EL PRESIDENTE: Buenos días, colegas y amigos. Declaro abierta la 17a sesión plenaria.
Antes de entrar a considerar los asuntos previstos para esta mañana, quiero comunicarles que en las dos reuniones que celebró ayer el Comité General se expresó mucha inquietud por el hecho de que algunas delegaciones tienen que dejar Roma y podrían asi no participar en algunos debates aún pendientes.
A la luz de esa consideración, y teniendo en cuenta que la Comisión III terminó sus trabajos de manera oportuna y eficaz rápidamente, me he permitido conversar esta mañana con el señtor Pourtalés, de Suiza, Presidente de la Comisión III, sobre la posibilidad de que esa Comisión concluya hoy mismo sus trabajos.
Hemos llegado a la decisión de pedir al Comité de Redacción de la Comisión III, presidido por el colega y amigo Horacio Carandang, de Filipinas, que se reúna a las 12 horas y 15 minutos de hoy en la sala de Alemania en vez de a las 14 horas y 30 minutos como se había anunciado. Así la Comisión III podría reunirse en esta sala a las 17 horas de hoy y concluir, como lo esperamos satisfactoriamente sus trabajos, ya que los temas discutidos en la Comisión III no han sido muy controvertidos.
Quisiera pedir de manera muy cordial y respetuosa, como ya tuve ocasión de hacerlo personalmente, al señtor Carandang que los Miembros del Comité de Redacción de la Comisión III estén presentes a las 12 horas y 15 minutos en la sala de Alemania. Gracias de antemano por la cooperación y comprensión del señtor Carandang y de sus compañeros miembros del Comité de Redacción de la Comisión III.
Como aparece en el programa para hoy, y es bien sabido, en la sesión de esta mañana vamos a proceder en primer lugar -en primer lugar repito- a la aprobación del informe de la Comisión II sobre el tema 13, Programas de Labores y Presupuesto para 1990-91 y objetivos a plazo medio. Espero que todos tengan el documento respectivo, el documento C 89/Rep./1.
Tengo el privilegio de pedir al distinguido Presidente Embajador Tchicaya que presente esta parte del informe de la Comisión II.
El señtor Tchicaya tiene la palabra.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Président de la Commission II): Monsieur le Président, je souhaite d'abord présenter mes remerciements à la Conférence pour la confiance qu'elle a placée en me désignant Président de cette importante Commission II.
Le point 13 qui traite du Programme de travail et budget 1990-91 et objectifs à moyen terme a exigé de la part de notre Commission un débat large et emprunt de franchise. Quatre séances y ont été consacrées, durant lesquelles 75 délégués ont pris la parole.
A la suite de ces débats fort fouillés, la Commission a adopté ce Rapport présenté sous la cote C 89/REP/1 qui est soumis à votre examen. Ce travail a été l'aboutissement d'un bon travail réalisé par le Comité de rédaction présidé par M. Theolin de la Suède.
Monsieur le Président, nous pensons que ce rapport qui a fait l'objet de discussions intenses constitue l'expression concentrée des débats qui ont eu lieu sur cette question. Voilà pourquoi nous vous le présentons pour qu'il soit adopté. Je vous remercie.
EL PRESIDENTE: La Conferencia es soberana. Yo como Presidente en ejercicio estaré democráticamente sometido a la voluntad de ustedes, pero considero mi deber insistirles en lo que acaba de plantear el Presidente Tchicaya.
Este texto ha sido estudiado y analizado cuidadosa, seria y profundamente primero por el Comité de Redacción, presidido con gran competencia por el señtor S. Theolin, de Suecia, y luego adoptado por el pleno de la Comisión II.
A la luz de esas consideraciones, les ruego que acepten mi propuesta de que, como de costumbre, procedamos a discutir este proyecto de informe sección por sección.
Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1990-91 y objetivos a plazo medio.
Paragraphs 1 to 6 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 6 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 6 son aprobados
Paragraphs 7 and 8 approved
Les paragraphes 7 et 8 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 7 y 8 son aprobados
Paragraphs 9 to 12 approved
Les paragraphes 9 à 12 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 9 a 12 son aprobados
Paragraphs 13 to 19 approved
Les paragraphes 13 à 19 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 13 a 19 son aprobados
Paragraphs 20 to 24 approved
Les paragraphes 20 à 24 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 20 a 24 son aprobados
Paragraphs 25 to 31 approved
Les paragraphes 25 à 31 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 25 a 31 son aprobados
Paragraphs 32 to 35 approved
Les paragraphes 32 à 35 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 32 a 35 son aprobados
EL PRESIDENTE: Como todos sabemos ya, después de aprobar esta parte de nuestro Informe, deberemos pasar ahora a adoptar la resolución sobre consignaciones presupuestadas. Ha sido ya distribuido el documento C 89/Rep/1-suplemento 1.
Para la aprobación de esa resolución, se requiere una mayoria de los dos tercios, y, por consiguiente, una votación nominal.
Espero sinceramente que el resultado de esa votación va a fortalecer la vida y las actividades de esta Organización que, bajo la dirección acertada del Director General, trabaja cada vez más y mejor en favor de todos los Estados Miembros y particularmente de aquéllos en vias de desarrollo.
Pido al Oficial de Elecciones, al señor B. Linley, que extraiga a suerte el nombre del pais por el cual se deba empezar la votación nominal; yo mismo haré la extracción. El primer pais es la República de Corea.
Voy a pedir ahora al Secretario General de la Conferencia, al señor Alessi, que explique las modalidades de la votación para que todos sepan exactamente qué van a votar y cómo deben hacerlo.
El señor Alessi tiene la palabra.
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Nous arrivons au vote de la Résolution portant ouverture de crédits pour l'exercice 1990-91.
L'Article XVIII paragraphe 5 de l'Acte Constitutif stipule que "Les décisions relatives au montant du budget sont prises à la majorité des deux tiers des suffrages exprimés".
Selon l'Article XII paragraphe 7 alinéa a) du Règlement général, un vote par appel nominal a lieu si une majorité de deux tiers est requise en vertu de l'Acte constitutif.
L'Article XII, paragraphe 3, alinéa c) du règlement général stipule que lorsqu'en vertu de l'Acte Constitutif "une décision doit être prise par la Conférence à la majorité des deux tiers, le nombre total de suffrages exprimés pour ou contre doit être supérieur à la moitié du nombre des Etats Membres de l'Organisation".
Il faut donc, en l'occurrence, que le nombre de voix pour et contre qui vont être émises soit d'au moins 80.
Le Secrétariat doit maintenant informer le Président du nombre de délégués présents dans la salle. Il y en a au moins 106.
Selon l'Article XII, paragraphe 7, alinéa a) du règlement général, le vote par appel nominal se fait de la manière suivante: "Le vote par appel nominal se fait en appelant dans l'ordre alphabétique anglais les noms des Etats Membres ayant le droit de prendre part au vote" en commençant par un Etat dont le nom est tiré au sort par le Président.
L'Etat qui a le privilège d'être le premier votant, comme vous l'avez déjà annoncé Monsieur le Président, est la République de Corée.
Je précise que les représentants de chaque Etat Membre, à l'appel de leur nom, devront répondre par "oui", "non" ou "abstention".
A l'issue du vote, il sera procédé à un nouvel appel de tous les Etats Membres dont les délégués ou Représentants n'auraient pas répondu au premier appel.
Le vote de chaque Etat Membre prenant part à un vote par appel nominal est consigné au procès-verbal. Je vous remercie Monsieur le Président.
EL PRESIDENTE: Espero que hayan sido claras las explicaciones del Secretario General sobre las modalidades del voto.
Hay número suficiente para el quorum reglamentario y espero que en el transcurso de la votación ese número se incremente.
Si no hay ningún comentario por parte de ustedes, pido al Oficial de Elecciones, al señtor B. Linley, que llame nominalmente a cada Estado Miembro para que vote. Luego procederemos a hacer el recuento de los votos y a anunciar los resultados.
El señor Linley tiene la palabra.
VOTE
VOTE
VOTACION
VOTE
VOTE
VOTACION
If a vote is equally divided on a matter other than an election, a second vote shall be taken at a subsequent meeting to be held not less than one hour after the conclusion of the meeting at which the equally divided vote occurred. If the second vote is also equally divided the proposal shall be regarded as rejected.
En cas de partage égal des voix lors d'un vote ne portant pas sur une élection, on procède à un deuxième vote en cours d'une séance ultérieure, qui ne peut avoir lieu moins d'une heure après la fin de celle à laquelle s'est produit le partage égal des voix. Si les voix restent également partagées lors de ce second vote, la proposition est considérée comme repoussée.
Si hubiera empate en un asunto que no sea una elección, se repetirá la votación en una sesión subsiguiente la cual no deberá celebrarse hasta que haya transcurrido una hora, por lo menos, desde la conclusión de aquella en que se produjo el empate. Si en la segunda votación hubiera también empate se considerará rechazada la propuesta.
Sidasty AIDARA (Sénégal): Il ne s'agit pas d'une explication de vote comme vous l'avez indiqué. Au moment du vote malheureusement, des obligations ont fait que je ne pouvais pas être dans la salle pour voter le budget.
Je voudrais clairement indiquer ici, pour la Conférence et pour le procès-verbal des travaux de notre session, que si ma délégation avait été présente au moment du vote sur le budget elle aurait voté en faveur du projet de résolution qui a été présenté.
Je voudrais regretter tout simplement, encore une fois, que des obligations impétives m'aient amené à quitter la salle au moment du vote mais cela ne doit en aucune manière être interprété ni comme une négligence, ni comme un manque d'intérêt pour les travaux de la session, ni comme un manque d'appui du budget.
EL PRESIDENTE: Gracias por la actitud constructiva que ha anunciado nuestro colega el Sr. Aidàra de Senegal, que constará en las actas.
João Augusto DE MEDICIS (Brazil): The Brazilian delegation wishes to reiterate its clear agreement with the Programme of Work. We regret, nevertheless, that we are not in a position to endorse the increase in the Budget as it would affect substantially the amount of our contribution, an amount that we will find extremely difficult to absorb due to the burden of external debt and the deterioration of export prices for commodities; in a word, the economic and financial crisis faced by developing countries. We would also like to draw the attention of the Plenary to the fact that the budget level has a more adjusting effect on the assessed contribution of some developing countries due to the revised scale of contributions. The decision of my delegation is consistent with the attitude taken by my government regarding their decision in other multilateral fora. This position should not in any way be misconstrued as an endorsement of the zero-growth principle or of any other negative policies aimed at debilitating our Organization.
Ms Jane BECKER (United States of America): In the vote just concluded, the majority supported a Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91 which includes real growth of over 1 percent, taking into account the reduction in the lapse factor despite the overwhelming acceptance of zero real growth in times of budgetary restraint by major UN system organizations such as the World Health Organization which rely on the payment of assessed contributions by Member States. The majority supported a budget which includes substantial cost increases based on assumptions by a General Assembly decision yet to be made. With the lapse factor, the assessment per
annum for the major contributor increases by nearly 17 percent. For developing countries paying 0.01 percent of FAO's working budget, assessments per annum will also increase by nearly 17 percent. This occurs against the backdrop of the fact that 86 countries - more than half the membership of FAO - have not paid their full contributions for 1989, and 47 countries are in arrears. Having said that, the United States has never denied its legal obligations to pay its assessed contribution to FAO. With regard to the lapse factor, my delegation would like to note that the number of countries which voted on the report of Commission II with regard to the wording of the Commission's Report regarding the lapse factor did not represent half of the membership. The lapse factor reduction, as you know, significantly increased the budget level of the Organization. This vote, which was taken in Commission II just two days ago, resulted in approximately a 15 percent increase in the budget level. This information, according to FAO's rules, should have been available sixty days before the convening of this Conference for the proper consideration by member countries in their capitals of the budget level. Getting back to the vote, voting yes on this budget is the choice of the membership, and the membership has the right to make that choice. We must note, however, that seven countries voted against the budget, including our own. Those same countries will be expected to pay nearly 50 percent of the contributions to the 1990-91 Budget. Those countries abstaining represent another 8 percent of the assessed contribution. I repeat that each member of this body has the right to make his or her own choice. To endorse the budget, however, contrary to the express wishes of those members who must provide substantial resources for that budget, is, I submit, an irresponsible choice. For my own delegation, I must confess that it will be difficult to justify this budget to those in my government who ultimately make decisions on funding international organizations including FAO. I cannot speak for other governments, but common sense tells us that to expect full support from those who have already rejected the budget is the height of irresponsible optimism. Over the past two biennia, FAO and the Governing Body of this Organization have complained loudly about the financial crisis caused by the delay in payments by my country which rejected the 1988-89 Budget. Our repeated efforts to work together in crafting a budget which realistically serves the needs of the FAO community have garnered no positive reaction. Instead, members have voted for another biennium of financial instability, I fear. This is their choice, and my delegation respects it. But I must tell you that with choice comes responsibility. My delegation absolutely rejects responsibility for the financial crisis which may occur during the next biennium. We will remind those members who voted for this budget that they are responsible for causing it.
One additional point: We have listened with interest to the Director-General's comments regarding the need to conduct the vote on the Budget Resolution during the second week of the Conference. We agree that the cost of living in Rome is quite high and that it becomes extremely difficult for delegates from developing countries to remain here over a lengthy period. We might add that the cost of conducting lengthy meetings is also substantial. It is for these reasons that we would propose that the Conference be shortened by one week. In this way, all Member States could have the opportunity to participate in all proceedings of the Conference, and considerable savings would result.
EL PRESIDENTE: En relación con los comentarios que se han hecho acerca de la forma en que se debatió algún asunto en la Comisión II, considero mi deber como Presidente recordar que la Conferencia es soberana y que al principio de la reunión de esta mañiana, por unanimidad, sin ningún disentimiento, aprobó plenamente el informe de la Comisión II sobre el punto al cual se ha hecho referencia.
También creo que es mi deber indicar que ahora estamos discutiendo la aprobación de la parte del informe de la Comisión II sobre el tema 13, Programa de Labores y Presupuesto y objetivos a plazo medio, y que cualquier otra referencia o propuesta sobre asunto distinto es fuera de orden.
Como Presidente del Comité General, debo también declarar que los aplazamientos que ese Comité propuso a la Conferencia estaban dirigidos a preservar la marcha ordenada y eficaz de esta reunión y que fueron recomendaciones constructivas, siempre aprobadas por el pleno de esta Conferencia, a la cual no puede atribuírsele ninguna responsabilidad, que yo rechazo como Presidente.
Hamed Abdalla SALMAN (United Arab Emirates) (original language Arabic): We regret that we were not present at the voting in this room. Since this resolution was voted by the majority, we would like to record the approval of the United Arab Emirates of this resolution and the budget allocations which were presented by the Director-General.
F.C. PRILLEVITZ (The Netherlands): The Netherlands adheres to a policy of zero growth for all UN organizations financed through assessed budgets. Incidentally, for our national budget we have adopted a negative real growth over the last seven years, excluding the budget for development cooperation which has grown every year. Only in exceptional circumstances are we able to deviate from this principle. We have decided that the review was such an exceptional circumstance, and with considerable difficulty my Government finally decided that it could agree to the one percent real growth in the budget if the results of the review were acceptable and the cost involved could be absorbed by the budget through reallocation of its resources and through savings. We even believe that perhaps an increase of slightly more than one percent would have been defendable under the circumstances if this would have resulted in a consensus decision on the budget, which we would have highly valued. What we have just voted upon was a budget with an additional real increase of almost 2 percent due to the decrease of the lapse factor which we have strongly opposed, while at the same time we do not know yet how much of the cost of the review will be absorbed, if any. A consensus has not at all been reached. It is thus with considerable regret that we were left with no other choice than to vote against. Regret because we believed that a consensus could have been reached if some more flexibility had been applied and more understanding had been shown for the difficult position in which my own country and others found themselves. Regret also because we highly value FAO as a development institution and as a global centre of knowledge and information. We would have preferred to express our support with a positive vote.
David COUTTS (Australia): Australia has voted aginst the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91 with very great regret. I would like to give an explanation of why we have felt obliged to do this.
In spite of the fact that we follow the principle of zero real growth, we had been prepared to agree to the Programme of Work and Budget as proposed by the Director-General in Document C 89/3, even though this involved a real programme increase of 1 percent. We were prepared to do this because we have a deep commitment to FAO dating back to the founding of the Organization. We felt that unanimous approval of the Budget was highly desirable to set the scene for recovery from the difficult circumstances in which the Organization has found itself in recent years. We also have been encouraged by the very productive process which has been followed in this Review, and we look forward to very productive results from this process.
However, in our view this proposed budget did not include the decrease in the lapse factor, which we do not feel has been justified by any valid arguments, and which adds a further US$9 million to the already dramatic increase in assessed contributions. In addition, there is still a question in our minds about the procedures followed in relation to this matter. For this reason, we have felt compelled to vote against the Budget.
In spite of this, I anticipate that we will continue our commitment to the Organization and maintain our participation in its operations as fully as we can, as we feel that it has a vital and unique role to play in battling the continuing problems in the areas of food and agriculture.
Thank you, Mr Chairman, for this opportunity to express the reasons for our vote.
Sundararaman RAJASEKAR (New Zealand): I would like to set out briefly our reasons for voting against the Budget proposals.
My Government's general policy in regard to budgets for international organizations has been in favour of zero real growth. This in our view strikes a reasonable balance between the need to support priorities and programmes of development agencies such as FAO and the very real financial constraints being faced by most, if not all, of us. In my Commission II statement on goals and objectives, I referred to the financial disciplines and cut-backs which are being enforced in New Zealand as part of the Government's programme of, reducing budgetary deficits and to promote greater efficiency in the public sector. While we were prepared to consider the Director-General's proposals as contained in Document C 89/3, which would have allowed for a small real growth, the decision to reduce the lapse factor has in effect provided for a much greater real increase. No doubt this has some implications for country assessment as well.
The concerns expressed by a number of delegations about the timing and notification of the lapse factor proposal are also of some concern to us. We would have preferred that the matter be referred back to the Council or the Finance Committee for further consideration.
In conclusion, I would like to assure you that my country's position on the Budget does not in any way limit our commitment to FAO and its basic objectives.
Hannu HALINEN (Finland): I have the honour to explain the vote on the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91 on behalf of Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland.
The Nordic countries voted for the PWB 1990-91. However, we continue to have serious concerns on certain fundamental issues relating to the Budget process and the Budget itself. The Nordic countries want to focus attention on the main programmes themselves. This has not been possible. Essential questions on the main objectives, functions and programmes and the inter-relationships between these questions were not adequately addressed in the Draft Budget Proposal. We had hoped for a better reassessment of the PWB in the light of changing circumstances.
Furthermore, a number of shifts within major programmes appear in the PWB without sufficient information concerning the bases on which they were made. The way priorities are actually set within the organizations is not clearly spelled out. The Budget document also lacks transparency in this regard.
These shortcomings can best be remedied through a better presentation of the document from the Secretariat side and more active involvement by Member States in all stages of its preparation.
We welcome the formulation of the nine priority areas as such. However, these priorities are not proposed in a systematic manner through corresponding programme adjustments in the PWB. It is the considered opinion of the Nordic countries that in order for these priorities and their selection to be fully reflected in the Budget document a proper discussion and decision by the governing bodies is required.
Financial constraint is a reality with which both the United Nations organizations and many national governments are faced. The Nordic countries would expect more serious efforts to be made by the FAO Secretariat to make economies and to use available resources more efficiently.
In addition to a budget increase of about 1 percent over the previous Budget base, the Conference has also been asked to consider partly substantiated cost increases.
The present level of the lapse factor already provides considerable flexibility for the Secretariat. The untimely and unsubstantiated request for a further increase in the lapse factor entails further increases in net assessed contributions. The Nordic countries therefore voted against the decrease of this factor to 3 percent.
Finally, the Nordic countries are conscious of the practical difficulties caused by a postponement of decision on the Budget for one-and-a-half days to some delegations. We would however like to point out that the delay, in leading to a positive progress on the Review process, was instrumental in bringing about the support of the Budget by the Nordic countries.
Hans POPP (Suisse): Monsieur le Président, ma délégation regrette d'avoir dû s'abstenir lors des votes sur la résolution budgétaire, principalement pour deux raisons:
La première est que le budget soumis à cette Conférence ne correspond pas à la proposition originale du Secrétariat contenue dans le document Programme de travail et budget pour le prochain biennium car celui-ci contenait une augmentation réelle d'environ 1 pour cent. Mais maintenant, nous sommes confrontés à une augmentation réelle d'environ 3 pour cent. Ceci est la conséquence directe de la réduction du taux d'abattement pour les postes vacants de 5,5 à 3 pour cent décidée dans la Commission II, in English the famous lapse factor. La réduction de ce facteur ne nous semblait guère justifiée. Mais ce qui nous dérange aussi, c'est la manière dont cette proposition a été présentée.
Par ailleurs, comme nous l'avons déjà exprimé à plusieurs reprises dans notre déclaration générale comme dans le débat, les augmentations de coût manquent, à notre avis, de transparence et ne semblent pas suffisamment justifiées.
Pour terminer, Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais souligner que mon pays continue à coopérer avec cette Organisation dans la poursuite de son énorme tâche. Je vous remercie.
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): The United Kingdom has voted against the Resolution for the following reasons:
Firstly, Commission II was informed by the Secretariat on 15 November that at the current market rate the effective working Budget presented in C 89/3 to be funded by Member Nations' contributions would be US$545 million. Subsequently, a decision was taken to reduce the lapse factor - that is to say, the vacancy rate assumption - to 3 percent; but, on the basis of the information given to the Conference in C 89/5 on the experience of the Organization throughout this decade, it was clear to us that no cut in the lapse factor was justified, and that, on the contrary, an increase would have been justified.
Secondly, the Budget includes provision for increases which have not yet been agreed and may not be agreed by the United Nations General Assembly in the remuneration of professional staff. In our view, the cost of this increase, if it is agreed by the General Assembly, should be met by the Special Reserve Account, or by absorption if necessary.
We took note of the statement of the Secretariat in Commission II to the effect that the situation in relation to these costs would be monitored by the Finance Committee, and that if the funds were not needed for this purpose, other things being equal, they should form part of an eventual cash surplus which would be returned to Members at the end of the 1990-91 biennium. Had we received more specific guidance on the meaning of the phrase "other things being equal" we could have agreed to that method of proceeding.
In short, the effect of this and the other changes has been to raise the figure of US$545 million to US$626 million. This will involve an increase for each Member Nation of over 15 percent in their assessed contribution.
Overall, therefore, we see no justification for these increases in the Budget of the Organization. We consider as a general principle that the Budget of all United Nations organizations financed by assessed contributions should not grow in real terms, and to the extent possible the non-discretionary cost increases should be absorbed. In this connection we note that there is no arrangement for any systematic review of the need for individual posts or divisions within the Organization.
Finally, we note that if the Budget increases now adopted make it more difficult for other Member States to meet their assessed contributions in full without falling into arrears, the practical effect will be to increase the share of the Organization's expenditure which is actually met by those Members which do fulfil their obligations beyond their relative assessed share. We will of course meet our own obligations, but we would regard this consequence as extremely regrettable.
Earl W. WEYBRECHT (Canada): My delegation wishes to offer a brief explanation for its abstention to the vote on the budgetary appropriations for 1990-91. It will be recalled that Canada voted against the proposal to reduce the lapse factor from 5.5 percent to 3 percent when this issue was taken up in Commission II.
We were opposed to the reduction in the lapse factor and also concerned about the manner in which this measure was introduced and adopted. This proposal had a substantial impact on budgetary appropriations. However, my delegation wishes to register its satisfaction with the developments in the review of FAO and is pleased that a consensus has emerged on this important item. We look forward to the implementation of the results of the Review.
Tadeusz STROJWAS (Poland): The Polish delegation wishes to explain the reason for its abstention to the vote on the budgetary appropriation 1990.-91. While discussing the Programme of Work and Budget our delegation supported the Programme, and in a spirit of cooperation worked for a consensus resolution on the budget appropriation for the next biennium. However, to our regret, the consensus has not been reached.
In this new situation we should like to make our position absolutely clear. The scale and weight of challenges with which my country is faced at the present time is, indeed, unprecedented. The mass media, politicians and statesmen fascinated with the quality and pace of changes in Poland have emphasized this phenomenon for reasons I do not wish to analyse here at this moment. However, as the representative of Poland to this noble Organization, I consider it my duty to say that Poland is a country with an empty treasury, and has acute economic problems and a huge external debt. For these reasons we cannot vote for additional financial obligations knowing that we will not be able to fulfil such obligations. In other words, we are not playing a two-faced game. We want to be considered honest and reliable partners by all delegations sitting in this Conference hall. We have not voted against the proposal.
During discussion of the subject matter the Polish delegation expressed great appreciation for all the efforts made by the Director-General in order to reach a compromise between the needs of, and the pressure from, a majority of Member States (including my country) and the level of resources reduced over time by inflation, etc.
In view of this situation, and the problems in our own country, we fully understand the Director-General's position and admire his skills.
Finally, all the bold reforms in Poland will bring about much of the desired improvement to the economic situation and will allow our delegation to accept all financial obligations toward this Organization, of which we are proud to be one of the founding fathers.
Ilan HARTUV (Israel): We very much regret that we cannot vote for the Programme of Work and Budget. We fully approve and endeavour to further the aims of FAO and we approve the Programme of Work in general.
Although we approve of all assistance to the FAO to develop agriculture, mainly in the poorer countries; but we are voting against the Budget as a protest against politizing the Organization and because the Organization's funds will be misused for political help to Palestinian political propaganda contrary to all the traditions of the FAO.
We realize this is not the doing of the Organization per se, but of our fellow Members.
We shall continue to support the Organization and pay our dues and hope that the FAO will be allowed to return to concentrate on its real aims.
El PRESIDENTES: De acuerdo con la práctica vigente, la declaración de Israel se incluirá en las actas.
Los Presidentes de las Comisiones I y II me han pedido informar a los delegados que las reuniones de estas dos Comisiones previstas para las 11 esta mañana tendrá lugar inmediatamente después de que concluya esta sesión Plenaria.
Sumiji NAKAZAWA (Japan): My delegation voted against the draft Resolution on the budget appropriation 1990-91. I should like to explain our standpoint on this matter.
The Japanese delegation is opposed to the inclusion of the reduction of the lapse factor which has been introduced without sufficient discussion. On the basis of the new scale of contributions, the Japanese contribution will increase by more than US$1 million due to the introduction of the new lapse factor. This amount would cause difficulties in our own budget at this stage and the problem is the same for most member countries.
In the preparation of the next biennium budget the new method of budget procedure was introduced for the first time as part of the FAO review. We welcome it on the basis of the proposed outline of the Budget we have been discussing. With regard to the budget level and priorities from the beginning of this year, we thought it would be useful to facilitate a consensus. Japan was ready to join the consensus on the approval of the new Budget. However, just before the beginning of the 96th Session of Council a new proposal on the lapse factor was presented. We have had too short a time to study it thoroughly. We regret that such a proposal may render any efforts to introduce a new budget procedure in vain. Having said that, as the new Budget has been approved by the Conference, Japan will make every effort to fulfil its obligation to FAO as it has in the past, and will remain a strong supporter of FAO.
My delegation sincerely hopes that such budgeting processes as we have just experienced will not be repeated in the future, and that a further effort will be made by the FAO Secretariat to maintain a fuller understanding and cooperation with member countries.
Konan Daniel YOMAN (Côte d'Ivoire): Monsieur le Président, j'ai souhaité prendre la parole au nom de mon pays qui voudrait tout simplement, dans le respect des décisions souveraines de chaque Etat Membre, lancer néanmoins un appel à l'endroit de nos partenaires des Nations industrialisées qui, pour des raisons diverses, se sont abstenues ou ont refusé le niveau proposé par le Secrétariat pour le prochain budget caractérisé par un relèvement de 0,45%. Nous voudrions interpréter la volonté de beaucoup de pays ici présents et pensons que cette attitude sur le budget n'aura pas d'effets négatifs sur le financement de certaines activités de l'Organisation par des ressources extrabudgétaires; ressources budgétaires qui, nous l'espérons vivement, permettront de mettre en oeuvre les mesures préconisées par l'examen de la FAO ou même les différents programmes spéciaux.
De même, nous pensons que nos amis continueront d'apporter leur concours au financement du programme alimentaire mondial et à la reconstitution des ressources du fonds international de développement agricole, toutes organisations qui oeuvrent très utilement pour le même objectif en faveur des pays en voie de développement. Voilà, Monsieur le Président, le bref message que je voudrais adresser à nos amis ce matin. Je vous remercie.
Muhammed Saleem KHAN S. (Pakistan): Pakistan has voted in favour of the Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91 in full realization of its implications and with full satisfaction as to the contents. Therefore, we are extremely disturbed when our decision, which was shared by 103 countries, was called "irresponsible". Pakistan is a strong supporter of the UN multilateral system and has always acted most responsibly in connection with difficult decisions in this system and in making payment of its assessed contributions despite its large financial constraints.
We know that currently we are slightly behind with the payment of our assessed contribution to FAO. We certainly have every intention of paying this as soon as possible. We also recognize that a number of countries - I believe 86 - are at the moment in default. We have no doubt that these countries are fully committed to the responsibility of paying. However, most of these countries are constrained by circumstances beyond their control. I
am sure that all countries who contribute less than 0.1 percent, and who are proud and committed members of the FAO and the UN system, feel extremely disturbed by being called "irresponsible" in their conscious and well considered decision to support the Budget. Therefore, we regret this statement.
Anwar Muhamed KHALED (Yemen, People's Democratic Republic of) (original language Arabic) (No English translation until): ... the Budget 1990-91. This was due to pressing commitments. Therefore, I should like to stress once again what my country has said in previous meetings, namely, that we approve the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91. Certain ideas were exchanged, but we approved the programme because it takes into account the prevailing financial situation and the problem which arises when certain austerities in expenditure have to be observed.
Therefore, my country would like to support this resolution for the Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91.
Sra. Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Señior Presidente, usted nos pidió paciencia y nosotros esperamos disciplinadamente, pero ya estamos desesperados y pensábamos que se había olvidado de nosotros.
La delegación de Argentina ha debido votar en abstención la Resolución sobre las consignaciones presupuestarias para el bienio 1990-91, y quisiera ahora explicar la razón de su voto.
En primer lugar, permítame destacar que Argentina está plenamente comprometida con los principios y objetivos de la Organización y que continuará prestando todo su apoyo a sus actividades futuras. Estamos seguros que se verán considerablemente reforzadas en los próximos años. Sin embargo, como es por todos conocido, la República Argentina está atravesando una de las situaciones económicas más difíciles de su historia. El grave peso de la deuda externa, los problemas de la balanza de pago y las pérdidas de ingreso de divisas por exportaciones de nuestros productos tradicionales, así como el severo ajuste interno, han hecho más que nunca necesario reducir los gastos del Estado.
El Programa de Labores que apoyamos implica una asignación de recursos que incrementa en forma significativa la cuota que le corresponde pagar a la República Argentina, que ha visto, asimismo, aumentado su porcentaje de contribución a los presupuestos ordinarios de las organizaciones del sistema de Naciones Unidas y, entre ellas, la FAO.
Por otra parte, los cambios introducidos recientemente en las estimaciones no han podido ser adecuadamente analizados por las áreas competentes de mi Gobierno. Ello impide completar el proceso de decisión interna. Esta circunstancia, unida entonces a la dificultad de absorber mayores gastos por parte del Estado Nacional, constituyen la única motivación de la posición argentina, que, de ninguna manera, debe interpretarse como abvocando la tesis del crecimiento cero de los presupuestos de ésta o de cualquier otra organización del Sistema de Naciones Unidas.
- 594 -
Gerhard LIEBER (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): Like the delegate of Argentina, I also thought you had forgotten me, Mr Chairman, because I asked for the floor much earlier.
As for the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91, we voted in favour of it. My government did this in order to demonstrate that we greatly appreciate the important work carried out by FAO, and because we all need this Organization. FAO is an important instrument in the worldwide fight against hunger and poverty, which must be continued.
However, although we voted in favour of the Programme of Work and Budget, we have objections to certain aspects of the budget, especially the lapse factor. We have made statements to this effect both in Council and in Commission II. Therefore, I shall not repeat these details in Plenary. By approving the budget, we hope first of all that in the next biennium FAO will take the necessary measures in order to take advantage of the various positive initiatives which are the result of the review.
Juan NUIRY SANCHEZ (Cuba): Participamos por primera vez en representación de mi pais en una Conferencia de la FAO y hemos podido observar hoy la forma democrática, amplia y clara como que se produjo esta votación, asi como la manera abrumadora en que fue aprobado el presupuesto de la FAO; pero no podemos permanecer impasibles sin manifestar algunas consideraciones.
Entre las cosas que más nos han llamado la atención de todo este proceso, en estos días de Conferencia, está haber oído a países que ondean consignas de “democracia” -entre comillas- opinar que una mayoría abrumadora puede estar equivocada o es irresponsable. Esto es no respetar la soberanía misma de los Estados Miembros aquí representados. Y luego de esto, y lógicamente no nos sorprende nada, oírles decir que no se sienten comprometidos por esta mayoría y por esta aprobación mayoritaria, en contraste con otras ilustres delegaciones que, muy honestamente, han manifestado su posición.
En nombre de mi delegación, rechazo estos desafortunados criterios, al mismo tiempo que felicito a la FAO por sus textos básicos y a la presidencia de esta Conferencia por la forma democrática y libre en que son aprobados, asi como la manera en que se ha desarrollado, de plena libertad, que es como lo hemos sentido los países soberanos.
EL PRESIDENTE: El representante de un pais, que no pudo estar presente durante la votación, ha solicitado la palabra para explicar esa situación y creo que, con la flexibilidad acostumbrada, podemos concedérsela.
Tiene la palabra Guatemala.
Oscar Ernesto P. VIDAURRE (Guatemala): Pedimos excusas por haber llegado un poco tarde para depositar nuestro voto, pero queremos dejar constancia del apoyo de nuestro pais, Guatemala, al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1990-91.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Mr Chairman, distinguished delegates, let me congratulate and thank you all for completing your work on the Programme of Work and Budget with an overwhelming positive vote in favour of my proposals. Regrettably, this vote included some "noes" and some abstentions, but that is nothing unusual in the history of voting on the Programme of Work and Budget at United Nations organizations. This is not to minimize either my disappointment or yours, at not being able to join a consensus, but rather to put it into perspective.
It appears that those who voted against or abstained did so not on account of differences over the programmes or priorities, but because of the lapse factor or the minimal programme increases. Their views merit our respect, but I have to be able to manage and it is obvious that the vast majority of member countries share my concern regarding the continued insistence of some major contributors on real zero growth.
Mr Chairman, this point is particularly relevant to all that we are being asked to do as a result of the review of goals and strategies. Mere assurances in general terms about being able to absorb activities, to carry out additional priorities,while not impairing others are easy to make, but difficult to execute in the absence of additional resources.
You have given me the responsibility to execute your decisions, to reconcile in practice what is irreconcilable in theory. But I do not own an Aladdin's Cave to which I can resort at will, nor a magic wand with which I can create the necessary ways and means at will. Hard decisions are and will be involved, and as usual I am willing and I think able to take them in due course, subject to a willingness on your part to accept realities and feasibilities.
In this connection, I cannot fail once again to remind you of the unprecedented contributions situation. Many of the poorer countries have made exceptional efforts, even during the course of the Conference, to pay up.
Their contributions may be small in amount, but the spirit of their efforts to conform to their legal obligations and give the Organization their support is heart-warming, while the sacrifice involved for them is disproportionately larger than in the case of the very rich countries.
I do not share the views that the decision taken today by those poor countries toward the budget derives from an irresponsible optimism. As you know, the largest amount still due is attributable to one Member Nation for reasons which they have said themselves is beyond the control of the Administration. Whatever the reasons it is an unprecedented situation and an unprecedentedly large amount.
And what is worse for all of us is that there is no information forthcoming, even at this late stage, on any schedule for payment of the contributions due for previous biennia or the coming one. To say the least, this makes the planning of programmes, priorities and even routine daily operations, extremely difficult. We have outstanding bills to pay - more than US$100 million. At the end of the year, the Special Reserve Account and the Working Capital Fund will be empty and awaiting replenishment for the next biennium. I need more than general exhortations to be able to manage this Organization and to carry it forward in facing the challenge of the future as identified by you at this Conference.
I want to thank all Member Nations who have been paying their contributions early in the beginning of the biennium, and those are the majority of contributors. I want to thank all of them because they have put us in the position of being able to continue to function.
I thank you again for your efforts and for this renewal of your confidence in the Secretariat and myself in confiding this new and very important Programme of Work and Budget to us the basis for all of our efforts to serve you well in the coming years.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
EL PRESIDENTE: Hay otro país que no pudo votar y que ha pedido tener la oportunidad de explicar su posición.
Tiene la palabra Ghana,
Y.K. ATTA-KONADU (Ghana): Ghana has already demonstrated its unfailing support for the FAO in general and for the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91.
During the course of the Conference it has become very obvious that all Member Nations have given support for the objectives and principles of FAO, and have indicated at the Plenary and Commission levels their support for the Organization. In doing so we have to recognize that, as the American saying goes, it takes money to make money. Indeed, it requires money to enable the Organization to move ahead and implement the programmes that we have defined for it.
Although we regret that I was absent during the vote, I wish to put on record that Ghana would have voted to support the Programme of Work and Budget, and I would like the Secretariat to note that fact.
EL PRESIDENTE: Creo que la interesante y afirmativa declaración del Director General debe inducirnos a todos a serias reflexiones. Creo interpretar el sentimiento de la Conferencia al expresar la conveniencia inmodificable de que todos los Estados Miembros, al haberse adoptado el proyecto de Resolución esta mañana, han adquirido el compromiso legal y moral de pagar y que lo harán, que honorarán ese compromiso.
Pienso también que, no obstante el resultado de la votación de esta mañana, al cual ya estamos acostumbrados en los últimos bienios, todos coincidimos en reafirmar nuestra fe inquebrantable en el futuro mejor de esta Organización, dirigida con eficacia y competencia por usted, Sr Director General.
Al concluir la reunión de esta mañana, no voy a caer en la tentación de decir, con la franqueza y claridad que me caracteriza, lo que pienso en este momento, porque debo respeto a la accidental responsabilidad que se me ha confiado. Como no puedo físicamente, como tanto lo desearía, ocupar el sitio de Colombia en esta sala, prefiero declarar cerrada esta sesión.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
Draft Report of Plenary, Part 1, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière, la première partie est adoptée
El proyecto de informe de la plenaria, Parte 1, es aprobado
The meeting rose at 11.45 hours.
La séance est levée à 11 h 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 11.45 horas.
