II - ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMMES OF THE ORGANIZATION (continued)
II - ACTIVITES ET PROGRAMMES DE L’ORGANISATION (suite)
II - ACTIVIDADES Y PROGRAMAS DE LA ORGANIZACION (continuación)

J. KAHANGIRWE (Uganda): Since this is our first intervention in the Commission, let me on behalf of my delegation congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, and the two vice-chairmen on your election to guide the proceedings of this Commission. Allow me also to add my support to the Director-General’s proposed Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium 1982-83. When we debated the Programme of Work and Budget in 1977 and in 1979, we proposed certain improvements in the format and analysis of the presentation. My delegation has studied document C 81/3 with this in mind and we are satisfied that the improvements have been reflected in the present document. I should like to thank the Secretariat for producing a clear, precise and balanced document. The priorities of activities and programmes reflect our own concern and therefore we support them.

Concerning the level of the proposed budget, the Organisation will need to be extra careful if it aims to achieve all the proposed programmes and activities within the budget in view of the mounting inflation and the fluctuàting exchange rates. We ourselves would have liked to see, or welcomed, a higher level, if only to support FAO’s noble causes and objectives. My delegation cannot therefore support the concept of zero growth which is being advocated.

The delegation of Colombia yesterday advanced a proposal to consider the merger of the Programme of Work and Budget and the Medium-Term Objectives. My delegation would like to support this proposal which might be cost-saving. This proposal should be examined by the appropriate organs of the Organisatíon to ascertain its feasibility.

The Programme of Work and Budget has already been subjected to strict scrutiny by the Programme and Finance Committees and the Council and has been passed. It is only fair that at this late stage it should receive our unreserved support, if only to enable the Director-General to achieve his Programme of Work.

C. MATTHEWS (Saint-Lucia): First of all may I join the previous delegates in extending our congra-tulations to you, Mr. Chairman, and to your vice-chairmen on your respective appointments. We have the confidence that under your guidance this meeting will come to a conclusion to the satisfaction of all our countries.

We support the Programme presented by the Director-General. We consider it to be comprehensive and to reflect an excellent knowledge of the felt needs of developing countries. The Director-General and his staff must therefore be complimented.

In regard to priorities in the Programme, I feel that the Director-General and his staff are in a better position, though an unenviable one, than I am to assess the priority of needs. This we expect will be reflected in his decision on the allocation of resources available to the Organisation among the various countries. We are sure that our closeness to our problems must in itself affect our vision on the question of needs and priority, and so we must work with him and assist him in coming to his decisions.

However, in that regard I should like to seek his indulgence for greater emphasis on assisting in developing food production systems not based on cereals and grain. Reference to this is made at page 226, paragraph 33 of the 1982-83 Programme. I say this because if we are to achieve the required goals of food production and food security, our country would find it impossible to correct the high dependance on imported foods under the present situation where our food production is seasonal and without effective storage or preservation systems. Furthermore, particular regard to small territories, economies of scale of food production for local consumption is practically impossible. Our small population and derived demand do not allow us this advantage. Therefore food production must be tied to a food production plan based on local and export demand. This calls for assured markets as well as fair and remunerative price and protection against loss of earnings.

The assistance of FAO in making a contribution to the development of an effective food system for our territories whose foods are based on roots and tubers would be complementary to our own efforts in fulfilling our total food production and food security goals.

Since our agricultural production and particularly our food production is based mainly on small farmer production, we would also ask that emphasis be strengthened on the establishment of small farmer organisations. In that regard we wish to refer specifically to cooperatives, credit unions, and similar organisations.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the assistance of FAO to Saint-Lucia in the past years. This assistance continues and has been strengthened by the FAO policy of decentralisation in providing an Area Representative for my country and our neighbours. This has led to considerable speed in the processing of applications for emergency assistance. Furthermore, the presence of the Representative provides on-the-spot guidance to us, a small developing independent nation, in making proper use of opportunities of assistance from this Organisation. I would wish therefore, on behalf of Saint-Lucia, to pláce on record our great appreciation of FAO through its Area Representative.

While we cannot disagree in principle, in these times of financial deficits and stresses, to the proposals for cost effectiveness, for we have through recent experience learned the benefits of applying this principle, we would nevertheless ask for greater understanding and cooperation of the countries which have rightly stressed such a need. We wish them to reflect on the fact also that the importance and benefits of projects undertaken in the Programme cannot always be assessed successfully in monetary terms. Saint-Lucia is now pursuing, in the face of tremendous financial constraints, a strategy of agricultural diversification the details of which are not appropriate in this forum; but suffice it to say it includes many issues and programmes outlined in the Director-General’s Programme. We are committed to helping ourselves while we seek assistance beyond our own capability and capacity. It is our hope that not only God but also the nations with the capacity and capabilities to help us will do so, through the Director-General’s Programme and other Programmes to come.

J.C. McCOLL (Australia): I wish to present Australia’s views on, firstly, the Programme of Work and Medium Term Objectives, and then on the level of the budget. In accepting the broad thrust of the Programme of Work, we recognise that no set of Programmes can be perfect and satisfy all parties. Whilst also appreciating the improved format of presentation, we agree that it would be useful to amalgamate the Medìum Term Objectives into the overall Programme of Work in future presentations, as suggested in the Finance Committee and in the last Council Meeting.

We recognize the demand on the services of FAO and the vigorous efforts required across a broad range of activities if the world food problems are to be adequately tackled. Nevertheless, we feel that FAO should be careful not to spread its interests too far afield, take too much upon itself, given the activities of other agencies, and thus risk spreading its resources too thinly. Thus we would like to see the Organisation concentrate on those areas where it has specific agro-technical expertise and where it can therefore (in a relative sense) have a greater chance of achieving a real impact.

With a limited regular budget relative to the wide range of needs and possibilities for action, the requirements for increased effort in the identification of programmes of lower priority is of conside-rable importance, thus providing the necessary capacity to implement vital new programmes.

On a more particular point, I would like to emphasize the importance of thoroughly understanding the existing farming systems as a necessary prerequisite to developing programmes aimed at improving pro-ductivity. It is important to understand the whole farming system, to appreciate the interrelationships between the various components of the system, including technical, economic and social aspects. This allows identification of the resource capacity, the existing constraints and disincentives to increased production, and the most appropriate directions for agricultural research and extension pro-grammes. I am thus emphasizing the important integrating role of farm management and production economics projects and studies in this important area. Some comment has already been made regarding the FAO representatives and their contribution to effective decentralization.

We support the move towards decentralisation and the opportunity this provides for a closer relation-ship and more relevant programming at the field level. After all, the field is where the results are achieved. Although decentralisation will lead to some increased costs, which we strongly suggest should be offset by reductions in headquarters staff and other savings, including possibly a review of the role of the regional offices, we believe that this move provides a good opportunity for a more cost-effective performànce by FAO.

We suggest that this whole area be examined within the context of the 1984/85 budget. With regards to the level of the budget, the Australian delegation has made its position clear at the recent Council meeting. As always, the Australian government finds some difficulty in reconciling humanitarian principles with a hard-nosed and critical approach to the administrative and financial arrangements within international organizations.

As expressed previously, in my comments on the programme of work, we expect that there should be the same positive and vigorous approach to the development of programmes as occurs in the formulation of our own national budgets.

We are well aware of the increasing pressure on international organizations concerned with food and agriculture. We see food and agriculture as a focal point in the new international development strategy, in the North/South discussions and in other international approaches in this important area. In recent months, the Australian government has considered this vital matter and has committed itself in a series of decisions and at various international fora including the recent meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government in Melbourne to expanding its own efforts to contribute to ensuring world food security.

The Australian govemment’s position is that given the seriousness of the world hunger and malnutrition problem, the performance of FAO in a practical and effective way in doing something about these problems, the evidence of improved efficiency and management within the Organization and we expect to see this. continue, the comparative modesty of the requested budgetary increase particularly given recent movements in exchange rates, it supports the level of the budget requested for 1982/83.

Sra. Dña. M.I. CASELLAS (Venezuela): En primer lugar, permítame, señor Presidente, que mi delegación le felicite por su elección en este Comité e igualmente a los Vicepresidentes.

Adoptando la posición fijada por el Sr. Ministro de Agricultura de Venezuela en la Plenaria, el día de ayer, queremos dejar constancia de nuestro apoyo al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto presentado por el Sr. Director General a esta Conferencia. Consideramos que dicho Programa es el mínimo requerido para mantener la marcha de los programas de esta casa.

En este sentido, señor Presidente, le expreso el apoyo de nuestro país en este tema.

F. BREWSTER (Barbados): My delegation wishes to give full support to the Programme of Work and Budget and the Medium-term Objectives as presented in the documents before us. We consider that the level of the budget does not, in a manner of speaking, contain any excess fat which can be melted away. We believe that the work and the budget proposed by the Director-General is appropriate to meet the challenges of stimulating food production to which the FAO is seriously addressing itself. We feel that the financial resources requested are minimal to meet these challenges. My delegation does not support the approach of zero growth in the budget as this would actually mean a loss in FAO’s delivery capability to countries which are seriously in need of its assistance at this critical stage in their developmental efforts in improving food production.

The Barbados delegation endorses the plan of activity under the various sub-heads and particularly the technical programmes and the technical cooperation programmes which have shown themselves to be of substantial assistance in energizing needed activity in the countries using these programmes. I should mention also that the Director-General’s programme also for decentralization of the work of the FAO has so far proved to be very effective and we are quite pleased with its operations in my country. We would therefore wish to support this aspect of the programme.

I would just make one final comment on the programme dealing with information and documentation; my delegation wishes to support the objectives presented therein. In our experience we see a need for more information to be relayed in an effective way in order to reach the younger people in the country. We saw the effect of a concentrated public relations programme at work during World Food Day’s activities. It is therefore vital to keep the public awareness alive through a strong public information systëm in agriculture.

A.F.M. de FREITAS (Brazil): Allow me first to congratulate you and your Vice-Chairman on your election. If you permit me I will speakonboth items under discussion, that is the Programme of Work and Budget and the Medium-term Objectives. My delegation would like first to commend the format and presentation of document C 81/3, especially the Director-General’s introduction which contains valuable supportfor the discussion that we are having at this moment.

In the last few days we have been listening to interventions by important personalities and by different delegations in which the economic situation of the world has been extensively analyzed and discussed. The consequences of such a situation on non-oil exporting developing countries have also been emphasized and havebeen generally acknowledged. In the view of my delegation this general economic framework should be kept in mind in the discussion of the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium.

A brief study of document C 81/3 shows that in practically all programmes there had been increases and those increases are due not only to costs but also to the expansion of the programmes themselves. If we look at the Programme of Work and Budget of the previous biennia as we see in the Table P on page 51 of the English text, that cost and programme increases reach 8 percent in real terms, as against 5.8 percent and 7.1 percent in the previous biennia. The Brazilian delegation believes that the present picture of the world economy does not encourage the adoption of such an increase and it believes that it should be postponed for a later opportunity in a more favourable situation. Moreover in purely nominal terms the budget for the next biennium is much higher than the present one, approximately 32 percent to 36 percent higher, even though it has been calculated on an exchange rate about 40 percent to 43 percent higher. The document also shows an increase in activities not directly oriented to improvements in productivity and increases in production. The Brazilian delegation believes that in times of scarce resources priorities should be redefined and the efforts of the Organization should be concentrated on programmes that effectively help, and effectively increase the production of food and agricultural productivity in developing countries.

We do believe that resources should be redistributed from certain activities to other activities, in an effort to reduce the link between programmes which are not directly connected to production and increasing those which are directly connected to production of food.

It is not the intention of my delegation to discuss separately each one of those programmes. We believe that all delegations here had an opportunity to read and study the document we are discussing now. Even so my delegation would permit itself to mention programme 5.1.1 as an example. This is Public Information Programme, page 168. This is a typical case which we believe should be reformula-ted and resources should receive a different allocation to more objective and concrete programmes.

I will turn now to Medium-term Objectives. We believe that the Medium-term Objectives should be focussed together with the Programme of Work and Budget. I would like to refer in particular to Chapter V of C 81/9 on Special Topics. The Brazilian delegation agreed with the statement in paragraph 144, according to which in the coming years developing countries will need an increased supply of energy to increase the production of food and to increase agricultural activities. We would just like to express our conviction that this need in our view is a present one, it is not a need for the future. My delegation also believes that certain measures should be introduced for the utilization of new and renewable resources of energy. My Government has been working on new and renewable sources of energy for six years now and different programmes for better utilization of energy have been introduced with very favourable results in the country. However, the Brazilian government is very careful in the allocation of land resources to the different programmes, land for agriculture on the one side and land for energy on the other side. We believe that our country is capable of handling the situation in a correct way without inflicting any damage to the production of food.

The Brazilian delegation supports paragraph 153 of document C 81/9, which deals with the questions of training. We believe that training is essential for rural and agricultural development and we appreciate the emphasis that has been given by the Organization to this topic. As regards Brazil in this special case we are developing training programmes for the utilization of the humid valleys of the tropics, seeds and soil conservation, forestry and fisheries. On this last topic, fisheries, the Brazilian delegation would like to refer to activities already in course in the regional centre for aquaculture in the city of Piressununga, in the State of Sao Paolo in Brazil. This is a joint project by the Brazilian government, UNDP and FAO agencies. We believe it will be an important step in the development of aquaculture in Latin America.

My delegation also reaffirms its interest and the availability of the Brazilian Government for projects under technical cooperation among developing countries.

My delegation would also like to express its support for the Medium-term Objectives as expressed in paragraph 193 of the document under discussion. The Government believes that the primary responsibility for development rests on each developing country individually, but we also believe that Objective difficulties could be helped to be overcome with foreign assistance, especially in the form of financial resources.

My Government sees with concern the downward trend of resources in international f inancial institutions and the consequent reduction of flow of investments to agricultural production, especiallly the attempts to introduce restrictive criteria as far as assistance to the developing countries is concerned.

As regards priorities and regional perspectives my delegation supports the Medium-term Objectives for Latin America as stated in paragraph 202 and I wish to emphasize the special agreement with some of those topics as listed in paragraph 202, for instance the extension of the Latin-American network in agro-industries, the formulation and implementation of cooperation of projects among Latin-American countries, the development of fisheries and better utilization of forestry resources as well as the dissemination of agro-forestry techniques and better utilization of tropical and sub-tropical resources.

RAMADHAR (India): In this general discussion on the Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium 1982-83 I will confine myself to some general observations. I will reserve detailed comments for later discussions.

FAO’s Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium has to be examined against the increasing number of hungry and malnourished people in the world. Food deficit developing countries inputs of foodgrains have been mounting and depleting their scarce foreign exchange resources. It is against this background that food and agriculture rank among the foremost issues on the global scene. The United Nations Conference on LDCs, the heads of Commonwealth Governments’ Conference in Melbourne and the North-South Summit at Cancun have all stressed the priority of food and agriculture. How can we translate these concerns and these intentions into concrete action? FAO is the Specialized Agency within the United Nations System concerned with food and agriculture. The reorientation of FAO activities during recent years in making this Organization more practical and action-oriented has amply demonstrated the increasing relevance of this Organization for the developing countries. The Technical Cooperation Programme, decentralization at country level, Special Action programmes, these are the hallmarks of this new orientation. Against this background my delegation finds that the Budget level proposed by the Director-General is the minimum to meet the challenges before this Organization. If we want the Director-General to fulfil the mandate that we have given to him and to adhere to the decisions of the Governing bodies of this Organization he has to be given the necessary resources to achieve the aims and objectives of this Organization.

I have carefully listened to many delegations who have referred to the difficult economic situation in the world. But who are the people who are the hardest hit by this difficult economic situation? These are the developing countries who need FAO’s assistance and who have found an echo of their aspirations in the FAO programmes priorities.

FAO’s record in efficiency and economy had been outstanding. I can refer to any number of instances in Council and Conference in which the Director-General’s efforts in cutting down posts, documents and meetings have been commended. I think the record of this Organization in this regard has been unquestionable.

Before I conclude I would like to reiterate that there could be no better way of demonstrating our concern for the hungry and malnourished in the world than fully supporting the FAO’s Programme of Work and Budget which, as I said earliër, is the minimum one, and which my delegation fully supports.

S. DE MARE (Sweden): Mr. Chairman, let me begin by stating how happy we are to see you in the Chair of this very important Commission.

Sweden is at present a member of both the Council and the Programme Committee and we have had ample opportunity to make our views known. Therefore I will now limit myself to some general aspects concerning the Regular Programme of Work and Budget and the Medium-term Objectives.

As has been stated earlier by my delegation, the priorities presented in the documents before us seem in many aspects to be in full accordance with our own view of the future work of FAO and Sweden’s national development assistance in the field of food and agriculture. We also agree that food and agriculture should be given overall development priority, as has also been recognized in the report from the summit meeting in Cancún in which my country participated.

Within the Swedish development assistance still greater importance will now also be given to the rural and agricultural development, which is also reflected in cooperation programmes with FAO.

The importance given to Africa, the least developed countries’ investments, is highly appreciated by my delegation. We also note with satisfaction that steps have been taken by the Organization to change priorities both within and between programmes to make FAO more action-oriented and effective. Serious and effective efforts also seem to have been taken to curtail staff at Headquarters. We would, however, like information concerning to what extent this reduction in established posts at Headquarters has been replaced by consultants; we would very much appreciate some information on this.

As regards the paragraphs in document C 81/3 on the Thrust of Priorities, we would like to support the remarks made earlier in this Commission by the delegate of Denmark. The Technical Cooperation Programme has proven itself a valuable instrument to provide fast assistance to developing countries. It is important, however, as was stated by my Danish colleague, that TCP keeps its share of the Regular Budget and that its nature and scope is not changed.

Concerning the FAO Representative officers and Regional Officers we have nothing more to add to what has been stated earlier both by my delegation and the Danish delegate. We would like to stress the importance we attach to the decentralization to country level of decision-making powers and execution of responsibilities from operational divisions at Headquarters and from Regional offices in connexion with the establishment of Representative offices. We are somewhat disappointed that we still lack information concerning this very important aspect.

Concerning the Budget level, my delegation will present its final position later during this Conference.

Finally, we are somewhat surprised that constructive criticism concerning the FAO Budget, including the level, was sometimes conceded by delegates as something almost synonomous with attacks on development aid in general and the urgent need of developing countries in food and agriculture, which we all recognize. If countries could be judged for selfishness in this respect they should be judged according to the record of development aid in general and not for their criticism of different aspects of the FAO Budget.

G. STREEB (United States of America): Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity to congratulate you in private and I would like to reiterate my congratulations to you and extend them to the Vice-Chairmen as well.

I am almost afraid to proceed with my statement after the eloquent conclusion to the statement by the delegate of Sweden. But perhaps in my own way I can express much the same idea. In fact I had planned to begin my statement by reiterating my Government’s continued concern over hunger and for the develop-ment of the agricultural sector worldwide. Our interest in the problems of hunger and development is found at all levels of responsibility in our Government. President Reagan has made clear his direct and personal interest in the problems of stimuiating increased attention in solving food and agricul-tural problems. In this connexion the President at Cancùn recently suggested that task forces could be sent from the United States to developing countries to assist them in development and in agricul-tural programmes. Obviously, it is not - and I want to stress not - our intention to duplicate the work of others but to supplement the efforts of the international community in situations where a requesting country sees that we might be able to help. It is therefore our intention to maintain close coordination with efforts under way by the World Food Council to assist in development of food security strategies and by the FAO to assist countries in the implementation of the Action Programme approved by the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. All these efforts require much more emphasis on the development of domestic policies in the developing countries to serve as the framework for bilateral and multilateral assistance as well as to assist the flow of private capital into the relevant parts of the agricultural sector.

In the course of the Council meetings and the discussions here so far, it seems to me that there are certain questions which are most on the minds of the delegates regarding the question of the budget.. Some of these questions are: How can a country with a large economy oppose the FAO budget increase? How is it consistent with the universally expressed desire for increased attention to agriculture? Why should the domestic economy situation and restrictions on the national budget be carried over into the international organization?

I am not sure that it is possible to provide a satisfactory answer or to even reach a meeting of the minds on these, but in order to try to answer them I would have to explain on the one hand the approach to our efforts toward controlling inflation and stimulating the domestic economy, and on the other, our approach to the budgets of international organizations. The two can be but are not necessarily linked. I am not going into the explanation of our domestic policy, since I think that has been done

frequently in many fora in the past nine months. Let me only say that the basic motivation is to engender economic recovery and to reduce inflation, two issues which to our mind are probably the most significant contributions we could make toward the developing countries. I am reminded of many complaints last week about the prices of imports and about the fall in exports because of economic decline in the developed world. I therefore believe that both of these aspects of our domestic economy should be of great interest to the developing world.

On the international side, our call for budget stringency is not new. I can personally testify that when I went to Geneva in 1977 and ever since then, my government had been very much concerned about reining in the growth of international organizations. I suggested that there my be a link between these two policies. Now, obviously I do not expect the delegates here to be so naive as to think that the greater pressure on our domestic budget is not somehow also related to our position on inter-national organization budgets. In fact, I would be quite surprised if the budget or finance ministers of most of the countries represented here would not expect some linkage between these budgets. When virtually all programmes are being tightened it is expected that the budgets for international organizations or at least our budgeting for them will also be limited and that the growth of these organizations will be limited.

Note that I said “limit the growth of”. I have heard some delegations refer to the desire by some for “reduction” in FAO’s activities. I have heard no one in this room make any such suggestion.

There is another link, and that is the clear belief that these organizations, like domestic programmes, have grown too rapidly. I am not just referring to the actual programmes in the field, I am referring also to travel, supplies, conferences, documents, etc, which are all part of the programme. We already have four bodies dealing with food and agriculture. Virtually every conference in the last several years has called for the establishment of yet another body or a new fund. Thus, we have advocated a pause, a time for consolidation in the programmes and re-evaluation of the priorities. This we believe is necessary irrespective of our domestic situation. The question of relative sacrifice seems to underlie the questions I noted at the outset. I do not think that this issue can ever be answered satisfactorily nor do I expect that it will ever be understood. Nevertheless, I can assure you that the US share in the actual budget increase, some $22 million, is not taken lightly as a relatively easy sum to add to a tight budget.

When our efforts in food, emergency relief, assistance to refugees and the like are looked at in their entirety, including both government and non-government activities, and when taking into account recent shifts in our AID policies toward agricultural development, there can be no doubt that we have already begun to give meaning to our efforts on agriculture in development. The FAO budget can thus not be looked at in isolation.

Now, my government must obviously undertake a careful reappraisal of its position and our role in this Organization. We have for several years attempted to make our views on the budget issue clear, but these views have by and large not been accepted by the other members of this Organization, particularly from the developing countries. This causes us concern regarding our role in this Organization, primarily because it leaves us wondering what it is we can do in the future. My concerns are the more heightened as I have listened to several delegates today tell us that some of the programmes should not concern us; it is those who are the recipients of the programme who should make the decision as to their value. The choices, I believe, to my delegation are fairly obvious. On the first, we can accept the budget. This of course would be the easiest and obviously the most popular way out. In any case, it is inevitable, since we are likely to be outvoted. The problem with this is, of course, that we then would face the same inevitability at every point in the future.

The United Kingdom this morning suggested two other possibilities, which I think my government will have to consider. One is to consolidate all of our activities into one budget and then shift the amounts within that budget between the multilateral and the bilateral activities. Like the UK, having heard many of the pleas last week and in the several days this week for shifting to multilateral focus, it might be worthwhile for us also to consider requests by those countries who wish to give up bilateral assistance, to put it into the multilateral institution.

A third option is for us simply to shift the emphasis from one UN body to the other, and this certainly in the case of FAO is something we are prepared to consider, as I suggested last week, in terms of the relative emphasis on food. I would assume, of course, that given our posture on the overall budget situation in the UN, representatives of governments represented here who participate in those other bodies will not object when we are much more restrictive on their budget if indeed we decided to be more favourable to FAO.

The fourth option is to reject the budget as proposed. As far as my delegation is concerned, this is clearly the most honest approach and consistent with our position elsewhere. Of course, we will still have to pay according to our obligations in this Organization. In this respect, then, we must vote against the budget as presented, and unless the increase is significantly reduced, we must maintain this position.

ISKANDAR DZAKURNAIN bin BADARUDDIN (Malaysia): First of all, the Malaysian delegation would like to congratulate you on your election as Chairman of this very important Commission. We would also like to congratulate the two Vice-Chairmen on their election.

We have listened with keen interest to the statements of the various delegates, many of whom echo the Director-General’s concern regarding the world food supply, world food security, and world food aid which have not reached anywhere near the goal that the international community has agreed.

The world community has contributed a great deal of effort and resources in the past towards the eradication of poverty, hunger and malnutrition, but the situation demands that much more should be done if the goals are to be achieved, otherwise there would continue to be starvation and malnutrition unless there is improvement in the food and agricultural sector. The degenerating food and agricultural situation in many countries needs the continuous support of the international community as well as the sincere efforts of the country itself. Whether or not the prospect for the world food supply is going to be grim will all depend on how each of us face up to the realities of today and make the necessary sacrifice.

We are all aware that efforts to increase food and agricultural production are more pronounced and complex in the developing countries, mainly due to lack of resources, technical and financial, to enable them to fully exploit the available resources in the country. They need assistance to help them plan and develop their resources, to help them plan their infrastructural requirements and implement their development programmes aimed at increasing food and agricultural productivity. In this respect FAO has played a leading role in providing the necessary assistance and expertise required for such development.

To play this role FAO has drawn up priorities and strategies with full participation of the developing countries so as to be in line with the objectives of the International Development Strategy. The efforts of FAO have gained the full support of all because the main thrust of its activities is directed to serve the developing countries in their struggle against hunger. FAO is carrying the directive given to the Organization to make the Third Development Decade more successful in food and agriculture than the previous decade.

The impact of FAO’s programmes and projects and its importance to the developing countries is reflected by the increasing demands from the developing countries for FAO to support them in their priority projects, which keep increasing year after year. Intensified efforts and revised priorities in many developing countries mean that more assistance could continue to be given, the efforts of the developing countries could go a long way toward overcoming the precariousness of the present food situation.

We realize the present world economic and financial situation affects most of us today, more so in the developing countries. However, the continued presence of the serious world food situation should not restrain us from giving our continuous support in the development of this sector, which is vital for the survival of mankind. Any implication of lack of support, and worse still any withdrawal from the very effort that we have agreed to, will only result in a feeling of betrayal. Again, it is our moral obligation to continue to play our role and to provide the necessary funds so that the programmes which are vital for the survival of the poor in the developing countries can be carried out.

My delegation has studied the Director-General’s Programme of Work and Budget as well as the material documents with great care and keen interest, and we have found the proposals very interesting. In preparing the proposals the Director-General has taken into consideration all the views expressed by the Member Countries. However, he has also taken into consideration the current world food situation and the economic situation prevailing today. While all efforts should be made to ensure the common cost effectiveness of the Programme in the Organization and the world, we must bear in mind that FAO is charged with the extra responsibility to ensure that there is food security in this world. The Director-General’s proposals should be considered as the very minimum the Organization needs to carry on its activities effectively.

We would like to reiterate our support to the Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium of 1982-83 proposed by the Director-General, as we think the efforts of FAO are greatly needed by the developing world.

A. CONTE MAROTTA (Italy): After Cancún, my country is very much engaged in political strategy to support also within the frame of the European community every possible action to try to balance global disasters in the Third World. The political attention of my government is also based on the work done in the programme of FAO from Rome. This is why my government looks at the technical aspects of the next budget with positive political eyes.

B.E. PHIRI (Zambia): I wish to begin by congratulating you, Mr. Chairman, and you Vice-Chairmen, on your election to your posts in this Commission.

As you know, my Minister made a statement in the Plenary, not only on behalf of Zambia but also as regards the Programme of Work and Budget, as Chairman of the Group of 77.

For obvious reasons, he did not go into any detail but confined himself to the strategic issues of policy concerning FAO’s budget.

In this Commission, we must, however, take up in more detail some of the important issues involved in our debate on this question. We in the Group of 77 have discussed these issues, and I am therefore now making a statement on their behalf.

It is made in the same spirit as the statement of my Minister in the Plenary. We want to make our views clear and hope that our statement would encourage the doubters - those who have in previous discussions reserved their position - to join with us. We would also like to think that we could persuade any who may not be so convinced, at least to refrain from a negative vote on the Director-General’s proposals.

Now, as regards these proposals, there is no controversy about the priority of food and agriculture, nor about the need to increase food production, nor about the strategies, policies and programmes upon which the Programme of Work and Budget is based. This has been amply confirmed in all discussions in the main Committees and governing bodies of the Organization.

The Council, at its June Session, fully supported the strategies and priorities proposed by the Director-General. It endorsed the major programme proposals and the balance between them and reached a consensus in supporting the broad strategies, priorities and means of action proposed for 1982-83.

The acceptance of the priority of food and agriculture is also fully evident in discussions at the highest international political levels. Leaving aside the Ottawa, Melbourne and Cancun Summits, let us recall the speeches and messages made on World Food Day. We cannot make a mockery of these by now refusing to FAO the very modest resources it requires.

Furthermore, we are completely convinced that FAO plays an absolutely vital role, out of all proportion to the smallness of its Regular Programme, in mobilizing food and agricultural development financed from domestic and external resources.

As far as the Programme of Work and Budget is concerned, I hope the Commission will excuse me if I quo-te what has already been quoted in Plenary by some delegations what the Under-Secretary General for Administration, Finance and Management of the United Nations said to the Fifth Committee of the General Assembìy just a few days ago in distinguishing between the proposals for the UN Budget and those for FAO. He said: “With regard to FAO, to which reference has also been made in this debate, the paramount need to combat starvation and malnutrition in this world must certainly find most prominent recognition in the budget of that Organization. As a corollary, the budget of FAO is not only characterized by an • emphasis on technical cooperation programmes - about five times more in percentage terms than in the United Nations - but also by the fact that a great part of the overall programme of FAO is of a far more operational nature than that undertaken by the United Nations. In our Organization, economic programmes, which in their purpose and effect may be seen as comparable to those of FAO, account for only about one-third if not even less of the budgetary expenditures.” That shows that even in that body they recognize the role that FAO plays is a unique one and must be supported.

And yet, despite the highest priority which is now universally given to world food and agricultural problems, FAO’s proposed budget of $360 to $380 million is relatively modest. It compares with that of the United Nations of $1 251 million, WHO at $469 million and Unesco at $406 million. Moreover, unlike the United Nations and some other organizations, FAO does not have any provision by which its budget can be increased in the course of the biennium. For example, in 1980 the United Nations budget was increased by $100 million, nearly half the proposed annual budget of FAO.

We are, of course, unfortunately aware that the FAO/UNDP Field Programme may go down next year. We understand that it may go down between 15-20 percent. We hope that this will not be the case, but if it is we have all the more reason to support the proposed increase in the Regular Programme, including the Technical Cooperation Programme. They do not and cannot substitute for UNDP projects, but they do satisfy our needs in a number of different ways.

Incidentally, we believe that the Technical Cooperation Programme is one of the most cost-effective and efficient programmes of the FAO. If, therefore, other member nations are in favour of greater cost-effectiveness, they should support an even greater increase in the Technical Cooperation Programme. In any case, we regard the Technical Cooperation Programme as an absolutely fundamental part of FAO’s services to its member nations. We are satisfied that it is administered in accordance with the stric-test criteria and standards. We therefore fully support it.

In this connection, we are very grateful to the Director-General for Document C 81/INF/20 which has recently been circulated, providing further information on the significance of the Regular Programme, particularly its leverage on the Field Programme. What is revealed in that document is a remarkable achievement which we owe to the dynamic leadership of this Organization by the Director-General. We are not aware of any parallel within the United Nations system for this kind of dynamism. This docu-ment shows very clearly how the modest FAO budget generates and supports a full Programme which is running at the rate of nearly $3 billion per annum. This represents, in the terms of the words used in the docuraent, a gearing of the Regular to Field Programme of 1: 25. In 1980, almost $2.4 billion of agricultural investment was generated and UNDP and Trust Fund Projects were delivered to the value of more than $287 million; the World Food Programme aid for agricultural development projects in the order of $204 million were assisted by FAO, as well as more than $191 million in emergency food aid.

The document C 81/INF/20 also brings out FAO’s economy and efficiency in staffing and administrative costs. Here again, we are witnessing a remarkable record achieved by the exercise of constant effort and will from 1976 onwards. It is a pity that the astonishing reduction in posts made in 1976 and pursued ever since with unrelenting effort is conveniently being forgotten.

Here again the Council at its June Session commended the Director-General for the economies he had achieved in previous biennia in his administration of available resources and the further cuts now proposed for administrative costs.

In this connection, we note the figures given in the report of the Finance Committee as well as in the document C 81/INF/20 concerning the posts in Regional Offices and in FAO Representatives Offices. We strongly support the view that these should be regarded as part of the decentralisation process, and we have heard it said I think by Australia this afternoon. In any case, we are fully satisfied that there is both a separate and a mutual supportive role for both as well as Headquarters. In parti-cular, we are the people who are affected by this and we will see whether the Offices are effective or not, and as soon as we see that they are not effective, we shall come here and say so. But so far we are satisfied that the FAO Representatives’ Offices are an essential part of FAO’s structure. We are the countries to which FAO Representatives are assigned, and we see what they are doing.

We understand that some people feel this should not be said because judgement can be passed by anybody. Yes, we do not stop anybody from seeing what is happening, these people are working in broad daylight and we are merely stating what we know. If we had doubts we would not accept and support the esta-blishment of these Offices in our countries.

There is always room, of course, for improvements, and Australia this afternoon put it all clearly on the line. We support those who call for continuing improvement wherever possible. But we are more than satisfied with the record of the Director-General in this regard, and are happy to leave it to him to continue to pursue his efforts, which we know he will do in a constant and practical way.

It takes a lot of vision and scrutiny to find whether to cut in the Programme when this is drawn up out of requests received from various kinds of countries with various kinds of background and develop-ment stages. It all takes a lot of unpopularity to cut off a programme which countries have been requesting must be put in the Programme of Work and Budget, and we know that the Director-General has been bold enough to cut down on staff, to cut down certain projects in order to achieve saving and increase efficiency.

Although it is not in this Commission but in Commission III where some related financial matters will be discussed, I would like to mention them briefly here because of their relevance to the resources and the flexibility which would be made available to the Director-General. I wish to refer in parti-cular to the recommendations coming to us from the Finance Committee regarding the status and reple-nishment of the Working Capital Fund, the proposal to increase the level of the Working Capital Fund from $6.5 million to $13.25 million and the proposals regarding amendments to the Special Reserve Account. The improvements suggested are part and parcel of ways in which this Organization can be more effective, and, on behalf of the Group of 77, we wish to indicate our full support for them.

There are some - ironically, the richest countries - who will not dispute anything I have said so far but plead an inability to support the proposed budget because of their own domestic problems of inflation, recession and unemployment. To these we can only answer emphatically that the problems they experience are immeasurably harder for the poor developing countries to bear and to overcome.

The issue we are facing is not the marginal one of economy and efficiency but the fundamental issue of whether, at this stage of the world food situation, we believe that the Organization should have a modest increase in its budget. This we see as the issue. With due respect to the views of everyone on this issue, although we do not necessarily agree with all the arguments, we do not agree with those who believe that because social services are being cut in their own countries, this is a time to cut multilateral aid and assistance to food and agriculture development. Some have argued that by reducing FAO’s budget they will increase bilateral aid. One might ask: was it the FAO budget which prevented them from increasing their bilateral aid in the past? Assuming that this is so, should we understand that the real increase in the FAO budget of $11 million per year is what will prevent the rich countries from increasing their bilateral aid? We do not see it that way. Therefore we do not think economy is the real issue.

We therefore support the Director-General’s proposals to the full without fear or equivocation, and we will continue to hold this position as long as it is right. We hope that in doing so and in making our statement we will be able to convince those others to go along with us in spite of their present stand and to maintain the spirit of consensus for which this Organization has justly become known.

D. BETI (Suisse): Qu’il me soit tout d’abord permis de vous féliciter, Monsieur le Président, comme l’ont fait toutes les délégations, pour votre élection à la tête de notre Commission, qui est saisie de questions très importantes, voire décisives, pour l’avenir de notre Organisation, Mes félicitations s’adressent aussi à nos deux vice-presidents. Nous aimerions vous assurer que nous ne ménagerons aucun effort susceptible de vous faciliter la tâche consistant à mener à bien les travaux de notre commission.

Vu que le temps qui nous est imparti pour l’examen du Programme de travail et budget 1982-83 est déjà très entamé, vu aussi que tout ou presque tout a déjà été dit en ce qui concerne les priorités du programme, qu’il me soit permis de me limiter, dans le cadre du débat général de ce jour, à quelques breves remarques générales concernant le Programme de travail et budget qui est soumis à notre examen, ceci en vue de clarifier la position de mon pays à ce sujet.

Personne n’ignore que nos Eta s sont soumis à des contraintes budgétaires considerables car, qu’on le veuille ou non, même les pays dits riches ont leurs problèmes. Il est donc normal que les Organisations internationales en tiennent compte également dans l’établissement de leur programme.

Il nous paraît dès lors indispensable que la FAO cherche à compenser le renforcement de ses activités dans les domaines prioritaires par des économies sur les programmes plutôt marginaux pouvant être retardés, voire éliminés. Nous nous permettrons de revenir sur ce point dans la discussion de detail.

Il y a deux ans, ma délégation avait, non sans de sérieuses hésitations, approuvé le budget pour le biennium 1980-81, tout en soulignant qu’elle considérait l’augmentation de celui-ci comme étant à la limite de l’admissible et en demandant au Directeur général d’en tenir compte dans l’établissement du budget pour le biennium suivant.

Nous nous trouvons aujourd’hui devant un budget dont l’augmentation dépasse les limites de celui pour 1980-81.

Au moment où le Secrétariat commençait à élaborer ce nouveau budget, nous n’avons pas manqué de lui faire savoir, par différents canaux, et souvent avec plusieurs autres pays, quelle allait devoir être notre attitude à l’égard de tout budget qui prévoirait de trop fortes augmentations.

Ma délégation continue d’estimer que le budget administratif de la FAO, comme par ailleurs, soit dit en passant, les budgets des autres organisations internationales, doit tenir compte de la conjuncture économique mondiale.

Or le budget qui nous est actuellement proposé par le Directeur général ne prend pas suffisamment en considération ce souci.

Par consequent, ma délégation ne se voit pas en mesure de l’approuver.

Je tiens cependant à affirmer concrètement - et je m’adresse ici plus particulièrement à nos partenaires des pays en développement, en souhaitant qu’ils puissent comprendre aussi notre point de vue -que notre désir d’économie dans les budgets administratifs ne signifie pas un manque de volonté de mon pays de faire des efforts financiers supplémentaires là où ils sont le plus nécessaires.

Je n’en veux pour preuve que la participation continue et considérable de la Suisse au financement de programmes extra-budgétaires de terrain de la FAO, dans des domaines comme la sécurité alimentaire, la production de semences et la lutte contre les pertes alimentaires, domaines considérés à juste titre comme prioritaires par tous les membres de la FAO.

R. GARCELL (Cuba): Con el permiso del Sr. Subdirector General, al inicio de la sesión de esta tarde, usted nos sugirió que en el dia de mañana podríamos debatir conjuntamente el continuar el debate general y analizar los capítulos por separado. Nuestra delegación así ha enfocado este aspecto, y por lo tanto, quisiéramos reiterar nuestra solicitud para hacer uso de la palabra mañana, por cuanto queremos estar presentes en la intervención de nuestro Ministro, que dentro de breves momentos tomará la palabra en la Plenaria.

CHAIRMAN: I understand the point of the delegate of Cuba; I would imagine other delegates are in a similar position. And I would repeat again that those delegates who wish to make several remarks still can do so at a later moment but are invited to combine these statements with remarks pertinent to the Chapters we are going to deal with at that moment.

E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I appreciate very much this opportunity to make a few comments on the general remarks made so far and with your permission I would like to begin on a somewhat personal level. At the end of the Council the retiring Independent Chairman kindly referred to his acquaintance with me in the past as a delegate of my country and he noted especially my sense of humour. I think it has been moderated somewhat over these last few years and I should not like it to be thought that I was trying to take over from the present United Kingdom delegate in the telling of stories. But I would like to begin also with a story about Africa to show that I at least keep a sense of proportion as a member of the Secretariat. The story is of an African lion that was going through the jungle shouting “Who is king of the jungle?” and each animal that he met was expected to reply “You are, Mr. Lion.” And this happened. He said to the rhinoceros “Who is king of the jungle?” and the rhinoceros said “You are, Mr. Lion”. He met the hippopotamus and he said to the hippopotamus “Who is king of the jungle?” and the hippopotamus said “You are, Mr. Lion”. Then he met the elephant and said “Who is king of the jungle?” The elephant picked him up in his trunk and waved him around his head and threw him to the ground. The lion picked himself up and said “It is not my fault if you do not know the answer to a simple question.” Like the other jokes, this can be applied in a number of ways.

Now turning to some of the comments made it has, of course, been a long discussion and it would be invidious to single out delegates. If I do not mention many it is because I think that they are of one mind and did not raise points on which I should comment. But there are a few on which I would like to comment. For example, the delegate of Colombia, who is not always so friendly to me, made a number of constructive comments and also one particular suggestion concerning the future of the document on Medium-term objectives which was taken up by one or two other delegates. Now this is not a pressing matter but if some kind of direction could be given to the Programme and Finance Committees at least to consider the possibility, and they have indeed suggested that they be asked to do this, of some further transmutation in the present documentation, particularly in the context of saving documentation costs, we would be glad to provide them with the necessary information to discuss this, without prejudging the outcome. The delegate of Argentina stressed TCDC and ECDC in which he is not, of course, alone. I think he expressed a fairly general feeling and this is one matter on which we will try to make further progress in the coming years.

A number of delegates made remarks on programmes which had been noted by my colleagues and which will be taken up. For example, the delegate of Denmark, in the course of his remarks, referred to Agrindex and extension on which he said he would like to have discussions with the Secretariat. I can assure him the Secretariat are fully ready for this and look forward to a constructive discussion with him.

I also would like to express my appreciation to him as Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, for the remarks he made about the document and on some of the substantive issues.

There was another point which was fairly common in a number of delegations’ statements. That was the reference to a need for further decentralization to the country offices. This is indeed our policy, but it is limited by certain constraints; one of them is the rigour of our financial management which calls for high standards. That means a certain number of staff and certain amount of documentation. As you will have noted from the audited accounts, most of the comments made by the external auditor are usually in relation to problems which arise in the field because of situations spread all over the world which are rather different from those that you find in headquarters cities. If we want to maintain our very high standards of financial management, then we must be very careful about the extent to which we decentralize powers which involve financial responsibility, especially as this would inevitably mean increasing the staff of country offices quite substantially. This would run against the feeling in some quarters that we should not increase the size of individual country offices, nor increase their budgets substantially. So we are constrained here by certain real problems and therefore the policy must be applied cautiously.

Links were also made between certain remarks and the regional offices. But, on the other hand, some of them were highly positive. Here again I can assure you that the Director-General, in making his judgments has exercised great rigour and has taken into account various factors, including, of course, the need to increase our efforts on behalf of the least developed countries. If we are going to make a real effort on their behalf, then it is inevitable that we support regional endeavours. In this connexion, the latest JIU report on the regional economic commissions recommends a considerable strengthening of those commissions in order to take up regional activities of all types in conjunction with the agencies. This may not be something that we particularly welcome, but if it is going to happen because the JIU have recommended it to the General Assembly then we are expected by the General Assembly to play our part, quite apart from the needs of the FAO programme itself.

In order not to take too much time, I would like to come now to a particular category of remarks which inevitably focus on the views expressed by some delegations about the budget level. This is obviously a difficult problem and almost all delegations have spoken of it with what is, to the outside observer, if I can say that, evidently a very high sense of responsibility and seriousness. Most of the arguments used have been at a high political level but some of them have, I fear, not been as much based on fair interpretation of facts as we would have hoped. Let me take, for example, the remarks made to the effect that we are not giving sufficient priority to Africa. In this regard, reference was made to Table B on page 199. The percentage used was actually a percentage of the total funds, including extra-budgetary funds. Well, of course, the extrabudgetary funds are not in the control of the Secretariat: they are in the control of the donor and the recipient countries. So, if the total proportion for Africa is lower than some countries desire, it is within their hands. Nevertheless, I would point out that if you compare that total with the corresponding total in the previous budget you will see that quite a notable increase in the proportion of the budget being devoted to Africa has been secured. As stated in the summary budget, although it is difficult to make a precise estimate of the increase, the four main technical departments are stepping up their present level of activity to Africa by an average of 50 percent or more. We will continue, although the overall results cannot show dramatic changes from one year to the next. At the same time, we cannot continue at the expense unduly of other regions who also have some poor countries and who need help. We serve all member countries, even though our priorities may dictate a certain balance in our activities.

Reference was made to the cost of programme management under Agriculture, but that provision for programme management includes the new priority for energy. This is because energy is concentrated, for the sake of economy in administration and integration of energy into all the activities of agriculture (as one delegate at least suggested, was desirable) into the office of the ADG Agriculture. That is why it shows up under programme 2.1.9. To suggest that that new high priority is simply administration is a complete misreading or misuse of the document. The programme also includes the undistributed reserve of consultant funds in the hands of the Regional Office for the Near East, which, as you know, is here in Rome and cannot programme the total funds it has in this peculiar situation in the same way that other ADGs in the regional offices can do. So it has to maintain a reserve for unexpected demands to meet the needs of the region in these peculiar circumstances. For the sake of administrative convenience, it is also budgeted under that programme.

Next it was suggested that what we were proposing on support costs was outrageous, or shocking I think was the word used, and reference was made to the parallel record of the Asian Bank. As I think the Joint Inspection Unit and other great authorities, including the Governing Council of the UNDP, have freely recognized, you cannot compare support costs on technical assistance activities with support costs on capital assistance activities. Technical assistance activities, particularly on behalf of the UNDP, call for a great amount of logistic as well as technical support. That is our function - to provide technical support as well as logistic support, demands for which are going to be increased as we have to get rid of a very large number of experts in the next couple of years. In fact, in the UNDP Governing Council, the delegation of the United Kingdom was one of those who said,

let us maintain the support costs at 14 percent. In the document submitted to this Conference, we have asked you the question, do you want to do that or do you want to follow the Governing Council? So I do not see what is shocking about this, and it certainly is not to be compared with the support costs on capital development institutions.

I have much sympathy with the view - and these have been expressed by developing as well as developed countries - that the amount of money being spent on support services, in particular on publications, should be cut down. However, I must observe respectfully that whenever in the Programme or Finance Committees or in the Council I have suggested reducing documentation, I have been opposed, usually by those countries who want budgetary restraint. I have frequently said - and I am afraid this remark does not translate very well - that the only thing which is read about this document, the Programme of Work and Budget, is its colour ! Why have it if you are not going to read it? If we are going to talk about big issues of aid policy and say that we want to cut down the Budget even though most of us are in broad agreement, or majority agreement, by the thrust of the Programme? Therefore, let us save money by not producing those words and have a few simple tables such as you have now in the INF 20 document and concentrate the debate on the general debate which you have had today. This is a very important debate. Let us agree to abolish the Medium-Term Objectives document or agree not to have JIU documents translated into all languages and circulated. Generally speaking, you have not agreed with most of JIU recommendations. So it is in your hands. The same applies to many coordination activities, not to mention coordination organisations, which have been the fastest growing business in the UN System in the last few years. If we had your authority, we would certainly be willing to make every effort to cut down on documentation. Even though we do intend to cut down as much as possible on publications and on meetings in the coming biennium and thereafter, I must say regretfully that most of the increase in that particular area of the Programme is for printing equipment. We have no alternative but to replace a lot of printing equipment which is constantly breaking down and reducing our productivity and increasing our expenses for repairs and maintenance. We have delayed too long in replacing that equipment. Even so, I think our record in producing brief documentation on time has been recognized by many delegations.

Then I come to the question of the calculation of the real increase. This was mentioned in the Council. I think it has been mentioned by only one delegation here. You can make various calculations. You can make it 8 percent or 5.9 percent. If you do it the way it used to be done 15 years ago, you can make it 5.3 percent. But I have always felt it is not the percentage that matters, but the dollars, how many more dollars you have to pay, especially taking into account the currency adjustment. Many of you, I recognise, will have to pay more dollars now, because of the change in the exchange rates. But the biggest contributor will be paying much less than would otherwise be the case.

This debate about the budget level began at a time when the theoretical budget level proposed was about $50 million more than it is now. I know it is good fortune, but why not take advantage of good fortune instead of saying “We must have another $22 million out of you”? Are we really talking about percentages or are we talking about dollars?

Talking about dollars brings me to one of the most controversial points in what has been said today. Certain remarks were made about the choice facing this Conference. Two delegations referred very explicitly to the need for the majority here to make up their minds whether they wanted to support the FAO Budget or face the consequences in the form of cuts in bilateral aid or in World Food Programme assistance. One delegation, however, said it was one of four alternatives. If I am right, he indicated that this was not the alternative he was choosing but the more “honest” course of voting against the Budget. We must fully accept the right - we are your servants - of all delegations to make up their minds about our proposals. Certainly no set of proposals is ever perfect, and if you feel strongly about it, you will vote accordingly. We have had a very honest statement on that issue from one of the two delegations which mentioned this point. The statement, which I should like to refer to again in a moment, was in other respects also at a high level and one which merits close study, because the issues raised therein are very important for the future.

The other delegate who raised this point - and I have the text - said however that developing countries “must accept and pledge their governments” to accept that the extra cost of their support for FAO’s Programme may have to be found in the rejection, the reduction or the postponement of bilateral aid and may have to be found by reducing the contribution of that country to other multilateral agencies, like the World Food Programme. I believe that is a very serious statement, of which due note will be taken by you, and also by the Committee on Food Aid, coming particularly from that delegation.

It is, I am afraid, incumbent on me in this connexion to try to complete the statistics stemming from those remarks, to try to give an idea how I see it of the consequences for the Organization and its membership. I know they do not like these calculations, but they happen to be facts. The contribution

of that country is $7.5 million per year. But out of the Regular Programme and the field programme generated and supported by FAO, $9.5 million - $2 million more - go back to that country directly or indirectly in the form of contracts and purchases. $3.8 million more goes back in the form of payments to consultants from that country. Apart from that there are 922 staff, nationals of that country, serving here and in Regional Offices and in the field in various projects. If you make a fairly modest calculation of the average salaries paid to those staff, it comes to about $42 million. So here is a total of some $55 million, or about seven times the amount of the contribution. I know that other calculations can be made, but let me make this point too, that the share of that country in the increase, if approved, will be less than $600,000 per annum, which is about 0.03 percent of their total aid programme. If that is divided by one hundred countries, let us say, then it amounts to stg £3300 per country. So you are being asked to go into the lobby and negotiate a reduction in you bilateral aid or in your World Food Programme assistance of an average of stg £3300 per country.

I do not want to be controversial, but I have to make this point to come back to the central issue, which is that we are talking about a certain number of dollars. The Director-General and the majority of countries in the Council and here today have made the point very clearly that the number of dollars is very small. It really is very modest, especially when you break it down into an individual contribution.

This is not to say that the Secretariat are refusing to acknowledge the economic and financial circumstances in countries and the political repercussion, the political climate that those difficulties create. Quite clearly we are facing in the next biennium an extremely serious situation. It is incumbent on us to do all we can together in a harmonious atmosphere to overcome those problems, to establish better communication between member countries and with the Secretariat, so that we can see our way out of those difficulties and maintain the harmony that this Organization has been so well known for over past years and which has been referred to by a number of important countries today.

We certainly want to maintain that harmony. How to do it? I think a great deal will depend on how we come out from the situation today and at the end of this Conference and it will depend a great deal on what the Secretariat do. In that connexion, I can certainly assure very strongly Mr. Chairman, that the Director-General will make every effort during the next biennium - he has even begun thinking about it now - where we can make further savings with a view to coming up with proposals for 1984-85 which will gain general acceptance, if not unanimity.

Reference was made in this connexion to the need for rigour. I can assure you that it exists already. Most of my colleagues think of me as so mean that I will put a drawing-pin on the electric chair. But I can be even meaner perhaps and will certainly try to do that.

The main problem, however, I believe, is a problem of understanding. At the moment, we seem to be in a situation in which one of us is fishing and another one comes up and says “What are you doing? Are you fishing?”, and they reply is, “No, I am drowning worms.” I think we must try to establish a better communication on the real issues.

Finally, I would like to say that seen from the point of view of the Director-General the central problem is this. Do the needs of the world food situation, does the record of FAO, does the spirit as well as the content of the resolutions of the European Parliament, the Melbourne Conference, the Cancún Conference - which all referred to the need for greater efforts on food and agriculture and greater international cooperation but without saying that multilateral aid was an alternative to bilateral aid -do all those statements mean that FAO is to be treated as if it were an organization which has to be restrained and given pause, or does it mean that we deserve and may have our little modest share of the total effort going into increasing food production in developing countries and in world food security?

CHAIRMAN: I thank the Assistant Director-General very much for his clarification.

G. SILOU (Congo): Nous remercions Monsieur West de son intervention et sommes pleinement d’accord avec le contenu de celle-ci.

Au nom du Groupe africain, je souhaite formuler une protestation ferme et énergique quant au ton et à la nature de la déclaration faite par le délégué du Royaume-Uni en fin de matinée. Cette déclaration est une insulte pour tous les pays africains, et essayer d’obtenir la grâce en utilisant des références choisies ne fait que rendre l’affront plus grave encore. C’est un manque de respect à notre égard et une preuve d’incapacité à comprendre nos besoins et nos points de vue. C’est une réaction typiquement néo-colonialiste de la part du délégué d’un pays qui précisément a profité du passé colonialiste sur notre continent. Il est présomptueux de sa part de nous menacer et de nous aviser de ne pas traire exagérément la vache à lait.

Monsieur le Président, c’est au contraire ceux qui nous soupçonnent qui abusent de cette Organisation, et le Royaume-Uni est au premier rang parmi eux. Chacun sait que quelque 1 000 citoyens de Sa Majesté britannique sont fonctionnaires de cette Organisation, nombre d’entre eux occupant des postes clés, plus souvent que ne le font nos propres nationaux. Le Royaume-Uni reçoit plus de contrats, vend plus d’équipements et de fournitures dans le cadre de nos projets que tout autre pays. Les consultants du Royaume-Uni sont les plus nombreux. Pour toutes ces raisons, il est de notoriété publique que le Royaume-Uni reçoit près de dix fois sa mise concernant la contribution de ce pays au budget de notre Organisation.

L’invitation qui nous est faite de discuter de nos besoins d’aide bilatérale dans les couloirs nous est inacceptable. Alors même que nous discutons l’important problème du budget de cette Organisation, une telle invitation équivaut à la leçon que l’on donnerait à des mendiants dans l’arrière-cour.

Nous sommes reconnaissants pour toute assistance bilatérale reçue, de quelque source qu’elle vienne, à condition que nous l’ayons acceptée; toutefois notre préférence va à l’assistance multilatérale, car elle est libre de conditions qui peuvent être attachées à l’assistance bilatérale. Nous comprenons toutefois que l’assistance multilatérale doive être un complément de l’assistance bilatérale. Les discussions sur l’assistance bilatérale appartiennent aux forums auxquels participent les donateurs et les gouvernements participants intéressés. Il est toutefois indécent d’utiliser ce genre d’argument ici, alors que toute notre attention devrait être accordée à l’allocation de ressources que nous voulons donner à cette Organisation.

MAI LUONG (Viet Nam): Nous serons très brefs, en soutenant l’explication très claire, très constructive, embrassant tous les aspects du problème, et la déclaration pleine de responsabilité de Monsieur West, qui représente Monsieur le Directeur général Saouma ici, et qui a répondu aux problèmes cruciaux posés par certaines délégations.

Nous rejoignons l’opinion exprimée par le délégué du Congo en protestant contre l’image présentée à la fin de l’intervention du Royaume-Uni ce matin. Une fois de plus, nous espérons que ce projet de Programme et budget sera approuvé à cette Conférence.

A. RODRIGUES PIRES (Cap-Vert): Nous avons écouté avec beaucoup d’attention les explications données par Monsieur West, et les appuyons entièrement. Il nous est difficile de comprendre les positions de certaines délégations, parce que toutes les motivations prétendument économiques avancées par elles pour tenter de réduire le niveau de budget ne résistent pas, à notre avis, à l’analyse. Le bon sens le plus commun nous interdit d’admettre que quelques milliers de dollars épargnés par les pays les plus riches de notre planète sur le budget de la FAO sauveraient la situation. Cet argument ne nous paraît pas solide. Par contre, plaider pour la réduction injustifiée d’un budget qui est déjà remarquablement modéré serait lourd de conséquences politiques. Notre Conférence se tient en effet, nous le savons, dans un climat international qu’elle ne peut pas ignorer. Tout d’abord, une situation alimentaire catastrophique pour un nombre croissant de pays, dont le mien. Nul n’ignore que cetté situation n’est pas seulement imputable à des difficultés d’ordre interne, mais, dans une très large mesure aussi, certainement à l’interrogation constante des termes d’échange, qui interdit à ces pays de bénéficier des ressources financières nêcessaires à leur développement.

La responsabilité de la FAO dans la misère est donc une responsabilité collective en parlant des mesures de solidarité internationale. D’après nous, la FAO est le cadre institutionnel dans lequel cette solidarité doit se concrétiser.

Pour terminer, nous voulons joindre notre voix à celles qui nous ont précédés, et vous dire que nous appuyons entièrement le budget présenté par le Directeur général Saouma.

CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to the delegate of the United States, I would like to come back to the statement of the Assistant Director-General, Mr. West, which I feel was an excellent reference already to specific elements of the budget and to specific parts of the seven chapters we have to handle and conclude by tomorrow evening. If this august assembly accepts, we should move as quickly and as early as possible to debate on the individual chapters.

I would suggest we combine the debate on chapters 1 and 2 and make another round on chapters 3 to 7, and I would like to repeat again, according to the time schedule accorded to Commission II, Items 9 and 10 will have to be concluded by tomorrow afternoon, by the end of tomorrow’s afternoon session.

G. STREEB (United States of America): I just wanted to make one observation with respect to the statement Mr. West made about the budget. I do not understand why there is still confusion on this point, but just to clear it up, let me clear it up.

We are talking about the level of programme growth. All of the numbers he has used about the budget up and down and exchange rates and the like are totally irrelevant to the question of programme growth. I am quite concerned about the direction this discussion has taken.

Actually, I have been warned or I should say perhaps advised by delegations who have come to previous meetings like this that such interventions in fact have come to be expected and the norm where in fact individual delegations are attacked severely by the Secretariat.

Now, last week I had the opportunity to observe several things about FAO procedure wich differed somewhat from my experience in other international organizations, and I must say that I have never yet observed to the degree I have here the way the debate gets away from discussion between delegations to a debate between delegations and the Secretariat. I thought that we were trying to have a discussion amongst those who actually determine what the programmes are. I appreciate that the Secretariat and the Director-General have to give us their best opinions, and they are responsible for drafting up the Work Programme and the budget, but nevertheless, it is still delegations who have to take the decisions, as the Director-General himself has on several occasions noted.

I could if I wanted go through each intervention by many delegations here and challenge some of the statements they have made, and in fact I suppose I could even challenge their integrity and their motivation, but I do not see how that would benefit us at all, and I certainly do not see how the recent exchange we have had in terms of its tone and in terms of its pointedness serves our purposes. As Mr. West suggested, there are many statistics one can quote regarding benefits and who pays and so forth. Again, I do not see how that benefits our debate here. What concerns me is that Mr. West’s intervention has indeed had its effect, which was to immediately provoke comments by several delegations rallying to his call to attack another delegation’s motives here today. I simply do not see any purpose in this sort of exchange. I hope that we can indeed return the discussion to a level of a reasonable exchange between delegations, and I am thankful it is near the end of today, and perhaps we can come back tomorrow and start afresh on what I would hope to be a more reasonable level.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of the United States. May I assure him as Chairman of this Commission I would not allow “that a delegate be attacked by a member of the Secretariat”. I personally accepted Mr. West’s explanation as a contribution to the discussion, and I hope all delegates can join me in that view that he has brought enlightenment to items which we will debate in further detail today and tomorrow.

M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): It was not my intention when I raised my flag to be involved in a bitter confrontation, and I will try my best to resist temptation now. I share the view that it is unnecessary, really. I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that my delegation has always respected all views expressed. We consider that is the only way to respect fully a solemn principle, otherwise the international principle and each international agency would not be able to survive, but I question very much the point raised by the US delegate that he challenged the integrity and motive of many delegations, as he mentioned. It really does not seem to contibute to the final vision that he expressed. I would ask him at least not to challenge the motives and integrity of my own delegation.

I am coming now to the point I wanted to raise even after Mr. West’s information. I believed even until this afternoon that I had read already all pros and cons in the programme of work and budget but in the afternoon, or better, at the end of the morning’s session as well as in the afternoon, I heard some new arguments, and I would like to clarify our own thinking on at least two points.

One is whether a contribution of any country to the assessed budgets of international organizations in the United Nations System represents or does not represent part of official development assistance. I will refrain from making any reference to the so-called methodology or agreed methods within the ODA Committee of OECD which shows quite clearly that the contribution to the FAO budget is not part of the ODA and is not counted accordingly.

Of course, it could be argued, and everybody has certainly argued, that the part of the budget of the FAO and in particular the TCP is the sort of programme which could be compared with the ODA type of assistance, and I fully agree; but to our minds, especially since we have heard one option, it is the feeling of these bodies that more should be done through FAO. When I am referring to FAO I am referring to TCP only because it is the only part of FAO which could be compared with the official development assistance or perhaps the views of the Director-General.

If this option is seriously open, I am even optimistic to the extent of believing that an agreement in this Commission and this Conference could be reached in a minute, and as far as my delegation is concerned the answer is, “Yes”, we would prefer a much greater increase in TCP at the expense of indirect bilateral aid of donor countries.

In that regard I have to ask two questions. One is whether really some countries pretend that their bilateral programmes are more efficient than the programme of FAO. I think this is a crucial argument in our debate. We have to hear, at least as far as part of FAO is concerned, which is called TCP. Secondly if this option is seriously open then I think we have to debate it and reach a full consensus in this Commission.

J.L.F. BUIST (United Kingdom): I listened very carefully to the Assistant Director-General and delegates who have spoken and I made some notes of what they had said, and I am grateful to them for taking so seriously the remarks which I made this morning. I would like to assure the delegate from the Congo in particular that there is no intention on the part of my delegation or of myself personally to insult Africa, from which indeed I have learned much which I value, and where I had very many personal friends; and equally I am sure Mr. West had no such intention to insult Africa in telling his experience there and telling his little story at the beginning of what he had to say.

I was glad to note the preference of the delegate of the Congo for multilateral assistance. It is, of course, inherent in all such assistance - and this is the basic principle about which the Group of 77 as well as the DAC donors though not all others insist - that the resources of the institutions which are multilateral should be distributed on the principle of the best use of the money. I am quite certain that the Director-General, Mr. West and their staff, feel obliged in the interest of the doctrines which Mr. West has only just reaffirmed to apply these principles ruthlessly. So let us have no more talk about relative procurement and all the rest of it. Value for money is what counts, and so long as the Organization manages to secure that value we do not ourselves care where the chips may fall.

I would like thirdly to reaffirm that while I will be studying rather carefully the comments of the Assistant Director-General on the points which I made, naturally I would like to check them against my own understanding of the facts. None of my comments were made in a frivolous or vain or ulterior way; there was no intention to do anything other than to point to certain trends which we will have to discuss as we go through the budget.

In this respect, Mr. Chairman, I fully endorsed your view that what Mr. West has said will be a useful input, together with what the rest of us will say when we come to the detailed scrutiny.

I would however, like to reaffirm that our remarks about the relative shares of Africa and the other regions are based fairly and squarely on Table B on page 199, the column which talks about the total Regular Programme-not the total Regular and Extra-budgetary Programmes, of course. It is those percentages which I worked out this morning, and it is on that basis that I repeat: FAO is not such a good bet for the use of multilateral aid money or aid money generally as some other multilateral channels for the poorest countries.

On Mr. West’s calculations I was a little surprised - though I always compliment him on his mathematical calculations. But I calculate myself, however, that 5.46 percent of $278 million is indeed $7 1/2 million a year. However, 5.46 percent of $368 million is something like $10 million a year. I can only assume Mr. West has been applying his welcome knife to the size of our likely bill, and if indeed it turns out to be only $8.1 million a year if the budget is carried,instead of $10 million,we shall be a good deal less unhappy than we are now.

Finally, I was grateful to our Yugoslav colleague for drawing attention to another point. I am not myself certain about the DAC basis of accounting although I know it varies quite a lot from the way in which the individual countries make up their aid programmes. However, it did disturb me that he seemed to be arguing that the bulk of the activities of FAO, apart from TCP, were not really of developmental advantage to the developing countries; and of course that assertion, if it has some justification, lends substance to my own argument that contributions to the regular programme generally - though perhaps not the TCP in particular to which we also attach some importance - are not so valuable as some others.

I am sure we will come back to these points and others later on, and I will not take up any more time of this meeting. I must thank our colleagues for the patience with which they have listened to us and assure my US colleague that if I have intervened again now it was not to carry the debate forward in the type of terms which he feared it might follow.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate of the United Kingdom. I suggest that we move now to the debate on Chapters I and II, but I see the delegate of Hungary would like to take the floor first.

P. VANDOR (Hungary): Mr. Chairman, I would like to join the previous delegates in congratulating you on your election. My delegation is convinced that under your guidance we will conclude our work both in time and successfully. Taking into account the twenty minutes which is at our disposal for each delegation on all agenda items I would like to make a combined statement. First, however, I would like to offer two sets of comments, one referring to the Programme of Work itself and the second on the level of the budget, though acknowledging the integral unity and the inseparability of the Programme of Work and of the Budget.

Finally, I would like to put forward a proposal, a draft resolution relating to Chapter II of the document.

As far as the Programme of Work is concerned I would like only to associate myself to all those who commended the Secretariat for the remarkable efforts to compile such a good and comprehensive paper. The Programme is serving adequately the medium-term objectives of FAO.

The different chapters of the Programme may - as a matter of course - be commented upon according to the member nations’ differing food and agriculture priorities. Hungary, for instance, would not have any objections were the programmes on strengthening assistance to up-dating agrarian structure to be given major emphasis. We are, however, happy with the marked action-oriented approach of the Programme of Work and with the efforts of the Secretariat to cut further on administrative and personnel costs.

My comments now refer to the level of the budget. If you look back to our history with FAO you can see that in the past my government always supported the budget of FAO. In 1979 it was only FAO in the whole United Nations system where Hungary supported the proposed budget level.

My government had and has the view that the principle of zero growth should be applied in the whole United Nations system at all international agencies. Adminsitrative cost should be reduced and resources from unnecessary administrative costs and from low priority activities should be shifted to priority activities. This position of my Government is closely related to our economic realities. Hungary finds herself in a not-fully satisfactory financial position because of the well-known world market. situation. The rate of growth of the Hungarian GNP was below 1 percent last year and the prospects for this year are only slightly more promising. My Government, however, is fully aware of the global importance of the food and agriculture issues. We acknowledge the urgent need to find solutions to world food problems and the special role FAO plays in this field. That is because we are not against the budget level proposed by the Director-General at the real-term increase of 5.9 percent. The question of whether we can fully support the budget level is still under consideration by my Government. At this stage I can express only my hope that we will be able to do so when this issue comes back to the Conference for final approval.

Coming now to the proposal of my delegation related to Chapter 2 of the Programme of Work and Budget, which is Technical and Economic Programmes, I would like to commend the Director-General for his successful implementation of Resolution 1/79 establishing World Food Day. We witnessed an outstanding response by nearly all Member States of FAO. We think that the maintenance and enhancement of World Food Day activities on an annual basis require continuous effort and initiative.

My delegation has the honour to put forward to the Resolutions Committee a draft resolution in which we recommend the continuation of the efforts in future years, both in the FAO and at the national level in all member countries of FAO.

CHAIRMAN: I understood that the draft resolution moved by the delegate of Hungary has already been passed to the Resolutions Committee and upon review by the Committee we will have this resolution in Commission II for later debate. At that stage I shall insert the draft resolution for debate in Commission II.

B. SIGURBJORNSSON (Iceland): Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to see you, chairing this Commission and I wish to extend my congratulations to you, Dr Steiner. We are very pleased with the general presentation of the Programme of Work and Budget for 1982-83 and with the tone of the Medium-Term Objectives in the documents distributed. We feel that an effort is being made in the various programmes

to address the main problems of increasing the level of food production in the world. As stated in document C 81/3, a growth of 4 percent is foreseen annually in food production in the 1980’s. In view of the extent of the existing world food supply problem and the expected population growth during the same period, this would seem to be a necessary goal.

It is difficult to see how such an increase in food production can be achieved unless we vastly increase our efforts to advance agricultural technology in the developing countries. We in Iceland have experience with the work of FAO, both as receivers of development aid and now from the other side of the development fence. From our experience we strongly believe that FAO must strengthen its leadership in the field of agricultural technology and research. It should be in the forefront in the field of agricultural science, emphasising the use in the developing countries of conventional technology as well as the most advanced scientific disciplines such as genetic engineering, remote sensing, nuclear technology, biological control of pests, computer simulation of production models, to mention a few.

The Organization needs to sharpen its focus and raise its priorities in this most important of its tasks. We do not feel that FAO should function primarily as an agency disbursing development aid, although such activities will have to be a major function of the Organization. The FAO should also strengthen its role as an international centre for all Member Nations in the broad fields of food, agriculture, fisheries and forestry,as a focal point for agricultural science and technology, coordination of research and training and a common source of information and statistics.

I entirely agree with the viewpoint expressed by the Assistant Director-General Mr West with regard to FAO’s role in this area. If FAO were to cut meetings and publications further, it would be neglecting an essential and integral part of its functions and some other international body would in any case step in, undoubtedly using funds from the same taxpayers. It is clear that the increases in food production which are required in the coming decades will put an increased strain on our land and water resources, and the introduction of new high-yielding varieties and breeds may further erode the existing genetic resources of the world. Land, water and genetic resources form the very foundation of agriculture and are the most valuable heritage of mankind. We feel that land and water conservation and conservation of genetic resources are amongst the most important aspects of FAO’s work. Increasing food production must not be effected at the expense of depleting this precious heritage. We must not kill the golden goose called earth.

My delegation wants to give full support to the proposed Programme and to the Medium-Term Objectives as outlined in the documents. In view of the general economic difficulties in the world, it can be said that the Director-General’ Budget proposals are at the upper limit for the coming biennium. Nevertheless, we must appreciate the enormity of the problems ahead and the need for funds to carry out the ambitious programmes proposed. We do hope and, in fact, assume that restraint will be shown in the execution of the programme and that the funds appropriated will be efficiently applied to the serious tasks ahead.

CHAIRMAN: Are there any further comments to Chapters 1 and 2?

S.J. KAO (Lesotho): We would prefer to reserve our remarks for tomorrow morning.

CHAIRMAN: That is acceptable.

A.G. NGONGI NAMANGA (Cameroon): We would like to request to speak on this item tomorrow morning and also to make some general comments at that time.

M.A.M. IBRAHIM (original language Arabic) (Sudan): We would prefer to present this statement tomorrow morning, if we may.

S. AIDARA (Sénégal): Je voudrais tout simplement faire une proposition. J’ai l’impression que beaucoup de délégations ne sont peut-être pas prêtes à faire leur déclaration cet après-midi. Etant donné qu’il est déjà 17 h 30 passées, ne pourrions-nous pas lever la séance afin de permettre aux délégations soit de se consulter, soit de consulter leurs documents, afin de préparer leurs commentaires pour le lendemain? Je pense que ce serait une bonne chose si nous pouvions permettre à ces délégations de disposer d^’un peu de temps pour présenter leur déclaration demain.

CHAIRMAN: If it is the desire of the Assembly, we will accept the proposal of Senegal and adjourn the meeting until tomorrow at 9.30 sharp.

The Meeting rose at 17.45 hours
La séance est levée à 17 h 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.45 horas