A.Z.M. SHAMSUL ALAM (Bangladesh): Thank you Mr. Chairman for giving the Bangladesh delegation the privilege of intervention at the beginning of this Session. First of all, we would like to place on record our appreciation of a very clear review of the Field Programmes 1976–77 made by the Office of the Director-General. It is a very helpful document to understand the scope of activities and the results achieved in the field. This is a reflection of the great strides made by FAO for education regarding hunger and malnutrition among the less privileged and handicapped sections of the human fraternity.
Now, Mr. Chairman, while reading this splendid review of the work in the specialized field of the FAO experts, I was looking to find out how much increase there was in the produce of the hungry world as a result of activities of FAO. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I did not find what I was looking for. I did not find a table indicating or quantifying the facts either in physical or financial terms. There are tables indicating how much funds have been allotted to agriculture, forestry and fisheries related to technical and economic programmes, as for instance in 1977 we see official aid commitments to agriculture, Table 10, and many other tables. It is desirable to know in physical or financial terms, for which correlation is difficult, and there are of course difficulties in preparing tables indicating physical output. Should we not make our Field Programmes more output-oriented? One difficulty of making Field Programmes output-oriented will be as in Table 4 of the document, I mean document C 77/4, I would particularly like to draw your attention to this Table 4 of the document.
Mr, Chairman, if you look at this table of percentage distribution of expenditure on inputs in FAO-assisted field projects, we find that two items amounting to 64 percent of the total non-budgetary expenditure, that is extra-budgetary expenditure, is spent on experts and consultants. If we study this document, it does not indicate any trend, no appreciable change over the past few years. The time of distribution does not reflect any imagination or direction. In 1977 we are almost where we were in 1972, as we find in Table 4, There is, of course, some appreciable change, as against draft fund projects.
While reviewing the field programmes, we should also be very fair about FAO, It was perhaps conceived as a services station or agency, it was created to provide technical assistance through its experts, consultants and other trained personnel. It finds out the causes of hunger, it diagnoses the diseases of poverty and malnutrition. It tries to give a prescription, it is not a hospital nor even a clinic, though it is trying to discharge clinical functions nowadays.
Thirty years ago, we needed a diagnosis centre, but today most countries have advanced in planning, methodological and techniques, so that external assistance is not required that much. But there are demands from developing countries, including our country, for FAO experts. Why is this? It is easier to get funds from the developed countries or UN agencies for those schemes in the preparation of which FAO experts are associated. Any technical assistance agency should aim at developing technical skill in the recipient countries. For exactly this reason, there is the counter referred concept.
But as already pointed out, there does not seem to have been any improvement. The proportion of expenditure of FAO on experts and consultants is as high as it was several years ago. The cost of hiring a good consultant runs as high as $60 000 a year.
How much money is required to develop a technician and turn him into an expert? We can utilize the scarce resources at the disposal of FAO better if more money is spent on developing technical skill. Fellows, scholars and officers of the least developed countries, studying in American and foreign universities, generally get a maintenance allowance of $250 to $300 a month; the Ford Foundation pays a larger amount. The total payment, on fellowships, comes to about $15 000, and another $10 000 might be required as teaching fees for four years.
With $25 000, we can get a PSD or equally qualified person in the technical field whose services may be available to a country for ten to twenty years. Is it not better than having a consultant for three or four months at the same expenditure?
The proportion of expenditure on fellowships, or trust funds, is defined in Table 4 of the document as 3 percent, and average expenditure on training schemes in all FAO-assisted field projects is 6 percent. We consider that the expenditure in this field should be increased as much as possible, maybe to the level of 50 percent. But in that case the valued technical consultancy and advisory services of FAO may not be required after some years, and the consultancy business will gradually be liquidated.
But the technical assistance programme should, by its very nature, be self-liquidating. Fortunately, FAO is not proceeding on that perilous route, but adopted the wiser course of being self-perpetuating, and it can survive well as long as the poor countries remain dependent on FAO for consultancy advice.
We would now like to draw your attention to Table 5 of the document, indicating the country of origin of professional staff engaged on field projects financed by extra-budgetary resources. There are professional staff recruited from many countries, and the appointment of the staff should be primarily on the basis of merit. The developed countries might have more meritorious candidates, and besides, as large donors, they have special claims too. There are no staff from countries like Brazil, Iran, Indonesia, Bangladesh or Nigeria. It only seems fair if professional staff are recruited more or less proportionately, if suitable candidates are available. As 64 percent of the total extra-budgetary fund is spent on experts and consultants, this aspect of the work of FAO is significant.
There is undesirable gossip on FAO premises, and many of the delegates might have heard, while passing through the corridors, about who is whose man and who is selected how, although there is observance of all formalities. The recruitment of professional staff should not be made on the basis of who is connected with whom, and should be more on merit. This might help us to avoid giving rise to unfounded gossip and stories. We hope, under the able and dynamic leadership of our present Director-General, that the image of FAO will improve in this direction.
As we have seen in Appendix E of document C 77/3, the Programme of Work and Budget, $211 million - the Regular Budget of FAO - was the established budget. We find from Table 4 of document C 77/4 - that is the Review of Field Programmes - that the extra-budgetary expenditure is also primarily an expert and consultant-loaded expenditure. If FAO wants to maintain this consultancy nature, the type of consultancy should change. Instead of providing consultancy and expert services in preparing plans, appraisals and evaluations of the schemes, the shift should be towards business administration and management services. For instance, if a developing nation wants to undertake an irrigation-cum-hydroelectric scheme, FAO may provide consultancy services to the main scheme on a country basis, Mr. Chairman, you will appreciate how easy it is to advise rather than to implement; if the adviser is not asked to implement and translate the advice into practice, it is the finest job in the world. Apart from the foreign advisers, for instance, in our country we do not have a category of experts who do not act and implement but only advise us, to avoid responsibility. The person who knows how to do a job is made to know how to do it rather than how to advise on how to do it.
In the administrative hierarchy in our country, we have no additional secretary or joint secretary, who will only advise but will not take on implementation.
Lastly, I should be failing in my duty if I did not mention the special and privileged position of Bangladesh in the field programmes of FAO. We have always received most-favoured-nation treatment from the FAO experts, consultants, and advisers and all tiers of staff working in the hierarchy at FAO.
D.M. ULNES (Norway): As a general commencing comment, permit me to add my delegation's voice to those who have spoken with appreciation of this comprehensive and illustrative document.
There are several aspects of this review which my delegation would have liked to have commented upon in detail, but in view of the time available I shall limit my present intervention to a few points.
The review document's outline of the effects on FAO's field programmes, inherited through the UNDP crisis, seems to give a fair description and, towards that end, an appropriate description. Although we share the views expressed earlier in this debate by countries like Denmark on the relationship between FAO and the UNDP - a subject which my delegation would like to come back to under a later agenda item - I would like to point out that my delegation appreciates that the UNDP crisis has caused FAO great concern and hardship.
We will even let it go on record that we have sympathy with FAO when it states that, during the crisis, matters could have been handled differently, thus causing less hardship to the planning and operation of FAO field activity.
I would, however, like to point out that this problem is inherent in the lack of a broader resource base in the UNDP, as is stated so well in the Review document, paragraph 1.26, when describing how the trends in extra-budgetary expenditure continue to give rise to concern.
My delegation fully shares this concern, and I would use this opportunity to urge other donor countries -as we did at the last UNDP Pledging Conference, and in the Second Commission of the General Assembly -to increase their contributions to the UNDP, so that its pledging target can be reached.
Now moving on to the next point which relates to FAO's multi-bicooperative arrangements, I should like to say that when my country has given these programmes with FAO such a relatively high priority, in comparison with similar arrangements with other UN agencies, it is first and foremost because we, as a small country with a limited technical capacity, have found that through this cooperation we can make FAO put its great potential for technical assistance to use to an even greater degree, thus enabling us to assist countries which might be difficult to reach by our own bilateral aid.
We have faith in this arrangement, and we assume that FAO will continue to make certain that care will be taken to see that projects are in line with UNDP Country Programmes and government priorities.
We would further express the view that my country prefers to finance projects designed for concrete improvements in individual countries, rather than regional or global projects.
An increased opportunity to support large projects with comprehensive programmes, in order to reduce the large number of small projects that we have been financing lately, and thus afford a link between activities, would also be appreciated.
In concluding, let me make one or two comments of a more specific nature. My delegation fully shares the great emphasis on agriculture which is placed in the field activities. We would, however, appreciate a clearer description in the document as to how directly related the classified projects are with food production and improved nutrition. These words appear frequently in the document.
The assessment of the training activities offers a good insight into FAO's activities in this field, and many comments have been made by previous speakers on this point.
I will go into that but only add one point of importance to us, namely, that training activities should be organized only when effective links with national institutions and programmes are safeguarded.
We fully share the new emphasis on rural development and the need to increasingly assist the rural poor. By doing so, this assistance should take particular care so as to ensure the full involvement of the rural institutions and rural organizations multi-disciplinary manner so that an integrated rural development can take place. One may assume that active involvement of rural populations and their institutions may eventually make up the backbone in the stronger based self-reliance. The forthcoming Conference would probably shed some light on these issues and point to possible avenues to proced along on this work.
Y. LIKE (Ethiopia): I would also like to follow other speakers in congratulating the Director-General and his staff for the good presentation of the Review of Field Programmes. Rather than going into the details of evaluating the Review itself, which most of the delegates have indicated yesterday, I would simply go into these areas that may not have received as much attention as we would like.
In Chapter 1, we are concerned about the declining trend of fellowships 32 percent lower in 1976 than 1975, I hope the Assistant Director-General might address himself to this area. We feel high-level, for example research officers, and short-term performance improvement type fellowships should be on the upper rather than on a lower trend.
In Chapter 2, it is of particular interest to note the finding in India and other countries on the time it takes on project submission to its approval. It took about 26 months. Yet this led to cost escalations and loss of employment and value associated with the implementation which when weighed against the minor improvement in project design is far superior. I hope this finding will be usefully taken account of not only by FAO but also by other multi-lateral financial institutions and donor agencies and governments.
The importance of moving away from the traditional type technical assistance to appointing of national directors and project managers cannot be over-emphasized, as evidenced by FAO's experience. This does not only contribute to more effective implementation of the project but also assures its continuity.
- 243-
As is well recognized by FAO and others, continuity of programmes and projects after donor countries and/or agencies have stopped their assitance is at stake. This is not only because of financial outbacks but more importantly local personnel who are not trained to run the operations as efficiently and are not convincing enough to win adequate budgetary reallocations from their governments.
The need for Indicative Planning Figures of 5 years' duration is questioned under the Review. One should be careful on this item. Unless there is indicative planning of uses and resource commitments, it will be difficult to pursue continuous development plans. Ad hoc planning does not lend itself to stimulate achievements, since there is not a planned target to achieve in resource acquisition and use. Nor are long-range policies adhered to under ad hoc planning. The alternative to 5 years Indicative Planning may be a 4-year plan to coincide with the biennium Conferences when programmes and budgets will be discussed and to obtain commitments of financial resources for every two years with disbursements at regular intervals to be agreed upon between donors and FAO managers.
In Chapter 3, the direction of training as proposed by FAO emphasis on middlemen and farmers is commendable and must be pursued. Concrete suggestions in this area will be to assist developing countries to open and run schools in areas where the countries have huge potential for development. These schools may serve both for training of middle-level technicians and where farmers could get basic seminars on most relevant practical oriented areas and where they can see the effects of innovations.
It should be pointed out that emphasis on middlemen and farmers does not mean neglecting high-level staff who are indispensible if technological improvements are to continue and stagnation avoided.
I would like to voice our concern about hardening of the terms of loan and acquisition of lower aid per capita and per hectare of cultivated land by poorer countries and the resultant inadequate investment in these countries. If this is continued, I am afraid it will further contribute to the already too low growth rate of agriculture in these developing countries.
Finally FAO's recognition of the need to establish and strengthen national institutions is highly commendable, for in the final analysis, only through national expertise and endeavours could food production amply he produced and provided for all.
R. GOMEZ RICANO (Cuba): Quisiéramos en primer término felicitar a la Secretaría por habernos brindado el documento C 77/4 relativo al Examen de los Programas de Campo, el cual constituye un valioso aporte a nuestras discusiones, no solo por su presentación, sino también por su contenido. Refleja realmente la situación habida y pone al descubierto los obstáculos que aún deben ser superados para hacer más fructífera y eficaz la labor de la FAO en el marco de la cooperación técnica multilateral.
Ahora bien, deseamos hacer algunos comentarios sobre varios de los aspectos que contempla el documento. En el punto 1.10 referente al número y procedencia de los funcionarios de campo, se puede apreciar como en 1976 la mayoría de éstos provenían de los países desarrollados. Creemos que la FAO debería hacer mayores esfuerzos en la obtención de expertos de los países en desarrollo los cuales, por su origen, están más vinculados a nuestros problemas.
En lo tocante al Capítulo C - Programa de Cooperación Técnica - vemos con satisfacción los esfuerzos que se han realizado hasta el momento y esperamos que para el otoño de 1978 la Secretaría pueda brindar al Consejo un análisis de los resultados obtenidos y la labor realizada.
En lo que respecta a los puntos 2. 5 y 2.6, se nos indican los problemas que aún subsisten referentes a que el diseño de los proyectos sigue dejando mucho que desear y la cantidad de meses que se han necesitado desde la identificación de un proyecto hasta su aprobación y puesta en marcha. Estos problemas los conocemos y estimamos que la Organización hará sus mayores esfuerzos para eliminarlos o por lo menos disminuirlos en el próximo bienio. No obstante, deseamos señalar dos cuestiones relativas a los resultados de un proyecto. En primer lugar, se observa cómo lamentablemente muchos proyectos que finalizan su fase de ejecución, con resultados satisfactorios en un país, no se extienden luego masivamente en el territorio en cuestión, trayendo consigo que la asistencia técnica ofrecida no logra su mayor alcance y repercusión; y en segundo lugar, que en la mayoría de los informes finales realizados por los expertos al término de un proyecto no se incluyen recomendaciones que permitan lo anterior. Esperamos que en el próximo bienio se tengan en cuenta estas cuestiones y se hagan esfuerzos por subsanarlas.
Asimismo, se deberán realizar esfuerzos para erradicar los obstáculos básicos que se señalan desde el punto 2.33 hasta el 2,40 todos los cuales se deben -por una parte- a trabas de contenido burocrático, y por otra, a las consecuencias del subdesarrollo impuesto a nuestros países, producto de las políticas coloniales y neocoloniales que aún, desafortunadamente, subsisten en muchos países.
En lo referente a la dirección nacional de los proyectos, vemos con agrado cómo ya en algunos países en desarrollo los directores de proyectos son nacionales de esos países. En la región de América Latina, nuestro país ha sido pionero en esta modalidad, obteniéndose resultados satisfactorios. Esto se ha debido a que, si un director es nacional de su propio país, se encuentra más estrechamente viculado a sus problemas y a la vez se compenetra de forma más directa con la Organización en su calidad de funcionario internacional. Esperamos que en el proximo bienio la FAO pueda ampliar esta actividad de manera significativa, sobre todo en lo que toca a los países en desarrollo.
Referente a la capacitación agrícola, pesquera y forestal,saludamos los esfuerzos realizados por la FAO que por demás se hacen evidentes en el documento objeto de debate. No obstante, esperamos que la Organización haga mayores empeños por aumentar el número de becas para el próximo bienio, si se tiene en cuenta que en el actual ha disminuido en gran medida con relación al anterior; así como que la capacitación -en general- se extiende cada día más hacia los trabajadores que están más directamente vinculados a estas tres ramas. Al respecto, se deberá hacer énfasis en la capacitación de la mujer, no sólo en lo que respecta a las labores domésticas, sino fundamentalmente hacia el logro de su plena incorporación a la producción, permitiéndole hacer el papel que le corresponde en el desarrollo económico y social de sus países.
En lo tocante a la Cooperación Técnica entre países en desarrollo, vemos con satisfacción los esfuerzos realizados que se nos mencionan desde el párrafo 4.40 hasta el 4.46. Sobre esto nos referiremos en detalle cuando se debata el tema en cuestión.
No queremos finalizar sin reiterar nuestro reconocimiento a la labor realizada por la Organización que cada día deberá estar más orientada hacia la puesta en práctica de los postulados del nuevo Orden Económico Internacional.
J.D. KEITA (Mali): Je voudrais faire deux commentaires, le premier sur le choix des experts à envoyer sur le terrain,et le deuxième sur la gestion des projets. En ce qui concerne le choix des experts, il est temps que la FAO désigne des experts connaissant le terrain. Pour cela il est nécessaire d'avoir des consultations dans la région ou dans la zone. A mon avis, il est grand temps de tranférer la décision du recrutement des experts,du siège de la FAO aux organes régionaux, voire même aux organes nationaux, car désormais la FAO aura des représentants dans beaucoup de pays.
En ce qui concerne la gestion, on parle toujours de décentralisation mais je vais vous donner des exemples qui vont vous montrer qu'en définitive on ne voit vraiment pas ce qui va être décentralisé parce qu'en fait,tout part de Rome et tout revient à Rome, et cette situation est souvent très gênante pour l'exécution de nombreux projets de la FAO. Je vais vous donner un exemple à partir de deux commentaires.
Il s'agit d'un projet de développement régional de la pêche continentale basé à Mopti.
En novembre 1974, il y a déjà trois ans, une réunion organisée par l'ASFIS, financée par l'UNSO, et préparée par la FAO, a décidé à Bamako de mettre en place un centre supérieur de formation en matière de pêche pour l'ensemble des pays de la zone sahélienne. Il s'agit bien de pêche continentale. La réunion a donc chargé l'ASFIS et l'UNSO de préparer la deuxième phase,qui consistait à formuler le projet, c'est-à-dire à organiser la manière dont l'école serait instituée. Le premier embryon d'institution de recherche va être mis en place et nous sommes maintenant à cette phase de formulation. Nous avons, à cette phase, un expert principal et des experts consultants. L'expert principal arrive à Bamako. Et tous les jours, sans qu'il en soit averti, des experts arrivent de Rome avec un itinéraire déjà préparé qui n'a rien à voir avec le travail qui devrait être fait. On leur dit d'aller à Nouakchott, alors que souvent il n'y a pas d'avions qui puissent assurer la correspondance. Cette question des voyages soulève véritablement une montagne de problèmes.
Ensuite, et c'est le plus grave, on nous envoie des experts qui font des rapports qui, même au temps des explorateurs, n'auraient pu être acceptés. Il en ressort, en effet, qu'à Mopti, il n'y a pas de ferment intellectuel, alors qu'à Mopti il y a un grand projet de développement de la résiculture financé par la Banque mondiale avec cinq experts; il y a un projet de recherche avec deux experts financés également par la Banque mondiale; il y a un projet de développement de la pêche avec cinq experts italiens. Il y a donc beaucoup de projets à Mopti,qui est la deuxième ville du Mali, et qui est reliée à deux aéroports internationaux par des routes qui vont à Bamako et à Bobodioulasso. Après tout cela, on doute encore qu'il y ait un ferment intellectuel. En conclusion, il faut trouver un autre endroit pour implanter l'école.
Le plus grave c'est que les services du département des pêches de la FAO se font l'écho de ces rapports, et nous sommes en train de nous demander si,en fin de compte,le projet sera exécuté on non.
Cette situation est extrêmement grave parce que,dans le cadre du Club du Sahel, nous avons demandé une aide à beaucoup de sources de financement. En particulier, les pays nordiques comme la Norvège, le Danemark, la Suède, sont prêts à intervenir dans le cadre de notre Club, mais ils disent qu'ils ne peuvent le faire que par l'intermédiaire de la FAO, ce qui est peut-être tout à fait normal. Comme le délégué du Danemarkvient de le dire, ils ne disposent pas de suffisamment d'experts pour établir des relations bilatérales avec le pays.
Je voudrais que ces problèmes puissent être réglés, que dorénavant on tienne compte des organisations régionales de la FAO pour que l'on n'envoie plus sur le terrain des experts qui demandent le transfert de projets, déjà adoptés par l'ensemble des gouvernements, de la zone sahélienne à Paris ou à New York.
Je voudrais attirer votre attention sur cette question et je vous remercie.
E. RICO MEJIA (Colombia): Me complace mucho declarar que para nuestro país ha sido muy útil no sólo este documento de orientación que tenemos a la vista sobre los programas de campo de FAO, sino la cooperación que hemos recibido de la Organización a través de los expertos que han ido a nuestro país. Debo admitir que buena parte del éxito en las tereas depende también de la calidad de la contraparte, o de los expertos nacionales.
Si nosotros exijirnos a la FAO expertos de alto nivel y ponemos al lado de ellos técnicos nacionales de buena calidad, los proyectos pueden marchar muy bien, come está ocurriendo en nuestro país con tres proyectos: uno de tecnología de alimentos, una planta piloto en la producción de leche, procesamiento de la leche; un matadero piloto también experimental y de enseñanza; y los proyectos o programas de desarrollo ganadero y de planificación agrícola.
Si bien tenemos muchas necesidades en estos campos, hemos avanzado bastante y la FAO ha colaborado bien con nostros en estos terrenos, pero hemos sido exigentes al grado máximo y seguiremos siéndolo. Sabemos que FAO puede conseguir en cualquier momento para cualquier actividad los técnicos más calificados; si no fuera así es porque no se han tomado las necesarias precauciones o porque en el país recipiente de la ayuda de FAO no se ha cuidado al máximo grado el que esos expertos estén al nivel que les debe corrres-ponder.
Repito que nosotros somos celosos en esto de la calidad del personal que va a trabajar con nosotros en terrenos especializados y no podemos más que reconocerlo aquí públicamente,pero cada día seremos más exigentes porque si bien tenemos grandes deficiencias, el hecho de ser conscientes de ellas nos da la autoridad para exigir técnicos de muy altas calificaciones, y de ello es claro ejemplo los'resultados de los trabajos hechos en otros países mencionados aquí por representantes de Chile y Nicaragua en donde se han resuelto en poco tiempo problemas muy graves, y como estamos seguros que podremos hacerlo en el futuro cuando, y ojalá nunca ocurra, se presente en Colombia la roya del café o cualquier otra enfermedad en el campo animal o vegetal. Confiamos, pues, en que en la FAO podremos encontrar cuando lo requiramos la colaboración técnica necesaria; será preciso que la exijamos, que la solicitemos oportuna y directamente y con claro concepto de esa necesidad.
Β. BABA (Tchad): Si j'avais demandé hier à intervenir au sujet du programme de terrain, c'est qu'un point mérite l'attention de la FAO et des organismes qui aident les pays en voie de développement.
Quand on parle d'agriculture, on a toujours tendance à dissocier celle-ci de la foresterie. Or, c'est une grave erreur que l'on commet dans les pays en voie de développement, pour la simple raison que ces deux départements sont complémentaires. Je vais illustrer cette affirmation par quelques exemples précis concernant les programmes de terrain.
Il y a lieu de penser que le support de l'agriculture est la foresterie dans les pays en voie de développement, pour la simple raison que ce soit dans le Sahel où beaucoup de gens meurent de faim en ce moment ou souffrent à cause du manque de couvert végétal, ou dans la zone soudanienne où l'élevage ne peut s'installer parce qu'il soulève des problèmes délicats.
L'agriculture déboise toujours davantage dans les zones soudaniennes, elle en fait également dans le Sahel pour quelques cultures de subsistance sans penser que sans le couvert végétal, la terre arable, qui se dégradera très vite, ne peut plus subvenir à ses besoins, c'est-à-dire lui procurer du mil ou autres aliments indispensables et nécessaires.
besoin du couvert végétal pendant la saison sèche où il n'y a rien pour nourrir son bétail. Or, si nous laissons de côté la foresterie dans la zone marginale,on enlève à l'élevage ce qui pour le moment favorise son développement.
Donc le programme forestier a un rôle très important dans le Sahel et tous ceux de l'élevage doivent être appuyés par lui agissant directement sur le couvert végétal par la mise en défense et des aménagements sylvo-pastoraux ou indirectement grâce à la cueillette de la gomme arabique dont les débouchés sont sûrs et qui ne nécessite pas beaucoup d'efforts à l'éleveur en lui procurant des devises.
En troisième lieu, il y a la pêche. Tout le Sahel regorge de poisson parce que nous avons des lacs et des rivières très poissonneux. Or, nous avons dit qu'il faut conserver le poisson parce qu'il faut éviter les pertes. A L'heure actuelle, le pêcheur a besoin de bois pour fumer son poisson, et nous avons une pénurie de bois dans ces zones. Nous avons des zones où il n'existe même pas de bois. Les pêcheurs doivent prendre les bouses de vaches pour fumer les poissons, ce qui fait que l'agriculture ne peut utiliser ces bouses pour fertiliser le sol. C'est un deuxième élément pour le support à la pêche. Il faut du bois pour fumer le poisson afin de l'exporter, le conserver, et éventuellement préserver la bouse,qui sert à fertiliser le sol pour l'agriculture.
Comme vous le voyez, nous avons tendance à dissocier l'élevage, l'agriculture et la foresterie.
Ce que je demanderai à la FAO et aux autres organismes,c'est qu'ils mettent l'accent sur les programmes intégrés. Tout projet agricole doit au préalable passer au crible tous les aspects de la question pour voir si on ne peut pas établir un petit programme, ne serait-ce que le dixième du projet en question, de projet forestier. Ceci nous éviterait des surprises dans le futur puisque vous savez qu'à l'heure actuelle dans les zones dont je parle, que ce soit la zone sahélienne ou soudanaise, le déboisement est un problème crucial. Tous les Etats en voie de développement luttent mais ils ne peuvent réussir seuls. Un arbre a besoin de trente ans, cinquante ans, pour grandir, mais il suffit de trente minutes pour le couper et on ne pense pas à le remplacer.Or, vous savez que la pluie devient rare en ce moment.Le climat est changé. Tout cela a des conséquences sur la végétation.
C'est pour cela que j'attire l'attention ici,pour qu'au lieu de faire des projets agricoles à part, il y ait lieu de penser à faire des projets intégrés,pour que les trois départements puissent travailler ensemble et puissent éviter d'éparpiller leurs efforts.
G. CHACON (Ecuador): Indudablemente que el documento C 77/4 presentado por el señor Director General es un análisis bastante detenido de la labor que ha cumplido la FAO en el bienio que estamos terminando.
Considero yo que los países en general deben pedir la cooperación internacional en aquellos campos para los que realmente tienen problemas prioritarios. Indudablemente, en la escala de desarrollo esto varía entre la cooperación eminentemente técnica o la colaboración financiera, pero yo creo, como aquí se ha manifestado antes, que la primera obligación para promover un proyecto corresponde al país y luego a los organismos oferentes de la cooperación.
En el campo de la capacitación, considero que el experto internacional prioritariamente debe dedicarse a la transferencia de tecnología a contrapartes nacionales igualmente seleccionadas con rigurosidad por sus respectivos gobiernos. Debe enfatizarse este aspecto porque pretender que un experto internacional sea el que va a llevar en forma masiva la transferencia tecnológica al campesinado es algo que no podría realmente lograrse en el corto tiempo que un experto internacional permanece en un país.
Al hablar de capacitación se habla que en algunos casos se enfatiza en el establecimiento de centros de capacitación para campesinos o para técnicos, para la mujer, y esto es una de las ayudas más importantes que la FAO puede conseguir de organismos bilaterales de ayuda o de fondos del PNUD, porque realmente con estos centros de entrenamiento los países ya pueden realmente organizar programas sistematizados de capacitación masiva a cargo de personal nacional.
Quiero aquí hacer un aparte de que al hablar de la capacitación del agricultor, de la mujer, realmente estamos soslayando un aspecto importantísimo en nuestros países en desarrollo: es la capacitación de la juventud. Hace diez años en Toronto, con el auspicio de la Massey-Ferguson, la FAO organizó una conferencia en la que se hicieron las promesas más optimistas para promover el mejoramiento en la educación de la juventud y ¿qué es lo que ha transcurrido en esta década? podemos decir que como resultado quizá la indiferencia de organismos internacionales y del propio país; el éxodo del medio campesino a las ciudades va en aumento.Sería muy conveniente tomar en consideración esto cuando se organicen o se efectúen los preparativos para la Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural-
Por otra parte, yo creo que las oficinas regionales y los propios países deben organizar sistemas adecuados de supervision y control de los proyectos y programas de campo. Al momento, en muchos casos ha estado esto un poco desordenado y creo que esta sería una de las formas para lograr la mayor eficiencia y corregir defectos en los planes de operaciones.
Otro aspecto importante, que es una sugerencia en esta Comisión, es estandarizar el período o la época en que deben presentarse los informes periódicos de un proyecto. En algunos casos es trimestral, en otros cuatrimestral y semestral. Eso muchas veces no está de conformidad con la organización administrativa o financiera de un país. Sería bueno que la FAO adopte algún sistema para la presentación de estos informes y poder, entonces, sacar conclusiones útiles para los compromisos de contrapartida de cada país.
Por parte de nuestro país, Ecuador, estamos satisfechos del apoyo que FAO nos ha brindado, principalmente en los proyectos con PNUD, en los programas de copperación técnica en los que ha habido dinamismo, agilidad, preocupación, y también vale mencionar aquí con especial deferencia el Programa de Seguridad Alimentaria que nos ha ayudado de la mejor manera posible.
R.W.M. JOHNSON (New Zealand): There are two points on which we may be able to make some additional contribution to the debate.
Firstly, on the question of training: C 77/4 brings up the question of the leakages which occur in training programmes in the recipient countries, and the difficulties of finding local, national experts in the same occupations after completion of their training. This seems to be a common problem to all governments. All government departments suffer leakages in their personnel to private enterprise, to international bodies, and to consultants -it seems to be a feature of bureaucratic organizations, and it certainly happens in my own Department. Nevertheless, a positive suggestion could well be that the philosophy of training, the philosophy of FAO programmes and training, could be broadened a little by greater integration of FAO trining programmes with national educational programmes. It seems to me that we must see training as a national programme with the common good as an objective, and it may be that agriculture and the agricultural sector is not the sole gainer from these particular types of programmes.
My second point is on the Review itself. I notice from the document that 141 assessments were carried out in this particular biennium, and looking back at C 75/4 that there were 337 assessments carried out in that period.
Looking at Table 3 of C 77/4, I calculate that there are 1 508 current projects receiving FAO support, and my arithmetic tells me therefore that approximately 9 percent of projects were assessed in the biennium. I want to ask the Secretariat, what would be the norm? - what would be a programme of assessment in the future? - is nine percent low? - high? - or just what? Obviously, each project does not need to be reviewed every biennium: projects have greatly different life periods. Nevertheless, there must be some kind of norm that we could probably accept in the next biennium, which would tell us how many projects we would expect to see assessed at our next Conference.
D, LINDORES (Canada): I would like to make some brief comments concerning the relationship between UNDP and FAO. We are all familiar with the crisis of 1975 which, due to a variety of complex factors, led to the drastic and unpleasant measures taken by UNDP in early 1976. Admittedly, although I say “complex factors'', I think we all feel that with certain managerial and management improvements, many of the measures which had to be taken at that time could have been avoided. It must however be remembered that the primary reason for the financial crisis of 1975 was an extraordinarily high level of expenditure in 1975, which resulted in a total depletion of UNDP's financial resources. As a result, the UNDP Governing Council instructed the Administrator in 1976 and 1977 to err on the side of the conservative in order to ensure that the programme would, first, survive, and secondly would re-establish its financial integrity. It was quickly identified that one of the primary problems of UNDP in terms of its meeting the legitimate acceptance for financing all specialized agencies in the field of technical cooperation was the lack of a proper management information system. In the opinion of my delegation, this diagnosis was correct, and we believe that such a system is essential to the future health of UNDP, and that the future health of UNDP cannot be divorced from the health of technical cooperation within the United Nations system as a whole.
As a result of this need for a revised, expanded management information system, a number of governments, including Canada,have made special contributions to UNDP to permit the establishment and development of a new system, aimed initially at improving the internal operations of UNDP, secondly, at improved
coordination with executing agencies, and eventually with linking all these organizations and the field officers in some kind of central and common system. This project is currently proceeding with the full involvement of IBRD and ILO as cooperating executing agencies. It is the opinion of my delegation that this project is critical to the efficient management of technical cooperation in the United Nations system. We would urge the full cooperation of FAO with UNDP in this endeavour to ensure, firstly, that FAO's interests are properly taken into account in the development of the system, and secondly, that UNDP's role as central financing institution for technical cooperation in the United Nations system can be properly fulfilled.
S.H. AL-SHAKIR (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): Several of my colleagues have spoken about the different points “before us this morning, concerning Field Programmes, and obviously I too would like to congratulate the Secretariat on its excellent document which opens the way to us for effective action, positive in nature, in the development of Field Programmes, and we are convinced that Field Programmes are the comer stones of any effort made by FAO.
My delegation would like to make some comments particularly about regional projects. These regional projects are the result of the interest which Member States have in establishing a specific programme at regional level. That is why the countries of that particular region have got together and asked FAO for aid and support, thanks to the Field Programme, in order to be able to solve some of their difficulties. Regional programmes therefore in our view are the best possible proof of cooperation between the countries of the region on one hand, and the countries of that region and FAO on the other.
Now with respect to these regional programmes and the restrictions and the difficulties that they have to face, we must work in order to overcome all obstacles and have an assessment of regional programmes which will involve the parties concerned. We think that there is an inherent contradiction in the way these programmes are run or managed, especially those programmes carried out within the framework of the Technical Cooperation Programme of which our share is $5 million. Only 0.03 per cent has been used. I think we will have to look at this and see why the managing of that programme has failed, and put it right, so that the TCP can benefit all countries of the region. We must also give the management of these programmes a little more flexibility so as to take account of the conditions ard environment of each programme. Obviously we have to fix a ceiling with a specific objective for these programmes. We are convinced of the opinion that the beneficial countries, the donor countries, ought to be given absolute priority in collaboration with FAO.
Turning to investments, we support this. Investments must lead to increased experience and be based on a study which will take account of the prevailing situation in any country. The studies must be carried out before any investment is provided for.
Turning to the problem of training, we think job training will mean that the training progress is at the right rate. Obviously we do like to send trainees abroad, but when they are sent abroad they must work in ecological environments similar to their own and the one in which they are going to work when they come back home. To sum up, we must overcome all these kinds of obstacles that the programmes have to face together with the help of countries concerned. We are still convinced that the programmes should be implemented in accordance with the National Development Plan. This is very necessary. Unfortunately though we have noticed that the implementation of national and regional programmes are being delayed because of their management, so we would like to ask FAO to assess, together with the countries concerned, these programmes, whether they be national or regional, and whether they are being financed solely by FAO or UNDP or the regional development funds.
We must strengthen the national bureaux and offices. We give them our support and FAO must too, because this will enable both national and regional programmes to progress.
Turning now to the question of experts, we feel that they ?re vital in any undertaking of this nature which is why we wholeheartedly approve what was said by the Representatives of Cuba, Bangladesh and Mali, with respect to Project Managers and experts and the need to ask the advice of the country concerned when recruiting experts: we are sure that capable and competent experts, and experts who are really keen to work in the conditions prevailing in a specific country will mean that the field programmes are implemented all the better. Quite clearly there are one or two drawbacks. They will have to be remedied.
We must also make sure to make the best possible use of national experience and national institutions, especially when drawing up feasibility studies, and also in the sequel to be given to these programmes.
There is another point which has not been mentioned yet and that is the participation of OPEC countries. Since we too are members of OPEC we would like to say that we do not like paragraph 4.27 to 4.60. The OPEC countries have given 50 per cent of the OPEC special fund to IFAD and we all know that IFAD is going to provide aid on rather flexible and concessionary terms to developing countries. Bilateral aid provided by different funds, different development funds of the regions don't pay their share in the form of scholarship or actual cash, or gifts, and even if the aid is given in the form of cash it is only provided on concessionary terms. Let us not forget that 3.8 per cent of the OPEC aid is given to developing countries, so the actual volume of aid, compared to the aid coming from developed countries or international financing institutions, is really very large, especially since aid is given on concessionary terms. These are the points I wanted to make, Mr. Chairman, apart from the support that I give to what was said by previous speakers when they spoke about project management, experts and the delays that occur in their implementation. Thank you.
B. de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): It seems I am in a privileged position being the last speaker - I can benefit from other people's experience. I have little to say at this stage, just a few remarks. First, my delegation is very happy to see greater involvement of FAO in the preparation of projects for financing. That is the kind of practical approach beyond purely technical assistance we feel very effective. We are happy to see a very large number of projects, for instance in agriculture, financed by the World Bank, have been prepared by FAO or at least FAO has been heavily involved in their preparation. We are happy to see such kind of development and, of course, we feel that resources of FAO for this kind of action should be reinforeed, and we very much hope in the next biennium larger resources will be devoted for that kind of work support and preparation of projects. That is the first remark.
The second remark is that after barely a year of operation of the TCP we have already a rather remarkable record of achievements. We have already seen that our support for TPC was fully justified in a sense that the technical preparation programme of FAO is performing an additional role, very useful and necessary in the domain of technical assistance by quick action.
In addition to the programmes and projects financed by UNDP, the special character of TPC has already emerged in the actual operation of TPC. Remember this is the first year of life. Within Brazil we have had very happy experience already with TPC and we feel already in our experience that TPC is fully justified. In Brazil a number of projects are being carried on, especially in the domain of marketing, not only with fisheries. That is the kind of concentration we have used TCP for. Thus far we very much hope for TPC that very large resources will be used in the next biennium, so that this particular programme can be reinforced progressively in full coordination with other inputs of the UN system for technical assistance, especially with UNDP.
As far as the level of resources, I have already commented upon the fact that the level of resources of TCP for Latin America has been rather low, and we hope our region, which I think has barely over 16 per cent of resources to TCP, should benefit in larger amount from the programme in percentage terms. As far as the overall implementation of field programmes is concerned, we feel that FAO has been doing a good job in terms of using, for instance, national institutions, but still - as I commented before - more use of those institutions of developing countries could be made in the domain of research, training and consultants, for instance.
We also feel that in a number of cases the procurement of equipment should be made in the developing countries to a much larger extent. Also, experts from the developing countries should be used by the FAO in different programmes at field level.
As far as coordination is concerned, which we understand by reading the recommendation is a major point of concern, we feel this is first of all a concern which must be ensured at country level. The coordination agencies in FAO, with other agencies, have to make an effort to improve coordination. As far as we are concerned, we are happy with coordination at the Brazilian level, in our own country, of the different inputs of different agencies. But we feel, to make the point clear, that it is basically a question for the country concerned. We also feel that it is an important point, since there are several references in the document before us and particularly the main document before us on priorities and it is important that we recognise that priorities for technical assistance and field programmes must be defined by the countries recipient themselves. After all, the technical assistance component and the foreign assi stance for technological development is a very small part of a much larger national effort. Therefore, priorities have to be seen in the total context of the national and external international inputs into development and progress and planning. This point, in our view, is quite important.
On the levels of resources, my delegation has already had an opportunity to comment yesterday in Commission I that the flows of external resources for agriculture have somehow diminished in 1976. This is quite clear in the main document before us. They have diminished in terms of quantity and also, at the same time, they have deteriorated as regards conditions, which is even more significant, since agriculture is a sector which cannot hold foreign external financial flows if the conditions are heavy and difficult.
In order to avoid progressive indebtedness it is very important that flows of financial resources are adequate, and also that the conditions are compatible with the requirements and conditions or developing countries. The terms of lending must be compatible.
A final point, probably more of a drafing nature, is the comment on page 31 of the English text of the main document on Country Programming. We feel that paragraph 2.51 perhaps reflects a too critical approach on Country programming. While we have to approach the subject with certain qualifications, it is sometimes still a valid exercise in terms of presenting a rational approach to the different inputs for technical assistance and technological transfers to the developing countries. We feel that the idea of indicative planning figures on a five year term is still valid. It was introduced in 1969 or the early 1970's, and in spite of the difficulties that have emerged lately as a consequence of the financial constraints of the UNDP, it is still a valid approach, and the developing recipient countries have much to gain in having some idea of the planning of what are external inputs, to complement their own internal efforts.
There are constraints and difficulties, for instance in paragraph 2.51 there is the suggestion that as the resources are pledged on an annual basis, the validity of indicative planning figures is limited. I would put it the other way around: the idea of country programming and indicative planning figures on five year terms was precisely to give an incentive to some preplanning of resources on the part of donor countries, and, of course, there are limitations on the process, but it is still a valid effort.
However, perhaps my observations on paragraph 2.51 show that I have read it in too critical a manner, I recognize the limitations of the exercise, but it is still valid, with these qualifications.
These are all the points I have at the moment, but I would like to make others at a later stage of deliberations.
A. BIN YUNUS (Malaysia): My delegation does not propose to go into the details of the document on Field Programmes, which is highly commendable. We only wish to voice our view on the selection of experts for the field programmes. In this respect, my delegation shares the sentiments expressed by several delegations. Malaysia would like to see more care being exercised in the selection of experts, so that the candidates are really appropriate in all respects for the projects envisaged.
We hope that FAO will give this matter its serious attention.
A. NDEGEYA (Rwanda): Monsieur le Président, je voudrais tout d'abord vous adresser les félicitations de la délégation rwandaise, étant donné que c'est la première fois que nous avons l'occasion d'intervenir dans ce débat.
Mon intention est de me limiter à deux points précis du document C 77/4 ''Examen des Programmes de terrain''.
1. J'exprime ici la satisfaction de la délégation rwandaise quant à la rapidité et l'efficacité du PCT. Grâce à lui, nous avons pu mettre en route un projet d'élevage avicole. Nous avons l'intention de recourir encore au PCT pour quelques autres actions urgentes. Ce que nous souhaitons, c'est que les Fonds du PCT soient augmentés, étant donné que les projets susceptibles de ressortir du PCT sont très nombreux dans tous les pays en développement.
2. Ma délégation attache une grande importance à la gestion des projets sur le plan national (Chapitre II, 2.42). Les Directeurs nationaux des projets bénéficiant de l'aide de la FAO sont très souhaitables. Cela correspond en fait à une approche positive du problème de la décentralisation pour une efficacité accrue des programmes de terrain. Nul doute que cela permettra de “coller'' réellement à la réalité des pays assistés par la FAO. La nomination des Directeurs nationaux dans des projets assistés par la FAO doit cependant respecter certains critères dont le plus important,est l'efficacité. La qualité des experts est très importante. Tous les pays possèdent maintenant des experts nationaux de haut ni-veau. C'est parmi eux qu'il faudrait choisir et éviter surtout des choix plus politiques que techniques. 1/
__________1/ Texte reçu avec demande d'insertion au procès-verbal.
Κ. CHOUERI (Liban): Je voudrais formuler quelques brèves remarques sur le sujet qui nous occupe.
La délégation de mon pays ne peut qu'exprimer ses félicitations pour l'importance des activités de terrain déployées par notre Organisation, et les secteurs qu'elle a couverts au cours du biennium 1976–77.
De nombreux orateurs ont souligné la valeur du document que nous examinons, qui est clair, précis et bien présenté. A notre tour, nous louons les efforts entrepris dans ce sens par le Directeur général.
Certaines délégations ont réclamé l'exécution d'activités déterminées au cours des prochaines années. Certaines ont insisté sur la formation professionnelle, les aspirations futures, le recours aux organismes nationaux, etc.
Je ne peux que me référer au projet de programme soumis par le Directeur général, et qui a été positivement commenté par les délégations au cours des séances précédentes.
Ma délégation voudrait restreindre ses remarquesau problème du choix des experts,sans aborder les autres activités qui ont fait, ici même, l'objet de nombreux commentaires.
Ma délégation estime que le choix des experts doit s'effectuer sans tenir compte de leur appartenance à la région, au siège, ou à tout autre organisme. Les seuls critères qui doivent entrer en ligne de compte devraient être les hautes qualités de l'expert, qu'il pourrait mettre au service du pays où il est appelé à déployer son activité.
Nous disons qu'il n'est pas possible de parvenir à des résultats positifs lorsqu'il est fait appel à l'aide de l'Organisation que si un appui et une collaboration sont obtenus sur le plan national. Une complémentarité d'action pourra alors être réalisée par une meilleure exécution des projets. 1/
J.F.YRIART (Assistant Director-General, Development Department): May I say, on behalf of the Secretariat, that we are indeed very grateful for the very detailed and constructive interventions. It would be impossible for me, and would go far beyond the time available, if I were to try to comment on each of them.
Many opened new fields for analysis in the next Review of Field Programmes, and I hope you will trust that we will base ourselves firmly on your interests in exploring new avenues in the next review.
I shall limit myself to replying to direct questions or remarking on issues on which special concern has been expresse. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I woll not, myself deal with issues brought up on the question of training, but will ask Mr. Mhajan to refer to them, neither will I speak on TCDC, reserving comments on some interventions until we take up that item.
I realize that to point out certain lacks of success in a public document like the Review tends to overshadow any subsequent reporting of success. Perhaps this has been true in regard to the discussion on Chapter 2, the Assessment of Field Programmes. But we think that the overall results of the assistance we execute are favourable. The 151 projects reviewed, which were taken up at random, may or may not have been fully representative of the whole field programme. What is important is that they all focus on the reasons for those failures which the Review has tried to identify. When I say ''all'', I mean the representatives of the three parties to which the delegate of Jordan referred: the beneficiaries, the excuting agency, and the funding organization.
This is why, in my initial statement, I recalled the concern expressed by the Programme Committee that the Review's findings had not apparently received sufficient attention by the three parties it was addressed to. However, may I say that I have been encouraged that this time several delegates from developing countries have acknowledged their own role in this partnership, and referred extensively to it.
I would hope that this whole exercise of the Review will help our partners in the Field Programmes, the beneficiaries and the donors, to take corrective measures in regard to policies and procedures which comrpomise the impact of projects and programmes. We sincerely try to make take these measures on our side.
On this line, let me say that the Programme of Work and Budget you have considered carries major provisionsto strenghten the backstopping function of the technical divisions. Field activities are a clear priority for the Director-General and in preparing the Programme of Work and Budget we were under clear, very definite instructions to provide inter-divisional estimates and adequate technical back-stopping for the field programmes. We believe that the deficiencies that we noted ourselves in the Review will be overcome.
__________1/ Texte reçu avec demande d'insertion au procès -verbal.
Regarding the various interventions focused on poverty orientation and basic needs, let me assure you that with the admonition from the Director-General, expressed in paragraph 37 of his Introduction to the Programme of Work and Budget, that we should avoid paternalistic attitudes that ignore the responsibilities of governments, and bearing in mind that it is for the governments to decide who takes care of first priorities, and that other needs may be essential for the government to be able to tackle these first priorities, our overwhelming concern is for the poorer among the countries, and among the people, and for the problems of food production. However, how to reach the most needy is a problem that is not solved, in all its implications - not by us, not by any of the organizations in the system. But it is in the minds of all of us, in trying to design our projects.
In this respect, we would ask the next Review to assess the achievements of rural developments. I want to recall to your memory our assessment of area development projects in the last Review, which also went that way, but necessarily in the next review, in some manner, we shall have to look again at rural development projects and their inputs.
Let me now come to more direct questions or issues. I would like to refer specifically to a few of those issues that were emphasized. They were mainly the use of experts, their duty station, the source of supply of equipment, and the question of further financial assistance after the termination of a project, which was brought up by the delegate of Chad. Additionally, I would like to say a few words on the question of management information between the agencies of the United Nations system and the UNDP, brought up by the delegate of Canada, and also to reply to the delegate of New Zealand about our plans for the next assessment.
With regard to the use of experts, I can assure you that the Organization welcomes new forms of technical assistance. It could not be otherwise, because the whole pattern of demand of the developing countries - the benificiaries - is gradually changing with their having new technical capabilities themselves, institutions that can do much of the work that has to be done. Of course, the pattern changes, the system has geared itself for this change, up to the case where we welcome the full execution of projects by governments themselves, if this is their choice. The successful experiments that have been carried out on the use of national project managers are another indication, and another is that we have more and more expert-less projects.
However, let me tell you that these decisions, which result in a new form of project rather than the traditional, are decisions in which the main voice is that of the government, and are taken at the time when the project document is being formulated. But here a voice of warning. There is a very important study going on under the aegis of the Joint Inspection Unit, at the request of the Governing Council of the UNDP, on the cost and use of experts. To our relative surprise, we find that the returns from the very interesting questionnaires sent to governments of benificiary countries show that the pattern of change away from traditional forms with expatriate long-term experts is going to be rather slow.
We still foresee for the next few years large demand under the old form, though we know that the pattern is changing, and we feel it exactly in our execution, in our operations.
An explanation, Mr. Chairman: several delegates and especially Bangladesh mentioned, looking at the figures we provided, the top-heavy component of experts in projects. Some of our figures are misleading. It applies also - Mr. Mahajan will refer to it - to the question of fellowships, because due to the UNDP crisis, cutswere made in projects where cuts could be made. For example, fellowships were cut in many cases, but much more equipment was cut, and this gave a greater relevance then to what was more difficult and more expensive to cut, which was experts. The question was brought up about duty stations and whether our experts are in the rural areas or not. Let me again tell you that we are satisfied that by and large they are in the rural areas. In a previous study made for the UNDP on cost of experts, what came out very clearly is that with regard to travel mobilization, the FAO experts were the most expensive in the system because they are in the rural area and they did require for liaison purposes and even, if you like, for their own welfare to travel to the capital, while projects of other organizations are more necessarily in well-populated centres.
We made a close examination, and of course, there are institution building projects, there are planning projects, etc, which are located in capitals, those have the projects in capitals, it is estimated that about 75 percent of the experts are in the rural areas.
With regard to the source of supply of equipment, which has been mentioned many times, I have an easy reply, but I will contradict myself, and that is that there are attitudinal barriers on the part of the receiving nations. On this I will return when we speak about TCDC. There is on the part of the receiving nations a desire to receive equipment of well-known brands from industries of developed countries, etc. This is true, but on the other hand, I cannot deny that in purchase we have an overwhelming influence; we purchase. Now, are we doing enough to change this pattern? I do not have an easy reply, but we identify
the problem. There is in UNDP now an experiment going on with regard to a more coordinated purchase of equipment, and we have a Working Group on that, and I will allow myself to suggest that the studies that have been made by this Group include this issue.
As I mentioned, Bangladesh and also in a way Cuba brought up the question of some kind of an assistance for the continuation of a project that is being turned over to the counterpart organization or counterparts, and there are various problems sometimes involved. One of them, financial, is: is the government ready to carry on?
The other one has to do with reports mentioned by Cuba. Let me take the latter point. I can tell you that we have gone through an exhaustive exercise the whole of this year on reporting, and I am very confident that you will notice appreciable improvement in the value of our reports, which, on the other hand, will not result in added expense to the Organization, as we will be much more selective, and we have together with the UNDP, in the case of UNDP, but it is applicable to all the donors, we have now come to realise how important it is to plan the reporting at the same time as we plan the project together with the government, that the whole process of the project execution must be properly accompanied' by an agreed plan of reporting, both on technical matters and the terminal report, so we expect great improvement there.
I have also abstained from referring to some interventions with regard to relations with UNDP, but I have taken good note of those interventions, as later on in the debate under item 15.2 we will probably come back to that. However, I would like, since probably this will not come up again, to refer to the intervention of Canada with regard to management information system. May I say on the side that I personnally would agree with him that perhaps the major factor in the crisis which the UNDP faced was a question of management information system, and I can tell you that on behalf of FAO, as we have made it known, and lately there is a big interchange of visits with the consultants being used and the staff being used by UNDP to prepare this new system, that FAO will collaborate entirely in the setting of this new management information system by UNDP. But let me also say that we have always been confident, and we have not been proven wrong, that the information system of FAO has been adequate to the needs of the system and of the Organization. Perhaps here the big problem was the sudden and rather large decentralization of UNDP where there were so many decision-making points that appeared at once, where funds could be committed also, that the possibilities of the management system of UNDP to digest the information from the agencies was not sufficient. Even to this day we have problems. Possibly when we discuss relations with UNDP, we will discuss problems of delivery, which are of grave magnitude today and to which laterally Canada referred, and I must say that here again, in the beginning of this problem that we are facing of very low delivery, it was in great measure the agencies that had to alert as to what was going on, but whatever the system that is finally established by UNDP, we will feed into it and we will make the adequate provisions in our own systems to feed as required. We recognize the needs of UNDP.
May I finally say to New Zealand that the assessments that we have presented in Chapter 2 of the Review are in addition to the normal mid-term review of projects undertaken by the operating units themselves. This arrangement will continue in the future, except that efforts will be made to synthesize the results of the mid-term reviews and combine them with the findings of ad hoc evaluation services.
May I once again remark that our production of the Review of Field Programmes and the discussions in Commission II are truly becoming a model of self-feeding of one into the other and that I would hope that the next time we can add to this model on the part of all concerned, shall we call it another section, which is comment or information as to corrective measures that have been taken by any of the partners on issues that have been previously identified. I think that this would be one of the great constructive exercises in the system with regard to technical assistance.
CHAIRMAN: I understand Mr. Yriart would like to give the floor to one of his collaborators.
B.S. MAHAJAN (FAO Staff): I will deal very briefly with the few comments and questions that were raised on training and transfer of skills as part of the various technical assistance projects.
First of all, let me say that Chapter 3 on Training, which we presented in the Review this year, is just a beginning in the comprehensive review which the Director-General has initiated with a view to making FAO's training activities and programmes more responsive to the felt needs of the member countries more specifically, of the people at the grass roots level.
It will, however, be naive to pretend that we have all the answers we set out to seek when we started our quest for new policies and programmes in this regard. These answers must eventually come from the Member Nations more directly concerned. We were very pleased to get a somewhat enthusiastic endorsement of the premises outlined in the analysis presented in the Review, which has given us some comfort that we were on the right track. A number of delegates have raised questions about the definition of what we mean by training at the ''grass roots“ level and whether that will in any way discourage emphasis on training at other levels. The question of ''grass roots'' levels, I would like to submit, should not be treated in a very literal sense. While FAO has and will continue to deal at the farm level directly whenever opportunities offer, there is no question, as was mentioned by several speakers, that this is an area which the countries themselves and their own training programmes will have to deal with increasingly. The resources of FAO will never be enough, even if it was practical and possible to deal with millions and millions of farmers who need to be exposed to new technologies. At the same time, the emphasis in training in the past, which was well-placed in the light of the circumstances which existed then, has been at higher levels, and the question of transferring the results of training at this level to the farmers is still in doubt.
In this regard, may I draw the attention of the Commission to paragraph 3.2 which I think sums up what the general balance in FAO's training activities is expected to be. If I listened to the debate correctly, I believe, that has received your endorsement. I quote: “To place emphasis on farm level or vocational training is not of course to deny the continuing need for the training of higher level professional staff to develop research programmes and manage large agricultural and forest-based enterprises, as well as to make optimum use of marine resources. The higher technician and professional levels cannot be ignored if the momentum in agricultural development is to be sustained and accelerated in the coming years. The training of small farmers and other primary producers must however receive high priority in national training programmes in order to get agriculture moving in the economically stagnant areas.''
I should also like to draw the attention of the Commission specifically to paragraphs 3.49 and 3.50, which were again emphasized in one way or the other by several delegates, commenting on the role of the countries themselves. These paragraphs suggest that the training at the primary producer level can only be fully effective within a clearly defined production programme in which the major emphasis is placed on providing small farmers and landless workers with opportunities and incentives to improve their outputs and incomes, with minimal capital inputs or risk. Such training, aimed at the demonstration and introduction of simple cultural practices (or techniques for artisanal fisherman,) is particularly vital in the context of presently stagnant agriculture or amongst groups of farmers and fishing communities which have been by-passed in the first phase of the technological breakthrough in developing countries. In the long run, as mentioned in paragraph 3.50, the development of the traditional farming sector will depend on far greater understanding of the problems and needs of rural people, and on actions taken to provide them with incentives to work on those problems and meet those needs. Given the predominately agricultural base of most developing countries economics it is essential that all levels of their educational systems include agriculture and related subjects in their curricula, and a number of delegates, we were happy to note, did accept that as a starting point for reorientation of their own policies to the question of transfer of skills, which was referred to by several speakers, there is no doubt, as was repeatedly mentioned, that transfer of skills is one of the primary objectives of technical cooperation. Unfortunately the evaluation material on in-service training fellowships and study tours within the framework of technical assistance projects is very scanty, but empirical evidence suggests that the results have been far from satisfactory. In the assessment reports reported in Chapter 2, it was pointed out that success in these areas has been limited by the operational demands on the expatriate experts, and an insufficient effort to persuade other technical units and staff within the government machinery, whose collaboration was essential of the utility and relevance of the training to be provided. Other reasons which were adduced during the assessment are the lack of suitable counterpart staff and movement of project staff into positions where the training they have received would not be used. These are, of course, the assessments made by the FAO representatives, and they do not take into account several very valid points which were mentioned by the delegates, representing their own views that the real transfer of skill will only come by increasing use of local experts. This is an issue which I think cannot be disputed. The more the developing countries are able to use their own experts effectively, the greater will be the success in transfer of skills either directly by doing the job itself or by exploiting the technical expertise of the experts available more fully.
The acid test of training is the extent to which it is utilized, which in turn is conditioned by the opportunities and support member countries are able to provide for exercise of the skills acquired through training in the execution of national development programmes. The question of fall in fellowships has been raised by some speakers. It is true the number fell as a result of the liquidity crisis, but the more important question, the qualitative one, or the impact of these tellowships, on national developments, has been often impaired by inadequate attention paid to selection and placement of candidates. Here I think we must share responsibility at both ends from both within FAO as well as by the governments concerned.
Mr. Chairman, the only other question which was raised on training is with regard to the monitoring and evaluation and assessment of needs of the training requirements by the countries. These are issues which as a professional evaluator I feel very pleased that countries are now beginning to emphasize and recognize their own role in carrying these out. The more such evaluation that is done by the countries themselves the more impact it will have in their abilities to influence the thinking within FAO and within the UN system and the international community at large. The time has come when I think that the countries are more or less in a position to assert themselves - their sovereignty of course has never been in dispute, but now they are able to assert this point of view in changing ingrained habits and traditional approaches followed in the implementation of aid FAO is no exception in this regard, but it is now much more responsive to the changed needs.
CHAIRMAN: I thank Mr. Mahajan for his explanations and answers. Delegates, that concludes our discussion on the Review of Field Programmes. I shall make an attempt to sum up our discussions very briefly. My task has, of course, been made very much easier by the very detailed explanations and comments by Mr. Yriart and Mr. Mahajan.
We have had 38 speakers on this item. I think there has been a general feeling among delegations that the presentation of the document was very good, and a great improvement. Some even used the word “excellent“ and others even stressed it would be an example to be followed by other agencies. They found it gave a clear and comprehensive picture of the Field Programme, and the reduction in volume of the review was welcomed.
I think also it was generally agreed that this is a very important paper. Some thought the most important paper presented to this Conference. One delegate pointed out that it may be of even more importance to people outside this Conference than to us. It was also stressed that it was of special importance to recipient countries; that it also was very useful for donor countries, multilateral as well as bilateral.
There was general support to be found for the conclusions in the document, as well as those in the Programmes Committee's report though, of course, not on every point.
Turning now to the chapters, there was a general feeling that progress was made, and the gradual coordination of extra-budgetary funds with the regular programmes was welcomed. Several delegations expressed the need for close coordination between the beneficiaries, the executing agencies and the funding institutions, and said that they should work very closely together. Concern was expressed by many delegates for the reduction of the UNDP/FAO Cooperative Programme. Appreciation was expressed for the hardship caused to FAO in this respect, and some delegates thought UNDP could have handled the situation somewhat differently. The problem was, however, inherent in the UNDP resource base, and it was urged by one delegate that donors should increase their contribution to UNDP in order that it may reach its pledging target. One delegate stressed that the UNDP financial crisis had revealed the lack of a proper management system within UNDP, and between UNDP and the special agency. A programme to establish such a new management programme system had been initiated by UNDP. He urged FAO to cooperate fully in this, along with the other special agencies like the World Bank and the ILO. Some delegates also stressed the importance of UNDP as a central funding institution for FAO, but felt also that FAO should have access to additional resources. They welcomed also the improved relations between FAO and UNDP, especially at field or country level.
Several delegates stressed that projects should be recipient oriented rather than donor oriented. One delegate stressed that the multi-bi-products should be in line with UNDP Country Programme System, otherwise projects should aim at benefitting the poorest parts of the population in the poorest of the food priority countries. Some stressed the need for investment in agriculture on an increased scale, and hoped that IFAD would bring a new dimension into this. Another delegate thought that the resources of FAO for investment should be increased.
With regard to the TCP, of course, this has been dealt with under item 16, and many delegates referred to previous statements. Some stressed the value of speedy procedures, and others agreed with the Review, that it was too early to assess the results, and they looked forward to receiving the Review of TCP in 1978. One delegate stressed, however, that what he could see from the results already that this really was a remarkable achievement, and he used the words of additional action, and stressed the importance of quick disbursement, and he hoped larger resources would come to this programme, and also that it should be fully coordinated with other inputs from other sources, especially UNDP.
With regard to Chapter 2, Assessment of Field Programmes, the importance of evaluation as such was stressed by many delegates. Credit was given to the work of evaluation units. One delegate felt, however, that this unit should define its objectives, and another delegate suggested evaluation by
independent experts. Many delegates welcomed the critical analysis given of the Field Programmes in this chapter. They noted with regret that about 40 percent of all projects had shown insufficient results, but praised at the same time the frankness with which the Review spelt out the problems and the shortcomings, and it was hoped that this would lead to improvement of procedures in future.
The importance of ensuring the continuity of development activities once FAO technical assistance comes to an end was stressed by several delegations. Some delegations commented on the Review of Regional Projects in the Near East. One delegate thought that this Review was too pessimistic, but stressed the need for more effective coordination of projects.
Many delegations spoke on the subject of national management of projects, and urged that more attention should be given to government executional projects and increased use of national staff and national institutions. This should also be seen as part of the TCDC.
Some delegates warned against the reliance on foreign experts, and one delegate recommended a cut-down on the number of experts FAO sent to projects. He also thought the recipient countries should have more possibilities with regard to delivery of equipment. Finally, he called for a review of the whole concept of technical assistance.
With regard to country programming one delegate called for more flexibility. In view of the fact that the first 5-year cycle of UNDP had come to an end he suggested the detailed review of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Field Programmes. Another delegate wanted to question the system of UNDP country programming and the Country IPS.
With regard to the chapter on Training in Agriculture, this was considered by many delegates to be the highlight of the Review. It was generally felt that FAO should give high priority to training, and that increased attention should be given especially to training at the country and grassroot level - farmers and rural women. Some delegates stressed that training of rural women had improved but there was still a need for further increase. One delegate felt that greater attention should also be paid to the training of management experts, and another delegate thought that the philosophy of FAO training should be broadened, with greater integration of FAO training with national training programmes.
With regard to the FAO role, past, present and future, some delegates shared the concern expressed in this chapter. One delegate was disappointed that no attempt had been made to find solutions.
Distinguished delegates, I have tried to give a brief and balanced summary of our discussions under this important item. It is, of course, up to the Drafting Group to make a complete and accurate report of our debate for approval by our Commission and later by the Plenary.
E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): The cover sheet of the document states that the form of the document was determined by the Conference last time, and, in accordance with various Directives, up-dates the last document and should be read in conjunction with other major documents which you have already considered here - the Programme of Work and Budget, the Review of Field Programmes - and which are being considered, or have been considered in Commission I -in particular, the state of food and agriculture.
The contents of the document, as foreseen, cover recent developments concerning medium-term documents, the role of FAO, medium-term priorities and other relevant questions. The Programme of Work and Budget, which you discussed the other day, did in fact in its Introduction and Explanatory Notes deal with medium-term aspects of the programme, and at the beginning of each major programme in Chapters 2 and 3 there were further passages on the medium term. Therefore, you will not find in the central section of this document anything which is basically different from that.
One section which is different is the first part, on the state of medium-term planning, on which the Programme Committee of the Seventy-Second Session of the Council had something to say.
The Council agreed with the Programme Committee that harmonization of medium-term planning in the United Nations family of organizations was a desirable objective, to the extent that it was practical and feasible and was not pursued solely for the sake of coordination. The Director-General's Introduction to the Medium-Term Objectives paper has comments to make on this question, and, in noting that the
Council saw that the Programme Committee, in its discussion on the Programme of Work and Budget, endorsed the Director-General's approach, in particular not including quantification in medium-term planning whether contained within the Programme of Work and Budget or done separately - said “endorsed “, but it should be “noted“ instead - it did not endorse, it expected the Conference to discuss this.
Having regard to the Director-General's Introduction, I would myself say that only in the Director-General's signed Introduction to this document would you really find all the major issues concerning the medium term, including not only the format, but also the content, outlined in very brief but somewhat pungent terms, and I look forward to receiving your comments or criticisms, and guidance for the future.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): Thank you, Mr. Chairman - if you are looking for volunteers, we are always ready to jump into the breach!
The main tasks for the future - as my Minister for Agriculture has said in Plenary - are the following:
First of all, the optimum use, and especially the conservation of our natural resources. The need to take such measures has been expressed by the Latin American Regional Conference, as we can see in Paragraph 4.21 of our document number 23. Under the chapter on important technical and economic problems (paragraph 4.24 and following) mainly the paragraphs Water, Fertilizers, and Land Resources briefly mention these complex tasks. We feel that the conservation of natural resources should be the basis for the planned increase in production and this is a subject which should be accorded priority within the framework of medium-term objectives.
Secondly, my Minister mentioned as second item - the prevention of food losses, especially post-harvest losses. I think that everybody agrees on that. That is why we would have expected that this particular task be granted a special chapter in this document.
As far as the paragraph on the situation in regions is concerned, we believe that the following items require special attention:
- the key role of small farmers, who are the backbone of agriculture in Asia and the Far East;
- the need to have further development and application of agricultural technology and equipment which will be properly adapted to existing economic and social factors This is something that was stressed at the African Regional Conference in particular.
- the recommendation of the Regional Conference for the Near East was to give more attention to concrete measures in respect of farmers, and we are thinking in particular of better training and further training. This is mentioned in paragraph 4.65. The role of women will have to be given special consideration.
The planned harmonization of medium-term planning in the UN System, as the Programme Committee quite rightly stated, is indeed a difficult task. Discussions in New York about the subject have therefore not yet terminated. We agree with the Council in Paragraph 63 of its report about the 72nd Session.
We support the recommendations that medium-term planning should be connected as far as possible with the Programme of Work and Budget. In this way, it will be possible in every Programme of Work and Budget discuss the future aims of the programme, and thus avoid duplication. We agree with the Programme Committee in saying that one should not try to quantify medium-term objectives. An assessment of the means required as a non-committal pointer for more than a two-year period would be based on great uncertainty, so it would not serve as a basis for a proper technical assessment of the situation. Discussions of such assessments would not be useful and would endanger the flexibility of the medium-term objectives and planning.
Furthermore, I feel that we should have a document about the medium-term objectives with very clear-cut priorities. This however should be done only in a brief form.This would give us a general view of the priorities and this would serve as a basis for the detailed discussion in connection with the Programme of Work and Budget.
S. JUMA'A (Jordan)(interpretation from Arabic): The Programme Committee and then later the Council have already debated the matter and discussed this document which was presented to them by the Secretariat. As I said, the Council has already approved the proposals made by the Programme Committee about the need for continuing its effort in a distinct and separate fashion. I would say that we do not see the
point of the Secretariat preparing a different paper on the subject, because medium-term objectives already appear in the Programme of Work and Budget. It is only natural, therefore, for the discussion of medium-term objectives to be carried out when the Programme of Work and Budget is discussed in order that we may be completely sure that the programmes come within the medium-term objectives. To request the Secretariat to prepare a separate document, quite apart from being a duplicaton of effort, could lead to confusion since two pieces will have been done on the same subject. We must stress that medium-term objectives are already dealt with in the Programme of Work and Budget, and it is within the framework of the Programme of Work and Budget that we should discuss the subject.
Therefore, Sir, I propose that the report on the matter mention that it is no longer necessary for the Secretariat to give us a separate piece of paper on the matter, and that it would be preferable for the medium-term objectives to be discussed under the Programme of Work and Budget.
J.S. KHAN (Pakistan): I will try to be brief. We have studied very carefully document C 77/23 which we realise must be read together with other documents of the Programme of Work and Budget and the Review of Field Programmes and SOFA, and while agreeing that medium-term planning by FAO is essential in order to focus and orient its activities for a reasonable distance into the future, my delegation cannot at the same time help sharing some of the concern which has been expressed by the Director-General in his introduction to the document. In particular we feel that it needs to be seriously reconsidered, and the present format of the document is not very meaningful without some qualification or at least a broad indication of the resources required for the medium-term programmes, and here I think there would probably be a differing from the Programme Committee and the Council on this. We think that a mere list of objectives and priorities divorced from ideal resources required to give them effect is somewhat of limited use and value. My delegation feels that FAO should have a medium-term plan perhaps extending over three biennia on the lines of the national development plans, and these should reflect not only the collective goals and aspirations of Member Nations but also an indication of the resources required to give them effect.
Mr. Chairman our colleague from the Federal Republic of Germany talked of the difficulties of flexibility to quantification, but we do think that the biennial Programme of Work and Budget could then be used both as a short-term policy instrument to implement the medium-term plan, and I think this would provide the necessary flexibility to respond to any urgent shift in priority or to the actual availability of resources.
Mr. Chairman we must keep in mind that food and agriculture is by nature a slow and patient process which can be best conceived over a rather longer period of time.
Regarding the question of whether there should be a separate or a combined document, we also feel that since an attempt has already been made in the current Programme of Work and Budget document to also present a medium-term objective, there will not be a need for a separate document, and therefore we support the Programme Committee that there should be a combined presentation of both the medium-term objectives and the biennium programme.
If I may turn briefly to the contents of the current document, we can broadly support the role of FAO which is envisaged, and we can also endorse in general terms the medium-term priorities described in the document. We think that the regional institutions and priorities in the document also reflect quite correctly the aspirations of the members at least for Asia and the Far East and for the Near East in which we are represented. We would only stress that an important aim of the FAO in the years ahead should be to actively promote technical cooperation among developing countries.
Under the proposed measure for technical and economic programmes for the medium-term, we support the primary emphasis on increasing food and agriculture production, particularly through increased attention to investment activities, and we woùld suggest that a greater emphasis should be on the development investment in human resources.
Mr. Chairman, I will not go into further details because you have already had some of our views during the earlier interventions on the Programme of Work and Budget, and it would be repetitious if I go into that problem so I will confine myself to these comments.
D.M ULNES (Norway): I would first like to thank Mr. West for giving his comprehensive introduction. I shall be dealing with the question of the role of nutrition within this Organization, and I am doing so on behalf of the delegations of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Norway. Nutrition is an area of great interest to the Nordic countries and you may recall that we have spoken on this issue both at previous FAO Conferences and also in this Committee under Agenda Item 10, Programme of Work and Budget.
Nutrition receives increasing attention at international conferences dealing with world food problems. A great step forward in the world-wide recognition of the role of nutrition in development was made through the adoption of Resolution V at the World Food Conference. Since then, the World Health Assembly in May 1977 focussed on nutrition in its discussions recommending that WHO allocates additional resources for this field. More recently the World Food Council in its Manila Communique pointed out nutrition as one of the five priority areas for governments and international organizations in their fight against hunger and malnutrition. Also the UN University has made World Hunger one of its three priority areas.
These are just a few examples of the growing recognition that an increase in average per caput food production is not in itself enough to improve the nutritional levels of the hungry and malnourished. The issue is underlined is one of the background documents for the present Conference, The SOFA, from which it appears that in spite of an increased per caput food production in developing countries more people than ever suffer from a serious degree of hunger and malnutrition. This general statement is repeated in several of the other documents, at some instances even in quantified terms.
We recognize that the increased food production, in particular in developing countries, is the most important prerequisite for improving nutritional levels. To meet the basic needs for food among the poorest strata of the population more equitable distribution of both the resources for production and the food itself are the key issues. To give the basic needs approach a more tangible content, food consumption and nutritional considerations become a very important field that seems to require new approaches also in general agricultural strategies. Furthermore, when elaborating the goals and targets for food production, the food consumption targets should be systematically included, with a view to increasing the levels of self-reliance and community participation in programmes. In the agricultural training and extension more attention should be paid to food consumption and nutritional aspects. And as the last example we would like to mention the data collection and analysis, where the efforts should be directly concentrated on the poorest groups with less attention to the better-off groups who already meet the basic needs.
There is no doubt that FAO has a special responsibility in this area. In the constitution of the Organization nutrition is one of the very first words mentionned. I would like, Mr. Chairman, to cite the Preamble of the FAO's Constitution, which states that the following should be the main goals of the Organization, namely:
1) raising levels of nutrition and status of living of the peoples under their respective juridictions;
2) securing improvements in the efficiency of the production and distribution of all food and agricultural products;
3) bettering the conditions of rural populations;
4) and thus contributing toward an expanding world economy and ensuring humanity's freedom from hunger.
We would like to stress, Mr. Chairman, the order of these goals in which that of raising the levels of nutrition was considered the primary one in the formulation of the Constitution.
Also, the FAO Conference has given high priority to nutrition. In the Strategy on International Agricultural Adjustment accepted by the 18th Session of the FAO Conference, Guidelines 4 and 6 recommend governments and international organizations to pay special attention to nutritional problems. In the Programme of Work and Budget discussed under Item 10, the improvment of nutritional levels is, and rightly so, one of the main goals for FAO. At the Third Session of the World Food Council in Manila, FAO stated its preparedness to take a more active role in the nutrition field.
However, this high priority does not seem to be reflected in the Medium-Term Objectives of the Organization. Nutrition is only mentionned in passing and receives no separate treatment in the document.
The conclusion of the Nordic countries is that it will be difficult for FAO to cope with the tasks foreseen in the nutrition field and to live up to the confidence placed in it by other international organizations and member countries, if the nutrition activities of the Organization are not being strengthened, both on a short and a long-term basis.
Another point of concern to the Nordic countries relates to the substance of the work of the Organization within the field of nutrition. The World Food Conference recognized that food and nutrition aspects are generally not sufficiently taken into account in the formulation of national development plans. It recommended that FAO, together with other UN agencies, should assist governments to develop intersectoral food and nutrition plans. The Food Policy and Nutrition Division of FAO has responded to this challenge and is now providing nutritional planning support to a number, of developing countries in recognition that nutrition programmes cannot any longer be carried out in isolation.
However, it seems, to us that within the Organization itself, nutritional problems are still perceived in a traditional way. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that nutrition is dealt with in isolation from the other activities of FAO. This contradiction ought to be adjusted, and we suggest
that the FAO take up the recommendation of the World Food Council to assess the nutritional impact of its existing development programmes and incorporates nutritional considerations in its planning and programme preparations.
In our opinion, this is a very important activity in which the FAO has a natural obligation to show the way. At present we know very little about the nutritional consequences of, say, a fertilizer scheme or a dairy project, and this should be studied more closely.
Obviously, the Food Policy and Nutrition Division, with its limited resources, would be able to assist with such nutritional evaluation only within one or a few selected priority areas. However, in the long run this might enable FAO to give more appropriate advice in the field of food and nutrition planning than at present, when the art is still poorly developed.
To increase the resources for activities of a special responsibility to FAO, a possible way might be by reducing FAO's engagement in activities that are reasonably well taken care of by other organizations. An example could be feeding programmes where both UNICEF and WFP, as well as a number of voluntary organizations are involved.
In conclusion the Nordic countries further propose that in the future the expectations of the international community of the role of FAO in the nutritional field be reflected in the Programme of Work and Budget.Also we would like to see included in the Medium-Term Objectives a clear indication of the intentions of the FAO towards finding a better balance between direct and applied, and non-nutritional approaches to solving problems of malnutrition.
In conclusion, I would like to add that the Nordic countries have under consideration a resolution based on this statement and the resolution may be tabled at a later stage.
Having concluded this Nordic Statement, I. would reserve my own country's right to come back and speak at a later stage with another Norwegian statement.
G. WEILL (France): Comme le fait ressortir le Directeur général dans son introduction, et comme ceux des intervenants qui m'ont précédé l'ont déclaré, nous imposons au Secrétariat une tâche extrêmement difficile en lui demandant, avec les modifications successives de nos prétentions, d'établir le document sur les objectifs à moyen terme que nous examinons présentement. Ces contraintes sont extrêmement nombreuses, et, lors des Conférences antérieures, nous avons régulièrement buté sur les difficultés que nous avions, comme le Secrétariat, à formuler en termes clairs les objectifs à moyen terme de l'Organisation.
Je voudrais, pour illustrer ces difficultés, me borner à prendre un exemple. Il s'agit de la lutte. contre la trypanosomiase qui fait les ravages que l'on a dénoncés dans le continent africain. La trypanosomiase est mentionnée au paragraphe 4.43 à propos de la production animale et on pourrait la retrouver également dans la partie de ce document qui traite des problèmes à l'échelon national.
S'il est une activité qui justifierait une planification à moyen terme, c'est véritablement la lutte contre la trypanosomiasesqui demande la mise en oeuvre de moyens importants, une coopération internationale et certainement un étalement dans le temps.
Néanmoins,on nous a fait remarquer avec beaucoup de pertinence qu'il était extrêmement difficile de quantifier les indications se rapportant aux objectifs à moyen terme, et s'il en est ainsi, dans ces conditions, je dois dire que nous nous rallions aux propositions qui ont été formulées antérieurement par un certain nombre de délégations selon lesquelles on demanderait au Secrétariat de ne pas continuer cet exercice, et les objectifs à moyen terme feraient l'objet d'un examen à l'occasion de l'adoption du programme de travail et budget.
Nous venons d'entendre, au nom des pays nordiques, une déclaration fort intéressante sur l'importance qu'il faut attacher aux problèmes et aux activités de nutrition de notre Organisation. Je serai très bref pour dire que nous souscrivons tout à fait à la déclaration présentée par le délégué de la Norvège au nom des pays nordiques. J'ajouterai que les délégations des pays nordiques ont bien voulu approcher la délégation française pour la mise au point du projet de résolution dont a parlé le délégué de la Norvège. Nous souhaitons pouvoir nous associer aux pays nordiques pour soumettre à cette Commission Le projet de résolution auquel il a été fait allusion.
The meeting rose at 12.40 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 40
Se levanta la sesiSn a las 12.40 horas
