Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


9. Programme Implementation Report 1992-93 (continued)
9. Rapport sur l'exécution du Programme 1992-93 (suite)
9. Informe sobre la ejecución del programa (continuación)

LE PRESIDENT: Messieurs les délégués, nous avons eu une longue pause et j'aimerais insister particulièrement sur un point qui me tient à coeur: c'est que l'on puisse être, dans la mesure du possible, à l'heure, et par conséquent commencer à 14 heures 30, notamment pour les raisons que j'ai évoquées ce matin, à savoir que nous avons un calendrier très chargé et que nous ne disposons de pas beaucoup de temps pour satisfaire toutes les demandes d'intervention. Si nous voulons terminer dans les délais que nous nous sommes fixés, il faudra respecter nos horaires de manière à ne pas remettre en cause le principe de la pause. Sans tarder, je donne la parole au Représentant de la République de Corée.

Kwang-Wook AN (Korea, Republic of): First of all, I would like to congratulate you on your election as Chairman of Commission II. I am confident that your outstanding service will help us reach good results on all the items of the agenda under our discussion.

Concerning the current agenda item, I will make only a few comments.

As emphasized in para. 13 of the document C 93/8, I firmly believe that, at a critical juncture, when the world faces rapid changes, international organizations including FAO must meet increasingly complex and adverse challenges.

In this regard I fully appreciate that FAO has been dedicated to the search for a solution of the key issues such as environment protection, multilateral trade system-building of agricultural products and rural development.

In particular, I welcome that, to the maximum extent possible in the light of specific requests, advice for individual countries has emphasized the need for inter-disciplinary approaches, and that the emphasis on people in development has had a strong influence on the approach of many technical and economic programmes of the Organization.

In connection with the Uruguay Round negotiations, I would also like to express satisfaction on the activities of the FAO to assist the net food-importing developing countries in gaining recognition of their special needs.

Regarding the fact that while the world develops a greater understanding of the complexity of problems to be faced in many areas comprehensive solutions remain elusive, I sincerely hope that FAO will be more responsive to internationally-recognized priorities and be more active in assisting the Member Nations in key areas falling within its mandate.

As for the future versions of the Programme Implementation Report, I would like to express the preference for Option I, which presents the major advantage of immediate consideration of current information by governing

bodies and thus a greater potential for facilitating guidance on eventual corrective action.

Kenji SHIMIZU (Japan) : My delegation also joins with pleasure in congratulating you on your election as Chairman of this important Commission, and also other members of the bureau.

My delegation does not wish to repeat its remarks on the reports before us, as it has made its position clear already on past occasions, such as the One Hundred and Third and One Hundred and Fourth Sessions of the Council, where my delegation stressed in particular the importance of prioritization, streamlining, and transparency of our activities, with a view to improving efficiency effectiveness in view of the daunting and pressing challenges facing this Organization. At this juncture, however, my delegation wishes to associate itself with the remark in paragraph 6 of C 93/LIM/3 concerning improvement of future Programme Implementation Reports in terms of more precise information to assess the plans and targets.

In conclusion my delegation supports Option 1 on the future documentation of PIR.

Ms M. PIOTROWSKA (Poland) : Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Polish delegation we wish to congratulate you on your election. We would particularly compliment FAO for the very active part played by the Director-General and his staff in the UNCED deliberation resulting in the great emphasis which was then placed on sustainable development in food production and agriculture. As a result, FAO has taken a leading role in promoting sustainability in agricultural development. This role of FAO has the full support of my Government.

Another major event of 1992 was the ICN co-sponsored by WHO. The output of this major conference has indeed resulted in nutrition now being regarded as a central theme in discussions and project developments in food production. It is a sad thought to be aware of the almost 900 million people who go hungry every day. It is not only that they do not get enough food - the little food they get often lacks in essential amino acids, vitamins and minerals. It is a shame for all nations, especially the rich ones, that hundreds of children die of hunger and malnutrition every day. Think of the number of people dying of hunger during this conference when we discuss their plight during the day before dining on excellent and plentiful food at Rome's famous restaurants. I wish speeches and reports could also feed people.

We are also impressed with FAO's role in the drafting of the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as the Statement of Principles on the Management, Conservation and Development of Forests.

We would also like to compliment the Director-General on the important contribution he made to the Conference on Human Rights, where he rightly emphasized" that the right to food was to be considered one of the most basic of human rights.

My Government has also welcomed FAO's active role in exploring with the states of Eastern Europe their future direction, especially with regard to

the building of market economies and privatization of agriculture. We look forward to FAO's guidance on the adjustments which will have to be made in European agriculture. The Polish Government compliments the FAO on the role it played in the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. This will benefit world agriculture, particularly in developing countries.

We also appreciate FAO's leading role in the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and in launching the International Plant Protection Convention.

On the technical side, FAO's significant role in drawing the New World Screwworm Campaign in North Africa to a successful conclusion should be mentioned. It showed clearly that the Organization is capable of swift and effective action in the case of an emergency and that it has the technical skills to deal with such high technology applications as the radiation-sterilization of insects for their eradication. The same can be said of FAO's performance on Locust Control.

We are pleased to conclude that in 1992-93 FAO has continued to explore its "comparative advantage" to exercise its role as a world leader in food and agriculture.

Bo WILEN (Sweden) : Mr Chairman, on behalf of my delegation and personally, I should like to congratulate you upon your election as Chairman of this Committee.

My delegation would like to join others in commending the Secretariat for a well-prepared Programme Implementation Report. The document is one part -an important one - out of four documents which do not need to be repeated here any longer. This quartet forms a fine instrument to be used by the Members as well as the Secretariat for the planning, control and follow-up of the activities of the Organization. The discussion here today will certainly give inputs for further improvements of the coming versions of the report.

In this discussion, my delegation adheres to what has already been said by the delegates of Denmark and Finland. From that it follows that my delegation is in favour of Option I.

My delegation would like to dwell a little upon the Conference Document C 93/8-Sup.1 regarding Operational Activities for Development. This document tries to give a picture of FAO's implementation of the General Assembly Resolution 47/199. It takes up such important questions as the Country Strategy Note, Programme Approach, National Execution, Decentralization and the Resident Coordinator system. My delegation had hoped to see a richer and more problem-orientated document and a more active approach to these extremely important issues.

My delegation notes that FAO participates in inter-agency discussions on these matters in the framework of the ACC and others. That is good but, according to my delegation, not enough. For example, we should like to see a close cooperation start up between the Rome-based organizations on these matters.

In order to attract scarce resources for development to the agricultural, forestry and fisheries sectors, those organizations involved must continuously strive at better efficiency and smooth coordination with the rest of the system. What it comes to in the end is that all those in the UN

system who deal with operational activities define their respective roles in order to deliver together the best possible assistance to the developing world.

E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America): I should like to start by congratulating you, Mr Chairman, and the other members of the bureau for being chosen to lead our deliberations.

The document we are looking at for the first time is a very useful addition to the family of inter-related documents prepared for this Conference. Mr Shah's introductory remarks are appreciated. They provide a useful framework for eliciting members' comments. We have asked the Secretariat to prepare this report so that members can reflect on what has been accomplished in the current biennium before embarking on a programme of work for the upcoming biennium. While we do not expect the information provided in this report to be as lengthy and detailed as that provided in the Programme of Work and Budget, it should, to paraphrase the Director-General, cover the most important aspects of programme delivery. Moreover, an implementation report needs to encompass regular and field programme delivery by Headquarters, regional and country offices. The United States believes that the report before us accomplishes most but not all of what we would like to see in an implementation report.

On the first page we are told that this report is "not an accounting document" and that therefore references to financial issues are inappropriate. This seems slightly defensive, and does not give credit to some useful information contained in the report on expenditures. We believe that it is most appropriate for a Programme Implementation Report to reflect how resources were apportioned among the programmes implemented during the biennium. We also share the sentiments expressed by the Netherlands and many others regarding the apparent reluctance to discuss efficiency and comparative advantage.

Some delegations are using this document as an opportunity to highlight those programmes and activities which they deem most important. We will also briefly do this, but focus most of our remarks on the structure of the document, indicating the features of the report which are most useful to us.

Deputy Secretary Rominger highlighted some of FAO's important programmes in his Conference address earlier today.

We support the major activities that FAO has focused on during the current biennium. These include UNCED-related programmes on environment and sustainable development, plant and animal genetic resources, tropical forestry, the International Conference on Nutrition, expansion of trade-related activities such as Codex Alimentarius, and the Secretariat to promote the International Plant Protection Convention. Increased collaboration with the private sector and with CGIAR centres is noteworthy. FAO has responded admirably to the Desert Locust outbreak after successfully eradicating the New World screwworm.

After some difficult and time-consuming negotiations, FAO's important role in facilitating implementation of the Tropical Forests Action Programme has begun to take shape. We should like to know the status of the TFAP Consultative Group which was agreed at the last June Council. FAO's

leadership in forging agreement on global fisheries issues will hopefully be demonstrated later during our Conference.

Table 2.2 contains some useful information on resources allocated to the various major programmes both from regular and extra-budgetary resources. Does the wide disparity in ratios of extra-budgetary to Regular Programme resources tell us anything about the value of Regular Programme expenditures? We recall that the experts' review expressed concern about this ratio becoming too high. In areas where it is high such as forestry, one might conclude that donors are according a higher priority to an activity than does FAO.

The quantitative features outlined in Chapter 3 will be more meaningful after a longer time series has been developed. While this section is extremely informative, much of it is new, and it raises a few questions.

We were somewhat surprised that only 21 percent of the meetings were held at FAO Headquarters. Of the remaining 79 percent most of them were held at Regional Offices and in other locations. We were also surprised that FAO has 115 databases and we should like to know which of these are part of WAICENT. Are there plans to consolidate some of them?

Table 3.10 is especially valuable, showing the percentage of Regular Programme staff by major programme area going to field programme support. There is a tendency, though not a pronounced one, for those programmes with a higher percentage of extra-budgetary funding to be geared more to field programme support. The distribution of projects by programme area, region, dollar value and duration gives us a good overview of FAO's field programme structure. The increased attention to nutrition is well-justified. The concentration of Field Programmes in Africa also makes sense, but we wonder if this is by conscious design or primarily a function of Trust Fund contributions.

Regarding the use of consultants and experts from both developing and developed countries, it is important for the Organization to obtain technical expertise from all areas of the globe without employing any specific quota system. It is not surprising that developing countries now provide more than half of such expertise.

Chapter 4 highlights a number of technical achievements by FAO during the current biennium. Some of them are not so well known, and some of them are not yet fully developed. The Organization's involvement in UNCED follow-up work on plant and animal genetic resources has received considerable attention, including the process of preparing for the International Technical Conference on Plant Genetic Resources. Less known is the valuable work of the Plant Genetic Information and Seed Exchange Unit, which distributes seed samples to Africa. The progress made during the biennium on plant quarantine procedures, reactivating the Emergency Centre on Locust Operations, and developing an animal genetic resources data bank, are equally valuable activities.

We also want to compliment FAO on expanding the AGRIS-CARIS data base and updating the multilingual thesaurus.

During the Conference we hope to learn more of the myriad activities surrounding the improvements in statistical processing and analysis, including plans for further enhancement of WAICENT.

During the discussion of the State of Food and Agriculture, we shall have more to say on that important programme, but for now we would like to enquire about the involvement of country and regional offices in programmes 2.1.7, Food and Agricultural Information and Analysis, and 2.1.8, Food and Agricultural Policy.

In reviewing the data presented in each section, we find that they provide a good overview of what has been accomplished, but in some instances it does not have enough depth to be meaningful. Could a way be found to disaggregate the outputs by sub-programme without adding too much volume to the report? For example, it might be useful to disaggregate the TFAP activities by funding origin, thereby better demonstrating how FAO is broadening the TFAP process.

We would also have appreciated seeing how TFAP is being implemented in the field. Our overall impression is that too much attention has been given to the structural dimension of TFAP and too little to its technical content.

The United States appreciates the excellent material presented in Chapter 6 on the International Cooperative Framework for Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development. We strongly support this initiative. Not only have a number of outdated programmes been eliminated, but this initiative will place FAO in a strong position to implement key portions of Agenda 21 relating to agriculture, fisheries and forestry. We encourage the Secretariat to give high priority to allocating sufficient manpower and appropriate financial resources to build the required momentum and create linkages between the Regular Programme and extra-budgetary activities that will support the Special Action Programmes. We accord special priority to activities dealing with policy and programme assistance, plant and animal genetic resources, plant nutrition, pest management and tropical forestry.

We would like to make a few comments on the supplement to the Programme Implementation Report on operational activities for development. General Assembly Resolution 47/199 was a major effort on the part of Member States to strengthen the integration, coordination, coherence and delivery of all UN field activities. We welcome the preparation of the Supplement to this Agenda Item as as important addition. FAO's contribution to the UN system’s effort to implement this Resolution is critical and must continue. Development is a process, and this Resolution should reinforce all UN development activities. This document illustrates welcome efforts to achieve programme complementarity. It gives us an even better perspective on the programme implementation and should be an integral component of future Programme Implementation Reports.

Mr Chairman, we also believe, as others have said, that Option One is preferable for reasons mentioned numerous times earlier today. We also agree with those who have advocated greater use of targets and benchmarks in future reports.

Finally, we would suggest that future Programme Implementation Reports not be discussed as a separate Agenda Item during the FAO Council preceding the Conference. In our view, the Council discussion of the Programme Committee Report is the best place for Council to review this item.

LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie. Comme à l'accoutumée, vous avez soulevé un large champ de questions. J'ai vu que M. Shah avait pris note de toutes vos questions et il se fera un plaisir de vous répondre. Vous avez dû remarquer

la présence de M. Tedesco, Secrétaire général adjoint de la Conférence, qui a été chargé par le Président de la plénière de faire une annonce devant la Commission. Je lui cède la parole.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY-GENERAL: The Chairman of Conference has asked me to inform Commission II that at 16:00 to 16:30 Conference will consider the Second Report of the General Committee relating to the admission of South Africa, which may be followed by the relevant vote. The Chairman would like to ensure that an appropriate quorum is present in Plenary and kindly requests delegations to make arrangements for at least one member of each delegation to be present in Plenary this afternoon.

LE PRESIDENT: Je pense que les membres ont bien pris note de cette annonce et qu'à 16 heures, à la plénière, il y aura bien un membre devant chaque panneau de manière à permettre que l'adoption du rapport du Bureau se fasse dans les meilleures conditions.

C. KIEMTORE (Burkina Faso): Ma délégation voudrait avant tout vous féliciter, Monsieur le Président, pour votre élection à la présidence de cette importante Commission. Je suis personnellement convaincu que vous serez à la hauteur de cette tâche.

S'agissant de l'examen du Rapport d'exécution du Programme 1992-93, je voudrais m'adresser au Secrétaire général et à ses plus proches collaborateurs, M. Shah et M. Lindley, ici présents, et à ses collaborateurs absents, pour leur dire notre satisfaction quant à la forme et au contenu du document.

Ma délégation tient également à évoquer le dur travail et le dévouement du personnel qui oeuvre dans des conditions très difficiles.

L'examen du Rapport d'activité de la FAO pour 1992-93 est une occasion pour le Burkina Faso de renouveler à l'Organisation son soutien ferme. Je le fais avec d'autant plus d'enthousiasme que l'exercice 1992-93 a été couronné de succès. Ainsi pouvons-nous noter avec intérêt que dans un contexte peu favorable à la FAO, celle-ci a joué pleinement et efficacement son rôle de chef de file du Système des Nations-Unies chargé de promouvoir le développement agricole.

Ma délégation se félicite des victoires remportées notamment dans les domaines suivants : prévention et réduction des pertes causées par les ravageurs grâce à la mise en oeuvre de la règlementation et des mesures phytosanitaires, élaboration d'informations statistiques sur l'alimentation et l'agriculture et renforcement des systèmes nationaux de statistiques.

Par ailleurs, l'assistance technique fournie par la FAO dans le cadre du Programme de terrain e été très profitable aux Etats en développement pour lesquels le développement des ressources humaines et des capacités nationales demeure une priorité incontournable.

Enfin, le PCT et les missions d'études de Centre d'investissement ont permis à de nombreux pays en développement de finaliser des études stratégiques indispensable et d'établir un partenariat fructueux avec des organismes bilatéraux de financement.

Tous les points que nous venons d'évoquer ci-dessus sont une preuve irréfutable des avantages comparatifs de la FAO, points qui depuis un certain temps constituent la charnière de nos discussions.

Pour finir, l'avis du Burkina Faso sur la forme finale du rapport: nous sommes favorables à l'option l qui a été proposée dans le document présenté par le Secrétaire général.

Ms Katalin BAKK (Hungary) : The Hungarian delegation is given the floor for the first time in Commission II, and it is my pleasant duty to express our satisfaction on you having been elected Chairman. We will all benefit from your able guidance.

First of all, it is my pleasure to say that we think the new presentation of the Programme Evaluation Report and the Programme Implementation Report as decided by the 26th Session of the Conference seems to be proving itself an efficient tool for informing Member Nations in an easily digestible form about the achievements and constraints of the Organization. The document before us has not previously been considered by the Council and it is therefore felt that a closer scrutiny of the Report's objective and message would be appropriate. The general perception of this delegation on the Programme Implementation Report is favourable. The Report is helpful in making the Organization's field work and programme delivery more transparent than ever. We also like the format of the Report, and the number of "boxes", not only bringing home the points the Secretariat wanted to make by illustrating some aspects of its programming and development support work, but also making the text of the Report more easily readable. The same applies to the considerate use of charts and tables, which we do not feel are tools in themselves but more a visual aid to a quick and thorough understanding of the points put before us.

So far the Hungarian delegation has expressed its views on the format of the new Report, and the addressing of the options we have been invited to consider for the next Programme Implementation Report would now be appropriate. There are two major questions to consider. First, we must ask ourselves whether to have estimated data only for a half-year period, in this case for 1995, would seriously jeopardize the reliability of the report as a whole. Our answer to this question is no. The second question to be addressed is whether FAO Conferences felt it is their duty and privilege to review at every Session the status of the Organization's Programme Evaluation and Implementation Reports. Our answer to that is yes. Consequently, we are going for Option One, although this delegation could go along with a decision of the Conference delegating authority to the new Director-General to make his recommendation to the 1994 summer session of the Council for other arrangements the Director-General might feel to be appropriate.

I should now like to turn to some points of merit. The quantitative and qualitative analysis offered by the Report gives a good insight into operational and other programme-related matters. For the sake of brevity I shall refrain from making complimentary remarks on technical and economic programme and development support activities the Secretariat has reported on. I would just like to comment on two points the Report makes. My delegation is happy with the screening and appraisal of the TCP both as far as the concept and single projects go. Our devotion to this very important part of FAO activity proves not to have been in vain. Examples of recent TCP experiences in the Report demonstrate well many general aspects.

Hungary could supplement that list if required, and I must put on record our appreciation for the quality and speed of some TCP projects successfully executed by FAO in my country. At the same time, I cannot hide my feelings that the approval of some long prepared, drafted and agreed TCP projects could and should be speeded up.

My second comment refers to the food and agriculture policy assistance which FAO is performing. Paragraph 171 reports on sector and structural adjustment programmes. Earlier this year Hungary hosted an FAO delegation to review its meat policy and to make related recommendations. This policy assistance was certainly a pioneering exercise on the part of FAO.

I am not referring to the good quality of the work done but rather to the fact that this policy mission has so far been the only one in the financing of which FAO cooperated with the PHARE programme, i.e., with the European Communities programme established for the economic reconstruction of some European countries in transition. This joint operation was well received by my government.

My last remark refers to the declining delivery rate in FAO programme implementation activity. We are fully aware of the negative influences of a number of factors bringing about this adverse trend, such as the new support costs arrangements, the changing break-down of FAO's total portfolio of programmes, etc. Yet I cannot fail in saying that falling delivery is likely to increase the pressure on project management and sometimes this may cause some unnecessary cuts in FAO Field Programme size and putting the success of execution at risk.

Morad Ali ARDESHIRI (Iran, Islamic Republic of) (Original language Arabic): In the name of God, first and on behalf of my delegation, and particularly on my own behalf, I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to you for your election to preside over our meeting which is in my view the most important Commission of the 27th Session of the FAO Conference and to assure you of our delegation's support to the important part that you have undertaken and I would also like to congratulate your Vice-Chairmen for their election and express my thanks to Mr Shah for his as usual very clear and excellent introduction of the document before us.

Regarding the subject in present discussion my delegation supports the Programme Implementation Report 1992-93 and in brief, as indicated in the report of the 104th Session of the FAO Council, my delegation would prefer Option 1 of the proposed options. However, it is very important to evaluate and report the effect and results of programme implementation in connection with the objective of programme concern and mandate of FAO. In other words, we believe that it is vitally important to report the results of programme implementation, not only the programme implementation.

Lothar CAVIEZEL (Suisse): J'aimerais remercier M. Shah et ses collaborateurs du rapport qu'il nous ont préparé. C'est avec un très grand intérêt que nous avons examiné ce rapport sur l'exécution du programme 1992-93 et pris connaissance des commentaires qu'ont fait les délégations

qui sont intervenues dans ce débat jusqu'à présent1. Ce rapport donne un bon aperçu sur ce que l'Organisation cherche à faire et fait effectivement en matière d'activités opérationnelles.

Nous sommes satisfaits du centrage des activités de la FAO sur le suivi de la Conférence sur le développement et l'environnement et de celle sur la nutrition. Nous aimerions par contre dans un prochain rapport voir comment se traduit dans les activités de terrain ce centrage sur le cycle de vie du projet et sur sa durabilité en fonction des ressources disponibles. Cette réorientation a été facilitée par le nouveau régime qui attribue, entre autres, aux pays en développement un rôle accru dans le fonctionnement et l'exécution des projets financés par le PNUD, ce que nous soutenons. Cette nouvelle orientation permettra à la FAO de s'occuper de plus en plus de questions de politiques sectorielles, surtout de politiques agricoles mais également de politiques sous-sectorielles au lieu de se perdre dans des projets isolés.

Nous partageons globalement la conception des avantages comparatifs avancée par le Directeur général qui les définit par trois principes: universalité, neutralité et synergie. C'est grâce à son universalité que la FAO assure ses activités de collecte de données et de diffusion d'informations.

C'est grâce à sa neutralité et nous ajoutons également grâce à sa compétence que les Etats Membres s'adressent à la FAO pour obtenir des avis de politique générale ou des conseils techniques. C'est sur ce point que ma délégation désire un renforcement des capacités de notre institution en matière d'analyse des politiques sectorielles et sous-sectorielles et d'avis sur ces politiques mentionnées. C'est, en outre, grâce à la synergie de toutes ses activités que la FAO assure la validité de ses interventions techniques et de ses activités de formation. Par rapport à ce point nous encourageons notre Organisation à travailler en étroite coopération avec les autres institutions internationales compétentes en la matière.

Nous rappelons que les activités de la FAO doivent être profitables aux paysans et paysannes et s'améliorer dans le sens d'une agriculture durable. Le problème n'est donc pas seulement de caractère technique mais aussi un problème de politique économique, agricole et sociale.

Nous pensons ici en particulier à l'importance de la participation populaire en tant que droit fondamental de l'homme et élément indispensable en vue d'arriver à un développement socio-économique durable. Pour illustrer notre propos, nous nous référons à la mobilisation de l'épargne locale dans le cadre d'institutions financières rurales. Pour être performantes, ces institutions doivent être basées sur une forte participation des intéressés, une solide cohésion sociale et une gestion efficace. Ce sont là des conditions nécessaires pour obtenir un recouvrement satisfaisant des prêts. Cette démarche rappelle d'une part le principe économique de base qui veut qu'il ne peut y avoir de système viable de crédit sans épargne et implique, d'autre part, pour la coopération internationale que tout soutien financier doit éviter de concurrencer l'épargne locale. Elle aura également comme conséquence de réduire l'endettement à un niveau supportable qui permet d'assurer la capacité de remboursement du pays.


1 Nous soutenons en particulier les propos des délégations des Pays Bas, du Danemark, de la Finlande, de la France, du Royaume Uni, du Canada et du Mexique.

Nous nous réjouissons, en outre, du bon équilibre que la FAO a trouvé entre le nombre de consultants des pays en développement et des pays industrialisés, mais nous sommes par contre préoccupés par l'insuffisante qualité de bon nombre de rapports d'évaluation préparés par ces consultants.

Nous avons pris connaissance avec satisfaction des programmes d'action spéciaux du chapitre 6 et nous soutenons l'intégration des activités dans un nombre limité de programmes d'action spéciaux.

Nous aimerions, par ailleurs, connaître l'état de formulation et de disponibilité pour la mise en oeuvre de ces programmes.

A notre avis, il est souhaitable qu'ils attirent une part importante des ressources financières pour les activités de terrain et nous aimerions, par conséquent, connaître les ordres de grandeur que la FAO proposera pour la répartition de fonds extrabudgétaires entre programmes d'action spéciaux et autres projets de terrain.

En ce qui concerne les deux options proposées pour le prochain rapport d'exécution, nous soutenons l'option 1, c'est-à-dire la répartition des données réelles pour 1993 et 1994 et des estimations pour 1995. Ceci signifie que le rapport couvrira 3 années et pas seulement deux comme le rapport disponible pour 1992 et 1993.

J'aimerais en particulier soutenir la proposition avancée par la délégation française concernant la nécessité d'apprécier les activités de la FAO dans le contexte de la coopération internationale au développement, notamment FAO, FIDA, Banque mondiale, Banques régionales, CGIAF et les bilatéraux. Ce genre de présentation est en grande partie déjà disponible aux Nations Unies à New York. Une telle vue d'ensemble serait grandement appréciée dans un chapitre introductif qui décrirait les champs d'action des uns et des autres avec les ressources financières respectives.

En ce qui concerne les publications de la FAO, nous répétons ici qu'il faudrait faire une évaluation de l'utilisation faite par le public et des professionnels intéressés. Ce genre d'exercice a été récemment réalisé par la Commission économique de l'Europe et il a mis à jour un grand potentiel d'amélioration.

Sra. Hilda GABARDINI (Argentina): Como es ésta nuestra primera intervención, permítame felicitarlo en nombre de la delegación de mi país y expresarle nuestra seguridad de la eficiencia con que conducirá los trabajos de esta Comisión.

Señor Presidente, con relación al Documento C 93/8, la delegación argentina agradece a la Secretaría su presentación amplia, omnicomprensiva y facilitada además por la inclusión de gráficos muy explicativos.

En lo que hace a la sustancia del mismo y atendiendo a la solicitud de que formuláramos intervenciones breves, haremos algunos comentarios puntuales solamente.

En ese sentido, destacamos nuestra satisfacción por la información brindada en el párrafo 24 y los pertinentes del C 93/8-Sup.1, relativo al progreso registrado en lo que hace al aprovechamiento de las capacidades de los países en desarrollo a través de la participación de expertos y consultores

de los mismos en los proyectos de campo. Así también con lo señalado en el párrafo 249 que, reconoce el creciente papel que desempeña la ejecución nacional en los Programas de Ayuda.

Ellos recogen, en gran medida, una solicitud formulada en ese sentido por algunas delegaciones - entre ellas la de mi país - solicitud que fuera hecha en oportunidad del 103° Consejo de junio pasado.

Finalmente, señor Presidente, mi Gobierno se hace cargo de la recomendación formulada por FAO tendente a que se trabaje en colaboración con el PNUD y otros organismos asociados, para lograr que las nuevas disposiciones de gastos de apoyo en los Proyectos de Cooperación Técnica, nueva modalidad ésta de costo de administración de los proyectos que reemplazan al "Overhead" del 13 por ciento para lograr, decía, que se apliquen en la forma prevista.

Sin embargo, visto que esta modalidad tiene una cierta complejidad, nos permitimos sugerir que se provea a los países información más detallada acerca de los procedimientos de aplicación y cálculo.

Ahondaremos en esta cuestión durante el tratamiento del Tema 23 relativo a los Fondos Fiduciarios.

Abdesselem ARIFI (Maroc) (Langue originale arabe): Permettez-moi tout d'abord de vous exprimer nos sincères félicitations pour la confiance qui a été placée en votre personne, en vous nommant président de cette Commission. Nous sommes convaincus que vous présiderez ces travaux avec toute la sagesse que nous vous connaissons. Je tiens à exprimer mes sincères félicitations à vos collaborateurs. M. Shah nous a présenté un résumé fort précis au sujet du thème en question. Comme nous le savons tous il s'est limité aux points importants et, par conséquent, je tiens à le remercier de son intervention. Je remercie le Secrétariat pour la méthode fort explicite et exacte adoptée pour la présentation du document. Les travaux entrepris en 1992-93 par la FAO pour aider les pays membres et en particulier les pays en développement, ont été déployés dans le bon sens. Compte tenu des documents qui sont envoyés aux pays membres, nous savons que la diversité des travaux de la FAO ne permet pas de les évoquer dans des documents aussi succincts. Néanmoins, le Rapport 93/10 est très exhaustif et nous a apporté un aperçu très clair sur les efforts déployés par l'Organisation pendant la période de discussions. Nous constatons donc que l'Organisation de la FAO a veillé à mettre à exécution toutes les résolutions prises par le Conseil et a donc respecté son mandat. Nous estimons que les programmes qui ont été exécutés ont permis de réaliser de grands succès, aussi bien quantitativement que qualitativement. Et nous savons que les moyens qui sont fort limités, au sein de notre Organisation, pour la période passée, ont néanmoins permis de réaliser des progrès qui ne sont peut-être pas tout à fait à la hauteur de ceux qui étaient escomptés. Il conviendrait donc de dire que les bonnes analyses ainsi que les calculs effectués par l'Organisation ont été satisfaisants, avant d'entreprendre des projets ou des programmes.

Il faudrait donc mentionner ici qu'il nous faut saluer l'Organisation pour tous les projets réalisés et nous devons insister sur deux thèmes importants: tout d'abord les recommandations et les résolutions en provenance des pays membres et ensuite l'assistance matérielle présentée par les pays membres pour mettre en oeuvre ces résolutions et ces

recommandations. Si l'assistance ou l'aide financière est en augmentation, cela assure l'Organisation d'un véritable développement.

Nous tenons à remercier l'Organisation pour les efforts déployés en 1992 et en 1993 malgré les difficultés financières. Je voudrais insister particulièrement sur le Programme de coopération technique ainsi que sur la mise en application des accords de coopération, en particulier dans le domaine agricole, ainsi que sur les programmes concernant la lutte contre les différents fléaux tels la lucilie bouchère et autres.

Par ailleurs, nous avons passé en revue les différentes propositions contenues dans le document 93/8, concernant notamment la mise en application du programme. La délégation du Maroc estime que l'option 1 comporte une méthodologie logique qui nous incite à l'adopter.

Marcos NIETO LARA (Cuba): Permítame, señor Presidente, felicitarlo a usted y a los vicepresidentes que fueron electos para dirigir nuestro trabajo. Yo trataré, señor Presidente, de ayudarlo en todo lo posible, sobre todo con la brevedad de nuestras exposiciones.

Al señor Shah, al señor Regnier y a sus colaboradores también les expreso nuestra gratitud por la presentación y el trabajo que ponen ante nosotros para debatir.

Señor Presidente, el conjunto de cuatro documentos que tenemos delante de nosotros para discutir es realmente una petición que viene haciéndose en períodos anteriores y que, a nuestro parecer, culmina exitosamente con un conjunto de cuatro voces que nos permiten interpretar claramente las actividades de la FAO en lo que ha sido el período reciente, lo que será el período inmediato y lo que será el período un poco más a largo plazo; me refiero a los cuatro documentos que tendremos que examinar en nuestro debate. En mi breve experiencia en la planificación creo que estos documentos reflejan claramente todo lo que pudiera constituir el interés de los Estados Miembros en materia de dar adecuado seguimiento a las actividades de la Organización.

Este documento, en particular, nos presenta un cuadro suficientemente amplio de análisis que no deja ninguna duda sobre cuál ha sido el trabajo y la efectividad de los recursos empeñados durante este tiempo que estamos analizando. Naturalmente, algunas delegaciones pudieran estar interesadas en solicitar un poco más de información, pero no siempre un informe y un análisis de esta naturaleza podrían recoger lo que cada uno de nosotros en particular pudiera desear. Por tanto, pienso que sigue siendo un documento muy completo, y que satisface las expectativas de lo que en períodos anteriores nosotros solicitamos.

Señor Presidente, hay una referencia al tema de las ventajas comparativas. Yo quisiera respaldar la propuesta del Director General de que no es pertinente, es más, es innecesario entrar en un debate filosófico, diríamos, o teórico sobre lo que constituyen las ventajas comparativas. Las ventajas comparativas de la FAO están claramente definidas en los principios que rigen la Organización y no es necesario reabrir un análisis sobre ellos; lo cual en períodos anteriores ya fue objeto de un profundo análisis y de decisión por parte de la Conferencia. No se puede hablar de ventajas comparativas cuando, por ejemplo, establecemos unas medidas para proteger el medio ambiente, cuyo impacto, técnica y económicamente, no es posible medir, no es tangible, porque no solamente trabajamos para el

presente, sino que trabajamos para las generaciones futuras y a muy largo plazo. Esta es, en nuestra opinión, la gestión principal de nuestra Organización: preservar lo que tenemos, proteger lo que tenemos y acudir ante las demandas más emergentes de las poblaciones que así lo requieren porque padecen hambre, malnutrición. Y cuando se atiende una demanda de esta naturaleza, no hay ni siquiera tiempo, ni siquiera elementos para poder hacer análisis alguno de costo-beneficio.

En lo que se refiere a los programas que refleja el informe de ejecución, agradezco también el detalle con que se nos informa de todas las actividades relativas al Programa de Cooperación Técnica, evidenciando que éste sigue siendo un Programa de la mayor prioridad para la Organización, pero sobre todo para los países beneficiarios, los países pobres, que necesitan de esa ayuda inmediata, de esa ayuda precisa y oportuna para solventar problemas de verdadera urgencia.

Se nos proponen dos opciones para la presentación del próximo informe. Mi Delegación se suma a los que han expresado como mejor opción la opción primera. En primer lugar, porque consideramos que examinar, dos años después, lo que ocurrió en un momento determinado no tiene mucho valor para podernos proyectar. A veces es más importante tener una buena estimación, acercarse un poco a lo que pudiera ser la verdad y, a partir de ahí, complementar nuestros análisis para proyectar el futuro inmediato y el programa a medio plazo.

Señor Presidente, con respecto al documento C 93/8-Sup.1, quisiera destacar los esfuerzos que realiza la FAO para no dejar desamparados a los países cuando en determinada oportunidad se planteó un desplazamiento de los fondos extrapresupuestarios de la Organización para que fueran administrados por los propios países en determinados proyectos de desarrollo. Tenemos en la actualidad la experiencia particular de tener en ejecución proyectos apoyados ejecutados por la FAO, y proyectos ejecutados por el Gobierno. Y debo decir con toda franqueza que hemos seguido sintiendo siempre el mismo apoyo de la FAO, tanto para los unos como para los otros proyectos, sin que haya ninguna discriminación. En esto vale destacar el esfuerzo que ha hecho la Organización para incrementar, cada día más, la capacidad técnica de los países. Y creo que aquí se cumple uno de los objetivos fundamentales de la Organización al enseñarnos a nosotros, a los países en desarrollo, cómo hacer las cosas, no sólo a hacernos las cosas, sino a enseñarnos adecuadamente cómo debemos hacerlas.

Señor Presidente, algún delegado se refirió a la conveniencia y pertinencia de que los representantes de la FAO en el país realizaran informes con alguna regularidad sobre las actividades que la FAO realiza en cada uno de los países. Mi Delegación se suma a esta proposición, y creo que sería muy útil para todos, en primer lugar para los países que conozcan exactamente cuál es el papel de la FAO, y el rol que la FAO está jugando a nivel de su propio territorio. Por otro lado, en muchos programas se pide cada vez más la participación popular. ¿Y cómo nosotros podemos asegurar una buena participación popular en los programas y proyectos de la FAO, si realmente los beneficiarios, los grupos objetivos, no tienen una información lo suficientemente amplia de lo que es la FAO y de lo que es el trabajo de la FAO?

A nivel internacional de los países, también sería muy conveniente que la representación de la FAO pudiera circular informaciones detalladas sobre los trabajos que se vienen realizando en el territorio nacional sobre la ejecución de proyectos y sobre las perspectivas y posibilidades que brinda

la FAO para apoyar el desarrollo de su propio país. Muchas gracias, señor Presidente.

MA GENG-OU (China) (Original language Chinese): As this is the first time on which the Chinese delegation has spoken in Commission II, please allow me to congratulate you and the two deputy chairmen. I would also like to congratulate Mr Shah for his very detailed and precise introduction to this document. Our delegation has read C 93/8 very carefully, and we have listened closely and noted what was said by Mr Shah in his presentation. We believe that this is an excellent document which gives a brief resume of the implementation of FAO's programme during the period 1992-93. It has allowed us to see what progress has been made by FAO within the ordinary programme and also during the period for the field programme.

We see that implementation of FAO programmes has been quite good during the period 1992-93. The Programme of Work and Budget approved by the Conference and the changing world situation, particularly in food and agriculture, has meant that priority has to be given to the environment and rural development, as well as to nutrition.

FAO has played a very important role in the promotion of international agreements in key areas such as environment, multinational negotiations on commerce, as well as in strengthening of international and regional cooperation in the farming and food sectors. FAO has done a great deal to provide technical assistance, and we congratulate FAO for what it has achieved.

We have also noted that at a time when extra-budgetary resources are declining FAO has readjusted its activities and methods. This is necessary in order to bring closer together the design and implementation programmes within technical assistance and the ordinary programme. This will mean that it will be better able to provide technical cooperation in the field. FAO has carried out many encouraging activities, and we hope that it will strengthen these activities in those areas and that they will remain broad based, as is the case for the field programme.

Looking ahead to future presentation of this report, which would allow Member States to be aware of implementation of the programme of the current biennium and so enabling them to be better involved in the preparation of the programme for the following biennium, we favour Option 1 in principle. We hope that the Secretariat will make a real effort to show the advantages of Option 2 and to make good any deficiencies in Option 1. This would mean that this document would be more succinct and more realistic.

LE PRESIDENT: Je crois que c'est le moment pour nous d'observer la pause dont j'avais parlé ce matin; elle coïncide avec l'appel lancé par le Président de la plénière.

Je propose que nous reprenions à 16 h 18. J'ai bousculé les habitudes en la matière puisqu'il paraît que, depuis plus de dix ans, nous n'avons pas observé de pause. Je compte donc sur vous pour reprendre nos travaux à l'heure exacte.

Shri H. PRADEEP RAO (India) : Mr Chairman, I should like to join other delegations in congratulating you on your election as Chairman. My delegation has already given its views on this report in the recent 104th Council Session. We also agreed that the document has established the linkages between the Regular and Field Programmes very well, and that Chapter 4 of the report brings out in a nutshell the significant achievements of the Organization, and it merits attention.

We should like to reiterate our concern over the fact that field programmes under extra-budgetary funding have experienced a decline. The report of the Programme Committee's 68th session has also emphasized the meeting of the needs of recipient countries in the background of increasing demands on the Organization. The need to devise innovative measures to mobilize additional resources was also underlined by the Programme Committee. Therefore the report of that committee merits the concern which many Member Nations have expressed with regard to Field Programme activities.

The report of the 104th Session of the Council stressed the need to support FAO's Field Programmes so as to enable the Organization to meet demands for assistance.

In so far as the two options proposed by the Director-General regarding future versions of the Programme Implementation Report are concerned, we feel that Option one could be adopted.

Miss Fatimah HASAN J. HAYAT (Kuwait) (Original language Arabic) : Mr Chairman, on behalf of the delegation of Kuwait and on my own behalf, I should like to congratulate you on your election as Chairman of this Commission. We know you as a friend and as an active colleague in the Finance Committee, which is the sister committee of the Programme Committee in which I take part. There is no doubt that, thanks to your wisdom and qualifications, you will lead the deliberations of this Commission to success. We promise you that we will give you every possible support and we will put our experience at your disposal.

I should also like to congratulate Mr Shah and his staff on the excellent and comprehensive document now under discussion. I will not go into the details of this document because I dealt with it when it was discussed in the Programme Committee. I also refer to the discussions that took place in Council on this document.

I should also like to say that there are certain aspects in this document that should be emphasized by giving priority to the programmes that are being implemented in development. We are in favour of technical cooperation. It should be as wide as possible, although we are not directly benefitting from it. We welcome the first version of this Programme Implementation Report because it is an excellent document containing a lot of useful information and data. It also gives examples of the relationship between the implementation of the Regular Programme activities and the Field Programme activities.

I should also like to refer to the importance given by the report to involving countries in setting the priorities and the guidelines for policies in the field activities of the Organization and their monitoring. I shall refer to other aspects when we deal with them in detail.

Nedilson R. JORGE (Brazil): First of all, may I congratulate you on your election. I am very glad to see you on the chair of this Committee. I am sure with your help our work will be very productive. I would also like to thank Mr Shah for his clear and concise introduction to the document presented to us, which is well prepared and comprehensive.

I have some very brief comments on it. The present Report reflects the change that has been implemented in FAO's Field Programmes in the biennium 1992-1993. These changes, as we know, are derived from new patterns introduced in the UN system through the appropriate resolutions in the General Assembly and in the UNDP Governing Council. Important concepts like national execution, programme approach and country strategy notes were introduced, as well as new forms of technical co-operation management. I would like to stress in particular the important change with regard to UNDP financial support. UNDP continues to be the main individual financial source of FAO's field activities. However, since the 1980s UNDP has dramatically decreased its participation. As can be seen in the document, in 1980 FAO participated in 25 percent of UNDP programmes; in 1992 this figure dropped to 13 percent.

Notwithstanding these financial constraints, developing countries continue to need specialized technical co-operation such as FAO provides to us. There has been a considerable increase in Trust Fund projects financed wither by multilateral or bilateral donors, or mainly by our own national institutions interested in the project. From our point of view, Mr Chairman, in order to allow greater flexibility and to better address the needs of Member States, Brazil believes that it is very important to strengthen FAO's national presentations.

We regard to the substantive aspects of the field programmes, two events were very important in this last biennium; UNCED and ICN. Since then FAO has been making efforts, like many other international agencies, to comply with the recommendations of these two Conferences. I would certainly like to commend the efforts FAO has been making from our point of view, and I would like to stress the environmental question. We believe greater efforts must be made to integrate environmental guidelines on all on-going and new projects in order to ensure that enviromental aspects are not treated in an isolated and partial manner.

Finally, Mr Chairman, with respect to the options presented to us for future versions of the Programme Implementation Report, Brazil sees advantages in both options and supports the conclusions of the Programme Committee that there might be a possibility of integrating both options, perhaps with a mid-term review. I would like the FAO Secretariat to explore this possibility.

Adel Mahmoud ABOUL-NAGA (Egypt) (Original language Arabic) : To begin with, I would like to congratulate you on your election to the chair of this very important Commission, and I am also glad to see you there as a friend and colleague. I am very happy to give you my personal good wishes and congratulations. I am sure you will conduct our proceedings with wisdom and in the light of your considerable experience. I am sure that this general Conference Session will be historic in the development of this Organization.

To demonstrate the trust I have in you, Sir, I will be brief. This report was discussed exhaustively at the last Council, and I would certainly like

to congratulate the Secretariat on behalf of my country on the quality of the document. The Programme Implementation Report is extremely informative. As regards the two options, my country is in favour of Option One for future versions of this report. We think this option will ensure closer follow-up and vigilance as to what is going on. We must of course ensure that there is a good balance in future reports as between transparency and wealth of information.

Harald HILDEBRAND (Germany) (Original language German): First of all, I would like on behalf of my delegation, to congratulate on your election and also to express the hope that we will be able to work fruitfully in this Commission under your guidance. I would like to thank the Secretariat for the very informative and clearly set out document that we are considering, and we would also like to thank Mr Shah for his introduction to this report, which was very instructive.

My delegation welcomes this new type of report because it gives all Member States a better overall view of the manifold activities of the Organization which are taking place within the framework of the Regular Programme and the Field Programmes in every biennium. This kind of report makes clear, as does the Programme Evaluation Report, the degree of complementarity and the close interface that exists between the two parts of the FAO operation, Regular and Field.

At the 104th Session of the Council my delegation had already made its position known as regards the two options for future versions of the PIR, what kind of reporting arrangements there should be, and we prefer the rolling arrangement. In this way, the information on the second year of the biennium would only be estimated and it would be useful to have additional updated information which could be submitted to the Programme Committee, and to the Council in the next year, and through the Council and the Programme Committee this information would get to the Member Nations.

In the section on Resources, the resource picture aspect of the document, we note that there is a continuing improvement in the financial situation of the Regular Programme of the Organizaion, but we also note that there is a definite drop in the volume of extra-budgetary resources for financing field programmes and, of course, this also means a reduction in Support Cost income. It is necessary to deal with this trend at a time when there is scarcity of resources in national budgets too. So the answer to this trend can only be found in greater efficiency in the use of the scarce resources available. Every effort to this end must be made. The quantitative assessment of FAO Field activities cofirms the importance of the priorities already set by the governing bodies of the organization as regards regions, staff and subject-matter areas, and we agree with these priorities in particular and feel they should be borne in mind in future as regards the greater use of experts and consultants from beneficiary countries, in other words, the developing countries. We also very much agree with the really high proportion - upto 90 percent - of resources devoted to agriculture and forestry within the total volume of Field Programme activities.

Generally speaking, we find that the Report gives us a clear picture also on training activities, meetings, seminars, and publications of FAO, and it is really striking. Of course, this, as would be expected, will have a multiplier effect in disseminating and showing the practical application of

new knowledge and know-how, and we feel this is a matter of considerable importance.

In Chapter 4 of the document, it is made clear that you cannot increase production substantially in food deficit countries without using fertilizers. However, use of fertilizer, as the document stressed, must be economical, taking into account the cost and the need to protect the environment. The concept of integrated nourishmet of plants by appropriate combinations of mineral and organic fertilizers and making maximum use of nitrogen fixing plants seemed to us in this connection to be very important ways of doing this. We also welcome the initiatives undertaken by the Organization as regards exchange of the results of plant breeding and of genetic research in food crops in particular. We see here that there are many possibilities for technical and economic co-operation between developing countries; TCDC and ECDC, and this is an area that can be developed further in the future.

In paragraph 113 of the document we note the stress on the attention to be given to the intensified production of major staple food grains and my delegation supports the integrated approach to this matter. The efficient use of inputs and using them in an environmentally sensitive manner to protect natural resources, taking advantage of biomass and integrated plant protection are all very important factors in this field.

Paragraph 161 relates to assistance given to developing countries for the development of their own statistics and information capacities, and in this connection, it would be interesting to hear to what extent the quality of information can be raised through FAO activities thus improving the input that these countries can provide into the FAO database.

With these very few quick remarks on the document, which are obviously only fragmentary, I will now close.

Arrow Solomon OBURU (Kenya): Allow me to associate the Kenyan delegation with those who have spoken before me in congratulating you on your election to the Chairmanship of the Commission. I believe the proceedings of this Commission will benefit a great deal from your skilfull guidance and that the Commission shall successfully complete the task before it.

May we thank the Secretariat for the Report and the clarity with which it was introduced. We find document C 93/8 an exhaustive reflection of what the Organization has tried to do over the 1992-93 biennium.

The Kenyan delegation notes with appreciation the efforts made by the Organization in the use of institutions andnationals of the project beneficiaries, beneficiary countries to execute consultancies. We consider this a useful development because it facilitates and enhances national capacity building which is essential to sustain development proects, developments resultant from the project.

FAO's work in sensitizing the international community in the significance of integrated development, especially the need to synchronise environmental conservation with resource utilization as a basis of ensuring sustainable development is important. Noteable among these is the FAO involvement in promoting the responsible fishing in the high seas. The other importance of this is FAO's promotion of the need to place the people first in project formulation and design because whatever development may achieve if the

target beneficiaries do not realize the benefits then there is no sustainable development.

With this observation allow us to register again our appreciation to the Secretariat for the useful presentation of the document which forms the subject of this discussion.

Franco F.G. GINOCCHIO (Italy) : With regard to the Option 1 and Option 2 for the presentation of the Programme Implementation Report for 1994-95 the Italian delegation prefers Option 1 because it is necessary that the report be presented to the Conference as scheduled for 1995. We hope that it will be possible to have effective data for the next biennium.

Concerning the Field Programmes we note with satisfaction that the share of Forestry has risen from 11 percent to 17 percent in 1992. The Italian delegation hopes that not withstanding the financial difficulties the FAO will continue to give priority for the next biennium to the most important field activities which are mentioned in paragraph 87.

Evlogui BONEV (UNDP): I would make brief comments on the subject under discussion related to UNDP and its collaboration with FAO, as contained in document C 93/8 and thereby try to clarify some of the points raised in the latter as well as the pertinent references made in the statements of some of the previous speakers.

As you may recall the new Support Cost arrangements were introduced for application as from 1st June 1992. Quite complex by nature as they are their putting into operation was not an over-night exercise as it involved the collaboration of the entire UN development system and also the partners from the developing countries. A series of preparatory actions were put into operation in the large scale. An extensive programme has been undertaken by the UNDP and the agencies together to familiarize both Headquarters and field personnel as well as the Government counterpart in the working of the new arrangements. It was an effective and succesful programme. Inter-agency meeting encompassing all executing agencies are being held on a regular basis, almost every two months where all concerns or problems confronted in the process have been discussed and mutually and timely resolved.

UNDP continues and will continue to collaborate with the agencies of the new Support Cost arrangements having just finished another round of meetings last week in Geneva. As I mentioned already the new arrangements have been in effect since July 1992 and in the 16 month have moved progressively ahead despite the fact that this time period coincided with the reductions of the IPF resources of UNDP by 25 percent. Additionally, during this period has been a large increase in national execution as mandated by the General Assembly and the Governing Council. In fact, US$284 million or 39 percent of all IPF approvals have been under national execution. However, the five large agencies continue to play a significant role in implementation of such nationally executed projects. TSSI Programme amounts of US$49 million have so far been approved tentatively against the US$64 million allocation for the cycle. FAO' share approximates US$11.5 million or 23 percent of the total tentatively approved so far. Implementation of this up stream facility is proceeding very well with a number of innovative studies undertaken by the agencies. TSS2 approval have amounted to 8 million so far. While this is consistent with the new

approvals to-date the UNDP and agencies are examining ways to ease the pace of approval. I should like to inform you that an external evaluation of the arrangements has been scheduled for early 1994 and the result of it should be available by June 1994 for consideration by the Governing Council of UNDP.

Finally let me turn to the most disturbing concern for all of us, the decline of UNDP resources. As you may be aware the UN Pledging Conference for development for 1994 was held on the 2nd and 3rd of November, only last week. The results are very disappointing if not depressing. The Administrator of UNDP Mr Speth in his statement at the end of the Pledging Conference expressed his deep concern at the shrinking UNDP resources in the last two year as the best estimates for 1994 show no growth compared to 1993. It is expected that total pledge for 1994 will have reached the level of US$920 million, the same as in 1993 which for itself was 15 percent under the level based on the assumed annual growth rate of 8 percent, a target set by the Governing Council for the 5th Programming Cycle 1992-96. The shortfall for 1994 is of the magnitude of US$340 million compared with the projected target. The country IPFs for the 5th Cycle had already been cut by 25 percent. The poor results of this Pledging Conference will no doubt impose further cuts of the programme of developing countries. As you all know most of the contributions of the UNDP are used for assistance to the poorest countries, almost half goes to Africa and 59 percent to the least-developed countries and 87 percent of UNDP resources are for countries with per capita income of US$750 or less. So when our resources shrink as they did between 1992 and 1993 it is the poorest countries which are most severely affected by cutbacks in plans and on-going programmes.

Finally, regarding the General Assembly Resolution 47/199 UNDP stands fully committed to its implementation and will spare no efforts, in close collaboration with all the relevant partners, to this end respecting fully its spirit and letter.

LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie, Monsieur l'Observateur du PNUD, pour les précieuses observations que vous avez bien voulu porter à l'attention des membres de la Commission.

Nous sommes arrivés au terme des interventions. Vous avez été 32 à prendre la parole et je pense que nous avons eu un débat assez riche. Je vais tout de suite demander au Secrétariat sa réaction à tous les commentaires et questions introduits par les membres.

M. Shah, vous avez la parole.

V.J. SHAH (Deputy Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation) : May I say right at the outset that after my efforts to respond to the questions and respond to the debate if you would be kind enough to give the floor to my colleague Mr Regnier he will also like to respond to a number of aspects but particularly those dealing with the Field Programme.

Mr Chairman, through you, thank you to Commission II of the Conference for the debate which you have had on this document. I say this with a great deal of feeling. The Secretariat is grateful not only for the reaction that you have given to the document in the sense that we offered it to you but we are grateful for the debate that you have had among yourselves, among Member Nations. As I have served the various intergovernmental bodies who

have considered this report starting with the Programme Committee, Finance Committee and the Council, those of you that have assisted and participated in these successive deliberations will perhaps sense my perception that the nature of the debate among the Member Nations is very different at each stage. At the earlier stages the debate is characterized by a fair amount of questioning to the Secretariat: fair enough, requests for more information, requests for more explanations. But at each stage, and particularly at the stage which you reached today it is not so much a dialogue with the Secretariat that you seek but it is the expression of your views in the forum of the Conference. On behalf of all my colleagues and on behalf of the ex-Director-General I can only express my gratitude for the voice that you have expressed today.

In fact I am indebted to the Representatvie of Mexico for a reflection that he used which I can promise you is going to guide me a lot in the future. He used an expression that these documents, he was referring to this report, he said these documents determine the quality of the relationship of Member Nations with the Secretariat. That moved me deeply and it moves me and my colleagues to renew our commitment to you, to be ever more responsive to you.

That takes me immediately to the second point about possible improvements. We are very encouraged by the number of expressions of satisfaction over the document, very widespread. It encourages us very much particularly because this was the first version of the document. We do not feel, with all respect, at all defensive about requests which are made for further improvement because after all if our record is any guide, if our pass record is any guide, I hope I am not mistaken in saying that we have responded to such requests in the past by making every improvement that has been desired to the best of our ability.

We have to be clear. As it has been said in the debate by the distinguished representative of Cuba, while he expressed satisfaction with the document he realized there are some Member Nations who do want to see more information or information of a different character and this is their right, but whether the Conference as a whole takes a decision on that is another matter and whether the Secretariat can respond to every request is again another matter because it depends on the nature of the improvements sought, how easy, or possible or feasible they are to introduce, and, if I may use the term so often used by some about the cost-effectiveness of some improvements, that also we have to take into consideration.

In fact, Mr Chairman, to use the term cost effectiveness of this document, there is one very important aspect which I did not mention in the introduction and has not been mentioned in the debate and which I would like to emphasize even at this stage; this Programme Implementation Report, aside from the satisfaction that has been expressed, is a commendable model of cost effectiveness in the sense that with the approval of your Council and with the approval of your Programme and Finance Committees this report subsumes and includes a number of documents which were prepared by the Secretariat in the past separately, which were considered by different bodies, and which were never taken into account in an integrated manner.

To give you three examples, we submitted every biennium the report on the use of consultants to the Programme and Finance Committees. You now have the relevant information here on that separate report so that the Programme and Finance Committees need to spend less time on that separate report which no longer exists, and can also have a more meaningful use of

consultants in the manner you have done. Every biennium we submitted to the Finance Committee a report on duty travel. It is now included. Every year at the November Session of the Council we submitted a report on unscheduled sessions and on sessions which were cancelled. You now have it here in this report. Mr Chairman, this again is an aspect of how efficiency and cost-effectiveness, as said by the Director-General in his introduction, is something which, for the Secretariat, has to be a guiding tenet at all times in all our work.

It is not a question of using jargon and it is not a question of just using terms in documents or in debates in order to seek self-satisfaction for ourselves. It is not. It is something which has to regulate our conduct and motivate us at all times and I trust that nobody would be in disagreement with that.

Mr Chairman, let me come to the issue of links of this documents with the other documents we have referred to. While there are certainly links between these documents of the quartet, and we all try, believe me, not only you Member Nations but also in the Secretariat, to enhance these links, I should point out that these links cannot be construed in terms of identity of format or identity of detail or identity of timing.

One of the first interventions of the distinguished representative of the Netherlands, if I am not mistaken, asked why it was that this document could not be considered at the same time by the Council as the Medium-term Plan or the Programme Evaluation Report. Mr Chairman, it is a very good question but I think there is a good answer, an answer for the previous decision of the Conference. It was in order to give the Council more time to consider the Programme and Finance Committees in the spring and to the Council in June, but it is in order to give you the latest information we can for the Programme Implementation Report that the Conference decided that this document should come to you now and go to the Council at its November session. Mr Chairman, this does not in any way, at least so far as we can see, weaken the Medium-term Plan and the Programme Implementation Report because after all it is the same Secretariat which prepare these documents. We impose on ourselves the same concepts, guidelines and methodology in the preparation of these documents so that it is not a question of saying there is a Medium-term Plan which comes to you from somebody else conceived in a different way from the document which comes to you now on programme implementation.

Mr Chairman, Option 1 I think has been unanimously, or almost unanimously, referred to as the chosen option and your directive is very clear, but a couple of distinguished representatives referred to the possibility of providing the definitive data on the second year of the biennium, in the following year, and I would like to respond to that suggestion. Let me start with Option one as suggested in the document. What has been suggested is that the next report covering the biennium 1994-95 would give actual data for 1993 because the data for 1993 at present are only estimates. You will get the actual data for 1993, you would get the actual data for 1994 and you would get estimates for 1995. The Programme Committee in its modification of this made an improvement we think. The Programme Committee in its modification of this made an improvement we think. The Programme Committee's suggestion is, do not just give us the actual data for 1993, but give us the full data for 1992-93 so that we have the full biennium, and the - as proposed - actual data for 1994 and estimates for 1995.

All this, Mr Chairman, is well feasible and is very clear to us and we are prepared to do it if that is your decision but all this is again still speaking about one report which will be prepared in the next biennium which would be finalized by June 1995 and then submitted to the various bodies. If we are to do an additional report in 1994 just to give the actual data for 1993, this is obviously in addition to the step mentioned above, it is an addition to documentation, it is an addition to cost; in the costs, may I explain, that it is not just the cost of publishing a document. Much the biggest element of the cost of preparing such a document is the cost of the staff time, and it is not only the staff time of my office - we are a few people and we all work hard - but it means making demands on all our colleagues in the rest of the house and particularly in the technical departments. These are the demands which I have to weigh and I have to ask you to weigh.

These are the kinds of demands which detract from the time, effort and the energy of programme implementation. We are all accountable. We accept that and we realize that but you have to judge the point at which the effort of additional reporting detracts from the resources and the time and effort of programme implementation.

Mr Chairman, as far as your directive is concerned, if you in your summing up will indicate, the next report covering the definitive data for 1992-93, the definitive for 1994 and estimates for 1995 is well understood and we are prepared to do it.

I also accept the suggestion of, I believe it was, the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom who recommended that while this document itself cannot be prepared in time to go to the Technical Committees of the Council in early 1995, certainly the kind of information it contains we should make every effort to draw to the attention of these Technical Committees and that also I well understand and accept.

Let me return now to some basic issues. They are basic issues of additional information of a quantitative nature which some distinguished members have requested and suggested be included. I start off with the most positive response in that it is not a question of my reacting now and saying no, no, no we cannot do it, or, yes, yes, yes, we will do it. I think many of the suggestions made have been made in a very reasoned way and I hope you will agree the Secretariat should do justice to the suggestion by considering them.

I think that the Secretariat readily accepts to do this but I do not want to give any mistaken impression that everything that is requested can be provided and will be done because if I take some suggestions literally, that this document should detail information on activities, on programme elements, on sub-programmes in relation to what is included in the Programme of Work and Budget, Mr Chairman, if you have a Programme of Work and Budget of some 350 pages then I would need to visualize a Programme Implementation Report of some thousand pages and I frankly would not recommend it either for you or for ourselves.

More information - more meaningful information - yes, but there again there are different perceptions; some have mentioned the need to refer to the cost-effectiveness activities, internal rates of return, and aspects of efficiency. Some distinguished Members have suggested that FAO should first determine the cost-effectiveness of doing something before deciding to do it.

Mr Chairman, I would like to respond to these comments in the much wider debate that you have had because there were many, many more Member Nations who referred to the issue of comparative advantage. We respectfully believe that there is nothing defensive in the Director-General's introduction. As usual he presents his views in a bold, courageous and direct manner and I certainly do not see any need for me or any colleague to appear defensive, but in responding to your debate let me share some perceptions to further the debate we have had.

At one point in the debate it was mentioned that comparative advantage is a concept which is dynamic. How right. I would certainly say that a comparative advantage of an organization may be analysed in terms of the mandate of the organization and the mandate of other organizations which work in related fields or in the same field, but the comparative advantage is not a matter of legislative text. The comparative advantage of FAO in the vast range of actions and undertakings is based on - what?

It is based on its accumulated experience. It is based on the expertise that it has at any one time. It is based on the resources that are available to it to implement what Member Nations want it to implement.

In that sense, take the case of the screwworm campaign, on which almost all of you have commented. Do you think the screwworm campaign could have been implemented by FAO with the success that it has had, had it not been for the years of experience in the issues of pest control, the years of experience in the development of sterile insect technique? Would it have been possible if FAO did not have among its staff the expertise that we have, which was employed to dynamically execute this programme? Do you think it could have been implemented in the same way if the TCP did not exist, and if some 3 million of TCP funds had not been immediately employed to prevent the spread of this disease in neighbouring countries and in order to initiate action until Trust Fund donors very generously provided their contribution?

I give this as an example. Comparative advantage - comparative advantages - of FAO are many, but they are something live and they do not belong to the Secretariat - they belong to you, and these comparative advantages are advantages that you Member Nations must decide to nurture, to keep, and to strengthen. This whole issue is not one of, "FAO should only do this, and we don't want it to do that". It is very much a live issue for Member Nations to assess and make their judgement on.

In this connection, let me come to the issue of what FAO does, again. I respect - as I have always said - the views of every Member Nation and the right of every Member Nation to hold whatever views it wants to have, and to hold.

Some members in the debate today have referred to the relationship between the Regular Programme and extra-budgetary resources, and stated that they are disturbed by this ratio. One even said that extra-budgetary funding distorts priorities and does not respond to the need of the countries. I respect the Member Nation that holds this view, but I am also aware - we are also aware - that there are very different views held by other Member Nations.

There are other Member Nations who believe in, and who attach importance to, there being a large field programme funded by extra-budgetary resources, for whom this link and this ratio between the Regular Programme

and the Field Programme is a sign of the potential impact of the Organization, is a sign of the relevance of the Organization, is a sign of the effectiveness of the Organization. So it is a matter of perception. To say that the programme activities and the programme choices of FAO can be determined through any methodology, be it of internal rates of return or cost-effectiveness, makes me hasten to add that this Organization is you - you, the Member Nations.

There may be some among you who may wish the return of the Programme of Work for FAO according to a certain methodology, but you, the community of Member Nations, jointly determine the Programme - your Programme of Work, and in so doing you Member Nations are exercising your political will and your political judgement. It is true that the Director-General submits to you a draft Programme of Work, but, as he has always pointed out, this draft Programme of Work is not one of the Secretariat or for the Secretariat. This draft Programme of Work is formulated in response to requests and the demands made by by you Member Nations, either directly to the Secretariat or in the range of intergovernmental bodies at which you express your will. We have the regional conferences; we have the technical committees in each sphere in each region; we meet in the committees on agriculture or forestry or fisheries.

I must not abuse the time, Mr Chairman. I know that you want to be punctual and I want to be respectful to my colleagues and give them time as well. Let me therefore turn to some of the specific questions which were asked. I am grateful to some distinguished Members who have sent me notes to say that, while they have asked a number of specific questions, in case time does not permit they would accept my dealing with the most important ones on the understanding that they would of course get whatever information they seek directly outside the meeting. But there are certain questions that I think are of general interest, and if I may be bold enough to select a few:

One question was about Chapter 4. There was, I believe, fairly widespread satisfaction about the qualitative description of implementation, and the achievements: but it was asked, on what basis were activities chosen to be described in Chapter 4? Chapter 4 is structured so as to provide the primary objectives and priorities under each programme and, because of the need for selectivity in coverage, we use a certain number of guidelines or rules for ourselves.

Firstly, as regards the objectives and priorities, these are derived from the statements in the Programme of Work and Budget and in the Medium-Term Plan. Secondly, for the focus in achievement, apart from the aspect of priorities, the amount of Regular Programme and Field Programme resources has been taken into account and similarly emphasis is given to those activities in which there is substantial progress to report under both Regular and Field Programmes. The third aspect is that reported achievements under the Field Programme components are highlighted in order to give an indication of the synergy between the two, the Regular and Field Programmes.

The next question was on status of the consultative group on a Tropical Forestry Action Plan. I recall the Council in June requested the Director-General to mobilize extra-budgetary resources for the establishment of this consultative group. A progress proposal has been prepared. It covers a three-year period commencing in April 1994. The total amount solicited is US$2.1 million. My colleagues can share more detailed information if

required later on, but I should indicate that so far only one member country has started to provide funds under Trust Fund arrangements, and two others have indicated that they may fund participation of members of the consultative group under bilateral arrangements. At this stage, I hope this brief information will suffice.

Then I turn to the question about the number of meetings held at Headquarters as opposed to others in Regional Offices or in country locations. Certainly, the graphic points out that only 21 percent of the meetings are at Headquarters. Rather than giving you a more detailed explanation, I would only comment that if one looks either at the next Programme of Work and Budget, at the list of proposed meetings, or even if one looks at the list of scheduled meetings in the annex to this report, I think the point will be evident that there are certain kinds of meetings which are better to hold away from Headquarters because of their very nature.

If I may take the example of a conference of plenipotentiaries on the issue of the Near East Plant Protection Organization, this was held in your country Mr Chairman, in February this year. The reasons are I think very clear. Similarly, an expert consultation on the Review of Seed Technology in the Near East - it was particularly suitable that a country in the Near East should be the host to such a meeting an expert consultation on biotechnicological methods for diagnosing haemoparasites. Mexico offered to hold this meeting, and because of the participants involved it made sense to hold it in that country. Of course, every meeting, sui generis, indicates where the venue should be.

A side remark: I think this question, and I hope my response, indicates the care with which every activity is handled. Other than quantifiable aspects of cost-effectiveness, there is a range of other considerations which do have to be, and are, borne in mind.

There was a specific question on the databases, and, with reference to Table 3.7, how many of the 115 databases will be contained in WAICENT. There are 57 numerical statistical databases in that table. Of these 40 are related and are incorporated in WAICENT. Of the textual databases, there are 32; by the end of the next biennium 25 will be incorporated.

There was a question about the Geographic Information Systems - where their technology leads, and a comment was made about caution in this regard. My colleagues have asked me to point out that we are conscious of the fact that the application of GIS to Fisheries is relatively new. We shall certainly refrain from expanding the experience elsewhere until we have satisfied ourselves on its application in a limited form.

We have already been contacted by another United Nations Organization to develop a project in East Africa. Our response has been that we want to wait and see how we perform in West Africa before we replicate it elsewhere.

I should like to go on, but I would prefer not to do so in order to give Mr Regnier - I am sorry if I have taken a lot of his time too - time to respond to a number of important questions which have been raised. I thank the distinguished Member Nations.

- 51 -

LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie de nous avoir donné des réponses très claires, comme à votre habitude vous avez été concis et vous avez fait le tour de la question.

J'aimerais inviter M. Régnier à intervenir sur les questions qui avaient trait au programme de coopération technique, au PNUD et autres.

A. REGNIER (Sous-Directeur général du Département du développement) : A montour, je tiens à remercier les délégués pour l'intérêt qu'ils ont bien voulu porter à ce point de l'ordre du jour, en particulier à ce qui a trait aux activités du programme de terrain et à l'importance qu'ils y attachent, y compris dans ses liens avec le Programme ordinaire.

Après les réponses très détaillées de M. Shah, je pense que je pourrai personnellement me limiter à un petit nombre de points qui ont, je pense, retenu l'attention et qui méritent un commentaire de ma part. Le représentant d'un pays nous a demandé quelle est l'expérience que nous avons déjà pu tirer du nouveau Comité directeur pour les activités de terrain, du Comité du programme de terrain dans sa forme élargie et des équipes de projets qui sont maintenant responsables des projets pris individuellement. Vous savez que c'est une expérience nouvelle qui vient à peine de commencer et, par conséquent, il pourrait être un peu hâtif de ma part de porter des jugements définitifs, mais je peux rassurer et assurer les délégués de l'objectif de cet exercice. Nous avons voulu rationaliser, le plus possible, le travail interne du Secrétariat dans le domaine du programme de terrain par une surveillance à tous les niveaux et le Comité directeur pour les activités de terrain a évidemment pour fonction principale d'assurer la direction générale et la supervision du programme de terrain et de faire en sorte que les liens entre le programme régulier et le programme de terrain soient assurés à tous les niveaux. Jusqu'à présent l'ancien Comité du programme de terrain était surtout axé sur les questions administratives et financières, les questions purement opérationnelles; nous avons, pensé qu'il fallait également, au niveau des services, assurer la multidisciplinarité de nos activités de terrain, c'est la raison pour laquelle nous avons élargi le Comité interne du Programme de terrain à tous les départements techniques. Nous voulons assurer la multidisciplinarité de nos actions sur le terrain et nous voulons également nous assurer que nous prenons en compte des éléments aussi importants que l'environnement - on en a beaucoup parlé au Conseil la semaine dernière, on a également beaucoup parlé de mettre l'homme et la femme, comme le disait le délégué du Kenya, au centre même de la préparation des projets, depuis leur conception jusqu'à leur finalisation. Nous voulons essayer d'améliorer au maximum la formulation des projets et leur mise en oeuvre et c'est la raison pour laquelle nous avons décidé la fusion en une seule équipe de ce qui était auparavant deux équipes distinctes, une équipe de projet pour la formulation et ensuite une équipe pour la mise en oeuvre des projets. Dorénavant, il n'y a plus qu'une seule équipe qui est placée sous la direction de l'unité technique responsable assurant dans tout le cycle du projet l'unité et l'unicité de responsabilité. Cette responsabilité est confiée à la division technique pour s'assurer que le support technique est au mieux de sa qualité. Il est un peu tôt pour porter un jugement définitif, mais nous pensons que ces améliorations seront de qualité et apporteront une multidisciplinarité beaucoup plus grande à nos activités de terrain.

Le Représentant de l'Arabie Saoudite a demandé quels étaient les secteurs de terrain qui n'étaient pas supervisés par les Etats Membres, je dirai

qu'il n'y en a pas. Il est évident que les Etats Membres n'approuvent pas, ne supervisent pas, et n'examinent pas tous les projets individuellement, la FAO exécute plus de 2 000 projets actuellement et ce serait donc physiquement impossible. Ce n'est donc pas l'objectif. D'autre part, chacun de ces projets fait toujours l'objet d'un audit de la part des commissaires aux comptes, mais les grandes lignes de politique générale du programme de terrain, tous les secteurs techniques, les priorités font l'objet d'un examen - depuis la revue de la FAO il y a trois ou quatre ans grâce à un processus qui passe par les différents comités techniques, d'abord le Comité de l'agriculture, le Comité des pêches et des forêts, de la sécurité alimentaire et ensuite le Comité du Programme, le Comité des finances, le Conseil et la Conférence, et, comme vous le savez, nous sommes également en train de voir comment 1 ' examen par les comités techniques des activités de terrain peut même être renforcé et, nous sommes persuadés que nous pourrons également améliorer l'impact du dialogue entre les Etats Membres sur le programme de terrain à travers ces Comités.

Le Représentant du Danemark, en se félicitant du chapitre 6 qui détermine un certain nombre de programmes d'actions spéciaux, nous a demandé très pertinemment si, par souci de rationaliser et après avoir défini 12 programmes spéciaux qui correspondent certainement à des sujets majeurs du développement, nous allions supprimer ceux qui existaient auparavant. Je peux rassurer le Représentant du Danemark, notre intention est effectivement lorsque cette rationalisation prendra cours, c'est-à-dire après la Conférence, de supprimer un certain nombre d'anciens programmes d'action spéciaux, certains vont être réintégrés dans les douze dont la liste figure dans les documents au chapitre 6, d'autres seront supprimés et leurs activités, si elles persistent, persisteront au titre d'activités ordinaires. J'ai une longue liste de ces programmes d'action spéciaux, je ne vais pas vous la lire, mais c'est notre intention d'en supprimer. Par exemple, nous allons ainsi supprimer le "Dairy Development Scheme" ou le "Meat Development Scheme", etc.

D'autre part on nous a demandé quelle était l'information que nous comptions faire à ce sujet, se référant au paragraphe 309, disant qu'afin de faciliter la mobilisation des ressources financières, l'Organisation préparera une documentation explicative et analytique pour chacun des programmes d'action spéciaux. J'espère que vous avez déjà eu l'occasion de retirer dans votre casier le petit fascicule que nous venons de publier qui s'intitule: "Programmes d'action spéciaux pour l'agriculture et le développement rural durable". C'est un petit fascicule pour l'ensemble des 12 programmes envisagés mais notre intention était de voir votre Conférence nous donner éventuellement des suggestions afin de sortir un fascicule de ce genre pour chacun des programmes d'action spéciaux et indiquant quel est son objectif, quelle est sa méthodologie, comment nous allons organiser sa gestion et dans une certaine mesure également indiquant nos besoins en soutiens extrabudgétaires, parce que comme le disait très justement le Représentant de la Suisse, nous ne pourrons pas aller bien loin uniquement avec les ressources du Programme ordinaire et nous allons donc devoir, en quelque sorte, si la Conférence appuie cette initiative, nous reposer dans une large mesure sur les fonds extrabudgétaires. La quantification entre ce qui relèverait du Programme ordinaire et ce qui devrait venir des fonds extrabudgétaires à ce stade est une question malheureusement très difficile,"car tout dépendra de notre capacité à convaincre les Etats Membres donateurs de la justesse de ce qu'on essaie d'entreprendre et de notre capacité à les convaincre de nous faire confiance avec des ressources additionnelles.

Une question très importante a été posée également, qui consistait à demander si les projets de terrain répondent aux demandes des récipiendaires et à leurs priorités et répondent aux priorités de la FAO ou si, au contraire, ils sont suscités par les donateurs. C'est une question importante et je voudrais, de manière un peu emphatique, dire que nous considérons que tous nos projets répondent aux demandes exprimées par les pays récipiendaires et je le dirai d'une autre façon, en précisant qu'il n'y a pas de projets de la FAO, il n'y a pas de projets des pays donateurs, il y a des projets des pays récipiendaires que la FAO essaie d'assister avec l'appui financier de pays donateurs. Mais tous ces projets viennent d'une part d'un besoin exprimé par les pays récipiendaires et font l'objet d'une première évaluation par notre représentant sur place qui a pour objectif de s'assurer que cette demande ne nous vient pas de manière isolée mais qu'elle s'intègre dans les priorités nationales et le jour où nous aurons des notes de synthèse par pays comme la Résolution de l'Assemblée générale nous le demande, qu'elle s'intègre également dans cette note synthétique par pays qui définirait le cadre des interventions des Nations Unies. Et d'ailleurs c'est tout à fait normal qu'il en soit ainsi. D'autre part, les pays donateurs ont le choix de financer ou de ne pas financer s'ils s'intéressent à certains secteurs particuliers ou à certains pays particuliers, mais en réalité ils ne viennent pas nous imposer des projets de financement. Je crois que cela n'est vraiment pas le cas. D'autre part, nous sommes extrêmement désireux d'associer les pays donateurs à la formulation avec les pays récipiendaires des projets en fonds fiduciaires et dans les missions de la formulation; très souvent le pays donateur participe avec nous et peut se rendre compte par le dialogue à trois, le pays récipiendaire, le pays donateur et la FAO qu'il s'agit bien là d'une priorité et d'un besoin ressenti par les autorités nationales.

D'autre part, déjà dans le cadre des programmes d'action spéciaux tels qu'ils étaient conçus auparavant, plus des deux tiers des projets en fonds fiduciaires relevaient de programmes d'action spéciaux, ce qui est également la preuve que dans une très large mesure le programme du terrain relève aussi des priorités telles que définies par la FAO dans ses organes directeurs, et, ce n'est pas par hasard, c'est simplement parce que dans votre sagesse vous avez identifié ce qui constitue vraiment les contraintes du développement agricole des pays du tiers monde.

Une question a été posée par le Représentant du Royaume-Uni qui s'est demandé si la FAO avait un avantage comparatif quelconque dans l'exécution des projets. Il a pris comme exemple, pour mettre en doute ce point, que notre réussite dans le cadre de la lucilie bouchère tenait à la coordination des activités par la FAO. M. Shah a beaucoup parlé de l'avantage comparatif, je n'y reviens pas, mais je dirais seulement qu'en réalité si la FAO a eu un très grand succès dans la lutte contre la lucilie bouchère c'est pour les raisons mentionnées par M. Shah, la qualité d'expertise et aussi le fait que nous avions une approche intégrée du problème. Nous l'avons identifié, nous avons sonné la sonnette d'alarme, nous avons évalué les moyens qu'il fallait mettre en oeuvre et nous avons également assuré la mobilisation des ressources, nous avons coordonné la communauté internationale, surtout les autres agences éventuellement intéressées à ce secteur, mais nous avons également exécuté nos projets, et c'est dans cette approche intégrée que réside le succès ou la capacité que la FAO a pü avoir d'assurer le succès de cette opération. Donc la question de l'avantage comparatif ne peut pas être uniquement limité à la coordination, c'est bien plus vaste et cela inclut à notre avis et associe, selon les circonstances, la capacité d'intervenir au niveau de l'exécution de certains projets.

Le Représentant des Etats-Unis a posé deux questions auxquelles je voudrais essayer de répondre. Il nous a dit que nous avons un pourcentage relativement important d'activités de terrain pour l'Afrique, il s'est demandé si c'est par hasard, à dessein ou sous l'influence des pays donateurs: je pense que c'est à dessein et je pense que ce n'est pas seulement le dessein du Secrétariat mais le dessein de la Communauté internationale tout entière qui se rend parfaitement compte des problèmes considérables auxquels les pays africains doivent faire face dans une série de situations d'urgence, en particulier ces dernières années, et aussi par une série de problèmes structurels qu'il faut approcher par des opérations de développement. Je voudrais simplement signaler que la proportion des activités de la FAO en Afrique, sur financement de fonds fiduciaires, est inférieure à celles sur financement du PNUD, ce qui montre bien que nous ne sommes pas entraînés par les donateurs, mais plutôt par le consensus de la Communauté internationale.

En deuxième lieu, le représentant a demandé quelle était l'implication des représentants de la FAO dans les chapitres 2.1.7 et 2.1.8, information et analyse en matière d'alimentation et d'agriculture, de politique alimentaire et agricole. Je voudrais lui dire que les Représentants de la FAO ont été récemment de plus en plus impliqués dans les avis en matière de politique et à un point tel que nous avons ressenti le besoin d'organiser ici au Siège un certain nombre de séminaires pour nous assurer qu'ils sont tout à fait informés sur ce sujet; c'est donc pour dire que nous comptons énormément sur eux pour assurer cet accroissement d'activités de la FAO dans ces domaines qui sont en amont des projets, l'information et les politiques.

Je vais me limiter à la dernière question qui est celle des rapports que peuvent faire les Représentants de la FAO. Il est évident que nos représentants dans les différents pays sont tenus de faire régulièrement rapport au Siège; ils font un rapport annuel qui est extrêmement détaillé sur la base d'un schéma qui leur est donné de manière à ce qu'ils couvrent non seulement les activités de terrain, mais aussi les activités régulières de la FAO; et tous les six mois, ils font un rapport de mise à jour.

Les représentants sont donc tenus de nous informer régulièrement. La possibilité éventuelle d'un rapport dans l'autre sens - là il s'agit d'un rapport interne à la FAO - c'est-à-dire d'un rapport que le Représentant de la FAO pourrait faire auprès des autorités nationales, est évidemment beaucoup plus compliqué dans la mesure où il y a une masse considérable d'activités que les représentants sont amenés à couvrir. Il y a les activités d'information à partir du pays vers le Siège pour les activités ordinaires, et il y a les activités de terrain. Mais nos représentants sont en permanence en contact avec les autorités nationales et par conséquent l'information doit être presque continue au niveau du gouvernement. D'autre part, nous avons pratiquement, dans toutes les Représentations, une petite bibliothèque qui assure également une information entre le Siège de la Représentation et non seulement les autorités nationales, mais également le public en général.

Enfin, il est vrai qu'un certain nombre de représentants peuvent éditer une petite brochure interne qui ensuite est distribuée dans les milieux nationaux intéressés et peut-être même auprès de la Communauté internationale. Malheureusement, cela a des implications financières, et alors que nous encourageons les représentants à le faire, nous ne sommes pas en mesure de le leur imposer pour des raisons financières. En tout cas, c'est un point intéressant.

D'autre part, je vous signale qu'il y a un catalogue des projets de terrain qui est distribué ici au Siège, mais également dans tous les pays, et qui permet aux autorités nationales de suivre au moins l'évolution des projets, peut-être même d'identifier ceux pour lesquels ils souhaiteraient davantage d'informations et, bien entendu, à ce moment-là, le représentant est tout à fait en mesure de fournir immédiatement le complément requis d'information.

Je m'excuse d'avoir été un peu long M. le Président.

LE PRESIDENT: Nous sommes là pour poser des questions, recevoir des réponses, mais nous sommes tenus par le temps d'interprétation sinon nous serions prêts à passer la soirée avec vous! Vos informations ont été très intéressantes et je suis persuadé que tous les membres en ont tiré le plus grand profit.

Y a-t-il des réactions? Je vois que les Etats-Unis demandent la parole.

Par ailleurs, pour les interprètes, et pour ne pas leur faire dépasser le temps, si vous souhaitez poser des questions qui risquent de prolonger les débats et comme je suis censé faire un résumé, je vous proposerais d'attendre demain matin. Je ne sais pas ce qu'en pense le délégué des Etats-Unis. Est-ce simplement une précision que vous désirez?

E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America) : I was hoping I could get a response by Mr Shah on a very simple idea, and that is the practicality or usefulness of having the Council discuss the Programme Implementation Report under the item of the review of the Programme Committee rather than as a separate item. It just seemed to be a practical thing and I would like to know what Mr Shah would think of that.

V.J. SHAH (Deputy Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget) : Very briefly, what the Conference considered important in its decision last session was that the Programme Implementation Report should come to it through the two Committees and through the Council, so what is important is that it should go through the Council. If the Council should prefer to discuss it in relation to the item on the Report of the Programme and Finance Committees, in substance it makes no difference, but procedurally I think it is cleaner for the Report to have its item, for the discussion to draw on the Report of the Programme and Finance Committees and, need I say, Mr Chairman, the Council is sovereign in the sense that it can have as much or as little discussion as it wishes at the time. There is every reason for the distinguished representative of the USA to feel reassured that the next time this report comes to the Council it will be up to the Council to discuss it in the manner in which it chooses.

LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie M. Shah pour ce complément d'information.

Je remercie également le Secrétariat pour l'ensemble des réponses qu'il a apporté aux questions des membres de la Commission.

Lorsque je vous ai parlé du résumé du Président, je situais cela pour ma part dans le contexte suivant: ou bien nous avions un Rapporteur ou bien nous avions simplement un résumé synthétique des décisions. Or nous ne sommes pas dans cette situation là. Nous avons un Comité de rédaction qui

va se pencher sur la question comme nous le ferons nous-mêmes au moment de l'adoption du rapport. J'aimerais, avec la permission des interprètes, prendre encore quelques minutes pour dire mon sentiment sur les observations des membres sur cette question.

Je crois qu'en examinant cette première version du Rapport d'exécution du Programme qui fait suite à la décision de la Conférence, conformément au nouveau processus de budget qui avait été décidé à l'époque, les membres de la Commission considèrent que ce document présente une amélioration certaine concernant les informations qui y figurent et ils ont apprécié la richesse de ces informations: la présentation, les tableaux synthétiques ainsi que les encadrés qui, tout au long du document, apportent un éclaircissement sur les activités particulières, sur des programmes particuliers. Sur ce point, les membres de la Commission ont été très clairs: c'était une très bonne initiative qu'il fallait encourager.

D'autre part, les membres de la Commission ont été unanimes à reconnaître que ce document faisait la synthèse vous l'avez dit vous-même M. Shah dans votre réponse - de plusieurs rapports qui, par le passé, reprenaient ces informations sur les programmes de terrain et le Programme ordinaire. Cela permet d'avoir des débats beaucoup plus efficaces étant donné que nous avons tous ces éléments rassemblés dans un même document. Vous avez fait allusion tout à l'heure aux informations sur les consultants et, dans l'interprétation française, c'était les "voyages d'affaires". Or moi, je parlais plutôt de missions. C'est là un aspect positif sur lequel les membres de la Commission ont jeté un éclairage particulier.

Par ailleurs, la Commission a également insisté sur ce que vous avez appelé, à juste titre, le "quartet, c'est-à-dire sur la synergie et les liens étroits qu'il y a entre les activités du Programme ordinaire et les activités des programmes de terrain, mais surtout sur la complémentarité du "quartet" tout au long du processus: le Plan à moyen terme, le Rapport d'exécution du Programme, le Rapport d'évaluation et finalement le Programme travail et budget qui est le morceau important. Certains membres ont pensé que le fait de relier la présentation de ces activités et les comptes rendus des réalisations figurant dans le Rapport d'exécution du Programme était une excellente initiative qu'il fallait poursuivre. Il y a eu également beaucoup d'avis exprimés quant à la pertinence - et M. Régnier en a fait part quand il a évoqué les programmes d'action spéciaux de cette approche intégrée. C'est là encore un élément fondamental.

En outre, certains membres - et ce n'est pas l'ensemble des membres de la Commission - ont exprimé l'avis selon lequel il fallait s'arrêter plus particulièrement sur les avantages comparatifs de l'Organisation. A cet égard, M. Régnier a donné un certain nombre de réponses qui devraient donner satisfaction à ceux qui ont posé cette question. Pour toutes les raisons évoquées par plusieurs membres de la Commission lorsqu'ils se sont exprimés sur la question, je crois que, compte tenu des capacités en présence et de l'expertise de la FAO, il n'est plus nécessaire de revenir sur cette question des avantages comparatifs.

Liées à cette question des avantages comparatifs, des remarques ont été exprimées sur la relation efficience-capacité. A cet égard, les membres ont exprimé clairement leur idée sur ce qu'ils pensaient être le rôle de l'Organisation.

Pour en venir maintenant aux différents chapitres, je dirais que sur le chapitre 1, l'ensemble des intervenants a insisté sur le suivi qui doit

être poursuivi concernant le Programme 21 de la CNUED et à la Conférence internationale sur la nutrition.

L'accent a été mis également sur la nécessité de continuer à soutenir les pays dans les négociations du GATT. C'est une question qui a été reprise par de nombreux délégués.

En général, les membres de la Commission ont été d'accord avec les résultats et les informations, tant au plan qualitatif qu'au plan quantitatif, qui figurent dans ce document, aux chapitres 2 et 3.

On a beaucoup parlé, précisément, de l'incidence des avantages comparatifs de cette expertise quant à la réalisation de programmes importants tels que l’eradication de la lucilie bouchère et la lutte antiacridienne. C'est un élément important sur lequel beaucoup de membres se sont exprimés.

Sur le chapitre 5, il y a beaucoup de membres qui ont parlé du Programme de coopération technique, et notamment de la réussite des activités de ce Programme, et surtout du respect des critères. En effet, toutes les personnes qui se sont exprimées, ont considéré que les critères qui présidaient au choix des projets, financés dans le cadre du PCT, étaient parfaitement valables et qu'il fallait maintenir cette tendance.

L'accent a été mis sur les résultats des initiatives et sur le fait qu'il fallait continuer à rationaliser les activités signalées au chapitre 6, et qui sont prises dans le cadre du Programme-cadre de coopération internationale pour l'agriculture et le développement durable ainsi que dans le cadre des Programmes d'action spéciaux. Point sur lequel M. Régnier s'est longuement arrêté.

On a parlé également de l'amélioration de la gestion des activités de terrain et il a été dit notamment qu'il fallait continuer à accorder un intérêt particulier à cette question.

S'agissant de la question des résolutions qui ont été adoptées à New York -la 47/199 - les intervenants ont considéré qu'il fallait continuer le suivi des recommandations de cette résolution, et ils ont apprécié le niveau de participation actuelle de notre Organisation dans ce suivi.

Pour en terminer, ce tour rapide concernant le sentiment que j'ai quant à l'appréciation des membres de la Commission, je voudrais parler de l'option - et M. Shah s'y est arrêté longuement.

Pour ma part, la situation me paraît très claire: tous les membres qui ont pris la parole se sont exprimés en faveur de l'option 1. Bien sûr, certains ont proposé que l'on puisse prendre ce que l'on peut considérer être les avantages de l'une et de l'autre. Sur ce point, M. Shah s'est exprimé en disant qu'il fallait être quand même attentif à la question, qui risquait peut-être de créer un surcroît. Je pense que nous n'en sommes pas au point de décider qu'il y aura un surcoût pour l'Organisation au moment où l'on parle d'efficience et de rationalité.

Le sentiment général a donc été en faveur de l'option 1 et je pense que c'est ainsi que les membres du Comité de rédaction apprécieront cette question.

Voilà, globalement, ce qu'a été, à mon avis, le sentiment des membres de la Commission lorsqu'ils se sont exprimés sur ce point. Bien sûr, cela ne

constitue pas du tout les lignes directrices du rapport, rapport qui sera discuté par les membres du Comité de rédaction qui nous représentent, et nous aurons l'occasion de parfaire toutes ces idées pour le rapport. Je m-excuse auprès des interprètes d'avoir dépassé le temps prévu.

S'il n'y a pas d'autres questions, nous sommes arrivés au terme de la discussion sur ce point 9.

Nous reprendrons demain matin à 9 heures 30 avec le point 10 qui est le Rapport d'évaluation du Programme. Au Bureau de cette Commission, nous avons coordonné nos activités pour le futur et demain, ce point sera conduit sous la présidence de M. Paranhos, Représentant permanent adjoint du Brésil.

Je vous remercie de votre attention et de votre patience.

The meeting rose at 18.00 hours.
La séance est levée à 18 h 00.
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.00 horas.

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page