APPENDIX D
STATEMENT BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL

Mr Chairman, Your Excellencies, Distinguished Representatives and Members of Delegations, Ladies and Gentlemen:

First of all I want to welcome you all, particularly those who have had a long journey here from your capital cities.

Every meeting of the FAO Council is a new milestone in the progress of the Organization and your agenda, like that of past sessions, is very full. Perhaps you will understand, however, that I consider this session to be especially important: it was in fact just one year to the day, or nearly so, that a special session of the Council unanimously approved the sweeping reforms and concrete measures I had proposed to breathe new life into our Organization. And as I promised, you will now have the opportunity to review the second progress report on the implementation of these decisions.

This June session also represents an essential step in the process of consultations prior to the Conference's review of the proposals in the next Programme of Work and Budget, the formulation of which is particularly delicate for a series of reasons. I hope that the Council will facilitate this process by voicing a carefully pondered, clear and unanimous opinion on the Summary Programme of Work and Budget before it. You will also be informed of preparations for the World Food Summit, a topic already taken up at the Council session last November at a time when this major event was virtually still in the embryonic stages. It has matured considerably since and you now have before you more concrete elements to guide your discussions at this session. Before dealing with these three items, I shall, as is the custom, briefly touch on just the highlights of the global state of food and agriculture, if I may.

World cereal production in 1995 is currently forecast at one billion 933 million tonnes, a decline of about 20 million tonnes or 1 percent compared with last year. This level of production would not be sufficient to meet expected consumption needs in 1995-96 and carry-over stocks of cereals will have to be drawn down to 273 million tonnes at the end of the crop years closing in 1996, 30 million tonnes or 10 percent below their opening levels. The supply situation is particularly tight for wheat with extremely low stocks forecasts to be held by the major exporters. As a result aggregate world cereal stocks at the end of 1995/96 seasons could approach 15 percent of trend utilization in 1996/97, substantially below the range of 17 to 18 percent the FAO Secretariat considers the minimum necessary to safeguard world food security.

Exports and future prices for wheat and maize, the leading coarse grain, have already started to rise. Should crop conditions deteriorate in major regions or any significant additional demand materialize this year beyond that currently anticipated, further price increases would be triggered. This would raise the import bills of cereal-importing countries with serious implications for Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries. Many countries, especially in Africa, continue to face dire food emergencies and, at best, a highly unstable food supply situation.

The media give a lot of coverage to Rwanda and Burundi, but many other countries or provinces within countries are experiencing severe shortfalls in connection with internal conflicts or localized drought. At the same time, the prospects for future food aid are hardly reassuring. The backdrop is not altogether bleak. Africa's global cereal output is increasing. Agricultural commodity export prices for developing countries rose last year and are expected to remain steady this year. Attacks of animal pests and diseases also require our continuous vigilance. Due to unusually heavy rainfall in the traditional spring breeding zones of the desert locust and the current presence of hopper bands and swarms in neighbouring areas, a potentially dangerous situation could easily develop within the next few months. Rinderpest and associated disease emergencies in East Africa have required the assistance and intervention of FAO. Both situations offer further evidence (if need be) of the validity of the EMPRES programme approved by the Council last year. This takes me on to the next topic, which is progress on the implementation of decisions taken by the Council at its 106th Session last June. The restructuring exercise is now in its final stages. Considerable work was required to closely review the allocation of posts within the Secretariat, redefine the mandate of the different organizational units and rewrite the accompanying job descriptions. A nearly full team of senior staff is now on board and on the job. The actual regrouping into one department or office of units that are still not together will take place during the summer. The new administrative units will take longer to establish because this component of the restructuring is governed by a complex situation of rules and procedures and computer network systems, themselves currently the subject of an in-depth review intended to simplify and/or improve them.

Decentralization to the reinforced Regional Offices and the new Sub-Regional Offices is being carried out in stages. In addition to redefining functions and adjusting administrative procedures, a job virtually identical to that of Headquarters restructuring, there is the human component, the logistics component, and what I would call the "diplomacy" component.

Clearly, decentralization implies the transfer of staff members and their families and must take place in accordance with the provisions of the staff rules. This cannot be done overnight. Additionally there is the problem of children's schooling, notices for the non-renewal of rental leases, and so forth. A framework for dialogue with the staff associations has been set up to ensure that everything is done according to the rules and in consideration of individual preferences and situations, where possible. For the practical reasons I have just mentioned, summer is the best time for these transfers. We therefore expect major progress in the redeployment operation by September.

As for the logistics component, the first thing is to make sure that the designated staff premises are satisfactory in terms of quantity and quality. Moreover, as indicated in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, the decentralization process will be expanded to include the transfer of additional staff from the Investment Centre and Field Operations Divisions. We therefore need to negotiate with the host countries and institutions as to the terms under which these staff are received, particularly the availability of appropriate facilities under satisfactory conditions at the level of both the Regional Offices to be strengthened and the new Sub-Regional Offices and institutions concerned. And lastly, as to the diplomacy component, lengthy negotiations were needed to arrive at a consensus on the choice of host country for the Sub-Regional Office. As an intergovernmental organization, FAO must operate within a clearly defined legal framework. Headquarters agreements for countries and exchanges of letters for the institutions need to be negotiated. The national administrations concerned have their own decision-making procedures. It all takes time, too much time perhaps, but there is no alternative.

Despite these constraints, two Sub-Regional Offices have been established and three Sub-Regional Representatives are already at work. Negotiations are being pursued with the host countries of these offices. I am sorry, however, to have to point out that despite our efforts to arrive at a solution agreeable to all countries involved, a consensus has not yet emerged on the choice of the headquarters of one of the five Sub-Regional Offices, and I shall therefore have to take the appropriate steps to ensure that this situation does not persist.

We are also working actively on the development of the communications infrastructure to link all decentralized offices with one another and with Headquarters, thus facilitating the ever-growing flow of data. Because costs were too high, the objectives of the project that was originally submitted had to be revised, and a new project was prepared in the light of changes in the communications system. The bidding documents should be finalized in a few weeks.

The new cooperation agreements proposed to Member Nations have been highly successful. These are the agreements on the use of experts for technical cooperation among developing countries (TCDC) and among the countries in transition in Eastern and Central Europe, and the use of UN personnel and national civil servants currently in retirement. The cooperation programme with the academic and research institutions has been revised in response to observations by Member Nations.

So far 56 Member Nations have signed the TCDC Agreement and we have received over 1 600 offers of service which must, of course, be carefully scrutinized by the technical services and entered into the database so that they can be matched with requests for expertise.

Lastly, a few words on the two Special Programmes: the Special Programme on Food Production in support of Food Security in Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries and the Emergency Prevention System (EMPRES) for transboundary animal and plant pests and diseases.

You have the main data on past and ongoing activities in the document submitted to the Council. I need only recall that the Special Programme concerning food security is now active in a first group of 15 countries. Its future development is critically dependent on the support of Member Nations who have so far actively cooperated in financing FAO's field activities, on our special partners such as the financing agencies and the UNDP, and on the mobilization of new donors. I wish to point out, as I emphasized when I proposed this programme, that FAO with its limited resources cannot implement it alone. FAO has initiated action that is now underway in the field. Our traditional partners and new donors must now mobilize to ensure that this fundamental FAO Programme, which aroused such enthusiasm among our Member Nations, does not falter and lose momentum. Also, and this cannot be emphasized enough, it is the beneficiary governments and rural communities concerned who will have the main responsibility for concrete activities within their countries.

No effort has been spared to mobilize all possible resources and to outline the Programme to all potential partners: international organizations, financing agencies and bilateral donors. Existing agreements with the World Bank have been reinforced and an FAO/UNDP Task Force has been working to identify potential projects for joint implementation under the Special Programme. Other donors, international organizations and development banks have offered their support or expressed interest. A donor consultation is planned as a side meeting during the Council. I sincerely hope that tangible signs of support will emerge from this consultation. I would ask members of delegations from countries that could give financial support to this Programme to exert every possible influence on their appropriate national administrations to unfreeze a situation which is perhaps simply, as the English expression so eloquently puts it, a case of "wait-and-see".

As to the Emergency Prevention System (EMPRES) for Transboundary Animal and Plant Pests and Diseases, you probably remember that the initial emphasis was on locusts and rinderpest, given the scope of these two plagues. EMPRES's extra-budgetary resource requirements are not so great as those of the other Special Programme, but we nonetheless need to assure a regular flow of such resources if we are to continue and, especially, to expand the scope of the initial efforts to other geographical areas or diseases, as the Member Nations wish.

The third part of my speech concerns the Summary Programme of Work and Budget for the 1996-97 biennium. First of all, may I repeat my appreciation for the highly pertinent discussions on this matter during the sessions of the Programme and Finance Committees: first the January review of the Outline of the Programme of Work and Budget, and then the discussion of the Summary in April. You have the reports of these sessions to aid you in your deliberations.

As many members of delegations present here today know, I decided to organize briefing sessions with the various regional groups. One of the things I mentioned at these meetings, expressing deep concern, was the Organization's financial situation. This situation is closely related to certain parameters of the upcoming Programme of Work and Budget.

The circumstances leading to FAO's extremely difficult financial situation are undoubtedly well known to you all.

The overly optimistic expectation of substantial payments of arrears during the present biennium, which was the basis for the elaboration of the reduced assessments formula in the relevant Conference resolution, has therefore not materialized. The deficit in place at the beginning of this biennium, to which we really should add the arrears which were to finance the 1994-95 budget, may well reach untenable proportions by the end of 1995 in terms of sound financial management.

Instead of resorting to loans which would add a further burden of debt servicing to an already difficult financial situation, I decided to introduce stringent economy measures to limit the possible increase in this deficit and thus begin the 1996-97 biennium on as solid a footing as possible. I also suggested that Member Nations no longer resort to the very uncertain formula of calculating assessments for the next biennium on the assumption of the payment of arrears. I was heartened by the support for this suggestion from the Programme and Finance Committees.

I have also taken great pains to contain the increase in contributions, given the difficulties of Member Nations in meeting their obligations, particularly those with very limited resources. I have therefore proposed a budget of no real growth. You will appreciate that this carefully pondered decision was not an easy one, particularly because it means that I have had to exclude certain highly desirable activities from the Summary budget. I had to write these items into a supplementary budget that will only become operational if the necessary resources become available.

These two guiding considerations and the need to cover higher costs give us an increase in assessments of 11.7 percent against the 1994-95 biennium. You will note that, following the expressions of concern by Member Nations, serious efforts have been made to reduce the 16 percent level indicated in the Outline Programme of Work and Budget.

Some consider that the increase in assessments is still too high- For my part, I have merely suggested a return to normal practice in fixing contributions and applying the principle of no real growth. We should also recall that, by including arrears in the financing of the budget, the Member Nations diminished their contributions in previous biennia. In fact, of all the agencies, FAO has had the lowest increase in contributions since 1990-91.

I think that it is also important to mention that actual savings thanks to the budgetary restructuring proposals put forward at the 106th Session of the Council have made it possible to redeploy enough internal resources to initiate new priority programmes (food security and EMPRES), and to install the facilities needed to improve communication between Headquarters and the decentralized structures.

And now let me turn to the priorities. For practical reasons the Summary does not include the traditional presentation of budgetary provisions and changes introduced in relation to the current Programme of Work and Budget. However, it does give a broad indication of several priority areas, taking into account, of course, the Council's decisions regarding the Special Programmes approved last year and the expectations expressed by the Member Nations on many occasions. The Summary also includes - perhaps somewhat rashly - a list of areas that could be considered as being less urgent.

The Programme Committee, to a lesser extent the Finance Committee, and all the technical committees of the Council have thoroughly discussed the issue of priorities, but sometimes without a clearly defined focus. This is a very tricky subject for the 170 Member Nations cover a wide spectrum of population sizes; geographical areas; natural resource endowments; levels of economic, social and technical development; specific problems regarding agriculture, forestry, fisheries and food; and plain and simple national interests. It is therefore quite understandable that they should have trouble finding a common denominator in the priorities for actions they wish FAO to undertake.

Neither my colleagues nor myself have wished to remain passive with regard to such a sensitive matter. We shall have to accommodate all the recommendations of the technical committees and of the Programme and Finance Committees and, of course and above above all, your views and conclusions at this session, to come up with a set of coherent proposals in the Programme of Work and Budget to be submitted to the Conference. Despite the difficulties, I am confident that your discussions on the Summary will help secure the consensus that is so important to me.

I now come to the World Food Summit. This Summit would be a landmark event as FAO, for the first time in its fifty years, engaged in a top-level meeting devoted entirely to its mandate of eliminating hunger and malnutrition in the world.

Following discussions on this matter at the Regional Conferences and Council, and in the light of preliminary contacts with the Member Nations, I intend to submit formally to the Conference my proposal to convene a World Food Summit in 1996. It is my heartfelt conviction that the international community, with its highest leaders in the forefront, should come firmly together under a solemn commitment to take concrete steps to eliminate food insecurity.

I am aware that, initially, this idea will meet with a whole host of reactions, ranging from enthusiasm to doubt. Some have questioned the need to convene a Summit that necessarily implies the presence of Heads of State and Government rather than a ministerial meeting.

I've already pointed out in the past that the Ministers of Agriculture meet every two years at FAO Conferences; the World Food Conference was a gathering of ministers; your Council is a high-level body. These meetings are of great value, yet despite the good intentions, the renewal of commitments and the efforts deployed, no fewer than 800 million human beings are still suffering from malnutrition in this, the age of computers and space travel. Marine resources are being overexploited and millions of hectares of forest disappear each year. Arable land and water resources are shrinking under the combined assault of nature and humankind, the latter often paying little regard to the notion of sustainability, given the primary concern for survival.

Seeing as our planet will have to feed three billion additional inhabitants in the year 2030, would it have been right to convene yet another ministerial conference in the hope of achieving the collective act of conscience that has so far eluded us?

I do not think so. Past experience, combined with deep awareness of the need to strongly oppose the passive stance as a reaction to unacceptable events, were what prompted my proposal. The expressions of support and advice that I have received from the permanent representatives to FAO are a source of satisfaction for me.

After due consultations, I shall therefore suggest to the Conference that the Summit be held in November 1996. The plan is to hold a ministerial meeting from 13 to 15 November, while the last two days, the 16th and 17th, would be set aside for the Heads of State and Government. A preparatory meeting of high-level officials would be held before the Summit, on 11 and 12 November.

I should like at this point to express my gratitude to the Italian Government which, after requesting that the Summit be put back from March to November 1996 to fit in with its political commitments, confirmed its willingness to host the Summit and help with its organization. This political, material and diplomatic support would certainly be a key factor in the success of the Summit. The new date also gives us more time to prepare the Summit and to take advantage of feedback from FAO's Regional Conferences.

First and foremost, this Summit must differ from other similar occasions, taking into account a certain lassitude, not to say scepticism, with which these international events have come to be viewed as regards their usefulness and impact.

The Summit will therefore not become a platform for the pledging of contributions. Nor will it call for new funding mechanisms or institutions, thus avoiding the endless wrangling that has marked some other such occasions. The Summit will deal with the fundamentals and will be endorsed by adoption of a general policy document in the form of a declaration of Heads of State and Government and a plan of action identifying the pragmatic and concrete measures needed to achieve food security at national, regional and world levels.

Additionally, the World Food Summit will not adopt the time-consuming and costly practice of preparatory committees. These would be replaced by normal FAO meetings, particularly the Committee on Food Security, the Council and the Conference. Several Member Nations have answered my request to appoint a national secretary to liaise with the Secretary-General of the Summit, who is heading a small coordinating unit at FAO Headquarters. The NGOs and private sector would be involved throughout the process, from preparation to implementation of the Summit's conclusions. Other UN bodies and agencies (WHO, UNDP, UNICEF, UNEP, UNFPA, WFP), the Bretton Woods financial institutions, IFAD and the regional banks have been approached for their help in preparing the working papers for the Summit.

Moreover every possible effort will be made to minimize the cost of the Summit, for example by drawing fully upon the intellectual and technical resources available within the Organization. The choice of FAO Headquarters in Rome rather than another city as the venue also reflects this concern for economy, as does the use of meetings that have already been scheduled for FAO's bodies.

With this in mind, the Ministerial Conference of Quebec, which is to be held from 14 to 16 October 1995 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of FAO, will mark a significant milestone in the preparations for the Summit. This Conference, bringing together Ministers of Agriculture and Ministers in Charge of Development and Cooperation, plans to address a crucial theme: "Investment to Achieve Food for All".

The symposium on food security being organized by Canada from 13 to 15 October on the theme "People at the Heart of Development" will provide a good opportunity for NGOs and the private sector to contribute their vision to the Summit. In this connection, I should like to pay tribute to Canada for its tireless efforts in working towards the success of the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of FAO and the World Food Summit.

Sound preparation for the Summit also depends - and in no small measure - on the quality of the documentation. That is why FAO is taking special pains with both the technical and the policy documents. The technical documents, which are either being prepared directly by the Organization or in collaboration with other institutions on carefully selected themes, will enable delegations to engage in substantial debate with a sound grasp of the issues. The policy documents will be thoroughly reviewed before adoption by the Heads of State and Government. The review process already began, in fact, at the last session of the Committee on Food Security which, as a technical body, would be called upon to play a leading role in preparing for the Summit. The document before you presenting elements for possible inclusion in a draft policy and plan of action on world food security is a revised version of the initial document, taking into consideration the essence of the Committee's preliminary observations.

What more is there to say? Sixty-one Heads of State and Government in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, North America, Europe, and the Near East have already personally pledged their support for the Summit. Lastly, several Conferences of Heads of State and Government and meetings of Ministers of Agriculture and Foreign Affairs have endorsed the proposal to convene the Summit. I think there can be no better inspiration to move ahead.

Mr Chairman,

Your Council has a very full agenda and substantial documentation before it. My colleagues and I stand ready to provide clarification on any aspects that the Council may wish to examine in more detail. Your opinions and conclusions are vital to the decision-making process of this Organization and serve as precious guidance for its Administration.

I wish you, therefore, every success in your work.

Thank you.