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

13. Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91 and Medium-Term Objectives (continued)
13. Programme de travail et budget 1990-91 et objectifs à moyen terme (suite)
13. Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1990-91 y objetivos a plazo medio (continuación)

LE PRESIDENT: Excellences, Mesdames et Messieurs, nous allons débuter notre séance du vendredi 17 novembre. Comme nous en avons convenu hier les débats sur le point 13 sont terminés. Nous allons tout à l'heure écouter le Secrétariat qui vous donnera les réponses aux questions et aux observations que vous avez soulevées dans vos interventions. Ensuite, nous essaierons de tirer les conclusions de notre débat. Mais comme vous le savez la journée est chargée. Puisque nous devons aujourd'hui également terminer le point 14 de notre ordre du jour et permettre au Comité de rédaction de pouvoir se réunir pour la première fois, je crois que le Comité de rédaction devra certainement travailler pendant le week-end. Pour éviter de prolonger les débats, je vous lance à nouveau cet appel afin que nous puissions aller de l'avant. Sans plus tarder, nous allons donner la parole à M. Shah qui donnera ses réponses aux questions que vous avez posées.

V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Replying to the questions which have been raised to some extent is facilitated by the concentration of questions on a few specific areas and issues which have been debated in your consideration of the Programme of Work and Budget. However, there are, of course, a large number of specific questions which have also been raised. The Secretariat always likes to do justice and to pay homage to every Member Nation. I will try to answer these questions in a way as condensed as I can out of respect for your time, and I hope that whiile trying to do justice to these questions I will not leave any impression with any Member Nation that I have deliberately ignored or set aside their question. I do hope that the Commission will accord me some understanding on that score.

So let us get into the subject. Mr Chairman, one of the first questions which was raised - and it was raised by the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom - was a question which came up also in the debate a number of times: that is, what relationship is there between the Programme of Work and Budget 1990-91 and the FAO Review which you are going to consider under item 15 of your Agenda, and how is this relationship going to be handled? Let me answer by distinguishing between the aspects of the Agenda item, the aspects of substance, and the aspects of form. The fact that there are two Agenda items which you, as the Conference, have adopted needs very little further comment. There are two specific subjects which are before this Conference and which the Conference has assigned to your Comiission to handle. Secondly, as regards substance, the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium is a mandatory ¡requirement. It is in the Basic Texts; it is in the Constitution. The Director-General is required to propose a Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium.

The Conference must see its way to approve it. Without it how would the organization function during the next biennium? So there is a distinct link to the Programme of Work and Budget for the next five years. The FAO review is also a substantial matter. It has been carried out according to the Conference's wishes, which you will now see the results of. In substance, however, the discussion on the FAO Review still has to take place on the Commission. The Conference has to pronounce itself on all aspects of this Review: how it was carried out, what the outcome is, what the proposed action is, what the recommendations are, what position you take on them, hew they are to be implemented, what resources are required and how would these resources be provided for, or not provided for. These are all questions that you have to consider. I stress very much that the Secretariat at no time is trying to preempt discussion: you will have the discussion.

This brings me to my third point, the form. As the Legal Counsel explained, and the distinguished representative of Switzerland referred to this in his intervention yesterday, according to our Basic Text there has to be one resolution on budgetary approval of the appropriations for the next biennium. This Budgetary Appropriations Resolution must contain full provision for what the Conference requests the Director-General and requires the Secretariat to carry out in the next biennium.

The draft Appropriation Resolution which has been submitted to you in the Programme of Work and Budget on page 56 of the English text for adoption by the Conference gives the Chapter appropriations and shows the total effective working budget of US$ 574 460 thousand at the rate of 1 235 lire to the dollar, the present budget rate. The Resolution which the Plenary will be requested to consider and adopt will be based on this draft, but the figures will need to be adjusted for the following factors. First, the figure will need to be adjusted to take into account the budget rate which the Conference will be requested to adopt at the time it adopts this resolution, whatever the budget rate is.

Secondly, the figures would need to be adjusted to reflect your conclusions on the lapse factor. If the lapse factor were to remain at its present rate of 5.5 percent there would be no need to make any adjustment because that is the basis on which these figures have been prepared. However,if you conclude that the lapse factor is to be reduced to 3 percent then these figures would be adjusted to reflect that.

The third adjustment would be as a result of your conclusions on the FAO Review, and I stress that I am not prejudging anything because your debate has still to take place. Whatever you recommend, as a Commisson, to the Plenary would need to be done, whether it is to change these figures to include all the additional resources required or some additional resources, or no additional resources. Therefore, as regards the form, the Plenary would be asked to adopt one Resolution on budgetary appropriations for the next biennium, which would include provision for everything which you, the Conference, wish to be done in the next biennium.

I hope I have been clear on this score. I have taken time so as not to rush my explanations because there should be assurance among all of you that there is no uncertainty in the manner in which this is to be handled by yourselves. The process to us seems very clear and it requires action to be based on whatever you recommend to be done.

There is a remaining point on this aspect of form. The present timetable of the Conference provides for the adoption of the Draft Resolution on Budget Appropriations in Plenary on the morning of Wednesday 22 November. It assumes that your conclusions on the two subjects would be reached so that all these matters can be reflected in the Draft Resolution submitted to Plenary. If that should not happen, I would only say that it is up to you, Mr Chairman, as Chairman of the Commission, to draw this matter to the attention of the General Committee. The Director-General is of course following this very closely, and so the General Committee in its wisdom, would make whatever arrangements were necessary. There also I would hope that all Member Nations who have been concerned about this aspect can feel reassured. The important thing, I implore you, is not to sacrifice the substantive merit of every proposal to any short-term apparently urgent requirement. I do not mean to preach, but the Secretariat shares the same interests as Member Nations in ensuring that the substance of all matters receives their due attention.

Let me now turn to the second subject, that is of programme growth, zero growth, zero real growth. I have always said at every Session of the Conference that whatever policy a Member Nation wishes to advocate is its sovereign right and the Secretariat does not take sides. The Secretariat responds to whatever is concluded by the Conference, but there are some aspects which may help in calming those concerns which have been expressed on this subject. The first point I should like to make is that when there is a Programme of Work and Budget with a programme increase, as we have seen in recent years, the Director-General has been very careful not to take the level of the approved budget which according to the Basic Texts is the authorized level of expenditure as meaning that he should spend, no matter what. He has always borne in mind the interests of economy and efficiency and the interests of Member Nations.

Let me give you but one example. In the biennium 1984-85 the budget was US$ 421 million. It represented a programme increase of one half of one percent over the budget of 1982-83. We could have spent those US$ 421 million. The Director-General has the authority to incur expenditures up to that level. The biennium ended with a programme saving of US$ 10.3 million, not counting the US$ 15 million savings which were approved by the Council and the Finance Committee for the African Agriculture Rehabilitation Programme. The total savings would thus have been US$ 25 million. We know there were reasons for those savings. They were savings that could be made on staff costs at that time, and I indicate this as evidence that the approval of the budget level does not mean that the Director-General is not conscious of the need for prudent management of the resources, and he has given you repeated examples of this. Take all the prior biennia where there were cash surpluses - they are evidence of this.

The situation changed in 1986-87 as we all know. The programme increase in 1986-87 was 1.2 percent. The programme increase was US$ 5 million and we ended the biennium having to make savings and having to cut programmes by US$ 25 million, so the programme growth was 1.2 percent and the programme cuts for the biennium were 5.7 percent.

So we do not merely have zero growth. We receded - and that was the beginning. In 1988-89 programme growth was now US$ 1.1 million, 0.2 percent and the cuts were 8.7 percent, US$ 43 million. These figures would suggest to me that those who advocate zero growth far exceeded their objectives. All the programme increases which have been approved since 1976-77 have been wiped out and wiped out entirely by the programme cuts of two biennia. I hope that this is a perspective which will also be remembered and borne in mind when reaching your conclusions on this issue.

The third subject is that of salary costs. Now, let me first clarify the three elements which are involved in the difference between the cost increases in the summary of Programme of Work and Budget and the full Programme of Work and and Budget because in some interventions I have not been entirely clear as to whether the distinctions were recognized. The difference of US$ 16 million between the Summary and the full Programme of Work and Budget, the cost increases were shown in each, US$ 2 million is due to the impact of the General Assembly lifting the transitional measures on the post-adjustment system and a further increase in the scale of pensionable remuneration.

I have said in the introduction to this item that the requirements for both these factors had been indicated in the Summary but could not then be costed. They could be costed for the full Programme of Work and Budget and I believe there has been no concern or disagreement expressed on that account.

Then we come to the remaining US$ 14 million and in some of the interventions there has been a reference to the fact that this US$ 14 million is all subject to the decisions of the General Assembly. We must be very clear. The US$ 14 million includes two elements. It includes a provision of US$ 8.2 million which is the estimate we have made as the expected result of the review carried out by the International Civil Service Commission on which it has submitted its recommendations to the General Assembly and Which the Fifth Committee is presently in the process of considering. The decisions will be reached by the General Assembly, and are expected to be reached, during its present Session.

You are now considering the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium. I would stress that it is not a question of saying the ICSC is still going to review this subject; at some stage it will submit its recommendations and report to the General Assembly. This could have been said if it had been so but the fact is that the ICSC has made recommendations. The Secretariat is not trying to pre-judge the decision of the General Assembly. We are just saying that we know what the recommendations are and the General Assembly is considering them. The General Assembly, in all likelihood is expected to come to conclusions on this and we are not alone in this.

There is a General Assembly document, which has just come to my attention, which is document A/C.5/44/18 dated 30 October 1989 and which is entitled Proposed Pragramme Budget for the Biennium 1990-91, of course for the United Nations itself, administrative and financial implications of the decisions and recommendations contained in the reports of the ICSC and of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Board, statements sutmitted by the Secretary General etc. In this document the Secretary-General of the United Nations is also drawing to the attention of the General Assembly what the financial implications for the United Nations Regular Budget are. He also, in this document, is taking the recommendations of the ICSC and projecting or drawing estimates based on those recommendations as they would apply to the regular budget of the United Nations.

In the case of the United Nations the total of the ICSC and the Joint Staff Pension Board recommendations for the 1990-91 biennium comes to US$ 40 970 000 and the document goes on to say "following past practice, it is intended to deal with the additional costs or reduction for the biennium 1990-91 in the revised estimates to be presented in respect of the 1990-91 Programme Budget". Now I realize in the case of the United Nations the situation is that the General Assembly will come to its decisions on the salary increases and in the same Session of the General Assembly will take a decision also on the 1990-91. It is very convenient for them. They can do it in that way. The intent of the proposal of the Director-General in including this amount is prudent budgetary provision.

We are not inventing these figures. We have indicated on what basis our estimates are based. These figures are recorded not only in your record but I went into them in the Finance Committee. Whatever decisions the General Assembly reaches on this matter will again be a matter of record. At the next Session of the Finance Committee there will be, as usual, a document dealing with salary conditions and so on, and for each item which is relevant to FAO the document will give - as the Chairman of the Finance Committee here would testify - the implications for the regular budget of FAO.

You will see from the Finance Committee's report to the Council and all Member Nations will see whether the provision, which we suggest should be included, is adequate, inadequate or excessive. I cannot stress enough that the estimate we have given, as I said to the Finance Committee, is a very conservative one. I would bet with anyone, but of course this is not a matter of betting, that the implications will be higher. We are being conservative, we are being moderate, and we are not pushing. What we are urging, with all due respect, is that at such a time and in this particular conjuncture it is only prudent to include the provision. If these costs do not come about they will be seen in the Staff Cost Variances and we report on this to the Finance Committee so you will be able to monitor exactly whether these costs have been incurred or not. Other things being equal, they will be returned to you. Let us pray and let us hope that there will be a cash surplus in the biennium thereafter.

I do hope what I am saying is not considered argumentative or contentious, but really an effort, in all sobriety, to calm the concerns of those who have expressed worry on this matter.

The third aspect of the cost increase is that regarding the General Service Salary Review and that is US$ 6 million. This aspect, regarding the Salary Survey of the General Service, has nothing whatsoever to do with the United Nations General Assembly - nothing whatsoever. The General Service salaries are surveyed by the International Civil Service Commission; so by the same ICSC. This is normally done at intervals of five years. They are carried out in accordance with the methodology established by the Commission, by ICSC, in consultation with representatives of the organizations concerned.

The basic premise which underlines the methodology for this Survey is that the UN salaries, or FAO salaries in our case, for locally recruited staff, should be competitive with those of reputedly the best employers of the duty station. In practice this means, in the case of Rome, there are approximateley 25 major employers from a broad range of commercial parastatal and Government organizations whose conditions of service are surveyed. There is a job-matching exercise and a whole lot of other things which are all technical matters, but they are handled by the ICSC methodology and the recommendations of the ICSC are then approved by the Council.

We have included this provision of US$ 6 million, as I said, on the assumption of a 6 percent average increase. That is the assumption. We are clear about that amount. I assure you it is not excessive. I assure you of that and I think every employer in Rome will have experience of that. Let me just give you the examples of the results of the two previous surveys. In the 1984 survey the increase was 9.1 percent as compared to the assumption we make now for a 6 percent increase. In the survey before that in 1979, the increase was 7.5 percent. Again our assumption now is 6 percent. We are not pushing. It is a very moderate and very conservative estimate and again it is an estimate which is recorded and which is before you. So it is a matter to the Director-General of good management, of prudent budgetary provision, to include the cost increases and that is why they form part of his proposals to you.

The fourth subject which has been discussed at some length is the lapse factor. Without repeating what is in the document before you and without repeating in any way the views which have been expressed, we admitted that there is no magical formula for the lapse factor. We said there was no methodology in having a magic formula which is universally recognized and applied by all organizations. There is a great difference in the lapse factor in different organizations of the United Nations system. It is a fact.

Yesterday morning the distinguished representative of the United States referred to the new lapse factor that is being applied to the United Nations but there again may I point out that the higher lapse factor is related to one of the recommendations of the Group of 18 relating to the 15 percent reduction in the staff of the United Nations; so there is a very specific reason for that.

In the case of FAO let us not forget we had a reduction of that amount and more in 1976 when our Director-General first took office. He reduced posts by 330 without any review and without any group of experts.

Returning to the main point, however, one of the arguments which has been raised is that the lapse factor should be related to the actual vacancy rate, and references have been made to the Report of the External Auditor in document C 89/5, which comprises the financial report and statements for the Regular Programme 1986/87. As this document will be considered in Commission III, with all respect of course the Secretariat will provide further clarification at that time, but I would need to reply now to the specific questions that have been raised in connection with the lapse factor.

It has been said that since this document shows that the actual vacancy rate for professional staff has been between 10 and 15 percent since 1982 and in the case of the General Service staff between 5.8 and 7.6 per cent over the same period, there is no justification for changing the lapse factor, in fact quite the reverse. I am sorry, I disagree, and for the following reasons.

First, the vacancy rate, as defined at any particular date, is a fact. You can take this fact. But why are posts not filled in certain circumstances? They are not filled because the right person cannot be found, they are not filled in that established post because another candidate is found whom it is considered more prudent to try out. These are all management measures. There is nothing to be ashamed of, in fact I am proud of them. But what happens then? We establish a parallel post. Because the established post is not filled at that grade under those conditions there is a parallel post which is offered at a reduced rate. So the fact that the established post is theoretically vacant does not mean that there is a saving of that amount because the money is used for a parallel post. That is only one aspect.

Our programme budget is programme budget. When you approve it you ask us to carry out those programmes, to deliver. It is not a budget by organizational unit where you say, we are giving you so many dollars for posts, we are giving you so many dollars for meetings, we are giving you so many dollars for publications and you must only spend that money under those headings. The advantages of a programme budget are the advantages for the owners of this House, for the Member Nations themselves. You expect programmes to be delivered and you expect programmes to be delivered whether it is with staff, by the filling of posts or if that is not the best way to do it by using consultants or by giving a contract to a national institution, by getting the work done. So under these conditions I am not disputing the facts as to what is the number of established posts and which of these established posts are vacant. I am not disputing that at all. Those are questions of fact. What I am questioning is whether it is reasonable or valid to draw the kinds of deductions that have been drawn with regard to the lapse factor.

Now, why is the Director-General proposing reducing the lapse factor rate? The answer is very straightforward. With all the programme cuts that we have had, that you have suffered and that we have experienced and lived through, the Director-General hopes very much that the next Programme of Work and Budget cannot only be approved generously by consensus but can also be implemented, and for the full implementation of the Programme of Work and Budget he would like to have adequate resources, not again to be faced with the same deduction of the lapse factor. This is a question of political judgement which you Member Nations will exercise. If you want the Programme of Work and Budget to be implemented in full, particularly taking into account the cuts that have occurred, this is the judgement of the Director-General, he is asking you to reduce the lapse factor from 5.5 to 3 percent.

In relation to this debate but also some other aspects, some Member Nations have referred to not enough explanations, not enough clarifications, or if the Secretariat feels that it has given an explanation it is an explanation but it is not a clarification. I do not get involved in this. I am trying on behalf of the Secretariat, on behalf of the Director-General and all my colleagues to give you the explanations that have moved the Director-General to submit this proposal.

Although I said at the beginning, and I mean it, that the substance of the Programme of Work and Budget is distinct, is a unity from the substance of whatever conclusions you will reach as the conclusions of the FAO review, I think I may be permitted to say that this issue of the lapse factor is related not only to the Programme of Work and Budget and to its full implementation, it is also related to the implementation of the recommendations resulting from the Review. You will want a great deal done by your Secretariat, and no matter what your decisions will be - and I am not trying to pre-judge them - I think it is worth stressing that the effective implementation of all your decisions has to be looked at together. So much for the lapse factor.

The fifth point, regarding miscellaneous income, the delegate of France asked yesterday as to the assumptions that we made in submitting our estimate of miscellaneous incane of US$ 12 million for 1990-91. Mr Chairman, the assumptions are a number, and the estimates are cautious, precisely on the recommendation of the Finance Committee, because as you will remember for the biennium 1986-87 we got slaughtered.

We made estimates of US$ 41 million of miscellaneous income and if it had not been for sane special factors the miscellaneous income would only have been US$ 11 million or US$ 12 million. The Finance Committee then looked into various alternatives as to whether the practice of deducting estimated miscellaneous income from the assessment should be changed and it decided no, this was not the time to do it, but for the time being at least let us be very cautious and prudent in making the estimate of miscellaneous income. It is on that basis and in that context that the estimate has been made. The estimate has been made assuming the level of the Programme of Work and Budget which is submitted to you. The estimate recognizes the deficit which is carried forward form the preceding biennium, and the estimated deficit at the end of this biennium. It recognizes that there are no new funds that the Director-General is asking for, no special assessments for the replenishment of the Special Reserve Account, and it assumes that the pattern of contributions for the next biennium will follow the pattern of this biennium - all assumptions.

Mr Chairman, this is not a matter on which I would be prepared to take a bet and I can only say that these are estimates which have been again made very very moderately and discussed with the Finance Committee.

The sixth point, and here I come now not to any specific question but to a number of questions which were raised, relating to the share of each region in benefiting from the Programme of Work for the next biennium. I have noted very carefully all the concerns, the concerns of the Member Nations from Africa, the concerns of the Member Nations from Latin America and the Caribbean, the concerns of the Member Nations from Europe. I will not be able, nor will I try, to satisfy everyone by giving snap answers of "Don't worry, everything will be all right". No, Mr Chairman, the answer deserves facts and facts may please some and may not please others. But you want transparency and this is one of the results of transparency, that we have to give the facts as we see them and not make excuses for them. So if we take Programme of Work for the next biennium, let us exclude those programmes which are of global interest, because those we do not try to estimate in terms of which percentage interests Africa and which percentage interests any other region. Excluding those global activities, the Regular Programme share of the Programme for Africa, in this biennium 38.73 percent, in the next biennium 39.6 percent, a fractional improvement, Asia 22.49 in this biennium going up to 22.9, Europe 3.37 in this biennium, going to 3.4, a fractional change, Latin America and Caribbean 20.87 going to 19.2, Near East going to 14.9 - that is for the Regular Programme share.

Let me add that these figures are developed taking the programme elements and by the Divisions responsible for these prograamme elements subdividing them in terms of the regional benefit or the regional interest. In the case of a meeting it is relatively easy to do, in the case of a publication, is it a specific publication for countries of a particular region. In the case of support advisory services it is more difficult to do, because it will not depend on what has been done in this biennium, it will depend on the requests which will come in the next biennium and the requests which will be met under the Regular Programme. So there are these factors to bear in mind but these are the facts.

Extra budgetary funds; very interesting here, and I will speed up a little bit. For the extra budgetary funds, Africa, goes up from 37 percent to 53 percent; Asia, however, comes down very much from 32 to 21; Europe 1.4 to 0.9; Latin America is up, it goes up from 6.63 to 8.8; and the Near East comes down from 21.2 to 15. Mow these extra budgetary funds are again estimates. They are estimates based on the projects which are in operation and based on the pipeline projects which we expect or hope will become operational. So these can only be estimates. So overall, for Africa all resources now go up from 38 to 49; Asia comes down from 28 to 22; Europe comes down from 2.0 to 1.7; Latin America goes up from 11.2 to 12.1 and the Near East comes down from 19.7 to 15. The only hope I can express for those who are concerned about these specific figures as they apply to their own region is that as regards the Regular Programme resources, the eventual share will depend on the specific requests received and the specific work carried out; so these percentages are not sacrosanct in any way, and the same thing for the extra budgetary funds. These estimates are exactly what they are; they are estimates based on our present assessment of the plans.

Reference was made to the activities of the Regional Office for Europe and the Joint Division for the Economic Commission for Europe and information was requested on the funds provided for these two offices, comparison to the present biennium and a breakdown by object. This informaton is available in a table summary by budget component on page 383, I am referring to the English text, page 383; REUR total provision for the next biennium is 2 529 000. that is the Regional Office; then the JEUR, that is the Joint Division, provision 1 880 000.

Also in relation to Europe comments have been made or questions asked about what are the programmes that are relevant to Europe. Is it only the work of the Regional Office and the work of the Joint Commission, and my answer is no. If you look at the Regional estimates by programme for Europe on page 314 of the text, the funds shown, 4.4 million for the Regional Office, yes those are the funds of the Regional Office but under Headquarters the US$ 6.6 million, that is related to the work at Headquarters which is of relevance to the European Region. Thus under the Headquarters column you find a provision of US$ 200 000, under Sub-Programme 1.1.1.7 Regional Conference. That provision is budgeted in the Office of General Affairs and Information, Conference and Council, it is not under the Regional Office because the arrangements for all regional offices are made by GI. Fisheries, 1 361 000, my colleague Dr Lindquist and his colleagues do a fair amount of work on Fisheries for the European Region; to give you the two most visible examples, the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission, IFAC, or the General Fisheries Division for the Mediterranean; training activities; manuals. Now, perfectly understandable that an individual Member Country in the European region may say "This is of no interest to me", but I have heard, and there are now Member Countries in the other European regions, who do want this work done and we are trying to respond to the membership at large.

A specific question then was raised about publication costs and there were a related number of questions all emanating from the representative of the United States. There are two tables in the Programme of Work and Budget document which are relevant in this regard. One is a table which the representatives referred to which is a table on page 347, Summary by Budget

Component, where publications and documents show a provision for 1988-89 of 32 940 000 and a proposed provision of 39 456 000, and understandably the question has been raised, why such a big increase? Now, why such a big increase, you have to look at the components of the provision under publications and documents; it is not just for paper; it is not just for printing. The total costs of the publications and documents are included under this provision, thus under the provision of 39 456 000 you have salaries 18 million; camion staff costs 8 156 000; contractual services, I suppose largely external printing but also other contractual services 4.5 million; general operating expenses 6.7 million; supplies 2 million. Now, in programmes terms there is a decline in the provision for publications. There is a decline, I believe of one percent, but I will give you the exact figure, there is a decline of 322 000, almost exactly one percent but the increase in the provision is due to the costs and why these higher costs, because as you have seen from the breakdown most of than are related to staff costs and staff costs are the ones which are going up, so that is the reason for that.

Secondly, have there been user surveys? I must confess I have not undertaken a survey myself since this question was raised, to find out if there have been user surveys or how many. There has not been to my knowledge a systematic user survey of every FAO publication but I do not think a user survey would make too much sense when we bear in mind that a part of the FAO publications are in a sense mandatory; when you think of the Statistical Year Books, assimilation, dissemination of data. Certainly user response is received because any Division working on any publication is in touch with the people who receive those documents and they get comments from them and these comments are not just haphazard, these comments also occur in formal meetings of the technical or the expert body concerned in expert consultations and so on. So there is a user response. Let me give you another example: when we were forced to suspend CERES my colleagues in the Division received literally thousands of letters. Now, those letters, some of which I drew to the attention of the Programme Committee, from Parliamentarians, from civil servants, from research institutions, libraries, from universities, have indicated a wealth of material of what was the reason why these readers considered CERES so valuable. Of course, this is taken into account. Another example, The Food and Nutrition Bulletin; it was suspended; it is going to be reactivated in the next biennium but before reactivating it we are taking the matter up with the ACC Subcommittee on Nutrition so that our colleagues from the Nutrition Division who work on this publication can have the full collaboration, the full support, the views of colleagues from other Organizations to see how can we make it a better publication. So just in brief, this would be my reply to user surveys.

Now, has anything been done on mailing costs, has anything been done to reduce costs? Now the reduction of costs is something which can never stop. It is a process which is continuing and the Director General has himself often spoken about this. A fact which I think makes the point is the reduction in the administrative and the support services over the years from 24 percent over a decade ago to 17 percent now, but let me give you one specific example about how these costs, mailing costs for example, were reduced. Yes, these were very much involved as a part of the cuts in the programme economies that we had to make and I take our expenditure on Pouch, Pouch expenditure. There are apparently two classes of Pouch, first class and second class, but the mail eventually gets there. In 1986 total kilogrammes 392 378; in 1988 263 373. Economies are made. They are made as much as they are able to and they involve a lot of effort. In terms of costs, the cost decreased from Lire 2 716 million to Lire 1 641 million.

Relating to publications, there was also a question I believe from the representative of Hungary about the suppressed publications and if anything had been done to transfer the material from the suspended publications to other publications. I must confess that in a subject such as CERES it would be difficult to do because the kind of articles which CERES covers are not covered in the other publications, magazines, types of publications I can think of, but certainly for the Technical Division the same articles could not appear but I think every effort was made to disseminate the technical information if there was a suitable forum, but I cannot give you off-hand a specific example.

Now I hope that this will be the last cluster of the questions I thought I should answer on the Programme decreases. Where we were forced to make reductions or propose reductions in some individual programme elements, again I must not try and make false excuses, because the facts are before you, but I must give you explanations which we have considered and which we hope make sense.

For example, the distinguished delegate of Kenya asked for information on how we intend to assist small farm irrigation in Africa when the programme element dealing with this subject has been deleted. The same point was, in fact, raised and debated in the Programme Committee. We changed one sentence in the Full Programme of Work and Budget but one sentence may not be noticed. I should like to explain. The specific requirements of and the dictates of small-scale irrigation are incorporated into the various aspects of the sub-programme, so while there is no longer that discreet programme element the work is not totally stopped; it is not totally deleted. As evidence of this, let me give you specific examples, practical examples, of what is envisaged to be done. I would draw your attention also to one of the supplements of the Programme of Work and Budget, Supplement 1, which deals with publications. There are going to be training manuals - irrigation water management training manuals.

Secondly, I should also report that FAO is the lead agency in developing proposals for an inter-agency ten-year action programme on water and sustainable agricultural development in which small-scale irrigation is one of the four priority areas.

A specific question was raised by the distinguished representatives of Argentina and El Salvador referring to the Aquila project on fisheries funded by Italy. We share the concern of those countries about the indication of the closure of this project by the end of this year, but we are in the process of identifying alternative funding. We hope that we shall manage to find it.

Also, in the case of fisheries the distinguished representative of the Netherlands asked a question about whether any development has occurred between the common fund since its establishment in pursuing the work of the sub-Committee on Fish Trade of the Committee on Fisheries. The common fund only started operating in July of this year. I understand that it is still in the process of finalising its rules and procedures before considering proposals.

The Programme for Technical Assistance in Fishery Commodities, which ves elaborated by the COFI Sub-Committee, is being further detailed, is being further elaborated, in consultation with the regional Fish Information Centres and the industry. The detailed package will be submitted for the approval of the Sub-Committee which we are scheduling for next September. Only thereafter will it be submitted to the common fund.

The distinguished representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran asked a question about the possibility of an action plan for Mediterranean countries similar to the Tropical Forestry Action Plan. My colleague Mr Murray assures me that we plan to do this next year.

A specific question was asked about the reduction in the resources of Programme 2.1.8. It is true that the proposal as submitted do show a decrease. The reason for showing this decrease is that there was a major consultation on economic cooperation amongst developing countries which was held in the current biennium and will not be repeated in the next biennium. Also, there is a reduction due to the shift of resources within some regional offices. However, despite this overall reduction there is an increase of $ 604 000, 7.4 percent, in the resources available under this programme to help interested Member Countries in policy and planning areas. This is in addition to the resources which are allocated for policy advice to Member Countries under other programmes such as those on rural development and on nutrition.

Two other questions were raised by one representative about people's participation. I do have some information to give and I apologize for the length of time this is taking. Very briefly, the importance attached to people's participation programmes is not disputed by us at all. Several activities have been implemented, mainly in Africa and Asia, and case studies have been undertaken and guidelines and manuals produced. In 1989 several studies and publications were or will be issued.

Therefore, in the next biennium the sub-programrme which deals with this, 2.1.5.3, intends to test the trading materials in other regions. Even with the slight reduction shown I am told that several on-going activities will be continued, mainly in respect of strengthening self-financed and self-managed farmers groups and organizations.

Finally, a specific question on JBCFA, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committtee on Food Additives. Briefly, let me just say that while we would prefer to continue to hold three or even four meetings of this body per biennium, because of limited funds and constraints, and Member Country requests for other urgent work under this sub-programme, we do not propose to hold more than two. These activities are fully in line with our plans and the proposals for strengthening our relationship with GAIT.

Mr. Chairman, I have taken an excessive amount of time and I am sure there may be seme who may feel neglected. But let me stop here. I hope I have done justice as a whole to the questions raised during the debate.

LE PRESIDENT: Au nom de toute la Commission nous voulons vous remercier pour cet exposé qui donne des réponses aux questions qui avaient été posées.

HMais évidemment les questions étaient peut-être si nombreuses qu'il se peut que vous ayez omis certaines d'entre elles. Si c'est le cas, je peux évidemment donner la parole aux membres de la Commission afin qu'ils interviennent. Je vois que j'ai deux orateurs. Le Royaume-Uni et la Suisse. Je donne la parole au Royaume-Uni.

Rohin Garth PETTITT (United Kingdom) : I thank Mr Shah for his replies. There was no need to apologize for the length of time taken. My delegation never takes the view that the need for economy and timekeeping means that the Secretariat should not have time to deal fully with the queries, or at any rate the non-rhetorical questions, unless delegations have made it clear that the questions were on points where they suspect the interest is confined to themselves and are content to handle the matter separately in conversation. Nor would we wish to restrain the Secretariat from making the necessary comments at the end of a main debate like this to help decision-taking. To put an unnecessary restriction of either type would be a false economy. It would, in fact, waste the effort of delegations in contributing to the debate.

Most of my questions have been answered but there was one which I put perhapsI without great clarity on which I am not sure that there was an answer. This was in connection with the $ 8.2 million included for the estimate of the cost of the salaries of U.N. professional staff which is at present being considered by the Fifth Committee in the General Assembly. I asked whether there were ideas for handling this issue other than through the special reserve account, which was a point we had suggested as the correct way of proceeding.

There was a hidden question as to whether there was a way of ring-fencing this amount if included in the budget so that it could only be spent if the award were agreed by the General Assembly and in the way assumed in our estimates that it would be agreed.

Should I understand Mr Shah's reply or comment to be that there is no constitutional way of doing this in the appropriation resolution? Or was his reply simply that our way of doing it in FAO - a nicer and friendlier way - is to trust the Director-General not to authorize the spending of the money in keeping with his track record or the track records of Director-Generals in general in the history of the Organization, that the Finance Committee would see what was happening and that, to quote Mr Shah "other things being equal" the money would be returned to Member States.

If that was the reply, could I ask a supplementary question? What does "other things being equal" mean in this context?

Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): I have a little bit of a problem with sane of the clarifications so may I just come back on them. For example, on the first question on the budget you will recall that I asked a question of the Legal Counsel. In his reply Mr Shah said that the Basic Texts provide for just one budgetary resolution. The reply on this issue by Mr Moore in the Council was that it provides for one budget. These are two separate things, one budgetary resolution and one budget, because if it is in fact one budgetary resolution this would be an argument for coming back with our proposals on the conditional element of the budget for providing funds for inflation in 1990-91. Maybe Mr Shah or the Legal Counsel could speak on this.

If I understood the conclusion correctly, am I right in thinking that the Secretariat does not necessarily insist on having the budget voted in the time schedule as proposed at the beginning of Conference so that, in order to take care of the elements of the review, one may discuss this matter in the general Committee. Is this the right interpretation?

The second point I wanted to address is that Mr Shah has given us factual figures on what was the budget growth decided at the last Conferences. There was small real growth. The expenditures, in fact, were lower than the budgets. You have deduced from this that this showed finally that there was less than zero growth over the period. My delegation cannot accept this argument because the programme base for the budgets adopted is not the expenditure but is a previously adopted budget. I can accept the statement only if the programme base is the previous expenditure. It is important to point to this difference.

That brings me to the point of the personnel body decisions. Here again we have heard arguments on why these estimates are conservative. I do not argue at all on this. Also, I would like to underline that my country is in favour of an improvement in the salaries of FAO, in the system itself. We know, for example, that they do not compare very well with the salaries in Switzerland and other countries.

But our points were rather technical. We think that estimates which are not yet based on decisions should be dealt with as such, and we have instruments in our Basic Text. It concerns the Special Reserve Account and I should like to hear from Dr Shah as to whether he thinks this could be an appropriate instrument. He said that in the United Nations General Assembly it was convenient that they had the chance to look at the salary question and then look at the budget. We do not have this chance, so perhaps we need to deal with the problem with a different way.

Regarding the lapse factor, I think the answer was clear. The Director-General wishes to have adequate resources. In fact, there is some over-budgeting. As to Miscellaneous Income, I agree that since this, if it is underestimated, goes into the cash surplus, it does not affect the programming base. I think that it is certainly a good policy to accept the conservative figure. I do not think that it is certainly a good policy to accept the conservative figure. I do not think that is a problem for us.

Finally, as regards the regional question, we have pointed to the budget of Europe as regards the fisheries sector and the regional Conferences. I would just like to remind you that we would expect to have at the next Regional Conference a presentation of these Headquarters activities as relevant to that body, as they appear on the Headquarters budget with the corresponding expenses, so that we can look into this because in the past we have discussed only the Regional Office activities in Geneva and Rome, and not so much the other offices.

I would make one point regarding the programme decreases. May I recall the example of a project in the Regular Prgramme which cost less when it was redesigned. I think we might expect such an increase of productivity for inherited programmes and inherited activities. It is normal also that work productivity in our countries increases in general by about 3 percent. That would be an argument as to why cost increases for activities which remain the same should be rather smaller, because one can expect an improvement in productivity for routine activities or for activities which are not designed for the first time. When they are new, it is obvious that there cannot be high productivity.

As regards the proposals which we made that the cost increase methodology should be looked at by the External Auditor, as well as our proposal for a better concentration of activities, I understand that Dr Shah did not reply to that. I understand that he considered this to be a matter for discussion by member countries. I should just like to recall that we wish to retain these proposals. Thank you.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Los representantes de Colombia pensamos que el Sr. Shah, con su competencia habitual, hizo un gran esfuerzo para resumir sus respuestas y comentarios a las intervenciones de 75 delegaciones, intervenciones muchas de las cuales fueron tan detalladas, que en ciertos momentos me parecía encontrarme en el seno del Comité de Finanzas o del Comité del Programa.

Naturalmente, nosotros estamos de acuerdo con el colega del Reino Unido en que es siempre conveniente y saludable que se lleve a cabo un debate amplio y democrático y que, aun después de la respuesta de la Secretaría, aquellas delegaciones que quieran hacerlo presenten comentarios adicionales. Es un diálogo sano y constructivo. Pero no creemos realmente que ayude al mejor funcionamiento de nuestra Comisión, y por consiguiente de la Conferencia, ciertas actitudes, a través de las cuales, cada delegación -imaginémonos si los 75 oradores que intervinieron hicieran lo mismo- manifieste de nuevo que la respuesta de la Secretaría no está de acuerdo con lo que ellos dijeron, que ellos insisten en su propuesta, que piden que su propuesta tenga apoyo. Esto nos llevaría de nuevo a la reiniciación del debate sobre el mismo tema.

Hemos elegido un Comité de Redacción, fruto del acuerdo entre regiones y grupos de países, en el cual están representadas todas las tendencias, Comité de Redacción presidido por el distinguido representante de Suecia, país que merece toda nuestra confianza, de manera que no creemos que sea conveniente aquí reabrir de nuevo el debate, sino tratar de concluir cuanto antes esta discusión del tema 13, para que podamos pasar -y será conveniente mirar el reloj- al tema 14, con la esperanza de que hoy podamos concluir el tema 14 y el lunes iniciar el tema 15.

Se han hecho aquí referencias al Comité General, los representantes de Colombia no somos voceros del Comité General, pero somos miembros, y el Presidente Tchicaya podrá confirmar que esta mañana él fue invitado al Comité General para que informara sobre la marcha de los trabajos de esta Comisión, y que el Comité General decidió en su reunión del próximo martes 21 considerar un segundo y actualizado informe del Presidente Tchicaya para que así ese Comité General pueda estar en condiciones de hacer alguna recomendación sobre el calendario a seguir.

Como representante de Colombia creo que convendría mantener el calendario adoptado, o sea, que esta Comisión adopte en su reunión del martes 21 en la tarde, la parte del proyecto de informe sobre el tema 13, y que permita así a la Plenaria, a más tardar el miércoles en la tarde como está previsto o el jueves, la adopción definitiva de esa parte del informe sobre el tema 13.

Esto corresponde no sólo a una tradición, no sólo es lo que se ha hecho en todas las Conferencias anteriores, sino que obedece al hecho fundamental de que ese acto importante de la Conferencia, que se somete a votación nominal y que exige el requisito de los dos tercios de los votos, conviene que se realice en la segunda sanana de la Conferencia, porque ya en la tercera sanana muchas delegaciones están desintegradas, y ése es un acto importante al cual conviene que concurran el mayor número posible de Miembros de la Conferencia.

LE PRESIDENT: J'invite tout le monde à faire preuve de modération pour que nous puissions avancer. Bien entendu, il n'est pas question d'interdire à qui que ce soit de parler ici. Mais nous souhaitons que vous puissiez prendre la parole pour poser des questions précises dans le minimum de temps possible.

Alfred FEBERWEE (Netherlands): I want to be very brief, in response to your request, Mr Chairman, but I want to raise the point that the Netherlands are disappointed over the answer on the reductions in JECFA meetings. In our view the reply is unsatisfactory because no material reasons were given as to why such a reduction would be possible. I do not want to repeat the reasons why four successful meetings of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Food Contaminents and yearly meetings on that issue of JECFA are necessary. Yearly meetings will also be necessary on Residues of Veterinary Drugs. The same reason applies, namely, that the relevant Codex Committees need this data for fulfilling their tasks, which is essential for GATT.

I would just wish to repeat that the Netherlands being the host country of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants, and paying for those meetings, is disappointed with the answer. We shall have to seek solutions to this problem. Thank you.

Zbigniew KARNICKI (Poland): Thank you. My delegation wish to support the view expressed by the distinguised delegate of Colombia. I think we have to look into the time factor, as time is running out. We discussed this issue extensively yesterday and we are aware that certain Member States have questions and queries. However, it would be wise, I think, if we stopped the discussion in the Commission in this issue and tried to form a kind of contact group, which has already been prepared, to try to clarify the matters for the particular countries who have concerns. Perhaps the group could meet with FAO as well and even, if necessary, go into a kind of negotiation. This is a time when we should look not to confrontation but to negotiation. I am pretty sure that we are in a position to reach a consensus and adopt the Resolution by consensus.

Carlos FERREIRA C. (Chile): Como es la primera vez que mi delegación toma la palabra en esta Comisión, me permito felicitarle, así como a su Vicepresidente por su designación.

En realidad, mi delegación, por razones muy personales, no había podido participar en los debates que sí había seguido con mucha atención. Y hay algunas cuestiones que debo puntualizar para que queden en los verbales, tanto en nombre de mi delegación como en nombre del grupo que presido, el GRULAC y por ello me permitiré, aunque sea volviendo atrás, expresar brevemente algunos conceptos en relación a este tema.

Deseo resaltar la presentación y estructura del documento preparado por la Secretaría y felicitar al Sr. Director General porque ha logrado, aun manteniendo los recursos en el nivel casi del pasado, llevar adelante un programa de trabajo.

LE PRESIDENT: M. le représentant du Chili, je crois que nous avons déjà clos le débat sur cette question.

Carlos FERREIRA C. (Chile): Voy a pedir, en todo caso, que mi discurso quede en actas, si usted lo tiene a bien.

LE PRESIDENT: Merci beaucoup pour votre coopération, c'est accepté. Nous allons redonner la parole à M. Shah pour compléter les réponses qu'il vient déjà de donner.

V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): There was a question regarding the 8.2 million which relates to the increased cost of professional salaries. The question from the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom was, "what about the Special Reserve Account?" I am sorry if I did not cover that point in my initial reply. Theoretically, of course, the provision for the Special Reserve Account provides for unbudgeted costs to be met from the Special Reserve Account with the prior approval of the Programme and Finance Committees but this is not a course which the Director-General considers prudent or possible in this instance for the reason which distinguished representatives will recall from their discussion in the Council, that the provisions of the Special Reserve Account will be totally exhausted again by the end of this biennium to cover the budgetary deficit carried over and the increase in the budgetary deficit and outstanding liabilities. That is why I come again to the point of prudent budgetary provision. It is because of this particular timing, situation and circumstances that the Director-General proposes that these costs should be included in the provisions of the Programme of Work and Budget.

We are dealing with the situation where there is a Special Reserve Account of US$ 26 million which can be drawn upon and that is a fact.

A second question related to this was what did I mean by, "other things being equal"? I mean precisely that. Your conclusions on this item and on the item of the FAO Review have not taken place. I am not trying to prejudge or pre-empt anything. That is all I meant by, "other things being equal".

The third aspect is that the distinguished representative of Switzerland said that since these cost increases are estimates there is no need to include them but we are dealing with a budgetary matter and in formulating a budget you do make estimates. We are not accountants. We are not looking at this after the fact. We are trying to formulate a budget and request you to consider approving that budget. In presenting a budget these are estimates but all the figures are estimates and so I do not see the difference.

I think those were the only points which needed additional specific replies. Points which I have deliberately not covered, such as what an individual representative may wish pursued, since there was no discussion in the Commission itself on certain proposals, I did not respond to that. There was also the wish expressed to have certain documentation at the next Regional Conference for Europe but since that is not a matter on which I am empowered or entitled or competent to discuss, nor is it a matter which the Commission is considering now, I am deliberately not replying to that.

Robin Garth PETTTT (United Kingdom) : I will pursue separately with Mr Shah and the Legal Counsel if necessary the point about ring fencing within the resolution of the costs of the salary review.

LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie beaucoup pour votre coopération. Avant de conclure le débat sur cette question, je voudrais annoncer que la Suède a remis son intervention sur ce point 13, qui sera insérée dans le procès-verbal de notre Commission.

Mous voici au terme de nos débats sur le point 13 relatif au programme de travail et budget pour 1990-91 et les objectifs à moyen terme.

Ces débats ouverts, démocratiques et riches ont connu 75 interventions qui toutes ont félicité le Directeur général pour les améliorations qui ont été apportées au document C 89/3 ainsi qu'au processus d'élaboration du programme de travail et budget qui permet désormais un dialogue plus intense entre les Etats Membres. Cependant, tout en appuyant l'idée de poursuivre cette expérience sur une nouvelle période de deux ans, de nombreux membres de notre Commission ont lié leur position définitive à l'obtention d'un consensus sur l'adoption du budget 1990-91, seul test valable selon eux pour un jugement objectif de ce processus alors que quelques autres membres pensent que ce processus devrait devenir la règle, d'autres encore trouvent ce processus long et coûteux et proposent de supprimer l'étape intermédiaire du sommaire. Quelques membres ont jugé que des améliorations supplémentaires pouvaient être apportées à la présentation du PIB. La Commission a manifesté son appui unanime aux neuf priorités proposées au Chapitre 2 du document, à savoir biotechnologie, information agricole, développement durable, avis en matière de politique, rôle des femmes dans le développement, suivi des cultures et des conditions météorologiques, protection des cultures, aquaculture, Plan d'action forestier tropical. Mais si un petit nombre reste persuadé que la FAO gagnerait en efficacité si elle concentrait ses ressources sur un nombre plus réduit d'activités, de nombreuses délégations ont estimé au contraire que les programmes développés par l'Organisation répondaient aux besoins réels des pays membres et résultaient des demandes faites par les divers organes et instances de la FAD.

De nombreux membres, qui ont déploré la faiblesse du niveau du budget proposé, ont exprimé l'espoir que des ressources extrabudgétaires accrues permettraient d'assurer l'expansion des activités de terrain. Le Programme de coopération technique (PCT) a reçu un soutien général en raison de son efficacité et du rôle utile et catalyseur qu'il joue dans la mobilisation des investissements dans les pays bénéficiaires. Pour cela, un grand nombre de membres ont déploré la réduction dont ce programme si populaire fait l'objet dans le cadre de ce projet de budget. Ils ont demandé que cette diminution relative du PCT dans le budget prenne fin et que la part du PCT connaisse à nouveau un accroissement allant jusqu'à 17 pour cent du budget, et se sont déclarés satisfaits de son financement et de sa gestion.

Quelques membres, tout en reconnaissant l'utilité de ce programme, estiment que son mode de financement pourrait faire appel à des ressources extrabudgétaires et sa gestion connaître une plus grande transparence. La Commission dans son ensemble a souhaité que le PIB soit approuvé par consensus et, à cet égard, les efforts du Directeur général pour obtenir ce consensus ont été pleinement appréciés. En effet, de nombreux membres ont souligné que le PIB était le résultat d'un compromis entre le désir de la majorité de donner à la FAO un niveau de ressources compatible avec les besoins des nombreux Etats Membres et la nécessité de limiter les augmentations budgétaires au regard des difficultés financières de beaucoup de pays membres. Quelques membres ont réitéré leur attachement à la croissance zéro, mais un grand nombre de membres ont rejeté ce point de vue et indiqué qu'ils auraient souhaité un budget plus conséquent pour relancer l'action de la FAD, largement mise à mal par les réductions successives de programme pour près de 68 millions en trois ans. Certains membres ont indiqué qu'ils pourraient se rallier au niveau actuel si elle prenait en compte les résultats de l'examen en cours.

Pour ce qui concerne l'application de l'abattement pour mouvements de personnel, deux opinions se sont affrontées. En effet, quelques membres ont trouvé qu'aucun élément ne justifiait la modification proposée, mais un grand nombre a soutenu la proposition du Directeur général pour sa réduction de 5,5 pour cent à 3 pour cent afin de garantir une exécution plus efficace du PIB.

Il en est de même de l'approvisionnement pour augmentation de salaires, liée à une prochaine décision de l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies. Divers membres, tout en approuvant le niveau du budget, ont souhaité que certains programmes ou sous-programmes soient renforcés. Il en est ainsi des plantes à racine et tubercules. D'autres ont proposé des aménagements dans les affectations des crédits comme ceux destinés à l'Europe pour lesquels des propositions chiffrées ont été avancées. Les membres de l'Amérique latine et des Caraïbes se sont plaints de la faiblesse des ressources prévues pour leur région alors que ceux d'Afrique et autres demandent que la FAO continue à leur accorder prioritairement ces ressources. Mais à cet égard des réponses fort pertinentes ont été données à la Commission par le Secrétariat.

Bref, la Commission a reconnu qu'il était nécessaire de renforcer la FAO pour lui permettre de répondre aux besoins des Etats Membres, mais les points de vue divergent sur les moyens d'atteindre cet objectif. En effet, si quelques membres considèrent que ce renforcement peut se faire non pas par un apport de ressources additionnelles mais en redéployant celles disponibles à la majorité des membres, la majorité des membres est convaincue que la croissance zéro est synonyme d'immobilisme et que ce principe constitue une absurdité devant la brûlante actualité des missions de la FAO.

Quelques délégués ont indiqué qu'ils souhaitaient que la Conférence ne se prononce pas sur le PIB, Avant de conclure la discussion sur le rapport relatif à l'examen sur certains aspects des buts et opérations de la FAO, la majorité est d'un point de vue opposé et demande que les deux points de l'ordre du jour soient abordés et tranchés séparément. Ils souhaitent donc que la Commission se prononce dès à présent sur le niveau du budget. En tenant compte de tous les points de vue exprimés, la Commission recommande que le projet de résolution sur le programme de travail et l'ouverture des crédits pour 1990-91 soit soumis à la Conférence pour qu'il soit approuvé de préférence par consensus. Notre rapport sera rédigé de manière à refléter les divers points de vue exprimés au cours des débats. En outre, la position de chaque Etat Membre sera explicite au moment du vote sur le budget.

Comme vous le savez, nous venons de mettre fin au point 13. Nous allons pouvoir aborder le point 14 de l'Ordre du jour: Examen des programmes de terrain. Vous connaissez le document, c'est le C 89/4 et le C 89/LIM/19. Pour l'introduction de ce point de notre Ordre du jour, je vais inviter M. Rinville (Sous-Directeur général, Chef du Département du développement) à introduire ce point de notre Ordre du jour.

Tommie SJOBERG (Sweden): The FAO's three principal functions are collector and disseminator of information, centre for policy analysis, forum for intergovernmental discussion, and provider of technical assistance at field level. These are the real functions of FAO and they are important functions. The Regular Budget is intended to finance activities which are of interest to the entire membership of the Organization. It does of course execute technical assistance projects but these are primarily financed from extra-budgetary resources. The size of the Regular Budget has been and will continue to be very modest in comparison with the problems and issues in world food and agriculture. It is therefore most important that resources available are employed most efficiently and effectively and in those areas which FAO has a comparative advantage.

The Swedish delegation knows that there are tremendous requirements for this Organization in solving food problems and promoting agricultural development. We also recognize that the financial environment of the FAO for the next biennium will be severe. Therefore the setting of clear cut priorities for the work of the Organization is of utmost importance. The budget must be realistic in order to make it possible to implement proposed activities.

The Swedish delegation endorses, by and large, the priorities proposed. However, we find it difficult to discover links in the Programme of Work and Budget between proposed priorities and proposed activities. As to the concept sustainable development, I would like to refer to statements made by the Swedish Minister of Agriculture the other day.

As to forestry, in his speech in Plenary the Swedish Minister of Agriculture voiced his concern for the meagre resources allocated to forestry We feel that the forest sector has a long-term developmental potential that is considerably greater than its present share of the budget allocation. Activities and inputs in the forest sector do not give the same rapid results as inputs in other sectors. There is consequently a risk that the potential of forestry to contribute development permanently is being undervalued and under-utilized. The proposed changes in the new budget compared to the present, seem to verify this thesis. Forests have great importance for the ecological balance and as a supplier of energy. The importance of the tropical forests, and our concern for the rapid depletion of forests was underlined by our Minister, as well as our concern for the rapid depletion of forests in Europe, where we now witness forest death in larger and larger areas. Thus, we insist that even stronger support should be given to forestry activities than what is provided for.

As regards the Fisheries Programme we welcome the increased resources that have been allocated in the sector. There is a growing concern for the future of the living marine resources. We therefore welcome further attention to conservation and management of these resources.

14. Review of Field Programmes
14. Examen des programmes de terrain
14. Examen de los Programas de Campo

F. RINVILLE (Sous-Directeur général, Département du Développement): Pendant plus de 2 décennies l'examen du programme de terrain que vous avez en main aujourd'hui sous la référence C 89/4 a permis de présenter aux agents et donateurs de la FAO la description et l'évaluation des activités d'assistance technique au niveau des pays.

Ce sont aujourd'hui quelques 2 500 projets qui sont en cours d'exécution dans 140 pays pour un budget total dépassante milliards de dollars et correspondant à une dépense annuelle d'environ quelques 350 millions de dollars, soit plus en apparence que le programme régulier. Mais c'est une dépense d'une nature très différente, ce qui interdit de pousser plus loin la comparaison des chiffres.

L'examen bien sûr ne peut être résumé et une synthèse des informations fournie par les nombreuses divisions et unités de la FAO participent à la préparation et à la mise en oeuvre des activités de terrain, y compris les représentations de la FAO dans les pays.

Comme avant, nous nous sommes attachés à présenter ces informations sous la forme la plus concise possible, avec un grand souci de franchise et de clarté dans l'exposé des forces et des faiblesses qui caractérisent les performances et les résultats de cet ensemble hétérogène de projets dans tant de pays.

Quand je dis le mot "clarté", je voudrais utiliser le mot "transparence". Il a exprimé le souci que le Secrétariat a de livrer à notre jugèrent les informations critiques qu'il a rassemblées. J'ai toutefois trouvé que le mot transparence pouvait avoir en français une connotation de passivité: "laisser passer la lumière sans la mettre en valeur"; alors je suis revenu au mot clarté.

Le présent examen comporte un premier chapitre qualitatif qui décrit les tendances générales, un second chapitre quantitatif qui se concentre sur l'évaluation critique des activités opérationnelles et de leurs résultats (et qui en retient les leçons pour les projets futurs) un troisième chapitre, traditionnellement consacré à un budget particulier et qui cette fois traite du soutien à l'investissement et enfin un quatrième chapitre qui a pour objet de dégager les grandes tendances et les nouvelles approches qui caractériseront les activités opérationnelles de la FAO dans les années qui viennent.

Sans entrer dans les détails de ce document dont vous disposez tous, je voudrais vous présenter un certain nombre d'observations et de commentaires.

Comme le montre le rapport, les dépenses annuelles du programme du terrain augmentent maintenant régulièrement et devraient atteindre le niveau record de 360 millions de dollars cette année (en argent courant). La cause principale de cette croissance, c'est le programme FAO/PNUD dont les approbations se poursuivent à un niveau élevé. La FAO et le PNUD ont ainsi coopéré activement à tous les niveaux pendant ce biennium, et les résultats sont fructueux. Les deux comités du programme et des finances ont insisté sur 1'importance de cette coopération. Chaque fois qu'il y a eu des problèmes, nous nous sommes efforcés de les résoudre dans un esprit d'ouverture et de franchise. De nouvelles règles de remboursement des dépenses d'appui aux opérations financées par le PNUD sont à l'heure actuelle à l'étude, et nous en reparlerons en Commission III (point 23.3).

J'ajouterai que la dernière Conférence des contributions du PNUD les 30 et 31 octobre derniers nous permet d'espérer une augmentation de 5% des ressources du PNUD en 1990 par rapport à 1984, ce qui représenterait en valeur absolue près de 1,3 milliard de dollars.

Le Chapitre 2 est consacré à l'évaluation et à l'analyse critique de nos activités de terrain. Elles reposent sur deux séries d'évaluations, de nature différentes; d'une part sur celles de nos représentants de la FAO, d'autre part sur les 130 rapports d'évaluation de projets très détaillés, préparés par des missions d'évaluation indépendantes et ensuite synthétisés par le Service d'évaluation de la FAO.

Je crois que ce chapitre nest réservé ni en franchise, ni en critique, et nous nous sommes livrés à l'analyse détaillée de ce qui fait que les projets sont des succès ou des échecs. Une attention toute particulière a été apportée à l'analyse des difficultés rencontrées dans les pays les moins développés et ceci a été apprécié par les deux comités du programme et des finances. Alors qu'en général, constat est fait que la réalisation des projets s'est améliorée sur bien des points, on tire aussi de ces évaluations de nombreux et importants enseignements pour le futur. Je souligne à ce propos les travaux que nous menons en permanence au sein de notre Organisation pour améliorer les conditions de mise en oeuvre de nos activités de terrain sous tous leurs aspects opérationnels, techniques et administratifs, dans une recherche très orientée d'efficacité de fiabilité et de qualité. C'est ainsi que dans le cadre très coordonné du Comité du Programme de terrain, un plan d'action a été récemment présenté et approuvé. La mise en oeuvre des 33 mesures qu'il a identifiées comme prioritaires est très largement engagée.

Les autres mesures préconisées, en plus grand nombre encore, seront progressivement mises en oeuvre à la mesure de la capacité que nous avons de bien les absorber et de bien les mettre en oeuvre. Au sein du même Comité du Programme de terrain, un autre groupe de travail vient de terminer il ya quelques jours l'inventaire et l'analyse détaillée des systèmes informatisée qui supportent d'une façon ou d'une autre le Programme de terrain (il sont plus de trente) et de l'ensemble des besoins recensés chez les opérateurs de ce programme; les conclusions de ce travail considérable permettront d'établir le cahier des charges du système global qui, utilisant les sous-systèmes existants, permettra l'introduction d'eau, l'accès à et le traitement de toutes les informations et données du Programme de terrain pour en assurer la gestion dans les meilleures conditions et pour en valoriser toutes les retombées permettant notamment la fertilisation croisée du programme régulier et du Programme de terrain.

Au moment d'en venir brièvement au Chapitre 3 consacré à l'investissement, je souhaiterais insister sur cette activité de soutien direct de la FAO à la promotion des investissements qui est tout à fait unique au sein du système des Nations Unies. Ce rôle est dévolu au Centre d'investissement qui concentre toutes les activités de ce type. Les performances sont impressionnantes, comme le montre le détail présenté dans le document, avec plus de 34 milliards de dollars de projets approuvés pour financement, aboutissement de 25 années d'identification et de préparation d'investissements.

Ce travail est à la fois important et complexe, et nous nous sommes efforcés de faire une présentation équilibrée et cohérente des différentes activités entreprises, sans sous-estimer les problèmes rencontrés. Et je saisis cette occasion pour appeler votre attention sur le facteur essentiel qui conditionne la qualité d'un projet et ses chances de réussite: la qualité dés professionnels qui en assurent la conception et la préparation. Les personnels du Centre d'investissement ont un profil professionnel très recherché dans le ironie. Leur recrutement est exposé à la très dure concurrence d'autres organismes plus généreux en matière de rémunération. Le devenir de notre Organisation et sa capacité de servir et d'assister utilement les pays les plus pauvres est lié à sa possibilité de recruter les meilleurs. La conséquence la plus directe de ce problème grandissant, c'est pour ne pas abandonner la qualité au prix de la facilité, l'allongement inquiétant du temps nécessaire au recrutement de ces professionels (18 mois maintenant).

Je voudrais aussi appeler votre attention sur le fait que le Centre d'investissement est maintenant de plus en plus sollicité pour des études de politique sectorielle ou préalable à 1'investissementf et que les efforts pour promouvoir l'investissement à la suite des projets d'assistance technique de la FAO ont eu de notables résultats; il faut toutefois faire plus et mieux pour, comme le rappelle l'examen, introduire les bases du préinvestissement dans les projets de terrain. Le Comité du programme a considéré que c'était une composante essentielle de l'action de la FAO pour promouvoir l'investissement, légitimant ainsi notre préoccupation.

Le chapitre final de l'examen sur les grands courants qui guideront aujourd'hui les activités de terrain, jette un regard sur leur évolution, à la fois en terme d'orientation sur le fond et sur la manière dont elles sont réalisées au niveau du pays. Au cours des années, l'approche de la FAO en matière d'opérations de terrain a dû s'adapter à la diversification croissante et aux changements des objectifs et des priorités des pays récipiendaires.

Comme l'Organisation a aussi dû s'adapter aux objectifs généraux et aux politiques arrêtées lors des réunions régionales et internationales comme la Conférence Mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural en 1979, les déclarations sur la coopération technique entre pays en développement au sein du système des Nations Unies et la tendance générale à ce que l'on pourrait appeler, dans tous les pays, "le développement dans l'autonomie".

Pour atteindre ces objectifs, ce chapitre montre combien la formation est maintenant plus importante que jamais auparavant au sein de nos préoccupations. Ce sont 70 000 personnes par an qui font l'objet de formation par la voie et par le biais de projets, un résultat que le Comité du Programme a considéré comme très remarquable. Je voudrais aussi attirer votre attention sur la pratique très intensive de l'emploi de personnels nationaux dans les projets, aussi bien au niveau des directeurs de projet que des experts. Dans la même ligne, il faut noter le soutien que l'Organisation apporte à l'exécution des projets par les gouvernements, une modalité en pleine croissance de l'assistance financée par le PNUD.

L'importance grandissante des ONG au niveau le plus concret de l'exécution de bien des projets de terrain et une focalisation beaucoup plus forte sur le rôle déterminant des femmes dans le développement rural sont aussi mises en valeur dans ce chapitre.

En conclusion de ces remarques, puis-je exprimer l'espoir que la discussion de ce document qui couvre le plus important domaine d'activités de l'Organisation soit aussi vivant que constructif. Sans oublier que le Programme de terrain et le programme régulier sont autant liés l'un à l'autre et autant complémentaires que l'arbre et ses racines. Et puisqu'il est si souvent demandé d'inscrire le programme de terrain dans le cadre strict des priorités du programme régulier, je me permets d'utiliser la même image sous la forme d'une question: dans un arbre quelle racine nourrit quelle branche? Il n'y a bien sûr pas de réponse. Tout l'appareil racinaire contribue à l'édification de la totalité du tronc et du houppier. Les racines principales que j'appellerai par analogie "prioritaires" jouent certes le plus grand rôle, mais les racines secondaires et les radicelles sont nécessaires et indispensables pour que l'arbre vive et se développe.

J'ai déjà été trop long, près de dix minutes, pendant lesquelles la population mondiale s'est accrue de 1 500 personnes dont au moins 1 000 dépendront de la solidarité internationale pour vivre.

Mes collègues et moi-même seront à votre écoute attentive et à votre disposition pour toute explication complémentaire que vous pourriez souhaiter.

LE PRESIDENT: Merci M. Rinville pour cette introduction. Evidemment la liste est ouverte sur ce point 14 de l'Ordre du jour. Nous allons commencer par le Représentant du Pakistan.

Jamal Ahmad KHAN (Pakistan): The delegation of Pakistan would like to thank the secretariat for the clear and comprehensive document on the Review of Field Programmes 1988-89 and for its presentation by Mr Rinville. The document is analytical, well-structured and clear in its content. It presents in a nutshell a very comprehensive review of FAO's actions in the developing countries. The critical approach adopted by the authors in examining the strength and weakness of the field programmes is particularly worthy of our appreciation. Although the volume of the extra-budgetary expenditures on field projects during 1988-89 reached a record high level of over US$ 700 million, in real terms the expenditures still remain below the level reached in 1980-81. This decline in real terms is of course a cause of concern both for the FAO and the developing countries. Within the context of the total expenditures my delegation is pleased to see a rising share of delivery going to Africa, a continent which needs the FAO assistance more than any other developing region, but we note with concern that the share of Asia and the Pacific, as the largest segment of the world's population, remained at only 23 percent in 1988-89, a three-point decline from the value reached in 1980-81.

Our delegation also applauds the work of the Investment Centre in generating capital assistance from the financing institutions into developing countries. We are in favour of strengthening this important work of FAO with a view to assisting the developing countries in the preparation of projects funded entirely from national resources. In this regard our delegation has appreciated including a special chapter, Chapter Three, devoted to the work of the Investment Centre, and we welcome in particular the section on issues and prospects included on pages 99 to 102. Chart 1.5 on page 13 shows only 2 percent of the extra-budgetary expenditures devoted to research and technology development. This in the opinion of our delegation is far too little, especially when considering the great need for the transfer of available and unused technology to the developing countries in improving their agriculture. Wë hope that this deficiency will be rectified in the near future. Then Chart 1.7 on page 23 shows a rising trend in the share of developing countries with respect to the recruitment of field experts by the FAO and replacement of Fellowships. Our delegation contends this effort.

However, it is disturbing to see that the share of developing countries in the contracts awarded and the equipment purchased has been declining in recent years. Perhaps the secretariat nay wish to elaborate on the causes for this declining trend.

As we have repeatedly heard during the last several years, the developing countries are very much satisfied with the TCP. It provides services quickly, efficiently and effectively. We feel that the share of the TCP in the overall Regular Programme resources in the recent past has been inadequate and we hope that this will be increased in the coming biennium.

The Pakistan delegation is impressed by the comprehensive and critical assessment of the projects given in Chapter Two of the Review. The assessment of the field projects conducted by the FAO Representatives is extremely useful and points out the strength and weaknesses of the field projects with respect to objectives, design, government involvement, output, transfers of skill and follow-up prospects. On the whole, the ranking shown at Table 2.2 on page 32 is encouraging despite there being some variation in the performance of projects between LDCs and non-LDCs. The synthesis of evaluation reports for 1987-88 is again rich in substance and reveals many facets of the performance of field projects. Table 2.4 on page 46 shows a marked improvement in all aspects of project performance during 1987-88 compared with 1981-82. The overall assessment is indeed encouraging. The percentage distribution of projects rated as good has improved markedly and that rated as unsatisfactory has dropped sharply. The assessment of evaluation results is further enriched by the performance of projects in LDCs and non-LDCs, as shown in Table 2.7 and 2.8 on pages 52 and 53. Here the projects in the LDCs fall short of the desired performance when compared with those of the non-LDCs in the generation of output and effects. This analysis signified in our view that greater attention may need to be paid in the design of projects in the LDCs and that greater efforts may be required to increase their management and technical capacities.

We feel that the synthesis of the evaluation results is extremely useful for the membership and we would like to see this line of approach pursued for future reviews as well, wherein we are enabled to see a sharply focused treatment of some specific categories of field work, such as in-country projects or projects in a particular sub-sector.

Finally, Chapter Four of the Review raises many issues related to the utilization of the national staff and project management. Our delegation agrees with the views expressed here but wishes to stress the need for greater use of national directors in the execution of field projects, greater projects in promoting self-reliance and also being mindful of the needs of the under-privileged, by which I mean the youth, within the rural population.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Nos complace mucho haber sido precedidos en el uso de la palabra por nuestro distinguido colega y amigo el señor Embajador del Pakistán, cuya interesante declaración compartimos en términos generales. Los representantes de Colombia pensamos que, a través de más de 20 años, este documento ha venido perfeccionándose, afirmándose en su claridad y franqueza y permitiendo asi un amplio y concienzudo examen de los importantes programas de Campo de nuestra Organización. Estos conceptos coinciden con lo que dice el Comité del Programa en el párrafo 2.36 del documento LIM 19 que se nos ha distribuido recientemente, en el cual el Comité del Programa expresó su satisfacción por la estructura, claridad y contenido analítico de este examen.

El examen del bienio que termina confirma, una vez más, la forma progresiva como han venido mejorando las actividades de campo de la FAO. Afortunadamente han quedado atrás, ya muy lejos en el recuerdo del pasado, los años en que los expertos que se enviaban a nuestros países eran casi todos profesionales que no hablaban nuestro idioma; les hacían daño nuestras comidas; no realizaba ningún esfuerzo por adaptarse al medio donde trabajaban; vivían muy alejados de las realidades locales, sin contacto con la gente del país donde estaban ubicados y decían trabajar. Dos o tres años después esos expertos copiaban los informes de sus antecesores; regresaban a Roma con ahorros en sus bolsillos para ser destinados a otros países y así seguir ese ballet interminable de experiencias desafortunadas a través de las cuales nada quedaba a los Estados beneficiarios, con el agravante de que muchos de esos gobiernos -como aparentemente eso no les costaba nada a los países- ponían en práctica indiferentemente el proverbio popular de que "a caballo regalado no se le mira el diente".

Nò existían los representantes de la FAO en los países, funcionarios propios de la FAO como hoy, para seguir con personería propia las actividades sobre el terreno. Un funcionario menor del PNUD era el Representante de la FAO. Naturalmente se preocupaba más por los asuntos del PNUD, ya que a la FAO ni siquiera estaba vinculado burocráticamente, pues su sueldo lo recibía de la otra Organización.

El apoyo técnico de la sede se suministraba sola y aisladamente desde esta bella Roma, donde los llamados expertos, cómodamente, muellemente, sentados en sus escritorios diagnosticaban los problemas de los países, con desconocimiento absoluto de las condiciones económicas, sociales y humanas de esos Estados.

Ha sido un largo proceso, mediante el cual se han ido consolidando las nuevas dimensiones que desde 1975 adoptó la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas al aprobar la Resolución 3405, dirigida a incorporar la mayor contribución posible en la cooperación técnica de la capacidad nacional de cada país beneficiario.

Cómo no sentirnos complacidos hoy con el dato que nos ofrece este documento, en el sentido de que ha aumentado el número de personal nacional en los proyectos, hasta el punto de que el personal de los países en desarrollo representa ahora casi la mitad de todos los expertos de campo de la FAO, de contratación internacional.

Casi el 50 por ciento de las becas de estudio se realiza en instituciones de países en desarrollo. Pero no son datos solamente cuantitativos, sino fundamentalmente cualitativos, como lo dijo el distinguido Emba jador de Pakistán. La calidad de los expertos en los países en desarrollo ha mejorado considerablemente y las instituciones de nuestros estados se han tecnificado y fortalecido.

Todo eso es el fruto afortunado de un Programa de Campo como el de la FAO, llevado a cabo de manera tan positiva y adecuada, que sus beneficios para los países en desarrollo son múltiples, con proyecciones de prolongación y consolidación en el futuro. Claro que este reconocimiento no es pasivo ni de simple conformidad con estas mejoras, sino que por el contrario esperamos que con todo esto se consolide, se incremente y se fortalezca en el porvenir.

Otra realización importante: los Directores Nacionales de Proyectos han venido aumentando considerablemente. Eran sólo 100 al principio de este decenio, se incrementaron a 130 pocos años más tarde, a 170 en el bienio 1986-87 y en 1988-89 son más de 300. Ese incremento confirma la calidad y competencia de los Directores Nacionales de Proyectos, que la FAO debe seguir formando y estimulando. Los países en desarrollo, progresivamente han demostrado que tienen cada vez más y más personal capaz y competente y la FAO y el PNUD deben seguir estimulándoles. De 300 Directores Nacionales de Proyectos debemos pasar a 500 lo más pronto posible.

A partir de 1976, una de las dos innovaciones afortunadas introducidas por el Director General, que iniciaba sus altas funciones, permitió la designación de funcionarios propios de la Organización, como Representantes de la FAO en los países.

Es satisfactorio reconocer, como lo demuestra este documento, la forma activa, de seguimiento, evaluación y recomendaciones, que vienen haciendo los Representantes en los países, como contribución muy válida al mejoramiento de las actividades de campo. En Colombia, estamos plenamente satisfechos con la labor que lleva a cabo el Sr. Bastanchuri, Representante de la FAO.

Una de las últimas acertadas actuaciones de la FAO ha sido la de apoyar la política definida por el Consejo de Administración del PNUD - espero que en esta sala esté el Representante del PNUD, porque vamos a dirigirle algunas preguntas -. Esa política del Consejo de Administración del PNUD está dirigida a que, progresivamente, los gobiernos mismos de los países beneficiarios puedan ir ejecutando, parcial o totalmente, los proyectos.

La ejecución de los proyectos por los propios gobiernos, es un paso importante en el desplazamiento de la asistencia hacia la cooperación técnica, con el objetivo final de la autosuficiencia de los países en desarrollo. Es muy satisfactorio el hecho de que este documento señale que la modalidad "ejecución por el gobierno", en 1988, alcanzó el 12 por ciento de todos los proyectos financiados por el PNUD y más del 15 por ciento en la aprobación de nuevos proyectos, aumento que es promisorio para el futuro. Veintisiete es mi número preferido en la ruleta, 27 por ciento sería una cifra atractiva para el porvenir.

Los Representantes de Colombia apoyamos plenamente la contribución que la FAO ha ofrecido para que mediante sus proyectos de campo se creen las condiciones que hacen posible la "ejecución por el gobierno" como alternativa viable y posible, mediante asesoramiento y asistencia adecuados para la identificación, formulación y diseño de los proyectos. En nuestro informe sobre este tema, debemos alentar al PNUD y a la FAO a que prosigan sus empeños en favor de la "ejecución de proyectos por el gobierno", ya que esa modalidad fortalecerá la capacidad técnica y administrativa nacionales y representará notables ventajas para los países beneficiarios en todos los órdenes.

A principios de este año, nos había alarmado macho el descenso de la participación de la FAO en la ejecución de proyectos financiados en fondos del PNUD. Porque - no obstante todo - el PNUD sigue siendo la fuente más importante de recursos para la FAO y la FAO sigue siendo la primera agencia de ejecución del PNUD. Los Representantes de Colombia esperamos que habrá de mantenerse esa constructiva relación, para bien de los países en desarrollo y nos complació que el Sr. Rinville en su excelente presentación se refiriera a las buenas relaciones entre la FAO y el PNUD,

Sin embargo, nos sigue preocupando la tendencia negativa - que se manifestó particularmente a mediados de este decenio - sobre el descenso de la participación de la FAO en proyectos ejecutados con recursos del PNUD. En los años setenta esa participación alcanzó un nivel hasta del 31 por ciento. Ahora el Cuadro 1.2 indica un 31 por ciento en 1972, para bajar hasta tan sólo el 19 por ciento en 1988. Este es un descenso considerable que nos preocupa profundamente. Causas de este descenso han sido la proliferación de organismos de ejecución y, sobre todo, la Oficina de Servicios de Proyectos, la OSP, del PNUD. Teníamos la impresión de que la OSP se había calmado Un poco, pero ahora este documento dice que ha tenido una reciente y rápida expansión, además del último invento llamado "servicios de gestión". Quisiéramos que el Representante del PNUD nos dijera en qué consiste este servicio de gestión en este importante Organismo.

Los Representantes de Colombia apoyamos la posición de la FAO, en el sentido de que, en todas las oportunidades, cuando se trate de proyectos que caigan dentro del mandato de nuestra Organización, la FAO deba ser consultada plena y oportunamente y le sea otorgada la responsabilidad de ejecutar estos proyectos a la FAO. Esperamos que esto que consideramos importante conste en nuestro informe.

Esas consultas asegurarían la famosa coordinación, por la cual nos hemos batido en el pasado, y asegurarán las buenas relaciones entre el PNUD y la FAO, que son esenciales.

En el Gráfico 1.4 que aparece en la página 13 del texto en castellano, América Latina y el Caribe aparece con el menor porcentaje, el 9 por ciento, entre la ejecución por parte de la FAO de proyectos con recursos del PNUD. Como entendemos que el promedio para nuestra región total de los recursos del PNUD en el campo agrícola es del 20 o 23 por ciento, quisiéramos preguntar si esa diferencia hasta el 9 por ciento consiste en que la FAO está ejecutando menos proyectos porque los gobiernos no han asignado prioridad suficiente al sector agrícola, porque la OSP está ejecutando más proyectos o como esperamos, la tercera alternativa, que ojalá fuera la respuesta, porque la FAO está, como dijimos antes, apoyando la política del Consejo de Administración del PNUD en favor de la ejecución de proyectos por parte de los propios gobiernos.

Como ahora, aquí en esta Organización, a raíz del examen que vamos a estudiar a partir del próximo lunes se habla mucho de modificar las estructuras de la FAO, e inclusive de la necesidad de que se aplique un enfoque regional, nosotros pensamos que si en verdad queremos que la FAO utilice el mejoramiento de la capacidad técnica de los representantes de los países en desarrollo, podríamos volver a la propuesta que hemos hecho en el pasado de que en las Oficinas Regionales y en ciertas oficinas clave de los países en cada región se ubiquen grupos de acción, grupos de altos profesionales, especializados muy elevadamente, para que así puedan desde allí, de manera más pragmática, fácil y directa prestar asesoría por corto tiempo y de alto nivel a los países de cada región. Está superado el tiempo en que muchos de los países en desarrollo necesitaban todavía asistencia técnica tradicional, expertos menos capacitados, por 3 o 4 años. Ahora la evolución de los problemas indica la necesidad de expertos más altamente calificados por períodos de menor duración.

De todas maneras, a pesar de estos comentarios que pueden parecer un poco negativos, afortunadamente este documento confirma que durante el bienio 1988-89 continuó la gradual expansión iniciada hace cuatro años, aunque las cifras estén aún muy por debajo de los niveles alcanzados hace algunos años y tampoco esas cifras correspondan a las necesidades crecientes del tercer mundo. Ojalá corresponda a la realidad el anuncio de que las perspectivas de ulterior expansión de los programas de campo son alentadoras en los próximos años, por el aumento registrado en los recursos del PNÜD y por la mayor atención que dicho Programa concede ahora a los sectores de la agricultura y de la alimentación. Naturalmente, la más alta prioridad que los gobiernos concedan al sector dentro de la CIP será definitiva. Todo ello sería deseable e indispensable, porque, por otra parte, los fondos fiduciarios se han mantenido estables y el PCT disminuyó en 1988-89 y no va a incrementar en el bienio 1990-91 por razones que preferimos omitir.

Debemos rendir homenaje especial a la valiosa labor adelantada por el Centro de Inversiones, como lo ha dicho el Sr. Rinville, Centro de Inversiones que en sus 25 años de existencia, que celebramos hace poco, ha contribuido a generar más de 34 000 millones de dólares en inversiones agrarias en 108 países. Este documento demuestra objetivamente cómo la FAO ha seguido con toda atención y eficacia los cambios de la natural y lógica evolución que tiene lugar en la forma de conseguir y ejecutar la asistencia al desarrollo agrícola a la luz de las necesidades y prioridades cambiantes de los países en desarrollo.

Los programas de campo de la FAO han actuado con la flexibilidad y competencia indispensables para adaptarse a las nuevas situaciones en tantos estados del tercer mundo. Es admirable que esta labor la FAO la haya llevado a cabo con pleno respeto por la soberanía de los gobiernos beneficiarios, a los que sigue correspondiendo la orientación general y la primaria responsabilidad de los proyectos de campo. Dentro de este marco la FAO ha ejercido una función de supervisión general y asesoramiento técnico y político, en forma que merece el reconocimiento de la comunidad internacional.

Este documento es verdaderamente rico en datos, cifras, hechos, realizaciones, pero miro el reloj, tenemos un almuerzo y el tiempo avanza... Quiero concluir diciendo que el Gobierno colombiano está muy satisfecho con la asistencia global que el PNUD ofrece a nuestro país. Destacamos la magnífica labor que cumple, con capacidad e inteligencia, el Director del PNUD para América Latina y el Caribe, Dr. Augusto Ramírez Ocampo. El Representante del PNUD en Colombia, Sr. Arturo Hein Cáceres, desempeña también con eficiencia su tarea de Coordinador de las actividades de las Naciones Unidas.

Finalmente, algunas preguntas muy concretas y específicas al Representante del PNUD, que esperamos esté en esta sala: ¿Cuáles son las últimas novedades sobre la posibilidad de que los recursos del PNUD se sigan consolidando e incrementando en el futuro? ¿Cómo son ahora, a juicio del PNUD, las relaciones con la FAO? ¿Sigue la luna de miel? ¿Se siguen adelantando las consultas a través de grupos de contacto, mesas redondas, cuadradas o como se les quiera llamar, para mejorar la coordinación entre la FAO y el PNUD? ¿La Oficina de Servicios de Proyectos del PNUD, la OSP, estabilizará su participación en ejecución de proyectos en un 10 por ciento o incrementará esa participación, también a través de los servicios de gestión, sobre los cuales desearíamos conocer más? ¿Continuará el Consejo de Administración del PNUD su acertada política de ejecución por los gobiernos y qué medidas de asistencia a los países, para que puedan lograr esto cada vez más, está ofreciendo el PNUD junto con la FAO? ¿Estará dispuesto el PNUD, como lo deseamos, y espero que lo recomiende esta Comisión, a atender la solicitud de la FAO, en el sentido de que se le consulten a esta Organización todas las actividades de la OSP dentro de la CIP y de los servicios de gestión en el caso de proyectos agrícolas, naturalmente, y que a la FAO se le asigne la responsabilidad de ejecutar esos proyectos?

Ms Anna-Liisa KORHONEN (Finland) : First, I should like to thank Mr Rinville for his introductory statement. Over the past two years the FAO field operations have been under careful review. First, an in-house analysis has been made following the customary procedure. Its findings can be found in document C 89/4, which is the background material for this Agenda item. As part of the broader review of the Organization, an external review of FAO's field capacity and activities has been undertaken. These recommendations are up before this Conference, together with the views and recommendations of the Programme and Finance Committees, as well as those of the Director-General, in document C 89/21.

My delegation welcomes the opportunity to discuss this important review of FAO's activities by using all these documents during our debate. The in-house review document highlights recent developments and shows that FAO, like the other multi-lateral agencies, is also facing a rapidly-changing external environment in which its field programmes operate. Certain common features from the review can be discerned as follows.

Africa is the centre of attention. Policy analysis is gaining more weight. National project staff are increasing. Programmes instead of projects are receiving more attention and the human resources development component is gaining more prominence in programmes, thus placing stronger emphasis on national responsibility in field programmes at all levels. Finland welcomes these general trends, but at the same time requests for assistance are becoming more complex. Evolutionary reports often indicate that successful programme implementation cuts across sectors which again require multi-faceted experience of a non-traditional nature in programme design and implementation.

Throughout the review process of FAO's goals and objectives, Finland has emphasized the need to build on accumulated knowledge so that the future direction of the Organization can be on a solid basis. To a certain extent, the document fulfills this requirement. It contains information from the past and present situation, but stops there to a large extent. It does not contain specific proposals for changes which this Conference could discuss, even at a technical level, in order to give guidance to the Secretariat. Nor does it seek advice on priorities to be followed, keeping in mind the comparative advantage the Organization has in the field of agriculture.

Against this background, and bearing in mind the fact that the FAO Conference traditionally receives a retrospective review document on the Organization's fields of activities, my delegation would like to suggest certain improvements in the future presentation of the documents. First, Finland would like to receive a document which could present the Field Programme as a part of FAO's overall effort to improve the world agricultural situation and which would indicate how the Field Programme addresses the needs of developing countries in this respect. In other words, it could show how the comparative advantage of the Organization has influenced the contents of the Field Programme at the planning stage.

Secondly, my delegation has noted from this year's Report that the recipient countries have already requested more assistance in the field of policy advice. This being so, it would be interesting to know how this type of assistance has influenced the content of the field programmes in related sub-sectors at the country level.

Thirdly, the relationship between technical assistance programmes and investment programmes should be explained more profoundly. If requests for the advisory type of assistance are increasing, the recipient governments should also be in a better position to link their technical assistance programmes with support for investment programmes. In the present Report such an analysis is missing.

Fourthly, the document before us does not explain in any detail those changes which are taking place in the more traditional field projects. Therefore, next time it would be of interest to learn hew the comparative advantage of the Organization is reflected in these projects. My delegation would also welcome information about projects which have been rejected because the Organization has felt that other funding sources would provide better for the required inputs and therefore the potential for the Organization's comparative advantage would not be used to justify the financing of those projects.

Fifthly, the report contains much valuable information which is of a technical nature. In our view, a report like this should avoid technicalities and rather emphasize future challenges and policy orientations. This is what the Report does, at least partially, in the field of financing. However, my delegation would not be so optimistic of our financial prospects. Finland is convinced that in the field of development cooperation the agricultural sector will be prominent. What we are not so sure about is the magnitude of assistance to be channelled through various organizations. There are important policy considerations going on about the scope of assistance in the 1990s throughout the United Nations system. Seme countries have already reached the stage where they have all the capabilities for the national implementation of their own programme. Some other countries have not yet reached that stage. Therefore, the kind of request which the developing countries are likely to present may greatly differ in their content and actual funding requirements.

Keeping this in mind, my delegation would like to state that the term "FAO's share of UNDP resources" in the document before us gives us some concern. The share of UNDP funds that agriculture receives is a result of decisions that individual recipient countries have gained in the use of their IBFs. Thus, it cannot be considered as a share for FAD. Rather, it reflects a share for Africa in the UNDP funding programmes, where FAO serves as an executive agency. Hew much FAO will be used as an executive agency at the implementaion stage is another matter. In future it should not be the main focus in the reporting to the Conference.

More important is the quality of the advice that FAO is able to give. This does not mean that my delegation does not consider FAO as a main source of expertise and thus a national executive agency for UNDP-funded programmes in the field of agriculture. The point is that FAO's success as a provider of assistance should not be measured in quantitative terms only.

Sixthly, my delegation feels it to be important that the FAO's field programme evaluation does not continue to be so heavily dependent on FAO's country representatives. Surely they have an important role to play, but they are part of the evaluation exercise as well. The independent inspectorate system which the Expert Group on the Field Programme has proposed should be studied carefully. The quality of Headquarters backstopping is equally important. My delegation believes that these improvements inside the Secretariat would certainly improve the present situation.

Finland would like to state once again that at the inter-governmental level the Field Programme Review does not receive the attention it deserves if the Conference discusses this issue only for one day or even less. My delegation will have an opportunity to return to these matters when the item on the FAO Review will be taken up.

Lastly, Finland would like to see a much more thorough analysis in all forms of FAO's role in directional activities for regional development as part of the UN system-wide effort. Coordination at the field level is an issue which must be properly addressed, taking into account the primary responsibility of the governments in this matter. The study in agency support arrangements is now near to completion and that must be kept in mind when FAO's field operations in the 1990s are discussed. In view of these comments, in two or three years' time my delegation will look forward to receiving a much more action-oriented report, containing specific proposals and options which the Secretariat have offered to FAO's membership for guidance. Thank you.

LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie la représentante de la Finlande. Je crois qu'avec cette intervention nous allons mettre fin au débat de ce matin. Je voudrais demander s'il y a des membres de notre Commission qui souhaiteraient prendre la parole cet après-midi pour qu'ils s'inscrivent. Nous avons pris note de tous ceux qui souhaitent intervenir cet après-midi.

The meeting rose at 12 h 45
La séance est levée à 12 h 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas

__________

¹ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.

² Texto incluido en las actas a petición expresa.