an understanding of the problem that is here in Rome as well.
CHAIRMAN: From what I have announced just now, the interpreters' time is actually over. They only agreed to proceed to the voting and I think we have to respect their request that we adjourn this meeting right now and meet again on Monday as scheduled. In that case I give the floor to the Secretary to announce the coming programmes for this Commission.
F.M. MIFSUD (Secretary of Commission III): On Monday morning we will simply continue the programme set for today which has not been completed. So the next item is 25.3 - Replenishment of the Special Reserve Account.
CHAIRMAN: We do not have any interpretation services now. I leave it to the Secretary. Maybe if there is any question regarding the meetings you can privately ask Mr Mifsud.
The meeting rose at 18.15 hours
La séance est leve à 18 h 15
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.15 horas
