CHAIRMAN: I open the Eleventh meeting of Commission II. We continue the debate on the Review of the Field Programmes.
E. MAZURKIEWICZ (Poland): On behalf of my delegation I want to make some remarks on item 12 which is under discussion, and I want to emphasize the propriety of the selection of problems and priorities in FAO activities.
A very big advantage of FAO and its power is the universal character of our Organization whose main attention is paid to the developing countries because they have on a large scale malnutrition, hunger, and many difficulties in economical growth. Also FAO’s activities are desirable in European regions. It would be favourable to develop and strengthen cooperation between European countries and developing countries.
Slow economic growth and less national income in most countries in the world require from international organizations and also from FAO limited costs of administration to benefit field programmes and operation activities in countries, using TCP and UNDP funds.
I would underline with pleasure that the Director-General’ s proposals are on these lines.
In these circumstances programmes of the UN system are very important, supported by voluntary contributions. Essentially they enlarge FAO’s activities.
Field programmes which are under consideration receive much attention in the wide understanding of agriculture, in particular in geographical regions.
Proposals for Europe deal with the research network, improvement of agricultural structures and economical use of energy. The polish delegation positively appraises FAO’s activity in this field in Europe. Our specialists are actively joining in the work of the European research network in many areas of plant production and animal husbandry, and we are interested in enlarging these activities as they will have favourable influence on agricultural growth in developing countries.
I wish to note the positive results in other programmes - financing in Poland from UNDP funds, especially research programmes such as pesticides residue in agricultural products, improvement of plant breeding, and on a regional level, the European gene bank. In the latter programme Poland obtained some interesting experience in the breeding of Triticale.
These programmes encourage the education of very highly qualified specialists who can now organize extension services for developing countries, and the European genebank makes it possible to organize the supply of genetic materials on a world scale.
One very important regional problem for the northern part of Europe is the disaster gradation of nun-tussock-moth which developed in coniferous parts of north and central Poland. What is more, there was need for an expansion of the range of the present gradation of the neighbouring countries. The measures used so far in Poland saved the woods from destruction, but failed in breaking the gradation of the insect.
Although FAO concentrates its activities on the regions where the basic nutrition problems have not been solved, an organization of a comprehensive character must cover by its range and cooperation all parts of the world, the European region included. Therefore we propose to organize a new project on a regional level concerning the fight against the tussock moth and I wish to emphasize that Poland is ready to cooperate very closely with FAO in this matter.
P. VANDOR (Hungary): The review of field programmes is a well balanced and valuable document. We were very happy to read that the field programme expenditures reached record levels during this biennium. At the same time we are worried at the dim prospectives of decreasing allocations to be earmarked for 1982-83. At the Plenary many delegations spoke about the global importance of agriculture and food. Our understanding is that there is general agreement that production oriented agricultural programmes should be given the highest priority.
In this context it would be a pity if the real level of FAO field activity were to drop in the coming years. It is sincerely hoped that the downward trend foreseen for the next biennium can be reversed. We would be sorry otherwise, and moreover we endorse the findings of this document on the improved efficiency of field projects executed by FAO.
Document C 8l/28 gives a broad picture of the positive actions taken consequent to Conference Resolution 6/79. We are happy to note that the initiative of the Director-General of FAO was well received by the Administrator of UNDP and that there is a closer working relationship between FAO, UNDP and all other international development institutions. We would welcome a progressive and real increase of the share of agriculture in UNDP expenditure as a result of this good collaboration. The trends of recent years, however, do not allow us to be very optimistic.
My delegation agrees with the opinion of the FAO Secretariat that the orientation of development assistance of the international development institutions is largely influenced by the actions of the developing countries themselves. We would welcome it if the agricultural sector, and food production in particular, were given higher priority in their national development programmes and in UNDP-assisted projects and programmes.
Document C 81/4 provides a detailed report on the follow-up to the recommendations of WCARRD. My delegation is a little disappointed that the influence of WCARRD and the rural development approach have been relatively limited in the design and implementation of field projects during the past biennium.
With regard to the evaluation mechanism of field projects, my delegation is satisfied with the present system of UN/FAO project evaluation. Our positive assessment is based on more than ten years of good experience of project evaluation relating to different UNDP/FAO projects implemented in Hungary or with the contribution of Hungary. We think no external evaluation mechanism is needed. It would be unnecessary duplication of the whole evaluation system. It is of course up to the recipient countries concerned whether they feel the need for such additional external evaluation.
Finally, we would like to put special emphasis on the so-called new dimension advocated by the Organization. Ten years ago when FAO and UNDP executed a project on irrigated model farming in Hungary, my country was among the first to utilize the services of a national project manager and of the national institutions. We believe - and we agree with FAO - that many countries have the capabilities to assist international agencies in formulating, implementing and at establishing appropriate institutions.
H. REDL (Austria) (original language German): I would like to start by thanking Mr. de Méredieu very warmly indeed for his very clear introduction. As far as implementation of the various FAO project is concerned, we welcome the intensified cooperation between FAO and the governments of recipient countries. The success of a project hinges to a very considerable measure on the preparation of that project. This involves staff as well as material. Here improvements can still be made.
We have a saying in Austria that to help quickly is to help twofold, and I think that can well be applied to the FAO and FAO projects. FAO Country Representatives should be more involved in project planning.
As far as implementation is concerned, document C 81/4 on page 7 under 1.4.4 reflects the fact that the FAO share of UNDP operations in agriculture and forestry has dropped from 85 percent to 76 percent. Perhaps the Secretariat could provide an explanation of this.
As far as the TCP is concerned, on page 9 of the document, under 1.20, we welcome the fact that 51 percent of the funds will be available to LDCs and MSA countries. On page 13 under 1.3.2 on forestry projects, we feel there is a good balance here, but it would be desirable if it were possible for reference to be made to cooperation between FAO and UNIDO.
As far as section F, Investment Activities, is concerned, we welcome the activities listed but we must note the high credit costs which no doubt influence the situation for individual countries. Use of roughly 46 percent of the ordinary budget funds for food production and improvement is to be welcomed but we also welcome the new concept of having developing countries more involved in project planning through experts and institutions. No doubt FAO must be congratulated because it was the first to bring about a change within the United Nations system. Possibly less funds will be available in the future and therefore the greatest measure of expertise is called for.
Time and time again the question has been raised in the debate about additional evaluation. On this we take the view that, first and foremost, the recipient countries themselves can appraise the projects carried out. So long as the recipient countries are happy in their appraisal of the projects, we do not feel that any additional appraisal is necessary.
M. SALAMEH (Syria): My delegation, after reviewing document C 81/4 and C 81/28, wishes to express its satisfaction with the contents; they are well expressed and tabulated and show the following. Great attention is given by FAO to the field programmes, both from the quantative and qualitative point of view. They cover nearly the globe, they cover the developing countries that recieve these programmes and projects as well as the developed ones and they give a share in expertise, know-how, funds and equipment.
From the qualitative point of view, great attention was given to the most needed parts of the world such as the African countries. The qualitative side is strengthened through the use of national directors, experts and equipment for these projects and also strengthened through dependence on TCDC principles and the new dimension concerning technical assistance stated in chapter four.
Moreover, what we feel is encouraging and of importance is the use of systems such as remote sensing, Caris and Agris, as modern techniques and problem-oriented applied sciences.
As I mentioned yesterday, in relation to the evaluation of projects discussed already by some delegates, I stress the greater need for internal evaluation authorities because they are more capable to do this and know more about their benefits. For this purpose we find it is necessary to have cooperation between donating countries and agencies with FAO and its experts in this field. In connexion with document C 81/28, Development Assistance for Food Production, my delegation appreciates very much the efforts put in by FAO’s Director-General as described in the document, both when he was visited and was a visitor, inviting or requesting, developing or developed countries, FAO Representatives or UNDP Resident Representatives.
We consider the Director-General has fulfilled his task according to Resolution 6/79. All of this is promising in the field of enhancing food production and getting nearer to a better food situation in the world.
We also feel that the deteriorating food situation in the developing countries should not be categorized as a homogenous one, as many delegations have expressed the view that this deteriorating situation is multi-faced. If we come to analyse this, scientifically speaking, the hungry people are different from malnourished ones because the latter can be found in all parts of the world, as can what is called over-nourished, in this civilization of consumption. So in the developing countries suffering from food problems it may be found that the cause of this suffering is the fall in food production or due to food mal-distribution or to the ignorance of the consumers in regard to the qualitative nutritional value of the food they are purchasing. What I am saying is that FAO can orientate its projects in this direction for a better food situation and not to limit its efforts or projects for food production. I mean also that FAO can expand its activities to include food marketing, consumer cooperation, consumer nutritional information, etc., and this is mentioned in paragraph 29 document C 81/28 in the discussion between the Director-General of the FAO and the UNDP Administrator when they specified production as well as distribution of food as means of curing the deteriorating food situation. When we deal with the deteriorating food situation from these different angles, we find ourselves facing the necessity of a
multi-disciplinary action combining more than one authority or ministry in the structure of some governments in the developing countries and not confined to a separate ministry, such as agriculture. Even this can be coordinated through a ministry of planning, and from this multiplicity we may arrive at the real solution of hunger and malnourishment and we may cross the bridge to the difficulty found in determining the real meaning of food situation or the real meaning of(rural development) as mentioned in paragraph 6 of C 81/28.
Concerning ODA commitments as dealt with in Document C 81/28 and referring to limitations under paragraphs 6, 7 and 8, we can see that through FAO a positive factor may arise to stand against the five factors described in the above paragraphs described as limitations. And to ensure that FAO is backing this positivity more information of the many interests and objectives of those donating or participating in this ODA, I say more information is needed in this analysis because when we are aware of those objectives and their balancing by the Director-General, FAO can provide more commitment to the benefits of the needed parts of the World.
AMIDJONO MARTOSUWIRYO (Indonesia): I wish to express my delegations appreciation to the Secretariat for its excellent efforts and work done in preparing the documents under discussion now. Regarding the format of the document my delegation would like to endorse it and has found also that the methodology is an appropriate one.
Coming to the substance of the Review of the Field Programmes, I wish to make a few comments.
We do recognize that Review of Field Programmes is of vital importance both to the Organization and to the governments concerned, namely those which are recipients. It is true that the success of analysis is in a large measure dependent upon the availability of sufficient and reliable data and information collected from recipient countries. Generally speaking developing countries face difficulties in establishing a development project and in its implementation, including activities like monitoring and data collecting. In this context I would suggest that FAO should pay greater attention and render more assistance to national staff personnel, in the monitoring of a project and in data collecting.
As to UNDP allocation, it is regretable to note that it fluctuates considerably, giving rise to severe difficulties in planning FAO technical assistance activities in advance. In order to smooth the flow of UNDP allocation my delegation would like to endorse the effort made by FAO as stipulated in paragraph 1.9 in document C 81/4. In addition I wish that FAO could take further steps and progressive approach in obtaining FAO Trust Funds. It is fascinating to observe that Trust Fund projects have in real terms increased steadily. My delegation wishes that the new programme under this scheme, namely in-service training awards - could be expanded further. This will benefit both donor as well as recipient countries and increase the number of candidates or personnel from developing countries and strengthen their capability in planning and executing field projects.
Coming to estimated extra-budgetary expenditure for field project delivery as contained in table 3 of the document, my delegation is of the opinion that the share for research support is too small, representing only 1 percent of the total expenditure. Since research activities are of crucial importance for planning development projects and their execution as well, my delegation suggests that the share should be stepped up to about 4 percent.
With regard to the size of development project, paragraph 2.63 indicates that projects with well-specified and limited objectives were the most successful. A well planned project with a broad objective should be also a successful one if we only know the constraints and are able to overcome them. Generally speaking a big project invites many problems and I am of the opinion that progress might be hampered by inadequate knowledge and expertise on the part of recipient personnel. To cope with negative eventualities special provisions should be made in the project for training of national personnel.
My delegation very much hopes that the next review of field projects will present the right binding regarding the right size of development projects that ensures the successful implementation.
With regard to food crop production and improvement as described in Chapter Three of the document, my delegation would like to call upon the FAO to pay more attention on this matter to enable the developing countries to achieve 4 percent global growth target of their food production.
In fact the amount of assistance for food and agricultural production in the developing countries as described in document C 81/28 is far behind adequate level. Here again my delegation would like to stress the important role of the FAO in mobilizing the flow of assistance from the developed countries and other financial institutions to the developing countries particularly of low income food deficit and those which have potential for food and agricultural development.
In the implementation of the field projects financed by international as well as bilateral aid institutions, my delegation fully supports Chapter Four of the document C 81/4 with regard to the use of national project managements, directors and experts as well as those from other developing countries as it has also been supported by other delegations.
Since the findings and conclusions of the review are of crucial importance for agricultural development in developing countries, particularly in respect of food development and production, my delegation would suggest that the major findings and conclusions of the review be brought to the attention of the coming ministerial meeting of the World Food Council for serious consideration and to be taken into account in determining future policies to be pursued by the WFC.
K. CHOUERI (Liban) (langue originale arabe): II apparaît, compte tenu des deux documents en question et de l’allocution du Directeur général a l’ouverture de cette Commission qu’il est possible d’augmenter les projets de terrain et d’intensifier les efforts déployés pour améliorer la performance dans ce domaine. Il convient ici de rappeler à ce titre le rapport du Comité du programme lors de la 41ème session.
Nous aimerions exprimer ici notre préoccupation au sujet des fonds consacrés aux projets du terrain. Nous craignons également la non-adoption des programmes de développement agricole des Nations Unies dans ce domaine. Il faudrait également tenir compte de la participation de l’assistance technique au développement agricole à travers les Fonds globaux alloués à l’agriculture.
Le document en question démontre, au chapitre 4, que la FAO est décidée à assumer l’assistance dans le domaine de l’Assistance internationale. C’est un moyen nouveau pour mettre en oeuvre les projets de terrain.
Nous savons que les experts et les institutions nationales ont également exécuté fidèlement cela, conformément aux exigences exprimées. Cependant des doutes ont été exprimés sur les perspectives à réaliser dans le domaine de la technique et dans le cadre des programmes de développement. Il faudrait donc insister sur les projets régionaux éxécutes a ce titre.
Nous basant sur ce qui a précédé, nous approuvons les consultations à entreprendre et les efforts à déployer par la FAO avec le PNUD, avec d’autres institutions spécialisées, et avec les gouvernements, en vue d’augmenter les montants consacrés aux projets de terrain pour relever le défi de certains pays en développement, de parvenir à leur autosuffisance en matière de nutrition et d’alimentation.
Nous avons écouté la déclaration de l’Administrateur du PNUD au sujet des fonds de ce programme et de la coordination dans ce domaine; d’autres points ont été également soulevés par lui. Néanmoins, ma délégation voudrait s’arrêter un peu sur le rôle des représentants résidents du PNUD, pour dirig’er et orienter les fonds disponibles vers le développement agricole qui est essentiel dans le développement rural pour les pays du Tiers Monde. Le rôle du représentant résident est indispensable car il permet d’adopter des projets jusqu’à concurrence de 400 000 dollars. Cette décision relève également du siège à New York sur proposition dudit représentant.
En outre, et afin de parer au déficit des ressources allouées aux projets en général et surtout à ceux réalisés avec la collaboration de la FAO et du PNUD dans ce domaine, nous voudrions lancer ici un appel visant à assurer au moins le niveau actuel des fonds entre les deux institutions en question: le PNUD et la FAO. Il faudrait nous inspirer de l’esprit qui prévaut et ce grâce aux efforts de MM. Saouma et Morse. Je pense que cela figure dans l’Annexe C du document C 81/28; un développement agricole élargi pourra nous permettre de faire face aux besoins alimentaires.
Il semble donc que la coopération positive entre les représentants des deux institutions susmentionnées pourrait donc bénéficier aux représentants du PNUD, et on pourrait ainsi tirer profit de l’expérience de la FAO.
Il a été d’autre part question d’évaluer les projets de terrain. Nous avons déjà fait connaître notre position à ce sujet. Par conséquent, nous insistons sur ce point encore une fois et nous pensons qu’il n’est pas utile de faire des évaluations de l’extérieur, cela représenterait des dépenses supplémentaires.
En conclusion, nous nous prononçons pour un soutien aux deux documents et aux efforts déployés par la FAO dans le cadre des programmes de terrain.
J.O. ALABI (Nigeria): We are happy to note that the field programme expenditure reached a record level during the biennium under review, thanks to the UNDP and the Trust Fund arrangements.
We are happy at the cooperation which exists between FAO and the UNDP. FAO has the technical skill to implement projects and the UNDP has the funds for implementing these projects. Both of them working together hand in hand will no doubt render great assistance to member nations of both organizations.
The main source of funds for the field programme, the document says, is the UNDP. We are however, unhappy that the share of FAO/UNDP funds is dwindling. In 1973 UNDP accounted for about 80 percent of all field programmes but in 1980 this has gone down to 60 percent. Worse still is the uneven nature of UNDP funding because this does not ensure planning of technical assistance in advance. It is needless to stress the need for advanced planning, as this is the only way to ensure proper coordination and the reduction of support costs.
It is very disheartening that the Governing Council of UNDP foresees a shortfall of as much as 25 percent in the resources available for the third planning cycle. Availability of funds for the field programme means a lot to the developing countries, who rely so much on the technical assistance that they can obtain for their agricultural development. We should remember that this assistance helps greatly to supplement the efforts of the various Member Governments.
May I at this stage appeal to the various governments represented here who are also members of the UNDP to give serious consideration to increasing their contribution to the UNDP so that it can realize its annual growth of 14 percent.
We agree entirely with paragraph 1.14 concerning the proportion of allocation of UNDP resources at the FAO level. Since FAO has the competence and the know how to implement projects in the fields of agriculture, forestry and fisheries we appeal that serious consideration should be given to increasing the funds for agricultural development channelled through the FAO by the UNDP.
Talking of Trust Funds, we welcome this source of finance for the Field Programme. We are very grateful to those countries who participate in this method of financing. Unfortunately, by its nature, the levels of Trust Funds cannot be forecast. We are happy to note that Trust Fund donors align their activities with FAO’s general priorities and programmes, particularly the FAO Special Action Programmes, including the WCARRD follow-up.
On the TCP we do not agree entirely with the delegate of the United Kingdom that increases in TCP will necessarily reduce the funds from other sources. We see the TCP as playing a major role in giving prompt answers whenever urgent action is necessary. We are happy to note the large number of TCP projects approved during the biennium. We hope this can be increased in future and that the TCP will continue to act as a stimulus for larger investment.
On FAO’s technical assistance, the only way that FAO can carry out its mandate, particularly in developing countries is to offer technical assistance whenever the request is made. Of course the ability of the Organization to respond to requests depends on the resources available. There have been many meetings in the past few months at which emphasis was made on larger investment in agriculture. This is why we appeal to all governments to increase their contributions to the UNDP and to all the Special Action Programmes. We are aware of the economic situation all over the world but we think we have to live with these difficulties, which are common to everybody.
Regarding the FAO Country Representatives and Regional Officers we feel very strongly that the FAO Country Representatives and the Regional Officers have a major role to play in the execution of field Programmes. These offices were set up in order to ensure decentralization of the Organization. We feel strongly that they should be retained and full use should be made of them.
On the investment activities of FAO we are happy to note that FAO’s field activities in the biennium were given an increased orientation towards investment. We advocate the allocation of greater resources to the Investment Centre so that it can give necessary assistance to financing institutions like IFAD and the regional development banks. We are happy to note that during 1980 fifty FAO-assisted investment projects amounting to $2 380 million were approved for financing.
We are happy to note the cooperation between FAO and the World Bank in the FAO/World Bank Cooperative Programme.
S.P. MUKHERJEE (India): I will not go into the detailed statistics and working as indicated in the two documents but confine myself to some general observations and suggestions.
At present much concern has been expressed over the fact that the flow of funds from the UNDP to FAO has not been increasing as much as it should but on the other hand there is a definite trend of decline.
Two reasons have been given for that - one that developing countries perhaps are not giving as much importance to agriculture and rural development as these two sectors deserve, and secondly perhaps there is scope for more coordination between UNDP and FAO so that FAO’s expertise and experience in the field of agriculture and rural development is made fuller use of by the UNDP. In this context, the Resolution of FAO of 1979 would be very relevant.
My delegation is extremely happy to note that the mandate given to the Director-General by FAO by that Resolution has been fully observed and complied with by the Director-General and there have been concrete steps taken for ensuring greater coordination between the UNDP and FAO in the sense that FAO’s representation on the UNDP intelligence task force has been ensured and joint letters have been issued to the UNDP representatives and the FAO representatives in the various countries at the instance of the Director-General. The Director-General deserves all credit for all the steps that he has taken at his personal level.
I have a suggestion to offer for the consideration of the House - whether it is not time for all of us to recognize that FAO has been, is, and will remain the supreme body world organization in the matter of food, agriculture and rural development in the United Nations System, I am told that the birth of the FAO took place about a week earlier than the birth of the United Nations itself. In that context to recognize the place which FAO occupies in the matter of food, agriculture and rural development will be very appropriate. We should with all the force at our command recommend to the United Nations that in any matter connected with food, agriculture and rural development FAO has to be recognized as a model and focal agency and there should not be any other agency within the United Nations System which should be allowed to take on the executing work of food and agriculture programmes unless the programme funds are routed through FAO. It is another matter whether FAO gives particular work to another United Nations organization but FAO remains primarily the supreme body in the United Nations System to be responsible for all food, agriculture and rural development matters. If that fact is recognized and firmly given effect to there is no reason why the UNDP fund, or any other fund for that matter related to food, agriculture and rural development, should not first come to FAO and it is up to FAO to execute it through its own Organization or give it over to some other organization. If this obvious fact is given full recognition I do not think there would be difficulty in UNDP funds not flowing through FAO in the matter of food, agriculture and rural development. So I would suggest for the consideration of this House that recognition of FAO as the supreme world body for programming all food, agriculture and rural development projects should be given official recognition.
My delegation is also very happy and encouraged to find that the Director-General has made all attempts to get higher and additional donations through UNDP and the Special Action Programmes and Trust Funds. I would suggest that the exercise started by the Director-General for increasing the fund flow to the FAO should be followed up at all levels of the FAO and individual approaches should be made to all world organizations and countries so that the donations and flow of funds to the FAO for food, agriculture and rural development items are increased.
My delegation is very happy to note that Africa, which needs particular attention in the matter of increase of agricultural production and food, has been given special attention through FAO’s Field Programmes. My delegation fully endorses the appeal and the strategy adopted by the FAO in advocating to the developing countries that they must increase their food production, but in that light, my delegation would suggest that not merely the poor countries but the rich countries also should make all attempts to increase their food production so that the total availability of food for mankind as such goes on increasing. No Government., developing or developed, rich or poor, should do anything, directly or indirectly, which may have an adverse affect on the total production of food grains in the world, and I think it is very important and this is something which the world body should take cognizance of.
My delegation is also very happy about the policy entitled New Dimensions in Technical Cooperation in Developing Countries and has noted that the percentage of experts from the developing countries has gone up to 43 percent, but it is still far below the target of 50 percent which the United Nations General Assembly had fixed as regards the experts coming from the developing countries. In that context, my delegation and my government would like to offer to the FAO its various institutions to be recognized by the FAO as its regional institutions for training and consultancy purposes. I have in my view our Institution of Arid Zone Research in the desert areas, located in Jodhpur in Rajasthan Desert Area, where a fund of knowledge about crop husbandry and containment of deserts has been evolved, and this Institute can be recognized as a regional institute of FAO also.
Likewise our very renowned Forest Research Institute in India, which is celebrating its centenary only a few weeks from now, can also be recognized as a FAO regional institute for offering training and consultancy services to the FAO. We have also a Forest Management Institute which can also give to the services of the FAO. Already a number of Fisheries Institutes in India, Research Institutes, have been recognized by FAO for training on a regional basis. We offer them for similar activities for FAO’s consultancy and training service. We have got Fisheries Institutes both for inland research as well as marine fisheries. We have got a network of research bodies in the matter of rain-fed crops which have great relevance for a number of African and Asian countries. These institutes can also be recognized by FAO for training and other service facilities.
While talking of training, it appears from table 4 on page 101 of document 81/4 that over the years there has been a decline in training outlay from 7.5 percent in 1979 to 4.6 percent in 1980. This delegation thinks is a rather unhappy trend, as training is the core of development work and seeding of development activites in the developing countries, so therefore we would like to see the outlay on training go up much faster rather than go down, as is evident from this table. We feel that there could be a scope of reducing the outlay on project personnel and diverting that expenditure to a more enduring purpose of training the trainers in the developing countries.
NGA MA MAPELA (Zaire): Nous félicitons le secrétariat pour la qualité du document que nous examinons. Nous félicitons plus particulièrement M. de Mèredieu pour la présentation de ce document.
Comme les autres délégations, nous estimons que l’on devrait tout mettre en oeuvre pour mettre à la disposition du PNUD des ressources abondantes lui permettant d’aider les pays en développement.
Nous pensons que lorsqu’il aura des ressources abondantes, le PNUD devra affecter une très grande partie de celles-ci aux projets agricoles destinés à augmenter la production alimentaire dans les pays en développement.
En ce qui concerne la répartition des ressources du PNUD ou de toute autre organisation d’aide au développement entre les divers programmes dans les pays en développement, ma délégation appuie ce qui a été dit par plusieurs délégations, à savoir qu’il appartient aux gouvernements des pays bénéficiaires de décider de cette répartition des ressources.
Quant à l’execution des projets qui bénéficient du financement du PNUD, nous pensons que non seulement la FAO devrait s’occuper de leur exécution, mais qu’on devrait également utiliser le plus souvent des experts nationaux.
Pour ce qui concerne le rôle de la FAO dans l’assistance technique, comme l’a dit le Chef de ma délégation dans sa déclaration en séance plénière, nous estimons que toutes les institutions de la famille des Nations Unies qui s’occupent de l’aide aux pays en développement, devraient, dans la mesure du possible, envoyer dans les pays en développement des experts de très haute qualification pour effectuer des missions de courte durée dont le but consisterait surtout à aider les pays à élaborer des projets dont l’éxécution serait confiée aux experts nationaux, ainsi que l’ont souligné plusieurs délégations qui ont parlé avant nous. Comme on le sait, l’utilisation d’experts nationaux dans les projets permet notamment de réduire le taux des salaires souvent élevés alloués aux experts étrangers. Ainsi les économies que l’on pourrait réaliser à ce propos peuvent être utilisées pour l’achat de fournitures et de moyens logistiques nécessaires aux projets et qui manquent aux pays assistés.
Notre point de vue sur le Programme FAO de coopération technique avait été expose hier lors de la discussion du Programme ordinaire 1980-81 et je voudrais simplement rappeler ce que nous avions dit à cette occasion, à savoir que le PCT étant un des excellents programmes de la FAO, on devrait tout mettre en oeuvre pour le renforcer en le dotant de ressources plus abondantes.
Nous estimons que le PCT doit être renforcé, d’autant plus que ce programme joue le rôle de complémentarité vis-à-vis des programmes de développement qui bénéficient du financement du PNUD. En clair, nous voulons dire que le PCT ne peut en aucune façon être considéré comme faisant double emploi avec les Programmes du PNUD, ou comme étant en concurrence avec les Programmes du PNUD.
Nous pouvons sans difficulté appuyer l’idée qui a été exprimée ici par certaines délégations au sujet de l’évaluation des activites des bureaux de la FAO dans les pays. Mais nous tenons à souligner que les personnes indiquées pour effectuer cette évaluation sont les gouvernements des pays concernés, de concert avec la FAO. Ce sont, à notre avis, ces pays qui bénéficient des services fournis par ces bureaux et par conséquent ils sont en mesure de dire si oui ou non ces bureaux sont nécessaires.
Il en est de même de l’évaluation des Programmes de terrain de la FAO qui, à juste titre, doit être effectuée par les gouvernements des pays bénéficiaires avec l’aide de la FAO.
Nous pensons que les fonds que l’on aurait utilisés pour payer les experts indépendants ou extérieurs, chargés d’évaluer les Programmes de terrain, pourraient être utilisés pour d’autres besoins de ces programmes.
Pour terminer, nous voudrions appuyer ce qui vient d’être dit pas le delégué de l’Inde au sujet du rôle de la FAO en tant qu’Organisation chef de file en matière d’alimentation et d’agriculture.
Miss C. McASKIE (Canada): As I mentioned this morning, I will concentrate my remarks this afternoon on document C 81/28, Development Assistance for Food Production and Rural Development. First of all, may I say that the Secretariat is to be commended for the preparation of the data on official development assistance for food and agriculture, and the Canadian delegation fully appreciates the difficulties that are experienced in acquiring such data. Not only are there statistical difficulties, there are also difficulties in defining inputs, particularly in an area so broad as agriculture.
Having said this, however, we would appreciate in future a more detailed analysis of trends and requirements in this area. Merely to conclude that more official development assistance, both from traditional and new sources, is the answer is not in our view sufficient. It is, a vital element. There is, however, an additional element that all of us, donors, recipients and agencies working in the field, must recognize: that even with increased development assistance and an increased proportion going to agriculture, massive private investment in agriculture, both from internal and external sources, must be generated in order for us to meet the minimal targets in adequate nutrition by the year 2000.
We are pleased to see recognition given to the role to be played by recipient countries in this crucial area of development. It will be up to these countries, in the final analysis, to demonstrate the political will to direct resources and to institute the policies which will form the basis of increased agricultural production. In this connection my government fully recognizes the extensive commitments made by the least developed countries at the recent UN Conference on the LLDCs. This does not deny the role played by the traditional donors, and we must remain conscious of our own responsibilities.
On the question of FAO’s role on the implementation of UNDP assistance, the Canadian government has difficulty in understanding the impression which is given in this document before us that there is any blame to be laid for FAO’s declining share of UNDP projects. It is our understanding of the UNDP Country Programming exercise that it is the recipient country, when planning its country programme, which chooses FAO or another organization to execute specific projects within that programme. We therefore have difficulty in understanding why FAO proposes entering into discussions with UNDP on this programme. We would contend that the problem as outlined by FAO in the document C 81/28 is not in fact a problem. To indicate that UNDP’s recently created Office of Projects Execution and its work, which has received the praise of many countries, is a matter of concern for the Executive Heads of Specialized Agencies, comes as a surprise, as does the implication that FAO should execute more than its current share of 75 percent of UNDP funded agricultural projects. Does this mean - and correct me if I am wrong - that there is no room for other institutions in this field such as IFAD, the World Food Programme, and the Agricultural Research Centres? Does this mean that the client government must relinquish the right to choose?
As I said this morning, the Canadian Government recognizes that FAO has a crucial role to play and that it is uniquely equiped to play that role. However, we can only be disappointed if its energies are expended in what appears to be interagency conflict. Why is a drop in the percentage for FAO described as ominous? We quite understand this if it is applied to a drop in agricultural assistance, but why does this weaken the institution building impact of UNDP assistance? Is this a criticism of the client governments?
There is another matter. There is a great deal in this paper about relations with UNDP, including the Administrator and the Resident Representatives, and I would like to commend the Secretariat for the work it is doing for increasing cooperation in this area. There is, however, something which is conspicuous by its absence and that is that there is not a single reference to UN Resident Coordinators. Member governments in a series of General Assembly resolutions have called for the designation of Resident Coordinators in the field with overall responsibility for the coordination of UN Operational activities for development. My Government is surprised, therefore, to see no reference to this in the document under discussion. My Government has been even more surprised in field visits to see that in some cases FAO field representatives have denied the existence of a reporting relationship between the Resident Coordinators and themselves.
We appreciate the progress the Secretariat is making in its cooperation with the UNDP, but we believe more needs to be done to ensure this filters down to the field level.
My Government is anxious to see the implementation of the UN General Assembly Resolution 32/197 on the integration of the field operations of the UN Development System and Resolution 35/81 on the Comprehensive Policy Review for Operational Activities. We would ask, therefore, for a more complete report from the Secretariat on the progress which has been made on these issues.
We will return to this under agenda item 15, document C 81/19.
Finally, on the question of increased development assistance for agriculture, I wish to reconfirm Canada’s commitment, as stated by my Minister in Plenary, that my Government has given top priority to agricultural development. The percentage of Canadian Development Assistance in agriculture is expected to increase from 30 percent to 40-45 percent over the next five years. We remain supporters of FAO as a specialist professional executing agency. Further, we remain supporters of UNDP as a funding agency of the UN Development System, and in agriculture particularly we will continue to increase our support, for IFAD, for the World Food Programme and for the Agricultural Research Centres and the financial institutions, as well as for bilateral food aid and bilateral development assistance in agriculture.
W.E. ADERO (Kenya): The main source of funding to FAO Field Programmes is UNDP. In recent years, there have been fluctuations in this funding resulting in the decline of these resources. This is a matter which should cause concern not only to my delegation but also to this Conference Session. We are told that in the cycle 1982-86 the resources could fall over 25 percent of the targets established in June 1980. This trend in the flow of UNDP resources can only make it extremely difficult for FAO to plan and execute its field programmes well in advance. My delegation would be happy if these resources were increased and not cut.
FAO is a leading agency in global matters of food, and at a time when food crises are on the increase, its technical competence and experience in attacking these problems should not be frustated by falling resources.
We support the Trust Funds and we would appreciate increased contributions from both old and new donors. FAO and recipient government cooperative programmes have had very encouraging and commendable results in our country, especially in local manpower training.
As regards the Technical Co-operation Programme, we are also concerned with the declining resources. Developing countries have needs, and these are felt needs, which call for quick action programmes and we should express our strong support for increased resources and activities in this area.
On the categories and components of field projects, my delegation is satisfied with the nature of field programmes. We would particularly like to emphasize, under the natural resources programme, soil and water conservation and afforestation in both arid zone improvement and high rainfall areas also through better on-farm water management.
Recognising and supporting the need for renewable sources of energy we wish to place emphasis on community forestry development programmes as well as on farm woodlots i.e. agro-forestry. These should be integrated into general farm development and the farmer should benefit by increased overall farm income. Under FAO fish projects we would like to particularly emphasize aquaculture and small scale fishery development including fish processing and handling as well as marketing.
In our assessment of projects, FAO deserves to be commended for its project assessment effort and report. We consider this assessment to be objective and we hope the FAO itself plus others involved in project design and implementation and land preservation will benefit from the findings. The suggestion that FAO should be involved during the initial stages of project design for those projects it gets involved in is important and needs to be taken seriously. We wish also to underline the importance of thorough knowledge of the physical and social-economic conditions in projects areas. Finally on assessment, the need for carefully prepared workplans for project implementers deserves our mention.
On food production, cereal imports especially in Africa have continued to rise and the trend is alarming. Measures to step up food production in such countries need to be stepped up. We in Africa would like to endorse FAO’s efforts in the implementation of the Lagos Plan of Action and already Kenya has prepared a National Food Policy to that effect.
On the project of implementation of field programmes, lack of or inadequacy of manpower has retarded or even hindered some development efforts in our countries. We are happy to see that FAO is helping developing countries build up their managerial, technical and administrative capabilities. These commendable efforts should be increased considerably.
D. BETI (Suisse): Ma délégation vous remercie de lui donner la parole pour ìa deuxième fois dans le cadre de ce débat sur le programme de terrain; je m’efforcerai de ne pas en abuser par la longueur de cette déclaration.
Plusieurs délégations se sont déjà prononcées sur la question de l’evaluation des programmes, et je suis certain qu’une analyse complète des différentes remarques et suggestions en sera faite par le Secrétariat de la FAO.
Notre position concernant les systèmes d’évaluation interne établis par la plupart des organisations internationales et notamment par la FAO a été, dans le passé, critique et même réservée. Aujourd’hui, si notre position reste toujours critique, elle est devenue beaucoup moins réservée.
En fait ma délégation se plait à pouvoir apporter son appui aü système d’évaluation interne sous ses différentes formes établies par la FAO, et notamment au système d’auto-évaluation intégré.
Nous avons pris bonne note du rapport du Corps Commun d’Inspection qui s’est prononcé très favorablement sur le système instauré par la FAO. Les informations fournies dans le document C 81/4 basées sur l’évaluation des projets de terrain entrepris par la FAO durant la période 1980-81 nous montrent que la FAO s’est dotée d’un instrument de gestion valable qui peut l’aider à améliorer de façon continue la qualité des projets. Ces informations permettent en effet une analyse quantitative assez complète, et, dans une certaine mesure, aussi qualitative des projets exécutés, des résultats atteints, des différents problèmes rencontrés et des solutions possibles. Ce système d’évaluation a notamment l’avantage précieux qu’il s’agit d’un processus continu d’évaluation, aspect important relevé à juste titre hier par Monsieur West.
Nous pensons dès lors qu’il est souhaitable que la FAO poursuive tout d’abord les efforts d’évaluation interne, tout en les améliorant. Cette amélioration devra être recherchée dans le sens que l’évaluation interne doit essayer denglober aussi des éléments et aspects non chiffrabies des projets, des éléments justement qui permettent une appréciation du degré et des progrès de développement, et non seulement de croissance atteints par les projets.
Nous savons que le Secrétariat est conscient de ces lacunes dans le système d’évaluation de la FAO, mais, comme l’a dit hier West, il est décidé à lés combler. Nous ne pouvons que l’encourager à chercher avec perspicacité et esprit d’imagination des solutions, dans les meilleurs délais, et nous sommes quant à nous disposés à collaborer avec la FAO dans cette recherche de solutions.
Ces critiques n’enlèvent rien à notre soutien au système d’évaluation interne établi. Nous avons pris note avec satisfaction de la remarque de West dans sa déclaration d’hier, et nous espérons avoir bien saisi ses propos, que d’autres types d’évaluation resteraient possibles à l’avenir en plus de l’évaluation interne. Ceci nous semblerait une excellente politique, car il nous paraît essentiel que le Directeur général puisse disposer d’un instrument de gestion supplémentaire, sous la forme d’évaluations complémentaires à l’évaluation interne, instrument auquel il pourrait avoir recours dans des situations particulières. Ceci pourrait être le cas, à notre avis, notamment quand le Directeur général propose un nouveau programme, ou une extension substantielle du programme existant, ou alors quand l’utilité d’un programme existant est remise en question par plusieurs pays, et que ce programme n’a pas été soumis à une évaluation complémentaire depuis plus de quatre ans.
Nous serions intéressés à connaître les vues et les intentions du Secrétariat en ce qui concerne ces évaluations complémentaires. Nous aimerions assurer le Directeur général de notre disponibilité quant à l’examen d’un appui et d’une collaboration de notre part à la mise en place d’un tel instrument complémentaire de gestion des projets.
Notre soutien pourrait être substantiel, dans la mesure où d’autres appuis, venant d’autres sources, viendraient s’y joindre, et dans la mesure aussi où les pays directement concernés participeraient opérationnellement à une telle entreprise.
J’aimerais rapidement ajouter quelques remarques concernant l’information et la documentation, afin de soumettre une proposition. Bien que la FAO ait plus à offrir au monde agricole en développement, ses activités ne sont pas sans importance pour les pays développés. Par la mise en place de réseaux de
recherche agricole permettant une coopération scientifique multilatérale plus coordonnée, et par son programme d’information et de documentation utilisé toujours plus largement, la FAO contribue d’une manière considérable à la diffusion des connaissances dans le domaine agricole. Or des améliorations du système d’information et de documentation restent possibles, et nous voudrions apporter une suggestion allant dans le sens d’une utilisation plus facile de ce système. Le papier “documentation de la FAO/bibliographie courante” qui paraît en régle générale une fois par mois, pourrait être complété ou substitué par un document “bibliographie cumulative” englobant toutes ies publications, rapports et documents de la FAO publiés pendant la durée d’une année. Un.tel document faciliterait considérablement la recherche de tous, et le ferait encore davantage, si les presentations des sources elles aussi étaient améliorées.
Sra. Dona L. ELIZONDO C. (Nicaragua): Observamos en el punto 1.6 la variación que representa la entrega anual en las operaciones FAO/PNUD, que a su vez significan disminuciones para algunas regiones, como en el caso de América Latina que ha pasado del 15 al 11 por ciento de un bienio a otro.
En este sentido, consideramos conveniente que el PNUD contribuya al máximo de sus posibilidades de forma tal que, sin afectar la prioridad de algunos pueblos de Africa considerados entre los más pobres, nuestra región de América Latina no se vea tan drásticamente afectada.
Apreciamos de mucho valor el Capítulo Cuatro, Sr. Presidente, que incluye los métodos de las nuevas dimensiones que tanto pueden favorecer a los países en desarrollo.
Asimismo, como ya han expresado otras delegaciones, consideramos que sólo corresponde a los países en desarrollo y a la propia FAO evaluar los programas sin que sea necesaria la participación de los países donantes u otras instituciones en las evaluaciones; consideramos que difícilmente econtraríamos agentes mejor calificados que los propios países beneficiarios para evaluar los programas de los cuales son sujetos, más aún consideramos que las propuestas presentadas esta mañana por algunos países donantes reflejan posiciones que se alejan de los principios y éticas de un organismo internacional que practica la asistencia multilateral.
Finalmente y aunque se refiera a un tema tratado anteriormente, quisiéramos aprovechar esta intervención para apoyar la creación del banco de fitogermoplasma, presentada por México, proyecto cuya implementación significará un paso de vital importancia para la independencia tecnológica de los países del área.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): With reference to the discussion of document C 81/28, and particularly Corrigendum 1, we wish to report on the German share of official development assistance for the broad field of rural development. The share of German bilateral pledges for financial and technical cooperation almost doubled between 1978 and 1981 for rural development. In 1981 it will be one-third of all pledges, or DM 1.34 billion. In speaking about promoting agricultural development we mean measures for agriculture, forestry and fisheries, as well as measures to promote infrastructure, crafts, small commercial businesses and cooperatives in rural areas. For 1981, DM 414 million are earmarked for technical cooperation and for financial cooperation DM 928 million. These include bilateral food security projects totalling DM 35 million and for the World Food Programme a total of DM 46 million. Agricultural research is to be promoted to the tune of DM 21 million.
I am sure it will be of interest to you to have the German contribution in 1981 for the major finance bodies and institutions. They are set out in tables 1 and 2 of document C 81/28 Corrigendum 1: For the World Bank, DM 27 million; for the IDA, DM 414 million; for Regional Development Banks and Funds, DM 92.5 million; and for the UNDP, DM 112 million.
As far as the first cycle of contributions for IFAD is concerned my country paid $55 million.
Finally, I should like to return to some answers of the Secretariat to the comments which we have already made here in the Commission on the Technical Cooperation Programme, the TCP, which is part of our agenda item under review.
At the 74th Session of the Council an evaluation report of the Director-General was submitted. This report also quoted the evaluation report from consultant Linner appointed by the Secretariat as one of a number of sources of information; it was only the Programme Committee that had insight into the consultant’s report. It was quite right, I think, that the point was made at the 74th Council that two years after the start of the TCP was too early for evaluation. However, an evaluation was necessary
because a decision had to be taken after the experimental phase on whether the Programme was to be extended or not. The Secretariat submitted a document to the 74th Council, C 74/14, entitled Evaluation of the TCP. I will quote the English text of paragraph 22 thereof:
“The TCP should be fully evaluated at the end of its first five years of operation and a full report presented to the Council at its autumn session in 1982.”
Resolution 1/74 on TCP refers to C 74/14 and states - and I quote again from the English text:
“The Council... taking into account the report of the Director-General on the evaluation of the Programme, welcomes the findings of the evaluation report.”
My delegation would like to explicitly ask the Secretariat again to put in hand such an evaluation and to involve the Joint Inspection Unit therein. Pursuant to its task the JIU should look at questions of quality and efficiency and point to possibly existing duplications within the United Nations system. Even if the FAO internal evaluation system of FAO is judged increasingly positively, nonetheless; we feel that also this UN agency should be submitted to external efficiency control if effective use of funds is to be guaranteed. This would also be for the benefit of those who have opposed external evaluation in the course of this debate.
M. ARAFAH (Jordan) (Original language Arabic): The review of field programmes in document C 81/4 is one of the main subjects being discussed in this Commission at the present session of the general Conference. Member countries through this item can evaluate the Organization’s activities in the field. These documents also enable us to see more clearly the difficulties and obstacles encountered by the Organization in the execution of its programmes. These obstacles are mainly due to the fluctuations and sharp increases or drop in the allocations made by financing institutions to these programmes and more specifically, those provided by the UNDP for field programmes. The sharp and rapid fluctuations in allocations during the first and second programming cycles of UNDP from 1972 to 1976 and from 1977 to 1981 have led to the following negative results: first of all, the concept of regional and national programmes has not achieved the expected benefits and this in fact affected agricultural development in most developing countries. Secondly the Organization was unable to prepare forward plans for its activities taking into account UNDP financing. Thirdly, the Organization was forced to abruptly terminate the contracts of many field experts. This has led to an increase of administrative and general costs as we saw in the 1975-1976 biennium when the UNDP was suffering from a serious liquidity problem.
My fourth point refers to disruptions in developing countries caused by the failure of the financing institutions to provide the necessary funds.
These fluctuations in the volume of field programmes is one of the main features of the negative impact suffered by developing countries over the past 10 years. We find that in the present programming cycle 1982-86, we shall not be any the better off than the past especially if we take into account the statements and discussions made on the subject yesterday and today. We are fully aware that the current financial situation of the UNDP is still a source of concern. However, this concern is alleviated by the hope that rich and potential donors will review their allocations and pledges to UNDP very soon. We do hope that they shall do so, so that UNDP may fulfil our hopes and expectations and in order that the developing countries may undertake the forward planning of their projects in a sound manner.
We have believed and still believe that FAO is a specialized international agency in the field of food and agriculture and that, due to its financial, administrative and specialized divisions and departments and to its experience, is the most fitting organization to undertake the implementation of projects for agricultural development in developing countries. We base our views in this matter on the Arab proverb which says “Bread should go to the baker to be baked”. We therefore fail to understand the constraints that have recently transpired between the UNDP and other United Nations specialized agencies and, more specifically, between UNDP and FAO. These constraints have led UNDP to cut back the programmes allocated to the FAO for implementation and this in turn led to the following negative results; first of all, a drop in funds allocated to the agricultural sector for the development projects financed by UNDP despite the fact that UNDP is not prominently responsible for regional programming as this falls within the purview of the countries themselves. Yet the truth is the very opposite. This is due to a number of reasons. I do not think this forum to be an appropriate place to mention them.
The second reason is that the UNDP undertakes to implement certain projects directly, We believe that this is a very dangerous trend for the following reasons: this may lead to certain agencies to believe that they are in a better position to find the appropriate solutions than international organizations in charge of implementing development programmes. Yet the development and implementation of field programmes requires continuous support, financial and otherwise, from the specialized ‘divisions and departments of this Organization. We cannot do without them, the more so as when we think that those agencies have to establish a number of specialized and multi-disciplinary institutions and authorities. This would simply mean a duplication of long-standing institutions’ activities elsewhere.
My other point deals with the fact that the continued flow of funds must be the main responsibility of the field officers in charge of the implementation of these programmes. Any failure to undertake this responsibility effectively shall lead to serious shortages in the implementations of programmes.
The third point I wish to refer to, deals with the request addressed to institutions and international organizations established recently to implement agricultural development projects instead of FAO. Thi s is undertaken despite the fact that such institutions do not have the same available expertise as FAO and especially as our Organization has proved its efficiency in the field through the achievements we have all recognized.
The fourth point I wish to refer to is the fact that certain countries are requested to implement their own development programmes when they express the desire to do so. We do not object to the encouragement of this trend but we should not exaggerate it because, before undertaking to implement such projects, we should ascertain that the necessary qualified expertise is available. The approval of such projects should not only hinge on a request from the country concerned.
Another aspect deals with the aid provided by FAO especially from the Trust Fund. This aid may also suffer cut-backs. Proof of this are hints made by certain speakers during the discussion of this item. Yet despite all this we do hope that international and regional organizations and institutions providing funds for such activities shall review their position and the principle of a cut-back in allocations.
Finally, on behalf of my country I wish to express my full support for the efforts undertaken by the Director-General to ensure the continuation of TCP between the Organization and the Member countries of the Near East region and his efforts to increase funds allocated to that region. I do hope that the donor countries of the region shall approve the allocation of greater funds to TCP. As for the organization’s TCP financed by ordinary budget and which have become one of the main features of change introduced in the Organization’s programming over the past few years, they represent a major change in the Organization’s policies and a trend in favour of support provided to developing countries. We therefore wish to seize this opportunity to express our support of TCP.
We have listened to the statements made by a number of delegations and they all in fact supported the Organization’s field programmes. It is therefore a great pleasure for us to express our own support. However, we do hope that further improvements will be introduced and we are fully confident that FAO through its cooperation with Member countries shall be able to bring about this improvement. As for criticisms levelled by certain countries as to the rapid appointment of programme managers and field experts even though this may be true in some cases we believe that it is due to circumstances beyond the organization’s control. Yet I believe that some countries are to be blamed sometimes for this.
T. SEYOUM (Ethiopia): My delegation has examined carefully the document C 81/4 and C 81/28 and like all other delegations I would like to express my admiration for the manner in which the documents were prepared, both for the method adopted as well as the format.
I also would like to welcome the initiative taken by the Secretariat of FAO with regard to project formulation and implementation by national experts, I can assure you that we are prepared to use this opportunity as much as we can. In fact we have already submitted projects to the Secretariat and we are happy to learn that it is accepted by FAO too.
With regard to the suggestion that an external evaluation of FAO activities should be made my delegation does not wish any comment at this stage and therefore stand with those who have refuted it.
MS. A. ALLAIN (Observer for International Organization of Consumers’ Unions): It is an honour for me to address this Commission on behalf of IOCU, the International Organization of Consumers’ Unions. IOCU links the activities of consumer organizations in some 50 countries, both developing and industrialized nations. In fact, although the consumer movement started in the North, IOCU has always welcomed a sharp increase in members from developing countries. They have added new and more basic concerns to the struggle for consumer protection.
The first and foremost of these concerns is the one to have adequate, safe and nutritious food. To achieve this entails not only increased production but above all better distribution or, as the Director-General has said: “greater purchasing power for the poor, to buy more and better food.”
There is always pressure on the last speakers of the day and in order not to abuse the time of delegates here I shall skip part of my statement and concentrate on matters of particular relevance to this ommission. I hope however that the entire statement can be reproduced in the Commission’s records.
The cost of food accounts for a large proportion of every family’s budget and the poorer the family the larger that proportion! It has been estimated that the rural poor in developing countries spend up to 80 percent of their income on food. Yet, today there is an alarming tendency for these most vulnerable consumers to get less value for their money. This unnecessarily aggravates their state of malnutrition and impairs productivity.
Misleading advertising prompts many a “new” consumer to believe that such “modern” processed foods like Coca Cola or Cornflakes are more nutritious than the fresh local produce he can buy for one third or less of the price. We are in fact witnessing conscious efforts to persuade people to change their concumption patterns. Nutrition education is an absolute must in all countries but it cannot possibly compete with the high level expenditure on advertising for so-called “convenience foods”. The net result is a tremendous loss to the consumer, who ends up not only with fewer calories for money but paying for his own seduction. There is a loss to the country as well, in terms of increased imports and royalties to transnational producers. This growing dependency is in direct conflict with the often expressed need for domestic self-sufficiency.
Conversely, in their fight against unhealthy over consumption in the North, and in favour of more solidarity with the poor in the South, consumer unions and development action groups alike, often find it difficult if not impossible to justify the importation of food stuffs from Third World countries. While recognizing the need for export earnings they criticize the use of productive resources to grow feed for European cattle or to provide protein for the dogs and cats in the rich countries, when large sections of the exporting countries’ populations suffer from hunger.
A way must be found of correcting the present economic system which allows and even encourages such unjust disparities in purchasing power! Is it a logical for consumers in the North to be subsidizing costly agricultural surpluses which rely on cheap inputs from developing countries? And is there a remote chance to end malnutrition if unabated economic forces can continue to value profitable markets over the well-being of people?
Mr. Chairman, such questions loom dark and heavy; they seem too large to be tackled by individual governments, let alone by non-governmental organizations such as ours. Yet, apathy is our worst enemy. Slowly and steadily, armed with boldness and imagination, NGO’s, governments and UN agencies can make a difference. A recent example is the overwhelming endorsement of the “Baby Food Code” (Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes) at the World Health Assembly. NGO’s from all parts of the world, including IOCU, laid the necessary groundwork, actively participating in the drafting of the Code itself and fully intend to monitor its implementation.
Also here at FAO, IOCU has been involved in the preparation of another document: The Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food, adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in 1977. And I plead with the governments here represented to call for technical assistance if needed so as to implement these international recommendations as minimum rules for the protection of consumers and to help prevent developing countries from becoming a dumping ground for unnecessary or sub-standard foods. FAO is the only UN agency that has set up a consumer protection group.
Before I go into one other subject of particular relevance to this Commission let me say that we appreciated and welcomed the Director-General’s kind words for non-governemental organizations and I hope that they will lead to more confidence both nationally and internationally in the potential world of small but committed citizens’ groups.
IOCU is also concerned about future generations of consumers. In this regard, I would like to stress an aspect of world food security which we believe will acquire great importance, namely the seed for future crops. It is also relevant to Chapter 3 of Document C 81/4 which this Commission has been discussing and reference to the genetic erosion question has been made to it by several delegations.
In the past few decades the use of new high-yielding varieties of major food crops has spread to many parts of the world. It has in some cases helped to increase agricultural output, but it has also had a less noticed effect, namely it has speeded up the erosion of the genetic wealth which is the basis of all our food. As farmers substitute traditional crops by high-yielding varieties the seeds of these traditional varieties disappear little by little with their invaluable store of genetic characteristics. Not so long ago, there used to be hundreds of different food crops grown throughout the world. Now 95 percent of human nutrition comes from only 30 food crops. Three crops alone - wheat, rice and maize -account for over 75 percent of mankind’s cereal consumption.
This trend has been helped not only by the Green Revolution, but particularly also by the globalization of the seed industry. Seeds used to be produced by a multitude of small breeders, as well as by farmers themselves who would keep a part of their harvest for next season’s planting. Now, big business, mainly large chemical and oil multinationals, have moved into this sector buying up hundreds of small firms and establishing a de facto monopolistic condition. Is the aim of these companies world food security? We find that the number of varieties marketed is decreasing while there is a commercial push for others, not necessarily those that have the highest nutritive value or the best qualities, but those with the highest profit margin, and those that can be marketed together with the company’ s own pesticides and fertilizers.
All countries need regular infusion of germplasm for their agricultural breeding programmes. But the countries of the North are notably gene-poor however grain-rich they may be at this point in history. They depend on collections of germplasm from the rich pools of varieties which are practically all located in developing countries. Mrs. Indira Gandhi called this wealth a common heritage which deserves to be conserved and utilized in a cooperative manner.
The present conservation system seems far from adequate. However, 70 percent of all genetic material stored is in the industrialized countries. Many nations have sent germplasm to gene banks in the North on the assumption that it would be adequately preserved and always freely available. Yet reports now say that one-third or more of the material stored may be diseased or dead. It used to be the general practice for breeders and agricultural reserch stations to freely exchange germplasm on request, subject only to quarantine regulations. Now several countries have adopted plant patent laws and limit germplasm exchanges, in some cases only to other countries with similar legislation. Furthermore, there is always the temptation to refuse germplasm to certain countries for commercial or political reasons and this has already happened.
Just as the rich countries consider their soils and the crop which grow as their property, poor developing countries may one day decide that their wealth in germplasm is a natural resource which should no longer be given away. We all know how food can be and has been used as a political weapon. Can we allow the very basis on which tomorrow’s food depends to be used for political considerations? Until such time as basic legislation can be enacted that will defend the right of all developing countries to benefit from their genetic resources we would consider it appropriate that FAO should recognize its responsibility to represent and defend these right. For all these reasons IOCU applauds the initiatives taken by Spain, Mexico and other Latin American countries in proposing a resolution calling for an international germplasm bank under FAO auspices and accountable to all Member States.
Moreover, we also believe, as do the Latin American countries, that there is an urgent need for an international convention on the free exchange of germplasm of such a character as to garantee people from all nations full access to the stored genetic material in seed banks everywhere. This must be based on the principle that plant genetic resources are the common heritage of all mankind and must not be allowed to fall under the control of private interests, otherwise food security for our generation and future ones would indeed be in jeopardy and depend on the whims and commercial perspectives of the few large countries which increasingly dominate the world food market.
A.G. NGONGI NAMANGA (Cameroon): My delegation joins others which have already expressed appreciation to Mr. de Meredieu for his excellent introduction of the item under discussion.
FAO’s field activities are on the right track. The Review gives a clear idea of the relevance of the various programmes to the needs of developing countries.
We note with satisfaction the emphasis accorded to projects on the management of natural resources and on increasing food and animal production. The regional repartition of the field programmes reflects the priorities which have been set by this Organization and other international fora. Africa receives strong emphasis. This emphasis will need to be maintained in the years ahead.
We note with satisfaction the results of project assessment shown on page 29. Most elements are ranked good. However, we are worried by the low ranking given to government involvment and transfer of skills. These two factors are most important if recipient countries are to become self-reliant at the end of the project. Every effort should be made to ensure that national directors and counterparts work on projects on a full-time basis. Also the training element of projects should be strngthened so as to provide sufficient numbers of trained personnel to carry on projects when the external assistance is terminated.
My delegation read with some disappointment trends in UNDP funding. We note that FAO’s share in the execution of UNDP-funded projects has continued to decline. UNDP’s funding used to account for 80 percent of FAO’s field programmes. It is now down to 60 percent. Another area of concern is the declining share of FAO in the allocation of UNDP-funded agricultural projects. We all know that FAO is a specialised agricultural agency in the United Nations System. On the other hand, we are happy to note that UNDP has decided to allocate 80 percent of its resources to low-income food-deficit countries. This decision as presented this morning from UNDP, is bound to increase the share of UNDP funds going to FAO, as most of the low-income developing countries are highly dependent on agriculture.
On the investment activities of FAO, we are very satisfied that the Organization is doing an excellent job in marshalling investments for the benefit of developing countries. We note that in 1980, some $2.3 billion in investment were generated and that over $17 billion of investment has been generated since 1966. The work of the Investment Centre is indeed commendable. The close cooperation between FAO and IFAD is to be encouraged, and FAO should continue to prepare the bulk of IFAD-initiated projects.
The Cameroon delegation strongly supports the New Dimensions Approach. This Programme or Approach will in the long run do a lot to improve the managerial capacity of the developing countries. There is no need to repeat here our support for TCP and the FOARs. The effectiveness of TCP has been brought out very clearly, and the major roles being played by the FAORs have already been mentioned by many delegates. In conclusion, Cameroon strongly supports FAO’s Field Programme and hopes that funds will be available to help FAO to maintain such a strong programme in the future.
B.E. PHIRI (Zambia): I wish to start by saying I endorse what the Observer from the International Organisation of Consumers’ Unions says on the germ plasm bank. Agricultural investment is probably the most important key in solving the problems of food production and rural development. In this ‘ regard, we regret to note that investments made in the past have not yielded the desired levels of development. But we know that even if a key is made of gold, it must have the appropriate keyhole to be inserted and turned in order to open the door. UNDP and FAO as well as other donors provide funds for investment in agricultural development and food production, but the structures in the recipient countries with which the investments can inter-act are either too weak or non-existent to generate the necessary development. As a result, billions of dollars over the years have been poured into recipient countries with no comparable development taking places. What we need is probably to call a halt to what we are doing and start afresh.
The UK delegate quoting the UNDP Observer this morning said that Governments themselves do decide where the IPF funds should be spent. This was in support of the present trend that the UNDP funds are getting less and less for FAO in the Field Programme. I would say that the UNDP probably said this with a shrug of the shoulders to say, well, if they have put the funds in the wrong place, it’s none of our business, they do decide anyway where they want the funds to go. If this is the case, we would wish to ask the UNDP and all other donors to try and nudge the governments of developing countries along the path that would lead them to meaningful development.
Many donors have been speaking about the efforts they are making in assisting developing countries in the field of agriculture. In many cases the level of aid they have given has been used as a reason for rebutting any criticism in aid provision. I do not intend here to criticise any donor, whether they be multilateral or bilateral. What I want to say is in fact to ask a question: has any donor, noting the restraints a recipient country faces, ever considered providing aid specifically to remove that particular restraint, and has any recipient country, noting the constraints that
impede its effective implementation of projects, ever considered providing resources specifically for removing those constraints? We feel that both donors and recipient countries should sit down and look at this question candidly. I do not know whether we can say we are looking at the question here candidly, for every two years we meet and discuss and look at the FAO Review of Field Programmes, suggest ways as to which way we should go; yet development never really takes place in developing countries. In other words, we must sit down to find the key and the keyhole in order to open the door to agricultural development. The Fields and Regular Programme Reviews do not mean anything if they do not help us to change direction in policy in developing countries and in the method of aid-giving in developed countries, in donor countries. The evaluation of programmes, whether donc internally or externally, will equally be meaningless if we do not correct the mistakes which may be indentified.
The Review before us shows most glaringly that the problem many developing countries are facing is lack of trained manpower or inadequate trained manpower. This probably has been approached in the past on a piecemeal basis, one or two scholarships provided possibly to train somebody who is earmarked for a particular job, and training ends there’ There is not enough effort made by recipient countries to improve the situation locally, there are not enough scholarships offered by donors for training agricultural personnel from developing countries, and as long as the situation remains like that, FAO bilateral donors will always find it difficult to have projects properly implemented in developing countries. As long as we do not have a sound base for implementing development projects, we shall continue to give and receive assistance which will not yield expected results.
Having said this, I wish to state briefly that FAO has done tremendously well in carrying out its work, given the circumstances in which it has operated, and quite often we come here to review the Programmes with an aim of trying to pin the Secretariat down instead of trying to see what in fact should be donc in the field in order to improve the situation. It seems a pity that instead of having allies in delivering programmes, FAO often has competitors for the meagre resources available. It has been said that if FAO is to attract more resources, it must prove that it is a better channel for aid. Who is to make this judgement whether FAO or some other channel is the better channel? We sit here to review the performance of FAO, both in Field and Regular Programmes. Are we in a position to review the activities of other donors so that we can compare and make a choice? It is obvious that probably donors have an upper hand in this in that we, the recipient countries, are only able to sit together with them and review the activities of FAO in the Regular and Field Programmes, and they review their activities on bilateral aid. They are therefore able to see what FAO is doing and see what \ bilateral aid is doing, and then they take a decision. We ourselves only know the one side of the coin, and so it is difficult for us to choose, it is difficult for us to see whether FAO or another channel is better, and in this particular aspect, donor countries have the upper hand and they can only say, “We find FAO is not efficient enough and therefore we cannot give resources”.
The TCP has proved a dependable tool for indentifying projects or answering unforeseen needs of recipient countries, but this in fact is negated by the lack of follow-up assistance. It is not a substitute for UNDP funding. It cannot or should not therefore be taken that the bigger the TCP becomes, the less the recipient governments will allocate UNDP IPFs to UNDP-FAO projects. If this is done by developing countries, it just shows they do hot understand the difference between UNDP and TCP and they need to be re-educated so that they see the difference between the two programmes.
We are happy to hear some donor countries say that they will support the efforts of developing countries on ECDC activities. I wish to say here that developing countries have in recent meetings expressed their commitment in increased cooperation amongst themselves as a tool for development but this commitment will come to naught if no assistance is given to them, since internal resources are inadequate to carry out the activities and economic cooperation among developing countries.
Therefore, while we call for increased assistance, we must call for more meaningful assistance that leaves developing countries a little better off than they have been in the past. We have said previously that we have tended to have the kind of assistance which just leaves the people yearning but never really satisfying their needs. The projects that sometimes we see are such that they are started, and even before they are fully mature to be able to leave the country to go along on its own, the resources for assistance dry up and quite often the situation has gone back to where it was before assistance started coming in, and this leaves the people more frustrated than if in the first place they never had any assistance forthcoming.
J. de MEREDIEU (Sous-Directeur général, Département du développement): Nous avons entendu de nombreux commentaires très positifs sur les documents 81/4 et 81/28; je puis vous assurer que nous les avons très vivement apprécíés; je pense en particulier à mes deux collègues qui se trouvent à ma droite. Nous informerons également de ces commentaires ceux qui ont coopéré avec nous à la préparation de ce document, je pense en particulier au Service d’évaluation, à la Division de l’analyse des politiques économiques,
Je ne répondrai pas directement ici à quelques points qui se réfèrent strictement au programme régulier. Je pense, par exemple, au commentaire de M. le délégué de la Suisse en ce qui concerne la documentation, mais je suis certain que ceux de mes collègues qui sont responsables de ces asoects en prendront bonne note.
Je voudrais articuler mes commentaires de la façon suivante: ie dirai d’abord quelques mots sur ce qui a concerné la partie générale du document 81/28, c’est-à-dire au volume d’assistance, au développement dans son ensemble, et considérerai ensuite les commentaires se rapportant au document 81/4, en ajoutant au chapitre un les remarques qui ont été faites en ce qui concerne les relations entre FAO et PNUD, telles que décrites au document 81/4.
Je dois hélas vous prévenir, Monsieur le Président, que je vais être un peu long, compte tenu de la complexité du sujet, de la richesse du débat; mais, après tout, nous traitons d’un programme de quelque 300 millions de dollars par an!
Problème général des ressources pour le développement de l’agriculture, tel que décrit au document 81/28. Vous aurez certainement constaté que la discussion de ce sujet n’a pas été très longue. Je veux croire que ceci signifie que la majorité des délégués sont satisfaits et considèrent que le Directeur général a répondu à ce que la Conférence lui avait demandé dans sa résolution 6/79. Peut-être aussi ont-ils gardé à l’esprit qu’il s’agissait là d’un problème de politique générale, qui était également débattu en Commission I.
J’ai noté avec intérêt les commentaires faits par certains délégués; je pense, par exemple, à M. le délégué de la Chine, et il me semble que la Suède a fait un commentaire du même ordre, concernant la nécessité de simplifier les procédures d’assistance. Nous sommes certainement de cet avis, mais, évidemment, la décision n’est pas entre nos mains.
M. le délégué des Etats-Unis a fait certaines remarques concernant l’assistance fournie par les pays de l’OPEP, indiquant qu’elle avait subi des variations assez marquées au cours des deux dernières années. C’est exact, mais je vous dirai très franchement qu’étant donné le niveau de cette assistance en termes de pourcentage du PNB, nous serions très heureux qu’il en soit de même pour tous les pays du monde, car ce sont là des pays qui, en moyenne, consacrent de 1 à 2,5 pour cent de leur produit national brut à l’aide officielle au développement, c’est-à-dire bien plus que l’objectif fixé par les Nations Unies, ce qui compense très largement les irrégularités mentionnées.
Il est exact aussi qu’en dépit de nos efforts nous n’avons pas pu couvrir tous les aspects de l’aide officielle au développement dans ce rapport; nous n’avons pas pu inclure de données sur l’aide fournie par tous les pays industrialises. Nous le regrettons et je l’avais mentionné dans ma déclaration initiale.
Je me permettrai toutefois de faire remarquer à M. le délégué des Etats-Unis que M. Dadzie dans son rapport sur les Activités opérationnelles pour le Développement du 30 septembre, document A 36/478, a soumis des informations qui présentaient la même lacune, et je ne crois pas que ceci ait provoqué de commentaires particuliers.
M. le délégué du Royaume-Uni, se référant au document 81/28, a fait remarquer que, d’après les chiffres fournis à la Table 2 du corr.l, il semblait y avoir une certaine croissance de l’aide officielle au développement de l’agriculture, puisqu’il y a un chiffre de 7 446 millions en 1980 contre 7 100 millions en 1979; mais cette augmentation de 4,87 pour cent est, hélas, inférieure au tauxde l’inflation, ce qui semble bien justifier la position de ceux qui, à la FAO, ont parlé soit de légère récession soit de stagnation.
J’en viens maintenant aux programmes de terrain de notre Organisation proprement dits, en suivant dans l’ensemble l’ordre du document 81/4, et je voudrais considérer d’abord le problème du volume d’ensemble des programmes de terrain de la FAO, toutes sources confondues.
Nous avons noté et comprenons les préoccupations que de nombreux pays ont exprimées vis-à-vis des risques d’une diminution du volume total de ces opérations. M. le délégué de la France a indiqué qu’il lui semblait qu’il y avait encore récemment une certaine augmentation. Oui et non, c’est toujours le même problème, il y a eu une légère augmentation en termes courants, mais, en termes réels, il y a d’ores et déjà une diminution de 1981 sur 1980.
Je puis vous donner à cet égard des chiffres un peu plus à jour que ceux que vous trouvez au Tableau 1, qui se trouve immédiatement après le paragraphe 1.11. Au tableau actuel, vous trouvez un total de 294 millions de dollars pour l’exécution des projets de la FAO en 1981; notre prévision, un plus élevée, est maintenant de 305 millions, dont 170 pour le PNUD, soit 56 pour cent seulement, 120 pour les fonds fiduciaires, et 15 pour le programme de coopération technique, soit seulement 5 pour cent. Néanmoins, ce total de 305 millions n’est supérieur à celui de l’année précédente que de 3,7 pour cent, soit un taux nettement inférieur a celui de l’inflation. C’est ce qui nous amène à penser que nous sommes d’ores et déjà sur une courbe descendante en termes reels.
De plus, les nouvelles approbations au cours de l’année 1981 ne nous permettent pas d’espérer un redressement; bien au contraire, puisqu’elles risquent de se situer aux alentours de 300 millions seulement, alors que, pour maintenir le même niveau global, il faudrait qu’elles représentent au moins le niveau de l’execution en 1981 - c’est-à-dire 305 millions - plus le taux estime de l’inflation au cours d’une année, ce qui ferait un peu plus de 335 millions. Eh bien, il n’y en aura sans doute que 300, total sur lequel nous craignons que le PNUD ne représente que 40 pour cent.
J’en viens maintenant à la question, fondamentale pour nous, du programme FAO/PNUD proprement dit, et voudrais d’abord considérer le problème du niveau absolu des ressources du PNUD.
Je remercie M. le représentant du PNUD d’avoir confirmé que les chiffres que j’avais cités au cours de ma déclaration précédente étaient exacts. Je note qu’il préférerait que nous ne parlions pas de “crise” et je me réjouis de cet optimisme. Mais, hélas, les chiffres sont là. En juin 1980, l’administrateur avait présenté au Conseil d’administration un programme qui prévoyait, pour le troisième cycle, un doublement en termes courants; en juin 1981, il a été amené à parler, tout au contraire, du risque d’une diminution de 12 pour cent en termes réels; maintenant, en octobre 1981, nous sommes confrontés a des previsions encore plus pessimistes.
Comment désigner cette situation est une question de sémantique, et il en va de même des différences que l’on peut faire entre optimisme, pessimisme et réalisme. A la FAO, nous nous efforçons d’être réalistes. En dernière analyse, c’est aux gouvernements intéressés qu’il appartiendra, à la lumière des faits, de décider du terme à employer. Pour les aider dans ce choix, je voudrais me permettre de citer quelques extraits du discours que M. Morse, l’Administrateur du PNUD, a prononcé le 24 septembre devant le second comité de l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies a New York.
“I must emphasize, however, that the financial outlook for our programme, like the financial outlook for development assistance generally, is extremely difficult... In 1981 UNDP will suffer the first year of actual decline in voluntary contributions received in its history. I need hardly remind distinguished delegates that in these inflationary times such a contraction in programme resources must inevitably translate into a substantial contraction in both UNDP-supported services and programming.”
And later: “Above all it seems to me grossly unreasonable to arouse false hopes and unfulfilled expectations among the developing countries served by UNDP. Their difficulties are grim enough, their economic prospects desperate enough, without such added measures of stress.” This is exactly the sort of realism we are trying to apply in FAO.
After having heard a similar statement from Mr. Morse, the Administrative Committee on Coordination - and you know the ACC is composed of all agency heads, chaired by the Secretary-General - the ACC therefore, on 30th October, adopted its decision number 25, of which I shall read you at least the first paragraph: “The Executive Heads of the United Nations system are seriously concerned at the deteriorating situation facing all Organizations of the United Nations system with regard to the declining level of concessional resources in real terms available for international technical cooperation and other development activities.”
I believe, therefore, we do have some reasons to be concerned too.
Je voudrais faire un autre commentaire concernant une remarque faite ce matin par M. le représentant du PNUD. Si je l’ai bien compris, il a dit que la FAO avait des problèmes analogues à ceux du PNUD puisque le Directeur général devrait se contenter de 367 millions de dollars du fait de l’évolution de la situation financière et, ce faisant, il semblait impliquer que ceci était dû au fait que nos pays
membres avaient déjà inclus dans leurs budgets des montants dans leurs devises nationales, qui représentaient maintenant moins qu’auparavant. Bien sûr, ce problème existe pour nos pays membres, mais la raison est différente. Si le Directeur général ne demande plus que 367 millions au lieu de 415, c’est parce qu’il n’a pas besoin de plus de 367 millions pour mettre en oeuvre le même programme, compte tenu du fait - positif pour une fois - que le jeu du cours He’s devises a fait que le dollar s’est très fortement renforcé par rapport à la lire italienne, dans laquelle une bonne part de nos dépenses est effectuée. Cela ne change rien, bien entendu, à la très grande sympathie que nous avons pour le PNUD devant les pro-blèmes auxquels il doit faire face.
J’en viens maintenant au problème “des 400 experts”, qui a été mentionné par le représentant du PNUD et par les représentants de plusieurs gouvernements, tels que le Canada.
Je pense que ces orateurs ont voulu nous faire sous-estimer leur connaissance des mécanismes des grands programmes d’assistance technique, car la réponse à cette question est évidente.
Bien sûr, il est normal d’avoir, chaque année, un nombre important de contrats d’experts qui viennent à leur terme. Avec 1 800 experts sur le terrain, nous en avons au moins 600, peut-être 800, dont le contrat expire chaque année. Ceci conduit à une rotation. Mais, lorsqu’un programme a atteint sa “vitesse de croisière”, lorsqu’il est stable, il y a tout en même temps un nombre équivalent de nouveaux postes qui sont ouverts, et le nombre total des experts en service reste plus ou moins le même. Je ne veux pas dire d’ailleurs que ce sont les mêmes experts. Il y a du sang nouveau. Il y a des experts qui viennent en plus grand nombre de pays en développement. Néanmoins, cette rotation conduit à une certaine stabilité des chiffres d’ensemble.
Ce que nous craignons cette année est que, vis-à-vis des 600 contrats qui se termineront au cours des derniers mois de cette année ou des premiers mois de l’année prochaine, seulement 100 ou 200 contrats nouveaux soient passes à la place. Ceci produirait une différence nette de l’ordre de 400 sur un total de 1 800, sans compter les experts associés, dont 1 300 venant du PNUD. Ceci refléterait une diminution de l’ordre de 25 à 30 pour cent du personnel employé dans le cadre du PNUD. Telle est la situation que nous craignons voir se produire sur la base des données que nous avons reçues jusqu’ici. J’espère bien être démenti, mais tous les documents que nous avons reçus nous amènent actuellement à cette conclusion.
Un autre aspect, qui a été débattu dans le détail, est celui de la part de l’agriculture en général, et plus particulièrement de la FAO dans les opérations du PNUD. Il était possible de le prévoir, on nous a rappelé, très justement d’ailleurs, que le système actuel de programmation par pays donne une très grande responsabilité aux gouvernements des pays bénéficiaires dans la préparation de leurs programmes. C’est vrai, ils ont une très grande responsabilité, ils décident de leurs demandes, mais ils ne sont pas seuls. Ils décident des demandes, mais ils ne décident pas des approbations qui sont de la responsabilité, soit du représentant du PNUD jusqu’à un certain montant, soit du siège de cette organisation au-delà de ce montant. La décision finale est le résultat d’un dialogue ou, nous aimons le croire, d’une discussion à trois, où la FAO, par l’intermédiaire de son représentant, est le plus possible engagée.
Mais il est bien évident que, dans une telle relation triangulaire, les gouvernements, qui sont nos maîtres, le PNUD ou toute autre organisation de financement qui a “the power of the purse”, qui tient les cordons de la bourse, sont dans une position beaucoup plus forte que la FAO. C’est ce qui m’amène à exprimer une certaine surprise en ce qui concerne un commentaire de M. le représentant du Royaume-Uni qui, après nous avoir dit que le PNUD ne jouait pas de rôle direct dans la détermination de sa part du programme qui va à l’ agriculture, a semblé reprocher ensuite à la FAO certaines anomalies dans la composition de ses propres programmes. Je voudrais lui dire que nous avons, hélas, beaucoup moins d’influence sur la composition de ces programmes qu’une agence de financement comme le PNUD.
Nous pensons donc qul est normal, non pas d’entrer dans une négociation avec le PNUD sur ces pourcentages - Le problème n’est pas là et je voudrais rassurer sur ce point Mme le représentant du Canada -mais de maintenir un dialogue. Il nous semble surprenant en effet, que, dans un monde où toutes les réunions recommandent de donner la premiere priorité à l’agriculture et à l’alimentation, dans un monde où tous les grands programmes d’assistance consacrent près de 40 pour cent à l’agriculture, le système des Nations Unies, et plus particulièrement le PNUD, soit le seul organisme qui consacre seulement 30 pour cent à cette action. Nous ne désespérons pas que cette situation aille en s’améliorant, peut-être à la suite de la redistribution des ressources du PNUD sur la base de 80 pour cent/20 pour cent avec laquelle vous êtes certainement familier, Monsieur le Président.
Je remercie M. le représentant du PNUD d’avoir reconnu qu’il existe un certain problème, lié aux variations cycliques des allocations. Je reconnais toutefois que ce problème est un peu masqué en ce moment par le. caractère encore plus sérieux de celui concernant l’ensemble des ressources. Néanmoins, nous avons certainement l’intention, sur la base des commentaires qui ont été formulés ici, de poursuivre un dialogue constructif avec le PNUD à cet égard.
De très nombreux délégués ont indiqué leur désir de voir nos programmes de Fonds Fiduciaire continuer à se développer, avec une référence particulière aux Programmes d’action spéciaux de la FAO. Nous les en remercions. Nous remercions aussi les très généreux pays donateurs qui veulent bien permettre à ces programmes d’exister. Plusieurs délégués, des pays nordiques en particulier, ont mentionné la part très importante que leurs pays prenaient dans cette action. Nous leur en sommes reconnaissants, ainsi qu’aux autres pays donateurs.
En envisageant maintenant, non plus le volume, mais la composition de nos programmes nous avons noté un certain nombre de priorités qui ont été soulignées par de nombreux orateurs; priorités qui coîncident d’ailleurs essentiellement avec celles que vous retrouvez dans nos programmes de terrain et dans notre programme ordinaire.
Investissement: c’est certainement là un des sujets qui a été mentioné le plus souvent, ainsi que l’opportunité pour notre Organisation de chercher à être associée de plus en plus aux Programmes d’assistance technique des institutions de financement internationales. Ceci est tout à fait conforme à notre action. A ce sujet, M. le représentant de la France m’a demandé s’il existait des liens organiques entre le Centre d’investissement et le Programme alimentaire mondial. La réponse est oui. Chaque fois que le Centre d’investissement envoie une mission dans un pays, cette mission prend contact avec le PAM, avant son départ, pour étudier les possibilités d’une coordination des deux actions.
Le même représentant de la France nous a indiqué que son gouvernement était en faveur de réunions entre bailleurs de fonds et organisations internationales pour coordonner leur action. Certes, nous sommes également partisans d’une telle coordination, mais je suis sûr que M. le représentant de la France me comprendra si je dis que nous souhaitons que les pays bénéficiaires soient également présents et pleinement associés à une telle concertation, qui ne doit pas devenir un forum où les agences de financement conviendraient entre elles de ce qui est bon pour ces pays, en leur absence. C’est sur la demande des pays intéressés que le Directeur général, de plus en plus souvent, organise des réunions de bailleurs de fonds éventuels.
La formation à tous les niveaux, et en particulier la formation des formateurs, a été soulignée par beaucoup d’orateurs. C’est une priorité pour nous. Le représentant de la France a très justement souligné l’importance de ce problème et a demandé si l’on avait étudié les problèmes qu’il pouvait poser. Il sera heureux d’apprendre que ce Programme a été évalué par le service de H. Ayazi et que le résultat de cette évaluation a été sounds au Conseil en 1981, sous la référence CL 78/15: “Formation agricole, rapport d’une étude d’évaluation’’. Je me ferai un plaisir de faire parvenir ce document au délégué de la France.
De nombreux délégués ont fait référence à la priorité à donner à la production alimentaire, c’est une évidence pour nous, au développement rural - je ne reviendrai pas sur le suivi de la Conférence mondiale - à l’énergie, à la nutrition. Nous avons noté tout cela.
Référence a été faite par de nombreux représentants à la nécessité d’appuyer les organisations régionales, et je suis heureux de rappeler à cet égard qu’une très grande priorité a été donnée â cette action, tant par l’intermédiaire de nos bureaux régionaux, dont c’est l’une des principales fonctions, que dans les programmes de coopération technique. Le délégué de la France, par exemple, avait demandé si nous coopérions avec le CILSS. Oui, nous coopérons avec le CILSS et avec de nombreuses organisations de ce type. Au total, nous avons, en Afrique seulement, 17 projets du Programme de coopération technique destinés à permettre une coopération avec de telles organisations.
Des commentaires ont été également formulés en ce qui concerne la distribution de nos programmes par région. J’avais déjà fait allusion à ce problème vendredi dernier. Je crois que la majorité reconnaît la nécessité de donner la priorité aux pays les moins avancés, à de nombreux pays d’Afrique, ou des pays qui se trouvent dans des situations insulaires. Tout en même temps, le Directeur général cherche à maintenir un équilibre raisonnable et un niveau suffisant d’activités dans d’autres parties du monde, en particulier en Amérique latine, au Proche Orient et en Europe. Nous sommes persuadés que les Etats de ces trois régions, dans leur générosité vis-à-vis de ceux qui sont relativement bien moins nantis qu’eux, voudront comprendre la difficulté qu’il y a pour concilier ces différentes demandes, nécessairement contradictoires.
En venant maintenant à l’évaluation des Programmes de terrain, j’ai noté les remarques qui ont été faites sur les differences apparentes entre les jugements portés, d’une part sur les projets qui ont été évalués avec la coopération de nos représentants, et, de l’autre, sur ceux qui l’ont été par le Service d’evaluation.
Certains orateurs ont donné la réponse. Cela est dû au fait que les projets de la deuxième catégorie sont essentiellement des ‘‘problems projects’’ qui nous avaient donné des soucis. Il est donc tout naturel que l’on ait trouvé des résultats moins satisfaisants en les étudiant.
Un autre délégue a demandé si les avis des représentants residents du PNUD avaient été pris en compte. Bien entendu, les avis de tous ceux qui ont été consultés ont été reflétés dans le rapport. Lorsque les représentants résidents du PNUD l’ont été, leur avis a été reflété.
Il est clair que quelques pays désireraient voir effectuér des évaluations extérieures, dans le cadre d’un système plus complexe que le dispositif actuel. Il ne m’appartient pas de tirer les conclusions de ce débat, mais mon sentiment, je dois le dire, est qu’il existe néanmoins une très large majorité qui est satisfaite des arrangements actuels en ce qui concerne l’évaluation de nos programmes de terrain. Comme l’indiquait M. le représentant de l’Autriche, c’est d’ailleurs aux pays bénéficiaires qu’il appartient avant tout d’évaluer l’aide qu’ils reçoivent.
Mais je voudrais aussi souligner l’importance que nous attachons à des évaluations de caractère trilateral, où le bailleur de fonds, le pays bénéficiaire et la FAO revoient ensemble certains projets. C’est très souvent le cas avec le PNUD. C’est également le cas pour certains projets de fonds fiduciaire.
Dans le même ordre d’idées, nous attachons une très grande importance aux réunions, généralement annuelles, que nous avons avec pratiquement tous les pays qui contribuent de façon notable à notre Programme de fonds fiduciaire. Si certains pays n’ont pas encore eu avec nous de telles réunions, qu’ils nous le fassent savoir et nous serons très heureux de convenir avec eux des arrangements à prendre. La Belgique, par exemple, qui est un pays important dans ce domaine, ne participait pas jusqu’ici à de telles réunions. Nous avons récemment convenu d’en organiser, et la première devrait avoir lieu dans quelques semaines.
Toujours en matière d’évaluation, certains orateurs ont manifesté quelques préoccupations qui impliquent qu’il existe malgré tout une limite. Cette limite, c’est le fait que beaucoup de pays bénéficiaires ne semblent pas souhaiter voir une évaluation de l’activité de la FAO être transformée en une évaluation de leur propre politique nationale de développement, et il est parfois très difficile de séparer les deux. Il est clair qu’une organisation comme la nôtre ne saurait s’engager dans une telle voie. Nous avons des pays membres qui appartiennent à des systèmes économiques, sociaux et politiques différents, et je vois mal à partir de quels critères universels un système d’evaluation pourrait porter des jugements de valeur sur leurs politiques de développement.
En dépit de cette réserve, nous sommes pleinement conscients de la nécessité d’améliorer sans cesse la qualité de nos services. Nous sommes en particulier conscients de la nécessité de réduire les délais de recrutement de nos experts, délais qui sont, pour nous aussi, une preoccupation notable. Nous étudions ce problème de façon constante, dans le cadre du Comité pour les programmes de terrain, que j’ai l’honneur de présider.
Mais je voudrais profiter de cette occasion pour demander aussi la coopération des deux autres partènaires dans cette affaire, je veux dire le pays d’où l’expert vient, et le pays où l’expert va. Le pays d’où l’expert vient, parce que certains pays - en particulier les pays en développement auprès desquels nous souhaiterions recruter un nombre notable d’experts - pour des raisons très compréhensibles et très respectables, ne nous facilitent pas toujours les choses pour obtenir leur détachement rapide. Pays bénéficiaires, et je me réfère là aux formalités d’approbation des experts.
J’ai de plus le plaisir de vous informer que, lorsque nécessaire, le Directeur général a autorisé nos unités opérationnelles à soumettre plus d’un candidat à la fois aux pays bénéficiaires, ce qui, nous l’espérons, devrait accélérer le processus dans de nombreux cas.
J’en viens maintenant a un problème qui ne fait pas vraiment partie de l’examen des programmes de terrain, puisque le Programme de coopération technique ressort du Programme ordinaire, mais qui a néanmoins été évoqué de façon assez spécifique par M. le représentant de la République fédérale d’Allemagne pour que je lui réponde très franchement.
Si je comprends bien, le représentant de la République fédérale d’Allemagne pense que la formulation de la résolution 1/74 du Conseil implique qu’il avait été décide de procéder à une nouvelle évaluation de ce programme, en dépit des résultats positifs de l’évaluation de 1978. Je me permettrai d’exprimer très respectueusement un avis différent.
Il est tout à fait exact que cette résolution fait référence aux différents documents qui avaient été étudiés avant qu’elle soit adoptee: “considérant le rapport du Directeur général et les commentaires formulés dans le rapport de cette 35ème session, etc.”. Je pense que toutes les résolutions font toujours référence à l’ensemble des documents qui ont conduit à leur adoption, et à l’ensemble des discussions qui ont eu lieu à cette occasion.
Si nous nous reportons, par exemple, aux paragraphes 154 à 156 du même rapport du Conseil, nous constatons que, comme toujours, ces paragraphes reflétent en toute obiectivité l’opinion de la majorité et certaines opinions minoritaires. Je ne pense pas néanmoins que M. le délégué de la République fédérale d’Allemagne veuille dire que toute résolution qui fait référence à un rapport engage à mettre en oeuvre à la fois le point de vue de la majorité et celui de la minorité! Au moment de l’adoption de cette résolution, il était clair que la majorité était satisfaite de l’evaluation qui avait eu lieu, et il me semble - mais ce n’est pas à moi de tirer cette conclusion - que la majorité est toujours du même avis.
Peu de commentaires ont été faits en ce qui concerne le chapitre 3 du document C 81/4; je veux dire par là le chapitre décrivant les activités de la FAO dans le domaine de la production alimentaire. Je voudrais voir là, à nouveau, une expression de satisfaction de votre Commission face au travail qui lui a été soumis. II me semble toutefois me souvenir que M. le représentant de la République fédérale d’Allemagne a exprimé quelques reserves, et j’ai cru comprendre qu’il ne trouvait pas le pourcentage de 43 % assez élevé. Je voudrais lui indiquer en toute franchise qu’il a été difficile de fixer les limites de cette etude. Dans la vie réelle, il est très rare qu’une entreprise agricole soit conduite à des seules fins alimentaires. Si l’on construit un réseau d’irrigation, on produira à la fois des cultures industrielles et des cultures alimentaires. II en va de même de la plupart de nos activités.
Le résultat, c’est que ceux qui ont préparé cette étude ont dû se fixer certains critères, nécessairement arbitraires; s’ils avaient adopté une définition très large de la notion d’activité bénéficiant aux cultures vivrières, à peu près tout ce que fait la FAO (à part le bois d’oeuvre) aurait pu être décrit comme contribuant à cette fin. Tout au contraire, une définition étroite aurait pu donner l’impression que nous nous désintéressions du problème. Bien entendu, ni l’un ni l’autre n’est vrai, et je pense que c’est ce qui explique le caractère peut-être discutable de certains chiffres.
Le chapitre 4, qui concemait essentiellement l’application des “nouvélles dimensions” lors de la mise en oeuvre des projets, a provoqué de nombreux commentaires. Je les crois très positifs dans l’ensemble et pense que le Directeur général sera heureux d’apprendre que la grande majorité des délégués reconnaît le rôle important que la FAO n’a cessé de jouer dans ce domaine.
Nous sommes néanmoins conscients de la nécessité d’aller au-delà et comptons en particulier sur nos représentants dans les pays et sur nos représentants régionaux pour nous aider à compléter les listes d’institutions nationales susceptibles de participer à cette grande entreprise. Nous avons noté, avec beaucoup d’intérêt, les commentaires de M. le représentant de l’Inde à cet égard.
De nombreux orateurs ont fait référence au fameux pourcentage de 50 %; ils seront heureux d’apprendre que nous sommes mieux placés à cet égard que ne l’indiquent les chiffres qui ont été mentionnés. En effet, la plupart des orateurs ont dit que l’objectif fixé par les Nations Unies était de 50 % du nombre.des experts employés. Mais ce n’est pas le cas. Le Conseil d’administration du PNUD, en juin 1977, et l’Assemblée générale dans sa résolution 32/182 de décembre 1977, ont fixe un objectif de 50 % pour les candidatures soumises. Et votre Commission, Monsieur le Président, sera heureuse d’apprendre que nous sommes déjà à 49 %. Nous avons donc presque atteint l’objectif.
Pour ce qui est du nombre des experts en provenance de pays en développement, nous en sommes à 42/43 % bien entendu, nous souhaitons très vivement arriver à 50 %, mais je répète que l’objectif fixé par les Nations Unies concerne les candidatures.
J’en viens-enfin à des problèmes divers qui ont été soulevés, dont certains n’appartiennent peut-être pas strictement au sujet que nous discutons aujourd’hui, à savoir celui des programmes de terrain, mais qui demandent néanmoins des réponses.
M. le délégué de la Suisse a soulevé, à nouveau le problème de la documentation supplémentalre qu’il souhaiterait recevoir. Je n’ai, bien entendu, rien à ajouter sur le fond à ce que M. West a dit hier sur ce même problème. Je voudrais toutefois demander au délégué de la Suisse, pour l’aider à comprendre notre position, de garder à l’esprit que, lorsque nous sommes amenés à fournir des documents supplémentaires en cours de séance, nous avons l’obligation constitutionnelle de les traduire et de les ímprimer en cinq langues. Or, ce qu’il a demandé représenterait plus de 60 pages, et vous comprendrez qu’il nous serait bien difficile d’interrompre le travail de notre division des publications, en pleine conférence, pour reproduire en cinq langues 60 pages avec de nombreux tableaux, parce qu’un délégué a demandé une telle documentation particulière en séance. Ce n’est pas manque de respect vis-à-vis de ce délégué ou de tout autre, c’est simplement une question de possibilité matérielle. D’autres considérations ont également été mentionnées par M. West, mais du seul point de vue matériel, nous nous heurtons là à une très sérieuse difficulté.
Certaines délégations, en particulier celle du Canada, ont soulevé.le problème important de la coordination au niveau des pays et, en particulier, des relations entre representants de la FAO et représentants résidents du PNUD. Comme j’ai déjà eu l’occasion de l’indiquer, notre dogme est d’abord et avant tout que c’est au gouvernement du pays bénéficialre qu’il appartient d’assurer la coordination des différentes aides qu’il reçoit. Mais j’ai également fait référence à la lettre conjointe que l’administrateur du PNUD et le Directeur général de la FAO ont adressée à leurs représentants, le 30 juillet 1981. M. le représentant de l’administrateur a bien voulu, lui aussi, faire référence à ce document, qui exprime parfaitement l’esprit dans lequel cette coopération prend place.
Mme le représentant du Canada s’est étonnéei que certains représentants de la FAO lui aient dit qu’ils ne font pas rapport au représentant resident du PNUD. Il y a évidemment différentes façons d’interpréter ces mots. Je ne crois pas qu’ils aient voulu dire par là qu’ils ne lui communiquaient pas d’informations, bien au contraire, car ils ont pour instruction de le tenir complètement informé de toutes les affaires susceptibles de l’intéresser.
Si, par contre, ils ont voulu dire qu’ils n’étaient pas placés sous ses ordres, ils ont eu parfaitement raison, et je vais donner lecture à cet égard d’un paragraphe de la résolution 34/213 de l’Assemblée générale, dont le but est de préciser les modalités de la mise en oeuvre de la fameuse résolution 197. Il s’agit du paragraphe 7 du dispositif.
Decides that the guidelines contained in paragraph 6 above do not affect relations between governments and individual organizations of the United Nations System or the direct lines of authority and communications between the representatives of those organizations at the country level and their own executive heads.”
Cette citation devrait entièrement rassurer Mme le délégué du Canada, et j’ajoute que ces mêmes mots sont utilisés dans la lettre d’instructions que le Secrétaire général adresse à chacun des résidents coordonnateurs lorsqu’ils sont nommés.
En matière de locaux et de services, il a toujours existé, depuis le début du système des représentants de la FAO dans les pays, un gentlemen’s agreement entre le Directeur général de la FAO et l’administrateur du PNUD, suivant lequel, chaque fois que possible, les représentants des deux organisations partagent les mêmes locaux ainsi que certains services logistiques, et nous tenons à remercier le PNUD de la coopération qu’il nous apporte très souvent dans ce domaine. S’il y a des cas où il en va autrement, c’est à la demande des gouvernements intéressés eux-mêmes, qui souhaitent, par exemple, que le représentant de la FAO se trouve directement au Ministère de l’agriculture; c’est parfois aussi parce que le représentant résident du PNUD nous dit lui-même qu’il est navré, mais qu’il n’a pas de place, ou qu’il n’a plus de place, et nous invite à trouver d’autres locaux.
Compte tenu de l’heure, je ne reviendrai pas sur les nombreuses références qui ont été faites aux représentants de la FAO aux bureaux régionaux, et au programme de coopération technique. Nous en avons pris bonne note. Nous sommes heureux de voir que ces institutions sont très largement appréciées par la grande majorité des participants.
En conclusion, je voudrais faire référence à la dernière déclaration du délégué de l’Inde, qui a bien voulu suggérer à votre Commission de conclure ses débats en confirmant le rôle central de la FAO en matière de développement agricole. Ce n’est pas, bien entendu, au Secrétariat qu’il appartient d’exprimer un point de vue à ce sujet, mais il est certain qu’une telle expression, si elle trouvait sa place dans votre rapport, serait tout à fait conforme à la constitution de notre Organisation et refléterait de façon très fidèle l’essentiel des débats très intéressants que nous venons de suivre.
W.A.F. GRABISCH (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): I do not want to dwell on this discussion too much but a comment was made about the 43 percent which was mentioned by a delegation yesterday when we made our general comments on document C 81/4. I think there has been a bit of a misunderstanding here in the mind of the Secretariat. I would like to quote what I said yesterday, just one sentence: “My delegation applauds the fact that 43 percent of all extra-budgetary expenditure of FAO is used for the production of food.”
J.L.F. BUIST (United Kingdom): First my thanks to the Secretariat for dealing so comprehensively with so many point-s. I am sorry that they seem conditioned to consider questions from the United Kingdom now apparently always to be criticism. That was not the case. It was a simple request for information, which we have now been given.
I simply want to ask the Secretariat to bear in mind that we have made certain suggestions for improving the flow and the regularity of assistance from the multilateral lending agencies to agriculture; and of course specifically a suggestion in relation to a possible conclusion on IFAD, when they are drafting the conclusions of this meeting, for us to consider in the Drafting Committee.
CHAIRMAN: That brings us to the end of the debate on the subject. We had 42 countries participating in the debate on the Review of Field Programmes and on sub-item 12.1 of the Agenda, Agricultural Investment and Development Assistance for Food Production and Rural Development. Delegates accepted the documents relating to these subjects as an excellently prepared analysis of field programmes and I take it that the Secretariat has accepted a number of suggestions as valuable proposals to undertake even further improvements.
Many delegates commented in a very elaborate manner on the results of the Field Programme evaluation and in general agreed with the conclusions based on the assessments. Quite a number of delegates referred to the links between technical cooperation and investments and commended FAO for the activities of the Investment Centre. They strongly emphasized the need to focus on programmes of institution building and development of human resources, particularly at times of diminishing overall resources. Many delegates expressed concern about diminishing UNDP resources to finance agricultural projects over the next biennium.
Quite a number of delegates emphasized the need for new approaches to field project implementation. This applies inter alia to a greater involvment of beneficiary countries, particularly through enhanced employment of national experts, national directors, and use of programme inputs from other developing countries. They commended FAO for having been in the forefront of a new dimension in technical assistance by promoting self-reliance and the transfer of project and programme responsibility to developing countries. These brief remarks bring us to the end of this afternoon’s session.
I would suggest that tomorrow we debate two items, first 12.2 Support Costs, reserving the early part of the morning, or the morning, and then in the course of the afternoon we take item 14 on the Agenda - United Nations/FAO World Food Programme.
J. DOORENBOS (Netherlands): Document C 81/28 provides a good overview of where we stand today as regards foreign investment and assistance to agriculture to the developing countries. Allow me to dwell upon first the level of investment and assistance.
It is satisfying to note that the percentage of total assistance allocated to agriculture is still rising. This shows the weight which is given to food production in the overall assistance programmes.
We are however worried by the level of total assistance, notwithstanding the many resolutions taken over the last good many years. Therefore in the Plenary the Netherlands stated once more that the 0.7 percent GNP must be reached as well as the 0.15 percent to the least developed countries.
I may add here that my government, with broadest public support, does not relate foreign assistance with the economic situation at home, and as such stands for the almost 1 percent GNP for ODA-funds. Of this a large part is allocated to agricultural development.
Second the level of investment and support to agriculture by the developing countries themselves.
Also here the economic outlook does not look very bright. Also, balance of payment deficits caused by the very high cost of food and energy imports results in few financial resources being available for much needed structural development - of which agriculture forms an inseparable part.
It has been said many times over that the food problem can only be solved by an adjustment of policies and programmes involving a major shift of priorities to agriculture and rural development in the developing countries. It is realized that such adjustment is far from easy and takes time to implement.
Agricultural growth remains far below any estimate of required increase of production. If investment in agriculture by the countries themselves is not raised substantially above the 10 to 15 percent share of total investment prevailing now in those countries, chances are that food production will decrease, rather than achieving the acceleration so desperately needed.
Foreign aid assistance finances about 15 percent of all agricultural investment in developing countries. This is a high share, but there is a risk that investment aid is hampered by the lack of ready programmes in the developing countries. Therefore, the efforts to formulate food sector strategies are strongly endorsed and should receive also FAO’s fullest support.
Third: turn to FAO.
While we share the concern of FAO about the dwindling level of financial resources from UNDP, the percentage of those resources for agriculture remains at an acceptable level, i.e. ± 30 percent. The percentage that is channelled through FAO is decreasing which must indeed be a great worry.
As it is stated by the document, level of funding will depend primarily on the priority set to agriculture by the countries, shortening gestation periods of projects, procedures used and use of funds for new projects against use for rehabilitation of old ones.
It is encouraging to note that much is done to improve work relations between UNDP and FAO. It is noted however that the reduction of UNDP funds being channelled through FAO is caused by use by UNDP directly of consulting bureaux, execution of projects by recipient countries themselves. Management is carried out by the countries themselves.
We must therefore ask a direct question. New dimensions appear in the field of development cooperation. The word selfreliance seems appropriate here. This means, that FAO should in terms of policy and administration adjust itself continuously to the new demands and wishes coming from the recipient countries, eg. by making available highly qualified expertise for key areas for short periods rather than holding closely to the customary project approach with longterm FAO experts.
A dynamic role also should be played by the FAO representative in the various countries, relating all signals loudly and clearly.
With time conditions change, FAO must have the internal flexibility to continuously adapt itself to new situations 1/.
The meeting rose at 18.15 hours.
La séance est levée à 18 h 15
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.15 horas.
_______________
1/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
