LE PRESIDENT: Je vous rappelle que le Rapport d'évaluation du Programme avait été examiné par le Comité du Programme, à sa session d'avril, qui en a fait rapport à notre dernière réunion du Conseil, c'est-à-dire la cent huitième session.
La réaction, tant au Conseil qu'au Comité du Programme avait été dans l'ensemble positive, il n'y avait eu que quelques demandes concernant l'amélioration de la présentation et certains éléments d'analyse.
Concernant le Rapport d'exécution du Programme, il avait été discuté par le Comité du Programme et par le Comité financier à leurs sessions de 1995, et présenté à la cent neuvième session du Conseil. Cette deuxième édition du rapport a été jugée utile, constructive et instructive par le Comité du Programme qui a également estimé que l'utilité de l'information et des données était sérieusement réduite par la nécessité de recourir, pour 1995, à des estimations, puisque l'année n'est pas achevée.
Le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier ont décidé de recommander, par conséquent, au Conseil, d'examiner la possibilité de modifier la date de rédaction du rapport, de manière à couvrir les données réelles pour toute la période examinée. Cela veut dire que le rapport serait retardé pour tenir compte des dernières données, par exemple de l'année 1995. Je rappelle en effet que, dans tous les raisonnements financiers, il est extrêmement important de partir du budget tel qu'il a été exécuté.
Voilà pour l'essentiel ce que je voulais vous dire, en vous rappelant tout de même la règle du quorum et en vous demandant vraiment que nous puissions avoir des travaux productifs qui ne nous laissent pas sur l'impression du dernier Conseil qui était une impression de divergences entre différentes positions, afin que nous puissions engager l'année budgétaire d'une manière convenable pour que l'Organisation puisse continuer à fonctionner quel que soit le niveau que nous déterminerons du budget.
Je vous remercie de votre attention et je donne immédiatement la parole au Secrétariat qui va vous présenter très rapidement chacun des deux rapports.
T. WADE (Officer-in-Charge, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I will be very brief because under your working arrangements, I know you do not really require introductions for the reports. In the case of the Programme Evaluation Report, there are no changes to announce to that document and you have the reports of the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee.
In the case of the Programme Implementation Report, you have addressed the very issue which does cause some problems and which the Programme and Finance Committees both agreed required some change. The concern arose out of the fact that the vast majority of the data concerning 1995 are estimates and not actuals for obvious reasons.
In fact, they are estimates for the whole year because the document is prepared in the first quarter of 1995. This is a problem, particularly in this biennium, because it was in January that they learnt of a serious shortfall in contributions and had to cut back the resource allocations so when they made their estimates and made their appropriate submissions, they were not aware, in fact, of how serious the situation would be. For that reason, the report does not reflect under-delivery as much as it should. It does reflect under-delivery. If you attended the Plenary and heard the Director-General's speech, you will note that he commented on the fact that training was down 17 percent, that meeting participation was down 43 percent, the publications were down 6 percent. That is already in this report. On top of that, there were a number of areas where we have since had to make the decisions to postpone, cancel or delay activities. I have a rather long list of them. I do not want to read them all out. I have got a couple of examples to the Commission which might assist. For example, we have had to, under natural resources, cancel the biennial meeting of the Commission on Fertilizers. We have had to postpone or delay the implementation of the scheme for the conservation and rehabilitation of African lands. Under crops, we have had to delay our support work for the Asian Regional Working Group on Tropical Vegetables. There are a lot of examples. I think rather than take the Commission's time, I wonder if I can have your indulgence to include in the verbatim of the Commission Report the list of activities which we have either had to cancel or postpone. If that is the case, I would probably stop there and not take up any more time.
LE PRESIDENT: Je pense que tout le monde trouvera avantage à avoir la liste des projets qui ont été retardés, donc elle sera distribuée par le Secrétariat, dans le Verbatim qui sera présenté à la fin de notre réunion. Vous aurez cette liste lundi matin.
Sur cet aspect de l'exécution du Programme et du budget 1995, y-a-t'il des commentaires? Avez-vous des informations complémentaires à demander? Nous sommes là pour vous écouter.
John Bruce SHARPE (Australia): As a member of the Programme Committee and the Council, Australia has already had an opportunity to comment on these documents, and our views are reflected in their reports. However, there are a couple of points we wish to reiterate.
Firstly, I would like to address the Programme Evaluation Report. We applaud the intention expressed by the Director-General in his introduction at page 5 to pursue all appropriate measures to strengthen further the cost-effectiveness of our evaluation system and the intention to improve the analytical content of the programme evaluation report, including the assessment of cost-effectiveness, the impact on sustainability and programme results.
We are pleased to note in the summary introduction at paragraph 2 that the Fisheries Department is pursuing the possibility of undertaking, during the 1996-97 biennium, an in-depth study of the small-scale fisheries development programme, as recommended in Chapter 3 of the last report. This will be very welcome news to those small island member countries of the Southwest Pacific Region who have such a strong interest in this programme because of the importance of fisheries to their economies.
We note with approval the priorities of sub-programme 2.1.8.4. outlined at paragraph 99, and that here and in other areas the enlarged concept of food security is recognized. We are pleased to see that it goes well beyond food production only and includes stability and access to available supplies and a recognition of important factors such as trade links.
Australia finds the GIEWS early warning and emergency reports most useful and has been able to respond to urgent appeals on a number of occasions as a result of the information provided. Reference is made in the report to the success of the New World Screwworm Fly campaign in North Africa. Australia gave its support to this campaign and, in a practical way, contributed financially. We were extremely pleased with the successful outcome and FAO's efforts in bringing this about.
We were very interested in the chapter on Community Forest Development. The participatory community-based approach being promoted by FAO in forestry development through such programmes as the Forests, Trees and People Programme and Community Forestry Programme, is to be commended. The benefits of this approach can be seen in the Australian experience through the success of our land care and farm forestry programme.
I would now like to make some comments on the Programme Implementation Report. Under Decentralization at paragraph 6, we are advised that Operations Officers dealing with Asia and the Pacific for all types of projects, including forestry and fisheries, are to be transferred to the Regional Office in Bangkok before the end of this year. This is to be used as a pilot model for decentralization. This approach we welcome, and we will watch the results with interest.
We are pleased that Australia is to be one of the countries participating in FAO's arrangements for cooperation with academic and research institutions, as mentioned at paragraph 16.
My delegation notes with approval the list of savings actually realized at paragraph 28 and applaud the efforts being made by the Director-General in this direction.
We are pleased to see at paragraph 129 that foot-and-mouth disease is to be one of the diseases to be focused on by the EMPRES scheme. Work by FAO on foot-and-mouth disease in Asia and the Pacific Region was something Australia and the other members of the region advocated at their last regional conference.
Paragraph 157 refers to aspects of crop protection which are very important to those member countries producing both for the domestic and the export markets. In the case of the work of the Secretariat to the International Plant Protection Commission, FAO is to be congratulated on the Standards Development Programme it has undertaken. We strongly support this work as an ongoing component of the crop protection programme. Australia has a high regard for the work FAO is doing in the areas of Integrated Pest Management as outlined in paragraph 158. We continue to provide financial assistance to FAO's successful programme for the development and application of integrated pest control in rice in South and Southeast Asia. We are pleased to see that the experiences there are to be expanded to other areas and to other crops. In Australia we have for some time recognized the importance of IPM for our own agricultural production and have directed efforts to research in this area. The Cooperative Research Programme for Tropical Pest Management in Australia has developed world-recognized computer-based decision support tools for IPM and runs IPM courses for local and overseas students and researchers. We note from the report that efforts have been made to improve coordination of IPM activities among the various agencies involved in IPM development through a joint programme called the IPM facility. Given the expertise available in Australia, there may be mutual benefits in our involvement in this facility and further involvement in FAO's IPM work in general.
I come to an important issue contained in this report. We note with concern the information contained in Table 2.7 on page 18 relating to support costs and the extent of reimbursements received. That table indicates that of the US$84.6 million of total support costs in 1994, reimbursements of only US$34.9 million, or only 41 percent of the total, were received, leaving nearly 60 percent or nearly 50 million to be subsidized from the Regular Programme budget. This may be qualified following advice received yesterday from Mr Wade, but the amount involved is still considerable. My delegation believes in the principle of full cost recovery of support costs. At a time when insufficient funds will be available for a regular programme of work, which is generally agreed by the overall membership, a large portion of what is available should not be diverted from that purpose in order to subsidize projects of interest to a limited number of donor countries and the recipient countries involved. We understand that the World Food Programme is wisely moving away from this approach towards full cost recovery. Perhaps it is time for this Organization to take out again and dust off the consultant's report on this matter which was set aside early this year.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci, Monsieur le Représentant de l'Australie, pour vos intéressants commentaires à la fois positifs sur les aspects de l'action de la FAO et soulevant un problème en effet important, qui est celui du recouvrement des coûts d'appui. Je donne maintenant la parole au Représentant des Pays-Bas.
E.J.M. BROUWERS (The Netherlands): My comments will be limited to the evaluation report under consideration. First, I shall make some general observations on the report as a whole, followed by a number of brief remarks regarding specific chapters. As a general observation, I may state that in comparison to the previous evaluation reports, the report before us has gained considerably in quality. Still, there is room for improvement. As indicated by the Programme Committee earlier, the report is still too descriptive. It does not pay enough attention to input, output, results and impact. Furthermore, in our view, additional focus should have been given to the complementarity between the Regular and the Field Programme and the specific role of FAO vis-à-vis other international organizations. My delegation has taken note of the promises of the Secretariat in this respect regarding future evaluation reports. Furthermore, the Netherlands once again would like to stress the importance of the evaluation exercises as feedback for the implementation process. We have discussed this during previous occasions. We would like to hear from the Secretariat whether, and if so, which, concrete steps will be taken to improve this feedback process.
I will now turn to a couple of specific comments. The chapter on conservation and management of plant and animal genetic resources gives an interesting overview of activities undertaken by FAO in this field. It also shows clearly the weaknesses of the programmes. No information is provided concerning the integration of these issues into the other FAO programmes, for instance, into FAO activities with regard to food security and food production. Additional information on this by the Secretariat would be much appreciated.
The Report indicates that FAO has hardly undertaken activities regarding a scheme of conservation, due to lack of funding. It is our impression, however, that quite a few numbers of countries are interested in initiatives in this field and among them there is, of course, my own country.
On food information, early warning systems and world food security I would like to state that funding of those programmes shows a downward trend. The Netherlands, being a major donor to these programmes, is very worried about this. What measures does FAO have in mind to correct the situation?
Due to financial constraints the frequency of a number of publications mentioned in paragraph 1.2.3. has been reduced. Could FAO give any indication whether these publications meet a real demand and, if so, what can be done to improve the situation?
With regard to the Global Information and Early Warning System the Report mentions problems related to vacancies in the service. It seems, however, that for instance in the Netherlands sufficient expert input in this field is available. Considering the important and increasing responsibilities of the System, staffing should be given top priority by FAO.
On Community Forestry Development, I would like to stress that we are worried about one of the conclusions of the Report, namely that the Community Forestry Unit is under-staffed. We regret the absence of any recommendation to improve the situation. The fact that 25 percent of the projects lack a proper project design is equally worrying, and here I would like to refer back to my earlier comments on the feedback regarding evaluation reports.
On Control of Transboundary Plant Pests and Animal Diseases, the Report indicates that FAO carried out a review of the two latest locust control campaigns. The Netherlands would like to be informed about the results as soon as possible. We are also still very much interested in the outcome of the review concerning the periods 1986-89 of which the results have never been made public.
The idea of an emergency reserve fund for immediate action is an appealing one. However, in order to convince countries to contribute to such a fund, it seems that a number of conditions have to be met. In this light we urge FAO to speed up its efforts to obtain more insight into the cost- effectiveness of the locust control operations, their environmental impact and a realistic organizational structure of the locust control programme, an improved exchange of information concerning outbreaks and development of plagues, and improved donor coordination.
As stated in the Implementation Report, the Netherlands is willing to contribute financially to these efforts. A recent request by FAO for Dutch funding of chemicals within the framework of an operation in West Africa is, however, not compatible with this approach, since it lacks provisions for the monitoring of activity and environmental impact.
LE PRESIDENT: Merci, Monsieur le Représentant des Pays-Bas, d'avoir souligné un certain nombre de problèmes qui semblent, en partie d'ailleurs, relever de problèmes de financement. Il faut toujours avoir à l'esprit que l'on demande plus pour faire avec moins d'argent. Donc, c'est toujours l'un des problèmes auquel nous serons confrontés. Mais, vos remarques sont fort pertinentes et intéressantes. Je donne maintenant la parole au Japon.
Kenji SHIMIZU (Japan): My observations are mainly on the Report of the Programme Implementation Report. My delegation attaches importance to the Report contained in document C95/8, as it provides good material to facilitate our understanding and assessment of FAO's activities, such as the Programme budget and the Medium-Term Plan. It is commended that the content of the Report is streamlined and improved, mainly as a result of using charts or graphs. However, it still needs further improvement, in particular in its analysis of efficiency or cost benefits of the Programme as pointed out in the Report of the 73rd Session of the Programme Committee.
Now I wish to make some specific comments on a chapter-by-chapter basis.
Chapter one - Decentralization: my delegation considers that decentralization should be implemented with full care and preparation so as to avoid interruption of the on-going activities.
Chapter two - Resources: This organization, as you know, is now facing the trend of declining resources, mainly as a result of the reduced support from the UNDP. There may be no positive development on the trend in the future too, and it may be more important to review the programmes based on this trend of declining resources rather than seeking external resources. Of course we know that they are also important.
On the support costs, my delegation fully supports the efforts of the Director-General to reduce the costs, the results of which are still awaited and it is premature to assess them at this stage. However, at this juncture I wish to stress the importance of interaction between the programmes and the review of programmes, as explained very well by Mr Wade at the last session of the Council.
Chapter three - Training: paragraph 51, grass-level training. FAO should play a catalytic role in promoting grass-level training with the help of the countries concerned, using officials or experts who have participated in the training courses organized by FAO. FAO should not be directly involved in this extension training at the grass-level, but encourage the countries concerned to use the experts trained already under FAO's scheme.
With regard to the participation costs, this may be one of the areas to review as this Organization is suffering from financial constraints.
With regard to publications, there is still room for improvement to reduce the costs, for example by use of Internet and CD-ROM and joint publications with other organizations.
In relation to the use of consultants, we know there is some progress going on in the Secretariat. However, more use of consultant services may be another area to be further considered in the light of the growing share of personnel expenses in the budget.
As to the Field Programme and the percentage of projects in LDCs, while UNDP's fund proportion has been increased since 1986, the reverse is the case with the trust funds. I wish the reason for this to be clarified, because this programme is a matter of major concern to the international community. This is also the case for FAO.
With regard to evaluation, evaluation is a very important exercise and my delegation is always interested in its improvement. It can be further improved and more balanced if it reflects the views of all the parties concerned, in particular the donors.
Chapter four - the Special Programmes for LIFDCs and EMPRES: some resources to implement those special programmes, in particular the initial costs such as planning, may be financed from the regular budget by means of using the savings made in other areas, or by using external resources. However, there is no sign of financial improvement in the foreseeable future.
Chapter five - the Technical and Economic Programme: as for Major Programme 2.1: Agriculture, it may be important that the next Report should spell out FAO's projected activities on Chapter 14 of Agenda Item 21, namely sustainable agriculture and rural development, because the subject is one of the important tasks for FAO to address.
In relation to world food security, FAO should strengthen and expand its level of activities on the world food and agricultural situation. This is an area where FAO has a clear advantage. In relation to plant pests and animal diseases and the resources in this area, there is also a large potential to be developed which would greatly contribute to food production and agriculture development. However, in so doing, cooperation with other relevant organizations is very important to make full use of their expertise. On planting and phytosanitary measures, the standard-setting work should be done with a view to formulating an effective standard based on scientific knowledge. Nobody is convinced without scientific justification.
On Major Programme 2.2: Fisheries, one thing I wish to stress here is that Japan fully appreciates FAO's cooperation with our initiative to host the World Fisheries Conference on Sustainable Contribution of the Fisheries to World Food Security, and we wish the Secretariat to extend its continued support to ensure the success of that conference.
Chapter six deals with Development, Support and Project Operations. On Major Programme 3.1: Field Programme Liaison and Development, it should be stressed that the improved interactions between project operations and normative work is the key to the success of the ongoing decentralization process.
With regard to Major Programme 3.3: Country Offices, in the light of the serious financial constraints facing FAO, it may now be necessary to look into the programme of these countries' office systems as a whole in terms of efficiency and effectiveness in order to work out a programme based on the development of the situation now facing FAO. My delegation supports the Director-General's initiatives to recruit national professional officers and we may be able to develop further such measures as, for example, having a joint office with the UNDP. The UNDP is now the regional coordinator of systems at country level. The resolution to this effect was adopted at the General Assembly in New York. Alternatively it could share the financial responsibility with a hosting country, or it could objectively assess the activities or outcome of the country offices, for example by introducing a reporting system on a number of the projects implemented by the office concerned.
Chapter seven concerns Major Programme 1.2: Policy Direction and Planning. The activities of monitoring and auditing should be further strengthened in light of the importance of promoting the transparency and accountability of the budget, as well as the activities.
In relation to FINSYS and PLANSYS, it is of great regret that there is no substantial information available on the measures taken to correct the situation. This is despite the huge loss of the resources for some years. It is still not clear as to why, how and who, or what measures were taken.
Suharyo HUSEN (Indonesia): Thank you, Mr Chairman, for giving me the floor. I will limit myself to fairly general observations on the Report C 95/4 and Report C 95/8.
As this is the first time I have the floor, allow me on behalf of the Indonesian delegation to congratulate you on your election, Mr Chairman, Vice-Chairman, as well as other Officers concerned with the 28th Session of FAO Conference.
My delegation is in agreement with the Director-General's views that FAO is an important and essential component in the management of FAO which deals with the world population whose lives depend on agriculture and in particular to learn from experience and lessons for the constant search for improvement as well as better accountability and institutional memory.
Therefore while the Organization has already considerable experience in this field it will continue to pursue all appropriate measures to strengthen and further the cost-effectiveness of these programmes, of which the Programme Evaluation Report forms an important part. Furthermore, my delegation would like to express our appreciation to the Director-General for his consistency in implementing the special duties assigned by the FAO Council at its June meeting to make in-depth profiles of selected programmes for priority areas such as Sub-Programmes for Conservation and Plant Genetic Resources and Animal Genetic Resources, Sub-Programmes for Food Information and Early Warning Systems and World Food Security as well as Community Forestry Development.
With regard to the review of Programme Evaluation, my delegation would like to see the conclusion of the review especially after the forum with regard to the Field Programme due to some factors such as the recent change in UNDP policies and modalities which in fact have significantly affected FAO's operations, inter alia, by reducing the support costs income from projects as well as the increasing competition from UNOPS, formerly Projects Services, NGOs and private consultancies. In my delegation's views, those materials should become the tools for FAO to have more specific orientation on the projects in the interests of Member Nations to increase food and agricultural production especially in support of their food security.
Finally, my delegation would also like to express our appreciation of the document before us.
Franco GINOCCHIO (Italy): The Italian delegation would first of all like to congratulate the FAO Secretariat for the good quality of the documents concerning the Programme Evaluation Report and the Programme Implementation Reports. We would like to make a few comments on Document C 95/4, as we attach great importance to the efforts made by FAO in seeking to improve the content of the Programme Evaluation Report in order to allow Member States to identify the results already achieved and the longer term impact of sustainability of the programme results.
With regard to the second chapter of this document, we have focused our attention on the two Sub-Programmes 2.1.7.3 Global Information and Early Warning System and 2.1.8.4 World Food Security. In the summary of this document it is underlined that the Sub-Programme 2.1.7.3 has functioned efficiently by meeting increased demand for assistance from the world community.
Paragraph 118 highlights the fact that the Department of Humanitarian Affairs entrusted FAO with overall responsibility for crop monitoring and for the assessment of the food needs in the agricultural field of the countries affected by emergencies.
With regard to Sub-Programme 2.1.8.4 we have noted that the Food Security Assistance Scheme was followed by an independent external team in 1986 which pointed out the positive achievements of this programme to identify additional problems like the inadequate coordination of donor assistance and the insufficient impact on access to available food supplies by the most vulnerable groups of population. We think that the evaluation made for this sub-programme is very important also for the Special Programme in support of Food Security initiated in 1994 as it allows FAO to learn from past experience and to give to the Member States a better knowledge of the goals that the Organization is best suited to achieve through the new Special Programme on Food Security.
Concerning chapter three, the Italian Delegation attaches great importance to the evaluation made of the Sub-Programme 2.3.3.4 concerning Forestry Development. We appreciate in particular the information given in paragraphs 211 to 221 which explains the effects and impacts of the Community Forestry Programme including the Forests, Trees and People Programme. We have noted that the sterile evaluation of the Forests, Trees and People Programme, which took place in 1994, highlighted that the Programme has resulted in satisfactory progress. However, this evaluation has underlined the fact that future efforts should be made by FAO and other relevant institutions for the purpose of improving the regional countenance of the Programme.
We have taken as important examples the Sub-programmes dealt with in chapters two and three in order to show the importance of the results of the Programme Evaluation Report and finding the immediate terms and priorities which are illustrated in the Medium-term Plan for 1996-2001. We will make further comments on the examination of the Medium-term Plan.
Patrick PRUVOT (France): La délégation française avait déjà eu l'occasion de dire au Conseil combien elle avait apprécié la qualité des documents (Rapports d'exécution et d'évaluation) présentés et salué les efforts du Secrétariat pour les améliorer constamment. Nous ne reviendrons donc pas sur le contenu de ce rapport utilement complété ce matin lors de la déclaration du Directeur général mais nous souhaitons nous associer à la déclaration faite par le Représentant de l'Australie en ce qui concerne le remboursement des dépenses engagées par l'Organisation à l'appui des projets financés tant par le PNUD que sur les fonds fiduciaires, le Programme de coopération technique ou le Programme alimentaire mondial. Nous tenons à saluer les efforts de la FAO pour réduire ces coûts en cohérence d'ailleurs avec les restrictions budgétaires actuelles, et ceci grâce à la rationalisation des procédures et à la décentralisation. Mais nous pensons que le Secrétariat devrait encore approfondir cette question, comme le PAM d'ailleurs a entrepris de le faire, afin d'assurer un taux de recouvrement meilleur. Enfin la délégation française profite de cette occasion pour marquer son accord ainsi qu'il a été dit au début de cette séance, avec toute démarche visant à adapter la date de parution des rapports de manière à y refléter les données réelles et définitives du biennium. Merci.
LE PRESIDENT: Je remercie le délégué de la France et je passe la parole au délégué de la Suisse. Comme je l'ai annoncé, je donne la présidence à notre ami pakistanais; je vous retrouverai moi-même lundi matin pour aborder les points 15 et 16 qui sont les plus difficiles. J'insiste sur la nécessité de respecter les horaires. Nous avons un temps d'interprétariat limité et nous devons terminer nos travaux le 25 octobre.
Shahid RASHID Vice-Chairman of the Council, took the chair
Shahid RASHID Vice-Président du Conseil, assume la présidence
Ocupa la presidencia Shahid RASHID, Vicepresidente del Consejo
Lothar CAVIEZEL (Suisse): Au nom de la Suisse, j'aimerais à mon tour remercier le Secrétariat pour les deux rapports sur l'exécution et l'évaluation du Programme 1994-95 qui nous ont été soumis. C'est avec intérêt que nous avons lu ces deux rapports qui donnent une bonne vue d'ensemble sur l'exécution et l'évaluation du Programme. Nous insisterons essentiellement sur le rapport concernant l'évaluation. Nous considérons l'évaluation comme un exercice indispensable dans toute bonne gestion qui recherche l'efficacité et veut assurer la transparence. Nous sommes conscients des trois types d'activités de la FAO, à savoir les activités normatives, les activités d'action spéciaux et les programmes d'action et les projets de coopération technique traditionnels. Nous sommes d'avis que la FAO devrait se concentrer surtout sur les activités normatives et que ses programmes d'action spéciaux et ses projets de coopération devraient essentiellement servir à renforcer ses activités normatives. Il nous semble en outre de toute première importance que notre Organisation définisse les types d'activités de terrain dans lesquels elle devrait s'engager en priorité afin que les programmes de terrain reflètent mieux l'avantage comparatif de la FAO et la synergie avec les activités techniques relevant du Programme ordinaire. Nous espérons par ailleurs que la concurrence croissante, en particulier des ONG et des sociétés-conseils privés, incite la FAO à constamment améliorer la qualité de ses programmes et projets. Nous apprécions en outre les bons résultats obtenus par notre Organisation, en particulier d'une part du Système mondial d'information et d'alerte rapide et d'autre part de la lutte contre les acridiens et la lucilie bouchère. Nous sommes par ailleurs d'avis que le FAO peut encore apporter des améliorations à son type de fonctionnement, et nous pensons en particulier que la FAO devrait sérieusement alléger son processus de recrutement du personnel et simplifier le processus d'envoi sur le terrain des consultants, notamment pour les arrangements de voyage qui sont gérés séparément du recrutement; la même chose pour les opérations d'achat de matériel et la sous-traitance. Nous apprécions les importations quantitatives fournies sur la réalisation des projets, mais nous sommes resté sur notre faim en ce qui concerne les informations qualitatives. Nous aimerions obtenir dans les rapports futurs des informations plus précises sur les résultats des visites d'appui technique aux projets car notre expérience montre que l'essentiel est l'enseignement tiré de ces visites afin d'ajuster aussi bien les projets en cours que d'en tenir compte dans l'élaboration de nouveaux projets. C'est avec plaisir que nous avons pris connaissance que la FAO a déjà fait
appel á un bon nombre de consultants nationaux et nous I ‘encourageons á intégrer encore davantage de nationaux dans les missions de terrain.
Ms Astrid Bergquist (Sweden): As many of the views my country shares already have been expressed by previous speakers, I will limit my intervention solely to Chapter three of the Programme Evaluation Report document C 95/4.
Sweden appreciates very much the Secretariat's very detailed and critical examination of the progress made and difficulties encountered in the Community Forestry Programme. Representing a country so dominated by forests and forestry activities, we have always considered forestry activities to be a very important part of the FAO programmes. Therefore, we are pleased to see the importance given to the Community Forestry Development Programme. We are pleased that we have had the opportunity of supporting this programme over the years.
A number of lessons have been learned over the years from the Community Forestry Programme, including the Forestry, Trees and People Programme, which in the view of my delegation could serve as very useful inputs to the new CSD panel on forests which was the result of the negotiations at the CSD meeting in New York in early spring, and then later on endorsed by ECOSOC. Perhaps the most important reason is that projects and activities that stress the participatory approach, as they have done in the Community Forestery Programmes, take much more time to develop and are much more complicated than the traditional projects. There are no quick fixes to progress in this field.
Paragraph 224 in the document certainly states a number of these problems encountered. One of the most important that I would like to draw attention to is as stated in paragraph (c) the need for clear land-tenure arrangements. The point on land-tenure systems and conflict management is stressed as well in other paragraphs. Paragraph 217 is a case in point. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why there are difficulties in the paucity of clear evidence of economic viability of many of the community forest problems. It could have its reasons in difficulties in land-tenure systems.
We are also pleased to note within forestry development programmes the stress given to gender issues. Also here we feel that the experience made so far could give valuable input to the CSD panel when it discusses the participatory approaches involving indigenous people and local people in forestry activities. We feel that the lessons learned in the programme could certainly serve as useful lessons for other organizations dealing with forestry development.
Harald HILDEBRAND (Germany): At the 108th Session of the Council my delegation made detailed reference to the Programme Evaluation Report. Therefore, I would only like to repeat the general conclusion drawn last June, also reflected in the report, that future programme evaluation reports should be more analytical and provide more concrete statements on cost effectiveness, sustainability of results and impacts of the programme activities.
Specific remarks by my delegation regarding the programme activities on genetic and animal genetic resources were submitted at that time to the Secretariat in writing.
Now I would like to deal with the Programme Implementation Report in document C 95/8. My delegation is grateful to the Secretariat for this careful and detailed account of the 1994-95 programme activities. As indicated in the foreword of the Director-General, it presents indeed a useful factual overview of resources committed, key activities undertaken and major outputs produced under the Regular and Field Programmes during the years 1994-95.
The biennium meeting has coincided with the ongoing restructuring of the organization. Therefore, my delegation welcomes the progress achieved in this complex process as reflected in Chapter 1 of the Report. In this connection my country fully supports the efforts of the Director-General to implement the four new cooperation schemes. May I just add that Germany has decided to join the Agreement for Cooperation with Academic and Research Institutions, and has offered the services of the first two scientists under the scheme.
The figures and details in Chapter 3 of the Report provide a good overview of quite diverse services helping member countries use and adapt technological know-how for the improvement of their national capacities. Of course, the impact of technical meetings, training sessions and staff technical support on the improvement of national performance in food and agriculture is difficult to assess, but in the view of my delegation this is a priority sphere where FAO is able to deploy its long-standing experience and accumulated knowledge to the benefit of recipient countries. This is also confirmed by the evolving structure of TCP projects described in paragraph 98. Although emergency assistance in the future will be of some importance, advisory and training services in 1994 have accounted for 81 percent of the TCP expenditure. Such a trend might allow early and priority-oriented planning of such projects.-
My delegation has taken note with great interest of the updated information on the FAO special programmes, that is to say, for higher food security by increased output and productivity in low-income food deficit countries and EMPRES. In view of resource constraints both in FAO and with potential donor countries and organizations, maximum synergy and complementarity with ongoing programmes and projects must be sought. Likewise, my delegation stresses the need to concentrate the LIFDC programme on those recipient countries where the political commitment by governments is evident, as mentioned in paragraph 118. This must be seen as the decisive prerequisite. Likewise, national execution should be a predominant feature of the special programme.
My delegation appreciates the intention of FAO and UNDP that joint projects be reoriented under the new task force towards food security and the special programme.
Let me now briefly comment on Chapter 5 relating to the technical and economical programmes. This part deserves special attention in view of its high share of the regular budget, about 70 percent, and the relevance of agriculture, forestry and fisheries in the work of FAO as a whole. The progress described for the key areas of these major programmes cannot but be a general quantitative summary. The juxtaposition of the programme thrust and progress shown for many of the priorities set in agriculture, fisheries and forestry seems plausible. However, conclusions on sustained progress are difficult to draw without having concrete project results.
On the whole, my delegation appreciates FAO's technical contributions in these key areas to UNCED follow-up, particularly this year's 3rd Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development and the United Nations Conferences held in 1994 and 1995 on Population and Development, Social Problems and on Women.
Finally, may I add that supplementary updated information on the implementation of major, perhaps unforeseeable, expenditure for 1995 would have been welcome and particularly helpful for the subsequent debate in this Commission on the Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97.
Pedro Agostinho KANGA (Angola): Monsieur le Président, prenant la parole pour la première fois, je voudrais joindre ma voix à celle des délégués qui m'ont précédé pour vous féliciter de votre élection à la présidence de cette importante commission, ainsi que les autres membres du Bureau.
Nos félicitations s'adressent aussi au Secrétariat, pour la manière très claire et concise dont ces documents nous sont présentés et sont élaborés. Il va sans dire que ce deuxième Rapport d'évaluation, qui couvre l'exercice biennal 1994-95, nous fournit une base utile à l'examen des résultats de certains programmes et activités. Malgré les maigres ressources, beaucoup de programmes ont été exécutés avec efficacité.
Nous nous félicitons de certaines améliorations apportées qui ont permis de faire ressortir le fond des problèmes.
S'agissant, Monsieur le Président, du Programme de développement de la pêche artisanale, qui est d'une grande importance, il est indispensable que le Département des pêches entreprenne, au prochain biennium, l'étude approfondie qui permettra de réexaminer l'efficacité du programme et la stratégie de suivi.
Nous ne pouvons passer sous silence et ne pas reconnaître l'importance et l'efficacité pratique des systèmes d'alerte rapide et d'information sur l'alimentation qui ont été mis en place dans notre sous-région de la SADC, ce qui a permis à nos gouvernements et à la communauté des donateurs de déployer à l'avance l'aide
alimentaire et de la distribuer en un temps record et sans engorgement notable durant la sécheresse de 1992 en Afrique australe. A cet égard, nous ne pouvons que remercier la FAO et les pays donateurs.
En ce qui concerne les maladies des animaux, nous reconnaissons l'importance de la surveillance efficace et de la lutte contre les maladies transfrontières du bétail. Nous souhaitons que les leçons tirées de la réussite de la lutte contre la lucilie bouchère soient appliquées à d'autres insectes comme la mouche tsé-tsé.
Dans ce Rapport d'évaluation, Monsieur le Président, nous avons constaté que bon nombre de programmes importants n'étaient pas exécutés. A cet égard, il est important que la FAO dispose des ressources adéquates dans le cadre du programme ordinaire pour assurer la continuité des activités fondamentales.
Monsieur le Président, s'agissant du Rapport d'exécution du Programme 1994-95, notre délégation loue les efforts déployés par l'Organisation pour mettre à exécution certains programmes malgré les difficultés financières qu'elle connaît en ce moment.
Nous aussi, nous partageons les inquiétudes du Directeur général quant à la situation financière précaire de l'Organisation et nous exhortons tous les pays membres à payer leur contribution.
Il ne fait pas de doute que ce rapport est instructif, utile et riche d'informations. C'est aussi avec satisfaction que nous constatons que les activités ont été exécutées conformément au Programme de travail et budget et aux révisions apportées pour tenir compte de la restructuration.
Au paragraphe 167, il est dit qu'un document a été élaboré sur la stratégie révisée de lutte contre la trypanosomiase animale africaine. Vu l'importance que mon pays attache à ce problème, nous aimerons en avoir une copie.
Sans hésiter, nous manifestons notre satisfaction de voir au paragraphe 176 qu'une version portugaise est en préparation du Thésaurus multilingue AGROVOC; nous vous remercions d'avoir pensé cette fois-ci aux pays d'expression portugaise.
Pour terminer, Monsieur le Président, ma délégation approuve les observations pertinentes sur les aspects spécifiques du Comité des finances, contenues dans le rapport de la session conjointe du Comité du programme et du Comité financier.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your comments and I believe your request has been noted by the Secretariat.
Patrick K. LUKHELE (Swaziland): First of all, I wish to commend the Secretariat for preparing the very informative documents before us, namely the Programme Evaluation Report and the Programme Implementation Report. Since these documents have already been extensively discussed by some relevant government bodies of this Organization, I wish to confine my comments to one specific issue in the Programme Implementation Report.
From the onset I wish to state that my delegation fully supports the efforts of the Director General to decentralize the operations of the Organization. Having said that, I wish to refer to Chapter 1 of the Programme Implementation Report in C 95/8, particularly with respect to the issue of decentralization as reflected from paragraphs 4 to 12. My delegation concerns the functional relationship amongst regional, sub-regional and country offices. Our main fear is that, unless very clear guidelines are developed, bureaucratic problems may arise leading to delays in the delivery of services to member countries. It would be most beneficial if such guidelines could be made available to us.
Lastly, Mr Chairman, I wish to congratulate you and other members of your bureau on your election to guide our deliberations in this important Commission.
George APOSTOIU (Roumanie): La délégation de la Roumanie s'associe sincèrement aux opinions des autres délégations qui ont donné une appréciation positive aux Rapports d'exécution et d'évaluation soumis à notre examen. Documentation exacte et interprétation pertinente, voilà les qualités des deux documents. En félicitant le Secrétariat de son travail, la délégation de la Roumanie voudrait saisir l'occasion pour faire un bref commentaire visant l'utilisation des consultants des pays en 1992-94 dans différents programmes de la FAO. Tout en appréciant, Monsieur le Président, la qualité des consultants en provenance des pays mentionnés dans le graphique 3.12, la délégation de la Roumanie ne peut pas noter avec beaucoup de satisfaction le niveau extrêmement insignifiant du pourcentage de 3 % de consultants recrutés dans les pays en transition. Vous convenez avec moi que c'est peu par rapport à la qualification des experts en provenance des pays en transition et à leur potentiel humain, scientifique et d'expérience. J'ajoute, Monsieur le Président, la capacité de ces pays, prouvée plusieurs fois, de former des cadres des pays en développement. En espérant une correction de cette disparité à l'avenir, les pays en transition sont toujours prêts à coopérer dans ce secteur dans une mesure plus importante.
Mohamed Walid AL-TAWIL (Syria) (Original language Arabie): The Syrian delegation is satisfied with the tone and content of the two reports, the Implementation and the Evaluation Reports, and supports the efforts to restructure the organization in an effort to introduce streamlined expenditures and to improve the level of efficiency in its activities in particular concerning the programme of technical cooperation between developing countries as well as the two special programmes; the one relevant to food production in support of food security and the EMPRES programme. We also applaud the initiatives relative to the aforementioned programmes.
Having said that, we experience a certain degree of embarrassment in considering the resources available to the Organization being somewhat decreased; and this will seem to become worse in the future, with respect to the resources and the disposal position in the past. Indeed, this shortfall or weakness of resources in the programmes of the Organization is also having a negative impact on the resources it does provide to developing countries, and especially in supporting the capacity of developing countries to produce food. This impact, negative impact, has already been remarked on and noted in the form of a certain amount of shortfalls especially in the field of training activities. We would like to reiterate the appeal to all the member countries of this Organization to honour their commitments and pay their contributions in full.
In conclusion, we would like to draw attention to the need to assign greater interest to matters of research, transfer of leading edge technology and training, and this to assist developing countries in improving their research capacities; we feel the necessary priority should be granted to such an activity and the necessary resources should be allocated as well. Drought and the problems of desertification and deterioration of pasture land and grazing land are equally acute problems which menace the efforts deployed by our countries in the area of food and livestock production, and we would like to see certain activities of FAO focus more on those aspects of assistance provided to developing countries, and also witness a reinforcement and strengthening in assistance to developing countries relative to scientific research and the application of leading edge technologies.
R. FOX (United Kingdom): May I open my short statement by congratulating the Secretariat on the overall clarity of these two documents. Considerable effort has obviously gone into making these as accessible as possible. We have a number of comments that we hope the Secretariat will find useful and constructive on both the programmes that are described and on the content of the reports themselves.
First, dealing with C 95/8, we note that moves will continue to increase the specialization of FAO staff in dealing with either the normative or the field support functions of the Organization. My delegation recognizes the value of such specialization up to a certain point but we wish to emphasize very strongly the need, acknowledged in the document, to ensure that Headquarters and field-based experience remains mutually supportive and reinforcing. FAO must not at its centre become too academic an institution.
Second, we note the reviews that have taken place in the Departments of General Affairs and Information and of Administration and Finance. We hope that these will provide the basis for reforms to improve efficiency and to ensure that in the present resource situation FAO's operation and programmes can, as far as possible,
be maintained. We welcome the cost reductions already achieved but emphasize the need to continue the downward pressure.
Third, my delegation would be grateful for more information than is provided in C 95/8 on how FAO will seek to increase further the support cost reimbursement percentage. There is a clear need for this in the present resource situation.
Turning to the content of C 95/8, the separation of reports on the quantitative and qualitative aspects of work can be useful to ensure that each receives proper emphasis but my delegation believes that each aspect must be covered for all items presented. One general point is that more work remains to be done in preparation of reports such as this on output rather than input measures despite the difficulty, that we recognize, of developing output measures and the need for proxy indicators in some circumstances. For example, no qualitative analysis is presented for the section on training. This is simply a list of numbers saying nothing about how training needs were identified and how participants were identified or what follow-up there has been to establish what use has been made of this training. The same applies to the section on meetings. Some were clearly part of important and well-recognized processes but what impact or outcomes have there been for others? The section on publications refers to activity and to indicators for this. There is no indication, however, of how the need for the various publications was identified, nor the demand, nor how useful these had proven to be for recipients.
On FAO's database systems, although my delegation has consistently emphasized the importance we attach to the maintenance of these; in the report on database activities, we would have hoped to have seen some indication of usage made by outside agencies. Finally, we do not really see the point of the tables covering consultants employed, travel and staff time devoted to support of field programmes when, again, these are unrelated to specific outputs.
The same point on the need to emphasize outcomes relates to the later section on qualitative aspects of programme performance where there are many references to, for example, encouragement of activities and tools released. Whilst my delegation found this a useful section of the report in relating activities to intentions, again, we would have wished to see more reference, however brief, to uptake and effect. Such references need not be confined to formal evaluation reports. To take only one example, paragraph 182 of C 95/8 contains the following sentence: "Land tenure issues are important, particularly for countries in transition, and an expert consultation was convened on this subject". My delegation is well aware of the importance of land tenure issues in general and can recognize the potential value of an expert consultation. We would have preferred, however, to have been told something of the outcome of this consultation.
Finally, turning to the evaluation section of the implementation report and to C 95/4, the evaluation report itself, my delegation generally welcomes these reports and the progress they reflect in many programmes. We recognize that in terms of the internal evaluations referred to in C 95/4, more work is in hand to improve the attention given to cost-effectiveness and to sustainability aspects of projects and programmes. We look forward to seeing the results of this work. My delegation would be grateful for information on two items arising from these reports. First, we would like to know what procedures are in place within FAO to ensure that the results of the evaluations are transparently taken into account in future project design. Second, we would like to know at what stage external evaluations of the type reported in C 95/8 as undertaken for technical cooperation activities, will be commissioned for regular programme activities to supplement the work of the in-house evaluation team.
Mohamed Joe BANGOURA (Guinée): La délégation guinéenne vous félicite pour votre élection à ce poste et remercie le Secrétariat pour la documentation relative aux Rapports d'exécution et d'évaluation que nous avons bien reçue. La Guinée appuie sans réserve la proposition de budget formulée par le Directeur général de la FAO et soutient le programme et les priorités qui en découlent. A ce programme, il faudrait citer le système d'information et d'alerte rapide sur la situation alimentaire et la sécurité alimentaire, la prévention des ravageurs et maladies des animaux et des plantes, la gestion de l'eau et de la pêche ainsi que leur développement, la lutte contre la désertification, la réduction des pertes après récoltes, la femme dans le développement. Nous sommes persuadés que ces programmes apporteraient un développement à notre pays.
Waheed KHAN (Bangladesh): My delegation would like to thank the Secretariat for preparing a most comprehensive Programme Implementation Report for the 1994-95 biennium. On behalf of the delegation, I would like to make some general comments on the Programme Implementation Report for 1994-95. The report contains a number of improvements in its coverage of progress in implementing regular and field programmes in the current biennium. Progress in the ongoing restructuring of the Organization, which includes Headquarters restructuring, decentralization, strengthening of national capacities and improved management practices, is encouraging. We expect that a more concrete picture in terms of benefits to Member Nations as well as efficiency improvements and cost reduction will emerge during the coming biennium. The overview presented in the report of FAO's resources and expenditures for regular and extrabudgetary funding is very informative, but the downward trend of field programme resources is always something to be worried about. We believe the Secretariat will take appropriate measures to make more efficient use of the resources to minimize negative impact on programme delivery under the field programmes. The decline in support costs is also a matter of concern because of the pressure it will create on the regular programme resources. We hope the Secretariat will continue to make vigourous efforts to reduce FAO's share of support costs wherever possible. The status of implementation of the special programme of food production in support of food security in the Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries and the EMPRES shows satisfactory progress. We are confident that FAO will continue to attach high priority to the effective implementation of the activities under these two special programmes in the coming biennium.
Chapters dealing with both qualitative and quantitative overview of activities and outputs delivering technical and economic programmes provide substantive information of the progress achieved in these areas. You all know, as the Director-General himself acknowledged in the introduction, no major progress has been made in the report regarding the analysis of achievements against planned targets, including cost aspects. Such analysis is extremely important in properly assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of programme implementation. We hope the Secretariat will make progressive improvements in this regard in the coming years, circumventing the practical difficulties and limitations that may be encountered in such an exercise.
Finally, we associate ourselves with the recommendations of the Programme and Finance Committees relating to the timing of the report. The incorporation of actual data for the entire reporting period will facilitate better assessment of the report. As such, we endorse the view that the report should be presented to the Council in the autumn of the year following the end of the biennium.
Avraam LOUCA (Cyprus): I wish first of all to congratulate both you and the Vice-Chairman for your election. My delegation welcomes the new way of reviewing together, under Item 14, the programme implementation and the programme evaluation report for 1994-95. These reports are surely interlinked, and despite the difference in scope, they can be viewed as two sides of the same coin. In our view, this arrangement enables the Member Nations to get a global view of the resources committed for activities undertaken and/or implemented under the regular and field programmes, along with the successes and difficulties experienced in the implementation of selected programmes. The preparation of these two reports was not an easy task to perform, and I wish to commend the Secretariat for achieving this task. The biennium under review has been an extraordinary period for FAO, having in mind the courageous efforts of the Director-General, Mr Jacques Diouf, to invigorate this Organization by sharpening its mission as well as by revamping the organizational structure, its management and operational processes. As we all know, the relevant proposals of the Director-General concerning programme priorities, changes in the structure of the Organization and progressive decentralization have been approved by the 106th Session of the FAO Council in June 1994. Inevitably, the new process towards the said improvements in FAO has actually begun in the second half of 1994. On the other hand, the financial difficulties which have confronted this Organization during the recent past still prevail.
Very briefly, we wish to express our views on specific issues covered by the two reports. Referring to Chapter 1 of the Programme Implementation Report, we do appreciate the progress made concerning the restructuring and decentralization process and at the same time express the wish that this process be completed as early as possible. Similarly, while welcoming the signing by a considerable number of countries of the agreement on the use of experts for TCDC and TCCT, we suggest that efforts be intensified to make these agreements operational. The same applies for the other two agreements on research institutions and the use of national and UN and FAO retirees. In view of the substantial decline in extrabudgetary funds and support costs elaborated in Chapter 2 of the same report, we wish to stress the need for intensifying the FAO efforts
and the dialogue with bilateral and multilateral donors including financial institutions for securing the funds required, especially for field programmes and special programmes.
Referring to the programme evaluation report, document C/95/4, which under five chapters covers selected sub-programmes, the review of project operations and FAO activities for control of plant and animal diseases, we do appreciate the comprehensive analysis and the style of this report. We also welcome the progress achieved on the work of the Global Information and Early Warning System on Plant Genetic Resources and in managing locusts and screw-worm.
In the conclusion of each one of the chapters, we particularly underline the numerous sound proposals concerned with organizational issues, staff requirements, the strengthening of institutional capabilities, training information arrangements, etc. Surely these proposals, together with the relevant observations and assessments made can prove very useful for both the evaluation of the implemented programme activities and for improving cost effectiveness, programme formulation and work planning.
Finally, we suggest that in view of its great value and importance, the Programme Evaluation Report gradually covers all the major FAO programmes and activities.
Kenji SHIMIZU (Japan): Thank you, Mr Chairman, for giving me the floor again. I will be very brief.
The statement made by my delegation on the Programme Implementation Report should be read together with the statement made at the Plenary of the last Council meeting under Agenda Item 10.
The meeting rose at 12.50 hours.
La séance est levée à 12 h 50.
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.50 horas.
