CL 115/INF/22


Council


Hundred-and-fifteenth Session

Rome, 23 - 28 November 1998

A STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK FOR FAO
2000-2015
Version 1.0

Supplementary Information

 

I. INTRODUCTION

1. At their Joint Meeting on 23 September, 1998, the Programme and Finance Committees requested that the Secretariat provide to the Council a supplementary information document containing additional elements to facilitate the Council’s consideration of Version 1.0 of the FAO Strategic Framework 2000-2015, presented in document CL 115/12. The elements comprised: an explanation of the rationale for the grouping and sequencing of the proposed corporate strategies and objectives; an updated analysis of the replies to the questionnaire addressed to Members, taking account of returns subsequent to the preparation of CL 115/12; and information on any reactions from partner organizations as may be available closer to the time of the session. In addition, the Committees requested that the Secretariat draft well-focussed, brief vision and mission statements and recommended to the Council that such statements be included in Version 2.0. (Footnote CL 115/19, paras 17-22).

2. The Secretariat presents to the Council, in Part II of the present document, the draft mission and vision statements and supplementary information on the rationale for its proposals in Version 1.0. Part III contains an updated analysis of responses to the questionnaire sent to Members in June, 1998.

3. Canvassing of the views of key external partners, on the other hand, is still at an early stage as comments have been sought on the basis of Version 1.0, which was only available in September, 1998. It has been sent to all UN organizations members of the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC), as well as to major inter-governmental and international non-governmental organizations and academic/ research institutions, with which FAO maintains formal or informal collaborative relations (over 350 organizations in total), and to a number of eminent individuals. At the time of finalizing this document for processing, few responses had been received, but a report on those which may have arrived by the time of the Council session will be given orally prior to the discussion of the document. In any case the consultation process will continue throughout the Strategic Framework exercise.

 

II. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

4. The Council will consider the recommendation by the Committees that mission and vision statements be included by the Secretariat in Version 2.0. For the information of the Council, the Director-General presents below a draft statement of mission, values and vision which was originally developed by the Secretariat as part of the internal Strategic Framework preparation process. Following the methodology adopted for the exercise, it was considered important to define the basic values of the Organization, as well as its mission and vision for the future. This internal reflection constituted the first step in the iterative process which led to the proposals for corporate strategies and strategic objectives as well as strategies to address cross-organizational issues. On the basis of those proposals, as finally formulated in the document, the text has now been refined and is consistent with Version 1.0.

Mission

5. In fulfillment of the purpose for which the Organization was established (Preamble to the FAO Constitution) and in full respect of its mandate (Article 1 of the Constitution), FAO’s mission is to promote separate and collective action by its Members to:

Values

6. FAO’s field of action touches upon the most basic of human needs and rights, that of access to adequate food, as well as on a crucial sector of the world economy—agriculture, forestry and fisheries. Certain fundamental values underlie the Constitution which Members accept on joining the Organization, and which are enunciated in the Oath of Office by which the staff of the Secretariat is bound:

Vision

7. Aiming always to remain fully responsive to the ideals and requirements of its Members, the Organization will be:

RATIONALE FOR GROUPING AND SEQUENCING OF PROPOSALS

8. In formulating the proposals, it was considered essential to clarify the distinction between strategies to achieve the objectives of FAO, and strategies to ensure the continued and strenthened contribution of the Secretariat to the effective pursuit of these objectives. The former are presented in Part II of CL 115/12, as Corporate Strategies A through E, and deal with the substance of FAO's work. The latter are presented in Part III of the document, as Strategies to Address Cross-Organizational Issues, and cover questions of management and quality assurance which affect all of the Organization's programmes.

9. Together, the proposals make up the draft of the Strategic Framework for FAO for the years 2000 to 2015. The Programme and Finance Committees recognized this in suggesting that, while some of the more detailed analysis might be deleted from subsequent versions of the document, the issues in Part III should remain part of the Strategic Framework. The further clarifications below relate to the approaches considered and the reasons for the choices made in formulating the Corporate Strategies in Part II.

10. Several options were considered before settling on the approach used. One would have been to take as the point of departure the disciplinary base of the Organization, or its ongoing programmes as expressed in the Programme of Work and Budget, and project them into the future. The risk of this approach, however, could have been to close off avenues of reflection and innovation and thus to perpetuate the status quo in a rapidly evolving external environment.

11. Another approach would have been to use as an organizing principle the overall development goals of Members, as expressed, for example, in the World Food Summit Plan of Action. This also could have been misleading. Many of the specific measures called for by the Plan of Action are outside the mandate and competence of the Organization, and defining objectives for which successful achievement depends almost entirely on the contribution of others would have meant that the impact of FAO’s own actions might have been too diluted to be measured.

12. It was therefore considered necessary to define major thrusts for FAO’s work in the coming years in a manner broad enough to relate them to the real challenges which the international community faces but at the same time sufficiently circumscribed to allow for clear definition of strategies to implement them, and later on for the identification of specific projects and corresponding resource allocations.

13. Each of the five corporate strategies (A through E) has been designed to constitute a response by FAO to one such challenge, seen in terms of Members’ goals, external factors and internal capacities. Definition of the challenges started from the analysis of the likely developments in the external environment, used as a mediating principle the Organization’s mandate and comparative advantages, and tested the resulting hypotheses against the goals defined and the strategies proposed by the FAO departments. The result was then compared to the responses to the questionnaire to Members.

14. Within the five strategies, twelve strategic objectives were formulated, aggregating departmental strategies and indicating in each case the partnerships—internal and external—necessary for implementation.

15. The basic principles underlying the approach taken in formulating corporate strategies and strategic objectives were:

16. The descriptions contained in the document are self-explanatory, and the notes below therefore concentrate only on the rationale for the strategies and grouping of the strategic objectives within them.

Corporate Strategy A—Contributing to the eradication of food insecurity and rural poverty, and addressing food, agriculture and natural resource emergencies.

17. All analyses carried out by the Secretariat in preparing the proposals converged on the conclusion that meeting the global target set by the World Food Summit will require special efforts by, and on behalf of, those countries where the problems are greatest. Generally, these are countries with a high incidence of chronic undernutrition, but they also include countries vulnerable to or suffering the effects of disasters and humanitarian crises, which are important causes of food insecurity.

18. This strategy would target efforts to assisting such countries, with the aim of making a significant contribution to countering several of the most preoccupying trends arising from the analysis of the external environment—the persistence of poverty, the widening of the gap between the affluent and the poor, a concern that there will be continued or even exacerbated inequality among countries in access to the benefits of economic and technological progress, and the continued risk of disaster-related and complex emergencies. The strategic objective covering emergencies was included in this Corporate Strategy because, although it addresses problems which are generally caused by specific events and in some cases may be transitory, it nevertheless involves targeted action to assist particular countries and population groups facing food insecurity and loss of livelihoods.

Corporate Strategy B—Promoting, developing and reinforcing policies and regulatory frameworks for food and agriculture.

19. Another point of convergence in the analyses was on the crucial importance of international and domestic policy and regulatory frameworks for food and agriculture, in an increasingly inter-dependent and globalized world economy. The strategy thus reposes on the foundation of the Organization’s long-established work in this area, within its own mandate and in cooperation with other organizations, but recognizes also the growing demand by individual countries for assistance in developing their domestic policy, regulatory and standard-setting capacities.

20. Many such countries are or will be in the "middle income" group, which may be less reliant on the international community for traditional forms of technical assistance but will look to FAO for a specific expertise and experience which is not easily available from others and which the Organization is uniquely placed to provide. Because of the specificity of the questions addressed and the approaches required, it was considered desirable to have a separate focussed strategy in this area.

Corporate Strategy C—Creating sustainable increases in the supply and availability of food and other products from the crop, livestock, fisheries and forestry sectors.

21. Ensuring the required increases in supply and availability of food to meet the needs and changing requirements of growing and increasingly urbanized populations implies that the demands on the agriculture, fisheries and forestry sectors will change, and requires that countries make the appropriate strategic choices. At the same time, one of the persistent problems faced in the developing world is the gap between yields obtained in research stations and those obtained in farmers’ fields. Action to close the gap, identify appropriate agricultural practices and remove constraints to their application could make a major difference not only to supply and availability of food but also to producers'incomes, particularly in Low Income, Food Deficit Countries.

22. The thrust of this strategy is thus on enhancing policy and institutional frameworks to guide sectoral development, taking into account changes in the role and functions of the state and the importance of private initiative, and on promoting adoption of appropriate technologies and practices for sustainable intensification of production systems.

Corporate Strategy D—Supporting the conservation, improvement and sustainable utilization of land, water, fisheries, forest and genetic resources for food and agriculture.

23. The major challenge which this strategy addresses is safeguarding the sustainability of the world’s food production systems. While there is a logical, and fully justified link between this work and that envisaged under Strategy C, they have been formulated as separate strategies in order to give appropriate recognition and weight to the twin necessities of producing and ensuring availability of enough food for the present (Strategy C), and of conserving the resources on which future generations will depend (Strategy D).

24. These need not be seen as incompatible goals, but the different nature of the work involved, and the different partnerships necessary to achieve the desired results, suggested that separate strategies would permit a more incisive definition of problems and proposed solutions. For fisheries and forestry, in particular, a combination of Strategies C and D might send the wrong signal regarding the Organization's commitment to resource conservation.

Corporate Strategy E—Making available a global information database, monitoring, assessing and analyzing the global state of food and nutrition, agriculture, forestry and fisheries, and promoting a central place for food security on the international agenda.

25. All three strategic objectives contributing to this corporate strategy have received the highest degree of support from Members, and in fact the only question raised has been whether or not the third element—promoting a central place for food security on the international agenda—belongs under E or should be moved to Strategy A because it deals with food security.

26. Strategy A has been formulated as an FAO response to the need to assist those countries where extraordinary efforts must be made if the Summit target is to be reached. In different ways, Strategies B, C and D would also contribute to the achievement of various objectives in the World Food Summit Plan of Action, and thus also to food security.

27. However, it needs to be recalled that the Summit committed all countries to ensuring food security for their peoples, and called upon many actors in addition to FAO to assist in reaching its goals. FAO’s main contribution to this broader effort is in information dissemination, advocacy, facilitation of inter-agency cooperation and monitoring of progress through the CFS. These activities are covered under a Strategic Objective which appeared most amenable to inclusion as E.3 because all work under Strategy E is addressed to the entire membership and to the international community at large, and relies on similar means of action at the global level (information, analysis, advocacy).

Sequence

28. The sequencing proposed for the five Corporate Strategies did not represent an order of priority. If anything, it appeared to represent a logical progression; the sequence begins with the specific response to an urgent problem, identified by the World Food Summit; it proceeds to three Strategies (B, C and D) addressing different facets of crop, livestock, fisheries and forestry management and development; it concludes with the strategy to address the global community.

29. Obviously, the sequence could be re-ordered or otherwise revised, particularly if the Council considers that the grouping of strategic objectives should be changed. The Secretariat therefore looks forward to receiving the Council's guidance before proceeding to the preparation of Version 2.0.

 

III. QUESTIONNAIRE TO MEMBER NATIONS

UPDATE OF ANALYSIS

30. This section contains an update of the analysis of the responses received from Member Nations to a questionnaire sent out in June 1998, as part of the participatory process of consultation with the full membership of FAO, as called for by Conference Resolution 6/97, entitled "Strengthening the FAO 2000 Project". A preliminary analysis based on the returns received until 27 July 1998 is presented in Document CL 115/12, Annex II. The present analysis is based on returns received by 2 November 1998 and constitutes an update of the basic tables presented earlier. As shown in Table 1 below, an additional 37 responses were received, for a total of 114 Member Nations, amounting to over 60 percent of the FAO membership. Responses are still coming in and it is expected that an even more complete picture can be presented in due course.

TABLE 1: QUESTIONNAIRE TO MEMBER NATIONS: Respondents Classified By Region

Region

Date of Analysis

No. of Respondents

Africa

2 November

27 July

28

15

Asia & Pacific

2 November

27 July

18

15

Europe & North America

2 November

27 July

32

27

Latin America & The Caribbean

2 November

27 July

25

13

Near East

2 November

27 July

11

7

All Respondents

2 November

27 July

114

77

31. The following tables provide an updated picture of responses to Part A of the Questionnaire on Global Goals of Member Nations (Table 2), and Part B of the Questionnaire on Goals-related areas of work identified for FAO, regarding the level of priority given to these goals (Table 3) and the importance of the role assigned to FAO as a provider of services in these areas of work (Table 4). Reference to main results obtained in the 27 July analysis have been included in Tables 2 to 4 to assist in the comparison with the earlier analysis. In addition, the abbreviated headings used in the tables in Annex II of CL 115/12 have been amended and expanded to clarify their meaning and their relationship to the Strategic Objectives in Part II of the document.

32. The questionnaire results at the two dates are similar, with the November 2 data essentially confirming the overall analysis carried out earlier. It may be observed that, as before, there is strong support for Member Nations’ Goals, with a few countries expressing disagreement focussed on wording rather than substance.

TABLE 2: GLOBAL GOALS OF MEMBER NATIONS: Regional Distribution of Responses

Global Goals

Total

#

Fully agrees %

Agrees but not as stated %

Disagrees %

1. Access of all people at all time to sufficient...... food

       

Africa

27

89

11

0

Asia & Pacific

18

89

11

0

Europe & North America

27

70

30

0

Latin America & Caribbean

25

88

12

0

Near East

11

82

18

0

All Respondents: 2 November

108

83

17

0

27 July

70

84

16

0

2. The continued and sustainable contribution of agriculture

       

Africa

27

85

15

0

Asia & Pacific

18

83

17

0

Europe & North America

28

57

39

4

Latin America & Caribbean

25

88

12

0

Near East

11

91

9

0

All Respondents: 2 November

109

79

20

1

27 July

71

72

27

1

3. The conservation, improvement and sustainable utilization .... of natural resources

       

Africa

26

92

8

0

Asia & Pacific

18

89

11

0

Europe & North America

27

89

11

0

Latin America & Caribbean

25

92

8

0

Near East

11

100

0

0

All Respondents: 2 November

107

92

8

0

27 July

70

87

13

0

 

TABLE 3: GOALS RELATED AREAS OF WORK FOR FAO: Level of priority

Area of work for FAO:

(abbreviated headings)

Total

No. of respondents

Respondents who have rated the Level of Priority as Highest or High


% of total responses

 

2 Nov

2 Nov

27 July

1.3 A central place for food security on the international agenda

112

99

100

1.1 A global set of data

112

99

97

1.2 Regular assessments of trends (i) Globally

111

99

100

4.1 Improved management of natural resources

114

97

99

2.1 International standards, norms and codes of conduct

114

97

96

2.2 National measures to meet accepted standards

114

97

96

3.1 Strategic choices for agriculture

112

97

96

4.2 Policies recognizing costs of natural resource degradation, benefits of preservation and rehabilitation

113

96

99

5.3 Assistance in disaster-related emergencies

112

96

97

5.1 Policies supporting income/employment generation and more equitable access to natural resources

112

96

96

5.2 Special measures for disadvantaged groups

113

95

97

3.2 Appropriate and sustainable technologies

113

95

95

1.2 Regular assessments of trends (ii) For your country

111

92

89

 

33. Table 4 shows an increase in ratings in practically all areas of work (in 11 out of 13) and with a consistent 6 to 10 point gain in the ratings for the lowest ranking work areas: 2.2 Adoption of national policies to meet accepted standards and 1.2 Regular assessments of trends for your country. Regarding these two areas of work, it should be recognized that the 80% reflects the views of 90 countries while the 68% reflects 75 countries that have indicated that they view FAO’s role as central or major.

TABLE 4: GOALS RELATED AREAS OF WORK FOR FAO: FAO’s role as a Provider of Services

Area of work for FAO:

(abbreviated headings)

Total

No. of respondents

Respondents who have rated FAO's role as Central or Major


% of total responses

 

2 Nov

2 Nov

27 July

1.1 A global set of data

112

99

98

1.2 Regular Assessment of trends (i) Globally

112

99

100

1.3 A central place for food security on the international agenda

112

97

96

2.1 International standards, norms and codes of conduct

114

96

94

3.1 Strategic choices for agriculture

112

89

87

5.3 Assistance in disaster-related emergencies

112

88

88

5.2 Special measures for disadvantaged groups

113

87

82

4.2 Policies recognizing costs of natural resource degradation, benefits of preservation and rehabilitation

113

87

84

4.1 Improved management of natural resources

114

84

82

5.1 Policies supporting income/employment generation and more equitable access to natural resources

112

84

79

3.2 Appropriate and sustainable technologies

113

81

78

2.2 National measures to meet accepted standards

113

80

74

1.2 Regular assessments of trends (ii) For your country

110

68

58

 

34. A revised version of Table 5 provides a complete picture of the regional distribution of all scores given to the goals-related work areas. Table 6 shows the list of respondents by Region.

 

TABLE 5: GOALS-RELATED AREAS OF WORK FOR FAO

Regional Distribution of Responses

LEVEL OF PRIORITY

FAO ROLE

% ResponsesI

% Responsesi

Total #

Highest

High

Reduced

Least

Total #

Central

Major

Minor

Little

INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENT
1.1 A global set of data

Africa

28

71

25

4

0

28

79

21

0

0

Asia & Pacific

18

72

28

0

0

18

67

33

0

0

Europe & N. America

31

77

23

0

0

31

81

19

0

0

Latin America & Caribbean

25

60

40

0

0

25

84

16

0

0

Near East

10

50

50

0

0

10

70

20

10

0

All countries

112

69

30

1

0

112

78

21

1

0

1.2 Regular assessments of trends (i) Globally

Africa

28

64

36

0

0

28

86

14

0

0

Asia & Pacific

17

65

35

0

0

18

72

28

0

0

Europe & N. America

31

77

23

0

0

31

81

19

0

0

Latin America & Caribbean

24

71

25

4

0

24

92

8

0

0

Near East

11

45

55

0

0

11

73

18

9

0

All countries

111

68

32

1

0

112

82

17

1

0

1.2 Regular assessments of trends (ii) For your country

Africa

28

75

21

4

0

28

36

61

4

0

Asia & Pacific

18

44

44

6

6

17

29

47

12

12

Europe & N. America

30

67

17

10

7

31

6

23

29

42

Latin America & Caribbean

25

76

20

4

0

25

36

44

16

4

Near East

10

60

40

0

0

9

33

33

33

0

All countries

111

67

25

5

3

110

26

42

17

15

1.3 A central place for food security on the international agenda

Africa

28

71

29

0

0

28

82

18

0

0

Asia & Pacific

18

61

39

0

0

18

67

33

0

0

Europe & N. America

31

42

58

0

0

31

55

39

3

3

Latin America & Caribbean

25

68

28

4

0

25

88

8

4

0

Near East

10

90

10

0

0

10

90

10

0

0

All countries

112

63

37

1

0

112

74

23

2

1

POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS
2.1 International standards, norms and codes of conduct

Africa

28

57

43

0

0

28

68

29

4

0

Asia & Pacific

18

44

56

0

0

18

72

28

0

0

Europe & N. America

32

78

19

3

0

32

69

28

3

0

Latin America & Caribbean

25

68

24

8

0

25

60

28

12

0

Near East

11

73

27

0

0

11

73

27

0

0

All countries

114

65

32

3

0

114

68

28

4

0

2.2 National measures to meet accepted standards

Africa

28

68

29

4

0

28

36

57

7

0

Asia & Pacific

18

50

39

11

0

18

33

50

17

0

Europe & N. America

32

53

44

3

0

32

13

50

34

3

Latin America & Caribbean

25

76

24

0

0

25

40

40

16

4

Near East

11

73

27

0

0

10

40

50

10

0

All countries

114

63

33

4

0

113

30

50

19

2

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT
3.1 Strategic choices for agriculture

Africa

28

75

25

0

0

28

46

46

7

0

Asia & Pacific

17

53

41

6

0

17

35

59

6

0

Europe & N. America

32

59

31

9

0

32

34

38

19

9

Latin America & Caribbean

25

72

28

0

0

25

64

36

0

0

Near East

10

80

20

0

0

10

70

30

0

0

All countries

112

67

29

4

0

112

47

42

8

3

3.2 Appropriate and sustainable technologies

Africa

28

64

36

0

0

28

39

57

4

0

Asia & Pacific

18

44

44

11

0

18

28

56

17

0

Europe & N. America

32

28

63

9

0

32

16

34

38

13

Latin America & Caribbean

25

68

28

4

0

25

60

32

8

0

Near East

10

70

30

0

0

10

60

40

0

0

All countries

113

52

42

5

0

113

37

43

16

4

SUSTAINABLE UTILIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES
4.1 Improved management of natural resources

Africa

28

86

14

0

0

28

50

46

4

0

Asia & Pacific

18

61

33

6

0

18

44

50

6

0

Europe & N. America

32

56

41

3

0

32

22

44

31

3

Latin America & Caribbean

25

80

16

4

0

25

44

44

12

0

Near East

11

91

9

0

0

11

55

27

18

0

All countries

114

73

25

3

0

114

40

44

15

1

4.2 Policies recognizing costs of natural resource degradation, benefits of preservation and rehabilitation

Africa

28

71

29

0

0

28

36

61

4

0

Asia & Pacific

18

39

44

17

0

18

33

56

11

0

Europe & N. America

32

44

53

3

0

32

22

56

16

6

Latin America & Caribbean

25

64

36

0

0

25

36

48

16

0

Near East

10

70

30

0

0

10

40

50

10

0

All countries

113

57

40

4

0

113

32

55

12

2

RURAL POVERTY AND FOOD INSECURITY
5.1 Policies supporting income/employment generation and more equitable access to natural resources

Africa

28

86

14

0

0

28

57

39

4

0

Asia & Pacific

18

56

33

11

0

18

39

44

17

0

Europe & N. America

31

71

26

3

0

31

23

45

26

6

Latin America & Caribbean

25

76

20

4

0

25

36

56

8

0

Near East

10

60

40

0

0

10

30

50

20

0

All countries

112

72

24

4

0

112

38

46

14

2

5.2 Special measures for disadvantaged groups

Africa

28

82

18

0

0

28

57

36

7

0

Asia & Pacific

18

50

39

11

0

18

44

50

6

0

Europe & N. America

31

61

32

6

0

31

19

48

29

3

Latin America & Caribbean

25

80

12

8

0

25

56

36

8

0

Near East

11

82

18

0

0

11

45

55

0

0

All countries

113

71

24

5

0

113

43

43

12

1

5.3 Assistance in disaster-related emergencies

Africa

28

86

11

4

0

28

89

11

0

0

Asia & Pacific

18

56

44

0

0

18

61

33

6

0

Europe & N. America

30

47

43

10

0

30

30

37

23

10

Latin America & Caribbean

25

72

24

4

0

25

60

32

8

0

Near East

11

73

27

0

0

11

73

27

0

0

All countries

112

66

29

4

0

112

61

28

9

3

_____________________

i Percentages do not always add up to 100 because of rounding off.

 

TABLE 6: LIST OF RESPONDENTS – Classified by Region

Region

Country

Response
Coverage

 

Date first response sent 1998

Global

No. of sectors covered

AFRICA Botswana

03/07

Burkina Faso

3

04/07

Cape Verde

4

26/06

total: 28 Chad

4

12/06

Comoros

20/06

Cte d’Ivoire

4

25/06

Eritrea

1

08/10

Gambia

2

25/06

Guinea

29/06

Kenya

1

10/08

Liberia

29/06

Madagascar

2

21/10

Mali

4

26/10

Mauritania

28/09

Morocco

2

01/08

Mozambique

3

03/07

Namibia

1

16/07

Niger

3

26/08

Nigeria

16/07

Rwanda

25/06

Senegal

2

24/06

South Africa

02/07

Swaziland

1

10/07

Tanzania

22/06

Tunisia

1

30/06

Uganda

23/07

Zambia

2

20/07

Zimbabwe

2

07/07

ASIA & Australia

02/07

PACIFIC Bangladesh

30/06

Cambodia

4

25/06

China

30/06

total: 18 India

1

08/09

Indonesia

1

02/07

Japan

24/07

Kazakhstan

3

07/08

Korea, Republic of

02/07

Laos

4

03/07

Myanmar

3

09/07

New Zealand

4

26/06

Pakistan

2

01/07

Philippines

21/07

Samoa

03/07

Sri Lanka

30/07

Thailand

24/06

Tonga

1

08/07

EUROPE & Armenia

1

10/07

N. AMERICA Austria

29/06

Belgium

03/07

Bosnia and Herzegovina

3

01/07

total: 32 Bulgaria

3

02/07

Canada

03/07

Cyprus

30/06

Denmark

09/07

European Union

23/07

Finland

30/06

France

03/07

Germany

06/07

Greece

26/06

Hungary

19/10

Iceland

2

04/06

Ireland

08/07

Israel

2

30/06

Italy

24/06

Latvia

21/10

Lithuania

14/08

Malta

3

19/10

Netherlands

03/07

Norway

06/07

Portugal

1

30/06

Romania

1

24/06

Spain

3

08/07

Sweden

2

03/07

Switzerland

3

03/07

The Former Yugoslav Rep.of Macedonia

3

26/10

Turkey

2

18/06

United Kingdom

29/06

United States of America

02/07

LATIN Antigua & Barbuda

4

02/07

AMERICA & Bahamas

1

07/07

CARIBBEAN Barbados

3

09/07

Bolivia

2

30/06

total: 25 Brazil

3

02/07

Chile

2

07/07

Colombia

06/07

Costa Rica

2

04/09

Cuba

2

24/08

Dominica

1

29/07

Dominican Republic

22/07

Ecuador

30/06

El Salvador

3

09/07

Guatemala

4

23/06

Guyana

1

03/07

Haiti

1

15/07

Honduras

3

25/06

Jamaica

3

29/06

Mexico

03/07

Nicaragua

2

01/07

Peru

01/06

Suriname

3

30/06

Trinidad & Tobago

4

02/07

Uruguay

3

10/07

Venezuela

1

18/06

NEAR EAST Egypt

2

21/06

Iran, Islamic Rep. of

4

23/06

Iraq

02/07

total: 11 Jordan

29/07

Lebanon

24/06

The Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

25/06

Oman

1

01/06

Qatar

25/06

Sudan

07/07

The Syrian Arab Republic

4

22/06

Yemen

28/06

________________________

i    In the case of a single sector covered, the response was generally for the agricultural sector or the main sector of the rural economy.