CHAIRMAN: I hope we can complete our examination of the Programme Budget of FAO for 1980/81. As I mentioned yesterday afternoon towards the close of our meeting, such delegations as have not intervened and would like to make any supplementary point, they may do so now and then we will have the replies, clarifications, from the officers of FAO.
M. BUENO GOMEZ (España): Efectivamente, la delegación española quisiera hacer algunos comentarios en relación con las actividades de la Oficina Regional para Europa, previstas en el Programa de Labores que estamos analizando.
En primer lugar, quisiéramos destacar que los problemas de empleo y energía, hasta ahora considerados consustanciales con la situación en los países menos desarrollados, están afectando gravemente a ciertas áreas de la Region, especialmente en el área mediterránea.
Por ello, nuestra delegación aprueba plenamente el Programa de Acción encaminado a analizar las políticas y medidas adoptadas por los países de la region para adaptarse a esta nueva realidad. Ello redundará no solo en beneficio de los propios países, sino también de otros de fuera de la region que puedan encontrarse con problemas similares.
No olvidemos, por otra parte, que existe una estrecha correlación entre el crecimiento económico de los países industrializados y las posibilidades de crecimiento de los países menos desarrollados. En este sentido, nuestra delegación apoya también las iniciativas de la Oficina Regional para Europa, encaminadas a mejorar la estructura de las explotaciones agrarias, especialmente en el estrato de los pequeños agricultores, que han de contribuir a ese necesario e indispensable crecimiento economico.
Por otra parte, la agricultura del año 2000 constituye un reto a la investigación, tanto en los países industrializados como en los menos desarrollados. Nuestra delegación apoya, pues, las acciones previstas para desarrollar las actividades conjuntas de investigación en las 10 redes regionales existentes y, sobre todo, recomendamos que se estimule fuertemente la participación de las instituciones nacionales de países en desarrollo en las actividades de esta red establecidas.
Finalmente, y al detallar los temas a tratar en la. 12 Conferencia Regional para Europa, nuestra delegación cree que podría incluirse el tema relativo al análisis de las medidas aplicadas por los Gobiernos para facilitar el retiro de los agricultores de edad avanzada.
Este problema es trascendente, no sólo por la importancia del colectivo afectado, sino también porque es un prerrequisito para facilitar el acceso a la empresa agraria de la nueva generación que ha de ser protagonista de la agricultura del año 2000.
Z. GHOSHEH (Jordan): (interpretation from Arabic): The delegation of Jordan considers Document C 79/3 to be very important. We have examined it closely with considerable interest, and we see that the opinions expressed therein by the Director-General tally with our own.
As regards the Field Programme, we would support everything concerning decentralization, because this would ensure that the work and activities become more effective. The FAO representatives in our countries would facilitate the implementation of these projects which the developing countries require.
As to Chapter 4 on the Technical Cooperation Programme, my country's delegation would support any form of aid or backstopping referred to in this Chapter, including training and technical aid.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia considera adecuada esta oportunidad que usted ha dado a las delegaciones para que intervengan sobre aspectos generales o particulares antes de clausurar el debate sobre este tema.
Deseamos aprovechar esta ocasión para reiterar, una vez más, el pleno apoyo del Gobierno de Colombia al nivel del Presupuesto y a las estrategias y orientaciones sobre las cuales se ha elaborado el Programa de Labores para el bienio entrante. Pensamos que será conveniente destacar, en el Informe de esta Comisión, el panorama sombrío a que alude el Director General por lo menos en dos partes de su Introducción; panorama sombrío en el momento actual en que nosotros consideramos este documento, que es el más importante de esta Organización, que es la Biblia, que es la guía para nuestros trabajos en los próximos dos años. Y por esas consideraciones, no podemos contenernos de expresar nuestro sentimiento de frustración por cierta situación paradójica, que ya señalo aquí en cierta medida, el primer día de nuestros debates sobre este punto, el colega y amigo Moscovits de la delegación de Malta.
Creemos que existe una paradoja, señor Presidente y distinguidos colegas, porque a todos los niveles, en todas las reuniones y en todos los documentos se destaca siempre la importancia de la agricultura en la economía para todos los países del mundo, especialmente en la economía de los países en desarrollo. Sin embargo, cuando llega el momento de apoyar la agricultura, de dar alcance práctico a la significación de la agricultura en la economía mundial, la actitud de ciertos países desarrollados nos desconcierta. Todos sabemos que el Director General llegó a un mínimo al elaborar estas propuestas, no obstante el panorama oscuro que todos conocemos. Sin embargo, todavía hay por lo menos dos o tres países que siguen haciendo reservas, y que continúan auspiciando la política de crecimiento cero.
Con nuestra habitual franqueza quisiéramos decir que la delegación de Colombia no tiene esta actitud, sobre todo en el momento actual. La gran mayoría de los Estados Miembros de la FAO, casi 150 Gobiernos, han apoyado ese Presupuesto, ese nivel, y no entendemos qué sentido tenga una actitud negativa de dos o tres delegaciones, sobre todo porque esa actitud de abstención no va a tener ninguna aplicación práctica. El nivel presupuestario va a ser aprobado por la gran mayoría de la Conferencia. ¿ Es que acaso pretenden los representantes de esos países desarrollados, desalentar la labor de la Organización?¿ desanimar al Director General en un momento en que todos reconocemos que la FAO está mejorando su funcionamiento?
Nosotros creemos, sinceramente, que esa actitud que, repetimos, no tendrá ninguna consecuencia práctica, es solamente impopular y totalmente incoherente con la importancia de la agricultura y el momento actual en que vivimos. Por eso, quisiéramos hacer una nueva llamada a los representantes de esos países para que se sumen a nosotros y otorguen su voto a fin de que la aprobación del nivel presupuestario y del Programa de Labores sea unánime, como el mejor estímulo, como el reconocimiento más acertado para que la FAO pueda seguir trabajando en beneficio de todos los Estados Miembros, y particularmente en los países en desarrollo.
Queremos referirnos, en particular, a la descentralización. La delegación de Colombia desde hace más de veinte años está preocupándose en el seno de esta Organización por la mayor descentralización de la FAO. Por eso apoyamos con entusiasmo ese punto concreto de la nueva política del Director General, preconizada en 1976. Celebramos que se haya progresado en el campo de la descentralización; que se incremente el número de los propios representantes de la FAO en los países. Pero eso no basta. Creemos que, paralelamente, hay que seguir destacando oficiales de diversas especializaciones a las oficinas regionales, por sentido práctico, por mayor agilidad, en pro de la eficacia más significativa, porque en esa forma, las oficinas regionales estarán en mejores condiciones para atender más rápida y eficazmente las solicitudes que hagan los Gobiernos de los países de sus áreas respectivas.
Es evidente que no en Roma, sino en las regiones y en los países están los elementos primarios de la agricultura, las aguas, las tierras, los bosques, las pesquerías, y que de esa manera, la FAO está más presente, más viva, más dinámica en los países en desarrollo particularmente.
Queremos reiterar nuestro apoyo a esa política pragmática del Director General a la descentralización. Consideramos que no trae ningún beneficio para nuestra Organización el hecho de que se continúe concentrando personal aquí en Roma, para que empíricamente hagan diagnósticos sobre la situación de la agricultura en nuestros países, sin conocer la realidad agrícola del mundo en desarrollo. Creemos que hay que ir limitando la elaboración de estudios y documentos que, muchas veces, no se traducen a los tres idiomas ni se conocen suficientemente, para invertir todos esos recursos en asistencia directa, permanente y creciente a los países en desarrollo sobre el terreno.
H. REDL (Austria) (interpretation from German): In the course of yesterday's debate a series of questions was raised, and for that reason I need only make a few remarks now concerning point 3. 3. 1, The Development Programme. We feel the activities in this campaign, especially following the results of the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, should be based on such results, and they need to be both practical and specific.
My delegation feels that the conference proposed for 1980 should be very cautiously prepared, taking into account the needs of the developing countries. Therefore, we believe it is necessary to have the documents distributed in good time. We are very interested in the outlook for this conference.
As regards Chapter 4 on the Technical Cooperation Programme, a series of points is raised here, which we agree with, from page 159 onwards. However, we should like the Secretariat to provide a document which would cover all the projects which have already been carried out, and for them to give us the actual costs of these projects.
AMIDJONO MARTOSUWIRYO (Indonesia):I would like to address my brief comment on FAO country representatives, FAO Regional Officers, and the Technical Cooperation Programme. At the very outset the Government of Indonesia gave full support to the policy pursued by the Director-General in putting into effect decentralization. My delegation notes with appreciation the growing number of countries that accommodate offices for FAO country representatives. My delegation fears in this context there is also a desirability for strengthening the regional offices. The reason is that these offices should pay a more important role in the context of decentralization. My delegation shares the view that in the present circumstances it would be preferable to embark on the strengthening of the regional offices. We can also say the establishment of country representatives should not in any way cause delay in strengthening regional offices. If decentralization and the strengthening may give rise to financial strain then the main thing is the possibility of having staff from headquarters sent to the regional offices.
Allow me to refer to the Technical Cooperation Programme. Recognizing the usefulness of this programme, my delegation finds the allocation of 3. 2% of the budget to this programme is comparatively very small, as we can see on page 59 of the document. This new programme existed two years ago but it has shown its practical and immediate value when dealing with open problems in developing countries. In this context my delegation would like to suggest that budgetary provision of this programme be reviewed in the sense that a higher percentage be accorded to it in the next biennium. My delegation would prefer to leave it at the discretion of the Director-General to make the necessary adjustments.
J. DOORENBOS (Netherlands): Allow my delegation to take the floor for the second time. I would like to refer very briefly again to Chapter 1 and following that to link my remarks to the context of Chapter 3.
In general, my delegation expresses its very high appreciation for the high percentage of the present budget allocated to Economic and Technical Programme elements. A rough calculation shows this amounts to over seventy percent. The same or even a higher figure applies to the extra-budgetary means provided. Nevertheless, my delegation would like to enquire which criteria has been used for the level of extra-budgetary means requested for the different programme elements. In this respect also the relation with the Field Programme seems a pertinent issue. Furthermore in the documents very little is actually given on the duration of such programmes, the necessary extra-budgetary means which will be requested also in the years to come, and in this respect also when end results can be expected.
Referring now to Chapter 3, we are highly gratified with FAO’s activities in the field of Preparation and Implementation of Investment Projects likewise the close contacts which FAO maintains with financing institutions. We also notice however from the very frank discussion in the background documents provided to us that some difficulties are experienced in the implementation of such progress particularly with regard to the sometimes low absorbative capacity and necessary guidance and support which can be given by some receiving countries. Our question is now how far and to what extent the Regular Programme within FAO is engaged in and is providing the necessary support to these earlier mentioned investment Projects, particularly regarding institution building and training of local personnel for these projects. Allow me to give one specific example. For instance, within the Agricultural Department extra-budgetary means are requested for a programme of Improved Water Use in Irrigation. To what extent is this programme involved in providing guidance in this field to the very large and costly investment projects in the new irrigation scheme in which FAO is very much involved?
My last comment refers to TCP. My government feels TCP has gained a solid place within the FAO structure. My delegation can express its high appreciation for the programme provided the overall level within the budget remains roughly the same, that the project remains small and will be seen primarily to spearhead four larger forthcoming development programmes, including of course investment possibility and where possible to attract bilateral activities. Here the connection between these activities would need to receive once more due attention.
As regards the establishment of country offices, I may refer to our intervention of yesterday.
DATO HAJI ABDUL RAHMAN BIN SABRI (Malaysia): Though we are responding for the first time rather late in the proceedings on this important topic, it is with pleasure that the Malaysian Delegation congratulates you on your election as Chairman of this Commission.
Allow me to say a few words about the Programme and Budget for the next biennium. We note that the increase is only 2. 6% per year for 1980/81, and that the budget is the minimum operating budget which has been approved by the FAO Council and the Programme Committee. Malaysia would like to express our support for this budget.
A number of countries have spoken on the subject of using national institutions and local personnel in implementing FAO projects in developing countries. Malaysia would like to add her voice to this request. More extensive use of national institutions and local experts by FAO has two definite advantages. Firstly, it will help promote the development of such national institutions and the personnel working there, and secondly, this will ensure that the projects of FAO will have a greater degree of success which can be achieved at a faster rate simply because the time element needed for understanding the customs and culture of the recipient country will be reduced.
Also, there should be serious efforts to ensure that there is a training element in all FAO projects. In the final analysis it is the local personnel who are responsible for the continuity of progress in these projects when the experts and consultants eventually return home after initiating the projects in the developing countries.
Not only would we like FAO to make more use of national institutions and local experts with increased vigour in the next biennium, but we also believe that there is scope for FAO to make use of locally designed and made equipment for projects in developing countries wherever feasible. This could help to reduce costs in project implementation.
On Chapter 2 Malaysia has a few comments to make. We are in general agreement with the content of the various programmes in the different sections. However, we would like to see FAO give more emphasis to the project on Prevention of Food Losses. At present, it is only part of the programme on crops. We would like to see the project expanded into a programme in itself. Surely, there is also a need to prevent losses in livestock and fish production. These elements can be incorporated into a programme together with crop losses. Thanks to the generous support of Australia in particular, Malaysia and her ASEAN partners have already launched a post-harvest loss prevention programme. Under this programme, action-orientated development projects are implemented in the member countries in rice and fish loss reductions. The results are shared by all participating nations.
We are indeed heartened to hear that FAO will give particular attention to aquaculture in its fisheries programme. This is because we in Malaysia consider that future increases in fish production are most likely to come from cultured fishery and not so much from captured fishery. Furthermore, there is tremendous scope in aquaculture as a TCDC project. The technology in fish culture of common and conventional fish species already exists and it is only in an exchange of methodology at the practical level that viable projects can be developed. Malaysia feels that FAO should concentrate on inshore and small fisheries where the catch potential and the employment prospects are more definite rather than to venture into the unknown in deep sea fishing. It is this type of venture enterprise that developing countries cannot afford, faced with such pressing problems as growing enough food to feed their people and creating jobs for their growing population.
There is another point which I would like to bring to the attention of this Commission. This is about duplication in the work of the international agencies in the developing countries. It is a misalloca-tion of time, money and manpower if more than one international agency were to carry out the same type of activity in the same field in the same country. In such inflationary times such as the present, FAO should liaise closely with other international agencies to reduce such duplication. In all fairness I would suggest other UN Agencies and Organizations dealing with agriculture, food production and rural development should do the same. In this respect Malaysia would like to congratulate the Regional Office of FAO for Asia and the Far East for having taken the initiative to establish an Inter-Agency Committee on Integrated Rural Development, a main objective of which is to reduce duplication in the development efforts of the various international agencies serving the region.
On Chapters 3 to 7, we have only three points to make. First, we are concerned about the quality of the projects planned and implemented under the field programme which is the area which carries the most impact for FAO. In the Review of the Field Programme, which this Commission will be considering in a few days' time, only 61% of the projects were considered to be satisfactory in terms of project design. Consequently, Malaysia would like to recommend to FAO that its projects office should institute a more vigorous approach to project planning. There is no substitute, no short-cut, to the project cycle if a project were to be planned properly. This is the only way to ensure that donor countries receive good value for their money and that recipient countries realise the objectives of the project.
Malaysia is in agreement with the conclusion of FAO in that investment in food production and agriculture is at present insufficient. We would like to see an increase in the level of investment in the next biennium with FAO taking the lead in promoting the growth of investment in food production. We feel that this promotional effort can be facilitated by more thorough project planning.
On the third and last point, which is related to the issue of Country Representatives, Malaysia would like to suggest to FAO that the criteria to be used in deciding whether or not a country representative should be appointed could be the following:
The recipient country should be one of the MSA countries.
The level of FAO involvement in the country as indicated by value of investment or by number of projects. We feel that the country representative should not function merely as a post office.
H. OGUT (Turkey): Concerning the development support programmes of the 1980/81 budgetmy delegation has approved in general terms. However, we find it desirable to make some remarks within this general view. We believe that technical cooperation among the developing countries is one of the key issues in establishing a new and just economic order in the world. FAO's action in TCDC can be undertaken by regional projects funded by UNDP, TCP or Trust Fund agreements. For this reason my delegation takes the view that Field Programmes Development Division should be the centre for this subject. We believe that this division can undertake functions such as promotion and description of TCDC. It should also undertake functions in the close follow-up of TCDC through the projects.
Regarding Chapter 3. 2 we greatly appreciate the efforts of FAO within the unique structure of Investment Centre. However, our past experience shows that the time allocated for the preparation of the projects by this Unit has not been effective, especially when the pressing needs of the developing countries require quick action. We believe that if the Members of the Preparatory Missions could be selected among the developing countries and be supported by national experts time allocated for the preparation could be greatly shortened. We also suggest that the Investment Centre should increase its assistance to the nationally financed projects of developing countries. In the case of investments technical cooperation programme has also been very beneficial. However, the ratio of 14. 1 percent allocated for investments during the last biennium are inadequate. We believe that this was the result of urgent emergency situations which occurred unexpectedly during the last biennium. We think that the ratio allocated for investments in TCP could be determined earlier in close cooperation with the Investment Centre, and implementation accordingly would be more fruitful.
On the subject of FAO representatives my delegation has its full support on the new openings in 15 countries (during the next biennium. We also support the view of opening of one or two country representatives in Europe. For this reason the Fund allocated to this region is highly appreciated.
Lastly I would like to make a few comments as to the programmes by regions, socio-economic indicators reveal that Turkey, which is in the European region of FAO, is still a developing country. Turkey has problems in the field of agriculture and agricultural economy and needs external assistance. There are also other developing countries in the European region which has similar problems. On the other hand, the technical development in the field of agriculture of the developed countries should be spread throughout the world. Therefore, we deem it would be beneficial if FAO continues its activities in the European region at least at the present level. However, we see that the Fund allocated for the European region in the 1980/81 budget seems insufficient for such purposes. We also notice that the rural development has not taken its proper place in the distribution of the funds allocated to the European region among programmes and sub-programmes. Today rural poverty is a major problem in developing countries like Turkey which figure in the European region of FAO. There is also a special need for external assistance in the implementation of necessary programmes in the "less favoured" regions of these countries.
In conclusion I would like to stress once again that FAO should not reduce its programmes in the European regions considering that in this region there are also developing countries which have not yet solved all of their problems.
L. CORNET d'ELZIUS (Belgique): Avant la fin du débat général, je voudrais revenir sur le chapitre 3 et sur le chapitre 4. La Belgique reconnaît en général 1 opportunité des programmes d'action spéciaux qui contribuent activement à certains développements. La Belgique se réjouit du développement pris ces dernières années par le Centre d'investissements de la FAO et est particulièrement satisfaite de la collaboration qui s'est instaurée avec le FIDA. La Belgique reconnaît le role important qui échoit à la FAO dans la mise en valeur des zones économiques exclusives des pays en voie de développement, suite aux nouveaux droits de la mer.
La Belgique approuve l'action de la FAO dans le domaine de la trypanosomiase.
Quant au programme de coopération technique, ma délégation est d'avis que celui-ci, dans les limites que lui fixent, d'une part, les critères établis pour son fonctionnement et, d'autre part, son importance relative à l'ensemble du budget ordinaire, a non seulement prouvé sa valeur d'une manière générale mais s'est avéré parfois d'une utilité exceptionnelle.
Je voudrais ajouter la considération suivante: cette année, au mois de juillet, s'est tenue la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural. On ne peut perdre de vue les résultats des travaux de cette conférence. Le développement rural qui présuppose bien souvent une réforme agraire constitue l'alpha et l'omega du progrès dans la plupart des pays en voie de développement. Rien ne sert de produire davantage d'aliments si le consommateur n'a pas des ressources pour acquérir cette production. Le développement rural doit créer le cadre dans lequel le progrès, hors de la pauvreté absolue, devient une réalité.
De nombreuses activités de la FAO visent directement ou indirectement cet objectif. Désormais le programme d'action et la declaration de principe, élaborée à la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural, constituent une ligne de conduite dont il faudrait que la FAO tienne compte.
H. SY MOUSSA (Mauritanie): Ma délégation exprime sa satisfaction envers les propositions du programme de soutien à accorder aux pays en voie de développement. Notre politique en matière de développement et d'aménagement de nos pêcheries définit les priorités suivantes: évaluation de nos ressources, reconversion des populations inactives du monde rural en pêcheurs maritimes, l'acquisition des moyens d'exploitation; ce qui exige des moyens financiers assez importants, tant sur le plan étude des projets que sur le plan investissements à réaliser. C'est pourquoi ma délégation appuie les propositions du Secrétaire général.
K. M. KHUDHEIR (Iraq)(interpretation from Arabie): Yesterday when you emphasised the energy problems, on behalf of my delegation I had the pleasure of stating that Iraq has begun by setting up an International Fund to help needy developing countries in order to overcome the problems of inflation. Our project is going to try and help petrol producing developing countries and hopes that industrialized countries will take them into account and take a share in the Fund because of the very high percentage of inflation which these countries exported to developing countries. Iraq has already taken the initiative of implementing the programme since my country is determined to help developing countries, especially those who have direct ties with Iraq and will give them interest-free loans. Iraq invites all the countries and governments of the world to apply the programme and to ratify it as a logical solution to our problem in order to balance the relationship between industrialized developed countries and developing countries.
May I take this opportunity to state that my delegation supplied a volume of aid of 2 200 million dollars to developing countries ever since the July 1978 Revolution. In this way Iraq is once again participating in the establishment of a new international economic order which the UN family is working for too.
M. PANYSHERI (Afghanistan): This is the first time I am getting the floor and I want to say congratulations to you on your election to this position. My delegation has carefully studied this document and listened to the introductory remarks of the Director-General's representative.
We appreciate the format of the document. In our view it gives the right backdrop to the programme of work which the Director-General proposes to implement in the next biennium.
The state of food and agriculture in the developing countries remains unencouraging. Average annual increase of food continues to stagnate well below the target set out in the strategy of second international development decade; in many countries such as mine it is below the rate of population growth. Incidence of malnutrition has increased and dietary energy supply may as well have fallen. Food aid has not reached the minimum level accepted in the world food conference nearly five years ago. The international emergency food reserve remains low.
It is our firm opinion that the time has come to look the facts in their faces and give priority to projects and ideas that bring quick and lasting improvement in the quality of life of the poor masses in our developing countries. In my own country we are engaged in a grim struggle to bring about fundamental and basic changes and eliminate the feudal and exploitative system of the past.
We are happy to note that the Committee of the whole of the UN has supported the strategies worked out by the FAO. Larger investment through concessional assistance by the development of financial institutions, increase in trust fund resources of FAO geared to priorities of the organisation already approved repeatedly, by the international community special action programme and TCP, replenishment of the fertilizers supply scheme which seems to be one source of comfort in a world where fertilizer prices are manipulated at will making them beyond the reach of a poor country like mine, a thrust towards attaining food security through increased food aid and production in the developing countries, and support to the Five-Point Plan of Action initiated by the Director-General are all designed to focus attention on the immediate and overriding needs of the countries themselves.
We would like to say that we admire the tenacity and wisdom of the Director-General in keeping the budget at the minimum level and support his refusal to increase posts in headquarter and regional offices. We note with satisfaction that the proportion of expenditure in established posts to total expenditure has been drastically reduced. My delegation fully support the programme of Work and Budget in 1980-81 proposed by the Director-General.
K. SAAD-EL-DINE (Syria) (interpretation from Arabic): During the first meeting of our Commission I said that the budget level of the Programme of Work was so good, so low that it could not possibly meet the aspirations of the developing countries. If we are to keep the budget at that level, we would have to review the priorities which are proposed in the Programme of Work and give priority to certain projects. For example, there is the Technical Cooperation Programme which is one of the most important activities ever undertaken by FAO, since FAO, through the Programme, provides aid for the short- and medium-term to developing countries in order to help them increase their agricultural production and give emergency aid.
As the speaker before me has said, the resources of that programme are only 3. 8 percent of the regular budget. With respect to the 1978-79 biennium, allocations to that programme were far higher because they were equivalent to 12 percent of the Regular Programme. If you take inflation into account, you can see that for the coming biennium 1980-81 the level is far lower that for the previous biennium. Consequently, we feel that budgetary allocations to the TCP should be increased for the coming biennium.
Mme. F. LARBI (Tunisie): Je voudrais intervenir pour exprimer les points de vue de mon gouvernement en ce qui concerne les représentants de la FAO au niveau des pays. Nous pensons que cette représentation est nécessaire pour assurer, premièrement, la coordination entre les priorités que la FAO soutient techniquement, deuxièmement, le bon fonctionnement de chacun de ces projets et troisièmement, un contact constant et direct entre les pays d'une part et les différents organes de la FAO, d'autre part. Enfin, la représentation permet de dynamiser le role des actions que la FAO entreprend sur une échelle multilatérale dans les pays en voie de développement qui ne disposent pas encore de cadres suffisants. Le représentant peut jouer le role d'identificateur de projet, en conseillant les responsables de ces pays et en étendant la formulation du projet. Ces roles ne sont pas du ressort des bureaux régionaux de la FAO car l'objectif principal constitue une potentialité au service des pays de la région.
D'autre part, ces bureaux régionaux permettent d'alléger l' administration centrale et de rapprocher la FAO des activités de terrain. Les bureaux régionaux ont un rôle complémentaire à celui de représentant au niveau des pays. L'évaluation des activités entreprises par les représentations déjà créées est en premier lieu du ressort des pays qui en bénéficient. Toutefois à la fin du programme nous pouvons en évaluer l'impact car la FAO aura eu le temps de mettre en place sa réalisation.
S. A. MADALLALI (Tanzania): Mr. Chairman, we have listened with considerable interest to the replies which Mr. Yriart gave on the question on monitoring the activities of the FAO representatives. First of all, we agree with him that the countries who have asked for representation - and unfortunately only 47 of them have so far benefitted from this arrangement - are the best judges of the efficiency of the arrangement. We consider that unless we have direct access to technical knowledge and the resources of FAO, it will be very difficult to make use of this capacity. We therefore have to think more of the efficiency of the total system and in the view of our delegation the FAO Country Representatives' offices are vital for the utilization of the Organization's capacity.
We would therefore stress again that monitoring is essentially a function to be performed by the recipient countries, and I am sure that the Director-General on his side will also see to it that his representatives are not only constantly supplied with the most up-to-date knowledge but their activities are also closely monitored.
My delegation listened with interest yesterday to thè debate on the important issue of decentralization. We also noticed that the question of monitoring was mentioned by several of our colleagues, and in the view of our delegation we have noted the emphasis which has been put on this aspect with some concern, not because we are against following the progress of the decentralization closely, but because there may have been an implication that there is an element of uncertainty with respect to the soundness with which the scheme is concerned.
We would like to echo what some of our colleagues from the developing countries have said in this respect, mainly that the recipient countries, who are after all also putting funds from their limited budgets towards supporting the representatives should be the ones on whom the Director-General should lean for advice and when he wants to evaluate their performance.
May I also remind you of what President Kuanda, for a very good reason, said in his speech: how pleased he is with this arrangement and how much closer the Organization has been drawn to his country.
I have also noticed that there is a small unit in the Development Department which supports FAO representatives. We were pleased to learn of this arrangement because we feel that if the Organization has a corps of representatives in the field there must be adequate support for such offices.
Mr. Yriart's statement seemed to indicate quite clearly that this unit will also perform the function of monitoring on behalf of the Director-General, but we would like to stress that a full evaluation of this scheme at this time seems to be premature, as has been suggested by some member countries.
The setting-up of these Country Representatives'office schemes presents a new chapter in the evolution of this Organization. We ourselves, although enthusiastic about this proposal from the beginning when it was first started by the Director-General in 1976, have not, of course, looked at the scheme uncritically. But as we have emphasized in our earlier intervention, it seems that it is proving to deliver more than we had hoped for.
Mr. Chairman, I want to remind you in this connexion of quite another aspect of the debate which I suppose will come up later. This is the question of the declining share of agriculture in the UNDP resources. Here we feel that if the Director-General monitors the performance of the country representatives - and I personally believe that it is mainly he himself and the countries concerned who have to perform this function - then the programme development aspect will be one of the points which will have to be watched. Here we can speak from experience; in the short span over which we have now been able to observe this new scheme, activities have picked up immeasurably and to our full satisfaction. I would, however, like to add that in our view the Review of the Regular Programme which is before us and which will now be discussed as our next item on the agenda, contains a rather intensive evaluation already on this Country Representatives' Scheme and the lessons which have been learnt and we feel that this is a welcome development in the way in which the Director-General looks critically at various parts of his own programme and then puts it before us in an objective and self-critical way.
It is up to us, I would say, to look at this Review, how it has been carried out, and perhaps suggest modifications if we feel they are necessary. But again we feel that above and beyond the evaluation that has been carried out it would be appropriate to make further arrangements, but certainly not at this time.
NGUYEN CHI THANH (Viet Nam): Comme c'est la première fois que ma délégation prend la parole lors de cette Commission, permettez-moi, au nom de ma délégation, de vous féliciter pour votre élection à la présidence.
Ma délégation appuie fermement le Programme de travail et budget pour 1980-81 présenté par le Directeur général; Nous nous félicitons de l'effort déployé par le Directeur général en vue de l'augmentation de l'assistance aux pays en développement. Ma délégation estime très important pour les pays en développement le programme de coopération technique et de représentation d'experts. Nous espérons que cette augmentation continuera dans l'avenir. En ce qui concerne le programme de représentation par pays de la FAO ma délégation appuie la politique de décentralisation présentée par le Directeur général et estime que les activité de représentation de la FAO au niveau des pays sont nécessaires et doivent être renforcées.
J. S. CAMARA (Guinée): Lors de notre dernière intervention nous avons insisté sur deux aspects qui me semblent assez pertinents en ce qui concerne le travail de la FAO, et avant trait à ce programme. Avant de poursuivre ma déclaration je voudrais féliciter mon collègue de la Tanzanie et appuyer sa déclaration car elle va dans le sens de ce que nous attendons pour ce qui est des représentations de la FAO auprès des Etats Membres. Nous avons déjà traité hier de cette question et nous avons pris la
parole pour l'appuyer. Je crois que dans le vaste programme que la FAO nous soumet pour son prochain
biennium le role de ses représentations sera de plus en plus primordial car il apparaît au paragraphe 4 les taches qui leur sont dévolues (et nous soulignons quelquefois les rapports de ces représentants permanents, du rôle qu'ils ont pu jouer, de leur assistance auprès de certains ministères de l'agriculture pour élaborer les programmes de travail au niveau national) et l'on peut se féliciter que cette représentation se renforce davantage. Si l'on suivait le travail des gouvernements dans leur action pour le développement et la promotion rurale cette unité mériterait des félicitations et elle devrait être renforcée, ainsi que le Directeur général le souhaite.
Nous avons abordé hier très rapidement le programme de l'investissement. Si nous. revenons sur ce point, c'est parce que nous nous rendons compte, et notament lors du débat en plénière, que beaucoup de délégués se sont exprimés dans, le cadre du budget du Directeur général et nous avons constaté qu'il y a là, certes, un appui de la part des pays développés, mais que c'est un appui "du bout des lèvres" et que cela ne reflète pas ce que nous aurions souhaité de la part de ces pays, car appuyer le Programme du Directeur général sans en donner les moyens ce serait pratiquement faire des déclarations pieuses, voire charitables. Nous nous attendons à un appui beaucoup plus vigoureux et ferme en ce qui concerne le Programme et le budget. Je suis d'accord avec mon collègue de Turquie (bien que la Turquie faisant partie de l'Europe soit un pays en développement). Je pense qu'il faudrait que la FAO prenne en considération cette partie de l'Europe qui est également un pays en développement. Cela ne doit pas être négligé dans le Programme. Son appel doit être pris en considération.
CHAIRMAN: I have now only one more country's name, Sudan. But if there are any others. . . because afterwards we will request the officers of the FAO to reply to some of the points made.
S. SID AHMED (Sudan): Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to take the floor once again on this topic, but this is only to congratulate my colleague from Tanzania on his statement and to support it fully.
P. HALIMI (France): Merci de me donner la parole pour la troisième fois, Je voudrais tout d'abord émettre un certain nombre de réflexions sur les deux programmes auxquels mon gouvernement a toujours attaché la plus grande importance. Le premier est le programme AGRIS:
Ce programme a toujours été soutenu par mon pays et actuellement nous envisageons d'organiser, l'an prochain, un séminaire destiné aux pays francophones et nous souhaitons que ces pays envoient leurs meilleurs documentalistes afin de les former au maniement du système AGRIS.
Pour assurer le suivi de ce sé minaire dans les pays qui souhaiteraient créer un centre de documentation agricole, nous envisageons de renforcer les moyens du Secrétarait en mettant á sa disposition un expert qualifié.
Le document soumis à notre examen mentionne le thésaurus multilingue qui a été entrepris avec l'aide financière de la Communauté économique européenne. Ce projet devrait être mené à terme à la fin de 1980. Il me paraît important d'insister sur la nécessité de la formation des usagers intermédiaires locaux pour l'utilisation de ce thésaurus qui doit constituer un outil appréciable dans le but d'améliorer la qualité de la base AGRIS:
De même, il me paraîtrait nécessaire d'envisager une action pour assurer la maintenance de ce thésaurus, lorsqu'il sera en usage toutefois.
j'en viens maintenant au programme CARIS qui a toujours été soutenu par la France et appuyé par les pays en développement. Ce programme s'inscrit dans le droit fil de la coopération technique entre pays en développement. Ce programme est considéré comme un problème réglé. Nous savons qu'un questionnaire est en cours auprès des pays pour encourager la participation à ce système et nous serions très heureux d'avoir, le moment venu (nous savons que pour le moment il n'est pas terminé), les résultats de ce questionnaire. Nous ne pensons pas, comme M. Bommer l'a dit hier, qu'il soit possible d'envisager la fusion de CARIS et d'AGRIS, car il s'agit de deux systèmes complètement différents, et cette fusion, au demeurant, n'a été réalisée dans aucun pays.
Monsieur le Président, je voudrais appuyer ce qui a été dit notamment par la délégation de l'Espagne et celle de la Turquie pour ce qui concerne l'activité remarquable du bureau européen de la FAO qui, avec des moyens réduits et un budget ridicule, arrive à réaliser des tâches très importantes dont j'ai eu l'occasion déjà d'évoquer l'intérêt, savoir les réseaux coopératifs européens de recherche, cette étude sur l'énergie, qui correspond aux préoccupations du Directeur général, et cette étude des problèmes de main-d'oeuvre dont le délégué de l'Espagne a parlé longuement avant moi.
Pour terminer, je voudrais faire des remarques d'ordre général sur le budget. En raison des contraintes budgétaires actuelles, dues à une situation économique rendue encore plus fragile par les hausses constantes erratiques du prix de l'énergie, il conviendrait de limiter la hausse des budgets des organisations internationales. Il est nécessaire que soient réellement définies des priorités et que soient élagués les programmes qui ne sont pas d'une première importance. Il est indispensable que des choix soient faits. J'ai noté, à cet égard, ce qui a été dit par la délégation de la Chine, qui a demandé que l'on utilise les fonds d'une manière rationnelle et que l'on fasse des économies. La délégation des Philippines a demandé que l'on fasse des économies au niveau administratif; elle était appuyée sur ce point par les délégations de la Pologne, de l'Italie, de la Suisse, des Pays-Bas. En effet, comme l'a souligné le Directeur général, l'Organisation doit faire porter son action sur des domaines essentiels. Ce sont par exemple l'augmentation de la production vivrière - et je me suis exprimé longuement à ce sujet en demandant que des moyens accrus soient donnés pour l'augmentation de cette production - des productions végétales, de l'horticulture, la réduction des pertes après récolte, la constitution de capacité de stockage, la lutte contre la trypanosomiase, et la recherche agronomique particulièrement la recherche sur l'amélioration des semences et des rendements, et la recherche concernant les énergies de remplacement renouvelables. J'ai noté à cet égard que la délégation du Venezuela avait dit en substance qu'il fallait "dynamiser le budget". Tout ce qui n'est pas essentiel devrait être différé jusqu'au moment où ces questions principales auront été résolues. La politique consiste, vous le savez bien Monsieur le Président, à choisir et non à additionner les programmes, et il serait opportun, dans les temps actuels, de choisir les orientations les plus fondamentales et les plus efficaces. La traduction de ces choix doit se refléter dans le budget. A la diminution ou même la suppression de programmes non prioritaires, doit correspondre une réduction des coûts et du nombre des emplois. Il n'est pas possible de tout faire en même temps, et il serait donc souhaitable que, comme les Nations Unies à New York, l'Organisation limite davantage sa croissance en termes réels.
Dans ces conditions et à ce stade, la délégation française réservera sa positiondéfinitive jusqu'au débat final.
K. CHOUERI (Liban) (interprétation de l'arabe): Permettez-moi de revenir encore une fois pour formuler certains commentaires à la suite du débat qui a eu lieu au sujet des représentants de la FAO dans les pays.
Je voudrais féliciter l'honorable délégué de la Tanzanie qui a clairement précisé la situation, et je joins ma voix à ce qu'il a dit.
Monsieur le Président, j'avais analysé hier un aspect fondamental des activités de ces représentants de la FAO, mais je n'avais pas mentionné l'évaluation, évaluation qu'on demande à certains des représentants des pays membres, et je dois dire à ce propos que l'évaluation est, en fait, une question théorique, car on ne peut pas évaluer les activités effectuées par le représentant de al FAO mieux que les représentants du pays dans lequel il travaille. Et, de toute façon, l'évaluation est prématurée en ce moment parce que les représentants de la FAO n'ont pas encore des assises solides, puisque la plupart n'ont eté désignés qu'il y a une ou deux années au maximum. Donc, comment peut-on évaluer leur activité avec cette vitesse vertigineuse? L'évaluation a été posée sur le plan théorique, elle n'a pas pris en considération les différents éléments qui ont été fournis par les honorables délégués dans leurs interventions.
RAMADHAR (Chairman, Group of 77):I am speaking not only on behalf of India but on behalf of the Group of 77, because that is the responsibility which I am carrying at the moment. We have had a very interesting debate on this subject yesterday and today and we find that the Director-General has proposed additional 15 posts in the next biennium for the representatives, though the request is for much more than 15. So he has been working under constraint and this is constraint.
The question has been raised about the evaluation of monitoring by certain member nations. Of course, Mr. Chairman, if we want an academic evaluation this would be a good academic exercise, but the question is whether any evaluation and monitoring on this aspect is called for. The countries where these representatives are posted are the best judges of the whole scheme, and it is they who have to evaluate and monitor, and experience within the last two years has shown that this scheme has been welcomed by the member countries and this fully accounts for the greater number of requests that the Director-General is not able to accommodate.
The other factor is that we have been examining this question in the Programme Committee, and in our consultations whenever the question of country representatives has come up the member nations have examined the question, and I have heard no dissenting words expressing any doubts about the validity or the efficacy of the whole programme. Therefore, we feel the whole matter of evaluation and monitoring must be left to the discretion and judgment of the Director-General. We must let him decide when and at what stage he wants to present an evaluation and monitoring. As some delegates have pointed out, it is still rather too early. The scheme has been in operation for barely two years; the scheme has been working very well; the countries where we have country representatives have welcomed the schemes, and more countries are coming forward with requests.
At this stage, therefore, if I may speak on behalf of the Group of 77, we would not welcome any formal request for evaluation or monitoring. We feel this must be left to the discretion of the Director-General.
H. MOKHTARI (Algérie): Je serai très bref car de nombreuses délégations ont déjà abordé les points importants du chapitre 3 de notre document.
Ma délégation appuie la politique de décentralisation de la FAO et se félicite de l'action du Directeur général pour dynamiser l'activité de notre Organisation.
Cette politique qui consiste à donner la priorité à l'action sur le terrain, est à notre avis très importante, car elle permet une meilleurs connaissance des problèmes et un suivi plus efficace, ainsi qu'une coordination entre les différents opérateurs.
Ma délégation aurait voulu voir le Programme de coopération technique prendre un peu plus d'ampleur compte tenu de son efficacité. Aussi, et avant de terminer, ma délégation appuie la déclaration du délégué de Tanzanie.
SRI HADI M. A. (Indonesia):I have followed the debate with interest regarding FAO country representatives, and I wish at this stage to indicate our support for the statement of our colleagues from Tanzania.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I am sorry to intervene again in the debate, but it seems that the debate is now more and more concentrated on two certainly very important issues which have emerged from the floor, so I would like, if I may, to clarify and be more specific than in my previous interventions.
Monitoring was one of the issues mentioned. I think that is the day-to-day work of FAO, and it is quite natural to assume - I personally am positive - that the Director-General is giving full attention to the monitoring of the programme. The programme is fairly new, it is very important, and it is a component of the FAO decentralization process, so I think the question of monitoring is more or less clear and does not necessitate much more comment.
One issue which should be mentioned in this context is that Mr. Mtenga supports establishing EDF, and certainly one of the purposes is to help the Director-General monitor very carefully indeed the whole scheme.
On the problem of evaluation, in my first intervention I said that Yugoslavia had some doubts two years ago with regard to the scheme, but my country was fortunate to be representated in the Programme Committee and on this issue I think I can speak on behalf of the Programme Committee since, at out last two sessions, and especially in May, we devoted considerable time to the issue of the country representative scheme. Not only were we fully updated, but we analyzed all the vital components and a lot of details. We reviewed again the procedure for establishment of the country representatives, and we debated at length the issue of average office size, staff, and even equipment. We paid full attention to the involvement of governments, and we realized that governments had been giving full support not only morally but also materially to the scheme.
I can assure you therefore, Mr. Chairman, and through you all delegates, that the Programme Committee in a way has already evaluated fully the country representative scheme, and it was done in two stages.
We specially debated the whole issue in May, but we turned back to this whole problem at our last session.
Evaluation is certainly necessary, and it has always been practised in this Organization, To my knowledge after some time a new, important programme is evaluated fully, so I am almost positive that the Director-General will evaluate this scheme in the course of the biennium, as he did in the case of the TCP.
Speaking on behalf of my delegation, I think evaluation is really necessary, but it is not necessary to ask the Director-General formally in our report to do that. As I said, I am almost positive that he will evaluate, as he did in the case of TCP, and it was very valuable.
C. S. YEBE (Bénin): Je voudrais intervenir au nom de ma délégation sur deux points, à savoir le Programme des investissements et les représentants de la FAO au niveau des Etats.
En ce qui concerne les investissements, nous voudrions insister sur la qualité des missions de consultants que la FAO envoie au niveau de nos Etats. De la qualité de ces missions dépend la réalisation rapide des projetsd'investissement élaborés au niveau de nos différents pays.
Par ailleurs, dans le cadre des investissements, l'accent ne nous semble pas mis suffisamment sur la formation des nationaux en ce qui concerne l'identification, la réalisation et l'élaboration des projets d'investissements, et dans ce cadre il serait souhaitable qu'un programme sérieux soit établi dans ce domaine, dans l'intérêt des pays en voie de développement et que les programmes de formation dans ce cadre, pour ce qui concerne les cadres nationaux, puissent avoir lieu au niveau de nos régions ou sous-régions, et que des études de cas concrets de projets en cours de réalisation dans nos Etats puissent être faites au cours de ces différentes formations.
Par ailleurs, il est inutile de revenir sur la question des représentants de la FAO au niveau de nos Etats; de nombreuses délégations ont déjà mis l'accent sur cette nécessité. Il faut cependant ajouter que de plus en plus ces représentants au niveau de nos Etats commencent à utiliser les institutions nationales en place pour la réalisation d'un certain nombre de travaux. Nous pensons que cette formule doit être encouragée et devra se poursuivre car cela permet à nos Etats et à l'Organisation de réaliser quelques économies.
Pour terminer, comme l'a déclaré le délégué de la Guinée, les pays en voie de développement doivent faire en sorte que le problème de la faim soit éradiqué.
Nous savons que le problème de l'argent, comme on le dit vulgairement, est un "problème sérieux", mais nous savons aussi que les pays développés, dans d'autres domaines, mettent beaucoup d'argent pour aider certains pays pour des actions que nous jugeons vraiment improductives; nous pensons que dans le domaine du programme de réalisation pour aider les pays en voie de développement à élever leur niveau de vie, les pays développées peuvent réellement faire un effort pour mettre à la disposition de l'Organisation la contribution qu'on leur demande pour le bien-être de l'humanité.
V. ISARANKURA (Thailand): Thailand is one of the member nations which support the appointment of an FAO representative in the various countries, so on this occasion I take the floor to support what the Indian delegate has said, that is, it would not be economical to consider setting up an evaluation or monitoring unit.
NGA MA MAPELA (Zaire): J'ai demandé la parole pour vous dire que je suis quelque peu perdu, d'autant plus que la discussion qui a lieu aujourd'hui a déjà eu lieu hier et que vous aviez dit hier, lors du résumé que vous aviez bien voulu nous faire, qu'on allait surtout écouter entre autres le Secrétariat, et examiner les additifs ou les rectificatifs aux documents.
Puisque tout le monde reprend ce qu'il a dit hier, nous n'allons pas faire exception. Nous voulons d'abord pour commencer appuyer mot à mot la déclaration qui a été faite par le délègue de l'Inde ainsi que celle faite par la délégation de la Tanzanie".
Nous voulons encore dire que le programme concernant le bureau des représentants de la FAO dans les pays, au niveau régional, est un programme très important, et qu'on ne doit en aucune façon chercher à éliminer ou à diminuer l'efficacité de ce bureau. Pourquoi? Parce que nous, qui bénéficions des services de ce bureau, nous avons la preuve que celui-ci fonctionne bien. En fait, c'est nous qui devrions être écoutés car, en quelque sorte, une évaluation pourrait être faite en s'adressant directement aux pays qui bénéficient des services de ce bureau sans avoir à envoyer des experts, qui viendraient d'on ne sait où, et qui iraient dans les pays en voie de développement pour s'installer dans un hotel, téléphoner et demander si ça ne va pas. Ce n'est pas ce que nous voulons. Ce que nous voulons, c'est que réellement cela fonctionne bien. Mais puisque nous vivons cela, nous disons: Oui, cela fonctionne bien.
Y. ART (Israel): My delegation wishes to endorse the comments of the delegates of Turkey, Spain and France regarding the value of maintaining the level and activities of the European Office.
Aside from the activities of that office already mentioned this morning we would like to add additional appreciation of the very important work that the Mediterranean Forest Coordinating Committee has done in a field that will probably have not only interest for Europe but for many developing countries suffering from arid or semi-arid conditions. We hope this work will continue in the future.
We would like to make a comment on the Technical Cooperation Programme. We think the TCP has a very important role to play between identification of programmes and the preparation of pre-feasibility of feasibility documents for financing. For many years there has been this gap between identifying any project and giving it finance, the gap being mainly in the question of reliability of data and the response of beneficiaries to investments. TCP can play a very important role in determining whether the investment programme for the future is compatible with the aspirations of the beneficiaries and is technically feasible in a practical sense. We believe that perhaps over time TCP activities would have to be more sharply defined. We do see this activity mainly as a grass root pre-development activity which should - and in this matter we agree with the Netherlands delegate - in the long run lead to investment programmes. We see TCP also as a vehicle for TCDC activities. These are in the main small operations and these are the sites where new technologies adapted to the beneficiary can really be tried out.
Finally we would like to express our appreciation of the activities of the Freedom from Hunger Campaign in a new initiative as to the preparation of a catalogue on development experiences, and case histories of these experiences. If there is anything lacking for the development work of today and for policy makers involved in project development'we believe it is the lack of more examples on the performance of projects in different situations. The compilation of such a catalogue written up in a way that all can benefit from experiences one from another is in our opinion another excellent example of what TCDC should be all about.
J. A. SANTOS OLIVEIRA (Guinée-Bissau): La délégation de Guinée-Bissau, avant de faire quelques commentaires sur le chapitre 4, veut appuyer sans réserve la déclaration du délégué de l'Inde qui a parlé su nom du Groupe des 77 ainsi que celle des autres délégués qui lfont précédé.
En ce qui concerne le chapitre 4, au sujet du programme de coopération technique, notre délégation veut manifester au Directeur Général son appui sans réserve pour les très grandes idées de son programme, qui a donné un nouveau démarrage à l’Organisation, tant par l'efficacité de son administration et sa rapidité de réponse, que par l'augmentation de l'action sur le terrain.
Ce programme a permis à notre pays de faire face à des situations "d'émergence" et d'avoir également des projets concrets prêts à être financés par des fonds de financement.
Nous voudrions aussi dire que nous sommes tout à fait d'accord avec le programme d'action proposé pour le Biennium 81, et nous donnons notre entière adhésion à l'augmentation du budget pour faire face aux demandes chaque fois plus importantes des pays en voie de développement.
O. VALDES OLIVARES (Mexico): La delegación de México desea expresar su apoyo más decidido a la declaración que ha hecho el distinguido Delegado de la India, del grupo de los setenta y siete, en cuanto a las actividades de la FAO.
Por lo que se refiere a las Oficinas de Representantes del Director General de la FAO, estamos de acuerdo en que constituyen un importante elemento de apoyo a las actividades de este Organismo en los países miembros. En México ha representado verdaderamente una ventaja muy beneficiosa.
Compartimos el apoyo especialmente en cuanto se refiere al Programa de Cooperación Técnica y Pérdidas por Cosechas a los países en desarrollo.
Quisiera hacer énfasis de apoyo especial de esta Delegación a la declaración del Delegado de la India, del Grupo de los 77.
R. B. SINGH (Nepal): In order to avoid repetition the Nepal delegation strongly and fully endorses the statement made by India, and also the recent one by Zaire regarding the level and involvement of country representative offices in the programme. It is very important that a strong link is established to enhance the cooperation of the activities, and definitely a periodic evaluation is a must, and with the experience each country has had, the country concerned can do the work; so instead of adding up a new unit which would require more money and more man power from headquarters maybe this money and manpower can be directed to the field, to the country offices, to an even better programme. So again I would like strongly to support the statement made by India in this regard.
CHAIRMAN:I think with this we come to the end of the interventions on Budget and Programme at this stage.
MS. F. H. JAWHAR HAYAT (Kuwait) (interpretation from Arabic): I will not take up too much of your time, but on behalf of my delegation I would like to support whole-heartedly the statement made by the representative of India.
S. TAZI (Maroc) (interprétation de l'arabe): Je tiens tout d'abord à appuyer ce qu'a dit le représentant du Groupe des 77. Je tiens également à appuyer ce qui a été dit par l'Irak quant à la proposition selon laquelle il faudrait créer un fonds pour faire face aux différents frais causés par l'inflation et qui aboutissent à la hausse des coûts dans les pays en développement.
Je voudrais revenir sur le problème du Programme de la coopération technique qui a été mentionné par un grand nombre de délégués. Je désire attirer votre attention sur le fait que le Conseil, lors de l'une de ses précédentes sessions, avait défini quelques directives qui doivent être prises en considération par le Programme de la coopération technique et peuvent être résumées comme suit: i) demander à l'Orga-nisation d'appliquer un programme de coopération technique en vue d'appliquer les programmes d'investis-sèment et de les établir aux différents échelons; ii) demander également à l'Organisation d'appliquer ce
programme en vue de cristaliser de nouvelles techniques dans le domaine de l'agriculture dans les pays en développement; iii) appliquer le programme dans le cadre d'une politique afin d'éviter des pertes à la suite de récoltes en vue d'un mandat élargi aux différents représentants de l'Organisation pour s'en tenir aux différents représentants de l'Organisation pour s'en tenir aux différents fonds alloués aux programmes présentés par les différents Etats dans le cadre de ce Programme de coopération technique. Je me demande donc si l'Organisation est effectivement en mesure de répondre à toutes ces lignes directrices et si elle a l'intention de prendre des mesures au cours du prochain biennium en vue de leur application.
A cette occasion, je tiens à rendre hommage à l'action entreprise par la FAO dans ce domaine et dont mon pays a tiré un grand profit au cours du précédent biennium; le Maroc a ainsi profité de trois projets appliqués dans le cadre de la coopération technique dans le domaine agricole et qui ont trait à trois autres domaines dont la fièvre aphteuse, la lutte contre la sécheresse du sol, et l'économie de semences qui va dans le sens du projet qui est en train d'être préparé et étudié par l'Organisation en ce qui concerne la formation des ingénieurs dans le domaine des forêts.
En définitive, je voudrais parler de l'autre point que a été soulevé, à savoir celui des représentants dans les différents pays. J'avais dèjà, lors de ma précédente intervention, mis l'accent sur le rôle de mon pays, de sa position, en ce qui concerne cette question. Nous avons noté que la plupart des délégués appuient la politique de décentralisation suivie par la FAO depuis quelques années, notament la création de bureaux régionaux et de bureaux nationaux. Je tiens à attirer l'attention sur le fait qu'il faut faire preuve de beaucoup de prudence dans ce domaine car cette politique pourrait avoir des désavantages. Nous aimerions que ces différents moyens de travail soient rais à la disposition de ces bureaux. La décentralisation ne saurait être une vraie décentralisation si elle ne se fonde pas sur des éléments et sur un budget bien préparé et si elle était réduite à un mandat accordé aux représentants et se réduire à des fonds limités.
De même en ce qui concerne cette politique de décentralisation, de création de bureaux, il faut qu'il y ait harmonie entre les besoins des pays. Le nombre des Bureaux qui sont créés dans ces pays est un point qui a été soulevé par le représentant de Fidji, Il est important d'examiner les besoins de chaque pays et voir si ces besoins nécessitent la création ou la non-création d'un bureau régional et si ce bureau doit être élargi ou limité selon les besoins du pays afin que cette décentralisation ne soit pas mise en cause et devienne un but en soi. Ce n'est qu'un moyen qui doit servir tous les objectifs pour lesquels nous euvrons.
CHAIRMAN: Before I call upon the Officers of FAO to make some remarks, I would like to mention that Lebanon and Libya, who have contributed, have requested that written statements by them on the Programme of Work and Budget be inserted in the verbatim record. This procedure is in accordance with the decision of the General Committee and I take it is approved.
I would like to draw the attention of the FAO Secretariat to four important issues with a common denominator of concern occurring in the numerous interventions we have had. The first refers to the role of the Investment Centre in promoting investment in agriculture and rural development. Obviously this is a matter for the most serious concern of all developing countries, It is a pleasure to record that the FAO Investment Centre last year has been able to get 41 projects involving foreign donor assistants of $1.3 billion approved. But considering the magnitude of the job ahead you will find from the documents that the proposed level of the investment of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for 1983 is $16 billion and a large proportion of this will be in concessional terms. The International Fund for Agricultural Development, the baby of the WFC, proposes to invest $800 million in 1979/80 and the various regional banks, the African, Asian and others are planning to invest $1.5 billion per year in the next two years, Obviously, while we should congratulate the Investment Centre on its past accomplishments, the magnitude of the task ahead is indeed very great. Projects will have to be prepared, feasibility reports will have to be prepared and in certain sectors of Forestry, Fisheries and Animal Husbandry field studios will have to be made and a large amount of work is involved. We are all naturally concerned about the readiness and preparedness of the Investment Centre to assist countries which need such assistance in taking full advantage of the resources available. I would like to suggest to those countries which have not yet done sc that every country should have in the Ministry of Agriculture of the respective countries, and Fisheries, Forestry and Animal Husbandry, a project preparation and monitoring cell. FAO could assist in the establishment of each cell through relevant training programmes.
We would like the views of FAO on how they plan to respond to this great challenge of getting the best out of the growing investment opportunities in the agricultural and rural development sector.
The second area that many delegations have expressed considerable interest in ensuring accelerated progress is the field of human resources development. We are happy that FAO is according very high priority to human resource development, but I suggest the programme of FAO in this development may be structured in such a way that at three different levels, three tiers - a policy making level, task implementation or operational level, and finally, farmers, fishermen and rural women. At each level we should have a clear cut strategy of human resource development.
Obviously the policy making level which many times presents itself in Conference and Council is exceedingly important. Their training and exposure to new ideas is important. I need hardly say where the vision is limited action gets equally circumscribed. The International Agricultural Research Centres fortunately have started on the basis of preparing case studies, organizing workshops or seminars for Ministers and high-level policy formulators. The second aspect at the task implementation level receives more attention and the training programmes listed in the document generally relate to this level. But the third level of farmers, farm women, and fishermen exchange programmes in my view has not received the attention it deserves. Countries like the US and USSR and more recently China have promoted exchange of farmers, but here is an area where much more could be done because a visit to a successful area of development for a farmer or farm woman means seeing is believing; lecturing alone does not carry conviction.
One would like to see carefully prepared visits stimulated by FAO on a bilateral basis to the areas where there is something to learn. For example the publication, "Learning from China" provides a lot of interesting information. Similarly there are several other publications, "Learning from Experience". In India we have a very large dairy experiment which the leader of the Indian delegation referred to as one of the largest social engineering projects undertaken by man. Ten million farming families are bounded as dairy cooperatives. It is only when one goes and sees, immediately there is an impact of what is involved, and I would, therefore, like to suggest in the next biennium the human resource development programme of FAO may be structured in such a way that the policy making level, the operational level and finally the people who produce the food and fish and the farm woman, the rural woman programmes also receive adequate attention.
The third question which has agitated, or which has engaged the attention of numerous delegates is the question of country representatives and the decentralized functioning of FAO. The country representative at the moment has two important functions. In the MSA countries, in the countries frequently prone to natural disasters, cyclones, typhoons, drought, etc. the country representative of FAO, wherever he or she exists at the moment today, is almost serving like an umbilical cord, a very important function, to see that immediate assistance, immediate help, is provided. The other important role, has to make FAO visible in the country, being it close to the government, I do not want to take a side as Chairman, but I must mention from my own personal experience that has been an exceedingly important innovation and I should say that the representative in India which FAO has, is an outstanding person from Iraq who has certainly made a tremendous impact in a short period of time. Therefore, we must help FAO particularly when it goes into the field, through TCP and other programmes, to develop this direct link. This is my personal view and I endorse those delegates who said that in the expansion of this programme the needs of MSA countries may be particularly given highest priority because as the work of the Investment Centre expands, as the TCP programmes and as countries, many countries desire to help others expand, the role of the country representative will be very crucial and very important.
Finally, freedom from hunger was emphasised by several delegates. I think there has been some misapprehension about the non-utilization of the budget but we would like to hear a little more from the Secretariat. After all the whole purpose of this Organization is to rid humanity of the fear of hunger and, therefore, I am glad some delegates referred to the Freedom from Hunger Programme.
I will now give the floor first to Dr. Yriart, the Assistant Director-General of the Development Department.
J.F. YRIART (Assistant Director-General, Development Department); Thank you very much for the very useful lead that you have given the Secretariat in considering its replies. However, Mr. Chairman, I am faced with what I think is a very pleasant situation indeed, and it is that, and I shall take the question of decentralization first, in the case of many of the questions asked regarding the FAO Representatives they have already been replied to by the governments or the representatives of the governments that have FAO Representatives established in their countries. I find it normal that the questions should have been asked by those countries who have no FAO Representative because they are developed countries, and that they should have been replied to by the users of this institution. And I am naturally gratified, Mr. Chairman, I cannot conceal it, by the replies given which assure us that we have a
useful institution, an effective institution that, in these last 2½ years, has undergone constant analysis, of constant - the word "monitoring" has been used - of constant monitoring, and on which the Director-General, himself, gives up quite a lot of his time to concern himself because of the wide ratio of benefits that it can bring to the developing countries from all the other activities of the programme. Through this monitoring we have been able to orient the institution properly. So, Mr. Chairman, I think that on the question of the FAO Representatives it will be easier for me to take up some of the issues which were not replied to because there were more internal issues regarding our practices, procedures etc., and I shall try to deal with them.
Before I abandon this word "monitoring", let me say that one of the main reasons why a unit has been set up in the Field Programme Development Division is to do this sort of monitoring, but let me quickly tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this unit in the Field Programme Development Division implies no new budgetary credits. All the internal arrangements that we are making for the support and functioning of the FAO Representatives and in general, of the whole decentralization scheme, have been made through the redeployment and reorientation of programmes and resources to give the whole of the Organization a very considerable action orientation and dedication to the work of development.
There has been considerable concern about the respective roles of the FAO Representatives and the FAO Regional Offices. Let me assure you that, as a former Regional Representative, this is how I came to FAO, it has also given me great satisfaction to see that the delegations from the countries that have the advantage of having a Regional Office and an FAO Representative's Office have been able to detect, through the work of the FAO Representative, the support that the Regional Office gives the Representative and to the country itself. Because, Mr. Chairman, again I repeat, as a former Regional Representative, I would say that never before has the role of the Regional Offices been as clear as it is now. Over the years, many of our good friends, the delegates, know that, whether in the Conference or the Council, we have had repeated discussions about the roles of the Regional Offices. I think that we have now, in this decentralization approved by our Governing Bodies, come to a clear role, and in that respect I call your attention to the Chapter on decentralization in the Review of the Regular Programme where the terms of reference of the Regional Offices are set down in extenso and have no doubt that the Regional Offices are greatly concerned in regional matters and also with the technical backstopping or support of the FAO Representatives at the country level.
Now, regional matters, Mr. Chairman, are every day getting - the temptation is to say - more complicated. But what I really want to say is more relevant and important because as the national institutions are strengthened in the developing world, so are the regional and sub-regional institutions strengthened. Nowadays we cannot fully act ondevelopment matters in any field, and certainly not in agriculture, without cooperating in Latin America with OAS and with SELA, and with IICA, without cooperating in Africa with OAU, with the Economic Commission for Africa or OCAM or CEAO, without cooperating in the Near East with the Arab Agricultural Organization, without cooperating in Asia with ASEAN and similar institutions, and this cooperation is really taking quite a bit of resources. In some of them we help in carrying out their action programmes, in devising their action programmes but, in general, we take good care that there should be no overlapping. This started already many years ago because the moment that the UN Regional Economic Commissions were set up, FAO was the first organization to devise a system of cooperation with them by establishing Joint FAO/Regional Commission Agricultural Divisions.
However, this has grown so much, and the fields in which the Regional Commissions operate have expanded so much (they are even operational now) that in some cases the whole device of our Joint Agricultural Divisions is no longer the most efficient tool. In the case of collaboration with ESCAP, the Regional Commission for Asia and the Pacific, we have abolished the Joint Division of common accord, retaining the Joint Division's resources in the Regional Office, and the Regional Office is now the FAO counterpart to ESCAP in agricultural matters.
But we cannot follow this system everywhere. We have to be pragmatic because in some cases, to start with, the Headquarters or the place of the Regional Commissions do not coincide with that of our Regional Office. An example, is Africa, where our Regional Office is in Accra, while the Regional Commission is in Addis Ababa in Ethiopia. So in these cases, the Joint Divisions are our basic instrument of cooperation.
I assure you that regional matters have taken on such significance that dealing with them is a very important part of the work of the Regional Offices of FAO, The very small strengthening that is contemplated for the Regional Offices in the presently proposed Programme-of Work and Budget is mainly for two reasons. First, because of the growing importance of TCDC and because the Regional Offices, as we have explained at the Council and as is said in the documents on TCDC, that are available to you, the Regional Offices are a specially good focus for the promotion of TCDC, The second field is rural development, and I can assure you that it applies - as you yourself pointed out - it applies to the carrying out of all our programmes. The aftermath of WCARRD, the Declaration of Principles and the Programme of Action, are a fact to us and an everyday fact applicable to the planning and performance
of all our activities because the governments have given themselves a conceptual framework for rural development and we are the first to have had to adapt to and to take into account this conceptual framework. Again, in great measure, the follow-up of WCARRD, of the Declaration of Principles and of the Programme of Action will have great regional repercussions. Already, in Bangkok, in our Regional Office for Asia and the Far East, at the beginning of this month, there was a meeting of expert representatives of the countries of the region to discuss the application of the WCARRD recommendations at the regional level. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that the report of that meeting is really inspiring for its simplicity and for its applicability, in that it translates to operational levels the recommendations in the Programme of Action.
On this we have slightly strengthened the Regional Offices. The rest of the time, the Regional Offices support the FAO Representatives, and this is very carefully done and planned with the FAO Representatives themselves.
You know, Mr. Chairman that, among the many advantages that the FAO Representatives bring to the governments where they are accredited, is good access to all those resources both in our Regular and Field Programmes that could be utilized at the country level as well as ready knowledge in order to be
able to identify those resources that we can apply in favour of the government at any given moment.
But it goes beyond that, Mr. Chairman, because, in practice, the FAO Representatives also have some resources of their own and authority of their own to channel resources. For example, for quick response to a government's need for special support to better identify a problem that has not been well known up to the moment, and which would perhaps permit the Governments to get assistance from any possible source, they call on the FAORs immediately, or on the Regional Office, or on Headquarters. When the Regional Offices - which are not slow when you think that we have 25-30 experts in each Regional Office to serve an area like Africa or Asia and the Far East - cannot serve them immediately the FAOR has a small consultants fund that he, himself, uses without anybody's approval. This consultants fund would also permit him, if necessary, with no impediment, to use a consultant from the private sector in the country to which he is accredited.
This task of the Regional Office of supporting the FAORs is something, I can assure you, we are highlighting very much, and we are methodically going about making sure the practices of the one and the other tally.
Last May, at the Regional Office in Accra, we had a meeting of FAORs where a complete examination was made and practical measures were taken so that the Regional Office, within its limited resources, could be of use to the FAORs. When the Conference is over, at the very beginning of next month, we shall repeat the exercise for Latin America at the Regional Office. In February we shall do the same thing in Bangkok, also at the Regional Office, although we have not yet established the date, but we shall soon have a similar exercise in the Near East.
I can tell you also, with great pride, that the governments that use our FAORs are really making great efforts on their side and we have - though it may be envidious, Mr. Chairman, to mention it, and I hope that our friends from the UNDP who are present will not take it badly - succeeded in receiving a total average contribution from the governments where we have FAORs, to their budgets of about 18 percent. That which UNDP has is slightly less. But perhaps it is because, in our case, though in great proportion the contributions are in cash, contributions in kind are also more readily available. Here we come to the question that one of the delegates mentioned: what is the cost to the country of having these FAORs and how could this cost be lowered, both to the country and to the Organization. The delegate asked if they could not be attached to the Ministry of Agriculture or to the Ministry of Planning. But they are. The first priority is that, if the Government wishes them to go and work within a government office, and many of them do, they have their premises right in the Ministry of Agriculture. This, of course, we compute as part of the contribution of the Government.
The second priority, which is very important to us, is that if they are not with the government, they should be with the Resident Representative of UNDP. The Administrator of UNDP and the Director-General have made a point of jointly instructing the Resident Representatives and the FAORs to try, when possible, to be in the same premises, and I can tell you that we have a good number of offices that are together.
Regarding costs, I can tell you that, the "being together with UNDP" does not lower costs per se, because we are asked for reimbursement for every service we are rendered, including housing. However, it does create an economy of scale that makes things slightly cheaper. For example in administrative matters, within possibilities, the Resident Representative does a lot (and I am sure Mr. Skoufis will think I use the wrong words) of our financial movements, disbursements, accounting, etc. etc. which are, in some countries, very large. We reimburse the cost of these services. But I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that there is a definite desire to try to lower the cost of our FAOR offices too.
The tool perhaps, Mr. Chairman, that has become very useful in this period of the system of FAORs, has been their six-monthly reports in which, again with the help of the now-established unit in the Field Programme Development Division, we are able to involve the whole of the Organization in following, in a systematic manner, the needs and the work of the FAORs offices. We encourage, of course, a Headquarters-FAOR dialogue on the basis of their reports. We give them parameters of what these reports should cover, depending on the issues and circumstances of the individual countries.
Mr. Chairman, we were also asked whether, truly enough, at the end of this year, the former scheme of Senior Agricultural Advisers/FAO Country Representatives which we had with UNDP will have finished. Indeed, there are still 6 SAA/CRs and they will terminate on 31 December. The UNDP, in its budget, does not now have further resources to be able to extend this scheme and we have, within the bounds of possibility, taken measures to replace them and this is one of the reasons for the proposal by the Director-General that we should have 15 more FAORs in the next biennium. Between the offices that are already established, other agreements that have been signed with governments, and agreements in the process of negotiation, the Director-General has received the request of 79 governments for the establishment of FAOR offices. Of course, Mr. Chairman, I am now playing into the hands of the question of what happens if we have 79 requests and, if the Conference approves the budget, we will have 62 posts for offices. As one of the representatives thought ( I presume I am allowed to identify the Chairman of the Programme Committee because of his signal importance to the life of the Programme Committee in guiding us and giving us advice) the Council, supported by the Programme Committee, has discussed extensively the question of FAORs and has indeed made very good suggestions. I will refer to one of them, and that is to the possibility of multiple coverage of countries. Now, Mr. Chairman, what has happened fortunately is that mainly the most deserving countries, from the point of view of use of the institution, came in first. Let me here also assure you that the majority of the FAORs have been accredited to the countries where the economic situation is the most serious; the MSAs and the LDCs. The next priority has been to accredit them to developing countries whose agricultural production, specially food production, is of signal significance for the world, or whose food requirements are also of signal significance for the world, and where the development of agriculture, of food production and rural development are of the greatest importance.
These countries", are mostly served and we are now able to face the possibility of accrediting one Representative to two or more countries. On this, Mr. Chairman, we already have about six or seven cases where this double or triple accreditation seems to be becoming possible. I will not hide from you that a favourable view of the Conference in this regard thus obtaining for us the understanding of the countries as to the possibility of sharing this institution, would be most useful to us.
I think, Mr. Chairman - indirectly pointed out to me - that there are no questions outstanding on FAORs and if you would allow me I shall try, more quickly, to take up the other matters. Regarding investment, we appreciate very much the recognition of the efforts that are made in this field. As you know, it is one of the top priorities in the policies of the Director-General. I think that there have been several issues to which great importance has been attached. One of them was the question of the involvement of the Investment Centre, in its work with international funding organizations, in the funding of rural development projects, of poverty-oriented projects, and of food production. Mr. Chairman, as you know, this could not be otherwise because, in general, this is the new orientation of lending institutions. Principally this is the mandate of IFAD and, as you know, our collaboration with IFAD is already of the greatest importance, and we are, perhaps, the institution that is most concerned with the development, identification and formulation of projects for IFAD. The same thing, as you mentioned yourself, Mr. Chairman, as with the World Bank. I can tell you that we, in a quick calculation, think that about 65% of our projects deal with rural development, and that the rural development projects are designed in such a way that they also bring in the question of food production. Thus, while we say that 65% of the projects have an objective of rural development, also about half of the projects that we do for the World Bank deal with food production and practically the entirety of the projects for IFAD deals with food production. We try to design projects that benefit the poorest in the country and we like to think that the World Bank and the Regional Banks choose us because of our experience and of certain break throughs in designing such projects.
The question of training, which many delegates mentioned, also in the context of investment, is a built-in objective of our work in this field and we try, within our possibilities, to do as much as possible. For example, we are now trying to bring our counterparts to Rome, after the missions have taken place, to participate in report-writing as a further stage in the training of local experts in investment. However, I must say and I said it at the last Conference, that one of the problems that we face is the changing personnel in the developing countries. This is why, of course, the suggestion that there be units in the countries dedicated to this purpose that will eventually take over completely is most important. This, of course, is what happens, Mr. Chairman, in your country where, while we still have very close cooperation with the Government of India in investment, the nature of our work is completely different. However, in investment training, the duties are with another division - in the Economic and
Social Policy Department, - with which we collaborate intensively. Last year, their most important workshop was for the Near East;it lasted almost three months. We had prepared actual case studies for the use of the workshop, so training is completely within our priorities. But I must say, that it is more of the type of in-service training than training per se, because we are cooperators in FAO in the Investment Centre rather than responsible for it.
There was a question about how does the rest of the Regular Programme, and indeed, also the Field Programme, feed into project investment possibilities, institution building for execution of investment projects, surveys prior to investment, etc. I can tell you that we think we are precursors in this field and that the new machinery established within the UN where, under the Administrative Committee on Coordination, there is now a special committee on operations for the whole system, it is FAO that has led the way into studying the linkages between pre-investment and investment. As you will see in other documents we will deal with in this same Commission, we feel that there is a renaissance in the efforts of the system to link pre-investment, technical assistance and investment.
There has also been concern about the objectives of investment, modalities of investment, programme lending which we think will inevitably be accepted and which are already accepted by funding organizations. About the funding of recurring costs, about the arranging of the project cycle, and about the simplification of procedures, now, Mr. Chairman, I could say to you that the governments should address recommendations on these matters to the governing bodies of the financing institutions. But I can also say that we, ourselves, are pushing. I think it was an honourable delegate who said- "We know where FAO's heart is, but what is it doing about this". I can assure you FAO's heart is along those lines, for example in shortening the project cycle, and we are gratified to learn that we have the shortest project cycle of any agency working in investment. We have dedicated one of our top staff members to doing a study for the World Bank and for all the other funding institutions on the shortening of the project cycle. In all international meetings, with funding institutions, we advocate certain policies in lending that we know meet the desires of our member countries.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that I shall leave investment aside, and come to the question of the Field Programme. Here there are principally two clarifications requested, and both refer to paragraphs in the Review of the Regular Programme (Document C 79/8).
The first one refers to paragraph 2. 19 which leads youto UNDP country programming were not what might have been desired.
Yes, this is true. We believe that country programming for the second development cycle has suffered very serious shortcomings and the capabilities of the agencies to assist the governments have not been properly used.
There was, 2 years ago, an in-depth report of the Joint Inspection Unit where you will see that their findings coincide with this statement. But more, the UNDP Governing Council has decided that an in-depth study should be made about country programming and the UNDP is doing it in cooperation with agencies. And I can assure you, at least I think, that the participation of FAO is the most outstanding one. I have been told very recently by the UNDP that we are the agency that is making the greatest efforts by participating in the greatest number possible of field missions which they are sending to study this programme. This is the nature of the observations that we make, which we hope will improve in the forthcoming programming cycle, because we wish to make very good inputs into the UNDP country programme.
I am told that perhaps the way I said that makes it look as though the Joint Inspection Unit was criticizing the Agencies. The finding of the JIU was that the agencies have not been permitted, through the procedures followed by UNDP in the field, to make sufficient inputs into country programming.
The second paragraph is 2. 26 and may I say that this has been just bad drafting on the part of the Secretariat. What we mean is that we are trying to conciliate the procedures, priorities, etc. of bilateral donors with those of developing countries. Fortunately, we are all joined in the desire that it is the priorities of the developing countries that prevail. But we have problems of procedures that I think in great measure we are overcoming and we take seriously the role of FAO in assisting the bilateral donors through what they call their multi-bi programmes in adapting them as much as possible to the procedures of multi-lateral programmes.
I would reply to the delegate who inquired about the use of national experts. This is one of the high priorities within programmes, and where in the UNDP programme we all are satisfied with the leadership. The use of national experts in UNDP-financed projects is permissible and we are coming out also with scales of remuneration that are compatible with salary levels in their own countries.
With regards very briefly, now, to the Freedom from Hunger Campaign and to your intervention thereon, Mr. Chairman, for which I thank you very much, we have tried to re-orient it so as to be able not only
to take into account the people's involvement, participation, and accent on WCARRD, but also the greater resources that exist in NGOs, for development assistance and for assistance to developing countries. What we have tried to do is not to look to executing more projects ourselves, but to be of assistance to Non-Governmental Organizations in formulating projects which the donor NGOs fund directly and the beneficiary NGOs can execute directly. From our observation of results, this tide is turning and I think it will be very effective.
In the execution of our own projects, we have right now in operation 209 projects that perhaps have a total value in donor and country investments, of US$ 15 million.
The US$ 300 000 that were mentioned here, are not what FFHC managed to spend in the biennium, but the difference between its budget in the current biennium and the proposed budget. It is the proposed budget, due to this re-orientation and tightening up, that is US$ 300 000 lower than the present biennium.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the second intervention of the delegate of the Netherlands, and allow me to refer specifically by name to him, I must say there seems to be a misunderstanding. The amounts shown for extra-budgetary funds in the Programme of Work and Budget, are not requested for extra-budgetary funds, they are simply illustrative indications of amounts of project expenditures plus agency support costs projected or expected. In Chapter I the amounts shown are primarily support costs which are expected to be allocated in the next biennium to the Regular Programme. That is why extra-budgetary allocations or estimations are shown in the Regular Programme publication which, like this, applies to all sources of funds.
I would like to suggest that the concern expressed about the downward tendency in the UNDP allocations, as well as the concern expressed with regards to monitoring of allocations to agriculture be discussed under item 13, since the document on the Review of Field Programme goes extensively into these matters.
P. J. SKOUFIS (Assistant Director, Administration and Finance Department): I will deal with the matters raised by various delegations on Chapters 5 and 6, and, if I may, in the interests of brevity I will refer specifically to interventions by specific delegates.
First, I would refer to the intervention of the United Kingdom delegate in which he raised the matter of the increase in percentages of the budget levels in Chapter 5, Section 5. 2. 1, Administrative Services on page 174, in Section 5. 2. 2 on Financial Services on page 178;and Section 5. 9, Programme Management, on page 185.
First, let me say that the increases in budget level from 1978-79 to 1980-81 have two components, as the charts on these pages reflect. The first component is programme increases, and I think these programme increases are within the normal percentage range as reflected throughout the budget. These are in the magnitude of 6 percent and 7 percent and cover the increases in programmes required in the various administrative services to provide a satisfactory level of support to the substantive programmes of the Organization; whereas, as the delegate of the United Kingdom pointed out, a large percentage of increase appears under the cost increases item. This can be explained by the fact that in these administrative services there is a large proportion of general services clerical support staff, and their employment costs are governed primarily by the inflation rates that exist in their various posts of assignment. Here in Italy, for example, over the past two years these inflation rates have been in double digits. Our forecasts are that these inflation rates will continue to be high, and it may well be, based on recent statistics we have received from the Italian ISTAT authority, our estimates for the coming biennium may be a little on the conservative side. (Mr. West confirmed that they will be a lot on the conservative side, so I think that covers that particular intervention).
If I may, I will move on to the second item. Both the delegate of Morocco and the United Kingdom delegate commented on the recruitment of non- and under-represented countries. The comments have been noted, and I am happy to point out that the Director-General is keenly aware of the continuing need to maintain an appropriate balance in representation from all member governments in the Secretariat. Thus, he has directed that special efforts be made in this regard, and these are pointed out in paragraph 10 of Programme 5. 2. 4, Personnel Services. He is mindful of the constitutional responsibility under Article 8, paragraph 3, which states:
"In appointing staff, the Director-General shall, subject to the paramount importance of securing the highest standards of efficiency and technical competence, pay due regard to the importance of selecting personnel recruited on as wide a geographical basis as possible. "
The efforts in this regard undertaken by the Secretarial include improved contacts with the governments through the assistance provided by the permanent representation here at Headquarters. We have expanded the use and distribution of vacancy announcement to a wider range of sources, and we are drawing now on the FAO representation in many countries, particularly developing countries, to assist us in identifying and submitting applications for vacant positions as announced. We are going to continue this programme over the next biennium, and look forward to the expected results.
The third item I wish to report on is based on the intervention of the delegate from the United States concerning women in the secretariat. The Director-General continues to be dedicated to a positive action programme in implementation of his policy to encourage more women applicants to the Organization's vacancy announcements. As a result, there has been steady measurable progress in the status of Professional women in the Organization since the last Conference session.
At the end of 1976, a total of 173 women were employed at Headquarters and Regional Offices, i. e. 12. 7 percent of the Professional staff. In June of 1977 this figure rose to 180, as reported at the last session of the Conference.
At the end of 1978, a total of 200 women were employed, or 14 percent of the Professional staff. Since then, the figure has increased to 210, or 37 more than in 1976. This, I believe, reflects the consequences of the Director-General's policies and the special efforts made through advertising and identification of recruitment sources and other means to encourage more women applicants to the Organization's vacancy announcements. Each of the FAO departments in turn is building up rosters of candidates from which qualified and suitable female candidates can be identified. Through associate expert programmes several women have been placed in field projects, in disciplines such as forestry and agriculture. Thus there appears to be a favourable trend in the placement of women in our technical operations and activities.
There has also been a steady improvement in the promotion of women in the Organization. In the two years 1977 and 1978 some 200 internal promotions were made. Of this total 64, or 32 percent, went to women staff members, and some of these promotions occurred among the Organization's senior professional levels. In addition, the Director-General has taken steps to ensure greater representation by women staff members on internal administrative and advisory committees. Several of our Organization's administrative committees are now chaired by women staff members. Other steps included in the Director-General's action programme in this regard are expansion of training opportunities for women staff members and the elimination of discrimination in language on the basis of sex from Organization staff rules and official circulars.
The Commission can be assured that the Organization's efforts to improve the status of women in FAO will continue as indicated in Chapter 5 in the Programme of Work and Budget which you are now considering. I trust this brief report will cover the questions raised by the delegate of the USA.
Lastly, in response to the intervention made by the delegate from the Federal Republic of Germany and also the delegate of the US for more detailed information on items included in Chapter 6, I would like with your permission to turn to Mr. Georgiadis, the Director, Administrative Services Division, who will supply the details.
A. G. GEORGIADIS (Director, Administrative Services Division): First to deal with the question raised by the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany which was a request for a breakdown of Chapter 6 common services.
Some breakdown is given on page 187 of the Programme of Work and Budget Doc. C 79/3 where the bottom part of the page analyses the figure of $12 607 000 under this Chapter, There will be seen on the last line $1 733 000 refers to expenditure in the regional offices. All the other figures relate to expenditure in headquarters. If a more detailed breakdown is requested this can be provided. I could give here several sub-headings of the main headings together with estimates if necessary, the most important of which is premises. This includes rents for buildings, maintenance of lifts, maintenance of heating and air conditioning plants, review of the whole electrical system particularly the wiring since these buildings at main headquarters are very old, roller-towel supplies and supplies for painters, electricians, plumbers and mechanics. A similar breakdown can be given for other main headings. But perhaps the total picture regarding this Chapter would become clearer after answers are provided to the questions raised by the delegate of the US, which included several points.
One was how much rent would be paid for Building G in 1979, The answer is US$596 619 that is just under $597 000. The second point of this question was how much rent are we going to pay for this same Building in 1980. The answer is approximately $330 000 because we are bound to keep Building G for 5 to 6 months of the year until we are certain that Building D is ready for occupation. The third part of the question
was a request for a breakdown of the real programme increases, that is a figure of $635 000 given at the top of Page 187. The breakdown is as follows: under Regional Offices $50 000, cost of moving to Building D $200 000, alterations to offices in the corridors leading from Building Β to Building D, to open out some corridors, and some have to be demolished, the small sum of $25 000, space rearrangement for the major move during the whole biennium, an estimate of $60 000, extra furniture and equipment for Building D since by occupying Building D we shall be taking over additional space of 3 000 square metres, we estimate $50 000, cost of re-decoration of the Red Room which is also planned for the next biennium, $250 000. All this should add up to a total of $635 000.
The last part of the question was why are we not saving more under rents since we shall be abandoning Building G soon. Such saving in rent for Building G for the complete biennium would amount to $1 200 000 depending on exchange rates which continue to fluctuate, since the rent is fixed in Italian lire. This saving unfortunately is being eaten up by additional expenditure in the next biennium, mainly under premises. To give some examples of this: first, as stated previously, we have to pay over now 6 months' rent for Building G and that would amount to $330 000. I should mention here that according to Italian rental laws an increase of about 10 percent would fall due at the beginning of January 1980. As a result of extra space to be occupied, estimated at 3 000 square metres, additional expenditure will be incurred for heating, electricity, water, cleaning and general maintenance including seven additional lifts in the new building, the total additional expenditure for which is estimated at $400 000 for the biennium. This will be recurring.
Another item of expenditure would be extra fittings and furnishings for which the host Government is not responsible therefore the Organization has to pay for them. I can give a long list, but the main ones are light fittings and fixtures expected to cost $125 000, additional telephone sets $50 000, bathroom fixtures, mainly mirrors, $50 000, and so on. There are other very desirable improvements which could be introduced during the biennium in the field of maintenance premises. I could enumerate some of these in order of priority - additional boilers and tanks for storage of oil for heating, stand-by compressor, the host Government is supplying one but in case of accident or blackout there would be a breakdown, $125 000 estimated, fire alarm and evacuation system, and so on. There again we have to proceed with caution because of inflation.
Such works as briefly described above will be undertaken if funds budgeted for them are not eroded by inflation in connection with other essential services. One example is the expected increase in rates for telephones and electricity announced about a week ago by the Government, and there is talk that these increases will be in the region of 20 percent. If we look at the cost increases estimated on page 187 of the Conference document, which amount to about 10 percent of the budget base, we should quickly realize that the budgetary provision under Chapter 6 is probably on the low side,
I trust this picture will have answered satisfactorily the questions raised by the delegates of the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States.
CHAIRMAN: We will hear Mr. West after lunch. Before we get round to lunch I would like to announce the composition of the drafting committee. The drafting committee for our Commission II will have Mr. Glistrup, Delegate from Denmark, as Chairman. From Africa the Delegate from Ivory Coast and Kenya will serve on the Committee. From Asia the Philippines and Sri Lanka. From Europe France and Bulgaria. Canada from North America. Sudan and Algeria from Near East. New Zealand from Oceania and Southwest
Pacific.We need two countries to serve from Latin America. Unfortunately we do not yet have the names. I would, therefore, like to request the representatives from Latin America to offer the services of two delegations to serve on the drafting committee because the drafting committee should start its work and we hope the Latin American representatives could be nominated in the afternoon so that the committee will be complete.
The meeting rose at 12. 45 hours
La Seance est levée à 12 h. 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 12. 45 horas
