LE PRESIDENT: Mesdames, Messieurs, bonjoui:. J'espère que vous vous êtes bien reposés cette nuit, en tout cas, je pense que le Secrétariat a travaillé afin d'essayer de mettre au point les réponses qu'il doit nous fournir ce matin.
Comme vous le savez, hier nous avons terminé notre débat sur le point 12. Nous devons ce matin écouter les réponses du Secrétariat et ensuite nous pourrons conclure le débat sur cette question. Je vous signale, puisque tout de suite après nous aborderons le point sur le Programme de travail et budget, que quatre séances sont prévues à ce sujet et déjà celle de ce matin est entamée. Demain matin, également, la séance sera écourtée en raison de la visite chez le Pape au Vatican. Vous comprenez donc que le temps est court et lorsque nous aborderons ce point, je vous lancerai le même appel afin qu'il y ait beaucoup de concision dans les interventions que vous ferez sur ce sujet.
Je donne maintenant la parole à Monsieur Shah qui va apporter des réponses aux questions et aux observations que vous avez pu faire hier. Après Monsieur Shah, ce sera Monsieur Bonte-Friedheim qui. pourra également compléter ces réponses.
V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): It is, as usual no easy task to try and reply to a debate in Which 45 Member Nations spoke and spoke with some involvement and intensity of interventions but the Secretariat will try its best to reply to the questions raised. I would break up my replies into the two broad categories. First of all there are some issues on which comments were made and some of these comments called for a Secretariat reaction or merit a Secretariat reaction, and then there is a second category of interventions where specific questions were asked and those I deal with separately, and as you said, following me my colleague Mr Bonte-Friedheim also wishes to reply to a number of points made.
In the first category then let me start with the appreciation which was expressed to the document submitted to you. We are grateful to the Conference for the positive reaction that it has expressed as regards the document before you. I think almost every intervention of this subject noted that some improvement has been made and I am very very pleased and grateful on behalf of the Secretariat because at every discussion of the Review of the Regular Programme, despite satisfactions on the document then submitted to you, there have been requests for more analytical material, more progress to be made, efforts to be made, and I hope that any improvement that has been seen this time is also seen as evidence of the Secretariat's willingness to respond to these wishes and concerns and also ever to try and do better. So once again I have taken very careful note of every comment made, every suggestion made and you may rest assured, and in particular the Member Nations which expressed these views may rest assured that we will take them very carefully into account in developing our next Review of the Regular Programme.
It has also been noted in the debate, and once again I think this was a part of the appreciation, that this document has no direct equivalent in other organizations in the UN system. I am glad that this comment was made by Member Nations because even though the Secretariat may think so I would not like to say it, it is not fair, it is not cricket as regards our sister agencies and our colleagues in other agencies but I refer to this comment because I hope that Member Nations who referred to this will also realize that when we, in FAD, try to make further improvements in the areas of evaluation, cost effectiveness analysis, we try also to gather on the experience of other agencies to support each other all to do the better work and quite frankly you will appreciate that it is not always easy to get progress in this area when other agencies do not have the same experience or have not embarked on the same course. Very briefly allow rae to report to you, a senior colleague of mine recently went to an inter-agency meeting in which 22 UN agencies and the Joint Inspection Unit participated and it was held under the chairmanship of UNDP, which is an inter-agency working on group evaluation. I would refer to only two of the many subjects that were discussed there. One was on cost effectiveness analysis; we certainly wish to pursue our work in this area but the participants I was told were forced to conclude that this type of cost effectiveness analysis which is used mainly for capital investment projects has seen much less application in the case of technical cooperation projects and I would go further to say it has seen even less application in view of the devaluation of the regular normal programme type of activities. This is not an excuse, this is not an excuse I repeat, but I just want to shew you some of the difficulties that are encountered and let us face up to them.
The other aspect that was discussed at great length was the evaluation of feedback from evaluation because we have always maintained in this Secretariat that the lessons of evaluation must not only be noted but must be learned, must be fedback and it is a very complex process, as those who have referred to it realize. Here again quite frankly in this inter-agency meeting which took place there was an interesting discussion but no agency representative expressed full satisfaction about the feedback from the evaluation exercises. Now I am sharing those comments with you very honestly. Let it not be said that there is only wrong in the UN system. I hope it will be seen that the fact that we recognize some of these problems testifies to the efforts we make and are determined to make to face up to these issues and try to resolve them.
There was a great deal of comment about the effects of financial constraints and a great deal of regret was expressed. The Secretariat in serving its Member Nations can only share this regret. We are the first ones to be disappointed that all the activities of the programmes which have been provided for in the approved Programme of Work and Budget could not be carried out and I have taken note with great care of those particular areas where Member Nations have expressed their disappointment and their regret in particular as regards the decrease in training activities. But I hope it will be realized that this process of programme adjustments was not entirely haphazard. We surely recall that it was the last Conference which in its wisdom saw the eventual need for these adjustments and adopted its Resolution 20/87 on the justification for the approved Programme of Work and Budget for 1988-89. That resolution provided for the Programme and Finance
Committees to be consulted as soon as possible when the need for adjustments was apparent and the Committees were indeed consulted. The results of their considerations were then reported to the Council at its session in November 1988. One specific question that was raised was whether there were any guiding principles behind the Programmes, the activities, which were identified as having to be dropped or be postponed. The Programme Committee at its 54th session in May 1988 went into specific examination of all these points. The document which was submitted to the Programme Committee incorporated not only information on the overall saving target and the identification of effective savings, but also on the guiding principles and since there has been some reference to whether there were guiding principles let me briefly recall them. In his approach to identifying possible savings the Director-General was guided by his concern to safeguard in particular FAO's direct field action through provision of adequate backstopping of field activities and sufficient involvement in the programming of new field programmes and projects in cooperation with funding sources in recipient countries and maintaining the Technical Cooperation Programme at its approved level; ensuring the statutory requirements such as the main inter-governmental meetings and the completion of the major studies as mandated by FAO's governing bodies; FAO's role as global watch for food and agricultural matters through the Global Information Early Warning System, through the Emergency Centre for Locust Populations and recurrent assessments such as the State of Food and Agriculture.
The new priorities are identified in the Programme of Work and Budget for 1988-89, such as biotechnology applications, planned major system enhancements, both on the administrative side for financial and personal assistance and on the technical side. The Programme Committee fully endorses these guiding principles. These were reported to the Council in November 1988 and the Council agreed with them. There was also a great deal of discussion in that Council in November 1988 on the matter in which the programme adjustments were made and in particular how cuts, how economies, could only be made starting with posts which were vacant or which would fall vacant or could become vacant, relating it to non-staff resources, examining the effects on programmes and continuing this on an iterative process. It was not a simple process but it was fully explained to our governing bodies.
A number of delegations expressed their support for evaluation, and if I am correct, there was one statement which said, or said to the effect, that this Review of the Regular Programme does not represent evaluation. Let me correct, if I may, at least what I said in my introduction to this item. I said that Part One, performance report, of this document, does not pretend to be an evaluation. It does not because it is a straightforward reporting of what was done and not done, but the rest of the document is based on our evaluation work and other parts of this document and other chapters of this document I hope fully attest to this.
There are two other aspects that I would mention. First, when we are dealing with the Regular Programme of this Organization it is not a case of dealing with a project wich has a two-year lifespan.
We are dealing with programme objectives, we are dealing with programme activities, which have a validity, a timespan, beyond the biennium for which provision is made in a specific Programme of Work and Budget. Therefore - and this is my second point - in looking at the evaluation of the Regular Programme I would urge Member Nations to bear in mind not only the evaluation which appears before you in one Review of the Regular Programme but in the whole series of them that have been submitted to you, and going over these documents over a timespan I think you will find that there is a continual progression of evaluation of different programmes and different programme areas.
In view of the interest in evaluation, and particularly evaluation involving outside participation, or independent expertise, I am very happy to indicate that the Director-General has instructed us to carry out an independent external review of the Tropical Forestry Action Plan, and this is being done with independent external expertise and in full collaboration with the other Organizations who are involved with us in this matter, notably the World Bank and UNDP. We are also aiming to carry this out fairly expeditiously so that the results of this evaluation can be submitted to the Committee on Forestry at its next session in June of next year.
The relationship between the Regular Programme and the Field Programme has been emphasized by us in the Secretariat and has found a ready response in many interventions which were made. This I think only serves once again to show the links between the Regular Programme and the Field Programmee, the roles which are complementary, and no matter what basis of view there may be for the perceptions of individual Member Nations as to the importance of one role as against that of another for the community of Member Nations these roles are important and are interlinked. The results of evaluation work in this area which is done by the evaluation surveys are not limited to the Review of the Regular Programme.
When you get to examine the Review of the Field Programme you will find that there is a great deal which is contributed by the Evaluation Service, the synthesis of evaluation reports on field projects during 1987/88, the absorptive capacity and institutional problems relating to field activities in the least developed countries and the review of the ARPA, the Agricultural Rehabilitation Programme in Africa.
Talking of the Field Programme, a lot of interest has been expressed in receiving more information on the TCP, the Technical Cooperation Programme, in further reviews. This will be done. We will provide in further editions of this Review of the Regular Programme more information of the kind that has been desired. En passant, let me say that we always have to bear in mind that the TCP forms part of the Regular Budget, so we have to mention it under the Review of the Regular Programme, but it is essentially field activities, so we have to mention it also in the Review of the Field Programme, and the evaluation of the ARPA programme is given in the Review of the Field Programme. I only give this as an instance of the link. But the point remains that in future we will give you more information of the kind in which interest has been expressed.
Turning now to some specific questions, the delegate of Norway enquired if, as regards the distribution of policy analysis and policy projects, which is given in the table on Page 204 of the document, Policy and Planning Projects by Region and Source of Funds, whether this reflected the governments' requests or the Secretariat's own priority. My answer is that this distribution does represent the actual requests received which we were able to handle.
Mr Chairman, on the subject of policy analysis and policy advice, while taking note of the comments which were made I request your indulgence not to make too many specific comments now, because this is a subject which comes up again under the Programme of Work and Budget, which comes up again under the item of the FAO Review, and although I have taken note of the comments made I feel in the interest of your time and in the interests of giving you the maximum clarification on our side perhaps it would be more helpful if I dealt with these matters as they came up in the course of your later discussions.
There was a request from the delegate of France about greater attention to be paid to socio-economic issues in fisheries. This aspect is indeed discussed on the Committee on Fisheries and is considered also in the proposed Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium. In addition, my colleague Dr Lindquist informs me that several regional FAO Fisheries bodies had included this aspect in their work and also established some subsidiary bodies for that purpose, so I trust the matter will receive the due consideration it deserves.
The delegate of the United States of America enquired about the pace of development of WAICENT, the World Agricultural Information Centre. In fact, another delegate, the delegate of Switzerland, also referred to WAICENT and to the number of data bases which are reported in the document. The report is precisely that one of WAICENT's basic aims is to coordinate and improve the relationship between the various data bases so that they are firstly improved data, more consistent data to all Member Nations and to other nations.
As regards the pace of the development of WAICENT, there is an interdepartmental working group which was established to deal with this and monitor it and it set up a time schedule on activities and in several respects I can assure you that we are even ahead of this time schedule. But the preparatory work, and in essence at this stage it is preparatory work, a lot of Secretariat work, has not given the sort of results which we are ready to report to you.
The relationship between WAICENT and nutrition country profiles has also been referred to and there was a specific question about the relationship between the two. All the nutrition country profiles will eventually be available as part of WAICENT data for direct access by users of the international computing networks. The preparation of programmes to effect this on-line availability is in process and meanwhile all the nutrition country profiles are available in final form, in the form of either hard copy or an IBM compatible diskette or can even be transmitted by electronic mail to the most convenient fax account.
Since Mr Bonte-Friedheim is going to deal with some of the other issues, I would like to stop here, once again thanking your commission for the debate that you have had and trusting that these replies, while brief, will give Member Nations enough assurance of the way the Secretariat is attentive to their views and comments.
C.H. BONTE-FRIEDHEIM (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I would like to add four points to what Mr Shah has said this morning, two of my points being general explanations of some issues which have come up during the debate on the Review of the Regular Programme, which are likely to come up when we talk about the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium, when we talk about the Review of the Field Programme and when we talk about the Review. These two aspects deal (1) with sustainability and (2) with small farms. Then I will answer two specific questions.
I would like to start with sustainable development. In last week's Council Session I made a statement defending the farmers' action, which basically and on purpose will be sustainable unless they are forced or they are not knowledgeable about other action, and I have talked about FAO, which is an Organization in its mandate having one of the priorities sustainable development.
I have said that maybe our action has not been visible enough and I can report to Conference that this morning you will find outside a small publication, a bibliography, with the title "Sustainable Development and Environment: Selected FAO Publications", which has been prepared for this Conference meeting. In the Foreword the Director-General says:
"Throughout its history FAO has been active in the promotion of sustainable development and sound environmental management. Our programme has evolved over the years to address environmental problems in both developed and developing countries arising from growing population pressures or caused by agricultural practices.
"The central objectives of FAO's programme are prevention rather than cure, and on increasing food and agricultural production without degrading the environment. These objectives are pursued in a number of ways, including technical publications that are not widely available in bookshops but are well used in the field. This booklet provides a selected list of our major publications since 1980 related to sustainable development and environment to illustrate the depth and breadth of our efforts to achieve these objectives. "
That is signed by the Director-General. This list, by the way, comprises 165 major publications - and, I would like to repeat, major - since during the past ten years FAO has produced more than 5 000 publications and documents on issues directly related to sustainable development and environment.
In order to satisfy those delegates who would like to know a little bit more about what FAO has been doing, our library is preparing a computer output microfiche which contains 2 400 documents produced since 1986. It will be available to all delegates on request. They can either take it away or they can also read it in the library because we will have put up a microfiche reader in the library for consultation of this microfiche. In addition, of course, you can also search the FAO library database and the world-wide AGRIS-database through the terminals available in the library. All delegates are most welcome to benefit from these facilities.
We have said on a number of occasions that for FAO the big umbrella is sustainable development where environment, a very important subject, is one of the important sub-items under sustainable development. The question has been asked whether FAO is doing enough here, and the answer is no. Are we ever going to do enough? No. Can we do more? Yes, if we have either additional resources or if somebody else tells us what other things we should not do. I would like to repeat that there is not a single major programme in the Department of Agriculture where sustainable development is not part and parcel of it.
I have reported to Council that we have set up a working group on sustainability as a sub-group of the Inter-Departmental Working Group on Environment and Energy. We have also as a first step developed criteria for checking all major field projects on environmental assessment. We held the first staff meeting to train staff in October of this year. We are working closely with UNEP and other agencies in order (a) to make our interests known to them; and (b) to have the benefit of their own experience.
Also, as I have said in Council on many occasions, the Director-General and the Secretariat have appealed to the members in our governing bodies and other interested parties to make available extra budgetary resources to strengthen our activities, expecially in environment, and I reported to Council that unfortunately response so far has been very, very limited.
A specific question steamming from this has been asked by the distinguished delegate of Norway, and that is whether it really is only 3 percent, and if it is 3 percent as reported in the document that is much too little. I would like to refer to paragraph 12.9 on page 228 of document C 89/8, the Review of the Regular Programme, where it clearly indicates that a large number of FAO's activities are not reported in this chapter, and also a considerable share of our Regular Programme activities - which are not directly linked to the support of Member Governments' activities - are not reported.
Finally, I must confess that it is very difficult in 1989 to try and go through 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987 to find out exactly what we did with regard to support of Member Countries in terms of conservation and amelioration of the natural environment.
The final point is that it is also very difficult at the beginning of 1989, not knowing what resources we will have, to talk about what we will or will not have done in 1989.
The next specific question which was asked was from the distinguished delegate of the United States. The delegate seemed to imply that with regard to bio-diversity FAO works together only with UNEP. There exists an eco-system conservation group to which UNEP, UNESCO, IUCN and FAO contribute. They are the ones which are preparing and doing the groundwork for a draft International Convention on Biological Diversity. The next Extraordinary Session of this Group will be hosted by the FAO in the first quarter of next year.
My final explanation - as I said, in order to clarify future discussion on this point - has to do with the decreasing size of projects and the criticism about the large numbers of small projects. I have difficulty with such statements. Five, six and seven years ago a typical FAO project to start production on vaccines in a country would consist of three experts for three years, a bit of equipment which was not available in the country, and that project would cost US$ 1 million. It was a large project. Due to the success of having national expertise available, we might still look at US$ 100 000 of equipment because it is not available in the country, three national experts and maybe a consultant, and the total cost would be US$ 200 000. That is a small project according to some. You cannot have it both ways. One cannot be glad about a development which allows the national government to implement more and more of its own programmes and at the same time say that the size of the projects that FAO implements is going down. I would like to repeat that I have no idea about the changing size of projects which are government projects. In the FAO we call them projects because we do not have a better name. It is a specific, small part of a government project, and I agree that that part has gone down. It has gone down; it has to go down; and hopefully it will go further down. I also do not understand why everyone tells us that the NSOs with their smaller projects are beautiful. Small to them is beautiful and we should learn from the NGOs. When we say we have smaller projects and we are in a way pleased about it, we are criticized and told that they should be larger. In the report of the experts it recommends fewer but better funded projects. I do not know what that means and I have argued with the experts and the joint committee. Better funded means that they are not sufficiently funded. Or does it mean larger? What does "better funded" mean? In my personal view, it is the next step in having less and less technical assistance. The next step must be smaller and smaller projects and the third step must be no projects.
There is one other point which I would like to make in this respect. The major difference between the large projects and what you call the small projects is as follows. In a US$1 million project six years ago, FAO received 13 percent for agency cost, which was US$ 130 000, to do its work which is assistance to the government in the formulation of the project in the evaluation of the equipment, in recruiting, in backstopping and in the preparation of reports. For all this we received US$ 130 000. Present projects cost, say, US$ 200 000. We accept that on recruitment of nationals very little has changed. We still assist in the preparation of the project documents. We still prepare a work plan, together with the government. We still do the backstopping. We still assist in the preparation of the final report. On this US$ 200 000 project FAO's incane is US$ 26 000. That is one of the problems we have with backstopping, that we do not have enough money.
I would like to make this quite clear because if we do not have an understanding of the development from large to small projects we will take it up again in the next three issues which are in front of us: the review of the Field Programme; the review process; and also the Programme of Work and Budget for the next Biennium. Due to this cutting down on the agency cost income, we have to use more of our own funds to backstop the field project. There is no other way I know of. Or we include much more in the project document, and all donors accept that much more of the cost to the Organization is part and parcel of the project document than we have had up to now.
I am sorry I have been a little longer than I would have liked, but I thought
I should explain this.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Bonte-Friedheim, je crois que c'était nécessaire. Cela a peut-être permis à l'ensemble des délégués d'être suffisamment informés. Y a-t-il des questions qui ont été omises et sur lesquelles vous aimeriez obtenir des renseignements?
Pedro Agostinho KANGA (Angola): Je voudrais rappeler qu'hier Madame la déléguée de l'Algérie avait posé une question à laquelle nous n'avons par reçu de réponse. C'était la question sur l'effet négatif de l'Afrique du Sud au niveau de l'Afrique australe et les territoires arabes occupés par Israël. Il y a deux ans de cela une étude avait été approuvée par la Conférence sur ces deux régions. Alors nous désirions savoir ce qui a été fait et quelle est la décision qui a été prise puisque cette étude ne figure pas dans le Programme ordinaire ni dans le Programme de travail et budget pour 1990-91. Nous voudrions avoir satisfaction de la part du Secrétariat.
Raymond ALLEN (United Kingdom) : I do not want to vaste the time of this Commission given that we have a very busy agenda before us and we have a very important item coming up next, namely the Programme of Work and Budget, but there are one or two points of clarification which, if acceptable to the Secretariat, I could take up after the meeting.
Igor MARINCEK (Suisse): Mon pays a parlé du nombre pléthorique d'activités et du besoin de les réduire pour les renforcer. Il me semble que les réponses de M. Bonte-Friedheim visaient ces remarques. J'aimerais brièvement faire un certain nombre de commentaires.
Nous ne sommes pas du tout contre les petits projets. Si le même projet peut être effectué avec un cinquième des ressources, nous félicitons la FAO de cette amélioration et de cette efficacité. Cela va dans le bons sens. Ce que nous avons visé, c'était le nombre d'activités. Je n'ai pas parlé de projets mais du nombre des activités. Nous pensons que l'offre de la FAO est trop dispersée et qu'elle mérite d'être réduite. Quand M. Bonte-Friedheim a parlé des activités et des publications dans le domaine de l'environnement, je dois dire que j'ai été effrayé. Cinq mille publications sur l'environnement, cela permet plus ou moins de couvrir un délégué sous une avalanche de documents. Il y en a donc un peu trop. Faut-il vraiment avoir lu les 5 000 documents pour avoir une compréhension des problèmes de l'environnement? Je ne les ai pas tous lus et je ne les lirai jamais.
Il y a peut-être là la nécessité de préciser que de telles études et de tels documents ne devraient pas être regardés pour les décisions mais qu'ils relèvent seulement de la question technique d'envergure très limitée. En tout cas, pour nous le nombre lui-même ne représente pas la qualité. Il est mieux parfois d'avoir moins de documents pour de meilleurs résultats.
Mme Amina BOUDJELTI (Algérie): L'honorable délégué de l'Angola qui m'a précédée a déjà parlé pour moi. Je voudrais simplement préciser que d'après les informations reçues, le Secrétariat, il y a deux ans, avait annoncé que de lui-même, et avant même qu'on le lui recommande, il avait engagé des études aussi bien sur les populations des territoires arabes occupés que sur celles d'Afrique australe. C'était cette précision que je voulais ajouter.
LE PRESIDENT: Le Secrétariat a dû noter cette question.
V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Thank you, Mr Chairman. Let me first take up the question of the distinguished representative of Algeria, recalled by the distinguished representative of Angola. Let me be clear that my colleagues have given me a great deal of information about the assistance and support we give to national liberation movements in the areas of training activities, support for food production, sectoral surveys and so on. I have this information and will gladly share it with all interested delegates; but I am not replying to that because the question is much more specific. It is: what have we done about specific studies on the effects of agriculture in the occupied territories and also in regard to the front line States?
First, as regards the occupied territories, I must report that we have not been able to do more since we debated this subject at the last Conference. This has been one of the areas in which work has been affected. We have made sure that we continue our relations with the Economic and Social Cammission for West Asia (ESCWA), with whom we have a joint Division so that work can be pursued. However, at this time, I must be honest and say that I cannot report on any study being completed.
As regards the effects on agriculture in the front line States, here there is more to report. There has been a General Assembly Resolution which gave the lead to the Economic Commission for Africa and we are pursuing this not by undertaking a study ourselves but by contributing to the work done under the auspices of the ECA. I feel this is a more rational response in that the efforts of other organizations are being coordinated in a common effort, instead of our doing a study just by ourselves. I shall be happy to meet Representatives of the United Kingdom and others to take up specific questions which they wish to pursue.
C.H. BONTE-FRIEDHEIM (Assistant Director-General, Agricultural Department): I should like to answer the delegate of Switzerland on two points. First, my discourse on the development from large projects to small projects was really an explanation regarding the comment made by the distinguished delegate of France and not in reply to anything said by Switzerland. Secondly, with regard to the number of publications, let me repeat that during the past ten years more than five thousand publications and documents on issues directly related to sustainable development and related matters have been produced as a result of FAO's involvement at Headquarters and in the field. These five thousand publications have not all been produced from Headquarters. A large number of them stem from specific outputs from field projects already identified in the Project Document and are aimed at specific conditions in the countries concerned. If you will look at the documents in your pigeon-holes this morning you will find a list of documents and they contain sub-headings: General, Policy and Plannning, Natural Resources, Conservation and Management, Genetic Resources, Conservation, Forestry Resource Management, Pollution Control, Technological Development and Application, Production Systems Management and Social, Econcmic and Institutional Aspects. I hope I have not missed any out in reading the list. The point I was trying to make was that our technical progress must be recorded but I do not want anybody to read the whole of the five thousand publications: only those which may be relevant to his competence and interest.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Bonte-Friedheim et M. Shah. Je pense que les intervenants de tout à l'heure auront reçu les réponses à leurs questions. Avec ces interventions du Secrétariat nous pouvons considérer que le débat est terminé sur cette question. Est-ce bien cela? Je vous remercie.
A mon tour, au terme de cet ample et riche débat, puisque 45 orateurs ont pu s'exprimer sur cette question, je souhaite vous faire part très succinctement de ce que je crois utile de retenir. Il va de soi que le Secrétariat a pris note des observations et des propositions qui ont été avancées ici. Le Comité de rédaction saura d'ailleurs traduire cela dans le rapport qu'il soumettra à notre examen. Je crois, que dans son ensemble, la Ccmmission accueille favorablement cet examen dont la qualité du document de par son contenu et sa forme a été vivement appréciée, même si certaines délégations ont encouragé la PAO à renforcer les effets et les aspects d'évaluation. D'une manière générale, la Commission a souligné que cet examen a mis en lumière les effets de la crise financière que traverse la EAO. Cette crise s'est traduite par des réductions de programmes (situation qui limite les capacités de la FAO à exécuter son programme de travail et à répondre aux requêtes des Etats Membres). Ceci a été source de préoccupations, même si quelques délégués ont profité de l'occasion pour demander que la FAO tienne compte de cette situation pour redéfinir ses priorités et concentrer ses activités sur un nombre réduit de questions. Idée qui n'a pas été appuyée par la plupart des délégués qui ont estimé que les priorités et activités actuelles sont valables et correspondent à des besoins réels.
La Commission a demandé qu'un soutien soit apporté au PCT, à la protection des ressources naturelles, au développement durable, aux pêches, aux ressources génétiques animales, aux ressources phytogénétiques, à la recherche et à la formation y compris les séminaires pour les lusophones ainsi qu'aux activités du CTPD. La Commission a souscrit aux conclusions du document sur le Chapitre 7 relatif aux industries alimentaires et agricoles et a souligné la nécessité de plus de coordination entre les institutions des Nations Unies et notamment avec l'ONUDI. La FAO a été encouragée à poursuivre et intensifier son appui au plan d'action forestier et tropical ainsi que la mise en oeuvre des programmes d'action approuvés par la Conférence mondiale des pêches, c'est-à-dire la Conférence mondiale de l'Aménagement et du Développement des Pêches.
Le Chapitre 4 qui traite de la base de données relative à l'exécution des programmes techniques et économiques constitue une innovation que l'ensemble de la Commission a apprécié en tant qu'instrument utile pour tous. Certains ont voulu que d'autres données utiles soient mises à la disposition des Etats Membres. Le soutien apporté par la FAO aux Etats Membres en matière de politique et de planification a été jugé exhaustif et couvre de multiples aspects des activités et divers sous-programmes. Nombre de délégués ont insisté pour que la FAO renforce sa capacité d'analyse politique et de planification. Les rôles du PCT dans les activités d'appui aux politiques et les consultations menées par la FAO avec d'autres institutions des Nations Unies ont été appréciés. La FAO a été encouragée à renforcer son assistance à la formation et à accroître son assistance aux programmes de stabilisation et d'ajustements structurels pour que la dimension de la sécurité alimentaire soit prise en compte et pour cela la FAO a été invitée à collaborer étroitement avec les institutions internationales comme la FMI, la Banque mondiale et le PNUD. Le soutien de la FAO aux Etats Membres pour la conservation et l'amélioration de l'environnement naturel a été souligné et une augmentation de ressources a été réclamée. Tout ce qui renforce le lien entre le programme de terrain et le Programme ordinaire a reçu l'appui de la Commission. Bref, la Commission a jugé satisfaisant cet examen du Programme ordinaire. Pour terminer, je propose que certaines questions qui ont été soulevées au cours de ces débats et qui seront à nouveau abordées lors de l'examen d'autres points, ne figurent pas dans notre rapport sur ce point afin d'éviter une répétition inutile. Le comité de rédaction devra tenir compte de cette observation. Si vous êtes d'accord, nous pouvons passer à un autre point de l'Ordre du jour.
Nous avons à notre Ordre du jour le point 13 "Programme de travail et budget 1990-91" et "Objectifs à moyen terme"; vous connaissez les documents qui sont le C 89/3 et C 89/3 Sup.l, Sup.2, Sup.3, Sup.4, plus le C 89/LIM/18. Si tout le monde est prêt, nous allons aborder une question importante. Je vous l'ai déjà dit au début de cette séance, la question est que toutes les délégations vont intervenir sur la question. Je demande qu'il y ait beaucoup de concision dans vos interventions et surtout évitez de vous répéter. Vous pouvez simplement annoncer votre accord avec tel ou tel délégué. Nous en tiendrons compte.
V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Mr Director-General himself would have wished to be with you at this stage and himself to present the proposed Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91. It is his responsibility to submit proposals to the Conference and it is a responsibility which he deems a very particular privilege but since he cannot be released from his obligations with the Conference he has asked me, and I am honoured, to submit on his behalf the proposed Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91.
These proposals are formulated in the light of the external and internal challenges facing the Organization, as perceived by our Governing Bodies and the Director-General.
The challenges facing world food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries are all the more urgent to resolve because of the ceaseless growth in world population, increasing by same 80 million per year; the scant success in the fight against poverty; the increasing problems of ensuring development on a sustainable basis; heightened attention in world trade; the intolerable burden of external debt on many developing countries; and the increased complexity and difficulty of resolving problems in the present world situation.
Problems are also challenges. For FAO these problems mean a full agenda of action. The magnitude of the demands made by Member Nations on FAO attest to the confidence of these Members Nations in the relevance and efficacy of the Organization.
In recent years, as we all know, the Organization has been severely put to the test by problems of liquidity. Programmes have been cut back. The large majority of Member Nations have thus been deprived of support and services which were approved and which they were entitled to expect from FAO. The damage to the programmes since 1986 has resulted not only in curtailed services offered to Member Nations but also in damage to FAO's stock of accumulated expertise and its ability to take account of developments in a rapidly changing world.
The proposals before you this time are the result of an expanded programme budget process. The process included the additional preliminary step approved by the Council, on an experimental basis, at its Ninety-fourth Session, of submitting to the Programme and Finance Committees, meeting in Joint Session in January 1989, a brief document in the form of an Outline, indicating the budget level the Director-General intended to use in the preparation of the Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91, together with the main activities to be undertaken.
A number of countries have expressed support for the eventual continuation of this new procedure of Outline into the next biennium, inasmuch as the Outline appears to have permitted early consideration of the proposals and a fruitful dialogue between member countries and the Secretariat and thus paved the way for consensus on the proposed Programme of Work and Budget. Other countries, however, have expressed doubts on the value of the procedure in that no consensus is yet evident. There are additional costs involved and the objective might be through other ways. It has been suggested that the crucial test of the value of this additional consultative step would take place when the Conference considers and decides on the full Programme of Work and Budget proposals. The Council suggests that a final decision on the issue of continuing the Outline should therefore be taken at the Conference.
Irrespective of the Conference decision on the future of this experimental process, from the point of view of the Secretariat, there is little doubt that the Outline served its purpose as a policy document permitting the Programme and Finance Committees to endorse the policy approach regarding priorities and the priority areas intended to benefit from additional resources, as well as providing a first indication of the cost increases which would have to be provided for.
The remainder of the process has conformed to the well-established pattern. The Summary Programme of Work and Budget was examined, in the areas of their concern, by the Committees on Agriculture and Fisheries and in full by the Programme and Finance Committees in May and by the Council at its last Session in June.
The Director-General pursues the policy endorsed by the Conference of channelling additional resources to the technical and economic programmes, including the Technical Cooperation Programme. The provision for administrative and support services is kept at the present level.
Once again the proposals involved a net reduction of 25 posts. The proposals are the result of an active search for compromise. On the one hand, there are extensive requirements and genuine expectations for FAO action on a broad front of well-recognized problems, especially in the developing world, and on internationally agreed issues. On the other hand, the Director-General has sought to limit the request for additional resources to a minimum. His aim in attempting to balance these conflicting factors is a quest for consensus of all Member Nations.
The Programme priorities are carefully chosen on the basis of the guidance of our intergovernmental bodies and represent a concentration on activities which FAO can do best and for which it has a clear comparative advantage. They comprise: sustainable development, crop/weather monitoring, biotechnology, crop protection, agricultural data development, policy advice, women in development, aquaculture and the Tropical Forestry Action Plan. These are also areas of work where FAO has a clear programme base of activities which require additional resources.
The Conference may well find satisfaction in the fact that there is already a remarkable consensus on the substance of the proposals as examined by various Committees to which I have referred. As always, individual countries prefer some activities to others, depending on their specific circumstances and their relevance to their own region. Nevertheless, there was a clear perception that the proposals as a whole, as a package, are well conceived and responsive to effective requirements. They were considered, moreover, in full accordance with prior guidance from FAO Governing and Advisory Bodies.
All these considerations lead the Director-General to submit proposals for the next Programme of Work and Budget involving a nominal programme increase of US$ 5 500 000 or 1 percent over the recosted basis. Taking into account the proposed absorption of cost increases of US$ 3 000 000, the programme increase has been considered by some to account to only 0.45 percent. It is, however, proposed that the major programmes of agriculture, fisheries and forestry should receive a programme increase of 1.5 percent and the Technical Cooperation Programme a programme increase of 2.8 percent.
The proposed increase for the TCP has already been the subject of some considerable discussion in the bodies which have examined these proposals. You will recall no doubt that the TCP received no programme increase for the present biennium and at the last Conference regret was expressed that it had not proved feasible to increase in real terms the level of the TCP appropriation and it was hoped that this would be done in future biennia.
It is a matter of sane regret that despite the programme increase which had been proposed of US$ 750 000, the share of the TCP in the total budget comes down. In 1986-87 it was 14.1 percent. In the present biennium it came down to 12.8 percent. In the next biennium it would further decline to 11.8 percent.
The cost increases which are provided for in the document have also been the subject of sane detailed examination. At the stage of the summary of Work and Budget the cost increases amounted to an estimate of US$ 60 million. As noted by the Finance Committee and the Council that estimate of US$ 60 million had been based on the established methodology and been subjected to the review of the Finance Committee and the Finance Committee had recognized that the estimate had been calculated on a conservative basis and was the best that could be made at that time. That estimate excluded an amount of US$ 3 million of cost increases which we shall have to face in connection with the expenditure of consultants, on duty travel and the cost of small upgradings effected in the present biennium. The Director-General has deliberately excluded this amount in order to contain the level of the overall cost increase and this amount has not been reinstated in the revised estimate before you. However, the further review and the up-dating of the cost increase estimates require the Director-General to propose an increase of US$ 16 million more than given in the Summary. Let me explain the components of this increase. Two million dollars is due to the impact of the United Nations General Assembly lifting the transitional measures on the post-adjustment system and the further increase in the scale of pensionable remuneration. Requirements for these factors have been indicated in the Summary but could not then be costed. The remaining US$ 14 million covers the eventual results of the general salary survey which is to be conducted by the International Civil Service Commission and the results of which will be sutmitted to the Council in 1990 for approval. It also includes the additional costs resulting from the eventual decision of the United Nations General Assembly at its current session following the Civil Service Commission's findings at its comprehensive review of discussions on conditions of staff service. These are costs which will have to be met and for which it is only normal and prudent that provision be made. The details are provided in the chapter on Programme Framework.
This brings me to the budget level. The total budget level as presented in the document is given as US$ 574 million. This amount and this proposal is presented at the budget rate set by the last Conference for the present biennium, that is to say a budget rate of 1 235 lire to the dollar. At your present session, the Conference session, will set a new budget rate for 1990-91. The market rates have fluctuated this year between some 1 300-1 400 lire to the dollar but if we take the rate of the current market rate, say 1 350 lire to the dollar, the effective working budget would amount to US$ 557 million. The assessments for Member Nations would be calculated after taking into account the estimated miscellaneous income of US$ 12 million, therefore the part of the effective working budget to be funded on Member Nations' contributions would be US$ 545 million.
The Conference will recognize that the Director-General's proposals have been presented with the overriding aim of promoting and facilitating their approval by Member Nations by consensus. This desire has been recognized and at all stages of the examination of the proposals by the subsidiary bodies of the Conference and the Council the Director-General expressed the fervent hope that this consensus will be realized during your deliberations.
After this introduction on behalf of the Director-General may I now offer a very few comments to facilitate the consideration of the documentation before you. The draft resolution on budgetary appropriation 1990-91 gives the text as it will be considered by the Conference when it adopts the Programme of Work and Budget in Plenary session next week. I should, however, point out that the figures in the draft resolution which is included in this document are given at the budget rate of 1 235 lire to the dollar. The text of this draft resolution will be updated. There need be no fear. This text will be updated with revised figures to permit the Conference to decide on the budget rate for the next biennium.
In the interests of time I will not comment on the three annexes which are part of the document, or on the four supplements which are before you. If you permit me, there are a few comments which I think I could include in the verbatims to facilitate the consideration of this document.
To conclude I realize I have been fairly lengthy in the consideration of this document. I crave your indulgence but this subject is of such importance to the Director-General that he felt it merited this introduction. My colleagues and I now remain at your disposal.
Kai HELENIUS (Finland): On this item I have the honour to speak on behalf of the Nordic countries. The Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91 as presented to the Conference is an improvement both in this presentation as well as in the preparation process leading to it. Through the outlined summary and the final document Member Governments have enhanced the possibilities to be informed of the gradual formation of the final products and participate in guiding the Secretariat in this work. Efforts have been made to increase transparency and accountability in the presentation which we note with satisfaction. These changes appear to us appropriate and useful and the Nordic countries request the Conference to further approve the Programme of Work and Budget in the same direction. Priorities and priority setting have been a focal point in Nordic efforts to strengthen the Organization. At the outset this question has to be approached within the framework of the three main functions of FAO as described in Article 1 of the Constitution; collection, analysis and dissemination of information; formulation and promotion of food and agricultural policies and technical assistance. The nine priority areas pointed out in the budgetary document all have very specific value and sane of them indeed have been the focal points of our work during the past five years. What we find missing here is the inter-connection of the set priorities with the three main functions of FAO. Furthermore the methodology in which these priority areas are taken into account in the budgetary planning and reflected in the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium is not sufficiently clarified. The Nordic countries have been consistently stressing the view that certain priorities on the issues are to be considered and reflected in a wide spectrum of FAO's activities. The cross-sectional nature of those issues, namely sustainable development, women in development, policy advice as well as bio-technology, as well as data collection is appropriately recognized in the Programmee of Work and Budget. The Nordic countries do not find it justifiable that priority setting should require new resources to the Organization, whether extra-budgetary or within the Regular Programme. Secondary priorities should contribute to a better use of resources available. In the present situation priority setting may very well entail that some worthwhile activities cannot be financed in order that new activities can gain support. Based on the priorities agreed upon, the Conference can discuss and decide on the programmes for the medium-term duration. The purpose of the medium-term plan, while translating the priorities agreed upon into the FAO's activities, is to give a basis for the formulation of the Programme of Work and Budget through its various stages, at the same time it facilitates focusing member countries' attention on the priority areas and most urgent and fundamental problems in FAO's field of competence and provides practical proposals for required adjustments in the regular and field programmes.
In the Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91 there is some indication of medium-term perspectives but clearly what is needed is daily incorporation in the budget document in a comprehensive and systematic manner.
A large majority of speakers at the FAO Council last week rejected the link between the review processes of FAO, including the priority setting and the medium-term plan and the Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91. At the same time, the same speakers referred to the linkage between the arrears of some member countries and the decision on the review process. To our delegation the logic behind this thinking is difficult to understand. In our view many issues under the review process as explained before, could enhance the budgetary decision raking already at this Conference.
Furthermore, some recommendations in the reports before us could find many of us with unanimous support for early irnplementation. Therefore the Member Nations should not pre-empt their effective considerations by an early budgetary decision. On the other hand, the regrettable arrears do concern the financial situation with the Organization in carrying out its programmes according to the Programme of Work and Budget, but the discussion and decision on the scope and content of the Review does not in any way depend on payment of assessed contributions. Only at the implementation stage can the financial constraint affect the timing of the planned activities.
Finally, let me reconfirm that while considering the budget document given to us for our approval the Nordic countries put a clear preference to the content of the Programme of Work and Budget and not to the level of expenditures as such.
Vanrob ISARANKURA (Thailand) : Thank you, Mr Chairman, for giving me the floor at this early stage. At the outset I wish to thank Mr Shah for his lucid introduction to this Agenda item.
On this important item my delegation would like to offer comments as follows.
First, we are satisfied with the priorities and programmes suggested by the Director-General in the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91, since he has already given due consideration to all the views that have been expressed by the various bodies of this Organization, including the Council.
Secondly, as to the budget level, we can accept a real programme increase of US$ 5.5 million, because it is only 1 percent over recosted base of the present biennium budget and the real programme increase is entirely devoted to the technical and economic programme of direct benefit to all Member Nations.
Thirdly, we are pleased to note that there is a further net reduction in established posts, especially at the secretarial and clerical levels, although the total net reduction amounts to 25 posts have been reached.
Finally, I would like to recall that at the last Conference the Minister of Agriculture and Cooperatives, the leader of the Thai delegation, suggested that we should accept the idea proposed by the group of developing countries relating to the principle of budget allocation that FAO should allocate at least 17 percent of the total Regular Programme to the TCP. Yesterday, the leader of the Thai delegation of this session reiterated our position at the Plenary. Today we are very regretful to note that the proportion of the TCP appropriation to the total budget is below the past level. In 1986-87 the share of the TCP in the total budget was 14.1 percent, then it declined to 12.8 percent in 1988-89 and it will further decline to 11.8 percent in the next biennium. This is of grave concern for my delegation. This is because we realize that there were a lot of TCP projects pending at the year-end. For example at the year-end of 1987 and 1988 the numbers of requests pending were 191 and 200 respectively. Wë only hope that this would not be done in the future.
However, to stop this decreasing trend, my delegation would like to propose that at this Conference we should agree that starting from the 1992-93 biennium FAO should allocate at least 17 percent of the total Regular Programme to the TCP. I hope that this Commission can support our proposal for the benefit of the poor countries like Thailand.
Before I conclude I would like to emphasize that the issue of approving the Programme of Work and Budget does not relate to the matter of the Review of the role of FAO.
Robin Gorth Pettitt (United Kingdom) : Since my delegation has already had the opportunity as a Council Member to comment on the contents and balance of the Director-General's Programme of Work and Budget, I will confine myself this morning to sane across-the-board points. These are mainly where we have been helped to form a more specific view than that previously expressed through the useful explanations given by Mr Shah to Council members and in some cases repeated today.
I will deal with the questions of the budget size, the lapse factor, the Director-General's proposals in his comments on the Review, the variations in the budget which the conclusion of the review may require, and finally on providing for any salary awards. I will not dwell again on our support for the continuation of the outline budget, mentioned by Mr Shah, and I assume that the question of the methodology for the adoption of the budget rate covered in the Director-General's comments in document C 89/21 will come up somewhere else on the agenda.
On budget size, delegations will be familiar with my country's attachment to the concept of zero real growth in the budgets of the Specialized Agencies which are financed by assessed contributions from Member States, This attachment is paralleled by a willingness to see activities grow when financed by voluntary contributions, especially by those contributions put through the central funding bodies. This growth occurs with the increase in donors' contributions to development generally and to the extent to which the international community prefers to put resources into development by the multilateral rather than the bilateral route. For this reason I think we would have difficulty with the proposal just made by the delegate of Thailand over the TCP.
In our view real growth should be measured by the same means of calculating programmes and cost increases that are traditionally used by the organization concerned. Whether they are the best measurements is less important than whether they are consistently used. In FAO we have the practice of the secretariat calculating the growth using methods which the Conference has agreed upon and it is conventional to leave it to the Finance Committee to check on behalf of the membership that each year we are comparing like with like. As I read the discussion of Council, the Finance Committee are satisfied with the calculations. I also read the discussion to mean that real growth in the Director-General's proposals represents 1 percent, which was in effect said by Mr Shah today, using conventional methods of calculation. My delegation's calculations in fact give the same result.
The reference in the budget document to a growth rate of 0.45 percent taking into account some costs absorbed is in our view special pleading.
My delegation wonders if this budget increase, as put in the proposals of the draft resolution, modified by Mr Shah this morning, is the proposal on the table. There seem to be three other propositions which would increase the budgetary figure which the Conference could be asked to pass. My delegation is only able to consider supporting a budget which is pitched at an acceptable level taking account of the total costs to be covered by assessed contributions.
The first potential addition is the increase in the budget level which would result from proposals by the Director-General, not yet I believe nade in financial terms, to reduce the lapse factor from 5.5 percent to 3 percent. I understand that this will increase the budget by US$ 8.3 million. I get this figure from paragraph 3.18 of document CL 96/4, the Report of the Finance Committee.
My delegation considers that the lapse factor should reflect the reasonable expectations of the Secretariat over the vacancy rate. Historically the vacancy rate has been between 10 and 16 percent for Professional staff and between 5.8 percent and 7.6 percent for General Service staff. These details are to be found in the table in paragraph 27 of the Report of the External Auditor, included in document C 89/5. It is paragraph 27 of the Report of the External Auditor within that document, not the first part.
In the last year for which information is available in this document the vacancy rate of Professional staff was 15.5 percent and for General Service staff 7.6 percent. So in my delegation's opinion there is no call for any decrease in the lapse factor, actually rather the reverse, nor if there were any decrease would we be able to support a budgetary increase to permit it, since this would involve a further increase in real terms. In this, as in other ways in which growth is measured, it seems to my delegation to be wise to stick to conventional practices.
Secondly, we have the Director-General's proposal for increased budgetary expenditure which he puts forward following his consideration of the report of the two committees on the review of certain aspects of FAO's goals and operations, a familiar document, C 89/21. These are an additional US$ 0.9 million for new forms of cooperation with GATT, and lesser priority US$ 4.2 million for staff training. In my delegation's view the budget which should be considered by the Conference should include these proposals, if the Director-General considers that they have higher priority than the most marginal of the expenditures of equivalent amount already in the budget, that is to say they should be included if they can be absorbed, and if this is the right amount of money for the expenditure bearing in mind setting-up time for the two activities - the cost may be smaller than suggested.
Thirdly, the views and comments of the Director-General in document C 89/21 contain costings of proposals made in the Review document of which some US$ 14.6 million in addition to the Director-General's own suggestions, which I have just mentioned, would be likely to fall on the Regular Budget this biennium. It is of course very proper that the costs of proposals are put to the Governing Body at the same time as the proposals are considered. However, my delegation cannot agree that the identified costs of the proposals in the Review can be taken in isolation. Leaving aside for the moment our viewr that the proposals in the Review document are too timid and that agreement on more ambitious changes could be reached in the present phase of the process of renewal and reform, we consider that the changes proposed could be financed by economies caused by restructuring, by greater selectivity in setting priorities, and perhaps the result of independent staffing surveys commended by the auditor in paragraph 100 of his report in document C 89/5. In any event, as I said before, the draft resolution on which the Conference could be asked to vote should include the total sum which is to be used to calculate assessments.
Next I turn to the more technical matter of handling of budgetary costs foreseen for salary increases. Provision has been made in the draft Programme of Work and Budget for an estimate of a 5 percent increase in the cost of salaries and related allowances arising from the report of the Civil Service Commission. I thought that US$ 14 million had been allowed for this purpose and for an expected award to General Service staff, but I may have misunderstood Mr Shah this morning.
In the view of my delegation, since the key decision over Professional staff has not yet been taken in the General Assembly, either on the amounts involved or on the date of implementation, it would be inappropriate to include such a provision in the budget. Again leaving aside any wish which members may have that such mandatory cost increases be absorbed through cuts in programme expenditure, my delegation is of the view that no provision should be made for these potential claims in the Programme of Work and Budget. Instead the Director-General should use the Special Reserve Account to meet the additional cost. This I understand would have been normal practice since the establishment of the Special Reserve Account in 1977, though case law is rather short on this because there have not been pay awards for so long.
The budget figure used for assessments should be reduced by US$ 14 million, I suppose, to some US$ 629 million or US$ 630 million before one takes account of the adoption of the budget rate. If my understanding is correct, the end result would be the same but we would have the advantage of acting properly and not pre-empting the decision of the General Assembly.
If there are better suggestions from the Secretariat on ways of making provision for such a contingency by making sure that such provision could only be used for this particular purpose and when the award is made, then my delegation would be interested to hear them.
Finally, I confirm that my delegation would wish to see a budget passed by consensus but it remains genuinely puzzled, however, about how we can handle the approval of a programme and a budget if we do not consider all the proposals which involve expenditure from the regular budget. There seems to be a supposition that the approval of a programme budget can be delinked from the consideration of changes which result from a review, and that somehow a resolution on the lines of that on page LVI of document C 89/3 being passed, and with all its detailed breakdowns between chapters; and also that thereafter the Commission can get down to the review and can end with another financial resolution which somehow overtakes or supplements the first appropriation. This does not seem to be practical, or at least it is not practical unless some assumption is written into the appropriation resolution to the effect that variations between chapters and to the detail of the budget could be made by the Director-General in the light of subsequent discussion of the review process. I am not clear whether this later method of proceeding would be within Conference powers set out in the Basic Texts, but even if it were, a much better solution would be to spend due time in the four sessions we have on the programme of budget as presented by the Director-General and then to suspend action until the completion of the discussion of the review. Then a simple budgetary appropriation of the conventional sort could be handled.
I find it only fair to say now that however much the United Kingdom would wish for a consensus on all things at this Conference, my delegation could not vote in favour of a budget showing any growth if it were to be only part of the bill which is to be presented by this Conference for assessed contributions by membership. Our position on the total bill would be considered in the light of the two debates.
That intervention was mainly mainly. Perhaps I ought to remind the Secretariat, through you, Mr Chairman, of my two questions. One concerns the handling of the salaries review; one is the more hidden one on how a budget resolution could properly contain within it the possibility of subsequent changes between chapters which would make possible the results of the ongoing review process.
Fotis G. POULJDES (Chypre): Permettez-moi de rejoindre les autres orateurs qui m'ont précédé car c'est la première fois que je prends la parole à la Commission II. Je voudrais vous exprimer ma joie et ma satisfaction de vous voir présider cette importante Commission, mes félicitations aussi aux Vice-Présidents élus.
Je suis certain, Monsieur le Président, que de ce fauteuil à grandes responsabilités et confiance, vous réussirez grâce à votre sagesse et à votre grande expérience à obtenir des résultats satisfaisants.
I wish also to thank Mr Shah for his, as usual, enlightened introduction to this most imrportant item of our agenda.
I wish the position of Cyprus to be absolutely clear right from the outset of my statement. My delegation supports fully the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91 as proposed by the Director-General. Everything I have to say, therefore, will only serve to show why we give it our unreserved support.
It is a well-known fact that developing countries, including my own, look to FAO and count on this Organization for help to overcome their problems in agricultural and fisheries development. We do so without hesitation because this Organization, our Organization, has a clear record of efficiency and effectiveness in assisting us, together with its record of mobilizing extra-budgetary funds for technical cooperation and investment.
We have been sorely disappointed and hurt by the financial difficulties of recent years which have obliged us to agree to programme cuts and adjustments. This represents FAO assistance which we have a right to expect since the Programme of Work and Budget of each biennium was approved by the Conference. Wë deeply deplore the fact that the delays in contributions of some Member Nations did not permit the full implementation of approved programmes.
Funding constraints, particularly in an approved Programme of Work and Budget, will inevitably lead to cancellation of activities - activities that have already been identified and are included in the budget - and to a deferment in the filling of posts. These actions will affect the Organization in two major ways: curtailment of work and programmes; and negative effects on staff morale. Both factors are of great significance, but I would like to take this oportunity to highlight the fact that the FAO staff is one of the most important assets of the Organization in our common endeavours to reduce poverty and malnutrition on this planet. Funding uncertainties certainly have a negative impact not only on their morale but also on recruitment of new staff. We thus feel strongly that when programmes have had to be cut in two successive biennia we should unite to approve a Programme of Work and Budget which would compensate for these cuts.
The Programme of Work and Budget proposed by the Director-General involves a programme increase of only one percent. Indeed, since the amount for cost increases does not include all the costs, and the Director-General proposes to absorb an amount of US$ 3 million of cost increases, the programme increase is only 0.4 percent.
My country is amongst those which had hoped for a much larger programme increase, and we would have supported it with enthusiasm. We recognize, however, that as always the Director-General is making very moderate proposals in order to assist Member Nations with different points of view to unite in a consensus. It is for that reason that, despite our own wish for a much larger programme increase, we are prepared to unite in a consensus approval of his proposals.
The programme priorities are balanced. We look at them not merely from our own point of view, but from this aspect we are satisfied that our needs will be well met. We are also looking at these priorities from the point of view of Member Nations as a whole. Here we are pleased to note the satisfaction of the Programme and Finance Committees and the fact that the views of the Council and the technical committees of the Council have all been taken into careful account.
If we have any regrets on the proposals for programme priorities, there is only one and that is that a higher increase is not proposed for the Technical Cooperation Programme. For the present biennium the TCP had no increase, and for the next biennium the increase proposed is less than US$ 2 million. The share of the TCP in the total budget has fallen strikingly. At one time it was 14 percent. During this biennium it is 12.8 percent. In the next biennium it will be 11.8 percent. We cannot continue to accept a reduced share for a programme to which we attach the highest priority. It is for this reason that I would like to insist that the TCP share of the regular budget resources should be increased in order to reach the level of 17 percent.
I shall not dwell on the importance of the programme. This is well-known. I will simply congratulate the Organization that in using these funds to handle emergencies as a catalyst for future investment projects the return on this relatively small sum has been consistently substantial.
The debate in the Conference, and even more in Commission II, will dwell also on the amount of the cost increases. My delegation sees little point in a fruitless debate on this subject. Let us face up to the reality that cost increases are a fact of life. They are beyond the control of the Organization. They have to be met. It is no use saying that we like or do not like cost increases. The Finance Committee has carried out a detailed review. The estimates are formulated on an established methodology. We have to accept them. Similarly, as our interest is in seeing the full implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget as approved, we accept the Director-General's proposal that the lapse factor to be applied in the next Programme of Work and Budget be reduced from the level of 5.5 percent, which we consider excessive, to a more moderate level of 3 percent.
We consider that the Director-General has done everything possible, indeed more than possible, to permit approval of the Programme of Work and Budget by the Conference, if not unanimously at least in a spirit of consensus. It is in this spirit that we will join all Member Nations and urge approval of his proposals by consensus.
Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): Pour commencer, permettez-nous tout d'abord de remercier et de féliciter M. Shah pour sa présentation claire du sujet, ainsi que tous ceux qui ont participé à la préparation du PTB 1990-91: Secrétariat, comité financier, comité du programme, COAG, etc.
Nous déplorons qu'une fois de plus nous ayons à faire à un programme de travail et budget placé sous la pression de la crise financière qui continue à secouer l'Organisation et à entraver l'exploitation des capacités de 1'Organisation.
Pour des raisons d'efficacité et de sérénité de nos débats nous ne souhaitons pas que l'examen de l'adoption du programme de travail et budget par la Conférence soit lié à l'examen de la question de réforme. Nous nous garderons d'anticiper sur les autres sujets non encore ouverts au débat.
Le champ de notre débat sur le Programme de travail et budget 1990-91 et objectifs à moyen terme de l'Organisation ayant été en quelque sorte élagué par les travaux de la 96ème session du Conseil qui s'est achevée la semaine dernière, trois soucis devraient nous préoccuper à présent. Ce sont: brièveté, clarté et concision des exposés. Ce qui aura pour avantage de faciliter la prise de la décision finale par la Conférence et d'aider le comité de rédaction de la Commission II à dresser un rapport clair et reflétant fidèlement nos débats. Pour répondre à ces trois soucis, nous limiterons pour notre part notre propos à quatre points essentiels: selon nous, à savoir, la nouvelle procédure d'élaboration du PTB, les priorités pour le biennium 1990-91, le niveau du PTB 1990-91 et le PCT.
De la nouvelle procédure d'élaboration du PTB: bien que n'étant pas encore convaincus de l'utilité de l'étape supplémentaire introduite dans la procédure d'élaboration du PTB, nous ne nous opposerons pas a priori à la poursuite de sa mise à l'essai. Toutefois, nous subordonnons notre approbation pour la poursuite de cette nouvelle procédure à deux conditions, à savoir, l'adoption du PTB par consensus à commencer par celui qui nous est soumis à cette session de la Conférence et la preuve que cette nouvelle procédure aura garanti le règlement à temps des contributions des Etats Membres de l'Organisation et en particulier des contributions des principaux bailleurs qui traînent le pas jusqu'ici.
Ce faisant et étant donné que la preuve de la réunion de ces deux conditions ne pourra nous être donnée que dans deux ans, nous souscrivons à la proposition d'appliquer cette nouvelle procédure pour encore un autre exercice biennal.
Des priorités de l'Organisation pour le biennium 1990-91: nous marquons notre accord au Secrétariat pour les neuf domaines prioritaires proposés tout en notant que pour la plupart d'entre eux, ces domaines prioritaires collent à l'actualité du moment. A travers cette palette de neuf domaines prioritaires, nous y voyons la preuve de la capacité indéniable de la FAO à s'adapter à l'évolution de la situation alimentaire et agricole mondiale sans cesse en mouvementt. Nous appuyons ces neuf domaines prioritaires puisqu'ils répondent aux orientations des organes délibératifs de l'Organisation.
Du niveau du PTB 90-91: nous avons noté que le Secrétariat nous propose pour l'exercice 1990-91 une augmentation de 5,5 millions de dollars, soit 1 pour cent de plus par rapport à l'exercice précédent compte tenu de l'accroissement des coûts et seulement 0,45 pour cent si l'on tient compte de l'absorption des coûts estimés à 3 millions de dollars.
Au regard de cette proposition, nous estimons qu'il s'agit d'une augmentation très modeste. Nous considérons que cette augmentation est en quelque sorte une croissance zéro. Toutefois, bien que nous soyons toujours opposés à ce principe de croissance zéro, nous admettons que le niveau proposé pour ce PTB 1990-91 est acceptable pour susciter ainsi que nous l'espérons son adoption par consensus. Nous l'appuyons en conséquence.
Du PCT: ainsi que nous avons déjà eu l'occasion de le dire, le PCT est apprécié tant des pays bénéficiaires que des donateurs. C'est un programme qui a fait ses preuves voici plusieurs années déjà. En raison de l'importance de ce programme, la diminution de ses ressources qui passent de 12,8 pour cent à 11,8 pour cent constitue à nos yeux un grand titre de déception. Pour les bienniums futurs, nous encourageons le Secrétariat à nous proposer un niveau de PCT plus substantiel.
Quoique quelque peu déçus par la modicité des propositions qui nous ont été soumises, nous marquons notre accord pour que la Conférence adopte ce PTB 1990-91 et donnons notre feu vert pour que le Secrétariat le mette à exécution au mieux de ses possibilités. Nous espérons qu'une fois que ce PTB aura été adopté par la Conférence, chaque Etat saura se soumettre à la décision démocratique et s'efforcera de s'acquitter de sa quote-part de contribution à temps.
Comme promis tout au début de notre intervention, par souci de concision et de clarté, nous avais choisi à dessein d'être brefs. Nous croyons ainsi avoir tenu parole en mettant ici un point final à notre propos. Merci.
Gerard Phirinyane KHOJANE (Lesotho): I would ask your indulgence if I fail to comply with the appeal to be brief. I seem not to have that quality.
We all recognize that the 1990-91 Programme of Work and Budget has distinguished itself as a test case of procedure involving a number of steps starting with the Programme and Finance Committees' joint sessions early in the Conference year. While we endorse that so far the relevant Governing and Advisory Bodies, including the Council, have expressed general satisfaction with the procedure, we wish to underline that there has always been a strong feeling that a final decision for the eventual adoption of this procedure should be based on its usefulness and relative merits to evolve a mechanism for hammering out a consensus.
Notwithstanding the emerging uncertainty of the new procedure to yield consensus, as evidenced during the Council meetings and so far in this Conference, we wish to concur with the conclusions of the majority of FAO Member Nations in the relevant Governing and Advisory Bodies regarding the 1991 Programme of Work and Budget proposal before the Conference for a decision. The majority of Member Nations support the approval of this Programme of Work and Budget by consensus.
Ideally, FAO priorities should be established by the countries in most need. We are satisfied that most low-income food deficit countries, including Lesotho, had a significant input in the determination of the nine listed priority areas under Technical and Economic Programmes as proposed in the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91. The idea of proposis bushes, lucern trees, leguminous shrubs and various acacia species on marginal lands as part of the sustainable development has been supported. The strengthening of the Global Information and Early Warning System for Food and Agriculture which has already proved an invaluable service, especially in Africa, has been advocated. The technical support activities of the National Systems have been favoured and assistance in establishing and strengthening national services for plant protection has been solicited. FAO has also been encouraged to assist Member Nations to identify and formuliate viable investment projects in fisheries and forestry. We are therefore satisfied that the proposed priorities in the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91 are in overall conformity with the felt needs of Member Nations. We had the impression during the Council debate that there was broad agreement in this respect.
The Conference should also translate into a firm directive the fact that even though generally considered priority concerns, such as attention to small farmers, rural youth and the rural family, have not been given a special mention in the proposal submitted for the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91. They should permeate all relevant programmes for the period. Traditionally important subjects such as mechanization, the provision of consumable farm inputs, such as seeds and fertilizers through credit facilities, rural storages and structures, should find some place in the Programme of Work and Budget. We wish to underline that the introduction and promotion of mechanization, improved seeds and fertilizers form an integral part of agricultural development, particularly in Africa. If indigenous farmers are to break out of the subsistance-level category and be able to feed themselves they must have access to more and better farm power, tools, equipment, and consumable farm inputs.
We have been encouraged by some of the major donors who have openly declared that they recognize the importance of ongoing activities which may not be identified as a priority area, such as those in support of rural income generation. We therefore hope that solicited donor assistance in this regard will be viewed with sympathy. Aid-in-kind might form an important element of such assistance.
Another important aspect which should be given serious consideration is the negative factor for FAO activities as a result of the cuts applied to FAO programmes in the periods 1986-87 and 1988-89. The undesirable effects of these budget cuts on training activities, seminars and expert consultations have been already been underlined. However, we feel obliged to reiterate that improvement of agricultural development rely heavily on training, the exchange of ideas through seminars and the advisory visits of experts. We therefore urge the Conference to strongly support the intention to restore FAO's capacity to respond at a level commensurate with the requirements for assistance to member nations.
FAO needs resources in order to attend to the felt needs of Member Nations, as articulated in the nine priority areas for the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91, as well as those which are regarded as traditional concerns of low income and food deficit countries. The Director-General of FAO is requesting approval of the total budget of US$ 574 million, or 1 per cent, and US$ 60 million cost increase, he has offered reasons and explanations which should merit sympathetic understanding and the approval of the Conference. His appeal that the limit for possible budgetary savings has been reached and that no further cuts can be made without impairing the basic functions of FAO is reasonable and justified.
Some delegations have challenged the TCP programme budget levels and the lack of transparency with regard to its allocation. They have raised some doubt as to whether the possibilities of reallocation of cost increases for lower priority areas instead of from additional assessments have been sufficiently explored. They have questioned the methodology used to calculate the cost increases and have proposed the discontinuation of some programmes so as to realize budget savings. It becomes very difficult to understand, when all attempts at giving clarification do not seem to make any difference. We nevertheless invite all those in a position to do so to make one last final effort to respond to these questions with a view to creating a climate for consensus approval of the Programme of Work and Budget before the Conference. Even though these matters have been discussed in depth by the Governing and Advisory Bodies involved in the budget formulation process, we deem it necessary to highlight some of the discussions and justifications. First, there is no evidence so far available that the TCP has been applied beyond its original intentions.
With regard to transparency, we believe that records of funded projects under the Programme can be made available for inspection at the request of the interested delegations provided that a reasonable degree of confidentiality will be observed. As a matter of fact, we have witnessed general praise and an increasing outcry from the developing countries for increased resources for the Programme. The suggestion to reduce the provision for the TCP even further is therefore unjustified and poses a serious challenge to the developing countries.
The Secretariat has explained that the provision for cost increases is entirely beyond its control. It represents the effects of inflation and decisions of the United Nations General Assembly and of the International Civil Service Commission regarding remuneration for personal services. This is why there has been different figures for cost increases for the last seven biennia according to the available records. The methodology and formula of arriving at the figure is the question of details and should be entrusted to the Secretariat. There is no point therefore in labouring this issue further.
The Director-General repeatedly explained that his team has already gone into the exercise of exploring all possible areas of savings before arriving at the new presented budget level figures. The question of recosting of the activities and/or discontinuation of others should not arise. Although there have been some successes in the locust campaign, FAO studies shew that the threat is not over and it is necessary to continue budgetary provisions for this activity. There is therefore no possibility of savings in this activity either.
Some of the proposals would be better discussed under the agenda item on Review of Objectives, Roles and Priorities of FAO. They are clearly out of place at this time in the process. It is so, even though most of them would entail further budget increases and thus militate against unconditional zero growth concept aspired my major contributors.
This leads us to the conclusion that the Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91 now before the Conference is a reasonable one. We invite the Conference to approve it by consensus.
Kantan AL-MITWALLI (Iraq) (original language Arabic): Firstly, I would like to congratulate you for having been elected Chairman of this Commission and I wish you every success. I would like to thank Mr Shah for having so clearly explained the document.
The Iraqi delegation having studied the documents, Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91, thinks that the draft is very clear and detailed, in particular with regard to the priorities among the different sectors. We think the proposals were made on a logical foundation and we therefore support the priorities listed in the Programme.
As for the level of the budget, we think that efforts have been made to come up with this result and the method used to present these proposals is in accordance with our country's wishes. We need help and assistance in finding proper solutions to the problems of agriculture. The delegation of Iraq agrees to the budgetary increase for Economic and Technical Programmes and the TCP. We think, however, the increase is modest and cannot really meet the needs of many countries and we regret the decrease in the resources for TCP.
We think the method adopted by the Director-General to set priorities for the Programme of Work and Budget is a responsible method and is intended to allow a consensus. We support the Programme of Work and Budget and we hope it will be adopted by consensus in our Commission. We wish every success to the Director-General and to those who work with him.
Noumansana BAGOURO (Mali): Permettez-moi tout d'abord de vous adresser les félicitations de ma délégation pour votre élection à la présidence de cette importante Commission de la FAO. Nous remercions également M. Shah et toute son équipe pour la qualité du document qui. nous a été présenté.
L'examen du Programme de travail et budget de la FAO doit à notre avis être fait en tenant compte de la mission de la FAO à travers le monde et en tenant compte de la situation actuelle de l'agriculture sur le terrain, et plus particulièrement de la demande pertinente des pays en développement.
Face à une situation en régression, nous sommes étonnés que l'on puisse, en matière d'agriculture, baser un programme sur une croissance zéro. En matière de développement, nous pensons qu'il y a ou une croissance positive ou une régression.
C'est sur cette base que nous avons considéré et constaté que le Programme de travail et budget est un document clair qui nous donne satisfaction. Les priorités qui ont été définies sont en effet au centre de nos préoccupations au Mali. Cependant, nous n'avons cessé, depuis notre arrivée, de constater les conséquences de la crise financière qui menacent même la vie de l'Organisatiori.
C'est dans ce sens que nous estimons qu'il est absolument nécessaire de redresser la situation en renforçant les ressources humaines de la FAO, les actions de vulgarisation et de formation en faveur du monde rural, la lutte contre lea ravageurs criquets, sauteriaux, rats et chenilles, la recherche et le développèrent.
Plusieurs orateurs ont déjà manifesté leur souci devant la diminution croissante du PCT. Nous sommes solidaires de ces délégations et nous proposons que le PCT soit fixé au minimum au niveau de 25 pour cent pour le prochain biennium.
Tenant compte de ces points de vue, ma délégation tient à remercier Votre Excellence et à préciser à la Conférence - en la rassurant - que nous lui recommandons l'adoption de ce document par consensus.
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Quisiera ante todos agradecer al Sr. Shan por la brillante presentación que él hizo del tema. Prácticamente él puso de relieve que esta propuesta ha sido preparada de acuerdo con el nuevo procedimiento, procedimiento que los comités reunidos han recomendado de seguir explorando ya sea de aplicar por lo menos cada dos años para ver si puede servir para el futuro.
Me parece que se podía juzgar sobre sus resultados y también si mediante los debates en el Comité de finanzas hemos llegado a lograr un consenso. Yo creo que se logpó y se hicieron todos los esfuerzos para que se llegara lo más cerca posible a este consenso. Por lo tanto yo espero que en esta Conferencia este consenso se pueda realmente lograr.
Quisiera poner de relieve que esto costó muchos sacrificios por parte de los representantes de los países en desarrollo. Tenemos a la vista dos posiciones que tener: una era la de los países en desarrollo mínimo que es muy conocida. Se trataría de recuperar los 45 millones de reducción de actividad a que tuvo que someterse la FAO durante esos años para hacer frente a una situación contingente no deseada seguramente por ella ni por la mayoría de sus Miembros su capacidad. Se deseaba una expansión de los programas para tener en cuenta las solicitudes que provienen de todos los países en desarrollo del mundo y tener en cuenta las necesidades crecientes.
El Director General puso ayer de relieve que la población del mundo llega a una cifra que ha impresionado a todos. Ha crecido 170 millones de unidades únicamente desde la última Conferencia. Prácticamente 178 millones de hombres. Todo esto ha crecido en 24 meses. Se trataba, se trata y se desea, por parte de los países en desarrollo, una ampliación del PCT. Por el contrario, tuvimos que someternos a una moderada disminución del PCT. El PCT fue propuesto por los mismos norteamericanos en 1974 para enfrentar una situación de escasez de alimentos que había en aquel memento en el mundo. Se ha aplicado con mucho éxito durante unos años porque es un programa que permite hacer frente a las miles y miles de necesidades imprevistas que se presentan a menudo en todos los problemas de desarrollo. Los inprevistos no se pueden prever. Por lo tanto, nos hemos opuesto siempre a cualquier cambio en la forma en que está estructurado el PCT. La gran cantidad de apoyo que ha recibido demuestra la importancia de mantener, potenciar y aumentar el PCT. El punto de vista que se nos oponía era el de un incremento cero. El crecimiento cero desgraciadamente ha sido también reiterado en el plenario por el representante del mayor contribuyente.
Lo que me parece más injustificado es el método. No sólo no es aceptable el crecimiento cero a juicio de mi delegación, sino que no es aceptable el método con el que se quiere lograr el crecimiento cero. El método así llamado de la absorción. La absorción no sólo es un crecimiento cero, es un crecimiento negativo. Es un crecimiento negativo porque prácticamente la inflación es parte de la vida económica del mundo. Desde siglos, desde que existe la moneda hubo inflación. Antes del papel se hacían las monedas más pequeñas.
Prácticamente, decir que lo que es debido a la inflación se aplica a una disminución de los costos, significa en cualquier organización, en cualquier entidad económica, decretar su muerte antes o después. Ayer en el Plenario se nos ha indicado las razones por las cuales se proponía este crecimiento cero. Se nos ha hablado de falta de apoyo en la opinión pública del país del cual el representante estaba hablando, que era el mayor contribuyente.
Yo me pregunto cómo, después de 45 años de vida de la FAO, con los éxitos de la labor de la FAD, que ha sido durante estos años el líder de todo el desarrollo mundial, que ha podido hacer frente al desafío de la Conferencia de 1974, que ha podido asegurar que los objetivos se lograran y que se pudiese seguir produciendo para más o menos dar de comer a un billón más de población del mundo, se pueda decir que hay falta de apoyo en la opinión pública. Esto significa que la opinión pública no está debidamente enterada con los medios con los cuales se tiene que informar.
En las pocas intervenciones de esta mañana he entendido que se ha solicitado, por parte de muchos países, que se haga una invitación a concentrar los sectores de la FAO. Esto me parece algo absolutamente injustificable porque las medidas para un desarrollo agrícola verdaderamente útil, conveniente y armónico tienen que ser vistas desde un punto de vista sintético. Todo esto lo puso de relieve extremadamente bien el señor Ministro Ruf folo, quien hizo una brillante intervención en el Plenario. Teniendo en cuenta este punto de vista sintético, los organismos de la FAO tienen un procedimiento para determinar prioridades. Están los comités técnicos, después todo esto pasa a los comités económicos permanentes, que es el Comité de Finanzas y Programas, y después pasa al Consejo. El concepto de concentrar las prioridades sería absurdo simplemente porque eso determinaría un desarrollo desequilibrado. El desarrollo tiene que ser armónico. Para un desarrollo armónico, es necesario que haya complementaridad entre varios sectores.
Todo eso está definido, a nivel técnico y económico, mediante un proceso que se lleva a cabo en la FAO durante todo el bienio. El conjunto del presupuesto está basado exactamente en prioridades determinadas con este método. Yo creo que el Director General hizo un esfuerzo enorme para tener en cuenta tanto lo que solicitaban los países en desarrollo, como, en la medida de lo posible, lo que han solicitado los países desarrollados.
Se ha concentrado el prograna sobre seis prioridades. Se han absorbido, no obstante la opinión contraria de los países en desarrollo, como 3 millones de dólares y se ha aceptado únicamente un aumento simbólico; y esto creo que es indispensable también para aprobarlo y aceptar lo del 0,45 por ciento. Todo esto se ha hecho con el fin de lograr un consenso. Creo que a estas alturas este consenso es un derecho moral al cual tenemos derecho.
Pedro Agostinho KANGA (Angola): Tout d'abord, je voudrais joindre ma voix aux délégués qui m'ont précédé pour féliciter M. Shah de son exposé très brillant de la version intégrale du Programme de travail et budget 1990-91. Cette version finale est issue des examens antérieurs qui ont été faits par le Comité de l'agriculture et des pêches. Nous constatons que quelques observations faites ont été soigneusement prises en considération. Ce document concis et précis nous fournit des informations très détaillées sur le choix des priorités, les propositions de programme, les augmentations de coût, et l'utilisation proposée des ressources. Nous ne pouvons pas passer sous silence les efforts déployés par le Directeur général afin de concilier les opinions des uns et des autres pour aboutir à l'élaboration finale de ce Programme de travail et budget pour 1990-91.
Pour ce qui a trait à l'évolution d'une étape supplémentaire et schéma système adopté par le Directeur général pour la présentation du Programme de travail et budget, la République populaire d'Angola fera savoir sa position au cours de cette session.
Les priorités définies dans ces programmes ont fait l'objet de notre approbation dans les différents organes de notre Organisation où ce problème a été posé, et ici nous ne faisons que réitérer notre position.
Nous approuvons sans réserve la politique de consécration des ressources supplémentaires au programme technique et économique ainsi que le programme de la coopération technique, mais nous voulons faire quelques commentaires sur certaines priorités. S'agissant de la biotechnologie, nous sommes d'accord avec ce qui est dit au paragraphe 2.20 que dans les pays en développement on a plus besoin de l'assistance de la FAO dans ce domaine. A cet égard, nous appuyons les activités principales que la FAO s'est assignées comme envisagé au paragraphe 2.23, particulièrement encourager les pays industrialisés ayant des programmes de pointe à partager leurs connaissances et leurs compétences avec les pays en développement, évidemment dans les domaines où il y a plus de chances de réaliser des progrès durables des conditions économiques spécifiques, comme il est bien stipulé au paragraphe 2.20. Nous encourageons et appuyons la FAO dans l'élaboration d'un code de conduite pour les biotechnologies et les ressources phytogénétiques.
En ce qui concerne le problème du développement rural, notre pays partage pleinement les préoccupations de la communauté internationale. Pour nous, la pauvreté est la cause la plus importante de la dégradation de l'environnement et son aggravation peut encore le détériorer davantage.
Comme on peut le constater aux paragraphes 2.132, 2.52 et au paragraphe 2.62, la FAO a toujours oeuvré utilement en faveur de l'environnement et du développement, mais elle se doit de faire plus encore. Dans l'intérêt de tous, et en vue d'assurer le développement durable de tous les pays, en particulier des pays en développement, la communauté internationale doit porter toute l'attention voulue aux relations mutuelles entre, d'un côté, des facteurs tels que la production agricole et industrielle, la population, le courant des ressources, la dette, le fossé séparant les riches et les pauvres, et, d'un autre côté, les problèmes de l'environnement et la nécessité d'un développement durable.
Ainsi les pays développés doivent fournir leur assistance aux pays en développement et aplanir les difficultés :rencontrées par ces derniers pour solutionner les problèmes qui pèsent déjà sur eux.
Ce faisant, les pays développés doivent tenir compte des effets de leurs investissements sur l'environnement naturel des pays en développement. A cet égard, la coopération internationale en matière d'environnement, les institutions financières multilatérales doivent allouer des ressources supplémentaires.
Les femmes ont toujours joué un rôle important dans notre société. Nous n'allons pas nous étendre sur ce point car notre délégation le fera dans la première Commission. Nous appuyons les grandes lignes du plan d'action, paragraphes 2.82 et 2.88, ainsi que les priorités identifiées aux paragraphes 2.89 et 2.93, particulièrement en ce qui concerne le paragraphe 2.95 que nous considérons d'une importance capitale. Il constitue la base de la réussite de ce programme.
A cet égard, nous encourageons la FAO, tel qu'il est dit au paragraphe 2.92, à aider les Etats Membres à continuer et à renforcer les capacités techniques pour le programme relatif aux femmes. D'où s'impose la nécessité d'un plan extrabudgétaire malgré l'augmentation des crédits alloués à ce programme. C'est avec une grande satisfaction que nous avons noté que des activités seront quand même entreprises sur le programme international d'approvisionnement en engrais. On continuera à fournir une aide de ces produits aux pays en développement. A cet effet, nous exhortons les pays donateurs à appuyer les efforts de la FAO comme par le passé. Nous exprimons notre satisfaction sur l'augmentation substantielle des ressources allouées à certains programmes, ainsi qu'au renforcement des programmes nationaux, la lutte contre les migrateurs nuisibles, la lutte contre la mouche tsé-tsé et la trypanoscmiase. Par ailleurs, nous voudrions faire part de notre préoccupation de certaines réductions et nous espérons qu'elles pourront être comblées par des ressources extrabudgétaires car nombre de ces programmes sont d'une importance capitale pour notre pays.
Parlant du programme de la coopération technique, nous ne pouvons que réitérer nos regrets de voir que les ressources affectées à ce programme ont été maintenues au même niveau que dans le sommaire, et nous souhaitons dans l'avenir un renforcement de ces ressources.
Pour terminer, nous estimons que l'augmentation minime du niveau du budget de 5,5 millions de dollars (soit 1%), proposée par le Directeur général, ne répond pas aux besoins ressentis par les Etats Membres, et ne comblera même pas les lacunes engendrées par les réductions de programmes opérées au cours des deux derniers exercices.
Malgré cette faible croissance nous appuyons les Programmes de travail et budget pour 1990-91 ainsi que le projet de résolution soumis à notre appréciation, et invitons tous les pays membres à approuver par consensus le Programme de travail et budget pour 1990-91. Et nous lançons un appel vibrant à tous les pays membres pour qu'ils honorent leurs engagements financiers.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie l'honorable délégation de l'Angola, Avec cette intervention je voudrais arrêter le débat de ce matin et vous dire que nous devrions être là à 14 h 30 pour que nous puissions poursuivre sur cette question. Je vous invite également à faire preuve de brièveté dans vos interventions pour que nous puissions avancer.
Pour l'instant, j'ai une liste; je crois qu'on devra pouvoir commencer par le Portugal cet après-midi et poursuivre par le Pérou, la Belgique, la Pologne, la Colombie, la Guinée, le Kenya, Madagascar, le Cap-Vert. De toute façon, la liste est ouverte. Ceux qui ne sont pas inscrits pour l'instant le seront cet après-midi. N'ayez nulle crainte, tout le monde parlera. Je vous remercie, la séance est levée.
The meeting rose at 12.30 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.30 horas
