The statements on behalf of the Nordic Countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, from the 129th session of the FAO council.
129th session of the FAO Council
Rome, 16-18 November 2005
Statement on behalf of the Nordic Countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden
Agenda item 4: Programme of Work and Budget 2006-2007
Mr Chairman and Distinguished Delegates,
1. Finland speaks here on behalf of the Nordic countries: Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland. We fully align ourselves to the EU statement on the Programme of Work and Budget.
2. The FAO membership has called for different budget scenarios, but at the moment there are effectively five of them to be discussed in the Council and Conference. These are the ZNG, ZRG, and RG scenarios from the Programme for Work and Budget; and the RG and HRG scenarios from the Supplement. Furthermore, the Additional information provided on the reform package presents again a different budget scenario. Even though the total sum is based on the Real Growth scenario, the budget structure is different to the ones presented in the Supplement.
3. The greatest problem with the budgetary scenarios is that even with the additional information provided on the 24th October it is difficult to compare the proposals. Hence, due to the numerous scenarios and their structural differences, it is hard to see what the budgetary scenarios actually mean on the programme level. As laid out at the moment, the original purpose for presenting the different scenarios seems to work against itself now.
4. The Nordic countries have always put an emphasis on the transparency of processes to guarantee a good outcome. With regard to the budgeting procedure of FAO, we once more want to highlight the value of having a thorough discussion in the Programme and Finance Committees, like we have in the technical committees. The importance of openness and dialogue in the process cannot but be stressed. This year the Programme and Finance committee had too many items on their agendas to discuss them all thoroughly. Therefore the committees focused mainly on the reform proposals in their deliberations. The time seems not have been sufficient for a thorough debate on the Programme for Work and Budget, which is regrettable.
5. The Nordic countries put added emphasis on forestry, fisheries, gender issues, genetic resources, Codex alimentarius and International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) as high priority areas in FAO's work. These operations must be sufficiently funded.
6. We also believe that FAO has an important role to play in setting up international regulatory systems and distributing information. For instance, with the current outbreaks of the avian influenza, FAO is in a central role in both strengthening the national capacities for identifying the disease and taking necessary actions, and in strengthening the information, reporting and networking capacity of the countries. FAO, together with OIE and WHO, provides the central intelligence in the combat against further spread of the disease.
7. The Nordic countries feel that FAO is in an excellent position to stress the role of agriculture and rural development as means to combat hunger and poverty. We feel that FAO should focus further on defining its comparative advantages and increase its cooperation with other international organisations to be able to both fulfil its mandate and to take its rightful place in the international development architecture and for achieving the Millennium Development Goals. FAO emphasized in connection of the document "the Millennium Development Goals: the Road ahead" the need for a uniform system where normative and operational activities complement each other. Unfortunately this is not reflected enough as regards prioritization in the PWB.
Mr Chairman,
8. The extra-budgetary funding accounts to roughly half of FAO's budget. The Nordic countries have called for FAO to openly plan and publicise the way in which the extra-budgetary resources are being mobilised. The extra-budgetary resources shape the work of FAO - the operations that receive extra-budgetary funding tie up FAO personnel and resources. Hence they are also linked to the way the organisation can use its regular budget. We are glad, therefore, to notice that in the current document, the Programme for Work and Budget, the trust fund contributions are mentioned also on the program level. This allows for a better understanding of the share of regular budget compared to extra-budgetary funds on the program level. This is also a good start for further discussions on the role and modes of extra-budgetary funding of the organisation.
9. The Nordic countries call for a political as well as technical decision in the coming days for finding a settlement on a budget. The agreed budgetary level should make it possible, within reasonable limits, for the organisation to obtain an adequate match of resources and requirements. We believe that this requires a budget level in line with the ZRG proposal. The At the same time, the Nordic Countries want to see that, given their special nature, the After-Service Medical Costs and Security costs are handled separately from the regular budget.
10. Finally, concerning the FAO reform, we welcome the initiative of the Director General. We also want to participate constructively in the process of building consensus on how to proceed. The Nordic Countries are committed to the IEE process and see it as complementary to the reform, as stated by the Director General this morning.
Thank you Mr Chairman.
129th session of the FAO Council
Rome, 16-18 November 2005
Statement on behalf of the Nordic Countries: Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.
Agenda item 5: Joint Meeting of the 94th Session of the Programme Committee and the 110th Session of the Finance Committee
Mr Chairman and Distinguished Delegates,
1. Finland is speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries: Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland. We also want to give our support to the EU statements concerning the meetings of the Finance Committee and the Programme Committee and their joint meeting.
2. This year the discussion on the budget of the organisation was focused on the Director General's reform proposals. We would have liked to see a more thorough discussion of the Programme for Work and Budget in the joint meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees.
3. FAO reform proposals, as well as the simultaneous evaluation process, offer a good opportunity to look at the structure and work of the different committees, as well as their methods of working. We are pleased to hear that the investigation on the integration of the work of COAG and CCP is being discussed. The Nordic countries would be prepared to go even further: we think that it would be fruitful to consider the committee structure as a whole. This could be explored also in the independent external evaluation as one of the governance issues.
4. Another governance issue to be assessed should be the improvements in the information-sharing and ownership of the FAO processes. For example, the Finance and Programme Committee should consider a more open approach to their work, for instance, through opening up meetings for observers to follow the process. This would facilitate the information flow - and hence ownership of the planning and budgetary process of the membership of FAO.
5. We commend the Programme Committee for having reviewed the budgeting and planning procedures of other UN agencies. We would like the next Council to receive clear recommendations from the Programme and Finance Committees on how to improve the FAO procedures, in light of its own experiences and the procedures of the other UN agencies.
6. The problem of arrears and late payments has been discussed in so many occasions, but yet no real solution is presented. Yet, the reality is that late payments and arrears are putting the organisation's financial position at risk. Now it is the time to start acting upon the reality. Everybody knows that the organisation runs the risk to exceed its borrowing capacity if this years' borrowing level will continue in future. We appeal to each member country to try their utmost to comply with their assessed contributions. We also appeal to those countries which have difficulties due to the differing budgetary systems to find solutions to their systemic obstacles. It is in the common interest of us all that FAO's financial position becomes again healthy. The agreed attributions must be respected. The Nordic Countries furthermore recognise that there exists a viable system of sanctions and incentives. We believe that they should also be applicable in practise - and not only in theory.
Thank you, Mr Chairman.
