LE PRESIDENT: Mesdames, Messieurs, la séance de ce matin est extrêmement brève. Je note par ailleurs que le quorum est atteint. Nous allons commencer par les interventions. Comme nous l'avons indiqué hier, ce sont les Etats-Unis qui vont lancer les débats de ce matin.
Ms Teresa D. HOBGOOD (United States of America): We have had several opportunities to comment on the 1990-91 Programme of Work and Budget this year. Just to mention a few: at the Joint Session of the Programme and Finance Committees in early 1989; during the June 1989 Council session; at the special Joint Session of the Programme and Finance Committees this fall and during the two Finance Committee sessions held this year.
Our views are indeed well-known to FAO. We join others in supporting the nine priority areas in the budget. This is a useful first step in priority setting. Wë note that in connection with these nine priority areas, FAO carries out activities involving over 300 sub-programmes and over 2 600 field programmes. The Governing Bodies of FAO should welcome the difficult task of working with the Secretariat in determining the relative priorities among these many activities. This would allow FAO to operate within a realistic budget that can be adopted by consensus. Many of these progranmes are of high priority to the United States. As we stated at the recently concluded Council session, world trade has benefited tremendously from the work of the Codex Alimentarius and we remain an extremely strong advocate of its undertaking. The United States gives very high priority to FAO's plans to work in support of the Uruguay Round of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards. Wë appreciate the personal attention that the Director-General has given this matter. Establishing a Secretariat and an official body for the IPPC is an important step in developing a viable dispute settlement mechanism within the GATT. This would be of great value to all nations especially, those in the developing world.
As you are no doubt aware, the United States also attaches great importance to FAO's Forestry and Fisheries programmas. We strongly support FAO's increased attention to women in development, an aspect that should be taken into account in all of FAO's activities.
With regard to the financial aspects of the 1990-91 budget we note that over half of FAO Member States have not paid their full assessment towards the current 1989 budget. The United States and others have made the concrete and, we believe, feasible proposals for possible reductions in FAO's proposed 1990-91 budget to make it more realistic. Such reductions will relieve sane of the financial burden and should make it possible for all members to reach a consensus on the budget. As other members do, the United States hopes for a consensus and stated often during the budget formulation process our views on how a consensus might be reached.
For example, we remain committeed to our long-standing policy of zero real growth, especially in these difficult budgetary times. For this reason, my government would not be able to join a consensus on a proposed budget containing one percent real growth and 16 percent in costing increases. We agreed with our United Kingdom colleagues that using well-established methods for calculating real growth, US$ 5.5 million reflected on page 2 of the document, amounts to one percent real growth, not 0.45 percent.
We would now like to confine specific remarks to the following areas: publications, the technical cooperation programme, the lapse factor, the budget level, budget preparation and improvements in the budget process.
Regarding publications, the United States has traditionally been a strong supporter of FAO's data collection and dissemination programmes. We realize that publications are a significant aspect of FAO's work and we welcome plans to resume the publications of UNASYLVA and CERES. We are troubled, however, by the size of the increase in the publications area Which is US$ 6.5 million above the request for 1988-89. In view of this substantial increase, we would like to see a breakdown of the actual expenditures incurred by sub-programme during the current biennium. We would also like FAO to address the points we raised during the Council about efforts to contain costs; namely, whether user surveys have been conducted, what level of automation has been achieved in printing and what ventures to reduce mailing costs have taken place.
We note that the management consultants have pointed out that FAO could achieve substantial savings by contracting out much of the printing that is now performed internally. Perhaps a practical next step should be an examination of the entire publications programme. FAO should consider further consolidation of publications and elimination of lew-priority publications to reduce this US$ 6.5 million increase.
With regard to the proposed programme increase for the Technical Cooperation Programme, the United States does not deny the importance of TCP to many Member States of FAD. However, we continue to have concerns about the source of funding of TCP through the assessed budget of FAD. We also have concerns with respect to the transparency of TCP. In particular, we would have preferred a more descriptive analysis of what types of projects FAO expects the TCP programme to include in 1990-91, and why and in what ways changes are likely to be made in the current programme. Considering that nearly 12 percent of the resources in the 1990-91 assessed budget are proposed to be devoted to a programme that is valued so highly by the vast majority of FAO's members, we do not view this as an unreasonable request.
We remain to be convinced about the cost increases added to the budget to cover assumed increases for basic Professional salaries. Although we are impressed with the dedication and professionalism of FAO staff, as we have stated in the Finance Committee, we are opposed to budgeting for these cost increases prior to any decision by the UN General Assembly on the amount and the effective date of the increase.
On the subject of Professional salaries, the Bush Administration recognizes that United States civil servants are paid at amounts less than what they could expect to receive in the private sector. Although initial efforts to remedy this situation with the United States Congress have not succeeded, the Administration is continuing to press for increases in pay. Positive results will ultimately have a positive impact on the professional salaries of international civil servants.
Turning to the proposal to reduce the lapse factor from 5.5 percent to 3 percent, FAO has not put forward a compelling reason for implementing such a reduction which would have the effect of increasing the 1990-91 budgetary provisions by US$ 9.3 million. While we agree that there is no uniform factor used among UN system agencies, we note that according to a JIU report, rather than decreasing its lapse factor, the United Nations will be applying a factor of 12.5 percent for Professional staff and a factor of 7.5 percent for the General Service category in the future. The Finance Committee could not reach an agreement on this proposal and this point should be taken into account in our deliberations on this subject.
With regard to the presentation of the Programme of Work and Budget itself, the United States would like to call the attention of the Commission to the suggestion made by the experts in paragraph 7.36 of their report on FAO's role, priorities and objectives. The experts suggested that the Secretariat initiate steps to present information in the document which would throw more light on linkages among programme elements for different priorities, how programmes contribute to meeting these priorities and how regular and extra-budgetary resources relate to this. The United States believes that the Programme of Work and Budget should show not only proposed funding levels for programmes and sub-programmes but also actual and estimated levels for the same programmes and sub-programmes for the preceding two years. I note that it is only with considerable effort that my delegation has been able to extrapolate the level of resources going to headquarters and field activities respectively. In the future the Programme of Work and Budget should clearly show the costs associated with headquarters and field activities.
With regard to the budget level, we have considered proposals for an effective working budget of US$ 574 million at an exchange rate of Lire 1 235 to the dollar. Even at the current dollar/lire exchange rate of about Lire 1 350 to the dollar, members will still be assessed nearly 13 percent more in dollars per annum. This is unrealistic given that, as we said, a majority of members have not paid their, full assessment this year.
We also agree with our United Kingdom colleague that since the Review clearly has cost implications, perhaps a decision on the Programme of Work and Budget can be taken after the discussion on the Review of FAO.
We would hope that with the recommendations for reductions that we and other nations have suggested the conference can agree to the adoption of a budget for the 1990-91 budget by consensus. We look forward to continue the improvements in the budget preparation process with the continued submission of a budget outline. This would increase the likelihood that a joint session of the Programme and Finance Comittees can reach consensus on future budget proposals.
On that matter we would like to clarify the presentation made by the Secretariat regarding the new budget outline process. The Secretariat failed to note that the Programme and Finance Committees had recommended continuation of the process at least for the next biennium. This recommendation was passed by the Council to the Conference. My delegation supports the recommendation of the Programme and Finance Committees, and would further recommend that this improvementt in process be continued until a future Conference decides otherwise.
Finally, let me reiterate that the Bush Administration supports the United Nations System, including FAD. The Administration's budget request for FAO's 1989 contribution is for full funding and partial payment of arrears. The United States Congress must consider this request in the light of many competing demands.
We have tried to participate with you in preparing what is in our judgement a realistic budget, which includes zero real growth, maximum absorption of cost increases, an improved budget process and presentation leading to consensus adoption of a budget and a commitment to improvement of management and operations. The future of FAO is in the hands of this body. We must make a choice of which way we want to go.
E. Patrick ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): The delegation of Trinidad and Tobago has listened very carefully to the contributions on this item over the past few days, commencing with the Council, including statements by heads of missions in Plenary and in this Commission. This delegation finds it necessary to make a few observations.
Most regretfully the comparative position taken on this item is almost to some extent like a north-south divide. There is no doubt that the majority of countries are supportive of the budget. However, with a few notable exceptions, I perceive a kind of alignment somewhat akin to what we witnessed in the 1987 Conference of a few countries which seem determined almost to hold millions of people, the hungry, the disadvantaged, and many urgently in need of a vibrant FAO machine, in suspension as to how their needs will be met in the context of the objectives for which FAO was created.
It would be unreasonable for this delegation to repeat all the statistics we have heard over the past few days, but we cannot over-emphasize the following.
For the three years 1987, 1988 and 1989 FAO has had to eliminate activities to the level of US$ 68 million in order to survive. At present current arrears of US$ 177 million, outstanding debts in excess of US$ 100 million, a Working Capital Fund and a Special Reserve Account which are likely to be depleted within a few weeks, 220 posts frozen over two years, numerous posts eliminated, numerous important publications no longer appear, more than US$ 300 million in arrears, the largest amount of arrears ever recorded in the history of the Organization, and according to Mr Crowther a few days ago "the most pessimistic picture we have seen in the history of the Organization".
Against this background we hear delegations speaking about FAO leading a challenge. We hear of new challenges. Indeed on budgetary matters FAO has met and survived the challenge of all challenges.
We heard another delegation in Plenary two days ago say that the fat has to be cut out. Where is the fat, Mr Chairman? It is simply amazing and unbelievable.
A few remarks about the content of the budget. This delegation supports wholeheartedly the nine priorities indicated under Chapter Two, Technical and economic programmes. We wish to emphasize once again our fullest support for the programme of activity on biotechnology, regardless of who funds it.
Any suggestion of low priority on this item is a cause for reflection as to the level of real concern for agricultural and rural development in the developing countries. Our sentiments are the same for work on nuclear strategies. This is where the vast majority of countries with limited resources are allowed a towhold on the frontiers of major scientific developments in agriculture. Such activity has to be regarded as FAO's special contribution towards the possible lessening of a debilitating dependency of the developing countries on the developed countries for a wide range of support activities. If nothing else, FAO will facilitate the flow of information and scientific techniques which so far is already only widening the gap between north and south.
In the world of scientific endeavour we must now take note of recent developments such as the formal inauguration in Geneva on 20 November of CERN, the European Laboratory for Partical Physics, an event which is said to symbolize the European Renaissance in the highest level of partical physics research, with an annual budget of US$ 500 million financed by 14 Member States. Is it a matter of closing the gap or simply trying to stabilize it?
Our delegation also joins with some of our colleagues from the Latin American and Caribbean group who made a particular observation on budgetary allocations. In essence we have compared the tables on pages 280, 301, 314 and 331. We have reviewed both the total budgets and the ratios of Extra-Budgetary to Regular Programme resources. The information on pages 315 to 317 of C 89/3 provides an update on the present circumstances in the Latin American and Caribbean region. We serve notice on the Director-General that in the next biennium FAO will need to give careful consideration to the needs of this region in order to help stem the current reversal in the economic gains of recent years and the reduced continued deterioration in natural resources.
Our delegation is of the view that in the context of environmental concerns the significance - to some extent perhaps not yet well understood - of one-quarter of the world's forest area and over one-half of the world's dense tropical forestry plantations within the Latin American and Caribbean region may deserve very special consideration. In this regard we cannot help but note the high level of interest of the United Kingdom Government in the Tropical Forestry Action Plan, as indicateci by the Hon. Prime Minister in her address on 8 November to the Forty-fourth Session of the United Nations General Assembly. On that occasion Prime Minister Thatcher announced a commitment of £ 100 million over three years to tropical forestry activity within the framework of the Tropical Forestry Action Plan, but - and we must note this - under bilateral arrangements.
Our delegation - and I am requested to speak on behalf of all CARICOM Member States attending this Conference session - supports the budgetary proposals of the Director-General. Our delegation has difficulty in understanding how logically FAO can be denied approval at this time. Furthermore, in this regard we continue to be bewildered. A few countries cannot accept that more than one hundred countries are quite capable of determining on their own behalf in their own interest that a TCP programme is relevant to their needs and is administered with efficiency to their satisfaction. We note that the call for transparency has again emerged.
The statement of the Director-General at paragraph 2.4 on page x of C 89/3 explains the problems that any further refinement in prioritization in the context of the reality of food and agricultural development indicate. We all hope for consensus on this budget but, like the delegation of Australia - a delegation which we find has put its cards on the table and has provided a basis for movement towards consensus - we are confused with regard to what some delegations want from the review process. I am referring to the need for internal reshaping and the reference to one stage in the review process, etc., which seemed to suggest a kind of hidden agenda. Are we about to dispense with all the work done by the experts and the Finance and Programme Committees? We appeal to those countries which wish to insist on a linking of the outcome of the review with a budget not to hold the developing countries to ransom. We recall the words of Australia in the Plenary Session a few days ago: "It is unjust that we must win back the support of our sponsors by achieving the impossible".
You will perhaps permit me a bit of imagery; we are in Italy. I recall that during the debates in the Council the Director-General was called by all kinds of names - financial juggler, special UN housewife - but perhaps we can consider him as an opera singer who arrives at the palace, he is welcomed and he is praised on his talent and the talent of his staff, and so on, with regard to his ability as an opera singer, and just when he is about to seek his dues he is surrounded by a few people who commence to strangle him and at the same time tell him to sing! Mr. Chairman that is my illustration of the impossible.
My delegation says that there can be no consensus with inflexibility from any group of countries, big or small, wealthy or poor. Consensus means some kind of an exchange of views, some measure of negotiation. I do not see how we in Commission II, or in this Conference, can avoid some kind of dialogue, contact, exchange of views, with mutual respect on some matters. This or else the zero growth approach, with the rate of treasury armaments over our heads, is a most undesirable form of pressure. Let us all in good faith be prepared to work towards consensus.
Sra. Concha Marina RAMIREZ (Honduras): Al tomar la palabra por primera vez deseo unirme a la de las demás delegaciones para felicitarle, señor Presidente, por dirigir nuestros debates. También damos las gracias al señor Shah por su excelente y valiosa exposición. La delegación de Honduras ha estudiado los documentos y reconocemos, una vez más, el esfuerzo del Director General. Consideramos que no es una tarea fácil, especialmente en estos mementos en que nuestra Organización padece una crisis financiera jamás vista en los últimos años.
Ponemos en evidencia que una labor eficiente no puede realizarse con la prontitud y profundidad deseables sin el aporte fundamental de quienes están en mejores condiciones de hacerlo. Ni las potencias más fuertes y desarrolladas del mundo pueden vanagloriarse hoy en dia de enfrentar por si solas los retos que impone el progreso y felicidad de los pueblos. Mucho menos nuestros débiles países nacidos hace poco más de siglo y medio a la vida independiente. La solidaridad e interdependencia de las naciones es un hecho que nadie puede negar, y mucho menos sustraerse a sus efectos so pena de quedar rezagados con el contexto total de los pueblos.
Apoyamos con firmeza lo que el autorizado Embajador de Costa Rica ha expresado y esperamos que el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto sea sencillamente aprobado por consenso,
Jacques WARIN (France): Permettez-moi tout d'abord de vous féliciter pour avoir été normé à ce rôle important dans cette commission qui va concentrer une grande partie des travaux de la Conférence.
Ma délégation souhaite pouvoir exposer, un peu plus longuement qu'elle ne l'a fait lors du récent Conseil, ses réactions face au document C 89/3 qui contient les propositions du Secrétariat concernant le Programme de travail et budget pour la période 90-91.
Je souhaiterais présenter ici deux séries de réflexions:
- la première, sur l'aspect proprement financier du budget;
- la deuxième, sur le contenu du Programme de travail.
En ce qui concerne tout d'abord les dépenses de la FAO, le Secrétariat nous propose un budget de 575 millions de dollars, ce qui correspond à une augmentation en volume des programmes de 5,75 millions de dollars, soit 1% de la base budgétaire recalculée.
Monsieur Shah nous a donné à ce propos des explications fort pertinentes, et je l'en remercie.
L'accroissement réel est en fait encore un peu plus réduit compte tenu d'une proposition d'absorption de coût de trois millions de dollars (pour frais de consultants, voyages officiels, reclassements de postes). L'accroissement en volume net est alors seulement de 2,75 millions de dollars, soit 0,44 pour cent du budget actuel (aux prix et coûts de 1990-91).
Cette augmentation n'est certes pas rigoureusement égale à cette fameuse croissance zéro qu'un certain nombre de pays membres souhaitent et ont d'ailleurs réitéré dans cette enceinte. Elle est cependant encore suffisamment faible pour ne pas poser de problème réel à ma délégation; et je peux donc annoncer ici que nous acceptons l'augmentation en volume qui est proposée par le Secrétariat.
La croissance des coûts - 76,6 millions de dollars - représente une augmentation de 15,39 pour cent du budget, ce qui correspond pour une très large part (86 pour cent) à des accroissements obligatoires des coûts de personnel. Ma délégation n'a aucune raison de remettre en cause le mode de calcul et l'estimation de l'augmentation des coûts dont le Comité financier, lors de la dernière session, s'est déclaré satisfait.
Je souhaite toutefois ici même faire deux remarques supplémentaires par rapport à celles que j'avais déjà faites au Conseil.
Tout d'abord en ce qui concerne l'estimation des recettes accessoires qui viennent en déduction des dépenses prévues pour déterminer le niveau des contributions dues par les Etats, cette estimation est fixée à 12 millions de dollars, soit un niveau inférieur d'un quart à celui des dernières prévisions 1988-89. La question que je voudrais poser au Secrétariat est de savoir quelles sont les hypothèses à la base de prévisions aussi prudentes.
Par ailleurs, ma délégation observe que le Secrétariat a proposé une réduction de 5,5 pour cent à 2 pour cent seulement du taux d'abattement pour mouvements de personnel. L'alignement sur les pratiques suivies par d'autres organisations internationales semble être la justification donnée par le Secrétariat. Mais il ressort du Rapport du Commissaire aux comptes (je me réfère au document C 89/5, page 12 de la version française) que le taux effectif de vacances des postes est en fait toujours largement supérieur à ce qui correspondrait à l'abattement de 5,5 pour cent. Et, à ce propos, je souhaiterais également les explications du Secrétariat.
Ma délégation ne saurait clore l'examen proprement financier du budget sans mentionner la préoccupation que lui inspire l'état actuel et aussi les perspectives de paiement de leurs contributions par les Etats Membres, et notamment du plus important d'entre eux. La défaillance de certains a des conséquences directes sur le niveau des contributions des Etats bon payeurs -parmi lesquels je me range - par le biais de la réduction des recettes accessoires attendues; et surtout la capacité des Etats à payer leur dû vide d'une partie de son sens l'approbation du budget qui sera sans doute accordée à une large majorité au cours de cette Conférence.
Mais malheureusement le fait que le budget soit voté (on l'a vu dans le passé) ne nous assure pas pour autant que les caisses de l'Organisation soient remplies.
Je passe maintenant au contenu du programme de travail.
Le document C 89/3 contient une description détaillée du programme de travail pour 1990-91. Si la précision des détails fournis permet de satisfaire le besoin d'information des Etats, je voudrais cependant inviter le Secrétariat à réfléchir aux moyens de réduire la complexité d'un document (300 pages, 150 sous-programmes) dont la consultation reste assez ardue.
Je précise également que dans le domaine de la pure et simple présentation (choix du papier, établissement d'index et de tables des matières) des améliorations peuvent encore être apportées.
Cela dit, l'accroissement des dépenses prévues dans un certain nombre de domaines peut recueillir notre soutien. On peut citer à ce propos - sans être exhaustifs - les crédits accordés pour les biotechnologies, pour la formation agricole, pour le développement durable, pour le suivi des cultures et des conditions météorologiques, enfin pour la télédétection. Autant de domaines qui me paraissent particulièrement novateurs et à haut contenu scientifique que mon gouvernement soutient pour cette raison précise.
Je m'arrête un instant sur l'accent qui est mis sur l'importance du développement durable. Les différentes composantes de l'action de la FAO dans ce domaine sont bien décrites par l'introduction du Directeur général. Ma délégation trouverait intéressant de connaître l'estimation du total des moyens consacrés directement à cette action et quelle est l'augmentation par rapport au biennium précédent.
La priorité donnée au programme technique, qui a l'appui de ma délégation, n'empêche pas certains accroissements de postes bienvenus dans d'autres secteurs. Il en est ainsi de la création au bureau juridique d'un nouveau poste P-5 qui est chargé plus particulièrement des aspects juridiques de la diversité biologique et du droit à l'environnement.
On peut certes - et j'en ai déjà fait mention au Conseil - regretter la stagnation du programme de coopération technique dans le programme ordinaire puisque sa part, dans le programme ordinaire, passe de 12,8 à 11,8 pour cent, ce qui se traduit par une baisse relative, proche de 8 pour cent. On peut également s'interroger sur la réduction des moyens imposée à la réalisation de certains programmes dont l'intérêt ne va pas s'affaiblissant, comme la foresterie des zones arides et la désertification, ou bien encore le développement des ressources de bois de feu. Mais il est clair que l'Organisation a des moyens réduits, qu'elle a déjà subi une cure d'amaigrissement, que des choix nécessaires étaient à faire. Et puisque nous nous sommes souvent prononcés en faveur de redéploiements, redéploiement il y a au profit de certaines activités qui sont jugées plus utiles ou plus novatrices.
Au total, ma délégation peut donc approuver et appuyer le contenu du programme de travail de l'Organisation et se prononcer, comme l'a fait mon Ministre il y a deux jours à la Conférence, en faveur du budget et programme pour le biennium 1990-91.
Fritz JOHANNES (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): As we said in our statement to the Ninety-sixth Council Meeting, we support in principle the priorities set out in the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91. The allocation of resources should, however, reflect the priorities set in a better way. The Tropical Forestry Action Plan is as you know, of particular importance to the Federal Government. Moreover, the item "Women in Development" and the related programmes and sub-programmes we think are exemplary. However, in the section which sets out the priorities too much importance is attached to the description of what FAO has done so far and too little to what it intends to do in the future. This particularly applies to "policy advice." In its report (para. 2.23 and 2.24) Expert Group Number One reproaches FAO of having been too passive in that field and having left the developing countries alone in the process of structural adjustments. The criticism of the Jansson Report on the field programme of the United Nations goes into the same direction. It states a lack of analytical work and pathfinding studies in the developing countries. This would have been the task of FAO in the important field of policy advice. As a reaction to this criticism the policy dialogue has been introduced as a new FAO priority and also greater resources are being devoted to it. However, it is stated at the same time that until now FAO has already done what has been required. A basic analysis of failures in the past and resulting from it the development of new ideas and/or new approaches to policy advice are however lacking. The Federal Government holds the view that the problems in policy advice rightly raised by the Director-General at the Ninety-fourth Council Meeting cannot be solved by the old concept of FAO. The Federal Government has similar concerns about sustainable development. We set out our position on the TCP in detail at the Ninety-sixth Council meeting. An increase of the TCP share in the Regular Budget is for my delegation not taken into consideration.
Some remarks about the lapse factor which according to the information of the Secretariat presently affects the implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget. We cannot accept the arguments of the Secretariat. The lapse factor is a purely arithmetical quantity. At least at present it has nothing to do with the reality in FAO. We attach considerable importance to this question, because the relevance of the lapse factor to the budget is considerable, given the high level of staff costs. At the present tine in the FAO 85 to 90 percent of the post are filled. The Secretariat however receives funding for 94.5 percent of the posts. It is difficult to undertstand why the lapse factor should now be increased to 97 percent, although there is no evidence to suggest that in the short to medium-term staff levels can be raised to 97 percent. It would not be possible either even if FAO was not in a financial crisis. In the interests of clarity of the Budget, the lapse factor should reflect the actual situation in the FAO. In this important item of Budget Planning we cannot therefore go along with the ideas about a reduction of the lapse factor to 3 percent.
With regard to the present liquidity crisis, it does not seem appropriate to discuss the Programme of Work and Budget as though the FAO had no financial difficulties. We expect from the Secretariat that programme elements are classified already now according to their priority. This would allow a response to shortfalls in contributions with programme reductions in areas which would least affect the countries involved. It would be desirable if the Governing Bodies of FAO, as we have proposed in the past, were to be informed accordingly. This would help that FAO can implement an important part of the Programme of Work on a sound financial basis. Obviously we know that money can also be raised in the form of loans. The Federal Government could not support the relevant resolution, because for budgetary law reasons we are not in a position to pay mandatory contributions which are intended to cover interest payments. The taking up of credit in order to cover a programme which is adopted but not fully financed by contributions is something which for Member States, as well as for the Organization, would be extremely dangerous because it does not represent a suitable solution. The only possible solution to this question is that all Member States should meet their financial commitments.
We too see a link between reform and budget; but we fear that reform and budget 1990-91 can hardly be linked with each other if only because of reasons of time. The consequences from the review process must then however be clearly reflected in the medium and long term in the Programme of Work and Budget of FAO. Moreover, we expect in the short term consequences from the review to be implemented in the coming biennium. If that is not possible our reform efforts would have been useless and everybody involved - experts, the Secretariat and Member States would have to acknowledge that the resources used have not met the expectations. Just to introduce additional measures with additional resources is not reform: it is merely an expansion of the Programme of Work and Budget without new conceptual emphases. That is not in line with our ideas.
The statements of many delegations regarding cost absorption in the budget lead us to spell out our position in this respect in greater detail. In recent years the FAO has for example invested considerable resources in computerized work stations. We welcome this. Just as any farmer can produce more with additional inputs, so the FAO staff can produce more as a result of computerization. Productivity increases mean that the same level of performance can be achieved with fewer real resources. Cost absorption is a nomal procedure as part of every day life.
As a member of the Geneva group, the Federal Government supports real zero growth of the budgets in all the organizations of the United Nations. However, by that we do not understand that the resources which the industrialized countries make available to the developing countries should remain constant. The industrialized countries in recent years have in fact constantly increased the sums allocated to projects. The new calculation proposed by the Secretariat of the real growth in the budget, is, we said at the Ninety-sixth Council Meeting, not convincing so far as my government is concerned. In our view, real growth is one percent and not 0.45 percent.
For my delegation it would be however conceivable that the actual real growth in the FAO budget be used to implement reforms. Despite the divergent views expressed by the individual Member States on the Programme of Work and Budget of the FAO, we very much hope we shall be cible to find a solution here at this Conference in order to be enabled to adopt the budget by consensus.
Taghi SHIRVANIAN (Iran, Islamic Republic of): My delegation is happy to confirm the Programme submitted in the document C 89/3. I would like to express my deep appreciation to those who have prepared such a high quality programme. However, we think it is necessary to make some comments to be given more consideration in the Programme.
Firstly, referring to the Programme 2.1.1, page 40, paragraph 1, the growing concerns for sustainability of agricultural products might be met through other means rather than those mentioned in the document. Because of the lack of technology, the farmers in developing countries do not reap the optimum benefits from the land. However, to met their demands they expand their arable lands by invading the natural resources, the final conclusion of which could be disastrous and could lose our natural resources.
Having the Programme of Work and Budget would serve the objectives better we think. As a result, FAO should take steps to study the regional demands and give their services required accordingly. This means that the potential of natural resources should be surveyed and then FAO should supply them with those inquired services.
Secondly, to motivate and assist those small-scale farmers mentioned at page 41, paragraph 4, to raise their productivity. This seems to be more promising, if having their scattered lands consolidated to make their farm outputs more profitable. This would be achieved through cooperatives which would be made available to the farmers and would mean more personal involvement.
Biotechnology could be very promising for developing countries but because of the lack of training and proper instruments this cannot at the moment be achieved.
As you may know, deforestation is creating a very serious and acute problem in developing countries. Therefore, the proposal to extend and assist their understanding will help achieve a solution to the problem. The document before us does not show any cure in this connection and, as a matter of fact, it deserves higher consideration.
In the case of desertification, Iran is already combating the problem and almost 3 million hectares of desert have teen reclaimed as a result of soil mulching and biological methods. I should also mention, because of my country's experience, my country would be happy to assist other countries in this connection.
So far as forestry and reforestation is concerned we propose that the FAO should establish an action plan for Mediterranean forests similar to the Tropical Forestry Action Plan.
FAO created several centres for plant genetic resources conservation in different regions. The proposal is to extend them into the Middle East where one can find huge varieties of plant species. For example, my country, Iran, has recognized more than 7 000 plant species which could be considered as one of the world's largest genetic resources.
The meeting rose at 10.40 hours
La séance est levée à 10 h 40
Se levanta la sesión a las 10.40 horas
