Al an AMEY (Canada): The information contained in an effective programme implementation report is of utmost importance to management as a tool for monitoring performance and to the membership as a means of defending, before our parliaments, continued membership in international organizations. Thus it is that in welcoming this report and recognizing certain improvements compared to its first edition, we would like to underline the conclusions contained in paragraphs 2.7 and 2.9 of the Programme Committee Report. Accountability is neither effortless nor costless but is part of the cost of doing business and protecting organizational credibility. The Programme Committee also touched on the issue of timing of the issuance of the Report. From the Canadian point of view it would appear that the council following the end of the biennium with actual cost figures would be preferable for us. However, two years from now, at the next Conference, it will be most important to have a much shorter document outling major achievements in the 1996-97 biennium.
It is important that there be close correspondence between the presentation of specific planned activities in the Programme of Work and Budget and the reporting of the operational results in the Programme Implementation Report. The continuing ommission in this report of resources input data that, in association with specific outputs, is particularly regrettable because it obviates judgements on relative costs and value added and deprives us of important information on which to base future and informed policy and programme choice.
Similarly, the absence of a systematic and coherent presentation of quantitative and qualitative data on variances in specific programme implementation detracts importantly from what should be one of the major functional activities of the report at an accountability level for both management and the membership alike. In this respect, we would underscore, as we did at the Programme Committee, the need for substantive improvements of data to address their shortcomings, and particularly of better and more explicit and comprehensive expenditure data concerning which we continue to await a proposal from the Secretariat respecting practical responsibilities and which would also be presented to the next sessions of the Finance and Programme Committees for their consideration.
Like Australia, the United Kingdom and Japan, we too were struck by the extent to which the Field Programme captured Regular Programme resources. But what is not at all evident is the extent to which the Membership participated actively and directly in setting the policy guidelines and directions and in overseeing the activities associated with these resource allocations. We believe this matter requires detailed consideration in the Programme Committee.
We are grateful for information on the monitoring of field costs and the reimbursement for such expenditures as this is a key area of concern for the Organization. In the first place, having support costs at the level of 28 percent of programme delivery is much too high. The support cost for most Canadian bilateral and NGO projects is only half that much. Having such a large cross-subsidy from the Regular to the Field Programme means that normative programmes at Headquarters are underfunded or not implemented, as Mr Wade has indicated this morning, and the Organization does not perform the work that is was mandated to perform. Having 26 percent of staff Headquarters' time devoted to the Field Programme is far too much. Other organizations and bilateral donors receive a very significant subsidy from the FAO over which this Governing Body has no control. Although steps have been taken to reduce costs through national Professional Officers and other means, the FAO should commit itself to eliminating or reducing this subsidy within a set timeframe. One way to do this might be to accept no new programmes unless the incremental costs are fully met. Eliminating this cross subsidy is a prime way to lower the FAO's budget.
In overall terms for training, the staff seem to enjoy only one course per year. In view of the greatly changing technology, productivity and qualitative improvements requested of the FAO, this would argue for a much more substantial staff training programme. We hope that the decline in meetings is indicative not of lower output but of more efficient ways of getting things done and would encourage such a trend. The decline of publications is also supported. We look forward to receiving the review of the Communications Policy which is underway.
The management of Field Programmes presents a number of delegate challenges; to mention only one, the medium project size is US$250 000 which is very small by international standards. More efficient ways must be found to manage these small projects, because, as pointed out in paragraph 94, these types of projects make disproportionately large demands in terms of technical and administrative support. The decentralized programme should relieve the burden of managing these small programmes from Headquarters staff to make the management of Field Programmes more cost-effective.
A general concern is reflected in many areas of FAO activities, whether training projects, projects by the investment centre, or other respects, is the declining of attention going to Africa which by most standards is the continent most needful of attention.
As well we would note with concern the 7 percent fall-off in the participation of women in training activities and the fact that the capture of resources devoted to training is about 21 percent. I need not remind this meeting that women constitute more than 50 percent of the human population and they make a disproportionate effort in respect of household food security.
Clearly, more vigorous and better targeted efforts are needed to improve FAO's efforts in this area. Turning now to the evaluation section of the PIR, the Canadian delegation still continues to be concerned about the area of project design which should be a matter of pride for a normative body such as the FAO. The proportion of poorly designed projects has increased from 20.5 percent in 1989-1991 to 31 percent in 1992-94. When this item was discussed at the last Council, it seems that only "informal negotiations" were used to integrate the lessons of experience into the new projects. The evaluation function needs to be integrated more formally into the design of new projects. The question of sustainability is also very important as only 28 percent of projects had considerable or very substantial impact. Given the scarce resources with which we are working, having this level of success is rather sobering and should be a subject of vigorous follow-up by the Secretariat. Having the evaluation function more firmly entrenched into the project approval process is a cost-effective way of improving the FAO's field performance. While being very appreciative of the evaluation function and the important work that has been achieved, fundamental improvements are necessary to realize the evaluation function's potential within FAO.
Whereas the Canadian delegation approves the concept of the special action programme of food production for low-income food-deficit countries, we continue to be concerned about the details. Specifically, the Programme seems to be funded partly by not filling posts in the food and agricultural policy area. I hope and expect that the full lessons of experience were included in designing the pilot projects and that they are replicable quickly over a wide area and are of a sustainable nature.
With regard to the format of the achievements of the technical and economic programmes, we are pleased to see more specific details of the programme outputs than was seen in the last report.
In general, the Canadian delegation notes with great interest the actual achievements of the agriculture programme. The external demands imposed by UNCED, the ICN follow-up and new responsibilities of the WTO have driven some of the FAO programmes. We are generally pleased with the results achieved so far. However, great vigilance must be maintained so that the programmes forthcoming in the future are adequately safeguarded.
Canada is also supportive of the major programme thrusts in forestry and the work that has been accomplished which is supportive of UNCED follow-up. We specifically support the efforts of the FAO on monitoring the world's forest resources and producing the forest resource assessment, collaborating with the private sector on the pulp and paper survey and trade and policy studies, promoting the implementation of national forest action plans and increasing community and individual participation in forest resource management through the Forest, Trees and People Programme. With respect to the global forest resource
assessment, as recommended by COFO, we would like to see more qualitative information on environmental and human resource aspects incorporated into the work on assessments.
We are appreciative of the information provided in Chapter 7 as the efficiency of the management of the Organization drives the whole Organization. New management approaches, practices, computer hardware and software become new driving forces in the search for excellence and world-class performance. Therefore, we are heartened by the recommendation of the last meeting of the Programme and Finance Committee to recommend a management review of the Organization. I believe that the last review was done in 1989, and FAO is due for another.
We participated extensively in the work of the Programme Committee and are associated with its findings and conclusions respecting the PER. That Committee expressed its disappointment with the analytical quality of the report deeming it to be essentially descriptive in scope. It is regretted that clear links to the associated PWB elements that would have transformed both documents into meaningful operational tools were insufficiently present. It also noted that the presentation of inputs, outputs, results and sustainability of impacts, as requested by the membership at the 27th Session of the Conference, had not been featured amongst the expected improvements.
Of greatest concern is the apparent fact that the PER is not yet systematically used as a management tool that yields remedial action in response to identification and analysis of issues and of problems in operational performance. The most obvious measure of this is the absence, in the PER, of stress on feedback to and from managers and of monitoring of implementation of agreed remedial actions, and paragraphs 266, 292, 293 and 297 are particularly germane to this point. In this context, we strongly endorse the Programme Committee's recommendation for the establishment of mechanisms to ensure two-way feedback in proactively responding to recommendations contained in the PER.
Finally, and in conclusion, I should like to re-emphasize my delegation's views of the current interdependence of the PIR, PWB and the PER and of the need for these three documents to mirror and complement each other in their substantive comments if we are to appreciate the concept of accountability within the FAO.
Larry FERGUSSON, (New Zealand): New Zealand has a few brief comments only that it wishes to make. Much of what we would have said has already been said by other delegates. New Zealand has the honour of chairing the Codex Alimentarius Meat and Milk Products Committees. We would wish to commend and express our gratitude for the excellent work undertaken by FAO staff in support of the important work of these two committees. We know that the staff that support those committees recognize the importance that the work that they undertake has in setting food standards for those who both export and import food. We know that they are aware that the processes of those committees need to be supported and need to be speeded up to recognize the flexibility inherent in having food standard setting processes that are based on good science.
This question of efficiency brings me through to the comments made in the foreword to the Programme Implementation Report. We cannot emphasize enough the importance of good planning and performance monitoring, monitoring of outputs and achievements rather than activities, to an organization such as this. Such mechanisms enable members to make informed decisions about the programmes they wish to support, and such mechanisms enable the organization to manage itself so that it efficiently and effectively achieves what the members of it are asking it to do. We note with some sympathy the comments made about the complexity of this process, about the concerns about cost-effectiveness, and about finding performance measures, both qualitative and quantitative, that are relevant. Our experience is that pursuing these types of reforms, particularly in times of tight resources, is not a luxury; it is a necessity. We support and encourage the Organization to embrace the challenge that pursuing these reforms will present to it and to pursue the very real benefits that will accrue from their implementation. Those benefits will accrue not just to the members of this Organization, but to the Organization itself in managing itself.
Teleki RAMOTSOARI (Lesotho): My delegation would like to join the other speakers in congratulating you and your team and also to commend the Secretariat on this comprehensive report. For one, we appreciate the issue of decentralization, but the issue of the creation of national Professionals is not clearly defined in the
report. We would like to see a clear progress report today about the performance in this regard, whether the performance is positive or negative.
We would like also to join other members who raised concerns about the generalized decentralization. In this regard, the concern here is generally to clearly define the roles of each sub-region, the roles of each region, the roles of national offices, so that we streamline what other offices are doing in order to avoid duplication in programmes.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Lesotho, for that statement. The distinguished delegate of Tunisia had to leave before delivering a statement. She has requested that her statement be placed in the verbatim, so that will be done. Now I would like to call upon the distinguished delegate of the USA.
E. Wayne DENNEY (United States of America): I will restrict our comments to the Programme Implementation Report, as my delegation believes that the discussion of the programme evaluation report was covered extensively during the June Council meeting. The United States values the PIR as a useful mechanism for taking stock of current programme delivery before we embark into another biennial programme of work. The current version of the PIR is substantially improved by providing us with considerably more information on output indicators as well as providing some expenditure data. While further improvements and refinements can certainly be made, which hopefully will result in a shorter document, we congratulate the Secretariat for responding to the many suggestions made at the last Conference. We note the Director-General's explanation for not being able to analyse outputs achievements against planned targets and trust that we will see that information in our next report.
When we have fully comparable expenditure data, output measurements and the ability to determine where we have made progress and compare it with what our objectives were, then the PIR will be both an assessment and a planning tool. This is essential if we are to improve performance implementation. The chapter referring to decisions taken by the June 1994 Council has received considerable discussion in other fora. We are not yet in a position to gauge how the restructuring and decentralization will affect the way in which programmes are being implemented. Hopefully, the potential benefits identified in paragraphs 20 to 23 will be realized. However, it can be expensive to establish new offices and relocate people, it also takes considerable time for the various functional units to effectively interact. We are concerned about the short-term costs in the current budgetary climate. We also need to have an assessment of the results as we proceed. The chapter on resources is rich with tabular information. Chapter 3 provides us with a lot of output indicators depicting trends that are consistent with the Director-General's overall initiatives. The evolution of Field Programme expenditures by region is somewhat surprising, with a decline noted for Africa and the upsurge for Latin America and the Caribbean.
Tables 3.24 and 3.25 are somewhat puzzling and difficult to interpret. We question how cost-effectiveness and sustainability are determined, and question the Director-General's emphasis on specialist programmes. In order to increase food security and to curtail transboundary pests and diseases it is appropriate to have a chapter devoted to these programmes.
The Programme to enhance food security appears to have some potential but it will take some time to see how individual countries benefit. What we see here suggests, however, that a regular on-going evaluation is needed to assess the results before a major expansion is undertaken. We appreciate the selected country elaborations provided on page 64.
The EMPRES programme has a proven track record and is making considerable progress across a broad spectrum of threatening plant and animal pests and diseases.
The presentation of achievements in FAO's Technical and Economic Programmes is informative and well-organized in describing on-going programmes and their associated objectives. For the most part, this chapter factually describes the status of activities in the various set programmes.
We are pleased to see the progress noted on the development of sustainability indicators, the useful initiatives of the Joint Division in Vienna in improving the safety and quality of food by irradiation and the many
nutrition-related activities following the Conference on Nutrition. Some of the work on rural development, especially that which deals with communications, does not seem so well focused.
Paragraph 195 examines the work being carried out on the development, maintenance and improvement of data bases. In our view, this is fundamental to FAO's credibility and is something that FAO does well. We would be most interested in seeing the inter-country comparison of agricultural output and productivity for the 103 countries analysed.
The work on supply indicators and the prevalence of undernutrition should provide valuable input to the 1996 World Food Security Summit. Similarly, the improvements made in the world food model should enable FAO to expand the Uruguay Round projections to the year 2010 for discussion at this Summit.
We are pleased with the progress made in streamlining the work on individual commodities as reflected by the meetings of the intergovernmental groups. This does not imply that less internal analysis should be done. FAO member countries need the data and analysis, but can get by with fewer meetings.
We still have concerns with respect to the possibility of duplication and feel that it could be useful to consolidate the International Rice Commission with the Intergovernmental Group on Rice. We know that they have different programmatic thrusts but this might be helpful to the rice community. If the IGG on grains duplicates the work of the International Grains Council and/or OECD's grains meetings, then they should be consolidated.
Finally, we are aware of the valuable work being done by the International Vine and Wine Office, but are less sure how this impacts on FAO's Intergovernmental Group on Wine.
The presentations on forestry and fisheries are well done and accurately portray the important work being carried out in these two sectors.
Regarding Chapter six, we agree that TCP projects can play an important role in overall field activities and we hope that TCP projects can begin to be a more integral part of FAO's food security initiatives.
Paragraph 277 notes the effective work being carried out by national correspondents to extend FAO's outreach programme. This appears to be quite successful and could be used in some countries where there are currently country representatives.
Finally, reflecting on what other members have already stated, we associate ourselves with Australia, France, the United Kingdom and Canada on the importance of FAO getting full cost-recovery for support services and, like Swaziland, we would also find it useful to clarify the respective roles of regional, sub-regional and country offices. We agree with the United Kingdom that having more accompanying qualitative analysis would strengthen future analyses.
ZHANG XIGUI (China) (Original language Chinese): First of all, I would like to thank the Secretariat for preparing document C 95/8 for the Conference. The Report, with large amounts of facts and figures, describes the resource commitment to the Regular Programme and the Field Programme.
In relation to key activities and output, this could help member countries to make timely prediction and judgements on the implementation of FAO's biennial Programme of Work in the context of total budget level. The Report dealt with the work carried out by FAO in this current biennium, its achievements as well as the problems facing us now.
During 1994 and 1995, FAO has been carrying out restructuring and decentralization. This is also a period of shortage of resources in implementing FAO's Regular Programme and Field Programme. In spite of all this, FAO still managed to make progress and achievements. We would like to express our satisfaction at this.
We are in favour of the Director-General's policy on the transparency of management and the emphasis on efficiency. This biennium is a special period for FAO so we shall further sharpen our mandate and responsibilities, rationally adjust our structure, management and professional processes, and take all possible
steps to streamline our administration, reduce expenditure further and encourage consultation and cooperation among member countries. We will try to mobilize more resources to provide policy and planning advisory services to member countries, particularly to developing countries, provide more technical assistance, and enhance the programme implementation capacity of developing countries. FAO should place service for member countries as a top priority and we wish to show our determination to revitalize FAO with actual achievements.
In relation to the implementation of resolutions made at the 106th Session of the FAO Council, we are pleased to note that great progress has been made in the following areas: firstly, the Headquarters restructuring; secondly, the delegation of authority down to the Field Offices, the continued emphasis on the cooperation with partners and the use of national capacity. However, we believe FAO will continue its efforts in the field of restructuring and streamlining and constantly consolidate the progress made in the above-mentioned areas, so as to fully play FAO's role as a leading agency in international agricultural development and enhance its work-efficiency and further improve its image.
The Chinese Government has been maintaining a close and friendly relationship with FAO, and we have actively supported the restructuring measures proposed by the Director-General. Our government has signed, in the last year, with FAO the cooperative agreement on the utilization of our national experts in helping TC-DC programmes and we have also submitted to FAO curriculum vitae of 33 specialists of various professions. Our government is willing to continue to submit curriculum vitae of more experts to FAO so as to further promote TC-DC.
In terms of strengthening the countries' capacities, we support the decentralization policy and to decentralize the authorities of professional service institutions to provide direct service for Member Nations. In this regard FAO's country representation office should play a key role in identifying the actual needs of each country and provide administrative help. The preliminary experience of sending an NGO to the country represtation shows that we could recruit highly qualified staff in the countries concerned. These NGOs have good relations with all other departments and ministries concerning the countries and they are well-versed in the political economic and cultural situations of their countries. Those NGOs are quite familiar with the working procedures of their governments. All these things could benefit the work of the NGO representative office in the country. Also these can achieve savings for FAO.
However, we believe this process of recruiting NGOs is rather slow. We are told this process should be completed by the end of this year. However, in the Programme Implementation Report, this has not been reflected. We believe that to replace internationally recruited officers with NGOs is a very good restructuring measure proposed by the Director-General. This measure has not only strengthened FAO's cooperation with all member countries and increased the responsiveness of FAO's country representative office, but also can help us to save money. Therefore we believe that in terms of recruiting NGOs we should carry out our work in accordance with rules set out by FAO and no discrimination should be imposed.
In the course of recruiting NGOs, the departments concerned within FAO should conduct consultations with the government and FAO country office and should respect the opinions of those member countries, so as to achieve maximum results in accordance with the proposal made by the Director-General, and so as to satisfy the needs of the new priorities set out by the Council.
Winston RUDDER (Trinidad and Tobago): The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago sits on the Programme Committee and in the Council and therefore, on behalf of the wider membership of the Organization and the interests at the national and sub-regional level, we have been able to comment very fully on these documents that are here before us for consideration, C 95/4 and C 95/8. Accordingly, it is not my intention to bore you since you have had the reports of the Programme Committee and the Council to consider. We fully support the views of the majority expressed therein.
I merely want to highlight one or two points which I think should be made on an occasion like this before the wider Commission and ultimately Conference will. I think it is important for us to recognize the qualitative difference that these documents we are caused to reflect upon show compared with the documents we have had to examine in previous Conferences. I have referred to them elsewhere as being extremely user friendly and I therefore wish to commend the Secretariat for taking note of the concerns raised by the membership in
this regard and seeking to reflect these concerns in reorganized, restructured documentation and we are grateful for that.
I wish to make the point that we do hold the view that the Programme Evaluation Report and the Programme Implementation Report constitute two main components or building blocks, if you will, of what one would perhaps describe as an important credibility system and screen by which we assess this Organization in terms of its transparency, in terms of the usefulness of the information it provides the membership with to enable the membership to make some judgements about performance, and therefore to have the credibility to continue to recognize the Organization both as a centre of excellence and as an Organization in support of developing countries who need the development assistance that the Organization is set up to provide.
Let me state, therefore, at the very outset that as far as Trinidad and Tobago is concerned and the sub-region of which I have the honour to be a member, the Organization passes the credibility test. Of course, in making that observation, we are fully aware of the fact that there are improvements yet to be made and this has been acknowledged by the Secretariat. We would urge the Secretariat therefore to take the very sound and useful suggestions that have been made progressively in the Committees and Council, and perhaps no doubt in the course of the Conference to make even further improvements. I get the distinct impression the Secretariat is so disposed to do this.
We note and we support the vision and view expressed in the Director-General's introduction to the Programme Evaluation Report and we acknowledge that to some very great degree. The extent of the changes that we would have required to enable the kind of evaluation that we would have preferred would have been clearly dependent on the base document, that is, your Programme of Work and Budget. In consequence, one would expect that as of the coming biennium, which our Programme of Work re-configured and restructured in a way that provides information that leads to a greater and more in-depth evaluation, ultimately one would see a significant improvement in the quality of the Evaluation Report in terms of its usefulness not only to the Organization itself but to the membership in its assessment.
We want, like Australia, to commend and applaud the work done in respect of small-scale fisheries, particularly in so far as these affect and impact upon the small island developing states of the Caribbean. We know to some degree the work has been aborted in the past biennium having regard to the funding constraints on the Organization, a point adverted to by the Director-General in his statement to Conference this morning. We regret that but we understand.
Chairman, may I make a comment on the issue of decentralization and the reorganization that has taken place? First of all I think it highly regarded by our delegation and indeed as commented upon by other delegations we have quite a detailed indication in the Programme Implementation Report of the extent and progress in respect of the implementation. We do not only have a view and a recommendation but we, in the sub-region in the CARICOM, have the physical effect, the change, in so far as we now have a Director of the sub-regional office and we want to express our gratitude for the alacrity with which the Director has responded. I know some of the posts have to be filled as yet and the office has to be fitted out to deal adequately with the needs of the region.
Just to give you an indication of how that office has already begun to be useful, within the last six months or so we have had two major catastrophic events of varying proportions and kinds. One is that the hurricane season has not treated us too kindly. The effectiveness of the regional office in terms of ready response, a kind of iron and air, as it were, as to what is informing the house so that the house can assist. The other point has to do with the affliction of one of the so-called pests that concern us and confront our agriculture from time to time, the hibiscus mealybug, and because we have a sub-regional perspective there has been an opportunity at least for the house to become more quickly aware of the situation and be poised to begin to respond. Of course, as I said before, more needs to be done in terms of outfitting. We want to link very directly the changes that are taking place in the house in terms of decentralization and restructuring with the ongoing efficiency and effectiveness with which the Organization will become available to deliver in terms of responding to the needs of the country.
We urge the need for putting in place with the greatest dispatch the supporting systems with respect to management information particularly because, as you devolve and you decentralize, and as you adopt a new empowerment and governance, you are then empowering those more closely central to the action to take
action. You need a mechanization at the centre to be able to control not from the command and control perspective but at least to control in a responsible way and to know what is happening.
I think it is with a high degree of urgency that that aspect of the decentralization and restructuring has to be attended to.
I also wish to reflect very briefly on this issue of support costs and the "subsidization" which exists as between Field and the Regular Programmes. Let me first of all make the point that there exists a real synergy between the Regular Programme and the Field Programme. To seek to disaggregate and compartmentalize in discrete bits and pieces for analysis hurts to a point but does not reflect the full flavour of what exists.
I also believe that yesterday is necessary for the Organization to capture responsibly the costs associated with these Field Programmes but I think one has to do a keen balancing act as to the extent to which this has to be aggressively pursued at this particular point, vis-à-vis keeping it in mind as to the objective to be obtained in context of the changes that are being made to increase efficiency and effectiveness with which the Organization is operating.
To put it mildly, Chairman, I think you would not wish to scare the donors and I know you would not wish to put the recipient countries in a state of disadvantage as a result of that act. What I am saying is that a sense of balance has to be established. Yes, we must recover costs but the costs must be in the context of increased effectiveness and efficiency such as the actions to be pursued are likely to yield so that the dialogue has to continue and has to proceed and an element of reasonableness must inform that dialogue.
Chairman, I think that is the thrust of the comment I would wish to make on these two documents and in particular with respect to the Programme Evaluation Report I personally look forward to the changes coming in the next round having regard to the changes that are in the Programme of Work and Budget for 1996-97.
One additional point; the advice that has been given by the Programme Committee in respect of the useful changes in timing of that document, the Programme Implementation Report is something that I would urge the house to accept because it would be much more useful as a document to inform the house and inform the membership.
Mme Seydou OUSSEINI AMINATA (Niger): Je profite de cette occasion pour vous féliciter de votre élection. La délégation du Niger se joint aux autres pour exprimer sa satisfaction quant à la présentation des deux rapports. Toutefois, j'espère que les différents commentaires et observations qui ont été déjà formulés seront pris en compte afin d'améliorer la qualité de ces rapports. Dans mon intervention, je tiens à exprimer la reconnaissance de mon pays à la FAO qui, malgré les difficultés financières qu'elle rencontre, ne cesse de multiplier ses interventions afin de nous assurer une sécurité alimentaire et nutritionnelle qui constitue une des premières priorités de mon pays.
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Señor Presidente, permítame saludarlo, felicitarlo a usted y a los demás Miembros de la Mesa por la elección para que dirija los debates de esta Comisión. Señor Presidente, mi Delegación está de acuerdo con que debemos ser breves en el tiempo, sobre todo porque ahorramos dinero cuando ahorramos tiempo. Sin embargo, me permitiría mencionar que en algunos temas tal vez requiriéramos una información más detallada por parte de la Secretaría. No obstante ello, felicitamos al señor Wade por la breve presentación que nos hizo y creo que la Secretaría una vez más merece nuestro agradecimiento por los valiosos informes que pone a nuestra disposición.
Señor Presidente, hay dos temas sobre los cuales creemos que el Informe debe ser mejorado y ampliado. Ello se refiere al Tema de la Cooperación Técnica entre Países en Desarrollo. En este aspecto debemos resaltar que ha sido una iniciativa del Director General, adoptar con redoblados esfuerzos e impulsar el Programa de Cooperación Técnica entre países en desarrollo, habida cuenta de que es una cooperación de bajo costo, de gran eficacia y que muchos países en desarrollo han demostrado y han probado capacidad suficiente para proporcionarla en abundancia y con caridad.
Quisiéramos mencionar además, que no se nos brinda ima información amplia sobre el Programa de Cooperación Técnica, pero aún la poca información que se nos da nos llena de preocupación.
El PCT que ha sido tan defendido reiteradamente en esta misma sala por la mayoría de los Estados Miembros, al parecer se ha interrumpido, porque sólo se señala información de lo ocurrido hasta el año 1994, y dentro de esto debemos mencionar que el nivel de ejecución ha sido bajo si lo comparamos con lo ejecutado en bienios anteriores.
Quisiéramos pedir que la Secretaría nos aclarara sobre este particular, nos diera una información más amplia, porque seguimos considerando que el Programa de Cooperación Técnica es enteramente válido como elemento catalítico y que la Organización no puede desprenderse o desentenderse de él.
Señor Presidente, al examinar el Informe de ejecución del Programa y establecer una comparación de sus resultados con la penuria de recursos que ha tenido que enfrentar la FAO, no podemos menos que felicitar y apoyar plenamente la labor que viene realizando el Director General y la Secretaría para capear una situación tan difícil, cuando las necesidades del mundo en desarrollo lejos de disminuir aumentan continuamente.
C. DE MARCIN (Belgique): La plupart des commentaires que nous voulions faire ont été exprimés par les délégations qui nous ont précédés. Et à ce stade des débats, cette délégation voudrait seulement interroger le Secrétariat sur un aspect particulier de la discussion qui s'est déroulée ce matin. Plusieurs délégués ont appelé le Secrétariat à renforcer la synergie entre les activités normatives et celles du programme de terrain, en particulier celles financées par les contributions extrabudgétaires. La Belgique, qui finance un programme assez important de fonds fiduciaires, souhaiterait savoir si le Secrétariat aurait éventuellement identifié à ce jour des activités financées par des fonds volontaires qui ne correspondent pas aux buts de l'Organisation, ou s'en écartent de manière significative au point que l'on puisse conclure à une dérive. La question nous semble d'autant plus pertinente qu'à notre connaissance, ce sont les mêmes divisions qui prennent en charge l'identification et la formulation des projets quelle que ce soit la source de leur financement.
Sra. Martha Catalina VAZQUEZ VAZQUEZ (México): Queremos agradecer la valiosa información que la Secretaría de la FAO nos ha proporcionado sobre las actividades de la Organización durante el presente bienio. Nos complace advertir las diversas acciones que se han emprendido en el ámbito de la restructuración. En el presente informe se observa que en términos reales los gastos totales de la FAO en relación con el Programa Ordinario han aumentado muy poco entre los bienos de 1986-87 y 1992-93, sin embargo, en 1994 se registró un acusado descenso del 15 por ciento sobre una base anualizada con respecto al bienio de 1992-93. Los gastos extrapresupuestarios que corresponden en gran medida al Programa de Campo alcanzaron un nivel elevado en el bienio 1990-91 y descendieron luego en forma acelerada, llegando en 1994 al 69 por ciento del volumen de 1986-87. Este descenso se refleja también en los gastos de apoyo. Deseamos hacer una mención especial a las actividades que ha realizado la Organización en materia de capacitación. Al respecto, observamos con preocupación la menor participación de las actividades pecuarias en relación a las que se realizan en las áreas de agricultura y desarrollo rural.
Finalmente, cabe señalar que la Delegación ha tomado nota del Informe en cuestión y, apoya la sugerencia del Consejo en el sentido de que en la elaboración de futuros informes deberá intensificarse aún más su contenido analítico y evaluativo, lo que permitirá en alguna forma mejorar la eficacia de los programas de la Organización partiendo de la evaluación de sus programas.
HyunWoo CHO (Korea, Republic of): At the outset my delegation would like to offer our congratulations to you and the Vice-Chairmen on your election. In addition, my delegation would like to commend the Secretariat for preparing the detailed analytical Programme Evaluation Report 1994-95, as well as the Programme Implementation Report 1994-95. My delegation's intervention will be focused on the improvement of management through the restructuring and decentralization of the Organization. We believe that all of these reformative measures must be continued with a well organised time schedule which will enable the FAO staff to avoid confusion.
Secondly, among the programmes implemented top priority should be given to food security in the developing countries. I would like to express our deep concerns about Special Programme on Food Production in Support of Food Security in the Low-Income Food-Deficit Countries. My delegation supports the Organization's implementation of the programme with high priority. In order to improve the food security situation of developing countries, my delegation believes that FAO should make further efforts to facilitate the small family farming that is affected by the trade liberalization agency in agriculture as small-scale farming is one of the useful tools for sustainable agriculture.
Finally, my delegation would like to express our appreciation for all your efforts of cost-effectiveness in carrying out various FAO programmes.
H. Pradeep RAO (India): Mr Chairman, at the outset may I offer my sincere congratulations to you and the Vice-Chairmen on your election. My delegation would also like to commend the Secretariat for the painstaking work evidenced in the production of these two documents, the Programme Implementation Report and the Programme Evaluation Report.
It is also evident to all others here that the need and the significance of the evaluation process cannot be overemphasized.
Most of the delegations here have already focused attention on the key aspects of these two documents and I would not like to go into great detail. As has already been said, time is money.
However, I would like to stress two specific points which have been raised by two of my predecessors. One regards the point made by the delegate of the United Kingdom where he laid great stress on focusing on the output of particular programmes. I think this point has been extremely well made and we must remember that the evaluation process focuses on outcome, and that is the issue that is often addressed to member countries.
Secondly, in the context of the restructuring and evaluation process which is currently ongoing and which we hope will proceed with more expedition, we would agree with the delegate from Swaziland who specifically pointed out the need for guidelines for the functioning of regional, sub-regional and country offices. Clarity in this regard is also a concern of my delegation to prevent an outbreak of bureaucratic red tape and bottlenecks.
Lastly, I would also like to express my agreement with the views of the Cuban delegation on the operation of the technical cooperation programme. As he has mentioned, this issue has been raised many times on the floor of this house and it is necessary that in the interests, especially of the developing countries that the TCP programme further be strengthened.
Ms Faith INNERARITY (Jamaica): The delegation of Jamaica wishes to join the previous speakers in congratulating the FAO for these two very useful documents before us for review.
In reference to document C 95/8, the Programme Implementation Report, I would like to make comments in respect of two things, first of all, the restructuring of the Organization, which includes creation of sub-regional offices in various areas, such as the Caribbean. As already emphasized by the delegate of Trinidad and Tobago, this is a very important step forward for us in the Caribbean sub-region. There have already been positive indicators of the role of this office.
Secondly, in respect of the general structure of the Organization, the delegation of Canada referred specifically to proposals for a management review of FAO. I would like to inquire whether at this time embarking on such a process would not in some way remove the programmes of the Organization when a restructuring process is already in motion. I wonder how these two would go together in terms of the length of time, the planning, the costs and so on.
The third issue to which I would like to address attention is that of the Technical Cooperation Programme between developing countries. This again is a very welcome initiative on the part of FAO. It is indicated in the report that CVs have been obtained for over 1 700 persons. In terms of following through on the agreements which a number of countries, including my own, have signed I wondered whether it would be
useful for FAO to provide, maybe in a summarized format, an indication of the kind of expertise that has been offered by the various countries that we could look and see what is available and we could approach the countries on a ballot roll basis in organizing projects and programmes and getting the kind of assistance which we require. At times we have needs and we are not quite sure which countries to approach for this. So I would like to know from the FAO if this is something being considered and if not, whether it could be provided as a service to us because we are anxious to see this programme really get off the ground.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: First I wanted to address two themes that came across, one perhaps best indicated by "how we can stop the decline in the Field Programme" and the second, "how we can reduce Regular Programme expenditures for the Field Programmes". We could do the latter in a manner that would prevent accomplishing the former. We would do so if we would immediately move to full cost recovery. We share fully the objective of increasing extra-budgetary resources. As a matter of fact, you will soon be taking up the Medium-Term plan and then subsequently the Programme of Work and Budget and if one is a betting person I suspect that you would think the odds on an increase in extra-budgetary resources might be better than an increase in Regular Programme resources. We also share the objective of reducing Regular Programme expenditures for the Field Programme. How can we simultaneously accomplish both objectives? With respect to the Field Programme decline, as you have noted in the documents before you, the sharpest decline by far has been with respect to UNDP funded projects. As a matter of fact, tentative, maybe somewhat shaky estimates for 1995 indicate that we may be turning the corner on Trust Fund projects.
There are different ways that we are utilising to seek to reverse the trend towards fewer extra-budgetary resources. One way to do so is to see to it that the projects are better prepared. Among the initiatives that the Director-General has taken, after noting the long experience of the investment centre in the preparation of financial projects, is to assign to that division an overall responsibility for monitoring and overseeing the preparation of all projects. The fundamental reasons behind this are that there is the long experience, there is a methodology, there is an approach that has proven of value. We have in fact prepared for the financing institutions; I do not recall the latest number but I think it is over US$45 billion worth of agricultural projects.
We hope also to be able to reverse the decline by drawing fully and more effectively upon evaluation findings. Further, we are searching for additional partners and the Director-General has reported this morning in a summary form on progress that has been attained there. You will recall that he has established a new unit to interact with the private sector and the non-governmental community. This is in a search for more partners and additional resources.
We also can increase our work wherever there is the opportunity with our present partners. It would also be helpful if we had a project preparation facility. We do not have a project preparation facility and because we do not, we have to use Regular Programme resources to prepare projects. Those costs do not get recovered in the project document. The Trust Fund donor picks up a project that has been prepared. There are others in the system that have project preparation facilities and of course that also is a subsidy to their programmes. I think every Trust Fund donor to FAO has a trust fund with the World Bank for project preparation. We would encourage you to have one with us. That, incidentally, would be a way of reducing Regular Programme expenditures for the Field Programme.
Turning now to other ways of reducing Regular Programme expenditures for the Field Programme, I want to step back just a little bit to note that some years ago extra-budgetary resources were rising rather rapidly and we used support cost income to fund some Regular Programme posts that were working partially on Field Programme activities but also partially on Regular Programme activities. You will recall that at the last conference two years ago a good number of formerly support cost funded posts were shifted to the Regular Programme to overcome that situation.
I also wanted to note for the record, as I recently noted for the Council, that the focus here is on Regular Programme expenditures for the Field Programme but we need to keep in mind that a good number of our Trust Funds are in support of normative activities and so there is in fact a subsidy, if you will, to the Regular Programme from the Trust Funds.
Now turning more directly to additional ways of reducing Regular Programme expenditures, first with respect to support cost income, which is at 13 percent in the general case for Trust Funds. As you well know, you have agreed that with respect to UNDP there is a common agreement and the subsidy is greater. You have agreed to that policy. We did not establish that policy. We get a lower share for support cost income. It was explicitly decided that there would be a subsidy from the Regular Programmes for UNDP projects. So the only way to uncouple from that one is for you to go back, those of you who are members of the Board for UNDP, and to other places in the UN system, and to see whether you wish to renegotiate those costs and conditions.
Turning back to the 13 percent for Trust Funds: one, the Director-General, after noting that two years ago there was no agreement on the proposals to increase the percentage for support costs, decided that the better way would be for us to become more efficient. You will note that in a good number of his initiatives are those that lower the costs of providing operations and administrative services. It is operations and administrative services that are to be provided from support cost income, not technical services. In particular, the agreements that have been mentioned, and that I will come back to a bit later, certainly lowers the costs of the consultancy services and so forth that are provided. Another way of reducing these costs is through the transfer of operation staff from Headquarters to regional offices. The one unit for our Asia/Pacific region will be moving, hopefully by the end of this year and it turns out that the cost of support staff per unit is lower there than here and there are some savings. These are however reflected in the Programme of Work and Budget but that is an avenue. One could visualize over the years that if this works well, and it should, we can move additional operational units to the other regional offices and therefore save some money.
The final step is with respect to technical backstopping, so called backstopping services to ongoing projects. This is an area where most of our Trust Fund donors recognize to improve the quality of the projects and to improve the performance it is necessary to put into the project budget itself sufficient resources to see that it is technically backstopped appropriately.
We, however, in some cases are still providing a subsidy to Trust Fund projects for technical backstopping. That should be reduced in the future; in fact, it really should be eliminated. It is in the interest of the donors. Mention has been made of the ratings for the various projects. I would note parenthetically that our ratings are not appreciably different, it appears, than almost anybody else's, but they are not good enough. Part of the reason is because we do not have a project preparation facility, so we end up having to prepare on the cheap, especially when we have strong pressure to reduce regular programme expenditures, for technical services.
Turning now to some of the other areas, there were several comments about the special programmes, but I do not recall any major specific questions. The comments that were made seemed to me to be in accord with the policies and procedures that we are following. The Special Programme for Food Production is country-owned. We have put out a new concept paper that is to be made available to every member of the Conference. I do not know if you have found it yet in your cubbyholes, but it should be there. It was also made available to the representatives here in Rome, as well as members of the Council; at least it was supposed to have been. If you do not find it there in the next day or two let me know and we will see to it that it is available.
I might point out that the expenditure in this biennium from the Regular Programme for the Special Programme on Food Production in Low-Income Food-Deficient Countries is a little less than 5 million dollars, and that represents about three-quarters of one percent of the total expenditures of the Organization in this biennium. It is a very small programme; it is a very important programme. It has great potential for the countries, but it is still at a very embryo stage. We are active in fifteen countries; nine of those are about to complete their first demonstrations. In this month and the next month, most of the rest of them will be in the demonstration phase. We have prepared guidelines for the preparation of the demonstrations, for the identification and analysis of constraints and for monitoring and evaluation and assessment of the demonstrations. The Council has taken a decision that the committee that should receive regular reports on the Special Programme for Food Production is the Committee on World Food Security. At the January 1996 session, the agenda will be very much crowded by the review of the documents for the World Food Summit, but there will be an update of progress on the Special Programme, and in the 1997 session there will be the opportunity for a full review of the first two or three years of the Programme.
A number of members mentioned the various agreements, and in particular the TCDC agreement. Updated figures: we have 76 countries that have signed the agreement. 56 of those have provided CVs of experts. We now have 3 690 candidates' CVs. So far 610 of those have been evaluated and have been placed in the roster. Unfortunately, only 13 have been used. There are 70 in process. The programme is now starting to move. I might ask, however, in connection with this programme, that those who have signed the agreement might consider establishing a small fund to cover the responsibilities that they have assumed under that programme to avoid having to go on a case-by-case basis and negotiate the amount for each one of these experts. It could facilitate considerably the process.
There were comments about the NPO programme, National Professional Officers. The procedures that are being used are precisely the same as those for the recruitment of any other Professional Officer. The representative is asked to establish a panel, interview candidates, submit to Headquarters a short list of five or six best. The submission goes to the Professional Staff Selection Committee. They make their recommendations and the selection is with the Director-General. As of today, there are 43 submissions, submissions from 43 countries, that have reached the office of the Director General. The others are in process. The authorized or number of established NPO posts is 65, so progress is being made.
There were comments about the organizational and normative balance. I believe a near consensus was that this is a very strong plus for the Organization, in that it is essential to have a balance between operative and normative functions. I think the point was made and continues to need to be made that the normative side and the operations side strengthen each other, and that in the restructured organization what is essential, is to make certain that the normative side does not isolate itself from the field, and the field does not isolate itself from the normative. I could go into details on how we are seeking to ensure that, but in the interest of time I will move on to other topics.
There was a comment about joint offices. Maybe Mr Wade wishes to address that matter more fully, but I would simply note that in a good number of cases our host government provides office space to us free of charge, and in many cases it is easier for our Member Governments to provide office space or a tangible facility than it is to go back to their appropriations process and get a few dollars to pay in cash for the rent or the space. In almost all cases when we do have co-located offices with UNDP or others, we of course have to pay. On balance, usually you will find that if you insist that we have joint offices with the other agencies, you will need to come up with more resources for the Programme of Work and Budget.
Comments were made about FINSYS/PERSYS. The overall situation is that we are on schedule to be able to purchase an accounting package before the end of this year. It is the accounting component of the financial information system that is in the greatest need of replacement. There are some problems with respect to the personnel side, but they are not major. The one that needs to be corrected is the accounting side, and that is under way.
A footnote on the business of the computerized system: The money that has been spent by FAO is large, but to give you a comparative figure, the system that is under development at the UN has now captured in excess of 70 and is moving towards 80 million dollars. We certainly did not spend that much for FINSYS/PERSYS. We did not spend half that. We spent a lot of money, but we did not spend that much. And the other thing is that these programmes have served us. Since we started the development, there has been a whole market that has developed, and there are package solutions to most things. They do need some fine tuning to fit our own unique circumstances, but we no longer have to go through this laborious process of the writing of our own software, developing our own software.
There were comments by at least two, I think in connection with Codex Alimentarais, where the point was made that good science needs to be the foundation. I could not agree more. There was a question about the functions of the regional, sub-regional and country offices. With country offices, the FAO Representative represents the Director-General and the Organization in the country to which that person is accredited. That person is the interface between our member countries and the problems that they have and the requests that they make of their organization for assistance come through them to Headquarters.
Under the restructured organization, the representatives' first point of call for assistance from an expert is the Sub-regional Office. If they cannot get it at the Sub-regional Office, they ask at the Regional Office. If they cannot get it at the Regional Office, they ask Headquarters.
The difference is that under the old system, the first call was basically to Headquarters. By putting more people closer to the work, there will be savings and, we hope, improved timeliness in responding to the requests of member countries. The Sub-regional Representative reports for certain aspects to the Regional Representative. The country representatives do not report to the Sub-regional or the Regional Representatives. The Regional Representatives and the Sub-regional Representatives are the senior officers for the identification of priorities of the region and sub-region and are responsible for monitoring the overall implementation of a Programme of Work and Budget, including extra-budgetary work as well as Regular Programme work.
For each specific programme or sub-programme, however, it is the technical officers that have the responsibility, so in each regional office you see in your diagrams an agricultural group or economic group, etc. These are linked with their partners in the other regional offices through the Headquarters. In other words, Regional Representatives and Sub-regional representatives have a responsibility for the administrative and managerial supervision on a day-to-day basis.
The technical units at Headquarters have the responsibility for technical supervision and the implementation of a programme of work.
There were considerable comments about inputs and outputs. I would include within that comments about small projects, participatory approach and so forth, only to make the point that one needs to address these kinds of issues with considerable care. If we are not careful, we might end up using only a pure efficiency criteria. We could probably have highest efficiency, highest output per unit of input if we would only take the non-risk or little-risk actions, if we would avoid trying to work with the disadvantaged, with the least developed and so forth. That would not be in accord with the philosophy and the charter of this Organization, my point being that we need to make sure that we keep in mind the distinction between efficiency and effectiveness.
A footnote on the concern over the decline in the number of women in training. We are not satisfied with those results. However, I gather that the comment was addressed more to the other members in the room, because we do not have the opportunity to decide who should be trained.
Finally, in relation to the comments about a mangement review, which has turned out to be one of the favourite topics recently, those who listened to the Director-General's statement this morning must conclude that we have been into a detailed management review for a good number of months now. You are starting to see the results. The results, some of them, are included in the Programme of Work and Budget, some of the savings that have resulted from that in-depth management review. Any further reviews, as the members feel necessary, need to be undertaken taking full account of what has been done over the last 18 or 19 months. I could leave it at that point. In other words, as the representative from Jamaica was saying, certainly we would not want to step backwards and re-do what has already been done. If one engages in any further reviews, it should be with a view to moving from where we are to see if there is any further opportunity for gains in efficiency and effectiveness.
T. WADE (Officer-in-Charge, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): Mr Hjort has been so thorough that most of the notes that I have made will not be required. However, I have one or two issues I would like to address and then, with your permission, Mr Kato, the Chief of the Evaluation Service, would like to address one or two issues as well.
First of all, there is a wide range of comments about the methodological aspects of the Programme Evaluation Report and the Programme Implementation Report, and I think we agree with the statement of the distinguished delegate of Trinidad and Tobago who said that those two together represent a package of credibility of the Organization. If we can make these two documents work, and people believe they are getting value for money, then this is what will keep the Organization going and well-funded.
There were complimentary comments and there were suggestions for improvements, and we have noted the suggestions for improvements, but I would like briefly to tell you what we are doing so that you know we are not just sitting here, letting time pass us by. We specifically have as an objective over this biennium to improve the programme management system in FAO. We started that some time ago and carried out a series of studies to try to identify the state of the art techniques which could be applied in our rather complex
circumstances. Here we were concerned about not implementing a whole series of costly techniques, which did not produce the results but rather to find those techniques which do work in organizations that deal in international fora, for example, and deal in policy advice and those areas which are a little hard to measure in their utility.
We have carried out a study of the work being undertaken in the United States of America, mostly as a consequence of the Government's Programme and Results Act 1993. We have surveyed the OECD's group's work. As you know, they have a programme management improvement between countries.
Finally, we very recently received a report from an academic institution in the United Kingdom, which concentrates on defining the terms and how they should be applied in a logical framework. It is from there that we are now working on how this can be applied to FAO's situation.
The next step, once we have developed our ideas, will be to consult managers internally, because these things have to be solved inside and the primary purpose of the whole exercise is to improve programme management.
A secondary purpose is to be able to provide good documents to you and to the outside world which demonstrate that we do manage our programmes well.
Moving on from there, there were specific questions. One point Mr Hjort made was that there are normative projects. In other words, the projects or trust funds are not just about operational activities. Many of them are in fact normative themselves and they are reinforcing the Regular Programme directly. The donors who support these projects are supporting the normative work of the Organization, and paying the support costs on that normative work. I think an example is worth a thousand words sometimes. One very good one is the Forestry Resources Assessment Programme. I will just give you a little information about it.
Between 1989 and 1995 that Programme has attracted approximately US$5.6 million in extra-budgetary resources. In the same period, the Regular Programme funded US$1.1 million, so you can see the leverage that was occurring there. That money came from ten different donors, and I think they deserve to be mentioned: the African Development Bank, the EEC, Finland, France, India, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States of America. What they allowed us to do was, in fact, to carry out the work under the Forestry Resources Assessment Programme and to carry out what, I think, can only be described as normative activities. The main contribution of the extra-budgetary support was in providing an essential capacity for assessing global forestry resources for 1990, which was completed and the planned assessment for the year 2000, especially in developing countries.
It included the enhancement of FAO's Forestry Resource Information System - FORIS, as it is known, which is a data base, but also the development of the manuals and the guidelines and the software for forest resource monitoring and assessment. It included the identification of priority requirements for developing countries and the provision of technical support for national capacity building in this area. It also provided a contribution to cooperation and collaboration between FAO and the other agencies that are involved in this work.
The point I wish -to make is that this is money that would otherwise have had to have come from the Regular Programme budget, so I do not think that we can put all trust funds in the same category.
The arithmetic of table 2.7, to which people point, includes the subsidy to that Programme. I do not think you can really see that as a subsidy to Regular Programme. The subsidy was by the ten donors to the Regular Programme, not in the opposite direction.
Mr Hjort also covered the question of support costs and I will not repeat the figures except to refer you perhaps to the verbatim record of the Council on this very item. There we go through some of the figures to demonstrate that the US$98 million of subsidy, as it is called, when it comes down to the reality of what might be recoverable in any sense, is a very small figure because trust funds are only 58 percent of the total, so you cannot take the figure of US$98 million. You have to take 58 percent of the US$98 million. If you exclude administrative and operational support, because the Director-General's and your strategy is that we reduce costs instead of increasing the rates, then you have to take out another percentage. If you exclude those technical support services, which you expect us to carry out, such as project identification and
formulation, then again you have to exclude some more. My rough calculations are that out of the US$98 million, US$12.5 million is the maximum scope for charging on technical support services, so I need to say that as a warning, that this is seen as a magic solution to budgetary problems. Yes, it would help but it is not going to be the solution to the sort of problems that we are facing.
Actually there were some very interesting ideas which came out of the debate. There were some specific questions concerning publications. There was a reference, in fact, to the cut-back in key early warning system publications, Food Outlook, Food Crops and Shortages. Yes, we believe that there is some loss there, there is a demand, and we are not responding to that demand. In fact, the point that has been made to me is that the whole concept of early warning is buying time for action. In other words, the quicker you get the information out, the quicker you can act, and if you delay in putting the information out, you cut down the time available for effective action. A readership survey of the Reports of the early warning system was carried out in 1992, and it indicated satisfaction from a large proportion of the readers with the frequency of the reports at that time, when there were eleven issues of Food Outlook, Food Crops and Shortages each year. Now we have halved the number of issues. We are about to do another survey. If they come back saying it does not matter, we have saved some money, but I fear that they will come back complaining.
On the question of publications in general and is there a demand, can we cut back more, and so on, can I say that we are bringing this issue into the methodology on programme planning? We will be trying to find more measures not only of input and output but outcome and impact. You should note, mind you, that that is already on the agenda. In fact, the whole issue of programme management is on the agenda very strongly. It is not dependent just upon us to respond internally. For the programme reviews of selected topics in 1996, which is an agenda item for the Programme Committee, you will find that the second one is an in-depth analysis of one selected programme as a model to improve programme presentation and to facilitate programme assessment. In fact, the Programme Committee has selected Programme 2.1.1 which is the Natural Resources Programme to be that model and the input of all of the things I was discussing before will be going into developing that model and hopefully coming up with a solution that is workable.
At the same time the other issue that relates to the Programme Evaluation Report for 1996-97 is, in fact, recorded in the Report of the Programme Committee which is a thematic topic and evaluation of FAO publications and information activities. In that we hope to be able to demonstrate some useful results.
The distinguished delegate of Japan raised some very interesting points as well. He asked that, for the next evaluation report of SARD, Sustainable Agricultural Development, be considered. I should say that the Director-General has taken up a new practice which is to consult the Programme Committee on what is covered in the Evaluation Report and he has done so on this occasion. The Programme Committee has selected a number of areas which are directly related to SARD, in particular water development and management, fisheries resources, technology development and transfer, but, of course, the issue is broader than that. It is only part of the total picture.
A question was raised on external evaluations to the Regular Programme in general I think. I suppose we use them most of all when people really want to see credibility, independence and so on demonstrated to its absolute best. Although I have to say that from what you have said, and from what we feel, our evaluation service is given complete independence to report on what it wants. It actually suggests the topics generally and so we do not seem to have a serious problem there. External evaluations are very, very expensive in comparison to the mix of using your own staff with consultants providing the expertise where you are short. You really need to have a good reason for having a purely external evaluation because it is much more costly.
I think Mr Hjort covered the issue of FINSYS/PERSYS. He also mentioned the issue of joint premises. The Director-General's view is that we should be as economical as possible on the question of premises and if that means sharing in the UN system he is more than happy to do so because he supports that concept. On the other hand, 37 out of 84 of our premises are provided free of charge. When we go into shared premises, we tend to have to pay and we tend to pay the full commercial rates for our share of the building. It is not always true. There are some shared premises that are provided by the Government.
I think, Mr Chairman, I have covered everything. I would just like to comment that there were some very specific questions. We are trying to arrange for the delegates who asked those questions to receive answers directly so as to avoid taking up too much time. I think at that point if I may, Sir, I would pass to Mr Kato.
M. KATO (FAO Staff): I would like to respond to a couple of other points. One is actually itself a question raised by the US delegation about project evaluations, specifically the definition that we are using in assessing cost effectiveness and sustainability here in Tables 3.2.4 and 3.2.5. The assessment given by Project Evaluation-Missions are summarized in the Programme Implementation Reports.
In terms of definition - although both concepts are very complex - we are using a very pragmatic concept so that the various missions can understand and apply it fairly flexibly depending on the circumstances. Essentially in the cost effectiveness questions we asked the evaluation missions to judge whether a particular project has been designed and implemented with attention to appropriateness of input methods, techniques involved in achieving and producing output and achieving the result. Secondly, it is a question of settling these technique input approaches. They represent the least cost approach. Again that is a very broad definition but essentially that is a standard we asked the mission to consider so they have to apply that depending on the context and content of the project.
As we said in the report, here we have to use the result with some caution because the concept itself is rather complex. We cannot guarantee that all the missions understand it properly and we can apply that.
Similarly for the sustainable effect we asked permission to consider the extent to which the project outputs have reached the target group intended and have been accepted and used for them in the way that the benefits of the project would accrue to these people in a continuous manner; so again this is a very qualitative and broad criterion.
In addition, as the report says I think, 1994 was the first time it was introduced and so we are testing in a way how well these concepts are grasped by the missions and how consistently they can apply them in their judgement, but we realize probably that there is a great deal of scope for refining them but it is best to start out with something practical.
A number of delegations referred to this evaluation and pointed out the disappointing assessment and the quality of the project design. I think two years ago at the Council Session I gave some explanation of this and in so saying I am not trying to be self-congratulatory or in any way self-complacent but although the data I have here is somewhat old compared to UNDP's assessment of the Technical Cooperation Projects we find we share the same problems. The project design rated very poorly. In the UNDP's case this is referring to 1990-91 figures and the percentage of the projects covering 810 projects rated good in project design 16 percent, and percentage of the project rated poor in project design is 31 percent. We have now, in comparison, 21 percent good for 1992-94 and poor 31 percent. As I say, it is not something I am trying to justify but I think it simply points out that many of the projects we deal with are very, very complex. We really cannot be complacent and we have to make further efforts to improve.
Another issue that was raised was feedback of evaluation. This was raised by several speakers, particularly the Netherlands, United Kingdom and Canada. The New Zealand delegation also referred to it. It is certainly our most important concern on feedback of evaluation. I think really the key in this respect is how to integrate well the evaluation into the management process in an institutionalized way.
I think within FAO's practices as regards individual field projects this process is very well established, usually tripartite arrangements with all parties participating in preparing the terms of reference for the evaluation mission which specifies the purpose, what sort of issues they should concentrate on and so on, and when the evaluation mission complete their report then it is scrutinized, commented on by the parties concerned and there is a regular project management review which considers the recommendations of evaluation missions and take appropriate action. I think it is an ongoing process and there is usually satisfactory feedback. There is more difficulty when we turn to a more aggregate level or institutional level when we look at 70 to 80 projects evaluated per year or several hundred over a period.
What are the lessons arising from this? At the moment we are doing several things. One is within the Evaluation Service we undertake annually and periodically a synthesis of project evaluations. We try to synthesize the key findings with respect to the project design qualities, the implementation aspects and the project results. We sometimes go into it sector by sector from time to time so that irrigation sector projects take 50 to 60, then try to learn lessons from them and then we communicate this within the house.
We also bring these findings to the Field Programme Committee which is an overall committee that brings the middle-level managers together within the house about Field Programme matters. In 1993 the Field Programme Committee, after discussing the result of our findings on project design, decided to establish a task force on how to improve project design process and also appraisal to be specifically more systematic. Unfortunately, because of the recent reorganization process we have not been able to make much headway but in the meantime we have been working to improve training sessions in the house where approximately 100 staff, both in Headquarters and in field, participate in project design monitoring. In addition we intend to participate in the process of streamlining the project formulation and appraisal process under the new system that is now taking shape after reorganization.
I hope this process will provide a more systematic opportunity for feeding back lessons from evaluations.
In terms of the Regular Programme Reviews, the feedback takes place largely through the work of the Programme Budget Evaluation Office in coordinating the medium development or the Medium-Term Plan, the biennial PWB annual work plan. I think, as Mr Wade explained, we are working jointly very heavily and trying to improve the project structure and that will also make programme monitoring evaluation easier.
However, as I said, there is still a very long way to go in this area. We need to institutionalize the process so that evaluation can be firmly an element of the planning and programming process in the house. In the meantime, we conduct these programme reviews, review the topic evaluations as we try to work directly with the programme managers. We work directly with them in terms of information and discussions. Sometimes they take part of the investigation although we finalize the analyses, we make the judgement, but we sit and review our findings within recommendations, particularly with the senior management such as division directors, Assistant Directors-General responsible for the programme. In this way, a rather informal way that is, we try to maximize the quickest way of feedback. The people who actually manage the programme will learn from the lessons, and they sometimes have very good suggestions as to how to reformulate, how to change the way of doing business.
Essentially, I think that is my response to the questions raised in this regard.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Kato, for the explanations and also Mr Wade for the earlier response to questions from the floor.
Are there any supplementaries? Are delegates seeking any further clarifications on these two reports? It appears that there is full and complete satisfaction with the response of the Secretariat to the various questions raised.
I will, of course, not attempt to summarize this discussion because that would be a very hazardous task I can see. There were a lot of points, some general and some specific. Given the very adequate responses that have been made from the Secretariat, there is not any great need for me to give a point-by-point summation. Of course, all the points will be captured in the report that will be prepared by the Drafting Committee. However, I would like briefly to highlight some of the general points that have been made about the stress on the qualitative aspects of evaluation reports and about the need for more input and output data.
I think there was general endorsement on the timing of these reports to be made available in the autumn of the year after the end of planning.
In this regard as to the comments on representation of the report, I think there was a general feeling that these certain aspects should be more clearly highlighted. There were, of course, specific comments about the special programmes of food production in support of low-income food-deficit countries and also the need to continuously monitor and continue with an ongoing evaluation of these programmes was mentioned.
Specific questions on NPOs and NCDCs, regional and country offices have been raised and answered by the Secretariat.
There was some additional information requested, such as the question from Jamaica on the use of TCDC experts by Member Nations as a service, and whether that is possible.
I believe that Mr Wade said that some of these specific questions can be answered on a bilateral basis.
This, of course, is not a comprehensive summary of all the points raised. It is just to highlight some of the points that were present in a number of the interventions.
Ladies and Gentlemen, if there are no further comments at this stage on item 14 of our agenda, I can say that Commission II has taken note of these two reports and that the comments and observations will be appropriately reflected in the report to the Plenary.
We have concluded the discussion on item 14.
Ladies and Gentleman, we still have some time at our disposal. As has been said, time is money and, therefore, the proposal is to move on to the next item, the Medium-Term Plan for 1996-2001. I would now request that we proceed to take up that item and I will ask the DeputyDirector-General to make a presentation.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: We do very brief introductions. We talk a lot after we have listened to the members.
The document is the Medium-term Plan C 95/9. You will note that it is a much thinner document than previous versions. That was appreciated by the Programme and Finance Committees. Their conclusions based on their review of this document appear in document CL 109/4 from the Programme Committee in paragraph 2.10 to 2.22 and from the Finance Committee in paragraphs 3.10 to 3.12.
The main change in this document is that it no longer presents the Plan by programme, sub-programme, and so forth. It takes the broader view, in this particular case, the two overriding priorities of the Organization: food security, and sustainable agriculture and rural development.
The Director-General raises in his introduction two questions for the Committees and now the Conference. How frequently should the Medium-term Plan be updated? For your guidance on this, the Programme and Finance Committees agree that it should be updated every two years.
A second question was, should there be resource projections in the plan for the out years? The Committees are split. The Programme Committee says no and the Finance Committee says yes. Therefore, you have a choice but we do need your recommendations on this matter.
I believe that is all I need to say.
John Bruce SHARPE (Australia): We would like to congratulate the Director-General and the Secretariat on their preparation of this document. My delegation endorses its main thrusts.
Obviously, considerable effort, thought and analysis of the views expressed by members in the FAO fora, including regional conferences, has gone into what we feel is a very useful document.
Where this document is useful is in that it addresses the needs of the members of the Organization and proposes for their consideration a plan of action for the next six years.
The Organization will out of necessity need to react to changed circumstances in the short term as they occur, which will alter the immediate priorities for its work. We have seen this happen already in the periods covered by the previous two Medium-term Plans and to the associated Programmes of Work and Budget.
The value of the Medium-term Plan is that priorities agreed by the governing bodies for the medium to longer term are not lost sight of, Even though the allocations to the programmes concerned may in the short term decline, their priority status remain. It helps to focus the longer-term direction of FAO.
We feel that the Director-General has been very wise, as mentioned in his foreword, in "avoiding the divisiveness" linked to seeking to include resource projections in the Medium-term Plan. This approach was also endorsed by the Programme Committee.
Many governments are not prepared to make financial commitments so far ahead, and certainly not for up to six years. There is a risk that Conference endorsement of a Medium-term Plan involving resource projections, no matter how purely indicative, may lead to an unrealistic expectation that resources will be forthcoming no matter what the variation in the forthcoming situation prevailing at the time, either globally or for individual contributing countries.
A question has been put to members in the Director-General's foreword as to whether the frequency of the preparation of this plan should be maintained or whether it should be reduced. We are very much in favour of it continuing as a rolling six-term plan prepared for the consideration of each conference.
In turning to the contents of the plan, we appreciate the selection of the two main themes in Chapter 2, food security and nutrition and sustainable agriculture and rural development. Who could not recognize the importance of improving the nutritional status of people everywhere and, as stated at paragraph 75, the fundamental fact that sustainable agricultural and rural development is essential to the maintenance of universal food security?
Paragraph 76 sets the goals of food security of all and the progressive elimination of chronic under-nutrition. It then extensively lists the supportive action FAO needs to pursue. There are some 15 or 16 mentioned and there are none with which we would disagree.
We would, however, take the opportunity to stress a couple that we see to be particularly important. They are: when monitoring progress towards national objectives, review the food safety and quality situation; assess measures to reduce instability in food supplies, especially through better control and use of water; review the opportunities for internal and external trade in food and agricultural products and provide assistance in the formulation of policies and programmes to enhance trade.
Paragraph 86 states very bluntly that food security is FAO's priority of priorities and so it should be. But to address food security properly and for the longer-term well-being of the world's population we need to look at the aspects that make up food security.
We agree with the way food security is defined in the opening of paragraph 87, the three dimensions for achieving it and the factors mentioned which go towards bringing it about, including better control and use of water, well-functioning markets and the ability to move food from surplus to deficit areas.
We agree with the sentiments expressed at paragraph 100 that food security demands good quality and safe food and that these are also important elements in the promotion of food trade at national, regional and international levels.
In this regard we are pleased to see at paragraph 102 that particular attention is to be given to the Codex Alimentarius Commission and that there will be an extension of the coverage of its scientific-based standards, guidelines and other recommendations to a wider range of food commodities.
Paragraph 104 refers to the efforts FAO will be making in the medium term in the area of controlling pesticide residues in food. We commend the work being carried out by the FAO/WHO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and of the associated expert committees who contribute significantly to this work -the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues and the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives.
We understand that the sheer volume of work of the latter two committees has increased considerably in recent years and we are pleased to see that this has been recognized in the report of the September session of the Programme Committee. It notes that streamlined procedures and extra budgetary support would contribute to the alleviation of that problem.
We are particularly impressed with the programme FAO has outlined on water and irrigation under the heading Major Action Towards Food Security. We wholeheartedly support it. The dry continent of Australia has battled with arid land farming for over two hundred years.
While we have made mistakes, overall we have achieved success in this type of farming and have been able to enjoy its rewards. We know full well the benefits which can be derived from the approach FAO is contemplating in this Medium-Term Plan even though the scale being contemplated in each case may differ.
We caution however, that the FAO Plan should aim to prevent problems associated with irrigation such as salination and pollution of ground water. Serious consideration should be given to possible long-term effects before encouraging the expansion of irrigation into new areas. Any planned expansion of irrigation should ensure that adequate water remains to sustain the natural environment.
We note the acknowledgment at paragraph 112 that higher incomes from trade contribute significantly to improved food security and living standards and a better economic environment and that trade liberalization, as exemplified by the Uruguay Round Agreement, will be one of the main concerns of agricultural trade policy in the years ahead.
The trade related activities of FAO which are included as one of its main strategic thrusts over the next two years has our highest priority and strong support. We believe that the activities outlined in paragraphs 112-117 will contribute significantly to world food security. These include the assistance to be given to help countries meet their commitments under the Uruguay Round Agreement on agriculture, the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the implementation of the International Plant Protection Convention and the key role it will play in connection with the SPS Agreement.
We also endorse the special emphasis to be given to cooperation and collaborative activities with the WTO as mentioned at paragraph 103.
We support the sentiments expressed at paragraph 77 regarding the importance of how we use our natural resources and the need to formulate and implement sustainable development strategies and FAO's role in this over the next six years.
We support responsible fisheries being included as another main thrust, because of the importance of fisheries to the countries of our region. We are pleased to see the importance to be placed on the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries at paragraph 106.
The contribution that sustainable agriculture and rural development can make to future world food security is unquestioned by my delegation. In this regard we support the main trusts listed in the Medium-Term Plan under this heading and in particular improved management of natural resources, follow up to UNCED, forests management and conservation and women in development.
In relation to the countries of our region, we were pleased to note that in the context of SARD under "Actions in Critical Areas" that the needs of small island developing states will continue to be addressed. As pointed out at paragraph 164 rural areas in these states tend to undergo multiple degradations under population pressure and the influence of urbanization and tourism.
My delegation is impressed with the comprehensive list of areas of cooperation between FAO and other bodies included in Chapter 3. The chapter is called FAO in Partnership. We welcome the information contained in that chapter and congratulate FAO on its efforts in this regard.
Raphaël RABE (Madagascar): Monsieur le Président, étant donné que c'est la première fois que ma délégation prend la parole, je voudrais joindre ma voix à celles de toutes les délégations qui se sont exprimées
pour vous féliciter ainsi que le Bureau. Nous voudrions aussi féliciter le Secrétariat pour la qualité des documents à l'examen et remercions M. Hjort pour les explications utiles qu'il a données.
Nous accordons notre appui à toutes les propositions qui nous sont soumises, mais nous voudrions insister sur certaines actions qui nous semblent primordiales et pour lesquelles la FAO possède des avantages comparatifs indéniables.
Au paragraphe 13 du document, nous pensons, nous aussi, que suite à la mise en application de l'accord relatif à l'agriculture, il s'avère effectivement nécessaire que la FAO surveille de près les conséquences des fluctuations de prix sur la sécurité alimentaire des pays encore importateurs de produits alimentaires.
Au paragraphe 35, nous convenons avec le Secrétariat que de nombreux pays auront besoin d'un soutien important pour élaborer leur politique d'aménagement du territoire afin de faire la part des forêts, des zones à boiser et de celles à consacrer à d'autres activités.
Le paragraphe 38 est important dans la mesure où il permet de réaffirmer les rôles fondamentaux de la FAO. Nous sommes d'avis, nous aussi, qu'il n'y a pas lieu de favoriser un rôle au détriment des autres. L'équilibre doit être établi entre rôle normatif et rôle opérationnel, comme l'a dit M. Hjort et comme d'ailleurs la Conférence l'a confirmé en 1989, lorsqu'elle a reçu les résultats d'un examen des rôles et mandats de la FAO. Ainsi, c'est tout récemment que la Conférence a confirmé l'importance de ces rôles qui doivent être égaux et donc remplis de manière égalitaire par l'Organisation.
Nous appuyons chaleureusement les propositions contenues aux paragraphes 55 et 67, qui concernent des actions à entreprendre en Afrique.
Pour ce qui est du chapitre "Eau et irrigation", nous sommes convaincus que l'eau mérite un place spéciale, comme l'indique le Directeur général dans ce document, et comme il l'a dit aussi dans son discours.
Il faudra aider les Etats qui en ont besoin, bien entendu, dans toute action permettant d'aménager et de mettre en valeur les petits périmètres en garantissant notamment la maîtrise de l'eau.
Mais nous pensons, Monsieur le Président, qu'il faudrait peut-être insister sur la nécessité de mettre en place, ou en tout cas de promouvoir la mise en place d'organisations d'usagers de l'eau. De telles organisations devraient assurer le bon fonctionnement des réseaux.
Concernant le Codex Alimentarius, à plusieurs occasions, nous-mêmes et de nombreuses délégations de pays en voie de développement avons insisté pour que l'on cherche les voies et moyens d'accroître la participation des pays en développement dans les sessions des Comités du Codex et de la Commission.
Il est dans l'intérêt de toute la communauté internationale que les pays en développement disposent de la connaisance et des possibilités de mettre en oeuvre les normes du Codex, ne serait-ce que pour la santé, pour garantir que les produits exportés -et bien entendu importés- par ces pays soient conformes aux exigences sanitaires fixées par le Codex.
Nous sommes absolument d'accord avec le Secrétariat pour ce qui est dit au paragraphe 110: la FAO a un rôle important à jouer dans la mise en oeuvre des codes sur la pêche, et nous appuyons bien entendu tout ce qui est dit au paragraphe 114 qui concerne les activités commerciales et le caractère hautement prioritaire accordé aux études et informations concernant l'incidence de la mise en oeuvre des accords du Cycle de l'Uruguay sur les marchés des produits agricoles, halieutiques et forestiers.
Le paragraphe 133 traite du renforcement des capacités nationales dans la collecte des données et bien entendu de l'exploitation des dites données. Nous pensons que c'est un élément très important et que la FAO a toute la capacité, l'expérience et le savoir-faire pour aider les pays. C'est une des fonctions normatives que la FAO assure avec un haut niveau de performance et nous soutenons vraiment ce qui est proposé aux paragraphes 133 et 134.
Mme Fatma LARBI (Tunisie): Prenant la parole pour la première fois, je voudrais joindre ma voix à celle des délégations qui m'ont précédée pour remercier le Secrétariat de la qualité des informations contenues dans les documents C 95/4 et C 95/8.
De même, ma délégation souhaite féliciter le Directeur général et le Secrétariat de la FAO pour les efforts déployés durant l'exercice 1994-95 pour l'exécution des programmes approuvés par la Conférence et par la 106ème session du Conseil et ce malgré les contraintes budgétaires que connaît malheureusement notre Organisation.
Monsieur le Président, ma délégation a écouté avec attention la présentation du point 14 et souhaiterait formuler deux remarques d'ordre général: la première porte sur la possibilité dans les rapports futurs du programme d'exécution d'inclure dans les tableaux une colonne portant des indications sur les réalisations des programmes durant la dernière année de l'exercice biennal, même si ces informations ne sont que des estimations. La deuxième concerne le rapport d'évaluation de certains programmes jugés prioritaires, elle porte essentiellement sur la possibilité pour le Secrétariat d'inclure dans ce rapport des informations régionalisées des résultats d'évaluation de ces programmes. Je ferai ensuite une suggestion adressée au Secrétariat sur la possibilité de combiner ces deux rapports et de nous présenter pour le prochain exercice 1996-97 un rapport portant à la fois sur l'exécution du programme et l'évaluation de certains programmes. Cela permettra peut-être de réaliser des économies, d'améliorer l'efficacité et facilitera aux Etats Membres l'exploitation de ces rapports.
Enfin, ma délégation souhaite que tous les Etats Membres apportent leur soutien financier à notre Organisation afin d'aider le Directeur général et le Secrétariat dans la poursuite de leurs efforts de consolidation et de perfectionnement des services rendus par notre Organisation à tous les Etats Membres1.
The meeting rose at 17.45 hours.
La séance est levée à 17 h 45.
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.45 horas.
____________________________
1 Texte reçu avec demande d’insertion au procés-verbal
