Contents -

Site of Permanent FAO Headquarter

The Conference had before it offers of buildings and sites in Denmark (Copenhagen), Italy (Rome), Switzerland (Geneva, Lausanne, Vevey, or Montreux), the United States of America (four sites in or near Washington, including the University of Maryland), and the United Nations (part of the permanent headquarters in New York City).

The question of a permanent site was considered in Commission III, which spent three meetings in discussion of the subject. Statements were made by delegates of more than twenty member governments.

All speakers felt that the choice of a permanent site should be made in the light of its effect upon the work of FAO. Facilities for carrying on this work should receive primary consideration, as should the financial outlay involved. Most speakers emphasized that a site should be selected that would afford favorable cultural, intellectual, and social circumstances for the work of the Organization, for staff and families, and for visits to Headquarters.

The probability of monetary savings by moving to a soft-currency area was stressed by the Delegates of Denmark Finland, France, Haiti, Iraq, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, United Kingdom, and Yugoslavia.

Doubt of this position was expressed by the Delegates of Chile, Cuba, the Philippine Republic, and the United States of America. They felt that the move would be expensive, that trade unbalances and inconvertibility of currencies are temporary, and that the temporary monetary advantage would later be lost.

The Delegates of Brazil and Chile emphasized the savings that could be effected by moving Headquarters to the United Nations site, where centralized services could be obtained at low cost.

Delegates of China, Haiti, Liberia, Mexico, and others stressed the importance of selecting a site free from segregation or discrimination because of race or religion. In this connection, the Commission, also took cognizance of a communication received from the (U.S.) National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which opposed the University of Maryland site.

Delegates of Austria and Mexico offered sites at Innsbruck and Mexico City for consideration at the next session, in the event that the Conference should make no decision this year.

Commission III recommended as a method of voting, a procedure originally proposed by the Delegation of France, that initial ballots be taken on cities in the United States of America and similar ballots on cities in Europe. Several ballots might be required to obtain an absolute majority for a city on each continent, after which a ballot would be taken to decide between the two selected cities on separate continents. Commission III then referred the site question, with a draft resolution, to the General Committee.

The General Committee presented to the Conference three other possible methods of voting: (1) That a vote be taken on the four countries offering sites, the country with the least number of votes being eliminated after each ballot, followed, if necessary, by a similar series of ballots on cities within the country selected; (2) the same as (1), except that the United Nations would, for purposes of the vote, be considered a separate country; and (3) that an initial vote be taken between the two continents, followed by balloting for sites within the selected continent.

At its Sixth Plenary- Meeting, 28 November, the Conference successively eliminated the third method proposed by the General Committee, the method proposed by Commission III, and the first method proposed by the General Committee, adopting the second method. Under this plan, a first ballot was taken on the following sites: Denmark, Italy, Switzerland, United Nations (considered for this purpose a separate country), and the United States of America. An absolute majority of votes cast was required for a decision. In the absence of such a majority, successive ballots were to be taken, eliminating in each instance the country with the least number of votes, until one country should receive an absolute majority of the votes cast. In the course of the first four ballots, at the Sixth Plenary Meeting, abstentions or blank ballots were counted as votes cast. Under this ruling the fourth ballot did not result in an absolute majority. In order to resolve this parliamentary difficulty, the Conference at its Seventh Plenary Meeting, before taking the fifth ballot, passed the following resolution by more than a two-thirds majority of the votes cast:

The Conference

In order to remove any legal obstacle to making a free choice of site, the Conference also amended Rule XXXII, which originally provided that -

to read -

The vote was 40 in favor of the amendment to 18 opposed - more than the two-thirds majority required.

The results of the ballots cast on Headquarters site are shown in the accompanying table.

CONFERENCE VOTE ON THE PERMANENT SITE OF FAO HEADQUARTERS

After the last ballot on site, the Conference unanimously adopted the following resolution:

The Conference

Financial Implications of the Move to Rome

In considering this question, the Conference had before it a body of facts and figures, which may be summarized briefly:

According to The Selection of a Site for the Permanent Headquarters of FAO (C49/12), the change in site involves an estimated nonrecurring expenditure of about $1,300,000. It is not clear how much of it would have to be in hard currency. According to the same document and to the Draft Budget for 1950 (C49/4), the annual savings would represent approximately $800,000. The establishment of a North American regional office would require, according to estimates, an appropriation of $300,000, which should be provided for, but absorption of the Rome Regional Office would result in some savings.

The FAO Working Capital Fund, which serves as a reserve fund, barely exceeds $1,500,000 The Conference felt that this should be considered the absolute minimum required by the Organization's current financial needs.

Cash surpluses for the financial years 1947 and 1948, amounting to approximately $1,000,000, might be transferred to the Working Capital Fund. However, these surpluses must cover the cash deficit of the financial year 1949, which has been estimated in the Draft Budget at approximately $350,000, but will probably be larger because of delay in the payment of members' contributions. It is of the utmost importance that the actual cash deficit be reduced and that no cash deficit occur in 1950 which would prevent the utilization of any surplus balance left over from 1949 which is reserved for expenses in connection with the removal of Headquarters to Rome.

The Conference, in the light of these and other relevant facts, adopted the following resolution:

The Conference

Site of Regional Office for Asia and the Far East

As requested by the Fourth Session, the Director-General reported on possible alternative sites for this regional office. In view of the uncertainty of conditions in the Far East, he recommended that the office remain at Bangkok until the end of 1951 and that the Council consider the question again at its session before the 1951 Session of the Conference. Several delegates indicated that, while approving the Director-General's recommendation, they would be prepared to make specific proposals in 1951. Accordingly, the Conference adopted the following resolution:

The Conference -

Regional Representation in Latin America

The Conference considered the provision in the Draft Budget for 1950 (C49/4) for a Latin-American Regional Office, as well as the Director-General's proposal to utilize existing arrangements for providing the services required by the Latin-American region. The Conference noted that the selection of Rome as the permanent site of FAO Headquarters will produce a change in the relative position of Headquarters and the region, and in order to provide latitude for making satisfactory arrangements, adopted the following resolution:

The Conference

Proposed General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean

Upon invitation by FAO, issued pursuant to a recommendation of the Third Session of the Conference, representatives of some interested governments met in Rome 19 September 1949 and drafted an agreement proposing the establishment of a General Fisheries Council for the Mediterranean. After discussion of this proposal and its antecedents, in the course of which it was suggested that the secretariat make any minor verbal changes necessary in the text of the draft agreement, the Conference adopted, by more than a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, the following resolution:

The Conference

Frequency and Timing of Conference Sessions

The Council, at its Seventh Session, recommended that the Sixth Session of the Conference be held in April 1951. Since the Constitution provides that the Conference shall meet at least once in every year, the Council's recommendation implied that the relevant article should be made more flexible in the event of no Conference session in 1950. The Council invited the Director-General to give notice to member governments of its intention to propose the following draft amendment to Article III (6) of the Constitution (amended portion in italics):

The Council thought that this postponement of the Sixth Session might be a first step in the direction of holding Conference sessions biennially, and requested the Director-General to investigate the financial and administrative implications of such a change. When the report of the Director-General, Frequency and Timing of the FAO Conference (C49/7), was considered by the Conference, a majority of the delegates was strongly in favor of the principle of biennial sessions, on the understanding that the Conference should always be free to decide at any session to meet in the following year if desirable. For that reason, the amendment suggested by the Council was redrafted so as to provide for the principle of biennial sessions. These views were expressed in the following resolution, adopted by a majority of more than two-thirds of the members of the Conference:

The Conference

This amendment required a consequential change in Rule I, paragraph 1, Rules of Procedure, which originally read:

In pursuance of Article III, paragraph 6, of the Director-General shall convene the Conference to meet annually in regular session. The regular session of the Conference shall be held at the seat of the Organization in the months of October or November unless it is convened elsewhere or at a different time in pursuance of a decision of the Conference at a previous session, or, in exceptional circumstances, of a decision by the Council.

Accordingly the Conference, by more then a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, adopted the following resolution:

The Conference

Revision of Rule

Once the principle of biennial sessions was adopted, it was clear that extensive adjustments in budgetary and other procedures would be required, as well as major revision of the Constitution, the Rules of Procedure, and the Financial Regulations of the Organization. The General Committee had also, in the course of its deliberations, come to the conclusion that certain procedures of the Conference required clarification and that the Director-General should be requested to study the matter. Accordingly the Conference adopted the following resolution:

The Conference

Date and Place of Next Conference Session

The Conference concurred in the recommendation of the Council that the next session be held in April 1951. Again it was realized that a number of ad hoc arrangements would be required to provide for the contingency of no session being held in 1950. These arrangements were specified in the following resolution, adopted by more than a two-thirds majority of the votes cast:

The Conference

This decision having been made, attention was drawn to the fact that unforeseen circumstances arising out of the decision to move the headquarters to Rome might make it necessary to convene the Conference earlier than April 1951. In order to provide for this contingency, the Conference, by more than a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, adopted the following supplementary resolution:

The Conference

Conference Nominations Committee

The Conference considered favorably a proposal of the Director-General in Proposed Amendments to the Constitution and Rules of Procedure (C49/6) that, in order to save time at the opening of Conference sessions, the Council be empowered to elect a Nominations Committee before the Conference rather than merely to propose members of the Nominations Committee. The Conference, by more than a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, adopted the following resolution:

The Conference -

Adoption of Spanish as a Working Language

There being general agreement on the desirability in principle of FAO services in the Spanish language, the Conference considered this matter with particular reference to the financial implications and the removal of Headquarters to Rome, which might eventually bring about substantial financial savings and will produce a changed situation with respect to the availability and need for language services. The Conference accordingly adopted the following resolution:

The Conference resolves -

Relations with Nongovernmental Organization

The Conference at its Second Session recognized that for its successful operation FAO depends to an important extent upon the cooperation of scientific, technical, trade, and civic organizations having a membership ok many millions in all countries. In order to establish appropriate channels. for consultation, the Conference at that time set up three categories of organizations with which FAO might be expected to consult, with accompanying procedures and privileges for each.

In the Report of its Seventh Session, the Council of FAO pointed out that, in the light of the experience of the last three years, this system has proved too rigid, in that it sets up arbitrary distinctions between organizations, and in that it hears little relevance to the type of co-operation which in practice has proved most useful to FAO. The Conference therefore considered it wise to adopt a somewhat simpler mechanism for providing channels of consultation with nongovernmental organizations with interests similar to those of FAO, as set forth in the following resolution:

The Conference -

When considering the above resolution, mention was made of the fact that no comprehensive report had been submitted to the Conference on the relationship of FAO with the United Nations Specialized Agencies, and other international organizations. Although all questions of a technical or administrative nature involving relationships with other organizations were being considered by the appropriate commissions, together with the substantive matters to which they referred, the Conference thought that there remained over-all problems of interagency co ordination which could best be considered on the basis of a comprehensive report by the Director-General. It was understood that future sessions of the Conference would have such a report placed before them.

Liquidation of IIA and CIS

Soon after the Quebec Session of the Conference (1946) the General Assembly of the International Institute of Agriculture decided that the IIA should be liquidated, as well as its subsidiary organization, the Centre International de Sylviculture (International Forestry Center). The General Assembly drew up instructions for the Permanent Committee of the Institute, giving it full powers to carry out the liquidation.

By the end of 1947 the Permanent Committee had concluded its work, but, since there were still some payments to be made to the staff and a number of contributions to be collected, the Director-General of FAO was asked if he would complete these operations through the Rome Regional Office of FAO. This proposal was accepted 23 December 1947 It was understood then that the Director-General would receive detailed instructions for completing the work, since FAO should not be responsible for determining the payments still to be made, and that such payments would be contingent upon the availability of IIA funds. It was further understood that the Director-General would report to the Conference on the liquidation of IIA and to governments which were members of IIA but not of FAO. By the end of September 1949 the operations entrusted to the Director-General could be regarded as practically completed, and he reported on them to the Fifth Session of the Conference, asking guidance on a few remaining issues.

After discussion of the matter, the conference formulated its conclusions in the following resolution:

The Conference

Administrative Tribunal and Appeals Procedure

The Conference, having considered the recommendations of the Director-General and the Council and the facts relevant to this matter, adopted the following resolution:

The Conference -

Audited Accounts of the Third Financial Year, 1948

The Conference, after examining (a) the audited accounts of the Third Financial Year, 1948, and the auditor's report thereon (C49/11), submitted in accordance with Financial Regulation XX, and (b) an additional Statement of Income and Expenditure showing all contributions (current and arrears) collected during 1948, as requested by the Sixth Session of the Council, adopted the following resolution:

The Conference

External Auditing

A proposal to adopt joint auditing procedures for the United Nations and the Specialized Agencies has been under consideration for some time, and in 1948 the UN Advisory Committee on Administrative Questions suggested that FAO become a participant of the proposed UN Joint Audit System (UN Advisory Committee, Fifth Report).

The Australian Government, in endorsing this suggestion, submitted a formal amendment (Financial Affairs of the Organization, C49/III/5) to Financial Regulation XVII to permit FAO to participate in the UN Joint Audit System. While considering this proposal, the Director-General informed the Conference (C49/III/7) that on 18 November 1949 the Fifth Committee of the UN General Assembly had recommended the setting up of a joint panel of auditors for the United Nations and Specialized Agencies. This panel would consist of auditors chosen by common consent for a period of three years, each organization selecting one or more of its members to perform its own audit.

While agreeing with the proposal and with the amendment of the Australian Delegation to Financial Regulation XVII, the Conference noted that the selection of an external auditor for FAO would require consultation with other international organizations, that adequate financial provision would have to be inserted in the budget to defray a cost as yet unknown, and that, moreover, it would be inopportune to finalize the new system before the Organization has moved its Headquarters to the permanent site. For these reasons, the Conference thought that the auditor to be appointed for FAO should not be called upon to audit its accounts prior to those of 1951. The Conference accordingly, by more than a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, adopted the following resolution:

The Conference -

Unpaid Contributions

In conformity with Financial Regulation VIII, paragraph 6, the Director-General reported to the Conference on the position of member governments regarding the payment of their contributions for the first three financial years and on the steps he had taken to secure payment in full of unpaid contributions.

The Conference expressed concern over the fact that, despite the action of the Director-General, several member countries were still in arrears, some even for the Second and Third Financial Years (1947 and 1948). Noting the suggestion of the Council that consultation could appropriately take place with the United Nations and other Specialized Agencies on methods used for collecting arrears of contributions, the Conference agreed that such action should be left to the discretion of the Director-General and requested him to report on it to a future session of the Council.

With regard to the special case of Hungary, which had an inordinately heavy assessment for the Second Financial Year (1947), since its contribution for 1948 was reduced to $7,500 by the Third Session, the Conference adopted the following resolution:

The Conference -

Scale of Contributions

The Conference at its Fourth Session (November 1948), being of the opinion that the scale of contributions adopted at Quebec required revision, particularly in view of changes in the relative prosperity of member countries, requested the Council to establish a Special Committee to undertake the revision and to propose a new scale for consideration at this Session. This committee, consisting of representatives of Belgium, Brazil, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, and the United States of America, was under the chairmanship of Ernest de Selliers of Belgium. Its proposals were placed before the Conference in a Report of the Special Committee on Scale of Contributions and Currency Problems (C49/21), e embodying a proposed new scale, expressed as percentages of the income budget and totaling 100 percent.

When this report was discussed in Commission III, two main conflicting points of view emerged. One viewpoint, reflected in a resolution sponsored by the Delegates of China, Cuba, Greece, Indonesia, Ireland, Mexico, and the United States of America, proposed acceptance of the principles and adoption of the new scale of contributions recommended in the report of the Special Committee.

Delegates taking this viewpoint agreed with the conclusion that revisions of the scale would be required in the future. They argued that it was not sound to consider any contribution scale as permanent, since revisions must be made from time to time to reflect changes in economic conditions, admission of new members, and other factors which must be considered in the maintenance of an appropriate and current scale of contributions. They maintained, therefore, that the temporary character of the scale proposed by the Special Committee was not a good reason for rejecting the Special Committee proposal. These delegates pointed out that the present scale of contributions was adopted in 1945 and is therefore very much out of date.

It was in recognition of this fact that the Special Committee on Scale of Contributions and Currency Problems was set up in 1948. These delegates emphasized the point that the scale proposed by the Special Committee does make allowance for differences in capacity to pay, since the UN scale was used as a basis for the proposed FAO scale. They noted that the proposed scale departed from the UN scale to the extent necessary to give recognition to differences in membership between FAO and UN, and to give appropriate adherence to the terms of reference given to the Special Committee by the Fourth Session of the FAO Conference. They recognized that the Special Committee intended the adjustments, referred to as "Step 7" in Appendix III of the Report, to be applicable only at the outset, in order to cushion the effect of the shift from the old scale to the new. They, therefore, recommended that Step 7 be eliminated from computations of the scale after 1950.

With reference to the resolution adopted by the UN Assembly 23 November 1949, which expressed a belief that there was room for closer relationship between assessment of member states of UN and of the Specialized Agencies, these delegates pointed out that the UN resolution recognized the desirability of using the same data "to the extent that the contributions of members of the Specialized Agencies are assessed in accordance with principles similar to those on which contributions of members of the United Nations are based." They expressed agreement with the desirability of a closer working relationship of the FAO Special Committee with the UN Committee on Contributions, and pointed out that the resolution they were recommending specifically directed the FAO Committee to seek the advice and recommendations of the UN Committee in connection with further revision of the FAO scale.

The other viewpoint, embodied in a resolution proposed by the Delegates of Australia, Canada. and India, expressed dissatisfaction with the scale proposed by the Special Committee and recommended in lieu thereof temporary adoption of the present scale adjusted to effect a 100 percent assessment of contributions. Delegates supporting this viewpoint observed that the proposed new scale did not, in their opinion, adequately reflect the relative capacity of member nations to pay, and that it was in any case temporary in character. They drew attention to the Special Committee's own conclusion that its proposals were not perfect and would require future revision. They also expressed the view that since the Special Committee had used the United Nations scale as a point of departure, it could have achieved results which would have been in closer conformity with the United Nations scale, particularly in respect of the "ceiling" of 27.10 percent recommended by the Special Committee. For these reasons, the delegates recommended that the adoption of a new scale be deferred until a more permanent and more satisfactory scale could be submitted by the Special Committee. In this connection, mention was made of a Resolution adopted by the United Nations Assembly on 23 November 1949 which "expressed the belief that there was room for closer relationship between assessments of member states in the contributions both of the United Nations and of the Specialized Agencies" and recognized that "to the extent that the contributions of members of the Specialized Agencies are assessed in accordance with principles similar to those on which the contribution of members of the United Nations are based, it was desirable that the same data should be utilized for the assessment of those contributions." Therefore, the delegates who favored postponing the adoption of a new scale recommended that in drawing up a revised scale the Special Committee should seek the advice and recommendations of the United Nations Committee on Contributions, with a view to submitting proposals that would be in closer conformity with those of the United Nations.

This brief summary of the two main viewpoints which emerged from the discussion does not fully reflect all the various views and observations. Exception was taken by some delegates to various aspects of the proposals before Commission III. Some felt that greater recognition should be given to the importance of per caput income and to agricultural factors in determining the assessments of member countries. Others objected to the inclusion of agricultural factors in determining these assessments.

Continue

Contents -