Previous Page Table of Contents Next Page


8. Report of the Twelfth Session of the Committee on Forestry (Rome, 13-17 March 1995)
8. Rapport de la douzième session du Comité des forêts (Rome, 13-17 mars 1995)
8. Informe del 12° período de sesiones del Comité de Montes (Roma, 13-17 marzo de 1995)

EL PRESIDENTE: Buenas tardes, distinguidos delegados y observadores. Me permito abrir la Sexta Sesión Plenaria de nuestro Consejo. Tenemos ante nosotros el Tema 8 de nuestra agenda, el Informe del Comité Forestal. Antes de dar inicio a este tema me voy a permitir recordarles que aquellos países que tengan interés en participar en el grupo de trabajo para la revisión del proyecto de Declaración de Quebec, indiquen su interés a la Secretaría. Tenemos ya una lista de países, pero antes de leerles los nombres quisiéramos completarla. Si no hay ninguna observación me permito entonces pasar al tema 8 de nuestra agenda. Le voy a pedir al Sr. Harcharik que nos presente el informe del 12° período de sesiones del Comité de Montes. Tiene usted la palabra.

David HARCHARIK (Assistant Director-General, Forestry Department): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman, distinguished delegates, I would like to draw your attention to the document CL 108/8 which, as you know, is the report of the 12th session of the Committee on Forestry, more commonly called COFO.

Some of you may recall that the 12th session of COFO, held from 13 to 16 March 1995, had the highest ever attendance with participation from 114 members of the Committee, fifteen other Member Nations, one UN Member Nation, observers from 20 intergovernmental and international non-governmental organizations and many others within and outside the UN System.

The session was also special in that it was immediately followed by the first meeting ever which was convened by the Director-General for ministers responsible for forestry. That meeting was attended by 54 ministers and senior officials from 70 other countries apart from observers from international organizations and non-governmental organizations.

Chairman, the Committee and the Ministerial Meeting focused their attention on management and sustainable developement of forests with the main thrust being to help prepare for review, by the 3rd session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development in April, progress in implementation of UNCED agreements related to forestry. This function presented a great opportunity to influence decisions at a political level which the CSD was expected to take at its April session.

Chairman, I think most of us know that the COFO and the Meeting of Ministers were also preceded by two other very important events. One was a meeting of the private forest industries, and a second was a meeting of non-governmental organizations. Together these two meetings, along with the ministerial and COFO, provided some very good advice to FAO on its future programme of work, and I should add that they were also extremely helpful to me personally as I begin my current assignment with FAO.

Chairman, I would draw your attention and that of the distinguished delegates to only a few key points under the three agenda items addressed by COFO. First, relating to the management and sustainable development of forests. The Committee considered the report on post-UNCED progress prepared by FAO in its role as task manager, which had been the basis of the UN Secretary General's report to the CSD. The Committee was also informed that the ad hoc intersessional working group of the CSD, which met in February and early March, had recommended that the April 1995 session of the CSD establish an intergovernmental panel on forests under its own aegis to pursue further consensus building on outstanding issues.

The Committee recommended that FAO respond positively to the recommendation of the intersessional working group of the CSD and that we be prepared to participate in the work of the intergovernmental panel. The Meeting of Ministers responsible for forestry also welcomed the proposal for the CSD to consider the establishment of this panel on forests.

The third session of the Commission on Sustainable Development has, in fact, been held, and I think most delegates are aware of this. It did establish the open-ended ad hoc intergovernmental panel on forests to pursue a number of objectives, which included the implementation of UNCED decisions related to forests and the examination of sectorial and cross-sectorial linkages. The international cooperation and financial assistance and technology transfer, scientific research, forest assessment, and development of criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, trade and environment relating to forest products and services and international organizations and multilateral institutions and instruments including appropriate legal mechanisms.

Chairman, I think that FAO can contribute a great deal to most of these tasks that the CSD will take up. The panel is expected to submit its recommendations and proposals for action to the CSD's 5th session in 1997 and a progress report to its 4th session next year.

Chairman, we expect that the first organizational meeting of the intergovernmental panel will take place very soon. It is in this context that FAO has been guided by the recommendation of COFO and which was reiterated by the ministerial meeting that, as task manager within the UN system for forestry, we respond positively to the intergovernmental panel on forests and that we be prepared to participate in the process associated with it.

I can report that we are maintaining regular communication with the UN Secretariat on how the Panel can best draw upon our capacities and capabilities not only in forestry but also in forestry-related aspects of other land use sectors and in rural development. To facilitate this, the Forestry Department's Task Force, which has provided technical advice in UNCED follow-ups on forests, is now being expanded beyond the Forestry Department to include senior staff from the Departments of Agriculture, Economic and Social, General Affairs, Information, Sustainable Development, Technical Cooperation and the Office of External Relations. We will use this group to guide us in providing support to the Inter-Governmental Panel on Forests. We very much welcome the guidance of this Council as to the nature of our support to the Panel.

My second point deals with COFO's discussion of our Regular and Field Programmes and our medium-term perspectives and priorities. The overall context of resource and budgetary implications will be dealt with separately when you discuss Item 16, which is the Summary Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium, so I shall not elaborate now. I would like to stress, though, that we have paid great attention to the advice of COFO and the ministerial meeting in developing our proposals for future work. We will intensify our focus on priority matters in which we have particular strengths and responsibilities. COFO provided important guidance in those areas which it believed should be FAO's priorities.

Mr Chairman, the third item that COFO addressed dealt with the FAO Governing Bodies' recommendations of other FAO statutory bodies in forestry and follow-up to the XIth Session of COFO. The Committee considered the recommendations of the governing bodies and other statutory bodies in Forestry as well as follow-up to its own earlier recommendations. I very much invite the Council to express its views on all the proposals or recommendations of the Committee under these topics, and particularly on that relating to the activities of Regional Forestry Commissions.

Mr Chairman, since the COFO meeting we have also benefited from the views of the Programme Committee. We now very much look forward to the advice of Council.

In closing, I wish to add that to implement this Programme in full under the current budgetary situation will be far from easy. More and more, therefore, we will seek to expand partnerships among the UN System and beyond, in order to make efficient use of available resources and to minimize the duplication of effort. We also hope that both under our normative and operational functions member countries may be willing to provide complementary resources.

Mr Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to acknowledge with gratitude the support being provided through multi-donor Trust Funds to high priority programmes such as the Forestries and People Programme and the Forest Resources Assessment Programme. I very much hope that such commitment will be continued and may also even grow.

Mr Chairman, we will be pleased to answer any question that the delegations may have. We will take careful note of the observations and recommendations of the Council. In particular, we look forward to a very open and constructive dialogue with Council Members now and at any other time. We feel that such dialogue leads to better programmes through which trees and forests can contribute to development and human well-being.

EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias señor Harcharik por sus comentarios introductores que son explícitos y creo que constituyen una buena base para las discusiones y las decisiones que debe tomar el Consejo. Les recuerdo, distinguidos delegados, que la decisión que tiene que tomar este Consejo es la de aprobar el informe; les recuerdo también que, conforme al documento CL 108/LIM/3, los párrafos 28 al 38 del informe del Comité Forestal se refieren a las indicaciones presupuestales de las acciones suscitadas en dicho Comité, las mismas que se verán en el Tema 16.

Bien, distinguidos delegados, abro ahora la lista de oradores sobre este tema de nuestra agenda. Dejo todavía abierta la lista de oradores y llamo al distinguido Delegado de Canadá.

Robert VANIER (Canada): Des progrès considérables ont été réalisés depuis le Sommet de la terre tenu à Rio en 1992. Nous devons absolument continuer à favoriser l'avancement de l'agenda forestier pour assurer la conservation, le développement et la gestion durable des forêts de la planète.

Le rôle de la FAO en tant que gestionnaire des activités de suivi de la CNUED est important et, vue la place eminente accordée aux forêts dans l'agenda international, nous continuons d'inciter la FAO à prévoir dans son budget ordinaire les ressources nécessaires afin d'appuyer adéquatement les activités forestières.

Nous tenons à féliciter la FAO d'avoir organisé la première réunion des Ministres des forêts. A cette occasion, notre Ministre a souligné l'importance que le Canada attache à l'élaboration d'un cadre mondial consensuel pour les critères et les indicateurs de l'aménagement forestier durable.

Nous sommes d'avis que la FAO a un rôle important à jouer dans l'élaboration de ce cadre. Nous croyons également qu'il faut renforcer le consensus international sur les programmes non législatifs et volontaires pour la certification des produits forestiers. Nous considérons prioritaire le rôle crucial de la FAO dans la mise en oeuvre des plans d'action nationaux sur les forêts et la continuation des efforts visant à améliorer l'information sur l'état des forêts mondiales.

Le Canada appuie fortement le concept de "leadership" partagé, dans le domaine des forêts avancé par la FAO. Selon nous ce concept, dans lequel la FAO a manifestement un rôle prédominant à jouer, est essentiel pour améliorer les relations entre les organisations internationales s'intéressant aux enjeux forestiers. Ce concept sera également utile afin de bien cibler les activités opérationnelles dans ce secteur.

Le Comité des forêts et les Ministres des forêts ont convenu que la FAO doit s'occuper prioritairement de soutenir les travaux du groupe inter-gouvernemental sur les forêts, récemment formé sous l'égide de la Commission du développement durable des Nations Unies. Ce groupe est considéré comme un organe essentiel qui peut faciliter le regroupement de diverses initiatives dans un cadre international cohérent et coordonné pour l'aménagement durable des forêts. La FAO devrait donc accorder la priorité au soutien de ce groupe et y affecter les ressources financières nécessaires.

Nahi SHEBANI (Syria) (Original language Arabie): We would like to thank the COFO Committee and the Secretariat representatives for the presentation of this document and I would like to share our views regarding a number of paragraphs in this document.

First, we feel that it would have been preferable to present in this document a brief insight into world forestry resources broken down into the different regions of the world, so that the Council and the Conference subsequently could have a clear picture of the state of forests in the world and the efforts that are underway, whereas the document that we have before us merely indicates that COFO and the other organizations responsible for forestry have reported on the work that they have done. Moreover, in paragraph 32 of the document we are told that there has been an assessment of forest resources, the GFRA, but there is no indication given of the contents of that document.

Turning now to paragraph 10 of this document, reference is made here to the idea of a legally binding instrument on forests. We believe that some delegations stated their support whereas others thought that this initiative was premature or undesirable.

Mr Chairman, for a global consensus to emerge concerning the protection and improvement of forest management and preservation, we believe that it would be advisable to begin to explore at least the principle of this idea and that a first outline of such a legally binding instrument for the preservation of forests should be worked out for presentation to the next session of COFO, so that it can subsequently be submitted to the forthcoming sessions of the Council and then to Conference. Such an initiative would be a considerable contribution made by FAO to the international efforts being made to ensure the preservation of nature in general and forests in particular. Moreover, we know that most countries have now developed new legislation which is much more effective in effective management conservation of forests.

Thirdly, reference was made to changes in the budget allocation. However, we read in paragraph 26 that there were certain additional budgetary allocations. Nonetheless, it will be necessary to have further increases of resources in order to adequately support forestry activities. We would certainly endorse the view of the Committee that additional resources should be made available to carry out the forestry programme. We are acutely aware of the need to generate such resources given the important role played by forests in the maintenance of ecological equilibrium as well as to curtail deforestation activities which are a source of great concern because of the adverse effect that this can have on agriculture and food production. In order to put an end to such deforestation, we must step up our efforts and enhance resources made available both nationally and internationally so as to address the tasks at hand.

As to the remainder of the document, Mr Chairman, we would endorse the views expressed by COFO.

Mrs Maria KADLECIKOVA (Slovakia): The Slovak Republic has traditionally belonged to the countries which pay great attention to forests and their management for sustainable development. At present more than 40 percent of the whole territory of Slovakia is covered by forests which are managed according to the forest management plans. Based on State Forestry Policy which was approved in 1993, forests are considered a national treasure and therefore the Government creates all legal and organizational conditions for their management for sustainable development.

The Rio Forest Principles, together with the relevant chapters of Agenda 21, the Convention on the Conservation of Biodiversity, have constituted a solid and agreed framework for identifying specific programmes of international cooperation for the management of the forests. A regional access to the realization of the conclusion of Rio is considered especially significant. For that reason, a great emphasis is put on realization of the resolution accepted at the Ministerial Conference in Strasbourg and Helsinki.

The Slovak Republic appreciates the significant position and task of FAO and its Forestry Committee as a coordinator of the initiatives and solution of problems relating to forestry. Especially we over-emphasize our activity within the scope of the FAO European Forestry Commission. We appreciate its programme accepted for supporting the countries in transition to the market economy. Due to changes arising in our country after 1989, significant structural changes are running also in forestry. We face towards a complex task to form legislative, organizational, economic and other conditions for sustainable development of forests under market economy conditions. For that reason, in November of this year we are organizing, under the joint auspices of the ECE Timber Committee and the FAO European Forestry Commission, the international workshop on the topic: "Institution building, framework conditions and policy infrastructure for sustainable development of forests under market economy conditions".

We support also the initiative for the formulation of criteria and indicators for protection and sustainable development of forests. They are considered an important step to the implementation of Forestry Principles and Agenda 21 which have been accepted at the UNCED. We have started with their formulation on the national level.

We consider the question of the forests and forest products certification very important. We support the standpoint of the countries which recommend, in the first place, a proper analysis and formulation of the internationally approved criteria for such activity. We proceed from the situation in the majority of the European countries where the forests have been managed traditionally according to the forest management plans, and their realization have been supervised by the state organs and the public. Therefore, we consider it necessary to discuss these problems properly and accept the conclusions for the forest products certification, particularly on the regional level.

Mr Chairman, Distinguished Delegates, sustainable development of the forests, sustainable development of the planet and civilization are in close mutual connection. Considering this, we support the FAO initiative to establish the intergovernmental panel for the issues of the sustainable development of forests under the auspices of the UN Commission on sustainable development. We expect the next turning point in the realization of the conclusions from Rio to be the 11th World Forestry Congress in the year 1997. We would like to contribute actively to that Congress, and to work together towards the common solution of problems relating to protection and conservation of our forests.

Patrick PRUVOT (France): L'Union européenne tient à exprimer sa grande satisfaction à l'égard du déroulement et des conclusions de la dernière réunion du COFO ainsi que de la dernière réunion des ministres chargés des forêts, organisée par l'ΟΑΑ. Elle attache notamment la plus grande importance aux recommandations concernant la participation active de l'Organisation aux travaux du panel intergouvememental sur les forêts.

L'Union européenne se réjouit en effet de la constitution d'un panel intergouvernemental sur les forêts tel que décidé par la troisième session de la Commission du développement durable des Nations Unies. Elle se félicite tout particulièrement des mentions qui sont faites des contributions attendues de ΓΟΑΑ aux travaux du panel et à l'organisation du Secrétariat. Elle a d'ailleurs pris une part active aux négociations qui ont permis de mieux préciser le rôle de l'ΟΑΑ dans le travail confié au panel. L'Union européenne invite donc instamment l'ΟΑΑ à participer très étroitement à ces activités dans l'esprit de la Déclaration de Rome sur les forêts. Cette participation devrait se manifester sous deux formes: d'une part l'organisation devrait mettre à la disposition du Secrétariat du panel un ou deux collaborateurs de grande valeur et prévoir une participation financière aux frais de fonctionnement du Secrétariat afin de contribuer efficacement à la constitution d'une réelle équipe qui associerait l'ΟΑΑ elle-même, le PNUE, le PNUD et l'ΟΙΒΤ et animée par le DPCSD. D'autre part, l'ΟΑΑ devrait prendre l'initiative de proposer au panel de coordonner et de préparer quelques réunions thématiques spécifiques sur ceux des 11 thèmes de travail du panel qui relèvent plus spécifiquement des compétences techniques incontestées de l'Organisation.

L'Union européenne souhaite que cette participation aux travaux du panel soit clairement identifiée dans le budget actuel du département forestier de l'Organisation, par redéploiement, en affectant à cette tâche un haut degré de priorité notamment pour ce qui concerne le prochain biennium.

L'Union européenne attend également de l'Organisation qu'elle poursuive son évolution et son adaptation au nouveau contexte forestier international et qu'elle réponde pleinement aux attentes qu'a fait naître la nomination du nouveau Sous-Directeur général chargé des forêts. A cet égard elle appuie sans réserve le concept de leadership partagé qui a été présenté lors du dernier COFO. Elle invite l'Organisation à multiplier les initiatives conjointes comme elle l'a déjà fait dans le domaine des critères et des indicateurs de gestion durable en mobilisant au mieux les compétences complémentaires existantes du PNUE, du PNUD et de l'ΟΙΒΤ. Elle appelle l'Organisation à poursuivre le renforcement de ses concertations avec les ONG et le représentant des propriétaires forestiers privés et publics et le secteur privé.

Enfin, l'Union européenne exprime le souhait de voir l'Organisation continuer à coopérer très activement au suivi de la seconde Conférence ministérielle pour la protection des forêts en Europe et tout particulièrement dans le domaine des critères et des indicateurs de gestion durable des forêts. Elle invite donc l'Organisation à

prendre des initiatives conjointes avec le PNUE, le PNUD et l'OΙΒΤ en valorisant les compétences complémentaires de ces organismes afin de faire avancer ce dossier au niveau mondial dans le cadre des orientations données par le panel intergouvernemental sur les forêts.

Franco GINOCCHIO (Italy): The Italian Delegation attaches great importance to the problems related to forests and follows them with concern.

With regard to the document CL 108/8 which adequately summarizes the topics dealt with during the 12th Session of COFO, which took place from 13 to 16 March 1995, we would like to support the statement of the President of the European Union and to point out that the following recommendations appear of outstanding importance; that FAO continue and widen the collaboration with other international and intergovernmental organizations, UNDP, ITTO, World Bank, European Union that operate in closely related fields; that FAO contribute and establish an Intergovernmental Panel on Forests and on the auspices of the Commission on Sustainable Development.

The Italian Delegation shares the concerns about the limited resources which are related to forestry in FAO regular budget. It is easily understood that, considering the present situation, higher priority is to be given to the Food Security Programme, but it should be stressed that a consistent part of food, both for man and for domestic animals, can be produced within the forest. In low-income food-deficit areas this point is of outstanding social and economical relevance. The importance of integrated forest development and of making the most of renewed products of the forest is therefore to be stressed out. Production of wood and food are inter-related and complementary in the forest. Improved management practices that reinforce the multiple functions of the forests contribute directly and indirectly to food security. The Italian Government is deeply interested in all the FAO programmes related to sustainable forest management but integrate forestry and food issues.

Financial support is being provided to guide the trust funds to national forest action plan, tropical forest action plan, Mediterranean forest action plan, forestry and people programmes and so on. Also, a consistent number of projects aimed at improving food security reinforcing the multiple functions of the forests are being currently supported. It is regretted that the implementation of some projects suffered an inconvenient delay because of the difficulties arising as a consequence of the ongoing restructuring of FAO, both in the production of project documents and in the recruitment of personnel. The Italian Delegation recommends to make efforts to shorten as much as possible this transitional phase to allow the new structure and assume working with renewed and reinforced effectiveness.

Mme Adelaïde RIBEBRO (Cap-Vert): Tout d'abord nous remercions le Directeur du Département des forêts pour l'excellente présentation introduisant ce point de notre ordre du jour. Nous félicitons aussi le Secrétariat pour la qualité du document.

Ayant déjà eu l'opportunité de nous exprimer au cours de la session du COFO, nous serons brefs. Ma délégation revient sur quelques points que nous jugeons importants.

En ce qui concerne la recommandation du Groupe de travail intersessions ad hoc de la CDD (Commission du développement durable) portant sur la création d'un groupe intergouvernemental sur les forêts, nous appuyons cette initiative et sommes d'avis que la FAO devra répondre favorablement à cette recommandation et qu'elle doit participer avec son expertise dans le processus d'élaboration du mandat et des modalités de sa création et aussi dans sa mise en oeuvre.

En ce qui concerne le PAFT, la délégation du Cap-Vert se réjouit de la priorité qui continue à être accordée à l'élaboration des plans d'actions forestiers nationaux. Au Cap-Vert, avec l'appui de la FAO, on a élaboré le PAFN qui est un instrument de planification de stratégie pour les 15 prochaines années.

Nous incitons la FAO à poursuivre ses activités dans ce domaine.

Tenant en compte le rôle important des commissions régionales des forêts, les efforts déployés par la FAO pour renforcer et élargir les activités de ces commissions, nous soutenons les recommandations faites au paragraphe 39 du document.

Cela dit, ma délégation donne son appui à l'adoption du rapport de la douzième session du Comité des forêts.

Takafumi KOJIMA (Japan): Mr Chairman, my delegation would like to make a few comments on the report of the Twelfth Session of COFO. Firstly, with regard to the management and sustainable development of forests, the Third Session of the Commission on Sustainable Development has decided to establish an open-ended ad hoc inter-governmental panel on forestry in order to pursue consensus and a formulation of coordinated proposals for action. It is requested to draw on the resources and technical expertise of relevant organizations within and without the UN System. My delegation expects FAO, as task manager for forestry, to strengthen cooperation and collaboration with other international organizations, such as ITTO, and to actively contribute to the panel, fully utilizing its comparative advantage.

Secondly, with respect to decentralization of FAO activities, my delegation endorses enhanced decentralization of FAO activities with a view to strengthening activities based on regional situations. My delegation considers that evaluation of the impact of decentralization, including redeployment of professional staff, would be necessary in order to strengthen FAO's future activities.

Finally, in the light of the outcome of the Third Session of CSD, my delegation is of the view that a cross-sectoral approach is necessary on the causes of deforestation originating outside forestry-related problems, such as poverty, population growth, education and agricultural policy. In particular, my delegation considers that coordination between sustainable forest management and agricultural policy is an essential issue for FAO and in this regard expects the forestry and agriculture sections of FAO to closely cooperate with each other with a view to working out concrete and specific directions for cross-sectoral activities.

Ricardo LEON-VALDES (Chile): Mi Delegación, al mismo tiempo que respalda el Informe del 12° período de sesiones del COFO, quisiera aprovechar la oportunidad para formular tres breves comentarios respecto al documento para aprobación. En primer término, comparto lo expresado por el distinguido Delegado de Italia al destacar la importancia de la integración de los asuntos forestales y lo referido a la alimentación y a la agricultura. Al respecto, es importante señalar la importancia de crear capacidades respecto a la función forestal en su dimensión social, cultural y económica, como asimismo en su relación con el desarrollo sostenible y su impacto en la seguridad alimentaria, por el gran número de seres humanos cuyas posibilidades de acceso a los alimentos dependen de esos sistemas, por ser su fuente de alimentos o generación de ingresos.

Del mismo modo, en relación al párrafo 21, es interesante reconocer la interrelación existente entre el comercio y el medio ambiente. En este sentido, resultaría interesante considerar la elaboración de un estudio respecto de la internalización de los costes ambientales en el manejo sustentable de los bosques.

Finalmente, en relación al párrafo 12, es de interés para mi Delegación, dar a conocer la iniciativa que dio lugar a la creación del Grupo de países del hemisferio sur templado, que, inspirados en los principios del CNUMAD, han buscado un mecanismo de cooperación e intercambio de información ambiental, abordando específicamente el manejo sustentable de los bosques templados y la desertificación.

Klaus GARCKE (Germany): My delegation welcomes the constitution of the Inter-Governmental Panel on Forests, as recommended by the Twelfth COFO Session and decided by the Third Session on Sustainable Development. Within two years from now this Panel is expected to submit a report on its work to CSD. Hence not much time remains to arrive at concrete results on such complex issues as the criteria and indicators for sustainable management of forests, international arrangements for funding and technology transfer, timber certification and the development of globally applicable legal instruments for the sustainable development of forests.

Among the international agencies working in the field of forestry to support the Panel, FAO is in first place, as it must also comply with its role as task manager for Chapter 11 of Agenda 21. We invite FAO to play an

active part in these activities. This contribution by FAO should not be restricted to providing the Panel with the high-quality expertise available in the Organization. FAO should also assign qualified staff and earmark funds from the 1996-97 Regular Budget for the Panel's activities.

Mr Chairman, my delegation agrees with COFO's conclusion that, given the financial constraints we will face, FAO should concentrate its programme activities in the forestry sector on areas of clear comparative advantage such as the collection, analysis and dissemination of data and information and policy advice, including its coordinating role in international forestry policies.

Prabhu Dayal MEENA (India): On behalf of my delegation, I thank the FAO Secretariat for the very comprehensive and useful document on Item 8, CL 108/8. My delegation is in agreement with the report of the Twelfth Session of the Committee on Forestry and fully endorses the views of the Committee. My delegation wishes to make the following observations.

First, the allocation for forestry within FAO is only US$ 30.8 million, which is not adequate to carry out the many works and programmes on forestry. The allocation in this sector should therefore be considerably enhanced.

Second, we support the leading role played by FAO in the field of forestry and in promoting sustainable forestry management across the globe, particularly in view of the expertise in forestry available to them. My country is deeply interested in promoting such sustainable development in the field of forestry. In order to support sustainable forestry, the Indian delegation wishes to inform the Council that India has entered into an agreement with UNDP and FAO and has signed a two-year project for the preparation of a National Forestry Action Plan. Considerable progress has been made and the final document on the National Forestry Action Plan is expected to be ready by the end of this year.

Ms Lisa Bobbie SCHREIBER HUGHES (United States of America): The United States continues to view the FAO Forestry Department as a unique organization, which addresses sustainable forest management through a balanced consideration of maintenance of the resource base, participation of interested parties, and production of goods and services. Accordingly, we continue to support FAO's forest resource assessment community forestry activities, and its work providing technical assistance to Members.

On the matter of the ad hoc Inter-Governmental Panel on Forests established by the CSD, the United States foresees an important role for FAO as the Panel performs items from its Programme of Work. For certain elements of the Programme of Work FAO has a comparative advantage in the subject matter; for others, other international organizations have competency. The United States has always understood the role of the Secretariat to be administrative rather than substantive and would encourage FAO to invest more resources in the substantive analysis which the Panel will perform than in the secretarial functions of the Secretariat. In any event, the United States regards the work of the Panel as highly important and hopes FAO will make resources available for the Forestry Department to participate.

The United States understands that some references in the summary Programme of Work and Budget to priorities were included before COFO and recognizes that this is why they seem somewhat out of step with the recommendations of COFO. We believe the COFO Report made progress in this area of prioritorization, especially the specific areas of priority importance listed in paragraph 29.

On the matter of criteria and indicators for the sustainable management of forests, we support the recommendations of COFO. We encourage FAO to act upon those recommendations but caution the Organization against moving beyond the direction of COFO.

The United States continues to encourage FAO to utilize the Regional Forestry Commissions more effectively. The meetings draw a more technical audience than is often the case for meetings in Rome, are of a more manageable size, and provide an opportunity to facilitate substantive technical dialogue.

We commend FAO on the efforts made over the past year to solicit broad input into the development of its forestry programmes including the meetings of independent forestry experts, of environmental NGOs, and of forestry groups. Open communication will strengthen FAO's programmes and relationships.

The United States has found the practice of utilizing a rapporteur to prepare the COFO Report to be quite efficient. We hope that similar steps to improve meeting efficiency can be undertaken in the future.

Andrew PEARSON (Australia): Australia worked closely with other nations at the CSD to agree on arrangements for the Inter-Governmental Panel on Forests and we are pleased with the outcome. Given the Panel's ambitious work programme, it will be vital that FAO respond positively and work constructively in collaboration with other concerned organizations to carry out this work. Australia supports the call by many other delegations for FAO to ensure that sufficient resources are available for it to meet its task manager role. Reflecting one area of work of the Panel, priority should be given to the development of national accounting systems that better reflect the full costs of forestry activities, as well as to work on increasing the value of forest products through improved management practices. FAO has also made useful contributions to international initiatives to develop guidelines, criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management, and it will need to continue involvement in these activities.

Finally, Australia welcomes the broadening of FAO's activities beyond South East Asia through its management role in the South Pacific Forestry Development Programme. This Programme seeks to enhance national capacities to effectively address forest issues in the South Pacific and we welcome the addition of these resources and expertise to the region.

Srta. Virginia PEREZ PEREZ (Venezuela): Gracias señor Presidente. El encuentro de los Ministros encargados de actividades forestales con motivo del 12° período de sesiones del COFO, en marzo de 1995, fue muy oportuno y resultó de gran interés pues era la primera vez que la FAO organizaba una reunión a este nivel, dedicada únicamente a la silvicultura. La participación activa de los países puso de manifiesto la importancia que asigna la comunidad internacional a los bosques y a las iniciativas de la FAO en ese sector. El enorme interés y la preocupación política de los Gobiernos, aunados al deseo de responder a los desafíos de la CNUMAD, brindó una ocasión única para la preparación política y técnica de la reunión.

Mi Delegación desea recalcar la necesidad de fortalecer el Departamento de Montes y dar un mayor apoyo financiero al Programa Principal de Montes, teniendo en cuenta los compromisos ya existentes sobre la protección del medio ambiente y la ejecución de los planes de acción forestal nacionales.

Consideramos que la labor de la FAO debe centrarse en aquellas esferas en las cuales la Organización tiene ventajas comparativas. Por lo tanto, al determinar las prioridades a medio y a largo plazo será oportuno reservar una consideración especial a la función de la FAO como gerente de tareas técnicas en materia forestal; la elaboración y definición de criterios e indicadores para un manejo forestal sostenible de los bosques de todo tipo que considere los intereses de los países en desarrollo; la evaluación de los recursos forestales mundiales, sus riquezas biológicas, y sus aspectos ambientales y sociales; la intensificación del apoyo a los países en desarrollo para la elaboración de políticas forestales, planes y programas; el fortalecimiento institucional en materia de investigación y la capacitación de recursos humanos en el área forestal; la necesidad de que la FAO impulse el crecimiento de la ayuda financiera a los países en desarrollo y la transferencia de tecnología segura; la elaboración de una estrategia y de un programa para el desarrollo sostenible de todos los tipos de bosques, con la participación de las partes involucradas; el estímulo de las actividades de reforestación y/o restauración de la cobertura forestal y que se realicen esfuerzos para identificar las causas de la deforestación y se desarrollen actividades concretas a fin de erradicarlas. La gestión en el análisis, discusión y definición de metodologías y procedimientos transparentes para la certificación de productos forestales maderables, teniendo en cuenta la preocupación de los países, para que dichos programas de certificación sean eficaces, no discriminatorios, y aplicables a todo tipo de bosques.

En relación al Plan de Acción Forestal dirigido a la creación de capacidad y planificación intersectorial para el uso de los recursos de la tierra y el mejoramiento de los productos forestales mediante prácticas mejoradas de ordenación y manejo, coincidimos en que es una de las tareas donde la FAO tiene ventajas comparativas y,

por lo tanto, los recursos y los esfuerzos de esa organización deberían centrarse en apoyar las iniciativas nacionales en esta materia.

Mi Gobierno insta a la FAO para que inicie lo antes posible la aplicación de las recomendaciones que le fueron hechas por el Comité de Montes, y en especial para que ponga en funcionamiento el panel intergubernamental sobre los bosques.

Mi Delegación, señor Presidente, por todo lo anterior, aprueba el informe.

Suharyo HUSEN (Indonesia): Firstly, allow me to congratulate and place on record our appreciation of the work of the Committee on Forestry. It has been excellent. We would also like to express our appreciation for the comprehensive document CL 108/8 from the Secretariat. Mr Chairman, the Indonesian Delegation would like to support FAO's idea in harmonizing the criteria and indicators of the sustainable global forestry management. With this purpose in mind we do hope that the final results of this harmonization will finish within the year 1997 based on the results of the 1st Session of the Panel of Experts which has already been held in February 1995.

With regard to the idea of replacing the Forestry Principles of the Summit with a Convention on Forestry, we would like to provide you with a few matters of consideration as follows: we believe many countries have not yet applied the results of the Forestry Principles of the Rio Summit. The Indonesian Delegation believes it is too early now to discuss the opportunities of changing the said Principles into a Convention on Forestry. In that case we must give opportunities to those countries to give them sufficient time to apply the Forestry Principles of the Summit.

With regard to the function of FAO as the Task Manager of Chapter 11 (combating deforestation), we would ask FAO to increase its efforts on cooperation among the various international organizations and institutions related to forestry, especially in providing the technical assistance to the various developing countries. We would also like to urge the various countries to encourage all interested parties to reach the level of ODA based on the 0.7 percent level of GNP based on the commitment of the Rio Summit.

Mr Chairman, we are happy that the Committee of Forestry noted the results of the International Consultation on Non-Wood Forest Products held in Jogyakarta, Indonesia in January 1995 as contained in paragraph 45 of its report. We would be happy if the recommendations made, including the establishment of a Centre of Excellence for Non-Wood Forest Products development be considered by all parties concerned for possible implementation.

Finally, allow me to endorse the Report of the Committee on Forestry to the FAO Conference in October 1995.

Thanit YINGVANASIRI (Thailand): Mr Chairman, the document CL 108/8 which contains the report of the 12th Session of the Committee on Forestry is indeed a new format and worth reading. I am grateful to the Secretariat and urge the Secretariat to continue this format of the report in the future sessions.

My delegation wishes to offer a few comments. First, we agree with the establishment of an intergovernmental panel on forests under the aegis of the Commission of Sustainable Development and to determine its term of reference and modalities of its establishment. We also welcome the initiative to develop guidelines, criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management with a holistic approach. Secondly, we share the view that the resources allocated to the forestry activities in the 1996-97 biennium under FAO's Regular Budget should be increased. We foresee that this trend will continue to increase in the later biennium.

Mr Chairman, the paragraphs under II on pages iii and iv generally receive our support. These paragraphs have mentioned special priority, the continued priority and priority and we wonder how you would prioritize these priorities. In our view the NFAP certainly should receive the highest priority.

With regard to paragraph 38, we absolutely agree with the principle of enhancing decentralization of FAO activities as a means to provide greater regional support. However, we feel that the delegation of decision authority should also be decentralized.

Lastly, I refer to paragraph 45. We strongly encourage FAO to support the sound development of ecotourism for commercial and educational purposes. This new dimension of forestry development would raise the awareness of the public in conserving the environment.

Salah HAMDI (Tunisie): Ma délégation appuie le rapport du Comité des forêts et s'associe donc aux délégations qui l'ont précédée et qui ont apporté leur appui aux divers aspects de ce rapport.

Je voudrais, toutefois, faire un petit éclaircissement au sujet du groupe intergouvernemental sur les forêts, et plus exactement au sujet du Secrétariat de ce groupe.

Bien sûr le rapport et le Conseil reconnaissent le rôle de la FAO en tant que maître d'oeuvre en matière de gestion durable des forêts. Mais pour le Secrétariat de ce panel international sous l'égide de la CDD, les choses dans mon esprit ne sont pas claires. Est-ce qu'il s'agit d'un Secrétariat mixte? Est-ce qu'il y a un autre organisme des Nations Unies qui va assurer ce Secrétariat avec l'appui de la FAO? J'aimerais savoir comment le Secrétariat du groupe intergouvernemental sera organisé, comment il fonctionnera.

Srta. María Cristina FERRARI (Argentina): La delegación de la República Argentina, señor Presidente, señala al igual que lo hicieron otras delegaciones, la importancia de asignar mayores recursos a las actividades de la ordenación sostenible de los bosques. Destacamos lo mencionado por nuestra delegación durante el último COFO, donde se resaltó la importancia del bosque como habitat humano y como fuente generadora de servicios, alimentos, turismo y todos los demás aspectos vinculados con la biodiversidad.

En este contexto solicitamos en el COFO la asistencia técnica de la FAO para los países de América Latina y del Caribe en el marco de la cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo para la formulación de proyectos que utilicen biomasas forestales en la fabricación de gasolinas ecológicas.

Destacamos la importancia que la República argentina le asigna a los productos forestales no madereros y recordamos en este contexto la asistencia que hemos solicitado de la Organización para la celebración de un seminario sobre productos forestales no madereros, a celebrarse en Argentina en septiembre del corriente año.

Le pedimos a la Secretaría, al igual que lo solicitó la delegación de Japón, se evalúe el impacto de la descentralización en estas actividades de especial importancia para la FAO.

Apoyamos el informe presentado y señalamos que nos referiremos a este tema nuevamente al considerar las cuestiones de presupuesto y la reestructuración de la Organización.

Marco Antonio DINIZ BRANDÄO (Brazil): Mr Chairman, the Brazilian Delegation has participated very actively in the work of the Committee on Forestry. We are happy to see that the Report before us is very concise and yet very faithful to the discussions we had then.

We would like, however, as other delegations did, to express once again our opinion that FAO must continue to give first priority to its collaboration with the CSD on the question of management and sustainable development of forests.

The CSD and its intergovernment panel on forests are certainly going to play a central role as a focal point in relation to various ongoing initiatives on forestry including the harmonization of criteria and indicators and must receive full cooperation in order to present fruitful results.

We are confident that FAO will find sufficient means to fulfil its tasks in the forestry field and to give CSD the cooperation that body must have

EL PRESIDENTE: Con esto se concluye la lista de oradores ¿alguna otra delegación desea hacer uso de la palabra? Entonces le ruego al señor Harcharik que conteste a las preguntas o aclaraciones solicitadas.

David HARCHARIK (Assistant Director-General, Forestry Department): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. You have left me with a very difficult task. I am inclined to say that it is no wonder that we don't have enough financial resources. It is because this Council and our Member Governments expect an awful lot of a lot of us in forestry. You are demanding and requesting that we carry out a very substantial role, and let me say that I interpret that as meaning that you believe in what we are doing and that you support it and that you are encouraging us to go even further; so I would like to thank all Members of the Council. I think you have given us a very strong vote of confidence.

Chairman, we have taken very good notes. I will not try to respond to every one of the very many excellent suggestions and comments. However, let me try to collect my thoughts and address what I think are some of the either most important things that were said by the Council or at least the things that I think I heard most frequently.

First, regarding the business of priorities and comparative advantage, we have heard repeatedly that it is necessary for us to prioritize our work. Let me tell you that what I am trying to have us do.

First, I think it is important that we understand the concept of sustainable forest management.It is indeed the most important new forest concept that we have addressed in decades. It is a direct result of the UN Conference on Environment and Development, the Earth Summit in Rio. The business of how we manage and protect our resources and also provide the goods and services that people need is at the heart of sustainable development.

In forestry we interpret that as meaning sustainable forest management. Sustaihable forest management has three dimensions. It has the protection of the resource, the production of goods and services, commodities that people need, and, thirdly, the participation of people, communities, and the decision-making processes regarding forest management, and the distribution of the goods and services in an equitable way.

There is no other organization like FAO, and it is, therefore, very important for this Organization to maintain a certain level of capability in sustainable forest management, and that means maintaining some balance in the protection of the resource, the commodity production, and the people's participation - and, in my mind, that means a very solid foundation programme that we must have in this broad range of dimensions of sustainable forestry. So our first priority is to maintain some capability in these three dimensions of sustainable forest management; otherwise, we cannot deliver to the many countries that expect us.

Within this, Mr Chairman, we are very definitely trying to expand our work on forest resources assessment. This has been an important programme of FAO for a number of years, and it remains a high priority, and we would like to build on the programme that we now have in place. We are also trying to expand and build on the work that we do in statistical reporting, which is one of the most important normative functions that we have.

We are trying to collect and analyse statistical data on wood prices, the supply and demand of forest products, and to expand that to include non-wood forest products and to also utilize this information in an analytical way that allows us to predict impacts on the forest sector and to put in place programmes now that might avoid expected impacts that could come in the future.

Chairman, we would like to build on our work in community forestry also, again a programme that I believe FAO has largely pioneered, especially with the excellent financial support of some of the Member Governments here. We have heard a number of delegations comment on the need to expand our work in capacity building and provide technical assistance to developing countries and to continue the work in this line that deals with national forestry action programmes, and we would like for that to continue to be a mainstay and a priority of our work.

Chairman, we have also heard comments on the role of forestry in food security and food production; and, indeed, we have already done some work on this, and I'm reminded of an excellent publication that we have on this, which I think it might be worthwhile again to share with Members.

Food security is an important initiative of FAO, and we in the Forestry Department are doing what we can to make sure that we contribute to this very important overall initiative of the Organization. A number of you commented upon the need to build better collaboration and partnerships, and you know that I have spoken out repeatedly on this myself.

I can tell you that there are many good cooperative programmes in place already, and I see them daily coming across my desk in terms of publications, meetings and joint project work that we operate with other donors in developing countries. There are many examples of this. We are trying to publicize them more, and we are trying to build upon them, and to build upon them even especially more within the context of the UN System, and we do have dialogue in place with our partner organizations in the UN System, and I think you can expect us to do more and more on that.

The criterion indicators - yes, we convened a meeting here in February to try and advance the processes that were already in place at the initiative of other governments but also to extend this process to countries that were not now involved in the development of criterion indicators of sustainable forest management, and indeed we will continue this. We have excellent advice from you and from COFO to especially involve countries that do not now participate in a process to develop criterion indicators, and we have a meeting organized in Africa -I believe it is in October or November of this year - for this specific purpose, and we are trying to get support from within the UN System for this initiative.

Chairman, almost every delegation commented in one fashion or another about the intergovernmental panel on forests, and you have suggested very strongly that FAO support the work of the panel and that we contribute towards its success. I would like to ensure country delegations that we are in a very close dialogue with the United Nations Secretariat on this right now. We are very closely looking at exactly how we can participate. We have gone down our programme of work of the existing biennium and are trying to make available those products that we think we have just recently produced that can advance the work of the panel.

We are also looking at our programme of work for the next biennium to make sure that as much of it as possible can also support the work of the panel, and there are a number of things that we are planning to do that will contribute very directly to the panel, and let me just mention a couple of them as I look again at the terms of reference for the panel.

As regard sectorial and cross-sectorial linkages FAO has a capability and an ongoing programme to look at forest outlook studies and analysis of the forestry sector, and in particular how forestry links in with agriculture and other sectors. We will continue this work and make it available to the CSD and, perhaps, try to develop more of it in partnership with other organizations.

The forest resource assessment is one of the terms of reference of the intergovernmental panel, and I think, as I mentioned earlier, there is no organization that has done as much as FAO on this, and we will continue and expand, and we look forward to the good advice of the panel on this. The development of criteria and indicators is another element in the terms of reference of the intergovernmental panel, and again we feel that we have much to contribute to this process, and we are programming for this in our upcoming Programme of Work and Budget.

Many of the other things that the panel will do we will also be able to contribute towards, although perhaps in a less substantive way than the ones that I just mentioned. We are in dialogue with the UN Secretariat in New York as to how they plan to service the panel. Quite honestly, it is not yet known what type of Secretariat is needed in New York and what type of people may be needed there, but we are in discussion with the United Nations on this, and we will try to assist the UN and the intergovernmental panel in any way that we can to help make their work successful.

Chairman, may I respond more specifically to one comment from the delegation of Syria concerning the statistical data on forest resources?

Sir, we do have some information that is available, and it is very much current, even though it is not summarized in the COFO Report. I would be very happy to make that available to you, and you should be aware that it has been printed most recently in a report that the Director-General himself has asked us to produce every two years. It is The State of the World's Forests, and the first issue of that Report was released during the COFO meeting, and we are planning to do this, as I said, every two years, and it does have up-to-date statistical information on forest resources; so we will be happy to make that available to you, Sir.

Chairman, finally, I failed to mention in my opening remarks that the Rome Statement on Forestry, in its final version, has been printed and put in the boxes of all country delegations here, and if you did not pick that up, I would encourage you to look in your box here and to get a copy of that.

Chairman, with that, perhaps I should stop and again thank the delegations here. I think we have received some very excellent advice from you all, and we look forward again to building a better forestry programme to meet your needs.

EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias señor Harcharik por sus amplios y exhaustivos comentarios que prácticamente han abarcado todos los temas. A riesgo de duplicar un poco lo que usted ha dicho, de cualquier forma me voy a permitir ofrecer un resumen de nuestros debates.

En primer lugar, mencionar que tras elogiar sus deliberaciones y recomendaciones así como el formato del Informe, el Consejo aprobó el informe del 12° período de sesiones del Comité de Montes. Se informó que ha habido un avance importante en el tratamiento de los temas forestales, se felicitó al Director General por la organización de la reunión ministerial de montes y se tomó nota, con agrado, de la disponibilidad de la Declaración Forestal de Roma. Se otorgó prioridad al papel de la FAO en la preparación de los programas de acción forestales nacionales y se insistió en su papel en la asistencia técnica que se espera a raíz de ello de parte de FAO. FAO, se reconoció, tiene un papel predominante de liderazgo que requiere de una colaboración y cooperación estrecha con otros organismos internacionales, entre ellos, el PNUMA, la OMT y el Banco Mundial. Se mencionó la contribución del desarrollo agroforestal al objetivo de la seguridad alimentaria, al desarrollo económico de manera sostenible y, también, a la mejoría de las condiciones de vida de grupos humanos que viven en esos sistemas. Se hizo referencia, también, a la importancia de generar una conciencia ecológica y en particular, al impulso al ecoturismo.

El Consejo advirtió que se deben hacer esfuerzos para que la fase de restructuración y descentralización de FAO concluya, se estabilice, a fin de lograr los significativos avances y expectativas de este proceso, en particular en el tratamiento de los temas y acciones forestales. Al apoyarse ese proceso de descentralización, se pidió también contar con un análisis de su impacto en las tareas de FAO y la entrega de su programa de montes. En vista de las limitaciones financieras, FAO debería concentrarse en aquéllas actividades que representaran ventajas comparativas entre las normativas que hicieron algunas delegaciones.

El Consejo tomó nota de los resultados de la tercera sesión de la Comisión de Desarrollo Sostenible, en particular se destaca la guía de seguimiento proporcionada por el Consejo en su sesión anterior, el apoyo a las propuestas de FAO como gerente de tareas y, la acción requerida por la Comisión de Desarrollo Sostenible con posibles implicaciones para el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto de 1996-97.

El Consejo le asignó la máxima prioridad al apoyo técnico de FAO al PANEL intergubernamental de bosques y, acogió con beneplácito que FAO colaborara con el Departamento de Coordinación de Políticas y Desarrollo Sostenible, que proveería al apoyo de secretariado al PANEL.

Se advirtió también de la importancia de mantener un mecanismo de seguimiento a las acciones que de todo esto se derivaran.

Ajustes necesarios deberían hacerse al Programa de Labores que se presentará a la próxima Conferencia de la FAO para reflejar estas prioridades. La falta de recursos adicionales y nuevos para países en desarrollo y de economías en transición, continuaban siendo una preocupación que debía atenderse.

Se recomendó que FAO aplique medidas específicas de su informe para fortalecer y ampliar las actividades de las comisiones forestales regionales para incrementar la participación de países miembros y facilitar una mayor interacción entre las comisiones forestales regionales y un mayor número de actividades entre ellas.

También se reconoció las recomendaciones de acción por FAO surgidas de órganos intergubernamentales adicionales a los órganos rectores y que todo esto tenía implicaciones de carácter presupuestario que, repito de nuevo, se considerarían ulteriormente al revisar el PLP 1996/97.

Bien, distinguidos delegados, hubo también una mención a buscar que algunas acciones complementarias de parte de la Organización deberían ser planteadas ante el Foro del ECOSOC, con el propósito de ser promovidas también a ese nivel. Hubo otras múltiples sugerencias, no es el caso recordarlas aquí, se encuentran en el verbatim que estará disponible por todos, y con esto yo concluiría el resumen de nuestros debates y si no tienen ustedes ninguna otra observación, terminaría con este Tema 8 de nuestro Programa.

¿Hay alguna observación?

En ese caso cerramos este tema y estamos ahora hacia adelante de nuestra Agenda y yo les preguntaría, distinguidos delegados, si están ustedes en capacidad de permitirnos pasar a la revisión del Tema 15 de nuestra Agenda que es el Informe sobre la Evaluación del Programa 1994-95. ¿Hay alguna objeción para que así lo hagamos?

En ese caso voy a permitirme invitar a Doctor Bommer, Presidente del Comité del Programa, para que nos ayude en la introducción de este tema y agradecer al señor Harcharik por su presencia y comentarios. Muchas gracias.


15. Programme Evaluation Report 1994-95
15. Rapport d'évaluation du programme 1994-95
15. Informe sobre la Evaluación del Programa de 1994-95

EL PRESIDENTE: Bien, distinguidos delegados les agradezco que nos hayan permitido avanzar en nuestra Agenda y comenzar el tratamiento del Tema 15 que se refiere al Informe sobre la Evaluación del Programa 1994-95. Al respecto cuentan ustedes con el documento C 95/4 y también con las partes correspondientes de los informes del Comité del Programa.

Para presentar este tema le voy a dar primero la palabra al señor Wade y, posteriormente, al Presidente del Comité del Programa.

¿Es para un punto de orden?

Tiene la palabra la distinguida delegación de Argentina.


Srta. María Cristina FERRARI (Argentina): Perdón, señor Presidente, que intervenga un poco a destiempo, pero quería hacer una propuesta. Si nos hicieran oir, por ejemplo, la presentación del tema, pero los debates del mismo se dejarán para mañana; es una propuesta que yo hago en el entendido de que estamos

aquí desde bastante temprano, el temario ha sido amplio, hay mucha gente que consideraba que este tema se iba a tratar mañana, y las delegaciones son pequeñas y algunos tienen que volver a las embajadas a trabajar. Es una sugerencia, nos atenemos a lo que decida la mayoría.

EL PRESEDENTE: Muchas gracias. Yo entendía que ese es un problema que se podría suscitar, por ello les preguntaba si había alguna objeción. Podríamos trabajar así: se haría la presentación del tema y si una vez concluida la presentación del tema ustedes consideran que debíamos posponer el debate para después, así lo haremos.

T. WADE (Officer-in-Charge, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): In fact, Mr Chairman, I will be very brief because, rather than introduce the Programme Evaluation Report in any substantive way, I would like to concentrate on those aspects which may be of interest to the Council.

First of all, on the question of selection of topics, which is something that is raised on a number of occasions, we have in fact concentrated on the priority programmes. We have a very limited evaluation capacity in the Organization and we must therefore concentrate our efforts on those programmes which are the most important for the Organization. You can see that the list includes Plant Genetic Resources, Food Information, the Early Warning System, World Food Security, and all the EMPRES related programmes on transboundary pests and diseases. In the important area of Forestry, we covered community forestry development and we looked at project operations, particularly bearing in mind the restructuring exercise and the combination of the existing Services and Divisions into a single organizational unit.

I should add that the Director-General in his introduction specifically proposes to consult the Programme Committee on the topics to be covered as well as the manner of their presentation for all future Programme Evaluation reports and I think this is yet another example of the Director-General's willingness to involve Member Nations in this process.

At the last Conference, while welcoming the Programme Evaluation Report, suggestions were made for improvements, of course, and I think these were the clearer identification of planned results and outputs, which is something not so much for the Programme Evaluation Report itself but more for the planning documents which lead to the Programme Evaluation Report, in particular the Programme of Work and Budget. Secondly, it sought a comparative analysis of actual implementation achievements and results versus the planned targets and milestones; again this depends on the programme document containing the planned milestones in the first place. Thirdly, it sought an analysis of the reasons for the gaps between plans and what is actually implemented. Fourthly, it sought a comparison of planned and actual costs. Finally, on a separate subject, it sought a more systematic assessment of programme impact and sustainability of achievements particularly in the area of the Field Programme.

We have made efforts towards meeting these requests but I do need to draw your attention to the timing. Items 1, 2 and 3 all depended on the planning document containing the sort of information against which you could make these comparisons. As the Conference, when it made its decision on the Report and gave us these recommendations, had already approved the Programme of Work and Budget for 1994-95 in its current form, you can see that the scope for improvement on items 1, 2 and 3 is very limited. It will only be during 1996-97, when we have the new Programme of Work and Budget document which specifically aims to better define outputs, that we will be able to perform the sort of comparisons that you sought.

I would again like to draw your attention to the Director-General's introduction in this respect. He makes the commitment to improve programme formulation and work planning, including presentation in the PWB, so that we can have a better articulated basis for Programme Evaluation. He does, however, put in the caveat that there are serious methodological and resource problems, and I would like to advise the Council that we are trying to address these. We have already completed a substantial review of the US experience so far as the Government Programme and Results Act 1993 is concerned, which provides the basic framework for federal agencies to measure programme towards the accomplishment of their public service programmes. We are doing our best to assist the United States Department of State to achieve one of its own performance measurement indicators, which is that it wants to implement similar assessment programmes in UN Agencies. We are trying to meet that requirement.

The same study examined the work being done by OECD, where considerable effort has been put into this issue over a longer time frame. The OECD experience is generally that performance indicators work well for public service programmes where activities and outputs are tangible. The value of such indicators, however, is less tangible in areas such as policy advice, where the number of missions or policy advisory reports is, frankly, a rather irrelevant statistic, or in the role of international fora, where the results depend on so many factors beyond the control of the Organization.

The measurement of success or failure is not necessarily a measurement of the Organization's capacity. I think that the point which the Director-General makes is very important. We should not rush blindly into costly exercises which would increase the bureaucracy within the Organization and which could absorb valuable technical capacity. On the other hand, we can see that there is room for improvement and improve we shall.

The Programme Committee made several other valuable points in paragraphs 2.6 to 2.28 of the Council document CL 108/14 and I imagine that Dr Bommer will cover this. Finally, Mr Chairman, I and my colleague, Mr Kato, who is the Chief of the Evaluation Service, are available to respond to any questions you may raise.

D. BOMMER (Chairman, Programme Committee): I thank you for this very comprehensive introduction by Mr Wade. I almost do not need to say anything but I certainly will.

You might recall that the Programme Committee has considered this Report in our 20th Session in April and the various reactions to this Report are contained in document CL 108/14 paragraphs 2.6 to 2.28. I certainly do not want to give you all the details, reactions or comments in the Report. I can refer to those if you have questions but, first of all, I would like to say that we have been again very impressed by the tremendous work that went into this Evaluation Report and the material collected.

Nevertheless, having Mr Wade already referred to some uneasiness we had, particularly the recommendations we made when we considered the first evaluation report two years ago. It was not possibly taken into consideration, as Mr Wade explained and we will have only the basis to do this with a better planning document which we hope to have in the final Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97. To accommodate time we have programmed an Evaluation Report informative touching topics of generally relevant priorities for the ongoing restructuring process. Again, something which Mr Wade has referred to. However, the Report tended to be more descriptive than analytical. It should have addressed more systematically the issues of inputs, outputs, design and impact, the complementarity between the Regular Programme and Field Programme as well as the particular role of FAO and the other international organizations and agencies. The Committee therefore urged to improve the analytical content in future reports which might also change the format of presentations. We might have a longer accompanying annexe and concluding analytical summary in the beginning.

The Committee also addresses the problems of the evaluation reported in management and I bring this in this light we have to listen to what the Director-General and Mr Wade have said. There are certainly always considerable resources involved if we want to have serious analytical work. At the same time, if I use this as a management tool in the Organization then I think that the resources can be very well spent. I really urge that the future Report should indicate the reaction of Programme Managers on the findings of this Report, including follow-up actions. A monetary mechanism should be established within the Organization to ensure more systematic feedback from those reviews and evaluations. Proposals for action contained in this and future reports should also be subject for systematical use by the Programme Committee.

Finally, the Committee welcomes the intention of the Director-General to seek early consultation with the Committee, certainly with the Council Members for selecting topics, that shall be covered in future editions of the Report and the details within the five chapters we have seen in the Report about our comments and where we show and underline something or make suggestions or recommendations for input.

EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias señor Bommer. Creo que no es necesario que yo abunde en la introducción de este tema. Mi propuesta a ustedes es que, si no tienen ninguna objeción, podemos empezar

con la lista de oradores, dejarla abierta y terminarla mañana. Podríamos comenzar con un debate hasta el punto en que las delegaciones así lo estimen. En el momento en que esta lista de oradores termine, terminaríamos nuestra sesión y continuaríamos mañana. ¿Hay alguna delegación que se oponga a que abramos la lista de oradores y empiece el debate? Bien, tiene la palabra la delegación de los EE.UU.

Ms Lynnett M. WAGNER (United States of America): This Programme Evaluation Report is an improvement over its predecessor. However, it is now more critical than ever that FAO give Member States the feedback they need to set clearer priorities and identify better the areas where FAO has the greatest comparative advantage relative to other UN Agencies, international financial institutions and non-governmental organizations. We fully agree with the Programme Committee that further major improvements are needed. This is especially so given the severe funding constraints now facing FAO and the UN System in general.

Many of the activities reviewed in this Report represent real gains in efficiency for the international community. FAO's expertise and world-wide coverage obviated the need for countries to undertake more expensive and potentially less efficient country-by-country programmes of their own.

The document continually raises the theme of the lack of funding, due to regular resource constraints and sometimes lack of donor interest in providing extra-budgetary funds for certain activities. Priorities at the programme level need to be more clearly articulated, both by FAO itself and by its Member States and principal donor partners. It is not useful for FAO to spread itself too thinly and then issue constant appeals for additional funds.

There continue to be needs for information on programmes that are not being met, most notably, more adequate data on achievement of targets and actual costs of projects in the field and the relative cost-effectiveness of different types of field activities. The evaluations still tend to be more descriptive than analytical but we note some improvements in this regard. We also feel strongly that when recommendations are made in the Programme Evaluation Report, the Secretariat should systematically report back on follow-up to the appropriate technical committees.

Mr Chairman, the United States has more detailed comments on each of the major programmes covered in the Programme Evaluation Report which we will submit for the record. We would like to say, however, that we remain strongly supportive of all four of these activities. Our technical experts have offered highly favourable comments on FAO's successful work in these areas. We believe they merit high priority and continued, adequate funding within the Regular Programme Budget.

Plant Genetic Resources

The work begun in 1985 under the guidance of FAO's Commission on Plant Genetic Resources has enabled the organization to become a focal point on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. The Commission will soon resume deliberations on several delicate issues relating to access to genetic material, farmers' and breeders' rights, in an effort to renegotiate FAO's International Undertaking. It is encouraging to see the gradual increase in FAO funds devoted to these types of activities, though the demand for them is growing at a greater rate. Thus it is somewhat questionable to assert that FAO's programmes on genetic resources have expanded sufficiently to accommodate UNCED requirements.

Future plans should, as the document suggests, incorporate assessments of potential funding sources. Funding may very well be a problem for FAO's well designed and very pertinent global strategy on animal genetic resources. Overreliance on extrabudgetary funding may eventually impair delivery of the Regular Programme Component. The United States remains a strong supporter.

Food Information and Early Warning System and World Food Security

• The Global Information and Early Warning System (GIEWS) is one of FAO's most valuable activities. If it is underfunded in the regular programme, then other, less central activities should be dropped and resources redirected toward GIEWS.

• Cooperation between GIEWS and US AID's Famine Early Warning System (FEWS) has strengthened considerably in recent years. The two programs are both making an effort to work collaboratively.

O Over the past few months, GIEWS and FEWS have been exploring ways to accelerate the exchange of early warning software and databases. Both agencies are developing standardized computer-assisted tools to improve the quality of food security analysis.

O FAO has agreed to make GIEWS Workstation software available to FEWS analysts after the Workstation software is finalized.

O FEWS has developed database manager software for agricultural statistics and rainfall analysis which has been provided by FAO analysts.

O FAO and FEWS have compiled complete lists of their early warning databases and have set a specific schedule for exchanging these materials.

• The United States is pleased by the cooperative arrangements between GIEWS and FEWS that will promote effortless data sharing and will help them to build on each other's accomplishments.

Community Forestry Development

• US development professionals are enthusiastic users of the resources published by the Forest, Trees and People Programme.

• Considering the modest amount of resources invested in it, the FTPP Network is very effective.

• Designing genuinely participatory community forestry projects is a difficult task, and the risk of failure is considerable. There is also an almost inevitable temptation to overload projects with multiple objectives and activities, a problem common to institutions that work in poor rural communities.

• Nonetheless, FAO is to be commended for persevering in increasing the quality of participation in its community forestry projects, and, as the document indicates, making a genuine effort to profit from lessons learned.

FAO Activities for Control of Transboundary Plant Pests and Animal Diseases

• The New World Screwworm eradication campaign was one of FAO's finest hours and the United States was pleased to assist in this worthwhile effort. Otherwise hard-headed development technicians have described it as "miraculous". It achieved eradication under budget and in less time than was anticipated.

• The quality of FAO's contribution to desert locust activities has increased and the sense of tripartite purpose among donors, affected countries and FAO has become stronger.

• In particular, the EMPRES programme promises to be a step forward in improving the way the international community responds to transboundary pests.

O FAO has listened to members' concerns about the program and has responded constructively.

O We especially look forward to the review of the economics of locust control and alternative control strategies as mentioned in paragraph 406 d) ii).

EL PRESEDENTE: Muchas gracias, distinguida delegada de los Estados Unidos de América. El Consejo ha tomado nota de que enviará por escrito comentarios específicos respecto de cada uno de los capítulos de este informe.

Κ. SHIMIZU (Japan): My delegation highly commends the efforts of the Secretariat who produced this Evaluation Report as it is useful in guiding input for member countries to deepen the understanding of the Organization. My delegation hopes that this evaluation be conducted in an objective manner and continued.

Mr Chairman, Japan endorses most of the recommendations contained in the Report in general but saying that Japan wishes the Secretariat to include its follow-up study and findings about the new mechanism of the Technical Cooperation Office on such in the next Report.

Secondly, Mr Chairman, chapter 4, the Review of Project Operations, in particular, is a very useful input for Japan to understand the synergy between the project operations and normative activities. However, the reform at field levels are closely related to the reform of the Headquarters and the decentralization. As a result of the reform, field activities should be operated more effectively and efficiently based on the findings contained in paragraph 297 in particular.

Lastly, Mr Chairman, as for further improvement of the Report such as its format, my delegation supports the recommendations contained in paragraphs 2.7 to 2.8 of the Report of the Programme Committee CL 108/4. It also agrees to include further activities of the Uruguay Round in the next Evaluation Report.

Suharyo HUSEN (Indonesia): The Indonesian Delegation would like to thank and appreciate the Director-General, Dr Diouf, for his excellent work in executing his task as the new Director-General and in implementing the FAO Programme of Work in 1994/95. With emphasis on budget limitations, the Director General has been able to reach full success in his managerial action and also in the promotion of initiatives of infrastructure decisions; in the adjustment of policy to organize and develop a decentralization system; and in the definition of the poverty area which will be fixed in the next FAO Programme of Work.

Mr Chairman, we would like to endorse the clear and comprehensive programme of the Evaluation Report 1994/95 as contained in the documents C 95/4 and CL 108/14.

Mrs Maria KADLECIKOVA (Slovakia): I want to present on behalf of the Slovak Republic its intervention. Firstly, I would like to express appreciation for the comprehensively prepared document for discussion. The Slovak Republic which became a new member of the Organization at the 27th FAO Conference in 1993 appreciates programme activities as well as initiatives connected with gradual development of cooperation between the Slovak Republic and FAO and has provided assistance in this field. We take gradual development of the programmes for Central and Eastern Europe including Slovakia as an assistance in the area of agriculture reforms and restructuring food processing industry and forestry to the governmental bodies and to the associated institutions. In particular, we evaluate chapter 3 as a very good one as well as the sub-programmes orientated to forestry.

Through their involvement in project elaboration in Slovakia, they assist in conserving forestry genetic resources as a basis for the development of this sector in connection with the implementation of the conclusions of Agenda 21. Mr Chairman, the implementation of the programme's technical assistance and the connection with FAO will also be a good basis for the FAO programme in the forthcoming biennium. However, it should be remembered that in order to pursue the highest priorities of countries in transition, extra-budgetary resources must be found. We appreciate the fact that FAO activities mentioned in chapter 5 are seeking recommendations and solutions for the critical problems of animal disease and the control of pesticides in plant production. We agree with the necessity to aim to find solutions to specific problems in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe which are in transition, leading to harmonization of legislation from a European and also a worldwide point of view. The programmes directed to world food security, the effort in joint international programmes, the concrete technical assistance to governments and the efforts to solve the problems of sustainable agriculture all confirm the specificity and multilateral aspects of the Organization.

Finally, it is necessary to express our gratitude to FAO for its efforts in the finalization and implementation of the two-year programmes. We believe in the continuous development of this positive trend in programmes which consider the need to solve food problems in Member Nations.

John Bruce SHARPE (Australia): As a member of the Programme Committee, Australia has already had an opportunity to comment on the Programme Evaluation Report and our views are reflected in the Committee's report. However, there are a couple of points we wish to reiterate. We applaud the intention expressed by the Director-General in the introduction on page ν to pursue all appropriate measures to strengthen further the cost-effectiveness of our evaluation system and the intention to improve the analytical content of the Programme Evaluation Report, including the assessment of cost-effectiveness, impact on sustainability and programme results.

We are pleased to note in the summary introduction in paragraph 2 that the Fisheries Department is pursuing the possibility of undertaking during the 1996-97 biennium an in-depth study of the small-scale fisheries development programme, as recommended in Chapter 3 of the last Report. This will be welcome news to those small island member countries of the South West Pacific Region, who have a strong interest in this programme because of the importance of fisheries to their economies.

We note with approval the priorities of sub-programme outlined at paragraph 99 and that here and in other areas the enlarged concept of food security is recognized. We are pleased to see that it goes well beyond food production only and includes stability and access to available supplies and a recognition of important factors such as trade links.

We endorse the view at paragraph 100 that the activities under the Special Action Programme on Nutrition and Food Quality, which include the development of national food and nutrition information systems, are seen as being of direct relevance to sub-programme

We agree with the support, referred to under Disaster Preparedness and Stock Management at paragraph 129, to food marketing institutions through direct assistance to marketing boards in order to strengthen their management capacity and to enable them to function more efficiently.

Paragraph 140 under Food Security and Food Aid Policy refers to the Aggregated Household Food Security Index. Australia supported the use of this Index as an indicator to be used by the World Food Programme when identifying low-income food deficit countries when considering priorities for allocation of food aid assistance.

Australia finds that GIEWS Early Warning and Emergency Reports most useful and has been able to respond to urgent appeals on a number of occasions as a result of that information.

The suggestion at paragraph 163 concerning the development of indicators for the three areas of availability, stability and access seems to be a sound one, as is the suggested development of methods and criteria to allow for the prioritorization of actions in relation to food security objectives, evaluation mechanisms for consideration of alternative action programmes, and the analysis of the costs and effects on national programmes being incorporated into the follow-up.

Reference is made in the Report to the success of the New World Screwworm Fly Campaign in North Africa. Australia gave its support to this campaign and contributed financially. We were extremely pleased with its successful outcome, and FAO's efforts in bringing this about. It will be noted from the April Programme Committee's report on this evaluation report that the Committee suggested that lessons learned from the successful experience of the New World Screwworm campaign should be fully taken into account in formulating approaches under EMPRES. Some members also suggested that other diseases, such as Old World Screwworm and foot-and-mouth disease, could also be considered under the special programme. Australia was among those countries making that suggestion and we would wish this Council also to address it.

Much research and experience has been gained and great progress made with New World Screwworm but little has been done to address the problem of the Old World Screwworm Fly, which is a major problem in developing countries in South and South East Asia, the Near East and much of Africa, which are trying to expand large-scale animal production. Old World Screwworm is a different genus and species from New World Screwworm and, although the behaviour and biology of both species is similar, it cannot be assumed that New World Screwworm methods will be equally successful as Old World Screwworm methods. Australia is developing a collaborative Old World Screwworm project in Malaysia to address some aspects of

Old World Screwworm and the application of the sterile insect techniques to Old World Screwworm. To us this is the only known Old World Screwworm project in the world; obviously more needs to be done. The collaborative project I refer to is limited, costing about US$5.4 million over three years, and will not be able to address several new approaches recently developed from the FAO New World Screwworm Libyan programme or the Mexico-US programme.

We were very interested in the chapter on Community Forestry Development. The participatory, community-based approach being promoted by FAO in forestry development, through such programmes as the Forests, Trees and People Programme and Community Forestry Programme is to be commended. The benefits of this approach can be seen in the Australian experience through the success of our Land Care and Farm Forestry Programme.

Under Agenda Item 6 Australia has already expressed its views on the matters of substance on plant and animal genetic resources covered by this report. We support the comments made by the Programme Committee on the evaluation, and in particular the need to ensure that the strategy on animal genetic resources is matched with the resources available, and that this will require more work on a costed action plan and identifying the roles of other agencies in helping to deliver the outcomes sought by this strategy.

With respect to working with other agencies, we are concerned about the tone of paragraph 77 of the Programme Evaluation Report, which seems to suggest that the Convention on Biodiversity is a vehicle for environment ministries and the FAO undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources is a vehicle for the agriculture ministries. In our view, this attitude will lead to the development of ineffective programmes and duplication of effort because it does not encourage the active collaboration needed.

Alan AMEY (Canada): Le Canada est heureux d'examiner le Rapport d'évaluation pour 1994-1995. Le rapport forme une partie essentielle des documents de planification, qui comprennent le Sommaire du Programme de travail et budget, le rapport de mise en oeuvre et le plan à moyen terme. En particulier, nous voyons d'un bon oeil les assurances données par le Directeur général, dans l'introduction, quant à l'importance de la fonction d'évaluation, ainsi que sa détermination à rendre la FAO plus efficace sur le plan des coûts avec des programmes plus durables. Il faut du courage pour critiquer ses propres programmes, et la contribution de la sous-section de l'évaluation mérite d'être signalée.

Avant d'aborder l'étude de cas particuliers, j'aimerais présenter quelques observations générales.

Comme nous l'avons mentionné à la réunion du Comité de l'agriculture, nous trouvons quelque peu inquiétante la tendance à la baisse du nombre d'évaluation et le nombre croissant de projets mal conçus. J'espère que ces tendances s'inverseront un peu.

Sur la question de la conservation et de la gestion des ressources génétiques animales et végétales, rappelons qu'elles représentent depuis longtemps un domaine clé du programme agricole et que l'on s'y est attaqué bien avant qu'Action 21 ne lui donne une impulsion nouvelle. Cette section contient beaucoup d'informations que l'on avait demandées depuis longtemps. Toutefois, ce qui frappe le lecteur, c'est qu'un programme très ambitieux ait été confié à un effectif des plus restreints. Ce point se trouve renforcé au paragraphe 69. Comme cela est mentionné au paragraphe 15, il est essentiel que le travail de la commission soit axé sur les résultats spécifiques et quantifiables qui permettront de l'évaluer au bout de deux ans.

Sur la question de l'élargissement du mandat du CPGR dans le paragraphe 72, la décision a été prise récemment et je comprends mal la remarque selon laquelle cette décision aurait été préférable si elle avait été prise auparavant.

Au sujet de l'information sur les aliments, du système d'alerte rapide et de la sécurité alimentaire mondiale, soulignons qu'il s'agit, ici encore, d'un domaine clé qui risque fort d'influer sur le nouveau Programme spécial du Directeur général relatif à la sécurité alimentaire dans les pays à faible revenu et à déficit vivrier. Le système d'information mondiale et d'alerte rapide représente un service clé qui est offert à bon nombre de donneurs bilatéraux et multilatéraux et qui a maintes fois fait ses preuves.

De même, le travail du Comité de la sécurité alimentaire mondiale est généralement de bonne qualité. Toutefois, nous avons un peu de mal à accepter la succession de programmes d'actions spéciaux mis sur pied dans divers pays pour s'attaquer au problème de la sécurité alimentaire. En fait, un pays figure sur plus d'une liste. Pourquoi le premier plan n'a-t-il pas porté de fruit dans ce pays et pourquoi faut-il organiser une seconde mission?

La question qu'il faut se poser est la suivante: "Est-ce-que la faim a diminué dans les pays où un plan a été mis en oeuvre?". Si l'on met de côté des situations d'urgence qui ressortissent à l'aide alimentaire, est-ce que ces programmes ont réussi à cibler les populations touchées et ont-ils mis en place des moyens économiques pour les rejoindre?

Ces questions ont une forte incidence sur l'approche actuelle puisque la FAO doit tirer le meilleur profit possible de ses avantages comparatifs et éviter de susciter des attentes qui ne pourront être satisfaites par des projets et des programmes pratiques. Comme il s'agit là d'une question importante, nous voulons l'assurance que de tels programmes sont efficaces avant d'y investir davantage.

J'aimerais poser une question supplémentaire portant sur le rôle des autres organismes. Aux paragraphes 154 et 157, il est fait mention respectivement de l'Agence des Etats-Unis pour le Développement international et du PAM. J'aimerais avoir l'assurance qu'il n'y a pas de chevauchement ni de double emploi dans le contrôle et l'évaluation des besoins d'aide alimentaire faits par la FAO et par ces deux organisations.

Nous sommes particulièrement d'accord avec le chapitre sur l'examen des opérations des projets, car beaucoup de ressources vont à l'exécution des projets sur le terrain. Nous pouvons souscrire aux recommandations voulant qu'il soit urgent de rationaliser les procédures administratives. Quand un programme a été conçu il y a plus de 20 ans, beaucoup d'innovations doivent être prises en compte dans sa conception et son mode d'exécution. Le personnel sur le terrain devrait se préoccuper davantage de l'exécution du programme et du contrôle des résultats que des procédures administratives. Au moment d'établir des nouvelles procédures, on espère que les meilleurs aspects des entités agriculture, pêche et forêts seront retenus.

Un aspect qui semble avoir peu retenu l'attention dans ce chapitre est le mécanisme d'intégration des résultats des évaluations de programmes dans les projets et programmes futurs. Il ne semble pas y avoir de comités ou de bases de données prévus pour faire en sorte que l'on tienne compte des leçons du passé dans la conception des futurs projets. Des organismes bilatéraux et les autres organismes multilatéraux recourent couramment à de tels comités et bases de données, et il serait avantageux de les ajouter aux programmes extérieurs de la FAO.

A notre avis, la foresterie communautaire représente un des champs d'action prioritaires de la FAO. Tenant compte de la croissance soutenue et de l'augmentation des responsabilités du secteur de la foresterie communautaire, nous sentons que des ressources accrues devraient lui être attribuées par l'entremise, notamment, d'une augmentation du nombre de positions professionnelles financées à partir du Programme régulier.

Nous prenons acte avec intérêt de l'analyse de la FAO qui suggère la création d'un mécanisme de surveillance de ces programmes, mécanismes qui seraient dotés d'une grille d'analyse commune de façon à faciliter une meilleure étude de la pertinence, de l'impact et de la durabilité de ces projets. Prenant en considération l'importance accrue de la foresterie communautaire au sein de la FAO, nous pensons donc que l'Organisation devrait mettre en oeuvre une telle structure d'évaluation, avec indicateurs et mécanismes de surveillance.

Au chapitre des activités de la FAO visant à prévenir la propagation internationale des ennemis des plantes et des animaux, nous sommes heureux de constater l'attention accrue accordée à ce domaine vital et l'utilisation plus répandue d'agents de biolutte. L'évaluation des risques posés par les ravageurs et l'établissement de normes relatives aux zones exemptes de ravageurs sont les domaines les plus importants où il faudra travailler à l'avenir.

En résumé le travail d'évaluation effectué jusqu'ici est valable. Toutefois, il faudrait être plus spécifique à l'avenir quant aux objectifs, aux intrants, aux coûts et aux extrants. Enfin, des mécanismes devraient être mis sur pied pour intégrer les leçons du passé dans les nouveaux projets.

José ROBLES AGUELAR (México): Mi delegación, señor Presidente, desea hacer algunas puntuaciones en relación al informe sobre la Evaluación del Programa 1994-95. En concreto sobre el Capítulo 5, párrafo 32.

Nosotros consideramos que la reglamentación de cuarentena no debe ser obstáculo para el comercio. Sobre este punto también queremos resaltar, que conforme a lo estipulado por el documento, se puede apreciar una disminución en cuanto a la cuantía de los recursos asignados al sector pecuario; por lo que estimamos conveniente, en relación con el cuadro 5.1, su revisión y que se eleven las fuentes financieras para el área de salud animal.

De igual manera, queremos resaltar el hecho de que las labores llevadas a cabo en la campaña de erradicación del gusano barrenador en Africa del norte, puede servir como un ejemplo de lo que se puede efectuar con base a la coordinación internacional cuando se presentan alternativas técnicas y económicas viables y que puedan ser aplicadas en el caso de las actividades para el control y erradicación de la fiebre aftosa y de la peste bovina.

En relación con el subprograma referente a la conservación y ordenación de los recursos zoogenéticos, con acciones tendientes a la utilización racional de estos recursos para la población mundial, consideramos que es importante reforzar las acciones que se realizan en los países en desarrollo.

EL PRESIDENTE: Pregunto si algún delegado desea hacer uso de la palabra. En caso contrario levantaría la sesión y proseguiríamos el día de mañana.

David SANDS SMITH (United Kingdom): I think it is important that we treat this subject of evaluation very seriously indeed. In-depth evaluation is essential to any organization and to the governing body of any organization. I emphasize in-depth evaluation.

There is a second point which is of cardinal importance and that is that evaluations are used and here I would echo very much and fully endorse the point made by my Canadian colleague. An organization and its governance must learn lessons. It must note its successes and it must learn from its failures. It is not a question of paying lip service to evaluation. In too many organizations this happens; we all know it. Evaluations are produced: people say they are treating them seriously but the lessons are not subsequently incorporated in later actions. This is of fundamental importance to any organization in improving its performance. I think that is worth underlining.

I think it is also worth underlining very much the point that was made by the Chairman of the Programme Committee and the point in the Report about inputs and outputs. We recognize that this was not possible for evaluations which had commenced before the recommendation on this point was made by the Conference but it is of fundamental importance for the future. It is not a question simply, I suggest, of input and outputs. It goes wider than that. Essentially it is a question of constraints. It is a question of looking at the constraints addressed by an activity and looking at whether those constraints have been overcome.

Those constraints in the first place should be important constraints. There is little point in a project activity addressing minor constraints. Resources are tight. We all know that. Therefore, finances should be allocated in areas of key importance addressing critical constraints. We then need to see the extent to which those critical constraints have been overcome.

We therefore fully endorse the points that have been made by the Programme Committee in their Report. I will not, Chairman, go into the details of the evaluations in the Report before us. They are indeed important details. I will use them, my delegation will use them, as we should, as governance when we come to look at forward programme activities.

We trust that the Organization itself will also be using these findings and will find a mechanism to ensure all those in the Organization are compelled - and I stress compelled - to use the findings of these evaluations and all future evaluations.

EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias. Ofrezco ahora la palabra a cualquier delegación que desee hacerlo esta tarde; si no hay ninguna, y a petición de algunos de ustedes, levantaría esta sesión y continuaríamos el día de mañana para finalizar este tema y, con el propósito de permitir a los especialistas de sus delegaciones que en la misma estén presentes. Se levanta la sesión del Consejo.

The meeting rose at 17.15 hours.
La séance est levée à 17 h 15.
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.15 horas.

Previous Page Top of Page Next Page