FAO Headquarters, 12 November 2018
Joint Meeting of the 125th Session of the FAO Programme Committee and the 171st Session of the FAO Finance Committee
Let me start by mentioning some events and developments since the last Joint Meeting in May.
All technical committees (COFI, COFO, COAG and CCP) have provided guidance for FAO’s work on some crucial issues, such as the impacts of climate change, agroecology and the sustainable use of natural resources.
The outcomes of these technical committees, as well as the priorities resulting from the Regional Conferences, will be used in the elaboration of the Reviewed Medium Term Plan 2018-21.
I also wanted to welcome the approval, by the last session of Committee on World Food Security (CFS), to develop the Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition. This is very welcomed and very needed.
Two weeks ago, FAO organized in Madrid the First World Parliamentarian Summit on Hunger and Malnutrition, alongside the Spanish Government, the European Commission and IFAD.
More than 200 parliamentarians from 80 different countries participated in the event. They signed a declaration and exchanged experiences on how to keep nutrition high in the political and legislative national agendas.
As you all know, SOFI 2018 highlights not only how global hunger continues to be on the rise, but it also indicates the increase of obesity and other forms of malnutrition in the world.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Let me now mention some issues that will be discussed during the week.
We are presenting a proposal to adjust the structure under the Deputy Director-General of Programmes (DDP).
First, let me stress the adjustments needed under the current Technical Cooperation Department (TC).
When the TC department was created in 1994, its aim was to consolidate and centralize at headquarters all functions related to FAO services provided at country level. At that time, this included project management, policy support, resource mobilization, and the investment centre.
But the reality today is very different. I would say completely different.
After the FAO reform, and especially since 2012, we have mainstreamed and decentralized policy support and project operations at regional, subregional and even country level. We have also started to mobilize resources at country level.
What remains in the TC department are the functions of coordinating and supporting these decentralized activities.
So the adjustment we are proposing is to move out of this old view of centralization and reaffirm the role of coordination and support of the department. Another adjustment we are proposing is to reinforce the potential of South-South Cooperation at FAO by establishing an office for South-South and Triangular Cooperation.
As we all know, DPS has many activities like the partnerships with civil society, private sector and Academia. DPS is also responsible for the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on Land Tenure, which is growing in importance day after day.
A standalone office will give South-South and Triangular Cooperation more visibility in FAO’s structure. And it will be also important for FAO due to our participation in the Second High-Level United Nations Conference on South-South Cooperation (BAPA+40) in March next year, in Buenos Aires.
All these adjustments are of course on a budget-neutral basis.
Some countries are asking why make these adjustments, and why rush to make them now.
First of all, let me say that this administration still has almost nine months left to run the Organization. So there is no rush.
The adjustments are basically to consolidate DDP and the role of the SP teams.
The creation of the DDP, in December 2016, two years ago, was very important to strengthen strategic programme management and delivery, as well as to align FAO’s work to the SDGs.
But DDP’s workload has increased a lot in terms of projects and resource mobilization over the last two years, as you can see in the additional information provided.
So let me make a parallel to explain better the case. When we created DDP, we made a brand new suit for Dan Gustafson to wear, but this suit has now gotten tight.
And instead of making a brand new suit again, we are just asking him to go to the tailor to see what he can do to enlarge it a bit, to accommodate to the workload that we have.
Perhaps a better example is the reform of a house with people living in it.
First, we make the structural changes needed, like a new bedroom for the kids that are growing rapidly.
Then, we make some minor adjustments while people live (or work) normally in the house, such as painting a door or changing a clogged pipe.
We have made the structural reform two years ago by creating DDP and are now only making the final adjustments to cope with the work that we have to do now and in the near future.
What we need is a DDP that is fit for purpose.
As you all know, FAO is mobilizing increased extra-budgetary resources, especially coming from big projects, as you can see in the additional information provided on this topic. And for most of these big projects, FAO is also the implementing agency.
This is a new role and a new challenge for us. For example: FAO is now the fourth largest partner of the GEF, with a USD 700 million project portfolio, and was just selected to be the leader of the new GEF7 Dryland Landscapes Impact Program, for a value of USD 109 million.
Recently, FAO applied to be the manager of another GEF Program, called Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration Impact Program, for a value of USD 430 million.
In this last case, FAO was identified as one of the two finalists in the selection process, but the World Bank was ultimately selected to lead this Impact Program. Let me repeat the name of the program: Food Systems, Land Use and Restoration Impact Program.
During the process, GEF Secretariat noted FAO’s strengths on convening power and policy setting capacity through its relevant committees, regional processes and bodies.
But at the same time, we received private feedback suggesting that there were concerns regarding FAO’s ability to deliver such a large program at scale.
In other words, FAO lost the management of a GEF programme of USD 430 million because we could not show capacity to implement large projects.
Regarding the Green Climate Fund, FAO has supported countries in the approval of projects worth USD 218 million. Four more Green Climate Fund proposals are expected to be approved early next year, and all of them are big projects.
So there is a need to strengthen program delivery capacity, particularly through projects. And the time to do it is now, we do not want to lose more opportunities in the near future.
Please bear in mind that we are just renaming a department, and not creating a new one as we did two years ago with CB, the department for climate change, biodiversity, land and water.
At that time, I remember some members asking the same question: why now? Why in a rush?
Furthermore, the existing ADG-TC Terms of Reference are very similar to the Terms of Reference of the DDP, as it refers to all—let me highlight—all technical cooperation actions in the Organization.
In fact, the current terms of reference of the ADG TC reflect the old departmental silos approach and headquarter-centric that existed before the advent of the SP teams.
We should have changed the Terms of Reference of ADG-TC when we established DDP two years ago. We are proposing to do it now.
Let me also highlight that the appointment of the ADG-TC does not depend at all on the changes proposed. It can be done under the existing structure, at any moment.
To summarise, let me be clear that we are bringing this proposal to the Council through the Joint Meeting because, under the rules of the Organization, we need formal approval (i) to change the name of a department or any other unit; (ii) to adjust some reporting lines within the DDP stream; and (iii) to establish the new office for South-South and Triangular cooperation. Those are the three things in which we need your support and approval.
Ladies and gentlemen
I will now refer to one of your favourite topics: human resources.
The last informal seminar on HR that took place one month ago allowed us to have a frank and open dialogue.
Today, let me start by repeating the words that were said by Ambassador Hans Hoogeveen at the opening of the Informal Seminar.
I quote: ”We need to make a distinction between policy on one hand and the implementation and management of the Organization on the other. Discussions on policies are the prerogative of Members, while the method of implementation is the responsibility of the Director-General and FAO management. And in this regard, I call upon Members to avoid micromanagement of the Organization.” (end quote)
One important aspect discussed in the informal seminar was FAO’s recruitment process.
Let me highlight that FAO’s recruitment process is based, above all, on competence and technical skills.
But it also takes into consideration the need to promote better gender and geographical balance, as requested by Membership.
We have succeeded in hiring more women, as well as more professionals from under- and non- represented countries, over the last years, as shown by the numbers we have shared.
Last August, I received a letter from the Executive Director of UN Women congratulating FAO for having “met” or “exceeded” 93 percent of all UN-SWAP performance indicators in the period 2012-2017.
At the close of 2017, 43% of all international posts were held by women. This is FAO’s highest representation of women in the last years.
In terms of geographical balance, let me emphasize that only three countries are today over represented (Ireland and Spain by one and Italy by 20).
And we have only 17 countries are not represented in the geographic distribution of our staff.
If we consider that there are 10 countries that have never been represented in FAO over the last 25 years (that is since January 1994), this gives us a clear picture of the improvements achieved.
In simple numbers, out of the 184 countries that have been represented by FAO staff at least once, only seven countries, which means less than 4%, are not currently represented.
We are now preparing a special approach for countries that are not currently represented in the geographic distribution of FAO staff.
But as I said in the Informal Seminar, most of these non-represented countries are very small, in particular SIDS countries, from where it is not simple to find good candidates.
Let me also mention some differences between the current recruitment process and the past one.
When I took office in 2012, several Member asked me to improve geographical and gender balance.
The previous selection process involved two largely repetitive stages: an interview conducted within the Departments and a review process by single and a centralized Professional Staff Selection Committee (PSSC) located here in Headquarters.
So there was only one PSSC in charge of reviewing all recruitment processes in the Organization. The average duration of the recruitment process was around 303 days (about 10 months!).
The current system moved away from the centralized one-PSSC arrangement to a highly decentralized selection process that established one PSSC per department and regional office. There is total of 13 PSSCs in FAO nowadays.
These committees consist of: a chairperson from the department or regional office, a representative of the recruiting division or regional office, a representative of HR who acts as Secretary, a member from the Department or regional office elected directly by staff and not appointed by staff representative bodies, and a technical expert from outside the organization, from a selection panel P4 or above.
So the departments are indeed directly involved in the selection process through the participation of an officer from the departments in the selection panel of candidates.
And the result of the selection panel is directly submitted from the recruiting division to the Director-General.
So all of these measures have been important to avoid political interference, and also to promote gender and geographical balance in the selection process of candidates. And we have reduced the average duration of the recruitment process to some 120 days—almost by one-third.
Ladies and gentlemen,
I recognize that some of you may be concerned about the ongoing recruitment of senior level positions.
Let me recall that it was my initiative to bring in a change in the rules of the Organization, approved by the Conference in 2013, to limit the period up to which the Director-General can make senior appointments.
I did this because of my previous experience when I became Director-General, already with a reduced first term of three and a half years, I found that ALL senior managers had two-year contracts, including one Deputy Director-General with a five-year contract!
As a result, I had to dedicate a lot of time and energy in my first year to finding innovative solutions to renew the FAO’s senior management.
So, even though I will continue to make senior appointments until January, the duration of their contracts will be limited effectively to the end of 2019 to give maximum freedom to the next Director-General.
Let me also say that we are presenting to the Finance Committee all the relevant information regarding the meetings of the Staff Management Consultative Committee.
The document shows that management consults staff all the time, through regular meetings.
Staff can ask anything to be included in the agenda, and management always agrees. More importantly, we take Staff inputs seriously, changing proposals according to their feedback. For example, since the Staff Management Consultative Committee (SMCC) was established, this happened 22 out of 26 times (or 85%) we considered staff proposals, either partially or in full.
So it is not true that the meetings are only “pro-forma” and that management does not take into consideration the proposals from the Staff Representative Bodies.
I would also like to highlight once more that Members cannot put themselves in a position of mediating the relationship between Management and the Staff Representative Bodies.
There is a well-established mechanism for this, and we must respect our own institutionality.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Last week, I participated in the Chief Executives Board in New York, where the Secretary-General reported on the efforts accomplished by the task force in addressing sexual harassment within the organizations of the UN System.
It was agreed on a common definition and common policy to be implemented across all the UN System. Let me say that FAO was ahead of most of these common policies agreed upon.
It was also agreed that the survey that is currently being made across the UN system will be processed and the results will be made available as soon as possible.
So we are moving forward in tackling sexual harassment and sexual exploitation not only at FAO but in the UN System as whole, in a common approach.
Let me also inform that during CEB the Secretary-General decided to move forward in the implementation of the new RC system that will become effective for all countries simultaneously by 1 January 2019, in less than one month.
Pending issues will continue to be discussed until the end of this year, including UN DOCO structure, regional coordination, 1% levy, and other issues.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The pursuit of efficiency gains and savings continues to be a high priority in my administration, especially in a context of a flat nominal budget.
Since 2012 we have had the same nominal budget growth, which in fact means a real decrease in our budget of 3.2% (compared to 2010-2011)
Despite that, the transformational change of FAO’s operations resulted in USD 115 million in efficiency savings from 2012 until now.
These savings accounted [USD] 72 million in the first biennium; 37 million in the second and third biennia; and less than 8 million so far found this biennium.
That means that after major adjustments made in the first biennium, all other savings were incremental and due to financial issues (basically the favourable path of the exchange rate) and specific items in the administrative areas.
So it will not be easy to find additional savings to pay the increased costs of the new Resident Coordinator System. We look forward to receiving your guidance in the Finance Committee meetings.
Regarding FAO’s current financial situation, our cash position has improved a lot, and at the end of October we had [USD] 153 million. In November, we have received so far USD 16 million and EUR 22 million.
If no more payments are made, we will have USD 104 million at the end of December, an amount that allows us to move until the end of February, considering the minimum monthly expenditure of USD 45 million.
Some countries have made payments against their duties. In this regard, I would like to thank the Governments of Venezuela and the US for the partial payment of their past arrears, as well as Germany, the United Kingdom and Korea for the integral payment of current arrears related to 2018.
I would also like to thank some small countries, like Vanuatu, that has paid their contributions in full despite the difficult economic situation.
Let me stress that the Financial Regulations of FAO instruct that members have to pay their contributions by 1 January of each year.
I urge members that have not yet done so, to pay their outstanding assessments immediately.
I also urge all Members to pay their 2019 contributions early in the new year to avoid uncertainty and the kind of slow down of budgetary expenditure we have faced this year.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Another area where we will continue to work very hard over the next 9 months is our support for private sector investment.
This builds on the strong foundation we have in our Investment Center, in particular with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, as well as with the European Commission and private sector partners.
There are a number of initiatives underway through which FAO is working with governments and development banks to improve private sector investments.
Much of this work is in collaboration with the European Union's External Investment Plan, which leverages EU funding for the promotion of private sector investment, generally through regional and national development banks.
One project about to be approved with the European Commission will help them identify and formulate good projects for the private sector, and a number of other projects are under preparation to support individual countries in accessing funds like the Green Climate Fund.
Additionally, we are in the process of strengthening our direct interaction with the private sector beyond what we have achieved so far in the Partnerships Division.
As I have always said, private sector investment is essential in achieving the SDGs, and FAO needs to have a stronger relationship with private sector partners.
We are working closely with IFAD on this, for example, with a new initiative on Food Losses, together with the support of Rabobank and the Rockefeller Foundation.
There are other important items in the agenda of this Joint Meeting, such as the UN Reform and RBA relationship, but I will not refer to them at this moment because they were object of discussion in previous meetings.
Before concluding, let me reaffirm my commitment to working together with the new DG as soon as he or she is elected by the Conference.
I am sure that we will be able to establish a smooth transition process, providing all the requested support under the new proceedings that have been reviewed by the CCLM, and hopefully will be approved by Council.
I finish here my presentation, and I will be glad to remain and participate in the debates.
Thank you for your attention
