CHAIRMAN: The meeting is called to order. This morning we are continuing on Item 15, the Medium-Term Plan. We have a list of speakers, which I will read out: Switzerland, Poland, Democratic Republic of Korea, the United States, Netherlands, Mexico, Canada, Zambia, Malawi, Spain, Chile, Turkey, Congo, Belgium, Malaysia and Bangladesh. Are there any more wishing to speak on this item? If not, I am closing the list of speakers on this item. It is closed.
François ROHNER (Suisse): Je n'ai malheureusement pas pu suivre personnellement le débat sur cet important sujet à l'ordre du jour, hier après-midi. De nombreux commentaires ayant été faits, je me limiterai, à ce stade de la discussion, aux quelques réflexions suivantes. Nous aurons du reste l'occasion de revenir sur certains points lors de la discussion, notamment sur le Programme de travail et budget ainsi que le Programme de terrain.
J'aimerais d'emblée joindre ma voix à celles qui ont félicité le Directeur général et ses collaborateurs pour le travail accompli. Nous avons devant nous le résultat d'un gros effort auquel nous avons tous contribué, et que ma délégation considère comme un important pas vers un nouveau consensus sur le rôle futur de la FAO dans le concert de la coopération multilatérale.
Cet examen était absolument indispensable, comme nous l'ont montré un certain nombre d'analyses récentes sur le rôle du système des Nations Unies en matière d'activités opérationnelles, et je mentionnerai ici tout particulièrement le Projet nordique au sujet des Nations Unies, un ensemble d'études qui ne manquera pas de nous occuper pendant quelque temps encore.
Avec l'élaboration de ce premier Plan à moyen terme, la FAO se trouve à la fois à la fin d'un processus que nous jugeons, avec de nombreuses délégations, très positif tout autant qu'au début d'une nouvelle étape moins facile, à savoir la mise en oeuvre du Plan.
Le Plan à moyen terme, constitue donc un important pas dans la bonne direction. Il devrait permettre de mieux orienter l'Organisation dans les années à venir, de préciser son rôle au sein du système des Nations Unies, et de concentrer ses activités dans des domaines où elle possède de véritables avantages comparatifs. Ce concept doit cependant être mieux défini. Il reste certe beaucoup à faire en vue d'arriver à une priorisation encore plus explicite. La base de départ nous parait cependant bonne.
Nous sommes particulièrement heureux de la place accordée dans ce Plan aux thèmes intersectoriels et transversaux. Nous estimons en effet que la FAO a, dans les cinq domaines évoqués, un rôle à jouer.
Nous attachons par ailleurs une très grande importance au renforcement des liens entre le Programme ordinaire et le Programme de terrain par le biais de Programmes d'action spéciaux, programmes dans lesquels la FAO doit pouvoir jouer un rôle de leader et pleinement profiter de ses avantages comparatifs. Il s'agira donc maintenant de traduire ce Plan dans les faits, un processus que nous suivrons avec beaucoup d'attention.
Pour ce qui est de la remise à jour du Plan à moyen terme après deux ans, nous aurions préférer l'Option II, à savoir une réactualisation tous les deux ans, avec une nouvelle projection sur six ans, ce qui aurait donné une plus grande continuité au processus.
Nous ne nous opposerons pas au consensus sur ce point, bien entendu, mais nous espérons cependant que l'exercice dans deux ans ne sera pas une simple formalité, mais qu'il permettra d'examiner les progrès accomplis, de préciser encore certaines priorités et de donner des orientations encore plus claires pour les années 3 à 6 du Plan.
Nous attendons aussi à ce que, dans le prochain Programme de travail et budget, les priorités du Plan soient reflétées de façon plus concrète que ceci n'a pu être le cas dans le Programme que nous discuterons cet après-midi .
Sur un point plus spécifique enfin, nous proposons que la mise en oeuvre de ce Plan devienne un point constant à l'ordre du jour des Conférences régionales de la FAO.
Tadeusz HUNEK (Poland): The Medium-Term Plan, as pointed by Mr Shah in his clear and stimulating introduction, is the FAO's policy synthesis document. We think it is an excellent framework for FAO's new strategy for the 90s. I have great pleasure in congratulating the Director-General and the Secretariat on such an excellent blueprint to guide the FAO. Why do we think the first Medium-Term Plan is such an· important document? The simple answer is that the Plan is the FAO's response to the challenges presented by the present world agriculture scene, which is determined both by shortage of food and malnutrition on the one hand and food surpluses and over-production on the other. There is no social or economical justification for this state of affairs. The Medium-Term Plan in Part II, Cross-Sectoral Actions, presents a promising new approach by FAO to this problem, and we strongly support this attitude. We recognize that the elimination of food surpluses would be a good way to eliminate or at least diminish food shortage, and consequently malnutrition. The Polish delegation agrees with the view expressed in the document that there is a need to perhaps revise one leading concept of agricultural policy, food self-sufficiency at national level. We strongly welcome the intention to shift towards the concept of food security on a regional or global scale.
On that approach we feel there is a specific and very good functional role of FAO.
The second aspect which I want to raise is that present-day world agriculture is dominated by two opposite tendencies; on the one hand, we notice the process of marginalization of agricultural activities in national economies, but, on the other hand, we notice a rapid increase in importance of agricultural space. This rapid growth of importance is
manifested by the increase in value of agricultural lands, by a broader recognition of the rural system of values, and by rural features of culture.
The Polish delegation would like to suggest that the aesthetic, socio-cultural aspect of modern agriculture should find a broader interest in FAO activity, specifically in the Medium-Term Plan.
Consequently, subjects such as rural development, nutrition, cultural aspects of nutrition, should be specially underlined in the programme priorities of the Medium-Term Plan.
The third imperative which I want to raise now is world agriculture. It seems to us that the picture of present world agriculture has a very important element. It is the process of transformation of economy, as well as the transformation of agriculture in post-Socialist countries in Central and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. It is, no doubt, a dramatic struggle for almost half a billion people, but it is not only that. Should the programme of reform succeed, the world will become very constructive, very dynamic in a positive sense. In case the programme of reform fails -and no one can exclude such a scenario - the world will be faced with a factor of destruction and some kind of a threat of undermining world order.
The Medium-Term Plan recognizes the complexity of this issue. However, according to the Polish delegation, the consideration of FAO is still below the real needs and expectations of the governments and the people of this region. FAO's role in providing advice and technical assistance should be further adjusted and more precisely elaborated in order to meet this kind of expectation from reforming countries, and in the interest, according to us, of the rest of the world. At present, the intellectual input from FAO will be a greatly-welcomed factor in the process of success of reforms in Central and Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. It is a good opportunity for introducing a market-based economy, not on a trial and error method such as we are passing through now, but with good guidance by FAO.
The Polish delegation strongly supports the regional dimension of the Medium-Term Plan and recognizes that the world agricultural system at present is so complex that the regional approach seems to be the most effective way in which to solve the real and numerous problems of the world at present. We strongly support the focus of FAO work in Europe, and we appeal for a strengthening of the Regional Office in Europe. We expect a lot from the newly created setup by REUR - the standing European group of agricultural policy - which is, according to us, for avoiding a trial and error method.
In conclusion, as you know, I come from a country with long - more than 40 years experience - in the planning of our economy, in the planning of all aspects of life for Polish citizens. On the way we have been faced with a so-called syndrome of planning. It means that usually we allocate a lot of time, a lot of energy in planning and preparation in the process of planning so that usually, as a result, there was not enough energy for the fulfillment of the Plan. I hope that FAO will avoid such a syndrome.
YUN HYONG CHONG (Democratic People's Republic of Korea): This is the first time on which I have taken the floor and I should like to express my congratulations on your election, Mr Chairman, as Chairman of this important Commission.
Allow me to express my thanks to the Director-General for the efforts he has made in order to present this Medium-Term Plan 1992-97. I should also like to thank Mr Shah and all those who have collaborated in the preparation of this excellent document C 91/23.
I wish to make some brief comments on the Medium-Term Plan under discussion.
I emphasize that the Plan is a fitting response to the request of the Conference as contained in Resolution 10/89.
In the formulation of the Plan, the Director-General considered the challenges and financial difficulties of our Organization in the 1990s and the Plan has reflected his correct attempts to find the way to overcome those challenges and difficulties. I appreciate particularly the coverage of the issues in the Medium-Term Plan, including the many factors likely to affect FAO's action throughout the 1990s: the proposals relevant to the priorities of both a cross-sectoral and sectoral nature; the regional dimensions or our action; and the indication of the cooperative links with other organizations and partners in our programmes.
I also point out the well-balanced complementarity between the Plan and the biennial Programme of Work and Budget document.
I feel that the Plan deals with the result of the FAO Review. The Plan provides a useful framework for the more refined priority setting in the successful Programmes of Work and Budget.
The delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea supports the Medium-Term Plan for 1992-97 and Option I presented by the Director-General.
Max L. WITCHER (United States of America): The United States supports the concept of the Medium-Term Plan. Such a planning tool is useful, in our view, in helping Member Nations to mark out priorities for the Organization in the future. This is especially important in the light of the recent and enormous changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe as well as throughout the Third World, which raises major issues relating to FAO's future work.
In this regard the United States is pleased to note that the Plan attaches importance to an increasing role for the private sector in addressing the challenges of the future. The United States also appreciates the discussion on trade problems stemming from increased protectionism. In this connection, we would have liked to have seen a discussion on the implications of moving towards free trade through a successful outcome of the Uruguay Round.
In the section on international trade in paragraph 57 there is no mention of the broad role of the GATT. In this regard, we would ask the Secretariat why there is no specific mention of the Uruguay Round in paragraph 57.
We would also ask the Secretariat to spell out, or maybe to provide, some examples of what is implied by the statement lamenting the virtual disappearance of any regulatory activities in international commodity agreements. The United States believe that the Plan should serve as a useful vehicle for a periodic and thorough stock-taking of the Organization. The discussion of the Plan should provide an opportunity for Member Nations to ensure that FAO's future programmes are consistent with national priority.
The United States is pleased to note in the Plan that attention is given by the Secretariat to the importance of coordination with other UN Organizations. Also recognition of the role of NGOs is appreciated.
Regarding the six major cross-sectoral priorities listed in the conclusions, the United States is in general agreement with these thrusts. We believe the environment and sustainable development should be given an appropriate priority during the 1990s. This will no doubt become more evident after next year's UNCED Conference.
The United States has always placed a high priority on FAO's policy advice and information-based work, especially as it relates to the collaboration with GATT.
The United States also attaches great importance to FAO's work on Women in Development, Human Resource activities and Economic and Technical Development programmes.
Finally, I have some specific suggestions; we believe strongly that future versions of the Plan should be shortened significantly. Document C 91/23 is 220 pages long. In fact, it is almost a mini-Programme of Work and Budget. While some of the material may be useful to some of the members, we believe that several of the sections obscure rather than contribute to the complex process of deciding on future priorities for FAO. The same is true of the section on resources. In our view, the Plan should focus on the challenges that lie ahead and the setting of priorities to carry out necessary tasks. Once that difficult process has been completed, the resources needs can be addressed in the biennial budget process.
In conclusion, the United States favour Option II - that is the Plan at each Conference with a sliding six-year coverage.
C.B. HOUTMAN (Netherlands): As had been said earlier, the Medium-Term Plan is one of the results of the review process, and one of the outcomes of those results is before us: a comprehensive - possibly a little thick -document on which we would like to congratulate the Secretariat. It is indeed a great effort to produce such a document, and making critical remarks is much easier than producing a Medium-Term Plan. Yet, in the spirit of what was said yesterday during the discussion on the Review of the Regular Programme, let us consider critical remarks under the heading of constructive remarks, all with the aim of improving future editions of the MTP.
Documents sometimes have a chapter "Summary and Conclusions". After having read this document we come to the conclusion that the introduction of the Director-General gives a very good overview of what the contents of the MTP should be. He defined the medium-term challenges that FAO is and will be confronted with in the coming years and he said that a priority setting was necessary, guided by principles which he explained. We agree with almost everything that is written in this part of the document.
We now turn from this introduction, that can be considered to a certain extent as a good summary, to the conclusions: more than 200 pages further in the document. We can identify ourselves with the conclusions.
It is difficult to find something to disagree with what is said under the headings: Role of FAO and its Comparative Advantages; Guiding Principles; Substantive Thrusts; and Strengthened Capacity.
So despite the fact that the Introduction is at the beginning and the Conclusion is at the end of the document, these 15 pages we would say are the heart of the MTP.
Now I come to the more detailed part of the MTP, the 205 remaining pages.
In Part II on cross-sectoral actions, an attempt is made towards integration particularly in the framework of sustainable development and environment. This integration is sometimes difficult to find in Part III which deals with the various programmes. The focus here is almost exclusively on the technical aspects of agricultural development.
In paragraph 7 of the Conclusions it is very rightly stated that: "Given that the crux of developmental action is at the national level, where policies and actions must be integrated across technical disciplinary lines and economic sectors, FAO activities, as applicable, will continue to be targeted on national capacity building for self-reliant development. The main vehicles for this will be further institutional strengthening and transfer of appropriate technological approaches at all levels. This process will go hand in hand with the emphasis on promoting inter-country cooperation of multiple forms and on investment for development impact on a larger scale". But in the main document - those 205 pages - it is difficult to find how FAO's activities are coping with this.
In this respect the Secretariat could have paid more attention to how the various activities at national, local and household levels should be dealt with, including adequate linking the various levels. It is also difficult to find how FAO is going to shape the needed multidisciplinary, intersectoral approach while planning its activities.
More than in previous years, technical activities need to be brought in line with socio-economic circumstances. This means more attention should be paid to farming systems, to the role and distribution of tasks of men and women, and to participation of beneficiaries by influence on form and contents of their development processes through their own organizations.
After having said all this, while it may appear that we are not happy with this MTP, we must assure you that we are fairly happy with it. Sometimes we are a little ambiguous ourselves. We say the MTP is perhaps a little too thick, but we ask for more attention for a whole range of subjects.
However, with so much detailed information - as the United States has just said - the lines along which one should come to the conclusions are sometimes difficult to recognize.
As we have said already, we very much welcome the conclusions.
Finally, on the future Plan we see merit in both options. Option II may be the ideal one but, as always, ideal situations, if attainable at all, are more expensive, and in trying to be cost effective we could live with Option I very well.
Elias REYES BRAVO (México): Agradecemos a la Secretaria por este documento que nos parece muy importante.
Mi delegación aprecia que este Plan a plazo medio para 1992-97 es pues un producto importante de la Resolución 10/89 aprobada en la 25a Conferencia de esta Organización. Este documento refleja para nosotros y proyecta en buena medida las actividades que realiza la Organización de manera prioritaria a partir del proceso de Examen de algunos aspectos de los objetivos y operaciones de la FAO. Nos permite visualizar interconexiones de los tres programas principales: Agricultura, Pesca y Montes.
Sobre el Programa de Agricultura, mi delegación considera que debiera impulsarse lo relativo al desarrollo agroindustrial, a la asesoría a los países en materia de comercio internacional y mercadeo de sus productos.
En el Programa de Montes, consideramos necesario reforzar el liderazgo de la FAO, a través del Plan de Acción Forestal Tropical y de una activa participación en la Conferencia de Naciones Unidas sobre Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo.
Por lo que respecta al Programa de Pesca, las actividades futuras han de encaminarse a cumplir con el Programa de Acción de la Conferencia Mundial sobre Ordenación y Desarrollo Pesqueros.
Las prioridades contempladas en este Plan de mediano plazo, son coherentes con los principios y objetivos de esta Organización ya que la misma, es decir la FAO, es la única que vincula el desarrollo económico con el de la conservación de los recursos naturales y con la promoción de tecnologías y capacidades humanas e institucionales.
El Plan enfatiza la prioridad del medio ambiente y el desarrollo sostenible, sin embargo, no distingue entre los cuatro aspectos básicos vinculados con este problema y el tipo de respuesta que se espera de la FAO a cada uno, es decir:
El efecto invernadero y los cambios impredecibles en el clima y por tanto, en la producción agrícola y alimentaria.
La extensión del agujero de ozono y su efecto dañino sobre plantas y animales.
Los problemas derivados de la degradación y contaminación de agua, suelos y aire.
La pérdida de diversidad biológica.
En relación a las versiones futuras del Plan, mi delegación considera que el mismo podría reformularse una vez que la disponibilidad futura de recursos fuese más clara.
También mi delegación aprecia que los próximos dos años darán la oportunidad de observar el contenido de este Plan de mediano plazo a la luz de las experiencias en cada país y en cada región.
David SHERWOOD (Canada): Canada would like to express its appreciation to Mr Shah for his succinct introduction yesterday, and to extend to the Secretariat our special thanks for the high quality of the document presented for the consideration of delegates.
Canada recognizes the importance of the Medium-Term Plan as a valuable mechanism for priority setting in a world where the scale of medium-term challenges clearly exceeds resources available to resolve them. It is precisely this point - that of creating fruitful discussion and debate over the key priorities - that will ensure full consideration and continuing review of where the efforts of FAO should be directed.
Canada supports the principal directions and priorities of the Plan. In joining this debate there are a number of key areas in the Medium-Term Plan which Canada would particularly wish to endorse: initiatives designed to promote food security; the work of FAO and support for the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission; the work of FAO in support of the Plant Genetic Resources Commission; work in support of a Tropical Forestry Action Plan and continuing support required; work on sustainable development and advancing the strategy for sustainable agriculture and rural development; and support for women in development. This is by no means an exhaustive list but it is indicative the priority areas that should receive careful attention during the 1992-97 period.
Canada appreciates and strongly supports the positive direction of the Medium-Term Plan and the constructive framework it provides. It offers considerable potential for directing and shaping the work of the FAO.
Regarding the two options for updating the Medium-Term Plan to which we were requested to respond, Canada is inclined to support Option II, and I should like to share our thinking with you. It may not be necessary to produce a document that will be as comprehensive as the one before us in this Conference. Indeed, we would see merit in having a somewhat shorter document with more forward attention on the major challenges and priority areas. Policy and programme synthesis documents should by definition be short. If the past is any indicator, major changes can be expected to take place in the next two-year period between now and the next Conference. Also, events such as the UN Conference on the Environment and Development, implications of GATT negotiation resolutions, along with the International Conference on Nutrition, may very well affect the Medium-Term Plan in such a way as to make it more feasible to prepare revised versions rather than produce short supplements.
Thank you for the opportunity to make those comments and suggestions.
Francis MBEWE (Zambia): My delegation welcomes the introduction of the Medium-Term Plan, which in itself is a response to Conference Resolution 10/89. We believe that the Plan will serve as a good guide in FAO's future work, especially in providing the basis for setting priorities.
My delegation would like to comment on the three aspects of the Plan. The first is the future version of the Plan; the second is the resource considerations; and the third is the content of the Plan.
On the future version of the Plan, my delegation has made a careful study of the two options provided by the Director-General. It would appear that six years is a long period and many changes are likely to take place, including the possibility of having all Member Nations meeting their financial obligations to the Organization. Therefore there will be a need to look at the Plan and its activities in relation to the unforeseen circumstances which we cannot predict at present. It would therefore be logical that Option II should be used.
On the question of resource considerations, this is an issue which needs to be related to priorities and options set out in the Plan, which could and should be considered on the basis of budgetary provisions on a biennial basis. Of course, the figures in the Plan should serve as indicative requirements of resources. However, they should not be binding because priorities are likely to change.
We are particularly pleased with the inclusion of Economic and Technical Cooperation Among Developing Countries in the Plan.
We strongly believe that developing countries can lend and benefit from each other, especially in adapting appropriate technologies in agriculture and rural development. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Jaime GARCIA Y BADIAS (España): Muchas gracias, señor Presidente. Sr. Presidente, el Plan a medio plazo expuesto por el Sr. Shah, tal como lo aportó la FAO, creemos que refleja las prioridades de la Organización y podemos definirlo como equilibrado y bien planteado, por ello nos incorporamos a las felicitaciones expresadas a la Secretaria.
España cree que las prioridades expuestas en este importante documento son las más adecuadas para guiar el trabajo de la Organización en los próximos años.
Para nuestra delegación el equilibrio en el medio ambiente basado en un desarrollo sostenido es básico, asi como las indicaciones expuestas en el documento a fin de equilibrar y obtener beneficios en su realización que permita una igualdad de oportunidades a los países en vías de desarrollo.
El papel de la mujer en el desarrollo, no puede obviarse en un documento de estas características, ya que de ella depende en numerosas ocasiones, la posibilidad del cambio en la familia y en el acceso al crédito, la educación y la propiedad de la tierra, en una palabra, el desarrollo de toda la familia. Para España, la posibilidad de potenciar y mejorar la formación de las poblaciones implicadas, debe pasar por un proceso que incluya programas de formación tanto para jóvenes como para adultos, con un desarrollo continuado, basado en un proceso de divulgación continuado y permanente.
Este útil documento, que refleja un Plan a medio plazo, permite estimar las posibles orientaciones, los recursos necesarios y las previsiones de futuro a una Organización como la FAO en función de las disponibilidades existentes y de aquellas disponibilidades que pueda disponer y acceder en el futuro. Respecto a las dos opciones presentadas, en la Cuarta Parte, Sección C de este documento, para la realización de futuras versiones del mismo, creemos que la primera tiene obvias ventajas, dado su coste inferior y que a su vez, sigue permitiendo la actualización y el debate del Plan en las próximas Conferencias de la Organización en función de las orientaciones y necesidades futuras.
Antonio BAYAS F. (Chile): Como es la primera vez que hacemos uso de la palabra en esta Comisión quisiera expresar la complacencia de la delegación de Chile por su designación para dirigir nuestros trabajos y le auguramos pleno éxito.
Deseo en primer lugar agradecer a la FAO el interesante esfuerzo al elaborar el documento C 91/23 Plan a plazo medio. Sin duda es un documento útil y orientador de las acciones que podria realizar la FAO durante los próximos seis años, en un momento de significativos cambios en la coyuntura politica, económica y social del mundo.
El documento nos presenta las perspectivas de la agricultura, la alimentación, la pesca y la silvicultura hasta fines de siglo, pone de relieve el reto con que se enfrentan los responsables de la formulación de políticas alimentarias en un mundo en el cual, a pesar de los abundantes suministros de alimentos, prevalece la miseria y la malnutrición; en el que existen asimismo condiciones desfavorables para la mujer en la agricultura, la superexplotación de los recursos naturales, dificultades de mejorar las relaciones comerciales agrícolas y falta de participación de las poblaciones rurales en las decisiones.
La delegación de Chile comparte, en general, los planteamientos presentados por el documento de FAO. Sin embargo, quisiera referirme a los objetivos específicos del Programa de Desarrollo Rural, punto 165 de dicho documento, al cual sugerimos incorporar los siguientes objetivos específicos: primero, desarrollar mecanismos de apoyo a la incorporación del valor agregado a la producción agropecuaria primaria de los pequeños productores; segundo, apoyar la creación de los mecanismos financieros para la constitución de un fondo de garantía para los préstamos a pequeños productores; tercero, fortalecer las organizaciones campesinas en su gestión empresarial. Finalmente, compartimos lo manifestado anteriormente por otras delegaciones, en el sentido que el Plan a plazo medio debe tener una indispensable flexibilidad para adaptarse a las cambiantes condiciones, ya sea de política agrícola, económica o financiera.
Mustafa DOYUK (Turkey): First of all, Mr Chairman, I would like to congratulate you and your Vice-Chairmen on your election and wish you every success.
I would also congratulate the Secretariats in the preparation of the document and their excellent work. The document was a very comprehensive one and was prepared in accordance with Conference decision. It is indeed comprehensive and analytical and meets the request of the competent bodies of the Organization. We give our overall support to the priorities
contained in the Medium-Term Plan. Since it is envisaged that it will be a six-year rolling plan we deem it necessary that revisions and updating is made every biennium in order to give a dynamic nature to the` Plan itself and to respond to the changing. environment.
In view of the cost-effectiveness of this process, we would like the Plan to be prepared in a compact and precise way in the coming two biennia.
It is very much appreciated by the Turkish Delegation that FAO has been assisting the nations who have been affected by famine, civil wars and natural catastrophes within its mandate despite the limits of available resources.
A painful increase of the world population is accordingly unwelcome but existing conditions are well -known by all of us. FAO has the important duty of improving conditions. First of all, FAO should continue to help countries to adapt and utilize improved agricultural technology.
Their promotion can help solve the problem of the inadequate nutrition of the increasing population.
We totally agree with the challenges stated by Mr Saouma in the introduction to the Medium-Term Plan. We consider that the most important challenge to mankind remains the alleviation of poverty. Since this problem is heavily related to the protection of the environment, increased productivity in agriculture and using resources rationally, these must be considered as a package and solutions should be sought within it.
The aim is to provide food-sufficiency for the world and to ensure an adequate distribution of foodstuffs to all people. What will be the amount of the realization rates to the nations in this self-sufficiency? What are the major constraints of the low degree of success? All these have to be identified by individual countries.
As is well known, more than half of the world population live in countries which are dependent on agricultural sectors. In order to support their activities in trying to increase the quantity and quality of their production it is desired that technical and economical FAO programmes be more effective. A 6 percent decrease of world wheat production has been estimated in 1991, compared to the last year.
The latest political and economic reforms and changes in some parts of the world and increasing oil prices due to the Gulf crisis have resulted in raising the cost of agricultural inputs and products. On the other hand, the subsidies by developed countries to their agricultural sector have negatively affected the export of developing countries.
Another important challenge is the existing situation of women in rural areas. In contrast to the important role of the female population in agriculture, women have no social security and economic freedom. To change this undesirable situation, additional work is needed. Consequently, we agree with all the activities outlined in the FAO Medium-Term Plan. However, if the order of priorities is given to the subject mentioned above, it will be more useful to the developing countries.
Mr Chairman, distinguished delegates, I would like to conclude my speech by wishing you success in your efforts.
Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): M. le Président, je voudrais d'abord dire que je regrette de n'avoir pas pu bénéficier de l'exposé introductif de M. Shah ni des commentaires sûrement intéressants des autres orateurs qui sont intervenus avant moi, simplement pour la raison que vous pouvez facilement imaginer, à savoir que beaucoup de commissions fonctionnent en ce moment et que, pour des délégations aussi maigres que la nôtre, il a fallu courir un peu partout pour essayer de combler les différents vides.
Ceci étant dit, M. le Président, en présence d'un document aussi important que ce document C 91/23 consacré au Plan à moyen terme 1992-97 de la FAO, nous ne pouvons que remercier le Secrétariat d'avoir bien voulu donner suite à la Résolution 10/89 de la Conférence et dire notre satisfaction. Outre le document C 91/23, un autre document nous a aussi aidé à l'examen de ce Plan qui nous est soumis: il s'agit du document C 91/LIM/21. Nous estimons que ce Plan est conforme au résultat de l'examen de la FAO dont les recommandations ont été entérinées par la vingt-cinquième session de notre Conférence en novembre 1989. Nous pensons que la preuve de l'utilité de ce Plan à moyen terme ne pourra nous être donnée que lorsque les Etats Membres auront témoigné de son utilisation efficace en même temps que le Secrétariat. En attendant, et sans préjuger de cette utilité, nous pensons que ce Plan peut servir de cadre de référence utile aux Etats Membres.
Au plan conceptuel, nous sommes d'avis que ce Plan doit donner de grandes orientations aux trois Programmes de travail et budget de la période couverte. Nous estimons que les trois Programmes de travail et budget biennaux successifs doivent être complémentaires et s'insérer dans le droit fil du plan qui, lui, devrait être souple pour être un Plan glissant. Nous appuyons les priorités retenues pour ce Plan à moyen terme 1992-97.
Concernant la question des projections provisoires des besoins en ressources pour la mise en oeuvre du Plan, nous sommes de l'avis de ceux qui estiment que, sans avoir un caractère contraignant pour les Etats, ces projections provisoires ont un intérêt à titre d'indications estimatives et sont à nos yeux un des volets indispensable et logique de tout exercice de programmation.
Quant aux propositions du Secrétariat pour la préparation des versions futures du Plan, nous estimons que sur le chemin de la transparence que nous avons toujours suivi, il serait sans doute souhaitable d'envisager une solution intermédiaire qui pourrait comporter des évaluations après chaque exercice biennal à titre d'évaluation intérimaire du Plan en cours, une évaluation finale au terme des six ans du Plan en cours avant d'envisager le Plan distinct suivant les six ans. Ce n'est là qu'une autre proposition que je formule en réfléchissant à haute voix. Je n'ai pas encore mesuré les différentes incidences qu'elle représente en termes de temps, d'énergie, de travail et bien sûr d'argent. Je voudrais simplement que l'on examine aussi cette proposition.
François ROUX (Belgique): En cette fin de XXème siècle qui s'achève un peu comme il avait commencé, c'est-à-dire par l'omniprésence des idées libérales, il peut apparaître paradoxal voire scabreux, de parler de planification même indicative. L'expression a incontestablement pris un "coup de vieux". Pour tenter de contourner ce nouveau tabou, nous avons recours à toutes sortes de qualitatifs révélateurs, pittoresques et parfois insolites. Pour ma part j'en ai recensé au moins trois: "Plan chenille", "Plan glissant", "Plan furtif non coercitif".
Si la planification, puisqu'il faut l'appeler par son nom, possède encore quelque vertu pour une organisation comme la nôtre c'est parce qu'ici ce mot a une signification différente.
A notre avis, l'intérêt principal d'un Plan à moyen terme consiste à réduire autant que faire se peut le laps de temps qui s'écoule entre l'apparition de nouvelles réalités dans le développement agricole et la réponse qu'y apporte la FAO.
La délégation du Royaume de Belgique encourage toutes les mesures qui contribuent, de près ou de loin, à réduire ce temps de latence.
L'inertie, même temporaire pourrait, si l'on n'y prenait garde, se traduire par la mise hors jeu de l'Organisation. Le Plan à moyen terme constitue donc une technique salutaire qui permettra à la FAO d'améliorer ses réflexes à un moment où elle doit affronter une période instable qui lui impose de nouveaux défis, comme l'a souligné d'ailleurs le délégué de la Turquie.
Puisque c'est la première fois que cette Organisation se livre à cet exercice, une réflexion d'ensemble s'imposait, et le document C 91/3, fort exhaustif et surtout très prospectif nous la fournit.
Ce qui nous a particulièrement plu dans ce document, et qui devrait rassurer tous ceux que la planification rebute, c'est d'abord le caractère essentiellement qualitatif des objectifs. Nous avons également été séduits par l'approche intersectorielle des priorités, désormais bien établies, et la dimension régionale des activités de la FAO.
Certaines des recommandations du Plan connaissent déjà un début de réalisation. Un outil de ce genre n'a de sens que s'il se traduit par des réalisations concrètes sur le terrain. A cet égard je rejoins la délégation de la Suisse sur la difficulté de la mise en oeuvre du Plan. Pour éviter de tomber dans le piège de l'exercice de style coûteux et vain, la délégation du Royaume de Belgique désire faire trois suggestions.
Premièrement, ramasser les indications que contient ce document en une série limitée de recommandations bien définies.
Deuxièmement, éviter tout sectarisme et notamment qui consisterait à faire régulièrement table rase des principes directeurs de l'action de la FAO au gré des dernières théories du développement agricole à la mode.
Troisièmement, adopter un mécanisme réaliste de révision du Plan. A cet égard, ma délégation privilégie l'idée d'un Plan stable pendant six ans, mais ajustable tous les deux ans.
Mohd. Zaki GHAZALLI (Malaysia): As this is the first time my delegation takes the floor in this Commission, my delegation would like to warmly welcome you on your appointment as Chairman and would also like to thank Mr Shah for his lucid introduction of the subject yesterday.
After listening to all the deliberations made by my fellow delegates, Malaysia is of the opinion that FAO will have difficulty in meeting all the requests for technical and other assistance, particularly those at Programme level based on the proposed level of budget in the Medium-Term
Plan 1992-97. Nevertheless Malaysia congratulates the Director-General of FAO for his excellent document which is very comprehensive, covering all aspects of food and agriculture including Plans of Action and women in development and attention on the environment.
The Malaysian delegation finds this document very useful and thinks it would be an invaluable input for our national agriculture development plan. The appropriate authorities in Malaysia will further examine this document and wherever relevant will use it as an input for the preparation of our mid-term review of the Sixth Malaysia Plan which we will start at the end of next year.
At present Malaysia is putting emphasis on creating intersectorial linkages in developing agriculture and rural areas through a Rural Industrialization Programme which is resource-based in nature and which promotes non-agriculture employment.
As a great deal has been said on tropical forests in many fora, Malaysia suggests that the percentage of allocation to forestry be doubled in order to reflect the attention that it gets in a global perspective, particularly conservation and sustainable management of forests.
Finally, on the future version of the Plan, Malaysia favours Option I for its economy in the cost of preparation and its flexibility in accommodating adjustments.
F.A. Shamim AHMED (Bangladesh): First of all thanks to the Secretariat for producing the important document and to Mr Shah for introducing the subject.
I have taken the floor at a time when the subject has been examined extensively by the distinguished delegates who have already spoken. I therefore shall try to be brief.
My delegation supports the concept of the Medium-Term Plan and believes the Plan will enable FAO to operate with great effectiveness in the years ahead. We are also in agreement with the observations made by some delegations that the Regional approach should be enhanced and strengthened to facilitate implementation of the Plan. We are therefore of the view that FAO Regional Offices need to be further strengthened, subject of course to availability of resources.
As regards the options, our preference is for Option I.
A.O. PHILLIPS (Nigeria): May I congratulate you for your appointment as Chairman of this Commission II. May I also congratulate the Director-General and his Secretariat staff for the production of a very useful document proposing an FAO Medium-Term Plan covering the period 1992-97.
The scope covered in the document is sufficient to guide FAO action over the next six years.
Nigeria identifies with the prioritization of the challenges covered in the document. These are listed as: poverty alleviation, sustainable agriculture, trying to strike a balance between self-sufficiency and self-
reliance, a bottom-up approach to project implementation, increased private sector participation in agricultural development, striking the right balance between rainfed and irrigated agriculture, and recognition of the valuable job of women in agriculture and rural development. My country is particularly playing a leading role which has been organized by the international community regarding this aspect of the role of women.
Nigeria also recognizes the prospects enunciated in the document for food, agriculture, fisheries and forestry up to the end of the century and endorses the need for countries with the same ecological conditions to share information on suitable technologies that they may find in their national programmes.
Nigeria also endorses the daunting challenges presented in pages 185-187 and endorses the focus of FAO's work on pages 187-189 for the African region.
Nigeria considered the two options presented for the Plan and would like to endorse Option I but this presupposes that Option I is a rolling plan, so for the rolling plan budget that you have for 1993-94, 1993 will roll to 1994 and then 1994 will roll to 1995. This is in consonance with what operates in my country at the moment. I would like to suggest Option I.
Mrs M. Béatrice RUSSO (Italy): The Italian delegation thanks the FAO Secretariat for the quality of the Medium-Term Plan 1992-97. We appreciate such a Plan mainly because it indicates the priorities for the Organization's work for the next six years, providing FAO with a map for its development. Among its priorities we are especially interested in sustainable agriculture and poverty alleviation. Another reason for appreciating the Medium-Term Plan is, in our view, its multi-disciplinary approach. Moreover, the Italian delegation supports the more integrated relationship of FAO with the other United Nations Organizations mentioned on page 63 as well as the non-UN organizations. We also read with particular interest the part of the Plan describing the need for strengthening the role of the FAO Representation at country level. Last but not least, the Italian delegation favours the adoption of options concerning the future version of the Plan in so far as it reflects more properly the new philosophy embodied in the concept of the Medium-Term Plan.
Marcus I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Quisiéramos saludar al Sr. Shah por la presentación que nos hizo en la tarde de ayer. Mi delegación desea felicitar a la Secretaria por la preparación del documento C 91/23 que responde plenamente a las expectativas de los Estados Miembros cuando adoptamos la Resolución 10/89.
Es evidente y asi lo hemos confirmado, y puesto de manifiesto los oradores que nos han precedido, que el Plan a plazo medio es un instrumento muy útil para el examen de la puesta en práctica de los objetivos y prioridades de la Organización en un horizonte más amplio como es un periodo de seis años.
Este Plan a plazo medio es además un complemento indispensable del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto y llena una laguna existente en materia de planificación para examinar los programas de la Organización, desde lo general a lo particular, y de la estrategia a la táctica.
La delegación cubana respalda las prioridades y el Programa propuesto y quisiera pedir que se ponga un mayor énfasis en los temas de desarrollo forestal en los trópicos, mediante el apoyo de todos los Estados Miembros al Plan o al Programa de Acción Forestal Tropical. De igual manera, insistiríamos en que se promuevan aún más las actividades de CTPD, es decir de Cooperación Técnica entre Países en Desarrollo, la agricultura sostenible, el medio ambiente y la participación de la mujer en el campo, que como han dicho otras delegaciones, deben tener un realce mayor y deben alcanzar la verdadera dimensión que en nuestra sociedad le corresponde. Debe ser favorecido este tema para propiciar un mayor desarrollo de las actividades de la mujer. Asimismo debería prestarse una mayor asistencia a los países, en materia de políticas y planificación y en particular sobre el comercio internacional de productos agrícolas y de agroindustria.
En cuanto a las opciones, respaldamos la Opción número uno; sin embargo, debemos alertar a que esta opción no nos conduzca a presentar resúmenes tan breves que luego no nos den la suficiente visión para tener claridad a la hora de decidir sobre las perspectivas y el trabajo futuro de la Organización. Creo que la Secretaría tiene la capacidad suficiente como para encontrar una alternativa intermedia entre la opción una y la dos que nos satisfaga a todos plenamente.
V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Mr Chairman, 1 hope you will consider my request to give me a little more time to respond than I took to introduce because, to do justice to the debate that you have had, I should address the points that have been raised. I propose to give my responses in three broad areas. Firstly, a general response to the debate, and I can only start by expressing the gratitude of the Director-General, of my colleagues and of myself personally for the way in which you have received this Medium-Term Plan. Some of you, and you in particular, Sir, were here in the debates which took place in the 1970s and the 1980s on the former incarnations of the Medium-Term Plan and you may agree that there has been quite a change. You Member Nations have a different attitude to the Medium-Term Plan, and I feel that the Secretariat is generally responding in the manner you have desired. The reactions to the content of this Plan have also been very favorable and I will therefore not comment on the reactions to Part I and Part II and the overall endorsement of the Director-General's introduction and of the policy orientations which are contained in the concluding part of the Plan.
Let me come right away to key policy issue raised by a large number of delegations, and that is the relationship or possible relationship between the Medium-Term Plan and the resource aspect. In a way, the debate yesterday afternoon and this morning is a mirror of the debate that took place at the last Conference on this issue, and we should face that fact.
There is nobody here who represents a Government which is prepared to commit itself over a six-year period, whether a developing or developed country. Also there is some difference in perception and desire. There is a group of Member Nations who, because of their inability to commit themselves for the future, do not wish to deal with resource requirements over a six-year period, whereas there are others who say, "Even if we cannot commit ourselves, we want to see how the Organization would respond at different resource levels, and that is why the resource aspect should be covered in the Medium-Term Plan." Mr Chairman, I do not see any problem if
the Conference wishes the resource aspect to continue to be addressed while all of us recognize no commitment can be expected. In fact, let us be realistic; if we are going to consider the resource aspect in the future, surely this is not going to be done in any idealistic way. The Director-General has given one perception of a resource option of a 5 percent increase, but we know - the Secretariat as well as all of you - that this is not a realistic scenario for the present or for the foreseeable future.
However, I very much respect the point of view expressed by Member Nations who would like to see different resource projections in order to make choices because, when we come to the setting of priorities, it can be done on a resource constant basis or a resource variable basis, but for the purposes of your consideration I would submit that both are equally useful.
The second part of my response will be on specific questions that were raised, and the first point that I address is the remark made by a number of delegations asking for closer coordination with other partners and other organizations. We have clarified this in the document itself but in response to the debate I would point out that coordination and collaboration is a two-way process, and it is up to Member Nations not only to ask for more collaboration in the fora of FAO but also in other fora, where the comparative advantage of FAO sometimes has to be recalled because, just as you recall to us here that there are other organizations which in certain areas are perhaps more competent or have a greater capacity than FAO, by the same token, there are situations in other fora where the comparative advantage of FAO will need to be recalled by you as Member Nations of this Organization.
The second point was about indications of lower priority, and I listened very attentively to the interventions, among others, of the United Kingdom and Denmark, who asked that in the future we make a greater attempt to indicate the lower priorities rather than just the higher priorities. Again, that is accepted. I understand what has been asked but I would point out that it is perhaps useful to bear in mind two aspects of priorities: relative priorities and what one of the last speakers, Belgium, refers to as the "aspects qualitatifs de priorité". Both these points are important. In the Medium-Term Plan we are not listing the priorities. We are not saying only what is given here is of priority. We are trying to indicate relative priorities as we see them over a six-year period, and they will be less precise than we need to make them in the context of the Programme of Work and Budget.
The third specific question was on the Regular Programme and Field Programme relationship. There were two thoughts which came out very clearly. One was that we have to preserve, strengthen and enhance FAO's backstopping capacity for the Field Programme because that is the main reason why the Organization is engaged in technical cooperation: it has a need and a capacity to give technical support to this process.
The second thought was that FAO should be more selective in the choice of projects. Mr Chairman, you will recall that this issue was discussed at length throughout the FAO Review and at the last Conference, and I would only go by what the Conference itself has chosen as its direction, that is, it is Member Nations who decide what technical cooperation to seek and how much of this to seek from FAO. It is a question of responding to their needs. Having said that, the Secretariat is prepared and I certainly look forward to participating in the debate you will have on the cost
arrangements and other proposals which the Director-General has put before you. I think that debate will help us focus more than I would like to do at this stage on the Organization's role in the Field Programme.
I can link the fourth and fifth points. The fourth point was about the strengthening of some offices of FAO representatives, and the distinguished ambassadors of Colombia and Lesotho both asked whether this was a possible revival of the concept of Sub-regional Offices. I do not put it in quite such stark terms. What we submit and recognize is that a number of FAO Representative Offices at country level have the capacity and the need to assume greater responsibilities for Programme activities both regarding the Regular Programme and the Field Programme which go beyond the confines of one country. If that is a more cost-effective utilization of resources, by all means let us pursue it. We have done it in a number of cases. We have had cases, for example, where a Fisheries advisor is stationed in the office of an FAO Representative in one of the Caribbean countries but he supports other Caribbean countries. We have done this with Animal Health. We have done this with Plant Protection. The concept can also be applied to field projects, Tuna Management in the Indian Ocean. Those are examples we can follow.
Related to this, were some comments about the capacity of Regional Offices. I believe it was the Representative of the United States who asked, "Are we contradicting ourselves?" On the one hand, we are reducing the resources for Regional Offices in the next biennium. On the other hand, we are indicating in the Medium-Term Plan areas where Regional Offices should exercise greater responsibilities. I hope that we are not contradicting ourselves. I hope that, on the one hand, the reduction of resources is for the next biennium specifically. We are not saying that over six years the Regional Offices are going to continue to have increasingly lower resources. So it is only for the forthcoming biennium.
Despite these reduced resources, as always my colleagues, the Regional Representatives and we at Headquarters try to find ways of working more effectively, being more effective. When it comes to collaboration with other organizations, I would already draw your attention to a document which you will consider under Item 22.2 of your Agenda. This is scheduled for Wednesday of next week and it is on relations with inter-governmental and non-governmental organizations. I think this year you will find that this document is particularly clear in pointing out the relationships not only between FAO at headquarters and these other organizations, but the relationship between FAO at Regional Offices level and these organizations correspondingly in the same region.
The sixth specific point which was raised was about capital budgeting. I am not at all embarrassed that we included it, but the Director-General agreed to include this in the Medium-Plan Term, and neither the Finance Committee nor the members who spoke to this issue have cared to welcome it. However, may I submit that we look at it this way?
The idea of the capital budgeting is that you have an organization here which has existed for 46 years. You approve its programmes and the budget for only two years at a time, but perhaps, whilst none of us is eternal, there is some reason to consider that this is an ongoing Organization. You are not about to close it down, I do not think. You perhaps want it to continue for a few more years. So, from that point of view, are there not certain issues which need to be considered by you in the medium-term? There
are issues and there are areas where it is a question of capital investment because the investment is of such a nature and is of such a magnitude that no Director-General, I think, would presume to present a capital investment project within the confines of a biennial budget; nor would you want to consider it within the confines of a biennial budget. However, it was an idea which was submitted for your reaction. I accept that the Conference is not ready for that idea but what I still venture to hope is that this idea may not be forgotten and, if not in our time, I hope it will be raised in the lifetime of our children and that the idea will come not from the Secretariat but from the Member Nations themselves.
The seventh specific point was a comment and the question raised by the representative of the United States in relation to work in international trade. The distinguished representative referred to the section on page 106 of the English version, paragraphs 57 and 58.
First of all, I take his point about possible implications of the phrase "virtual disappearance of any regulatory activities in international commodity agreement". The question was, "What do we mean by that?"
What we mean by that is that, during the past decade, there has been an increase in protectionism with which I am sure the distinguished representative of the United States would concur. At the same time, the International Commodity Agreements, several of which the United States is a member, have lost their bite. They lack economic clauses. This is the development - a fact - to which we are drawing attention in this sentence.
Secondly, the same representative regretted the lack of mention of GATT, and the desire for a more liberalized world trading system. This is not the intention of the Secretariat and, if we have not emphasized this point enough, I would ask you to correct that. We attach great importance to all the issues, as can be seen, for instance, by referring to the last sentence of the following paragraph, paragraph 58, where we note that the work of Codex, including cooperation with GATT, will be pursued vigorously. We have also made this point elsewhere in the document on page 63 where we indicate the close support of GATT, and again in our discussion on Programme 2.1.8 which is on page 154. I refer to paragraph 253, where we again draw attention to the Uruguay Round.
The eighth specific point to which I refer is that raised by the distinguished representative of Austria. I must say that I was shocked when I heard him. There is no excuse for his Government's not getting documents in time and in the right language. On behalf of the Secretariat, I apologize. I sensed his ire when he made these remarks. If I shared his ire, I would put the people against the wall and have them shot. However, we work in a peaceful Organization, so I will look into the matter, I will consult my colleagues and I will ask them to ensure that such things do not happen again.
This brings me to the last point of my response which is, firstly, where we are and where do you want us to go from here?
I would start by drawing attention to something which was said in the Programme Committee and which has been said by you, whether implicitly or explicitly, throughout your debate. The importance of this Medium-Term Plan, however much you like it, is not in the document, is not in the book, is not in the paper; the importance of it is in the process, the process by
which you, through Conference Resolution 10/89, made us think about it, the process by which you yourselves, Member Nations, are thinking about it, the process by which you want to use medium-term planning and the thoughts and the ideas for your discussions in the Regional Conferences, for your discussions in the Technical Committees of the Council, and for your discussions in the next version of the Medium-Term Plan. So, it is the process to which I think you attach importance and the use you will make of the success of the Medium-Term Plan.
If I have grasped well that wish and that idea which you have, then we are all on the right lines as far as the Secretariat is concerned. That is the way in which the Secretariat can see itself helping you and responding to you. I think all the comments that have been made about the future are comments which are constructive. If they are constructive we should use them in our future work and in our future deliberations on the Medium-Term Plan irrespective of their timed duration.
My very last point - thank you for your patience - is on the future versions of the Plan. The Director-General gave the two options without expressing a preference for either. He really left the matter in your hands, in the hands of Conference. I find that the debate has been very clear. If Conference would so agree, if you would so accept, Mr Chairman, I think it would be more useful to think of the consensus of the wishes rather than just doing a numerical addition of those who want Option I and those who want Option II. We can all do the numerical calculation very easily. It is clear that there are more countries who have spoken who prefer Option I to Option II, but I would submit that the choice need not be as harsh and need not be as clear cut.
Let me then distil what are the issues to which all of you attach importance; one is that you wish the next version of the Plan to be shorter. I think we should respond to that, no matter what the future version of the Plan is.
Secondly, when the Conference took the decision to have medium-term planning, and if you so repeat that now, you will want to consider the Medium-Term Plan at each session of the Conference.
It is not that you only want to consider it every six years, as is done in the UN General Assembly - there they have a Medium-Term Plan and they consider it every six years - but you have said you want to consider it every two years.
The third point is that irrespective of the option, when you consider the matter every two years you do not want to limit yourself to 1997 because that is the end of the first Medium-Term Plan. When you meet again in 1993 - when we meet again I hope in November 1993 - you will want to consider the period up to 1999, and so on. So this is the rolling part of the Plan.
That brings me to my fourth point of possible consensus, that is a short document considered every two years looking two years further ahead. But what is the difference between Option I and Option II? In Option I, certainly we would take into account the changes in the world, what are the major differences in the factors which influence FAO, which have an impact on FAO, and there will be all kinds of factors which I do not need to list, not just Conferences but other factors too. But you do not want a
supplement in the sense of a five or ten page document which you would have to add to the one which you have now. You will want a self-contained document. We can do that also. The only difference in all this and what was intended in Option II is that we will not do a major exercise of rethinking the Medium-Term Plan.
As most of you have accepted, that would be done every six years, but in the consensus which I am trying to distil I think the wishes of these who want Option I would be covered, as would the intent of those who have said that there are aspects of the second option which they prefer. So I will not elaborate further. I think I have made my point, and if that be the wish of the Conference we will try to reflect it all in the report which will be submitted to your Drafting Committee.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr Shah. I think you have covered broadly the problems which have been raised. It is impossible to cover each and every point, but broadly speaking I think this has been done in the right way.
If I am to sum up, let me say first that it is not my idea that the Drafting Group should be tied down with a Chairman's summary; it is only indications. Again, I do not want to cover all aspects, but I want to bring out some points. Partly this will be a repetition of what Mr Shah has said. I think we have a report before us which almost everyone feels is a good report. Quite clearly, this is the first major attempt at making a Medium-Term Plan. What was done 20 years ago was not at the same level, frankly speaking. Clearly, this being a first attempt, it can be improved for the future. I noted one thing which the delegate of the United Kingdom said and which Mr Shah took up, that is, that the process of this is as important as the outcome. I could not agree more. This is really what we all want to see.
Obviously, a Medium-Term Plan should not be a strait-jacket. The delegate of Colombia mentioned that point, which is very important. Another point which was touched upon by a number of delegates concerns the resources and priorities. I want to stress - and it is, after all, the general attitude -that priorities can be made at whatever level the budget will be. It is not necessarily a question of new resources; it is a question of, in future versions, taking more into consideration what we can call low priorities. It is also a question in general terms for the Organization partly to define main priorities and partly to concentrate its work more on main priorities. I feel that that last point about concentration is a very important one in FAO's future work. One cannot help everyone with everything. That is impossible. I have been using those words in connection with WFP, and they are equally valid here.
In discussing this item, I think almost all delegates have supported the provisional indications of the main priorities.
Yet another point which has been mentioned by many is a double problem. It is a question of good inter-agency coordination in all main activities of work. These problems have come much more to the fore in the past two years, with a lot of difficulties involved. It is important when Mr Shah said that FAO cannot work alone in coordinating with others. There has to be some will on the other side, and there we, as governments, have a main responsibility.
The other part of coordination is coordination inside FAO. I think we should all bear in mind what is written in this document and in some of the other documents. A lot has gone on in the past two years in intensifying coordination inside the Organization. This is very important for all of us. You have not come to the end of the road because there will be new problems, but you have come a long way.
I can use Mr Shah's words for the last point in my summing up: Where to go? I think we agree - let us call it in simple terms Option I or Option II -that future versions of this report should be shorter. That is one point. I think there are too many details in the present document. A number of delegates mentioned that. The kind of amalgamation of Option I and II which was mentioned is a very good way of doing things. In practical terms that means that in two years' time you add another two years at the end but you do not go into the details.
This question of the Medium-Term Plan should be discussed fully at each session of the Conference. We owe that to the whole reform process, and I think it would be valuable equally for the Secretariat and for Member Governments. We would then have a fuller version of it after six years. That combination should be a good one. I leave the actual drafting of the words on this main point first to the Secretariat and then to the Drafting Group.
This is in no way a complete summing up, but I hope it is some direction for the Drafting Group. Are there any comments? There are no comments and the item is closed.
CHAIRMAN: Now we move on to the Programme of Work and Budget 1992-93. The main document is C 91/3, and there are Supplements.
If I may make a few comments before giving the floor to Mr Shah for the introduction, we have to realize that this is a much more complicated item that the former ones. It is complicated in two ways because, first, there are two important points which are not being dealt with in Commission II but in Commission III, that is the Special Reserve Account and the Working Capital Fund. In both cases there are Draft Resolutions to be considered in Commission III. Here we have the Programme of Work and Budget in general, the content of the Programme of Work and Budget document, and to that we added a Resolution.
We also have - and I think it would be better to hear Mr Shah's comments afterwards - the Programme Budget Process, with another Draft Resolution. To some extent that is a Secretariat affair, and before opening the discussion I think we should be quite clear as to the extent to which we can deal with problems in general terms and to what extent we have to separate part of this item for consideration later on.
We have this morning, this afternoon, tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock sharp, and a meeting tomorrow afternoon. After that, this item goes to the Drafting Group and we have a special procedure so as to put us on the Plenary for voting on the Budget.
V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): As you have said, Mr Chairman, there are a number of issues which the Conference is invited to address. My introduction to this item will therefore be in three parts. The first one is about the proposals of the Director-General for the Programme of Work and Budget for 1992-93 as presented to you in the document that you have.
As we have already finished discussing the Review of the Regular Programme and the Medium-Term Plan, the Conference may find it useful to situate the context of its discussion. You are now considering the Programme of Work and Budget proposals for the next biennium and, as you decided yourselves, this is not in isolation. There was the first part of the Review of the Regular Programme which you felt would need to be borne in mind and would need to be recalled as you consider the proposals, there is the context of the Medium-Term Plan in which these proposals are placed. In the coming days you will also consider the Review of Field Programmes which is as relevant.
For those Representatives who have been attending the meetings of the Council, what I am now about to say may be superfluous, but since not all Member Nations are represented in the Council I beg your leave to draw attention to a few points relating to this item.
The Director-General presented his proposals for the Outline Programme of Work and Budget to the joint meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees in January of this year. His initial proposal contained a proposed real programme increase of 2.25 million dollars, which represents 0.34 percent of the recosted budget base of this biennium. This little increase that the Director-General has proposed is far below what he would have wished to propose to take into account the demands made on the Organization. Nevertheless, the modesty of his proposal is a mark of his realism. Even this, as was apparent from the Committee's reaction, would not permit consensus or unanimity on the proposals, and the Director-General indicated his readiness consequently to refine his proposals on the basis of no real programme increase while respecting the programme priorities which the Programme and Finance Committees had endorsed. This basis of no programme increase was subsequently endorsed by the Council, both in relation to the summary Programme of Work and Budget which the Council examined last week.
There has been a striking cord of unity in all the inter-governmental Bodies which have so far examined these proposals with regard to the programme priorities.
They have been endorsed by the Programme and Finance Committees, they have been endorsed by the Council and I will not list them all as they are in the document before you.
Of course, the areas to receive additional resources in the context of no overall increase means that there are areas which will have reduced resources and this is a matter of regret to Member Nations who have so
indicated. There will be reduced resources for the Regional Offices, for administrative and support areas and for a large number of Technical and Economic Programmes. To any distinguished delegate who says that we have no lower priorities, I would appeal to them and draw attention to all the programme areas which are going to get less programme resources.
One of the most important aspects of every biennial Programme, as you know, is the request as it relates to the provision for cost increases. At the time of the Outline and Summary of Programme of Work and Budget the provision for cost increases had been estimated at some US$87.3 million. This estimate gave rise to some concern on the Council especially with regard to the impact on the overall budget level and on resulting assessed contribution from Member Nations. I am pleased to report, Mr Chairman, that in the light of these concerns and in the light of updated information we have trimmed the figure to US$82.9 million. I emphasize that a great part of these costs, the cost increases, relate to decisions already taken or known. Our estimates of cost increases in previous Programmes of Work and Budget have tended to err on the conservative side and this has brought in its wake enforced programme cuts to the detriment of the approved Programme of Work, but once again the Director-General prefers to choose this path of being conservative and not requesting provision even on a number of items where we know with certainty that the costs, the higher costs, will occur and will have to be incurred. That completes the first part of my presentation, Mr Chairman.
The second part of my address concerns the Technical Cooperation Programme and there are two issues regarding this programme which are in the document before you. The first relates to the level of the TCP as a share of the approved budget and in the current biennium the TCP amounts to 11.9 percent of the approved budget. In the proposed Programme of Work and Budget the TCP, despite an increase of US$4 million as a programme increase, and just under US$6 million for cost increase, would still remain at 11.9 percent of the proposed budget.
Mr Chairman, we are perfectly aware and the Director-General regrets that at this time he is not in a position to respond to the directives given in Conference Resolution 9/89 of the last Conference. That Resolution invited the Director-General to make every effort in order to restore the resources available to the TCP to the former level of 14 percent of the total Regular Programme budget and, if possible, to raise it to 17 percent. Despite the increase that is being proposed by the Director-General, as I said, the share does not change because of the context of no overall increase. In a budgetary programme where there is no overall increase it is not possible for the Director-General to consider channelling further resources to the TCP. Nevertheless I should make it clear that the Conference directives always stand as far as we are concerned and the Director-General has every intention of trying to respond better, and more positively, to these directives in the following Programme of Work and Budget proposal for 1994-95.
The second aspect of the TCP proposals, Mr Chairman, is a proposal which the Director-General submits on his own initiative for indicative country allocations of TCP resources. After setting aside amounts for regional projects, for emergency projects, and an amount for contingencies, the formula for the distribution of the balance by country is based on the UNDP indicative planning figures, the IPFs. The Director-General took the initiative, as I said, to submit this proposal and he has made it only in
the general interest of greater transparency because he is aware that there are some Member Nations who wish to see this kind of information and who wish to have a greater say in advance of the distribution of TCP resources.
Despite submitting this proposal, Mr Chairman, the Director-General has also made it very clear in the document that he recognizes - he stresses -that by its very nature the Technical Cooperation Programme is unprogrammed. That was the very heart of the concept of the TCP when you supported it in 1976. Secondly, the member countries who received TCP assistance themselves have not expressed any wish to have any different system. They have not said that they want indicative country allocations and in the discussions which have so far been held in the Programme and Finance Committees and the Council it has become clear that the reception to these proposals is not exactly positive.
Mr Chairman, above all else the Director-General has asked me to stress that he would appeal to the Conference and he hopes not to have any controversy on this proposal; that there will be no misgivings, it will not lead to jealousies about Member Nations or any sense of false competition. That is not the intent of the proposal. In the document the Director-General has stated that he hoped the Conference would consider the proposal with all its aspects of flexibility and with whatever changes the Conference wanted to introduce. At this stage of the consideration, after the two Committees and the Council, I would say that if the countries most concerned, the countries receiving TCP assistance, are so much against this proposal as they have made us understand, then, of course, it is for you to say but I think it would be better for Conference to pronounce itself clearly and to say, "We do not want such a change" and give the reasons for it.
One distinguished representative in the Council had even suggested that the Director-General may wish to withdraw this proposal. He has not asked me to do that. The proposal is before you but I think the reactions of Member Nations are clear enough and the Director-General respects whatever position you take.
The third subject of my presentation, Mr Chairman, and this is again an issue on which the Conference is requested to pronounce itself, concerns the Programme Budget formulation process. This is the second Programme of Work and Budget which is the result of a process which began with the Outline Programme of Work and Budget. This procedure was introduced on an experimental basis in 1988-89 at the last session of the Conference when it was decided to continue the experiment during this biennium and the Conference will need to decide on the future practice in this regard. I will not deal at all with the opinions of Member Nations. They have their sovereign opinions but there are two issues which are now before you, Mr Chairman. The first is the possible continuation of the Outline step on a permanent basis. On this point the Programme and Finance Committees and the Council have recommended that the Outline step become an established feature of FAO's Programme Budget Process and that appropriate amendments be introduced in the Basic Texts of the Organization. At the stage of the Programme and Finance Committees this recommendation was unanimous.
Accordingly, the Director-General submitted to the Committee on Constitutional and Legal Matters (the CCLM) and to the Council last week proposals for amendments to the Basic Texts which are now before you in
document LIM/9 on this matter. Therefore, Mr Chairman, the Conference is invited to pronounce itself and to examine the amendments proposed to the Basic Texts.
The second aspect of the subject which has also been examined by the Programme and Finance Committees and the Council relates to other measures but this time these are measures suggested by the Director-General with a view to their implementation on an experimental basis in 1992-93, that is to say, in the coming biennium including the formulation of the 1994-95 Programme of Work and Budget which we will do in the next two years. These suggestions consist of four measures. Firstly, a shorter Summary Programme of Work and Budget which would avoid duplication with the full Programme of Work and Budget; secondly, a more uniform and meaningful involvement of the Technical Committees of the Council, that is to say, the Committees on Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry, in considering the future Programme of Work and Budget; thirdly, a rescheduling in calendar of the consideration of the Medium-Term Plan by the Programme and Finance Committees and by the Council.
It is proposed that these Committees examine the Medium-Term Plan at their May Session, and the Council at its June Session, thereby addressing the longer-term prospects in a more logical fashion and reducing the pressures in these Bodies, in the two Committees and the Council at their autumn Session.
The fourth set of measures is an enhanced system of reporting, to which I already made a brief reference yesterday, and which would consist in a Programme Implementation Report dealing both with the Regular and Field Programmes and a Programme Evaluation Report, again dealing with the Regular and Field Programmes, each of which would be considered with an improved schedule; that is to say the Programme Evaluation Report should be considered by the Programme and Finance Committees in May and by the Council in June, when they would have the time to accord to this document, which would then come to the Conference, of course; and the Programme Implementation Report to be considered by the two Committees in September, the Council in November, and then by the Conference itself.
Now all these four sets of measures, Mr Chairman, are expected to have a clear impact in terms of reduced duplication in all discussions of the Governing Bodies, which are designed to lead to a more productive use of your time in the consideration of these documents, and a more realistic schedule of programming. None of these measures were conceived for the convenience or for the benefit of the Secretariat. They are not. They will not require less effort. If anything, in order to make them successful, if you approve them, they will require more effort, but the Director-General submits them in your interests and for your consideration, and these measures are described in greater detail in the document LIM/9 which gives the full proposal of the Director-General, the views of the Programme and Finance Committees and the views of the Council.
To conclude, Mr Chairman, the Director-General hopes that the Conference will find that his proposals for the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium provide every basis, every opportunity for achieving consensus approval at the Conference. While providing for no overall programme growth, they present programme priorities which are endorsed by all. The provision for cost increases has been trimmed while providing for
effective implementation of the Programme of Work, which the Conference may approve. The Director-General very, very much hopes that the Conference will see its way to approving these proposals by consensus.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Shah, for your introduction. I think the matter has been very clearly presented.
I think it might be worthwhile trying to have this discussion in two parts; one covering the Programme of Work and Budget as a whole and TCP, and the second part covering the Programme Budgeting Process. I do not want to prevent delegates from talking about everything at the same time, but I think it might be easier if we divided it up this way.
Now the item is open for discussion. I have two speakers on my list, Pakistan and Madagascar. It would be useful to have a bit more. Poland, Congo, Thailand. We can make a start.
Mohammad Saleem KHAN (Pakistan): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Since I personally am taking the floor for the first time. I would like to express my personal congratulations and my pleasure at seeing you in the Chair of this Commission. We worked together in the CFA. It is really a pleasure for me to be working once again with you. I would also like to extend my deepest appreciation and thanks to Mr Shah for his very elaborate explanation, and we would also like to abide by your proposal to divide our discussion into two parts. I will be going into greater detail in my second intervention.
My delegation had the opportunity in the Ninety-ninth and Hundredth Sessions of the Council to express its detailed views on the proposals for the Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium 1992-93. Therefore it is not our wish to make another elaborate and extensive intervention over here, but just to touch upon a few major points. We welcome the spirit of consensus which has evolved over the budget level and the budget priorities, between Member Nations so far, and thank the Director-General for his efforts in this regard. In this spirit, Pakistan wishes to endorse the proposed budget level along with the linked financial Resolution, as the minimum level necessary, I repeat, the minimum level. We hope other delegates will not insist on further reductions in this level or propose further absorption of cost increases.
We also wish to reiterate the views we expressed in the Council opposing the principle of zero growth, or of negative growth, as two factors which are retrogressive and unrealistic, as the requirements of the developing nations still stand. We hope that a better international economic situation and understanding between Member States would permit an increased budget level next biennium, which would enable FAO to respond to the needs of developing countries on the basis of their actual requirements.
The delegation of Pakistan is also willing to support the proposed appropriations for the Technical Cooperation Programme in the same spirit. Nevertheless, we feel disappointed that it has not been possible to achieve the level for the TCP envisaged in Council Resolution 8/89. We agreed to
the present low level, being conscious of the difficulties of the Director-General in this regard, but strongly underline the need for closer adherence to the levels identified in the said Resolution of the Conference for the succeeding biennia.
While we speak on TCP, my delegation would like to note its conviction that the existing arrangements for TCP implementation, by virtue of their flexibility and responsiveness to the needs and requirements of Member Nations, particularly the developing Member Nations, have distinct advantages which need to be preserved and maintained. While we appreciate the efforts of the Director-General to submit new arrangements in deference to the wishes of some members for a more regimented system, Pakistan would stress that the status quo should be maintained.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, in our honoured capacity as Chairmen of the Asia Group, we wish to reiterate the expressed request of the Asian members for an effort to address the needs of the Asian Region under the TCP on the basis of actual requirements of the Region.
We in Asia feel that the present average annual level of 23-24 percent of TCP dispensations in Asia is not commensurate with the actual needs of the Region, based on its population, poverty levels and needs. We certainly hope that the Director-General and his staff would be able to redress this during the next biennium.
The Asian Region also wishes to express its appreciation to Mr Shah for his statement on the regional study for Asia and the Pacific Region made in the Hundredth Session of the Council. The Asia Group feels strongly about the need for a separate comprehensive regional study for the Region on the pattern of studies carried out for four other Regions of FAO. However, being cognizant of FAO's financial difficulties and constraints as proposed by us in the Council, we would appreciate a modest start on this study in the coming biennium, and its completion over an extended time-frame.
After having heard Mr Shah respond to another delegate, if Mr Shah would keep his six-shooter in his pocket and allow me the temerity to ask him a question, we would appreciate if he could confirm, in pursuance of his comments in Council, whether this modest request of Asia could be accommodated in the proposals for the biennium 1992-93? i.e., the proposal to make a start in the 1992-93 biennium.
My delegation believes that we, the Member Nations, have been really harsh with FAO by constricting the availability of finances which are necessary for the Organization's smooth operations. We must be more realistic, since we all appreciate the services the FAO provides to us and wish it to continue to do so with the same quality and at the same level. My delegation therefore feels the proposals in respect of the increase of the Capital Fund and replenishment of the Special Reserve Account are more realistic. We note from your opening comments that the Resolutions will be discussed in Commission III and we will be giving our detailed views in there.
Meanwhile, we would confine ourselves to endorsing the proposals in regard to the enhancement of the level of the Working Capital Fund and the replenishment of the Special Reserve Account.
Ipso facto we would also support the proposal to maintain the lapse factor at 3 percent.
Not intending to go into the procedural issues mentioned by Mr Shah, but merely to refer to the Resolution on amendments to the Rules to give permanence to the additional step in the budget process, once again we would give our views in Commission III on the Draft Resolution. We would, however, like to note that my delegation will be glad to support the proposal for adoption of this interim measure on a permanent basis, should we find at the end of the present debate a general consensus built up on the financial proposals for the next biennium.
Finally, my delegation also wishes to endorse the draft amendments relating to the modalities of the Trust Fund relating to WFP.
Raphael RABE (Madagascar): M. le Président, étant donné que c'est la première fois que ma délégation intervient au sein de cette Commission, je voudrais vous féliciter très chaleureusement pour votre élection. Nous vous assurons de notre collaboration bien entendu. M. le Président, permettez à ma délégation de manifester sa vive reconnaissance à l'endroit de M. Shah pour la présentation très claire et pragmatique de ce sujet pour le moins difficile et compliqué.
La délégation malgache a déjà eu l'occasion de faire part de ses commentaires lors de la présentation du Programme de travail budget 1992-93 au Conseil à sa centième session, et a pu donc communiquer à cet important organe de la Conférence la position de son Gouvernement à l'endroit du projet.
Nous voudrions réitérer nos félicitations au Directeur général pour les efforts qu'il a fournis pour faire en sorte que le projet de Programme de travail "Budget" puisse recueillir le consensus lors de son adoption par la présente Conférence. C'est dans ce noble esprit de concertation et de coopération que la délégation malgache accorde son appui au projet, malgré de fortes réticences amplement justifiées. Bien entendu, nous nous emploierons à donner les raisons à de telles réticences.
En fait, nous ne pouvons pas ne pas regretter profondément que des Programmes techniques, vitaux pour le redressement de nos économies, vitaux pour la relance de notre développement, aient été soit supprimés, soit réduits à leurs simples expressions. En effet, comment expliquer les réductions opérées, par exemple sur le Programme 2.1.1.3, sur le Programme sur les engrais et l'aménagement des sols, au moment où justement la Conférence régionale de la FAO pour l'Afrique a lancé le Programme international pour la conservation et la restauration des terres agricoles africaines?
Est-il logique de vouloir relancer l'utilisation des engrais dans la région, et en même temps réduire ces Sous-programmes? Et en matière de transfert des technologies et de l'assistance que le Secrétariat doit fournir aux pays en voie de développement, pour que ces derniers bénéficient des nouvelles technologies, comme l'a prescrit par ailleurs la Commission sur les ressources phytogénétiques et le Conseil, comment peut-on comprendre les réductions au Sous-programme 2.1.2.1 sur les ressources phytogénétiques, programme relatif à l'appui aux Etats Membres en matière
de formation et d'information? Encore plus inacceptable à notre sens est l'amputation opérée à tout programme visant à renforcer et valoriser les ressources humaines dans les pays en voie de développement.
Nous ne pouvons que déplorer les réductions consenties au Sous-programme 2.1.6.5, sur le Codex Alimentarius juste au moment où le Groupe de 77 a lancé et lance un appel insistant pour qu'aide et assistance soient accordées aux pays en voie de développement afin qu'ils puissent prendre une part plus active aux sessions du Codex.
D'autres nombreuses réductions douloureuses pour nos pays et notre Région pourraient encore être relevées, par exemple dans les domaines des forêts et des pêches. Mais je m'en tiendrai là pour ne pas prolonger outre mesure mon intervention. Et je voudrais, si vous le permettez, passer à d'autres éléments du projet de budget.
La délégation malgache, qui a appuyé à plusieurs occasions, et notamment à la Conférence précédente, la Résolution 9/89, se sent elle aussi un peu découragée de constater que les dispositions pertinentes de ladite Résolution n'ont pas reçu d'exécution positive.
Le taux ridiculement bas de 11.9 pour cent du budget réservé au PCT aura comme conséquence entre autre une accumulation des demandes insatisfaites, donc un recul dans l'assistance que la FAO est tenue d'apporter aux pays en voie de développement. Une fois de plus l'Organisation ne pourra pas jouer pleinement le rôle qui lui est dévolu, à savoir celui de leader en matière d'agriculture et d'alimentation pendant la quatrième décennie. C'est tout simplement déplorable M. le Président.
Un des éléments du projet qui a occasionné beaucoup d'interventions lors du Conseil est la question d'augmentation de coûts.
Sur ce sujet, ma délégation voudrait tout simplement faire sienne la position du Conseil formulée au paragraphe 7 du document C 91/LIM/10.
Bien entendu, comme toutes les délégations, nous apprécions les efforts faits par le Directeur général pour réduire les augmentations de coûts. Mais il est impératif de préserver l'efficacité de l'Organisation, et se garder de la mettre en péril au moment où tous les Etats Membres sans exception souhaitent la voir plus efficiente et plus à même de réaliser le mandat qui est le sien défini par les Textes de base. Il faut en outre, comme l'a reconnu le Conseil, protéger l'intégration des programmes retenus.
M. le Président, n'étant pas sûr de pouvoir intervenir à nouveau, je voudrais vous demander de m'excuser de ne pas suivre votre conseil quant aux points relatifs au processus du Projet Budget Programme. Permettez-moi de dire quelques mots s'il vous plait, à ce sujet.
Comme auparavant, nous voudrions déclarer à nouveau que nous conditionnons notre appui à la poursuite du système, à l'obtention du consensus lors de l'approbation du Projet de Programme et Budget 1992-93 par la Conférence. Et, comme il est stipulé au paragraphe 2 du document C 91/LIM/9, nous aussi, nous estimons que toute décision sur cette question devrait être prise après que la Conférence ait adopté le budget.
Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): M. le Président, comme pour les autres points déjà examinés, c'est avec une attention toute particulière que nous avons examiné les différents documents destinés à servir de base à notre débat sur le Programme de travail et budget 1992-93 de la FAO, document qui nous est soumis.
Nous remercions M. Shah pour son exposé introductif, toujours et constamment brillant. M. le Président, ayant été étroitement associés à toutes les étapes de la nouvelle procédure de préparation de ce Programme de travail en notre qualité de membres du Conseil, et ayant donc eu déjà plus d'une occasion pour faire valoir nos principales vues en la matière, à ce stade de l'examen nous serons brefs pour éviter de nous répéter inutilement.
Nous nous félicitons des améliorations appréciables apportées par le Secrétariat à cette édition du document du Programme de travail et budget que nous trouvons assez clair et bien détaillé. Ce document répond aux recommandations des organes directeurs de l'Organisation et s'insère bien à notre avis dans le droit fil des grandes orientations contenues dans le Plan à moyen terme 1992-97 que nous avons examiné et recommandé à la Plénière précédemment.
Ce faisant et dans un esprit de compromis, il ne nous reste plus qu'à confirmer notre appui aux priorités de programmes retenues dans ce document et qui reflètent les avis et indications que nous avons donnés au Secrétariat tout au long de la procédure de préparation.
Dans ce même esprit de compromis, nous appuyons aussi l'approche adoptée par le Secrétariat dans la ventilation des besoins en ressources qui seront nécessaires pour l'exécution des différents programmes.
Bien que nous soyons ouverts à la recherche du consensus, nous ne pouvons pour autant pas cacher notre opposition ferme et résolue au principe de croissance zéro pour une Organisation telle que la FAO, dont la plupart des Etats Membres sont des pays en développement ayant d'énormes besoins d'assistance. Nous apprécions à leur juste valeur les efforts déployés par le secrétariat pour contenir encore plus les coûts des différents programmes, pourvu que ceux-ci n'aillent pas jusqu'à saper l'efficacité de l’Organisation.
Ceci étant, nous ne nous opposerons pas cependant à l'approbation par consensus du niveau général de ce budget par la Conférence.
Tout en nous félicitant de l'augmentation nette prévue pour le PCT, nous déplorons que son niveau ne soit pas conforme à l'esprit de la Résolution 9/89 de la Conférence qui invitait le Directeur général à tout mettre en oeuvre pour établir ces disponibilités dans la fourchette de 14 à 17 pour cent.
Nous exhortons en conséquence le Secrétariat à garder l'oeil sur ce voyant pour l'améliorer dès que la situation financière de l'Organisation le permettra. Nous sommes en faveur du maintien de la souplesse actuelle du PCT, et ne pensons pas qu'il soit nécessaire de procéder à des affectations des ressources du PCT par pays ou par région. Quant à la nouvelle procédure du Budget Programme, tout en reconnaissant son utilité et en prenant note du désir du Comité du programme et du Comité financier de la rendre permanente et de l'améliorer suivant les propositions du Directeur général,
nous nous permettons de rappeler qu'elle avait tout de même une finalité bien précise, à savoir permettre l'approbation du Programme de travail et budget de l'Organisation par consensus. Nous souhaitons que cet objectif ne soit pas perdu de vue dans la décision que nous aurons à prendre pour le maintien ou non de cette procédure. Et à cet effet, la manière dont pourra être adopté le Programme de travail budget 1992-93 - soumis à cette session de la Conférence est sans nul doute en bon test.
Pour terminer, nous voudrions également nous associer entièrement avec les considérations faites par le représentant de Madagascar concernant les réductions des programmes jugées prioritaires pour l'Afrique, à savoir "les programmes engrais", le programme "le CODEX Alimentarius", "les forêts" et "les pêches". Comme lui, nous sommes tout à fait d'accord pour que les différentes Résolutions traitant du point en discussion soient introduites à la Commission III, Commission des Résolutions, où nous aurons l'occasion de nous exprimer plus en détail sur ces différentes Résolutions.
Je vous remercie.
CHAIRMAN: On the last point, of course, that will be done.
Ms Malgorzata PIOTROWSKA (Poland): I would like to start my remarks by congratulating the Director-General and his staff on the successful eradication of the New World screwworm from Libya, thereby saving the African continent and perhaps other areas from a very serious potential threat. When the problem was first described to us at COAG in 1989 and the measures that needed to be taken to stop it, I must admit that my own delegation as well as many others doubted if the Organization really could solve it. A plan was made to eradicate the screwworm over a two-year period at a cost of over US$100 million. It is indeed gratifying to be informed now that FAO was able to complete this task in less than one year at only half that cost. This experience shows us that, as in the case of the locust emergency, FAO is a vital and efficient Organization, which is able to bypass bureaucratic webs and respond effectively to a problem. It confirms our trust in the Organization and the qualifications of its staff. We are also pleased to see in practice the close cooperation and support FAO had in this case from the International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Fund for Agricultural Development.
We strongly feel that FAO should use this experience to take up the fight against other insect pests, using Integrated Pest Management, including the highly effective Sterile Insect Technique. We need to protect our livestock and crops from insects, but we do not want to have to rely on heavy doses of chemicals potentially harmful to our health and the environment. Could this method be used to eradicate our crop pests, for example the Colorado potato beetle and insects attacking fruits and vegetables.
The priorities in the ensuing biennium as outlined in the Programme of Work and Budget do reflect the views expressed at COAG and the Council, and have received the support of my Government.
However, over the time elapsed since the last FAO Conference, my country, as well as most other countries of Eastern Europe, have undergone profound political and, as a result, economic changes. These changes have, of course, not left our agriculture untouched. The political and economic
framework under which our agriculture operated has been drastically changed. Our farmers and our agricultural leaders are probing for ways to adjust to the new circumstances. We need to make our agricultural production more competitive and more profitable. We need to increase the income of our farmers.
Therefore, we urge FAO to put priority on policy advice. We need guidance from international experts on free marketing systems, food distribution systems, advertising and presenting our agricultural produce in a saleable manner.
Furthermore, my Government gives full support to the emphasis being placed on the quality of food and its effect on human health, and looks forward to the outcome of the International Conference on Nutrition.
Ministries of Agriculture have always looked to FAO as the central authority for the information on agricultural statistics, production levels, market prices, as well as predictions and forecasts. We are, therefore, particularly pleased to see the developments regarding WAICENT, and do feel that in the future this aspect of FAO's activities is likely to become one of its most appreciated contributions to increasing food supplies and enabling authorities to adjust their agricultural sector to global climatic as well as economic variations.
Turning again to the environment and sustainable agricultural development, we do not wish to add too much to the large and increasing chorus of voices being heard in anticipation of UNCED. Everyone looks to Rio as if this were a magic event to show us the solution to our ecological woes. We certainly hope Rio will mean a change in the tide, and result in the preservation of our planet, our only home. We do feel that FAO will have a strong voice on these matters before and during the Rio Conference. In the face of such a strong gathering of green activists and ecologists and environmentalists with various competence, we feel it is important that the voice of the farmer be clearly heard. He is the main user of our environment and his livelihood and well-being depend on how he will be permitted to harness his soil, water, crop and livestock resources. Most importantly, the farmer is the person on whom the fate of our soils depends.
Only with his cooperation and support for our environmental policies can we hope to secure our future with both enough food and a healthy soil, vigorous crops, sufficient water and thriving forests.
FAO must make the farmer's voice its own and be heard clearly at Rio and beyond.
With regard to the allocation of funds to the Fisheries Programme, the Polish delegation suggests that it should be at least at the level of the current biennium in order to meet the urgent needs for advice and assistance on fisheries management and policy issues, fishery economics in general for developing countries, including countries from Eastern Europe.
Vanrob ISARANKURA (Thailand): Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Thai delegation and myself, I should like to join with the previous speakers in congratulating you on your election to the high office of this Commission. I also wish to congratulate the Vice-Chairmen.
Before I make my few comments on this important item I should like to thank Mr Shah for his lucid introduction.
As regards the Programme of Work and Budget for 1992-93, my delegation feels that we have to accept the budget level as proposed by the Director-General, although my delegation has never accepted the zero growth concept. We recognize that to formulate a realistic budget the Director-General has to take account of the reality of the Organization's financial situation and the difficulties of many Member Nations in meeting their obligations.
However, when we carefully consider the proposed budget, the programme priority and area of increased budget in detail, we realize that the proposed budget allocation for the Technical Cooperation Programme is too low in comparison with the high priority given to the TCP in the last Conference recommendation.
In this connection, we wish to recall that at the last Conference we adopted Conference Resolution 9/89 as proposed by Thailand and another 22 countries. This Resolution stated clearly that, starting from the budget year 1992-93, at least 14 percent and up to 17 percent of the total budget must be allocated to Technical Cooperation Programmes.
However, today we learn from the proposed budget that the share of the TCP in the total budget amounts to only 11.9 percent which is lower than the minimum level stipulated in the Resolution. On this occasion we should like to appeal to the Commission to re-examine the proposed budget for the Technical Cooperation Programme, otherwise all the Conference Resolutions would be meaningless to the Member Nations.
My delegation sincerely hopes that the Programme of Work and Budget for 1992-93 will be adopted by the Conference by consensus. However, in reaching the consensus, we should also try to implement the Resolution which was adopted by the last session of the Conference, in particular, Conference Resolution 9/89.
Concerning the proposed use of the TCP resources for 1992-93, my delegation would like to emphasize that, by its very nature, it is unprogrammed. Therefore, my delegation is of the opinion that the present practice would be re-intensified.
The meeting rose at 12.45 hours.
La séance est levée à 12 h 45.
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas.
