LE PRESIDENT: Honorables délégués, nous reprenons le cours de nos travaux.
Vous avez devant vous le Programme de la séance d'aujourd'hui qui commencera par le point n 7: Programme de travail et budget 1988-89. Mais je voudrais au préalable rappeler qu'il nous reste un effort à fournir d'une part pour le choix des membres du Comité de rédaction et leur président, ensuite pour l'élection de la commission des candidatures composée de 11 membres, enfin pour la désignation des présidents des commissions I, II et III pour la prochaine Conférence. Je souhaite vivement que les contacts entre délégations puissent se poursuivre de manière intensive afin que nous puissions préparer par nos travaux d'abord la commission de coordination qui est très urgente et que nous puissions préparer le travail de la Conférence pour la commission des candidatures et les présidences des commissions.
Messieurs les délégués sont instamment priés de multiplier leurs contacts pour nous donner leurs propositions le plus tôt possible.
Nous allons commencer par le Programme de travail et budget mais je souhaiterais que parallèlement Messieurs les délégués puissent continuer leurs consultations pour nous permettre d'avoir, en fin de matinée si possible, la constitution du Comité de rédaction. Je proposerais que nous ayons, si possible à la fin de la séance, des propositions concrètes pour les membres du Comité de rédaction, c'est une urgence évidente pour la suite de nos travaux.
Ceci étant, le premier point à l'ordre du jour est le point n 7: Programme de travail et budget 1988-89 et objectifs a moyen terme. Ce sont les documents: C 87/3; C 87/3-Corr.1; C 87/3-Corr.2 (anglais seulement); C 87/3-Sup.l; C 87/3-Sup.2; C 87/3-Sup.3; CL 92/4, par. 1.1-1.7, 2.59-2.121 et 3.4-3.17).
Je voudrais, avec votre permission, passer la parole au Docteur Shah, Sous-Directeur général du Programme, budget et relations pour qu'il nous présente la question.
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Mr. Chairman, you have yourself referred to the documents which are before the Council for the consideration of this item.
The Director-General has sought to respond to the Council's debate at its last Session in June and introduced some significant changes in his proposals in the full Programme of Work and Budget now before you.
My first task is, therefore, to draw attention to the changes between the Summary and the full Programme of Work and Budget.
The net programme increase which had been proposed in the Summary amounted to US$ 2.2 million, that is, in percentage terms, 0.48 percent over the re-costed base of this biennium. This increase is now reduced by half and amounts to only US$ 1.1 million, or 0.25 percent of the re-costed base. This constitutes perhaps the lowest net increase ever requested in the history of FAO. It is lower
than the net increase of 0.5 percent which was requested for 1984/85 and which was unanimously supported by the FAO Conference in 1983.
In order to achieve this, the Director-General has made two specific changes to his proposals in the Summary. Firstly, there is a further reduction in the provision for the Liaison Office in Washington, the Liaison Office for North America, but with careful attention to maintain the substantive activities hitherto carried out by that office. Secondly, the increase originally proposed for the Major Programme 3.4 - that is, for the FAO representatives - is reduced from US$ 950, 000, which was the proposal in the Summary to US$ 550, 000 in the full Programme of Work and Budget.
Despite this very tight approach to budgetary increases, FAO's technical and economic programmes under Chapter 2 would still receive a net programme increase of US$ 4.7 million, that is 2.3 percent over the present base.
The Director-General also maintained the present level, in real terms, of the Technical Co-operation Programme appropriation, despite the chorus of support for this programme in the Council and Conference and the overwhelming wish of those member countries which are the direct beneficiaries of TCP assistance, to see it receive a net programme increase in resources.
1 turn now to the second and perhaps most important area of change in the full Programme of Work and Budget. In the summary, the provision to cover cost increases anticipated for the next biennium 1988-89 had amounted to US$ 18 million. This estimate was based on the most conservative prediction of all factors involved, including the expected rate of inflation not only in the host country but in all areas where the Organization carries out activities, the decisions regarding staff emoluments and conditions of service, etc. Since then, we have had firm indication that even this limited amount would not be sufficient, for instance in the light of the recent decisions of the International Civil Service Commission and the Staff Pension Board which could become effective in early 1988, if endorsed by the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Nevertheless, as a deliberate measure to lower the overall level of resources to be requested as assessments on Member Nations, the Director-General decided to reduce the provision to cover cost increases in 1988-89, by US$ 5 million, that is, he has brought it down to US$ 13 million. I should be very clear here. When cost increases beyond the level of US$ 13 million materialize, when they occur during the next biennium, they will have to be covered from the available budgetary resources. I should also flag here the net reduction of eight professional and 17 general service posts for a total of 25. In the summary the figure was 23.
My second task is to give some explanations on the changes introduced over the previous versions of the document which are aimed at facilitating your consideration of the proposals. After the substance, I am now dealing with the presentation and the format of the document. There is no change in the basic structure of the document.
The section on the programme framework gives an analysis of the programme budget proposals. It discusses the selection of strategies and priorities, the proportion of expenditure on posts as a part of the total budget, changes in established posts, details of cost increases and other financial aspects of the proposals. It brings us to a part of the document which amounts to no more than two pages but which is rather crucial to the discussion. I refer in the English text of the document to page 29 where there is a section dealing with the currency factor, to indicate what the budget level would be at different rates of exchange. On page 30 there is a table showing a comparison of the present budget with the proposed budget and on page 31 an explanation showing what would be the effect of the various budget levels on contributions of Member Nations. I will need to return to this aspect at the conclusion of my intervention.
The document also contains a draft resolution in the form of the text that will be considered by the Conference when it adopts the Programme of Work and Budget in Plenary. But let me be quite clear that the figures given in this draft resolution are given at the rate of Lire 1760 to the dollar, the present rate for the present biennium, as adopted by the last Conference. The text of this draft resolution will of course be updated, as we always do, to permit the Conference to decide on the rate of exchange which it will adopt, together with the Programme of Work and Budget.
It is in the Programme Budget itself, the major substantive part of the document, that a very considerable expansion of detail has been provided on proposed activities. We are now providing an indication of the budgetary outlays and changes at the programme element level, as well as mention of activities and outputs under each element. We have tried to make the narratives more specific than ever before and this applies more particularly to Chapter 2 which deals with the Technical and Economic Programmes.
The three annexes which are also part of the main document are for information and yet they are an integral part of the document. Annex I presents the proposed programme in respective regional contexts. I should emphasize that this annex does not deal only with the activities of the regional offices, because the Technical and Economic Programmes of FAO are an integrated whole, whether the activities are carried out at headquarters or in regional offices or at country level. Annex II deals with the budget by organizational unit, giving information by objects of expenditure, both for the present biennium and for the next one, together with organizational charts. Annex III deals with salary schedules and staffing tables.
There is nothing new in Supplements 1 and 2 to which the Chairman has also made reference. They provide the customary lists of main publications and meetings which will form part of our programme of activity in the next biennium. This time there is also a brief Supplement 3, only two pages in fact, which mentions minor organizational changes affecting three Headquarters divisions, the Commodities and Trade Division, the Plant Production Division, and the Animal Production Division. In view of the detailed consideration by our Establishments Committee of the staffing implications regarding these changes which took place during the summer, it was not possible to include this information in the main document before it was sent for processing and it therefore appears as a supplement. There is also a corrigendum, Corrigendum 1, which gives the results of the upgradings proposed.
My third and concluding task is to set the Director-General's proposals in their overall financial perspective. The Programme of Work and Budget for 1986-87 amounts to US$ 437 million at the budgetary exchange rate of lire 1760 to US$ 1. The document gives figures for 1988-89 at the same rate of exchange, as we have always done. This is the established tradition in order to permit comparisons to be made between successive biennial periods.
Thus, if one includes the programme increase proposed and the provision for cost increases, the effective working budget proposed to the Conference becomes US$ 451 million at lire 1760 to the US$ 1, as shown on page 30 of the English text.
However, what Member Nations expect to see is the practical impact of these proposals at current exchanges rates. This is why the document indicates on page 29 the likely level of the budget at current rates of exchange.
Thus at Lire 1350 to the US$ 1, which was the current rate when we sent the document for processing, the tentative figure becomes US$ 481.7 million. At lire 1300 it is US$ 486 million; at Lire 1275 ... and so on, you have the figures before you. From this figure has to be deducted the estimated miscellaneous income in order to arrive at the part of the budget to be funded by Member Nations.
There is undeniably a substantial increase in contributions in dollar terms. This is factual and no one can attempt to hide it. But I would offer some comments. Firstly, although there is an increase in dollar terms, the impact on national currencies will depend on the relative evolution of these currencies against the US dollar in the last two years, and even now, as we are seeing. As the currencies of some of the major contributors have appreciated considerably since 1985, for them there will not be any noticeable difference in terms of their own currencies; for a significant number in terms of their national currencies, the contributions will even be less.
Secondly, the assessed contributions for 1986-87, for this biennium, had been deliberately lowered by a substantial amount, by an amount of US$ 41 million, since this was the over-optimistic estimate of miscellaneous income which had been made in the summer of 1985. We are now all too painfully aware of the consequences of this fact and a more conservative estimate of miscellaneous income has therefore been made for 1988-89, as directed by the Finance Committee and the Council itself at its last session, so as to safeguard implementation of approved programmes.
Thirdly, we cannot dispute that developments in currency markets are external factors entirely outside the Organization's control. In earlier biennia, in 1982-83 for example, and in 1984-85, positive currency developments contributed to substantial cash surpluses which have been duly returned to Member Nations. The documents now before the Council were reviewed by the Programme and Finance Committees at their recent sessions in September.
The views and the recommendations of these two committees are in their reports which are also before you and we are very pleased that the Chairmen of the two Committees themselves are with us today and will present these views to you.
We look forward to the Council's reaction and hope that it will find its way to accepting the recommendations of the Programme and Finance Committees, that is to endorse the Director-General's proposed Programme of Work and Budget for 1988-89, with the hope for its approval, by consensus, at the Conference.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Shah pour son exposé liminaire. Nous ouvrons le débat sur ce point très important et passons la parole aux délégués qui veulent bien intervenir dans ce débat. Peut-être Monsieur le Président du Comité du Programme a-t-il quelque chose à ajouter, puis ensuite le Comité financier.
M. J. MAZOYER (Président, Comité du Programme): Je suis à votre disposition pour présenter les rapports que nous avons établis à ce sujet. Monsieur le Président, Mesdames, Messieurs les Membres du Conseil, c'est en effet un honneur pour moi que de vous présenter deux rapports que j'avais préparés à votre intention, si vous en êtes d'accord. Ces deux rapports sont tout d'abord le rapport de la session conjointe du Comité du Programme et du Comité financier relatif au Programme de travail et budget pour 1988-89, et deuxièmement le rapport plus particulier du Comité du Programme. M. Bukhari, Président du Comité financier, présentera pour sa part le rapport du comité qu'il préside.
Tout d'abord le rapport commun des deux comités. Dans notre débat conjoint, nous avons estimé que les propositions du Directeur général reflètent fidèlement celles qui étaient présentées dans le Sommaire de Programme de travail et budget que nous avons examiné en mai.
Deuxièmement les modifications qui ont été introduites dans le document définitif tiennent compte dûment et clairement des vues exprimées par le Conseil et par les Comités eux-mêmes lors de la session en mai.
Ensuite nous avons apprécié les mesures prises par le Directeur général en vue de faciliter le consensus entre les Etats Membres, mesures qui visent à réduire l'augmentation nette de programmes qui de 0, 48% dans le Sommaire sont maintenant réduites à 0.25% comme vient de nous le détailler M. Sharh.
Par ailleurs, les crédits destinés à couvrir les augmentations de coût sont réduits également de 18 millions à 13 millions, ce qui signifie donc que 5 millions de dollars des Etats-Unis seront absorbés en cours d'exercice.
Enfin, je vous rappelle qu'avec les nouvelles suppressions de postes qui sont envisagées, il y aurait une réduction totale de 25 postes au tableau d'effectifs.
Au total les Comités estiment que la proposition de Programme de travail et budget répond de manière raisonnée et réaliste aux exigences, comme vous le savez parfois divergentes, des Etats Membres et qu'elle résulte, nous le savons aussi, d'une part des difficultés économiques que rencontre tel ou tel pays, et d'autre part de besoins d'assistance et de services demandés à la FAO, demandes d'assistance et de services qui ne vont pas en diminuant.
Donc, tout en reconnaissant ce qui précède, trois membres appartenant aux deux Comités conjoints ont cependant déclaré ne pouvoir approuver le niveau de budget proposé, et finalement, compte tenu de toutes les opinions exprimées en séance, les deux Comités ont recommandé au Conseil d'appuyer le Programme de travail et budget, en espérant que la Conférence puisse l'approuver par consensus lors de sa vingt-quatrième session.
Par ailleurs, nous avons eu, bien entendu, les deux comités ensemble et aussi séparément. Nous avons bien entendu longuement discuté des difficultés auxquelles l'Organisation a dû faire face pendant l'exercice en cours, difficultés de trésorerie. ces difficultés ont conduit, comme vous le savez, à procéder à des ajustements de programmes, c'est-à-dire à réduire très sérieusement les activités qui avaient pourtant été approuvées il y a deux ans, lors de l'adoption du Programme de travail et budget qui est en cours d'exécution dans le biennium 1986-87.
Cette question a été longuement débattue au Comité du Programme lui-même, et je vais vous rendre compte très rapidement de nos conclusions qui ne sont peut-être pas sans intérêt.
Déjà en mai, nous avions constaté que beaucoup de Programmes auxquels nous avons attribué une importance toute particulière dans nos sessions antérieures avaient été touchés par ces ajustements. Nous avons discuté à nouveau de cette question, en septembre, finalement nous sommes arrivés à la conclusion suivante: nous pensons très très sérieusement que la perpétuation de cet état de choses qui conduit à limiter les moyens de travail de l'Organisation, conduirait assez rapidement à un appauvrissement des capacités techniques du Secrétariat. Nous avons donc souligné qu'on ne peut pas continuer, à notre avis, à procéder par vagues successives d'ajustement de programmes pour faire face à ces difficultés de trésorerie. Nous pensons ceci en relation avec le travail que nous faisons au Comité du Programme. Nous pensons que cela rendrait pratiquement vains, c'est-à-dire illusoires et relativement inopérants, les exercices de sélection de priorité et les exercices de programmation des activités accomplies par le Secrétariat, par les comités et par les autres instances.
Or nous avons été informés qu'il est tout à fait possible, peut-être même probable, que des difficultés de trésorerie de même ordre continueront de se manifester dans le prochain exercice.
Alors nous avons émis là-dessus un avis très clair: nous ne pensons pas qu'il faut continuer par ajustements au coup par coup, nous pensons qu'aux problèmes de trésorerie qui se posent à l'Organisation, il faudrait trouver des solutions financières pour faire face à ces difficultés de trésorerie. Nous pensons vraiment que les ajustements sont un peu destructeurs, c'est un commentaire personnel qui a été tellement émis dans le Comité que je peux vous en faire part.
Maintenant je passe au Programme de travail et budget pour 1988-89 que le Comité du Programme a examiné de nouveau en regardant les stratégies et priorités d'ensemble et stratégies et priorités programmes par programmes, ainsi que toutes les informations supplémentaires qui sont contenues dans la version intégrale du Programme de travail et budget. Le Comité à ce sujet a noté l'effort qui a été fait pour améliorer la définition et la présentation des objectifs à long terme et à moyen terme, ainsi que le plan d'action de la FAO pour l'exercice à venir.
Le Comité du Programme a relevé que, dans l'ensemble, les stratégies et priorités sont évidemment conformes au sommaire, comme la session conjointe l'avait déjà noté, et on a cependant remarqué que, dans le document définitif, vous pourrez vous en rendre compte vous-mêmes, une attention accrue avait été portée au problème de l'environnement, de conservation des ressources naturelles, et également qu'un accent plus net, plus particulier, avait été mis sur l'assistance aux groupes de populations les plus démunis.
En ce qui concerne la définition des objectifs, il y a une amélioration dans ce document également. En effet, à ce sujet, nous pensons qu'il faut considérer que les objectifs à moyen terme sont en fait ceux des pays eux-mêmes, et que face à ces objectifs, la FAO apporte, en vue de les atteindre, une assistance, mais une assistance limitée dans la mesure de ses moyens. Et, par conséquent, l'activité de la FAO, les programmes de la FAO doivent être analysés dans cette perspective. L'activité de la FAO vient en appui des activités des pays eux-mêmes. Elle vient s'inscrire à côté de celle d'autres organismes, et il était important que les paragraphes du Programme par programmes qui sont consacrés à l'étude des grands axes de chacun de ces programmes apportent des informations qui permettent de mieux situer et de mieux évaluer l'action de la FAO. C'est une chose que nous avions demandée antérieurement, et nous sommes heureux que ceci se manifeste.
En ce qui concerne le Plan d'action de chaque programme, le PIB comporte, pour la première fois, vous l'avez noté, des tableaux par sous-programmes qui décomposent les ressources et les variations de ressources pour chacun des éléments de ces sous-programmes., ce qui permet de mieux comprendre le Programme proposé.
Je ne voudrais pas entrer dans le détail de nos débats sur le budget chapitre par chapitre, ceux-ci sont fidèlement reproduits dans notre rapport. Cependant, j ' ai constaté que si l'on s'en tenait à ces considérations générales d'analyse du document et de présentation du document tel que je viens de le faire, on aboutissait souvent à l'impression que, dans le Comité du Programme, nous ne discutions pas de manière critique ou approfondie certains aspects de ce Programme. Je vous assure qu'il n'en est rien. Sur beaucoup de questions nous avons eu des discussions très fermes, très dures et très contradictoires avec le Secrétariat et entre nous, et ceci est reflété dans notre rapport et dans ce que je viens de vous dire d'une manière souvent très discrète, qui fait qu'on se demande si vraiment c'est toujous bien perçu. Alors je voudrais souligner quelques points, attirer votre attention sur quelques points qui me paraissent importants parce que la discussion a été très approfondie sur ces questions, elle a duré une heure, deux heures quelquefois. J'en ai relevé quelques-uns, ce n'est pas un choix tout à fait arbitraire, mes collègues du Comité du Programme pourront ajouter d'autres observations, mais c'est le choix que j'ai fait pour vous hier. Je ne prendrai pas trop de temps si vous me le permettez.
D'abord dans le grand Programme 2.1 Agriculture, paragraphe 2.72, nous disions par exemple "le Comité a recommandé que, en matière de sauvegarde de ressources naturelles, soit élaborée une stratégie de conservation de l'environnement basée sur la mobilisation des exploitants agricoles" c'est-à-dire pas basée uniquement sur des injections d'investissements lourds. Nous pensons que l'environnement ne peut pas être sauvé si la masse des paysans du monde n'y participe pas massivement .
Dans l'élaboration et l'exécution de stratégies, la nécessité d'aider les agriculteurs les plus démunis, c'est-à-dire ceux qui n'ont plus les moyens de participer à cette tâche de sauvegarde de l'environnement mondial, nous pensons donc que l'aide aux agriculteurs les plus démunis pour améliorer leurs moyens de production et d'entretien et conservation du milieu devra être largement prise en compte. Ce n'est pas une conclusion négligeable. Paragraphe 2.93, toujours grand Programme agriculture: le Comité - et là il y a eu une discussion très importante.- a renouvelé son appui à l'inclusion, je dirai presque systématique, de considérations nutritionnelles dans la planification alimentaire et agricole au niveau national et international, et, dans les projets, á souligné l'importance des programmes éducatifs utilisant les médias et méthodes nouvelles et s'intéressant directement aux groupes cibles. Ce sont des choses qui sont dites avec discrétion et qui méritent d'être réfléchies.
Paragraphe 2.1.8 Politiques alimentaires et agricoles: le Comité a recommandé de concentrer les efforts dans ce domaine sur les pays à risque, c'est-à-dire sur les pays dans lesquels il y a des problèmes de ce genre, des difficultés particulières, et sur ceux de ces pays qui ne disposent pas de capacités techniques et institutionnelles suffisantes pour y faire face, et a exprimé l'espoir, puisque les ressources du Programme ordinaire sont insuffisantes, que des ressources extrabudgétaires soient mobilisées pour développer ces activités. Il faut souligner que ces activités permettent aux pays de mieux sélectionner et mieux coordonner l'assistance extérieure et les projets de développement.
Grand Programme 2.2 Pêches: Paragraphe 2.106: le Comité a souligné qu'il était essentiel que les activités de ce grand Programme soient consacrées en toute priorité à la préservation des ressources halieutiques des pays en développement et au renforcement de leur propre capacité en matière de pêche.
De plus, dans ces pays, ccmme il est vrai pour les autres grands programmes d'agriculture ou de forêts, il est nécessaire de concentrer les efforts sur les groupes de pêcheurs et d'aquaculteurs côtiers ou continentaux le plus démunis.
Grand Programme 2.3: Forêts, au paragraphe 2.107: nous rappelons que, comme je l'avais dit en mai -et je ne le répète pas - nous appuyons la restructuration et l'orientation de ce Grand Programme en faveur du développement rural.
Enfin, j'ajouterai que les débats du Comité du Programme se sont passés dans une atmosphère de grande tolérance et de grande compréhension. Tous les points de vue ont pu être exprimés et j'ai essayé ici de les refléter. C'est cela qui nous a permis d'aboutir, avec la collaboration du Secrétariat, aux conclusions que je vous soumets.
Finalement, nous avons jugé que le Directeur Général, dans ses propositions de Programme de travail et budget, a tenté d'une manière aussi équilibrée que possible de rapprocher les différents points de vue. Un de nos membres a cependant déclaré qu'il n'était pas en mesure, à ce stade de nos discussions, d'indiquer la position de son gouvernement sur le niveau du budget. Mais, en conclusion, nous sommes convenus de recommander au Conseil de souscrire au Programme de travail et budget qui nous est proposé, en espérant qu'il sera approuvé par consensus par la Conférence.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le Président du Comité du Programme de son exposé clair et complet.
Je donne la parole au Président du Comité financier.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Chairman, Finance Committee): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the honour of presenting our report, the report of the Finance Committee. Discussion of the Programme of Work and Budget during the Sixty-first Session of the Finance Committee was positive and constructive. Members expressed their positions frankly and convincingly but, I can assure you, without agreement. The conclusions of our discussions are to be found in the report Document CL 92/4, paragraph 3.4 to paragraph 3.17.
In this oral intervention, I shall not repeat these conclusions extensively, but rather describe the atmosphere in which the debates took place.
The Committee expressed its full appreciation for the new format in the body of the document, especially for the new tables at programme element level. The document in fact is thicker and richer than previous versions, and in our view has gained enormously in clarity of presention and level of content. According to its terms of reference, our Committee focused on the financial context of the Director-General's proposal. There was unanimous recognition of the efforts made by the Director-General to lower the budget level to a strict minimum in order to achieve consensus, and the Committee spent quite some time on the question of how to define the net programme increase, which is now reduced from 0.5 to 0.25 percent of the 1986/1987 figure.
Our usual vocabulary could not assist us in the circumstances. Some felt that it was the closest equivalent to "zero growth", using the phrase which has often been mentioned in the recent past in relation to the Organization's Programme of Work and Budget. Some called "negligible growth", but when this negligible growth was seen against the deliberate reduction made by the Director-General in the provision for cost increases by US$ 18 million to US$ 13 million, it was clear to us that we might be dealing with neither real growth, nor zero growth, but negative growth. In connection with cost increases, we were informed that there had been no element or decision taken in the intervening period since our consideration of the Summary Programme of Work and Budget, which could have led them to lower the provision for cost increases. On the contrary, the Secretariat told us that cost increases were likely to be higher than the original estimate of US$ 18 million made in the Summary, in view of the recommendations made by the International Civil Service Commission at its July meeting. Some of us expressed concern at this but, nevertheless, we accepted the spirit of this deliberate measure by the Director-General for the sake of consensus.
We noted that the estimate for Miscellaneous Income had been made on a conservative basis as we all had in mind the problems created by the high estimate made two years ago for 1986-87 Miscellaneous Income.
We discussed at length the impact of the US dollar/lira exchange rate on the eventual level of assessments. Naturally, each representative wanted to know how much his own country would have to pay, not only in US dollars, but in terms of its own national currency. We received extremely useful information on this computed by the Secretariat and we were able to realize that the impact of the increase of contributions would vary enormously in terms of national currencies. In any case, the currency factor is an unavoidable feature of FAO budgetary practice. When the dollar appreciates, this means good news in terms of necessary adjustment in the budget level, of course. On the contrary, when the dollar depreciates we have to accept that some compensation has to be made in order to protect the implementation of approved programmes.
A suggestion was made to review the current practice of the FAO Conference setting the budgetary rate for the following biennium which means taking the rate on the day it votes on the Programme of Work and Budget. We briefly explored alternative options. This is not a new subject and we concluded that the Committee could return to the question next year, bearing in mind related practices in the UN System.
We, of course, had to consider again the current financial difficulties as they could affect the implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium. Here I must report that the same division of opinion occurred as at our previous session. Two members reiterated their expectation that the proposals should take account of resources likely to be available and therefore be broken down in two parts. The other members strongly opposed these suggestions as they could not accept that speculation or gambling on future income could be accepted as a working hypothesis. They stated that in public administrations, or elsewhere, budgets were formulated according to established criteria as they represented both an authorization to spend and the legal basis for contributions from the shareholders. As a matter of course, when problems arise as they did in this biennium, it is the shareholders and the management who should take the necessary measures, but on the basis of actual facts as they materialize.
Finally, also on the budget level, a similar division of opinion occurred. Two members were not able to confirm their Government's endorsement of the proposed budget level. All other members stressed quite eloquently the inadequacy of the symbolic net programme increase proposed in relation to requirements for FAO's assistance, but expressed their unreserved support of the Director-General's proposals, with the hope that a consensus could be reached at the Conference.
This, in brief, was what happened in the Finance Committee; and I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Bukhari, Président du Comité financier, pour son exposé sur les travaux du Comité financier.
Nous ouvrons à présent la discussion. Le délégué de la Zambie a demandé la parole.
Namukoio MUKUTU (Zambia): My delegation wishes to commend FAO for the tremendous effort it has made to keep the budget as low as possible, in response to the wishes of many member countries. It is clear from the Programme of Work and Budget that the Director-General has done his best to meet the demands of the delegations which are demanding zero growth. the small increase of 0.25 percent is negligible, and my delegation in fact would have preferred a much higher increase. My delegation is satisfied with the programme of activities and strategies for the next biennium, and would like Council to approve both the Budget and the Programme activities, and recommend these favourably to the Conference.
My delegation wishes to conclude its remarks on this item by stating that we have found the TCP assistance to be very effective in enabling member states to fight emergencies in a timely manner. We therefore feel that TCP assistance should continue in the next biennium.
My delegation is in agreement with the supporting observations made by both the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee, especially with regard to their comments when commending the Budget for approval, as it would be difficult to reduce the Budget any further without debilitating the work of FAO.
Sumiji NAKAZAWA (Japan): My delegation welcomes the Director-General's effort to reduce the budget level of the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium through cutting US$ 1.1 million on the Programme increase, and also undertaking to absorb US$ 5 million during the implementation of the work.
Also my delegation considers that it is a good decision by the Director-General to continue a deduction of Miscellaneous Income from their assessed budget.
My delegation thinks that the total amount of the members' contribution should be kept at such a level to avoid any possibility of causing an increase in arrears which might put the financial situation of the Organization in the next biennium in difficulty. On this point my delegation is concerned as to whether the budget level of the proposed Programme of Work and Budget is satisfactory to the other countries concerning the financial situation of member countries.
On page 31 of document C 87/3 it shows that the Member Nations' contribution will be US$ 469 940 at the rate of 1350 Italian Lire to US$ 1. This amount is 19% up from that of the current biennium. If we introduce the proposed financial measures on working capital fund and the Special Reserve Account the total Member Nations' obligation in 1988 would be 28% up from that of 1987. My delegation thinks that the increase of the total member nations' contribution should be as modest as possible.
As pointed out by the Japanese delegation at the 91st Session of the Council, my delegation considers that Chapter 4, namely TCP, is a possible area where there could be a reduction of resources. Japan recognizes the role of TCP in the field activities which is one of the important functions of the Organization. My delegation believes that a reduction on TCP would not hurt its role if coordination with the Trust Fund project and UNDP projects is kept up or improved.
Furthermore, my delegation would like to point out that the reduction on TCP in the proposed PWB does not mean a reduction in resources for implementing TCP in the next biennium, but means a reduction in the unobligated TCP to be carried over to the 1990/1991 biennium. For example, according to document C 92/4, paragraph 3.44, the unobligated TCP to be carried over to the next biennium will amount to $31.2 million or 51% of the approved budget for TCP, which is equivalent to the Director-General's commitment on TCP for the following 12 months from the end of this biennium. In this way it is our understanding that, even if we cut 10% on TCP in the budget for the next biennium, the Director-General will still be able to have committed TCP projects to be implemented for the following 10 months from 31 December 1989
Considering that the role of TCP is to respond speedily to requests for urgent or unexpected small-scale assistance, a 10% cut would be quite feasible and would not affect anything in TCP activities.
Again, my delegation considers that Chapter 4 is a possible area where there could be a reduction of resources.
Lastly, my delegation reserves its final position on the proposed Programme of Work and Budget until it has been discussed among all the member countries at the 24th Conference.
Ahmed S. HARIRI (Saudi Arabia Kingdom): (original language Arabic): We would like to thank Mr Shah for his excellent introduction, and we would also like to express our satisfaction with the statements made by the two Chairmen of the Committees of the Programme of Work and Budget. At the last session of the Council, and at the meeting of the Finance Committee, my delegation pointed out the low rate of growth which was only 0.25%. This is only a token and takes into account the aspiration of the growing number of member states. We hope that this will help the interests of the member states, in particular the developing countries.
In conclusion I should like to support all the programmes included within the Programme of Work and Budget for 1988/89.
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): Consideration of the Programme of Work and Budget is clearly the major business of this Council and of the Conference. Therefore I should like to set out our own broad reactions to the revised document which is now being submitted to us by management.
I should like to note first with interest and some gratification the reductions proposed in this document by the management to try to meet some of the main concerns which have been voiced by several Council members, including the United Kingdom. On the surface the proposals now made seem reassuring. Specific cuts have been made, and the rate of real growth is to be only 0.257%. When we look below the surface, however, I think there are grounds for some disquiet. In the first place, nearly all the reductions have been made by taking advantage of the natural termination of programmes and by cutting or deferring non-recurrent costs. Of course, that is every administrator's natural first instinct, but it does not go to the heart of the real difficulties which FAO now faces. It is plain from the financial examination made by the relevant committees that in practice FAO cannot most regrettably count on the full and prompt payment of the contributions which the Conference will be asked to assess. Realistically we all know from the outset that FAO is almost certainly going to have to live with significantly less, and we deplore that, but we are not in a position to change it.
If we ignore the plain realities and go ahead with a budget which does not foresee and provide flexibility for such an obvious contingency, there will be two consequences.
First, other member states will in practice find themselves paying relatively higher assessments in compensation for those who failed to meet their obligations. Given the very serious budgetary problems which affect so many developing countries, this cannot be satisfactory.
Secondly, if - or rather when - there are these contingencies to meet, the consequence must be that unprogrammed cuts have to be made by the administration without proper forethought, and this must be to the detriment of FAO as an Organization. Moreover, it must impact very unfavourably upon the huge needs of its developing members.
Now there is another point: budget assessments will be set in terms of dollars on the current exchange rate, as Mr. Shah explained. He drew our attention in particular to the table in the document which deals with the possible variations as a result of this. Although proposals will be considered separately in relation to the Special Reserve Account, I think we can certainly expect further significant currency movements during the biennium which could seriously affect the burden in national currencies which faces a large number of member states.
I should ask at this point that the management should provide an extension of the table to illustrate the possible consequences of a Lira/Dollar exchange rate, first of 1225, and secondly of 1200.
Another factor which disturbs us in the United Kingdom is that the Programme of Work and Budget as presented does not allow the Conference to judge its realism by comparison with the actual out-turns, either during the last biennium or during this one. By out-turn, I mean the actual cash spending, excluding those commitments which have not so far matured into spending.
Money which is set aside for commitments which is not yet spent provides a cushion of liquidity. The carry-over of such liquidity from the end of one biennium to the next, as pointed out by the distinguished delegate of Japan, is very significant. If programmes are heavily committed but are not heavily spent, there must be a question mark over the effectiveness of their planning. There must be a question mark over the realism of the provision which is proposed for them. There must also be a question whether any of that provision should be transferred to other programmes with a much tighter cash flow. We have consistently sought this information over several years, but it has not been provided.
Therefore, the United Kingdom formally requests the management to prepare and circulate to the Conference actual cash out-turn figures for each programme and sub-programme, first for the previous biennium ending 31 December 1985, and secondly, for the present biennium up to 30 June 1987, or the latest possible date. Information of this kind ought to be available as a matter of course to any competent administration. We would certainly be able to supply it in London, and I cannot believe that the figures would not be available here.
The United Kingdom's view is, therefore, that the revised draft Programme of Work and Budget ought to have been constructed in a different way: not how can we keep going as many of our present programmes as possible, but what are the real priorities, which developing countries need now and how can we redirect and rebuild our activities in accordance with those needs? Programmes which have run for several years should have been rigorously reviewed. For example, we think that there is scope for cutting the largest single programme in the budget which is held by the Economic and Social Policy Department. Its collection of statistics and studies could surely be reviewed, for instance to make room for more spending on operational work such as the Tropical Forest Action Plan. Indeed, it is striking, and I think not satisfactory, that the Forestry and Fisheries Departments together have a lower budget than that of the Administration and Finance Department.
Of course, management may reply that there is enough flexibility in the budget as proposed to accommodate a prolongation of the financial crisis, if we take that together with steps to increase the Working Capital Fund. It is true that there is a large element in the budget whose virtue is proclaimed as being that it is entirely unplanned, that is the Technical Cooperation Programme. There must be, therefore, a strong risk that, if cuts have to be made,
they would fall precisely upon this programme, and indeed we have already heard a suggestion to that effect. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom, like the distinguished delegation from Zambia, would not be happy if budgetary constraints had to bite on that particular programme, and we believe very strongly that the TCP ought to be better protected from such a risk. This could only be done if it were more consciously planned and directed beforehand.
We are unfavourably struck by the peculiar and tentative discussion of the TCP's regional distribution, which you will find in paragraph 4.27 of the Programme of Work and Budget. This seems to be a kind of guess about what is likely to have happened in two years' time. We believe very strongly that the largest part of the TCP - maybe up to 90 percent - should be planned beforehand, with a small part being kept back for contingencies. We also believe that the bulk of its resources should go to the two poorest regions, Africa and Asia and the Pacific. The latter in particular seems likely from paragraph 4.27 to come out very badly from the present arrangements, given the huge number of poor people, and especially rural poor, for whose development its governments are responsible. I should like here especially to reinforce the remarks of the Chairman of the Programme Committee about the relationship of this issue to the environment and fisheries aspects. In general we believe that all operational programmes should be much more purposely deployed, and I expect us to discuss this in more detail at the Conference.
There is a special need for such programmes to provide consistent policy advice and support for reforms and adjustment which are based on appropriate overall and sectoral policies in countries which now face the most desperate economic difficulties. This should not be left only to the Investment Centre. It should run through all the programmes of the Organization, and this is not now so. For instance, it is not characteristic of FAO's activities in tsetse-trypanosomiasis and in seed improvement. These programmes seem to have a life and momentum of their own. By contrast, in the programme for the Pan African Rinderpest Campaign and the FSAS these wider issues are taken into account. We believe that FAO is not playing its proper part in working with other major sources of finance to help particular countries to develop a country strategy for policy investment and institutional priorities in FAO's sectors of activity which are suitable to the desperate straits in which so many now find themselves.
The next broad point which concerns my country in the revised Programme of Work and Budget is the proposal to increase the number of field representatives by four. As I pointed out on an earlier item of the agenda, this is not in accordance with the 1986 recommendation of the Joint Inspection Unit. It may seem a small item to focus on, but we believe that the issues behind it are wide.
Finally, we must also remember that the contributions to the budget are not the end of the story in relation to the proposed obligation of members. We have to add to that the proposals for the Special Reserve Account and the Working Capital Fund. We have to deal with those proposals under item 11 of the agenda and we will, of course, discuss them further then, but the general point is clear: that they add to the burdens of all members. We are not, therefore, persuaded that the case has been made for a programme and draft budget of this kind which involves even the small real increase proposed in this document. We also think that there is greater scope for absorbing cost increases. Concerns of this kind have indeed been widely voiced by developing countries in considering recent budget proposals of other United Nations specialized agencies. I must, therefore, indicate that the United Kingdom cannot support the present proposals. We, therefore, strongly urge the management to make further revisions to the Programme of Work and Budget and submit a revised document with further substantial amendments to the Conference.
Hans POPP (Switzerland): First of all, I should like to thank Dr Shah for his excellent and competent presentation as well the two chairmen for their valuable contributions. We have no quarrel with the size of the budget. We appreciate the effort made to have more or less zero growth, We appreciate the efforts made in having economies.
Let me turn to the question of priorities. In the introduction, some indications and ideas are put forward with regard to priorities, but they are missing in the Detailed Programme. In this connection, let me turn to my main point, which is to dwell a little on the role of FAO in its
main task, eradication of hunger. In our view, FAO is still too much, if not exclusively, a technical assistance agency. technical assistance is needed, surely, but it has to be well applied and integrated into a concept of agricultural policies and rural development, integrated into a strategy of food security. In this respect, FAO is not sufficiently playing its role. In these days we are talking of reforms. It is precisely on this point that reforms are meant. We should like to see FAO much more than up till now assisting member governments in the formulation of such agricultural policies, in the implementation of a strategy for food security to assist them in the Coordination of all kinds of aid from different sources towards this main goal.
In our view, FAO's role is not only not in the first place to fulfill the wishes and demands of individual member country governments but to give guidance and even, if necessary, to take initiatives in the formulation of policies and strategies which in the end will be successful in achieving such noble goals as the elimination of hunger to improve the living conditions of rural people.
The basic elements of such policies are well known. We find them in many places in FAO documents. Let me mention the four Is: Incentives, Investment, Infrastructure, Institutions. We all know about the important role of a good price policy, of the importance of stable and secure farm prices to the producers. the Government of my country would like to see FAO become the leading agency in the field of agricultural policy formulation and implementation, not only at headquarters but at the country level, because this is the role of FAO and, for instance, not primarily the role of the World Bank and othet agencies. One gets the impression that in many countries FAO is left outside of the discussion and implementation of agricultural policy.
If reforms are needed within our Organization to change this to give FAO back its role, we should not hesitate to engage in this endeavour. We would invite the Director-General and the Secretariat to formulate its view and its position on this issue and give it to us at the Conference.
Let me be quite clear on one point. If we talk of reform, we want to strengthen this Organization and not weaken it. We want to make this Organization more effective, because it is needed. We should like to see this Organization in the forefront in the fight against hunger and misery.
To conclude, let me add this. The Government of my country would be prepared to increase its resource contribution to this Organization if needed if we had the assurance that the resource transfer will really help to improve the food situation and the living conditions of the people concerned.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): Mr Chairman, I am not going to intervene as the depository of truth or wisdom or in any special function except that of a member country of this Organization to express my views on the subject that we have been considering and discussing. I would, first and foremost, say that I have high regard for what the two chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committees had to report to us. We fully trust the wisdom of their judgment and the depth of their discussions. I happen to be one of the members of the Finance Committee. In this connection, while congratulating them on the synopsis of the conclusion of the report they have presented to the Council, I would like to say that in the month of May/June, Italy was one of the three dissenting members - there were not two dissenting members - who could not at that time give their support to the level of the budget. We put forward some proposals very much like the British delegate did today and we said that we were afraid that, because of the violation of: the obligations of one member country, we had been facing a very hard problem of liquidity. I would never use the word "crisis". From a knowledge of financial law and financial signs, I think that the word "crisis" would not be proper. This is a liquidity problem, and we wish it could be as short as possible. On that particular subject we said we are to expect another shortfall in the next biennium. We are not satisfied with the danger which confronts us of having to cut the programmes without having the authority to change them. But when the Secretariat, through the Deputy Director-General, told us that our worry had been taken care of by avoiding a vacuum in the sovereign bodies' work of this Organization, namely through the delegation of power to this Council to meet more often than usual, if necessary, to consider shortfalls in contributions, exchange rate variations which could accrue, and if we could have the passing by the Organization, or the finer possible passing by exhausting the Special
Reserve Account, then we would have a sovereign body empowered to take the necessary measures without falling into the trap we fell into last December because we had the Secretariat asking us what to do and the Conference was not called. The Council had no power to intervene and change the programmes.
Where these worries have been considered by the Secretariat and the Director-General has made provisions, we shall propose to the Conference that the Council be empowered to take and accede to a decision and then if we are quite satisfied with the level of the budget, we are not taking any reserve, we shall approve it and we commend the Director-General for making the cuts he has made in the revised budget which Mr Shah has so clearly presented to us.
Concerning the cost increase, that is a gamble, the cost increase reduction from US $ 18 million to US $ 13 million is a gamble. We know that, especially after the decision of ICSC. Perhaps I might tell the Organization that as in other circumstances during the last two years my country stands ready to provide not volumes of criticism, but money; not words, but facts, concrete help in order to face this eventuality and be sure that none of the countries beneficiaries of the aid from the FAO, suffer because of cuts in the Programme owing to the necessity of absorbing the US $ 5, 6 or 7 million.
Briefly, another point about Miscellaneous Income. In order not to upset the conclusions of the Finance Committee last night, Italy agreed to warn the Secretariat to exert caution in forecasting the Miscellaneous Income which is quite strange to our system. We never attribute Miscellaneous Income before the biennium or before the year. It is like selling the skin of the bear before killing the bear, something like that. Again, we propose that when we speak out, not now, on reforms, this system can be abandoned and Miscellaneous Income be attributed to members only when they are really safe.
On the exchange rate also, we had a profound discussion on whether to suggest to the Conference using the last day rate. This is absolutely silly because on that date the dollar might sink to 1225 as some people here seem to wish, or it might jump to 1305. We know that it is so erratic, why do we not propose to the Conference that we take the average of a full month? That makes more sense than referring it to the effects of speculation on the stock exchange market or the other exchange markets.
Finally, on TCP, once again my country proposes not to contribute criticism in words and say, "You are not to touch TCP, and if you carry over unliquidated obligation, get it from God." We shall look at it very carefully. We want beneficiary countries to be sure that as far as we can go we shall do that so that the TCP will not suffer at all. I am sorry that my colleague from Japan is absent, but I strongly disagree with him, it is an untouchable entity of this Organization.
I wish to add that we cannot plan emergencies. I do not know whether some delegates think that they or we may plan emergencies and see what is needed for them. God is there to watch over what happens in this world, so let us keep what is in the TCP funds and if the funds are needed, do not believe that the first multi- or bilateral donor of this Organization will hide somewhere.
Ms Anne-Lise PETERSEN (Denmark): At this stage the Danish delegation only wishes to make a few comments on the proposed Programme of Work and Budget for 1988-89, as a more detailed discussion will take place in Commission II of the Conference next week. Furthermore, in order to get a full picture of the situation, you cannot discuss a Programme of Work for the next biennium without taking into account the current financial situation of the Organization.
My delegation therefore finds it extremely difficult to assess the proposed Programme of Work as long as we do not know whether the necessary resources for the implementation of the project will be available.
Another point I would like to make is that reading through the document one gets a broad picture of the many activities FAO is engaged in, but apart from the cuts made in the administrative costs, it is very difficult to get a clear impression of how the priority setting mentioned in the introduction to the document has been carried out.
In this connection, I want to stress once more that the Danish delegation has for several years now asked for a much sharper priority setting within our Organization. We do however realize that priority setting is difficult and even painful exercise as it means cutting away activities in order to be able to concentrate on main priority areas.
The question of priority setting cannot be discussed separately but must be considered in the light of the outcome of the discussion in the Conference on the future role of our Organization. My delegation therefore wants to come back to this issue with more specific remarks concerning priority areas in Commission II, when the Conference has discussed the overall future role of FAO.
I just want to underline that the difficult financial situation international organizations, including our own, are faced with makes it even more important to concentrate on activities which have a long-term developmental effect in food and agriculture.
Finally, concerning the budget level proposed, my delegation has noted the moderate real increase which, however, has to be evaluated in the light of the currency situation. We are still examining the proposal and our final position on the budget level will be given at the Conference. As already stated in earlier meetings, the Danish Government is not in general opposed to budget increases as such, nor do we wish to make overall cuts. On the contrary, we wish FAO to be an effective and efficient organization.
Guillermo Enrique GONZALEZ (Argentina): Somos conscientes de'las limitaciones de tiempo a que estamos sujetos y tendremos ocasión de analizar con mayor profundidad en la Conferencia, pero deseamos fijar, de la manera más sucinta y clara posible, nuestra posición en uno de los principales temas de nuestra Agenda.
En primer término, mi delegación agradece la intervención de los Presidentes de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas y la clara exposición del Doctor Shah. Coincidimos en que, en las actuales circunstancias, la FAO enfrenta un problema financiero grave que no tiene aún la proporción de una crisis que afecte su existencia misma. En todo caso, si se puede hablar de crisis, se trata de una crisis que afecta a casi todo el Sistema de las Naciones Unidas y en la que se dañan las bases mismas del multilateralismo.
La FAO ha cumplido y cumple un rol destacado en los esfuerzos para erradicar el hambre y la desnutrición. Su valor y vigencia están más allá de toda duda. Sus objetivos tanto para el corto como el mediano plazo son válidos, y a nuestro juicio, se ajustan a las necesidades de los países en desarrollo. Sin embargo, las limitaciones financieras de la Organización y de muchos países miembros, agobiados algunos por la deuda externa y en un contexto internacional negativo, nos obligan a redoblar esfuerzos en la formulación de prioridades y en la administración de los recursos disponibles.
Mi delegación coincide, en general, con las prioridades de los programas que aparecen en el documento C 87/3 que en definitiva son las que resultan de las que los propios Estados Miembros hemos fijado en los diversos foros. La Secretaría de la FAO ha reflejado en el citado documento la voluntad mayoritaria de sus miembros. Permítaseme señalar la decepción de mi delegación por la relativamente baja participación del PNUD en los fondos extrapresupuestarios para los Programas de Campo de la FAO. Confiamos que la leve recuperación que se observa en 1986 se acentúe en los años venideros y pueda mantener el ritmo de crecimiento de los fondos fiduciarios. En este último aspecto, debo destacar la satisfacción de mi delegación por ver que el documento destaca con toda justicia la acción desarrollada por el Gobierno de Italia. La Argentina conoce de la generosidad y solidaridad italiana, que se expresa tanto en forma bilateral como multilateral.
Creemos que en momentos de una limitación presupuestaria, la FAO debe tratar de ampliar al máximo las posibilidades que ofrecen este tipo de asociaciones. Compartimos la política del Director General de continuar disminuyendo los gastos fijos en servicios de personal. La reducción del porcentaje de recursos totales que se gastarán en puestos de plantilla es un hecho positivo. Por otra parte, el cambio en neto entre los puestos nuevos y suprimidos no es sustancial ni parece afectar a la capacidad de la FAO para actuar eficazmente, ya que en su mayoría son reemplazados por consultores competentes.
Creemos, sí, que una mayor utilización de instituciones y técnicas nacionales en la ejecución de los proyectos, no sólo redundará en beneficio financiero de la Organización sino también de los propios países en desarrollo donde se llevan a cabo las actividades.
Sr. Presidente; ahorraré los comentarios que mi delegación tiene sobre los distintos programas principales para la Comisión II en que se tratarán estos temas con detenimiento durante la próxima semana. Solamente déjeme decir dos palabras con respecto al Programa de Cooperación Técnica. Por varias delegaciones se han referido a este punto y considero oportuno dejar sentada, desde ya, nuestra posición sobre el particular. El Programa de Cooperación Técnica tiene una gran significación para todos los países en desarrollo. Los criterios vigentes para su utilización son, a nuestro juicio, adecuados y responden fundamentalmente a las necesidades de los países en desarrollo, como lo sugiere el número de solicitudes presentadas en el último bienio.
En lo que hace al monto de los mismos, y a pesar de que mi delegación estuvo entre las que oportunamente apoyaron el incremento del tope de los proyectos de 250 000 a 400 000 dólares, entendemos que la Secretaría ha actuado con prudencia al tratar de mantener el efecto catalizador del PCT mediante un mayor número de operaciones en pequeña escala.
En este sentido, creemos que sólo excepcionalmente los montos de los PCT deberían superar los 250 000 dólares. Tratando de resumir, en términos generales nuestra posición, Sr. Presidente, diríamos que la delegación argentina entiende que las estrategias, objetivos y prioridades para 1988/89 son correctas y tienen nuestro respaldo. Obviamente la realidad financiera de la Organización, nos obligará a actuar con una dosis de pragmatismo. Vemos con satisfacción que se han aumentado porqentualmente los fondos destinados a Programas, y disminuido los servicios de personal. El incremento del 0, 25 por ciento en 1988/89 respecto al bienio anterior al tipo de cambio de 1700 liras por dólar no debería ser objetable ya que implica un aumento mínimo simbólico.
Mi delegación, sin embargo, reservó su posición sobre este tema en la última sesión del Consejo y debe todavía mantener esa posición hasta la Conferencia debido a que el monto sujeto a cuota tendrá un incremento muy superior, como lo ha explicado el Dr. Shah muy bien, debido a la caída del dólar frente a la lira italiana. Ello implica que los países en desarrollo más castigados por la fluctuación del cambio y de la tasa de interés, seamos también los más perjudicados al momento del pago en dólares de nuestras contribuciones.
La Argentina enfrenta una grave crisis económica como consecuencia del pesado servicio de la deuda externa y disminución de los precios internacionales de sus exportaciones. Su moneda se ha visto depreciada sustancialmente respecto al dólar, y en consecuencia, no estamos en condiciones de asumir nuevos compromisos financieros con los organismos internacionales, particularmente cuando éstos responden a fluctuaciones en la paridad de cambios del dólar frente a otras monedas fuertes; fluctuaciones en las que los países en desarrollo no tenemos ninguna responsabilidad ni beneficio de ningún tipo. Quizás la solución podría encontrarse en que esa diferencia que se da por los cambios en los ajustes de paridad pueda ser compensado por aquellos países cuyas monedas se han revalorizado frente al dólar. Otra alternativa podría ser que la Conferencia, teniendo en cuenta que los tipos de cambio pueden continuar fluctuando en altos porcentajes en los próximos meses decida fijar una paridad de cambio a los efectos de la determinación del monto sujeto a cuota que se acerque más a la utilizada en el presupuesto vigente.
Por último, deseo manifestar que coincido con el enfoque del documento C 87/3 en lo que hace a la Región de América Latina y el Caribe. Tal diagnóstico de la situación, lamentablemente es acertado; y digo lamentablemente porque el panorama descrito y las alternativas que nos presentan a corto y mediano plazo no son optimistas. La Región se ha estancado en su crecimiento, y en algunos aspectos inclusive se ha involucionado.
Se requiere urgente atención por parte de la FAO. El estudio y Plan de Acción que se está realizando para la Región puede destacar los principales problemas y sugerir medios de acción para superarlos, pero es evidente que se requerirán mayores recursos y que en la FAO deberemos destinarle una mayor atención a la Región.
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): First, I should like to offer my warm thanks to Mr Shah for his excellent introduction. I should also like to thank the Chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committees who have provided us with a very faithful report on the views expressed at the meetings of those two Committees.
It was my honour to attend the work of the Programme Committee as a member. I had occasion then to express my views on most of the programmes which were discussed during those meetings. Similarly, I expressed my viewpoint during the last Council meeting. That is why I shall be brief.
FAO has always proved its capacity to face up to the varying contingencies in the outside world. FAO is aware of the requirements of developing countries within the context of crisis. We would have hoped that this would have been reflected in the Programme of Work and Budget with an increase in the allocations of the Programme.
Technical activities aimed at developing countries: we have cause to be pleased to note that technical activities have been maintained while the support activities have decreased. We were glad to see that the Programme of Work and Budget stresses the importance of the Technical Cooperation Programme. We were particularly pleased to note that because this is a key ingredient if we are to assist developing countries.
Having heard some of the viewpoints expressed by delegates, I have the following to say.
First, the view has been expressed that the problem of cash flow or liquidity threatening FAO should be the basis of the Programme of Work and Budget. Those views are far from new. We have heard them expressed before, and they are far from reasonable views. We insist that we cannot accept such an approach because this would cast even more fog over our discussions here. We are astonished to note that some people are saying that FAO should play a greater role than that which it has played so far in agriculture. They want FAO to become an academy for the scientific and theoretical study of agriculture.
Questions were asked about the priorities to be given, and these priorities may be used to introduce a note of discord. We have heard that those priorities are not the priorities proposed by the Secretariat. They are requested by member countries through the governing bodies of FAO. The Programme Committee has made splendid efforts in studying these priorities, and these are truly reflected here. That is the reason why I can assure you that we wholeheartedly agree with the priorities which we see listed in this document. We give our full approval to them.
Humberto CARRION M. (Nicaragua): También nuestra Delegación, Señor Presidente, desea ser muy breve en este tema, ya que en la Comisión de la Conferencia tendremos la oportunidad de manifestar más ampliamente nuestras consideraciones y observaciones al respecto.
No cabe duda que la Organización entera ha hecho un gran esfuerzo para elaborar un plan de trabajo y un nivel de presupuesto que pueda ser aprobado por consenso. La Secretaría, los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas, el Consejo y sus distintos Comités técnicos han intervenido de manera directa, responsable y dinámica en la preparación del Programa y del Presupuesto y en el establecimiento de las prioridades de acción para el próximo bienio, así como en los objetivos a plazo medio.
El trabajo de nuestra Organización alrededor del Programa y del Presupuesto 1988-89 se ha realizado dentro de un contexto de crisis financiera creada artificialmente por la falta de pago del total de sus contribuciones del mayor contribuyente de la FAO.
En este sentido el aumento neto propuesto de sólo el 0, 25 por ciento del nivel de presupuesto, es insuficiente para que la Organización pueda hacer frente adecuadamente a su esencial y noble tarea de contribuir a la eliminación del hambre y la desnutrición en el mundo, y, por lo tanto, contribuir al desarrollo integral de los países pobres de la tierra. Sin embargo, aunque nos oponemos al crecimiento cero, reconocemos el esfuerzo del Director General de presentarnos un nivel de presupues-to que pueda ser aprobado por consenso. Nuestro Gobierno desea unirse a ese consenso.
No podemos tampoco ignorar el dinamismo que el Director General ha desplegado en el presente bienio para realizar ajustes en el Programa de Trabajo de hasta 25 millones de dólares, tratando de no afectar los programas técnicos y económicos. Vemos con satisfacción que para el bienio 1988-89 se propone que el 46, 8 por ciento del presupuesto se dedique a los programas técnicos y económicos, y el 14 por ciento al Programa de Cooperación Técnica, que mi país apoya con firmeza. Desearíamos incluso que en el futuro este porcentaje fuese elevado, tal vez al 17 por ciento del total del presupuesto.
Por otra parte, los llamados de muy pocos países desarrollados para que se hagan mayores recortes en los gastos administrativos y de personal de la FAO para el próximo bienio, son rechazados por nuestra Delegación por el peligro que esto significaría para la eficiencia y la eficacia en la ejecución del programa de la FAO.
Nicaragua, Señor Presidente, tiene también motivos muy particulares para apoyar los programas y el presupuesto de la FAO. Como todos los presentes aquí sabemos que el 7 de agosto pasado los cinco Presidentes de Centroamérica firmaron un acuerdo para lograr la paz en la región y para que termine la brutal e infame agresión externa en contra del pueblo y el Gobierno de Nicaragua.
Consideramos que la contribución técnico-económica que pueda hacer, y que hace la FAO, en países esencialmente agrícolas, como son los países centroamericanos es, Señor Presidente, una contribución para la paz.
DONG QInG SONG (China) (Original Language Chinese): My intervention will be very brief.
First of all I would like to thank Mr Shah and the two Chairmen of the Programme and Finance Committees for their presentation of the agenda item. The Summary Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium was on the agenda of the Ninety-First Session of the Council held in June, and today we are discussing the full text of the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium. We have noted the changes in the full text, particularly those related to programme and cost increases, which we believe is the result of the efforts made by the Director-General to coordinate various positions in the light of discussions during the Council's Session in June. We wish to place on record our appreciation for the efforts of the Director-General in this regard.
We know that meetings of both the Programme and Finance Committees held in September carefully considered the full text of the Programme of Work and Budget. We have taken note of the views expressed by the two Committees in their reports submitted to the Council. We agree to the submission of the revised programme of Work and Budget to the Conference for consideration and approval.
The Chinese delegation will further elaborate its position in Commission II of the Conference, and is prepared to join with other delegations in an effort to gain approval for the Programme of Work and Budget by the Conference.
Apolinaire ANDRlATSIAFAJAfO (Madagascar): Je suis heureux de prendre la parole, au nom de la délégation malgache, à ce stade de nos travaux, sans nul doute très attendus et avec impatience mais, en tout cas, d'une importance indéniable car ils préparent la vingt-quatrième Conférence générale de la FAO.
Mais je n'aurais garde de commencer sans dire combien le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier, sous la dynamique impulsion de leurs présidents, M. Mazoyer et M. Bukhari, ont fait un travail sérieux et véritablement engagé pour faire face aux difficultés auxquelles notre Organisation se trouve confrontée. Que les deux présidents veuillent bien accepter nos félicitations les plus chaleureuses pour les exposés clairs et transparents qu'ils ont faits de la situation.
Nous voudrions également féliciter M. Shah pour son exposé liminaire tout à fait complet, qui donne un tableau exact de la situation. Que le Secrétariat trouve également ici notre reconnaissance pour la clarté du document soumis à notre examen qui reflète, comme on l'a dit, les vues de la majorité des pays membres.
Etant membre du Comité financier, Madagascar a eu l'avantage de participer activement aux travaux du Comité et d'apporter sa modeste contribution lors de l'examen du sujet par les deux Comités en session conjointe.
Par ailleurs, la délégation malgache a eu l'occasion de faire part de ses avis et observations à l'endroit du sommaire du Programme de travail et budget lors de son examen par le Comité de l'agriculture et par le Conseil, respectivement à leur quatre-vingt-dixième et quatre-vingt-onzième session.
Pour ces différentes raisons, l'intervention de notre délégation ne sera pas longue. Elle se limitera, en fait, à relever les traits principaux qui caractérisent lé Programme de travail et budget pour 1988-89, qui mérite toute notre attention. Le biennium qui se présente requiert de la part de la communauté internationale un effort exceptionnel car elle devra mettre en oeuvre, pendant cette période, nombre de ses résolutions les plus pertinentes et les plus constructives également pour l'avenir. Je me limiterai donc à citer la résolution de l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies pour le redressement économique et le développement de l'Afrique, les programmes d'action de la Conférence mondiale sur l'aménagement et le développement des pêches, le Programme d'action forestier tropical.
Le choix des priorités dans le Programme de travail et budget tient bien sûr compté de ces résolutions et reflète fidèlement les recommandations de la Conférence générale et des différentes conférences régionales. Cependant, l'on ne peut s'empêcher de relever que certains programmes vitaux ont été soit réduits, soit gelés à leur niveau de 1986-87.
Ainsi, le Programme de coopération technique n'a pas connu d'augmentation malgré les nombreuses demandes insatisfaites. Certains sous-programmes connaissent des réductions substantielles: stockage et structures rurales: moins 95 000 dollars; industrie et commerce des produits forestiers: moins 152 000 dollars; programme de soutien à l'investissement: moins 556 000 dollars, ce qui se traduit par moins de programmes sur le terrain.
Par ailleurs, aucune disposition n'est prévue pour remédier aux conséquences désastreuses des mesures d'ajustement de programme opérées pendant le biennium en cours.
Nous comprenons parfaitement les difficultés économiques que connaissent un grand nombre d'Etats Membres, qui interdisent l'adoption d'un niveau budgétaire plus élevé mais les faits sont là, déplorables, regrettables. Les ressources envisagées sont loin de correspondre aux besoins. Déjà, les prévisions initiales de 457 187 000 dollars ont été amputées pour être réduites à 451 060 000 dollars soit un accroissement de 0, 25 pour cent seulement par rapport au biennium 1986-87 au lieu de 0, 48 pour cent.
Une question se pose en même temps, insidieuse, lancinante: les mêmes difficultés de trésorefie persisteront-elles en 1988, empêchant la réalisation du Programme minimum proposé? C'est déjà catastrophique pour la plupart des programmes envisagés comme si on avait fait un pas en avant et deux pas en arrière dans cette lutte contre la faim, contre la misère et contre la malnutrition. Un pas en avant, deux pas en arrière....
C'est un laxisme de dire que la FAO se trouve aujourd'hui dans une situation de crise. Certains n'aiment pas le mot, je dirai donc avec eux dans une situation difficile non seulement sur le plan politique mais également sur celui de sa gestion, en raison d'une incapacité progressive de poursuivre les objectifs qui ont justifié sa création. Mais tous à des degrés divers nous sommes responsables de cette situation et n'a-t-on pas trouvé une multitude de défauts à notre Organisation au lieu de lui donner les ressources dont elle a singulièrement besoin pour survivre et .pour vivre?
Voilà le véritable défi, celui auquel nous devrions consacrer notre temps, notre imagination, notre volonté car de sa résolution dépendent en grande partie le développement d'une véritable coopération internationale et l'établissement de relations plus équitables et plus fructueuses entre les diverses nations ici représentées.
Faut-il remercier ceux-là qui, en versant normalement, régulièrement leurs contributions, ont permis l'élaboration du programme de travail et de budget. Certes, rendons à César ce qui est à César mais il s'agit là d'obligations morales sur le plan international de responsables qui ne souhaitent pas paralyser notre institution, de ceux qui voudraient ne pas frustrer les pays pauvres de la vision d'un monde de progrès promis par les inspirateurs de cette Organisation. Ils étaient une cinquantaine il y a quarante-deux ans de cela, nous sommes actuellement cent cinquante-huit.
Notre délégation, malgré son insatisfaction du niveau de programmes de travail et de budget pour les raisons évoquées précédemment ne s'opposera pas à son approbation et souhaite même qu'on ne s'y attarde pas car il faudrait justement que le Conseil se penche sérieusement sur les problèmes financiers de l'Organisation, que le temps qui nous est imparti serve plutôt et surtout à examiner en profondeur ce sujet épineux.
Il nous faut nous atteler à la tâche de trouver les voies et moyens d'assainir l'environnement de travail de l'Organisation, de lui redonner la crédibilité et la confiance indiscutables, cette confiance indispensable à son efficacité, à sa capacité de s'acquitter de sa mission.
L'échéance de cette session nous oblige à envisager dès maintenant une perspective plus immédiate, plus concrète. Penchons-nous sans perdre de temps sur les dispositions pertinentes du rapport du Comité financier en sa soixante et unième session, notamment les paragraphes 3.35 à 3.78. Préparons et présentons à la Conférence générale le matériel qui lui permettra de prendre les décisions et les résolutions circonstantielles qui s'imposent.
En gros, il s'agira de combler un trou de 67 millions de dollars dont 38 millions au titre de 1986, de reconstituer le compte de réserve spécial et le fond de roulement et à ce sujet une idée Cardinale devrait semble-t-il s'imposer à tous: j'ai relevé dans la première intervention, rejoignant d'ailleurs l'opinion émise par la délégation de l'Argentine, que le document qui nous est présenté reflète les points de vue de la majorité des Etats Membres ici présents. Une idée cardinale devrait me semble-t-il s'imposer, celle du respect de la voix du plus grand nombre car à quoi bon parler de dialogue, à quoi bon parler d'égalité des Etats et de coopération si les décisions largement débattues et arrêtées démocratiquement au sein de notre institution doivent être occultées par des conceptions animées d'un égocentrisme pervers, subtilisant cette donnée fondamentale de nos relations.
On ne peut que demeurer perplexe en voyant certains repousser la progression de la part du budget qui permet de passer des concepts et des discussions à des actions décisives au bénéfice de la restructuration des économies du Sud et, partant, du monde.
J'en ai terminé. Vous avez senti que je me suis interdit d'en dire plus car ma délégation sera appelée à intervenir de nouveau, si l'occasion s'en présente, à la deuxième commission de la Conférence générale.
Rainer PRESTIEN (Germany, Federal Republic of): First of all let me thank the Secretariat for the preparation of documents C 87/3 and CL 92/4.
I wish to thank Mr Mazoyer, Mr Bukhari and Mr Shah for their lucid comments on the documents.
The Programme of Work and Budget for 1988/89 was discussed on several occasions over the last few months. The Finance and Programme Committees, as well as the Council and other bodies, intensively discussed the programme and financial issues of our Organization. We welcome the fact that a number of suggestions and proposals which were made in these bodies were incorporated into the new programme budget document.
First, let me make a few general remarks on the Programme of Work. We had already pointed out at the 91st Council Session that the priorities were established rightly in the Programme of Work. I am pleased to see that a new priority, environmental protection and prudent management of renewable resources was added as had been proposed by my delegation in June.
I will now comment on the direct financial issues. In times of great financial difficulties of the Organization, it is a difficult task to prepare the Programme of Work and Budget. All agencies in the UN system are presently faced with financial constraints. Economies were inevitable, also already within the framework of the regular budget for 1986/87. We feel that our Organization with total economies to the amount of US$25 million did well, taking a mid position in the UN system.
With regard to the question of establishing new country representations, the Director-General has already partly met the requests for economies. We feel that the establishment of new country representations should be abandoned as long as our Organization faces financial difficulties, even though the additional cost would now amount to US$550, 000 only, due to the phased timing of their establishment. Within the framework of the budget there are also positive things to assess. We welcome the low real growth of 0.25 percent only and the renewed reduction in administrative expenditures and in the share of staff expenditures which still amounts to only 51.7 percent. Much will also depend on the monetary development which we cannot forecast for the biennium ahead.
I now come to the important budget issues. The preparation of the Programme of Work and Budget for 1988-89 has undoubtedly been no easy task in view of the whole UN system. The representative of my country on the Finance Committee of FAO had welcomed the small budget increase at the 61st Session of the Finance Committee. As he had already proposed this May, he had called upon FAO to provide for emergency planning; that means, by drawing up a core and a stand-by budget to ensure the financing of the indispensable FAO activities. My delegation had already pointed out at the 91st FAO Council Session that the United Nations organizations cannot spend more money than they receive. Therefore, we consider such an emergency planning absolutely necessary. We can approve the Programme of Work and Budget for 1988/89 only on condition that such emergency planning is submitted. Relevant decisions of principle already existing in UNIDO, WHO, ILO and WMO. I feel that we should take these as a guideline.
Let me mention that my delegation shares the view expressed by the distinguished delegate of Japan that TCP is a possible area of such emergency planning. The late payment of compulsory contributions and shortfalls in income are, in our view, the main causes of the present financial crisis of FAO. Therefore, we urge all member nations who have not yet paid their contributions to meet their poligations under international law as soon as possible. A more detailed discussion on the Programme of Work and Budget will take place at the forthcoming 24th Conference. We hope that we shall still come to an agreement. We also hope that the Conference will be able to approve the Programme of Work and Budget for 1988/89 by consensus.
V.K. SIBAL (India): In the first place, we should like to express our thanks to Mr Shah for a very clear presentation and to the two Chairmen of the Finance and Programme Committees, who have introduced these reports in their own able way.
We welcome the considerably expanded information which has been given to us in the Programme of Work and Budget which has been proposed. We are also happy to note that the proposals are based on the summary Programme of Work and Budget which had been submitted and which had been extensively debated. The views which were expressed, and the concerns which were expressed, in that debate have found a place in the final Programme which has been submitted.
We further note that the net programme increase has been drastically trimmed down to a figure of 0.25 percent, or about $1.1 million. Apart from that, an attempt has been made to meet the concerns expressed for the needs of effecting economies by the reduction of the provision of cost increases by another US$5 million, apart from the reduction of the established post for 25, Thus, what we have in this Programme is an extremely moderate net programme increase, and if the absorption of a substantial amount of cost increases is taken into account, it is quite possible that the resources effectively at the disposal of FAO in real terms may be less than the resources available in the last biennium. This being so, it is obvious that the Director-General has gone to great lengths to accommodate views according to which there should have been either a zero growth or a very small growth in the budget.
We recognize that the Director-General had a very delicate exercise in balancing to do. On the one hand, FAO is an effective viable functioning organization which has valuable inputs to deliver. These are a large number of countries which require these inputs and there are expectations which have to be met.
On the other hand, countries are facing economic difficulties which are resulting in the contributions not coming and sufficient money not being available for legitimate programmes for which this money is needed. The balancing between requirements of FAO services and considerations of economy has been done extremely well in our view, and the necessary cuts have been applied through streamlining, through . administrative cuts, and we are very satisfied with that. However, this is not to say that we are not disappointed at the level of this budget. The net increase is much less than we would have wished to have. We recognize the realities which have compelled this situation to emerge, but this is not to say that we would not have wanted to have a much higher programme level so that FAO would have been able to discharge its responsibilities better, more effectively and to a greater extent.
We had the honour of being on the Programme Committee and we had a chance there to look into these proposals in detail. We fully support the Report which has emerged as it is based upon the debate and our views have been taken into account.
Concerns have been expressed during this debate also for the need for two different kinds of budgets, a core budget and another supplementary budget. We are not sure whether these formulations, these alternatives, are really practicable. When any organization frames a budget, it starts with the level of resources which it expects to have during the specified timeframe. In an organization such as FAO one cannot see any other alternative but to look at the scale of assessed contributions as a basis of the level of resources likely to be available, as long as that scale is in force, and as long as that scale is accepted by the member countries as signatories to FAO's Constitution. If that scale were to be ignored, one would be ignoring constitutional requirements. Therefore, any other alternative, apart from its unsuitability, apart from its lack of pragmatism, would also perhaps be unconstitutional. If one were even to look at another alternative for argument's sake, we are not very clear as to how we could assess with a degree of accuracy, a degree of certainty, as to what would be the expected level of resources that FAO will have. It could change from day to day, or month to month. Where is that firmness of the level of resources which you need in order to support the core budget? Even if you have some information, how do you know that that information will not change with time because the economic circumstances keep changing?
Once you make the economic circumstances of individual countries the base for expectations of levels of resources, then the changing positions of those countries, on the basis of changes in their economic situation, with resulting changes during the course of the year in how much they would contribute and would make the core budget as uncertain, as difficult to implement, and generating the same kind of problems which we seem to be facing in the present situation. We feel very strongly that, in terms of the constitutional obligations of member countries, there is no way of framing a budget except on the basis of assessed contributions, and we will address this issue in greater tepth in Commission II when the times comes.
We also believe that the TCP is an extremely valuable Programme of the FAO which has been operated with flexibility and is addressed to urgent specific country requirements. We sould like to see it grow. We would not like this instrument to be blunted for want of money. We are very pleased to note in the Programme which has been presented the efforts made to save on technical and economic programmes, the effort made to save on administrative costs or costs which do not promote programmes with a technical and economic content, and we are very happy that this effort has been made.
I would say a word about the objectives and the priorities of FAO. We also believe-- and this has been stated in this forum -- that the objectives and che priorities have come from the governing bodies. They represent the consensus reached in those bodies from time to time, whether it is fisheries, whether it is in the area of forestry, whether it is the reduction of poverty or the reduction of malnutrition, whether it is rural development, whether it is the environment, whatever the concern. The consensus reached in these areas have been the basis of the blueprint for action which has been developed in the FAO. These objectives and priorities are as valid today as when they were framed. When we hear of the desire to review priorities and objectives we get a little confused. We would have understood the legitimacy of this comment if we felt that these objectives had been fulfilled or were no longer necessary or that circumstances had changed so much that they had become irrelevant. But, as long as we know that these problems are still there, their magnitude is stil stupendous, there is still need to address them and the FAO has a role, we feel that the objectives are legitimate and require to be pursued still further.
John JURECKY (United States of America): The US delegation to the June Council gave detailed analysis of the proposed 1988/89 Summary Programme of Work and Budget. In view of the limited time at this Council, I shall note only the most important points of the US position on the full Programme of Work and Budget.
As we stated in June, the US cannot support the proposed budget. This is not because we fail to recognize the Secretariat's efforts in preparing this budget. Indeed, we appreciate the changes that have been made since June in reducing programme growth and especially in reducing significantly the provision for cost increases. We appreciate the more detailed information and format of the 1988/89 budget but we believe that the Programme of Work and Budget does not present a clear sense of FAO programme priority. In fact, my delegation believes that the Programme of Work and Budget should not only show programme priorities but also a regional and country breakdown of these proposed programmes. The latter is already the practice in all other UN agencies.
The US considers the budget to be fundamentally unrealistic. As delegates are aware, the US Congress has not appropriated sufficient funds to allow the United States to pay its assessment in full. This situation is likely to continue for some time. The outlook for US contributions in 1988 is therefore not favourable. Even if the US were paying on time, in full, the proposed budget would impose significantly increased burdens on many countries. In the current economic climate this is not the time for net programme growth, however small. At a minimum there must be some plan articulated for adapting the programme to the resource level which can be expected. If the Conference approves a budget which contains no such plan, the Secretariat, in the US view, would be put in an unacceptable position.
The US does not dispute the broad outline of the priorities in the Programme of Work and Budget. In the Committee on Agriculture, the June Council and the Programme Committee, we have delinated what we consider to be FAO's priorities, especially the Early Warning System, Codex Alimentarius and improving the information base. Other delegations have other priorities, and it should be our collective task to give the Secretariat guidance on mutually agreed priorities to be protected in the face of resource shortfalls.
There are also areas of the Programme of Work and Budget to which the US does not agree. We consider the increase in the number of FAO representatives inappropriate, especially at a time when our government is being forced by budget constraints to close our own overseas posts and reduce our staff. We also consider the cuts in the North American office noted by Mr Shah in his introduction to be disproportionate, and we would not support them. We would support them, however, if steps were taken now to make similar cuts in other liaison and regional offices. In conclusion, even at this late date, we would hope that changes can still be made to the budget that would allow us to support it at the Conference.
Madame Sango YA TAMBWE (Zaire): Prenant la parole pour la première fois la delegation zaïroise voudrait se joindre aux orateurs précédents pour exprimer sa joie de vous revoir parmi nous et pour assurer de notre plein appui dans l'accomplissement de votre mission de Président du Conseil de la FAO. La délégation zaïroise voudrait adresser ses félicitations aux membres du bureau qui ont été récemment élus et au Secrétariat pour la documentation qu'il nous a fournie, .
Je ne parlerai pas des documents qui nous ont été présentés car la délégation approuve dans leur intégralité les objectifs à moyen terme et les priorités de programmes pour le prochain exercice biennal. Toutefois, je voudrais souligner que ce programme fait suite à un programme qui n'a pas été réalisé faute de ressources financières suffisantes. Concrètement cela veut dire, comme l'a souligné dans son introduction le Directeur général, que plus de 170 postes n'ont pas été pourvus, que plus d'une cinquantaine de réunions ont été annulées, qu'une centaine de publications n'ont pas été produites. Les causes de cette situation sont connues, je ne les citerai pas. Ma délégation se demande alors s'il ne faudrait pas se pencher sur le dilemme qui consiste d'un côté à aider l'Organisation à exécuter les programmes déjà approuvés et de l'autre côté à augmenter le volume de ses activités par l'adoption d'un programme en augmentation.
Comme nous aurons l'occasion de renouveler notre appui à ce Programme de travail et budget lors de la Conférence, je voudrais à ce stade, dire que ma délégation se rallie à l'opinion qui recommande l'adoption du Programme et budget 1988-89 par la Conférence et par consensus.
Pour terminer, ma délégation voudrait féliciter le groupe des experts qui a procédé aux évaluations externes de trois programmes d'action spéciaux de la FAO pour l'analyse objective et riche en informations qui y est faite.
A.K.M. Fazley RABBI (Bangladesh): We know that FAO has been going through financial difficulties, and we also are aware of the reasons for such a situation. In that context, we believe that the Director-General had no other alternative but to propose a Programme of Work and Budget of almost zero level growth. Although we would prefer increased activities and allocations, particularly for TCP, we express our full support for the proposal of the Director-General as contained in the document.
In this connection, we should like to express appreciation for the efforts made in the Programme and Finance Committees for the general consensus in respect of the Programme and Budget level. We hope that we in this Council would also be able to recommend the proposal to the Conference through general agreement. In the context of the basic objectives of FAO and FAO's Programme of Work and Budget, let the good will and wishes of the developed countries and the poverty and need for assistance of developing countries be the basis for our consensus in this session.
LE PRESIDENT: Nous avons eu dix-sept interventions sur ce sujet très important de notre ordre du jour, le Programme de travail et budget; il nous reste inscrits douze orateurs. Je voudrais demander au Conseil si d'autres délégués veulent participer au débat de manière à ce que nous puissions clore la liste. Que ceux qui veulent participer au débat veuillent bien se faire connaître. Le Cameroun et la Tanzanie, cela nous ferait donc quatorze interventions.
Je vais lire si vous le permettez la liste des gens inscrits: Turquie, Brésil, Trinité-et-Tobago, Afghanistan, France, Algérie, Yougoslavie, Canada, Mexique, Cuba, Australie, Egypte. Il y aurait ensuite: Cameroun, Tanzanie, Niger, Gabon. Avec votre permission nous clôturons donc la liste des orateurs pour nous permettre d'avancer.
Je voudrais également dire aux membres du Conseil qu'il nous reste un programme très chargé. Il reste le point 8, Examen du Programme ordinaire 1986-87; le point 9, Examen des programmes de terrain; le point 10, deuxième rapport sur les réunions hors programme, et le point 11, qui est très important. Notre souhait est de pouvoir terminer aujourd'hui l'examen de ces points jusqu'au point 11 inclus et de laisser pour demain matin l'examen des points 12 et 13. Cela implique que nous ayons ce soir une séance prolongée, c'est-à-dire que nous restions jusqu'à 20 h 30 de manière à pouvoir achever l'examen des points 8, 9, 10 et 11.
Nous demandons donc à MM. les délégués de bien vouloir prendre cette proposition en considération afin de nous organiser pour travailler cet après-midi. Cela étant, le Secrétaire général a une communication à faire sur la proposition du Comité de rédaction.
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Voici les noms qui nous ont été soumis pour la composition du Comité de rédaction: Brésil, Chine, Danemark, Egypte, Etats-Unis d'Amérique, France, Liban, Nicaragua, Niger, Suisse, Thaïlande, Turquie, Zambie.
Si cette liste est acceptée par le Conseil, le Comité de rédaction pourra ainsi être constitué avec treize membres. Il est prévu qu'il tienne sa première réunion aussitôt après la fin des tra vaux du Conseil plénier, cet après-midi. Il se réunirait dans la salle du Mexique et son premier travail serait d'élire son président.
LE PRESIDENT: Je voudrais également dire qu'il nous reste deux points importants. Je souhaiterais, comme je l'ai dit en début de séance, que les contacts se poursuivent pour l'élection du Comité des candidatures, qui est constitué de onze membres, et pour la nomination des présidents des trois Commissions: I, II et III.
Ma proposition, c'est que nous puissions également régler ce soir ces deux questions, qui figureraient au point 3 de notre ordre du jour.
The meeting rose at 12.30 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.30 horas
