V. J. SHAH (Deputy Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): In view of the overall introduction which the Chairman was kind enough to let me make yesterday, my task today is the easier. I do not need to refer to the context of this document; that is well known to all distinguished Members. I would like to limit myself to certain aspects of the Programme Evaluation Report in order to facilitate your debate.
Mr Chairman, while the Programme Implementation Report was a report which was very compressed, strived to be factual and strived to give the maximum information on what has been implemented during the current biennium, the Programme Evaluation Report, as I think you will recognize, is a much more reflective report.
It is a reflective report because of the nature of its task. When you evaluate something you have to take a certain perspective. You have to try and look at it from the longer term perspective. In this sense the Programme Evaluation Report does not limit itself to what is done in this biennium, indeed the more evaluatative it tries to be the more it has to cover a perspective of several biennia in order to see the relevance of what has been done. It is also in a perspective of a spread. An evaluation report I would submit, is not something which should be limited to one document. We have to bear in mind that as desired by you evaluation is a continuing process and the results of this continuing process are submitted to you are submitted to you in a sequence of documents each biennium.
Having made those general points let me briefly draw your attention to the individual parts of this report. The three parts are very differentone from the other as you will have noticed. The Part One of the report deals with the work done under Crop Protection, under Statistics and Assistance to small-scale Fisheries. Returning to my point about the spread of these and
in-depth reviews while this review only deals with three subjects the total number of sub-programmes which have been covered by in-depth reviews under the former Reviews of the Regular Programme since they began in 1978 has reached 31 sub-programmes, which is half of all the Technical Sub-Programmes. Similarly in Chapter 5 where we give an in-depth thematic review of FAO activities in support of the development of international trade, earlier reports have covered 12 other such thematic reviews. So I hope the Conference will get firm satisfaction in recognizing that you now see is only a part of the evaluation results which have been reported to you over a period of time. I do not want to take your time because it is the debate which is important now, but Chapters 1, 2 and 3 have tried to give the results, the impact, the relative usefulness of what has been done. In the case of Plant Protection you see a balanced programme structure with a concentration of activities in areas where FAO has advantages, such as global monitoring and standard setting the work on the International Plant Protection Convention and the International Code of Conduct for the Distribution and Use of Pesticides. It shows the technical leadership and the advantages of FAO in areas such as integrated pest management and it shows the areas where FAO has a natural leadership, such as in the Emergency Centre for Locust Operation. It also shows the close collaboration with other organizations such as the UN Environment Programme and the World Health Organization. It shows the inter-action between the Regular Programme and Field Programme. This area has a particularly large field component which has attracted extra-budgetary resources 11 times as large as the Regular Programme resources, covering 580 projects during the six-year period 1986-92.
The second Chapter on Statistics again is an important activity of the Organization but conceptually it is an area which is very different from the first. It is an area where it is the Regular Programme function of the Organization which is paramount because of the basic constitutional functions and not only functions which are in the Constitution but because of the work of FAO which is universally recognized in statistics as the essential hub of the organization and one which is useful to all Member Nations. This is an area where again because of the nature of the work, the assistance Member Nations may seek, represents a much lower volume of field activities but nevertheless active and effective where it is demanded. In terms of specific activities I believe that the chapter gives a good indication of the expansion of AGROSTAT, the statistical component of WAICENT and draws attention to the major publications on statistical year book bulletins again, etc.
The third chapter on small-scale fisheries again is conceptually a different area of work. This is an area of work where there are many more socio-economic aspects which become pertinent, which become decisive I would say, in effecting the influence of the organization on this area. The populations of small-scale fishermen and fisherwomen in national communities usually happen to be the ones that have the weakest voice in influencing the mobilization of resources and because of the various aspects involved essentially assistance to human beings represents an area where the results are more difficult to achieve. They are more difficult to achieve for Member Nations, they are more difficult to achieve through our work and we recognize that. Nevertheless as repeatedly pointed out by Member Nations, particularly in the World Conference on Fisheries in 1984, this is an area to which you attach a very high priority. So it is not a question of dispairing and saying that because the impact is not and cannot be as immediate as it can be in other areas the Organization should by any stretch of immagination weaken it's efforts.
Part Two of the report gives a synthesis of Project Evaluations regarding Field Projects. Here again we have taken a spread, a spread over the period 1985-91 to give you a few data; a total of 579 projects were evaluated. These were evaluated by independent tripartite evaluation missions representing the Governments whose projects these are, the beneficiary Governments, the Governments who offered extra-budgetary assistance through funding, partial funding of these projects, and FAO which has the responsibility and the ability to assist in the execution of these projects. The number of evaluations each year is increasing quite significantly. Over the period 1985-88 we had about 75 evaluation missions a year, the current level is now 90 to 100. Forty percent of these evaluations were mid-term evaluations in the life of the project and 60 percent were terminal evaluations. Missions such as these involve a cost which we all have to recognize. The average cost for an Evaluation Mission is US$ 25 000.
In terms of sectors 70 percent of the projects evaluated were in the agricultural sector, 19 percent in forestry and 11 percent in fishery. This is the chapter where you find many more tabular presentations because of the nature of the analysis and we hope that this will be found helpful.
Finally when I come to Chapter 5, without repeating at all what is in the chapter let me say with some passion this chapter shows particularly well what FAO is all about. It shows what is done under the Regular Programme covering all the major functions of the Organization. In this work of FAO on international trade you see the importance of analysis of data. You see the importance of Inter-Governmental consultations both within FAO, such as the Inter-Governmental Commodity Groups, the Committee on Commodity Problems, the Council, the Conference as you see the work of Inter-Governmental fora outside FAO for which our work is relevant and important. I refer only to the GATT negotiations on the Uruguay Round and the work in support of those negotiations which you, the Conference, have repeatedly emphasized. The Regular Programme work is also integrally supported through the work on Commodity Policy Analysis which results in policy advice, which results in policy studies and is projected through the activities in the fields. There are very few areas where the links and the cross-links and the integration of effort can be better seen than in our work on international trade.
Let me stop here Mr Chairman. I have a number of colleagues on whose assistance I will count. I thank you, Sir.
CHAIRMAN: Dr Shah has presented us with a very concise and yet wide-ranging view of the documents on the Programme Evaluation Report and, with a bit of passion, sustained the work that has been done by the Organization. I would now invite the members of the Commission to make their comments and interventions.
Jilali HASSOUNE (Maroc): Monsieur Shah, comme à l'accoutumée, nous a prouvé sa grande expérience.
Je serai très bref dans mon intervention pour respecter votre désir.
Ceux d'entre nous qui ont examiné à fond le document qui nous est soumis ont pu constater que la dernière Conférence avait réussi quant aux orientations à donner à la présente Conférence. La FAO a donc respecté son
mandat. On pourrait donc se poser la question suivante: y a-t-il une organisation autre que la FAO qui pourrait contribuer à assister les pays, en particulier les pays pauvres, vers le développement? La réponse est simple: aucune autre organisation que la FAO ne peut entreprendre cette mission importante.
Je pense que tous les pays membres de notre Organisation sont d'accord avec moi pour dire que nous plaçons toute notre confiance dans cette Organisation, la FAO.
Concernant le document qui nous est soumis et qui évalue les programmes effectués au cours des années passées, nous constatons que l'Organisation a réussi dans son entreprise en nous soumettant les différentes informations. En fait, l'Organisation ne peut effectuer toutes les analyses concernant tous les programmes, comme cela a été dit par M. Shah. Cela aurait un coût très élevé et la FAO se devait de tenir compte de nos moyens. La FAO a donc fait tout ce qui était en son pouvoir avec toutes les informations nécessaires.
Les différentes parties du document sont fort explicites. Dans la première partie, ce qui attire notre attention c'est tout ce qui concerne les pêches artisanales. Ces pêches sont appelées pêches artisanales, néanmoins le programme est fort élargi puisqu'il englobe les pays pauvres parmi les pays membres. C'est un point dont il faut tenir compte, et ce, par le biais de ces programmes très importants puisqu'ils sont destinés aux catégories qui nous intéressent, c'est-à-dire les catégories pauvres de la population. Je m'en tiendrai là, Monsieur le Président.
Costas PETRIDES (Cyprus) : Mr Chairman, on behalf of my delegation I wish to thank Mr Shah for his excellent introduction and thank the Secretariat for preparing document C 93/4 on the Programme Evaluation Report 1992-93. The Report is very informative and useful, especially as regard the achievements made in the recent biennia. For each subject covered, the assessments included therein are well supported by in-depth analyses of programme implementation and are helpful in making our own judgements on the effectiveness of these programmes.
My delegation well recognizes improvements introduced in this report over the previous reviews of the Regular and Field Programmes in several respects. The report gives in more detail the concrete achievements of the Programmes, especially at the field level, and it brings out more clearly the assessments, conclusions and issues. We also appreciate the frankness and openness of the report in pointing out the weaknesses and shortfalls in programme achievements.
Referring to the individual part of the report I would like to make the following brief comments : regarding part one we are impressed by the achievements of the three programmes covered and believe that these all take good advantage of the organization's status as a global inter-governmental, technical agency specializing in food and agricultural developments. These programmes enjoy our strong support and we would like the Secretariat to take into account the issues raised in addressing improvements in future.
As regards part two, we welcome the comprehensive analysis provided with frankness. Clearly there are difficult problems and issues in the development process of the agricultural sector and we would stress the
important role of all the parties involved, the FAO Secretariat and member countries, both as donors and as recipients, in bringing about further improvements in FAO's technical cooperation activities.
In part three we have a very comprehensive analysis of FAO's activities in support of the international trade. We support these efforts and we would like further FAO activities in providing technical assistance to the developing member countries in the various areas.
Finally, my delegation expresses its satisfaction that this Programme Evaluation Report responds well to our expectations. Its structure, coverage of subjects and analytical approach are very satisfactory in general and we look forward to further progressive improvements in future versions of this report. At the same time we would like to emphasise that such improvements should not be too costly. We are in full agreement on the importance of evaluation but there should be a balanced use of resources between technical and supporting work, including evaluation, considering especially that the Organization is under heavy financial pressure. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
John Bruce SHARPE (Australia) : Mr Chairman, I would also thank Mr Shah for his introduction. As a member of the Programme Committee and Council, Australia has already been closely involved in the consideration of this report. We made detailed comments on it at the June Council and our views are, therefore, recorded in the verbatim report. I will not take up Conference time by repeating them here.
There are, however, a couple of areas of the report that my delegation would like to refer to in this Conference. In the section on crop protection, Australia supports the four major areas of work or thrusts listed at paragraph 9 under objectives and priorities, the IPPC, the IPM Migratory Pest Control and the International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides.
We are pleased to see, as reported on page 19, that in the Asia/Pacific Region, two years after the start of the project, fourteen countries which had had no national pesticide registration scheme had either established them or were in the process of doing so. Two of these are our neighbours in the Pacific, Western Samoa and Vanuatu.
In the Chapter dealing with Small-Scale Fisheries, Australia's interest in this Chapter of the Evaluation report stems from the importance of small-scale fisheries to the economies of many of our neighbouring countries in Asia, the Pacific, and the South-West Pacific Region.
I note from paragraph 51 on page 63 the promising results achieved in the Fish Capture Programme in the Cook Islands, and in particular the success of the Pearl Oyster Programme as a research activity. As a result, a comprehensive management plan has been drawn up to provide the framework for an orderly development of that industry. To us this demonstrates how worthwhile this programme can be in that it can bring direct benefit to one of the small Member Nations, if not the smallest Member Nation in FAO.
We are also pleased with the report at paragraph 57 that FAO implemented a regional project in 15 countries of the South Pacific. This project showed the importance of consolidating information available on fisheries in the
region and on obtaining information from other tropical, small island countries.
Overall, Mr Chairman, Australia congratulates the Secretariat on this first Programme Evaluation Report. We think that this report along with the Programme Implementation Report we have already discussed are improvements on the earlier reviews on the Regular and Field Programmes as major evaluating and accountable reports to the governing bodies. We hope, and expect, that the standard achieved in this report will be maintained and improved on in future reports.
Pedro A. KANGA (Angola) : Monsieur le Président, je voudrais en premier lieu adresser mes vives félicitations à M. Shah pour la présentation très claire, précise et concise du document C 93/4. Ce rapport nous brosse un tableau complet des divers programmes et activités de la FAO. Les évaluations constituent pour nous un élément important qui montre l'efficacité de l'Organisation.
Nous félicitons aussi le Directeur général des améliorations apportées dans la présentation de ce rapport et nous ne pouvons qu'exprimer notre satisfaction d'une manière globale dans le cadre des changements apportés en remplaçant l'examen des Programmes ordinaire et de terrain par un rapport d'évaluation unique.
Nous n'avons pas à faire, à ce stade, une analyse exhaustive de ce document car nous l'avions faite lors de la cent troisième session du Conseil, mais nous aimerions faire quelques commentaires et observations sur certains points qui nous semblent importants.
En premier lieu, nous sommes satisfaits des évaluations faites dans le sous-programme Protection des cultures qui est très riche en informations. Malgré les difficultés financières, plusieurs activités ont été accomplies et, de toutes les façons, nous voulons exprimer la satisfaction qui est la nôtre de constater que des fonds extra-budgétaires ont été trouvés, ce qui a permis la mise en oeuvre de plusieurs activités. Nous souhaitons que la FAO continue à jouer pour ce sous-programme le rôle de chef de file afin de favoriser la coopération internationale et de sensibiliser les pays à accepter et à appliquer les mesures de protection des plantes.
Les statistiques jouent un rôle primordial en matière d'information sur l'alimentation et l'agriculture et il ne fait pas de doute que la FAO est l'une des Organisations qui possèdent une grande expérience dans les données statistiques sur ce domaine spécifique. Nous sommes aussi d'avis qu'il est souhaitable d'élargir l'assistance aux Etats Membres en matière de sélection des méthodes adaptées et fiables de collecte et de traitement des données en organisant au besoin des missions d'appui et de formation techniques. Vu l'énormité de la tâche, il serait essentiel de redoubler d'efforts au cours du prochain exercice biennal pour mobiliser des ressources complémentaires.
Un autre domaine non moins important est l'assistance de la FAO aux pêches artisanales. C'est avec satisfaction que nous accueillons l'évaluation faite et les résultats obtenus ainsi que les ressources extra-budgétaires qui ont pu être assemblées pour les quarante-quatre projets exécutés par la FAO. Nous nous associons à l'idée exprimée au paragraphe 86 sur la mise en place d'un système communautaire des zones côtières.
En ce qui concerne l'examen des évaluations des projets, il est vrai que des progrès ont été réalisés au niveau de l'exécution, mais nous savons que des lacunes portant sur l'aspect conception et l'exécution des projets demeurent. C'est une réalité et nous pensons que le fait d'avoir identifié ces faiblesses facilitera sans doute les actions correctives à l'avenir.
A cet égard, nous nous félicitons des diverses mesures qui ont été prises pour corriger les faiblesses identifiées et nous souhaitons que les efforts soient poursuivis. Une attention particulière doit aussi être accordée aux domaines cités au paragraphe 54.
Pour ce qui est des activités de la FAO à l'appui du développement du commerce international, nous approuvons les priorités définies à ce chapitre. La FAO doit toujours jouer un rôle dans les négociations de l'Uruguay Round.
Pour terminer, ce rapport riche en informations constitue une base solide pour les futurs rapports d'évaluation du Programme.
António MAGALHÃES COELHO (Portugal): Dans le contexte de l'adoption d'une nouvelle approche du concept de développement durable au niveau international, l'action de la FAO a été confrontée à d'importants défis dans la définition et l'exécution de sa politique globale.
Un des aspects qu'on doit souligner concerne le souci particulier que pose la promotion d'activités d'appui au développement du commerce international, dans une perspective de complémentarité avec d'autres organisations ayant une vocation plus spécifique dans le domaine commercial.
Cette action, qui a pour but l'intégration du développement du commerce avec celui de l'agriculture, doit être considérée comme essentielle pour la promotion du développement durable et l'amélioration de la qualité de vie des peuples.
Dans ce contexte, au-delà de son rôle très actif en matière de négociations internationales, il y a tout un ensemble d'actions complémentaires favorisant le commerce des produits agricoles, notamment celles qui contribuent à l'intégration des politiques commerciales dans les stratégies globales de développement et à la réduction des obstacles techniques au commerce. Dans ce domaine, la FAO a accès à un ensemble d'informations très vastes et détaillées, qu'elles soient statistiques, techniques ou d'analyse des marchés, dont la diffusion reste un domaine important qu'il faudra continuer à favoriser.
Il faut encore mettre en relief, comme étant un aspect très positif, la définition d'une perspective globale et intégrée des aspects techniques et politiques qui a, notamment, accordé une importance accrue au développement durable et à la protection environnementale. Dans ce cadre, les grandes orientations globales et différents sous-programmes ont été soutenus par une approche intégrée, dont la mise en oeuvre a été entravée par de obstacles d'ordre financier, institutionel et organisationnel.
Toutefois, et malgré toutes les difficultés d'application et d'exécution de ces objectifs très ambitieux, les résultats positifs obtenus (notamment dans le développement de la coopération internationale sous ses différents aspects, commerciaux et autres, et dans l'adoption et la divulgation de
méthodes scientifiques et techniques novatrices) sont très encourageants quant au rôle futur de la FAO. Cependant, il semble qu'il faudra un effort considérable en ce qui concerne le travail conjoint avec d'autres entités, les aspects organisationnels et financiers.
Patrick PRUVOT (France): Monsieur Le Président, je vous félicite d'abord pour la première présidence que vous assurez pour notre Commission. Je voudrais remercier aussi M. Shah pour son introduction détaillée, claire et très courte à la fois.
La délégation française voudrait, comme elle l'a d'ailleurs fait lors du cent troisième Conseil, indiquer combien elle a trouvé intéressant le document C 93/4 et elle tient à saluer à nouveau les efforts menés par le Secrétariat pour évaluer les programmes et les projets de terrain. Cette évaluation est apparue très scrupuleuse, impartiale, et ceci motive l'intérêt que nous devons porter à ses conclusions.
A cet égard, je souhaiterais seulement rappeler l'inquiétude ou la préoccupation que nous avons manifestée au cent troisième Conseil à la lecture des appréciations portées dans ce rapport sur la capacité de conception des projets et sur l'efficacité du Programme de terrain quant aux résultats ou aux effets induits qu'ils ont. L'évaluation du Programme de l'Organisation est une opération coûteuse, comme le soulignait M. Shah dans son introduction, elle ne peut donc à l'évidence pas être une fin en soi, et elle doit permettre, selon nous, la mise en oeuvre à court terme de méthodes efficaces de conception et d'exécution des projets, notamment en matière d'exécution nationale. Cet important travail d'évaluation nous paraît susceptible d'être valorisé dans plusieurs directions:
- premièrement, la possibilité de mettre en lumière, grâce à cette évaluation, l'interaction des différentes unités de l'Organisation elle-même, les difficultés qui sont rencontrées, notamment sur les grandes questions thématiques et horizontales, de manière à suggérer des modifications organisationnelles et conceptuelles au niveau des structures mêmes de l'Organisation;
- deuxièmement, la possibilité de faire le point sur la coordination interagences et avec les donateurs bilatéraux pour identifier clairement les zones de recouvrement et décider des meilleurs partages des compétences, de façon à aider à la définition des grandes priorités et des orientations du plan à moyen terme, dont nous parlerons plus tard, en termes de stratégie globale du Système des Nations Unies. Nous citerons l'exemple de l'intégration de programmes par pays ou par région, et les résultats de ces évaluations pourraient être très utiles en ce sens. Il est donc souhaitable que l'Evaluation ajuste ses méthodes d'appréciation et d'analyse aux différents objectifs poursuivis, dans l'esprit d'ailleurs qui a présidé à la réalisation d'une évaluation des projets de terrain, mais aussi à celle des grandes questions thématiques qui figurent dans ce rapport.
La délégation française souhaiterait en conséquence que le Secrétariat informe la Conférence des modalités selon lesquelles les résultats des différents types d'évaluation seront pris en compte effectivement par l'Organisation, tant du point du vue de l'efficacité même des opérations ou des services que de la révision des orientations que cette évaluation peut permettre.
En outre, dans le cadre d'une programmation budgétaire dynamique, la délégation française estime qu'il serait très utile de prolonger l'évaluation technique par des mesures pragmatiques de rationalisation qui permettraient de renforcer l'efficacité, mais aussi de faire des économies.
Byoung-Joon SUH (Korea, Republic of): Before I go to substantial matters, I would like to express my appreciation to Vikram Shah on his kind and eloquent introductory statement on the Programme Evaluation Report.
On behalf of the Korean delegation, I also would like to extend our satisfaction on such crop production activities of the Organization as the introduction of the Prior Informed Consent Clause into the International Code of Conduct for the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, the intensification of the Integrated Pest Management, and other measures.
At this time, I would like to have an opportunity to pay tribute to the Director-General and his staff for their contribution toward providing timely, reliable and comparable statistical information on the salient aspect of global food and agriculture to member countries and relevant organizations in spite of the basic financial and institutional constraints.
As you are well aware, the international community puts the problem of environmental protection on the front burner and tries to find a way to harmonize environment and development.
In this connection, the Korean delegation has an opinion that the activities of FAO concerning the collection, analysis and dissemination of the statistical information on environment should be more intensified for the purpose of helping the Organization to keep pace with the international trend of environmental protection.
Turning to the work of FAO on trade, the Korean delegation agrees on the Secretariat's opinion that the CCP sessions could be rescheduled to the non-year of FAO Conference and that the CCP agenda may be rearranged to allow more time not only to review in general, but also to give greater attention to clearly identified policy issues. I think this programme is implemented as the means of strengthening the role of CCP in setting up and implementing trade policies on forestry, fisheries, and agricultural products.
In closing, the Korean delegation appreciates the responsiveness and readiness of the Secretariat which they have shown in the course of implementing the colossal work of FAO for the 1992-93 biennium.
John D. MIRANDA (United States of America): I should like to thank Dr Shah for his introduction to this item.
The United States has offered a number of detailed comments during the June Council on the methodology employed in evaluating projects, and I will not repeat all of these comments here, but I should like to offer some general observations about the Programme Evaluation Report.
First, we would commend FAO for its efforts systematically to evaluate field projects. It is the view of the United States that candour in these evaluations is the most critical element, even when results are sometimes
disappointing. Candid and systematic evaluations of major programmes and field projects are essential if FAO is to use its resources effectively.
Moreover, once problems are identified in the project implementation, concrete actions must be taken to correct them. In future reports FAO should highlight actions taken to strengthen this implementation effort.
The United States has always recognized the strength of FAO's crop protection programme and recent successes, especially in migratory pest control in Africa, have justified our confidence in this programme. We also recognize the importance of the International Plant Protection Convention and facilitating the work of GATT in assisting in the development of common phytosanitary measures to facilitate trade. We anticipate that there will be growing demand for FAO activities related to pesticides. We urge the Organization to work closely and effectively with the UN Environment Programme as efforts are made to promote the universal application of the principles in FAO's Code of Conduct on Pesticides, UNEP's London Guidelines.
FAO's financial base has improved in the last few years with consensus-based budgeting. With this improvement and management efforts to promote efficiency, we believe resources can and should be redeployed to undertake the additional information and statistical work outlined in Chapter 2 of this report.
Regarding Part Two, Evaluation of Field Programmes, the report points out that many of the key findings on field projects are not new. Although the report suggests that attention should be focused on four areas in order to address these findings, it may go a step further and identify the specific management implications associated with these findings, that is, suggest what actions, if any, should be taken by FAO management and who should take those actions.
While the analytical framework for looking at field projects is helpful, it tends to overlook issues of cost-effectiveness, long-term impact and replicability. Sustainability was only peripherally examined. Future evaluations conducted by FAO should explicitly incorporate these elements of project performance and impact.
None of the common issues raised in the section on extension concerns gender. This is surprising since many farmers are women, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, and women farmers often do not adopt new agricultural technologies from extension agents who are typically men. The lack of target group receptivity referred to in this section may well be gender-related. None of the common issues raised in this section on natural resources conservation and development concerns inappropriate economic policies or land tenure arrangements, both of which are often associated with environmental degradation.
With regard to Part Three, In-depth Review of Thematic Topics, the United States has often discussed in FAO the crucial role of agricultural trade and fostering economic development. Therefore, we were particularly pleased to see international trade singled out for discussion in this report. We should like to offer the following observations.
FAO should be complimented for its work to foster trade, especially on the assistance it provides in support of the Uruguay Round. This support is primarily visible in the work of the Committee on Commodity Problems, in
the International Commodity Organization, in the Codex Alimentarius. In the years ahead we can anticipate the continued need to deal with non-tariff barriers to trade, and with the issues arising from our simultaneous goals of preserving and developing our natural resources in agriculture, forestry and fisheries. The need for FAO involvement is likely to grow. For this reason, we feel that FAO should devote a far greater percentage of its resources to activities related to trade. A higher percentage of the resources devoted to the Technical Cooperation Programme, for example, could be directed towards supporting trade, especially in training and technical assistance in the area of food safety and quality.
Lothar CAVIEZEL (Suisse): J'aimerais à mon tour remercier M. Shah et ses collaborateurs du rapport qu'ils nous ont préparé. C'est avec un très grand intérêt que nous avons examiné ce rapport sur l'évaluation du programme 1992-93 de la FAO, et pris connaissance des commentaires qu'ont faits d'autres délégations avant moi.
Ce rapport donne un bon aperçu sur la qualité des opérations menées par l'institution, de même que les forces et faiblesses constatées. Il traite également des activités des Programmes ordinaire et de terrain d'une manière intégrée.
Avant de parler de l'évaluation des projets, nous aimerions préciser qu'à notre avis la FAO doit continuer à réorienter ses interventions en fonction de ses réels avantages comparatifs par rapport à d'autres agences de coopération et par rapport à ses propres activités. Nous sommes d'avis que ces avantages comparatifs se trouvent surtout au niveau du conseil en matière de politique sectorielle et sous-sectorielle et du renforcement des capacités nationales plutôt qu'au niveau de l'exécution de projets isolés.
Ceci dit, nous avons pris note avec intérêt de l'analyse approfondie des quelque 580 évaluations de projets entreprises entre 1985 et 1991 et de son suivi qu'a connu l'exercice à l'intérieur de l'Organisation ainsi que sur le terrain. Nous apprécions cet instrument de contrôle et de gestion. Nous sommes par contre étonnés, malgré les progrès réalisés, que seulement 45 pour cent des rapports d'évaluation soient de bonne qualité. Ceci exigera beaucoup plus de rigueur dans le choix de futurs consultants et un effort tout particulier de mise à jour de leur capacité professionnelle exigée par notre institution.
Nous sommes aussi très déçus des résultats des évaluations malgré les tendances d'amélioration. Car ne sont classés comme étant bons que 18 pour cent des projets au niveau de la conception, 22 pour cent des projets quant à leur exécution, 24 pour cent des projets au niveau de leurs effets et 30 pour cent des projets en relation avec leurs produits. Ces résultats insuffisants s'expliquent surtout par le manque d'intégration avec leur environnement institutionnel, par l'absence de coordination avec d'autres projets en cours, par une planification défaillante du travail, par l'insuffisance de prestations de contrepartie et d'appui du gouvernement.
En vue d'améliorer la qualité du projet, nous soutenons fermement les points avancés dans le document du Secrétariat. Comme lui, nous sommes aussi d'avis qu'il faudra en particulier mettre l'accent à l'avenir sur une approche plus multidisciplinaire, le renforcement des compétences des consultants et du personnel, une amélioration des méthodes et processus de la FAO et une plus grande sélectivité des projets afin de tirer parti de l'avantage comparatif de notre institution. Il faudra également veiller à
une meilleure intégration du projet dans son environnement institutionnel, à la coordination avec les autres projets en cours, et surtout à un appui engagé du gouvernement et de la population concernée.
Nous souhaitons, en dernier lieu, que les sujets du prochain rapport d'évaluation soient discutés dans le cadre du Conseil d'administration.
Mlle Adelaide Manuela RIBEIRO (Cap Vert): Je voudrais tout d'abord, au nom de la délégation du Cap Vert, présenter nos remerciements au Secrétariat pour son excellent document. Il s'agit d'un document très clair, très bien présenté, avec un souci de transparence. Nous remercions aussi M. Shah pour son excellent exposé introduisant ce point de notre ordre du jour.
C'est avec une grande satisfaction que nous accueillons ce premier rapport d'évaluation du programme qui couvre même le Programme ordinaire et le Programme de terrain. Nous constatons que des améliorations ont été introduites, ce qui nous a permis d'avoir une vision claire et concise de certaines activités menées par la FAO pendant la période couverte par ce rapport. La première partie de ce rapport est un examen approfondi de quelques importants programmes qui reflètent les réalisations accomplies, l'impact des exécutions, les difficultés rencontrées et les mesures prises pour surmonter ces difficultés. Il nous amène à réfléchir à l'efficacité et l'importance de ces programmes et à penser aux futurs programmes.
Nous constatons que malgré les ressources limitées dues aux défis et difficultés auxquels la FAO et ses Etats Membres ont été confrontés pendant la période couverte par ce rapport, des programmes ont été réalisés et évalués de manière satisfaisante et avec succès.
D'après l'analyse de la deuxième partie du rapport, nous constatons que, malgré les améliorations des résultats des missions d'évaluation, il reste encore beaucoup à faire pour atteindre le niveau souhaité. C'est pourquoi nous sommes d'avis qu'il serait nécessaire de prolonger les missions d'évaluation sur le terrain, de façon à permettre aux personnels de la FAO d'avoir une meilleure connaissance et une vision plus claire des réalités. C'est pourquoi il est nécessaire que les Etats dans lesquels les missions sont réalisées apportent leur soutien et donnent toutes les informations utiles et pertinentes pour faciliter leur tâche de façon à permettre l'élaboration de rapports complets et de bonne qualité.
Nous espérons que les prochains rapports d'évaluation seront plus détaillés et de meilleure qualité et que d'autres programmes importants seront mentionnés. Nous sommes convaincus que ce type de rapports permettra de renforcer l'efficacité du système d'évaluation de la FAO.
Patrick K. LUKHELE (Swaziland) : May I first congratulate you and your bureau on your election. I wish also to commend you, Mr Chairman, for the excellent manner with which you have been conducting the meeting since this morning. I want also to thank Mr Shah for the very clear and precise introduction to this discussion.
My delegation welcomes the general thrust and style of document C 93/4. In particular we appreciate the summary which gives a brief but very clear review of FAO activities for the 1992-93 biennium. The subject of Plant Protection referred to in Chapter 1 is very important to most of our countries, particularly us from the developing world. For those countries
such as Swaziland which has not yet formulated plant protection legislation the International Code of Conduct for the Distribution and Use of Pesticides has been an important instrument for the handling and management of pesticides. I wish also to thank the FAO for assisting my country in producing the first draft legislation on pesticide use and distribution. My delegation wish to encourage the FAO to continue providing professional and technical leadership in searching for solutions for weed control and promotion of Integrated Pest Management Concepts for small and subsistence farmers in Africa.
On the chapter on Statistical Processing and Analysis and Development I wish to encourage the FAO to assist national statistical systems in better and speedy ways of collecting and processing data. Some of our countries have generated a large volume of data which remains unutilized because of lack of capacity to process such data.
Chapter 4 of the report on evaluation gives a very interesting review on outputs and effects of selected budgets. My delegation wishes to encourage the FAO to continue to seek ways of evaluating effects of projects and beneficiaries even though we agree that such an exercise is very complex. The poor and disappointing results on project design and implementation are called for great concern. This therefore calls for more FAO inputs in assisting countries to improve on local capabilities particularly with respect to manpower and institutional developments.
Hassan AL-AHMAD (Syria) (Original language Arabic): I would like to begin by thanking Mr Shah for his masterly introduction to the Programme Evaluation Report and I would also like to say how much we welcome it. It has a very valid basis for a better evaluation of the programme which in turn will make it possible for us to identify the positive and negative, the strong and weak, points of each programme. We have also acquired a great deal of information which can be used in planning future programmes.
We would like to welcome the success of many of these programmes despite the financial difficulties faced by FAO recently. Indeed, the period has been characterized by the completion of the International Plant Protection Convention and a number of other events as well as a number of analyses of trade and the effect of non-tariff barriers which make international trade more difficult.
Sir, we feel that for the future it will be necessary for FAO to step up its efforts with respect to integrated control of certain pests and diseases and to help developing countries. We feel that FAO should continue to offer its assistance to developing countries so that they can choose the right methods for collecting and processing data, as well as in training of staff and technical training programmes.
Furthermore, FAO should help developing countries develop quality control in food production and strengthen our trade circuits and networks. With respect to the evaluation of field projects, Sir, we feel that this is a particularly important aspect of FAO's work and we would like to draw attention to project design because that is what success depends on. Thank you,Sir.
Harald HILDEBRAND (Germany) (Original language German): My delegation has already given its detailed observations on document C 93/4 at the 103rd Council Session and welcome this new form of evaluation reporting concerning activities under the Regular and Field Programmes.
The Secretariat has gone for a new method that enables one to track individual programme activities over a long period and this is an approach that we very much appreciate, because in this way the objectives and the focus of the short and medium-term programme planning can be better assessed. This also facilitates decisions about winding up or continuing with individual programme activities.
The report of the 103rd Council Session makes a special reference to weaknesses in project design and these emerge in Chapter 4 of the Document with a comprehensive presentation of project evaluations, 1985-91. These become clear here and this is something I think which should be taken very seriously by the Secretariat.
Table 7 in the document gives relatively high percentages for individual weaknesses in 437 individual projects that were evaluated. The conclusion must be that in terms of desired results of effectiveness and timely completion, these projects offer considerable scope for improvement.
A comparison of two projects by way of example, some with inadequate and one with good project design, together with the negative and positive consequences, would have illustrated the problem more vividly. Overall my delegation would like to emphasize the self-critical tenor of the report. This clear presentation of weaknesses contributes to promoting dialogue between Member States and the Secretariat and keeps the programme activities transparent.
In conclusion, I should like to emphasize the point made by the Cypriot delegate concerning joint responsibility between the three sides involved in terms of quality and outcome of project implementation and also the introductory reference by Mr Shah to the cost factor evaluation is something that we should bear in mind in continuing with this form of reporting. In particular one should consider out of 580 projects only 45 percent turned out to be of good quality. With that concluding remark, Sir, I would like to close and thank you for your attention.
Ms Kirsti ESKELINEN (Finland): Mr Chairman, I have the honour of taking the floor on behalf of the Nordic countries, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. Let me start by indicating the Nordic support for the new way of undertaking the reviews and evaluation on the activities of the Organization. Selective in-depth evaluations and assessments of both Regular and Field Programmes are a welcome improvement compared to former reviews on the Regular and Field Programmes.
The present way of reporting does justice to a continued practical interlinkage and dialogue between the Regular and Field Programmes and projects. The selection of a number of sub-programme activities as well as FAO assistance to small-scale fisheries development for evaluation is a good and representative list of FAO activities.
The Nordic countries welcome the candid way of presenting the results of the Field Programme. They demonstrate some successes and also indeed failures, but mainly with results somewhere in between. When these
successes are compared with the evaluation results of other international development institutions, FAO's low overall failure rate raises sceptical questions on the viability of the standards criteria and methods used to evaluate projects. We, therefore, wonder whether the results reached by-using the same methods as other UN bodies or international financial institutions are useful.
The Nordic countries find it regrettable that sustainability has been ruled out of the scope of the review. Sustainability and impact assessment are the two very central concepts highlighted in the recently agreed OECD/DAC principles on evaluation. Therefore, the Nordic countries would like to see FAO taking advantage of the standardization work done by the OECD/DAC instead of trying to develop its own standards for evaluation.
As to the results of the evaluations, the part related to fisheries is clear. After assessing the selected programme elements such as over-exploitation of resources, environmental degradation of coastal areas, participatory approach, women's integration into the activities, credit facilities and support to fishermen's organizations, the Report concludes that these integrated all-inclusive projects are far more complex and difficult to implement than expected. The Nordic countries can agree that a change in the underlying strategies are needed, as proposed in the document, and we would like to recommend a more cautious approach to launching these all-inclusive large and costly programmes in the future.
Similar analyses would be required in the Field Programme evaluations as well. As presented now, there are only a few observations on common problems on a very general level. We would like to emphasize the prioritorization process and greater selectivity of projects already at the identification stage in line with FAO's comparative advantage. In this context we feel that the document fails to provide the necessary analysis because, in our view, the main tasks of an evaluation are to assess if the set objectives have been reached on a sustainable basis as well as to produce lessons to be learned and incorporated into future operations. Furthermore, evaluation can be useful for a governing body for overseeing and valuation of money control and also as a tool for the top management of the Organization itself.
Mr Chairman, the section on Statistical Processing and Analysis demonstrates the Organization's role in collecting, analysing, interpreting and disseminating information on food, agriculture and nutrition. Here the Nordic countries would like to see FAO cooperate more with other UN agencies when developing indicators to follow issues like food security and nutrition. The provision of information and analysis on aspects of commodity trade for the shorter and longer period on the basis of trade statistics is of great importance at this particular point in time both to the developed and developing regions alike. Although the trade issues are not the prime concern of the Organization, FAO is in an extraordinary position to make full use of its already established networks and programmes for market information and analysis to provide its member countries with an extensive global evaluation of the effects of the results achieved in the Uruguay Round.
Mr Chairman, contrary to the disappointment in various field projects and programmes in FAO's activities, the Sub-programme on Crop Protection presents more encouraging results and can be regarded as a relative success. This is encouraging since these same activities are most relevant
and timely in translating the concept of sustainable agriculture development into practice under Agenda 21.
To conclude, Mr Chairman, the Nordic countries would encourage the Organization to continue to strive for objective evaluations of Regular and Field Projects and Programmes. The Nordic countries look forward to the next Programme Evaluation Report which, in our view, should include the central concepts of evaluation, namely impact assessment and sustainability. The Nordic countries also see a need for a Chapter relating to the forestry activities which were neglected in the report presented this time. Another item we would like to see reported in this context is the cooperation between FAO and the other UN bodies. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Shri H. PRADEEP RAO (India): We would like to congratulate the Secretariat on this excellent document, the Programme Evaluation Report. As has been mentioned, this Report, containing selected in-depth reviews and evaluations of FAO's operations, has been introduced for the first time. This document, read with the Programme Implementation Report, gives us a good overview of FAO activities in the recent past.
Part One presents in-depth reviews of three selected programmes - Crop Protection, Statistical Processing and Development and Analysis, and Small-Scale Fisheries. The work done under the Sub-programme on Crop Protection is commendable and the achievements of the activities related to IPPC and Integrated Pest Management are noteworthy. The evaluation of the two Statistical Sub-programmes is comprehensive and useful. We, in India, have found the data generated under these programmes very useful in evaluating our performance in agriculture and in carrying out comparative studies. We support the efforts to maintain and strengthen the FAO database.
The activities of FAO in assisting small-scale fisheries has been noted by us. As a nation participating in the Bay of Bengal Programme, we have found the efforts made by the Programme in publication of extension material in local vernaculars, development and demonstration of small-scale fishing , craft using non-conventional materials such as ferro-concrete, etc., noteworthy. We are also of the view that there is a need for increased assistance and support through the Bay of Bengal Programme for Coastal Fisheries Management during its third phase.
Part Two of the Report, containing an analysis of evaluation missions, has brought out that project design and implementation have been rather disappointing. As the weaknesses in these areas have also been identified, we would hope that the FAO will take the required remedial steps in this direction.
This becomes imperative in a scenario of scarce resources and increasing demands on the Organization.
We have also noted with interest the in-depth review of FAO activities in support of the development of international trade. FAO must continue its efforts towards the establishment of a fair, equitable and transparent international agricultural trading system.
J.J. NEETESON (The Netherlands): The Netherlands delegation appreciates the new and more concise format of the document now called "Programme Evaluation Report". Although the general approach and set-up basically follow that of the former Review of the Regular Programme, this Report now includes both Regular and Field Programme activities. It also claims to have more evaluation, but I regret that this is not entirely honoured, and the review is still mainly of a descriptive nature.
I have two more general remarks before I comment on some of the Chapters.
It is not clear to us what criteria guide the selection of Programmes, Sub-programmes and thematic topics which are subject to an in-depth review. The ones selected this year have certainly caught our attention in the sense that they represent well chosen priorities. Nevertheless we should like to hear more about the selection criteria. As I take it that this Conference has some influence on the selection, I would like to suggest two topics for inclusion in the next Programme and Evaluation Report: firstly, the Integrated Plant Nutrition System (IPNS), and, secondly, activities on tropical forestry.
It is also not clear to us how the outcome of the evaluations and in-depth review influence the future work of the Organization. Obviously, there should be a link between the Programme of Work and Budget, the Medium-Term Plan, and the Programme Implementation Report. This point has already been mentioned by the Chairman in his introduction, but we would like to be informed about some details of this relation.
With regard to the Chapter on Crop Protection, my delegation would like to commend FAO for the activities of this Sub-programme. The priorities given to Integrated Pest Management and the Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides and Migratory Pest Control are welcomed by us. Integrated Pest Management has become a cornerstone of the Crop Protection Sub-programme. Especially, the IPM programme for rice has been successful, and has obtained a break-through in some countries for the implementation of IPM techniques on a wide scale, based on participative training methods for farmers. The challenge of implementation of IPM now lies in Africa, where physical and institutional infrastructure has so far prevented adoption on a large scale.
We fully support the observation made in the document that the next challenge would be to develop a more holistic approach to crop protection, in collaboration with other disciplines and FAO units, in order to define its contribution to strategies for sustainable agriculture and rural development.
The Chapter on Small-Scale Fisheries presents a useful review of FAO's activities in this field. A large part of the available funds went to the Sub-programme on Transfer of Technology and within this Sub-programme to fish production. In comparison, the Sub-programme Resources and Fisheries Management received a much smaller part of the funds. In view of the existing problems of access capacity in the open access regime for fishing waters, which often lead to over-fishing, we would have liked to have had the distribution of funds the other way round. It becomes clear from the review that fishing is not an isolated activity. Fishery projects grow into integrated development projects. These should be set up from the outset in a multidisciplinary way. Fishery planning is an important part of resources and fishery management and deserves more systematic attention.
FAO has responsibility for monitoring the world fisheries situation, and has a long and successful experience in this field. The available information on small-scale fisheries in inland waters however is insufficient for stock assessment methods to be successfully applied. When allocating priorities, inland fish stock assessment was not included. We therefore question the statement in this Chapter that inland fish stock assessment has generally been satisfactorily implemented.
Finally, some remarks on the Chapter on Evaluation of Field Programmes. Out of the four key aspects that are measured separately in the evaluation, project design had the poorest rating - only 18 percent of the projects rated "good", which is disappointing, as the document also mentions. Since project design comes at the beginning of the project cycle and is the single factor which is easiest to be brought under control by the implemented agency, one should be able to raise this percentage.
The same applies to our own bilateral programme with FAO, of which we have received a synthesized evaluation prepared by the FAO Evaluation Service, and we would like to thank the Service for this. Output and effects of projects are often negatively influenced by insufficiently taking into account the limited institutional capacity of the target groups. This is a lesson learned also by other donors and implementing agencies. It confirms the importance of participation of the local population and of socio-economic and institutional factors in the planning process, which again is a design aspect.
One of the conclusions written down in this Chapter is that FAO should be more selective in identifying, formulating and executing projects. This should be in the fields where FAO has comparative advantage, and fit in the existing technical and operational capacity of the Organization. My delegation fully subscribes to this conclusion. Clustering projects and Special Action Programmes is one way of doing this. It would be interesting to learn whether or not projects within Special Action Programmes have a better score than projects which are outside Special Action Programmes.
XU NANSHAN (China) (Original language Chinese) : I would like to thank the Secretariat for the way in which it has prepared this document C 93/4, and also Mr Shah for his introduction. This document C 93/4 has maintained the clear and understandable nature of the former Regular Programme Report but has also introduced a certain selectivity and the quality of evaluation has been improved. It reflects not only the importance of FAO's three functions, which are to provide polcy advice, training activities, and technical support; it also reflects the interdependent nature and the complementarity which exists between the Regular and Field Programmes.
Generally speaking, the Programme Evaluation Report is objective. It confirms the comparative advantage that FAO enjoys, and also indicates the weaknesses that exist in its work and the places where improvement could be introduced.
Having said that, I would now like to make one or two comments on the implementation of the Report.
The thorough analysis of the three programmes shows that ever since 1966 FAO has been facing financial difficulties and has been making every effort to make the most of its comparative advantages, in line with the priorities set. This has made it possible to ensure the implementation of
the Regular Programme. At the same time, it has undertaken a number of field activities and we are happy at the very important role that FAO has played here.
Secondly, FAO's field activities have stimulated the implementation of the Regular Programme, and have also emphasized FAO's comparative advantages. Furthermore, they played an important role in training staff and providing technical assistance and policy advice to developing countries. We hope that FAO will explore new approaches as the international situation and scene change, in order to strengthen its activities in those areas.
We are of the opinion that the Evaluation Report has not thoroughly described the successes in the Field Programme. We think that more work has to be put in to improving the implementation of FAO' Field Programmes and to ensure the effectiveness of projects.
Thirdly, with respect to international trade in agricultural commodities: We have noticed that a number of developing countries do not have enough staff or expertise to analyse agricultural commodities and markets and trade policies, or to draw up agricultural trade strategies. With the addition of agricultural trade to the GATT agenda, the problem is becoming more crucial than ever. We do hope that FAO will stress the need for technical training and policy advice for developing countries so as to increase their capabilities in the matter. At the same time, we need to give importance to the collection, processing and distribution of information.
Amin ABDEL-MALEK (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Au nom de la délégation libanaise je tiens à vous féliciter à l'occasion de votre élection à la présidence. J'aimerais également remercier Monsieur Shah de nous avoir présenté ce document de façon excellente, comme à l'accoutumée.
Je saisis cette occasion pour féliciter le Directeur général et son Secrétariat d'avoir élaboré ce rapport relatif à l'évaluation des programmes. Le rapport est très important et comporte des informations très intéressantes sur la réalisation au niveau des programmes et projets de l'Organisation. Nous saluons les progrès réalisés au niveau des pêches, qui est le thème de la première partie du document, car nous estimons que l'analyse a été fort positive et critique.
Nous voudrions insister sur l’importance des deux sous-programmes qui ont traité les activités statistiques entreprises par l'Organisation. Nous appuyons la proposition, mentionnée dans l'introduction, et qui concerne l'intensification des activités pour rétablir des indices ou des chiffres indicatifs relatifs à la sécurité alimentaire, à la sous-alimentation, à la pauvreté et à l'environnement. En ce qui concerne la deuxième partie relative à l'évaluation des programmes sur le terrain, nous voudrions féliciter le Secrétariat pour la transparence des thèmes fort importants. Ces thèmes ont été couverts de façon adéquate et reflètent toute leur importance et la précision du traitement des questions. Tout ceci mérite que nous adressions nos remerciements au Secrétariat. Je voudrais donc insister sur l'importance de ce rapport et sur sa précision et j'espère que la FAO fera preuve de persévérance puisque ses résultats ont été tout à fait conformes aux objectifs escomptés.
- 79 -
Yvan JOBIN (Canada): The importance of continuous efforts to evaluate the effectiveness of particular programmes is illustrated by a recent World Bank report comprising case studies of the performance of donor countries and of multilateral agencies in six African countries. The study found that much of the development assistance provided had failed to deliver the expected results, and it pointed to the need to diversify traditional approaches to development assistance.
This is a sobering set of conclusions, given contemporary fiscal realities and the never-ending proliferation of new national and global issues and needs, which are joined to existing and unresolved problems in the intensifying competition for limited public resources. It is in this context that evaluation - defined as an accountability exercise whose primary function is to determine whether resources are spent in a responsible, cost-effective way, and provide reasonable rates of return -becomes a critical function of the management process. As such, it is of importance not only to the membership who need to be satisfied that public funds have been well used, but it is also a critical tool for management in selecting priorities, for taking decisions on activities, and for assessing the appropriateness of their choices of strategies and direction.
Our Organization is to be commended for the seriousness of the effort with which it has addressed the function of evaluation as represented by this first Programme Evaluation Report. This document is an indispensable link in a management information system aimed at optimizing programming choices, implementation and accountability.
The Director responsible for this work should be justifiably proud of the contribution he and the evaluation service have made to our understanding of the impact of the rich and varied portfolio of this Organization. In sharing with the membership our evaluation of this report, we do so with a view to contributing to a constructive dialogue on its further evolution and refinement.
In our view, proper evaluation should address at least the following questions :
What did we set out to do, and why? How did we propose to do it? What were the results expected against which to judge the returns/benefits/ efficiencies of the effort made? What did we do, meaning actual results achieved, and a detailing of resources expended in pursuit of these results in order to get a measure of costs and benefits? What were the reasons for any divergences that were found? What actions will be or have been taken to correct shortcomings, and what lessons have been learned that might be applicable to future project/programme selection, design and implementation?
Against these criteria, we would offer the general observation that this report still features certain weaknesses characteristic of its functional predecessors. This is particularly so in regard to the detailing of target results, actual outputs and costs thereof on which to build a cost/benefit analysis, and the identification and analysis of divergences and sustainability of results on which to build appropriate lessons.
Thus, for example, Part One of the report details a range of accomplishments in a number of programme areas, but fails to specify the benchmarks against which to gauge them. As a result, we do not know why FAO achieved what it did, whether it did so on time, whether the associated
costs were under or over projections, whether all that we set out to achieve was, indeed, done, and if not why not. The integration of specific sub-programme activities with the relevant field programmes is also not clearly described and explained. For example, we understand from the Programme Implementation Report that 49 percent of the staff time of programme 2.1.2 (Crops) is devoted to Field Programme support. Yet we know nothing about the specific elements of field activities carried out by this sub-programme, in order that we might correlate these activities to the evaluations of field programme delivery contained in Chapter 4.
The relative neglect of analytical treatment of Field Programme activities along the lines I have described and the absence of the TCP are also vital omissions.
That said, we would single out the Assistance to Small-scale Fisheries portion of the report for the rigour and candour of its analysis, especially that respecting deviations and the operational conclusions that derive therefrom. We believe this section represents the closest approximation to a model for emulation by other services.
We were disappointed, however, with the section concerning the In-depth Thematic Topics. The matters dealt with are very important and valuable areas of activity for the Organization, and the summary overview of these which is provided is good. Nevertheless, this section strikes us as somewhat unfocused, devoid of a real sense of what was achieved relative to what we set out to do, and as implying that a statement of utility is sufficient to prove the fact. Once again, we have no sense of yardsticks against which to measure the quantity, quality, and efficiency of outputs, which is the raison d'être of an evaluation report. Notwithstanding the difficulty of defining measures against which to judge value and performance, it must be recognized that we live in an economy increasingly dominated by producers of services whose continued viability is dependent upon the skilful application of measurement technology to the justification of their production and pricing decisions. The use of such tools is proliferating, even as their capacities are being expanded and their contents being refined. We would, therefore, urge FAO to consider actively the appropriateness and feasibility of technology imports.
The evaluation of Field Programmes is a most useful synthesis of project performance which we note has been addressed with commendable candour.
We were struck by the number of evaluation reports - put at 20 percent -which were considered to be unsatisfactory. Perhaps a time-series describing the evolution in this performance might help dilute any concern. Notwithstanding the generalized improvement in project performance during the period covered by this report, we were also struck by the stagnation and decline in project performance, notably in respect to project design where FAO has particular responsibility. We would welcome any elaboration as to the factors underlying this development, and of steps taken to reverse this trend.
The concluding paragraph in this section details four areas of focus for future attention. These appear to be eminently sensible. Yet they also disturbingly suggest a sense of déjà vu, in that the immediately preceding paragraph speaks of findings and lessons which are not new. It would be reassuring to have a fuller understanding of actions proposed and taken to effect improvements such as to avoid past mistakes. And for the bean-counters among us, this section would be enhanced with the description -
perhaps in an annex - of the methodology used in conducting evaluations. This can contribute not only to understanding, but also to confidence in and consequent acceptance of results.
While the evaluations conducted did seem to address the question of sustainability, this is mentioned but in passing in paragraph 21. We believe this should be given equal prominence with the other elements around which the evaluation was conducted. Also apparently missing is an economic efficiency (value for money) assessment. It is, after all, the long-term effects of cost-efficient projects that will maximize the developmental leverage of field projects, and we believe these evaluation elements should be integrated into future reports.
We would also underline the importance, as evidenced yesterday, of the Special Action Programmes for the field activities of the Organization. These are the instruments of choice for the operational integration, coordination and rationalization of field activities.
On their success hinges the effectiveness of the predominant proportion of FAO activities. It is accordingly essential that we be provided with a detailed insight into their operation and efficiency.
The question of coordination, avoidance of duplication and the associated concept of comparative advantage brings us to one final point, namely that of cooperation and coordination with complementary organizations within and outside the UN system. FAO is not an island. Coordination and avoidance of duplication contribute importantly to the achievement and sustainability of effects, to efficiencies and to the maximum leveraging of any given inputs. Accordingly, we believe this to be an important and fertile area for assessment in future reports.
I should like to conclude, Mr Chairman, by reiterating two central thoughts that have guided our assessment of this document. The first is that my delegation would again emphasize what we believe to be the critical interdependence of the Programme of Work and Budget, the Programme Implementation Report and the Programme Evaluation Report. If we are to operationalize the concept of accountability within the FAO it is essential for these three documents to mirror and complement each other in their substantive content. The second thought is to reiterate Canada's full support for the evaluation process as undertaken by the Secretariat. We are particularly pleased with the evident candour of this document in addressing both successes and problems. This demonstrated willingness to build upon the positive and to learn from the negative remains in our view the optimal way of preserving the centre of excellence that we wish our Organization to remain.
Adrian ISSETTO (Argentina): Mi Delegación desea felicitar una vez más a la Secretaría por la presentación de este Informe sobre Evaluación del Programa. El nuevo diseño del mismo permite efectuar una evaluación en profundidad y distingue claramente el análisis de la ejecución de la evaluación del Programa.
Al mismo tiempo, en nuestra opinión, examina y evalúa de manera completa las realizaciones y resultados obtenidos en varios programas, por lo que constituye un documento útil para la planificación y ejecución de actividades y programas futuros.
Esto, señor Presidente, en cuanto a la forma. Pasando ahora al fondo del documento C 93/4, mi Delegación desea expresar su preocupación por los resultados de la evaluación de 579 programas - Parte 2, Capítulo IV -, realizado por la FAO para el período 1985-1991.
Deseamos enfatizar, señor Presidente, que si bien dichos resultados mejoraron en el período analizado, resulta imprescindible que se capacite más y mejor a todo el personal de la FAO, como a los funcionarios de los Estados Miembros, para un mejor diseño y ejecución de proyectos, aspectos éstos que registraron las tasas más bajas de calificaciones, aunque sin por ello descuidar las cuestiones vinculadas a los resultados, efectos y eficacia de dichos proyectos.
Mi Delegación desea asimismo poner de resalto el empeño que la FAO ha puesto en lo que hace a la aplicación de una metodología de evaluación de proyectos tendientes a mejorar los procesos y procedimientos para la programación, formulación, ejecución y seguimiento de apoyo de los proyectos de cooperación técnica.
Kenji SHIMIZU (Japan): I will be brief in stating our position on the issue before us. My delegation commends the efforts of the Secretariat to produce this informative and analytical Report, in accordance with the decision taken at the last Conference. My delegation agrees with the necessity to improve the Report based on the findings in the Report and the various comments and suggestions made by previous speakers. It is important to improve the Report itself in terms of style or analysis but it is far more important to reflect the results of the evaluation in designing, planning, implementing or operating of programmes or projects as well as in the Medium-Term Programmes. It is related to the whole process of activities of this important Organization. The exercise as such is of paramount importance to the nature of evaluation. We should avoid paper work or discussion for its own sake. The results of the evaluation exercise should be reflected in daily actions for the effective and efficient activities which secure our commitment to the Organization. In the light of this important exercise, my delegation fully supports the continued exercise of an evaluation.
Mrs Wafaa Mohamed YOUSSUF (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): My delegation would like to congratulate the Secretariat on the effort made in the preparation of the evaluation of the Programme and the field projects. We welcome the improvements made on this detailed Report, which clarifies the evaluation and the findings concerning the programmes and field projects. We also welcome the objective of the Programme of the Organization, namely, the optimal use of fishery resources and the support to small-scale fisheries.
My delegation thinks it is important that in what is done by the Organization's activities in the implementation of the integrated management of crop pests we should lay down the criteria for the safe and effective use of pesticides and the implementation of the International Code of Conduct concerning the distribution and use of pesticides. We also welcome the efforts of the Organization in the analysis of market commodities and trade policies. My delegation would also like to support the Organization in supporting international trade and carrying on complementary activities with other organizations concerned with
international trade. Finally, we think it is important to focus on technical cooperation in the Organization.
D.A. TROTMAN (United Kingdom): May I congratulate Mr Shah on his comprehensive introduction to this Report.
The United Kingdom delegation took part in the debate at the Council in June. The United Kingdom, together with a number of other Member States, made reference to paragraph 8 on page 76. "About 40 percent of these were mid-term evaluations and 60 per cent terminal evaluations, with very few ex-post evaluations." In the Report of the June Council, which is also reproduced in C 93/LIM/9, the main reason for the lack of ex-post evaluations is given as the absence of funding by donors for this purpose. This point is well taken but Technical Assistance Projects should include sufficient funds, not only for monitoring and terminal evaluation, but also for ex-post evaluation. The United Kingdom delegation gives particular importance to ex-post evaluations of Technical Cooperation Projects in view of the Secretariat's insistence at earlier meetings of technical committees that the TCTP provides essential underpinning and feedback to FAO's technical departments. Ex-post evaluations provide the most effective feedback on the impact and sustainability of different approaches. As such they should inform the shape of future programmes.
The benefit of ex-post evaluations is maximized by undertaking "synthesis studies" which draw together the findings and lessons from evaluations in given sectors or subject areas involving programmes and projects undertaken in a number of countries. Funds from FAO's Regular Programme Budget will need to be identified for these studies.
Turning now to more specific issues, namely FAO's Assistance to Small-Scale Fisheries, Chapter 3, we welcome the production of an evaluation report focused upon the important small-scale fisheries sector. The regular evaluation of FAO activity is an essential contribution to the maintenance of relevant work programmes. This is particularly true for the small-scale fisheries sector, where FAO's objectives were established at the World Fisheries Conference in 1984.
The United Kingdom, in common with other members of the Committee on Fisheries, has for some years expressed concern at the lack of performance data to inform and guide the future course of FAO activities in the fisheries sector. Evaluations such as this are an appropriate response to this concern. We would encourage the annual evaluation of different sectors addressed by the FAO Fisheries Programme, with reports produced as working papers for the benefit of COFI discussion. This current evaluation would have been of considerable value to discussions at COFI in March this year.
In paragraph 82 on page 70, the Evaluation Report calls for an in-depth technical review of the Programmes of Action established by the World Fisheries Conference, the purpose being to re-examine FAO's role and strategy. To undertake this properly would require an assessment of the global response to the Programmes of Action, the orientation and effectiveness, impact and benefit of all national and donor-supported effort. This is a substantial task. Only then could FAO's role be put in context, a difficult task for the small-scale fisheries sector alone, an impossible task for all five Programmes of Action.
Finally, the evaluation is somewhat qualitative and descriptive. It summarizes what was done but is less focused on results. No attempt has been made to evaluate the impact of FAO activities on beneficiaries and to establish, even in the broadest terms, whether value for money has been obtained. It may be too difficult to distinguish between benefits arising from FAO support and benefits arising from the many other donors supporting the fisheries sector. If this is so, it should be stated.
The United Kingdom delegation wishes FAO well in its endeavours to learn from its experiences, as noted in paragraph 54 on page 96, by focusing attention on:
a. a more multi-disciplinary approach to project planning; and
b. upgrading the skills of FAO staff and consultants.
Franco F.G. GINOCCHIO (Italy): The Italian delegation wishes to thank the Secretariat of FAO for the work made in preparing the document C 93/4 Programme Evaluation Report 1992-93 which gives for the first time an integrated overview of the Field Programme and Regular Programme. We approve of this report which is complete with tables and lists which give detailed information about the activities of FAO. However, we think that it would be useful to have a summarizing table pointing out the expenditures of the main chapters and the increases or decreases in figures and percentages with regard to the previous biennium.
A.N.M. EUSUF (Bangladesh): I would like to thank Mr Shah first for the excellent introduction of the Programme Evaluation Report. The Programme Evaluation Report 1992-93 is an informative and useful report, like the new Programme Implementation Report, having an integrated coverage of Regular and Field Programme activities. The report contains a comprehensive assessment of the performance of selected programmes and activities. The coverage of programmes and activities represent FAO's main areas of work and priority concerns.
The overall achievement under the programmes coverted in the report are generally satisfactory, particularly in view of the fact that FAO had been undergoing considerable financial constraint throughout the period in the report. The in-depth and critical review of the selected programme activities provides a good feedback to those responsible for programme planning and implementation.
Part Two, Chapter 4 of the report which deald with Field Programme Evaluation is of particular interest. The findings of evaluation will be very helpful in bringing about future improvements in FAO's field operations while steady improvement in the quality of the Evaluation Report is a positive sing it is a matter of concern that the scenario relating to project design and implementation leaves much to be desired. As mentioned in the report the picture with respect to the project design is particularly disappointing. A number of weaknesses and deficiencies have been identified in this respect which need to be addressed with greater attention. In terms of project success in achieving the results only 19 percent of the 579 projects received good rating on both the quality and quantity of output produced; 6 percent were rated poor and 75 percent were inbetween. This also does not indicate a satisfactory situation. Corrective measures need to be taken depending on specific requirements. Some of the
remedial measures have been highlighted in the report itself. The four areas of emphasis suggested in paragraph 44 of the report to bring about desired improvement in various aspects of project perfomance are important. Increased efforts should be made to initiate action along the lines suggested in the paragraph. FAO's expertise in promoting international trade in agricultural products is well recognized. The Evaluation Report has made a detailed report of this important aspect of FAO's functions. This a subject which is of broad interest to Member Nations, especially in the context of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. FAO should continue to play an active role in such areas as policy level discussions agricultural trade among Member Countries, commodity market analysis, technical standard settings for food quality and pesticides and technical assistance to Member Countries.
Sra. María E. JIMENEZ DE MOCHI ONORI (El Salvador): Muchas gracias, señor Presidente. Me agrada mucho verlo presidiendo nuestra Sesión de esta mañana. Mi delegación va a ser muy breve, ya que ya se han planteado muchísimas cuestiones esta mañana sobre este importante documento.
En primer lugar, quisiéramos agradecer la excelente presentación que del tema nos ha hecho el señor Shah; felicitamos a la Secretaría por la elaboración de este documento, que reúne los exámenes del Programa Ordinario y de los Programas de Campo. Nos parece muy adecuada su presentación.
Nos referiremos brevemente a un solo aspecto del documento. Nuestra delegación comparte plenamente lo expresado por el señor Shah en su exposición del tema sobre la particular importancia que reviste el Capítulo 5 del documento, relativo a las actividades de la FAO en apoyo del fomento del Comercio Internacional. El Salvador, señor Presidente, está convencido - y así lo ha expresado hace un momento el Ministro de Agricultura de mi país en la Comisión I - que una situación más justa y equitativa en el Comercio Internacional es la clave de la solución de muchos de los problemas agrícolass de los países en desarrollo. Estamos de acuerdo en que la FAO no es el foro por excelencia para negociar acuerdos comerciales internacionales, pero sí creemos, señor Presidente, que su contribnución indirecta puede ser muy eficaz. Por ello, nosotros deseamos brevemente apoyar las medidas contempladas en los párrafos 111, 112, 116 y 188, orientadas a reforzar las actividades de la FAO en apoyo del Comercio Internacional. Gracias, señor Presidente.
Marcos NIETO LARA (Cuba): En la tarde de ayer le felicité por intermedio del Presidente de la Comisión, pero vuelvo a felicitarle porque siempre es mejor recibir el original que la copia. Quiero saludar al Sr. Shah por la excelente presentación del tema. Volvemos a reiterar que este documento, muy valioso, forma parte del cuarteto de las voces que hablamos en el día de ayer. Quisiéramos decir que es un documento muy completo, que responde a las expectativas planteadas en la Conferencia pasada y que ha sabido apoyarse adecuadamente en los informes anteriores de evaluación del Programa Ordinario y del Programa de Campo. Asimismo, debemos mencionar con toda justicia el gran esfuerzo que realiza el grupo de evaluación de la Secretaría": Debemos reconocer este esfuerzo porque conocemos que es un personal muy reducido que trabaja a veces en condiciones muy difíciles, y aquellos que hemos tenido la oportunidad de recibir misiones de evaluación con alguna frecuencia, notamos la sobrecarga de trabajo que tiene para poder atender adecuadamente las demandas de su trabajo.
Creemos que además de lo que se refiere propiamente a una evaluación de los programas de campo, las misiones de evaluación con sus informaciones nos dejan a nosotros también un caudal de asistencia para que los nacionales podamos mejorar nuestro trabajo. En este sentido, queremos llamar la atención sobre la necesidad de mejorar la calidad de los informes de evaluación y que haya una adecuada retroalimentación hacia los países para poder incorporar las conclusiones y recomendaciones que realizan cada una de las misiones, de manera que nuestro trabajo sea cada vez más coherente y más eficaz, tanto el trabajo de la FAO como el trabajo a nivel del terreno, o sea el trabajo de los nacionales.
Aunque en el documento quizás no se le atribuya mucha importancia a los problemas de diseño como efecto de mala calidad de ejecución de los proyectos, nosotros quisiéramos reiterar que es necesario insistir en el problema de diseño de los proyectos, por cuanto pensamos que un proyecto bien diseñado es la garantía de que pueda ser un proyecto bien ejecutado, de manera que sobre todos los nacionales que tienen que actuar en la ejecución del proyecto, sobre todo el apoyo gubernamental que necesita cada proyecto, cada uno de nosotros debemos tener suficiente claridad para poder hacer una buena ejecución del proyecto. No sé si sea el caso mencionarlo aquí, pero creo que, en cuanto a diseño de proyecto, hay que introducir mejoras metodológicas, mejoras que faciliten el trabajo, que hagan los proyectos mucho más claros. Por ejemplo, haría una referencia a la metodología del proyecto del PNUD, puesto que realmente a veces resulta para los técnicos nacionales un poco difícil su trabajo. Creo quye esto es algo que si bien no corresponde examinarlo aquí, es una recomendación que hacemos para que se establezcan las coordinaciones pertinentes con la Institución aludida.
Quiero insistir, en lo que se refiere al Párrafo 44 de este Documento, en respaldarlo, en apoyarlo y decir que estamos totalmente de acuerdo con él, pero al máximo; añadiríamos la necesidad de reforzar el trabajo con los equipos nacionales. Decimos esto porque cada vez más los países han ido aumentado progresivamente su capacidad de formulación, ejecución y evaluación de proyectos y progresivamente se ha ido prescindiendo, en algunos casos, de asistencias técnicas prolongadas o en muchos proyectos de disponer de una asistencia técnica o un director técnico del proyecto junto al director nacional del proyecto. Esto podría favorecer el que haya un mejor equilibrio en los programas y en el presupuesto del proyecto al prescindir un tanto de trabajos o consultorías prolongadas para asistir a los directores generales del proyecto. Creo que es necesario seguir ampliando esta capacidad nacional como factor importante para poder ejecutar bien nuestros programas.
En este documento se presta atención a un tema muy importante, que es el relativo al comercio internacional. Quisiera sumarme a los planteamientos realizados por la distinguida representante de El Salvador, en cuanto que éste es un tema que debe seguir siendo objeto de análisis y de seguimiento permanente. También, si las condiciones y el presupuesto lo permiten, desearíamos agregar dos temas para el próximo informe: el primero, sobre las actividades de montes, es decir el sector forestal. Sabemos que en los últimos tiempos el Programa de Acción Forestal ha ido incrementando sus
actividades y que en estos momentos tiene un respaldo financiero importante y por lo tanto debe ser objeto de un análisis. El otro tema, que se vincula directamente con los problemas de agricultura y del medio ambiente, es el relativo a la sostenibilidad. Creemos que éste es otro tema que debería tratarse en profundidad en el próximo informe.
EL PRESIDENTE: Agradezco al representante de Cuba sus palabras y observaciones. Estoy seguro de que el Dr. Shah las va a tomar en cuenta en los comentarios que nos hará en el parte inicial de la tarde.
The meeting rose a 12.45 hours.
La séance est levée à 12 h 45.
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas.
