François ROHNER (Suisse): J'aimerais remercier le Secrétariat pour les documents qu'il nous a présentés ce matin. L'exercice que nous avons mené tous ensemble depuis 1987 et qui a abouti en 1989 à la fameuse Résolution 10/89, non seulement était utile et opportun, mais à notre avis absolument indispensable, face surtout aux défis des années 90. Il s'agissait, et je cite, "d'imprimer à l'Organisation une nouvelle orientation et de lui conférer un regain de dynamisme afin qu'elle puisse continuer à jouer un rôle de chef de file dans l'agriculture mondiale dans les années à venir".
L'exercice n'a, il est vrai, pas été bon marché. Il nous a en effet tous, Secrétariat et membres, intensément occupés pendant bien longtemps, à juste titre me semble-t-il. Les trois millions de dollars nous ont toutefois paru de l'argent bien placé vu l'importance de l'enjeu de l'examen et l'ordre de grandeur des budgets gérés par l'Organisation. Nous nous félicitons de l'effet ou plutôt des multiples effets qu'a déjà eus l'examen.
Plus important encore que le ou les documents qu'il a produits jusqu'à présent nous parait cependant le processus de réflexion qu'il a déclenché au sein du Secrétariat tout autant que parmi les membres de l'Organisation; un processus qui va certes devoir se poursuivre mais qui a déjà eu des premiers résultats très prometteurs dont je mentionnerai avant tout le Plan à moyen terme que nous avons examiné ici en détail la semaine dernière et au sujet duquel ma délégation a été très heureuse de constater qu'il existait un très large et solide consensus.
Il s'agira maintenant de traduire ce Plan avec détermination dans les programmes et activités de l'Organisation, ce qui devra certes se faire par étapes avec des objectifs clairs et précis.
Nous nous attendons à ce que le prochain Programme de Travail et Budget, de même que le Programme de terrain qui seront préparés pour 1994 et 1995 reflètent, beaucoup plus clairement que cela a pu être le cas pour l'exercice que nous avons discuté la semaine passée, les priorités du Plan à moyen terme et démontrent en détail les mesures prises en vue de concentrer les activités de l'Organisation sur des domaines dans lesquels la FAO détient ses véritables avantages comparatifs. Ceci impliquera nécessairement la réduction, voire l'abandon, d'activités dans des domaines de moins grande priorité.
Nous ne mettons bien entendu pas en doute la grande diversité des besoins des pays en développement à laquelle doivent répondre leurs partenaires internationaux. Nous avons tous intérêt, je crois, à ce que les entités des
Nations Unies concentrent leurs activités dans des domaines de leur compétence en cherchant à obtenir le meilleur résultat et impact possibles de l'utilisation de leurs ressources qui demeureront toujours limitées.
Pour ce qui est du financement de l'ensemble des mesures proposé par le Secrétariat, dont le coût est estimé à 87 millions de dollars, nous estimons qu'avec une situation financière rétablie ce coût devrait pouvoir être pleinement absorbé dans le nouveau budget.
Concernant les différents domaines prioritaires que le rapport passe en revue, je me limiterai à ce stade aux quelques remarques suivantes.
Tout d'abord, le rôle de l'Organisation en matière d'analyse des politiques sectorielles et sous-sectorielles du Conseil, et de l'avis sur ces politiques et la coordination des aides. Le rapport nous donne quelques informations utiles sur le type d'activités entreprises à cet égard. L'Organisation doit, à notre avis, renforcer sa capacité dans ce domaine si elle veut pouvoir jouer son rôle pleinement, pouvoir exploiter ses avantages comparatifs.
Nous sommes heureux de voir qu'une collaboration plus étroite est en train de s'établir avec le FMI, la Banque mondiale et les autres Banques régionales de développement. Nous encourageons la FAO à poursuivre ses efforts.
Les mesures prises dans les domaines de l'environnement et du développement durable, du suivi de la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural, et les autres domaines prioritaires sur lesquels le rapport met l'accent ont toutes notre plein appui.
J'aimerais maintenant en venir aux activités de. terrain. La nouvelle procédure mise en place, qui prévoit l'examen des Programmes de terrain par les Comités techniques n'a, à notre avis, pas encore eu tous les résultats souhaités. Les raisons en sont bien connues: les débats sont souvent restés trop généraux, trop formels aussi. Nous sommes heureux d'apprendre aussi que le Secrétariat est en train d'étudier des mesures en vue d'améliorer le processus, processus qui ne devra pas se limiter à l'examen des progrès réalisés mais devra également porter sur l'orientation future des activités, à la lumière du Programme à moyen terme.
Nous appuyons en outre la proposition faite ce matin par les Etats-Unis, soutenue par d'autres, concernant la nécessité d'une revue des méthodes de travail, aussi bien au niveau des Comités et du Conseil que de la Conférence. Le Comité du Programme, défini dans le rapport au Conseil sur l'examen, souligne, à notre avis à juste titre, l'importance d'un dialogue continu entre Etats Membres en vue de renforcer la pertinence et l'impact de l'action de la FAO, dialogue que nous souhaitons voir se renforcer dans des réunions formelles comme celle-ci tout autant que par des consultations informelles.
Nous souhaitons aussi qu'à l'avenir l'instrument des consultations informelles soit utilisé plus souvent aussi entre Etats Membres et Secrétariat, pour discuter de questions plus complexes, sujets nécessitant souvent une discussion plus approfondie. Je prendrai pour exemple la proposition faite par le Secrétariat d'amalgamer la revue du Programme
ordinaire et du Programme de terrain dans un seul document. Il nous apparaît en effet qu'il serait utile d'avoir un examen approfondi sur cette question.
Ma délégation continuera à prendre une part active dans le renforcement de l'Organisation. Nous suivrons la poursuite de la mise en oeuvre de la Résolution 10/89 avec une très grande attention.
Hassoune JILALI (Maroc): Permettez-moi, au nom de la délégation marocaine, de féliciter le Secrétariat pour l'excellente qualité des documents soumis à notre Commission aussi bien dans le cadre de l'actuel point de l'ordre du jour que dans celui de ceux qui l'ont précédé.
Les félicitations de la délégation marocaine sont aussi adressées à M. Shah pour la qualité et la clarté avec lesquelles il a bien voulu introduire les documents.
La Résolution 10/89 relative à l'Examen de certains aspects des buts et opérations de la FAO, qui avait été adoptée en 1969 dans une ambiance de consensus général, décrit clairement les décisions et recommandations à mettre en oeuvre afin de définir pour la FAO une plate-forme d'action solide, des orientations clairement définies et des objectifs dont les cibles sont soigneusement arrêtées.
A ce titre, notre délégation note avec satisfaction les grands efforts déployés par la FAO pour la mise en oeuvre - dans les limites de ses mandats - des directives et recommandations de cette Résolution.
Ces efforts ont fait qu'une gamme importante des actions à mettre en oeuvre a été réalisée en 1990-91 malgré les difficultés financières de notre Organisation.
Ces réalisations, tel que cela ressort des documents C 91/21 et C 91/LIM/22, et tel que cela se dégage de l'exposé de M. Shah, ont concerné des domaines tout aussi importants les uns que les autres.
Compte tenu du fait que ces domaines font actuellement l'objet d'examen par les autres commissions de cette Conférence, ou par la Commission II à l'occasion d'autres points de l'ordre du jour, la délégation marocaine se limitera dans cette intervention aux commentaires ou suggestions suivants.
En ce qui concerne l'aspect "environnement et développement durable", il n'y a aucun doute que l'ensemble de la communauté internationale est convaincue des problèmes extrêmement graves engendrés par la destruction de la nature qui se fait à une allure inquiétante. Il s'agit donc là d'un grand défi, celui de sauvegarder ce qui reste de la nature, de mettre tout en oeuvre pour restaurer ce qui a été détruit, d'avoir constamment présente à l'esprit la notion de programmation des actions de développement dans un cadre environnemental sain et protégé. La FAO, les autres organismes concernés et les gouvernements nationaux n'ont d'autre alternative, pour la sauvegarde de l'espèce humaine elle-même, que celle de faire face à ce défi en y consentant rapidement les sacrifices nécessaires. L'un des forums internationaux les plus à même de canaliser ces sacrifices et de les orienter est la FAO. Il est donc nécessaire que cette organisation soit fortement soutenue dans les actions qu'elle mènera dans ce cadre.
En ce qui concerne les suggestions de la FAO relatives à la diversification des cultures en Afrique, la délégation marocaine souhaite que les pays membres encouragent la FAO à faire le nécessaire pour traduire ces suggestions en propositions concrètes. En ce qui concerne les problèmes de relations FAO-PNUD, quelles que soient les discussions en cours actuellement entre le PNUD et les autres organisations, il faut être vigilant pour ne pas oublier l'expérience que la FAO a acquise dans beaucoup de domaines en ce qui concerne précisément, pour ne citer que cela, les actions sur le terrain.
En ce qui concerne l'amélioration de l'information sur les opérations de terrain, la FAO dispose d'une banque de données importantes et variées sur des thèmes précis. Dans la mesure où les thèmes ont trait à des questions techniques de caractère régional, la délégation marocaine propose que la FAO prévoie à l'avenir de faire bénéficier de ces études l'ensemble des pays concernés de la région. Ceci pourrait être réalisé à l'occasion de séminaires desquels ressortiraient les recommandations qui pourraient découler de ces études. Cette procédure permettrait d'éviter de reprendre dans un pays donné la réalisation de projets déjà exécutés dans un autre pays sur des thèmes identiques.
La délégation marocaine souhaite conclure son intervention avec l'espoir que soient redonnées à la FAO des bases financières sûres et stables qui permettraient, entre autres, de donner un nouvel élan à la mise en oeuvre des conclusions de l'examen de cette Organisation; car, s'il est entendu que la mise en oeuvre de la Résolution 10/89 puisse avoir un caractère graduel, il n'est pas souhaitable qu'elle dure longtemps au risque de voir ses effets et impacts diminuer d'intérêt et d'actualité, compte tenu de la grande vitesse avec laquelle évoluent les problèmes auxquels elle est sensée apporter des solutions, et de l'envergure de plus en plus étoffée et épineuse des défis à relever.
La mise en oeuvre des décisions et recommandations de la Résolution 10/89 a permis d'avoir un Plan à moyen terme de la FAO qui a suscité le plus grand intérêt auprès des pays membres et autour duquel un consensus a semblé se dégager.
Qu'est-ce qui nous empêcherait, M. le Président, maintenant de rechercher un consensus semblable en vue d'arrêter l'échéance à laquelle devra être achevée la mise en oeuvre précitée et de décider du montant des crédits à réserver à l'opération dans le cadre du budget 1992-93?
Neil PIERRE (Guyana): We should all once again join in extending our felicitations to the Secretariat, not only for the good quality of the documents before us and the manner in which the matter has been presented, but also in view of the exceedingly difficult circumstances in which this particular matter has had to be considered and implemented.
We note at the outset the statement contained in the document on the impact of the financial situation affecting the implementation of the Review recommendations. We can only hope that all financial commitments to the Organization will be honoured in a timely and consistent manner.
The Medium-Term Plan has been discussed at great length by this Commission. We believe that its implementation is a clear indication of action in the right direction. We support the view that biennial reviews and updating of the Medium-Term Plan should be effected.
We welcome the current emphasis on sustainable development and the environment in FAO’s work. We particularly commend the participation in preparations for UNCED and the external coordination of the Organization's work in this area. The multi-disciplinary coordination mechanism now in place within FAO itself is a highly desirable development in the view of my delegation.
FAO’s country policy work is also to be commended, especially since structural adjustment programmes now being implemented in most Third World countries all have well-known implications for agricultural, rural and sustainable development.
In this area particular emphasis must be placed on cooperation and coordination with other institutions. We urge that greater efforts should be pursued in streamlining FAO’s cooperation and coordination with other inter-governmental agencies, in particular the UNDP and the Bretton Woods institutions.
We see the strengthening of Country Offices and the decentralization of some activities as a welcome initiative from the Secretariat. We note in particular that preference will be given to countries with large field programmes and structural adjustment assistance in the light of the scaling down of posts identified for the strengthening of FAORs.
Finally, my delegation welcomes the support to agricultural trade negotiations and trade and commodity advice that has now been included in FAO's focus.
My delegation would like to commend this report, and to urge continued progress towards the full implementation of the Review recommendations.
Antonio BROTONS DIE (España): Expresamos nuestra felicitación por la excelente exposición del documento C 91/21 que sirve de debate en esta Comisión, y que nos ocupa en este momento.
Queremos expresar nuestra conformidad con los progresos que ha supuesto el Examen de los objetivos y operaciones de la FAO, que ha llevado a un sistema de prioridades de acciones del organismo en los ejercicios futuros, concretados en un Plan a Plazo Medio con finalización en 1997. Todo este proceso será tanto más fácil de llevar a cabo en cuanto desaparezcan las dificultades financieras de la Organización. No nos cansaremos pues de instar a los paises que tienen cuotas pendientes, a que las satisfagan con prontitud.
Algunos países parecen hacer coincidir el resultado del análisis de objetivos y actuaciones de la FAO con un aumento en las dotaciones presupuestarias de la Organización, y esto no es a nuestro criterio, sino que más bien se trata de esclarecer los objetivos prioritarios a los que debe atender la Organización, lo que no debería presuponer nuevos costes adicionales necesariamente.
Creemos que los distintos países interesados en las actuaciones concretas de la Organización, deben participar cada vez más en el seguimiento de las actividades de la FAO, en orden a conseguir la mejor asignación de recursos para cubrir los objetivos marcados.
Como ya hemos señalado en anteriores ocasiones, las asignaciones encaminadas a evaluar el resultado y eficacia de los proyectos, cuentan con nuestro apoyo decidido, en aras de poder conseguir un sistema eficaz y permanente de seguimiento de objetivos que, a través de indicadores convenientemente elegidos, bien identificables y fácilmente medibles, puedan proporcionar información concreta a la consecución del objetivo en tiempo y costo.
Queremos indicar finalmente, que en este proceso se deben tener presentes siempre las recomendaciones que formulen los distintos Comités especializados de la FAO, en las materias específicas como son Agricultura, Montes, Pesca, Productos Básicos, etc. y muy especialmente, las de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas.
CHAIRMAN: That brings us to the end of the list of speakers and I give the floor now to Mr Shah to answer.
V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation) : I particularly appreciate the fact that we had the lunch hour before I was called upon to respond because although I make my best effort to respond at any time you call on me to do so, the debate on this Item has been a particularly thought-provoking one and I wanted to reflect well on the manner in which I respond to it.
There are eleven points which I have grouped which I think cover most, if not all, of the questions raised and the comments made.
The first point is that I cannot but express on behalf of the Director-General and on behalf of all my colleagues our gratitude for the very high level of satisfaction which has been expressed over the Report the Director-General has submitted to you - satisfaction with the scope of the report, and with the extent to which the Director-General has been able to report on achievements, despite the financial problems. The financial problems were really of two categories: first, that there were no additional resources appropriated to implement the recommendations of the Review, and secondly - perhaps even more striking in their impact - the fact that the approved Programme of Work and Budget for this biennium has been under stress both because of the delays in receipt of contributions and because of the unbudgeted costs which have required us to retrench. But the message which comes through the debate and which is very important to the Secretariat is the recognition in the Conference, and at all stages in the discussion of this report which preceded your own discussion, that the manner in which the results of the FAO Review have been implemented has brought about many significant changes to your Organization. It has brought about changes which have been remarked on not only in this debate this morning and this afternoon but changes which have been remarked upon in your debate on the other Agenda Items, and not only in this Commission. You have recognized the changes which have come about in the manner that we, the Secretariat, work with you; in the manner in which we give you material such as the Medium-Term Plan; or proposals on improvements in the Programme
Budget Process; or substantive policy documents on the international development strategy; or on programmes for the environment and sustainable development; plans of action for women in development; people's participation in development; this is, I think, something recognized from your interventions, Mr Chairman, and shows how the Review has led to an enhancement of the policy focus between yourselves as Member Nations and between yourselves and the Secretariat. This has led to changes also within the Secretariat which have been commented upon; stronger coordination within the Secretariat, improved methods of work. So, we take a great deal of encouragement from this very first point which I would draw from your debate.
The second point is about costs - the cost of the Review. There have been different perceptions. On the one hand, there are some saying that one should not think of the Review in terms of the cost; one should think of it in terms of the benefits but I would beg to point out, let us do both. Let us not ignore the costs of the Review. There were certain identifiable financial and budgetary costs and these were reported to you. These were funds which were expended. Why close our eyes to them? By the same token, let us recognize that there are benefits which result from this effort and perhaps this point was very well taken by the Programme and Finance Committees in their joint meeting, and here I refer to paragraph 1.22 of their report which is before you in document C 91/LIM/22 and I quote "The Committees felt that the Review and its follow-up constituted a well-timed investment, with the ultimate aim of strengthening FAO." As far as the Director-General is concerned, Mr Chairman, he has to recognize that the Review has a cost, both direct and indirect, and he trusts that these costs have certain benefits which you are in a position to assess.
The third point, which has come up repeatedly in the debate is about the perception of individual Member Nations with regard to this FAO Review and this is a matter which goes back not only to the last Conference when you decided on the results of the Review but: it is a matter which goes back to the preceding biennium; it goes back to 1987; it goes back to the months and years when you were debating among yourselves on what sort of Review to have. Here I would like to be modestly very clear. There are some Member Nations who have always referred to this process as the reform of FAO and even this morning we heard references to the reform.
The Secretariat is obedient to the Conference, and so far as the Secretariat is concerned the Conference entitled the matter "The Review of Certain Aspects of FAO's Goals and Operations" and for that reason we, in the Secretariat, will always refer to it as that and for shorthand refer to it as the FAO Review.
I mention this because the debate also led to another recurrent trend and that is that there was some evocation of the concepts which have already been settled in the past years and particularly at the last Conference. I do not close my eyes at all to the fact that there are certain Member Nations whose representatives have expressed their conviction that the Review process is a never-ending one and they wish to continue it and they see it as something which they will continue. Fair enough, I have full respect for them but there are other Member Nations who have recalled what was the conclusion of the last Conference. The conclusion of the last Conference in the report dealing with "the Review of Certain Aspects of FAO's Goals and Operations" was in paragraph 240 "the Conference recalled that although the Review had been completed the dialogue which had been
established among Member Nations during its session had been constructive and it expressed the hope that this would continue in order to better support the objectives of the Organization."
I refer to this, Mr Chairman, because once again I would like to be clear. The Director-General has responded to the FAO Review as was carried out leading to the adoption of Resolution 10/89 and he has reported, as directed by that Resolution, on the action taken in the context of those recommendations. Mr Chairman, we believe in the Secretariat that it is important to bear this framework in mind on this subject because, on the one hand, you Member Nations may rightly feel that the future is eternal, the Organization may not be eternal but has some few years ahead of it and improvements are never-ending. Fair enough but, on the other hand, we cannot - if I may use the term, flog a dead horse, I should say that we should be careful not to embark on issues which were not in the context of the FAO Review in order to continue it artificially.
Mr Chairman, this is a matter of understanding among Member Nations and it is also a question of some self-restraint for your own benefit in order to maintain an orderly process in this Organization. Why do I mention it, Sir? I mention it because during the debate there were some references by individual Member Nations to suggestions which they had made over the past years, suggestions which had been thoughtfully considered by the last Conference in arriving at its decisions, and which were set aside; they were not accepted; they did not lead to individual recommendations and I give two examples: one was the idea of a Field Programme Committee. This Field Programme Committee was not a decision of the FAO Review and yet it has been referred to. Another example is an Inspection Unit reporting to the Governing Bodies. Again this was not a matter which was a decision resulting from the FAO Review. Of course, Mr Chairman, I bow to the right of all Member Nations to refer to matters they consider appropriate and which the Chairman permits in the debate but I mention, very respectfully, that these are matters not covered in the Director-General's Report because they do not constitute the context of the FAO Review as he was directed by the Conference to follow-up on.
The fourth point, Mr Chairman, concerns the impact of the Review and a number of questions were raised. I will try to do justice to them although they were raised in slightly different forms, in slightly different concepts, by more than one delegation. One aspect was what priorities have been affected or have suffered in this biennium as a result of the redirection of resources for the implementation of the Review? This question was also put in a slightly different way by another delegation as to how the Secretariat managed to implement those recommendations which the Director-General did without the additional resources. The question is complex but I would like to explain the process in which we have all been involved during this biennium. The first point, Mr Chairman, is to recall that the Conference directed that the implementation of the recommendations arising out of the Review should only be carried out to the extent that resources were available and without affecting the priorities established in the approved Programme of Work.
The Director-General has sought, and I trust has complied with, this directive. However, even the implementation of the approved Programme of Work has suffered, as you know. The Conference will recall the reports of the Finance Committee that we had to absorb unbudgeted staff costs, technically called a negative staff cost variance, which is estimated at
US$20 million for the biennium. The Finance Committee has also reported to the Council, and the Council to you, that the staff and non-staff currency losses exceed the funds which were available in the Special Reserve Account. At the last estimate I have quoted the figure of between US$6 and US$7 million. Now I go even higher to just under US$8 million. Therefore, the implementation of the recommendations of the Review has had to concentrate on those recommendations which could be acted upon through changes in the means of work and through the use of existing staff resources.
The preparation of the Medium-Term Plan, the enhancement of policy work, the measures to give greater emphasis to environment and sustainable development programmes all fall within this category. We have not been able to implement the recommendations involving additional resources, to give the two most striking examples, the strengthening of the FAO representations with additional staff and additional expenditures for external training. This could not be implemented because in order to do so would have meant affecting the approved Programme of Work and the approved priorities.
Another question was raised also in this same overall subject of impact of the Review in terms of what savings have been derived from the implementation of the Review?
Mr Chairman, the basic result of the FAO Review, to our minds and in general terms, was aimed more at qualitative improvements rather than cost savings. This is certainly so if one looks at the Resolution 10/89 and the related part of the Conference report. Even in the case of the Management Review, which was undertaken by the Finance Committee, less than half of the recommendations were aimed at reducing costs. Most were directed at improving the time limits and accuracy of financial reporting, improvement of data security in EDP systems, improved personnel policies, faster recruitment, enhancement of staff skills, and so on.
Now whilst each one of these measures would have benefits which eventually reduce the cost of operations, at least indirectly, any quantification at this stage, and I frankly would not make the effort - I am incapable of doing so - any quantification at this stage would be more a matter of aesthetics, and I would not like to indulge in that with you.
On the other hand, there were some specific recommendations aimed at reducing costs. Examples include the reduction in costs through reliance on in-house printing: US$750 000 saved as a result; or the use of automated systems to reduce bank charges, which are expected to save US$80 000 per annum as a result. All of these actions relating to the Management Review were the subject of a report to the Finance Committee at their September Session, and this report included a schedule listing each of the recommendations made by the consultants, and it provided the following information:
The reference to the report of the Programme and Finance Committee; a brief description of the recommendation; the start and expected end date of action on the item; the status of implementation at the time we reported to the Finance Committee; the estimated cost of implementation and the benefits derived, or to be derived.
In this connection, I would make three points. The first, is that quite a few of the recommendations require the application of more resources than could be made available, and this was reported to the Finance Committee. The second is that the total identifiable costs are expected to exceed the identifiable savings, but the principal benefits will be seen as qualitative improvements. The third is that actions required would take place over a period of time and the Finance Committee asks that it be kept informed of progress.
This brings me to the point which was mentioned in the debate and which I recognize very well, which is that in these future reports, the Finance Committee could well arrange to cover in more detail these aspects of the question.
The fifth point concerns all the remarks made about policy analysis, policy work, improved collaboration with other organizations in this work, and the further impact of policy work on field operations.
The first set of remarks concerns the cooperation between FAO and the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in country policy work. This cooperation, if I may enlarge on the report which has been submitted to you, has resulted in tangible although modest results so far, and I would like to give some examples. The IMF has provided a policy formulation paper and other technical documents for internal use by FAO in preparation for the provision of policy assistance. In return, FAO provides to the IMF the results of its studies and field experience. In addition to these examples, which are given in the documents, close consultation with the World Bank has been initiated in relation to FAO's agricultural sector reviews in Jordan, Egypt, the Philippines and Bolivia, among a few other countries.
Plans are currently being finalized for the second World Bank/FAO consultation on issues of common interest. The consultation, involving senior officials of both Institutions, will be held in Rome early next year, and the World Bank has been invited to participate in several FAO national policy workshops. Of course, as I have said on other occasions, cooperation is a two-way process and it requires the will and the intent on both sides as well as benefits which are recognized by both sides.
There was a separate question concerning the World Bank and IMF's capacity and expertise in macro-economics, and whether FAO would presume to compete with them. No sir, we would not presume to compete with them, and we would also endeavour not to overlap with them. We do not attempt to overlap in the provision of macro-economic advice to any Member Nation. What we try to do is to assist member countries to understand the implications of macro-economic change on the agricultural and food sectors and rural populations. Thus our intent is to be complementary to the efforts of the World Bank and the IMF, in helping countries obtain the long-term benefits of structural adjustment while shielding or buffering the groups of populations which are most at risk against the short-term negative effects.
A series of questions were asked about what we have done to strengthen our capacity for country policy work. As has been reported in the document, we have in place a coordination mechanism for sector and structural adjustment policy work which increases the multi-disciplinary nature of the policy work that we do, which avoid duplication of efforts even within the Secretariat, and is intended to ensure greater consistency in policy advice as it is formulated by different Units in FAO.
Secondly, we have designed the policy information system which has been approved by the Director-General for implementation during 1992, which will not only support preparations for policy assistance missions but also provide closer integration of policy work between Country Office and Headquarters staff, which is another aspect which has been highlighted by a number of you.
Thirdly, some resources have been redirected within the policy analysis division to provide mote direct support to country policy work; and fourthly, as you noted in the Programme for Work and Budget for the next biennium, two additional posts have been included and two other posts have been recommended for upgrading. Then the question arose of what is being done to evaluate and improve the quality of policy advice. The set of improvements which I have just described, the internal coordination measures, are intended to improve the quality of our work and the quality of our advice: but quality in whose eyes? The proof, as the old saying goes, will be in the pudding. The issue we are talking about is quality of advice in terms of what each of you have in mind, that is, your objective assessment of the quality of advice; or is it the quality of advice as recognized by the country to which that advice is given, and the use to which that advice is put in the formulation of the government's own policies? That to us is the key issue and that is what we will attempt to address.
Finally, Mr Chairman, on the subject of quality, in the final analysis one assessment of quality will be the number and the nature of requests that we receive from you, from member countries, for such assistance. A last adjunct to this question on policy advice was; has the work on policy increased during this biennium? The number of requests for assistance and the number of projects has increased during this biennium, while the resources have had to be not only static but they had to be reduced, so the resources available were only spread very thinly.
On the subject of cooperation with other institutions, the Inter-American Development Bank was also mentioned, and may I, in that connection, report that the text of a cooperative agreement between the Inter-American Development Bank and FAO has been approved at the technical level. The agreement covers work on investment projects and sector lending. An exchange of letters between the Director-General and the President of the IDB covers FAO's role in providing technical assistance to the Latin-American and Caribbean member countries on projects funded by the Inter-American Development Bank. The text of the letter has been agreed and we await the formally signed copy from the President of the IDB. The agreement will be submitted to our Governing Bodies for formal approval in 1992.
Mr Chairman, the sixth point covers questions regarding the Field Programme Management System. The first phase of the System, which is being supported generously by the Government of France, will be completed by the end of this year. The major outcome of this first phase is a consolidated computerized project data system for the management and the monitoring of projects in the pipeline, that is to say project ideas and projects which are under formulation.
The system will be ready for testing and what our technicians call a parallel run by the end of this year, and it is hoped that early next year the system will replace the existing pipeline systems that we have. The new project data system will be fully interfaced with both FINSYS and PERSYS
providing the project data necessary for the operation of these two administrative systems. In turn, this interface will facilitate retrieval of financial and staff data from FINSYS and PERSYS for the use of Field Programme management and monitoring. The new system will also allow retrieval of project data by technical sector or by special themes such as cross-sectoral themes, environment, sustainable development, women-in-development and so forth.
Further development of the Field Programme management system will depend on the availability of financial resources and will be implemented using a phased approach based on user priorities but let me indicate what the major activities to be carried out in the next phases would be. Firstly, to complete the interfaces with FINSYS/PERSYS for overall Field Programme management; secondly, expand the project data system to cover aspects of project implementation; thirdly, develop interfaces with other systems such as procurement and contracts; fourthly, to develop data transmission between Headquarters and Field Offices; and fifthly, to coordinate with our computer centre for the enhancement of FINSYS/PERSYS in order to better utilize data from these systems for the Field Programme. It is clear, Mr Chairman, that with such an ambitious Agenda, the work will have to be undertaken within resources which are available and allotted, and this will be done to the maximum extent possible with the on-going work. The duration of the whole project will of course depend on the magnitude of additional extra-budgetary resources which may be obtainable.
The seventh point: let me turn from the Field Programme to the examination of the Field Programme by the Technical Committees, because this was also touched upon fairly frequently in the debate. One of the wisest responses that came from the debate itself was from those who said that we have had the experience during this biennium for the Technical Committees, such as Committees on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, reviewing the Field Operations in their sector. The experience, in your view, has been mixed, but the experience surely is considered sound enough to be worth developing and to be worth improving. This really requires a joint effort, firstly on the part of the Secretariat in providing better documentation but, secondly, documentation which would lead to a richer debate, to more of a policy debate and to clearer conclusions. We in the Secretariat know that our Governing Bodies will give us such a debate, but the effort will have to be from both sides.
Related to the Technical Committees was a comment about the level of attendance by experts. I am very careful, being from the Secretariat, in commenting on this matter; we feel that it is the prerogative of a Member Nation to put whomsoever it wants on this delegation for any intergovernmental body. If I were on a national delegation, whichever country I belonged to, I would not accept criticism from other Member Nations on the quality of my delegation. On behalf of the Secretariat, we note that there are Member Nations who wish there to be greater expertise on national delegations, and the debate this morning recalled that there was an offer to facilitate the attendance of such experts on national delegations, we are acting on this. My colleagues in the Development Department in their dealings with Trust Fund donors have taken this matter up. I consulted them during the lunch hour. To date there has not been a positive response but we all recall very well that the United Kingdom suggested this possibility and expressed its willingness to make funds available under Trust Funds for this purpose, and my colleagues will be pursuing this matter with the authorities concerned.
The eighth point is the strengthening of FAO Representatives, and there are two aspects I picked up from the debate. One is strengthening of the offices of FAO Representatives; how is this going to be done? Secondly, what is the qualitative change in the future of these offices? The strengthening that is envisaged for the next biennium is in the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium, which you are about to approve. Let me point out that the strengthening has included such a substantial programme increase for FAO Representative Offices precisely because we were not able during this biennium to carry out the strengthening which was called for under the FAO review. So you see also in the Programme of Work and Budget - and this is only one example - how the Director-General has been led to make proposals which stemmed directly from the FAO review. This strengthening of the FAO Representative Offices has to be seen in a qualitative context: the qualitative context of change, the changes which are happening and which will accelerate under modified field programmes, the changes which will come about as a result of the new UNDP support cost arrangements. Again, let me give you one example. This morning it was very wisely suggested that perhaps the staff mix in the offices of the FAO Representatives should be reconsidered, that instead of having administrative officers and programme officers, perhaps we need more substantive expertise of people with an economics background, of people who would be able to help in policy advice and help in programme formulation. I fully accept that. The Secretariat agrees that these are the kinds of qualitative changes which will come about, and we see them already in the way we select programme officers. In recent times, my colleagues tell me, the programme officers who are selected for these offices are increasingly chosen for their broad economic background rather than for any specific, narrow technical or administrative competence.
This leads me to my ninth point, about technical backstopping. The technical backstopping of the Field Programme and the importance which is attached to it is undisputed among you as Member Nations and by us as the Secretariat. This is the raison d'être - as we have all repeatedly stressed - of the Field Programme, for the FAO technical expertise to be utilized for the benefit of Member Nations in their Field Programme. If the Report of the Director-General has not gone further into this, it is precisely because the arrangements that we have for technical backstopping and the resources that we will have in the foreseeable future are a function on the one hand of the Programme of Work and Budget that you are about to approve, and on the other hand of all the changes which are going to come about in the Field Programme. What is going to be the extent of the Field Programme in any one country which will progressively be handled through national execution? What is going to be the extent of that Field Programme, nationally executed, for which the government concerned will call upon FAO for technical backstopping? As we realize, and as I think distinguished delegates realize, these are questions with no immediate answer nor with any clear-cut answer, and that is why all the arrangements for technical backstopping of the Field Programme will have to be high on our Agenda of attention and will have to be closely looked at at every stage of programme implementation, both of the Regular Programme and of the Field Programme. However, as regards the Regular Programme, I would only draw attention to the fact that we are making provision for increased resources for Field Programme support. In the 1991 biennium the provision for Field Programme support under the technical and economic programmes of agriculture,
forestry and fisheries was just under US$25 million; in the next budget, at the rate given in the document, it is US$29.6 million. So this is a matter to which we attach a lot of importance, as we attach importance to the strengthening of evaluation work and of feedback.
Under other items of your Agenda the Commission has had the opportunity to see the results of further evaluation work, and this is a matter to which the Director-General continues to attach importance. So you may rest assured that we will make every effort to increase our action in this field, but also with regard to feedback. Feedback, as I have humbly suggested at previous conferences, is not a matter which can be dealt with merely by administrative fiat, by the issuance of an administrative instruction.
The feedback of evaluation is a question of absorption of the results of the evaluation. There are two major ways in which this is being done, I must say, with some visible results, at least to my satisfaction.
First of all there is the information data base on evaluation which is kept by my colleagues in my office in the Evaluation Service; not only kept by them, but promoted by them as regards its use throughout the Technical Divisions.
Secondly, there is greater attention to feedback from evaluation in the work of the Field Programme Committee which is headed by the Assistant Director-General of the Development Department, and in which all the Operations' Heads and other colleagues participate.
The tenth point, which also related to the Field Programmes, was the reference to the Year Book on field operations, field activities, and we are grateful that this document is found to be useful. Some improvements were suggested, such as, that information on projects could be given by sector, and not only by country and funding source. It is the kind of improvement into which we will look; we will do our best. I hope that there was no other commitment which was expected from me immediately.
The eleventh point concerns references made by a number of delegates to the methods of work of the Governing Bodies. On this, I want to say very respectfully that I am not reacting because this is not a part of the conclusions of the FAO Review as we have them nor is it a part of the Director-General's Report on the conclusions of the Review.
I have taken a lot of your time, Mr Chairman, but I hope I have done justice to the questions. We remain in your hands.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Shah, for very full answers to the many questions raised here.
Are there any further comments before I try to sum up?
There being none, I should like to make two general comments at the beginning: one is that I consider this an important item which should be very carefully reported by this Commission to Plenary. I say this because I think a lot of the points which have been made here could have much
influence on how FAO conducts its work in future years. While it may make sense with other items on the Agenda to keep the reports brief, I think here you should spend more time on it. That is my recommendation, because it can be a guideline for your future work.
The second point I want to make - and here I touch on one of the points Mr Shah made - is that I have had the feeling throughout this debate, as in the debates in this Commission on the other main items, that to speak frankly, the climate in relations between delegations and the Secretariat has become much better during this Conference than it was before. I think this is important. This is something which, from both sides, we should try to follow up in future.
I have written down a number of points. They may or may not correspond to what Mr Shah has said. So, I think the Drafting Group should take all the points made into consideration.
My first point is a very general one. In my view this discussion - and I have attended a number of Conferences, some controversial ones - was at a very high level, with many views very clearly expressed. Most of the views expressed here pointed to future reform as a continuing process. I know there are some delegates who feel that this should now come to an end, but, please, I have been sitting in my Ministry for fifteen years rationalizing the Ministry, and there is no end to that. My successor is doing the same. Even so, we should take due regard that we do not spend too much time on reform processes. However, there will always be a follow-up because the world is changing.
My second point is that I have noted what Mr Shah has said - and he has referred back to the Director-General - that the attitude on the part of the Secretariat to all these reform questions is very flexible. I think that is also important for the future.
Much has been said about money and costs. Mr Shah also touched upon that. Views have been very varied. Some delegates have been complaining that there has been too little money for the Review process, and others have said that one can do a lot without its costing more money. I suppose the truth is somewhere in between.
I noted what the delegate from Morocco said. It is important to secure a good financial basis for what FAO is doing to change its structure in future. I think that is a very important point. But, please, we should remember that reform or review or whatever you call it is not necessarily a question of money, it is a question of something more than that.
My fourth point is with regard to the many comments which have again been made here on the Medium-Term Plan's concrete priorities. I noted one delegate saying, and I think it is a very good point -I cannot remember who - that the Medium-Term Plan, which is a main item in the Review Process improves governance or, to put it in plainer terms, improves the possibility of having actual dialogue between delegates and the Secretariat. I think that is also a very important point.
My next point is on the Technical Committees, on which Mr Shah also commented. I think that this is again an important point. What has been done in the past year, was, in my view, only a first attempt at introducing
new elements into the discussions of the Technical Committees. In practical terms, both delegates and the Secretariat could do much to improve this new method of working together.
My sixth point was again mentioned by at least one delegate, but touched on by others: that what is happening now is, to some extent, a relinquishing of project execution in favour of policy formulation. Again, I think this is an important point.
My seventh point, on which many commented, was the increased cooperation within UN Organization and banks. Mr Shah has commented very broadly on this question. Again, I think it is an important point.
My eighth point is with regard to Country Offices and decentralization. You touched on that and I think you have covered the main attitudes of the delegation here.
My ninth point is the role of Regional Offices. A few delegates have referred to this question. I remember one delegate saying that it would be a good idea to have a report, at least for the next Conference, on this particular question. I do not think we are always speaking the same language on this matter. Maybe some clarification would be useful.
My last point - and up to now what I have been saying has been very much to the Secretariat, how they should perform - is that I think it was clear from the debate that quite a number of delegations accept that Member Governments, through their delegations here at the Conference, and at other Governing Bodies, could perform better. We could be better prepared, sometimes. I will now leave the summary of this particular matter.
Are there any comments?
If not, the debate on Item 19 is concluded.
We now have to move on to the other business. It would be extremely useful if we had the Chairman of the Drafting Committee with us. We will adjourn for five minutes.
The meeting was suspended from 16.10 to 16.25 hours
La séance est suspendue de 16 h 10 à 16 h 25
Se suspende la sesión de las 16.10 a las 16.25 horas
CHAIRMAN: We continue with the two draft reports, and I call on the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.
Horacio M. CARANDANG (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Document C 91/II/REP/1 contains the draft report approved by the Drafting Committee on the Programme of Work and Budget, which is the most important Agenda Item of the Conference. I wish to inform you that the report was adopted by the Drafting Committee in a record short time. Usually the adoption of the report of the Programme of Work and Budget takes many long hours, sometimes even up to midnight or the small hours of the morning as delegates take pains to register different shades of opinion on various aspects of the Programme of Work and Budget. During the adoption of the report yesterday, however, it took us barely 30 minutes to adopt REP/1. I believe that the reason why the report was adopted with such expediency was because it records the common views of the Commission: It reports the consensus that has been achieved in the Commission, and likewise the Secretariat has taken great care to record faithfully the proceedings in the Commission.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the Chairman of the Drafting Group for the welcome news. Let us hope that we can perform as well, if not better. We will take REP/1 paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraph 1 approved
Le paragraphe 1 est approuvé
El párrafo 1 es aprobado
PARAGRAPH 2
PARAGRAPHE 2
PARRAFO 2
Igor MARINCEK (Suisse): M. le Président, ma délégation propose à la fin de la troisième phrase, dans le paragraphe 2, juste après "d'assistance des Etats Membres" que l'on ajoute les mots suivants: "auxquels le système multilatéral est appelé à répondre le plus efficacement possible".
Ainsi, la phrase complète se lirait comme suit: "Mais ils se sont aussi traduits par de nouveaux défis et une diversification des besoins d'assistance des Etats Membres auxquels le système multilatéral est appelé à répondre le plus efficacement possible".
Horacio M. CARANDANG (Chairman, Drafting Committee): I think the Commission can well consider the new addition proposed by the Swiss delegate. It is actually up to the Commission whether to adopt it or recommend it.
CHAIRMAN: I will read it out slowly again. After "Member Nations" in the third sentence add "to which therefore the multilateral system is required to respond as efficiently as possible".
Are there any comments?
Paragraph 2. as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 2, ainsi amendé, est approuvé
El párrafo 2. así enmendado, es aprobado
PARAGRAPH 3
PARAGRAPHE 3
PARRAFO 3
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): This will be the second of three comments. In the last sentence, just add to the paragraph: "et de relever les défis futurs": ceci à la fin du paragraphe 3.
CHAIRMAN: "and face up to future challenges" is the proposed addition to the last sentence. Are there any comments? This is accepted. Are there any other comments on paragraph 3?
Paragraph 3. as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 3. ainsi amendé, est approuvé
El párrafo 3. así enmendado, es aprobado
PARAGRAPHS 4 TO 23
PARAGRAPHES 4 A 23
PRRAFOS 4 A 23
Paragraphs 4 to 23 approved
Les paragraphes 4 à 23 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 4 a 23 son aprobados
PARAGRAPH 24. INCLUDING RESOLUTION
PARAGRAPHE 24. Y COMPRIS LA RESOLUTION
PARRAFO 24. INCLUIDA LA RESOLUCION
V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Mr Chairman, may I only provide a clarification? The Resolution, which will be included in paragraph 24, will be submitted to the Plenary tomorrow morning as usual reflecting the budget rate which the Conference will be asked to adopt. But the text of the Resolution is, as you have said, Sir, the text as given in document C 91/LIM/39.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Shah. I hope that is quite clear to everybody. You have to vote in Plenary on the Resolution.
Paragraph 24. including Resolution, adopted
Le paragraphe 24. y compris la Résolution, est adopté
El párrafo 24. incluida la Resolución, es aprobado
Paragraphs 25 to 30. including Resolution, approved
Les paragraphes 25 à 30. y compris la Résolution, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 25 a 30. incluida la Resolución, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 31 AND 32
PARAGRAPHES 31 ET 32
PARRAFOS 31 Y 32
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): Mr Chairman, I said to you I had three points and this is concerning 31. At the end of 31 it could also go into 32 but I think it would be better at the end of 31- if you will add the text which I will read to you in French.
"Certains pays auraient cependant préféré que la proposition 4, c'est-à-dire la proposition de regrouper le Programme ordinaire et le Programme de terrain sur l'exécution et un rapport d'évaluation des programmes, ait fait l'objet d'une discussion préalable approfondie entre Etats Membres et Secrétariat avant de proposer la mesure envisagée à la Conférence pour décision".
CHAIRMAN: May I ask the opinion of the Chairman of the Drafting Group?
Horacio M. CARANDANG (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Mr Chairman, I think this amendment reflects the views of certain delegations, and not necessarily shared by other delegations and I think the point is whether the Commission agrees to record it in this way in such a lengthy manner but it is up to the Commission to give its decision regarding this. This does not reflect any decision or any view that has to be attributed to the Commission at all.
V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Mr Chairman, it is not usual for me to request the floor at this stage but in complementing the remarks of the distinguished Chairman of the Drafting Committee, Sir, may I respectfully point out two things: firstly, whether this addition proposed by the distinguished representative of Switzerland can refer to some nations or one is a matter for you to decide; the second point is that the intent of the amendment, which is that the matter should first be discussed between Member Nations and the Secretariat, has already been fulfilled because the Director-General's proposals were submitted to the Programme and Finance Committees in a very specific and very detailed document, Reference for the Programme Committee, PC 64/2, for the Finance Committee FC 22/3. All the suggestions were covered in that document. The two Committees jointly agreed fully with those suggestions and so recommended to the Council.
The Council was fully apprized of the suggestions by having before it not only the report of the Programme and Finance Committees and the report of their joint meeting on the subject, but also the full text of the Director-General's proposals. The process was completed by you, the Conference, having in document LIM/9, the view of the Council, the views of the two Committees, and the Director-General's proposals as given in his document, so I would respectfully submit that the intent of this amendment has been met.
CHAIRMAN: Could I have the reaction of the delegation of Switzerland?
- 389 -
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): Thank you, Mr Chairman. In proposing this addition to the paragraph, we want to underline that first of all there has been no real discussion. In fact there are two proposals which are in front of the Committees and in front of the Council. One is the Budget Programme Process and the other is these propositions from the Director-General. The first one has been discussed amply and also for quite some time. The second one came as quite a surprise to us, at least for those countries who are not on the Finance Committee and Programme Committee and on the Council. They came to our attention here in the Conference and we think this is a point which would merit a deeper discussion. We have merely heard delegations address this point in the Commission; there were maybe two or three delegations discussing it. I would not call this a deep discussion, and when we were expressing ourselves on the process, which we think has started in a very positive way, we considered this question of determining how we wanted to organize our work; and I would like to recall that Mr Shah expressed just before that, that the way members want to organize their work is something he would not like to comment too much about. I think he is very right when he says so. I think this is a point which in fact is very important to us members and we do not have the impression that we know what decision has really been reached. We do not want to say with our amendment that this decision is necessarily bad. We just have not made up our minds. I think in such questions it would be useful to make up one's mind to have this discussion with the Secretariat who would explain it, not just make a proposition but explain it. We have not heard an explanation.
CHAIRMAN: I think I should remind the delegate of Switzerland that at the beginning of the discussions I pointed out that there were two points to be covered, the budgetary process and these proposals by the Director-General; so I think it has been made clear at the beginning of the discussion that it was comments on both issues which should come out.
Vanrob ISARANKURA (Thailand): At this point I would like to draw your attention, as I understand that this paragraph 31 - I think the Drafting Group intended just to list the measures as proposed by the Director-General. That is all, as I understand it. I think what the delegate for Switzerland had to propose - if we accept it - should come as a new paragraph, to put in another paragraph. It should not be in this paragraph, because that, I understand, is only to mention the measure proposed by the Director-General.
CHAIRMAN: I must say I am a bit worried about this proposal because it is a lengthy one to add.
C.B. HOUTMAN (Netherlands): I would like to support what you just said. In the beginning you gave that explicit distinction between the two headings of the discussion. I remember myself that I asked you once whether we were already dealing with that second situation because we wanted to say something about it. It was very well spelt out here in this Commission meeting and discussion and I had the impression that many countries did not speak upon it just because they thought it was a good arrangement for the budget process, and when I was asking this I said immediately there is no need for me to discuss it because it is a good thing. I had the impression
that was the feeling of the Commission. If I am wrong, I think Switzerland should correct me and therefore I think that we may be able to stick to the original draft and not to insert a paragraph.
CHAIRMAN: I had the same impression, because I pointed it out clearly at the beginning of the discussion. Therefore my proposal to the delegate of Switzerland is, let us leave this in the Verbatim and not have a long discussion about the addition, where some people think one thing and some other people think other things.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): Maybe what you say is wise, but let me just make an additional comment. Maybe there was some point that was not very clear. At the beginning it was suggested that the debate should be divided up into two parts. I think the delegations have not really followed that line. That is also maybe the reason why the delegate of the Netherlands has not come back a second time. You have addressed the questions at the beginning of the debate; it is very clear, and my delegation has missed speaking on that point. It is clear we have said we have addressed that point in the debate on the Review, and you know very well there were many points which were closely interrelated and it was a matter of judgement where to address it. There has not been a second round and we also did not want to be the only ones to open this second round, so it was not a very clear situation.
I must say that the proposal of the delegate of Thailand to bring it maybe into paragraph 32 instead of having it included in 31, where the decision of the Conference is reported, seems to be a very good one.
CHAIRMAN: I think we still have a problem, I thought, it may be wrong, but I thought at the outset that the situation was made quite clear. It is up to delegations to comment or not comment on all the issues included in one item, and I feel that we are getting toward or close to reopening our debate, and the debate is closed; that is for sure. Therefore I would much prefer - I understood the delegate for Switzerland could accept that this will be included in the Verbatim and is something you can build on. Is that all right? So, on that we accept paragraph 31.
Paragraphs 31 and 32 approved
Les paragraphes 31 et 32 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 31 y 32 son aprobados
CHAIRMAN: I take it that REP/1 has been accepted as a whole with the changes indicated already. It is so accepted.
Draft Report of Commission II. Part 1. as amended, was adopted
Le Projet de Rapport de la Commission II. première partie, ainsi amendé.
est adopté
El Proyecto de Informe de la Comisión II. Parte 1. así enmendado, es
aprobado
CHAIRMAN: We move on to REP/2 and we take it up the same way.
Horacio M. CARANDANG (Chairman, Drafting Committee): With regard to REP/2 which was adopted by the Drafting Committee last Friday, I should like to inform the Committee that we had no great difficulty in adopting the draft report, and it also took us a very short period of time in spite of the fact that all the views of the various groups were duly represented in the Drafting Committee.
Therefore, I hope that the Commission will also be able to adopt this report without much difficulty.
Paragraphs 1 to 8 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 8 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 8 son aprobados
PARAGRAPH 9
PARAGRAPHE 9
PÁRRAFO 9
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): Sorry, Mr Chairman, I have a very small change in paragraph 9 in the fourth line in the French. It is instead of "Planification à long terme: Programmation à long terme".
CHAIRMAN: I think that presents no problem. The small change is adopted.
Paragraph 9, as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 9, ainsi amendé, est approuvé
El párrafo 9, así enmendado, es aprobado
Paragraphs 10 to 27 approved
Les paragraphes 10 à 27 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 10 a 27 son aprobados
Draft Report of Commission II, Part 2, as amended, was adopted
Le Projet de Rapport de la Commission II, deuxième partie, ainsi amendé,
est adopté
El Provecto de Informe de la Comisión II. Parte 2, así enmendado, es
aprobado
CHAIRMAN: The two reports will be forwarded to Plenary, REP/1 tomorrow and REP/2 on Friday. It remains for me to thank the Chairman of the Drafting Committee for the excellent work we have been doing. The Drafting Committee
will meet again tomorrow morning in Plenary at 11 o'clock on REP/1. The Journal may tell you something else. Commission II meets tomorrow afternoon at 14.30 hours to deal with Item 22 and the first Vice-Chairman of the Commission, Ambassador Don Nanjira has promised to conduct the meeting.
The meeting rose at 17.00 hours.
Le séance est levée à 17 heures.
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.00 horas.
