I now come to the agenda of today. Today we have for debate Item 11, Review pfi the, Regular Programme 1980-81, Document C 81/8. I. understand we will have the benefit of an introduction by Mr. Ayazi.
A.R. AYAZI (FAO Staff): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Distinguished delegates, two years ago this Commission discussed the first Review of the Work Programme. The deliberations of the Commission were very encouraging. It approved the overall structure and approach of the Review, and the Commission felt that it was an important addition to FAO’s evaluation system. As the, delegates are awarej this system of evaluation also includes evaluations by programme monitors, special reviews of individual programmes by the governing bodies and in some cases by the Joint Inspection Unit. At that time, the Commission noted with approval both the Performance Report and the In-Depth Reviews presented in the first Review. In particular, it praised the section on Issues. The Commission concluded that the In-Depth Reviews continued to be a careful, critical and in-depth exercise especially as it focussed on field components of the sub-programmes. The frank and constructive debate of the Commission and the careful and detailed suggestions made for future improvements formed the basis for planning the second Review which you now have before you. Like the first Review, it follows the FAO Programme structure and contains both a Performance Report on the entire Programme of Work, that is Part One, and In-Depth Reviews on selected subjects, that is Part Two.
The front pages of each part explain the approach that we have adopted. Also, as last time, the culmination of the analysis is in the identification of major issues and outlook and considerations by both the governing bodies and the Secretariat. In both parts of the document, however, we have tried to make substantial modifications and improvements.
Mr. Chairman, permit me to briefly explain what these modifications and improvements are. In Part One, which is the Performance Report on the Review and which covers pages 1 to 126, we have tried to introduce the following improvements:
One, we have examined the individual programmes within their major programme framework rather than in isolation. This has made it possible to single out areas of interaction and to focus on the contribution of each programme and sub-programme to the achievement of broader programme objectives.
Two, results of common activities such as training course, meetings, publications, technical back-stopping of field projects and direct assistance to Member countries on the Regular Programme have been pulled together.
Three, we have covered achievement for 1979-80, and possibly for the first quarter of 1981. This has allowed us to assess results for 24 or sometimes 27 months rather than 15, as it was in the last review.
Four, programme reporting has been condensed to a considerable extent and presented in the form of tables and charts. You will notice the Performance Report contains 20 tables and 4 charts. As a result of these amplifications we have been able to put much more selection in the narrative, and those highlight significant achievement and developments.
Five, we have added a chapter on the state of programmes of the 12 special action programmes under the major principle of agriculture. This is Chapter Two of the Review.
In Part Two, which is the in-depth reviews and covers pages 127 to 268 the following improvements have been made. We have expanded the coverage of selected programmes and sub-programmes from five in the first Review to eight in the second review. These in-depth reviews include topics from each of the three major technical areas of FAO - namely agriculture, fisheries and forestry.
Two of the in-depth reviews are topics which cut across programme lines and were suggested by the Programme Committee two years ago. These are Chapter thirteen, which is the development of small-scale fisheries and rural agriculture, and Chapter Fourteen is information covering analysis and dissemination - in other words, the basis of FAO. Their inclusion is an indication of a potentially interesting direction for the future.
As a result of these modifications, Part Two constitutes little more than half of the review compared with the first review, which was only 30 percent.
We have extended the time frame of the in-depth reviews from five to seven years and have included much more quantity of information presented wherever possible in tabular or graphic form. Part Two includes six tables and eleven charts.
We have tried to incorporate moreanalysis than was possible last time of the field components of the various programmes and sub-programmes. This has made it possible to treat the programme and sub-programme in a much more comprehensive way and focus on achievements and impact.
The Programme and Finance Committees expressed satisfaction with the improvement made in the documents, many of wich were in response to their suggestions and those of the Council and Conference two years ago. However, they feel the next review should include further the coverage of the effects and impacts, particularly of the in-depth review. In order to accomplish this without lengthening the documents, the Programme Committee suggested some reductions in the Performance Report but less reporting on objectives, resources, and links among programmes, and more focus on the progress and achievements on the outlook and issues.
Other improvements suggested by the Programme Committee included giving more attention to the specific contribution of the Regional Office and the activities of the FAO as a whole together with other organizations, particularly the UN agencies.
The Programme Committee have made use of the review in its deliberations on the Programme of Work and Budget, 1982-83, and it intends to make further use of the document when resuming the cycle of programme reviews during 1982.
While we have done our utmost to improve the document, we cannot hide the fact we have problems of meeting in one document the requirements on the one hand for brevity and on the other hand for completeness and in-depth analysis in a programme as large and complex as that for FAO. We have tried to strike a.balance as we did last time, and hope we have succeeded. We have included all suggestions made for improvement, and hope we have a better product to show.
There are gaps in the analysis. Measurement of impact in all cases is still elusive for many reasons, some of which are inseparable. It is usually impossible to separate FAO’s contribution completely from all the other factors which interplay to achieve changes at the country level.
Before closing, it needs to be mentioned that any review or evaluation is a learning process. Its sole purpose is to improve planning and future activities for greater efficiency and effectiveness. We have tried to provide a frank assessment of what has been done and the nroblems that have arisen. The review does not privide global recipes nor does it touch on problems of a problematic nature which this Commission has already covered at length when discussing the Programme of Work and Budget, 1982-1983.
We look forward to hearing the views of the Commission on this document and receiving its guidance on future reviews.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you Dr. Ayazi, that was indeed a very useful introduction made by a very competent person, the Chief of the Evaluation Service who is in the office of the Programme of Work and Budget and Evaluation.
C. THOMSEM (Denmark): I would like first to express our thanks to Dr. Ayazi for the very useful introduction we have just heard which clarified some of the points we had in our minds. My statement will comprise some comments of a more general nature, and then a few more specific comments at the end.
In our view this document provides very useful and valuable background information for the delivery of the Commission and the Conference. Together with the Programme of Work and Budget and Review of the Field Programmes it forms part of what we consider to be a very useful triad and we appreciate the efforts that have been made to adopt a common format or structure for these documents in order to facilitate the task of the users. We would welcome any further programmes which may be possible in this direction.
At the same time, we believe it necessary to warn against the tendency for continued expansion, and the point has already been made by Dr. Ayazi. It is necessary to keep in mind that a considerable amount of resources are involved in the preparation of these documents, and whereas we welcome the expansion of Part Two which provides the in-depth reviews of selective programmes and sub-programmes, we consider this expansion would have to be - at least to some extent - at the expense of the absolute length of Part One.
Over a period of time the in-depth reviews in Part Two will cover the total programme of the Organization and surely thus, in our view, there will be less need for elaborate treatment under the Performance Report in Part One, which could easily become a bit repetitious in nature.
We welcome the amount of evaluation which has taken place. It is, of course, only appropriate that the Organization should put its own house in order if it wants to promote the production of evaluation systems in the national programmes. In this kind of evaluation service it has a major part to play in our communes, and we particularly welcome the so-called schematic evaluations that have been undertaken in cooperation with UNDP so far on training and under preparation in national agricultural research programmes. We have to see more initiative in this connection.
As another general comment we appreciate the information provided about the results achieved, but we. would like to hear more about the problems and difficulties encountered. We note the progress that has been made in this direction, and are grateful for this. We also recognize the constraints you are up against, but still, the more the better.
Then I come to the few specific comments, although I thought it would be hardly proper to go into detail about this wealth of information. We would like to offer a few specific comments, mainly with regard to Part Two. This should, however, not be interpreted to mean that we have not taken an interest in other parts of the document as well.
As regards Part One, our only comment is connected with the section on linkages under the major programme of agriculture, and as Dr. Ayazi has explained, there are now good reasons for the way it is presented, but in our opinion it would enhance the value of at least half of this information on linkages if it could be integrated under sub-programmes so that when you read the programme narratives you get the immediate linkages to the sub-programmes; but there are parts of it where this would not apply.
With regard to Part Two, our few selective comments refer to Chapter 9 and Chapter 12.
Chapter 9 is on soil management and fertilizers, and deals to a large extent with the fertilizer programme. This has, in our opinion, developed in a very satisfactory manner, and we hope it will continue in the same direction - that is, that continued efforts will be made to make it accessible and useful to small farmers. We attach much importance to the integration of this programme at the field level to the policy at Headquarters. We appreciate also the positive cooperation of the fertilizer industry, and hope it will continue.
The last thing on this Chapter is that, as is indicated somewhere in the text, we feel there should be considerable scope in this programme for more technical cooperation among developing countries.
In Chapter 12, the development of support communications, we would like to question some of the statements concerning the use of the media techniques under this chapter. It seems doubtful to us whether it can be safely stated that this technique can be taken to remote areas and stand up well to use under primitive conditions. In fact, the experience so far in my own country has shown that at present it is not found suitable for use in extension work for farmers at training centres.
We would also like to emphasize under this Chapter 12 the importance of linkages of the sub-programmes with the Technical Programme as well as the conventional programme of training and extension. The need for intimate relationship between the allocations of the sub-programme and the integration into the follow-up of agrarian reform and rural development cannot be emphasized too strongly.
With these comments we would like again to commend the Organization and in particular the Secretariat for the comprehensive information about the activities of the Organization which has been provided, particularly in the second part of the document.
E.M. PARSONS (United States of America): In accordance with your request, Mr. Chairman, we have shortened considerably the intervention that we were planning to make on this agenda item because we do realize that we are running behind time, and we will try to focus our comments on the more important issues that we wish to bring before you.
I would first like to offer a few general comments and then I will proceed to a few specific observations.
The United States welcomes the document that is before us, C 81/8, A Review of the Regular Programme 1980-81, as a very useful mechanism for reviewing the effectiveness and efficiency of Regular Programme activities. In our view the document represents a substantial improvement over the initial review. It is considerably expanded over the earlier document, it includes the statistical and graphical material requested by the Conference at its last Session and it contains an impressive amount of information on FAO’s wide range of programmes.
Regarding the formate, we believe the report’s conceptual frame to be satisfactory. Its division into two parts, one stressing major programme performance and the other providing a more detailed assessment of specific sub-programmes, is helpful and we believe should be continued. The strengthening of Part Two, the more analytical section is welcomed and the United States is generally satisfied with the trend towards analytical versus informational reporting in this section. The United States also appreciates that many of the Regular Programme activities are empirically difficult if not impossible to quantify. We also appreciate that many are often interwoven and occasionally indistinguishable. Nevertheless, this inability to differentiate diminishes the value of the report because it does not show which funds are financing a particular activity. We do not know, for example, the magnitude of the Regular Programme’s financial support for the Mediterreanean Olive Improvement Programme or the Desert Locust Campaign. We also do not know the number of Land and Water Division officers performing missions financed from Regular Programme as opposed to extra-budgetary sources, or the number of programming missions by the Field Programme Development Division supported by each source. The United States would hope that the Secretariat would devote more attention to this aspect when preparing subsequent reports.
As a last general observation the United States, along with the Programme Committee, as has been mentioned, would note that this report seems to make only passing reference to the contributions of FAO’s regional offices. In our view the functions and achievements of the Regional Offices should have been more clearly identified and we would propose that the next review contain more detail and greater analysis, of these bodies, and in particular the functions that they perform under the Regular Programme. Perhaps in this regard a separate chapter could be devoted to Regional Offices.
I will now move quite promptly to a few specific comments. First I would note, as regards the Director-General’s forward, that we would like to commend him - and the FAO - on his evaluation efforts. We endorse his auto-evaluation system and generally agree with the JIU’s views on its value. We would point out, however, that internal evaluation procedures have certain limitations and cannot be regarded as a substitute for independent professional evaluations such as those conducted by the Programme Committee and the JIU or the thematic evaluations carried out in cooperation with the UNDP.
All are important in giving Member Nations a comprehensive overall assessment of FAO programmes.
Secondly, with regard to the chapter on agriculture, Chapter One, we particularly endorse the objectives, strategies and work or Major Programme 2.1 which we consider to be FAO’s core programme and crucial to the success of 80 percent of the field programmes. The addition of tables to the chapter is helpful as is the expanded overview treatment consolidating information on training, on meetings, on publications and generally on back-stopping and direct support. Although this reduces the detail on these activities at the Programme level, it no doubt avoids repetition and duplication.
Regarding Programme 2.1.5, Rural Development, we note that in order to initiate two new activities and emphasize others in WCARRD - World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development - follow-up, reduced attention was given to the domestic science aspects of home economics. We consider home economics important and would like to express here the hope that any reduced attention such as we have noted would only be temporary.
Moving on to the chapter on Fisheries, we do believe that that portion of this document is helpful. Though it is necessarily brief, the descriptions of activities are clear and precise. There is useful comment about the progress that has been made and, refreshingly enough, there are straightforward statements about unfinished business or incomplete achievements. It is always nice to see this little breath of fresh air in such reports. Furthermore, the tables provide a quantative handle, if I may use that word, for a number of important phases of FAO’s Fisheries Programmes.
The section dealing with the outlook and issues raises some significant problems for the immediate future and we would urge that this subject continue to receive careful attention by the Secretariat. Of particular interest in this presentation apart from the need for extrabudgєtary funding are the concerns for investment promotion, particularly in the private sector, small scale fisheries and the need for an effective inter-country regional mechanism to deal successfully with the mutual problems of fisheries’ management and development.
As regards the chapters on Forestry, we again would like to commend the Organization for its vastly improved treatment of forestry programmes in this document. We find it contains a great deal of useful information, once again, on FAO activities in a readable form and we would hope that its critical approach, rather than a mere report of accomplishments, will be continued in the, future. We generally support the objectives and work of the Forestry Department but we would like to endorse particularly the Programme’s increasing emphasis on fuelwood and the energy aspects of its mandate, and the important role that Forestry and its associate industries can play in many rural development activities.
Finally - and again, we are cutting short our intervention on this - I would like to say just a few words about Technical Cooperation and Development Support, Chapter Five. In our view, the main function of TCP should be to serve as a catalyst, and as such it can be a valuable tool. We would, however, raise some questions. The first is as to why the Miscellaneous Projects category has been increased despite FAO’s emphasis on projects with sharply defined priorities. And our second question would be as to why TCP funds are used for programming missions despite the fact that such activities are covered in other programmes’ Regular Budget allocations.
I would end my comments at that point. Thank you very much for giving us the time to express in general our satisfaction and our welcome to this document.
KYO-EUN KIM (Korea, Republic of): The delegation of the Republic of Korea would like to fully support the document, C 81/8, Review of the Regular Programme, and also would like tp appreciate the FAO Secretariat’s remarkable report devoted to the formulation of the document. The document, I believe, can contribute largely to the further improvement of FAO’s works for the next biennium and all of the achievements and suggestions mentioned in the documents are valuable and meaningful enough to get full support from my Government.
In this connection, I would like to make clear my Government’s views on the following two points. The first one is related to the suggestions made in Chapter three, Fisheries.
My government, in particular, welcomes the decentralized implementation through inter-country mechanism for the efficient development of fisheries resources in the Exclusive Economic Zone, suggested in paragraph 3.36 on page 62 of the document under review. This decentralized approach may become the most effective means of fostering technical and economic cooperation among developing countries in the spirit of TCDC and between developing and developed countries; and also such ςolloboration could promote fisheries development and the exchange of appropriate technology to the benefit of all parties
concerned. In this regard, I would like to make one thing clear, that is, my Government is ready to cooperate and to strengthen its cooperation with that of member countries who want to share our accumulated experiences and technical know-how in the fisheries sector. Since 1968, my Government has offered two-or-three-month training courses in the fisheries development fields to the technicians and specialists from the developing member countries. About 120 persons from the 36 countries had already finished their training courses in Korea by last year, and also this year, 16 persons from 14 countries have attended the various training courses organized by the Korean colleges, and research and experiment institutions concerned, On the basis of those accumulated experiences of the technical cooperation my Government is willing to develop its cooperation with member countries into a new dimension under the FAO initiative.
Another point to be made here concerns Chapter 11, Agricultural Banking and Credit. The Korean delegation would also like to support fully the suggestions made in para. 11.51 on page 209 of the document. That is; “Greater efforts should be made by the sub-programme to help developing countries to learn not merely from the experience of developed countries but, equally important, from the mistakes and successes of other developing countries.” In this field we are also ready to share our experiences with member countries. Agricultural banking and credit in Korea has been evaluated as one of the most successful by the FAO experts. Anyone who has interest in the evaluation may refer to the FAO economic and social development paper 14, Promotion of Small Farmers’ Cooperatives published in 1980.
WANG SHOU RU (China) (Original language Chinese): The Chinese delegation has carefully studied the Review of the Regular Programme for 1980-81 prepared by the Secretariat of FAO. We are of the opinion that the analysis of some problems in this document is more profound in comparison with that in the previous review. It not only reflects the achievements and results that have been made but also points out problems and puts forward suggestions for their solution. This approach of seeking truths from fact is commendable. It enables the delegates to have a morel thorough-going consideration of the Organizations work and at the same time it facilitates better cooperation in the future between member countries and the Secretariat, thus ensuring still greater results in the various activities of the Organization. Therefore, although there might still be some room for improvement in the document, yet we are satisfied with the review.
I am not going to comment on the specific programmes in the document. I would like simply to make some remarks on the view points as summed up in it.
First of all, in its analysis of ways to assist member countries in planning in paragraph 7.50 chapter 7 page 145 of the English text, the review touches upon the conflict between doing the job by the Organization’s own personnel and training others to do the job. The review’s conclusion is mainly to train in the long run personnel in member countries to do the job. We consider the conclusion is correct. Asmentioned in paragraph 7.16, this would mean an allocation of greater resources for training rather than for direct support activities. In our opinion this should not only be applied to the support of planning but also to any other projects as appropriate. Of course, the activities of this Organization vary greatly and the same is true for the conditions and requirements of different member countries. However, it will be very important, both for lightening the Organization’s burden in its direct support and for enhancing developing countries capability to rely on themselves to raise the level of the personnel in the recipient countries through practical support work and various kinds of special training.
Secondly, we also endorse the view as presented in paragraph 1.102 of the document that more impact at primary level is achieved when resources are employed to train trainers and trainers-of trainers, rather than concentrate on medium lower level technicians. We believe that this holds out not only in the training of field project planning personnel but also in other kinds of training.
Third, as to how to select priorities, we agree to the suggestions in paragraph 1.96 which refers to promoting replicable approaches rather than solving problems restricted to a small area in any one country. If we understand it correctly this means paying attention to those major problems that will have a bearing on the interest of the majority of member countries on problems of a general nature.
Fourthly, concerning the use of this Organization’s resources, the document proposes in its summary, paragraph 22, that in order to use its limited resources effectively FAO will have to be increasingly selective in the choice of Headquarters-based activities in order to release resources for field project support and direct assistance to governments. We deem this policy to be in the interest of the majority of Member countries. Meanwhile as pointed out in paragraphs 1.94 to 100 of the document, the Secretariat will be able to provide more effective support to Member countries if there is better coordination of all sides concerned, as well as the clearer definition of work.programmes and division of responsibility when it performs its various functions.
J. BIDAUT (France): Ma délégation s’efforcera de traiter dans un délai assez bref les problèmes relatifs au programme ordinaire, de façon à faciliter un déroulement normal de nos travaux.
Le document C 81/8 fait rapport; sur les activités entreprises par l’Organisation au moyen des ressources budgétaires, pendant la période presque écoulée 1980-81.
L’examen du programme ordinaire constitue pour l’essentiel une analyse d’activites qui appartiennent, bien sûr au passé, mais également au présent et même à l’avenir de 1?Organisation puisque noщbre d’entre elles sont en cours et se continuent par delà les échéanees de gestion administrative et budgétaire. De plus, ce programme est porteur d’idées et de propositions en gestation qui verront leur accomplissement dans le programme suivant, c’est à dire en fait 1982-83.
Ma délégation se bornera done à des remarques sur quelques points qu’elle considère comme essentiels, sans pour autant se livrer à un examen exhaustif des six chapitres sous lesquels sont organisés et regroupés l’ensemble des questions.
En matière de politique alimentaire et agricole figurant au chapitre sept, mais qui dans la logique des choses s’inscrit en premier lieu dans le déroulement de l’action, ma délégation est favorable à l’inclusion de considérations relatives à la nutrition dans l’analyse des projets, à l’appui à la collecte de données de base et à l’amélioration des systèmes statistiques, surtout en ce qui concerne les pays les plus défavorisés. Il apparaît très nettement aux yeux de ma délégation que ces éléments statistiques peuvent servir de préparation et de thème de décision, de faςon qu’ils jouent un rôle décisif dans la gestion d’une politique de sécurité alimentaire intéressant un ou plusieurs Etats.
Souvent, les structures statistiques de certains Etats nécessitent un soutien plus ou moins durable, alors que d'autres Etats qui sont, certes, également éligibles à l’assistance technique de l’Organisation sont parvenus à un certain niveau dans le domaine de la formation et de l’expertise; ces Etats demandent également l’avis de consultants pour des missions plus courtes et plus spécialisées, afin d’accomρlir des tâches tout aussi fondamentales.
Sous la rubrique planification qui essentiellement correspond à la page 124 du teҳte français du document, on mentionne certains jugements relatifs à la spécialisation des tâches, en indiquant qu’il est, dans certains cas, préférable de faire appel à des économistes confirmés ou à des techniciens bien également confirmés.
Aux yeux de ma délégation, il n’y a pas lieu d’engager sur ce point d’arides pontroverses entre spécialistes. Il importe au premier chef que les tâches soient accomplies, et sanß aucun doute, un bon économiste est également aussi utile qu’un bon technicien, et dans l’autre sens, les agents ou les experts trop peu confirmés, ne sont pas à même de rendre les mêmes services, dans ce domaine comme dans d’autres.
Ma délégation voudrait se référer au Plan d’action de Lagos, adopté au mois d’avril 1980 par le Sommet économique de l’Organisation de l’Unité africaine (OUA). Je voudrais, à ce sujet, indiquer qu’en 1981, mon gouvernement coopère avec l’OUA dans un projet “Recherche et développement des cultures vivrières dans les zones semi-arides”.
Ma délégation voudrait maintenant évoquer les programmes d’action spéciaux. Ceux-ci paraissent parfois retenir davantage l’attention que les activités classiques et de fait, les programmes d’action spéciaux bénéficient d’apρuis extérieurs, peut·être plus fréquents. Et il ne faudralt pas qu’au sein de la même Organisation se creuse un fossé entre les divisions que l’on considère comme plus classiques et les programmes d’action spéciaux plus ou moins favorisés.
Mon gouvernement accorde une attention soutenue à nombre de ces programmes d’action spéciaux. Je voudrais citer à cette occasion le programme EMASAR, l’aménagement écologique des parcours arides et semi-arides, qui s’étend a l’Afrique du nord, au Proche Orient et maintenant également à l’Afrique occidentale, et se traduit par la mise en oeuvre d’un système de pâturages et d’aménagement des parcours propres à favoriser un élevage équilibré.
Pour rester dans le sujet de l’élevage, mon gouvernement accorde une attention soµtenue à la lutte contre la trypanosomiase animale africaine et le développement des zones concernées par ces actions.
Ce programme a pour objectif la lutte contre les effets nocifs de la mouche tsé-tsé, mais également l’amélioration de la résistance des animaux à la trypanosomiase, ainsi qu’un ensemble d’actions de formation auxquelles participent à la fois des organismes bilatéraux et multilapéraux dans une approche tout à fait fructueuse, notamment la communauté économique du bétail et de la viande (CEBD); ce groupement économique sous-régional a fait preuve d’efficacité dans cette catégorie d’activites.
En ce qui concerne la lutte contre le criquet pélerin et les autres ravageurs migrateurs, sans aucun doute des actions à une échelle assez large et faisant appel à de nombreuses institutions à la fois régionales et sous-régionales, sont déjà en place, notamment l’OCLALAV, organisme de lutte antiacridienne, mais aux yeux de ma délégation peut être peut-on envisager une sorte de recentage et de regroupement de l’ensemble des activités de cette nature, alors qu’à l’heure actuelle chaque organisme différent a une spécialité particulière. D’autres organismes sous-régionaux ont des aires géographiques déterminées et peut-être serait-il temps maintenant de considérer que le problème est assez vaste pour qu’on puisse tenter de mettre sur pied un dispositif intégré avec des objets multiples s’étendant à différentes régions, le tout permettant sans aucun doute une meilleure utilisation des ressources, évitant parfois des brèches qui peuvent naître dans les dispositifs; les effets qui en résultent sont pour les campagnes en cours assez défavorables.
A ce sujet, ma délégation voudrait faire état dfun organisme le PRIFAS qui est rattaché au GERDAT, et qui actuellement met sur pied, du côté français, dirigée plus spécialement vers les pays en développement, l’étude d’un dispositif à la fois plus global et plus général, qui permettrait une action plus concernée, plus étroite, pour juguler l’ensemble de ces phénomènes.
Ma délégation est toute disposée à faire part de son expérience à l’ensemble de la Communauté internationale.
Mon gouvernement également, en ce qui concerne le Programme d’aide à la sécurité alimentaire mondiale, a fourni certains appuis aux missions d’experts en vue de l’élaboration par les Etats de stratégies dans ce domaine.
Ma délégation serait également désireuse de mentionner le problème de la recherche. Cette question a déjà été évoquée vendredi dernier, mais je voudrais indiquer que mon pays est tout à fait favorable au renforcement des institutions et services nationaux de recherche. M. le représentant du Sénégal d’ailleurs, à notre dernière séance, a magnifiquement insisté sur ce point. Ma délégation est en plein accord avec ce qu’il a affirmé, comme d’ailleurs d’autres délégations. Elle considère sans aucun doute que la coopération entre les différents organismes et les différentes institutions s’occupant de recherche est éminemment nécessaire, mais elle considère en même temps qu’il ne faudrait peut-être pas s’orienter vers l’instauration de systèmes trop complexes et trop institutionnels.
Le rôle essentiel de l’Organisation de l’Alimentation et de l’Agriculture est sans aucun doute de s’attacher à un role de liaison, de renforcement de la circulation des connaissances et de l’information, et de fournir des appuis à des Instituts nationaux qui en ont certes grand besoin.
A cet égard, je voudrais ajouter que mon pays accorde aux Instituts de recherche des pays en développement un soutien de près de 500 millions de francs français, ce qui correspond presque a 90 millions de dollars, par la voie seule du Ministère de la coopération, et ce qui n’est qu’une part de l’effort accompli à l’échelle mondiale dans le domaine de la recherche s’appliquant aux pays en développement.
Ma délégation considère également que les travaux sur la Charte mondiale des sols sont tout à fait intéressants. D’ailleurs, elle avait déjà eu l’occasion de se pencher sur ce problème lors de précédentes sessions. Elle exprime tout son intérêt pour cette initiative.
Pour terminer, en ce qui concerne les Programmes spéciaux, il y en a maintenant une douzaine, et cette liste risque sans aucun doute de sfallonger au fur et à mesure que des besoins se présenteront et que des actions plus spécifiques et plus ponctuelles apparaîtront nécessaires. Il faudrait peut-être envisager, une fois que le principal travail est accompli dans le cadre d’un Programme spécial, que celuici puisse à nouveau entrer dans le rang des activités, pour laisser la place à de nouveaux thèmes sur lesquels doit se porter une attention de plus en plus soutenue.
Monsieur le Président, avec votre permission, en ce qui concerne un point très particulier sur les forêts, je voudrais passer la parole à M. Bailhache, Conseiller de notre délégation dans des matières très specifiques.
R. BAILHACHE (France): Je voudrais simplement ajouter aux propos tenus par le délégué de la France que deux secteurs d’intervention de l’Organisation nous paraissent tout à fait importants. Il s’agit de la pêche et du secteur forestier.
Je ne dirai rien du premier, mais en ce qui concerne le second nous considérons, avec le plus grand intérêt, le travail de cartographie des zones menacées de désertification qui a été effectué par l’Organisation à la demande des Nations Unies.
La France, en coopération avec la Banque mondiale, a pris des initiatives dans les pays sahéliens parmi les plus éprouvés dans ce domaine pour la reforestation, aussi bien par des projets de plantation que par un certain nombre d’études de recherche de développement.
Nous pensons que la FAO dans cette région, et en liaison avec les institutions régionales existantes, notamment l’équipe assoeiant les Etats Membres du Comité inter-Etats de la lutte contre la sécheresse au Sahel et la Communauté internationale regroupée au sein du Club du Sahel, pourrait jouer un rôle pour une meilleure coordination des efforts de la Communauté internationale pour l’élaboration d’une politique de gestion des ressources.
Il nous apparaît en effet que beaucoup des efforts qui sont entrepris dans ce domaine risquent d’être sans lendemain. Le bois à usage domestique est devenu un bien rare et précisux et de l’ordre doit être mis dans son exploitation çomme dans sa commercialisation sinon les actions de production seront vaines ou vouêes à l’échec. One rationalisation de l’économie du secteur est nécessaire à laquelle la FAO pourrait apporter une contribution importante.
A.F.M. de FREITAS (Brazil): I will first make a few brief comments on document 81/8. My first remark refers to the improved format and presentation of the document as compared to the previous one. My delegation believes that the suggestions made by the different delegations in previous meetings have proved useful and we nqw have at our disposal a fairly good description pf faow the Programme of the present biennium is being implemented. My delegation wishes to thank the Secretariat for this effort. We are aware of the limitations inherent in such endeavours: time constraints, the great number of programmes to be reviewed, the need to introduce certain criteria for selectivity of topics. All those elements are present in our minds when we read the book. My delegation believes that an acceptable solution has been found for those problems, and the final product is worth the effort.
I am also aware, as the introduction reminds us, that the results of the, substantive work carried out under the Regular Programme are not susceptible of clear and precise measurement. My delegation wishes to make one or two suggestions regarding still the format and the presentation which, if acceptable, could help in the preparation of the next edition of this document.
I refer to the possible suppression of the first item of the review foщat for each chapter, Objectives and Strategies. I presume that the normal reader of the book is a person connected in some capacity with FAO and therefore familiar with the Programme of Work and Budget, the parent document of the review and which extensively describes the Programme. Not only that, but in reading the Review, we see again the first paragraph of each programme briefly states the content and purpose of the programme. I believe that this introductory paragraph is sufficient to help understand the discussion that follows. In this way, many pages could be omitted in the next edition and a more concise and no less clear document would result.
As for Part Two of the document, I would like again to express the satisfaction of my delegation with the results achieved. I believe the format of each chapter is built in such a way as to permit a full understanding of the programme as the programme is being discussed. If a suggestion is pertinent in this case, it might be the possibility of rotation of the special subjects for assessment. The future Reviews of the Regular Programme should perhaps contemplate other programmes not yet evaluated in such depth so that with the passing of each biennium a greater number of programmes could be analysed in such a way.
I will not go specifically into the different programmes that interest my delegation. I will just mention three of them. The first one is Forest Industries and Trade. My delegation would like to express its agreement with the emphasis given to training foresty industry personnel. We believe that this is a particularly relevant subject when we are talking of developing coдщtries. Training industries personnel is also another topic that is emphasized in the document, and also one important point for us is the question that technology in use in industrialized counties is often unsuitable for developing countries. We believe that this approach is the right one and we think that FAO should pursue its efforts in this same direction when training experts froщ developing countries.
We are also concerned about the paucity of the question of data on topical forests and we agree with the emphasis given to this topic by programme 2.3.2.
Now going to the next programme that has particular interest to us, this is Soil Management and Fertilizers. I would like to express also the agreement of my delegation Џq the correct treatment to the question of stressing the capabilities of Member countries to develop soil and water management methods and to extend the use of mineral and organic fertilizers. This is an item that weighs very heavily on the import list of many developing countries, and we are grateful for the emphasis properly
given to this topic by FAO. Here again the question of training comes to the fore, training in fertilizer use and training in fertilizer policy and procurement, and I think this effort should be pursued also, especially concerning more efficient use of fertilizers, promoting and recycling of organic materials and in particular the application of biological nitrogen fixation, which is a special effort being developed in my country.
Finally, going to chapter 13, development of Small-Scale Fisheries, my delegation would also like to express its agreement with the right emphasis given by FAO to the question of Small-Scale Fisheries and rural aquaculture, which came to the forein FAO’s strategy in the last years, as is mentioned in paragraph 13.8.
We also express the hope that the efforts developed by the Organization in the development and management of the Exclusive Economic Zones might also reach the question of development of small-scale fisheries as is proposed in paragraph 13.10.
Those are the main comments I would like to make at this point. My delegation as a member of the Programme Committee has already had occasion to examine most of the document of the Review of the Regular Programme and had occasion to express its general satisfaction with the presentation of the document.
CHAIRMAN: I see that your constructive proposals have been taken note of carefully by the Secretariat.
O. IYAMABO (Nigeria): I was not present when the first review was made and discussed, but I find this review very good, and I would like to congratulate the Secretariat and all those who worked on it.
Reviews and evaluations are always extremely important. They tend to improve efficiency and effectiveness. The tables given are fine and perhaps they give support to a comment that was made earlier that if this is supported with external reviews working very closely with those internal, it will even be better.
I like a number of the recommendations in the summary, particularly the emphasis on soil management, which often is neglected in agricultural production. I also like the emphasis on linkages mentioned somewhere, I think, in recommendations 15 and 21, but I wonder why livestock is left out. I think livestock is an important land use and it certainly has very close linkages with crop production and forestry, so I suggest that livestock be included in the different sub-sectors mentioned there in the linkages.
Although research also is diffused in all these recommendations mentioned, I think research is so fundamental for agricultural development, particularly in the developing countries, that it requires a special mention, in my view, and I strongly recommend that science and technology have a special feature in the recommendations. The exact formulation perhaps one would leave to the Secretariat, but if one wishes that one gives a draft, one could do that.
Also, there is mention of training, again diffused in all the recommendations. I entirely agree with France and Brazil who spoke earlier on this issue. I think training is of such basic importance that it also requires a special mention in the recommendations. Training has to build up capabilities, and one of the greatest aids I think international organizations and bilaterial programmes can lend to developing countries is to build up their capabilities, capabilities as planners, capabilities in implementing these projects, and capabilities in management.
Subject to these comments, my delegations supports this document and the efforts to improve it for them.
Y. KUROKOCHI (Japan): First of all, my delegation wishes to register here its deep appreciation for all the efforts made by the FAO Secretariat to compile this hefty document C 81/7 entitled Review of the Regular Programme 1980-81. The Review, as we have learned, came into being despite the fact that the staff concerned was very limited in size. The document is highly illuminating and helps a great deal in grasping the details of programmes that FAO has implemented and also the connexions between FAO programmes and those undertaken under the auspices of other international organizations.
My delegation notes with much pleasure that the review in Part Two presents the Secretariat’s analysis and evaluation of FAO’s proper activities of gathering analysis and dissemination of information. In this connexion, may we stress our strong hope that the Secretariat will continue to supply further detailed evaluations and appraisals on informational activities of FAO.
In reading this Review, my delegation gets the impression that the review should have been compiled in such a way that the rea¢er could promptly see its relevance to the Programme and activities in the biennium 1982-83. The document would have still higher value and usefulness %o all the Member States if it contained or presented particularly detailed analysis by making country by country breakdowns of programmes and such budget items as TCP and Country Representatives that have marked sharp rates of growth in the budget 1982-83.
If I may add one more word on this, I am inclined to think it a pity that the Review does not provide very much more than a sketchy evaluation of the trend, so to speak, in so far as TCP and Country Representatives are concerned. My delegation is therefore proposing that when the Secretariat sets about preparing the next Review some two years hence, it should consider how the presentation of the Review could be further improved by adding a page or two to the detailed account of the recipient countries and the contents of the programmes therein, in the case of TCP, and in the case of Country Representatives, of their respective activities and costs. The members of this Commission would certainly find the Review edited in such a way so much the easier and helpful for discussion. Wouldit; be asking too much if I venture even to ask that the accounts be backed up, where appropriate, with footnotes referring to decisions of the Conference and Council, the Director-General’s circulars and the Secretariate bulletins of relatively older dates?
Summing up my brief intervention, may I just say that the Conference of a huge international organization like FAO should be a forum for discussion with full understanding among the participants, both new and old, both experienced and inexperienced.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (Original language German): The Federal Government is happy that in this document C 81/8 the recommendations of the last Conference have been taken largely into account. The presentation and assessment of the priority areas of the current and past activities have certainly gained information value as compared with the past with regard to contents and structure.
The document also shows that the review carried out in the framework is a suitable and economical instrument which represents a certain self-evaluation. Basically we agree with the findings and assessment contained in the summary and the conclusions derived therefrom for the work of the Organization. We also support the suggestions which have been made for further improvements, as contained in the Report on the Programme Committee and Document CL 80/4. This applies in particular to the suggested extension of the presentation of activities at Headquarters and in the field, in relation to the activities of other international organizations, particularly in the UN system.
This also applies to the consideration, the presentation of Regional Offices to give greater attention and, that with regard to their functions with regard to Headquarters, but also to the country offices.
As to five different prpgrammes or sub-programmes, my delegation would like to make the following comments.
First of all, the main programme agriculture has special importance to increase agricultural production in the developing countries. We see the role of the FAO particularly in the mobilization and use of world-wide existing technical knowledge and in the use of the results of agricultural research of the developed and developing countries as well as in the direct planning and implementation of projects; my country is one of the main supporters of the group dealing with agricultural research which is established with the World Bank. As you know, it has set up a special service for the use of results of agricultural research in the developing countries, my country also supports this work.
Close collaboration between governments and institutions is above all necessary to avoid overlapping, and to maintain or establish close contact between research and practice. Special seminars serving the exchange of experience and training workshops are particularly suitable to achieve these goals. The Federal Government and non-governmental organizations in Germany have been working successfully with FAO in this field.
Secondly, apart from the different directly production-oriented programmes and measures the marketing of agricultural products, which we feel is an important strategic instrument for development is no doubt of special importance. My delegation has therefore noted with some concern what is said in
Chapter X. para.10.1. According to this it would seem there are deficiencies in the internal marketing systems of developing countries, which are one of the, main factors impeding the increase in agricultural production. We should therefore draw sufficient attention to this field for the benefit of producers and consumers. My delegation agrees with what is said in para. 6 in Document C 81/8 that this sector also offers great possibilities for cooperation between developing countries.
Thirdly, the importance of using adjusted communication methods for rural development, above all the expansion of extension services, is also highly valued by the Federal Government, and in this connexion my delegation would like to refer to what China said and to support it - namely, that in the training and further training of experts in the recipient countries more emphasis should be laid on teachers, those who do the training.
Our collaboration and the exchange of experience with FAO were successful as in the case of the common work done for the preparation of a bilateral product in Egypt. Over and above this, the Federal Government has placed communication experts at the disposal, and German non-governmental organizations have been concerned with agricultural extension. Together with FAO they developed with the use of modern communication methods projects and implemented them in the field.
Fourthly, my delegation welcomes the fact that Chapter V, paragraph A has partly assessed the TCP. We consider this assessment as already set out under agenda Items 9 and 10 also in connexion with C 81/4 not sufficient.
Fifthly, according to the information in paragraph E, Chapter V, at the end of 1981, eighty countries will have FAO representation, and sixty-two of these have full country representation, eighteen through accreditation. This Programme, therefore, should as soon as possible be assessed in greater detail than in the case of document C 81/8.
My delegation has noted with satisfaction that in para.5.87 it says that collaboration between the country representatives of FAO and the UNDP is apparently good in most countries. This, we hope, will soon be the case in all countries.
S. DE MARE (Sweden): I will make some very brief general remarks on this item, taking into account the time constraints of this Commission mentioned by you earlier, Mr. Chairman.
The Swedish delegation has studied the document with great interest, and the regular projects, and like some speakers today we wish to commend the Secretariat on it. It represents a clear improvement on the first issue presented to the 1979 Conference.
Together with the information given in the document, Programme of Work and Budget, especially in the sections on progress and achievement, we received a clear and illustrative performance report on the achievements of this Organization during the last biennium.
We also found the part devoted to in-depth reviews of important programmes in Part Two of the document a very valuable complement to this Review.
On this occasion, we wish to reiterate and underline some of the comments made by the Programme Committee concerning the review of the regular programme points that have also been made by the United States and Japanese delegates this morning. We also find that the relationships to the activities of other UN organizations and the Regional Offices and their complement to Headquarters and field activities need great attention in the Review. It should also be possible to identify specifically the role played by the Regional Offices in the activities of FAO.
Further reviews, those to be presented in such a way as to facilitate the identification of the contributions of Regional Offices to these activities of the Organization. It would also be very valuable if the functions and role of representatives could be subject to an in-depth review in the next programme.
I will refrain from making any more specific remarks on this occasion, but I wish to finish by reiterating our strong support for this very valuable document.
S.P. MUKHERJEE (India): We have a few comments to make, and on certain matters where I have some doubts and reservations I hope that the Secretariat will provide me with some light.
I had. stated a few days ago on the floor of this house that FAO’s regular budget on the basis of per capita per year comes to only 5 cents per head of world population per year. In that context all efforts should be made to ensure that every cent of FAO is spent with the effect of ameloriating the conditions of the people in developing countries, and in that context our system of evaluation and awareness of cost effectiveness should remain the foundation of FAOτs activities.
I would commend for the consideration of the FAO Secretariat whether some sort of review by the Evaluation Committee of this Commission should not be set up as a standard method of continuous review of evaluation and cost-effectiveness of the activities of FAO. I am making this suggestion with all humility and emphasis in the context of the financial constraint and the challenges that the developing countries are facing on the front of poverty and starvation.
My country supports wholeheartedly the programme as indicated and delineated in this document for production to ameliorate poverty in the vast sectors of world population. Most of the points which have been indicated in this document have already been enshrined in our Prime Minister.’s 20-ρoint economic programme for instance, the question of increasing irrigation in the countries, the question of land reforms in the context of smaller marginal farmers, afforestation, etc. etc. They form the pillar of India’s agricultural and rural development prcgrгmme.
Having said that, and having commented on the manner in which this Review document has been prepared, may I suggest for the consideration of the FAO Secretariat that it would immensely facilitate a quick evaluation and analysis of the total programme of FAO’s activities if in these documents - not only in this document but also in C 81/3 regarding the Programme of Work and Budget - if the Secretariat of FAO could kindly prepare a master chart, just a 1-page chart, indicating the various programmes and sub-programmes, and also against each programme and sub-programme the various items such as training, workshops, experts, etc. Against each sub-programme they could indicate the outlay, the expenditure incurred, and also the number of experts and the amount of expert-hours spent. This would give us in one page the total picture of the emphasis or lack of emphasis in FAO’s programmes and sub-programmes, and whether FAO has been spending its money on items which are of high priority.
It will be extremely useful and I repeat that this sort of master chart could perhaps be incorporated in these documents.
Anti-poverty and anti-starvation programmes will have to be location-specific, country-specific and will have to be related to the production potential of each country with due regard to its agro-climatic conditions, its socio-economic and cultural background and its untapped resources. I am suggesting in all humility that there cannot be one recipe for all the countries of the world. For instance, I know in certain countries the land/man issue is very high. There, the problem is lack of manpower although the land resource is so vast, most of it remains untapped. Most countries I know have less than 10 percent of arable areas that have been brought under cultivation whereas in countries in Asia like mine, 90 percent of the arable areas have been brought under cultivation. So naturally, the agricultural strategy for a country such as mine has to be different from that adopted where only 10 percent of arable land has been put under cultivation.
In countries such as mine only one percent of the deep sea fisheries resources has been utilized and 99 percent remains unutilized. Similarly, in certain regions of my country ground water exploitation is hardly 10 percent or so and it will be very necessary for FAO to identify the untapped resources of each country on a locationr·specific basis and when drawing up its priority or programmes for assistance to these countries, relate it to the untapped resource, otherwise we may be applying blindly programmes across the board to all the developing countries, irrespective of conditions and the untapped resources and it will go haywire.
I also suggest for consideration of the FAO Secretariat that whereas it is very good for FAO to have a division according to subjects as also according to regions, I would also suggest for consideration of FAO that there should be some sort of countrywise setup in FAO’s Organization, a committee of officers of the FAO, perhaps, with officers of a particular country for which that setup is established who will make a horizontal as well as vertical analysis for the programmes of FAO, identifying the potential and the programmes and also follow and review the programmes in particular countries. This is very important and I wpuld suggest that serious consideration be given to this because I feel that with the regional setup, a multi-country setup in the FAO will not be able to devote itself to the location-specific problems of individual countries. This is very important: if the FAO is to be made cost-effective, it has to service the peculiar problems of individual countries.
My next suggestion is that there is a feeling that we are spending rather too much on seminars, workshops, touring of experts, publications, etc. whereas we are spending very little, or very much less, is left for direct assistance to the developing countries. From this document it appears that during
1979 about 188 seminars were held - seminars alone - which means that every other day of the year a seminar was being held in one country or another. Though it has not been indicated how much money was spent on these, I suppose it would not be inconsiderable. I would therefore suggest that there has to be a ceiling of all the amounts FAO spends annually on seminars, workshops and other learned discussions which may not be of direct consequence to the problems of the developing countries. However, having said that, I would say that whereas you should have fewer seminars, workshops, etc., you should have more training courses and I agree with those delegates who have spoken before me and suggested that there could be training of trainers; more pilot projects where FAO’s experts jointly along with the officers of that particular country could run pilot projects and demonstrate the effects of good agriculture to the local people. There should be more and more demonstrations and extension.
I suggest with all emphasis that for the developing countries in Asia and Africa where agriculture is thousands of years behind modern agriculture, there has to be unmitigated emphasis on agricultural extension services. Even the rudiments of ploughing are not known in certain countries of the world, including mine; they do not know how to use a plow, they simply dig the earth for cultivation. In certain areas they still use the system of slash and burn: they slash the forests and burn and do some sort of cultivation. Where are we, and what are we doing for this type of problem? I would suggest therefore that extension services, even of a rudimentary nature, are required in certain countries, in certain areas and we should train the extension staff on a village level in these countries rather than have these learned seminars and study tours.
I also suggest that publications and information documents of FAO are very nice, very acceptable, very eyesome; the get-up is very good, but there is a need, I think, of having a type of publication and information document of FAO which will be specific to the problems of individual countries. They should be country-specific and translated into the language of that country and be intellegible to the farmers and related to the problems of those countries. As to how it should be done is an area where FAO could ascertain the details, but this is something where there is a gap in the present system and this gap has to be filled.
We are very grateful to FAO for having the early warning system which indicates the likely weather conditions and its effects on crops. But again, for the sake of the global picture, the country’s picture is lost. It is no use saying that Western Africa is going to have a drought during 1982 unless we go down into the various regions of each country to say which parts of the country are going to be affected by drought and to what degree. Here I might indicate this is the weakness even in the meteorological department in my country: the forecast is given on the basis of the average for a particular region and that average has no relation to what is happening in a particular area or group of villages. This law of averages is a very dangerous system. I am reminded of a story of a king and a statistician. They were crossing the forest and there was a river, and the king wanted to cross the river. He asked the statistician: what is the depth of this river? The statistician put his specs on and consulted his paper and said: Mylord, the average depth of this river is only five feet. The king said: my height is six feet and therefore I can well cross the river without any danger. He never crossed that river because the maximum depth of ‘that river was about 10 feet or so. Likewise, the average rainfall on any particular region is no indication of the rainfall which is going to fall in a particular area.
Therefore, it is very necessary, if FAO wants to service the drought-prone countries at all, to have a large number of rain gauge stations distributed evenly in that particular region and then people would know the type of weather conditions that they may expect on a village-to-village basis; or if not, at least on a group-of-villages basis. Only then would there be some practical benefit from this early warning system.
While we commend the approach to rural development adopted by FAO, I would suggest that apart from increasing production and improving the health and nutrition of the rural areas, what is very important, the idea of having a small family norm in the rural population should also go hand in hand with our total system of rural development; because I feel that in countries where the population pressure is very high, the rate of growth of population is outrunning the rate of growth of agriculture, so the idea of small family norm is very important and it would be suicidal on the part of the developing countries to lose sight of this rising population and do nothing about it and go along only from the production angle.
I would also suggest for the consideration of FAO the system of cooperatives in the unorganized rural sector as a medium of giving help to the farmers in the form of agricultural credit, in the form of seeds, fertilizers and also giving help through technical advice and other material inputs by increasing production, giving them credit and also helping them in collecting, storing, processing and marketing the produce through the cooperative sector and, through that, to the farmer. This we have adopted under the World Food Programme, Flag one, Dairy Programme in India. It has been a great success and we are trying to adopt this cooperative system, this vertical integration of production with marketing and processing in other sectors also; and I would think that this system will be very beneficial and very suitable in other countries also.
I will close my comments with only one last point and that is on social forestry. We are giving emphasis to social forestry where, through energy plantation, we are having trees with a very quick rate of growth which will give us timber, fuel wood, fodder and green manure. But I am not so sure whether the approach on expanding forest-based industry, given in this review report, will be suitable for developing countries, where the percentage of area under forests is much less than what the experts say it should be - 33 percent of the total area, In certain countries - it is much less than that; and in those countries to propagate the idea of forest-based industries and getting the contractors and industries into the forests will lead, to my mind, to indiscriminate felling of trees, which will further aggravate the situation.
I would therefore suggest that this question of having forest-based industries in the developing countries should be very cautiously approached and it should be viewed in the context of the dire necessity of conserving whatever forest is left in some of the countries.
Sra. D. SANCHEZ (Colombia): Cuando se presentó a la Conferencia pasada la primera Evaluación del Programa Ordinario, El Director General reconoció las posibles deficiencias de toda nueva actividad y prometió las mejoras que fueren pertinentes.
Esta segunda edición refleja, en buena forma, las observaciones hechas en la pasada Conferencia y a través de un acertado criterio selectivo confirma la calidad y la eficacia del trabajo de nuestro Programa Ordinario.
La delegación de Colombia espera que mediante este proceso continuo de evaluación se perfeccionen cada vez mas los resultados logrados y se confirme ampliamente la importancia y el valor de la acción multilateral.
Los jefes de los Departamentos y Directores de Divisiones deberán continuar con profundidad el sistema de vigilancia y evaluación internas, porque sin duda ello, como lo dice el documento, contribuirá a mejorar la aplicación de las prioridades y a realizar más positivamente las actividades del Programa.
La lectura del documento C 81/8, confirma, una vez mas, la estrecha relación que existe entre el Programa Ordinario y los Programas de Campo.
Los problemas de contratación de personal, que debe ser ampliamente representative por la procedencia, sus capacidades e idiomas, y de mayor uso de consultores e instituciones nacionales, podrán irse resol-viendo satisfactoriamente a la luz de los resultados de la evaluación.
El mismo criterio de selectividad con que forzosamente debió elaborarse este documento, se impone al intentar hacer algunos comentarios sobre este interesante volumen. Podríamos escoger el Programa Principal 2.1: Agricultura. Este es el mas amplio Programa de la FAO, atendido por dos departamentos importantes de la sede: Agricultura y Política Económica y Social. El 45 por ciento de los recursos del Programa Ordinario y el 70 por ciento de los fondos extrapresupuestarios se asignan a este Programa Principal.
La importancia de este programa queda confirmada en los recursos que se le asignan y en los objetivos de “aumentar la producción alimentaria y agrícola en los países en desarrollo”.
Los representantes de gobiernos de países en desarrollo podemos comprobar directamente el beneficio que ha representado para nuestros Estados el apoyo directo que se nos ha ofrecído por medio de misiones para la identificación, formulación y evaluación de proyectos, así como útiles asesoramientos en materia de política agropecuaria.
El párrafo 1.29 hace referencia a “un proyecto de copperación técnica entre países en desarrollo sobre conservación de suelos en América Latina”. Ojalá que se realice este proyecto, el primero de esa materia, que luego podrá servir de ejemplo para aplicarlo en otras regiones.
Sobre Ganadería - Programa 2.1.3 nos complace registrar el hecho de que este programa haya contribuido a incrementar la producción de ganado. También deberá seguir asistiendo a los gobiernos en la formulación de proyectos y programas de inversión en el sector ganadero. Los proyectos de FAO - dentro del PCT - llevados a cabo en América Latina, contra la fiebre porcina africana dieron muy buenos resultados.
El desarrollo rural - Programa 2.1.5 está ofreciendo muestras de dinamismo y eficacia en la aplicación del Programa de Acción de la Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural. Igualmente la organización del Día Mundial de la Alimentación, celebrado el pasado 16 de octubre, fue exitosa y contribuyó a llamar la atención de los gobiernos y de la comunidad internacional en favor de los graves problemas agrícolas y alimentarios. El doctor RAFAEL MORENO y sus colaboradores hicieron un buen trabajo.
El programa NUTRICION es satisfactorio, sobre todo en la asistencia a los países para elaboración de políticas nacionales de nutrición y alimentación.
El Capítulo Cinco - Programa de Cooperación Técnica. Confirma la viabilidad y eficacia de los proyectos del PCT. Esa asistencia es más fácil, mas ágil y oportuna. Hay que preservar los objetivos específicos para los cuales fue creado el PCT. Está bien que los proyectos del PCT se usen en misiones de programación. En Colombia lo utilizamos para misiones de análisis y formulación sectoriales, con resultado satisfactorio.
Sobre INVERSIONES, merece destacarse el aumento del 21 por ciento de proyectos elaborados por el Centro de Inversiones, con la participación esencial del Programa de Apoyo a la Inversion, que es financiado enteramente por el Programa Ordinario.
Las misiones a los países para identificar y formular proyectos de inversiones y la asistencia a Organismos de Financiación, serán muy convenientes para este importante aspecto del desarrollo, ya que la carencia de recursos suficientes -muchas veces por falta de proyectos adecuados- viene siendo una de las limitaciones al aumento de la producción alimentaria en los países en desarrollo.
La Sección E - Representantes de la FAO - ha venido ya siendo evaluada a través de las deliberaciones en los órganos rectores. Esta parte del documento, confirma la utilidad y conveniencia de que la FAO haya establecido su cuerpo de propios representantes, como funcionarios de la Organización. Las funciones de los representantes de la FAO no se han limitado a Representación y Protocolo, sino que a través de la acción de esos Representantes la FAO ha podido conocer mejor y más directamente las necesidades, políticas y prioridades de los gobiernos.
Igualmente, los Representantes de la FAO han venido participando activamente en la vigilancia sobre las actividades de campo, y en labores de asesoramiento y asistencia útiles a los gobiernos.
Es satisfactorio el resultado de la cooperación entre los Representantes de la FAO y los Representantes Residentes del PNUD. Esto permitirá a nuestros Representantes asesorar a los gobiernos que lo deseen en esta etapa anterior al Tercer Ciclo de Programación 1982-86, con la esperanza de que se logren buenos proyectos en agricultura y alimentación y se contribuya así a dar alta prioridad a esos aspectos en los planes nacionales de desarrollo.
CHAIRMAN: I have been informed that Hungary also wishes to place a statement in the verbatim record on the World Soil Charter. The Secretariat will act accordingly.
J.C. McCOLL (Australia): I have just a few comments of a general nature, some of which have already been touched upon by other delegations. They relate to the primary purposes of the documentation under discussions, namely the provision of information in a format and sufficiently detailed to provide Member Nations with a reasonable picture of just what the Organization is doing, how efficiently it is functioning, what the problems are and what the Organization is doing to solve them.
Whilst appreciating the improved presentation and the considerable effort already expended, we would like to see a deepening of the analytical and feedback value of the document, in particular, perhaps a concentration more on in-depth reviews of programmes, focussing on the extent of achievement and impact with added reference to the efficiency of the implementation.
The Organization, to the extent practicable, should endeavour to achieve standardization of its review procedures. This would allow a comprehensive and objective analysis and provide clear action-oriented statements aimed at identifying inadequacies and shortcomings. Naturally, care should be taken to ensure that review and evaluation functions do not absorb a disproportionate share of total resources and that appropriate use is made of random checks. There is some duplication inevitably between the reviews assessment of results and the sections dealing with progress made contained in the Programme of Work and Budget 1982-83. It is possibly worth while considering the advantage of combining the new review document with the Review of Field Programmes, document C 81/4, thus achieving an overall picture of programmes and facilitating a more integrated approach to the analysis and evaluation of activities funded from all sources.
The Organization should be commended for its effort to improve its efficiency and effectiveness. It is no easy task to reconcile the manifold and often conflicting desires of some 150 countries. While a large part of the Organization resources in naturally directed to activities in or primarily of value to developing countries, Australia acknowledges that benefits are derived by all: for instance, we make good use of FAO’s publications, and as a substantial food aid donor we have found the information provided by the Early Warning System of considerable value in determining allocations, whether bilateral or through the World Food Programme.
R.W.M. JOHNSON (New Zealand): I find that some of my remarks have already just been spoken by the delegate of Australia and also I have been anticipated by the delegate of India. However, I do have something to add to what has been said.
We have a few brief remarks to add on the Review of the Regular Programme. I remember asking for this kind of information in Commission II in 1977. So I am heartened by the progress made. New Zealand is not represented on the Programme Committee, so some of what I have to say may already have been discussed there.
My remarks today concern the evaluation of individual projects and programmes on the one hand and the two chapters on forestry on the other. First, it seems to me that there remains a basic lack of focus on the effectiveness of each project. The question perhaps could be asked: when can the usefulness of each project be assessed in its lifetime? Then as a result of this assessment, when is the first opportunity to discontinue a project? Would it be possible, for example, to list projects which have been discontinued? Would it be possible to build time limits into approved projects so that they fall away in due course? Perhaps lists could be provided of projects, classified by dates of approval and dates of completion. It may well be that this is already donc within the administrative structure of the divisions - I certainly hope it is. But perhaps some report along these lines to the governing bodies would be useful. In our own government we have management by objectives with a basis of zero-based budgeting and we too have problems in identifying cost centres, or project elements as they are called here, and also measuring the results, on a centre basis, as Mr. Ayazi indicated in his introduction. Where this lack of measurement exists it is clear that management must accept responsibility for resource decisions taken.
This brief analysis leads us to the conclusion that management in FAO must make many of the project by-project decisions and develop the rules for assessment, effectiveness and continuity. The need remains however for reviews by the JIU and the Programme Committee so that overall assessment is also provided.
Secondly, I would like to make a few remarks on the forestry chapters. Our forestry people in New Zealand have, looked at chapters 4 and 8 of the document. They particularly commend the analysis on forestry and trade, even if the results achieved have been disappointing. They mention that FAO is doing useful work as a source of global information on forestry as well as carrying out useful forestry evaluation studies. Our forestry people say that they will be happy to provide advice and aid on those aspects of exotic forestry on which they are experts.
O. LINDSTAD (Norway): With your permission, Mr. Chairman, my delegation would like to make a few brief comments on items connected both with the Regular Programme and Special Field Programme.
First, I would like to repeat my Minister’s remarks in the Plenary about the special responsibility for including the rural population in the process of development and thereby integrating women in development programmes. We strongly believe that it is a precondition for obtaining sound and balanced rural development, that all groups of the rural population are given more influence and responsibility in development efforts. In line with this we consider the existence of primary, secondary and nation wide and apex cooperative organizations to be most valuable. We therefore support the statement made on cooperatives by the delegate of India.
First, we believe that cooperatives often function as useful instruments for general development. The membership of a primary society provides in many cases the best opportunity that an ordinary producer and his or her family have to participate in economic and social development efforts in the local community.
Secondly, we believe that the cooperative structure after all, and I stress after all, offers the best alternative we have when dealing with marketing of produce for a great number of producers as well as for supplying the producer with agricultural input and consumer goods.
Experience everywhere proves that it takes a long time, sometimes a very long time, to develop efficient and solid cooperatives, but it is no doubt worth the efforts.
The above views lead us to believe that cooperatives have a leading role to play in rural development and to recommend that this field of activity should be strengthened in the FAO work. Going through the Regular Programme as well as the Field Programme we find something, but not very much, about cooperatives.
Still within the aspect of increasing the people’s participation, we are very much concerned about the liaison between practical farming, extension and research. It is of great importance that new technology in agriculture is thoroughly tested in the local environment before it is introduced to the farmer. But it is equally important that research institutions have good contact with the farming community. An applied research programme can only be successful if it is based on the problems of the farmers in the area concerned. In order to increase consumption emphasis has to be placed on the food crops that are consumed in each specific area. An increased production of cash crops does not necessarily improve the food situation in the local community.
Concerning research and extension, we support the proposal in the conference documents to increase the number of national scientists. A possible constraint to achieve this, in addition to those already listed, is the relatively low status of research work. The best graduates will often seek employment in the administrative positions, since these have the highest prestige and also the best salary.
R. GARCELL (Cuba): Ante todo agradecemos el documento C 81/8 y la presentación que aquí nos hizo el distinguído representante de la Secretaría.
De su estudio debemos extraer experiencias para mejorar aún más el trabajo de la FAO y de los propios países.
En el programa 2.1 se plantea la demora en la aprobación de los informes de las misiones de los posibles receptores que debilita el interés de los que se consideraron posibles donantes. En este sentido, la experiencia acumulada por la FAO y los propios países deben asegurar que haya una mejor concordancia entre los distintos factores, es decir entre la necesidad, entre el país receptor y los donantes, de manera que no se atrasen las soluciones a problemas acumulados cuando exista la posibilidad financiera de darle la solución; me refiero a lo expresado en el párrafo 2.4 de la página 33 del texto de español.
Sr. Presidente, si al desaprovechamiento que resulta de lo que hemos expresado anteriormente se le añade que aún ocurren enormes pérdidas de alimentos durante la cosecha, nuestra delegación insta a la Organización y a los paises a apoyar la prevención dé las pérdidas de alimentos, pues es muy lamentable que por una parte no se ejecuten proyectos por demoras de distinto tipo que son recuperables, tal cual expresáramos y además, por otra, se pierdan alimentos en los cuales ya se han invertido recursos en semillas, siembras, abonos, salarios, etc.
Observamos con satisfacción la gestión del Laboratorio de Semillas (página 35), el cual podría ser complementado y mejor instrumentado en el futuro en la medida que progrese la propuesta de creación de un banco internacional de fitogermoplasma, que ha sido presentada por la delegación de Mexico y nuestra delegación apoya.
Con relación a las actividades complementarias de la Conferencia de Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural en lo que se refiere a mejorar las condiciones del hombredel campo, nuestra delegación apoya las gestiones realizadas y los incrementos que sobre ellas puedan lograrse por cuanto es el hombre el actor y protagonista y debe ser el mejoramiento económico y social de su status el objetivo primordial de cuanto hagamos.
Observamos que aún no se ha logrado completar el Fondo extrapresupuestario de 20 millones de dólares (párrafo 2.37) y sólo cinco países han hecho promesas que son muchas menos de la mitad de lo previsto originalmente.
En concordancia con la Conferencia Mundial de la Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural, la Organización debe hacer todas las gestiones a su alcance para complementar este Programa de tan nobles y beneficiosos propósitos e instar a los países donantes a que hagan sus mejores esfuerzos por cumplimentar este objetivo.
Nuestra delegación concede especial atención al Programa de Cooperación Técnica (Cápitulo 5) y a la estrategia de delegar en los representantes regionales de la FAO la autoridad necesaria para aprobar determinados proyectos.
Con relación a la distribución porcentual por valor entre categorías (Figura 2 de la página 74 del texto español), nuestra delegación sugiere a la Organización que continue en su gestión de disminuir todo lo que sea posible aquellos gastos que no tienen una repercusión directa en los incrementos de la producción y, en este sentido, llama la atención que en los gastos varios se han incrementado aproximadamente un 15 por ciento en 1978 a un 30 por ciento en 1980, quizás tenga alguna explicación plausible; mientras los gastos de capacitación disminuyen de un 30 a un 26 por ciento, observamos con beneplácito el incremento relativo de inversion por la repercusión futura que ella significa.
J. B. WARREN (United Kingdom): I shall confine myself to a few general points. We are encouraged to see that the Review takes a critical look at certain of FAO programmes and that it does set out priorities for the future and a strategy which indicates the thoughts given by the division concerned to future policy. We note that this paper is intended to be read in conjunction with the Programme of Work and Budget and trust that its lessons for the future have been taken into account in preparing the budget for the next biennium. We regard a review of this type, which both sets FAO’s programmes in their context and also looks to the future, as an essential part of the planning progress and are pleased by the recognition throughout the paper of the problems faced in the field. Indeed, we would wish to see the review system extend to carry out even more detailed evaluation of selected elements within such programmes and also to make greater use of independent evaluations.
Within the present paper we note three points in particular: 1, an appreciation of the risk of duplication within FAO Headquarters itself between different divisions doing very similar aspects of a particular project. We note with satisfaction that this problem is fully recognized and that changes in administration will result from the Review. 2, the findings of the Review, with which we agree, indicate that in some cases, probably too many targets have been aimed at in the past and that there is a need for greater concentration on areas likely to show the greatest return in terms of local development.
Finally, my third point, the effort in Part Two - which we welcome - to devise a general programme for evaluation of the different programmes makes it more possible to examine the success of each programme in relation to others reviewed.
We are not fully satisfied that the current rather wider approach enables us to reach proper conclusions. We therefore look forward to a further development of the Review which might look into detailed evaluation of a small component of one of the sub-programmes, giving a full evaluation in the strict sense of the word so that Member nations can really assess the effectiveness of that particular element in FAO’s programme.
A.H. EL SARKI (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): Allow me at the outset to thank the Director-General for his introduction to this document. My country’s delegation also wishes to commend the amendments introduced, these have allowed us to identify the achievements of the past two years. The document’s importance is also due to the fact that certain programmes are ongoing ones. We are grateful to FAO for the efforts being undertaken throughout its departments-despite its current financial situation and taking due account of calls being made for a cutback in expenditure. This is by far the best programme review we have received and I am confident that it will improve in quality as time goes by.
We have carefully examined Chapter one of the document and wish to commend in particular the 8 sub-programmes under the main programme 2.1: Agriculture.
This programme, the very basis of FAO activities, aims at increasing agricultural and food production as well as improved food distribution. In this context we hope that the mandate of country representatives shall be extended to enable them to approve small-scale projects implemented under TCP. These projects have proven their efficiency in responding to urgent needs.
As for the main programme 3.2 Investment, we approve the achievements of the Investment Centre and are appreciative of its role in elaborating investment projects.
Paragraph 7.13 of Chapter 7, sub-programme 2-1-8 on Food and Agricultural Policies fails to give due priority to local skills and expertise thus causing the allocation of substantial amounts to provide the minimum of experts required. We urge FAO to allocate more importance to the question of the
training of trainers, and the development of training courses. Further attention should also be given, as was stated by previous speakers, to case studies which must be circulated to the various governments to increase the benefits accruing from them.
After examining programme 2-1-1-3: On Soil and Fertilizer Management we agree to the rationalization in the use of fertilizers and the need to make the maximum use of indigenous resources in soil fertilization.
Integrated systems of production must be applied in cropping and animal husbandry systems - we hope these will be included in future field programmes. We agree to the application of scientific data in agricultural practices, in the effective use of fertilizers and in the production of biogas.
Egypt is a proponent of the principle of fully benefitting from the services of national Institutions. We call for the expanded application of this principle and reaffirm our belief in the usefulness of TCDC as a means of meeting the increasing demands from developing countries for consultative services in marketing. We have always believed that TCP have a role to play in the field of agricultural credit systems as these prevent the monopolization in rural areas of this activity by certain groups. We welcome the Agricultural Credit Programme for the establishment of Agricultural Credit Institution - and the redirecting of this system’s activities.
As for Chapter XII on development, Egypt favours the continued support given to Member Countries for the development of rural radio and T.V. broadcasts. We would opt for an expansion of this aid considering its importance and positive impact on rural development.
Thanks to aid provided by the FRG Egypt is currently expanding its rural broadcast programmes.
We are considering the possible establishment of a nationwide network, as we firmly believe that such programmes enable the betterment of farmers and raise their standards and thus achieve the sought-for development.
L. VROONEN (Belgique): Concernant le document C 81/3: Programme et budget, mon gouvernement reconnaît l’intérêt d’un tel document, toutefois nous aimerions suggérer au secrétariat de le rendre un peu plus maniable dans l’avenir; c’est bien volumineux Monsieur le Président; d’autres délégations ont déjâ signalé certaines redites, je ne reviendrai pas sur cet aspect.
De plus les documents C 81/4 et C 81/9 sont greffés sur ce document C 81/3, avec un petit effort on pourrait certes nous donner une présentation plus simple.
Sur le budget en général, nous sommes certains que des doubles emplois peuvent être éliminës. Avec le délégué de l’Inde qui m’a précéde, nous pensons que la FAO a peut-être trop tendance à mettre l’accent sur des conférences, des séminaires, qui se répètent, et qu’un effort supplémentaire pourrait être porté sur les programmes de terrain. Nous croyons que certains services restent trop gonflés et qu’on peut garder, et même renforcer l’efficacité, en réduisant parfois le personnel de certains services pour en renforcer d’autres. Ainsi nous pensons que le programme forestier mériterait un renforcement en argent et en personnel, le maintien sinon l’extension de la forêt étant une oeuvre de civilisation.
Outre le programme forestier, mon gouvernement soutient tout particulièrement le Programme du PASA qui vise plus le commerce que la production vivrière, le Programme engrais et intrants agricoles, lui s’occupant davantage de la production, encore que pour ce programme engrais nous aimerions que soit renforcéela vulgarisation des méthodes agricoles biologiques basées sur les ressources renouvelables localement plutôt que sur des intrants exigeant une énergie fossile, dite “commerciale”.
Notre gouvernement voit aussi favorablement les différents programmes qui s’occupent des pertes des végétaux, aussi bien pertes en cours de culture que pertes après récolte, que la FAO dilue dans plusieurs de ses services. Un regroupement de ces services ne serait-il pas, en passant, une nouvelle économie budgétaire possible?
Concernant le document C 81/26, sur la recherche, que nous avions discuté vendredi après-midi, mon gouvernement est très favorable à l’intensification de la recherche et soutient déjà bilatéralement certains pays dans ce domaine.
Par ailleurs la contribution beige, tant en argent qu’en personnel au sein de la famille du CGIAR est importante.
Nous soulevons toutefois deux questions: ne faudrait-il pas en plus introduire systématiquement un volet: Recherche - application à la plupart des projets agricoles? D’autre part, ne faut-il pas craindre une certaine concurrence entre le CGIAR etles centres nationaux? Sauf s’il était décidé, de façon explicite, que pour chaque Centre de la famille du CGIAR, une portion budgétaire serait réservée au soutien à des centres nationaux ou à des coopérations avec certains centres nationaux.
Enfin, concernant la Charte des sols également discutée vendredi, nous vous avons fait passer une correction en suggérant que dans cette Charte l’accent soit davantage mis sur le problème des forêts, parce que nous pensons que la protection des sols passe par la protection des forêts.
LE PRESIDENT: Ai-je bien compris votre dernière remarque comme étant un amendement au texte de la résolution? En ce cas, je suggère qu’il soit bien pris note de votre remarque et qu’il en soit tenu compte.
M. SALAMEH (Syria) (Original language Arabic): My delegation has listened with interest to the introduction given by the Assistant Director-General to this document and we note that the present Review is excellent.
When it comes to Chapter two of the document we would like here to place emphasis on self-evaluation and internal evaluation of programmes, because this evaluation would be better if it is donc by those who are most familiar with these programmes, and this is the reason why we feel an internal evaluation would be very useful. If the evaluation has to be donc outside the FAO, this can be donc from time to time, and that is actually what the FAO has donc on several occasions. However, we do not think this type of evaluation can prove very useful, because a consultant from outside the FAO might not be conversant with all the ins and outs of all these projects and programmes, and here we should like to emphasise the role of governments. It is our duty to urge the Member Governments to evaluate projects in a better way.
Our delegation would like to place emphasis on the need to broaden the mandate of country representatives in the light of the important role they play. After all, they are the link between the FAO and the Member Countries where they are accredited. They are in fact, the link between FAO, UNDP and the beneficiary countries, and the aid could only be improved by such a strengthening of their role.
To finish, in regards to what was said by the delegate of India regarding the Early Warning System, and in the light of the efficiency of that system, I would like to state that we have profited a great deal from this system, and last year we were able to evaluate the rainfall and the various climate conditions which would prevail in our country, which was extremely useful to us.
That is why we would like this Early Warning System to be broadened in future, and invite the Secretariat to provide us with a report on what was achieved through this System.
T. SEYOUM (Ethiopia): The Ethiopian delegation welcomes this important document before us, namely Document C 81/8. In this connexion my delegation would like to express its admiration to the Secretariat of FAO, which as usual has donc a commendable job in preparing this detailed report on the activities of FAO. As stated by the Head of the Evaluation Division here, there is no doubt as to the qualitative improvement made since his report was submitted to this Commission two years ago.
I will not at this stage, because of lack of time, comment in any detail but would only like to record the appreciation of my delegation.
H. ÖGUT (Turkey): This time I shall limit myself to making a general comment on the context of the FAO Review of the Regular Programme. My delegation considers the Report very comprehensive and to the point, both in its depth and the subject matters covered.
The Review is also critical even though it has been completely prepared by FAO Staff. It provides a clear evaluation of activities carried out by FAO during the last biennium and analyses the strength and the weaknesses, while providing a definite case for changes and additional efforts which its governing bodies may conceive within the attainable resources.
We believe FAO should continue presenting us with such Reports in Conferences, cutting the length and coverage carefully in order not to require substantial resources to carry out such a review.
The number and topic of subject matters should certainly cover the key issues and problems common to the whole world of socio-economic importance which FÀO may select on the basic wisdom of its Conference and its guidance provided by the Council and Committees.
H. REDL (Austria) (Original language German): May I congratulate Mr. Ajazi for the very precise presentation and introduction of Document C 81/8. The Austrian delegation greets the way in which this document has been submitted. We have noted that indeed it is a meaningful addition to the programme of FAO. The information contained about the results is very important.
It would also be very interesting, however, with respect to these problems to know exactly how the problems have been solved.
As for the work, the activities should not be dealt with in an isolated manner - rather, the activities should be connected to work in other regions. For example, in this connexion let me refer to the network of the European Region and the work being donc there. The presentation of the agricultural development without a description of the role of women in land development seems to us not to be complete, in particular the activities of FAO in this field we feel are extremely important. We are also happy to hear about the activities in the field of training and education, be this in connexion with agriculture or forestry.
In the future there should be to a greater extent possibilities of training for the different developing countries - for these countries or the developed countries of FAO, particularly with reference to Part Two, Chapter Nine, the Danish delegate referred to the importance of fertilizer, and we support what he said in this connexion.
As to what is said in Part Two, Chapter Twelve, we must emphasise the fact that the preparation of clear information on methods is a very good idea as this is taking account of the developing countries. The inception of modern information methods should also bear in mind the local conditions to a greater extent, and we support what has been donc by FAO in this connexion.
As to the importance of close contact between research and practice, much emphasis has been laid upon this. We also believe, however, that the role of the country representatives in FAO, particularly with respect to the implementation of projects and the presentation thereof should be laid down in a clear manner.
In the field of forestry activities, of course, Austria attaches great importance to these, and I do think we need to emphasise this fact, it is clear.
In summarizing, may I once again say what has been said in the documents is very pleasing to us, and we hope a clear expression of how the use of the work of FAO will be further developed in the future.
B.E. PHIRI (Zambia): I will be very brief. We wish to commend the Secretariat for the form in which this document has been put together for us. It is clear and concise, but I would like to mention just a few paragraphs.
The first is on page 105, paragraph 5.91, in which it says about one-half of the programme missions initiated in 1979-80 took place in countries with FAO Representatives. I am mentioning this because it is one of those areas in which we have some controversies in this Commission when we talk about the office of FAORs and the Regional Offices. The FAORs have not been long in the field, but it seems the effect of these Offices is already pronounced.
Then we come to page 143 and paragraph 7.43 in which it says the decisive factor is the will of national governments to keep operationally effective on the national level with policies created at the proper level.
I decided to highlight this because we speak here as though the lack of adequate implementation efficiency were with the Secretariat only but sometimes the problem is with the national governments. The response, the talk about personnel and plans which a national government is supposed to provide for a particular project may render the effectiveness of the Secretariat impossible to implement.
We therefore think that when we are reviewing the activities of the Organization we must also review the part played by governments, either in making a project either successful or unsuccessful.
Then on page 144 it is said:
“On the whole the planning assistance activities carried out under the programme
have not been as effective as might be wished.”
The reason here is that adequate resources are not provided for training in the projects, and the example is given of Tunisia and Brazil. Now it appears that there is a tendency possibly to just prepare a project and implement it with a weak training component included in the project, so that when the FAO experts or other experts leave, the local experts will take over. They have already been trained to take over and they continue with the project and we see that because of the weakness in training, some of the projects have tended to be stretched out into several phases over a period or a number of years. We therefore think this is an area where possibly FAO should do more.
On the whole we wish to commend the Secretariat for the work they do and the manner in which they are doing it.
New Zealand raised a point about whether to have a list of projects that have been cancelled and whether it is possible to have some deciding factor as to when a project should be abandoned, because it is proving impossible to implement. We think this can only be possible if the problems that the Secretariat has faced in the past in implementing projects are clearly highlighted so that these can guide us in avoiding the pitfalls in future projects.
F. MARTINEZ GOMEZ (Mexico): La principal consideración que se puede hacer del examen de los programas de campo lo constituye la falta de recursos para estas importantes actividades, teniendo en cuenta la actual situación alimentaria mundial y el estado económico y tecnológico en que se encuentran los países desarrollados. El constante incremento de los recursos hacia la industria de la guerra, no es más que un reflejo de la existencia de una situación contradictoria y crítica que ha ocasionado, como se puede constatar, una mayor concentración de la riqueza y que está inhibiendo las oportunidades de millones de seres de producir y satisfacer plenamente sus necesidades básicas de alimentarse.
En este contexto, el análisis de la situación de los programas de campo 1980-81, nos indica que las mejoras sustantivas que se pueden recomendar, estan fuera del ambito de las actividades que se realizan en FAO, y se ubican dentro de la necesidad de incrementar sustantivamente los recursos para los programas de campo.
Es evidente que constantemente las actividades de campo que realiza la FAO son menores con respecto a la demanda de necesidades. Esto parece agravarse por la existencia de signos muy reales de una caída de nivel nominal de las actividades de campo de la FAO. Se estima que en 1982 se iniciará este descenso significativo. Es innecesario señalar las consecuencias de estas medidas, pues son de sobra conocidas por todos. Estimamos inconveniente que se niegue el apoyo hacia la agricultura de los países en desarrollo, principalmente el multilateral que tiene la ventaja de no estar ligado a compromisos o ataduras que, muy frecuentemente, se establecen tácitamente o no en los apoyos bilaterales.
La existencia de insuficientes recursos para los programas obliga a que las actividades de evaluación sean más estrictas y meticulosas, y que estén encaminadas a obtener una mayor eficacia en el uso de los recursos de los programas de campo. Otra consideración importante es que, por ningún motivo, las reducciones presupuestales afecten más a los programas de campo que a los gastos administrativos que ello lleva consigo. Es necesario que se incremente el número de proporción de expertos de los países en desarrollo para la ejecución de proyectos de campo, al menos que alcancen el objetivo establecido por la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas del 50 por ciento.
En los últimos años, la proporción de estudiantes becados por FAO en los países en desarrollo ha disminuido. Consideramos necesario que se tomen medidas para cambiar el sentido de esta proporción. Estimamos conveniente fomentar aún más las actividades que realiza la FAO en promover la cooperación técnica, y en los programas de acción de organizaciones rurales. Es necesario que los programas de campo tomen en cuenta las recomendaciones de la Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural
en su diseño e implementación, particularmente en lo que se refiere a la participación sustancial de los productores, y de la utilización maxima de recursos locales.
Finalmente, deseamos que el proyecto de resolución de crear un Banco Internacional de Fitogermoplasma de interés agrícola dependiente de FAO, el cual detallo como sigue, y que ha sido apoyado por los países latinoamericanos y España, quedase reflejada en las actas de esta reunion, además de que, como lo señalase el Subsecretario de la Secretaría de Agricultura de México, sera enviada al Comité de Resoluciones para su consideración.
A saber:I.- Proyecto de Resolución de la Conferencia
CREAGION DE UN BANCO INTERNACIONAL DE FITO-GERMOPLASMA DE INTERES AGRICOLA DEPENDIENTE DE FAO
LA CONFERENCIACONSIDERANDO
que los Recursos Genéticos son Recursos Naturales limitados y perecederos, y por tanto son comparables a otras materias primas de importancia primordial.
que sin el uso de estos recursos en los centros de investigación agricola aplicada, la mejora de variedades no sería posible.
que de estos recursos depende la alimentación mundial en el future
que los recursos fitogenéticos existen en concentración máxima en ciertas areas geográficas.
TENIENDO EN CUENTA
que la aparición de nuevas tecnologías, la sustitución de variedades locales por variedades importadas, la colonización de nuevas tierras, los cambios en las tëcnicas de cultivo, etc., están provocando una rápida y profunda erosion de los mencionados recursos que pueden llevar a la extinción de un material de valor incalculable y que apenas ha sido utilizado.
que la FAO debe ocuparse no solo de la alimentacion del mundo, sino también asegurar para las generaciones venideras un incremento en la producción y en la calidad de los alimentos y que ambas metas sólo son posibles a través de la preservación y utilización de los recursos fitogenéticos que son la materia prima necesaria para la mejora de las variedades.
que la conservación de semillas es el método más adecuado de preservar los recursos fitogenéticos de la mayor parte de las especies agrícolas cultivadas.
que los almacenes donde se conservan las semillas con esta finalidad se conocen con el nombre de bancos de Fitogermoplasma.
que la FAO se ha ocupado de estos recursos ypromueve su recolección.
que la FAO ya cuenta con un servicio que se ocupa del intercambio de semillas.
DECIDE
que duplicados de tan valiosos recursos deben conservarse bajo la custodia de FAO y dentro de terrenos legalmente reconocidos como propiedad de Naciones Unidas garantizando con la adecuada legislación la disponibilidad y seguridad de los mismos a todos los países para el uso de generaciones futuras.
que debe llegarse a acuerdos internacionales vinculantes que reconozcan estos recursos como patrimonio de la Humanidad, asegurando legalmente su accesibilidad, uso y disfrute indiscriminado.
Que los puntos anteriores no son aspectos exclusivos sino necesariamente complementarios y como tales deben considerarse.
SOLICITA AL DIRECTOR GENERAL
la creación en la sede de la FAO de un banco internacional de semillas ortodoxas de interés agrícola que estará bajo la custodia de la Organización y donde todos los países que lo deseen pueden depositar duplicados de su material, asegurando su salvaguardia, su utilización y su disfrute indiscriminado, tanto en el presente como en el future Dicho banco deberá administrarse mediante un reglamento especial que garantice los derechos de los depositarios.
que localice fondos para financiar la creación y funcionamiento de este banco. Dichos fondos podrían proceder del presupuesto regular de FAO, otras organizaciones internacionales, países donantes, y/o otras fuentes de finaneiamiento.
que dicho banco se administre bajo la custodia de FAO, y dentro de una legislación internacional, para lo cual se solicita al Director General que convoque a todos los países a una Convención que para tales fines se designe. Esta Convención podrá celebrarse en las oficinas centrales de FAO en el transcurso de 1982.
K. CHOUERI (Liban) (Langue originale arabe): Lors de la Conférence Générale précédente, ma délégation a eu l’occasion de participer aux travaux de la Commission II et en l’occurence a l’Examen du Programme ordinaire. Nous avions formulé alors certains commentaires et notre impression, aujourd’hui, est que le document qui nous est soumis a tenu compte des commentaires que nous avions formulés. Nous ne pouvons donc pas ici passer sous silence les efforts déployés par le Comité du programme au cours de sa quarante et unième session, car il a largement débattu cette question et il a étudié ce document dans le détail.
Nous nous déclarons d’accord avec les résultats auxquels a abouti le Comité du programme d’autant plus que l’examen de ce document a été d’un niveau excellent, que ce soit du point de vue de la présentation de ce document ou de son contenu. Le système d’evaluation actuel est un système efficace et peu coûteux, et e’est la raison pour laquelle ma délégation réitère son approbation à l’evaluation interne que nous considérons la meilleure.
Le document qui nous est soumis a regroupé différents programmes: la première partie en est consacrée à un examen analytique alors que dans la deuxième partie, il y a une extension des différents programmes de même qu’il y a une étude comparative entre le Programme ordinaire, les programmes de terrain et leur intéraction.
Nous voudrions faire observer que si les évaluations deviennent trop nombreuses, ce sera contre-productif, car l’évaluation demande beaucoup de temps et d’efforts aux employes de la FAO, Nous connaissons les limites de toute opération d’évaluation, et quels que soient les efforts déployés par les experts et les experts-conseils à l’intérieur ou à l’extérieur de la FAO,les propositions de ces experts ne peuvent pas toutes être appliquées. D’autant plus, comme l’a souligné l’honorable délégué de la France, que certains projets sont encore en cours d’exécution ‘‘ il est donc difficile d’en faire l’évaluation.
C’est la raison pour laquelle nous posons la question suivante: est-ce que la multiplication de ces opérations d’évaluation ne va pas être en fait une perte de ressources et de temps, ce que nous voulons tous éviter?
Monsieur le Président, l’écho de la voix des délégations qui ont demandé la compression des dépenses résonne encore dans cette salle. De même, M. West a souligné le coût excessif des opérations d’évaluation et de coordination. Son intervention est encore présente à notre esprit.
Enfin, nous voudrions réaffirmer notre appui au suivi de ce document.
J. NEUMANN (Czechoslovakia): As I speak in our Commisssion for the first time, let me congratulate you on your election to the chair.
I should like to inform you about the policy on soil resources in my country. Czechoslovakia is a country with little agricultural land, as a consequence of highly developed industry and a great density of population.
The average acreage of arable land per capita is 0.35. It is therefore necessary in our effort to achieve self-sufficiency in the basic agricultural products to use the soil with maximum efficiency.
As a consequence of rapid industrial and housing construction and transport networks, it has often happened that the area of agricultural land-in spite of strict legislative measures-has been reduced.
Therefore, a law on “The Protection of agricultural land” has been issued. This law lays down specific measures by which soil can be used for other than agricultural purposes. It also is based on the fact that the soil is a national heritage and thus it is the duty of all to protect it and to use it as far as possible for agriculture.
There exists, Mr. Chairman, a special Research Institute for soil sciences in Czechoslovakia, which is in permanent contact with the relevant divisions of FAO.
I would like to take this opportunity to express the interest of my country in further cooperation with FAO in the area of experts and consultants on soil, its classification and the assessment of land for agricultural purposes.
For this reason, we consider the document submitted as a very important one, and give it our full support.*
P. VANDOR (Hungary): The World Soil Charter will be a milestone in the history of utilization of soils of the world and in international collaboration for better use and protection of the soils.
Hungary which has extended territories as well as fertile soils as well as soils with low fertility is interested in further programme of the World Soil Charter.
Hungary was one of the first countries which in the early sixties of the century adopted the Act of Land by the Parliament which limited the possibility of utilisation of agricultural land for industrial, urban and other exploitations. After this Act went into the practice the yearly reduction of the area of agricultural land was diminished-.
In Hungary extended research and surveys were conducted for characterisation and mapping of soils in order to characterise their ability for different patterns of agriculture. Maps are available also indicating the limiting factors of agriculture soil erosion, soil salinity, etc. Studies and maps were prepared for prediction of hazards of environmental processes which may lead to deterioration and degradation of soils.
Prediction of salinity hazards of irrigation systems and methods for prevention of such processes were also elaborated.
In Hungary there are possibilities for organizing training courses and other studies particularly for experts of developing countries.*
The meeting rose at 13.05 hours
La séance est levêe à 13 h 05
Se levata la Sesión a las 13.05 horas
* Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
