S.A. PERVEZ (Pakistan): At the initiative of the Director-General, the Technical Cooperation Programme of the FAO to the United Nations was established in 1976 to provide quick and direct aid for small-scale short-term agricultural and rural development projects in developing countries. The Programme has thus been in existence for nearly two years. Normally two years would be considered too short a period for a definitive opinion on the success or otherwise of the Programme. However, the proof of the pudding lies in the eating.
We in Pakistan have found the Programme to be of immense benefit in meeting short-term agricultural requirements. Last year we were facing problems with declining yields of two important crops, rice and cotton. A request was made to the Director-General for assistance in September - a mission comprising some eminent experts was in Pakistan in October, and the final report was in the hands of my Government towards the end of November. My object in bringing this to the notice of the Council is simply to highlight how this prompt and timely assistance has helped to bridge the gap. Normally it would have taken six months to a year even to conclude negotiations for a mission of this size.
Another example of the TCP in action was more recently, when we in Pakistan had one of the worst attacks in recorded history of rust in the wheat crop. A request for a resistant variety of seeds was made to the Director-General by telegram on the 23 August 1978. He immediately sanctioned a sum of US$ 250,000 by telex on 30 August 1978 - thus the time which elapsed between the making of the request and the sanctioning by the Director-General was approximately one week. The net effect of this prompt response was that we were able to put in wheat seed and utilize it this season, when our sowing started on the 15 October. I am sure you could not find a more outstanding example of a more crucial import being obtained at a more crucial moment. This is also an outstanding example of the use of Programme Resources in helping the developing countries.
Even more recently the Director-General also responded to an urgent request by sanctioning US$ 200,000 to help the situation caused by desert locust. This help was timely, and is proving highly effective in meeting a potentially disastrous situation. We take this opportunity of expressing our profound thanks for the most well-timed and valuable help extended to us by the Director-General under the Technical Cooperation Programme.
Judging from the experience of my own country, which I am sure is shared by many other developing countries, the TCP has made a remarkable start. It has kept to its objective, which is to provide assistance to member countries in a rapid and flexible way with urgent and relatively small interventions. The Director-General, in one of his reviews, spoke about the TCP giving a new dimension to FAO, and I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that the TCP has done this and perhaps more. We fully support the concept behind the TCP, and hope that the Director-General will go on making efforts to make it stronger and even more meaningful. In this, too, he will have our full support.
We hope that the Council will seriously examine the possibility of enhancing the existing allocation available to the TCP. We understand that requests for assistance under the TCP have been received from 109 FAO members. This is a very significant fact, because it reflects the interest that member countries of FAO are taking in this Programme.
We are particularly gratified by the high degree of government involvement in recipient countries, which again is an indication of the interest in the Programme. We note with satisfaction that the Director-General is already taking steps to improve further the working of the TCP.
In this connection, we have two suggestions. First, we would suggest that guidelines to governments for preparation of TCP project requests should be kept as simple, clear and concise as possible; and secondly, we feel there should be a high use of national institutions particularly for training projects and of legal expertise in the implementation of TCP. In this connection we feel that countries themselves should play a more active role by identifying national institutions which could help.
In conclusion, we fully support the proposals outlined in paragraphs 13-17 of document CL 74/14.
M.S. ZEHNI (Libya) (Interpretation from Arabic): Allow me to begin by joining my voice to those who have already expressed their thanks to the Secretariat for this document which has been presented to us. It is very clear and complete. I would also like to thank the Chairman of the Programme Committee for his additional information.
For several years now, I have had the honour of taking part in the meetings between the Prime Minister of our country and the Director-General of FAO - the Director-General of that time. There were long discussions on the international activities, and more specifically on the activities of FAO and the participation of the Arab Jamarahiya in this work. I recall quite well the Minister of my Government at that time recalling the Jamarahiya is very concerned with the objectives and goals of the Organization and its activities. He also affirmed he would like to see FAO more active and closer to the problems and concerns of the developing countries. There should be more imagination in the work of FAO.
This morning, listening to the statement made by the Director-General, we thought FAO had become much closer to this idea we had of what the Organization should be. Of course, there is always room for improvement, but FAO to date - and today particularly - is on the right road. This change in the Organization, which we have noted most particularly today, was not an easy task to achieve. It was not a question of simple statements or goodwill, it took effective action on the bringing into question of existing principles, the continual updating of the rules and regulations of the Organization itself so that they would be more appropriate. This was also possible thanks to the introduction of flexible programmes which were in keeping with the problems of the developing countries.
I also think the TCP, which we are presently discussing, is the best example of what has given to the FAO its greater impetus for activity. I will not go into lengthy details here about the TCP or go into all the positive aspects of this Programme. It is sufficient to say that those countries who have resources to the TCP or present objectives which the TCP have been ever-increasing in number, and this is proof of the fact that all the countries of our Organization, without any geographic discrimination, give their full support to the Programme.
I would here like to go along with the delegate of Pakistan and what he has said when he referred to this being a living Programme. The TCP is a Programme which receives support for the developing countries which need such a programme.
I would reaffirm once again our support to the Technical Cooperation Programme and the need to strengthen it and to take another step forward. We would go along with the Director-General in his suggestion in this field.
We would also like to thank the Chairman of the Group of 77 who expressed very clearly indeed the stand of the Group of 77, and we would support wholeheartedly what has been said by its Chairman.
Finally, let me take this opportunity to reaffirm to you personally and to the Director-General and the members of the Council the support of the Jamarahiya to our Organization and to its leadership, and say we will do all we can so that the support of the Organization can be carried out in a practical way so that the Organization can be even more effective. If our membership in the Council is about to end, I would just like to say we will continue to'support the Organization and to support you.
J.A. BAKER (United States of America): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my thanks also to Mr West for his very useful and succint introduction of this item, and for the accurate presentation given to us by the Chairman of our Programme Committee. I am glad that I have an opportunity to express my views, and the views of my Government, in the elaboration of what is contained in the Programme Committee Report.
The item under our consideration, the Evaluation of the Technical Cooperation Programme, is one to which my delegation attaches particular importance. It is a programme which, as the Director-General has emphasized, is envisaged as an aspect of this Organization's increasing emphasis on practical work in the field. My Government has supported, and will continue to support, that emphasis. The United States Government continues to put increasing amounts of its bilateral assistance into agriculture and nutrition. It is also at the same time increasing its contribution to multilateral technical assistance through voluntary programmes such as UNDP. In addition, as the Director-General noted in his statement at the opening of our Session, we are providing increased voluntary extra-budgetary support directly through the FAO in important emergencies and Technical Assistance Programmes for the Sahelian regions.
We also plan shortly to provide a three million dollar contribution to the FAO's post-harvest losses account. Therefore the issue for us is not whether FAO should maintain its practical orientation towards field programmes or whether technical assistance should be provided through FAO to developing countries. The issue for us in the United States, and it is an issue that we regard with particular seriousness at this time, is whether we should contemplate using the Regular Budget of FAO or other UN agencies financed by assessments, which are obligatory for their members, for technical assistance programmes except in exceptional circumstances. For us these would be programmes involving problems affecting all or most of the membership or the most urgent kinds of problems which cannot be met by established bilateral and multilateral channels which are voluntarily funded.
We welcome the evaluation which has been provided us by the Director-General with the assistance of an outside consultant. There appears to be no serious question that the managers of the programmes have been attentive to the terms of reference and that the programme has been useful to the developing countries.
What we do question is whether the present terms of reference and some of the suggestions for extending them open too many possibilities for launching less urgent, longer-term projects which could be handled through voluntary funding channels. We feel that the emergency category of the TCP and the projects carried out under it are free of this doubt and that the programme has made its most valuable contribution in this field. In our view it deserves much praise, especially for its fast responses on desert locusts, African swine fever, coffee rust and threats of this kind which seriously affect the interests of substantial numbers of member states.
The improved financial posture of the UNDP and its increased capabilities to fund technical assistance through the FAO argue in our view for specially careful efforts to use this channel to meet needs in the training and fellowship area. For example, UNDP funding commitments to FAO-implemented projects reached $ 116 million this year compared with $ 88 million in 1977 and $ 105 million in 1976, and we estimate it will total as much as $ 135 million in 1979, which would be the highest on record. These figures include UNDP cost-sharing contributions. FAO's share in 1979 will once again be about one-third of the total UNDP contributions to all specialized agencies. Use of the UNDP Resident Representative' s authority to approve projects of up to $400,000 should be examined in every case by the FAO Representative before recommending the use of TCP funds for any projects.
With regard to the investment category, the increasing project identification requirements on the FAO Investment Centre by amply funded investment agencies raise the question as to how much additional project identification work it can effectively handle and if it can do so what its priorities should be. These are questions which we hope to gain a fuller understanding of at the next meeting of the Programme Committee. We think they are relevant, even though the amount of TCP work that is being done in the project identification category is modest.
There are further relevant suggestions relating to the percentage of physical inputs which we made in the Programme Committee that we also believe deserve consideration.
None of these observations are intended as criticism of the Programme's management. We believe that for the most part it has done a careful job within the guidelines established, although we would prefer to see tighter guidelines emphasizing emergencies and a total balance of impact well above the 59 percent registered so far for the most needful countries.
I appreciate the opportunity to make these observations. I hope that they will receive careful consideration as this programme moves ahead. While my government strongly favours the use of voluntary funding channels for technical assistance,we" recognize that the Technical Cooperation Programme is an attempt to meet a need for small-size, short-term, quick response action and advice which other technical assistance procedures cannot meet. To the extent that we become convinced that its projects respond to urgent and otherwise unfundable needs with a strong emphasis on emergency assistance and on the provision of technical competence and advice which is FAO's strong suit.we think we will be better able to win over those influential quarters in our country and other countries who have doubts.
We hope that the programme will continue to refine and improve its procedures, as the Director-General's Report for this item indicates that it is doing. We would have some questions, however, regarding the latitude being proposed for country representatives in providing TCP assistance unless this were limited to emergencies. We expect, as the final paragraph of the Programme Committee Report suggests, to continue to review aspects of the work of this programme at appropriate occasions with a view to another evaluation, within which we trust not only the performance with respect to the terms of reference but also the terms of reference themselves will be carefully examined. In the meantime we hope that developing countries will continue looking to the voluntary programmes as the primary funding source for increased levels of technical advice and assistance of the kinds that they need and to regard the Technical Cooperation Programme as a rather special and exceptional resource to be utilized in specially pressing circumstances.
The foregoing represents a more or less general comment on the nature of the Technical Cooperation Programme. I would like to reserve the right to return to the discussion if necessary to provide greater detail or to address other dimensions of the issue should the debate move in such directions.
M.A. PAPAGEORGIOU (Greece): I think there is no doubt that the Technical Cooperation Programme initiated in 1976, the creation of which was welcomed with great satisfaction by the majority of the members of the Council in July 1976, has proved and has confirmed its validity and its value for the developing countries, in particular for the least developed and the most seriously affected countries, which today face the most serious problems. In a short period of time this programme achieved extremely satisfactory results and responded speedily and effectively to unforeseen and urgent needs. The fact that the applicants for this kind of assistance are almost jostling each other before the gate I think speaks for itself. Nevertheless we must express our appreciation to the Director-General for submitting to us today a very comprehensive and objective evaluation report of the activities of the TCP. This evaluation shows clearly the role which the TCP plays in increasing food production and improving the incomes of small farmers. Furthermore, the programme stimulated the interests of the governments in FAO and involved their participation in its projects. We do not think that there is in the report any new element which would lead us to revise our position regarding TCP. The evaluation report of TCP has been carefully examined by the members of the Programme Committee, which confirmed by an overwhelming majority the validity of the concept of the problem and its great value to the developing countries.
As far as the future of the programme is concerned we are of the opinion that it must maintain its activities in order to meet even more effectively urgent or emergency requirements and to ameliorate the state of the poorer segments of the population and to fulfil the aim for which it was established.
We fully endorse the recommendations to governments contained in paragraph 13 of the report and agree with the proposals for Council approval in paragraph 17 of the same document.
CHAIRMAN: Before I proceed with my regular lists I would like to call on the Chairman of the Group of 77 for an intervention on behalf of the Group that he wants to make: he has asked for the floor.
S.A.A. KHALIL (Chairman of the Group of 77) (Interpretation from Arabic): Mr. Chairman, I said at the beginning of our discussion of this item of the agenda that I might ask you for the floor again. This is not to reiterate certain arguments which have already been made this morning but rather to discuss a proposal of a draft resolution I would like to put to the Group. I would not want to prejuge the results of our discussion on this item of the agenda but I would like to explain to you why such a draft resolution should be adopted by consensus now rather than by vote. Our discussions have been very friendly in nature and I noted that the statement which I made at the beginning of our discussion was very widely supported by most of those who took the floor after me. Most of the delegations also expressed their points of view in a very positive and constructive manner. The majority of the delegations felt that the evaluation of the TCP was satisfactory. There were of course a few reservations made which are really quite minimal. We respect these resolutions, even though we do not agree with them. But I think other points were raised on certain specific problems which have more or less been solved. These are on the question of principle or on the concept of the TCP itself. So I think we have all the essential elements necessary to establish a consensus. The Group of 77 would like a resolution to be taken by the Council and for this to be done by consensus.
I would first of all like to say that we are not discussing here the creation or continuation of the TCP: rather we are discussing an evaluation of the TCP and of its activities.
Secondly, the consensus which we would have liked to have achieved does not mean that such and such a delegation was unable to express its point of view, even if this point of view is divergent from the majority. Thirdly, I think this is the proper moment for a resolution because the evaluation which has been presented to us is indeed very important. It is the first evaluation of what is considered a corner-stone in this Organization. The Director-General himself alluded to the fact that the TCP is considered a vital area for the Organization. Therefore, we should prove that we want to avoid any type of challenge and that we wish to express our opinions clearly and without any ambiguity. If there are any questions which require a decision, we feel that the evaluation of the TCP should be one of these questions.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, to summarize the draft resolution which we would like to propose. It recalls the decision which was taken for the creation of the TCP in July 1976. The TCP was created after long and comprehensive study of all the activities which would take place within the scope of the TCP. Our draft resolution would also allude to the support given to the TCP within the format of the various regional conferences, and to the report of the Programme Committee where it refers to the TCP directly.
Our resolution would also highlight the fact that we consider the TCP as an integral part of the general programme of FAO. This is not a new point, but it is a very important one now and we need to reiterate and reaffirm this so that there will be no ambiguity possible on this issue. The draft resolution will also include the expression of our satisfaction on the document CL 74/14 on the evaluation of the TCP and we would also like to support what is stated in paragraph 17 of this document.
Finally, I do not think there is any problem in supporting and accepting what I have just stated, and even if there are certain difficulties for certain delegations for certain specific items, we feel that the majority of the Member States could accept this draft resolution. We would like the Director-General to clarify this situation on these few points for these delegations.
In regard to the 1981 period, we have a special paragraph dealing with this and the allocation for this period. We have drafted this resolution taking into consideration all these different points of view and particularly the point of view of those who feel it is necessary to increase the allocations for the TCP. We also tried to include the idea of those who feel that these allocations should be in keeping with the allocations in the general programme and we also include the point of view of the Director-General who can decide on any programme or budget which he presents to the Conference. We have decided on no objective nor on any sum or any ceiling for the budget of the general programme. We are simply asking the Director-General to do what he can within the framework of the programme of the TCP which is considered as a successful programme, and we hope that he will be able to consolidate and strengthen this TCP by a budget which he would feel is adequate, taking into consideration, of course, the need to meet the needs of the developing countries within the framework of the TCP. We have tried to be clear, and we have not tried to provoke anyone in any way. We have tried very sincerely not to cause any problems for anyone and we sincerely feel that this draft resolution will not create any problems, either here or elsewhere. Rather, we feel that this draft resolution would be of assistance to all those who would like to prove to others that all the Member Countries - or almost all - agree that the TCP should continue to be an integral part of the programme of the Organization.
This is why we would like to make an appeal to the minority who do not share our opinion not to go any further than is necessary or create any new problems or situations which could be troublesome. We would therefore like to recall that we are not asking for more than we have received to date, and what we are requesting we wish to request clearly. I should like to reaffirm that this draft resolution is very important to us. It is a draft resolution which is well-balanced, as I have already said, and which will make it possible to leave the Director-General free to decide on the budget of the TCP. Of course, all delegations are free to express their opinion on this question, but I think we could and should reach an agreement on the basis of a consensus. I think this draft resolution I am proposing on behalf of the Group of 77 can be included in our report without very lengthy discussion and without any opposition.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I take it that, as you have said, you submit this on behalf of the Group of 77, and therefore, when we come to further discussions, we can keep the discussion as short as possible because we have already got the crux of the matter. Therefore, perhaps this action would shorten our proceeding so that we shall be able to finish today, if possible.
CHAIRMAN: The United Kingdom delegate wants the floor on a point of order.
A. J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I am very sorry to intervene, but I did want to make the point, to express my surprise that we have had, I think, seven speakers from the Group of 77, and we have all listened with very great care. But I believe that while I was absent on our side of the table - if I can call it that - France made a statement before lunch which I regret I was not here to listen to. The United States delegate has also spoken. I gave notice to the Secretary-General very early that I should like to speak. This is a matter where the United Kingdom exceptionally - we usually keep quiet -but on this one we do have something to say, and therefore I am really rather surprised to find a resolution coming forward at this very early stage of the discussions which Mr. Kahlil said would be taking account of all points of view; but, with great respect, as one of the countries which has firmly supported TCP, my views have not been heard.
Secondly, I dislike hearing appeals to minorities when in fact we have not been heard. I have some favourable things to say about TCP and I wish them to be heard. I would hope that we can return to the question of any resolution when an expression of opinion has been given.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: With all due respect for the distinguished delegate, of the United Kingdom, it was not a point of order.
CHAIRMAN: May I now ask the delegate of Tanzania to resume his discussion. I am sure that in the debate all points of view will be listened to. The reason why I allowed the Chairman of the Group of 77 to come in now is because I still have 37 speakers, and mostly Group of 77 speakers; so all points of view will be taken into account. Thank you very much United Kingdom.
J.S. MALECELA (Tanzania): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor. I definitely would not wish to reply to the point of order, as it has already been done; but the purpose of taking the floor was simply to support the resolution which has been introduced by the Chairman of the Group of 77. However, I should like to stress the point that the resolution does reflect the views of the Group of 77, and that, in the course of time, we may or may not accept the views of other delegations, but I hope it will be possible to take into account the views of other delegations or contrary views which will be expressed against the resolution.
As I am taking the floor for the first time, I should like at the outset to express our appréciation for the able manner in which you, Mr. Chairman, have conducted the affairs of our Council since we elected you to that post of the Chairman of the Council. I need not stress the brotherly and cordial relations that exist between Tanzania and Nigeria. Indeed, we in Tanzania are very happy to see you in the Chair, and we promise you all our cooperation.
I should like also in the same way to congratulate warmly the three Vice-chairmen on their unanimous election to assist you in the deliberations of our current session of our Council. To all of you, once again, we should like to express the assurances of the Tanzanian delegation's cooperation.
Before I proceed to speak on the item to support the resolution which has been moved on the TCP programme, permit me to express our appreciation to the Director-General of FAO on the brilliant and useful speech which he made during the opening of this Session. The Director-General, Dr. Edouard Saouma, attended the 10th FAO Regional Conference of Africa held in Arusha which my Government had the honour to host. The people of Arusha and, indeed, the people of Tanzania, still remember with cordial feeling the most remarkable contribution that the Director-General made in that conference. I wish to assure the Director-General that the people of Tanzania, and indeed the people of Arusha are looking forward to another great, longer visit by the Director-General to Tanzania.
We have been speaking on the question of the TCP Programme. Let me just give one brief example of the usefulness of this Programme. We in Eastern Africa did experience a phenomenon, an outbreak of locusts in our region. During the time of the locust outbreak I happen to have been the Chairman of the Eastern African Desert Locust Control Organization. After making urgent visits to Ethiopia and Djibouti to assess the seriousness of the situation I endeavoured to contact the Director-General of FAO with a view to soliciting his assistance on the problem. I was very impressed by the prompt and immediate manner in which the Director-General reacted favourably to our request.
I presume if it had not been for the TCP the Director-General would have been impotent to help us in this problem. Within three days experts from the FAO were in my office to assess the situation and see in what ways the FAO could assist us. To me personally, this was a record time in which an international organization had reacted to a regional need. Since that time the FAO has given all kinds of assistance to our region, to the extent that if the locust outbreak in the whole of Africa is not so much of a threat today, it is largely due to the immediate response of the Director-General of our Organization and this was possible because of the TCP.
I would therefore like to express our highest appreciation to him and his staff for the efficient manner in which they responded to our call. I also wish to express our sincere thanks to all of the governments which came to our assistance in various forms during this time, particularly those of the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Canada and the United States. While we express our appreciation to all those who helped us we would like to assure you that the problem of locust in Eastern Africa is far from being over. In fact the most recent report indicates that these breeding areas have had favourable climatic conditions, including rains, which have made it possible for the locusts to continue breeding on a larger scale. We would therefore like to warn this Council that the danger of locusts in Eastern Africa still persists and there are still real possibilities of spreading, not only to other parts of Africa but most likely to the continent of Asia. We wish to appeal to the world community through this Council, to see the locust problem in Eastern Africa as an international problem.
Let me now turn to the subject of the TCP. I would like to refrain on the legal interpretation and the other interpretations which I feel some other delegations have already done. The government of Tanzania has been very much impressed by the number of tangible programmes that the TCP has been able to finance in the short time of its existence. We must, however, remember that the TCP programme was definitely a revolutionary and a timely programme introduced by the present Director-General, Dr. Saouma, as an instrument which would enable the FAO to respond to the urgent needs of the Least Developed Countries and the Most Affected Countries. I know for sure that apart from the developing countries there were some misgivings about this programme in certain quarters. These misgivings were given at the time and are still being voiced today, although without very much foundation. When the TCP Programme was introduced we heard, among other things, that it was going to give too much power to the Director-General to make decisions that would not be accounted for in the normal norms of FAO. We were told that the TCP Programme would in some way interfere with the bilateral assistance by Member States. Furthermore, we were told unless especially implemented TCP programmes were going to duplicate the efforts of recipient countries in certain areas of development. I have mentioned these few points simply because I want this Council to take a very serious view of the TCP programme. Tanzania has been, and indeed was intended to be one of the recipient countries. It will certainly make no difference if you call it an LDC or an MSA country. This is true of a number of other developing countries within the FAO. But those of my brothers who are meant to be the recipients of this programme we ask very sincere questions. Is it not we, the beneficiaries of this programme who should be the best judges? Is it not we who should come to tell this Council the shortcomings in this programme? After all, as the oldest saying goes, it is the wearer who knows where the shoe pinches.
We, and the many other developing countries, have come to a consensus that this programme is working for our benefit. We are even saying that for the first time the FAO, through the Director-General's initiative, has created an instrument that is capable of reacting to our urgent needs, irrespective of bureaucracy that burdens all international organizations, including the FAO.
Surely, with all this in view, we would have hoped that it would not have been necessary for us to defend the continuation of this programme but rather argue on the magnitude to which this programme should be increased. We were also of the view that for the first time the donors to this programme would be happy to hear from the recipient countries that their donations had been warmly received and effectively utilized in helping to solve at least a few of the urgent problems which face the developing countries. Nevertheless, because we highly respect the strong views of some of the donor countries, we are only confining ourselves to requesting the Director-General to strengthen the programme without even clearly saying by how much he should raise that programme. To us this language is really a language of compromise because it is meant to be an indirect appeal to the donor countries to see and appreciate our needs. The alternative, of course, would be a futile exercise of a very strong resolution which may not bear the desired results. As I said at the beginning, the Chairman of the Group of 77 spoke very briefly and indeed, he expressed the views of all of us regarding this matter. We therefore hope that it will be possible for all of us to support the resolution that has been introduced. We wanted the Director-General to know that we have appreciated very much his introduction of the TCP Programme. We want him to know that the Programme has been of great assistance to the urgent needs of many of us.
Finally, it is our hope that the Director-General, with all the odds against him, will continue with the singleness of purpose and the determination to strengthen and expand this useful Programme. It is our final hope that this resolution which has just been tabled and seconded by our delegation will be adopted by acclamation.
M. HAMDOON (Iraq) (Interpretation from Arabic): First of all I would like to express our unconditioned support to the draft resolution presented by the Chairman of the Group of 77. I am firmly convinced that the TCP deserves this attention on the part of developing countries and also on the part of developed countries. I would likewise add that if we did not have such a truly effective programme, which was initiated on the initiative of the Director-General of FAO, we would have asked the FAO to come to something as effective as soon as possible, because this efficient body helps the LDCs and represents l/3rd of developing countries. I would like to ask whether it is possible that all the arguments stated can reduce the importance and the efficacy of such a programme. The hope of many countries lies on this particular programme. So many countries expect so much of this important programme to aid their development because this development will open new profitable roads to these countries. A great many speakers have taken the floor to support the TCP. The UNDP Representative has supported this programme and Iraq, which is certainly not a recipient country of this programme, urges on all the world to support the TCP to strengthen this programme and urges countries to support this programme which brings aid to so many countries.
On behalf of all the countries of the Near East I pay tribute to the efforts made by the Director-General in his struggle against poverty and hunger. I wish to pay tribute to his efforts, to all he has done to set up the TCP and on behalf of the Near East Countries I wish to support the draft resolution presented by the Chairman of the Group of 77.
M. DESSOUKI (Egypt) (Interpretation from Arabic): The item presently under discussion is one of the most important items of our Session. This is due to the fact that it is so closely linked to the interests of developing countries and also those of a number of developed countries. This can be clearly seen in the many requests and applications for projects presented to the Director-General by countries which represent over 70 percent of the members of FAO. I wish to thank the Director-General for the document which has been presented to us and which objectively covers the Programme. There are a number of serious and constructive proposals and projects. We have figures and data and these show all the support that the TCP gets from developing countries and how the TCP is a response to their urgent needs. The TCP is flexible and can readily come up with an answer to the needs of developing countries which cannot meet their needs through other channels within the FAO.
Egypt has contributed to the TCP, has carried out a number of projects which have led to rapid solutions to problems. We thank the Director-General who has in such a flexible way responded to our requests. This is why Egypt feels that the TCP is essential to meet the urgent needs of developing countries, and this is basically in the area of projects. Egypt feels that the amount so far allocated is insufficient to meet the growing requirements of developing countries. This is why Egypt urges FAO to consider this request in preparing the budget for the 1980-81 biennium.
In supporting the Resolution of the Group of 77, Egypt also supports the trend taken by the Director-General to implement decentralization as far as projects go. We propose that the Programme concentrate on urgent projects and on small experimental projects which cannot otherwise be taken care of under the regular FAO activities. These are matters which directly derive from the responsibilities of FAO.
Q.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): I do not know whether it is too late in the day to compliment the presentation made by the Chairman of the Programme Committee, but in his absence I dare to say that the Chairman of the Programme Committee himself is more presentable than his presentation, while on the other hand, Mr. West who introduced the subject, his presentation is perhaps more presentable than himself.
At this hour of the debate I feel that the merit of the Programme and the outstanding way it has performed so far has been established beyond the shadow of a doubt. It has done this not only from the results gained by those who have been benifited by it, those who have seen the Programme in action in their respective countries at the time of dire need, but also on the evaluation report by an independent source, as much independent as a former representative of the UNDP, and also by the views of the Director-General who has been in constant touch with the developing countries during his visit to the countries, not only talking to governments but talking to his representatives, talking to the UNDP representatives and all others concerned, a person whose views we must take with a lot of weight, a person who innovated the Programme to give a new dimension to the new FAO.
I have heard with interest not only the interventions by my colleagues but also the intervention made by my colleague from France, all of whom have supported the recommendations except for one or two observations which I will comment on later, and also my colleague from the United States of America whose intervention has been very careful.
I have gone through the Resolution tabled by the Chairman of the Group of 77. I feel at this stage it is necessary to respond to certain anxieties that our friends from the donor countries might have. In the Sixty-Ninth Session of the Council when the Director-General's proposal was approved, I listened more for two reasons: one, I was an Observer, and two, I was new, so I was shy. At that session the main points made by our donor countries were two. One was the fear of duplication, and the other was the problem of coordination with the UNDP. Now, on these two points we have the answer from the Evaluation Report of an independent source, and we have the answer from the report of the Programme Committee that there has not been any duplication or substitution. If there has been anything, it has been complementary and catalytic, so that fear is now completely answered.
It has also been answered by the statements made by the developing countries who have been the recipients that there has not been any duplication whatsoever. If we accept that, we come to certain points made by the United States as to whether or not to channel TCP through FAO, and if so, how much and for what purpose. The answer can be given by the person who raised the issue. The developing countries have given the answer. It has been good for us, we believe, and it has done good for us. It has responded at the time of our dire needs, and we think it should continue indisturbed in the way it has been going. The United States mentioned influential quotas. I believe the generous donors, the governments and legislators, are primarily concerned with one thing: to help the developing countries, the well-being of the developing countries. The developing countries themselves have made a frank confession and statement here that it has been good for them. So the influential quotas in USA and other countries could be considered.
A point has been made to make the Programme restrictive. The findings of the doctor is that when it is a case of malaria the medicine of typhoid would be applied. The finding of all quarters is that the Programme has been most helpful and it has made its impact in a period of two years. Would you restrict it at that stage or would you make it flexible and strengthen the Programme? I leave the answer to you.
We compliment, through the Representative of the United States, the Government of the United States for its increased contribution to the UNDP in this year and coming years. We also compliment them for the contribution they have made to the Food Losses Fund, and I also take this opportunity to mention that the United Kingdom has given beyond their share of the reserve a substantial contribution to the Food Losses Fund.
At this stage one or two points that were made by the Programme Committee have got to be answered. In the Programme Committee a point was made that the criteria should be restricted both with respect to physical inputs in general and to local purchase in particular. I thought it was a printing mistake, because if there have been more local purchases from the beneficiary countries, I would think that the donor countries should be happy. That is what we have been talking about in all these forums. Wherever there is an opportunity to make purchases from the developing countries whenever it is available. I do not think there would be any reservation as to this point. If you have physical input and if that physical input is available locally, the purchases should be made there. It benefits the developing countries in two ways.
The other point is about restricting it to only emergency nature. When this Programme was approved, the Council approved four categories of programmes to be taken up and emergency is one of them, but since FAO has a limited amount of $250 000 per project, these are short-term programmes so they can respond to immediate needs.
The other point made in the Programme Committee; you restrict the inputs to ten per cent and beyond that you give it on a loan basis to the developing countries. I am afraid developing countries will not come to FAO for loans. There are other financial institutions to give loans. The role of FAO is not to give loans to developing countries. This is not an acceptable concept.
Coming on to the Resolution of the Group of 77, you will find, Mr. Chairman, there are two or three essential elements in this. One is the Programme has to be strengthened. Its criteria should remain undisturbed. It should be made a more flexible unit so that it can respond more immediately. Second, the Programme is to be expanded financially. These are the two most important criteria where the Group of 77 feel the Programme should be expanded. But the Group of 77 has not suggested any percentage of increase of the TCP, or any percentage of the programme for the TCP, although we are aware that in WHO, TCP is 60 percent of the programme.
It is necessary that we talk about the UNDP. We all know UNDP in 1976 overspent and they were going bankrupt, and in the following year they underspent and did not know where they were. We are happy to hear from the delegate of the United States that in the next year there will be US$ 139 million for the agricultural sector with UNDP.
But this TCP programme is complementary and is catalytic. There are two arguments. If UNDP is expanding its Programme, TCP, which is complementary and catalytic, should also expand. Not long ago we had the TCDC Conference in Buenos Aires. One good thing which came out of it was the institution of no new organization. All the United Nations agencies wherever possible assist TCDC; we should take the programmes of the TCDC constantly under review by this Council and the Conference of the FAO.
Another point about the absorptive capacity of the developing countries: the Director-General in ECOSOC said if it is low in developing countries, absorption capacity must be increased.
The Regional Conference met and recommended expansion of the Programme, but I feel it is necessary to be directed by this Council. As you know, although the Regional Conferences are attended by Ministers and their views are at the level of Ministers, they have an advisory capacity. We at this stage should give guidelines to the Director-General when formulating his Programme of Work and Budget for 1980-81 to expand the Programme financially, and for that it is necessary to have a resolution passed in this Council.
In spite of all the success of this Programme and the outstanding way it has proceeded, I do not see any complacency on the part of the FAO or on the part of the the innovator of the Programme.The Director-General in his opening statement said there was no room for complacency and I will quote: "This does not mean that we are complacent or see no room for improvement' '. On the contrary, the document itself proposes some changes which will make some necessary improvement of the Programme.
A. J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): In some ways I am very glad that I am quite new to FAO. I only came here just over a year ago and sometimes one can come with a fresher view of things. I had a feeling, listening to the debate,which I think is about half way through now, that we are going through and fighting old battles. I was wondering before lunch why there was a sort of defensive attitude towards the Programme and I did not understand this at all.
I jotted a note down this morning: I noted what seemed to me the antagonistic tones accompanying the debate. I would say, speaking personally - and I will go on if I may to express my Government's views - I am surprised at this and regret it. There is so much more on which we could agree, and should try to agree, than any process of confrontation. It was not my intention in my intervention after lunch in any sense to take issue. My point simply was, that surely the Members of" this Council should have the opportunity of being heard before their views are taken into account. It is a simple point and I will not go into it again.
My opinion is that the issue is not whether there is a TCP - that is long past. We have all accepted it, and we are all satisfied there should be a Programme. The issue before us is a very simple one. The question is the evaluation of this Programme, and as I go on in a moment I will express my Government's views on it. We could waste an awful lot of time defending something that does not need to be defended. Before lunch, there was only one speaker from the developed countries. I will reserve my position on the Resolution as I want to read it. I believe Mr. Hart was trying to answer the reservations of donor countries, but he has yet to hear mine.
Let us see what my reservations are. First of all, I would like to say on behalf of the British Government that we welcome this evaluation which provides member countries with an interim assessment of the TCP. We feel first reports are encouraging, but we think it is a bit too early to evaluate the Programme on a final basis. We will continue to support the TCP as originally conceived; it fills an important gap in existing technical cooperation arrangements, and we are satisfied there has so far at least been no duplication of assistance from other agencies. We feel it is particularly encouraging that the Programme has enjoyed a high degree of government involvement it its projects. We welcome the action proposed by the Director-General to increase further the efficiency of the Programme at FAO Headquarters.
We would be interested to have further details of the proposed fund of $200,000 to be set up to assist project identification. While we appreciate the administration and planning problems of LDCs, we hope this will not result in a longer period of project identification or any move away from the urgent and small-scale assistance of the Programme, which is its strength.
We wholeheartedly endorse the Director-General's suggestion in paragraph 13 of CL 74/14 and believe the effectiveness of the Programme will depend on a strict application of the criteria.
We are a little concerned about the proposed additions to the guidelines in paragraph 13. We think it is too early in the history of the TCP to make any changes in the criteria and a more appropriate moment would perhaps be during the full-scale review later. In this connection, we share the concern of the Programme Committee. As its Chairman mentioned earlier, the inclusion of inter-country projects in TCP might jeopardize the short-term nature of the Programme. TCP in our view is meant to provide modest provision within the regular budget for flexible and urgent assistance to Member Countries on a relatively small scale.
To judge by the breakdown in Annex 1 of the paper before us and the reports of the Independent Consultant and the various conferences, TCP has so far managed to fulfil its mandate. Until a full-scale review has taken place, however, we are not convinced the guidelines need to be changed.
A widening of the range of the categories of activities might indeed risk blurring the edges of a Programme, which has already within a very short space of time proved to be highly effective.
CHAIRMAN: We are very glad to listen to you, the delegate of the United Kingdom, and think you have made some very constructive remarks.
CO. KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): Cuando el Director General de La FAO propuso en oportunidad del 69° período de sesiones un Programa de Cooperación Técnica que le permitiera atender con mayor eficacia las necesidades imprevistas de los gobiernos, se dio sin duda una nueva dimension a la actividad de la FAO.
El Programa permitió en forma inmediata una respuesta flexible y rápida por parte de la FAO a los gobiernos, por lo que los países que la hemos recibido estamos particularmente agradecidos.
Dentro de este Programa se incluía la capacidad de encarar globalmente un proyecto mediante la adquisición de material y equipo suministrado en el medio local, primer antecedente de colaboración tecnica entre países en desarrollo. Numerosos países vieron convertidas en realidad la superación de dificultades de gran envergadura que les impedía enfrentar con éxito sus problemas.
Los 25 millones de dólares que se utilizan en este Programa son una pequeña gota de agua en el inmenso océano de los gastos improductivos que caracterizan el momento político internacional, pero significa una panacea importante para los países beneficiarios.
Los párrafos 8 a 13 del documento CL 74/14 nos informan sobre el resultado de las evaluaciones y no nos cabe ninguna duda que ellos son favorables, y éste es el punto importante que tenemos a consideración del Consejo.
El Programa de Cooperación Técnica constituye, sin duda, una innovación de importancia crucial pues da a los gobiernos la oportunidad de obtener rápidamente la ayuda necesaria y urgente que, de otra manera, no hubieran podido alcanzar.
Apoyamos sin reservas las propuestas sometidas a la aprobación del Consejo en el párrafo 17. Creemos que en el sub-párrafo 1 son aplicables ampliamente las recientes disposiciones aprobadas en la Conferencia de Cooperación Técnica entre países en desarollo, y exhortamos a la FAO a efectuar los mayores esfuerzos en este sentido siempre teniendo en cuenta el objetivo principal del Programa, esto es, aumentar la producción de alimentos e incrementar los ingresos de los productores.
Consideramos el Programa de Cooperación Técnica como uno de los grandes logros en la FAO y agradecemos al Director General por la inteligente y permanente dedicación a los proyectos encarados bajo su carátula.
Algunos países como el mío han visto ampliarse, gracias a este Programa, un amplio campo de cooperación en el Organismo y exhortan no sólo a la continuidad de sus actividades hasta otoño de 1982 en que podrá efectuarse una evaluación completa, sino a potenciarlas financieramente para darle mayor efectividad. Veríamos con gran reconocimiento que todos los países, sobre todo los grandes donantes cuya generosidad es bien conocida, procuraran hacer un esfuerzo en comprender esta posición que - parece coincidir en la mayoría, si no la totalidad de los países en desarollo este deseo de conservar y potenciar este valioso Programa - implica unas auténticas aspiraciones de ios países realmente necesitados y proporcionan una posibilidad importante a la FAO de contribuir a resolver por lo menos una mínima parte de sus problemas.
H. MENDS (Ghana): We have for the greater part of Monday and Tuesday listened to very eloquent presentations on the global food and agricultural situation. Those followed the terse analyses and powerful presentation of the Director-General on the theme "FAO in Action - 1978". In short, the food production effort in the developing countries, especially in Africa, is far below expectation and this has been chiefly attributed to the woeful dearth in resources and adequately relevant investment in agriculture in these regions.
My delegation doubts whether any others here question the efficient and purposeful manner in which the TCP has been run in the two years of its existence, as has been amply pointed out by the evaluation, nor are there doubts about the numerous benefits the objectivity, timelessness and flexibility of the programme have brought to its recipients, mostly in the least developed and the most seriously affected countries.
To say the least, my government was highly impressed with the speed with which our first request for assistance for seed production was handled by the Director-General. It took only 12 days to approve and implement the project after the document had taken nine weeks in its channel of submittal from the home government.
My delegation shares fully the views expressed in the document before us, document CL 74/14, and the conclusion of the Programme Committee, as contained in document CL 74/5. Indeed, TCP is a shining example of the solutions that the international community seeks in its constant quest for increased food production in the developing countries, as we continue to look for ways and means of expanding and strengthening the TCP programme. My delegation is of the opinion and really wishes that the existing trust fund arrangements under FAO could be more appropriately channelled through the TCP once requests are tied to priority programmes of the priority countries chosen by the donor countries.
To paraphrase Mr. Shefrin, the delegate of Canada, it is the hope of my delegation that this Council will not be the forum that sees problems to every solution to the harrowing hunger and malnutrition that mankind faces today.
It behoves us therefore, as the governing council of the only organization dedicated to ensuring food for all mankind to approve the proposals described in the document and endorsed by the Programme Committee to make the TCP more flexible and even more readily responsive to the multifarious needs of the food production efforts of the developing countries.
CHAIRMAN: I still have 27 people on my list and, as the United Kingdom delegate said, we really are going round and round in a debate which seems to me to be quite unnecessary because no new points have so far been made and since the resolution has been put by the Group of 77 that group must have considered their position and what they agreed upon before they put the resolution. Therefore I do not think we are using our time profitably by going over something which is already agreed. I propose, if members agree, to adopt the resolution by consensus. If any members object to it or to any clauses therein those members have the right to register an objection to it. But the resolution is now put and I suggest that we adopt it by acclamation if there is no dissent.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): Mr. Chairman, I am awfully sorry that I cannot agree with that proposal. We still have a long list of speakers and I personally could not assume that no new points are going to be made. It is the feeling of my delegation that the views of all around the table are of equal importance. We would like very much to know the views which are still to be expressed by other speakers who have already registered.
CHAIRMAN: I am not stopping those who want to speak from speaking but I am appealing to members not to repeat what is in the resolution. If the delegate of Germany, who is number 41 on my list, or anybody else wants to take the floor to give us fresh ideas, that is most welcome. So I give the floor to Germany now, if Germany wishes to add anything fresh.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of): Thank you for giving me the floor, Mr. Chairman. I do not know whether those who registered before me are in agreement with that procedure.
Many of the points that my delegation was going to make have already been covered by previous speakers, particularly by France, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Therefore at this juncture of our debate I will limit myself to those points which are in the view of my government of particular importance.
Firstly, we are in agreement with the Director-General that a complete evaluation of this new programme so shortly after its inception could not be expected. My government, too, considers the evaluation carried out as an interim assessment, sharing in this respect the view expressed by the Programme Committee.
My government assumes that this programme, like others of the organization, will be kept continuously under assessment and evaluation. The next opportunity for doing so will be the consideration of the proposal of the Director-General for the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium (1980-81). In our view the TCP should be reviewed in detail at the next Conference in 1979 after a three-year period of experience. We expect that by that time more projects will have been approved and carried out.
We are looking forward with great interest to further information given about this activity by the Secretariat and would like to suggest that it should include a list containing all individual projects, thus complementing and updating the list given in document CL 71/INF/7-Corr.1. Such information might' help to get a clear and comprehensive picture.
Secondly, my government is of the opinion that during the current phase the criteria, procedures and guidelines adopted originally for this programme should be maintained and any extension of this programme be kept in proportion to a possible overall increase of the Programme of Work and Budget 1980-81. My delegation shares in this respect the views expressed by other speakers, also the delegate of France, who stated that the present framework should be maintained.
Thirdly, with regard to technical assistance in general, my government continues to be of the opinion that the financing of technical assistance within the UN system is, as a matter of principle,the task of UNDP. The TCP must therefore retain its supplementary and catalysing function. It should not lose its special character of limited and clearly-defined functions.
Fourthly - and this is the last but one point I have to make at this juncture of our debate - I should like to refer to the unique role of the TCP as stated by the Secretariat, because action cannot be programmed in advance. The delegate of Brazil stressed in this context, if I understood him correctly, the very nature of agriculture where it is not possible to foresee all that happens during the year.
At the last session of the World Food Council it was stated that one of the reasons why agricultural production in many developing countries lagged behind the target set for the First and Second Development Decade was that agriculture was not given the necessary priority. When overall country development plans were drawn up other sectors than agriculture and nutrition received in many cases the highest attention. Measures in support of agriculture and nutrition were kept at a rather low level and were often not embodied into overall development actions. A full integration of agriculture and nutrition into overall development plans and activities is a prerequisite for achieving positive rural development. Isolated, not sufficiently coordinated measures have generally not the impact they could have.
My delegation feels therefore that it is absolutely necessary that the supplementary and catalysing functions of the TCP and its limited scope must be clearly made known to those government authorities who are responsible in recipient countries for overall planning. The existence of TCP should by no means lead to the fact that requests for development purposes made by the agricultural sector in a given country are not duly taken into consideration because it is felt that there are other sources than those for overall development, like UNDP, for its support. In other words, the TCP should never become counterproductive to agriculture.
Now I come to my last point. My delegation feels that there would actually be no need to have a resolution in support of this programme. Positive views were voiced and the points made at the regional conferences are well-known» We feel that the Director-General, taking into account all the views expressed around the table, would be in a position to put forward, together with his proposal for the next overall Programme of Work and Budget, also his proposal for the activities of the TCP. If my memory does not betray me, recently we did not have resolutions in support of any given programme, and actually it is hard to see why one should separate this programme from an overall review of the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium. We would rather prefer it if the views expressed were included in the report. As for the text tabled, my delegation would at this time have to reserve its position.
CHAIRMAN: As I have said, I am not stopping anyone from speaking, and out of the 27 I have on my list, those who wish to speak will speak. I now have four who wish to speak and I am not saying that all the others are not going to speak, if you wish to; but we have a resolution in front of us, it is the resolution of the Group of 77 and we will come to a decision on that at the end of our deliberations.
H. BAEYENS (Belgique): Je dois d'abord vous dire, M. le Président, que je ne comprends pas votre façon de mener le débat parce que sur ma liste l'Italie précède la Belgique et je ne vois pas pourquoi on abandonnerait la liste des orateurs. Je ne voudrais prendre la parole de personne. Pourrais-je demander au Secrétariat d'appeler les pays dans l'ordre dans lequel ils se son fait inscrire.
CHAIRMAN: Can I call out my list, and those who want to speak, I will stop for them. India? No. Cuba? No. Philippines? No. Jamaica? No. Indonesia? No. Afghanistan? No. Sri Lanka? No. Zaire? No. Thailand? No. Malta? No. Guinea Bissau? No. Mauritius? No. Italy?
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: As a matter of clarification, I assume that the delegates who said no meant that they supported the resolution.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Director-General, for the clarification. Of course, they support their own resolution, that is taken for granted. I am not making any confusion on that: they say they support the resolution.
Before I call on the delegate of Belgium, the Group of 77 have raised their flag. I do not know whether it is a point of order; if it is not, then we will go on to Belgium.
S.A.A. KHALIL (Chairman, Group of 77) (Interpretation from Arabic): I apologize for asking for the floor for the third time, but the draft resolution which I presented is clear. A text has been distributed to all the Members, and I would like to point out at this time that all the Members of the Group of 77 have approved without exception this draft resolution. I therefore feel that if there are any reservations? the Member States should express their reservations and the Drafting Committee should note them in a specific paragraph at the end of the report in which they are given the right of expressing opinions. However, on behalf of the Group of 77, I should like to say that all the Member Countries have supported this resolution and I would therefore ask you, Mr. Chairman, to present it and take a decision; and if there are any other points, then they can be taken up later.
CHAIRMAN: Yes. I will give a chance to all those who want to speak to do so.
H. BAEYENS (Belgique): Notre Directeur general tout à l'heure a pris la parole pour faire remarquer au délégué du Royaume-Uni que son point d'ordre n'était pas un point d'ordre, et peut-être que le Directeur général avait raison. A mon tour je vais commencer par faire une observation qui concerne la procédure, savoir la manière dont vous, M. le Président, dirigez les débats. Vous avez choisi de donner la parole à un délégué pour une deuxième intervention alors que la liste des délégations ayant encore à parler n'était pas encore épuisée. Cette décision n'était pas judicieuse et je doute qu'-elle soit en conformité avec nos règles. Je ne veux pas être désagréable parce que j'ai beaucoup de sympathie pour vous, mais je dois avouer que cette manière de faire m'a vraiment dérouté.
Ceci dit, je vais tout de même faire part au Conseil de quelques notes que j'avais préparées en vue de mon intervention sur ce point de l'ordre du jour.
Lors du lancement du programme de coopération technique, en 1976, la Belgique n'était pas membre du Conseil et n'a pas exprimé d'avis. Je pourrais dire que l'idée ne nous déplaisait pas, mais nous avions un certain sentiment de réticence. En effet, le PCT était une innovation. Il allait à 1'encontre de deux principes que nous honorons dans le système des Nations Unies, celui qu'on appelle le consensus du PNUD et d'autre part, le caractère volontaire du financement de l'Assistance technique. Aujourd'hui, ma délégation reconnaît franchement que le PCT, tel qu'il a été conçu et tel qu'il a été mis en oeuvre jusqu'ici, a prouvé sa valeur. Rendons à César ce qui est à César et au Directeur général ce qui lui revient.
Toutefois deux ans sont un délai trop court pour émettre un jugement définitif. D'ailleurs, le Comité du Programme a recommandé une évaluation en profondeur après cinq ans. Le jugement que nous exprimons aujourd'hui est donc, en quelque sorte, très provisoire mais, tout provisoire qu'il soit, il est favorable.
A part cet avis sur la qualité du PCT, ma délégation veut exprimer un double souhait. C'est d'abord que les actions menées dans le cadre du PCT le soient avec la collaboration d'experts nationaux. D'ailleurs de nombreux pays bénéficiaires ont parlé dans le même sens.
En second lieu nous souhaitons que la FAO veille à ce que les interventions du PCT produisent un effet durable, c'est-à-dire ce qu'on appelle le follow-up soit dûment assuré. Je vois pour ma part, dans ce contexte, un rôle des représentants de la FAO dans les pays.
Ceci dit, le dépôt d'un projet de résolution m'oblige, je pense, à me référer à ce document et je serai fort bref à ce propos. Telle que cette résolution nous est présentée ici, ma délégation n'est pas en mesure de l'appuyer et je partage à ce sujet les vues exprimées par la délégation allemande.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Belgium. Well, at the start you said that I had probably made a mistake. I may have, I am human, we are all allowed to make mistakes, but this mistake was made in the interests of the Council because if we went on and went through the list of 42 or 43, and then have the resolution, it means we are going to be here until next week. So there is nothing wrong in allowing the Chairman of the Group of 77 to introduce this resolution which they will introduce anyhow, and in this way we are probably going to finish today. So we must take it as done in the interests of the work of the Council, nor do I think there is anything wrong in that.
G. de MICHELIS (Italie): Je tâcherai d'être aussi bref que possible étant donné l'heure et surtout les interventions qui se sont succédé.
Les problèmes de la coopération technique au sein de la FAO, et en particulier du Conseil, représentent quand même une question fort intéressante pour le Gouvernement italien qui dépense chaque année, dans les programmes dans le monde, presque 36 milliards de lires italiennes, soit environ 40 millions de dollars.
Sans prétendre ajouter trop d'arguments en ce qui concerne l'action de mon pays à cet égard, je me limiterai à souligner notre vif intérêt, soit pour l'action personnelle entreprise par le Directeur général au point de vue de la coopération, soit surtout pour toute cette nouvelle action que la FAO poursuit et dont les programmes de coopération sont depuis quelque temps le plus récent témoignage.
J'en profite pour dire tout de suite que nous partageons les recommandations faites par le Directeur général dans le document CL 74/8.
Permettez-moi maintenant d'ajouter quelques considérations qui pourraient mieux encadrer notre point de vue et même souligner pour quelle raison nous sommes en faveur du Programme.
Le Gouvernement italien poursuit en effet deux formes de coopération: sur le plan multilatéral et sur le plan bilatéral.
Dans le premier cas, nous avons essayé de concentrer depuis des années tous nos efforts au sein du PNUD en vue d'atteindre des résultats plus satisfaisants. Dans d'autres cas, nous nous sommes concentrés sur des efforts plus directs. Il s'agit de cas d'urgence ou des cas de pays en voie de développement avec lesquels nous entretenons depuis longtemps des relations tout à fait particulières.
Ceci dit, étant donné que la philosophie qui nous pousse dans cette direction est la même et que surtout nous considérons qu'il existe, comme on l'a souligné ce matin, des responsabilités à deux, nous nous sommes déclarés en faveur de toutes les interventions qui pourraient être en mesure d'améliorer l'état de vie de certains pays, de résoudre leurs problèmes, etc. Nous avons pu poser des conditions: en effet, le développement et le bien-être social sont des données qu'on ne peut pas quantifier.
Alors, à la différence d'autres programmes d'assistance qui comportent de lonpues nériodes de gestion, de formulation et de préparation de projets, le Programme FAO, axé sur les quatre points (notamment investissements, formation, besoins d'urgence et autres besoins imprévus) est à même, à notre avis, de réagir dans des délais réduits au minimum, à des besoins imprévus et pressants, en particulier dans des situations critiques.
L'action en cours du Directeur général constitue donc pour le gouvernement que j'ai l'honneur de représenter en ce moment plus qu'une garantie, une réalité.
D'autre part, comme nous comprenons les difficultés, souvent de principe mais aussi réelles de certains parmi nous, nous sommes sûrs que le Conseil se rend compte des problèmes que d'autres pays, comme l'Italie, traversent à cause de l'inflation ou de l'instabilité des changes. Ce sont des considérations sur l'état de la situation actuelle que je permets d'exprimer en soulignant en même temps que le moment historique qui caractérise l'heure actuelle pourra aussi témoigner comment les pays de l'Europe ont pu réagir à leurs difficultés monétaires et financières, grâce surtout auiourd'hui, à l'initiative de la France et à l'action de son président Giscard d'Estaing.
C'est pourquoi j'adresse au Directeur général mes félicitations pour les décisions dont il nous a fait part dans son exposé introductif. C'est un document très précis qui indique les lignes politiques et de conduite que nous, en tant que représentants du pays hôte, nous partageons. Nous avons également toujours manifesté beaucoup de confiance dans la capacité des responsables et la compétence des services financiers de l'Organisation pour savoir qu'ils seront en mesure de réaliser des économies dans d'autres secteurs et d'équilibrer maintenant les dépenses.
Enfin, et pour terminer, permettez-moi d'adresser de simples recommandations en ce qui concerne certains aspects du programme en cours. Je me réfère au risque des doubles-emplois, c'est un problème d'harmonisation entre le Programme FAO, ceux des autres agences des Nations Unies qui font de la coopération technique et les gouvernements qui font de la coopération, eux-aussi, sur le plan bilatéral.
Deuxièmement, la durée des programmes ne devrait jamais en principe dépasser une période à court terne.
Troisièmement, éviter le plus possible le risque que les plans d'intervention étudiés loin des zones, mais à Rome, ne se traduisent ensuite avec trop de difficultés sur le plan pratique. Si vous le permettez, M, le Président, je voudrais seulement vous faire part maintenant de ma surprise en ce qui concerne le projet de résolution qui a été circulé. En effet, je crois qu'il eût été préférable d'attendre au moins que la plupart d'entre nous aient exprimé leur avis comme l'a justement fait noter le représentant britannique, étant donné surtout que nos interventions vous ont prouvé que nous sommes et que nous étions tous en faveur de l'action du Directeur général.
CHAIRMAN: Following the list I now call on Hungary. No. China. No. Finland.
H. MAURIA (Finland): As I see that taking the floor now would be interpreted as being against the TCP I will not take the floor.
V. FISER (Czechoslovakia): My delegation supports the draft resolution presented by the Group of 77.
H. MOKHTARI (Algérie): Ma délégation appuie la résolution présentée par le Groupe 77.
K. ITANO (Japan): First of all our delegation would like to commend the Director-General for his report on the completion of the first stage of the TCP which we find appreciable for a primary evaluation of the TCP activities after a little more than 24 months of its operation. Before going on to the document I would like to make brief general remarks. Our delegation is of the view that the TCP is primarily to be of the nature of supplementary or complementary to other relevant activities and also it is to fill a gap, especially in the case of emergencies where quick response is needed. It is from this point of view that our delegate stressed in his statement yesterday the need to strengthen FAO's activities in collecting and maintaining relevant information with regard to on-going development assistance activities so that the TCP should be put in the right place where the TCP can play effectively its part as a supplementary to other assistance activities.
Incidentally, I would like to make a few comments on the document. One aspect on which an evaluation would have to be made in our opinion, is what actual impact TCP programmes have had on increasing food production and/or improving small farmers incomes in each country or in each case, when possible.
Now, one of our concerns is procedure or process through which each programme has been requested and approved. It is our delegation's view that it would be desirable to have these processes submitted for each case in a concise form.
With regard to the proposed recommendation by the Director-General to governments, under paragraph 13 of the document, our delegation supports the recommendation.
With regard to the Director-General's proposal as seen in paragraph 17 of the document, our delegation is of the opinion that while recognizing the necessity of these modifications they should be applied carefully because until a full evaluation of TCP is made, TCP is to be considered to some extent as experimental.
Finally, with regard to the proposed draft resolution, we are of the opinion that the expansion of TCP is a matter closely related to the level of the total budget for the 1979/81 biennium and it would be better to discuss that together with the whole budget issue. Therefore we think that since our discussion about it has been deferred to the next session of the Council, this issue should also be discussed as an integral part of the budget at the next session. For this reason, our delegation shares the view expressed by the German delegate and followed by the Belgium delegate.
I. OROZCO GUZMAN (México): No sabemos como conjugar la amable invitación que nos ha hecho usted, Sr. Presidente, para no insistir en nuestras intervenciones; sin embargo, cuando existen instrucciones concretas es un poco difícil acatar esto. No se si una solución pudiera ser que aquéllos que tengan declaraciones que hacer pudieran ser éstas incluidas en las actas.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, Mexico, this is part of our procedure, that any delegate can let us have his statement and that will be recorded. This has been done already in the last two days.
F.E.K. CHANDLER (Canada): I would first like to say that my taking the floor does not necessarily mean that we are against the TCP.
My delegation has not as yet had the time to study properly the resolution proposed by the Group of 77 as we have been listening with great interest to the previous speakers and we have noted the appreciation of the developing countries with regard to the TCP. One cannot but acknowledge the help the Programme has been able to give to emergency situations like those enumerated by the delegates of Pakistan and Tanzania. We would at the same time like to associate ourselves with the remarks of the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany as regards the appropriateness at this time of the resolution proposed by the Group of 77 and of funding for development in general.
The Canadian delegation has carefully reviewed the Director-General's report, the evaluation study, and the report of the Programme and Finance Committees on the TCP. We would like to make a few general comments on the subject and on the proposals and recommendations of the Director-General with which we generally agree.
Canada has consistently supported efforts aimed at improving the operations and effectiveness of the United Nations and its family of Agencies. In this regard we have been supportive of new techniques and procedures. The TCP is a new technique and accordingly requires the careful approach taken by the Director-General and the need for scrutiny by the FAO Council. We have noted the direct involvement of governments in TCP preparations and the Director-General's search for new types of projects and greater involvement in field activities. We consider that the TCP should concentrate its activities in the four sectors outlined by the Director-General's proposals which established the programme. The consultant in his evaluation has obviously done what he could with the existing data, bearing in mind that the Programme had been in existence for less than two years. Nevertheless, it would have been useful to have had some quantitative measures. My delegation has found it difficult to comment on the evaluation because we have not been given any of the project papers. We therefore do not have a basis for comparing the objectives and the result and are not able to apply any quantitative measures.
In the view of our delegation, it would be helpful to have another evaluation, say, for the November 1980 Session of the Council, by which time we would have more data and quantitative measures of project results. We would hope that the Council could at this time be also provided with project papers to enable it to make an objective judgment.
My final comment concerns the Director-General's proposal contained in Part 3, paragraph 17 of his report. The uniqueness of the TCP lies in its quick action on short-term projects which are clearly designated. We would urge that the TCP stay within its one-year time limit and that its emphasis remains on making urgent limited response to unforeseen needs.
C. BATAULT (France): M. le President, je ne partage pas les craintes du représentant de la Finlande, puisque j'avais déjà eu - et je m'en réjouis - l'occasion de rendre un hommage chaleureux au succès du programme de coopération technique aussi bien qu'à la part prise dans ce succès par le Directeur général et ses collaborateurs. Je me réjouissais d'ailleurs par la suite de voir l'atmosphère favorable dans laquelle se déroulaient nos débats. En effet, jusqu'au moment où l'on est venu nous interrompre pour nous parler d'un projet de résolution dont nous n'avions pas eu connaissance préalable, j'avais pu constater que tous les orateurs sans exception - je dis bien sans exception -s'étaient prononcés en faveur du programme de coopération technique et lui avaient décerné des louanges. Ceci me paraissait un élément extrêmement favorable et je pensais qu'on s'acheminerait vers un rapport favorable au programme de coopération technique qui refléterait les différentes opinions exprimées dont beaucoup étaient constructives, lorsque tout à coup, je dois dire à ma très grande surprise car je ne crois pas en avoir vu de précédent au cours de ma très longue expérience des Nations Unies, on est venu interrompre le débat pour nous présenter un projet de résolution sur lequel je n'ai pas d'opinion puisque je n'ai pas eu le temps de l'étudier, mais que,, au point de vue du débat lui-même, est venu, j'ai le regret de le dire et ceci est mon opinion très ferme, rompre une atmosphère extrêmement favorable au programme de coopération technique et créer des tensions qui n'existaient pas auparavant.
Par conséquent, M. le Président, je voudrais proposer la solution suivante: étant donné que, dans les circonstances présentes et á ce Conseil encore éloigné de la Conférence, ce projet de résolution ne me paraît d'aucune utilité pratique si ce n'est qu'il affirme des positions que nous connaissons déjà, je voudrais demander au Groupe des 77 de retirer pour ce Conseil ce projet de résolution. Ceci me paraît une solution qui irait très loin dans la voie de la conciliation et qui serait certainement profitable à l'avenir du Programme de coopération technique. Maintenant, si le Groupe des 77 ne croit pas pouvoir prendre cette décision, je crois qu'il serait à notre avantage à tous d'ajourner ce débat, de façon à nous donner aux uns et aux autres un temps de réflexion. On pourrait l'ajourner par exemple jusqu'à vendredi si vous le voulez bien. En effet, en ce qui me concerne, malgré toute ma bonne volonté, dans les circonstances actuelles, ma délégation - et je vous la donne comme exemple parmi les autres - malgré son esprit de conciliation il ne serait pas possible à ma délégation de voter ni pour, ni contre, ni de s'associer à un consensus; nous pourrions comme nous n'avons pas eu le temps d'étudier cette résolution, prendre part ni à un consensus, ni à un vote, et je crois que ceci doit être le cas d'un certain nombre de délégations. Je vous propose donc de donner au Groupe des 77 le temps d'étudier ma proposition qui est simplement qu'on retire cette résolution et que nous nous contentions d'un rapport très favorable au Programme de coopération technique, ou alors qu'on nous laisse un délai suffisant pour réfléchir à cette résolution et éventuellement demander des instructions à nos gouvernements.
CHAIRMAN: As France said, there is not really anything controversial, and the Resolution itself reflects just what is in the paper, but I will put his point of view, his query, the point that he made to the Chairman of the Group of 77.
S.A.A. KHALIL (Chairman of the Group of 77) (Interpretation from Arabic): In the summary you made, our point of view has been expressed, but the project we presented does not contain any type of obligation for one side or the other, as we have already said. However, there has been agreement on a continuation of this Programme with certain reservations. Therefore, here in this Council we feel that the Resolution should be approved by consensus. According to the spirit of the work of this Council, and having listened to various opinions, I feel that this Draft Resolution has been practically adopted. However, if there are reservations, then the Drafting Committee can include these reservations in one way or another in the Report. But in my opinion, this project has been practically approved and practically by a majority and I do not think it is necessary to carry out a vote. This is what I wanted to repeat to the representatives of the other delegations.
I regret that I cannot give any other answer because we have studied this draft in a very comprehensive way, and this project only covers a page and a half, so I do not think we really need a great deal of time to study it.
M. Chairman, it is up to you to decide, and we can decide as you judge best.
H. CUEVA EGUIGUREN (Ecuador): Sí, Sr. Presidente, le agradezco el haberme concedido el uso de la palabra porque revisando la lista de aquellos países miembros del Consejo que renunciaron al uso de la misma he visto que no consta el nombre de mi país, y mi delegación quiere dejar expresa constancia de su decididio apoyo al proyecto de resolución presentado por el Grupo de los 77.
A.J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I wish to simply ask your indulgence for some clarification. As you all know, I made my comments after this Resolution was produced. I made rather an extensive statement for the United Kingdom, and I would like to ask the Chairman of the Group of 77 whether on this occasion or any other occasion the views of my Government are worthy of consideration. I mean we have come along. I think it is very plain that there is a consensus among the Group of 77, but my point simply is whether or not any account will be taken of the views of my Government. These are views, I may say, which were sent to me from London. They do not reflect in any sense consultation with any other Member of this Organization and I wish to be quite clear in reporting back to my authorities whether or not those views would be taken into consideration, because I think they do need the same careful consideration, if I may say so, as in fact the views expressed in the Resolution need a careful consideration on my part.
CHAIRMAN: I assure you that the views of all Governments will be taken into account and certainly the views of your Government, which is a very great supporter of FAO and a contributor to aid in the developing world. There is no question of your Government 's or that of anybody's views not being considered, and this is. a matter for the Director-General and the Secretariat to produce the report which reflects everybody's views. The Group of 77 have their views, so I would like to assure you there is no question of suppressing anybody's views.
G.S. MAGOMBE (Tanzania): Our delegation thought it might be helpful if we explain, on top of what the Chairman of the Group of 77 has said, our point of view. This, as the paper says, is the Draft Resolution. We are not imposing it on anybody. It is subject to negotiations. There is a Drafting Committee. There are five operative paragraphs which are very easy. They are not committed to any government, but what we just wanted to say is that we, the beneficiaries, regard the TCP as one of the most important instruments the FAO has had so far.
FAO has been known as a research centre, like a university. This is the first time that it is operational. Now, what we are saying is that we want it and that we want to expand it. At the same time we must be realistic, because the donor countries-I think there are five countries - do not disagree on the same subject but they have some reservations, and really, for the project to be operational we must give them time to have their views considered, so I strongly suggest that since we have a Drafting Committee, our Draft Resolution with the governments' consent with reservations should go to the Drafting Committee and come out with a Resolution which would be acceptable to all of us. Otherwise, you know, we would just be discussing to no end.
S.A.A. KHALIL (Chairman of the Group of 77) (Interpretation from Arabic): I heard the representative from Tanzania but frankly I cannot agree with him because this draft resolution has-been submitted and the Chairman can take his decision, and if there are any reservations or remarks these can go into the report of the Drafting Committee. This is what we should do.
B. DE AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): I was taking some notes, and very often when I am in a debate I do take some notes, but I can assure you I have been quite attentive and one thing is clear - in this very important item we are discussing, there is in fact one basic consensus of views. There is a convergence of opinions, quite clearly, in the Council in favour of the basic findings of the evaluation. This is the real essential thing. In fact I have not heard any real disagreement on the fundamental consensus of the evaluation. We should not be mismerized by the title of resolution - this "document" has five paragraphs and five basic points, and nothing has been really said which contradicts that document and I must say I feel sympathy, Sir, for your attempts to lead the Council to a consensus on this principle of the Group of 77. If I may say so, I feel you act correctly.
We have five points in that paper in the really important part of it. From what we have heard, probably there is only one question that might at this stage raise some questions. I am not speaking about the detail of the words, but the strengthening of the Programme in the next biennium. "Strengthening" is a very important word. We are not, in the 77, making any specific recommendations, we are just making a general recommendation, and the important point is to ensure a consensus on the five points. Naturally, the report of the Council will reflect the very rigid comments which we have heard.
There were a number of observations made which I am sure will improve the performance of the TCP. It is quite proper and correct and even necessary that the report should reflect these.
I support your basic proposal that we should reach a consensus on the five points. An appropriate wording will be found, of course, to reflect the very interesting remarks which we have heard and which, as I said before, might help a further improvement of TCP. That is all I have to say at this stage.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): Much of what I had intended to say has already been said by the delegate of Brazil. However, I want to clarify one point which has been suggested by some of my colleagues -that there should be donors and recipients in the Programme. There are no donors or recipients, everyone contributes according to his share, and out of that share the Programme is financed. The donors may be large or small, but everyone is a donor, and this should be kept in mind.
CHAIRMAN: I have two observers on my list. If they do not insist on speaking, we can go on and hear Mr. West and the Director-General to sum up.
If Saudi Arabia wishes to speak I give him the floor.
F.A.M. AL MEHAIMEED (Observer for Saudi Arabia) (Interpretation from Arabic): Thank you for giving me the floor so that I can express the views of Saudi Arabia on the document on the Technical Cooperation Evaluation. Although we have only observer status, we have been following the discussion with great interest. We have felt some concern about some opinions which were voiced here in this room on the establishment of this Programme. This Programme is vital and it should be effective, and it clearly renders a service to the countries which need it. I am referring to those countries which have urgent matters to deal with.
Saudi Arabia, as far as technical cooperation goes, shares with numerous countries the feeling this is a truly effective programme which helps those countries that need it, it helps those countries that need urgent aid to carry out projects which increase the agricultural production of those countries and improves the standards of living of the poor populations of rural areas.
We are fully convinced that this Programme is in capable hands, and is well managed, and we consider it is useful and thank the Director-General for his remarks. We should in no way create obstacles for this Programme which is in the interests of the poor people who truly need it. Saudi Arabia gives its full support to this Programme and to the recommendations and measures which will be taken by the Director General to make it attain its objectives.
Saudi Arabia will use its best endeavours to give full support to this Programme.
F. GUARDIA ALVARADO (Observador por Costa Rica) : Voy a ser muy breve y lo que quiero expresar es que, como coordinador del Grupo Latinoamericano, quiero en nombre de todos los países de la región, ratificar nuestro más cálido apoyo al Director General, al PCT y al Proyecto de Resolución presentado por el Presidente del Grupo de los 77.
J. A. BAKER (United States of America): The reason I wish to intervene at this point is simply to reserve my opportunity to comment before this item is finished. The manner In which this debate has proceded has been quite unusual in my view, from a number of procedural aspects which I hope I will not have to detail, and I am not at all certain how you intend in your summing up to deal with several proposals that have been made from the floor with respect to the procedural situation. Depending on what your decisions are on those matters, I may have a desire to speak and express my views- as I reserved my right to do at the beginning of this debate.
CHAIRMAN: When the time comes, we will give you the floor again if you want it. I will now give the Director-General the floor.
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: You said, Mr. Chairman, that you were going to draw the conclusions of the debate and make your summing up; perhaps we should wait until then before answering questions.
CHAIRMAN: We have had a very long discussion on this item. It has been a good discussion because everybody did say what they thought and my impression is there is nobody against the proposals on the table. There is nobody against TCP, there is nobody against the evaluation and there is nobody against the way TCP has been handled up till now. On that there is an absolute consensus.
The Group of 77 decided to introduce a resolution. They are supported by some others in the consensus, but when we took the consensus there were members who did not agree or did not feel there is any need for a resolution since the feeling of Council is good, the reception is good, and therefore there should be no need for a resolution. Either there is a need for a resolution or there is no need for a resolution- that is a matter of opinion. The substance is the same, and that is the matter we have discussed all morning and afternoon. Every delegate has the right to be associated with an opinion or a resolution or any proposal that is put forward by a member or a group of members, and our report will reflect all views on what we have discussed. Those who had some reservations, or those who had some suggestions to make for improvement and so on- all those will be reflected, but the majority opinion is that we should have this resolution and those who associated themselves with it will be clearly indicated- though there were some members who did not associate themselves with it. This is my summing up.
The delegate for the United States did not agree, and I give him the floor.
J.A. BAKER (United States of America): Before I make any comments on the resolution, I will have to ask you whether you are passing over the suggestion made by a delegate here to pause on this matter. I would have to ask you whether FAO observes the 24-hour rule if a delegate should invoke it, and I would have to ask you whether as a result of the action you propose you are suggesting the report indicate that the Council has made a decision with respect to this resolution?
CHAIRMAN: With regard to the point made by the French delegate, I put the matter to the Chairman of the Group of 77 and he did not want to delay the resolution. This is the point made by the Chairman of the Group of 77.
With regard to FAO or Council observing the 24-hour notice and so on, I am not aware of the details and I will ask the Secretariat to explain it. If it became mandatory on us to observe some regulation, it is so; otherwise we will go on as we are.
I give the floor to the Legal Adviser to answer the point raised by the delegate of the United States.
LEGAL COUNSEL: In response to the question raised by the distinguished representative of the United States of America and repeated by yourself, Mr. Chairman, I will say very simply that the Rules of Procedure of the Council do not contain any provision concerning the notice period required for the submission of proposals to the Council. It is therefore in the hands of the Council to decide whether it wishes to deal with the proposal that has been submitted immediately or at a later stage. At this point, Mr. Chairman, that is all I should like to say.
J.A. BAKER (United States of America): Mr. Chairman, I raised three points. I wonder if I could ask for your comment on the third one.
CHAIRMAN: The third point is, as I said, that our report will reflect a decision from which certain members have dissociated themselves or have not gone along with it.
J. A. BAKER (United States of America): In that case I would request the opportunity to make a statement of dissociation if we are going to proceed in that manner.
A. J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom) : I am sorry to intervene again but I do have my own problem, which is quite simple. The United Kingdom would not normally reserve its position over technical cooperation. I should have thought that we were about the last country to do so. But as this is presented and as I am at present instructed I am bound to reserve my position, but I would hope that wiser counsels might prevail overnight. I recall a previous occasion in which I was in exactly this position over a project in Tanzania and after a little delay an accommodation was arrived at and I was able to vote for it.
CHAIRMAN: Our rules say that we give observers the floor if we have time. We do not really have time. Therefore I hope the observers will be patient with us for not giving them the floor. Do any members want to speak?
J.A. BAKER (United States of America): I asked to speak because you have given me to understand clearly that you wish to rule that the Council is adopting a resolution that has been introduced this afternoon in the manner of which you are well aware. In making my statement of dissociation I would like to comment briefly on the resolution before us. I would like to comment first on the preambular part of this resolution, in particular on the second preamble which recalls that the Director-General was invited by the 19th FAO Conference to make every effort to strengthen the Technical Cooperation Programme in accordance with the established criteria, with a view to making the technical competence of the organization more readily and speedily available for the solution of the most pressing development needs of Member Nations. I have no objection to that paragraph. I simply wish to point out some of the suggestions I have made with respect to the programme have been in support of making the technical competence of the organization readily available in urgent situations. The fact that I draw a distinction between provision of physical inputs and provision of technical competence when the programme reaches a level of which 46 percent of its funding is for physical inputs should not be regarded as out of line with the spirit of this Conference resolution, as it seems to have been by some members present
Turning to the operative paragraphs, I would like to note with respect to operative paragraph 1 that it contains a statement which I cannot agree with. That is that, in accordance with the Organization^ constitutional mandate, it is "essential"to maintain the Technical Cooperation Programme. With all due respect to the merits of the programme, and I have indicated that I think it has some very strong merits, it would be hard to say that it was essential to FAO's constitutional mandate without raising a question as to what FAO was doing with its constitutional mandate between 1945 and 1976. I think there are probably a number of ways in which the constitutional references to the Organization's role in technical assistance can be carried out. They are being carried out in many ways already in the Organization, both within the Regular Programme and with respect to extra-budgetary funds. Therefore it seems to me that there are quite a number of options for achieving the objectives of the TCP in ways which are not necessarily labelled 'Technical Cooperation Programme'.
In connexion with operative paragraph 2 I would simply note that this skates a littie more quickly over the question as to whether we have really examined the programme's criteria than I feel comfortable with.
With respect to operative paragraph 4, my difficulty with that is that it approves all the proposals in the evaluation report. As I stated in my intervention, it is our view that some of these proposals lead in directions other than of meeting short-term, urgent, quick response needs, with an amphasis on emergencies. I could provide details in respect of this but I will spare you that.
With respect to operative paragraph 5, we note that it appears to call for strengthening the programme quantitatively in the next biennium. This matter is not addressed in the evaluation. It is not addressed in quantitative terms in the Programme Committee's recommendations. It is not on our agenda. The Director-General has withdrawn the question of the 1980/81 budget from the agenda. Therefore, following the Chairman's request to stick to the report, I did not address this subject in my intervention. However, since I am required to comment on it with respect to this resolution I have to say that the United States does not favour increasing the level of the programme beyond its present level.
Finally, I would comment that the resolution has some omissions, one of which is that it does not address the problem of a future evaluation, which the Programme Committee did.
For these reasons,I would like the record to show in as much clarity as possible that the United States is obliged to dissociate itself from this resolution.
F.E.K. CHANDLER (Canada): I regret to inform the Council that despite our support for FAO's developmental activities we also are unable to associate ourselves with the approval of the resolurion at this time on the grounds that insufficient time was given between the tabling of the resolution and the call for approval. I would submit that a resolution is not necessary on this subject and that the consensus views be properly reflected in the Council report.
CHAIRMAN: Although I said I would not give the floor to observers I see the Netherlands is very persistent. If you agree I will give the observer for The Netherlands the floor. Netherlands, you are the last.
G. de BAKKER (Observer for The Netherlands): In the first place I thank you for your good heart that you give me the floor at this late hour. My only intention is, since I did not take part in the debate and was not in the heart of the debate, to give you my reflection on it. It is that we are going to show in the report an unnecessary split in the two groups that have been formed here, but they do not exist; there is one group here, one Council, that agrees on the necessity for and the importance of this programme. It is just a matter of the wording. Forgive me for saying it, but the Group of 77 is trying to push too hard and by doing that they push into the defences of the people who have some reservations, who want to study the resolution and want to think it over. By doing that, one after the other you hear people saying, "I cannot agree", while if it had been handled a bit more carefully with some reflection onvernight I am sure that a consensus on this matter could have been reached. Therefore I feel that I am obliged, being a new observer, and still feeling a bit the member of the Council that I was last year, to suggest that you ought to come back on your ruling that we must decide tonight on this resolution. I would say we should think it over and try to reach a consensus, either on that resolution with some other wording in it or that the Group of 77 feels that a consensus in the text is more important than a dissociation in the resolution.
CHAIRMAN: My duty here is to respect what members want. I put the question of delaying to the Group of 77. It is their resolution. It is not what I want. It is a matter of following what the majority of members want. I would like to make this quite clear. I will give the floor to Mr. West to answer a few of the technical aspects that have arisen.
E.M. WEST (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): A few questions were asked and I think I ought to clarify the situation. First I have to draw attention to one very serious intervention. I do not want to add fire to the controversy at this moment but I feel that there was one statement in particular that I have to answer in a personal way. The delegate of Bangladesh said that my presentation was more beautiful than my face. I have to declare publicly, through you, Mr. Chairman, that flattery will get him nowhere. At the same time I should like to assure the delegate of the United States that I am not one of the physical inputs in the programme, so I will not affect his position in that respect.
I think it was the delegate of Colombia who first raised a point for clarification, or at least for comment. He referred to paragraph 28 of the annex, which was a question of using national resources. I would like to assure him that this is very much in the mind of the Director-General and it is also part of the recommendations in paragraph 17, 17(i) in particular. So this is I hope something that we will make progress on.
The delegate of France raised a question about paragraph 27. I think the wording here is a bit misleading. It referred particularly to agencies within a country which did not seem to have fully grasped the essential nature and purpose of the TCP and, as you see, the paper addresses recommendations to governments in this regard which have been generally supported by members of the Council. He referred also to the question of delay in implementation in paragraph 39, and here again this is one of the matters that the Director-General, in the action which he said in the document he is already taking, is trying to deal with, especially by improving internal coordination and decision measures.
A number of delegations raised the question of setting aside $200 000 for identification of projects. This is referred to in paragraph 16 of the document: ''the Director-General will as far as uncommitted resource permit set aside $200 000 per biennium for special missions to LDCs" - and it is least developed countries - "to assist them, at their request, in the identification of problems and needs and of means of tackling them." Well, I do not think this could be read as meaning a new fund within a fund, or duplication or any other kind of identification missions. It should be read as part of the point just made, that the essential characteristics of the TCP are not always fully understood by governments, and it might assist them not to make or press project requests which do not appear at first sight to fit into the TCP, if the TCP resources can be used to send out missions to ensure that their requests do fit the criteria of the TCP. In any case, it is a matter which can only be dealt with by the Director-General insofar as the resources of the TCP permit, and they are very heavily committed. I therefore do not think that those delegations which expressed concern about this point should feel that it raises any new point of principle or will lead to difficulties in practice.
I think that at this late hour I will only like to deal with one or two other points which have been raised. First, a general one in relation to paragraph 17. Some concern has been expressed about these recommendations. I think only one delegation challenged either the existing criteria - and then not wholly: it was a question of emphasis -and only one delegation actually opposed any extension of the criteria as proposed in paragraph 17. Some other delegations - a few - did express some reservations about paragraph 17, at least at this stage; but I think once again that perhaps they were reading too much - in the rather fraught atmosphere of this debate - into those paragraphs. They do not in fact involve anything fundamental. They do not involve any new principles or any extensions of the major purposes of the Programme as proposed by the Director-General and as approved by Council and Conference. They are merely matters of a slightly more flexible interpretation within the existing categories.
Action in support of the TCDC is something which is generally supported by Member Nations in the declaration passed by the Conference on TCDC and in expressions on TCDC already in the governing bodies of FAO. In this connexion, the Director-General has noted the slight words of reservation in the Programme Committee's report and will no doubt have noted those which were made today, and, although he is sitting here, I think I can anticipate his reaction to some extent by saying that, as usual, he will apply this particular recommendation in a pragmatic and careful way.
The same applies to the other points. On the question of flexibility and time limits, only one delegation raised this; I think it was the delegate of France. I would stress here that the paragraph is carefully stated to emphasize the fact that it would occur only in very special cases, and that in any case the total period covered should not exceed 12 months in all, even though the action might be spread out over a period longer than twelve months, but in any case not longer than 24 months. So I would stress that none of these points raised either extensions of the categories, new categories, or any real point of principle; and that, I think, applies to remarks made, for example, by the delegate of the United Kingdom, which have been duly noted.
I think the only real issue - and I do not want to stress it unduly, but I do think it is rather important in connexion with your further action on this- is a reference that was made to the UNDP provisions for training and other purposes. I deal with it mainly because I frankly did not recognize the figures that were given. They must have come from some other source. Our official figures agreed with the UNDP are that we exnect a delivery this year of approximately $104 million and next year, if things go well, $125 million. I do not think either of those figures appeared. In any case, these figures have to be compared to previous deliveries, the highest point of which was achieved in 1975 at a figure of $118 million, and with the effects of currency and inflation since then. I think that whatever figures you accept, even if you take the pledging conference recently, when you calculate the effects of currency and inflation, it is very doubtful whether we will have reached the same real level as was achieved in the past.
In any case, the main point about training and categories other than emergencies is not that resources might be theoretically available from some other source. The point is that, say, training schemes financed from other sources might take as much as two, three or four years to mount, whereas a quick training scheme mounted by FAO under the TCP might mobilize much larger training schemes financed from other sources in due course overa longer period. It is the quick action, the flexible response of the TCP, which.is one of its characteristics. So that, I think, was the only substantive point raised in the debate.
I have one other point. This is a technical point, it is not intended as a debating point. As the officer responsible to the Director-General for budgetary matters, whenever I see a reference to strengthening of anything, I begin to worry on his behalf, but it is not unusual for resolutions to mention strengthening, and as long as they do not give target figures, they do not embarrass the Director-General. The same applies to nutrition, where I think Council and Conference also passed a resolution desiring to strengthen something. These are matters the Director-General has to take into account in dealing with his Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium, but I think he likes to know what it is that delegations like and do not like.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. West. You seem to have excited a few delegates to want the floor again.
CO. KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): Simplemente, Sr. Presidente, para saber si usted ha dado por terminado el debate. Como son las seis menos cinco de la tarde y algunas personas tenemos compromisos que realizar, y tal vez por las palabras que hemos oído de algunos delegados es posible que nuestro Consejo se pronuncie con consenso en este tema, tal vez sería conveniente pensar en la posibilidad de quedarnos unos minutos, ya sea para que los que tengan que cumplir obligaciones las cumplan, ya sea para aquellos que pueden lograr un consenso que nos interesa podamos tener algún adelanto en nuestras conversaciones.
Yo creo que más importante para el Consejo es tener reflejada la opinión unánime de todos, y entre ellos me incluyo entre los que apoyan sin reservas el Programa de Cooperación Técnica, que tener por un lado una resolución que es contestada o que es criticada o que no es apoyada por otros. Por lo tanto, tal vez apelo a su sabiduría y a su buen sentido para tratar de ver si podemos lograr un consenso.
CHAIRMAN: I have, in fact, summed up and the only reason I gave the floor to Mr. West was because he wanted to make some technical points, and I thought that was the end of it. That's why I said that Mr. West had incited people to speak again. Please let us stop now, it has been summed up.
C, BATAULT (France): M. Le Président, je suis désolé de vous contredire mais vous avez dit que le porte-parole des 77, le Président de ce groupe, avait refusé ma demande. Ór, dans sa réponse, le porte-parole des 77 a uniquement répondu à l'Ambassadeur de Belgique; je pense qu'il n'a donc pas entendu ce que j'ai dit et si vous voulez bien me donner les quelques secondes nécessaires pour le faire, je vais répéter ce que j'ai demandé. Ce que j'avais dit dans ce sens est ceci:
1. C'est que j'étais extrêmement heureux d'avoir vu qu'un aussi large accord, pratiquement unanime, s'était dégagé sur le Programme de coopération technique;
2. que je ne m'attendais pas à la présentation d'une résolution qui était done une surprise pour moi. En général, on les présente avant les séances;
3. qu'il était d'une courtoisie élémentaire, me semble-t-il, et en prenant encore comme base le fait qu'il y avait un large accord, un très large accord sur ce qui avait été dit, de donner aux délégations le temps de réfléchir, le temps de lire soigneusement cette déclaration, et, le cas échéant, de demander des instructions à leurs gouvernements. J'avais donc demandé un délai pour qu'on puisse le faire, et à ce moment-là, on pourrait reprendre les débats pour quelques minutes pour le- faire. Ceci, M. le Président, j'ai le regret de vous le dire, est tout à fait conforme à la procédure des Nations Unies, et dans un but de conciliation, je crois qu'on devrait l'adopter. Je regrette, les Français parlent toujours de logique, mais il paraît tout à fait illogique d'essayer de forcer la main à certains qui paraissent être contre et qui, au fond, sont tout à fait d'accord, simplement parce qu'ils ont demandé un délai de réflexion. Je ne puis croire que M. le Président du Groupe des 77 nous refuse ce délai de réflexion; c'est une simple question de courtoisie, et je demande maintenant au Président du Groupe des 77 de répondre: veut-il, par égard pour nos opinions, par égard pour le fait que nous avons peut-être à réfléchir, à demander des instructions, donner le délai de réflexion que nous avons demandé? Nous n'avons rien demandé de plus; cela me paraît courtoisie élémentaire.
CHAIRMAN: I did put the question to the Chairman of the Group of 77, and I now put it to him again.
S.A.A. KHALIL (Chairman, Group of 77) (Interpretation from Arabic): I have heard the different views expressed here and have followed them with great attention. I cannot make a decision alone, as President of the Group. I merely wish to carry out the desires of this Group, and I am sorry if I said "Belgium" instead of "France". This might be due to the interpretation. The word "Belgium" may have been a slip of the tongue. We truly hope to come to a decision which might serve, first of all, our state and I must say that a number of points have been made. We respect the views of others. I had already stated this and I have great respect for others and I have tried to behave with the kindness that has been expressed by the delegate of France. We have to try to respect in all ways this cooperation which exists. We have tried to come to an agreement without any confrontation, without any conflict. I have tried to give time to these States who studied this resolution and I would like to convene the coordinators of the Group of 77, call upon them to meet immediately after this meeting. We shall have consultations in our office and then consult with you and see if we can present new proposals.
CHAIRMAN: The coordinators of the Group of 77 will meet immediately after we close this Session.
LE DIRECTEUR-GENERAL: Je ne voudrais pas intervenir, M. le Président, mais peut-être M. l'Ambassadeur de France pourrait-il nous préciser la durée du délai dont il a besoin, ce qui permettrait aux coordinateurs des 77 de mieux étudier la demande qu'il a faite.
C. BATAULT (France): En ce qui me concerne, je pense qu'un délai de 24 heures serait suffisant, mais c'est uniquement mon opinion personnelle; il me semble qu'en 24 heures, nous pourrions éventuellement essayer de nous mettre d'accord. Maintenant, je ne vois pas qu'il soit urgent de prendre une décision là-dessus puisqu'elle sera prise en tout cas. Je crois que nous aurions peut-être avantage, par exemple, à discuter avec un certain nombre de membres du Groupe des 77, parce que les explications étaient tout à fait claires, il n'y a pas de sujet de profond désaccord, simplement il faut essayer de nous mettre d'accord le plus rapidement possible sur un consensus, il faut essayer de le faire. Donc, je crois qu'il serait souhaitable de nous donner un délai suffisant. J'avais parlé dans ma première intervention d'un délai jusqu'à vendredi, je ne vois pas en quoi cela dérange le moins du monde l'issue du débat, mais enfin si l'on juge que c'est trop long, je vous laisse juge, M. le Président ou M. le Directeur général. Simplement, je remercie le Président des 77 d'avoir bien voulu nous donner un délai. Il me semble que ce délai devrait être au moins de 24 heures; s'il nous est accordé jusqu'à vendredi, tant mieux! Il ne faut pas qu'il aille plus loin que vendredi à mon avis, mais en un jour et demi ou deux jours, on doit avoir encore plus de chances d'arriver à un accord.
S.A.A. KHALIL (Chairman of the Group of 77): For several reasons, and since many heads of delegations will be leaving Rome tomorrow evening we think that the deadline for discussing this point should be tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow evening. This is what I would propose.
CHAIRMAN: Is that acceptable to the French delegate, tomorrow afternoon, tomorrow evening?
C. BATAULT (France): Oui, Monsieur le Président.
P. MASUD (Pakistan). I suggest you give us a break for a little while and then perhaps tomorrow we will be in a position to let you know exactly when we can get a reply.
CHAIRMAN: We have concluded our debate really.
LE DIRECTEUR GENERAL: Je voudrais me permettre, à cette heure tardive, de faire une proposition. Je fais appel ici au Président et aux membres du Groupe des 77 à leur bonne volonté; j'en appelle également aux représentants des six pays qui éprouvent des difficultés à approuver cette résolution, ou qui trouvent, du moins, inopportun d'en discuter. Je suggère de réunir demain, à 10 h 30 dans mon bureau, un petit groupe de contact. Ce groupe pourrait comprendre des représentants des six pays en question. Il pourrait comprendre, par exemple, M. l'Ambassadeur de France, qui a pris l'initiative de proposer un délai pour réfléchir et trouver un consensus, et un ou deux autres délégués qui seraient choisis par le "Groupe de Genève". Les coordinateurs du Groupe des 77 pourraient, de leur côté, procéder à de semblables désignations. Je ne sais pas combien de représentants ils devraient designer, mais il est plus facile d'être un petit groupe pour négocier. Nous tenterons de trouver un accord. Je vais réfléchir moi-même ce soir avec mes collègues du Secrétariat pour voir s'il existerait une formule qui puisse satisfaire les deux parties ou qui puisse, en tout cas, permettre une tentative de réconciliation des deux points de vue. Si demain après-midi, après cette réunion, nous nous retrouvions avec une solution qui soit un consensus, ce serait très bien; sinon, nous pourrions prendre encore un peu de temps, puisque nous ne sommes pas pressés, mais je souhaiterais obtenir l'unanimité sur cette question. Je crois que c!est une question de mots, une question de forme seulement et non de substance. De toute façon, je dois dire très franchement que je serai amené à proposer une augmentation des crédits du PCT. C'est un enfant; il doit croître; on ne va pas en faire un géant, mais il ne doit pas rester rachitique non plus. Il faut qu'il grandisse de façon saine et normale pour que tout le monde soit satisfait. Je comprends que c'est le dernier paragraphe de la résolution qui gêne certaines délégations, mais je ne puis vous cacher que ce programme doit grandir.
CHAIRMAN: I have not imposed any opinion or my will on anybody. This is a consensus reached and a meeting will be held and we will bring this matter up tomorrow afternoon after the discussion.
Q.H. HAQUE (Bangladesh): I have similar proposals to make because such an effort has produced results in the past. Remember the last Conference, we had a meeting in the office of the Director-General and that produced very substantial results and the proposal is acceptable to Bangladesh.
I ought to answer Mr. West in his observations. I am very happy that Mr. West has taken my comments as compliments. I made my comments after a long hesitation, after noticing Mr. West was not in the room!
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): A estas horas nosotros solo debemos manifestar nuestra aprobación a la propuesta del Director General. Desdè que intervino el colega Embajador de Tanzania tuvimos la tentación de haber hecho una declaración porque él recordó algo importante para el funcionamiento del Consejo y es el Comité de Redacción* En el Comité de Redacción están representadas todas las regiones, y por cierto, Francia y Estados Unidos. De manera que en mi opinión ése debería ser el grupo que se reuniese con usted mañana, señor Director General.
The meeting rose at 18.15 hours
La séance est levée à 18 h 15
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.15 horas
