LE PRESIDENT: Comme je l'ai dit avant que nous ne nous quittions, c'est l'Ethiopie qui va lancer les hostilités cet après-midi. Je donne la parole au représentant de l'Ethiopie.
Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): The delegation of the People's Democratic Republic of Ethiopia had the honour of offering its services in the Joint Committees and had examined the document which is presented for consideration of the Conference. As the introduction made by Mr Mazoyer and the Director-General yesterday reflected the views and concerns expressed during the four sessions of the Joint Committees, the Ethiopian delegation has no intention of intervening on this item. After the deliberation of the discussions that we had yesterday and today, however, our delegation felt that it should reaffirm its position and clear its views even though these were expressed during discussions of the various sessions. I will, therefore, make some observations in relation to this Review being considered without going into greater detail.
The guiding principles upon which this Review was based are expressed in Resolution 6/87 and reports of the discussion during the adoption of the resolution. We, therefore, have no intention of repeating this resolution and its contents.
As was indicated in the documents before us, the teams of experts and the Joint Committees have clearly voiced that the FAO has demonstrated innovations and has been responsive to changing global needs. However, the scope for strengthening the Organization was not refuted and, therefore, the 32 recommendations presented in the document that we have before us have emerged.
In the report that follows, I will try to summarize the views of the Ethiopian delegation on some of these recommendations. To begin with, firstly, the roles; we strongly feel that the three roles spelled out in the Constitution of the Organization are complementary to each other and inseparable, whose priority setting is extremely difficult. All the three roles being of a reinforcing nature to each other, the absence of any one could negatively affect the implementaion of the remaining two. It is, therefore, of utmost imrportance to consider all the three roles on equal terms in relation to each other and the need for emphasizing their complemtarity. We, therefore, feel that resource allocations to all these areas should be seen in the light of the above relationships rather than priority of one over the other.
Secondly, with regard to medium-term objectives, the Committee's consideration of the detailed analysis of FAO's mandate and its medium-term objectives under the seven main headings and the multitude of lesser objectives and ongoing sub-programmes under these seven objectives are in line with practically acceptable :recommendations, to which we subscribe our support.
FAO's role as a global information centre on agriculture, FAO's policy role, its role in research and transfer of technology, its role in technical assistance, its role in the New International Economic Order, to mention just a few, are all areas for strengthening and we would like to voice our agreement with the objective of strengthening them.
As fulfilment of resources required for the areas of agriculture and food is still at a very low and rudimentary stage, the need for mobilizing more resources rather than worrying about overlapping and shared responsibility is a more appealing and logical process because of our collective responsibility, to which we attach importance. Thus, the area of agriculture, agricultural development and production of adequate food for the global growing population is important.
The reintroduction of medium-term plans covering the three biennia and the confirnation of the programme budget process for another biennium were considered in the light of their contribution toward accommodating the wishes of Member Nations even though their additional past implications could be questioned at this stage. We have accepted this recommendation too.
Thirdly, the recommendations : the Joint Committees have explored the 32 recommendations which are incorporated in the document and which were also considered by the Team of Experts for strengthening the Organization. Bearing in mind the situation toward financing these recommendations, only 20 are considered to be implemented.
Four alternatives for sources of financing proposed by the Committees under paragraph 5.3 were considered acceptable even though we do have serious concern on the second alternative which required the Director-General to make programme adjustments. As we were dealing with natters within the Organization, whose programme implementations have been constrained to the extent of programme cuts amounting to US$ 45 million in the last four years, we have a fear that programmejustments over and above those might endanger some of the remaining services and there will be a danger of further reductions.
Among the 20 recommendations having a cost implication of US$ 26.7 million only US$ 8.4 million is proposed for extra-budgetary funding whereas the remaining US$ 18.3 million are to be on a Regular Programme funding basis. In the past the discussion has always been finding acceptable projects and funding has always been considered as no problem. Now it is being proposed to us that it will have to be funded on a Regular Programme resource. We, therefore, would like to express our preference in seeing that all recommendations be considered for additional funding of an extra-budgetary nature and gradually incorporated into the Regular Programme in some future biennia. In considering this funding the priority indicated by the Director-General could pose no problem for our delegation, though we could have preferred to see all of them implemented at the same time.
Recommendations that are contained in this document and emerge as a result of the Review are new lines that are to be considered for implementation based on a number of criteria. Consideration of these recommendations for implementation will take time. The budgeting and planning of the Regular Programme is a continuous process whose interruption could have far-reaching implications. We, therefore, feel that relating the approval of the Programme of Work and Budget to the Review is unacceptable to our delegation.
Finally, but not least, we would like to reaffirm our support for the reccommendations contained in document C 89/21 with an appeal that those recommendations be considered as grounds for consensus and we express our support for the spot rate of exchange with a backup support of the Special Reserve Account.
Gantcho GANTCHEV (Bulgaria): I would like, as with other delegates, to congratulate the Chairman and all members of the Programme and Finance Committees on the results they have achieved in reviewing FAO Goals and Operations in accordance with Resolution 6/87.
Our delegation welcomes the conclusions and recommendations included in the report of the Joint Session. We also support the proposals made by the Director-General as presented in his views and comments in this regard.
The intention of my intervention is not only to mention explicitly some of the proposals and reccommendations which our delegation strongly supports but rather to present some comments which we consider could be important at this stage of the discussion.
Firstly, I would like once again to underline that the main results of the Review exercise are positive and that their implementation, in our view, will definitely contribute to the improvement in efficiency and effectiveness of FAO's activities. In this connection we strongly support the view that FAO should continue to have a leading role in the development of agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
As far as our delegation is concerned, we are particularly interested in the strengthening of cooperation in the environmental aspects of agricultural development, provision of information and technical assistance, science and technology, TCP activities, not enumerating all of them.
We also support the proposals for the establishment of more closer cooperation and interaction between FAO and the other international organizations in the United Nations system and share the views already expressed during the discussion that this could contribute to the achievement of more complex and result-oriented solutions of the problems of development facing developing countries. Of special importance we consider the development of a close relationship with GATT and other organizations stationed in Rome that deal with food problems.
Our delegation also has some hesitation about the necessity to set up a New Inspection Unit and we share the comments made by the Director-General that it may be premature to take such a decision. I would like to state that we prefer to consider the possibilities of strengthening the Evaluation Service as it is proposed by the Director-General rather than to establish a separate unit dealing with field inspection.
We listened with great interest to the statement made yesterday by the distinguished Ambassador of France. I would not say that we share all his views but it seems to us there is room for some recalculation or re-estimation, if you like, of the financial implications of some of the conclusions and recommendations proposed. I am far from asserting that it will be possible to implement all of them without allocation of financial resources, but nevertheless it may be helpful to look once again at this matter and, with the efficient aid of the Secretariat, to try to find more reasonable solutions. Perhaps this could help to bring us to a consensus solution which we suppose all delegations are interested in.
One more observation which in our view may contribute to the solution of the most critical question: I have in mind the proposal made yesterday and supported by some delegations today, the substance of which was to consider the possibilities for some prioritization in the implementation of the recommendations and proposals contained in the Report of the Joint Session and the views and comments presented by the Director-General. We support the proposal to explore once again more precisely this idea and all possibilities in this regard.
Finally I would like to bring to the attention of the delegates our understanding about the future use of some of the recommendations and conclusions which we are discussing now. We will propose, after the adoption hopefully by consensus, these conclusions and recommendations be presented to the principal subsidiary bodies of this Organization with clear instructions to take fully into account the relevant recommendations and conclusions in their work and especially the process of formulation and implementation of their own activities.
In conclusion let me once again recommend the adoption of the proposals and the recommendations made by the SJS and the Director-General by consensus.
Sra. Margarita LIZARRAGA SAUCEDO (México): Mi gobierno da la mayor importancia al multilateralismo por ser la única instancia para tratar, sobre una base de igualdad con miras a un mutuo beneficio, la solución de problemas que superan el ámbito nacional.
Bajo ese principio, mi delegación se ha empeñado siempre con la mayor voluntad de diálogo en la trascendental tarea de reforzar a la FAO que es la Organización encargada, dentro de nuestro sistema de Naciones Unidas, de dar asistencia en el sector del desarrollo agrícola y alimentario con el objeto de que esté a la altura de las demandas crecientes de sus Estados Miembros.
Como habíamos siempre sostenido, la gran mayoría de los países hemos siempre considerado a la FAO como una Organización sana y eficaz que ha ido adaptándose a las necesidades de los países y al cambio del entorno en que actúa su ámbito de acción. Esa tendencia, fue coyunturalmente afectada por presiones de vario tipo pero fundamentalmente económicas, que actuaron directa o indirectamente para introducir un proceso de revisión extraordinario que el Grupo de los 77 aceptó como una forma de compromiso y diálogo para fortalecer a nuestra Organización y a fin de que pudiera recuperar su plena capacidad técnica y financiera. Durante la Conferencia pasada y en base a un proceso previo donde todos tuvimos la oportunidad de expresar nuestras posiciones e intereses, documentándolos con suficiente antelación, se convino y aprobó la Resolución 6/87 que determinó el marco y el mecanismo para que los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, apoyados por un grupo de expertos con una representación regional y universal, realizara el examen convenido. Ese proceso llega hoy a su fin con resultados muy constructivos y con un muy amplio consenso, salvo en pequeñas divergencias muy identificadas. El estudio ha respondido a los intereses de todos los Estados Miembros y sus conclusiones y sus recomendaciones merecen todo nuestro apoyo porque responden al interés de reforzar nuestra Organización en beneficio de todos nuestros países.
Durante todo este tiempo hemos estado abiertos a la discusión y al diálogo y creemos que podemos continuarlo y obtener así un consenso. Si a esto se añade la voluntad de que los buenos resultados logrados por el examen convenido se cristalicen, tenemos una amplia franja de elementos que nos unen en cuanto a objetivos, prioridades comunes, uso eficiente de los recursos y muchos otros más.
Evidentemente, en términos prácticos, la ejecución de las recomendaciones tiene un costo adicional y los países en desarrollo, si bien las apoyamos, no estamos en posibilidad de financiarlas. Por eso hacemos un llamamiento muy atento a los países que están en posibilidad de hacerlo, de hacer las contribuciones adicionales para instrumentarlos. Esto permitiría que los resultados del examen fructificasen lo más pronto posible pues aquí se trata de una aplicación en fases y en la medida que existen recursos, éstos pueden acelerarse.
Mi declaración, señor Presidente, se detendrá en este punto porque coincidimos en los aspectos ya puntualizados con la declaración que el honorable delegado de Pakistán, Presidente del Grupo de los 77, ha hecho al inicio del debate.
En estos mementos, señor Presidente, yo quiero anunciar que un grupo importante de países en vías de desarrollo, presentamos una resolución en relación con el examen de los efectivos, estrategias y metas de nuestra Organización, conforme a lo convenido dentro del marco de la resolución 6/87. Este proyecto de resolución incorpora ya elementos que provienen de las negociaciones informales que hemos tenido con varios grupos. Esta resolución parte de la base que la Organización somos todos, que la Organización nos debe servir a todos y que pasando de los constructivos resultados obtenidos a través del mecanismo que se estableció para ello, abre un campo para que en su implementación, que nosotros consideramos debe ser por fases, como lo dije antes, estas fases podrán acelerarse en la medida en que existan los recursos para ello y la anunciamos a fin de que puedan tener la marcha que se establece de acuerdo con los Textos Básicos y, señor Presidente, esperamos que esta resolución, que presentamos con el mayor espíritu de diálogo y voluntad, pueda servir de base para que trabajemos en búsqueda de un resultado consensual que permita cerrar este ejercicio de revisión con el propósito con que lo iniciamos. El propósito de reforzar nuestro Organismo para que sea más útil y más fuerte para todos los que nos interesamos y creo que es un patrimonio com en los aspectos de la alimentación y de la agricultura de nuestros pueblos.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi, Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): The work we are undertaking and the topic we have been discussing during the two or three days is actually the outcome of the efforts, great efforts indeed, which were undertaken by the Finance and Programme Committees. These efforts were made throughout the two years so this outcome or these results require full respect and full appreciation from us all and we wish to express our thanks and appreciation to the members of these Committees, the Programme and Finance Committees. Our special thanks should go to the Chairman of the Programme Committee, Professor Mazoyer.
In this connection I would like to point out that most of these recommendations have been accepted by consensus but nevertheless we should not lose sight of an important matter: how this consensus was reached. This consensus did not take place easily or simply, as it were, but it was reached after lengthy discussion. It was reached after sound dialogue which was far away from tension or conflict among the various members. Of course, a number of concessions were made by the different members of the two Committees and after that we were able to reach consensus about the great part of these documents, so I wish to say that the consensus was reached not easily, not in a simple fashion, but it was the outcome of lengthy work which took two years and in our view this means, if we are genuinely seeking in this Conference to promote and enhance the capabilities of our Organization, consensus should not be something that is impossible and therefore we should not be quick, and we should reap the fruits of the work of the two Committees which took two years to achieve.
During our last session of the Council we pointed out that my delegation supports these texts, or the majority of the parts of these texts. We believe in that dialogue within the spirit of democracy, which prevailed during our meetings, this spirit urges us to support these causes and these issues which were the object of consensus from the various members of the two Committees. As we have already stated during the Council session, and we reiterate our position in this connection, we are quite ready to cooperate but this should take place within the framework of the mandate of the Review process itself. I repeat that we should have prior notification of these elements and this mandate. As you know, these two Committees did not work secretly or behind the scenes but rather all the members of the two Committees were well aware of the mandate of the two Committees and the Resolutions 6, 7 and 8.
Within the framework of the Council sessions we dealt with the problems of transfer of technology and cooperation between developed and developing countries, the Technological Cooperation Programme and the staff questions and the identification of priorities and activities; we dealt with all these matters and we endorsed the recommendations theron. We also dealt with the topic of decentralization and we have stated that we are not against the reactivation of the strengthening of the offices but we know that the regional offices are the core or the heart of the activities of collecting important and vital data and information.
As far as prioritization is concerned, we have stated and recalled that these priorities should be subjected to the resolutions from the Regional Conferences and we think that these priorities should not only emanate from the governing bodies.
We have pointed out and we are still referring to the medium-term plan and we have stated that it should take into account the priorities and the activities proposed during the various regional conferences and we fully believe that this is an experience which could be made by our Organization. This is a useful experience, it might by successful, it might not be successful, but there is no harm in raking this experience.
As for the resources, we think that we ought to have a sort of indication as far as resources are concerned.
We have also dealt with sustainable development and we are still dealing with this matter at present. We feel that there is a strong need to reactivate cooperation between the different agencies and organizations. We should prenote cooperation and coordination between the various specialized agencies and organizations and we do know that the Organization can play a pioneering role in this connection, especially as far as the environment is concerned, because we know that soil should be conserved and we should pay great attention to the environment and environmental considerations.
Undoubtedly, there are some simple and few issues which might be pending and which could not be the object of consensus, but the delegate of Saudi Arabia believes that through fruitful and reasonable dialogue, through farsightedness and wisdom, we can always settle the pending issues.
I have listened with great attention to the various presentations of Member Nations, especially those who gave me the impression that they are afraid or fearful about the future of our Organization, but I do say that if we are quite honest and sincere we cannot but reach success.
I have listened to some delegations questioning the value of this Review and also questioning the results and outcome of this Review. But I wish to state in this connection that the Programme and Finance Committees are responsible for and capable of assuming this responsibility. The members of these two Committees are members in the Council, members of this Organization, and therefore they are the long-serving members in this Organization and they are well aware of the problems of this Organization. We have no doubt about the competence of the members of these two Committees and we are quite sure about their anxiety and desire to serve this Organization, and on their desire and on our common responsibility rests the future of our Organization.
Furthermore, we should not lose sight of another matter. These two Committees were in accordance with the well-defined and clear-cut instructions and hence these two Committees cannot trespass or violate these definite recommendations and instructions. Therefore, they received these instructions from the Council and they are bound to respect and observe these instructions. Therefore, Mir Chairman, your own proposals and your own observations are very useful to the members of these two Committees. I wish to say this, basing myself on my experience, which is about twelve years old, and I could say that this has been a useful experience.
Some voices have called for the contribution or participation of all Member States in the activities of the Organization - I mean all the members of the Organization - and here is the question, hew can this be possible? We are here representing our respective countries, we are following the activities undertaken by the Organization, we work within the different bodies and Committees, and we do not think that we should be reporting to our respective countries about the activities of the Organization on a weekly basis; this is quite impossible.
Some also referred to the high priority of a number of activities and to other activities which are of lower priority. Of course this is sound logic. There are seme high-priority areas and some others of lower priority. But in Saudi Arabia, for instance, we have a number of activities to which we give very high priority and this is not automatically in conformity with the priority of our Organization, this is a national choice. Hence I would like to say that these priorities might differ from one department to another within the same Organization. Seme activities in a given department have a high priority, while the same activity is given a lower priority in another department. Hence the core issue is the cost of the implementation of these recommendations. These costs are an important and delicate natter and I wish to make an appeal to all Member States to deal with the topic in sincerity and in good faith, because without good faith we cannot act in a positive manner.
We fully acknowledge that the Organization is competent enough to identify its own priorities. This Organization has been working for forty-five years. Some competent people are working in this Organization and they are able enough to take the appropriate decisions. I say we - and I do not mean Saudi Arabia but I mean we, the group of Member Nations - we are requesting absorption of this cost from the budget. Some are requesting the absorption of the cost of the recommendations, because we know that the Director-General can do this. Twenty-five million dollars or more, this sum can be absorbed from within the budget, but how could this happen, how can the Director-General do it? This would mean a cut in a number of technical activities and technical programmmes. So if we request the Director-General to do this it would mean that a number of technical activities would be cut and if this is done we should not blame the Director-General for having had recourse to this choice. Are we ready to accept such a choice? Anyway, we should not forget that we have some frozen assets of the Organization, around US$ 190 million in arrears and unpaid contributions. These are frozen sums. In addition there are some debts of the Organization, some invoices and bills have not been paid by the Organization, and we do not know what would be the result of these things. Furthermore, there is an increase in the requests from developing countries. A number of cuts made by the Director-General during 1988/89 amounted to around US$ 45 million.
In addition to that there are seme requests and calls to apply a zero growth principle and we support the zero growth principle. As for the other calls, we see that there are a great number of calls and requests. If we make all these calls and then ask the Director-General to apply the recommendations how can we request such a thing? Hence, we call upon all Member States to reflect fully on this problem. All of us, we are not present here to challenge the Director-General, we are not here to challenge the Organization's developing countries or other developed countries. We are all present here to give our support to the Organization, to give at least our moral support to the Organization in order to assist the Organization and the Secretariat. We have come here to exchange views concerning the number of problems faced by developing countries, these countries that are suffering a great deal. Hie problems of these countries are much more dangerous than the Review itself, hence these countries are in dire need of our support and the support of the Organization.
I remember that I have referred to the budget of 1990-91. I have said that this budget is a psychological budget.
I believe that it is true. Everything is acceptable provided it is logical and reasonable; we are ready to accept anything. At the same time, however, these proposals should be reasonable and understandable. We should stress the importance of assuming our responsibilities.
Finally, I wish to make an appeal so that our decision and resolution about this recommendation is taken by consensus.
Dragoljub DIMITRIJEVIC (Yugoslavia) : Since we fully adhere to the statement made on behalf of the Group of 77, at this stage of debate we shall be very brief.
Let me first express our appreciation for the introductory comments nade by the Chairman of the Programme Committee and the Director-General, The two Committees have indeed done a marvellous job and have proved that the confidence placed in them by the Conference in 1987 was fully justified.
The picture of FAO which emerged from the review process, i.e. of a solid and dynamic international organization which compares favourably with similar organizations of the UN family, was very much like the one we had in mind in 1987. That is why Yugoslavia opposed the need for the review and then, with enormous reluctance, agreed to go along with it.
Mr Chairman, we have been through a long and costly process, one Which drained quite an amount of our resources in the midst of an unprecedented financial crisis in FAD. Whether it was worth spending essentially depends on the outcome of our debate. If, as we very much hope, the outcome renews a sense of unity of the FAO membership on the strategy, priorities and working methods of the Organization, then the money spent should not be considered as wasted.
As far as Yugoslavia is concerned, by far the most important outcome of the Review is that the Constitution and General Rules of the Organization will continue to serve the membership in the future as efficiently as they have done over the last 40 years. In our view, this point has to feature very prominently in the outcome of the debate.
I have hardly anything to add on the strategy and priorities. The two Committees have reached almost full consensus on these issues and, as we see, the Director-General is also in agreement with the recommendations of the two Committees. It is our hope that the few issues which still appear to be somewhat controversial will be resolved during debate. Like so many other delegations, we also feel strongly that this Conference should mark the end of the review process as far as concepts and ideas are concerned. Indeed, we do not see why and how the review mandate should be extended by bringing in some aspects that were discussed at length and rejected two years ago.
On the resources needed to cover a set of long-term priorities highlighted by the experts and the two Committees, obviously there should be no illusion that all these could be accommodated within existing resources. It could be done only in part so that the real issue before us is to discuss the timeframe within which the long list of priorities could be gradually implemented in the next few biennia if there is no possibility of measurably increasing the Regular Programme funds.
Finally, on the mechanism to negotiate the outcome of our debate, we have an open mind. It may suffice to say at this stage that we agree with the stance of the Group of 77 on this issue.
Geoffrey Lee MILLER (Australia): Mr Chairman, may I begin by complimenting you on the very good work you are doing in steering the work of this Commission. As you know, John Kerin and I had to spend some 28 hours on an aeroplane to get to this Conference. If you spend 28 hours on an aeroplane you are a captive of that environment and there is nothing else to do but eat, sleep and read FAO documents! Having read those documents very carefully for 28 hours, I must say that I strongly compliment all of those associated with this Review - the Chairman, the expert groups, the SJS, the Council, Members of the Rome delegations and home-based representatives - who flew backwards and forwards many times in the course of this exercise to get it done and to get it done well. I was talking to one delegate who told me he had personally put in more than one hundred hours in working on that Review. Of course, the Director-General and his staff have put so much hard work into this exercise to make it as successful as it has been. If we remember the conflict of 1987, I was not here in 1987, I was back in Australia, but even in Australia the earth moved in 1987 during the course of the FAO Conference. Some of us, of course, still harbour some grievances about the events of 1987. Some regret that the Review was undertaken at all. I do not agree with either, that is with those who say we have wasted $ 2 million on getting a clean bill of health, they have not read the Reports or at least they have not read them with an open mind; or those who wish formally to reopen the review process by adding more formal reviews to this exercise. Our task is to build on all this good work and to reinforce the common purpose of this Organization.
Australia is in broad agreement with the SJS Report. You all know that because we were there. We agree with the redefinition of roles of the Organization as far they have been able to be taken, with the better targeting, with the priority setting and the review of the Field Programmes. The guidelines are all there in the SJS Report.
We agree with using the principle of comparative advantage as a basis for determining the unique roles of this specialized agency, as a basis for defining its interfaces with WHO, with UNDP and with other food agencies. There are many other very useful recommendations to be found in those reports.
We also agree with whatt the Director-General has had to say about cooperation with the GATT, although I would add "when appropriate". We must remember that the disputes settlement machinery of the GATT will not kick into gear until after the negotiations are completed at the end of 1990.
If we look at the report of the Committees, it is a very good report. It is an adequate reflection of the views of all of the participants in this exercise. There are many words in there, words like "most", "all", "a few", "a majority", "some". We could dispute those Words here in this session until the cows come home, but nothing would change. There are very few major differences, and the major differences are indeed covered by the statement of views reflected in that document, Many of us might want to rewrite, but let us remember that due process has been followed.
Let us new come to the issue of budget and funding. If we talk about building a consensus, it is really this issue that we must focus our attention on. If we want a consensus, each of us must state our own position clearly, but we must then listen to others - and listen to others with seme reasonable sensitivity and respect. I have tried very hard to do that. I have been listening to others very carefully during this debate, and I have been talking to them in the corridors. Let me say that desire for consensus is overwhelmingly strong amongst the individual delegates here at this Conference. I sometimes think that we are a bit like gladiators, that none of us wants to get into a fight but once we get put into the forum, once we get put into the den, we seem to get impelled to exercise our differences rather than the things that we share in common. If we were gladiators, we would have the sure knowledge that if we entered the Colosseum and we won then we must eventually die. So it is with FAD. If the majority within FAO persists in winning, I believe that FAO will progressively wither and die. We have no monk who is prepared to cast himself before the masses and be stoned to death to save us. Therefore we really have the job ahead of us of saving ourselves.
Australia's position on this is quite clear from what we have said in Plenary. When I addressed the Plenary I heartily endorsed what the Director-General had to say in his opening corrments on the FAO Review:
"The World is going to need a stronger FAO, and FAO is going to need stronger support from the world."
I added another paragraph and I will quote that:
"... if the world is going to get a stronger FAO and if the FAO is going to get stronger support frati the world, then some fundamental realities must be faced. The Organization must use the next biennium to consolidate and replenish itself ... ", to refill its coffers.
I can understand that there might be many here who will regard those comments from me with some cynicism and perhaps consider that I am like St. Augustine who, when he was having a very good time, was reported to have prayed "Oh Lord, please make me virtuous - but not now!" That is not the case here. We are commiitted here to work to build a stronger FAO, and that is what this exercise these past two years has been about.
To state Australia's position quite clearly, we do not support the priority categorization suggested by the Director-General in his comments on the Review. We do not endorse the funding estimates contained on page 18. We merely note them. More importantly, we have not been asked explicitly to endorse these priorities or these numbers. We note them, we respect them, but this is new a management problem. We must let the managers manage.
The Review is now over for implementation under the guidance of the Programme and Finance Committees, but implementation is important. That Review must, with all that good work, now be implemented with sensitivity for minority views. I believe that we can leave the Director-General and the Committees very confidently at the end of this Conference knowing that they will get on and do just that.
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom) : The United Kingdom has asked for the floor rather late in this very interesting discussion. The delegate from Guinea rightly called for a continuation of the attitude of constructive dialogue that had prevailed so far in our discussions of the draft Programme of Work and Budget and the reviews of the Regular and Field Programmes. Mr Chairman, I must say that after your own reference to returning to the battle and the gladiatorial metaphors of my Australian colleague, I feel a little more worried about that. But perhaps these are only metaphors, not to be taken too seriously, though the lessons behind them might be quite serious.
We have listened very carefully to the interventions made by other countries because we wanted to take on board fully what they are saying. We want to have a real debate and not just a succession of previously prepared statements. Like others, we thank the distinguished individuals who formed the membership of the two Committees and who made up the two Expert Groups.
Now it is for the Member States to make up their minds on the validity of the recommendations and to follow the logic of where they point us on the next stage on the ladder of implementation. I hope we can do so in the spirit of searching for what is right rather than who is right, That is surely the way to reach an agreement on possible decisions by the Conference, for which the delegate of Côte d'Ivoire called.
I begin then by commenting on the three major roles of the Organization. The delegate for Bangladesh feared that richer countries would put more emphasis on FAO's information role, while the poorer members would wish rather to emphasize its function as a provider of technical assistance and a catalyst for providing other resources. Let me reassure him that my country at least, like the delegate of Cuba, gives priority to most needy countries and therefore we have an over-riding interest in the effective delivery of assistance.
The question is, how to achieve that since, as the experts, the SJS, the Director-General and others such as the Ambassador for Lesotho have said, we need to seize the opportunities for making FAO more efficient and effective.
What then are the deficiencies that we need to cure? The Ambassador of Lesotho referred to the finding that FAO's spectrum of responsibilities and activities has grown so large as to endanger the quality of its work over the longer term, and he called in particular for a set of guidelines accepting the responsibility for planning and executing the field programmes. The delegate of Bangladesh also mentioned this specific finding. We support that proposal.
One clear step that should be taken emerged from the Review of the Field Programme. In passing, I must say I think we should all be ashamed of ourselves for confining our examination of the Review to less than one day. The Field Programme, after all, is far larger than Regular Budget Activities and it is of far more importance to developing country members. Nothing could prove more clearly the need to change the arrangements for Member States' supervision of all FAO's operational activities.
The lesson brought out by the Field Programme Review is that, as many field representatives have said, operational activities in the weakest and poorest countries which form the majority of FAO's activities, should be refocused and concentrated on agreed longer-term programmes of institutional developments. This is the way to achieve the institutional and human resource development called for by the delegate of Nigeria. Several delegates, including the delegate of Bangladesh, praised the Investment Centre which we too regard highly.
What dismays us, however, is that over the last decade the Field Programme has generated only 10 percent of the investments actually needed for financing. Something clearly needs improving here. We want a greater impact from operational activities - real money invested in real projects, like those financed by IFAD.
Here perhaps is where we should consider the widely expressed view that the TCP should have a larger share of resources. Apart from its emergency use, the TCP is increasingly being used for project formulation and separation. Here it has a special value as a catalyst of development action, which are the words used by the delegate from Guinea-Bissau and I think it is the sentiment that was expressed by the delegate of Cuba. In an earlier debate we also supported the views of Brazil on this subject. But, to work properly, all these operational activities need to be based on the specific needs of individual countries, which was a point made by several delegates and most recently by the delegate of Saudi Arabia. They have also stressed the importance of working closely with other bodies such as the Regional Development Bank, the World Bank and the UNDP.
As we talk, a simultaneous débate is going on in New York about how to improve the operational activities of the UN system as a whole, including of course FAO. The idea is gaining ground there that each country should make a specific statement of its own plan for using UN assistance from whatever agency. The delegate of Cuba gave us an interesting example from his own country, and he recommended it as a general policy. Such a statement by each country seems to us sensible and likely to enhance the impact of all UN assistance. The Trust Funds and TCP should also take this direction, as recommended by the Expert Group.
The proposals now being discussed in New York also recommend that each agency should create a supervisory committee on all its operational activities. I think this justifies our taking another look at this idea, but obviously the Governing Bodies should only take a decision upon it later in 1990 after the Director-General has worked out proposals when the full scope of the UN recommendations are clear.
The delegate of Egypt stressed the importance of evaluation and feedback, which is also put right in the forefront of the Director-General's comments on the Regular Programme Review. To make this work properly we need a routine analysis of sector and country evaluation findings and the other steps recommended in C 89/5, including an analysis of cost effectiveness.
Overall, however, we believe that the Organization needs a clear understanding of the national and local circumstances in each recipient Member State, both at Headquarters and in the field, if it is to design and carry out effective multi-disciplinary operational activities and to act as a really good catalyst for investments paid for by others. I note that evaluation of the ARPA programme for Africa showed a dissipation of the benefits from the country-focused identification of projects, because responsibility for their implementation and monitoring was then scattered throughout the Organization. I will come back to this in a minute.
First, however, let us look at policy analysis and the role of FAO. We are really talking here about the increased demand for advice to individual developing countries, including advice on the make-up of programmes to support structural adjustment. Several delegates have spoken about this, but I was particularly impressed by what was said by the delegates of Ghana and Bangladesh. Both countries are deeply involved in difficult but successful efforts of this kind. The delegate of Ghana especially stressed the need for close contacts with the World Bank and other international institutions. So did the delegate of Kenya. This echoes the clear call by the experts that "FAO should make increasing use of the country macro-economic data and knowledge accumulated by the World Bank, the IMF and other regional financing institutions", which we too support.
There is a faint echo of this thought only in paragraph 4.6 of the SJS Report. What is completely missing, however, is any response to the clear recommendations of the experts that "country policy studies and advice should be made an integral part of FAO's Regular Programme" - and I repeat, Regular Programme.
We find this disappointing, because without a clear view in Headquarters of the full range of a country's agricultural problems and the full range of FAO's operational activities in that country it makes no sense to call, as so many delegates have done, for FAO to play a lead role in Consultative Groups and Round Tables. I do not know how many other delegates have ever been to one of these meetings. I have been to many, and I can tell you that unless FAO can field a senior country specialist from Headquarters, able to speak with authority, it will be a complete waste of time and money for the Organization to attend them. In fact, under present arrangements, UNIDO would have a far better claim to attend and to speak on its sphere of competence than FAD, because it has a geographical division of managers alongside the separate technical divisions.
This is not to say, of course, that FAO should finance sector-wide studies on the lines of the one in Bangladesh from Regular Programmee resources. These are rightly Field Programme Activities and, as we have heard, the World Bank and UNDP largely financed the Bangladesh Review. But there need to be people in Headquarters who are able to keep permanently abreast of such issues in all the relevant countries. After all, they will have to judge the adequacy of any study output and its relevance for the full spectrum of FAO activities in the country concerned. The delegate for Ghana specifically mentioned FAO's internal management of follow up in this context. In any case, like many other delegates, we support the proposal to attach a field inspection unit to the Evaluation Service so that it can report on project management and organization to the Director-General and through him to the Governing Bodies. But we do not see this as a substitute for a somewhat revised managerial structure. It is in this context that I come next to decentralization. We should recognize that in speaking of these issues we are speaking of matters within the Director-General's responsibilities. But many other delegates have sought to give him guidance in this area - for instance the delegates of Lesotho, Jordan and Côte d'Ivoire, among others. These are squarely-put recommendations by both the experts and the SJS; so I have less hesitation in adding my voice to the debate.
While we share the general consensus on strengthening the Country Offices, and providing them with proper technical and managerial backstopping, we note that there are divergent views about the Regional Offices. The experts clearly thought they should have much lower priority. Seme delegates have taken the opposite view. There have been calls for the Regional Offices to have closer links with regional organizations like SADCC. We support that. We also support using Regional Offices for field activities which have to cover more than one country. But the SJS in general support the experts' views, in paragraph 3.33 - a point which some delegates do not seem to have taken on board very clearly. It seems to us that there are specific follcw-up issues here which cannot just be left in the air. I think, on reflection, that the delegate of Poland has pointed us in the right direction; that decentralization should be carried out gradually after a careful and clear definition of the respective responsibilities of the field representatives and their supporting management structures, dividing tasks and responsibilities between Headquarters, regional and national offices respectively. It would deviously be right to expect management to look again at the Regional Offices and also to consider in this process all the different suggestions put forward by Member States here, as well as the conclusions of the experts.
I will turn now to the vexed question of priorities and the Medium-term Plan, and hence by a natural progression to the issue of resources. I think that on both I can be briefer, though I must spend some time on the analysis made by the delegate of France.
We support the idea of trying to give a better strategic steer to FAO's activities through a Plan, as recommended by the experts and the SJS. In this connection, we agree with the delegate of Czechoslovakia that the concern with environmental aspects should run "like a green thread", if I may paraphrase the phrase of France, through all FAO's activities. In fact, anything else is inconceivable. How could FAO approach any fisheries, forestry or agricultural activities nowadays and deliberately ignore the issue of sustainbiility? If it did this, it would most certainly forfeit our confidence. But, as for the specific activities suggested, there is no sense in duplicating work done by others. FAO should, therefore, cooperate on environmental impact assessment with the World Bank, whose sixty-six professional staff will be working very hard in this area to help many developing countries devise their own action plans in the next few years.
Now some delegates have said that a medium-term plan has no value unless provisional resource indications are attached. I have some sympathy with this but no such indications could be very precise. One major reason is the intimate link between the Field Programme and the Regular Programme which many delegates have said should be strengthened. In fact, the Expert Group says that FAO's activities "can only arbitrarily be divided" into these two Programmes. Now the financial arrangements for backstopping and administering Field Programme activities are described elsewhere by the Organization as unsatisfactory. As the United States delegate reminded us, there is a major examination new going on of agency support costs throughout the UN system. We ourselves are not very happy with the present arrangement. But none of us will be able to take a view on what else should be done until decisions are reached on the still uncompleted report of the team which is looking at the costs issue. So, quite apart from other problems, it would be fruitless at present to calculate costs. However, FAO's management could usefully give us the more detailed breakdown which they presumably already have showing relative Field Programme and Regular Programme backup costs under each head of activity, it is not impossible to disentangle these from the presentation of the PWB or from the Regular Programme Review.
Now for resources: I hear different voices in the debate so far, some insisting that the present draft PWB should make no provision for any changes stemming from decisions that the Conference might take and indeed disclaiming any link on the draft budget and the Review. There are other voices -including the Director-General's - proposing instead specific allocations for such costs. The Director-General, however, when he commented on the views of the delegate of France, indicated to us that his calculations might have been too hastily put together - no doubt to meet exigency of our timetable. There were other ways of doing things, he said; the cost might not be $ 25 million but $ 10 or $ 15 million; and so on. I think the Director-General was right to cast some doubt on the first figures.
First of all, in the table on page xviii of his comments, about $ 8.4 million is assigned to the Field Programme, as the delegate for Ethiopia pointed out. Secondly, there is logic in a certain sequence about the actions which might be taken. The Director-General himself proposes, in paragraph 59, to implement the most expensive "over several biennia" and several of us have already suggested that he would first want to take a thorough look at how to do it. The delegates of Gabon and Tanzania recommended this approach. I have already commented on the lack of any need at present for the first two iteras which are said to be of the highest priority for the Regular Programme. On the whole then I believe the delegate of France was right in his analysis. Others who take a different view will have noted the proposal of the delegate of China, which was supported by the delegate of Turkey, that the so-called options in paragraph 5.3 are not mutually exclusive and they will have noted the call by the delegate of Kenya for "adjustments and other austerity methods". The delegate of Saudi Arabia asked how this could be done.
I can myself make certain suggestions here. For instance, we note from C 89/5 that 63 percent of the Regular Programme is in manpower costs - which thus incidentally constrains the share of the TCP - but that there is no systematic independent review of posts or of divisional structures. In fact only 12 percent of the posts were reviewed in any way during the crisis years of 1986-87. Such a review could surely indicate scope for redeployment and maybe even savings. Again the same document showed that the vacancy rate, especially for the more expensive professional group, has consistently for many years been way above the 5.5 percent hitherto used as the budget assumption. Moreover, the system of parallel posts yields additional scope for savings.
In our view, therefore, the right course is to look first to sources of this kind and also to the contributions which will flow into the Organization from a more effective and efficient Field Programme.
However, I cannot possibly leave the resource issue without warmly welcoming the action announced by the delegate of Nigeria in settling all its arrears to FAO. Britain is contributing heavily to supporting Nigeria's structural adjustment programme and we welcome the decision taken to give priority to this matter following Nigeria's generous pledge to IFAD. We hope this will serve as an example to the many other countries which are also in arrears.
Lastly, on the details, I support the view of other delegates that the proposal for a Rome coordinating mechanism should be discussed with the other agencies involved. We have noted President Jazairy's very careful and constructive initial response to this idea.
That brings me to the end of my survey of the issues raised by this item. I make no apology for its length. I have tried to place the SJS recommendations in context. I have indicated where we disagree with them, or more often where they need to be complemented and followed up by specific implementation measures, and why. I believe that I have succeeded as well as others in following your injunction to stay within the wide-ranging terms of Resolution 6/87.
There is one matter that is entirely separate which others have mentioned. I will, therefore, indicate that we would be ready to look again at the mechanisms we all use for decision-making, and I think the Ambassador of Lesotho pointed clearly to one reason why we should do so.
Finally, we believe that many of the points I have mentioned could usefully be included as specific elements within a resolution embodying the conclusions of the Conference. Like the delegate of Mexico, my country would be ready to present such a resolution. Nevertheless, we think it would be preferable for any resolution put to the Commission to carry the names not only of a large number of developing countries but of other countries too, and especially those who called for this Review. Some informal discussions are taking place about what those common conclusions might be but they require further time to reach a harmonious end. I therefore, propose that at the end of our debate this item of our agenda shall not be concluded but left open and that instead we should adjourn the discussion.
Antoine SAINTRAINF (Belgique): Vous me voyez pour la première fois quelque peu perplexe. En effet, il entre dans mes habitudes de tenter de tracer un schéma de mes interventions pour savoir où l'on va.
Nous sommes saisis de deux importants documents qui constituent une vue panoramique complète de l'ensemble des activités de la FAO et qui reflètent un certain nombre de points de vue, dont parfois des points de vue divergents.
Je vous avouerai que je suis perplexe, parce que je ne sais pas par quoi commencer, parce que je ne vois pas très bien comment, dans une courte intervention dans le cadre de la Résolution 6/87, je pourrais être suffisamment complet pour dire ce que j'estime devoir dire. J'ai eu l'occasion - c'est une chance - de suivre les travaux de la précédente Conférence et de suivre le long cheminement du processus qui a abouti un jour à nous fournir ces deux documents. Ces deux documents, j'ai consacré le dernier dimanche à les relire de manière exhaustive. Je dois dire qu'après plusieurs heures, en terminant cette lecture allant du problème du camion-dépanneur à des problèmes plus fondamentaux, j'étais content d'avoir, ou d'essayer d'avoir, une vue d'ensemble de ce qu'on a appelé avec beaucoup de prétention "la réforme". Quelle réforme? Mais qu'est-ce qu'un réformateur? Qu'est-ce que la contre-réforme? Qu'est-ce que certains voudraient dans le cadre d'une réforme de la réforme?
J'essaye de le savoir, de l'examiner, et j'ai voulu, dans une première phase de mon intervention mais très modestement, tenter de rencontrer un certain nombre d'objections qui ont été faites à ces deux documents.
Je crois qu'il est important de savoir, et de manière très claire et très précise, ce que certains - et je les respecte totalement - reprochent à la FAD, reprochent à son action, reprochent à sa stratégie, reprochent à ses orientations fondamentales qui sont quand même - et cela nous l'oublions trop souvent - fonction des moyens dont on dispose, car il n'y a pas de politique sans moyen d'exécuter celle-ci. Un des premiers reproches qui ont été adressés à la FAD, et on l'a souligné dans le cadre de cette revue de l'Examen, serait une certaine faiblesse dans l'exécution des projets, dans les conseils politiques aux pays en voie de développement et dans les relations avec les autres agences des Nations Unies.
La réponse se trouve de manière très claire dans le rapport. J'ai d'ailleurs lu avec une grande attention le curriculum vitae d'un certain nombre d'experts, que je salue, et je crois que la collaboration avec les experts qui ne sont ni contestés ni contestables a permis d'en arriver à ce débat dont je me félicite; car ce débat se déroule dans un climat de confiance et d'ouverture que nous n'avons pas connu en 1987 et c'est en grande partie grâce à vous, Monsieur le Président, grâce à la manière dont vous le conduisez depuis le début. Je tiens très sincèrement à vous en remercier.
Je crois que nous allons devoir examiner ces différents points. En ce qui concerne l'exécution des projets, je n'ai pas la prétention - et j'ai eu l'occasion de le dire à propos des opérations de terrain - de me porter en juge. Mais je répète ce qui a déjà été dit et ce que j'ai déjà dit moi-même, à savoir que les pays bénéficiaires sont parfaitement capables de savoir ce qui leur convient et ce qui ne leur convient pas, de savoir quels sont les projets qui fonctionnent et quels sont ceux qui ne fonctionnent pas.
Or je lis quand même dans le document C 89/21, au paragraphe 3.49, ce qui suit: "De ce fait, la qualité du soutien aux projets, même si elle reste encore aussi bonne que celle des autres institutions des Nations Unies, s'en trouve affectée par les contraintes budgétaires, et cela est d'autant plus grave que les besoins et les demandes d'assistance ne cessent d'augmenter". Là, je crois, se trouve le fond du problème et, si faiblesse il y a, elle est malgré tout fonction de la situation quasi impossible dans laquelle se trouve depuis trop longtemps l'Organisation.
En ce qui concerne les conseils dont on a déjà beaucoup parlé, à savoir les conseils politiques aux pays en développement, je répète ce que j'ai déjà souvent dit car je crois que c'est important. Si les pays en développement peuvent et doivent recevoir certains conseils, les pays développés ont aussi besoin de conseils parce qu'il n'y a pas de développement possible sans une interaction et sans une vision globale. En effet, la politique des pays développés doit être fonction, dans une interrelation permanente, du développement des pays les plus pauvres et les plus démunis. Donner des conseils, c'est bien, mais il faut les donner de manière globale de façon à arriver progressivement à une politique beaucoup plus large. Nous vivons dans un monde d'interdépendance et nous devons en tenir compte.
A propos de ces conseils, je lis au paragraphe 2.15 du document: "les comités rappellent que la FAO a fait" - c'est le passé - "et continue de faire" -c'est maintenant - "un grand nombre d'études sur les politiques agricoles au niveau mondial, régional, sous-régional et national, en mobilisant des équipes pluridisciplinaires, la participation d'autres agences et institutions des Nations Unies et des Etats Membres. Ils encouragent l'Organisation à continuer dans ce sens". Cela me paraît quand même très positif.
Je pourrais continuer cette enumeration. On a parlé des relations avec les autres agences des Nations Unies. Là, je citerai également le paragraphe 4.3 du document. En ce qui concerne les relations avec les institutions de la famille des Nations Unies, les experts ont analysé l'ensemble de toutes les organisations opérationnelles et ils ont trouvé que, dans l'ensemble, cette coopération est bonne nais que, dans quelques cas, elle pourrait être améliorée. Or elle peut être améliorée du côté de la FAO mais elle peut également être améliorée du côté des autres organisations. Pourquoi est-ce nécessairement la FAO qui se trouve toujours en dehors, face aux autres organisations? J'ai toujours dit que, dans les différentes enceintes, nous devions défendre les mêmes points de vue de façon à ce que chacun sache quelles sont ses responsabilités et dans quel cadre il se situe. Il est très important de savoir qui fait quoi, qui s'occupe de quoi et qui est responsable de quoi.
On a parlé du fait que les ressources seraient trop dispersées et qu'il n'y en aurait pas suffisamment - de ce qu'on appelle le "medium term planning". Là, il me semble que le rapport souligne de manière extrêmement positive la situation telle qu'elle se présente. Les comités recommandent la réintroduction d'un plan à moyen terme couvrant trois exercices mais comportant des montants provisoires par programme. La stratégie à long terme nécessite quand même que l'on sache quels sont les moyens financiers dont on dispose.
On a aussi proposé de remplacer - on peut toujours rêver! - la structure actuelle de la FAO, qui est une structure sectorielle, par une structure géographique. J'ai beaucoup réfléchi à ce sujet. En tant que chef d'administration, j'ai eu l'occasion de me pencher sur ce type d'option et je crois que la FAO a une tradition mondiale et que son organigramme actuel, qui se trouve en annexe au Programmee de travail et budget, reflète les fonctions qui lui sont assignées par l'Article premier de l'Acte constitutif, qui est quand même l'acte de base de l'Organisation, et le caractère transnational de ces fonctions; mais les grands fléaux agricoles contemporains, les invasions acridiennes, la désertification, la pollution des sols et de l'atmosphère rendent l'approche incontournable. L'Annexe 2 au Rapport du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier est très claire sur ce point. A la page 60, on peut lire ce qui suit: "Le moment n'est pas venu pour la FAO de procéder à une réorganisation majeure et de passer d'une structure disciplinaire à une structure géographique semblable à celle de la Banque mondiale ou du PNUD".
Je crois que l'existence des bureaux régionaux et la présence de représentants de la FAO sur le terrain ont déjà pour but de mieux tenir compte des aspects régionaux et locaux. A cet égard, incontestablement, les comités n'ont pas manqué de souligner que le fonctionnement de ces organes est affecté par l'insuffisance des moyens. Je crois donc que l'organigramme tel qu'il existe - et on l'a démontré - est un organigramme qui a le mérite de fonctionner. Sur ce plan, les conclusions des experts me paraissent absolument claires.
En ce qui concerne le nombre de projets, à savoir les 2 500 projets dont on a parlé, j'ai déjà eu l'occasion d'exprimer mon point de vue à ce sujet et je n'y reviens pas.
On pourrait continuer avec les grands reproches adressés à la FAO en ce qui concerne les priorités à établir. J'ai entendu tout ce qui a été dit à ce sujet et, en particulier, j'ai entendu certains dire que la FAO s'était retirée de certains domaines, sans les citer. J'ai entendu dire qu'il fallait établir des priorités et diminuer, réduire, supprimer un certain nombre d'activités. De quoi s'agit-il? Quelles sont ces activités? Je crois qu'il faut être précis, concret, et qu'il faut citer ce qu'il faut réduire ou supprimer. Je suis ici depuis pratiquement trois ans et, chaque fois que l'on me parle de priorités, je voudrais que l'on me dise ce qui est prioritaire et ce qui ne l'est pas, ce qu'il faut supprimer et ce qu'il ne faut pas supprimer, comment il faut le supprimer et pourquoi.
Maintenant, je constate une certaine évolution et cette évolution se traduit par un renforcement de la charge de la preuve. En effet, un certain nombre de responsables disent qu'il faut éliminer des postes mais on retourne la charge de la preuve en disant, après avoir discuté au cours d'un long processus - et Dieu sait qu'il a été long! - du budget présenté par le Directeur général, qu'il appartient à celui-ci de supprimer des postes et d'éliminer tout ce qui n'est pas prioritaire.
Or il y a eu la note de cinq pages de janvier, le Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget, l'Examen du Comité Financier, une série de réunions de groupes formelles et informelles qui ont abouti à la présentation de l'excellent document dont a discuté. Avons-nous donc le droit, tout ce travail accompli, de dire: "Laissons à la FAO le soin de décider elle-même ce qu'il faut supprimer dans ce document" parce que nous ne pouvons pas le décider nous-mêmes? Si nous voulons supprimer un certain nombre de choses, il faut le dire.
On a souligné l'intérêt présenté par un certain nombre de programmes, dont le Programme d'action forestier tropical. J'ai entendu certains dire notamment, en séance plénière de la Conférence, qu'ils étaient prêts à apporter une aide ou un complément d'aide, toutefois non pas sur le plan multilatéral nais sur le plan bilatéral. Je crois que ce n'est pas le but poursuivi et, si nous voulons renforcer un certain nombre de programmes qui fonctionnent, il faut pouvoir le faire avec une programmation budgétaire qui permette à la FAO d'avoir une vision à moyen et à long terme.
Je pourrais continuer à parler de l'amélioration de la communication et de la coordination entre les divisions. Je pourrais parler beaucoup plus longuement du plan à moyen terme. Je pourrais parler de la transparence, cette fameuse transparence. Ëh bien, moi, j'essaie que les choses soient transparentes pour moi. Seulement, j'ai mes limites, je ne connais pas tout, je ne suis ni un macro-économiste, ni un micro-économiste. Je ne suis pas, comme le professeur Mazoyer, Président du Comité du programme, un spécialiste en développement rural. J'ai une certaine expérience de terrain, que j'ai vue, que j'ai sentie, que j'ai vécue, non pas seulement avec ma tête, non pas seulement avec mes yeux, mais également avec mon coeur. Quand on parle de comité d'examen, croit-on vraiment à la possibilité d'émettre un jugement de valeur sur un projet visant telle ou telle partie de la Chine, sur un projet visant la Tanzanie, sur un projet visant la Bolivie, sur un projet visant le Bénin ou tout autre pays ami? Avons-nous en main les éléments nécessaires, alors que l'on peut établir des contacts sur place? Les autorités et la population du pays sont parfaitement capables, je le répète une fois de plus, d'apprécier ce qui se fait. Il est possible qu'un certain nombre de projets échouent, et là, je voudrais dire - parce que l'on parle beaucoup du recyclage du personnel et d'amélioration - qu'il est indispensable d'arriver à une procédure permettant de mieux élaborer et structurer les projets. J'ai quand même une certaine expérience en la matière et il m'est arrivé d'entreprendre des études, à la demande d'un pays, sur les possibilités d'une vallée dans les hautes Andes, où l'on estimait pouvoir cultiver du soja et où l'on a abouti à un projet tout à fait différent. Je crois en effet que les projets sont un peu comme la vie des hommes: on naît bébé, on grandit petit à petit, on devient adulte, on évolue. Dans les projets, il est indispensable aussi d'avoir cette faculté de souplesse et d'adaptation. Au départ, on ne sait pas nécessairement déterminer de façon absolue ce que veut la population, ce qu'elle souhaite, ce qu'elle désire faire; on ne sait pas où l'on va. C'est pour cela qu'il faut faire confiance et que ce que nous devons demander instamment à la FAO, c'est de recruter dans les pays en voie de développement et dans les pays développés du personnel de qualité qui ait les qualités huitaines voulues. C'est là une chose très importante. Il ne faut pas uniquement des consultants qui passent comme des météores, comme mon collègue de la Colombie l'a si bien dit l'autre jour.
Il y a également l'aspect du transfert des technologies. Celui-ci ne se fait pas uniquement sur le plan cérébral mais aussi par une série de contacts avec la formation, qui nécessite un dialogue et une prise de connaissance avec les différents experts.
Je pourrais continuer à 1'infini. J'avoue que j'ai ici toute une documentation qui me permettrait de parler pendant plusieurs heures mais je ne vais pas le faire parce que je sais que vous souhaitez que l'on conclut. Mais je voudrais quand même parler de ce que l'on a appelé les avantages comparatifs. Je suis très frustré: les avantages comparatifs, d'abord, ne se comparent pas parce qu'ils ne sont pas sur un pied d'égalité. Il y a des avantages et des inconvénients. Il faudrait quand même savoir quels sont les points forts de la FAO et quels sont les points de faiblesse. S'il y a un certain nombre de points forts, il faudrait quand même les citer explicitement, de même - et c'est là notre responsabilité - que les grands points de faiblesse. Or, jusqu'à présent, je n'ai pas entendu grand-chose, on ne m'a pas dit que, dans l'organigramme, il fallait supprimer un secteur des forêts, un secteur des pêches, la météorologie, la télédétection. Je prends l'organigramme qui se trouve en annexe au Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget. Je n'ai entendu aucune proposition sur la sécurité alimentaire, sur le service mondial d'information, sur la vulgarisation agricole, sur la promotion féminine, sur le CTR. Je crois que cet organigramme est le fruit d'une longue réflexion et que, si l'on parle d'avantages comparatifs, la FAO doit se concentrer sur des avantages comparatifs; il faudrait donc pouvoir les déterminer.
Il y a des aspects extrêmement vastes du développement. Dieu sait que c'est un domaine vaste et complexe. Jusqu'à présent, on a quand même connu beaucoup d'échecs dont on devrait pouvoir tirer un certain nombre de leçons. Nous devons également faire une radioscopie des raisons pour lesquelles nous connaissons certains échecs. Sont-ils dus à un manque de connaissance des réalités du pays, à un manque de contact avec les autorités de ce pays, à un manque d'inter-relations? Nous sommes tous responsables des inter-relations et, à ce sujet, je répète ce qui a été dit: il est grand temps que nous nous concertions pour adopter la même politique et la même conduite dans les différentes enceintes internationales.
Je me rallie donc entièrement à la proposition de mon collègue suisse relative à certains assouplissements. Il a parlé de supprimer le Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget. A mon avis, c'est une bonne chose. Il faut, bien sûr, étoffer la note de cinq pages à présenter tous les deux ans en janvier. Que la note ait 5, 10, 15, 20 ou 25 pages, cela n'a pas tellement d'importance; elle constituera une base qui permettra un acheminement et qui aboutira à la présentation du Programme du travail et budget pour le prochain biennium. Personnellement - et le Royaume de Belgique a exactement le même point de vue - j'ai toujours estimé qu'une programmation des actions sans une programmation financière concordante était un non-sens. Or, en toute hypothèse, compte tenu des interpellations qui nous sont adressées, des problèmes lancinants qui se poseront au cours de la prochaine décennie, de 1990 à l'an 2000, les moyens dont dispose et dont disposera la FAO sont notoirement insuffisants. Et là, on arrivera peut-être - nous pouvons toujours rêver d'une certaine utopie - à un autre type de système.
Le délégué de l'Australie a cité Saint Augustin. Je pourrais citer d'autres Pères de l'Eglise qui ont dit: "T'arroges-tu le droit de donner? Ne donne pas, partage".
Nous sommes dans un monde où la solidarité internationale doit être conçue de manière différente. J'ai été très frappé par un certain nombre de réflexions et de réactions qui se sont fait jour lors du dernier Conseil qui a précédé cette Conférence. J'y étais en tant qu'observateur et je me suis tu et je me suis dit: pourquoi, lorsque l'on donne, il faut savoir oublier ce que l'on a donné? Or, la dimension des problèmes est telle que nous avons instauré dans tous nos pays un système de sécurité sociale de façon à ce que, par le biais des iinpôts, il y ait redistribution des riches vers les pauvres. Est-ce véritablement une utopie que d'imaginer que ce système de distribution puisse être envisagé à une échelle incomparablement plus large et vaste, à l'échelle du monde? Nous sommes tous solidaires, par conséquent nous devons en tirer les conclusions et avoir le courage d'affirmer très haut et très clair cette solidarité.
Je voudrais pour terminer dire deux choses. On peut discuter à l'infini du financement, de savoir si c'est 25..26..27..28,9..30 millions.., mais à l'échelle du monde et dans une transforation très rapide de ce monde et qui évolue à toute vitesse, qu'est-ce que cela représente réellement? Qu'est-ce que vraiment 25 millions quand certaines organisations disposent d'une trésorerie d'une centaine de millions? Est-ce une somme exagérée? On a demandé cette réforme et elle me semble bonne; ces documents nous permettent de faire clairement le point sur la situation, mais, de grâce, ayons le courage d'en tirer les conclusions et n'essayons pas de dire que cet examen et les propositions additionnelles faites doivent être résorbées par le budget sans propositions concrètes sur ce qu'il faut supprimer.
Je crois avoir été suffisamment clair et net sur ce point: si l'on estime que cela doit être absorbé, oui, mais par quoi? Comment? Que faut-il supprimer dans l'Organisation? J'ai déjà eu l'occasion de dire le très grand danger que représente le fait que des services de la FAO étaient alimentés par des Fonds fiduciaires. Il n'est pas bon que certains services essentiels ne soient pas imprégnés de cet esprit multilatéral, que certains pays donateurs que je respecte se constituent de véritables fiefs dans les domaines qui normalement devraient faire partie du "core budget". Ne nous engageons pas trop dans cette voie. Essayons de trouver de véritables formules de solidarité; c'est un véritable challenge qui me paraît facile à gagner.
L'ambassadeur de Turquie a été très clair sur ce point; nous sommes arrivés en 1987 à une formule de compromis très longue à mettre au point, qui a nécessité la bonne volonté de tous.
Est-ce que, maintenant que le résultat de l'examen entrepris est positif, qu'il démontre clairement que la FAO est un organisme sain, nous allons présenter une fois de plus cet organisme sain au bombardement des rayons X afin de voir s'il n'a pas une nouvelle maladie? Je vous le dis: si on continue à lui envoyer des rayons X pour la radiografier une fois de plus, la FAO finira par être malade, car à force de recevoir des rayons X on finit toujours par s'affaiblir.
Un haut fonctionnaire de l'institution me disait récemment: nous avons consacré pendant deux ans des heures et des heures à examiner la FAO, à examiner la qualité des services, à voir ce qui va, ce qui ne va pas, nous avons abouti à un bon rapport des experts, de grâce, mettons nous d'accord pour travailler tous ensemble et pour que demain, sur la base de ce document, on puisse construire sans vouloir faire la réforme de la réforme.
Laissez parler maintenant mon coeur. Il y aura demain un mois qu'un de nos excellents collègues M. Modonald Ben Jamin décédait. Le jour de son enterrement, sa veuve ici présente me disait: "Monsieur Saintraint, think of the poor". Nous avons à penser aux pauvres, aux plus démunis de ce monde. Ce ne sont pas des unités, ce ne sont pas des centaines de milliers, ce ne sont pas des millions, ce ne sont pas des dizaines de millions, ce sont maintenant des centaines de millions qui nous interpellent, et à cette interpellation nous avons le devoir de répondre.
E. Patrick ALLEINE (Trinidad and Tobago): My delegation adds its voice in appreciation with respect to the total effort involved in the preparation and presentation of this most important documentation and the explanation and the views which are relevant to this Agenda item.
Permit me, however, a special word of congratulations to the Programme and Finance Commttees, and especially the Chairmen, who have had the onerous responsibility for guiding their Committees separately and jointly through the Review process.
In large measure almost everyone has been loud in praise in indicating appreciation of the tremendous accomplishments of this heroic effort all of which is related to implementation of Resolution 6/87, which authorized the Review process.
For various reasons, this delegation will focus its remarks on the problem or problems of how we move on from where we are - that is, following completion of the Review exercise by the joint action of the Programme and Finance Committees, assisted by the Groups of Experts.
The year 1987 is behind us, but we inevitably recall the atmosphere in which Resolution 6/87 was given life. It was a compromise between no review and a fully external review. We all have some fears and concerns as to where this Conference will end. I will confess, however, that yesterday afternoon when I listened to the delegate of Canada, and I would even say again this morning as I listened to the delegate of the United States of America, I think I began to see the light at the end of the tunnel, and this was assisted by the comments of many other delegations. I recall that yesterday the delegate of Canada said that in spite of the reservations on Resolution 6/87 which his country had, they were now satisfied so far with the Review process. He said, "the experts did a highly commendable task" and the Review has provided "a framework for discussion".
In the Plenary the Deputy Minister for Canada acknowledged that in the Review process the fundamental issues cited in Resolution 6/87 had been subject to painstaking review.
My delegation wishes to underscore this basic premise in the debate. I am of the opinion that in large measure there is virtual consensus with these views - that is, that the Review process has been very satisfactory, there is content to the Review process. I say virtual consensus because I discern perhaps one, or a little more than that, particularly dissenting voice and my delegation is willing to be advised if we are wrong. I recall in the Plenary the United Kingdom's Minister for Overseas Development said - and I quote bits and pieces - "the results of the FAO Review carried out by the Programme and Finance Committees are insufficient. Unless they are complemented by other steps FAO will not be geared up properly for the 1990s and will not achieve all the excellent things it could do for the developing countries. "We need a thorough reorientation of FAO's own structure and policies." "FAO needs to be reshaped internally."
I have identified the latter comments at length since they seem to be the most sweeping in that direction. Elsewhere a few other delegations have emphasized their view that priority focusing, priority setting, are serious concerns. But I do not really recall any other delegations indicating, shall we say, that level of inadequacy suggested by the United Kingdom with the Review process.
We have been reminded of the importance of sovereign rights and we must be careful with the linkages, especially in a body such as this. Otherwise I see no room for doom and gloom on this natter. I will again bring to the fore the thoughts of Australia earlier in this Conference, that is, "It is difficult to understand what some wanted out of the Review. " The joint review of the Programme and Finance Committees and the report of the experts are in conformity with the views of, and related information given by, the Director-General.
This delegation is in agreement with the vast majority of delegations who have spoken. In essence, we want to emphasize that the time has come to act. We must now take note of the recommendations of the Review process and determine what we can implement and how we can implement it. What shall we do with the 32 recommendations? This delegation is already on record as supporting the major recommendations emerging from the Review. We wish to stress, as we have done before, that there must be absolutely no diminution in the significance and resource allocation for technical assistance and TCP. The Director-General must be allowed to administer the latter to the satisfaction of the recipient countries.
On the matter of technical assistance, we have heard of tripartite arrangements. We are prepared to say "yes" but on the clear understanding that there is no weakening, overtly and covertly, of the trusted neutral hand of FAD.
After two years, US$ 2 million of expenditure and general agreement - except for the odd voice - on the quality of the Review, we cannot talk now about logic if we do not make definitive decisions on the implementation of the valuable recommendations. To do otherwise would be like setting out on a Utopian safari with no end in sight.
I am forced to divert a bit here, very briefly. From the Council to the Conference we are faced with what I may call "shadow bargaining", that is the linking of the outcome of the debates on the Review with a final discussion on the budget. FAO is in financial straits because many nations are in arrears, and every dollar due from every country is important. However, the biggest problem lies with our major contributor. May I say here that all Member Nations need to understand each other's problems, be it Congressional delay, the collapse of oil prices, the collapse of cocoa, coffee or grain prices. Much of this is by itself and, in certain circumstances, in combination with the pain of structural adjustment. However, I have been wondering whether this Conference could not do anything - positive, legal and proper - that will help to bring rapid financial relief to FAO. The question in my mind - and I shall be bold enough to voice it - is whether the United States Congress, that powerful governmental body known the world over, is fully aware of how different and how special FAO is as compared with the other UN bodies, all of which are waiting for some allocation from the basket of funds to be approved at some time, apparently under the general direction of zero growth budgets.
Perhaps it has never been done, perhaps it cannot be done, but can this Conference - not the Organization or the Director-General - perhaps through the Chairman of the Conference, make a special plea by telegram, or otherwise to the Congressional leaders or as may be otherwise appropriate? I do not genuinely believe that if they know and understand clearly, in the course of history for the needy of this world, what the results will be if this Organization remains in this condition, that they will consciously allow the FAD, and through it millions of hungry, malnourished people, urgently in need of assistance, to suffer unduly, if properly appraised of the facts.
I hasten to add that I am not suggesting for a moment that the distinguished delegation of the United States and other officials at the highest level have not done their homework. I am simply voicing a point of view. Is there a way in which we can expedite the payment of contributions? Perhaps we need to apply it to all countries in arrears.
May I now return to my main focus. The Review has taken place. Numerous useful recommendations have emerged. We must act. That is being logical. Nevertheless, we are not of the view that we must abandon the search for consensus because one or a few delegations say or fear that, for example, there is scope for fine-tuning our prioritization activity.
Let us face it, cutting US$ 65 million over three years meant exactly that. The Director-General had consistently to practice prioritization. What we will insist on, and what other delegations have said, is that you cannot hamstring the Director-General; he must be allowed flexibility.
We are not unduly disturbed, as some delegations wish to emphasize, that perhaps in the future there may be some further scope for review of the efficiency of the Organization. Those who insist on further reviews will do so, of course, and will be prepared to pay for it. We feel that inevitably there has to be a mechanism put in place, and quickly, in order to deal with moving towards consensus in this Conference.
The Director-General said yesterday: "I will be the first to come forward with new proposals." Understandably, however, he emphasized that the source of funding must be indicated.
We heard this morning about the importance of cost-effectiveness. There must be a focus; there must be a concentration in this direction. This delegation does not believe that anyone will argue against effort towards achieving cost-effectiveness, but the Review has not suggested that there will be less demands on the FAO. In fact, all the indications are that there will be more demands on the Organization. There is much more to be done, regardless of how FAO reorganizes and prioritizes. Why does cost-effectiveness necessarily mean no more resources regardless of the circumstances? For example, as we heard a few days ago, and I think again today, one government of a developing country is convinced of the significance of the usefulness, of the relevance of the Tropical Forestry Action Plan and has committed US$ 100 million over three years, but via bilateral programmes. Why can we not move? I agree fully with the words of the Secretary for Agriculture of the United States in Plenary. He was referring to the Director-General and he said: "I am convinced that he" - the Director-General - "is dedicated to making FAO a stronger, more effective and more efficient Organization. I am convinced that the Director-General will provide the leadership. "
We must reflect on those words and move on with a certain degree of confidence, with sensitivity on all sides, with some give and take. My delegation is of the opinion that a final resolution can emerge such that we can facilitate a stronger FAD, a more efficient FAD, with adequate resources, taking off towards the year 2000 and beyond. Let us together take those decisions which will build upon the original foundations laid by the founding fathers of this Organization. Let us not lay to waste the good work and the efforts of all who toiled to make Resolution 6/87 a reality.
I am tempted to end with a modified prayer of St. Augustine: "Help us on the road to unanimity, but now."
Anatolio NDONG MBA (Guinea Ecuatorial): Realmente, señor Presidente, el tema que estamos debatiendo nos invita a todos a reflexionar con suma atención, objetivismo y realismo tanto a los países industriales como a los países en vías de desarrollo, pues se trata ni más ni menos que del fortalecimiento o desmembramiento de nuestra institución, la FAO.
No podennos evitar llegar a la conclusión evidente, por los hechos mismos, de que la FAO ha venido jugando un papel muy importante para construir un mundo más equilibrado en fidelidad a la idea de los propulsores de esta Organización, cuyos objetivos fundamentales siguen siendo elevar los niveles de nutrición y de vida de los pueblos, mejorar el rendimiento de la producción y la eficacia de la distribución de todos los alimentos, productos alimenticios y agrícolas, mejorar las condiciones de vida de la población rural y contribuir a la expansión de la economía mundial y liberar del hambre a la humanidad.
Estos objetivos, que están bien recogidos en la página 11 del informe, punto 2, ponen el dedo sobre los puntos que obstaculizan la construcción de una sociedad más justa para todos, pues los descensos constantes de los precios mundiales de aquellos productos que sostienen nuestras economías, así como los aumentos constantes de los insumos, ahogan cada vez más a unos, aproximándolos cada vez más hacia el caos económico y social, dificultando la mterialización de los dos objetivos citados en último lugar que son el mejoramiento de las condiciones de la población rural y la contribución a la expansión de la economía mundial, liberando a ambas de continuidad.
Además de apoyar las intervenciones precedentes de diferentes delegaciones en pro del reconocimiento del positivo papel que ha venido y está desempeñando la FAO en el logro de los objetivos que le fueron marcados el el memento de su creación y de sus funciones de compilar y difundir informaciones, actuar como foro internacional para conseguir acuerdos y promover medidas y prestar asistencia técnica a los Estados Miembros, acciones que para nosotros están interrelacionadas y tienen por lo tanto igual prioridad; pensamos por lo tanto que una reestructuracion de la Organización supondría una merma en su eficaz actuación. Esta cuestión ha sido además vista en ocasiones anteriores y estimada no prioritaria. Por el contrario, mi delegación apoya global y resueltamente el Programa y el Proyecto de Presupuesto presentados por el Director General. A este respecto, mi Gobierno, pese a los efectos negativos en su economía en la actual coyuntura de los precios de nuestros productos de exportación y del constante aumento de los medios de producción, está temando las disposiciones necesarias para hacer frente a sus obligaciones con la Organización en cuanto a sus contribuciones se refiere.
Pensamos que en el futuro inmediato los programas de campo, la capacitación, la asistencia técnica, el apoyo a las políticas agrarias nacionales, la investigación, intercambios más fluidos de informaciones, así como el apoyo al afianzamiento y reforzamiento de las estadísticas agrícolas de los países en vías de desarrollo, deberán tener la mayor consideración y apoyo y, para ello, se hace necesario - y permítame señor Presidente enfatizar cambiando la palabra necesario por muy necesario - el establecimiento y apoyo mayor a las oficinas nacionales de la FAD, ya que éstas infunden mayor corriente de intercambio y diálogo al reducir las distancias existentes entre Roma y las capitales de nuestros países y vivir de cerca los problemas cotidianos y puntuales del agro de los respectivos países.
Nos parecen muy oportunos los comentarios del Director General sobre el informe presentado.
En lo que respecta al capítulo presupuestario, la eliminación del capítulo para apoyo de actividades presupuestarias sería una dura amputación a la Organización, que la dejaría maniatada para poder entrar en acción y resolver casos puntuales que, como en toda labor humana, siempre existen.
Finalmente, una mayor coordinación entre las cuatro organizaciones basadas en Roma, redundaría en una mayor efectividad de las acciones e inversiones de todos.
Natigor SIAGIAN (Indonesia): Thank you for giving me the floor. At the outset, allow me to associate myself with the previous speakers in expressing our appreciation to the Director-General for his lucid introduction of this important Agenda item. My delegation also wishes to express its appreciation to the Chairman and all members of the Programme and Finance Committees, to the Experts and to all FAO staff for their efforts in making this exercise successful and for the excellent preparation of the Report on the Review of Certain Aspects of FAO's Goals and Operations. We wish also to express our appreciation to the Chairman of the Conference, who in his opening statement presented his valuable views on this Review.
The Report on the Review of FAO's Goals and Operations, as prepared by the Finance and Programme Committees, has the objective of considering ways and means of strengthening FAO so that it can continue to play a leading role in the future. My delegation wishes to consider the Report based on the above objectives and within the framework of the Resolution 6/87. It is the wish of my delegation that the Conference's consideration of this Review of FAO's Goals and Operations be aimed at reaching a more solid, more dynamic, more unified and further strengthened organization. My delegation wholeheartedly agrees with the view of the Committees that the concept of FAD, as stated in the Preamble of its Constitution, is still valid and therefore there is no need for any modification in the major purposes assigned to it in the Preamble of its Constitution.
Indonesia, as a member of the Programme Committee, was associated with the Review exercise. Our views and opinions are reflected in the Report of the Joint Special Session. Therefore we welcome the recommendations of the Joint Special Session of the Programme and Finance Committees. Nevertheless, we wish to express our views with regard to certain points mentioned in the Report.
On the FAO's roles and functions, my delegation wishes to underline that the Committees support the seven development objectives of the Organization, as well as endorsing the Organization's three major roles, which we believe fully complement each other. With regard to the relative emphasis to be placed on these respective roles, we are highly appreciative of the views of the Director-General when he says that probably there will always be a measure of disagreement on the matter, since different points tend to be of different value to countries at different stages of development.
We are of the view that technical assistance, involving the TCP, must be stepped up. However, we underline the view stated that emphasis should be given to quality and full account should be taken of FAO's comparative advantage relative to other agencies. In this regard, we strongly support the need to implement the criteria of FAO for "undertaking policy studies enunciated by the Programme and Finance Committees, as this could ensure that the policy studies are really very fruitful for all of us.
Furthermore, we fully support the Director-General's view that he will continue to take necessary precautions to ensure the maintenance of a reasonable balance between the three roles, in the light of the overall capacity of the Organization.
The winds of change are blowing across the international economic landscape, where trends of far-reaching implications have gained prominence. These changes and trends contain the seeds of new opportunities as well as challenges to our collective interest and purposes. It is in the light of the above that we favourably considered proposals for strengthening FAO's roles as a global information centre giving policy advice and formulation, promoting research and the extension of work in technical assistance, in the promotion of the New International Economic Order together with work in a number of other important areas such as sustainable development and environment, women and youth and international trade.
We wish also to express our comments on the view of the Committees regarding the Special Action Programmes. They are a means of coordinating the content and orientation of the Regular Programme and Field Activities. We agree with the Committee's view that the Special Action Programmes play an essential role in drawing attention to the interdependence of the different parts of the world's agricultural systems and the need for concerted action. We agree with the Committee's view that, to be useful, FAO's strategies must lead to action plans and activities which have an important catalytic effect.
We therefore support the conclusions of the Committee that the Tropical Forestry Action Plan is a good action plan model giving practical effect to a well-prepared strategy which deserves large-scale support.
Turning to the Asia priority programme, my delegation agrees with the Committee's view that the establishment of priorities is the result of a long process of discussions in the sectoral and technical committees and all other important bodies of the FAD, including the Programme and Finance Committees and the Council. We therefore feel that FAO's normal practice of priority setting is adequate.
My delegation endorses the Committee's recommendations that all necessary attention be paid to the process of, and criteria for, priority setting. We fully support the proposed guidelines of the Committees as mentioned in paragraph 2.64 (viii) of C 89/21.
On the Medium-Term Plan, ray delegation welcome the Committee's recommendations for the reintroduction of a medium-term plan covering three biennia, including if possible provisional indication of resources by programme. We are of the view that conceptually the idea is very positive. Therefore ray delegation goes along with the consensus to give it a fair try. In saying this, it is the wish of ray delegation to underline the view that an indication of resources by programme, providing for reasonable growth in the light of the increasing responsibilities of the FAO in its field of competence, is basically important for establishing a realistic and useful Medium-Terra Plan and for taking into account the strategies adopted and the recommendations made by the special world Conference of the FAO.
The attention of ray delegation also goes to the area of international trade. We fully endorse the Committee's recommendation that the FAO could provide on a continuous basis positive assistance to the developing countries in their negotiations in GATT, and should speak out against protectionist measures and other practices which hinder trade, especially as regards the products of developing countries and which discourage the producers in those countries.
As to the relationship, involvement and active participation of FAO in the international system, I wish to welcome the strengthening of FAO's cooperation with UNDP. We consider seriously the Experts' Report on the FAO's relationship with the World Bank. We underline the importance and usefulness of increased interaction between FAO and the World Bank. We support the provisions of the TCP in project preparation of programmes which have great potential to get project money from lending agencies such as the World Bank, IFAD, etc.
As we have stated during previous sittings of the Council and the Conference, we appreciate the flexible and speedy manner in which TCP funds are made available to member countries. We therefore agree that the TCP be maintained in its present form as vital element in FAO's overall resources, and that all possible efforts, including the recommendations of the Committees as stated in paragraph 3.32 of the Report, be seriously explored.
With regard to the resources dimension, we note with concern the Committe's report that the Organization faces severe cash-flew problems, with debilitating effects on the size and quality of its programmes. We support the Committee's recmmendations on this natter as stated in paragraph 5.2.
As clearly reflected in the Report the review has shown that the strengthening of the Organization's activities is desirable in several areas and that there will be more and more requests for FAO's assistance in the future. As regards the costs of implementing the recommendations, my delegation is open to all possible and reasonable considerations and options conveyed to the Conference. We have in front of us the views of the Committees. We welcome and support the views that alternatives, as stated in paragraph 5.3, will need to be fully explored in mobilizing FAO's requirements for further funds. We fully agree with most members of the Committees that there is a need for additional resources, particularly in the context of the anticipated increase in demands for the services of FAO.
We welcome the Director-General's proposals on the three possible categories of priority expenditures. We therefore wish to express our hope that serious consideration be given to exploring possible ways and means to implement it, especially the items of high priority.
Finally, we wish to underline the Committee's conclusion that the FAO should continue to be a solid and dynamic institution which merits the confidence of its Member Nations. The Review process will be completed in this Twenty-fifth Conference. My delegation feels that the recommedations are constructive and we wish to support the consensus recommendation which is reached in the Report, We also support the views and general recommendations of most members of the two Committeees as reflected in their report. We express our hope that the Conference will reach a consensus to support them. These recommendations are of great importance for the future of FAO.
Srta. María Concepción VIANA DEL BARRIO (Venezuela) : La delegación de Venezuela acoge con agrado el resultado del Examen efectuado sobre los objetivos y las operaciones de la FAO, el cual confirma que la Organización está en plena validez, es sana, sólida y dinámica. Este resultado no nos sorprende pues viene a confirmar la opinión que teníamos y tenemos de la FAO, ya que a pesar de encontrarse en una situación crítica por falta de recursos continúa brindando respuestas a los problemas de los Estados Miembros, en la medida en que su disponibilidad le ha permitido actuar.
Con este Examen también se confirmó que las metas y los objetivos de la Organización están en consonancia con lo establecido en la Constitución, con lo cual se confirmó que este instrumento legal continúa siendo válido. Esto tampoco es una sorpresa.
Junto con otros miembros, que nos han precedido en el derecho de palabra, comportimos la opinión de que las tres funciones principales de la FAO se encuentran vinculadas entre sí, pero que además, para nosotros los países en vías de desarrollo, la tercera, según la cual la Organización debe promover y suministrar asistencia técnica, posee una especial importancia pues de nada sirve tener un maravilloso centro de información mundial sobre alimentación, agricultura y nutrición, ni ser un foro para la formulación de políticas y la acción, si no se puede ejercer una labor concreta en favor de aquéllos que así lo requieran. Por eso resulta necesario reforzarla equilibradamente.
En los tenas que hemos tratado en los últimos días se ha discutido el problema financiero de la FAO, además de la formulación de un presupuesto, que si bien apoyamos, somos conscientes que no responde a todas nuestras expectativas, pues se ha tratado de a justarlo a dos criterios que rechazamos, a saber: el crecimiento cero y la absorción de gastos. Es por ello que no podemos compartir la opinión de que la implementación de las recomendaciones formuladas se haga a expensas del Presupuesto Ordinario, reorientando las prioridades. Mucho menos compartimos la tesis de que se condicione o se relacione la aprobación del presupuesto a la aplicación de las recomendaciones, tal como lo hemos expresado en anteriores ocasiones.
Estamos de acuerdo en que las recomendaciones deben ponerse en práctica, pero esto sin comprometer el Presupuesto Ordinario. En este sentido han surgido múltiples soluciones en esta misna sala, en base a fondos extrapresupuestarios. Cualquiera de ellas recibiría nuestro apoyo.
Para nosotros, y siguiendo lo establecido en la Resolución 6/87, este Examen no debe prolongarse, es más, debe terminar con esto. Ya se han gastado 2 millones de dólares para comprobar la salud de la FAO dentro de una situación financiera difícil. El futuro financiero no es más halagüeño. Con un presupuesto que de por sí ya es estrecho, no podemos distraer más fondos en nuevos exámenes de la Organización, mucho menos cuando dicho Examen se sale del narco fijado por la Resolución 6/87.
No compartimos la recomendación sobre la creación de una unidad de inspección. Pensamos que esto tan sólo aumentaría los gastos de la Organización y generaría burocracia.
Por último, queremos imirnos al resto de los miembros en el agradecimiento al Gobierno italiano por el anuncio que efectuó la semana pasada. Ojalá este ejemplo fuese seguido por otros Estados Miembros.
Mauricio CUADRA (Nicaragua): Deseamos en primer lugar agradecer el trabajo de los Comités, de los Expertos, de la Secretaría, los comentarios del Director General, en fin el trabajo de tantas y tantas personas que durante dos años han llevado a cabo este Examen tan riguroso y que ha concluido con un gran consenso y, estamos seguros, con gran beneficio para todas las partes.
Como miembros del Consejo, nuestra delegación tuvo oportunidad hace apenas unos pocos días, de expresar sus criterios y opiniones sobre las conclusiones de este Examen, opinión que hoy reiteramos. Adem podríamos limitarnos a endosar, como así lo hacemos, las declaraciones que hiciera el día de ayer el distinguido representante de Pakistán, Presidente del Grupo de los 77.
Reiteramos que endosamos estas declaraciones. Sin embargo, queremos hacer algunos breves comentarios.
El resultado del Examen refleja, como lo ha dicho la mayoría de los miembros que me han precedido, lo que ya sabíamos: que la FAO continúa siendo una institución sólida, dinámica y merecedora de la confianza de los Países Miembros y, aún más, que debe fortalecerse para hacer frente a los retos que le plantea el futuro inmediato y de mediano plazo de la humanidad. Los datos y cifras que documentan estos retos han sido objeto de estudio de varias de nuestras Comisiones. Por lo tanto, no es necesario reflejar aquí cuál es el estado del hambre, el futuro de la alimentación y la agricultura en el mundo. Estos datos son de todos conocidos y todos conocen la necesidad que se planteará y el incremento que se planteará la Organización en el futuro por requerimiento de los Estados Miembros, de tal manera que nos complace que se haya comprobado que las funciones de la Organización siguen siendo válidas después de 40 años de que estas funciones han combatido y continúan combatiendo el hambre en el mundo. No sólo creemos que siguen siendo válidas, sino que sentimos que se han ido renovando, revalidando y adaptando a las diferentes condiciones y a las condiciones específicas de los tiempos y los diferentes lugares donde les ha tocado ponerse en función. Nuestra delegación considera que las tres funciones principales de la Organización tienen una estrecha interpelación, tienen igual prioridad y son complementarias.
Nosotros damos gran valor, por supuesto, a la investigación, a la información y al foro de concertación, pero, al igual que muchas delegaciones que nos han precedido, consideramos que la labor de asistencia técnica tiene un impacto inmediato sobre nuestras necesidades más concretas y urgentes. Así pues, creemos que hay que dar a cada función el valor que le corresponde dependiendo de quiénes sean los beneficiarios.
Insistimos en que para nosotros el fortalecimiento de los Programas de Asistencia Técnica tiene una gran prioridad.
Es conocido que la crisis económica internacional afecta gravemente a todos nuestros países, muchos de los cuales hemos tenido que aplicar serias medidas de ajuste estructural. Hemos apoyado el papel de la FAO en la formulación de políticas y creemos que siendo el sector agropecuario uno de los que sufre más fuertemente el impacto de la crisis economica y el efecto de los programas de ajuste, y siendo la FAO el organismo más idóneo por su conocimiento del sector y su capacidad técnica, debe jugar un papel importante en el apoyo a los países en esta área.
Estamos de acuerdo, obviamente, con lo expresado por los Comités en el párrafo 2.20 del Informe, en el sentido de que se deben cumplir ciertos requisitos para una correcta participación de la Organización en programas de este tipo.
Apoyamos la coordinación de la FAO con otras instituciones del sistema de las Naciones Unidas y no sólo, sino también con organismos regionales, para no duplicar funciones, ya que aquí se ha manifestado preocupación en ese sentido. Sin embargo, observamos que los Comités han encontrado satisfactoria la coordinación de la FAO con otras organizaciones. Si es cierto que algunas veces los organismos duplican funciones, a nosotros nos preocupa más cuando no hacen nada. Ante situaciones graves, como las que se están viviendo en la humanidad, hay organismos que no hacen nada. Nosotros en este campo estamos de acuerdo en que lo que abunda no daña, siempre que no haya, por supuesto, desperdicio de recursos.
Consideramos además que la FAO debe jugar en general un papel fundamental y no escatimar esfuerzos en la búsqueda de un nuevo orden económico internacional. En consecuencia hemos dado nuestro apoyo a la participación de la FAO en la Mesas Redondas del PNUD y en las reuniones de grupos consultivos del Banco Mundial. Creemos que la colaboración de la FAO en el GATT, así como la asistencia a los países en la negociaciones, es fundamental.
Nuestra delegación considera que la FAO debe continuar jugando, de acuerdo con su mandato, un paper de liderazgo en la conservación de los recursos naturales y en la transferencia de tecnologías, especialmente en lo referente a las nuevas biotecnologías, hacia los países en desarrollo.
Llegamos a la parte más seria. ¿Cómo poner en práctica un plan de fortalecimiento de una institución sin asignarle recursos para llevar a cabo sus nuevos programas o fortalecer los que ya tiene en curso? Hay que encontrar aquí una forma lógica por la vía más sana, que es la del consenso.
Creemos que los primeros recursos que hay que asignar a la FAO son aquéllos a los que ya tiene derecho, es decir, las cuotas normales y los adeudos de los Países Miembros. Sería ya de por sí una gran ayuda que nos pusiéramos al día.
Por otro lado, creemos que eliminar programas para financiar otros, no es lo que se desprende del estudio de los expertos y no lo consideramos justo ni saludable. No hay un solo programa de la FAO que haya sido considerado superfluo o bien obsoleto. Creemos que son necesarios todos los programas que hoy está llevando a cabo la Organización. No se puede fortalecer una organización o un organismo comiéndose a sí mismo. Entonces, vemos que es necesario que se encuentren nuevos fondos adicionales que no afecten al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto, y estamos de acuerdo en que se haga una priorización de actividades nuevas que se deseen poner en práctica y ver la forma de cómo llevar a cabo la implementación por fases de estas mismas actividades. Obviamente, si hay países u organizaciones con gran interés en la puesta en práctica de los programas recomendados, que están en capacidad de hacer aportes extras, no creamos que alguien se vaya a oponer. Al contrario, consideramos que es bienvenida toda financiación extrapresupuestaria para programas específicos.
Este ejercicio de Examen que hoy concluimos debe dejarnos a todos elementos positivos. Creemos que las labores han sido arduas y que se han llevado a cabo las discusiones con franqueza y respeto, habiéndose logrado un gran consenso entre los miembros de la Comisión. Ese consenso debe de prevalecer entre los miembros de esta Conferencia. Creemos que se debe aprobar por consenso el Informe y dar por cerrado este Capítulo, y dedicarnos a fortalecer la institución para que desempeñe cabalmente su labor de llegar con los Países Miembros al año 2000 en un mundo sin hambre.
Marcelo L.A.S. VASCONCELOS (Brazil): The Brazilian delegation participated in the preparation of the Report of the Programme and Finance Committees. The Special Joint Session agreed on this report by consensus after a lengthy and detailed analysis of the issue. During the Ninety-sixth Session of the Council, we had another opportunity to express our views about the main questions involved. We expressed then our hope that the SJS Report be adopted and its recommendations endorsed by consensus. We still hope that this will be the final decision of this Conference.
In order to be brief, I would just like to mention three aspects of the issue to which we attach great importance.
The first one is the question of "priority setting". We consider that special attention should be given to the process and criteria for priority setting. The scheme by which the Programme and Finance Committees presently indicate the fields of priority while preparing the Programme of Work and Budget seems adequate to us. These criteria therefore should not be interpreted as an excuse to reduce the scarce resources available to the development activities of the Organization.
Secondly, we should like to stress the importance we attach to TCP, the activity considered by most developing countries as FAO's essential task. In a previous statement in this Commission, my delegation emphasized two aspects we would like to see enhanced in the implementation of FAO's technical cooperation programmes. One is the coordination of FAO with the recipient countries' authorities and with other UN agencies, and the other in the establishment of a national planning process for the implementation of these activities. We are aware of the difficulties, we could even say of the impossibility, of planning on a global level in this field. We believe however that, in national terms, the adoption of a planning process which takes into consideration the recipient Government's priorities would lead to a better utilization of the scarce resources to this end. We think therefore that the Organization, when reorganizing its activities in the light of recommendations of the SJS Report, should pay special attention to strengthening TCP in a way that it becomes a more effective support to the needs of the developing countries.
Finally, my delegation would like to mention the questions concerning the costs of inmplementing the recommendations of the Committees. We all know that, due to its present financial situation, the Organization is not in a condition to implement these recommendations without a supplementary appropriation. We think this question should be addressed in the light of the proposal made by the Director-General in paragraph 83 of his Report. In case sane programme adjustments have to be introduced to accomodate now activities, we strongly support that this process be implemented without affecting the activities of high priority, for the developing countries.
Horacio MALTEZ R. (Panamá): Al iniciar nuestra intervención en este tema 15, la delegación de Panamá desea manifestar su agradecimiento al Sr. Mazoyer, Presidente del Comité del Programa, por la clara exposición que sobre el mismo hiciese durante el día de ayer. Hacemos propicia la ocasión, para expresar asimismo al Director General, nuestro aprecio y satisfacción por la forma sincera y concisa con la que nos resumió sus apreciaciones sobre tan delicado Examen. En este orden de cosas y por considerarlo pertinente, la delegación de Panamá estima un deber ineludible reconocer la forma paciente, comprensiva, atinada, capaz y valiente con que el Sr. Edouard Saouma ha sabido enfrentar todo el proceso del Examen.
La intervención efectuada durante el día de ayer por el distinguido y apreciado Sr. Muhammad Saleem Khan, delegado de Pakistán, y para nuestra satisfacción, Presidente del Grupo de los 77, ha facilitado mucho las cosas para la delegación de Panamá. En efecto, nos asociamos plenamente a sus declaraciones, razón por la cual concentraremos nuestra participación en referencias de tipo conceptual. En este contexto, la delegación panameña reitera su reconocimiento y firme apoyo al rol fundamental que, en consonancia con sus objetivos desempeña la FAO para, y cito: "Fomentar el bienestar general (...) a los fines de elevar los niveles de nutrición y de vida de los pueblos (...) mejorar el rendimiento de la producción y eficacia de la distribución de todos los alimentos y productos alimenticios y agrícolas (...) y contribuir así a la expansión de la economía mundial y a liberar del hambre a la humanidad". Fin de la cita. Tal como se expresa en el preámbulo de su Carta Constitutiva y como fuese unánimamente reconocido y reafirmado, tanto por los Comités del Prograna y de Finanzas, como por los Grupos de Expertos que examinaron algunos de los aspectos de los objetivos y operaciones de la FAD, en complimento de la Resolución 6/87 de la anterior Conferencia.
En este orden de ideas, nuestra delegación, aunque como la mayoría de los países aquí representados nunca tuvo dudas al respecto, considera de primordial importancia y como un hecho alentador que los expertos y los Comités hayan comprobado la solidez y el dinamismo de nuestra Organización y certificado su buen estado. Esto, estillemos, debe hacer comprender tanto a quienes estaban convencidos de que la FAO se había apartado de su mandato original, cuanto a aquellos sectores que han intentado utilizar como pretexto y marco, la coyuntura finaciera por ellos provocada para efectuar reformas a la Organización, que se ha llegado al fin de una etapa.
A este propósito consideramos oportuno resaltar que estamos y estaremos siempre dispuestos a establecer todo diálogo constructivo que tenga como finalidad reforzar la eficacia y la eficiencia de la Organización.
Nos sorprende, sin embargo, que a estas alturas del proceso del Examen existan quienes persisten en proponer esquemas o metodologías, que la mayoría de los países no consideramos en consonancia con el espíritu de esta Organización.
Estas consideraciones nos llevan a reafirmar nuestra plena indentificación con los objetivos, funciones y estrategias de la FAO, asi como de sus operaciones de campo, en el convencimiento que ésta, nuestra Organización, principal órgano de la ayuda multilateral en el campo de la agricultura y de la alimentación, responde a las aspiraciones y exigencias del conjunto de Países Miembros, particularmente de los más necesitados, constituyendo una garantía para el desarrollo y el bienestar de la comunidad internacional.
De igual manera, consideramos inprescindible expresar que aun reconociendo el necesario equilibrio que debe existir entre las tres funciones principales de la Organización, la prestación de la asistencia técnica es, a nuestro juicio, y a la luz de la realidad del estado actual de la situación mundial de la agricultura, el eslabón fundamental que posee la FAO para ayudar a los países en desarrollo, jugando un papel determinante en el logro de sus necesidades más urgentes.
Todo intento para debilitar esa función o de negarle los recursos suficientes para su ejecución, en particular en lo que respecta al Programa de Cooperación Técnica, debe ser enérgicamente rechazado por esta magna Asamblea.
A este respecto, estimamos importante incrementar el PCT, del cual conocemos y garantizamos su función catalizadora. Consideramos que un nivel de apenas el 11,8 por ciento es insuficiente y debe ser sustancialmente aumentado.
Asimismo, la delegación de Panamá manifiesta su complacencia por las positivas opiniones y conclusiones del Director General, incluyendo su clasificación de los gastos que podrían estar involucrados en la puesta en práctica de los programas y actividades adicionales recomendadas en el Examen, lo mismo que sus conclusiones en relación con los informes de los consultores sobre la gestión.
Para terminar señor Presidente, dadas las múltiples reuniones, las concesiones efectuadas y lo poco que falta por alcanzar, instamos a todos los Estados Miembros para que hagamos ese último pequeño esfuerzo para lograr tan esperado consenso.
Sang-Kil LEE (Korea, Republic of): To begin with the Korean delegation would like to express their deep appreciation for the expert group, the members of the Programme and Finance Committees, as well as for the Director-General, who spared no efforts to complete the review works and to produce the valuable Report which is before us.
We understand that the main objectives of Conference Resolution 6/87 is to strengthen FAO in every possible manner so that it can continue to play a leading role in world agricultural development in the years to come. In this regard my delegation is happy to note that the objective of the Resolution is sufficiently reflected in the Report. We, therefore, approve the conclusions and the recommendations of the SJS Report in general. However, my delegation would like to emphasize some particular points in the Report. First of all, with regard to the FAO's Medium-Term Objectives as mentioned in paragraph 2.6, we are of the opinion that human resources development should be more emphasized to cope with the increasing demand for agricultural technology in the future.
Secondly, while fully endorsing the three major roles of the FAO, that is the dissemination of agricultural information, providing an international forum for promoting actions, and technical assistance to developing countries, we attach particular importance to the role of FAO as the centre for global information on food and agriculture. In this context we would like to urge that sufficient budget resources be allocated in order to secure the implementation of this vital role.
Thirdly, my delegation would like to stress the importance of research and transfer of agricultural technology. As the need for technological development increases in various areas, such as genetic resources, biotechnology, farming systems, it is necessary to strengthen the mechanism of TCDC to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the cooperating activities. We therefore hope that the FAO and the donor countries increase their assistance to the activities.
Fourthly, we believe that the flexibility and efficiency of TCP projects have greatly contributed to the agricultural development in most developing countries. Therefore we strongly urge that TCP should be maintained in its present form as a vital element of FAO's field of operations and that additional financial support should be provided for this Programme.
Finally, we would like to join the other many delegates who have made strong appeals to conclude the FAO Review during this Session. The Review may not be completed yet and also further deliberations might be needed in the process of implementing the recommendations of the Review, which is likely to require an inevitable increase of the financial obligations of Member Nations. However, when we take into account the time constraints of this Session and the Secretariat's continuous efforts to rake better management of the Organization, we believe that it is the right time to give our full support to FAO, so that it could meet the challenging need for combating hunger and malnutrition from every corner of the developing world in the 1990s and beyond. In this regard the Korean delegation reiterates that the Review Report of FAO's Goals and Operations should be adopted by consensus at this Conference.
LE PRESIDENT: Il est presque 18 heures; j'ai l'intention de terminer les interventions ce soir, toutes les interventions sur cette question. Il se peut qu'il y ait quelques réponses du Secrétariat, dans un premier temps, ce soir.
Mais il me semble qu'il faut ajourner cette réunion après avoir entendu tout le monde. Je vais essayer, dans mes contacts personnels avec certains d'entre vous, de faire en sorte de pouvoir proposer demain, certainement demain après-midi, un texte qui puisse refléter le consensus que tout le monde souhaite. Je prendrai personnellement contact avec certains d'entre vous pour que nous arrivions à ce consensus. Nous utiliserons cette nuit et demain matin pour atteindre cet objectif. Ensuite nous pourrons nous retrouver demain après-midi sur cette question et vous présenter alors ce que nous croyons être le consensus.
Il reste encore six ou sept délégués qui souhaitent prendre la parole. Nous allons les écouter.
S'agissant de l'adoption du point 13, compte tenu de la liste des orateurs en fin de matinée nous pensions pouvoir régler la question ce soir, mais il est préférable de repousser cette adoption à demain soir, lorsque nous aurons épuisé ce débat. Ensuite, nous irons en plénière jeudi après-midi.
Tel est donc l'acheminement que je vous propose; j'espère que vous me suivrez afin que nous puissions avancer.
Ernest BENJAMIN (Antigua and Barbuda): At our last Conference we agreed on the need to strengthen FAO in every possible way so that it can play a leading role in world agriculture. My delegation feels that there is still a consensus on the need for strengthening FAD. It is for this reason that we are very pleased at the conclusion of the Group of Experts and the Committe to the effect that FAO is a solid and dynamic institution.
It should be recalled that the Conference mandated the Review to be conducted in the light of the evolutionary trend in World food and agriculture. On the basis of examination of trends the significant conclusion is that agriculture must remain high on the international agenda for the foreseeable future. In this context FAO will have a pivotal role in responding to the needs for developed and developing countries and in particular developing countries in the modernization and revitalization of the agriculture sector. This points to the need for international support, cooperation and solidarity for FAO.
Antigua and Barbuda supports the conclusions and recommendations that FAO's objectives are still relevant. It applauds the views of the founding fathers.
We also support the conclusion that the three major roles for FAO are valid. In this regard we argue that these roles are interrelated and interlocked. However, and most obviously for developing countries, as my own, we place great attention and significance on the role of technical assistance.
As regards the role of research, technology generation and transfer, we are in agreement with the conclusions, especially insofar as this role can assist all the developed countries and farmers in the production of food for mankind.
Perhaps the most useful role with which we are concerned is that of technical assistance and technical cooperation amongst developed countries. As a country which has benefited from the Technical Cooperation Programme - that is, in concrete terms during periods of drought and other emergencies, we are fully supportive of that programme which responds to the needs of emergencies and is very flexible in its character. We do not subscribe to the view that that programme should operate on the basis of pre-planning. By its very nature it should have the flexibility that it deserves. We are also opposed to the view that has emerged that such a programme should be managed and operated by some committee, whatever you might call it. We feel that the organs and the Director-General should have the competence in discharging this responsibility.
We now wish to share some views on the financial duplications of implementing the Review. In the first instance, we find if we say and conclude that the Review and the conclusions are useful, then it is most logical and obvious that there should be the resources with which to implement them. We would oppose any idea to further reduce the budget for the upcoming biennium or apply any principle of absorption of costs. We feel in this regard that funds should be provided for the implementation and all nations should honour their obligations in providing the resources for the implementation of the budget.
In conclusion, we are satisfied with the recommendations which if taken on a basis of a holistic approach will strengthen the institutional capability of FAO and at the same time enhance its delivery service and in a real sense provide the transparency for which some Member Nations are yearning.
Finally, we feel that in the interests of solidarity we should all approve the conclusions of the Review and join in a consensus to that end.
F.C. PRILLEVITZ (Netherlands): The Netherlands has been an active supporter of FAO since its inception and it intends to continue this support in the future. Over the years, our involvement with the Organization has grown to the extent that it is now a major partner for us in the programming and implementation of development activities, particularly in the area of rural development, forestry and food security.
FAO is, in this respect, the most important specialized agency for us. It is, however, not only as a channel for development cooperation that we participate in FAO's activities with keen interest. FAO, as the only specialized body where agricultural issues can be debated on a global level, has, in our view, a lead role with regard to all agricultural issues of a global nature.
Many countries, including developed ones, look to FAO for information and guidance in the field of agriculture, forestry, fisheries and food security. We are strongly convinced of the continuing need for a global organization in these areas and we look to FAO to fulfil this essential function.
It is precisely for this reason that we, along with many other Member States, came to the conclusion that the time had come to have a thorough look at all aspects of the Organization's structure and operations to make sure that it was ready for the challenges of the next decade and beyond.
This was all the more necessary in view of the fact that heavy demands will be made on the Organization in the context of the International Development Strategy for the next decade, now being discussed in the United Nations, timely also in view of the rapid and fundamental changes that have taken place over the last ten years in the developing world, but also in the industrialized world.
I only mention here the tremendous burden of the accumulated international debts in many countries, the alarming population growth and the growing awareness that we cannot go on indefinitely depleting the earth's natural resources and in the process damaging the environment almost beyond repair.
Mr Chairman, the research and studies undertaken for this Review are now before us and it is for the Member States to draw the necessary conclusions.
Essentially, we believe, the outcome is threefold:
One that FAO is basically a sound Organization. Two, that there are areas where changes and adaptations are needed in order to better face present and further challenges, and three, that substantial additional resources are needed to effect these changes.
We agree with the first two conclusions and we disagree with the third one. Let there be no misunderstanding about this, Mr Chairman.
To solve the urgent development needs that face developing countries, now and in the near future, massive additional resources are definitely needed.
The Netherlands Government, supported by a nation-wide consensus, has contributed, and will contribute for the foreseeable future, its share in this global effort, and it will do so to the extent that is equalled by only very few countries indeed. The additional resources proposed for the reorganization and restructuring of this Organization fall into a different category, however. They do not directly benefit developing countries. It is the improvement in the Organization resulting from the Review that could have a substantial impact on the resources that would become available to the Organization.
The objective of a review of an organization is usually to improve the operations of that organization, not necessarily to add to its resources. A hard look is from time needed on what has become less effective or perhaps even redundant, and what structures and activities need to be strengthened. That is what in our view has been the purpose of the important undertaking we are now about to start. The conclusion, that virtually nothing can be done if no additional resources become available, is in our view simply not justified.
Many of the recommendations do in our opinion not involve additional costs, as was also stressed by France; others ace perhaps less necessary or urgent and others again could be funded by rearranging priorities.
Priority-setting does not involve the identification of new activities or structures and simply adding the necessary funds to the total bill. That is easy enough, as the Nordics said. Even if there would be plenty of money available, this would still not be a recomendable thing to do, and not at all helpful, in particular not for developing countries since these additional funds can then not be used for other developing purposes. What needs to be done, Mr Chairman, is to go a little bit slower on activities that are less vital, and to economize wherever possible without affecting essential programme delivery.
Of course, what is equally needed is the payment in full and on time of assessed contributions.
But there are two sides to this coin. There is a limit to the possibility to enforce obligations that are based on contentious decisions.
In the end, such obligations will no longer be accepted or can no longer be fulfilled. Already now, problems with the payment of contributions are apparent. This is in our view a clear signal that the limit has been reached and that further pushing can only be counter-productive. It is therefore vital that the resources needed for the Review are decided upon by consensus, without hesitation and based on a clear and complete picture of the financial obligations for the next biennium. We therefore entirely agree with the Nordic countries that decisions on funding the Review should be taken before the budget is voted upon.
As was stated earlier by my delegation, we will be able to vote in favour of the budget as presented to us, including its real growth, if the costs involved in the Review, which we believe could stay considerably below the level now estimated, are absorbed within this level.
We realize however, that if rearrangement of priorities or a delay in the implementation of some activities would be needed, it nay be difficult at this stage to determine where and when this should be effected, taking also into account the uncertainties with regard to the payment of contributions. This is a suggestion. It could perhaps be helpful if this Conference sets aside a certain percentage of the budget for the Review, say 3-5 percent or whatever turns out to be needed, so that at a later stage decisions can be made where and to what extent adjustments are needed.
I can be brief with regard to the Netherlands' ideas on the substance of the Review since we have outlined them on various occasions in the past. In fact, many of our ideas are covered in the recommendations in the SJS report, but we believe that some SJS recommendations are more important than others, What is most important, however, for this Conference is to adopt a comprehensive resolution in which it provides specific guidelines to the Secretariat on the implementation and follow-up mechanism of the Review.
As far as the procedures are concerned, the establishment of an adequate medium-term planning system and a substantial decentralization of authority and resources to the field are, we believe, essential. A logical and desirable consequence of decentralization would be the strengthening of the country offices, first and foremost in terms of quality, through reallocation of staff and other resources. Perhaps the introduction of a rotational staff system could be beneficial in this respect, taking into account that there are many capable officers who could very well serve in the field from time to time, thus applying their knowledge and capabilities directly at the level it is most needed.
With regard to the intergovernmental machinery in the Organization to supervise and monitor FAO's field activities, what are commonly called operational activities for development, we believe the establishment of a single committee to deal with all these activities, irrespective of the funding source, is called for. It would provide Member States with the opportunity to regard FAO's operations in an interdisciplinary and integrated manner, more focused on the development policy aspects than on purely technical issues, as would probably be the case when these activities would be discussed in the standing technical committees.
With regard to the more substantial issues, we believe - along with the experts - that there is a need for greater emphasis on the FAO's policy analysis and advice functions, in particular at the country level since it is in this area that developing countries will need all the help they can get. Furthermore, it is extremely important, in our view, that FAO's field activities are concentrated in those areas where they can be most effective, where needs are perceived to be paramount and where they fit into larger development programmes that clearly reflect the country's own development plans and priorities. Only then, we believe, can FAO's field activities effectively contribute to the country's overall development.
Moreover, FAO is not an organization in its own right. It is a part and parcel of the UN family and its work touches on the work of many of its sister organizations. It is through their collective efforts that the impact of the UN organizations will be most beneficial, in particular at a country level.
Also, at headquarters level, intense cooperation and a proper division of labour are needed. To set up some cooperative arrangement in Rome between the organizations present here, for instance, seems to us to be a good idea and we support it.
There are many other issues I could mention here, such as the need to shift progressively to national execution of projects and the concentration of assistance on management training instead of technical advice, but I believe that I have mentioned the major subjects that are of concern to us and indeed to the experts.
Before concluding, Mr Chairman, permit me to mention one further subject not directly related to the Review but which is important to us and indeed to many other Member States. It concerns the decision-making procedure in this Organization. We believe that improvements can be made, and we have certain ideas on how this can be achieved. Let me add straightaway that we believe that this is an issue on which we should all reflect thoroughly and which should only be decided upon the basis of a consensus. If the Conference is not ready to take decisions on this issue, we would like to come back to it at a later stage - for instance at the Council Session in November 1990 - and see what can be done.
Sra. Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): La delegación argentina se une a todas las delegaciones que han expresado su agradecimiento, tanto al Director General cuanto a los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, al personal de la Secretaría y a los expertos que han trabajado en este proceso de examen de las actividades de la FAO.
Nosotros quisiéramos referirnos, muy brevemente, más que nada a la mecánica de este proceso, no al fondo del mismo, y quisiéramos señalar nuestro convencimiento de que el resultado de este examen, no sólo el resultado, sino la manera en que fue llevado a cabo este examen, constituyen un compromiso. Esto ha sido un compromiso permanente. Cuando se adoptó la Resolución 6/87, en la Conferencia, hace dos años, eso fue un compromiso. Cuando los Comités comenzaron a sesionar, fue un compromiso, no sólo determinar cuáles eran las tareas que iban a llevarse a cabo, sino también cuáles eran los expertos que los iban a asistir. Cuando los expertos formularon sus informes se comprometieron entre sí mismos porque, si no, no hubieran podido llegar a un texto que todos pudieran suscribir. Cuando los Comités, a su vez, consideraron los informes de los expertos, extrajeron de esos informes lo que podían aceptar, lo que podían refrendar y lo que podían recomendar a la Conferencia, a través del Consejo. Y eso también fue un compromiso. Entonces, señor Presidente, es claro que todo este proceso que se inició de esta manera y siguió de esta manera, tiene que terminar con un compromsio, tiene que terminar con un acuerdo, y que este compromiso tiene que tomar como base lo que ya ha sido hecho. Nosotros, no podemos darnos el lujo ahora de dar por tierra con todo este consenso, que es una palabra que parece que está muy en boga, con todo este consenso tan trabajosamente obtenido. Es evidente que hay algunas cuestiones que pueden haber recibido más atención que otras y que hay alguna sugerencia o alguna propuesta que ha quedado en el camino. Pero si ha quedado en el camino o no ha recibido tanta atención es porque no podía ser objeto de un compromiso, en el estado en el que estaban desarrollándose las cosas.
Entonces, nosotros quisiéramos señalar esto a la atención de la Conferencia para que se tome en cuenta que tenemos que trabajar sobre lo que se ha logrado y que una vez que tengamos esto en marcha es cuando se van a poder avanzar otras propuestas u otras ideas que no han podido ser consideradas hasta el memento. Lo importante, a juicio de la delegación argentina, es que se trabaje sobre lo que se tiene en este momento.
Señor Presidente, la delegación argentina se siente parte de este compromiso pues ha sido representada en el Comité del Programa, y puede prácticamente endosar en su totalidad el informe de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas.
En cuanto a algunas actividades que nos interesan particularmente, y sobre las que nos referimos cuando hablamos en el Consejo hace dos semanas, no vamos a repetirlas aquí; vamos a pedir a la Presidencia que nos permita incluir la parte pertinente del acta en las actas de esta Conferencia.
En cuanto a la financiación, señor, es claro que prácticamente todas las delegaciones que se han expresado, han manifestado su deseo de que ya no se aumenten las consignaciones presupuestarias. Machos países tienen problemas de tipo financiero, muchos países tienen atrasos para con la Organización, y muchas delegaciones tienen instrucciones precisas de no votar más consignaciones de las que ya figuran en el Programa de labores y Presupuesto como ha sido formulado. Entonces es claro que esto nos deja con pocas opciones para la financiación de estas recomendaciones que seguramente serán aprobadas. Nosotros creemos, señor, que entonces deberíamos, continuando el compromiso, comprometernos todos a pagar puntualmente las cuotas que correspondan al bienio 1990-91, de manera de no exigir a la Organización un esfuerzo desmedido. Y creemos que con las cuotas atrasadas que vayan llegando, por ejemplo, una vez salvados los gastos en que ha incurrido la Organización, con algunos reajustes que no afecten el cumplimiento sustantivo del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para el bienio próximo, y con los recursos extrapresupuestarios que puedan avanzarse para temas determinados de interés de algunos países, se puede comenzar a poner en práctica lo más inportante de este resultado del examen.
Algunas actividades no requerirán gastos, otras sí. Respecto de la prioridad a otorgar a las que sí los exigen, la delegación argentina puede hacer suya la enunciación presentada por el Director General en la categoría 1 de la página XVIII del Informe, con la salvedad de que la dependencia de inspección para las actividades de campo no nos parece tan relevante. En su lugar, ubicaríamos las actividades de CTPD y de biotecnología que figuran en la categoría siguiente.
Creemos que se ha completado un trabajo de gran aliento, que nos han presentado recomendaciones muy valiosas con efectos sobre el largo plazo, y que ellas deben ser analizadas cuidadosamente por los Miembros del Consejo y de la Conferencia para ver cuál es la mejor manera de ponerlas en práctica a los efectos de fortalecer la eficiencia de la Organización.
Nuestro primer comentario se refiere a las conclusiones del Examen en lo que hace a lo que se llama el rol o a lo que se llaman las funciones de la FAO. En ocasión de la aprobación de la Resolución 6/87 en la Conferencia, la delegación argentina había hecho una observación con relación a la necesidad de proceder al Examen de las funciones de la FAO. En aquel memento, nosotros dijimos que creíamos que la función de la FAO estaba claramente definida en su Constitución y que no había que tocarla. El Examen que se ha llevado a cabo nos ha dado razón en aquella apreciación.
En lo que se refiere a las funciones específicas, esas tres funciones principales que están enumeradas en los Textos Básicos, la delegación argentina estima que es fundamental poner de relieve el carácter complementario de las mismas, y que ello implica que debe haber un equilibrio entre los recursos que se les destinan, porque ellos se alimentan mutuamente. La primera, o sea la que se refiere a la colección y difusión de información, inplica necesariamente que se debe ayudar a los países para ser capaces de obtener y transmitir sus propios datos económicos. La segunda hace uso de la información para poder formular políticas y :recomendaciones pertinentes, eficaces y conducentes a los altos objetivos de la Organización. Y la tercera, la de asistencia técnica, también es fundamental por cuanto sin ella los países en desarrollo no podrían superar sus actuales limitaciones y no podrían contribuir nunca útilmente a las funciones anteriores de la Organización.
En cuanto a las nuevas tareas, apoyamos especialmente la actividad en materia de política de la FAO en lo que se refiere a los programas de ajuste estructural, coincidiendo en un todo con el párrafo 2.20 del Capítulo 2 del informe de los Comités.
También damos especial énfasis a la actividad de la Organización en el fomento de la investigación y de la transferencia de tecnologías. En este sentido, manifestamos nuestro especial acuerdo con los párrafos 2.23 y 2.24 del mismo capítulo, sobre todo en lo que hace a la CTPD y al fomento de la investigación en los propios países en desarrollo. En asistencia técnica estamos de acuerdo con lo que reza el párrafo 2.27 y quisiéramos llamar la atención sobre la necesidad de que ella se adecué sobre todo a la capacidad de absorción del país receptor, circunstancia que no vemos mencionada en los informes. Con relación a la actividad que propone el Director General en materia de consejo científico y técnico en las cuestiones de regulaciones sanitarias y f itosanitarias para el comercio internacional de alimentos y otros productos agrícolas, mi delegación está muy contenta de poder apoyar esta iniciativa y esperamos que ella cuente con la aprobación del resto de las delegaciones asistentes a la Conferencia.
En lo que se refiere a las operaciones de campo, favorecemos el examen técnico de las mismas por parte de los Conmités principales competentes. Estimamos que ello permitirá detectar los problemas que se presentan y buscarles soluciones adecuadas. Estimamos también que ello implicará la necesidad de participación técnica, de participación a nivel de expertos que provengan de las capitales, mucho más de lo que ha exigido hasta el presente. Recordamos aquí la referencia que hicimos en el Consejo pasado acerca de la necesidad de que se provea en el futuro de alguna forma de asistencia a los países en desarrollo que no pueden hacer llegar a sus expertos de las capitales a Roma, en ocasión de las reuniones de los Comités principales. En la última reunión del COAG una delegación expresó su sorpresa por ver que el nivel de las delegaciones que asistían a los Comités principales de la FAO había ido decayendo a lo largo del tiempo. Nosotros dijimos en aquel memento que creíamos que ello se debía a las graves restricciones financieras que afrontan los países en desarrollo y que el Consejo debía pensar en alguna solución para asegurar que la participación de los países se pudiera hacer en un pie de igualdad y en un nivel técnico adecuado. Estamos planteando esta cuestión aquí para ver cuál es la reacción de los Miembros del Consejo, para ver si podemos formular un diálogo en este sentido.
En cuanto a las prioridades en la selección de los proyectos y programas, estamos de acuerdo con que ello es un ejercicio necesario y estamos convencidos también de que la FAO lo ha hecho siempre. Cuando en muchas partes de los informes se dice que la Organización recibe muchas más solicitudes de asistencia que las que efectivamente puede dar, se está implicando que la Organización está diciendo que no a muchas de esas solicitudes de asistencia. Esto se hace, evidentemente con base en un criterio que tiene en cuenta el mandato de la FAO y las prioridades fijadas por los Países Miembros. Si bien la actual situación financiera es especialmente crítica, nosotros no podemos suponer que a la FAO siempre le sobró dinero, y que tenía más plata que la que necesitaba para ayudar a los países. El dinero siempre fue limitado en esta Organización, como en cualquier otra y como en cualquiera de los Países Miembros. De manera que la selección de prioridades y la selección de proyectos se ha efectuado siempre. Si lo que se está pidiendo es que esta tarea se refine de alguna manera o que en ella puedan tener los Países Miembros una mayor participación o que éstos encuentren la manera de ponerse de acuerdo sobre algunas prioridades, digamos, más prioritarias que otras, nosotros no tenemos ningún inconveniente en entrar en diálogo con el resto de la membrecía del Consejo, de la Conferencia, de la Organización, para ver refinar el proceso. Pero quisiéramos dejar en claro que creemos que una selección de actividades se ha hecho siempre y que estamos seguros de que lo que hay que hacer es, tal vez, perfeccionar el proceso, pero no se puede decir que esto no se ha hecho en el pasado. Por consiguiente, no vemos contradicción mayor en los puntos de vista expresados en los párrafos 2.27, 2.29 y 3.23 del informe. Pese a que en el informe de las reuniones conjuntas de los Comités se hace aparecer como que hay puntos de vista divergentes, nosotros, que partimos de esta base que acabamos de comentar, no vemos que haya realmente puntos de vista divergentes, y nos asombra que éste sea uno de los temas de los cuales se dice que hay divergencia entre los miembros.
Salim SARRAF (Liban) (langue originale Arabe): La délégation du Liban souhaite d'abord souligner qu'elle n'était pas de celles qui ont demandé que soit mené cet Examen sur les activités de l'Organisation. Toutefois nous n'avons pas fait d'objections à cette demande ni aux objectifs des réformes. L'Examen a été effectivement réalisé et il carprend des points précis dans cette optique même de réformes. Ces points ait fait l'objet d'un accord entre les différents Etats Membres et nous en sommes satisfaits. Nous nous félicitons également de voir se confirmer dans cet Examen le caractère sain de la structure de l'Organisation, de son dynamisme et de l'efficacité de ses activités.
Il est clairement apparu, à travers le document, que l'Organisation ne s'est pas détournée de sa voie initiale comme l'ont imaginé certains pays et que ses trois rôles fondamentaux, tels que prévus par son Acte constitutif, demeurent valables, actuels et constituent un tout.
Ainsi donc, nous appuyons l'application de toutes les réformes convenues et qui ont été suffisamment étudiées et analysées par les différents comiés et organes.
Cependant nous les appuyons à condition que l'on puisse les mettre effectivement en application, car leur exécution est, bien entendu, tributaire de ressources supplémentaires susceptibles de renforcer le budget et de nous permettre d'oeuvrer pour le meilleur sans pour autant épuiser notre Organisation, sans la mettre dans l'embarras face à des choix impossibles .
Il existe peut-être une possibilité, quoique limitée, de mettre quelques réformes en application par le biais d'économies pouvant être réalisées au titre de certains chapitres du budget et par une utilisation plus efficace de ces économies. Cependant, qu'elle qu'en soit leur ampleur, ces économies ne sauraient couvrir toutes les réformes prévues dans l'Examen et convenues de tous.
Nous considérons que c'est un choix impossible que de demander une réalisation parfaite des améliorations, des progrès et réformes.
Il serait même naïf de croire que tout ceci pourrait se faire gratuitement ou qu'il n'entraînerait pas, pour l'Organisation, des frais supplémentaires en l'absence de ressources supplémentaires. Il nous apparaît donc que cette tâche est en soi difficile. Qu'en serait-il alors si nous entrons aujourd'hui dans de nouvelles considérations complexes, si nous soulevons de nouveaux points qui n'ont pas fait l'objet de discussions au sein des comités ni du groupe d'experts, qui n'ont pas été l'objet de cet Examen et dont les différents organes n'ont pas été saisis.
Aussi est-il difficile d'appliquer ces réformes toutes à la fois. Commençons donc par ce qui a été convenu et mettons de côté les nouvelles opinions qui ne se sont pas encore concrétisées ni étudiées en profondeur pour que l'on puisse s'entendre à leur sujet.
La raison et la sagesse consistent à accepter ce que nous sommes en mesure de faire et ce qui satisfait les Etats Membres au lieu de tenter d'atteindre ce qui est hors de notre portée, de peur que nous placions trop haut la barre de nos aspirations à un point tel que nous serions incapables de les comprendre et de les réaliser.
En résumé, nous affirmons notre appui aux réformes qui ont été étudiées et qui ont fait l'objet d'un consensus, de même que nous affirmons notre soutien aux propositions du Directeur général. Nous demandons que soient assurées les ressources supplémentaires, nécessaires à l'exécution de ces réformes, par le biais de crédits complémentaires.
Mais si cela n'est ni acceptable ni possible, il faudra nous mettre d'accord pour laisser la FAO continuer son action qui réalise les souhaits des pays en développement et répond à leurs besoins.
Et cessons alors de demander des réformes aux réformes, comme l'a déjà dit avec éloquence le distingué ambassadeur de Belgique. Nous estimons qu'il n'est plus utile de prolonger les discussions au-delà de cette séance sur un sujet qui a été suffisamment expliqué, disséqué et analysé, et ce contrairement à ce qu'a dit le représentant du Royaume-Ifoi.
Nous appuyons votre proposition qui consiste à ce que vous continuiez les consultations avec qui vous le jugerez nécessaire pour terminer la discussion à ce sujet de la meilleure manière.
Sundararaman RAJASEKBR (New Zealand) : Thank you for the opportunity to speak on what is undeniably the most important issue before this year's Conference. At the outset, my delegation would like to record its appreciation of what has gone into the Review exercise. The Review has certainly highlighted a positive aspect of FAO's work. We fully support FAO's role in the collection and dissemination of information on food and agriculture, promoting action aimed at increasing food and agricultural production and providing technical assistance. These are, as it were, the bread and butter of FAO's work. We strongly endorse the call for FAO to assume a greater role in the provision of policy advice in its area of competence. This is particularly important at a time when we are engaged in major trade negotiations, in reducing trade barriers and promoting more rational policies in the agricultural sector. As successive studies have shown, a sound policy framework is the best means of ensuring efficient resource allocation and the long-term growth of output and income.
Turning to the issue of Medium-term Planning, New Zealand would like to express its support for the recommendations of the Joint Committee in paragraph 2.50 of document C 89/21. We note that some delegations have expressed doubts about the value of Medium-Term Planning in the absence of firm resource commitments, but we are convinced from our own experience that the process of planning, with its attendant focus on prioritization and the allocation of resources gives strategic direction and introduces new disciplines.
As regards the Review of Field Operations, we would like to compliment the Review Team on its excellent report and very pragmatic recommendations. We see the field activities of FAO as among the most important, and any measures taken to improve project identification, support and oversight are worthwhile.
In his Plenary address, the New Zealand Minister of Agriculture called on the FAO to take account of the very real resource constraints facing all of us. We are not seeking to impose financial constraints and disciplines on FAO or on other agencies that we are not imposing on our own country. By way of illustration, my own department has been faced with a reduction in its budgetary allocation of some 64 percent over the last five years. 'This has forced a major review of programmes and priorities, while still ensuring that we did not compromise on our statutory roles and functions. In these circumstances we find it difficult to support the call for additional resources to implement the recommendations of the Review. This necessarily places some hard choices and decisions on member countries and on the management of this important Organization, but it would be a pity if we turned away from this Conference without facing up to those choices. We believe that there is sufficient goodwill and commitment among the membership of this Organization to enable it to work towards a consensus on this vital issue.
Sidaty AIDARA (Sénégal): Je suis certainement l'un des derniers à demander la parole sur le point 15 de l'Ordre du jour relatif à l'Examen de certains aspects des buts et opérations de la FAO, question dont l'importance n'échappe à personne ici. Cette position sur la liste des orateurs, qui m'a permis d'écouter avec beaucoup d'intérêt une centaine de déclarations, aussi intéressantes les unes que les autres, me permet de ne pas être long, encore que ma délégation eût souhaité s'exprimer beaucoup plus longuement sur cette question, compte tenu de son importance.
Une centaine de délégations qui se sont exprimées sur cette question, capitale s'il en est, représente à nos yeux un élément doublaient révélateur, d'une part de l'intérêt tout particulier que les Etats Membres attachent à la question qui nous occupe en ce moment, et d'autre part de l'étendue des sensibilités sur une telle question.
Mon intention ici n'est pas, loin s'en faut, de me substituer à vous, Monsieur le Président, pour faire un résumé des débats intenses et des idées intéressantes qui ont animé ces deux jours de discussions. Ce rôle vous appartient et je me garderai bien de vous remplacer dans cet exercice dont je mesure la délicatesse. Vous me permettrez cependant de noter qu'à ce stade du débat il apparaît un certain nombre d'éléments qui ont fait l'unanimité pour les uns et quelques divergences de points de vue - pas de désaccords de fond - pour les autres. Je reviendrai d'ailleurs sur ce dernier aspect.
Ma délégation pense en effet qu'une unanimité - je ne dis pas une majorité -s'est dégagée sur les principaux points suivants: l'utilité et la justesse de l'exercice, dont les termes de référence se trouvent définis dans la Résolution 6/87, et auquel s'est livrée la FAO depuis deux ans en mobilisant beaucoup de temps, beaucoup de ressources et beaucoup d'énergie; la pertinence des conclusions de l'étude du groupe d'experts et des recommandations des deux Comités du programme et des finances; le renforcement de la capacité de notre Organisation à faire face à ses engagements et aux défis de notre temps; la reconnaissance de son rôle de chef de file dans les domaines alimentaire et agricole; la nécessité de se conformer aux buts et objectifs de la FAO tels qu'ils apparaissent au Préambule de l'Acte constitutif de notre Organisation, buts et objectifs qui demeurent, 45 ans après la création de la FAO, aussi actuels et pertinents que jamais; l'importance des trois principaux rôles de la FAO comme centre d'analyses, de politique et d'information, comme forum international et comme source d'assistance technique; la non-poursuite de l'Examen au-delà de cette session de la Conférence générale pour en considérer la mise en oeuvre des recommandations.
Voilà quelques éléments qui, à notre avis, ont emporté l'adhésion de pratiquement toutes les délégations.
Cette unanimité nous semble apparaître également sur certaines questions particulières, notamment sur l'importance de la coordination de la place de la FAO dans le système international, du rôle du Programme de coopération technique, bien que beaucoup de délégations aient regretté la baisse du niveau de ce Programme, de l'importance des représentations de la FAO dans les pays comme au niveau des régions, des programmes et opérations de terrain ainsi que des programmes d'action sociaux, de la formation du personnel tant au niveau des pays bénéficiaires qu'au siège de la FAO. Meme si l'on n'est pas d'accord sur les modalités de financement de cette formation, on est d'accord sur les principes de cette formation. Comme vous le voyez, il y a beaucoup de choses qui unissent les délégations.
Sur les autres aspects de nos discussions, je crois pouvoir dire qu'une très large majorité s'est prononcée en faveur tant des recommandations des deux Comités du programme et des finances que des mesures additionnelles proposées par le Directeur général pour compléter et renforcer ces recommandations, avec la différence que certaines délégations dont la mienne ne sont pas convaincues de la nécessité de la création d'une unité d'inspection des opérations de terrain.
Au reste, sur le contrôle de la gestion de ces opérations, il convient de dire que la grande majorité dans laquelle se reconnaît ma délégation s'est déclarée contre la création de toute structure à ce sujet, quelle que soit l'appellation de cette dernière. Cette majorité s'est également prononcée, il faut le dire, contre tout mécanisme extérieur à la FAO chargé du suivi de la mise en oeuvre des recommandations, si ces recommandations venaient à être adoptées.
Au vu de tout ce qui précède, on est légitimement tenté de se poser la question de savoir où est le problème.
A part certaines légères nuances, plus sur la forme que sur le fond, de quelques questions comme le problème des priorités, la planification à moyen terme, les procédures d'élaboration du budget biennial de l'Organisation notamment, le problème, comme à l'accoutumée, est la question des ressources, donc des modalités financières de mise en oeuvre des recommandations y compris les propositions du Directeur général. Sur cet aspect particulier, la grande majorité est d'avis que la mise en oeuvre des recommandations ne doit se réaliser que dans le cadre de ressources additionnelles, tandis que certaines délégations estiment que par un jeu de réaménagement le budget de la FAO peut absorber les 26 millions de dollars nécessaires à la mise en oeuvre des recommandations. Ma délégation ne partage pas cette opinion.
Nous pensons en effet que, compte tenu entre autres de la crise financière que traverse actuellement notre Organisation, compte tenu du montant très élevé des arriérés de contributions, de l'importance de la dette de notre Organisation, de l'importance qu'accordent les Etats bénéficiaires au maintien du niveau de qualité et du bon déroulement des programmes et opérations de terrain, le montant indiqué du budget de la FAO ne peut pas supporter de coûts additionnels.
Ma délégation partage l'avis de la grande majorité selon laquelle il ne faudrait pas lier l'adoption du budget à celle des recommandations qui nous sont soumises, les deux questions étant distinctes l'une de l'autre.
Le groupe d'experts, comme les Comités du programme et des finances, est arrivé, à l'issue de son étude, à la conclusion majeure que la FAO est une institution solide, dynamique et saine. Solide et dynamique, elle l'est certainement puisqu'en marchant elle a prouvé le mouvement; saine? Nous ne le pensons pas, à moins qu'on ne se réfère à la question de la gestion. Oui, dans ce cas, la FAO est saine; mais comme chacun le sait, la FAO est malade, on l'a dit ici; la FAO est malade de ressources. Commentt, dans ces conditions, pouvons-nous demander à notre Organisation d'absorber les coûts supplémentaires qu'occasionnerait la mise en oeuvre des recommandations?
Il nous faut être réalistes et mesurer la gravité de la proposition qui consiste à demander à une organisation, déjà malade et en crise financière, de supporter des coûts additionnels.
Une telle proposition ne ferait que mettre davantage notre Organisation dans una situation difficile. En même temps qu'elle entamerait les activités de l'Organisation, cette proposition mettrait la FAO davantage à genoux et placerait le Directeur général de la FAO dans l'obligation soit de procéder à des emprunts bancaires - ce qui aurait des conséquences fâcheuses sur l'économie déjà affaiblie des pays en développement - soit de procéder à de nouvelles coupes de programmes, par exemple les programmes de coopération technique auxquels les pays en développement tiennent tant, ou alors de réduire l'assistance technique fournie aux pays bénéficiaires.
Comme vous le voyez, les dangers qui guettent la FAO et les pays en développement bénéficiaires sont énormes. Cependant, nous ne devons pas perdre espoir; nous devons garder la tête froide, rester calmes et sereins, car ma délégation a noté tout au long des débats la volonté manifeste des uns et des autres de parvenir à un accord.
Pour sa part aussi la délégation sénégalaise est ouverte à tout dialogue constructif, qu'il soit organisé dans un cadre officiel ou informel. Dans la perspective de la recherche d'un consensus que tous les pays appellent de leurs voeux, ma délégation ne ménagera aucun effort pour apporter sa modeste contribution, car elle est convaincue qu'un consensus est tout à fait possible par la poursuite du dialogue, fut-il dans un cadre informel.
A cet égard je réitère à la commission l'entière disponibilité de ma délégation.
Je ne saurais terminer sans féliciter le Professeur Mazoyer, Président du Comité du programme, et le Directeur général de la FAO pour leurs exposés introductifs aux débats, et qui ont animé l'examen de cet important point de notre Ordre du jour.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): At this stage of the debate there is very little I can say. What I could say has been said ten times already by my colleagues with which I associate myself but allow me to reiterate the approval by the Philippines delegation of the main conclusions and all the recommendations already expressed during the Council.
We realize the recommendations and conclusions of this Review have been eloquently described by the delegate of Argentina as a compromise. We believe we can go along with these compromised recommendations and we can agree with the conclusion agreed upon by most developing countries that the Organization is basically in a dynamic and healthy state. I believe the mandate of the Review, as spelled out in Resolution 6/87, which has also been a compromise, has described a particular mechanism for carrying out the Review and these steps have been undertaken. I believe no further steps are being requested at this stage.
Reference has been made to the need to realize savings through internal reorganization. We think everything is possible but we think it is difficult at the present time after the cuts of US$ 45 million which have been made during the past biennium due to shortfalls of contributions which the Organization is facing.
Regarding the monitoring and streamlining of the Field Programmes, we believe that the creation of a new committee or new body would merely increase the operating costs of the Organization. I suggested, via the Head of the Philippines delegation, to the Council that possibly this could be done by extending the functions and responsibilities of the existing Committees to carry out the overseeing and streamlining of the field operations.
We believe at this stage we should be open to dialogue and come to a unanimous conclusion on this Review.
Mlle. FAUZIA BOUMAIZA (Algérie): Compte tenu du nombre important d'orateurs qui sont intervenus avant nous, la délégation algérienne désire abréger son intervention en priant le Secrétariat de bien vouloir prendre en compte les vues que nous avons déjà exprimées sur ce point lors de la quatre-vingt-seizième session du Conseil.
Nous renouvelons nos remerciements aux experts qui se sont acquittés honorablement de leurs missions; nous félicitons le Comité conjoint financier et du programme des efforts qu'il a fournis en vue d'aboutir à des recommandations consensuelles; enfin, nos félicitations vont également au Directeur général qui a facilité le déroulement de l'examen, ainsi qu'à vous-même, Monsieur le Président, pour l'excellente manière dont vous dirigez nos débats depuis le début de nos travaux.
Toutes ces félicitations reflètent un peu la disposition d'esprit constructive et la volonté de dialogue que la délégation algérienne souhaite affirmer. En effet, nous avons examiné les recommandations proposées à l'issue de l'examen de certains aspects des buts et opérations de la FAO, conformément à la Résolution 6/87, et la délégation algérienne, tout en approuvant en général les recommandations proposées, souhaite à son tour insister sur certaines d'entre elles qui méritent, selon nous, une attention particulière, et ce en plus des aspects que nous avons déjà développés lors du Conseil sur ce même sujet.
Il s'agit par exemple de la necesité de renforcer la coopération entre les institutions des Nations Unies, s'occupant du développement, de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture, notamment celles qui se trouvent à Rome.
D'ailleurs nous nous joignons à la proposition du Directeur général telle qu'il l'a présentée au Conseil, à savoir un renforcement de la consultation entre les organisations internationales ayant leur siège à Rome non pas par n'importe quelle solution, mais il me semble qu'il y a nécessité de renforcer cette consultation et, à ce sujet, nous reprenons à notre compte l'intervention du Président du FIDA sur ce 'sujet.
En ce qui concerne l'ordre des priorités proposé par le Directeur général à la page 19 du document C 89/21 notre délégation est d'accord sur la hiérarchisation des besoins; toutefois nous pensons qu'à l'intérieur des trois catégories de priorités délimitées en fonction du financement, les domaines répertoriés ne doivent pas rester impérativement dans l'ordre proposé. Si tel est le cas, notre délégation souhaite une sorte de révision de l'ordre dans lequel sont énoncés les domaines bénéficiant de dépenses prioritaires dans le cadre du budget.
Enfin, la délégation algérienne considère que l'examen est arrivé à son terme et que sa conclusion devrait être confirmée par une résolution reprenant les recommandations sur lesquelles un consensus aura été trouvé. A ce sujet, nous nous joignons à ce qu'a dit le délégué de l'Argentine; nous sommes en effet arrivés aujourd'hui à l'issue d'un examen qui, tout au long de son processus, a été jalonné par un compromis, et nous pensons que nous ne sommes pas loin d'arriver à la conclusion de ce compromis.
Notre délégation a enregistré avec satisfaction la conclusion des experts, à savoir que la FAO est une organisation solide et dynamique; c'est pour nous une confirmation du rôle important que joue la FAO au plan international dans l'exercice des trois rôles qui lui sont dévolus. Nous n'allons pas les énumérer une fois de plus car tout le monde les a lus dans le document. J'ajouterai que nous souscrivons à l'analyse du Comité conjoint financier et du programme concernant ces trois rôles.
En ce qui concerne le financement, l'approche de la délégation algérienne est à peu près identique à celle de bon nombre de pays en développement qui connaissent actuellement des difficultés économiques, entraînant des restrictions budgétaires.
Nous reprendrons ici la partie du discours du chef de notre délégation qui a été insérée dans le PV de la plénière. Notre délégation souhaite que toutes les solutions possibles soient explorées afin que l'on trouve les fonds nécessaires, en tenant compte toutefois de l'austérité économique de plusieurs pays en développement, en particulier du nôtre, qui ne peuvent apporter de contributions supplémentaires directes ou indirectes qui augmenteraient finalement leur contribution telle que fixée par le barème des contributions.
En conclusion, notre délégation considère qu'aujourd'hui plus qu'il y a deux ans nous avons davantage la possibilité d'arriver au consensus souhaité; nous sommes proches d'y aboutir et il ne faudrait pas que notre accord sur le fond des propositions avancées dans le document C 89/21 ainsi que dans les annexes achoppe sur la question des ressources financières. Enfin, je tenais à dire que l'examen a eu au moins le mérite - car il en a plusieurs, mais il a au moins celui-là - de jeter des ponts entre les différentes délégations à Rome; et un dialogue a pu finalement s'instaurer entre nous malgré l'écart qui nous séparait il y a deux ans.
C. Srinivasa SASTRY (India): You will recollect that the idea of the Review of FAO first emerged during the Twenty-first Conference in 1985. Thus, as the prelude to this long debate yesterday and today in Commission II, we have been having an exchange of views of the FAO Review, including formal and informal consultations, for nearly four years now. Nearly one year after the idea of the Review was initially mooted in 1985, serious and in-depth discussions started in November 1986 in the Ninetieth Session of the Council. These proceeded intermittently till November 1987 when during the Twenty-fourth Conference, Resolution 6/87 was adopted. From April 1988 onwards, for implementing the Conference Resolution, a detailed and elaborate exercise has been in progress, first by the two Groups of Experts and management consultants, then by the Programme and Finance Committees in the SJS and then the Council and now finally in the Conference itself. Because this long discussion in Commission II followed the excellent introduction by Professor Mazoyer we do not propose to go into each of the 32 recommendations of the SJS, as also the two additional points raised by the Director-General in terms of staff training, paragraph 67, and the one on financial resources on which, while the SJS did not make a specific recommendation, the Director General has placed before us a tentative statement of extra costs that the recommendations might involve.
Having been a member of the Programme Committee, the COAG and the Council, India has had ample opportunities to express it views on the Review of the FAO, as also on each of the recommendations which are now before the Conference.
We have expressed our views on ten of these recommendations in paragraph 2,64 during the discussion in the Council. These views are at pages 15 to 20 of the Council's verbatim record, the document CL 96/PV/7. To save time may I request you to kindly include our intervention in the Council, along with the corrections which have been sent to Room A-357, as a part of the proceedings of Commission II on this Agenda item.
In view of the further and long discussion in Commission II on the SJS recommendations and the views and comments of the Director-General we do not want to take your time to deal with the 15 recommendations in Chapter 3 and the 7 recommendations in Chapter 4, except to mention that we support the recommendations of the SJS and the views and comments of the Director-General on these recommendations.
Since all these recommendations are by now widely known and discussed, while desisting from discussing them in detail we may, with your permission, utilize this opportunity to furnish our views on some of the suggestions which have emerged during the course of this discussion in Commission II. There was a widespread feeling expressed about according a high priority for environmental protection and the role of women. While we concede that the role of women in development activities in rural areas in the developing countries is very important, so far as environmental factors are concerned it has been our stand that FAO has a role to play in building awareness about the linkages between the responsibility for environmental degradation and damage and the obligations to share the cost of repairing the damage. This would be an ideal choice for a Special Action Programme.
Coming to the Special Action Programmes, no doubt having more Special Action Programmes, as recommended by the SJS, would help in ensuring better focus, continuity of programmes and also would be amenable to better management. However, the point raised by the Director-General in his views and continents, whether the additional Special Action Programmes could be serviced and funded with the existing level of staff and technical support, is an issue that we should not lose sight of.
Reference was nade about country studies and policy advice and implicit in this criticism was the view that FAO has not been engaging itself in this activity. I would draw your attention to paragraph 2.15 of the SJS Report. "The Committees recall that FAO has carried out a large number of Agricultural policy studies at global (5 large-scale studies), regional, sub-regional (6 studies) and country (several dozen studies) levels. In so doing it has mobilized multidisciplinary teams and collaborated with other UN agencies and institutions and Member Nations. The Committees urge the Organization to continue along these lines." We would, however, add that these studies can be undertaken only when a Member Nation wants the study to be taken up and secondly, this involves a lot of time, human effort and also cost.
There was also a point made about the need for having a committee on operations by the delegate of Switzerland, ffay I invite your attention to Annex 3, of the Swiss note, at pages A43 to 45 of document C 87/30 which was considered by the last Conference, which was also considered by the Groups of Experts and the SJS and this particular proposal has not found favour in any of these fora. However, we would submit that this is an issue on which one cannot take a stand forever. I understand in the late 1960s, that in the FAO the Conference did set up two technical committees, one of which was supposed to deal with field programmes and my information is they met only once in 1969, whereas in 1970 a decision was taken to abolish these fora. I would be grateful if you could request the representatives of the Secretariat to give us some factual information on these matters when they reply to the debate.
Another issue which we would like to touch upon is the funding for implementing the results of the Review. The delegate of Switzerland has mentioned, if I got the quotation correctly, "the Review did not entail additional funding", and he supported the stand taken by the delegate of France. The delegate of Norway had said, "In the Nordic view the main thrust of the Review has not been to identify the areas where additional resources are necessary." In view of these forceful pleas, we have had another careful look at all the relevant documents relating the this Review. Our study has confirmed our recollection that nowhere in the documentation connected with this Review exercise did the delegates of these Member Nations say clearly, or according to our understanding, even by implication, that the Review exercise should not involve any additional resources. We have gone through the Nordic countries' papers at pages A14 to A18 of document C 87/30. We have gone through the Swiss paper at pages A32 to A45, along with its three annexes in document C 87/30. We have carefully studied the Resolution 6/87 under which the Programme and Finance Committees have been entrusted with the task of Review. We have also gone carefully through the French paper which came after the Conference but it was included at pages A73 to A76 of document SJS 1/2 of April 1988 to which we have had access as a member of the Programrme Committee. We have also gone through the Terms of Reference of Group 1 in pages 5 and 6 of document SJS 3/2. We have also seen the Terms of Reference of Group 2 in pages 1.19 of document SJS 3/2. To be fair to the Programme and Finance Committees, and I am sure Professor Mazoyer will agree with me, we would like to point out that nowhere did the Conference or the Council stipulate either categorically or even by indication or implication that under no circumstances should the Review exercise result in an additional bill of costs. Nor did these governing bodies say that if any of these recommendations involved any additional costs then the SJS should simultaneously also identify and list out which are the activities, whose relative importance should be reduced, as suggested by the delegate of Switzerland, or, as he went on to add, to eliminate even some activities which should go to some other United Nations body. It is not clear to us as to how certain delegates are suggesting that resources of this magnitude could be found by cutting out some other programmes or activities. The Review exercise as far as we are aware and as far as we could discern did not produce any raterial or evidence to substantiate any such conclusion.
We are witnessing here two strains of thought marked by mutual tension coming from the same quarters. On the one hand there is a political position in that it has not emerged from any process of demonstrable analysis that no money should be made available for new activities. On the other, the same countries are suggesting excellent new initiatives which cost money, sometimes considerable amounts. Increasing cooperation with GATT and the World Environment Conference are excellent examples which we are sure will multiply with time.
Any enlightened management has to weigh new activities in the light of their affordability, at the cost of existing obligations and a time is bound to be reached, if it has not already been reached in the FAO as sane of us believe, when there is no room to accommodate new activities. In the circumstances the approach of suggesting new activities without funding them would conceptually become synonomous with a patent call for stagnation.
However, having said this we should also note that the bill of US$ 26.75 million of the Director-General's views and comments is but a first estimate, as the Director-General himself clarified yesterday. We should note that even if these figures were to be taken as final, only US$ 18.36 million are to be met from the Regular Programme funding, while US$ 8.39 million, according to the Director-General, are to come from extra budgetary sources of funding. It is conceivable that these figures could bear a second look and, depending upon a revised phasing and scheduling, one could arrive at a lower bill of costs for implementing the recommendations of the Review, particularly if these are to be spread over a longer time frame.
It could also be argued that if over the last three years, there was a cut-back in the programme funding of the order of US$ 68 million, US$ 20 million, US$ 23 million and US$ 25 million per year - even though this cut-back was not due to the review but due to the delays in the contributions of Member Nations - surely this extra expenditure of US$ 18.36 million could also be met from the Regular Programme - by imposing corresponding cuts without recourse to any additional funding.
On this issue perceptions differ among Member Nations, depending on which of the FAO's three basic functions are most important to a Member Nation and secondly, how dependent on the FAO that Member Nation is for securing the services.
However, we firmly believe that given goodwill and understanding on all sides and extending the spirit of consensus that has marked the Review exercise since April 1988, it should be possible to discuss this matter in the Progranine and Finance Committees, or through informal channels and in consultation with the Director-General and arrive at an agreed level and time frame, as also sources of funding for implementing these recommendations.
One could also join the delegate from Australia and take the view that implementation of the recommendations of the Review exercise, once the Conference approves them, is a management function and the Director-General, after the Conference passes the resolution, should work out the implications, if need be in consultation with the SJS.
Another alternative would be to entrust this task to an informal contact group which in addition to drafting an agreed resolution would also come up, after consulting the Director-General, with revised figures about the priorities, funding levels required and the time-frame for implementation.
However, for all this to happen the Conference must agree and come to definitive conclusions on the outcome of the Review.
We sincerely feel that in the interests of the Organization this is not a natter on which the Member Nations should divide.
We also believe that this is an issue on which a decision on the basis of voting should really be the last resort. We urge that there should be consensus extending the spirit of understanding, conciliation, negotiation, give and take, which have characterized the entire Review process exercise in the SJS since April 1988.
May I point out that the thirteen experts in the two groups with members drawn from all parts of the globe have been able to arrive at unanimous conclusions in both the groups. We would submit that this was possible only because the thirteen experts did not look at the issues close to them as representatives of their nations to which they belong but as individuals and as professionals.
May we join the delegates of Canada and Australia in their appeal that Member Nations should look at the proposals keeping in view the good of humanity at large so that we could build further on what has already been accomplished and that we do not harp on our differences, but we talk of the differences only with a view to narrowing them down and proceeding further on the basis of agreement already achieved.
Should we ultimately fail to broaden the area of agreement we would respectfully submit that at least on the thirty-five recommendations of the SJS on which there is unanimity, barring the funding, we should agree on a suitable resolution. It should be our common endeavour to see that for the good of the Organization the wealth of the data, insight and the agreed recommendations which have emerged should not be lost irretrievably, as they well might be if we fail to arrive at a consensus.
We firmly believe that this opportunity should be seized for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the Organization and to strengthen the FAO which, as we are all aware, has been the main object of this Review exercise right from the beginning.
Gustavo SOMMA (Uruguay) : En nombre de la delegación del Uruguay debo manifestar el reconocimiento a la labor llevada a cabo por los miembros de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, y a todas las demás personas que han hecho posible la preparación de los documentos que han demandado un intenso trabajo de dos años.
Destacamos el hecho que haya sido posible llegar en casi todos los casos a conclusiones adoptadas por unanimidad, si bien en algunos puntos ello no se ha logrado, a pesar de que como se expresa en el párrafo 16 del informe de los Comités, se hicieron esfuerzos por intentar alcanzar una postura común y llegar a un entendimiento mutuo.
Sobre un punto que es de trascendental importancia esa conclusión única pudo ser posible: el de que la FAO continúa siendo una institución sólida, fuerte y dinámica. Ya en la pasada Conferencia, mi delegación había expresado la confianza en la Organización y en sus posibilidades de ajuste y dinamismo en su modo de actuar sin la necesidad de que se establecieran por vías indirectas procedimientos extensos y complejos, que más que agilizar, podían burocratizar y por lo tanto debilitar a la Organización. Hoy, una vez concluido este examen, debemos agregar además el alto costo que el proceso ha tenido en un momento financiero particularmente especial para la Organización.
Pasando a las conclusiones del examen, en lo que se relaciona con las funciones de la FAO, definidas en los Textos Básicos, recalcamos la importancia que tiene cada una de ellas, pues cada una es válida e importante en el ámbito específico de competencia inherente a los fines para los cuales la Organización fue establecida.
Sin embargo, mención especial merece la asistencia técnica para los países en desarrollo por el fundamental papel que ella tiene como medio de hacer frente y superar nuestras dificultades. También nos parecen adecuadas las propuestas basadas en nuevas exigencias que podrán reforzar el rol de la FAO.
Asimismo remarcamos el papel de la FAO en materia de investigación y transferencia de tecnología. La estrategia internacional para el desarrollo debe ser dinámica y flexible para facilitar el acceso de los países en desarrollo a la tecnología y permitir un aprovechamiento racional de los recursos y a la vez la protección del medio ambiente. Nuestra dependencia tecnológica es un factor inhibitorio del desarrollo y constituye una amenaza a la soberanía política. La puesta en práctica de políticas de desarrollo que aseguren el aprovechamiento racional de los recursos, protegiendo el medio ambiente, requiere la disponibilidad de tecnologías y medios financieros apropiados que no están al alcance de todos los países en desarrollo.
Compartimos lo expresado por los comités sobre la CTPD y la importante función que ella desempeña para la difusión de tecnologías locales, recursos genéticos y sistemas agrícolas adecuados.
Asimismo, en cuanto a otras medidas para fortalecer el papel de la Organización apoyamos las recomendaciones para la aplicación del Plan de Acción para la integración de la mujer en el desarrollo y la valorización de su papel en las actividades rurales.
Apoyamos la labor que puede cumplir la FAO en el campo del comercio internacional ayudando a los países en las negociaciones que se llevan a cabo en el GATT.
A través del Codex Alimentarius y de la convención internacional de protección fitosanitaria se podrán hacer progresos para la eliminación de los obstáculos sanitarios al comercio internacional de productos agrícolas.
De conformidad con lo propuesto por los comités en el párrafo 3.42, apoyamos lo atinente al examen de las operaciones de campo por los órganos técnicos, compartiendo además la consideración de que la asistencia debe ser examinada de acuerdo con sus méritos, debiéndose conservar la flexibilidad necesaria para adaptarla a las diversas situaciones de los países y su fase de desarrollo y de form tal que se aprovechen todas las posibilidades de financiación.
Ello debe entenderse dentro del contexto de que no debe existir limitación al derecho de los Estados de fijar sus propios planes y programas de desarrollo.
Nos parece adecuada la conclusión de que se continúe y refuerce el Programa de Cooperación FAO/Banco Mundial que tan buenos resultados ha dado.
En síntesis y para concluir, podemos apoyar todas las recomendaciones de los comités, expuestas en el informe conjunto, pero haciendo mención que vetos con preocupación el hecho de cómo se llevará a cabo la incrementación de las conclusiones a que ha arribado el examen. Creemos que no es posible efectuar reajustes al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto y que ni es posible para los países en desarrollo aportar nuevos recursos para financiar esas conclusiones.
Finalmente expresamos el deseo que la Conferencia pueda llegar a adoptar el informe y endosar sus recomendaciones por consenso. 1/
LE PRESIDENT: L'Uruguay nous a fait parvenir son intervention. Elle sera insérée dans le procès-verbal.
Je donne la parole à M. Shah pour lui permettre de donner les éclaircissements qu'il faut à ceux qui lui ont posé des questions.
V. J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programmer Budget and Evaluation): Thank you, Mr Chairman, for giving me the floor at this stage. Let me reassure you, Sir, that this is no attempt to reply to the debate at this stage of your deliberations. I just felt it was my duty, and it might be useful, to try and clarify some of the questions which have been raised, and I do not presume to take up all the questions now. But one series of questions which has been raised concerns the calculation of the costs of implementing the recommendations. This issue has been raised a number of times by a number of delegates, with a different perspective, at least one saying that there were not necessarily any costs involved, others asking for more information, others having some doubtful eye on them in terms of, "Well, perhaps they are not too accurate or perhaps they could be recalculated". Let me try to give you some information to try and clarify all these comments.
Mr Chairman, I wish to reassure you that these cost estimates have been made on a very pragmatic, careful, realistic basis. There is no question of pulling figures out of a hat. Action on these recommendations where it involves staff is easy to cost in terms of the cost of staff positions. Action where travel is involved, action where meetings are involved - these are all normal elements of our Programme of Work and Budget and we have applied the same discipline and the same system of costing these estimates.
In other debates, some delegates have complimented the Secretariat, and the Secretariat is very grateful, for the assurance of professionalism of what is submitted to our governing bodies, and I would like to assure you that the Secretariat has tried to keep to the same level and the same quality of professionalism.
Secondly, these estimates were not brought forward now in the final comments of the Director-General on the review of the SJS; the estimates were submitted to the Special Joint Session of the two Committees so that they could be examined by them in all fullness of consideration of the issues before the recommendations came frati the two Committees.
Let me give you same examples very briefly. One example would be on the regional studies. An estimate is given of US$ 1.6 million. For basing this estimate we took our last experience of the regional study for Latin America and the Caribbean. The experience was recent enough so the figure is reliable. For the same reason, when the proposal for a regional study for Asia and the Pacific has been advanced by a number of Member Nations, the Director-General has been very cautious in the Programme of Work and Budget by saying, firstly, that he wished to ensure that the proposal met with the endorsement of the governing bodies, and secondly, that since no provision is included for a full study for Asia and Pacific in the next Programme of Work and Budget, all he could undertake to do was to start preparatory work and if the proposal was endorsed by the governing bodies, then ensure that the study would be carried out in the following biennium.
A second example is that of the country policy studies. Four million US dollars, yes: the explanation is given in the documents that this is based on an average of US$ 400 000 per country study. The explanation also is very-honest. Not every study costs US$ 400 000; there are some which can cost a great deal more, and it is not a question of estimating such a study in terms of the size of the country. In fact it may very often be that the smaller the country the higher the cost of the study. It depends on the data which is available, the expertise which is available within the country, on a host of factors, but the estimate is based on experience.
A third example, and I will not give any more in the interest of time, is that of the strengthening of country offices. The total amount of US$ 5 050 000 includes three elements. There is an element - and I refer here to paragrafai 60 of the report - of US$ 2 million for strengthening ten country offices to play a role in policy analysis and advice. What does this involve? This involves the creation of posts and the assignment of ten officers at the P-5 level with some clerical support and some general operating expenses. Why ten? This was a matter of judgement. But if Member Nations want the offices of FAO representatives to be strengthened to engage in policy dialogue with the national government in order to provide support in policy analysis ten would be a useful figure. If you said, "We do not went ten, we only want five", fine, no quarrel, but the estimate is still realistically calculated. Similarly, additional programme staff, this is the second element of the strengthening of FAOR offices. The proposal involves US$ 2 250 000 for strengthening 15 offices. This is calculated on the basis of staff, not at the P-5 level, no, this type of expertise and programming can be provided at the P-3 level with some clerical support and general operating expenses. And the third calculation, still in this overall figure of US$ 5 050 000, is a strengthening through office automation and communications equipment - US$ 800 000. The US$ 800 000 is not a blanket figure. The US$ 800 000 is based on the following assumptions: that out of the seventy-four offices, twenty-one would justify substantial equipment in terms of microcomputers, printers, facsimile equipment, modems, additional telephone lines; forty would be strengthened with much more moderate equipment - just some facsimile equipment, additional telephone lines, telephone systems; and thirteen just with some minimal facsimile equipment. So there is a judgement used in presenting these estimates.
In brief, I trust that Member Nations will be reassured of the seriousness with which these estimates have been put forward. It is not a question of the Director-General or the Secretariat saying that we insist on these figures. No, these figures have been based on assumptions which have been clarified.
The matter, as the Director-General said yesterday, is really in your hands. If you do not wish specific recommendations to be implemented, that is the sovereign decision of the Conference. Then it will not need to consider the cost implications of those recommendations. If you wish certain recommendations to be implemented subject to extra-budgetary resources, so be it. If you wish certain reccommendations implemented at a lower level through phasing over a longer period, as has been suggested during the debate, that is also a natter for your decision.
I hope that these few clarifications will answer the points which have been raised on this subject.
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois effectivement que les explications de Mr. Shah étaient nécessaires. Ccmme je l'ai dit, nous allons ajourner le débat sur cette question. Nous y reviendrons demain après-midi. Je vais essayer, avec le concours de mes amis - et je sais que vous êtes tous mes amis -, de nous faire arriver au consensus que tout le monde appelle de ses voeux.
Nous allons donc lever la séance et nous reprendrons notre débat demain après-midi, lorsque la situation sera un peu plus mûre.
The meeting rose at 19.30 hours
La séance est levée à 19 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 19.30 horas
__________
1 Texto incluido en las actas a petición expresa.
