CHAIRMAN: This item was introduced yesterday by Mr. West and therefore we can go straight into discussing the item.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Una primera lectura de este documento C 79/8 había dado la impresión a la delegación de Colombia de que no obstante el título "Evaluación del Programa Ordinario para 1978-79", este documento es en realidad más que nada, una descripción de lo que se ha hecho en los distintos Departamentos y las Direcciones y Sectores de la Organización.
Nos había parecido que en realidad había poco de evaluación. Nos llevó al sumario que aparece al final de este documento C 79/8, donde ya encontramos en realidad algo de evaluación aunque sí muy poco, pero en realidad, con muy pocas apreciaciones críticas. Los conceptos todos, son positivos. Se trata de dar la impresión de que todo marcha bien. Estos hechos que comentamos., sólo con ánimo constructivo, podrían justificarse por el hecho de que, como se afirma en el documento, la evaluación se encomendó directamente a los Jefes de Departamentos de Direcciones y a su personal. Reconocemos las capacidades, la competencia y la consagración del personal de la FAO, pero aun así, es apenas natural y humano, que esos funcionarios tiendan a defender su propio trabajo y a exaltarlo.
La delegación de Colombia piensa que para el futuro, aunque sea progresivamente, será necesario ir pensando en otros métodos que permitan una real evaluación del Programa Ordinario. Por ejemplo, potenciar el Servicio de Evaluación de la FAO, Servicio que viene trabajando bien, que está integrado por funcionarios de nuestra Casa, pero que son independientes de los sectores cuyo trabajo evaluarían. Así también podría pensarse para ciertos sectores de contratar consultores externos o firmas especializadas.
Este examen tiene todas las imperfecciones y deficiencias propias de cualquier empresa nueva. Aquí habría que cerrar comillas, pues son las palabras textuales del Director General en su prólogo a este documento. A la delegación de Colombia le gusta y aprueba este lenguaje modesto, sencillo y cordial. La modestia dignifica, la soberbia irrita. Por ello, la delegación de Colombia se complace de los términos en que se presenta este documento y los comparte. Seguramente el Consejo podría decir en su informe que se trata de un primer experimento que va a ser revisado y mejorado progresivamente en el futuro, pero de todo ello nos ocuparemos en la Conferencia.
CHAIRMAN: Any other members wishing to comment?
S.A. PERVEZ (Pakistan): This has been the first Review of the Regular Programme. My delegation therefore regards this as a good beginning and a valuable additional component of FAO's evaluation system. Well, there are some shortcomings in the Review. We would like to view them in the context of the handicaps under which the Organization had to work. We feel, for instance, that the one relating to the evaluation of impact, that is, the effect of outputs would have been better if the results of the Regular Programme activities had been translated into action by the time the Review was prepared. We would propose here for consideration the idea of choosing special topics which cut across programme lines for an in-depth evaluation.
My delegation agrees with and supports the Programme Committee's views on the Regular Programme. We feel that such a Review is important, and now that the Organization has initiated this task, we feel confident that the next Review will not only be an improvement on the present one but would go over all those areas which were found weak or lacking in the first Review.
CHAIRMAN: Any other members wishing to take the floor? I do not think there is very much for Mr. West to reply to, but I will still give him the floor to say a few words.
E.M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): As you say, there is nothing very much to reply to. We have noted the views of the Programme Committee and intend to take them fully into account, as also the views of Council and Conference, in our next effort. I will just like to make a comment in reply to Colombia that we do use outside consultants for special tasks, for example» the evaluation of the CCP. We will use more consultants on other special tasks.
Secondly, we accept the warning about not being complacent with our own efforts, but at the same time, it should be recognized that the Review of the Regular Programme reflects not only the views of the staff but also reflects the support given to the programmes by the governing bodies of FAO. It is hardly surprising that we do find on the whole they are working well when the governing bodies and FAO tell us really we should be having more work and more resources for those same programmes. It would be strange if governing bodies were attacking the programmes whilst we were finding them good, or vice versa. What is not strange is that those programmes which are generally well supported almost unanimously by the governing bodies are found by the Review to be working well. It is not surprising at all.
A.J. PECKAM (United Kingdom): I arrived a little late, but I do ask your agreement to my making a very simple point. Perhaps I could just make this one point on item 11. It is that we have noted there are some inconsistencies in the preparation of the statements under the various programmes. Just to explain that, in some cases these are simply a factual account of what has been done, whereas in other cases there is an element of analytical assessment of the achievements.
I am trying to bring out that there are these two contrasting things. It is worth making the point that in future in documents of this kind an attempt might be made to make the entries in a more consistent form.
I appreciate this is the first time, so this is only a constructive point I want to make at this moment.
CHAIRMAN: I call on Mr. Yriart to introduce his item.
J. F. YRIART (Subdirector General, Departamento de Desarrollo): Creo que en este momento no debo hacer una introducción largai y prefiero más bien llamar la atención del Consejo sobre el Informe de la ultima sesión del Comité del Programa, donde en los párrafos 180 a 292, da su apreciación sobre el examen de los programas de campo que discutió exhaustivamente.
Creo que el Informe del Comité del Programa es una buena base para una discusión sistemática del examen. Por otra parte, también con vuestro permiso, señor Presidente, más bien será en la Comisión II de la Conferencia que tradicionalmente dedica bastante tiempo al examen de los programas de campo, que me permitiré hacer una Introducción un poco más larga. Quisiera, sin embargo, hacer notar que este bienio, el Examen de los Programas de Campo, sobre todo en su presentación, tiene algunas novedades en cuanto a la presentación de estadísticas, de gráficos, etc…., que hemos introducido a especial solicitud de la Conferencia y del Consejo. También quiero llamar la atención sobre el Resumen que empieza en la página 90 del documento, y que, evidentemente, facilita la consideración del mismo.
Sobre la sustancia del examen, quisiera decir que dos cosas surgen bastante claramente; una positiva y otra negativa y preocupante. Y si bien en el orden del documento, la negativa viene primero, preferiría hablar de ella en segundo lugar. En cuanto a la positiva, es que evidentemente la calidad no sólo de la formulación sino también de la ejecución de nuestros programas de campo va mejorando. Vemos que en casi todos los rubros que usamos como parámetros paia calificar la calidad de ejecución, ha habido en este bienio que estudiamos, una mejora sobre el bienio anterior. Es sin embargo aún un poco preocupante
el punto del interés de los gobiernos en participar a la ejecución de los proyectos. También hay una mejor participación de los gobiernos, sobre todo en los Programas de Cooperación Técnica, en los proyec-tos de cooperación técnica de la Organización. Todavía hay mucho campo para aumentar e intensificar la participación de los gobiernos en sus propios proyectos, y esto es muy importante porque creo que estamos todos de acuerdo en que la meta final es la ejecución de los proyectos de administración por los gobiernos, donde nosotros tendríamos sólo una capacidad de asesoramiento técnico.
También creo, y esto lo manifestó ayer el señor West, que se aplica igualmente al examen del Programa Regular, que tenemos razones para estar no totalmente satisfechos, pero relativamente satisfechos sobre los resultados que estamos obteniendo en la utilización de instituciones nacionales en la ejecución de nuestros proyectos y programas. Verdaderamente, en estos últimos tres años hay una utilización acelerada de instituciones nacionales. También, si bien reconocemos el esfuerzo que debemos hacer, verá el señor Presidente que hemos podido aumentar la proporción de expertos, consultores, insumos, etc. de países en vías de desarrollo en los programas de campo con diferentes éxitos, tal vez donde mejor nos ha ido es en la obtención de expertos. Tal vez menos éxito hemos tenido en el uso de consultores. Si bien también ha aumentado mucho el uso de consultores de los países en desarrollo en materia de contratos, insumos, necesitamos buscar maneras de interesar a las firmas de los países en desarrollo para competir en las licitaciones que se hacen. Pero en general, es un cuadro dinámico hacia lo positivo. Tenemos también la constatación de que aproximadamente el 75 por ciento de nuestros proyectos de campo están dirigidos al aumento de la producción de alimentos. Esto es un estudio que hicimos a especial solicitud de la Conferencia y del Consejo.
En materia de nutrición, hemos constatado las dificultades inherentes a dar un objetivo favorable a la mejora del estado de nutrición a nuestros proyectos porque los gobiernos mismos tienen grandes dificultades en ir identificando los beneficiarios de los proyectos, y verdaderamente la clave de poder dirigir los proyectos a esta área, es poder identificar los beneficiarios.
Finalmente, señor Presidente, quiero referirme a la primera parte del Informe que, como ya dije, nos da una gran preocupación. Es el problema de la financiación de los Programas de Campo. En valores reales nuestro Programa de Campo de 1970 a ahora ha aumentado sólo el 2 por ciento; esto es virtualmente un estancamiento. Si bien la ayuda oficial al desarrollo en los últimos años se ha duplicado, sin embargo la proporción de la ayuda oficial al desarrollo dedicada a la asistencia técnica en la agricultura ha ido disminuyendo. El panorama no es de optimismo y, ciertamente, no concuerda con la importancia que tiene la ayuda técnica para el desarrollo agrícola y para el aumento de la producción de alimentos. Si bien las inversiones en la asistencia técnica no son nunca de la magnitud de las inversiones financieras que hacen los países o los organismos internacionales, sin embargo suelen ser inversiones clave que tienen un efecto de palanca en cuanto a que orientan la eficacia de los Programas nacionales y suelen ayudar a los Gobiernos a resolver cuellos de botella.
En nuestro Programa de Campo, señor Presidente, si no hubiera sido por el aumento en estos años de los Programas de Acción de la FAO que se financian con fondos en fideicomiso, nos encontraríamos conque habríamos retrocedido después de la crisis financiera del PNUD. Otra vez se está recuperando el Programa que ejecutamos para el PNUD, pero está lejos, de alcanzar los niveles anteriores a la crisis del PNUD.
Nosotros tenemos la certeza, y creo que el documento objetivamente lo muestra, de que los Programas de Cooperación Técnica que desarrollamos cada vez más traen detrás de sí todas las fuerzas técnicas e informáticas de la Organización, toda la experiencia que logramos obtener de los países para poner al servicio de la comunidad internacional. Creemos que poco a poco los varios Programas de Acción que desarrolla FAO se han vuelto cada vez más eficaces al trasladar a los Gobiernos esta experiencia, este conocimiento técnico que podemos acumular, no sólo mediante los esfuerzos del Programa regular crecientemente orientado al apoyo técnico del Programa de Campo, sino también mediante los esfuerzos del Programa de Campo. Para esto nos es necesario una financiación creciente, porque las demandas de los países en desarrollo que logran concretar sus prioridades e identificar sus problemas que para ejecución de proyectos solicitan nuestra ayuda, esas demandas son cada vez mayores.
Por otra parte, señor Presidente, es indudable que nuestro Programa de Cooperación Técnica está teniendo una influencia creciente en la preparación de proyectos de inversión, y también en este campo es nuestro deseo, y creemos con cierta inmodestia haber logrado algunos buenos éxitos, que los Programas de Acción de la FAO tienen esa virtud de poder preparar el camino para la inversión, y esperamos también acortar el ciclo de los proyectos de inversión. Tenemos la esperanza de que el Consejo pueda solicitar a la Conferencia que enfoque en las discusiones estos problemas de la financiación del Programa de Campo, de la utilización de los conocimientos técnicos y experiencias de la Organización y que pueda hacer notar que cuando es la Organización competente en la materia, en este caso la FAO, la que ejecuta estos proyectos, estos proyectos tienen más eficacia y beneficio para los países que cuando son ejecutados por organizaciones cuya materia especializada no es la agricultura.
Quiero decir, finalmente, señor Presidente, que otro de los problemas que también hemos tenido que enfrentar, es que en el ámbito de los Programas que se realizan con financiación del PNUD, hemos perdido camino, si bien normalmente durante muchos años la FAO ha ejecutado un cierto número de Programas del PNUD, esa proporción ha disminuido al 27 por ciento, o tal vez un poquito menos. Creemos sinceramente que la ejecución de los proyectos en el campo de la agricultura o del desarrollo agrícola, en la cual las ciencias agrícolas tienen gran importancia, la ejecución por la FAO tiene ventajas y aporta beneficios especiales a los Gobiernos. Me parece que sería conveniente si el Consejo y la Conferencia así lo estiman, recomendar a los países y a los organismos internacionales, que ese tecnicismo y esa experiencia de la Organización sea plenamente utilizado por todos.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Yriart, for this introduction of the subject. The subject is now open for discussion.
A. RENAUD (Canada): Un petit commentaire: le but de notre présente session est d'entériner la documentation préparée pour la biennale et je voudrais, au nom du Canada, féliciter le Secrétaire général et son personnel pour ce document de travail. Plus particulièrement, je voudrais souligner le mérite d'avoir fait participer le personnel sur le terrain à cet exercice d'évaluation. C'est une façon de procéder qui donne certainement plus de valeur à toute l'activité du Programme et je voulais simplement souligner ce point.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La presentación clara e inteligente del Sr. YRIART facilita nuestra intervención que va a ser muy breve porque, además, compartimos las opiniones del Comité del Programa sobre este documento.
La delegación de Colombia reconoce que en el formato y el contenido del documento CL 79/4 se ha incorporado en término general, las recomendaciones de la pasada Conferencia. Apoyamos, y ojalá que el Consejo comparta esta opinión, la necesidad esencial de que los Programas de Campo de la FAO sean cada vez más eficientes y respondan a las necesidades de los países en desarrollo. A la delegación de Colombia le preocupa el hecho citado en el párrafo 1.4, al cual se refirió también con mucha competencia el Sr. YRIART, en el sentido de que en términos reales el incremento de los gastos hechos en los países en desarrollo por bienes y servicios recibidos, sólo sea del 2 por ciento en relación con el nivel de 1970, es decir, que vamos hacia atrás porque nadie podrá discutir la enorme magnitud creciente de estos problemas en los últimos diez años.
La delegación de Colombia comparte la grave inquietud expresada en la introducción del Director General por el preocupante descenso de la asistencia técnica a la agricultura. Proponemos que el Consejo apoye al Director General en esa manifestación que a todos nos interesa.
Los párrafos del 1.11 al 1.13, merecen explicación, sea aquí en el Consejo, no obstante el carácter bastante específico de esto, o en la Conferencia, si se considera mejor. Decíamos que merece explicación por parte de los representantes del PNUD en particular, ya que el representante de la FAO ha explicado muy bien la posición de nuestra Organización. Sería necesario, a nuestro juicio, aclarar el contraste citado en este documento entre la disminución de la proporción del PNUD en los fondos extrapresupuesta-rios, y el aumento considerable en los fondos fiduciarios. ¿Qué explicación tiene la participación descendente de la FAO en los proyectos agrícolas financiados por el PNUD? ¿A qué se debe la curva descendente en el gráfico 7, en página 12 del texto español, que describe el considerable descenso del número de expertos empleados por la FAO?
Tenemos la impresión de que los Estados Miembros están satisfechos en la forma en que la FAO ejecuta los proyectos que se le encomiendan como agencia de ejecución, y si los Gobiernos tenemos esta apreciación positiva sobre la labor de la FAO en proyectos de campo, sería conveniente saber si el PNUD no comparte esa posición de nuestros Gobiernos, o si tiene reparos que hacer a la acción de la FAO y cuál pueda ser el motivo descendente a que.nos hemos venido refiriendo.
Estas son las primeras reacciones de la delegación de Colombia y, naturalmente, sobre esto hablaremos extensamente en la Conferencia.
I. OZORAI (Hungary): My delegation associates itself with the views of the Programme Committee expressed in document CL 76/4, welcoming the review on the Field Programmes. If I may go back for a moment to the previous issues, we do associate ourselves also with the remarks of the Committee referring to the first issue of the Review of the Regular Programme as well. This Review is a valuable piece of documentation and whatever overlappings may be detected between the various pieces of documentation and pieces of work, my delegation feels that the document offers a very good insight of the Field Programmes, even viewing with a critical eye all the developments which occurred in the last two years. And, if I may add, we detected with satisfaction the spirit of team work which was referred to yesterday by Mr. West, in both documents.
There is only one point I should like to make. Somehow we feel that the technical and, may I call it functional, approach is not very clearly defined. I am specifically referring to training; both in the document before us on Field Programmes and in the document on Regular Programmes a good number of paragraphs deal with training, pointing out the relative insufficiency in training, the problems in finding suitable well-trained candidates in developing countries, and so forth. I wonder whether a more comprehensive approach on all the results in training may be presented to the Council, let us say, at its 78th Meeting, based on an evaluation of the Inter-Departmental Working Group on training which I suppose is not only busy on training within the Regular Programme but on training in Field Programmes as well. It is my feeling that such an evaluation could promote the work of the Council and of the Organization as well.
I. MOSKOVITS (Malta): First of all I should like to thank very much Mr. Yriart for his excellent introduction and very clear explanation of the whole problem before us. I should like to make only a very small intervention referring to paragraph 2.186 of the Programme Committee's Review in which a suggestion was mentioned that the TCP projects in future should receive increased allocations. We very strongly support this suggestion and would like to raise this question also later when the Programme of Work and Budget is discussed, and of course, also in the Conference.
S.A. PERVEZ (Pakistan): My delegation would like to record its appreciation of document C 79/4 and feels that the Review of Field Programmes is most helpful in identifying and analyzing critical policy issues relating to assistance to agriculture. We also commend Mr. Yriart's introductory remarks. We would like to express our concern over the conclusion drawn in the Review that the role of technical assistance in promoting agricultural and rural development is not adequately recognized in aid programmes. Although the flow of official development assistance to agriculture has more than doubled in the last five to six years, in real terms the share of technical assistance for agriculture in the total has been falling sharply every year. As against 16 percent in 1973, technical assistance accounted for only 9 percent of total development assistance to agriculture in 1977 and has possibly deteriorated in the current biennium.
We would like to propose here that these disturbing trends need to be analyzed and monitored, and would like to mention the need of greater flexibility in relation to the inclusion of local and recurring costs in loan agreements. There is also a need to simplify lending procedures.
With these remarks we would like to mention our agreement with and support for the Programme Committee's views on the Review of Field Programmes 1978-79. We will of course be going into greater depth and detail on this in the Conference.
A. J. PECKAM (United Kingdom): Just a few comments, if I may, on two points. Like others we shall of course have more detailed views to express at the Conference itself, but I would just like to say, in regard to the assessment of FAO/UNDP and Trust Fund projects: we have noticed in 1978 that only 61 percent of the projects are rated good or very good in terms of performance, project output or results. That is a good figure. It is very nearly two-thirds and I think in most examinations, if you manage to get a mark of something like two-thirds, you are doing very well. But my remarks really concern the other side, that is to say, that the remaining 30 percent in 1978 were rated as fair or poor.
Now, I draw attention to that because that particular figure compares favourably with an earlier assessment where the score in 1972 and 1973 was 37 percent and it was not as favourable as in 1976 to 1977, when there was a higher figure. I do not want to argue about precise figures but when we look at the fairly considerable proportion of these projects under Technical Cooperation Programme, costing
nearly US $ 1.5 billion, over the period 1970 to 1978 - I am taking a fairly long span - that seems a fairly high proportion to be rated as unsatisfactory. I just want to draw attention to that because this aspect of FAO's work is, of course, very important and we are most anxious that the Organization should do everything possible to prevent failure of projects.
Now my second point is with regard to the TCP programme which is described, and I think we would all very much subscribe to this, as the most cost-effective component of the Field Programme administered by FAO. I note in this context that the internal assessments of the cost-effectiveness of the individual projects gives very good marks - I am sorry to come back to the classroom system of marking - gives very good marks for all projects. Now, I am sufficiently old in the tooth to realise that if you mark everything as very good you sometimes cast a bit of doubt on the marking system. So I just want to put the house on notice, we may have a few questions to ask later on this because the importance of this is that against a background of official development assistance, where the amount of money spent on technical cooperation is diminishing as a proportion, even FAO - and this may be a very sound thing - even FAO expenditure on TCP has quadrupled in the last three to four years and so it would be quite interesting to know precisely what proportion of increase this represents in real terms and, as I say, it is a subject one might refer to later but I just wanted to raise these comments on these two points at this stage.
Sra. GRAFILA SOTO (Cuba): El documento C 79/4 consideramos que constituye un aporte a nuestras discusiones por su correcta presentación, así como por su contenido, ya que en el mismo se refleja realmente la situación desde el último análisis en 1977 y pone al descubierto los obstáculos que persisten y deben ser superados para hacer más fructífera y eficaz la labor de la FAO en el marco de la cooperación técnica multilateral.
Mi delegación considera que la finalidad fundamental de la asistencia técnica consiste, efectivamente, en reforzar la capacitad funcional de los países en desarrollo hasta el punto en que puedan iniciar, y posteriormente, sostener, programas de desarrollo con el mínimo de asistencia externa.
Nos parece que se ha trabajado mucho en este sentido por parte de la FAO, pero esa función de asistencia técnica no ha sido apreciada en muchos programas, según se desprende del propio documento analizado. Creemos que el papel de los gobiernos en ese sentido es fundamental y debe tratar de superar las trabas de contenido burocrático y otras que se desprenden de la práctica colonial y neocolonial que han subsistido en muchos países y que impiden dar todo el aprovechamiento a la asistencia técnica recibida.
Vemos, sin embargo, con mucha satisfacción el incremento de la utilización de la capacitad de los países en desarrollo planteada en los párrafos 2.39 y siguientes, siendo de gran importancia el aumento de los directores nacionales para proyectos, ya que los mismos se encuentran más vinculados a sus propios problemas.
Apoyamos el esfuerzo hecho por la FAO en materia de capacitación agrícola, pesquera y forestal y esperamos que sus esfuerzos de capacitación sigan extendiéndose hacia los trabajadores que están más directamente vinculados a estas ramas.
En lo que respecta a la capacitación de la mujer en particular se deberá hacer énfasis no solamente en lo que respecta a la labor doméstica, sino también hacia aquellas que les permita su plena incorporación a la producción y se le permita jugar el papel que le corresponde en el desarrollo económico y social de su país.
N. LATYR (Senegal): Je remercie tout d'abord le Secrétaire général et son équipe d'avoir bien voulu nous présenter des documents corrects et bien exposés.
Ma délégation voudrait faire des remarques en ce qui concerne le problème nutritionnel.
Tout d'abord, l'expert qui nous a présenté le rapport nous a dit qu'il y avait des difficultés quant à l'identification des bénéficiaires. Je suis entièrement d'accord avec lui en ce qui concerne les zones urbaines, mais en ce qui concerne les zones rurales les bénékficiaires sont surtout les enfants en bas âge ainsi que les femmes enceintes, les femmes qui allaitent et les personnes âgées. Certes, les difficultés d'identification existent si les moyens sont limités. C'est pour cela que je voudrais, comme l'a souligné le rapporteur, mettre l'accent sur la nécessité d'augmenter le financement de la FAO et de faire une recommandation à la Conférence, parce que les difficultés d'identification sont liées aux financements qui sont donnés dans les programmes.
En ce qui concerne la formation, nous sommes d'accord sur l'ensemble des programmes qui sont donnés par la FAO et qui touchent souvent directement les agents qui sont sur le terrain.
Cependant, en ce qui concerne ce problème, notre délégation souhaiterait que les cadres intermédiaires aient un certain nombre de bourses leur permettant d'accéder au statut de cadre supérieur. Si on donne uniquement des bourses de recyclage pour deux ans, je ne pense pas que cela ait une incidence au niveau de la fonction publique de chacun des pays. Il serait souhaitable que les cadres intermédiaires qui travaillent sur le terrain et qui ont beaucoup d'expérience, puissent devenir cadres supérieurs. L'expérience a montré qu'à l'université ces cadres sont valables une fois qu'ils ont dépassé la partie académique.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any more Members who wish to take the floor? If not, then I will call on Mr. Yriart to respond to the comments made by Members.
J.F. YRIART (Subdirector General, Departamento de Desarrollo): Verdaderamente creo que solamente hay dos puntos en los que es necesario a esta altura dar una información o respuesta, si bien quiero agradecer las palabras que se han dicho elogiando este esfuerzo que tratamos de hacer con sinceridad y en el cual el Director General pone personalmente mucha atención, pues para nosotros la calidad de nuestro programa de campo es vital porque ahí es donde va el mayor servicio que podemos prestar a los países en desarrollo.
Respecto a los programas de capacitación, en efecto, porque son tan grandes y múltiples las actividades de la Organización en materia de capacitación, el Director General designó un grupo interno presidido por el Director General Adjunto para ocuparse de capacitación. Me dice el Sr. Director General Adjunto que a solicitud del Comité del Programa se está haciendo un informe completo sobre las actividades de capacitación de la Organización que será presentado en otoño próximo al Comité del Programa y que posteriormente supongo vendrá al Consejo. Pero en cuanto a evaluación de los programas de campo en materia de capacitación ya hace más de dos años se inició un ejercicio sistemático con el PNUD de la evaluación de las actividades de capacitación, y este informe conjunto de la FAO y del PNUD, evaluación conjunta, será concluido, me dicen, a finales de este año; así que creo que el año próximo el Consejo tendrá sustanciales documentos sobre la materia de capacitación.
El otro punto al que creo debo tratar de responder es la observación del honorable delegado del Reino Unido. He tomado muy en cuenta y le aseguro al Sr. delegado que es una cosa que estamos vigilando atentamente cómo se van representando los diferentes parámetros que hemos dicho, indicadores que tenemos para ver la calidad de nuestros proyectos, tanto en la formulación como en la ejecución, y lamentamos que todavía haya una proporción de casi un tercio que no nos satisface; y en ese 39% los proyectos que hemos calificado de deficientes son la minoría, pero es una cosa que debemos mejorar porque tenemos mejores experiencias y mejores resultados en los programas de cooperación técnica de la Organización misma, y son verdaderamente dos razones tan sencillas que a veces la gente no piensa en ellas.
En primer lugar, no tenemos intermediarios entre los gobiernos y la Organización; no tenemos oficinas en otras ciudades del mundo en Norteamérica, oficinas locales de organizaciones que financien y están tratando de mejorar nuestra competencia técnica, lo que en inglés se llama table guest, y nos alteran los documentos de los proyectos y nos tratan de guiar por caminos que ellos desconocen.
Estos proyectos los preparamos con el Gobierno y entonces, por empezar, son más eficaces, pero la otra razón es lo que en español llamamos "la razón del artillero" por lo sencilla que es; es que por su naturaleza los proyectos de nuestro programa de cooperación técnica son breves y bastante sencillos y como son breves a nivel nacional interviene o tiene la responsabilidad generalmente una misma persona durante la vida del proyecto que nunca tiene más de 12 meses; entonces esa persona que ha participado en la identificación del problema, en la concepción del proyecto y que está dirigiendo la ejecución del mismo, es como su hijo y es muy eficaz y por eso la participación del gobierno es entonces perfecta en la ejecución de los proyectos de nuestro programa de cooperación técnica.
En los proyectos de larga duración tenemos otros problemas que son los inherentes a los países en desarrollo, los cambios de contrapartida, los cambios de directores nacionales de proyectos, las dificultades para importación de insumos, el hacer coincidir las bolsas de estudio con el arribo del equipo y con el arribo de los técnicos y los expertos; eso es en parte el secreto de la eficacia de nuestros proyectos del Programa de Cooperación Técnica de la FAO.
K.C. LUCAS (Assistant Director-General, Fisheries Department): The Thirteenth Session of the Committee on Fisheries was held in Rome a little less than a month ago between 8 and 12 October. The report of that meeting is contained in CL 76/8, which was distributed only last week and you may not yet have had a chance to review it thoroughly, so with your permission I will try to summarize it for you in a few minutes.
The report contains no matters requiring decision by the Council, only matters for your information. This does not mean though that the report is not important. On the contrary, the report contains very substantial information on the views and the priorities of the Committee on Fisheries on the work of FAO in fisheries which was discussed under four main agenda headings. The first was the Director-General's comprehensive programme of assistance in the development and management of fisheries in economic zones, which we commonly call for short our EEZ programme. This subject is not new for the Council, since it considered earlier proposals at its 74th session last November and December, a year ago, and agreed at that time that the highest priority should be given to the programme. The Committee on Fisheries spent two days examining in detail a new programme document placed before it and gave the programme their unanimous and I must say enthusiastic support. The Committee expressed appreciation of the high priority that the Director-General was according to the new programme and of his personal commitment to it. The Committee on Fisheries welcomed and encouraged the decentralized delivery of the programme proposed by FAO and the intention to establish locally based and multi-disciplinary technical support units related to natural management areas in the oceans. The technical and planning support of the FAO in fisheries will thus be greatly increased in the field sub-programmes as a result of this new programme. There will be a continuation and a strengthening of activities long undertaken by FAO in fisheries but reoriented and shortly focussed on the particular needs of developing coastal states or groups of states in natural management areas.
The key role accorded to FAO regional fisheries bodies in guiding the execution of the programme was particularly supported by the Committee.
The Committee in their deliberations emphasized that small-scale fisheries should receive special attention in the implementation of the programme.
The Committee also supported fully the three central objectives of the programme: that is, first, the strengthening of the capabilities of coastal countries and groupings of countries to manage and develop their fisheries; second, the promotion of rational management and the full use by the developing countries of fishery resources in their economic zones; thirdly, the strengthening of the efforts of developing countries as part of the initiatives to establish a new international economic order to secure a greater share of and higher benefit from living marine resources in the sea.
In the discussion on the committee in marshalling extra-budgetary and other financial assistance for the programme in addition to the support already committed by UNDP and by Norway several countries are proposing to extend technical assistance and offered that assistance at the meeting within the framework of the programme. Once this Council meeting and the Conference (which will also have an opportunity to consider this programme) meetings are over, all those countries who spoke up at the meeting of the Committee on Fisheries will be approached formally to work out a plan for their contribution to the programme.
The financial support of the United Nations Development Programme, through their three inter-country IPFs, indicative planning figures, have been a key to getting a programme started, and their continuing support over the longer term will be essential. Even though the work is commecing near the end of UNDP's second programme cycle they have been able to provide additional financial support because of the high priority accorded to the programme by its member nations.
The Committee on Fisheries expressed the hope that the UNDP governing council will recognize the importance and urgency for continued and accelerated support of the EEZ programme when they consider their third programme cycle allocations for 1982-86.
While the Exclusive Economic Zone programme discussions took up the majority of the Committee's time much support and interest was given by the Commitee on Fisheries to the subject of aquacultural development, which was the second substantive agenda item. FAO's present and proposed programme for aquacultural development was given strong support and encouragement by the Committee on Fisheries.
Tuna management problems were discussed by the Committee under the third substantive agenda item. The Committee emphasized the importance of all regional tuna bodies, including those contained in the FAO regional fishery committees or commissions, that all these bodies should address the growing problems and opportunities resulting from the extension of fisheries jurisdiction, by coastal states with respect to tuna fisheries and the particular problems that this wide-ranging species has in its management under the new regime.
Finally, the Programme of Work of FAO on Fisheries for the coming biennium was discussed briefly by the Committee and the priorities of that programme were supported. The reorientation of the programme to meet the new challenge of fisheries management and development with the changing regime of the sea was welcomed by the Committee.
That, Mr. Chairman, is a brief synopsis of the fuller report of the Committee which is available in the documentation provided to the Council.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas, for that detailed introduction. The subject is now open for discussion.
A. ECHEVERRIA ZUNO (Mexico): Primero, quisiéramos agradecerle por su conducto al Departamento de Pesca de esta Institución y a quién la dirige, nuestro agradecimiento por esta presentación. Antes de comenzar una breve declaración, quisiéramos subrayar que México se ha beneficiado hartamente y que gracias a su intensa y ordenada participación, contamos ya con el Plan Nacional de Desarrollo Pesquero, que también está en ejecución.
La delegación de México participó en la reciente reunión del Comité de Pesca y ahora quisiéramos enfatizar algunos planteamientos y presentar nuestros comentarios al informe que se somete a este Consejo. Es cierto que se nos entregó hace algunos días pero está tan bien elaborado y tan bien presentado que no presenta ninguna dificultad su estudio. Respecto al Programa de Ayuda a los Países en Desarrollo para fomentar la explotación integral de sus zonas económicas exclusivas, México ha insistido en que el aprovechamiento equitativo de los mares y sus recursos, inclusive con la creación de muy importantes empresas multinacionales entre países en desarrollo, es una de las materias que mejor se presta por su naturaleza para avanzar operativamente hacia el establecimiento real del Nuevo Orden Económico Internacional y también para la aplicación cabal de la Carta de Derechos y Deberes Económicos de los Estados.
Es por ello que estamos de acuerdo en que sea, como entonces lo informó el Director General de la FAO en su discurso, uno de los programas prioritarios de la Organización, situación que también se señala en el párrafo 13 del Informe que comentamos. Debemos remarcar, sin embargo, que aun cuando se reconozca que se ha realizado preliminarmente una identificación adecuada de los problemas que deba atender este programa y de las zonas económicas exclusivas, es fundamental que no se olvide que el punto de partida debe ser el análisis de cada uno de los Estados Miembros, de cada uno de los que solicite la participación de la FAO y de lo que informe sobre su situación y sobre el desarrollo pesquero de ese país; estudios en los que se especificarán soberanamente sus políticas y prioridades nacionales en las distintas fases de las actividades pesqueras, o sea, desde la investigación y evaluación de recursos hasta la captura, procesación y comercialización. Este método de que se fije país por país lo que se desea, permitiría la identificación de problemas comunes por área y región geográfica, pero sin darse a entender las condiciones específicas de cada país.
La experiencia de nuestro país así lo indica y está plasmado en el párrafo 9 y coincide plenamente con el párrafo en que se expresa que los objetivos de las políticas nacionales pueden, ciertamente, variar en cada país, en función de las condiciones sociales y económicas, y de otros factores particulares. Es precisamente de este planteamiento de donde surge la preocupación para que las fases de un programa integrado como el que se pretende, no se vean interrumpidas ya sea por la falta de asistencia técnica, por la carencia de tecnología o por los problemas del acceso permanente y creciente a los mercados de los países desarrollados dentro de esquemas de precios justos y remunerativos. Si esto no se tiene en cuenta dentro de un programa global, en el futuro nuestras evaluaciones no resultarán muy positivas. Consideramos que estos factores deben recibir la atención que requieren y así establecer sólidas bases sobre un programa flexible como éste. Con relación a la Conferencia Técnica sobre la Ordenación y Desarrollo Pesquero, insistimos en que resultaría de gran utilidad para examinar los recursos de las acciones
que comienzan a realizarse en torno a este asunto y también para proyectar actividades futuras en la cooperación internacional. Respecto a la acuicultura, reiteramos nuestro apoyo a la promoción de dicha actividad para que no pierda proporción dentro de las tareas generales de la FAO, y coincidimos con el párrafo 36 que menciona la importancia que se da a la acuicultura y su reglamentación en las zonas económicas exclusivas, como parte integrante de los programas globales para el desarrollo rural y no de manera aislada. Consideramos que no sólo deberán promoverse aquellos proyectos peqaeñitos sino también aquéllos de mayor magnitud inclusive a nivel nacional, y así contribuir a solucionar la seria problemática de los campesinos marginados y bajos niveles de nutrición de amplias masas de la población. Y al respecto, lamentamos la reducción de fondos disponibles para las actividades interregionales en materia de acuicultura como lo anota el párrafo 41. Creemos que esto no es consecuente con lo que pretendemos y consideramos importante que se refuerce el finaneiamiento para el desarrollo rural en condiciones mejoradas y orientadas a financiar proyectos con objeto de fomentar esta actividad de la acuicul-tura, esencial y complementaria en el sector rural.
Respecto a la mención de los problemas que plantea la ordenación de los túnidos, quisiéramos enfatizar lo expuesto en el párrafo 49, sobre la importancia que tienen los problemas de asignación de recursos a los estados costeros, teniendo en cuenta la concentración de los recursos en sus zonas económicas y en el ejercicio del derecho soberano sobre los mismos. En lo que se refiere a la actividad de la FAO, debemos hacer hincapié en que en la ejecución de los proyectos se dé preferencia, como se ha dicho esta mañana y ayer, tanto a la intensiva formación y contratación de técnicos del Tercer Mundo como a la cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo, como también a la proveniente de los países desarrollados mismos, como se ha incluido en otros foros, independiente de dónde provengan, es decir, no esté sujeta a condiciones geográficas. México desea señalar la necesidad de dar prioridad, de asignar recursos adicionales a las actividades de la FAO en la pesca, como en el caso de los 35 millones de dólares que son necesarios para atender los requirimientos de los países en desarrollo en situación de emergencia, como en el caso de mi región que es para Nicaragua y la República Dominicana.
Mi delegación quisiera terminar haciendo una petición, por su conducto, a la Secretaría de la FAO. En varias ocasiones y documentos se ha señalado que desde que un buen número de países en desarrollo han fijado límites precisos para sus zonas económicas exclusivas, su responsabilidad ha crecido respecto de la utilización racional y coherente de los productos pesqueros que ahí se encuentran. Nosotros quisiéramos que este tipo de observación se precisara en virtud de que a partir del señalamiento de zonas económicas exclusivas, hemos encontrado también que algunas especies han sido agotadas previamente y que nosotros poco pudimos tener que ver en su explotación anterior.
A. M. FROMAYAN (Liberia): Our delegation would like first of all to congratulate Dr. Lucas for the able manner in which he has presented this paper. Our delegation welcomes the statement made by the Director General during the Committee meeting when he called on member nations to have exclusive fishing zones to provide proper management because they are, as he put it, natural zones for economic development.
My country is aware of this because of the acute shortage of animal protein, especially so when efforts are being made to protect wildlife. We must admit that Liberia falls short of management technique and is unable to provide the type of management needed. Therefore, we would solicit more FAO aid in analysis with regard to preservation. With this we would like to rest at this point.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia ha apreciado positivamente la presentación adecuada hecha de este documento por el señor Lucas. Como él lo dijo, en el XIII período de sesiones del Comité de Pesca, se manifestó general satisfacción por la manera como la FAO atendió la solicitud de los órganos rectores, particularmente del Consejo y del Comité de Pesca, al presentarnos en edición revisada un programa global de asistencia para el desarrollo y ordenación de la explotación pesquera en las zonas económicas.
La delegación de Colombia piensa que el Consejo debería reiterar su más pleno apoyo a ese programa y a la alta prioridad que el Director General le está dando dentro de las actividades de esta Organización. Pensamos que deberíamos decir en nuestro Informe que el objetivo principal de ese programa tiene que ser la asistencia directa y positiva a los países en desarrollo a fin de que éstos puedan aumentar su capacidad para desarrollar y explotar sus pesquerías, así como estimular la explotación racional y el pleno aprovechamiento de los recursos pesqueros en las zonas económicas de los países en desarrollo.
Apoyamos el carácter prioritario que se da al plan de acción inmediato en el párrafo 10. Los estudios básicos complementarán ese plan de acción. La delegación de Colombia piensa igualmente que el Consejo podría apoyar el carácter de flexibilidad de que se habla en el párrafo 11, y también hacer una llamada particularmente a los países donantes y a los organismos financieros competentes en el sentido de que
se obtengan recursos suficientes presupuestarios y extrapresupuestarios para que, a trav es de este programa, la FAO esté en condiciones de atender las solicitudes que hagan los países en desarrollo.
Sobre el párrafo 12, en relación a la asistencia a Nicaragua para que trate de reestructurar su industria pesquera, nos gustaría saber si la misión del PCT visitó a Nicaragua y cuáles fueron los resultados.
En el párrafo 18 la delegación de Colombia quiere apoyar la función de los órganos regionales de pesca y las oficinas regionales en la ejecución de este programa. Desafortunadamente notamos que en el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para el bienio entrante, los 500 000 dólares de aumento que se proponen para el Departamento de Pesca, estarán todos destinados a la Sede. Sin embargo, confiamos en que a través de la flexibilidad que ha recomendado el Comité de Pesca, se busque la manera de que se refuercen las actividades regionales del Programa.
La delegación de Colombia confía en que este programa será en realidad dinámico, activo y eficaz. Pensamos que la FAO no deberá limitar su acción a repetir lo que ha venido haciendo en materia de pesca durante los últimos 20 años, sino que tiene que reorientar y renovar su acción para que realmente este programa asista en forma válida a los países en desarrollo. Este es nuestro deseo y confiamos en que así actuará nuestra Organización que viene trabajando muy bien en el campo pesquero. Ojalá que este programa no signifique solamente la reestructuración del Departamento de Pesca, la creación de una nueva Dirección o el aumento de tres o cuatro puestos, como parece que es la propuesta, sino que se traduzca en hechos positivos y benéficos para los países en desarrollo.
Pensamos igualmente que el Consejo podría también acoger en su informe el reconocimiento que el Comité de Pesca hizo a su Presidente, el señor Mario Ruego, de Portugal, por la forma inteligente y ponderada como él presidió ese período de sesiones. Decimos esto porque entendemos que el señor Ruego dejará con este período de sesiones su función de Presidente, para incorporarse a otras actividades.
Finalmente, tal vez los Miembros del Consejo habrán notado que la redacción del párrafo 1 de este documento es un poco insólita. Como se podrá observar figuran allí los nombres de 17 observadores y, no obstante, se anuncia al final de ese párrafo que aparecerá un Apéndice B, con la lista de los mismos observadores. Esto se repite en el párrafo 1 del documento 6, sobre el Informe del Comité de Problemas de Productos Básicos, tema siguiente que vamos a discutir. No queremos profundizar a este respecto. Muchos de los Miembros del Consejo saben que en ambos Comités hubo debates en cierto momento bastante ardientes. La delegación de Colombia piensa que sería necesario llegar a un acuerdo, establecer bases definitivas para que en las futuras reuniones de los órganos asesores del Consejo no se repita esa misma situación. Nosotros estamos abiertos al diálogo, dispuestos a participar en conversaciones privadas con el más claro espíritu de conciliación, por eso no vamos a insistir sobre este punto, pero esperamos que estos contactos se lleven a cabo a través de un diálogo razonable, con buenas maneras y dentro de un ambiente de mutuo respeto. Ojalá que obtengamos reacciones positivas de la contraparte para evitar que en el próximo tema nuestra delegación deba insistir sobre esos problemas que, aparentemente, colocan en condiciones difíciles a ciertas delegaciones, como la nuestra, haciendo aparecer enfrentada a Estados por los cuales el Gobierno de Colombia siente respeto y admiración, y a cuyas poblaciones todos los colombianos estamos ligados con sentimientos de sincera amistad y de viva simpatía.
I. MOSKOVITS (Malta): This delegation was privileged to be present at a very interesting session of the Fisheries Committee, and we would like to congratulate, first of all, Dr. Lucas for the excellent presentation of the highlights of this meeting. The meeting was very well prepared and the working papers were very much to the point and were really very useful. There was only one paragraph in the main document which referred to the EEZ zones which we found rather weak, and this paragraph referred to possible actions regarding countries which for geographical or other reasons are disadvantaged and will not take direct profit from the extended economic zones.
There was only a very vague indication that FAO also wishes that these countries should benefit from the Programme, but no firm or concrete action was described, and this referred particularly to the Mediterranean countries. The Mediterranean as a zone is not profiting from the EEZ for geographical reasons, and it was raised by several delegations and in particular by Algeria that some concrete action should be given to Mediterranean countries also in order that they could profit from the Programme if it is not a direct EEZ programme. But there are many other possibilities, for instance, the organization of training centres for training and preparation of technical people on all levels for the legal problems resulting from the new regime of the sea and for the improvement of statistics which are not sufficiently harmonized in the Mediterranean countries regarding fisheries and many other problems, too.
You see, Mr. Chairman, that at the end of paragraph 18 a very very small reference is made that I feel should provide technical support to the Mediterranean countries in preparation of concrete projects adapted to the situation, and particularly to the conditions of the Mediterranean person. This reference in the report is also weak, it is difficult to find it, it is at the end of the paragraph.
Therefore I would be very grateful if in the report of the Council particular mention could be made of the problems of the Mediterranean and of the possible action FAO could give to those countries.
I would stress that we are all very much impressed with the EEZ programme which is certainly one of the greatest programmes of FAO, and we are pleased the Director-General is giving the highest priority to it. It is a concrete step forward for the new economic order and we wish the programme great success.
A. J. PECKAM (United Kingdom): I can be very brief indeed. Like the representative of Malta, I was also privileged to be present at the recent meeting of COFI, and I can agree with him and with others who have made complimentary remarks with regard to Mr. Lucas' handling of this particular department of FAO. The United Kingdom is happy to lend its own support to the proposals which are contained in the Report of COFI.
Perhaps the most significant matters dealt with in the Report are first, the FAO programme for fisheries in 1980/81, and secondly the programme of assistance in the development and management of fisheries in the economic zones. As Mr. Lucas has intimated, the Report is essentially for the information of the Council, and the Council is perhaps, therefore, not called upon today to do more at this stage than to note the recommendations with a view to providing an opportunity for further discussion of policy issues at the Twentieth Session of the Conference.
D. RICHTER (Germany, Fed. Rep. of): In the view of my Government, this Session of the Committee on Fisheries was very successful. The deliberations brought about important results. The delegation of my country agreed with the Report on this Session, so I can restrict myself to a few basic remarks.
A priority item in the discussion of the Committee was the new programme of assistance in the development and management of fisheries in economic zones. This programme was supported unanimously. The Conference will deal with it so I can abstain from going into further details.
The Committee on Fisheries also stressed the need for the further aquaculture development and expressed its agreement with FAO continuing its activities in that sector. My Government also supports this request. Priority is given to the promotion of aquaculture in the rural sector in the form of small projects. Likewise important are larger-scale aquaculture systems on a cooperative and commercial basis. Since various organizations are dealing with research and extension in the field of aquaculture, I support the suggestion that cooperation and coordination should be improved at the Secretariat level.
The discussion about tuna stocks and their rational use has confirmed the important role of the regional commissions. In some areas stocks are already over utilized. FAO has the important task of coordinating between the regional bodies.
With regard to the Fisheries Department's, Programme of Work for the next biennium many members of COFI expressed the wish to have more information and more detailed explanations from the Secretariat. I am sure the Secretariat will in future comply with this request with a view to promoting the deliberations of the Committee and obtaining further suggestions from Member States. More detailed information should be given about FAO's field programmes, including orientation and evaluations.
The fisheries policy sector will be greatly expanded under the Regular Programme. It is intended to achieve a strengthening of personnel, in particular through the transfer of posts from the two technical divisions. For some time, this may be unavoidable in order to assist developing countries in the elaboration of their fishery policies in development planning and legislation relating to the new economic zones.
In the COFI session, however, several delegations, and also my country's delegation, expressed their concern about a financial and personnel weakening of the two technical divisions. I should also like to repeat that such a development would be precarious. Technical development assistance in the fisheries sector continues to be a priority of FAO. The two technical divisions in the Fisheries Department carry the main burden, and this work should not be affected.
Sra. Dra. M. IVANKOVICH de AROSEMENA (Panamá): Deseamos agradecer al Dr. Lucas por la clara y precisa presentación del documento 76/8, al considerar el tema 7, sobre el ultimo período de sesiones del Comité de Pesca. Deseamos señalar que nuestro país concede una gran importancia a nuestras exportaciones agropecuarias, especialmente la exportación del camarón. En esta situación ha estimulado a nuestro Gobierno a mantener una activa vigilancia en el campo del comercio internacional.
Deseamos destacar nuevamente la necesidad de cooperación técnica y financiera entre países en desarrollo de la misma Región para establecer políticas comunes entre ellas. Dentro de la región Latinoamericana seis países del Centro y Sur están uniformando la tarifa para sus licencias de pesca y trabajan para concertar el establecimiento de una licencia única para la pesca de sus aguas.
Apoyamos decididamente la ayuda de la FAO a Nicaragua para la reestructuración de su industria pesquera, como lo señala el párrafo 12.
Destacamos, también, la real y efectiva flexibilidad que deben tener los Programas que adelanta la FAO y señalamos dos puntos que consideramos esenciales. El primero es las prioridades soberanas que los Estados solicitan que deben cumplirse, así como también la utilización de tecnología que no produzca el desplazamiento de mano de obra.
Panamá apoya todos los esfuerzos que adelanta la FAO, y en especial su nuevo Programa Global de Asistencia.
Finalmente, consideramos adecuada y oportuna la celebración de une Conferencia técnica de la FAO sobre ordenación y desarrollo pesquero.
R. C. SOOD (India): The Indian delegation would like to compliment the Secretariat and the Committee on Fisheries for the fine Report we have before us. The Committee has addressed itself to many important issues and has made very good recommendations. My delegation is in full agreement with them.
There is one thing I would like to stress: the need for increased assistance to enable the developing coastal countries to take full advantage of the EEZ.
I must compliment the Director-General for the timely initiative taken by him in supporting a special action programme for the EEZ. We hope the voting level of 35 to 40 million dollars for the special programme for the next three years will soon be met and bilateral donors will soon be coming forward with their generous offers. This will, however, be a modest beginning and catalyse a flow of much larger resources both from bilateral resources and multilateral financing agencies to assist the developing countries in the fullest exploitation of their fishery resources.
F. ZENNY (Jamaîca): Jamaica would like to commend the Director-General on the programme in general. However, we do have one word we would like to inject in all of this; it concerns the area of aqua-culture.
In a way, we are thinking out loud when we say this. Our experience is that acquaculture has consistently been a poor cousin in the matter of fisheries development that does not get its due in terms of what it can bring to the smallest and poorest sectors of our community. Indeed Jamaica, after putting the programme into the "hands of the fisherman", for a number of years had to take it away from them and put it into the hands of the on-farm specialist, the extension officers.
I would like to report to the Committee that the programme has benefited greatly from that change. I have a perception about the priorities here, and I hope I am wrong, but I have the perception that EEZ is very exciting and makes all the headlines but somehow we are not giving due regard to potentially one of the most important sources of cheap protein for the poorest and least developed amongst our communities.
I note that aquaculture is there and I note the Report reads fairly well. I would be interested to know, however, what are the efforts in terms of money, expenditure, staff, and real effort in what is known technology in a controlled environment where, quite frankly, tremendous progress can be made to contribute to the on-farm development in an integrated rural setting which has its problems.
It is always more difficult to coordinate and work with other people and aquaculture has to be part of that development. I would hope that due regard is given to this part of the Programme and that what I feel was a relatively weak support in the past on the part of FAO's Fisheries Department is a thing of the past, and that the next report that we shall get from the Committee on Fisheries will show, in terms of percentage, of dollars and cents and staff, what is actively being done to put aquaculture into the hands of the poorest sector in our communities.
M. A. PAPAGEORGIOU (Grèce): Je partage complètement les remarques très favorables faites par les délégués qui m'ont précédé en ce qui concerne l'excellente présentation de M. Lucas sur le point que nous discutons, ainsi que le travail du Comité des pêches auquel nous avons participé.
Nous n'avons d'ailleurs aucune difficulté à approuver le rapport de la treizième session du Comité des pêches et à adopter ses recommandations.
Néanmoins, je voudrais me référer aux remarques très pertinentes faites il y a quelques instants par l'honorable délégué de Malte en ce qui concerne le bassin méditerranéen. D'ailleurs, des avis similaires à ceux exposés par le délégué de Malte ont été, si je me souviens bien, exprimés également pendant la treizième session du Comité des pêches par certaines délégations. Je crois qu'il est nécessaire que la FAO précise certains plans d'action concrets en faveur des pays du bassin méditerranéen, qui depuis des temps très anciens sont intéressés aux activités de la pêche.
A. M. F. FERNANDO (Sri Lanka): My country had the privilege of being represented on the Committe on Fisheries and also of being a member of the Drafting Committee. I should like to associate myself with some of the remarks that have been made, especially by Jamaica and by India. I believe that while the EEZ programme - as the delegate of Jamaica described very appropriately - could be very exciting, it remains to be seen what precisely will come out of it.
My country is, as you know, a small country, but with the 200-mile coastal limit that we have declared, we would like to inform the Council that we will be seeking a great deal of assistance from the Fisheries Department, especially in the management of the Exclusive Economic Zone.
I believe the Director-General, when he made his remarks at the beginning of the session of this Council, said that the EEZ was the showpiece of the Fisheries Department. I sincerely hope that in the work and programme over the next two years this showpiece will be translated into action.
I also agree with the remark made by the delegate of Jamaica on the importance of aquaculture. I think my delegation stressed this at the Committee meeting; from the point of view of the small fisherman this is very important. If I am not mistaken, the Director-General did mention that the EEZ, though it would allow for a certain amount of fisheries on a large scale, would not leave out the small fisherman.
There are two other points I would like to bring up. First, we agree with the recent realization proposal of the IOFC and its split-up into the various other divisions such as the Near East, the Red Sea, the Bay of Bengal, etc. My only doubt - if I can call it that - but on which I think I could be given reassurance by Mr. Lucas, is whether this decentralization and the ending of the Indian Ocean Development Programme, will or will not result in any lessening: I hope it does not result in any lessening of the aid that is going to be given to fisheries development in my country.
Finally, I would refer to paragraph 21 of this report, in fact, at the meeting, my delegation stressed the importance of this and used the word "poaching11 in certain waters. I hope this matter will be very seriously studied by the Secretariat and will not remain merely on paper.
S. M. CHOUDHTJRY (Bangladesh): First of all I should like to congratulate the Secretariat and the Committte on Fisheries for having prepared this document and for its wonderful presentation today by Mr. Lucas. We appreciate and we consider encouraging the three central objectives that have been spelt out in the first place, and from the report of the Committee it appears to be hopeful and encouraging for developing coastal countries for development of fisheries in the EEZ. We also appreciate the initial funding that has been achieved and we look forward that the remaining is met by the traditional donors, both bilateral and multilateral.
We agree with the delegation of India that this is a very minimum level and we look forward to much more in the future.
A last word about paragraph 21 regarding the surveillance of coastal waters. My delegation feels very strongly that something more concrete on this ought to be done at the earliest, for protection and security of the countries which are affected adversely by the poaching of their waters. We 'also wish to sound an echo to the delegation of Sri Lanka that it find itself in practice at the earliest opportunity, and not merely on paper.
M. ROSALES (El Salvador): En primer termino deseo expresar mi agradecimiento por la forma en que ha sido presentado este informe sobre el Comité de Pesca.
El Salvador ha sido un país que, como Vd. ya sabe, Sr. Presidente, hemos insistido con mucho vigor respecto a la cuestión pesquera; no solamente en la Conferencia del Mar, sino acá mismo, en FAO, porque consideramos que el mar sería, y lo será en el futuro, la fuente de donde las proteínas serán obtenidas.
En ese sentido El Salvador estima que la vinculación del desarrollo de la Conferencia del Mar y los conceptos del Nuevo Orden Económico Internacional han ido en línea con este esfuerzo de FAO por enfocar y reorientar, como se menciona en el párrafo 12, nuevos programas que vayan en consonancia con las nuevas iniciativas y nuevas ideas en materia de explotación marina.
En este programa se ha hablado de que tendrá términos de prioridad casi absoluta; eso significa que se le deberán asignar los fondos necesarios y se deberá reforzar el Departamento de Pesca de tal manera que pueda brindar a los países la asistencia que éstos necesitan en la explotación de sus recursos pesqueros.
El Salvador también se asocia a lo que mencionó el representante de Sri Lanka y el de Bangladesh respecto a que no solamente debe de quedar como una especia de anotación de las actas, sino más bien que debe haber cierta forma de sanción para aquellos países y para aquellas embarcaciones de terceros países que penetran en las zonas exclusivas de los Estados costeros.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): We are grateful to Mr. Lucas for his lucid and comprehensive introduction and, after listening to my colleagues from India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Jamaica, I can be very brief. We fully agree with what our colleague from Jamaica said regarding the importance of small-scale fisheries. This is something which should not be lost sight of in the euphoria created by the new regime of the sea. We must remember that a very large number of people in many countries depend entirely on small-scale fisheries.
Secondly, we fully agree with what the delegate of India has said regarding the flow of resources. If these are not readily and freely available, this will remain a paper exercise. It is all very well to extend your limits to 200 miles from your coastline, but then we must have resources to exploit the resources within these 200 miles.
Lastly, a suggestion has been made that this Coucil simply note the recommendations of the Committee on Fisheries and leave the debate to the Conference. Frankly, we do not agree with this course of action at all. We think that the Council should endorse the recommendations of the Committee on Fisheries. In case there are any different points of view, those should be watched so that we can heed them and debate the matter: but to let this report of the Fisheries Committee go to the Conference simply by noting it would not be a fair treatment of the report itself and therefore we would urge that the Council endorse and recommend to the Conference the report of the Committee on Fisheries.
A. F. M. DE FREITAS (Brazil): Without wishing to sound a dispordant note in the remarks regarding the work done by the Secretariat, I would like to express our concern about the late distribution of the reports of the Committees. I think that it would be quite useful if we had some more time to read those reports and send them back home so that the position of each country could be well established on any one of those topics being discussed. The same also goes for the report of the Committee on Commodities which has just been distributed now, at the beginning of this meeting. I would like to associate myself with the remarks expressed by many delegates regarding the excellent work being done by Mr. Lucas, the Head of the Fisheries Departmont. The Brazilian delegation would like to express
again its agreement and appreciation for the programme being established by the FAO, regarding planning and execution of the best way of developing resources of coastal states within the framework of EEZ. I would like to make the same praises regarding the programme being proposed for development of agriculture, especially in developing countries.
As regards the tuna management programme, we believe that the framework and the relationship, between FAO regional bodies should be better established so that FAO might occupy itself mainly with the coordination of statistics and basic data leaving the political aspects of the problem of tuna exploration to regional bodies.
We also agree with the realization of the Technical Conference being proposed for 1982. We believe only that adequate preparation should be made especially to avoid duplication of works between the COFI regional commissions and other organs which occupy themselves with the area of fisheries.
Finally I would like to make a remark regarding the distribution of resources of the Fisheries Department. In paragraph 57 we notice that Latin America has only 13 per cent of the allocations of the total programme of the Fisheries Department. Even the regional bodies have more than Latin America. We think this matter should be brought to the attention of the Council so that a better distribution of those resources should be sought, and our continent should also be taken into consideration, especially if we realise the long coaslines that we have and the huge resources that we could exploit.
CHAIRMAN: The point raised about the documents is valid but the problem would appear to be the scheduling of the Committee' meetings. In relation to our meeting at this session of Council I notice that the Fisheries, COFI and also the CCP met less than one month ago, in the case of the CCP only about two weeks ago, so that it would appear that the Secretariat has some problem in scheduling these meetings. In any case perhaps we can get some explanations.
H. MOKHTARI (Algérie): Ma délégation remercie M. Lucas pour l'exposé complet qu'il nous a présenté sur ce document et ma délégation n'a aucune difficulté à l'approuver dans ses grandes lignes.
Je serai bref, Monsieur le Président, car cette question sera reprise lors de la discussion que nous aurons au cours de la Conférence. J'étais moi aussi présent lors de la réunion du COFI et il me semble qu'une mention plus particulière allait être réservée aux pays dont la situation géographique est particulière et qui nécessitent, dans le cadre de l'exploitation des pêches, une aide technique dans le cadre de la formation. Ma délégation appuie l'action de la FAO dans ce domaine et le Département des pêches qui ne ménage pas ses efforts pour concrétiser les projets présentés par nos pays.
Aussi ma délégation, Monsieur le Président, se joint aux délégués de Malte et de la Grèce et appuie leurs déclarations pour qu'une mention plus complète soit précisée dans notre rapport en ce qui concerne la situation particulière du bassin méditerranéen.
CHAIRMAN: If there are no more speakers I will ask Mr. Lucas to respond to the comments made by Members.
K.C. LUCAS (Assistant Director-General, Fisheries Department): Concerning the programme of assistance in the exclusive economic zones which many delegations touched on, it seemed that the three objectives of the programme are supported by Council, strongly supported by Council.
Several delegations emphasized the importance of analysis of countries' opportunities and problems in managing and developing their exclusive economic zones as a basis for policy and planning of the countries' development programme, and I would just like to emphasize that FAO is responding to this need in the forthcoming Programme of Work and Budget which the Conference will be examining by strengthening the capability of the Fisheries Department in giving policy and planning advice to Member Countries.
The point was made by the delegate of Mexico of the need to indicate that certain species are in difficulty, there is a conservation problem with certain fisheries and I would like to underline that the Secretariat is very aware of this and hopes that as many countries as possible are aware of the
dangers there are to delay in bringing national management régime within their exclusive economic zones. It is very important to move in and bring things under control before there is any further depletion of the stocks in the sea and there is some need where there has already been over-fishing to rebuild those stocks so that we can optimize the resources at least cost. There is still further room for expansion but it is difficult to generalise on the subject, except to say that we must already blame the depletion of the stocks for not only robbing the countries but robbing the world of the much needed proteins of food, and this underlines the need for moving forward to make the countries aware of the need to grasp the problems and take responsibilities for zones.
The delegate of Colombia asked if the mission to Nicaragua in fact took place. The answer is yes, at the end of October we sent a mission from the Panama office of the Western Central Atlantic Regional Fisheries Project to Nicaragua to make an early assessment of the situation there and as a result we will be sending a master fisherman to that country within the next few weeks to begin work in helping them to rehabilitate their fisheries.
Several delegations made reference to the proposal that was in the papers before COFI and COFI's response in paragraph 26, I believe it is, concerning the holding of a Technical Conference in 1982 to provide the opportunity of exchanging experiences on a world-wide basis between the many coastal nations in their management and development of their exclusive economic zones. I did not mention it in my opening summary, but this suggestion was given strong support by the Committee on Fisheries and I am pleased to hear that that support is also forthcoming from Council for such a meeting: I do take note of the warnings of the danger of a lack of thorough preparation and in fact the Committee on Fisheries discussed the desirability of having regional seminars or preparatory meetings leading up to the main world global meeting, so that there can be proper preparation and an opportunity to get a summary of the main conditions in various regions and sub-regions of the world brought to the floor of the main Technical Conference when it is held. We are beginning planning on the regional preparatory meeting immediately and also beginning to prepare for the main Technical Conference, again with the blessing of the Council.
The delegate from Malta opened up the question of concern for action in the Mediterranean and echoed by several other delegations here, Greece and Algeria, and although it is only a few lines in the report, a note was carefully taken of that by the Secretariat. We were pleased to see that the Committee on Fisheries was noting areas of the world where some believe that they are fully developed and, of course, they are not fully developed and in the Mediterranean we do realise the Mediterranean Sea has a natural management area in the definitions that we were using in the Committee on Fisheries and in the report and we do have already there an institution, the General Fisheries Council of the Mediterranean which could provide the leadership for work in that region. We do have within the Secretariat a proposal ready to support that General Council of Mediterranean in providing a technical unit to assist the countries in the region to better manage the fisheries. It is a question though that we have not yet identified funding sources to support that technical unit and we will be looking for the assistance of the countries surrounding the Mediterranean to work with us for identification of possible funding sources to back up that technical unit. So the message there for the delegations that did raise this issue is that the message is received and we are working as fast as we can on attending to this question, and we do need your support for the funding of extra-budgetary funding resources to fund a unit in the Mediterranean in support of the overall management of fisheries.
I would like to comment for a few minutes on the point brought forward by the delegate of Germany concerning the discussion that took place when the Programme of Work and Budget was being discussed, albeit too briefly in all of our views at the meeting it was a question of limitation of time and the closeness of the consideration of the Conference of the Programme of Work and Budget and therefore the discussion was not as full as it could have been.
The question concerning the weakening of the divisions, there was not adequate time when report was adopted properly to explain or have the Secretariat explain more fully on this item. We now have two technical divisions within the Fisheries Department. We hope to add a third, with the blessing of Conference, after the Conference. It will be a policy and planning division which, in my view, is as technical as a fisheries resources or fisheries industries division in that it is providing advice, conference on analysis, analysis planning and institutional development and so in fact if the Conference approves the budgetary proposals of the Director-General for the forthcoming biennium, there will be a strengthening, a modest strengthening of the number of posts, and a better than modest strengthening of the budget available to the headquarters of the Fisheries Department in tackling their job. It is true that there were some resources, some posts, transferred from one of the technical divisions to the embryo which will become the new policy and planning division. But it is not to my mind a weakening; it is a strengthening of responsibilities in-house and overall we will have more posts. But the most significant factor in what I brought up in my opening statement was that through extra-budgetary funding resources the establishing of these new technical units in the natural management areas around
the world will greatly increase the number of technical experts available to the member countries of FAO in receiving assistance in the management and development of fisheries. In fact even with the initial 35-40 million dollar three-year programme which is now being executed, there will be a doubling of the amount of technical assistance available to the member countries of FAO, not by adding more bodies, more posts, to headquarters, which I understand goes against the overall policy of conference and the principles that the Director-General has been adopting, but the strengthening will be in the field, where we believe that the additional technical support is most urgent and most required. So I hope that the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany does understand that (a) there is no reduction at all, there is in fact an increase of the resources of the department at headquarters; secondly, that there will be a substantial strengthening of the technical resources available by additions in the field, and of course the field resources are under the policy and technical guidance and back-stopping of the regular programme technical divisions, so we would have unity of purpose and strengthening of numbers in the execution of our programme.
The other major topic which I should remark on is the concern by Jamaica, echoed by other delegations, about aquaculture becoming a poor cousin to this new golden boy called EEZ. We discussed this in the Committee on Fisheries, and I am sure those of you who were there recognize that the Committee was satisfied after the discussion that there was no second ranking of aquaculture as compared with work on the marine fisheries under the heading of EEZ. In fact the point was made strongly by the secretariat and by delegations that aquaculture development programmes are complementary to, not competing with, the development of marine fisheries in economic zones. Yes, they are competing in the sense for funds, but everything competes for funds. But in terms of the results to be achieved aquaculture development is of equally high priority in the Fisheries Department of the FAO as the development of marine fisheries. This point was made strongly and examples were given in the Committee that aquaculture was getting a fair share of the new resources and a proportionately lower reduction of programme support from the inter-regional programme of UNDP, where there has been a 38 per cent reduction of inter-regional programme funds as a result of the governing council of UNDP last June not approving the administrator's request for an increase of funds to the inter-regional programmes to support fisheries both in aquaculture and EEZ work. If those delegations which were concerned about aquaculture would examine the detailed paper presented to the Committee on Fisheries, COFI/79/5, and also the report of the meeting I hope they will find that their fears are unfounded: they certainly are as far as I am concerned. We are putting equal emphasis on aquaculture and recognize it as an important complementary programme to the development of fisheries in the sea. You cannot create more fish in the sea but you can create more fish through aquaculture because you can take a pond and create a fishery resource where there was none before.
You will note in the report on aquaculture the stress given on the contribution of aquaculture to rural development, also the emphasis on the need for integrated aquaculture development with livestock production and crop production. There was a split opinion as to whether aquaculture should be designed only to meet the needs of the rural poor or whether it should be a combination of that with more intensive larger-scale aquaculture. I think the votes went in each direction and we took note that we must keep our eye on both subjects, but particularly on the contribution of aquaculture to rural development.
The delegate of Sri Lanka expressed possible concern that the decentralization of the delivery of the EEZ programme in the Indian Ocean might mean less aid to his country. The answer is there would not be less, there would be more. Because of the reduction of availability of inter-regional funds from the UNDP there really would be no funds in the coming biennium for an Indian Ocean programme if we had carried on on the same course. We have been very fortunate in attracting the interest of the regional bureaux of the UNDP and also of some individual donor countries in supporting programmes within these smaller units within the Indian Ocean area and I again look for the support of those countries in that region in looking for more assistance and support.
The Chairman has already commented on the question of the lateness of the report. As a matter of fact I thought we were discussing the lateness of the papers for the COFI meeting. We were given many accolades there for success in getting the papers out four months before the meeting. I did not quite understand the comments of the delegate of Brazil. The answer is that the meeting was already only 3 1/2 weeks ago and we got the report out three days after the meeting was over, after the gruelling process of translation and distribution of publications.
He also brought up the question of the disparate treatment, in his view, that Latin America gets in our field programme. I would like to underline that that is the field programme, not the regular progrrinc, and it is paragraph 57 of the report. It is true that Latin America has only 13% of the field programme in fisheries, but the fault for that lies in the distribution of UNDP funds in the world, of which I think Latin America gets a lower percentage because of their higher per capita incomes, but also the fact that we really are dependent on the way in which member countries of FAO allocate their country IPFs. We would be very pleased if the delegates of countries to the Council would urge their governments to provide all the attention and assistance that they could to fisheries and that there be some strong allocations from country IPFs on fisheries programmes. I think that has picked up the main points for discussion that were introduced by the Council members.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lucas. I think that has covered all the points raised. That concludes our agenda for the morning but I suggest that we take an item from the afternoon schedule.
M. TRKULJA (Chairman, Programme Committee): I have been asked by my colleague, Mr. Bel Hadj Amor, to introduce not only the Programme Committees' part but also the joint part, I must start by saying that the Committee's work is very much encouraged by the fact that you at your last session almost fully endorsed our views on the summary form of the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium and that there was a full consensus of the Council in regard to the strategies, policies and programme priorities, and almost a consensus on the budget level. The committees recognize that the full Programme of Work and Budget was developed within the same framework and it rigidly followed the strategies and policies already endorsed by the Council.
Before coming to the most vital issue, which is always predominant in the Council and the Conference, the level of the budget, which is as you all know of common joint concern to the committees, we recognized three very important developments which were all recorded after the last session of the Council.
We specially noted the fact that no change in the level of the budget had been proposed despite these developments. First it is the FAO role for the follow-up of the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, then the United Nations Conference on Science and Technology for Development. We also noticed the increased inflation rates and its impact on cost increases.
Coming to the issue of the level of programme and consequently the budget, we debated at length in our joint session the whole issue and all known arguments were brought in. The main issue was of course how to qualify the budget level, especially having in mind the three developments that I have already referred to. I do not need to take too much of your very precious time, Mr. Chairman, but I would again refer to the same situation as it had been at our previous joint meeting, that the majority of members felt that the proposed budget level was at least minimum for the Organization to provide the assistance required by the membership in the next biennium.
Many members strongly advocated even a larger increase in the budget, and I felt that the larger increase in budget proposed will have been fully justified in the light of all relevant aspects, but after considerable debate we all agreed, except in one case which I would refer to later on, that the budget level proposed and expressed, of course, in the existing dollar-lira rate, should be qualified as a vital component, as we said, for the Organization's response to the challenges of the coming bienniun, and one member, for reasons explained during the spring session of the Committees, did not participate in the consensus.
Now coming to the Programme Committee part of the report, I would only mention that the Programme Committee spent even more time than originally scheduled for the Programme of Work and Budget; we even had one late evening session to complete our work. In regard to the basic features of the Programme, we concentrated on four basic aspects: first of all, general policies strategy and objectives; second, decentralization; third, the Programme of Work and Budget, and then the level and resources needed.
With regard to general policies, I will just mention that the Programme Committee again was in full agreement with the general policy and strategy and found that the policies and strategies were in full compliance with the medium and long-term objectives of the Organization.
With regard to decentralization, we paid special attention to some of its vital aspects, first of all, FAO activities at country and regional levels, then FAO representatives' scheme, TCP, then special action programmes, then technical and economic cooperation among developing countries and the use of national capabilities -not only institutions but capacilities.
With regard to the basic scheme of decentralization, the Committee strongly emphasized, as we said in our report, its agreement with the policy approach towards country level activities, and we really were fully aware of a number of switches between various sub-programmes, all aimed at producing at the coun-
try level, first of all, or the level of the regions. Then we gave certainly our full support for the FAO representatives' scheme, and we found that the Director-General had proposed a fairly moderate increase in the number of representatives.
At our last session we did not thoroughly discuss TCP. We were in agreement with TCP because of the very simple fact that we had discussed TCP at our previous session.
With regard to the special action programmes, concern was very emphatically expressed with regard to the level of resources available or likely to be available for special action programmes, and the Committee urged the menbership to provide necessary funds for very and really very needed special action programmes. We fully supported and urged FAO to do as much as possible in the area of technical and economic operations among developing countries, and as always, we paid full attention to the use of national capabilities, first of all, national and regional institutions and the FAO's work through national systems.
Lastly, with regard to the views of the Programme Committee, we also debated the issue of the level of the Programme, and consequently, as expressed, as always technically speaking in many terms, and the Programme Committee, with one exception, the same that I have already referred to, was in full agreement but would qualify the proposed programme level as a minimum requirement for the tasks falling on FAO.
May I end by adding a very brief personal note on an issue that I never actually discussed with my colleagues in the Committees, but I think it is only too natural to assume that each member of the Committees, so to say, instinctively wants to be critical, and not only to make his own contribution to the better shaping of the programmes, but also to make sure that the Organization is doing a proper job. From this quite human standpoint I in a way felt that perhaps unconsciously many members, if not all of the Committees, were in a way disappointed, for at this Programme budget we were not given much ground to such a desire. Of course, I am not going to suggest that the Programme as proposed was just perfect or ideal. While I am referring to the Programme Committee only, I would say that we are fully aware that here and there, mostly with regard to the method of work, some improvements could have been made. We were almost equally aware also of the staff problems in some areas and the difficulties confronting an organization like FAO to find the most efficient answers in the Programme, especially for some very broad areas. However, to our satisfaction, we also found the Secretariat and notably the Director-General fully conscious of this kind of problem, but on the whole at our joint session we were working in full unanimity, that is, perhaps never in the history of the Organization, has the Programme of Work and Budget, so conceptually, as well as technically, been to such an extent close to the wishes of the Membership that we as human beings have no escape but to congratulate the Director-General and his associates for a really excellent piece of work done.
M. BEL HADJ AMOR (President du Comité financier): Je voudrais commencer par situer un peu l'atmosphère dans laquelle se sont déroulés les débats du Comité des finances concernant le Programme de travail et budget. Je dois dire qu'au mois de septembre, quand le Comité a tenu sa quarante-quatrième session, l'atmosphère internationale, pour ce qui est de l'inflation et de l'économie, n'était pas brillante. Elle ne s'est certainement pas améliorée en ce moment-ci. Je sais que plusieurs membres du Comité s'attendaient, en venant à Rome pour examiner les détails du Programme et du budget, à trouver une nouvelle proposition émanant du Directeur général et demandant un supplément pour pouvoir faire face aux priorités et aux propositions qui se trouvent dans le Programme. Ils ont été surpris de n'y pas trouver un pareil supplément. Certains d'entre eux, dans des réunions informelles, ont même exprimé certaines inquiétudes concernant l'exécution du Programme qu'adoptera la Conférence. On s'est demandé si réellement, avec le budget proposé, l'Organisation arrivera à faire face aux besoins qui sont prévus dans ce Programme, surtout si la situation continue d'évoluer d'une manière défavorable. D'aucuns se sont même demandé si l'Organisation ne sera pas obligée, peut-être demain quand elle abordera l'exécution de ce Programme, de modifier les priorités ou de réduire certaines des activités. C'est vraiment dans cette atmosphère que nous avons discuté le budget. Il y a eu même certaines tentations que le Président a été obligé d'étouffer, tentations émanant de quelques membres qui auraient voulu peut-être que ce budget soit augmenté compte tenu de la situation internationale.
J'ai pensé personnellement qu'il appartiendrait à la Conférence de juger de la situation et de faire de nouvelles propositions, car le Comité des finances, tout le monde le sait, est toujours pour les restrictions des dépenses et pour les limitations des budgets. C'est pourquoi nous avons essayé, dans notre rapport, de faire transpirer cette impression, mais sans pour autant insister sur ce point, et c'est au Conseil d'apporter de nouvelles suggestions et c'est à la Conférence de décider.
A présent, je voudrais compléter l'exposé qui a été présenté par M. Trkulya par des remarques et des observations émanant du Comité des finances. Je dois préciser que les commentaires du rapport du Comité des finances se trouvent dans les paragraphes 3.3 jusqu'au paragraphe 3.18.
Le Comité des finances a estimé que la description détaillée du document C79/3 soumis à son examen et qui sera soumis à l'examen de la Conférence répondait aux éclaircissements que le Comité avait demandés à sa session précédente.
Il a noté que malgré le surcroît de travail qui pourrait découler pour notre Organisation de certaines conférences des Nations Unies, le Directeur général n'a pas demandé de crédits supplémentaires pour le budget ordinaire. Le Comité à cet égard a apprécié ce réalisme et voudrait que le Conseil lance un appel à tous les pays pour qu'ils accroissent leurs contributions volontaires dans toute la mesure du possible pour permettre à l'Organisation de réaliser le programme prévu pour le prochain biennium.
Malgré tout, il faut reconnaître que le programme ordinaire sera mis à plus forte contribution vu la conjoncture internationale.
Le Comité a retenu que le choix des priorités est justifié par les événements mondiaux et que le programme à court et à moyen terme répond bien à la conjoncture alimentaire mondiale. Il est d'avis que le niveau actuel du budget est essentiel pour la réalisation du programme du prochain biennium.
Concernant le taux de change dollar/lire, le Comité financier estime qu'en raison du fléchissement considérable du cours du dollar, la Conférence sera certainement amenée à réviser le taux qui a été retenu provisoirement pour le calcul du budget, à savoir 879 lires au dollar.
Je crois que le Conseil se rappelle qu'il lui a été indiqué qu'une modification en hausse ou en baisse de dix lires du taux de change lire/dollar entraînerait grosso modo une différence d'1, 2 million de dollars. A présent, si la Conférence décide de recalculer le budget sur un taux par exemple de 800 lires pour un dollar, il faudra à ce moment-là relever le niveau du budget de 9, 6 millions environ, montant qui, le Comité le précise, ne couvrirait que les pertes de change pour le poste personnel. Le Comité constate que le surcroît de dépenses pour le reste des rubriques devrait être absorbé par les prévisions actuelles du budget et éventuellement le compte de réserve spécial dont la dotation ne représente que 2, 5 pour cent du total du budget.
Enfin, compte tenu de l'évolution du taux d'inflation dans le pays hôte, le Comité note que les crédits demandés pour les augmentations de coûts restent modestes.
Concernant les Chapitres 1, 5, 6 et 7, que le Comité a examinés en détail, le Comité a obtenu les éclaircissements nécessaires concernant les dépenses et approuve les crédits proposés.
Avant de finir, Monsieur le Président, je voudrais attirer l'attention du Conseil sur un point qui pourrait avoir des conséquences sur le budget du programme ordinaire, et là je me réfère aux paragraphes 3.9-3.11 concernant les frais de soutien.
Le Conseil se rappelle que cette question n'est pas du tout nouvelle et presque à chaque session nous avons attiré l'attention du Conseil sur les conséquences pour le programme ordinaire qui pourraient découler de la réduction possible des taux de remboursement des frais généraux par le PNUD et de la proposition d'apliquer ce nouveau régime éventuel également aux fonds fiduciaires. Le Comité des finances ne saurait jamais insister sur ce point car plus on réduit ces taux de remboursement, et plus vous allez alourdir les charges du budget du programme ordinaire.
CHAIRMAN: We have now heard both the Chairmen of our main Committees on this, the Chairman of the Programme Committee and the Chairman of the Finance Committee. The question of the budget level, as you will remember, we discussed thoroughly at our last session, and instructions were given to the Director-General to proceed with preparation of the detailed Programme of Work and Budget based on his proposal.
The position of various delegations was quite clearly stated, and they were well known, and therefore we do not now need to go back to the question of the budget level. Rather we should go into more sub-stance of the detail we have now got, and the new factors which have arisen since our last meeting.
Now the item is open for discussion.
RAMADHAR (India): You have rightly pointed out that we have discussed this budget already in the last session of the Council, and it is not necessary to repeat the arguments that were advanced about the budget.
I would not like to go into those factors. I would like to compliment the Chairman of the Programme Committee and the Chairman of the Finance Committee for the excellent direction they have taken and for outlining the salient features of the Reports of these two Committees. It has been pointed out by the two Chairmen, and we note this, that the budget has been considered as the minimum required for the tasks falling on FAO in the next biennium.
At the last meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees it was considered as vital for the Organization's response to the challenges of the coming biennium. At the last Council a consensus was reached on the priorities as well as on the level of the budget. We know there is one country which did not participate in the consensus; there were reasons for that as argued by that country, but I would like to point out that the problem of inflation, the problem of recession, is not confined only to that country or the developed countries, but it points to problems from which the developing countries are also suffering. Therefore there is a modest increase in the budget, the increased burden has to be shared not only by the developed countries but also the developing countries. They have to share this burden despite their problems.
All of us know there were some new developments. There has been a World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development which has resulted in a plan of action; there has been a European Conference on Science and Technology; and a very good study by FAO leading to the year 2000 which the Conference will be studying later on. This gives additional responsibilities to this Organization, but the Director-General has to be complimented for not having suggested any additional increase in spite of all these developments.
When we discussed this matter in the Programme Committee earlier as well as in the Council, the developing countries felt that there should have been a budget of a much higher level. There were many programmes, vital programmes, for the developing countries which were not being accommodated because of the constraint under which the Director-General was working, but we appreciated the difficulties and constraints of the Director-General and that is why this budget level was agreed to as the minimum, and vital.
So my delegation fully supports this, and if I may say so on behalf of developing countries, we hope when the budget is taken up for detailed discussion in the Conference whatever reservation is there will disappear, and in the meantime the country which has some reservation and did not participate in the consensus will come forward with a constructive solution so as to participate in the full consensus.
With these words I will conclude my remarks.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any more members wishing to take the floor?
F. ZENNY (Jamaica): Jamaica would like to take the opportunity as a member of this Council to share its thoughts on the business of the Programme of Work and Budget. We would like to compliment the FAO, as so many others have done.
I can speak with familiarity on the subject of improving the presentation of this Programme of Work and Budget, if only because so much of the priorities and emphasis given to the Programme and the way they have been presented reflect what is Jamaica's perception of its own development problems. In fact, when reading the Programme of Work and Budget, I had at times to ask myself whether we were not reading our own Five-year Development Plan. I had no advance information on the Programme of Work and Budget.
Having said that, we are faced with a curious dilemma in dealing with this Programme of Work and Budget. We would agree with the way it is presented, we agree it is a tighter and better organized approach, that it gives emphasis where emphasis should be given, that the priorities are clearly enunciated, that several supporting documents have great relevance in appreciating and understanding what the Programme of Work and Budget is saying, but we are mindful that there are other discussions going on, sometimes with the close involvement of FAO, calling on the establishment of a new international and economic order, the Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Conference where the emphasis always has been - and quite rightly so - on improving the term of trade and the level of assistance and financing towards developing countries, but here we are faced with what is really a very modest increase in the FAO Programme of Work and Budget which claims to have as one of its major objectives a supporting role and a catalytic role in channelling that increase on better terms in the developing world.
Therefore I am sceptical in terms of the targets we have set ourselves, controversial as those may be, but even if we accept the minimum targets of those who unlike Jamaica do not share the perception that the need is really great and urgent, even if we accept that minimum target, I am at a loss to know to what extent that Programme of Work and Budget is going to greatly facilitate this purpose.
We have the new Development Decade in front of us. Its challenge is even greater when compared to the fact that we all recognize that the last Development Decade has not gone anywhere near to meeting its objective.
So Jamaica, while reluctantly accepting this Programme of Work and Budget, when judged against the background of other discussions and other calls for increased assistance, sees the FAO getting a declining share of the UNDP funding; sees limitations being put on the real increase in that funding; sees other limitations as well. Therefore it must ask itself - and I am sure this concern is shared by many developing countries here - whether we are serious about all the development objectives that we are talking about.
Those are the thoughts of Jamaica on this matter and I think we will have to elaborate on them during the Conference. But we are seriously concerned that the spirit and the intention are not reflected in this new Programme of Work and Budget.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): I just stepped in to sort of break the ice, so to speak, and urge those who are a little reluctant to speak, to come out and say what they feel. As a member of the Programme Committee, the Pakistan delegation fully associates itself with the brilliant introduction by the Chairman of the Programme Committee. We also associate ourselves with the remarks, which were no less brilliant, made by the Chairman of the Finance Committee. We feel that the Programme of Work and Budget should be viewed against the perspective of the current world food situation.
What is the current world food situation? The prices of cereals are rising; the prices of fertilizer are rising; malnutrition is increasing. I will not say anything about protectionist tendencies because this touches a very raw nerve in certain quarters but nonetheless we have to reckon with this also. Keeping this in view, how does FAO react to the situation? Obviously there will be increased demands on the FAO because of this situation. All developing countries will endeavour to improve their food situations and therefore they will turn to FAO and make demands upon it.
Again, to continue in the same vein, there is full agreement - at least I have not heard any dissenting voice in any of the previous discussions - on the strategies, priorities and programme policies. When we are agreed on all these matters, perforce we can only come to one conclusion, that we must agree on the level of the budget also because as they say, "Money makes the wheel go, " and in this case there are not only the existing demands on FAO but in addition there is the new demand and responsibilities arising out of the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, and the Science Conference, just to mention a few. Under these circumstances we can only say that we fully support the Programme of Work and Budget as well as the level of the budget.
SALMON PADMANEGARA (Indonesia): As an appetizer for our coming lunch, I would like to express the following. The programmes to be carried out are essential activities and the budget proposal is a minimum needed for it. Both are vital for our efforts to help the fate of millions of people less privileged than us, and also vital for improving the agricultural and rural sectors of our country. It is vital for the economic structure of the developing world. Indeed, it is a matter of survival for civilization itself. We cannot slow down the pace of development and therefore we cannot reduce our activities.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any members wishing to take the floor? Well, perhaps this is the lull before the storm! We know that the Conference is coming and delegations are preparing their positions; but here in the Council of course we have the responsibility of making a clear and firm recommendation to the Conference and, from our discussions of the last Session and from the meeting of the Programme and Finance Committees, and from the discussions that went on in the corridors, etc., I have no doubt that there is support for the Programme of Work and Budget. There may be slight disagreements or reservations, I should say, on the budget level; but that is not to say that there is disagreement with the content of the Programme of Work and Budget as prepared by the Director-General and his colleagues. And I am sure that when we go forth to the Conference, those who have reservations will
perhaps look at the whole situation again in the light of the facts that are available and, perhaps for the first time, we may be able to say that the Council's recommendations have been accepted unanimously. That is my hope.
J. ZISKA (Tchécoslovaquie): Je voudrais dire seulement quelques mots. Le projet de Programme et de Budget préparé par le Directeur général se range parmi les documents les plus importants dont aura à traiter la vingtième Conférence générale. Le Directeur général nous a présenté un projet de Budget et de Programme très bien élaboré.
Par sa participation à l'Organisation, la Tchécoslovaquie contribue aux activités de la FAO orientées plus spécialement sur les pays en voie de développement; cela vaut particulièrement pour le développement de la base matérielle et technique de l'agriculture, la mise à profit rationnelle des ressources naturelles, la formation des cadres, etc.
Possédant une industrie hautement avancée, la Tchécoslovaquie participe, par ses livraisons de biens d'investissement, d'équipements de machines agricoles et de tracteurs, à l'accélération du développement de l'agriculture et de l'industrie alimentaire dans nombre de pays en voie de développement.
En prenant une part active au développement de l'agriculture et de l'industrie alimentaire dans les pays en voie de développement, les experts tchécoslovaques contribuent à améliorer la situation alimentaire et la production des denrées de ces pays. La délégation tchécoslovaque soutient le projet de Programme et de Budget concernant l'extension de ceux des projets et programmes de l'Organisation qui tendent à améliorer la situation alimentaire dans les pays en voie de développement.
L'essor de notre République socialiste tchécoslovaque, dont l'économie dépend, dans une grande mesure, de l'importation des matières premières et de l'exportation des produits finis, a été influencé d'une manière négative par l'inflation dans les pays à économie de marché et par l'évolution des prix sur le marché des matières premières. Nous avons pris une série de mesures destinées à accroître l'efficacité de l'économie nationale. L'un des domaines qui retient notre attention consiste à relever l'efficacité des organes administratifs et de gestion, la limitation des voyages de service et leur mise à profit rationelle, une utilisation plus intense de la mécanisation et de l'automatisation des travaux administratifs et de gestion. Toutes ces mesures ont abouti à des résultats positifs.
Nous avons noté que toute une série d'Etats et d'Organisations, y compris les Organisations internationales du système des Nations Unies, s'attachent à rationaliser utilement et à accroître l'efficacité de leurs activités, afin de réaliser des économies. Notre Organisation a, elle aussi, et le Directeur général lui aussi, adopté certaines mesures à cet effet. Nous estimons qu'étant donné l'évolution des choses, il y aura lieu d'envisager d'autres possibilités d'améliorer les activités de la FAO dans ce sens, et par là, de limiter l'augmentation du budget.
Monsieur le Président, j'ai exposé très brièvement la position de ma délégation en ce qui concerne le projet de Programme et de Budget pour les années 1980-81. La délégation tchécoslovaque a l'intention de revenir encore sur ce point très important bien sur, seulement si nécessaire, dans le cours des débats de la vingtième Conférence générale.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, delegate of Czechoslovakia. If there are no more speakers, then I will take it that the Council agrees with the recommendations of the Programme and Finance Committees and that those recommendations should be incorporated in our report and forwarded to the Conference, for the Programme of Work and Budget for the next bicmnium. If that is agreed, then that will be done and this concludes the debate on this important issue; unless members would like to come back to it in the afternoon. You do? All right then, we will leave it open and it will be concluded in the afternoon.
The meeting rose at 12.30 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.30 horas
