C.B. HOUTMAN (Netherlands): The document before us analyses trends in expenses for the Field Programme and gives the description on the evaluation programmes and special action programmes. Special emphasis is being placed on the evaluation of the TCP and an overview was given on the attention paid by FAO to aspects of environment and sustainable development in its projects.
FAO's Field Programme is being financed by UNDP funds for approximately 43 percent in absolute figures on the increase but, when we look at total UNDP funds, a relative reduction took place over the years from 30 percent in 1975 to 17 percent in 1990. This can be explained partly only by the more diverse attention UNDP pays to various development subsectors of the economy. Another development however is increasing involvement of OPS, the Office for Project Services of UNDP, also in agricultural development projects. We imagine that concern exists about this development. With the latest developments as a result of the adoption of the principle of national execution, a change and possible reduction of UNDP funds used by FAO for agricultural development projects is to be expected. The only answer, and we think the most constructive one, is that FAO should concentrate on further development of activities in fields where FAO has a comparative advantage.
A result of the FAO review was that separate items on field activities were to be put on the agendas of the Technical Committees. Where as in some Committees, as for instance the Committee on World Food Security, the field activities were reasonably dealt with, the experience in other Committees was not really positive. However, to judge on the experience of only one meeting of the various Committees would not be completely fair. The
Secretariat of course is not to blame for it. The situation also reflects that we as the Member Nations have to get used to dealing with these new procedures. Therefore, we are of the opinion that we should gain further experience with the new situation. That is the reason why we will not immediately propose again the genesis of a Field Programme Committee which we advocated earlier.
New processes of developing the Programme of Work and Budget also give an opportunity for better Field Programme activities and reflections on them.
Now I come to the TCP review. It concludes that the overall trends such as good criterial orientation and proper distribution over subjects and regions have not changed substantially as compared with the 1985 evaluation, the only exception being the strong increase of allocation in the Advisory Services category. We appreciate the frankness of the STCP study by which we can obtain an insight into the less positive points as reflected in the evaluation chapter. One such point is that hardly any information is given on the follow-up to projects. As one of the important functions of the TCP project is the initiation of bridging functions, this lack of information on follow-up gives rise to concern. We hope in future more emphasis will be laid on the collection of data relating to the results of follow-up of TCP projects.
This also applies to all the projects mentioned by Denmark when they spoke on ex post evaluation. It was striking that, at a time when everyone is concerned about sustainability, no aspects of these important subjects have been included in the TCP review. We wondered whether it would be a good idea for TCP funds to be made available for seeking out bottle-necks in projects or programmes, especially in the field of environment and sustainability, thus reflecting and emphasizing the structurally increased attention paid by the Organization to these subjects.
Another point I would like to touch upon is that the contribution by UNEP for joint FAO/UNEP projects has been reduced gradually to one or two or maybe even zero over the last 15 years. We support the new efforts resulting from Den Bosch in the negotiations between FAO and UNEP to intensify their cooperation. The international cooperative programme framework for sustainable agricultural development which will be dealt with under Item 7 offers good opportunities for this intensified collaboration.
Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): The review of the Field Programme as contained in document C 91/4 and its supplements is clear and exhaustive in its presentation, contents and coverage. The Ethiopian delegation would therefore like to thank the Secretariat for the documentation and Mr Rinville for his clear introduction this morning. The review of the Field Programme was examined by the Programme Committee and also the Joint Session of the Finance and Programme Committees. The recommendations of these deliberations are contained in document CL 100/4. This matter is again endorsed in the Hundredth Session of the Council. At this stage our delegation feels enough deliberation has been made on this item and would like to endorse those recommendations. We would, however, like to make some specific remarks in relation to this item.
Looking at the document, it was particularly gratifying to note that an increase in the volume of Field Programme expenditures and positive outlook for future prospects based on the current level of approval was clearly
indicated. The area of agriculture, food production and rural development being a major sector of economic development in all the developing countries, our delegation welcomes all technical support given by the Organization and would like to encourage it in supporting the development I indicated earlier. It is, however, worrying to observe that FAO's share of UNDP's programme is continually declining in spite of the fact that this Field Programme and its support is a useful component in the development of the food and agricultural sectors. Our delegation would therefore like to express its hope of seeing this declining trend being averted so that this important support can develop further.
Our delegation was not happy about the slow implementation of the recommendation of the Twenty-fifth Conference in relation to the strengthening of the Country Office and sharpened focus on TCDC and integration of the NGOs. We do, however, understand that implementation was hindered because of financial difficulties. We hope that all Member Nations will do what they can to improve the financial position of the Organization.
In paragraph 27 of the Supplement document we understand the Director-General anticipates that the UNDP support cost arrangement will cause further financial difficulties. We sympathize with that situation. The request indicated in this paragraph is therefore a move towards solving the financial difficulty as a short-term measure. We endorse the request because of the need to manage establishments for field operations.
Last, but not least, is the operation of the TCP. The operation of the TCP and its implementation has always been seen in the light of its objective to meet operations of an emergency nature and its bridging role in the unbudgeted essential development activities. Though our delegation feels that its present operation and modality fits in very well, that there is room for improvement to facilitate its implementation cannot be questioned. Our delegation, however, is worried about additional guidelines that will increase bureaucratic red tape and evaluation that will delay implementation. Our worry emerges from the fact that some of the proposals coming out of the discussion might hinder it from meeting emergency needs, which is stated to be one of its objectives.
Therefore, we should like to indicate that the recommendation on evaluation, and also the additional guidelines that are requested, should be kept to a minimum so that the implementation would not be affected.
Mohd. Fadzil AKRAM (Malaysia): The Malaysian delegation would like, first of all, to congratulate Mr Rinville for his lucid introduction to this Agenda Item. My delegation would also like to pay tribute to the FAO Secretariat for preparing a comprehensive and informative review document, C 91/4.
My delegation has studied the report and found that the contents reflect a balanced picture of the programme and activities prepared and undertaken for the biennium 1990-91 and I would like to compliment the FAO on having executed such a vast-range of Field Programmes for the benefit of Member Nations, particularly developing countries. My delegation would like also to welcome in particular the introduction of the new chapter containing a selective review of key policy issues which are likely to have an influence on the Organization's field activities in the future.
My delegation notes with interest that some 2 325 field projects with a total value of about US$2.2 billion were being implemented by FAO in almost 140 countries and territories. We note that, of this total, the share of the field activities in Asia was 25 percent, in terms of project implemented. We note also that for the first time, total expenditure for technical cooperation in 1990 exceeded US$400 million in current terms. The growth between 1989 and 1990 amounted to almost 14 percent.
The last two years has witnessed the prevailing financial constraints faced by the Organization. Nevertheless, FAO had managed to honour its commitments in the interest of Member Nations which urgently require the Organization's expert advice and assistance. We notice the effects of programme reduction would have an impact on the effectiveness of the FAO's Field Programmes. Therefore, it is fair, at this stage, that we should once again appeal to Member Nations to honour their obligations to assist the FAO to correct this adverse financial situation.
The Malaysian delegation would like also to associate itself with the concerns expressed on the relative decline of FAO's participation in UNDP programmes. We note that UNDP-funded programmes presently account for around 43 percent of the FAO's Field Programme delivery. It is in this respect that we underline the importance of continued close collaboration between FAO and UNDP. My delegation also agrees that the comparative advantage and accumulated experience of the Organization should be fully utilized in the UNDP-funded activities.
My delegation notes the Review of FAO's Technical Cooperation Programme as mentioned in Part II of the Report.
Malaysia attaches great importance to this programme. Under Item 16 of the Programme of Work and Budget 1991-93, my delegation has already intervened on this matter. We therefore do not wish to repeat ourselves.
Turning to the issue on the UNDP Support Cost Successor Arrangements, Malaysia would like to emphasize that in introducing the new system, the tripartite relationship between recipient countries, UNDP, and specialized agencies should be upheld and maintained. We consider this relationship is important because it represents a significant and valuable element in the UN development assistance programmes.
The Malaysian delegation supports the concept of national execution but, at the same time, governments should also be given assistance to build national capacity to implement and sustain any development programmes being executed in the recipient countries.
In conclusion, my delegation would like to end by expressing our wholehearted and relentless support for FAO's indisputable and critical role in the Field Programme.
Elias REYES BRAVO (México): Gracias, señor Presidente, y gracias a la Secretaria por este documento C 91/4.
El examen que se hace en este documento nos presenta elementos interesantes sobre el Programa de Campo, que determinan su eficiencia operativa y su viabilidad financiera.
Coincidimos con la importancia que la Secretaria atribuye a las cuestiones operacionales, particularmente en lo que respecta a la evaluación continua y un mayor seguimiento de las actividades de campo. Asimismo, consideramos de carácter trascendente la vinculación ágil y eficiente del PNUD con los Proyectos de Campo de la Organización.
El componente nacional en los proyectos es un factor importante en la viabilidad de los mismos. El Examen de los Programas de Campo realizado por los órganos de la FAO, que ha caracterizado el presente bienio, es un paso importante que ofrece una conexión cada vez más eficiente entre el Programa Ordinario y el Programa de Campo. Tomamos nota de lo apuntado en el examen, en el sentido de que los Programas de Campo de la FAO han incorporado recientemente una orientación mayor en los ámbitos del desarrollo sostenible y la protección ambiental.
Del examen que se hace del Programa de Cooperación Técnica en el periodo 1986-90, consideramos que dicho programa se ha constituido en un instrumento fundamental de la Organización para darle viabilidad al Programa Ordinario, y para actualizar procesos de desarrollo en los países.
En el bienio que está por transcurrir, México ejecutó algunos proyectos de campo en ámbitos variados que estuvieron enmarcados en el capitulo de los Programas técnicos y económicos de la FAO. En el Programa de Cooperación Técnica se destacaron algunos proyectos sobre protección y desarrollo de especies menores, diseño de políticas y programas, pesca, protección y aprovechamiento sostenible de los recursos naturales, particularmente bosques. En el Programa de Campo y particularmente el correspondiente a Fondos fiduciarios, se realizaron proyectos directamente vinculados con el proceso de desarrollo rural a partir del desarrollo de los sistemas de comunicación, con los que se pretende una protección y un aprovechamiento eficiente de recursos naturales como el agua y los bosques.
Se avanzó, y está por concluir, el proceso de elaboración del Programa de Acción Forestal Tropical de México, en cuya elaboración se contó con el apoyo de diversas misiones externas. Asimismo, en la vertiente internacional del Programa de Campo se estableció un mecanismo formal de cooperación y asistencia técnica para colaborar en la erradicación del gusano barrenador del ganado en el norte de Africa, a través de la Comisión México-Americana que en esa materia opera en México.
En relación a la evaluación preliminar de las disposiciones del PNUD sobre los gastos de apoyo, se considera que los déficit financieros que la FAO ha tenido durante los últimos bienios, y la incertidumbre en cuanto a los recursos disponibles para el Plan de Labores y Presupuesto 1992-93, comprometen la capacidad de la Organización para alcanzar sus metas.
Sería conveniente que los ajustes se realizasen de manera gradual indicando que se conceda a la FAO un período de transición y flexibilidad a efectos de adaptarse a la reducción de recursos.
Mi delegación considera finalmente que hay una clara necesidad de seguir teniendo en cuenta la Resolución 44/211 de la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas, ya que dicha Resolución ofrece un cuadro de aspectos a considerar para mejorar las operaciones de cooperación internacional, tanto en lo que respecta a los Estados como a los organismos internacionales.
- 249 -
XU NAN-SHAN (China) (Original language Chinese): I should like to thank the Secretariat for having prepared document C 91/4. I should also like to express my thanks to Mr Rinville for his presentation of this document.
I should like to make a few comments with respect to the item under discussion, first of all in relation to the recommendation made to the Twenty-fifth Session of the General Conference by review of the Field Programmes, with the resumé and review of the policies. Therefore, the document is rich and exhaustive, and we certainly welcome that. The subjects which are reviewed are basically the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations with respect to the operational activities in the UN system and the decisions taken in the UNDP with respect to the new arrangements for support costs.
These new changes will have an impact on the activities of FAO's Field Programmes. We would hope that these problems can be solved satisfactorily on the basis of the principle of tripartite cooperation which is in force within the UN system. We feel that beneficiary governments should be encouraged to carry out the projects themselves because that would contribute to strengthening their capacity for implementation. But in this process one should work according to the specific conditions of the beneficiary countries to ensure that FAO can fully contemplate their role.
Secondly, we note that the funds for the Field Programmes have increased continuously over the past two years, to reach a record of US$407 million in 1990.
We also note an increase in credit made available by the UNDP and the Trust Funds. Of the funds made available by the UNDP, the FAO share is going down. Nonetheless, FAO continues to be one of the major executive agencies of the UNDP.
One could, therefore, hope that, with the arrival of the fifth planning cycle, funds made available in this way will be increased. That would be very encouraging for developing countries who are facing serious problems in the food and agriculture sectors.
Thirdly, we feel that FAO is acting quite rightly in its regional distribution of credit priorities given to Africa, with 46 percent with respect to investment and food security.
It is also acting, quite rightly, in continuing to consider as a priority the development of crops and particularly food crops. In 1990 this already took up some 50 percent. We also note the implementation of Field Programmes, the policies to increase the number of beneficiary countries and increase their ability to use their own strength. Experts from developing countries continue to represent some 50 percent of those recruited, and we also welcome the fact that the number of experts and national project directors is increasing.
With respect to the expenditure breakdown, we note that share of staff costs has increased considerably, going from 50 percent to 57 percent in 1990, whereas equipment costs dropped from 28 percent to 20 percent. Of course, equipment assistance is of great usefulness to developing countries which, while on the one hand being technically backward also do not have funds available. Insofar as possible we should like to have an increased share of equipment costs for the benefit of developing countries.
Fourthly, Chapter Three of document C 91/4 assesses in detail the design, implementation and efficiency of field projects, as well as the results obtained, and it stresses the problems which continue to exist.
We have noted that clear results have been achieved in improving the activities of Field Programmes. In the UNDP projects and Trust Fund activities, the well-designed projects have gone beyond 80 percent, and in implementation this has, in fact, achieved 82 percent. In implementation of TCP programmes and projects, 80 percent of the projects have been satisfactorily implemented, and clear results have been seen in improvement of efficiency. We do hope that the FAO will continue to strengthen and reinforce its work in this sector, particularly by improving coordination with beneficiary countries in order to accelerate the procurement of equipment. Direct or indirect assistance programmes of the FAO have given good results for the most part, and have played a positive role in food production and agriculture in my country.
Allow me to take this opportunity to express my thanks to the FAO, to international organizations and friendly countries, and to the experts who have come to work in my country.
François ROHNER (Suisse): J'aimerais à mon tour remercier M. Rinville et ses collaborateurs du rapport qu'ils nous ont préparé. C'est avec un très grand intérêt que nous avons examiné ce rapport sur les Programmes de terrain de la FAO, et pris connaissance des commentaires qu'ont eu à faire les délégations qui sont intervenues dans ce débat jusqu'à présent.
Le rapport donne un bon aperçu sur ce que l'Organisation cherche à faire et fait effectivement en matière d'activités opérationnelles. Le document reflète, croyons-nous, assez bien les réalités de ces programmes et projets. Les activités opérationnelles du système des Nations Unies traversent, nous le savons, une phase difficile. Tandis que les besoins d'appui financier et technique extérieur ne cessent d'augmenter dans de nombreux pays en développement, des pays donateurs traditionnels sont, eux, confrontés à de sérieux problèmes budgétaires. Il est donc absolument indispensable que nous fassions le meilleur usage possible des ressources concessionnaires telles que celles mises à la disposition de la FAO sous forme de contributions ordinaires tout autant que de contributions extrabudgétaires.
Les études menées par les pays Scandinaves ont montré très clairement que le système des Nations Unies n'a pas de place réservée ou fixe dans le concert de la coopération au développement international. Il doit sans arrêt démontrer qu'il a d'importants avantages comparatifs par rapport à d'autres canaux de coopération, et qu'il est capable de les exploiter pleinement.
Avec d'autres, nous sommes d'avis que ces avantages comparatifs du système, et donc aussi de la FAO, se trouvent plutôt au niveau du Conseil en matière de politique sectorielle et sous-sectorielle du renforcement des capacités nationales plutôt qu'au niveau de l'exécution de projets isolés. Des efforts sont faits qui vont dans ce sens; nous souhaiterions qu'ils soient mis plus clairement en évidence dans le rapport qui sera préparé dans deux ans. J'aimerais même proposer que quelque chapitre spécial du Rapport soit consacré aux activités de la FAO relatives à l'analyse sectorielle et sous-sectorielle de la formulation des politiques et de la coordination.
Nous partageons en outre l'avis que la FAO doit renforcer le lien entre les priorités du programme à moyen terme, le Programme ordinaire et l'activité de terrain. Les programmes d'action spéciales sont un instrument qui peut servir à cet effet et que nous continuerons de soutenir par nos contributions extrabudgétaires.
J'ajouterai ici que nous ne sommes pas sûrs qu'un amalgame du Programme ordinaire et du Programme de terrain dans un seul rapport soit véritablement utile et nous facilite la tâche.
Nous souhaitons par ailleurs que des progrès puissent être faits encore en vue de remplacer graduellement l'approche classique de projet par une approche par programme qui, je l'espère, permettra d'arriver en même temps à un concept plus réaliste de l'exécution nationale.
Concernant les activités d'évaluation de la FAO, je me limiterai à deux commentaires. Deux constatations du rapport nous ont quelque peu irrités.
Le premier, le fait que 50 pour cent seulement des projets évalués ou examinés par la FAO auraient des chances de survie, voire un effet soutenable, et deuxièmement, le fait que la qualité des rapports d'évaluation soient insuffisante dans un tel débat, ceci étant dû en partie à la qualification des consultants.
Ces constatations nous paraissent à tel point inquiétantes que nous saurions gré à M. Rinville de nous préciser les mesures qu'il entend prendre pour surmonter ces faiblesses.
Un autre point: j'ai été étonné, et ceci après huit ans d'absence de ce Comité, qu'après une si longue période d'existence du Programme de coopération technique il n'y ait toujours pas de véritable consensus sur les priorités et les objectifs de ce programme. Ne serait-il pas utile ou nécessaire d'organiser une sorte d'atelier pour débattre de façon plus ouverte, plus informelle aussi, de l'avenir de ce programme en vue de trouver enfin un common understanding pour ce qui est des dépenses d'appui? Je reviendrai à un stade ultérieur.
Winston R. RUDDER (Trinidad and Tobago): We intervene on this Agenda Item in the name of our 13-member CARICOM colleagues to reflect in particular some concerns that we have relating to the way the debate has proceeded for the most part this morning in respect of observations with regard to the TCP.
Might I point out first of all, however, before I get to that point that the Review of the Field Programme has been disarmingly frank and very clear. It has revealed to us that the Secretariat has a clear understanding of what is happening out there in the field, and there are procedures within the Organization that allow for the flow of information. The question we would wish to pose, as many have, concerns the extent to which all the information that comes in from the evaluation in particular might be used to make the kind of corrections that are desirable so that the Field Programmes might have even greater impact than they do at present.
We have noted, too, that the Organization has been haunted by the spectre of financial constraints. In that regard some of the implementation activity expected arising out of the FAO review of a few years ago could not be effected. In particular, we note that the decentralization of the outreach activities of FAO through the Field Offices has been restricted.
We are concerned about the trend with respect to the declining share of the UNDP funding that might become available to the Organization - an organization which in our view has been at the forefront of the process of poverty abatement, alleviation of hunger and malnutrition, and which has generally assisted in agricultural development in our countries, and of which we are very well aware. We endorse the observations and congratulate the Organization with respect to its thrust in the area of sustainability and environmental development. We are particularly happy over the fact that the consideration not only relates to projects but in the area of policy formation, integrating the environmental dimension more fully into the whole policy dimension.
I come now to the TCP. Our own experience in the Caribbean so far has been the TCP as indicated in paragraphs 3.47 and 3.48, provides tremendous assistance with respect to investment, training and emergencies. In fact, we have a particular situation in the Caribbean now which is likely, unless effective action is taken, to escalate again. And FAO has been the Organization to come to our assistance in this regard, and I am referring now to the amblyoma tick, a particularly important and potentially devastating infestation likely to over run the bovine population. It has been found in a certain number of our islands and is spreading southwards and is likely to affect my particular country. If it comes to my country, the South American Continent is merely five or six miles away. We understand, as we did in respect of the screwworm, how the FAO has operated in a particular way and we understand in respect of the Amblyoma tick and FAO's activity through the TCP that is going to link us, as a result of current discussions, to further investment. This demonstrates how important the TCP is as a vehicle for emergencies, as a vehicle for investment and a vehicle for training. Part of what is happening also constitutes a form of training activity and we know how important it is and what an impact it has. Accordingly, we have a particular difficulty with any argument or any discussion which seeks to give the impression that the resources of the TCP are dissipated in a way that is unaccountable, without impact and not useful.
The question is for whom is it not useful? These resources are useful for our countries which are in the process of agricultural development, which are still underdeveloped, which are still developing, and which are afflicted by a number of situations with respect to diseases and other ills which require increased capacity for dealing with matters such as human resource development training. We have the experience of the usefulness of the TCP so that I am very pleased and endorse the supportive observations that have been made. That is not to say, Chairman, that much more cannot be done in terms of being effective and so on. The point I am making is that the TCP is an extremely important vehicle as an instrument for development.
We are satisfied with the current modalities. We understand how it works. We know that projects for the TCP cannot be prepared on the single sheet of paper and then you will get funds. It has to go through a certain process. The process is transparent and it has to be examined. It has to be
appraised in a certain way before we can get the monies. In fact, some of our countries wonder whether the extent to which this rapid response very often is not as rapid as we would like. That is our position, Mr Chairman, and I thank you very much.
Amin ABDEL-MALEK (Liban) (Langue originale arabe): M. le Président, je voudrais remercier le Secrétariat d'avoir préparé ce document concernant l'Examen des Programmes de terrain de 1990-91, et je voudrais aussi remercier le représentant du Secrétariat de son exposé concernant ce document. Nous ne pouvons qu'adopter l'ensemble de ce document.
Cependant, ce qui a attiré notre attention à cet égard, c'est la demande de certains pays concernant l'évaluation des Programmes de terrain, l'évaluation du Programme de coopération technique. Ce programme apporte beaucoup de services et beaucoup d'activités très importantes pour nos pays. C'est pour cela que nous pensons qu'il n'est pas du tout nécessaire d'évaluer ce programme, car nous en tirons tous profit, et nous pouvons considérer que ses activités sont bonnes. L'Organisation a déjà évalué les résultats de ces projets, et ces résultats étaient conformes à tous les principes et aux résultats escomptés, et tous les pays ont remercié l'Organisation pour cela.
C'est pour cette raison que nous voudrions réitérer notre appui au PCT, en demandant l'augmentation des crédits alloués à ce programme, conformément à la résolution de la Conférence précédente.
Ms Maria Luisa GAVINO (Philippines): I will be brief, Mr Chairman, and I want to confine myself only to the TCP. I would like to record that the basic mandate given to FAO in Article XIII of its Constitution is to furnish technical assistance as governments make requests.
One of the reasons why the Philippines has been consistent in the support of the TCP is that it enables the Organization to adequately respond promptly to the urgent needs of developing countries for technical assistance, policy advice, training, mobilization of investment resources, including project identification and preparation, and emergency cases. TCP is also an essential operational tool of the Organization to provide appropriate and rapid technical assistance to Member Governments.
Without TCP it would be difficult for FAO to respond to requests of needy countries, for example, in my country the rehabilitation of devastated areas like the eruption of the volcano, the earthquake and the typhoon. My delegation would like to express its gratitude for the help FAO has extended in connection with the eruption of the volcano particularly and which was carried out through TCP resources.
Creating additional guidelines and criteria for the implementation of TCP projects would only add rigidity to the programme and would not be in the interests of countries like ours. Thank you very much for giving me the floor.
Marcus I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Señor Presidente, ante todo discúlpeme por haberme llamado al uso de la palabra y no encontrarme momentáneamente en la Sala a causa de razones ajenas a mi voluntad.
Sr. Presidente, mi delegación desea poner de manifiesto su apoyo al presente documento por considerarlo muy completo y porque responde a las sugerencias y recomendaciones de los países miembros en la pasada Conferencia.
Asimismo, queremos agradecer al Sr. Rinville por su clara presentación, a la cual ya nos tiene acostumbrados.
Este documento, Sr. Presidente, lo encontramos muy mejorado, particularmente, porque presenta un enfoque estrechamente vinculado con el examen del Programa Ordinario. Tal como se señala, nos alegra ver que durante el bienio que termina, se ha prestado una mayor atención a las actividades de campo y que se ha llegado a la cifra récord de más de 400 millones de dólares anualmente y, sobre todo, llama la atención que ello se ha hecho en más de 140 países.
Por otra parte, destaca el reforzamiento de la representación en los países que son una vía eficaz para asistir a los gobiernos en el terreno, de manera que éstos tengan un mayor apoyo en su aplicación de políticas y estrategias de desarrollo.
Sr. Presidente, la delegación cubana desea destacar la evaluación realizada del Programa de Cooperación Técnica que pone de manifiesto la transparencia con la que ha operado este programa. Además, aquí se refuerza el criterio de la viabilidad del PTC, en particular en su relación costo-beneficio. Por otro lado, la dinámica que ha caracterizado este programa para atender con oportunidad las necesidades de los Estados Miembros, lo que le convierte en un elemento insustituible para la función de la Organización.
Debemos agregar en su favor y en favor de todas las actividades de campo de la FAO, que el PCT ha sido uno de los principales vehículos para catalizar la corriente de fondos extrapresupuestarios.
Dicho esto, Sr. Presidente, reiteramos nuestro criterio de que el PCT debe mantener su metodología de trabajo como hasta el presente pues, la introdución de cambios, podría traer consigo contratiempos para un programa que, categóricamente, afirmamos ha funcionado bien.
En otro orden de cosas Sr. Presidente, mi delegación desea simplificar su complacencia con el aumento y reforzamiento de las Redes de Cooperación Técnica, reconociendo en ellas una forma muy viable de llevar adelante la CTPD.
Para finalizar, señalamos con satisfación el aumento del trabajo con las organizaciones no gubernamentales como un forma de acrecentar las actividades de campo, especialmente aquéllas dirigidas a los sectores y comunidades más pobres de los Estados Miembros.
Mansur Mabruk SEGHAYER (Libya) : (Original language Arabic) : I will be very brief, Sir. The delegation of my country is very satisfied with the results of the efforts of the Organization and would like to reiterate its trust and confidence in the Organization's capacity and in the work of its Secretariat. We would also like to applaud the way in which it executes its role in coping with the challenges of the future.
Mr Chairman, the delegation of my country considers that the Technical Cooperation Programme has proved its effectiveness, its value and its worth and has enabled the Organization to assist a very large number of countries in coping with natural catastrophes and emergencies.
We feel, on that basis that it is important to increase the resources allocated to the TCP as mentioned in the specific resolution of the Twenty-fifth Session of the Conference.
CHAIRMAN: Is there any other delegate wanting to speak now on this item? I will come back to the question of Support Costs later.
S. Najmus SAQIB (Pakistan): We were not wishing to take the floor on this item. However, after carefully following the interventions of delegates the Pakistan delegation would like to make a very brief intervention on the review of the Technical Cooperation Programme.
My delegation shares the views expressed by a number of countries from the developing world indicating that the TCP has proved to be a most viable programme; and has responded most appropriately and promptly to the needs of the developing countries, including our own. Pakistan's experience in this respect has been positive in the fields of cotton grading and marine fishery management.
We share the feeling that the flexibility and present manner of allocations for TCP implementation have distinct advantages, and this should be maintained. My delegation, however, considers that the present levels of TCP investments are inadequate and should be increased at minimum to be in line with the recommendations outlined in Conference Resolution 9/89. We therefore urge that in the coming biennium, it would be appropriately increased.
Mr Chairman, my delegation also endorses the comments made by several delegates from the developing countries, in particular as expounded by those of Ethiopia and Malaysia on the decline in FAO resources owing to the drop in UNDP Fund activities, and as a consequence of the new UNDP Successor Support Costs Mechanism.
Neil PIERRE (Guyana): I shall try to be very brief, and in so doing I wish only to confirm my intervention to a very specific aspect of this debate, and that is to register my comment once again on the question of the TCP. Mr Chairman, my country is one of those that have benefited from the effectiveness of this programme. In particular, one of the areas where we have received benefit is in the very important area of emergency sea defences, which accounts for very vast quantities of our coastal farm lands, both large and small. I submit, therefore, that it was only as a result of the effectiveness and the basic character and intent of the TCP, which is meant to be able to respond rapidly and effectively to situations of emergency, that Guyana has been able to benefit in that particular instance from the TCP.
Furthermore, I wish to submit that the resources in question, in the opinion of my delegation, are not of a hugely substantial quantum. We would, as in the case, I am sure, of most of the delegations, wish to see
it increased substantially in order to meet the previous targets of 14 percent and what has been established also as a target of 17 percent. Considering the number of countries that benefit from this programme we wish to state that it has proved its effectiveness and its worth.
We all know that there are specific modalities within which the TCP operates and therefore while we have been hearing questions of creating or injecting greater transparency in the operations of the TCP, my delegation wishes to submit that these modalities and the framework by which the TCP is governed have proved to be adequate, to be effective, to be transparent. Any changes in those modalities, therefore, will only result in greater rigidities and the dilution of the effectiveness of the TCP.
These are the views of my delegation.
Mamode Fareed MOSAHEB (Mauritius): My intervention will be directly proportionate to the size of my country. Since it is the first time I am taking the floor and since I was not in a position to take the floor yesterday, please, Mr Chairman, let me congratulate you on your being elected Chairman and also congratulate Mr Shah for his very clear and brief exposé yesterday. I also congratulate Mr Rinville for his briefing.
May I say that the document presented has been very well prepared and gives the actual situation of FAO as regards projects being implemented and its financial situation. My delegation is in agreement with the Secretariat regarding all its activities.
I will fail in my duty if I do not congratulate FAO for its good works, particularly in successfully eradicating the screwworm in some of the African countries, namely Libya.
Much has been said about TCP, and I am not therefore going to intervene, but I assure you, Mr Chairman, that my delegation fully endorses FAO and my delegation is fully aware that FAO is au courant with all activities going on in the field.
I will plead with Member States, Member delegates, that if they want FAO to succeed in implementing various projects, FAO has got to have financial means and therefore Member States should regularly subscribe to FAO. I hope that this advice, coming from one of the biggest small islands in the Indian Ocean, will be followed by one and all.
CHAIRMAN: The Secretary has received a written statement from the delegation of Angola. Unless there is any objection, it could be included in the Verbatim. No objections? Good.
I said before that we would give time to the question of the budget level at 4 o'clock. I think the practical way of conducting this is now to break for five minutes and then take up the budget level, so that people not in the room are warned about it, and then after that we come back to the question of successor arrangements. We start at 4 o'clock.
The meeting was suspended from 15.50 to 16.00 hours.
La séance est suspendue de 15 h 50 à 16 heures.
Se suspende la sesión de las 15.50 a las 16.00 horas.
Fourth Report of the General Committee
Quatrième rapport du Bureau
Cuarto informe del Comité General
CHAIRMAN: Ladies and Gentlemen, as I said before, we are moving back now to Item 16 on the question of the level of the budget. I also said that you have before you document C 91/LIM/39, which is the Fourth Report of the General Committee. This report has been submitted to Plenary and if you look at the paper in paragraph 12 it says; "the General Committee invites the Plenary to take note of the present report and make it available to Commission II so as to permit conclusion of its work on the Programme of Work and Budget 1992-93 and transmission of its report for eventual adoption by Plenary, as scheduled, on 20 November". This is the situation. If I may give my own opinion, I attended the General Committee, and this is an honest attempt at finding a solution to a very difficult problem. I hope you have also read carefully through the draft resolution and noted that there are two main parts to it. On the one hand, it proposes an approval of the Programme of Work in the order of US$672 million for the next biennium. On the other hand the draft says "Decides on the following appropriations for financial period" and there the figure is US$645.5 million. There is in the paper an explanation of this difference. It is for this Commission to react to this proposal. The substantive part of the report is paragraph 11 and if you look at the first sentence, it says, "the General Committee expects that the Conference receive a specific commitment from the USA regarding the amounts and timing of its payments relating to current assessments and arrears".
Before giving the floor to any other delegate to comment on the situation, I give the floor to the delegation of the United States.
Ms Melinda KIMBLE (United States of America): The United States, as the major contributor to FAO's Regular Programmes for over 46 years, strongly supports the work of our Organization. Despite the climate of budget austerity we are facing, the United States has not failed to recognize the increasingly important and constructive role that the United Nations through its specialized agencies has played and must play in the coming years. May I assure all of you that President Bush is committed to restoring financial stability to international organizations, including FAO. As evidence of his strong commitment, the United States paid FAO US$13.7 million toward our arrears in October. We also paid over US$34.9 million of the amount the United States Congress appropriated for our calendar year 1991 assessment to FAO at the same time. If the
United States can join consensus in supporting FAO's Programme of Work and Budget for the 1992-93 period, we will make every effort to pay an additional US$9 million, the remaining amount of our calendar year 1991 assessment, to FAO before the end of the year.
We recognize that many of you in this august body have expressed interest in the scheduled payment of our arrears. Let me assure you that President Bush is firmly and unequivocally committed to pay the arrears to international organizations, including FAO. For fiscal year 1992 some US$92.7 million was appropriated to international organizations to pay arrears. Of this, US$22.6 million was programmed as available for FAO. However, we can make no guarantees at this time that all of these funds, that is, US$22.6 million, will be provided, since our first priority will be to pay our assessed contributions in full to international organizations. With a budget adopted by consensus, let me assure you, however, that we will make every effort to provide FAO as close to the US$22.6 million as is possible. Our appropriations process is extremely difficult to forecast and much too complex to go into here but, assuming the Budget Summit Agreement of 1990 holds for the fiscal year 1993, the United States would meet its regular assessment and, assuming full appropriations, would pay a similar amount on arrears as in fiscal year 1992, which I explained was roughly US$22 million. At this stage it is much too early to forecast specifically what these amounts might be, nor is it possible to judge what the shape of our fiscal year 1994 budget will be, but the commitment is firm. It is a clear priority of the present Administration, and we will proceed as quickly as possible to seek appropriations and pay these monies to international organizations as we receive the funds.
The United States has long sought a budget in the FAO that reflected no programme growth and maximum absorption of non-discretionary costs. We have sought budgets of the same standard across the UN system. The budget resolution before us meets all these criteria. It is a product of much hard work and negotiations among Member Nations, with the very strong support and constructive leadership of the Director-General and his Secretariat. Mr Chairman, the United States is particularly appreciative of these efforts and very encouraged by the emerging spirit of consensus. We believe a strong consensus on this budget, which is supported by all Member Nations, will strengthen the financial situation of FAO for this biennium and the rest of the decade. This is a period in which the UN system will be faced with many challenges. Many of these challenges must be met with declining resources, just as many of our governments are facing these challenges as well. Although these challenges are difficult, they are not insurmountable. The first thing these challenges will require is a spirit of close mutual cooperation among Member Nations. The United States believes we are developing a strong cooperative spirit in FAO. We hope we have answered as many questions as you have and we look forward to continued work with this body, the Secretariat and the Director-General as we implement this Programme of Work.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the delegate for the United States most sincerely for her statement. That was very helpful. May I ask the Commission if there are any further comments on the situation as presented in this paper?
- 259 -
Sra. Hilda GABARDINI (Argentina): Es una intervención preliminar de mi delegación, y por favor es para pedirle una clarificación. Quisiéramos saber, por favor, en qué lugar están descritas y estipuladas las funciones del Comité General; y en cumplimiento de qué normas se formula esta propuesta.
Quisiera aclararle, Sr. Presidente, que no tenemos nada en contra en principio de este documento, ya que no hemos tenido tiempo de examinarlo a fondo; pero seria importante para nosotros, le insisto, saber en función de qué norma el Comité elaboró este documento.
CHAIRMAN: In a way, I could answer that myself, but I think, to be quite correct, we have to have Legal Counsel or somebody from the Secretariat to answer the question.
V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Mr Chairman, if any member of this Commission requests you for a formal legal opinion, I am not competent to give one and we will request the presence of Legal Counsel. However, I believe Legal Counsel is very tied up with other proceedings of the Conference. If you wish, I can attempt to answer this question.
CHAIRMAN: Yes please.
V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): The functions of the General Committee are laid down in Rule X of the General Rules of the Organization. I will not read the entire Rule, which is about 2 pages long, but since one of the functions of the General Committee is to supervise and facilitate the work of the Conference, it is within the authority of the General Committee, firstly to request any Chairman of any of the Commissions to inform it of the status of the work in that Commission on any item; secondly, to consider what steps or what measures might be considered which would facilitate that work of the Commission and hence the work of the Conference; and, thirdly, in the sense that the General Committee submit its report to the Plenary, I should like to clarify that this Report as usual was submitted to the Plenary of the Conference this morning with one distinction: normally the reports of the General Committee, as distinguished members are aware, are submitted to Plenary for adoption. However, in this case, as the Report of the General Committee includes a Draft Resolution which was not ready for adoption by Plenary since the report of your Commission has not yet gone to Plenary, the General Committee, in its wisdom, chose the procedure which is given in paragraph 12 of its Report: that is to say, it invited the Plenary to take note of this Report, which the Plenary did, and to make it available to Commission II which has been done in accordance with that Report.
CHAIRMAN: I think I should read out Rule X, paragraph 2, sub-paragraph (d): "meet periodically throughout each session to review the progress of the Conference, to coordinate the work of all commissions and committees, and to make recommendations for furthering such progress...". I think that is the basic part, and that the situation is absolutely clear. I hope everybody agrees with that.
Are there any further comments?
The situation is that we, as a Commission, should send the draft Resolution on to Plenary with the Report, and of course the Report is not here now. It is still to be drafted. Therefore we will now return to Tuesday afternoon's matter, but, for the time being, I note that there is no disagreement here with the Resolution. That completes Item 16, except for the Report. Is that clear? It is agreed.
CHAIRMAN: We return now to the second part of Item 17.
Inge NORDANG (Norway): I can be brief, Mr Chairman. Let me start by saying that my delegation can associate itself with what was said by the delegates from the other Nordic countries in the discussion this morning.
Norway is, like the other Nordic countries, a strong supporter of the UN system and its development activities, both politically and financially. Norway intends also next year to use close to 1.2 percent of the GNP for development assistance, nearly half of which will be channelled through multilateral organizations. To maintain the support of the UN system it is necessary to strengthen the quality and impact of UN development activities and ameliorate the governance and efficiency of the UN organizations.
In our view the UN General Assembly Resolution 44/211 on a comprehensive triennial policy review of operational activities for development of the United Nations system constitutes an important part of the process to strengthen the UN system and its agencies, including FAO. We therefore find it disappointing that document C 91/4- Sup.1 does not appear fully to recognize the positive and challenging possibilities the implementation of this important Resolution and the following UNDP Resolution 91/32 represents. The new facilities under the UNDP arrangements are, after all, also aimed at contributing to a larger involvement of agencies like FAO in sectoral programme advice as well as in technical monitoring and evaluation of nationally implemented projects.
My delegation considers national execution to be the ultimate modality for development assistance. Through this type of execution, recipient Governments will have the responsibility for both coordination and optimal use of external assistance. We see national execution also as an important mechanism to promote utilization of national capacities and to reduce dependency of external assistance.
Let me underline that the governments must be the principal agent in determining the speed and manner of programme and project implementation, in cooperation with the UN system. Consequently, the introduction of national execution must be seen as a gradual process, dependent on the
recipient countries' capacities, needs and priorities. If national execution is to fulfil its objectives, there must be a genuine transfer of responsibility for programme and project execution to recipient countries. Assistance to recipient governments to build up their programme and administrative capacity for national execution must, therefore, be integrated in development assistance programmes. FAO and the other agencies will have a challenging role to play in this process.
We also believe that a rapid adjustment to the new support cost modality is necessary in order to prevent negative costs effects for FAO, taking into account the fact that it will start to be implemented from 1 January 1992. We fear, which was also said in the Programme Committee, that a delay in the adjustment could represent a financial burden to FAO which could withdraw resources from other parts of the Programme of Work and Budget in 1992-93.
My delegation has also received document C 91/4-Sup.2. We could agree that there might be a need for studying the support cost arrangements for Trust Fund projects in more detail. But we would not, as a donor to Trust Funds in various organizations, like to see different systems in each agency. Neither would we like to see different systems and costs applied to different donors. I would also like to point to the need to liaise closely with donors, not to jeopardize continued support to the Trust Funds.
Most fruitful approach would be to take the discussion in the UNDP Governing Council in May 1992 into account before deciding on a study.
When conducting the study, UNGA Resolution 44/211 needs to be borne in mind. The study should, therefore, seek to benefit from the work already done by the UNDP consultants. Promotion of the modality of national execution should be an important aim of the study.
Ms Robin MEYER (United States of America): The United States delegation is pleased with the progress made in the implementation of the reforms of the development system called for in UN General Assembly Resolution 44/211 of 22 December 1989, including the 1990 and 1991 UNDP Governing Council's decisions on agency support costs and national execution.
These decisions should strengthen the analytical and technical support role of the major sector agencies. Much remains to be accomplished however, and continued progress will require close cooperation among the organizations which participate in the operational activities for development of the UN system.
Again, we should like to emphasize the convergence between the central operational themes of the 1989 Review of FAO Headquarters and field activities, and the major themes of Resolution 44/211.
The progress achieved by FAO in implementing the 1989 Review Recommendations - for instance, to strengthen both the policy advice function within FAO and FAO's Country Offices - also contributes to progress in the implementation of Resolution 44/211. We strongly support efforts to strengthen the capacity of the UN system's Country Representatives to work as a team under the leadership of the Resident Coordinators.
This coordination would provide recipient governments with integrated technical advice and support. We are pleased that FAO has supported the establishment of special training programmes for the system's country teams at the ILO Training Centre in Turin, and we strongly encourage FAO to support the broadening of these training programmes to include other field staff as well as their extension to the sub-regional and country levels.
We also continue to support efforts to establish common premises and facilities for the UN system's country teams whenever administratively and financially feasible. This should result in improved coordination by the resident coordinator and closer cooperation within the UN system. We agree that there is an urgent need to strengthen the capacity of FAO Country Offices to provide sectoral and sub-sectoral policy advice and programme support, as well as to contribute effectively to the provision of multi -sectoral or cross-sectoral advice and support under the leadership of the resident coordinator. This should be achieved through redeployment of staff and resources. Only experienced, qualified policy-oriented agricultural development officers should be selected for staff Country Offices.
The United States supports the concept of a government-led programme approach to technical cooperation rather than a donor-led project-by-project approach. This programme approach should provide an analytical and operational framework for long-term sectoral and sub-sectoral policy and technical advice. It should also provide for the design and implementation of specific technical cooperation activities.
Since it would shift the focus of technical assistance from the delivery of externally funded inputs to the achievement of development programme objectives, it should be accompanied by a strengthening of the recipient government's capacity to plan and manage development programmes and to account for programme results. Therefore, we strongly believe that FAO and other major sectoral agencies should participate in UNDP-led efforts to strengthen the capacity of recipient governments to plan, design and manage the implementation of development programmes and projects.
We fully support those provisions of the recent UNDP Governing Council decision on national execution which call for the effective use of the UN system's expertise in support of national capacity building and of nationally executed programmes and projects.
Furthermore, we have opposed in the past and will continue firmly to oppose any UNDP move to expand the role of its field offices or that of its office of project services. This expansion would displace the agencies under the guide of national execution and national capacity building. In that respect we are gratified that the agencies will soon collaborate with UNDP in the drafting of interim guidelines to Field Offices on the subject of national execution.
We also share FAO's expectation that there will be an intensive and comprehensive consultation process between UNDP and its partner agencies, both at the Headquarters and country level, in the drafting of permanent guidelines on national execution. These guidelines would be submitted to the UNDP Governing Council in May 1992, and in the related implementation of the successor agreements on agency support costs.
We believe that this consultation process should focus in particular on the provision of integrated policy advice and related analytical support to governments on national capacity building assistance at the programme level. This would include the introduction of programme-based approaches to technical advice and support, and on restructuring the tripartite system of cooperation to make it more effective in supporting nationally executed projects. We recognize the fact that the new support cost arrangements constitute a radical break with the past practice of reimbursing agencies at a flat rate.
The old regime did serve its purely financial purpose well while keeping the administrative burden to a minimum. It had, however, unintended adverse effects on the effectiveness of UNDP-funded operational activities since it placed excessive emphasis on project inputs rather than outputs and deprived nationally executed projects of agency technical support.
The new support cost regime has addressed this problem by encouraging the major sectoral partners of the UNDP to shift away from the provision of administrative and operational support and focused more on project execution and toward greater and more effective analytical and technical support at the programme and project level.
The greater complexity of the new support cost regime is the price of incorporating these incentives into the new UNDP payment structure.
We are concerned, therefore, by the statement in paragraph 5 of the supplement to the Review of Field Programmes which implies that the implementation of the new UNDP support cost regime might detract from the effectiveness and efficiency with which FAO carries out long-standing and well-proven arrangements for the servicing of its Field Programmes. This statement seems to reflect a lack of understanding of the very purpose of the new support cost regime, which is to improve the effectiveness of agency support for UNDP-funded operational activities. It also stands in sharp contrast to the earlier statement in the Review of Field Programmes that UNDP support cost successor arrangements relate to some of the major orientations reflected in both the FAO review and in UNGA Resolution 44/211 and might be viewed as the operational arm of these policy aims.
We endorse that view as well as the view expressed by the ILO to its Governing Body that both the new support cost system and the increase in national implementation "should not be seen as a constraint but as an opportunity for the ILO to change and adapt itself to the new dimensions and modalities of operational activities". We expect FAO to demonstrate a similar positive attitude in its implementation of the new support cost regime.
In the case of TSS-I funding for programme level services we fully agree that "the use of this facility will have to be closely integrated with the existing and improved framework for such activities already established within FAO", and that the availability of additional funds and the procedures for handling these, if properly applied, can be complementary to and further enhance the overall impact of such work.
We also agree that the amount of TSS-II funds for technical support to projects is rather limited relative to expected needs, and therefore that the provision of complementary resources from FAO's Regular Budget will be critical. However, we expect that the availability of UNDP funds for that
purpose will increase in the future if current funds are used effectively and that additional budget resources will be freed by the gradual reduction in FAO's provision of administrative and operational support services.
On that subject, we call attention to the preliminary results of the cost survey conducted by a reputable consulting firm for UNDP which indicates that the actual cost of administrative and operational support provided by the FAO to field projects averaged almost 18 percent during the 1990-91 biennium whereas reimbursement from UNDP under the new support cost regime will average only 10 percent. Thus the expected steady decline in administrative and operational support services provided by FAO to UNDP-funded projects should have a beneficial impact on the Regular Budget as long as FAO is able to reduce its administrative and operational staff at the same pace.
Of course we shall carefully monitor the shift from agency execution to national execution of UNDP financed projects to ensure that the process is gradual, as envisaged by the UNDP Governing Council. We note that FAO plans to offset the decline in support costs earnings from the provision of administrative and operational support services to UNDP projects with an increase in earnings from the execution of projects funded by Trust Funds. We would remind FAO, however, that a number of multilateral/bilateral donors have called on the specialized agencies to phase out their participation in the execution of projects at the national level while possibly increasing their involvement in the execution of regional and global projects. We would expect these donors to modify their multilateral/ bilateral policies accordingly. In any event, we will expect Trust Funds to be charged the full cost of multilateral and bilateral project execution and not benefit from Regular Budget subsidies. We note particularly the recommendation in paragraph 27 with regard to support costs, and urge that FAO consult the Finance Committee before decisions are taken which would have significant cost implications for the Programme of Work.
In conclusion, we call on FAO and the other major sectoral agencies to continue their open dialogue with the UNDP with the firm expectation that they will reach agreement with UNDP on procedures and reimbursement modalities which minimize administrative costs, avoid cumbersome project-by-project negotiations and optimize the involvement of the agencies in all aspects of the UNDP project cycle.
John MACHIN (United Kingdom): In this intervention I should like to comment on two issues, first the support cost successor arrangements, and secondly the arrangements for Trust Fund projects, but perhaps I could start with a few general remarks on the support costs arrangements.
Those of us who have been intimately involved with it are only too well aware that the negotiations on support costs have been extremely long and difficult. The United Kingdom - I hope it is not too immodest to say - went out of its way to seek arrangements which were fair to the agencies and which allowed a gradual and relatively smooth transition. In this respect a major feature of the new arrangements to which I want to draw particular attention is the scope for review and amendment if the arrangement proves not to be working. We think this is absolutely crucial, and it was with this in mind that we strongly supported the UNDP Decision 91/31.
I now turn to the papers before us. We welcome FAO's analysis of the implications of the successor arrangements for this Organization. This appears to show a reasonably good understanding of the intentions behind UNDP Decision 91/31, particularly the recognition that the agencies must concentrate more on technical assistance and less on administration. It also recognizes importantly the move toward national execution, which we very strongly support.
At the same time, the papers we have before us do hint at some problems ahead. I am thinking particularly of paragraph 5 in document C 91/4-Sup.l. There are also repeated implications elsewhere in the document that support costs appear to occupy a relatively small role in terms of FAO's overall operations.
I said at the outset that we recognize the difficulties of moving to new arrangements - one reason why they feature a review mechanism - but it must also be recognized that it is actually not optional for the agencies to implement the new arrangement.
They are in effect required not least by UN Resolution 44/211 to change their way of working. Like my American colleague, I can appreciate the Director-General's request for flexibility in implementing the new arrangements; paragraph 27 of C 91/4- Sup.1 refers to this. Nevertheless it is, in our view, a subject of crucial importance to FAO and one on which its Governing Bodies should be consulted as the Secretariat formulates its work in this continuing process, I therefore strongly agree that we too would like to see any future proposals put to the Finance Committee and thence to our Council for consideration.
As the documentation also recognizes it is very difficult at this stage to judge precisely the level of remuneration the agencies will receive under the new arrangements. However, I think there are some general points that we can actually make now. The first one is that the UNDP decision is intended to provide for a net increase in technical support. Secondly, the concomitant decrease in administrative work (AOS) will require some restructuring by FAO over the course of UNDP's Fifth Cycle and, thirdly, we will certainly keep under very close review the respective levels of remuneration.
I would now like to turn to the all-important area of technical support programmes (TSS-I) and projects (TSS-II). As I said earlier, the new arrangements are to provide agencies with less funding for administrative and operational services but more for technical support, both at the programme and project levels. Thus, it is the intention that TSS-I and TSS-II should augment and not replace the existing sources of funds for these activities. There should therefore be a net increase in the amounts available for technical support.
In the case of TSS-II it seems from paragraph 1.90 of document C 91/4 that FAO envisages a strong and continuing control over all main projects in its field, even those nationally executed. If this really is the position, Mr Chairman, then I do not think it is in keeping with the intentions of the new arrangements and I am afraid that, as such, this would not be acceptable to my delegation.
The point at issue here I think is that instead of having agency-executed projects where agencies administer and operate projects, the new arrangements envisage a move to nationally-executed projects with the agencies offering more selective assistance but in well-defined areas of technical expertise. Perhaps I have misunderstood the intentions in the paper but I think it would be very helpful if the Secretariat could clarify FAO's intentions on this point.
The other main comment I have relates to the trigger levels at which additional funds for project support would be released to the agencies during UNDP's Fifth Cycle. I recall that at the UNDP Council in June the FAO Representative was seriously concerned about the possible delay in releasing these funds as intended under the UNDP decision. We have looked into this in considerable detail and have concluded that the funds would be released in good time. Indeed, judging from FAO's own estimate of national execution by 1996, 40 percent I think was the figure as stated in paragraph 22 of C 91/4-Sup.l, the additional funds will be available in good time.
Two final comments; our long discussion in UNDP on Support Costs reveal that the agencies were already spending considerable resources on TSS-I and TSS-II areas of activity. One important implication of the UNDP decision is that we must also see significant improvement in the effectiveness of the use of these funds. Secondly, we very much welcome the progress that is being made on the common training systems being developed between UNDP and the agencies. This, as the Secretariat rightly pointed out this morning, should be started as soon as possible. Nevertheless, Mr Chairman, I share the concerns of my Finnish colleague about the potentially high costs that have been postulated. My delegation very much hopes that these can be contained as much as possible and instead emphasis put on on-the-job training. That concludes my remarks on Support Costs.
I would now like to turn briefly to speak on Trust Fund arrangements. We fully agree with the Director-General's assessment in the paper that the time has come to review the arrangements for Trust Fund projects. The revision of the concepts and the modalities for UN Support Cost reimbursement offers in our view an excellent opportunity for this. The Secretariat will, of course, be familiar with my delegation's views on Trust Fund Support Costs, particularly those funded bilaterally. In our view, the full cost of implementation of such projects should be borne by the relevant bilateral donor so as to avoid the need for a subsidy from the Regular Programme for such bilateral Trust Funds.
This current practice, as my American colleague commented on, reduces much needed Regular Programme funds particularly at a time when FAO, as we all know, is in the middle of a financial crisis. We therefore welcome and endorse the Director-General's proposals to initiate a study. Again, Mr Chairman, like the new agency Support Cost arrangement, we regard this as a crucially important area of the Organization's activities on which the membership needs to be consulted. We are therefore of the view that the Council at its meeting in November 1992 should study any proposals put forward by the Programme and Finance Committees before they are implemented.
- 267 -
David DRAKE (Canada): The Canadian delegation would like to comment on document C 91/4-Sup.l and C 91/4-Sup.2 concerning Support Cost arrangements for Trust Fund Programmes. To begin with I would like to express the general position of my country by quoting what we have been saying on Successor Support Costs in New York and I quote "In our view the main objectives of the UNDP Successor Support Costs Arrangements are twofold. First, and most important, is to improve the sustainability, effectiveness and impact of UNDP assisted programmes, partly by enhancing national responsibility for key aspects of the project cycle. Call it national execution if you will but our concern is to enhance national ownership for the efforts we make and thus ensure that they are relevant to and integrated into national circumstances. Second, is the desire to provide appropriate incentive for agencies to sharpen their technical capacities parallel to a lesser emphasis on the operational aspects of projects. While the Support Costs regime can help do this, it is essential always to recall that the target of UNDP programmes is the developing countries."
My delegation would like to highlight the Decision 91/32 made by the UNDP Governing Council in June, and recently before the Second Committee in New York, was reached by consensus and all major UN agencies, including FAO, participated fully in the process which led to the Decision. Donor and beneficiary countries alike are united about the urgent need to increase the efficiency of the UN operational activities, inter-UN coordination, and make gradual but concerted progress appropriate to each nation towards national execution for the greater benefit of the developing nations. Like the delegate of Norway, our delegation therefore urges FAO to begin implementing the new Support Costs Arrangements in earnest and requests the Secretariat to report to FAO's Governing Bodies periodically to inform them of progress.
With respect to paragraph 27 of document 91/4-Sup.1, it is our view that the Finance Committee and Council should be consulted before decisions are taken which would have significant cost implications for the Programme of Work and Budget. Here my delegation supports the positions just expressed by the delegations of the United States and the United Kingdom.
Finally, with regard to a proposed new Support Costs Scheme for Trust Fund Projects, my delegation would like to express its concern that Trust Fund activities of any type, including those derived from the UNDP, should not over-burden the regular budget of the FAO. Furthermore, the Canadian delegation favours a unified approach to Trust Fund Support costs for all donors. In view of the importance of the issue to the financial health of the Organization, my delegation would agree with the point put forward by the Nordic delegation, and just now by the UK delegation, that it is important that FAO's Governing Bodies take account of the deliberations on this issue at the May 1992 session of the UNDP Council before deciding on any Support Costs Scheme for Trust Fund Activities.
Jean-Pierre POLY (France): Ma délégation s'est déjà exprimée à plusieurs reprises dans différentes enceintes, notamment ici même ce matin sur la question des coûts d'appui du PNUD. Je n'y reviendrai donc pas.
A ce stade, elle intervient simplement sur un point concernant les dépenses d'appui des projets financés par des Fonds fiduciaires. Ma délégation souhaite indiquer une certaine perplexité devant ce document. Il nous semble en effet qu'il y a une contradiction entre ce document et le
document 91/4, Programme de terrain, qui indique dans des termes très nets combien le nouveau système concernant les dépenses d'appui du PNUD représentera, je cite, "une rupture radicale" et un système, je cite encore, "à l'évidence beaucoup plus complexe que le système actuel" dont le caractère forfaitaire est apprécié pour sa commodité.
Toutefois, ma délégation acceptera le principe d'une étude sur ce sujet compte tenu de la place importante et croissante des Fonds fiduciaires dans le financement des Programmes de terrain. Elle estime nécessaire que les résultats de cette étude, lorsqu'elle aura été effectuée, fassent l'objet, après avis des Comité financier et du Comité du Programme, d'un examen par les instances compétentes de la FAO, c'est-à-dire le Conseil et la Conférence, et que le Calendrier prévisionnel de mise en application d'éventuelles décisions soit révisé en conséquence.
François ROHNER (Suisse): Je ne prolongerai pas la discussion ici, nous en avons longuement débattu dans d'autres fora, sur ces fameuses dépenses d'appui. Je n'ai que deux commentaires à faire.
Le premier est que nous sommes tous conscients du fait que ce nouveau système ne sera pas facile à appliquer et qu'il nécessitera de la bonne volonté de la part de tous. Nous sommes heureux à cet égard d'apprendre que les consultations en cours avec le PNUD et les agences se déroulent dans de bonnes conditions et une bonne atmosphère de travail. Il y a donc un espoir que des solutions praticables puissent être trouvées.
Concernant le paragraphe 27 du document Sup.l, ma délégation rejoint la position du Royaume-Uni, des Etats-Unis et du Canada. Concernant l'étude prévue pour les dépenses d'appui en relation avec les Fonds fiduciaires, ma position est celle qui vient d'être exposée par la délégation française.
R.C.A. JAIN (India): As I am possibly the last speaker on this Agenda Item and I did not intervene earlier during the discussions on other aspects of the Agenda, Review of Field Programmes, I crave indulgence for briefly covering during my intervention not only the subject of the cost arrangements but also some aspects of the TCP and other field activities. Let me therefore proceed with the document C 91/4 in the first instance before I come to the new arrangements for support cost for the UNDP and other Trust Fund projects.
It is a matter of considerable satisfaction that FAO's Field Programme expenditure reached a record level during the current biennium with a total delivery of US$407 million in 1990. The FAO/UNDP level increased to US$176 million while Trust Fund delivery reached US$195 million and TCP US$36 million. It is also heartening to note that the outlook for the coming years is very encouraging.
We appreciate the response of FAO in giving due recognition to the UN General Assembly Resolution 44/211 with regard to the promotion of national execution of new UNDP projects. Similarly, we also welcome the greater emphasis being given to TCP projects and incorporation of women-in-development concerns in the Field Programmes, and also on closer association with the work of NGOs and similar grass-roots and other community level organizations in all its programmes.
While we commend FAO for assessment of about 200 Evaluation Reports we look forward to FAO taking corrective measures to eliminate the deficiencies pointed out in the evaluation.
In the context of the greater emphasis on sustainable development, the finding that just over half of the evaluated projects only was sustainable also calls for effective reorientation of Field Programmes. The improvement in project design therefore should take increasingly into account such factors as sustainability both in the context of policy and the institutional environment in which the projects are placed.
We welcome the range of mechanisms which have been introduced in FAO to ensure that environmental and sustainable considerations are built into all FAO Major Field Programmes. We also welcome the introduction of procedures for environmental impact assessment for building environmental and sustainable elements into the field projects.
The 52 projects for desk review constitute a good example of TCP activities. It is good to know that these projects were found to reflect FAO priorities and to generally adhere to TCP criteria. A positive assessment of over 80 percent of TCP projects is indicative of the better design of TCP projects. We also are encouraged by the fact that the projects follow upwards satisfactorily in over 90 percent of the cases. In general the Review confirms that the TCP is fulfilling its intended functions in close links with other regular Field Programme activities. We are sure FAO will be initiating the necessary efforts for wider dissemination of information, improved work planning, and clarification of project categories in relation to criteria and functions. FAO may consider commissioning outside agencies to get objective evaluation reports from the user beneficiary angle.
Now, Mr Chairman, I come to document C 91/4-Sup.l, concerning follow-up to the UNDP Governing Council decision on support costs successor arrangements. India has been a supporter of national educational projects. However, we would suggest that the new arrangements for the UNDP need to be worked out expeditiously and in such a way that FAO's family role in agricultural activity is enhanced. We agree with the views expressed in the document that the new arrangements represent a marked departure from past practice relating to support cost reimbursements, and would have a far-reaching impact on FAO activities in the field much beyond the financial and budgetary aspects. We are happy to note that the Director-General of FAO intends to ensure that FAO capabilities to deal with support cost arrangements be preserved and continue to apply effectively to Field Programmes and the Organization's valuable in-built capital and expertise.
We agree with the assessment that in order to implement the decisions with the minimum delay and obstruction, staff training and guidelines in conjunction with UNDP need to be organized. While we are concerned at the loss of up to US$11 million revenue to FAO from UNDP by 1996 on account of this change-over, we share the optimism of the Secretariat that most of this will be compensated by the reimbursement received from the UNDP under the new arrangements for programme projects and the TSS-I and TSS-II.
In the context of the imponderables and uncertainties regarding the possible level of UNDP reimbursements as a sequel to the new cost arrangements, it is for consideration whether FAO should initiate action to also reopen the question of support cost arrangements for Trust Fund
projects at this juncture. As the documentation suggests, the full extent of the implications of the FAO/UNDP new arrangements will only become evident in future and much after the Thirty-ninth UNDP Governing Council meeting considers this matter in May 1992. It may be true that the current flat rate system of reimbursement currently applied to Trust Fund projects, regardless of their operational complexities, volume and funding sources, may also not respond to the needs of a programme. There may also be a case for eliminating the regular subsidy for Trust Fund projects. It is, however, pertinent to note that the UNDP, while approving the successor support cost arrangements, did not make a call for applying the same standards to other cooperation activities financed from other extra-budgetary forces including the Trust Fund. It may be recalled that the Council had made such a request in June 1980 while reducing the standard rate of reimbursement from 14 percent of the delivery to 13 percent in respect of UNDP programmes. While not contesting the probable need for a revised system of Trust Fund project support cost reimbursement, it may perhaps be feasible for FAO to stabilize the new arrangements with the UNDP before calling for a system-wide review of support costs in regard to all technical cooperation activities funded by the Trust Fund, etc.
Extension of the uncertainties brought in by the FAO/UNDP interface to the FAO Trust Fund donors is likely to needlessly complicate the implementation of all Field Programmes, particularly the ones funded by the Trust Fund. The evolution of the new reimbursement methodology and the overall cost apportionments, as indicated in the proposed approach for developing a revised system, would require extensive discussion between FAO donors and recipient governments, which is liable to further compound uncertainties with regard to the resources available for Field Programmes. We feel that the suggested deadline of January 1993 for introducing the new arrangements with regard to the support costs for Trust Fund projects will prove to be ambitious and inopportune at this point of time, particularly in the context of the current FAO/UNDP consultation.
CHAIRMAN: My mistake - I had forgotten the delegate of the Netherlands. You have the floor.
C.B. HOUTMAN (Netherlands): Coming from such a low situated country, it is not unusual that we are overlooked sometimes, so I'm used to it! Thank you, Mr Chairman, for giving me the floor anyway. I will be very brief.
The Netherlands delegation does not oppose the proposed study on Trust Fund support costs by FAO. However, in line with the remarks by Norway, my delegation is not in favour of the provisional implementation of the results of the study. We would welcome submission of the study to the Programme and Finance Commissions in May 1992 in order to enable an in-depth discussion to take place on this important issue during the Hundred-and-second Session of the FAO Council in November 1992.
The additional advantage of this procedure is that by that time more information about the consequences of the new support cost arrangements with FAO/UNDP will be available and a more detailed evaluation of the new experiences with the system will be possible.
Allow me a last remark, more a reaction, Mr Chairman, to what the United States and the United Kingdom said on the full support costs for the Trust
Funds to be reimbursed by donors. We may have a more advanced view. Proper interaction of the Regular Programme of Field Programme activities produces also a mutual benefit, and to put the financial burden only on the shoulders of the Trust Fund donors seem to be not very receptive to their efforts.
CHAIRMAN: We have had 29 speakers, several of them twice over, and I think we have had a good discussion. There is one other point: the Secretary on written statements.
Ms C. FORTHOMME (Secretary, Commission II): Thank you, Mr Chairman. We have received a written statement from the delegation of Kenya to be inserted in the Verbatim report.
Pedro Agostinho KANGA (Angola): M. le Président, en premier lieu, nous félicitons le Secrétariat des efforts déployés pour nous présenter un tableau complet des Programmes de terrain de la FAO.
Le document C 91/4 est plein d'informations et comporte une évaluation exhaustive et objective des résultats des projets de terrain et répond effectivement aux recommandations de la vingt-cinquième session de la Conférence.
Il est regrettable que certaines activités de la FAO ne pouvaient pas être exécutés par le biais de son Programme ordinaire suite aux difficultés financières que traverse l'Organisation.
Malgré cette situation, nous avons assisté à une augmentation de ses activités de terrain et nous ne pouvons que vous féliciter.
Nous nous félicitons aussi, en ce qui concerne les accroissements des programmes financés par le PNUD, par les Fonds fiduciaires et le PCT.
Nous félicitons la FAO de la manière très efficace dont elle a pu réagir à l'élimination à la lucilie bouchère en Afrique du Nord ainsi que des sauterelles et des criquets pèlerins.
Bien que n'étant pas affectés, nos remerciements s'adressent aux pays donateurs qui ont bien voulu apporter leur aide pour venir à bout de ces fléaux.
Nous félicitons la FAO de l'aide accrue apportée à la CTPD, l'inclusion à chaque Programme de terrain de la participation des femmes au développement, et encourageons la collaboration étroite avec les ONG et d'autres organisations régionales, subrégionales et nationales.
M. le Président, il est bien dit dans ce document que les dépenses du PTC au titre des Programmes de terrain ont fortement augmentés et que tous les projets ont été jugés conformes aux priorités de la FAO et de manière générale aux critères du PCT, que son examen confirme qu'il remplit ses fonctions en liaison étroite avec d'autres activités de la FAO relevant du Programme ordinaire, que ses opérations sont efficaces et que les gouvernements bénéficiaires l'apprécient au plus haut point.
Avant de terminer, ma délégation appuie la proposition du Secrétariat en ce qui concerne la fonction du Programme ordinaire avec le Programme de terrain.1
Daniel D.C. DON NANJIRA (Kenya): My delegation supports fully the on-going review of the Organization's operational objectives and goals in accordance with the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 44/211 and Resolution of the Twenty-fifth Session of the FAO Conference in 1989.
Any institution that fails to respond effectively to evolving challenges and to the main stream of changing needs of the membership it risks becoming irrelevant, a master of itself and a servant of none. Today even the United Nations General Assembly is being called into question by its member states as to its effectiveness in responding to the emerging generation of global challenges. It is for these reasons that we welcome the changes, but only toward a stronger and more responsive organization (to the needs of the poor and the hungry of the world), more effective and a more efficient organization. We shall not support change for the sake of change; neither shall we support change that is designed to strip bare FAO of its necessary capacity built over the years to fulfil its mandate to its members, effectively and efficiently. In this regard we have examined the evolution of the FAO review process so far, as elaborated in document C 91/4 and wish to give my delegation's views.
Mr Chairman, Kenya is privileged to host the Regional and Headquarters offices of a number of international agencies including FAO, UNDP, UNEP among others. The need identified by the United General Assembly for UN agencies to coordinate their activities at country level between themselves and with the Host Government is logical and highly supported.
The Kenya delegation would also like to give its unqualified support to the provision of the Support Costs Successor Arrangements and in particular the provision of national execution of UNDP-funded projects. The responsibility for determining development priorities and implementing should be placed on the beneficiary. This, besides ultimately reducing costs to the project enhances deep commitment on the national government and beneficiaries to ensuring success of the project. The resultant self-reliance in expertise generated by the approach builds a permanent domestic pool of expertise that enhances national capacities of governments to generate and management their own development programmes. Further, the transfer of this responsibility to the national government releases FAO to concentrate on other more specialized areas of operations.
Many developing countries today have the institutional capacities and expertise to assume such responsibility; but admittedly several others will need time to build the needed expertise. These and other concerns raised against the immediate full practical implementation of the provisions, while valid, we believe, can and should be reviewed realistically believing the UNDP Governing Council and FAO Council and operational guidelines developed soon to put into effect the reforms. It is necessary for the new policy measures to be monitored and evaluated interimly and progress reported to the Conference and valid adjustments made.
1 Texte reçu avec demande d'insertion au procès-verbal
Mr Chairman, we see this approach as a tripartite relationship between the Technical Agency, the Financier (donor/UNDP) and the national Government in which the national Government should assume the prime not the subordinate role.1
CHAIRMAN: Now for the answers. It is 5.15 p.m. and I doubt if we can finish, but I think we should get as far as possible.
V.J. SHAH (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Thank you, Mr Chairman. I will respond only to a limited number of questions because the subject is, of course, within the responsibility of my colleagues and they are fully competent, ready and willing to answer your questions. I must address, however, those questions which refer to my responsibilities and that is with regard to the budgetary aspects, support cost income, the use of that income and the problems relating to that.
There are four points I would like to make. They will be very brief. Firstly, adjusting to change. I think that Member Nations need have no fear about the Secretariat being reluctant to adjust to change. I think you know us well enough. I think we can give you evidence of our capacity for change: to give you one example (and these are facts which are regularly submitted to the Finance Committee and appear in the Finance Committee Report to the Council), take the staffing under support cost funds: under UNDP support costs the number of posts in 1986 was 544. In 1991 the number was down to 440. Trust Fund Support Costs in 1986, 386 posts; in 1991, 341. We are aware that we will have to adjust quite a bit further, and that is why we draw the matter to your attention and invite you to share our concern and be aware of our problems. Let me relate that to my second point about increasing effectiveness. Every report we submit to you, to the Council, and to the Programme and Finance Committees tries to emphasize the ways in which the operations of the Field Programme are progressively made more effective and more efficient. Perhaps it is useful to bear in mind the figures I gave of the posts, and the declining number of posts, over the same period and look at the delivery of the Field Programme over the same period. For UNDP, while we had this decline in posts over the same period, from 1986 to 1990, the delivery went up from US$116 million to US$176 million. So I hope there will be some satisfaction at the aspect of cost-effectiveness. For Trust Funds, the delivery went up from US$151 million in 1986 to US$195 million in 1990, but I must caution that that figure of US$195 million includes commitments, so it is not exactly comparable to the 1986 figure.
This brings me to my third point, the need for flexibility. Let me give you again what I consider one rather telling factor. At the moment the number of support cost funded posts is about 700. If I use the costs that we expect in 1992-93 as we have provided to you in the Programme of Work and Budget, at those higher costs we will not be able to support the current establishment. We will not even be able to support an establishment of 600 posts. It will be a figure considerably below 600. The Director-General has no intention, to our knowledge, of doing anything drastic to staff, of having any reduction in force, of getting rid of people by force. All this
1 Statement inserted in the Verbatim Records on request.
is not only undesirable from a human point of view, but it is also undesirable from a financial and resource point of view because, if we had to terminate staff, it would be at considerable expense. A professional staff member, let us say a P-4, taking an average profile, would cost just under US$100 000 to terminate, and a general service staff member, a G-5, again taking an average profile, would cost about US$112 000 to terminate. So, Mr Chairman, these are the sort of factors which make us very alive to the need to be careful, to be cautious, to be ready and, if flexibility is needed in arriving at this process of change, certainly it will be by observing the Financial Rules and Regulations and the staff regulations, and consulting and reporting to the Programme and Finance Committees. We gave this assurance to the Committees themselves and I repeat it here.
My final point is about the need for a review of Trust Fund support-cost arrangements. I recognize very well, as do all my colleagues, that there are different views among Member Nations about the principle of the extent of reimbursement for the cost of Trust Fund project delivery. We respect all of you, and there are respectable, eminent countries which say that, as a matter of principle, they are not prepared to accept a subsidy from the Regular Programme for Trust Fund project delivery, and there are equally eminent and respectable countries which say it is part of the functions of FAO and they expect a subsidy. This is a matter between you; we have to deal with all of you. So let me give you the facts. What is the subsidy and where are we going with it? On the Trust Funds the difference between the reimbursement received and the actual support costs is growing ever wider. In 1987 the total support costs for Trusts Funds were US$25.6 million, the reimbursement received was US$14.1 million, so the variance was US$11.5 million; in 1988, US$10.4 million; in 1989, US$12.5 million; in 1990, US$12.7 million; in 1991 I expect even higher. We report this to you in the Finance Committee and the Council, and this is a matter of concern to the Director-General. To what extent do you wish to go on with this? That is why he has proposed the study, and I would emphasize that its motive is not to deal only with a financial matter and an accounting matter; the thrust of the study, as explained in the Supplement 2 document in paragraph 11, is to consider very well the substantive aspects of delivering and supporting the Trust Fund Programme, how to improve our technical support, how to make these Trust Funds more effective in their impact for the recipient countries and more effective in the utilization of resources provided by Trust Fund donors. I will stop here, Sir, because I know my colleagues have a lot to reply to.
CHAIRMAN: It is 5.25 p.m. I am going to adjourn at 5.45 p.m. I think we should get as far as possible within that period but, to the extent we cannot cover everything, we will take it up tomorrow morning.
F. RINVILLE (Sous-Directeur général, Département du développement): J'aimerais bien que mes collègues et moi-même puissions aller diner ce soir, toutefois je ne voudrais pas décevoir ceux qui ont posé des questions et qui aimeraient bien avoir des réponses.
Cela dit, il ne peut être dans notre propos, à la suite d'un débat aussi riche et de tant de remarques faites ou de questions posées, de prétendre placer à chaque question soulevée, à chaque problème soulevé, une réponse.
Je vais d'abord dire que ce débat sera un outil de travail pour nous, que nous en étudierons soigneusement toutes les données et que nous incorporerons les remarques qui nous ont été faites, les suggestions, les interrogations, les inquiétudes, dans les préoccupations de notre activité de tous les jours, et que nous nous efforcerons, dans le document ultérieur, lors des prochaines réunions lors desquelles nous devrons faire rapport à vous-mêmes, de donner les bonnes réponses.
Notre document qui relate l'Examen des Programmes de terrain est en fait, comme d'autres documents, une sorte de compromis. Un compromis parce qu'il veut avoir une dimension je dirais humaine qui soit lisible; c'est-à-dire que nous sommes amenés à faire des choix dans ce que nous écrivons, car sans cela nous vous donnerions des documents illisibles et impossibles à travailler, ajoutés à tous ceux qui sont soumis à votre examen pour une période telle que la Conférence.
Nous ne voulons pas répéter des débats très longs qui ont eu lieu au Conseil d'administration du PNUD et dont vous êtes bien avertis, qui ont eu lieu à l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies et dont vous êtes bien avertis lorsqu'ils relatent l'un, les nouvelles modalités de remboursement des dépenses d'appui aux projets financés par le PNUD, et l'autre, lorsqu'il parle des activités opérationnelles dans le système des Nations Unies. Ce document ne prétend pas discuter de ces décisions.
Ce document est peut-être quelquefois maladroit; dans certains de ses paragraphes il ne reflète pas exactement notre pensée, ou il n'est pas bien traduit (car vous avez ces documents en plusieurs langues); il ne prétend pas mettre en cause des décisions que nous devons appliquer dans les meilleures conditions possibles mais, éventuellement, il doit vous faire part des difficultés qui peuvent apparaître entre ce qu'à pu être une décision et ce que sont, lorsque l'on va dans l'application, les difficultés réelles rencontrées.
Je crois que personne ne pense, par exemple, que dans des changements tels que ceux qui vont être provoqués par les récentes décisions du Conseil d'administration du PNUD il n'y ait pas à faire des ajustements dans les prochaines années qui permettent de bien adapter ce qui était l'intention politique de ceux qui ont pris les décisions, avec ce que sont les possibilités réelles de les appliquer dans leur esprit.
Il n'est pas sûr par exemple que les crédits qui ont été affectés à certaines catégories de prestations soient capables de couvrir le coût de ces prestations au niveau de la qualité que chacun en attend. Nous n'en sommes pas sûrs et nous le verrons.
Personne ne pense que le problème est de faire des économies sur les projets; il l'est beaucoup plus de faire de bons projets, bien formulés, bien dessinés, bien exécutés, bien suivis, et qui s'inscrivent durablement dans les perspectives du pays au service duquel ils ont été faits.
Je crois que ce débat devra continuer à être ouvert, et qu'il sera légitime que nous fassions part de toutes nos inquiétudes sur le sujet. C'est aussi un compromis parce que l'Examen du Programme de terrain décrit un passé. En réalité il s'applique, en ce qui nous concerne, plus encore que l'Examen du Programme ordinaire sur les années de fait 1989-90. Des projets qui ont tous été formulés avant le débat de 1989 à l'Assemblée des Nations Unies, avant aussi le débat conclusif de l'examen de la FAO. Selon les nouvelles
tendances, les nouvelles politiques, les nouvelles priorités que vous avez décidé de nous demander de suivre, peuvent être présentes dans ces projets mais n'ont peut-être pas été formulées explicitement comme elles le seront demain. Je pense en particulier à des préoccupations qui sont incluses probablement depuis 25 ou 40 ans (pas plus de temps que la vie de la FAO mais en tout cas au moins 40 ans). Le bon usage des ressources naturelles, les précautions pour les utiliser et la volonté qu'elles soient capables de durer dans les pays qui les exploitent sont certainement dans la préoccupation, mais peut-être que pour nous comme ailleurs la formulation n'était pas aussi claire de ces soucis autrefois qu'elle va l'être demain.
Dans ce domaine, je dois dire aussi que pas plus que ce document ne prétend reprendre des débats qui ont eu lieu dans d'autres enceintes, car il abuserait de votre temps et il abuserait de nos capacités de présentation, pas plus il ne prétend présenter les priorités d'action qui sont discutées dans le cadre de la préparation du Programme ordinaire. En réalité, dans les projets dont nous sommes chargés, nous nous efforçons d'introduire les priorités qui ont été décidées pour les activités ordinaires de la FAO. Elles ne sont donc pas présentées ici; elles sont discutées ailleurs. L'environnement est discuté dans les documents de l'environnement, le développement durable, la protection et la pérennité des ressources naturelles sont discutés dans le document C 91/30 dans le Programme ordinaire. Ici nous nous contentons d'essayer de montrer comment ces préoccupations sont prises en compte, mais pas de décrire la politique de leur prise en compte qui parait très clairement établie ailleurs. De même, pour les projets qui nous sont confiés, il faut bien voir que nous ne sommes pas l'unique décideur.
Comme il est souvent dit dans cette enceinte, il est essentiel, pour une approche adaptée au pays, de l'aborder dans un esprit de grande décentralisation. Ce sont les gouvernements des pays qui décident de leurs programmes de développement, et nous nous efforçons d'apporter l'assistance technique qu'ils nous demandent et dont ils ont besoin, mais nous ne nous substituons pas à leur souveraineté.
En réalité donc, les projets de terrain, c'est un ensemble de décisions prises, en ce qui nous concerne, dans autant de pays où nous avons des activités (ce chiffre oscille entre 100 et 130), avec autant de partenaires qu'il y en a puisque nous, nous sommes un partenaire, mais qu'il y a aussi celui qui apporte les fonds, que ce soit le Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement, ou que ce soit des bailleurs de fonds. Ce qui donne un aspect relatif à notre capacité (et ce qui n'est probablement pas souhaité) de tout orienter à partir d'un ensemble, d'un complexe, qui est très lourd, de guides, de directives, de contrôles, qui enlèverait à la fois toute souplesse à ce programme, toute adaptabilité aux vrais problèmes de terrain, et qui renoncerait à reconnaître que chaque pays a des problèmes à traiter qui sont divers. Et chaque pays est à un niveau de moyens, a une ressource humaine, est dans des conditions qui font que cette approche doit être par pays.
Cette introduction pour donner (parce que nous en avons bien conscience) les limites d'un ouvrage qui prétend (je dirais) résumer les actions de la FAO au profit de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation dans le monde entier. L'ambition ne peut être que limitée à des moyens humains.
Je me permettrai de donner peut-être quelques éléments de réponse, ou quelques éléments de réflexion et, comme je le dis, plus des éléments de réflexion que des réponses. Je crois que cela ne peut pas être notre ambition. Dans les domaines qui touchent au chapitre 4, cette introduction au domaine des problèmes de l'environnement, et surtout du développement durable, il est clair (et je l'ai dit) que c'est en conjonction avec la préparation du Programme ordinaire et les grandes priorités qui sont assises, avec l'examen du document C 91/30, avec toutes les activités qui ont été menées sous l'autorité de mon collègue M. Mahler (qui pourrait effectivement répondre mieux que cela ici, mais nous essayons de résumer un peu le débat), qui donc sont traités par ailleurs. Cela ne peut pas prétendre ici être la réponse à tout. C'est une certaine vue. Je pense toutefois qu'un jugement peut-être sévère a été porté par certains délégués sur le caractère académique de nos réflexions dans l'Environnement, dans la mesure où on peut le trouver déjà dans bien des projets. Ce sont des projets qui prennent en compte l'environnement qui ont été remarqués, et qui font l'objet d'une certaine satisfaction exprimée de votre part. J'en citerai un ou deux. Je pourrais citer celui de l’eradication de la lucilie bouchère, qui est quand même un projet exemplaire en matière d'appel à des moyens modernes de lutte contre les maladies et contre les insectes.
Je pourrais faire appel aussi à ce projet que l'on considère comme vraiment remarquable, et qui a fait l'objet d'une distinction particulière en la récompense de celui qui en assume la responsabilité, M. Moore, qui a reçu la récompense sur le projet de lutte intégrée, de contrôle intégré, des maladies dans les cultures (en ce moment) du riz.
Et cela, je dois dire que ce sont des approches bien réelles, bien concrètes, et que nous menons dans ces domaines-là depuis des années.
Je pourrais aussi intervenir sur les problèmes évoqués par certains délégués sur les insatisfactions qu'ils ont ressenties à l'égard des évaluations. C'est là aussi un problème de choix. Nous devons vivre avec nos contraintes, et les contraintes financières en sont.
Il faut savoir quelle part de crédit il faut affecter à l'évaluation des projets, quelle part il faut affecter aux projets eux-mêmes, et quel est le point efficace que l'on doit rencontrer.
D'abord dire que les évaluations de projets sont des évaluations, parce que cela parait peut-être ne pas avoir été clairement exposé par nous, ou clairement compris. Ce sont des missions indépendantes à caractère tripartite; le pays dans lequel le projet est évalué, la source de financement, Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement, où le donateur est la FAO. Et chacun nomme son expert, a un chef de mission, et délégué. Donc ces missions ne sont pas spécifiquement sous l'entière responsabilité de la FAO. C'est un partage de tâches et de responsabilités. C'est à prendre aussi dans le cadre de cet aspect coopératif de tous nos travaux. Il est aussi vrai que l'on fixe, tout en (contrairement à ce qui aurait pu aussi être estimé) gardant les critères d'évaluation fixés par le PNUD. C'est vrai que ce sont plutôt des projets à problèmes, méritant des révisions, qui font le choix de ces évaluations, qui coûtent en fait cher, et que c'est plutôt donc les projets qui auraient le degré de moindre satisfaction.
Cela dit, nous ne prétendons pas que tout ce que nous pouvons en dire a une valeur absolue. Et nous avons voulu (et c'est peut-être là notre fragilité) livrer les résultats de nos évaluations, les résultats des difficultés rencontrées, tels quels, avec beaucoup de transparence.
Peut-être que cela montre (mais nous le préférions) nos faiblesses, au risque au moins de dire: eh bien, les voilà. Peut-être aussi que, certes, l'on pourrait nous accuser (et c'est un problème d'expression probablement) d'un certain optimisme dans le compte rendu de résultats qui mériterait peut-être un peu plus de réserve. Mais vous avez à la fois les chiffres, notre commentaire, et nous sommes vraiment prêts à reconnaître sur ce domaine ce que sont nos faiblesses, et le goût en fait de les reprendre.
Cela étant dit, l'évaluation qui serait faite par des experts, des équipes entièrement expertes, nous séduirait fort. Ce sont souvent des problèmes de coûts de ces évaluations qui peuvent nous arrêter, je l'ai dit au début. Le problème est,si tout ne se réduit pas à des problèmes financiers.
La qualité que vous attendez des projets qui sont réalisés, exécutés par la FAO, dépend aussi de la qualité des moyens que l'on peut y affecter. L'évaluation qui peut-être, effectivement, présente le plus de défauts à sa cuirasse, c'est l'évaluation que j'appellerai sur table qui a été faite de 57 projets du Programme de coopération technique. Nous pouvions vous la présenter comme un élément de réflexion et de travail au titre de cet examen du Programme de terrain. Nous pouvons garder cela, comme c'est le cas quand nous le faisons, en tant que document interne qui nous permet vraiment d'utiliser un résultat brut, cela pour les projets à venir et dans le cadre de l'expérience interne que nous acquérons. Nous vous l'avons livrée. Là aussi c'est un type d'évaluation qu'il est souhaitable de faire, qu'il est souhaitable que nous fassions, et que nous faisons effectivement avec des moyens modestes parce que nous ne pouvons pas, dans les choix que nous sommes amenés à faire, à la fois agir et nous juger. Nous faisons un choix médian.
Je ne peux pas aborder en profondeur toutes les remarques qui ont été faites sur le Programme de coopération technique. D'abord, j'ai remarqué - et cela a été dit - que la meilleure évaluation de la qualité du Programme de coopération technique est, lorsqu'un projet a été exécuté, la satisfaction qu'en a et les services qu'en estime avoir reçu le pays lui-même. Je crois que de ce côté-là de nombreux délégués ont fait part de la satisfaction continue et reconnue que leur apportent les résultats des projets du Programme de coopération technique.
Aussi, lorsque nous les plaçons par catégorie, nous plaçons un projet dans une catégorie et pas dans une autre s'il relève de deux catégories, de façon à arriver à un total de 100 pour cent en bas de la colonne de répartition. Si nous utilisions plusieurs critères pour chaque projet, vous auriez des variations fortes dans ces évaluations et vous verriez apparaître par exemple bien des projets classés dans le domaine forestier, classés aussi dans le domaine de conseils en matière de politique, dans des domaines d'urgence, dans des domaines de formation, apparaissant en réaction à des situations d'urgence. Je prends l'exemple de ces Programmes de coopération technique affectés à la formation rapide de personnes pour l'identification de la lucilie bouchère et de ses ravages dans les pays voisins de la Libye; donc, en cela aussi, appréciation peut-être difficile!
S'agissant d'une remarque particulière faite dans le domaine du Programme de coopération technique et que j'aurais dû faire dans la présentation de l'examen, car cela relève des erreurs d'expression, l'encadré N° 2 qui se trouve après le paragraphe 396 dans l'évaluation dudit programme, et qui parle d'un projet qui s'est développé au Lesotho, fait part, dans son dernier paragraphe, dans les reproches qui lui ont été faits, de la faible priorité qu'accorde un gouvernement à un Programme de coopération technique, interdisant tout simplement la mise en route de ce programme puisque nous ne signons pas de Programmes de coopération technique s'ils ne sont pas affirmés, parmi d'autres critères, comme grandes priorités d'action pour les gouvernements qui ont fait la requête. Donc, les deux sont totalement incompatibles et, en fait, ce sont les ressources, insuffisantes à ce moment-là, que pouvait mettre en contrepartie, pour des raisons tout à fait objectives, le gouvernement, qui ont causé les difficultés de ce projet, mais pas la faible priorité qu'il y accordait.
M. le Président, si vous le voulez bien, je demanderai à mon collègue
M. Forbes Watt, ainsi qu'à M. Regnier, d'évoquer certains problèmes.
CHAIRMAN: I said before that we would finish at 17.45. I think you will have ample time in which to answer the various matters. I think we should stop now and take this up Monday morning.
We will adjourn now and meet on Monday morning at 9.30 hours. The meeting is adjourned.
The meeting rose at 17.45 hours.
La séance est levée à 17 h 45.
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.45 horas.
