CHAIRMAN: The Chair would like to call the meeting's attention to the fact that some members have observed that sitting amongst the delegations are some representatives of the Organization. We would. ask anybody who is not a member of a delegation please not to occupy seats reserved for members of this Organization. There are seats for the press in an appropriately marked spot, and there are seats for members of the UN specialized agencies at appropriately marked spots and there are seats for observers.
Lutf AL-ANSY (Yemen Arab Republic)(original language Arabic): First of all I should like to extend my congratulations to you and wish you every success in conducting our debates.
My country would also like to extend its thanks to the Secretariat for the excellent documents that have been put before us. Allow me to support a statement made by my country's Head of delegation in the Plenary. He expressed our support for the Programme of Work and Budget and for the objectives which have been laid down and set out by the FAO. However, there is one point of clarification. To our mind the programme represents the absolute minimum that can be undertaken, particularly given the current circumstances and the probable difficulties that lie ahead. The documents before the Commission, and the negotiations which have taken place within the Commission, show the agricultural situation as it is in the world, and also give an indication of the difficulties that we have to confront. Therefore, we feel that we should do our utmost to coordinate our efforts to support FAO in order that FAO might achieve its objectives and be able to meet our expectations in a way that gives satisfaction to all the Member States of the Organization.
For this reason we would ask that all countries pay their contributions and live up to their financial undertakings. Similarly, we should like to appeal to all countries which can set up their financial support to the Organization to do so.
The FAO ultimately seeks to promote international cooperation in agriculture and food supplies. The FAO is there to meet the expectations of Member States and for that reason it deserves the support of the Member States. I shall confine my remarks to that in order to give time for other delegations to make their statements.
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): Somehow I seem to have lost what I thought was my place in the queue, I am not complaining. It has been a very interesting discussion and listening to it I have been struck by the wide range of suggestions for modifications in the Programme of Work and Budget, both for increases for some items and decreases for others. Of course, not all the suggestions have gone in the same sense. However, what has happened suggests to me in turn that it is a pity that Member States were not able more effectively to put their views on all these matters at a much earlier stage. I will come back to that point later.
Now for my more prepared remarks. The United Kingdom does not waste time in formal congratulations but I do want to thank Mr Shah for so clearly introducing this item. However, I am disappointed that the management have not succeeded in meeting the formal request, which I renewed at the end of the Council discussion, for a detailed statement by sub-programme of actual and expected cash. outturn for the present biennium. In fact, we have been pressing for these figures, without success, for over three years.
Why is this important? It matters in any case because, as Mexico pointed out, there is a clear need for better financial monitoring. It matters especially now because only with those figures can the Conference see what we are really being asked to approve for 1988-89 and set that side by side.with what is actually now going on. Only those figures will show us what programmes are lagging, what flexibility there is if the financial crisis is prolonged, and indeed what priorities, in the sense used by Norway, actually underlie the proposals in the Programme of Work.. Australia rightly drew attention to the comments of the External Auditor on the deficiencies of the present arrangements. We think those should be remedied. Management did tell us, however, at the Council that the actual spending of our contributions, the signing of cheques, could continue for one complete year after 31 December 1987 and for two complete years for the TCP. In other words, the last TCP cheque stemming from the authority of the present budget need only be signed by 31/12/89. I must say that if the role of the TCP is to meet really urgent and emergency needs that arrangement seems to me pretty extraordinary. It is an incentive to slackness and inefficiency and regrettably it also makes the TCP the' first area on which any inescapable cuts are likely to fall. Britain therefore supports the proposal made in Plenary by a developing country minister that the TCP should be pre-planned with a greater input from Member Nations on its allocation and distribution. Those were the exact words. And much more consciously integrated into the national spending plans of the recipient. The Representative of another developing country also called in the Council for a much more realistic approach to the Budget. I agree with him. Realism demands that we compare first of all actual cash outturn with expected actual cash spending. Since cheques can be signed for a full year after the biennium for non-TCP items and two full years for the TCP, we need to know what cash carryovers there will be for 1986-87 and when they will mature: in 1988 for most items, in 1989 for at least part of the TCP. We also need to know what cash spending is projected and when for the budget we are now asked to approved. Will the Management please now give us those projections. It appears to us that the budget is drawn up without regard to outflows. Allocations and commitments are made under it but the cash does not necessarily go out. Yet Member States are asked to pay cash which many of them can ill afford. We have heard about the hardships that this causes some of them, both here and in the Council. I am tempted personally to conclude that perhaps we should move over to the system now in force within the soft funds of all the international financial institutions. Payment is made to those funds only with promissory notes which carry no interest. Those notes are then drawn down pro rata as actual cheques are written, taking into account of course the need for a few months' liquidity. Such a system within FAO would prevent members from having to provide money in advance of its actual need. It might also ease the serious problem of arrears. Another aspect of realism is in the starting point from which the growth in the proposed budget ought to be based. Many speakers have argued, as does Management, that it would be a real rise of only 0.25 percent over the present budget. But we are not implementing that budget. It has in practice been modified with the assent of the Council by a cut of US$ 25 million. The base figure for calculating the 1988-89 budget is therefore US$ 412 million, not US$ 437 million. We consider this to be the legitimate figure for calculating growth, and on that basis of course the real increase is for higher than 0.25 percent. Of course, if all the arrears were miraculously liquidated and we could count on all contributions in the next budget being made within the specified time limits, FAO would be looking to a raise in real activity of that kind, but as Colombia has reminded us, the prospects for such a miracle are exceedingly dim. The effect is, therefore, as Australia has pointed out and as France pointed out in the Council, that the rest of us who are meeting our full obligations are in fact paying for the defaulters and the higher the budget level, the more of their burden the rest of us are taking on. Indeed, the higher the demands on Member States the longer the list of defaulters is going to be. I am sincerely impressed by the enthusiasm of so many countries for this draft budget and for their readiness to accept increased new obligation when they are already far behind with their contributions for 1987. I do sincerely hope that this is going to lead to the full and prompt payment of their existing arrears as a token of their support for the Organization and I strongly support the appeal made on this point by Switzerland, the Congo and the Philippines. But while I consider the action announced on Friday by Brazil and today by Mexico and Haiti we do have a real fear that the higher the demands made the greater these defaults and delays. It is a vicious circle. Britain therefore supports what Japan Las said about the level of this budget.
I turn now to the currency question. We believe, like Spain that the right way to deal with this in the future is to adopt the split currency system now in force in the IAEA and UNIDO. In this connection, will Management please tell us whether it is correct - as Norway said that 60 percent of the budget would then be in Lira and 40 percent in American dollars. These figures presumably exist in detail since of course the budget needs to be increased for currency movement reasons only in respect of the Lira element. However, this time round we are stuck with one currency and the U.K. can therefore support the proposal to replenish the Special Reserve Account but 1 frankly say that I cannot see the logic of picking for the biennium an exchange rate pinned to a single day. We have abandoned this system in all the international financial institutions. Instead we look back there over
a representative past period and apply an average. Argentina has now proposed using the exchange rate applied for the 1986-87 biennium. I can support this proposal. But I could envisage it being varied to determine the actual average exchange rate throughout the biennium. One or two countries have suggested that the UN scale of assessment which is transferred into FAO should be modified, by raising the subscriptions of those whose currencies appreciate and vice versa. We must oppose the notion that FAO should go it alone to make such a change. Factors of this kind are surely taken into account when the UN scales are re-examined, and any suggested alterations should therefore be taken up in New York.
I come now to the idea that some more coherent pre-planning should be done on programme and financial priorities. I was sorry to hear a delegation describing this as unconstitutional. Of course it depends what arrangement you make. The United Kingdom does not agree that sensible planning of this kind would simply incite non-payment of contributions. We should strongly deplore any such result. But you do not necessarily have to have a formal core budget and a supplementary budget. There are other ways of indicating what has to come first, what else has been included and indeed what has been left out. The reasons for those choices can then be discussed. Now the Management has argued that a system of this kind would lead to severe incertainties for the relevant staff". I think that the effects on staff morale are much more traumatic if the Organization is suddenly faced with the need to make cuts and then has to act in a haphazard and ill-planned way. All we are asking here is for Management to share with all of-us in good time the broad lines of their thinking about the prior-ities within and between individual activities and to give us all a chance to formulate guidance upon it.
Colombia made specific proposals for this purpose. Since the Conference and the Council are the supreme governing. bodies this is really not an unreasonable request and it certainly is not unconstitutional. We completely endorse the specific remarks of Finland on this. We also broadly welcome the initiative now taken by Italy, while regretting that it has been left to a Member State to make such a suggestion. Proposals for priorities should surely have come from the Management and could still come from the Management to this Conference.
Several countries have proposed shifts of emphasis within the Programme. The distinguished delegate from Colombia spoke of the need for more priority-setting and he was quite right. The ideas of Member States are important and we should be able to make some changes accordingly. There is one area in which some immediate changes could be made to allow for some of these shifts and also to relieve some of the pressure on Regular Programme finances. We have noted from the paper CL 92/4,..paragraphs 379 and following that the Trust Funds donot pay the full costs of their administration. Switzerland has already drawn attention to this point and the facts are clearly shown in the table in paragraph 381 of that paper. That makes it clear that the Regular Brogramme had to provide well over US$ 11 million in 1986 to support Trust Fund operations and that means that all of us, down to the poorest member of FAO, are being asked to subsidize the costs of such operations. We agree with the points made by Switzerland and we therefore appeal to the generosity of those who have provided these much-valued funds to enter into early discussions with Management to ensure that they themselves meet the full costs of delivery. Some of this money might then usefully be reallocated to operational activities such as the Investment Centre and perhaps the TCP, as suggested by Guinea. We ourselves think that some should also go to FAO's internal staff training. This is something essential to better personnel management and to better job and career satisfaction.
Malaysia has referred to the problem of poor staff morale and this is one way in which this might partly be alleviated. As we made clear in the Council, the United Kingdom are against the organization trying to borrow its way out of any financial difficulties.
We are also against any increase in FAO's field representation and we support in this context the view expressed by several developing countries in paper C 87/30 and I quote that "as regards the FAO Country Representatives efforts should be made to reduce costs, through inter alia, shared offices and general services with other UN organizations". We agree both with them and with the Netherlands on this.
I turn now to our own view of the priorities. My Minister set this out for the work programme in the Plenary but I want to illustrate them here by reference to what others have said. I must start with the graphic and down-to-earth plea made by Zambia which critized the FAO for sticking too rigidly to a commodity-by-commodity, speciality-by-speciality approach and for not considering first the integrated farm management problems faced by small peasants on the ground in their specific locality.
Poland added to that a powerful plea for much more macro-economic and sectoral policy assistance to individual countries, also now endorsed by Venezuela and Switzerland. Nothing could better illustrate the need for much closer inter-disciplinary links between FAO's various divisions and the need for a much more specific country approach. These are exactly some of the points that we want examined by a professional management review and by an independent high-level study.
On the programme's geographical distribution we support the calls by the Congo and Algeria for maintenance of the high share now going to Africa. But while the table on page 257 shows that Africa has a proper priority, it also shows a figure of only 29 percent for Asia and the Pacific and the forecast for the TCP in Chapter 4, paragraph 27, is even worse - only 26 percent. The figures are grossly insufficient given the huge numbers of rural poor for whom the governments of the region are responsible. These specific activities to which we believe FAO should give priority in its programme, whatever the size, are as follows:
The global information and early-warning system: this was also endorsed by Lesotho, Malaysia and Barbados among others; regional pest control, including post-harvest losses: this was also endorsed by Lesotho, Algeria and Chile; soil and water management, especially in Africa: this was commended by Brazil and Argentina, but I agreed particularly with what was said about it by Zambia; The Codex Alimentarius was supported also by Barbados, Switzerland, Swaziland and Mexico. The next item ispredictions on land capacity, and that links it to Poland's call for work on more rational land use activity; then the production of relative statistics; but I endorse the call here by Egypt, Switzerland and Argentina for more rationalization and reduction in publications; and the improvement of developing country statistical services, which means institutional and training support, as stressed among the others by Kenya and Jordan.
However, I must single out for special mention the Tropical Forestry Action Plan for community forestry, especially as integrated with other land use. 1 cannot better what Finland and Zambia said about this. We also support The Netherlands in proposing some cut-back in industrial policy to make use of these other activities.
Finally, on the Programme, Italy underlined (as we do) the need for much closer work from FAO in conjuction with IFAD and the UNDP. Lesotho, Mexico and Barbados praised, as we do, the Investment Centre. I think this shows that the United Kingdom does have a consistent and practical view of FAO's priorities which finds very many echoes elsewhere. Nevertheless I have to say that in spite of the welcome further shift away from administrative operational activities, our overall conclusions are that the priorities are still not articulated in a convincing way, especially in the light of the financial crisis, that there is an unfortunate lack of transparency, especially on cash spending, that there is a failure to demonstrate the necessary close correspondence in time between the collection and the use of contributions, that erecting a new programme of this size on top of the present revised programme, is likely to worsen the problem of arrears and that in consequence the skewing of burdens between Member States will get worse. All these factors make it impossible for us to support the budget as now supposed.
CHAIRMAN: That concludes our list of speakers on this topic. At this point in the agenda it is in order for us to have a brief presentation by the Deputy Director-General. That will be followed by a specific response to specific questions raised by the Director, Mr Shah. At that point, if any member country has already raised a specific question with the Secretariat to which they feel the Secretariat has not responded, it would be in order for that country to call the Secretariat's attention to this failure to respond or to have given an inadequate response. A question could then be answered by the Secretariat.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: The Commission has been considering the Programme of Work and Budget. I should like to say a few words, first about the Programme of Work and then about the Budget. The substantive contents of the Programme of Work submitted to the Conference have not, I believe, given rise to major controversy in the course of this discussion. I do not say that all delegations agree with all the activities that we are planning to undertake. Many delegations have indicated that they would have preferred a higher priority to be given to certain types of activity and lower priority to others. Nevertheless, by and large I would say that the fundamental problems facing the Conference are not so much relating to the Programme of Work as to the Budget. On the Programme
of Work, Mr Shah will be answering specific questions and re-emphasizing the process by which the priorities in the document before you have been built up.
On the Budget, this provides for what I would call marginal growth in real terms: 0.25 percent. However, bearing in mind that the provision for coping with cost increases looks ever more likely to be insufficient, unfortunately there may well be at the end of the line a slight negative growth within the framework of a Budget that is approximately stable in real terms, however, there is a major increase in the assessments in dollar terms facing Member Nations. I would point out that we are now discussing the Budget as such. Other questions, such as the Special Reserve Account and the Working Capital Fund, will be coming up separately in Commission III.
In a time of very great economic difficulties for most countries in the world, and extreme difficulties for many, we are well aware of the unwelcome nature of this increase in dollar assessments. Furthermore, we recognize the fact that it falls somewhat unfairly. Some countries - the lucky ones in this context - will find themselves actually paying less in national currencies for their contributions to the FAO budget. Others will pay very considerably more - more even than the percentage increase in the dollar contributions. There is absolutely nothing that FAO can do to counter this highly differentiated and in many respects unfair impact of the change in assessments.
However, it does place an additional responsibility on the Secretariat to ensure that funds and resources made available to us for the next biennium are used in the most effective and efficient manner possible. We shall spare no effort to see that the money made available under the Programme of Work and Budget is handled and set to use in the best possible manner for the benefit of the membership at large.
For the Budget level, there have been many who would have preferred a lower level and others would have preferred a higher. I can only say that considering the many representations that have been made as this Programme of Work and Budget was built up, the Director-General has put forward a budget level I would describe as fair - fair to the membership, and particularly to those who are looking to FAO to provide assistance in their development, and fair to those who are seeking to minimize the amount of taxpayers' money put forward to international organizations.
Besides the level of the Budget in absolute terms, a lot of concern expressed in this debate has related to the possibility of an income shortfall. This will be dealt with in much more detail in Commission III and, for instance, it is to Commission III that we shall be circulating the information on cash out-turn which was requested by one delegation in the Council Session.
There appears to have been an impression among some delegations - I may be wrong and I say "appears" - that by reducing the budget level we would solve the problem of late payment of the arrears. This, I must very strongly emphasize, is simply not correct. We have a major problem of late payments and arrears in the present biennium and I venture to predict that we shall have a similar problem at virtually any budget level. I do not believe it would be appropriate or meaningful for the Conference, within the framework of the budget, to make special allowances for such late payments or arrears for any Member Nation, either the largest or the smallest. To incorporate in the decisions on budget specific planning for late payment or non-payment would surely lead to the unravelling of the entire system on which the Organizations of the United Nations and many other international organizations have been built up in the post-war years.
The basic approach, I would urge, must be to adopt a Budget and a Programme of Work in line with the sacred texts of the Organization. At the same time, the Conference needs to set up a mechanism for coping with income shortfalls if and when they arise. Such a mechanism is proposed in a draft resolution presented by Italy and mentioned by the delegation of our host country this morning. It is contained in LIM|32 and will be going to Commission III, but I should like to draw attention to it now.
It proposes in substance three things, if indeed there is a liquidity problem and an income shortfall in the next biennium. These three things are: that the Director-General should consult the Finance Committee and the Programme Committee at the earliest possible stage if it appears likely that savings and programme adjustments may be required, to use the wording in the resolution. Also the Conference would delegate to the Council the powers that are necessary for deciding on savings and programme adjustments that the situation may call for. In the third place, the Director-General should, if necessary, advance the date of the Council Session now scheduled for November next year
or call a special session of the Council if necessary. This approach will be before Commission III for discussion and decision. But I would like to say here that it appears to us to represent a valid method for coping with the possible continuation of our financial problems in the next biennium. It is, I am convinced, going to be virtually impossible before the end of the Conference to make a reliable forecast of our cash situation in 1988 and 1989. We shall present some very, very tentative figures in Commission III but I do not believe that they are sufficiently solid for planning purposes at this stage.
The role of the Finance Committee will be to examine the financial situation and decide or recommend on the level of any cuts in activities that may be necessary in order to cope with a new generation of problems. We would wish from the Secretariat side to reduce to a minimum the element of improvisation which we have had to adopt in the course of the present biennium to cope with our liquidity problems. The phraseology that I would suggest for 1988-89 would be "orderly re-programming". Any orderly re-programming that may be necessary would go to the Programme Committee. From the Programme Committee it would go to the Council. So the Finance Committee assesses the financial situation and outlook, the Programme Committee looks at the programme changes that are necessary, and the Council takes the decisions.
Now, in spending quite a few of my words on methods of coping with financial problems in the next biennium I do not wish to give the impression that the Organization is necessarily heading for really major difficulties. I would like to draw a distinction between the short-term, the medium-term and the long-term outlook. For the short-term, I hope I may be permitted to take as a major example the payment of contributions from our largest contributor. The 1986 contribution from the United States, as appropriated, was paid at various dates in 1987. The 1987 contribution we expect to be paid early in 1988. Now, the payment of the appropriated contribution after the end of the calendar year to which it applies does create short-term cash flow problems. That I would cite as an element of the short-term problem. There remains a significant portion of the assessed contribution of the United States which has not. been appropriated. In the case of our calendar year 1987 the full contribution was requested but it is unlikely that the full contribution will be authorized and appropriated. There is thus a substantial residual amount neither authorized nor appropriated in the category of arrears. We have heard the delegation of the United States confirming that this part of its contribution is not repudiated. This creates a medium-term problem for the Organization. However, I would very strongly underline that there is no long-term financial problem.
One delegation requested in the course of the debate whether we have a plan for the use of the United States' arrears when they come. There is no problem we should be happier to solve, but I am sure we can handle that one when we get there.
In looking at the basis approach to what I have called orderly re-programming I would like to answer a question in the thoughtful statement by the delegate of Norway. I believe that we shall find ourselves adopting three basic criteria in any re-programming process. The basis would have to be a linearcut; this is unavoidable. However, it would be modified by the selection of what I might call areas of priority. In fact this means areas to be protected from cuts. The selection of these areas of priority or areas of protection will take account of the many observations made in the course of this debate.
The third criterion inevitably must be the contractual situation of staff in various areas of activity in the Organization. Many of our staff members are mobile and can be easily shifted from one type of activity to another: others are not. Highly technical staff must carry out the technical work for which they are trained. This is a situation which must be taken into account when the final decisions are worked out.
I have attempted to outline the basic ways in which we see the problems of the next biennium being tackled. Mr Shah will answer a number of specific questions advanced by various delegations. But I would like to say in conclusion, that following this debate delegations will be preparing for their vote in Plenary on 19 November on the Programme of Work and Budget. I would urge all delegations to rally behind this Programme of Work and Budget as the fairest that could possibly be put together in the difficult circumstances which face not just FAO but most international organizations. The Director-General has made great efforts to achieve a consensus and I would appeal on his behalf -for a unanimous vote in favour of the Programme of Work and Budget on 19 November.
V. J, SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The debate has been very rich in expressions of opinion and also in a number of questions which have been put to me.. I will try to proceed methodically.
First 1 would like on behalf of the Secretariat to express our appreciation for the generous contribution announced by the delegate of Turkey who indicated his Government's interest in support for a regional agricultural development and training centre in Ankara. My colleagues and I will certainly pursue this proposal with him to bring it to fruition in the best way possible.
Our thanks also to the delegate of Burkina Faso who announced this morning the Government's decision to defer its share of the cash surplus from 1984-85. This generous gesture added to those of other countries who have made the same decision is indeed of great help to the Organization.
The delegate of Italy asked a question last week about the reduction in posts and asked for clarification whether the number was 20 or 25. The number is indeed 25. The reason why the Table in Annex C of the document shows 20 is because, as the footnotes to that page indicate, posts in the Investment Centre are not included in that Table, have not been in all previous documents, being a joint programme with the World Bank, and three of the four interpreter posts which are also to be abolished are from the interpreter pool. So the three interpreter posts and the two posts in the Investment Centre constitute the other five posts.
The delegate of Argentina inquired about a figure of US$ 510 000 which appears under Programme 1.2.1, the Programme dealing with the Director-General's office, and enquired what extra budgetary project this figure refers to. This figure does not refer to any project. It refers to that part of the support costs, overhead costs, which the Organization receives and which are distributed among a number of offices and units, including the Director-General's office, the reason of course being that a number of units are involved in the direction in the policy guidance of all funds, all programmes of the Organization, and there is no attempt made to indicate individual posts, but to distribute pro rata the extra budgetary support costs received.
The same delegation enquired about the reduction in the Liaison Office in Geneva and whether this was reasonable at a time when we expect much closer collaboration with GATT in the context of the Uruguay Round. I would suggest that the two things be looked at fairly, separately and clearly. The collaboration with GATT will indeed have to be close, will have to be substantive, and it is the kind of collaboration which will have to be extended from the technical and the specialist staff, particularly of the Commodities and Trade Division at headquarters, and is not the kind of collaboration which can be expected to be provided by any one person in a liaison office.
Certainly if we had not had to reduce our budget level it might have been desirable to retain that post as it was but in the present circumstances it was felt that it was a course which had to be resorted to while recognizing that the substantive collaboration with GATT and with UNCTAD will, if anything, have to be closer in the foreseeable future.
A number of questions were raised about priorities and here, with all respect, if I may say that, it was a statement of the delegate of Denmark which struck a cord of the greatest understanding, at least on my part in the secretariat because that statement recognized and explained in a very clear way how the process of priority establishment or priority setting is a long and a complex process. It is based on the guidance of governing bodies. It is based on the whole range of recommendations which are made to the Secretariat in geographical fora, such as that of the regional conferences, in technical sector fora, such as that of the Council committees, and in specialist fora, such as all inter-governmental meetings in which FAO is involved and, and I repeat, and from the distillation of all the requests which are made in the course of every year and every biennium to the secretariat for programme support for Member Nations. So it is a long and a complex process. The delegate also made it clear that it is the guidance and the policy directives of the governing bodies which are important and we, as Secretariat, absolutely recognize the importance of these directives. But the third step, that of distilling the programme priorities is essentially a management process. This also was recognized by the delegates. It is a managerial task, the results of which are then offered to you again for your endorsement or rejection and certainly the debate which this Conference and _this Commission in particular has shown to us over the last two and a half days is that there is a large measure of endorsement, a large measure of recognition of the major priorities that you, Member Nations, individually attach importance to and that you, Member Nations, are prepared to
join others in endorsing. There are differences. There are differences in perception; there are differences in the priority to which an individual Member Nation attaches importance. To give two examples; the FAO representative offices; opinions have been expressed in both directions; the importance of pursuing the establishment of. four new offices; this is the view expressed by many; I will not do a member's count. There has been a view expressed by others, perhaps many, perhaps several, that they should have a lower priority in the present circumstances but these are differences of opinion which the secretariat respects and tries to reconcile. This is precisely why the Director-General reduced the amount he proposed for the expansion of FAO representative offices from US$ 950 000 to US$ 550 000; it is a specific response to try and reconcile different points of view.
Another outstanding example of differing perceptions is your perception of the Technical Cooperation Programme. At least there is no expression that I heard questioning the basic utility, the usefulness, the value of the Technical Cooperation Programme but there are differences as to its level of the budget, as a proportion of the total budget; a figure of 17 percent has been mentioned instead of the proposed level of 14 percent. There are others who are content that it is not going to rise further in the next biennium. There are some, at least one, who mentioned that they would prefer not to see it as part of the regular budget. Again this is an area where the Director-General has tried to respond in the most reasonable realistic manner and his proposal has been for the next biennium to say no programme increase for the Technical Cooperation Programme.
In this connection an opinion, a veiled criticism was expressed of the Programme and Finance Committees on the grounds that they do not change more the proposals submitted by the secretariat. Now I should only say that this question would be better addressed to the Programme and Finance Committees but as there is no one person who represents the Programme and Finance Committees, their Chairman being here in the case of the Finance Committee and not being here present in the case of the Programme Committee, one explanation I would give is that that same delegation may wish to ask itself whether this is not because considered debate and discussion the Committees came to a certain conclusion. They came to the conclusion that after expressing different points of view they, as a Committee, did not feel it necessary to recommend greater changes. Certainly they recommend changes; certainly members of the Committees do, and the Committees themselves, and these are points of veiw which are taken into account by the Secretariat.
A specific question was also raised by a number of delegations about the growth for the Major Programme, Forestry. The importance attached to this sector is very well recognized. Is the growth proposed insufficient? To those who seek greater growth it may appear certainly insufficient but in the present circumstances it is not felt possible to propose a greater allocation but let us look at some figures, comparative figures. The growth in the Major Programme, Agriculture over the present base works out at 2.21 percent; the growth for the Major Programme, Fisheries, at 2.23 percent; the growth for the Major Programme, Forestry, at 3.64 percent. So you see that even in terms of absolute amounts certain Member Nations may wish to have seen a bigger increase on forestry, there is a discrimination in favour of forestry in the net programme increase proposed and I should also draw attention to the amount of extra budgetary funds which forestry enjoys; forestry with a regular programme base of US$ 18.4 million in the regular programme is expected to have extra budgetary support of some US$ 87 million in the next biennium.
A number of delegations also asked about the share of particular regions. Now the figures, of course, are there in the Annex but I would like to draw attention to one aspect. The table which was quoted by some delegations was the table on page 257 of the English text which deals with all funds, regular programme and extra budgetary. Now, it is well known that the extra budgetary funds are estimates for each region; we have no direction over them; they depend on decisions made elsewhere. So what we can comment on more realistically is the share of the regular programme funds proposed to be devoted to each region and looking at the regular programme funds let us first separate the funds which are for global activities because those are of potential benefit to all member regions. Doing this we then find that the share of Latin America and the Caribbean in 1986-87 was 19 percent; in the next biennium it would be 20.87 percent. In percentage terms the increases are not dramatic, from 19 to 20.8, 21 percent but it does show, we hope, that the needs of other regions are constantly examined and taken into account from one biennium to another.
The Deputy Director-General has already referred to one query about what would happen to the contributions in arrears were they suddenly to be paid up. Following his analogy and to take the outlook for the short term, if these arrears of contributions were paid up in the immediate future the first call on these funds at the beginning of the next biennium would be to replenish the Working Capital Fund for the amount of US$ 13.3 million for which it would have been drawn from the Working Capital Fund, and then to go to the replenishment of the Special Reserve Account above the level of 2.5 percent of the budget for which a special assessment is being sought. This would be the first two calls on the payment of arrears in the immediate future.
This brings me to reply to those questions raised about the Working Capital Fund, the Special Reserve Account and the contributions and assessments of Member Nations. As the Deputy Director-General has said, we, you, the Conference, Commission III will go into much more detail on these aspects but there are certain questions which, as they were raised in the context of this debate, I feel I should reply to now. The Working Capital Fund; this was referred to, among others, by the delegate of Switzerland and by the delegate of Norway and a specific question put to us whether it was considered appropriate by the Secretariat to use the Working Capital Fund, or to draw on the Working Capital Fund, at the end of this biennium. The Regulation under which we would draw on the Working Capital Fund is the Financial Regulation 6, paragraph 6.2(a)(i) which says "Advancing monies to the General Fund to finance budgetary expenditures pending receipt of contributions to the budget". Now the question put to the Secretariat is whether we consider this appropriate. I would say that the Secretariat makes no judgement whatsoever on the motivation of the Member Nation which does not honour its contribution, nor does the Secretariat prejudge or try to predetermine what will be the length of time over which these arrears will not be paid. To us the application of this Regulation is clear enough; it is to advance monies to the General Fund pending receipt of contributions for the budget.
This leads me to the second question which was also echoed by the delegate of Switzerland; how will these monies drawn from the Working Capital Fund be replenished? We have no alternative; Financial Regulation 6.5(a) makes it very clear that, as the delegate of Norway himself read from the Regulation, these sums shall be reimbursed from the General Fund, they will have to be reimbursed from the General Fund as soon as feasible but in any case, within the next financial period, that is within the next biennium 1988-89 by programme adjustments if necessary. So if the arrears in contributions are not paid in sufficient level to permit replenishment of the Working Capital Fund by US$ 13.3 million, the amount to be drawn upon, then that amount will have to be found from programme adjustments in the next biennium.
There is one last aspect of the Working Capital Fund. There is perhaps not enough clarity about what is being requested from Member Nations. I hope that I have made it clear that the amount up to $ 13.3 million is not being requested from Member Nations in any new assessment. What is being requested is the increase of the Working Capital Fund, the amount of the increase from $ 13.3 millionto $ 20 million, so it is $ 6.7 million which would constitue the new assessment on Member Nations applicable 1 January 1988.
Turning now to the Special Reserve Account, the currency effects have been commented upon both in the context of this biennium and as regards their implications for the next biennium. Let us briefly review the scene. We had a Special Reserve Account of $ 22 million for this biennium. It was not sufficient to offset the negative impact of the dollar depreciation. There will be an additional amount of some $ 7.5 million which we will have to absorb in the budgetary provision of this biennium. How does this compare with some other Organizations - ILO $ 36 million; WHO $ 41 million; UNESCO $ 40 million; UN $ 77 million. I hope it will be noted that the FAO figure is the lowest - why? It is because the adverse impact of currency adjustment is not permitted by you or by your predecessors, to be applied to the whole FAO budget. We can apply it only to the post-adjustment component for professional staff salaries and,for the general service salaries in Rome, that is why the impact is lower than it would be if the whole budget were to be adjusted because of currency adjustments. What have other Organizations done? In the United Nations there was a supplementary appropriation of $ 35 million. The ILO took the amount from the Working Capital. The WHO drew the full amount from the casual income facility. At UNESCO there was a combination of a supplementary estimate plus the use of miscellaneous income and cash surplus. So, there has been nothing wrong. We have used the Special Reserve Account for the purpose for which it was intended. The provision was not even enough and we have had to absorb half of the impact on the budget. So much for this biennium.
Turning to the next biennium, if the change from 1 760 lire to say,1 250 lire, if the next budget were to be approved at 1 250 lire that change constitutes a decrease of 29 percent. If the same rate were applied to the proposed budget, you would see a budget level not of $ 490 million, or $ 486 million, you would see a budget level of $ 582 million. So, once again, what we are saying is purely and simply that the currency impact is to be applied to the budget level proposed in constant dollar terms.
Here I would like to recall a very enlightened view expressed by the distinguished delegation of the United Kingdom no now, but in fact in the Council two years ago. They said "donors would not wish to impose the vagaries of currency fluctuations and cost changes on to the International Organizations. They wished neither to penalize them for changes in the wrong direction nor give them the benefit of changes the other way round. The fairest arrangement is to fix the programme in real terms and permit Member States to cope with the inconvenience of most of these capricious factors." A very enlightened view and in fact, if we look at the results of all this, the results on the budget level, what do we find? We find that the budget level at 1 250 lire to the dollar would be $ 490 860 000 as compared to $ 437 million for this biennium. That is an increase in dollar terms of 12.32 percent. I can only follow my Deputy Director-General in echoing his hope and conviction that this does represent a very carefully considered judgement in terms of the budget level, especially if you compare it also to Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium which have been approved in some of our sister Organizations. In the World Health Organization the effect of the working level of the budget increased from $ 543 million to $ 634 million, an increase of 16.7 percent. The FAO proposal of 12.32 percent can be seen perhaps in its perspective. In the case of the International Labour Organization the increase was at 16.1 percent - 16.1 percent as against 12.32 percent.
In the case of assessments of Member Nations, in the World Health Organization assessments of Member Nations increased by 24.5 percent. In the case of FAO at the level I have just quoted the increase in assessments would be 20.99 percent, let us say 21 percent.
In reply to the questions posed, I have tried to communicate and convey the spirit of the entire proposals which I had the honour to introduce last week. The spirit of the sincere desire of the Director-General and of the Secretariat that this Conference will recognize the efforts made to permit you the Member Nations to reach a consensus. It seems to us that we are not far from the consensus and that it is within your reach. We pray that you will grasp it. Thank you, Sir.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Shah. At this point the Chair has indicated that it is in order for member countries who have had questions directed to the Secretariat and who want clarifications or feel that the question was not responded to, to have the opportunity now to address those questions through the Chair.
Juan Manuel GALVEZ B. (Honduras): Considero que mi pregunta no ha sido contestada. Quizás lo fue indirectamente. Quiero repetirla. Sin embargo, considero necesaria una explicación. Necesito hacer una explicación a manera de introducción para que no exista el peligro de que se interpreten mis aclaraciones como una manera de abrir una nueva ronda de debates sobre el tema 13. No es esa mi intención, y es por eso que primero y antes de hablar solicito su permiso y el de los presentes para agregar unas palabras a lo que dije anteriormente. No sé si ha habido una confusión con los intérpretes, porque yo no estoy escuchando la traducción, pero quiero advertirles que había escrito unas cortas palabras antes de pedir este permiso y no quiero que se vayan a confundir al hacer la lectura. Voy a tratar de ajustarme lo más posible al texto de las palabras que ellos tienen en sus manos, pero me voy a ver obligado a hacer ciertos ajustes a medida que vaya hablando. Quiero primero saber si tengo el permiso del Presidente y de los presentes para hacer esa pequeña aclaración.
CHAIRMAN: Please indicate whether I am interpreting your remarks correctly, are you asking the Chair to do what it did earlier for Italy and Algeria on a point of clarification? Complete your remarks, in this instance I understand them to clarify a question.
Juan Manuel GALVEZ B. (Honduras): Yo considero que mi pregunta no ha sido contestada.
CHAIRMAN: I understand that as part of that you are going to expand. Please do so and if you can please state your questions through the Chair. The Chair will put it to the Secretariat and ask them to respond directly to your questions. Please proceed.
Juan Manuel GALVEZ B. (Honduras): ¿Puedo hacer la introducción sin que se interprete como que se está reanudando el debate?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Juan Manuel GALVEZ B. (Honduras): Agradezco que me conceda nuevamente la palabra para agregar un poco más a los comentarios que hice en mi primera intervención. Personalmente, me enorgullece poder decir que no hubiera aceptado representar a mi país si no estuviera convencido de que, para Honduras, los objetivos principales son la libertad, la democracia y la paz. Sus ciudadanos creemos firmemente que no puede haber democracia sin libertad y que estos dos requisitos son esenciales para alcanzar la paz.
Espero que este corto preámbulo ayude a que se conozca mejor a una nación pobre y pequeña con gran des deseos de hacer aportes significativos a la confraternidad universal, a una nación dispuesta a entablar amistad con cualquier país del mundo siempre que esto no obstaculice sus objetivos, no lesione sus intereses, ni comprometa su dignidad.
Honduras es uno de los países fundadores de la FAO y, a pesar de enfrentar serias dificultades financieras, siempre se ha interesado por mantener al día el pago de sus contribuciones. Por eso siente especial preocupación al notar que en esta Conferencia existe un ambiente de discordia que puede obstaculizar la noble labor que debemos desarrollar. Si se continúa fomentando la división y la desconfianza entre ricos y pobres, grandes y pequeños, poderosos y débiles, será muy difícil lograr la solidaridad necesaria para actuar con rapidez, lo cual es.muy importante para que la ayuda sea oportuna. Nuestro Director General en su introducción al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1988/89 señala con mucho acierto que sigue sin cambiar la magnitud y la urgencia de los problemas del hambre en el mundo.
Me permito sugerir que sería conveniente, para agilizar nuestro trabajo, analizar cada país individualmente para poder formar grupos integrados de acuerdo con sus necesidades y con la urgencia de las mismas. Esto permitiría reunir a los representantes de los países que enfrentan problemas similares para que puedan discutirlos y, con la asesoría de expertos de la FAO, proceder a resolverlos. Aceptemos de una vez que nuestro presupuesto para el próximo bienio tiene que ser' muy reducido y que será necesario hacer lo máximo con lo mínimo.
Estoy seguro que el Director General sabrá hacer uso de las estructuras existentes y de los recursos que tenga a su disposición para cumplir con su responsabilidad, sin embargo, necesita estar respaldado por la buena voluntad de cada uno de ellos para contribuir, en la medida de sus posibilidades, al éxito de la difícil tarea que tiene la obligación moral de asumir.
Por lo expresado anteriormente, Honduras no tiene inconveniente en aprobar el programa de labores para 1988/89 tal como ha sido presentado.
En lo que se refiere al presupuesto hice una solicitud al Director General para que nos dijera claramente cuáles son las cifras del presupuesto sobre las cuales existe incertidumbre, pues nadie puede saber eso mejor que aquellas personas que hicieron los cálculos. En otras palabras, mi pregunta se refería a incertidumbre, no considero que pueda ser contestada diciendo que se ha presentado un presupuesto justo. Para mayor claridad lo que deseo saber es si el presupuesto es realista o no.
CHAIRMAN: Would the Secretariat please explain, to the Representative of Honduras why the Secretariat feels that the budget is realistic or would you please explain to him why the Secretariat feels that the budget is unrealistic. His question leaves you free to go either way.
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I hope you do not expect me to repeat two and a half days debate in answering the question, but in all seriousness I will fry to. What are the elements of uncertainty as regards the budgetary contributions for the next biennium? First of all, we rely on the contributions of the Member Nations in a timely and full manner. Our experience so far has shown that for a significant number of countries who have difficulty in making their payments in full and in time, there are nevertheless payments of arrears each year which reduce the greater part of this level of uncertainty. To give you an example: we started this biennium with arrears from Member Nations of some US$ 24 million and during this biennium we have received or expect to receive payments of these arrears of some US$ 22 million or just over. The same thing may be expected in the next biennium. The greater part of the arrears of these Member Nations may be expected to be covered by the next biennium by payments against these arrears. The element which we have never encountered before is the unprecedented amount in the contributions due from the largest contributor with the result that the largest contributor will in this biennium be not the largest contributor but the largest delinquent because the amount owing would be some US$ 67 million which is more than from any one Member Nation. Now the uncertainty is there. When will this amount be paid? At what time? To what extent? This is the area of uncertainty. The third aspect of potential uncertainty is the amount of miscellaneous income which is taken into account in determining the level of assessments. The experience in this biennium was that the estimate of miscellaneous income at US$ 41 million was totally unrealistic and faced us with a real problem. The estimate of miscellaneous income for the next biennium has been made, as advised to us by the Council and by the Finance Committee on a conservative basis at US$ 11.7 million so this is not an area where we would expect to run into problems. I hope I am responding adequately to the distinguished Delegate of Honduras.
CHAIRMAN: Honduras indicates he is content.
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I have in fact questions to put to both the Management staff who have given the answers so far. I am in your hands as to whether you wish me to put them all at once or to put the first question to the Deputy Director-General and the others to Mr Shah.
CHAIRMAN: It might be easier for the Secretariat to respond to questions and it might be easier for all of us to listen and judge those responses if we took them in order. Please state one at a time, as precisely as you can to assist them in responding, through the Chair, the question you would like answered.
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I thought I heard the Deputy Director-General say, and I was most amazed by it, that if there were a lower budget it would not do anything to solve the arrears problem because that was there anyway and it would not be affected by the size of the budget. Can I ask the Deputy Director-General whether he is really saying that a higher budget, given all the other points which we have been considering, a higher budget which is proposed is not likely to intensify, to worsen, the problem of arrears?
CHAIRMAN: I believe the Deputy Director-General has no difficulty understanding that direct question.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: What I said was that at no level of the budget would it be possible to eliminate the problem of arrears and late payments. We already have at the level of the current biennium, 1986-87, a very serious problem of arrears and shortfalls. I did not say that the problem would not get worse, but I said it could not be solved by lowering the budget level. That is what I said.
CHAIRMAN: Does that clear the United Kingdom's point?
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I think that clears up the first point. The second point is to Mr Shah. He corrected the figures which I had given in relation to the geographical distribution of the Programme when we mistakenly looked at the table on page 257 and I think I said then that this showed a figure for Asia and the Pacific of only 29 percent - a figure which I found low. Can Mr Shah confirm that in the figures he has just given us - he was using the table on page 258, leaving aside the global element. It seems to me that that must have been 10. On that figure the Latin American/Caribbean regions would have 20.6 percent as he suggests but I am horrified to see that Asia and the Pacific would then receive 22.5 percent of the allotted regular programme expenditure. Is that correct?
CHAIRMAN: Is that correct?
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I can confirm that it is the table on page 258 and the figures are indeed as given there and as interpreted by the distinguished Representative of the United Kingdom. That for Latin America for 1988-89 would be 20.87 percent as I said, and for Asia there would be 22.49 percent - as he said, 22.5 percent.
CHAIRMAN: That answers the question that was put to you clearly.
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I am most grateful for that very clear answer. The next point is in relation to the effect of the currency changes. Mr Shah rightly quoted the British view of two years ago that we were seeking arrangements which would be neutral. That is why we intend to support the proposal in relation to the Special Reserve Account. It is also why we support the split currency budget. But I thought I heard Mr Shah say that - and I may be wrong - that the currency alterations at present are not related to how much of the budget has to be paid out in Lira and how much in Dollars and I know that the distinguished Delegate from Norway asked if these proportions were 60:40. We did not get an answer to that and I asked if we could have it also. I should be most grateful if Mr Shah could confirm that the Lira expenditure is roughly 60 percent and the Dollar expenditure roughly 40 percent of the total. If not, what are the right figures?
CHAIRMAN: Would you respond to the question?
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The answer is: 40 percent in Dollars, 40 percent in Lira, 20 percent in other currencies.
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): My last question relates to Forestry on which Mr Shah referred to the possibility of extra budgetary resources and a percentage growth higher than that of other programmes from, however, I would observe, a much lower case. I think in the first place it is surely wrong to presume extra budgetary resources of any kind in any programme. These decisions do not lie in the hands of the organization. What we are looking at is the regular programme activities. But that apart, what is the Management's reaction to the suggestion made by the Netherlands and supported by my delegation that there should be more resources allotted to programme 2.3.1 Tropical Forestry Action Programme and Community Forestry and 2.3.4 while reducing the allocation in respect of 2.3.2 which is Forest Industries? There is surely the possibility even without disturbing the overall total, of improving what is very clearly a general priority demonstrated by all the interventions in this Commission.
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The almost unanimous endorsement of the Tropical Forestry Action Plan has certainly not escaped the Secretariat and we shall do everything possible not only to carry out the mandate given to us for the next biennium but, if I may take something that the Deputy Director-General referred to, as "areas of protection", this will be very specifically an area of intense protection in case of examination of measures to adjust or reduce programmes in the next biennium. It is not the practice of the Secretariat to reissue the proposals of the Programme of Work and Budget during the Conference but I can certainly assure the distinguished Delegate of the United Kingdom that the importance that he and other delegates attach to the specific programmes in the Forestry sector will indeed be taken very carefully into account. As regards the remark made about the percentage increase for the major programme of Forestry in relation to its base figure I have no comment or modification. The remark of the distinguished Delegate was entirely factually correct.
CHAIRMAN: Has the United Kingdom completed its direct question to the Secretariat?
J. LYNCH (Canada): I have two short questions, both for Mr Walton. During the debate a number of delegations referred to what has been called contingency planning, pre-planning, and in his reply Mr Walton responded by indicating, first, that the Italian resolution which was introduced very carefully - I do not think the delegation in Commission III will have much to do in this regard -was a very welcome response to the question of pre-planning or contingency measures. He went on to say that it could not be done at this particular Conference because although the Secretariat had some preliminary figures they were not sufficiently solid for planning purposes.
My question is basically, as we are going to embark in Commission III on a fairly large and important delegation of powers from those of this Conference to the Council and as preliminary figures are available, what obstacle is there in this coming Conference giving preliminary consideration to the type of planning which has been urged by a number of delegations? The second question relates to -
CHAIRMAN: Canada, may I interrupt you? I think it would be preferable for the Secretariat to get their thoughts in proper order and also for all the members to fully understand both questions and the responses. I assure you that we shall take both questions but I think we should take the first question and allow the Secretariat to respond to it. Could the Deputy Director-General please respond?
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: There are several factors of uncertainty at this time. One is the uncertainty regarding the adequacy of the Special Reserve Account in 1988-89. The dollar has gone through very considerable travail in the last few weeks and months and we would have to assess the danger of currency losses over and above the monies which we can expect to be made available in the Special Reserve Account. That is one.
On a more cheerful note, I would recall that the Minister for Agriculture of Italy, in his statement to the Plenary, indicated that his country would make an additional effort to help the Organization and that this would be the subject of an announcement at a later stage. We do not know exactly what that assistance will be, but we have hopes that it will be of a sufficient magnitude that it should be taken into account in estimating the financial position for the next biennium. This is another unknown factor.
Thirdly, our cash flow estimates are based on a simple carrying forward from one year to the next of the level of the United States contribution, at around $25 to 26 million per annum. Any additional information that would suggest that the actual figure receipts from our largest contributor would be higher or lower would also have to be included in the calculations. These are just three of the elements of uncertainty at the present time.
CHAIRMAN: Canada, does that answer your question?
J. LYNCH (Canada): It does not really answer it. We see information which gives some preliminary facts. I do not see any obstacle at all -
CHAIRMAN: Canada, if it does not answer your question, can you please say where it does not do so? Is there a follow-up question?
J. LYNCH (Canada): We began with the three factors that Mr Walton has outlined. With those three factors, can a preliminary estimate of the type of savings and programme adjustments that may be required be made at this Conference? I believe Mr Walton has just identified limitations. He has not put up complete bars to a view of what programme adjustments might be necessary.
CHAIRMAN: The question by Canada is: Is it or is it not possible for such an alternative or refinement to be presented to this Conference now? Could you respond to that?
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: In my view, there are serious practical obstacles to doing so. If we find that we have to take a figure from the air and say that we have to cut our expenditure by 10 percent in the next biennium, this means going back to every department and division in the house and asking them to reprogramme resources at a lower level. This is a major exercise. We do not feel that wo have sufficient justification to launch such a major exercise at the present time: nor are we convinced that had it been done it would have produced meaningful results that could be considered by the Conference in the present state of general uncertainty.
CHAIRMAN: The answer is that it can be done. You had an additional question.
J. LYNCH (Canada): You left your sentence incomplete, Mr Chairman. I think you were going to say "it can be done, but it will not be". My second question relates to priorities. I believe Mr Walton gave a definition and said that a linear cut would be applied, modified by a collection of areas of priority which would be preserved from a linear cut. Mr Walton stated that the comments made in this debate would be taken into account and he seemed to imply all the comments. My question is: to what extent would the Programme priorities which were meticulously Identified in the Budget document be observed in preserving programmes from linear cuts? I am specifically referring to the programme priorities identified by the Secretariat on pages 7 - 12 of the budget document. Will they be used as a key guide and will comments be made in this debate? I am presuming - correct me if I am wrong - that there will be identification of priorities in the budget document.
CHAIRMAN: Did the Deputy Director-General understand the question?
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I think so. The verbatim records of this discussion will be carefully analysed by the Secretariat if we have to embark on the melancholy process of reprogramming. A number of areas have been repeatedly singled out by delegations from all parts of the world as being the areas they consider to be of major priority. These will be put alongside the areas of priority suggested in the draft Programme of Work and Budget before any preliminary decisions are taken as to the way cuts can be applied. I say "preliminary" because it would surely be one of the most important roles of the Programme Committee to advise in this process. Ultimately the results would go to the Council so that the membership would be closely associated with the entire process.
CHAIRMAN: Canada, is that the extent of your questioning?
Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): I appreciate the Deputy Director-General's response to the questions raised from the floor, and particularly those from Switzerland and Norway. I am somewhat apprehensive, however, about the belief that the United States will be able to pay its full 1987 assessment out of the 1988 appropriation. I expressed yesterday my delegation's serious concern over the fact that only the most optimistic forecast would lead to the expectation that such full payment would occur in the short term. I said that while the United States Executive had requested full funding for international organizations, based on information available as at last Friday, our basic expectation overall was, and remains today, that no more than 40 percent of what was requested would be appropriated.
Unfortunately, the medium-term forecasts covering the 1988-89 biennium is no better. If these assertions are accepted as realistic by the Deputy Director-General, how then would the Nordic questions regarding replenishment of the Working Fund be answered under the Financial Rule 6.5?
CHAIRMAN: I believe your question was because there is a difference between proposing and appropriating money, how in the event that the Congress does not approve the President's request, would that affect the particular point raised by the representative of the United States of America.
V. J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The replenishment of the Working Capital Fund for the amount by which it is drawn depends on the payments of the contributions, due as arrears. The payments due from the largest contributor would be the largest part of the arrears,
but other arrears are also due and the replenishment of the Working Capital Fund would be done as a matter of first call - that is, as soon as the arrears of contributions are paid, whoever they come from, they would go first to replenish the Working Capital Fund.
CHAIRMAN: Does any other delegation have questions to put to the Secretariat in response to the questions raised earlier in the discussions? Seeing none, we move on to the next item.
V.J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The documents before you are once again fairly voluminous. We have the main document, the review of the Regular Programme and three supplements, supplements 1, 2 and 3. In addition I should like to draw the Commission's attention to document C 87/LIM/19, which gives the views of the last Session of the Council on this item, together with the views of the Programme Committee, as the Council felt they would be of interest and assistance to the Conference.
The Review of the Regular Programme is in the format and presentation with which you will be well acquainted. The three supplements which you have at this time concern the external evaluations of the Special Action Programmes for the control of African Animal Trypanosomiasis and Related Development, the Seed Improvement and Development Programme and the Food Security Assistance Scheme.
I would firstly submit some comments on the Review of the Regular Programme. We have continued to respond to the directives of the Conference, the Council and the Programme Committee in our efforts to make the Review more analytical and informative, with a focus on implementation of achievements and results.
Since the first review, which was submitted to the Conference in 1979, we have now covered a substantial part of our technical programmes and activities through in-depth reviews and thematic reviews. Thus, two programmes, 21 sub-programmes - that is over one-third of the total - five programme elements and nine thematic topics have been systematically evaluated.
The review is in three parts as usual. Part 1 of the Review is the performance report, which gives quantitative information to the maximum extent possible, as well as raising issues which derive from an assessment of what has been implemented.
These performance reports do not pretend to be evaluations, although attempts are made to assess performance and impact. Of necessity, they are selective and designed to be factually informative.
As the review was prepared before the final impact of the programme adjustments of the current biennium took effect - the review was essentially prepared in the early months of this year - it will be evident that the results of these adjustments can only be assessed after the end of the biennium. Nevertheless the effects are already very evident as has been recognized by the Programme Committee and the Council.
Each chapter of this part of the review comments on the outlook and raises issues which we consider merit the attention of our Governing Bodies.
Part II of the review covers an evaluation of four sub-programmes in terms of their rationale, resources utilization, output, effects and impact. Here also a number of issues are specifically drawn to your attention to stimulate debate.
Part III of the review is the one which seems to be most evaluative and comprises two chapters. Firstly a review of FAO's extension activities: over the last six years more than 700 activities have provided advisory services to member countries in the field of extension; 125 meetings have been arranged with over 3 000 national participants; 480 training activities have been organized involving 12 000 trainees; over 100 publications have been produced and over 500 field projects implemented with an average annual expenditure of $ 25 million.
The Programme Committee found this specific review a particularly striking example of in-depth analysis of a high standard - and I am not using my own words but the words of the Programme Committee. It considered that the findings merit wide dissemination and fully endorsed the lessons drawn for extension work in general and for FAO's role in particular.
Finally, the thematic review covers an evaluation of 285 Category Three meetings, i.e. sessions of panels, committees and working parties. The examination found that their functions are generally well-defined, they are useful for coordination and are reasonable in cost since many are co-sponsored with other UN agencies. The Programme Committee considered that these meetings play a valuable role in synthesizing experience, both for FAO and for FAO member countries, and cannot be substituted by other means of action.
I should now like to turn to the three independent external evaluations. These evaluations of three Special Action Programmes were commissioned by the Director-General on his initiative in order to have an objective and independent assessment of their performance and their recommendations for future improvements.
The evaluations were conducted by teams of senior external consultants of international standing. Each evaluation comprised three phases: firstly, a comprehensive desk review of the Regular and Field Programme activities; secondly, a series of field visits and finally the preparation of the reports.
All three evaluation reports are before you as submitted by the external consultants. Related to each report we submit the comments of the Director-General on the findings and recommendations and proposals for follow-up action.
The Programme Committee welcomed this initiative in commissioning these external evaluations, which the Committee considered to be an important element of FAO's evaluation system. It felt that such external evaluations, of special programmes which had been under implementation for long periods, could be a particularly valuable management tool and provided a useful means for identifying needed improvements in programme formulation and implementation. The Committee considered that external evaluations of major on-going programmes should continue to be carried out as appropriate and feasible, bearing in mind that they had significant cost implications. The Committee felt that the evaluation reports represented comprehensive, informative, frank and objective reviews of three important priority programmes. It also appreciated that the evaluation reports had been submitted together with the reaction of the Director-General, which facilitated a meaningful consideration of the recommendations and of his proposed follow-up actions.
The evaluation of the Special Action Programme for the Control of African Animal Trypanosomiasis and related development has stressed the major constraints of the disease not only on livestock production in Africa but also on rural development in general in the countries of its occurrence.
The findings of the evaluation have endorsed the relevance of the programme and commended the results achieved so far.
This evaluation presented a number of recommendations for FAO which have been accepted by the Director-General. The action taken and planned in response to these recommendations is clearly indicated in the comments. The Programme Committee stressed that the recommendations addressed to member governments were essential for the future development of the programme and expressed the hope. that the Conference would invite member countries to commit themselves to their implementation.
The evaluation of the Seed Improvement and Development Programme recognizes the effective role of the programme in mobilizing resources and in building up national seed programmes. The emphasis on training has been found particularly effective. The SIDP has received positive support from donors with extra-budgetary expenditures of some $ 96 million since its inception. Substantial assistance has been provided in the formulation of national seed programmes and through the execution of field projects.
The recommendations addressed to FAO have been accepted, almost in their entirety. These include the need for a more focussed and programme-oriented approach, and for more selectivity in project development, to ensure effective technical backstopping and to maintain emphasis on countries where
national seed development strategies could be developed. The consultants recommended that increased resources be allocated for seed development programme planning, seed development training, the establishment of regional advisory teams and for strengthening agri-business management for the seed industry. The Director-General intends to respond to these resource needs, under the present financial circumstances, through the redistribution of existing resources, increased inputs to the SIDP from units other than the Seed Service, as well as by mobilizing additional extra-budgetary resources.
A number of recommendations addressed to Member Nations also merit the attention of the Conference.
The evaluation of the Food Security Assistance scheme has found that within its mandate FSAS has identified and implemented a sound programme of activities. The problems and limitations of certain activities, for example in connection with the management of strategic grain reserves, are not overlooked as indeed any other areas needing further effort. Thus it is recognized that while the FSAS has been satisfactory in the area of promoting and strengthening national efforts to enhance stability in the flow of food supplies, it has not yet evolved as a programme to tackle all aspects of the wider concept of food security, owing to policy constraints in countries themselves and the uncertain nature of financial support from the donor community.
Here again, the thrust of the recommendations of the evaluation is accepted by the Director-General who has outlined in his comments a step-by-step approach for future action, taking into account constraints on resources and other factors beyond the control of FAO. Among the recommendations addressed to member countries I would highlight the need for better coordinated action among donor and recipient governments and greater assuredness of donor assistance to permit better medium- and long-term planning of assistance.
The documentation before the Conference is undoubtedly voluminous but in a sense I do not need to make any apology for that. I believe that you will recognize in this documentation the sincere desire of the Secretariat and of the Director-General to respond to all suggestions made by the Conference at earlier sessions, on the importance of evaluation and of its outcome being available to Member Nations.
Horacio MALTEZ (Panamá): Sr. Presidente, permítame iniciar esta intervención sobre el tema 14 de nuestra Agenda, agradeciendo al Sr. Shah su elocuente presentación del mismo.
Al efectuar nuestras observaciones relacionadas con el quinto examen del Programa Ordinario de la FAO, mediante el cual se evalúa el funcionamiento de los programas de esta Organización desde el punto de vista de sus objetivos, de su ejecución y de sus efectos prácticos, la Delegación de Panamá desea primero referirse muy brevemente a algunos aspectos sustantivos de carácter general, y luego analizar más detenidamente otras situaciones que, en las actuales circunstancias, considera de primordial interés.
Estimamos oportuno dar comienzo a nuestras observaciones reiterando el reconocimietno de la utilidad y la necesidad de la evaluación sistemática de los programas, como un instrumento eficaz para introducir adelantos, efectuar enmiendas, corregir errores y, de esta forma, obtener mejoras progresivas en la labor de la FAO.
A tal efecto, coincidimos con que este tipo de examen es el mecanismo básico que permite mantener informados a los Organos rectores de la Organización, así como a los organismos que la asesoran, sobre la ejecución de las actividades que conciernen al Programa Ordinario, incluyendo sus logros y resultados, lo mismo que sus interrelaciones con el Programa de Campo.
Nos complace destacar a este propósito, y por ello elogiamos la labor de la Secretaría, que la presentación del documento C 87/8, al igual que sus suplementos, responden a sugerencias y recomendaciones anteriores, tanto del Consejo como de la Conferencia. Es en este contexto que expresamos nuestra complacencia por los cambios que, en manera creciente, se vienen operando en la estructura y en el contenido del examen del Programa Ordinario, el cual, consideramos, es cada vez más informativo, analítico y orientado hacia los resultados tal como fue sugerido.
Por todo esto, expresamos en forma global nuestro apoyo al examen en cuestión.
Sin embargo, al iniciar el análisis de las diferentes partes del documento y sus suplementos, quisiéramos efectuar algunas breves, muy breves consideraciones y recomendaciones de carácter general que, a nuestro juicio, podrían contribuir a orientar la futura cuestión del Programa Ordinario. A tal efecto, al referirnos al Programa Principal: Agricultura, que está orientado fundamentalmente a dar respuestas a las dos principales prioridades de la FAO, a saber, el fomento a la producción de alimentos y la mejora de la seguridad alimentaria, estimamos que, aunque a nuestro parecer, dichas prioridades son consideradas en forma satisfactoria, sería procedente que se intensificara lo relativo a la reducción de pérdidas posteriores a los procesos productivos, ya que dichas pérdidas representan uno de los mayores problemas que afectan a la producción y a la capacidad alimentaria del mundo en desarrollo.
Para nuestra Delegación, es motivo de gran preocupación las dificultades en que se encuentran algunos importantes sectores de la actividad del Programa Principal, con motivo de las limitaciones financieras que vienen afectando a la Organización. Problemas, que como ya hemos tenido ocasión de manifestar, consideramos, insistimos, se deben en gran parte a situaciones de tipo político.
Sin desmérito a ninguna actividad o programa, la Delegación de Panamá otorga una particular importancia al estudio que en el ámbito del programa 2.1.8: Política alimentaria y agrícola se está realizando sobre la agricultura en América Latina y el Caribe. Asimismo, y dentro del área de acción de dicho programa, concedemos un especial interés al examen sobre la función de las raíces, tubérculos y plátanos en la seguridad alimentaria. Particular mención nos merece también el establecimiento del nuevo subgrupo de cueros y pieles, que nuestro país tuvo el honor de presidir.
La Delegación que represento, ha siempre concedido una atención prioritaria a los programas de acción aprobados por la Conferencia Mundial sobre Ordenación y Desarrollo Pesqueros. Por tal motivo, lamenta y llama la atención, del hecho de que la reducción tajante de recursos extrapresupuestarios está afectando peligrosamente al programa de acción referente a la planificación, ordenación y desarrollo de la pesca, el cual constituye la base para la ejecución de los otros programas de acción.
Dentro del contexto del Programa Principal, nuestra Delegación, al referirse al Programa de Montes, manifiesta su apoyo al plan de acción forestal de los Trópicos. Deseamos, de la misma manera, expresar en este marco de referencias nuestra solidaridad'y conformidad con los programas de Cooperación Técnica y Apoyo al Desarrollo.
A propósito del Programa de Cooperación Técnica, la Delegación panameña estima oportuno reiterar su total apoyo al PCT. El mismo representa, a juicio de nuestras propias experiencias, y estamos seguros en el de la casi totalidad de las delegaciones presentes en esta Conferencia, un instrumento de gran beneficio para los países en desarrollo, sobre todo ahora que existe una crisis de la acción multilateral, y que por sus efectos han disminuido sensiblemente otros recursos de asistencia al desarrollo.
Por ello, nos oponemos a que no se permita elevar su nivel presupuestario.
Nuestra Delegación manifiesta también su aprecio por los análisis a fondo efectuados en la segunda parte del examen. Expresamos en este sentido nuestra satisfacción por la manera en que se tratan los cuatro subprogramas que, en conformidad con las recomendaciones de la Conferencia Mundial sobre reforma agraria y desarrollo rural, tienen como objetivo principal favorecer ante todo a la población rural pobre. A este propósito nos identificamos con las actividades y los logros de los subprogramas de Sanidad Animal, Política de Nutrición en los países, Utilización y Comercialización del Pescado y Desarrollo Forestal Comunitario.
Nos complace particularmente los logros alcanzados por el subprograma de Sanidad Animal y en especial, por las actividades efectuadas por la lucha contra la tripanosomiasis y la peste bovina básica, así Gomo para la prevención de la peste porcina africana en América Latina y el Caribe, de cuyo éxito nuestro país puede dar fiel testimonio. Al respecto, apoyamos de manera específica lo expresado en el párrafo 5 del documento C 87/LIM/19, y en particular lo que se relaciona con el apoyo financiario urgente a la escuela de lucha anti-mosca tsè-tsè en Burkina Faso.
Con relación a la parte tercera del examen y que trata de los temas especiales e informa sobre las actividades técnicas de la Organización, a saber: la investigación agrícola y la cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo, la Delegación de Panamá desea manifestar su satisfacción por los resultados del examen en tal sentido. Expresamos nuestra convicción de que ambas cuestiones son elemento fundamental del enfoque de la cooperación técnica brindada por la FAO y que, por lo tanto, merecen nuestro total y decidido apoyo.
Deseamos manifestar asimismo, que para mi Delegación, la CEPD y la CTPD representan uno de los mecanismos de autosuficiencia colectiva más válidos que poseemos los países en desarrollo y los consideramos una de las premisas fundamentales para la instalación de un nuevo orden económico internacional. Por esta razón las apoyamos de manera firme, decidida y prioritaria en todas las actividades de la FAO. Estimamos, sin embargo, que debe quedar claro que dicha cooperación no sustituye la cooperación Norte-Sur.
Por otra parte, la Delegación de Panamá, agradece la evaluación externa del Plan de Asistencia para la Seguridad Alimentaria (PASA), y manifiesta su seguridad de que, su análisis, conclusiones y recomendaciones, el Consejo, la Conferencia y el Director General sabrán obtener utiles indicaciones para fomentar la seguridad alimentaria. A tal propósito, hacemos nuestras y respaldamos en forma global las consideraciones y conclusiones del Sr. Director General.
Deseamos resaltar el hecho de que nuestra Delegación no ha escuchado nunca por parte de los países en desarrollo quejas graves de ninguna de las actividades que conforman el Programa Ordinario de la FAO. No hemos sabido tampoco que dichos programas sean utilizados como elementos de presión para obtener tal o cual concesión. Por el contrario, en general, todos hemos siempre expresado que los mismos son pertinentes, adecuados y oportunos. Consideramos pues, que esa es la mejor evaluación que se puede hacer de ellos.
Por último, y ya que estamos en el uso de la palabra, nuestra Delegación quiere dejar constancia que reconoce, y de eso no tenemos ninguna duda, el carácter técnico de esta Organización, pero, como bien dijo el distinguido Embajador de Costa Rica, somos representantes de estados soberanos y si bien los temas son técnicos, la discusión de los mismos no puede hacer abstracción de los elementos políticos necesarios para sustentarlos. Por otra parte, consideramos que no es menos cierto que son los mismos países que con frecuencia y para su propia conveniencia se acogen al principio del carácter técnico de la FAO los que introducen en la práctica los elementos políticos a los que hoy se nos quiere impedir hacer referencia. Nos asociamos pues, a las expresiones de preocupación manifestadas por las diversas delegaciones y relacionadas por la manera en que se están conduciendo los debates de esta Comisión.
CHAIRMAN: Once again the Chair would point out that is not what the Chair said in response to the delegate earlier this morning. It simply read the pertinent part of the rules and indicated that we must either live by our rules or change the rules.
Srta. Margarita LIZARRAGA SAUCEDO (México): Aunque tuvimos la oportunidad de pronunciarnos durante el Consejo sobre este tema, consideramos importante traer al máximo órgano rector una síntesis de nuestros comentarios que destaquen lo ya planteado por el Comité del Programa, a cuyos miembros y Presidente felicitamos por el calificado y muy completo trabajo, así como a la Secretaría y al Sr. Shah por la excelente presentación del tema.
El análisis de los resultados en ejecución del Programa Ordinario del bienio 86-87 nos confirma, una vez más la capacidad de nuestra Organización para alcanzar niveles de eficiencia y transparencia mayores y para transformar sus actividades y estructuras de manera firme y paulatina, conforme a las prioridades que el consenso internacional marca.
Por ello, al reconocer la incidencia negativa que los problemas de liquidez tuvieron en el cumplimiento de varios de los programas, reiteramos el imperativo de evitar que reducciones drásticas de los recursos y del personal puedan vulnerar la reconocida efectividad de la FAO e insistimos en que, en caso necesario, esos ajustes continúen a concentrarse en las esferas administrativas y no en los aspectos técnicos de los programas, continuando a identificar mecanismos que le permitan optimizar la utilización de los recursos disponibles. .
Asimismo, que al priorizar actividades, se debe otorgar la máxima importancia a aquellos programas que responden a las necesidades y prioridades de los países en desarrollo con especial cuidado de la debida vinculación entre actividades de asistencia técnica y las necesidades de cada país. La eficiencia de las operaciones de campo dependen en gran medida de la solidez, amplitud y calidad del Programa Ordinario.
Coincidimos con el Comité del Programa en confirmar la eficiencia con que el Director General ha introducido los cambios en los programas dadas las limitaciones financieras impuestas y en que al respecto no pueden aplicarse meros criterios de costo-beneficio (párrafos 2.8 y 2.9).
En el Programa de Agricultura 2.1 nos preocupa la reducción de las actividades de capacitación, y que no haya aumentado el apoyo tècnico a proyectos de campo.
Subrayamos la importancia que en el programa 2.1.1 y el 2.1.4 han alcanzado los trabajos y la investigación en materia de recursos fitogenéticos. El avance de esas actividades representa un importante paso hacia adelante en la modernización de las funciones de la FAO y en una mejor respuesta a los intereses estratégicos de los países en desarrollo y de los industrializados, de lograr una mayor seguridad alimentaria mundial viable y sostenida. En esa empresa quisiéramos ver involucrados a todos los países, en particular a los que más pueden ofrecer en este sector dada su experiencia y poder económico.
Respecto al programa 2.1.5, y a pesar del reconocimiento que hanmerecido las actividades vinculadas a la promoción de resultados de la Conferencia Mundial de Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural, su impacto parece ser todavía exiguo.
Nos congratulamos, de que en el programa 1.2.8, se le haya dado una mayor atención a los tubérculos, raíces y plátanos, que son tan importantes para la agricultura y para la autosuficiencia de la alimentación.
Otro programa que ha recibido un importante impulso es el de la pesca, que representa también un paso trascendental en la transformación y actualización de la FAO, en respuesta a una realidad que exige una explotación más racional y sostenida de los recursos pesqueros, y de una alimentación más diversificada, rica y segura conforme lo estableció la Conferencia Mundial de Pesca.
Aplaudimos la incorporación de la FAO al problema de la crisis de los ecosistemas y la degradación del medio ambiente ya que es indispensable convenir una estrategia de largo plazo para la conservación y aprovechamiento racional de los recursos naturales y el cuidado del medio ambiente. De ello depende en buena parte la viabilidad futura de la agricultura, la pesca y la silvicultura y aunque se encuentra en el programa de montes, quisiéramos verlo también atendido con mucha mayor fuerza en los otros programas. Reiteramos que nuestra Organización debe influir para evitar que intereses económicos de corto plazo sigan imponiendo su lógica miope a un proceso que, de continuar así, compromete la sobrevivencia misma de la humanidad.
Destacamos que el PCT ha probado año tras año su gran utilidad. Ello se ha plasmado en este examen, en donde se refleja el entusiasmo de los países receptores por esos programas y la forma eficiente y transparente con que se aplicaron los recursos, lamentando también las enormes necesidades que impiden ampliarlos.
Reconocemos, en particular, la atención prioritaria a la región del Africa, que continúa atravesando por una crisis agrícola y alimentaria estructural.
Aplaudimos que el proceso de automatización y simplificación en el procesamiento de datos y otorgamiento de servicios, particularmente este último a través del FINSYS y PERSYS, permita ahora una mejor gestión interna y un mayor acceso a la invaluable información de la FAO.
Agradecemos a la Secretaría el examen de los cuatro subprogramas contenidos en la segunda parte, así como el de las actividades de extensión de la FAI que consideramos un aspecto clave para la FAO y los gobiernos nacionales como lo expresa el Comité del Programa en el párrafo 2.21. Tomamos nota del examen de las reuniones de categoría tres en la parte tercera, que han probado su utilidad pero coincidimos con el Comité en que deben precisar en cada caso más claramente sus objetivos.
En cuanto a los tres programas de acción evaluados, confirmamos su utilidad y claridad.
Respecto a la lucha contra la tripanosomiasis, la capacitación e investigación de nuevas fórmulas preventivas y combativas deben alentarse.
El programa de mejoramiento y desarrollo de semillas nos merece una gran importancia, y su evaluación es fundamentál ya que la promoción de semillas mejoradas cuando es indiscriminada puede conllevar necesariamente el acompañamiento de insumos: fertilizantes, plaguicidas, maquinaria, sistemas de riego, etc., que terminan beneficiando una agricultura de carácter comercial, haciendo más dependientes a los países en desarrollo, desplazando a pequeños agricultores y ganaderos, erosionando la diversidad genètica y causando daños ambientales irreversibles como la degradación de los suelos.
Debemos recordar que actualmente la industria semillera comercial está concentrada en grandes corporaciones que han buscado así combinar e inducir la compra de insumos agrícolas y el control del mercado de los productos agrícolas. Este es el caso, por ejemplo, de corporaciones petroleras y petroquímicas que así han incrementado el mercado de sus productos.
A la luz de la evaluación, nuestra delegación insiste en que este programa debe transformarse para evitar esos efectos nefastos y para impulsar la investigación de variedades y el mejoramiento y desarrollo de semillas que no conllevan a una mayor dependencia externa y que respondan a las condiciones agrociimáticas, sociales y ecológicas de los países en desarrollo. El programa debe ser explícito en cuanto que la introducción de semillas conlleva la introducción dé insumos y de sistemas y métodos de producción y mercadeo.
Asimismo, por lo que respecta al PASA, reconocemos que se han iniciado algunos progresos, pero lamentamos que aún no se haya convertido en un programa completo. En ese sentido, al responder al concepto ampliado de seguridad alimentaria, debe darle toda la atención a la comercialización, producción, acceso y uso de insumos agrícolas y al objetivo de que los países en desarrollo alcancen una mayor independencia económica y tecnológica del exterior.
Finalmente, quisiera traer a esta audiencia el comentario personal que hiciera el Sr. Mazoyer, Presidente del Comité del Programa, durante la presentación del tema al Consejo, en el sentido de que estas evaiuaciones pueden ser igualmente valiosas si se hacen en forma interna pero independiente y si se fijan adecuadamente los términos de referencia. Esto mantendrá la validez, disminuyendo costos. Nuestra delegación concuerda con esta posición, y esperemos que en ella coincidan otras delegaciones, sin que pudiera ser considerado como un elemento que quite transparencia a la Organización, pero sí racionalizar los costos.
C.B. HOUTMAN (Netherlands): First of all I should like to thank Mr Shah for his usual clear introduction of the documents we have before us, the Review of the Regular Prgramme; the Evaluation of the Action Programme for the Control of African animal Trypanosomiasis and Related Development; the Evaluation of the Seed Improvement and Development Programme and the Evaluation of the Food Security Assistance Scheme. As usual the Review gives an extensive overview of the activities of the Regular Programme which, as always, is very informative. Since the Netherlands has always requested external - and I emphasize external - evaluations of programmes and schemes and since three external evaluations are on the agenda today, I should like to restrict this intervention to deal with these three evaluations. Besides, our ideas and priority setting in the Regular Programme have already been elaborated in the preceding agenda item on the Programme of Work and Budget.
However, before touching upon the content of the valuation reports we wish to commend the Director-General's decision to have the Special Action Programmes evaluated in the way they have been. We think these evaluations are examples of how evaluations of schemes and programmes, whether they are intra-budgetary or extra-budgetary funded, should be carried out. Highly competent consultants should be employed for such work. Having said this I would like to make a few remarks. Firstly, concerning the evaluation of the Action Programme for the Control of African Animal Tripanosomiasis and Related Development.
We think the report is a balanced one. We share consultants' concerns on the fact that, albeit understandable for the difficult economic circumstances they are facing, tsetse and trypanosomiasis
control has not always received by some countries as high a priority as it deserves in their government development programme.
Nevertheless, we agree with FAO and now with Mr Shah when it mentions that it is essential for policymakers to fully realize the importance of tsetse and trypanosomiasis as a major constraint not only to livestock development but to rural development in general. We therefore endorse in principle the recommendations made by the consultants. We are, however, still convinced that whatever organizational structure there will be, and a rather heavy one is recommended, success in the control of trypanosomiasis will be achieved only if at the political level the right priorities are set, nationally as well as regionally.
Finally, we would also like to emphasize that in setting these priorities, which sometimes lead to extensive spraying programmes, another important item often mentioned during this conference should not be forgotten. I mean the ecological priorities set to enable people to live in a healthy environment. Having said this, I come to the evaluation of the Seed Improvement and Development Programme.
The results of the evaluation affirm the idea the Netherlands have expressed earlier that modern Western seed development blue prints are often not suitable for circumstances in developing countries. Therefore, the Netherlands will continue to support the SIDP activities which endeavour the development of national, and if necessary small-scale, methods of seed production and storage.
In this respect we share with the Director-Cenerai, consultants' view that increased attention in SIDP should be paid to planting materials and seeds for traditional crops as certain local varieties of roots, tubers, sorghum, millet and grain legumes. We implicitly stressed the importance of this during the last two sessions of the Committee on World Food Security.
We also welcome the intended strengthening of the institutional structure and management of the SIDP and the Seed Information Service as well as the greater emphasis on donor coordination. And, Mr Chairman, my delegation fully agrees with the priority that is given to training and the development of training materials and training facilities. I now come to the evaluation of the Food Security Assistance Scheme. I hope you will allow us to elaborate a little more in depth on this report.
We feel that the consultants, Dr Rao from India and Dr Popp from Switzerland, did an excellent job. They researched critically the role of all three involved parties: FAO, recipient countries and donor countries, and they came out with a well balanced report that together with the comments of the Director-General which constitute document C 87/8-Sup.3. Of course, some remarks are always possible, and we will make a few, but this will not affect our opinion that the consultants used their professional capacity to the maximum extent.
Having said this you will not be surprised that we endorse the recommendations of the consultants in general. Nevertheless, allow us some remarks and comments on a few subjects.
As mentioned in the report the FSAS startéd with terms of reference deducted from the food security concept then prevailing. In 1983 this concept had been broadened to the total of production, stability and access to food.
The consultants stated rightly that, while the concept of food security was redefined the logical reorientation of the terms of reference of FSAS did not materialize. It is therefore not too astonishing that the consultants found that FSAS did not respond adequately to the new concept, which in our opinion is too broad to be taken care of by FSAS alone. This leads to the conclusion that a new mandate should be defined for FSAS, a mandate that should be restricted more or less to the tasks mentioned in paragraph 57 of page XIV in the consultants' summary. We agree to these tasks on the understanding that "building national capabilities in various aspects of food security" as mentioned under b in paragraph 57 is not referring to capital intensive investments for food security. We do not say FSAS should close its eyes for these investments, related to food security ,but, while it could even initiate and finance feasibility studies for those, the scheme should not implement these projects. It should, of course, be a broker who brings in other financing institutions such as World Bank and IFAD or bilateral donors which could finance and implement these investment projects.
We think that a system of monitoring should be developed involving parties concerned. We feel that the present situation of officially dealing with FSAS once every two years during the CFS, is not sufficient. We propose to establish a type of FSAS monitoring consortium that meets regularly. Such a system has to be worked out and we would like the Secretariat to think it over and, to come with proposals in this respect to the next CFS.
We like to put strong emphasis on the recommendations of the consultants on FAO's role in the recipient countries as described in paragraph 95, page XIV in their summary. I quote "FAO needs to assume, and to be seen to have assumed, leadership in assisting Governments to define and attain the objectives of National Food Security, etcetera."
This is a major part of the policy adviser's role FAO should play, as my Minister also stated in his address in the plenary. While we agree with the Director-General as to his comment to this recommendation where he states that coordination of food security could best be instituted by the Government of the aid recipient country, we also think that FAO should do more than waiting for a request. Is it not so that there is a FAO Country Representative in most of the recipient countries? Is such a person only representing as an ambassador or is he supposed to act also as a policy advisor? We feel that this last part should be his main task. And when a country representative is assigned to a country with food security problems, he should carry in his intellectual baggage a profound knowledge of the many, if not all, aspects of food security. This Country Representative has an important and responsible task in this field and he should operate accordingly. Or at least he should have a senior staff member who could deal with this matter.
We would like to rectify a probably unintended suggestion as if donors were responsible for the fluctuations of the contribution to FSAS as stated in paragraph 10 of the Comments of the Director-General to the report. In fact my Government did donate in some years more than others. The fact that some project proposals were not financed had sometimes to do with our own rules. But the decrease in donation was mainly due to the fact that millions of guilders were resting in FAO's bank account waiting for spending, sometimes for several years. And this is the main reason why there was a decrease in contributions over time. It would have been better when the full background of these fluctuations had been presented as well as the ways some of these difficulties have been overcome in the meantime.
We would like to express our appreciation for the fact that the Director-General already has implemented some of the recommendations. He proposed in the Programme of Work and Budget some organizational changes in the Commodities and Trade Division as to the subject of Food Security Policy and the FSAS Unit.
We have the feeling that it could work out in the opposite way as intended. Where an upgrading and strengthening of the Food Security Assistance, Unit is advocated for the proposals for the organizational change in the Commodities and Trade Division effectively decreases the number of people with one half.
This, added to a frozen vacancy of one, boils down to a Unit run by only 3 1/2 persons instead of the five before. We doubt whether this is an improvement. We suggest therefore to wait with the changes until the new mandate is formulated and to decide on an organizational change based on the requirements of the then formulated t .o .r.
In conclusion, we propose the following: 1. That the Secretariat prepare new terms of reference in which a new mandate for the FSAS is spelled out. This mandate should reflect the recommendations made by the consultants and today's debate on this subject; 2. That these new terms of reference should be put on the agenda of the next CFS (1988) for discussion, together with a proposal for organizational changes including staff with due regard to internal and external institutional links in the Organization; 3. That the idea of a monitoring consortium be worked out and be presented to the same CFS.
It is known that we, as the largest donor of the scheme so far, considered FSAS as a scheme that made valuable contributions to food security. We also think that changes have to be effectuated in order to enable the scheme to operate more efficiently. We have confidence that our proposals will be received positively.
Our future contributions to FSAS will be depending on the effectuating of the recommendations and of the proposals to be made by the Secretariat for discussion on the next CFS.
If it all turns out positively, multi-annual project related contributions will definitely be possible.
CHAIRMAN: We have now exceeded the time available to us today for discussion on these issues. Before adjourning the meeting I shall, as I indicated this morning that I would do at this time, give the floor to two delegations who have asked to exercise a "Right of Reply". I will give them in the order in which they were submitted yesterday. They are the United States of America and Israel.
RIGHT OF REPLY
DROIT DE REPONSE
DERECHO DE REPLICA
John COOK (United States of America): The United states would like to reply to the statement made by the Nicaraguan Delegate last Friday. The United States would have preferred to have delivered its reply on Friday but the Nicaraguan delegate had left early. We notice that they have also departed already today but we can no longer delay our reply. We strongly reject the Nicaruaguan delegate's intervention of last Friday in which he raised matters not on the agenda, such matters being strictly the policy prerogative of the United States. In this forum no member has the right to raise such matters. We hope that the limited time of this Commission will not be wasted again by gratuitous statements such as those made last Friday by the Nicaraguan delegate.
Yosef HASSEN (Israel): On Friday, when I was absent from my place the Algerian Delegation found it proper to accuse Israel of aggression and succeeded to divert the attention of the Commission from the important problems under discussion to an issue of a completely political nature. I regret that by using my Right of Reply I find myself guilty of the same wrong-doing. But I cannot prevent myself from following the Middle East custom which is first to return fire and then wonder why. I have my doubts if the distinguished delegate of Algeria has over visited the West Bank because if she did, she would not have such a distorted picture of the true situation there. We have no quarrel with Algeria, nor with Cuba or the Congo, and therefore I would like to extend to them an open invitation to visit the West Bank and be personally convinced that the situation in the Territories is not deteriorating but on the contrary it is improving significantly. The Palestinian farmers are learning and adopting modern Israeli methods of agriculture and irrigation and the food production is improving at a much higher rate than in most of the neighbouring countries of the region, including Israel, and we take pride in it. Strangely enough, the, Palestinian tomato grows better under the Israeli administration than it did before 1967. My invitation to Algeria is also extended to other African-Sahel countries to visit Israel proper, so as to have the opportunity to look at our achievements in fighting the desert area. We are more than ready and happy to share our experience with them in this field and other agricultural development projects.
I do not deny that political conflicts do exist in our region and which cast a heavy shadow on the daily lives of the inhabitants - Palestinians and Israelis alike. It is unfortunately a difficult and complex conflict but the FAO is not the place to express our political grievances. Political declarations or resolutions will not solve the conflict, but merely increase antagonism. I take permission to appeal to our political adversaries if they are honestly concerned with the welfare and well-being of the populations in the Territories to refrain from introducing again political controversy into the discussion. The FAO has an excellent history and record as a strictly technical organization. Let us keep it so.
CHAIRMAN: We have rules that we must go by and let us try to avoid some of this. If we want to see political debate, go to New York.
The meeting rose at 17.40 hours
La séance est levée` à 17 h 40
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.40 horas
