II - ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMMES OF THE ORGANIZATION (continued)
II - ACTIVITES ET PROGRAMMES DE L’ORGANISATION (suite)
II - ACTIVIDADES Y PROGRAMAS DE LA ORGANIZACION (continuación)

- World Soil Charter
- Charte mondiale des sols
- Carta Mundial de los Suelos

H. OGUT (Turkey): The study undertaken by FAO entitled “Agriculture: Toward 2000” indicates that a total of 57.1 billion dollars needs to be invested in agriculture by the year 1990 in order to reach an annual growth rate of 4 percent in overall world food production. Considering the fact that developing countries have a substantial growth potential in agriculture, these countries require large investments to develop this potential. In implementing the investment programmes and projects the developing countries need to be supported internationally, not only to obtain financial resources, but also to develop a capacity for a rational use of the investment made, which requires acquiring appropriate technical knowledge. FAO’s continuing support will be essential in meeting countries’ requirements for such additional resources and assistance. With the addition of the supplementary activities aiming at providing these services the programme of investment will be further strengthened. In this respect my Government would like to convey its appreciation of the activities of the FAO Investment Centre in assisting governments in preparing investment projects.

At this juncture I would like to point out that the lack of institutional set-up at times affects adversely investments made. Our experience has taught us that any investment should be backed up by an institutional system which takes into account technical and economical potential of the country as well as the national strategies followed by the government. If such a condition is made yields from a given investment will be far more and be realized quicker than otherwise.

In the field of investment support Technical Cooperation Programme has also been very instrumental. TCP is one of the initiatives of the Director-General that we fully support since its inception. Technical Cooperation Programme is a unique one since it fulfills a very important function in providing a quick and effective response to the requests for not only investments but also urgent small-scale assistance. With its successful operation in the past TCP has taken a very crucial place in overall FAO programmes.

In parallel to the increasing demand for these services, while the proposed increase in the allocations to these programmes is welcome,we would appreciate if the amount allocated to the European region is increased considering the very high agricultural potential of the developing members of the European region, such as Turkey.

We would also like briefly to mention our support to FAO’s decentralization programme. Later today we shall in effect sign an agreement with the Director-General for the establishment of an FAO office in Turkey.

Could I also reiterate my government’s support for the budget increase for the biennium 1982-83, which in our view is very relevant to the resolution approved by the European Parliament on 30th September 1981 concerning the appeal of Nobel Prize winners as presented in document CL 79/INF/10.

M. TRKULYA (Yugoslavia): My delegation was a bit reluctant to take part in this debate on Chapter 3-7, not necessarily because of Friday the 13th, but essentially because we felt that our views were fairly widely known and indeed, we had a brief opportunity to voice our full support for Chapters 3-7 and especially.Chapters 3 and 4, so on 3 and 4 I will be very brief indeed.

While we fully support the increase proposed for the Field Programme Planning on this one and we are even afraid that the increase proposed would not be adequate to meet the increased work load for the seed for the bext biennium. We are aware, first of all, of an increasing number of institutions that should be served in the planning work by the DDF but also by the increased demand on FAO coming from various parts of the UN system.

I could not exaggerate enough the importance of investment and no question but that we fully support the investment programme, including all three sub-programmes and especially cooperative programmes and support services.

Especially after a thorough review of investment activities of FAO, not necessarily under Chapter 3, but all investment activities two years ago by the Programme Committee, and after we have really become fully aware of the high standard of efficiency in investment work of FAO we simply want to reiterate our full support.

On representatives, a number of times we have stated our own misgivings when a scheme was initiated but after a while we have become aware that it was really an essential avenue of the whole decentralization process, so we feel that the scheme should be stabilized with the increase proposed now at the end of the next biennium, and we do not think that any delay would be justified.

The TCP, I would only again reiterate our support, as well as our support with regard to all other programmes in Chapters 3-7.

Many very interesting questions have emerged in our debate and especially one question has again been resurrected, one that we thought was resolved two years ago in this very room at least for some time. You certainly recall that we discussed thoroughly in this same Commission the evaluation structure of FAO. We recognize fully, not necessarily only my delegation but I think it was a prevailing overwhelming feeling in this Commission that internally, as well as governmental structure, all the overall evaluation was fully adequate. We realize on the governmental side, first of all standing committees of the Council, Financial Committee, COAG, COFI, the Fertilizer Commission and many other bodies, then the Council itself and the Conference, on the basis of so many bases, but basically on the performance reports that are always reported to the Conference. Then there is, of course, an input from the UN/JIU reports, sometimes very frequent, sometimes we are not happy with the bulky document, many, many generalities, which are customary to JIU reports as we still feel that reports of Joint Inspection Units are essential. They provide studies, reviews, or even evaluations of many common activities in the UN system and especially those activities that cut across the board. So we then compare FAO with the rest of the UN system. And I cannot remember, in the last 5-6 years, any JIU report which has not shown quite clearly that the FAO is comparing quite favourably in many essential respects. Then a small evaluation unit, it is very small but staffed with really able people, then we realize evaluation overall and the central key element in the whole process. We realize again that two thirds of all resources on experts in Headquarters were spent on experts that are invited individually or as a panel to advice FAO or various units of FAO on the Programme of Work and which inevitably, of course, include evaluation of the present programme as well as the work done in the past, and the last branch, if I may say so, is independent outside evaluation. Perhaps it came wrongly to me through the channel but I heard that somebody spoke about external authorities that should evaluate. I am not aware of any outside authority that would be welcome to evaluate FAO but we speak simply I think in terms of external evaluators, and we recognized last time I think that such reports, such evaluations should be purely internal and if necessary only that the excess should be given to the members of some of the standing committees of the Council because otherwise such reports would be purely useless.

One issue was also raised, the TCP evaluation, and I think reference was made to the decision of the Council that TCP should be evaluated in the first five years of operation. To my knowledge TCP was already evaluated in the way it was suggested from the floor this morning, even before the first two years of operations. The famous Lenner Report, which was also studied in the Programme Committee of FAO, and it was 100 percent positive, I would say. Of course, TCP was a matter of all governmental bodies of FAO and especially it was a matter that was studied in the Programme Committee on almost every · occasion. May I also inform this body that the Programme Committee for example reviewed investment needs 2 years ago and, as I have indicated, found the work of FAO in that field highly-efficient.

A year ago the Programme Committee again reviewed training activities in FAO. Then we have reviewed the TCP on many occasions. A year ago at our last session we specially reviewed the FAO Representative Scheme and anyone who is interested can find references in our report of the last session on page 12. The Programme Committee decided -- and I think the Director-General was in full accord -- to review research support of FAO in 1982.

What I have said is simply to indicate again our position, that we feel that the evaluation scheme as it has evolved over years now is adequate and we really do not see any necessity for a separate, especially outside, evaluation of the basic issues that we have considered under Chapters 3 to 7.

A. KAMOUN (Tunisie) (langue originale arabe): Je voudrais, dans la présente intervention, faire quelques observations et commentaires sur le programme 3.2, 3.4.

Je commence par le premier point. En effet, les difficultés qu’il y a à se procurer les moyens financiers nécessaires, dans la situation économique actuelle, préoccupe la délégation de mon pays. Cette situation revêt d’autant plus de gravite que les besoins en investissements des pays en développement, notamment dans le domaine agricole, augmentent de qour en jour. Ceci n’est un secret pour personne. Dans ce domaine nous approuvons le programme proposé et nous espérons que le centre d’investissement accélerera et augmentera ses travaux pour renforcer la capacite des pays à recevoir les investissements et à former des cadres pour contrôler et exécuter ces investissements, et les gérer efficacement.

Je voudrais ici rendre hommage aux relations très étroites qui existent entre le centre des investissements et le Fonds international de developpement agricole et nous espérons que ces relations continueront à se renforcer au service des objectifs poursuivis. Ceci en ce qui concerne le point 3.2.

En ce qui concerne le programme 3.4, celui-ci a soulevé certaines réserves. Mais je voudrais faire remarquer que la FAO a atteint une certaine importance sur le plan international, et nous avons pu voir que ses programmes se sont varies pour couvrir toutes les régions du monde. II serait done raisonnable qu’elle ait des représentants dans les pays membres qui bénéficient de ses services. Ces représentants pourront ainsi suivre, et contróler l’execution des programmes mis au point, ce qui renforcera les relations de l’Organisation avec les pays membres. Le nombre des représentants dans les pays s’est d’ailleurs développé conformément aux principes dégagés et à la méthode raise au point depuis quelques années. Quant à la nécessité de procéder à un travail d’évaluation, nous estimons qu’il s’agit là d’une operation tout à fait naturelle, étant donné le nombre des pays membres désireux de recevoir un representánt de la FAO. L’importance qu’accordent ces pays a ce sujet, et les aides qu’ils fournissent pour que ceci se concrétise reflètent les espoirs qu’ils attachent à l’aide qu’ils voudraient recevoir de l’Organisation, et également au renforcemєnt de leurs relations avec l’Organisation, en vue d’une plus grande cohésion et d’une plus grande coordination.

Je voudrais dire quelques mots sur le Programme de coopération technique. Il s’agit d’un élément essentiel de l’activité de notre organisation. En effet, depuis 1974, la nécessité de dìversifier les sources de revenue a été reconnue et de là est ne le FIDA. Malgré cela, l’Organisation a estimé qu’il était essentiel qu’il y ait un programme de cooperation technique. Mais, depuis que ce programme est lance, a-t-il fait double emploi avec le programme du FIDA? On peut se poser la question. Ce programme a-t-il donné des réactions négatives de la part des pays membres qui en bénéficient? Je crois que la réponse à ces deux questions détermine la position de mon pays vis-à-vis de ce sujet.

En vérité le Programme de coopération technique ne contredit nullement les autres programmes entrepris par la famille des Nations Unies, car les projets qui sont prévus dans ce cadre ont trois caractéristiques essentielles: d’abord ce sont des projets sûrs, ils sont pratiques, et ils sont limités et spécifiques. Par conséquent ces programmes répondent aux besoins des pays qui en bénéficient, et sont conformes à leur vision et à leurs plans.

Malgré l’importante augmentation du budget proposé, un simple calcul montrerait que la part qui revient à chaque pays de ce budget serait en fait très limitée.

Je voudrais enfin ne pas manquer de dire que les pays du continent africain ont largement profité du Programme de coopération technique. Par conséquent mon pays, en tant que pays du continent africain jeune, estime que ce programme est l’un des programmes essentiels et nous appelons à ce qu’il soit renforcé.

S.A. ADETUNJI (Nigeria): As a follow-up to the expression of the leader of my delegation I would like to state that we suppose the programmes on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, as well as the programmes on the support services, e.g. the FAO Representative Programme, the Technical Cooperation Programmes, Training, etc. We have found the role of the Country and Regional Representatives very useful as they are easily contacted. The Field and liaison Programmes have been found very useful in preparing programmes for development assistance. For example, the

Nigerian delegation called on the FAO to assess the importance of the diseases of caesaur that has reduced the yield of the crop by about 40 percent in Nigeria and is doing a lot of damage in other countries in the tropics, and probably come up with such programmes that will combat this disease. The field offices have been found very useful in identifying, programming, monitoring and reviewing programmes under the Technical Assistance Programmes. Based on the useful experience of the field programmes we feel that support should be given to these support services.

One cannot but just make some remarks on Programme 3.3.1, Freedom from Hunger Campaign/Action for Development. We feel that this programme should be well developed to make the impact that is required. This programme has created awareness in the use of agricultural imports in the past.

Programme 3.4, FAO Representatives - we support this programme because of the important role ot liaison, collaboration and the assistance that these Representatives provide in implementing, monitoring and report on FAO projects financed from various sources.

My delegation supports the Technical Cooperation Programme and we feel that the level of funding should be improved.

On Information and Documentation, we are in the AGRIS system. We have found this useful and we feel that this programme should be improved and that FAO should assist developing countries in the development of their documentation and information dissemination facilities which are important for technical transfer.

One is tempted to make some remarks on the need to increase assistance towards the development and strengthening of National Agricultural Research System in the developing countries. Without adequate research backing some of the proposals to develop agricultural production will be meaningless. We would like to see improvement in the collaborative activities of the International and National Research Institutions and the strengthening of the activities of these National Agricultural Research Institutions to improve their effectiveness. One is delighted to see such programmes, like Research Management, Workshops (in the earlier Chapters) in 1982-1983. Other areas of need will be production of a soil map for the different countries. Such programmes as these can be termed supportive, and such supportive services we hope will be developed. As long as there is a need for programmes to meet the development needs of the developing countries to meet their food requirements, the programmes of the Director-General may even have to be expanded to achieve a meaningful result. It is in this light that my delegation give full support to all the programmes in Chapters 3 to 7.

G. IJIGU (Ethiopia): With regard to TCP and FAO Representative Offices, the position of Socialist Ethiopia for the record is as follows.

It is through the services of the TCP that we envisage achieving what is listed by the Director-General in Document C 81/3, page 163, paragraph 4, sub-paragraphs (a) to (d), with paramount emphasis on sub-paragraphs (a) and (b). Training is one of those critical areas in which a developing country, including my own, will have to make a breakthrough with perseverence.

As to FAO Representative Offices, we hold the view that FAO Country Representatives are there to deal with national problems on the spot, helping to bridge the gap that used to exist between problems at the national level and the efforts made at both FAO Regional Offices and Headquarters levels to help in solving those problems.

Similarly, FAO Regional Officers have the vital function of dealing with problems that cannot be dealt with at the country level and consequently must be dealt with at the regional level and even that at Headquarters. Thus, we see clearly the division of labour and dissimilarity of functions that exist between the said offices.

Since we are pressed for time I shall wind up by adding a few points about statements that my delegation had to listen to this morning with much concern. The central idea contained in those statements ran to the effect that what FAO Representative Officers are doing may be regarded as duplication of efforts in relation to the activities of UNDP. We strongly recommend to this august Commission that FAO and its sub-agencies and UNDP must be left alone to discharge their respective responsibilities as basic organs of the UN, and that to try to dislodge vital components of FAO cannot be healthy. In any case, consistent with what my Minister stated in the Plenary earlier on, we support fully the Director-Generalfs Programme of Work and Budget including his provisions in favour of TCP and the FAO Representatives.

On the other hand, we categorically reject all attempts, covert or overt, at destabilizing FAO’s various efforts which favour technical cooperation which alone can help developing countries, especially Africa, realize those elements which cater for development.

J. PILANE (Botswana): First I would like to correct the statement I made yesterday, and that concerns Sub-programme 5.1.5.3. I was talking about shifting of resources from rural support services and employment, 5.1.5.3 to 5.1.5.1.1. I think there was a mistake there.

On this particular issue I do not have anything new to add to what many delegates have said here. In particular, my delegation supports the statement made in paragraph 5, page 155, namely that more emphasis in terms of available staff resources will be placed on those activities which support the Organizations policy priorities such as TCP, decentralization to the country level, mobilization of extra-budgetary resources for agricultural development and food production, promotion of TCDC and use of national institutions and other local capacities and inputs, increased attention to LDC and MSA countries and the development needs of the African region.

My delegation feels that the TCP fills a necessary need. The short-term urgent needs and emergencies that are in most cases unforeseen are filled by this programme. I would therefore lend my support to the Programme, the FAO Representatives who have been referred to above. Many delegations that do benefit from the presence of these Representatives have a day or so ago expressed their support in favour, because they do benefit from their services. By so saying, I am not saying that delegates that have no direct experience with those Representatives should not give an opinion, but in the opinion of this delegation, it seems most of their concerns that have been raised against the FAO Representatives have been a bit on the theoretical side. We do not have evidence so far of any inadequacies or any duplications that the FAO Representatives are causing. This is not to say there may not be in future duplication. I think that is something that can be revealed by evaluations in future, and we may indeed have a valid case, or at least those who are against the Representatives might have an opportunity in future when evaluation missions have been carried on. For the present, my delegation cannot but support the decentralization at the country level.

Botswana’s support also goes to the work carried on by the Investment Centre. We think the Centre is doing a good job. We have ourselves benefited from the services of this Centre in the evaluation or appraisal of one of our programmes which might be financed by IFAD. Still on that, under the Investment Programme, Support Programme, there is a section - I think it is paragraph 15 - that talks in support of national banking institutions. My delegation supports that idea. We ourselves feel a need for strengthening our national banking institution. In particular, we have a bank for cooperatives that has been established, and it is in need of qualified staff, it is in need of funds, and I feel not necessarily that we might benefit directly from this programme, but that if we do not do so, other countries will be in a position to do so.

The non-governmental organizations in Botswana play a very vital role in the economic development of our country. Women’s organizations and other organizations have undertaken projects that are in the forefront of our economic development. My delegation, therefore, approves the support given to the Freedom From Hunger Campaign, Action for Development.

CHAIRMAN: I hope I am not losing my impartiality as Chairman of the Commission. I thank the delegate of Botswana particularly for the very deserved praise of the Investment Centre.

B.E. PHIRI (Zambia): We have heard various views on these remaining chapters, particularly the Investment Centre, the Information Section, the Regional Offices, and we wish to start by saying we support the Programme as put before us, but we wish to make one or two comments in announcing our support.

What surprises us is that we often talk in terms of the budget being too high, the programme being too big, but we do not say why the budget is high or why the programme is expanding. We are being told that the increase of, say, 8 percent or 10 percent or 15 percent is too big an increase in the budget, but so far we have not heard anybody who has questioned why there has been this increase, why it has become necessary that the programme should expand, so we feel that those who wish the programme to remain small and therefore the budget to remain small should go to the root of the problem instead of just clipping the top of the problem, and the root is the developing countries.

It is wrong in our opinion that we should be quarrelling with the Secretariat about the size of the Programme and the size of the budget, because these things are drawn up in accordance with the requests which come from developing countries, and we from the developing countries think that the Secretariat is doing a good job because it is responding to our requests. But for those who feel this should not be so, they should then go to developing countries like Zambia, Zimbabwe, and say, “Look, you can’t put this request to FAO. We think this is not the sort of thing you should put to FAO, because either you can do it yourself or it is not the type of project that FAO should be engaged in.” That way, FAO would not put such an activity in the Programme and therefore would not be asking for funds to carry out that particular function, but as long as developing countries put requests to FAO, to the Secretariat, and the Secretariat responds to those requests, then it means the Programme will either expand or dwindle, retract in response to those requests, and that is why my delegation feels that at this point in time, it is not opportune that we quarrel with the Secretariat as to why they put in this, why they put in that.

Now, talking about the issue of Regional Offices, they are suggesting that the Regional Offices should be evaluated. To start with, we are asking the FAO, we are asking the Secretariat to undertake yet another activity, and this activity in itself will mean that the Secretariat must ask for funds for it to go and evaluate it, but apart from that, most of what the Regional Offices are doing is already known, as the Regional Offices have been in existence for some time now. This question of asking for evaluation is a deliberate sidestepping of what people want to say. It is clear that the components of this evaluation actually do not want the regional offices to exist. We find, ourselves, as of now, that the regional offices have a role which cannot be filled by the Country Representatives. Take regional Africa - there are so many regional organizations with the intention of producing rice or controlling locusts, they are there, and these activities are being coordinated by the regional offices and not by the Country Representative.

The Country Representative plays a major role within the country in which he or she is accredited or based, but they are activities which go beyond the bounds of the various countries. Many different countries are affected, and these activities are coordinated through the regional office. In Africa it is coordinated from Accra.

Until a substitute is found we, like all the others, show we support the regional offices and we support decentralisation through the country representatives of FAO.

I do not want to comment much on the various chapters such as TCP. What TCP does is something that we all undertand, we know what it is, and to repeat it here will not help us to answer the regional needs that arise.

Has FAO put too much money in that project? That seems to be the problem. What these chapters are intended to do we all know, but we say that because FAO or the Secretariat has been preparing the programme in accordance with the requests it receives from the Member states. We support the levels. In fact, we have said in the past that we consider these levels to be minimal because in spite of the amount of money put in all the various chapters a lot of needs will go unsatisfied, and we shall continue to look here and there to see whether we can possibly satisfy our needs.

With those few words I wish to support the rest of the chapters which we did not discuss yesterday, and I wish to end on the note that yesterday a suggestion was made by Mexico that we should have a germ plasm bank. When we look at a suggestion like that it imposes responsibilities on FAO. Here is a Member Country asking for that and we are supporting it, the suggestion of Mexico, but here is something which again we are imposing on the Secretariat to undertake, and it means the Secretariat must find somewhere to carry out this important function.

So we come back to people who have a quarrel with the budget level, that if you think certain activities need not be undertaken by FAO, then let us speak along those lines. “FAO should not undertake this, FAO should not undertake that” - and in that way you can restrict the expansion of the programme. You can also restrict the increase on the budget but just to come and say you agree with the budget or you cut off that arm of the organisation, we do not think this is the correct way of looking at it. We are looking at the needs. We are looking at the requests of the developing countries which go to the Secretariat, and that is the need.

M.A. MANSOOR (People’s Democratic Republic of Yemen) (original language Arabic): This is the first time I am addressing the Commission, as my delegation did not speak yesterday. We, therefore, would like to congratulate you and the two Vice-Chairmen on your election. We 1 would’, now like to state our support for everything said in Chapters 1 and 2, particularly on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

The proposed increase of the level of the budget is minimal in size if you consider the vast services provided by the Organization to the peoples of Asia, Latin America and Africa. We feel that a balance between the activities of the Organization and the level of the budget, does exist, and my delegation throws its entire support behind the contents of the programme prepared by the Director-General and the Secretariat of the Organization to enable the latter to fulfil its mission.

G. SILOU (Congo): Ma délégation ne veut pas revenir sur ce qui a été dit par les honorables délégués qui ont pris la parole ici depuis ce matin. Nous intervenons simplement pour appuyer fermement le Programme de travail et budget préparé par le Directeur général.

S’agissant du Programme de coopération technique, nous le soutenons dans son ensemble, car nous estimons que c!est un programme important et efficace pour nos pays. Ce programme doit être renforcé, et cela se justifie dans la mesure où les besoins de nos pays s’accroissent et posent des problèmes parfois insurmontables dans le processus de notre développement.

En ce qui concerne le problème de la représentation, nous pensons que cette expérience est positive et devrait se poursuivre, car la représentation apparaît comme le cordon ombilical qui unit nos pays à la FAO. Il faudrait que les moyens mis à la disposition des répresentations soient augmentés et développés dans les années qui viennent.

F.D.J. GAZZO (Peru): Al haber estado recargadas mis labores como Asistente del Señor Ministro de Agricultura de Perú, en las reuniones de la Plenaria, es la primera vez que asisto a esta Comisión. Por consiguiente, aunque fuera de tiempo, quiero saludar y felicitar al Presidente de la misma por su brillante desempeño en ella.

Hemos estudiado atentamente el documento y puedo decir que la posición de mi Gobierno es la siguiente; respaldamos plenamente el contenido del mismo en sus aspectos de planificación y enlace de los programas de campo e inversiones, de programas especiales y del representante de la FAO.

Mi país ha recibido ya los beneficios de estos programas a través de la ayuda sustancial para la programación de las acciones que se requieren y que han servìdo para incrementar el desarrollo de nuestro sector agropecuario. El último año ha llegado a la cifra de 11,4 inusual en la vida de ia República.

Hemos trabajado en conjunto con la misión enviada por el TCP que viajó al Perú en abril de 1981. En ese entonces, yo desempeñaba la Dirección Ejecutiva del Instituto Nacional de Promoción Agraria. El trabajo nos llevó a evaluar los proyectos y a tener los docшnentos listos para la obtención de los fondos necesarios. Es conveniente mencionar además, que permanentemente se ha hecho un seguimiento de los proyectos que teníamos en ejecución, no sólo de aquéllos provenientes de fondos multilaterales sino aun de aquéllos provenientes de programas bilaterales.

Quiero recalcar que este sistema de trabajo no sólo nos ha permitido evaluar los programas en marcha sino, en algunos casos, hacer las enmiendas o cambios necesarios de acuerdo a las nuevas circunstancias y requerimientos del país. Me refiero en forma muy especial, a los proyectos de fertilizantes, al importante proyecto de comunicación, en apoyo al desarrollo, sin el cual todos los otros proyectos pueden tener mucho éxito pero si no hay una transferencia de tecnología en el idioma del analfabeto, en el idioma del subdesarrollado, se puede fracasar aun teniendo los otros proyectos muy eficientemente desarrollados.

Los proyectos forestales y aquéllos de adiestramiento, principalmente en los problemas relacionados con semillas, han tenido un éxito muy significativo. El hecho de que por el corto tiempo, no pueda mencionar otros proyectos específicos, no le quita en nada la importancia que tienen para mi país los mismos. Sugerimos que la FAO tenga en cuenta que este tipo de actividades son aquéllas que benefician en forma inmediata a los usuarios de la ayuda, que somos nosotros.

En relación con los representantes permanentes de la FAO, mi país es partidario de la presencia de ellos, puesto que el Peru ha vivido durante muchos años sin un representante permanente, y hemos sufrido las inconveniencias de ello. El tener un representante permanente es fundamental para la ejecución de los programas así como para la coordinación directa con las entidades nacional·es y/o foráneas que se desenvuelven dentro del país. El contar con el representante permanente es pues muy importante porque nos permite obviar las innecesarias intermediaciones que sólo producen atraso y pêrdida de tiempo. El representante permanente debe contar con una delegación de autoridad por parte del Director General, que le permita actuar con oportunidad y firmeza en la ejecución de los programas y en los cambios de emergencia que deban éstos sufrir. El lo hara con mejor conocimiento de causa porque reside en el lugar del acontecimiento, que lo que podia hacer el que recibe por correspondencia las observa-ciones respectivas. Tenemos entendido que contar con un representante permanente residente en el país, es directamente ya una descentralización, de la cual los beneficiarios somos los países receptivos de la ayuda.

Por consiguiente, el Perú está plenamente de acuerdo con las propuestas que ha hecho el Sr. Director General sobre el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1982-83. Perú además se adhiere, y es un viejo soñador del Banco de Germoplasma bajo FAO. Tengo entendido que ha tenido malas interpretaciones de esta idea; no es que el Banco de Germoplasma en FAO sea en lugar de, sino es además de; y porque los países en desarrollo somos la fuente del material germoplásmico básico para el desarrollo de variedades, pensamos que debe ser una entidad estrictamente neutral, en la que el material ingresado tiene las nacionalidades de todo el mundo, y no como sucede ahora, en algunos Bancos de germoplasma, que el material toma una nacionalidad lo cual es iαconveniente con los postulados de la FAO.

T. PEÑA (Philippines): Although this is our first intervention, in response to your request, Mr. Chairman, and taking into consideration the present status of our debate, the Philippine delegation will combine its congratulations to you and our general comments as well as our observations on Chapters 1 to 7. Also, we shall try to be very brief.

At the Plenary Session we had the opportunity to express our support for the Director-Generalτs Programme of Work and Budget. May I reiterate that stand here. We have listened with careful attention to the constructive comments and suggestions of various delegations here and we note with special attention the calm, reasoned appeal of the Canadian delegate that our meetings here should not deteriorate into the dialogue of the deaf. We do appreciate the concern that underpins this request. We assure our Canadian colleague and other affluent friends that the Philippine delegation - and I am sure all other delegations here - seek with equal fervour a reasoned dialogue. The careful answer given by various members of the Secretariat as well as responses by delegates from developing countries attest to this desire. After all, if we cannot discuss rationally so basic an issue as food, then we deserve to be blown up with - to use a figure of speech from the Director-General - the world of the underfed. But I do appeal to our rich friends here to understand equally the urgency of our needs. What fuels this sense of urgency is the gap between who are poor in your countries and those who are poor in ours.

The 1981 World Development Report of the IBRD, for instance, points out that in a thirty-year period, between 1950 and 1980, increase in per capita income in the poor countries averaged only $80, while it was $6,500 in the more fortunate industrialized nations. So please bear with our concerns that arise from a flawed international economic order.

The Philippines also wish to associate itself with the perceptive comments made by Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Thailand and Sri Lanka on the necessity of support of the budget level, the usefulness of the Technical Cooperation Programme and the cost-effective services that are provided to us by the FAO Regional Officer out of Bangkok.

Turning to Chapter 1 of the Programme of Work and Budget, my delegation is in general agreement with the Director-General’s proposal for general policy and direction. On Chapter 2, many delegations have noted that this constitutes the backbone of FAO’s work with other countries. The Philippines welcomes the stress on the sub-programme 2.1.1.2 on further refinement of small farmers’ development strategies.

I would like to note that the small farmers constitute the overriding priority for Asia and the Pacific, as mandated by the 13th, 14th, and 15th FAO Regional Conferences in Manila, Kuala Lumpur and New Delhi. On this point we would merely stress that our experience in Asia shows that even more important than developing delivery systems of services to small farmers is FAO’s and other assistance that can enable them to receive and use available services more effectively.

You will also note that the 26 countries in Asia and in the Pacific have, in collaboration with the Regional Office, developed a consensus on priorities for the work that is, location-specific, namely: 1. expansion of field action programmes for raising productivity and income of vulnerable groups; 2. increased food production with emphasis on rainfed and semi-arid agriculture; 3. food security and prevention of post-harvest losses; and, 4. promotion of integrated farming systems. The Philippines welcomes the increasing attention paid by this Commission to the problems of rural energy, especially in agriculture. The delegate of the Netherlands underscored this priority very well. FAO’s plan to update its report on the state of natural resources and human environment for food and agriculture, with specific reference to Asia and the Pacific, is also appreciated.

The Philippines participates in and appreciates the Director-General’s prevention of post-harvest losses problems. We have in fact just signed with FAO two projects on rice parboiling and grain standards. We appreciate the assistance that has been given along this line and welcome the indication by developed countries that they can see their way clear to continued support, if I read the statement of Australia and Denmark correctly.

On research, my delegation appreciates the Austrian Government’s generous offer of assistance in the handling of sophisticated research methods, including nuclear techniques. The Philippines will be interested in such techniques but at the same time we wish to urge FAO to give overriding priority to help Member Nations to develop the capacity for planning and managing adaptive research that values indigenous technology as it draws on sophisticated research available in the developed countries and translates them quickly into field level practices, with special stress on rainfed areas.

Agrarian reform constitutes a keystone in the policy framework of the government of President Marcos. The Philippines, therefore, supports the Director-General’s proposals to speed follow-up action at country level of WCARRD and notes with appreciation that countries such as Sweden and China have contributed to that vital work. The FAO Regional Office has already completed a follow-up mission under WCARRD and we wish to congratulate Sri Lanka for receiving the mission.

Degradation of forest resources in several countries of tropical Asia has reached an unacceptable level in the recent past. The Philippines is no exception: some 225 000 hectares are being cut away every year; shifting cultivation is being given topmost priority by my government. The need of the hour is to ensure increased people’s participation in raising the crops at the community level. Agro-forestry and energy plantations deserve the utmost priority to ensure that the benefits of our forest accrue to the communities that own them.

The Philippines is already receiving assistance from the Director-General on multiple-use forestry, and we support the forestry programme and endorse its focus which is rightly on integrating forestry with rural development, that is to say, on people.

During yesterday’s discussion, the question of overlapping jurisdiction of FAO and UNIDO in the area of forest industries arose. We strongly support the view that primary forest industries should continue to be dealt with by our Forest Department, since its approach is a valid synthesis and integration of conservation, development and utilization aspects of forest resources with people as protagonists, participants and beneficiaries.

We have listened with careful attention to the view of the United States, Japan the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany and other major donors with whom the Philippines has excellent relations and whose record of substantial and positive contribution to the food problem is well known. With all due respect, may I observe that all the statements delivered do not question the value of multilateral assistance. The reason for this type of assistance remains valid as they were in the days when they were presented in this very room by the same delegation only a few years ago.

I am reminded of the story of a distinguished agriculturist who revisited his school after many years absence. His professor showed him around, including even the latest examination papers. Upon examining the examination papers, he protested, saying: But these are the same questions that I answered 40 years ago. And the professor replied: Ah, yes, but the answers have changed.

CO. KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): En el contexto de los temas que están a nuestra consideración, Capítulos 3 al 7, deseo limitar mis comentarios sólo al número 4: Programa de Cooperación Técnica.

En numerosas ocasiones hemos tenido la oportunidad de referirnos a este importante instrumento de asistencia que, a nuestro juicio, merece ser señalado como uno de los mas eficientes de la Organización, no sólo por su capacidad para enfrentar situaciones específicas de urgencia que requieren una acción inmediata en un determinado sector, sino por la variedad, la amplitud que abarca al cubrir las posibilidades de enfrentar situaciones imprevistas, dificultades de sistematizar a veces en el contexto de planes de asistencia determinadas.

Hay un amplio número de países en desarrollo, países miembros de la FAO, que no pertenecen a la categoría de los mas seriamente afectados y por razones de prioridad, debido a los recursos limitados con que cuenta la Organización, no tienen acceso a programas de asistencia y recursos por parte de estos organismos. Sin embargo, estos países tienen urgentes y crecientes necesidades, si bien a veces no tan dramâticas como otros, pero que pueden actuar como efecto multiplicador de enorme importancia de la persecución del desarrollo económico y con ello procurar beneficios a otros países de menor desarrollo relativo.

En este contexto, el Programa de Cooperación Técnica cumple una importante función y en muchos casos se trata de un único Programa o tipo de asistencia al que tienen acceso un importante número de países también merecedores de ayuda.

Por estas razones, estimamos, Sr. Presidente, muy importante el Programa de Cooperación Técnica de la FAO y abrigamos la esperanza de que en el futuro pueda consolidarse y ampliarse para beneficio de to-dos los países miembros.

A. AZEEZ (Maldives): The delegation from Maldives did not intend to speak on this item as we have earlier indicated our support for the Director-General’s proposals in this field. However we heard with respectful attention the comments of the delegate from Switzerland on TCP and his appeal for information that, in his words, “would enable his delegation to swallow as painlessly as possible the TCP proposals for the forthcoming biennium”. May ï therefore cite the experience of the Maldives in coping with the outbreak of a dangerous disease in our coconut areas, as well as in breadfruits this year. If we had gone through the usual channels, the traditional UN system as, for example, set out in UNDP manuals, the plants would have been long devastated before we got even the first draft of a document scrutinized. In this case we chose to ask for TCP assistance from the country office and I am pleased to inform you that the assistance came promptly and it was very useful.

We can fully understand the concern of some of the countries who must deal with multi-million packages but when seen from our perspective, what we need is prompt modest assistance. We think help given promptly is help doubled. For this reason my delegation wishes to reiterate its support for the TCP programme as well as for the decentralization programme that will see enhanced country offices and-reinforce regional offices.

M.M. MUKOLWE (Kenya): I would just like to make one point on regional offices. It is our view from Kenya that the regional offices are playing their part and they should be given the due credit as they are helping people, particularly in developing countries, and in this respect we would oppose vehemently the question of evaluation and probable scaling down or underplaying the importance of the regional offices.

H. MENDS (Ghana): My Head of Delegation in his address to the Plenary three days ago fully supported the Programme of Work and Budget presented by the Director-General. This has really made it easy for me to intervene on this item, for I can only re-echo the support my Minister has voiced already.

We have heard in the course of the debate on this item and learnt with considerable interest that FAO should not duplicate the efforts of the other specialized agencies of the UN, such as the UNDP, ILO, Unesco, and what have you, in the field. For this reason it has been advocated that a reduction in the number of FAO Country Representatives be reflected in the Programme. This advocacy no doubt assumes that the UNDP or another similar organization already in the field should hand over responsibilities of the FAO Country Representatives, but apart from institutional loyalties and expertise my delegation

is not convinced that the job FAO carries out and proposes to perform in the programmes we are reviewing can meaningfully and effectively be performed and monitored by any other organization, apart from the FAO.

My country was lucky enough to have a Country Representative for the past two years and I am pleased to acknowledge the important and usful service he rendered. Unfortunately the decision of the Council has swept him away from the country and as can be seen from the verbatim records again my Minister was quite insistent in asking the Director-General at least to send in a professional man to assist the Regional Deputy Representative. This really goes to show that if anything at all the programme at FAO working through the field or countries at country level, through their representative, should be strengthened, because this is the only meaningful link the FAO has between its organizations and Headquarters here and the governments and I would re-echo strongly the support of my Minister for the strengthening of the FAO Representatives and the Programme of Work and Budget of the Organization.

M. PHOOFOLO (Lesotho): Most of the important items have been dealt with and they have been presented in very elaborate words which actually indicates their importance to developing countries, as well as to donor countries. I will confine myself to the question of regional and country representatives of FAO.

The concern of some of the major donors that their investments in FAO should have an impact on poor people in recipient countries and that such investments should not be made in duplication if possible may not be without basis. However my delegation submits that the efficient implementation of decentralization via the establishment of regional and country FAO offices which we greatly admire is an assurance that through monitoring evaluation and programme review of FAO projects will get closer to where the core of the problem lies. That is among the rural poor in the developing countries.

There exists an incorrect kind of cult of the individual in which there is no analysis but simply blind obedience and acceptance. This is definitely wrong. Our delegation has throughly examined and analysed the pros and cons of FAO Regional and Country offices. My delegation supports the creation of FAO regional offices and Country Representatives fully. For FAO, as for every other international organization, the central problem which exceeds all the others is that of combining effective leadership with meaningful participation in order to achieve a radical improvement of the living standards of the clientele themselves and to solidify cooperation among them. We feel that it is good for FAO to trust member states and involve them actively in shaping their own fate. In the long run this approach will be responsible for the great creative upsurge of new ideas capable of universal application in world agriculture.

It would seem that the primary purpose of decentralization through FAO Regional and Country Representatives is to permit the flow of coordinated information from the grass roots without which FAO Headquarters in Rome will lack the raw materials out of which correct decisions, programmes, policies and guidelines will be made. My delegation believes that if member states are consulted by means of these offices they will subsequently be in the right frame of mind to work to assert FAO policies, objectives and guidelines whilst they are elaborated and they will work devotedly towards the implementation.

As an international family we need to bring about a cooperative climate which has both centralization and decentralization, freedom and unity of purpose and ease<of mind for all member states, a climate which allows inter-action interrelation and forged linkages between countries and FAO.

S.P. MUKHERJEE (India): I would like to make a general observation in a spirit of suggestion for further improvement but that should not be interpreted as being a critic of FAO’s programme of work which is very laudable.

Yesterday I suggested that for serving the developing countries FAO willy nilly will have to think in terms of. building up a cadre of its own officers who will be experts not only in the various disciplines on agriculture but also, what is more important, experts in transferring their skill and technology to the developing nations and developing countries. I feel that the transference of technology is as much a skill as the technology itself, and perhaps a more difficult skill. It is not everybodyfs cup of tea to be able to transfer the technology to a community of people who are completely strange to that level of technology. In that context I would suggest for the consideration of FAO that we should give as much emphasis to running a project for demonstration purposes in a pilot scheme in the developing countries in various sectors where the farmers will have to be trained. My feeling is that the eye is more powerful in influencing the heart than the ear. What you hear may not be as durable in effect as what the farmer actually sees happening on his field. I may be wrong but I have a feeling that perhaps most of our

programmes when we talk in terms of assisting developing countries have been in terms of training courses, workshops, seminars, study tours, meetings, consultations, publications, technical get-together, and so on, which are very important. I accept, but they are not adequate in dealing with the farmers in the field. I would like to emphasize that the farmer in the field, the cattle owner in the field, in these developing countries should be placed at the centre of the stage in the FAO programme. I would be very grateful to be assured that FAO is doing something in this direction. Instead of having these training courses, workshops, study tours, meetings and what have you, I suggest that these programmes should be supplemented in a very meaningful and imaginative way by sending spearhead teams of experts into the various countries where there is a demand for improvement of agricultural techniques and management. These spearhead teams,with the assistance of local officials and experts, should jointly run, say, a seed farm, demonstrating to the farmers and the people in general how a seed farm should be run, how breeder seed should be converted into foundation seed and how from foundation seed one gets the certified seeds, and so on. These spearhead teams should also run farms for cross-breeding purposes. They should run jointly with the local people the fish seed farms and they should demonstrate how fertilizers should be developed and used in the farmer’s field. They should demonstrate the use of high yield varieties,how a field should be irrigated, how many times irrigation should be given, the different methods of irrigation, how water should be conserved and used to the maximum advantage, how water should be distributed among the farmers if it is limited, how the land should be used, and so on.

There are hundreds of areas where there may be very learned textbooks and seminars, but the results of these may not be benefiting the farmer because there is a huge intellectual and organizational gap between the seminar and the farmer out in the field. Therefore I suggest to FAO in all humility that the constitution of these spearhead teams on the one hand and the adoption of a project for demonstration purposes in the developing countries should be tried out. I feel this would go a long way in educating the farmers in a better way of managing their farms.

A. TRAORE (Guinêe): Nous voudrions nous associer aux délégués qui nous ont precede et qui n’ont pas tari d’éloges à l’endroit du programme de coopération technique, programme dont la rapidité d’exécution et l’efficacité ont convaincu la très grande majorité des pays membres de notre Organisation. Ce programme doit done être appuyé en lui fournissant les moyens nécessaires. C’est pourquoi nous jugeons très raisonnable l’augmentation du budget affecté à ce chapitre.

Contrairement à certains délégués, mon pays pense que l’élargissement des représentations dans les pays ne fera nullement double emploi avec les bureaux régionaux qui interviennent à des niveaux dépassant le cadre national.

Nous avons apprécié, avec satisfaction, l’important rôle joué par le Bureau de notre sous-région dans les vastes projets que sont l’organisation et la mise en valeur du fleuve Gambie, l’autorité du fleuve Niger et de la rivière Mano.

En souscrivant à la complémentarité des deux institutions, done à la nécessitê de leur maintien, nous approuvons aussi la proposition de double représentation de la FAO.

M.A. AL-SANEH (Kuwait) (Original language Arabic): I would like to concentrate my comments on Chapter 4 dealing with the Technical Cooperation Programme. This Programme is mainly addressed to developing countries so as to help them in solving some of the problems which are hindering their agricultural development. This is one of the most helpful types of assistance given to developing countries. My country, which is a developing country, has benefited, and is still benefiting, from the assistance given by FAO in this field. The Organization gives technical support to my country, especially concerning crops that are cultivated in greenhouses.

In assessing the activity we should not speak of the cost because the problem of hunger throughout the world is a problem of scarcity of resources. The general support given to TCP and the support that has been shown by various delegates shows that this programme has been very helpful to many of the Members.

My delegation, being aware of the benefit of this programme, supports the intensification of its activities in order to meet the needs of Member States. We also support the establishment of country representations which is an illustration of decentralization.

CHAIRMAN: Before we wind up I would like to invite the Assistant Director-General of the Development Department, Mr. de Meredieu, to comment on a few questions.

J. de MEREDIEU (Sous-directeur général, Département du Développement): Je répondrai d’abord à une ou deux questions d’ordre général et en viendrai ensuite aux problèmes qui ont appelé le plus de commentaires.

Si je puis commencer par l’un des derniers orateurs, je dirai au délégué de l’Inde que nos programmes de terrain ont toujours comporté une part importante de pro jets pilotes, et je pense qu’ils continueront à le faire. Il a tout à fait raison, c’est une forme très efficace de démonstration. Ce n’est pas souvent possible dans le cadre du Programme de Cooperation Technique, car la durée et le coût de tels projets dépassent souvent ce que ce programme peut faire, et c’est done plus souvent le cas dans le cadre du PNUD ou de projets de fonds fiduciaires.

Les délégués de la Mauritanie, du Botswana, des Philippines et du Nigéria ont bien voulu apporter leur appui au programme 3.3.1 (Campagne mondiale contre la faim). Me référant à la question particulière du délégué de la Mauritanie, je lui indiquerai qu’il existe un Fonds fiduciaire destiné à assurer le suivi de la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural. Ce fonds a déjà reçu des promesses de versements s’élevant à 9 millions de dollars, provenant de pays tels que la Suède, les Pays-Bas, la Norvège et la Chine, que je tiens à remercier ici. Mais ce chiffre est encore inférieur à l’objectif de 20 millions de dollars fixé pour ce programme d’action spécial et nous souhaitons, bien entendu, que l’appel de M. le délégué de la Mauritanie soit entendu.

Ce n’est pas à moi qu’il appartient de résumer le débat en matière d’investissements, mais il est clair que la très grande majorite des orateurs ont souligne l’importance de cette action. Je me bornerai done à répondre à une seule question qui a été posée par le représentant du Royaume-Uni qui s’est dit surpris de noter la creation de ‘‘nombreux postes de grades élevés”. J’avoue que ce commentaire me surprend, car il n’est proposé de créer qu’un P5, un P4 et un G3 ! Le reste de l’augmentation proposée est destiné, d’une part, à couvrir le coût d’environ 30 mois de consultants dans le cadre du programme d’appui aux investissements et, d’autre part, à renforcer les activités du Centre dans le domaine de la formation de spécialistes des pays en développement dans la préparation des projets d’investissement.

J’en viens maintenant au programme de décentralisation, ou de représentation de la FAO dans les pays, qui est l’un de ceux qui a soulevé le plus de commentaires. Là encore, il est. clair, je pense, qu’une très large majorite, et en particulier l’unanimité des pays qui reçoivent de tels représentants, appuie ce programme. Néanmoins, certaines questions ont été posées, auxquelles je. tiens à répondre.

Les représentants du Japon et de la Suisse semblent craindre certains doubles emplois entre représentants de la FAO et résidents représentants du PNUD. Je voudrais leur dire, tout d’abord, que le délégué de Chypre a parfaitement résumé le point de vue de l’Organisation lorsqu’il a dit qu’il appartenait, bien entendu, au pays hôte d’assurer lui-même la coordination des assistances extérieures qu’il reçoit.

Je pense cependant que MM. les délégués du Japon et de la Suisse seront rassurés à la lecture de la lettre conjointe que le Directeur général et l’administrateur du PNUD ont envoyée à leurs représentants sur le terrain, le 30 juillet 1980, lettre qui est reproduite en annexe au document C 81/28. Vous constaterez certainement que cette lettre, loin de faire penser à une competition ou à un double emploi quelconques, reflète au contraire un dêsir sincere de cooperation constructive, dans l’intérêt des pays intéressés.

D’assez nombreux commentaires ont également été faits en ce qui concerne les relations entre representations de la FAO dans les pays et representations régionales. II y a-t-il une difference entre ces deux types de représentations? Bien sûr, il y en a une, qui est fidèlement reflétêe par leurs titres respectifs. Les représentants de la FAO dans les pays sont responsables des questions concernant individuellement chacun de ces pays, et les représentants régionaux sont responsables des questions concernant la region dans son ensemble, ou certains groupes de pays à l’interieur de cette region.

Comme cela a été indiqué par certains orateurs, il y a de plus en plus d’activités régionales dans le Tiers Monde. Pour ne vous donner qu’une très brève idee des actions de ce type qui sont de la respon-sabilité de nos bureaux régionaux, je vous dirai que nous coopérons avec 76 organisations régionales de tout genre, dont 18 en Afrique; le représentant de la Guinêe en a mentionné quelques-unes; il y en a bien d’autres, depuis l’OUA jusqu’à la plus modeste organisation technique chargée de la lutte antiacrídienne.

II y a de même 51 organes statutaires de la FAO, répartis dans les différentes regions, dont 12 au Proche-Orient et 14 en Europe, car nous avons également un bureau régional en Europe, auquel les pays européens sont, je crois, très attachés.

Nous avons quatre divisions conjointes avec les commissions économiques régionales et, bien entendu, de très nombreux projets régionaux de terrain, à l’identification, à la formulation et au suivi desquels nos bureaux régionaux contribuent très activement.

De plus - et c’est là un des nombreux points où il y a complémentarité et non pas double emploi entre bureaux régionaux et bureaux dans les pays - il existe, dans chaque bureau regional, un petit groupe d’experts de haut niveau, à la disposition des pays de la région et des représentants de la FAO dans les pays lorsqu’ils ont besoin d’une assistance de courte durée pour formuler certains projets. Je crois que ceci rejoint la préoccupation qui vient d’être exprimée par M. le délégué de l’Inde.

Nous avons certainement noté avec satisfaction l’appui, tempéré de certains commentaires, mais l’appui néanmoins que M. le délégué de la Suisse a donné à certains aspects du programme de décentralisation. Pour le rassurer, je lui indiquerai que, bien entendu, aucun secret ne couvre la liste des pays dans lesquels nous avons établi des représentations. Tout au contraire, chaque fois qu’une telle représentation est établie, le Directeur général la publie dans un communiqué de presse et dans un ‘‘bulletin du Directeur général’’, qui est toujours envoyé à tous les représentants permanents auprès de notre Organisation. Si vous en dêcidez ainsi, Monsieur le Président, nous pourrons, sous réserve des délais de traduction et d’impression, produire la liste qui vous donnera les noms des 60 pays où nous avons déjà ouvert des bureaux et des 11 qui sont pour l’instant couverts dans le cadre de doubles représentations.

Pour vous donner une idée des demandes qui restent insatisfaites, je vous dirai que le Directeur géné a reçu jusqu’à présent 96 demandes d’ouverture de bureaux; nous sommes done loin du compte. Vous comprendrez, par contre, qu’il ne nous soit pas possible de vous donner la liste des pays avec lesquels des négociations sont en cours, par courtoisie à leur égard et parce que nous ne pouvons préjuger de l’issue de ces négociations.

M. le délégué de la Suisse a également demandé comment le budget des différentes représentations de la FAO était réparti entre le Programme régulier et les autres ressources, et à combien se montait le coût moyen d’un bureau.

Je voudrais le renvoyer au document “Έxamen du programme ordinaire’’ (C 81/8), où il trouvera ces renseignements au paragraphe 5.86. Il verra ainsi que le coût moyen de l’un de ces bureaux a êtê de 194 000 dollars en 1980. J’ajouterai que les pays qui bénéficient de ce dispositif contribuent eux-aussi d’une façon notable au coût de fonctionnement de nos bureaux, leur apport étant en general de l’ordre de 20 pour cent du coût total, partie en nature et partie en espèces, avec des variations notables suivant leur richesse.

Le tableau 8, que l’on trouve au Programme de travail et budget dans le cadre du programme 3.4, donne la répartition de ces coûts entre Programme régulier et ressources extra-budgétaires.

Certaines questions ont été posées en ce qui concerne la délégation effective d’autorité aux représentants de la FAO dans les pays.

Je voudrais tout d’abord vous dire que c’est là un sujet qui prêoccupe le Directeur géné, qui a l’intention de continuer à oeuvrer dans ce sens. M. West, hier, vous a expliquê certaines des contraintes auxquelles nous nous heurtons, qui résultent toutes de notre souci de très grande rectitude dans notre gestion financière. J’ai néanmoins devant moi une liste de dix actions pour lesquelles différents degrés de délégation ont été consentis aux représentants de la FAO dans les pays. Je ne les lirai pas toutes, mais en mentionnerai quelques-unes: approbation de projets du Programme de cooperation technique, dans certaines limites; recrutement de consultants; appui, y compris les responsa-bilités financières que cela comporte, à des projets de terrain des différents programmes; et il y en a bien d’autres.

Je passe maintenant au Programme de coopération technique qui, lui aussi, a soulevé de nombreux commentaires, dans leur très grande majorité extrémement positifs, ce dont nous sommes très reconnaissants, mais aussi certaines questions.

Ceci va m’amener à anticiper quelque peu sur ce que je comptais vous dire, en ce qui concerne les ressources du PNUD, lorsque nous en viendrions à l’examen des programmes de terrain.

Monsieur le représentant de la République fédérale d’Allemagne a fait allusion ce matin à l’évolution des programmes du PNUD. Il a dit qu’il pensait que ces programmes croissaient moins vite qu’auparavant, mais qu’ils continuaient à croître, et il s’est demandé si nous n’essayions pas “de nous précipiter dans la brèche ainsi ouverte.”

A mon très grand regret je dois dire que les dernières informations que nous avons reçues, du PNUD je le précise, indiquent une situation malheureusement plus préoccupante. Il y a un an et demi, M. Morse avait basé son Programme pour le troisième cycle sur une hypothèse de croissance des contributions de 14 pour cent par an. C’était plus que l’effet de l’inflation et il escomptait done une croissance réelle nette. En juin cette année, il indiquait que, malheureusement, il ne s’agirait plus de 14 pour cent mais de 8 pour cent au maximum. A cette occasion, M. Morse lui-même a déclaré au Conseil d’administration du PNUD que, compte tenu des effets de l’inflation, un tel taux, qui est inférieur à celui de l’inflation, résulterait sans doute, en termes réels, en une décroissance de 12 pour cent, lorsque l’on comparerait le troisième cycle au second.

De plus, M. Morse vient juste d’envoyer, le 27 octobre 1981, un télégramme a tous les chefs d’agence, dans lequel il a donné les éléments d’informations suivants:

Lorsque l’on compare les ressources que le PNUD a reçues en 1980 avec celles de 1979, la croissance n’a été que de 3 pour cent en termes courants, ce qui est déjà une décroissance en termes réels.

Lorsque l’on compare les ressources de 1981 à celles de 1980, il y a eu décroissance de 7 pour cent en termes courants, ce qui fait presque 20 pour cent en termes réels!

Pour 1982, M. Morse, qui espérait, en juin cette année, pouvoir disposer l’année prochaine de 815 millions de dollars, a dit être confronté maintenant à la dure réalité qui voudrait qu’il ne puisse pas disposer de plus de 637 millions, soit 22 pour cent de moins. La brèche est done large, très large.

La première conséquence pour nous sera qu’à la fin de cette année nous risquons d’avoir à licencier 3 ou 400 experts hautement spécialisés.

M. Boute Friedheim pourrait expliquer à Monsieur le représentant de l’Allemagne les raisons de cet état de choses.

La brèche est d’autant plus large que le pourcentage du Programme de coopération dans l’ensemble de nos programmes de terrain n’est que de 5 pour cent. Il n’est pas question que le Programme de cooperation technique se développe à un point tel qu’il puisse se substituer au PNUD. Ce sont des opérations différentes, d’une taille différente, d’une nature différente. Si nous voulions “boucher la brèche” avec de tels moyens, cela prouverait que nous serions aussi courageux - si ce n’est téméraires - que le jeune Hollandais qui a bouché la brèche d’une digue avec son doigt!

Monsieur le représentant de la Suisse a demandé quels étaient les critères sur la base desquels les projets de coopération technique étaient approuvés.

Ces critères sont publics. Ils apparaissent au rapport de la soixante-neuvième session du Conseil, paragraphes 16 à 25; au rapport de la soixante-quatorzième session du Conseil, paragraphes 144 à 157, et aux documents soumis à ces deux sessions du Conseil, qui ont d’abord approuvé, puis confirmé et amélioré, le Programme de cooperation technique. Ces critères ont été énoncés de façon détaillée dans une lettre circulaire que le Directeur général a envoyée a tous les Etats Membres, y compris bien entendu la Suisse, le 29 septembre 1976. Si Monsieur le représentant de la Suisse n’avait pas ce document, je serais heureux de le lui faire remettre. Je ne pense pas nécessaire de vous dire que ces critères sont appliqués dans un esprit de stricte rectitude administrative et financière, lorsqu’il sfagit d’approuver des projets.

Messieurs les représentants de la République fédérale d’Allemagne, de la Suisse, du Japon et du Royaume-Uni, ont fait référence à la possibilité d’une nouvelle évaluation du Programme de coopération technique.

Je voudrais d’abord me permettre de rappeler qu’un consultant extérieur, M. Linner, ancien représentant résident du PNUD, a été chargé d’une telle évaluation en 1977-78, et que cette évaluation a été soumise à la soixante-quatorzième session du Conseil - j’ai déjà cité les paragraphes correspondants - qui, à sa très grande majorité, a été pleinement satisfait par les résultats de cette évaluation, Ceci l’a conduit à adopter la Résolution 1. 74 à laquelle référence a été faite ce matin. J’ai relu très soigneusement cette Résolution, et n’y ai rien trouvé qui demande une autre évaluation à court terme. De façon plus générale, je n’y ai pas trouvé la moindre instruction à laquelle le

Directeur général nf ait pas donné suite.

En ce qui concerne ce problème général d’évaluation, je pense que Monsieur le représentant de la Yougoslavie, dans son intervention en sa double qualité de représentant de son pays et de Président du Comité du Programme, a fourni une meilleure; réponse que celle que je pourrais donner moi-même.

Monsieur le représentant du Royaшne-Uni nous a demandé ce qu’il en était de l’approbation de nouveaux projets du Programme de coopération technique.

Je lui répondrai qu’à la fin de cette année 1981, nous nous attendons à ce que la totalité des crédits disponibles soit engagée et nous pensons qu’il nous restera encore à ce moment là une centaine de demandes en instance, qu’il n’aura pas été possible de satisfaire et qui se trouveront done en compétition avec celles que le Directeur général recevra l’année prochaine.

Messieurs les délégués de l’Autriche et de la France, après avoir formulé des commentaires très positifs à propos du Programme de coopération technique, ont fait allusion à son effet catalytique et le délégué de la France a posé des questions en ce qui concerne la catégorie dite des “divers”.

Nous reconnaissons bien volontiers que cette définition de “divers” n’est pas satisfaisante. Il faut se référer aux critères donnés dans les documents déjà mentionnés pour voir ce que l’on entend par là. Je me limiterai a indiquer que e’est très souvent dans cette catégorie que se trouvent des projets qui ont un effet catalytique.

En dehors de ceux qui appartiennent à la categorie “investissements” et qui sont comptabilisés ailleurs, cette catégorie “divers” couvre la plupart des projets du Programme de coopération technique qui sont destinés à préparer un projet du PNUD, un projet de fonds fiduciaires, à fournir un pont entre deux projets, à compléter un projet du PNUD qui peut-être, à certains égards, ne couvrait pas tous les aspects nécessaires. J’ajouterai que, très souvent, ce sont les représentants du PNUD qui conseillent aux gouvernements de s’adresser au Directeur général pour recevoir ce type d’assistance et ce à tel point que nous avons été, à plusieurs reprises, obligés de leur demander de modérer leur zèle.

En tout état de cause, je pense que les représentants des divers pays n’ont pas lieu de craindre une évolution du Programme de coopération technique dans un sens qui l’amènerait à financer des activités qui tendraient à se perpétuer dans le temps, en dehors de critères très stricts.

Vous serez peut-être surpris d’apprendre à cet égard, qu’alors que la dimension moyenne d’un projet du Programme de coopération technique était de 78 000 dollars au début de ce programme, elle a décru, en dépit de l’inflation, à 54 000 dollars en 1980.

Ceci traduit précisément le très grand nombre de petites opérations ponctuelles d’urgence, y compris celles de formulations de projets.

Je puis mentionner comme exemple l’aide apportée à certains pays africains, pour transformer le plan dfaction de Lagos en des plans nationaux d’action concrète, en coopération avec le PNUD.

De même la durée moyenne de projets du PCT n’est que de cinq mois et demi.

Monsieur le représentant de la France avait posé hier des questions sur la part de l’Afrique dans le PCT. Aujourd’hui il a reconnu que cette part était élevée. Elle est, en effet, très élevée, puisque l’Afrique, depuis le début du Programme, a reçu 37 pour cent du total. Si l’on utilise une autre classification, celle des pays les moins développés, cette part est de 35 pour cent. Le Directeur général voudrait faire plus, mais il doit penser aussi à d’autres parties du monde. Messieurs les délégués de la Turquie et de l’Argentine, dans leurs interventions, ont rappelé cette nécessité d’assurer un équilibre, tout en donnant la priorité aux plus pauvres.

J’espère, Monsieur le Président, avoir répondu aux principales questions et vous remercie, ainsi que Messieurs les délégués, pour le très vaste appui que vous avez bien voulu donner aux différentes activités couvertes par les chapitres III et IV du Programme de travail et budget.

J.A. GUEVARA MORAN (El Salvador): Yo quiero, en primer lugar, agradecerle por concederme el uso de la palabra. Queremos felicitarle a usted y a los vicepresidentes de la Comisión por la excelencia con que están dirigiendo estos debates. Deseamos indicarles que nuestra delegación, desde junio pasado, con motivo del 79° período de sesiones del Consejo, expresó su completo apoyo a las políticas, objetivos, estrategias, planes, programas y proyectos presentados por el Director General; apoyo que ratificamos en el seno del recién pasado 80° período de sesiones del Consejo.

En consecuencia, en esta nueva oportunidad, con motivo de este 21° período de sesiones de la Conferencia y en relación a esta Comisión II, y reafirmamos nuestro mas absoluto apoyo al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto nara el bienio 1982-83. Deseo, sin embargo, con relación al tema de este día, referirme a los puntos siguientes:

Primero, no logro comprender aun cómo es posible que se apoyen los programas y que se brinde un voto de confianza y se felicite al Director General indicando que su primer mandato ha sido un excelente ejemplo de eficiencia y de eficacia y, a la hora de aprobar el presupuesto, todavía se presenten dudas y reparos al nivel del mismo.

En segundo lugar, y no para dorar la píldora porque aunque nuestros países son pobres, pero nosotros los funcionarios y en mi caso, como Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería de mi país, no quisiera establecer justificaciones acá para dorar la píldora, porque entonces nos estariamos haciendo un autoengaño. Queremos manifestar con mucha seriedad las cosas que nosotros defendemos y en nuestro caso cuando hacemos un planteamiento no lo hacemos para congratularnos con nadie, sino que lo hacemos convencidos de que estamos defendiendo algo justo para los intereses de nuestros países subdesarrollados.

Por esa razón, con relación al tema de la descentralización de las actividades de la FAO, considero que esta ha sido una de las acciones mas felices que se han realizado en la vida de la Institución, Nosotros en mi país estamos totalmente satisfechos con el representante de la Organización, ya que esto ha permitido una dinámica acción en todos los proyectos que en conjunto desarrollamos. Por lo anterior, creemos que aquellos países que están solicitando estos servicios saben por que lo hacen y nosotros, con conocimiento de causa, les recomendamos que no descansen hasta lograr este objetivo, ya que los resultados serán positivos al mas breve plazo. Es una experiencia vivida en nuestro país y que, sin egoísmo por supuesto, la compartimos con aquellos países que no disfrutan de esa gran ventaja de tener representantes en su país, sobre todo si son representantes de la calidad del que nosotros hemos tenido.

En tercer lugar, quiero referirme al PCT; nosotros consideramos que debe mantenerse y que debe reforzarse, ya que éste constituye un elemento fundamental para la formulación rápida de propuestas de proyectos y de programas de asistencia técnica apoyados por la FAO, o por cualquier otra de las agencias financieras o por el Centro de Inversiones de la FAO.

Por último, Sr. Presidente, deseamos solicitar vehementemente a todos los países desarrollados que apoyen el nivel del presupuesto para el bienio 1982-83, ya que con esto se estará dotando a nuestra Organización de los medios mínimos indispensables para cubrir con eficacia todas las actividades propuestas en el Programa de Labores y, lo que es más, se estará en camino para coadyuvar efectiva-mente a la solución del problema del hambre y de la malnutrición de los países pobres del mundo entero.

CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, I have the impression this brings us to the end of the debate on items 9 and 10 of the Agenda, which is the Programme of Work and Budget and the Medium-term Objectives,and I take this opportunity to wind up.

Throughout the debate an overwhelming confirmation transpired of the Medium-term Objectives. Delegates underlined the continued validity of these Medium-term Objectives as contained in the respective documents. 104 countries participated in the debate on the Programme of Work and Budget. Some of them took the floor twice, or even more freαuently. The largest part of the delegations that took the floor expressed support both of the contents of the Programme of Work and Budget as well as of the level of the budget itself - precisely 80 countries, of which 24 considered the budget as a strict minimum.

155

Many of these countries emphasised that a zero growth would not be feasible for an organisation that has been set up to play a vital, central, and leading role in solving world problems of food, hunger, and development in Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

There were 11 countries who were not very specific there, the content of their statements suggested in most cases an attitude in favour of the proposals as contained in the budgetary appropriations resolution.

A number of delegates, while supporting the Programme of Work and Budget felt that not all of the objectives might be reached with the level of the budget proposed. A few delegates -we recognized sevdn- reserved their position and indicated that their countries would state their position on the budget proposals at a later stage of the Conference. Six countries were unable to express during the debate in Commission II support for the Programme of Work and Budget as presented in document C 81/3. Quite a number of delegates encouraged the Director-General to continue the process of decentralization. A number of delegates made remarks pertaining to the format of the report on items 9 and 10 and some suggested to amalgamate the two documents on the Programme of Work and Budget and the Medium-term Objectives.

Finallly, I would recall the remarks of the delegates of Sweden and Zambia that stand for the wisdom, the reconciling and understanding attitude that also characterized other statements. We should respect the views held by delegates representing their sovereign States, yet we should equally cultivate the dialogue amongst us. After all, we should be aware that we all carry a heavy responsibility for the Organization’s next biennium, and possibly beyond that period. The FAO is our Organization; it is the Organization that was set up as the central and lead Organization to tackle hunger and food and associated problems in a global and concerted manner. These were thoughts and feelings that transpired through many statements of the delegates.

out the debate on these two subjects, it can be concluded that Commission II refers the draft resolution on the budgetary appropriations 1982/83 as contained in document C 81/3 on page 2, to the Plenary.

R. GARCELL (Cuba): Disculpe Sr. Presidente que hagamos uso de la palabra; pero usted ha demostrado el cuidado que ha tenido en tomar nota de las deliberaciones. Quizá yo haya entendido mal o la traducción no me haya llegado bien; pero hablaba usted de 24 países que habían señalado como mínimo su apoyo al presupuesto. Esto, quizá demostraría una participación minoritaria. Nosotros con el apoyo que queremos dar en el trabajo de la delegación, y con la responsabilidad que se nos ha concedido de participar en el Comité de Redacción hemos ido tomando todas las notas que nos ha sido posiple aunque, seguramente sin el cuidado con que ha podido hacerlo el Presidente y la Secretaría.

Pensamos que quizá sería más conveniente reflejarlo en otros términos, ya que más de 24 países dieron su apoyo irrestricto al presupuesto, unas veces planteando que estaban de acuerdo que era el mínimo y, otras que podría ser aumentada.

Esa es mi preocupación.

CHAIRMAN: I think there must be a misunderstanding. I spoke about 80. Perhaps in the translations this came out different but it was 80 countries that were in favour of the proposals on the Programme of Work and Budget, and in addition, 11 countries that were not very specific, although from the content of their statements, one could conclude that most of them were showing an attitude in favour. Is this sufficient clarification? Thank you.

- National Agricultural Research in Developing Countries
- Recherche agricole nationale dans les pays en développement
- Inyestigaciones agrícolas nacionales en los paises en desarrollo

- World Soil Charter
- Chárte mondiale des sols
- Cafta Mundial de los Suelos

CHAIRMAN: Let us now move on to discuss two documents that were kept separate from the debate so far but which actually form a part of item 9 and 10. These are documents C 81/26, National Agricultural Research in Developing Countries, and C 81/27, World Soil Charter. I would suggest that for the sake of an expeditious working procedure, I leave the floor open for discussion on both subjects, if this proposal is agreable to delegates. That being so, I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that in document C 81/27 we find included a draft resolution for the Conference entitled World Soil Charter, and Commission II will have to come up with a clear formula of support, hopefully, as a proposal to the Conference and to the Plenary.

We shall have the benefit of a very useful introduction by the Assistant Director-General of the Agriculture Department, Mr. Bommer.

D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): Conference documento C 81/26 National Agricultural Research in Developing Countries is presented to Commission II for a more detailed discussion on sub-programme 2.1.4. Research Support, which is contained in document C 81/9 Medium-Term Obiectives.

Research in FAO’S programme is not perceived as narrowly directed towards the generation of technology but as an integral and indispensable link of agricultural services supporting the total process of development. In this function research provides at its one end the base for decisions to be made by governments in agricultural planning and policies and on the other end it should provide results which should improve farming systems, forest management and fish catches and has to be verified in farmers’ fields, in forest groves and in the boats of fishermen.

There have been three considerations to present a separate document on national agricultural research to this Conference. First there is an increasing recognition in developing countries of the impact which well directed research has on agricultural productivity and rural development and that self-reliance is closely linked with the strength of national research capabilities.

Secondly it has become evident over recent years that irrespective of progress made in international efforts in support of agricultural research for developing countries, the strength or weakness of agricultural research systems and their integration with rural development programmes will determine the degree to which international or other externally generated research results can be adopted and applied under local conditions.

And thirdly there has been some misconception on the priority research support received in the Organization’s programme and on the approaches which are being pursued to build up research capabilities in developing countries.

Document C 81/26 reviews in a broad way the progress which has been made since the 18th FAO Conference in 1975 which has recognized the importance of research for improving agricultural production and the availability of food and other products in developing countries. In examining the major constraints still existing for the development of national research capabilities, the paper provides the framework for a broad strategy in the 1980s which could be followed by all member nations either in need of developing their own research capabilities or in a position to assist and suppor such developments.

The strategy, following an indication of some of the major areas of research, is developed in four major components: the first indicates the desirable growth and the provision of investment and financial support required; the second underlines the needs for trained manpower and suggests some ways and means by which these needs may be met at all necessary levels. The third indicates the urgency of giving greater attention to research organization and managements and stresses particularly the need to integrate research with tne services to successfully transfer research results to the farming community and to the policy making levels and provide for the necessary feedback to guide research to priority needs of each country. Fourthly, but by no means last, is the area of research collaboration at the international and regional levels in supporting national research endeavours. In addition to the activities of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research other and new innovations are in need of support or development. Finally, the concept of a World System of Agricultural Research comes into view, evolving from existing elements, mutually supporting and enforcing each other. FAO would have to play a key role in such a System.

Within this overall strategy, FAO’s Medium-Term Obiectives are indicated in Chanter IV. These objectives have to be seen far beyond the sub-programme 2.1.4. which summarizes under Research Support only a small part of FAO’s programme actually supporting research for agriculture, fishery and forestry. The bulk of these activities is covered in various technical programmes and sub-programmes mainly in Chapter II of the Programme of Work and Budget for 1982/83.

The document, its assessment, strategy and consequences for FAO’s Medium-Term Objectives is presented by the Director-General to this Conference for appraisal and endorsement.

R. DUDAL (Director, Land and Water Development Division): it seems a paradox that in spite of major technological advances in agricultural production hundreds of millions of people are still not having enough to eat. This paradox stems, as you know, from a number of causes, many of which have been analysed in this forum and on different occasions but I should like to draw your special attention to one of the most alarming causes and possibly the least acknowledged, and it is the rate at which the production capacity of the land is being reduced or destroyed through various forms of land degradation, such as erosion, desertification, desalination, waterlogging, etc. It is a slow but pernicious process. In Latin-America it has recently been called un terremoto silencioso, a silent earthquake, a silent landslide, which progressively diminishes the world ability to produce food.

As you know, FAO’s study “Agriculture: Toward 2000”, estimated that 200 million hectares of new land will need to be brought into production by the year 2000 to meet the food requirements of the population of the future. This estimate was made on the assumption that conservation techniques would be applied but should this not be the case, and it is not the case in many instances, we calculate that during the next twenty years 22 percent of the land productivity in developing countries will be lost. Therefore a greater part of additional land should be brought into cultivation just to compensate for the loss that will be suffered. In 1974 the World Food Conference, recognizing this issue, requested FAO, in cooperation with other UN organizations, such as UNEP, Unesco and others, to select the most appropriate ways and means to establish a world soil charter and to promote international cooperation towards the most rational use of the worldfs land resources. In order to do so we had to evaluate the present capacity of the world’s land and their production potential which we had done over the last five’ five years and I am happy to report that this study is now completed.

This land-use capacity indeed was needed to prepare the world soil charter because erosion and other forms of degradation are always the result from utilization of the land beyond its production capacity. We now present this world soil charter to you, meant to highlight the urgent problem of land degradation and to sensitize decision-makers and land-users of the imperative need to maintain and improve the production base for agriculture, range land and forestry for the generations to come. This land base is limited in area and the loss of its productivity is irreversible in most instances.

Action programmes for soil conservation have been postponed under the pressure of other more urgent problems but an appeal is being made through this charter to consider not only the immediate requirements of production but also the long-term needs to maintain the resource base, the loss of which would endanger man’s very existence.

We are submitting this charter to you in the form of the resolution in the hope that if you adopt it it would strengthen the Director-General!s arm and the Organization’s action in this field.

L. A. BRAMAO (Portugal): Concerning the establishment of the World Soil Charter, it is important and the respective documents are very well prepared.

Among the top priorities facing the human race now and certainly worse in the future if serious measures are not taken, is the mammoth need for increasing food production. This has been the theme of the previous FAO Conference and also of the present one. Delegates are all agreed upon this need but countries continue to be unable to increase their food production at the rate absolutely to meet the needs of their populations, which population is increasing in numbers and in standards of living.

Increased food production depends on a number of factors of social and economic nature but depends also on suitable agricultural practice, use of pesticides, of improved seeds, of other important inputs, such as suitable equipment, etc. Climate is generally considered but specific soil units and their properties, including resistance against degradation and erosion, etc., are often overlooked at all levels, from the government staff down to the farmer.

The soil map of the world when established had many finalities. I would like to mention a few. The finality of dividing the first inventory of the world’s soil as it occurs in different continents, to define it as accurately as possible and to describe its characteristics for multiple uses but particularly for agricultural and forest use and above all its capacity for food production on a sustained basis. The soil map of the world provided, therefore, for the first time an instrџment of guidance to all countries on the quality of such vital resources such as soil and to supply information to everyone,

particularly to government services and students at all levels on the respective extinction and quality of the soil unit on a world basis, of their production potentialities and problems.

The World Soil Charter is the logical consequence to be followed up by this great and important Organization. The World Soil Charter will be a red light, a strong warning for the world about this precious resource for survival of the human race on our planet.

The document mentions the care that should be taken in dealing with the soil. The World Soil Charter, we would remind people that soil has a limited area, it is a very perishable resouce and a non-renewable one and that soil area, we know that it has been decreasing at a frightening rate as Mr. Dudal just mentione, through soil erosion, degradation etc., all maladies produced by misuse of soil by man. All this must be stopped quickly. Suitable utilization of a world soil resources must be implemented if we are going to eliminate famine, hunger and malnutrition, and His Holiness referred to today, and if we are going to succeed in raising the standard of living of the very poor farmer.

My delegation therefore supports the World Soil Charter. I am pleased to inform you that my government has placed the problem of increased food production on a sustined basis as one of its four priorities and that careful care will be taken about the soil in the process. We are speaking of urgency in increasing food production but how can food production be increased if it is not done in close agreement with Mother Earth.

B. M. SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): For developing countries I think the report gives the basic data for the national agricultural research programmes and in this connexion I would like to say that a great number of countries along the edge of the desert have considerable problems with regard to water resources and try to benefit as much as they can from new water resources in order to increase their food production. But climatic conditions which are very difficult make the use of these resources extremely costly and make it difficult to ensure the food supplies for the population. This makes these populations dependent on the help of other countries. That is why we feel that a particular emphasis has to be placed on research on water resources along the Sahara and we feel that the Organization should also give the necessary assistance in order to carry out this task.

As far as the World Soil Charter is concerned it is necessary that this subject, soil conservation, be included as a priority in the midst of priorities of the Jahamirya. The climatic conditions and our proximity to the desert make it necessary for us to make every possible effort in order to avoid the erosion, soil degradation and so on. This is why we are very satisfied with the contents of this draft resolution. Although this draft comes rather late if we take into consideration the fact that the Resolution of the World Food Conference laid stress on the importance of the preparation of such World Soil Charter seven years ago. I think I can say that this Charter gets our full support, especially since it has gone through a long period of very careful preparation and consultation on a very wide basis. We are of the opinion that the Organization is undoubtedly able to carry out this very difficult task. We have studied the draft Resolution very carefully and we fully agree with the principles embodied in the Resolution, since it covers all the very important aspects. The Jahamirya already applies very many of these principles.

As far as the general guidelines are concerned we fully agree with them and we feel that the Charter is tackling very many organizational problems, especially what appears under(iii),concerning the institutional framework for monitoring and supervising soil management and soil conservation. This is to be found on page 4 of the English text. If we are of the opinion that the institutional framework alone is not sufficient, since there is inter-action between soil and water and plant resources, we believe that it is necessary to establish a link between soil and water conservation and plant production.

In conclusion, I feel that a proposal needs to be made with regard to the preamble to this part of the Resolution, because we believe that the Resolution has not referred to the International Conference on the Fight against Desertification which was held in 1977 in Nairobi. In the course of this Conference a great deal of emphasis was laid on soil management and soil conservation, and this is mentioned in paragraph 2 on page 3 of the Arabic text. It says: “Recalling further the Programme for Action adopted by the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development...”. Here we should add: “Recalling further the resolution of the World Conference on Desertification held in Nairobi in 1977 concerning the necessity to fight against erosion and soil degradation...”

C. THOMSEN (Denmark): Our remarks will be limited to the document on National Agricultural Research in Developing Countries, C 81/26. We would like to congratulate the Organization on the preparation of this document, which we find a very valuable contribution in this important area of activity and we consider that the document deserves the attention of this Commission.

We are satisfied that we have been provided with a coherent picture of the situation and of the technical assistance activities, both bilateral and international, as a background to our consideration of the role of FAO and its activities, also perhaps particularly in the medium-term perspective. We consider it an excellent document and we would only like to emphasise a few aspects of it.

The first one, whereas I have said we find the analysis satisfactory and agree with the list of major trends in the first part of the document, we would however like to stress the importance of the attitudes, or perhaps I should say the orientation of the research workers, particularly with regard to the awareness of the problems of the farmers and the agricultural producers in the utilization of the results of the research they produce.

We would therefore particularly emphasise the gaps in linkages between research and the farming community, as we consider this simply crucial to the justification of agricultural research expenditure in the long run.

We also attach much importance to fruitful collaboration between the various agencies and donors involved in this field. Here, as in other instances, there is need for the best possible use of the resources available. We therefore particularly like the reference in the document to the active collaboration which has been initiated -- this is just an example -- between FAO and the International Service of National Research, ISNR. We agree that agricultural research is basic to agricultural development. But much depends on the linkages of research with extension and the farming community. So we much appreciate that the document has devoted a special section to this subject. We consider it deserves more attention. I can say that from the experience of my own country we know that these linkages have a decisive influence on the rate of diffusion of research results and their impact on agricultural development. It is of particular importance that these links provide a line of communication in both directions, so as to provide the necessary feedback from farmers to research about the problems which deserve high priority. I am just trying to emphasise points that have been made in the document.

I then come to the role of FAO in the medium-term, on which we have a few comments to make. They are related to the question of orienting the work of the Organization with a view to supplementing the other agencies and donors who are active in this field, as the Assistant Director-General himself said. Referring to the Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, continued close collaboration for the purpose of the best use of resources is highly desirable, and it is a question of taking initiatives where there is a gap in the existing number of agencies and activities, not only to promote the production of research results but, equally important, to ensure the proper utilization of these results. We feel that FAO has a special role to play in supporting the collaboration between the national agricultural research organizations by way of networks, thus supplementing the activities of others, but also in other forms of collaboration where reference has been made to. the International Federation of Agricultural Research Directors and the various information systems. But we would like to caution against getting too much involved in the notion of a world system of agricultural research from an institutional point of view. To us this is more a question of content than form.

Another important area is the strengthening of the national research organizations in FAO in the future. This applies both to research organizations and management, and also training has to be an important part of this. I have already referred to the close collaboration established with ISNR to ensure complementarity and I would like to say that there is plenty of work to be done by everybody. So it is just a matter of having sufficient contact about it. We also understand that at present an initiative has been taken to have an evaluation study on assistance to national agricultural research, and we welcome that very much.

Perhaps the most important role of the FAO would be to give special attention -- and I come back again to linkages between research and extension services as well as other services of agricultural development in the developing countries -- not only to promote the flow of results to farmers, but again, equally important, to promote the feedback from the farmer to the research workers.

FAO, in view of its wide area of competence, has special possibilities in this area and should work towards influencing also the services we are talking about, extension services and other development services, in this same direction.

With these remarks I would just like to say that we fully endorse the document in front of us on National Agricultural Research.

R. GARCELL (Cuba): Estamos tratando de enmarcarnos en el plan de 20 minutos que usted nos ha señala-do. Agradeceiюs a los miembros de la Secretaria la introduccion que han hecho de los temas. Nos referiremos a los dos que están siendo objeto de análisis. En la Carta Mundial de los Suelos hemos hecho algunas sugerencias a la Secretaría de tipo formal que con su comprensión y amabilidad acostumbrada, seguramente han de tener en cuenta. Pero también quisiéramos, al tiempo que apoyamos este documento y este proyecto de resolución, que se analice por los órganos técnicos correspondientes y por las demás delegaciones, el agregar un párrafo o incorporar una idea que no tiene un carácter retórico sino de fondo, en el sentido de inscribir, por ejemplo: “teniendo en cuenta que el mal estado de los suelos se manifiesta con mayor intensidad en los países en vías de desarrollo”. Sería esto en el caso del texto en español, en una de las partes de la página 2, y esto nos conduciría a que, al final de la resolución, en la página 5 del texto español, en el subpárrafo ii) que dice: “Ayudar a los gobier - nos...”, inscribir: “prioritariamente a los países subdesarrollados”. Repito, señor Presidente, no es un aspecto formal sino que es en los países subdesarrollados donde se manifiesta con mayor intensidad la degradación de los suelos por la explotación que los mismos han sido objeto, por distintas causas que no vale la pena mencionar porque son sobradamente conocidas.

De todas formas, reiteramos nuestra aprobación al documento C 81/27 y reiteramos el saludo a la Secretaria por su inclusión en nuestra Comisión. Con respecto al C 81/26, Investigaciones agrícolas nacionales en los países en desarrollo, nuestra delegación recibe con satisfacción la inclusión del tema y recordamos que esta Comisión ha tenido también la misión de discutir el presupuesto. A los organismos internacionales y a los propios países, les resulta difícil seleccionar el mejor camino entre aquél que conduce a destinar fondos a la promoción de incrementos inmediatos en la producción agricola, o a la investigación, los cuales aunque tienen una influencia decisiva en la producción, sus resultados se obtienen más tardiamente.

Al analizar este tema, nos viene neeesariamente a la mente, nuevamente, la injusta posición de algu-nos países ricos que no han aceptado hasta ahora el incremento del presupuesto para 1982-83. Por nuestros estudios combinados de los documentos C 81/3 y C 81/26 estimamos que la organización lleva confrontadas insuficiencias de fondo para lograr cumplimentar la estrategia que pretende desarrollar en materia de investigación agrícola, que se muestra en los párrafos 48 al 62. Si compaгamos esos objetivos con el modestísimö incremento que se refleja en el Programa 2.1.4 -Apoyo a la investigación, el que sólo recibiría un x incremento de 340 000 pesos en el bienio, nos preguntamos podremos avanzar así en la investigación, podrá transformarse así el atraso tecnológico que en materia agrícola mantienen los países en desarrollo? Si no se invierte en la investigación, no se incrementará sustancial-mente la producción agrícola.

Nuestra delegación sugiere que si por cualquier circunstancia, el presupuesto de la Organización tuviera que hacer reajustes, éstos no atenten contra los limitadísimos fondos previstos para la investigación, que es la seguridad del futuro; pero sobre todo, instamos a que tanto la FAO como los países vigilen y aseguren que todo fondo destinado a la investigación tenga una vinculación directa con objetivos prácticos de producción, y nunca se conviertan en meros ejercicios teóricos.

Así, en el párrafo 53 lo recoge el documento C 81/26. La aplicación práctica de los resultados de las investigaciones en la esfera agrícola en los países en desarrollo, es un paso modesto para estrechar la ancha brecha que separa a éstos de los países desarrollados, y no podemos conformarnos en que esta distancia se mantenga inalterable, o lo que es peor, se ensanche.

Queremos también sugerir que los países y la organización consideren como elementos de investigación, encuestas no sólo sobre las técnicas de producción agrícola, ganadera, o de pesca, sino que tambien se abarquen las condicionessocioeconómicas de los pobladores rurales que son los actores y víctimas del atraso existente. Con lo cual, estaríamos en concordancia con la Declaración de Principles y Programa de Acción presentado a la Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural.

I. GARBOUCHEV (UNEP): First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to extend the gratitude of the united Nations Environment Programme Secretariat to the Director-General of FAO of UN and FAO Council for the invitation to attend the 21st Session of the FAO Conference.

A number of UNEP/FAO joint activities, programmes and projects are at an “on-going” or “forthcoming” status. A review of this cooperation just a minute ago was presented at the Plenary Session.

For the moment, I would like to draw the attention of the distinguished delegates attending the Session of this Commission to a few remarks and comments regarding the World Soil Charter and FAO research programme in developing countries.

The UNEP Governing Council, at its 8th and 9th Session (1980 and 1981) requested the Executive Director of UNEP to identify the most important technical, institutional and legal elements of a World Soils Policy and Plan of Action for its implementation. In close collaborat ion with FAO, Unesco, the International Soil Science Society and other relevant organizations, two Expert Group Meetings were held in FAO Headquarters, Rome, (1980 and 1981) for the purpose.

The last meeting, held in February 1981, adopted recommendations for “A proposed World Soil Policy and framework of Plan of Action for its implementation”. The elements of a World Soil Policy are considered both at the international and national levels.

The overall objectives of a World Soil Policy could be summarized concisely as follows: 1. Establishment of a global land and soil productivity and environment monitoring system; 2. Adoption of internationally agreed methodologies for the assessment of land productive available and potentially available, based on periodical cost benefit analysis, and their productivity, based on accessible input technologies; 3. Promotion of international and national legislation for the protection and development of land and soil resources.

I would like to state clearly that very substantial achievements in these directions have been accomplished by FAO over the last 20/25 years.

However, now is the time for FAO’s (and other’s) relevant scientific achievements all over the world to be organized into a World Soil Policy and built up as a unique system for periodical assessment of global land resources and promotion of methodologies for their improvement, reclamation and sustainable use. In fact, the FAO programme under Medium-Term Objectives and research in the field of land and soils conservation, development and management are fully in line with the objectives of a World Soil Policy and a Plan of Action for its implementation.

To this end, on behalf of UNEP Secretariat, I would like to express my sincere hope for further even more active and close collaboration with FAO, to carry on all necessary activities for the establishment of a World Soil Policy and a Plan of Action for its implementation.

There is no doubt that the World Soil Charter prepared by FAO, in meeting the World Food Conference request in 1974, would form a fundamental moral and legislative background both at the international and national levels of a World Soil Policy. The earlier draft of this Charter was favourably considered by the last Expert Group meeting on World Soil Policy held in Rome.

The draft of the World Soil Charter, document C 81/LIM/11., due to be adopted by the 21st FAO Conference, is now a well-developed document and deserves full support.

However, I would like to suggest a few amendments, which I believe would further its improvement:

- Under Resolution 81, paragraph 3, “Recalling...”- Actually this was already mentioned by Libya; it is related to the conference on Desertification, but I would particularly like to suggest after that line l, “adopted by the” add “United Nations Conference on Desertification which called to combat land degradation and desertification”;

- Under “Principles”, para. 6. After the word “sound” on the first line, the word “technical” might be inserted before “institutional” for comprehensiveness;

- Under “By International Organizations”, A new paragraph was already suggested to be incorporated reading: “Collaborate closely for the implementation of Plan of Action to combat desertification”.

I would like to express particularly UNEP’s full support of the FAO Research Programme in developing countries and the readiness of the United Nations Enviroment Programme to cooperate in whatever levels and aspects are needed, including catalytic funding for better performance and in fostering environmental objectives of various research and extension projects in developing countries.

S.A. ADETUNJI (Nigeria): I would like to thank the Chairman for this opportunity to comment on the documents on Agricultural Research and the World Soil Charter. We fully endorse these two programmes, but one doubts whether the allocations to these two programmes will be adequate. The programme in support of Agricultural Research is welcomed. We would like to congratulate the Secretariat for producing this document and we fully share and endorse the analyses presented and the constraints in Agricultural Research as laid out in document C 81/26.

There is no doubt that there is much to be done in the field of agricultural research in developing countries. We are aware of the activities of ISNAR which is relatively young and still very thin in staff. We feel there is much that the FAO and International Research Centre can do to improve research activities in developing countries, thereby helping these countries towards self-sufficiency in food by helping them to develop their capabilities and capacities in research through collaborative programme training (short and long term), visits, conferences, management training.

However, we realise the effectiveness of research in most cases does not depend on the number of institutions but is considerably influenced by the number of linkages between the institutions, the integration of research, agricultural extension research and liaison, and efficient extension systems. The flow of information between national and international research institutions is also very important.

All considered, this is why our delegation considers this programme to be very important, hoping that it will promote effectiveness in research output and promote collaboration between the international institutions in the CGIAR systems and national research institutes, strengthening the capability of the national research scientists and improving the development of management staff, This has been found to be crucial in strengthening the national efforts in agricultural research to provide sound backing for efforts in agricultural production.

I would like briefly to mention the World Soil Charter as this programme is very important. I would also like to compliment the Secretariat for the production and the evolution of these documents. Therefore we acclaim the. objectives of the World Soil Charter. Misuse of land in many parts of the world has rendered soils very unproductive. Therefore we support also soil and land use programmes that will promote soil conservation and reclamation.

The problem of developing land use policies will not be as serious as efforts in enforcing such policies, therefore the FAO will have to help, among other institutions, development of institutional capabilities and manpower development in some of the developing countries, also FAO will have to be deeply involved in public awareness programmes in soil conservation/land reclamation, and efficient use of such resources.

We fully endorse the two programmes.

V. KRENTOS (Cyprus): First of all, I would like to congratulate FAO for presenting this document an all-embracing overview of the present situation and the priorities of the future as well.

I must give credit to, and indeed I congratulate, the Assistant Director-General for presenting us with the salient features of this document - I am talking of C 81/26 on National Agricultural Research in Developing Countries.

We look upon agricultural research as a multi-disciplinary approach. We would not support or create institutions which are mono-disciplinary - in other words dealing with one commodity or with one resource subject.

We would therefore like to see an institute on the national level which would embrace the disciplines of natural resources such as land, water, animal production, the forests, the fisheries, and the management of these resources as well, including supporting studies of the most efficient use of these resources.

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I will use this forum to express our deep gratitude to FAO for assisting us in building up an institution 18-20 years ago on the lines I have described.

With all humility I may say we are doing the best we can in close cooperation with the extension services and witn the Department of Agriculture in order to disseminate the results of the research to the farming community.

I am extremely gratified that my colleague from Denmark, who comes from a developed agricultural country, has touched on this very point. I represent the developing countries, and I fully support and endorse that applied agricultural research is an essential element of success. I made that point yesterday when you allowed me to intervene, Mr. Chairman.

There may be a need, perhaps, for mono-disciplinary institutions on a regional basis. This is not the time to discuss this, I think, but we agree fully that the major constraints are those set out in paras. 8-13. I would like to comment on para. 9 which stresses, if I may quote: “The first of these constraints is the lack of recognition of the importance of research in national development plans, with a consequent lack of investment in research development, and insufficient long-term financial support.” However, I must stress here that on the national level we - in other words institutions which are doing applied international research - must build and maintain the credibility of the planners. In other words there must be a credible institution and it must produce useful work so that one can claim financial support from the national budgets.

I made this point, but I would like to re-stress it again, that the linkage between extension and the farmers is the most crucial point in the success of any programme on the national research level. At the same time, this association creates the necessary ideas and inputs to the overall programme of research. By exchanging ideas and by interacting between extensions and the research workers there are many benefits. As a matter of fact, this can bring the research worker right into the field. It can bring him right into the real problems which the farming community is facing.

On the question of research collaboration I must add that FAO must act as the catalyst, as the agent, for effective coordination of ideas. I do also wish to stress the point that the agricultural institutions should cooperate closely with the other bodies which deal with agricultural research suгh as the IAEA, IBPGR, etc.

As I said previously, I think the strategy for action in the 1980’s is very well presented. The guidelines are there and they are very clearly set out for each one of us to take those which are relevant and pertinent to our own situations.

With regard to the strengthening of international research collaboration, again it is implicit that we fully support this kind of relationship with, other international research organizations.

As far as the objectives are concerned I think they are very well and clearly set out in para. 94. This is the direction to follow, and we intend to do exactly that.

With these few remarks, we fully endorse document C 81/26, and we look towards FAO to help national institutions to strengthen those areas in which they may be lacking.

Now I turn to document C 81/27, the World Soil Charter. Indeed, I must in this case also congratulate FAO for presenting this Commission with this excellent and comprehensive report on the salient, features of what has to be done in order to alleviate the problem of soil and land degradation. In this case too, we have gone through this document very thoroughly and we endorse it fully, and recommend adoption of both documents.

A.H. EL SARKI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): Document 26 gives us very useful information, and that is why we would like, to thank FAO for having presented it to us.

In the light of this document we feel it is necessary to have a link between research and the farmers and also to establish links among research institutions.

We would also like to pay a tribute to FAO for the collaboration with other agencies, and we would recommend that a special emphasis should be placed on agricultural research, particularly with regard to the increase of agriculture and food production.

The factors which make it possible for us to surmount shortages of production start with soil conservation, and therefore, after having reviewed document C 81/27, we would like to give our support to the resolution contained in this document.

O.M. SELIKANE (Lesotho): We would like to congratulate the Secretariat for presenting these two documents to us. We shall confine our remarks to document C 81/27. This document is clear and comprehensive enough for our needs. Our special attention is paid to the principles presented. The importance of these principles cannot be over-emphasized.

In consideration of the action to be followed, the Government of Lesotho has instituted the new Land Act of 1979 which is intended to remove constraints in the use of land and other national resources according to their productive capability, and to give encouragement to commercial utilization of the soil.

We also commend FAO and other agencies for assisting in the fight against soil erosion which we in Lesotho consider as an emergency; with projects pertaining to land use, planning and proper utilization of the soil, we believe that programmes in soil conservation would further be enhanced by strengthening and linking research and extension activities towards individuals and cooperatives utilizing the land. My delegation firmly supports and endorses these two documents.

A.L. TANIS (Haiti): La délégation d’Haïti, après un examen minutieux des documents soumis à son attention, adresse ses chaleureuses félicitations au Secrétariat général pour la qualité de ce document, et aussi pour la liaison qui existe entre les éléments qui figurent sur ces documents.

Contrairement à la plupart des délégues, je propose de faire d’abord des commentaires sur le document concernant la Charte mondiale des sols. Ma délégation pense que le sol constitue le substratum physique sur lequel doit s'organiser toute I’agriculture rationnelle en vue d’arriver à produire suffisammemt de vivres pour assurer l’alimentation des populations du globe.

La délégation d’Hai’ti adresse aussi ses félicitations à la FAO pour la qualité du travail réalise. Pour mener à bien ce travail, on a dû avoir recours à toute la documentation qui a été reunie. On a recueilli l’opinion de tous les utilisateurs des sols ainsi que des gouvernements, et nous estimons que le travail qui a été effectué est remarquable et digne de l’attention des délégués participant à cette Conférence.

Nous pensons que, tout au début, c’est la forêt, qui recouvrait alors les sols, qui a contribué largement à maintenir l’équilibre biologique entre la plaine et les montagnes. Et, au fur et à mesure que s’accroissait la population du globe, l’homme a dû intervenir et briser cet équilibre fragile, en débroussaillant d’abord, en brûlant et en labourant ensuite, et, à partir de ce moment, a commencé vraiment le drame de la dégradation des sols qui a eu pour conséquence immediate les bas rendєmєnts, la misère et la faim.

Un point a été soulevé par le représentant du PNUE, sur lequel j’aurais voulu revenir en l’approfondissant. Au fur et à mesure de la dégradation des sols, un phénomène tout à fait nouveau apparaît sur la planète, à savoir le phénomène de la désertification. Et les archéologues en fouillant les pages millénaires des civilisations disparues sont arrivés à cette conclusion: ce sont les activités funestes et maladroites des hommes qui ont causé l’érosion et modelé certains déserts artificiels sur la surface de notre planète, et causé la ruine de civilisations.

C’est pourquoi la délégation haîtienne estime qu’avant de procéder à l’établissement de cette charte mondiale, on devrait d’abord procéder à un inventaire complet de toutes les ressources natureiles renouvelables, en vue d’établir une classification des sols qui tienne dûment compte des systèmes écologiques de chaque région; qui tienne compte de la structure des sols et de leur composition chimique, ainsi que de leur potentiel de développement, et tous ces facteurs doivent avoir pour objectif initial l’utilisation adéquate des sols et surtout de leur conservation, en vue de pouvoir fournir à l’humanité les produits nécessaires à son alimentation.

C’est pourquoi la délégation haîtienne appuie le document tel qu’il a été présenté par la Direction générale de la FAO, parce qu’elle est convaincue qufєn l’absence dfune stratégie générale qui permette d’arriver à une meilleure utilisation, à une meilleure conservation des sols, on continuera à obtenir pour les cultures des rendements de plus en plus bas, lesquels continueront à se dégrader et cela sera la désolation et la misère partout.

En ce qui concerne le document visant la recherche agricole nationale, la délé haîtienne n’a pas l’intention de répéter tout ce qui a étê dit par les orateurs qui se sont succédé à ce micro et ont traité de la question avec beaucoup de maítrise et de compétence. Toutefois, elle aurait voulu formuler les remarques suivantes: nous pensons que la recherche constitue la base fondamentale de l’augmentation de la productivité et, partant, de la production alimentaire mondiale. Mais nous pensons également que les programmes de recherche doivent être étudiés d’une façon méticuleuse et ne pas constituer des documents de travail élaborás à partir de certains bureaux de la FAO ou de certaines agences gouvernementales, et être parachutés sur le terrain. Je pense que la recherche, compte tenu de son importance, devrait faire avant toute exécution l’objet d’un inventaire exhaustif de toutes les ressources physiques d’une région, de toutes les ressources humaines et également de toutes les ressources budgétaires ou financières.

Nous attirons l’attention de cette Commission sur le fait que la recherche doit être réalisée dans le but primordial de satisfaire certains besoins immédiats des populations, et dans cette perspective, je crois qu’une attention particulière devrait être accordée à la formation de l’homme, parce que la recherche doit tenir compte des traditions de l’homme, de sa formation, de son degré d’évolution, pour être vraiment valable et appelée à satisfaire les besoins.

J’attire également l’attention des participants de cette Commission sur le fait qu’un lien étroit doit exister entre la recherche et la vulgarisation.

La recherche étant appelée à satisfaire des besoins immédiats, doit avoir un contenu précis, elle doit se reflèter dans les tâches de la vulgarisation. On ne doit pas faire de la recherche simplement pour le plaisir de faire de la recherche, mais pour obtenir des données de base à partir de ce que possède et de ce que pratique le paysan pour essayer, étape par étape, d’améliorer sa productivité et partant son revenu, et pour lui permettre d’avoir les conditions de vie plus humaines.

Je pense done que dans cet ordre d’idée, la recherche devrait s’occuper de problèmes à court terme, appelés a satisfaire les besoins des agriculteurs; la recherche étant un travail d’équipe nécessite également un personnel très spécialisé et à très haut niveau, que ne possèdent pas beaucoup de pays en développement.

C’est pourquoi, j’appuie les propositions qui ont été faites par certains délégués, à savoir qu’une diffusion de certaines conclusions admises ailleurs, permettrait, dans certains cas, à la plupart des pays, d’améliorer grandement leur productivité, sans avoir recours à une recherche sophistiquée mais en procédant simplement à ce que je pourrais appeler des contróles agronomiques à partir de certains travaux de recherche réalisés ailleurs, dans des conditions similaires.

Il se pose authentiquement la gestion de la recherche sur laquelle une attention beaucoup plus approfondie doit être portée.

Pour conclure, je dirai que la recherche coûte cher, et au terme de cet exposé, et en tenant compte de tout ce qui a été dit par les orateurs qui se sont succédé la délé haítienne prend plaisir à assurer la direction générale de son plein appui, en ce qui concerne l’exécution et l’application de ces deux documents, à savoir: la Charte mondiale des sols et la recherche agronomique.

Pour terminer je demanderai à la FAO de recommander aux différents gouvernements intéressés, d’avoir à renforcer leur service national de la recherche agronomique.

C. FRENCH (United States of America): The United States also adds its support to the World Soil Charter resolution. Also, we commend the Secretariat for preparing document C 81/26 on National Agricultural Research in Developing Countries. The United States has consistently supported the main thesis of this document, namely that well-designed and executed research is necessary for successful development. We support the emphasis in the document on worldwide cooperation and coordination to ensure a total integrated world system, a system which rightly recognizes the importance of the various components including individual country systems, regional systems and international systems. We think the document makes a contribution with regard to research priorities but we must emphasize that much more work needs to be done in developing research priorities.

Research by its nature is expensive and every effort, including careful setting of priorities, must be made to develop cost-effective research systems. The role which FAO has played in participating as an active member of the total group of agencies encouraging research coordination, as illustrated in paragraph 105, is the appropriate role for FAO and we commend that.

K. TANOUCHEV (Bulgarie): Notre délégation soutient entièrement les principes exposés dans le document C 81/27 et appuie sans reserve le projet de Résolution sur la Charte mondiale des sols. Les problèmes de la conservation des sols sont toujours restês au centre de l’attention de notre gouvernement. Actuellement en Bulgarie, on développe un programme détaillé de conservation des sols. Ce programme est exécuté sur l’ensemble du pays et il est supervisé par de nombreux spécialistes et chercheurs scientifiques de l’Institut de pédologie. Une structure de formation de perfectionnement existe depuis plusieurs années auprès de l’Institut de pédologie et de nombreux jeunes spêcialistes nationaux et des pays de développement y ont été formes. Nous sommes done prêts a coopêrer activement avec les pays dêsireux d’une réalisation d’un programme global de conservation et d’utilisation rationnelle des sols.

A. DE LEON LLAMAZARES (España): Mi intervención en nombre de la delegación española va a ser breve, puesto que aun cuando la importancia de los temas contemplados en los documentos C 81/27 y C 81/26 es grande, están completa y correctamente tratados en los mismos, por lo que no es necesario insistir en ninguno de sus múltiples perfiles.

En este sentido, mi felicitación a la Secretaría por su excelente trabajo. Por todo ello, quiero de-jar patente aquí únicamente la satisfacción de mi delegación por un documento como el C/81/27, en el que se recoge una propuesta de resolución sobre el Mapa de Suelos del Mundo, resolución que nos parece del mayor interés y cuya adopción respaldamos, ya que entendemos que daría coherencia a todas las actividades básicaspara la lucha, a largo plazo, contra el hambre, el mantenimiento y mejora de la productividad de los ecosistemas terrestres, y la consecución de mayores cotas de bienestar social. Esto es todo.

WANG SHOU RU (China) (original language Chinese): We are very pleased to see the World Soil Charter drafted by the Secretariat of the Conference which outlines in a very succinct manner the principles of the rational utilization of soil resources and proposes action to be taken by the international community.

This charter will play an important role in our future agricultural production practice of conserving and improving soil productivity as well as promoting steady development of agriculture.

The Chinese delegation supports this draft and would like recommend its adoption by the Conference.

The Charter, in its paragraph 8, in its Principles section raises the question relating to land tenure. This is a question of principle that concerns the rational use of all soil resources and should be in fact summed up into a major principle. However, in view of the differences in the social and economic systems of different countries and their levels of agricultural development, while in order to adapt this existing situation, we would like to suggest for your consideration an amendment to the sentence of the 8th paragraph which would then read: ‘Appropriate ways and means should be pursued to overcome such obstacles in the light of the principles concerned in the Programme of Action of the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development.’ I would like to propose this for your consideration.

As for the question of national agricultural research in developing countries, we believe that helping developing countries to reinforce agricultural research works is of vital importance to the promotion of sustained growth of the world food and agriculture. It is therefore quite necessary to rank it as one of the priorities in the Medium-term Objectives of this Organization.

We strongly support the concept of agricultural research strategy for the 1980s as set out in the document. We also support the work in the four priority areas.

Viewing from the realities of the agriculture research in our country we find that the training of new research workers is of even greater significance in the four priorities areas. The number of personnel in China that have the equivalent level to that of agricultural university graduates is about 300 000, that is to say in a country with a large population like ours only three out of 10 000 agricultural specialists, and among these many of them are engaged in administrative and extension work. As a result the number of personnel really engaged in agricultural research is even smaller. This falls far behind the demand of the task to promote scientific research in our country’s agriculture. We keenly feel that without a sufficient number of qualified research workers the goal to strengthen agricultural research cannot be achieved even if a certain amount of funds and corresponding research systems are available. Therefore training of personnel is here a fundamental principle, it is a prerequisite for carrying on national agricultural research in a self-reliant way. I believe that many of the delegates present here have had the same experience. Therefore we look forward to continued international cooperation in this field.

M. LUC ECHEVERRIA (Chile): Deseo manifestar que la delegación de Chile apoya el trabajo que en el futuro se realizará con relación a la Carta de Suelos. Al respecto, mi país tiene, a la fecha, un estudio

que cubre sobre esta materia gran parte del territorio nacional, y con alarma, nos pudimos dar cuenta, gracias a este estudio, del avance del desierto y de zonas importantes que estaban siendo objeto de erosión.

Esto llevó a que en el año 1974 se dictara una Ley de Fomento Forestal que, en términos simples, señala que el Estado le colabora a aquél que quiera plantar un bosque, en aproximadamente 75 por ciento de su valor. Se tomó esta medida por lo grave que consideró el Gobierno la destrucción del suelo, y es así como esta iniciativa permitió que, en el período 1974-80, se plantaran 620 000 hectáreas, comparado a un período anterior similar de 230 000 hectáreas.

Manifiesto esto solamente con el objeto de indicar la importancia que Chile le da al reconocimiento del suelo y a su conservación adecuada. En lo que se refiere a la investigación, también mi delegación apoya el documento que se nos ha presentado, pero desearía llamar la atención en algunos aspectos que estima importantes.

En primer lugar, la investigación debe dirigirse, en términos tales, que la relación costo/beneficio, especialmente para los países en desarrollo, tenga una adecuada resultante. Además es importante, como lo dijo un delegado con anterioridad a que yo hiciera uso de la palabra, el que sea multifacêtica esta investigación, para lo cual es importante ver la posibilidad de investigar el manejo de cuencas hidro-gráficas en su todo, porque de lo contrario, muchas veces no se çonsiguen los objetivos que se pretenden

Todo esto, como también lo han dicho varios delegados, debe ir íntimamente relacionado con una transferencia tecnológica adecuada. Mi delegación estima que es necesario analizar la situación mundial de la investigación y descubrir nuevas formas para que ella se transfiera; porque a la fecha, la tranferencia de lo investigado ha sido pobre si se compara con lo mucho que se ha investigado. Es difícil hacer que el productor haga suyas las prácticas que el investigador ha estimado convenientes. Y esto evidentemente hace que cuando no se puede aplicar, en forma práctica, lo investigado resulta un costo que no es justo que países en vías de desarrollo afronten. Creo que en este aspecto, la FAO podría darnos un apoyo muy importante. Con esto, señor Presidente, termino esta intervención por lo avanzado de la hora.

C. MUZZALSKI (Poland): The Polish delegation has very carefully studied this document and wishes to congratulate the Secretariat on its preparation and presentation.

We share the opinion That the World Soil Charter is very important and will be very useful for developing countries in their efforts to increase food production. We are also of the opinion that the training for research is very important and that the Secretariat should organize assistance and national cooperation in this.

O. RAMADAN (Tchad): En parcourant ces deux documents 26 et 27, je me suis arrêté au premier, relatif à la conservation et à l’utilisation des sols. J’ai relevé deux points:

Le premier point concerne un travail curatif conseille par la FAO, en ce sens que l’utilisation des sols, que ce soit des terres anciennes après engrais, mais surtout des terres nouvelles, débouche nécessairement sur l’augmentation de la production agricole pour satisfaire la population d’un pays et résoudre le problème de l’insuffisance alimentaire.

Le deuxième objectif conseillé par la FAO est également curatif puisque, parallèlement à l’utilisation del sols, la FAO conseille aux Etats de ne pas perdre de vue la dégradation de ces sols.

Le second document a trait à la recherche agricole. Qui dit recherche, dit formation des cadres, des chercheurs. Ce problème n’a pas été perdu de vue. Je demanderais à la FAO, qui a soulevé ce problème très crucial dans les pays en développement, d’appuyer les gouvernements des pays en développement pour la formation de cette catégorie des cadres nationaux.

Qui dit recherche, dit également amélioration d’une situation donnée. Dans l’orientation de la FAO, on a toujours en vue l’insuffisance alimentaire. Done, toute recherche agronomique vise à l’augmentation de la production agricole pour satisfaire les besoins des populations en nourriture.

Une autre problème a été soulevé également dans le second document, c’est le problème de la coopération dans le domaine-de la recherche. II faut d’abord une cooperation locale. J’entends par “cooperation locale” le fait que toute recherche doit nécessairement appliquer ses résultats sur le terrain. Automatiquement il se crée une relation entre le technicien du terrain, cadre subalteme, et le chercheur. Le

technicien rapporte les résultats au chercheur.

Qui dit recherche scientifique, dit nécessairement coopération au niveau régional. Ce problème a été vu également par la FAO. Je demanderai à la FAO, compte tenu du fait qu’il y a des institute de recherche ou des laboratoires dans certains pays africains, d’appuyer les gouvernements des pays où se trouvent ces structures de recherche pour que s’établisse une coopération régionale pouvant déboucher sur une coopération internationale. Dans cette coopération il y a d’abord la formation des cadres qui peut se faire sur place dans certains pays africains dotés de structures de recherche, et au niveau international pour profiter des résultats et de l’experience des pays avancés.

En conclusion, Monsieur le Président, la délégation du Tchad approuve les deux documents, le premier relatif à la Charte des sols, et le second relatif à la recherche agricole. Elle remercie également le secrétariat général de la FAO pour le sérieux qu’elle a mis dans l’élaboration de ce travail.

M. M. MUKOLWE (Kenya): My delegation would like to join the others and commend the Director-General and his staff, together with the assistants from various committees and institutions which have contributed to the preparation of these two very vital documents, C 81/27, World Soil Charter, and C 81/26, National Agricultural Research in Developing Countries.

It is an undisputed fact that increased food production remains our theme and the best way to achieve this is by soil management, the use of fertilizers and how to manipulate them.

The two documents, and more so the one on the World Soil Charter, are opportune, and in fact a bit late, but better late than never.

I come from a developing country to which the contents of the two documents are very relevant. I am sure from what I hear that very many Member Countries will support this.

Mismanagement of land by mankind has increased the awareness, particularly of the developing countries, and we feel, as the UNIP Representative said, that degradation of land, and soil for that matter, from which we have to make a living is very rife in developing countries, especially where I come from.

So I would very much like to state the views of my country in that we have given support to soil and water conservation and this has led to the formation of a Presidential Committee on Soil and Water Conservation and Afforestation.

On research I agree with the speakers. I particularly agree with the ones who supported the idea that the research should be oriented to the rural population, and that is the dissemination and emphasizing the link between research and extension. This is a very vital link and is what is missing in most areas. It is just because the basic information is not there, it is how to put the basic information across, how to put it into practice to produce food.

These are very important areas. As various Members have already said, the areas of management development, that is the training element, particularly in research is vital to us. We also recognize that the two areas, research as well as soil and water conservation, and particularly land degradation, will mean a lot of resource investment to cure what has been misused or.mismanaged by the inhabitants of “those areas for many years. I would like to affirm, as other members have done, and endorse simultaneously the two documents that are before us.

S.AIDARA (Sénégal): Je suis un peu confus de prendre la parole au moment où vous vous apprêtez à lever la séance mais je vais être très bref, et je vais même vous faciliter la tâche Monsieur le Président.

Je n’ai pas eu l’occasion de participer au débat sur les chapitres 3 et 4 du budget; ma declaration etait prête mais cet après-midi j’ai dû assister à plusieurs réunions, notamment au niveau de ma région et au niveau de la Conférence islamique. Je vous ai dit que j’allais vous faciliter la tâche parce que, avec votre permission, je remettrai la déclaration au titre de ce point au secrétariat pour qu’elle soit consignée au procès-verbal, si vous n’y voyez pas d’inconvénient bien entendu et si la Commission est d’accord.

Pour ce qui est des deux documents qui nous sont soumis, en son temps le Sénégal avait fait part de sa position, notamment au niveau du Comité de l’agriculture, et ce n’est que pour réitérer notre soutien à cette charte que je prends la parole.

En ce qui concerne la recherche, je voudrais attirer l’attention de la commission pour que des efforts soient entrepris et que des fonds soient alloués également pour la recherche nationale, non seulement pour les groupes qui s’occupent de recherche, mais également au niveau national que des efforts soient entrepris pour qu’à ce niveau la recherche puisse aboutir à des résultats concrets.

CHAIRMAN: I think we have no further comments from the floor. With your understanding I turn around to Mr. Bommer and Mr. Dudal and ask whether they would like to provide comments.

D.F.R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I do not want to prolong the discussion. I only want to say we are very grateful for the comments that have been made during the last two days on the subject of research which we felt received very strong support, and now with this very extended discussion and a lot of additional comments and information we received through the discussion, we are very grateful, and I feel this more or less supports the content of the paper, how we approached the subject.

R.DUDAL (Director, Land and Water Development Division): I too am grateful for the support we have received for the World Soil Charter, and I should like to confirm that the specific suggestions which were made to me on the document, particularly from Libya, Cuba and China successively and from our colleagues from UNEP, will be taken into account to improve the document.

A.F.M. DE FREITAS (Brazil): I would just like to mention, in accordance with the suggestions made by the Chinese and other delegations, that if reference is made to the World Conference on Principles and Plan of Action, there should be added “as adopted”, as we usually do in FAO. If the principles are to be mentioned, I should like to see the words “as adopted” included.

CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for that pertinent remark.

I see that there are no further comments on the two subjects we have discussed this afternoon. In total we had 20 speakers that made very solid and constructive comments and statements to the two subjects. I would briefly wind up by saying that the Commission received document C 81/26 on National Agricultural Research in Developing Countries and concurred with the analysis of the current status of agricultural research in developing countries. Furthermore, the Commission approved the Agricultural Research Strategy for the 1980s and endorsed FAO’s Medium-Term-Objectives on Agricultural Research.

In regard to document C 81/27 and the draft resolution attached to it on the World Soil Charter, delegates commended the careful preparation and excellent presentation of the subject, and I understood that in addition to the statements made and to the amendments suggested in the oral statements, written comments have been passed on to Mr. Dudal also.

I have confidence that the amendments suggested will be effectively taken into account in amending the text of the Draft Resolution, and I feel I can speak for the Commission in saying that Commission II recommends the adoption of the resolution in the Plenary Conference. It certainly must give great satisfaction to Mr. Bommer and Mr. Dudal to see a charter being approved that goes back to the World Food Conference in 1974 initially and to see now that this Charter being proposed for adoption by the Conference, a Charter that deals with one of our most important resources that we have at our disposal, the soils, is now possible.

With these remarks, we have come to an end of the debate on items 9 and 10 of the agenda. I would like to thank all delegates for the valuable remarks and contributions to “the core of the matter”, as Graham Greene would have said, to the Programme of Work and Budget.

The meeting rose at 19.30 hours
La séance est levée à 19 h. 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 19.30 horas