  |
 |
| C
2003/II/PV |
Thirty-second Session |
Rome, 29 November – 9 December 2003 |
THIRD MEETING OF COMMISSION II |
2 December 2003 |
The Third Meeting was opened at 10.25 hours
Ms Bongiwe Nomandi Njobe
Vice-Chairperson of Commission II, presiding
La troisième séance est ouverte à 10 h 25
sous la présidence de Mme Bongiwe Nomandi Njobe
Vice-président de la Commission II
Se abre la tercera sesión a las 10.25 horas
bajo la presidencia de la Sra. Bongiwe Nomandi Njobe,
Vice-Presidenta de la Comisión II
CHAIRPERSON
We now have the required number of Members present and I call to order the third meeting of Commission II.
I have the honour of Chairing the proceedings today and we have specifically two items on our Agenda this morning. We shall begin with Item 12 which discusses the Programme Implementation Report 2000-2001, and after we have concluded our discussions on that we shall move to Item 13 on the Programme Evaluation Report 2003. We will commence with Item 12 on the Agenda, the Programme Implementation Report 2000-2001 which is document C 2003/8 and I would mention again the facility established in the first report of the General Committee, Document C 2003/LIM/9 of inserting statements directly into the Verbatim Records of this meeting without having to make the statement orally and by passing written statements up to the podium so I can inform the Commission of their receipt. Before inviting delegations to take the floor on this Item, I will invite Mr Boyd Haight, Chief, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation, to introduce the Item.
Boyd HAIGHT (FAO Staff)
The Commission has before it this morning, two complementary accountability documents: the Programme Implementation Report, which we are considering now and the Programme Evaluation Report, which we will consider later this morning. In introducing the Programme Implementation Report for your consideration, I would like to put the report in its present and future context and highlight a few main findings. In the first instance, it would be useful to recall the overall planning context in which this report is presented. In 1999, the Conference adopted the Strategic Framework which is a framework consisting of a set of documents on medium-term planning which is a programme-based document with a six-year time frame, an implementation plan in the Programme of Work and Budget in a two-year time frame and then, in a reporting context, the Programme Implementation Report and the Programme Evaluation Report.
It is important to remember that the Programme Implementation Report and the Programme Evaluation Report serve somewhat different purposes within our results-based approach to programme planning, monitoring and evaluation. The PIR, as it is currently designed, is comprehensive and covers all programmes. It is also quantitative and reports on resource utilisation and measurement of outputs produced in the timescale of one biennium – two years. Thus it is in direct response in terms of accountability reporting against the Programme of Work and Budget for the proceeding biennium in this case the biennium 2000-2001. By comparison, the Programme Evaluation Report is selective. It covers only a few programmes and thematic issues. It is also qualitative in its analysis and it attempts to look at the outcome and effectiveness of programmes covered over a much longer period of time, that is, three or four biennia. I make this comparison in order to try and get expectations about the Programme Implementation Report that is before you now at the right level.
This is the last version of the Programme Implementation Report that you will see in the current format since it reports on the PWB 2000-2001 that was formulated prior to the adoption of the Strategic Framework in 1999 and the associated results-based approach. For that reason you will notice that it does not report on strategic objectives, priority areas for inter-disciplinary action, PIRES, and the strategies to address cross-organizational issues with which you are now very familiar from the planning documents of the subsequent biennium. In line with the comprehensive nature of this report, we have continued the practice, in this present version, of summarising key outputs in the document itself. We have also provided details on the fate of all outputs originally planned in the Programme of Work 2000 – 2001 on the FAO Website at www.fao.org/pir you will find the reference in the document itself. There you will find every output that was planned and what happened to it – whether it was produced, postponed or cancelled and any new outputs that were added to the programme.
Concerning programme implementation in the biennium 2000-2001, I think we can say that the results were good, particularly given the constraints faced. While the net budgetary result was favourable and there was a net surplus of 11.6 million US dollars, this was entirely due to savings on staff costs, partially offset by lower-than-expected income. It was fortuitous in that it allowed the Director-General to set aside an amount sufficient to cover the advance from the working capital fund, that the Conference had authorized, to cover redeployment and separation costs that resulted from the Zero Nominal Growth budget adopted for the biennium 2000-2001. On the quantitive production side we had to cancel 145 outputs out of a total 2,580 outputs and we managed to make up for more than this number through additions to the programme. In the end we delivered about 3 percent more than what was originally planned. In addition, we continued to make progress in reducing the cost of supporting the field programme. In terms of administrative and operative support, the cost fell to an all-time low of 8.4 percent of delivery, down from 14.1 percent in 1996 and 1997 and 10.6 percent in 1998 and 1999.
However, much of this improvement is due to increases in field programme delivery, particularly for emergency work which has almost doubled in the previous biennium. Several key achievements were made and they are recognized for their contribution to the international system and to development, including for IPPC, Integrated Pest Management, IMPRES, Codex, Capacity Building Relating to Multilateral Trade Negotiations, Implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and Forestry Resources Assessment. You will find these outlined in the executive summary at the beginning of the document. Finally, for the future we expect to go to the May 2004 meeting of the Programme Committee with proposals for a new form of Programme Implementation reporting, reflecting the substantial guidance that we have already received from the Governing Bodies, including the Programme Committee and the Council. We will aim to address progressively your expectations on reporting progress towards achieving the outcomes and objectives articulated in the results placed planning documents. In the first instance, measured against the medium-term plan 2002-2007 and the Programme of Work and Budget 2002-2003 and including reporting on the strategic objectives, the PIRES and the strategies to address cross-organizational issues. The Director-General looks forward to hearing comments on this Report.
CHAIRPERSON
Thank you very much for that contextualisation and overview. I would now open the floor to delegations wishing to speak on this Item. If you could indicate your desire to speak on this item, Agenda Item 12.
Richard HUGHES (United States of America)
The United States supports results-based efforts in the Organization towards incorporating all elements that provide a good business plan for FAO: what is its strategic direction, programme priorities, resources required and a user-friendly format for reporting. Regardless of how the new format evolves, we look forward to this improved process that will help to continue to design programmes that are both short term, long term, of quality, cost efficient and achieve desired objectives which can be substantive and sustainable. Members and FAO management must be given better and more complete information so that they can make decisions on whether to continue, adjust or terminate the programmes.
On programme specifics, we believe that FAO’s Special Programme on Food Security (SPFS) programme, through improved project design, can help elevate the importance of sound water practices to increase agricultural productivity and improve national and household food security. The special value of FAO in its global, multilateral scope and its overall effectiveness must be its impact on national and sub-national levels. This comprehensive planning document in whatever reporting format is instrumental in a results-based organization.
Mauro MASSONI (Italy)
I am speaking on behalf of the European Community and its fifteen Member States. The ten acceding countries to the European Union associate themselves to this statement. We welcome the Programme Implementation Report (PIR) which shows the major achievements during the biennium 2000-2001. We have noted that the format of the Programme Implementation Report follows the format of the Programme of Work and Budget 2000-2001 formulated before the adoption of the Strategic Framework. We appreciate the improvements made in a number of areas. We look forward to further improvements in the future, emerging from the enhanced programming process including the Strategic Framework and the new Medium-Term Plan. In particular we look forward to detailed reporting in future programme implementation reports on achievements on the basis of the indicators included in the Medium-Term Plan. We are glad to note that delivery has been quite satisfactory despite resource constraints. For the future we look forward to explicit reporting on the following topics: delivery of the Five Strategies to address Members' needs identified in the Strategic Framework; supporting Priority Areas for Interdisciplinary Activity (PAIAs) identified in the Medium-Term Plan; cross-organizational strategies identified in the strategic framework and the Medium-Term Plan; efficiency improvements, human resource management, effectiveness of FAO Country Representatives.
Pedro Agostinho KANGA (Angola)
D’emblée, nous approuvons les résultats obtenus par l´inscription du Programme durant la période 2000-2001. Malgré les maigres ressources qui ont été attribuées à la FAO durant le biennium 2000-2001 elle a pu réaliser les activités qui lui avaient été assignées par la Conférence. Ce rapport nous fournit des informations très utiles et nous démontre la gestion judicieuse des ressources de l´Organisation. Il est à noter et à féliciter que bien que le Programme de travail du budget 2000-2001 sur l’exécution du Programme ait été formulé avant l´adoption du cadre stratégique, de nombreux éléments de ressources modèles de programmation ont été appliqués au Programme technique du PTB 2000-2001 afin d’améliorer la planification et la présentation des programmes. Nous nous félicitons du processus de décentralisation qui consiste à transférer la responsabilité opérationnelle de projets nationaux aux bureaux des pays de la FAO. Nous nous félicitons aussi de l´expansion du Programme spécial pour la Sécurité alimentaire et nous encourageons les pays donateurs à redoubler leurs contributions à ces programmes.
Abdul Razek AYAZI (Afghanistan)
PIR 2000-2001 is an informative report that focuses on the progress of implementation and we welcome the suggestion in paragraph 3 that future PIRs will cover the long term perspective of the Medium-Term Plan. Although the current PIR does not, and probably cannot, address the question of impact, we still very much appreciate selective brief narratives on the impact of 14 important activities as shown in paragraph 4 to paragraph 18. We hope such selective impact analysis will continue in future reports.
We wish to limit our observations to the following five issues:
One: the resource constraint as shown in Table 2.1. Had there not been a sharp rise in special relief operations, total expenditure would have gone down by 4.5 percent. From Table 2.1 on page 8, one can judge that in 2000-2001 in the ratio of extra-budgetary resources to the Regular Programme, expenditures improved slightly, almost one to one, compared to less than one for the biennium 1998-1999. This ratio is much higher for the technical and economic programmes of the Organization, as shown on Table 2.4 on page 15.
Two: decentralisation has caused a very sharp rise in time spent by the professional staff of the regional and sub-regional offices on technical support services to the Field Programme. This is a welcome sign. However, the disturbing factor still remains, namely the heavy dependence of technical support services on regular programme resources. This has been the problem with the Organization for many years and yet it appears that no easy solution is in sight.
Three: the section on the implementation of outputs, paragraph 75 to paragraph 91 is extremely useful. We wish to make two suggestions for the consideration of the Secretariat in future reports. One is the separation of direct advice to Member Countries from field programme support. The nature of these two activities is radically different and it may be preferable to keep them separate. The second suggestion is the inclusion of capacity building of which training will be one, but not the only element, as it is well-known that capacity building is more than training.
Four: the sharp fall in investment generation through the activities of the Investment Centre is a cause for concern as total investment generated in 1996-97 declined from 5.4 million to 3.7 million in 2000-2001. This sharp fall was particularly noticeable with respect to the investment commitment by the World Bank. An innovative strategy is needed to rectify this situation.
Five: as should be expected, the ratio of the field to regular programme varies from a high of 12.5 percent for Programme 2.1.2 Crops to a low of 0.1 percent for Programme 2.1.5 Agricultural Applications of Isotopes and Biotechnology. Where this ratio is lowest, the corresponding ratio of technical support to delivery is bound to be high, and vice-versa. However, this phenomenon is by no means uniform among the various Programmes. For example, the ratio of field to regular programme for Programme 2.2.1 Natural Resources and Programme 2.5.6 Food Production in Support of Food Security in Low Income Food Deficit Countries are practically the same 2.5 percent, but their ratios of technical support to delivery are radically different, 7 percent and 4 percent respectively.
YUN SU CHANG (Democratic People's Republic of Korea)
I congratulate you on being elected as Vice-Chairperson at this important Commission. On behalf of my delegation, I would like to express sincere appreciation to the FAO Secretariat for the submission, to the Conference, of the excellent document made on the basis of the concrete analysis on all the activities and achievements experienced in the lessons and in the implementation of the PWB of FAO during the last biennium. As shown in the document, FAO has done a lot of work of a challenging accounting nature, including budget constraints, in both helping the sustainable agricultural development and the food production of the developing Member Nations, as well as implementing the Plan of Action for World Food Security, playing a role as leader, in Codex agencies, in food and agriculture of the United Nations system. During the last biennium, many achievements and progresses have been met by FAO through activities including: TCP, SPFC, IPPC, increasing land productivity, water control, technology research and extension, early warning and implementation system, animal health and production, fisheries and forestry management and major programmes.
My delegation congratulates and supports all the activities, successes and progresses made by FAO and highly appreciates the Director-General, as well as the staff, for all their endeavours and their work. My country is a mountainous country, the agricultural arable land is only 18% of its territory, but with this very limited arable land, we have attained and maintained sufficiency in food for the past 30 years, thanks to the correct agricultural portion into which people have put efforts. My country's natural economy, particularly the agricultural sector, has suffered, since 1995, because of continued natural calamities including floods, storms and drought. The overall agriculture production was reduced and food shortages have been temporarily faced . The Government, and the people of my country, have set an immediate target to rehabilitate and recover agriculture and food production to its former level, verified prior to the onset of natural calamities. They are vigorously carrying out new programmes and projects including: seeding improvements, expanding double crops and potato cultivations, canal constructions for irrigations, animal production for grazing and for human consumption, aquaculture, agricultural development and so on. We have overcome all the difficulties faced and many successes and progresses are being achieved in the rehabilitation and development of agriculture and food production. In this regard, I would like to mention that FAO provided valuable assistance to my country through TCP, SPFC and the emergency projects and assistance that has helped our people in the rehabilitation of the development of agriculture. On this occasion, and on behalf of my delegation, I would like to express my sincere thanks to FAO for its assistance and the donor communities, including E.U. and the Nordic countries, for their contributions, made through FAO, for my country's agriculture rehabilitation development. My country has a lot of things to do for agriculture rehabilitation and food production. Therefore, I express our expectations that FAO, and donor communities, will continue to offer future assistance to my country.
David INGHAM (Australia)
Australia would like to thank the Secretariat for producing the Programme Implementation Report 2000-2001. Australia believes information measuring the extent to which programmes met the objectives identified, when the programmes were designed, is crucial. Australia notes that the ex-post factor reporting of achievements will undergo significant changes of scope and approach in the next PIR. Australia looks forward to these improvements as a specification of, and reporting against, measurable forms of indicators is essential for an Organization to evaluate the improvement and prioritize its programmes and lift the effectiveness and efficiency of the Organization's operations.
Ms Maryam Ahmed Mustafa MOUSSA (Egypt) (Original language Arabic)
Allow me to support the report and the activities that are carried out by the Organization according to the priorities set out. I would like to commend the report and the improvements mentioned within. As far as priorities are concerned, I would like to take note of the role of the Organization in capacity building, vis-à-vis countries that participate in trade negotiations given the vital importance of this issue in the current times. I would like to commend this role particularly in relation to developing countries that face problems in this respect, especially in terms of agricultural crops and their exchange.
KYEONG-KYU KIM (Korea, Republic of)
The Republic of Korea acknowledges and accepts the PIR 2000-2001. We see this report as very relevant and well explained. This report also already reviewed the several times in sessions, so I would like to have very brief comments just on the organizational performance. Firstly, regarding the UNDP projects expenditures, explained in Para. 22, 2nd bullet. During 2000-2001, UNDP project expenditures declined by 41% compared to its previous biennium.We expected a certain level of decline at the time, but it was much greater and sharper than our expectations. Unless there was an increase in emergency operations, the Organization would have had great difficulty in management. What is the Organization's strategy to overcome this sharp decrease in UNDP projects? The only fundamental solution for us is to recover the competitiveness the Organization used to have. Secondly, para. 26 and para. 27 regarding step cost variance and its additional allotment. Even if there were several justifications for the unexpected high level of step cost variances, I believe that the Organization was too generous or incorrect when it forecasted the costs. Probably, the relatively long vacancy period might be another important factor to explain this very positive step cost variance.Ultimately, this leads to unplanned resources allocation. I would like to hear more about additional divisional allotment in para 27, to understand the exact meaning. Para. 30 shows the share of expenditures within HQs and decentralized offices. We know that 2000-2001 biennium was a premature period to judge the decentralization stage. We expect more resources should be transferred to the decentralized offices in the next PIR. Finally, para. 33 and table 2.4 compared the ratio of field programme to programme of work. We see very wide variances there, from 0.8 to 5.4; how do you evaluate the 0.8, for example in fisheries, compared with the 2.21 ratio for last year? These are the small comments and questions which the Republic of Korea delegation would like to deliver at this Session. We send our full compliments to the Secretariat which delivered the approved PWB in a face of austerity.
Víctor Hugo MORALES MELÉNDEZ (México)
Hago uso de la palabra para dejar constancia que mi delegación se siente complacida, por el contenido de este informe sobre la Ejecución del Programa 2000-2001. El informe es pertinente, adecuado y refleja el trabajo realizado durante dicho bienio. Estamos también complacidos por el fortalecimiento dado a las actividades para la capacitación en materia de comercio agrícola internacional, creemos que la FAO debería seguir trabajando en éste propósito.
GUO HANDI (China)
First of all, I would like to express my appreciation to the Secretariat of FAO for submitting to us a high quality report. We have also the pleasure to note the fact that the 2000-2001 PIR has made a very good review and summary of the major work and implementation of the programmes of the past two years. It is of a very substantive content and, therefore, it has provided a very good reference point for the management and the members of FAO in terms of their reviewing the implementation of their programmes over the past two years. It should be pointed out that we have noted that in the past two years the SPFC was given a further boost and expansion. The number of projects and the coverage of countries also experienced an increase. The extra-budgetary resources collected also increased by a big margin, which was very good for the improvement of the situation of the developing countries, especially in those low-income deficit food countries, in terms of the improvement of their productivity and in achieving their targets identified by the WFS. In addition, we have also noted that in the period 2000-2001, TCP project numbers reverted the trend that it had experienced over the past decade. The share of TCPs for Asia and the Pacific also recovered a little bit. This was a very correct reaction to the food security situation in that area. This is a sort of satisfaction for us and I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to the Director-General, and the Secretariat of FAO for the guidance, for the competence and for efforts made in achieving this programme implementation. I would like to accept this PIR.
CHAIRPERSON
That concludes the list of speakers on this item and I would like to turn back to the Secretariat to ask if there are any responses to some of the specific questions.
Tony WADE (Director, Programme, Budget and Evaluation)
Madam Chairperson, unfortunately I have to leave this meeting as I have to give a presentation. Before I do, and Mr Haight will respond to the other questions, I just want to comment a little bit about staff cost variance and Korea’s remark concerning why this has happened. The difficulty we have, of course, in forecasting certain areas relates to exchange rates. Normally we talk about exchange rate US dollars and Euro, and we have a mechanism which separates out that cost and avoids effecting performance. What we don’t have a mechanism for is the relationship between the US dollars and the exchange rates used by the decentralized offices. So, we are talking now about Accra (Ghana), Santiago (Chile), etc.
Therefore, when we are forecasting the staff costs of those offices, we also have to make an assumption about where those currencies will go in the following biennium and that is the difficult part. We naturally tend to be conservative and in this case we were excessively conservative - if you want to call that a mistake, you can call it one, but I don't feel we were unreasonable in our forecasting in the first instance. I just want to add one point here, in the following biennium, these favourable results are automatically self-correcting. The column of biennialization in the cost increases is in fact an adjustment to what actually happens. So, you will find that these gains do not get carried forward from one biennium to the next; they are one-time event that occur in the biennium in which they actually happen. Madam Chair, I think Mr Haight will handle the remaining questions and I apologise and ask to excuse me for a short time.
Boyd HAIGHT (FAO Staff)
I would like to thank the delegates for their very positive and supportive comments on this report and, also, for the understanding that we will be working through the Programme Committee to devise a report and meet the expectations for future reporting.
Turning to a question raised by the delegate from Afghanistan, concerning the ratio of field regular programme, apart from the various regular programmes, I believe people are referring primarily to Major Programme 2.1 where indeed there is quite a significant variation. I think what is important to understand is that in the case, for example, of programmes 2.4 and 2.5., the divisions concerned are providing technical services to field programmes other than those which they are actually responsible for, at times concerning resources that are not necessarily within the Organization, as in the case of the Joint FAO-IAEA Division, which is responsible for programme 2.4.. In this case, the IAEA provides the significant amount of field programme support to its own technical cooperation programme, then the Joint Division then provides the technical services, which is why you see extremely high ratio in that programme. On the other extreme, the programme 2.2 on crops has the largest contribution and responsibility for emergency work, but it does not have, by nature, a very large technical service component, so the ratio there relative to the field programme resources is very low. I hope this helps to understand the variation, at least that in Major Programme 2.1.
The delegate from the Republic of Korea has asked several questions concerning the utilization of resources. He notes the perceived decline in the UNDP contributions to the field programme and asked whether this could be improved or whether their contributions to FAO could be improved to competencies and effectiveness. It is also important to understand the changes and policies taking place in UNDP toward national implementation. You may recall, also, that the last session of the Finance Committee reviewed the FAO proposals and has forwarded to the Conference a change in the Basic Texts which will allow us to provide more assistance to the Unilateral Trust Funds. This may be one way for us to increase the type of assistance we provide to countries where national execution is an important part of the field programme.
Concerning Mr Wade, he already responded on staff cost variance and on how the additional allotments have been used. I am afraid I don't have the specific information here but I have one example that I know from my own experience in the Agriculture Department; additional resources were provided for animal genetic resources in order to move forward the national and regional development assessment of animal genetic resources. The opportunity was taken within the programme of work to strengthen those areas which have been identified and in which there were shortfalls of resources in the actual plan.
We have taken note of the expectation that would be reporting in perhaps the showing of a shift of resources into the regions. It is also reported elsewhere, I believe, that the Organization is looking at effective decentralization, and how we can strengthen delivery at the country level, which will also have an impact on how the technical services covered in this document are delivered and the point where they are really needed at the country level. I hope that we can indeed be able to show how this is shifted, in terms of delivering technical services, in the next implementation report. I think I will stop at this point, unless there is a question. If I have not answered all the questions I would be pleased to continue.
José Francisco GRAZIANO DA SILVA (Brazil)
The Brazilian delegation would like to comment upon, briefly and in general terms, the main issues involved in the discussions of the Program Implementation and Program Evaluation Reports.
First of all, the Brazilian Delegation allows itself to recall the Preamble of the Constitution of FAO, which declares to be purposes of this United Nations Organization:
In assigning FAO the purposes stated above, the Preamble of its Constitution expresses that the Organization’s ultimate objective is to contribution “towards an expanding world economy and assure humanity’s freedom from hunger”.
It is noteworthy that the reference to “freedom from hunger” was only included 20 years later, through a formal amendment to the FAO Constitution.
This fact, taken alone, is proof that the most difficult task which nations and FAO face together is that of maintaining the combating of hunger as an absolute priority. Sustaining this perspective both at national and international level is a challenge per se.
The international commitment to freedom from hunger, which almost coincides with freedom from fear, inspired the design of the United Nations system and, in this sense, underlies the International Alliance Against Hunger reached at the World Food Summit.
The magnitude of Brazil’s commitment to the goals set forth in the Millenium Summit and in the World Food Summit (and follow-up meeting) finds concrete reflection in the complete absorption, at national level, of the spirit which inspires them. With the implementation of the Zero Hunger Program and with the promotion, before the United Nations Secretary-General, of the creation of an international fund for combating hunger, Brazil considers to be giving its contribution.
Additionally, Brazil is ready and eager to collaborate with FAO’s programs and activities as well as with other Developing countries bilaterally, within the realities its own domestic conditions imply.
Brazil believes that conferring absolute priority to combating hunger is not limited to optimizing the efficiency of FAO programs and expenditures: it means that programs which benefit developing countries as a whole cannot be downsized in importance and political support inside the Organization.
For this reason, Brazil views with concern the decline of the field program over past biennia. FAO field operations are extremely important to developing countries. Another crucial input to the long term development of countries which face hunger is the statistical data FAO provides.
From a budgetary point of view, Brazil underlines the Program Implementation Report’s recommendation concerning decentralization at operational level. Brazil’s position is in favour of regional decentralization of field program operational responsibilities which permits exchange rate advantages.
Finally, the Brazilian Delegation expresses its concern regarding paragraph 545, which reads “under program 2.5.3 support to farmers’ organizations (cooperatives, producer associations and farmer groups) will be severely curtailed”. The Brazilian Government places assistance to small-scale farmers and cooperatives in the forefront of national priorities. In the case of FAO, the proposal included in Program of Work and Budget 2004-05 to cut resources directed to this area does not seem reasonable and fair. In spite of its well known difficulties which we have been discussing under item 5, member states should make all efforts to enhance the work of FAO but ask the Organization to adopt further optimization of its services in order to maintain programs which provide assistance to developing countries. 1
CHAIRPERSON
I think you did cover the questions that came up and clearly the concerns and observations that you raised around these financial issues have been answered by both yourself and Mr Wade. My sense is that there is a general sense of satisfaction in the delivery and trends in delivery in the biennium reflected in this report despite the resource constraints faced by the Organization.
There were various comments on suggestions to improve the quality of the information in such reports and I think the context given to us at the beginning of the presentation around the timing and the fact that we are in a transition guarantees, I am sure, that in the next reporting cycle we will start seeing a better relationship between results and outputs. There is also the time lag in terms of when we actually discuss these reports and finally, I think the quality of information in these reports and other reports and documents of the FAO is clearly critical both for member governments but also because FAO is a knowledge institution, and in the sustainment of its competitive position, one sees the value of these reports.
So, I think the fact that most of the delegates have commended the Secretariat leaves me just the option of congratulating the Secretariat on the work done.
We are now therefore in a position to forward this report and the report of this discussion on this item and the document itself to the Plenary for its adoption by Conference. I thank you for your input.
We now turn to agenda item 13 which is the Programme Evaluation report 2003 and that is document C2003/4 and I am now joined on the podium by Mr Kato, the Director of the Evaluation Service to introduce this item.
Masa KATO (FAO Staff)
It is indeed a pleasure for me to introduce to the Conference the Programme Evaluation Report 2003. In accordance with the decision of the One Hundred and Seventeenth Session of the Council in November 1999, this report presents in a summary form those programmes and thematic evaluations considered by the Programme Committee during this biennium. Thus the report covers six independent evaluations on the following subjects: the animal health component of the 2113 Livestock Programme; desert locust component of the EMPRES Programme, Special Programme for Food Security, evaluation done by external team and Evaluation on Corporate Strategy A/3 covering FAO's work in food and agriculture emergencies; and Codex and other FAO/WHO Joint Food Standards work and Joint FAO/WHO Evaluation led by external team leader and, finally, Programme 222 Agricultural Statistic Activities in the context of FAOSTAT.
These programme and thematic evaluations form a core part of the Organization's evaluation system for which particular efforts are being made to ensure their independence and transparency. While these evaluations are carried out or managed by the Evaluation Service I would like to highlight some important trends that are emerging.
The individual topics are selected in consultation with the Programme Committee, within the framework of rolling biennial evaluation planning. Each evaluation is buttressed by considerable input of external expertise in the evaluation team; in particular, some evaluations are conducted by an external team of consultants, while others by a team led by senior external leader. Further, each evaluation is subject to review by an external peer review panel which provides a critique on the quality of the evaluation particularly on recommendations. The evaluation process is managed by the Evaluation Service and the Evaluation Report is finalized by the Evaluation Service or by an external team when that is the case. At the same time Management and programme managers concerned provide their own views on the evaluation separately in Management's response.
The Programme Committee receives, besides the Evaluation Report itself, the Report of the External Peer Review Panel and Management's response. The Committee responds to the evaluation findings and recommendations taking into account the views expressed by the External Peer Review Panel and Management. Follow-up actions taken by the Secretariat in implementing evaluation recommendations are reported to the Committee. Both the Programme Committee and the Council have welcomed the evolution of this approach seen as an important development for the sound and more independent evaluation system.
In reviewing this particular Programme Evaluation Report at its One Hundred and Twenty-fourth Session during this year, the Council expressed its appreciation of the document and the evaluation process, in particular, it welcomed the systematic use of external peer review panels and appropriate use of external expertise; the quality of the management responses to the evaluations, the institutionalization of feedback from evaluation into programming; and finally the introduction of systematic annual assessment and auto–evaluation by responsible programme managers throughout the house.
So, in conclusion, Madame Chair, I would like to draw the attention of the Conference to the fact that a full version of these evaluations, including comments of the External Peer Review Panels and Management response are available on the FAO web site.
CHAIRPERSON
Thank you very much Mr Kato for that overview and contextualization. I now open the floor to delegations wishing to speak on this item, we have before us the Sixth Programme Evaluation Report. The floor is open for delegations who wish to speak.
Richard HUGHES (United States of America)
The United States intervened on this very important process during the June Council and continues to believe that ongoing evaluation can only further improve FAO's programme management process for greater transparency and learning. There is no better tool than evaluations to confirm the validity and usefulness of FAO programmes to end world hunger and poverty. A good well-established and respected evaluation process ensures that critical resources are focused on areas of priority interest to Members. It must be cost-effective and serve internal management improvement. Evaluation is what the management an accountability tool which must be focused on results in terms of benefits to target users of FAO's services.
FAO should continue to use its comparative benchmarking against similar programmes with feedback from stakeholders. This could include questionnaires, sample surveys and other methodologies that link results to the analysis of cause and effect. FAO needs to continue to evaluate programmes and projects with respect to their usefulness, efficiency, effectiveness and impact in order to make decisions on targeting programmes or sunsetting them.
Regarding programme evaluations for the forthcoming biennium, in order for the process to be effective, we agree that the number of biennial evaluation reports for the Programme Committee should not exceed four to five.
We would like to suggest that an area to be evaluated might be the PIRE on Ethics in Food and Agriculture.
In closing the United States appreciates the hard work done by Mr Wade's office and we look forward to the Programme Committee's continued involvement in guiding evaluations for the Organization. A participatory approach by all Members to improving programme delivery is critical to FAO's mandate.
Anton KOHLER (Suisse)
La Suisse remercie le Secrétariat pour l'excellent rapport sur l'évaluation du Programme. Nous apprécions la nouvelle approche adoptée, qui consiste à évaluer les programmes de la FAO par rapport aux objectifs stratégiques de l'Organisation, ainsi que le choix des sujets retenus. Nous avons entre nos mains un document qui, de par son examen critique, non seulement de l'utilisation des ressources mais aussi de l'impact des programmes évalués, est un instrument de planification et de gestion utile et pertinent.
La Suisse est consciente qu'une évaluation de haute qualité, surtout si elle repose sur des évaluations externes, requiert des ressources financières et personnelles adéquates. L'investissement, dont l'évaluation est nécessaire, est justifiée car il est compensé par un gain d'efficience à long terme. Le rapport coût-efficacité de l'évaluation devra être examiné constamment et les domaines et thèmes à évaluer choisis avec soin. Nos commentaires spécifiques portent sur trois éléments suivants: EMPRES, la mise en œuvre de l'objectif stratégique A3 et le Programme spécial pour la sécurité alimentaire.
La Suisse attache une grande importance aux deux composantes du Programme EMPRES. Nous nous félicitons que l'évaluation se soit portée sur ce domaine et notons avec satisfaction que les recommandations formulées au cours de l'évaluation aient été prises en considération dans le Programme de travail et budget 2004-2005. Nous saluons également la pertinence et la qualité de l'évaluation du Programme spécial pour la sécurité alimentaire riche en informations, en critiques constructives et en recommandations quant à de possibles nouvelles pistes pour améliorer l'impact de ce programme.
L'intention de la Direction de privilégier l'évaluation de la viabilité économique et l'impact direct de ces programmes sur la sécurité alimentaires des ménages, la plus grande mobilisation des compétences techniques de l'Organisation, ainsi qu'une meilleure intégration des aspects liés à l'environnement, nous semblent des pistes prometteuses pour l'avenir de ce programme. Nous suivons avec intérêt le travail de la FAO dans la mise en œuvre des quatre composantes de la stratégie A3 de la FAO. Premièrement, plan d'intervention et alerte rapide en cas de catastrophes; deuxièmement, secours à l'agriculture; troisièmement, passage de la phase de secours à celle de la reconstitution et de développement; quatrièmement, renforcement de la résistance aux épreuves.
La Suisse reconnaît les avantages comparatifs de la FAO dans les domaines de l'information sur l'alimentation et l'agriculture. Nous notons les recommandations retenues dans l'évaluation encourageant la FAO à faciliter dans une plus grande mesure la transition dans les opérations d'urgence et les actions de développement, de mettre en place des outils plus performants et de renforcer les partenariats.
Dans ce contexte, nous soulignons l'importance d'une approche coordonnée entre les différentes agences spécialisées et programmes des Nations Unies en tenant compte des montants respectifs et des avantages comparatifs de chaque organisation. Nous sommes d'accord avec le Comité du Programme que les opérations d'urgences devraient être intégrées dans les autres activités de la FAO.
Pour conclure, Madame la Présidente, nous aimerions souligner que la Suisse est favorable à un rôle et à un fonctionnement indépendant du service d'évaluation, et c'est avec grand intérêt que nous attendons le prochain rapport annoncé sur ce sujet.
Abdul Razek AYAZI (Afghanistan)
We have before us an impressive and rich document. It is a very useful report providing the synthesis of six major independent evaluations. We congratulate the Secretariat for presenting their main findings and recommendations in a clear and concise manner. Two evaluations were conducted by independent evaluation teams, namely, that of the Special Programme on Food Security and the Codex and other FAO/WHO Food Standards Work. The other four evaluations were carried out by the staff of the Evaluation Service with assistance from outside consultants. Four evaluations had External Peer Review Panels. The Management responded to all evaluation reports and each report went through the scrutiny of the Programme Committee. Moreover, the Secretariat is expected to report in future on the follow-up of the recommendations. This is indeed a very healthy sign.
We welcome these impressive evaluations and applaud the methodology adhered to in each evaluation report. We urge the continuation of this process in the future under the overall guidance of the Programme Committee. This would, of course, require additional funding for the Evaluation Service.
These independent evaluations share some common findings that need to be underscored. These findings are: (i) most of the programmes evaluated have been under-funded and extra-budgetary resources have not been very good; (ii) harmonization within the Secretariat and with outside stakeholders is still a problem; (iii) stress on capacity-building is not evidenced in most of these evaluations and in some cases the question of follow-up for sustainability is also doubted. Regarding some recommendations there has been a difference of opinion between the Evaluation Team and the Peer Review Panel. For example, in the case of Animal Health component of Programme 2.1.3 the Evaluation Report recommends the folding of the Veterinary Service Group into EMPRES while the external Review Panel recommends its present status and it's strengthening. Slight differences of opinion underscore the independence of the evaluation process in the Organization and provide the Management with alternative courses of action. We think this is a healthy process.
We do not wish to comment on each evaluation, however, the evaluation of Programme 2.2.2 Food and Agricultural Information brings out some finding that cause concern and we wish to highlight some of them.
Paragraph 285 in the report refers to the decline in Regular Programme resources for the three statistical units in FAO, namely, ESS, FIDI and FONS.
Paragraph 289 refers to the weakness in the statistical institution in Africa and other developing countries leading to inflated estimates, incomplete series and gaps in essential statistics.
In paragraph 324 the External Review Panel calls on FAO and I quote: "to regain the lead role in development of agricultural statistics in the world" unquote.
The Evaluation Report and the External Review Panel call for additional resources for Programme 2.2.2. However, in the PWB 2004-2005, there has been a budget cut of 6 percent under the Real Growth scenario and a cut of 11 percent cut under the Zero Real Growth scenario. Moreover, the ratio of Trust Fund to Regular Programme resources for Programme 2.2.2 is one of the lowest among the Technical Programmes, 18 cents for each Dollar of the Regular Programme.
CHAIRPERSON
Thank you very much for your comments. I am sure that we cannot conclude that the outcomes of this evaluation are not being taken into account in the final decisions that the Conference will make on the budget but your comments are noted. We now invite the delegate from Malaysia to take the floor.
Dato'Annas KHATIB JAAFAR (Malaysia)
To begin with, my delegation would like to congratulate you on your election as Vice-Chairperson and co-Chairperson of this Committee this morning. My delegation would also like to commend the Evaluation Service of FAO for having successfully undertaken the evaluation of the Programme and Evaluation Report 2003. In fact, we always welcome the high quality evaluation report which is independent, transparent, thorough and objective, providing balanced and constructive decisions as well as clear and useful recommendations.
We would like to draw the special attention of the Commission to the evaluation of two important issues, namely: Codex Alimentarius and the FAO/WHO efforts on food standards and its relation to the food programme and secondly, the agriculture information activities related to agricultural statistics in the context of FAOSTAT. Our appreciation goes to FAO and WHO for having ensured excellent work in the evaluation of these efforts. The evaluation was timely indeed in view of the improving importance of Codex, the WTO and the improving worldwide conviction of the importance of facility as a global issue.
We also welcome the findings of the Evaluation Team and fully agree with the main areas of improvement in order to enhance Codex work, increase inclusiveness of developing countries in the standards development process, the relevance of product standards amongst its Members and a more effective capacity building for development of national control systems.
Malaysia has no problem in supporting the general thrust, in particular, capacity-building in developing countries for protection of the consumers - important to ensure the effective participation of developing countries in the Codex process (consumers help in food safety which is to be the first priority in the Codex standards setting); setting up annual sessions of the Codex Alimentarius Commission; improving the existing process of achieving consensus; the consideration of all relevant concerns, especially those of developing countries, and the strengthening of scientific support for product decisions including the provision of scientific advice and support to scientific risk assessment. While we support the general thrust, we have some misgivings on the development of a revised mandate, i.e., the establishment of an executive board to replace an existing executive committee and the establishment of the standard management committee. However, we are happy to note that the Product Alimentarius Commission and both FAO and WHO management teams have already put in motion a programme of work to further consult with Members and to move forward in developing strategies and implementing the agreement trust of the Evaluation recommendations.
With regard to the current evaluation of activities related to agriculture statistics in the context of FAOSTAT, the Malaysian delegation welcomes the Evaluation Report that elicits the services of FAO and shares the opinions of both the Review Panel and management that this report is objective, balanced, well-organized and comprehensive. We have never had any doubt that the collection, analysis, interpretation and dissemination of food and agriculture data represent a co-element of FAO's mandate. Governments, especially those of developing countries, need credible, timely, reliable, and as accurate as possible data. Information from which systems can be developed to formulate food and agriculture strategies as well as plans to combat poverty and hunger. We believe that the Review has successfully assessed the relevance of FAO statistical activities, the performance in meeting user needs and identifying key issues affecting their performances.
We also found the key findings of the Review to be particularly accurate with regard to the low national statistical skill capacities of developing countries in trying to improve their mission information systems, the data reporting responsibilities, and the quality of data reporting. In general, we agree that the Commission has proposed vital review. We also support the recommendation of FAO to explore and undertake measures to improve the statistical capabilities of developing countries thus enabling their national statistical systems to reach and maintain acceptable statistical standards. In this regard, the proposal to strengthen relations with Member Country experts, to include regional training programme modules in agriculture statistics, to reduce the reporting burden and to facilitate and promote improved collection matter will not only improve country participation in providing data and data exchange but also improve the quality of the data reporting.
Finally, we have no difficulty with the recommendation to create an international advisory panel of experts to consider, amongst others, data needs and analytical approaches; recommend strategies, as well as assist in identifying priority areas. We also express our full support to FAOSTAT2 and especially to countries there.
Michihiro TAMURA (Japan)
My delegation highly commends this report for its conciseness and its usefulness for the purpose of the effectiveness and efficiency of FAO activities. We believe that variations are quiet important for FAO activities and that on various occasions we have requested objective variations. In this regard, we support a variation of activities, and are pleased to have this report. However, it is unfortunate that options to be implemented within the current budgetary level are not presented from the viewpoint of the budgetary discipline. My delegation would like to strongly support the Director-General's request in the foreword, that options submitted are to be implemented within existing resources. Madame Chair, while we fully support the recommendations and the report written by the Evaluation Team, we would like to stress the importance of ownership for the governments of developing countries in development activities as mentioned in our Ministers' statement yesterday and also ask FAO to renew its efforts to foster national ownership and to ensure the sufficient progress of all the projects.
Mauro MASSONI (Italy)
I am speaking on behalf of the European Community and its 15 Member States. The ten acceding countries to the EU associate themselves to this statement. We consider the Programme Evaluation Report 2003, endorsed at the June Council Session, an essential part of the new programming cycle. As we stated in June, we welcome in particular the inclusion of the Programme Evaluation Report of the Programme Committee remarks and recommendations.
The EU appreciates the fact that FAO has made significant progress over the last years in strengthening the evaluation systems of the Organization. As stated in the Director-General’s foreword, FAO is improving annual monitoring and assessment by programme managers and introducing systematic auto-evaluation of all programme identities. We welcome this development, as it is a significant step towards results-based management.
We favour a transparent evaluation process, whereby management in its response clearly indicates in what way it will implement the recommendations of the evaluation report. This should be the basis of a dialogue with membership aiming at continuous improvement of FAO’s programmes and sharpening of strategic objectives and focus.
With reference to the implementation of recommendations regarding Thematic Evaluation of Strategic Objective A3, we concur with the Programme Committee in welcoming the enhanced cooperation between FAO, WFP, and IFAD as well as the catalytic role played by the Evaluation in promoting interdisciplinary activities.
As stated in previous occasions, we are in favour of a more independent positioning and functioning of the Evaluation Service within the Secretariat. Nonetheless, we welcome, as a further step towards a more independent evaluation function within FAO, the Secretariat’s proposals to enhance the independent role of the Programme Budget and Evaluation Service (PBEE) within its current structure. Once again we wish to emphasize the importance of an adequate budget for the conduct of major independent evaluations under any budget scenario. We are looking forward to proposals to increase the Programme Committee’s involvement in the appointment process of the Chief of the Evaluation Service.
GUO HANDI (China) (Original language Chinese)
The Programme Evaluation Report for 2003 has looked at the six main aspects of FAO activities in some depth. It provides constructive recommendations and conclusions which will allow us to improve future activities within the Organization. For each of the topics evaluated, we look at the evaluation group done by the external experts, we get the feedback from the Directors of FAO but also the Programme Committee report. There is a very clear analysis here and we think this is a good exercise and this should be continued. We are very pleased to see that a positive evaluation has been done on the Special Programme for Food Security and this reflects the results which have been attained by beneficiaries of that programme. This shows that there is a lot of potential in that programme for global world food security and this is something which should be continued so that we could make a real contribution to world security worldwide. Finally, we hope that with regard to emergency aid and development aid, FAO will take account of the specific needs of countries and will do this by providing emergency aid as well as concentrate its efforts on development aid.
Ms Mary Margaret MUCHADA (Zimbabwe)
I join the other Members who have congratulated the Secretariat for the useful evaluations that have been tabled before us this morning. We see a lot of work has gone into it, but we are happy that the outcome has underscored the role that has been played by FAO and the usefulness of the programmes to the recipients. We are appreciative that in doing the evaluation, feedback was obtained and we are able to know how these programmes are impacting on the beneficiaries. Areas requiring further attention have been clearly articulated and we do hope that in the new biennium that we are entering, we would be able to address the challenges highlighted and we would continue to encourage more participation, because it is only through participatory engagement that the element of ownership, which some delegates have referred to, would be cultivated. We hope that most of this feedback, which has already been articulated in the Budget proposals by the Secretariat, will be meaningfully reflected when it comes to the provision of the resources. We've seen the advantages that have been achieved in the SPFS Programme, in EMPRES, and at the same time we've also seen the challenges that still need to be addressed, and we do hope that this should be able to assist FAO and the partners to redirect their attention to the core issues that have been raised as the challenges still requiring our attention in the particular programmes concerned. We see that there's a lot of potential in producing food and the evaluation has clearly demonstrated this.
The review has also underscored the FAO's relevance in statistical collection, and the storage and distribution, and we would like to see this improved. As you have heard from my region in Africa, this still appears a challenge and we are down on record as having requested capacity building in this particular area in order to improve our data collection, distribution and storage thereof, and that maybe even the process of capacity building in Africa should be encouraged to commence on a participatory basis, so that we would have the ownership and be able to get our farmers to contribute in this data collection, in the data generation process. What is certain from the evaluation is that most programmes are underfunded, and I do hope that we would be able to take into consideration this element. The harmonisation element, we continue to encourage that this be attended to in the other programmes so that we do not waste our resources unnecessarily. We also feel this gives us a starting point, but on the way forward, I think we share the views that we may need to continue consulting as we shape the follow-up mechanism. Let's view this as a starting point, but let's continue to improve the mortalities of the work of the Evaluation Team, and not just rush to the decision without proper consultation on that aspect.
José A. QUINTERO (Cuba)
La delegación cubana desea transmitir su agradecimiento a la Secretaría por el Informe que nos ha distribuido sobre la evaluación del Programa. Apreciamos el reforzamiento del sistema de evaluación para garantizar un uso más eficiente de los recursos de la Organización, así como de aquellos fondos extrapresupuestarios. Consideramos también de suma importancia el nuevo enfoque centrado en la población, aplicado a las actividades del Programa de Seguridad Alimentaria. Creemos que es altamente positiva la iniciativa de evaluar cada vez más las labores con los objetivos estratégicos de la Organización planteados en el Marco Estratégico 2000-2015, sólo de esa forma podremos garantizar el cumplimiento de dichos objetivos. La delegación cubana desea instar a la FAO a continuar profundizando en conjunto con los Estados Miembros, los métodos de evaluación, adoptando las recomendaciones que se proponen en dicho informe, sobre todo en lo que se refiere a la creación de capacidades, así como el desafío que la FAO tiene que enfrentar ante los aumentos de costos del sistema de evaluación.
Víctor Hugo MORALES MELÉNDEZ (México)
Como lo han hecho otras delegaciones, aprecio el informe sobre la evaluación del Programa 2003, somos de la opinión que se trata de un buen documento por lo tanto apoyamos su aprobación. Con este texto la FAO cuenta con un instrumento de planeación y de gestión adecuado y útil. También deseamos reconocer los esfuerzos realizados por la FAO para fortalecer y transparentar la función de evaluación. Confiamos en que continúe manteniendo dichos esfuerzos. Con respecto a la evaluación del PESA (Programa Especial de Seguridad Alimentaria), estamos convencidos que es un excelente programa, consideramos que esta evaluación refleja las fortalezas del mismo pero también identifica los campos para mejorarla. Pedimos que se consideren y se tomen las medidas necesarias para continuar su fortalecimiento. En cuanto a las actividades sobre el terreno, las cuales son muy importantes, pensamos que su eficacia se fortalecerá si se continúan incrementando las coordinaciones con las otras agencias de Naciones Unidas con sede en esta ciudad. El Consejo en su 125 período de sesiones revisó el tema sobre la ubicación del Servicio de Evaluación en la estructura organizativa de la FAO. Sobre este tema mi Delegación considera que debe fortalecerse el carácter independiente de este Servicio el cual le dará aun más objetividad e imparcialidad. Confiamos en que todos los acuerdos alcanzados la semana pasada por el Consejo serán atendidos puntualmente.
Ahmad AL-KHALAF (Kuwait) (Original language Arabic)
First of all, I should like to thank the Secretariat for the efforts in producing this good document, my thanks go also to Mr Kato for the excellent presentation he made on this programme report on the evaluation for the 2003 Budget. My country does support the sound, positive and excellent trend adopted by this organization in evaluating its own programmes, more particularly the external evaluation process, since it does have an excellent and positive impact on the objectivity of this evaluation process. We single out here the six programmes which are contained in the document.
I should like to focus on the Animal Health Programme and the Desert Locust Programme in addition to the EMPRESS Programme. I should also like to place special emphasis on the Food Security Programme and the Codex Alimentarius for the food standards and cooperation with the WHO. Undoubtedly these programmes do have a great deal of importance, particularly as far as the developing countries are concerned. The evaluation process, as referred to here in the document under discussion, although these activities do cost a great deal to the organization, nevertheless they are far more important since they do have a positive impact on the effectiveness of the organization, because in the final analysis this would lead to the cost effectiveness of the activities and would secure the best possible way of using the financial resources. The cooperation between FAO and other agencies within the UN, like the OIE and the WHO, has importance in terms of cutting the cost of certain activities, and in terms of the efficiency. Furthermore, we believe that these activities should be promoted because they do have a positive bearing on the collection of statistics and this, in the final analysis, will improve the effectiveness of the programmes. The promotion of Statistics activities and raising the efficiency of the Statistics unit will have a positive impact and will help the organization tread down the sound path. We do believe that this organization should continue down this path, but nevertheless, it should not have a negative bearing on the budget of this organization.
Masa KATO (FAO Staff)
I first would like to thank the Members who have spoken, expressing appreciation for these documents and the actual evaluation that underlies the report. It has been hard work but a pleasant one for us to be able to work closely with the Programme Committee, and it is really an important fact that the committee has been maintaining very important dialogue, providing us with suggestions, and sometimes directions, on how we can move forward. So we really look forward to the continued constructive working relationship with the Programme Committee. Also, many of the suggestions and comments made here are very much in line with our thinking of how to improve further the relevance and cost effectiveness of evaluation in the Organization, so we’ll take these suggestions with a great need to further reinforce independence, transparency, sharpen the analytical content of the evaluation linked to more strategic issues of the programme planning and implementation, including issues of priority and comparative strengths of FAO in the area where we are involved. I must say also that such issues as priorities, comparative strengths of FAO, are rather difficult subjects to tackle. We do need to work more broadly in relation to sharper definition of how to implement the strategic framework in particular areas and how to translate these into medium term planning processes. So it is one of the reasons why we feel it's important that the evaluation at this stage maintains a very close relationship with the unit responsible for programme planning and work in the house. We’ve been working very closely within the division, so we’ll continue along these lines to strengthen the dialogue between planning part, programming part and evaluation feedback.
If I may just respond to a few specific points raised, the US delegate gave us some interesting suggestions. We appreciate that it would be wise to limit the number of evaluations we conduct each biennium. This biennium has been pretty ambitious in the workload, so we have, as you see, 6 evaluations as presented here. I think it's more likely next biennium we'll be aiming for about 4, maybe maximum 5. But this is a subject that we have continuous dialogue with the programme committee, within a 2 year rolling plan each year we discuss what item we should bring forth for each year, and so adjustments are made along the way. So we will take this into account, and also the suggestion of evaluating PIRES. At the moment we have not included in the evaluation plan, but some of the PIRES linked to the themes, such as things related to strategic objectives on protection of vulnerable fragile eco system, such evaluation will look at PIRES as part of FAO's work in this area. So we will be looking at them, certainly PIRES will be included in the auto-evaluation which is now being introduced in the house. Also, the US delegate mentioned the need to get a broader range of partners on FAO's work, and as you may have observed, we have already incorporated in our evaluation process the questionnaire surveys of Member Countries as well as important international partners including UN agencies, some bilateral as well as suitable. So we will continue to do this and we appreciate very much that you’ve plugged this issue.
Several speakers also mentioned the importance of the independent role of the evaluation unit or service, and we agree with that, and as these speakers mentioned, this topic has been this year discussed with both the programme committee and the finance committee, so we will keep the dialogue and certainly we will be reporting to, in the first instance, the programme committee, on the follow-up to several of the measures that have been agreed and suggested by the two committees.
If I may, I would just like to respond to the related element, and that is, as I think Delegates from Cuba mentioned, rising costs of the evaluation. It is a fact that as we try to conduct more in-depth, thorough evaluations, particularly with the greater participation of external experts, costs will rise. Such evaluations, as externally done evaluation for the Special Programme Food Security costs in the range of half a million dollars. Similar figures also apply for the joint evaluation we did on Codex with WHO, so it is in the context of shrinking resources overall for the Organization. It is a consideration how many we do, how far and what way, we are aware of that, the cost implications of evaluations, so some of the evaluation work we are trying to shift to auto-evaluation, which is basically self evaluation by programme managers. Hopefully it will cut the cost per evaluation, also make evaluation more efficient and effective in terms of learning and ownership of the evaluation results by the programme managers themselves, but this also means in terms of staff costs. An in-depth, even self-evaluation, a programme review, has important implications, particularly in staff costs. As we have been neglecting such critical review by the programme managers, we have to make a lot of investment in the beginning. So I'm saying this only to flag to you some of the implications of strengthening evaluation. I'm not saying its not worth it, it's our job, we like to do that, but we also have to be realistic and certainly cost effective. I think we spent something like less than 1 percent of the budget of the Organization in evaluation and what we have been able to achieve by our effort in collaboration with our colleagues has been reasonable.
I hope I have answered all the questions If there are any additional queries, I shall be happy to respond.
CHAIRPERSON
I think that the comments you make about the relationship between the cost of the evaluations and the value for the organization underpin the importance that we as Members, individually and collectively, give to the outputs of these evaluations, and what we do about follow-up, because its often not so much the act of performing an evaluation that’s important, what’s more important is whether or not there’s an internalisation or an engagement with the outcomes and the comments that come from the evaluators. And I think that there are a lot of very important things that seem to emerge. I sensed, putting my country cap on for a moment, the attention paid and the interesting link between the SPFS programme and the agricultural statistics, and perhaps if we comprehensively address the responses to those, we might get a much better picture of what the global food security situation really is, because we tend to have projections about growing trends in countries that themselves don’t have statistics that are verifiable around the trends, so we might be doing something very good and we don't know it, or we might actually be having a much worse situation.
I thought that the linkages between some of the themes that we evaluated were very useful in this particular context, and I'm sure as Members we all want to focus our energies on making sure that we improve our capacity as a collective to really achieve the millennium development goals, because 2015 is only 11 years from now. Really within our lifetime. I also thought that there were a lot of very positive comments, broadly about the evaluation process, a lot of satisfaction, and particularly very clear comments around the methodology, but obviously the methodology being used has supported the range of elements that it incorporates - issues of quality, external participation, independence. The feedback and engagement mechanisms seem to be warmly welcomed by the Members, but clearly again evaluation is only a process of ongoing improvement of the Organization. I'm sure as we go into the next phase of the evaluations, we will also be able to improve on the methodology.
Members and Honourable Delegates, that brings us to the end of the discussion on this item, that is Agenda Item 13, which was a discussion of the Programme Evaluation Report 2003, in the thematic areas that were referred to in most of your inputs. The report of this discussion, as well as the Evaluation Report itself, will be submitted to Plenary for adoption and I want to thank you all for your participation.
The meeting rose at12.10 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 10
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.10 horas
____________________________________
1 Statement inserted in the verbatim report on request
|
|
|