LE PRESIDENT: Honorables délégués et observateurs, nous reprenons le cours de nos travaux et nous allons examiner le Point 14: Rapport des 62ème et 63ème Sessions du Comité financier (CL 94/3 et CL 94/4).
Auparavant, je voudrais annoncer aux honorables délégués que le groupe de contact constitué hier a terminé la rédaction de la résolution par consensus. Cette résolution a été transmise au Secrétariat qui l'a lui-même transmise au Comité de rédaction pour qu'elle puisse figurer dans le rapport du Comité de rédaction. Elle sera analysée avec l'ensemble du rapport du Comité de rédaction.
Je vais demander à M. Bukhari, Président du Comité financier, de bien vouloir introduire le Point 14.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Chairman, Finance Committee)(Original language Arabie): In the name of God, the most gracious, the most merciful. At the outset, Sir, I would like very briefly to refer to the joint Programme and Finance Committee Meeting which was held in September 1988. This joint meeting is in fact held during the regular session of these two committees. The Finance Committee met jointly with the Programme Committee on 21 September 1988, prior to the regular session of the Finance Committee - that is, the Sixty-third Session.
The joint Session reviewed a progress report on the Financial Situation and its effect on the implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget for 1988-89. The relevant report of the discussions is to be found in Documents CL 94/3 and CL 94/4. The Council will be aware that it discussed an up-date of the same report on Tuesday and Wednesday 15 and 16 November, under item 12 of the Agenda. It may not therefore be necessary for the Council to discuss further this particular item, but just note that the subject of the difficult financial situation of the Organization is constantly being kept under review by the Finance and Programme Committees through regular up-dates and progress reports.
The Finance Committee met twice in 1988 since the last Session of the Council. It first met in May 1988 for its 62nd Session, then jointly, as I said, with the Programme Committee and continued with its 63rd Session from 26 to 30 September 1988. Both Sessions, although heavily loaded with work, were conducted efficiently and 18 and 20 Agenda items respectively were dealt with by the Committee.
The Membership of the Committee changed at the 63rd Session when His Excellency Ambassador Eckert, representative of the United States of America, joined the Committee as the replacement for Mr. Jurecky from the same country.
During the 62nd Session under Budgetary Matters, the Committee reviewed the Director-General's Twenty-first Annual Report on Budgetary Performance which related to the out-turn of the. Regular Programme for 1986-87. It particularly noted the information regarding the savings of $25 million effected during that biennium and also approved the programme and budgetary transfers made in accordance with Financial Regulation 4.5(c)(i). Since then the 1986-87 accounts have been audited and the corresponding report is provided, together with the Report of the 63rd Session of the Committee·
Under Financial Matters the Committee had to consider various subjects which were again dealt with at the following Session since, unfortunately, the problems concerned had not been solved by then. These were related to the status of contributions, status of cash flow and other financial information, the possible measures to ensure implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget for 1988-89 and the arrangement for credit facilities. The latter subject was also discussed in the Department during a joint Session with the Programme Committee. I shall not expand on those since they are dealt with in a more up-to-date form under our subsequent Report.
I would like, however, to draw the attention of the Council to the Technical Co-operation Programmes mentioned in other items: firstly, the Special Italian contribution for the paragraphs 3.46 to 3.50 which constitute a significant contribution to a major programme of the Organization and at the same
time, provides a welcome financial relief at a time when the Regular Programme is suffering from the lack of payment of assessed contributions from other Member Nations.
The Committee considered the Report on Support Costs from UNDP and 'the Trust Fund Programme (para. 3.66 to 3.76) and approved the actions taken by the Director-General with a view to temporarily obtaining additional reimbursement from UNDP, and to increase the rate of Trust Fund servicing cost reimbursement for new projects on a negotiated basis with funding sources.
Regarding Miscellaneous Income, referred to in paragraphs 3.77 to 3.88, the Committee approved the Director-General's proposal that, as soon as a cash surplus materializes at the end of a future biennium, the practice of deducting estimated miscellaneous income from budgetary appropriations be discontinued; this would lead to distributing the actual miscellaneous income earned, mainly interest, at the end of the biennium rather than deduct it in advance on an estimated basis at the beginning of the biennium, before it is actually earned. The Committee, with the exception of one Member, recommended that the Council endorse such proposal. If the Council decides to follow the Committee's recommendation, the Committee shall prepare a draft Resolution for amendment of Financial Regulation 5.2(e) which shall be submitted to the next Session of the Council, after review by the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters for approval and submission to the General Conference for adoption.
Finally, the Committee agreed with the charging against Miscellaneous Income, of direct Treasury costs for investment activity; these charges represent staff and travel costs such as the cost of the Investment Officer and the FAO Advisory Committee on Investments' travel, which are needed to generate the interest income.
Under Personnel Matters the Committee considered the reports of the International Civil Service Commission and of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board to the General Assembly and noted the decision therein. The Committee also reviewed the changes in salary scales and allowances and it noted with concern the continuing deterioration in salaries of staff in the Professional and higher categories.
Among Other Matters the Committee discussed the problem of interpretation of Rule XXVII.8 of the General Rules of the Organization, regarding the call for holding sessions of the Finance Committee; the Committee was of the general view that a new provision in the Rules of Procedure of the Committee would be the most practical solution. The matter was referred to the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters for consideration.
I shall now turn to the Report on the 63rd Session of the Finance Committee. Under Budgetary Matters, the Committee reviewed the Report on Duty Travel in the 1986-87 biennium and that regarding the use of Consultants in the same period.
With regard to Duty Travel, the Committee obtained full and detailed explanations on the new travel arrangements aimed at contributing to the economy measures required by the financial difficulties. It was generally satisfied with the progress made and will continue to monitor the situation with the objective of ensuring the most efficient use of travel funds without jeopardizing the implementation of the programme.
The same financial constraint exercised by the Director-General was noted in the use of consultants. In this respect it was also noted that there was a certain concentration of consultants from certain countries and the Committee asked the Organization to improve the geographical distribution while maintaining criteria of high competence in the selection.
Under Financial Matters the Committee first dealt with the status of contributions to the General Fund mentioned in paragraphs 4.12 to 4.21, as well as the status of contributions to the Special Reserve Account and the Working Capital Fund, and in particular with the status and prospects regarding payments by the largest contributor. More current information is available to the Council in CL 94/LIM/1, which reflects the Status of Contributions through last 11 November 1988. As you will realize the financial situation has not improved and still causes reasons for grave concern. The Committee therefore strongly urged Member Nations to make the utmost effort to respond to their 'statutory financial obligations and pay fully their arrears and current assessed contributions. This analysis of the contributions situation was followed by a detailed review of the cash flow forecast for the current year and of the implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium, mentioned in paragraphs 4.22 to 4.33. I should stress that this review was also conducted jointly with the Programme Committee. The Committee noted with deep concern that the Organization may very likely end the year, that is 1988, with contributions due in the amount of $142 million, or an equivalent of 58 percent of the yearly level of the Programme of Work and Budget. Such a situation as you are well aware is alarming. We were informed that in such circumstances the Director-General took the necessary action to slow-down the rate of expenditure with a view to saving some $20 million over the biennium. We were also informed of the wise decision taken by the Director-General
to enter into forward contracts for the purchase of Lire requirement for 1988. Such action has permitted securing a stable rate of exchange in all cases favourable to the budget rate. Notwithstanding all possible measures taken by Management, it appeared clear to the Committee that the Organization may soon be faced with a cash crisis and unable to fully implement its Programme unless contributions were forthcoming or that it made use of its recourse to credit facilities.
In this regard, the Committee was informed of the prospective contacts made with banks and noted that while it is expected that no external credit arrangements would be required in 1988, internal borrowing may be necessary by the end of 1988 or early in 1989, depending on the receipt of contribution payments. Once again the Committee urged Member Nations to pay their contributions on time and, if possible, also contact the largest contributor to encourage immediate payment of its assessed contributions.
The Committee reviewed the Director-General' s proposals for the extension of the Terminal Payment Fund coverage and approved that it be used to provide for the repatriation grant payments arising from the Trust Fund Support Cost Programme. This is reflected in paragraphs 4.34 to 4.38.
The Committee also reviewed, as mandated by the Council, a Resolution concerning the adoption of the following audited accounts:
Regular Programme 1986-87 document C 89/5;
United Nations Development Programme 1986-87 document C 89/6; and World Food Programme in document C 89/7.
The Audit reports, the Committee's comments thereon and the Resolution for acceptance of these reports is for the Council's consideration and decision.
The Committee also reviewed the practice concerning the crediting of interest to Trust Funds and while noting recent improvements in the determination of each programme's share of interest earnings, approved the continuation of the current methodology for the time being.
Under Personnel Matters, the Committee considered the report on the International Civil Service Commission and matters relating to the Pension Fund. These included information on changes in salary scales and allowances, other personnel statistics on posts, and information on developments in pension matters.
Under Organizational Matters, mentioned in paragraphs 4.84-to 4.95, the Committee considered, among other subjects, the question of Headquarters Accommodation, including recent developments in the status of restructuring and expansion of the Caracalla complex.
I hope the Council Members will forgive me for such a long expose of the discussions that took place during the two sessions of the Finance Committee in 1988, and of the recommendations and decisions made, but I am quite sure they will appreciate the seriousness and dedication of our Committee Members at this time of grave financial difficulties experienced by our Organization. In their name I would like to express the gratitude of the Members of my Committee for the honour that was conveyed on us to undertake such a task and I stand ready to provide any further explanations that would be required regarding our Reports. As you know, there are certain Conference Resolutions that are presented to the Council for its consideration. These Resolutions are for Council decision.
José Ramón LOPEZ PORTILLO ROMANO (México): Sí, Sr. Presidente, me permito hacer una moción aclaratoria porque la delegación de México está un poco confundida con los temas y seguramente hay otras delegaciones que están en esa situación; es decir, el conjunto de temas que se nos están planteando, muy clara, amplia y profundamente que nos ha planteado el Presidente del Comité de Finanzas, han sido tratados ya en parte en las deliberaciones relativas al tema 12.1 y tema 12.2.
Desearíamos saber, qué aspectos se van a tratar ahora en vista de que muchos de ellos ya fueron tratados entonces y si se debe hacer referencia otra vez a todo ese conjunto de cuestiones, esto en primer lugar.
En segundo lugar, también observamos que hay cuestiones relativas al punto número 13, que están ya vinculadas en lo que el Sr. Presidente del Comité de Finanzas nos ha dicho, y queremos saber, si esas debemos tratarlas también ahora en el punto 14 o en el punto 13 y si la Presidencia ha considerado la posibilidad de que los delegados hagamos un planteamiento global de los temas 14 y 13. Esto lo consideramos oportuno porque muchos de esto ya lo hemos dicho.
Le ruego que nos aclare, Sr. Presidente.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Chairman, Finance Committee) (original Language Arabic): What I figured in the report I submitted to you was the Report for the Finance Committee for the two previous sessions, that is to say the 62nd and the 63rd Sessions of the Finance Committee, that is to say the Reports and Documents CL 94/3 and CL 94/4 and I believe therefore, that many points in this Report could be for information but others could be for discussion. Nevertheless, there are certain decisions and recommendations that have to be taken up by the Council to be examined and approved and therefore be forwarded to the Conference for approval.
LE PRESIDENT: C'est une question pertinente parce qu'il faut que l'on sache quelles sont les questions qui vont nécessiter des décisions et celles qui sont pour information.
V. J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme Budget and Evaluation): I appreciate this opportunity to explain and I must apologize that I missed a few words of explanation of the Chairman of the Finance Committee just now because of our own consultations but may I submit to the Council through you the following: I believe the Chairman of the Finance Committee has made it very clear that the subject of consequences of the financial situation and possible measures to ensure implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget was a subject which was considered by the Finance and by the Programme Committee together and it has already been discussed by the Council. So although he referred to the subject as it is in the document before you, the Council in fact has dealt with the matter and there is no need for further discussion of that.
In the Report of the Finance Committee, and particularly in the Report of its 63rd Session from September, which is in Document CL 94/4, there are the audited accounts of the Regular Programme, UNDP and the World Food Programme. This also was touched upon by the Chairman of the Finance Committee but as you will recall these audited accounts come under Item 15 of the agenda the Council has adopted and which you will consider separately on that occasion and under that item.
This leaves for your consideration today the points which are strictly of the province of the Finance Committee on which both Reports are submitted to you and if I may just draw attention, from the 62nd Session of the Finance Committee, there are budgetary matters, the Annual Report on Budgetary Performance, the subject on support costs, miscellaneous income, personnel matters and organizational matters and these are covered under the Report in Document CL 94/3.
Similarly in the Report from the 63rd Session of the Finance Committee, there are some budgetary matters and some matters relating to trust funds and the crediting of interest to trust funds and the cost measurement system.
The menu is a big one but I believe that the report of the Finance Committee on these matters is fairly self-contained and clear. Together with my colleagues we will, of course, assist you if any further assistance is required.
Fred J. ECKERT (United States of America): The United States of America would recommend that the audited accounts for the Regular Programme of FAO, for UNDP and for the World Food Programme for the 1986-87 biennium be submitted to the Conference for approval and adoption.
On the subject of finance, since we are so often talked about, we would also just briefly make a couple of points which might be important for clarification of the record as an indication of the United States' intentions. Since January 1988 the United States of America has paid US$ 25 million in arrears and has pledged that within the next couple of weeks we will bring that total to payment of US$ 50 million in arrears in this calendar year.
The other day in discussing these points we made some points which I think may have been lost in the opening session and in the discussions going on, and that is that there appears to have been some question in recent weeks about the intent of the United States to release an additional US$ 25 million before the end of this calendar year. As you may recall, at the meeting of the Finance Committee when I was trying to explain the workings of the Congress of the United States, which are often difficult to explain, I came back after, we had adopted the budget, and not by what we in the United States call a continuing resolution, and explained that it was possible, given the way that things had gone that US$ 25 million would be released in a fairly short period of time. I want to make it very clear that the US$ 25 million that we are talking about is not the US$ 25 million we were talking about last spring. There are two US$ 25 millions. The total is US$ 50 million. Of that, US$ 25 million has been paid; the second US$ 25 million, bringing it to US$ 50 million, will be paid very soon. That is a commitment of the United States Government. That is a commitment that will be honoured, and it will be honoured in a speedy fashion.
I also want to make clear for the record the views of the United States Government that were expressed by the President of the United States. I know it is hard for non-Americans to follow because most Americans do not follow it well, but the budget on which the incoming President of the United States operates in his first year in office is a budget prepared by the outgoing President. Therefore, the budget request initiated in January will be a budget request by President Ronald Reagan and President George Bush and the Congress will deal with it and either approve or disapprove it. On September 13th President Ronald Reagan publicly announced that he would, in his final budget request submitted to the Congress of the United States, include a request for full funding of the FAO. I want to make that very clear because I believe that there is some misunderstanding and misinterpretation of that in some quarters. The budget by President Ronald Reagan will contain that request for full funding of FAO and other specialized agencies of the United Nations and for the UN in New York.
I also think it should be stated on the record that the President issued some instructions and that is that the Department of State who report to the President are to prepare for submission to the President a plan on the feasibility and desirability of paying the USA arrears. I will readily admit that when one hears words like”feasibility” and”desirability” one can drive a truck through them. But the important matter is the judgement of the President of the United States. The President in his judgement, in his public communications, in his statements, in his clarifications to the Press, and in all instances since issuing that statement, has made it rather clear that he sees this as feasible and desirable. Therefore, the instructions handed down by the President, unless changed by President George Bush - which is a highly unlikely event - would be that the US Government will pursue an attempt to develop a concrete plan for paying up arrears - not instantly, obviously that is not feasible. It may be desirable in some quarters but it is not feasible. That would be the policy of the United States unless changed by the incoming President or by the Congress of the United States. That should be made clear on the record.
Obviously we understand difficulties in cash flow. We appreciate that. We understand that it does require belt-tightening. We do think that you have to be realistic in setting programmes and budgets realistically against what is likely to come. However, in making those evaluations intent is a very important consideration. I understand that.
In addition to that, I want to make sure that all the points that in my judgement require some clarification are covered, one of which is the issue of borrowing. I understand, as someone who has run a business, the importance of cash flow to effective management or to running any kind of operation, large or small, is particularly difficult in a large one. It is our hope that together we can work out a system that will avoid the need to go into borrowing. I must tell you for the record that United States' law or statutes forbid us to make payments for interest on loans by international organizations. I can well anticipate that someone can say,”Well, if you didn't pay them and we went into borrowing, that's a kind of the dog chasing the tail situation”, but that is the statute of the United States. We have to live with that. I know it is not necessarily a satisfactory explanation but you should be aware of that and the reason for our repeated expressions of concern on that point is because we must, as you must in your countries, abide by our statutes. That is the reason why we mention that repeatedly, not that we are blind to the realities of running a business and the cash flow concerns.
I wanted to place those points on the record. Perhaps I got a little bit off the point here, but it has been my observation during this Council meeting that when I speak with people privately and when I hear some of the public discussion that there is perhaps somewhat of a misimpression of the United States' position and I want to state it very clearly. The United States paid US$ 25 million in the Spring of this year as we pledged to do. The United States' President has ordered the speedy payment of the moneys released under the budget approved by the Congress and into law by President Ronald Reagan. That speedy payment will be made and our President has instructed a long-range plan. When the President leaves office on January 20 I am sure that President George Bush will follow through on that part of the Administration to which he has been attached for some eight years.
Datuk Puvanarajah THIÂGARAJAH (Malaysia): On behalf of my delegation, may I express our appreciation to Ambassador Bukhari, Chairman of the Finance Committee, for his introduction of the Reports of the two meetings of the Finance Committee. Malaysia, being a member of the Committee, does not wish to elaborate at any length on the contents of this Report but merely to reiterate our support for the proposals made by the Committee at both its sessions. Nonetheless, let me touch briefly on two points. Firstly, I should like to urge FAO to pay special attention to what is stated in paragraphs 4.8 to 4.11 of document CL 94/4 on the subject of consultants, particularly with respect to the need for consultants to be recruited not merely from a few countries but on a more global basis especially from the developing countries, but without compromising on the quality and competence of the experts.
Secondly, with reference to paragraph 2.6 of the same document regarding the proposal of the Director-General for a slow-down of expenditure by US$ 20 million in 1988 on account of the financial situation obtaining then and anticipated earlier this year, I trust that with the assurance of member countries to make good on their arrears and action taken by yet others to complete payment of their contributions for 1988 without further delay, it may not be necessary to go the whole way but that it would be possible to implement the more important of the approved programmes that have been hitherto set aside.
Paul R. BRYDEN (Australia): My delegation welcomes the Reports and endorses them as a good reflection of the discussion that took place in the Finance Committee meetings. We also thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee for his very logical and helpful introduction.
There are several matters raised on which Council is asked to provide a view, and several others on which I would like briefly to comment. Paragraphs 3.77 to 3.85 of document CL 94/3, the May session of the Finance Committee, deals with miscellaneous income and proposes that current arrangements be changed. We would prefer to maintain the current system. Paragraphs 4.27 and 4.28 deal with the Special Reserve Account and forward exchange contracts. We are indeed encouraged by the view that there will be no charges to the SRA in 1988 from exchange losses. We expect that the Finance Committee will monitor these operations and may at a future date wish to review the operations of the SRA if this aspect of its functions is indeed replaced by forward exchange contracts.
With regard to paragraphs 4.43 to 4.56 on the World Food Programme accounts, we are fully satisfied with the WFP's accounts. We hope that harmony and cooperation between the two organizations will continue to characterize future working relations.
My delegation endorses the Draft Resolution in paragraph 4.57 regarding transmission of the audited accounts to Conference. Regarding Tables I to V on pages 29 to 33 of document CL 94/4, we notice that the number of Headquarters staff in Regular Programme established posts has remained virtually stable over the past three years and that there has been an overall slight increase in Regular Programme staffing establishments. There are indeed deep cuts shown elsewhere, notably in short-term or extra-budgetary established positions. However, the picture emerging does not suggest an organization whose very structure is being undermined. Perhaps future tables could include information on actual staffing levels as well as formal establishment positions in order to give a clearer picture of the impact of the financial crisis. Further information could be given, I suggest, to Council on the payment of US$ 250 000 mentioned in paragraph 4.94 as settlement of counter-claims regarding the FINSYS/PERSYS project. For example, what were the claims? Was payment made from the approved allocation against this project outlined in paragraph 3.106 of CL 94/3? Regarding the Joint Committee's discussion on borrowing reflected in paragraphs 1.14 to 1.15, our position is well-known and Australia was one of the three members opposing borrowing.
We would welcome clarification of the statements made by the secretariat during our earlier debates that borrowing will not be at Members costs, but rather that interest will be handled from miscellaneous income or programme cuts. In essence, we are intrigued by the notion of free money.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, deseamos limitar nuestra intervención a agradecer sinceramente la aclaración que se ha hecho sobre la situación de los pagos de los Estados Unidos. Las noticias que se nos han transmitido esta tarde, a juicio nuestro, son mejores de las que habíamos comprendido antes. Sin embargo, 25 más 25 son 50; quedarían aun pendientes 17.4 millones del año 87, más todo el bienio 88/89. No obstante, Sr. Presidente, tomamos nota con satisfacción de una actitud positiva, como es el hecho de que la Administración de ese importante y respetable país ha solicitado al Congreso la financiación completa de sus compromisos con la FAO y como es el buen deseo contenido en el reconocimiento de la difícil situación por que atraviesa la FAO.
Con base en esas dos premisas, la Delegación de Colombia expresa su esperanza de que se aportará la cooperación necesaria para que, sin introducir ningún nuevo reajuste en el Programa para 1989, la FAO pueda seguir realizando su valiosa tarea en favor de los países en desarrollo. Creemos, Sr. Presidente, que son elementos importantes que tranquilizan a los Gobiernos, lo cual, si el Consejo estuviera de acuerdo, podría constar en nuestro informe.
James AITKEN (United Kingdom): I should like to begin by thanking the secretary of the Finance Committee for his very clear introduction to this item. We must also express concern about the late arrival of document CL 94/4 which is a very detailed paper and reached us only in the week before Council.
In this intervention we will not comment on the financial situation but simply say that in the absence of a statement from the secretariat about their estimates of the cash flow in 1989 being available to us during this Council, we look forward to receiving the quaterly statement and forecast as at 31 December. We should be grateful if you could confirm that the secretariat will be issuing such a forecast. We will not comment on the audited accounts although these are referred to in CL 94/4. It is our understanding that the audited accounts will be discussed in full, separately under agenda item 15.
We should like to turn first of all to the subject of external borrowing. This Council is aware that we do not support external borrowing, and indeed, in the current circumstances although we realise there is a legal base for it we think it is bending the intentions of the basic text to consider external borrowing. Other delegations have referred to interest payments but many banks also make a facility charge in connection with issuing loans. We should be grateful if the secretariat could confirm the following: (a) that no payment has been made by the secretariat already in the form of any facility charge or similar payment in connection with their current investigations into the possibility of external borrowing and (b) that in the case of any external borrowing the details of any such payment will be given to the Finance Committee and passed on to the Member States.
Turning now to the question of the support costs for UNDP and Trust Funds, we noticed that there has again been an increase in the level of the cost subsidy between the Regular Programme and the Trust Funds and UNDP. I would direct the meeting to page 25 of document CL 94/4. Here you will see that there has been a significant increase both in the sums involved, and in these sums, as a percentage of the Regular Programme.
We know that the secretariat had informal discussions with Trust Fund donors concerning the questions of costs, and the Trust Fund donors meeting a greater proportion of the actual cost. We would be grateful if we could learn from the secretariat about the progress made in these discussions. Perhaps they can amplify the statements made in the document.
The question of support costs leads me on to one item which is not covered in these papers, namely, that of delivery costs. No doubt delegations and the secretariat will recall that in 1987 we raised a number of questions about these costs. As a result the Finance Committee was given the results of the secretariat analysis of Programme Delivery Costs on the Regular Programme. We were under the impression from statements made by the then distinguished Deputy Director-General that we could expect a similar presentation to the Finance Committee in 1989. I should be grateful if the secretariat could confinn that this will be the case.
In Council last November, the Deputy Director-General agreed that FAO would discuss programme delivery costs with other agencies through the inter-agency mechanism in Geneva. We should be grateful to learn what has happened on this and what progress there has been.
Turning now to the question of Miscellaneous Income, in this Organization we prefer to retain the existing system with a conservative estimate of income. We suggest that Council does not endorse the proposals in paragraphs 3.77 to 3.85 of document CL 94/3.
The question of consultants is also raised in these documents in paragraph 48 of CL 94/4. We note that from discussions of the Fifth Committee in New York the General Assembly has ruled that no former staff member in receipt of a pension from the Joint Pensions Fund should receive emoluments exceeding US$12,000 in any calendar year in consultancy fees from UN funds. Can the secretariat confirm whether FAO has any similar regulation.
We note the comments on the FINSYS/PERSYS system. We should be very grateful for an update on the situation contained in the papers before us. We were particularly interested to learn the current estimated total cost of this system, including the information requested by the distinguished delegate of Australia which we believe is pertinent to the costs. We would also like to know the expected date when phases 1 and 2 of the system will be fully operational without any parallel running on the old system, and how this date compares to the original target date for the system.
Turning to Personnel Issues, we note that specific items are dealt with in document CL 94/3. We are again disappointed to see no general statement concerning the progress on personnel matters within the secretariat. We feel that this information would be of value to both the Member States and to the staff involved particularly at the moment when personnel matters and staff morale are such an issue. We have asked for this information on other occasions and would like to reiterate this request. It will be beneficial if the Finance Committee is provided with a summary of events relating to personnel on an annual basis.
We note from the tables in document CL 94/4 that there has been a slight increase in the ratio of field staff to HQ staff. This is marginal but it is still to be approved. We believe that there
should be a greater conscious effort to increase the number of field staff and balance this with consequential reductions in Headquarters staff.
Finally, I turn once again to the question of information which is given to the Committee and hence to Member States. My delegation was very disappointed by the response from the secretariat to our earlier request for production of an updated version of document C 87/LIM/41. This is the only document we have ever received that gives information concerning FAO Programme Spending against the headings contained in the Programme of Work and Budget. It has been said that this information is already provided to the Finance Committee, (in this case CL 94/3), which it receives at its spring session. However, this is only correct up to a point. If you care to examine Annex A to that document (CL 94/3) you will see that the information which the Finance Committee is given covers both expenditure and commitments. As we know from previous discussions in this Council there is often a considerable difference between expenditure and commitments. If we compare the information which we were given in document C 87/LIM/41 about spending profiles for 1986/87 (and we received this on the basis of spending upto September 1987) then it is quite interesting to note that a considerable amount of spending and commitment appears to have taken place in the last three months of the year. I would imagine that possibly more accurately the information would show us that there had been a very heavy rate of commitment rather than actual spending. To somebody not familiar with financial information this may seem a somewhat obscure almost medieval theological debate. However, I can assure you that this information on spending is considered important by my administration and we would use it to judge the allocations in the Programme of Work and Budget in the next biennium. We believe it is important that this information should be made available as soon as possible to Member States through the Finance Committee. We should like to reiterate this request which we believe will add minimal extra cost to the secretariat as the information is already available, and must be put in some form to be able to be published in document CL 94/3. All we are asking for is for the information to be disaggregated and circulated to Members of the Finance Committee as soon as possible after the end of January 1989. We should be very grateful to have a response from the secretariat on this second request.
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais confirmer que l'examen du point relatif aux comptes vérifiés figurera sous le Point NΩ 15. Nous demandons donc aux délégués de réserver au Point 15 les remarques qu'ils auraient à faire sur les comptes vérifiés.
Sumiji NAKAZAWA (Japan): Our comment on this agenda item is very brief. As there is a change in practice on Miscellaneous Income recommended by the Finance Committee, as reported in paragraph 3.84 of document CL 94/3, my delegation does not oppose putting this matter to the Finance Committee and CCLM for preparation of a draft resolution.
However, my Government needs a certain amount of time to consider this matter carefully, from the viewpoint of appropriate timing of its initiation and possible cut-down of the Working Capital Fund level. So my delegation would like to reserve its position on the proposed change for the time being.
As to external borrowing, I will not reiterate the position of my delegation which was explained under item 12.
Finally, my delegation has taken note of the views of the Finance Committee expressed in paragraph 4,51 of document CL 94/4, paragraph 3.38 of document CL 94/3, and paragraph 3.121 of document CL 94/3.
Amin ABDEL MALEK (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Je voudrais tout d'abord remercier M. Bukhari, président du Comité financier, pour la présentation de deux documents CL 94/3 et CL 94/4 concernant le rapport du Comité financier dans ses deux dernières sessions en 1988.
Nous appuyons tout ce qui a été dit dans ce rapport et je voudrais ici, au nom de la délégation libanaise, remercier M. Eckert pour les informations qu'il vient de nous présenter quant à l'intention des Etats-Unis d'Amérique de payer 25 millions de dollars, dans le proche avenir. Nous n'avions aucun doute sur le fait que les efforts déployés par M. Eckert auprès de son gouvernement auraient été couronnés de succès. Nous savons pertinemment que les Etats-Unis s'acquitteront de cet engagement.
Pour ce qui est des emprunts, je pense que le Directeur général, Dr. Saouma, a bien précisé que le recours aux emprunts ne se ferait que dans des circonstances exceptionnelles. Après le paiement de 25 millions de dollars, nous n'aurons plus besoin de recourir aux emprunts. L'Organisation pourra s'acquitter de ses engagements, lorsque les Etats Membres s'acquitteront de leurs contributions.
José Ramon LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (Mexico): La Delegación de México le agradece de nuevo al Sr. Presidente del Comité de Finanzas el excelente informe que nos ha presentado y las puntualizaciones que hemos obtenido cuando hicimos nuestra moción aclaratoria. En los informes del 62° y 63° período de sesiones del Comité de Finanzas, hemos tomado nota del nivel de las cuotas pendientes y de las cuotas corrientes. A pesar de que esta cuestión ha sido ya discutida en otro tema, creemos conveniente que se pueda actualizar esta información a la fecha más reciente posible, para que así aparezca en nuestro informe.
Señor Presidente, México está convencido de que se requiere ampliar la voluntad que la mayor parte de los países han demostrado para seguir apoyando a la FAO como el órgano central dentro del sistema alimentario de Naciones Unidas, en el que se plantean ante todo salidas políticas a los problemas que en el ámbito de la agricultura y la alimentación enfrentan actualmente nuestros países. Convencida de este hecho, la Delegación de México desea que se tome nota de que nuestro país ha pagado la semana pasada una parte de su cuota, por un total de algo más de 465 000 dólares. Abonaremos una cantidad de aproximadamente 1 415 000 a la brevedad posible, y el resto, antes de que termine este año. Reiteramos el compromiso del Gobierno de México de pagar puntualmente nuestras cuotas. Razones lamentablemente de fuerza mayor, como desastres naturales y otros imprevistos en nuestras disponibilidades financieras, nos indujeron a estos imprevisibles retrasos. Debemos afirmar que, dada la difícil situación financiera de nuestro país, este esfuerzo de pago oportuno representa un gran sacrificio, pero también es un claro signo de la alta prioridad que nos merece nuestra Organización.
Reiteramos, pues, nuestro exhorto a todos los países en mora a que paguen a la brevedad. En este sentido, Sr. Presidente, mi Delegación desea también agradecer a la de Estados Unidos la declaración hecha respecto al pago de sus cuotas atrasadas y al perfil de un plan de pagos completos que se dará a conocer pronto. En especial, deseamos agradecer a el Embajador Eckert sus buenos oficios y gestiones con ese fin.
Sr. Presidente, la Delegación de México desea hacer suya la propuesta formulada por el Sr. Ministro de Gambia durante la discusión del tema 12, que quizás sea pertinente considerar en este punto de nuestra agenda, respecto a que el Director General estudie la posibilidad de que países con problemas de divisas pudieran pagar en moneda local una parte o la totalidad de sus contribuciones. Sabemos que esto causará trabajos a la ya comprometida actividad de la Secretaría, pero pensamos que podría traer también beneficios compensatorios con creces a tal sacrificio.
Por otra parte, destacamos que en comparación con el período 84-85, durante el de 86-87 se disminuyó el numero de consultores así como el numero de viajes de funcionarios de la FAO. Al respecto, Sr. Presidente, nosotros expresamos nuestra preocupación porque, si bien entendemos que la difícil situación financiera ha exigido a la Organización un esfuerzo enorme de ahorros y de recortes, y se ha tratado de no afectar a actividades prioritarias, debemos, sin embargo, mantener la alta prioridad de evitar que tales actividades seleccionen, como sería el caso de las consultorías externas que deben favorecerse en todo momento para instrumentar adecuados proyectos para los países en desarrollo.
Como algunos miembros han mencionado al respecto también, insistimos en que se mantenga la alta calidad de los consultores, pero se incremente a la vez la participación de aquellos provenientes de países en desarrollo tomando en cuenta, no sólo una distribución geográfica, es decir regional, equitativa, sino también de país a país.
Notamos, con satisfacción, que hasta la fecha seis bancos habían respondido positivamente a la gestiones realizadas por la Organización para obtener facilidades de crédito, si bien las proyecciones sobre el efectivo en caja no determinarían la necesidad de acceder a préstamos durante el presente año, en el documento se indica que de no conseguirse la recaudación prevista de cuotas, tal vez se requeriría recurrir al financiamiento externo, aunque, como bien se ha dicho, esto debería ser un recursos de última instancia, pero reconocido, autorizado y debido, como lo ha dicho la Conferencia de nuestra Organización.
Por eso, la delegación de México reitera su apoyo al mandato que tiene el Director General para recurrir al crédito como una fórmula de ultima instancia e insistimos en nuestra preocupación porque hasta el momento la Organización sigue enfrentando tan importante deterioro de su actividad financiera, en virtud de la retención voluntaria de las contribuciones del mayor contribuyente y el hecho de que muchos otros no han pagado o no han podido pagar sus contribuciones.
Wallur RAHMAN (Bangladesh): I want to put on record the sincere appreciation of my delegate to Ambassador Eckert for his very important statement which is informative and reassuring. At the height of the perceived crisis my delegation in New York and Rome and other international fora all over the world has always expressed the view that the temporary situation notwithstanding the USA will in time meet its international commitment. As a founding member of the United Nations in Dumberton Oaks in 1945, the United States could ill-afford to allow the world organization to wither on the vine.
I want to express my personal thanks to Ambassador Eckert for the role which he played which I know, in getting this situation on board. I may add that during my recent visit to New York for the General Assembly session a similar reassuring statement of support was received from the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Ambassador Walters. 1 thank you, Ambassador Eckert, for your very very thoughtful efforts in this regard.
Mr. Chairman, indulging in what you call a bit of academic freedom, may I refer to Ambassador Gonzalo Bula Hoyos and his statement and relate a small story about a man lost in a desert who wanted to drink water, a very thirsty man. When he reached the oasis, he found a little placard written in front of him,”Yes, you can drink water, but you have to put on a necktie”. I think the time has come that we have to put on a necktie perhaps.
As regards the agenda item under discussion, contained in document CL 94/3 and document CL 94/4, I would like to extend our thanks and appreciation to Ambassador Bukhari and members of the Finance Committee and the Programme Committee for their hard work. We are not a member of this committee but I keep on monitoring the good work, the very important work, the very hard work, done in these committees. Very important and vital issues had to be dealt with in these sessions. Their reports are clear and sharply focussed and I congratulate both of them.
Keeping in view the mandate and the objectives of FAO, we, along with all the member countries, would like to see the Organization growing in terms of efficient management and effective delivery. In one of my statements earlier on last year, we said that nobody in any organization can say,”We are the best”, nobody can say that.
Sometimes I quote the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, Waldheim, who used to say that better is the enemy of the good. There is only scope for improvement. We are doing all right, but there is scope for improvement. That is where the relevence of the whole exercise lies. The present financial situation of the Organization is bad no doubt, and the consequential need for programme adjustments make us somewhat unhappy. Without going into details of the situation, which have been clearly stated in the documents, we are convinced that we shall all, in concert, do everything possible to keep our business going. At the same time, we express our confidence in the present management of the Organization, and hope that the present situation will be improving soon.
The Chairman made reference to the report of the World Food Programme audited accounts for 1986-87. I have some preoccupation with that. We would like to express the hope that the dispute over procedural matters could be amicably settled through consultations. It can be done; I have no doubt about it. My delegation has the fullest confidence that the Finance Committee could play a very important role in this regard.
V.K. SIBAL (India): India would like to thank Mr. Bukhari, Chairman of the Finance Committee, for a very clear and detailed report on the two sessions of the Finance Committee which we are considering. We would also like to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Eckert for a very clear exposition of the US position.
The financial situation has been discussed in detail, and we thought that the issues that were dealt with therein would not be opened. However, some issues, like the issue of borrowing, have still been referred to. This, in our judgment, was not necessary. The Council has pronounced on this issue, as on other issues inherent in the financial situation, with sufficient clarity, and expressed itself in favour of the Director-General to consider and resort to it if need be exceptionally, as a matter of last resort, to keep the Organization going. This is a sober and responsible response to assist FAO management to take the requisite teps to protect the Organization from serious and perhaps irretrievable damage. We hope the scenario can change, and borrowing may not eventually be necessary. It has been made clear that what is envisaged is an overdraft or current facility for which there will be no supplementary assessments. We had hoped that this clarification would have stilled some of the concerns expressed.
Therefore, as far as paragraphs 3.66 to 3.76 on support costs from UNDP and Trust Fund Programmes are concerned, we would like to know the result of the submissions FAO made in concert with other agencies to the UNDP Governing Council in June. What was the result of that endeavour? What are the future moves which FAO has in mind?
The proposals in paragraph 3.71 relating to the voluntary increases in the Trust Fund support cost charges seem to be reasonable. We note the views of the Finance Committee that these will not be a disincentive to donors or affect net project delivery.
With regard to paragraphs 3.77 to 3.88 and paragraph 5.2(a) we are of the view that these proposals need to be discussed in detail and with understanding. Some of them may be found necessary today becuse of the difficulties in the financial situation.
We sympathize with the proposal in paragraph 3.88 to charge certain investment costs to the interest income element of miscellaneous income as these clearly relate to investment activities and, therefore, should be a fit and appropriate charge on this element.
Omer ZEYTINOGLU (Turkey): Firstly, I thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Ambassador Buhhari, for his detailed introduction. Briefly, I would like to comment on the following two points concerning the report of the Committee. We note with concern the decline in the use of consultants in 1986/87, compared with the previous biennium. Efforts are needed to ensure, at least, the full use of consultants in priority fields. Equally important is the use of consultants for developing countries. We think FAO should give greater attention to this aspect.
Secondly, we would be grateful if the Secretariat could provide more detailed information on the use of unilateral trust funds. For instance, we think it would be appropriate to adopt the same procedures as in the case of regular programme expenditure to the use of unilateral trust fund resources.
Bernard LEDUN (France): Nous remercions l'Ambassadeur Bukhari de la presentation claire qu'il vient de nous donner des documents CL 94/4 et CL 94/3.
Je ne m'attarderai pas longuement sur les aspects financiers et budgétaires de ces documents qui ont déjà fait l'objet de nos échanges de vues et d'une déclaration de notre Délégation, la semaine dernière.
Je tiens toutefois à dire que notre Délégation accueille avec beaucoup d'intérêt la déclaration que vient de nous faire le Chef de la Délégation américaine, et les indications qu'il vient de nous donner sur les perspectives de versement de la contribution de son pays que nous espérons, pour notre part, définitive, et dans un avenir pas trop lointain.
Il va de soi que si ces bonnes intentions affichées étaient suivies de versements effectifs par le Gouvernement américain en 1989, la situation de trésorerie de la FAO s'en trouverait changée du tout au tout.
Cela étant et les choses demeurant ce qu'elles sont, ici et maintenant, il paraît assez logique néanmoins d'autoriser la FAO et son Directeur général à tenter d'obtenir une ligne de crédit pour faire face à ses obligations de fonctionnement alors que 91 Etats Membres, soit les deux-tiers des pays membres de l'Organisation n'ont que partiellement ou pas du tout réglé leur contribution statutaire, à commencer par le principal d'entre eux. Nous souhaitons seulement, pour notre part, que ce faisant la FAO paie les intérêts directs sur cette ligne de crédit à partir de ses ressources diverses, comme par exemple les placements financiers, les ristournes, etc, plutôt que de pénaliser les bons payeurs.
D'ailleurs, ainsi que viennent de le signaler nos collègues, les représentants de l'Inde et du Mexique, cette décision de recourir à un emprunt avait déjà été adoptée par une large majorité lors d'un précédent conseil.
D.R. KAMAU (Kenya): My delegation wishes to express appreciation for the reports of the 54th Session of the Programme Committee and the 62nd Session of the Finance Committee as presented in the Joint Programme and Finance Committee Reports in documents CL 94/3 and CL 94/4.
In the view of the supportive role afforded by FAO to countries not endowed with resources, my delegation shares the concern expressed by the Programme Committee in paragraph 1.2 of document CL 94/3 on the financial outturn of the 1986/87 biennium which, in accordance with the cash deficit of US$46.8 million, after full utilization of US$13.3 million from the working capital fund. We express the hope that the forthcoming budget outturn of the 1987/88 biennium will reflect a
Situation which is gradually reverting to the recent history of FAO in which the biennium expenditure, including commitments was being held within limits that were below levels of income.
In the light of the current and recent past experience of resource constraints suffered by FAO, my delegation welcomes progress clearly being made by the Director-General to prepare a document indicating the budget level he intends to use in preparation of the Programme of Work and Budget during the period 1990/91, together with the main activities undertaken.
The move by FAO to achieve reform of the programme budget process, as pursued in other organizations of the UN system, is also very welcome.
My delegation also expresses the hope that the consultant who undertakes a review of the three identified areas of finance, personnel and administrative support services, will complete the work on time for consideration and decision by the joint committees during the meeting scheduled for May 1989.
Finally, my delegation joins other members in expressing our appreciation to the host government for the financial and other support the Government and people of Italy have offered and continue to offer to the Organization during these difficult times. We hope that other Member States who are able to reciprocate the commendable gestures of the Italian Government will do so to enhance the role played by FAO in the needy areas of the world.
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais souligner que le projet de réforme de la procédure du Programme et du Budget sera examiné dans le cadre du point 13 de l'ordre du jour.
Bashir EL MABROUK SAID (Libya)(Original language Arabic): First of all I would like to join previous speakers to thank His Excellency Ambassador Bukhari, Chairman of the Finance Committee, for the excellent report of the 62nd and 63rd Session of the Finance Committee. We would also like to thank all the members of the Finance Committee for their efforts. In general, we support the recommendations of the Finance Committee. However, we would like to emphasise certain observations made by previous delegates: that is, the slowing down of the rate of expenditure by 20 million dollars in 1988. This raises a grave concern among developing countries.
Due to the financial crisis faced by the Organization, we understand, of course, that the Secretariat had to carry out this reduction. We hope that this will not affect the Technical Cooperation Programme. Italy in fact is one of the countries who helped in ensuring that the TCP is not influenced by these reductions. This is a point we want to emphasize.
As to borrowing; this issue was in fact approved. It is within the legal competence of the Director-General and FAO. We cannot ask the Secretariat to implement a programme without providing it with the necessary financial resources. We feel that the reduction of the Programme and Budget while the financial crisis is worsening is something that we cannot tolerate and accept in the future. Despite the borrowing procedures, we feel that the borrowing issue in fact was approved by the Conference. We hope, of course, that borrowing will only be considered as a last resort for the implementation of the Programme. In fact, six banks have responded to the request of the Organization. This is a proof of the credibility of this Organization. However, in spite of the rather positive statements made by certain delegations, we hope that this Organization will not resort to this measure. We also hope that this crisis will end to the benefit of the developing countries.
Yousef Ali Mahmoud HAMDI (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): We would like to thank His Excellency, Ambassador Bukhari for presenting the Report of the Finance Committee and we would like to emphasize our confidence in him and in the members of the Finance Committee in following up the financial issues of this Organziation.
We would like to thank His Excellency, Ambassador Eckert for the information he has provided us with. We are quite sure that this information will certainly have an effect on the present situation of the Organization.
As to the issue of borrowing; the Conference in fact has authorized the Director-General to proceed to borrowing. There is no doubt, of course, that the Director-General will not resort to such a step until he has exhausted all the alternate means. In any case, the Director-General will resort to borrowing only after having consulted with the Finance Committee. We are quite confident that
the Director-General and the Finance Committee will take the necessary steps. This is why the issue of borrowing does not raise our concern. What is of concern to us are the reductions and the measures taken in 1988 in order to ensure savings. This is why we would like to ask you that such reductions may not continue in 1989.
Finally, we would like to support the Report and we approve the Draft Resolution which will be submitted to the Conference mentioned in paragraph 4.57.
Miriam INZAULGARAT GARCIA DE PEREZ (Cuba): Agradecemos la excelente presentación del tema que ha efectuado el Embajador Bukhari, Presidente del Comité de Finanzas. La Delegación de Cuba ha tenido en cuenta la labor paciente, inteligente y capaz de los Miembros de ese Comité y quiere manifestar, a nombre del Grupo Latinoamericano y del Caribe, el reconocimiento a sus Miembros en ese Comité que han mantenido informada a la Región del desarrollo de sus labores en este arduo período de mayo a septiembre de 1988.
Queremos pronunciarnos sobre varias cuestiones reflejadas en los documentos. En primer lugar, a la oportuna, generosa y decisiva contribución del Gobierno de Italia. Mi delegación se une a aquéllas que han expresado su agradecimiento a ese Miembro de este Consejo.
En segundo lugar, para apoyar la conclusión del Comité de Finanzas en cuanto a interrumpir la práctica actual y que tan pronto exista un superávit de Tesorería, compensar el aumento de una sola vez en las cuotas, como se refleja en el párrafo 3.84.
Hoy reiteramos aquí la aprobación al Director General para que pueda contraer préstamos. Así lo hemos expresado anteriormente, pues la asistencia a los países más necesitados no puede interrumpirse así como tampoco las actividades más esenciales de la Organización. Confiamos en que la evolución futura de la situación financiera sea positiva y no tenga el Director General que aplicar tal medida.
Quisiera referirme a la propuesta de la Delegación de Gambia quien hizo una proposición que la Delegación de México ha apoyado. La Delegación de Cuba estima que esta propuesta debe ser analizada por la Secretaría que, de aprobarse, sería un estímulo importante para los países con déficits de divisas.
Ibrahima ΚΑΒΑ (Guinée): La délégation guinéenne félicite le Président du Comité financier pour sa présentation claire et détaillée des rapports soumis à notre examen.
Nous n'avons pratiquement aucune observation majeure à formuler sur ces rapports. Nous nous bornerons à exprimer notre opinion quant à la crise qui fait la préoccupation de notre Organisation et de ses pays membres. Certes, mon pays doit encore sa contribution de l'année en cours mais, malgré les mesures d'ajustement structurel en cours dans mon pays, le processus de règlement de cet arriéré est engagé.
La délégation guinéenne apprécie hautement les dispositions favorables prises par le Gouvernement américain pour respecter ses engagements statutaires vis-à-vis de notre Organisation. Nous reconnaissons l'effort d'explication de l'Ambassadeur Eckert; nous l'encourageons.
Quant au problème de l'emprunt extérieur, cette question ne se pose que pour le souci de survie de notre Organisation. Il est clair que, si tous les pays s'acquittaient de leurs obligations statutaires, il ne se poserait pas de problème d'emprunt. De toutes manières, le Conseil a déjà décidé de ces questions.
Enfin, notre reconnaissance et nos remerciements s'adressent au Gouvernement italien qui, pour sa part, a sauvé le PCT au cours du biennum, ce programme si important dans l'assistance à nos pays. Nous en remercions le Gouvernement italien.
Giesberg GRAF VON WESTPHALEN (Germany, Federal Republic of): We thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Ambassador Bukhari, for the clear and full picture he gave us of the deliberations held within the Finance Committee. As a number of items which were already tackled in the Finance Committee are touched upon under heading 12 of the Agenda, I can be very brief. I will only raise one point and that is the treatment of miscellaneous income. We hold the view that the actual
method of calculating the miscellaneous income should be continued in the future. This method has been used for several years and proved workable. If we take the current interest rates, which are rather low on the market, we will always be on the conservative side.
I do not need to stress once more that we are against borrowing. After having heard the declaration of Ambassador Eckert, we think that borrowing in the near future will not be necessary.
Igor MARINCEK (Suisse): Ha delegation n'a pas voulu prendre la parole lors de l'examen de ce point de l'ordre du jour. Je le fais seulement pour rappeler la position de mon pays concernant le recours à l'emprunt: mon pays est opposé à cette pratique et l'a déjà fait savoir à plusieurs reprises.
Fred J. ECKERT(United States of America): I will speak just briefly and I do not want to take up any extra time but now every once in a while in life a rare coincidence occurs. While I was speaking, I stated that the United States would pay, I was trying to explain things, that we would pay that 25 million and that we would do so as rapidly as possible I have learned that sometime between the time I left the office to come over here and the time I started speaking that the United States deposited in Washington today 25 million dollars into the account of FAO. It is more rapid than I thought !
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie vivement M. Eckert de l'information précieuse et agréable qu'il vient de nous donner.
Ms. Anna-Liisa KORHONEN (Finland): I can be very brief after this announcement but I just would like to put o
D. K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): I shall try and summarize a number of questions that were asked that were similar to one another. I will start with the first questions that were raised by the delegate of Australia. He first raised a question concerning interest payments on borrowing and how they might be accommodated. There are several aspects to this. The first is that the authority that was given in the Council Resolution to the Director-General to borrow in 1980 made reference to the fact that any interest payment arising from external or commercial borrowing should be charged to miscellaneous income, not directly to the General Fund of the Regular Programme. This means that the General Budget of the Organization, therefore, would not have to bear the interest cost that is related thereto. Incidentally, he raised the question, and one other delegate raised the question, concerning the possibility of repayment of the debt itself. The Director-General has stated very coherently that any payments that would be required for any external borrowing that may be necessary in the future would be made within the budget itself. We would hope that such payments could be made directly from arrears. On the other hand, he has stipulated that in the event this were not possible, he would make future cuts so there would be no increase in assessment to Member Nations for repayment of borrowing; to relieve some of the delegate's minds that this would require additional assessments.
Next the delegate of Australia raised the question concerning an item in the Finance Committee Report about the FINSYS/PERSYS Programme, and more specifically, about a settlement with the present contract in the amount of US $250 000, what were the conditions and where were the funds to be made available from.
This payment for FINSYS/PERSYS arose as a result of a claim instituted by the contractor who is performing the programme development work on this major software development system for the Organization. For those who may not be aware, the Organization has contracted for the development of an automated accounting and personnel system. This is a fairly long-range programme that covers approximately a four-year period. The contract was let as a result of an international tender to nine different firms that tendered. The final result was the award to a Canadian firm called Systemshouse. This firm has been actively preparing the development work for our entire accounting and personnel system. Late last year we received a claim from Systemshouse in the amount of, at that time, about $500 000 caused as a result of what they claim to be delays in the use of our
mainframe computer. We guaranteed a response time of a certain number of seconds and there were times when that did not occur. At the same time we made a counter-claim against Systemshouse for some other very specific items in the amount of less than that in total. We finally reached an agreed settlement for a payment to Systemhouse of $250 000 for a very small portion of the lost time that they had incurred. This payment was an amicable one that was agreed to by the contractor and by the Organization after considerable consideration and discussion both with our in-house committee which oversees the development of all automated data systems and with the Finance Committee.
If there are any further details on that or on the claim and counter-claims I would be happy to go into them, but that is finished.
While I am speaking of FINSYS/PERSYS, there were a couple of other questions raised by the United Kingdom delegate and, I believe, another delegate, concerning the timing and the scheduling. A question was raised on the current time frame for completion of phase 1 where we would complete parallel running. The answer to that is that we shall complete phase 1 to the point where we are actually able to run the entire payroll system under phase 1 without parallel running in April 1989. The question was raised on phase 2 as to when it will be complete and implemented, and the answer to that is the end of the year, December 1989. The question was raised on how much of a delay has been incurred, and on phase 1 there has been approximately over this total four-year period - and we are into the third year now - a delay of approximately one year. Phase 2 is very close to being on schedule and the final phase, phase 3, we also expect to be very close to the original schedule for full implementation.
Therefore, while there have been some delays in the initial phase we think the entire project will be completed very close to the timing that had been expected.
Concerning the cost, the contract itself for the development is just under $7 million. That is paid as the contractor completes each respective portion or each phase on a review certification and completion basis. There are in addition in-house costs that are related to this, many of which mean an absorption of additional duties, some of which mean the possibility of additional or incremental expenses. As these are incurred, we do report them regularly to the Finance Committee. In fact, we maintain an item of reporting on this subject to the Finance Committee at every session. We do detailed reporting on both the cost estimates and the timing and schedule once each year but discuss at each meeting at least what the progress has been up until that point.
The United Kingdom delegate raised several questions on borrowing. He asked whether or not there has been any payments thus far to banks for facility charge or any other charges related to borrowing on the basis of the discussions we have had. The answer is clearly no. There have been no charges because we have entered into no specific contracts or arrangements for facilities that would call for a commitment - a commitment charge, a facility charge or incurring any other expense relating to borrowing thus far. That does not mean that we have not had a lot of discussions with a lot of banks so that if we wanted to enter into a commitment arrangement we could do so on fairly short notice, but we have not entered into any contracts that would incur charges thus far.
A question was raised as to whether or not in the event of borrowing the details would be provided to the Finance Committee and ultimately to the Membership. Again, the Director-General has been very clear on this subject and in the event that he found it necessary to resort to borrowing he would fully inform the Finance Committee. That information would be included in the Finance Committee's report, as it always is, to the Membership.
A question was raised on the Report concerning Programmes. Reference was made in the Finance Committee's Report to the fact that there is a report provided regularly that includes expenditure by Programme. But it also includes commitments. The question was raised as to whether or not such information could be shown on a clearly cash basis so that it could be provided to the Finance Committee and the Finance Committee could decide on further reporting. The answer is that, yes, we do report this information to the Finance Committee on Programme delivery, the outturn of the budget each year, and to the degree that it would be useful to report this on a cash basis we can show it both ways so that it is clear precisely what the cash element is as well as the commitment elements. We think it is important to know both since commitments represent obligations to the Organization, and our management requires that we have a total cost each time we report on expenditure.
A question was asked about the quarterly report for the fourth quarter: will it be issued? Clearly that report will be issued as quickly as we possibly can, which will mean very near the end of January. It takes about three weeks to clear all of the accounts from all the field offices and receive the information, and a week for processing. Therefore, it will be very near the end of January when we prepare the fourth quarterly report for 1988, but certainly it will be prepared.
A request was made for additional information on developments in personnel. That is an area that the Finance Committee has been exploring, finding ways in which we can provide the greatest degree of detail to the Finance Committee. It is one that has been of considerable interest to members of the Finance Committee. Without the automated system I must admit that it has been rather difficult manually to prepare a great deal of statistical information, but we have pledged ourselves that with the automated system we shall report a much greater detail of information on personnel, personal activities and personnel statistics to the Finance Committee. Certainly the question of reporting by the Finance Committee to the Council can be discussed by members of the Finance Committee and their wishes can certainly then be reported directly to the Council. If there is further guidance that the Council wishes to give, that is the Council's prerogative.
A question was raised as to whether FAO has a regulation similar to that in the UN concerning governing the amount of money that may be paid to United Nations pensioners. Yes, we do have such a provision. It is not quite the same as that of the UN. Ours is based on time, and the employment of a staff member who is receiving a pension from the UN Pension Fund cannot exceed six months in a calendar year of income from FAO. We have a pre-condition that before we can hire any pensioners we must make every effort first to hire people who are non-pensioners to provide a degree of expertise if we possibly can. On the other hand, we find that there is a great wealth of experience in the pensioners who are there and from time to time it is important that we hire them.
Secondly, we have a management review process internally that requires a review at the highest levels before any pensioner may be hired and then a formal reporting following the use of any UN pensioner.
A question was raised about the use of local currency for making contributions to the Organization. There our regulations are quite clear. Local currency cannot be used to pay the assessments for the Regular Programme. The Basic Text is quite clear and says that contributions shall be payable in US dollars, in lira or in a currency immediately convertible to lira. We are governed completely by that regulation and, unless it is changed by the Conference, we have no power to do otherwise.
There are a few additional questions that were raised concerning overhead costs and programme delivery that I would ask my colleague Mr. Shah to address. But before I do so I would like to make one reference to the generous contributions of the host government, Italy. The Council received notification some time ago that the Government of Italy had agreed to provide an appropriation amounting to approximately Lira 25 billion for the construction of additional premises here in the Caracalla headquarters complex. We are very pleased Co note that the Parliament of Italy has passed the necessary legislation that would provide this money. The Ambassador of Italy has met together with the Secretariat and with the appropriate Ministry that would oversee the conduct of this, and I am very pleased to say that actions are being taken to facilitate the next steps that would be required before going out to contract. The entire programme and construction would be performed under the direction of the Ministry of Public Works of the Government of Italy but we are very pleased that that action has been taken and happy to report that to the Council.
With that, I think Mr. Shah has a few other comments.
V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I start by dealing with one of the points to which Mr. Crowther referred in connection with the use of pensioners or former staff members as consultants. He explained the rules and it may also interest the Council to know that pensioners represent a very small percentage of the total number of consultants used. For example, in 1986/87 we had a total of some 2,600 consultants under the Regular Programme and supports costs. The number of pensioners included in the 2,600 was only 99 which is an extremely small number. One also has to bear in mind that the importance of the use of consultants is the quality of the service obtained and the appropriateness of that service. There are many instances where respected former colleagues can make a very useful contribution using their knowledge of the organization thus making the whole process of benefit to the organization.
Turning now to the other questions which were raised, there were a number of questions raised concerning support costs. The distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom drew attention to the report on the cost measurement system which was submitted to the Finance Committee. He has drawn attention to a fact that is undeniable, namely, that the Regular Programme subsidy during 1987 has increased. Why has it increased? It has increased because of the deterioration of the US dollar. in relation to the Italian lire. As far as concerns the Regular Programme as Council is well aware, we had to draw on the Special Reserve Account and when that provision was finished we had to charge the balance to the budget. In the case of the Support Cost that was exactly the same, but we did not have a Special Reserve Account. This phenomenon is not peculiar to FAO as Council Members will realize. It has affected all the European-based agencies. In fact, since this was a
problem of system-wide concern, it was addressed by the UNDP and by the UNDP Governing Council itself. There was a joint submission by all organizations concerned. It was pointed out how the various agencies were affected. In the case of FAO it may interest the Council to note that in terms of the purchasing power of the Support Costs expressed in US dollars there was a decline of 32 percent over the period 1985/87. This led to the UNDP Governing Council approving, exceptionally, an adjustment to the Support Costs reimbursed for 1987 and FAO benefitted to the tune of US$2.1 million. However, the problem remains with us and it will have to be resolved. As the Finance Committee was consulted it is the intention of secretariat to pursue this matter and eventually submit proposals to our Governing Bodies for their consideration. Any such proposals will also take into account the arrangements which may be agreed upon with UNDP for support cost reimbursement from UNDP, because the present arrangements with UNDP come to an end in 1991 and arrangements for the period thereafter are being considered by the UNDP through its Governing Council, as well as by all the organizations affected.
I do not need to be defensive in the area of Support Costs. UNDP submits to its Governing Council a postfacto report on Support Costs as incurred. I think Council will be reassured to know that the performance of FAO is nothing to be ashamed of. For FAO in 1986/87 the ratio of Support Cost to total expenditure, according to this report, was just over 19 percent, for the United Nations it was 21 percent; for UNIDO 36 percent; for ILO 29 percent, and so on. There are certainly cases where the ratio was also lower but I think FAO does not compare too badly and we have nothing to be ashamed of.
Then there was a question raised which concerned the progress of discussions with Trust Fund donors. My colleagues in the Development Department have pursued with individual Trust Fund donors the question of raising and accepting on a voluntary basis reimbursement to FAO at a rate of 14 percent, instead of the 13 percent basic rate. As you can imagine the response of Trust Fund donors is not one of great joy and acclamation. There is one important Trust Fund donor which has accepted the increase with very good grace and we are very grateful. Others are considering the matter. I can well understand that any individual Trust Fund donor would not willingly agree to an increase in the rate. I think that this will have to be a question of persuasion and mutual understanding until such time as Conference itself decides what it wants the new arrangements to be.
Finally, there was a question concerning programme delivery costs and the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom expressed a hope that the secretariat had not forgotten the matter. I can assure him, through you Mr. Chairman, that the secretariat could not forget the matter. At its Ninety-second Session in November 1987 Council asked us to do two things. First, to report to the Finance Committee on programme delivery costs calculations as applied to the Programme of Work and Budget of the current biennium. We have not done so yet and the reason is not that we are not prepared to do so but the work of the Finance Committee has had to be concerned so much with other matters which have been before you that we will take this matter up next year. Council did not instruct us to take it up at any specific session so I would like to assure Council that the matter will be taken up.
The other action we were asked to pursue was jointly with our sister organizations to examine the desirability and feasibility of a joint request to the Joint Inspection Unit to establish definitions and methodologies which would permit meaningful comparisons of proramme delivery costs among international organizations. We did take up this matter and the mechanism with which we decided to pursue the matter is the Consultative Committee on Administrative Questions (Finance and Budget) which includes all the organizations of the UN system. In brief, we informed this Committee, and our colleagues in all the other agencies of exactly what had happened in FAO, not just orally, but we shared with them the documentation we had submitted to the Finance Committee and the Council. Therefore, they were in full possession of the same facts as we had. The Committee found the matter of great interest and deserving of careful consideration. It was also impressed by the quality of the analysis and the documents submitted to the Council - and this is an extract from its report. The Committee had doubt about the validity of comparisons that might be made between delivery costs for different programmes. Even where the programmes form part of the activities of the same organization the relative cost of delivering them was bound to depend upon such factors as their nature, structure, size and location, and the nature and extent of the supporting services that were involved. For all these, and other reasons which are given in the report of this Committee the Committee hesitated to envisage the development at an Inter Organizational Level of definitions and methodologies to assist in measuring the cost of programme delivery. The Committee of all of our sister organizations believed that the comparisons to which they might lead would be likely to be of little validity and therefore of limited use either to the organizations concerned or to their member States. The analytical effort required could even draw energy away from the efforts required to achieve greater economy and enhance productivity particularly in the current period of financial difficulties.
I hope that I have responded to the questions which were raised and I remain always at your disposal·
José Ramón LOPEZ PORTILLO ROMANO (Mexico): Le agradezco, Sr. Presidente, que me conceda la palabra. Es para hacer una pregunta. Sin demérito del mandato otorgado por la Conferencia en el sentido de que el Director General haga uso del crédito externo para hacer frente a las situaciones de la FAO, yo deseo saber que ocurrió con una propuesta que se planteo en la última Conferencia por algunos delegados en relación a la posibilidad de realizar préstamos interagenciales, es decir entre agencias hermanas del Sistema de Naciones Unidas. Recuerdo yo que en esa oportunidad alguien menciono problemas de estatutos e incluso de autorías; pero hemos observado que organismos con sede aquí mismo en Roma tienen superávits de tesorería muy importantes. Desearíamos saber y hago la pregunta de una manera ingenua, por así decirlo si se avanzó en esta propuesta o se si canceló completamente.
Gian Luigi VALENZA (Italie): Au terme de ces débats, je ne voulais pas manquer de me féliciter mois aussi pour les bonnes nouvelles venant d'outre-Atlantique, qui nous soulagent tous au plus haut degré.
Je confirme d'autre part les informations données par M. Crowther sur les nouveaux travaux au siège de Caracalla. En effet, la loi italienne de 25 milliards a déjà été approuvée par les deux Chambres, la Chambre des députés et le Sénat, et elle est publiée sur la Gazzetta Ufficiale du lundi 22 novembre. Nous comptons donc pouvoir commencer au plus tôt les travaux par une première tranche qui a trait au parking de l'Organisation.
D.K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): The question of inter-agency borrowing has been discussed on a number of occasions, and we have taken the matter to several of our sister agencies. In those agencies, where there is a possibility of providing some surplus cash to other sister agencies, it does require a specific approval on the part of those Governing Bodies. While these discussions took place on an informal basis certainly it was a possibility if the event ever arose, that the proposal would be considered seriously at that point and the question of interest rates and so forth would have to be worked out. Those discussions have taken place particularly with our sister agencies which have considerable cash balances that might be available. While the possibility exists it would require some approval in accordance with the basic text. In fact, some of them do not have lending authority per se, therefore, other arrangements would have to be discussed by the Governing Bodies even including the possibility of Trust Funds for specific advances. There have been a number of discussions, but on an informal basis.
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais me joindre aux délégués qui ont présenté leurs remerciements aux Etats-Unis d'Amérique, et à l'Ambassadeur Eckert pour les informations précieuses qu'il vient de fournir au Conseil au sujet des perspectives de versements des contributions. Je le remercie tout particulièrement pour les efforts qu'il a personnellement déployés à cet effet.
Je voudrais aussi me joindre aux autres Etats Membres pour remercier le Gouvernement italien pour sa contribution très généreuse, ausssi bien pour le PCT que pour le siège à Caracalla.
Nous allons interrompre la séance pendant quelques minutes, pour introduire M. le professeur Mazoyer.
A propos du point 13 nous allons individualiser, comme promis, les questions relatives au rapport Jansson, ce qui a été demandé par le délégué du Royaume-Uni, les Etats-Unis et d'autres délégués. Aujourd'hui nous allons écouter une première présentation du rapport intérimaire sur l'examen de la FAO, et demain matin dans le cadre du Comité du Programme, nous aurons une discussion spéciale sur le point du rapport Jansson dont on a parlé au Conseil. Donc les deux ou trois points pourront faire demain matin l'objet d'une discussion séparée dans le cadre du Comité du Programme.
The meeting was suspended from 17.00 to 17.10 hours
La séance est suspendue de 17 heures à 17 h 10
Se suspende la sesión de las 17.00 a las 17.10 horas
LE PRESIDENT: Nous allons donc aborder le point 13 de notre ordre du jour intitulé:”Rapport des cinquante-quatrième et cinquante-cinquième sessions du Comité du Programme, y compris le rapport intérimaire sur l'Examen de la FAO: pour information, examen et éventuellement décision (CL 94/3, CL 94/4). Comme je vous l'ai indiqué, nous allons demander à Monsieur le Président du Comité du Programme de bien vouloir introduire le sujet, et nous laisserons pour la séance de demain, le Rapport Jansson qui a fait l'objet de discussions hier, et dont nous avions promis qu'il serait traité en présence du Président du Comité du Programme à qui je vais donc demander de bien vouloir introduire le point 13.
M. MAZOYER (Président du Comité du Programme): Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les Représentants des Etats Membres du Conseil, Monsieur le Directeur général, Mesdames, Messieurs, c'est un honneur pour moi de présenter le Rapport conjoint intérimaire du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier sur l'examen de la FAO. Ce Rapport vous est soumis sous la cote CL 94/4 et comporte deux parties: l'une que je qualifierais d'historique et qui, en tant que telle, est purement informative; une autre, qui est, elle, tournée vers l'avenir, et comporte des propositions et se prête aussi à discussion.
Dans la première partie, par courtoisie et par respect envers le Conseil, nous avons pris l'initiative de vous tenir informés des dispositions que nous avons prises pour remplir le mandat extraordinaire que nous a confié la Conférence dans sa Résolution 6/87. Comme vous le savez, la Conférence a chargé expressément les deux Comités d'entreprendre conjointement cet examen avec l'assistance d'un petit nombre d'experts, et en collaboration avec le Secrétariat et le Directeur général de l'Organisation. Conformément à ce mandat, les Comités organisent leur travail de manière à pouvoir présenter les conclusions et recommandations de leurs rapports par l'intermédiaire du Conseil, l'année prochaine, à la Conférence.
Dans la seconde partie, nous sommes heureux de présenter à l'examen et à l'approbation du Conseil, les résultats de nos délibérations sur la réforme de la procédure du budget et programme.
Commençons tout d'abord par l'organisation de cet examen. Nous avons tenu deux sessions spéciales conjointes à Rome en mai et septembre de cette année. Nous nous sommes mis d'accord sur l'objectif de l'examen tel qu'il est spécifié dans la Résolution 6/87. Il est clair que dans l'esprit de la Résolution, et nous l'avons nous-même souligné avec force, un examen rigoureux doit être conduit de manière à renforcer la capacité de l'Organisation de fournir des services aux Etats Membres, à rendre ses programmes à l'avenir plus sensibles à toutes les difficultés qui surviendront et aussi à améliorer son efficacité d'ensemble.
Dans le cadre de ses attributions statutaires le Directeur général nous a proposé d'inclure, dans l'examen, l'étude de deux sujets supplémentaires spécifiques, à savoir les activités de terrain, d'une part, et les questions administratives et de gestion, de l'autre. Les deux Comités ont apprécié et approuvé cette initiative, car l'étude de ces deux sujets ne peut que renforcer la valeur et l'utilité de l'examen, du moins en ont-ils jugé ainsi.
Nous avons donc adopté pour les deux Comités un programme de travail pour conduire cet examen qui comporte en fait trois études:
- l'étude des objectifs, rôle, priorités et stratégies de l'Organisation;
- l'étude des activités de terrain;
- l'étude des questions administratives et de gestion.
Nous nous en sommes tenus aux instructions de la Conférence et avons demandé aux experts de nous soumettre leurs conclusions en février 1989, ce qui laissera ensuite tout juste le temps au Secrétariat pour traduire leurs rapports en cinq langues, les imprimer, et pour que le Directeur général puisse formuler ses observations et faire parvenir ces documents â tous les membres des deux Comités avant notre session conjointe prévue en mai 1989.
Nous consacrerons donc une bonne partie de cette session de mai à l'étude approfondie des conclusions des experts et à en discuter la substance. Nous n'hésiterons pas à demander des éclaircissements complémentaires, si nécessaire, et, avec l'aide des conclusions des experts et des observations et opinions du Directeur général sur les questions relevant de sa responsabilité, nous travaillerons et réfléchirons au contenu du Rapport que nous avons reçu instruction de présenter sous notre responsabilité à la Conférence, à travers le Conseil.
Ce sont donc, à toutes fins utiles, quatre rapports qui nous seront soumis pour nous aider à produire notre propre Rapport. Un rapport sur les objectifs, le rôle et les priorités; un rapport sur les activités de terrain; un rapport sur la gestion et les questions administratives, et le rapport contenant les observations et opinions du Directeur général. Nous devons, bien entendu, faire un examen critique de ces quatre rapports et examiner avec soin leurs propositions, les évaluer, les approuver ou les désapprouver, en tout cas, les prendre en considération dans leur caractère réaliste et pratique, et savoir si elles sont réalisables et dans quelles conditions. Nous devons aussi étudier la compatibilité des différentes propositions contenues dans les différents rapports, au cas où elles ne seraient pas entièrement convergentes.
Notre session de mai devra aussi se pencher, ne l'oublions pas, pour chaque Comité séparément et conjointement à l'occasion, sur le sommaire du Programme de Travail et Budget du prochain biennium, et sur d'autres questions qui sont nécessairement à l'ordre du jour de nos sessions ordinaires. Pour pouvoir remplir le mandat extraordinaire qui nous a été confié par la Conférence, nous serons donc contraints d'allonger notre session de mai et de la porter aux environs de trois semaines, alors qu'habituellement, elle ne dure que de douze à quatorze jours. Nous espérons que les vingt membres de ces deux Comités pourront se libérer pour ces trois semaines de travail continu et intensif. Nous serons à ce moment là pressés par le temps puisque nous devrons immédiatement nous entendre dès la fin de cette session sur les orientations de notre rapport et nous n'aurons plus que la session de septembre pour adopter notre rapport définitif; je vous rappelle en effet que la Conférence a demandé que ce rapport conjoint lui soit soumis à travers vous avec les vues et observations du Directeur général, et qu'il faudra donc examiner le tout fin octobre ou début novembre.
Je voudrais maintenant vous faire part des progrès réalisés pour chacune de ces trois études.
En ce qui concerne les objectifs, rôle, priorités et stratégies de la FAO, conformément à la Résolution 6/87, nous avons décidé d'entreprendre cette étude avec l'assistance d'experts. Ayant défini le mandat de l'étude et les termes de références, nous avons choisi un rapporteur et sept autres experts dont vous trouverez les noms dans le document qui vous a été remis.
Les experts se sont réunis â Rome du 25 juillet au 5 août 1988. Au moment d'entreprendre leur tâche, le Président du Comité financier et moi-même les avons convoqués pour leur transmettre toutes informations utiles et les orientations qui avaient été jugées nécessaires par les deux Comités concernant leurs travaux.
Le Secrétariat a fourni aux experts, par ailleurs, tous les documents de base et les informations nécessaires sur les activités de la FAO. Il a aussi organisé des entrevues et des débats. Par la suite, ces experts ont établi leur programme de travail et ont rendu visite â l'Organisation des Nations Unies et à de nombreuses autres institutions avec qui la FAO coopère dans l'exécution de son mandat·
Concernant l'étude des activités de terrain, c'est là un aspect capital de l'examen qui nous aurait peut-être échappé si le Directeur général n'avait pas justement proposé de le retenir. Nous avons choisi pour cette étude un rapporteur et quatre experts qui se sont réunis à Rome du 1er au 12 août 1988 et nous leur avons également communiqué les orientations de travail et ils ont reçu les informations et documentations de base nécessaires à l'exécution de leur mission. Ils rendront visite aux institutions qui collaborent avec la FAO.
En ce qui concerne les questions administratives et de gestion les Comités ont souscrit aux propositions du Directeur général concernant le champ possible d'un examen des questions administratives. Ils ont demandé au Directeur général de mettre l'accent, dans ces études, sur les questions financières et ont approuvé les approches et modalités envisagées.
Cet examen est entrepris avec le concours de sociétés de conseil en gestion. Trois domaines de la gestion ont été retenus pour cet examen, priorité étant donnée aux questions financières.
Les thèmes choisis pour être examinés sont les suivants: finances, personnel, services de soutien administratif.
Un appel d'offres a été lancé le 1er août 1988 à l'intention de 29 sociétés de conseils en gestion. Dix-sept offres avaient été reçues à la date limite du 15 septembre 1988. Après évaluation de ces
soumissions, les contrats avec les adjudicataires devaient être signés au début de ce mois. Le Directeur général a offert de fournir aux comités les rapports des sociétés de conseils en gestion, avec ses propres observations. Ces documents seront examinés par le Comité lors d'une session conjointe spéciale en mai 1989.
J'en arrive maintenant à la réforme de la procédure, de budget - programme que nous avons envisagée lors de la session de septembre. Comme vous le savez, la Conférence n'avait pu aboutir à un accord sur ce point et, lors de la session de mai, les deux comités se sont préoccupés de trouver un consensus à ce sujet. Le résultat de ces délibérations apparaît dans les paragraphes 1.10, 1.11 et 1.12 du document CL 94/4. Je ne vous les lirai pas maintenant. Vous les avez sans doute étudiés de près.
Je voudrais seulement souligner le fait que les différents aspects du problème ont été largement débattus pendant la Conférence et que les mesures maintenant proposées par les deux comités semblent susceptibles de répondre aussi bien aux espoirs qu'aux préoccupations des uns et des autres. C'est dans cet esprit que nous vous les soumettons.
Avant de terminer, je tiens à redire notre détermination à respecter scrupuleusement les instructions données par la Conférence dans sa Résolution 6/87. Chacun se souvient de l'intensité des débats qui se sont déroulés lors de la 24ème session de la Conférence et des points de vue divergents qui y avaient été exprimés et qui sont d'ailleurs consignés dans les paragraphes 136 à 142 du rapport de la Conférence, lesquels je dois le dire, ont fait l'objet d'un consensus.
En bref, on peut rappeler que, selon un courant d'opinion, il était temps qu'un groupe d'experts indépendants procède à un examen approfondi des buts et des opérations de la FAO et que, selon un autre courant d'opinion, la nécessité même d'un tel examen était contestable ou peu utile. La Résolution 6/87 représente donc, selon nous, un compromis entre ces deux tendances, compromis qui a été élaboré après que la Conférence ait entendu le rapport d'un groupe de travail qui avait travaillé pendant 35 heures au cours de 13 réunions. Ce compromis peut se résumer ainsi: d'accord pour un examen mais â condition que cet examen soit confié au Comité du Programme et au Comité financier travaillant conjointement, assistés d'un certain nombre d'experts et en collaboration avec le Secrétariat. Nous savons tous que ce compromis n'a pas fait tout à fait l'unanimité. Mais il s'agissait sans doute du seul compromis possible.
Nos deux comités, ayant reçu un tel mandat de la Conférence, entendent le remplir scrupuleusement avec l'aide des experts qui étudient, je vous le rappelle, des secteurs différents des activités de l'Organisation et dont les avis ainsi que ceux des conseils en gestion et le rapport du Directeur général sur ces différents travaux préliminaires devront faire l'objet de notre part d'un examen suivi d'un rapport qui sera présenté à la Conférence par votre intermédiaire, c'est-à-dire par l'intermédiaire du Conseil. Pour notre part - je parle en mon nom et, sans doute aussi, au nom de mon collègue, le Président du Comité financier - nous avons toujours pensé que cet examen représentait une excellente occasion de rediscuter les objectifs de l'Organisation et de les renégocier pour aboutir à un consensus renouvelé.
C'est la raison pour laquelle, dans la conduite des travaux des deux comités et dans nos relations avec le Secrétariat et avec les experts, nous avons veillé à ce que tous les membres des deux comités puissent s'exprimer pleinement et exposer leur position. Nous avons également veillé à ce que la liberté d'information, la liberté de mouvement, la liberté d'esprit des experts tant internes, à l'intérieur du Secrétariat, qu'externes, avec les différentes parties prenantes, soit entière. Je dirai même que les comités n'ont pas tellement cherché à influencer les experts; ils ne l'ont même pratiquement pas fait. C'est l'opinion des experts qui nous importe et non pas la nôtre puisque nous la connaissons déjà.
Enfin, c'est pour la même raison que, par ailleurs, nous ne pouvons pas non plus céder à la demande des uns ou des autres de prendre des initiatives qui ne sont pas prévues par la résolution et qui ne seraient pas acceptables, en tout cas pas acceptées, par les autres membres. Ce n'est pas notre rôle de prendre de telles initiatives qui, en définitive, entraîneraient peut-être plus de conflits que de consensus·
Il nous a toujours semblé que, pour atteindre le consensus en procédant à cet examen, la seule voie possible était d'adhérer le plus possible aux termes de la résolution.
Voilà ce qu'il m'a semblé essentiel de vous rapporter à propos de cet examen exceptionnel et je vous remercie de m'avoir accordé la parole à ce sujet. Je reste à votre disposition et à celle du Conseil pour toutes informations complémentaires et, le cas échéant, je vous demanderai d'accorder la parole à mes collègues du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier qui, même lorsqu'ils ne sont pas membres du Conseil, peuvent se trouver dans la salle en tant qu'observateurs, afin qu'ils m'aident à répondre à certaines questions et qu'ils expriment leur point de vue car je ne suis pas certain de refléter parfaitement la position de mes collègues.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Professeur Mazoyer, Président du Comité du Programme, de sa communication introductive.
José Ramon LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (México): Agradecemos al Presidente del Comité del Programa su siempre sabia y clara exposición que, por otro lado, mucho nos ha explicado sobre las tesitura de las negociaciones durante las diversas reuniones de dicho Comité y de las reuniones conjuntas.
La Delegación de México reitera su plena disponibilidad para resolver todas las controversias en el seno de esta Organización por la vía del diálogo y de la negociación en beneficio de todos sus miembros. Por eso es que apreciamos mucho la forma en que nos ha descrito el Sr. Mazoyer la manera como se resolvieron esas controversias en el seno del Comité. Pero debo decir algo más en referencia al plantamiento que él hacía respecto de la forma en que se concluyó en plasmar, en materializar los acuerdos en la Resolución 6/87. A pesar de que como debemos recordar, la mayoría de los miembros de esta Organización no considerábamos que fuera necesario emprender un proceso de revisión de ciertos aspectos de la FAO, y menos aũn de su totalidad, en aras de buscar una solución al problema de liquidez y de confianza y apoyo a esta Organización, accedimos espontáneamente a aceptar tal proceso de revisión cuyas directrices se plasmaron en la Resolución 6/87 de la Conferencia pasada.
La mayoría de los Estados Miembros manifestamos en aquella ocasión que si la FAO debía revisarse y eventualmente modificar algunos de sus aspectos, debía ser precisamente para responder a las crecientes necesidades de las poblaciones de los países en desarrollo que sufrían pobreza absoluta, hambre y desnutrición y, a la vez, de un mundo en general abatido por prácticas comerciales desleales y por una distribución de las cargas financieras y económicas inequitativas que inhabilitaban el progreso de la mayoría de los países y de sus poblaciones y que estaban llevando, tras una década perdida para el desarrollo de muchos países en desarrollo, a un mundo cada vez más injusto. Recordamos en esa ocasión la importancia de avanzar hacia la implantación de un nuevo orden económico internacional en el ámbito de la FAO, como lo postulaba la resolución 3/75 y otras de la Conferencia; y lo hicimos no por razones ideológicas, sino muy prácticas, como las que he mencionado hace un momento.
Vemos, sin embargo, con tristeza y preocupación que por lo menos ahora, en los documentos que se nos han presentado no se perfila aun ningún avance en este sentido. Entendemos y compartimos, sin embargo, el criterio de muchos de nuestros colegas, miembros de los Comités del Programa y también de Finanzas, de mantener una voluntad de negociación abierta, en aras de resolver la crisis de liquidez que, por razones unilaterales, socava los fundamentos y estructura de la FAO. A pesar de las expresiones de buena voluntad que se hicieron en el punto 14 de nuestro programa y que mucho agradecemos y mucho reconocemos, lamentablemente aun la situación financiera de crisis no está, ni con mucho, superada.
Por otra parte, el contenido del párrafo 1.12 nos parece cuestionable, ya que expresa algo totalmente improcedente cuando señala que la FAO ha logrado reformar el proceso de presupuestación. Nosotros creemos en la buena voluntad, en el diálogo y en la negociación, pero consideramos que no existe ningún dato objetivo para hacer tal afirmación, como tampoco aquella que se hace dos párrafos atrás, en relación a que nos congratulemos de la eventualidad de tales reformas. Debemos recordar asimismo que, de acuerdo con el mandato de la Conferencia, estamos apenas iniciando el proceso de revisión y no aceptando ahora reformas. Los planteamientos relativos a la revisión se tendrán que presentar necesariamente, como bien lo ha dicho el Dr. Mazoyer, a la reunión de octubre de los Comités. Y posteriormente, seguro, pasarán a la consideración de este Consejo en noviembre de 1989. No podemos ni debemos adelantar los tiempos. Más aún, se estuvo claro que, en aras de buscar un compromiso de buena voluntad, se haría una prueba, por única vez, en enero del próximo año, para celebrar una reunión conjunta de los Comités. Dicha reunión propuesta para enero sería, como he dicho, por única vez, y debemos afirmar ahora que su aceptación no conlleva en modo alguno precedente o predisposición alguna para repetirla posteriormente. Recordamos entre otras cosas que la Resolución 6/87 puntualiza y confirma el principio establecido de que para integrar el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto se debe también contar con las consideraciones y recomendaciones de todos los Comités principales, y ello es imposible obtenerlo y recabarlo, por lo menos para enero.
Por otro lado, deseamos recordar a este Consejo que se han eliminado a 45 importantes reuniones programadas y aceptadas por la Conferencia, muchas otras publicaciones y, sobre todo, importantes proyectos de asistencia técnica en beneficio de nuestros países.
La reunión propuesta para enero no está prevista en el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto de este bienio y, por lo tanto, viene sin duda a competir con escasísimas disponibilidades de tesorería. Por ello, sin demérito -lo digo subrayándolo:”sin demérito”- de la propuesta por la reunión conjunta de los Comités de Finanzas y del Programa, y en vista de que nuestra Organización sigue encontrándose y muy probablemente en enero también se encontrará- con graves dificultades financieras, la
Delegación de México se permite hacer una propuesta de conciliaci.ón: solicitar al Director General que, en vez de convocar a una reunión conjunta por primera vez de los Comités de Finanzas y del Programa para enero de 1989 en Roma, el Director General envíe en esa fecha la información pertinente -es decir, el breve documento descrito en el párrafo 1.10- a los respectivos miembros de los Comités, a su lugar de adscripción, a fin de recabar por correo su opinión y así integrar, una vez revisada por el Director General, la información que se entregará a la reunión de los Comités en mayo del próximo año. Así, la FAO se ahorraría indispensables recursos, quizás para aplicarlos en reuniones programadas por la Conferencia. Debo reflexionar al respecto que dichos ahorros sin duda equivaldrían a las cuotas totales de varios países miembros.
Señalamos que ya el costo del examen de la FAO asciende a la impresionante cifra de 2.4 millones de dólares, no previstos en el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto, y nos preguntamos si esa cifra no ascenderá a niveles superiores. En las circunstancias por las que atraviesa la FAO, este peso imprevisto, sumado a la crisis de liquidez, que aparentemente continuará durante todo el próximo año, ha costado inaceptables sacrificios que no debemos permitir prosigan.
Deseamos reiterar nuestro rechazo a las graves reducciones en el Presupuesto sufridas en el bienio pasado y en este año, por un total de 45 millones de dólares. Estos recortes, como lo hemos dicho anteriormente, en el punto número 12, no deben continuar para el 89. Estamos haciendo un daño irreparable a nuestra Organización, a su plantilla de personal, a la moral del personal y, sobre todo, a la calidad y oportunidad de las funciones, actividades y asistencia técnica que otorga nuestra Organización. México se ha opuesto firmemente a la política de crecimiento cero y, más aun, a cualquier criterio que conlleve una reducción del Presupuesto de FAO. Por otro lado, ya para concluir, la Delegación mexicana reitera los planteamientos hechos en el 54° y 55° períodos de sesiones del Comité del Programa; pero, además de las observaciones hechas, con las siguientes reflexiones y previsiones. Una, examinar las consecuencias que para el Programa tiene el hecho de haber reducido los gastos propuestos por el Director General en una cantidad de hasta 20 millones de dólares de EE.UU. Al respecto, reiteramos nuestro total rechazo -vuelvo a reiterarlo- de perfilar nuevos recortes para ese año.
Planteamos desde la Comisión que los problemas de liquidez u otras dificultades financieras sólo pueden resolverse con medidas de la misma naturaleza y no mediante reajustes en los programas. Pedimos que se continue explorando posibles soluciones financieras para evitar a toda costa la necesidad de recurrir a la reducción futura de los programas y que se analice el aplazamiento de toda medida definitiva -sobre todo, de la supresión de actividades-, buscando superar, repito, las limitaciones prácticas y otros compromisos. Debe continuarse evaluando alternativas válidas para resolver la situación financiera y que conduzcan a la adecuada ejecución del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1988/89; debe vigilarse que se mantenga y, de ser posible, que se incremente la calidad de los trabajos de los consultores contratados por la Organización, de tal manera que las actividades que éstos desempeñan contribuyan a compensar la reducción de sus contratos.
Y finalmente, como también lo dijimos en el punto 13 -pero, a veces, los temas de uno y otro están entremezclados-, debe incrementarse la participación de los consultores provenientes de países en desarrollo, sin demérito de la calidad de la asistencia de los mismos, que contrata la Organización sobre una base de distribución geográfica y nacional equitativa.
LE PRESIDENT: Pour la clarté des décisions du Conseil, je voudrais rappeler aux délégués qu'il est demandé au Conseil de prendre position, au paragraphe 1.33 du rapport, sur la question de la réforme de la procédure du budget-programme établi conjointement par les deux comités et dont il est question aux paragraphes 1.9 à 1.13 de ce document.
Je serais heureux si, dans leurs interventions, les délégués pouvaient nous faire connaître leur position sur ce projet de réforme de la procédure du budget-programme. Je crois que cela serait utile au Secrétariat et au Conseil.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Bienvenido a Roma, Profesor Mazoyer, Presidente del Comité del Programa, y gracias por su presentación.
Señor Presidente, tenemos la impresión de que éste ha sido un proceso desafortunado, cuyos primeros resultados desde ahora se están saliendo de las manos de los mismos gestores. Siempre fieles al cumplimiento de sus instrucciones, Sr. Presidente, empezaremos por decir que nos oponemos firme y decididamente a todo lo propuesto en los párrafos 1.9 a 1.13 del documento CL 94/4. Pedimos al Consejo que se oponga a que se celebre una reunión especial de los dos Comités en enero próximo, hecho excepcional, nunca antes registrado en la historia de nuestra Organización. ¿Cómo va a celebrarse ahora, cuando la crisis financiera impone limitaciones; cuando, como lo ha dicho México,
se han cancelado más de 45 reuniones de real utilidad? Pedimos a la Secretaría que nos diga cuántos días duraría esa reunión especial. Suponemos que para estudiar cinco páginas bastaría un día; pero seguramente las leyes de Parkinson y el clima de Roma extenderían esa reunión por lo menos a una semana, cinco días: un día por cada página.
Preguntamos al Prof. Mazoyer y al Embajador Bukhari: ¿Presentarán informe al Consejo, como de costumbre, los dos Comités en esa sesión conjunta, o excepcionalmente será un informe dirigido al Director General? ¿Cuánto costará esa sesión especial? ¿Está ese costo ya incluido -parece que no-en los rubros citados en el párrafo 1.30 en el total de 2.4 millones de dólares? Además de los altos costos de los intérpretes y de los viáticos, la mitad de los miembros de los dos Comités viven fuera de Roma. Los pasajes deberían pagarse desde la China legendaria, pasando por Kuala Lumpur, Malasia, la interesante y atractiva Australia, en las antípodas, la maravillosa Pampa argentina, América del Norte y Europa. Título del film:”La vuelta al mundo para cinco páginas.”
Deseamos aclarar que no nos oponemos a que en la FAO se comience a aplicar la reforma del proceso de presupuestación de programas. Debemos ser coherentes, si los representantes de nuestros mismos Gobiernos han apoyado esto en Naciones Unidas y otras organizaciones del sistema. Pero otra cosa es que esto vaya a comenzar a lograrse mediante una reunión especial, costosa e inconveniente. Por ello sería de interés que la Secretaría nos informara cómo se adelanta esa presupuestación por programas en Naciones Unidas y algunas agencias.
Sabemos que generalmente los casos son diferentes en cada organización, que tienen mecanismos diversos. Si las respuestas de la Secretaría nos dieran luces adecuadas, la Delegación de Colombia no se opone a que se busquen los medios, pero realmente prácticos, eficaces, racionales, sin ninguna imposición, sin obedecer a un compromiso específico, que permitan a la FAO adecuarse a lo que ya se está haciendo en otras organizaciones del sistema.
Para volver a la sesión especial propuesta, convendría también revisar los aspectos legales, para que el Consejo no incurra en ninguna decisión contraria a nuestros textos básicos. En efecto, el artículo XXVIII, párrafo 1, del Reglamento General, dice que -cito-”en el segundo año del bienio, en las reuniones de los dos Comités se examinarán el resumen” ¡el resumen!”y el proyecto de Programas de Labores y Presupuesto presentado por el Director General para el bienio siguiente.” Luego, el párrafo 2 del mismo artículo XXVIII del Reglamento General habla de las reuniones conjuntas y se refiere de nuevo al resumen - al resumen, no a cinco páginas- y proyecto del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto. Además, el artículo XXXVIII del Reglamento.General, en su apartado ii) en relación con las funciones del Director General, dice que el Director General debe”presentar un proyecto de Programa de Labores y Presupuesto”, no cinco páginas.
Sólo con ánimo clarificador, tal vez convendría, si usted lo estima conveniente, Sr. Presidente, preguntar al Consejero Legal si esas disposiciones que hemos citado estarían en contradicción con la decisión que los dos Comités nos piden tomar, en el sentido de pedir al Director General que prepare un breve documento, cinco páginas, indicando el nivel del Presupuesto y las principales actividades a realizar. Esto no aparece en los Textos Básicos.
Por su intervención, Sr. Presidente, podríamos preguntar al Consejero Legal si una aprobación del Consejo, como los Comités la piden en el párrafo 1.13 del documento CL 94/4, violaría el Reglamento general de la Organización que sólo puede modificar la Conferencia con una votación calificada de dos tercios. Planteamos estos interrogantes sin prejuicio ninguno y con el sólo deseo de que nuestra decisión se tome dentro de un marco jurídico adecuado. Porque es evidente, a la luz de los Textos Básicos, que si bien el Consejo no puede pedir al Director General nada que no esté contemplado en el Reglamento General, los Comités sí pueden ser convocados por sus presidentes, por el Director General o el método obsoleto que aún rige para el Comité de Finanzas. Naturalmente el Director General, en uso de sus facultades constitucionales, sin ser obligado por el Consejo, espontáneamente podrá presentar lo que él quiera a los Comités.
Mientras hemos estado interviniendo, Sr. Presidente, y después de hacer estas consideraciones, debemos declarar que la propuesta de nuestro colega y amigo López Portillo, de México, nos hace vacilar un poco. ¿Pudiera ser acaso una solución de compromiso?. En esta primera oportunidad, lo más sensato y juicioso, Sr. Presidente, sería que en vez de propiciar una sesión especial, costosa e injustificada, pudiésemos ensayar lo que ha propuesto México. Se trataría de una consulta que lograría los mismos resultados ningún costo. El Director General preparará las mismas cinco páginas, ni cuatro, ni seis, ni cinco se le han pedido; las enviará a los miembros de los Comités a sus residencias, para que no tengan que incomodarse esos colegas viajando hasta Roma. Estos enviarán sus observaciones dentro del plazo estipulado y el Director General ejercerá su función constitucional de elaborar el resumen del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto, en el cual podría tener en cuenta esas observaciones y presentarlo a esos Comités en la reunión ordinaria de mayo.
Cordialmente invitamos al Consejo a que medite serenamente sobre la mejor, más práctica y menos costosa manera de hacer este primer ejercicio, en vía experemental, cuyos resultados podrán orientarnos para lo que se debería hacer a partir del bien: 90-91 y sucesivos.
Por favor, hacemos un llamado, no sólo a los países en desarrollo, sino también a los Estados desarrollados, con actitud positiva, para que no propiciemos esa reunión que sólo tendrá un objetivo ya anticipado. Cualquiera que sea el nivel del presupuesto que proponga el Director General, se propondrá reducirlo; cualquiera que sea la reacción del Director General frente a las observaciones de los dos Comités en la reunión ordinaria de éstos en mayo, se exigirán nuevas reducciones. En el Consejo de junio se insistirá en que el nivel es muy alto, y en la Conferencia se le dará el golpe final. Es el viejo cuento del salame que se consume al ser cortado rodaja por rodaja.
Pasamos ahora al Examen, Sr. Presidente, y empezamos por decir, sin ánimo polémico, con la mayor tranquilidad, que el párrafo 1.9 del documento CL 94/3, nunca debió aparecer en un Informe para el Consejo. Decimos esto, aunque fuera nuestro propio país, Colombia, el que se citase en ese párrafo 1.9; es cuestión de principios. No está bien que en un Informe para el Consejo se incluyan términos de competencias feroz, de reconocimiento de deudas, de pagos a otras organizaciones, incluida la FAO, es decir la FAO en ultimo término.
La delegación de Colombia piensa que cuando la Conferencia aprueba el nivel del presupuesto y adopta la escala de cuotas, aunque algunos países hayan votado en contra, o se hayan abstenido, todos los Estados grandes o pequeños, ricos o pobres adquieren un compromiso legal y moral. Ningún país tiene que reconocer su deuda, sino pagarla. Afortunadamente, esta tarde hemos oído noticias que van en esa buena dirección y que celebramos muy complacidos.
Sobre el Examen mismo teníamos serias reservas y comentarlos causados sobre todo por falta de información adecuada y oportuna. Es como si se hubiera tejido una estrategia del silencio. Si somos sinceros entre nosotros mismos todos sabemos que lo que aparece en el documento CL 94/4, aunque corresponda a la reunión de los Comités en septiembre, todo ello fue ya acordado en la reunión de mayo de esos mismos Comités, y cuando recibimos el documento CL 94/3 de esa reunión de mayo no encontramos ni siquiera una palabra sobre lo que ya se había hecho y se murmuraba en todos los corredores. Por lo menos en ese documento 94/3 debería aparecer un párrafo mínimo, los Comités comenzaron a ocuparse de la implementación de la resolución 6/87, sobre lo cual informarán detalladamente al Consejo en su reunión de septiembre. Pero nada, ni una palabra, Sr. Presidente, y eso dio lugar a malos entendidos y a que se proliferaran versiones, que a lo mejor no corresponden a la verdad.
El profesor Mazoyer ha repetido algo que no podemos compartir, y es lo que aparece en el párrafo 1.3 del documento CL 94/4, dicen que ahí los Comités aunque no era su obligación de informar este año al Consejo nos han hecho la concesión graciosa de presentarnos este Informe. Nosotros creemos, Sr. Presidente, que los Comités han hecho muy bien, pero que han cumplido su deber porque son órganos asesores del Consejo. De todas maneras, Sr. Presidente, para contrarrestar a esa falta de información de que hemos hablado, adelantamos contactos particularmente con competentes y distinguidos miembros de los dos Comités, sobre todo de la región de América Latina y el Caribe. Sus explicaciones han hecho que para nosotros desaparezcan, por lo menos en parte, algunas de nuestras preocupaciones. Sabemos que los Comités actuaron de buena fe, pero seguramente se han equivocado. Seguimos pensando que es excesivo el numero de expertos escogidos. Nos preocupa el alto costo que, como dijo México, seguramente será superior a 2.4 millones de dólares. Pedimos que la Secretaría nos diga si a raíz de todas las giras que están haciendo los expertos ese costo va a ser superado. Y desde luego estamos de acuerdo con el Director General, en que aparte de los 600.000 dólares que se arbitraron del Programa Ordinario, el resto, cualquiera que sea el monto de ese costo del Examen, se pague con cargo a la cuenta especial de reserva, porque lo contrario sería asentar nuevos reajustes en el Programa de Trabajo.
La división de los expertos en dos grupos, objetivos, funciones, prioridades y estrategias, operaciones de campo y cuestiones administrativas, más los consultores sobre gestión administrativa, todo eso conforma una estructura híbrido mastodòntica de difícil coordinación. El Programa nos había hablado de cuatro informes, seguramente por timidez, no les digo cuál es el cálculo de cuantas páginas contendrán esos cuatro informes.
Sr. Presidente, somos escépticos sobre el resultado del Examen pero, naturalmente, con realismo no vamos a insistir en nuestra oposición porque nadie podrá detener a los expertos en la gira en la que ya están empeñados. El profesor Mazoyer nos habló de que han visitado la sede de las organizaciones que trabajan con la FAO, muy pocas de esas están en países en desarrollo. Y sabemos que los expertos han visitado los santuarios políticos y económicos del mundo: Roma, Nueva York, Washington, y Ginebra. Preguntamos al profesor Mazoyer y a la Secretaría si a esos expertos, acaso les quedará tiempo para visitar a las regiones de los países en desarrollo?
Con ánimo sereno, Sr. Presidente, pedimos a los colegas y amigos; amigos afortunadamente, Presidentes y miembros de los dos Comités, asesores más importantes del Consejo, que ojalá interpreten mis palabras como una modesta, a lo mejor inocua contribución, a que la estructura que nos han edificado, - una estructura bastante voluminosa y de dudosa ejecución -, que esa estructura resulte ser una base sólida y eficaz para el futuro de nuestra Organización. Los Presidentes y miembros de esos dos Comités saben que estos comentarios son marginales y que nada afectan el apoyo que les reitero y la amistad y simpatía que les profeso.
Cualquiera que sea el resultado del examen los delegados de Colombia los juzgaremos con objetividad y espíritu positivo. Eso sí, Sr. Presidente, quisiéramos pedir al Consejo que diéramos una nota de cautela, de ponderación y de seriedad, que ya que nos hemos embarcado en todo este proceso, se proceda con orden, con seriedad, y con mucha objetividad; que no se trata de precipitar las cosas, como lo dijeron aquí algunos colegas el propio día en que se reunió el Consejo.
El profesor Mazoyer ha dicho que en esta ocasión, además de la reunión que en febrero van a tener los dos Comités, en mayo la reunión de esos dos órganos que normalmente son de dos semanas, serán de tres. Aunque mayo traiga 31 días, pues seguramente las dos reuniones van a terminar a fines de mayo. Si el Consejo empieza el 15 de junio, no habrá milagro posible, ni para traducir, ni imprimir y distribuir el Informe, ni para, sobre todo, que los Gobiernos puedan recibirlo, y oportunamente darnos sus instrucciones.
Sin embargo, compartimos con los colegas de países desarrollados que han demostrado alguna prisa en conocer todo esto, que convendrá que se busque un medio para subsanar ese calendario, que es inmodificable en mi opinión.
Pensamos que esto podrá lograrse a través de dos hechos. El primero, y lo pedimos respetuosa y cordialmente al Director General, de que convoque por lo menos dos reuniones de Representantes Permanentes, y esto creo lo dijo sobre este tema el colega de Finlandia, dos reuniones de Representantes Permanentes, repito, por lo menos, para que nos mantenga informados. Y el segundo punto, que la reunión del Consejo de noviembre, inmediatamente antes de la Conferencia, reunión que generalmente se dedica a terminar los preparativos para la Conferencia, en esta oportunidad, excepcionalmente, en vez de que esa reunión duren tres días se le concedan cinco días, para que por lo menos durante dos o tres días el Consejo de noviembre, pero nunca el Consejo de junio 89, el Consejo de noviembre, estudie a fondo los cuatro documentos y luego los transmita a la Conferencia.
Esperamos, Sr. Presidente, haber dado muestras de buena voluntad, y pedimos de nuevo a los colegas Mazoyer y Bukhari, a los miembros de los dos Comités, que crean en nuestra buena fe y que nos perdonen si les hemos incomodado con alguno de nuestros comentarios.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le délégué de la Colombie. Il a posé une question assez importante, à savoir si la révision de nos Comités conjoints en janvier est possible aux termes du règlement général de la FAO. Est-ce que le conseiller juridique de la FAO peut répondre à cette question?
LEGAL COUNSEL: The distinguished delegate of Colombia has asked a specific question, namely, whether or not it will be contrary to the Basic Texts to hold a joint session of the Programme and Finance Committees in January and for the Director-General to comply with the request set out in this document to submit an outline Programme of Work and Budget to that joint session.
As the distinguished delegate of Colombia has pointed out the General Rules of the Organization which deal with the Programme of Work and Budget process specifically refer only to a summary programme of work and budget and a draft programme of work and budget. The General Rules of the Organization are silent then on the question of preparation, of an outline of the Programme of Work and Budget. However, on reading the texts it seems to me that nothing in the rules would preclude the introduction of this extra step in the Programme of Work and Budget process - at least on a temporary experimental basis. Nothing would require the Director-General to introduce this step, but nothing in the texts would preclude him rom complying with a request to introduce this new step into the process.
General Rule XXXVII which deals with the functions and obligations of the Director-General, while not requiring him to prepare an outline of the Programme of Work and Budget, would certainly not preclude him from doing so. The powers and function of the Programme and Finance Committees set out in general rule XXVI/7 and XXVII/7 are worded, in my view, in a sufficiently broad way to accommodate an outline plan of the Programme of Work and Budget. General rule XXVIII, cited by the
distinguished delegate from Colombia, does not limit the number of meetings, including joint meetings of the two Committees which may be held, nor does it limit the matters which may be considered at these meetings.
Therefore, I would conclude that the approach taken in the report of the Programme and Finance Committees on the review, whereby the Director-General is requested to prepare an outline Programme of Work and Budget in January 1989, and where he indicates his readiness to comply with that part of the request, would not be contrary to the existing provisions of the General Rules of the Organization. However, should this become a fixed feature of the Programme and Budget process on a long-term basis, obviously it would be highly desirable that it be reflected in the General Rules of the Organization.
One further point, I should draw the attention of Council to the fact that back in 1973 there was a proposal put forward by the Director-General to prepare a Summary Programme of Work and Budget in addition to the Draft Programme of Work and Budget. This was a new step in the process because at that time the General Rules of the Organization referred only to a Draft Programme of Work and Budget. Despite the fact that a new concept of a Summary Programme of Work and Budget was not included in the General Rules of the Organization, it was adopted on a voluntary experimental basis for a period of one biennium before a proposal was made for amendment of the General Rules of the Organization in order to bring the rules into line with current practices.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Agradezco al Consejero Legal su dictamen que es correcto. La versión que nos ha dado el Sr. Moore tendrá el mérito de que sea útil para la forma como se deba redactar la decisión del Consejo. Y ese era nuestro propósito, pero si intervinimos, sobre todo es porque no reclamamos para nosotros ningún privilegio. Somos un Miembro del Consejo como cualquiera de los cuarenta y nueve. Pero no sé si Ud. quiere pensar que alguna de las preguntas que yo hice, de las cuales supongo el Sr. Shah tomó atenta nota, si se respondieran ahora pudieran ser útiles para el curso del debate; sobre todo, cuánto costará la reunión especial y cuántos días va a durar.
LE PRESIDENT: Personnellement, je préférerais laisser à tous les délégués le soin de s'exprimer pour que le Secrétariat puisse répondre ensuite. Je ne pense pas qu'un autre délégué posera la même question. M. Shah répondra à toutes les questions en même temps. Si nous adoptons la procédure de faire répondre le Secrétariat à chaque question, nous risquons de faire durer les discussions. M. Shah a pris note de votre demande et répondra en détail à la fin du débat.
Thomas YANGA (Cameroun). Je voudrais tout d'abord exprimer à M. Mazoyer le plaisir qui est celui de ma délégation de le voir parmi nous, et ensuite le remercier de la présentation claire et précise du rapport du Comité du Programme et du rapport sur l'examen de la FAO.
Tout d'abord sur les conséquences de la situation financière pour l'exécution du programme de travail et du budget 1988-89, la délégation du Cameroun déplore profondement ces conséquences. Toutefois les avis du Comité du Programme se fondent sur un document, mentionné dans le rapport et portant la cote PC 54/2, et sur les renseignements complémentaires donnés oralement. De même le Comité a été informé, comme nous tous ici d'ailleurs, d'un ralentissement des dépenses à concurrence de 20 millions de dollars.
Je voudrais répercuter à M. Mazoyer et au Secrétariat une question qui m'a été posée plusieurs fois, à savoir: que renferment en fait les 20 millions de dollars de ralentissement? Quels sont les programmes ralentis, pour utiliser la même terminologie que celle du rapport?
Ce ralentissement des programmes préoccupe au plus haut point ma délégation et nous osons espérer que les nouvelles positives qui nous ont été annoncées par M. l'Ambassadeur Eckert viendront non seulement arrêter à ce niveau ce processus de ralentissement des programmes pour tout le biennium 1988-89, mais aussi, pourquoi pas, accélérer et rattraper le retard pris dans l'exécutions des programmes de l'Organisation.
Sur la question de l'utilisation des consultants, ma délégation se rallie à l'appel lancé par le Comité financier sur ce sujet.
S'agissant de la contribution de la FAO à l'exécution du Programme d'action des Nations Unies pour le redressement économique et le développement de l'Afrique, ma délégation se félicite pour tout ce que la FAO a fait pour la formulation et l'exécution de ce Plan d'action des Nations Unies. Aussi
serions-nous intéressés de voir le document mentionné dans le rapport sous la cote PC 54/4, que ce document soit communiqué à tous les membres de l'Organisation afin que ceux-ci puissent apprécier à sa juste valeur l'apport important et déterminant de la FAO dans ce Plan d'action.
Ma délégation approuve la réforme de la procédure du budget-programme proposée au Conseil par le Comité financier et le Comité du Programme, étant entendu d'une part que ce sujet fait partie du mandat donné par la Conférence aux deux Comités, et d'autre part que le Conseiller juridique vient de nous rassurer à ce sujet.
S'agissant de l'examen de la FAO auquel le Cameroun prend activement part en tant que membre du Comité financier, je voudrais d'abord témoigner ici le sérieux et l'atmosphère sereine qui ont animé jusqu'alors les travaux des deux Comités et qui ont eu pour résultat la prise de toutes les décisions par consensus au cours de leurs sessions conjointes, sinon à l'unanimité.
Le souhait de ma délégation est que cet esprit de concertation, de compréhension et de consensus persiste jusqu'à l'aboutissement définitif de ce processus, non seulement entre les membres des deux Comités, mais aussi entre l'ensemble des membres de l'Organisation, compte tenu de l'impact que le résultat de cet examen pourrait avoir sur les activités de l'Organisation pour les deux ou trois prochaines décennies.
Bien que le rapport sur cet examen soit soumis à notre Conseil pour information, nous souhaiterions vivement que le groupe d'experts sur les programmes de terrain ait le temps et les moyens, si ce n'est déjà fait, de se rendre au Bureau régional de la FAO pour l'Afrique, qui à notre avis mérite bien cette visite, compte tenu des problèmes spécifiques de ce Bureau régional.
Pour terminer, je crois nécessaire de rappeler que la Conférence nous a déjà engagés dans ce processus qui est celui de l'examen, et qui est irréversible quel qu'en soit le coût, si douloureux soit-il. Ensuite je voudrais rappeler que les deux Comités sont encore au stade de l'examen, - et j'insiste sur le mot examen car on utilise parfois, par abus du langage, le mot”réforme”. Selon les dispositions de la Résolution 6/87, les deux Comités, financier et du programme, sont chargés de mener ce processus d'examen et lorsqu'ils auront terminé leur tâche tous les Etats Membres auront à se prononcer sur toutes les éventuelles propositions que ces Comités soumettront.
Enfin, la délégation camerounaise rend hommage au Directeur général pour l'initiative qu'il a prise d'élargir le champ decet examen.
Achille RAHARISON (Madagascar): La Délégation malgache tient à remercier Monsieur le Président du Comité du Programme pour son exposé clair et succinct; toutefois notre Délégation tient à signifier ici son point de vue sur la réforme de la procédure du budget et programme. En effet, la question relative au processus budgétaire de la FAO a toujours fait l'objet de longues discussions de la part des Etats Membres. On se souvient qu'à sa soixante-quinzième session le Conseil a décidé
d'instaurer le sommaire du programme de travail et budget; mais, avant l'établissement du sommaire, le Secrétariat devait soumettre au Comité de l'agriculture et au Comité des pêches un projet limité â la partie technique.
Le document, qui avait en moyenne une centaine de pages, ne traitait pas de programmes de terrain mais essayait de démontrer l'allocation maximum des ressources aux programmes techniques, et la sélection rigoureuse des priorités telles que dictées par la Conférence et le Conseil, les conférences régionales et les comités techniques du Conseil. Si je me souviens bien, ce document a toujours été considéré comme incomplet, trop succinct, insuffisamment explicite et manquant de précision, par certains grands donateurs qui ont mis en cause les priorités sans pour autant avancer des arguments convaincants.
A présent, il nous est demandé d'examiner un document de cinq pages, sans doute pour répondre aux exigences de ces pays. Et l'on ne manque pas de s'interroger sur le point de savoir si de cette manière l'on ne veut pas tout simplement fixer avant tout un plafond budgétaire qui rencontrerait l'accord unanime de ces pays car, pour eux, le programme paraît secondaire, l'essentiel étant la contribution engendrée par la fixation du niveau du budget.
Nous n'avons véritablement aucun plaisir à défendre cette procédure pas plus que la politique qui consiste à faire des discriminations à l'égard de la FAO depuis deux ans, et à ne lui consacrer qu'un pourcentage assez faible d'allocations par rapport aux autres institutions spécialisées des Nations Unies.
Si tel n'est pas le cas, la Délégation malgache souhaiterait exprimer de façon bien claire sa position, en disant que le Programme de travail et de budget devrait transcrire fidèlement les résolutions des conférences régionales. Nous sommes convaincus que pour établir ce document, il
faudra toujours tenir compte des demandes des Etats Membres, des résolutions et priorités des conférences régionales, du Conseil et de la Conférence générale, qu'il faudra concentrer les efforts sur les domaines prioritaires, qu'il faudra concentrer le maximum de ressources aux Programmes techniques et économiques, et enfin qu'il faudra inventorier les projets d'intervention en cours sur les terrains et les réajuster pour tenir compte de la situation actuelle, sans perdre de vue la nécessité de maintenir, sinon de réduire, les dépenses administratives et de liaison, au plus bas niveau. Le Secrétariat s'est toujours attaché à respecter toutes ces données.
Et, si le document qui nous est présenté - fut-il de cinq pages - répond à ces critères, comment ne pas l'adopter? Tout le monde, ici, a toujours été favorable à toute action permettant de corriger les lacunes et de renforcer la capacité d'intervention de la FAO. Dans le cas contraire, c'est-à-dire au cas où ce sont les priorités des grands donateurs qui doivent prévaloir et non celles des pays membres qui les ont définies lors des assises que j'ai déjà mentionnées, au cas où l'on voudrait fixer arbitrairement le budget à partir des annonces de contributions ou de la prédisposition des principaux contributeurs à honorer leurs engagements, nous avons des raisons pour ne pas être satisfaits du travail accompli.
On nous a dit que cette procédure ne serait appliquée que pour une année; nous voulons bien ne pas songer à un piège à souris; mais qu'il soit bien entendu que notre acceptation n'impliquera pas du tout la reconnaissance comme légitime de ces versements au compte-gouttes des arriérés de contributions. Elle marque simplement notre curiosité d'expérimenter un système qui, en définitive, ne saurait rien résoudre. Nous ne voulons pas jouer les incendiaires; nous le disons non pas par excentricité mais parce que nous déplorons la faiblesse du budget 1988-89. Nous espérons que l'on reviendra bientôt à un niveau d'opérations plus normal car, en vérité, en cette époque particulièrement difficile que nous vivons, nous souhaiterions rencontrer une volonté de coopération qui soit le réflexe de la disponibilité des grands d'aider ceux qui veulent rattraper leur retard économique, d'aider les peuples qui veulent vivre autrement et forger leur bien-être et leur bonheur. Nous souhaiterions même qu'ils fassent ici une promesse solennelle de ne pas subordonner le paiement de leurs contributions à une question de réforme; certes, l'aide bilatérale demeure l'exemple type d'une coopération librement consentie apportant des solutions concrètes au problème du développement mais le multi-latéralisme est également un cadre unique en son genre pour coordonner la coopération dans plusieurs domaines: un modèle de partenariat Nord-Sud parfaitement adéquat pour mettre en pratique l'interdépendance, l'amitié et la solidarité entre les peuples. J'ai ouvert à dessein cette dernière parenthèse pour ceux qui seraient tentés de nous suggérer notre réflexion ou qui chercheraient par diverses manoeuvres à nous impressionner ou à prendre le contrôle de la FAO; ce serait faire fi de nos aspirations les plus profondes à la démocratie, à la liberté, à. la dignité, à la souveraineté nationale et à une coopération internationale compérhensive.
R.G. PETTITT (United Kingdom): First I should thank Professor Mazoyer for his helpful and lively account of the Special Joint Sessions and the ongoing work. I also thank him and his colleague for the report on the Review of FAO in document CL 94/4.
As we mentioned last Tuesday, my delegation - it would seem almost unnecessarily - gave formal notification that we would wish to open discussion on this report. We do, of course, regard this as a discussion of progress. It is designed to help to prepare the Council for the task given to it in Conference Resolution 6/87, the task of conveying its comments on the review to the Conference. It can usefully be an occasion to draw the attention of those directly involved in the review to opportunities which may be taken, or be in danger of being missed, and perhaps also a chance to look at the scope of the review and the current division of labour and to consider when and how areas of potential change not currently being considered can best be pursued in the future.
If there are specific actions which we can conveniently take as a result of the review process, such as the recommendation of the Special Joint Session on the Budgetary Process, then so much the better.
I would emphasize that my delegation does not wish to encourage the Council to take over the review process itself. We do not intend - and I plagiarize the words of the Director-General - to reject or modify proposals now. The recommendations which will come to the Council next year, together with the views of the Director-General, are to be those of the two committees carrying out the task entrusted to them.
The British Government was happy to note the distinction, the wide range of experience and the background of the experts selected and we have been impressed by their robust and independent approach to their difficult task. We have high expectations of their advice and conclusions. I repeat, high expectations, but after all they have to tackle such complex issues as the balance between policy advice and project implementation, the identification of the areas where FAO has competitive advantage and which require action by an international body. They have to make
proposals which satisfy membership about the capacity of the Governing Bodies effectively to govern, and their recommendations have to be such that the implications for the structure of FAO's headquarters, its regional headquarters, and its field offices, can be clearly identified and which can lead to ready implementation of any necessary change.
We ourselves contributed ideas on several issues being covered and submitted them to the Conference, and the British Government officials have been available to develop or explain these ideas for the experts and especially the experts specialising in the areas in which we have made particular studies.
I know, as the Director-General said, that opportunities have been taken by the experts to exchange ideas with governments as they have done their work and I hope they will take literally and in good spirit the preparedness of officials of the British Government to make time available at the convenience of experts.
We were less clear on the extent to which the experts have been able to consult the major users and potential users of FAO's services. It is, of course, more important that the experts should be able to obtain first hand the views of developing countries' users than it is that they seek opinions of donor countries and organizations.
I should be grateful if Professor Mazoyer could enlighten us on the type of contact which was planned to be made possible by the programmes of visits of the two teams and what in fact has happened·
I shall also be interested to know if effective contact has been made with the World Bank, since experts consider FAO should have provision of advice in the formulation of policy guidelines in those areas where the Bank now has the key role. This was a point well made by the Director-General in his statement last Tuesday.
Mr. Saouma also in the same statement characterized this year as”the year of the experts”, and next as”the year of the Council and the Conference”. To help Member States make their contribution to this process as thoughtful as possible I would ask that the essential ingredients of the review are made available to the membership as soon as each is ready in a useful form. The essential ingredients are, of course, as Mr. Mazoyer said, the reports of the two teams of experts, the review of the committees, the Director-General's comments - I should have said Director General's comments twice - and the views of the Council in transmitting the review to the Conference. It would not lead to premature decision taking if all these ingredients are made speedily available, just greater thoroughness.
As regards the comments by our distinguished colleague from Colombia on the subject, there may be a need for certain short cuts. I would not wish to rule out the holding of the summer Council at a slightly later date in the summer than we currently planned, if it is necessary to make certain the review is conducted efficiently.
The Conference was not able to agree on the way in which management aspects of FAO work should be examined. We were glad to hear that the Director-General had identified areas within his sphere of responsibilities where external advice could advantageously be sought in parallel with the review of the experts. To the extent to which these studies are relevant, they should form part of the review process masterminded by the two committees, and be reflected in their report. The coverage of these reviews of administrative questions, i.e., two areas of finance, personnel and three sub-areas of administrative support services, is not as wide as the British Government, at least, envisages as desirable at quite an early stage. We would expect that the habit of appropriate use of management consultants would continue, particularly when the implications of the review on the administrative structure of the Organization becomes clearer. I note of course that paragraph 1.27 of the Progress Report envisages certain follow-up studies to those already commissioned.
Continuing with the question of possible gaps in the coverage of the review, I should be grateful for guidance on the extent to which the review is, in practice dealing with the suggestions made in the papers to the Conference, on improved functioning of the governing bodies, Including this Council. If this review process is, in fact, in practice the taking of such subjects, it would be appropriate if we waited for it. If it is clearly not, we might wish to start thinking separately about ways of reviewing our own working methods, such as by the appointment of an intersessional working party - a device used successfully frequently by bodies equivalent to ourselves in sister organizations·
On the reform of the budget process, the Council has before it a recommendation by the Special Joint Session. My delegation can support the proposed change in practice whereby a budget level is discussed by the Special Joint Session, or by a Special Joint Session in January of the budget year.
I notice an element of finality in paragraph 1.12 of the report, CL 94/4. I read this to mean that this agreed proposal is as far as the Special Joint Session can reasonably go in the time allowed for its contribution to the review process. This is, thus, a first step in a continuous process of review.
We also assume this arrangement will continue unless and until a better one is devised and that, in the light of experience at next January's meeting of the SJS, action will be taken by this Council to incorporate the new mechanism formally into FAO procedures. On this I was interested to hear the opinion of the Legal Counsel a few minutes ago; we shall clearly need his advice on procedures when we get to this point.
Those are my remarks on the review. I have one extra point. I thank you for arranging for the discussion of the Jansson Report separately. May I merely ask, in this connection, that the Jansson Report itself, or at least paragraph 82 which has in it the conclusions and recommendations, be circulated to those delegations who did not manage to bring their own with them.
Yousef Ali Mahmoud HAMDI (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): It pleases us to see Mr. Mazoyer, Chairman of the Programme Committee. We were happy to work with him in a previous period in the Programme Committee, and we would like to thank him on his report on the progress achieved in the operation of reviewing FAO's operations. We support the steps taken by the Programme and Finance Committees in order to implement resolution 6/87 of the General Conference, on the choice of experts, joint sessions held, and the work programme which will be followed by the experts in the fields of studying FAO's objectives, role, priorities and strategies, study of FAO's field of operations, and a review of administrative questions. In this context, we would like to welcome and thank the Director-General for his initiative to expand the scope of the review in order to include the latter two items, in addition to the fact that we endorse the timetable proposed for the submission of reports and their study.
We also endorse the two Committees for their proposal on the reform of the programme budget process by preparing a short or brief document on the level of the budget and considering them in the extraordinary session which will be held in January 1989. We understand the motives behind the convening of such a meeting. However, we would like to pose a question. Will this meeting be repeated in the year of the preparation of the budget and the work programme, or will it be only confined tó 1989?
István DOBOCZKY (Hungary): The review of FAO, called for by Member Countries during the last Conference, has been jointly undertaken by the Programme and Finance Committees, assisted by working groups of experts, and supported by the assistance of the Director-General and the Secretariat.
After beginning this work, it had been clear that the original deadline was not realistic, because detailed reports need sufficient time. My opinion is that the new deadline is more realistic, and mainly necessary for the experts to complete their task. The two Committees should be aware of the reports to be submitted by the experts on the one hand and the Director-General's comments on it on the other. After having these the Committees will be in an adequate position to discuss the questions of the FAO Review - the earlier the better, but springtime seems early enough for finishing the work before the next Conference.
However, I am afraid of the timing of the management survey. The complexity of their task and all aspects need hard and busy work during these few months because the two Committees have to get together again, at the latest, in May 1989. The Joint Committee, for practical reasons, ask that priority be given in the first instance to the questions of financial management. It is really a good and useful choice, but their financial management, although very important, is only one aspect of management. Without full complexity, the result of the survey could be even misleading as for the management as a whole. My own opinion is that the administrative services, submitted by international consultant firms, has to support or parallel the study of FAO's objectives, role, priorities and strategies submitted by their expert groups and their committees.
It must be clear whether the administration on different levels is effective enough in managing the programmes or to reach the regions or populations and, by development efforts, or has to be adjusted to the new altered conditions. For this reason, it seems to me that the realistic deadline for a complex report, submitted by consultative firms, would be perhaps early June, and the next joint meeting of the Committees in July to discuss fully these questions too. Depending on the readiness of the consultative firms' reports, it could be held earlier.
We can accept that the Committees have reached a compromise on the question of the programme budget process, as pursued by member countries at the 24th Session of the FAO Conference in November 1987. I would like to express our full satisfaction with the work done in this time by the Committees and welcome the readiness of the Director-General and the Secretariat to comply with their Committees' requests during their work; it is a good beginning only.
These altogether compose a co-operative and constructive atmosphere to strengthen our Organization, in order to help the countries and peoples in co-operation and development.
Bernard LEDUN (France): A propos du document CL 94/4, notre delegation tient à remercier tout d'abord le Secrétariat pour sa rédaction à la fois claire et concise de même que le professeur Mazoyer pour la présentation qu'il en a faite.
La première partie de ce document consacrée au Rapport intérimaire sur l'examen de la FAO n'appelle pas de remarques de fond particulières de notre part puisque la substance de l'examen ne prendra forme qu'au cours du premier semestre 1989, lorsque seront connues les diverses propositions sur lesquelles se pencheront le Conseil puis la Conférence de l'an prochain.
Toutefois, nous avons pris bonne note des dispositions qui ont été arrêtées pour permettre à la fois aux experts et aux Comités du Programme et financier d'accomplir la tâche qui leur a été assignée par la Résolution 6/87.
Nous tenons au passage à remercier le Secrétariat pour l'assistance et les informations qu'il a prodiguées aux experts, rendant ainsi plus aisé un examen qui est certes fort vaste et laborieux. Nous sommes de même satisfaits de la décision prise par les Comités du Programme et financier concernant la réforme de la procédure du budget-programme, qui permet ainsi de réaliser le consensus le plus large possible et d'apporter une solution qui tienne à la fois compte des impératifs techniques du Secrétariat et des voeux exprimés par certains Etats Membres sur ce point lors de la dernière Conférence générale.
Tout à l'heure, le distingué et prolixe représentant de la Colombie a émis de sérieuses réserves sur l'opportunité de réunir ce comité au mois de janvier. Cela a même provoqué chez lui, je pense, une crise d'urticaire; et ce terme est peut-être un peu trop faible: on pourrait ici parler d'une véritable réaction de rejet. Il a justifié cette réaction par le montant élevé, dit-il, du coût que représentera pour la réunion du mois de janvier les déplacements d'un certain nombre de membres du Comité qui viendront de capitales éloignées. Je ne suis pas certain, cependant, que dans son esprit ce soit seulement le coût qui représente un obstacle majeur à la réunion du mois de janvier. Je pense qu'en fait sa réaction de rejet est plus fondamentale, plus large et concerne l'ensemble de l'exercice de l'examen auquel nous sommes en train de nous livrer. Alors, avec tout le respect que je lui dois, je dirai à l'Ambassadeur Bula Hoyos qu'il mène là un combat un peu d'arrière-garde, car les dispositons qui font l'objet des documents soumis â notre examen ont été arrêtées â la dernière Conférence du mois de novembre. Or nous ne sommes plus au mois de novembre, nous sommes maintenant en 1988, à une date où le dispositif global a été arrêté, et nous ne pouvons plus revenir en arrière. Voilà ce que je voulais dire au passage.
L'examen qui est demandé aux deux comités assistés des experts est une entreprise singulièrement complexe, d'abord en raison de son domaine d'intervention, puisqu'elle couvre tout le champ des activités de l'Organisation après l'inclusion, grâce à l'initiative du Directeur général, que je tiens à remercier au passage, des activités de terrain et des questions administratives et de gestion, ensuite parce qu'elle devra aboutir à des conclusions et à des recommandations aussi concordantes et homogènes que possible à partir de positions qui, nous le savons bien tous autant que nous sommes, étaient loin de coïncider au départ les unes avec les autres.
C'est dire qu'il convient ici de se hâter lentement. Pas de précipitation mais un travail réfléchi, minutieux, qui est la condition nécessaire d'un dénouement favorable. Le document CL 94/4 fixe les étapes successives de ce travail. Ne brûlons pas ces étapes et faisons confiance aux efforts des comités et des experts. Ils ont besoin de notre soutien et de notre compréhension.
Bashir EL MABROUK SAID (Libya) (Original language Arabic): Being a member of the Programme Committee I had the opportunity of attending its meetings, as well as attending the joint meetings of both committees, the Programme and Finance Committees, therefore I do not have much to add.
Allow me at the outset to extend my thanks to the Chairman of the Programme Committee for the honest, objective introduction he has made.
The delegation of my country fully agrees with the contents of this report and allow us to make the following observations; the constructive spirit which hallmarked the meetings was most encouraging. There was consensus on most issues related to the review, as was mentioned in Resolution 6/87. The review aims at increasing the capabilities of this Organization in its mission, serving the interests of Member States and covering needs of developing countries and this is a most satisfactory development.
My second observation is that both committees have welcomed the efforts of the Director-General including two specific areas, namely the operational activities of the Organization and administrative matters and in fact, this on the part of the Secretariat means that the Organization has never been rigid, it has always been evolving and developing in the services of the Member states. The Organization responds in a most efficient: manner to the needs of the developing countries within an overall changing world context. The Secretariat has furnished all necessary information related to the financial position and the progress report on the activities of our present biennium. It also mentioned the effects of the financial crisis on our programmes and activities. All this information was given to the experts appointed by the Programme and Finance Committees. Some of us might have overlooked the discussion we had yesterday and this is something we deplore.
The Chairman of the Programme Committee has given us an informative report which was most important for the Council. It covered the means available to both committees to implement the Conference Resolution, therefore I think it is premature now to make any new views regarding this review process before the experts finish their work and before both committees and the Director-General look into the findings of these experts. The Report of the joint meeting is crystal clear. The Conference has given this mandate to both committees and I think that it is not in our interest to anticipate and”guesstimate” whatever will happen in the future. Let us leave both committees to do the work.
The Programme Committee mentioned how to improve our Programme Budget in paragraphs 1.9 to 1.13. This was aimed to achieve our goals and therefore I would like fully to endorse what is mentioned in the Report.
Sra. Miriam INZAULGARAT GARCIA DE PEREZ (Cuba): Queremos ante todo agradecer al Profesor Mazoyer, Presidente del Comité del Programa, por el excelente resumen con que ha presentado el tema que nos ha guiado en los puntos más importantes del documento, y que es el resumen de las actividades realizadas por el Comité de Finanzas y del Programa, en virtud del mandato otorgado por la Resolución 6/87. Después de analizado el documento, observamos que hay avances en el Examen de la FAO y nuestra delegación agradece a los Comités por haber anticipado al Consejo una información parcial y autorizada sobre el proceso que tanto interés ha despertado en los Estados miembros.
La delegación cubana acepta la propuesta de que las conclusiones definitivas de ese Examen estarán a punto de debate para el 96° Consejo y la Conferencia General, presentados por los Comités encargados. Ese proceso debe preservar su calidad y el resultado final.
Apreciamos la decisión del Director General, de incluir estudios sobre las operaciones de campo y las cuestiones administrativas, complementos importantes para un examen integral de la Organización. La presentación del Director General, con carácter excepcional, de un breve documento a los Comités, sobre el nivel del presupuesto y de las principales actividades del próximo bienio, mi delegación considera que la fórmula expresada por el Representante de México es justa, en tanto contribuirá al ahorro de los ya exiguos recursos de la FAO. En cuanto a los costos de este Examen, queremos reflexionar un tanto sobre lo expresado en el documento. Todos comprendemos que tales derogaciones en momentos de crisis financiera como se recoje en el capítulo sobre asuntos financieros, hubieran podido destinarse a otras actividades prioritarias del Programa de Labores, teniendo en cuenta que los países en desarrollo, no hemos solicitado tal Examen, y menos en la coyuntura económica y financiera internacional de grave crisis para nuestros países, estancados en su desarrollo y agobiados por una enorme deuda externa. Hemos aceptado su Examen y sus costos correspondientes como muestra de flexibilidad en nuestras posiciones, que contribuyesen a preservar los objetivos y la FAO misma; pero enfatizamos que ese Examen debe continuar ejecutándose conforme a la Resolución 6/87.
Li ZHENHUAN (China) (Original language Chinese): First of all, I wish to thank Mr. Mazoyer, the Chairman of the Programme Committee, for his detailed presentation.
The Chinese delegation has taken note that in their spring and autumn joint sessions respectively, the Programme and Finance Committees reviewed the implementation of Resolution 6/87 of the 24th FAO Conference. The result of their deliberations is as reflected in paragraphs 1.1 to 1.33 in Document CL 94/4.
As indicated in the Report, the Director-General suggested that in particular the review should cover two specific areas, that is FAO's field activities and restrictive management. We support the Director-General's proposals.
We have also taken note that the two expert groups to assist the Programme and Finance Committees have been mounted and started to work. Besides the two committees have also reached consensus on the improvement of programming and budgeting procedures and put forward three concrete proposals. Though during the 24th Session of the FAO Conference the contact group had long discussions about how to improve the programming and budgeting procedures, no consensus was reached. Now the two committees have succeeded in cracking the hard nut left over by the 24th Conference.
We have noted the Mexican and Colombian position on the January meeting. However, considering the steps already taken by the United Nations and other United Nations Agencies, the Chinese delegation in principle endorses the three proposals of the two committees on the improvement of programme and budget formulation but we think it is desirable to start the exercise first on a trial basis as it carries with it multi faceted implications. The success of the exercise will depend on the political will and the active support of the relevant parties.
The Chinese delegation thinks that up till now the two committees have made better progress, as expected in the implementation of the Conference Resolution 6/87. We appreciate their efforts.
We endorse the views expressed in paragraph 1.5 in the report, that is the purpose of the study should strengthen the Organization's capability to better serve its member nations, to make FAO's programmes more responsive to the challenges of the future and to enhance the efficiency. This is a very formidable task.
As a member of the Council, China will continue to follow the development of this exercise and will join in efforts with other member nations in contributing to the success of this exercise.
Sumiji NAKAZAWA (Japan): First of all, I would like to thank Mr. Mazoyer, the Chairman of the Programme Committee, for his excellent and very informative introduction to this Agenda Item.
We believe that the FAO Review is an issue of vital importance to FAO with respect to steering its future course. The process of the Review should, therefore, be carried out with the unanimous support of all member countries, thus ensuring fruitful results. By the same token, it is essential that progress on the Review should be available to member countries and the reports of the Special Joint Session of the two Committees and other relevant information should be disseminated at least to Council member countries at any time. If we receive those documents at the Council session only, we will remain without any information until the following Council in June next year. Therefore, we urge the Secretariat to keep us informed of any progress on the Review.
The Review process, so far conducted by the two Committees, with the assistance of expert groups, seems to be suitable for the purpose of the Review. Accordingly, at this stage we would rather wait and see further progress and look forward to the end result with great expectations. However, we think it essential for the Secretariat and the two Committees, as well as the two expert groups, to know what kind of expectations and interests the member countries have for the FAO Review. This would help the Review exercising bodies to do their duty and would lead to unanimous support for the results by member countries.
We should also touch upon the management review since it is of great importance for maintaining an active organization. We expect its progress and results to be duly followed up by the expert groups and the Special Joint Session of the two Committees.
With this in mind, I would like to make clear the Japanese viewpoint on the FAO Review. Basically we expect FAO, through its review, to contribute further to the development of food and agriculture and rural development in the whole world and in member countries, as well as meeting the needs for technical assistance by developing countries. From this standpoint, we think that, among others, the following three points are most important to enable FAO to respond quickly and effectively to the various food-and-agriculture-related problems of the world: firstly, to strengthen further coordination with other international organizations and assistance organizations concerned; secondly, as an agricultural forum and agricultural information centre of the world, to accentuate the function of information analysis, evaluation and extension; thirdly, as the organization of experts, to establish an efficient and effective management system of various operations including field projects.
From these basic standpoints, I would like to give some details of issues to which, at this point, we attach importance. Firstly, the member countries' needs should be reflected as far as possible
in medium-term objectives, priority sectors and annual programmes of FAO, for which the system should be strengthened. As to the means, discussion related to the priority sectors in the Regional Conference and committees such as on agriculture, forestry and fisheries, should be sufficiently reflected in the Finance and Programme Committees as well as on the Council in a systematic way. With a view to clarifying the priority sectors, long-term objectives and medium-term programmes specifying these sectors should be decided every six years by the Conference. A system of closing current programmes should be introduced in order to give way to new programmes concentrating on the priority sectors.
Secondly, as far as strengthening coordination with other international organizations is concerned, the Organization should consider clarifying its role, as well as collaborating intensively with other international fora and organizations such as WFC and UNCTAD. In order to intensify FAO's function of policy advice, a collaborative system with international credit institutes like the World Bank, IFAD and regional development banks should be introduced.
Thirdly, as the agricultural forum and agricultural information centre, the capacity for information analysis and evaluation should be maintained and improved by staff management, computer utilization, etc. Information activities to member countries and assistance organizations should be accentuated by the dissemination of technical information, project proposals, reports of workshops, etc.
Fourthly, for the purpose of strengthening the efficient and effective management of various operations, the regional organizations of FAO should be reviewed in such a way as to clarify their roles and strengthen their functions - for example the function of policy advice, programme arrangements with other organizations, TCDC activities, etc. The process of decision-making in the Secretariat could be simplified and clarified and staff management improved so that morale and the ability of the staff are suitably enhanced. It is also very important to rationalize the process of drawing up, implementing, adjusting and evaluating field programmes, including Technical Cooperation Programmes, by properly responding to the member countries' needs, maintaining relations with FAO's Regular Programme, and improving the method of implementation, monitoring and result reviewal.
These are some examples of the issues which we consider important for the purpose and spirit of Resolution 6/87 which, as is properly formulated in paragraph 1.5 of document CL 94/4, is to strengthen the Organization's capacity better to serve its member nations, to make FAO's programmes more responsive to the challenges of the future and to enhance efficiency.
We hope that due consideration by the relevant bodies will be given to the suggestions we are here presenting.
Finally, as to the issue of the reform of the budget process, described in paragraphs 1.10 to 1.20 in document CL 94/4, my delegation does not have difficulty in accepting the measure submitted by the two Committees and, as a non-member country of the two Committees, we would like to look carefully at how the measure works in preparation for the next biennium's programme budget.
Omer ZEYTINOGLU (Turquie): Nous comprenons, de l'étude du rapport intérimaire et des explications détaillées et claires de M. Mazoyer que les travaux sur l'examen concernant la réforme de la FAO se déroulent comme prévus. On peut même dire qu'ils sont dans la bonne orientation. C'est une question très délicate, et de ce fait une approche attentive et patiente est nécessaire. L'Organisation doit saisir cette occasion pour renforcer encore davantage son fonctionnement. Il faut assurer un terrain favorable pour que les deux Comités, conjointement avec les experts, puissent remplir ces tâches très difficiles.
Par ailleurs, nous accueillons avec satisfaction l'inclusion de l'examen des activités opérationnelles sur le terrain, ainsi que les questions administratives et financières. Il paraît que le groupe d'experts qui va étudier les activités opérationnelles sur le terrain se rendra en Turquie. Si c'est le cas, nous allons mettre à profit cette occasion pour transmettre aux experts l'expérience que nous avons acquise dans ce domaine.
Hannu HALINEN (Finland): I speak on behalf of the Nordic countries.
Let me at the outset express our satisfaction that the reform review process of FAO is well under way. We are indeed expecting the reports and recommendations of the two expert groups, as well as the management consulting firms, together with the comments of the Director-General, with the greatest interest. We are looking forward to a substantive and comprehensive discussion on this issue at the next session of the Council leading to the Conference in November 1989.
Let me also express our gratitude to the Chairman of the Programme Committee, Dr. Mazoyer, for shedding more light on the somewhat limited information on this issue contained in Council documents CL 94/3 and CL 94/4.
The experts are in the middle of their work. Without in any way prejudging the outcome of their consideration we stress - based on the wide and profound interest of many Council members - that this discussion should be promptly brought to their attention.
Additionally, action and coordination between the two expert groups, which we feel is useful and important, should in our opinion be extended to cover the work of the management review firms as well.
The essential condition to an appropriate consideration by the Ninety-fifth Council of the reports mentioned before is their availability to the Council Members in their original form, and in good time before the meeting. In the latter respect, as with some other delegations, we are somewhat concerned about the shortage of time between the scheduled meeting of the Session of the Committees and the Council next summer.
The Nordic countries have, since the last Conference, been actively pursuing issues most important to them within the reform process, keeping in mind the ongoing and evolving nature of the process itself. The Organization will benefit most from the wise and open dialogue between all Member States and management in this question. We must remember that although the experts can, and most probably will, make a substantial contribution to the review process it is the Member Nations who in the final analysis have the responsibility to carry on and to develop further this discussion in order to reach consensus on this important question. The Nordic countries have been conducting informal consultations with some other donor countries, the Director-General and members of the secretariat, staff of FAO, to further clarify our views on review issues.
As reflected in the documentation of the last Conference, one area we have been particularly interested in is the priority setting of FAO. We have attempted, with our own experts, to consolidate and elaborate our views further on this issue. Suffice to say that the focal point of this discussion is the future role of FAO which, to a large extent, involves the balance between policy advice and technical assistance. It is our firm belief that in sectors dealing with agricultural policy advice structural adjustment programmes, FAO has (and should have) an important role to play. In order to facilitate the implementation of this role better coordination and cooperation of some agencies in this field is essential.
I will mention briefly another example dealing with strategies and objectives of the Organization. We feel that Member States should be able to devote their time more effectively to the discussion of the medium-term plan of FAO. In our minds this leads to some rethinking about the agenda of the Conference. The reform of the budget process, as suggested in document CL 94/4, paragraph 1.10, is a welcome step in the right direction to review the workload of the Governing Bodies.
We note with satisfaction that on the initiative of the Director-General, the management review was included in the broader context of the review process. Recently we have had the facility of studying the terms of reference of the management review. However, we have to point out that the review appears not to be as far-reaching and thorough as we would have hoped. This is particularly the case with respect to the area of personnel practices. We are somewhat concerned whether or not the contractor selected to perform this part of the review really has a clear mandate to make serious recommendations for changes. In this context we especially regret the fact that such important areas in any management review as management function and control systems are absent from the terms of reference. Of course, we mention the concerns in the context of this individual exercise only. We are confident that as the evaluation of management issues is an evolving and continuous process then in the follow-up work all relevant questions will be covered.
Finally, concerning substantial issues of high priority to us, we are happy to note that two of such issues were already included on this Council's agenda, namely, environmental questions and sustainable development and also the role of women in development. We are encouraged by the tone and content of these discussions which we feel goes well for our future work.
Waliur RAHMAN (Bangladesh): As others, I welcome Professor Mazoyer to this afternoon's meeting. His absence was acutely felt last week. His presentation of the report of the review of FAO is clear and focussed. We commend it.
It is no time for polemics. As the Conference decided, the Member States of FAO thought it appropriate to invite a group of experts to help us in giving a direction to us to find ways and means of reaching our objectives. The Bangladesh delegation recognizes that the present Progress
Report of the Programme and Finance Committees shows us that the two Committees, in cooperation with the Director-General, have been making good and sincere efforts for the implementation of the Conference Resolution.
At this stage we express our satisfaction with the deliberations and the report of the two Committees. The consensus on the reform of the Programme's budget process which could not be achieved during Conference last year is definitely a positive step forward to making a healthier Organization. We believe that similar cooperation and understanding will prevail in all our efforts, in all respects to enable us to get out of the present situation. We thus endorse the present framework. In this regard may I refer to paragraph 1.11 wherein it is stated that”The Director-General indicated his readiness to comply with the above request”. We particularly hope that after the green signal given by Legal Counsel, the Director-General in his wisdom will make the best use of the decision. It is in this context also that we endorse paragraph 1.5 of the document.
We particularly appreciate the readiness of the Director-General to incorporate field operations and administrative questions under the purview of the present review. While welcoming this we would like to stress that when these two specific areas are reviewed this would not only meet some of the concerns that we have heard, but also would enhance the efficiency and the effectiveness of the Organization for which the process of review was taken in hand.
Before I conclude I have two small queries, namely, is there any cut-off time in the submission of the report; and secondly, on what basis the distinguished experts are visiting the recipient countries - major or minor? I ask this question because obviously they cannot go to all the countries.
F. Warren J. MAJOR (Canada): First, my delegation would like to thank Professor Mazoyer for his presence here today and for his work to date. Last Tuesday, Mr. Chairman, you offered guidance as to how this item on our agenda should be approached. We believe you set the stage for a constructive discussion whereby Council could enrich the deliberations of the review teams. We are very happy to note that your advice has prevailed.
It recalls Resolution 6/87 itself which said that many Member Nations with different views emphasized their openness to dialogue and their desire for agreement on this important issue in the interest of strengthening support for the organization. We hope the record of this Council will confirm that this is still the case. Obviously, there are some serious and persistent problems in world agriculture and we all want FAO to make its full contribution towards resolving them. We certainly view the current review exercise as a move in that direction. The exercise has begun punctually and, as the Director-General pointed out in his opening statement, is proceeding on schedule·
The SJS debate in May resulted in the very prompt establishment of mandates and terms of reference for part 1 and part 2 of the review. In short order two impressive panels of experts, including many eminent and respected authorities, were recruited and began their enquiries. All the indications are that they are working diligently towards their February deadline and we await their full reports with keen interest.
Now, for the first time, the Council has before it a description in summary form of the scope and orientation of the whole review exercise including part 3 - the management reviews. The Council has the opportunity to consider whether the three parts when completed will have addressed all aspects of the Resolution - the Conference will expect no less.
We wholeheartedly agree with Professor Mazoyer that this is not the time to move the goalposts. However, if Council members require any clarification as to the coverage of the Resolution it would seem only prudent to seek them sooner rather than later. As an SJS member Canada has now been able to examine the detailed terms of reference of part 3, alongside parts 1 and 2, and we would express the sincere hope that some elements of the Resolution which were important to us are not falling between the cracks. In the context of the work called for in paragraphs A, Β and C of the Resolution we are hopeful that we shall see some focussed consideration of priority setting practices, of decision making processes in Governing Bodies, the inter-relationships of our Committees and the recording of decisions and of membership involvement in the planning, approval and execution of field programmes, including, but not limited to, the TCP.
By virtue of paragraph D of the Resolution we would look for suggestions to enhance practical cooperation with other members of the UN family by all the review teams at both the operational and policy level.
Somewhere between part 2 and part 3 we hope that there will be close attention to actual administrative costs, for example, of project execution and field representation and the effect of cross-subsidization between the field and regular programmes. We view the examination by Expert Group 1 of FAO's objectives, priorities and strategies as timely, but we are uncertain how the review will address the capability of FAO to conduct evaluation of its programme on an on-going basis.
Similarly, we hope that the consultant who has been assigned the task of conducting the conceptual review of the financial management and accounting policies will bear in mind the need for a more meaningful and useful financial statement on operations by the membership and not just by the managers. It may well be that some of these areas have already been taken on board by the teams and my delegation hopes to take back assurances on this score. The various mandates and tasks are broadly worded in some cases and not much is said about the linkages and inter-actions between them. Also, some tasks are identified as conceptual reviews which could by some process lead to subsequent and more detailed proposals. Turning it another way around, I suppose what I am asking is whether we are right or wrong in believing that when the various elements are completed these concerns will have been addressed?
Turning to one specific point for decision, that is paragraph 1.9 to 1.13, Canada readily accepts the measure proposed in paragraph 1.10 for the 1990/91 biennium. If the experience proves workable we would look forward to its incorporation in the budget cycle on a continuing basis.
To sum up, there are many elements and stages in the review exercise and time is of the essence. The Council will have further occasion to discuss this issue next June and a further opportunity to satisfy itself that the information requested by the last Conference will all be available for the next Conference.
Paul R. BRIDEN (Australia): We thank Professor Mazoyer for his helpful introduction of this item. My delegation commends the arrangements for the review that have been made by the Joint Session. We welcome the selection of a balanced group of experts and we also welcome the close collaboration of the Director-General and Secretariat in assisting the review. We look forward to seeing the expert group's reports as soon as they are available in sensible form. This will both facilitate the work of the Joint Session at its Session in May and also our discussion at our June Council. For our part, we will continue to participate purposefully in the process.
Regarding the suggestions for the reform of the programme budget process, my delegation associates itself with the support for the proposed measures (a), (b) and (c) in paragraph 1.10 of document CL 94/4 which we have heard during our debate.
We supported a resolution along these lines at the Conference and would also have happily supported an alternative resolution which was inexplicably withdrawn at the last moment but which contained the same basic elements. We see the measures as helping to provide at the earliest stage involvement of members, donors and recipients alike in the formulation of the budget. In this regard we do not think that the Mexican proposal, endorsed by several other delegations, meets the expressed wish of this body in its larger manifestation expressed last November.
I have mentioned this point before, and I hope we are not having a dialogue of the deaf. My delegation's concern with the review currently under way of FAO's objectives, role, priorities and strategies, is to further enhance FAO's ability to provide assistance to its members. It has nothing - I repeat nothing, and I will spell that word if required - to do with the current financial crisis or threats and intimidation. Our concerns are well known, predate the current financial crisis, and elements of our thinking are there for all to see in document C 87/10.
Many other delegations contributed views in favour of a review, or against, which were quite separate from the financial crisis.
We are encouraged by the Joint Session's view expressed in paragraph 1.12 of document CL 94/4 that these measures will represent reform of the process. We would prefer to await implementation of the measures before passing a final judgement. If the measures are deemed successful Council may then wish to consider recommending to Conference that they be adopted as a normal part of the budget process as suggested by the United Kingdom delegation, the Legal Counsel and others. We think that the measures are an important first step in the process of improving the budget process.
The suggestion has been made that arrangement be made to circulate the five-page outline by mail, a kind of chess by mail game. Quite apart from any question of returning our Organization's processes to the Nineteenth Century, the proposal does raise the issue as to whether we should have all our meetings like that. We could play FAO chess by post; think of the savings. But that is surely not
the point. The point of meetings is to bring people together for exchanges of views and ideas, to bring vitality and reality into the life of our Organization. For our part, we appreciate the sympathy offered at our fatigue in travelling far, but we are willing to make the sacrifice in the interest of enhancing FAO's capacity to offer effective assistance to members.
We would welcome further information on the selection of the management consultants and their terms of reference. Perhaps this could be passed to the Finance Committee.
The United Kingdom and Canadian delegations raised the question of the review covering the processes of our Governing Bodies including the Council. We think it is important to reflect on the way we go about our business. For example, the Colombian delegation suggested two meetings on the review between the Permanent Representatives and the Director-General. Perhaps these could be regularized as in ESCAP and UNCTAD. I merely give this as an example.
We support the views of Canada and Japan regarding the need for consideration of priorities and medium-term perspectives which relate to the programmes of work in the review process, as pointed to in resolution 6/87.
In conclusion, we commend the work in progress on the review, look forward to continuing to participate fully and positively in the process, and support the proposed budget measures as an important first step. We consider we are all at the oasis and have our ties on.
Ms. Joan DUDIK-GAYOSO (United States of America): Let me add my thanks to those of others for Professor Mazoyer's remarks on the progress reports before us. The United States commends the Programme and Finance Committees for their work in organizing the Review of FAO mandated by Conference Resolution 6/87. We are pleased that highly qualified experts have been chosen to participate in the review and that the experts are making progress in their work. We look forward to reading the report of the experts when it is completed and circulated to members and would join our voice to those who have suggested that those reports be made available as soon as possible. We also look forward to learning the views of the Director-General on the experts' report and participating in preparation of the final report of the Review of the Programme and Finance Committees during their meeting next spring prior to the June Council.
We have one specific suggestion to make with regard to the review. We have read with much interest the recent reports of FAO's External Auditor contained in Conference documents C 89/5, C 89/6 and C 89/7. We requested these reports be provided to the experts as they contain information that may prove helpful in their work.
In regard to reform of the programme budget process, the United States approves of the measure that the Programme and Finance Committees have submitted to the Council. By providing for a meeting of the Committees in January 1989 to consider a budget outline this measure allows members an earlier input into the process of developing a Programme of Work and Budget. That process will continue through 1989, culminating in November in a Conference decision on the budget. In sum, then, we approve of the measures submitted by the Programme and Finance Committees under paragraph 1.10 (a), (b) and (c), of document CL 94/4.
We also look forward to constructive participation in the process, which we believe can result in a Programme of Work and Budget that can be supported by all FAO's Members. This is an important first step. As others have said, however, it is premature to judge the effectiveness of that process, and to characterize its achievements at this point, but my delegation is very encouraged and we look forward to the January meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees.
As for Part III, Management Review, we are pleased that the Director-General has initiated this important work. We understand that he has issued tenders to consulting firms, that some contracts have already been signed and that indeed some of this work is already under way with a team of consultants in FAO. We would like to request the Secretariat to provide some additional clarifications about this review, specifically what consulting firms submitted the winning bids and by what criteria were the bids judged. We would like to know what guarantees there are to ensure that contractors will have unimpeded access to FAO staff and final authority on the content and wording of their reports. It would seem that the best way for the Secretariat to answer these or other questions about contracts would be to arrange for members of the Programme and Finance Committees to examine the contracts.
We have some general suggestions to offer on the process of the management review and some specific points to make about the terms of reference for that review. In general, first of all, the need for and content of the two phases is still not clear to us. We would appreciate an explanation of why there are two phases and what these two phases entail. We believe the management review will be more effective if the work of the consultants can be enriched by the work of the experts being
conducted under Resolution 6/87. For this reason the management review contractors should early in their work establish communication links with the group of experts. Also we note that the report of the FAO External Auditor on the FAO Regular Programme printed in document C 89/5 contains sections on Personnel Management that should prove informative for the management review consultants. We suggest that the consultants discuss this report with the External Auditor.
Some specific comments and suggestions on the terms of reference are, that the subject area of finance indicate that the review should determine how FAO financial reports may be improved to become more transparent and more meaningful. This is an important point. My delegation requests that the consultants be informed that these financial reports are used not only by FAO managers but also by governments of member countries and their delegates. Many of us have found these reports incomplete, lacking in relevant detail and hard to understand. The terms of reference call on the consultants to review and evaluate the adequacy and completeness of FAO's accounting procedures and practices, but they do not specify the standard for determining adequacy. For the management review's conclusions to be useful the consultants should clearly understand that the standard of adequacy is specifically the generally accepted accounting standards of the United Nations system.
The terms of reference for the subject area of Personnel do not include a systematic study of how FAO's posts are related to the structure of the Organization and the tasks it must perform. That is a study that the External Auditor has recommended in his Report on the Regular Programme in document C 89/5, and we suggest that the consultants discuss this recommendation and the reasons for it when they meet with the Auditor.
Mr. Chairman, you spoke, as others have mentioned already, of enriching the work of the experts. A number of remarks that I have made here are suggestions to help link various pieces of the review processes now under way. My delegation believes that another helpful step to ensure that pieces of work will be complementary would be to have the report of this Council and its verbatim conveyed by the Chairmen of the two committees to the experts and the consultants themselves.
Finally, we wish the consultants and the experts complete success in their work. It is important to all of us and to our nations. We look forward to the submission of their reports to the Programme and Finance Committees and to discussions of the reports when they come before the Ninety-fifth Council.
V.K. SIBAL (India): I would like to extend a welcome to Mr. Mazoyer, who is with us today to help us in our discussions. I would like to compliment him on the very clear report he has given. I have listened very carefully to interventions that have been made on this very important subject. It seems to be evident that it is too premature for a debate on the subject of the review. What we have before us is a timetable of work drawn up by the designated agencies, entrusted with the task of the Conference in November 1987, and the only substantial point for decision for the Council today involves the changes in the budget process.
Before I come to some of the points of detail, I cannot help but point out to you that an objective appreciation of the review process has been hindered by the financial situation. We are convinced that, if there were no difficulties in finance, the review process would have been smoother and would have generated fewer fears and doubts. We are participating in the review to strengthen the Organization, to make it more responsive to our needs and to increase its sufficiency. The commitment to the review has been demonstrated in full measure by its expansion, on a voluntary basis, to cover the field operations and the administrative questions for which there was no clear mandate from the Conference.
This has been done considering that the expansion will make the review more useful, and also it is an index of the management's commitment to positive results so that something good and substantial should come out of it. As far as the changes in the budget process are concerned, we agree fully with what is stated in paragraph 13 and paragraph 33. This exercise is too serious and too solemn to be trifled with. We knew it from the beginning, from the word go, that there would be costs, and heavy costs associated with the review, yet we accepted both the review and the costs with open eyes.
I recall that in the Conference, immediately after the resolution was passed, there was a mention of the kind of costs this was going to involve. Therefore, the financial argument is too weak and too insubstantial, at this stage, to be made on the basis of an attack on the review process. We committed ourselves to the review in November 1987; there is and can be no going back.
The agreement on changes in the budget process is the one substantial result of the work done so far. We must not fritter it away. It has not been plucked suddenly from the stars; it is the result of a close, patient, constructive, positive negotiation to achieve results conducive to the good of the FAO. Let us not throw this opportunity away or regress from the positive positions which we have accepted.
We have heard that what is stated in paragraph 1.12 is the hyperbolic. We are not in agreement with this appreciation. What we have is a simple statement of what has been achieved as a result of the changes which are proposed, because all that is being said here is that, through these changes, FAO would have achieved a reform of the process of the programme budget as pursued by other organizations in the UN system. This is not a hyperbolic statement; it is only a factual statement.
Some legal doubts were raised about the meeting in January. I think the Legal Counsel has set the position straight, and he has very clearly said that what is happening in 1988 has also happened in 1973 - that, in fact, there is a parallel to the situation today.
The costs of the Special Session in January are a very small part of the overall costs of 2.4 million dollars, which are being envisaged. If we are not calling the January meeting, we might save some money, but we may give a serious and perhaps irreversible setback to the understandings on which the review is proceeding. While reviewing this matter, we must remember that what we are agreeing with is what we have agreed to in other UN fora. There has been a lot of give and take in the formulation arrived at. Let us pursue it and strengthen the spirit which has brought about this result.
As far as the two meetings of Permanent Representatives to keep as informed on this issue is concerned, I would like to say that there are mechanisms which are established, which are working to keep the regional groups informed of what is happening and, in the light of these working arrangements, we are not very sure whether anything substantial will be achieved by having the proposed meetings.
A doubt has been expressed as to whether the changes in the budget process would put a ceiling on the budget level. If one were to read these paragraphs concerned, they are very clear that all that is being sought to be obtained is an opportunity for the two Committees to express their views on a budget level that may be proposed; that those views will be kept in view by the Director-General who has a constitutional right to approach the Conference with what he considers to be the appropriate budget level.
We consider that a very valuable point was made by the United Kingdom that the Council should not take away from the mandate of the two Committees. This review has been entrusted to certain bodies; they have been told the terms of the reference; they have also been told in what manner the review is to be done. Therefore they should be left to do it in an objective way. This examination should be considered a technical examination, nót a political examination and, after the technical examination, when the results are available, we should be able to examine those results and give our views on each of the individual recommendations.
The point was made whether there have been any contacts by the experts with the World Bank or developing countries. I am sure Mr. Mazoyer will give details later on. We have the privilege of being members of the Programme Committee, and we know for a fact that these contacts have taken place.
The point has been made that the management review is not wide enough. We have a problem here. The management review that was sought was an issue for negotiation in the November Conference; it was not agreed to. It was a subsequent development that, with a view to making the review more comprehensive, certain important issues were brought up before the two Committees on which all groups were represented and the issues which were prioritized were entrusted to firms of consultants. The Committees had a big menu before them and, if all those issues were to be studied, the bill would reach astronomical figures. We should not approach the review process with unnecessary doubts and fears, or with misplaced hesitation. Let us have faith in what we have set out to do, and await further reports before loading any muskets. Of course, in the meantime, to quote a great general”we can keep our powder dry”.
With regard to the terms of reference of the review, there has been some comment with a view to perhaps expand or modify them. We are not very sure whether this is the time for these inputs into the review process. The terms of reference of the review have been settled. Work is being done by the designated bodies. These bodies should be allowed to work unhindered to carry out this technical and objective analysis of the issues involved. We should steer clear of the temptation to oversee or influence either the manner or the orientation or even the content of the work at this stage. As far as the reports are concerned, a suggestion has been made that these should come at a particular time, and by a particular date. This, again, is something which may be very difficult from the operational point of view. It may not be appropriate to bind the Committees to give a report by a specific date or to settle the format of their report.
All sections of the Council are represented on the two Committees and we are sure that the format of the report will be responsive to the expectations from it. I do not think we have to lay down in the Council itself what the report should look like or what kind of format it should have. The Conference has pronounced what it wishes the two Committees assisted by the experts to do, and we should not interfere with, expand or contract its mandate.
The expectations of the review will vary, we are conscious of that, as will the interpretation of the terms. All countries concerned have been given an opportunity to express views on this subject. These are available to the Experts, and these are available in the documents. Let us not overload the process now by giving the Committees and the Experts new signals from the sidelines which will only confuse and make their task more difficult.
Reports of the Experts are to be submitted to the two Committees, who appointed them. That is also very clear in the mandate. What the Council should have is the report of the two Committees, the advice of the experts as an input to that report, and it is for the Committees to decide in what format the report will come to the Council.
Joao Augusto de MEDICIS (Brazil): I want to thank, through you, the Chairman of the Programme Committee for the information on the progress report on the review of FAO. The implementation of resolution 6/87, which entrusted these Committees with this difficult task, is no doubt being accurately carried out, and we are glad to applaud the efforts of all members of both Committees to fulfil that task. Let me remind you what has been said by my delegation during the first meeting of our session. I quote,”the Finance and Programme Committees have a mandate from the Conference. It is only the Conference which can interpret this mandate. It is not up to this Council to give guidance either to the Committee or the experts nominated by the Committee”. Let me endorse in whole what has been said by the Indian delegate on the negative repercussions of the financial crisis on the review process. I could not agree more with him in this respect.
It is with surprise we hear about requests that the experts who advise both Committees convey their reports to Member States. As I said before, the review process was entrusted to the Finance and Programme Committees by the Conference, and those Committees are supposed to report in due time to this Council. The review is not being done by the experts, so there is no reasonable basis for them to report to Member States or to present their findings to this Council.
Regarding the reform of the programme/budget process, my delegation welcomes the Committees decision since it should improve the whole process and facilitate approval of the PWB by the 25th Conference. Above all, my delegation understands this provision will be adopted on a provisional and experimental basis, a definite decision on the new scheme being left for the future. The distinguished representative of Colombia raised some very pertinent doubts on the legal aspects of the changes proposed by the Committees. My delegation believes those doubts are behind the decision of the Committees to adopt this new scheme on a provisional and experimental basis, leaving the final decision to the Conference. This view was reinforced by the legal opinion of Counsel. It was pointed out that we should watch very carefully how this new process works before deciding on its confirmation.
On the study of FAO's objectives, role, priorities and strategies, there is not much to be commented on for the time being. My delegation would like only to welcome the efforts underway by the experts, under the wise chairmanship of Mr. Faaland.
On the study of FAO's field operations, my delegation is pleased to inform that Mr. Sastry and Mr. Sarraf had the opportunity to visit Brazil in the course of their programme of work. On that occasion those experts had the opportunity to meet officials in charge of development action in various offices and most important had the chance to go into the field and visit many of the FAO projects underway in Brazil. We are sure that those visits will very much enrich the report with suggestions for the improvement of field activities of the Organization.
As to the review of the administrative questions, we can presently only welcome the proposals put forward by the Director-General and expect the results of the consultants' work to be analyzed by the committeas and eventually brought to the attention of this Council. In this regard, I think it necessary to call the Council's attention to the fact that the consultants cannot avoid abiding by the decisions taken by the Programme and the Finance Committees by whom they are entrusted to undertake the review of the administrative questions and to whom they must eventually report. Therefore, the terms of reference are not a restriction to their work but necessary guidelines to enable them to produce a report in line with the necessities established by those committees.
We would like to endorse the request made by the United States delegation that the Secretariat provide us with some more information on the management review.
Finally, let me emphasize that the schedule for the presentation of the reports by the experts to the committees and by the committees to the Council and finally, by the Council to the Conference was discussed at length in our last deliberations. I had advocated an earlier presentation of the reports but eventually gave in to the evidence that the request for an early presentation would represent an undue pressure on both the experts and the committees, and would hamper the achievement of the review process goals. The Committee should be allowed, in the view of my delegation, enough time to produce the best report possible and that will certainly not be feasible by June next year. So the discussion of the report could only be carried on later in the year.
Amin ABDEL MALEK (langue originale arabe): Je me joins aux collègues qui m'ont précédé en présentant mes remerciements à M. Mazoyer, président du Comité du Programme pour l'excellente revue qu'il a présentée, à propos du rapport de la session conjointe du Comité du Programme et du Comité des Finances.
Je saisis cette occasion pour remercier le Directeur général qui a décidé d'inclure, dans le cadre de ses prérogatives, l'étude de deux questions supplémentaires qui sont les activités opérationnelles de la FAO et les questions administratives. Nous avons été informés des progrès réalisés dans cette étude par les rapporteurs des deux comités d'experts au cours de la dernière réunion conjointe des deux comités au mois de septembre dernier, et nous sommes heureux de constater que le travail progresse bien.
Monsieur le Président, permettez-moi maintenant de m'exprimer en ma qualité de représentant du Liban et de membre du Comité du Programme. Je ne peux qu'approuver le rapport comme il a été présenté par M. Mazoyer, et en particulier les paragraphes de 1.9 à 1.13. Après discussion, les deux comités ont approuvé à l'unanimité les quatre points cités. Le Conseiller juridique a affirmé qu'il est possible de tenir une réunion conjointe des deux comités au mois de janvier 1989, pour étudier le document que le Directeur général proposera concernant la préparation des Programmes de travail et de budget pour le biennium 1989-1991, y compris les principales activités contenues dans ces Programmes.
Nous approuvons pleinement cette initiative.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): We have studied the documents carefully, Document CL 94/3 and Document CL 94/4. In our view the only issue requiring the decision of the Council is the reform of the programme budget basis in paragraphs 1.9 and 1.12. The other matters are information. We are waiting for the reports which will be carried out and presented to us according to the modalities of the Resolution 6/87. We shall pass judgements on these reports when they are ready, together with the comments of the Director-General. The Philippine delegation refrains from making comments on the objectives, the modalities, the scope of this review. We have agreed on this during the last Conference. We have confidence in the Programme and Finance Committees assisted by the experts and we are looking forward. We do not have yet the elements to pass judgement on the quality of their work.
The Philippine delegation can agree with the proposal on paragraphs 1.9 and 1.12 of Document CL 94/4. The approval of this proposal to hold an extra joint session of the Programme and Finance Committees, which is I understand on an experimental basis, the institution of the process will require an amendment of Rule XXVIII of the General Rules of the Organization, according to the provisions of Rule XLII of the same General Rules of the Organization. If necessary we can look at the issue at a later stage. It will be recalled that the Resolution was tabled during the last Conference on this matter. It was not possible then to reach an agreement but as recorded in paragraph 146 of the Report of the Conference it was noted that in accordance with paragraph 3 of Resolution 6/87, the views expressed in the Conference on this matter would be taken into account during the in-depth review called for by that resolution. In other words, the Conference itself has made a provision for looking at this matter and this will be one issue I think which could be submitted to us later at the Conference if necessary, together with the reports of the Programme and Finance Committees.
Winston RUDDER (Trinidad and Tobago): My delegation intervenes to lend support to the substance of the presentation made by the Chairman of the Programme Committee early this evening. The Programme and Finance Committees together with the Secretariat, are to be congratulated on the dispatch with which they have approached the task of the review of the FAO mandated by the 24th Conference. My delegation endorses the approach taken, notes the progress made thus far and looks forward with interest to the finalization of the reports and the comments thereon of Council's consideration prior to the 25th Conference 1989.
This review exercise is indeed very complex and comprehensive and in this regard the Director-General and the Secretariat must be complimented for facilitating the task of the committees. It is particularly refreshing to note the enthusiasm and the constructive approach adopted by the Director-General as a result of whose intervention the scope and consequently the potential contribution of the review have been considerably enhanced. As a result it is likely to be a much more meaningful exercise. We are indeed very sanguine over the fact that the results of this exercise will enhance the overall effectiveness of the Organization. No doubt it will also dispell the substantive concerns of some and confirm the views of others about the credibility and validity of FAO as a development system and institution with a clear policy advisory role in agricultural development. The heightened interest over the way the exercise is progressing is quite understandable. However, my delegation holds the view, like that of the Indian delegation that we should not attempt at this stage to preempt the work of the experts under the joint committees. We should hold our fire, await the reports and comments and then deliberate, modify, adopt and/or reject.
With respect to the reform of the Programme Budget process as elaborated in paragraphs 1.9 to 1.13 of CL 94/4, the proposals contained therein seem reasonable to us and we accept that they should be adopted on an experimental basis in respect of the 1990/1991 biennium.
Gerhard LIEBER (Germany, Federal Republic of): Let me first of all thank Prof. Mazoyer for his very thorough introduction of the agenda item before us.
According to the reports of the Programme and Finance Committees before us, the work of both expert groups is well underway. They will deliver their reports in time, late February as we understand. As we have expressed on several occasions, the work of these experts will be an extremely important input into the review process. We expect that there will be an exchange of views on the main findings between the two expert groups to ensure that they will come to coherent recommendations on the main issues. We look forward to these reports and will come up with our inputs and complements in due time.
We learned also that the management review is making progress and that the contracting process for consulting firms is on its way. We agree with others that for this very important part of the review process, some more information on criteria and priorities would help member countries to come to a better understanding of the whole process.
Just a few words on the budget review process. We welcome the readiness of the Director-General to present at an early stage a budget outline already in January next year indicating the budget level he intends to use in the preparation of the Programme of Work and Budget 1990/1991, together with the main activities to be undertaken
We also thank the Finance and Programme Committee for proposing these measures which we consider an important first step in the budget reform process. We are, however, of the opinion together with others, that the budget reform process is with these first measures not yet completed, it must be carried on. We consider the main aim of this process to increase the transparency of the whole Programme and Budget exercise for all member states. In this connection, we think that it is really important that the membership as a whole is properly informed. That means, in our opinion, that the budget outline is made available to all member states at the earliest possible time, that member states thus have a chance to form their opinion and that they have the possibility to influence the decision-making process on the budget within the Organization and its governing bodies in due time. We will continue to follow this part of the reform process with keen attention and in a constructive sense. The points mentioned above will be an important criteria for us.
Roberto E.E. DALTON (Argentina): Permítame en primer lugar expresar nuestro reconocimiento al Profesor Mazoyer por su clara y precisa presentación del tema 13 de la Agenda.
La Delegación Argentina expresa su apoyo a la propuesta de los Comités Conjuntos tal como está reflejada en los puntos 1.10 a 1.13 del documento CL 94/4.
Finalmente, Sr. Presidente, y como contribución a agilizar el debate, me limito a señalar nuestro pleno acuerdo con lo manifestado por las distinguidas Delegaciones de la India y del Brasil, sin elaborar sobre el amplio espectro de la temática de la revisión dispuesta por la Resolución 6/87 de la Conferencia.
Igor MARINCEK (Suisse): En vérité, Monsieur le Président, ma Délégation aurait préféré prendre la parole demain, mais puisque nous avançons tellement rapidement, j'interviendrai à ce point de la discussion.
Nous pensons que les ressources de la FAO peuvent être mieux utilisées pour contribuer à l'élimination du fléau de la faim, ceci dans la perspective des quinze à vingt prochaines années. Connaissant la compétence et le dévouement de la plupart des fonctionnaires de cette Organisation - ces fonctionnaires que le Directeur général appelle à juste titre le”vrai capital de la FAO” -, nous sommes convaincus de ce que ce capital humain de la FAO est capable de faire beaucoup plus encore. C'est pour pleinement réaliser le potentiel de ces hommes et femmes en faveur de la réalisation des objectifs énoncés dans le préambule de l'Acte Constitutif de la FAO que nous pensons, avec d'autres pays, que des réformes sont nécessaires et doivent être ouvertement envisagées.
Mon pays suit donc avec intérêt les travaux de l'examen en cours de la FAO; nous sommes encouragés de voir que l'examen des programmes de terrain, de même que celui des questions administratives, ont été réintroduits dans cet exercice. Nous avons également noté avec satisfaction qu'on a fait appel à des experts compétents pour l'examen des objectifs, rôle, priorités et stratégies de la FAO, ainsi que pour celui des opérations de terrain.
S'agissant des consultants chargés de l'examen des questions administratives, nous espérons qu'ils auront toute liberté pour mener à bien un travail professionnel. Comme les trois domaines d'examen sont liés entre eux, des rencontres entre les experts et les consultants nous semblent nécessaires, de même qu'entre les consultants et les Commissaires aux comptes. Nous espérons également que les experts ainsi que les Commissaires aux comptes, auront la possibilité de commenter les conclusions des consultants découlant de l'examen des questions administratives.
Sra. Doña Laurie CORDUA CRUZ (Nicaragua): Nos sumamos a las delegaciones que nos han precedido agradeciendo y felicitando al Sr. Mazoyer por su clara y precisa presentación del Informe Parcial sobre el Examen de la FAO.
Seremos breves y nos limitaremos a expresar concretamente nuestra posición referente a la propuesta de reforma del proceso de presupuestación por Programas.
Ante todo, quisiéramos señalar nuestro desacuerdo con la forma en que está redactado el párrafo 1.12 el cual habla de haber logrado una reforma, algo para lo cual entiendo que los Comités no tienen facultad. Y por otro, en ningún momento se señala que la reunion se hará con carácter experimental. Creemos que esto debería dejarse claro.
Nicaragua no tiene inconveniente en la realización de la reunión de enero con carácter experimental. Por otro lano, como lo han señalado otras Delegaciones, consideramos que dada la seriedad y la magnitud de la tarea que implica el Examen de la FAO, se debe mantener el calendario previsto y que el Informe sea presentado al 96 Período de Sesiones del Consejo para su posterior presentación a la Conferencia, tal como fue expresado por muchas delegaciones.
Muhammad Saleem KHAN (Pakistan): We, like our friend from Switzerland, would have preferred to have spoken tomorrow but were caught unawares by your considerable determination to catch up with the agenda today.
A lot has been said on the Report. At this stage we may not be able to add much. Keeping this and the lateness of the hour in view, we will confine ourselves to expressing our full support for the proposals made in paragraphs 1.10 to 1.13 and paragraph 1.33.
Antoine SAINTRAINT (Observateur de Belgique): Je serai extrêmement bref mais je voudrais quand même, en style télégraphique, faire quelques observations.
L'accomplissement des objectifs est incontestablement fonction des moyens dont on dispose; et le premier problème évoqué serait ce que j'appellerais”la programmation de l'improgrammable”, c'est-à-dire pouvoir prévoir, avec un certain sérieux, l'étape de versement, les contributions et leurs montants. Sans gestion financière et sans programmation financière, il est extrêmement difficile, pour une institution, de remplir les objectifs qu'elle doit atteindre.
Un problème qui a été quelque peu négligé vient d'être évoqué par notre collègue de la Confédération helvétique, je veux parler du problème du personnel. Il est très important pour une institution
telle que la FAO, qui a un capital de cerveaux, de le préserver et de le reconstituer, et pour l'avenir, ce problème du personnel est angoissant. Il y a une certaine forme de démobilisation compte tenu des difficultés financières; il y a une certaine forme d'hypothèque sur l'avenir qui se manifeste si on ne parvient pas à temps à reconstituer ce capital incomparable qu'est l'ensemble du personnel de la FAO.
Contrairement à ce qui a été dit, on ne peut pas attendre de résultat final de cet examen. Les réformes sont des processus permanents que l'on doit mener tout au long des activités de la FAO. On reparlera de réformes, d'ajustements, d'améliorations, après la Conférence de 1989, après la Conférence de 1991 et pendant les années à venir, compte tenu de l'évolution du monde. Il est clair que ce ne sont pas les rapports d'un certain nombre d'experts, si qualifiés soient-ils, qui pourront figer définitivement une structure de la FAO qui doit pouvoir continuer à évoluer et à s'adapter en fonction des besoins du monde. Ces besoins sont de plus en plus grands, et les problèmes de plus en plus angoissants. Aussi est-il très utile de faire le point de la situation, mais il faut le faire dans une perspective qui ne soit pas figée mais dynamique. On n'est pas expert en tout; il serait d'ailleurs prétentieux que de demander à des experts d'émettre des avis sur des problèmes aussi divers que ceux que doit assumer la FAO.
J'ai souvent entendu parler de”priorité” mais j'aimerais surtout en entendre la définition ainsi que la liste de ce qui n'est pas prioritaire. Bon nombre de pays déclarent qu'il faut fixer des priorités, être davantage transparent... nous en sommes tous d'accord et le processus est en cours, et ce Conseil essaie d'amener à un maximum de transparence les activités de la FAO et l'établissement de ses budgets; mais lorsque l'on parle de priorité, il faut d'abord savoir ce que l'on considère comme non prioritaire pour pouvoir, ensuite, établir une échelle de valeurs, selon non pas des rapports d'experts, mais des décisions politiques qui reviennent aux instances responsables politiques.
S'agissant de la réforme du budget et programme, ma position est très semblable à celle de mon collègue Monsieur Li ZHENHUAN de la République populaire de Chine; sa proposition est sage et me semble une formule de compromis mais elle me donne des appréhensions car il me semble difficile d'élaborer un niveau de budget en construisant l'édifice par le toit. Un budget s'élabore par la base, au départ, par des besoins et des nécessités des différents services; il est donc utile de commencer par les fondations, de chercher à voir quels sont les besoins de différents services, forêts, pêche, nutrition, de l'ensemble des services de la FAO... et compte tenu des besoins du monde et des activités de la FAO, on peut définir un niveau de budget.
Mais si l'on adopte le processus inverse qui consiste à partir d'un niveau, et à descendre vers les différents services pour voir quels sont leurs besoins, on risque de rendre un très mauvais service à la FAO.
De plus, je pense qu'il ne faut pas se lier par un document qui soit un véritable corset; et si l'on fixe le niveau du budget, il ne peut s'agir que d'un ordre de grandeur et d'une estimation tout à fait préliminaire.
La formule retenue par les deux Comités est une formule de compromis expérimental; il faudra voir ce qu'elle donne mais elle me fait peur parce que je n'aime pas que l'on fixe un niveau du budget sans qu'on ait consulté l'ensemble des services et sans savoir exactement quels sont les besoins. Tentons l'expérience.... car bien entendu il ne peut s'agir que d'une expérience.
Frederik Ch. PRILLEVITZ (Observer for the Netherlands): First of all, we want to thank the Chairman of the Programme Committee, Prof. Mazoyer, for his elegant and solid introduction of this important item. We read with great interest the report of the Joint Session of the Programme and Finance Committees especially because the first progress report was presented on the Review of FAO - a review we, together with many other countries, requested because we think that an organization like FAO should be reviewed regularly. We all know that since its inception FAO has evolutionarily developed from an original data collecting, storing and analysing organization to an organization with important developmental impacts and potentials. We therefore very much welcome the fact that the Director-General gave an extra dimension to the review by incorporating the examination of the two specific areas - namely, FAO's field operations and administrative questions.
As we all know, where many people are involved in such a review process, impressions develop through rumours, informal discussions and sometimes reliable information from people directly involved in such a process. The impression we have gained so far is that everybody involved in the process -namely, the Director-General and his staff, the Programme and Finance Committees and the experts carrying out the review - are very keen to bring the exercise to a good and successful end.
Therefore, we feel confident that in future FAO will increase its responsibility as a policy adviser. By taking on this role as a policy consultant FAO is in a position to help make sure that
the policy dialogue between donor and recipient countries does not become too donor centered. In this context, special attention will have to be given to those countries which are undergoing the far-reaching process of structural adjustment - in which food security should always be integrated -or countries for which such an adjustment is envisaged. We know that the adaptation of FAO's capacity for such activities cannot be achieved in one or two months, but we are speaking here on issues to be dealt with in the longer-term perspective. We also trust that sufficient care will be taken by the experts over our concern about decision-making procedures. In order that a clear, unambiguous method of reaching decisions in the various FAO bodies be established, the Netherlands has submitted a number of detailed proposals.
These proposals are aimed at, among other things, establishing a clear distinction between the actual decisions taken by the Governing Bodies and the Committees, and the reporting of the proceedings of the debate. Decisions result from consultations and negotiations. A report of proceedings should not be the subject of negotiation as is often now the case.
In relation to the Jansson Report, we have already made reference to better coordination within the various organizations, and the decentralization of responsibilities to the field under Item 10 of the agenda. Of course, coordination in the house, within FAO itself, is also indispensible for more efficient conceptional policy and operational activities. This may also require some changes.
We are confident that a review will deal with all the issues we have just mentioned. Allow us to make one more remark on the review. We understand that the work and the reporting of the management consultants are done at a later stage than the work of the experts on FAO's objectives, role, priorities and strategies. Since we feel that some recommendations of the experts will have an impact on some of the subjects the consultants are dealing with, we strongly suggest to the secretariat to instruct consultants to consult with experts on this matter.
We would like to make a comment on the reform in the Programme and Budget Process as described in paragraphs 1.9 to 1.13 of document CL 94/4. Indeed, we are in favour of the presentation of this five page document on the budget level and the main activities to be undertaken, with which we note, with great satisfaction, that the Director-General indicated his readiness to comply. However, we would be even more in favour of it were this arrangement to be not only for 1990/91 biennium, but also for the biennia beyond that period. Nevertheless, we see this arrangement as the first and encouraging step in the reform of the Programme Budget Process.
McDonald P. BENJAMIN (Obsever for Dominica):- I shall adhere to my traditional practice of brevity in my intervention. We wish to congratulate upon the clarity with which the Chairman of the Programme Committee, Professor Mazoyer, has made this presentation. It is only because he made a special appeal to the back-benchers of his group that I thought I would make this brief intervention.
As a Member of the Programme Committee, I wish to emphasize that the spirit of compromise which led to Resolution 6/87 has continued through the work of these two Committees in their joint sessions. The speed with which the selection of experts was made, and the agreement on bringing together the terms of reference which are very difficult to formulate, is indeed a tribute to the work of both the Finance and Programme Committees working in joint session.
We had a joint session in which we had a briefing session with the two leaders of the two major groups. In such an interchange one gets a very quick reaction as to two matters, namely, have we chosen the right people, and are these people on track? On both grounds we reached positive conclusions. A most powerful motivator in the review process has been, and continues to be, the commitment of the Director-General and his staff. The inclusion of two fields, namely, the field operations and the administrative questions at the initiative of the Director-General represents a most welcome addition to the scope of the studies to the extent that one can hardly think of making recommendations referring to headquarters unless you knew what was happening in the field. It is to their credit that they have been able to establish the inter-relationships between the various major functions of the Organization. In our view the above developments auger very well for a fruitful outcome of the review process.
Assefa YILALA (Observer for Ethiopia): As members of the Finance Committee our delegation had a chance to participate in both joint committee meetings of the Programme and Finance Committees. During these meetings we have been able to air our views, and feel strongly that the report before us fully reflects our concerns, and therefore we have no reservation in endorsing it. Professor Mazoyer, Chairman of the Programme Committee, has made an excellent introduction to the report and I would like to express my due regards for that valuable contribution.
However, we would like to make two minor points with regard to the Progress Report of the Finance and Programme Committees joint meetings as it relates to the reform of the Programme and Budget Process. The Programme and Budget Process as is being discussed here was discussed and accepted in other UN agencies and most of the delegations here will have no rationale to negate it when the same Member Countries have supported this very process in other UN agencies. Our position in this regard is the same as that of China and other delegations which have expressed their views earlier.
The other point relates to the timing of the discussion when this reform of the Programme and Budget Process was discussed. At the time when this was discussed the financial inflow of the Organization was even worse and more serious than the present situation which has become a source of worry for most of the delegations who spoke yesterday and today.
The consensus established in the Programme and Budget Process has become a relief mechanism even through very small, and this has not been pointed out. As was expressed by the distinguished delegate of Cameroun, the two Committees are still in the process of examining the responsibility vested upon them by the 24th Conference. In this connection, this report is presented as an information document to keep Council aware of the manner in which the two Committees are discharging their mandate. As regards the meeting in January - before the preparation of the detailed Programme of Work and Budget which will be presented to the 25th Conference next year - this will have an impact on further contributions and therefore should cause no differences in views.
M. MAZOYER (Président, Comité du Programme): Monsieur le Président, je vous remercie de m'accorder encore la parole et je veux tout d'abord remercier les membres du Conseil de leur accueil qui a été très chaleureux et de l'attention qu'ils ont bien voulu accorder à notre rapport ainsi que de leurs observations. Je veux aussi remercier particulièrement mes collègues des deux comités de leur appui, que j'ai beaucoup apprécié.
Mais je me dois aussi de répondre à quelques questions, â certaines inquiétudes, et peut-être d'apporter quelques précisions et éclaircissements selon mon point de vue. J'ai une première observation à l'attention du Représentant de la Colombie. Je n'ai pas prononcé la phrase qu'il a entendue en espagnol quand j'ai dit qne nous avons pris l'initiative, par courtoisie et par respect pour le Conseil, de le tenir informé des dispositions que nous avons prises pour remplir le mandat qui nous a été confié. Je n'ai pas dit:”sans y avoir été obligés”. Mais je sais pourquoi M. Bula Hoyos l'a entendue; c'est parce que je l'avais écrit, puis rejeté de mon texte. Malheureusement, j'ai transmis mon texte non corrigé aux interprètes. Je demande donc aux interprètes de m'excuser. La prochaine fois, je n'écrirai rien. D'abord, je lis très mal ce que j'ai écrit. Je m'excuse donc auprès de M. Bula Hoyos et peut-être aussi auprès des anglophones et des représentants d'autres langues qui ont entendu cette phrase malencontreuse. Elle est en effet très malencontreuse parce qu'en fait, que nous y soyons obligés ou non, je dois dire que les deux comités n'hésitent pas, sur la proposition de leur président, à vous faire rapport. Je crois que cela va de soi, même si ce n'est pas dans la résolution: il faut que vous sachiez où l'on en est puisque, in fine, il faut bien que vous sachiez ce qui s'est passé pour apprécier les rapports que nous vous présenterons. Je m'excuse donc du quid pro quo mais cela nous a permis de rire à la dernière minute, ce qui n'est pas plus mal·
Ensuite, on a dit qu'il y a trop d'experts. Je ferai remarquer que le paragraphe 1 de la résolution dit que le choix des experts sera fait en tenant compte d'une répartition géographique équilibrée. Il n'est donc guère possible de faire à moins si l'on veut tenir compte du mandat explicite qui est d'étudier les objectifs, les priorités, etc. D'ailleurs, avec votre permission, nous avons encore ajouté les activités de terrain. Cela fait beaucoup mais c'est peut-être utile parce que ces gens travaillent dans différentes parties du monde. J'ajouterai qu'avec notre proposition initiale, certaines parties géographiques ne se trouvaient pas très bien servies. On avait visé trop court. Je crois que notre proposition initiale était de 6-4 et que nous sommes arrivés à 7-5, si je ne me trompe pas.
Ensuite, 11 y aurait trop de voyages et pas assez d'experts dans les pays en développement. M. Bonte-Friedheim pourra sans doute vous donner des informations détaillées sur ce point. Mais ce que je veux dire, c'est que les experts vont dans les pays en développement dans les bureaux régionaux, dans les représentations de la FAO; ils vont étudier des projets, des programmes de terrain, etc. Dans quelle mesure la proportion est-elle respectée? Vous jugerez sur pièces.
Je dois dire que nous avons jugé qu'il était utile de faire appel â des experts comme la Résolution nous y invitait.
En second lieu, si nous faisons appel à des experts, qu'il y en ait deux ou trois de plus ou de moins, qu'ils fassent un gros travail ou un travail seulement moyen, je ne crois pas que ça va beaucoup changer le prix.
Par contre, nous avons pris ce travail très au sérieux, et nous attendons beaucoup du travail des experts. Nous en attendons beaucoup, comme les Etats Membres ici l'ont manifesté, et comme leurs représentants dans les comités l'ont dit. Si on fait un examen, il faut le faire bien. C'est comme cela que nous interprétons notre tâche. Il faut en tirer le maximum. Cela coûtera peut-être 25 ou 30% de plus, mais je crois qu'entre”bien fait” et”â moitié fait”, on a jugé que cela valait la peine que ce soit bien fait.
Nous avions d'abord visé trop court. Nous avions dit aux experts, â la première réunion de notre Comité en mai: vous nous rendrez les rapports en novembre, afin que nous les examinions dans une session spéciale conjointe qui serait accolée éventuellement à la session de janvier pour examen. C'est cela que nous vous avions dit. Personnellement: je n'y ai jamais cru, mais il y avait une décision collective et je n'ai pas le droit de veto. Je n'y ai jamais cru, parce que j'imaginais le travail que cela représentait et que je savais que ce ne serait pas possible puisque déjà cela démarrait pendant les vacances.
Lorsque les experts ont reçu leur mandat, ils ont discuté entre eux comment ils allaient s'organiser. Ils ont dit: nous ne pouvons pas faire cela pour novembre, ou alors ce ne sera pas sérieux. Ils ont fait un programme. Les deux présidents, les deux Comités et le Secrétariat ont jugé qu'il fallait leur laisser non seulement la liberté d'information, mais le temps nécessaire pour que cette liberté existe réellement, et aussi la liberté de mouvement. Ils ont fait le rapport en septembre. Ils ont donné à la fois leur programme de travail, la manière dont ils envisageaient de prendre le travail. Ils ont parfois donné quelques idées, mais certainement pas sur leurs conclusions. Nous avons eu un débat. Dans ce débat nous avons exprimé notre point de vue sur la méthode de travail, sur les orientations, etc., mais nous n'avons pas beaucoup donné de conseils sur le fond. Nous attendons un rapport d'experts qui n'est pas fait sur ordre. Ils sont soumis à un tas d'influences. Si ce sont des experts, ils ont aussi des opinions. Ils doivent trier ces influences. Ce ne sont pas les nôtres qui vont les contraindre.
Nous voulons par là même garder notre entière liberté de jugement sur les rapports qu'ils vont nous remettre. S'ils mettent dans leurs rapports ce que nous avons dit d'y mettre, qu'est-ce que nous allons dire à la fin?
Les rapports seront-ils trop lourds? Il va y avoir 4 rapports: un rapport sur les objectifs et stratégies, un rapport sur les activités de terrain, un rapport sur la gestion et l'administration, et un rapport du Directeur général formulant ses observations sur tout cela. Ce n'est pas un programme de travail et de budget, chacun de ces rapports. Ce sont des rapports sur des questions stratégiques. Ce sont des rapports de synthèse et chacun d'eux fera quelques dizaines de pages -personnellement sur des questions comme celles-là je pense que cela pourrait tenir dans dix pages, mais vous en seriez trop déçus parce que pour un rapport sur les objectifs et stratégies nous attendons 50 pages. On ne va pas fixer le nombre de pages, d'autant plus que le nombre des caractères est variable et suivant le nombre de caractères par page ça peut varier du simple au triple. Quatre rapports de quarante pages, ça va faire 160 pages. On a l'habitude d'avaler des choses pires... - excusez-moi, je retire cette parole - enfin disons plus lourdes, disons moins digestes parce qu'elles sont plus détaillées, plus circonstanciées.
Ce n'est pas cela qui est difficile.
Le problème, c'est que cet examen n'a rien à voir par sa nature et ses qualités avec le type d'examen que nous faisons habituellement d'un programme de travail et de budget ou d'un programme d'activité quelconque, parce qu'un Programme de travail et budget c'est quelque chose qui est dans la continuité, avec quelques changements, de ce qui se faisait avant, qui relève dans sa conception, dans son contenu, dans ses moyens d'expression, des dizaines de recommandations qui sont venues de tous les organes directeurs, de comités techniques, etc. A la limite, c'est un discours qu'on a déjà entendu dix fois avec des changements, des modifications, des progressions et de nouvelles proportions. Cela peut être très différent, et normalement ça doit l'être, cela peut être même tout à fait révolutionnaire: est-ce que vous pensez qu'on va discuter cela comme d'habitude? A mon avis, non. Notre travail est de réfléchir, de trier, de conserver, d'éliminer, de rendre compatible tout cela, de travailler dessus de manière à fabriquer un document qui aura le consensus des deux comités, et ensuite le vote de la Conférence. C'est tout un travail de construction de notre rapport. Et cela va se faire par les débats.
Mais ce dont je suis sûr - et je m'avance, parce que ce sont les deux comités qui en décideront, mais je commence à avoir l'habitude de ce qu'on peut faire et de ce qu'on ne peut pas faire: on va faire un compte rendu de nos discussions en session qui sera adopté le dernier après-midi avant de prendre l'avion - mais ce dont je suis sûr c'est que le rapport que vous attendez, on ne peut pas le faire en session. C'est impossible. Je ne marche pas pour être, avec quelques victimes du Secrétariat, le comité de rédaction de ce rapport qui serait celui qu'on devrait soumettre à la Conférence. Je vous dis d'avance que je ne ferai pas ce rapport en session. Il est bien évident que nous ferons un rapport sur lequel nous pourrons nous appuyer pour élaborer le rapport que vous attendez, qui sera d'abord soumis aux deux comités dans une autre session, avant de vous être soumis au Conseil et ensuite à la Conférence.
Je partage complètement l'impatience, l'attente, le désir d'avoir des ingrédients à discuter le plus tôt possible. Il y en aura sans doute. Mais je répète ce que je vous ai dit dans ma première observation et qui tombait sous le sens, qu'il fallait que nous fassions rapport aujourd'hui sur l'état d'avancement de l'examen. Il est bien évident que les deux comités jugeront de la même manière en mai. Les deux comités vous présenteront certainement un rapport intérimaire à votre session de juin. Mais ce qui est à mon avis à peu près sûr, c'est que ce ne sera pas le rapport définitif. Il n'aura pas encore été approuvé. Il faudra qu'il soit rédigé après la session de mai. Cela demandera 8 jours, 15 jours, trois semaines. Les experts auront mis six mois, et nous, vous allez nous donner combien de temps? Il nous faut quelques semaines. Il faut ensuite que ce soit traduit, soumis à une autre session conjointe des deux comités. Le rapport en question ne peut être que provisoire. Il faut qu'il soit approuvé, éventuellement amendé. Il faut qu'il soit retraduit, qu'il ait les observations du Directeur général. Mais ce n'est pas parce que nous accordons au travail des experts la plus grande attention et la plus grande importance que nous allons abdiquer la responsabilité finale que nous a attribuée la Résolution 6 - 87 qui est de faire, nous, notre rapport sur ces questions.
Ce rapport, ce n'est pas un commentaire comme ceux que nous faisons sur un PTB, il faut bien comprendre la différence; il me semble que, en écoutant les trois quarts des interventions des collègues qui sont intervenus ici avant moi, vous allez déjà dans ce sens; j'imagine déjà ce qu'ils vont décider mais je serais étonné que cela soit en contradiction avec ce que je viens de vous dire; en tout cas, soyez certains que nous tirerons parti de vos observations, nous y prêtons beaucoup d'attention et nous en tiendrons compte dans la mesure où elles ne sont pas radicalement contradictoires, ce qui d'ailleurs ne semble pas le cas... vos observations seront précieuses et nous les utiliserons.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie Monsieur MAZOYER pour ses explications et donne la parole au Directeur général·
LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Il est déjà très tard, et je suis ici avec trois de mes collègues dont chacun a la responsabilité d'un comité chargé de fournir aux experts les renseignements qu'ils souhaitent. Ils doivent aussi m'aider à préparer mon rapport.
Comme l'a précisé la Conférence, je suis également partie prenante puisque je suis invité à formuler mes vues et observations; et j'ai même l'honneur de présenter les conclusions et les recommandations de l'étude au Conseil puis à la Conférence.
Je dois donc faire personnellement un rapport et respecter le mandat fixé par la Conférence.
Deux questions ont en fait été posées. La première était de savoir si les deux comités avalent compris les objectifs de l'étude tels que définis par la résolution de la Conférence. Dans sa présentation, le Professeur Mazoyer a expliqué comment les deux comités ont réagi à la résolution, comment ils ont interprété leur mandat suite aux objectifs fixés.
Il a expliqué que le Directeur général avait lui-même proposé d'élargir le champ de l'étude, mais il semble que les délégués du Royaume-Uni, du Canada et de l'Australie estiment que des sujets ont été omis; certains sujets ne font effectivement pas partie du mandat; ces délégués se posent la question de savoir si le rapport traitera de ces sujets.
Soyons clairs à ce sujet. Monsieur Mazoyer a indiqué comment les deux comités ont interprété les objectifs fixés par la résolution de la Conférence.
Puis, les délégués de l'Inde et du Brésil ont estimé que le Conseil n'avait pas à modifier les objectifs définis dans la résolution de la Conférence, ni à donner des instructions aux deux comités à cet égard.
C'est là une discussion entre délégués qui ne concerne qu'eux.
L. seconde question était la suivante: le Conseil est-il d'accord ou pas pour qu'il y ait une nouvelle procédure pour la préparation et la discussion du niveau du budget et pour l'orientation du programme de travail pour le prochain biennium? Il me semble que la réponse a été positive.
Je voudrais quand même dire que le Conseiller juridique lui-même a précisé que cette nouvelle procédure n'était pas prévue aux articles XXXVII et XXXVIII du Règlement général; le Règlement général a fixé une certaine procédure; et là, c'est une procédure supplémentaire qui, selon le Conseiller juridique, ne s'impose pas au Directeur général. J'aurais pu me réfugier derrière les textes réglementaires et demander une modification du Règlement général.
Mais il n'était pas question d'hésiter puisque c'est un problème très important et que cette même procédure a été acceptée d'une façon informelle par d'autres organisations comme l'OMS, le BIT et les Nations Unies.
J'ai accepté d'emblée pour cet exercice; on a dit que ce serait une expérience.
On a dit:”pourquoi cinq pages”... pourquoi pas six ou sept; les délégations qui ont fait cette proposition à la Conférence ont demandé un texte court.
Parlons maintenant très franchement: il s'agit là d'un désir de certains pays membres de pouvoir influencer à l'avance le Directeur général quant à la fixation du niveau du budget et quant aux grandes orientations.
Personnellement c'est quelque chose que je ne crains pas; je reçois tous les jours des propositions et des pressions.
Il se peut que l'on ne trouve pas au mois de janvier ce que l'on recherche mais si à l'avenir on en vient à nous demander vingt ou vingt-cinq pages, ce sera difficile car il faudra commencer à préparer le niveau du budget encore plus tôt. La préparation du budget est un long travail.
Nous préparons en ce moment le sommaire du budget 1990-91. Nous allons proposer les programmes prioritaires; mais vous conviendrez avec moi qu'il serait très difficile d'expliquer un programme de près de 500 millions de dollars en cinq pages.
Cela dit, nous allons de l'avant et avec les experts et le Comité, nous allons examiner les idées incluses dans la proposition faite par les pays nordiques et d'autres qui souhaiteraient que l'on présente à la Conférence un Plan à moyen terme de six ans. Si c'est un Plan avec des indications budgétaires, peut-être ne sera-t-il plus nécessaire de faire la réunion de janvier, mais ce sera aux gouvernements de décider. Cette réunion de janvier, une fois par biennium, à partir d'un dossier de cinq pages, est une expérience qui peut évoluer et nous sommes prêts à la faire avec vous.
J'en reviens à la question principale: les deux comités qui représentent vingt Etats Membres ont-ils omis certaines parties de la résolution ?
Certains pays ont plus de chance que d'autres parce qu'ils sont, eux, au Comité du Programme ou financier, et qu'ils sont représentés par des experts de leur pays, tandis que d'autres ne sont qu'au Conseil et n'ont pas d'experts, et ne sont membres ni du Comité du programme, ni du Comité financier. Il aurait été préférable que ces remarques et désaccords sur le mandat des deux comités aient été discutés au Comité du programme. Le Canada par exemple en fait partie; l'Australie, elle, fait partie du Comité financier.
L'examen de la FAO est une opération très délicate. Il est impératif qu'en novembre prochain la Conférence prenne des décisions à ce sujet par consensus, mais il faut commencer dès maintenant à créer un climat favorable à ce consensus. Ceci a été le cas au sein des deux comités. Le consensus au sein du Conseil semble plus difficile à atteindre.
On a dit que le mandat des experts devrait inclure l'examen des procédures de décision à l'intérieur des différents comités et organes. Pour ma part, il me semble que la résolution de la Conférence est muette à ce sujet. On a aussi parlé d'examiner le fonctionnement des”governing bodies” c'est-à-dire le fonctionnement du Conseil, de la Conférence. Ceci non plus n'apparaît pas dans la résolution.
Mais si on prépare le terrain pour un nouvel examen de la FAO en 1992-1993, c'est autre chose; je ne crois pas que cela soit le cas. Si, à l'occasion des différentes recommandations, il y a lieu, par exemple, de revoir le fonctionnement du Conseil ou de tel comité, il faudra peut-être le faire; je suis sûr que certaines propositions exigeront peut-être l'élargissement du mandat de certains comités. L'eminent délégué de la Suisse avait déjà proposé à la Conférence qu'un comité étudie les activités de terrain et les politiques de développement de la FAO. Il y a plusieurs formules; par exemple, on peut demander au Conseil de se réunir plus longuement... Quoiqu'il en soit, l'examen du fonctionnement de chaque organe directeur ou délibérant ne figure pas dans la résolution.
Les remarques à propos des sujets d'étude non couverts par le mandat des experts m'inquiètent, parce que jusqu'à maintenant nous avancions par consensus; notre débat a été très bon mais j'espère qu'il n'y aura pas de malentendu dans le futur à ce sujet.
La distribution des ingrédients: ce n'est pas mon affaire... je compte préparer deux rapports: le premier pour exprimer mon point de vue sur la validité des différentes propositions dont la mise en oeuvre éventuelle concernera le Secrétariat. Il faut par conséquent que je vous dise si elles sont valides de notre point de vue, si elles sont coûteuses, compliquées, si elles ont un impact positif ou négatif sur des politiques, programmes, etc., c'est à une analyse critique que je compte me livrer.
Je ne vais pas me précipiter pour formuler toutes mes vues à propos de l'avenir de l'Organisation.
Je vais attendre parce que j'espère avoir la main heureuse comme, en toute modestie, je l'ai eue quand il s'est agi de présenter un texte sur la réforme de la procédure du budget-programme. J'ai écrit quelque chose moi-même après avoir écouté les points de vue, après avoir étudié la façon dont la question avait été traitée à l'OMS, un peu partout. Cela a marché. J'espère que mon rapport réunira un consensus. Peut-être va-t-il coller au vôtre, Messieurs les Présidents des deux Comités. Pourquoi pas ? Mais je crois que la diversité de vues est importante. Il faut que les pays membres disposent d'une diversité de vues.
Le 1er mars, certains d'entre vous pourront voir les rapports des experts, sans qu'il y ait lieu de faire distribution formelle. En tout cas, le rapport des experts n'est pas ma propriété. Ce sont les deux Comités qui décideront de son utilisation ou de sa diffusion.
Le Représentant de la Finlande, parlant au nom des pays nordiques, m'a un peu inquiété en parlant d'“evolving continuing process”. Je suis d'accord avec lui: l'examen de la réorganisation de la FAO n'est pas une chose qui est figée, mais j'espère qu'en 1989, il y aura consensus, que nous ne serons pas divisés et que l'on mettra un point final à cet examen. Il faudra sûrement faire rapport sur la mise en oeuvre. Mais il ne faudra pas ouvrir d'autres chapitres et revoir ce qui aura été décidé.
La déléguée des Etats-Unis et d'autres représentants ont parlé du commissaire extérieur aux comptes. Nous travaillons bien avec lui et nous n'avons aucune difficulté à montrer son rapport aux experts parce que c'est un document public. S'il a fait des remarques pertinentes, nous les communiquerons aux experts. S'agissant de l'étude de la gestion de la FAO, le Comité financier a reçu le nom de toutes les firmes que nous avons approchées. Ce sont des firmes des Etats-Unis et des pays européens. Il y en a 16 ou 17. Nous avons aussi communiqué aux membres du Comité le mandat fixé à ces conseils en gestion. Je crois avoir expliqué comment nous avons traité de cette affaire et je demanderai à M. Crowther de donner une réponse détaillée pour qu'il n'y ait aucun voile sur cette question. Le Danemark, le Royaume-Uni et les Etats-Unis ont posé des questions à ce sujet.
Ensuite, M. Shah vous parlera du coût. M. Bula Hoyos a voulu savoir le coût de cette réunion. M. Bonte-Friedheim vous parlera des voyages des experts dans le monde. Je crois que nous avons ainsi répondu à la plupart des questions.
D.K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): There were a number of questions raised concerning the management consultants: how they were selected, how the review will be conducted, whether the objectivity of the consultants can be retained and so forth. Some of these answers can be grouped together so that I shall review very quickly the process. We reported the details of the terms of reference to the Finance Committee and jointly to the Programme Committee so that there was a full understanding of the approach to be taken.
We did send out a very large tender to some 29 international organizations selected on a basis of both location, their international reputations, the abilities specifically to accomplish the works that we were asking for. Seventeen firms responded. From those seventeen firms, through a very detailed listing of criteria that had been included in the tender so that each of the firms knew how they would be evaluated, they were evaluated and three firms have finally been selected to perform all of this work.
It was requested that we list the names of the firms that submitted bids. Very quickly I shall go through that list; first from France, a company called Ernst & Whinney Conseil; Eurequip, S.A.; Idet Cegos; Sema-Metra; from the Federal Republic of Germany, Kienbaum UnterNehmensberatung; Roland Berger und Partner; from Italy, Arthur Andersen & Co., International, from their Rome office; Coopers & Lybrand, S.p.A., their Rome office; Price Waterhouse Associates, S.r.L, their Rome office; from the United Kingdom, Hay-MSL Management Consultants Group Ltd.; Hewitt Associates; McKinsey & Co., Inc. of the United Kingdom; PA Consulting Group; and Touche Ross Management Consultants; and from the United States, Johnson and Higgins Inc.; Peat Marwick Main & Co.; and Public Administration Services. From that group, the working group that the Director-General had established of senior officers that are involved in this process established six sub-groups to review carefully the proposals that had been received. The review was performed very carefully in accordance with the established procedures and criteria, points were awarded on each of the sections and the capability or quality-control section was evaluated first and then separately, in separate sealed envelopes the financial portion was opened and awarded and weighted accordingly and put together. The results of these six groups then were reported to the Working Group 3. Working Group 3 then drew up the short list from those recommended by the sub-groups and those on the short list were all called to Rome for personal interviews by the entire working group. The working group took some ten days specifically interviewing all the firms on the short list and made the final selection and has made the award. Two of the firms have already started work in Rome. In fact, one of the firms is in its second week already and so they are working and performing a great deal.
The question on quality and objectivity is an important one because we looked very carefully at both the reputation, the experience, the background of both the firms and the individuals. The reputations of the firms certainly are at stake and we were assured both during the interviews and in the proposals submitted by the tender that the firms would not affix their signature to a report unless they were totally satisfied that it represented their work uninfluenced, was objective and represented the independence of the firm. We rely heavily on the ethics of those firms to back up that statement.
Questions were raised concerning the scope of the review. The statement was made that it did not seem to be as far-reaching as hoped. There was not a mandate to review control systems. It was not clear as to how the financial statements might be improved and reviewed. I will very quickly go through the process so that I think there is a full and complete understanding. In the statement of work that was sent to each of the contractors, and they had to include full statements and justifications of how each would perform the work step-by-step on the financial side, there were a number of specific requirements that were included. It started with a requirement for reviewing our basic accounting policy procedures and regulations, starting with the Basic Text. Next, it included the implementation, in fact our procedures for carrying out those policies. Then it went into our procedures and practices under the accounting systems that existed. Next was the organizational structure for carrying out those specific practices in our financial division and those outposted officers in other divisions. Finally a separate section was required by each of the units on the financial reporting practices of the Organization. This was a very broad and wide portion because we wanted a very good independent, objective review of our financial reporting to all the government bodies as well as our internal management reports, under that section that more meaningful, useful, financial reports, statements for managers shall be included with increased timeliness, simplicity and clarity.
We have asked the management consultants to review all the reports that we prepare, not just those for management, but all the governing bodies, including our formal statements that are issued at the end of the bienniurn.
With respect to control, there is a requirement that the management consultants will review the practices that we now engage in the financial area that they may be streamlined or improved to provide for better financial control, both for internal management control purposes and for the control of costs as authorized by approved budgets.
Secondly, in the treasury area, we asked the management consultants to review our entire banking · operations, our investment operations, our expenditure operations, and all of our payment procedures. We asked that they examine the existing internal cash and banking control practices, giving particular attention to the movement, transfer, payment of funds to determine areas where control needs to be improved and areas where modification can be made to improve control to prevent error. A great deal of attention has been given to the control features of the management review and we expect that each of these will bear a separate section within the Report.
Questions were also raised concerning the personnel review, that it may not be as comprehensive as it should be. It too is a conceptual review, like the review of financial activities, conceptual because we are expecting a full complete umbrella review of all aspects of our financial activities. From it we expect the management consultants will make recommendations for more specific detailed reviews in particular areas where improvements could be sought. Nothing has escaped the management review umbrella. Every aspect of personnel has been included and every aspect of financial management has been included. Just to cover the specific point mentioned regarding the recommendation made by the external auditor, we have precisely taken the words from the external auditor's report and included it as a requirement on how we might implement the external auditor's report in the personnel review. We have asked him specifically to provide his guidance and report on that aspect.
I think I have covered all of those at this point and might finalize on the schedule because there was one question raised on the scheduling of the review. All six of the management consultant reviews, including the two conceptual reviews will have been completed and the final reports issued by the 31st of March. Now with regard to the conceptual reviews, certainly there will be recommendations for follow-on reviews and decisions will have to be made on the follow-on reviews but the reports both on the conceptual reviews as well as on the other four areas which will be finite specific reviews with recommendations will all be made available to the Organization no later than the 31st of March. The Director-General will prepare his report on those reports and have them available for the Finance Committee and the Programme Committee to review in May but those reviews are all on schedule, they are all within the budget which has been allotted for this review and we are expecting a considerable amount of independent objective thinking to improve the Organization's management and administrative areas anywhere that they can be identified that would be useful and helpful to the Organization.
V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-Cenerai, Office of Programme. Budget and Evaluation): The cost of the meeting envisaged for the Programme and Finance Committees I estimate at some $60 000.
My second reply is to the delegate of the United Kingdom who suggested that the extract of the Jansson Report be circulated to the Council. Quite frankly the Report was submitted to the Programme Committee. We do not have enough copies in all languages to circulate formally the document but for any member of the Council who wishes to have the extract and the particular paragraph referred to which was paragraph 82 which gives all the recommedations, no problem at all, come to me and we will make photocopies in the language you wish.
CH. BONTE-FRIEDHEIM (Assistant Director-Cenerai, Agriculture Department): There were two specific questions asked, one with regard to the visits of the experts and the second with regard to the selection of the countries for Group 2. Let me start with Group 1. Members of the experts of Group 1 visited Nairobi, Washington, New York, Vienna, Geneva and all of them visited the sister agencies in Rome. They visited four international financial institutions, the World Bank, IFAD, UNDP, and the Inter-American Development Bank. They visited the United Nations and 12 United Nations specialized agencies, WFC, WFP, UNICEF, UNFPA, UNEP, UNIDO, IEA, WHO, ILO, UNCTAD and GATT. In addition, the experts of Group 1 visited one international agriculture research institute, IFPRI, the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington.
The experts of Group 2, and before I say something about their visits I would like to remind Council members that three of them deal more or less daily with international agricultural development projects in their own country and one of them is the most senior international expert with long years of experience in many countries. Some of them visited China, they joined the Group 1 in Washington and New York. Some of them visited Chile, Brazil, Ethiopia, Senegal, and they will visit one international agricultural research institute, which is the International Center for Agricultural Research for Dryland Areas (ICARDIA) in Syria and they will still visit Turkey and Bangkok·
They also in Bangkok will visit the Regional Office, and in Santiago - Chile - they visited the Regional Office. In their country visits they have met with government officials, national institutions, donors, including NGOs. They have visited and met with national and international field experts and they have visited FAO projects as well as others.
A question raised by the representative of Bangladesh was how were the countries selected. They were selected on the following basis: to include as far as possible regional coverage, and if one of the countries that is being visited will be included in two regions - in Europe and the Near East - they will succeed in visiting all regions. The other criteria were the size of the field programme and the mix of funding sources, the diversity and subject matter coverage, the possibility of focusing on such issues as emergency operations, new dimensions, TCDC and environmental problems and collaboration with NGOs.
Hanau HALINEN (Finland): I would like to mention that the Director-General was not mistaken in quoting what I said about the continuous process. The evaluation of the functions, including the administration of international organizations, is a regular feature in many parts of the UN system. My delegation was very careful not to say how this process should go on. I think it is up to the Conference to decide but this point usually arises as an internal exercise as I see it.
Finally, I would like to thank Assistant Director-General Crowther for a very comprehensive reply to the concerns and questions raised.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Rindo homenaje a la competencia y franqueza con que respondió el Prof. Mazoyer, Presidente del Comité del Programa. El ha dado respuesta a algunos de los interrogantes que habíamos planteado, y creemos que éste ha sido un debate constructivo y democrático. Sin embargo, falta la respuesta a una pregunta que consideramos fundamental. Deseamos saber si el informe de la sesión especial de los Comités en enero estará dirigido, como de costumbre, al Consejo o solamente al Director General.
En relación con la gestión de las cuestiones administrativas, confiamos en la competencia de la Secretaría, y sólo por curiosidad queremos preguntarle al Sr. Crowther si existe en algún país en desarrollo alguna firma con fama y experiencia en gestiones administrativas.
Señor Presidente, se ha repetido aquí, en este debate, que con las ideas que se expusieron se perseguía el propósito de enriquecer a los expertos. Nosotros pensamos que una sola declaraci ón de una eminente Delegación no solamente ha enriquecido a los expertos, sino que los ha vuelto millonarios. Sí, Sr. Presidente, porque se ha producido aquí una confusión en una d eclaración que consideramos improcedente de auditores externos, más consultores, personal, puestos..., todas esas cosas que son prerrogativa del Director General. Quisiéramos, Sr. Presidente, que en el informe no se incluya nada, ni lo más mínimo, que pueda significar interferencia ni limitación a la labor de los expertos, los cuales deben ser completamente independientes.
Finalmente, me excuso con el colega de Australia. No sé si le entendí bien; si el habló del siglo XIX o del siglo XV, cuando descubrieron América. Naturalmente, entendemos debidamente todo eso. El vive en un país lindo, agradable, muy respetable, situado en las antípodas. Cuando viene a este otro lado del mundo, le acogemos con mucha simpatía y le decimos que acá estamos en el siglo XX.
LE PRESIDENT: Le Directeur général pourrait peut-être répondre à toutes ces questions concernant la Session conjointe de janvier.
LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Si je m'en tiens au paragraphe 1.10 du document CL 94/4, cette réunion sera une réunion de consultation entre les membres du Comité financier, du Comité du Programme et le Directeur général. Le but est de connaître à l'avance le niveau du budget auquel est arrivé le Directeur général, après une préparation intensive qui a commencé au mois de septembre et qui d'ailleurs n'est pas encore terminée. Après le Conseil, je dois me pencher sur cet énorme dossier et établir le niveau du budget. C'est une consultation. Le rapport du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier sera traité de la même façon que les autres rapports destinés au Conseil.
Vous avez été vous-même Président du Comité du Programme et Président du Conseil. Jamais le Comité du Programme n'a distribué le rapport, sauf au Conseil. Ce serait une complication et une exception si le rapport devait être distribué aux 158 membres sans attendre la réunion du mois de juin. En juin, il y aura ce rapport. J'imagine déjà ce qu'il y aura dans ce rapport. Il sera peut-être difficile d'arriver à un accord sur le niveau du budget. Il y en aura qui seront pour et d'autres qui seront contre. J'espère quand même qu'on pourra arriver au consensus. Si on peut le faire, je serai très content.
Quant aux priorités, elles sont connues: le Plan forestier tropical, les ressources phytogénétiques, etc. Comme on l'a dit, il n'y a pas de nouvelles priorités. Il y en aura peut-être qui manqueront, mais je crois qu'on va surtout parler du niveau du budget.
Là aussi ce sera une expérience.
Vous saurez tous quel sera le niveau du budget que j'aurai présenté; comme je l'ai dit à propos de cet examen des activités de la FAO, je suis toujours prêt à écouter et à informer.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous arrivons aux termes de la discussion. Cela aura été le sujet le plus important que notre Conseil ait traité au cours de cette session. Le Conseil a étudié avec grand intérêt le rapport intérimaire sur l'examen de la FAO présenté par le Président du Comité du Programme; il nous a fait part de son accord pour l'adoption à titre expérimental pour le biennium 1990-1991 du projet de réforme de la procédure du budget et programme.
Nous sommes également satisfaits des initiatives prises par le Directeur général qui a inclus deux études complémentaires, une sur le programme de terrain et l'autre sur l'administration et les finances; le conseil a pris note en particulier du calendrier prévisionnel pour la remise de ces études·
Sans vouloir interférer avec le travail des deux Comités, il me semble que ce débat a fourni aux deux Présidents la possibilité de prendre connaissance des remarques et suggestions de quelques Etats Membres sur le contenu des études et je pense que les Présidents de comités pourront en tirer bénéfice pour la réalisation de leur étude.
Notre discussion de ce jour à jeté un éclairage supplémentaire sur le travail attendu par tout le monde pour améliorer l'efficacité de la FAO.
LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: On a demandé que le rapport du Conseil soit disponible non seulement pour les membres du Comité du Programme mais aussi pour les experts. Sans vouloir parler au nom des deux Présidents, ce document est public, c'est un fait; les experts ont demandé de nombreux documents à la FAO; ce document aussi sera entre leurs mains; je vous le dis
LE PRESIDENT: Je tiens à remercier Messieurs les Délégués et les Observateurs pour leur patience. Nous aurons demain une réunion présidée par le Président du Comité du Programme sur le Rapport Jansson; nous en avions fait la promesse; ce sera l'occasion d'un échange de vues sur ce point précis.
The meeting rose at 21.45 hours
La séance est levée à 21 h 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 21.45 horas
