CHAIRMAN: I call the meeting to order and open the ninth meeting of Commission II. We will continue the debate on the Review of the Regular Programme 1980-81 with document C 81/8 as a basic reference.
As you will have noticed from the journal of the Conference; we are also expected subsequently to enter into debate on item 12, Review of the Field Programmes.
I thank the delegates for their understanding that we should move on expeditiously.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I am most likely one of the last speakers on your list, and I have all reason to express our views in a very telegraphic style, even.
We first of all appreciate the good introduction of Mr. Ajazi. We feel it has been expressed by many delegations this morning that the document on the Review of the Regular Programme is a major improvement as compared with the renewed effort that we considered two years ago. We feel that it was definitely improved in both form and substance, and I am very satisfied also, as were many others, that the improvement was the result of the dialogue between this Commission, some other governing bodies at FAO and the Secretariat. I will just very briefly describe the improvements as we see them. First, we appreciate the extent of the coverage especially in Part Two, in the in-depth reviews. We were also satisfied with the improved presentation throughout the document, and we especially very much value the improvement in Part One.
There are many tables showing very clearly not only the source but also various aspects of FAO activities, like training, meetings, publications, backstopping and especially direct reports to the Member governments.
Of course, I could not go into details; as I have announced some other day, my delegation was privileged to be represented both on the Programme Committee and the Council, so we are dealing mostly with the form and with regard to the form and substance of future reviews.
We also feel there is still substantial room for improvement. I would very briefly indicate one or two or three basic lines that we feel would perhaps serve serious thought. For example, we feel that greater emphasis could be placed on using more thoroughly, for example, expert consultations, either panels or individual consultations, just to show more clearly both conceptual and technical details. Of course, we share the view expressed this morning that further attempts should be made to improve the assessment of impacts. Of course, as many speakers emphasized this morning, we also see substantial difficulties in certain cases even in the possibility of quantifying some very complex aspects of FAO’s programmes and especially to assess in any quantitative terms the impact of the FAO programmes. As we found, I think, in the last Council, it was virtually impossible to assess the UN input, overall UN Input, in the case of a country, let alone the input provided by one especial agency, even one as large as FAO.
We also feel, like many other delegations, that further substantial expansion of the volume does not seem to us to be either feasible or desirable. Of course, many very interesting ideas and suggestions have been expressed in the course of the debate. Most of them I think address the issue of future improvements, both in substance and form. We share most of the views expressed. We see some merit in the suggestion to provide master charts here and there, even to show the mainstreams at the programme or sub-programme levels their main connections and interlinks inside and outside, but we doubt this very much. Perhaps it is only due to the lack of our imagination that all details which are enormously complex could be shown in that way.
Finally, may I only briefly reflect some of the ideas that have been suggested. After all, we feel it is the primary task of ours being here to extend ideas and to see what we agree upon. I think many delegations place special accent on research, and I fully share the view that research deserves utmost attention. May I again only remind you what I said on a previous occasion, that in-depth evaluation research activities of FAO, based on about fifty FAO-UNDP projects of research support
projects, will be prepared and documents will be prepared for such a review or revaluation, if you want, even, and considered by the Committee for the next biennium, so I think we can see the merit of having research fully covered in the next performance report.
The point was also raised with regard to the Regional Offices, and may I also mention that agreement reached in the Programme Committee in the sense that the next performance report should provide more details showing to the extent possible the role, the place of Regional Offices, the method of their work, connections with the Country Offices and on the way they fit into the overall FAO structure.
Agreement was reached on the insistence of some members of the Programme Committee, and I would say if I want to be precise, two members, who felt that the whole area was still a bit obscure, and of course the vast majority of the Committee was of the view that such a review was not necessary, but finally, since the view was expressed, we agree that it should be donc through the next performance report, and I think it has been accepted by the Secretariat.
Finally, we believe that the performance report, improved as we see it now, fits quite well within the overall evaluation structure of FAO. In view of what we said on Friday, I think, my delegation really does not see any need for a special sub-committee of this Committee to review or even evaluate the work of FAO. I will not go any further to repeat what I said the other day as to what was the position of my delegation. I think I explained that in details I want to make reference to the fact that a thorough review of conference structure, proceedings and its composition has been donc by the standing committees and the Council, and after a very long debate I think the Council reached the conclusion that with certain small changes and modifications, the Conference structure and procedures should be retained, so even in that light we do not see any need or even technical possibility of making the conference structure which has become quite a bit complex become more complex by accepting the idea expressed in favour of a sort of sub-committee of this very body. We really do not see any reason for any such thing.
A. TRAORE (Guinée): Ma délégation se félicite de la qualité du document C 81/8 qui nous est soumis et apprécie favorablement la manière dont les différents points sont traités. Elle considère surtout avec intérêt le chapitre se rapportant à l’aménagement des zones de parcours, le développement de la pêche artisanale et la formation des cadres en matière de pêche.
Face au système d’élevage pratiqué en Afrique de l’ouest, ma délégation encourage vivement notre organisme, fort déjà des bons résultats obtenus en Afrique du Nord, à multiplier davantage ses actions portant sur l’amélioration des zones de parcours dans notre sous-région.
Dans le domaine de la pêche, nous avons déjà fait mention du rapport défavorable entre, d’une part, les ressources halieutiques et les besoins alimentaires de nos populations et, d’autre part, le niveau des produits de pêche disponibles.
A cet égard, la perspective de développement de la pêche artisanale en tant que précieux moyen d’exploitation des zones économiques nous réjouit à plus d’un titre.
C’est aussi pour cela qu’en exprimant notre satisfaction devant les résultats dont font état les paragraphes 3.15 et 3.16, nous nous joignons à ceux des délégués qui, avant nous ont attiré l’attention spéciale de notre commission sur la formation de cadres nationaux chargés d’exécuter sur place les travaux de pêche.
C. LAMBERT (Canada): Beaucoup a déjà été dit. Je ne voudrais pas répéter ceux qui m’ont précédé, qu’il me soit cependant permis de féliciter à mon tour le Secrétariat pour la qualité du document qui nous a été remis. Nous croyons que l’honnêteté des propositions qui y sont contenues servira à renforcer la confiance qui doit régner entre le Secrétariat et les Membres de cette deuxième Commission.
L’examen du programme ordinaire est fort encourageant car, comme cela a déjà été signalé, la présentation et le contenu se sont grandement améliorés. Nous invitons donc le Secrétariat à poursuivre dans cette voie. Comme beaucoup d’autres avant nous, nous reconnaissons les difficultés qui sont liées à l’evaluation quantitative des activités de la FAO. Nous reconnaissons aussi qu’à beaucoup d’égards, il est nécessaire d’innover dans ce domaine. Cela ne saurait cependant nous empêcher de nous attaquer à la tâche. Nous sommes au contraire convaincus que la FAO a toutes les compétences pour relever ce défi.
Dans cette perspective, permettez-moi d’apporter ici quelques suggestions, Il est nécessaire pour ce faire de revenir un peu en arrière sur notre ordre du jour.
Ma délégation ne s’est pas exprimée sur le document visant les objectifs à moyen terme lors de sa discussion. Nous croyions en effet qu’il était préférable de lier nos propos à l’examen du programme ordinaire.
Ma délégation croit en effet que dans leur forme actuelle, les objectifs à moyen terme sont, pour le moins, d’une utilité marginale. Vous vous souviendrez que lors du débat, certains ont proposé l’annulation de ce document; d’autres ont proposé son intégration au programme de travail et budget; nous croyons, pour notre part, qu’il y a lieu de conserver ce document séparé des autres textes, mais qu’il faut l’améliorer. Le caractère vague de la formulation des objectifs empêche d’en faire le document de travail essentiel qu’il devrait être. Il nous apparaît important que les objectifs de notre Organisation soient quantifiés, clairement situés et limités dans le temps, aussi bien que géographiquement. C’est ainsi qu’ils prendront une véritable signification.
Comme il a été rappelé dans la présentation du document C 81/8, l’examen du programme ordinaire s’appuie sur les objectifs à moyen terme. Ainsi donc pour être sérieux, notre examen doit, lui-aussi, reposer sur une base bien déterminée. L’examen du programme ordinaire en sera d’autant facilité et les résultats plus immédiatement utilisables pour corriger le tir, si besoin est.
Le deuxième point d’ordre général que je voudrais aborder repose sur deux affirmations qu’on retrouve dans le document. On indique, en effet, quelles difficultés rencontre le Secrétariat dans le recrutement du personnel et on en donne comme cause principale le principe de la répartition géographique.
Ma délégation souhaite rappeler ici qu’elle souscrit entièrement à ce principe mais qu’il ne doit en rien être celui qui prévaut sur les autres.
Nous voulons réaffirmer ici que le premier critère d’emploi doit être celui de la compétence, et cela pour le bien même de notre Organisation.
Nous serions donc reconnaissants au Secrétariat de nous apporter les éclaircissements qu’il jugera à propos.
De façon plus précise, le Plan sur l’agriculture (paragraphes 1.95 et 1.96) nous parle du choix à faire entre la participation et le soutien indirect. Le texte nous laisse penser qu’on préfererait le soutien indirect. Pour notre part, nous optons pour cette voie. Nous croyons que le rôle des agences spécialisées est précisément d’apporter ce soutien indirect, car il crée un effet multiplicateur qui, à moyen et long terme, bénéficie davantage aux récipiendaires.
Au paragraphe 1.100 brève mention est faite d’un projet pilote où 15 équipes spéciales ont été constituées pour autant de pays, afin d’assurer une plus grande cohérence aux interventions de la FAO. Il nous intéressera de connaître plus tard les résultats de cette expérience.
Nous venons de parler de soutien indirect. Au paragraphe 1.101, on nous dit qu’à cause des pressions que subit l’Organisation pour le soutien indirect, on devra assister à trois développements: un choix plus sélectif des activités du Siège; les réponses aux demandès d’assistance devront être subordonnées à l’engagement de gouvernements nationaux dans ce secteur d’activité, et un plus grand usage des instituts nationaux et des consultants nationaux.
Nous tenons à vous dire, Monsieur le Président, que ma délégation souscrit entièrement à ces trois options qui sont ouvertes au Programme.
Enfin, un mot sur le chapitre douze. Nous somme particulièrement sensibles à la justification qui nous est présentée dans ce chapitre regardant la communication au service du développement. En cela, nous devons différer avec une opinion émise ce matin. Nous avons tous trop souvent la tentation dè contempler la fin et de ne pas nous préoccuper assez des moyens. Par ce Programme, nous réussissons à impliquer les populations dans leur développement, à établir un véritable échange entre toutes les parties concernées. Nous croyons donc que ce Programme est très important si nous voulons réussir la tâche qui est notre. Nous soutenons pleinement la Recommandation qui veut que l’aspect des communications soit inclus le plus tôt possible dans l’élaboration des projets.
Je termine enfin sur une dernière suggestion. Le Programme a maintenant deux parties: les grands programmes et les programmes qui interviennent dans chacun des programmes. N’y aurait-il pas lieu d’inclure une troisième partie qui serait, elle, plus géographique? Il nous serait peut-être alors permis de voir l’impact, le résultat que nos projets connaissent à l’échelle des régions et des sous-régions.
LE PRESIDENT: Je vous remercie, Monsieur le délégué du Canada.
Je suis sûr que le secrétariat a bien pris note de vos suggestions, faites à la fin de votre déclaration.
J’invite maintenant le délégué du Sénégal à prendre la parole.
S. AIDARA (Sénégal): Je vous remercie, Monsieur le Président, de me donner la parole à ce stade de nos discussions sur cette importante question.
C’est la deuxième fois qu’un tel document sur l’execution du Programme de terrain est soumis à l’examen de la Conférence. Il faut reconnaître que par rapport au premier document, il y a beaucoup d’améliorations, et ceci est à inscrire à l’actif du secrétariat que ma délégation engage à poursuivre dans cette voie.
Nous estimons que l’évaluation interne du Programme de terrain et du Programme ordinaire doit être un processus continu d’appréciations. Ce n’est que de cette façon que le secrétariat, prenant bonne note des remarques des uns et des autres, compte tenu de leur expérience réciproque sur le terrain, pourra améliorer progressivement le travail de l’Organisation.
Ma délégation a écouté avec beaucoup d’intérêt les commentaires constructifs faits par les autres délégations. Je ne reviendrai pas sur ces commentaires, que ma délégation au demeurant approuve entièrement. Je voudrais simplement à cet égard remercier les pays développés, comme du reste les pays en développement, qui ont offert leur coopération pour un renforcement des échanges d’expériences dans les différents secteurs de l’agriculture entendu au sens large du développement rural.
Je voudrais citer la Corée dans le domaine de la pêche, la France dans le domaine de la recherche, et j’en passe. Je puis assurer ces pays que, pour notre part en tout cas, ces invitations ne tombent pas dans l’oreille d’un sourd.
Monsieur le Président, vous me permettrez, avant de présenter un certain nombre de commentaires spécifiques, de faire une remarque d’ordre général.
Je voudrais d’abord parler de l’importance du Programme ordinaire et du Programme de terrain. Comme on le sait, ces deux programmes sont intimement liés entre eux. Le Programme ordinaire fournit une assistance directe, d’une part par le biais du Centre d’investissement qui couvre la Banque mondiale, les Banques régionales et le FIDA, et d’autre part par le biais du Programme de coopération technique. Il assure également un soutien technique et logistique à l’élaboration, à l’exécution, à la surveillance et à l’évaluation des projets de développement agricole dans les pays en développement. Trois milliards de dollars par an, voilà le Programme de terrain engendré par le Programme ordinaire, 2,4 millions d’investissement agricole en 1980 et 287 millions de dollars au titre des projets exécutés pour le compte du PNUD, ce sont là quelques chiffres qui nous confirment dans notre conviction qu’il faut renforcer le Programme ordinaire.
En ce qui concerne les points spécifiques du Programme, je voudrais insister particulièrement sur les Programmes d’action spéciaux. Je citerai en exemple trois programmes importants: le Programme de coopération technique, le Programme d’assistance pour la sécurité alimentaire et le Programme relatif aux zones économiques exclusives.
Tout d’abord, le Programme de coopération technique. Je ne m’étendrai pas sur les mérites reconnus de ce programme qui, depuis sa création, a obtenu un très grand succès par la promptitude et la souplesse de son action dans les pays en développement. Je ne citerai ici de chiffres que pour rappeler qu’il y a quelques jours le Directeur général nous a quittés pour aller signer une quarantaine d’accords dans le cadre du PCT. Voilà qui, à nos yeux, démontre l’efficacité de ce Programme qu’il faut poursuivre et renforcer.
Ensuite, le Programme d’assistance pour la sécurité alimentaire créé en 1975. Jusqu’à ce jour, si les chiffres dont je dispose sont encore valables, 44 pays ont demandé des missions à la FAO pour identifier et préparer des projets, en plus de l’étude de faisabilité du projet de réserves régionales des pays du CILSS (Comité inter-Etat de lutte contre la sécheresse au Sahel). Dans le cadre de ce programme, 57 projets ont été approuvés par le Directeur general pour une valeur d’environ 50 millions de dollars. Vous comprenez donc, Monsieur le Président, l’importance de ce programme pour lequel nous gardons espoir qu’il atteindra, pour la première fois depuis sa création, son niveau initial de 10 millions de dollars, grâce aux donateurs traditionnels tels que les Pays-Bas, la Norvège et la Suisse et grâce également à certains nouveaux donateurs, notamment l’Italie, le Japon, Autriche et la Belgique. Ce programme, à nos yeux, doit être donc maintenu. Mieux, il doit être renforcé.
Au titre de toutes les activités de la FAO sur le terrain, on mesure plus aisément l’importance des représentations de la FAO que nous souhaiterions voir renforcées. Vous l’avez deviné, je parle des bureaux régionaux de la FAO. Ces bureaux font généralement partie des structures de développement des pays et des régions bénéficiaires, et les pays eux-mêmes participent au maintien de ces bureaux tant sur le plan financier que sur le plan matériel. Toute suppression à ce niveau constituerait une grave amputation aux efforts de développement.
On dit très souvent qu’il faut procéder à une évaluation du rapport coût/utilité de ces bureaux. A cet égard, je voudrais rappeler qu’il appartient avant tout aux différents bénéficiaires de juger de l’opportunité et de l’efficacité de ces représentations dont l’impact et les répercussions sur le plan économique et social ne sont guère à notre avis, quantifiables.
Pour notre part, nous encourageons le Directeur général à poursuivre la politique de décentralisation qui a été décidée par la Conférence générale.
Enfin le Programme ZEE. Le programme global FAO d’assistance aux Etats côtiers en développement pour la gestion et la mise en valeur des zones économiques exclusives mérite de recevoir une place prépondérante, tout en ne négligeant pas la haute prioritê qui doit être accordée au potentiel des pêches continentales et de l’acquaculture et à la promotion des activités de transformation.
A cet égard, la Conférence mondiale sur la gestion et le développement de la pêche, prévue en 1983, devrait répondre à l’attentedes pays en développement.
F. D’ALMEIDA (Benin): Je voudrais, à l’instar des autres délégations adresser mes compliments au secrétariat pour la manière dont le document C 81/8 a été présenté.
Monsieur le Président, je ferai de très brefs commentaires sur un certain nombre de points, notamment en ce qui concerne le chapitre un, l’agriculture entendu de façon générale, et je pense que les problèmes de l’agriculture et des politiques alimentaires devraient pouvoir se lier de très près.
Le problème qui se pose actuellement à un certain nombre de pays les moins avancés comme le nôtre, c’est le problème des stratégies alimentaires. Nous pensons que si nous voulons promouvoir une stratégie alimentaire, il faudrait que les structures concernant l’agriculture, l’alimentation et la nutrition soient suffisamment prises en considération, de façon à ce que l’on puisse, au niveau de nos pays, asseoir une structure convenable. Nous aimerions, par exemple, que la FAO nous aide à étudier ce genre de structure qui puisse permettre une intégration parfaite entre l’agriculture et l’alimentation. Nous pensons que dans ce cadre des divisions comme la pêche et l’élevage devraient être encore plus près des questions alimentaires et nutritionnelles, de façon à ce que cela fasse un tout intégré.
S’agissant de la pêche, nous avons des problèmes d’ordre technique, pour la promotion de la pêche dans notre pays, puisque vous savez que nous avons aussi bien la mer que les lagunes. Or, nous souffrons de manque de protéines et nous pensons qu’il serait bon, sur ce chapitre de la pêche, qu’un accent particulier soit mis pour aider les pays d’Afrique à développer leur pêche, aussi bien maritime que la pêche de lagune ou d’eau douce.
En ce qui concerne l’élevage, nous donnons notre appui a l’intervention du délégué de la Guinée qui demande que l’on nous aide à avoir des aires d’aménagement pour mieux développer notre élevage. Nous pensons qu’au stade de l’évolution des techniques et des progrès accomplis dans les pays qui ont aussi des climats tropicaux et subtropicaux, ces progrès soient appliqués pour produire de la viande et du lait car l’importation du lait dans nos pays pour la nourriture des enfants revient très cher en devises.
Nous apportons notre appui à ce qui a été dit sur le chapitre des forêts, mais nous souhaiterions que l’on nous aide a faire du reboisement car étant très près des pays du Sahel nous en subissons les conséquences et nos problèmes sont aggravés par la fabrication de charbon de bois qui détruit nos forêts.
Je pense aussi qu’une attention particulière doit être apportée à la sécurité alimentaire. Si l’on met en place une stratégie alimentaire, c’est bien aussi pour couvrir cette sécurité alimentaire et il faudrait étudier un système qui permette de la valoriser au niveau national et au niveau d’un groupe de pays.
Dans le cadre du développement rural, et surtout en ce qui concerne les petits exploitants, nous pensons qu’il faudra, au niveau de la FAO, étudier la possibilité d’intervenir en matière de crédit agricole au niveau des petits exploitants qui représentent la grande masse de nos paysans. En régle générale, les différents pays qui ont institué des banques de crédit agricole prétent à un taux trop élevé pour nos paysans d’autant plus que l’agriculture chez nous n’est pas encore payante.
Je voudrais donner mon appui à l’intervention du délégué du Canada en ce qui concerne la possibilité, dans le cadre de la formation et de l’utilisation des cadres, d’utiliser des consultants et des experts nationaux. Nous pensons de la même façon que lui en ce qui concerne la communication. Pour créer plus d’émulation et pour mieux voir la situation qui prévaut au niveau de chaque région, il serait peut-être bon aussi que dans le cadre de la présentation du Programme ordinaire on puisse voir au niveau géographique comment évolue le développement de différents pays.
Un accent particulier doit être mis sur la formation, en liaison avec la vulgarisation et la recherche agronomique, parce que nous pensons que ces trois éléments vont de pair, et dans la mesure où la formation peut aller de l’avant, on peut arriver à mieux cerner les problèmes de développement au niveau de la base. Il fut un temps où, à la FAO, un accent particulier était mis sur les programmes de vulgarisation. Cela peut être repris et finance par des organisations non gouvernementales ou à travers les fonds de la Campagne mondiale contre la faim. Nous constatons un petit relâchement au niveau de cette Campagne mondiale contre la faim. On en entend très peu parler. Madame Indira Gandhi, dans son intervention, a dit qu’il était dommage que l’on oublie cette partie des activités de la FAO.
Il serait peut-être bon de la réveiller et de reprendre les activités de la Campagne mondiale contre la faim pour permettre le financement d’un certain nombre de petits projets.
En ce qui concerne la représentation de la FAO dans les pays, il faut développer cette représentation.
Quant à la question de proposer un coordinateur au niveau des organismes des Nations Unies, chaque organisme des Nations Unies a sa spécificité, et le représentant du PNUD est le représentant du PNUD, ce n’est pas le représentant des Nations Unies. Je pense donc qu’il ne peut pas à lui seul être le porte-parole de tous les organismes des Nations Unies. Il est donc bon que dans le problème de la coordination des activités des organismes des Nations Unies, le représentant de la FAO demeure pour nous le conseiller agricole du gouvernement.
C’est pourquoi nous pensons que le choix de ces représentants doit être fait avec minutie. Il faudrait que l’on puisse avoir des représentants au sein des pays qui puissent véritablement conseiller nos pays et par consequent avoir de l’expérience et avoir de l’assurance.
F.D.J. GAZZO (Perú): He revisado cuidadosamente los documentos que estamos discutiendo y felicito a la Secretaría por el magnífico contenido de los mismos. Me permito, sin embargo, al mismo tiempo hacer las siguientes observaciones y sugerencias. Quiero poner especial énfasis en la necesidad de reforzar hasta donde sea posible, el aspecto relacionado con las actividades de comunicación en apoyo al desarrollo.
Es harto sabido que en la mayoría de nuestros países en vías de desarrollo, existe el conocido divorcio entre las actividades de investigación y extensión, o sea la transferencia de tecnologías, que bien se denomina en el idioma anglosajón como el outreach. Hay una gran distancia entre los logros obtenidos por el investigador en el laboratorio y los que obtiene el agricultor en los apliques del campo.
Esto a mi manera de ver puede tener dos causas que hay que atacar, que hay que resolver: primero, la investigación no es hecha en los niveles que necesita el usuario. Es decir, que mientras la investigación está en mucho en nuestro país muy cerca del año 2000, el nivel productivo está a 2000 años antes de Jesucristo y la capacidad del agricultor todavía está a 2000 años de Jesucristo. Existen unos cambios para cubrir ambas realidades. En mi país, por ejemplo, en estos últimos 50 años que venimos realizando investigaciones, los rendimientos experimentales de cultivo de la papa, cultivo oriundo de Perú, oscilan entre 20 000 y 30 000 kg por hectárea: sin embargo, el promedio nacional no alcanza a más de 6 000 kg por hectárea.
La otra causa es que no haya difusión adecuada que sea fácilmente absorbida por los agricultures. En esto juegan un papel muy importante las Comunicaciones en apoyo al desarrollo. Debo mencionar de forma muy especial el éxito que tiene el Programa en Perú mediante el sistema de ayudas audiovisuales con el método de los video-cassettes, que nos ha permitido llegar a los agricultores de zonas muy deprimidas en su propio idioma, el quechua y/o el aymara. Este es un sistema que sirve tanto a los agricultores alfabetos como a los analfabetos, y permite además mostrar al agricultor todo el proceso de producción para su global comprensión. Como he dicho, este sistema que llega en mi país a las regiones más alejadas está compuesto de cassettes que se basan en circuitos cerrados de televisión y que son filmados y producidos dentro del mismo país con las realidades y las ventajas que existen en él. Cada circuito se trata de televisión y cuenta con un monitor que puede explicar al momento cualquier consulta que el usuario está viendo en el video que pueda tener. El sistema ha tenido tanto éxito, que mi Gobierno no obstante, las estrecheces económicas que tiene, ha dado una asignación fuera de presupuesto por encima del convenio de 500 000 dólares para extender su uso.
Tengo entendido que esta mañana el distinguido representante de Dinamarca cuestionó un poco las realidades de este Convenio, de este sistema. Quiero decir que un país de tales desventajas, de esas condiciones, este sistema ha trabajado muy bien, no hay que asustarse con la palabra video-cassette, porque tenemos una gama de más de 150 equipos que están hechos con aparatos muy sencillos y que pesan muy poco y pueden ser transportados inclusive por acémilas desde el nivel del mar hasta los 4 000 metros de altura. En Perú tenemos un cuerpo que se encarga de las reparaciones que hay que hacerles, pero puedo decir que en cinco años este equipo que donó la FAO, el PNUD, sigue trabajando con gran eficiencia. Si la hermana República de Dinamarca requiere de algún apoyo para obviar esos inconvenientes que crea pueda tener el sistema, Perú gustoso podría darlo. Perú además se ha ofrecido ya en base a esto como su centro de la comunicación audiovisual y en el nuevo Centro de Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural, que va a funcionar en la hermana República del Ecuador.
Otro problema que nosotros consideramos urgente resolver es el del crédito que debe ser oportuno y suficiente. A este respecto, pienso que debería establecerse extensamente el crédito supervisado, el cual debería ser administrado por las respectivas agencias de extensión y no por la banca. Estas agendas actuarían como verdaderos fideicomisarios, como profundos conocedores en agricultura saben que no pueden llegar unas partidas un mes después de haberse realizado la operación por alargarse el proceso.
Otro aspecto a enfocar es el de la comercialización rural, pues a menudo por las técnicas que aplicamos, se produce un incremento de producción en algunas de nuestras zonas rurales más alejadas y se encuentra con la ingrata realidad el agricultor de una falta de mercado para el incremento de su cosecha. Creo también que debería hacerse un esfuerzo para incrementar el uso de alimentos nativos y para lograr la transformación de algunos productos agrícolas perecederos en no perecedores a través de la agroindustria.
Es común, por ejemplo, que en mi país en los años agrícolas buenos, haya fuertes excedentes de papas. En estas circunstancias, las papas se deben vender muy por debajo de su costo o bien se malogran. Actualmente, para contrarrestrar esto, en mi país se está elaborando la papa-seca, que era un antiguo alimento incaico.
Igualmente hay que conseguir el consumo directo de los alimentos, de ser posible sin intermediaciones. Me explico: el Perú fue el primer productor de harina de pesca (fish-meal), la cual era exportada para alimento de animales. Nosotros importábamos luego ese producto elaborado de estos animales alimentados con esta harina. Es decir, la came, leche, huevos y a precios muy altos. Ahora hemos encontrado que es más fácil y económico que el habitante consuma directamente el pescado y sus proteínas, sin la intervención animal costosa. Desde luego, que esto tiene ciertas limitaciones en relación a la calidad de aminoácidos que conocemos.
Anteriormente era usual la crianza de ciertas especies animales a base de subproductos agrícolas. Hoy se los alimenta con productos que el hombre podría consumir directamente y evitar esa intermediación.
Nos interesa también señalar que, a través de la FAO, se deben estudiar más a fondo todos los componentes del ciclo de la comercialización rural, o sea poscosecha, almacenaje, conservación, clasificación, embalaje, venta a los mercados urbanos y a los usuarios directamente.
Concretamente solicito a la FAO dedique más esfuerzos y fondos a los aspectos mencionados en los Capítulos Diez (Mercadeo) y Doce (Comunicación en apoyo al desarrollo), a fin de llegar a soluciones efectivas de los problemas inherentes a estos aspectos.
Finalmente, sugiero, y esto un poco fuera del tema, que en los informes que se elevan sobre previsión de precios en los costos del transporte marítimo para varios cultivos, se mencionen los altos costos de los fletes de los puertos claves a los principales puertos de los países en desarrollo, ya que esto nos permite hacer proyecciones para ver en qué época es mas conveniente importar o exportar.
A. AZEEZ (Maldives): The Maldives delegation considers the Review of the Regular Programme 1980-81 constitutes a further advance in the internal evaluation system of the Organization.
We appreciate the attempt to review the achievements of individual programmes within the overall objectives of the Major Programmes. And we like the section on the progress of the Special Action Programmes.
Part two - the indepth assessment of selected subjects - is also useful. We support the selective approach, since to attempt to cover too many programmes could only weaken the analytical content and quality of the document.
In both parts, the short sections on “Issues and Outlook” are of special importance. These sections raise some interesting points which provide the basis for discussion by this Commission.
My delegation therefore considers the format and content of the document thoughtful and constructive. The Performance Report can of course still be improved, for example, by comparison of key areas of achievements with the previous two years.
Some delegations have been advocating greater involvement of outside institutions, including the Joint Inspection Unit, and independent consultants in the evaluation of FAO activities.
Let me first say that, in the evaluation of FAO field projects, the donor agencies and Member Governments do take an active part. I believe also that nearly all project evaluation missions allow for at least one outside consultant.
With respect to the Regular Programme activities of FAO, we know very well that the Joint Inspection Unit has been extremely active. But the Council has remarked more than once that the findings and recommendations of evaluation studies prepared by the Joint Inspection Unit tend to be general and academic and do not reveal anything novel. So the operational utility of many of the Joint Inspection Unit’s recommendations is often limited.
We do not believe that evaluation by external agents is invariably good, and evaluation by internal agents is invariably bad. External evaluation can also be subjective.
In our view, the quality of evaluation rests primarily with the availability of dependable information, the proficiency of the evaluator, and the methodology applied.
In fact, built-in self-evaluation is not only more cost-effective, but as the Joint Inspection Unit itself has pointed out in its Second Report, on Evaluation in the United Nations System, I quote -”its findings, developed by the managers responsible, are more likely to be accepted and acted on than those imposed by a policing process from outside, or by outsiders whose findings could be dismissed out of hand as the judgement of people unfamiliar with the actual conditions of the activity”.
Finally, I would like to express the views of my delegation on one additional point. If evaluation is used only in a negative sense, to justify budget cuts and eliminating activities, this is neither the purpose nor the spirit of evaluation. Arguments for and against programme increases and cuts need to be discussed in the context of the Programme of Work and Budget and not within the framework of the debate on the Review of the Regular Programme.
M.M. MUKOLWE (Kenya): Many points have been covered by previous speakers. My comments will, therefore, be confined to Chapter 2 - Major Programmes.
My delegation is of the view that the attention given to the natural resources programme in 1979-81 should be continued, namely: smallholder irrigation management, balanced production under rainfed conditions, protection of the environment and low cost energy generation and utilization through farmers’ participation.
The crop production programme emphasizes food production. We also would like to see the activities in this programme strengthened. Our particular emphasis here is the stepping up of a programme for rain-fed rice production. Also traditional drought resistant crops need to be given special attention especially for arid and semi-arid areas. Tubers and root crops deserve priority. We wish also to emphasize the development of small farm mechanization and spare part sources for agricultural machinery together with the setting up of workshop facilities for repair and maintenance and training the farmers, hence transfer of technology.
Livestock disease control and feed development receive our emphasis. The development of sheep and goats production should receive more attention. We are happy with the integrated crop/livestock/fish production at the smallholder level and more effort should be directed in this area.
Research activity should focus attention on the real needs and priorities of developing countries.
We support the activities under the rural development programme including the evaluation of progress in agrarian reform and rural development and in conducting studies in rural poverty in line with the WCARRD.
My country has benefitted from FAO nutritional activities and these should be further strengthened.
Also under the major programme 2.1, we support all the 12 Special Action Programmes. We wish to put emphasis on the fertilizer programme and the International Fertilizer Supply Scheme, Food Security Assistance Scheme, Food Loss Prevention, Control of African Animal Trypanosomiasis and Seed Improvement and Development Programme. Special action programmes attend to our immediate needs and priorities and this is why we have said they should be increased.
My next programme to consider is the Fisheries Programme, 2.2. We would like to thank FAO for the assistance we have received in the development of our fishery resources. We wish to emphasize acquaculture, post harvest loss reduction, and the development of suitable fish equipment for small-scale fishing. The development of inland fisheries for rural communities also requires emphasis.
Finally, Forestry, major programme 2.3. Here our emphasis is on forestry for rural development. Community level fuel wood projects as well as farm woodlots deserve emphasis and here well planned agro-forestry would do for us. In cooperation with the Government, the International Council for Research in Agro-forestry (ICRAF) has established a Research Station near Nairobi and research programmes are now being laid down.
A. BOUZOUBAA (Maroc): Le rapport C 81/8, relatif au programme ordinaire, nous semble assez complet, je voudrais en féliciter le secrétariat. Ce rapport relate les différents programmes visant l’amélioration de la production à différents niveaux.
Ce programme s’insère d’une manière assez parfaite au programme qui vise les améliorations de la production et, ce faisant, le développement rural.
Il n’en demeure pas moins que le développement rural nécessite une action intégrée comprenant toutes les composantes pouvant accelérer ce développement.
Nous pensons qu’une action sur les structures de stockage et d’entreposage est de nature à faciliter l’approvisionnement des exploitants. Surtout que nous appuyons cette demande par les actions de démonstrations menées dans le cadre du programme FAO, à propos notamment des engrais, soit par des actions de vulgarisation menées de manière propre à chaque pays.
Nous pensons que cette infrastructure encouragera la production, et là, je citerai l’exemple des semences de pommes de terre qui nécessitent une hibernation avant leur utilisation. Certains secteurs ont une capacité de production très importante, mais l’infrastructure d’autres programmes limite cette production.
Nous pensons aussi que cette infrastructure permettra de régulariser le marché, et surtout le marché interne quand il s’agit de produits périssables. Nous demandons donc qu’il y ait une action spécifique sur ces structures d’entreposage et de stockage.
En matière d’évaluation, ma délégation est convaincue qu’il faut se limiter à une évaluation interne, parce que toute évaluation faite par des organismes externes necessite un fonds très important, vers des programmes qui peuvent être orientes vers des activites de terrain, vers des programmes spécifiques.
En matière de formation, l’accent doit être mis sur la formation d’informateurs corame de nombreux délégués l’ont souligné.
H.K. CHHETRI (Bhutan): Like many other speakers my delegation also wishes to commend the valuable Review document, C 81/8 presented to us by the Director-General and we congratulate the Evaluation Service for this excellent job.
The tables and graphs presented in this document are useful. We feel that they constitute a valuable sector of the Review and they are a useful tool for reporting progress. However, there is a limit to what one can quantify and in most cases it may not be the really important information. How relevant is the technical assistance provided and how well does it meet the needs and priorities of the member countries? These are the kinds of questions one needs to ask, and to answer them there is no substitute for the considered and informed judgment.
The only kind of indicators that can be established to help the evaluators are qualitative and must be determined in the light of FAO’s and the individual governments’ overall priorities.
In future issues of the Review we would like more of the thought-provoking analysis such as presented in the in-depth chapters in part II, particularly in the sections on Outlook and Issues.
We feel that the Secretariat could be helped to make the document even better, of course not by imposing stringent rules regarding quantitative measurements of output, effects and impacts nor by spending more money on external evaluators, but by providing the Secretariat with policy guidance, remembering that quality is more important.
P. OLMOS MORALES (Uruguay): Aun bajo el riesgo de ser reiterativos deseamos expresar nuestra congratulación a la Secretaría en cuanto a la presentación de este documento que constituye el eje central como Programa Ordinario de nuestra Organización. En ese aspecto se han logrado avances destacables en cuanto a la presentación de este tema en anteriores Conferencias, y esto debe ser señalado.
Compartimos algunos de los aspectos señalados en la Introducción del Sr. Director General en cuanto a la conveniencia de la evaluación de la calidad del trabajo y de la evaluación del Programa Ordinario de la FAO.
Respecto del contenido en sí de los catorce capítulos que componen este documento C 81/8, deseamos efectuar algunos comentarios, particularmente referidos al Capítulo dos, en lo que tiene relación con los Programas Especiales de Acción. En ello vemos la mayor trascendencia del dinamismo de la acción de FAO, particularmente en todo lo que tiene que ver con la atención de algunos de los programas, como el de conservación y preservación de cosechas, los programas en cuanto a recursos naturales que, efectivamente, a nivel nacional y regional, han significado un aporte dinámico y constante renovación por parte de la Organización.
Con respecto al Capítulo cinco, referente a cooperación para el desarrollo, que ha sido una de las áreas en las cuales más se ha avanzado en los últimos años, reiteramos nuestro apoyo y nuestra firme conciencia de seguir desarrollándolo en lo referente al Programa de Cooperación Técnica, particularmente en lo que se refiere a cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo. Ello ha constituido un avance muy importante dentro de las distintas regiones y, además, ha permitido evolucionar dentro de las posibilidades de asistencia técnica que pueda brindarse entre los países o de la Organización hacia los paises o las regiones. En ese aspecto también merece destacarse y tener en consideración las actividades del Programa de Acción, pro Desarrollo de la Campaña Mundial contra el Hambre, en cuanto a todo lo que ha significado el apoyo y el desarrollo de pequeños proyectos de desarrollo rural y que han significado la participación efectiva de la Comunidad en los programas de desarrollo en diversas áreas del mundo.
Dentro también de este Capítulo cinco, reiteramos nuestra especial consideración al Programa de Representantes Nacionales, que ha significado también un aporte más significativo en cuanto a la función de enlace y conexión entre los distintos países y la Organización.
Por último nos interesa destacar los lineamientos y la trascendencia que surjan de la evaluación del Programa, en lo que respecta al mercadeo de productos agrícolas, tanto en alimentos como en materias primas. En ese sentido es conocido el problema de los países en desarrollo en cuanto a las circunstancias en las cuales se desarrolla el proceso de comercialización y mercadeo. Consideramos que dentro de esta área, la participación y el desarrollo de programas específicos dentro del Programa Ordinario, va a significar efectivamente un aporte y una superación en las condiciones de los países en desarrollo. También nos gustaría en ese aspecto, que dentro de lo que pueda ser tanto a nivel de los programas especiales o de los programas de cooperación técnica, pudiera analizarse dentro del enfoque de las situaciones de mercadeo y comercialización de algun producto básico que inciden en la comercialización interna e, incluso, en la externa de las cuales, una y otra, son interdependientes, a los efectos justamente de procurar mejores condiciones de comercialización en los mercados externos.
En síntesis, señor Presidente, reiteramos nuestra felicitación a la Secretaría por el documento presentado y consideramos que, como todas las cosas, supone una etapa en el progreso y el perfeccionamiento que puede realizarse dentro de esta área de evaluación.
J. KAHANGIRWE (Uganda): The Uganda delegation would also like to commend the Secretariat for an informative and balanced Review of the Regular Programme contained in C 81/8. There is no doubt that this Review is an improvement on the 1971 Review and we support its continued improvement.
There is one important area my delegation would like to see more clearly brought out in future reviews, and this is the area of the effects of the activities of national governments on FAO programmes. As Zambia pointed out, some government action, or even lack of actions, have some serious impact on FAO programmes. We would like to see a clear analysis of such national impediments to FAO programmes so that we, the national governments, can take remedial measures.
A related matter concerns the regional programmes which cut across borders. It is possible that the action or lack of action of one government in a regional programme impedes the success of the programme. This should all be reflected in the Reviews so that appropriate measures can be taken. Otherwise, the Uganda delegation accepts the 1980/81 Review of the Regular Programme as a useful and informative exercise.
Ms. S.M. MAIER (Netherlands): The Review of FAO’s Regular Programme is an impressive piece of work which reflects FAO’s activities over the past two years very clearly. We would like to commend the Secretariat for this. It does show that the programmes are increasingly being put within the broader context of rural development as a whole. The Chapter on Forestry deserves special mention in this connexion. We can only welcome this development, as it will render FAO’s activities more effective in the longer term.
May I now turn to a short-term problem which is not too explicitly highlighted in the Review before us. There are day-to-day constraints food producers and consumers are being confronted with. Most of the Programmes described in the Review of course have long-or medium-term objectives, while as it is stated, they try to focus with insufficient effect on immediate means as well. The nature of the programmes is such that, according to our feeling, they are inadequately designed to respond to these day-to-day needs of the food situation. In this case I am specifically thinking of the recurrent crop shortfalls in certain areas. We are all convinced that relief in such circumstances should preferably be realized through securing next year’s food production instead of again having to take recourse to food aid.
Having read the Review, the TCP would in our opinion provide a good mechanism to tackle these pressing restraints. The Review states that TCP features are to fill gaps, to provide bridging support and generally to play a catalytic role in relation to other forms of assistance. Of course, TCP with its limited resources is not in a position to supply substantial financial support to the producers’ problems, but TCP could be of great assistance both to the recipient countries and the potential donors by anticipating upon the restraints and identifying the assistance, the total assistance, required. FAO has the cultural know-how at Headquarters as well as on the spot to identify these. Furthermore, it has the authority in and the confidence of the recipient governments to realize such identification. We have the feeling that in many cases assistance from the Technical Cooperation Programme together with an appropriate response from the donor side might remove the need for countries to ask for emergency food assistance.
In concluding, my delegation hopes that the next Review will reflect tha absolute priority for food production within a context of rural development. This implies that some of the present fields of activity will become somewhat less prominent and we hope that the TCP will be able to provide the above-mentioned welcome short-term complement to FAO programmes aimed at food production improvement, which are necessarily more directed at food production improvement and the medium and longer term.
A.G. NGONGI NAMANGA (Cameroon): We join the other delegations which have spoken on this item in commending the Secretariat for providing us with a well-written and informative document. In a Review such as this, it is difficult to go into great length on any particular programme and sub-programmes. We also share the opinion already voiced by many delegations that this document would be much more useful to Member governments if some selected areas of the Regular Programme were to be reviewed in depth. Perhaps the Programme Committee could in future indicate areas to be reviewed for any given biennium.
As for the Review before us, we are happy to note the progress made in certain areas and the frankness with which the Secretariat has presented problems encountered in the execution of the Regular Programme.
We are particularly happy to see the strong emphasis on training in virtually all the programmes. Comments made by some delegates on the need to train trainers so as to increase the capacity of recipient countries to carry out their development programmes met with our agreement.
On the special action programmes, we strongly support the work of FAO on African animal trypanosomiasis. We note with regret that this programme has not received the level of financial resources it deserved from extrabudgetary sources.
Another special action programme calling for comment is the follow-up action to the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. We appreciate the support given to this programme by Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands and China. We hope many more donors will do the same.
We mentioned the programme on the Prevention of Food Losses in our general remarks on the Budget. This is an immensely useful programme and deserves all the support Member States can give to it.
We support the work going on in forestry programmes, especially the special-action programmes on forestry for local community development. Programmes on forestry source management for soil conservation and work on patterns of land use as they relate to shifts in conservation, especially in Africa, receive our support. My delegation wishes to commend the Director-General on the efficient manner in which the Technical Cooperation Programme has functioned. We wish to see this programme strengthened in the future and we join those delegates who advocate a stronger role for the FAORs in TCP.
Let me make some final comments on the FAO Representative Offices. The important roles FOARs have played in recent years cannot be over-emphasized. Many delegations have called for some form of evaluation of the FAORs and specifically the Regional Offices. We would also wish to see such an evaluation some day, but at this moment, when the offices are still being established, such an evaluation seems a little premature. Maybe we can have a preliminary review in 1983, but it is probably in 1987 that a meaningful evaluation can be presented to this Commission. At that time the structure of the FAORs would have been in place for some time and it would have had the opportunity to have handled a significant amount of workload on which an evaluation can be based.
NGA-MA MAPELA (Zaîre). Ma délégation s’associe aux autres délégations pour féliciter le secrétariat pour la qualité du document que nous examinons.
Nous voudrions souligner l’importance qu’il convient d’accorder à tous les programmes d’action de la FAO. Que ce soit pour le Programme international d’approvisionnement en engrais, le Programme d’assistance à la sécurité alimentaire, le Programme des pertes alimentaires, le Programme d’amélioration et de développement des semences, le Programme international du secteur des viandes, le Programme du développement laitier, le Programme contre la trypanosomiase animale africaine et tous les autres programmes d’action spéciaux, nous appuyons l’idée qui a été avancée par de nombreuses délégations, à savoir que des ressources financières abondantes devraient être consacrées pour le renforcement de ces programmes.
En ce qui concerne la lutte contre la trypanosomiase animale africaine, ma délégation tient à rappeler ici ce que nous avions déclaré lors de la première session de la Commission de la FAO pour la lutte contre la trypanosomiase animale africaine, à savoir que l’on devrait intervenir simultanément au niveau de tous les pays africains concernés pour exécuter le Programme d’action prévu pour mener cette lutte.
Pour ce qui est du Programme de la FAO de coopération technique, ainsi que l’ont dit d’autres délégations, nous estimons que toute évaluation de ce programme ou de tout autre programme de la FAO, dans un pays en développement, doit nécessairement tenir compte de l’opinion du gouvernement du pays bénéficiaire des activités de ce programme.
Ainsi, par exemple, pour avoir bénéficié d’une aide de la FAO dans le cadre du PCT, mon pays a constaté que le PCT est très efficace et doit être renforcé. C’est pourquoi ma délégation appuie le fait que les représentants de la FAO dans les pays peuvent approuver des projets pouvant être financés dans le cadre du PCT.
Ce que nous disons sur l’évaluation du PCT vaut aussi pour l’évaluation de tout autre programme de la FAO, que ce soit pour les bureaux de la FAO dans les pays ou des bureaux régionaux.
Comme vous le savez, et comme l’ont dit d’ailleurs d’autres délégations, une évaluation menée de l’extérieur entraîne la dépense d’énormes sommes d’argent que l’on pourrait consacrer utilement aux besoins du Programme ou projets à évaluer.
Pour éviter qu’à l’avenir on ne mette plus en doute cette nécessité d’utiliser l’évaluation interne au lieu de l’évaluation externe, ma délégation demande que le secrétariat prenne soin de souligner, dans le rapport de nos travaux, que la Conférence préfère l’évaluation interne à l’evaluation externe en ce qui concerne les activités entreprises dans les pays dans le cadre de la FAO.
Pour terminer, ma délégation fait siennes les déclarations faites par de nombreuses délégations qui ont soutenu et appuyé les activités de la FAO concernant les pêches et les forêts.
Nous appuyons également ce qui a été dit sur la nécessité d’éduquer des formateurs en matière d’alimentation et d’agriculture.
MAI LUONG (Viet-Nam): Je serai très bref en ne répétant pas les félicitations au secrétariat qui a préparé, pour notre Commission l’excellent et utile document de travail C 81/8.
Je voudrais seulement commenter un point du document sur l’activité de la FAO à propos du Programme de coopération technique, que nous avons beaucoup apprécié, tant en ce qui concerne l’objectif que l’exécution efficace au profit des pays bénéficiaires.
Le paragraphe 2 du chapitre cinq du document montre que le nombre de projets approuvés du PCT augmente d’année en année, depuis sa création, et que de nombreux pays, les plus gravement touchés et les moins avancés de l’Afrique et de l’Asie, ont pu bénéficier de cette coopération technique.
Le paragraphe 16 de ce document indique aussi les appréciations des gouvernements pour la rapidité d’exécution des projets du PCT et cite de nombreux exemples d’exécution parmi les pays bénéficiaires. Je voudrais joindre à cette liste d’exemples le résultat d’un projet sur le contrôle des semences accordé à notre pays parmi plusieurs autres. Ce projet a obtenu des résultats efficaces et très rapides contribuant à nous aider utilement dans la production et l’amélioration de semences si nécessaires pour nos cultures. Les résultats positifs de ce projet et le bénéfice que nos paysans ont pu en obtenir jusqu’à présent font que ce modeste projet du PCT devient maintenant un projet de production et de contrôle des semences assez important, avec l’aide du fonds du PNUD pour la troisième période 1981-85.
Pour terminer, je formule le souhait que le budget 1982-83 réserve une part plus importante encore aux fonds approuvés pour ce secteur d’activités si efficace de la FAO. Le PCT doit être renforcé et nous rejoignons l’opinion des délégués du Cameroun et du Zaîre qui viennent de parler à ce sujet.
En second lieu, je souhaite que les modalités sur l’approbation des projets du PCT se fassent encore plus rapidement pour répondre à l’objectif du PCT qui est inscrit au paragraphe 5.1: “Pour répondre sans délai à des demandes d’urgence de petits projets de brève durée émanant des Etats Membres”.
Enfin, je formule le souhait que les informations sur les résultats concrets des projets du PCT, qui ont obtenu du succès dans les pays membres, soient régulièrement présentés dans la presse et les diverses revues éditées par la FAO dans le but d’une diffusion rapide des expériences parmi les Etats Membres.
M.A. MANSOOR (Yemen, People’s Dem. Rep. of) (original language: Arabic): When looking at the Regular Programme 1980-81, we notice that it is a major contribution to FAO’s activities. Of course, I will not repeat what has been already said about the high quality and the excellent tables which the Report includes, I will merely speak about fisheries.
A great number of developing countries are extending their exclusive Economic Zones to 200 nautical miles, and therefore these countries should be helped in their research activities in the fishing sector.
Obviously we need a great deal of money to carry out this programme. This is something that has been said on Page 62 of the Arabic text in Items 3.11, 3.12, 3.13 and 3.31. We would like to propose that the Organization gives the necessary advice, either directly or via magazines published in our countries to enable the developing countries to improve their performance in the field of fisheries.
It would also be necessary to improve technical monitoring in that field. They should improve fishing methods and environmental control. Obviously if we do not accord due attention to all this, our fish resources will drop and many shoals of fish may go to other areas. This will have a very harmful effect on our fish supplies.
Once again, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Secretariat for the excellent work that has been done.
E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): It has been a very full debate with many substantive comments, but since we are all short of time I will confine myself to main groups of important points.
First of all, to deal with the format, we are very grateful for the suggestions which have been made, and I would say at once that we were very sympathetic before to the views of the Programme Committee on this, and in substance you have endorsed most of them. One thing I am convinced we could do in the next version is to cut out practically all that was said on objectives; unless there is some basic change in the objectives, we can take it for granted that the basic objectives have not changed. We can save a lot of space on that.
We can also make other adaptations to Part One in order to be more informative on those parts of the programme in which you have expressed particular interest.
We will consider the idea which was one of those put forward in a very fertile speech from the delegate of India, that is to see if we can produce some sort of overall table. I think it might be difficult to get it all into one table, because in the many tables in the programmes there are masses of detail on consultancies, and so forth. But we will look it over and see what we can do.
I do not think we can make any progress on the idea of making lists of various things, as suggested by the delegate of New Zealand. That would require a book in itself, and it would really tell you nothing. You could argue from here until next year on the details on that list without making any kind of valuable deduction for us or for yourselves about the effectiveness of a sub-programme or a major programme or the budget level. It would not be feasible or profitable.
There was another suggestion on format, about country-by-country data, which I will come back to in a moment.
There were suggestions about the machinery of evaluation. For a moment I was a little puzzled when it was suggested we needed a new Committee of this Commission. That has been basically answered by Yugoslavia and others, but this gives me the opportunity to remind myself as well as others who may not be so familiar with the process as I am, that evaluation is not something that is done every two years and suddenly results in this fat book. It is a continuing process that goes on not only in the Programme Committee but also in the Committees of Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry. There are documents produced for these Committees which they consider as the basis for their discussions of the programme material. This eventually results in recommendations which we take into account when formulating the budget. So, when you get to this large Commission and the crowded timetable, I do not think any other pieces of machinery could substitute for those I have mentioned or could result in any kind of consensus which could be used inmmediately here.
As regards methodology, there were some interesting points which I and my colleagues have taken due note of. I have already mentioned what we intend to do about Parts One and Two. There was a good deal of discussion about internal evaluation and so forth. A large number of delegations have pointed out the perils and the impracticalities of independent evaluation, if seen as a substitute for this process.
First, let me state it is not entirely a case of auto-evaluation, because in Part Two of the document we have the evaluation of the Evaluation Service which is quite separate from, and works independently from either the Technical Divisions, or myself on the Programme and Budget side. So we have auto-evaluation which is done by the people in the various divisions themselves; we have the Evaluation Service; we have the Programme Committee and the Council Committees; we have joint studies, together with UNDP so far, but we are thinking of the possibility of organizing similar joint studies with other specialized agencies with whom we have common interests and programmes. This might be interesting. If we can find another specialized agency working in the same or parallel field to ourselves who have the resources, we would very much like to do a joint evaluation with them which constitutes further out-side-look, as it were. We also have the JIU, which in many of its reports refers to what FAO is doing, but as has been indicated, not usually in a manner which is immediately useful. They do however follow our work fairly closely in a number of ways. Finally the possibility of some independent evaluation, when required, when necessary, when feasible, is also not excluded. We have had one independent evaluation of the TCP and in future we would quite possibly have a similar type on another subject, but it should be the exception rather than the rule, because otherwise we shall simply pay very large sums of money to external people with very doubtful results.
As the JIU themselves have said, internal evaluation is a much more productive process, generally speaking, as has been mentioned by a number of delegations with reference to FAO Representatives, certain things can only be judged by the countries themselves.
One interesting suggestion was made, which we will certainly look at with regard to the next report i.e. instead of examining a whole programme we should start from the other end, take a component of a programme, and examine the impact of that. I think that is a very interesting suggestion because it is only when you take one of the thousands of individual components in the programme that you can get a real measure of impact. So without trying to choose one that is too favourable or too unfavourable to us, we will certainly try and look at that in the next review. I am afraid however, that it will only lead to a demand for more details, and for doing this at a higher and higher level, but let us try it out, if we can.
In this connexion, I might say that since we are always looking for improvement, the Director-General has recently approved the extension of work planning to other departments- of FAO. So far, it has been applied only to the main technical divisions, but now the honour and the pleasure will also fall on other departments - not entirely to their enthusiastic response, but still, we will try to do it next time. This will aid the process of evaluation throughout the House.
I am afraid it will not lead to quantification. Here I feel that the distinguished delegation of Canada is preaching in the wilderness. I am sorry it is a wilderness, but there it is. I am afraid that extensive quantification just is not practicable, nor is the project approach suggested by New Zealand. We are not a sausage factory, nor is the Review of the Regular Programme the same as the Review of the Field Programmes. It is not split up into a series of finite packages of projects. As someone remarked critically on the Regular Programme of Work and Budget, much of our work is global; much of it is built up from series of individual programme elements that I have just been mentioning. While we do have a meeting or publication which is planned in the biennium and finishes in the biennium, we do not have neat packages concerning food production or rural development in which you can say the quantities are such, that the results are such, that it was begun on such and such a date and finished on such and such a date. If we were doing that, we would have to give up the process of rural development altogether.
So I am afraid I cannot promise, even with the best will in the world, much progress in the direction of quantification as applied to the technical programmes.
Turning now to the substance, we have had many comments of which note has been taken carefully by the Secretariat, I think this is the first time we have had a real substantive debate on the subject of evaluation. Some of the discussion was of course programatic rather than evaluative, but this in itself is good because it comes in useful for the next formulation of the next Programme of Work and Budget. We will see that all those concerned receive a note of what has been said and they will be sure to take this into account in future.
There are too many points to comment upon in the main programmes - Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries. Mostly they were supportive. One, in the area of Economic and Social work, I thought at first was far from supportive. In fact, I saw our Global Early Warning System disappearing out of the window altogether. I thought this was strange because it was recommended by the World Food Conference; it was unanimously supported by this Conference; it has been expanded and improved in response to requests from all sides on this Conference. All have regarded it as a valuable programme. So I thought I must be wrong in the impression I got. Indeed, as I understood it finally, the suggestion was rather that we should go on extending it downwards, until we got to the district level and we were, collecting data at the district and area level ourselves. It is an attractive idea - one might say an ideal - but unfortunately we hardly have the resources for that. We would need careful coordination with the World Meteorological Organization if we were to get into the business of rain gauges.
A good deal of mention was made of training, and here perhaps we were at fault in not drawing attention sufficiently to the fact that training was considered intensively as a subject in itself a year ago at the Council, where the Council had before it a joint evaluation by the FAO and UNDP on agricultural training activities in the field and also information derived from our own internal survey of training activities. So we assumed that people would remember this. But, of course, none of us remembers things as long as a year later. We ought to have reminded ourselves as well as you of the information in those Council documents. On the other hand, I would not be able to agree that all our training is of no use and that all the seminars and publications we issue are nothing to do with training at the grass-roots level. On the contrary, I think we have demonstrated that they have become progressively directed towards the teaching of teachers down to the grass-roots level, including publications, which are in fact training materials, in vernacular languages.
Some very useful comments were made in the broad area of rural development support. I noted the unusual situation of a developing country offering technical cooperation with a developed country, in the area of using video cassettes. I hope to see that take place; and if we can use even the TCP for that purpose, we would be happy if Denmark would accept it.
Incidentally, on the subject of the TCP, I was very interested indeed to note the comments of the distinguished delegation of the Netherlands. That takes me to the general question of the criteria for the TCP. We were asked about the use of the TCP for programming missions and also in the Miscellaneous category. Programming missions are perhaps best dealt with under your next item, but I can say there is little or no provision under the Regular Programme for programming missions on the scale that we were expected to carry out in the last two or three years, in order to try to increase the share of agriculture, particularly under UNDP. One of the most useful ways in which we use the TCP is in fact to promote increased investment and technical assistance from the UNDP and other sources of finance through programming missions. Even so, only a very modest amount is being used for this. Those programming missions, incidentally, were organized by the Division that we have precisely for the purpose of introducing a country, sub-regional and regional approach into the broad technical disciplines.
We indeed have it in the Field Programme and Liaison Division headed by Mr. Beringer who is sitting right behind me.
As regards Miscellaneous, why has this apparently gone up, or why are there so many miscellaneous projects? Well, Miscellaneous is a bad word. It seems to suggest sundries, bits and pieces. But it is not that: it is a convenient name for projects which do not fall conveniently under the other main categories. They could perhaps be put under the other categories if we were inventive enough or imaginative enough.
But I can assure you that there is nothing very exciting about the fact that the miscellaneous category is the size it has been. Let me take for example a couple of critical miscellaneous projects: urgent measures against army worm, one month’s duration, $10,000; advisory services in water law, three months duration, $15,000; formulation of hydro-agricultural projects, duration one month, cost $2,000. These are hardly the stuff out of which great political forces can be levered; they are hardly the stuff out of which great embarrassment can be caused to the UNDP or anybody else. They are not the kind of things which call for armies of coordinators.
It was suggested that country-by-country data should be given, particularly on TCP. Well, as you see it is not going to excite anybody who would like to find out what is happening in a particular country or in a particular area. Certainly it is not going to enable you to take policy decisions about the future of the TCP. But I am afraid that to put country data of such a type into a document like the Review of the Regular Programme would not only be unfeasible in practice but would risk opening up a situation which would turn this Commission into an auction room; and surely that is the opposite of what is intended.
As regards FAO Representatives, we have listened attentively to what has been said and on this I would simply comment that while we appreciate the desire on the part of some to have further details, we do not fully understand the suggestion that was made by some that there needed to be an evaluation of their role and functions.
Their role and functions were decided not so long ago by the Conference; they have not changed, and indeed, the concerns that were previously expressed about their institution are not as pressing now as they were perhaps then.
I should like to dispel any idea that the FAO Representatives are concerned only with field programmes; of course not. They are concerned with the total policies and programmes of FAO under all funds. However, when delegates say that they would like more information, we would certainly update the information included in this document and make it more useful to the discussion of the substance of our work. Incidentally, my colleague promised you on Friday that a list would be circulated of the places in which FAO representation had been established, including those with double accreditation. This document, INF 23 is in process and will be available as soon as translated and printed. The average life of FAOR’s so far has been about 18 months. This is hardly a moment to pull up the tree to see if the roots are growing. In any case, as many delegations have said today, the real test is whether they are useful or not, whether countries want them or not. And they certainly want them, as has been quite clear. Finally, it has been made quite clear in the budget that the Director-General is not considering expanding the number after the additions proposed for 1982-1983. These will complete this phase of establishment of the FAOR’s.
So I do not think that this question is something which should be allowed to distort the whole purpose and nature of this Review document. We will, however, as I have said, update and improve the information on all subjects, as and when we can.
There was the question of the Regional Offices. Reference was made to the Programme Committee report. On the part of a number of delegations, there was a feeling that more information could be given about the impact of the regional offices or regional activities. We have taken note of this and we will certainly try to improve our presentation on those lines.
I must say that while from the programme point of view, we will find it interesting, from the budget point of view, I am rather scared, because I am sure that, particularly in relation to developments in the work of the regional commissions under pressures from the Joint Inspection Unit and the General Assembly, the conclusion will be that the FAO Regional Offices should be much larger and I do not see how I am going to be able to accommodate a great expansion on Regional Offices in the next Programme of Work and Budget. So you have been warned! If you really want this expanded review, be prepared for the consequences.
I see that I missed out one point on the FAOR’s. One delegation drew attention to the passage in 5.87 in which it was said that in “most countries”, cooperation with UNDP has been good and without any serious problems. The delegation said I think that they hoped it would be good in all cases. Well, to use a crude phrase, it takes two to tango, but I can assure him that on FAO’s side, we are very prepared to believe that the UNDP Resident Representative is a man of supreme intelligence, extraordinary capacity and great friendliness. This is illustrated by the following story. One day a UNDP Res. Rep., an FAO Country Rep., and a WHO Rep. happened to be returning by ship to the country to which they had been posted. They had been on home leave. The ship unfortunately foundered, it was wrecked. They survived and found themselves on a desert island. They established themselves on the desert island; the FAO man found the food; the WHO man took care of their health; the Res. Rep. coordinated the two of them. This went on for some years and whilst they were healthy and well, they were getting rather bored and wondering what their future would be. However, one day a bottle was washed up. They opened the bottle and out popped a genie. The genie said “I have three wishes at my disposal, one for each of you”. He said to the FAO man “What would you like to do?” The FAO man said “I would love to be in the Piazza Navona eating an ice-cream”. He disappeared. The genie said to the WHO man “Where would you like to be?”. He said “I would love to be on the Lake of Geneva watching the fountain” and he disappeared. The genie said to the Res. Rep. “What is your wish?” He said “I would like to have my friends back here with me”.
It has been a very constructive and substantive debate. We are very grateful for the things that have been said and we shall take proper note of them.
S.P. MUKHERJEE (India): My delegation is most grateful to the FAO Secretariat and especially to Mr. West for providing the very lucid clarifications that I had sought in the morning. The suggestion which I had made was in appreciation of the excellent work being done by the FAO and not in criticism thereof. I have suggested that there be a review and evaluation committee but having been told and informed that this Council has got a number of committees on the same subject of evaluation, one on agriculture, another on forestry, still another on fisheries, another on food security, still another on commodity matters, and there are other committees like the programme and finance committee, my delegation would like to support the existing set-up and would not continue with the suggestion of a further committee of evaluation which would not be very productive but I think now would be rather counter-productive.
My comments on the early warning system were not in derogation of the work of the existing system but to make it more intensive and more extensive so that the early warning insofar as agrometeorological conditions are concerned could be more and more location specific. I understand there are limitations of resources but I thought if FAO could help the other countries, the developing countries to set up its own agrometeorological system, perhaps they could help, but nonetheless I appreciate the very useful work done by the early warning system of the FAO. As I said, the suggestions which my delegation made were made sincerely, with the intention of making the FAO a more effective world organization. We feel FAO is the symbol of mankind’s hope for the future, hope for them who are going to bed hungry today that tomorrow will be a tomorrow of food and a dignified life. The hope will be for all human beings, irrespective of where they happen to have been born.
India has an inseparable and emotional link with the FAO. India is happy that FAO is following the anti-poverty and anti-starvation programmes and the development strategy which our own Prime Minister herself has been following. We in India are doubly happy that the FAO today has the benefit of the leadership of Dr Saouma who is known for his untiring and unrelenting effort to help the poor, the starved and the deprived. India has the fullest faith and confidence that under Dr Saouma’s leadership and humanism, for the developing countries and its people, tomorrow will be much brighter than today.
I end by expressing the fullest and unreserved support to, and the confidence of my Government and the delegation, in the FAO, its programme, its Secretariat and its officers and most important in one of its ablest and most dynamic Directors-General in Dr. Saouma.
CHAIRMAN: I wanted to remove any doubts, after the jocular remarks of Mr. West, because one FAO Representative has disappeared. I am not too sure if he has returned to the island.’ But in any case he will not be added to the 12 FAO Representatives that are in the next biennium, so they remain 12.
C. LAMBERT (Canada): Un mot seulement, Monsieur le Président. M. West a eu l’impression (et j’espère qu’elle n’a pas prévalu dans notre Assemblée) que dans nos propos nous croyions (pour reprendre son expression) que l’Organisation “fabriquait des saucisses”... si tel est le cas, vous m’en voyez désolé. Je respecte beaucoup trop l’Organisation pour la traiter ainsi. Je respecte aussi le jugement de M. West mais il me permettra de souligner que des évaluations quantitatives ont été faites pour des sujets aussi divers et aussi peu terre-à-terre en un sens que la santé, l’éducation et la culture, et nous croyons que des méthodes similaires peuvent s’appliquer à nos activités dans le domaine de l’alimentation. Enfin, je suis certain qu’il reconnaîtra comme moi que la quantification n’est pas synonyme d’arithmétique.
En ce qui a trait au désert, je peux l’assurer que nous ferons tous nos efforts pour faire fleurir le désert.
LE PRESIDENT: Monsieur le délégué du Canada, je puis vous assurer que j’ai bien compris votre première remarque, tout à fait dans le sens que vous venez d’expliquer. This brings us to the end of the debate on item 11, Review of the Regular Programme, 1980-81. We had 43 countries participating in the debate, many delegates expressed appreciation on the type of evaluation carried out on a continued bais by FAO of its own Regular Programme as it was presented in document G81/8. The delegates also commended FAO for having improved significantly on the format of the review compared with the first review presented two years ago. Quite a number of delegates stressed the importance of linkages between projects and the need of integrating actions and projects within the wider scope of programmes. Quite a number of delegates confirmed FAO’s right approach to operate increasingly in collaboration with and through national institutions. Trained trainees in turn would train farmers, as the delegate of China said. A number of valuable suggestions to improve even further on the Review of the Regular Programme posed analytically as well to Mr. West that he has already indicated the direction of improvements and modifications that he intends to undertake following that debate.
I would now like to turn to the next item on the Agenda, item 12, Review of Field Programme, sub-item 12.1, Agricultural Investment and Development Assistance for Food Production and Rural Development. The debate on item 12 will be opened after we have had the opportunity and the benefit of an introduction given by Mr. de Meredieu.
J. de MEREDIEU (Sous-Directeur général, Département du développement): Comme vous l’aurez constaté, le point 12 de l’ordre du jour couvre en fait trois sujets qui, tout en étant apparentés, sont néanmoins différents.
Le premier, que nous appellerons le point 12 proprement dit, est celui de l’examen des programmes de terrain; le point 12.1 se réfère à l’etude de l’assistance au développement; le point 12.2 aux coûts de soutien.
Avec votre permission, j’aimerais commencer par le second de ces points, parce qu’il est d’une nature plus générale.
Le point 12.1, assistance au dévéloppement, production alimentaire et développement rural, fait l’objet du document C 81/28 et du corrigendum C 81/28 Corr.1.
Ce document constitue le rapport que la Conférence, dans sa résolution numéro 6/79, a demandé au Directeur général de soumettre à la 78ème session du Conseil, puis à sa 21ème session.
Le présent rapport est une version révisée et mise à jour, pour tenir compte des commentaires qui ont été formulés par le Comité du programme et le Comité financier, puis par le Conseil, voici un an.
En fait, ce document C 81/28 couvre deux questions principales: l’une vise l’ensemble de l’aide officielle au développement de l’agriculture. Cette question est couverte par les paragraphes 5 à 12 et 18 à 23, ainsi que par les tableaux 1 et 2. C’est là un problème important que votre Commission n’aura pas, je crois, l’occasion de considérer à un autre moment, mais que la Commission I a également été appelée à traiter, dans le cadre de l’étude sur la Situation Mondiale de l’Alimentation et de l’Agriculture.
L’autre question couverte par le document C 81/28 est celle de la coopération entre la FAO et le PNUD, qui fait l’objet des paragraphes 13 à 17 et 24 à 38, ainsi que des tableaux 3 et 4. Vous retrouverez dans ces paragraphes certains des arguments qui sont développés au chapitre I du document sur l’examen des programmes de terrain.
M. Mahajan, qui siège à ma droite sur cette tribune, sera à votre disposition pour répondre aux questions que vous pourriez poser sur le document C 81/28.
Le deuxième grand sujet, qui rentre dans le cadre du point 12 de l’ordre du jour, concerne l’Examen proprement dit des Activités de Terrain de notre Organisation et fait l’objet du document C 81/4 et des corrigenda 1 et 2.
Comme cela a été le cas de l’Examen du Programme Ordinaire que vous venez de discuter, ce document a été préparé en tenant compte des commentaires formulés par la dernière session de la Conférence, j’espère que vous conviendrez que nous avons fait tous les efforts nécessaires pour décrire les difficultés rencontrées en toute objectivité.
Ce document a été revu en détail par le Comité du programme et le Comité financier, qui ont bien voulu apprécier son contenu, comme cela apparaît dans leurs rapports (C 80/4, paragraphes 2.73 à 2.90 et 3.113 à 3.126).
Les rapports de ces deux Comités ont été endossés par la 80ème session du Conseil, comme vous le montrera le paragraphe 43 de son rapport, qui n’a pas encore été distribué, mais qui le sera vers la fin de la semaine.
Sans entrer dans le détail, je voudrais appeler particulièrement l’attention de la Commission sur le chapitre I du document C 81/4 qui décrit en detail la situation des ressources sur lesquelles nos programmes de terrain sont financés et, en particulier, les problèmes concernant le programme FAO/PNUD.
Comme je l’ai déjà mentionné au cours de la discussion du chapitre 3 du budget, il existe un problème sérieux en ce qui concerne l’ensemble des ressources du PNUD. Je n’y reviendrai pas maintenant, mais peut-être votre Commission souhaitera-t-elle entendre à cet égard le représentant de l’Administrateur du PNUD, qui est avec nous en ce moment.
Je voudrais, pour l’instant, déclarer à nouveau, au nom du Directeur général, qu’il appuie pleinement les efforts que M. Morse, l’Administrateur du PNUD, déploie pour obtenir des ressources supplémentalres, plus conformes aux besoins et aux objectifs de ce grand programme.
Je dois dire, par contre, très franchement, qu’il nous est un peu plus difficile de comprendre deux autres aspects de l’evolution du programme FAO/PNUD, qui semblent indépendants du niveau absolu de ce Programme.
Le premier se réfère à la diminution de la part de l’agriculture dans l’ensemble des ressources du PNUD, qui a décru de 34,8 à 30,4%, et à la diminution de la part de la FAO, dans ces mêmes ressources, qui a décru de 31% à moins de 25%, comme vous le monereront le paràgraphe 13 et le tableau 3 du document C 81/28.
Il nous semble qu’une telle diminution, qui ne constitue pas un phénomène accidentel et que nous avons constaté de façon très régulière au cours des huit demières années, n’est guère compatible avec la très grande priorité que de nombreuses réunions mondiales récentes ont donnée a l’agriculture et au problème vivrier.
Le second problème concernant plus particulièrement les programmes FAO/PNUD est celui de l’irrégularité dans le temps des allocations du PNUD à la FAO, qui est décrit aux paragraphes 1.6 à 1.9 du document C 81/4, ainsi qu’au graphique 2 de ce même document, qui a été mis à jour dans le corrigendum pour montrer nos meilleures prévisions pour l’année 1981. Il ne s’agit encore, bien entendu, que de prévisions, car l’année n’est pas terminée.
Il va sans dire que nous serions heureux de connaître les vues de la Conférence à l’égard de ces deux problèmes, et de recevoir ses directives pour nous aider à poursuivre le dialogue que nous entretenons avec le PNUD, sur ce sujet. M. Forbes Watt, qui est à ma droite, et moi-même, sommes à votre disposition pour répondre aux questions que votre Commission pourrait désirer poser concernant le document C 81/4.
Finalement, le troisième sujet qui apparaît dans le cadre du point 12, est celui qui est inscrit à votre agenda sous la rubrique 12.2: “coûts de soutien” faisant l’objet du document C 81/INF/16. Je ne ferai pas de commentaire à cet égard, car je comprends que, si vous aviez des questions à poser à ce sujet, c’est M. West qui serait heureux d’y répondre.
CHAIRMAN: I am very grateful for those introductory remarks because we need in addition to the excellent documents that we have already at our disposal this sort of guidance. But I would like to add another word here. We should during the course of today, tomorrow and Wednesday bear in mind that we have three different subjects which I would suggest for the sake of a rational debate we should keep separate. As Mr. de Meredieu said, we will have the Review of the Field Programmes as contained in document C 81/4. That will be one of the major documents that are linked to document C 81/4 indicated in the Journal of the Conference. The subject of support costs we will discuss separately, I expect either tomorrow afternoon or on Wednesday, but as a separate issue for debate. A third one that will follow subsequently in the System of Interest to FAO, which some delegates may feel also has linkages with the two subjects which I mentioned before. I would suggest that for an orderly procedure of the debate and for rational use of the time we now open the debate on the Review of Field Programmes, the documents as listed in the Journal of the Conference for today, and leave support costs as a separate item for debate when we have concluded the debate on the Review of Field Programmes. The debate is now open.
CO. KELLER-SARMIENTO (Argentina): Conforme a su pedido y a su sugerencia, que me parece acertada, efectuaré mis comentarios en torno al documento C 81/4: Examen de los programas de campo 1980/81, y trataré de concentrar mis observaciones en algunos aspectos que considero de interés destacar. En primer lugar, debemos tener en cuenta el dato importante que significa la disminución de la asistencia técnica de la FAO financiada por el PNUD. Este es un hecho que lamentamos, pero creo que escapa a las posibilidades de este Comité el modificarlo.
Lo que sí debemos aceptar es que como consecuencia de ello, es necesario mayor apoyo a las actividades de fondos fiduciarios así como la disponibilidad de fondos proporcionados, en condiciones de favor, por instituciones de financiación para nuestro programa de campo.
Como punto de interés general, cabe señalar, a la apreciación de mi delegación, los métodos de las nuevas dimensiones en la ejecución de proyectos dentro de los programas de campo de la Organización. El cada vez mayor uso de las capacidades de los países en desarrollo en la cooperación técnica, tal como se expresa en el capítulo IV, ha sido objeto de fuerte apoyo en los foros de las Naciones Unidas, y creemos que la FAO está acentuando con sabiduría esta saludable tendencia, que sin duda presenta un positivo efecto multiplicador de beneficios, y es un elemento esencial hacia la autosuficiencia colectiva de los países en desarrollo. Tenemos la certeza de que esta nueva orientación se efectúa sin sacrificar calidad ni eficiencia. Dentro de la modalidad adoptada por el organismo para enfocar esta nueva orientación, vemos que la FAO puede efectuar una tarea importante al identificar sectores de cooperación, conforme las respectivas capacidades de los países en desarrollo.
En este sentido, creemos importante consolidar la utilización de directores nacionales y vemos que esta tendencia se está afirmando, conforme descrito en el párrafo 4.10 de huestro documento. De todos modos, estimamos conveniente que se extienda este concepto a que cuando uno no pueda emplear un director nacional, se oriente, a igualdad de méritos, a la selección de uno proveniente de países en desarrollo. Vemos también con satisfacción la evolución favorable del porcentaje de utilización de los expertos de campo, contenidos en el cuadro primero, provenientes de países en desarrollo, que se incrementa anualmente, pero que aún constituye sólo el 43 por ciento del total, aunque esto implique un crecimiento del 12 por ciento desde 1973. Como usted recordará, el objetivo fijado por la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas es de, por lo menos, el 50 por ciento de utilización de expertos provenientes de países en desarrollo, en proyectos dentro del sistema de Naciones Unidas.
Un pequeño comentario, volviendo atrás en la consideración del documento, al primer gráfico del documento; en página 2, vemos con preocupación la disminución progresiva de la proporción disponible para recursos del Programa de Cooperación Técnica, programa al que hemos otorgado el más amplio apoyo. Un motivo de preocupación para mi delegación es asimismo la disminución de las asignaciones externas para proyectos de campo de la FAO para América Latina. Tal como se describe en el cuadro segundo de la página 10, en el texto en español, el porcentaje del bienio 1980-81 para nuestra región, ha bajado del 15 al 11 por ciento, mientras que en algunas otras regiones ha aumentado considerablemente.
Con respecto a las relaciones entre la cooperación técnica y las inversiones, sabemos que además de los vínculos con la asistencia técnica, un creciente número de proyectos ejecutados por la FAO contribuyen a la ejecución de proyectos sobre inversiones. El párrafo 1.67 nos indica que 320 proyectos FAO/PNUD de asistencia técnica tuvieron vínculos identificables por un valor aproximado de 6 500 millones de dólares durante el período que va de 1975 a 1980. Lo que me llama la atención es que la mayor parte de estos recursos, tal como se indica en el Cuadro 4, parecen ir orientados hacia el rubro Montes en un 26 por ciento, que parecería ser un sector de menor urgencia e importancia que el de los cultivos, al cual tan solo se ha dedicado el 24 por ciento, y desarrollo rural el 18 por ciento. Tal vez la Secretaría nos pueda ampliar algo más sobre esta circunstancia, aunque en el párrafo 1.68 se menciona un proyecto de excepcional magnitud en un país, en el sector forestal.
Queremos destacar nuestra apreciación por el Capítulo II - Evaluación de los programas de campo de la FAO de 1980-81. Este es un ejercicio fundamental; implica también la posibilidad de efectuar una autocrítica honesta para procurar mejorar el enfoque de los problemas, y si cabe, mejorar la acción de la FAO que, como sabemos, es siempre perfectible como todas las cosas humanas.
La metodología sugerida en el documento nos parece adecuada, aunque tal vez ésta también pueda implementarse más satisfactoriamente en el futuro a médida que se vayan descubriendo nuevos métodos o nuevas posibilidades.
Un comentario sobre la ultima parte del Capítulo IV, en el párrafo 4.28 se menciona la movilización de distintos apoyos financieros provenientes de distintas fuentes para fomentar la cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo, por parte de la FAO. Estos esfuerzos deben incrementarse mediante una acción consistente y permanente por parte de la FAO. En este sentido, creemos conveniente que se efectúe exhortación a las Oficinas Regionales a efectuar un nuevo esfuerzo, en este sentido, para identificar sectores específicos de cooperación dentro de cada una de las regiones respectivas.
Finalmente, vaya nuestro aprecio y nuestro agradecimiento a la Secretaría por los útiles e interesantes gráficos contenidos en el documento C 81/4 que sintetizan muy bien nuestra problemática en esta cuestión.
H. MAURIA (Finland): I will try to be very short because of the time constraints which you mention, Mr. Chairman, and therefore I intend to comment only on one specific issue, which is the clear sign of a drop in the real level of FAO field activities pointed out, for instance, by the Director-General in his foreword to document C 81/4. Further in the text of the same document it is said that after record levels of field activities in 1980, there will be a decline of considerable magnitude in coming years. This will be of course a deplorable development because of the basic significance of the field activities and also because of the efficient way the field activities seem to be implemented by the FAO.
Briefly, we can draw a few rather hard conclusions out of these facts. One may be that the effectiveness of the project implementation must be utterly emphasized. Further, the priority regarding the distribution of projects to countries should be sharpened so that an even higher share of FAO-assisted projects should be placed with the least developed countries.
Further, the scope of external financing from various available sources should be utterly pursued. This would have impact on the cooperation with international financing institutions, as for instance with the World Bank and other regional development banks. We are aware that the FAO-World Bank Cooperative Programme is already functioning very well, so there may be possibilities to widen this cooperation.
The role of the FAO Investment Centre will be even more pronounced in the future regarding FAO investment activities. Finally, we hope indeed that FAO will be able to obtain even stronger support through the various trust fund arrangements which seem to have met with approval from so many donor countries so far.
With regard to the involvement of governments in FAO field activities, it is evident that ever-expanding involvement of recipient governments in field projects will be of utmost importance to the field activities in general.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): May I first on behalf of my delegation convey appreciation of the lucid introduction of Mr. de Meredieu, which is in his usual style. We appreciate the document for its high quality of information which has been presented in the most concise but articulate manner, and the frank and candid manner in which the problems concerning the field programmes have been highlighted.
Generally speaking, we share the Programme Committee’s concern with the bleak prospects of the resources for the field programmes, particularly the cyclic variations for the UNDP allocations to FAO which affect the efficiency and delivery of the FAO/UNDP programme.
More particularly, I wish to restrict my comments just to Chapter Four, new approaches to field project implementation, because we feel this is a very important direction in which the field activities are going which is of vital importance to developing countries, particularly those who are seeking self-reliance and self-sufficiency.
We welcome not only the subject matter for the Chapter, but also the new dimension which is geared towards enhancing self-reliance in developing countries in building up their infrastructure and their technical and administrative capabilities, so necessary for meaningful development in the field of agriculture.
Greater use of the capabilities of developing countries would be a greater incentive for these countries to develop their technical and managerial expertise. We would wish this to be accelerated as far as possible.
Unfortunately the progress in this connexion is not as satisfactory as we would like it to be. As the delegate of Argentina pointed out - I would only refer to one aspect, that is the example I would take of Table 1 on page 81 which shows during the period of nine years from 1973 to 1981 the percentage of FAO experts from developing countries rose from 31 percent to 43 percent, a mere increase of 12 percent, which on a yearly basis works out to only 1.3 percent.
We recognize this to be a promising trend, but we think it is not strong enough, and at this reported increase the modest target laid down by the United Nations General Assembly of 50 percent would be achieved in 6 years. We wish this to be accelerated, and the 50 percent target laid down by the United Nations General Assembly to be achieved by the next biennium. This would mean only 3 1/2 percent increase annually over the next two years, and this would be a great step forward in this direction.
My delegation strongly suggests this target of 50 percent should be achieved in the next biennium.
I will now very briefly comment on the follow-up of the WCARRD, because we will come to it in more detail in discussing Document C 81/23. Briefly referring to paragraph 4.38 on page 87 of the document under review we notice it has been said that the influence of WCARRD will permeate all of FAO’s field activities. We appreciate the efforts of FAO in this direction, and are aware of the complexities and difficulties of this approach, but we would still be happy if there was a time-frame for these objectives - if no specific date can be given, at least a target of a few years in which the WCARRD approaches will permeate all the activities of FAO. I would suggest the time-frame should be four years. Within this target of four years FAO should attempt that the WCARRD approach should permeate all the activities of the FAO.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language: German): According to your decision, Mr. Chairman, I shall now speak only to Document C 81/4 and the two corrigenda; sub-items 12.1 and 12.2 I shall discuss tomorrow. Now in my delegation we feel that altogether we are faced with a rather good and clearly laid out document. This document addresses not only the FAO Secretariat but above all the recipient countries. We would like to hear from those how they assess the field programmes. It is the developing countries in the first place which should derive the greatest benefit from this, or in other words, they should have support to step up their agricultural production and rural development.
My delegation is very glad that during the period covered by the Report a broader assessment of the field projects was made. According to the assessment by the FAO Country Representatives of 366 projects supported by UNDP and 81 projects which were financed by trust funds, this is a total figure of 447 projects, a general improvement in most performance factors has been noted in the document, paras. 2.8, 2.9.
There are fewer projects than in 1978-79 which were assessed as poor. According to paragraph 2.7 the ranking order has been changed, so that the results of those two biennia can only roughly be compared.
On page 27 of the English version of the document we have a footnote. This explanation does not satisfy us but perhaps the Secretariat can tell us why the questionnaires of the FAO Country Representatives have not the same ranking order as in 1978-79.
In paragraph 2.5 there is no indication that the FAO Representatives, had consultations on the assessment with the UNDP Representatives. My delegation feels that this as it goes without saying was not mentioned specially. However, in this connexion we are interested to know whether in respect of the 366 projects supported by UNDP there is also an assessment by UNDP, and if so, what are the results of this assessment?
Furthermore, we would like to know in how many of the 447 projects, the FAO Representatives were concerned in the identification, planning and implementation.
According to paragraph 2.22 there were indications that government involvement of the recipient countries continues to be the weakest point in project efficiency, although there seems to be some improvement. I dare say there are other answers to this than those which have been listed in the document.
The statements also seem to us to be important, in 2.41 and 2.42 that delivery problems continue to affect decisively the efficiency of field projects which impede these in some areas. My delegation is glad that the assessment of projects on the basis of assessment reports has been strengthened.
From the statements in Chapter Two, sub-Chapter C, we gather that the 79 projects which were assessed between October 1978 and January 1981 had a lower ranking with regard to their efficiency than those projects which were assessed by the FAO Country Representatives. Taking into account that among the selected 79 projects we have a considerable number of socalled problem projects, nevertheless the result of the assessment is that one quarter are considered poor which is unsatisfactory.
At this stage of the debate, I would like to mention two other matters. First, ray delegation is glad that in this biennium about 43 percent of all extra-budgetary expenditure of FAO was largely connected with the development of food production; and secondly we underline what was stated on page 92 of the document “it is essential that FAO and others concerned make all-out efforts to assure the maximum efficiency of field projects”.
I. BARBOSA (Portugal): Seulement quelques mots très brefs sur l’activité de la FAO sur le terrain, C’est avec plaisir que je rappellerai toute l’assistance que la FAO a apportée à mon pays. Depuis 1977 nous avons béneficié de l’aide pour les projets PNUD/FAO, le dernier en 1980, et les autres actuellement en cours de préparation. Ces projets englobent drainage et conservation du sol, production et technologie oléicole; développement forestier, lutte intégrée, vulgarisation agricole, stockage des céréales, crédits pour la pêche, alimentation et nutrition, programme coopératif européen pour l’échange de ressources phytogénétiques.
Il faut signaler particulièrement un projet intégré “Banque mondiale/FAO”, actuellement en cours d’exécution dans la région nord-est du Portugal englobant l’agriculture, les travaux publics, l’éducation, l’hydraulique agricole, les infrastructures de base et la santé avec pour objectif la transformation profonde d’une des régions les moins développées de mon pays.
Nous regrettons que les perspectives futures en matière d’assistance technique aux pays bénéficiaires soient préoccupantes, comme il découle de ce qui est affirmé dans le document C 81/4, document bien élaboré, comme tant d’autres qui nous ont été distribués pour cette conférence.
Nous comprenons ces préoccupations, qui sont partagées par les pays bénéficiaires surtout alors que l’on constate précisément un déclin dans ce secteur, en n’ignorant pas la décision 80/44 du PNUD.
Toutefois, ceci ne veut pas dire que nous ne continuons pas à compter sur les actions que la FAO met en oeuvre sur le terrain, dans de nombreux cas avec plein succès.
A.H. EL SARKI (Egypt) (original language: Arabic): The document we have before us, C 81/4, is a satisfactory one. I would like to refer to paragraphs 1.35 - 1.38 in connexion with expertise and field projects concerning small-sized and short-term projects.
We would also like to congratulate the Organization on the modern technology for the field projects which are being implemented in the developing countries. In paragraphs 1.45 - 1.52 we can see that the dependency of developing nations is increasing in organizational, administrative, and technical fields.
The delegation of my country would like to praise the efforts made by the Organization in terms of investment. Paragraphs 1.53 and 1.54 mention this particular matter. The field programmes of the Organization should be based on investment, and we agree that technical assistance in some cases does give rise to spectacular results, and investments sometimes are very considerable, especially when dealing with multilateral or bilateral capital.
Despite the record level of assistance offered by FAO to developing countries, the possibility of lesser funds for the field programmes means that we need to support the rural programmes specially from UNDP.
We support the activities of the Organization in the light of the new dimensions of technical assistance. This is made very clear in paragraphs 4 and 5, and we must be able to help developing countries when implementing such projects. One should encourage governments in the management of these projects. This is something that we can see in paragraphs 4.6 to 4.11 which is concerned with national directors because the chances of success of such projects in which the beneficiary governments intervene is much greater compared to the actual drop in the cost of such projects. This is especially true in those countries where the qualified cadres are available.
My delegation would like to support the efforts made by this Organization in using national institutions for setting up field programmes; this can be seen in paragraph 4.21. We should encourage this in developing countries where we actually have institutions which have technical cadres, as may be seen in paragraph 4.24.
We are also satisfied with efforts made by the Organization which offers developing countries new ways and means to obtain technical assistance and cooperation in this field. I think country representatives could encourage that tendency.
WANG SHOU RU (China) (original language: Chinese): The Chinese delegation would like to thank the Secretariat for the document which is very concise and clear. Please allow me to express some views on this item.
The document has given a brief account of the useful work since 1980 undertaken by the’ Director-General of FAO and the Governor of the UNDP. We appreciate the measures taken for strengthening cooperation between FAO and UNDP. We believe, with the spirit of cooperation, the two important organizations will play with their professional competence their respective roles in more effectively assisting developing countries to implement their plan of agriculture and food production.
Developing countries must first of all rely on their own efforts in the development of agriculture and food production. Yet, the catalytic role of assistance from the outside cannot be neglected. Therefore, we express our concern over the flow of resources of official assistance aid to agriculture.
As for the conclusions oh the assessments of field projects, we would like to emphasize one point only. From our own experience we feel that the key factor for the success of a field project lies in the fact that it must be the real need of the country’s development of agriculture and food production, and a component of its national plan for economic development. Only then is it possible to make external resources and technology serve the country’s purpose to guarantee the implementation of the project according to the planned objectives and schedule, so as to gain the desired economic benefit.
We hold that the new approaches to Field Project Implementation specially set forth in the document are of great significance. In project implementation, it should be encouraged to make best use of the competence of the recipient country to enable the government to directly carry out the project of technical assistance especially with the national personnel participating in project organization and management. In countries where conditions permit, it should also be encouraged to employ national experts and technical forces, so that they could accumulate their own experience and expand their technical force. In this connexion, we hope FAO will make full use of all resources available to strengthen the training of project management personnel from developing countries. At the same time we hope that FAO will continue to play its role in technical assistance, make full use of its technical competence to support the developing countries in their efforts to develop agriculture and food production, raise their absorbing capacity of using effectively financial aids and strive for new orientation of promoting international technical assistance.
As mentioned in the 21st paragraph of the document C 81/28, at present some projects’ procedures and approaches are complicated, and thus are time consuming and add to the burden of recipient countries. The approaches taken for elaborating assistance plans should have greater flexibility to apply to countries with different levels of development and under different conditions. By so doing, it will certainly raise the efficiency of field projects and speed up the progress of projects in agriculture and rural development.
The meeting rose at 18.00 hours
La séance est levée a 18 h 00
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.00 horas
