1. The Programme Committee at its 83rd Session (8-12 May 2000) under its agenda item Programme Evalution, provided the conclusions reproduced below from its report (CL 119/10):

"PROGRAMME EVALUATION"

31. The Committee recalled that at its Eighty-second Session, it had endorsed the Secretariat's proposals regarding a revised evaluation regime in the context of the Strategic Framework and the New Programme Model, including changes in reporting on evaluations to the Governing Bodies.

a) Programme Evaluation of Food and Agricultural Policy (Programme 2.2.4)

32. The Committee broadly agreed with the findings, assessments and recommendations of this evaluation. It recognized the relevance and importance of the programme in addressing the Organization's thematic priorities covering the global perspective analysis, agricultural trade and food security. It considered that the programme played a productive and useful role by providing analytical frameworks and information for policy formulation as well as by supporting policy debate among the membership, especially at the Committees of Commodity Problems (CCP) and World Food Security (CFS). In particular, it appreciated the value of the Global Perspective work and assistance given to the developing member countries in enhancing their capacity to participate effectively in the multilateral trade negotiations.

33. At the same time, the Committee highlighted the importance of ensuring the coherence of the programme so that its resources are focused on selected priority areas with adequate critical mass. It also encouraged more proactive efforts for disseminating the analytical and information products under the programme and for greater joint workplanning among the various technical units concerned, with a view to ensuring the necessary multidisciplinary inputs, especially for the global perspective studies. Regarding evaluation methods, the Committee called for further improvements in the analysis and assessment of the programme impact, although it appreciated the complexities involved. It also felt that the recommendations should have been more specific with operational suggestions for addressing the issues identified. Finally, the Committee stressed the importance of systematic monitoring of follow-up actions on the evaluation recommendations.

34. In view of its potential interest to the CCP and CFS, the Committee recommended that this programme evaluation, together with its comments, be proposed to the relevant Bureaux for inclusion on the agenda of their next sessions. "

2. The Summary of the Programme Evaluation (document PC 83/4 (a)) is reproduced hereafter. The full text of PC 83/4 (a) is available on FAO internet site at http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/X4676e.htm.

Summary

(i) The evaluation of Programme 2.2.4 was carried out by the Evaluation Service from September l998 through February 1999, covering its performance during 1992-98. It was originally scheduled to be published in the Programme Evaluation Report (PER) 1998-99, but in the event it was not included due to the need to keep the PER's volume within its allocated wordings. In accordance with the decision of the Programme Committee at its session in September 1999, the evaluation is now presented to the Committee for its review in line with the revised procedures approved by the Committee for reporting to the Governing Bodies on programme evaluations. This note provides a summary (with update) on the evaluation.

(ii) Programme 2.2.4 consists of the following functions: (a) monitoring and assessing major global problems and issues on food and agriculture; (b) serving as a window to the outside world in disseminating main FAO policy work in these areas; and (c) providing substantive support to the related statutory bodies: the Committee on Commodity Problems (CCP) and the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) as well as other international fora. The programme was divided into three sub-programmes addressing related but different areas (2.2.4.1 - Global Perspective Studies; 2.2.4.2 - Commodity Market Development, Commodity and Trade Policy Advice and Intergovernmental Action; 2.2.4.3 - World Food Security Analysis). Each of the sub-programmes were executed by separate units, making it a complex task to ensure the cohesion of the Programme as a single entity.

(iii) The evaluation concluded that:

• The relevance of the programme was high in terms of the FAO's mandate and its priority concerns. It focused on the core function of the Organization by providing a forum for intergovernmental policy debate as well as supplying policy advice, information and assessment, on thematic topics such as food security and international agricultural trade;
• The programme's overall coherence, however, was found to be poor in terms of the stated objectives and structure. The overall objective was not clear, suffering from weak linkages among the three sub-programmes, each of which functioned somewhat autonomously;
• Programme implementation showed a generally good track record, with the three sub-programmes producing efficiently a large number of outputs, including many of good quality. The intergovernmental committees (CCP and CFS) supported by the Programme also expressed general satisfaction with the substantive support given. At the same time, there had been a sharp reduction in the regular resources for the Programme since 1996, especially for Sub-programmes 2.2.4.1 and 2.2.4.2, with negative effects on programme delivery. In this respect, it was noteworthy that good results were achieved in reducing the cost of meetings under the CCP/IGGs during the period;
• However, there were several important issues identified for attention (see paragraph below).

(iv) In the process of reviewing an earlier draft with the programme staff concerned, several observations and recommendations were immediately acted upon by FAO management, notably the one related to the structure of Programme 2.2.4 and another concerning staffing of the Global Perspective Studies Unit (Sub-programme 2.2.4.1). Regarding the latter issue, the post of Unit's Chief was filled without delay with a well-qualified staff member, following the retirement of the previous incumbent.

(v) The issue of programme structure was addressed through the then ongoing Strategic Framework and programme planning exercise and the results may be seen in the restructured Programmes 2.2.3 and 2.2.4 presented in the Programme of Work and Budget 2000-01. In particular, the Global Perspective Studies work has been moved to Programme 2.2.3 which is thus firmly focused on food and agricultural information (monitoring, assessments and outlooks), while Programme 2.2.4 (now retitled as Agriculture, Food Security and Trade Policy) has been substantially expanded by incorporating some of the policy-oriented work under other programmes within the Major Programme 2.2. Thus, the new programme has a broader and more coherent focus on agricultural policy issues, aimed at the reduction of poverty and food insecurity, while addressing main policy issues arising from international trade and globalization process. The new structure also has a better potential to facilitate more effective inter-governmental policy cooperation through CFS (including monitoring and follow-up of the WFS Plan of Action) and CCP.

(vi) Further noteworthy achievements have been made since the evaluation was carried out, in particular:

• the methodologies for monitoring and assessing world food security situations as part of the WFS follow up were agreed on at the Twenty-fifth session of CFS (31 May - 3 June 1999) and the first issue of a new biennial publication, the State of Food Insecurity in the World, was produced in 1999, showing that while progress is being made, hunger is still being reduced too slowly to meet the World Food Summit target of halving the number of undernourished people in the world by 2015. Furthermore, the report shows that the rate of progress has been highly uneven, with some parts of the world doing exceptionally well, while others are falling behind. Among the factors creating the greatest challenges are civil conflict, environmental degradation, and economic shocks;
• FAO actively contributed throughout 1999 to the preparations for the new round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations (MTNs) which culminated in the WTO Ministerial Conference in Seattle in November, and has been providing support to Member countries through a number of normative and operational activities.¹ Much of FAO's technical assistance in 1999 focussed on capacity building of developing member countries through a series of regional and national workshops in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Near East;
• The Global Perspective Studies Unit started to prepare for a revised and updated version of its AT2010 study (under the provisional title "Agriculture: Towards 2015/30") which included a complete overhaul of its data base and projections work, and the preparation of a Technical Interim Report, planned to be completed by April 2000.

(vii) Nevertheless, many of the conclusions and recommendations made in the programme evaluation remain valid today. These include:

a. Regarding the Programme as a whole: there is a continuing need to develop a more integrated approach and collaboration between the sub-programmes targeted at the achievement of the Organization's strategic objectives. Another concern is the weakening trend in FAO core staff resources, as available expertise continues to shrink in some areas.

b. Regarding Sub-programme 2.2.4.1: Issues relating to:

• how to capture adequately new developments in agricultural sciences and socio-economic events in future versions of global perspective studies, requiring more multi-disciplinary skills; and
• how to address weaknesses in country data, particularly in the developing countries.

c. Regarding Sub-programme 2.2.4.2: Issues with regard to:

• extent to which the number of IGGs can be further reduced in the interest of economy;
• effective functioning of the CCP/IGGs in addressing more inter-disciplinary issues arising from WFS Plan of Action and concerns regarding the Multilateral Trade Negotiations (MTNs);
• the low level of compensation for CFC project supervision; and
• reduced resources which hampered support to the developing countries for future MTNs.

d. Regarding Sub-programme 2.2.4.3: Issues with regard to:

• the quality of technical information available and how to present meaningful annual assessments of the food security situation; and
• the methods that may be available to the CFS to exercise a greater influence on policy decisions of Member Governments. "