LE PRESIDENT: J'espère que vous avez passé un bon week-end, que tous vous êtes bien reposés, tout en travaillant bien sûr et que, ce matin, nous allons reprendre nos travaux avec le même entrain que la semaine dernière.
Comme vous le savez, nous allons aborder le point 15 de l'Ordre du jour. Les documents relatifs à ce point sont connus: il s'agit des documents C 89/21, C 89/21-Sup.l et C 89/LIM/20-Rev.l. Je suis heureux de constater que, pour l'examen de cet important point de notre Ordre du jour, si la salle n'est pas comble, au moins tout le monde s'est efforcé d'arriver à l'heure ce matin.
Dans l'examen de ce point de l'Ordre du jour, je vais successivement donner la parole au Prof. Mazoyer, Président du Comité du Programme, et au Directeur général, pour nous présenter le rapport.
M.J. MAZOYER (Président, Comité du Programme): Voilà deux ans que la Conférence, en adoptant la Résolution 6/87, a confié au Comité du Programme et au Comité financier, travaillant conjointement, la tâche exceptionnelle d'entreprendre un examen approfondi de certains aspects des buts et opérations de la FAO.
C'est un honneur pour moi de présenter, comme je l'ai déjà fait à la quatre-vingt-seizième session du Conseil, les conclusions et recommendations de cet examen qui a été conduit par les deux comités, conclusions et recommandations qui vous sont soumises sous les cotes C 89/21 et C 89/21-Sup.l. J'aborderai deux aspects dans cette intervention, qui me semblent utiles pour la Conférence. Tout d'abord, les modalités de mise en oeuvre de la Résolution 6/87 dont les comités ont rendu compte au Conseil à plusieurs reprises et, ensuite, la manière dont nos conclusions et recommandations répondent aux prescriptions de la Résolution.
Tout d'abord, à propos des modalités de mise en oeuvre de la Résolution 6/87, je voudrais dire un mot sur l'esprit qui a animé les travaux des deux comités, qui se sont réunis quatre fois pendant ces deux années en sessions spéciales conjointes pour accomplir la tâche qui leur avait été confiée.
Dès le début, nous étions conscients des circonstances ayant conduit à cet examen exceptionnel. Il y a eu à la Conférence, lors de l'adoption de la résolution, un accord unanime sur la nécessité de renforcer la FAO de toutes les manières possibles afin qu'elle puisse continuer à jouer un rôle de chef de file dans l'agriculture mondiale dans les années à venir. Il existait donc sur ce point essentiel un accord préalable, qui est fondamental, pour tout consensus sur l'objectif de l'examen.
Cela dit, la Conférence n'a pas abouti à un accord complet sur la manière d'atteindre cet objectif et la résolution elle-même est le résultat d'un compromis entre les points de vue différents, tout d'abord en ce qui concerne l'opportunité et l'étendue de l'examen, et ensuite en ce qui concerne les modalités de réalisation de cet examen. En l'adoptant, la Conférence a sans doute voulu confier aux deux comités la responsabilité de rechercher une voie qui conduirait à un consensus. Il incombait donc aux deux comités de respecter ce souci et, tout en essayant de répondre le plus possible aux attentes des uns et des autres, de s'en tenir scrupuleusement aux termes de la résolution. C'est ce que nous avons fait. Nous avons abouti à un ensemble de conclusions et recommandations dont la plus grande partie a fait l'objet d'un consensus aux comités, et cela sans sortir du cadre qui nous était inparti par la Conférence. Je crois que ce principe est fondamental et qu'il le sera aussi dans la phase finale de l'examen si l'on veut aboutir à des résultats concrets et permettre à l'Organisation de reprendre sa vitesse de croisière au début de la nouvelle décennie.
La résolution stipulait que les deux comités seraient assistés d'un petit nombre d'experts, ces experts étant choisis, en fonction de leur compétence dans le domaine de l'agriculture, du développement, des finances ou de l'administration, par les comités en consultation avec le Directeur général et en tenant compte d'une répartition géographique équilibrée.
Nous avons choisi, au total, treize experts de compétence reconnue dans divers domaines. Pour l'étude sur les objectifs, le rôle, les priorités et les stratégies de la FAO, nous avons nommé comme rapporteur le Dr. Just Faaland, de la Norvège. Les experts du groupe étaient: G.J. Facio, du Costa Rica, J.P. Lewis, des Etats-Unis d'Amérique, P. Masud, du Pakistan, C. Nagata, du Japon, A. Sawadogo, de la Côte d'Ivoire, B. Shaib, du Nigeria, et S. Sunna, de la Jordanie.
Pour l'étude des opérations de terrain de la FAO, le rapporteur était le Dr. Sastry, de l'Inde, et les experts du groupe étaient: E.P. Alleyne, de Trinité et Tobago, K.G. Jansson, de la Finlande, S.G. Sarraf, du Liban, et D.F. Smith, de l'Australie.
Nous avons donné à ces deux groupes d'experts des mandats très larges et nous leur avons laissé tout le temps et liberté d'accomplir leur tâche en toute indépendance. Leurs rapports ont constitué une contribution très importante à l'examen, d'autant plus que l'un et l'autre groupe ont présenté leurs conclusions après des débats entre les experts de chaque groupe et à l'unanimité. Si l'on considère la diversité des membres de ces groupes, c'est déjà un résultat tout à fait louable et utile pour préparer nos propres travaux.
Pendant nos travaux, nous avons bénéficié égalèrent des rapports et commentaires du Directeur général et d'une large documentation fournie par le Secrétariat. Nous avons joint à notre rapport la partie la plus importante de ce matériel afin de permettre à tous les Etats Membres de disposer des mêmes sources que nous pour alimenter et enrichir leurs propres réflexions ainsi que la réflexion collective au Conseil et de la Conférence.
Notre rapport est bref, comme il se devait de l'être. Il représente la synthèse des conclusions et recommandations auxquelles ont abouti, à la suite de leurs lectures et de leurs débats, les vingt membres des deux comités.
J'ajouterais que ces vingt membres ne sont pas moins différents entre eux comme origine géographique et orientation technique, que les treize experts, et malgré cela, comme je l'ai déjà dit, la plus grande partie de leurs conclusions et recommandations a fait l'objet d'un consensus.
Les comités espèrent que leur rapport pourra également constituer la base d'un débat et d'un consensus à la Conférence.
En ce qui concerne les conclusions et recommandations, je ne veux pas essayer de résumer ici nos conclusions et recommandations. Je veux seulement rappeler le contenu de notre rapport en partant des termes de référence du paragraphe 2 de la Résolution 6/87 afin de montrer comment nous avons répondu aux prescriptions qui nous étaient faites par cette même résolution.
Très brièvement, au paragraphe 2(b) de la résolution, il est d'abord fait état du ferme attachement des Etats Membres au texte de l'Acte constitutif de l'Organisation. Un point sur lequel tous les experts et tous les membres des comités se sont trouvés d'accord, c'est que l'expérience a démontré le bien-fondé et la validité du Préambule et de l'Article premier de l'Acte constitutif au regard de la situation et des tendances de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation. Quarante-cinq ans après la création de la FAO, ses finalités et ses objectifs majeurs restent pertinents et on pourrait dire qu'ils restent plus importants que jamais.
La résolution parle ensuite du renforcement du rôle consultatif de l'Organisation dans le domaine des politiques alimentaires et agricoles, ainsi que de sa fonction de catalyseur et de son rôle de dispensatrice d'aide. Nous avons consacré une attention particulière au rôle de la FAO en matière de politiques, et nos conclusions ainsi que nos vues sur d'autres renforcements souhaitables sont contenues dans le Chapitre 2. Le Chapitre 3 contient nos conclusions détaillées au sujet des activités d'assistance et de coopération technique, par le biais des opérations de terrain.
Les paragraphes 2 c) et e) prescrivent un examen "des façons d'adapter le processus d'établissement de priorités au sein de la FAO" et "des mesures propres à garantir que les processus de budgétisation, de comptabilité et de planification de la FAO fassent clairement apparaître le lien entre les stratégies, les priorités, les activités prévues et les ressources attribuées". Notre Chapitre 2 couvre cet ensemble de questions et fait des recommandations précises dans ce domaine.
Le paragraphe 2 d) demande un examen des relations de la FAO avec d'autres organismes, organisations et organes du système des Nations Unies et institutions financières internationales, y compris les activités du programme de terrain. Notre Chapitre 4 examine ces questions de relations interagences en général, et certaines conclusions et recommandations du Chapitre 3 couvrent également le rôle de la FAO vis-à-vis d'autres institutions fournissant une assistance technique ou financière.
J'en viens maintenant au premier sous-paragraphe 2 a). Il nous était demandé d'examiner "la façon dont la FAO pourrait apporter sa contribution la plus efficace aux efforts des Etats Membres et des populations en vue d'éliminer la faim, la malnutrition et la pauvreté, compte tenu des ressources dont dispose l'Organisation",
Un constat sur lequel nous étions tous d'accord, que les experts ont relevé avec force et que le Directeur général souligne lui aussi dans ses observations, c'est que malheureusement la faim et la malnutrition continuent de s'accroître. Notre examen a été conduit en gardant toujours présentes à l'esprit les grandes finalités de la FAO telles que stipulées dans le Préambule. Toutes nos recommandations visent à mettre l'Organisation mieux à même de continuer ses efforts dans cette direction, pour parvenir à libérer l'humanité de la faim.
Mais, pour que nos recommandations soient mises en oeuvre, des renforcements seront sans doute nécessaires. Ces renforcements exigent des ressources. D'où viendront-elles? Ici, les membres des comités n'ont pu unifier leurs points de vue, qui sont donc présentés séparément dans leurs rapports. Ils ont quand même suggéré certaines mesures à utiliser d'une manière indépendante ou combinée pour financer les recommandations que la Conférence retiendra.
C'est maintenant aux Etats Membres de décider des moyens qu'ils pourront et voudront donner à l'Organisation pour faire face aux exigences de la situation et de l'avenir prévisible. Les comités, pour leur part, à l'issue de cet examen, tiennent à souligner que, malgré les difficultés des dernières années, la FAO va continuer à être une organisation solide, dynamique, et qu'elle mérite sans aucun doute la confiance de ses Etats Membres.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I am not going to make a long statement, repeating all that I have said in my Conclusions in the documents before you. Instead, bearing in mind what happened in the Council, I want to concentrate on how the Conference can in just a few days bring to a successful conclusion the exercise they started, after much controversy and doubt, two years ago.
Let us face it then, the great majority were not really convinced that such an exercise was necessary or desirable. They went along with it, as prescribed in Resolution 6/87, in a spirit of compromise.
The absolute and relative costs of the exercise have not been negligible - US$ 2 million in direct costs which had to be spent at the expense of substantive activities on top of US$ 68 million's worth of activities which had to be struck from the substantive programme because of the financial situation, plus countless man-days, man-weeks and man-months of staff inputs and support.
The unfortunate financial background must sober my hopes about being able in the event to extract the maximum good out of the whole exercise. If the major part of the arrears is not paid soon - which would be wrong, if more cost increases are to be absorbed, if there are to be no additional Regular Programme resources, how can all or any of the 32 recommendations be implemented, let alone the approved Programme of Work which is the base of all our efforts?
My colleagues and I have tried to react constructively and positively to all new ideas and to construct a serious and practicable response. Hence the priority Table 1 included in ray Conclusions in the document in front of you.
I will, of course, always obey the decisions of the governing bodies but I find it difficult to envisage how it will be possible for my colleagues and myself effectively to implement some, if not all, of the recommendations without the necessary means.
In normal times, with a nearly full Treasury and money in reserve in the Working Capital Fund and Special Reserve Account, plus generous extra-budgetary contributions for appropriate specific activities, it was possible to fit extra Regular Programme or activities into the same budget level. But nowadays we are in a completely different situation: we all have to be realistic. As the Council said, everyone prefers a consensus.
From the Council's debate last week, it seems however that there may have been some confusion about the difference between consensus and unanimity. My understanding has been that consensus does not mean that just one dissenter can exercise a veto on the rest, that one dissenting voice would make the whole Review lapse into nothing, no decision and no action at all. This would surely be a pity. In any case, I do hope there will not be any need for voting.
I hope and trust that the controversy and disarray which characterized much of the last Conference's proceedings on this subject will not occur and that the Conference will reach conclusions which may not please everyone in every detail but from which everyone can draw some satisfaction.
Frankly, my sense, after hearing the Council and seeing many delegates individually, is that the great majority have a genuine will to achieve harmony and consensus and that the threat to this lies not in current differences over the meaning or scope of the recommendations actually on the table but mainly on the key question of resources.
There is also the apparent wish of one or two delegations to insert into the discussion and decision process some issues which the majority in the Council believed were extraneous to the scope of Resolution 6/87. These issues may have been thought of or even mentioned in discussions two years ago but were not accepted then and not covered by the Resolution. The Experts and the two Committees faithfully followed the mandate given them by the Resolution. Frankly, I do not see how you will be able to finish this Agenda item at all if you get into such matters.
It is up to you, but for my part, I would like to stop digging up the tree to see if the roots are healthy and to be able to reap the tree's fruits, that is to say that I very much hope that we can now get on with the real substantive work of the Organization in the period ahead.
In saying this, I am not suggesting that further improvements in our programmes or priorities or in the organization of the Secretariat in future biennia will be undesirable or impossible. Of course not! Such changes may well prove in the light of experience to be necessary and desirable and I will be the first to want to come forward with proposals, especially if by them I can also save some money for use on substantive activities.
But, Mr Chairman, I believe that there must be a sense of realism and restraint about the need, the scope and the frequency of being expected to do this, I would therefore suggest that the Conference should concentrate on the few recommendations in the reports under this item where there are unresolved aspects or details .The two Committees were in fact in general agreement on most of the content of their report. The differences were comparatively few and some are related to each other. They are not all of the same degree of importance or difficulty.
As I have already mentioned, the key problem concerns the recommendations for additional resources. As for the rest, the differences often seem to me to be somewhat academic or capable of more definition only after experience over a reasonable period of time.
For example, what should be the balance between the different roles of FAO? Where, in particular cases, is the "comparative advantage" to be found? Or will it make a difference, to the biennial budget levels, if a medium-term plan is costed? Mr Chairman, I do not see the need for anyone to die in the last ditch over these or similar differences at this stage. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.
I will avoid going into more detail at this stage. I am of course ready to intervene if necessary on particular points, but for now I have given you my broad reflections in the light of the discussions in the Special Joint Session and the Council.
I certainly will lend my efforts here and in any contacts that might take place outside this room, either directly or through my representatives, to resolve the divergences and, with the necessary goodwill and understanding, to bring this exercise to a satisfactory and successful conclusion.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci Monsieur le Directeur général. Avant d'ouvrir le débat sur ce point 15 relatif à l'examen de certains aspects des buts et opérations de la FAO, je souhaite attirer votre attention sur la nécessité d'instaurer, sur cette question, un débat clair nous permettant de nous faire une idée exacte des opinions des uns et des autres, ce qui favorisera un dialogue fructueux sur les points de divergence.
Je vous propose donc non seulement de vous prononcer sur les recommandations et mesures à mettre en oeuvre pour renforcer l'action de la FAO, mais encore et surtout de nous indiquer le mode et les sources de financement des conclusions qui seront arrêtées.
En effet, chacun sait que le débat sur le Programme de travail et budget a fait apparaître différentes opinions sur cette question; je me permets de vous signaler que ce rapport, qui vient d'être introduit par le Professeur Mazoyer, Président du Comité du programme, et complété fort éloquemment par le Directeur général qui nous a présenté ses vues et observations, est conforme aux termes de la Résolution 6/87 de la dernière Conférence. C'est le fruit d'intenses discussions au sein des deux Comités à qui revenait la mission de conduire cet examen.
Ainsi, je souhaite qu'au moment où s'engage ce débat ultime vous fassiez preuve de concision dans vos interventions; plus vous serez brefs et précis plus nous aurons le temps nécessaire pour nous accorder sur l'essentiel. Je le dis parce que ce rapport est désormais bien connu de nombre d'entre vous; des ressortissants de près de 30 pays membres y ont été étroitement associés, puisque 13 experts et 20 membres du Comité financier et du Comité du programme y sont à la base et, comme chacun le sait, toutes les tendances sont représentées. En outre, 49 membres du Conseil, lors de sa 96ème session qui s'est terminée il y a dix jours, ont consacré le plus clair de leur temps à ce point de notre Ordre du jour. Autant dire que le débat est suffisanment engagé et les divers points de vue connus.
J'espère sincèrement que vous tiendrez compte de ces observations afin que tous les membres de notre Commission qui le souhaitent puissent s'exprimer sur cette importante question, d'ici la fin de la séance de cet après-midi ou au plus tard demain matin, de sorte que nous puissions consacrer le reste du temps à rechercher les solutions susceptibles de réunir le consensus souhaité par tous.
Dans l'intérêt de notre Organisation et de ses Etats Membres j'y travaillerai activement. Je sais que malgré 1 'importance du sujet, et sans doute en raison de cela notre débat restera, comme cela était le cas depuis le début de nos travaux, courtois et franc. Je tiens personnellement à ce que cette ambiance propice au dialogue se poursuive pour le succès de nos travaux. Je lance un appel à chacun de vous pour qu'il ne sorte pas du sujet et reste dans le cadre de la Résolution 6/87.
Y-a-t'il des commentaires?
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I listened with great appreciation to the introductions. I only wish to make a comment on what you have now said. You have suggested that we should remain strictly within the scope of Resolution 6/87. I must tell you that, of course, it is our duty as members of the governing bodies of this Institution to look not only at the content of the outcome of that resolution but of course at the wide subject which it addresses itself to. My country intends to do this since obviously the recommendations and indeed the outcome of the Resolution need to be placed in full context and I wish there to be no misunderstanding about this right at the beginning. We shall, of course, be very glad to make a very full, concise, or rather precise presentation of our views and I expect we shall do this tomorrow, as you have indicated.
LE PRESIDENT: Je répondrai au délégué du Royaume-Uni que cet examen se tient dans le cadre de la Résolution 6/87; il importe que chacun de nous travaille à la mise en oeuvre de cette Résolution; il faut se maintenir dans ce cadre sinon nous aurons un dialogue de sourds; en effet, si vous sortez de ce cadre vous risquez d'être seul à aborder une question que d'autres ne saisiraient pas. Comme je l'ai indiqué il nous faut travailler dans le cadre précis de la Résolution 6/87, et il nous faut respecter ce cadre.
José Ramón LOPEZ PORTILLO ROMANO (México): Queremos solamente hacer un comentario en apoyo de lo que está usted diciendo. Nosotros consideramos, como seguramente todos los Estados Miembros de esta Organización, que es fundamental seguirla fortaleciendo y construyendo. Pero para construir un edificio se tiene que empezar desde la base, y parece que hay siempre alguien o algunos que quieren poner ladrillos muy alto en el cielo, y corremos todos el riesgo de que nos caigan en la cabeza. Vamos a tratar por tanto de ir poco a poco construyendo, edificando lo que hasta ahora hemos logrado y partir desde el principio, que es la revisión atenida al contexto de la Resolución 6/87. Por tanto suscribimos lo que usted nos ha solicitado.
Ibrahima KABA (Guinée): C'est aussi pour appuyer votre intervention que nous intervenons, parce que effectivement le point 15 que nous abordons traite des questions qui ont été décidées par la résolution de notre dernière Conférence. Les autres points concernant la 25ème Conférence sont abordés dans d'autres points de l'Ordre du jour. L'Ordre du jour qui nous intéresse ce matin concerne uniquement l'examen de certains aspects des buts et opérations de la FAO comme il est dit dans la résolution qui concerne ce point.
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom) : I wish to make clear that my country will indeed comment on the outcome of Resolution 6/87 but there are elements of logic which need to be inexorably pursued in relation to the recommendations which are before us and I remain free as a representative of a sovereign state to bring forward those points within this Commission.
Muhannad Saleem KHAN S. (Pakistan): I do not want unnecessarily to extend this debate, because we are taking ourselves away from discussing the substantive issue for which, as you mentioned, we have a very limited time, and it is important that we reach a conclusion.
We cannot deny any sovereign country from making any statement it prefers, but, as you have appealed, we have a resolution before us, we have the text of the resolution before us, and the terms of reference in that resolution. We have carried out a process within those terms of reference and we have to go step by step. I think it would be much appreciated if we confine ourselves within the terms of Resolution 6/87 and not initiate new issues and issues which have already been rejected in the experts' report.
Sidasty AIDARA (Sénégal): Je ne voudrais pas que la Commission se lance dans un débat de procédure. Nous avons, comme on dit, beaucoup de pain sur la planche et nous avons tout intérêt à concentrer nos efforts sur l'essentiel. Or, quel est l'essentiel, sinon l'examen des buts et opérations de la FAO, tels que cela est inscrit au point 15 de notre Ordre du jour. Tous les Etats sont souverains. Ils peuvent à tout moment évoquer n'importe quelle question, nous n'en disconvenons pas. Mais cette souveraineté est renforcée par les procédures que nous avons adoptées. Il est important de les respecter. Dans le cas qui nous intéresse, quelle est la procédure? C'est de nous limiter à l'examen des questions inscrites dans le cadre d'une résolution de la Conférence générale et adoptée par cette dernière en 1987. Il s'agit de la Résolution 6/87. C'est la raison pour laquelle non seulement je me rallie à l'opinion que vous avez émise et qui est partagée par d'autres collègues, mais je voudrais également saisir cette occasion pour lancer un appel solennel à tous les Etats Membres pour qu'ils comprennent davantage la portée de notre discussion, parce que cette discussion va engager l'avenir de notre Organisation. L'avenir de notre Organisation est entre nos mains. Il faudrait que chaque Etat ait conscience de cette responsabilité. J'en appelle à la sagesse de tous pour que nous limitions nos débats à l'examen de la question inscrite à l'Ordre du jour dans le cadre de la Résolution 6/87.
S'il y a des opinions et des points de vue divergents, ces opinions et ces points de vue peuvent être examinés, peuvent être débattus, peuvent faire l'objet de négociations, de contacts, d'explications en dehors de la salle. Mais s'agissant de nos débats il importe encore une fois que nous nous limitions à l'examen de ce point dans le cadre de la Résolution 6/87.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vois qu'il y a d'autres inscrits, mais je crois que le Royaume-Uni ne souhaite pas prolonger ce débat. Je crois donc qu'il est bon de clore ce débat pour que nous puissions passer aux interventions proprement dites sur cette question.
Bien entendu, nous partageons le point de vue qui a été émis selon lequel il n'y a que des Etats souverains qui peuvent s'exprimer comme ils le désirent. Mais je crois aussi que nous devons nous soumettre à une certaine discipline et nous sommes ici pour faire respecter cette discipline et que le débat puisse avancer. Je crois que tout le monde l'a compris. Nous ne voulons limiter les points de vue de personne mais puisque nous devons présenter un rapport à la fin de nos débats, ce rapport doit être en conformité avec le point inscrit à notre Ordre du jour qui nous paraît suffisamment précis. Je voudrais donc lancer un appel à tous pour que le débat soit clos sur cette question et que nous puissions commencer les interventions proprement dites.
Je vois que la République fédérale d'Allemagne voudrait poursuivre le débat sur cette question. Je lui donne la parole.
Hartmut STALB (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): I would like to say a few words in connection with your introduction. I think we are discussing a matter of the utmost importance, namely, the very future of this Organization, and we cannot allow time pressures, for example, to be invoked which would mar the outcome of our discussion. Of course the delegate of Mexico rightly said that you have to begin building any edifice with the foundations, but you have to know what you expect and want the building to look like.
The Director-General has just explained that this Review was a very costly exercise, costly to FAD, and this investment must not be jeopardized by in any way curtailing the discussion of this matter, or limiting it. We will make a statement on this tomorrow morning, Sir.
LE PRESIDENT: De toute façon vous présenterez votre déclaration demain. Vous êtes inscrit pour demain.
Muhammad Saleem KHAN S. (Pakistan): We would like to start by thanking Professor Mazoyer for his presentation this morning and the Director-General for his valuable additional comments. We have noted the appeals you have made in your introduction and assure you that on our part we will abide to the maximum with what you have asked us to do.
The Review of some aspects of FAO's roles, goals and activities set up under Conference Resolution 6/87 has been overshadowing proceedings within the governing bodies and even the technical committees of FAO over the past two years. Over US$ 2 million have been spent and innumerable man hours, as the Director-General mentioned in his comments earlier, invested to take the process to a satisfactory conclusion. We have today before us in document C 89/71 the outcome of this exhaustive effort. We would like to thank the Chairman of the Programme and Finance Committees, the members of the two Committees, the members of the two groups of experts who assisted them, the management consultants, and not least the Director-General and members of FAO staff for their considerable efforts in this exercise.
We would also like to compliment the two Committees and their Chairmen on a concise but most complete report presented with extreme clarity and objectivity in its analysis, submissions and recommendations. The review process in 1987 was to an extent actuated by the perceptions of some Member States that FAO has strayed from its Mandate since it was set up and that the Review would reveal deficiencies, the removal of which would make available resources to strengthen the Organization.
The Member States, comprising the Group of 77 which Pakistan currently has the honour to chair, had never felt convinced of the need for a review as they were always of the view that FAO was an efficient Organization which over the years has successfully adapted itself to providing its Member States with a variety of services and technical assistance in accordance with the Mandate assigned to it by its Basic Texts and within the directives given to it by its governing bodies.
However, in the interest of maintaining the spirit of cordiality and consensus which normally prevails in the process of decision-making in the governing bodies of this Organization, and with a view that the Review would further strengthen the Organization to make it even more effective and even more efficient, we accepted the review process in the Conference. It is satisfying to note that the two Committees, as well as the experts, have testified to the solidity and dynamism of FAO - a view which we also always held - and have given the Organization a bill of clean health.
The purposes spelled out in the Preamble to FAO's Constitution have been found to be still valid, their objectives fully relevant and in consonance with the purposes in the Preamble, and no need whatsoever has been expressed for changes in the texts. Nevertheless, the Review has resulted in some very important conclusions the implementation of which could provide opportunities for further strengthening the Organization.
It is heartening to note that for the most part the report is unanimous and, even in the few cases, a wide consensus prevails amongst the Members of the two Committees. This singular effort at consensus provides us with an opportunity to aim at an implementationary framework which would make the results of the review as fruitful as possible. We on our part are fully willing to work towards such an end, and in the process are open to any meaningful negotiation within the terms of reference set out for the Review under Resolution 6/87 and within the limits of the Basic Texts of the Organization.
Whilst respecting the sovereign rights of any Member State to freedom of expression, we would emphasize - as we have done earlier this morning - that the introduction of any new issues at this stage, or the revival of proposals already rejected by the two Committees, would be avoided as such a course of action would be contrary to the spirit of Resolution 6/87 and might unduly hamper our efforts to reach meaningful conclusions on the Review results.
It is also important that the present review exercise should end at the Conference, and that the period after the Conference, instead of being used in pursuit of further studies, should be used to implement practical measures on which a consensus to srengthen FAO can be obtained.
Keeping what I have already said in perspective, it would be appropriate to turn to some of the specific aspects of the Review. First and foremost, we feel strongly that the three roles of FAO are equally important and complementary. Wë support the majority view at paragraph 2.11, that technical assistance - including TCP which is crucial to the interests of many member countries, particularly developing countries - must be stepped up. The TCP is an important instrument which has always responded most effectively and efficiently to the requirements of developing countries. The level of this programme in the Budget over the years has declined to only 11.8 percent of the Regular Programme resources and should be progressively increased to reach, at a minimum, a level of 17 percent.
We accede to the important of the information dissemination and policy advice roles within the context of the existing equation of complementarity. In order to ensure that policy studies are fruitful, we consider that the criteria for undertaking policy studies, enunciated by the Programme and Finance Committee in paragraph 220 of their Report, is important, and we endorse it.
In the context of policy-oriented undertakings, we support the suggestion for FAO's active participation in UNDP round tables and in the World Bank consultative groups in areas of FAO competence. We agree with the conclusions of the Review which clearly indicate that the determination of structural adjustments should involve the full participation of FAO and take into consideration the policy approaches formulated in FAO. We have always felt that the New International Economic Order constitutes an essential framework for the sustained development of the world economy, including the food and agricultural sector. Therefore, we would stress that FAO activities be further oriented towards the objectives of the NIEO. In this context, we especially recognize and support recommendation 2.64(iv) relating to FAO assistance to developing countries in GATT negotiations and regarding FAO's role against protectionist measures and other trade-hindering practices.
We consider that there is substantial scope for TCDC in the task of improvement, transfer and promotion of available technologies, genetic resources and appropriate farming systems, and support the Director-General's recommendations for an expanded FAO role in assisting a two-way flow of information between country research systems and the CGIAR network.
In terms of research and transfer of technology, we agree with the Committees that research and transfer of technology need to be oriented to the benefit of the developing countries in general and the needs of the most under-privileged and the most deprived producers in particular, and that links between FAO and IARCs need to be strengthened, as does also the cooperation between FAO and national agricultural research systems.
We endorse the view that FAO should take account of developments in biotechnology; should encourage the IARCs to make greater use of biotechnology in research on behalf of the developing countries; should monitor findings and publicize promising avenues of research in those countries; should encourage TCDC and the participation of the countries in biotechnology networks; should ensure that biotechnology questions are widely discussed by specialist groups; and should promote the means of discouraging moves to restrict the developing countries' access to biotechnology.
We also feel that FAO, in keeping with its Mandate, must continue to play a leading role in the conservation of natural resources as well as genetic and biological diversity of real or potential, economic and social benefit in agriculture, livestock, forestry and fisheries. The task should be taken up in full cooperation with other organizations, based on the same spirit and principles which underlie the international undertaking on plant genetic resources.
Mr Chairman, we note the recommendations of paragraph 2.64(ii) and the listings at paragraph 2.35 regarding sustainable development, but feel there is need for a clear articulation by FAO of requirements for additional external resources for the developing countries to offset additional costs of integrating for environmental protection. We see merit in the Director-General's viewpoint for the creation of a Special Action Programme for this purpose.
Given the importance for promoting the integration of Women in Rural Development, we note with satisfaction the recommendations of the Committee in this regard and reiterate the necessity for efforts to implement the Plan of Action of FAO for Women in Development.
The Committees have recommended the introduction of a medium-term plan covering three biennia including, if possible, a provisional indication of resources by programme. There can be serious questions as to how a medium-term plan with no provisional indication of resources by programme can be a useful exercise. These questions are reinforced by past experience on FAO's medium-term plans. However, conceptually we find the idea acceptable and are willing to go along with the consensus to give it a fair try. While doing so, we want to underline the fact that an indication of resources by programme, providing for reasonable growth in the light of increasing responsibilities of FAO in its field of competence, is a prerequisite for establishing a realistic and useful medium-term plan.
The concept of zero real growth vitiates against efforts towards meaningful planning and meaningful development, and therefore cannot be accepted. In this context, it would also be pertinent to state that it is necessary that any medium-term plan takes into account strategies adopted and recommendations made by special world conferences of the FAO.
We welcome and endorse the Committees' support for the establishment of a small number of new Special Action Programmes and recommend their use for the global priorities highlighted by some members which are impossible to meet from normal resources. We hope that such Special Action Programmes will be able to obtain necessary financial backing from the key donors.
It needs no emphasis that the efficiency of the FAO and its personnel depend basically on the technical capacity and the understanding of the developing world. It is therefore essential that experts recruited should have close knowledge of the problems of developing countries. Moreover, it is equally desirable that technical staff be provided with opportunities to update their skills keeping in view the resources available. We fully agree with the Director-General's recommendations in this regard. Now turning to the Field Operations, the report is as exhaustive on Field Operations as any other aspect of the Review. The experts have found the proposal of the Field Programme Committee impractical and have proposed an alternate new arrangement for discussions on the field operations by governing bodies which needs to be approached as an experiment to be defined on the basis of experience. The setting up of a Field Inspection Unit to reinforce the evaluation services, and focusing mainly on project management and organization, deserves support but, in view of the position explained by the Director-General, we would like to await his further views on this account.
The recommendations at paragraphs 3.18 and 3.52 (v), as well as the expert's report on Field Operations, point out an urgent need for the appointment of additional Project Officers and technical backstopping staff. We support these recommendations. We also fully support the Director-General's comments and recommendations at paragraph 62 and his views and comments on the training of national staff. We feel that the proposed programme needs to be further stepped up. Wë also recognize the importance of the project identification formulation facility proposed at paragraph 3.26 and we have no hesitation at supporting it.
I know I have occupied the floor for a long time but I hope you will allow me to continue for a few more minutes to complete my statement. I assure you that unless it is absolutely necessary I shall not take the floor again on this particular item.
We have read with great interest the views of the two Committees and of the Experts in coordination with other agencies. We note the conclusions and recommendations in paragraphs 4.13 and 4.14 in this respect. We agree that mutual understanding and coordination between Member Nations should be strengthened. While doing so, FAO should be recognized on the basis of its comparative expertise and experience as a lead agency and as a coordinator for sectoral reviews within its field of competence. We would also welcome the Director-General's Programme for an institutionalized high level coordination arrangement between the four UN Agencies in Rome.
Turning to the resource dimension, while appreciating the value of the ¡recommendations for the Review, we consider there is no escape from finding additional resources to supplement the appropriations or implement the recommendations arising from the Review. The process of programme adjustments has already been carried too far and there can be no certainty about the availability of extra-budgetary funds. We likewise support the view of the Director-General as regards the prioritization of expenditure on the implementation of the recommendations. We consider that a serious attempt is called for to implement the items of high priority. On priority settings, we note that the Committees considered the complex question of priority setting and have generally considered that FAO's normal practice is adequate. It allows for the Member Nations to be consulted in good time separately in each region and collectively in the Technical Committees and in the Governing Bodies, They have recognized that the process of priority setting involves a detailed series of discussions at many levels and that it is difficult to carpare priorities one with another.
The Experts have concluded that the ranking of priorities will rest on arbitrary criteria. The Committees have concluded that any attempt at ranking of the priorities of the FAO membership would be unlikely to gain universal acceptance or to contribute significantly to decision-making.
In the light of the above, the Committees agree that necessary attention needs to be paid to the process of priority setting and that the criteria for priority setting in accordance with the guidelines given in paragraph 2.64 (viii) of the Report should be kept in mind by the Governing Bodies. Wë fully endorse the views of the Committee in this regard.
The Experts have also identified the need to strengthen the offices of FAO representatives to equip them more fully for the discharge of their duties. The Committees have recommended the decentralization of the administrative tasks to FAO Representatives, subject to the availability of means. These should be geared to improve the services rendered. We agree with these recommendations but feel that while doing so the need to abide by the Organization's rules for administrative and financial control must be borne in mind. We also note that the Committees have not endorsed any idea for the weakening of regional offices and the strengthening of FAO's representation. We feel that the strengthening of FAO's representation should not be done at the cost of weakening the development role of the regional set-up.
The Report on the Management Review has not revealed any major over-expenditure of resources where savings could be made. The Director-General has indicated that he would continue the implementation of the measures already under way, arising from Administrative Review, and will pursue the analysis of other recommendations as and when resources permit. We agree with this approach.
Finally, turning to budgeting we agree that the status quo be maintained with respect to the methodology for adoption of the budget rate. As regards the additional step in the budgetary process, we would have no difficulty in going along with the recommendations of the Committees, provided this change proves its usefulness in developing consensus during the current Conference for the approval of the budget. Finally, I should like to join in the appeal expressed earlier by the distinguished delegate of Senegal.
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): I should, at the outset, like to congratulate Professor Mazoyer, the Chairman of the Programme Committee, for the valuable presentation he gave of the conclusions and recommendations. I should also like to congratulate the Director-General on his valuable remarks and observations and we agree with those observations.
After the statement made by our friend and colleague Mr Salim, which referred in detail to certain aspects of this Review, with which we agree, my statement will be general and concise.
At the outset, I should like to congratulate the Programme and Finance Committees on the results they have achieved during the Review process and we would like to express our satisfaction at the fact that this Review has confirmed FAO to be a dynamic organization which responds effectively to the expectations of the developing countries, The Review has also confirmed that the objectives contained in the constitution of the Organization are still relevant to the present situation and tendencies in food and agriculture fields, and relevant to world economic changes.
Throughout the years FAO has established ambitious international strategies with long-ranging dimensions, which have had an effect on the world situation regarding food and agriculture. For example, we have agrarian reform, the Food Security Compact, the Code of Conduct on the Use and Distribution of Pesticides, the International Undertaking on Plan Genetic Resources and other important strategies. These have demonstrated that the Organization is perfectly capable of confronting changes in the world situation.
My delegation feels that the review of certain aspects of FAO's Goals and Operations, its field programmes and administrative issues aim at achieving consensus among the Member States. That is what we also seek.
My country took part in the work of the Programme Committee and had the opportunity to look at the Review in depth. My delegation aired its views concerning all the issues related to FAO's Goals and Operations in accordance with Resolution 6/87. We should like to express our satisfaction at the results achieved by the two Groups of Experts and the two Committees. We feel responsible towards this Organization and are firmly attached to the principle that this Organization should remain solid and effective and that it should respond to the goals and interests of its Member States, for which the Organization was set up.
We would therefore emphasize the following points. First, we feel that the agreement of my country and other developing countries to the Review process had one aim and that was the achievement of consensus among all Member States. We hope this consensus will be achieved in the interests of member countries.
We would also like to emphasize that the existing assistance provided to Member States is one of the three main roles of the Organization. This role enables the Organization to programme its objectives and improvements and to turn them into concrete action to provide support to Member States in order to give an impetus to development efforts. We welcome the fact that the organization should be considered also as an international centre for the exchange and dissemination of information.
Secondly, FAO should carry out an effective role in supporting research for the interests of developing countries. FAO should also produce technologies adapted to local conditions.
Thirdly, FAO's participation in round tables held by UNDP and the Consultative Groups of the World Bank on issues falling whithin the competence of FAO is extremely important for the social and economic imbalances which were a result of structural adjustment due to the absence of FAO.
In general we fully agree with the conclusions of the two Committees by consensus. However, I should like to emphasize three main points. The first is that we are perfectly willing to negotiate in a constructive spirit, but we oppose the introduction of any new issues or any new proposals which have been rejected by the majority of Member States. We must all respect the provisions of Resolution 6/87. Our discussions should be limited to the scope of that Resolution, and we agree with what you said at the beginning of our Session this morning.
Secondly, it is not right to say that the implementation of the review's recommendation does not require additional resources. The implementation of such recommendations should not bring pressure to bear upon the resources and allocations in the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91. We must make additional resources available and the countries which have requested this Review must bear the brunt, or at least some part, of the costs. We oppose the idea that the payment of contributions or the adoption of the Programme of Work and Budget should be a function of the results of the Review. We should all respect our constitutional obligations.
These are the general remarks that I wanted to make at this stage and I should like to reserve my right to take the floor again if the need arises.
Per Harald GRUE (Norway): On this Agenda item I speak on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Sweden, as well as my own country Norway.
The Nordic countries have for a long time closely followed FAO's activities. Since 1986 we have devoted substantial efforts of our own to address changes in FAO's activities as well as within its organization which we regard as necessary.
The purpose can be simply expressed. FAO should be well equipped to meet the challenges which in the next decade will confront it in the field of agriculture, forestry and fisheries. To meet these challenges, especially in the field of development, an efficient international cooperation and coordination within the United Nations system is more important than ever. A vital task for all specialized agencies, in other words, is to examine their priorities, their planning process, and working methods in order to adopt to changing circumstances and growing needs: rather far-reaching changes in FAO are required.
No organization has unlimited resources and FAO will, as other UN agencies, be confronted with immense demands. In the Nordic view, the main thrust of the present review has not been to identify areas where additional resources are necessary. Such areas are not difficult to find. The purpose has rather been how best to use the resources which, within any budget level, Member States actually put to the Organization's disposal.
In commenting on one important aspect in the debate, the Nordic countries are not convinced that it is in the best interest of FAO, and ultimately to the Member States, to directly link a process of reform with request for additional funds. There is, of course, a broad interrelationship between a given financial and human resource level and the overall capacity of FAO.
At this Conference, however, it is important that a final vote on the Prograirme of Work and Budget take place after the decision of the Review.
We sincerely appreciate the important work which has been undertaken during the past two years. Valuable material has been provided in the review process so that Member States now have a much better basis for decisions. Great appreciation should, in this respect, be expressed for the work done by the two groups of experts as well as by the Finance and Programme Committees.
Allow me now to address a few aspects of this work which are of special importance to the Nordic countries. The first and fundamental point of departure is that Member Nations should determine a proper balance between FAO's three main tasks, namely - collection, analysis and dissemination of data on world food and agriculture, forestry and fisheries; formulation of food and agricultural policies and the provison of policy advice, particularly to developing countries; and technical assistance within the framework of coordinated United Nations activities in the field and, whenever possible, based on integrated sectoral or national development plans.
Secondly, when Member States set priorities within FAD, higher attention should be given to the integration of environmental needs into all aspects of the Organization's activities and work in order to ensure sustainable development; and the full involvement of women in the development process.
A third aspect is a fuller involvement of Member States in the work of the Organization. The Nordic countries are in due course prepared to consult with others on ways for strengthening the procedures for discussion and decision-making in the Conference, the Council and other important bodies of FAD.
Timely and well considered inputs by Member States are essential in any intergovernmental organization. Such input could be ascertained if Member States view the Organization's activities in a medium and long-term perspective. As everyone is aware, few changes can actually be made once the draft Programme of Work and Budget has been presented.
Hence, the Nordic countries agree with the proposal of the experts that medium-term planning should be introduced in FAO. With such planning, stricter priority setting can be ensured and more thorough and fruitful dialogue can ensue among Member States and clearer guidance could be given to the FAO Secretariat. In any organization, there are higher as well as lower priority areas - an indication of "high priorities" only gives limited practical guidance.
To this end, the Nordic countries propose that a rolling six-year medium-term plan is introduced in order to translate the priorities into the full spectrum of the Organization's activities. The plan would focus Member States' attention on the priority areas and the most urgent and the most fundamental problems within the Organization's field of competence and suggest practical proposals for necessary readjustment in the Regular and Field Programmes. It would also serve as base for the formulation of the Programme of Work and Budget and estimated budget outlines.
The Nordic countries agree with those who want the discussion on the present documentation to be concluded at the Conference. These conclusions, however, must be combined with an efficient follow-up mechanism. During the next biennium, therefore the Director-General should be requested to submit medium-term proposals taking into account the views of Member States as expressed in the regional conferences, to be discussed in the technical standing committees, the Programme and Finance Committees and transmitted by the Council to the Conference for approval.
Another important matter is FAO's representations in the field and their future management structures. Very relevant suggestions have been made by the Group of Experts on FAO's Field Operations. The Nordic countries would, therefore, welcome earlier proposals by the Director-General on the structures as well as the division of tasks and responsibilities between Headquarters, regional and national offices, respectively. A committee on operational activities should be envisaged to give member countries better possibilities to monitor these activities.
The present review will be concluded at this Conference. It has produced a wide range of suggestions and proposals. Implementation of the Conference decisions will be the main organizational task in the years to come. The Director-General, therefore, should report to Member States on the implementation, including priority setting and planning.
On behalf of Denmark, Finland, Sweden and my own country, allow me to underline the need for real and broad consensus on the present review and an effective follow-up. Only then can FAO receive unconditional support from all countries. Only then can FAO really foster change in vital areas of food, agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. Only then can FAO build on public support that both FAO and the United Nations will need so much in the near future. These are the challenges for the Member States and for FAO's Secretariat. In no better way could we honour the spirit of FAO's founding fathers than by concerted efforts to face these challenges.
Fotis G. POULIDES (Cyprus): My delegation has carefully studied the report of the Programme and Finance Committees, the views and comments of the Director-General and the views of the Council as contained in its report.
First of all, we should like to congratulate the two Committees on the open-minded and constructive approach they took in carrying out their task. Their report is based on a wealth of material, much of which is appended, and provides a concise and complete distillation of the major findings of the study. The views and comments of the Director-General are an essential complement to the report, bringing the perspective of the Organization's Chief Executive on both the policy and operational issues involved, and the costs of implementation of the recommendations.
My delegation considers that the Review has been carried out in full respect both of the letter and the spirit of Resolution 6/87, and that the Conference is now in a position to discuss and adopt its conclusions on it. We should concentrate on this task, and resist any temptation to take up questions which fall outside the scope of the Resolution which launched the exercise.
Coming to our specific comments, we support the conclusion that FAO's major purposes remain as valid today as they were when the Organization was founded, and that the seven development objectives are consonant with these purposes. There is thus no need for any modification to the Preamble and Article I of the Constitution.
With regard to the three major roles of FAO, my delegation is convinced that they are all essential and interrelated. For our part, we are satisfied that a good balance has been struck, and that within its mandate and the resources available the Organization is responding to the felt needs of member countries, providing, as needed, information and data, a forum in which to discuss problems and common action, and technical cooperation. We would not like to see any of these roles diminished, and we are confident that the Director-General will continue to ensure that a reasonable balance is maintained.
In the area of policy analysis and advice, for instance, we feel that FAO can play all its roles usefully, provided governments desire it to and resources are available. Obviously a strong information base is needed as well as the requisite technical and country expertise. But technical cooperation also comes into play, as governments often require assistance to build up their . own capacity in this area. This is recognized by the Committees and we support the criteria outlined by them to ensure that FAO's involvement in such exercises leads to useful results.
We agree with the Committees' suggestions for strengthening in specific technical areas, such as research and transfer of technology, sustainable development, WCARRD, women and youth. Both the Committees, and the experts, have found that FAO's support for the New International Economic Order has been praiseworthy and should continue. The facilitation of technical and economic cooperation among developing countries is an important part of this effort.
Likewise, we support the recommendation that FAO should play as active a role as possible in the area of international trade, and welcome the Director-General's proposal arising from the current round of GATT negotiations to take on new responsibilities in connection with the International Plant Protection Convention and with the Codex Alimentarius Commission.
The process of planning, programming and budgeting in FAO has been analysed and commented upon from the very beginning of the Review. We are satisfied that the recommendations made by the Committees are the fruit of much thought, and we can accept them in that spirit. Nevertheless, Mr Chairman, we should ensure that changes in the present arrangements lead to real inprovements; my delegation, for instance, would consider the Medium-term Plan really useful if it included at least a provisional indication of resources. The third step in the budget process, introduced in this biennium, may certainly be continued to enable us to better judge its value.
At the same time, if these innovations are to become permanent, we should consider what changes might be made in the other elements of the process. The Committees consider that the Medium-term Plan could lead to streamlining the Programme of Work and Budget. The Director-General suggests that if the Outline is retained, the Summary Budget would become unnecessary. These are very important considerations: certainly it would not be cost-effective or useful to the Governing Bodies simply to keep on adding to the already considerable volume of documentation we receive, or to the number of occasions in which we discuss essentially the same questions.
Turning to field operations, my delegation finds the Committees' conclusions and the Director-General's comment of the utmost interest, in view of our commitment to keeping a strong technical cooperation component in the Organization's programmes.
We can support the recommendation to include special reviews of the field programmes on the agendas of the technical committees, the Programne and Finance Committees and the Council, and bearing in mind what I have already said earlier about documentation, we agree with the Director-General's comment that papers should be geared to the practical needs of participants in the meetings.
We fully endorse the recommendations made by the Committees in paragraphs 3.52 and 3.53 to strengthen and enhance the effectiveness of FAO's field operations, in particular those regarding the provision of additional Headquarters staff and the strengthening of the country offices. We also endorse the Committees' final recommendation, concerning FAO's lead agency status in its field of competence, as well as their recommendations in Chapter 4 covering FAO in the International System. In regard to the latter, we welcome the Director-General's positive and constructive proposals, first for the creation of an inter-secretariat mechanism among the Rome Food Agencies and then for specific measures to be taken with some of the other Agencies and Programmes in response to the recommendations.
My Government remains firmly committed to the strengthening of the Organization. We have always seen the Review process as a means to ensure that all possible means are found to enable FAO to face the challenges of the future. The Review has shown that these challenges are growing and multiplying, and has identified areas where strengthening should begin immediately. The Director-General draws our attention to the additional resources required for this, and suggests a logical and practical breakdown of these resources into categories.
In our view, additional funds should be provided to ensure implementation of the recommendations in Category I beginning in 1990-91, as they cannot be accomodated within the approved Programme of Work and Budget. Possibly, implementation of the recommendations placed in Category II could be deferred if resources are not available immediately. The recommendations in Category III are activities which logically should be covered by extra-budgetary funding, and therefore donor support should be sought to ensure their implementation.
Finally, I would like to reiterate our desire to see consensus emerge from this process. It has been long and sometimes difficult, but we have noted with great satisfaction how, at every stage, those involved - groups of experts, Committees, Council - have demonstrated the will to understand each other's viewpoint and make real efforts in moving forward constructively and harmoniously. We believe that this is yet another demonstration of the fundamental strength of the Organization, and of its value to the Member Nations which collectively make it up. We are confident that as the Review comes to a conclusion, all these Member Nations can, and will, unite to face the decade of the Nineties, giving in the process to the Organization adequate and longsighted resources to better fulfil its mandate.
Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): A l'instar de ceux qui viennent de nous précéder, permettez-nous d'abord de remercier M. le Professeur Mazoyer, Président du Comité du Programme, et M. Edouard Saouma, Directeur général de la FAD, pour leurs exposés introductifs clairs et complémentaires. Nous vous remercions vous aussi, Monsieur le Président, pour vos précieuses indications sur la manière d'aborder le sujet à nous soumis.
Nous appuyons la déclaration que vient de faire notre collègue Salim en sa qualité de Représentant du Pakistan et de Président du Groupe des 77.
Ainsi que chacun s'en souvient sans doute, notre délégation est de celles qui n'ont pas applaudi lorsque fut formulée en 1985, lors de la 23ème session de la Conférence de la FAO, l'idée de procéder à une réforme d'envergure de la FAO par des experts indépendants.
A l'époque, notre opposition à cette idée reposait sur notre conviction selon laquelle la FAO était une organisation dynamique et bien gérée, certes susceptible de beaucoup d'améliorations, mais nous ne pensions pas que ces améliorations nécessitaient une réforme de l'Organisation sous toutes ses coutures. Tout au plus nous pensions qu'un examen de certains aspects des activités de la FAO pouvait être entrepris de l'intérieur par le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier, avec la collaboration des services de l'Organisation elle-même.
Aussi, c'est lorsque ces conditions ont été enfin pratiquement réunies, non sans peine, au cours de la 24ème session que nous avons enfin accepté d'adopter le 27 novembre 1987 la Résolution 6/87 dès lors qu'il était entendu que l'examen aurait pour but de renforcer la FAO afin qu'elle puisse continuer à jouer un rôle de chef de file dans l'Agriculture mondiale au cours des années à venir.
Aux termes du paragraphe 4 de la Résolution 6/87 sus-citée, mission a été donnée au Comité du Programme et au Comité financier de mener conjointement l'examen de certains aspects desdites opérations de la FAO, assistés par un groupe d'experts choisis à titre personnel pour leurs compétences, le tout en collaboration avec les services de l'Organisation. Quant au Directeur général de la FAO, il lui a été prescrit la tâche de présenter aux organes directeurs de l'Organisation les rapports intérimaires sur l'évolution du dossier et à la présente Conférence le rapport final des deux Comités, assorti de ses vues et observations.
Nous sommes heureux de constater aujourd'hui que sur toute la ligne la mission prescrite au Comité du Programme et au Comité financier a été scrupuleusement remplie et dans les délais impartis. En ce qui concerne le Directeur général, non seulement il a fait ce qui lui a été demandé, mieux il a permis l'élargissement du champ de l'examen à deux autres aspects, à savoir les opérations de terrain et les questions administratives et de gestion de l'Organisation, ce qui nous donne une vue plus complète de la situation réelle de la FAO.
Même si la somme de deux millions de dollars qu'a coûté cet examen n'est pas négligeable, nous n'y avons rien à redire dès lors qu'il s'agit d'un juste prix qu'il a fallu payer pour sortir enfin un matériel qui permet de prendre les meilleurs mesures pour atteindre le but visé au départ, à savoir le renforcement de l'Organisation pour des victoires encore plus grandes à l'avenir.
Pour la rigueur et le respect des délais dont ils ont fait preuve dans la conduite de cet examen, ainsi que pour la haute qualité du travail accompli, nous tenons à remercier et à féliciter le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier et leurs groupes d'experts ainsi que le Secrétariat de la FAO, dont l'ouverture, la disponibilité et l'assistance ont été déterminantes pour le travail des deux Comités et de leurs groupes d'experts.
Ainsi que cela a déjà été dit lors de sa 96ème session aux travaux desquels nous avons eu l'honneur de participer, le Conseil de notre Organisation a longuement débattu de cet examen dont nous retrouvons la teneur dans deux volumes portant respectivement les cotes C 89/21 et C 89/21/Sup.l.
Dans le premier volume de cet examen, le C 89/21, la première partie nous donne les vues et observations du Directeur général de la FAO sur les conclusions et recommandations de l'examen, tandis que dans les Chapitres 2 à 5, les deux Comités nous servent leurs avis et recommdations successivement sur les objectifs, stratégies, rôles et priorités de l'Organisation; les opérations de terrain; la place de la FAO dans le Système international et les ressources nécessaires à la mise en oeuvre des résultats de l'examen,
A travers ce premier volume, nous avons noté au total 32 recommandations principales formulées par les deux Comités et quatre nouvelles propositions du Directeur général de la FAO. Quant au deuxième volume, le C 89/21/Sup.l, il constitue la documentation de base, dont l'essentiel est le rapport du travail des experts sur lequel nous ne nous appesantirons pas.
Etant déjà intervenus longuement sur ce sujet à la 96ème session du Conseil et constatant avec une certaine satisfaction qu'il y a une certaine identité de vues et même consensus, d'une part entre les experts et les Membres des deux Comités, et d'autre part entre le Secrétariat et eux sur bon nombre de recommandations qui ont été formulées, nous ne souhaitons pas jouer les trouble-fête. Nous souscrivons aux recommandations à propos desquelles le consensus a été obtenu. Nous sommes en particulier très satisfaits de la conclusion à laquelle sont parvenus les deux Comités et qui nous a réconfortés dans notre propre conviction selon laquelle la FAO est une Organisation dynamique et bien gérée qui a su s'adapter à son temps et dont la pertinence de son Acte constitutif n'a pas pris de rides. Etant donné que cette session de notre Conférence doit trancher sur cet examen en dernier ressort, nous souhaiterons à l'occasion nous prononcer.
Quelques mots à présent sur les questions suivantes qui n'ont pas fait l'unanimité à divers niveaux. Ces questions sont l'ordre d'importance des trois grand rôles de la FAO; les modalités de financement du PCT; la nouvelle procédure de préparation du Programme de travail et budget et les modalités de fixation des priorités; les modalités de financement de la mise en oeuvre des résultats de l'Examen; le sort de l'Examen; les propositions complémentaires du Directeur général de la FAO. Bien que notre penchant naturel nous pousse à privilégier le rôle d'assistance technique de la FAO en raison de ses effets d'entraînement, nous estimons tout de même que les trois grands rôles de l'Organisation sont complémentaires et doivent continuer à recevoir le même degré de priorité pour renforcer le lien qui doit continuer d'exister entre le programme ordinaire et le programme de terrain.
Nous sommes entièrement d'accord avec les vues exprimées dans le paragraphe 3.28 à 3.32 du Rapport des deux Comités préconisant l'augmentation des ressources du PCT au moyen des fonds additionnels sous forme de fonds fiduciaires.
Nous sommes pour la procédure actuelle de fixation des priorités du Programme de travail et budget qui se fonde sur les orientations des organes directeurs de l'Organisation et en particulier sur celles des conférences régionales.
A propos de la nouvelle procédure de préparation du Programme de travail et budget, nous avons déjà eu l'occasion de nous prononcer lors de l'examen du point 13 de l'Ordre du jour de la Conférence au sein de cette deuxième commission. Notre position sur ce point est la suivante:
Bien que n'étant pas encore convaincus de l'utilité de l'étape supplémentaire introduite dans la procédure d'élaboration du Programme de travail et budget, nous ne nous opposerons pas a priori à la poursuite de la mise à l'essai de celui-ci. Toutefois, nous subordonnons notre approbation pour la poursuite de cette nouvelle procédure à deux conditions: l'adoption du Programme de travail et budget par consensus à commencer par celui qui est soumis à cette session de la Conférence; et la preuve que cette nouvelle procédure aura garanti le règlement à temps des contributions des Etats Membres de l'Organisation, et en particulier des contributions des principaux bailleurs qui traînent le pas jusqu'ici.
Ce faisant, et étant donné que la preuve de la réunion de ces deux conditions ne pourra être fournie que dans deux ans, nous souscrivons à la proposition d'appliquer cette nouuelle procédure pour un autre exercice biennal.
Outre la quatrième recommandation sur laquelle nous venons de nous prononcer, nous appuyons les trois autres propositions du Directeur général qui complètent utilement les recommandations des deux Comités.
A propos du sort à donner aux résultats du présent Examen, nous aimerions expressément que l'on s'entende bien. En effet, vu à présent ce qu'un examen de la dimension de celui que nous venons d'avoir coûte à l'Organisation, nous nous refusons de discuter de toute nouvelle idée de réforme.
Nous demandons qu'il soit mis fin ici au présent Examen et que le temps soit donné pour la mise en oeuvre de ces recommandations. Nous estimons que tout examen sur quelque nouveau sujet que ce soit ne devrait avoir lieu qu'après évaluation de l'indice bénéfique de celui que nous venons d'avoir.
Nous ne pensons pas qu'il soit raisonnable de chercher à financer la mise en oeuvre des résultats du présent Examen qui exige des ressources supplémentaires par la méthode d'absorption interne des dépenses et par des réductions de programmes.
L'initiative de cet Examen n'est pas une vue de l'esprit. Cette initiative a ses promoteurs. Par souci d'équité, mais aussi pour que soit respecté l'esprit de suite dans les idées et dans les manières de faire, nous exhortons tous ceux qui peuvent le faire à s'efforcer d'apporter volontairement les ressources que requiert la mise en oeuvre des résultats dudit examen.
Pour notre part, en raison des pressions dont nous faisons l'objet pour la mise en oeuvre du programme d'ajustement structurel qui nous est soumis, il ne nous sera pas possible de participer, au cours du prochain biennium, au financement même symbolique de cet effort financier demandé par la mise en oeuvre des résultats de l'examen.
Nous rejetons l'idée de changer l'ordre d'examen de l'Ordre du jour que nous avons déjà adopté. Nous rejetons en particulier la tendance consistant à lier le vote du Programme de travail et budget 1990-91 à la décision préalable relative à l'examen. Nous sommes en faveur du suivi de la mise en oeuvre des résultats de cet examen suivant la procédure habituelle, par le Secrétariat, sans que l'on ait recours à tout autre mécanisme extérieur.
Y.K. ATTA-KONADÜ (Ghana): I would like to join my colleagues to thank Professor Mazoyer and the Director-General for their comments. Ghana fully agrees with the views expressed by Pakistan and Libya and we also share the position taken by the Nordic countries as regards the support Which all member countries should give to FAO to strengthen it. We note in particular the assurance from the Nordic countries of their willingness to increase the flow of resources to FAO to strengthen it.
Ghana's concise statement at the Plenary has expressed her views on the controversial subject of the Review of Certain Aspects of FAO's Goals and Operations. We believe that the experts on the Committees charged with the review task and representing all regions and diverse opinion within FAO have accomplished the herculean task of reaching a consensus on what was needed to improve the performance of the FAO. In our view the conclusions reached are sound and progressive and any call for further review should be put at the back-burner. Rather we urge that the recommendations be implemented expeditiously.
One might ask whether the so-called review was a cornucopia or a Pandora's Box. Indeed I believe that a solid case has been made for FAO to receive more funding to implement the recommendations. FAO's mandate, to which we all subscribe, enjoins it to deal with the interrelated issues of poverty, death, resource flows, trade, rural development, environmental degradation and population growth, Unfortunately, these compelling demands on FAO and their extension are being made at the time the financial resources of the Organization are flagging.
Indeed the Ghana delegation firmly believes that the old and new demand provide compelling reasons for increasing rather than cutting back on the resource flows for the Organization.
The table at the end of document SJS/4/2 gives a picture of the additional financial burden to be imposed by the expert recommendations.
Ghana believes that the recommendations do not go far enough to warrant any internal adjustment, cross-fertilization of project funding and privatising that will enable the new projects to be accomodated within the present budget. For instance, the recommendations do not include any idea of additional resources for strengthening a Joint Division with UNIDO, though some economies of scale might result from this unified action because of the removal of overlapping responsibilities, the FAO will be called upon to shoulder greater burdens in the area of project formulation and preparation.
For a long time FAO has been promoting environmentally conscious projects. The time has come, as intimated by my delegation at the Plenary, to coalesce these disparate concerns into an integrated one that will address the key agronomic issues. The amount of $ 900 000 recommended by the experts for the promotion of sustainable agriculture is a peanut. To be effective it would require at least ten times that amount, to implement the programme in Sub-Sahara Africa.
The introduction of long-term and medium-term plans calls for a multidisciplinary action. The FAO will need a far enlarged group of experts in the various disciplines to be able to sharpen planning methodologies, not only within the FAO itself but also to render assistance to member countries such as Ghana to undertake medium-term planning. Thus, the amount recommended by the experts is just too tiny.
Also just to limit myself to a few instances, the amount recommended to cater for the additional responsibilities of the Investment Centre is insufficient. Scale or resource proportionality factor enjoins the FAO to provide more resources to train nationals in project identification, formulation and preparation.
I can go on and on. The point is that with the burgeoning agriculture related problems to be handled by the FAO in the 1990s and beyond, our delegation shares the views of other progressive delegates that FAO should rather receive greater infusion of financial resources from member countries, and all members who are in arrears in payment of their dues should see to it that their dues are paid promptly.
Among other things, FAO should be supported with additional funding to be able to enhance human resource capabilities in agricultural planning and management in addition to providing policy experts at the service of old and upcoming members in response to specific requests.
The Ghana delegation believes that FAO should continue to maintain the span of concern that extends beyond agriculture. For instance, income and employment-oriented agricultural development needs to be supplemented by assistance in processing, handicraft, manufacturing and service-sectors to create employment for the poor, including women and rural youth. Further to this, FAO is to extend attention to rural development more broadly than called for under the IDS and to a variety of agricultural and non-agricultural linkages.
There are a lot more activities to be undertaken by FAO that might attract extra-budgetary funding such as those articulated by the Director-General in his comments.
To conclude, Ghana wholeheartedly supports the realistic views and comments of the Director-General because of the pertinent issues affecting the smooth and effective running of the Organization. We deplore any attempt at witch hunting and urge distinguished delegates to do the same.
Ghana fully supports the idea of FAO making every effort to assist some member countries, especially the developing ones, to improve the quality of data assembling and endorses the establishment of World Agricultural Information Centre comprising a statistical data base and a reference data base whereby users can have direct access to a larger quantity of coherent information.
Ghana is also of the view that FAO's involvement in policy-oriented studies will lead to more productive results if: (1) the study is initiated at the request of the recipient government; (2) coordination is maintained with the World Bank, IFAD, IMF and ADB; (3) the participation of FAO is assured in all fora where the findings and recommendations of the study are discussed; (4) there is internal monitoring by recipient countries and FAO of the follow-up actions taken; and (5), lastly, every effort is nade to build up the institutional capacity of member countries in policy analysis, and that the FAO's involvement begins at the earliest possible stage of the process.
Finally, Ghana much appreciates the flexible and quick manner in which TCP funds are made available, and therefore supports the recommendation that TCP be maintained in its present form as a vital element of FAO's field operations, and funds allocated to TCP which are inadequate to meet overall requests be gradually increased.
Anwar Mohamed KHALED (Yemen, People's Democratic Republic of) (original language Arabic): I wish first of all to say that I am speaking on behalf of North Yemen in addition to representing my own country.
I would like to express my gratitude to Mr Mazoyer, the Chairman of the Programme Committee, for his clear and expert presentation of this item. I would like to thank the Director-General for his important and constructive contribution concerning the outlook and orientation which he wished to provide regarding the discussion of this very important item on the Agenda.
I would also like to express my gratitude to all members of the Secretariat, as well as the expert groups, for their contribution to the preparation of this Review.
It is clear that the sovereignty of each member country of this Organization must be respected. Every member country must have an opportunity and the freedom to express the views and opinions of that country. However, we also have to ensure respect for the sovereignty of all member countries, as seen in the views and opinions expressed by those countries, which led to the adoption of Resolution 6/87, the provisions of which were then implemented by the relevant bodies.
I would like to express support for the recommendations of the two Committees as adopted by consensus. On behalf of the two Yemens, I would like to thank the experts for their support and for the conclusions, as expressed by my colleague from Pakistan, in respect of all the recommendations contained in these important documents. He, I believe, conveyed the views of the Group of 77, and that includes the representations of the two Yemems which I represent here.
I will not go into all the details regarding the conclusions and recommendations of the Review. Nonetheless, I would like to stress the fact that the Review has, in fact, resulted in a bill of good health being drawn up regarding the activities of the Organization. We have a set of recommendations and conclusions which will enable us to strengthen the Organization and expand the scope of its activities, in particular those which serve the needs of the member countries which are developing countries.
As to the application of the recommendations and the methods for their implementation, here again we endorse the opinions which have been set forth by the Director-General regarding the priorities. The delegations of both Yemens feel that it is necessary to secure the necessary resources for the implementation of the recommendations and conclusions, but as we are unlikely to have all the requisite resources we believe that the available resources should be focused on the priorities as indicated in the documents.
In this era of détente, I would like to appeal to all Member States to work in that spirit of détente and understanding. It would be difficult to understand if the powerful countries were to inpede the inflow of necessary resources for the implementation of the recommendations and conclusions. As I said, I will not go into detail, and we hope that others will not divert into areas which do not fall fully within the scope of the resolution. These have been two difficult years for all which have required great participation by all involved in this exercise.
I thank you for your attention.
Gerard Phirinyane KHOJANE (Lesotho): The Lesotho Delegation fully shares the major consensus conclusions of the Programme and Finance Committees, as advised by experts, regarding the review of certain aspects of FAO's goals and operations. We agree that FAO Member Nations as a whole have seldom found occasion to question the validity and relevance of FAO's objectives, role, priorities and strategies. We hope that now that the results of the review exercise have testified that as a technical-cum-development agency FAO remains a dynamic institution, and that it has been successful in maintaining a clear perspective of its role and responsibilities in the development process covering food and agriculture, the fears of a few doubtful Member States will be put to rest. It is gratifying that even in the recent situation of restrictions on its scope and freedom of action, FAO has continued to be well managed. We congratulate the management staff of FAO for the compliment awarded in respect of the quality of their work and their dedication.
On the future evolution of food and agriculture, we endorse the observation that the certificate of good health should not preclude opportunities for making FAO more efficient and effective. In this regard we agree that it makes a lot of sense that due to limitations of agriculture to absorb any additional labour force, FAO should urgently step up a search for alternative employment opportunities in rural areas. The search can be made within the context of the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. In our view, FAO is sufficiently equipped to identify areas of its competence and distinct comparative advantage over other multilateral organizations within the broad World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development's programme of action. It can do so without additional costs of engaging independent consultants.
In other developments, FAO has already taken a commendable step as a natural process to include in its priorities for future Programmes of Work and Budget the promotion of sustainable agriculture and the preservation of the environment. Our delegation's endorsement of this move was highlighted in our intervention during the discussions of the Programme of Work and Budget for the 1990-91 biennium. This justifies the analysis that the historical record of FAO, as well as its innovations have led to a conclusion, to which our delegation has always subscribed, that the original Mandate of the Organization is comprehensive and relevant, and retains enough flexibility to enable a swift response to new challenges.
Nevertheless, we welcome a word of caution that FAO's spectrum of responsibilities and activities has grown so large as to endanger the quality of its work over the longer term. Hence, the recommendations for improvement should be taken seriously. In particular, we wish to highlight the need for
FAO to adopt a set of guidelines for accepting the responsibility for the planning and/or execution of field projects funded by Extra-Budgetary Resources. We fully share the concern that the guidelines should meet the requirement that the accepted projects on behalf of member countries and donors are in conformity with the agreed areas of priority, and that a reasonable and manageable ratio of Extra-Budgetary to Regular Programmes is maintained, We do so, still recognizing that a straightforward ranking of priorities would be very difficult, given their very different nature and the wide range of issues and interests that are involved.
We are also in favour of strengthening EAO's capacity to support regional and multicountry actions but, in our view, regional offices can be organized in such a way that they fulfil their regional and multicountry responsibilities more efficiently and effectively. For example, we feel that the regional office for Africa can be strengthened so as effectively to serve regional organizations such as the Preferential Trade Area for Eastern and Southern Africa, the Southern African Development Coordination Conference, the Economic Community of Western African States, and so on, without sacrificing country respresentative offices in the subregions. In short, we support the decentralization policy without reservation provided that appropriate steps are taken within the limits imposed by FAO rules. Improvement of the decentralization policy should start with the regional offices down to the country representative offices as required. The comparison between regional and country representative offices is misleading and should not be entertained.
Mr Chairman, it is encouraging that the Committees, as advised by experts, have reached the same conclusion as that held by the majority of the developing countries that the prevailing principle of the tripartite arrangement of governments, experts and the Secretariat of FAO does not seem to call for review. What is required is better preparatory work by delegations and genuine and serious consultations among equal partners. The tendency to politicize issues and to use financial power to impose one's will cannot lead to any tangible results. What is often seen as the excessive tendency for governments to rely on the Secretariat's preparatory work, and to offer somewhat passive reactions to the analysis, information, recommendations and suggestions is when the developing countries support the Secretariat against the big financial contributors who cannot resist the temptation to use their financial muscle to impose their will.
Although there is an absolutely valid point for the proposal that serious attention should be given to electing to committees outstanding candidates with knowledge and experience in the central areas of concern to FAO, this cannot be achieved as long as prominence is given to politically motivated considerations and self-interest at the expense of the majority feeling. Similarly, no stability will be achieved until all FAO Member Nations are patient enough to allow the Director-General, elected democratically by popular vote, to exercise his judgement in conducting the affairs of the Organization while he remains accountable to the Governing Bodies. We should respect the separation between the functions of policy guidance and the management of FAO for its success and effectiveness.
Mr Chairman, the most striking observation which the Committeess, assisted by Experts, have made and which every delegation should pay attention to is that for FAO to be able to meet the challenges of the future and to provide effective services to its Member Nations nothing will be more important than a reliable and sufficient flow of resources. This remark was prompted by the depressing state of severe cash flow problems under which FAO has passed since 1987 as a result of non-payment of contributions by some Member Nations, including the largest contributor. Although the Director-General tried to cope with the situation by switching resources from low to high priority tasks, the provision of additional resources remained the only viable answer to the problem.
Unfortunately, the latest reports on the situation are not encouraging, despite repeated pleas from the Director-General and the Governing Bodies of FAO. We hope the latest call, strengthened by unanimous support of Experts and Programme and Finance Committees for all Member Nations to resolve FAO's financial stringency by paying their respective shares of the approved budget on time and by finding a solution for the payment of arrears, will at last receive a positive response. Otherwise the whole Review exercise to strengthen FAO's capacity to face the challenges of the future with increasing efficiency and effectiveness will be meaningless.
While we feel very relieved and comfortable to learn that the Programme and Finance Committees, as advised by experts, have confirmed the importance of the Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) to the developing countries and the need to strengthen it in the present form, we continue to be concerned about the level of resources allocated to this Programme. We have consistently shared the view that resources allocated to TCP are inadequate and more funds are necessary to meet the requests of governments. We therefore endorse the recommendation that, in addition to the allocation from the Regular Programme funds, the possibility of attracting voluntary contributions for TCP should also be given to utilize the Bilateral Trust funds for Technical Cooperation Programmes.
It is regretted that there has been insufficient use of FAO's capacities and competence by some United Nations agencies in the execution of their projects. We therefore welcome the recommendation of the Programme and Finance Committees, as advised by experts, urging other organs of the United Nations system to utilize FAO in the execution of projects in agriculture and rural development. We also echo the remarks that FAO should be fully recognized as the lead agency for sectoral and subsectoral studies in its field of competence and be closely associated with the process of the preparation and holding of multilateral coordination meetings such as UNDP round tables and World Bank consultative groups, as well as with UNDP's sponsored National Technical Cooperation Assessment Programmes. Strengthening of mutual understanding and rapport among the United Nations agencies is also essential, particularly among those based in Rome. In this context we are looking forward to the establishment of a suitable mechanism to facilitate the so-desired coordination.
On Management Review, we wish to join the Committees in congratulating the Director-General of FAO for his initiative to institute a management review process which was not the subject of Conference Resolution 6/87. This initiative has demonstrated that the Director-General genuinely aspires to an efficient and effective FAO in the service of its Member Nations. In pursuing this objective he is ready to play open cards and facilitate a reasonable degree of transparency while still observing the required confidentiality in the management of an organization such as FAO. It must be a comfortable feeling to know that there is a general harmony between the consultants' report and the comments of the Director-General, except for the few cases in which there are some differences of form, timing and emphasis but not of the substance.
Starting with the review of printing systems within the FAO, we recognize that the Director-General agrees with the :recommendation that printing in-house, using traditional methods, should be expanded to form a reproduction unit. While the consultants would wish the recommendation to be implemented immediately, we tend to favour the Director-General's cautious approach that it is essential before reaching final conclusions on such a complex matter to make a careful feasibility study. Although our view is that the cost of consultants should be kept to the minimum level possible, we would agree that in this case a feasibility study be carried out with the assistance of consultants.
With reference to the review of treasury operations, the intention of the consultants' focus is to bring FAO up to the level of banks and large multinational corporations in the management of currency risk. We agree with the consultants that we should aspire to excellence as long as costs are not prohibitive. Of the three options suggested for managing currency exposures, we agree that the already-tested approach of "forward purchase" is the most viable and attainable. But the cautious attitude of the Director-General to give it further study in the light of past experience, as well as of possible future trends, is also understandable. Another important detemiining factor will be the outcome of the ongoing consultations of the Director-General with the Investment Advisory Committee, comprising the representatives of the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlement, the World Bank and Banca d'Italia.
On the review of accounting policies and procedures, we understand the concern of the consultants about the different forecasts of the Financial Services Division (AFF) and the Office of Programme Budget and Evaluation (PBE) as management tools. Anybody not familiar with the system would have difficulties in reconciling different forecasts based on different approaches and covering different periods for different objectives. But since the management is satisfied with the system and since the consultants have not revealed any management errors in controls based on confused information, the proposed working group intended to be a meeting point to reconcile the forecasts of the Financial Services Division (AFF) and the office of the Programme Budget and Evaluation (PBE) may not serve a useful purpose. Similarly, any suggestions concerning the delegation of financial authority could wait until the impact of the newly-introduced financial systems (FINSYS) can be assessed. We have been told that live operations on both Phase I and Phase II of the introduced financial systems (FINSYS) should provide FAO with a greatly improved ability to process financial data and to exercise efficient and effective control over its financial resources. It should be given some time to prove itself.
Considering examination of personnel policies and practices, we fully support the concept of on-the-job-training and the system of performance appraisal of professional and general service staff to achieve greater efficiency and economy. While we strongly oppose the diverse and extensive external FAO staff training and prefer recruitment of qualified staff when filling new posts, we feel obliged to endorse the desirability of providing technical staff with opportunities to update their knowledge and skills. Subject to availability of funds a six months' sabbatical can be arranged for regular staff with career opportunities, to bring them up to date in their specialized fields from time to time.
We wish to endorse the view that additional resources will be required to inplement the recommendations arising from the Review, particularly in the context of the anticipated increase in demands for FAO's services. While we fully share the view that supplementary appropriation would offer the certainty that all the recommendations could be implemented without serious and highly undesirable disruption of the Organization's programmes and activities, we at the same time, support the view that an alternative of seeking extra-budgetary resources for those activities which do not form part of the Regular Programme but which are likely to interest potential donors should be fully explored. We see no room for any further programme adjustment to obtain the required resources to implement the recommendations. If the major contributors are genuinely interested in the improvement of the running of FAO, they should be equally prepared to make voluntary contributions to meet the cost of such improvements. In this regard, we wish to register our appreciation for the promise of US$ 16 million by the Government of Italy announced during the Ninety-sixth Council.
We finally endorse the recommendation that any further enquiry into FAO operations and mandate as may be deemed necessary after this Review should be left to the regular machinery of analysis and decision-making of FAO.
Ibrahim KABA (Guinée): La délégation guinéenne, avant tout, se réjouit de l'atmosphère de dialogue constructif qui règne au sein de notre inportante Comission. Grâce à ce dialogue sous votre sage conduite une nouvelle ère de débats compréhensifs s'est instaurée entre les membres de notre Commission, et qui démontre le souci commun d'aboutir à un consensus.
Comme cela a été affirmé par le représentant du Pakistan, au départ nous n'étions pas convaincus de la nécessité d'un examen de la FAO, Organisation qui a toujours réalisé, en Guinée avec beaucoup d'efficacité, des activités satisfaisantes. Cependant, le respect de l'esprit de démocratie qui régit notre Organisation a conduit la délégation guinéenne à adopter la Résolution 6/87; aussi, faisons-nous nôtres les recommandations formulées par les mécanismes et organes mandatés par la 24ème Session de la Conférence, pour la mise en oeuvre de cette résolution.
En réalité, le Comité conjoint, partant des conclusions des groupes d'experts, a reconnu l'efficacité de l'Organisation ainsi que sa bonne gestion. L'étude n'a éliminé aucun aspect, aucun but ni aucune opération de la FAO; elle a plutôt recommandé le renforcement de certains aspects, de certains buts et de certaines opérations de la FAO. Aussi, nous adhérons totalement au souci de renforcement de notre Organisation, qui nécessite logiquement de nouveaux moyens. Pour ce faire, tous les Etats Membres devraient honorer leurs obligations statutaires.
Pour sa part, convaincue de la nécessité de nouveaux moyens financiers pour la mise en oeuvre des recommandations, la délégation guinéenne approuve les propositions de budget supplémentaires présentées par le Directeur général. Cependant, nous recommandons une mise en oeuvre étalée de ces recommandations selon un ordre de priorités bien établi.
Dans ce cadre, nous insistons sur le renforcement du rôle d'assistance de la FAO, de diffusion des renseignements, toute activité devant passer par les représentations dont le renforcement est recommandé. La Délégation guinéenne par ailleurs insiste en particulier sur l'inopportunité d'aborder au cours de la présente session de nouvelles idées d'examen de questions non abordées par les comités conjoints. A notre avis, ce processus d'examen devra prendre fin. Le temps et les ressources si précieuses de nos contribuables doivent enfin être consacrés à la réalisation des besoins de nos millions de nécessiteux. Pour terminer, nous faisons nôtre le sage appel lancé par le Délégué du Sénégal pour que le consensus constructif qui est à la base de la Résolution C 87/7 continue à guider nos pas.
LI ZHENHUAN (China) (original language Chinese) : Two years ago in this very same room, Commission II of the 24th Session of the FAO Conference, after lengthy deliberations, adopted Resolution 6/87 on the Review of FAO and the Related Review Procedures. After two years the Report of the Programme and Finance Committees dealing with the Review of FAO and the views and the comments by the Director-General are now placed before us. If two years ago some of us still had certain doubts about FAO's objectives, role, priorities, strategies while facing challenges in world food and agriculture by the end of this century, then two years later many issues have been clarified. We are now approaching a common understanding on FAO's objectives, role, priorities and strategies.
As a member of the Programme Committee, China had the honour to participate in the Review which was rather complicated and it took two years to complete. To assist the Programme and Finance Committees, 30 international experts representing different regions were recruited. The result of the Review is contained in Conference document C 89/21 and C 89/21 Sup.l. It is our view that this is a document of seriousness and transparency which lays an extensive basis for deliberations in Commission II. We sincerely hope that all the participating delegates will exchange viewpoints on a basis of this document and under the spirit of mutual understanding and mutual trust so as to reach consensus and adopt the Report by the whole Commission through consultation.
Now please allow me to make the following comments on the Report of the Review. First of all, FAO's objectives; the Review has found out that the mandate and the related provisions spelt out in the Constitution 44 years ago are still valid and effective today. As it is said in paragraph 2.3 of this document division of FAO's founding fathers is still applauded. We are of the opinion that the Committee's conclusions on this point is the base for our deliberations on various matters.
Secondly, FAO's roles; we believe that FAO is a multi-function body specialized in food and agriculture within the United Nations system, not a mono-functioning body. The Experts Groups and Committees have put FAO's activities evolved in the past 44 years into three major categories which are mainly, information collection and dissemination, and international forum and technical assistance. This is what people usually say are the three major roles. The Chinese delegation is in full agreement with this identification and concept of FAO's roles. The three roles form an inseparable entity. They reflect the whole range of FAO activities wherein lies FAO's strength. As it is stated in paragraph 4.2 of the Report, FAO maintains its sphere, unique advantages. The close involvement of the Regular Programme in the field of programmes and their mutual reinforcement is one of FAO's characteristics. FAO Member States are in different economic and social development stages. It is therefore only natural that they have diverse emphasis and interests in FAO's three roles. We should and must achieve the balance, the needs of developing countries, particularly the needs of the low income food deficit countries should be taken into account. We cannot support the view of strengthening other roles at the expense of the technical assistance. Certainly strengthening of FAO's three roles to implement the recommendation of the Programme and Finance Committees, the Secretariat provides the financial cost of 21 relevant activities in Chapter 5 of the document. These activities are necessary in order to strengthen the FAO's three roles and enable it to be in a better position to carry out its aims later in the Preamble of its Constitution.
The China delegation renders its support to most of the activities, particularly the following ones; participation in the relevant GATT's negotiations and undertaking new cooperation with GATT; sustainable development, environmental protection, biotechnology support to ECDC and TCDC; increasing the authority and work of FAO country representatives; training of national projects directors; improvement of FAO staff competence.
Regarding the cost of implementing the recommendations, the Programme and Finance Committees have proposed the three options which include through special supplementary appropriation programme adjustments and seeking extra budgetary resources. The Chinese delegation is open to the three proposed options. It is our view that the three financial sources complement rather than necessarily exclude one another. They should all be exploited to facilitate the solution of the funding problem. However, in view of FAO's drastic programme cuts due to financial constraints in recent years, the emphasis should be placed on supplementary appropriation and seeking extra budgetary resources. If the Secretariat's assessment of US$ 26.75 million is not financed readily it may be advisable to implement the activities recommended by the two Committees by stages, namely, to implement the recommended activities in two or more biennium. This would help the Conference to adopt the two Committees' Reports by consensus.
The Chinese delegation supports any rational and feasible recommendations that strengthen FAO's activities and improve its efficiency.
Jorge Allerto DE OLIVEIRA (Guinée-Bissau) : Nous voudrions féliciter le Comité du Programme, le Comité financier et les groupes d'experts pour le travail accompli et la clarté du document. Nous voudrions aussi remercier le Directeur général pour son résumé et les éclaircissements sur la façon dont on devrait poursuivre le débat sur ce thème. En ce qui concerne le sujet en discussion qui fait l'objet de la Résolution 6/87, nous sommes d'accord avec le renforcement de la FAO pour qu'elle puisse continuer à jouer un rôle de chef de file dans l'agriculture mondiale dans les années à venir.
En conséquence, nous appuyons toutes les suggestions du document notamment en ce qui concerne le rôle de la FAO en matière politique et aussi le renforcement de certaines activités, comme par exemple la stratégie, le développement équilibré et les techniques appropriées aux conditions régionales; la poursuite des efforts en faveur du rôle de la femme dans le développement rural; l'appui aux jeunes agriculteurs; et surtout le renforcement du Programme de coopération technique qui joue un rôle fondamental dans les opérations de terrain de la FAO dans nos pays, comme catalyseur des actions de développement.
Quant au problème des ressources pour mettre en application les recommandations de l'étude, nous pensons que les pays qui ont demandé la réalisation de cette étude doivent faire un effort de contribution supplémentaire pour faire face à la réalisation des :recommandations. Comme les délégations qui m'ont précédé, en particulier la Délégation du Pakistan et la Délégation du Congo, nou appelons à l'approbation de ces recommandations par un consensus réel.
Sami AL-SUNAA (Jordan) (original language Arabic): I would like to submit the views of my country as to the conclusions and recommendations issued by the Finance and Programme Committees.
Concerning the in-depth Review of Certain Aspects of FAO's Goals and Operations and the Field Programmes, I shall try to be brief and focus on four points at this stage. The results obtained were a positive response to Resolution 6/87 adopted in the 24th Session of FAO's General Conference. The Resolution instructed the Committees to find ways and means to strengthen FAO's capacity to face the future challenges.
We would like to join previous delegations in expressing our thanks to the Programmee and Finance Committees for the constructive support. We would also like to thank the Director-General for his valuable remarks.
It is a pleasure for us to see that the results of this Review have only confirmed the strength of this Organization on which we can base our activities. This strong basis will enable the Organization to fulfil its responsibilities.
My delegation would like to support the content of the Report and would like to emphasize the three main roles of the Organization: the collection and dissemination of information in the field agriculture, food and forestry, FAO as an international forum for agricultural and food policies for both developed and developing countries, and FAO as an international centre for the provision of technical assistance to developing countries.
In this context we feel that high priority within the present circumstances should be given to strengthening and developing FAO's capacities in providing technical assistance to developing countries, especially in an important field - that is, training and institution-building.
If FAO succeeds in this field we will be able to rearrange priorities. However, for the time being a specific focus should be given to the needs of developing countries - that is, access to appropriate technologies as a means to alleviate hunger and poverty.
In order to enable FAO to work in a clear manner a medium-term plan should be established as a general framework determining priorities and estimated costs, provided that an initial commitment be made as to making available the necessary financial resources in order to enable FAO to carry out these tasks as part of the general programme of FAO.
My country supports decentralization in FAO by strengthening regional representations. However, we feel that the role of regional officers should be particularly expanded and strengthened to enable then to carry out their tasks in an appropriate manner. We feel that the Director-General should take the appropriate measures to this effect.
Finally, Sir, the nain issue which should be treated here and should be solved concerns the provision of additional resources to implement the recommendations and the determination of a specific timetable.
Wë feel, as the delegate of Norway said, that the main aim is to strengthen FAO's effectiveness within a specific budget. No person, including the Director-General, with all due respect, can conciliate the task of strengthening FAO and respecting a limited budget. We feel that the Director-General's observations on priorities are objective and can form a basis on which our Commission can agree upon to provide them with the necessary financial resources.
LE PRESIDENT: Avec cette intervention prend fin la séance de ce matin. Si je regarde la liste des orateurs pour cet après-midi, je constate qu'il n'y a pas beaucoup de délégués qui souhaitent intervenir. Je pense donc que nous pourrons achever l'examen de ce point de l'Ordre du jour cet après-midi.
Je signale que le premier orateur de cet après-midi sera le représentant du Kenya. J'espère qu'il sera là à 14 h 45 lorsque nous reprendrons le débat.
The meeting rose at 13.00 hours
La séance est levée à 13 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 13.00 horas
