R.M. STEIN (Secretary, Commission III): I would like to inform delegates that in connection with this item as well as in connection with Items 23.1 and 23.6 which will cane later, a LIM document has been published this morning which is the Third Report of the Resolutions Committees. This is LIM/31, and it is being distributed now. Delegations will want that document. In case all delegations do not have it, and as the comments on this particular item are very short, I shall read it. This relates to Item 22, and it says,
"The Resolutions Committee also examined the Draft Resolution entitled "Return of the Regional Office for the Near East to Cairo, Egypt", to be considered under Agenda Item 22. The text of the Draft Resolution is attached in Appendix B of document C 89/26.
The Committee noted that under operative paragraph 2 of the Draft Resolution the preparations for making the Regional Office for the Near East ready for the reopening are to be commenced not later than 1 June 1990, while under operative paragraph 1 of the Draft Resolution the Regional Office is to be reopened in Cairo not later than 1 September 1990."
The Draft Resolution was found receivable and is transmitted herewith to Commission III, so it is the Draft Resolution which is in the document. Perhaps, I might make just one comment in order that it be clear to everybody, because I was at the Resolutions Committee meeting. There are two dates in the Draft Resolution because there are two phases of work which must be carried out in order that the Office be reopened. The first phase has to do with certain restoration, so to speak, of the building itself. That will be finished by 1 June 1990. Then, between 1 June and 1 September 1990 the offices will actually be installed - machines, furniture and whatever else is needed so that the office can be opened not later than 1 September. The two dates are in the Resolution, but they relate to two different things. Ultimately, the Office will be opened not later than 1 September 1990.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Stein. Ce sujet a déjà été discuté à la 95ème session du Conseil; le Conseil a transféré l'affaire à la Conférence et soumet à cette 25ème Conférence un projet de résolution.
Je demanderais maintenant à M. Jum'a, le Directeur général adjoint pour le Proche-Orient, de présenter ce projet.
Salah JuM'A (Assistant Director-General, Regional Representative for the Near East): Mr Chairman, distinguished delegates, I have the honour to introduce to this august Commission the subject concerning the "Return of the Regional Office for the Near East to the Region".
This subject was supposed to have been discussed by the Ninety-sixth FAO Council, the session preceeding this Conference, but due to shortage of time the Council decided to refer it to the Conference.
The Regional Office for the Near East (RNEA) was the first FAO Regional Office established outside FAO's Headquarters in Rome. The office was established in Cairo, Egypt, in November 1947 and continued to function from there until November 1979.
During the Twentieth FAO Conference (November 1979) the Session adopted Resolution 20/79 authorizing the closure of RNEA's headquarters in Cairo at the request of Member Nations of the Near East Region which was unanimously approved by all FAO Member Nations at that time. Resolution 20/79 also authorized the Director-General of FAO to implement FAO's regional programmes and activities fron another location or locations, particularly in other countries within the Region and Rome Headquarters as appropriate and feasible.
During the last ten years, Member Nations of the Near East Region continued to emphasize that while the programmes for the Region had been implemented effectively from Headquarters, the quality of implementation and the impact of the programmes would significantly improve if RNEA were to operate in the Region.
Member Nations of the Region emphasized this point during the subsequent Regional Conferences for the Near East, held between 1980-1989 and more strongly during the Nineteenth Regional Conference which was held in Muscat, Oman in March 1988. The Conference then called upon the Director-General of FAO to include the return of RNEA to the Region as an item on the Agenda of the Twenty-fifth Session of the FAO Conference (November 1989).
The Director-General responded positively to this request and felt that a preliminary discussion by the Council on this subject at its Ninety-fourth Session (November 1988) would enable the Council to provide such guidance as it deemed fit for the preparation of a full proposal to be considered by the Twenty-fifth FAO Conference (November 1989).
The Council at its Ninety-fourth Session (November 1988) endorsed the desire of the Member Nations of the Region for the return of RNEA to the Region. The Council also requested the Director-General to consult with all Member Nations of the Region to ascertain the desire of any of them to provide host facilities for RNEA in future.
The Council also requested the Director-General to consult with Member Governments in the Region which had provided voluntary contributions for the closure of RNEA in 1979 on whether they would agree to their share of the unutilized balances being used for the return of RNEA to the Region.
The Director-General consulted with Member Nations of the Region on these issues. The outcome of the consultations indicated that Egypt was the only country in the Region who offered to provide host facilities for RNEA. On the question of the utilization of the balance of the voluntary contributions, the consultations did not produce any positive response.
Taking into consideration that the Government of the Arab Republic of Egypt was the only Government willing to provide host facilities for RNEA, the Director-General sent a high-level mission from FAO to Cairo in order to obtain detailed information regarding the nature and extent of the contribution that the Egyptian Government intended to make to enable RNEA to resume its activities in its old premises in Cairo. The mission visited Cairo in early October 1989 and reached an agreement with the Egyptian authorities which specified their commitments, as well as a guaranteed date of completion of the work (31 May 1990). This timing should enable RNEA to start its proper functioning by not later than 1 September 1990.
The Conference, therefore, is requested to consider document C 89/26 on the return of RNEA to the Region and subsequently endorse one of the two following options:
a - Retaining RNEA in Rome, or
b - Relocating RNEA in Cairo, Egypt.
If the Conference decided to adopt the second option, a draft Resolution on the return of RNEA to Cairo, Egypt, is annexed to document C 89/26 which I have presented to you.
Antoine SAINERAINT (Belgique): Monsieur le Président, je serais extrêmement href. Je voulais intervenir uniquement pour souligner tout l'intérêt que nous portons à la réouverture du Bureau régional pour le Proche-Orient. Je crois que cette réouverture est de nature à renforcer l'action de la FAO. Nous avons entendu un exposé extrêmement complet du sous-directeur général, M. Jum'a et je voudrais l'en remercier. Je souhaite que ce bureau puisse réouvrir dans un proche délai et je souhaite à celui qui sera appelé à le diriger beaucoup de chance et beaucoup de bonheur dans l'action importante et dans la très lourde tâche qu'il sera amené à assumer.
Amin ABDEL-MALEK (Liban) (langue originale Arabe): La délégation Libanaise aimerait appuyer le retour du Bureau pour le Proche-Orient. Ce Bureau devrait se trouver au Caire, dans la République Arabe d'Egypte. Nous aimerions d'ailleurs saisir cette occasion pour remercier la République Arabe d'Egypte d'être parvenue à un accord avec la FAO. Nous sommes d'accord avec M. Saouma pour dire que la qualité de la mise en oeuvre des programmes sera meilleure si le Bureau fonctionne au sein de la région.
Notre délégation demande à l'Organisation de prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires pour réouvrir le Bureau au Caire dans le cadre du calendrier établi. Nous aimerions vous remercier et souhaiter un grand succès au Bureau dans cette région.
Mrs Hoda EL MARASSI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): On this occasion I would like to extend my thanks to the Director-General of FAO and to express my thanks also to the Assistant Director-General, Dr Salah Jum'a, for all the serious efforts made by the Organization to study the possibility of the return of the Regional Office for the Near East to the Arab Republic of Egypt, specifically to Cairo. In response to the wishes expressed by all of the countries of the Region that have honoured us with the wish that the Office should operate from Cairo. We are honoured and proud, and this is testimony to the efficiency of the operations of the Organization.
I would like to reaffirm the commitment of our country to the memorandum signed with the FAO, namely, that we shall undertake all the necessary preparations in order that the Office will be operational starting 1 September 1990.
I do not want to speak at length. I wanted only to express my thanks, and I seize this opportunity also to thank the distinguished representatives of Belgium and Lebanon who spoke before me supporting the return of the office.
Gamal Mohamed AHMED (Sudan) (original language Arabic): At the outset, I would like to thank the Assistant Director-General, Brother Jum'a, for his clear presentation and introduction of this item. I would like also to refer to the fact that the delegation of my country supports the return of the Regional Office to work from within the Region and to operate from Cairo in the Arab Republic of Egypt in particular. We have already expressed the wish in previous meetings and Conferences that we wish to see this Office operating from within the Region in order to enhance the effectiveness of its programmes and its rapid interaction with the Country Offices and our requirements from its new position. It will highly contribute to the implementation of projects, and it will also enrich the South-South dialogue which we always call for. We would like also to express the thanks of my country to the Arab Republic of Egypt for kindly consenting to host this Office through the provision of the necessary premises and the necessary services for the Office. We also find that the return of the Office to Cairo, in particular to the previous premises, would enable the Office to undertake its operations smoothly as has been the case in the past. I am duty bound here to express our satisfaction with the operations of the Office in the previous period, taking into consideration the obstacles due to the fact that it was outside the Region. Our satisfaction stems from the capability of the Secretariat to surmount these difficulties, and we Would like to commend those who worked in the Office, starting with the Director and all his staff. We would like also to thank the Director-General for his positive response to the wishes of the countries of the Region and through the implementation of this wish in the service of our countries. Therefore, I call upon this Committee to adopt this Resolution and to submit it to the Conference for its adoption.
Christodoulos CHRISTODOULOU (Cyprus): I would like to express my country's support for the return of the Regional Office of FAO to Cairo. As the regional representative, Mr Jum'a, has said earlier, although the Office functioned efficiently from the Headquarters, it is more than clear that its performance would have been better if functioning from the Region. I wish to welcome the willingness of the Representative of Egypt to host the Regional Office in the country and once again to point out that we believe that the performance of the Office will really be better because surely the quality and the implementation of the programmes and the impact of the programmes undoubtedly will be better. My delegation will support the Resolution put forward.
Waleed EL KHEREIJI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): In the Name of God, the Compassionate and the Merciful, I thank you. We would like to extend our thanks to His Excellency Mr Jum'a for his clear presentation of the work for the matter under consideration. The delegation of my country has already supported the return of the Regional Office for the Near East to the Region. Now we announce once more our support for the return of the Regional Office to the Region in its original premises in the sisterly Arab Republic of Egypt in order to operate and to render its services to the countries of the Region as the case was in the past. We would like to wish those who would work in the Office all success in this mission.
Bashir Al Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): I join previous speakers in expressing satisfaction for the excellent presentation by the Assistant Director-General, Mr Jum'a. This issue on the return of the Regional Office is a return to the norm. The Delegation of my country considered that the operation of the Regional Office from outside the Region was illogical and unwarranted. Therefore, the request was submitted by the Members of the Region, and since the Council in its previous session had welcomed this request, and in view of the time factor, I propose to my colleagues here in the Committee that the Committee would approve the draft resolution which Would be submitted to the Conference and move to the next item on the Agenda because the time is short and what we have heard from the majority is in support of the return of the Regional Office to operate from within the Region. This is a proposal I submit to you humbly in view of the time factor.
Gonzalo BUIA HOYOS (Colombia): Los representantes de Colombia, Señor Presidente, hemos seguido siempre las actividades de la FAO en la Región del Medio Oriente con gran solidaridad y viva simpatía, porque esa Región de países fraternos en el seno del Tercer Mundo está vinculada a Colombia por grandes nexos que nos honran. Por eso, celebramos ahora que la República Arabe de Egipto haya asumido una actitud constructiva y positiva al ofrecer de nuevo la Sede.
Queremos pedir a la distinguida EMbajadora de Egipto, quien ha intervenido anteriormente, que transmita a su Gobierno el reconocimiento del Gobierno Colombiano por esa actitud que merece nuestro encardo y sincero reconocimiento.
El memorandum de Acuerdo suscrito entre la FAO y el Gobierno de Egipto indica claramente que ese gran país del Medio Oriente ha asumido una posición adecuada y de alta responsabilidad que queremos destacar.
Como se dice en los documentos y cano lo comprueba el curso del debate celebrado hasta ahora, todos los Estados Miembros de la Región han expresado su voluntad unánime especialmente en la Conferencia Regional de Omán en 1988, de que la Oficina Regional vuelva a uno de los países de la Región.
El Consejo también ha cumplido el deber elemental de respetar y apoyar la voluntad de los Estados Miembros de esa región, de manera que están dadas todas las condiciones para que la Oficina Regional vuelva a funcionar en El Cairo a más tardar a partir de primeros de septiembre de 1990.
Destacamos y agradecemos una vez más los aportes voluntarios de los Gobiernos de esa región y los ajustes dentro del programa ordinario que complementarán todo ello para que se logren estos propósitos que apoyamos.
Los términos del Proyecto de Resolución son surtamente flexibles y los representantes del Gobierno de Colombia estamos seguros de que, cono en todas las oportunidades anteriores, todos los Estados Miembros de la Región del Medio Oriente aportarán su voluntad y su decisión para que se cumpla de la mejor manera posible el alcance de este Proyecto de Resolución.
Yo comparto con ustedes y con el colega Bashir Al Mabrouk Said, de Libia, la necesidad de avanzar en nuestros trabajos y permítame xana brevísima disgresión personal.
Quiero dirigirme a mi colega Jum'a, quien entiendo que, dentro de poco, va a concluir su misión de funcionario internacional en el seno de la FAO.
El Sr. Jum'a fue mi compañero cuando representó con dignidad y competencia al Gobierno de Jordania ante la FAO. Luego ha seguido desempeñando su función en la Secretaría de esta Organización, con gran inteligencia y singular dinamismo. Permítame que le diga a mi compañero y amigo el Dr. Jum'a que le deseo un buen porvenir y que confío en que ojalá de nuevo volvamos a encontrarnos en nuestras posiciones anteriores de representantes de Jordania y de Colombia.
Ahmed Mohamed ABDULLAHI (Somalia): The SOmali Delegation would like to state that Somalia supports the Regional Office for the Near East returning to Cairo in Egypt. We also believe that by doing so, States belonging to the Region will benefit from this Office. We support, therefore, the Draft Resolution, Appendix B, as it is and would like to see it all adopted.
Juan NUIRY SANCHEZ (Cuba): Muy brevemente, Señor Presidente, porque los argumentos sobran y se puede ser muy conciso, pero deseamos hacer pública la posición de nuestro país en este aspecto.
Las explicaciones brindadas por el Asistente del Director General han sido muy claras y no creo que pueda haber duda sobre la posibilidad de reapertura en rayo de 1990 de la Oficina Regional en El Cairo, razón por la cual nuestra delegación la apoya tanto por su necesidad como por la Sede. Por lo cual, junto a nuestro apoyo, que ya casi constituye un consenso, felicitamos tanto a la FAO como a la República Arabe de Egipto por los esfuerzos realizados.
Nabil Saleh AL-HAMDAN (Bahrain) (original language Arabic): I would like to extend my thanks to Mr Jum'a for his excellent presentation of the return of the Regional Office to the Region. I would like here to refer to what we have already indicated in a statement by the State of Bahrain in the Plenary that the Regional Office should return to the Region. The Delegation of Bahrain supports the return of the Near East Office to Cairo and raking the necessary arrangements, especially after the Government of Egypt has undertaken the duty to rehabilitate the Office. We would like to highlight that the return of the Office to the Region would upgrade the quality of the implementation and would work in the service of the countries of the Region.
Muhammad Saleem KHAN (Pakistan): I would like to express our thanks to Dr Jum'a for his excellent presentation and for all his efforts in this regard.
My delegation is extremely pleased to see the proposal for the return of the Office once again to the Region and to Egypt, which is a friendly country which has always contributed a great deal to international amity and development. The appropriateness and advantages of this proposal need no elaboration on our part, and we can therefore extend our support to the proposal and the proposed Draft Resolution.
Raymond ALLEN (United Kingdom): We fully recognize and appreciate the desire of Member Nations of the Region that the Regional Office should return to the Region. That said, we consider that there are a number of factors which should be borne in mind, not least the outcome of the Review which is currently being discussed in Commission II. We agree that the Regional Offices should deal with matters of a regional nature, but we know that there are divergent views about Regional Offices. The Experts' Report on FAO's Field Operations, attached to the Report of the Special Joint Session, suggests in paragraph 88: "For any increased expenditure by FAO, the Regional Offices should rank the lowest in priority". The Programme of Work and Budget for 1990-91, on page 382, includes an increase of 27 posts and additional costs of US$ 935 000. Paragraph 85 of the same report recommends: "What is now needed is a refocusing of the role of the Regional Offices", and in
Commission II the delegate of Poland, I think, pointed us in the right direction - that decentralization should be carried out gradually after careful and clear definition of the respective responsibilities of the Field Representatives and their supporting management structures, dividing tasks and responsibilities between Headquarters, Regional, and National Offices, respectively.
It would obviously be right to expect Management to look again at the Regional Offices, and also to consider in this process all the different suggestions put forward by Member States in the context of the Conclusion of the Experts.
My delegation therefore considers that until the matter has been reviewed, it would be premature to consider the re-opening.
Mete BASCI (Turkey): We would like to support the re-opening of the Regional Office in Cairo. At the same time, we would like to thank the Republic of Egypt. We are sure that all countries will benefit from this Office in the Region.
Amor BEN ROMDHANE (Tunisie) (langue originale Arabe): Le retour du Bureau régional pour le Proche-Orient à la région, donc à son siège, est considéré comme l'une des priorités absolues, parmi les priorités qui ont été reconnues par la plupart des membres qui appellent à la décentralisation du travail de la FAO.
Je ne voudrais pas m'attarder sur ce sujet mais je voudrais simplement appuyer, au nam de la Tunisie, ce retour et cette réinstallation du Bureau régional pour le Proche-Orient.
Je voudrais à ce sujet féliciter la République arabe d'Egypte de cette décision et je souhaite le plein succès à ce Bureau.
LE PRESIDENT: N'ayant plus de délégations inscrites sur ma liste, je pense que le débat peut être clos. A ce stade, je ne sais pas si le Directeur général adjoint pour le Proche-Orient souhaite encore s'exprimer.
Salah JIM'A (Assistant Director-General, Regional Representative for the Near East) (original language Arabic): I have only two comments.
The first concerns the comments and observations nade by the delegate of the United Kingdom. I would like to clarify for him that we are not discussing the question of the Regional Offices and also the matter of centralization or decentralization of the work of FAO. The latter is not under discussion at the moment, and therefore we should not confuse the two issues. We are talking only about the Regional Office for the Near East, which is one Regional Office. The Near East Region may be influenced one way or the other by the overall situation, but we do not need to wait for years before taking a decision about the return of the Office. This matter is in no way connected with the centralization or decentralization of the work of the Organization.
I would also like to reassure the distinguished delegates by stating that over the last ten years we have seen no increase in the budget allocated to the Near East Regional Office - that is, fron 1980 to the present time. The budget allocated to RNEA has not enjoyed any programme increase. I believe that the policy of FAO at present is that the Regional Offices maintain a status quo, without any increase in their activities, and no other budgetary allocations.
May I ask you, Mr Chairman, to allow me to thank in particular my old friend the Ambassador of Colanbia, who has been a friend of mine since the 1960s, when I represented my country in this Organization.
On this occasion I would like to reaffirm my belief in this Organization. When I retire, I shall be even more faithful and more loyal to this Organization, having worked here for over ten years. I have realized during my stay here that this is a serious organization which does the impossible, in order that needy countries can be helped to build their future. People may agree or disagree on this - but I am sure that I shall remain faithful to this Organization whether I am working in it or not, and my faith in it will increase when I actually leave it.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Jum'a de ses explications et je me permets, au non de la Commission, de lui souhaiter aussi beaucoup de bonheur dans son futur, qui sera très certainement encore très actif.
Masood AZIZ (Bangladesh): Our Government and delegation fully support and endorse the return of the Regional Office to Cairo.
Walid Abd RABOH (Jordan) (original language Arabic): I thank Dr Jum'a for his very clear statement, and wish to express the support of Jordan for the return of the Regional Office to Cairo. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the Government of Egypt for its generosity and willingness to welcome the return of the Regional Office.
I would like to pay tribute to what was said by Dr Jum'a in pointing out that this morning we are not discussing decentralization of the Regional Offices. The return of the Regional Office to Cairo is a return to the Near East, and we are very pleased about that.
Mohamed Ahmed AWALEK (Djibouti) (langue originale Arabe): Je voulais simplement appuyer l'ouverture du Bureau régional pour le Proche-Orient au Caire pour deux raisons: d'une part pour une raison de décentralisation, d'autre part pour que cette région importante au sein de la FAO ait son bureau à elle et qu'elle puisse le fortifier et le conforter dans les années à venir afin que la contribution de ce Bureau puisse se répandre et s'épanouir au sein de la FAO.
Gabriel HATY (Mauritanie): La délégation mauritanienne, compte tenu des arguments objectifs avancés par les orateurs précédents, appuie pleinement la réouverture du Bureau régional au Caire, qui n'est qu'un juste retour des choses.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie de votre brève déclaration et je crois que le débat peut être clos maintenant en disant que la Commission appuie ce transfert du Bureau régional au Caire. Nous pouvons prendre note que le Secrétariat prendra certainement en compte les décisions qui seront prises quant aux réformes qui seront décidées ailleurs pour l'organisation de ce bureau.
La résolution est donc considérée comme adoptée par cette Commission et transmise à l'Assemblée plénière.
Je considère ce point de l'Ordre du jour comme clos.
23.1 Status of Contributions
23.1 Etat des contributions
23.1 Estado de las cuotas
LE PRESIDENT: Le Conseil a discuté cette question au cours de sa dernière session. Une proposition de résolution préparée par le Président indépendant du Conseil a été transmise à la Conférence pour considération. Je demande à M. Heim de bien vouloir présenter ce sujet.
Frederic A. HEIM (Director, Financial Services Division): The item for discussion this morning, the status of contributions, is summarized in document C 89/LIM/11 which provides the status at 7 November 1989, the second day of the Council, and also document C 89/LIM/32 which reports the status of contributions to the budget at 17 November 1989.
Since 17 November 1989 up to 22 November additional contributions have been received as follows: (referring to paragraph 2 of C 89/LIM/32) for 1989 an additional US$ 74 203.80. As far as concerns assessments for 1988 and prior years an additional US$ 161 039.46 has been received. The total of the two amounts is US$ 235 243.26. The new total of receipts from 1 January to 22 November (paragraph 3 of C 89/LIM/32) amounted to US$ 162 909 229.80, for contributions in arrears US$ 18 215 558.67. The total receipts are US$ 181 124 788.67. This, of course, changes the amount outstanding at 22 November to current assessments outstanding US$ 78 010 770.20, contributions in arrears US$ 91 636 591.14. The grand total of outstanding current contributions and arrears is US$ 169 647 361.34.
During this period the following countries have contributed to the Organization: Barbados, Zaire, Comoros, Paraguay, Chad and Jordan, three of which have paid their contributions in full, namely, Barbados, Zaire and Jordan.
In connection with the replenishment of the Special Reserve Account and advances to the working Capital Fund referred to in paragraph 6, since 17 November 1989 until 22 November additional amounts contributed were as follows: an additional US$ 3 693 was received in the Special Reserve Account, and US$ 3 650 was received in the Working Capital Fund. This brings the amount of the Special Reserve Account to US$ 18.2 million, and the Working Capital Fund to US$ 17.8 million.
It should be noted that the combined total of unpaid contributions in arrears is much larger than a year ago by some US$ 31 million and is the largest at this date in the history of the Organization.
C 89/LIM/12 presents the views of the 96th Session of Council on this subject and transmits to the Conference for its consideration the draft resolution on payment of assessed contributions prepared by the Independent Chairman of the Council.
Finally, paragraphs 7 and 8 of the same document respond to Conference Resolution 18/27 advising that since there would be no cash surplus arising out of the 1988/89 biennium, therefore there would be no allocation of interest income or distribution in the 1990-91 biennium.
The Secretariat would be pleased to answer any questions that delegates may have on these matters.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie M. Heim des précisions qu'il a fournies à la Commission et je rappelle donc qu'il y a cette résolution préparée par le Président indépendant du Conseil, qui est soumise à notre examen.
Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Monsieur le Président, je m'excuse de prendre si souvent la parole mais je crois vraiment que le sujet dont nous avons à discuter pour le moment est particulièrement important et, je l'avouerais, particulièrement angoissant.
J'ai lu avec attention le document sur la situation financière de l'Organisation, et étudié le tableau comparatif de 1985 à 1989 sur le pourcentage de recouvrement des contributions courantes. Nous arrivons au 7 novembre à 66 pour cent. C'est grave, Monsieur le Président; c'est grave pour une organisation que l'on arrive au mois de novembre à un tel pourcentage alors qu'il a été dit clairement que c'est la première fois dans l'histoire de l'Organisation qu'un pareil pourcentage est retenu. J'entends une série de discussions dans différentes commissions sur des questions de détail. Ici, il s'agit d'une question essentielle. Il n'y a pas de possibilité, ni de plan à moyen terme, ni de revue, ni de réforme, si l'on ne règle pas le problème fondamental qui est un paiement normal et régulier des contributions obligatoires. Il est impossible d'établir un plan de travail s'il n'existe pas un certain nombre d'engagements précis en ce qui concerne le paiement des contributions et la date de ce paiement. Je crois que c'est un point important que nous devons souligner.
J'ai lu hier le rapport trimestriel au 30 septembre 1989 qui comporte tout de même des conclusions qui me paraissent parfaitement justifiées.
Si l'Organisation reçoit en novembre 25 millions de dollars du principal bailleur de fonds - nous sommes le 23 novembre - elle devrait pouvoir éviter d'emprunter en 1989. Si, par contre, elle ne reçoit rien cette année du principal bailleur de fonds, elle ne pourra éviter d'emprunter avant la fin de l'année.
Or, tout le monde dit: il ne faut pas emprunter. Alors, s'il ne faut pas emprunter, il faut tirer des conclusions, il faut payer. Une Organisation ne peut pas vivre, aucun pays au monde ne pourrait vivre en affectant 66 pour cent de son budget à peine; c'est étrangler une institution. On a discuté hier du lapse factor. Je crois que le problème du personnel est un problème angoissant, que le personnel est à genoux, qu'il y a un gap considérable entre le cadre et la situation telle qu'elle se présente, qu'une série de bons fonctionnaires arrivent progressivement à l'âge de la pension, que l'on n'a pas ou que l'on ne peut plus assurer la relève dans une perspective d'avenir. Or, là, j'ai bien peur qu'il n'existe un gap considérable au niveau des experts. La qualité de la FAO sera toujours fonction des hommes qui y travaillent. C'est un point particulièrement important et, si je me suis permis d'intervenir très brièvement sur l'état des contributions, c'est pour pousser un cri d'alante car, Monsieur le Président, ce cri d'alante doit être poussé.
Là, vraiment, je crois que nous devons faire un effort, et un effort considérable, pour que demain nous arrivions à une situation autre qu'un paiement de 66 pour cent au mois de novembre alors que nous étions en 1985 à 91, 35 pour cent.
La situation actuelle peut-elle durer? Ma réponse est non.
Salisu A. INGAWA (Nigeria): I thank you for allowing my delegation a chance to air our serious complaints against the current assessment system of contribution to the FAO budget. The system is insensitive to changing circumstances in member countries. Nigeria has lost income and is suffering other problems, for example, our GNP per capita fell from over US$ 1 000 per annum in 1980 to less than US$ 370 in 1987. The gross rate of GNP fell from 4.1 percent per annum in 1980, to less than one percent in 1987. The value of our export products fell from US$ 26 000 million in 1980 to US$ 7 000 million in 1987. Our debt service ratio has similarly increased. We have lost our position as a middle-income country and have fallen into the low-income category. This fact can be seen from the World Development Reports of the World Bank.
Why do we have an increase in our assessment for the coming biennium? What is the rationale? We have seen that it is based on the UN system of contribution, but I think that it allows also for an adjustment by FAO because other countries have had a reduction. We challenge the basis on which they are getting their reduction while Nigeria suffers an increase in its assessment. We have closely assessed all the other countries and none of them has suffered income reduction similar to that of Nigeria. So we think this point should be considered in whatever resolution is adopted.
Sra. Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): La delegación argentina quisiera expresar que, lamentablemente, Argentina mantiene una deuda considerable con la FAO, pero en contra de la voluntad del gobierno y del pueblo.
Quiero también comunicar que mi gobierno está tonando todas las medidas necesarias para poder proponer, en breve plazo, un plan de pagos de las cuotas pendientes a esta Organización.
Con relación al proyecto de resolución, no tenemos ningún problema.
HUANG YONGNING (China) (original language Chinese): I shall be very brief. The Chinese delegation has carefully studied this document on the problem of contributions, and we have carefully listened to the statements by other speakers. We consider that up to the beginning of November 1989 the situation was slightly better than for the corresponding periods of 1988 and 1986, but the financial position which FAO is in is, indeed, very difficult.
In order to face up to these difficulties, the Director-General has been forced to make cuts in the Programme of Work of the Organization. This has not only had serious consequences for the work of the Organization, but it has adversely affected a number of developing countries.
In order that FAO can accomplish its tasks in accordance with its Constitution, we would like all members to fulfil their financial obligations so that the Programme of Work and Budget adopted by the Conference can be implemented effectively. Therefore, the Chinese delegation supports the Draft Resolution contained in document C 89/LIM/12. At the same time, as it has done in the past, the Chinese government will meet its financial obligations to support the work of the FAO.
Raphaël RABE (Madagascar): Je vais être assez bref parce que notre délégation a systématiquement déploré cette situation de non-paiement des contributions, soit à la Plénière, soit lors de l'examen du budget, soit même lors de l'examen de l'étude sur la réforme de la FAO.
Nous aussi nous avons dit qu'il était inutile de parler de renforcement de l'Organisation si, de l'autre côté, on ne garantit pas à l'Organisation des ressources indispensables.
Nous aussi nous avons dit qu'il était irrationnel et peu logique de s'opposer à ce que l'Organisation fasse des emprunts lorsqu'elle ne dispose plus du minimum de ressources pour faire face à ses obligations.
Nous aussi nous avons dit qu'il était regrettable que l'Organisation se trouve en face d'une dette de plus de 100 millions et n'ait pas les moyens de régler ses dettes.
Aussi, Monsieur le Président, nous appuyons le projet de résolution et, en tout cas, nous partageons totalement ce qui a été déclaré par le délégué de la Belgique, qui a lancé un appel vibrant et qui, en tout cas, trouve illogique que l'on se penche sur d'autres questions alors que, s'agissant de ce point primordial et fondamental, on ne prend pas les dispositions nécessaires pour régler cette situation déplorable.
Aussi, nous insistons pour que, une fois de plus, on tienne compte de la déclaration de notre délégation et pour que cette Commission insiste sur la nécessité d'assainir la situation.
Raymond ALLEN (United Kingdom): We are not opposed to the Resolution but I would simply like to reiterate the view of my delegation regarding the need to borrow referred to in the Resolution. We are opposed to borrowing, and consider the Organization should live within its means, allocating priorities accordingly.
Salisu A. INGAWA (Nigeria): We are not opposed to the Resolution, but would like to point out that based on the history of contributions to FAO, the list given in the document does not appear to indicate that this year is any worse than any of the previous years, it does not seem that it is statistically or significantly different from the others. We are opposed to serious cuts in the various programmes of FAO. Although we are in support of the Resolution, we note that there is nothing in terms of contributions based on the percentages given which shows that this is an extraordinary year.
Mrs Teresa D. HOBGOOD (United States of America): We have followed closely the developments with respect to the financial situation of FAO. We note the problems that 80 countries have had in meeting payment of their assessed contributions in full and in a timely manner. However, I must point out that for my own Government, the financial difficulties this Organization has had to face over the past several years stem from unrealistic expectations when the Programme of Work and Budget for 1988-89 was approved by the 1987 Conference over our objections. The result is a situation which harms the orderly operation of FAO.
I recognize that many Member States are waiting for information on the current status of our 1989 payment to this Organization, including amounts in payment of arrears, unfortunately, there is not much information that I can add to the statement my delegation nade during the Council Session, namely, that final legislative action on our funding request has not been taken.
We also pointed out that the Administration's essential full funding request and an initial payment towards arrears will unlikely be honoured by the United States Congress. Against the backdrop of such compelling international needs as new and greatly encouraged peace-keeping initiatives to be financed, environmental problems that must be addressed, means to deal with the drug epidemic and other equally compelling domestic considerations, the United States of America has had to make difficult choices on funding allocations. Likewise, all the components of the United Nations system must make difficult choices among carpeting priorities in times of budgetary restraint.
The task is not easy, but it must be undertaken if the United Nations system, including FAO, is to remain a viable institution and responsive to issues which affect all of us. This does not mean that the Bush Administration is lessening its commitment to strengthening the United Nations system. May I assure this Body that the Administration is resolute in advocating full funding of United Nations Agencies, including FAO, in payment of our arrears.
CHAIRMAN: I can now close the debate, and consider that the Draft Resolution is adopted by this Commission and recommended to Plenary for adoption. The debate is closed on this.
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Administration and Finance Department): Just a brief coment, Mr Chairman. There seems to be some degree of misunderstanding of the figures presented. It was indicated by at least a couple of delegations that the Organization seems not to be in a worse situation now than it has been in prior years. Unfortunately, this sad situation we are in has been allowed to continue for a long period - this will be the fourth year. When one looks at document C 89/LIM/32, page 3, one sees the November figures which show 67.58 percent of our current contribution - it is not a statement of arrears - as compared with the years 1988, 1987 and 1986. But one has to go right back to 1985 to see what the global situation has been. In 1985 we had received 91.35 percent. We are nearing the end of the year and to operate on two-thirds of the contributions received for this year is almost impossible. And that is not even to mention the problem of outstanding arrears which are the highest in the history of the entire Organization. At this moment we are owed almost $ 175 million total.
This situation presents an untenable problem to the Director-General and to the Organization, one that makes financial management almost impossible. The Resolution just agreed to I am sure will be taken into account in the relevant Finance Committee and Council deliberations to see if there are means by which further encouragement can be given. If we can make an appeal even in this Commission, it would be that members also provide information, as is suggested by the Resolution, on the timing and amount of payment as early in the year as possible to facilitate an orderly projection of cash flow, which during 1989 has been most impossible.
I am sorry to conclude on such a negative note, but I do not want any misunderstanding in the minds of any delegations that the Organization is in a healthy financial condition. Just opposite is the case.
CHAIRMAN: I thank Mr Crowther for his precise statement of the position. I think everyone realizes that at the moment FAO is not in any easy situation.
23.2 Report on Measures Adopted to Distribute Cash Surplus
23.2 Rapport sur les mesures adoptées pour répartir l'excédent de trésorerie
23.2 Informe sobre las medidas adoptadas para la distribución del superávit
LE PRESIDENT: Le Conseil a été informé qu'il n'y avait pas d'excédent de trésorerie à distribuer. Je vais tout de même demander à M. Heim ou à M. Crowther de donner des précisions. Il n'y a pas de commentaires additionnels à ce sujet. Il n'y a pas d'excédent de trésorerie à distribuer et je ne pense pas que nous devions débattre de ce point-là. Je demande toutefois si quelqu'un souhaiterait prendre la parole; mais je ne vois aucune délégation désireuse de prendre la parole.
23.3 Level of Support Costs from UNDP and Trust Fund Programmes
23.3 Niveau des dépenses d'appui du PNUD et des fonds fiduciaires
23.3 Cuantía de los gastos de apoyo financiados por el PNUD y los programas de Fondos Fiduciarios
F. RINVILLE (Assistant Director-General, Development Department): Since decision 80/44 of the UNDP Governing Council, FAO is reimbursed at the rate of 13 percent (of total expenditures) for the support costs incurred in operating its FAO/UNDP field projects. It bears note that, in 1981, the Twenty-first session of the FAO Conference endorsed this arrangement and also decided that 13 percent would be the "established" rate for Trust Fund projects. The UNDP 13 percent formula will end in January 1992, and there is now an effort to identify a new framework for covering such support costs. In June 1988 the UNDP Governing Council decided to appoint an expert team to prepare a study of the new so-called "successor arrangements" for agency support costs, and in February 1989 the Governing Council in its Resolution 89/10 approved terms of reference for the four-man expert team.
The natter was first brought to the attention of the Sixty-fifth session of the Finance Committee (May 1989), when arrangements for the preparation of the new "successor" support cost mechanism were at an early stage. The Finance Committee expressed its support for FAO's active involvement helping to determine the new arrangements, and in cooperating with UNDP. Among other points emphasized were the need for adequate reimbursement against real costs, protection against currency fluctuations, and - more generally - the ability of FAO to put its full capacities at the disposal of members through technical assistance projects linked to, and benefiting of Regular Programme activities.
As noted by both the Programme and Finance Committees at their meetings in September 1989, the present 13 percent formula involves a subsidy from FAO's Regular Programme since real support costs have been estimated in the 20 percent range recently. Additionally, it should be added that, with new dimensions, increased recourse to short-term staff, and government execution, the operation of field programmes has necessarily become more complex and costly than in the past.
The central element in this entire process is, of course, the report of the four UNDP experts, which is still under preparation following the extensive consultations and inputs I have just referred to. The team was finally appointed in March 1989 and began its investigations and examination of possible "successor arrangements" in April 1989. The main focus of the work of the four "independent" UNDP experts (consultants) has been an extensive round of discussions in over 20 countries (all major donors, all groups of recipients) and with the main organizations involved, including the specialized agencies (country visits 5-6 days each, agency visits 2-3 days each). This activity took place mainly in July and August 1989.
The experts visited FAO on 10 and 11 July, where a series of discussions were held with senior staff and FAO's own internal Task Force on the matter (under the Field Programme Committee). FAO, like other agencies, has provided a great deal of detailed information, background papers, and fully expressed to the experts its views on the principles necessary for new arrangements. At the same time, it bears noting that an Inter-agency Task Force (chaired by UNIDO) has provided a wider forum for meeting the UNDP experts, and placing on the table FAO's and other agencies concerns on a joint and coordinated basis.
The UNDP experts are considerably delayed in their progress from their original timetable, which called for the draft report by than by 1 November. The new timetable is for these experts to finish their work by early December, and for them to give the agencies only a short time to review the report, just before it is sent for printing to be ready for the UNDP Special session in February 1990.
The Special session in February 1990 will consider the report and express views and perhaps make recommendations, which would then be available to UNDP's 36th (full) Governing Council session in June 1990.
Attention must be paid to the timing of any final decision on the new arrangements, which would apply as noted, only from January 1992. If FAO's (and other concerned) governing bodies are to have a full opportunity to consider proposals and options in this regard, the final decision should probably not be taken on this matter until 1991 (and not "rushed" through in 1990).
In connection with the timing of decisions on the "successor arrangements", I would note that the ACC, at its second regular session in October 1989, expressed concern and adopted a clear statement (ACC-1989/29) intended to "bring the issue of the timetable to the attention of the UNDP Governing Council, with a view to allowing governing bodies of the executing agencies to deal with any possible budgetary and organizational implications of the proposals advanced by the expert group. If necessary, such a timetable might envisage the possibility of extending the present support cost system by one year, that is to say, until the end of 1992".
In connection with the ACC concern at the UNDP timetable for this matter, the UNDP Governing Council may, or nay not, take this into account. It will be noted from the short report of the 96th Council before you (LIM/13) that there is a possibility that the UNDP Governing Council would want to make definitive decisions on the arrangements at its June 1990 session. Most executing agencies wish this, however, to be postponed by at least one year to allow the full prior involvement of agency governing bodies.
For FAO, it would appear that the most suitable occasion for new arrangements to be considered in depth by the governing bodies would be at the November 1990 Ninety-eighth Council session, which would have the benefit of the UNDP Governing Council discussions just referred to. The "successor arrangements" would, prior to that, also be discussed by the FAO Programme and Finance Committees at their sessions in May and October 1990. FAO's involvement in these developments is not only imperative due to our large FAO/UNDP programmes, but also, of course, because any eventual decision might affect support cost arrangements for Trust Fund programmes.
In concluding these remarks, Mr Chairman, it should be underlined that this issue must have a strong interest for all Member Governments, recipients and donors alike. What is involved is a system-wide decision which could have important effects and impact across the board. This is why this matter is now being brought for your consideration, and we shall pay close attention to the Members' views and guidance.
Raphaël RABE (Madagascar): Ma délégation voudrait d'abord féliciter M. Rinville, assistant du Directeur général, Chef du département du développement, pour la présentation très claire de ce sujet.
Lorsque nous étions membres du Comité financier nous avons suivi de très près cette question et avons déjà estimé à ce moment-là que le remboursement par le PNUD, au taux de 13 pour cent, des dépenses d'appui des projets financés par ce Programme, était insuffisant et pesait lourd au budget du Programme ordinaire de la FAO.
Voilà donc que l'occasion se présente pour actualiser ce taux et, surtout en ces moments difficiles de l'Organisation, il s'avère vraiment indispensable que l'on puisse trouver un taux équitable pour les deux parties, pour le PNUD et la FAO, d'ailleurs les répercussions sont ressenties par nos pays.
Ce qui est donc souhaité c'est que la FAO, comme il est dit dans le document C 89/LIM/13, soit associée très étroitement à l'élaboration des nouveaux arrangements, que le calendrier établisse ou prenne en considération cette nécessité d'impliquer la FAO dans les discussions et que les organes directeurs du PNUD tiennent compte des résultats des entretiens et discussions entre la FAO et le PNUD pour adopter un nouveau taux.
En fait, notre commission devrait lancer un appel auprès des organes directeurs du PNUD pour que le nécessaire soit fait dans ce sens.
Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Je suis quelque peu contrit et ennuyé d'intervenir à nouveau mais il s'agit d'un sujet important dont nous avons déjà parlé à de très nombreuses reprises.
Je voudrais d'abord remercier M. Rinville pour son exposé exhaustif, il a bien fait le point de la situation mais je crois que nous devons prendre une série de positions. On a parlé du rapport des quatre experts désignés en mars 1989 qui devraient déposer leurs conclusions début décembre. Ces quatre experts ont pris contact en juillet avec la FAO et ce rapport doit pouvoir être discuté et examiné. Il sera examiné à la session spéciale du Conseil d'administration du PNUD.
Mais il est extrêmement important que les organismes opérationnels et que les agences d'exécution puissent se pencher sur la question. Le PNUD, qui est en définitive un utilisateur des fonds fiduciaires, j'ai eu l'occasion de le dire, qui a une tâche de coordination et de distribution des ressources quand même extrêmement considérables dont il dispose et qui doit travailler avec les organisations opérationnelles de la famille des Nations Unies, doit se rendre compte que le problème des coûts d'appui, support costs, est un problème important, qu'il est évidemment tout à fait anormal que les frais d'appui de 13 pour cent soient insuffisants et que le budget ordinaire doive supporter la différence entre les coûts réels et les sommes ristournées par le Programme des Nations Unies pour le Développement.
Le système actuel tel qu'il existe fonctionnera normalement jusqu'au 1er janvier 1992. Il faut surtout éviter une décision précipitée. Vous savez qu'il existe une tendance, et elle est dangereuse, qui permettrait au PNUD d'être sa propre agence d'exécution. Nous nous sommes élevés très souvent contre cette tendance fondamentalement néfaste. L'OPS n'a pas pour tâche d'être l'agence d'exécution du PNUD. L'OPS peut évidemment travailler avec des support costs de 6 ou 7 pour cent pour la bonne raison que la plupart des projets sont sous-traités et que dans la sous-traitance on ne compte certainement pas, dans la dépense d'appui, ni les frais d'administration, ni les marges bénéficiaires qui peuvent s'élever à des sommes considérables; je sais d'expérience, notamment au Fonds européen de développement, quelles peuvent être les marges de sécurité ou les marges bénéficiaires d'un certain nombre de bureaux d'étude, elles peuvent atteindre des sommes allant jusqu'à 25 et 30 pour cent et dans certains cas davantage.
Alors il faut éviter toute décision précipitée. Je préfère que toutes les agences d'exécution aient l'occasion d'étudier la question par le biais des organisations compétentes: Comité du Programme, Comité des finances, Conseil de la FAO qui se réunira normalement en novembre 1990. Une décision du Conseil d'administration du PNUD sans consultation préalable des agences d'exécution opérationnelles serait une décision manquant de la base nécessaire d'expériences.
Je crois que nous pouvons nous ranger à l'avis du Comité d'administration et de coordination qui a dit de manière très claire que le problème devait être examiné avec les Governing Bodies, avec les organisations et rouages compétents des agences d'exécution. Nous préférons pour notre part prolonger, éventuellement jusqu'au 1er janvier 1993, c'est-à-dire pendant toute l'année 1992, le système actuel plutôt que de prendre une décision précipitée qui serait extrêmement dommageable.
Le problème est important, le problème est capital pour l'exécution de tous les programmes de terrain de la FAO parce qu'il est clair que ce que fera l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour le développement, en concertation avec les organisations opérationnelles, aura également une incidence directe sur les support costs des fonds fiduciaires bilatéraux qui sont importants, et que nous aurons à nous aligner sur la formule qui sera retenue.
Je lance un appel pour que les organes compétents de la FAO puissent étudier attentivement la question et que le Conseil de novembre 1990 puisse se pencher avec toute l'attention voulue et tout le temps nécessaire sur cette importante question.
Michael DERUS (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): Thank you for allowing me to speak about this very important matter of the support costs. Firstly, on behalf of my delegation, I would like to congratulate you for the excellent way in which you have handled this Commission. In the Programme of Work and Budget in XXXI, the UNDP Governing Council has given a green light for a study. This was to investigate the improvements in the technical help to be provided by UNDP on account of the new modalities for execution, proper compensation for all those involved in the project, increased responsibility, the maximization of effectiveness, and the ways and means of the participation of the UNDP and the special organisations and governments involved in the projects. In principle, we do not want to anticipate the results of this study, but I would like to express some hopes that we associate with it. It is known that originally, in the establishment of the percentage for the support costs, consideration was given to the fact that the specialized agencies would have to fund the projects from their Regular Budgets in order to be committed themselves. The Federal Government today, for reasons of clarity, favours the idea that the actual costs should be paid up in full. That includes the costs for careful preparation of the project. The Federal Government also sees further advantage in that irregular and extra-budgetary accounts and voluntary finances would be clearly separated, and therefore the burden on the Regular Budget be reduced. We expect further that the Study will show how the cooperation between UNDP and the specialized agencies can be improved and how we can proceed further. Given the leading role of UNDP in the UN system, we would like the solutions proposed by the UNDP Governing Council to be supported and applied in our Trust Fund administration. Unfortunately, the Study will only be available after the Governing Bodies have met this year. But we consider it important that the views and contents of the specialized agencies and governments should be taken into account in the meeting in June 1990 in order to allow a smooth adjustment of the procedure. We think that ways could be found for this to be done and we are looking forward to the results of the meeting of the Governing Council of the UNDP.
Antonio Rodrigues PIRES (Cap Vert): Nous sommes en train de discuter une question dont nous connaissons l'importance pour notre Organisation, notamment pour les programmes de terrain. Nous pensons que la FAO, y compris par ses organes directeurs, devrait continuer à être étroitement associée à l'élaboration de tous les arrangements qui devraient prendre effet en 1992.
Nous pensons aussi que le PNUD est une sorte de fonds fiduciaire, qu'il doit utiliser au maximum les agences spécialisées des Nations Unies et recourir de moins en moins, comme un délégué l'a dit tout à l'heure, directement à des représentants de bureaux d'étude dont nous connaissons les coûts très élevés.
Nous pensons également que toutes les questions de cette importance devraient être discutées au sein des organes appropriés, notamment le Comité et le Conseil car, je le répète, il s'agit d'une question très inportante, nous devons éviter toute précipitation, laisser les organes s'y pencher, y réfléchir calmement et nous présenter un rapport.
Raymond ALLEN (United Kingdom): I would like to thank Mr Rinville for his very clear introduction. It is a great pity that the report of the group of experts on the successor arrangements will be too late for consideration by this Conference. Members of FAO will need to look at the FAO aspects of the natter in some other way than originally envisaged, perhaps by informal discussions with the Secretariat. We have been informed about ACC's proposal that the natter be put off until 1991. This will have to be considered by the UNDP Governing Council in February. This is, we think, superficially attractive, as the new regime begins in January 1992, but it is probably not in the best interests of the developing countries and agencies. The current plan is to decide in the context of the fifth cycle negotiations in June 1990. It is therefore important, we think, to settle the amount available to countries and for other purposes in good tine for the fifth cycle - that is 1992-96 - so as to prevent interruption of field expenditures which occur if programming does not begin well before the start of the cycle. It is difficult to de-link the support costs decisions and the decisions on IPF for the cycle. The present support costs money - that is enough to provide 13 percent on projects - is taken before resources for the five years are allocated, so we need to know by June 1990 roughly how much will be needed to pay for the support costs and how much for other agencies and services such as pre-investment studies and policy advice, so as to know how much to hold back. To make a guess or hold back an amount for later decision, we think, would close off too many options. My delegation wishes to permit the experts on the UNDP Governing Council to examine all options, fron payment of no support costs, that is Agency budgets would cover these to full support costs if necessary, individually negotiated, and to discuss which leads to the best way of using the expertise in the UN system to provide technical cooperation to developing countries. Obviously, some of these options - for example, the no-support cost charge - would not be suitable for automatic application to the Trust Fund projects. The donors to these should make contribution to the cost of running the projects they finance since it saves them management costs. It would not be appropriate for the international cammunity to subsidize projects which they had not themselves selected for execution by FAO. If the proposal is mainly one for the new arrangement to come into effect on January 1, 1993, that is, one year later than planned at present, that is another matter which will be resolved by the UNDP Governing Council. Some transitional arrangements may be appropriate and agreed, but it remains important that the decision on the regime will be taken in 1990 in the context of the 5th cycle. We do think it important that a solution should not be imposed on the agencies. FAO has been involved in the process through the CCSQ Task Force and will see the report before its finalisation. FAO aspects must be taken into account by members when they take decisions in the Governing Council.
Jean-Luc GRAEVE (France): La question des dépenses d'appui du PNUD et des fonds fiduciaires est une question importante, ainsi qu'il a été souligné, et il serait bon en effet d'éviter toute précipitation, avant que soit pris en compte l'avis des agences spécialisées pour qui cette question est évidemment cruciale.
Je soutiens l'avis de plusieurs délégations qui se sont exprimées ici, notamment celle du Royaume de Belgique, sur la nécessité pour le Conseil de la FAO de s'exprimer et de débattre de cette question en novembre prochain.
On pourrait dire évidemment qu'au PNUD les Etats Membres sont représentés et prennent les décisions et qu'il est donc inutile d'avoir deux délibérations: l'une par les Etats Membres au PNUD, l'autre par leurs représentants dans les organismes spécialisés, dont la FAO. Mais en vérité, si même cette objection est en théorie assez valide, en pratique elle ne l'est pas parce que les représentants des Etats au PNUD sont pris dans un système qui fait qu'ils ne sont pas motivés à s'intéresser aux conséquences que telle ou telle décision peut avoir sur telle ou telle institution spécialisée.
Il est utile et nécessaire qu'une information s'établisse et qu'un dialogue s'instaure entre les représentants des Etats dans une organisation spécialisée et leurs collègues au PNUD.
Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Je serai d'autant plus bref que je comptais dire ce que vient d'exprimer le représentant de la République française. J'ai souligné à plusieurs reprises que les positions d'un même pays au sein d'un organisme ne sont pas toujours défendues de la même façon et pour la raison qui vient d'être indiquée: c'est qu'au contact d'un certain nombre de réalités concrètes, de réalités de terrain, on a peut-être parfois une vision plus réaliste et différente de celle qu'on peut avoir à New York, au sein de l'Organisation des Nations Unies, et notamment du Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement qui est peut-être plus loin d'un certain nombre de réalités de tous les jours.
C'est pourquoi je me permets d'insister, de manière pressante, pour que l'organe compétent, en l'occurrence le Conseil de la FAO, soit saisi de ce problème.
LE PRESIDENT: Les différentes remarques formulées à ce sujet seront reflétées dans le rapport, ce rapport sera disponible pour tous les gouvernements, à eux d'en tenir compte lors des discussions dans les organes directeurs des différentes organisations.
Est-ce que M. Rinville souhaiterait faire un commentaire?
F. RINVILLE (Sous-Directeur général, Département da Développement): Simplement peut-être une précision en réponse à l'intervention du délégué du Royaume-Uhi. Le rapport qui sera présenté par les experts ne sera pas un rapport concerté avec nous. Nous avons effectivement été l'objet d'ime visite de deux jours de ces experts parmi plus de 60 jours de visites qu'ils ont rendues. Nous leur avons remis des documents. Nous aurons peut-être deux semaines pour dire ce que nous pensons du rapport. Mais celui-ci ne sera pas le produit d'une concertation entre ces experts et toutes les agences. Cela ne pourrait en aucun cas - parce que les délégués ne le permettraient pas -être considéré comme quelque chose qui, en soi, aurait envisagé toutes les conséquences pour chacune des agences.
23.4 Headquarters Accommodation
23.4 Locaux du Siège
23.4 Locales de oficina en la Sede
LE PRESIDENT: Je demande au premier Vice-Président de cette Cormission, le distingué Ambassadeur du Ghana, de bien vouloir prendre la présidence, étant donné que je dois m'absenter.
C. Lamptey, Vice-Chairman of Commission III took the chair
C. Lamptey, Vice-Président de la Ccmnaission III assume la présidence
Ocupa la presidencia C. Lamptey, Vicepresidente de la Comisión III
M. SCATTITIRT (Directeur, Division des Services administratifs): Vu l'inportance de ce projet pour le bon fonctionnement de l'Organisation, le Secrétariat a tenu à maintenir ses organes directeurs pleinement informés des progrès réalisés, comme en témoignent les présentations effectuées depuis deux ans devant les sessions successives du Comité des finances et du Conseil, et maintenant cette Commission par le biais du document C 89/UM/14. Ce projet comporte trois phases qui, à l'heure actuelle, se trouvent dans l'état suivant:
La phase 1 qui considère la construction d'un parking de 3 étages a progressé normalement jusqu'à la mi-août, date à partir de laquelle la découverte de ruines renaines sur le chantier a ralenti, et ensuite stoppé les travaux. Depuis la mi-septembre, l'Organisation est en contact permanent avec les autorités italiennes compétentes afin de trouver une solution rapide et acceptable pour toutes les parties intéressées.
La préparation de la phase 2 qui, elle, intéresse la construction du nouveau building F, et de la phase 3 qui, elle, se réfère à la construction d'un étage supplémentaire sur le bâtiment A et les deux ponts, est par contre en avance d'environ deux mois sur le calendrier prévu, ce qui laisse espérer l'achèvement de ces deux phases respectivement pour le début de 1992 et le début de 1993.
L'Organisation voudrait profiter de cette session pour remercier une fois encore le gouvernement du pays hôte de sa généreuse contribution, ainsi que Monsieur le Représentant permanent de l'Italie pour les efforts qu'il n'a cessé et ne cesse de déployer pour que les travaux de la phase 1 puissent reprendre le rythme prévu.
Amor BEN ROMCHANE (Tunisie) (langue originale Arabe): Je n'ai pas l'intention de laisser passer cette occasion, au nom de la délégation tunisienne, sans exprimer notre satisfaction à propos des efforts qui ont été déployés par M. Scaillet. Nous l'en félicitons. Il a fait un travail constant et les travaux entrepris par l'Organisation ont été tout à fait efficaces. Ils visent à améliorer les conditions de travail et à permettre à tous les départements et à tous les Etats Membres de travailler sans problème. A cet égard, la délégation tunisienne souhaite un grand succès à notre Organisation.
23.5 Personnel Matters
23.5 Questions de personnel
23.5 Asuntos de personal
M. Bel HADJ AMOR (Directeur, Division du Personnel): Monsieur le Président, le document dont la Ccmmission est saisie reflète le résultat des débats du Conseil sur les principales questions de personnel qui lui ont été soumises par le Comité des finances dans son rapport de la soixante-sixième Session tenue à Reme en septembre dernier. Ccnme a pu le constater la Cotmission, le document est concis et n'appelle pas d'observations supplémentaires. Je me limiterai à souligner l'importance de l'étude approfondie sur les conditions d'emploi des administrateurs et fonctionnaires de rang supérieur, objet du paragraphe 2 du document C 89/LIM/15. Actuellement, cette étude est en cours d'examen à la cinquième Cormission de l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies. Bien entendu, je suis à la disposition des délégués pour toute clarification nécessaire.
Amor BEN FCMDHANE (Tunisie) (langue originale Arabe): Monsieur le Président, je regrette d'être le seul orateur à prendre la parole sur ce point. Mais, en tant que Représentant de la délégation tunisienne, je dois exprimer m gratitude pour les travaux qui ont été réalisés par le départaient du Personnel au sein de l'Organisation, sous la forme de tentatives fort importantes qui ont été faites pour couvrir l'ensemble des activités des autres départements. Cela est principalement dû au Directeur du Département et au Directeur général qui ont déployé des efforts dans ce sens. Nous sennes parfaitement conscients du fait que leurs actions sont toujours caractérisées par la précision et essaient de résoudre les problèmes à tous les niveaux. Nous aimerions féliciter les Etats Membres de ces efforts.
23.6 Staff Commissary Support Cost Reimbursement
23.6 Compte du Groupement d'achats du personnel: remboursement des dépenses d'appui
23.6 Reembolso de los gastos de apoyo del economato del personal
M. SCATTJIET: (Directeur, Division des Services administratifs): Dans le passé, chaque changement dans les modalités de remboursement des dépenses de l'économat a été approuvé par la Conférence.
C'est pourquoi est soumis à cette session de la Conférence le présent projet de résolution, document C 89/LIM/10, qui vise simplement à ce que l'éconorat rembourse à l'Organisation le coût effectif des services fournis par ce dernier, ceci afin d'assurer que le budget ordinaire ne subventionne pas l'économat. Il convient de souligner que le texte proposé a été discuté et approuvé par le Comité des finances et, ensuite, par le Conseil en vue de son adoption par la Conférence.
23.7 Treatment of Profit and Loss on Exchange
23.7 Traitement des gains et pertes de change
23.7 Tratamiento de las ganancias y pérdidas en los cambios monetarios
CHAIRMAN: Wë shall new turn to item 23.7 - Treatment of Profit and Loss on Exchange (C 89/LIM/16). This matter will be introduced by Mr Heim.
Frederic A. HEIM (Director, Financial Services Division): The Finance Committee at its 66th Session in September 1989 considered the proposed change in accounting treatment of profit and loss on exchange. The Committee endorsed this proposal and submitted a draft resolution to the Council for consideration at its 96th Session. The Council, in turn, approved the proposal and recatitended the draft resolution for adoption by the Conference. This draft resolution is contained in document C 89/LIM/16.
This subject is complex, but in simple terms every time we purchase non-US dollar currencies there is a difference between the rate of exchange that the bank gives us and the rate of exchange which we use in our accounting records, for example, with the UN operational exchange rate. Ulis creates a profit or loss on exchange. Also, when the exchange rates change from one month to another we need to revalue all our foreign currency holdings at the new rate. This again creates a profit or loss on exchange.
Our present accounting policy is to charge losses and credit profits to Chapter 5 of the budget. There have been considerable losses on exchange in the last four years, culminating in a loss of almost US$ 3.5 million in 1988, which had to be absorbed by the Regular Programme budget.
The Conference has stressed, and the Director-General agrees, that the Programme of Work and Budget should not be affected by losses or gains resulting from currency fluctuations. This is why we transfer the currency variance on staff costs to the Special Reserve Account. This currency variance is merely another kind of profit or loss on exchange due to currency fluctuations and is designed to bring our staff costs into line with the budget rate.
We already have Conference Resolution 13/81 which authorizes the Director-General to use the funds in the Special Reserve Account to finance unbudgeted extra costs due to movement of currency exchange rates. The Director-General's proposal is in line with that provision, namely, by transferring the profits and losses on exchange to the Special Reserve Account.
We would be pleased to answer any questions that the delegates may have on this matter.
23.8 Other Matters
23.8 Autres questions
23.8 Otros asuntos
R. STEIN (Secretary, Commission III): As you will recall, we envisaged that the Drafting Cormittee would meet tomorrow. The Draft Reports are being processed on what took place yesterday, and of course the Draft Reports of what took place this morning will be written in the course of the afternoon and then sent for translation. They will be available tomorrow.
Owing to the fact the Chairman has managed to go through the Agenda so quickly, I still do not have the information about the precise availability of the rooms for the meeting of the Drafting Ccranittee tomorrow. I think that we shall meet in the afternoon. I will get in touch with you and leave a message for you in your box in the documents distribution. I simply recall that Mr Carandang of the Philippines will be Chairman. Yesterday it was agreed that the Drafting Ccratdttees will be composed of Belgium, Chile, Denmark, Greece, Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Philippines, Senegal, United States of America, Venezuela, People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zambia. We will distribute the Draft Reports as soon as we have them.
I think it reasonable to hope that we shall be able to finish our work in the course of the afternoon and then the Draft Report will be processed as it has been seen by the Drafting Committee, and will be available to all of you.
The meeting on Monday is scheduled to take place at 9.30, presumably here unless there is a change. That day will be given over to the approval of the Report. As the Chairman mentioned earlier, we hope that we will be able to do that in the course of the morning. The matter will be in your hands and it will depend on hew well we are able to prepare the report. We hope to be able to do a good job and that the Drafting Ccratnittee will be able to get on with the matter smartly. I am sure the documents will be available to you in good time to enable you to look at them carefully, and this should help with getting on with the work on Monday. I have just heard that the meeting of the Drafting Canmittee will take place at 14.30 tomorrow in the German Room.
The meeting rose at 12.30 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.30 horas
