By Denis Aitken
ROME, Oct 4 2013 (IPS)

The current international situation is characterised by financial and economic challenges that in one way or another affect most countries around the world. In this context there is an increasing call to modernise state institutions, private sector companies, and civil organizations, whatever their remit may be.

International organisations have not escaped this debate, including those of the United Nations system, among them the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), which is responsible for matters related to food and agriculture. Modernisation and efficiency are the key concepts that currently dominate this ongoing debate.

FAO is taking very seriously the task of adapting the organisation to the challenges of the 21st century. Since January 2012, when José Graziano da Silva assumed the post of director-general of FAO, we have been working to fulfill two key objectives requested by the member states.

The first was to establish a new Strategic Framework that focuses on eradicating hunger in the world within the shortest possible timeframe. The new strategic objectives were approved by the FAO Conference in June 2013, which also required some changes to be made to the organisational structure of FAO.

The second objective is to transform FAO into a modern organisation that gives the utmost priority to efficiency and the optimal use of available financial resources. From the beginning of the director-reneral’s mandate, our focus has been to identify efficiency savings that do not hamper the organisation’s technical capacity nor the direct assistance that it provides to countries around the world.

During the 2012-2013 biennium a results-oriented approach was adopted to ensure that the impact of FAO’s work was evident in the field. In terms of improving efficiency, between January 2012 and June 2013 the organisation identified 67 million dollars in savings, primarily through the reduction of administrative overhead costs at FAO headquarters in Rome. This included, among other things, an austerity policy on travel and rationalisation of procurement and other services.

At the last meeting of the FAO Conference in June, member states gave their unanimous support to the transformational changes being carried forward by the director-general and expressed appreciation for the efforts made to date. However, the members requested that FAO identify additional efficiency savings of 37 million dollars, particularly staff-related costs, without negatively affecting the organisation’s ability to deliver on its programme of work.

This means that we have had to identify more than a hundred posts to be abolished, some of them vacant. Some staff accepted voluntary separation packages, which has left the cuts still affecting over 50 staff, mainly from areas such as technological infrastructure, administrative support functions, and the FAO Library.

The director-general has sought to fulfil the task entrusted to him by the member states, while keeping the negative impact on FAO employees to a bare minimum. A series of mitigating measures have been put in place, such as the redeployment of staff to vacant posts. In addition the separation package FAO is offering is robust, and has been attractive to some staff with many years of service to the organisation.

Naturally, the tough measures, although affecting a relatively small number of staff, are still meeting resistance from those directly involved, along with expressions of concern from colleagues across the organisation. We have done our best to minimise the number of affected staff, and to clearly explain the rationale behind the difficult decisions that are being taken.

We know this is a very difficult time for colleagues, and we are doing all that we can to help them. I am happy to see that the redeployment effort has begun and that the number of cases to be resolved is decreasing. Progress continues to be made with the full participation of the representatives of the staff.

We know that a collaborative work environment and enthusiastic staff are necessary in order for FAO to fulfill the critical mission in its mandate. For this reason it is important to provide assistance to affected staff as needed and this is in hand.

We in the United Nations system must modernise or we will become irrelevant, over- bureaucratic and ill-equipped for the times in which we are living. Yes, modernisation often comes at a cost in terms of colleagues who are affected by these processes, but in the end it will enable us to fulfill far better our responsibilities to those whom we serve.
(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)

Excerpt:

Romanian President Traian Basescu is close to being impeached after the Parliament suspended him Friday. The political crisis, however, distracts from citizens’ calls for a more responsive political class and a halt to declining standards of living.

Traian Basescu, originating from the centre-right Democratic Liberal Party (PDL), has been president since 2004 and is currently serving his second five-year mandate. He survived an earlier impeachment attempt in 2007: after the parliament suspended him, a referendum that went in his favour helped him keep power. But popular support for Basescu has dramatically decreased since.

Apart from the usual erosion of support for any politician in power, Basescu has lost sympathy on account of being the main proponent of austerity measures during the economic crisis, which in Romania were some of the harshest in Europe. State salaries were cut by 25 percent, most social benefits were slashed, and taxes increased to keep within budget deficit requirements associated with an IMF-EU loan of 20 billion euros contracted in 2009.

In January this year, Bucharest and other major cities saw unprecedented protests attended daily by thousands calling primarily for better political representation for citizens, and protesting declining standards of living. While the entire Romanian political class was a target of the January protesters, Basescu was particularly criticised for his perceived “authoritarianism”: the PDL government he appointed and kept a close grip on sought to pass important measures without parliamentary debate, including the healthcare privatisation law that sparked the January protests.

Basescu’s alleged authoritarianism and overstepping of his constitutional attributions has been invoked by the parliament as the reason for his impeachment both now and five years ago. This year, Romanians are expected to vote in a referendum on the impeachment by the end of the month. Preparing for this vote, the new Romanian anti-Basescu government has modified the referendum law through executive decree to make turnout irrelevant for the validity of the vote.

The current government is formed by an alliance (the Social Liberal Union, USL) made up of the centre-left Social Democratic Party of now Prime Minister Victor Ponta and the centre-right Liberal Party of current Senate President Crin Antonescu. USL took control of the executive two months back after the balance of power in the parliament shifted in their favour when a number of MPs changed their political affiliation from PDL to USL.

Despite using authoritarianism as a main criticism against Basescu, USL has been accused of using similarly heavy-handed tactics over the past two months. It replaced the heads of numerous public institutions, including the two chambers of parliament, the national ombudsman and the national television with USL members or allies.

In view of the impeachment, it not only modified the referendum law, but also changed the law governing the Constitutional Court to prevent the body from blocking the parliament’s impeachment decision. It additionally took control over the publication of the Official Gazette where laws have to be published to become binding.

Many people argue that the USL measures are forcing the limits of the law, rather than illegal. Nevertheless, the European Commission issued a press statement Friday expressing its “concern” about “the current developments in Romania, especially regarding actions that appear to reduce the effective powers of independent institutions like the Constitutional Court.”

In a consultative take on the impeachment, the Constitutional Court concluded that Basescu’s behaviour was stretching the limits of constitutionality, but nevertheless did not give grounds for impeachment. The Parliament voted for suspension nevertheless.

Responding to the impeachment vote, Basescu said: “Your main objective (of USL) is to achieve total control of the justice system (…) to defend criminals in your ranks. Your actions for the past two weeks are meant to deeply shake the rule of law and put it at the disposal of USL, with very negative consequences on the country.”

Both sides pitted against each other in the Romanian political crisis today stand accused of stretching legal limits. This is one of the main criticisms that the January protesters had against the Romanian political class.

“People on the streets in January were asking for Basescu’s resignation because of his authoritarian streak, the protests were targeting abuses of the rule of law,” sociologist Mircea Kivu told IPS.

In the days preceding the impeachment vote, hundreds of Romanians took to the streets of Bucharest and other cities again, with Bucharest clearly divided in three camps each located in a different square: pro-Basescu, anti-Basescu, and for the rule of law.

Kivu says protesters this week seemed more confused and less focused than those from January. “And this confusion will probably accentuate by the day,” he said, “there will be increasing divisions between the pro- and anti- Basescu camps as the referendum approaches even though this should not be the main concern, the main concern of people should be to distance themselves from abuses of power no matter their source.”

“January was for the first time when in Romania we heard protests against privatisations, against large corporations like Chevron (exploring for shale gas in Romania) or Rosia Montana Gold Corporation, against a deal with IMF that is absolutely destructive for the most vulnerable sectors of our society,” comments Costi Rogozanu from leftist platform Critic Atac.

“Now we have forgotten these issues,” Rogozanu told IPS. “While the Social-Democrats were raising some concerns about the IMF austerity requirements when in opposition, now they forgot about it and are rallying behind the predominant rightist discourse.

“The most serious threat to democracy we are seeing today in Romania is not the stretching of constitutional limits but the erosion of all social protection for our citizens,” Rogozanu added.