Sixth Report of the General Committee
Sixième rapport du Bureau
Sexto informe del Comité General

ADOPTION OF REPORT
ADOPTION DU RAPPORT
APROBACION DEL INFORME

DRAFT REPORT OF PLENARY - PART I (FROM COMMISSION II)

PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA PLENIERE - PREMIERE PARTIE (DE LA COMMISSION II)

PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA PLENARIA - PARTE I (PROCEDENTE DE LA COMISION II)

CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, we come to Item 16, Adoption of Commission II Report on Item 12, the Programme of Work and Budget for the Period 1994-95. This document is in C 93/REP/1. I give the floor to the Deputy Director-General, Mr Shah.

V.J. SHAH (Deputy Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation) : Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, as the Conference will have noted from C 93/REP/1, the draft report which comes to you from Commission II -- at the end of that draft report, in paragraph twenty four, there is a reference to the Resolution which is submitted to you and which you will shortly act on. Mr Chairman, the draft Resolution submitted to you by the Director-General, is in document C 93/REP/1 Sup.l which was distributed to distinguished members during the morning session.

Mr Chairman, I would like to offer three comments which may facilitate consideration of this Draft Resolution. Firstly, it is to draw your attention to the fact that the form, the form of this Draft Resolution "Budgetary Appropriations 1994-95", is according to the text of that same Draft Resolution which is included in the Programme of Work and Budget document, the document which has been considered by you. But the Draft Resolution in the document considered by you was given at the current budget rate of this biennium of 1 210 lire to the dollar. We had indicated in all discussions that the figures in this Draft Resolution would be revised to the budget rate which the Director-General proposes and on which the Conference will have to take a decision.

Secondly, with regard to the budget rate proposed by the Director-General in the Draft Resolution now before you in Supplement 1, Mr Chairman, we have followed the past practice of the Conference to consider as the budget rate the rate which is prevalent on the day when this Draft Resolution is adopted by Conference. I would provide clarifications on the suggested rate of 1 665 lire to the dollar. We have continued to follow currency movements over the last few days, weeks, and even today from early in the morning. The rate on 15 November was 1 664 to 1 665. Yesterday, on the 16 November, it was 1 661 to 1 663. Today, very early in the morning at 06.30 hours, it even shot up to 1 700; but in the following hours it has stabilized between 1 664 and 1 667.

Accordingly, the Director-General submits the rate of 1 66.5 lire to the dollar as the budget rate for you to consider and adopt with this Resolution on Budgetary Appropriations.

The third aspect which I would like to draw to the attention of Conference is the implication of this budget rate on the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium and on the assessment of Member Nations. As regards the implication on the Programme of Work and Budget, for the current biennium, as we all recall, the programme of work was at a level of US$676 911- 000. At the budget rate proposed to you, with no programme increase, the total effective working budget as indicated in the Draft Resolution would be US$673 114 000. That represents a decrease in dollar terms of US$3 797 000. So while the programme of work has no programme growth, the effects of the budget rate is to reduce the amount to US$673 114 000.

As regards the implications on assessed contributions, in the Resolution on Budgetary Appropriations which was adopted by the Conference two years ago, Mr Chairman, the contributions from Member Nations were indicated at a level of US$634 660 000. As you will see from paragraph 2d. of the Draft Resolution before you, the amounts payable for the next biennium now come down to US$622 865 000, which represent a decrease of US$11 795 000, a decrease compared to the assessed contributions for the current biennium. This is a decrease in assessed contributions of 1.88 percent.

I hope that these few clarifications will assist the Conference in considering the matter before you in the most positive way, as it itself wishes to do. Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mustapha Menouar SINACEUR (Président de la Commission II): Je vois que nous avons commencé par le paragraphe 24 de notre rapport. Il traite d'une chose importante puisqu'il contient la résolution qui doit être soumise au vote dans quelques instants. Nous avons par ailleurs écouté les informations très pertinentes qui nous ont été communiquées par M. Shah.

S'agissant du reste du Rapport de la Commission II qui est maintenant soumis à la plénière et qui fait l'objet du document C 93/REP/1, j'aimerais simplement dire quelques mots d'introduction.

Aussi bien au sein de la Commission qu'au Comité de rédaction, nos travaux sur ce point de l'ordre du jour se sont déroulés dans une atmosphère à la fois sereine et cordiale. Les débats ont été très animés puisque 57 délégations se sont exprimées sur cette question. C'est un peu moins qu'à la dernière Conférence, en 1991, lorsque 64 pays s'étaient exprimés. Par contre nous avons devant nous un projet de rapport qui est plus concis avec 24 paragraphes alors que le projet de rapport pour la même Conférence de 1991 en comprenait 34. Ceci est dû à mon sens à la nouvelle procédure de mise en place par la même Conférence de 1991 s'agissant de l'approbation budgétaire. Et je crois que le Programme de travail et budget est un élément clé de ce qu'on a appelé nous-mêmes, en deuxième Commission, le quartet; c'est un élément clé de ce quartet qui comprend le Programme de travail et budget, le plan à moyen terme, le plan d'exécution du Programme, le rapport d'exécution du Programme et le rapport d'évaluation du Programme.

Avant de conclure, permettez-moi de porter à la connaissance de la plénière quelques modifications qui n'ont pas été prises en compte dans le rapport

final à la suite des quelques amendements qui ont pris place hier en Commission II.

D'abord à l'avant-dernière phrase du paragraphe 12 qui commence par: "A cet égard, la Conférence a instamment demandé que le Secrétariat de la Commission des ressources phytogénétiques soit renforcé" on dit ensuite: "Elle a aussi exhorté le Directeur général à réunir des ressources budgétaires et extrabudgétaires suffisantes pour procéder à un examen exhaustif de l'engagement international".

Je crois que l'amendement qui avait été soumis à la Commission II et adopté par elle-même hier, parlait d'une révision - que je formule en espagnol -"revisión comprensiva". Donc, au lieu de "examen exhaustif" il faudrait plutôt parler de "révision compréhensive".

Au paragraphe 13 je crois là aussi que les amendements qui ont été apportés hier n'ont pas été repris dans leur forme exacte. A la fin du paragraphe 13, lorsqu'on dit "financés tant au titre du Programme ordinaire qu'au moyen de ressources extrabudgétaires", la correction qu'il faudrait apporter à la fin de ce paragraphe se lirait ainsi dans la version arabe: "Dans toute la gamme de ses programmes techniques, financés au titre du Programme ordinaire, comme moyen de ressources extraordinaires, y compris les projets sur le terrain".

Ensuite, paragraphe 15, une petite erreur n'a pas été rectifiée dans la version arabe. A la première phrase, il fallait bien comprendre: "La Conférence a demandé qu'on réponde rapidement aux appels répétés des Etats Membres". Et dans la version arabe au lieu de dire: "des appels lancés aux pays membres", il faut dire "... par les pays membres".

Dans la version française, toujours à la fin de ce paragraphe 15, tout le monde aura corrigé le dernier mot "prêts" par "forêts". Il faut donc lire: "décision de la CNUD concernant les forêts".

Voilà les quelques modifications que j'avais à faire.

Monsieur le Président, j'ai le plaisir de soumettre ce rapport de la Commission II relatif au Programme de travail et budget à l'approbation de la plenière de la Conférence. Je suis sûr quant à moi que sont réunies les conditions de l'adoption de ce rapport à l'unanimité et peut-être même dans quelques instants de la résolution introduite par M. Shah.

George LAMPTEY (Ghana): Mr Chairman, before the debate starts on the Report of Commission II and the adoption of the Draft Resolution included in the Report, I wish to make a brief statement on behalf of the Director-General elect who unfortunately is not here with us now; he will be coming back to Rome next Monday.

The Programme of Work and Budget for 1994-95 adopted by Commission II and now before us is a good one. It encompasses several compromises and the Director-General elect is appreciative of this. Nevertheless, he would want the Conference to give him the opportunity, as he takes over the post of Director-General, to look at this more deeply and to make his own proposals as to structures and policies within the year, without of course exceeding the budget level that will be adopted by Conference.

Mr Chairman, this should have come up in Commission II but, as I told you, the Director-General elect is not here and we would not want to hold up a decision on this Resolution, so the Resolution can be adopted.

In 1975 when Dr Saouma was elected, the Resolution has in it a similar decision, which allowed Dr Saouma in the course of 1976 to study the proposals and the budget and submit his own proposals by the middle of the year to a session of the Council. This is what Dr Diouf would want to be done. Since it is now late as far as Commission II is concerned and the draft Resolution is adopted with the proviso that the General Committee will submit a proposal to Conference for adoption giving the Director-General the opportunity and flexibility to study the proposals in the Programme of Work and Budget and by the middle of next year submit any proposals that he may have to the Council without exceeding the budget level to be approved by Conference now. Mr Chairman, this is the request we make.

Waleed A. ELKHEREIJI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic): Having listened to the proposal submitted by His Excellency the Ambassador of Ghana, and bearing in mind that there is a precedent in this respect, and in order to provide the necessary flexibility for the Director-General Elect, we do support the proposal made by Ghana, and we could probably make certain additions therein as we did in 1975 to the Draft Resolution which is under discussion.

Adel Mahmoud ABOUL-NAGA (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): I would like to support the proposal by His Excellency the Ambassador of Ghana, seconded by his Excellency, the Ambassador of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Jacques LAUREAU (Prance): Monsieur le Président, je crois que nous aurons l'opportunité de discuter en Bureau de cette affaire. Il est vrai qu'il y a un précédent et qu'il faut donner la possibilité au nouveau Directeur général d'avoir un dialogue avec le Conseil plus rapidement que ne l'exige le calendrier normal de nos réunions.

M'exprimant à titre personnel je voudrais demander à l'Ambassadeur du Ghana s'il a bien à l'esprit une réunion exceptionnelle du Conseil au printemps pour accélérer, en quelque sorte, le débat après que le Directeur général ait pris connaissance des affaires d'une manière approfondie. Pourrait-il nous donner des éclaircissements car la résolution qui avait été prise, et à laquelle font référence les délégués d'Arabie Saoudite, du Ghana et d'Egypte, indiquait bien aussi la nécessité d'avoir une réunion extraordinaire du Conseil?

George LAMPTEY (Ghana) : Mr Chairman, it is true that in the early stages of the debate on this matter in 1975 the possibility of a special session of the Council was touched upon, but in the end the Resolution adopted provided for consideration by the Council - which was not a special one -in July 1976.

Now Mr Chairman, we will have no objection if, in consultation with the independent Chairman of the Council, it is decided that there should be a special session of the Council in March/April/May or in the middle of the year, in July. We would have no problem with that. It is the independent

Chairman who, with the Director-General, decides whether there should be a special session or the regular session, so we can leave that to them.

Winston RUDDER (Trinidad and Tobago): Mr Chairman, speaking on behalf of the 13 Member States of the CARICOM Sub-Region of Latin America and the Caribbean, we fully endorse the proposal put forward by Ghana supported by Saudi Arabia, and indeed agree that in the special circumstances that Conference now finds itself, it would be a most suitable and pragmatic and prudent arrangement if this proposal could be accepted and endorsed by Conference.

Algirdas ZEMAITIS (Lithuania): We fully support the proposal of the Distinguished Ambassador of Ghana to postpone the item for a special decision of the Director-General elect, and to leave it to the Chairman of the Council and the Director-General whether there should be a special session or a normal session of the Council.

CHAIRMAN: Delegates, the matter before us is the approval of the Resolution that has come to us from Commission II. However, we have had a proposal from the Distinguished Delegate of Ghana, which has been given support from all the delegates who have taken the floor, that the General Committee examines the proposal made by him that the new Director-General should have the authority to examine the proposals contained in the Programme of Work and Budget so that he may be able to propose some changes, but that expenditure should not go beyond the appropriations contained in the Resolution before us this evening.

Mrs Melinda L. KIMBLE (United States of America): I would like some clarification here as to whether or not, if we act on the current Resolution before us, it has any implications for what the Permanent Representative of Ghana is requesting, and if indeed we have to postpone action on this to ensure that we provide the flexibility for the new Director-General that is so essential.

CHAIRMAN: Delegates, we are having some consultations with respect to the question raised by the distinguished delegate of the United States. The fact is it is going to be important that Conference approves the Resolution before us, which is to approve the Programme of Work and the appropriations contained within the financial period 1994-95. There has been a precedent for a new Director-General to have a look at the proposal contained therein and to make recommendations to a meeting of the Council for some changes of the Programme of Work and maybe the budgetary allocation for certain items, but that the overall budget should not be increased. I gather that to be the sentiment expressed by the distinguished delegate of Ghana, but it is going to be necessary for Conference to approve the Resolution with respect to the Programme of Work and the budget.

George LAMPTEY (Ghana): Mr Chairman, it would have been neater, much neater and clearer, if the proposal made were included in this draft Resolution, but I recognize that it is late now for that. We cannot do it in Conference immediately now, and there is a desire to take a decision. Therefore what I am proposing is exactly what you have said, that the new

Director-General must have the possibility; for instance the appropriations provided for say four P-5 officials in the Fisheries Department. The new Director-General may want two P-5 officers. On the other hand, there might be two in Forestry and he would want four. He must have the possibility of argument and of changing the programmes to fit his own vision of what should be done in the year, but overall the amount, the total amount - not the sectorial amount - the total amount must not be exceeded, and he will submit this to Council. In consultation with an independent Chairman the Council date would be set. This was what happened with Dr Saouma in 1975 and this is what I think should be done.

Now I think that it is easy. Conference could adopt this Resolution now and when we have a General Committee meeting tomorrow or the day after, we can make a specific resolution giving the new Director-General this authority and Conference will adopt it. That is all Mr Chairman. Thank you.

V.J. SHAH (Deputy Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): While being very aware of the importance of the matter that has been raised and the sensitive aspects which are purely the prerogative of Member Nations, in view of some of the questions that have been raised, it may be useful if I recall what happened in 1975, - because there is some uncertainty expressed as to what happened then and what is happening now.

Mr Chairman, firstly considering the past and what happened in 1975. The Programme of Work and Budget for 1976-77, was approved by the Conference, in order to have the possibility for the new Director-General to review, to make suggestions within the approved budget level, the matter was discussed during the substantive discussions of the Conference. That is one purely factual aspect, which I draw to your attention. Secondly, the question of the budgetary appropriation resolution for 1976-77. This was developed in the light of those discussions and contained certain requests to the Director-General on the lines that have been mentioned.

The third aspect again regarding the past was that the same resolution requested the Director-General, in consultation with the independent Chairman and the members of the Council, to convene a session of the Council to be held at a suitable date by July 1976.

With regard to the procedural aspects of what has been suggested, I take very careful note of what had been said by the distinguished Ambassador of Ghana and if I am not mistaken, he has suggested that the Draft Resolution presently before you be adopted but that the General Committee take up the question that he has raised so that the General Committee may put a proposal to the Conference which could be the subject of a Conference decision and which could clearly appear in the Report before you conclude your session. In brief, if my understanding and interpretation of the debate is correct, - and I have taken careful note of what everyone has said - the draft Resolution before you is submitted for approval by the Conference now. The other action can clearly be done in the way suggested by the distinguished Ambassador of Ghana, that is to say, the General Committee consider the matter and agree on the precise form of words and then put them to the Conference to appear in for your decisions. I hope this helps. That is my intention.

CHAIRMAN: I personally believe that you have captured the sentiments of the distinguished delegate of Ghana.

Waleed A. ELKHEREIJI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic):I appreciate the explanation provided by Mr Shah. In principle there is support to the proposal made by the Ambassador of Ghana and now it is a question of procedure. It may be convenient that we approve the Resolution as it stands now and that we study the issue in the General Committee where we can propose a second resolution following the Resolution that we are going to adopt in a short while. We think this is the right and appropriate procedure.

Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): I have a comment and a question. The comment simply is to endorse the proposal made by the Ambassador of Ghana as, I think, a most sensible way of proceeding for the new Director-General. I believe that he does need to be provided with the necessary amount of flexibility to imprint his own stamp on this Organization.

As regards whether or not the debate around this subject took place. I do believe that there were a significant number of interventions in Commission II, which focused precisely on the point of the need to provide appropriate flexibility to the new Director-General. Consequently, I think there is a basis for decision to that effect.

I think we also have the sense of this meeting here whereby there seems to me to be general agreement on the procedure that has been suggested by the Ambassador of Ghana. Therefore, when we come to the procedural issue, I would have a question to ask in respect of what was suggested by Mr Shah, which sounds eminently reasonable.

That question is: Would a decision that is generated by and emerges from the General Committee that is written into the record of this Conference have the same force as an addition to the Resolution on the budget as currently drafted? In other words, would the Director-General have precisely the same degree of flexibility in acting to amend and/or otherwise the programmes within the budgetary appropriations being voted upon this afternoon?

Ricardo VELAZQUEZ HUERTA (México): Nosotros también convalidamos la propuesta de Ghana, por supuesto, en atención a la mayor flexibilidad que necesitaría el Director General de la FAO. Podríamos aceptar lo ya propuesto, pero querríamos, a nuestra vez, encontrar quizás una salida que podría ser adecuada. Nos parece que el Pleno de la Conferencia podría, en un momento determinado, adicionar la Resolución que se nos presenta, agregando un tercer punto, que dijese más o menos lo siguiente: que la Conferencia faculta al Consejo de la FAO a revisar las asignaciones parciales del Presupuesto, tomando en consideración las propuestas que formule el Director General antes de julio de 1994. De esta manera, daría la Conferencia una facultad al Consejo, y el Consejo tendría la facultad de analizar, junto con el Director General, las propuestas que en aras de la flexibilidad permitan un ejercicio mejor.

George LAMPTEY (Ghana): Mr Chairman, I foresaw the question raised by the delegate of Canada. That is why I kept raising my hand because, when the Deputy Director-General spoke and said that it could be in the Report, that is a different thing altogether. What I suggested was that in order to avoid delay we precede with this Resolution but there must be another resolution of Conference. I could have drafted the resolution now and

proposed it as an amendment to this Resolution. But, again, in order not to waste time I suggest that the General Committee can propose a solution on this aspect to Conference and Conference can adopt it so that the two resolutions have equal weight.

Jacques LAUREAU (France): Monsieur le Président, merci de me donner la parole. Je pense qu'en se ralliant à cette proposition nous estimons, puisque M. Shah l'a très bien rappelé, et c'était l'objet de la question que j'avais posée tout à l'heure, qu'il faut qu'un conseil dialogue avec le Directeur général, entérinant en quelque sorte les variations qui auraient pu intervenir du fait de la marque qu'il voudra mettre dans les détails du programme. Je crois qu'il faut coupler ces deux éléments de manière qu'il y ait un véritable dialogue et que le Conseil joue son rôle. Puisqu'il n'y a qu'une réunion en novembre 1994, je crois qu'il est absolument indispensable de prévoir un Conseil au moment où le Directeur général l'estimera utile (et je me tourne vers la délégation du Ghana) pour que ces deux éléments soient couplés et que le Conseil joue son rôle qui est un rôle de contrôle et d'orientation.

Chadli LAROUSSI (Tunisie): Je ne vois pas où se trouve le problème puisqu'il suffit de revenir au précédent qui s'est produit en 1975 et 1976 et qui a d'ailleurs été très clairement explicité dans le livre mis à la disposition des déléguées. Indiquant page 15 que lors de son élection en 1975 à la même session, comme cette fois-ci, M. Saouma connaît très bien la maison il ajoute, et je cite "qu'il était sûr que seule la Conférence détenait, en même temps que le pouvoir d'approuver le Programme de travail et budget, celui de le modifier après son approbation".

Il indique en outre: "C'est pourquoi j'ai pris l'initiative (c'est la même demande qui est présentée maintenant par l'Ambassadeur du Ghana) de demander l'autorisation d'élaborer mes propres propositions dans la limite de l'enveloppe budgétaire convenue et de les soumettre avant juillet 1976 à une session extraordinaire du Conseil auquel la Conférence déléguerait l'autorité nécessaire pour les approuver, avec ou sans modification".

Ainsi fut fait et il fit référence aux actes de la Conférence, à savoir le document C 75/REP, paragraphe 267, et la Résolution 7/75, paragraphe 269. Je suppose que cette procédure a respecté la parfaite légalité. Alors, il n'y a pas de raison d'imaginer d'autre procédure si l'on veut avancer et je crois que c'est le souhait du nouveau Directeur général tel qu'exprimé par Son Excellence l'Ambassadeur du Ghana. Je vous remercie.

V.J. SHAH (Deputy Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Firstly to reply to a specific question that was raised about the input and the impact of Conference decisions as reflected in the Conference Report, the Conference Report has all the weight of the Member Nations of this Organization whether it reflects a decision in the form of words and sentences in a paragraph or in the form of a resolution. The resolution, of course, gives a certain formality to the decision but the directives of the Conference - I have checked this with the Legal Counsel -have the same weight whether they are reflected in a resolution or in the text of a Report.

Turning to the procedural aspect that we are pursuing, on which I suggest, if I may, there is very little disagreement, I understand that it may be the common wish to proceed with the consideration and adoption of the Draft Resolution on the budgetary appropriations 1994-95, which is before you.

As it has been suggested by the distinguished Ambassador of Ghana, the procedure could be followed that the General Committee make a recommendation to the Plenary of Conference on the substance of the matter with a text, whether that text is in the form of one or more paragraphs or whether the text is in the form of a draft resolution, that would follow the one that you are about to consider.

Mr Chairman, I think these are all the aspects that called for clarification, at least on my part.

Parviz KARBASI (Iran, Islamic Republic of) : I would like to support the proposal of the distinguished delegate of Ghana. We agree; the Budget of 1994-95 provided that the Conference give authority to the Director-General to change the budget between the chapters. I think it is possible that the general committee could come to some kind of decision to bring it to the Plenary.

CHAIRMAN: Delegates, I think that there is overwhelming support for the proposal of the delegate of Ghana, that the new Director-General be given the necessary flexibility to have a look at the Programme of Work and Budget and to recommend changes to be put before an extraordinary meeting of the Council. We have spent some time trying to find the best procedure to effect this, and I think the way to go is to have the General Committee examine the matter, to forward a resolution to Plenary so that Conference can take a decision, giving the new Director-General the necessary authority sought as a result of the intervention of the delegate of Ghana.

I think we are at a stage where we should move first to adopt the Report, and then we can move at that time to vote on the resolution. That will be after.

PARAGRAPHS 1 TO 24
PARAGRAPHES 1 À 24
PÁRRAFOS 1 A 24

Waleed A. ELKHEREIJI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic): I apologize for taking the floor for a second time. I have a proposal. The Chairman of the Second Commission and the Chairman of the Drafting Committee have made efforts - valuable efforts indeed. My proposal is that we accept this report en bloc because we have discussed these paragraphs last night, paragraph by paragraph, and we spent a lot of time. So I am proposing to adopt the report en bloc, and I hope that will be accepted by the members.

D. SANDS SMITH (United Kingdom): If I may say so, I think the delegate of Saudi Arabia's proposal is an excellent one, and I strongly support it.

Juan NUIRY SANCHEZ (Cuba): Deseo expresar nuestro pleno apoyo a lo propuesto por la delegación de Arabia Saudita. Teniendo en consideración que ya ha terminado este sabio procedimiento, creo que el presente proyecto de Resolución ha tenido una historia muy larga, profunda; se ha analizado, ha habido debates y creo que es muy sabio lo que acaban de plantear, de que se debería aprobar por unanimidad.

CHAIRMAN: There is obviously overwhelming support for the Report, and I ask the Conference to adopt the report since there seems to be no further comment. There being no further comment, the report of Commission II is adopted.

Paragraphs 1 to 20 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 20 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 20 son aprobados

RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION
RESOLUCION

CHAIRMAN: Now we move to the Resolution. The Resolution requires a roll-call vote, and may I ask the Secretary-General to take charge at this stage.

LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Monsieur le Président, comme vous l'avez dit, nous arrivons au vote de la résolution portant ouverture de crédit pour l'exercice 1994-95.

L'Article XVIII, paragraphe 5 de l'Acte constitutif, stipule que les décisions relatives au montant du budget sont prises à la majorité des deux tiers des suffrages exprimés. Selon l'Article XII, paragraphe 7, alinéa a) du Règlement général, un vote par appel nominal a lieu si une majorité des deux tiers est requise en vue de l'Acte constitutif. L'Article XII, paragraphe 3, alinéa c) du Règlement général stipule que, lorsqu'en vertu de l'Acte constitutif une décision doit être prise par la Conférence à la majorité des deux-tiers, le nombre total de suffrages exprimés pour ou contre doit être supérieur à la moitié du nombre des Etats Membres de l'Organisation. Il faut donc, en l'occurrence, que le nombre de voix pour ou contre qui vont être émises soit d'au moins 85.

Le Secrétariat doit maintenant informer le Président du nombre de délégués présents dans la salle. Il y en a au moins 108. Selon l'Article XII, paragraphe 7, alinéa a) du Règlement général, le vote par appel nominal se fait de la manière suivante: le vote par appel nominal se fait en appelant, dans l'ordre alphabétique anglais, les noms de tous les Etats Membres ayant le droit de prendre part au vote, en commençant par un Etat dont le nom est tiré au sort par le Président.

Le vote va donc commencer par le Royaume-Uni. Je précise que le représentant de chaque Etat Membre, à l'appel de son nom, devra répondre par "oui" ou "abstention". A l'issue du vote, il sera procédé à un nouvel

appel de tous les Etats Membres dont les délégués ou représentants n'auraient pas répondu au premier appel. Le vote de chaque Etat Membre prenant part à un vote par appel nominal est consigné au procès-verbal. Merci, Monsieur le Président.

VOTE
VOTE
VOTACION

- 590 -

CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Assistant Secretary-General. We have now completed Adoption by the Conference of the Report on Item 12.

Resolution adopted
La résolution est. adoptée
Se adopta la resolución

Draft Report of Plenary, Part I. was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la plénière, Première Partie, est. adopté
El proyecto de informe de la plenaria, Parte I, es aprobado

D. SANDS SMITH (United Kingdom): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my delegation has set out the British Government's views on the budget on many occasions and in considerable detail. We reiterated these views at some length last week during the Conference debate. What I want to say now can, therefore, be confined to the following basic points.

We appreciate both the severe budgetary constraints facing FAO and the difficult decisions required to overcome them.

Nor, Mr. Chairman, do we underestimate the problems these have created for the Director-General. The result, as he rightly says, is a dilemma. In recent years, the Director-General has taken painful and bold decisions to reduce the budget level and to implement a policy of zero real growth, but factors beyond his and FAO's control require, in our view, even more drastic efforts if the gap between programme size and income level is to be bridged. We recognize the attempts in the budget process to close this gap and which the Director-General has recommended for the approval of Conference.

Mr. Chairman, we recognizealso that the proposed course of action that has just been agreed, may, if all goes according to plan, remedy the immediate problem in this biennium. We hope so. But we believe that such a short-term solution is no substitute for budgetary practice, which minimizes risk.

Mr. Chairman, it is our view that if income does not match expenditure, expenditure should be reduced. We can see no prospect of supplementary funds from any other source. We regret this state of affairs as much as anybody, but reality has to be faced. Use of windfalls from currency movements, use of FAO's reserves, or the expectation of arrears payments is not, in our judgment, an acceptable approach to budget planning.

It risks failure if expectations are not met and if arrears do not materialize. Moreover, it would give rise to pressure for a significant increase in assessed contributions in the future. We should find this difficult to justify and would be reluctant to seek approval for additional resources. In these circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I have to say that the United Kingdom is unable to support the Director-General's budget. However, given the effort that he has made consistently to cope with external factors beyond FAO's control, my delegation was content on this occasion to register an abstention. We did so with considerable regret but in the strong belief that the avoidance of a change in budgetary policy is only compounding problems for the future. This should clearly be of the utmost concern to the Director-General elect as well as to member countries. Indeed, in this connection it is only too clear from the statement made by the Ambassador of Ghana that Mr. Diouf has this issue very much at the top

of his agenda. As part of his planned review of the budget about which we have just heard, my delegation strongly urges him fully to take into account the concerns that I have just set out. Mr. Chairman, we believe that this long-standing problem now requires a long-term solution, not short-term remedies nor, above all, continuing uncertainty. Thank you very much.

Kjell HALVORSEN (Norway): Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the Nordic countries, I would like to make the following remarks. The Nordic countries have just voted in favour of the Programme of Work and Budget. It is with great reluctance that we have joined the near consensus approval of this budget. As pointed out in the Nordic intervention in Commission II, we find the appropriations for cost increases to be set at an unrealistically high level. A great part of those cost increases could have been absorbed in the budget in other ways. We also continue to have concerns about the important aspects of the Programme of Work. We also wish to place on record that we are against establishing a deliberate difference between the Programme of Work and the assessed contributions of member countries. The gap created will have to be closed at a later stage, and we regret that the new Director-General will be faced with the difficulty of bridging this gap when in two years' time he will be presenting his first Programme of Work and Budget to the 1995 Conference. Nevertheless, we have decided to contribute to a strong support for the new Director-General as he assumes his important task. Hence the Nordic countries have found it to be in the interests of the Organization to join others in voting for the proposed Programme of Work and Budget at this particular time. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Mrs. Melinda L. KIMBLE (United States of America): The United States of America welcomes the exceptional spirit of cooperation and constructive dialogue that has contributed to the work of this Conference, including our efforts to reach broad agreement on the 1994-95 Programme of Work and Budget.

Our primary purpose in supporting this budget was to build on the process of consensus and esprit de corps so visibly displayed at the 1991 Conference and again this year. The agreement achieved today and at the previous Conference was the outgrowth of Member States' efforts to improve the FAO budget process. The greater transparency and better priority- setting visible in these last two Programmes of Work and Budget must continue to improve.

We recall that two years ago the United States for the first time in many years supported the Director-General's budget. This action will enable the United States to contribute US$200 000 000 to FAO by the end of 1993, much of which was appropriated prior to January 1992. It also set the stage for a strengthened and financially viable Organization.

Turning to the prospects for the future level of funding from the United States, we would want to be clear and forthright about our appropriations process and how it might have impact on the Programme of Work and Budget, which we have just approved. For the fiscal year 1994, the Clinton administration sought full funding to pay our calendar year 1993 contribution to FAO and an additional US$22.7 million for arrears. The United States Congress made available full funding of our current contribution to international organizations but eliminated the amount requested for arrears payments.

While we will complete payment of our 1993 assessment before 31 December 1993, unless Congress takes further action, we will not be able to make further arrears payments or pay our regular 1994 assessment before October 1994. Make no mistake - the United States is unequivocally committed to the United Nations system and to FAO. We will redouble our efforts to seek appropriations both for our assessed contributions and arrears payments. We cannot, however, offer assurances that the resource outlook in 1994-95 will be as favourable as it was in the 1992-93 biennium. It is inevitable in this era of budget stringency that any cost increases in international organizations will be rigorously examined and further efficiencies sought. The entire UN System and FAO must find ways to do more with less.

In light of these facts and our earlier statement in Commission II, we find the recommendation of the Permanent Representative from Ghana, which just received strong support before we adopted the Budget Resolution, an eminently sensible one given the flexibility that the new Director-General will need.

Despite these caveats, the progress made at this Conference is genuine and confirms our belief that the broad Member State support expressed for the 1994-95 budget will enhance FAO's ability to play a critically important role in the post-UNCED process. In Commission II we expressed reservations about the structure and foundation of this budget. While we remain unconvinced that the financing mechanism adopted is the best way to ensure full implementation of the 1994-95 Programme of Work and Budget, at the same time we want to assure the new Director-General of our strong support for the programme that he must implement over the course of the next two years. If resources prove inadequate, FAO will have to demonstrate increased flexibility and imagination in redeploying resources to ensure that critical programmes are maintained.

What we in FAO have learned in the past few years is that cooperation and collaboration are the keys to strengthening FAO. For FAO to address the challange ahead, we as Member States must work closely with the Secretariat to review the priorities, mobilize FAO's comparative advantages and monitor results carefully. FAO must achieve early visible progress in its genetic resources and sustainable agricultural programmes in the coming biennium to maintain effective leadership in these key UNCED-related areas.

FAO must also reinvigorate its links to other UN system agencies in the Breton Woods Institutions. To be fully successful, we must as Member States strengthen our participation in charting FAO's course for the rest of the decade. The new Director-General faces many unprecedented challenges. We are confident that he will bring a new perspective and many innovative ideas to this task. The United States looks forward to working closely and cooperatively with the new Director-General, the Secretariat and all Member States as we lay the foundation for the 21st-century FAO.

CHAIRMAN: We thank the distinguished delegate of the United States of America for her very important statement. The Conference notes the pledge of the delegate to fully support the FAO as it moves forward to fulfil its mandate under a new Director-General as of next year.

The delegate has pointed to the many unprecedented challenges that Dr Diouf will face, and I think Conference is disappointed that the United States Congress has found it impossible to vote the funds required to settle the

arrears. We do hope that very soon in the future the United States may find the necessary resources to permit them to make this payment, as the distinguished delegate obviously would wish her country to make. We thank you for that statement, distinguished delegate of the United States.

That statement seems to take us to the end of this evening's sitting. Before we rise, I would like to say how pleased we are with the work of Commission II. I would like to congratulate the Chairman of the Commission and all those delegates who sat in that Commission, who obviously did very good work.We gather that the Sessions were calm, serene and very lively.

It is certainly to the credit of the Commission's Chairman and those who sat in that Commission that they have been able to present such a clear report to Conference that we have seen fit to adopt.

The meeting rose at 16.30 hours.
La séance est. levée à 16 h 30.
Se levanta la sesión a las 16.30 horas.