STATEMENT BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
Mr Chairman,
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We might at times be tempted to think that fate rules over our plans and expectations. Armed with our intelligence and experience, and with an impressive array of technology at our disposal, we strive today to dominate nature and history, to plan the event, to anticipate the unexpected, to halt the tide - in short, to impose a preconceived order on the world. And the harder we try, the more reality appears to elude us.
After years of work and negotiation to instil a fairer and more stable world economic order, we have recession, monetary turmoil and the collapse of Third World economies. Instead of victory over hunger and malnutrition, which several decades of work seemed to presage, we are losing thousands of lives every day to famine. And the lives of millions more men, women and children are severely diminished for want of food.
The number of known and unknown tragedies rises each day: Africa, Yugoslavia, the rubble of the former Soviet empire - not to mention the heavy toll of destitution, hunger, ignorance and disease in Latin America, Asia and parts of the Near East, and the mushrooming pockets of poverty in the industrialized world.
Must we accept this as our fate? Since the international community and its institutions seem powerless to cope with these situations, should we resign ourselves to the onslaught of forces beyond our control? Of course, there are limits to what we can do, but no setback or suffering has ever made humankind give up the common struggle to make the world a better place, or renounce the pursuit of peace, order and justice. Our faith in the United Nations, which today embodies the aspirations of the international community, is based on the simple and steadfast conviction that though we may not be able to determine the course of events, we can at least have a hand in influencing it.
Why then have our efforts has so little effect on events? Perhaps, simply because we have neither invested heavily enough nor acted with sufficient coherence and force. If we look more closely at our response to crises, we can see that everyone - individuals, companies, governments and even the international community - tends to react in a one-off, mean and piecemeal way. When we decide to do something, it is usually "too little and too late", to quote Churchill. So much could be done to ensure the survival and well-being of all, and yet only in times of war do we see governments try to forestall events, willing to spend lavishly, to squander human and material resources, and to accept prolonged and painful sacrifices and impose them on their people.
In any case, I am proud to state that FAO, yes, FAO, has never bowed to the temptation to minimize dangers, always making every effort to foresee emergency situations and persuade its Member Nations to intervene in time and on an appropriate scale. Somalia is, alas, a clear case in point. In late December 1990, the fighting that had broken out in Mogadishu forced us to evacuate our early warning team. Nonetheless, as early as February 1991 we reported on the worsening food situation, subsequently issuing bulletins virtually every month which were in fact urgent calls for help. Without burdening you with the details, I would ask you to look again at
the reports of our Global Information and Early Warning System. You will see that for almost two years we kept calling for immediate action from the international community because food stocks were running low, harvests could not meet requirements, only a fraction of the relief was getting through to those in dire need and thousands of lives, particularly children's lives, were being lost to famine. On top of this, I do not know how many telegrams I sent to Member Nations repeatedly asking for specific help.
We have done our duty, which is to inform and to warn, persistently, yes, persistently. But though we managed to mobilize a considerable volume of food aid, neither FAO nor WFP has the force to intervene - the muscle that is unfortunately needed today - to make sure that relief gets through. The relevant bodies of the international community are trying to come up with solutions, but countless difficulties lie in their path.
Though we did not specifically envisage such a violent and deadly structural break-up, we have long foreseen the need for immediate responses to crisis situations. For almost ten years - in fact since April 1983 -I have repeatedly put forward specific proposals to the Committee on World Food Security and to the Committee on Food Aid Policies and Programmes to increase the resources and improve the operations of the International Emergency Food Reserve, the IEFR. What I have proposed is: to give the IEFR the status of a binding agreement; to supplement the annual target of 500 000 tonnes with an immediately available reserve of between 500 000 and 1 million tonnes; to earmark for the IEFR a portion of the cash contributions made under the Food Aid Convention; and finally, and above all, to pre-position stocks either in the countries at risk or in the ports of the donor countries so as to speed up delivery. However, these proposals have not inspired consensus and so have come to nothing. But I remain convinced that determined action of this sort would have, and could still, put us in a better position to cope quickly, flexibly and forcefully with emergencies while, at the same time, reinforcing the multilateral nature of the IEFR. I would like to point out that the Reserve is administered by WFP, not FAO.
Our ever-increasing efforts to effect an upward re-evaluation of agricultural exports from developing countries spring from this same commitment to alleviate suffering and redress injustice. For a number of years, I have reverted to this issue in every statement I have made, in view of its key importance. Most developing country exports consist of tropical commodities such as coffee, tea, cocoa, sugar, bananas, cotton, and rice, the real prices of which have spiralled downwards for decades, making it impossible for the producer countries to clear their heavy burden of debt and to pay for the imports they need. To turn this situation around, the industrialized countries must revise their entrenched attitudes and look a little beyond their immediate gain. Though negotiations have been under way for years, a reversal of this nature has still not occurred. Nonetheless, our determination to bring about a new economic and trade order, more stable and fairer for all, is unfaltering. We can hope that the conclusion of the multilateral trade negotiations of the Uruguay Round will bring about a significant improvement in the prices of tropical products.
In this connection, I would like to draw attention to an area which might seem irrelevant to such an order: phytosanitary control. The GATT negotiations have highlighted the need to counter the emergence of differential national and regional phytosanitary regulations, which would in effect occasion undeclared but very real restrictions on trade. Hence the recommendation for transparency, with international standards, directives and recommendations geared solely towards preventing the spread of plant pests and diseases. In 1991, the FAO Conference endorsed my proposal to set up a Secretariat for the International Plant Protection
Convention within the framework of our Plant Production and Protection Division. This is a new unit with a clear aim to facilitate trade in agricultural products. At the request of the contracting parties in GATT, the unit will provide expertise in cases of disagreement on the impact of plant quarantine measures in trade. The Secretariat will liaise with regional plant protection organizations and monitor the formulation of common principles, directives and standards. It will develop a mechanism for their international adoption.
The joint decision of FAO and WHO to organize the first major world conference on nutrition is part and parcel of our refusal to believe that the hunger and malnutrition, today affecting 780 million of our fellow human beings, is preordained and unavoidable. The aim of this conference, which will take place next month and to which you are all invited, is to identify the nature and scale of the problem, to analyse its causes and, together, to come up with realistic solutions. The spirit of solidarity, the energy and the clearsightedness that marked the preparatory meetings augur well for the success of this conference.
As everyone knows, a major effort is now under way at the UN General Assembly, under the impetus of the new Secretary-General, to restructure the entire economic and social sector. Generally speaking, this admirable undertaking aims to give the international community a firmer grip on events and, in particular, permit a more effective response to the issues of peacekeeping and international development.
Some of the scenarios envisaged, however, raise some doubts and even concern. One line of thinking would, in fact, like to see the entire sector organized around a single policy centre which would plan, programme and supervise all activities. This centre, which would be the UN itself, would establish the guidelines for the entire system. On each major issue, for example poverty, ECOSOC and the General Assembly would draw up programmes concerning all agencies and would oversee the execution of these programmes.
This idea, attractive to some, is a dangerous one in that it overlooks historical reality. At a time when central planning has led to so many resounding failures, it would be erroneous to forget that the UN system is by its very nature a polycentric one and that the unique character of the individual agencies must be preserved. Each agency has an irreplaceable wealth of experience and expertise. The pooling of this wealth can have a synergistic effect of the greatest possible benefit to international development. Were the specialized agencies to be confined to subsidiary tasks, their vitality, creativity and even, in the long term, their competence would be undermined. For competence grows mainly through fruitful interaction in work, in thought, and through the exercise of responsibility.
What I fear for our Organization is that changes directly affecting FAO might be introduced without hearing our opinion on the matter. What I ask for is prior consultation so that virtually irreversible decisions are not taken without the General Assembly having all the relevant information before it.
This observation applies to all the agencies of the system but it is particularly significant in the case of FAO. Our Organization has, in fact, already carried out a thorough reform which puts it in a position to operate even more effectively than before. For two years our activities were painstakingly reviewed by independent experts whose conclusions were unanimously approved by the Conference in 1989. Since, then, despite a shortage of funds, we have been at pains to implement scrupulously the changes that were advocated. Just as scrupulously, we report everything we do in this connection to our governing bodies.
I should like now to outline briefly how FAO is equipped to tackle, now and in the future, the difficult tasks before it.
To begin, a word on our financial situation, which while not of crisis proportions in its basic context, continues to cause serious problems. The basic context is healthier because the last Conference approved the Programme of Work and Budget by consensus and decided on the strengthening of the Working Capital Fund and the resources for the Special Reserve Account. The beginning of the settlement of arrears by the largest contributor is also a key improvement. However, the timing of payments still involves a hand-to-mouth financial survival. At the beginning of October, the total resources of the Working Capital Fund - US$23 million - had to be advanced to the General Fund and, a few days ago, US$16 million from the Special Reserve Account had to be advanced to the General Fund. However, I am relieved to know that the United States has just settled its 1992 contribution.
As you know, our available operational resources are determined by the Programme of Work and Budget. We are already hard at work preparing the 1994-95 Programme, and I should like to share openly with you some of my thoughts on this vitally important matter.
The consensus for the 1992-93 budget involved a unique compromise: approval of the full Programme of Work but with an appropriation of US$31 million less. This amounts to a decline of 4.6 percent in real terms against the budget for 1990-91. It is true that the Conference decided upon this solution while stressing that it "should be considered as an exceptional one, not setting a precedent.
I recognize that the forces of opinion regarding the next Programme of Work and Budget are not very different. I am aware that the Member Nations contributing the largest part of our budget wish to see no budgetary growth. I am sensitive to the problems experienced by the poorest Member Nations and those experiencing the greatest economic difficulties.
On the other hand, the vast majority of Member Nations do look to FAO to respond to their needs. And these needs continue to grow, not only arising from the growth in world population and from greater complexities of development problems but from new demands, as is evident from the results of the UN Conference on Environment and Development.
The challange for me is to present, once again, a Programme of Work and Budget that can bridge these paradoxes and permit a consensus; one that will again show the vitality of our programmes in having the greatest relevance, impact and effectiveness, while remaining within budgetary limitations. It is not the submission nor the approval of the Programme of Work and Budget that are important in themselves. What is crucial to the life of the Organization is that, following Conference approval, Member Nations ensure the conditions for programme implementation, for which their timely contribution payments are a prerequisite.
One factor I shall have to bear in mind is the forseeable enlargement of our membership, which already includes the three Baltic States who joined in 1991. Five other countries of the former USSR have made inquiries in some form or other on procedures for admission. Two former members of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia have applied for membership and a third has requested information. I would recall that the seat of this previous Republic is still held by the State which today includes Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo and Vojvodina.
Many of these countries, and others in central and eastern Europe, are in need of enormous assistance. The requests they submit resemble those we receive from developing countries. The lack funds to respond to these requests is sorely felt, funds we shall have to find without reducing our assistance to the Third World or placing excessive burdens on our Member Nations. At the very least, we should begin by envisaging an expansion of our Regional Office for Europe whose staff and resources are currently at a bare minimum. We shall also have to explore new avenues if we are to take on sizeable projects.
It is now accepted that the private sector is a more powerful promoter of development than the public sector. Indeed, private sector cooperation with the UN is intensifying. With regard to FAO, certain partnerships may well offer very interesting possibilities. I have therefore begun to look into how we could partially involve the private sector of agro-industries, without jeopardizing our independence in any way. This option will of course be explored with all due care and, if it proves feasible, specific proposals will be submitted in the next Programme of Work and Budget.
Our effectiveness is also conditioned by Headquarters accommodation and here, as you can see, we are making good progress. We shall soon be bringing home some of our hitherto outlying services, and can hope to group all of our Rome staff under one roof by the end of the biennium. In this connection, I should like once again to commend the understanding and generosity of our host country which has borne the cost of the renovation works and new buildings. This magnificent gesture on the part of Italy will help us to bind our efforts and to work more effectively and economically. At the same time, we have completely overhauled our telephone and computer systems.
However, more than anything else, our ability to act depends on our staff: the men and women who bring to our mission a wealth of skills and dedication and a rich diversity of culture and languages. I have often shared with you my concern over the increasing difficulty of recruiting and retaining staff of the integrity and calibre we require. I have told you how the deteriorating conditions of service, remuneration and pensions have undermined our competitiveness compared with that of other organizations and the private sector. The potential threat this represents for the future of our staff has sharpened, rather than diminished, with staff unease about their present and future status.
I am thinking in particular of our General Service staff who are, with reason, worried about their situation. On the one hand, the methodology used to calculate their salaries on the basis of those prevailing in the private sector is being questioned. On the other, the calculation of their pensions has given rise to difficult debates both within the UN Joint Staff Pension Board and the International Civil Service Commission. The matters are now in the hands of the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly, but I should like to specify that the Administrative Committee on Co-ordination has reviewed the matter and has asked the General Assembly to defer a decision on these two issues. As for me, I wish to state again that I share the concern of our staff and will continue to support their cause in every way I can.
The agenda of this session of the Council is particularly full and detailed, and I have specifically mentioned only a few of the many items before you. But, as you look at each, I hope you will recall the theme of my address today; the will to improve the human condition and the refusal to accept that hunger, poverty, underdevelopment, economic injustice, depleted natural resources and environmental degradation constitute our allotted fate. It is from this perspective
that I should like to conclude, by raising what is to my mind the paramount issue for the future of our Organization.
You can see from what I have said that we are certainly not short of ideas, nor of good programmes to give reality to these ideas. What we do lack, unfortunately, are the funds and staff we need to work with the drive, flexibility and steadfastness that today's and tomorrow's world demand. The main issue now is what role FAO will be able to play in actively shaping the future as a truly multilateral, democratic and independent intergovernmental organization. The bipolar hegemony of the past must now give way to pluralism, to a community of nations where consensus does not constitute the right to veto.
As you know, our effectiveness largely depends on you. We count on you to provide us with the resources we need to accomplish our mission and, more important, the independence and dynamic inspiration we need to maintain credibility. We know that innumerable problems will continue to affect our efforts and that, sometimes, the constraints will be more than we can handle, but knowing this should not lead us to give up or despair. The sailor masters neither the wind nor the sea but, with his skill and determination, he can use both to reach his chosen destination.
I wish you every success in your work.
Thank you.
