LE PRESIDENT: Je déclare ouverte cette onzième séance plénière.
Nous avons à notre ordre du jour ce matin le point 11: Rapport intérimaire sur l'exécution du budget et programme approuvé pour 1992-93. Ce rapport se réfère aux documents suivants: CL 102/13 et CL 102/13 Sup.1 qui donne la situation financière en contributions courantes et en arriérés des contributions, actualisées au regard du rapport intérimaire qui fut examiné d'une part par le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier, en session conjointe, et d'autre part, de manière approfondie par le Comité du Programme. Je vous renvoie, à ce sujet, au document CL 102/17, paragraphes 1.1-1.16: "Rapport intérimaire sur l'exécution du budget-programme approuvé pour 1992-93". Il s'agit du rapport de la session conjointe du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier ainsi que du document contenant les rapports de la 65ème session du Comité du Programme et de la 74ème session du Comité financier.
Vous vous souviendrez que lors de la 25ème session de la Conférence de la FAO, qui se tint en novembre 1991 fut adoptée la Résolution 5/91 qui prévoit que le Directeur général prend les dispositions nécessaires pour transmettre un rapport par l'intermédiaire du Comité des finances et du Comité du Programme. La Résolution 4/91 demande au Directeur général de soumettre au Conseil à sa 102ème session - c'est-à-dire la présente session - par l'intermédiaire du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier le rapport, sur les progrès accomplis, quant aux suites données au budget-programme approuvé.
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Presidente, Comité de Finanzas): Voy a leer un breve Informe sobre la Ejecución del Presupuesto del Programa aprobado para 1992-93.
Este tema fue examinado por los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas en septiembre, de conformidad con las orientaciones de la Conferencia. Yo fui quien presidió la reunión de los dos Comités cuando se trató este tema. Por ello, tengo el privilegio de transmitir al Consejo las opiniones de los dos Comités.
No voy a informar sobre la situación actual de las contribuciones pendientes al Presupuesto Ordinario, al Fondo de Operaciones y a la Cuenta Especial de Reserva, puesto que la Secretaria ya hizo eso en días pasados. Por lo tanto, voy a limitarme únicamente a los puntos que merecen la atención de los Comités.
En primer lugar, acogemos con satisfacción el renovado compromiso de los Estados Unidos de América de saldar rápidamente las cuotas asignadas, asi como
de abonar el primer plazo de los atrasos. Es esta una novedad muy positiva. A este respecto, naturalmente nos permitimos los dos Comités renovar a todos los Estados Miembros a que abonen rápida e íntegramente los pagos correspondientes tanto a sus atrasos como a las cuotas corrientes.
En segundo lugar, los Comités elogiaron el enfoque adoptado por el Director General con respecto a la ejecución del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto aprobado para 1992-93. Los Comités estuvieron de acuerdo en que, en medio de todas las dificultades que había tenido que afrontar, el Director General había elegido la línea de acción más realista.
En tercer lugar, los Comités tomaron nota con pesar de las repercusiones en los programas de la reducción de las asignaciones, esto ha sido una cosa triste debido al nivel de presupuesto y ha sido aprobado. Los miembros de ambos Comités expresaron su preocupación por el hecho de que habían resultado perjudicados programas prioritarios. No obstante, reconocemos que se han protegido las prioridades establecidas en la medida de lo posible. En particular, la mayoría de los Comités atribuyen importancia al hecho de que no ha resultado perjudicado el Programa de Cooperación Técnica.
En cuarto lugar, los Comités estuvieron de acuerdo con el procedimiento y con la utilización del pago del primer plazo de los atrasos de los Estados Unidos.
Por último, los Comités concluyeron expresando su viva esperanza de que los elementos positivos expuestos en el documento que se les presenta surtan plenamente efecto lo antes posible. Hemos aprobado los objetivos del Director General para conseguir la ejecución máxima del Programa de Trabajo aprobado y continuar aplicando sus prudentes criterios en la administración de los recursos de que dispone la Organización.
Me he atenido a estos cinco puntos, haciendo una exposición breve y creo que la Secretaría puede completar resaltando los detalles sobre los puntos a los que me he referido y que fueron acordados por los Comités.
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais attirer l'attention des membres du Conseil sur l'importance de ce point de l'ordre du jour. En effet, il concerne la vie même de l'Organisation puisqu'il s'agit de l'exécution du budget et de la situation dans laquelle s'est trouvé le Directeur général au début de l'année 1992, pour tenter, avec des moyens financiers fortement réduits, de faire le maximum en consentant un certain nombre de sacrifices qui, incontestablement, ont été de nature à porter atteinte à la capacité de l'Organisation d'assumer sa tâche.
Ce point, particulièrement important, suscitera j'en suis sûr, de nombreuses réactions de la part du Conseil.
V.J. SHAH (Deputy Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Mr Chairman, after the introduction that you have given to this Item, and the statement by the Chairman of the Finance Committee, my task is considerably easier.
You, Mr Chairman, have set the stage for this Progress Report by recalling Conference Resolution 4/91. The fact is that it was the Conference which requested the Director-General to submit this Report through the Programme and
Finance Committees to this Session of the Council, in the context of the approval of the Programme of Work and Budget for this biennium.
As you recall, Mr Chairman, the Conference approved the Programme of Work of US$679.9 million, but at the same time, approved a net base budgetary appropriation of US$645.6 million; that is to say, with a gap of US$31.3 million in meeting the budgetary provision required for the implementation of all approved activities.
At the same time, I think it is very necessary to recall that this unprecedented approval of the Conference was - and I quote from the Conference Report, paragraph 198 - "based on a specific commitment from the United States of America regarding the amounts and timing of its payments relating to current assessments and arrears."
The financial situation which the Council has already considered, shows the healthy developments which have taken place so far during this year. As you have fully debated, I do not need to comment on it further.
Let me then turn to the aspects which the Director-General considered in directing the work of the Organization and implementing the approved Programme of Work during this year. In the document we have tried to describe the careful and cautious approach taken by the Director-General in making the allotments to all units for 1992. The initial allotments were subjected to a process of financial planning which has been described in the document, and following the review of the financial plans by the issuance of some supplementary allotments, following the receipt of the first instalment of the US arrears. These have been reviewed and discussed with and by the Programme and Finance Committees, whose reactions and endorsement have just been given to you by the Chairman of the Finance Committee.
One of the issues which will, no doubt, be in the forefront of your considerations is the issue of priorities. Is there a methodology, is there a set of principles which have been followed in the implementation of the approved Programme Budget?
Let me start by recalling briefly that the priorities which are in this Programme of Work are not the priorities of the Secretariat. These are the priorities which the Conference approved when it approved the Programme of Work. These priorities are based on the methodology which has been set by the Conference itself. It was as a result of the FAO Review, the Review of the goals and the objectives of FAO during 1988 and 1989, that the Conference accepted and set the guidelines of priority setting. These guidelines which are in the Programme of Work and Budget document, do bear recall because they are very pertinent and very brief. There are five guidelines: firstly, articulation and justification of the problem to be addressed by FAO; secondly, evidence of FAO's comparative advantage in the problem of sector to which priority is given; thirdly, the benefit of the priority activity to a broad segment of FAO's membership; fourthly, the compatibility of the priority activity with the recognized roles of FAO; and fifthly, complementarity with other priorities - that is to say, between the priorities themselves.
The priorities were then set by the Conference in the approved Programme of Work and Budget. By issuing reduced allotments for 1992, the Director-General did emphasize these priorities to all Programme managers, and reiterated that these Programme priorities had to be protected to the maximum extent possible.
The most outstanding example I can give of this is the fact that the Technical Cooperation Programme has not been cut.
However, as the Council will note, and we have noted, from the document which describes the implications of reduced allotments on Programme activities, it is evident that not every single activity, even among the priority sectors, can be totally protected.
There are two aspects I would urge the Council to bear in mind: firstly, that even where priority activities have been affected, we have tried to be judicious in selecting those for reduced implementation or for postponement or even, in a few instances, for cancellation, those activities which are not at the core of priorities. Secondly, the implications in terms of reduced Programme implementation are supposed to be a process of regeneration. By this I mean that, as the resources have become available, as the allotments are increased, and, particularly in the coming year, if the organizational units can be assured of the requisite level of allotments, we in the Secretariat intend to pursue the implementation of the approved Programme with vigour. It is the intention of the Director-General to ensure the maximum implementation of the Programme of Work approved by the Conference.
The Programme and Finance Committees have commended this approach of the Director-General. They have agreed with the approach and the use of the first instalment of the payment of arrears by the United States.
In conclusion, I can only say that the continued improvement of the financial situation which you all recognize is a responsibility of Member Nations. It will permit, if exercised as we expect, the Director-General to fulfil the expectations of you, the Member Nations, for the implementation of the improved Programme of Work. The Programme and Finance Committees, and you, Sir, in the Council, will have the opportunity to see the further developments and to assess them at your Session in June next year, the developments which have taken place between now and then, and to make an assessment of the balance of the biennium.
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais clairement souligner quelle est la portée de la Résolution 4/91 de la Conférence qui a approuvé un Programme de travail et budget d'un montant total de 676,9 millions de dollars mais qui n'a ouvert qu'un crédit de 645,6 millions de dollars, c'est-à-dire inférieur de 31,3 millions de dollars, tenant compte de l'engagement qui a été cité in extenso. comme M. Shah vient de le rappeler, au paragraphe 198 du rapport de la Conférence.
Le Programme de travail et budget doit être exécuté, mais n'a pu l'être, compte tenu de la situation de trésorerie de 1992, et des sacrifices ont dû être consentis, bien que, compte tenu du rétablissement de la situation financière tout au moins partiel de la FAO, un effort tout particulier devra être déployé dès maintenant et au cours de l'année 1993, pour exécuter dans son intégralité le Programme de travail et budget, tel qu'il a été décidé par la Conférence de novembre 1991.
Donc, il me parait extrêmement important, pour éviter toute équivoque, de constater que pour des raisons de trésorerie en 1992 des sacrifices ont dû être consentis, étant entendu que dès le rétablissement de la situation financière il était indispensable de prévoir les mesures adéquates voulues
pour que puisse se réaliser la volonté de la Conférence d'exécuter intégralement le Programme de travail et budget 1992-1993.
Si un certain nombre d'activités ont dû être sacrifiées en 1992, il est clair que dans toute la mesure du possible la situation devra se normaliser et qu'un effort tout particulier devra être déployé en 1993.
Je demanderai maintenant aux Membres du Conseil qui désirent intervenir sur cette question de bien vouloir s'inscrire.
Nous avons comme orateurs inscrits: Chypre, le Liban, l'Inde, l'Australie, le Congo, les Etats-Unis d'Amérique, le Royaume-Uni, la Suède, l'Allemagne, la République islamique d'Iran, le Canada, le Japon, Trinidad et Tobago.
Christodoulos CHRISTODOULOU (Cyprus): We welcome the progress report of the Director-General and the views of the joint meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees. The approval of the Programme of Work and Budget by the Conference for 1992-93 has involved an unprecedented situation. The Conference has asked for the implementation of the full Programme of Work. At the same time, it set the level of appropriation at US$31 million less. It did so on the explicit understanding of the timing and amounts of arrears to be paid by the major contributor. We are pleased to note that the first instalment of these payments has been received, and we trust that further payments will follow as envisaged.
In the circumstances the Director-General has been wise to follow a cautious course in limiting initial allotments and making additional allotments as resources become available. Inevitably, this has involved reducing and postponing the implementation of some approved programmes. We regret that this had to be done at all. However, as it was unavoidable we are satisfied that it has been done with circumspection and with a view to limited damage. In particular, we are pleased that the Technical Cooperation Programme has not been subject to any reduction.
Amin ABDEL-MALEK (Liban) (Langue originale arabe): Je remercie M. Di Mottola, Président du Comité financier, pour son excellente introduction, et également M. Shah pour le complément d'information qu'il a donné au Conseil à propos du rapport du Directeur général sur l'exécution du budget-programme approuvé pour 1992-93.
Nous savons pertinemment que le Directeur général a dû faire des sacrifices importants, dans les premiers mois de cette année, pour mettre en oeuvre le budget-programme, malgré l'insuffisance des versements des contributions. Nous ne pouvons donc qu'exprimer notre gratitude au Directeur général pour ses efforts dans ce domaine, et nous voudrions également remercier le Secrétariat qui a su mettre en oeuvre ce programme avec des ressources limitées.
Nous saisissons cette occasion pour réitérer notre gratitude et notre appréciation aux Etats-Unis qui sont les plus gros contributeurs de l'Organisation, et qui ont payé leur contribution pour 1992, ce qui a permis à l'Organisation de continuer l'exécution du budget-programme, sans avoir recours aux emprunts.
Nous voudrions lancer un appel aux Etats Membres qui auraient des retards des contributions pour 1992, pour qu'ils paient leurs contributions afin de faciliter le travail de l'Organisation.
Vishnu BHAGWAN (India): On behalf of my delegation, I thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee for introducing the subject. I also compliment Mr Shah on his lucid and clear comments as usual.
Looked at in the background of the approved Programme of Work amounting to US$676.9 million against which an appropriation of only US$645.6 million was allowed, thus leaving a gap of US$31.3 million, along with anticipated income shortfalls due to non-payment and late payment of assessed contributions by members, my delegation fully appreciates the action of the Director-General in making a conservative and realistic allocation of less than 50 percent for the first year of the current biennium, as indicated on page 9 of the document.
My delegation fully endorses this approach and is pleased to note that the allocation to the Technical Cooperation Programme has been proportionately maintained for the first year without any cuts.
My Government attaches very high priority to this programme of FAO. Not only does it support the current allocation but it would like to see the total allocation to this programme as a percentage of the Programme of Work and Budget increased to 14 percent in pursuance of the Resolution of the FAO Conference.
While I am on the subject, I should like to mention that a new category of TCP, that is Category C, was approved by the FAO Council/Conference in 1985 to support technical and economic cooperation among developing countries, research networks and twinning of institutions. It was recognized that the support of the TCDC will be catalytic in nature and participating countries will meet as much of the local costs as their capacities permit. The Programme of Work and Budget 1988-89 document estimated that roughly 10 percent of the TCP resources would go to the new Category C. This is paragraph 26, chapter 4 of document C 87/3. The Review of Field Programmes 1986-90, however, indicates that during the period 1986-90 this category accounts for only 3 percent of TCP resources, that is US$5.5 million out of US$174.4 million. This is paragraph 3.64 of document C 91/4. This calls for a more positive and forward looking approach without compromising the basic TCP criteria and TCP prerequisites.
Close to 40 percent of the approved projects in Category C have been in the field of training, thus underlining the importance of manpower development through the use of indigenous resources and capacities of developing countries. Investment in human resources development has long term sustainable and multiplying effects. We believe that this trend should be encouraged and accelerated.
My delegation has noted with satisfaction the improvement that has been made in the receipt of current assessed contribution which would definitely ease the financial pressure on the Organization. We are also hopeful that not only the cuts, slowing down and deferment of programmes in priority sectors relating to environment and sustainable development, policy advice, women development, and TCDC, will now be restored, but also the complete Programme
of Work and Budget will be implemented as per the normal allocations without any sacrifice. This is the wish which you expressed, Mr Chairman, and we wholly concur with it.
John Bruce SHARPE (Australia): We thank you, Mr Chairman, and Mr Shah for your excellent introductions. Australia is a member of the Programme Committee which considered this report at its Sixty-fifth Session in September. I would, however, in this larger forum, like to reiterate some of Australia's views on the Director-General's report.
At first sight document CL 102/13 - the Director-General's Progress Report on the Implementation of the Approved Programme Budget 1992-93 - appears to be a gloomy one. With the provisional allotments there are cutbacks and reductions to virtually all programmes and projects, some of which each of us here holds dear.
There are, however, some bright spots. It is gratifying to note from paragraph 36 of the report that some trends point to a more favourable prospect of enhanced implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget. This has been reinforced by the knowledge that contributions and arrears payment have been received from our two largest contributors.
The Organization is to be congratulated for facing up to the tough decisions required in implementing this biennium's programme budget. It is noted from paragraph 27 and 29 that the Director-General endeavoured to spare resource cuts to priority areas as much as possible.
Naturally there are a number of areas where Australia is disappointed to see a scaling down of activities as reflected in Appendix 2 of CL 102/13. I am sure all countries and regions represented here will have similar disappointments as regards areas of interest to them. In our case the areas include the implementation of the Prior Informed Consent Clause, reduced activity levels under Plans of Action for Women in Development, reduced trade and trade policy analysis and the reduction in services to member countries under the Tropical Forests Action Programme.
In other areas of interest to us, work has been slowed down or postponed. These include work on the recommendations of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources and updating trade barrier data for forest products. In areas where a slowing down or postponement has occurred we would ask the Secretariat to ensure that such projects are not forgotten or slip off the table and that they stay on the agenda by way of the Medium-Term Plan for a time when, hopefully, there is a sufficient increase in resources available to enable their implementation.
From a regional point of view there are a number of areas where the stated impact in Appendix 2 is cause for concern. These include a delay in the study and development of International Schemes for the Conservation and Rehabilitation of Lands in Asia and the Pacific; and the postponement until 1993 of expert consultations on research management in small and least developed Asia-Pacific countries.
Of particular concern to the small Southwest Pacific countries so dependent on their fisheries will be the reductions in this area including reduced direct assistance to member countries in fisheries development planning,
investment and small-scale fisheries development and management; reduced assistance to developing countries in the improvement of national statistical systems; and scaled down development of stock assessment methods as well as a number of environmental impact assessment studies.
We have pointed to a number of areas in which Australia has a particular interest or which are of interest to the countries in our region.
I would now like to turn to Africa. We are all well aware of the disastrous food situation in large areas of that continent. Apart from through our own news sources, the situation is made abundantly clear in the FAO's State of Food and Agriculture and the reports FAO prepared for consideration at the World Food Council session in Nairobi in June of this year.
There will be times when the focus of our attention will shift to different areas of the world - those where human despair and need is greatest. At present it is firmly drawn to Africa. Australia, therefore, does not consider that now is the time for FAO to be cutting back or cancelling its work in Africa.
Appendix 2 refers to a number of programmes and projects where such reductions in FAO's work is anticipated. They include severe reduction of field demonstrations on livestock grazing and feeds for East Africa; two national workshops in Africa on project preparation in the area of land tenure and agrarian structures being cancelled; and an African regional workshop on women in small-scale irrigation and a French version publication on women in irrigated agriculture in Africa being cancelled.
Australia expressed these concerns at the September meeting of the Programme Committee and joint meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees. The concerns of Australia and other members of those Committees regarding Africa are reflected in the reports of the meetings. The Programme Committee urged that every consideration be given to reinstating priority activities, particularly for the African region as soon as the financial situation of the Organization so permits.
However, the situation in Africa since that time has not improved. In fact in particular areas it has got worse.
Australia, therefore, hopes that the wider body of members represented on this Council endorses the views expressed in the reports of the Programme and Finance Committees. We would hope to see this Council recommend priority being given to the reinstatement of cut-backs to allotments, to date, in African projects as additional funding from contributions and arrears are received. We hope that other members will support this and that this view is registered in this Council's report.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le délégué de l'Australie de son intervention particulièrement positive. Je crois que, de fait, nous ne pouvons que souhaiter que la diminution d'activités enregistrées en 1992 se traduise par une augmentation d'activités en 1993 de façon à réaliser l'objectif et à répondre aux préoccupations exprimées par le délégué de l'Australie, notamment en ce qui concerne les petits pays insulaires de même que l'entièreté du Programme Afrique qui, compte tenu de sa situation, doit recevoir la priorité.
Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): Comme les orateurs qui nous ont précédés, nous aimerions pour commencer remercier le Président du Comité financier, l'Ambassadeur Di Mottola, et M. Shah pour leurs exposés introductifs.
Nous voudrions également saisir cette occasion pour remercier le Directeur général d'avoir bien voulu donner suite à la Résolution 4/91 de la Conférence en nous soumettant ce rapport intérimaire sur l'exécution du Budget Programme approuvé pour 1992-93.
Monsieur le Président, comme vous avez bien voulu le rappeler, le présent rapport est l'un des sujets importants de la présente session du Conseil puisqu'il traite des matières touchant la capacité même de la FAO.
L'examen de ce rapport a lieu après l'examen de la situation financière de l'Organisation, la semaine dernière, qui est du reste peu brillante, sachant le contexte exceptionnel dans lequel ce Budget Programme a été approuvé et sans que cela constitue un précédent. Nous estimons que ce rapport incite d'ores et déjà, pour les prochains exercices, à une réflexion de fond sur deux éléments au moins, à savoir le prix de l'adoption du Programme de travail et budget par consensus et le respect de l'exécution de la totalité du programme approuvé et, par conséquent, la nécessité que la FAO ait à sa disposition les ressources nécessaires pour l'exécution de celui-ci.
Nous serons, nous aussi, brefs. C'est ainsi que, pour aller plus en détails, nous voudrions commenter le paragraphe 18 du document qui nous est soumis, simplement pour dire que nous approuvons l'extrême prudence avec laquelle le Directeur général essaie de mettre en oeuvre ce Budget Programme qui a été approuvé, face à l'insuffisance des ressources mises à sa disposition.
Le deuxième paragraphe que nous aimerions également approuver est le paragraphe 25 dont la première phrase se lit comme suit:
"Il ne faut jamais oublier que la FAO n'est pas une organisation fournissant une aide à fonds perdus ou finançant des projets pour qui un manque temporaire de ressources se traduirait normalement par une simple contraction du volume de l'aide apportée ou des projets financés."
Nous approuvons aussi totalement la dernière phrase de ce paragraphe 25, dans la mesure où elle dit: "la solution simple qui consiste à répartir sur tous les programmes les effets de la contraction des ressources n'est pas applicable". Nous sommes tout à fait de cet avis.
Ce faisant, nous nous félicitons que, face à l'immensité des problèmes financiers qui se posent à l'Organisation, le Secrétariat se soit employé à maintenir telles qu'approuvées par la Conférence un certain nombre d'activités traitant des domaines prioritaires que nous voudrions rappeler, à savoir l'environnement et le développement durable, les préparatifs et le suivi de la CNUED, les activités concernant les ressources génétiques, la Conférence internationale sur la nutrition, le CMIA et l'appui de la FAO aux négociations d'Uruguay.
Nous nous félicitons, comme toutes les autres délégations des pays en développement, que le PCT ait été épargné par les coupures qui ont dû être opérées du fait des pressions financières qui s'exercent sur l'Organisation.
Comme toutes les autres délégations, nous exprimons l'espoir de voir la situation se rétablir afin que l'Organisation soit remise en selle et qu'elle puisse utiliser toute la capacité de son personnel, et l'espoir que les coupures auxquelles nous assistons aujourd'hui concernant des programmes aussi importants que ceux de la pêche, de l'agriculture elle-même et des forêts ne fassent plus l'objet de nos prochains débats.
Nous sommes également particulièrement préoccupés des incidences que l'exécution du programme actuel a sur nos représentations régionales; et ici, une fois de plus, nous souhaitons que la situation des Etats Membres s'améliore afin que tout le monde puisse s'acquitter de ses contributions et faciliter la tâche de l'Organisation qui est, en premier lieu, de vaincre la faim sur notre planète.
Ms Melinda KIMBLE (United States of America): Mr Chairman, at the outset, let me make just one correction to Mr Shah's very helpful introductory remarks. The US$22.6 million we paid towards our arrears in 1992 was actually the second instalment. The United States paid US$13.7 million towards arrears as our first instalment in 1991.
The United States welcomes FAO's effort to respond to the terms of Conference Resolution 4/91 which call for the submission of a report to this Council on progress in implementing the 1992-93 budget. However, document CL 102/13, "Progress Report of the Director-General on Implementation of the Approved Programme Budget 1992-93" falls short of what we had expected to find in a progress report.
Although Mr Shah's comments helped balance the document, we note that rather than highlighting achievements, FAO, regrettably, chose to underscore what it perceives as programme and financial limitations. This, in spite of FAO's greatly improved cash flow - due, in part, to the significant gains made on contracts for the forward purchase of its lire requirements, and the additional US$33 million in special assessments imposed on Member States last year. Given this, we also believe the report focuses disproportionately on the US payment situation. If we look at 1990 and 1991, payments from the United States have reversed the negative trend, consistent with the commitment we made at the Conference last year. However, we note that while the overall cash flow situation of the Organization has improved, an increasing number of countries have made no payment to the Organization, as of November 4. While we realize that many of the countries that have not paid are grappling with intractable social and economic conditions, this should not excuse any country from the obligations of membership in any international Organization, including FAO.
Turning to the programme content of CL 102/13, we note that a number of meetings and publications have been cancelled, postponed or reduced to arrive at a base budgetary level of US$645.9 million. We welcome these cost savings and believe that FAO can go a step further by reducing the length and number of meetings and publications and finding more effective, relevant and direct ways of addressing new and changing demands. In fact this document implicitly confirms that the various cancellations, postponements and reductions have had imperceptible impact on the delivery of high priority activities.
We were pleased to note in paragraph 29 that an effort was made to allocate adequate funding in such high-priority areas as plant genetics resources and
WAICENT. At the same time, we believe that downward adjustments could have been made in FAO's technical cooperation program without any negative repercussions, given its unprogrammed, carry-over nature.
Turning to the budget process for the 1994-95 biennium, we have taken careful note of the Director-General's comments made November 9 on the next budget. We would like to share some of our preliminary thoughts on this important issue.
First, for the current budget cycle, the 1992-93 budget reflected no growth in discretionary expenditures and maximum absorption of non-discretionary cost increases, all at a budget level of some US$645.9 million. This proposal facilitated the adoption of the 1992-93 budget by consensus and essentially full funding of the US assessment for calendar year 1992. Similarly, at the upcoming January 1993 joint session of the Programme and Finance Committees, we would expect to review a budget outline reflecting no growth in discretionary expenditures.
Second, let me state our clear understanding that the US$645.9 million figure should be the base for the 1994-95 budget. We made this point very clear at the November 1991 Conference when the 1992-93 budget was adopted.
Mr Chairman, I wish to reiterate the United States' commitment to work closely and cooperatively in the months ahead with FAO and other Member States to obtain a supportable consensus budget. Indeed, we look forward to a fruitful dialogue this coming January on the Director-General's budget outline for 1994-95. My delegation attaches great importance to this first step in the budget formulation process, and welcomed the overwhelming support of Member States for the adoption of Conference Resolution 5/91 which institutionalized the budget outline process.
LE PRESIDENT: Il me semble que vous êtes resté dans le vague quant à votre désir de restreindre la longueur de certaines publications et de diminuer le nombre de réunions. Or, il serait souhaitable de spécifier de quelles publications et de quelles réunions il s'agit car il est bon que les membres du Conseil soient saisis de propositions précises et concrètes.
En ce qui concerne le versement des arriérés, deux versements ont été effectués: un de 13 millions et un de 42 millions. Je souligne toutefois que si la situation de la trésorerie s'est améliorée et si les liquidités sont actuellement disponibles, c'est seulement depuis une époque relativement très récente.
J.C. MACHIN (United Kingdom): Perhaps I could start by congratulating the Director-General on what we regard as his conservative approach to expenditure for 1992-93 and the efforts, as indicated most helpfully at the outset by Mr Shah, that have clearly been made to prioritize activities on the basis on FAO's mandate and comparative advantage.
Whilst the paper before us presents a rather gloomy picture, we are particularly pleased to read, especially in paragraph 36, that developments point to a more favourable prospect for enhanced implementation of the Programme of Work approved by the Conference. It was not altogether clear just how favourable these prospects were until Mr Shah made his very helpful
introduction. I must say that I took it from what he said that all does certainly not appear to be doom and gloom.
Could I now turn to another very important area which Mr Shah raised and that is the whole question of priorities?
Whilst attempts have obviously been made to prioritize activities, again on the basis of FAO's mandate and comparative advantage, we do think there is scope for this process to be taken further. We are concerned by the reductions in the Global Information Services activities. Whilst I do not have chapter and verse to respond to the point made by the Chairman a second ago, we can pass those separately to the Secretariat.
We also have concerns about the slowdown in implementing the recommendations of the Commission on Plant Genetic Resources, particularly given the comments of the Programme Committee in paragraphs 1.24 and 1.25 of document CL 102/4 and the apparent across-the-board reduction in support for forestry. On forestry, the Programme Committee hopes that FAO's capacity in this area will be further strengthened. Paragraph 1.67 of the document refers to this.
These are, in our view, priority areas for FAO and we believe they should have been shielded to a greater extent from the cuts which necessarily had to be made.
That said, we do believe that the process of prioritization must continue apace. Whilst we do, of course, accept that what may be a priority for some members is not necessarily a priority to others, we believe that there is still a need for further collectivity, perhaps one might call it, and that there are some areas which could be curtailed or even cancelled altogether. Indeed, I think that was one of the points Mr Shah made in his introduction. It is a concern of the Programme and Finance Committee which we had noted.
New priorities seem almost inevitably to emerge daily. It is quite clear that the funds are not always going to be available for such increased activities, or indeed to enable the continuation of ongoing activities.
As has already been said by a number of speakers, difficult choices have therefore to be made. We believe that FAO has to make those choices and indeed follow some of the rather tough decisions which very clearly the Secretariat has had to face so far and which have been made very clear to us. It does mean confronting the issues in a very positive way by re-prioritizing activities and dropping those which are of low priority and which do not fall within FAO's comparative advantage.
We are particularly concerned, I have to say, at references in the paper to the increased subsidy from the Regular Programme and the widening of the support cost funding gap. We will be addressing bilateral Trust Fund support when we come to discuss the relevant paper under Agenda Item 16, so I will not go into this now.
As for UNDP Trust Fund support costs, we very fully understand the concern expressed in a number of the Council papers at the flow of project approvals and support cost receipts from UNDP since the successor arrangements very belatedly, one has to lament, have taken effect. We believe that it is extremely important that UNDP implements the new arrangements quickly. We will continue strongly to urge them to do so. However, we believe that a
satisfactory system will be in place relatively soon and we very much hope that the agency receipts - and this, of course, affects a number of agencies -will soon be regularized.
There is one final point. We were slightly intrigued by Appendix 1 on page 9 of the document and in particular Chapter 4 on the TCP. The figures quoted for Chapter 4 of the TCP are the only ones shown under "net base budget appropriation" as the approved Programme of Work; all the others are reduced.
I note that the explanation at the foot: of the page says that the TCP allotment is pro memoria. I appreciate what the Chairman of the Finance Committee said. It would be very helpful if the Secretariat could explain why, as it seems to us anyway, the TCP has apparently been ring-fenced.
LE PRESIDENT: Je me permettrai très respectueusement de faire remarquer que ce n'est pas le Secrétariat qui fixe les priorités et les choix mais les organes directeurs de l'Organisation. Il est souhaitable que les membres du Conseil expriment clairement leurs priorités et leurs choix en ce qui concerne les frais de soutien. Nous n'allons donc pas aborder cette question maintenant puisqu'elle sera discutée au point 16.
En ce qui concerne le PCT, je rappelle la résolution de la Conférence qui en a fixé le montant à 14 pour cent, mais cette résolution n'a pu être respectée pour des raisons majeures. Je crois que tout le monde l'a vivement regretté, notamment au sein du Comité financier et du Comité du Programme. C'est la raison pour laquelle ce programme prioritaire n'a pas connu de diminution en 1992, étant entendu qu'un effort particulier sera fait pour l'ensemble de travail et budget pour 1993.
Rolf AKESSON (Sweden): The financial situation provides the background and the harsh reality for this item. The amount of outstanding contributions is of great interest in that respect.
We - and I am now speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries, Finland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark - have noticed a certain decrease in that respect and also an increase in the percentage of assessed contributions received. The improvement in the financial situation of the Organization is modest and we once again urge all member countries to pay their assessed contributions on time and to eliminate their arrears as soon as possible.
We very much hope that this will be the case, especially since it would mean that external borrowing and recourse to other exceptional measures which we dislike can be avoided in the future.
At the same time, we find it important that we do not reduce our efforts to try to find a system that would eliminate, or at least reduce, the likelihood that in the future a situation might again arise when the work of the Organization is negatively affected by financial problems due to non-fulfilment of financial obligations.
We fully support the Budgetary Appropriation of US$645.6 million adopted for the 1992-1993 biennium. Whilst we take it for granted that all commitments regarding the Programme of Work and Budget and Conference Resolution 4/91 will be fully respected by all parties, just as we take it that the Secretariat
will do its utmost to contain cost increases, we fully appreciate the cautious approach taken by the Secretariat in setting the allotments for 1992. Of course, we appreciate the detailed information given in the document in front of us.
We do not expect the necessary reductions of programmes and chapters to be perfectly uniform but we do not quite understand the reasoning behind the relatively higher reductions made in the Technical and Economic Programmes under Chapter 2 and in particular for fisheries and forestry. We consider the programme under Chapter 2 to be the very backbone of FAO's activities, without which other activities, including support to field programmes, cannot be sustained in the long-run.
Of course, relative priority to activities outside Chapter 2 could be temporarily justified if it is due to timely and orderly implementation of ongoing activities but we would appreciate an explanation on this matter which has also been stressed in the Report of the Finance Committee.
We have the impression that the allotments do not necessarily reflect priorities in the Programme of Work and Budget and the Medium-Term Plan in all respects. This applies, for example, to TCP, the Office of the Director-General and Plant Genetic Resources activities.
Finally, we learn from the document that the Regular Programme for the next biennium may have to support the Field Programme with an additional US$8 million, and we should like to have a further explanation and further information on this point.
Harald HILDEBRAND (Germany): The financial gap between the 1992-93 Programme of Work and Budget and the approved Budgetary Appropriations for the current biennium clearly impairs the Organization's ability to fulfil major tasks. For this reason, it is to be welcomed that the Director-General has submitted this progress report, which also responds to the demand of member countries to make the process of Programme implementation more transparent to them.
The report deals with two closely connected aspects: the financial situation in the first year and the Secretariat's steps to implement most of the Programme activities despite the known financial constraints. Fortunately, a look at the latest figures in document CL 102/LIM/1, paragraph 5, gives rise to optimism. The repeated appeal for a stricter compliance with every Member Nation's duty to pay its contribution on time, or at least within the financial year, as well as accumulated arrears, has apparently been heard by some, including the one mainly responsible for this unfortunate situation. The percentage of contributions outstanding as of 4 November has declined to less than 11 percent. However, this favourable picture is darkened by the increased number of Member Nations which have not paid at all. My Government, therefore, is strongly in favour of practicable arrangements which honour the fulfilment of financial obligations by means of an effective incentive system. This would help the more favourable development forecast in paragraph 36 of document CL 102/13 to become reality.
My delegation shares the view contained in paragraph 25 that "the 'simple' option of distributing resource shortfalls 'across-the-board' is clearly not applicable". This selective approach obeys the generally recognized priority
principle of our Organization. It appears well reflected in the measures by the Secretariat described in paragraph 29.
My delegation would like to endorse the principle of regeneration for Programme activities provisionally cut back, as explained by the Deputy Director-General, Mr Shah, in his very clear introductory remarks to our debate.
The summarized cuts in programme implementation as described in Appendix 2 of the document under discussion are deplorable but seem to be the inevitable consequence of the known dilemma. However, in our view, this synthesis lacks one element to enable us to become better aware of the actual implications of the cuts for important programme areas, i.e. quantification. A juxtaposition of the money originally earmarked and the actual cuts might have improved the concreteness of the information, for which my delegation is grateful. I should also like to express our appreciation for the work done by the Programme and Finance Committees on this aspect.
LE PRESIDENT: Puis-je vous rappeler que le Plan d'incitation a été décidé par la Conférence. Ce Plan d'incitation au paiement rapide des contributions entrera en vigueur de manière expérimentale au ler janvier de l'année qui vient.
Ebrahim MAYGOLINEJAD (Iran, Islamic Republic of): As indicated in document CL 102/13, there are repeated reductions of the Organization's activities and cancellations of several sub-programmes, as well as postponement of large numbers of programmes for the period 1992-93. This has led to serious damage in the objectives and functions of the Organization. If this continues in such a manner, it could lead to the erosion of FAO's professional credibility and its leadership position in connection with the many areas of its mandates and activities.
Regarding the good news given by Mr Shah and the improving financial situation of our Organization, in order to maintain the quality of our Organization's activities and to promote its professional credibility, great attention should be given to this problem in this session of the Council and appropriate action should be taken in order to remove this constraint from the Organization. On behalf of the delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, I would ask FAO to implement the Programme of Work and Budget which has been approved in the normal situation.
David SHERWOOD (Canada): My delegation has already had an opportunity to discuss this report in the Programme Committee. Therefore, in my comments, I wish simply to underline a few key points we consider important. But first let me extend my thanks to Mr Di Mottola and Mr Shah for their introduction to this subject.
Canada, at the time of the last FAO Conference in November 1991, viewed very positively the consensus resolution approving the Programme of Work and Budget and Budgetary Appropriations for 1992-93. Member countries shared a sense of optimism that the financial difficulties would be mitigated with a consensus approach. However, the success of a consensus approach requires that all countries meet their financial obligations to FAO in a timely fashion, and it
remains regrettable that some 88 countries have yet to honour their financial obligations, while, no doubt, continuing to insist that the Organization implement in full the agreed programme of work.
Regarding the Programme implications and impacts described in document CL 102/13 resulting from the approved Programme budget with a net budgetary base of US$645.6 million, it is understandable that a budgetary review and priority-setting exercise was required. Most governments and organizations are faced with the reality of limited resources and continued restraint, and we have to remind ourselves that funds will remain in short supply. In response to these circumstances, and as part of the management process, we look forward to the extension of priority-setting. In our view, this will encourage improved linkages between the Secretariat and the membership and provide greater involvement in decision-making based on readily accessible financial and Programme information. For example, staff costs account for the single most significant part of total resources. It would be advantageous for members to obtain a better understanding of the linkage between shortfalls and the number of vacant posts.
We note, for example, that at the end of August the number of professional posts vacant relative to the stated number of positions allocated in the Programme of Work and Budget for the Regular Programme amounted to 17.8 percent of total positions. If this situation also obtains in respect of general services positions, it would suggest very significant modifications to the actual Programme of Work under way compared to that approved by Conference. Accordingly, we would welcome an overview of whether the delays and cutbacks detailed in the Director-General's report reflect a commensurate level of reduced activity.
Given the improving financial position of FAO, effective progress reporting in the Organization should also make the linkage between remaining shortfalls and implementation or delivery of high-priority activities. Meaningful information of this nature would be of considerable benefit to members of the Programme and Finance Committees.
Given the reality of continued budgetary restraint, this delegation attaches considerable importance to core priorities: namely, measures in the area of environment and sustainable development, follow-up work to UNCED, work on genetic resources, biodiversity, Codex Alimentarius, women in development and reinforcement of FAO's scientific and technical capacity, including emphasis on information collection and dissemination.
In conclusion, comprehensive progress reports can lead to a better understanding of the management process of FAO and the information used to rationalize priority-setting.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le délégué du Canada de son intervention très positive ainsi que des priorités qu'il vient de préciser.
Haruo ISHII (Japan): I should like to make a brief statement focusing on a few points. First of all, concerning provisional allotment and financial plans, it is said in paragraph 24 of document CL 102/13 that the provisional allotments were calculated in such a way as to spread the overall impact as equitably as possible, but, under the financial difficulties, there is some
possibility that implementation of the priority-setting, after considering the financial situation, will lead to inequitable results.
Secondly, Japan expects that FAO should ensure its external resources through its intellectual contribution toward the field programmes upstream. In order to do so, while FAO takes into account the necessity for restructuring and strengthening capacity of the General Service staff, Japan requests FAO to consider plans such as the staff retrenchment plan by all measures, such as not recruiting to vacancies, redeployment of staff, and so on. Even if these measures result in an increase of extraordinary expenses, such as termination indemnities, if Member Nations can be convinced that they will bring a significant future to FAO, Japan will welcome them.
Finally, as to the base of the 1993-94 Programme of Work and Budget, Japan supports the view of the USA.
Winston RUDDER (Trinidad and Tobago): It will be appreciated that the Progress Report on the implementation of the approved Programme budget of FAO is of particular interest to my delegation and to the countries which represent the 13 Member States of the CARICOM sub-region of Latin America and the Caribbean Region. Countries such as mine do have a substantive interest in, and look on with extreme vigilance at, activities as they unfold in relation to the Programme of Work and Budget of FAO. This reflects very fully the extent of our dependence, given the lack of critical mass that we do have on the technical and scientific support of this Organization.
It was very clear that what we approved at Conference 1991 was a Programme of Work and Budget of significantly reduced expectations, which could not speak as fully as it might to the needs and requirements of development support for agriculture, forestry and fisheries in many of our countries.
In the circumstances, the Organization has had to fashion a Programme within the broad guidelines of the priorities set out in the goals and operations reviewed, and further refined by Conference in accordance with financial resources.
We understand and we accept, but we do express some regret that many areas of support which are of risk to all countries have had to be reduced, postponed and/or cancelled. Permit me to reflect on a few: scaled-down demonstration of activities related to sustainable farming practices; the slow-down of implementation of cooperation with assistance to national plant genetic resources programmes; delays in initiating activities on sustainable plant production systems, agro-forestry, biological processes including plant biotechnology, because of a meeting of the Caribbean Plant Protection Commission; reduced advice on feed utilization.
We go on to matters related to fisheries: the scaled-down development of stock assessment methods, as well as a number of environmental impact assessment studies are of tremendous importance to island states, I would reflect. Also, there is the major postponement of the filling of vacancies in the Forestry Division which will have an impact on the support to the Field Programmes and the services provided to members under the much-needed Tropical Forests Action Programme.
While we note in the Appendix which reflects the synthesis of programme impact what happens to the programmes themselves, what we do not know is what is the impact of these postponements, these cancellations and these delays on development in agriculture, forestry and fisheries in the countries that depend most heavily on FAO for support in these areas.
We congratulate the Secretariat for its display of prudence, sensitivity and concern with which it has gone about the priority setting process. We would especially comment on the fact that the TCP which is the breadline for many of us, has not been affected. This reflects what I would deem to be a balance of interests in support of the needs of developing countries.
We are grateful for the outlook which indicates improved circumstances. We expect, and look forward to, a turn-around in the financial health of the Organization as we move forward to the third millennium.
Finally, I would point out that, in respect of the preparatory activities to a Programme of Work and Budget for 1994-95, in approving Resolution 4/91 at Conference in November, it was noted that, notwithstanding the negative budget growth of 4 percent, this was not a precedent for future Programmes of Work and Budget, and that Member States reserve the right to consider on their merit future Programme of Work and Budget proposals as may be submitted by the Director-General.
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais signaler qu'il a été dit clairement dans la Résolution 191 que la mesure exceptionnelle prise par la Conférence n'était pas un précédent. Je remercie le délégué de Trinité-et-Tobago de l'avoir souligné.
Horacio M. CARANDANG (Philippines): As a member of the Finance Committee, I should like to reiterate my delegation's endorsement of the Report of the Programme and Finance Committee which is now being discussed.
However, I should like to stress a few points which I have already stressed during the meeting of the Finance Committee itself. The Philippines delegation regrets that, because of the budgetary gap that has been compounded by the shortfalls in the support costs income, it has caused a great deal of difficulty for the Organization in implementing its Programme of Work and Budget, precisely at a point when there is a greater need to increase food production to feed the growing population of the developing world, whilst at the same time safeguarding the imperatives of sustainable development.
We are happy to hear that in the supplementary information given to us today, there will probably be no need for additional transfers which would require the approval of the Finance Committee between the budgetary chapters. As you know, Mr Chairman, when budgetary transfers occur, it is usually from the transfer from the areas of General Service, the provision of General Service, General Support Service and common service, from the technical and economic programmes of FAO. We know that support in common services is necessary, but this is not what makes the difference in the work of FAO in the countries themselves.
Therefore, we are happy to hear that these transfers will not become necessary in the near future, because as you know, the transfers will have to occur from
the two chapters, 5 and 6, from the other economic and technical programmes because in Chapters 5 and 6 there are mainly provisions for salaries and there is no room for further cuts. Therefore, if a transfer occurs, it usually comes from other technical divisions.
Furthermore, we are happy that there is a reconstitution of the reserve funds which points to a more favourable prospect for enhanced implementation of the Programme of Work approved by the Conference.
At the same time, we note in paragraph 33 that the ability of the Organization to provide advisory assistance to member countries and adequate technical backstopping to technical projects has been put under strain in several substantive areas and has been negatively affected.
As you know, the Group of 77 has always held the view that the major roles of FAO are mutually reinforcing - that is the collection and analysis of information on food, the provision of policy advice and the provision of technical assistance. The Regular Programme makes its technical and analytical work available to field projects and in return receives data and feedback from the field to strengthen the technical content of its own activities and to update its information. Agricultural development is time- and place-specific and country-specific. Any efforts to downgrade the Field Programme could only weaken the Organization's role in promoting agricultural development in developing countries.
The Philippine delegation approves the practical and pragmatic approach taken by the Secretariat in trying to implement, as far as possible, the approved Programme of Work and the priorities as approved by the Governing Bodies of FAO. At the same time, it has to be prudent in allocating resources because of the gap which has already been referred to. In this respect, we approve the approach that has been taken by the Organization, but, at the same time, I should like to stress the point for the need for a stronger internal audit, so that those programmes that are doing very well and those that are not doing very well could be looked into, to see how best the limited resources in the budget could best be appropriated.
With these comments, we endorse the Report of the Programme and Finance Committees in relation to the subject under discussion.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Caradang, des Philippines, de son intervention particulièrement empreinte de sagesse et d'expérience.
Moustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Je crois que beaucoup de choses ont été dites sur ce sujet. Je tiens à signaler que nous avions étudié les propositions du Directeur général, telles qu'elles figurent dans le document CL 102/13, au moment de la réunion du Comité financier - propositions auxquelles nous avions souscrit.
Il en va de même pour les délibérations de la session conjointe du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier au cours de la même période. Nous donnons notre appui à ces délibérations telles qu'elles ressortent dans le document CL 102/17.
Daniel Yoman KONAN (Côte d'Ivoire): La situation financière précaire et tendue de notre Organisation est due aux arriérés de contributions de nombreux Etats Membres dont le principal bailleur de fonds pris individuellement, auquel notre délégation voudrait présenter ses compliments pour l'engagement concret qu'il a pris en réglant, début octobre, une partie de ses arriérés. Nous espérons que cet élan ne va pas s'arrêter et que cet effort sera poursuivi au bénéfice de la FAO.
En ce qui concerne le rapport qui nous est soumis et les commentaires judicieux que nous ont faits M. Shah et l'Ambassadeur Di Mottola, je vois difficilement comment ne pas apprécier les mérites du Directeur général qui a su maintenir un niveau d'exécution du programme assez satisfaisant en partant, ne l'oublions pas, d'un budget à croissance non pas zéro mais négative qui, en réalité, a été le fruit d'un consensus extrêmement laborieux lors de la dernière Conférence.
Je voudrais partager le point de vue exprimé par M. Shah quant à la méthode de définition des priorités qu'il nous a présentée et qui nous parait la seule applicable en période de crise financière de la nature de celle que nous connaissons et qui oblige à un exercice d'équilibrisme qui, de toute façon, ne pourra jamais satisfaire tout le monde.
La situation critique de l'Afrique doit continuer à mobiliser l'énergie et l'attention du Secrétariat afin de ne pas trop réduire les activités notamment de terrain ainsi que celles du Bureau régional d'Accra. La Côte d'Ivoire approuve donc le maintien du niveau de ressources affectées au Programme de coopération technique qui est pour nous extrêmement fondamental. Le PCT, loin de connaître à l'avenir une réduction de ses ressources, devrait au contraire les voir augmenter. Nous invitons donc le Conseil à appuyer cette recommandation de maintenir les priorités pour l'Afrique, et notamment pour les pays les moins avancés d'entre eux qui connaissent les difficultés que vous savez.
Les perspectives pour le restant de l'exercice biennal telles qu'explicitées au paragraphe 6 du document CL 102/13 paraissent optimistes en raison de l'amélioration constatée ces derniers mois, dans le règlement des arriérés. Il faut donc inciter tous les Etats Membres à accélérer leurs paiements, condition sine qua non pour une application effective et totale du Programme de travail tel qu'adopté lors de la dernière Conférence.
En terminant, la délégation ivoirienne tient à dire l'importance qu'elle accorde au maintien à son meilleur niveau possible du Compte de réserve spécial dont la nature et le statut juridique devraient connaître, selon nous, non seulement un renforcement mais aussi une certaine forme de novation au niveau des Textes fondamentaux de l'Organisation.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le représentant de la Côte d'Ivoire pour son intervention. Je lui signale que la question du Compte de réserve spécial sera traitée dans le cadre de l'examen d'un point séparé.
Adel M. ABOUL-NAGA (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): My country's delegation, having listened to the introduction by Mr Di Mottola, Chairman of the Finance Committee, and the introduction given by Mr Shah on the implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget, would like to express its
thanks for the information provided. We would also like to compliment the Organization on the way in which it has faced up to these financial constraints, especially as this has not undermined the priorities which were defined.
My country's delegation was particularly pleased to see that the allocations to the TCP are not being affected as we consider that the TCP is of the greatest importance.
My country would also like to call upon the countries which are in arrears to settle their arrears as soon as possible.
Benson C. MBOGOH (Kenya): I wish to convey my delegation's compliments to the Secretariat for their report, and to Mr Shah and Mr Di Mottola for their further elaboration of the report.
My delegation has carefully examined the report, and while it notes a slight improvement of 8.3 percent in the total outstanding contributions in 1992 compared with the same period in 1991, the change has regrettably not been significant.
We share the Director-General's predicament of having to absorb a budgetary reduction of US$31.3 million, or 4.6 percent of the approved Programme of Work and Budget outlays, and we give our qualified support to the conservative approach he has adopted for the 1992 provisional allotments.
We are in agreement with the fundamental principles and considerations taken in deciding on the financial allotments at paragraphs 25 to 31.
However, we are unable to support wholesale major reductions in programmes targeted to highly disadvantaged regions like Africa, or strategic programmes that enhance food security in all poor food-deficit countries. Projects such as the Geographical Information Service's activities, on farm seed development, assistance to national plant protection services, just to name a few, should not be touched, or should be reconsidered. This failure to do so is like cutting off oxygen to a patient in an intensive care unit. On the support costs arrangements or accounts, my delegation notes with trepidation the reported unfavourable scenario for support costs, resulting from reported delays in project approvals under the UNDP successor arrangements and the effect of national execution.
We have stated before, and wish to state it here, that Kenya is in favour of national execution. We consider it the best way forward towards greater self-reliance and enhancement of country capacity building for project and programme development and implementation. However, we are in favour of this being accomplished without undermining FAO's capacity to readjust.
My delegation therefore sees the current problems created for FAO in the new arrangement as transitional, which is inevitable in any planned change from an established to a new system. But we wish to stress that any imperfections in the new system should be identified, and necessary refinements and adjustments made without delay. We would therefore request that UNDP cooperate with FAO in this endeavour.
There is a strong need, for example, for the role of the Project Execution Unit of UNDP to be reassessed, with a view to ensuring that the technical role of FAO and other technical agencies for UNDP funded projects is not rendered redundant by its presence.
Finally, the vital question must now be posed to this body. Simply put, how long is the membership of this august Organization going to keep its own Organization resource starved and still expect it to carry the functions it has mandated to it? No army general, no matter how gallant, can fight a war without arms and ammunition. Yet we have, with extraordinary persistence, sent out this Director-General to do exactly that, and demanded of him to return to base with the loot. This is impossible.
We appeal to all members, and in particular our few large contributing members, to accept the full sacrifice and moral obligation of leadership, and to honour their financial obligations to FAO. To fail to do so, partially or entirely, is to bring down the Organization to its knees, dashing the hopes of millions of poor people around the world.
CHAIRMAN: I would like to say that the problem of support costs will be discussed under another item, Item 16.
Ricardo VELAZQUEZ HUERTA (México): El documento de informe del Director General y las explicaciones vertidas por el Sr. Shah y el Embajador Di Mottola, las cuales agradecemos mucho, a nuestro juicio, Sr. Presidente, encienden un foco rojo de atención que a la delegación mexicana la preocupa mucho.
De la página 13 a la 23 del documento se describe una síntesis del impacto a los programas por razones presupuestales. En ellas de manera clara y específica se nos informa de que todas las ramas de actividades de la FAO sufren los efectos de la falta de recursos: los recursos naturales, los cultivos, la ganadería, la investigación y tecnología, el desarrollo rural, la nutrición, la información, la política alimentaria y agrícola, la pesca y los bosques. Todas las ramas de actividades de la FAO.
La Dirección General ha sido impulsada a revisar en su conjunto el Programa para afrontar escaseces, y lo ha hecho bien, pero no puede de ninguna manera continuar así.
A nuestro juicio todo ello tiene una sola causa. Entendemos las dificultades que afrontan muchos países para dar cumplimiento a los compromisos económicos internacionales; pero éste es real y precisamente el meollo del problema. Sería lamentable que la FAO continuara reduciendo la intensidad de sus actividades o que cancelara algunas de ellas. Sería lamentable que llegáramos a carecer de expertos, de personal especializado, de investigadores; que llegáramos a carecer de capacidad de apoyo para la ejecución de proyectos y para la preparación de planes y programas nacionales.
El desarrollo de muchos países se vería enorme e irremediablemente dañado y con éste el avance mundial hacia la seguridad alimentaria. Con todo respeto quisiéramos hacer un llamado al pago puntual de las contribuciones. Por nuestra parte ya lo hemos señalado. México cubrirá las suyas a la brevedad posible.
EL PRESIDENTE: Gracias, señor representante de México, por su declaración y por el compromiso del pago de la contribución.
Saleh SAHBOUN (Libya) (Original language Arabic): Mr Chairman, we should like to thank you for the information provided on the present item. We are grateful to Mr Shah for the interesting information he provided. My country's delegation is highly appreciative of the efforts engaged in by this Organization and by the Director-General. As we know full well, the Director-General has always adopted a wise approach. This makes it easier for the Organization's activities to be implemented.
We hope that the financial situation of the Organization will improve soon, and we believe that a lot of countries are now doing their best to settle their arrears and pay their current assessments. However, we are bound to express concern because certain programmes and projects for development depend on this single form of resources.
There are many programmes and projects because of the cost of transferring the technical know-how, all of which have an impact on development processes. The cost of technology and know-how transfers increase from one year to another and that is why a lot of countries are having pressing difficulties in this context.
We believe we should all take into account the efforts engaged in by developing countries in order to improve their citizens' living standards and we should, as a team, make an effort to guarantee the full implementation of this Organization's projects, especially those within the framework of the Technical Cooperation Programme. This is because a lot of countries have based their efforts on the Technical Cooperation Programme and Projects. This will surely facilitate the implementation of our activities.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you to the distinguished delegate of Libya for his intervention. At this point, before calling on the UK Delegation, I would ask if there are any other Members of the Council who wish to make an intervention?
J.C. MACHIN (United Kingdom): I apologize for taking the floor again but I thought it might be helpful if I said, very briefly, something to clarify the point about prioritizing to which you referred in my intervention. Let me say I strongly agree with you that it is obviously for the membership and the governing bodies of FAO to set the priorities.
What I was actually addressing was the second part of the equation, in other words, the implementation by the Secretariat of those priorities. This obviously does not exclude judgements which have to be taken by the top management of FAO on the whole question of prioritizing its resources. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for your intervention. We can agree with you.
V.J. SHAH (Deputy Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I said at the outset, Mr Chairman, when I introduced this item, that my task had been made easier because others had spoken before me. At this stage, Mr Chairman, my task is more difficult because you have had your debate and you have finished your debate without giving me the lunch-time to prepare my answer. Despite that, I will try to do my best.
My objective is really on several fronts. Firstly, I have to respond to the very thoughtful debate we have had for which, on behalf of the Director-General and in the name of the Secretariat, I start by expressing our gratitude. Secondly, I would like to respond to some of the questions which had been raised which call for precise answers, and let me say it is not my intention to avoid answering any question which has been raised. If, in the hurry of the moment, I have overlooked anything, then I am sure the distinguished delegate concerned would be kind enough to remind me either here or later on. Thirdly, Mr Chairman, I need to give the Secretariat's response to some of the issues which have been raised and some of the sentiments which had been expressed in the debate.
I think I can only be thankful to the Council, Mr Chairman, that every member who has spoken has expressed appreciation for the approach taken by the Director-General, for the circumspect manner in which he has sought to ensure the implementation of the approved Programme of Work, and by his prudent management of the resources made available to the Organization. I think the debates showed very clearly that this paper was written during the early summer in order to have it ready for the Programme and Finance Committee's meeting at their September Session, and we tried in this paper to give you all the considerations which had been in our minds from the beginning of 1992. What were the problems as we saw them? What weight did we attach to them? How did we try to reconcile our response to these problems in a coherent form? It is no surprise, as all of you have recognized, that we started off the year fairly gloomily, or fairly soberly.
This led to the Director-General taking a very cautious approach and then, as developments have proved more promising, so has our perspective, and so has our assessment for the rest of this biennium.
Mr Chairman, I need to reply now to two specific comments and questions in order to rectify any aspect which may be necessary. First of all, the distinguished representative of the USA corrected me in that arrears payments from the USA did not only amount to US$22.6 million, but were also covered by a payment of US$13.7 million in 1991. I am always happy to say, Mr Chairman, the distinguished representative is quite correct. For my part though, I would explain that as the document deals with this biennium I did not refer to the payment made last year but dealt only with payments made during this year. There is no disagreement, however, on the substance.
Then, there was a specific question from the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom about the table given in Appendix 1 of the document. This is the full page table which shows the approved Programme of Work and the net base budgetary appropriation as well as the 1992 allotment. The question asked was, on what basis was the amount for the TCP unchanged between the approved Programme of Work, US$77 409 000, and the net base budgetary appropriation of the same amount, whereas he said in all other instances there was a difference in the figures. The explanation is very straightforward.
For the first column, the approved Programme of Work, we have taken exactly the approved Programme of Work breakdown as it appears in Resolution 4/91 of FAO's Conference. There you see the TCP with this amount of US$77 409 000. However, the difference between the Approved Programme of Work and the net base budgetary appropriation, the difference of US$31.3 million, represents in effect the non-provision of the foreseen cost increases on staff, which led to the net base budgetary appropriation of 645.6.
If I may explain this, Mr Chairman, in every chapter, that is to say Chapter 1, Chapter 2, Chapter 3 and Chapter 5, where there is a staff component in the budgetary provision, you see a lower amount between the two columns but when you take Chapter 4, the TCP, and when you take Chapter 6, Common Services - that chapter, as I recall, is only for the non-staff provision - and Chapter 7, contingencies, the figures remain unchanged.
Mr Chairman, let me try to address now the substance of the debate. Priority is really the theme of this document and the theme of the debate which has taken place. I have tried to listen very attentively because I think that everything which has been said in the debate helps me to respond to it. Let me take the question of what is given priority and what is not given priority, or what is given less priority in the report which has been submitted to you. The Technical Cooperation Programme: the distinguished representative of the United States said that cuts could have been made to the TCP. Fine - I respect the position of the United States of America as the position of the United States of America. On the other hand, Mr Chairman, I also have to listen and the Director-General does listen to the position of other Member Nations who have said that they attach the highest importance to the TCP, who regretted that the provision in this Programme of Work and Budget did not respond to the directives of the previous Conference in ensuring a higher share of the TCP in the approved programme.
It was not 14 percent as the Conference resolution asked the Director-General to ensure. The share of the TCP in the current budget is just under 12 percent. In this debate I have heard every delegate who has spoken on behalf of his country or his government with regard to the importance of the TCP and who expressed pleasure at the fact that the provision for the TCP has not been cut.
Similarly, I heard very clearly the position of the United States when the distinguished representative said - and I think I got the words exactly - that the cuts have had an imperceptible impact. Fine - I respect their position, Mr Chairman. On the other hand, I have also heard the expressions of the position of all other distinguished delegates who have taken the floor to express their concern, to express their regret, and who have not only pointed out how these reductions and postponements affect their own country, but if I may take the position of the distinguished delegate of Australia, as an example, he has expressed regret for these reductions as they affect other countries; countries in the Southwest Pacific and even more for Africa.
Mr Chairman, some questions have been asked about whether there has been equity in this process. Is there ever complete equity in the world? We tried, as the Director-General says in paragraph 24, to calculate the provisional allotments in such a way as to spread the overall impact as equitably as possible. We did try but I think it is clear to all of you, as you have commented, that there cannot be total equity. In fact, as the distinguished
representative of Sweden and others pointed out, the reductions affecting chapter 2, the Technical and Economic Programmes, are higher.
There is a very straightforward reason for this. When we deal with the infrastructure of an organization, including this one, when we deal with basic services dealing with plant and maintenance, the basic statutory requirements of the Organization, cuts are not possible, certainly within an approved Programme of Work.
You may consider cuts in the context of future programmes of work - and that is where you would exercise your sovereignty in priority setting - but within an approved programme of work, when it comes to the services for Conference and Council affairs, when it comes to the services provided by the Administration and Finance Department, when it comes to the structure that we already have in place for the regional offices and the FAO country offices, the possibilities for cuts are very limited, if available at all.
That is why - and I turn also to the point of view expressed by the distinguished representative of the Philippines - when programme adjustments and cuts have to be made, it is really in the areas of the technical and economic programmes that we have to turn.
There was a conscious decision and a conscious choice by the Director-General not to affect the TCP, a choice and a decision which has been supported by the over-whelming majority of Members who have addressed this issue.
The area really where most of the reductions had to be sought was in the Technical and Economic Programmes.
A question was raised about the links between programme resources and vacant posts. I think that was a question raised by the distinguished representative of Canada.
Following on from what I have said and as shown in the document, we really had to review the staffing positions in all the organizational limits. In terms of the programme impact, managers had to made proposals about which positions they could afford to fill, at what time of the year, and which positions would have to remain vacant, given the allotments that they had received.
There are two points which I would like to draw to the Council's attention. The distinguished representative of Canada referred to a percentage figure of 17.8 for vacancies. I do not have the document from which he has given this reference but it strikes me that perhaps this refers not only to Regular Programme costs but also to Support Cost posts and posts under "any other funding", including project funding, because for regular programmes I have the situation as of 26 October. The Regular Programme establishment, which is the one approved in the Programme of Work, gives a total of some 3 157 posts, of which 2 004 are general service and 1 153 are professional directors and above.
The vacancies for the general service posts are only three percent and the vacancies for the professional posts are thirteen percent, of which ten percent were deliberately planned in our financial planning process. They were very deliberate. They were not fortuitous but vacancies which were designed for posts to remain vacant during the year in order to live within the allotments.
In this connection I should point out that the Director-General has always been concerned about the level of vacancies which we have had over some years. He instructed me a few weeks ago to inform my colleagues that they should take steps to plan for the filling of posts at an accrued level. In view of the improvement in the situation, which we have reported and seen, it is our firm intention to improve upon the filling of posts and that, you will see, will have a direct impact on the level of programme implementation during the next year.
In the discussion on priorities, there is one aspect which perhaps was inferred and not explicitly stated. May I make a brief comment on that?
The Council has recognized very well that the Secretariat has a role in priority-setting in terms of proposals that the Director-General submits for each Programme of Work and Budget but it is the Member Nations of this Organization who exercise their sovereignty in decisions on priorities, decisions which come through a process at all levels of technical bodies, sectoral bodies, programme and finance committees, councils and finally the Conference. This progress report I think has brought out one aspect which we sometimes do not talk about enough; that is, how priorities are affected in the course of implementation.
In this report we have placed emphasis on the issue of financial resources affecting our implementation of programmes. There is another aspect which I would like to flag for your attention; that is the need for the Secretariat to respond to new demands as they are made during the biennium. The follow-up to UNCED, which the Council discussed last week, the preparations for the International Conference on Nutrition, the way we respond to the field programme demands and the increasing problem of support costs, which you will discuss later, are all aspects which give examples of how, in the process of implementation, there are subtle but quite identifiable actions which, in fact, deal with priorities. The Secretariat, of course, is faithful to the directives of the conference but this is a matter of judgment on which we constantly have to defer to you, to our Governing Bodies.
One specific comment was made only by one delegation but, in order to obviate any misunderstanding, may I refer to the statement of the distinguished representative of the Philippines? I think he was referring to paragraph 37 of the document where, in the Progress Report, the Director-General had said that, with the allotments made, they did not appear to result in the need for any between-chapter transfers for which prior approval of the Finance Committee would be required. However, that was, as the document says, on the basis of the initial allotments and before payment of the arrears had been received and before additional allotments had been issued.
In the light of that action, as we reported to the Programme and Finance Committees, I will draw your attention to paragraphs 1.14 of the Report of the Joint Meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees of September where the report says: "As indicated in the document, the Committees noted that approval would be requested from the Finance Committee in due course for the inter-chapter transfers which would be required".
I just wanted to emphasize and clarify the point. The Finance Committee does expect requests for inter-chapter budget transfers to be made to it in accordance with the financial regulations and further to the allotments which have been made by the Director-General.
Let me now deal with the questions which were raised about support costs. Although I will, of course, respect your ruling that the discussion on the subject will take place under Item 16 and I will not try to anticipate my presentation of your discussion at that time, there were some questions raised in relation to this document which I think do merit a reply.
I draw attention to the statement in the document, paragraph 21, which was referred to by the distinguished representatives of Sweden and the United Kingdom about the increasing subsidy from the Regular Programme to the Field Programme. Let me give you the basis for the information we provided in this document. To do that, I must share with you the situation that we faced at the beginning of the year and which we face now.
The support costs cover UNDP support costs, Trust Fund support costs and the direct operating expenses of the TCP. The World Food Programme support costs which we receive I exclude from this discussion because that is a subject on its own. We provide services to the World Food Programme and are reimbursed according to the agreed arrangements and the administrative budget of WFP. At the beginning of 1992 - this year - we had just under 700 support costs posts. These posts would have involved an expenditure of just under US$50 million on posts and expenditure of just under US$5 million on the non-staff expenditure which is covered under support costs. The non-staff expenditure refers to the external audit fee, computer services, the services of the Financial Management Division, the Personnel Division and so on.
If we had taken no action, we would have faced an expenditure of US$55 million during this year. Our best estimate of income at that time was just under US$45 million, so we really had a gap of some US$10 million with which we had to deal.
Please bear in mind that in the case of a Programme of Work, the Conference, you, approve the resources and we count on them. In the case of support costs income, we are constantly working, firstly, with estimates of the projects that FAO is being asked to execute and, secondly, with the scale of delivery and the tempo of delivery. Both these factors have to be constantly borne in mind. That is why support cost incomes have to be kept under review by us on a continuing basis.
We could not, obviously, face this gap of US$10 million. The Director-General had to take action. What does this action consist of? It was decided that vacant posts which were funded under support costs - and there were some 80 of them which were vacant at that point in time - should not be filled. There were some on which the process of recruitment was under way, on which an offer had already been made to a candidate. Of course, we could not retract that and those posts had to be filled. Then there were certain posts where the incumbents had qualifications which made it suitable to move that staff member to a vacant Regular Programme post. This still enabled us to reduce the posts under support costs but it meant that there was no personnel problem created because the individuals concerned had contracts, those contracts were honoured, and they were moved to other work or posts under the Regular Programme. But there were some posts where the post was occupied, the post was funded under support costs, and there was insufficiency of expected income. This is what was meant when we said that we expected a likely increase in the Regular Programme subsidy of US$8 million for the biennium. Let me say very clearly that this is if only all those posts were to be transferred to the Regular Programme in the next biennium. In fact, in the next Programme of Work
and Budget you will see very clearly an indication of what these posts are and whether the Conference agrees to assuming the funding of these posts under the Regular Programme. For now, let me just give you some examples. The Director of the Administrative Services Division, the D-2 post, has in the past for many years been funded under support-cost income. When support-cost income was rising, when it was at a sufficient level, it spared its inclusion under the Regular Programme of Work. But a very basic policy issue and a practical management issue come up. If this post cannot be funded under support costs, we obviously need that function to be carried out under the Regular Programme. We are not asking for any decision now, but I am giving this as an example of a post where we shall have to include it under the next Programme of Work and you and all your subsidiary bodies will then have to examine the wisdom and the necessity of doing so.
I have given the most striking example, of course, a D-2 Director post, but there are other posts, such as Assistant Director to the ADG of the Administration and Finance Department, a remote sensing officer, an information systems officer, but these are examples, and these are the reasons why the matter has been referred to.
This brings me to an issue which has come up repeatedly in the debate, and that is the next Programme of Work and Budget. For my part, let me say that, although I have listened very attentively to what has been said by the distinguished representatives of Japan and the USA when they indicated their position regarding the next budget level, I would point out three things. Firstly, I am indebted to the distinguished representative of Trinidad - and I am sorry I cannot thank him personally at the moment - because he has drawn your attention to the fact that Conference stated very clearly, and stressed, that the solution adopted by the Conference in 1991 should be considered an exceptional one and not setting a precedent for future Programmes of Work and Budget and that Member Nations reserved the right to consider on their merits future Programme of Work and Budget proposals as may be submitted by the Director-General in accordance with Article XVIII of the Constitution.
I beg to say that this issue is really not one which needs to be considered now. It is certainly not an issue under the progress report which has been submitted to you, and it is certainly not a matter on which the Director-General would authorize me to either prethink or prejudge what his intentions may be. As a number of representatives have rightly pointed out, the Director-General's proposals for the next biennium will be submitted in the outline Programme of Work and Budget which will be considered by the Programme and Finance Committees at their joint meeting early next year. It will be very much an issue to be taken up at that time by the two Committees.
The second point I would make is that, although I have listened very attentively to what was said by the distinguished representative of the USA, I must say that I shall need to reflect a great deal on some of the implications of the suggestions made. For instance, I heard that this Member Nation wishes to see no growth in discretionary expenditures. If I may understand that to mean no programme growth, that is one understanding, and I can at least comprehend what is being said. Another aspect was that this Member Nation would like to see the maximum absorption of non-discretionary expenditures. Does that mean that there would not be provision for warranted and justified cost increases? If we are to absorb cost increases, this is a very basic issue, not just for the Director-General to consider but for all Member Nations to consider. These are very important points. I should like to
do justice to them by not giving a reaction which is not needed at this stage, anyway, but by pointing out that we shall give the utmost attention to what has been said, and what will be said, on this matter.
Mr Chairman, I have taken a lot of your time. You have been very kind in not rushing me. I hope I have responded to the sense of the debate, to the substance of the debate, and to the questions raised. I remain, of course, at your full disposal if there is any aspect on which the Council would wish me to respond further.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the Deputy Director-General, Mr Shah, for his intervention and substantial answers to all the questions.
Nous arrivons au terme de l'examen de ce rapport intérimaire du Directeur général sur l'exécution du budget programme. Le débat a été particulièrement intéressant et particulièrement riche.
Je me permettrai de faire une réflexion à propos de ce qu'a dit le Japon en ce qui concerne les recrutements. La vie des organisations et la vie de toutes les administrations nécessitent de prévoir l'avenir et un rajeunissement de cadres. Le blocage des recrutements pendant de longues périodes est très préjudiciable à toutes les organisations, car l'apport de sang neuf dans un organisme, l'apport de jeunes avec de nouvelles ouvertures, de nouvelles techniques, me parait indispensable, si l'on veut garder à notre organisation tout le dynamisme et toutes les capacités de réponse voulues. On a beaucoup parlé de centre d'excellence. Pour être un centre d'excellence, la connaissance et l'approche de nouvelles techniques dans un monde qui évolue très vite est absolument indispensable.
En ce qui concerne la fixation du niveau du prochain budget, nous n'avons pas à en discuter maintenant puisque la procédure, qui est une procédure très longue, a été fixée par la Résolution 5/91 de la Conférence qui prévoit qu'au début de la deuxième année de l'exercice biennal, le Comité du programme et le Comité financier tiennent une réunion conjointe afin d'examiner le schéma de Programme de travail et budget soumis par le Directeur général pour l'exercice suivant et de faire des recommandations sur le niveau du budget et les principales activités du programme.
C'est en janvier 1993 que cet examen aura lieu; il est donc tout à fait prématuré d'en discuter maintenant. Il a été clairement affirmé et réaffirmé que les mesures exceptionnelles prises dans le cadre du Budget programme 1992-93 étaient des mesures tout à fait exceptionnelles et ne constituaient pas un précédent pour de futurs programmes de travail et budget.
Nous pouvons constater que, compte tenu des disponibilités de trésorerie, le Directeur général a dû procéder à un certain nombre de réductions et réallocations de crédits qui ont incontestablement eu un impact sur le programme. La grande majorité des membres ont regretté ces réductions mais il faut constater que, la situation de trésorerie s'étant améliorée, il sera peut-être possible, dans le courant de l'année 1993, par un effort exceptionnel des services de la FAO, de compenser les réductions qui ont eu lieu en 1992 de façon à pouvoir réaliser la totalité du Programme de travail, sur la base d'un montant de 676 millions de dollars. C'est, à mon avis, le point essentiel qui se dégage de ce débat particulièrement riche et intéressant. Cela demandera un effort considérable de la part de tout le
personnel de la FAO. Nous aurons l'occasion, demain après-midi, d'aborder le problème du personnel - je crois qu'il faut l'aborder dans son ensemble - y compris ce qui a retenu plus spécifiquement l'attention du représentant du Japon. A mon sens, l'exécution du programme de travail est fonction de l'enthousiasme et du dynamisme d'un Secrétariat renforcé.
On a parlé des problèmes de dépenses d'appui. Nous l'aborderons également demain après-midi. C'est un problème important. Dans le passé, un certain nombre de membres du personnel indispensables à la vie de l'Organisation ont été pris en charge par les dépenses d'appui.
Il en est de même de certains aspects du Programme de travail et de certaines activités de la FAO qui sont essentielles à la vie de l'Organisation. Je n'en citerai pas d'exemples pour le moment; nous aurons l'occasion d'y revenir.
S'il n'y a pas d'autres questions au sujet de ce point, je vais déclarer clos son examen et je vais faire une proposition concernant le déroulement de nos travaux.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous propose de procéder à l'élection de sept membres du Comité des politiques et programmes d'aide alimentaire du PAM. Comme vous le savez, cette élection nécessite un quorum des deux tiers et nous avons ce quorum: 37 membres sont actuellement en séance. Comme il ne s'agit pas d'une matière litigieuse, nous pourrions procéder à l'élection de ces membres.
Conformément au paragraphe 9.a) de l'article XII du Règlement général de l'Organisation, les élections ont lieu au scrutin secret, sauf que s'il n'y a pas plus de candidats que de sièges à pourvoir le Président peut proposer au Conseil de procéder aux nominations par consentement général manifeste.
Nous avons donc le quorum des deux tiers. Le Secrétaire général était en possession, vendredi à 10 heures, de sept candidatures pour sept sièges à pourvoir. Je vous donne la liste de ces candidatures:
Pour la liste A, qui concerne l'Afrique, il y a deux postes à pourvoir et deux candidatures: celle du Burkina Faso et celle du Sénégal. Le Sénégal était déjà membre du Comité et représente sa candidature. Le Burkina Faso présente la sienne pour remplacer la Guinée.
Pour la liste B-II, qui concerne les pays d'Asie et du Pacifique, il y a deux postes à pourvoir. Le Bangladesh et le Sri Lanka, qui étaient déjà membres du Comité, représentent leur candidature.
Pour la liste D, qui concerne les pays de l'OCDE et divers pays dits économiquement développés, il y a trois postes à pourvoir et nous avons la candidature de trois pays sortants: l'Australie, le Canada et les Etats-Unis d'Amérique.
Je propose dès lors au Conseil de procéder à la nomination de ces sept pays par consentement général manifeste. Je crois qu'il ne reste qu'à applaudir les membres élus.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
LE PRESIDENT: Le Burkina Faso et le Sénégal, pour la liste A, le Bangladesh et le Sri Lanka, pour la liste B-II, l'Australie, le Canada et les Etats-Unis d'Amérique, pour la liste D, sont élus membres du Comité des politiques et programmes d'aide alimentaire du PAM.
J.R. TURKSON (Ghana): I do not want to delay the proceedings, Mr Chairman, but I wish to correct something you just said: it is Burkina Faso which is seeking reelection and not Senegal.
LE PRESIDENT: Je crois que vous avez raison. Je m'en excuse mais cela ne change rien au résultat du vote. Je vous remercie de votre observation; il en sera bien sûr tenu compte dans le procès-verbal.
Il ne me reste qu'à vous remercier de votre assiduité et de votre participation à la onzième séance plénière du Conseil.
The meeting rose at 12.30 hours.
La session est levée à 12 h 30.
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.30 horas.
