V. J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The Review of the Regular Programme 1984-85, which is the document before the Council, is the fourth review of the Regular Programme. In preparing the review we have taken full account of the comments and suggestions made on all the previous reviews by the Programme Committee, the Council and the Conference itself. When considering the last review covering the biennium 1982-83 the Conference expressed appreciation for the additional improvements made in response to its own wishes. In particular, it welcomed the revised format and structure which substantially expanded the in-depth reviews of selected sub-programmes and special topics that cut across programme activities, while reducing the performance review section in Part I without any loss of substance. The Conference was satisfied that the review was comprehensive, result-oriented and well balanced, and that it served as an essential element in the monitoring and evaluation system in FAO. With this blessing of the Conference, we have tried to make the review now before you as specific and comprehensive as we can.
The structure remains unaltered. Part I of the review is a performance report covering all programmes, and it accounts for 40 percent of the text of the review. Parts II and III which deal with special topics and in-depth reviews each account for 30 percent. However, in all parts of the review a further effort has been made to focus more sharply on concrete achievements and results as well as on identifying the issues which emerged from the analysis.
In Part I, the tables containing data on training activities, meetings, workshops, publications, support to member countries and technical backstopping of field programmes, have been improved in coverage and presentation, and in particular the time frame has been expanded to five years to provide a better perspective of trend. The thrust of improvements in Part II has been to make the in-depth reviews of selected sub-programmes and activities as evaluative as possible by concentrating on concrete outputs, effects and impact, as well as on issues which emerge from the analysis. These in-depth reviews are intended to provide not only an analytical and result-oriented assessment of programme activities, but also to provide useful feedback for their future planning and implementation.
The Council may be interested to know that the specific topics selected in Part II of the review cover five programme activities which are specifically designed to support the priority needs of small-scale farmers, producers and the rural poor.
Part III of thé review has two in-depth analyses, a chapter on FAO programmes in research - this was specifically at the suggestion of the Programme Committee - and a special chapter on our activities in support of economic and technical cooperation among developing countries. These two chapters provide a comprehensive review of the efforts of the Organization in these areas and in an integrated way they cover both the Regular Programme activities and those carried out under field projects.
While I have concentrated in commenting on the format of the present review, it might be useful for Council also to bear in mind the coverage that has been provided for evaluation in the course of the four reviews which have been carried out so far. Over the four reviews which have been presented to our governing bodies we have two programmes, 17 sub-programmes, five programme elements and seven special topics. In terms of coverage of programme activities this represents over one quarter of all the overall programme activities under the agriculture, forestry and fisheries programmes.
I said at the outset the review has to be seen in the context of the total system of evaluation in FAO. In this connection the Council may be interested to note that the system of monitoring and
evaluation is constantly being strengthened. In the present biennium there have been further improvements in our system of work planning, in monitoring and implementation and in the auto-evaluation process. The evaluation of the field programme activities has also been streamlined. It is in this connection that the Joint Inspection Unit has just prepared a third report on evaluation in the United Nations System. This document will be issued very shortly and as usual, will be submitted to our governing bodies for their review, together with our comments.
But there are two brief conclusions of this JIU report to which at this stage, I think, it is timely to draw the attention of Council. In its summary assessment of evaluation systems and activities in the United Nations System, the report of the Joint Inspection Unit states, and I quote: "The ambitious and comprehensive FAO evaluation system framework which JIU reported on in 1981 has now been filled out as FAO continues to expand evaluation coverage, refine and improve operation of the system and integrate evaluation with other programme management processes. Steady progress in improving the system is shown by the greater use being made of evaluation findings and increasing request for evaluation reports".
The JIU report also says that FAO, together with the World Health Organization, and I quote: "is considered to have gone furthest in achieving the Organization-wide scope in evaluation coverage and appropriate methodologies for systematic assessment of progress and results in the Organization's activities".
The Review of the Regular Programme was considered in great depth by the Programme Committee at its recent session in September, In fact, whereas in earlier years the Programme Committee had only managed to devote a day's attention to this document, in this case at its mostrecent session it devoted over two days to it. As a part of the review of this document it also examined in depth the activitiesof regional offices. The views of the Programme Committee on the Review of the Regular Programme are given in paragraphs 2. 5 to 2. 35 of its report in document CL 88/4. I will not presume to comment on the views of the Programme Committee, as the Chairman of the Programme Committee himself may wish to do so.
M. TRKULJA (Chairman, Programme Committee): Given the obvious time constraint I will try to be very brief indeed and just highlight the main points from the Programme Committee report on the Review of the Regular Programme.
First let me say that the Programme Committee was glad to note further improvement in presentation, mostly along the lines suggested by the Committee and subsequently approved by the Council.
The summary provided at the beginning and the tables, which are a comparison of various aspects of FAO activities, the systematic coverage of regional offices' activities within the integrated programme of FAO, and the footnote listing the countries that benefit from FAO programmes, in our view, all presented a very welcome improvement.
Further, still on the format, we felt that a proper balance had already been reached in volume terms with about 40 percent of the volume devoted to the systematic review of all programmes, sub-programmes and major technical economic areas and support services, and respectively 30 percent each for in-depth and automatic reviews. ! We felt that this balance by and large should be maintained, depending of course on the future selection of documents for in-depth reviews and automatic reviews.
On Part I, I will just say that the Committee did not discuss this, though it fully agreed that Part I represented very valuable information, and the Committee agreed to use fully the information provided in Part I in consideration of the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium.
On Part II, again the format has been improved, better presented, more transparent, with the five major headings. In this regard may I only add that the Committee wanted to encourage the house - that means the small integrated unit of FAO - to take more liberties in assessing the successful activities of FAO and those which have not perhaps fully met their original objectives. I will not refer to the four sub-programmes and one programme element that we reviewed. But Mr Shah mentioned, on our suggestion, that research was covered and ECDC/TCDC activities. Generally
we want to draw the attention of the Council to the fact that the review of the research activities was based on a rather conservative definition, incorporating only activities which are directly related to the research support. We then realized that about $40 million of Regular Programme funds were spent on direct research support. The Committee was very much satisfied with the coordination of research activities within the house and with the leading role of the inter-departmental working group on science and technology for development. Then the gap in the feeling of the Committee was fully closed with the Research and Technology Development Division now very well established. We also welcome the close cooperation of FAO with the various international institutions dealing with research, for instance IFAD, the international service for agricultural research, and its support for international agricultural research through, among other things, the Technical Advisory Committee and its continued commitment to join the research activities alongwith the International Atomic Energy Agency.
On ECDC/TCDC, very briefly, we reviewed the whole array of activities in FAO in support of these activities. We concentrated in particular on the establishment and cooperation of FAO with various networks. It was our feeling that the approach of FAO and the increased presentation on the support of ECDC/TCDC activities was a very correct one. Finally, we suggested that the next Review of the Regular Programme should include the automatic review of FAO support to extension services in developing countries.
On the activities of the regional offices, just to complement what Mr Shah has said, on the basis of the document prepared for the Programme Committee we were fully aware of the history and the evolution of the regional structure in FAO dating back to 1945. at the first Conference of FAO. Then we are fully aware of the fact that the regional structure and the regional activities were fully reviewed occasionally, one of the last reviews was in 1971 by the FAO Conference, and in a way the regional structure was also reviewed in 1976 on the basis of the Director-General's proposal. We welcome very much the fact that the Director-General prepared for the presence of regional representatives, which enabled the Committeethoroughly to review the regional activities of FAO. We emphasize in our report the need for substantial flexibility given the rapidly changing realities and the need for FAO to quickly adjust to changes in various regions.
We realise that the most important, most essential, of all the activities in the regional offices is the fostering of regional and sub-regional cooperation, and the number of bodies that FAO has formally established for a working relationship is really quite big.
Finally on regional offices, we emphasized again the importance of maintaining and further strengthening the coordinated efforts, and in particular the flow of information, between Headquarters and regional offices and even among regional offices. Of course the coordination efforts would also cover the FAO representatives at the country level.
Very briefly these are the main views of the Programme Committee on the Review of the Regular Programme.
Ronald F. R. DEARE (United Kingdom): I was not expecting to open the batting, but since others seem to be reluctant to face the bowling perhaps I can make a start.
This review is a very comprehensive and detailed document and we are very grateful for the introduction that was made by Mr Shah and by the Chairman of the Programme Committee. There is much that could be said about it, but I will confine my comments to points which seem to my delegation to be particularly important in this document.
Taking the subjects in the order in which they appear in the document, in the section on agriculture we very much endorse the Director-General's view on the need for more effective international action in the area of food production and food security, and his recognition in this document that this action cannot be confined to the agricultural sector alone and also is likely to take decades to achieve. We think this is a very realistic assessment. We very much support the study which is described here to better the policy initiatives required to overcome the food crisis in Africa. We believe that it is essential that the closest
collaboration be maintained with the World Bank in this very difficult area. It is our view that the priority must be to concentrate efforts on the existing better agricultural areas where increased production can be readily achieved by improved inputs, extension and pricing policies.
We commend the work carried out by FAO on quantifying crop and population potentials and culminating in the publication of potential population supporting capacities in lands of the developing world, and we look forward to seeing the country level analyses when these are available.
Turning now to the sections on livestock in paragraphs 1. 62 and 1. 63 there is once again emphasis on animal feed security. The initial response to the drought in the rangelands of southern Africa and the Sahel should in our view be to reduce overall numbers and to retain a nucleus herd of breeding animals. In our opinion animal feed security can have only a limited effect in such areas. In areas where crop by-products are available there is considerably more potential. We would ourselves place a much higher priority on the use of crop by-products as animal feedstuffs in Africa than pasture improvement. The problems of improving communally grazed rangelands are legion and relate more to human and livestock numbers than to technical constraints.
Coming on to population, which is dealt with in paragraphs 1. 93 and 1. 94, in my delegation we very much approve FAO's progress in reviewing its population activities and its intention to assess the population impact of all its development programmes in accordance with the recommendations of the 1984 International Conference on Population. In our view there is a need to ensure that this consideration be continued with enthusiasm in all existing programmes and in planning new projects for the indefinite future. The United Kingdom believes that population considerations should be considered as an important factor in all rural development planning and programmes.
I would like to turn now to marketing, where we found the programme of work proposed to be very comprehensive, although we do consider that within the resources available FAO may be attempting here to cover too wide a field. We wonder whether it might not be better to concentrate on specific areas identified as having priority. We note that within the countries covered, very little work appears to have been done in the sub-Saharan region. At the present time a great deal of effort is being devoted to developing and improving the production in these areas. However, there is also a critical need in our view to improve marketing systems and collection and infrastructures for both inputs and products. We feel, perhaps, more emphasis should be placed on assessing the marketing problems of this region.
In paragraphs 1. 17 to 1. 124, there is information about the food and agricultural information and analysis work. We would like to congratulate FAO on its continued work on the collection, analysis and dissemination of information concerning all aspects of agriculture. We believe that FAO is in an unparallelled position to establish international data bases on prices, output, crops, trade situations and prospects and should be supported by all Member States in its effort to extend and improve this service.
On inland fisheries and aquaculture which appears in paragraph 8. 1 and subsequently in the paper, we regard this as a very important sub-programme and it is an area in which we would encourage increased FAO activity, bearing in mind the difficulties which have been encountered, particularly in Africa, in establishing successful programmes in this sector.
I think I will stop there, I have got a considerable number more comments but I imagine other colleagues would like to intervene in this debate. I realize we have a very heavy programme.
I would like to say finally in his introductory statement Mr Shah touched on the question of evaluation. We believe, in my delegation, that independent in-depth evaluations of various aspects of FAO's Regular Programme can only be helpful both to the management of the Organization and to the member countries, and we hope very much that this is an area in which we will see increased activity on the part of FAO in the next biennium.
Hartford T. JENNINGS (United States of America): My delegation very much appreciates the introduction to this item given by Mr Shah and the Chairman of the Programme Committee. As has been observed, the
Programme Committee considered this review of the Regular Programme at some extent and we were able to make our views known there. This morning we would like simply to make a few general comments about this review and reserve other more specific comments until the Conference.
In the view of our delegation this document maintains the standard of quality which was achieved in the last review and it contains an impressive amount of information on FAO's wide range of programmes. We welcome that.
Mr Shah noted the attention to evaluation contained in the review. The United States attaches considerable importance to evaluation of assistance programmes both our own bilateral ones, and multilateral programmes. We consider that it is only through evaluation that we are able to assess the effects of our efforts at economic cooperation and thereby to improve those efforts. So, we would wish to commend the Secretariat on this continuing attention to evaluation in the document and on the candid approach in presenting the problems and recommendations in the outlook and issues sections of its chapters.
We would also commend the serious attempt to assess the progress achieved and to the identification of constraints in the individual programmes and sub-programmes. We consider that these efforts are quite helpful, much to be appreciated, and we also hope that they will be continued and increased in the future.
I would like to make one specific observation concerning this review, and that has to do with chapter IV, major programme 3. 1, Field Programme Planning and Liaison. This delegation is quite pleased to note the progress in the consolidation and computerization of project pipelines and the increase in joint project execution between FAO and other agencies of the UN System. We consider that coordination among donors and participants in economic cooperation activities is very important. We are always glad to see it and commend it when we find it.
As a last general observation the United States would only note that this document as a whole not only reflects the Conference wishes and recommendations on the format and substance of it, but also reflects the substantial contributions made by a vigorous, dedicated and productive staff in implementing a diverse and difficult Programme of Work aimed to benefit the Member Nations of this Organization.
Horacio MALTEZ (Panama): Al analizar el Examen del Programa Ordinario de la FAO, documento C 85/8, mediante el cual se evalúa el funcionamiento de los programas de la Organización desde el punto de vista de sus objetivos así como de la forma en que éstos se ejecutan y los efectos prácticos que ellos tienen, la delegación de Panamá desea referirse muy brevemente a algunos aspectos de carácter conceptual que dicho documento le merece.
Mi delegación, antes que nada, quiere reconocer la utilidad y la importancia de la evaluación periódica de los Programas como un instrumento eficaz para introducir, mejorar, corregir errores y de esta forma obtener mejoras progresivas en la labor de la FAO.
Es dentro de este contexto que estimamos oportuno manifestar nuestra complacencia por los cambios operados en la estructura y el contenido del Examen del Programa Ordinario, el cual es cada vez más informativo, analítico y orientado hacia los resultados. Asimismo expresamos nuestro apoyo al documento en análisis, reservando nuestras observaciones detalladas sobre el mismo para la Conferencia.
Deseamos, sin embargo, en esta ocasión aun reconociendo y apoyando totalmente, no sólo los objetivos y las prioridades de los diferentes Programas, sino también la manera como los mismos se ejecutan, manifestar nuestra preocupación por las necesidades de una gestión austera por parte de la Organización mientras que aumentan y aparecen nuevos problemas y necesidades para fomentar el desarrollo agrícola, a los cuales la FAO deberá hacer frente.
A este respecto, lo decimos ahora y lo seguiremos manifestando en otros temas de este Consejo y durante la Conferencia, se hace imprescindible aumentar los recursos de la FAO en forma justa y
cónsona con los reales problemas del mundo agrícola y rural en todo el mundo y de manera especial en Africa. Deseamos expresar nuestro apoyo al sistema de seguimiento y evaluación interno y a la evaluación conjunta con otros organismos del Sistema de las Naciones Unidas. Por último, destacamos la importante labor de las Oficinas Regionales de la FAO como agentes del Programa Ordinario a nivel de campo.
Para finalizar, la delegación de Panamá desea manifestar su agradecimiento al señor Shah y al señor Trkulja por su clara introducción al tema en examen.
Ramesh Chander GUPTA (India):. On this subject we had thought that since we have discussed this matter in detail in the Programme Committee perhaps it would not be necessary to make an intervention here. In any case we would like to sincerely commend Mr Shah and Mr Trkulja for their very comprehensive and pointed introduction of the subject.
The work of the evaluation in itself is very complex for the simple reason that data from the field on the performance of the projects is always scanty, and it is not always easy to come up with an evaluation which is thoroughly reliable. But we sincerely commend FAO for this on-going activity. This presentation in three parts we found extremely convenient dealing with certain major programmes of the Organization and certain topics presented in the form of in-depth studies, as well as two subjects as systematic reviews.
I wish to confine my comments to Part II and Part III of this document. With regard to the vegetable sector, particularly Programme 2. 1. 2. 2, we feel that this is a very important sector which is unfortunately neglected in most of the countries, neglected in the sense that no systematic data is being collected about production, about preservation and about marketing and we have no idea overall globally what role or importance vegetables have in the dietary systems of the people in providing nutrition, and particularly so in our context, in India, where a major part of the population is vegetarian. They depend heavily on minor crops like pulses for vegetable protein and for various minerals and vegetables. We would like to stress in this context that a systematic approach to vegetable production has to be adopted with proper linkages right from input, proper planting material, production, preservation and marketing. This is important because unless we deal with the entire chain as such, vegetables being a highly perishable commodity, will be lost in substantial quantities in the whole chain. We would like FAO to concentrate on this aspect in a comprehensive manner so that vegetable production is tackled in a proper way.
With regard to the role of women in development, we feel that we have to have a fresh approach to this particular aspect. A lot of lip service is paid to the role of women, about ameliorating their condition, about making their lives better, about reducing their workload and so on, but we feel that two important aspects which have to be tackled are literacy and women's organizations.
In our experience women's organizations which have a kind of exogenous leadership of middle class urban women who go to rural areas as a hobby and who try to organize rural women will not solve the problem. We have to educate the rural women and create rural leadership, mobilize them and make them a force in the rural sector. Only then they will get their due in the rural environment, in their share in production, in income distribution, and, to the extent possible, in the lives of the families as such so that the next generation to come will be improved. So these are some of the areas in the context of WCARRD's Programme of Work which have to be tackled. Women have to be organized, they have to be educated, and local leadership has to be generated among rural women; only then can we tackle this problem.
With regard to inland fisheries and aquaculture, these programmes are particularly important for developing countries because until these countries have the wherewithal to engage themselves seriously in deep sea fishing, until they have the right type of equipment and training, and until a survey of the potential is available, they will have to concentrate on inland fisheries and aquaculture. These are activities which can be low-cost and which do not require high technology. Even in our own country we are the second largest producer of inland fisheries in the world. There is tremendous scope in terms of large areas of water being available and of combining aquaculture and fisheries together. There is tremendous scope in this area and we would like work to continue on these aspects
The Fuelwood Development Programme is perhaps the most critical of all the programmes in the forestry sector which the organization is undertaking. We have seen that billions of people, particularly in the developing countries, are in serious danger of facing a tremendous amount of privation because of lack of fuel. There, the forests are being denuded. The approach to forestry as such is responsible for this state of affairs. We have for too long emphasized commercial forestry by trying to produce species which are of commercial value, and by trying to oust the local people from forests. This kind of approach, as we know, has failed completely, and we have to be continuously in search of the proper species. In any development of forestry programmes we have to take care of the people who live in these areas and whose livelihood depends on forestry, and we have to encourage kinds of species and kinds of programmes which are of advantage to the people, which produce fuel, fodder, and fruit, and which give some kind of an annual crop-not that a tree grows for a hundred years and only then is it of any use to the community or to the State. We have to have a complete reorientation of forestry programmes to encourage the kind of forestry which gives an annual return to the people, so that their participation may be maintained and so that they have some incentives. We have to change the approach of the foresters to the forestry sector altogether. This is not a policing kind of work, where you have to prevent people going into forests-it has to be rationalized, it has to be worked on a scientific basis. People's cooperation is necessary, and we have seen during the discussions of the Programme Committee that this is the kind of orientation that the organization has towards the forestry programme, and we would like it to continue in that way.
With regard to Part Three in which the research and ECDC/TCDC are dealt with, we found that FAO as such does not, and is not perhaps charged to, undertake any research directly. FAO has to provide support, it has to provide policy guidelines, and it has to provide the direction in which research is to proceed. We feel that the most important area in which FAO can assist countries is to determine priorities for research for developing countries, particularly by considering their agro-climate situation, their social and economic status-FAO has to assist them in finalizing and drawing up appropriate research programmes, and again in trying to find, through its investments and other activities, ways to generate funds for those kinds of activities. This is the line we would like FAO to take in the research sector.
With regard to ECDC and TCDC, our own experience is that we are trying to tackle too many things at the same time with limited resources and with limited capacities. We have this Caracas programme of action which, with all respect to everybody, has become some kind of a structure which is too unmanageable, too huge, and too gigantic, to manage at the same time. In the ECDC and TCDC sector the effort has to be made to determine priorities, to figure out or to target on certain areas in which potential exists within the developing countries themselves to assist one another instead of trying to do everything at the same time themselves. The ECDC/TCDC approach should be to concentrate on certain areas-certain given areas-and to direct the limited resources and efforts which are available in developing countries to these areas. This is the approach which we would like to take to ECDC/TCDC.
For the first time, in the last session of the Programme Committee, we had an opportunity to take an in-depth view of the work in the regional offices of FAO. We had the opportunity to hear the regional representatives speak about their activities, and what they were doing; and it was really heartening-it was a very reassuring kind of review, because at certain times we had heard reservations being made about the work of the regional offices, about their need, and about their justification. We discovered now the regional offices, with the expertise and with the subject matter specialists that they have, are providing assistance to country projects and regional activities. They are undertaking training programmes, they are undertaking seminars, publications-it was overall a very enlightening and very heartening experience.
Those are some of the observations we would like to make about the Review of the Regular Programme. We would commend the Secretariat for its candid approach: we found many places where the programmes have not succeeded, and where there were shortcomings or failures, they were candidly admitted-and this is the kind of approach we would like to develop
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): El Sr. Shah hizo una magnífica presentación del tema y nuestro colega y amigo el Sr. Trkulja, Presidente del Comité del Programa, una vez más ha confirmado sus altas calidades y su amplia experiencia y conocimientos.
Pensamos que en la Comisión II de la Conferencia vamos a ocuparnos de este documento y preferimos concentrarnos en las observaciones del Comité del Programa, o sea en el documento CL 88|4, porque consideramos que en esta oportunidad el Comité del Programa ha realizado un excelente examen del Programa Ordinario.
Convendría tal vez destacar, como aparece en el párrafo 2. 6, la satisfacción que expresó el Comité del Programa sobre el hecho de que este documento es una fuente valiosa de información y análisis en lo concerniente a las actividades y logros del Programa Ordinario y sus interrelaciones con el Programa de Campo.
En el párrafo 2. 9 también, y esto lo anotaron tanto el Sr. Shah como el Sr. Trkulja, conviene registrar el hecho de que se está cumpliendo una evolución favorable en la presentación de este documento a través del seguimiento de las recomendaciones y sugerencias que se han hecho en los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas y que han complementado luego los miembros del Consejo cuando los informes de esos Comités se nos han presentado.
Creemos que esa evolución favorable ha dado lugar a dos intervenciones positivas con las cuales se inició el debate esta mañana: la declaración del Reino Unido y, sobre todo, la de Estados Unidos. Pensamos que la declaración del representante de Estados Unidos fue muy positiva; esto nos alienta sinceramente, Sr. Presidente, porque así podremos tener la esperanza de que esta mañana vamos a disfrutar de una sesión plena del más positivo espíritu de cooperación internacional. Decimos esto porque si representantes de países tan importantes han hecho tan sincero y positivo reconocimiento al Programa Ordinario de esta Organización, es lógico y coherente esperar que seguirá en una actitud positiva cuando más adelante vamos a pasar al tema 8: Evaluación del Programa de Cooperación Técnica y al tema 11: Programa de Labores y Presupuesto, pues su Organización tiene un Programa Ordinario tan excelente como éste y es obvio que necesita de un mínimo de recursos para poder seguir avanzando en sus actividades.
Nos complace también destacar lo que se dice en el párrafo 2. 10 del Informe del Comité del Programa sobre la atención creciente que se ha ofrecido a las actividades a nivel de país y a los pequeños productores; en esto de los pequeños productores coincide el Comité de Finanzas en sus párrafos 3. 82 y 3. 83. Los párrafos 2. 28 a 2. 30, se refieren a las actividades de las Oficinas. Regionales de la FAO. Nosotros debemos lamentar, Sr. Presidente, que el Comité del Programa en la frase final del párrafo 2. 29, se haya limitado simplemente a tomar nota de la tendencia a la baja, en los últimos años, del porcentaje correspondiente a las Oficinas Regionales en el Presupuesto del Programa Ordinario de la Organización. Creemos que el Comité del Programa no debió tomar nota, sino reaccionar y recomendar al Director General que invierta esa tendencia a la baja y que siga reforzando las Oficinas Regionales.
En el párrafo 2. 30 tal vez el Comité del Programa ensaya una débil defensa de esa última frase del párrafo 2. 29 cuando habla de las diferencias existentes entre una y otra región. Esto es evidente, hace muchos años el Sr. West cuando era miembro del Consejo, participó conmigo en numerosos debates, y hemos reconocido que no puede concebirse un marco standard para todas las Oficinas Regionales, y que si bien unas Oficinas Regionales trabajan bien, otras trabajan menos bien; pero eso no quiere decir que deba generalizarse esa tendencia a la baja contra la cual creemos que el Comité del Programa debió manifestarse. Nosotros pensamos que si hay Oficinas Regionales que funcionan bien, que cuentan con el apoyo de los gobiernos de las regiones de las cuales los países reciben beneficios directos, y éste es el caso de América Latina y el Caribe, pues esa Oficina Regional, aunque en otras no se reúnan las mismas características, deben ser apoyadas.
Aprovechamos esta ocasión, Sr. Presidente, para reiterar el apoyo del Gobierno de Colombia a la descentralización. En 1976 la descentralización, junto con el Programa de Cooperación Técnica, constituyeron los dos pilares fundamentales del Programa de quienes asumían en ese momento la dirección general de la FAO. Nosotros creemos que esos ejemplos de descentralización logrados a través del fortalecimiento de la Oficina Regional y del establecimiento de representantes propios de la FAO en los países, ha dado resultados satisfactorios y deben continuarse. Pensamos una vez más, Sr. Presidente, que en las regiones y en los países están los problemas, allá están las
necesidades y hay que atenderlas prioritariamente. Las elucubraciones académicas y técnicas que se llevan a cabo en la sede no podrán jamás permitir válidamente a los funcionarios que desde aquí, sentados en sus escritorios, hagan recomendaciones o traten de asistir a gobiernos cuyos Estados están muy lejos y en condiciones muy difíciles.
Por eso pensamos que en nuestro Informe debemos reiterar una vez más el apoyo de este Consejo a la descentralización y, obviamente, lo haremos más adelante en la Conferencia.
John GLISTRUP (Denmark): Also I would like to thank Mr Shah for his introduction and the Chairman of the Programme Committee for his explanations. My delegation would like to compliment the Secretariat for the very comprehensive review which forms a valuable source of information and analysis on the activities and accomplishments of the regular programme and its links with the field programme.
The review is an essential component in the examination of programmes and we note with satisfaction the additional improvements made in the preparation of the review document. My delegation specifically welcomes the in-depth review of four sub-programmes and one programme element, all concerned with activities addressing rural development with a special emphasis on the critical situation for small scale producers and the integration of women in rural development. However, once again we want to stress the overall need for coordination with other organizations' activities, particularly in the field of rural development.
In order not to prolong the discussion in this forum my delegation will come back with more detailed intervention specifically concerning the decentralization to the country level of FAO representatives and regional offices in Commission II during the Conference.
Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): My delegation has noted with satisfaction that document C 85/8 takes the recommendations of the Twenty-second Conference of FAO into account to a large extent. My delegation is largely in agreement with the statements of the document and the conclusions drawn in it.
Allow me a few general remarks. We welcome the clear structure of document C 85/8 consisting of three parts; the performance reports on the major programmes in Part I, the special programmes designed to benefit the rural poor in Part II, and the research activities of the FAO Regular Programme and FAO's activities in support of economic and technical cooperation among developing countries in Part III. The document shows the efforts of the FAO Secretariat to carry out the assessment of the Regular Programme in a more informative, analytical and more result-oriented way as had been requested by the Twenty-second Conference of FAO.
In view of the importance and the volume of the TCP within the framework of the Programme of Work and Budget we would, however, have expected in Chapter Four on page 77 of the document a detailed assessment of that programme. The FAO Secretariat has submitted document CL 88/INF/10 for this topic which we, however, received only this morning here in Rome.
We welcome the fact that the Director-General of FAO has arranged for an external evaluation of the TCP. We, however, hold the view that this is a task which devolves on the Joint Inspection Unit, being the instrument responsible for that task in the United Nations System. We would have preferred it if the Director-General had entrusted this unit with the external evaluation of the TCP. We do recognize the increased internal evaluation within FAO but we feel that it requires the supplementation by external evaluation, and that in particular in very cost-effective areas of work. We consider the JIU the best suited agency in the United Nations System
Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Queremos felicitar al Sr. Shah por la presentación de este tema tan claro, tan objetivo y concreto, a que nos tiene tan acostumbrados, así como al Presidente del Comité del Programa por la información que nos ha brindado, tan amplia, del tema.
Ciertamente, como planteaba también la delegación de India, nos pareció que no íbamos a tener necesidad de intervenir en la mañana pensando que la presentación había sido tan clara, tan objetiva y era obvio la aprobación total de este examen tan completo para la Conferencia y poder preparar unas buenas intervenciones con vistas a su discusión en la Conferencia; sin embargo, queremos muy sucintamente decir que el examen, por su sistematicidad, de los programas, subprogramas y temas precisos, creo que es necesario felicitar porque se ha logrado el equilibrio, el balance que se buscaba; realmente hay transparencia, hay información suficiente como tema, y como instrumento de consulta este documento puede ser un instrumento de consulta muy valioso en esta materia, y además tiene indudablemente mejor formato.
Se habló con bastante énfasis, y nosotros consideramos que es muy importante lo que se pensó sobre las actividades de investigación; consideramos que hay que tener en cuenta esta esfera para ser respaldada en todas sus partes por la FAO, porque la FAO puede impulsar estas tareas nuestras iniciales de trabajos de investigación en la agricultura.
Los programas de investigación en nuestros países necesitan de la inyección, del apoyo, de la investigación de la FAO en la forma práctica y concreta que puede ser bastante valorizada, y hasta podíamos buscar una fórmula parecida a los Programas de Cooperación Técnica que son aquellas cosas que concretamente se resuelven en nuestros países.
También nos hacemos eco de lo que la distinguida representación de Colombia ha planteado referente a las Oficinas Regionales, que nos parece que fue bastante débil la respuesta del Comité del Programa al decir solamente que tomaban nota; tomar nota no es lo más indicado a una situación en que la baja nos parece que es una tendencia preocupante, porque sencillamente las Oficinas Regionales quien las evalúan realmente son los países que las tienen y los criterios de los países han sido bastante reiterantes, y las Oficinas han dado un respaldo a nuestra agricultura por su aporte y apoyo directo a los Programas Nacionales. Creo que en esto igual que en las actividades de los Programas de Cooperación Técnica que constituyen los medios prácticos y concretos más válidos que tiene asignada la FAO en apoyo a nuestra agricultura; no conozco ningún PCT que no haya obtenido validez, no hemos tenido ningún tipo de problemas referentes a endeudamiento, ni hemos creado ningún elefante blanco, sino que vamos prácticamente a las cuestiones que el país necesita en concreto.
Queremos, finalmente, dar nuestro apoyo en todas sus partes, a lo expresado sobre la pesca y silvicultura por la representación de India; es importante el análisis que hace sobre la silvicultura.
Apoyamos en todas sus partes este documento para discutir en la Comisión II y en la cual ampliaremos nuestras consideraciones generales y específicas en nuestra intervención en la Conferencia.
Sra. Doña Mercedes FERMIN GOMEZ (Venezuela): Brevemente, quiero expresar mi complacencia por el excelente documento que estamos estudiando, porque además de ser muy completo, claro, da un verdadero marco de estudio para las discusiones que habrán de tenerse en el próximo evento de la Conferencia.
Quería, en aras de esta brevedad, manifestar mi apoyo e identificación con los problemas, con la posición fijada por los delegados de India, Colombia y Cuba, con relación a esos planteamientos específicos que ellos han hecho; pero quería insistir un poco en el punto en que no es que no nos satisfaga el documento, pero que no habría gustado ver un poco más explícitamente planteado en su texto lo relacionado con el problema de la mujer.
Ciertamente, el documento recoge en sus párrafos 2. 91, 2. 92, 2. 95 y 2. 99 referencias a la mujer, pero siempre, no sé si es que yo soy demasiado exigente, pero siempre lo hace de una manera así como al pasar, confundida en denominaciones tan al acaso como, por ejemplo, "el Comité acogió complacido la importancia concedida a la mitigación de la pobreza rural y la atención que se prestaba a grupos específicos como las agriculturas, los jóvenes, etcétera". Lo mismo vamos a decir en el punto 2. 92: "El Comité reiteró su apoyo a las actividades de capacitación en beneficio
de los pequeños agricultores, las campesinas, etcétera. " Y lo mismo en el 2. 95: "El Comité recordó que había apoyado las actividades a nivel dé los países relacionadas con la mujer en la seguridad alimentaria" y más adelante también "con la mujer, tanto hombres como mujeres. "
Quiero decir que la mujer no merece que haya ni siquiera un párrafo en este maravilloso documento, en este estupendo documento tan preciso, no ha merecido un párrafo que concrete la situación de la mujer, siquiera la mujer en el medio rural. No hace falta decirlo aquí porque ello es una verdad tan antigua como la leyenda de Adán y Eva, la mujer es necesaria en una sociedad organizada aún cuando los hombres puedan pensar que no, pero indudablemente es indispensable, para participar en las actividades algunas veces muy pesadas de la agricultura y de la conducción del hogar; eso ya lo sabemos de memoria, pero entonces si todo eso lo sabe este Comité y lo saben todos los Comités que lo han planteado ¿por qué no podemos lograr que en un problema como el desarrollo rural tan concreto podamos tener un párrafo en donde se plantee la necesidad de que la mujer en el medio rural reciba una atención especial, específica, como elemento importante de ese medio rural para su capacitación, para una capacitación que va a ser productiva para la familia, para la producción agrícola, para el desarrollo de la comercialización?, porque la mujer puede, además de productora, puede participar en el mercadeo como lo hacen en muchísimos países que yo personalmente conozco. ¿Por qué no dedicar un párrafo en donde nos refiramos a la atención que merece la mujer de parte de estos Programas de la FAO para capacitarla en lo relativo a la agricultura, a la nutrición, a la atención de la familia, que con eso ya estaríamos satisfechas en nuestra muy modesta aspiración en beneficio de las mujeres?
Yo sinceramente puedo decirles que me siento un poco traicionando la responsabilidad que tenemos aquí cuando no nos ocupamos realmente de la mujer, que significa casi el 50 por Ciento de la población en muchísimos países, en el mío el 49. 5; de manera pues, que vería con agrado que para el futuro, no pido que se modifique actualmente nada aquí, pero que para la Conferencia, en la que todavía tenemos la posibilidad de hacer una intervención, o una proposición, se dedicara un párrafo y se pensara en traer a la aprobación una proposición que hice en la reunión del Comité de Agricultura cuando nos pasaron aquella estupenda película que mostró la realidad de la mujer en el mundo, bueno, muy dolorosa, pero muy real, y que haya la posibilidad de que la FAO organice o piense crear un grupo de trabajo para atender a los problemas de la mujer, y son problemas porque no me voy a referir a la mujer solamente de un determinado país, ni siquiera a los problemas de la mujer en el medio rural; con eso me sentiría satisfecha. De manera que dejo esta preocupación, la voy a calificar hasta allí de preocupación, a ver si en el futuro el Comité que estudie el futuro documento pueda incorporar esta propuesta que hice sobre la conveniencia de estudiar la creación de un grupo de trabajo para atender el estudio de los problemas de la mujer con relación a su capacitación, a su condición de miembro de una sociedad que bastante poco le da en cuanto a su preparación, y a como ser eficiente en el trabajo duro que ella conduce en muchos países igual como en el trabajo menos duro que hace en otras sociedades.
Mrs Millicent H. FENWICK (United States of America): I had not intended to ask for another opportunity to speak on account of women, but I am on the Programme Committee and take very much to heart the remarks of my distinguished and dear friend and colleague about the deficiencies of the Programme in that regard. I want to thank Mr. Trkulja, my dear Chairman of the Programme Committee, for his fairness and unfailing justice and kindliness. I also want tó thank my dear colleague from Colombia for the warm and welcome words in which he has mentioned my country today.
I will be brief, but I am convinced that it is only in the spirit of good will, in the spirit of not searching for criticism, of saying, "yes, we must admit faults where there are faults. We must insist on honest dealing and be frank and not look for duplicity"-we must proceed in this spirit of good will, and we must agree that we will not be looking for trouble. We must proceed in a brotherly fashion.
I keep thinking of the Minister of Agriculture of Mali who, when speaking of the effort to increase the welfare of people in this world, said of this great enterprise that we are partners. It is as partners that we must operate. I do not like these groups. 1 will be honest about that. We are all partners in an enterprise. That is why we aré here. That is why our governments are paying for us to be here. That is what we are supposed to be doing. It is wonderful to see that so often it does work. Fair dealing and affection for one another, and respect towards each other, seem to be the key.
Horacio M. CARANDANG (Philippines): The enormous task of evaluating the Regular Programme is mind-boggling. Therefore, I commend the work of the Programme Committee in this regard. I should also like to thank Mr Shah and Dr Trkulja for their lucid introductions of the evaluation of the Regular Programme. I shall limit my comments to ECDC and TCDC
We welcome the comments of the Programme Committee on the activities of FAO with regard to ECDC and TCDC As we see in paragraph 2. 25 of document CL 88/4, FAO has indeed stepped up its activities in this regard. As is indicated, FAO has assisted one hundred of the estimated 164 TCDC networks as well as 29 economic groupings and 11 international groupings. Indeed, FAO has a very great role to play in ECDC and TCDC. FAO has a basic mandate in the transfer of technology and we believe that TCDC is one of the most effective ways of doing this. In the past we have had Conference Resolutions defining the mandate of FAO in this regard.
However, as pointed out in the paragraph I have just cited, we must indicate our concern that "the work of FAO in these areas had been adversely affected by the limitations of UNDP resources and the difficulty of mobilizing support from other donors. "
If we look at document C 85/8, at page 226, in paragraph 11. 106, there is a reference to the fact that: "Although cooperating governments have made facilities available for inter-country activities and have opened their institutions for the training of nationals from other developing countries, their financial contributions, particularly in convertible currency, cannot for various reasons be expected to meet all the needs. "
The problem is that while developing countries are willing to open their institutions to help other countries in this respect, very often the seed money is lacking. One obvious lack in this respect is the money for international travel. Sometimes some of the weaker institutions have a lack of money for the DSA of trainees who are to be transferred from one country to another. We know that the role of FAO in this regard is essential. With the backing of the headquarters staff which is very well described here, and with the help of the country representatives and the regional offices, FAO can do a lot in promoting this transfer of technology and economic cooperation among developing countries. But as we have said, there is sometimes a lack of a small amount of money so that this vital cooperation in transfer of technology is not being given greater impetus.
Like the delegate of India, I think we should focus our attention on this question in order to determine our priorities in those areas where there is a greater chance of success. There should be a focus on specific issues, on successful examples, otherwise concrete results will be lacking at a later stage; everything will be on paper, but final results will be lacking. We should concentrate on areas which can give concrete results in the sphere of food production, particularly basic foods such as cereals, root crops and the so-called minor crops which are all of essential importance in the diet of many people. We believe the efforts of FAO in this regard, which we commend and which are well documented here, should not be slackened. This is a sphere of activity in which FAO can indicate its own dynamic spirit, perhaps I should say its missionary zeal, because in this matter we need enthusiasm. There is a lot one can do, but it depends a lot on personal initiative. One may have few resources to dispose of, but nevertheless one can see that the potential is great. Therefore, we commend the work done in this respect, but believe that a lot more has to be done. Indeed, it is to be lamented that no greater importance is given to meeting the demand for small amounts of money, which can do a lot in this respect.
For this reason, my delegation supports the creation of a new category in the TCP project expenditures. When we come to that we shall again address ourselves to this matter because small amounts of money can do a lot in transferring technology and fostering economic cooperation, particularly when conditions are similar between developing countries and especially if a country has made a breakthrough in a technology which has been proved to be successful in that country and which can successfully be transferred and learnt by another country.
I should like to conclude by commending the work of FAO in this regard as already indicated in this document, and by asking that the small amounts of money that are required, such as the seed money required for international travel, for the DSA, and so forth, be made available because this will go a long way in promoting cooperation among developing countries.
Ajmal Mahmood QURESHI (Pakistan): First of all, we would commend Mr Shah and Mr Trkulja, Chairman of the Programme Committee, for their clear and succinct presentations of the Review of the Regular Programme contained in comprehensive document C 85/8. It is encouraging to observe that the improvements in the review have been along the lines suggested by the Programme Committee. We discussed this report in greater detail in the autumn session of the Programme Committee in September last, and we are again going to take it up in Commission II at the Conference. Therefore, my delegation will be brief and I will make only a few general comments.
The importance of evaluation in assessing the results of our efforts can hardly be over-emphasized. My delegation appreciates this comprehensive review as a rich source of information bearing on the activities of the Regular Programme of FAO. It is quite analytical and has been undertaken with remarkable candidness. It assesses the progress achieved, and the constraints encountered in the way of progress have been clearly highlighted.
The review of major programmes for agriculture, fisheries and forestry have been quite specific. The four sub-programmes focus on the critical needs of small producers and the poor in the rural setting. Despite several constraints, the review of the research into ECDC and TCDC activities has also been accomplished with considerable success. My delegation also welcomes the inclusion of the systematic review of FAO's support of economic cooperation among developing countries in the forthcoming review of the Regular Programme. This document presented to us also reflects the outstanding contribution by the Secretariat, which aptly needs to be commended for this laudable effort.
G. H. MUSGROVE (Canada): We shall be very brief, bearing in mind that there is ample time to make fuller comment during the Conference itself. We join with others in expressing our gratitude to Mr Shah and Mr Trkulja for the introduction of this item. We would like to say that we were pleased and impressed with the main document and noted the improvements in candour and clarity that it contains.
We will not take time to comment on the substance of the Programme's review but merely comment very briefly on process. It is because we regard the Review of the Regular Programme as one of the most important documents before us, next perhaps to the Programme of Work and Budget itself, that we believe that this Review should document as fully as possible the impact of FAO programmes: arc the activities that we are engaged in improving the global food situation; what adjustments should we be making to improve our effectiveness and our responsiveness to global problems?
Perhaps it is because we attach such great importance to this review exercise that we find ourselves not entirely satisfied with it. We feel that there is a need for more tangible evidence of what has been achieved. We. feel we need to know how the results of the past have influenced the proposals we make for the future, and while we are cognisant that the problems of timing would inhibit this, we feel that there should be a linkage between the review process and the proposals that we make for the future in our programmes of work. It is a cyclical process. We realize that programmes of work and budget are begun halfway through a biennium and earlier, and that the review process by definition cannot be done until things have happened and proposals have been implemented. Nevertheless we feel that it is not impossible to link the review process to some greater extent with the proposal and budgetary process.
In our opinion one of the significant weaknesses in the review is the apparent lack of discipline in the formulation of objectives by not adequately mentioning the ends, the targets, the beneficiaries, or giving clear progress indicators. In our view far too much emphasis is given to statements of quantity of output, such as the number of meetings, the number of networks, the field trials, the number of them held, as opposed to the qualitative impact of such activities. We realize that it is far more difficult to accomplish that end and it is much easier for us to say than it is for the Organization to accomplish. Nevertheless we feel that the root of the evaluation problem stems from failure to define objectives in terms of desired impact and measurable results at the programme proposal stage. In this respect we find that programme proposals as contained in programmes of work and budget are too frequently stated in terms of means rather than the ends. For this reason we would continue to urge some linkage between the review process and the programme proposal process as a contribution to improvement in the overall evaluation process.
Mame Balla SY (Sénégal): En vous remerciant de m'avoir donné la parole, je voudrais à. mon tour joindre ma voix à celle des délégués qui m'ont précédé pour féliciter M. Shah et le Président du Comité du Programme pour l'excellente présentation qu'ils nous ont faite du document CL 88/4. A l'examen de ce document j'ai pu noter qu'il comporte des informations détaillées et complètes sur l'exécut-ion des programme: : concernant l'agriculture, la pêche et les forêts. Il ressort également de ce document que la FAO, malgré une situation économique internationale peu favorable, a accru le volume des activités exécutées, en même temps qu'elle a privilégié l'appui direct aux Etats Membres et le soutien technique des projets de terrain.
Ces considérations générales montrent la ferme volonté de la FAO de donner une plus grande priorité à l'assistance pour le développement agricole et d'accroître l'efficacité de l'utilisation des ressources limitées mises à sa disposition. Cette option qui mérite d'être saluée et appuyée devrait encourager tous les membres à continuer à soutenir les programmes ordinaires de terrain de la FAO en vue de contribuer à l'élimination de la misère et du sous-développement dans le monde.
Ma délégation voudrait se réjouir de l'accent mis sur le programme concernant la protection animale, le rôle des femmes, surtout dans le développement, l'aquaculture et les activités agro-forestières; ces secteurs, vous en conviendrez avec moi, sont très déterminants dans nos efforts communs pour réaliser la sécurité alimentaire. Certes l'on entend très souvent certaine liaison objectifs moyens, en nous demandant quels secteurs privilégier... mais il reste sûr que ce sont ces objectifs qui doivent déterminer les moyens, et je crois que nous avons eu l'occasion ici, d'une manière générale, d'appuyer ces objectifs, et les priorités déterminées par la FAO. On pourrait donc s'étonner qu'on puisse s'abstenir de reconnaître que ce sont les priorités et les objectifs qui déterminent les moyens. Autrement, je vois très mal comment on pourrait atteindre des résultats si on ne met pas en place tous les moyens nécessaires pour réaliser les objectifs sur lesquels nous sommes tombés d'accord.
En conclusion, je voudrais appuyer les conclusions figurant dans ce document et insister pour un rapprochement de l'appui à la coopération économique et technique entre les pays en développement. Les efforts consentis dans ce but sont certes très appréciables, mais ils méritent d'être poursuivis et accentués.
Enfin, pour ce qui est des activités des bureaux régionaux, je voudrais dire, à l'instar d'autres délégations, la Colombie notamment, que les moyens mis à la disposition de ces dernières doivent être renforcés de manière à leur permettre, compte tenu de leur connaissance des réalités locales, d'être plus dynamiques. En attendant de revenir, lors de la réunion de la Commission II de la Conférence, sur toutes ces questions, je formule, en tout cas, le voeu que l'appréciation favorable de la FAO entendue aujourd'hui se traduise plus tard par des décisions conséquentes et concrètes allant dans le sens du renforcement des moyens mis à la disposition de la FAO à laquelle je veux rendre un hommage particulier.
Mohamed DESSOUKI (Egypt) (Original language Arabie): At the outset I would like to thank Mr Shah as well as Mr Trkulja for their excellent presentation of the subject under discussion. I would also like to thank the Secretariat for this well prepared document. We all know that the document as well as the reports of the Programme Committee will be discussed in detail in Commission II of the Conference. This is the reason why I will speak only briefly to some of the programmes that seem to us to be most important within the activities of this Organization.
We support programmes oriented to small farmers because they present the very nerve of production in all developing countries, including Egypt. We welcome the efforts witnessed in livestock programmes, especially those combatting certain diseases in Africa. We would like also to welcome the Organization's efforts to promote and develop research at national, regional and international levels.
Vanrob ISARANKURA (Thailand): First of all, I would like to thank Mr Shah and the Chairman of the Programme Committee for their very lucid introduction of this item. In fact my delegation has several comments on this item but we will have a chance to speak again at the Conference.
To save our time on this occasion we would like to make only one comment, that is, to draw your attention to the role of the FAO representative as described in document C 85/8 on pages 83 and 84. We think that the statement in paragraph 4. 40 makes a conclusion based on an optimistic idea about which we are doubtful, especially the conclusion in the first sentence of this paragraph, which said that the FAO representatives continue to play an important role in project and programme development, and so on. Let us listen to our pessimistic idea. My delegation is very sorry to tell this Council that this is not true in the case of Thailand. The FAO representative does nothing which is said in the first sentence of this paragraph. Instead of helping us to develop the project, the FAO Representative to Thailand has the mandate, we believe, to refuse initially whenever we propose a TCP project.
V. J. SHAH (Director, Office of Programme Budget and Evaluation): I would like first, on behalf of the Director-General, to express our thanks for the level of the debate and the quality of the comments that the Council has seen fit to make on this document. It will never be in the nature of a Secretariat to rest on its laurels, because we serve our Member Nations, but I hope I can speak for the Director-General in saying that we are greatly encouraged by the sort of comments that the Council has made today. The usefulness of this document to the Council and then to the Conference in reviewing our activities, in assessing our activities, in seeing what one delegate called the linkages between the past and the future, are the true purposes of the Review of the Regular Programme.
The Council will allow me. to recall that, in fact, it was the Director-General who started this process, which did not exist before in FAO, eight years ago. My colleagues and I of course follow similar developments in other major organizations and specialized agencies, and I think the Council may also be happy to know that to our knowledge there is not any document in any other organization which quite compares with the Review of the Regular Programme. There are reports prepared, certainly, on what has been done, but there is no attempt made in the same way as we try to do. The Director-General continues to attach importance to these processes, firstly by ensuring that it responds to your needs, secondly by permitting and ensuring the degree of objectivity which you look for, and thirdly, by providing the. guidance and the staff resources for it. I understand he has every intention continuing to do so.
Several comments were made about coordination of evaluation. Indeed, this is something which we have not described in the document but is very much an on-going process. Evaluation activities are coordinated among organizations in a variety of ways. For example, UNDP established a central evaluation unit only two or three years ago. They approached us immediately to ask for our assistance, to learn from our experience, and to get our suggestions.
The UN has a number of evaluation units but it was only last year that the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to establish a central evaluation unit. Here again we were approached by colleagues in the UN who wished to share our own experience. The Joint Inspection Unit has been mentioned, in fact, in addition to their periodic reports on the status of evaluation, the JIU has a meeting every year of the evaluators concerned, not only from organizations in the UN System but also from evaluation units of government departments. We participate in those actively.
Finally, some reference has been made to thematic evaluation which we undertake not only by ourselves but with the countries concerned with UNDP and, in the latest case of aquaculture, with the participation of one member country.
In view of the brevity that you have requested me to ensure, I will not try to respond to individual comments. May I only say that every comment made has been heard and absorbed with the greatest attention and we shall try to reflect the results of these comments in our future efforts.
M. TRKULJA (Chairman, Programme Committee): I will try to match the record set up by Mr Shah. There are two points on which I want to reflect, on which I am obliged to reflect, one is the point raised by our colleague and friend Mr Gonzalo Bula Hoyos, Ambassador of Colombia to FAO. His views were envigorated by some subsequent diversions on the issue of regional offices and their, in fact, slightly declining share, in the overall Regular Programme funds of FAO. Of course, the
logical connotation of the word "nought" is a sort of general agreement with the tendency, and indeed, his interpretation was very correct. The Committee was in fact generally speaking in agreement with a slightly downward turn in the regional offices' share in the Regular Programme. I have to explain why.
First, the Committee was in a position to compare FAO funds spent on additional offices with UN agencies of comparable size. Of course, any straightforward comparison might be even misleading and, in light of that fact, it is really surprising that the share of major UN agencies on regional offices in Regular Programmes fall between a very narrow margin. For example, between 9. 5 and 11 percent. FAO is placed at the end of the list with a share of regional offices of approximately 9. 6 percent.
It declined, in fact, not from 15 percent, it was 15 percent in 1975 when the Conference formally approved a 15 percent share of regional offices, but in 1976 again, it unanimously agreed that it should be lowered to 10 percent. So we are speaking of a very slight tendency from 10 percent in 1975 to 9. 6 percent in the current band.
Secondly, if our note of caution about a highly noticeable downward trend is interpreted as a conceptual agreement on the lowering of regional offices, that impression is definitely wrong. The Committee was fully aware of the overall tendency in the whole system towards more regional and sub-regional cooperation. They are particularly aware of the famous UN Resolution 32/197 on restructuring, and the whole change of subsequent resolutions, all calling for more regional support by all UN systems, including all agencies. But we fully realize that with the establishment of country offices beginning in 1976, part of the funds available to regional offices were, in fact, free for use in other activities, and in that sense, the regional and sub-regional support of FAO has, in fact, increased in the last ten years or so. With this in mind we said, "well, we felt that the tendency of hardly noticeable degrees in the share of funds for regional offices was agreeable. "
Let me add finally, that we got the strong feeling in our very frank exchange of views with the regional heads that they were by and large satisfied with the amount of funds placed at their disposal.
Of course, we have to wait and see what the tendencies will be in the future, but it is surely not the position of the Programme Committee that a tendency of even a very slight downward trend continue indefinitely or will even continue over a medium term. I think I have sufficiently explained the position of the Programme Committee on that issue.
The second point I want to mention very briefly is about women, and I am really very sorry if the brief paragraph which has been incorporated in our report dealing with the women's sub-programme left the impression that we, in a way, routinely passed over the whole matter. It is a totally different situation that prevailed in the Committee. We desperately tried to evade the normal words which are so extensively used on such occasions. I want to assure the Council that the Committee has always given full weight to the problems of women in the whole of the development process. We have always studied very carefully the FAO approach primarily stemming from the Conference on Rural Development. We felt very strongly that the sub-programme has been very well established and that it has passed through logical phases: firstly, to establish a most essential information base and to create awareness about women's issues; secondly, to approach the whole matter within the overall development efforts, and thirdly, to specifically promote targeted activities aimed at improving the position and all other aspects concerning women in rura areas. In that sense, we put very clearly on our report the need for relative future increases in Regular Programme locations for this programme as well as for the whole array, indeed, of activities related to women throughout the various FAO programmes and sub-programmes.
Finally, I would also mention that the machinery aimed at coordinating housewives' efforts in this area is already in place. There is an interdepartmental Working Party on women, which has tried and has been quite successful in coordinating the various activities, the various programmes and the organization units which deal more or less with women's issues.
Róbert SEVCOVIC (Czechoslovakia): I would like to congratulate Mr Shah and the Chairman of the Programme Committee for their excellent introduction. On behalf of our delegation I would like to express satisfaction with the very comprehensive document CL 88/4 which became sufficient and good basis for the discussion about many principal topics during the Twenty-third Conference.
In the document CL 88/4 a great part is devoted to the budgetary methods, and I would like to say very briefly some comments on this item. The FAO Draft Programme and Budget for 1986-87 is in our opinion basically a balanced one, corresponding to the requirements of FAO Member States, particularly developing countries. We believe it is based on rightly set priorities. We are gratified to know concrete steps are being taken by FAO to gradually reduce non-productive costs and we are in favour of additional savings through new fund reduction with non-technical, administrative, or support costs. That is why we welcome their cut by US$ 4. 8 million in favour of an expansion of technical and economic programmes. We may refer here to one of those measures already taken aimed at the gradual reduction in the number of administrative staff despite the growth of 400 anticipated after the 1974 World Food Conference.
As to the Review of Field Programmes 1984-85, we think that document should include the reasons for some deflections of UNDP from the agricultural development programmes, that the causes of decreasing of the UNDP contribution to the agricultural sector. I would like to support the reminder of the distinguished delegate from Venezuela regarding the important role of women in development.
CHAIRMAN: When the item was started there was considerable hesitation on the part of Members to speak and the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom started the "bowling". It has been a prolonged one, nearly two hours of bowling, but I hope we can be brief on the other items.
I am therefore going to refrain from adding my own comments except to say that we can all be proud of what has been accomplished under the Regular Programme documented in C 85/8. I would like to convey my congratulations to the Director-General and Mr Shah and all the staff for the very hard and dedicated work they have put in, and to the Chairman and members of the Programme Committee who have reviewed this in great detail. May I add only one word, since the last part of the debate has been on women. I would like to endorse what the distinguished Council member from Venezuela said. Although there is a coordinating committee, I feel that this is an area which has to transcend purely symbolic action. In other words, we should not be content with the psychological satisfaction that we are doing something. The active participation of women is an area of vital and crucial significance to the future of agriculture. Therefore, I do hope that there could be other mechanisms in addition to on-going ones, at least to share the information on how the role of women in agricultural technology can be enhanced in a location-specific manner.
For example, countries like Japan, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and several other countries have excellent machinery, simple machinery, which can be used by women. When I was in charge of rural development planning in India, I made a review of the flow of institutional credit to women's specific occupations. It was so low, about 3 percent or so, in contrast to a very large percentage to operations done by men. We therefore introduced a simple procedure of adding one whole time officer to every district rural development agency to monitor and facilitate the flow of credit to rural women for enabling them to take to skilled professions. Within a year there was a substantial improvement in the flow of credit to women. I think we have to share ideas and experiences of this kind and really go beyond the stage of just feeling that we are doing something on the subject-so I do share the sentiments of several members here.
R. S. LIGNON (Sous-Directeur general, Département du développement): Comme les années précédentes, le rapport qui vous est soumis sur les programmes de terrain de la FAO est un document qui fournit une analyse globale de la nature et de la tendance du programme, qui procède à une évaluation des activités de terrain, et qui étudie en profondeur un secteur de nos activités.
Je voudrais très brièvement vous présenter ce document. Il est composé de quatre chapitres:
Le premier chapitre est une analyse des tendances que nous avons essayé de montrer dans la mesure du possible par des graphiques que nous avons souhaité être clairs; on peut résumer les grandes lignes de ce chapitre en disant que ce biennium a montré une croissance modeste en ce qui concerne les activités de terrain par rapport au biennium précédent; et il est important de noter que ces activités sont encore à un niveau modeste et inférieur à celui des précédentes années, notamment des six précédentes années.
Toutefois, par rapport au biennium précédent, on peut noter une augmentation sensible des activités de terrain de la FAO, puisqu'elles sont passées de 265 millions et qu'elles s'élèveront au cours de ce biennium (de cette année 1985) à 300 millions de dollars.
Il y a eu des changements significatifs dans les activités de terrain de la FAO; les projets financés par le PNUD sont restés à un niveau relativement stagnant après la chute très aiguë que le PNUD avait subie dans le précédent biennium; d'autre part, il faut noter que la part de la FAO dans les projets financés par le PNUD est passée de 30 pour cent dans les années 70 à 20 pour cent aujourd'hui en dépit de l'évidente priorité que tout le monde s'accorde à donner à l'agriculture et au développement rural; de plus, il faut se rappeler que les activités de la FAO sont essentiellement orientées vers les pays qui sont le plus dans le besoin.
En revanche, à côté de cette stagnation du PNUD, il y a un développement des programmes de fonds fiduciaires, c'est-à-dire de programmes coopératifs entre les gouvernements et la FAO; ceux-ci sont toujours en phase de croissance assez nette et ceci est une réponse généreuse des pays donateurs aux programmes d'action prioritaire de la FAO, puisque la plupart de ces programmes sont étroitement liés à ces programmes d'action.
Il est important de noter qu'une partie de plus en plus grande de ces ressources proviennent de fonds qui ont été accordés à des pays dans le cadre de prêts donnés par la Banque mondiale essentiellement ou de grandes institutions financières. Ceci est important et à noter dans la mesure où, comme vous le savez sans doute, la Banque mondiale est probablement actuellement le plus grand fournisseur, et de loin, d'assistance technique.
Comme vous pourrez le noter, le Programme de coopération technique s'est développé normalement suivant une évolution normale et nous avons essayé de montrer dans ce chapitre comment les activités du Programme de coopération technique sont étroitement imbriquées dans les autres formes de l'assistance de la FAO.
Je voudrais aussi dire un mot sur le rôle des activités du Centre d'investissement qui, malgré les difficultés du renouvellement des ressources et notamment des ressources qui peuvent être fournies à des fonds privilégiés, a été toujours très important.
Parmi les activités qui ont été initiées au cours de cebienniumet plus précisément au cours de cette année, je voudrais rappeler très brièvement le programme de relance de l'agriculture dans 25 pays d'Afrique. Je pense que nous aurons l'occasion au cours de nos discussions sur la situation de l'agriculture en Afrique de revenir sur ce programme. Je voudrais simplement vous dire qu'il s'agit de 25 pays africains qui ont été le plus sévèrement touchés par la sécheresse. Ils représentent 272 projets qui correspondent à un montant total de 250 millions de dollars. Dans l'ensemble de ce programme, on peut considérer que 92 millions de dollars ont déjà été financés par des donateurs bilatéraux, multilatéraux, par des organisations non gouvernementales aussi et, je voudrais souligner, par un certain nombre de pays en développement qui ont déjà participé à l'exécution de ces projets. Il y a un pourcentage important, environ 100 millions de dollars, de projets, qui ont appelé l'attention des donateurs et il reste encore, pour financer globalement et de façon définitive ce programme, 53 millions de dollars.
Dans le chapitre deux qui est particulièrement important dans cette revue, nous avons procédé à une évaluation de l'activité des programmes de terrain de la FAO au travers de deux approches: la première est une évaluation qualitative que nous avons demandée aux représentants de la FAO sur le terrain et vous pourrez dans ce chapitre voir les commentaires qui ont été relevés par les représentants de la FAO à propos des projets qui se situent dans leur pays. Cette évaluation qualitative des représentants de la FAO a porté sur environ 1 200 projets et des projets de toute nature. A côté de cette évaluation qualitative, disons plus subjective, nous avons procédé à une synthèse des activités de l'unité d'évaluation et le document présente la synthèse de l'évaluation de 220 projets sur une période de quatre ans et non pas sur simplement le biennium, ce qui permet de tirer des conclusions quelquefois plus claires et en tous cas sûrement plus précises, surtout que ces 220 projets sont des projets de grande dimension, en général financés par le PNUD pour une grande partie et qui ont surtout un caractère multisectoriel donc complexe.
Je n'entrerai pas dans le détail de ces évaluations qui sont décrites tout au long du chapitre deux, mais nous avons essayé de procéder à une analyse franche et objective en montrant les déficiences et les résultats positifs obtenus globalement. On peut dire que le programme de terrain de la FAO est en voie permanente d'amélioration, de perfectionnement, et nous pensons que, grâce à un système d'informatisation du cycle des projets, nous arriverons à maîtriser encore mieux le contrôle et la surveillance des programmes de terrain, ce qui constitue, comme vous pouvez le penser, un souci permanent de l'Organisation et notamment au travers du Comité des programmes de terrain qui se réunit périodiquement pour procéder à une évaluation continue des activités en cours.
Le troisième chapitre est consacré à une étude sur le développement forestier. Nous avons choisi cette année les problèmes forestiers d'une part parce que c'était l'année internationale de la forêt, d'autre part parce qu'il y avait la Conférence mondiale des forêts à Mexico et aussi et surtout parce que les problèmes forestiers prennent une importance de plus en plus grande dans les activités de terrain au travers d'un certain nombre d'interventions qui tournent autour de plusieurs thèmes, notamment celui du rôle de la forêt dans le développement rural, du rôle de la forêt dans la préservation des ressources et de l'utilisation de l'énergie et de la lutte contre la désertification.
Je pense qu'on peut noter que, dans ce cadre-là, le Centre d'investissement a permis à la FAO de préparer des projets qui ont été financés par la Banque et, depuis la création du Centre, plus de 2 milliards de dollars ont été investis dans des programmes forestiers par le financement des banques, des institutions financières internationales sur la base de projets préparés par le Centre d'investissement.
Le chapitre quatre de la revue est un chapitre dans lequel on essaye de voir les principales évolutions du programme de terrain au cours des années récentes. Nous avons insisté sur un certain nombre de sujets comme par exemple l'application des nouvelles dimensions, c'est-à-dire l'utilisation plus grande du personnel local. Plus de 430 projets de la FAO sont dirigés par des directeurs nationaux. L'évolution s'est faite aussi dans le domaine de la formation en essayant d'adapter nos programmes de formation à des activités très opérationnelles au niveau de la production du terrain et de la production elle-même.
Enfin, je crois qu'il faut parler du rôle des gouvernements dans l'effort que nous faisons pour améliorer notre programme de terrain; je pense que vous verrez dans ce document que nous avons particulièrement insisté sur le suivi du projet. Je pense que c'est un secteur particulièrement important et que dans le cadre des nouvelles dimensions, la participation du personnel local, l'association plus étroite de nos projets avec des institutions solides dans le pays permettent et permettront de plus en plus d'améliorer le suivi de nos projets.
Voilà ce que je désirais dire. Je ne vous ai pas parlé de la coopération technique entre pays en développement mais vous verrez que ce souci, cette préoccupation est constante tout au long du document. Elle ne fait pas l'objet d'un chapitre particulier mais elle est sous-jacente tout au long de l'analyse faite au cours de ces quatre chapitres. Nous avons essayé d'être concis et clairs et je me tiens maintenant à la disposition de tous les délégués s'ils ont des questions complémentaires à poser.
Amin ABDEL-MALEK (Liban) (l angue originale arabe): Tout d'abord, je voudrais remercier M. Lignon pour le brillant exposé qu'il a fait au sujet des programmes de terrain pour la période 1984-1985. Je voudrais également remercier tous les fonctionnaires qui ont contribué à la réussite de ce programme. J'avais eu l'occasion en tant que membre du Comité du programme de discuter de cette question, mais j'ai l'honneur actuellement d'en parler en tant que représentant du Liban au sein du Conseil. Après avoir pris connaissance des documents relatifs aux programmes de terrain 1984-1985, nous avons été heureux de constater l'augmentation du niveau des activités financées par des fonds fiduciaires et que les dépenses qui étaient de 269 millions en 1984 se sont élevées à 300 millions de dollars en 1985. Cela est dû aux dispositions bilatérales et multilatérales prises avec les pays industriels donateurs et à l'augmentation de la participation de la FAO dans l'exécution des projets financés par les ressources des pays bénéficiaires eux-mêmes. Nous sommes également heureux de constater que la part réservée aux opérations de terrain en Afrique a augmenté au cours de cette même période et représente ainsi près de 40 pour cent des montants affectés à ces projets. Nous avons constaté avec satisfaction le rôle accru de l'assistance dans le domaine des forêts et que le niveau de cette assistance a augmenté d'une manière continue depuis les années 70, en raison du rôle important des forêts dans l'augmentation de la production agricole, l'amélioration de l'environnement, le développement rural, l'utilisation du bois de chauffage, la lutte contre la désertification et autres.
La délégation libanaise ne peut qu'exprimer sa considération pour les efforts de la FAO dans l'exécution des programmes de terrain au cours de l'année écoulée ainsi qu'au cours des quatre dernières années, mais elle voudrait cependant faire quelques observations à ce sujet.
En ce qui concerne les dépenses extrabudgétaires, affectées aux projets de terrain, nous demandons quelle est la raison de la diminution des assistances fournies par la FAO pour la promotion des récoltes et leur amélioration, assistances qui étaient de 29 pour cent et qui ne sont plus que de 26 pour cent maintenant. En 1982-1983, elles s'élevaient à 144 millions de dollars alors qu'en 1984-1985 elles se sont limitées à 134 millions de dollars bien que ce soit là un des plus importants domaines auxquels s'intéresse la FAO.
Nous nous demandons également quelle est la raison ou quelles sont les raisons de la non-augmentation substantielle des assistances affectées au domaine des pêches, bien que la FAO déploie tous ses efforts pour développer les ressources halieutiques, considérées comme un élément fondamental de la nutrition humaine, et qui contribuent grandement à combler les carences de la production alimentaire. Cette augmentation n'a représenté que deux millions de dollars en 1984-1985, soit 57 millions au lieu de 55 millions affectés en 1982-1983. Il ressort d'autre part du tableau V/1 concernant les principales dépenses extrabudgétaires pour les projets de terrain en 1984 que le pourcentage affecté aux experts et consultants est toujours élevé par rapport aux affectations concernant le matériel et la formation, bien que le nombre des experts de terrain ait été réduit et que leur nombre actuel soit de 1500 experts, soit 125 experts de moins que ce que la FAO comptait en 1984, étant entendu que nous accordons une grande importance à la formation. Nous espérons que ce programme poursuivra sa mission en améliorant la situation agricole dans les différents pays en développement et nous croyons que les responsables voudront bien tenir compte des observations que nous avons faites à ce sujet.
John GLISTRUP (Denmark): Since we will have the opportunity to make more detailed comments on the document now before us during the Review of Field Programmes 1984-1985 at the Conference, I will at this stage limit myself to a couple of general remarks based on my country's own experience with the field programme in recent years. The support for agriculture and rural development has always been an important feature of Danish development policy, and Denmark has for a number of years been among the largest Trust Fund donors of the Field Programme. Although we in the coming years probably will maintain our position as a major contributor to the FAO Field Programme, we do not foresee at this time any increase in our contribution. The freeze on our contribution to the FAO Field Programme has to do with the fact that Denmark's increasing development fund in accordance with a recent cabinet decision in the coming years will be channelled through other multilateral organizations, for example WFP, IFAD, UNDP and UNICEF. As we have stressed several times during our discussions with FAO on Trust Fund arrangements, we believe that there is a need for greater coordination between the FAO projects and other donors operating in the country in question, as well as for the FAO to establish a clear-cut order of priority when submitting project proposals for donor consideration.
Another point to which we often have drawn the attention of the FAO is the need for more extensive use of independent evaluations of FAO projects funded through trust funds. We consider such independent evaluations to be of paramount importance in enhancing the efficiency and impact of the field programme, and we have recently funded an evaluation of the FAO fertilizer programme.
Finally, my country has a strong commitment to the improvement of living conditions for women in developing countries through their active participation in the development process. In spite of our stated preference in this respect, we have noted with some regret that the projects submitted for our consideration by FAO often have lacked clear indications as to how the projects would benefit women.
Horacio MALTEZ (Panamá): Nuestro país no sólo presta particular atención al alcance de las actividades operacionales de la FAO sino que se interesa también en forma especial en su contenido, siguiendo muy de cerca sus tendencias y prioridades. Es dentro de este contexto que hacemos una breve y global referencia a los documentos CL 88|8 y CL 88|4 con algunas consideraciones al Programa Ordinario ya que debido a sus estrechos vínculos, sería prácticamente imposible referirnos a los programas de campo sin tocar algunos aspectos del primero, así como en general de los efectos del presupuesto sobre los programas.
A este respecto, la Delegación de Panamá desea, en primer lugar, reiterar una vez más su firme rechazo tanto al crecimiento cero como al crecimiento simbólico propugnado por algunos países, así como también expresar su preocupación por la tendencia generalizada de reducir la asistencia internacional en condiciones de favor o no para el sector agrícola, y en manera particular hacia aquellos organismos que como la FAO practican la acción multilateral. Dentro de este marco de referencias, y a pesar de la moderada recuperación experimentada durante el presente bienio, nos preocupa el volumen que las actividades de los programas de campo de la FAO puedan prestar a las crecientes necesidades y demandas de los países en desarrollo, especialmente en Africa. Motivo de particular preocupación en este sentido son las sensibles reducciones que desde 1981 se han venido registrando sucesivamente en la cuantía de los recursos del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo, PNUD, asignadas para asistencia técnica en alimentación y agricultura, tal como se señala en el Capítulo I, en los párrafos 1. 4 a 1. 7.
Nuestra delegación ha prestado particular atención a los aspectos relacionados con la importancia creciente de los fondos fiduciarios en los programas ejecutados por la FAO, y que se consideran principalmente en los párrafos 1. 16, 1. 17 y 1. 18. A este propósito, desea evidenciar la manera con que la asistencia técnica prestada por parte de la FAO financiada con dichos fondos se ha ampliado. En efecto, la misma ha aumentado al punto de representar en la actualidad el mayor porcentaje de los recursos extrapresupuestarios que la FAO destina a actividades de campo. Al respecto deseamos expresar nuestra satisfacción ya que la disponibilidad de tal apoyo permite por lo menos la continuidad de la asistencia técnica vital en muchos sectores prioritarios afectados por la reducción de los programas FAO|PNUD, y le proporciona también la flexibilidad para responder a importantes necesidades de asistencia técnica y cooperación técnica que van surgiendo, tal como se indica en el párrafo 1. 15.
Por cuanto se refiere al Programa de Cooperación Técnica (PCT), la Delegación de Panamá comparte plenamente lo expresado en el párrafo 1. 28 en el sentido de que dicho Programa es un medio importante para encauzar la asistencia y el apoyo técnico de la FAO en los países en desarrollo, y que satisface en forma rápida y eficaz, agregamos nosotros, las necesidades urgentes y no programadas, así como en algunos casos la ayuda de urgencia.
Deseamos en este contexto expresar el enorme valor que nuestro Gobierno concede al PCT así como nuestro más decidido apoyo al Programa, su contenido, sus tendencias y prioridades. Mayores consideraciones haremos sobre este asunto en la discusión del tema 8.
Nuestra delegación, aun reconociendo y apoyando en general las prioridades asignadas a otras regiones y en particular la de Africa, desea manifestar su preocupación por la situación de nuestra Región, América Latina y el Caribe, en lo que respecta a la distribución de las asignaciones para los proyectos de campo de la FAO, como puede apreciarse en el gráfico 1, en el cuadro 1 y 3 en el cual se muestra la disminución progresiva de dichas asignaciones para nuestra Región.
Con relación al Capítulo II, estimamos oportuno y en forma global apoyar la resultados de la evaluación sobre la realización de los programas de campo, indicando que compartimos gran parte de sus conclusiones. Asimismo compartimos y apoyamos en general los resultados del estudio especial sobre las actividades forestales de la FAO que se nos presenta en el Capítulo III.
Para terminar, nuestra delegación no puede dejar pasar la ocasión sin agradecer al señor Lignon por su magnífica introducción al tema que nos ocupa.
Michael A. COMMINS (Australia): In our view, the report represents a fair and frank assessment of areas of FAO operational activities. As explained by Mr Lignon in his very lucid and helpful introduction, the analysis in the report is based on two different approaches. Assessments by FAO Representatives, which in the apparent absence of verifiable objectives of project performance and the necessary degree of detachment, as suggested in the report, can only act as insights into achievements and weaknesses, common problems and so on. A more detailed synthesis of reports and independent evaluation missions carried out by the FAO evaluation service force is in our view a more systematic and coherent approach to the exercise. Predictably, the former approach indicates a better level of performance than the latter method.
The problems of FAO seem to us to relate to the more complex multifunctional projects which Mr Lignon touched upon in his introduction. Also, without wishing to labour performance figures, it is apparent from our reading of the review that there continue to be weaknesses in the field programmes of FAO.
The basic problem which has affected all development agencies, including Australia's, is the apparent lack in FAO of an appropriate framework for project planning and implementation. This is sometimes known as the project planning and planning cycle and covers systems needed to organize multi-purpose and multifunctional development programmes from the initial identification on function stage to the final follow-up and analysis of action stage. Cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness is an integral part of this process and special stress is placed on appropriate project design and monitoring, which are usually the main factors hindering the attainment of project objectives.
From our reading of the report, it acknowledges the deficiencies in a number of these interrelated parts of the project cycle, but perhaps falls short of making comprehensive recommendations concerning specific ways of overcoming them. In this regard we note from the Programme of Work and Budget that there is virtually no increase for evaluation in the 1986-87 programme.
Delegations will be aware of the four principle functions of FAO, which were set out succinctly in the introductory statement of the Director-General to the 1986-87 Programme of Work and Budget. Without wishing to prolong the matter, I would just like to recall them for the benefit of this meeting. The four functions are: first, as a collector and purveyor of information; second, as a centre for policy analysis; third, as a forum for intergovernmental discussion; and fourth, as a provider of technical assistance at the field level and mobilizer of investment and aid.
In our view, the balance in the emphasis on activities requires examination, particularly in the growth of the TCP, and the field programmes generally need to be justified in terms of well-defined objectives and detailed evaluations of their impact, rather than vague generalizations about promoting development and alleviating hunger.
We also need, we would suggest, to consider whether the present structure of FAO enables it to deliver its field activities in the most efficient and cost-effective way. We will seek to expand upon these themes during discussion in the Conference. With regard to the role of FAO in development activities, we would like to share our experience of the handling by FAO of field projects funded in Australia under trust fund arrangements.
Fotis G. POULIDES (Cyprus): First of all, I wish to thank Mr Lignon for his concise and clear introduction of this very important subject. Cyprus was not in the sample of countries studied by the consultants in assessing the performance of the TCP. Therefore, we would like to add
our satisfaction with the way the programme has assisted my country to meet some unforeseen and urgent requirements. More than once we requested and received assistance from the TCP in order to control disaster outbreaks or possible shortcomings in relation to the Government's development efforts.
Since its inception in 1976 the TCP has twice reviewed and evaluated the positive conclusions of the first review of 1978, followed by positive conclusions and the evaluation carried out by the commission of free, independent, senior consultants. This evaluation is presently under review. In consulting 16 countries, the consultants covered satisfactory geographic regions. The sample of almost 500 projects evaluated representing about 20 percent of the total number of approved projects, might be considered adequate, and their conclusions can be generalized. It has to be underlined, however, that the vital importance of the programme and its usefulness to developing countries is well illustrated by the number of requests for assistance received by the Organization since the inception of the programme. From the data provided by the consultants we see that the number of requests has steadily increased from 241 in 1978 to 592 in 1984, with a present total of 3 017 requests. Out of these, 2 441 have been approved, which means that at least one project is approved every working day. Since the number of requests is steadily increasing, we fully endorse the recommendation of the consultants that adequate resources should be available to the Organization so that it can continue to meet the demand for quick assistance to Member Nations, with strict application of the TCP criteria. The allocation of approved projects as given on pages 33 and 34 indicates the relatively favourable treatment of the African countries and the least developed countries, and meets with our approval. In this respect we support recommendation 27 on page 77 that the TCP should continue to pay special attention to the most needy countries in allocating these approvals.
Following the first review of the programme, several proposals were made aiming at further improvement of the performance of the programme in regard to action, including regional and inter-regional projects as appropriate in regard to TCP, a more liberal interpretation of the investment category, flexibility, time limits and formulation of categories of action. These have been approved by Resolution 1/74 of the Council. Following the analyses of the consultants one can realise that their introduction was of vital importance to the future operation of this programme.
In the present review, the consultants make a number of proposals and recommendations for further improvement of the programme, either in order to face new challenges or to solve problems which have arisen. Recommendation 21 calls for a review upwards of the ceiling for project costs. The consultants recommended that the present limit of US $250 000 be raised to US $400 000 per project. The justification of that recommendation is mainly inflation.
My delegation fully supports these recommendations. It might be suggested that since the present ceiling of project costs has not been an issue up to now-there is no need for it to be increased, but we believe we should be flexible. Approving and increasing the ceiling should not mean that all approved projects would reach this same limit. The result of the present analysis indicated a much lower figure represents the average of approved projects, but we believe that if the need arises the Director-General should be free to approve such projects.
The next recommendation we would like to address is Recommendation 16 in which the consultants suggest that a new category C should be established for projects capitalizing inter-country cooperation, ECDC/TCDC research networks, twinning of institutions of two developing countries or the twinning of an institution in a developed country with one in a developing country. The importance of ECDC and TCDC cannot be over emphasized. Few examples of TCDC are mentioned in the present review like the biogas training course to China from Latin American countries and the audio-visual technology passing from Peru to Brazil and which is now transferred to Korea. These are things which should be promoted by all the means available to us, and we fully endorse them.
We also support paragraphs 59 and 60 of document CL 88/8 to the effect that interested governments, particularly those of developing countries, should keep FAO informed of the availability and experience of experts engaging in TCDC activities, plus their release for potential TCDC assignments. The recipient governments should "consider the possibility of renouncing the formal practise of clearance of TCP experts and consultants of up to three months duration"-that is as set out in paragraph 60.
Finally, we recommend the Director-General for the action he has already taken, or is planning to take, as outlined in paragraph 93 of the document under All these measures aim at maintaining a quick response and flexibility of the programme, characteristics which make the TCP distinctive and unique.
CHAIRMAN: You have already moved into the next item, item 8, but we will take your comments as referring to that item.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): El señor Lignon, Jefe del Departamento de Desarrollo, presentó muy bien el tema. Apoyamos a nuestro colega y amigo de Panamá en relación con el hecho de que dentro del necesario equilibrio regional se siga concediendo a América Latina y el Caribe la asistencia necesaria en materia de actividades de campo. Igualmente estamos de acuerdo con la declaración que hizo nuestro colega Poulides, Embajador de Chipre. Creemos que en realidad se han logrado notables mejoras en las actividades de campo, que ha progresado mucho la escogencia de los expertos que ahora tienen muy alta calidad, y sobre todo los proyectos corresponden a las prioridades fijadas por los gobiernos.
Igualmente destacamos la cooperación de la FAO en el incremento de la cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo. Vamos a limitar nuestras observaciones al Informe del Comité del Programa, cuyo párrafo 2. 45 contiene elementos inquietantes en relación con la constante disminución de la participación de la FAO en los proyectos financiados por el PNUD. El Sr. Lignon dijo que en los años 70 cuando esa participación era el 30 por ciento, ha descendido ahora al 20 por ciento. Esto debe preocuparnos sobre todo a la luz del hecho evidente de que también en los propios recursos del PNUD han venido disminuyendo.
La delegación de Colombia piensa que todo esto hace parte de lo que han venido sosteniendo los representantes de nuestro país sobre la existencia de una crisis profunda en la cooperación multilateral que afecta gravemente a los países en desarrollo. Pensamos que los distinguidos colegas miembros del Comité del Programa en el párrafo 2. 45 fueron muy tímidos y excesivamente diplomáticos. En efecto, después de señalar en ese párrafo esa constante disminución, luego en la frase final dicen que a ese respecto el Comité examinó varias novedades en el PNUD; cuando uno examina novedades se supone que se obtienen conclusiones o que surgen recomendaciones. Por ello pasamos con ansia al párrafo 2. 46, para saber cuáles eran las reacciones del Comité del Programa y notamos con sorpresa que ya en el párrafo 2. 46 se hablaba de los fondos fiduciarios. Mi amigo el Profesor Trkulja Sabe que yo cuando planteo cuestiones relacionadas con el Comité que él preside de manera tan competente, no lo hago en actitud crítica negativa, sino más bien inspirado en el deseo de ofrecer a él y a los miembros del Comité del Programa, oportunidades para que confirmen la importancia de ese Comité. Por esta razón quiero preguntar, Sr. Presidente, por conducto suyo, sea al Sr. Lignon o al Sr. Trkulja, dos hechos concretos: primero, si en relación con la constante disminución de la participación de la FAO en los proyectos del PNUD, hay una incidencia, hay una relación directa con el hecho de haberse creado en el PNUD la oficina de ejecución de proyectos y el servicio de recursos humanos y preparación de proyectos. Pensamos que eso ha debido decirlo el Comité del Programa en su Informe, muy lacónico.
Una segunda pregunta, durante muchos años la FAO era el primer organismo de ejecución de proyectos agrícolas con recursos provenientes del PNUD. Ahora, a raíz de la creación de esos organismos del PNUD, de la disminución de la participación de la FAO ¿sigue aún nuestra Organización ocupando ese lugar prominente o ha sido desplazada?
Afortunadamente, nos conforta el párrafo 2. 46, donde se habla del aumento de las actividades financiadas con fondos fiduciarios, destacamos siempre la participación altruista y generosa de los países nórdicos en esos fondos fiduciarios. Tomamos nota de la reciente declaración del colega John Glistrup de Dinamarca, y esperamos que más adelante esa actitud de espera de Dinamarca y otros países nórdicos va a ser modificada en relación con aumentos futuros a los Fondos Fiduciarios.
Confiamos también en que la preocupación del distinguido colega de Dinamarca sobre la función de la mujer va a ser disipada por las declaraciones constantes y profundamente feministas de nuestra distinguida colega y amiga, la Embajadora Fermín de Venezuela.
Creo, que este Consejo debe destacar un hecho importante que aparece en el párrafo 2. 46 y es el de que los propios países beneficiarios ahora estamos obteniendo fondos fiduciarios para la ejecución de los proyectos. Esto se recoge también en el párrafo 2. 50.
Creo que el Consejo debe destacar este propio esfuerzo de los países beneficiarios. Desgraciadamente no son suficientes esos esfuerzos y seguimos dependiendo de la asistencia externa que suele negársenos en muchas ocasiones. Igualmente el párrafo 2. 50 contiene un elemento importante y es el crecimiento del empleo de directores de proyectos y expertos nacionales. Nos parece que el Comité del Programa debe estimular el incremento de esa práctica porque constituye un beneficio para la capacitación de los elementos nacionales de los países beneficiarios y así, gradualmente, podremos ir liberándonos de la dependencia que antes teníamos de los expertos provenientes generalmente de los países desarrollados.
A la delegación de Colombia le preocupa el párrafo 2. 46 en cuanto al hecho de que hay una lamentable disminución de los recursos disponibles para el desarrollo agrícola en condiciones de favor y decimos que nos preocupa porque esa situación afecta esencialmente a los países menos desarrollados, a los países más gravemente afectados. El Consejo debe acoger esa manifestación del Comité del Programa y lamentar esos hechos en nuestro Informe. Afortunadamente el Centro de Inversiones lleva a cabo una labor encomiable que debemos apoyar.
Finalmente, en el párrafo 2. 47 la Delegación de Colombia apoya la prioridad para el Africa sub-sahariana y sobre todo para el programa de rehabilitación de la agricultura en Africa, si bien la ayuda alimentaria tiene beneficios temporales, el futuro de la economía y de la vida de los países de Africa dependen del aumento de la propia producción agrícola en los países africanos.
R. MAC INTOSH (Canada): We would like to thank Mr Lignon for his very concise and helpful summary of the documents, and we also very much welcome the spirit in which his account was delivered, which is a spirit we think which pervades much of the document, that is, that programmes can always be improved.
We noted the comments of our colleagues from Australia on the problems faced in managing field programmes and on the problems of evaluating those programmes. I think the most important point that was made is that the problems are not unique to FAO, they affect all development assistance and development cooperation agencies.
We think that in approaching any document of evaluation, its usefulness is dictated primarily by three considerations: the degree of candour which it demonstrates in describing problems that are encountered in project management and in explaining the reasons for those problems; secondly, the amount of objective as distinct from subjective information which is contained in the evaluation; and thirdly, the degree of procession in identifying the areas for improvement.
The question of candour is sometimes a delicate one. We think that it need not be so. There is a tendency among all agencies of international cooperation to be a little defensive at times. The real task of evaluation, however, is not to criticize for its own sake but to suggest a better way. As such it is not a matter of admitting shortcomings but of expressing confidence in our ability to overcome them.
We are very much pleased that FAO is not only taking the evaluation process more seriously than perhaps it did in the past, but there is an improvement in the degree of candour in describing the problems that they have encountered. We are not always convinced, however, that the reasons for these problems are as thoroughly and as frankly explored as they might be.
Much has been made of the uneven flow of extra-budgetary resources. It is probable that the argument is true, that this results from a proliferation of international agencies, but it also reflects the degree of confidence that donors, whether they are multilateral or bilateral, will have in a given agency.
In the case of FAO, it is important that FAO is and is seen to be a cost-effective mechanism for delivering technical assistance. Should it not be so regarded I am afraid that FAO's share of extra-budgetary resources delivered through the UN System or through bilateral channels may decline.
At the level of programme evaluation we think it reflects very well on FAO and on the document that they recognise the problems of government involvement and the problems of transfer of skills. Sometimes, though, we found the analysis of the weaknesses to be a little limited in scope. Sometimes the focus was on governments' performance in project support, certainly important, but we felt it should be balanced by a greater appreciation of the policy environment for implementation and follow-up.
The second theme is that of the objectivity of the information presented. We wonder if the problems that the review very frankly describes are always or primarily the lack of hard statistica. measurements of project output and follow-up economic performance, or are they a reflection, in part of the use of criteria which can lend itself to subjective rather than to objective assessments. We are inclined to agree with the assessment elsewhere in the review that there are problems in fully assessing technical cooperation within the timeframe provided by one FAO biennium. But we also believe that there has to be greater rigour in finding and presenting data. Perhaps a good start might be a firmly and clearly understood definition of the term 'project output' or 'output targets', something which we regret is not very evident from the present review.
On the question of identifying the areas for improvement, we are impressed by the section beginning on page 57 entitled 'Concluding remarks'. As mentioned earlier, we feel that broader account should be taken of the policy environment in the recipient country as a determinant of the amount and quality of project follow-up. Nevertheless, the review's recognition of the importance of organizational and manpower constraints is important and we hope that these factors in the spirit of trying constantly to improve projects will be taken into fuller account, not only at the time of project completion or in the process of implementing projects but at the time of appraisal and design.
Ajmal Mahmood QURESHI (Pakistan): We welcome the document bearing on the Review of Field Programme undertaken by FAO in the preceding biennium 1984-85. We would also like to commend Mr Lignon for his brief and brilliant exposition of the document before us. We are conscious that during our deliberations in Commission II of the Conference we will have an opportunity to comment in much greater detail. Besides, we have already held in-depth discussions on this document in the last session of the Programme Committee. Therefore I will confine myself to only a few general observations.
The importance of external assistance to the agricultural sector in the cause of promoting food and agriculture development is indeed critical. Resource is a big constraint in the way of the developing countries to give an impetus to their agricultural promotion policies and programmes.
It is indeed disheartening for my delegation to note the decline for the third consecutive year in the funds made available by UNDP to the agricultural sector. The stagnation in the UNDP funding has however been more than compensated for by the rise in assistance forthcoming under a trust fund programme.
It is indeed a matter of great satisfaction for us to note that the total delivery of all field programmes is expected to rise from US$269 million in 1984 to nearly US$300 million in 1985.
The generous initiatives of donor countries and their increasing trust in FAO to undertake a larger number of projects and to develop the agricultural and food production in the needy member countries of this Organization is indeed appreciated. We also appreciate the first of the programmes on Africa, where the need for assistance is the greatest, in their present hour of great trial and tribulation. We also commend the Director-General for the imaginative initiative he has launched in developing a special programme of urgent agricultural rehabilitation projects for African countries experiencing acute food shortages. We also welcome the emphasis on TCDC and linkages of forestry with world food security.
My delegation would wish to express the hope that the new dimension will not only be continued but further strengthened to utilize the talent available in the developing countries.
Lastly, we would like to place on record our appreciation for the good work being carried out by the Investment Centre. We congratulate the Investment Centre for its collaboration with IBRD and IDA, regional development banks, IFAD and various other development finance institutions.
Mohamed Mazlan bin JUSOH (Malaysia): First of all we would like to thank Mr Lignon for his comprehensive introduction of the agenda item. We feel that FAO must be commended for preparing this frank review of its field programmes.
However, due to the constraints in time I will be most brief and confine my comments to just a very few points. We are particularly concerned about the downward trend of the FAO Field Programme due to the decline in UNDP funding, and also about the ever-increasing costs of inputs needed for projects. Due to this lack of funding my delegation feels that projects should be carefully selected, and efforts should be made to ensure their success. We would urge the recipient governments to consider the importance of continued total commitment to ensure successful implementation and impact. This is in view of the problems as pointed out in the review relating to some on-going activities. We hope that participating governments and FAO's own field officers take all the necessary remedial measures to correct the weaknesses. Future programmes should also be implemented only after careful planning and study.
Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): My delegation appreciates the efforts of FAO to put the evaluation of field projects on an as broad as possible basis. In addition to the Joint Evaluation Miss ions, with UNDP, Trust Fund donors as well as with recipient countries a great number of FAO field projects were examined in the field by FAO representatives. We welcome the frankness with which the results are grouped into categories such as good, satisfactory and not satisfactory. We feel that these efforts to assess FAO field work should be further increased. This could primarily be done by independent external evaluation through JIU which is responsible for evaluation in the UN System. We have noted with satisfaction that the volume of FAO field programmes in 1984-85 has slightly increased compared to the biennium 1982-83.
My country is granting bilateral aid through its own development agencies. Rural development has a great share in this bilateral aid, increasing continuously in the last few years from 20. 6 percent of Government pledges within the framework of financial and technical cooperation in 1982 to 26 percent in 1984.
Jean-Pol NEME (France): La delegation française tient tout d' abord à féliciter M. Lignon pour l'excellente présentation qu'il nous a faite ainsi que pour la qualité du document qui nous est présenté. Nous appuyons tout particulièrement le fait que l'Afrique ait absorbé une part croissante des activités de terrain de la FAO et qui s'est élevée à environ 40 pour cent des dépenses pour les projets au cours du présent exercice. Et nous espérons vivement, comme le mentionne le document, que ce pourcentage augmentera encore au cours du prochain exercice biennal en raison des mesures spéciales qui ont été prises pour aider les gouvernements africains à faire face à la crise alimentaire qui frappe ce continent.
Comme l'a rappelé M. Lignon dans son introduction, plus de 92 millions de dollars sur un total de 250 millions de dollars ont déjà été financés par divers donateurs, dont la France, pour le Programme spécial de relèvement de l'agriculture dans 25 pays africains les plus touchés par la sécheresse.
Nous ne pouvons que nous féliciter de ce résultat remarquable qui a été obtenu dans un délai record.
En revanche nous ne pouvons que regretter que la part de la FAO dans les projets financés par le PNUD soit tombée de 30 à 20 pour cent au cours des dernières années alors que le développement agricole et forestier a été unanimement reconnu comme la première priorité pour les pays en développement.
En ce qui concerne le chapitre II nous appuyons la remarque du document concernant la nécessité d'accorder une attention particulière à la conception et à la mise en oeuvre des grands projets multidisciplinaires car les projets plus courts et moins ambitieux s'avèrent souvent plus efficaces.
En outre, en ce qui concerne les activités forestières, nous considérons que les projets forestiers devraient recevoir à l'avenir une priorité accrue tout particulièrement pour la lutte contre la désertification en Afrique.
Pour sa part, mon gouvernement concentre actuellement son effort d'assistance dans ce domaine en dégageant des ressources supplémentaires à cet effet. En particulier, dans le cadre de notre contribution volontaire au fonds fiduciaire de la FAO, notre effort porte actuellement en priorité sur les projets forestiers, notamment sur l'amélioration de la fixation symbiotique de l'azote des essences forestières.
Enfin, nous tenons à appuyer vivement les paragraphes 3. 116 et 3. 117 du document qui soulignent la nécessité d'associer très étroitement les activités d'investissement du Centre d'investissement de la FAO avec l'assistance technique forestière assurée par l'Organisation. Cette association s'effectue à deux niveaux:
- d'une part par l'identification des possibilités d'investissements complémentaires lors du suivi des projets de terrain de la FAO; et
- d'autre part par l'assistance technique apportée par la FAO dans de nombreux programmes d'investissements forestiers.
Je ne m'étendrai pas davantage à ce stade en me réservant la possibilité de revenir sur ces différents points plus en détail lors de l'examen de ce document par la Conférence.
R. S. LIGNON (Sous-Directeur général, Département du développement): Je serai très bref dans mes réponses. Je voudrais simplement remercier les délégués de cet échange de vues extrêmement fructueux dont j'ai pris soigneusement note. Je pense que beaucoup de suggestions, de commentaires qui ont été faits, seront pris en compte, vous pouvez en être assurés.
Je voudrais très brièvement répondre à deux questions évoquées par plusieurs délégués. La part des activités de la FAO financées par le PNUD est en décroissance, bien sûr, parce qu'il y a eu la création du Bureau des opérations dans le cadre du PNUD et que cette part a grandi ces derniers temps. Mais il y a aussi le fait qu'un certain nombre d'autres fonds, que d'autres institutions satellites ont été créées et que beaucoup d'entre elles s'occupent plus ou moins de l'agriculture. Je pense en revanche que le Programme des fonds fiduciaires de la FAO est en augmentation et ce fait montre que les pays donateurs d'une, part font confiance à la FAO pour exécuter ces projets malgré les insuffisances que l'on peut constater dans un programme aussi vaste, mais aussi parce que je crois qu'ils ont le souci de mieux orienter leurs ressources vers des activités qui leur paraissent, à eux, importantes, par exemple les femmes dans le développement pour les pays nordiques, et le rôle de la forêt dans les activités communautaires.
Deuxièmement, remarque au sujet du rôle du transfert des technologies et de l'utilisation du personnel local. Bien sûr, je crois que nous faisons un effort de plus de 40 pour cent actuellement concernant les experts qui sont sur le terrain et qui proviennent de pays en voie de développement. Mais je crois aussi que ce qu'il faut prendre en compte c'est le fait que non seulement il y a des individus mais aussi des institutions qui doivent être étroitement associées à nos efforts et c'est ce que nous faisons dans le cadre des réseaux de transfert de technologies, notamment en Amérique latine, mais qui se développent aussi dans d'autres régions du monde comme l'Asie et plus récemment l'Afrique.
Je pense avoir répondu très brièvement à vos requêtes et je voudrais vous remercier encore une fois pour l'intérêt que j'ai pris aux commentaires qui ont été faits pendant cet échange de vues.
M. TRKULJA (Chairman, Programme Committee): I have been specifically asked, and I will try, to reflect very briefly one issue. May I say I am a bit surprised with the apologetic mood of my friend, Mr Gonzalo Bula Hoyos. I have not the slightest doubt that his approach to the Programme Committee and to me personally has always been most constructive. So in that regard there should not be any doubt about it. He felt that the Programme Committee was a bit diplomatic in one paragraph and did not adequately reflect the concern with regard to the additional problems in FAO dealings with the UNDP. I do not think it was a matter of diplomacy on our part, but we feel strongly that in all previous instances we expressed very serious, or at least, concern, with regard to three major tendencies in UNDP, and in relations between UNDP and FAO: che decline in overall funds of UNDP, first, the declining share of agriculture in overall funds, second, and finally, and most critical perhaps, the declining share of FAO in UNDP funds for agriculture.
You will recall that there has been a very serious issue, and the Director-General jointly with Mr Morse sent on two occasions circular letters to all country representatives of UNDP and FAO asking them to join in the common effort to properly advise governments with the aim that the governments increase their allocations to agriculture. You also certainly recall that a year ago the JIU produced a report on these famous OPE, and recommendations of the JIU centred, I would say, on one single issue that the scale of operation of OPE should be reduced, even substantially, from about 10 percent to not more than 7 percent. I would also say that the Programme Committee fully shares without any reservation all the recommendations of JIU with regard to OPE. The matter was studied by the Council about a year ago. These were only a few of the reasons why the Committee felt that it should not be overly-repetitive in all its concerns with these three layers of problems which have been traditional in the relationship between FAO and UNDP-but I have no doubt at all that the Committee continues to be very seriously concerned with the standards. We did not include them in our report because we did it a number of times on several occasions in recent bienniums.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. With this we come to the end of our discussions on this item.
CHAIRMAN: I now have pleasure in announcing the composition of the Drafting Committee.
The Chairman will be Mr David Gregory of Australia, and the members of the Drafting Committee are: Denmark, Italy, Japan, the United States of America, The People's Democratic Republic of Yemen, Lebanon, Brazil, Mexico, India, Malaysia, Tanzania, and Senegal. I would like to thank all those countries and the Chairman who will serve on the Drafting Committee.
The meeting rose at 13. 00 hours
La séance est levée à 13 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 13. 00 horas
