25. Other Administrative and Financial Matters (continued)
25. Autres questions administratives et financières (suite)
25. Otros asuntos administrativos y finiancieros (continuación)
25.4 Other Measures to deal with Budgetary Uncertainties
25.4 Autres mesures destinées à faire face aux incertitudes budgétaires
25.4 Otras medias para hacer frente a las incertidumbres presupuestarias
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): Mr Chairman, I have a rather lengthy introductory statement because, in addition to introducing the two resolutions that relate to cash surplus or its distribution, we have included a status of cash flow and other information on the financial position that, I believe, will be helpful to the understanding of the two resolutions. With your forbearance, I will make the statement and give a briefing so that it is fairly clear what the status of our cash flow and our financial problems are, and perhaps it will also be useful in understanding the two resolutions.
The Commission has received from the Council the recommendations regarding the replenishments of the Special Reserve Account and the increase in the level of the Working Fund, which are two very indispensable management tools to ensure the smooth implementation of the voted Programme of Work and Budget, in spite of the actual currency movements and verified deļays in payments of assessed contributions. With a veiw to complementing the approaches to deal with financial uncertainties, the Council also retained as valid two additional preventive measures aimed at inducing timely payment of assessed contributions due and providing cash flow relief if so required.
These two measures deal with problems of delayed payment of assessed contributions in DocumentC 87/LIM/14 and the amendment of the present procedures for application of cash surplus in DocumentC 87/LIM/9.
I would like to come back to these two documents at the conclusion of my introductory remarks so that it is clear in the members´eyes exactly what the resolutions are.
In addition to these two measures, we are submitting to the Commission supplementary financial information regarding the current status of cash flow and other information on the financial position under Document C 87/LIM/42, as well as a summary of budget appropriation and expenditure by programme under Document C 87/LIM/41 which was requested by a Member Nation.
Concerning the status of cash flow and other information on the financial position in document LIM/42, I would like to provide somewhat of a briefing on the methodology that is used. The purpose of the cash flow forecast is to generate our best estimates of the Organization's future liquidity and foresee in advance any possible liquidity problems that might arise. The paper is prepared for management and submitted to the Finance Committee on a regular basis.
The method used is to forecast individually income and expenditure and the movements on asset and liability accounts for each month to the end of the financial period, then using this data to calculate the effect on the cash resources.
A brief description of the methodology used for estimating the amounts follows. First, on contributions, the total current amount assessed to Member Nations is reduced by its normal short fall which has historically been in the range of 8 percent. When it is known that a major contributor will not pay his contribution, this amount too is taken into account. Having established the totals of current contributions and arrears of contributions expected to be received, these are
then spread over the period based on historical trends of receipt of contributions and any other known information from major contributors as to the time of payment.
With respect to miscellaneous income, this item is composed of interest income - normally the largest portion - and other income such as rebates from travel agents, rents, lapses of outstanding obligations and related income. In order to calculate the interest income portion, which is the largest portion, it is necessary to establish a rate of interest according to market trends and the amount of funds available for investment. Since interest on bank deposits is normally credited three months later when the deposit falls due, this calculation is possible and the forecast is reasonably accurate. Other miscellaneous income is estimated and distributed over the period based upon historical trends up to the date of the forecast.
With respect to the Regular Programme and the TCP expenditures, initially the total budget is considered as spent during the period as the months progress. Any programme adjustments are taken into consideration. The expenditures are then spread over the months in the same historical pattern as the previous corresponding period. You will note on the LIM document that there are items for such things as "Receivables" and "Payables" which must be very carefully recorded in the accounts. In order to simplify matters, we have merely combined the two and netted them out. With respect to the TCP, the amount that is unspent, the balance remaining of prior period TCP appropriation is included in the document. This amount is considered to be spent in the same pattern as the unspent TCP of the last period. In other words, we merely take the normal trends and make the projection in accordance with those trends.
With respect to outstanding obligations, the obligations can be retained for up to one year of the. next biennium before the actual cash expenditure is made, and that period is dependent solely on the delivery of goods and/or services by a vendor, an individual, a consultant or an expert. When the services have been delivered, received and accepted, then the final payment is made against those outstanding obligations.
Mr Chairman, the cash surplus of a biennium, which we do not see arising in this biennium, is credited to the contributions account for the 'Member Nations as of 1 January of the year following the audit of accounts. As the Commission will recall, the cash surplus that arose out of the 1984/85 biennium was distributed on 1 January 1987, one year after the closure of the account.
We have spent some time discussing the Working Capital Fund and the Special Reserve Account so there is no need to go into further detail on those specific items. I would, however, like to make reference to the financial regulation regarding the General Fund itself. The General Fund-is, for all practical purposes, the overall account or balance sheet, if you will, of the Regular Programme itself.
In financial regulation 6.1 it is stated that: "There shall be established a General Fund to which shall be credited receipts from contributions of Member Nations, whether current or arrears, Miscellaneous Income and advances made from the Working Captial Fund; and from which shall be made all general expenditures and reimbursements to the Working Capital Fund under Financial Regulation 6.5 (a)." This is a simplified version of saying that all the income and expenditures must go through the General Fund, and anything that remains at the end goes into surplus, if there is a surplus; if not it goes into a deficit.
"Any cash surplus in the General Fund at the close of any financial period shall be allocated among Member Nations in accordance with.the Scale of Contributions applicable to that period and, as of 1 January following the year in which the audit of the final accounts of the financial period is completed, shall be released and applied to liquidate, in whole or in part, first, any advance due to the Working Capital Fund; secondly, any arrears of contributions; and thirdly, contributions for the calendar year following the year in which the audit of the final accounts of the financial period is completed, shall be released and applied to liquidate, in whole or in part, first, any advance due to the Working Captial Fund; secondly, any arrears of contributions; and thirdly, contributions for the calendar year following the year in which the audit is completed."
I would like to return momentarily to the question of contributions, to say that contributions to the FAO Regular Programme are of two kinds: firstly, the assessed contribution to the Programme of Work and Budget in proportion to the United Nations Scale of Contributions which is established by this Conference and secondly, contributions to the Working Capital Fund, more correctly called "advances". These are also proportionate to the United Nations Scale of Contributions. These are recorded into income as they are received. Unfortunately, at the end of the year, we could not record as income amounts not received, which puts us into a deficit at the end of this specific period.
If I could now ask members to turn quickly to document C 87/LIM/42, which is the Status of Cash Flow and other Information on the Financial Position, there are a couple of items there which I would like to highlight.
In paragraph 3 on the first page reference is made to the position at the end of 1986/87 biennium, excluding the TCP Programme, and it is forecast in the schedule that follows. There you will note that the effective working budget for the present biennium was US$437 000 000; after taking out the TCP, you can easily see the balance of US$375 000 000. The expenditure level from January 1986 through to December 1987, which includes two months of estimates, will be approximatley US$333 400 000, and will have unpaid bills at the end, other than TCP, of US$170 000, showing a total expenditure, or outstanding obligation at the end of the year of US$350 579 000, and therefore an amount that represents unobligated balance of US$25 000 000. This amount is, as you will recall, a result of the efforts taken by the Director-General to make programme adjustments in the amount of US$25 000 000, which really is a deduction in the amount of expenditures because of the lack of receipts.
The 1986/87 appropriation for the TCP, US$61 000 000, will be completely set aside by the end of this year.
If you now go to paragraph 7 and look at the Income Forecast for the remainder of 1986/87, reference is made there to the USA contribution, of which we have received two amounts each of US$10 271 000, received in September and October 1987. After recording those receipts the USA will have a balance of contributions outstanding of about US$67 373 000. There is still great uncertainty about the level of contributions for 1987 but for the purpose of making cash projections we have assumed that there would be an amount of approximately US$25 000 000 paid sometime in 1988. It may be a good or a bad assumption and a representative of the United States could certainly give us the benefit of his predictions there. We had to come up with some figure, and we felt that, as we have received US$4.8 million in January 1987 and about US$20 500 000 in September and October, it was a reasonable assumption that there would be perhaps $US25 000 000 paid next year.
On paragraph 10 there are, I think, some rather important figures which should be brought to the attention of the Commission. First, after utilization of the Working Captial Fund of US$13.3 million, there will be a deficit in the General Fund, which is the excess of expenditure over income, of about US$35.1 million. Also, understanding all the other balances - the outstanding obligations, the carry forward, TCP and so forth - after,having received those amounts from the USA, an amount recently from Japan, an amount recently from Brazil, and the amount which Italy has decided to forego for the cash surp-lus, we can now firmly state that we will end the year with approximately US$27 000 000 - worth of cash. We will have outstanding obligations much greater than that but we will still have cash at the end of the year.
One final thought, and that is one rather of caution than anything else: I shall not go through the hypothetical outlook for 1988/89, which is fairly clear - you can see that we_have been as realistic as possible and yet as conservative as possible - but I do want to caution members that 1988/89 is at this moment very hypothetical for a number of reasons.
We do not know exactly how the lire/dollar will go. We do not know what interests will end up doing, nor do we know that contributions will come in at the same rate as last year or some other rate. It is very difficult for us to predict accurately, particularly month by month, what the cash flow is likely to look like, but some assumptions have to be made in order to give the Commission some insight into the direction that we would see the cash flow taking in 1988/89. That is included in the paper, and the graphs which you see as the attachments - appendices A and B - indicate the rates of estimated receipts, rates of major disbursements, and the balances beginning and ending, and they are shown on a month by month basis - but again, for the 1988/89 period they must be taken as being very hypothetical.
If we could now return to the two resolutions related to the cash surplus, I would ask members to look at document C 87/LIM/9, the draft resolution for the Conference, to amend procedures for application of cash surplus. This resolution has been put forward after discussion by the Finance Committee and the Council, and is now available for discussion in this Commission. It provides the possibility for the Council to be delegated authority to decide, in the event of a significant delay in the receipt of contributions, that cash surplus which may arise in future biennia maybe witheld in full or in part with a view to ensuring that sufficient funds are made available to implement in full the current approved programme and Work and Budget. This is an effort to allow the Council the opportunity to look at the rate of receipt of contributions as they are coming in. As you know, in the next biennium the Council will be meeting in November. Although there will not be a cash flow to be considered for application at the point, if there had been the Council should then have reviewed the rate of receipt to determine whether or not cash surplus should be distributed the following January, or witheld. The purpose of this is to give that authority to the Council. If you will recall, the Conference in 1983 took a similar decision, but it was for one Session. This resolution would provide for continuing authority to the Council.
Next, C 87/LIM/14, dealing with Measures to Deal with Problems of Delayed Payment of Assessed Contributions. This is an effort to provide an incentive to all countries to pay their contributions in a timely manner. This is a problem which has been studied several times by the Finance Committee and the result is this proposal. It has been reviewed by the Council. I would add that this is a subject that has been reviewed by most of the other UN agencies and similar presentations are being prepared, or have been prepared, for their governing bodies.
The proposal includes a weighted distribution of some part of the cash surplus when it arises in future biennia; that portion of the cash surplus that arises which relates directly to the time and amount of payment has to do with interest income. This proposal therefore includes an operative paragraph that we provide a weighting of distribution of cash surplus as to the time and amount of distribution, but weighted only on the interest income portion.
There are two parts ot the operative paragraph, Part a) and Part b).
Part a) relates only to the weighted process - and here I think there has been some degree of confusion. It has appeared to me at least that it is not well understood what the formula might say that it is intended to be as simple as possible; it has two factors only,.the timing and the amount of contribution for those countries which would be available to receive cash surplus in later biennia. In this case, you would have to have paid up contributions, and then distribution of the cash surplus would be decided upon a very simple formula. The formula is that the interest income portion of the cash surplus would be weighted on the basis and the timing and contributions. It is simple and straightforward - it is a straight line, linear formula. There are no other hypothetical curves included in the formula. If the contributions were received on the first day of January, obviously you would receive the full amount of the weight; if they are received half way through the year you would receive half the weight. It is as simple as that: it is based purely on timing and amount of contribution. There is no intention to work out other curves, such as have been discussed in some United Nations agencies. This is a linear formula, and based on those two factors only.
The second part of the cash surplus distribution shown in b) on page 2 merely recites that all the rest of the elements of cash surplus other than interest in income would continue to be allocated on the same basis, and that is the Scale of Contributions as it has been in the past. So there is only one factor of cash surplus which would change, and that is the interest income portion, which could be weighted on the time and amount of receipt of contribution. All the other factors·of cash surplus would be distributed in just the same way.
The motivation behind this is to encourage Member Nations to pay earlier and to pay the full amount. By so doing, they therefore have the opportunity of receiving cash surplus in future years in the full amount with the highest weight, and by receipt later,on in the year they would receive a lesser amount because of the weight.
That concludes all the introductory remarks I would like to maker Mr Chairman. Perhaps you would like to take up the two resolutions separately one by one, but that depends upon your own decision. We have given you a lot of information, butl was hopeful that it wouLd be useful in understanding the resolutions that are before you.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the Assistant Director-General for his lengthy and well elaborated introductory remarks. Now I open the floor for questions, remarks, discussion. I am going to follow the suggestion as far as the order of taking up the resolutions, so please limit yourself as far as the draft resolution is concerned only to the draft contained in document C 87/LIM/9. Who wants to speak? Delegate of Malaysia, you have the floor.
Mohd. Mazlan JUSOH (Malaysia): My delegation wishes to congratulate Mr. Crowther for his very comprehensive introduction to the subject. We wish to tackle both resolutions, but in reverse order. The first thing is the resolution regarding the measures to deal with the problem of delayed payment of contributions. My delegation feels that the adoption of this resolution is long overdue. There is a dire need for payment of contributions to be early. Many countries do recognize this need and do make their payments promptly. We have to encourage these countries to keep on doing so while attempting to persuade others to do the same. The resolution before us definitely is a good incentive. In no way can it be regarded as a punitive measure against those who pay late. It may not be applicable to one or two countries with their own domestic legislations that prevent them from answering the call for early payments, but definitely the resolution is applicable to us and to many other member countries here. Therefore, my delegation fully supports the draft resolution before us.
On the resolution entitled Amending Present Procedures for the Application of Cash Surplus, my delegation also has no hesitation to support it. Malaysia is one of the 20-odd countries that already deferred their claim to the.cash surplus. Our position is very clear. We feel that it is our duty and responsibility to help this Organization in its time of crisis, in any case it is just a deferral and the cash, under more favourable circumstances, may still be available at a later date.
Karl NORD (Norway): My delegation cannot support the draft resolution contained in document LIM/9. The reason for this is that although my country fully agrees with the need for improving the . financial situation of the Organization, this should not be arrived at through procedures which constitute a penalizing of member countries which have paid their contributions to the regular budget in time. It can only be reiterated here that the best way to solve the present financial difficulties is that outstanding contributions from member countries be paid in without undue delay. In light of what I have just stated, my delegation will have to vote against the draft resolution in document LIM/9.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): We will have probably the same pattern that we had on the approval of the resolution on the Finance Committee: minority and majority. I think we are wasting plenty of time, but anyhow everybody has the right to intervene and manifest the pros and cons. In my case it is quite obvious, a hundred percent obvious that being a member of the Finance Committee, we will vote for. I am sorry that they do not appreciate our work and would throw into the waste paper ba.sket a paper that is so important for the life of the Organization. I.think this is very just, fair and meditated, by us only. That was another Conference. Now the only thing is theoretical because there will be no cash surplus. So we are dividing something which is nonexistent. But anything can happen. The dollar jumped from 2 200 on one so-called black Friday in Italy. It may not reach that height, but anything can happen. We might have another cash surplus. But this time, .believe me, Italy will see to it that no Italian special contribution will fall in the cash surplus to benefit those who do not want to accept reasonable measures.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): First I should like fully and unreservedly to support what His Excellency the ambassador from Italy has just said. We are convinced that all Member States have the duty to help to improve the Organization's financial situation. When we discussed this draft resolution in the Finance Committee and in the Council we said very clearly and frankly that this draft resolution is not intended to in any way penalize any Member State. It is simply a question of giving those who deserve it the right to obtain what is their due. This draft resolution is therefore very reasonable. It is not intended to save the Organization. It cannot save the Organization, but it can help to make the financial situation of the Organization more stable. In conclusion, I support this draft resolution contained in LIM/9. I also support the second draft resolution. We unreservedly support both draft resolutions.
Pedro SEBASTIAO (Angola): Nous appuyons sans réserve le projet de résolution contenu dans le document C 87|LIM|9.
Antonio C. DE ALMEIDA RIBEIRO (Portugal): Being very brief, I would like to second the intervention of the distinguished Representative of Italy. Therefore, my delegation is able to support this draft resolution.
Ms Janet Lesley TOMI (Australia): I will also be very brief. Australia has indicated that it will be unable to accept the deferrment of the return of cash surplus in biennia whereby cash surplus is available. I would just like to associate Australia with the remarks made by the delegate of Norway that in fact we believe that a deferrment of cash surplus when it is available is a penalty imposed on prompt full-in payers as compensation for those countries which are. non-payers to the Organization.
Jean—Luc GRAEVE (France): Je voudrais commencer par une question: est-ce que nous pouvons aborder l'ensemble des points qui sont à l'ordre du jour de cette réunion de cet après-midi, ou devons-nous aborder les points résolution par résolution? Je suis dans les mains du Président.
CHAIRMAN: I have suggested already that we take one resolution after another because that is the normal procedure which does not limit the distinguished delegates to speaking on the same resolution at the same time. That is my proposal. Now the floor is given to the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): In this intervention I would like to touch upon documents C 87/LIM/41 and 42, we would very much welcome these documents, and we give our sincere thanks to the Secretariat for producing them. We ourselves certainly have found them extremely interesting, and they have helped us in our attempts to consider the situation before us.
We have a number of questions raised by C 87/LIM/41 and C 87/LIM/42 which I would like to put before I comment on LIM/9. Beginning with LIM/42 and the expenditure side, here my delegation finds it particularly poignant that we did not have this before the budget debate because if we had had this document and we could have drawn attention to certain parts of it, then there might not have been so much confusion over our footnote in relation to the Technical Cooperation Programme where we commented there about the slow rate of spending of the Technical Cooperation Programme, to point out its vulnerability.
Coming to document LIM/41 which shows actual spending, we see first of all that we have a table for the biennium 84-85. That is the biennium that closed in December 85. If we look there at the line for technical cooperation, we see that in the budget there was, I think - and here you must excuse me; the printing is rather difficult in my copy - but I think it is US$ 2 million was appropriated for TCP. In this biennium US$ 20 million was actually spent and a further US$ 6 million was in the form of contractual obligations. So we start off with a figure of 72. I think Mr Crowther is nodding his head at this point. It goes on the US$ 20 million spent and US$ 6 million legally obligated. So this is a spending rate of US$ 13 million a year out of a programme which we set aside - remember, TCP is earmarked - US$ 72 million. We then come to the end of the line and we see that at December 1985 the total obligation was US$ 27 million and the balance, unobligated though perhaps committed in some way-Qr another, was something like US$ 45 million. I think two things stem from this. I think again it really does point up the slow rate of spending in TCP. I think it does justify our concern that it takes such a long time to spend what is not, as we were continually reminded, a very vast amount of money. But our first question on this is that we would like to know, of this US$ 45.6 million which was outstanding at the end of 1985, what has actually happened to it? How much of it has been spent since then? Because we know that legally that money can be spent during the past two years. So our first question is really how much of that has been spent?
Turning now to the current biennium, when we look at TCP again we see that there is an estimate that this time, out of an appropriation of US$ 63 million, more than half - perhaps 35 million -will remain unspent at the end of the biennium. Again, this is a very slow spending programme, and it does raise some interesting issues, especially when the Organization is under financial pressure.
Putting it very crudely we have always accepted and worked on the basis that TCP would be set aside for the use of developing countries and field programmes. Then if it was not spent at the end of two years, after the end of the biennium in which it was appropriated, it would return into general revenue. The problem that now faces the Organization surely is that if the cash flow projections are not as optimistic as projected in C 87/LIM/41, in very crude terms we believe that the Organization will be faced with a choice between keeping TCP isolated and meeting the salaries of the staff. I would ask the people here to think quite seriously about this. If the Organization is faced with the question of whether or not we continue to have TCP isolated and start paying off members of the staff, or whether we come out with some emergency measures to use the surplus TCP money to meet that sort of expenditure, what the outcome will be, and this goes back to a point we made continually about the need to ensure that TCP is committed, is programmed, and is spend as quickly as possible. Otherwise it is so vulnerable to just this sort of situation.
The question here again is can we have some estimate of how the Secretariat see TCP spending from the current biennium over the next biennium. This would be very helpful. This is the $ 35 million which we see will not be spent by the end of this year. What sort of spending profile do they see over the next two years for the spending of this money?
Mr Chairman I would now like to turn to the next paper we have which is the forecast cash flow and here I would go back to a question about TCP. I find it very difficult to deal with this paper Mr. Chairman, because I certainly have some trouble with paragraphs 11 and 12, and relating the assumptions used about the payment by the main contributor against the statements which that contributor has made in other commissions and in Council. So I think it would be very difficult for members to get a view on this, a view on the accuracy of the forecast for 88/89 until we have heard from my colleague here on the right, and I am very glad to see he has got his flag up. But the question I have here is, given what we have said about TCP and what happens to TCP from 84/85 at the end of this biennium, what assumptions were used about TCP in calculating the cash flow and income into general revenue. I notice in paragraph 3 of C 87/LIM/42 it specifically says excluding TCP. So I would like an explanation of the treatment of any outstanding balance of TCP from 84/85 in preparing the cash flow projections in C 87/LIM/42.
Finally, Mr Chairman, I would like to deal with C 87/LIM/9 and the proposals there. I have listened to this debate with considerable interest for reasons which I will explain later. I was particularly interested, intrigued and gratified I think by the intervention from the distinguished delegate of Italy if I heard him correctly; but I will come onto that in a minute. So far as the resolution as it stands is concerned, my delegation will oppose this resolution. We believe that the cash surplus accruing at the close of a biennium belongs to the Member States in proportion to their contribution, and should be returned to them unless they are prepared to relinquish their claims voluntarily. In our view it is inappropriate to seek a supplementary assessment like this through the back door which is what this proposal involves, so as to avoid programme adjustments which one required by shortfalls in contributions. The proposals if agreed would mean that the members would be paying extra to compensate for the failure of some members who have been unable, unwilling to pay their contributions in time. This, Mr Chairman, is clearly not acceptable to my Government and we have indicated this on every occasion this sort of issue has arisen.
Finally, Mr Chairman, in saying this I must say that when we spoke in Council we took the view that this was a rather academic exercise and we are rather surprised to see this resolution before us, because we said there will be no cash surplus this biennium and we suggested that this issue could be deferred for another-12 months. Unless my memory is failing, which perhaps it may be, in an intervention shortly after that the distinguished delegate of Italy, who is a member of the Finance Committee, questioned in fact whether there would be a cash surplus this biennium. He thought one prognosis was far too gloomy. "Who knows what might happen," he said.
It was therefore with some considerable gratification that I heard him say just now that he too now considers that there will be a cash surplus this biennium. So therefore, Mr Chairman, I am a bit perplexed. We now have the situation in which one of the members of the Finance Committee who, quite understandably at that time then supported this resolution, now comes round and explains that the cash surplus will materialize. I therefore must again pose the question, Mr Chairman, if that is the case why have we this resolution in front of us now, and why can it not be postponed for consideration by the next Conference?
CHAIRMAN: Is Mr Crowther or Mr Shah willing maybe to comment or give certain additional explanations?
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): Mr Chairman, I will answer very quickly to the views of the minority. What I said is that it is not likely that we are going to have a cash surplus this biennium. But nobody can rule it out, I was very clear on it. We had it very clear in our minds, but is it a pity for us once in a lifetime to stand and take preventive measures should anything occur, or should we wait until it happens and we have the same troubles as we have this year? I would like the British colleague to answer.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): I will be very pleased to answer the question raised by the distinguished delegate of Italy. There is quite a simple answer in management terms - one discounts uncertainty with time. In other words if the situation is uncertain, it is probably a better use of resources to do nothing and delay a decision, rather than take a decision that may be unnecessary. I am sure that there are many other things we could do that would be more relevant to the financial crisis than this particular activity, especially in view of the uncertainty over whether or not there will be a financial surplus.
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme Budget and Evaluation): Mr Chairman, as the Commission is well aware the provisions of the TCP appropriation are governed by financial regulation 4.3. I will not bother to read it out; I think everyone is well aware.
The specific question of the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom was what happened to the 84-85 TCP, the amount which was not expended and committed or obligated at the end of 1985. The amount, Mr Chairman, is US$45,606 000 as given in the document C 87/LIM/41, and that amount has been expended during this biennium. We expect at the end of this biennium the full amount to be expended and committed. That is the deadline. At the end of this biennium, by the end of 1987, the commitments have to be made. Any part of this amount which has not been committed by the end of 1987 is not available for further commitment to 1988, but the commitments which have been made by the end of 1987 have to be discharged during the 12 month period 1 January to 31 December 1988.
Mr Chairman, in the past biennia since the TCP was established in 1976, the amounts which have not been expended by the end of the period allowed under these provisions has been negligible. For the biennium 1978-79 the amount which was unutilized was, I believe, only some $2 000. For the biennium after that the amount was somewhat greater - I do not have the figure with me - but whatever the amount (and these are really very small amounts) then revert to miscellaneous income.
The second question asked by the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom was whether the TCP should be isolated and protected at a time of financial pressure. Mr Chairman, I can only respond to the actions during this biennium and the guidance given to us by our governing bodies so far. When the programme adjustments were first found to be necessary and were proposed by the Director-General to the session of the Council in November 1986, the package of programme adjustments of 16.4 million dollars did not include the TCP, and the Council was vey clear in its guidance when it responded to this package of proposals. By an overwhelming majority the Council agreed that TCP should not be affected from the package of programme adjustments.
Mr Chairman, the questions about the assumptions of possible payments from the US - and I am sure Mr Crowther and even more the distinguished delegate of the United States of America will wish to reply too - but may I respond to one last comment made about the validity of the draft resolution, which is in document LIM 9, being submitted to the Conference at a time when there is no prospect of a cash surplus arising from this biennium. Now, Mr Chairman, I will not of course and I do not need to enter into any clarifications that the distinguished delegates may want to give each other about what they said, but I think from the Secretariat point of view I would emphasize that there is considerable merit in considering a proposal such as this when one can be detached, if I may put it that way, when one can be detached from the prospect of lucre affecting one's judgement, but if one were considering either a very substantial cash surplus, in which case Member Nations may be tempted to say "Well it is much too attractive to consider having this applied in accordance with the standard provisions to our arrears in contributions, and therefore we are not prepared to consider any measure affecting the distribution of this cash surplus". As against this we have a situation where Member Nations can, in all objectivity and dispassionately, consider the measure precisely at a time when you do not have to be swayed by such mundane factors.
I do not mean to be cynical. I do mean very soberly that there are many advantages in considering this measure at this time for the reasons I have tried to explain. That is all I need to say at this time.
Rainer PRESTIEN (Germany, Federal Republic of)(original language German): I would like to thank Mr Crowther for his very detailed and comprehensive introduction of this Item of the Agenda, and to say we go along with previous speakers who have spoken on these two draft resolutions.
First of all, I address myself to document C 87/LIM/14, measures regarding problems of delayed payment of assessed contributions. My Government is very open-minded with regard to the suggested draft resolution. We can agree provided that the envisaged new regulation in fact will lead to an early payment of the contributions of Member States. But of course, I think that all together we must place the Organization on such a footing that it may have a certain surplus at the end of a financial year.
As to the possibility of retaining a cash surplus, this would be a similar regulation as to that which was decided by the 22nd Conference of FAO at the time, but for the time being we see no possibility of having such a cash surplus. Also because of delayed provisions and means, we do not see any reason to modify the regulations, so we cannot agree with the draft resolution in document C 87/LIM/9.
I wish to express our thanks to the Secretariat for documents C 87/LIM/41 and C 87/LIM/42. We can see that the Secretariat is doing its very best to provide delegations with the most up-to-date figures. At some later point I should like to refer to these documents since, like the delegate of the United Kingdom, I have a few questions to raise regarding certain details.
I come back to one point which we have already discussed here, in particular this morning - that is,. the question of the actual currency in relation to all the provisions we are discussing. We have a very open mind in this respect. As we know - and this came out of the discussion this morning - there are international organizations which in fact establish their budgets in several currencies. Some of them were actually named. The budget currency in the system of the United Nations is not compulsory. There are all kinds of financial combinations which are perfectly legal. I would merely draw attention to one point, that is, that even basket currencies are not completely protected against fluctuation. The ECU is an example. Before 1985 this currency lost quite a lot vis-à-vis the United States dollar. Now the situation is reversed and basket currency is not really a proper hedging procedure, shall we say, against exchange rate fluctuation. We must continue to discuss this matter, particularly in the Finance Committee and also in Council.
An sournane SAGNO (Guinée): Après examen du document relatif aux mesures destinées à faire face aux incertitudes budgétaires, qu'il me soit permis de remercier le Secrétariat pour ses initiatives fort intéressantes en vue d'aider notre Organisation dans cette situation inquiétante qu'est la crise financière. Il en va de même pour les délégations italienne et française qui ont respectivement présenté le projet de résolution sur l'exécution du programme et l'amendement au projet de résolution pour faire face aux problèmes de rapport dans le règlement des contributions. Il n'y a aucun doute quant à l'existence de ces incertitudes budgétaires; les documents C 87/LIM/41 et C 87/LIM/42 en témoignent éloquemment. S'agissant de l'excédent de trésorerie,je pense que le reste des Etats Membres,dont malheureusement mon pays fait partie, devra, à l'instar de 20 autres, accepter de différer le recouvrement de leur part d'excédent ou d'y renoncer. Si mon pays n'a pas pu se prononcer sur la gestion jusqu'à maintenant, la raison en incombe simplement aux procédures financières qui j'espère arriveront bientôt à terme en sa faveur. Enfin, ma délégation appuie tout projet de résolution et toute mesure visant à faire face aux incertitudes budgétaires de notre Organisation, exception faite des contributions extraordinaires.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): May I begin by apologizing for my departure a few moments ago. As a result, I did not quite catch the end of Mr Crowther's introduction, nor did I catch the first few interventions that were made. The reason I left was to take a call from Washington, do you believe? - a call with regard to the present situation on our contribution. This was something which was very much current because, as I am sure most delegates are aware, a rather important decision was taken in principle in Washington on Friday affecting our budgets. I was hoping - in vain as it turns out - to have more information as to what exactly the implications for our contributions to the international organizations might be out of the most recent budget compromise. But as I said, no information is at present available.
I simply recall what my delegation said earlier in Commission II when we were discussing the Programme of Work and Budget - this is by way of explanation - that the Administration had indeed asked Congress for the full appropriation for our assessed contributions to international organizations, and this amount was over US $570 million. Congress has taken no final action on this request, even though our budget year has long since ended. It is expected, however, that the final figure will be somewhere, say, between US $350 million and US $370 million, significantly below the amount we requested. Precisely because this amount is so much below what we have requested, it is extremely difficult - indeed, impossible - to say how that money will be divided among some 46 organizations to which we pay this contribution. So unfortunately, I really cannot shed any more light on the status of the United States' contribution than we did earlier last week
With respect to the document before us with the hypothetical outlook for 1988-89, C 87/LIM/42, I have to say I appreciated the introduction by Mr Crowther when he said this is simply the most reasonable case that FAO can make. I do have to say, however, that the figures contained in subsection b. of paragraph 12 of the document will probably have to be considered as something like the best-case scenario. Probably the actual situation will be considerably worse than that, but Congress has not taken any official action so it is impossible to say exactly what the situation will be. I would point out to delegations that we do not expect final Congressional action on our appropriations until some time in December and there may still be something of a lack after that pending the final allocation of funds.
So it is difficult for both my delegation and the Secretariat to try to come up with a better picture of what is facing the Organization, except to say it is clear that uncertainty is facing it - and uncertainty on a rather large scale.
In view of the fact that there was some common doubt as to what the United States was likely to say I think I had better stop there, reserving the right to return on some of the resolutions we had before us. I would rather not mix up the technical points in some of these resolutions on what is likely to be the case with our contributions. With your indulgence, Mr Chairman, I reserve the right to return later in our debate. If anyone has any questions - I do not think I can give a good answer but I will certainly try.
Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): Je me contenterai'd'intervenir sur le projet de résolution contenu dans le document C 87/LIM/19. Ma délégation n'estime pas nécessaire, dans les circonstances actuelles, de modifier l'équilibre qui existe entre les attributions respectives de la Conférence et du Conseil. Equilibre auquel mon pays est très attaché.
Nous pensons par ailleurs que c'est aux Etats qu'il appartient de se décider sur la rétention éventuelle de leur part dans l'excédent de trésorerie. Je rappelle qu'un certain nombre d'entre eux ont annoncé, cette année, qu'ils acceptaient de différer le recouvrement de leur part dans l'excédent de trésorerie de 1984-85, et c'est le cas de la France. C'est pourquoi ma délégation s'est opposée à la proposition contenue dans le projet de résolution C 87/LIM/9 visant à ce que la Conférence délègue au Conseil le pouvoir de retenir, en tout ou partie, les excédents apparaissant à la fin d'un exercice.
Raphaël RABE (Madagascar): Ma délégation fait partie du Comité financier et au cours de plusieurs sessions de ce Comité, notamment à la soixante et unième session, la délégation de Madagascar a essayé de sauvegarder l'intérêt de toutes les instances. Comme nous l'avons toujours dit, il s'ag d'améliorer la situation de la trésorerie de l'Organisation.
Je voudrais mettre en accord mes pensées, mes actes, mes propos, mon attitude, car l'échéance de cette Conférence nous invite à envisager dès maintenant une perspective plus immédiate et plus concrète.
C'est pour cette raison que ma délégation, en toute objectivité et sans passion comme on nousl'a recommandé tout à l'heure, pour répondre d'une façon cohérente et utile aux mesures qui sontenvisagées, dit de la façon la plus claire et la plus nette qu'elle appuie sansréserve les deuxprojets de résolution soumis à notre approbation.
Ms Anne Lise PETERSEN (Denmark): As a member of the Council, the Danish delegation has already had the opportunity to express its view on the proposal to amend the present procedures for application of cash surplus. Therefore, I only want to reiterate that my delegation is opposed to the proposed transfer of authority from the Conference to the Council in order to decide on possible deferment of the distribution of the cash surplus for the purpose of filling the gap caused by delayed payments of contributions.
My delegation is, therefore, not in a position to vote in favour of the proposed Draft Resolution in Document C 87/LIM/9.
A. SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Je voudrais tout d'abord vous dire combien nous nous félicitons des mesures proposées visant à régler les problèmes des retards dans les versements des contributions.
Comme vous le savez, il existe dans certaines Organisations internationales des plans d'incitation. Notamment à l'OACI il y a un plan d'incitation avec effet au premier janvier 1987 qui a été approuvé en septembre-octobre 1986. Il en existe un également à l'OMM où il a été décidé, en mai 1987, d'adopter un plan d'incitation entrant en vigueur en janvier 1988.
Il existe évidemment différentes formules, différentes modalités techniques, mais je crois que le principe est extrêmement sage, judicieux. Il permet de "favoriser" ceux qui versent régulièrement leurs contributions. Je crois que le système qui est qualifié de "système en S" est le meilleur, c'est-à-dire qu'il privilégie ceux qui versent leurs contributions durant les 4 ou 5 premiers mois de l'année, avec une nette inflexion allant vers la diminution des incitants et la suppression totale pour ceux qui ne versent pas leurs contributions au cours de l'exercice.
Je crois qu'il serait important d'étudier les différentes formules qui sont actuellement à l'examen. Je sais que la FAO a déjà entamé l'examen d'un plan d'incitation, conformément aux différentes formules qui ont été retenues ou qui sont à l'examen dans les autres organisations.
En ce qui nous concerne, nous pensons que, même si le document CL 87/LIM/14 ne contient à l'heure actuelle pas de mesures spécifiques, il contient une déclaration de principes qui ne peut que recevoir notre plein et entier agrément. Je crois qu'il serait important que ces mesures puissent être prises dans un délai extrêmement bref.
Nous avons écouté avec attention les interventions de nos collègues des Etats-Unis, de la République fédérale d'Allemagne, et de la France, et en ce qui nous concerne, sur le plan des principes, nous ne sommes pas d'accord avec une délégation de pouvoir de la Conférence au Conseil.
Je crois que les délégations de pouvoir sont extrêmement dangereuses, qu'elles doivent être limitées. La Conférence est souveraine et dispose de la totalité des pouvoirs. Dans la mesure où elle s'en dessaisit, la Conférence n'a plus beaucoup de raison d'être.
Or, dans la proposition du document CL 87/LIM/9: Modification des procédures d'allocation d'excédents de trésorerie, la proposition qui est faite est une proposition de délégation, non seulement pour le biennium qui vient, mais également pour l'exercice futur. Sous le point du considérant (page 2) il est prévu une délégation, non seulement pour les problèmes à court terme, donc les problèmes du prochain exercice, durant lequel les problèmes de trésorerie se posent avec acuité, mais la délégation est permanente pour les exercices futurs, ce qui veut dire qu'il s'agirait d'une délégation donnée sans limitation de temps.
Si on peut éventuellement - bien que nous y soyons opposés pour des questions de principe -examiner la possibilité d'une délégation dans le cadre des difficultés actuelles à court terme, je crois qu'une délégation permanente des pouvoirs de la Conférence vers le Conseil n'est pas une bonne chose. Il faut l'éviter. Un certain nombre de pays ne sont pas membres du Conseil, où-le .so'nt rarement. Ce serait extrêmement dangereux et regrettable, et cela viderait en partie la Conférence de son sens, qu'une délégation puisse être donnée.
Ce sont les quelques réflexions que je voulais faire au stade actuel de nos discussions. Nous avons sur d'autres points des arguments que nous désirons développer, mais je voulais simplement signaler que les mesures visant à régler le problème des retards sont des mesures qui devraient
être prises à très court terme qu'elles sont importantes et que le dossier est mûr pour recevoir une solution, et qu'en ce qui concerne le principe de la délégation des pouvoirs de la Conférence au Conseil, nous y sommes en principe opposés.
Mounir KHORAYCH (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Monsieur le Président, permettez-moi d'emblée de vous demander une faveur. Je voudrais que de temps en temps vous jetiez un regard vers cette partie de la salle. Cela fait plus d'une heure que je demande la parole alors que certains délégués ont déjà pu s'exprimer deux fois sur le même sujet pendant ce temps.
Ma délégation appuie la résolution.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your statement. I wish to clarify that I do not have on my list any country which has spoken twice during the afternoon session, except for certain clarification between two delegations.
I will undertake to look more often to that side of the room!
J. LYNCH (Canada): With respect to the incentive scheme, Canada is pleased to support. As for the other proposal, we regretfully find ourselves in a position of not being able to support it on the basis that we consider that the disposal of the cash surplus should be a voluntary matter for decision by states.
I have one small question with respect to C 87/LIM/42. In it I note that in para. 5 Mr Crowther has provided information about programme adjustments. This is talking about the historical situation. Then in the hypothetical outlook for 1988-89, a number of assumptions are made. There is no assumption about programme adjustments. I am wondering where they went in the hypothetical outlook. I am assuming there will be programme adjustments but it seems that they have somehow disappeared. As there were $25 million in the historical and nothing in the hypothetical, it strikes me as a little strange.
As people here know by now, I usually get numbers wrong, but it strikes me that there is in the chart a pattern that shows itself, and that is that the most difficult part for the FAO, — at least according to the chart —, will come in the last few months of the last year of the coming biennium. I am wondering whether the negative amount there, the $ -29 million, is a rough guide as to the amount of adjustments that will be required, and given that the cash flow in the Organization seems more or less in balance up until the last part, whether or not there can be some way of adjusting it out so that, if my assumption is correct, most of the cuts would have to be put in the last year of the biennium, they could not be thought of at the beginning and spread out in a more even way throughout the biennium.
Mourad BENCHEIKH (Algérie): En déclaration liminaire, je serai bref, et il est vrai que je vais l'être car il semblerait que des élections doivent suivre.
Tout comme elle l'a fait pour les projets de résolution concernant le Fonds de roulement et le Compte de réserve spécial, la délégation algérienne est opposée à la résolution figurant au Document C 87/LIM/9, en tant qu'elle constitue à ses yeux une augmentation indirecte de la contribution de l'Algérie.
En outre, le paragraphe 2 délègue au Conseil, de façon permanente, le pouvoir de décider la retenue partielle ou totale des excédents en espèces qui apparaîtraient à l'issue des exercices à venir.
La détermination du budget, comme de toutes les décisions en matière financière, doit rester, comme le veut le Règlement, du ressort exclusif de la Conférence qui doit donc en l’ occurrence demeurer notre seul organe de décision.
Likunde LI-BOTAYI (Zaïre): Mon pays, la République du Zaïre, est membre du Conseil et se réjouit de l'estime et de la confiance manifestée vis-à-vis du Conseil par la Conférence. Mais nous tenons beaucoup au respect des textes fondamentaux qui régissent le fonctionnement de l'Organisation.
C'est pourquoi, Monsieur le Président, la délégation du Zaïre exprime sa réserve au sujet de ce projet de résolution et elle propose à la Commission de trouver d'autres mesures qui peuvent amener les Etats Membres à s'acquitter de leurs obligations, au lieu de déléguer d'une manière permanente les pouvoirs au Conseil. Une fois adoptée cette résolution, la délégation du Zaïre pense qu'il y aura un précédent très malheureux pour notre Organisation, parce que le Conseil pourrait, chaque fois que la situation l'y obligerait, agir sans se référer à l'organe suprême qui est la Conférence.
Nous sommes pour que notre Organisation puisse disposer de ressources financières suffisantes pour lui permettre d'exécuter comme il se doit, et à la satisfaction de tous les Etats Membres, les programmes déjà approuvés, mais nous ne sommes pas pour la délégation des pouvoirs de la Conférence au Conseil.
Amilcar Spencer LOPES (Cap-Vert): A l'instar des délégations, comme celle de Madagascar et d'autres, qui m'ont précédé, je voudrais déclarer devant cette Commission que la délégation du Cap-Vert appuie les deux projets de résolution qui lui sont soumis.
Yan HEIDSMA (Netherlands): My delegation cannot support the resolution contained in C 87/LIM/9, for reasons which are essentially the same as those that apply on the resolutions concerning the Working Capital Fund and the Special Reserve Account. Having said that, my country is one of those which has agreed to defer its share of the cash surplus, and I am fairly confident that should a need arise in the future we would positively look into this matter. But to delegate authority to the Council now to decide these matters is something which we could simply not agree on in relation to matters as important as cash surplus.
I am not sure whether we are supposed to speak on C 87/LIM/14 and C87/LIM/14-Sup.1 also at this point. My delegation is certainly in favour of C 87/LIM/14, but I am not sure if we have fully understood what C 87/LIM/14-Sup.1 is about. I take it however that we will perhaps return to that later.
A.Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I am sorry to be taking the floor for a second time -I realize there is some sensitivity on that point. 1 did however want to keep the two interventions separate. I would like to support at this point the quite numerous previous speakers who had indicated that they are not in a position to support the resolution contained in C 87/LIM/9, and I am thinking particularly of Nigeria, Zaire, Belgium and Germany, for basically the same reasons that they have outlined. I would also like to echo the question put to you by the previous speaker, the delegate of the Netherlands: are we in fact supposed to be dealing with C 87/LIM/14 at this point? - because if so I would have some relatively detailed questions to put on that subject. I have however received the impression that C 87/LIM/14 will be discussed later - is this correct?
CHAIRMAN: This is correct. As I have no other speakers on my list today, from either the right side or the left side of the hall - perhaps the Assistant Director-General would like to answer some of the questions that have been raised.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): There are really not many questions to be answered, because I think the responses have been fairly clear - they have been either very positive or very negative. There are however a couple o-f-points which I believe should be made and a couple of questions were raised.
I am not sure that it is completely clear, on C 87/LIM/9, just what the delegation of authority from the Conference to the Council entails. If I could draw delegates' attention to C 87/LIM/9, and more specifically paragraphs 2 and 3:
In paragraph 2, the authority contemplates the delegation of authority to the Council"To decide, in the event of a significant delay in the receipt of contributions, and notwithstanding Financial Regulation 6.1(b), that cash surpluses which may arise in the present and future biennia be withheld in full or in part" - and it is important to note the word "withheld" - "with a view to ensuring that sufficient funds are available.."
In paragraph 3. "it shall review the financial situation of the Organization after the Council has exercised the authority delegated to it in paragraph 2 above and determine the time of release of any cash surplus withheld". It is purely contemplated that this is a delay in the event of a very serious shortfall in contributions, but a delay only - it is not a reliquishment of cash surplus, under any circumstances. Consider for example if there were a cash surplus available at the end of this biennium, and you have delegated authority, the Council, which will meet a year from now - in November - could review the income situation of the Organization, and if there were at that time (next November) a very significant shortfall in receipt of contributions from Member Nations, the Council could decide to withheld, in whole or in part, the distribution of cash surplus until the following Conference. The Conference at that time then would decide when surplus should be released. It is only a delay, it is not suggested in any form or fashion that such surplus that may arise for review by the Council should be relinquished. I am not sure that that point was clearly understood, and I want to emphasize it.
Secondly, a question was raised by the distinguished delegate of Canada to determine the amount on the spread on 29.2 shortfall in cash, and whether or not there had beem programme adjustments that had been determined. If the delegates would turn to C 87/LIM/42, and particularly to the very last page - and I would remind you that this is a very hypothetical situation in projecting for 1988/89, for all of the reasons I have been explaining, and it is therefore very difficult to draw very hard and fast conclusions. There are a few facts that in the event that this hypothetical situation were to become real would present themselves. For example, if you go to the very top figure there, that represents total disbursements - US$ 242 000 000 on disbursements against US$ 405 000 000 on receipts. That is a significant shortfall if that hypothtical situation did occur in the 1988/89 biennium, but the assumptions there regarding the receipt of contributions are explained, again very hypothetical - the situation with the United States has been explained. It also shows what happens to cash balances in those circumstances. If we end the present biennium with the estimated US$ 27.1 million of positive cash balances, under the situation that is shown in the hypothetical suggestion we could end with a shortfall of cash of US$ 29.2 million.
The distinguished delegate of Canada raised a question that it therefore looked as if the most difficult:part for the Organization would come at the end of the biennium. The answer to that is: possibly, but it could easily occur in March or April of 1988, because - hypothetically again, we are projecting receipt of US$ 25 million from the United States in early 1988. If that was not received, we could easily approach - if not get into - a cash deficit in early spring of next year. If no payment were received from the United States during that period of time, with the fluctuations and the interest rates, we could easily end the first year with a deficit. I am not trying to draw a more gloomy picture than exists but I am trying to point out that, since it is a hypothetical situation, it is very difficult to draw hard conclusions. To make resolutions that approve scenarios and approve terms that change all the lines on the curve - whether the shortfall would be the difference between the hypothetical expenditure or receipts or the amount of shortfall on cash receipts -is a matter for determining which assumption you really wish to follow. I think that probably the only real conclusion that can be drawn from the graph shown for the 1988/89 biennium is the difficult situation which the Organization is placed in as late as near the end of November, in not knowing what the contribution situation is likely to be, even during the very early part of January and February of 1988.
Accordingly, the programme adjustments have not been estimated, nor included, in deciding upon a scenario until we have better information from the United States; and as the delegate of the United States has just reported that that is not likely to be known until late in December of this year, we' must make projections again based upon the best available information at that time. If the scenario
which we have projected particularly for 1988/89 is, as was stated by the delegate of the United States, "the best case. scenario", obviously we could be in more serious trouble than the projected cash balance that is shown. We hope that that is not the case, and 1 am sure that he hopes that is not the case - but nonetheless we are in the hands of others at this point.
I would like to refer to a comment made by the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom concerning C 87/LIM/9, in that he made reference to the fact that this deferral on an action seems to be a "back-door" method of not distributing the cash. I hope that that is not the case. The reason we have gone to the Finance Committee and the Council and are appearing here today in Commission II and will be appearing ultimately before the full Conference in Plenary is to make certain that every aspect of this has been fully and completely explained, so that it is clear that everyone has had a chance to express their opinion, and whatever the Conference decides will certainly be the dictate for the Organization to follow. But it is certainly not a back-door method of trying to find ways of spending money that we have not been authorized to spend. It is very clear that this would be a procedure by which a very serious liquidity problem could be almost alleviated - perhaps not prevented and certainly not in the next biennium when, of course, there will be no cash surplus, but in the following biennia when there may be cash surpluses with a hopefully strong dollar sometime in the future that could be used in the case of a liquidity problem of any nature.
But there too there would be the use of a legislative authority: it would not be only on the initiative of the Secretariat or the Director-General. It would be on the initiative taken by, first, the Finance Committee in a recommendation to the Council, and the Council again, to defer distribution of cash surplus until the time that the Conference met a year later. It is only a deferral action -it is not a relinquishment. I hope that is fully understood. I think most of the delegates who have spoken on this do understand this - that this is simply an effort on the part of everyone concerned starting with the Finance Committee, to find ways and means by which the Organization can better cope with liquidity problems that seem to be facing certainly FAO, and other United Nations agencies.
Alejandro NDJOLI MEDIKO (Guinea Ecuatorial): Voy a intentar ser muy breve en mi intervención, y a referirme a los documentos expuestos en el C 87/LIM/14 y C 87/LIM/9.
Nosotros pensamos que es una proposición justa y adecuada que ayudará a evitar el retraso en el pago de las cuotas, o al menos, a disminuir el período de retraso, y, consecuentemente, mi delegación apoya el proyecto de resolución C 87/LIM/14.
En lo que respecta a la propuesta contenida en el documento C 87/LIM/9 sobre superávit de tesorería, también la apoyamos, pero con una enmienda, y es que esta delegación que se propone dar y que está expuesta en el punto dos, no debería ser más allá de un bienio, decidiendo el Consejo siguiente la renovación de esta delegación o no.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): I have some supplementary questions that follow on from the replies from Mr Shah and Mr Crowther. In fact, one question I asked in my original intervention has not been answered. With your agreement, would you like me to raise these questions now, or would you prefer me to leave them until the end of this debate? I shall carry on now.
The first thing is perhaps to correct a misinterpretation or misunderstanding by Mr Shah of our position on TCP. The whole thrust of our intervention as regards TCP has not been to question the propriety of keeping TCP separate and keeping it isolated from the other financial developments and the rest of the programme. It has been to point out - because we do accept that this is the case - that reality may be slightly different from this and there is a large amount of money which, unless it is programmed and programmed fairly quickly, is really vulnerable in a situation where there are cash flow problems. I would like to make it very clear without questioning.propriety of isolating TCP - in fact, we fully support it - we are questioning the wisdom and realism of not programming it at this moment.
The second point I have follows Mr Shah's reply to my question about what was happening to the balance of TCP left at the end of 1984 - 1984/85 - referred to in LIM 41. Mr Shah said that he expected the full amount to be expended or committed by the end of this year. Now if I could, I would like from him a breakdown of how much he expects to have been spent and how much has been committed but not yet spent; i.e., will be spent sometime during 1988. I would also be very interested in Mr Shah's view of how regulation XLIII is being interpreted where it says that the funds transferred to the Technical Cooperation Programme shall remain available for obligations. Now when Mr Shah talks about commitments he is presumably using the word in terms of the word obligation in the basic text under Financial Regulations. Now are these obligations hard legal obligations in the sense that they are agreements signed with countries for this amount of TCP money and TCP money will be spent on projects? Are they legal obligations in terms of contracts, or are they internal obligations in which as part of the internal planning process the Administration has decided that TCP projects will have a certain amount of money and has earmarked them. So I would like, if Mr Shah could, to distinguish between obligations in terms of what is being said to countries informally, obligations in terms of the hiring process within the Organization, obligations in terms of formal project agreement and obligations with suppliers, etc. So that is all in TCP for 1988, the committed part.
My second question relates to TCP in the current biennium, 1986-87 and which I do not think was answered. Perhaps it would be easier if I rephrased it. The essence of the question was what proportion of the current biennium's TCP will remain unspent at the end of the current biennium, what proportions are expected to be spent in calendar years 88, 89 and 90, respectively? In other words, in the three years in which it can be legally spent.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I am afraid that all these questions and answers between the Secretariat and the distinguished delegate of Britain have no bearing whatsoever on the resolution we are discussing. We have reached 5:35, Mr Chairman, we have plenty to do. I humbly submit that this has nothing to do with the subject, and we have no interest in it. That will come when we talk about TCP.
CHAIRMAN: The Chairman wants to be very tolerant towards all delegations, and it is not my intention to limit whatsoever the right of speaking, but of course I appeal to the distinguished colleagues to try to be brief, and when they put their questions they should be really questions up to the point that related to the matters which we are discussing.
Dedan Robinson KAMAU (Kenya): Following the elaboration given by the Assistant Director-General, the Kenya delegation supports the draft resolution in Document C 87/LIM/14. This is due to my delegation's observation that the adoption of the resolution will partially curtail the revenue shortfalls currently affecting the Organization owing to the incentives that it gives to timely contributions. It is my delegation.'s view that innovative decisions of this nature will create circumstances that will speed up remittance of several Member Nations' contributions, making it unnecessary for the Organization to resort to calls for additional contributions from Member Nations, as will be the case when the Organization implements the resolution adopted this morning on the replenishment of the Special Reserve Account for 1988/89 which my delegation had to abstain from as we were not convinced that all contingency measures had been adequately exhausted. My delegation is optimistic that with the adoption of the resolution in Document in C 87/LIM/14, the Organization may revert to a healthy cash position within the forthcoming biennium. With this optimism, the Kenya delegation will also support the resolution contained in Document C 87/LIM/9 amending present procedures for application of cash surplus.
The Kenya delegation will expect the Council to exercise the best judgement on matters delegated to the Council by the Conference if the resolution under Document C 87/LIM/9 is adopted. The Council reasonably represents the various member regions and we expect it to exercise its delegated authority appropriately.
J. LYNCH (Canada): Mr Chairman, with all due respect I think that the comments being made by the " representative of the United Kingdom are perfectly to the point. In fact, I would say that his comments are among the most useful and significant and relevant things we have heard here. To stress it again, he has pointed out that by exempting the Technical Cooperation Programme, the Programme itself is left open to the situation where people ask, "Why are we being asked? Why are our governments being asked to make up new sources of money when there is an existing untouched, unspent, unobligated large source of cash in the Organization?" I think that is the point, and I think it is relevant here when we are talking about cash-flow problems. If the Organization has -even if it is only not the full TCP, but a large amount of that money is available as cash, why should they turn to the member states for additional sources of new income when they can tap an already acquired, already accumulated, source of money? I for one agree with the statement by the United Kingdom that the TCP is a particularly vulnerable source of cash. I think, in fact, his questions are very useful, if only as guidance for the Council when they are looking at, during the course of the next biennium, what sources of income are available to the Secretariat without making new calls on member states.
Ms Janet Lesley TOMI (Australia): First of all, I want to say how much I appreciate your preparedness to let all members speak and also to express my appreciation to the Secretariat for the detailed inf ormation that has been provided in C 87/LIM/41 and C 87/LIM/42. The delegate of Canada somewhat preempted the remarks I was going to make, but I would certainly like to say how closely I would like to associate the Australian delegation with the very incisive questions that the delegate of the United Kingdom has asked. Since C 87/LIM/41 was only issued late on Friday, and this would appear to be the only Session at which we have the opportunity to ask these questions based on the information that has been provided, I certainly would welcome some detailed responses to the U.K. delegations' questions on these matters.
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I believe all delegations who have had any contact with the Secretariat knew, or I hope they know full well of the Secretariat's willingness to answer all queries. Let me welcome the questions raised by the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom because I believe that in spite of many discussions we have had on this subject there still may be some misunderstandings and some serious misunderstandings which I would once again like to clarify.
First of all, the distinguished delegate referred to the need for programming TCP funds. Now if we take the appropriation for 86/87 and we take the table from the Document LIM/41, for 1986/87 we show that you of an appropriation of US$ 61 million 421 thousand, there are cash expenditures of US$ 19 million and outstanding obligations of US$ 6.9 million, that is a total of US$ 25.9 million, leaving a balance of US$ 35 million 481 thousand. It is totally wrong to construe or imply that this amount of US$ 35 million is unprogrammed. The full amount of US$ 61 million appropriation by the end of this biennium will consist of projects which have been approved, projects which have been signed with the governments concerned. I hope this is enough indication to respond that this amount then is not unprogrammed. It is fully programmed. It is fully set aside for specific projects approved. That is the first point.
The second question, dealing with the 86/87 biennium and I will turn later to 84/85 is how much of the appropriation of US$ 61.4 million will be spent or expended by the end of 1987? My answer is, according to our forecast, US$ 23.5 million that will be expended. How much will be in outstanding obligations? Outstanding obligations, US$ 7 million. Now these outstanding obligations represent commitments, contractual obligations for purchases, for supplies, for contracts of all kinds. The balance of US$ 30.9 million which is financially not committed or financially obligated
is still a sum of money for which projects have been signed, projects have been approved. So we are obliged to implement those projects. But the sum of US$ 30.9 million does not represent contracts for supplies or purchases which have been entered into. They are obligations of a legal, moral and contractual nature between the Organization and member governments. But they are not contractual obligations for the suppliers of services and goods. For 1984/85, the question was asked how much of the 1984/85 appropriation will be spent by the end of this year? My colleague from the Finance Division advises me that we expect an amount of under US$ 1 million not to be spent. That is to say, a million dollars which would be obligated, committed, and those commitments would be discharged in the 12-month period from 1 January to 30 December 1988.
So, Mr Chairman, I hope I have not avoided any of the questions raised. I think it is important to understand once again that the full appropriation is programmed during the biennium of the appropriation. It is not that these funds are left hanging in the air; they are surplus funds which we do not know what to do with.
Secondly, that the amount of expenditures and financial commitments at the end of the first biennium represents roughly one half, and the remaining half is then financially committed during the second biennium with a miner sum left for the liquidation of the commitments there.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistantr Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): I will be very brief; I think there is only one clarification further that is needed. The distinguished delegate from Canada made his statement with regard to the availability of TCP funds. That I think needs clarifying.
Mr Chairman, at the end of this biennium as you can see from the graph, we will have 27.1 million dollars. Within that 27.1 million dollars we will have 17.2 million dollars of outstanding bills that have to be paid other than TCP. Of the 35 million dollars carried over to the next biennium from TCP, 7 million there has been obligated in contractual obligations, amounting therefore to 25 million dollars in contractual obligations that have to be paid out of this 27 million dollars.
Mr Chairman, in addition we have a payroll to meet very shortly thereafter. Now if there were somehow an additional 35 million dollars attached to that carryover TCP that we could use to meet that payroll we would all be very pleased but it does not exit. I feel somehow the feeling is that as long as there are carryforward appropriations on TCP, there is cash attached to it. I wish that were the case because as we go forward this year with the carryforward that is there, there is just not sufficient cash to support it. Quite frankly, that amount like all the appropriations, is totally dependent upon the receipt of contributions and the receipt of arrears. We have to finance each of these biennis from only those sources. The amount of interest and miscellaneous income cannot be depended upon to support those programmes. I am sorry to say that the carry over balance will probably not be enough to get us completely through January and much less pay all of the TCP and the unobligated balances that will remain. I would not want the delegates to have the feeling that either we are flush with cash or the fact that there is a carry over appropriation in TCP is going to be a fall back position for us. It is just not the case. The money is not there I am sorry.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): Mr Chairman, just very briefly to thank the Secretariat and Mr Shah in particular, very much for their very clear reply. I take it that when he referred to 'moral obligations' he was of course referring to obligations in the current biennium, because obviously obligations in the 84/85 biennium by now have to be legal obligations rather than moral obligations, so I take that point.
I think that we do get information on TCP projects and we do find this very useful because we are very concerned about the shape of the spending profile, and I think it would help all of us if perhaps on a regular basis Council could receive, perhaps on a quarterly basis, lists of TCP projects together with details of when the agreements were signed and the sort of spending profiles you are expecting because, to do you justice, at present it does look as if the TCP programme is not
programmed, and we do seem to be getting conflicting signals on the one hand being told it is not possible to programme it and it is there for emergency purposes, and on the other hand to be told that it h'a-s been programmed. So perhaps it would be helpful if we could have a greater understanding, not just between the UK and the Secretariat but between a broader constituency of Council.
CHAIRMAN: It is my pleasure to state that the UK delegation is satisfied with the explanations given by the Assistant Director-Generals.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): Mr Chairman, I think I have read in the regulations of this Organization that when there is a point of order the first thing that the Chairman should do is to put it to the vote.
Now I repeat once again all these questions and answers were completely out of the picture that we were examining. It has no relevance whatsoever to the cash surplus, the flow or not the flow. We are discussing a draft resolution, not on the TCP of 84/85, because these quştions have been very well understood by all of us except some delegations. So please would you kindly rule that these questions were completely out of order, and if needed let us ask what the Commission thinks about it.
CHAIRMAN: I think, as this matter has been clarified in the meantime.. not to your satisfaction. So be so kind enough Ambassador to formulate again to put your request, your proposal.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): Mr Chairman, I would like you to ask the Commission whether the Commission thinks that this question and answer on the TCP of 84/85 etcetera is in order with the discussion we are having on a draft resolution on the flow of cash surplus.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I understand that all delegates have understood the formulation of the question. So my question to you now is whether you are in favour of the proposal made by the distinguished representative. Do you recognize the point of order?
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
J. LYNCH (Canada): Mr Chairman, if this is a vote, do we have a quorum for a vote?Mr Chairman, I have the impression that we are in the midst of a vote. If we are in the midst of a vote do we have a quorum for a vote?
CHAIRMAN: We of course always have at our disposal Legal Counsel. I understand that there is a difference between a vote on formal matters and on substantial matters, so I presume that for formal questions we have a quorum. UK asked for the floor under the point of order.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): I am very loathe to speak again but quite frankly the point of order is a very simple one. I would like to help you to deal with this problem and avoid any devisiveness in our discussion. The Order of the Day is quite clear about this Mr Chairman. Under item 25.4, Other Measures to deal with Budgetary Uncertainties, papers C 87/LIM/41 and C 87/LIM/42 are listed. I am sure that if we approach the Legal Counsel he could perhaps help us to indicate if it is in order for these to be discussed under this particular item and for questions to be asked. And perhaps it might have been better if this had been another sub-agenda item. I certainly can understand that perhaps the distinguished delegate of Italy does not have the same interest in TCP as we do. I think this is a point he himself made. Nevertheless I do not want to criticize the Chair or the Secretariat for including these papers under this item; in fact I am very grateful for it.
CHAIRMAN: Before we proceed I see I have some speakers on my list so I do not know whether it is proper to let the discussion only be continued between two or three delegations, but formally I am obliged to put the proposal made by the Ambassador of Italy about this question raised by the UK delegation.. No.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): Mr Chairman, in a few minutes I will prove that that was the joke of the century, that I am not interested in the TCP, but now Mr Chairman I want to help you. Let us recess for a quarter of an hour because we have been here for three hours and we have not moved any further, and your wish, which was our wish, was to finish tonight. Tomorrow we have a very busy schedule and I think these questions could be asked to the Secretariat without involving the whole Commission. This is a point that was not under discussion; we were discussing two draft resolutions and I think that if you ask for a vote the Commission will answer that that was thė case. These are obstructive tactics of low profile.
CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Italian delegation does not insist on making this vote so we can proceed. And now I give the floor to the distinguished delegate of Tanzania.
John NG'ONGOLO (Tanzania): My delegation strongly feels that there is a need to keep the Organization financially strong all the time to enable it to perform its tasks. Since the draft resolutions contained in LIM 9 and LIM 14 are aimed at achieving this cause my delegation supports tfre two draft resolutions.
Mrs Kate ABANKWA (Ghana): Mr Chairman my delegation has listened to the explanations given to the two resolutions under consideration. My delegation is of the view that the Organization must function and function efficiently. My delegation therefore supports the two resolutions in the same way as it supported the resolution on the Working Capital Fund. We believe there should be sufficient funds to run the Organization. Having said that, my delegation wishes to appeal to those members who have not paid their contributions to pay them so there will not be a problem of finding out whether we shall have enough funds to run the Organization.
Yan HEIDSMA (Netherlands): I just wanted to reply briefly to what the distinguished delegate of Italy said. For my part, my delegation was much interested in the explanation of TCP by the Secretariat. This is very relevant to our discussion at present and I fully agree with the Secretariat that if we can proceed to vote on this resolution we should be prepared to deal with it. However, these discussions are very enlightening and I have no objection to the questions and answers being dealt with in this Commission.
CHAIRMAN: I appeal to my distinguished colleagues not to open up the matter, which has already been solved.
Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): J'étais absent de ma place et j'ai levé ma pancarte très souvent dans le passé sans que la présidence me voit .. Je voudrais savoir sur quel point de l'ordre du jour l'on m'interroge. Je parlerai si vous le voulez bien, spontanément, sur la question de la motion d'ordre. C'est pour cela que j'avais levé ma pancarte.
Je suis troublé par ce qui se passe actuellement. Au début de nos débats je vous avais posé une question qui était la suivante: Est-ce l'ensemble des points qui sont à l'ordre du jour de notre déclaration auquel on s'attache ou suivons-nous d'abord les points de résolution projet de résolution par projet de résolution? Vous avez répondu: projet de résolution par projet de résolution. Certains orateurs s'en sont tenus à cette indication que vous avez donnée, d'autres ne l'ont pas fait. Ensuite d'autres orateurs ont indiqué que la discussion sur le PCT faisait partie de l'ensemble de l'ordre du jour, ce qui est correct, mais en même temps jette une confusion dans les débats. Je suggère que la présidence fasse des suggestions et que l'ensemble de la Commission s'y tienne. Parce qu'on perd énormément de temps. Nous avons eu un échange de vues complet sur le Document C 87/LIM/9, C 87/LIM/14. Uniquement un tiers des délégations s'est exprimé et les autres ne l'ont pas pu, notamment la délégation de la France qui a pourtant présenté l'amendement de cette résolution. Concernant les documents du Secrétariat on ne sait pas si l'on doit s'exprimer ou attendre la discussion sur le PCT. Je souhaiterai que de l'ordre soit mis dans vos débats.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Please understand that the Chairman is sometimes in a difficult position.
I do not want to limit anybody from his right to speak, but equally I am interested in proceeding in the most efficient way in order to conclude this Agenda Item. Since I have only one more speaker on my list I will give him the floor and then I will make a suggestion as to how we should proceed.
Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Nosotros también, igual que la distinguida representación de Francia; estamos preocupados por la forma en que se está desarrollando el debate. Nosotros pedimos la palabra después de haber ejercido su turno el distinguido delegado de Italia, para apoyar a Italia en su formulación, en cuanto que consideramos que aquello que está en discusión son las dos resoluciones, y decir que son interesantes o no algunas de las cuestiones que están aquí, en el resumen; de las asignaciones; sí, indudablemente es interesante todo esto, pero también ese interés por el PCT nos preocupa por la parte de dónde viene. Vamos a hablar claro. Creo que ya es muy tarde para que estemos dándonos por los costados. Sabemos por donde viene el estudio interesante de los PCT, que no tiene que ver nada con lo que estamos discutiendo.
Creo que hay que sacar las dos resoluciones; si no se pueden sacar a votación ahora, se votarán cuando haya que votar, pero no creo que tengamos que intervenir en una situación que no está inscrita en el debate, porque los PCT no se pueden discutir en estas condiciones.
Y repetimos: sabemos de dónde y de qué parte interesada viene este interés por el PCT.
CHAIRMAN: Let us see what the situationisnow. Judging from the length of this quite interesting debate, conclusions should be quite easy to draw. It is clear that the draft resolution has no chance of being adopted by consensus. It is quite clear that we shall have to have to vote on the draft resolution. That is my first observation.
My second observation is that we are short of about five or six delegations in achieving the necessary quorum to vote so I propose at this stage to continue the debate on other sub-items of the agenda. We will continue with Item 25.4, to clarify any aspects which may be unclear and at a given moment when we have the necessary quorum, we shall take a vote. Are there any objections to my proposal? There are none, so we shall discuss the item based on documents C 87/LIM/14 and C 87/LIM/14-Sup.1. Mr Crowther introduced all these documents at the same time.
Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): Je prends d'autant plus volontiers la parole que ma délégation a présentéun amendement au projet de résolution C 87/LIM/14 et que je souhaiterais l'expliquer à cette Commission,ainsi d'ailleurs que d'autres délégations en:ioat exprimé-le souhait.
S'agissant du versement des contributions, il est clair qu'il faut s'attendre à des retards importants dans leur versement. Notamment de la part du plus important des Etats contributeurs. Nous pensons qu'au-delà de l'exhortation de nature juridique notre délégation se doit de réitérer l'adoption d'un mécanisme financier qui pourrait s'avérer utile dans le paiement prompt et complet des contributions. C'est pourquoi nous donnons notre appui aux projets de résolution contenus dans le document C 87/LIM/14 qui propose une répartition pondérée d'une partie de l'excédent de trésorerie. Nous le faisons sous réserve d'une rédaction plus précise de ce projet. Nous reviendrons sur ce point ultérieurement.
La délégation française a déposé pour sa part un projet d'amendement contenu dans le document C 87/LIM/14-Sup.l. Il y est proposé que le Directeur général fasse rapport à la prochaine Conférence sur l'adoption d'un dispositif plus incitatif visant à répartir intégralement entre Etats Membres les intérêts portés par les contributions au budget ordinaire. Je voudrais prendre un exemple chiffré tiré du compte de l'exercice 1984-85 pour illustrer la différence entre ces deux dispositifs. Je me réfère pour cela au document de la Conférence C 87/5, concernant le rapport et les Etats financiers, à la page 24, dans la version française. En vertu du dispositif actuellement en vigueur, c'est l'intégralité de l'excédent de trésorerie, soit environ 35 millions de dollars, qui doit être distribué de façon uniforme entre les Etats Membres. Je parle de l'exercice 1984-85. Dans le dispositif dont l'adoption a été recommandée par le dernier Conseil a notre Conférence et si ma délégation le comprend bien, on calculerait d'abord la part des intérêts dans le total des recettes diverses, part qui se monte pour l'exercice 1984-85 à 83 % et on appliquerait ensuite ce taux de 83 % à l'excédent de trésorerie et l'on trouve 28,9 millions de dollars à répartir de façon pondérée entre les Etats Membres. Dans le mécanisme dont la délégation française demande l'étude, ce serait l'ensemble des intérêts portés par les contributions soit pour la période citée 38,4 millions de dollars, qui seraient distribués de manière pondérée aux Etats Membres indépendamment du niveau de trésorerie. La différence porte, on le voit, sur environ 10 millions de dollars ce qui est un montant significatif. Ma délégation voudrait par ailleurs faire une remarque sur la rédaction contenue dans le projet de résolution C 87/LIM/14. Dans ce document il est écrit: je cite "la partie de l'excédent de trésorerie qui correspond aux intérêts sera répartie de manière pondérée". Il serait plus exact me semble-t-il que ce soit "la partie de l'excédent de trésorerie correspondant à la part des intérêts dans les recettes diverses".
Ma délégation souhaite savoir ce que pense le Secrétariat de cette suggestion de détail.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I, want immediately to support this amendment with the proviso that the system suggested by the delegate of France be examined by the Finance Committee. We have plenty of time. I would just ask our French colleague to add one sentence, because there are different systems in different organizations, to say something to the effect that the system will be put to the Finance Committee and will be decided on by the Finance Committee. We have plenty of time.
CHAIRMAN: Does the delegate of France wish to answer?
Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): Oui, je suis tout à fait d'accord.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I would like to follow up on what the delegate of Italy just said, which will lead to my taking these two papers in reverse order.
On document C 87/LIM/14-sup.1 I support the amendment proposed by the delegate of Italy, but it seems to me since we are talking about the wording of this amendment I would also like to see a slight change in the second line of the text where it talks about "the adoption of measures". It seems to me that should be replaced with the expression "potential measures" because as the amendment
is currently drafted, it appears to prejudge the outcome of the study and I do not think that is really the intention of our French colleagues. It may just be a linguistic suggestion, but I do not think we can prejudge the outcome of the study. It is a far-reaching and complex proposal. We must be quite careful how we phrase this.
Looking back at the debate we have had, we find ourselves in Conference in a somewhat difficult situation because Items have gone through the subsidiary bodies of the Organization, presumably having been thoroughly studied and yet we find ourselves at the end of the day with quite a wide divergence of opinion and very little time to resolve the differences. We must be as objective about this process as possible when we deal with the question.
I would simply put forward that modest proposal for Sup.1 of C 87/LIM/14.
With respect to LIM/14 itself, as my delegation indicated earlier in the Conference, we would be prepared to consider this proposal on the condition that it is interest income sensitive only, and it would certainly be of great help to my delegation if the formula for applying the interest income element were explicitly contained in the Resolution. That would make it much easier for us to support this Resolution. It would also make it a little easier for everybody concerned to avoid any possible lack of understanding, intentional or otherwise, that may arise.
This will obviously be a difficult calculation to make and the more information we can put into the Resolution on what is exactly in the formula would be helpful.
If it were possible - and this is really a question to put to the Secretariat - to have as much description of the formula in the Resolution, before we adopt it, I would be generally supportive of this Resolution.
A. SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Je serai très bref car nous sommes déjà intervenus sur ce point. Je voudrais vous signaler que j'appuie la proposition de notre collègue français tout en faisant remarquer que ce que vient de dire notre collègue des Etats-Unis d'Amérique me paraît tout à fait justifié. Il y a en effet, sur le plan concret et pratique, une série de formules qui peuvent être mises en route. Nous avons eu l'occasion d'étudier le système tel qu'il est pratiqué dans d'autres Organisations et j'ai cité l'exemple de l'OACI et de l'OMM où le système est appliqué. Il est clair que le texte de la résolution tel qu'il nous est présenté ne répond pas aux modalités parce qu'il parle d'un système de pondération en fonction du montant et de la date du paiement de la contribution de l'exercice financier sans spécifier de quel système il s'agit. Il existe actuellement différents systèmes et l'on pourrait peut-être, d'ici demain matin, en retenir un qui soit pratique, concret et opérationnel. Je crois que le texte de la résolution contenant les mesures pour faire face aux problèmes des retards dans les paiements pourrait recevoir un large consensus, ce qui paraît normal; quand on parle de système de pondération on précise de quel système de pondération il s'agit. En ce qui concerne la délégation de la Belgique, nous sommes pour un système de pondération qui consiste à donner le maximum d'avantages à ceux qui règlent leurs contributions très tôt. C'est-à-dire le système en "S" plutôt que le système linéaire paraît un bon système puisqu'il donne le maximum d'incitantes à ceux qui règlent leurs contributions pendant les 4 ou 5 premiers mois, diminue en milieu d'année, en arrive à un ralentissement pour ne pas dire à une suppression des incitantes pour ceux qui règlent leurs contributions en fin d'exercice avec retard. Je crois qu'une position doit être prise en ce qui concerne le système de pondération et je crois qu'elle pourrait l'être assez rapidement et dans cette hypothèse on pourrait arriver à un large consensus concernant ce projet de résolution.
Yan HEIDSMA (Netherlands): My delegation is generally supportive of this Resolution. We believe it might indeed be useful if in para a) the system to be applied were more specific. What I for my part would like to see in it is the assurance that this measure is only contemplated for those countries that have indeed paid in full, which it does not really say now. I understand that this is the idea, but I do not believe it is stated here.
As far as the French amendment is concerned, it is difficult to foresee exactly what the consequences of all this will be for the Organization or for the Member States, but I suppose this is precisely the reason why the Director-General is requested to report on it. For that reason, we have no particular difficulty with it.
Pedro SEBASTIAO (Angola): Ma delegation appuie la proposition faite dans le document C 87/LIM/14.
Dong QUING SONG (China): (Original language Chinese) : The Chinese delegation wishes to support the Resolution contained in LIM/14. We also support the amendment proposed by the French delegation. We feel that the measures proposed in the Draft Resolution are acceptable. It will help to encourage Member States to pay their contributions as soon as possible. Therefore, it would strengthen FAO's capacity to implement its programme.
Likundè LI-BOTAYI (Zaire): La delegation du Zaïre accepte bien sûr le projet de résolution, mais elle voudrait suggérer à la Commission de pouvoir tenir compte de ces observations.
De quoi s'agit-il? Tous les Etats Membres ont bien l'intention de remplir leurs obligations en temps voulu, mais il y a parfois des aléas économiques qui obligent les Etats à retarder leurs paiements.
C'est pourquoi la délégation du Zaïre souhaiterait que dans le paragraphe a)ii), on puisse revoir l'expression "La date du paiement.." parce que si l'on exige que tout le monde paie au même moment, tous les Etats ne disposent pas des mêmes possibilités. Il faut tenir compte des aléas qui peuvent se produire.
Faouzia BOUMAIZA (Algérie): D'une manière générale, nous souścrivons à la résolution qui est contenue dans le document CL 87/LIM/14, ainsi qu'a l'amendement présenté par la délégation française.
Toutefois, il nous semble juste d'essayer de reconsidérer le paragraphe ii) de l'alinéa a) tel que l'a présenté notre ami du Zaïre. Nous pensons également que nombre de pays ont peut-être un système budgétaire ou financier qui leur impose des contraintes de date.
Mounir KHORAYCH (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Conformément à la prise de position du Liban quant à la gestion du budget de l'Organisation, nous approuvons le projet de résolution qui se trouve dans le document C 87/LIM/14.
P. N. KHADI (Lesotho): The Lesotho delegation merely wishes to record its support for the Resolution contained in LIM/14 and the amendment in Sup.l.
T. F. F. MALUZA (Zambia): My delegation would like to support the Resolution contained in LIM/14 with the amendment proposed by the French delegation. The United States amendment might also be acceptable but I did not understand it properly. I do not know whether it was in line with what France has said. Maybe we could have it more explicitly.
Alejandro NDJOLI MEDIKO (Guinea Ecuatorial): Simplemente quería remarcar nuestro apoyo al documento C 87/LIM/14 y al Suplemento 1.
Hidayat Ganda ATMADJA (Indonesia): My delegation would also like to associate itself in supporting the Draft Resolution proposed in document LIM/14 and its Sup.l.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I simply want to take the floor at this point to clarify what I said just a moment ago about the amendment that I was putting forward to the French amendment contained in LIM/14-Sup.1, in response to the question put by the delegate of Zambia. What I would propose is, in the second line of the English text, the deletion of the phrase "The adoption of "measures" and to replace it simply with the word "potential", so that it would read: "…that the Director-General reports to the Council and then to the next Conference on potential measures…" That is a somewhat more objective phrase, and whilst I was making the suggestion I noticed a few nods from up on the podium, so I hope this is not a contentious amendment. It was not put forward in a spirit of contention, I can assure you.
Whilst I have the floor I would like to seek a clarification of what it was that the Zairean delegation was talking about in amending Section 2 (a) of the Resolution that we have before us because I did not understand it. Since someone else spoke in favour of it I would like to know what it was.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I would like to indicate that the Philippines can agree with the Resolution as printed in LIM/14 and in its supplement Sup-1.
Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): Je suis d'accord avec l'amendement présenté par la délégation américaine à mon propre amendement, encore que je crois qu'il y ait des différences linguistiques entre le texte français et le texte anglais. En français, il faudrait parler de "l'adoption éventuelle d'un dispositif visant etc."
Par ailleurs, j'ai proposé une modification de rédaction au document C 87/LIM/14. Je pense que "la partie de l'excédent de trésorerie correspondant aux intérêts.." est une rédaction imprécise. J'ai proposé une modification de rédaction. Je souhaiterais avoir la réaction du Secrétariat sur ce point.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia, al igual que nuestro colega de Filipinas, apoya los documentos LIM/14 y LIM/14-Sup.1. Sin embargo, desearíamos escuchar cuáles serían las versiones sobre las enmiendas que se han propuesto.
Likunde LI-BOTAYI (Zaïre): Je crois que le délégué des Etats-Unis a posé la question de savoir quelle était vraiment l'intention de la délégation du Zaïre à propos de l'amendement qu'il faut apporter au projet de résolution.
Nous avons dit que nous pouvons accepter ce projet de résolution mais nous avons demandé à la Commission de supprimer les mots "la date" du paiement. Certains Etats doivent parfois faire face à des aléas qui empêchent leurs gouvernements de remplir leurs obligations vis-à-vis de l'Organisation. Ils peuvent, vers la fin de la période biennale, honorer les obligations qui les lient à l'Organisation. Ce n'est pas une raison pour priver ces Etats, qui payent leurs obligations à la fin de l'exercice, des excédents de trésorerie ou des intérêts qui proviennent de ces excédents de trésorerie.
Je prends l'exemple des Etats-Unis. Ils ont un système tel que l'Etat ne peut rien faire sansl'autorisation du Congrès. Si le Congrès n'a pas la possibilité de statuer à temps, s'il stueseulement vers la fin du biennium, ce n'est pas une raison pour priver les Etats-Unis des interets qui proviennent des excédents de trésorerie.
C'est la raison pour laquelle le Zaïre propose de supprimer "la date" dans cette partie de la résolution.
T.F.F. MALUZA (Zambia): First, I would like to ask again what the amendment of the delegate of the United States is? I am not very clear as to what is proposed. Secondly, in regard to the proposal by Zaire, I am not sure whether Item b) ii) takes care of that. That says that it will "be released to Member Nations which have not paid in full their assessed contributions for the period, only after receipt by the Organization of payment in full of the amounts due for that period". To my understanding it is that you get your assessment after you have fully paid your contribution but you are penalized for paying late.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): I think it would be best if we look at C 87/LIM/14 on page 2 in the action paragraph - the last paragraph that begins "Decides ..". There have been at least two delegations who have raised the question about eligibility of Member Nations to receive any caution of the cash surplus. I would like to specifically point out in paragraph a) i) that the interest income element of the surplus would be allocated only among those Member Nations which are paid their assessed contributions in full by the end of the financial period. So that is one of the basic eligibility requirements; they must have paid in full.
With regard to the interest element, again in active paragraph a) this would be weighted on the basis of amount and timing. As I understand the Zaire proposal, it would take the timing portion out of the formula and would only be the amount as a basis for weighting. Unfortunately, by taking out the timing, it takes away the major part of the incentive that would be utilized for the introduction of some motivating factor for early payment. The major problem that the Organization faces in the receipt of contributions is the timing of the contribution; the amount of the contribution is predicated on the scale that is adopted, but the timing is of the utmost importance, and therefore this entire formula is based on two factors: amount and timing, on a straight line linear basis.
Secondly, with regard to C 87/LIM/14-Sup.1 a number of amendments have been made today, and perhaps it would be useful if I read out the amendments at least as I understand them. As I read these in the English text now there have been two proposals to change: Requests that the Director-General report to the Council" - insert "through the Finance Committee and then to the naxt Conference on potential measures" - "the adoption of" has been deleted, and "potential" inserted - "to the next Conference on potential measures .." and the remainder is the same as it is now.
There have been further proposals for clarification on the method of calculation of the specific formula into the text. While I am sure that could be done we have only dealt with the weighted basis as being in accordance with the amount and timing of payment. It is really intended to be a really simple, linear formular, the simplest that we could come forward with. If it is necessary to include the entire description of the formula and the calculation we could do so, but I think it complicates the resolution. Certainly, we would not attempt to deviate from the use of the words "the amount and timing of payments". This entire resolution has been put forward after considerable discussion in the Finance Committee and Council, to find ways and means of meeting the schedule of contributions that we receive. Unfortunately, we still have a very serious problem of many countries not paying, or not paying on time. This is intended to be a motivating factor to encourage Member States to pay, and if possible to pay on time. I consider those two elements as extremely important in the resolution.
I hope that clarifies the points raised: if not we will be happy to respond further.
A SAINTRAINT (Belgique): . Je voudrais faire une remarque sur ce qui vient d'être dit, et qui me paraît tout à fait raisonnable.
L'éventualité porte sur l'adoption et non pas sur le dispositif. On ne doit pas parler de "dispositif éventuel", mais on doit parler d'une "adoption éventuelle d'un dispositif".
Pour le reste, je ne peux que marquer mon agrément à tout ce qui vient d'être dit par le Secrétariat de la FAO, mais je voudrais insister sur le caractère éventuel de l'adoption, et pas sur le caractère éventuel du dispositif.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): There have been a lot of amendments put forward tonight and I am a little concerned that the Drafting Committee tomorrow morning will have to resolve a lot of issues in a very short time. I understand that Commission II has broken down and we have not received an influx of late arrivals from that quarter so it seems unlikely that we will get a quorum; nevertheless I would suggest that we discuss as much as possible tonight. I do not want to make myself unpopular but I feel we should cover as much ground as possible tonight.
CHAIRMAN: Before I answer your suggestion, I understand you are a very-hard-working man and you want to sit longer. I would like to propose that probably the Ambassador of Italy is right. Let us start tomorrow at 10:15, but understanding that we are really beginning at precisely 10:15. And then we can really complete our duty: that is to proceed to vote on the Agenda Items which have been discussed today, the whole day, practically. The time is short, as everybody realizes, and we have to complete these items tomorrow at the latest. Then of course I am not against continuing our debate if there are any speakers tonight. The Deputy Director-General has asked for the floor.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Perhaps it will be helpful if I explain the situation as I understand it on the Draft Resolution. The Resolutions Committee, I understand, examined the draft resolution on the Finance Committee put forward by Italy but has asked to meet again tomorrow morning to adopt its draft report to the Commission on this resolution. Consequently, the Report of the Resolutions Committee is not available tonight but should be available tomorrow either late morning or early afternoon.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I am just going to ask whether Mr Crowther is going to introduce this document, LIM 32, tabled by the delegation of Italy.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General): while I certainly have a full understanding for the resolution, I think it would be most appropriate if the Ambassador would directly introduce it, as he is the author and the drafter of it. So I would certainly yield to the Ambassador.
CHAIRMAN: As I do not see any òther speakers willing to talk today or tonight, I would repeat that we shall meet tomorrow at 10.15 precisely where it will be communicated. Now before we adjourn, we shall follow the suggestion of Mr Crowther that I have the pleasure to give the floor to the Ambassador of Italy.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I assure the distinguished delegates I will be as brief as possible. This idea of filling the vacuum between one Conference and the other, with due respect to the opinion of France, Algeria and Belgium that we should not exaggerate in delegating powers not to alter the balance, has been suggested by the experience that Italy and many other countries had in the month of November 1986. I do not know how many of us were around that table when the Director-General came to us and broke the unpleasant news of what was happening with the cash-flow. Now the first reaction was - I was rather a newcomer, I had been one year in the Organization - and I said, "it just takes some adjustment to the programme." And we did the same thing in the Council which ensued. But the :. Director-General said, "I am authorized to spend all the money that is budgeted, whether I have it or not." I do not know whether the wording was this one or another one., What happened was that we dared suggest the calling of a special Conference because the Council had no power to make adjustments or postponements of programmes or savings. All the Director-General could do was to adopt some measures
to save money, but not to cut programmes. So we were at a dead end. The idea of calling a Conference was utterly unpleasant because a Conference could result in some sort of sounding board against the major contributor which contributed to this Organization from the very beginning with a tremendously generous amount of money. I want once again to stress that in brief parentheses.
So we decided on that occasion to ask the Director-General what we were going to do. The Council has no power; you have no power, you have no authority to do so. So this time we explained in our draft resolution how to fill the vacuum for one biennium (which is the most difficult biennium in the history of the Organization), for one biennium only, to delegate limited powers to the Council that are beyond the statutory powers of the Council itself, to encourage, to sustain the Director-General's proposals - because the Director-General's is a very hard job because the representatives are here, and they do not want to hear any reason that there is no money. They knock at the door and they want their programmes. I can understand them, but I do not know how the Director-General can answer these legitimate expectations. If we have the sovereignty of the Conference limited to this particular field, delegated on to the Council, and we ask the Director-General to monitor the situation, month by month because the first three months are going to be very cold - I think a little colder than Romania - in the next year, so I would say that it is quite a just measure of prudence. I want to add that Italy, in the Finance Committee, had reserved its final judgement on the Programme of Work and Budget until such measures were taken. Now the Deputy Director-General who is here came one day and told us that the Director-General and the Secretariat were thinking of filling the legislative vacuum that would ensue to answer all the legitimate queries that have been put by many countries here, minority and majority, as to where is the money coming from. So really, should this half-rosy, half-gloomy picture that was presented to us by Mr Crowther come true, we would expect a shortfall. The shortfall could reach the measure of US$ 60 million to 70 million. What are we going to do if we have no Conference? Do we force the Director-General to go and borrow money? We have to give all our assistance to him by calling the Council, by listening to his proposal and the Council's with the delegated sovereign powers of the Conference, and we decide what to adjust. I do not want to use the word "cut". Adjust, postpone, delay, save. So Mr Chairman, I took three minutes; that is enough:
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sr. Presidente, el texto de este proyecto de resolución presentado por la Delegación de Italia coincide con la postura de la Delegación de Colombia en el debate que tuvo lugar sobre el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto en la Comisión II. Sin embargo, Sr. Presidente, tratándose de la ejecución del Programa, pensamos que, en orden jerárquico, antes de delegar en el Consejo todas las atribuciones, deberíamos hacer un llamado a los Estados Miembros para que paguen sus contribuciones. En Plenaria, el Director General señaló ejemplos, como el Japón, de países desarrollados, y Brasil, de países en desarrollo. De manera que, por lo menos, cumplamos con este propósito, y luego procedamos a los pasos subsiguientes, si el pago de esas contribuciones-no fuera suficiente para evitar reajustes en los Programas.
Si el distinguido Embajador Pascarelli me permite, yo propondría que, antes del párrafo 1 de la parte dispositiva, se agregara el siguiente párrafo: "Pide a todos los Estados Miembros, particularmente al primer contribuyente, que paguen oportunamente sus contribuciones." Luego seguiría el texto de Italia.
Y hay una modificación - de forma solamente - en el párrafo 2 de la parte dispositiva. Creemos que convendría eliminar las palabras "lo antes posible", porque el Director General sabrá cuándo tiene que hacerlo; invertir el orden de los dos Comités (generalmente, el Comité del Programa se considera prioritario sobre el Comité de Finanzas), y también fortalecer un poco más la parte débil de "parece probable" que será necesario hacer economías.
Espero que esto sea facilmente captable por la Secretaría, Sr. Presidente.
Por lo demás, el proyecto de Italia nos parece muy adecuado y oportuno.
Likunde LI-BOTAYI (Zaïre): la délégation zaïroise à la Conférence de la FAO est heureuse de prendre une fois de plus la parole devant cette auguste assemblée pour réitérer, comme l'ont fait d'autres délégations, ses sincères félicitations, à vous Monsieur le Président, ainsi qu'à tous les membres du Bureau, à l'occasion de votre élection à la présidence de la troisième Commission. J'aimerais surtout vous féliciter pour la manière dont vous dirigez les travaux de cette Commission.
La délégation du Zaïre intervient par ma voix pour faire quelques observations au sujet du projet de résolution présenté par la délégation italienne, résolution relative à l'exécution du Programme approuvé par la Conférence pour le biennium 1988-89.
La délégation du Zaïre, avant de poursuivre son intervention, aimerait avoir une précision de la part de Monsieur le Conseiller juridique ou de vous-même Monsieur le Président. Ma délégation voudrait savoir, si, dans les textes fondamentaux qui régissent notre Organisation, il existe des dispositions juridiques particulières qui prévoient que la Conférence, Organe suprême de l'Organisation, puisse se dessaisir de ses prérogatives, spécialement en ce qui concerne la reconsidération des décisions prises par la Conférence ou l'amendement des textes de l'Acte censtitutif, en faveur des organes qui lui sont subsidiaires, notamment le Conseil, les Comités ou autres Commissions.
Notre délégation pose cette question parce qu'il se trouve que les dispositions du Point 1 du projet soumis sont quelque peu contradictoires avec celles de l'Article IV ainsi que les paragraphes 3 et 5 de l'Article V, pour ne citer que ceux-là, de l'Acte constitutif.
La délégation du Zaïre saisit très bien le souci exprimé dans le projet de résolution qui est de voir l'Organisation disposer de ressources financières suffisantes pour lui permettre d'exécuter intégralement le programme qui a déjà été approuvé.
Lorsque dans cette partie du projet de résolution on insiste sur la délégation des pouvoirs, la délégation du Zaïre pense que cela est comme si la Conférence voulait se dessaisir de toutes ses prérogatives. J'ai insisté dans ma dernière intervention pour dire que ce peut être très dangereux si nous acceptons que la Conférence puisse déléguer une partie de ses pouvoirs à un quelconque organe subsidiaire. Ma délégation exprime sa crainte à ce sujet. Elle pense que le Conseil risque d'être amené, si la situation l'y oblige, à réajuster régulièrement le budget et le Programme déjà approuvés par la Conférence. Or, ce qui a été approuvé par la Conférence est une décision, et cette décision ne peut être revue que par la Conférence elle-même. Nous pensons que ce serait une entorse au Règlement qui régit le fonctionnement de l'Organisation.
Il y a une autre observation. Ce projet de résolution a le même souci que le projet de résolution présenté dans le document C 87/LIM/14. Je ne vois pas pourquoi il faudrait introduire une autre résolution à peu près semblable.
Une fois acceptée cette résolution, je serais alors d'accord avec le délégué de la Colombie pour dire que la partie 1 devrait être complètement amendée. L'amendement que nous proposons est le suivant :
Vers la fin du paragraphe - parce qu'il faudrait quand même à un certain moment créer ce qu'on appelle un garde-fou - il faudrait ajouter: "après avoir saisi tous les Etats Membres de la situation et obtenu un avis favorable d'au moins trois quarts de ces derniers".
Le paragraphe 1 se lirait donc ainsi:
"1. Décide de déléguer au Conseil pour la durée de l'exercice 1988-89, tout pouvoir nécessaire pour décider des économies et ajustements de programmes que pourrait appeler la situation, après avoir saisi tous les Etats Membres de la situation et obtenu un avis favorable d'au moins trois quarts de ces derniers."
Les autres amendements présentés par le délégué de la Colombie devraient être ajoutés.
La délégation du Zaïre insiste sur ce point, parce que nous ne voulons pas créer un précédent, nous ne voulons pas que notre Organisation se trouve un jour devant le fait accompli et que le Conseil, en vertu des pouvoirs qui lui seront conférés par cette résolution lorsqu'elle aura été adoptée, puisse avoir le pouvoir de la Conférence.
LEGAL COUNSEL: Mr Chairman, the point raised by the distinguished delegate of Zaire relates to whether under the Constitution and in particular under paragraph 1 of article IV the Conference may make this delegation to the Council. Article IV, paragraph 1 provides that "the Conference shall determine the policy and approve the budget of the Organization", the rést is not relevant.
It is true, and this is no doubt the reason why the delegate of Zaire raised the question, that Article V, paragraph 3 of the Constitution refers to certain functions that the Conference may not delegate to the Council. Amongst the Articles which are listed is in fact Article IV, paragraph 1. Now this means that the Conference cannot delegate to the Council the authority, to approve the budget, but I do not consider that this is the object of the draft resolution that you have before you. In this biennium the Conference will approve the budget. The resolution is, on the other hand, directed to the situation which in fact did occur during the current biennium where the funds available were not sufficient to carry out and execute the budget as approved. Obviously something
had to be done. The question is what procedure should be followed, what organs should be consulted before the inevitable adjustments have to be made. Therefore, in may view, and from a strictly legal point of view, the Conference may delegate to the Council what - I would call the somewhat limited powers that are envisaged in the operative paragraphs of the resolution.
The delegate of Zaire will probably also have noted that under Rule XXIV, 3(a) of the General Rules of the Organization, the Council is already endowed with relatively broad powers in relation to control over the financial administration of the Organization. And under the circumstances I believe it would be the obvious organ to consult in the event that the Organization should find itself in the unfortunate situation of just not having the money to carry out the approved budget.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I would also like to thank Mr Roche for his intervention just now because he has in fact addressed some questions that I had, just like the representative of Zaire, about what was actually involved in this resolution. I would simply note that in his introduction to this resolution the distinguished representative of Italy noted that this would be a very limited delegation of powers, and yet in operative paragraph 1 of the resolution it talks about delegating all such powers as may be necessary to decide that. There seems to be something of a disconnection between those two points, but I think Mr Roche has laid to rest certainly a lot of my concerns about that.
I think my delegation can be relatively objective about this proposal since we are still, I should emphasize, members of the Council, so we would be able to consider this one way or the other, but it seems to me, Mr Chairman, that I am in a little bit of a quandary. While I have no real problem with this resolution and in fact feel that it is a very constructive suggestion, there have been some reservations expressed by delegations who spoke on other agenda items. I believe both frańce and Belgium expressed some reservations on this point, and I do not feel those questions have been completely addressed.
The other thing I would note Mr Chairman is that throughout the discussion that we had at this Conference on the Programme of Work and Budget itself, my delegation has argued quite strongly. We think that in fact there should have been a.more comprehensive discussion of this question at this Conference itself, and it should have not been put over to be dealt with in the future.
Nevertheless with a certain amount of reservations I think that certainly we can go along with this proposal. It seems to be that what we are talking about here is really not a sweeping change in the way we do business, particularly since I understand that it is proposed only for the present period. So I just wanted, in the interests of having a full discussion here, to add my delegation's views that while it would perhaps have been better to have this discussion now rather than later, we are happy to discuss the same question later on in whatever guise it becomes necessary.
J. LYNCH (Canada): Mr Chairman, I have the same concerns as Zaire and the United States with respect to operative paragraph 1, particularly the words "all such powers as may be necessary". Like the United States I note that when Italy and when the Legal Advisor spoke about this particular paragraph they talked in the same terms, they used the words "somewhat limited". I have the same problem as the United States in trying to reconcile the words "somewhat limited" with the language in the resolution "all such powers as may be necessary".
I think this may be just a drafting problem, and if I could suggest an amendment I think the paragraph, and therefore the whole resolution would become very acceptable to my delegation if the first operative paragraph were reworded to read: "Decides to delegate to the Council for the duration of the 1988/89 biennium power to decide on the savings in programme adjustments that the situation may require". I think the difficult words for several delegations are "all such powers".
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): Yes, Mr Chairman, I do accept and thank both the delegate of the United States and Canada for sharing with me the concern which was expressed by them and by us too. However, while thanking the Ambassador of Colombia for his kind support I would not - I repeat not -single out any particular member, and I would say "renews the call on all Member States to pay their contribution promptly".
Jean—Luc GRAEVE (France): Je voudrais d'abord faire une remarque préliminaire sur la manière dont nous abordons les différents sujets. Nous les abordons de façon tronçonnée, et nous abordons les projets de résolution sans jamais avoir de discussion sur l'ensemble des problèmes, ce qui pose certaines difficultés notamment à ma délégation.
Je voudrais cependant, en réservant mon droit de parole demain lorsque nous parlerons notamment du PCT et de la situation financière globale de l'Organisation - si jamais nous en parlons - indiquer la position française relative à la proposition italienne.
Comme nous l'avons indiqué tout à l'heure, mon pays est opposé, pour des raisons de principe, à une modification de la répartition des pouvoirs et des compétences entre la Conférence et le Conseil, sauf si des raisons de force majeure l'exigeaient. Nous n'avons pas examiné ce point, à savoir s'il existe des raisons de force majeure de nature financière qui exigeraient de remettre en cause les rapports institutionnels existants. Anticipons en quelque sorte la discussion que nous pourrions avoir demain - je ne sais pas si elle aura lieu., Ma délégation estime qu'une telle situation de force majeure n'existe pas, et en tout cas que son existence n'est pas prouvée, et c'est pour cette raison qu'elle s'oppose très clairement à ce projet de résolution qui donnerait des pouvoirs de nature budgétaire au Conseil.
Yan HEIDSMA (Netherlands): Through you, Mr Chairman, I should like to ask a question of Legal Counsel, which is really a clarification. Reading the text of operative paragraph 1 am I correct in believing that implicit in this text is the fact that the powers to decide on savings and programme adjustments are not exclusively with the Conference and therefore delegation to the Council is needed? If that is not the case, what sort of savings' and programme adjustments powers are we then talking about?
For instance, I understand from the Rules that transfers between budget chapters are already within the powers of Council. I also thought that adjustments within chapters could already be affected by the Director-General on his own, but I am not sure about this. While my delegation has no problem in principle with this, I do not quite understand what it is that the Conference has to delegate in order for the Council to be able to act. Am I making myself clear, Mr Chairman?
Rainer PRESTIEN (Germany, Federal Republic of) (Original language German): We are fully aware of and appreciate the solidarity shown by the host country of FAO. In order to achieve good work and cooperation in this Organization we think we must stipulate as early as possible what savings have to be made if the income drop is not going to be continued over the next biennium. The suggestion that there should be a special meeting of the Council to discuss this is a somewhat cumbersome procedure, we think. Savings have been made in the biennium now coming to an end without the Council being convened to take any decisions on that. We have certain doubts regarding our constitution with respect to this. Therefore, I would agree with what has been said by the delegation of France. My delegation feels that this is not a case of force majeure which would justify the transfer of power from the Conference to the Council. If we look at the proposal in document C 87/LIM/32, we have to say we cannot agree to this resolution.
A. SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Je crois réVer. Nous sommes maintenant en train de discuter de la manière de ne pas accepter un budget que nous venons de voter à une large majorité. Nous l'avons voté dans l'intention de pouvoir l'exécuter. Maintenant, nous discutons des moyens de ne pas exécuter le budget que nous venons de voter. Je crois que nous sommes tous d'accord sur le principe qui a toujours recueilli un large assentiment au sein de la Conférence de la FAO sur le droit de
chacun des Etats d'intervenir librement lors des conférences dans le dommaine budgétaire. Nous discutons maintenant des moyens de restreindre les pouvoirs des Etats en faisant un système de délégation par un vote pondéré. Vous savez qu'au Conseil certains Etats sont quasi des membres permanents et d'autres Etats procèdent par roulement et sont de temps en temps membres du Conseil et de temps en temps ne le sont pas. Certains Etats y sont très rarement. Peut-on retenir un système qui consisterait à avoir une délégation dans des domaines importants comme dans le domaine des aménagements budgétaires, dans un système où certains Etats seraient nettement priviligiés par rapport à d'autres? Je ne crois pas que cela corresponde à la philosophie de ce que nous défendons. Cela nous engagerait dans des voies d'une réforme mal étudiée et qui donnerait un certain droit à des Etats et qui retirerait à d'autres certains pouvoirs qu'ils ont actuellement. Est-ce qu'il n'est pas préférable de maintenir le système actuel et de voir si la situation devenait plus difficile ce qu'il faudrait faire. Mais discuter de manière approfondie de la manière de ne pas exécuter le budget qui vient d'etre voté avec une très large majorité pour ne pas dire une quasi-unanimité, cela me paraît regrettable et en ce qui nous concerne j'ai dit d'une manière très claire dans des domaines importants et dans le domaine budgétaire m'apparaît être un domaine essentiel. Nous n'avions pas l'intention de laisser la Conférence accorder de larges délégations au Conseil. "Tout pouvoir nécessaire", c'est évidemment une délégation qui est pratiquement un blanc-seing. Je crois qu'il faudrait pouvoir déterminer de manière très claire de quelle délégation il s'agit pour savoir comment faire et comment le faire. Il est clair que nous ne pouvons pas maintenant discuter des moyens de ne pas exécuter un budget que nous venons de voter.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I think I must point out that this draft resolution has to take into account realistic perspectives. When I heard my dear friend the distinguished delegate of Belgium mention that we approved the budget, did he forget by chance that there were contributions to the budget coming from small countries who pay only half - and they pay only half because they do not pay the whole - of the resources needed? How can we invent.the resources to execute a programme if we do not have them? This is a realistic approach.
I think the distinguished delegate from France made mention of the TCP. Immediately I want to draw his attention to the fact that we will not make a statement before this resolution has been taken into due consideration and each of us will take responsibility for being realistic with the Organization, and in principle. We have a clear answer from the Council that the delegation of power is limited in time and object. The delegate of Canada contributed constructively on the question of making another cut in the first operative paragraph. I am satisfied with it and postpone my statement until after the discussion of this Item tomorrow, but I do not think I will be able to make the statement tomorrow.
Likunde LI-BOTAYI (Zaïre): Je désire simplement remercier le conseiller juridique pour les précisions qu'il nous a données. J'éprouve quelques doutes parce que l'article 24 dont il a fait mention en ce qui concerne le Programme et Budget et dans lequel on définit bien les fonctions et les attributions confiées au Conseil. Je ne saisis peut-être pas ou je ne comprends pas bien mais j'éprouve la crainte qui vient d'être exprimée par le délégué de la Belgique, de ce que nous ne puissions pas accepter que l'on puisse revenir sur un budget déjà approuvé. Lorsque l'on approuve un budget, c'est une décision du Conseil. Je répète la décision de la Conférence reste et ne peut être revue ou reconsidérée que par la décision de la Conférence. Elle ne peut être considérée que par la Conférence à moins que la Commission délègue à la conférence des pouvoirs introduisant un amendement à ce sujet bien précis. A moins que votre bureau l'accepte à ce moment-là vous pouvez introduire un projet de résolution pour amender les articles de notre Acte Constitutif. Je crois que je n'ai pas à prolonger la discussion.
Ernst ZIMMERL (Austria) (original language German): This is now the constitution. We think the changes to it can only be undertaken when they are absolutely necessary. Therefore, we share the opinion of the delegations of the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Belgium. We feel that the Programme of Work and Budget for 1988 and 1989 should have our fullest support. It seems to us too early to talk about amendements at this stage. Therefore, we cannot support the draft resolution.
Clifton E. MAYNARD (Barbados): It seems to me that we have here a problem of management in certain circumstances. Certainly the documents before this Conference reveal that during this biennium the Director-General did face a situation of force majeure which caused him to reduce the programme by about $25 million. I believe what the delegate of Italy is trying to do is to say, should a situation arise in the coming biennium - and certainly we have had information put to us not only in this Commission but in another that it is likely that a similar situation could arise - then obviously some action has to be taken in order that that part of the Programme of Work and Budget which can be implemented will be implemented.
I see no difficulty whatsoever in giving this limited authority based on what Legal Counsel has said, and one must respect his opinion on the matter. In this particular instance it seems to me to be a difference between giving this authority and probably having an extraordinary session of the Conference, which I personally would not like to see when there is a body representative of the membership, elected by the membership, which could probably give the Director-General the authority he needs in order to get on with the programme. In the long run it will be up to each and everyone of us to attend the Council meeting as observers and let our points be known. So I see no difficulty in approving this draft resolution and accepting it. We should congratulate the distinguished delegate of Italy for having had the foresight to bring it before this Commission.
Mounir KHORAYCH (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Nous sommes tous conscients du fait que la Conférence étant l'organe suprême de notre Organisation, elle est habilitée à déléguer toute une série de pouvoirs au Conseil. La situation financière, qui est la nôtre aujourd'hui et qui semble se poursuivre à la lumière de cette situation, implique tout à fait naturellement de déléguer un tel pouvoir au Conseil, pour que ce dernier puisse réagir quant aux situations qui se présenteront dans l'intervalle entre deux conférences générales et je crois que c'est la raison d'être du projet de résolution qui nous a été soumis. Ce projet de texte ne retire nullement à la Conférence tous ses pouvoirs. Ce n'est pas vrai; au contraire ce projet de texte essaie de tenir compte des situations extraordinaires ou exceptionnelles qui pourraient se présenter à l'avenir étant donné le niveau du budget adopté. Je ne vois nullement pourquoi s'opposer à ce projet de résolution.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Una breve recapitulación de los hechos nos indica que los reajustes que por 25 millones de dolares se debieron introducir en el Programa en 1987, por imprevistos, imprevistos, nadie podía esperar la situación que se presentó. En cambio, ahora es un hecho, Sr Presidente, el que, desgraciadamente, los reajustes para 1988-89 serán necesarios, serán imprescindibles .
Por ello, con este proyecto de Resolución, que apoyamos, se persigue el objetivo fundamental de que el Director General actué en todo momento con el apoyo de los representantes de los Gobiernos y órganos rectores. En los .reajustes aplicados en el 87, el Director General contó con la plena aprobación de los Comités del Programa, de Finanzas y del Consejo, y seguramente éste sería el caso también en el bienio 88-89, pero creemos que el Director General se sentiría más tranquilo y más respaldado en sus siempre adecuadas actuaciones si contara oportunamente con el apoyo de los representantes de los Gobiernos.
El agregado que propusimos iba dirigido justamente a que no debemos aceptar de antemano que se va a presentar una situación igual a la del bienio pasado. Ya el Asesor Jurídico aclaró muy bien el alcance del párrafo 1 de la parte dispositiva, y los Delegados de Estados Unidos y de Canadá han asumido actitudes constructivas. La supresión de Canadá ha sido aceptada por Italia. La Delegación de Colombia piensa, Sr. Presidente, que este proyecto de resolución será de común beneficio para los representates de los Gobiernos y para el Director General.
Por ello nos extraña sinceramente la reacción negativa que este texto ha producido en algunos colegas, y queremos apoyar nuevamente la actitud positiva del representante de Italia.
Ms Janet Lesley TOMI (Australia): The delegation of Australia regards the Italian Draft Resolution as a realistic one in the light of the prevailing situation. Our preference would have been to have had Conference prior to the adoption of the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium, to have been able to identify savings through Programme cuts. However, this did not prove to be the case.
On this basis, the Australian delegation would be pleased to support the Draft Resolution as modified by the Canadian delegate, which has been accepted, and also to take into account the Italian amendment to the proposed Colombian amendment incorporating a new preambular paragraph.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): I would like to associate myself in general with the remarks made by the Australian delegate and others who have supported this Resolution. We support this Resolution and certainly compliment the Italian delegation on bringing it forward. We very much support anything that will help Alice to escape from Wonderland.
The logic of the situation is that we have voted through a budlget that is unrealistic in terms of the revenue that is likely to support it. This is amply demonstrated by the cash flow figures given in CL 42. Certainly it was not unforeseen in that many delegations in speaking about the budget pointed out the unrealistic assumptions that were implicit in adopting it.
In our view, it Would have been preferable if this Conference could have made decisions about • priorities. Indeed, we were one of the many countries which asked management to put forward proposals which gave some indication of priorities. However, this has not happened and the situation that we now find ourselves in is that we have a choice: to leave arrangements to Management to re-programme on their own initiatives; or to do so in collaboration with at least some of the Member States. Certainly while the Council has responsibility, Observers can also participate in the Council and make their views known.
Certainly as the United Kingdom is a Council member we would take account of the views of any Observer states on such an important issue.
I think too that the cash flow figures we have point to the wisdom of the Italian suggestion of having a provision to advance a session of Council. To those delegations who have expressed concern about the delegation of authority from Conference to Council, I would say that we do sympathise with them and we ourselves would be very cautious about this, but given the very specific nature of this Resolution, and also the amendments proposed by our distinguished Canadian colleagues, we certainly feel that we could support this because it would have sufficient safeguards.
However, to enable Council to fulfil the function that is implicit in this Draft Resolution, we would suggest a slight amendment, an addition to operative paragraph 4, Where it talks about information that has been provided on a quarterly basis, it says "and, in particular on the availability of funds.c." After that we would like to insert "..cash spending, the status of arrears.." etc. We would propose that in addition to information about the availability of funds we should also have information about the rate of actual spending.
On this basis, we could certainly support this Resolution and we very much welcome it.
Sra. Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Sr. Presidente, la_ Delegación argentina no tiene inconveniente en aceptar el proyecto de resolución que nos ha sido presentado por Italia, con las enmiendas que han adelantado las Delegaciones de Colombia, Canadá y el Reino Unido.
Sin embargo, tiene una pequeña inquietud con relación al párrafo 4 preambular. No entendemos muy bien cual es el sentido de este párrafo, que dice: "Convencida de la importancia de tales disposiciones para lograr el consenso más amplio posible sobre el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto." A nuestro juicio, esta frase podría ser eliminada. Nosotros preferiríamos verla eliminada.
Por otra parte, para poder tomar en consideración las preocupaciones de varias Delegaciones con relación a la alteración del equilibrio entre las funciones de la Conferencia y del Consejo, tal vez fuera conveniente introducir en algún lugar (no estoy proponiendo una enmienda, sino haciendo una sugerencia) la idea de la excepcionalidad o de que el Consejo rinda cuentas a la Conferencia con posterioridad de las decisiones que ha tomado durante su receso.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I thank Argentina for supporting this Draft, as I thank all other member. countries who have expressed the view that I was realistic and not in the world of dreamland with Alice.
I do agree that the fourth paragraph is now outmoded because this Draft Resolution was supposed to be passed before the budget, but we are late. Therefore, I would now seek a moral consensus because the budget has been approved. I thought it would bring more consensus to the proposed Programme of Work and Budget. We can, of course, cross it out.
As to the second amendment proposed by Argentina, with due respect it is quite normal for the Council to flood the Conference with all the details of its decisions concerning arrangements, savings and adjustments, etc.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): The Philippines Delegation support the Resolution tabled by the Delegation of Italy. We believe that this delegation of powers which the Conference has, as explained by the Legal Counsel, is justified because of the particular situation we are caught in the present biennium. That situation is not unknown to any delegation. I believe this would give the Director-General the necessary flexibility to carry out the Programme of Work and Budget with inputs from the Council should adjustments be required.
We fully support this Resolution with the amendment proposed by the Delegation of Colombia regarding the call to all members to fulfil the obligations to the Organization.
A. SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Très rapidement pour ne pas abuser de mon temps de parole. On a signalé qu'au cours du présent biennium 1986-87 on s'était trouvé dans une situation absolument inextricable. Si la situation a été inextricable, elle a reçu une solution puisque nous arrivons au bout du biennium dans de bonnes conditions. Je voudrais que l'on m'explique en quoi la situation a été inextricable. A ma connaissance, jamais au cours du biennium nous n'avons enfreint les Statuts fondamentaux de la FAO. Si on a dû le faire, je voudrais que l'on m'explique en quoi, quand et comment on a·d le faire. Ensuite, j'entends, pour ce qui est d'un budget que nous venons de voter, à ce que l'on revienne à la notion de fixer des priorités. Fixer des priorités cela veut dire enlever un certain nombre de postes; plutôt que de parler régulièrement de fixer des priorités,on ferait beaucoup mieux de déclarer que certains secteurs sont peu prioritaires, moins prioritaires, ou pas prioritaires. Mais que l'on dise qu'à différents postes du secteur de l'agriculture, du secteur de pêche, du secteur des forêts, du secteur des Programmes de soutien du développement, quels sont les éléments qui ne sont pas prioritaires, y compris dans le cadre'du PCT que nous avons toujours soutenu et continuerons de couvrir; plutôt que de parler de fixer des priorités il vaudrait mieux dire dans quel domaine le budget que nous venons de voter, dans quel domaine il y a lieu de procéder d'ores et déjà à des possibilités de coupe,compte tenu du fait que ces.secteurs ne seraient pas prioritaires. On ne fait que parler de fixer les priorités en disant que le budget n'est pas suffisamment fixé. Ce serait un exercice autrement courageux que de parler de fixer des priorités.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sr. Presidente, a pesar de la reciente declaración de mi distinguido colega y amigo el Embajador Saintraint, de Bélgica, yo conservo la esperanza de que vamos a aprobar este proyecto de resolución. En el orden en que aparece el texto, no hay dificultad en suprimir la cuarta consideración, que empieza por la palabra "Convencida". Ya el colega de Italia explicó muy bien que este proyecto de resolución fue redactado antes de votarse en Plenaria el Presupuesto.
La segunda parte de la declaración de nuestra colega argentina es importante también, Sr. Presidente, y aunque tal vez no convendrá complicar más el texto de lá resolución, sí deberemos estar de acuerdo con la colega argentina en que en el informe sobre este tema se incluya que esta delegación de facultades tiene carácter excepcional y que, obviamente, el Consejo presentará a la Conferencia un informe detallado sobre el uso de esa delegación.
Sobre mi propuesta, Sr. Presidente, a fin de atender el llamado de la colega de Australia y, también, del Embajador Pascarelli, no tengo inconveniente - y esto confirma nuestro ánimo constructivo - en que se suprima la referencia al primer contribuyente. Podríamos, simplemente, reiterar el llamado a todos los Estados Miembros para que paguen oportunamente sus contribuciones. Estamos tratando de contribuir a que se adopte el texto, Sr. Presidente.
La supresión de Canadá a la parte dispositiva 1 ha sido bien recibida por todos y no ofrece problemas. Quisiéramos leer lentamente las redacciones - de forma, más que todo - que propusimos al apartado 2. Serían, simplemente, las siguientes: "Pide al Director General que consulte oportunamente con los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, si fuese necesario hacer economías y ajustes", etcétera, y el párrafo 2 sigue tal como está.
Luego, en el párrafo 3, Sr. Presidente, tal vez el Asesor Jurídico podría confirmar que sería más indicado decir "período especial", y no "período extraordinario". Esto lo tuvimos ya en el año 1984, cuando yo era Presidente Independiente del Consejo, y luego no tenemos inconveniente en aceptar las adiciones adecuadas del colega del Reino Unido al párrafo 4.
Espero, Sr. Presidente, que en estas condiciones la Secretaría esté capacitada para leer, si algunos colegas lo consideran indispensable, el texto de este proyecto de resolución. Y quisiéramos pedir de manera muy respetuosa y encarecida a los colegas de Bélgica, Francia y la República Federal de Alemania - con mucho respeto, con mucha simpatía, Sr. Presidente, pero con mucha convicción - que nos acompañen a adoptar este texto de proyecto de resolución, en la forma que hemos indicado.
Sra. Doña Silvia CARBALLO VIVES (Cuba): La Delegación de Cuba, muy brevemente, quiere expresar que, teniendo en cuenta que la situación de graves problemas de liquidez puede requerir decisiones y medidas inmediatas, así como la explicación hecha por el Asesor Jurídico sobre el alcance del párrafo 1, apoyamos el proyecto presentado por la distinguida Delegación de Italia, así como las enmiendas que han presentado Argentina, Colombia y Canadá.
T.F.F. MALUZA (Zambia): My delegation agrees and approves of the resolution before us with the amendments suggested by the delegates of Colombia and the United Kingdom.
We would also like to state that the fears that there may be too much delegation of power by the Conference to the Council is a real one, and needs to be kept in mind by the Conference as we consider it.
Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): Il y a eu un amendement qui a été proposé par la délégation du Canada et qui a recueilli un appui de la part de plusieurs délégations. Je lis cet amendement qui est un amendement central et si je me trompe je serais reconnaissant au Secrétariat de me le faire savoir. L'amendement de la délégation du Canada est le suivant.
Au premier paragraphe, au lieu de dire "que la Conférence décide de déléguer tous pouvoirs nécessaires", on dirait "la Conférence délègue au Conseil le pouvoir de décider des économies et des ajustements de programme, que pourrait décider la situation". C'est bien l'amendement qui est proposé. Si c'est le cas je voudrais poser une question au Conseiller juridique: Est-ce que si cette rédaction est adoptée cela signifie que le Directeur général ne peut pas procéder a des économies et des ajustements de programme sans l'accord préalable du Conseil? Si tel était le cas et je ne connais pas sa réponse, je crois que cela soulèverait des problèmes très graves, car il faut laisser, au Secrétariat, la flexibilité nécessaire pour prendre les mesures avant même que le Conseil se réunisse. Je voudrais, sur ce point, avoir l'avis du Conseiller juridique.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I did ask to take the floor, but I am not sure now whether my point is still relevant after France's intervention. What I originally took the floor to say is that since over an hour ago I suggested that we continue to work late into the night, I am in good standing to say now that we should stop. We have made some progress, but some delegations seem to have very strong reservations - in factI_noticed that the Belgian delegate is so upset that his nameplate is upside down! So it seems to me that it would be appropriate for us to stop now and come back to this matter tomorrow morning after the Planning Committee has met.
Sami SUNAA (Jordan) (original language Arabic): I would like to say that the delegation of Jordan supports the Italian proposal, taking into account the various proposals by Colombia and Canada. I believe that this procedure would now be the best possible.
In parallel to this, in view of the lateness of the various proposals I would like to support the last proposal namely that we should now adjourn this sitting to allow Italy to make the necessary changes to the text, and perhaps meet later.
Rainer PRESTIEN (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): I did remark in my previous statement that savings had been made in the current biennium and that the Council, as the governing body, had dealt with this. The text should be amended in such a way as to enable the Director-General in cooperation with the Council, Finance Committee or also at his own discretion to make economies. At the present time, we seem to be in a situation where the updated text of the resolution is missing, and I believe we need to think about this and that we cannot proceed without clarification from the Legal Counsel I would suggest therefore that tomorrow morning we should proceed with an updated version of the text.
CHAIRMAN: I am inclined to agree with the opinions expressed by some delegates that there have been so many amendments and amendments to the amendments, that some of us may have lost the overall picture. Therefore I. think the idea is a good one, that we consider a new text tomorrow morning, and then vote on it if necessary.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): I would also join you, Mr Chairman, and many delegates in this proposal to terminate our discussions now. However, as I have full two and a half minutes before eight o'clock I would like to tell the delegate of France and the Ambassador of Belgium, personally, what the ordeal was that we went through last year. They do not know - and I would like to tell some of the friends here who think the situation is not so terrible how terrible it is. They think we have millions in balance. No! that is not true - and we are going to start the New Year in this situation. I must also say that the Director-General is very worried about how we will start the New Year.
Concerning the poiņt about the Director-General's role in regard to savings - he is blessed, but he is so conscientious that he always wants the backing of the Finance Committee and the Council. If the Council has this power from the Conference, he will feel more encouraged to make savings. This proposal does not object to that.
Many delegations had suggested that this is an exceptional case. I think that this is an exceptional biennium - I see Mr Crowther and Mr Shah nodding, while Mr Walton stands like that. I propose to use the world "exceptional". In the operative paragraph adjust the figure 1 - "decides to delegate exceptionally to the Council" - so no-one will be afraid that we are going to completely change the equilibrium. This is an exceptional year.
This is the sense of all Organizations that have a permanent organ like the Council with the Conference meeting every two years. If the Conference met every year, it would be different. But in November of 1986, we were very, very much alarmed and we had twelve months ahead of us before the Conference was to meet. So this is also a way of saving money because a special Session of the Conference costs plenty of money.
Finally, to allay the fears of some of the delegates who said that the Council is made of 49 countri and they are usually all the same countries, they had just elected the Council by secret ballot. They elected the Council. It is not a self-elected Organization. The Council has been duly elected by all members of the Conference. And the sense of my last paragraph four which requested the Director-General to provide all Member Nations, is just to counter some of the objections that have been made by some of the beneficiary countries so that they may also be aware of what was going on and immediately write to the Council, to the Finance Committee, tu the Secretariat about what is their view.
LEGAL COUNSEL: To answer, very briefly, to the first question that was asked by the delegate of the Netherlands, I think it goes without saying that the various authorities to effect transfers either within or between chapters which are provided for in Financial Regulation 4.5, remain unchanged. But of course they deal with the situation when there is money that can be moved around from one chapter to another. The resolution that you have before you .is directed more at the situation where there is not going to be enough money; whether you want it transferred from one chapter to another, the funds are just not sufficient.
To reply to the other question, raised by the delegate of France, it strikes me - although I would not like to guess'what the intentions of the. author'of the resolution were- that from the way the resolution is drafted, that when adjustments appear to be necessary, the Director-General first consults the Finance Committee and the Programme Committee and then the Council makes the final determination as to where those savings and adjustments are going to be made. Now I would imagine that in doing so the Council would be wise, and presumably would wish to leave a certain flexibility to the Director-General because even the Council, which meets perhaps several months before the end of the biennium - and especially if the date is.advanced - will not be able to guess exactly what the situation will be at the end of the biennium. Therefore, I would imagine the Council would wish to leave a certain flexibility in the way in which it takes decisions.
Yan HEIDSMA (Netherlands): I am very sorry tohold you up, but I do not think Legal Counsel has actually answered my question. Maybe I put it wrongly to him. What I really asked is whether we are actually talking about a delegation of powers from the Conference and if yes, what these powers then are. But if not, are we not really reques-ting the Council to decide on savings and programme adjustments? From a legal point of view is not the word "requesting" then better? Are we actually delegating something or not? And'if yes, what is it that we are delegating? You yourself already indicated that the Director-General and the Finance and Programme Committee and the Council, when we are talking about transers, do already have such powers. I just fail to see what it is that we are delegating. And if we are not delegating anything but simply requesting the Council to take these decisions in order to have some intergovernmental control on what the Director-General is doing, I think we ought to use the word "request" instead of "delegate".
CHAIRMAN: Before adjourning our meeting, I want to repeat again that the next meeting will take place tomorrow at 10.15. The place will be communicated tomorrow morning because we cannot say now. It will probably be in the same room. I would also recall that tomorrow at 9 the Drafting Committee meets, and we also expect by tomorrow morning a new draft resolution of the Italian delegation. That is a draft resolution which will take into account the amendments and the amendments to the amendments and other amendments, self-amendments. The item for tomorrow's Session, I recall,, is 25.4. Our intention is to conclude this item by tomorrow noon and if it is possible to proceed and to take up the Item number 22.1.
The meeting rose at 20.00 hours
La seance est levée à 20 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 20.00 horas
