Winston RUDDER (Trinidad and Tobago): In our view, we have built a platform and set the stage and we have framed the context for the main event - that is to say, consideration of the 1996-97 PWB, our approved programme activity for the coming biennium and the means to achieve this programme. We ought to ask what constitutes the platform, the stage and the context, and we believe there are two broad aspects that constitute these.
In the first instance, we have an opportunity to review the performance of the Organization over the biennium. We have evaluated major components of past performance. We have had opportunities to assess the Director-General's stewardship to appraise his leadership and management qualities in terms of his vision and ability to direct and to cultivate, through communication, an empowered fellowship. All these qualities are translated into getting things done. We say that the Programme Implementation Report, the Programme Evaluation Report and the Medium-term Plan, which we have already endorsed and the observations we have made thereon reflect our confidence in the current leadership and management. Chairman, there are no skeletons in the closet here.
It therefore becomes much easier to assess the merits or otherwise of the proposals for the coming biennium since they flow from our diagnosis and analysis of the past performance and the current realities and since it is clear that the relevance of FAO, even after 50 years, remains and the main tenets of the mandate continue to be appropriate and valid (with certain modifications of course).
A second as yet undiscussed aspect of this context, at least not discussed openly, is the newly welcomed, refreshing and genuine spirit of understanding and accommodation that currently underlies the relationship among the membership of the Organization. This, in large measure, is due to the very deliberate efforts of the Director-General himself to foster the process of healing at the very outset of his tenure. I speak to this issue as one who has witnessed a debate within recent times on the PWB. The acrimony, the bitterness, indeed the ready willingness to demonize, and isolate and marginalize those opposing points of view on the PWB exists no more. This sense of reasonableness and empathy and readiness to listen to and strive to understand each other's points of view which currently characterize the debates at this Session of Conference leads me to be rather more optimistic than otherwise about the possibilities of a consensus.
From the outset, may I say that this consensus we are striving for has in no small measure been facilitated by the posture of the Secretariat itself, which in introducing this debate was at pains to indicate that, notwithstanding the proposals in document C 95/3 and related documents, the Director-General and his team are striving and will continue to do everything to effect further efficiencies and to improve effectiveness in seeking even further cost effectiveness in this Organization.
For me therein lies the meat of the matter. As we actively search for consensus in response to an observation made earlier by the distinguished representative of Germany, I remain convinced that even if we do not achieve consensus (remembering after all that consensus at any cost is perhaps no consensus at all) and even if we vote as the House is permitted to do on matters of this nature, we each of us can properly reflect the tenor of the debate describing the condition and environment which attended the decision in a way that would allow our capitals, in a true spirit of multilateralism, to commit themselves to the obligations of membership - be we large, medium or small.
In preparing ourselves for this debate we had to be convinced that there was coherence between the proposal in the Programme of Work as outlined in the document and Medium-term Plan. We have to be convinced that the PWB reflects the current imperatives attending agriculture, fisheries, forestry and rural development including matters related to food security, malnutrition and hunger. We have to be convinced that the major global initiatives and understandings shaping development in the widest sense have influenced the programmes
and sub-programmes. I refer to UNCED 1992 and the Uruguay Round 1994 and the new paradigms of governance that speak to the issue of people participation and the general issue. In other words, did the Director-General and his senior management draw reasoned and reasonable conclusions about the state of affairs in our countries, our regions and our sub-regions? Did they retain a global perspective without diminishing the importance of individual countries' concerns and interests? Was there a balance between the normative aspects and the technical assistance which we small-island developing states require to confront the new challenges of a liberalized agricultural trade regime impacting on a fragile, vulnerable, domestic, agricultural system? Or was there an adequate response by policy and programme to the requirements of sustainable agricultural and rural development with the unique implications that that has for us, given our size?
I will not review every programme element having had the opportunity to do that both at Programme Committee and Council but I merely wish at this stage to reaffirm our full support for the programme proposals as being reflective of a package that not only meets our aspirations but is reasonable in the current financial circumstances. We are satisfied that significant effort has been made in respect of overhauling the structure, system and operational efficiency of the Organization consequent on the decisions of the 106th Council. It is unfortunate that the observations of the recent Programme and Finance Committees have been misunderstood in respect of the call for an external management review of FAO.
My delegation supports the view that public and quasi public sectors institutions should draw on the tested and sensible management systems and procedures currently operating in the private sector. A fundamental concept in this regard is that leadership and management in organizations should be allowed to lead and manage and that shareholders should set policy and hold management responsible and accountable for results. I wish to impart this consideration into the debate on the extended and external management review of FAO. We are totally against directing management in this regard and in this way. We elected a Director-General and by his track record he has displayed an energetic and visionary leadership style and is a man of action. Let us exhort him to continue with his reforms, to look more deeply for effective and efficiency measures, to entrench more fully decentralization and devolution of authority, responsibility and accountability along with the introduction of systems and procedures that allow for control and not command and control. Control as required and advised by information through monitoring.
Let him provide more extensively for the development of human resources within the Organization in the area of management. Let him know full well that in encouraging him on this path to accelerated empowerment of staff, we hold him fully accountable and not his staff for the delivery of outputs as indicated in the Programme of Work and Budget. Incidentally, this speaks more clearly in its recent version in this regard on output and achievement. Let him decide, therefore, whether and to what extent in meeting his contract with us he needs internal, external or any additional management expertise at all.
And now the level of the Budget. My delegation is convinced that, as we approach the third millennium, global challenges remain requiring a multilateral approach accommodating the diverse interests and points of view to address adequately hunger, malnutrition, poverty, food production and distribution and the improvement of rural well-being. We humbly submit therefore, that if FAO did not exist we would invent it. So much for its relevance. Additionally, the scope of its task is real and large. Given the plethora of organizations purporting to speak for this or that aspect impinging on FAO's mandate, and notwithstanding the partnerships forged and being forged in this regard, accordingly FAO must be adequately funded on a permanent basis to address its remit. Like the distinguished delegate of The Netherlands, let us provide the Organization with the means to fulfil its task. Let us not render it impotent. Accordingly, my delegation joins with the majority who propose that at the very least we support a real zero growth budget. We believe the logic for this has been established. In other words the "Why?" of the 1996-97 Programme of Working Budget as outlined in document C 95/3 is quite clear.
We recognize, however, that we have a challenge to reconcile this position with other positions, at least two other positions, which have been specifically articulated and, while we must allow time for all ideas and proposals, there is also a time for decision-taking and that time is drawing nigh. We can run but we cannot hide. We have but a few hours left within which the contact group established under your astute guidance must pronounce on whether we may yet forge a much sought-for consensus. Our debate here and our discussions in the corridors must facilitate this process.
Given the range of views by the major proponents, including our own view for a zero real rate growth budget, may I propose for the consideration of the membership in a spirit of compromise and out of tremendous respect for and confidence in our new Director-General, and having regard to the intrinsic logic of the proposals for us for consideration, and that the Director-General and the Secretariat will continue to work diligently to effect further efficiencies and reduced costs, and given the clear indication that the Director-General is committed to transparency and openness and proceeds on a path of consultation with membership continually.
Given the foregoing, I urge that FAO budget level for the 1996-97 biennium should be no less than what was approved at the last biennium. I say so having regard to the decisions that have been taken in every one of the UN Agencies at the discussions thus far and even at IICA, in other words, we seek the Members to rally around a zero real growth budget. We hope and we propose that we find the scope to agree on the level of budget between US$673 million and US$698 million on the condition that any movement in the direction of the US$673 million should be on the basis of a consensus.
On behalf of my delegation and the fifteen member small and island developing states of the Caribbean sub-region of Latin America and the Caribbean, we urge that a consensus be found around our proposals. We are confident that this is possible, and we are optimistic that in the absence of such a consensus a vote is required, the spirit of short understanding, mutual support from multilateralism renews the confidence in the rejuvenated FAO and will commit acceptance of the majority so in the final analysis a budget must be passed for our Organization to perform over the 1996-97 biennium.
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Como usted indicó, el distinguido representante de Trinidad y Tabago ha expresado muchas de las ideas que nosotros quisiéramos mencionar. En primer lugar, debemos reconocer los esfuerzos que ha venido realizando el Director General, y sobre todo que es el primer bienio y el primer Programa de Labores y Presupuesto que nos presenta, el cual ha sido elaborado con mucha calidad y tino, poniendo excesivo cuidado en respetar las prioridades máximas de nuestra Organización y las necesidades de los Estados Miembros, especialmente de aquéllos más necesitados.
Señor Presidente, el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto que examinamos, que fuera refrendado por los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas y posteriormente el Consejo decidió someterlo a la consideración de la Conferencia, merece todo nuestro apoyo. Es un tanto paradójico que mientras en el Plenario se ha declarado por la mayoría de los Jefes de delegaciones que las necesidades de la agricultura y la alimentación crecen cada día más, se pretenda reducir los presupuestos para atender estas demandas crecientes. Mientras que otras agencias de Naciones Unidas aumentan sus presupuestos, durante varios bienios hemos tenido que discutir que la FAO mantenga un crecimiento real cero en sus presupuestos.
Señor Presidente, creo que debemos llamarnos todos a considerar el cumplimiento con eficacia y con oportunidad de todos los compromisos que tenemos contraídos con la Organización para asegurar la cuantía de fondos suficientes que permnitan a la FAO trabajar con eficacia.
Mi delegación se suma a las demás que han expresado su deseo de llegar a una conclusión consensual con la seguridad de que todos, en conjunto, estaremos cumpliendo una meritoria labor en favor de los más necesitados, los pobres y hambrientos de la tierra.
Sra. Mayra IVANKOVICH (Panamá): La delegación de Panamá siente la obligación de intervenir en este importante debate que debería ratificar el apoyo manifestado por todos los Estados Miembros en la declaración de Quebec, la cual representa el derecho fundamental de todo ser humano de poder ofrecer a sus hijos el sustento diario con dignidad.
En este largo camino que nos queda por recorrer, la FAO tiene un importanmte papel que desempeñar. Por este motivo, quisiera aprovechar la ocasión para felicitar al Director General por los esfuerzos que viene realizando desde que asumió su mandato. El Programa de Labores y Presupuesto es el alma de esta Organización que fundamos hace 50 años y que hoy cuenta con 176 Estados Miembros. La adición de nuevos Estados a la FAO confirma que ha sido el instrumento más importante y eficaz con el que cuenta la comunidad internacional. La FAO está calificada al más alto nivel, y como bien dijo el Presidente
independiente del Consejo, es capaz de identificar claramente los problemas y ofrecer soluciones viables. Así lo ha demostrado.
Las conferencias de la Organización se han caracterizado siempre por poner, a la luz de todas las situaciones financieras de la Organización y las necesidades de aumentar sus recursos, que cada vez son menores, ante las cada vez mayores necesidades del mundo en desarrollo. Esta Conferencia nos presenta la difícil situación financiera de la FAO, unida a compromisos cada vez mayores tendientes a encontrar una mayor seguridad alimentaria y un desarrollo sostenible en los países de bajos ingresos y déficit de alimentos y en aquéllos que, incrementando sus recursos internos, podrían contribuir a este logro. Por ello, la Delegación de Panamá considera que es una obligación cumplir con el pago de las cuotas, y todos quisiéramos que fuera a tiempo.
La experiencia nos ha demostrado que los Estados comprometidos con este principio hacemos todos los esfuerzos necesarios para fortalecer financieramente a la FAO. Solamente en circunstancias extremas, hemos atrasado el pago de las cuotas, pero con la conciencia de que todos los atrasos son una deuda, no sólo con la FAO sino también con la comunidad de países que la integran. No podemos pensar que debemos olvidar las deudas pendientes. Debemos comprometernos a cancelarlas lo antes posible, para poder cumplir con los compromisos programados en cada bienio.
Todos sabemos que la eliminación del hambre y la malnutrición en el mundo tiene un costo. Todos sabemos que la FAO, con un adecuado presupuesto, tendría la capacidad necesaria para llevar a cabo mayor cantidad de proyectos de desarrollo. Por lo tanto, consideramos que el presupuesto debe reflejar las necesidades financieras de la Organización y la capacidad real de ejecutar los programas a desarrollar durante cada bienio.
Formamos parte de los países que apoyan un Programa de Labores con crecimiento real cero. Apoyamos la propuesta del Director General, que contiene significativos ahorros y economías que permiten absorber una parte de los aumentos de costos, a pesar de que esto traerá como consecuencia un aumento en las contribuciones que permitiría que la FAO pueda cumplir con su mandato sin ver afectada la ejecución de los programas y actividades que tiene que realizar. El presupuesto de 698 millones de dólares es el mínimo con que la FAO puede hacer frente a sus obligaciones, aun comprendiendo las dificultades financieras por las cuales atraviesan algunos países miembros y que obligan a economías internas para reducir los desequilibrios.
Para finalizar, consideramos que el único camino que conduce a la paz y al desarrollo de los pueblos es la eliminación del hambre y la malnutrición, consecuencia, como dijo el Santo Padre, de injustos criterios en la distribución de las riquezas y de la producción, de políticas formuladas con el fin de salvaguardar específicos grupos de intereses o de diferentes formas de proteccionismo.
Ekoué Kandé ASSIONGBON (Togo): Monsieur le Président, je voudrais tout d'abord vous féliciter pour la compétence avec laquelle vous dirigez ce débat délicat car vous savez que lorsqu'on parle d'argent, surtout en cette période de crise, les passions sont très difficiles à contenir.
Ce point de l'ordre du jour revêt une grande importance pour le Togo parce qu'il touche la vie même de notre Organisation. Nous n'avons pas de reproches à faire au Programme, qui nous paraît tout à fait pertinent et ne peut que recueillir notre entière approbation.
Je voudrais également souligner les mesures en cours d'exécution, au niveau même de l'Organisation, pour rationaliser les activités de la FAO. Il en découlera des économies non négligeables. Tous ces efforts sont à mettre à l'actif du Directeur général et je voudrais, ici, le féliciter.
Tout en comprenant ceux qui demandent une réduction du budget, j'ai le sentiment que le moment est mal choisi pour céder à cette demande. Je le dis parce que nous revenons à peine de Québec où, une fois encore, nous avons réaffirmé avec force la nécessité et l'urgence d'assurer à l'humanité tout entière une alimentation sinon décente du moins minimum afin de lui garantir un équilibre social pour une paix durable. Tout le monde a été à l'écoute de ce message. Il serait donc dommage qu'en adoptant le budget qui devrait permettre cet objectif, on soit amené à réduire ledit budget et à rendre ainsi difficile la mise en oeuvre de certaines actions.
C'est pour cette raison que, compte tenu du fait qu'il sera délicat, voire même difficile, d'arriver à un consensus, j'aimerais que la proposition que vient de faire le représentant de Trinité-et-Tobago soit examinée très attentivement car elle pourrait nous rapprocher de certaines réalités. Et j'attire donc votre attention sur cette proposition. Il faudrait voir dans quelle mesure nous pourrions la prendre en compte pour arriver très rapidement à un consensus.
Encore une fois, Monsieur le Président, je vous félicite de la manière dont vous dirigez le débat.
H. Pradeep RAO (India): My delegation associates itself completely with the viewpoint of the G 77 Group, as spelt out by the President of the Group in his statement made yesterday in the Commission.
We are in favour of the zero-growth level approach to the Programme of Work and Budget. It is difficult to foresee an alternative approach in the context of the financial position of the Organization and of its many Member nations. Efforts, however, are required to be made to keep the programmes intact to the extent this is possible.
Against this background, the efforts made by the Secretariat to absorb cost increases and also the efforts to identify and implement further measures of savings are extremely welcome. We are all painfully aware of the financial difficulties that confront our Organization and the UN system in general. We must endeavour to meet our obligations to the Organization to enable it to function effectively.
My country is deeply committed to the objectives of our Organization and has therefore discharged its financial obligations to the fullest. We completely endorse the programme enunciated in the Programme of Work and Budget, especially the part to strengthen food production and food security in low-income food-deficit countries and the EMPRES Programme with its continued focus on the desert locust, rinderpest and its planned expansion to other pests and diseases.
A word about TCDC implementation agreement: we have noted the latest position on the implementation of these agreements about which Mr Wade was good enough to inform us in the discussions a couple of days back. We are, therefore, hopeful that the implementation of this TCDC agreement and the contemplated gains will soon be translated into reality as implementation moves into a higher gear.
We are also extremely hopeful that the efforts which are currently being made to arrive at a harmonious consensus on this issue of the Programme of Work and Budget, as already mentioned by the distinguished delegate from Trinidad and Tobago, will enable us to reach a harmonious consensus very soon.
LE PRESIDENT: Je me propose d'essayer, avec votre indulgence - je dis votre indulgence parce que personne n'est parfait et ce que je vais vous dire ne sera pas forcément parfait - de faire un résumé de nos débats qui insistera surtout sur les points de la discussion de manière à voir quelle sera la deuxième étape de cette discussion.
La deuxième étape de la discussion doit être, en effet, la définition d'une proposition de niveau du budget fondée sur des arguments. On ne peut pas définir un niveau de budget au doigt mouillé, comme si l'on cherchait à trouver d'où vient le vent. Il y a donc la proposition du Directeur général, qui est tout de même articulée. S'il y a d'autres propositions, je vous demanderai, en les rappelant, de dire quels sont leurs fondements. Une fois une fourchette définie pour les niveaux, il faudra examiner les mécanismes à mettre en oeuvre pour adopter éventuellement le niveau qui fera l'objet d'un consensus. Il est en effet clair qu'aujourd'hui, selon les différentes déclarations que nous avons entendues, il n'y a pas de consensus.
Je vais passer maintenant à la première étape, qui consiste à faire un résumé de ce qui a été dit en insistant plus particulièrement - et ce n'est pas pour souligner un déséquilibre quantitatif- sur les demandes qui ont été faites par un certain nombre de délégations. Cela ne signifie pas que le Président considère que ce sont ces propositions-là qui doivent systématiquement guider nos travaux; mais il faut y répondre. Après ce résumé, qui sera forcément imparfait, le Secrétariat, c'est-à-dire M. Wade, répondra aux questions et, enfin, M. Hjort fera un commentaire général.
D'une manière générale, il y a une quasi-unanimité pour dire que, comme l'avait fait le Comité du Programme lors de sa session du 4 septembre 1995, en définissant le niveau du budget, il ne faut pas toucher au Programme tel qu'il a été décidé, sur proposition du Directeur général, par ce Comité. Certains délégués ont même déploré que les secteurs définis comme de moindre priorité aient été classés dans les secteurs de moindre priorité. Plusieurs orateurs ont parlé des pertes après récoltes et d'autres se sont plaints de la lenteur de la mise en oeuvre du Programme de coopération Sud-Sud qui comprend, comme vous le savez, deux éléments. De nombreux orateurs ont d'ailleurs dénoncé, face à l'ampleur et l'ambition de ce Programme rappelées dans les discussions de Québec, par rapport à cet enjeu, l'attitude unilatérale du principal contributeur.
Ensuite, au contraire de ce qui s'est passé à la dernière session du Conseil, votre Président a senti qu'il y avait, en dehors de deux groupes régionaux principaux, un certain mouvement des autres pays en développement pour considérer qu'il n'était pas impossible de demander au Secrétariat de faire ce qui est prévu par le Programme avec le moins de dépenses possibles.
Certains ont même proposé d'en faire plus avec moins de dépenses. Certains de ces pays ont d'ailleurs fait part de leurs propres difficultés budgétaires qui les empêche d'envisager un accroissement de leur contribution, ce qui a amené quelques-uns d'entre eux à se référer au critère de coût/efficacité, comme l'avaient fait partiellement le Comité financier et le Comité du Programme, lors de leur session conjointe, pour suggérer d'étudier un certain nombre d'économies dans les frais de fonctionnement de l'Organisation. Ils ont noté que, depuis lors, le Secrétariat ne leur avait pas véritablement fait de propositions chiffrées et écrites.
A cet égard, nous avons interrogé M. Wade - et sa déclaration figure dans le document C 95/PV 4 - sur les prévisions qu'il pouvait donner quant aux mesures d'économies supplémentaires possibles. M. Wade a indiqué que, parmi ces mesures, certaines avaient déjà été prises; que lorsque vous avez parlé d'absorption des coûts, une partie de ces économies avait été calculée mais que d'autres, par contre, ne l'avaient pas été. Je ne vais pas entrer dans les détails mais il me semble que les économies ainsi esquissées - parce que je ne peux pas donner de chiffres exacts - seraient comprises entre 10 et 14 millions de dollars E.U, 9 millions, la plus grosse part, étant le recouvrement des coûts d'appui technique de la structure administrative de l'Organisation.
Un délégué, qui doit être un expert en la matière, a été beaucoup plus explicite sur les économies à réaliser. Il a parlé de réformes du système de gouvernement de l'Organisation, indiquant que d'autres organisations, comme le PNUD et l'UNICEF, avaient des structures plus légères et fonctionnaient bien. Il a demandé une réduction des relations internationales de l'Organisation, disant que les réunions de liaison devenaient progressivement une fin en soi et coûtaient cher. Il a demandé une étude minutieuse des effets de l'envoi sur le terrain de fonctionnaires antérieurement au Siège, craignant qu'au lieu d'économies que la décentralisation était censée apporter il y ait des coûts supplémentaires.
De nombreuses délégations ont parlé du rajeunissement des cadres ainsi que de la répartition des postes et des grades en observant que, le taux de vacance réel des postes étant de 20 pour cent en ce qui concerne le recrutement, il y avait certainement une marge de manoeuvre dans ce domaine, ce qui était d'ailleurs relevé dans le rapport du Comité financier. Enfin, la question de l'entretien des bâtiments et de la sécurité a également été soulevée.
Je ne tiens pas à privilégier cet orateur mais il a dressé des pistes sur lesquelles on semble avoir réfléchi; je lui ai donc demandé de se rapprocher de M. Wade pour voir quelle est la consistance ou non-consistance de ses propositions.
Il y a un accord, en général, sur la nécessité de mieux suivre les comptes de l'Organisation, d'après ce que j'ai compris. Là aussi, c'est toujours très difficile. Ceux qui se sont exprimés à ce sujet ont demandé la publication plus fréquente d'états réguliers des ressources par rapport aux dépenses prévues en disant qu'à des fins de transparence, peut-être, il fallait publier ces statistiques à travers le système FINSYS. Mais il y eu des divergences sur la nécessité ou non de moderniser le système FINSYS. Je pense qu'il y a eu des opinions très différentes à ce sujet entre les pays donateurs, certains considérant qu'avant de se lancer dans un système compliqué et coûteux, il valait mieux utiliser le système tel qu'il existe.
Dans le même ordre d'idée, quelques délégations - mais c'est une question qui a été tirée de l'examen du budget 1994-95 et du Programme à moyen terme - ont soulevé la question d'une évaluation de la gestion, soit interne soit externe.
D'autres petites remarques ponctuelles ont été faites, les unes pour regretter que le Programme spécial d'intensification agricole ne soit pas financé sur les lignes des Programmes de coopération technique; ce n'est qu'une minorité de pays qui l'ont dit. D'autres ont déploré la perte d'équilibre entre les fonctions normatives et les fonctions de coopération technique, au profit des secondes.
Quoiqu'il en soit, il semble qu'il y ait une conclusion générale: il faut maintenir le Programme. J'insiste sur ce point, personne n'a remis en cause le Programme, avec un budget qui soit finançable, c'est-à-dire qu'il doit être exécuté au niveau de ressources vraisemblablement recueillies par la FAO. Je crois que le débat porte sur cette notion de budget finançable. Comme on ne peut pas toucher au Programme, il faut bien toucher aux méthodes de fonctionnement et de gestion.
Je voudrais dire aussi qu'il y a eu une proposition de mécanismes. Il y a déjà un mécanisme qui est la résolution principale et la résolution supplémentaire dont il faut examiner l'application dans ce contexte difficile.
Il y a la proposition faite par la délégation allemande, qui souhaite un système qui consisterait à n'accepter d'emblée que le budget dont nous sommes surs qu'il est finançable, de geler toutes dépenses supplémentaires, en les rendant progressivement disponibles au fur et à mesure des rentrées financières complémentaires attendues. Dans ce cadre là, un appel général a été lancé pour le paiement des arriérés. Je crois qu'il faut insister sur cet aspect fondamental, qui concerne bien entendu le principal contributeur, mais qui s'adresse aussi à un très grand nombre d'Etats directement concernés par les programmes de la FAO. Je ne peux que m'associer à cet appel.
Enfin, des propositions, sauf une, concernant les niveaux budgétaires ont été formulés. La majorité, comme l'a rappelé le délégué de Trinidad et Tobago, soutient une fourchette comprise entre 673 et 698 millions de dollars. Cette majorité est probable, mais, comme vous le savez, nous essayons d'éviter un vote, parce que s'il y a un vote et que les principaux contributeurs sont minoritaires, cela ne facilitera pas le fonctionnement de l'Organisation. Il faut être réaliste sur ce point.
Ensuite, il y a une proposition extrêmement claire, celle des Etats Unis, qui propose une fourchette entre 550 et 600 millions de dollars. Compte tenu de leurs contraintes liées au Congrès, ils proposent un montant budgétaire qui est quatre fois le montant de leur contribution possible. La Grande Bretagne a parlé de 620-630 millions de dollars; je ne sais pas d'où vient ce chiffre. La Norvège, ainsi que la Suisse a parlé de 640 millions de dollars sans les justifier tout à fait; peut-être dans la deuxième étape de notre discussion vont-ils le faire. La Belgique a parlé de 645-650 millions de dollars.
Devant cette situation, nous sommes évidemment loin d'un consensus. Ce que nous devons vérifier, - et M. Wade nous donnera peut-être des explications sur ce sujet, sinon ce matin, du moins cet après-midi - c'est de savoir s'il est possible de faire, en matière de fonctionnement, des réductions significatives qui n'affectent pas l'exécution dû Programme. Il est important de le savoir avant de prendre une décision pour définir le niveau budgétaire.
Enfin, je vous demanderai, après l'exposé de M. Wade, comment vous fondez les niveaux que vous avez proposés en matière budgétaire, quelles sont les raisons, quels sont les calculs que vous avez utilisés pour y arriver.
Le troisième sujet que nous aurons à discuter, une fois que nous aurons eu ce débat, c'est de voir comment nous présentons le niveau budgétaire plus quelque chose ou moins quelque chose, je ne sais pas, et comment nous suivrons ensuite l'exécution de la décision que nous aurions unanimement prise, mais bien entendu en faisant très attention à ce que la direction générale de l'Organisation ne se trouve pas immédiatement devant un vide de financement. Si on veut serrer la vis, ce ne peut être que progressivement et les mesures d'économie doivent être précisées, et doivent faire le sujet d'un débat ultérieur. Il y a tout un système à mettre en oeuvre, car pour l'instant la seule proposition de niveau justifié est celle du budget.
T. WADE (Officer-in-Charge, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I would like to thank everybody for their contribution. I know that there is an enormous gap between what delegations want and what would be the correct budget level. One very important thing is that there has been unanimous recognition of the fact that the Director-General had put in a great deal of effort to try and work out a budget which had real savings in it and that he in fact achieved a great deal in this regard. I am very glad about that, because I think that any other response to the Director-General in his first budget would be very unreasonable.
As to those of you who recognized improvements in the document, thank you very much. We believe that it is a good document. We think that it is the best one we have done so far. We have noted the suggestions for improvement in the next document and we will continue to try to make it better. With regard to the reference to actual cost data, the next document will have actual historical cost data. I am not yet quite sure about the form and the level of detail that it will be in, but we will keep our word as to the principle for sure.
I would like to go through a number of the issues and questions that were raised. I will not go through the individual programme questions or issues if they were not raised by several delegates. It does not mean that we are ignoring them. We have taken note of everything, but we will avoid those individual questions in order to save some time.
I mention in passing one comment by the European Union which was an expression of disappointment that the Director-General did not come back with a series of scenarios for different programme budget levels or the impact of different budget levels on programme cuts. I think Mr Hjort may well cover this, so I will not go into any detail but I do think you should appreciate that he really was not asked to do that and could not do that, given the fact that the majority of Member Nations were very, very clear that they did not want programme cuts. To start canvassing a list of programme cuts would simply have produced a divisive document which I do not believe would have assisted in resolving the problem.
The second substantive question concerned the Special Programme for Food Production. There was a technical question from Australia, who wanted to know what the whole cost is, and there was a reference to the fact that it seems to have increased from US$3.3 million in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget to US$10 million in this proposal, and the question was asked whether that may be excessive or extraordinary.
On the increase, can I just clarify a point? The Summary Programme of Work and Budget did not attempt to provide resources for 1996/97 at the 1996/97 levels. It specifically stated that this was a document which provided a picture of the restructured organization taking into account the decisions of the Council at its 106th Session. The Council at its 106th Session had only allowed that US$3.3 million for the Special Programme and therefore that is all we put in. However, we also made it very clear - and this is in the document itself at paragraph 90 - that there would be an additional requirement for 96/97. At that stage we said that the additional requirement was US$3.5 million, so it was US$3.5 million plus US$3.3 million, which is US$6.8 million. In fact, as announced at the Session of the Joint Meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees when discussing the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, the Director-General considered that he needed US$10 million because of the change in direction that the Programme was taking. In the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, we were concentrating on exploratory and formulation missions for the maximum number of countries, but as the Programme progressed the direction changed to being the completion of the pilot stage for a limited number of countries so that the success of the approach can be demonstrated in full. This is the reason for the change.
What is the total cost? That question also came up in the Programme Committee. I had some difficulty with it then and I still admit to having some doubts about the definition. The cost of the Programme from the Secretariat's point of view is shown under Programme 2.5.6 and is the US$10 million. The concern that is being expressed by Australia and some of the members is that this is not the full cost of the Programme and that one can see that there are costs elsewhere throughout the substantive programmes of the Organization. In fact, of course, that is correct. This Programme is getting supported by the relevant Technical Programmes throughout the House.
For example, we have 2.1.1.3 which is the Plant Nutrition and Development Management Sub-Programme. It has a specific element, on IPNS and Efficient Fertilizer Use, and it is true that the technical and professional
- 152 -
capacity of that element will, to a degree, support this Programme. Out of the US$1 975 000 allocated to that Programme element in the Director-General's proposals, I really do not know how much of it you can say is support to the Special Programme. Our programming is just not that good. It is something that you do not plan in advance.
There are several other Sub-Programmes which will certainly make a contribution. I will mention them briefly: 2.1.1.4 Water Development Management Conservation; 2.1.2.2 Crop Management and Diversification; and 2.1.2.4 Crop Protection and in particular the Integrated Pest Management element. In 2.2.4.3, the Worìd Food Security analysis, there is one element, which you can find there, 03, which has allocated to it about US$1.5 million which directly provides analytical support to the Special Programme. That one is a bit clearer. You could say that that is part of the cost of the Special Programme in one sense anyway. Then, of course, on the sociological side there is 2.5.1.3 Education, Extension and Training, particularly Agricultural Extension, which will be supporting this process. I have mentioned some of the areas where there will be inputs. I suspect that the delegate from Australia will not be satisfied, because he would like to have a figure.
If I go backwards and look at the experience in 1995 as to what we have put into the Programme, in an effort to respond positively to the question, we carried out a rough survey of staff time involved in this process. We have principally being running exploratory missions and formulation missions in this period, so it is not necessarily representative of 1996/97. The work that we identified was some 30 man months of professional time, which costs out at about US$337 000, and that includes the participation and support of the coordinating machinery that has been established for the Programme. Here I am talking about the Steering Committee and the Review Committee, which assesses the adequacy of each of the individual country project documents; I include the conceptual work on guidelines, constraint analysis, irrigation potential and I include participation and support to the Country Task Forces because there is a Country Task Force set up for each of the countries involved in the Programme.
In 1995 the cost to the end of September was US$337 000.
Moving on to the next major programme area that was referred to, which was the fisheries programme, where there is a reduction of US$1.5 million between the 1994-95 budget and the 1996-97 budget, despite the priority we give this programme - and we really do give this programme priority - the reduction is entirely due to the elimination of general service posts. This is part of the exercise to improve the ratio of the number of support staff to the number of professional staff. We do not see it as being a reduction in the capacity of fisheries. Fisheries Professional staff might not entirely agree with that statement.
The other significant issue on which many delegates spoke is post-harvest losses. Here there may be a misunderstanding and perhaps we should change something so that it does not happen again, but the normative activities on post-harvest losses are not lost; they continue to be performed. Storage issues are looked after by AGSE. The food processing issue will be looked after by AGSI. Protection of harvested crops falls within AGPP. So all of these things are still happening. Similarly, support to the field programme will continue. Coordination is via a two-man team in the director's office. What the division responsible for this sub-programme thought was that it did not have enough critical mass to bring it into a substantive sub-programme: So the level of resources there may still be insufficient in the view of those of you who mentioned that but please do not think that we have stopped looking after the issues; we continue to do so.
Moving now to some detailed administrative questions, first of all, on the Special Reserve Account and the Working Capital Fund, the distinguished delegate of the United States suggests that the combination of these two funds at 9 percent of the budget is far too much. I have a problem with this suggestion. The first is that you are adding together two funds which have quite different purposes. They have one purpose in common but they have different purposes in every other regard. The second thing is that you are comparing the combined value of these two funds at 9 percent to other agencies without taking into account the different arrangements they have.
If I can talk about the Working Capital Fund first, FAO's Working Capital Fund represents about 3.7 percent of its budget. The UN Working Capital Fund represents 4.6 percent of its budget. The ILO Working Capital Fund represents 5.17 percent of its budget. The UNESCO Working Capital Fund represents 4.87 percent of its budget. The ICAO Working Capital Fund represents 3.96 percent. The only big agency I have left out is
WHO, whose figure I do not have because they are apparently in the process of revising it and I am not sure what the result of that was. UNIDO has 3.93 percent and finally, IAEA has 7.6 percent. The point I am making is that FAO at 3.7 percent when it comes to Working Capital is actually rather low and the Director-General might well be in a good position to propose an increase, although he has not done so at this stage.
If we turn to the Special Reserve Account, which is the other reserve which is being combined to arrive at the 9 percent, I have to say that I find it surprising that the largest contributor would want to eliminate what has been a time proven, multipurpose reserve at this very moment in the history of the Organization, when we are most likely to face the problems for which it was established. It is a little ironic that the largest contributor would want to eliminate it. Let me remind the Commission what the purposes of this fund are.
The first purpose is the one that lines it up with the Working Capital Fund. If the Working Capital Fund runs out of resources, and I recall that the purpose of the Working Capital Fund is to provide temporary cash flow covering the period when we have a delay in the receipt of contributions, the Special Reserve Account can lend money to the Working Capital Fund, which then lends money to the General Funds so that we can continue to operate. It seems to me that that requirement is particularly desperate at the moment given the fact that, for example, the largest contributor is now saying it will not be able to pay until December. When you recognize that 25 percent of the budget is not going to be paid until December, you can see the arithmetic problem we have. We are eleven-twelfths of the way through the year and we will be 75 percent paid if everybody else pays.
The second purpose is to finance unbudgeted extra costs due to the movement of currency exchange rates. You heard what the exchange rate is at the moment. You have heard about the US$9.1 million risk. It seems to me that this might also be something that we need to take into account.
Finally, there is the very important purpose that, subject to the prior review and approval of the Programme and Finance Committees, the SRA can be used to finance unbudgeted extra costs of approved programmes due to unforeseen inflationary trends to the extent that such costs cannot be met through budgetary savings without impairing the implementation of such programmes. I think it probably speaks for itself.
Mr Chairman, my conclusion on this point is that it is not the time, in the view of the Director-General, to be considering this issue and that it would be rather foolish of the institution to reduce its protection to the vagaries of currency, cashflow and unbudgeted cost increases at this moment in its history.
The second major issue which the distinguished delegate of the United States raised was that of management structure. Several figures were quoted which suggested that we have a very heavy management structure in this Organization. I must address that. I am not saying improvements cannot be made but, by the standards that exist, you will find that we are not that bad. Three steps have been taken to improve and streamline the management structure of the Organization. The first was to streamline by reducing intermediate levels, the second-guessing elements of the structure. The second was to increase delegations to department heads. The third was to take the maximum number of steps possible out of existing procedures. Much of this is still in process but I think it is still worth going through.
Intermediate levels: Peter Drucker in "The Practice of Management", which is considered to be one of the bibles of management, suggested that there should be a maximum of seven levels in any organization. That has changed. The general trend now is to say that it should be less than that. Tom Peters, in a book called "Thriving on Chaos", says there should be five levels. FAO has five levels. Let me go through them. It has a Director-General, Assistant Director-Generals, Directors, Service Chiefs and Group Leaders, if you are prepared to count them as a level. That is five levels. The hidden layers that used to exist before this Director-General went into restructuring were the Assistants to Assistant Director-Generals and Assistant Directors, who tended to be shown as staff levels in the structure but were in reality second-guessing the process because everything went through them, or at least, that was the potential. The Director-General therefore took the unpopular step of removing those levels and in fact made considerable savings, as you see in the document.
My point, Mr Chairman, is that, of course, there is always room for improvement but please do not paint us as being as black as all that; we meet the standards that most people recognize as being authoritive in this regard.
There is one minor point I have to put right - and I am not picking on the US here but it was a point made again by the distinguished delegate of the USA, who drew attention to the fact that the budget for the Office of the Director-General has risen by the highest percentage increase. He did not draw attention to the fact that the text says in paragraph 259 that the explanation is that there was a correction in this budget because we accidentally took a post from that office in the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, and that is the vast majority of that increase. I would like to explain therefore that it is not an increase in real resources; it is a correction.
FINSYS/PERSYS. The distinguished delegate of Japan raised the most complete form of the question, but there were various speakers on this subject. The first question is a difficult one; why did it fail and who was responsible? My Deputy Director-General has just informed me that it has not failed so I will rephrase the question: if you perceive it as a failure, what was the cause of that? First of all, to avoid any issue of blame on this, all of the senior level staff who were responsible at that time no longer work for this Organization, so I do not think there is any point in going through that process. What I think is important, and is the real pont raised by Japan, is what lessons have been learnt and whether we can get it right this time.
My personal view is that there were several factors but amongst the most important was that we in FAO at that time had absolutely no experience of online systems. All the users of the previous system saw computer systems as being the things which produced great reams of monthly reports on computer tabulations, so when they were confronted by consultants asking them what they wanted, they had no idea what the framework of the question was. There was no understanding of what the scope was and what was possible. In response, we probably we did the worst thing possible, which was to specify what we did then. We specified the same procedures and asked them to computerize them, which they very diligently tried to do.
What is different now? Why will it work now? Three important things have changed. The first is that the staff involved in this exercise now have a great deal more experience in the whole business of what online financial information systems are all about. You could say they have had first class on the job training through experience with FINSYS 1. The second thing is that we are not trying to rebuild FINSYS. We are trying to identify a tried and tested, field-used package, which experts at building financial systems have built. The third thing - and I think it is very important - is that we have a very determined Director-General who wants to solve this problem. He is giving it the highest priority. Everybody knows it is his personal priority and he has indicated that he is prepared to change policies and procedures and whatever is necessary to avoid rebuilding the package so it matches out current procedures.
The process that we have followed so far is that we have reviewed all our procedures down to the lowest level of detail, identified the duplication in terms of steps, identified the processes which did not add value and came up with a report which recommends the changes which should be made. We have prepared a conceptual paper on how our financial systems should look, taking into account the knowledge we gained from the first process. We are in the process - in fact it is almost complete - of preparing a statement of requirements to' which package providers will have to respond saying whether they can or cannot meet this particular need of the Organization. In developing that statement of requirement, we have prioritized each requirements as to whether it is mandatory, desirable, and so on. We are using outside professional assistance, Coopers and Lybrand, to help us develop the evaluation criteria and to give us advice on what packages we should be looking at and how the selection should work.
In response to the distinguished delegate of Belgium, it will be a competitive bidding process. There is no doubt about that.
So on FINSYS I guess, in a way, having been through the first process, I share the fear about the second process, but I am very very much more confident that we are now in a position to do a good job.
On the provision of financial information which you, Mr Chairman, mentioned and also I think the delegate of Australia mentioned, we recognise that there is a feeling that not enough financial information is being provided in the form in which it is required. As you know, part of the problem is, in fact, FINSYS. There is
-155 -
a working group of the Finance Committee on Financial Reporting and I would hope that you put your ideas or your needs to the members of the Finance Committee so they can be brought up in that group. The Secretariat is cooperating with that group to try and meet those needs as best they can. I do have one comment, however, and I have to correct one statement, which is that the Finance Committee does not get information on expenditure. We have problems, but they are not that serious! If you care to look, for example, at CL 109/4, in paragraph 3.41, it gives you a table which, of course, is the table the Finance Committee receives, showing the programme of work, showing the expenditures to the 30th June compared biennium over biennium and showing the outstanding obligations and therefore the total committed, and the comparison of the balances available at that particular date between the two biennia, so there is information provided and maybe not all members are aware of that. It is worth looking in that report if you want to see it, and of course they get that information updated each time the Committee meets.
The distinguished delegate of Venezuela in his intervention hinted at the need to work on the scale of assessments to recognise better the capacity to pay. Can I just comment that that really is a little bit outside our control. As you know, we adopt in effect the UN scale of assessments adjusted for the difference in membership, so that has to be taken up in New York.
On the question of criteria for priorities and how they be applied, it was interesting to note that, although it was not really the subject of discussion, there were a number of interventions which suggested what criteria should be applied to the determination of priorities and we found those helpful.
I think Australia suggested that programmes or projects should have a proven track record and I think that is correct. Norway suggested that they should be cost effective. All of these are criteria which should be taken into account.
Moving now to purely budget questions, some delegates did comment that they felt it was wrong that the Director-General had used the savings to fund either new priorities or existing ones to a greater extent. I have to say that the Director-General was specifically under instructions to do that. Council 106 in effect said "Yes, you can go ahead with your new programmes, but please take into account other important existing priorities such as forestry and please do it all with the same amount of money". So he was expected to go out and find savings which he did, and he was expected to use those savings, so I do not think he needs to apologize for that.
The Chairman in his summing up mentioned some figures. I am not in any way correcting the figures - they were quoted as correct - but he was relying on US$9.1 million (I think it was) for recoveries from Technical Support Services which is a figure that I used. I have to say that that assumes a full biennium recovery of chargeable technical support services on all Trust Fund projects. So I have two concerns at the back of my mind. One is will 1996-97 be the biennium in which we achieve that recovery? And secondly, do the donors agree with this in principle, given appropriate discussions and appropriate action on inclusion of such amounts in project budgets. We do not have that as a decision. We only have it as an understanding of the Secretariat based on logic.
On the question of the Budget level, I very much welcomed Canada's point about the arithmetic on timely payment. It is quite correct. If everybody paid within the 30 days, we would make US$35 million of Miscellaneous Income, which comes off the Budget, which would be a reduction in the assessments in contributions, and we forget that. I had forgotten it, in fact. I went back and looked at some of the history. In 1986-87, before the crisis we had US$36 million worth of miscellaneous income. In 1984-85 we had US$46 million of miscellaneous income. We are now down to forecasting US$11 million and there is no padding in that US$11 million forecast.
On the UK suggestions, Sir, we did meet this morning: I would like to come back to you later if I can because I have to do some work. I think it is best I do not address those now. I would like however, to make one comment on governance. There was a comparison which I think is potentially misleading. The suggestion was that the FAO governance structure is complex and heavy and unnecessarily so. I am not arguing for or against that. It was the comparison to UNDP and UNICEF that worried me. Both of these are effectively single-purpose organizations as funding agencies. They do not set standards. They do not have that normative role. They are not really an international forum. In fact, in many senses so they do not need quite the same
mechanism or representation to allow, for example, international conventions to be created so there is a little bit of a difference. We need something a bit more.
On the United Kingdom's concerns regarding the savings, there were two comments that worried me and which I think might lead others astray and I am sure that was not the intention but I would like to put our point of view. The first one was that the savings of US$8.2 million which are part of the US$43.4 million savings shown in paragraph 1.2.4 of the Budget Programme are in some way not real because the international programme officers had been redeployed elsewhere in the Organization. I think it is very important to distinguish between posts and people. The budget is for posts with an allowance for vacancies (the lapse factor) and you will see if you look in the annexe on post counts that the number of professional posts for FAOR officers has fallen by a net 61 because there are some other adjustments, and the number of NPO posts has gone from 0 to 65. If you do the arithmetic on the 65 posts and you ask the question what the ratio is, (which I think somebody did), I think the average NPO costs about US$58 000 where the average International costs about US$184 000 so that is the sort of relationship in cost. You then multiply that difference by the 65 and you do get US$8.2 million and we do have those savings.
What happened to the people? Some of them left the Organization: some of them have been employed on posts in Headquarters, posts which are also in the budget, so there is no additional cost by putting them in there and some of them have been redeployed to sub-regional offices, but in no case have we added posts to the Budget to accommodate those people. That response, in a way, responds to your second point which was whether the posts that are abolished were filled posts or vacant posts. My argument would be it does not matter whether they are filled or vacant. It is actually easier to abolish ones that are vacant because you do not run into the problem of the individual but the point is the Budget is reduced by all posts that are abolished so it is a budgetary saving.
On the question of budget implementation there is an issue coming out in combination from a number of delegate, partly because of the distinguished delegate of Germany's suggestion that there should be some restriction on the final authority beyond whatever you approve as the appropriation and partly because of the comment that came from several delegates that spending should not exceed funds availability. There is no argument with the principle that, to keep this business afloat, you cannot keep spending more than you get in. The Director-General will tell you that, with his background as a banker, he understands that very very clearly. There are no doubts about that. There is another principle, however, which is that of the going concern. While I have heard some pretty depressing news over the last two days that has so far not been challenged. Under the principle of going concern you assume that certain things are going to happen. There is a flow of income and there is a flow of expenditure and given normal operations you rely on that information to plan how you work. Your cannot close the business down just because you have blips in that process. Taking the experience of today we would have had to close the Council and this Conference, if you said that we were not to incur any expenditures unless the contributions had been received. That is absolutely correct. The Organization is currently drawing on the Working Capital Fund and on the SRA and if I am not mistaken it is into internal borrowing at the moment. I am not certain whether that is today or next week. The point is you cannot say "do not spend unless you have actually received it" otherwise you will paralyze strangle the Organization and prevent it from operating. The mechanism that Germany is looking for has to be very carefully thought through and my problem is I have not seen enough detail about what is being proposed to know what is practical and what is not.
Lots of delegates asked whether the efforts on cost effectiveness and cost efficiency and savings on economies, are going to continue. The answer is a resounding "Yes". We have not stopped and we have not finished. The US$43.4 million is not the end of it. It is not reluctance to save or to be more efficient on our part that prevents us from giving you figures. It is just that we are not there yet to give you those figures and that is why, in the intervention at the beginning of this session, I said what I said. Please be assured however, that we are going from here and that there will be more savings.
Finally, Mr Chairman, my last point concerns (and I hope I am not duplicating Mr Hjort here but I just want to refer to what is happening in other UN agencies and to mention some facts and then Mr Hjort can take the principle) the effective working budget of these organizations and what happened in terms of the relationship between the nominal budget 1994-95 and the nominal budget being approved now - what has actually been approved in the system. ILO voted a 24.2 percent increase in nominal budget. The United States of America
surprisingly voted against it as did one or two others. Incidentally, the United Kingdom voted for it which is a nice surprise. I hope they will emulate that performance here!
The WHO voted a nominal increase of 2.42 percent: the USA abstained from that budget. The IAEA voted a 3.5 percent increase: the USA voted for that budget. The World Intellectual Property Organization had a zero change in the budget level: I do not know what the vote was on it. WMO - World Meteorological Organization had a 4.5 percent increase and I do not know which way the United States voted but perhaps they could let us know. The International Civil Aviation Organization had an effective 7.7 percent increase and the United States voted against it. Interestingly, in that last one, that 7.7 percent includes the ICSC increase if it is approved - the very thing we are excluding from our budget. The point I am making is that nowhere else in the approvals that have occurred so far are you seeing the nominal budget come down. You are seeing one case where it stays stable so what is being proposed by many delegates here and not just the United States is something quite different.
It is a reduction in the nominal level. Now of course those organizations did not have a problem of the US$38 million so we are suffering for the sins of the past, but really should we be suffering that much? I wonder. That US$38 million is US$38 million that is in the pockets of Member Nations because you did not pay it last time. You did get a reduction in the assessments, so I really do wonder whether you should be penalizing the Organization, whose programmes you unanimously say should be supported, in such a severe way.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Wade des réponses extrêmement détaillées qu'il a données aux soucis exprimés par certaines délégations. Evidemment, nous attendons ce qu'il nous dira cet après-midi à la suite de sa consultation avec notre collègue britannique. Je crois que ce type d'information donne une idée plus précise de ce que nous pouvons demander réellement dans la situation telle qu'elle existe aujourd'hui.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Perhaps I can make the first intervention on what you were about to suggest.
I wanted to begin by expressing deep and sincere appreciation for the many comments that were made concerning the initiatives of the Director-General to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of this Organization and also the very broad support for the proposed Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97. I also want to express great disappointment over the positions of some of the major donors.
I wanted to speak to you on this occasion from the perspective of a person who has been in this position for nearly four years, not very long but long enough to have witnessed the formulation of two Programmes of Work and Budget and also from being with the Organization when five Programmes of Work and Budget have been voted.
First, a review of the record reveals that we are in an unprecedented situation even at US$698 million. Never before in the entire fifty years of this Organization has a Director-General proposed to absorb such a large share of the cost increases. The current estimate is that the cost increases will be US$45 million. Only US$25 million are in the budget. The Director-General has promised to seek to absorb the other US$20 million. If he had recommended a zero real growth budget which was the minimum that previous Director-Generals had recommended, you would have had a 6.6 percent increase in the programme level instead of the 3.7 percent that is before you.
We are also in an unprecedented situation with respect to savings or measures taken to improve efficiency and cost effectiveness. Never in the history of this Organization has a Director-General identified so many initiatives and measures to improve efficiency and effectiveness. You unanimously approved those initiatives and measures in June of 1994 with the Council acting on behalf of the Conference. This Director-General has identified more initiatives and measures by himself than the Members of this Organization have defined and identified collectively. Even those measures that you have asked him to pursue through your Programme and Finance Committees in most cases are ones that the Director-General himself suggested; yet this is not enough.
You ask him to identify more, but you also reduce his flexibility very greatly by saying that we should not harm the technical and economic programmes of the Organization.
There is a limit. You are asking him to go beyond US$43.3 million and identify additional tens of millions without damaging the programmes. It cannot be done. It is a puzzle on why you ask the Director-General to take actions that, as Mr Wade has just demonstrated, are fundamentally different from the positions that you take in other organizations in the United Nations system. It is a true puzzle to me on how it can be that on the first day of June 1994 you could unanimously recommend the modifications proposed by the Director-General in programmes structures and policies and come here now and say that you cannot support even maintaining a nominal budget level that was passed.
Two years ago you passed a budget level by consensus at US$673.1 million. Certainly the position that you are taking is not because of the priorities of this Organization or the programmes of this Organization. You are very clear in your guidance to the Director-General that he should not damage the programmes. From the comments that have been made by the Programme Committee or in this Body as you review the proposed changes in programmes in this big document that is before you, you will certainly have observed that there are more suggestions for restoration than there are for further reductions. Yes, part of the problem is because the US$38 million was not paid. How one wishes that we could have seen the last Conference approve an assessed contribution at US$659 million instead of US$621 million. Then think for a moment where we would be. We would be debating at most a programme level between US$673.1 million and US$698 million. In this regard it is fundamentally important to bear in mind that, with the possible exception of a maximum of three countries, no other member country of this Organization is opposed to an increase in its assessed contribution. When member countries mention US$640 million or US$650 million or US$660 million or US$673 million or US$698 million, they are all accepting an increase in assessed contribution.
Therefore, had US$38 million been in the assessed contribution instead of being funded from arrears, I do not think there would have been any serious debate or disagreement over a 3.7 percent increase, and particularly in view of the fact that that already is low relative to others in the UN system.
The other reason that is given for discriminating against this Organization is because Member Governments have budgetary problems. Is that a good reason for damaging the programmes of the Organization? I wanted to note that a figure of US$620 million for the budget level has been mentioned. That would be US$105 million below what it would take today to continue and implement the proposed Programme of Work at zero real growth, including the indicated currency adjustment, US$105 million.
That is a little bit more than is proposed for the entire biennium for the major programme, Agriculture. There is no possibility of being able to preserve the programmes of the Organization with a programme level of US$620 million. A figure of US$640 million has been mentioned. That is US$85 million below zero real growth level. That is, incidentally, just about equal to the entire Technical Cooperation Programme. There is no way that we can take US$85 million out of this programme without doing serious damage to the programmes of the Organization. The US$640 million figure compared with the proposed US$698 million is US$58 million lower. That is equal to the amount that is proposed for the entire major programme on Sustainable Development and Special Programmes, another way of illustrating the impossibility of adding to the savings that have already been made and to believe that could come to that kind of level.
Finally, I would note that US$640 million would be US$33 million below the level that was approved two years ago. That is about equal or a little more than the entire provision that is proposed for the Fisheries Department. I have heard several speakers in favour of continuing this provision for Fisheries, if not increasing it.
The Secretariat has informed that the Director-General continues to search for further savings and further measures that can be taken to increase efficiency and effectiveness, but I want to assure you that, after all that has been done and recognizing what was so well stated by the representative from South Africa, it takes time to be able to capture the potential savings. If we had a programme level of US$698 million, we would be able to capture more savings than we will at any lower level.
If you go down to US$640 million or US$650 million it will be absolutely impossible to capture the USS43 million which is in this budget, and do not think otherwise. You cannot cancel posts without having a negative impact on the budget or on the implementation of the decisions that you have already embraced.
My plea to you is to take these points into account and pass a resolution that permits this Organization to capture the potential improvements in efficiency and effectiveness and to implement the proposed Programme of Work that has such strong support from the membership.
My final point is that, even at US$698 million, if the major contributor cannot pay any more than it has indicated, the resources available to the Organization would be below the programme level for the current biennium.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci, Monsieur Hjort d'avoir présenté le point de vue du gestionnaire de l'Organisation. Je pense que vous avez bien défendu cette position. Je crois qu'un certain nombre de ceux qui sont là aujourd'hui comprennent bien ce message, et cela est à prendre en compte dans la deuxième partie de notre discussion. La deuxième partie de notre discussion peut être d'abord, éventuellement, de réagir à ce que vient de dire M. Hjort. Cela peut être aussi de défendre les niveaux budgétaires proposés puisque certaines délégations ont proposé des niveaux budgétaires. Comment y sont-ils parvenus? Ont-ils sacrifié une partie du Programme ou est-ce, comme je l'ai dit, "au doigt mouillé"? Je comprends bien le calcul de la contribution américaine, je comprends mal le calcul des autres, à moins qu'ils puissent nous éclairer sur ce point.
Voilà ce que je vous propose comme deuxième partie de notre discussion: les questions à M. Hjort, ensuite à M. Wade, qui doit nous donner des précisions cet après-midi. Puis les justifications des niveaux que vous avez proposés pour que tout le monde puisse comprendre. Moi je n'ai pas compris, mais peut-être que l'on m'expliquera.
Alvaro GURGEL DE ALENÇAR (Brazil): I would like to start by thanking both Mr Wade and the Deputy Director-General Mr Hjort for their statements.
I would like to touch on this question of some proposed reductions in the level of expenses as a starting point for the consideration of the discussion of the ultimate or the eventual level of the budget.
When I spoke on this matter in the Council on behalf of the Latin American and Caribbean group of countries, I indicated our view that the basis for our discussion of the budget levels was the proposal we had before us. I would like to re-state that. I would like also to agree fully with your assessment in your summing up a little while ago that the only level that has been justified among those various levels proposed, and in our view fully justified, is the one proposed by the management of this Organization, the budget proposed by the Director-General.
We in our Group, as I believe all members of this Organization, would like to see the budget adopted, passed by consensus or, failing that, if that is not possible, at least by a near consensus. I think it is important that in moving in that direction we have a clear view of what is required to reach that consensus. The question of the level of the budget is one of them.
Another important question, and perhaps the first one, is the one that you put before us very clearly in your summing up; that is that we must not touch the programme as adopted by Council. Failing that, we would have eroded, if not destroyed, the basis for consensus. Consensus requires not touching the programme.
We have heard a number of suggestions as starting points of the discussion on the level of expenses. We do not see any justification for them. We feel that all these other levels that have been mentioned, US$620 million, US$640 million, US$645 million to US$655 million, are totally arbitrary. Not only have we not heard any justification for them, but we know that there cannot be any justification for them. Furthermore, we do not think that we should spend much time at all, with all due respect to the proponents, in considering artificial schemes or gimmicks, ingenious as they may seem, to arrive at a solution to this problem. We believe that if we all want increased efficiency measured in terms of cost-effectiveness, what we should do is what you have proposed that we do, and that is look at the proposals before us and explore further what possibilities there may be for additional savings, because here we have a situation where a budget has been carefully prepared; it has been explained to us in a climate of full transparency and in great detail.
I have sat a few times in my life at meetings of the ACABQ in New York where the UN budget has been discussed. I must say that I have rarely seen as competent, as clear and as thorough an explanation for a proposal as I have listened to in the course of the past few days in this room. Let us take that very much into account. Let us consider in addition that unless the purpose of some of our colleagues is simply to slice off a big chunk of the budget of the expenses, which I do not believe is the case - in fact, I have heard from some important contributing countries that this is not the case - and we are seeking greater efficiency, let us proceed in this manner because it is simply not acceptable. Here I must touch on things which could not form the basis for consensus.
It is simply not acceptable that some concepts like financiability, a financiable budget, a realistic budget, should be tantamount or equal to what is possible after one country or a number of countries decided that they can only contribute so much.
If I may, I would like to make a reference to the situation as I perceive it in the country which is often referred to as the largest contributor, the United States of America, because it is difficult not to discuss the budget problem without referring to the situation of the United States of America and its position. In the position of the United States of America I detect two important components. I understand that they are important. The first one is the concern for greater efficiency. This is a concern which is shared by all of us, whether donor or beneficiary country.
Let me interject here to say that I speak for a country which is neither a donor country (in the usual way that this word is used) nor a net beneficiary. We certainly do not get out of FAO as much as we put into it, which is fine. That is not the purpose of the whole business anyway. It is all for multilateralism. However, even for beneficiary countries there is a great interest in increasing efficiency simply because you can get more done for the same amount of money. This is a concern that we all share, and we understand that the United States has great concern for efficiency everywhere.
I detect a second component in their position which is that expressed in the form of budgetary constraints arising out of a domestic situation. We all follow closely and with great interest, as we have been doing for a number of years now, not only here but also in Geneva and mostly in New York, the internal debate in the United States not just on the question of budgets of international organizations but, I daresay, on the issue of the positioning of that country vis-à-vis the United Nations System as a whole. This is what the debate is about. It is a very serious debate. I have the impression, as I think we all have, that it is drawing more and more people into it. We seem to see in the American mass media more and more bylines, more and more articles and editorials on this question. It seems to give rise to greater concern to the public, and we have just had a recent expression of the concern of the administration by no less than the President himself on the 24th at the United Nations. We understand that and we feel that it is important.
However, there is one thing that we cannot do, which is solve that problem. Only that country can solve this particular problem, only that country can settle this issue in due course, and we do not know how long it will take. As a result, of course, the US Administration itself is not sure of when it is going to be able to pay its contribution and how much it will be. We have even heard it said that even if the very low level of expenses proposed by the United States of America were to be accepted by this Organization (which of course we know not to be possible), they would only pay something like 10-20 percent less of the resulting assessed contribution of the United States.
Mr Chairman, the degree of uncertainty is just too much to allow an Organization like this to be able to do anything about it. What therefore does my group think should be done? We think we should take the attitude that we are trying to take towards this budget, a serious attitude guided by the spirit of austerity, the same spirit which we detect in the management of this Organization when it submitted the budget with the aim of seeking greater efficiency through streamlining processes or whatever of the various means that have been pointed out to us, but seeking to achieve the maximum level of savings possible without, as has been stated clearly and as you have summed up, Mr Chairman, touching the Programme. If we do this, we will show not only our constituents back home but our respective Congresses and Parliaments - and this of course applies also to the delegation of the United States which will be able to show their Congress - that here is an Organization which has done the utmost to be more efficient, which has tackled the problem of its budget seriously, an Organization in which both the full membership and the Management are working together to make this budget the most serious and austere as possible without affecting its Programme.
Further, we will be able to show that we are not only doing this now during this Conference for the purposes of approving this budget for the coming biennium, but that we are committed to maintaining this approach. We have heard, and we expect that it will be so, that the Director-General and the Management will operate in the same spirit with the same objectives in mind throughout the whole biennium, will continue to seek further economies and will introduce this spirit in the management of the Organization at all its levels.
We know also that we have agreed to look into the review of management practices with the same purpose in mind, so we are not adopting a budget which is serious, austere and lean at this moment. We are adopting a new attitude to this Organization, we are adopting a new approach at the beginning of the second half-century of the Organization. For the first budget proposed by the new Director-General, we are adopting a new approach and a new attitude. In this regard I do not only speak for my group, but I know that I convey the feeling of the whole Group of 77 without wanting to usurp the functions of my dear colleague and friend, Mr Aboul-Naga. This is what I propose we should do, hoping that if some people cannot join us right now, they will be able to take this budget home and convince their authorities that we are being serious about this business and that they should stay on board and pay the full price of the ticket.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): I would like to address three points. I would like to take the opportunity of making some observations regarding the answers that we have received from Mr Hjort and Mr Wade and then I will also explain the Swiss position.
First of all, I must say that I was a little bit astonished by Mr Hjort's statement which brought a lot of emotion to the discussion. We all joined in a kind of US bashing when it came to criticizing this country for not paying its contribution and not paying its arrears. We very strongly criticized the United States for this. We also do not accept that we have a unilateral setting of the level by one Member. In this regard there is no problem.
However, I am a little bit astonished that those countries which have not spoken in support of the budget as it is proposed are now being bashed by the Secretariat, being criticized for not following the Budget Proposal. I find this a little bit astonishing and quite in contrast with what we have read in the foreword of the Programme of Work and Budget where the Director-General has promised that the Secretariat would be an honest broker in order to try and narrow the differences. I would therefore like the Secretariat to play this role of honest broker. We have to discuss the differences in the discussion amongst the Members. I think that criticism can come there but I think the Secretariat should try to do what it has promised, namely to be an honest broker. I would in particular like to say that I find it a little difficult to accept this member bashing, particularly in relation to those countries which have always paid punctually.
Let me also add one other point. We are not now discussing the full budget of FAO. The full budget, as we all know, also includes extrabudgetary contributions to the Field Programme. We are speaking about the Regular Budget. We are taking a position not as a donor country but as a member country. It is important that we see our obligation as a donor country when we speak about development aid, and I made it clear in my statement yesterday that we are committed to continuing our development aid. Our contribution to the Regular Budget is about 0.4 percent of our development aid, so when we are trying to find a consensus situation, please do not interpret it in the sense that we want to reduce our development aid or something like that. The Swiss position is that we are looking at this as a member country.
We did not do what in French would be called le doigt mouillé, or we did not do it fully. We have to go about le doigt mouillé because we do not have sufficient information, but let me say what our considerations were when we came to our position. As I have already said, we do not look at the FAO budget as a donor, we look at it as a member.
We are for austerity budgets everywhere. We think it is important to have zero growth and we think the costs must be absorbed. We believe that when looking at budgets we must start from reality, not fiction. As everybody knows - and Mr Hjort has also spoken about this - the budget base is US$38 million too high. At the beginning of the debate on the budget we said clearly that we accept the need to make a higher contribution. I would like to underline that we will pay this higher contribution promptly, as we have always done. However, we are very worried that the financing of the proposed budget is not assured. There is a net increase of US$37.4 million, which is therefore an increased Programme of Work. Mr Wade has referred to
the instruction given by the 106th Session of the Council. That instruction was for the ongoing budget. You recall that authority was given by the Conference to this Council to make a reallocation in the present budget. We are not now talking about the present budget but about the proposed budget for the next biennium. I have difficulty in seeing how the instruction given to this Conference has been expanded. I do not think this is valid.
Another point which is obviously important in the position my government takes on this question is that the problems we are discussing are caused in the main by bad contribution discipline. Only one-third of Member Nations have paid in full, one-half are in arrears and almost a quarter are at risk of sanctions. This third cannot alone finance this budget. That is the problem. Again, this is a reflection of a Member not a donor. Australia said and Mr Wade has confirmed that we have foregone interest income of about US$35 million. If everybody paid punctually, we would have this sum plus an additional US$11 million, US$46 million miscellaneous income to finance this budget. The one-third good payers are having to pay US$35 million more than they should. We believe this is too much. My country and other good payers just say, "We cannot follow this." We are not considering this question as a donor but as a member country, and this is not a fair way in which to treat a member country.
Let me add one other thing. If we do not achieve a consensus budget, whatever that is, two kinds of risks are involved. There is the immediate financial risk that it is very difficult for the Secretariat to operate. They are living in an atmosphere of uncertainty. This risk exists with a higher budget. Consensus does not make much difference. There is another risk. At this conference, as at previous conferences, the press always ask questions about the budget. That is what interests them. Therefore this hides the other messages that this Conference and this Organization ought to bring to the world. It would be most unfortunate if the impossibility of achieving consensus on the budget takes precedence over the more important messages this Organization has to deliver to the world. We should bear this in mind.
I have some questions for Mr Wade. Looking at the Council document on the income side, we do not have the total income of contributions and arrears for the full year but only to the same time of the year. Unless I am mistaken, what we received in contributions and arrears last year was about US$305 million. This year we see from the Council document that up to 16th October the Organization has received roughly US$230 million, making US$535 million. The USA has not yet paid. On a best case scenario they may pay US$70 million, probably less, which takes us to an amount of US$605 million. With miscellaneous income of about US$10 million, that makes US$615 million. That is the money which is there in the best case. Mr Wade has told us we plan expenditures of US$653 million, which is a difference of US$40 million. The question is how can you spend US$653 million on the background of these figures? The figures do not add up.
The Working Capital Fund at the beginning of September was US$24 million and the Special Reserve Account stood at US$16 million, making a total of US$40 million. If you liquidate everything therefore you arrive at US$653 million. Mr Wade has already said we are effectively already running on this. I do not know what the prospects for the future are. We risk entering the next biennium with nothing in the Working Capital Fund, nothing in the Special Reserve Account, and possibly some external borrowing. Then there is a budget which might be fractious, with on the one hand Members pushing the Director-General to spend and on the other hand, he being a solid manager, knowing he must slow down. We put him in an impossible situation, which, I fully agree is caused by the lack of payment of discipline of member countries. We have to look to ourselves to solve this problem. We must not accuse the Secretariat of creating this problem. I would like to say that very clearly. This is our problem, which we have created. For my part I am happy to be able to say that we have paid everything on time. This is has even allowed the Organization to gain some meagre miscellaneous income. This problem has been created by the Members, and one in particular, but payment discipline is very bad.
We would like more information from the Secretariat on how it will operate in the next biennium on the basis of these facts. If, for example, the budget went to a vote, the majority would clearly support it although there would be some against and some abstentions: How would you run this? I would be very interested to know that.
Ms Turid KONGSVIK (Norvège): Monsieur le Président, je voudrais tout d'abord faire un commentaire concernant le doigt mouillé. Il s'agit très certainement d'une méthode peu rigoureuse, je vous l'accorde. Toutefois, vous savez que, lors de la session du Conseil de ce printemps, nous avions demandé au Secrétariat qu'il tienne compte du point de vue des trois groupes de pays.
Le point de vue exprimé par un groupe assez important voulait que le Secrétariat élabore un scénario de programme et budget prenant pour point de départ la base du dernier budget moins les 38 millions de dollars E.U. d'arriérés - et le Directeur général nous a dit, à plusieurs reprises, qu'il n'utiliserait pas cet argent tant qu'il ne serait pas disponible. Le point de départ, c'est donc que l'on se base sur les activités effectivement mises en route lors de cet exercice biennal et c'est, selon toute probabilité, la base du budget moins ces 38 millions.
Faute d'avoir ce scénario, nos pays n'ont pas les services du Secrétariat et ne peuvent pas faire un programme qui tienne compte d'un chiffre quelconque. Nous dépendons de l'aide du Secrétariat qui doit nous dire avec quelle base budgétaire on fera telle ou telle chose afin que nous puissions décider en connaissance de cause quelles parties du programme pourront être pleinement mises en oeuvre, avec quelles économies on pourra peut-être le mettre en oeuvre entièrement. De toutes façons, à la fin de la journée, nous serons devant un fait.
I know they justified their case very well and I am very sure it was coherent. That is not the point. We will not have the funding no matter how well we argue for it. I must make this position clear. The proposal we made yesterday was based on the need for consensus. We heard everybody say, "We want a consensus", and we think somebody will have to come up with a concrete proposal in order to achieve that consensus. We heard the proposed positions at the last Council and the figure we gave does not in any way reflect national positions. It was given in a spirit of striving to help us move towards a consensus. I must repeat it does not reflect a minimum or maximum level on which we can agree. We put it in because we thought it might attract the agreement of as many countries as possible. It is our responsibility to get to a budget where everybody has to compromise a little and which we can all agree on and feel committed to.
These views are shared by the other Nordic countries. May I ask a question on behalf of one of the Nordic countries? We would like some additional clarification from Mr Hjort on the point he raised at the end of his statement when he said that the foreseeable funding from the largest donor to the Programme of Work and Budget will be below the level of the present biennium. We have all heard that the proposed PWB level is in real danger of not being fully funded. That will mean that the Organization will have to reduce its spending and we would like to know how the Secretariat would react to such a situation. How would the cuts be made if funding is not available? This point was also very well argued by the delegate of Switzerland.
Kenji SHEVUZU (Japan): I confine my observations to the clarification made by Mr Wade on the FINSYS PERSYS programme. He responded to the question, which was raised by my delegation as well as other delegations, in saying something which I was surprised to hear, that the Directors were not responsible for the failure of the programme, if it is a failure. That means nobody is responsible. How can this failure be justified? Mr Wade did not spell anything out, but just said it was very difficult.
The lessons are about the conceptual design to replace the system. This is quite a normal procedure when considering introducing such a big system. It is nothing new. It seems therefore, that the Programme related to the failure of this system has serious implications for management, administration and production and the outcome of this Organization in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. We must therefore improve the production of this Organization and thus be able to reduce cost, and so we must be very careful about the management and administration in this Organization.
James SCHROEDER (United States of America): I just want to assure our colleagues that we may be bruised but we are still here and not bleeding too badly!
I also want to make several points to my good friend Deputy Director-General Hjort. First, he referred at least three times to June 1st, 1994. Guess what? Something happened in November of 1994. The United States, speaking as a Democrat, wrongly elected the most isolationist Congress in 50 years. Those of you who read the newspapers will see some of the results of that election.
This leads me to point two which is that our proposals are unprecedented. They are unprecedented - given history, but no they are not given our current posture within the UN system. We are in dynamic situation. For those of you who were here yesterday, I believe you heard my colleague Mrs Kimball refer to the fact that the President requested almost US$1 billion for assessed international organizations. Our House of Representatives this spring passed a figure of US$858 million and then our Senate in early summer passed US$550 million. This is a dynamic situation and our position had obviously had to respond to this.
This leads me to point three: why do we trouble you with the budgetary problems of the United States? Perhaps we should not. We think in fairness, however, first of all you must know what the facts are. This is only fair to our colleagues in this Organization. It then follows that you may want to act on that knowledge.
Before I joined the Government I was a lawyer. I had a private practice. I had an experience one day where a client showed up bankrupt and that was very disorientating to me. I would have much preferred that the client had come in and told me that he was getting into financial trouble and then allowed me to consider that in the way I structured my practice. So we are here bringing you knowledge about our situation. Should you act on that, if at all, and how?
That leads me to the fourth point, which my colleague from Brazil raised. Having heard all this, what should we do? Should we do anything? He seemed to suggest that a tough, efficient, good budget was the answer. I have written down some statements made here that this Organization has done its utmost. That, of course, is where we find ourselves. Can IBM actually close some factories but continue to make computers? Can General Motors actually lay off some people and still make cars at a profit? Can a government, the Government of Canada or New Zealand or the United States, actually cut its budget and still perform its services? Can FAO actually cut its budget and still function? That is the question. We hope it can and we hope there will be consensus.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le représentant des Etats Unis d'Amérique d'avoir réitéré les explications relatives à la position de ce pays.
Ms Faith INNERARITY (Jamaica): I would like to state first of all that the Jamaican delegation identifies fully with the position outlined by the delegate of Trinidad and Tobago this morning on the Programme of Work and Budget.
Secondly, I would like to state that it is clear from our discussions so far that part of the difficulty in the budget discussion is the high percentage of arrears in payments of assessed contributions. Unfortunately, Mr Chairman, my country is among those with outstanding contributions. We recall at the 27th Session of the Conference that there were some proposals in respect of innovative means for dealing with the question of payment of arrears. In fact, there was some commitment in respect of the Organization studying these proposals and coming up with the position. I am not sure what is the status of these proposals and I would like to get some information from the Secretariat on this matter.
The issue of the Budget is something which will always be before us. Inflows are important if there are going to be outflows. The matter of inflows is always an issue because of the inability of many countries to meet their payment. Therefore this is really something which is long term and we should, at this point, seek to find a long-term solution. If we were all able to pay our contributions on time and if the arrears were to be collected then there would be less difficulty in having a budget decided upon in a fashion where there could be some consensus.
We submit, therefore, that these proposals on collection of arrears should be revisited and that this would be to the benefit of the Organization and also to us as member countries.
LE PRESIDENT: Je me rapelle en effet qu'à la 27ème session de la Conférence, nous avions discuté de ce sujet au bureau.
M. Wade nous quitte parce qu'il doit rejoindre le Directeur général mais il répondra par la suite aux questions que je noterai très soigneusement.
Mme Régine DE CLERCQ (Belgique): Monsieur le Président, à propos de votre question sur la manière dont nous sommes arrivés au chiffre que nous avons préconisé comme chiffre pouvant obtenir le consensus, je vous rappelle que la Belgique a proposé un chiffre se situant dans une fourchette de 645 à 655 millions de dollars E.U.
Sur les explications arithmétiques de ce chiffre, je dois dire exactement la même chose que la représentante de la Norvège. Nous sommes arrivés à ce chiffre parce qu'il est la résultante du budget tel que prévu pour l'exercice biennal précédent moins les 38 millions d'arriérés et en tenant compte d'une augmentation des coûts que nous croyons, peut-être en partie, sinon totalement absorbés. Mais il ne s'agit pas vraiment d'un chiffre qui est le résultat d'un raisonnement mathématique, si j'ose dire, mais surtout d'un objectif politique que nous croyons nécessaire pour satisfaire les deux positions extrêmes adoptées dans cette assemblée.
Il y a, d'un côté, la position qui vient d'être exprimée, encore une fois, par le représentant des Etats-Unis d'Amérique. Nous essayons, avec notre proposition, d'agir en fonction des informations que nous donne la délégation de ce pays. Nous voulons aussi rassurer cet Etat Membre qui se trouve dans une position difficile et qui éprouve des doutes quant à la rentabilité de la FAO. Avec ce chiffre, nous voulons lui offrir des arguments vis-à-vis de son Congrès pour défendre la FAO.
Nous voulons également transmettre un message au groupe qui défend l'autre position extrême. Nous estimons qu'il n'est pas raisonnable de demander un effort à ce groupe de pays et de revoir à la baisse le niveau du budget.
Ce que vient de dire la délégation de la Jamaique sur la solution à long terme est très intéressant, parce qu'il est certain qu'à l'occasion de la discussion de ce budget, nous devons aussi mettre des jalons pour trouver des solutions à long terme. Nous avons déjà parlé de la nécessité de développer des critères qui devraient nous permettre de revoir le Programme en appliquant ces critères.
Donc, comme l'a dit notre Ministre dans son discours, nous pouvons donner une interprétation flexible à ce chiffre, mais c'est un chiffre qui, nous l'espérons, pourrait provoquer un consensus. C'est un chiffre politique, mais, pas mathématique.
LE PRESIDENT: C'est bien ce que j'avais compris. Et je pense que tout le monde l'avait compris. Cela rend le travail encore plus délicat, mais on comprend très bien la justification.
The meeting rose at 12.30 hours.
La séance est levée à 12 h 30.
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.30 horas.
