Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page

II. ACTIVITIES OF FAO AND WFP (continued)
II. ACTIVITES DE LA FAO ET DU PAM (suite)
II. ACTIVIDADES DE LA FAO Y EL PMA (continuación)

8. Evaluation of the Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP)
8. Evaluation du Programme de coopération technique (PCT)
8. Evaluación del Programa de Cooperación Técnica (PCT)

R. S. LIGNON (Sous-Directeur général, Département du développement): Le Directeur général a décidé de procéder à une évaluation du Programme de coopération technique à la fin de l'année dernière et a confié cette mission à une équipe de trois experts indépendants, MM. Linner, Johnson et Palmer. Cette décision montre évidemment le souci du Directeur général de constamment améliorer le Programme de coopération technique, son efficacité, sa mise en oeuvre, et de surveiller que ce Programme de coopération technique respecte les règles qui lui ont été appliquées par les organes directeurs de l'Organisation.

Cette mission d'évaluation, qui a été confiée aux trois personnes que j'ai déjà mentionnées, avait essentiellement pour but d'évaluer la mise en oeuvre du Programme de coopération technique, dans le cadre de ses objectifs et de ses règles, en tant qu'extension du programme régulier de la FAO.

Le second aspect de cette évaluation devait porter sur l'impact du PCT sur la mise en oeuvre des politiques et des priorités de la FAO. Vous avez devant vous deux documents, comme l'a indiqué le Président:

- un premier pour information, qui est un document préparé par un groupe d'experts, c'est le document CL 88/INF/10; et

- un second qui est un document qui vous est présenté par le Directeur général et qui comporte des propositions d'action s'appuyant sur le rapport de la mission des experts.

Cette mission d'évaluation a visité 16 pays dans les différentes régions, Asie et Pacifique, Afrique, Amérique latine et Caraïbes et Proche-Orient.

Au cours de ses visites, la mission a pu avoir des entretiens avec les responsables politiques des gouvernements et plus particulièrement avec les ministres avec lesquels les projets du Programme ont été exécutés, avec les représentants du PNUD, ainsi qu'avec les chefs des agences d'aide au développement bilatérales et multilatérales. Ensuite, la mission s'est rendue à New York et à Washington où elle a eu des entretiens d'une part avec la Banque mondiale, avec la Banque interaméricaine de développement, et à New York avec le PNUD notamment.

Je voudrais très brièvement m'arrêter essentiellement sur le document CL 88/8 qui contient les propositions du Directeur général. Je voudrais dire aussi que ces deux documents ont été examinés par le Comité des programmes et le Comité des finances; ils ont apprécié ces documents préparés par les experts, en ont endossé les propositions ainsi que et surtout celles proposées par le Directeur général.

Ce document CL 88/8 est composé de deux parties:

- la première partie est une analyse des observations et des conclusions contenues dans le rapport des consultants;

- la seconde partie s'inspire des recommandations des consultants et de la propre expérience du Directeur général dans l'exécution du Programme de coopération technique, et indique les mesures que personnellement il estime opportunes, dans le but de répondre plus efficacement aux besoins, de surmonter les problèmes et d'améliorer l'efficacité du Programme.


Je ne m'arrêterai pas davantage sur le rapport de la mission des consultants; vous avez eu l'opportunité de le lire; disons qu'il est très exhaustif, qu'il couvre tous les aspects du Programme de coopération technique depuis les règles, les critères, et les différentes modalités de son intervention; il conclut que le Programme de coopération technique a atteint les objectifs qui lui avaient été fixés et que sa continuation et même un renforcement de son action seraient essentiels dans la mesure où les demandes d'assistance continuent à augmenter et où l'on voudrait y répondre.

Ce rapport contient un certain nombre de recommandations qui sont reprises dans le rapport du Directeur général, recommandations qui peuvent être divisées en trois groupes:

- des recommandations sur lesquelles le Directeur général avait déjà pris-avant même que les consultants aient accompli leur mission-un certain nombre de dispositions ou avait l'intention de les prendre sous sa propre responsabilité parce qu'elles sont de sa compétence;

- une seconde catégorie concerne des propositions qu'il soumet au Conseil parce que l'action à mettre en oeuvre nécessite votre approbation;

- et enfin une troisième catégorie de propositions qui visent à appeler l'attention du Conseil sur certains points au sujet desquels celui-ci pourrait adresser des recommandations aux gouvernements des Etats Membres.

Dans la première catégorie de recommandations un certain nombre de dispositions, de nature administrative et technique, sont en cours d'exécution.

Je voudrais m'arrêter un peu plus longuement sur deux groupes de propositions pour lesquelles l'approbation du Conseil a été demandée. Ces propositions ont déjà été approuvées et endossées par le Comité des programmes et le Comité des finances.

La première de ces propositions consiste à mettre à jour le niveau du coût des projets du PCT. Lorsqu'il a été créé en 1976, vous avez décidé que le plafond des projets serait de 250 000 dollars; huit ans après sa création, le plafond n'a pas été modifié; les consultants indépendants ont suggéré qu'il soit remis à jour en tenant compte de l'inflation et ont proposé un montant de 400 000 dollars.

J'appelle votre attention sur le fait que ces 400 000 dollars ne correspondent pas exactement au coût de l'inflation mais lui sont inférieurs dans la mesure où le coût des experts a augmenté au cours de cette période d'environ 80 pour cent alors que l'augmentation à 400 000 dollars correspond à une augmentation de 60 pour cent seulement.

Il est évident que la définition de ce plafond ne signifie pas que tous les projets arriveront à ce niveau; d'ailleurs comme vous avez pu le constater à la lecture de ce rapport de consultants, la moyenne des projets est bien inférieure à ce niveau. Toutefois, dans certains cas, le plafond peut être gênant: je pense particulièrement à certains cas d'urgence ou à certaines interventions du Programme de coopération technique où l'efficacité de l'intervention de la FAO aurait été bien supérieure si l'on avait pu aller au-delà. Ainsi donc, ce plafond permettrait au Programme de coopération technique, comme cela a été demandé, d'être encore plus souple et plus flexible pour répondre aux besoins des pays Membres. Je pense que ce plafond, qui représente une adaptation à l'inflation qui a été celle des dix dernières années, est une augmentation raisonnable mais efficace.

La seconde recommandation pour laquelle l'intervention du Conseil est demandée concerne l'établissement d'une nouvelle catégorie du programme de coopération technique. Vous avez pu constater que le Programme de coopération technique opère dans un certain nombre de catégories qui ont été établies à sa création et qui ont été modifiées un an et demi après la création du PCT, à la suite d'une première évaluation qui avait déjà eu lieu à cette époque. On s'est aperçu que dans le cadre de la coopération technique entre pays en développement, dans un secteur où le rôle du PCT a été particulièrement efficace, par exemple dans le cadre de la promotion des réseaux de coopération et de transfert de technologies en Amérique latine et aux Caraïbes, par exemple dans certains réseaux qui s'installent en Asie, que la création d'une catégorie permettant de mieux définir, de mieux orienter les projets du Programme de coopération technique serait particulièrement efficace. Elle serait d'autant plus efficace qu'elle répondrait ainsi à un voeu qui a été très souvent exprimé dans la mesure où la promotion de la coopération technique entre pays en développement est un objectif fondamental de la FAO et que la FAO s'efforce de promouvoir.


Parallèlement à ces deux recommandations essentielles, et dans le cadre du Programme de la décentralisation qu'avait établi le Directeur général, vous savez que les représentants de la FAO ont la possibilité d'approuver eux-mêmes des projets qui répondent à des critères parfaitement définis et dans la limite de 20 à 60 000 dollars pour l'année et selon les pays, suivant une disposition qui a été particulièrement étudiée.

En se référant à l'augmentation du plafond, je pense qu'on peut admettre que passer de 30 000 à 100 000 dollars pour ces plafonds est une bonne chose et je crois que cela permettrait de renforcer l'efficacité des représentants de la FAO sur le terrain, sans s'arrêter à de trop grandes difficultés administratives et de circulation lorsqu'il s'agit de questions urgentes et de projets de petite dimension puisque le coût de ces projets ne devrait pas dépasser 20 à 30 000 dollars.

Voilà les deux points les plus importants de ce projet et, pour conclure, je voudrais dire qu'un certain nombre de recommandations qui sont mentionnées dans le document CL 88/8, et qui sont déjà en cours d'exécution, ont pour but d'améliorer et de simplifier les processus administratifs qui permettraient d'accélérer encore l'efficacité du Programme de coopération technique, en particulier dans le problème des achats d'équipement et de fournitures de secteurs, dans lesquels les consultants ont trouvé quelques améliorations à faire. Nous sommes en train de regarder comment on peut améliorer ces procédures pour aller plus vite, notamment dans des cas particuliers où les dates sont très importantes, par exemple l'achat de semences; ensuite, dans le recrutement des experts. Là aussi, il faut trouver des formules qui permettent, avec l'aide du gouvernement, de pouvoir accélérer le recrutement des experts, notamment dans le cadre d'experts de pays en développement et dans celui de la coopération technique entre pays en développement. Là, nous souhaitons d'une part obtenir des listes d'experts disponibles et l'assurance que ces experts pourront être mis très rapidement à la disposition de la FAO.

Enfin, le troisième groupe de recommandations inscrit dans ce document s'adresse surtout aux pays membres dans la mesure où, dans de nombreux cas, les retards observés dans la mise en oeuvre du PCT proviennent de ce que les procédures d'agrément par les gouvernements sont quelquefois longues et ne permettent pas, surtout lorsque les dates sont importantes, d'exécuter rapidement des projets déjà approuvés. Il est bien évident que les gouvernements gardent leur souveraineté pour savoir dans quelle mesure ils doivent approuver, mettre en place des procédures d'autorisation, mais je crois qu'on ne peut faire autrement que d'appeler leur attention sur le fait que, comme pour les experts du siège de la FAO, et, compte tenu du fait que ces experts se rendent dans le pays pour des missions brèves-en général de courte durée, et les missions de consultants des projets du PCT durent rarement une année entière, 11 mois disons, et, en général, ce sont des missions qui s'échelonnent sur un ou deux mois, quelquefois trois mois-, par conséquent, je crois, et le Comité du programme et le Comité financier ont débattu longuement de ces projets, que l'attention des gouvernements devait être appelée sur la souplesse qu'il pourrait accorder à ces procédures d'accord des experts pour améliorer encore l'efficacité du PCT, sa flexibilité et surtout sa rapidité de réponse à des besoins urgents.

M. TRKULJA (Chairman, Programme Committee): It is almost needless to say that the Programme Committee studied with great interest the evaluation report. Just to illustrate, it spent one and a half days on CL 88/INF/10 and CL 88/8, that is the Director-General's paper, to give effect to the major recommendations of the evaluation team.

The Committee first welcomes very much the Director-General's initiative to initiate an independent external evaluation of this cooperation of FAO.

Second, it was the unanimous view in the Committee that the report itself was very comprehensive and of a very high analytical value. It is our hope, Mr Chairman, that it will decisively contribute to the full comprehension of the members criteria and the mechanisms of technical cooperation programmes. We feel, in other words, that the whole programme is now adequately transparent.


Thirdly, the Committee unanimously agreed that the. Technical Cooperation Programme achieved its original objectives and we also continue to say it should be continued and further strengthened to meet growing, of course, assistance requirements. We welcome very very much its increasing concentration on food production and small farmers as principal beneficiaries.

Coming now, as I am trying really to be very brief, to CL 88/8. It is sufficient to say we fully share the recommendations indicated by the Director-General of the actions that he has already undertaken or is planning to undertake under his own authority. We felt that the action of the Director-General was fully consistent with the recommendations of the Evaluation Team.

We spent a considerable time on the principle of competitive bidding. As you have seen we again underlined that the competitive bidding should be strictly observed, the rules governing it should be strictly observed and should be made only if in exceptional circumstances where the speedy delivery of inputs would benefit from the suspension of the normal rules.

We also welcome very much the tendency of maximizing local recruitment. Now, coming to the most tangible issue, that is, the formal proposal of the Director-General and the rest of the Council on which the Council is supposed to take a decision. We, on our part, recommend the Council to give additional authority to the Director-General first, to raise the ceiling to US$400 000 which we felt was fully justified on the basis of inflation alone, or even more than justified on that basis.

Secondly, we felt that the establishment of a new category for products that would act as catalysts in inter-country cooperation was desirable. So, in other words, it is a recommendation of the Programme Committee to Council to give its endorsement to the authorities asked for by the Director-General in paragraph 94 of CL 88/8.

Then there is the other issue of speedy delivery and we ask in particular developing countries engaged in TCDC activities to keep the Organization informed of the availability of experienced and qualified experts and to be ready to give their prompt release for TCP assignments.

Finally, on clearance of the TCP experts, specially for projects of three months or less duration, you will see in paragraph 2. 43 we recommended the Council to urge all governments concerned to take steps towards this end. I am authorized by the Committee to say that the Committee was on the verge of formally recommending the Council to establish a sort of time frame automatism. In other words, if the country is requested by FAO to give its clearance in a reasonable time, time reasonable from the standpoint of the prompt nature, the very prompt nature of TCP project, say one month, and if the government for any reasons does not respond to the FAO request, that it should be taken as consent. However, it was not possible to reach the full agreement in the Committee on that matter, but I am in my oral presentation to you, just mentioning that such a possibility might be considered by the Council.

Finally, we address the issue of the share of Least Developed Countries and those countries which face acute food shortages and we feel quite strongly that these countries should continue to be given high priority within TCP resources.

Amin ABDEL-MALEK (Liban) (Langue originale arabe): La délégation du Liban voudrait tout d'abord remercier M. Lignon pour l'excellent exposé qu'il vient de nous faire concernant l'évaluation du Programme de coopération technique.

Nous adressons également nos remerciements au Directeur général qui a établi une équipe d'experts pour évaluer le PCT et nous remercions ce groupe d'experts pour l'excellent rapport qu'il a mis au point après la mission qu'il a effectuée auprès des pays bénéficiaires.

Il y a neuf ans déjà que M. Edouard Saouma, Directeur général de la FAO, a créé le PCT et ce, au début de son premier mandat, en tant que Directeur général, après qu'il ait été élu en novembre 1975 à la tête de la FAO. Son objectif principal était de répondre de façon efficace aux besoins imprévus des pays membres, besoins qui ne peuvent pas être satisfaits par d'autres programmes. La priorité donc a été accordée dans ce cas aux pays les moins avancés et surtout à ceux qui font face à une crise alimentaire aiguë ou à des difficultés imprévues et imprévisibles.


Nous savons que le PCT a commencé avec 18 millions et demi de dollars qui lui ont été attribués par le Programme de travail et de budget de 1976-1977 avec l'accord de la Conférence. La FAO a ainsi informé en temps voulu tous les pays membres des modalités de fonctionnement de ce programme de coopération technique. Le programme a commencé ses activités et les a poursuivies avec succès. Sur la base des projets exécutés nous voyons l'importance du PCT car 3 017 demandes d'aide ont été adressées à la FAO, dont 2 441 demandes ont été approuvées, d'un montant global de 164 millions de dollars pour 1 820 projets exécutés jusqu'en 1984. Toutes les activités enregistrées dans le cadre du PCT et les résultats obtenus ainsi que la satisfaction des pays bénéficiaires me font rendre hommage au Directeur général pour les efforts qu'il a déployés dans ce sens.

Ma délégation voudrait le remercier, ainsi que ses collaborateurs, pour les efforts qui ont été déployés, surtout que le Liban a bénéficié du PCT, et compte tenu surtout de la crise que nous continuons de traverser depuis plus de 10 ans. La délégation du Liban approuve pleinement les recommandations du Directeur général visant à relever les approbations de projets par les représentants FAO entre 30 000 et 100 000 dollars et que le plafond en soit fixé à 30 000 dollars. Nous approuvons également les recommandations de la FAO, visant à faciliter certaines activités et surtout permettre l'achat d'équipements et de fournitures locales dans la mesure du possible et ce, pour faciliter la mise en oeuvre des projets. Nous appuyons pleinement toutes les recommandations visant à améliorer ces situations. Ma délégation est d'accord pour donner l'autorisation nécessaire au Directeur général de relever le plafond du coût des projets à 400 000 dollars au lieu de 250 000 dollars. Elle approuve également la création d'une nouvelle catégorie de projets et ce, pour promouvoir la coopération entre les pays en voie de développement et permettre au Directeur général de couronner ainsi les initiatives qu'il n'a cessé de prendre au profit des pays en voie de développement afin de répondre à leurs besoins les plus urgents. Donc, nous espérons que les membres du Conseil approuvent ce projet et le transmettent à la Conférence.

Ajmal Mahmood QURESHI (Pakistan): Forgive me for my bad throat!-though my voice is sinking I would like to raise it in favour of the TCP. First of all I would like to congratulate Mr Lignon and Professor Trkulja, Chairman of the Programme Committee, for their excellent and comprehensive exposition of the Report of the FAO TCP. I recall that the Report was examined in-depth in the September meeting of the Programme Committee, and universally acclaimed and endorsed. Therefore I shall be brief and confine myself to a few general observations.

We have carefully gone through the documents CL 88/8 and CL 88/INF/10. There can be no two opinions regarding the usefulness and effectiveness of this innovative programme. Regional distribution of projects shows that assistance has gone into the regions where it was recognized that need was greatest. Not only this Council but I believe the Programme Committee of the Conference have time and again universally endorsed the unprogrammed nature, practical orientation, speed and flexibility of this unique vehicle of assistance to the countries in most urgent need and, in the Director-General's words, "TCP as conceived gives a new dimension to FAO, as it has become a vital part of the necessary effort to make FAO more relevant to member countries' needs and desires and more effective and more fully supported by governments, NGOs and the public". Not only has the importance of this programme been underlined by the governing bodies, but the governing bodies have been urged by the member countries to further strengthen this programme and to direct a greater chunk of resources towards it.

This is the second evaluation carried out by independent consultants at the request of the Director-General. I am sure there is universal consensus here in this house in commending the Director-General for taking this initiative. We endorse this evaluation report, and we also appreciate and generally endorse the Director-General's response to the constructive proposals and recommendations put forward by the able team of external consultants.

Octavio Rainha da SILVA NEVES (Brazil): The Brazilian delegation wishes to congratulate the Director-General of FAO for deciding to undertake an external evaluation of the Technical Cooperation Programme, proving his permanent interest in the activities of the Programme and in the increased impact and efficiency of TCP. We warmly congratulate the Secretariat for the work performed so far on behalf of the TCP.


Brazil has been a strong supporter of the Technical Cooperation Programme of this Organization, persuaded by the excellent results TCP has given by meeting urgent needs on short-term technical assistance and, as well, by stimulating investment and technical aid for development from multiple sources. The findings of the external evaluation proves the continued validity of our assessment. and, moreover, induces us to endorse further actions to strengthen the TCP.

The first and most urgent measure to this effect is to raise the limit for the maximum cost of a single TCP project from US$ 250 000 to US$ 400 000. Although, as has been mentioned, it would not re-establish the real value of the ceiling to projects approved in 1976 and eroded in the past nine years, the adoption of the consultants' recommendation will represent the initial provision to enable FAO to respond to developing countries' requirements under the Technical Cooperation Programme. This measure, however, will certainly lead to a decrease in the number of projects since, unfortunately, no significant increase in the TCP's share of the Regular Programme it envisaged. Accordingly, my delegation will seek in future biennia a net increase in the TCP resources in facing the large number of demands and the real needs of the developing countries. By the same token, my delegation excludes any thought of a reduction in the TCP's share of the Regular Programme.

Secondly, my delegation considers that the promotion of technical cooperation among developing countries is one of the most fortunate policy objectives of TCP and, in this connection, gives its full support to the action proposed under paragraph 94(b), aiming at establishing a new category (c) for projects intended to act as a catalyst for inter-country cooperation. In fact, FAO has been developing a commendable effort to promote TCDC, particularly from TCP initiatives, and this effort has also been recognized on the Joint Inspection Unit's Report of April 1985 on the "United Nations Development System Support to the Implementation of the Buenos Aires Plan of Action on Technical Cooperation Among Developing Countries". In the report prepared by Inspector Miljenko Vukovic, it is stated that "FAO has a well-established TCDC focal point which is contributing to infuse the TCDC principle in all FAO's major programmes of work". Nevertheless, Brazil urges FAO to make every possible effort to increase the share of TCDC arrangements under the TCP. Although the percentage of resources allocated on TCDC projects from 1976 to 1985 is only 2 percent, the figure has been always increasing during the years, from zero in 1976 to 7 percent in 1984. We hope this number will increase further.

As regards our assessment of the TCP, the Brazilian delegation believes the regional distribution of TCP projects approved, referred to in paragraph 21 should be maintained in the present circumstances of no significant increase in budgetary allocation to the TCP. Likewise, the average of 25 percent of project approvals for emergency is perfectly acceptable. The distribution of the remaining 75 percent by nature of projects is also welcome, giving special attention to projects devoted to training. My delegation is also satisfied to see the main policy priorities of the Organization respected in the TCP, taking, for instance, the allocation of 36 percent of resources to the LDC's and 65 percent to the low-income food-deficit countries.

Turning to the recruitment of TCP experts and consultants, the Brazilian delegation notes, only as a suggestion, the possibility of renouncing the formal clearance practice for TCP experts and consultants for missions up to three months, as contained in paragraph 60 of the document. My Government would, of course, reserve itself the right to proceed with formal clearance in any case, in line with concepts given in paragraph 62, since we feel that our procedures have so far not imposed undue delays on the beginning of the work of experts or consultants.

Mr Chairman, my delegation gives great importance to the need to strengthen the liaison between TCP projects and all initiatives from agencies involved in the process of development assistance. In this connection, we are pleased to verify that an adequate flow of information amongst the various organizations is under way and we urge continuation of work in this direction.

The Brazilian delegation agrees that an adequate follow-up is one of the key issues of the technical assistance in general. We then endorse the consultants' recommendation to stress the need to provide full information on the follow-up of TCP projects at the present time of project formulâtion.


My delegation is also in agreement with the position expressed by the Director-General that public procurement and contract procedures are in general time-consuming. We then endorse the steps taken by the Director-General, shown in paragraphs 68 to 71, to provide the best possible service to member countries in the procurement of essential equipment and supplies. We have been a beneficiary of TCP projects and must pay particular tribute to the initiatives this Programme has undertaken in the most emergency stricken areas of the country. Other development oriented projects have proved to be equally successful. Brazil has also started participating in TCDC arrangements through FAO and under the Technical Cooperation Programme, and is ready to examine ways and means to further strengthen such cooperation. At the same time, Brazil remains a potential receiver of technical assistance not only in meeting emergency needs resulting from natural calamities, but also in filling considerable shortages in technical expertise.

Being so identified in both directions with technical cooperation, Brazil could not fail to stress the universal character of the TCP meeting when and wherever possible regarding the needs of the whole developing world, while preserving the Organization's main priorities, such as the dedication of its resources, in first instance, to the sub-Saharan African region. That is for my country the essence of multilateralism: the possibility of having from the international community through an efficient multilateral agency, such as FAO, the necessary relief for natural and man-made disasters, allied to inputs in development programmes.

That is why my delegation supports most strongly the measures leading to the strengthening of the TCP to enable it to meet the ever-increasing demands of aid and cooperation from developing countries, in general, and from those in the Latin American and Caribbean region, in particular, and again here I speak on behalf of our regional group.

I hope to have conveyed our views on the measures contemplated in both paragraphs 94 and 95.

Vladimir STOYANOV (Bulgaria): On behalf of the Bulagarian delegation, I would like to express our appreciation regarding the activity of the Technical Cooperation Programme. The main purpose of TCP, as we know, is to meet more effectively unforeseen requirements and unexpected needs of its member countries. This was an idea of the Director-General Dr Saouma submitted at the Sixty-ninth Session of the Council in July 1976, which was practically confirmed. Indeed, this is an important action of the Organization during the last eight years.

We are agreed upon the evaluation referring to TCP, given by the three senior consultants. Interesting suggestions, considering the expansion of the sphere of work of TCP, its financing, etcetera are being put up. This really gives "a new dimension to FAO". We maintain the "proposal for action" underlined in document CL 88/8. Of course TCP's activities have numerous applications, especially in the developing countries. We hope that in future the projects will be increased and well organized.

Finally, Mr Chairman, we endorse again this effective work of FAO and the documents put forward.

R. Mohammad BAHRAM (Afghanistan): The delegation of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan gives a higher value to the Director-General's initiative in the evaluation of the Technical Cooperation Programme. The Afghanistan delegation highly evaluates the effects of the TCP in solving the urgent agriculture problems. We are convinced that TCP with its valuable practical measures achieved the original objectives in my country, and wish that this important programme be continued and further strengthened to meet the needs of my country.

We can assure you that this valuable programme has been very useful particularly to small peasants. To make it more successful and effective in my country we feel that the recruitment of the qualified experts from developing countries where they have high potential of expertise, especially when they are from the same region with common problems of agriculture, common mode of agriculture production and common structure of agriculture, will prove most useful. For example, experts or consultants from India in this regard, if recruited in technical cooperation programmes in my country, will be very successful in the achievements of the Technical Cooperation Programme's objectives·


G. H. MUSGROVE (Canada): Our thanks to Mr Lignon for his very thorough introduction to this topic. I cannot think of a subject on our agenda, except possibly the next one, that will create more interest and possibly recreate a greater diversion of view and approach, and I certainly hope that what I have to say does not contribute to that and to ask for understanding from my fellow delegates, particularly those countries that are beneficiaries of the Technical Cooperation Programme. I would also like to indicate that time is not in our favour, and we had expressed ourselves in other committees and will probably do so in much greater detail in the Conference itself, so we will certainly try to confine our remarks to some very short points.

First and foremost we should like to commend the Director-General for commissioning the evaluation study and also for his foresight in originating this programme because we agree with those speakers who had spoken that there is no doubt as to its usefulness and even less doubt as to its popularity with those countries who are beneficiaries. It is popular for the very reasons of its unprogrammed nature, of its quickness, of its lack of red tape, if you will, in providing technical expertise. But, if you open the half price gas station on the Cristoforo Colombo it would be popular too, and it would have increasing demand placed on it, as we cannot entirely accept the concept because it is unprogrammed funding, and that it is increasingly popular which is reflected by increasing demands on the resources that this is a rationale for an increase in the Programme itself.

There are a number of principles that we have addressed in the past. A few of these perhaps I could just touch on very briefly, and one of course is the funding principle of the TCP. In its inception ten years ago I understand that it was to make very good use of funds that had been saved from their intended purposes and the programme was set up with these funds. It was an experimental programme, one that started almost ten years ago, and since that time has had increasing levels of funding for appropriation devoted to it, but at that time and without reopening the original debate, there were serious concerns on the part of a number of countries about the concept of funding a development assistance programme from assessed contributions.

Furthermore it is a programme that is completely unprogrammed in its nature, and also in its nature is very difficult to purview and overview. It is even more difficult with the accountability provisions unique to the TCP to find within any biennium, or indeed within any two biennia a discreet explanation as to how the funds had been spent let alone on how they are going to be spent.

We feel that with the increases in funding that had been applied to the programme, not least in the proposed Programme of Work and Budget which called for I think-and I do not have the figures in front of me-a 7 percent increase a day in the next biennium, a programme that has again moved upwards and again I do not have the figures, but I believe I am correct in saying from about 11 percent of the Regular Programme to about 13 and a half or a little more-13. 6 I believe in the next programme, that this does not reflect entirely the sensitivity that might be devoted to an issue on which I say there are some basic principles. We have indicated that one could probably increase this Programme by 100 percent a year and it would find its takers and it would find demands placed on it, because after all we have infinite problems in this world of ours and very finite resources to address them.

The second principle I could point to is that of criteria and here we have a dichotomy. The Director-General in his wisdom described the programme ab initio and throughout as a programme to address emergencies, the unforeseen and unexpected, and to address problems that could not be addressed by others. We find that to be a particularly admirable set of criteria. These were augmented, of course, by the funding limit per project of 250 thousand dollars in a programme of short-term duration that had a relevance to the agricultural sector, but I contend Mr Chairman in looking at the Programme, at the experience of the programme and indeed looking at the evaluation report, document CL 88/INF/10, I think on pages 69 to 70-71 there are a list of some 30 areas that TCP could address and when I look at those 30 areas only five or six conjure in my mind a matter of emergency, the unforeseen or the unexpected. The Programme has very usefully, but in contrast to the emergency criteria, very usefully devoted a large part of its address to project formulation and other such type of address which cannot, I think, in large part be characterized as of an emergency character, which leads to the third point that I have to make and that is in respect of its very useful work in project formulation, particularly in project formulation which may be assistance to larger bilateral donors, utilizing the Trust Fund facilities of the FAO, that we might take a very serious look at cost recovery prospects of work done under TCP, and in


this I think there is a certain analogy or parallel with the work done by the Investment Centre for such projects in terms of formulation of cost not recoverable by the ultimate funder.. We make this proposal and we particularly direct those delegates who may have a copy of the evaluation report in front of them-some of them may wish to look at the first paragraph or two on page 17 where it indicates a number of projects have been done which were of benefit to large bilateral funders.

The fourth point is the concept that we, because of the usefulness of TCP, are loath to be negative to the extent of suggesting that its funding be cut back. We are loath to suggest that the funding be constrained, but at the same time my authorities are sensitive to a number of these principles and perhaps would like to suggest that we tighten the criteria of TCP within the Regular Programme to really address emergencies while at the same time opening a second window or a second fund, if you will, under Trust Fund auspices which could address a number of these normal TCP problems in a voluntary funded manner. We feel that the Programme is universally recognized as being useful, that because this is so that a separate fund opened within the context of a trust fund type of arrangement to address those non-emergency aspects of TCP would attract funding. This would prove to be popular because of the widespread acknowledgement of the usefulness and popularity of the Programme. We throw that out for consideration and perhaps will return to it later.

The fifth point we ought to make is with respect to TCP management and overview. Here we lack some definition in what it is we want to say, but it is simply this-that because of the nature of the Programme it is most difficult, as Mr Lignon will agree, and in fact for three meetings now we have talked to each other and at each other as to the exact funding status of the TCP in terms of its committed inputs, obligated, liquidated, expanded, and so on, in terms of funding. A casual look at some documents would indicate a carry-over of funds from one biennium to another which have been expended in large part. There is the fact that there are obligated funds usually within a biennium for appropriation, but for reasons which are obvious not all of these can be expanded or, indeed, sometimes committed within that biennium, and there are flowbacks, rearrangements, rescheduling and re-programming, but at the same time there is a second appropriation, the appropriation for the following biennium so we have lump-summing of funds. Further, there is the financial provision which gives a fifth year to liquidate the funding, so we have a five-year period for what is really one single appropriation which encroaches on no less than three biennia, if my understanding is correct.

It is difficult to keep separate accounts. Without being facetious it seems to me that TCP is more like a bank that is topped from time to time; the projects come in one door and the funds come in the other, because we have the greatest difficulty in ascertaining just how much is spent, when and where.

Further, there is the concept of how. We make no apologies here in suggesting that if the programme is to address emergencies, in looking at the historical perspective of its expenditures either by global region or country we would have thought there would be variations from year to year as emergencies and disasters appear in one part of the world or another. But we have heard those who commend it for its address to emergencies, saying how useful it is, They go on to say how nice it is that it addressed each country with some degree of equity, and some regions with even more equity. We think there is a little contradiction in terms here, to say the least. While we appreciate there are strongly held views and political considerations, nevertheless we feel it should address emergencies. In that sense, the Programme might usefully benefit from some overview. We do not have definite thoughts on how such an overview could reasonably be conducted without impeding the virtues of the Programme and adding to the work of the management team looking at it, but we think it is a point worth considering.

The evaluation report itself has three points to which we thought useful reference could be made. One is the concept of project commitment, both in the host country and to some extent by the technical officials of FAO who, because of their very "busy-ness" have not always had time to devote to the projects. In a number of places in the evaluation report both in the lines and between them, one can see a suggestion that there are occasions when TCP projects have not had the follow-up and the impact that they deserve because of a lack of commitment by the recipient country who requested something but having requested and received it, was busy with other concerns and did not follow up the commitment by FAO technical officials who, because they were so busy, were not able Lo oversee to the extent they should. If money is to be expended, commitment at both ends should be expended,


and care should be taken in this regard. If there are to be perhaps increments of commitment on the part of the recipient countries, the key may be found in some of the suggested local procurements. If recipient countries have a financial commitment in a project, and this might be the local procurement aspect of it, they would then have so much more commitment to the project itself.

The other point which comes through in the evaluation report is the concept of development cooperation. Here, I think I need not say too much, but it is suggested that the cooperation and liaison, particularly in the recipient countries, with UNDP and other donors may not be the best and, indeed, it is the same with respect to the general criteria of projects that cannot be done by other sources because other sources may not have the chance to know unless there is some consultation in this regard.

We would like to underline that, and particularly to underline the relationship with UNDP. While we are not apologists for the UNDP, we would suggest that concept reciprocity is not well placed in this report. We think FAO can perhaps go the extra mile and earn the laurels of being a good cooperator regardless of whether UNDP reciprocates on a day-to-day basis. This is sometimes difficult to do, but we believe it is a useful and worthwhile function, particularly as FAO has undertaken not to do projects that can be done by others.

We have quite a number of other points to raise, and I do not want to go on too long about the size of the project limit. The proposal to increase from US $250 000 to US $400 000 is not one which meets with our approval. The US $250 000 was set at a very notional level ab initio, with no experience, and that US $250 000 was thought at the time to be a notional figure. It proved to be more than adequate. I think 95 percent of the projects-2 400, or maybe it was 2 100 because it did not cater for emergencies-were less than US $150 000, so the argument "Let's say inflation indicates a growth" is not well founded in this case because the fathers of the original programme could well have set a figure of US $100 000 or US $150 000, and it would not be out of line today. Indeed, the inflation factor could be applied to that figure and not to US $200 000.

Secondly, we have some fear not only that if there were an increase in the size of projects indicated there would be fewer projects to go around if the maximum were approached or used, but that the increase in maximum would change the character of the application that may be received from countries, and while we have heard the assurances which have been been given and taken them on board, that because the limits are increased the project costs will not necessarily be so, our Parkinsonian experience tells us this will not be so. So we feel not only would there be fewer projects from a fixed funding level, but that the character of the projects may well change because of that level. So we do not favour that increase, with the possible exception that there may be a case to be made for the specific portion of the TCP which deals with emergencies per se.

Badr BEN AMMAR (Tunisie): La delegation tunisienne voudrait intervenir à propos du point 8 de l'ordre du jour de cette session du Conseil, à savoir le point relatif à l'évolution du Programme de coopération technique. Ce programme, initié par le Directeur géneral depuis une douzaine d'années, a fait ses preuves de réussite et les conclusions de l'évaluation, consignées dans les documents CL 88/INF/10 et CL 88/8, ne font que confirmer l'avis des pays ayant bénéficié de l'assistance de ces programmes.

Nous constatons aussi avec satisfaction que 40 pour cent des projets approuvés ont concerné l'Afrique et nous souhaitons que le PCT puisse parvenir à aider, quoique timidement compte tenu de ses limites financières, mais efficacement, ce continent à résoudre des problèmes alimentaires dans lesquels il se débat depuis des années. Concernant les mesures prises ou à prendre par le Directeur général sous sa propre responsabilité et qui sont de nature à faciliter l'exécution des projets du PCT, la délégation tunisienne ne peut que les appuyer et féliciter le Directeur général pour cette initiative.

Pour ce qui est des propositions contenues dans le document CL 88/8 et soumis à l'examen des membres du Conseil, la délégation tunisienne voudrait exprimer son appui à la proposition de relever le coût maximum des projets du PCT à 400 000 dollars ainsi qu'à celle relative à la création d'une nouvelle catégorie de projets du PCT afin de catalyser la coopération entre pays tout en insistant plus particulièrement sur la CEPD et la CTPD.


Enfin, la proposition de recommander les pays en voie de développement qui souhaitent s'engager dans la CTPD de dresser une liste d'experts et de consultants qu'ils peuvent proposer pour l'exécution des projets dans le cadre du PCT, cette proposition ne peut être que soutenue par la Tunisie. Toutefois, et pour ce qui est de l'approbation des experts par les pays bénéficiaires, la délégation tunisienne souhaite que soit accordée une période limitée, par exemple un mois au maximum, aux pays bénéficiaires pour qu'ils puissent donner leur avis sur les experts proposés. Nous croyons qu'une telle procédure garantirait la souveraineté des pays bénéficiaires sans pour autant causer des retards importants dans l'exécution des projets du PCT.

Hartford T. JENNINGS (United States of America): My delegation would like to express its appreciation to Mr Lignon and to the Chairman of the Programme Committee for their introduction of this item. We will make every effort to comply with your request, Mr Chairman, for brevity. Unfortunately, however, because we do not here have the option of deferring a part of our comments to Conference, we may not be as able to do that as we would be otherwise.

We begin by welcoming this expressive evaluation of TCP which has been undertaken on the initiative of the Director-General. We note it is the first since 1978. We hope that there will not be a comparable interval before another evaluation because we feel that continuing attention should be given to the operation of this important Programme.

We consider that TCP is a very useful vehicle for quick action on the part of FAO. We consider that a large part of its usefulness derives from the flexibility which TCP gains from the project ceiling, the ceiling on the size of projects.

Consequently we do not support the Director-General's proposal to increase the maximum cost of a TCP project from US$ 250 000 to US$ 400 000, a 60 percent increase.

My delegation notes that the average project cost for the period under review here was only $67 000. Much more than a majority, to be exact 79 percent, of all TCP projects cost under $100 000. The average cost even of emergency projects, which we believe to be the most expensive category, was only $118 000, less than half the present ceiling. We do not therefore believe that these figures show a need to increase the project ceiling, quite the contrary. In our view they reflect the success of the present guidelines. Moreover, the Director-General's discussion of the effects of inflation, the principal justification for the proposed increase, fails to take account of the large increase in the value of the US dollar in recent years. The US dollar has increased some 40 percent since 1980, which has largely offset the effects of inflation.

We are also troubled by the realization that increasing the ceiling would reduce the number of projects which could be accomplished under TCP. We do not feel that an increase in the size of TCP overall would be in order.

Also we are not in favour of the Director-General's proposal to establish a new category for TCP projects, that category being to enhance inter-country cooperation. We believe that voluntarily funded mechanisms for this purpose already exist and are adequate. The scope of this proposed category is so broad that it would represent a major new drain on the TCP budget if it were approved, drawing away resources from the other important TCP categories, particularly the emergency projects.

We do support the Director-General's recommendations addressed to the members of FAO for countries to do more to inform the Organization of the availability of experts, particularly experts from developing countries, and his recommendation that recipient countries might wish to facilitate approval of TCP experts for missions of less than three months' duration. Of course that would be entirely within the decision of those recipient countries.

We realize also that local procurement can be beneficial and even necessary in certain circumstances. We use local procurement as a matter of fact in some of our bilateral programmes. We would only caution that these instances should be carefully considered so that they will not impair the general principle of international competitive bidding for TCP projects as well as other projects.


The United States supports the conclusions of the evaluation, especially that there is a need for greater information flow from FAO to governments on the structure and role of TCP. We would urge the Director-General to take further steps on follow up to TCP projects and their evaluation, as recommended by the external evaluation.

In conclusion may I say that my delegation recognizes the role that TCP has to play in supplementing FAO's overall programme. We believe that this evaluation confirms the important role that TCP has to play as it is presently constituted.

José Manuel WATSON (Panamá): La Delegación de Panamá agradece al Sr. Lignon por su valiosa exposición sobre el informe del PCT.

Sobre este importante tema, la Delegación de Panamá quiere formular algunas consideraciones que a nuestro juicio son de sumo interés.

La primera de esas consideraciones es de índole general y consiste en reiterar que se mantenga el objetivo principal del Programa de Cooperación Técnica de la FAO, cual es dar respuesta en la forma más eficaz posible a las necesidades imprevistas e inesperadas de los Estados Miembros.

Por otra parte, la Delegación de Panamá, al igual que muchas otras, destaca la característica de este Programa que, sinceramente creemos por experiencia de nuestro país, da realmente impulso a esta Organización al atender solicitudes de nuestros Gobiernos en forma rápida y flexible y mediante intervenciones relativamente pequeñas.

Como bien se desprende del análisis de los logros del Programa cuando se constata que el valor medio por proyecto es de poco más de 67 000 dólares de los Estados Unidos, y en casos de proyectos que no son de urgencia sino de asistencia técnica el costo medio del proyecto es inferior a 60 000 dólares de los Estados Unidos, intervenciones éstas que efectivamente vienen a tener efectos catalíticos multiplicadores y estimulantes en los sectores agropecuarios de los países beneficiados.

Estos señalamientos que a la Delegación de Panamá le resultan obligados están en coincidencia con lo que plantea el documento CL 88|8 en las dos primeras líneas de su texto, en las cuales destaca la especial atención e importancia que le dan los Estados Miembros de la FAO al PCT. En esta oportunidad estamos frente a los resultados de una segunda evaluación integral a este Programa en su noveno año de existencia y los resultados de la misma son claramente favorables al funcionamiento del Programa de Cooperación Técnica, y a este respecto consideramos que el párrafo 32 del documento CL 88/8 confirma este hecho cuando señala que el PCT ha permitido a la FAO atender mejor a sus países miembros movilizando rápidamente los medios técnicos, operativos y administrativos en momentos en que era necesario actuar sin pérdida de tiempo para hacer frente a solicitudes urgentes e inesperadas de los gobiernos. Con ello, continúa señalando el párrafo 32, sehan reforzado las relaciones entre los gobiernos de los países en desarrollo y la Organización y entre los propios países en desarrollo (CTPD). Sucintamente, termina señalando el párrafo 32, el PCT ha dado a la Organización más relevancia con respecto a las necesidades de sus miembros.

Es por todo esto que la Delegación de Panamá apoya la existencia del Programa de Cooperación Técnica de la FAO dentro de la programación ordinaria de esta Organización; y en esta parte de nuestro señalamiento queremos tanto destacar como apoyar el contenido de lo expuesto en los párrafos 13 y 9, entre otros, relativos a que el PCT puede promover la cooperación técnica y también económica entre países en desarrollo al atender y dar respuesta a la asistencia a grupos de países, así como a organizaciones regionales y subregionales.

En nuestra región, Señor Presidente, América Latina y el Caribe, tenemos ejemplos palpables de la necesidad y beneficio de este tipo de asistencia, la cual es perfectamente canalizable a través del PCT, tal es el caso, por ejemplo, de la solicitud de asistencia que beneficia a la empresa multinacional latinoamericana de comercialización de fertilizantes, MULTIFER, integrada actualmente por ocho Estados de la región, pero abierta a la participación de todos los otros.

Es por todo esto que mi Delegación da su firme apoyo al establecimiento de una nueva categoría de proyectos del PCT destinada a actuar como catalizadora de la cooperación económica y técnica entre países en desarrollo.


Por otra parte, y por las razones que claramente se exponen en el párrafo 46, damos nuestro apoyo a las medidas consistentes en aumentar el límite de costo máximo de un proyecto del PCT de 250 000 dólares de los Estados Unidos a 400 000.

Igualmente, nuestra Delegación no tiene dificultad en que este Consejo formule las recomendaciones a países miembros conforme el contenido del párrafo 95 en el sentido de que se mantenga informada la Organización de la disponibilidad y experiencia de expertos y consultores calificados y que faciliten su rápida aprobación, cuando sea considerado, para proyectos del PCT; al igual de que se examinen las posibilidades de renuncia a la aprobación oficial de los expertos y consultores del PCT para misiones de menos de tres meses de duración, esto conforme a lo explicado en el párrafo 60.

Finalmente, y en relación con los aspectos insatisfactorios encontrados en la evaluación y que tienen que ver especialmente con el apoyo operativo y técnico, así como de las funciones de los representantes de la FAO en los países, la Delegación de Panamá confía en la aplicación de las medidas tomadas, que propone el Señor Director General de conformidad con su propia autoridad, y que están recogidas en el párrafo 93 del documento que estamos discutiendo.

Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Queremos, primeramente, felicitar al Señor Lignon por la presentación que ha hecho de este tema tan importante.

Nuestro país siempre ha dado una alta valoración al Programa de Cooperación Técnica de la FAO como la más válida medida de las transferencias tecnológicas solicitadas por los gobiernos de acuerdo con sus propios programas nacionales, ya esto creo que es una tarjeta de presentación.

Creo que es necesario, sí, creadoramente, cuando se hace evaluación y analizamos, profundizar los números; pero también nos parece que debemos analizar los números globalmente en sus resultados, o en sus grandes resultados.

La implementación de todo tipo de proyecto, inclusive los grandes proyectos del Banco Mundial y del Fondo Monetario Internacional, han tenido serios problemas de factibilidad sobre todo; factibilidad o inefactibi lidad que ha llevado a generar grandes deudas a los países recepcionistas; por eso, insistimos que el análisis hay que hacerlo creadoramente, no limitado ni restrictivo, sino con interés de apoyar y de ayudar a una solución para todos.

Hay otro criterio que queremos expresar en forma muy leve, no vamos a utilizar mucho tiempo, Señor Presidente; nuestra Delegación trae a la Conferencia un estudio profundo y pormenorizado de la utilización de los Programas de Cooperación Técnica en nuestro país y cómo vemos su imple-mentación futura. Por lo tanto, vamos a dar algunos criterios muy generales. Creo que sobre la evaluación que se ha presentado, es una evaluación excelente y oportuna. Creo que la FAO tiene toda la autoridad para evaluar y los gobiernos soberanamente también para analizar con la FAO los resultados y alcances de los programas de cooperación técnica que han pedido. Concretamente para no dar muchas vueltas, los programas de cooperación técnica apoyan directa y sin intermediarios, rápidamente en forma expedita los esfuerzos de los países para rehabilitar su capacidad de producción de alimentos, y en fin apoyan la programación. Los programas nacionales de la agricultura producen un incremento en la conciencia de utilización mejor de los recursos naturales así como prestan asistencia para crear servicios, y resultados tangibles en el mejoramiento de calidad de la actividad agrícola.

Todas estas actividades, en resumen, se puede decir que durante este tiempo de ejecución, el programa de cooperación técnica ha tenido flexibilidad y rapidez para proporcionar insumos y expertos técnicos. Todo esto son realidades. Referente al alcance y costo y duración de los PCT no han creado dificultades grandes para los gobiernos puesto que ha habido flexibilidad en la discusión. Nosotros somos testigos de excepción en cuanto al análisis del alcance costo-duración con la Secretaría de la FAO, y hemos logrado la flexibilidad necesaria para la implementación de nuestros proyectos.

Los gobiernos así reciben asistencia para elaborar programas, para establecer estructuras institucionales, para asegurar eficazmente el control de su producción agrícola en nuestras regiones. Y analizando un párrafo muy importante de la evaluación del Programa de Cooperación


Técnica que nos presentaron los Sres. Linner, Johnson y Palmer, a los cuales de paso quiero felicitar por el trabajo enjundioso y profundo que hicieron, aparece un párrafo que nos preocupa. Nosotros queremos expresar que en nuestra región, la Oficina Regional FAO ha establecido y ha ejecutado redes de cooperación técnica con asistencia programada de cooperación técnica. Esto es prometedor para la integración regional que puede ser ayudada eficientemente por FAO en proyectos de cooperación directa a empresas multinacionales en la región, como ha expresado la delegación de Panamá a Multifer, en estos momentos del CELA. Esto realmente es muy prometedor. Sin embargo, nos preocupa que el párrafo no tiene una proposición definida. Creo que ese párrafo debe terminar con una proposición.

Asimismo tenemos un pequeño comentario sobre la utilización de la asistencia del Programa de Cooperación Técnica también de la evaluación. El cuarto párrafo del 6. 2: Utilización de la asistencia. Ahí se dice que la región latinoamericana registra el porcentaje más bajo en las asignaciones destinadas al componente de capacitación.

Un análisis autocrítico de nuestra región, pensamos que ahí estamos pecando un poco de un orgullo del cual tenemos que deshacernos. Necesitamos capacitación. Los latinoamericanos es posible que a veces creamos que no la necesitamos; necesitamos capacitación. Así que creo que esto es un error de los países en solicitarla porque necesitamos aprender mucho. Aquí en estas reuniones vemos cómo realmente necesitamos ser un poco más cultos en estas cuestiones. Nosotros, nos parece que aquí hay una causa un poquito visible. En nuestra región, la concentración de la tierra en pocas manos es significativa. Por lo tanto no hay una posibilidad de acceso a la capacitación por las grandes masas de obreros y pequeños agricultores sin tierra. Hay

que seguir insistiendo con un enfoque más amplio en la necesidad de la capacitación local, local con orientación práctica, con cursos y estudios microlocalizados para resolver los problemas más actuales. Nosotros seguimos insistiendo en que los proyectos de esta forma son más útiles que los grandes elefantes blancos. Es la mejor inversión en recursos humanos para lograr efectividad en la aplicación de la técnica agrícola, en la medida en que sean capaces de estudiarla y entenderla primero y sin eso la técnica no se podrá aplicar eficazmente.

Nuestro héroe nacional, José Martí, nuestro héroe creador en nuestro pueblo del real sentido de la libertad, nos decía siempre: "Es necesario ser cultos para ser libres"; estar totalmente capacitados para ejercer las funciones a las que nos dedicamos. Entonces, si nosotros queremos realmente que nuestra agricultura sea realmente libre, debemos invertir más del cincuenta por ciento en capacitación, que la técnica va entrando en la medida que nuestros pequeños agricultores sean más capacitados.

Finalmente nosotros queremos expresar nuestro apoyo total a la evaluación del Programa de Cooperación Técnica y medidas propuestas por el Director General. Específicamente queremos aprobar, en todas sus partes, el párrafo 93. El párrafo 93 en todas sus partes nos parece interesante así como el párrafo 94. Son dos párrafos definitorios de todo el análisis que se ha hecho.

Nos parece que también se habló de una aceptación automática y que no hubo total aceptación. Queremos repetir que nuestra delegación traerá a la Conferencia un análisis pormenorizado de este punto porque lo considera muy importante, y creemos que la aceptación automática puede ser una fórmula expedita, no lesiona intereses legítimos ningunos y sí puede facilitar que se dé el impulso a la acción de la FAO que solicitan los gobiernos para la necesaria ayuda a su agricultura, y sobre todo la producción de alimentos que no espera, porque los hambrientos no esperan.

Queremos hacer finalmente una última observación. Sí, he recordado que no participé en los inicios cuando el Programa de Cooperación Técnica se germinó, cuando surgió, pero he oído varias veces hablar de los ahorros para implementar el PCT. Sin embargo quiero hacer un comentario un poco ligero al vuelo. Creo que si desde la implementación del PCT a esta fecha los presupuestos de la Organización no hubiesen sido sometidos al crecimiento cero, los ahorros fueran un poco más sustanciales.


MA GENG'OU (China): The Chinese delegation carefully studied the independent and external evaluation report on the Technical Cooperation Programme. We think that it is a comprehensive and objective report and some of the comments are pertinent. As everyone acknowledges the advantages of the Technical Cooperation Programme, it will be unnecessary for me to go into details. But in our view, the most important thing is that TCP should maintain its unprogrammed nature and other features such as quick response, catalytic effect and flexibility. Document CL 88/8 prepared by the Secretariat mentioned the proposals for action to be taken by the Director-General, the Council and member governments, all for the purpose of strengthening the said features of TCP. In this way, the technical expertise of FAO can be brought into full play to meet the urgent needs of Member Nations. The Chinese delegation endorses the proposals contained in Paragraphs 93 to 95. At the same time, we wish to highlight the following points:

One. We shall never overemphasize the importance of promptly providing equipment for TCP projects characterized by quick action. Without doubt, the delay occurred was caused by various factors. We are happy to note that paragraph 93 of the document has suggested concrete measures for the solution of this problem. We appreciate such efforts.

Two. As for the proposal to raise the present limit of US$ 250 000 for a project, to US$ 400 000, paragraphs 45 to 47 of the document have already offered detailed explanations. The US$ 250 000 ceiling was set upon the establishment of TCP, which has been in operation for 10 years without an adjustment. Dut to inflation rate and other factors, therefore, it is justifiable to raise the limit of US$ 250 000 to US$ 400 000. We suggest that the Council approve this proposal.

Three. It is appropriate to add the item of Technical Cooperation among the Developing Countries within the framework of FAO. As multilateral international organizations have widespread channels of contacts and miscellaneous connections, the addition of such an item will be conducive to the developing countries for the promotion of their economic and technical cooperation and exchanges among themselves through FAO.

Four. Paragraph 95 of the document puts recommendations which the Council might wish to address to FAO member countries. Concerning recommendation (a), that is, those developing countries who wish to engage in TCDC activities, to keep FAO informed of the availability and experience of qualified experts and consultants, we wish to inform the Council that the department concerned in our country has approached FAO's department and concrete arrangements are in progress. With regard to recommendation (b), there have been no obstacles in the formal clearance of experts who went to our country for project implementation. In the future, we shall continue to render them every possible assistance within the framework of the procedures stipulated by the Government.

Five. As to the formulation and the preparation of investment projects, the evaluation report pointed out the relationship between formulation and the preparation of such projects and follow-up activities. In our view, this relationship has an important bearing on the improvement of the impact of TCP. So that, the availability of follow-up financial resources should always be taken into account both by member countries in submitting project proposals and by FAO in approving them. Although paragraph 57 of the document points out that it is only in very exceptional instances that TCP formulation or investment projects are submitted and approved without an aid or financing agency having been identified, we still think it is necessary and relevant to bring this question to the attention of the Council in order to ensure the impact of TCP.

The success of a project is the result of the joint efforts of donor agencies and recipient countries. As a beneficiary country of the Technical Cooperation Programme, we shall continue to cooperate closely with FAO and improve our submission and execution of projects in a view to maximizing the impact of the limited resources of TCP in our country.

Kosei SHIOZAWA (Japan): First of all I would like to thank Mr Lignon and the Chairman of the Programme Committee for their comprehensive introduction on this urgent item. I would also like to commend the three independent consultants for their effort made in preparing a very informative and original and analytical report before us.


My delegation extends its appreciation to the Director-General for having taken the initiative to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of TCP for the first time since its inception.

Before touching upon two specific proposals of the Director-General contained in paragraph 94 of the document CL 88/8, my delegation first would like to make a few general comments. As it is well known to all of us, TCP was established to meet unforeseen requirements and unexpected needs of the problem countries the finance of which could not be covered by other assistance programmes. My delegation feels that the raison d'etre of TCP can be found therefore in case of an emergency situation, and we recognize that the TCP study has played a significant role in this area. My delegation has however repeatedly expressed its concern about an increase in the share of TCP within the regular budget for various reasons, one of which is a lack of information on TCP. Since TCP is an unprogrammed budget and since the authority for approval of TCP projects is delegated to the Director-General, member countries have practically no means of participating in the process of approval of projects, while other activities in the FAO regular budget follow the principle of Programme of Work and Budget and are subject to consultation by member governments. Because of this characteristic peculiar to TCP, my delegation has stressed on various occasions that information on the performance of TCP projects should be provided more intensively than for any other activities in the regular budget. In this connection my delegation appreciates the evaluation report and would like to underline that such evaluations of TCP should be carried out more frequently in the future, and preferably on a periodical basis.

Although the present evaluation report contains quite a lot of information which helps us grasp the TCP, we feel that the report still has some weaknesses, particularly in the analysis of the catalytic role of TCP. We would like to suggest therefore that FAO should analyse, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to what extent the TCP projects have enabled mobilisation of external assistance, and which types of funding sources have been catalysed.

The evaluation report has made a number of recommendations. My delegation strongly supports the recommendations regarding improvement to information flow-that is numbers 6 to 8, 12 and 36. In this connection we welcome the decision taken by the Director-General which is stated in subparagraph 93) j) of document CL 88/8.

One rather minor point: recommendations number 36 suggests that "stronger measures should be taken by the Organization to urge experts to deliver their terminal statements on time". We feel that this is a very important point, although mention has not been made of it in the Director-General's document. Since we have been informed that FAO is now developing a computerized monitoring system of TCP, we would like to draw attention to the fact that inputs of accurate and prompt information are crucial for an effective monitoring system. Due consideration should therefore be given to this recommendation.

I would like now to briefly touch upon the Director-General's proposals namely, the limit for the maximum cost of a single TCP project and the establishment of a new category.

With regard to the proposal for raising the limit from US$ 250 000 to US$ 400 000, my delegation is not in a position to go along with it for the following reasons:

Firstly, according to Table 1 of the Director-General' s document the average cost of TCP projects approved in 1984 was around US$ 70 000. Furthermore, more than 90 percent of 2 450 projects approved to date were less than US$ 150 000. From this fact, we cannot see any justification in raising the present ceiling.

Secondly, my delegation wishes to draw attention to one of the characteristics of TCP that is relatively small-scale assistance. In this connection I would like to refer to the average cost of UNDP projects, which was around US$ 420 000 in 1984. The raising of the TCP ceiling up to US$ 400 000 will make this TCP characteristic very ambiguous vis-à-vis the project financed by other funding sources like UNDP. My delegation prefers to maintain TCP projects on a relatively small scale.

With regard to the second proposal, my delegation does support the activities referred to in 94) d), however we feel that such activities can be foreseen and programmed for in advance. We see no reason for incorporating these activities in TCP when TCP's character is an unprogrammed budget,


Ramesh Chander GUPTA (India): To begin with, we feel that by the introduct ion of the Technical Cooperation Programme and FAO regional offices in 1976, the role of FAO in our development activities has undergone a fundamental change, and that FAO's activity, assistance and relevance to the developing countries has been substantially enhanced by the inclusion of these three activities in the FAO programme.

With regard to the report of the consultants, some of us have had the opportunity of knowing these capable people, Messrs Linner and Johnson and Mr Palmer who was one of our colleagues here, and we have every confidence in their analytical capacity and judgement. Generally we support the outcome of their study, and we continue to feel that TCP is an extremely important Programme. This is highlighted by the fact that this mission went to a number of developing countries and had extensive discussions with field officers and administrators at authority level and at field level, and with international funding agencies, and there was wide support for this kind of activity. It is a question of perception of what is useful and what is not and perceptions can always differ as to how an activity should be carried out and how it can be programmed-there can be differences of opinion. The consultants, as the report points out, continued seeking areas of weakness in this Programme, some of which are some kind of feedback or follow-up on what happens to various programmes which are initiated by TCP funding and whether adequate funding or investment is available for those programmes later on, or whether the countries which have requested these projects have continued to benefit or to build up on what is being provided by these projects.

Another area which the experts touched upon was delays in getting equipment and experts, and there are certain other things which are covered later on in the Director-General's proposals in terms of what he thinks is of importance, what he wants the Council to do, and what he has suggested to the Council for recommending to the FAO Conference. The fact however remains that, with the experience, with the knowledge, and with the expertise the developing countries have built up over that period it is absolutely necessary that the local experts who have no relevant knowledge of the conditions in their own country or in neighbouring countries are encouraged more and more, and the same applies to equipment because international funding for any programme must not become a means of transferring resources back to countries which substantially contribute to funding. If experts continue to be provided by those very countries which are major funding units of international organizations, then part of the purpose of the programme is lost. Therefore we feel that the recommendation to this extent is extremely valid and must be seriously pursued.

I now address myself to paragraphs 93) and 94). We would like to commend the Director-General for having taken certain action in terms of delegating more authority to the representatives of FAO to sanction individual projects, for a ceiling for a particular area, and with regard to the procurement of material. We continue to feel that the international competitive bidding is the most sensible way of doing these things but we must not let this time-consuming matter involving the use of a lot of red tape become a hindrance to implementation of these projects, which are essentially very small projects funded to a very limited extent. We have to make exceptions, and certain delegations have been given for local purposes-and we welcome these steps.

With regard again to the follow-up: we believe that country representatives of FAO can play a very crucial role in following up on these projects, in trying to find out what happened to the project ideas which are being initiated with these funds, and whether the countries had utilized them or not. Further, they can play a crucial role in liasing with other international funding organizations, because UNDP has offices in all the major countries, and FAO representatives have a close liaison with UNDP. Other funding agencies can also play a very useful role.

With regard to the Director-General's recommendation for increasing the TCP ceiling from $250 000 to $400 000: we have heard the interventions of distinguished delegates from Canada, from the United States and Japan. We would like to point out that it is a fact that for most of the projects which have been funded through the TCP the maximum limit has been approximately $ 70 000. We propose here, on the basis of the report, that a new category of projects should be created-that is, projects for ECDC and TCDC. These projects essentially would be inter-country projects, not small projects confined to districts or small provinces, but inter-country projects which would lead to greater funding and much more follow-up. It is in this context that we feel there is need to raise the ceiling from $250 000 to $400 000.


In this context I would refer to the intervention of Canada. I must say I have the highest personal regard for the majority of the Canadian delegate's views: I never miss his intervention but I feel he laid excessive emphasis on the fact that this was an emergency kind of programme. Let us not overemphasize this word "emergency". It was intended to be an emergency programme to cater to the unforeseen. We must recognize that FAO has a budget passed once in a biennium. Even though we have budgeting every year for projects, we have to divert funds from one source to another because unforeseen needs do arise, and in an organization where the budgeting is done once in two years there is every reason to feel that unforeseen needs would arise and such expenditures should be available.

The distinguished delegate of Japan has answered quite a few questions raised by Canada. The anxiety is to see that there is more accountability, that there is more information, that there is more transparency. Certainly we should approach the problem in a different way. We should ask the Organization to provide more information to the various bodies of FAO to consider at the Conference about what happens to the TCP funds, how they are spent, what is happening to its projects. I certainly cannot agree that we have a minor commitment to TCP projects than developed countries do. After all, if we help every country from an international organization with a loan of assistance, we consider it as valuable as our own resources and we have the same amount of commitment if a follow up is carried out. I think it would be borne out that these funds have been used by countries, that they have benefitted from them and that they have carried on the work that was started from this fund.

With regard to the two last recommendations, Chairman, which the Council is requested to make to the Conference, I have serious reservations about recommendation b) in paragraph 95. Mr Chairman, I would recall that the Director-General in his own review of this report of the consultants in paragraph 50 says "draws the attention of the Council to the pertinent remarks made by the consultants in section 1. 7. 1 of their report concerning the recruitment of experts under TCDC arrangements, as well as the employment of nationals in TCP projects. " Then in paragraph 51, "It is not suggested, therefore, that they should be reviewed in detail in connection with the TCP alone, but that discussions at the country level, between the government and all organizations of the UN system, complemented by the necessary harmonization of procedures". You cannot take the TCP in isolation and lay down a separate procedure for experts which are sent to countries under TCP projects. TCP projects in the long run are projects which are valued. We would like to know what kind of experts are coming and the emergency nature must not be overemphasized. We would like the same kind of scrutiny for TCP experts as for any experts. We certainly agree with paragraph 62 that if there is delay the Organization should not be responsible and we feel this kind of recommendation has a very serious repercussion, it is a very delicate matter so far as the countries are involved, and we cannot support this recommendation being made to the FAO Conference. I am a little disturbed that after the Director-General has expressed his views in the note in paragraph 51 and 62, still paragraph 94 b) contains the recommendation in paragraph 95 would be more balanced, more cautious, rather than the bald statement given by countries in this matter.

I would also like to remind this Council and I can cite a number of cases where experts had been approved by the countries concerned and then were not available. There have been cases where experts are not available for six months or a year after they had been approved by the countries. It is not a one way process; there are so many things involved. Even after the expert has been cleared he may be engaged elsewhere, he may have personal problems, he may not be available, his institution may not release him. So this over-dramatizing of the situation is not called for and we would like the Council to seriously consider the recommendation contained in paragraph 2. 43 where it is recommended to the Council to ask all donors concerned to take steps towards this end, to expedite the clearance of experts. This is the way a sober consideration of the matter is possible, and we must not hasten into taking or making any recommendation which could be opposed in the Conference later on.


Victor HJORT (Denmark): Let me first congratulate Dr Lignon and the Chairman of the Programme Committee for the comprehensive introduction given to this item. Before turning to the document

CL 88/8 my delegation would like to make some introductory remarks. Denmark supported the establishment of the TCP in 1976 because we felt that there was an uncovered need for short-term projects of an unprogrammed and flexible nature. The idea was that TCP should not in any way compete with other forms of assistance, and that it should complement and not substitute other forms of financing. At the last Conference the Danish delegation went against further increase in the relative size of this Programme because the Programme, in our opinion, had reached an adequate level to fulfill its task. Other delegations expressed the same point of view, but nevertheless in the proposed Programme of Work and Budget for 1986-87 we find the relative share of the TCP increased from 12. 7 to 13. 7 percent. This increase has in our view not been subject to a through discussioni in particular in relation to the impact on the general budget policy of this organization.

Mr Chairman, my delegation finds that before considering further increases totally and within this Programme, it is important to discuss the establishment of a monitoring system making it possible for member countries to follow more closely the use of TCP funds. We are not proposing a rigid control system where all projects would have to be agreed upon by Member States. We rather suggest a follow up system which will make it possible to evaluate the implementation and the results of the Programme or the projects in an appropriate way.

Turning to document CL 88/8 before us, we find it difficult to discuss the proposals put forward as we received the document very late. This is unfortunate because my delegation on several occasions has expressed a need for an evaluation of the Programme.

As far as the use of TCP funds up to now is concerned, we are satisfied to note that in 1983-84, 36 percent of the funds have been allocated to projects in least developed countries and 65 percent have gone to low-income food-deficit countries. We would like to see that policy pursued even further. We are also pleased to note that 40 percent of the approved projects are in Africa.

However, concerning the distribution of activities within the projects, we find that the allocation for training during the period has been rather high. We do of course consider training a very important element in the overall development process, but we find it is an element which rather belongs to long-term projects, and only through a limited extent should be covered by TCP.

Mr Chairman, concerning the actual proposals to raise the limit for the maximum cost of a single TCP project to 400 thousand dollars and establishing a new category of TCP projects intended to act as a catalyst for inter-country cooperation, the Danish delegation will refer to these issues in more detail at the forthcoming Conference when we have had a chance to study document CL 88/INF/10.

In conclusion, Mr Chairman, my delegation supports the concept of the TCP as a means within the Programme of Work for providing urgent short-term assistance to developing countries. We do find however that the Programme has reached a size which justifies a request for the establishment of a flexible monitoring system to enable Member States to follow more closely the Programme's activities.

DATO ALWI JANTAN (Malaysia): My delegation would like to join the other distinguished delegations in commending both the Director-General and the Chairman of the Programme Committee for the comprehensive presentation of the independent report on the evaluation of the Technical Cooperation Programme. We would like to congratulate the Director-General for having had the evaluation study undertaken which we think is very objective, and whilst reaffirming the continued need for the TCP, some very important points have been noted and put forward by the consultant. The strength of the TCP is that it provides the FAO with a rapid response system. In dealing with food matters one very often faces such situations that cannot normally be dealt with by means of regular bureaucratic procedures. We feel that TCP is especially useful, taking into account the failure to secure additional financing from various aid institutions.

We also think that TCP should continue to form part of the regular budget. The TCP should also maintain its basic characteristics. However, its management procedures might be looked into to ensure not only greater efficiency but also greater accountability and evaluation.


My delegation is particularly attracted by the proposal of the consultants with respect to recommendation 16, but particularly the twinning of research institutions between developing countries as well as between developed and developing countries. This in our view would really enhance the information flow and technology transfer, and facilitate more rapid training and cooperation. We strongly support this proposal.

On the role of TCP as the catalyst in generating further long-term projects or programmes within the recipient countries, we share the view of the consultants regarding the less than satisfactory progress in this direction. We feel that the effectiveness of TCP will be somewhat diluted without the proper follow-up programmes.

In view of the technical nature of the TCP we fully support recommendation 33 to strengthen some technical units of this Organization as in paragraph 78. We think it is fully justifiable to sanction these units to facilitate technical backstopping. On the matter of procurement we support the preference for the purchase of local goods and services. We have observed that sometimes the purchases of goods or services have been solicited from foreign sources even when such goods or services are available locally at comparable prices.

Finally with regard to the proposal' to increase the limit of TCP from 250 000 to 400 000 US dollars, we wish to register our support to this proposal in view of the inflation rate that has taken place since TCP's inception. We have taken into account also the higher cost of consultancies prevailing now as compared to eight years ago. However, we hope the Director-General will exercise prudence in the use of the increased ceiling.

K. M. EJAZUL HUQ (Bangladesh): First I would like to thank Mr Lignon and the Chairman of the Programme Committee for their very sharply focused remarks. We thank the Director-General for having had the Technical Cooperation Programme evaluated when it was necessary, and we think the independent evaluation has been extremely well done. It has brought out several facets and other very useful elements of the Programme.

In our discussion today, one element has been commonly shared, that is, the usefulness of the Technical Cooperation Programme. We, too, think that the Programme is useful. In our country it has been of particular benefit.

An increase in ceiling does not necessarily mean that the number of projects is going to be reduced merely on account of the increase. I think this is supported by historical fact, that even though a US $250 000 ceiling did not necessarily inhibit the number, in fact the average project cost remained lower than that. It does not necessarily support the assumption that increasing the limit would mean the utilization or designing of projects of a cost order of US $400 000. It merely allows further flexibility to design projects which are necessary to be rated at a higher cost, and the costs are obviously more for materials and services. We endorse the recommendation that the ceiling be raised from US $250 000 to US $400 000.

With regard to the establishment of another category of inter-country programme, I wish to join with those who have already highlighted the point that this category would facilitate cross-fertilization of ideas between countries with similar experience, similar backgrounds and similar technological status. In my mind, this is exceedingly important. Relative to this is also the question of appointment and recruitment of local consultants and consultants from other developing countries.

While we generally endorse the proposals made by the Director-General we would like to share the views expressed by the distinguished delegate of India as to the recommendation in paragraph 95(b). The concern expressed need not necessarily be a legitimate one for the simple reason that in our own experience-as in the experience of others that we know-the process of approval actually is accelerated. Governments have become very, very conscious of the need to accord clearance expeditiously to consultants for the simple reason that the quick establishment, launching and completion of a project is highly desirable.


I would like to add another point which has been discussed by a number of distinguished delegates; that is, the value of TCP as a catalyst. In our own experience, TCP projects have led to investment projects, and also to the realization that certain organizational structures have to be modified to suit changing needs. As progress occurs, there is always a need to infuse this dynamism into the various organizations within countries, and in this the TCP has played an important part.

Mohamed DESSOUKI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): I would like to express my gratitude to Mr Lignon and the Chairman of the Programme Committee for their introduction of this item. I should also like to express our thanks to the Director-General of FAO who undertook an independent evaluation of the Technical Cooperation Programme. I will try to be very brief indeed.

I think the key words here are flexibility above all, flexibility in the response to requests from Member States. All the measures which have been suggested in the documentation will increase the required flexibility.

We also approve the increase from US $250 000 to US $400 000 as a ceiling, even though we know that the number of projects amounting to this sum will be very limited. We would like also to support the idea of increasing the ceilings authorized for country representatives. We recommend that the Organization and the recipient governments follow-up as efficiently as possible all projects undertaken under TCP.

J. D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): I would like to begin by emphasizing our general support in principle for the Technical Cooperation Programme. The objectives of the Programme with its context of raising food production and helping the small producer are laudable. We also welcome the initiative by the Director-General to hold an independent evaluation and look forward to this as a regular process. We hope there will not be such a long gap between evaluations in future.

We are very pleased to have before us document CL 88/INF/10, although for reasons I will explain later this pleasure is slightly tinged with disappointment. The paper contains much useful information and a number of sound recommendations which will enhance the management of the Programme. It merits a welcome from us all.

The evaluation contains many general comments and recommendations. But we consider it could have been improved if it had contained more material of an analytical nature, detailed assessments of specific projects and quantified assessments of programme impacts. We appreciate these are sensitive areas, but as the distinguished delegate from Canada suggested this morning, there are methods which make it possible to carry out the objective analysis which are acceptable to all parties.

We consider the composition of the terms of reference of the evaluation team could have benefitted from a different balance. It seems to us an opportunity has been missed here to assess the quality of the output of the Programme and the interrelationship of the objectives and results. While recipient satisfaction is an important factor and should be taken into account, we consider other more quantifiable elements could have been given greater weight.

After reading the paper, we note that TCP fills useful gaps and that recipients have described themselves as satisfied, but we do not know just how effective individual projects were in achieving their objectives. Presumably, some projects were more satisfactory than others, and it would be interesting to know why. One of the objects of evaluation is to improve project design through learning from experience. Unfortunately, in our view this paper is not sufficiently specific in its content to adequately fulfil this particular function, although it is more helpful in terms of overall programme management. Perhaps I am being unfair and the evaluation has produced information and recommendations which have not been included in the papers before us because they were considered to be too technical, but they have been used internally to influence programme design. Perhaps the Secretariat could confirm whether this is the case.

On a more positive note, the report has identified some areas where communication and coordination can be improved. We welcome proposals for action by the Director-General on this point.


Turning now to document CL 88/8 which asks us to make a number of decisions in relation to the Technical Cooperation Programme, we welcome the action already taken by the Director-General. These actions are listed in paragraph 93 of the paper.

Turning to paragraph 94, we have not been convinced from the arguments in both documents CL 88/INF/10 and CL 88/8 that it is necessary to raise the limit of a single TCP project to US $400 000. In these circumstances, I am afraid that until there are further more convincing arguments we cannot support this proposal. Similarly, as far as the creation of a new category is concerned, while we support the idea of greater inter-country cooperation, we do not feel it has been explained convincingly that TCP is the most appropriate source of funding for these proposals. Therefore, we cannot support the proposal in paragraph 95(b) as it stands.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate our support for the principle behind the Technical Cooperation Programme and its objectives. We express the hope that in the future we will see a series of independent evaluations which do justice to the achievement of the Programme through an assessment of the achievement of individual projects.

We are particularly attracted to a suggestion made in an earlier debate by the distinguished delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany that a future evaluation could be undertaken for example by the JIU. Another possibility might be an independent evaluation by an academic institution. Of course, there are other possibilities. The Director-General has recognized the value of external consultants, and his recognition is very welcome. We hope this principle can be pursued in the future.

Orlando SACAY (Philippines): My delegation commends the decision to have an independent and external evaluation of TCP although it has already recognized that this Programme has provided a direct impact on member countries.

We also commend the consultants for being able to put together a very good report from information gathered from varying circumstances over a span of several years. In this connection my delegation agrees with the conclusion of the report.

We also endorse the recommendation to establish a new category for TCP projets and to raise the limit of maximum cost for a single TCP programme from $250 000 to $400 000. However, this delegation would like to point out that if project limits were raised, either other projects would be reduced in size or there would be fewer projects in the future unless the TCP budget were also raised. This delegation therefore feels that in view of the success of the programme, a way should be found to increase the resources allotted to TCP perhaps from savings or reallocation of funds from lower priority projects.

Vincent MOE (Trinidad and Tobago): The Trinidad and Tobago delegation wishes to congratulate Mr. Lignon on his erudite remarks concerning the TCP, also the Director-General for the appointment of a independent evaluation team.

My delegation views the TCP as one of the most effective and efficient programmes organized by FAO for a rapid response to problems in member countries. We in Trinidad and Tobago have benefited from such programmes and wish to take this opportunity to congratulate FAO for the assitance given. In this connection we endorse the recommendations made by the evaluation team. We also support the increase in the level of financing from $250 000 to $400 000.

When one views the table on page 124, Table 8, and the distribution of allocations one can see quite clearly that 79 percent of these allocations fall between the limits of $50 000 to $100 000. I think this indicates sound fiscal responsability by those who have been given the mandate to administer the project and I think that even if the allocation is raised such responsibility would continue to be. exercised by those who have been given that administrative responsibility. However, I think it may be useful to have included some mechanism for improved financial accountability and monitoring of the projects which have been instituted.


I would further like to endorse the recommendation with respect to the various categories under which assistance could be obtained from FAO in the areas of project identification and formulation, including the preparation of investment projects for which financing institutions have been identified. Many small island states like my own are constrained by the lack of personnel in such areas and therefore have problems in the preparation of bankable project documents. We therefore urge FAO to pursue in this area, review this as one of the catalytic rules embracing the TCP which should not be underscored, particularly in countries which suffer structural deficiencies like my own. Therefore we feel that the programmes should not only address emergency problems but other deficiencies in agricultural development which require a catalytic action to propel them into an action-oriented and implementation plan.

Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): Due to the rather late distribution of document CL 88/INF/10 my delegation was unable to study it in an adequate intensive way, which we regret. May I, however, make some brief remarks on the subject that we are discussing now.

The Technical Cooperation Programme was set up within the framework of FAO's Regular Programme in July 1976. Although we recognized the efforts made by the Organization to meet effectively unforeseen requirements and unexpected needs of its Member States, we have always expressed doubts about the establishment of that Programme within the framework of the Regular Programme because we are of the opinion that technical aid should be financed from voluntary contributions of Member States.

We had already stated at the Twenty-Second Conference of FAO that the TCP with its then proposed share of 12. 7 percent of the overall budget for 1984-1985 should not exceed that level. The proposal put forward by the Director-General for the biennium 1986-1987 shows a share of 13. 7 percent. Although we do not fail to realize the success achieved by the TCP and the great volume of TCP projects as outlined in part D of document CL 88/8, we do not consider it appropriate to implement the proposal in paragraph 45 of the document and raise the ceiling. This also applies to the follow-up proposal in paragraph 47 of the document, all the more so since the average financial volume of the TCP projects between 1980 and 1981 varied between US$57 000 and US$79 000.

Despite our doubts which we still have about the TCP and its further increase in the biennium 1986-87 compared to the biennium 1984-85, we welcome the fact that the Director-General has arranged for an external evaluation of this Programme, as well as for endeavours to increase the efficiency of the Programme. We are, however, of the opinion that the most suitable agency for external evaluation within the United Nations System is the Joint Inspection Unit. We would have preferred it if the evaluation of TCP projects had been carried out by the Joint Inspection Unit.

We recognize the efforts of the Director-General to take the financing possibilities into account in determining the resources for the TCP programmes as stated in paragraph 100. We however doubt the need for introducing a new TCP category as a catalyst for inter-country cooperation, as suggested in paragraph 94(b). We feel that the projects in question can neither have short-term objectives nor do they meet an unexpected need of Member States.

Atif Y BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): May I also say a word of thanks to Mr. Lignon. It is the second time that we owe him a word of thanks, because he previously introduced this point at the Finance Committee.

I am sure that all of us recall that it was in 1976 that this Programme was finalized as part of the Regular Programme of our Organization. All Member-Nations then concurred in the desire to create this Programme, the aim of which was above all to enable the Organization to react in a positive way to unexpected contingencies and urgent needs in developing countries, to satisfy those needs and to also foster economic and technical exchange between developing countries.

The evaluation report shows that all the countries that were visited expressed their gratitude for the Technical Cooperation Programme and emphasized how important it was. They emphasized the lofty and useful objectives that were met in a very effective way by this Programme.


We have been told during this debate by various delegations that they pay tribute to this Programme. For example, there were the delegations of beneficiary countries in particular who paid tribute to it. So we can see what a sound Programme it is.

With that in mind, my delegation realizes that it is for the beneficiary countries first and foremost to judge, appraise and criticize the effectiveness of the Programme and the various activities which form part of it. They are in the position to tell whether the Programme has really done what it was supposed to do for the benefit of the peoples and Nations concerned. In other words, these beneficiary countries shoulder full responsibility in regard to the success, or alternatively the failure, of the Programme.

There can be no doubt that there are certain shortcomings in the implementation, follow-up and evaluation of the Programme, and that this is an altogether natural phenomenon. Indeed in our view it is something positive, since it bears out the famous dictum that says that the only way to avoid error is to do absolutely nothing at all. All the more so, the TCP being such a vast programme cannot possibly be in the lee of error to such a wide-ranging programme. Therefore there are bound to be shortcomings. We knew that perfectly well even before the report was presented. Nonetheless this report is particularly useful in pinpointing just where the lacunae are, highlighting them so that they lead to recommendations, which indeed have just been presented to us, designed to deal with them.

I think this august body of the Council owes it to itself not to lapse into inaction as a result of these shortcomings. We should not overestimate them. After all, the Programme has been working for the benefit of developing countries for years now. Therefore we must shoulder our responsibilities in a yet more efficacious and thoroughgoing way. It is for us to shoulder our responsibilities in a constructive way. We must construct, not destroy.

I think we should take on board these recommendations. I think we should endorse them, so as to be able to open up new avenues of aid and so as to breathe new life into this Programme, to relaunch it, and of course also to give the beneficiary countries more time, if they need it, to address the problems and try to plug the gaps. Indeed it is our hope that this will be done satisfactorily and that the Programme will meet its targets in the way which all of us without any exception would of course hope that it will.

We have heard quite a wide range of glosses from various Member Nations on this Programme. A lot of the statements were informed by the deliberations of the Finance Committee, a Committee of course which was elected by the Council, and the Council expressed its wholehearted confidence in it, and indeed, circumscribed its powers very clearly.

A number of points which were aimed today have already been discussed in the Finance Committee and at that time we received all the explanations which we had asked for. We were completely convinced then, yet today we have heard some comments from Council members who were themselves on the Finance Committee. Now some of those points are valid. For example, it was said that the Organization and its officials do not have enough time to follow-up the implementation and indeed evaluation of projects. That point, in fact, was made in the evaluation report. It was emphasized that the Organization ought to strengthen the technical units working for the Programme.

In fact, in the Finance Committee my delegation stated that we did not agree with this. That is to say, we did not agree with paragraph 81 which the Director General referred to. Now, of course, we understand what the Director General has in mind in this field perfectly well, but, we would wish to reiterate here that the consultants vigorously urge the strengthening of the technical units, as indeed was stated at paragraph 33. I think the Organization owes it to itself to take this on board and ensure that this is achieved in the future, so that the Programme can really do what it is supposed to do and meet its targets in a constructive way, which will be of benefit to all concerned.

When the Director-General was expounding his reasons in paragraph 81 of the report, he referred to the immediate economic situation and the crisis which many countries are experiencing. We for our part however, think there are things which are more important than the short-term economic situation and we would want to reiterate here and now, that for us, this is a programme which is a sound one.


Having heard what the Secretariat has said today we would like to repeat that this Programme is subject to all budgetary monitoring and auditing just as all other programmes in this Organization are. It is meticulously scrutinized by the auditor which is the point which we really wanted to emphasize, since some people have been saying that there is some ambiguity on this point that it is not always possible to see just how the monies earmarked are actually dispersed. That is what some delegations have been saying. I must say as a member of the Finance Committee, I really do have to make this point. All the details were given to us in respect of the income and the manner in which the monies were spent.

Perhaps I can wind up by reassuring you that we are utterly convinced that this is a useful Programme. We have confidence in the Organization. There is not a shadow of doubt about that.

We in the Council here are duty bound, I think, to adopt the Programme and to endorse all the recommendations in the report.

Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): Ma tâche est difficile je dois l'avouer. Je crois que le débat qui se déroule sur cette question est suffisamment important pour que nous puissions prendre quelques minutes pour pouvoir nous exprimer. Dans tous les cas, nous essayerons de faire tout notre possible pour pouvoir vous donner toute satisfaction.

Les neuf dernières années de l’Organisation ont été marquées par deux innovations majeures qui, chacun en convient, ont contribué de manière décisive à accroître l'efficacité de la FAO sur le terrain. Il s'agit, vous l'avez deviné, de la décentralisation dont il a été amplement question ce matin, et du PCT dont l'utilité a été reconnue par tous dans cette salle.

Je ne m'étendrai pas longtemps sur l'évolution de ce Programme qui a connu une progression depuis sa création en raison de la pression qui s'exerce sur ses ressources du fait du nombre des demandes toujours croissantes, elles-mêmes liées à la situation qui prévaut dans le monde en développement. Cela montre à notre avis, s'il en est encore besoin, le dynamisme de cet instrument efficace dont s'est dotée la FAO et qui, de toute évidence, est venu combler un vide qui ne permettait pas aux pays en développement de faire face à certaines situations imprévues, qu'elles soient urgentes ou non, mais dans tous les cas imperatives.

Nous nous félicitons de l'initiative du Directeur général de faire procéder à une nouvelle évaluation extérieure de ce Programme, évaluation qui est à notre avis fiable, et qui selon nous n'a pas à envier une évaluation que nous ferait, disons, le CCI.

Nous pensons que cette évaluation est valable en raison de la compétence de certains cadres qui. ont fait cette étude. Pour notre part nous pensons qu'elle est utile et nécessaire au moment où certains pays s'acharnent sur le PCT et demandent à ce que les ressources au niveau du budget ordinaire consacré au PCT ne puissent plus croître.

Nous le disons: cela est nécessaire dans la mesure où cela aboutit à faire des recommandations qui visent à améliorer l'efficacité de ce Programme hautement utile et dont la gestion nous semble conforme aux directives du Conseil et de ce Comité.

Tout au long du débat sur le PCT nous pensons que le renforcement de ce Programme était une chose nécessaire parce que le PCT rend d'énormes services à nos pays surtout grâce à la rapidité de son action. Cependant, nous pensons en tant que pays membre que nous devons aider la FAO à améliorer son fonctionnement; et pour cette raison nous souscrivons aux recommandations qui ont été faites non seulement sur la mise à jour du plafond de 250 à 400 000 dollars mais également sur le fait qu'il faut autoriser la FAO à moduler ce plafond en tenant compte de l'inflation et ce, pour chaque période biennale, afin de conserver le niveau originel.

Ceci vaut d'ailleurs également pour les délégations de pouvoir qui ont été confiées aux représentants de la FAO. Nous pensons qu'il s'agit là d'un plafond qu'il faut réviser au cours de l'examen de chaque biennium afin de maintenir le niveau originel.


Pour la création d'une nouvelle catégorie d'actions destinées à catalyser la coopération entre pays, nous pensons qu'il s'agit là d'une excellente initiative qui ne peut que combler un vide et qui a pour but de renforcer la CTPD qui a toujours reçu un appui unanime dans cette salle.

Bien sûr, nous sommes d'accord avec les mesures déjà prises par le Directeur général qui toutes visent à améliorer et à accroître la souplesse du PCT.

Dans tous les cas, la délégation congolaise souhaite longue vie au PCT ainsi que son renforcement car nous continuons à penser qu'aucun fonds ou contribution volontaire ne pourra suppléer le PCT dans aucun des domaines ouverts par ce programme car de tels fonds seraient trop aléatoires et pourraient faire l'objet de pressions politiques intolérables dans son affectation suivant les pays.

J'espère pour ma part qu'on n'ira pas jusqu'à proposer la création d'un Comité d'approbation des projets PCT, ce qui irait à contre-courant des objectifs visés par ce programme. A ceux qui s'inquiètent du relèvement du plafond proposé pour chaque projet, nous disons que l'excellente gestion dont vient de faire état l'ambassadeur de l'Arabie Saoudite, nous pensons que cette excellente gestion du PCT devrait apaiser leurs craintes, puisque les montants moyens de projets PCT actuels ne laissent pas présager que beaucoup de projets atteindront ce nouveau plafond. Mais on ne peut accepter d'enfermer le PCT dans des limites qui risquent d'être préjudiciables dans l'avenir et, par conséquent, de contribuer à limiter sa souplesse dont chacun reconnaît le caractère unique qu'il convient de maintenir à tout prix. On peut d'ailleurs s'étonner que ceux-là même qui à d'autres occasions appuient à juste titre des systèmes évolutifs et se refusent à tout statisme en viennent à proposer que le PCT puisse non pas avancer, mais reculer. Bref, nous nous félicitons de la répartition des projets approuvés, surtout de l'accent mis sur l'Afrique tel que ceci ressort dans le paragraphe 21. Nous espérons que l'Afrique continuera à bénéficier de ressources toujours plus importantes du PCT compte tenu de sa situation actuelle. D'accord aussi avec la répartition du paragraphe 21 et espérons que la formation continuera à bénéficier d'une priorité dans l'avenir. Toutes les mesures concrètes préconisées pour accélérer la mise en oeuvre des projets PCT rencontrent notre appui le plus ferme.

Enfin nous voudrions conclure en disant que les paragraphes 93, 94 et 95 rencontrent notre plein appui même si le paragraphe 95 b) mérite un réexamen visant à accorder un délai au-delà duquel on pourrait considérer comme acquis l'accord du gouvernement.

José Ramón LOPEZ PORTILLO ROMANO (México): Me voy a permitir hacer une breve declaración en nombre del Grupo de los 77 y por tanto también de la delegación de México. Felicitamos al Sr. Lignon por su presentación y felicitamos también al Director General de la FAO por haber solicitado una evaluación externa del PCT.

Apoyamos firmemente al PCT como instrumento flexible, subrayamos flexible, de gran beneficio para los países en desarrollo, especialmente cuando otros recursos de asistencia al desarrollo han dis-minuido como es el caso del PNUD, del FIDA y de otros. En efecto, el PCT ha sido un apoyo muy importante para el desarrollo agrícola y alimentario y no es, ni queremos que sea sólo un instrumento para atender emergencias o suplir deficiencias de corto plazo de otras organizaciones o Programas.

Apoyamos, por tanto, el concepto amplio del Programa de Cooperación Técnica y su carácter universal. Apoyamos también en ese sentido la prioridad que tiene el Africa subshariana. Apoyamos el porcentaje que ocupa el PCT dentro del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto, 13, 7 por ciento que representa sin embargo un leve aumento. Así se responde a una prioridad señalada y reiterada por la gran mayoría de los Estados Miembros de la FAO.

Apoyamos el que se eleve el límite máximo de los costos de un proyecto del PCT de 250 000 a 400 000 dólares.

Solicitamos que parte importante de los recursos del PCT puedan dedicarse a la promoción de la PCT y CPTD, conforme se indica en la sección C) de las propuestas de acción del documento CL 88/8, particularmente el párrafo 52 que apoya el establecimiento de un nueva categoría (C) para proyectos que catalicen la CTPD.


Apoyamos por tanto, y para concluir, los párrafos 93 y 94 de dicho documento.

Carlos R. SERSALE di CERISANO (Argentina): De alguna manera la intervención del Presidente del Grupo de los 77 nos ayuda a ser breves.

En resumen, lo que queremos es apoyar todas las medidas sugeridas en los tres niveles, tanto en los párrafos 93, 94 y 95 y, sobre todo, queremos destacar que nos felicitamos de que se hayan incluido recomendaciones que tienden a promover la CPTD dentro del Programa de Cooperación Técnica.

Tenemos algunas dudas en cuanto a la recomendación del párrafo 95 b), que se refiere a la aprobación oficial de los expertos. Nosotros estamos seguros de que la FAO hará todo lo posible para seleccionar a los expertos y consultores que reúnan las mejores condiciones de competencia, etc., tal como consta en el párrafo 61; pero aun así quisiéramos que continúe existiendo un sistema de consultas con los países beneficiarios acerca de las características que debe teaer el consultor, máxime cuando la asistencia otorgada a través del PCT generalmente tiene lugar entro de un programa de más largo plazo que está a cargo del país beneficiario. Nosotros entendemos que si el Gobierno del país beneficiario tiene un papel activo tanto durante la fase de ejecución del proyecto, o sea del proyecto del PCT, como después en el seguimiento, creemos también conveniente tenga algún papel en la selección del experto designado. Quizá podríamos volver a reflotar lo que el mismo Presidente del Comité del Programa sugirió acerca de qué pasa cuando la Organización somete un nombre y si no hay, en un mes, en un término de 30 días, respuesta negativa, darlo por aprobado. En fin, ya a eso se han referido Túnez y Congo, y aosotros estaríamos de acuerdo con esa idea.

Queremos reiterar nuestro total apoyo a las medidas sugeridas y en particular las que hacen referencia a la componente de introducción del CPTD dentro de la ejecución de estos programas.

David R. GREGORY (Australia): It is likely that the budget resources available to FAO in the future will continue to be limited. Therefore, we believe there is a need for FAO to focus its activities in this area to what we might call its comparative advantage. Perhaps then this is the time for a period of consolidation and where necessary some rationalization.

We would like to emphasize the role, as we see it, of FAO as the principal United Nations body on food and agricultural information and policy. The TCP has a place in technical assistance activities of FAO, but as a complement, not a replacement, for the assistance mechanisms of development agencies.

With specific regard to the TCP we would wish to emphasize our desire to see the TCP operating with effective controls and accountability, with criteria which are focussed more on unforeseen and emergency circumstances, with mechanisms for better coordination with other forms of assistance, and with less regular programme budget fundings which could otherwise be used for activities which reflect FAO's real strength.

As we did through our representative on the Finance Committee, and as members of other delegations have covered in one way or the other many of the details of what we would say, we have indicated a number of other concerns which are I think expressed in paragraph 9 of the report of the Committee. We have continued to question the need for an increase in the ceiling of TCP as well as for any additional categories which do not come within the areas of unforeseen needs and emergency circumstances. It appears we have an conundrum: on the other hand we have virtually unanimous support for the TCP from recipients and programme managers in terms of flexibility of the operation on the Programme; on the other, we have many important donors who continue to have difficulties with the financing of the programme. We have the regular programme of the FAO budget itself, particularly for projects which do not come within the category of emergency or unforeseen circumstances. One is forced to ask: how can we overcome this conundrum to enable-wider support in the longer-term for the Programme itself?


For that reason we would agree to look seriously at proposals along the lines suggested by Canada-that is, for what I think is called "a second window" for projects which do not fall within the category of emergency or unforeseen projects and which could be funded from extra-budgetary resources. For example, through establishing a trust fund which can take donations from a number of different sources. In that connection, I would like to ask Mr. Lignon whether such a mechanism would at least be technically possible.

Anastase MUREKESZI (Rwanda): Je voudrais, même si c'est un peu tard, remercier le Directeur général de la FAO qui a bien voulu faire procéder à l'évaluation du Programme de coopération technique. Il était opportun de voir où nous en sommes. Ceci dit, je voudrais passer au vif du sujet avec le paragraphe 94 aux points a) et b), notamment le relèvement du plafond des projets PCT de 250 000 à 400 000 dollars. Je ne voudrais pas revenir sur les justifications que mes collègues ont apportées. Je voudrais cependant souligner le fait que nombre de demandes qui doivent répondre à des situations d'urgence, conjoncturelles et structurelles, augmentent dans les différentes régions, et si la moyenne des projets PCT jusqu'aujourd'hui ne dépasse pas pour la plupart les 100 000 dollars, c'est probablement dû à ce que ces projets ont été nombreux et continueront à l'être et que l'esprit de répartition, l'esprit de cohérence, pour répondre à la plupart des demandes, affecte la moyenne des propositions qui, pour chaque projet, n'a guère dépassé dans la plupart des cas les 100 000 dollars. Pour le paragraphe 94, je souscris entièrement à cette recommandation ainsi qu'à la recommandation du paragraphe 95 a) et, en ce qui concerne le paragraphe 95 b), je voudrais que le Conseil et la Conférence n'aillent pas jusqu'à demander aux Etats et aux gouvernements de renoncer aux procédures d'approbation des experts et consultants du Programme de coopération technique. Nous devrions plutôt aller dans le sens de la sensibilisation de ces Etats et gouvernements pour accélérer les procédures parce que je pense que cela relève du domaine de la souveraineté.

En ce qui concerne les services, équipements et fournitures notés au paragraphe 69, je suis d'accord avec l'engagement du Directeur général de la FAO visant à restreindre l'appel d'offres international et à faire appel dans la mesure du possible aux achats sur place.

Jean-Pol NEME (France): La délégation française tient tout d'abord à remercier le Directeur général pour avoir pris l'initiative de faire évaluer les activités du PCT par des équipes extérieures. Une telle évaluation, après huit années d'activités, traduit une volonté de rigueur et de transparence que nous appuyons vivement et nous espérons qu'elle pourra être répétée à intervalles réguliers, tous les cinq ans par exemple. Cette évaluation permettra de déterminer les moyens d'améliorer le fonctionnement de l'efficacité de ce Programme. Ma délégation a toujours approuvé la priorité accordée au PCT dans le budget ordinaire de la FAO en raison de son impact considérable dans les activités de terrain de l'Organisation. Son utilité nous paraît indéniable car c'est le seul Programme permettant à la FAO de répondre rapidement à des requêtes non prévisibles des pays membres.

Nous avons noté avec satisfaction au paragraphe 21 la part de l'Afrique dont le montant total des projets du PCT s'élève à 40 pour cent et nous espérons que la priorité accordée à l'Afrique sera maintenue, voire renforcée à l'avenir, tout particulièrement en faveur des 25 pays les plus touchés par la sécheresse.

En ce qui concerne les propositions d'actions, ma délégation apporte son plein appui aux recommandations des consultants et notamment à la recommandation 21 qui propose de relever le plafond des projets du PCT de 250 000 dollars à 400 000 dollars. En effet, un tel réajustement permet de prendre en compte l'inflation cumulée pendant les neuf années d'existence du programme à un taux moyen de 5, 36 pour cent par an, ce qui nous paraît raisonnable par rapport au taux effectif de l'inflation.

En outre, nous appuyons la création d'une nouvelle catégorie de projets du PCT destinée à catalyser la coopération entre pays et tout particulièrement les réseaux coopératifs de recherche, qui constituent, à notre avis, le moyen le plus efficace et le moins coûteux de renforcer les capacités


de recherches agricoles dans les pays en développement. En effet, on a trop souvent eu tendance dans le passé à privilégier les structures centralisées de recherche agricole internationale en sous-estimant le rôle essentiel que peuvent jouer des structures beaucoup plus souples comme les réseaux de recherche. C'est pourquoi nous ne pouvons qu'encourager la FAO à renforcer ses activités dans ce domaine pour parvenir à un meilleur équilibre entre ces deux approches.

Nous appuyons également la recommandation du paragraphe 60 du document qui propose aux gouvernements des pays bénéficiaires de renoncer aux procédures formelles d'approbation des experts et consultants du PCT pour les missions ne dépassant pas trois mois. Une telle disposition permettra d'accroître considérablement la rapidité d'intervention du PCT et donc son efficacité.

Enfin, parmi les mesures déjà prises ou prévues par le Directeur général, je tiens à relever tout particulièrement celles qui donnent instructions aux représentants de la FAO dans les pays de mettre au courant du PCT les représentants des autres organismes d'aide et surtout des pays donateurs et d'établir tous les six mois un catalogue de tous les projets de la FAO opérationnels, et achevés dans le pays en indiquant l'action consécutive aux projets achevés. Une telle mesure-nous paraît essentielle pour renforcer la concertation entre les aides et éviter les risques des doubles emplois.

En conclusion, je tiens à féliciter les auteurs de ce rapport d'évaluation qui justifie à posteriori la confiance que le Gouvernement français a toujours apportée à ce programme.

Robert SEVCOVIC (Czechoslovakia): Mr. Chairman, the documents we have before us, CL 88/8 and CL 88/INF/10, have been prepared in a qualified manner and provide a good review of the Technical Cooperation Programme. We are aware of the fact that the implementation of the main purpose of TCP to raise food production and to enable it to meet more effectively unforeseen requirements and unexpected needs of FAO member countries, especially developing countries, is not easy. In paragraph F of the document CL 88/8, which we fully support, the burden of external debt in many developing countries, increasing resources problems, the duration of the terms of trade, inflation and many others are mentioned. There are very serious global problems. In the document the term "vicious circle" is used in this connection TCP cannot of course sort out them, but it has been able to create better conditions and contribute to their successful resolution. TCP has better served the developing countries by mobilizing their technical cooperation and other facilities.

On pages 9 and 10 of the document CL 88/8 and other pages, great attention has been paid to the role of experts. We support it because during both the preparation and implementation of each project activity they play a very important, maybe decisive role. We think it is necessary to take into account the financial limits significance of this Programme, but in the same way not to overestimate its possibilities.

We support the intention of Mr. Director-General not to increase in any significant manner the TCP share of the Regular Programme, nor to broaden its terms of reference, and to allocate 18. 5 million dollars for this programme entirely covered through savings in the Programme of Work and Budget and resulting from major cuts in new cost administration.

Marne Balla SY (Sénégal): Monsieur le Président, le document CL 88/8, brillamment introduit par M. Lignon et le Président du Comité du Programme, est assurément l'un des points de l'ordre du jour de nos travaux qui devrait, du point de vue de ma dé délégation, retenir notre plus grande attention. Cela pour des raisons très simples que je souhaiterais, avec votre permission, rappeler brièvement.

D'abord, le PCT, en dix ans a fait ses preuves et s'est révélé un moyen de coopération capable de répondre, dans des délais relativement brefs, à des situations d'urgence.

Ensuite, le PCT apparaît incontestablement comme un modèle d'assurance technique qui s'efforce de tenir largement compte des besoins réels des pays bénéficiaires, tout en fournissant la participation effective de ces derniers à la conception et à la réalisation des projets retenus.


Enfin, le PCT vise essentiellement des projets ponctuels à court et moyen terme concernant des secteurs économiques prioritaires.

Toutes ces considérations sont suffisamment corroborées par les conclusions de l'évaluation de ce programme dont nous sommes saisis.

A propos de cette évaluation, l'on se félicite qu'elle ait été réalisée par experts indépendants, ce qui témoigne de sa fiabilité. Bien sûr, certains soutiennent que cette évaluation gagnerait à l'avenir à être réalisée par le Corps commun d'inspection du système des Nations Unies. Cette remarque qui, je l'espère, ne cache d'autre intention que celle de garantir plus de neutralité à l'appréciation du PCT, ne diminue pas néanmoins la valeur technique de l'étude réalisée par des cadres sérieux, rigoureux et compétents. A ces derniers, je voudrais rendre un hommage mérité et me féliciter de leurs efforts.

A la lumière de tout ce qui précède, vous comprendrez que la délégation sénégalaise donne tout son appui au PCT et souscrit aux recommandations faites dans le document CL 88/8. Je pense particulièrement à ses paragraphes 93, 94 et 95, encore que l'alinéa b) de ce dernier article mérite d'être revu dans un sens plus souple.

La délégation sénégalaise souhaite également l'élargissement de l'autonomie des représentants de la FAO et l'élévation du plafond du coût des projets financés par le PCT de 250 000 à 400 000 dollars. Cette dernière recommandation semble plus être un réajustement rendu nécessaire par des considérations inflationnistes qu'une seule augmentation des ressources affectées à ce programme. Il s'y ajoute que l'Afrique, le principal bénéficiaire, se trouve dans une situation d'urgence généralisée et croissante. Les nouvelles dispositions, si elles étaient adoptées, permettraient de renforcer les projets multinationaux et régionaux et de stimuler une coopération plus dynamique entre pays en voie de développement.

En conclusion, je reste persuadé qu'aucun pays ne remettra en cause l'efficacité et l'utilité du PCT, les observations formulées ici devant être considérées comme une volonté d'aider à l'amélioration du fonctionnement de ce précieux outil, de manière à lui donner plus de moyens et à le rendre davantage efficace.

Hermann REDL (Austria): Owing to your request Mr. Chairman and to the late time I shall try to be very brief. We also believe that TCP should give quick assistance to developing countries in the future by means of small projects which are aimed at raising food production. We fully share the opinion that TCP should maintain its unprogrammed nature, practical orientation, flexibility and speed. During the last years there was a worldwide increase in prices. We support the proposal that the present ceiling should be raised to 400 000 US dollars and that a new category of projects should be created. We further believe that the use of nationals should be increased.

Finally we would underline that we fully support this very important Programme of FAO and we look forward to the discussions in the course of the Conference.

HIDAYAT GANDA ATMADJA (Indonesia): Mr. Chairman, the Technical Cooperation Programme which was initiated by the Director-General in 1976 has proved it is of tangible benefit for the developing countries. Indonesia has experienced a number of seed funds from technical cooperation projects which generated further programmes and projects financed by other sources. My delegation therefore also appreciates the amount of funds allocated to technical cooperation which has in fact increased from time to time, although we all know that FAO budget reflects zero growth in several biennium, and more importantly, the extent of recent progress and constructive proposals made by the Director-General for further strengthening the finer role of technical cooperation in the agricultural development of the developing countries. In particular Mr Chairman my delegation fully supports the increase of the Technical Cooperation Programme ceiling level from 250 000 US dollars to 400 000 US dollars, and the proposal to enable the technical cooperation sources to finance the promotion to TCDC inter-country programmes as expressed in paragraph 94 a) and 94 b).


My delegation would like to concur with remarks by the distinguished delegates of Malaysia and India that the increase in standard costs of consultants, equipment, etc. and the expansion of technical cooperation to the inter-country programmes of TCDC would increase the fund required. In the case of the promotion of TCDC programmes, my delegation would be happy to see that the TCP fund also strengthen support for the promotion of the utilization of local expertise available in recipient countries to maximize the efficient use of the technical cooperation fund.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Estamos llegando al final de un debate que ha sido en ciertos aspectos desconcertante y que se ha caracterizado por las declaraciones de algunos delegados faltas de sinceridad. Decimos esto porque consideramos que no es serio ni coherente que algunas delegaciones reconozcan la popularidad, la validez del PCT que funciona con un mínimo de burocracia, la utilidad, la flexibilidad del PCT, anunciando que no van a asumir actitudes negativas, y humildemente tan solo proponen el fin, la desaparición, la muerte del PCT.

En efecto, si el PCT dependiera de contribuciones voluntarias o de sumas no gastadas, de hecho perdería la base misma de su existencia segura al precipitarse en la incertidumbre y al hacerle víctima de presiones políticas que no le permitirían cumplir sus fines con la transparencia y eficacia de hoy.

Nos oponemos a la creación de cualquier ventanilla lugubre, siniestra, o técnica como se le quiera llamar; ventanilla que debe estar alimentada por la caridad porque a través de semejante cambio no encontaríamos los tres pies al gato, como dijo un delegado, sino que el PCT quedaría sin uno ni mil pies, caería en el vacío y se afectarían sus aspectos principales.

Se ha dicho que el PCT empezó con carácter experimental y por lo tanto no debe seguirse fortaleciendo. Creemos que es un criterio peregrino concebido en el limbo, porque justamente el resultado plenamente positivo de esa experiencia, comprobado en esta nueva evaluación, justifica todas estas propuestas. Afirman que es difícil controlar la ejecución del PCT. Entonces, ¿a qué sirve esta evaluación? ¿Acaso los representantes de esos gobiernos se consideran propietarios omnímodos de la cooperación internacional dentro de la cual todo programa deba estar sometido al solo y exclusivo control de sus gobiernos? ¿Es ésta otra intención de desvirtuar el verdadero sentido de la cooperación internacional?

Se ha dicho que falta información. ¿Es que acaso no les bastan las 124 páginas del documento CL 88/INF/10? ¿Desean ellos que sus países participen en la ejecución de los. proyectos? Bienvenidos. Ellos tienen recursos. Que organicen misiones y que vayan a visitar a nuestros países para que allá, los funcionarios de nuestros gobiernos les confirmen la validez del PCT.

Hablan de evaluaciones más frecuentes, y son justamente aquellos países que insisten de este modo quienes se oponen al aumento de los gastos. No queremos que el PCT sea evaluado por la DCI, con la cual tenemos ingratas experiencias. Se ha hablado de universidades. ¿Es que acaso se pretende descalificar la competencia y seriedad de tres consultores externos, respetables, independientes y competentes?

Podríamos seguir, si no fuera tan tarde, enumerando una serie de hechos pero vamos a concluir sólo con dos referencias a la obsesión con que ciertos países se oponen sistemáticamente al PCT.

Uno de ellos ha dicho, ¿por qué es la primera vez que se evalúa el PCT? ¿Pretende ahora en retrospectiva disociarse de la resolución 1/74 que aprobó en noviembre de 1978 el Consejo, del cual ha sido permanente miembro ese país? Otro miembro del Consejo descalificó públicamente a la Jefe de su propia delegación quien, en representación del gobierno de ese Estado, en el Comité del Programa, como afirmó el presidente, apoyó el aumento del límite de los cuatrocientos mil dólares; ahora ese miembro del Consejo se opone aquí a ese aumento que fue aprobado, repito, por la Jefe de su delegación en el Comité del Programa.

Pero es muy tarde, señor Presidente. Vamos a colaborar con usted. No queremos que este debate concluya con una nota desapacible y por tanto apoyamos todas las propuestas sobre el PCT.


Sra. Dona Mercedes FERMÍN GOMEZ (Venezuela): La delegación de Venezuela quiere sencillamente expressar su pleno apoyo al documento que estamos estudiando ahorrándoles a ustedes todos los elogios que ya abundantemente han hecho los delegados que me precedieron en el uso de la palabra. Y queremos apoyarlo para que el PCT pueda continuar cumpliendo la útil labor que realiza en beneficio de los países más necesitados, en nuestro continente y en otros continentes.

Nosotros queremos también expresar precisamente nuestro apoyo a las propuestas, medidas tomadas y que podrán tomarse, que se enumeran en el párrafo 93 así como estamos también por la aceptación de las medidas propuestas en el párrafo 94.

Sólo queremos hacer una salvedad en cuanto al apartado (b) del párrafo 95 en el cual estamos de acuerdo con las observaciones hechas por los delegados de la India y del Senegal, esperando que de ser mejor estudiadas puedan ser por lo menos tomadas en cuenta nuestras reservas.

Por lo demás, creo así cumplir el deseo expresado por nuestra delegación de apoyar absolutamente todos los demás puntos contenidos en el Informe que estudiamos.

H. M. MBALE (Malawi): My delegation wishes to associate itself with the support other delegations have given to the TCP. This is one of the most important programmes of FAO and as such should be given full support by all of us.

I also wish to support the proposed increase in TCP projects from US $250 000 to US$400 000, because this does not necessarily mean that all projects will be at the higher figure, but rather that that amount would be the maximum for the projects which are being put forward for consideration by FAO.

I believe, too, that the timing of the evaluation was most convenient, considering the fact that the programme has been operating for nine years. I hope we will continue to have this kind of arrangement so we can be sure that TCP is able to fulfil the ideals that were the basis of its establishment.

Ajmal Mahmood QURESHI (Pakistan): Although I requested another opportunity to speak a long time ago thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me this opportunity. I realize it is very late in the day, and I will try to be very brief.

We have the highest regard for the distinguished delegate of Canada, but are a little bit concerned at some of the observations made this afternoon. We have always admired him for his wisdom, sagacity, frankness, maturity and capability. Perhaps it is inconceivable to call the TCP a gas station on the Via Cristoforo Colombo, but we more than agree with him. We think our founding fathers, perhaps, conceived FAO as a "gas station" or a "power house" to muster help and assistance in eradicating hunger, malnutrition and rural poverty from this dismal world of ours. The entire FAO technical and economic programme should serve as a universal "gas station" to serve the immediate needs of the poor countries.

We appreciate what the distinguished delegate of India said a while ago about our differing perceptions of emergency. As perhaps all of us present here see it, an emergency is not essentially an earthquake, an epidemic, a hurricane, or a ravaging flood. Poverty, hunger and malnutrition is not only a continuing state of emergency, but a perpetual catastrophe. We would only be stating the whole truth if we said that the majority of the population of third world countries lives and dies in a state of continuing emergency. Ninety percent of the world population lives in the third world; only 20 percent of world income is generated there. According to one estimate, nearly 800 million people in the developing countries suffer from endemic mainourishment; more than one third of the children in the developing countries have no school to go to; two-thirds of the world population have no access to clean tap water. The predicament of the majority of the population in the poor parts of the world is an emergency sufficient to merit FAO diverting its entire programme resources to the alleviation of poverty and hunger on a most urgent basis, perhaps, under the aegis of a useful programme conceived on a grand scale, such as TCP.


We wish to underline once again that the criteria for TCP assistance are not only well established but well tried, and have stood the test of time. Therefore, we wish to reiterate that TCP should not only be continued, but should be further strengthened to serve as a universal powerhouse to meet the urgent needs of the neediest countries.

Avraam LOUCA (Cyprus): We have already expressed in the morning session our assessment of the role and effectiveness of TCP. We have already stated that we are very pleased with its performance and the way it has been administered by the Director-General. We fully endorse the recommendation of the consultants that adequate resources should be made available to the Organization so that it can continue to meet the demands for the quick assistance of Member Nations within the strict application of TCP criteria.

With regard to the recommendation for raising the limit for the maximum cost of a single TCP project of US $400, 000, although the result of the last evaluation indicates that a much lower figure represents the average for approved projects, we feel that the Director-General should be free to approve such projects should the need arise.

We also endorse the establishment of a new category (C) intended to act as a catalyst for inter-country cooperation. We further support the recommendation that interested governments should keep FAO informed of the availability of experts on TCDC activities to facilitate their release for potential TCP assignments, and that the recipient governments should consider the possibility of renouncing the formal practice of clearance for TCP experts and consultants for missions of up to three months' duration.

Finally, I would like to endorse the actions that have been taken, or are planned to be taken, as outlined in paragraph 93 of the document under review.

Raphaël RABE (Observateur de Madagascar): Nous appuyons chaleureusement la présentation claire et pertinente du sujet faite par M. Lignon. La délégation de Madagascar félicite vivement le Directeur général d'avoir eu l'heureuse initiative de faire entreprendre l'évaluation experte du PCT. D'emblée nous tenons à faire part de nos sentiments à l'endroit du rapport de la mission d'évaluation. Ce rapport est tout simplement excellent, et mérite par conséquent toute notre attention et surtout toute notre confiance. Il démontre une fois de plus, si cela était encore nécessaire, le caractère exceptionnel du PCT et le fait que tous les pays et les gouvernements consultés à son sujet ont manifesté leur vive satisfaction. Pour notre part, nous connaissons parfaitement ce programme, car d'une part, nous en avons bénéficié sous diverses formes, et d'autre part, en notre qualité de membre du Comité financier, suite à des contacts fréquents et soutenus que nous avons eus avec les responsables de l'Organisation, ces derniers ont toujours fait montre d'une grande disponibilité à nous recevoir et à donner toute sorte de renseignements pouvant être sollicités. Nous sommes convaincus qu'une telle attitude est une règle de conduite du Secrétariat et quiconque. pourrait désirer des renseignements, des informations ou des éclaircissements, s'il fait l'effort de rencontrer les responsables compétents, il aura à coup sûr satisfaction.

A ce sujet, nous voudrions confirmer les précisions données par le délégué de l'Arabie Saoudite quant à l'effort que le Secrétariat a fait pour donner tous les détails exigés par le Comité financier à sa dernière session. Nous nous étonnons donc que certains membres se plaignent de cette insuffisance de données. Il nous semble inutile de donner les preuves de l'efficacité du programme de coopération technique. Ces preuves figurent clairement dans le rapport. Il suffit de s'y reporter. Nous voudrions citer un exemple réel, vécu, qui démontre le caractère vraiment indispensable et salutaire du PCT pour nous, pays en développement. Dans les années 1981-1982, Madagascar a été menacée par une invasion généralisée de criquets migrateurs. Toute la province du sud de 160 000 km2 a été la zone du départ des sauterelles. Le gouvernement a fait appel à la FAO, connaissant la capacité de cette Organisation dans la lutte contre le criquet. Dans la semaine qui a suivi la requête, un expert du Siège était sur le terrain et nous a aidés à élaborer le document du projet. En se servant du PCT, le Directeur général, en l'espace de deux mois a pu mobiliser les experts, nous faire parvenir les premiers produits de lutte, recycler le personnel de terrain et remettre en marche le matériel d'intervention. C'est ainsi que le pire a pu être évité


de justesse. Ce projet montre le caractère multidisciplinaire du PCT. Il le doit à son rattachement au programme ordinaire. Les experts de haut niveau de la mission d'évaluation dont les compétences n'ont jusqu'à présent pas été mises en cause, ont insisté sur le rattachement du PCT au programme ordinaire. Aussi, il ne nous paraît pas raisonnable de l'envisager autrement. En ce qui concerne' le pourcentage du PCT par rapport au budget, on relève que le pourcentage était de 11 pour cent à l'origine et qu'il est actuellement de 13 pour cent. Donc, en l'espace de dix ans, il n'a progressé que de 2 pour cent alors que les demandes des pays ont triplé pendant la même période.

D'autres exemples pourraient être donnés mais le temps ne nous permet pas de nous étendre. Nous voudrions seulement préciser que les domaines d'activités qui figurent à la page 68 du rapport sont bien justifiés. A l'instar des autres pays en développement, nous avons nous aussi un peu souffert du plafond trop bas du PCT, car souvent, nous avons dû classer certains projets d'urgence dépassant 250 000 dollars. Aussi, il est vraiment indispensable de porter ce plafond à 400 000 dollars, et même peut-être, d'accepter la modulation de ce plafond comme l'a proposé le délégué du Congo. Enfin pour terminer, nous appuyons sans réserve les mesures proposéees aux paragraphes 93, 94 et 95, notamment son alinéa.

Humberto CARRION McDONOUGH (Observador de Nicaragua): No deseo abusar de la paciencia de usted como Presidente del Consejo en este privilegio que tengo de hablar en este foro como observador. No necesito extenderme para apoyar las recomendaciones del Director General incluidas en el documento CL 88/8. Desde que nuestro Gobierno recibió la agenda de trabajo de este Consejo y los documentos que acabo de mencionar, nuestro deseo ha sido apoyar los párrafos 93, 94 y 95 del documento CL 88/8. Sobre este particular deseo recordar también el documento CL 88/4, Informe del 45° período de sesiones del Comité del Programa que se reunió en septiembre, y que en su tercera Parte bajo la voz: Evaluación del Programa de Cooperación Técnica en los párrafos 2. 36 al 2. 44 hace una serie de comentarios favorables y acoge particularmente las medidas propuestas del Director General que están contenidas en el documento CL 88/8, párrafo 94. Me refiero al apoyo del Comité del Programa contenido en el párrafo 2. 41.

Asimismo el Informe del 56° período de sesiones del Comité de Finanzas, de septiembre pasado, bajo la voz: Otros asuntos, también evaluó el PCT en sus párrafos 3. 83 a 3. 93 e igual recomendación hizo en sus párrafos 3. 92 de aumentar de 250 000 a 400 000 dólares el techo de cada proyecto por país.

Deseo también hacer un comentario adicional no contenido en los documentos mencionados, puesto que éstos son suficientemente amplios y claros, sino que a nadie escapa la necesidad de nuestro país de apoyar una propuesta como la contenida en los párrafos 93, apartados a), c), d), g) y h) y 94 debido a la situación en que se encuentra Nicaragua para poder obtener financiamiento y ayuda económica e incluso relaciones comerciales estables por la agresión de que somos víctimas.

Deseo recordar también lo que otros miembros ya han recalcado, y es la disminución existente en términos reales de la ayuda multilateral. En este sentido, repito Sr. Presidente, nuestra delegación apoya firmemente los párrafos 93, 94 y 95 del documento CL 88/8.

Bashir EL MABROUK SAID (Observer for Libya) (original language Arabic): This programme enjoys our attention, and the consultants in their evaluation of the Programme have indicated its value for developing countries. Therefore we have to support this programme and we have to increase its funds. We also endorse the efforts of the consultants.

The Director-General has reiterated once more the significance that he attaches to this Programme and its importance for developing countries. We support the Director-General in all the proposals referred to in the document, especially in raising the. ceilings for each project and in establishing a new category that encourages cooperation among developing countries. What is referred to in paragraph 94 (a) and (b) would facilitate and accelerate the implementation of the Programme and we endorse these arrangements.


SAHADOU BAWA (Observateur du Niger): Sachant que votre temps est très limité, je ne m'attarderai pas sur les questions de détail. La délégation du Niger voudrait se joindre aux nombreux orateurs qui l'ont précédée (je citerai en passant celle du camarade sénégalais) pour présenter ses vives félicitations quant à la qualité du document que nous a présenté M. Lignon. Ma délégation approuve avec chaleur et fermeté les propositions concernant le PCT qui sont le fruit d'un travail sérieux et qui font du PCT un outil précieux pour la FAO dans la poursuite de ses nobles objectifs.

Permettez-moi de vous rappeler que mon pays, membre de la FAO, appartient à cette frange névralgique de l'Afrique au sud du Sahara, appelée le Sahel, où les préoccupations demeurent encore la recherchede l'autosuffisance alimentaire. Grâce au PCT notamment, la FAO cherche à mieux cerner la recherche de solutions à ces problèmes.

Vous avez sans doute lu l'interview que Son Excellence le Général de brigade Seyni Kountché, Chef d'Etat du Niger et Président en exercice du Comité interétats de lutte contre la sécheresse dans le Sahel, a accordée à la revue Cérès, numéro spécial du quarantième anniversaire, et qui disait, je cite: Le quarantième anniversaire me donne l'occasion de réaffirmer l'attachement du Niger et des peuples du Sahel aux objectifs fondamentaux que lui ont assignés ses fondateurs en 1945, fin de citation.

Voilà une des raisons essentielles qui me permet et qui permet à la délégation du Niger de soutenir vivement les propositions contenues dans le rapport du PCT dont nous avons pris bonne connaissance. De même, nous soutenons toute nouvelle initiative de nature à améliorer quantitativement le PCT et à accroître l'efficacité de la FAO.

C'est pourquoi, et pour en terminer, ma délégation voudrait saisir cette opportunité pour renouveler ses vives félicitations à l'équipe qui a réalisé cet excellent travail sur le PCT sous l'impulsion du Directeur général à qui nous rendons un vibrant hommage.

La délégation du Niger voudrait enfin remercier et encourager toutes les bonnes volontés qui aspirent au plaidoyer en faveur du relèvement du PCT de 250 000 à 400 000 dollars.

Pedro Agostinho KANGA (Observateur de l'Angola): Tout d'abord nous voulons féliciter le Secrétariat pour la présentation claire et précise du document soumis au Conseil. La délégation angolaise est d'avis que les projets PCT constituent pour les pays en développement une sorte de ballon d'oxygène dans des situations d'extrême urgence. Pour ce faire, ma délégation appuie tout effort d'augmentation du budget destiné á cette catégorie de projets, étant donné que beaucoup de projets PCT visent des actions immédiates susceptibles d'attirer des financements de sources diverses, en accord avec les résultats obtenus. Toute initiative du Directeur général de la FAO visant l'amélioration et l'efficacité de l'assistance au titre du PCT est pour mon pays la bienvenue. Ainsi ma délégation associe sa voix à celle des délégués qui m'ont précédé pour donner son total appui à la nouvelle catégorie des projets PCT. En effet, les pays bénéficiaires de ces projets comprennent la nécessité de l'existence de tels projets. Cela étant, nous nous félicitons des consensus dégagés pour des discussions sur ces documents et nous soutenons les efforts de la FAO visant à la promotion de la TCDP et de la TCDE.

The meeting rose at 19. 00 hours
La séance est levée à 19 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 19. 00 horas


Previous Page Top of Page Next Page