CHAIRMAN: We will start this afternoon's discussions with the Review of Field Programmes for 1976–77. In the arrangement for the session there are three meetings allocated to this part. I think maybe we should try to do that in two meetings. As you already know we are lagging behind, and in order to avoid night sessions and Saturday mornings, and things like that, we should try to proceed a little bit faster. So I count on your cooperation to complete this item tomorrow morning. You may find that easier because TCDC, which you will find in this Review, is a separate item which will, in all probability, be discussed tomorrow afternoon, and also we have dealt with rural development under Item 16, so I think we should manage to do it in two meetings.
I give first the floor to the Assistant Director-General, Mr. Yriart, who will introduce this item.
J.F. YRIART (Assistant Director-General, Development Department): Mr. Chairman, I understand very well that you are pressed for time, and I do not want to go into an exhaustive presentation of the document. However I would like to draw your attention to the subjects covered in the Review which the Programme Committee and Council noted as worthy of special consideration. I hope with this we can perhaps really save time.
The Programme Committee felt that the Conference might place particular emphasis on the assessment of field programmes in Chapter 2 of the Review. As in the previous two biennia, this assessment covers issues which deserve serious attention by the recipient governments as well as by FAO, UNDP and the other multilateral and bilateral agencies with which FAO has cooperative arrangements. The feedback provided by the Review has already had a significant impact within FAO, in determining our attitude toward several of these issues as well as in influencing the manner in which we execute our field programmes. I am confident that aid agencies and the recipient governments will find the Review equally helpful in reappraising their own policies and procedures. In this context, it would not be out of place, Mr. Chairman, to recall the concern expressed by the Programme Committee that while the Review of Field Programmes in 1972–73 and 1974–75 also analysed the key factors affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of technical assistance projects, these findings had apparently not received sufficient attention.
Around this, Mr. Chairman, is the issue of the usefulness of this major effect the Organization makes, which is the presentation for the Conference every two years of its Review of Field Programmes.
The Commission may wish to take note of the trends towards government execution of projects, with progressively decreasing reliance on expatriate expertise, greater use of national institutions, advisory panels, short-term experts, consultants, cost-sharing devices and other procedures aimed at modifying the classical form of technical cooperation to bring it more in line with the new requirements of recipient countries. The Director-General would welcome specific suggestions as to how we can assist member countries to implement these trends further.
The Programme Committee also felt that some of the issues raised in Chapter 3 on “Training” deserved special consideration by the Conference. Among these the Commission may wish to discuss specifically the system of fellowships, the need and mechanisms for assessment of training requirements, evaluation by the countries themselves of the relevance and adequacy of the external assistance they are receiving, and the concept of training at the “grass roots” level.
Some of these points may have been touched upon already during the debate on the Programme of Work and Budget, but the analysis presented in Chapter 3 of the Review should assist the Commission to deal with the vital subject of training in more concrete terms. Following the discussions in the Programme Committee, may I offer a passing comment on the essence of training at the “grass roots” level. While it would be difficult for FAO itself to reach large numbers of farmers or other primary producers in the developing countries - who constituted the population at the “grass roots” level - the Programme Committee felt that one of the criteria for conceiving and later assessing a training activity should be the extent to which its impact would be felt at that level, directly or indirectly.
Training must not be seen in isolation from the other factors bearing upon development. Effectiveness of training is contingent on efficient use of the persons trained and the new skills acquired by them in the context of national development programmes. This is conditioned by the extent to which Member Nations are able to mobilize funds and provide the necessary material and institutional support to their technical staff on the one hand and to farmers and other primary producers on the other. The Commission may wish to comment and provide guidance on this, and on some of the other ideas contained in the final section of the Chapter, which delineate a policy framework for FAO's technical cooperation work in training in the coming years.
Chapter 4 dealing, with the flow and orientation of technical assistance and capital aid to agriculture updates the analysis presented in the previous Review. It provides a glimpse of the wider context in which FAO's technical cooperation activities are carried out. While we have not treated this subject in great detail we have tried to highlight the points we felt were salient. Sections dealing with the “Essence of Rural Development” and “Role of External Assistance in Rural Development” in paragraphs 4.32 to 4.39 are of special interest to the Agrarian Reform and Rural Development Conference and in some measure you have discussed them already.
The section,as the Chairman has mentioned,dealing with “Technical Cooperation amongst Developing Countries” towards the end of Chapter 4,we should bear in mind and I will comment no further, when we discuss item 13 on TCDC.
As you must have noted, Mr. Chairman, the Review also provides a brief description and assessment of the Technical Cooperation Programme and on this, Mr. Chairman, there has already been a discussion in Chapter 3, and indeed, in the general debate on the Programme of Work and. Budget, so I think perhaps we need not continue the discussion here.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, may I stress the point that, though the document before you is considerably leaner and more selective this time, it still contains a great deal of information and evaluative material. It complements the Programme of Work and Budget and Medium-term Objectives in as much as it provides a further basis for considering links between field activities and the Regular Programme. This became amply evident during your review of the Programme of Work and Budget as well as in the discussions that have been going on simultaneously in Commission I.
It could not have escaped the attention of the distinguished delegates, Mr. Chairman, that the Review is as candid as on previous occasions in pointing out problems and shortcomings in FAO's technical cooperation activities. Many of these have been overcome or corrected, but others remain. We have not hesitated to point these out “with the firm conviction”, to quote the Director-General, “that only by acknowledging our shortcomings as well as our successes can we continue to improve the quality of our technical cooperation activities. There are bound to be shortcomings and even, from time to time, failures. This is in the nature of the situation which calls for aid in the first place. The important thing is to identify, correct and learn from difficulties, and to apply the lessons elsewhere”. This quotation from the Director-General's Preface to the Review of Field Programmes, 1976–77 epitomizes the spirit in which this document before you has been written and presented for your consideration.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the Assistant Director-General, Mr. Yriart, for his introduction.
D. RICHTER (Germany, Fed. Rep. of)(interpretation from German): The Review of Field Programmes is apart from the discussion of the Programme of Work the most important subject, especially for the recipient countries. The exchange of experiences on projects that have been carried out, and their evaluation, are the basis for an improvement of the field activities of the Organization. The more open, the more honest this discussion is on success and failure, the greater will be the prospects of improving the efficiency of the projects. The experiences which will be reported by recipient countries should also be a lesson for us in our bilateral cooperation.
The Secretariat has given us an excellent basis in document C 77/4. The presentation of this document is very much better than it has been in the past; but it is even more important that the whole of the activity of the Organization in this very important area is being described quite openly, and being evaluated critically.
The analysis shows the following points which particularly strike us, and we would like to hear more about these points from the people concerned. Firstly, referring to paragraph 2.5, we wonder why the definition of objectives is generally good, or even very good, while the formulation of projects for project implementation is being judged much less leniently.
Secondly, it appears to us regrettable that, according to paragraph 2.12, almost 40% of all projects have been able to pass on technical and administrative knowledge and know-how in only a very inadequate way. This means that we are still very far from the objective that such projects should have a catalysing effect in the recipient countries.
Thirdly, according to paragraph 2.7, about one third of the 141 projects reviewed had to be carried out without adequate participation or support of the recipient countries.
Fourthly, according to paragraph 2.14, the reports on field projects are described as being numerous, and in some cases they are indicated as being the most important result of the projects. This collection of experience, however, seems to have been utilized and evaluated only inadequately in the formulation of new projects. Perhaps the Secretariat could tell us more about this. We would be particularly interested in knowing to what extent these experiences can be utilized in order to improve the absorptive capacities of the least developed countries.
Fifthly, according to point 2.11, the support of projects in FAO headquarters by the technical divisions does not seem to be assured. The situation seems to lead to less complaints with regard to forestry and fisheries.
Sixthly, with regard to education and training, which is of decisive importance, paragraph 3.7 indicates that in 1975 and 1976 about 35 000 people have been educated or trained in the framework of FAO programmes. This does not appear to us to be a very large figure, and only one third of them were farmers. We believe that much more effort needs to be made in this connexion, and we also feel that the education and training of women has to be given much more emphasis.
We were somewhat surprised to note in 3.43 that radio as a supplementary extension work was only of limited value. Broadcasts which are meant only for farmers and which are broadcast at given times of the day should not fail to be effective.
At any rate, we would like to give our full emphasis to the important role of FAO in education and training in agriculture. We support the objectives as described in the document.
This brings me to the end of my preliminary remarks. I would however like to reserve the right to come back to individual questions later on.
J. RUTKOWSKI (Poland): The importance of FAO field programmes cannot be over-estimated, as they represent the practical activities of the Organization geared towards achieving immediate results. The document presented to us C 77/4, contains statistical information, and all relevant data, and it also considers constraints and difficulties.
We agree with its basic conclusions, especially with the judgement concerning the importance of self-reliance and limitations of external help. There is a great variety of programmes and activities, including projects of UNDP and Trust Funds. While agreeing in principle with the main ideas contained in the document, we would like to stress the following points:
Firstly, the growing involvement of many international organizations and banks in the development of agriculture requires a coordination effort by FAO in order to avoid fragmentation of means and overlapping of work.
Secondly, the involvement of the recipient countries, and especially of rural population is of extreme importance for the implementation of the projects. In this connexion, we fully agree with the Director-General's idea of using more national institutions and national experts in the implementation of programmes. This is in our opinion the only way to ensure their lasting impact on national agriculture.
Thirdly, when sub-contracting certain parts of the projects, equal chance should be given to institutions from less-developed countries, as they may well have better experience and knowledge of local conditions.
Fourthly, evaluation of projects should be done by independent experts from FAO, as there is sometimes a tendency to over-rate the real achievements.
Fifthly, we agree with the view expressed in the document that training at grass-roots level is of the utmost importance for the short run increase of production. We are wondering however how many millions of farmers could be reached directly by FAO. The involvement of local authorities is therefore necessary, and proper attention should be given to the establishment of local training facilities. In the longer run, it is only the local extension worker who can permanently advise and teach the farmer concerning modern methods and technologies.
I would like to mention that the above remarks are not based only on the document presented, but to a large extent reflect the experience of Polish experts employed in several countries by FAO. We are also taking advantage of the cooperation extended to us by FAO in such specific fields as plant breeding, control of pesticide residues, and the production of maize, mainly through short-term consultation. We wish to stress that we very much appreciate the services rendered to us.
It is mentioned in the document that the project formulation by UNDP often takes a very long time. Our experience confirms that view, and every effort should be made to simplify the necessary procedures.
When talking about FAO Field Programmes, we must always remember that they can only supplement and facilitate national programmes: they cannot replace them. It is rightly stated in many FAO documents that the role of the Organization is a catalytic one of initiation, in relation to national efforts.
R. PASQUIER (Suisse): L'examen de ces programmes de terrain nous amène à constater avec satisfaction certains accents nouveaux, comme la responsabilité accrue confiée aux institutions nationales et aux experts nationaux dans la gestion des projets, ou encore la formation dirigée plus fréquemment vers l'exploitant agricole et le vulgarisateur agricole.
Nous avons aussi quelque regret, comme l'a constaté la délégation de la République fédérale d'Allemagne, parce qu'environ 40 pour cent des projets ont des résultats insuffisants, mais il est toutefois heureux que la FAO ait la franchise de constater cette insuffisance. Il y a donc une grande marge encore pour des progrès à venir.
Nous constatons aussi que l'accent est mis sur des projets qui ont en général un effet direct sur la production agricole et l'emploi, et nous voudrions encourager la FAO à poursuivre dans ce sens. Mais ceci devrait avoir, à notre avis, comme corollaire, que les experts de la FAO soient le plus fréquemment dans des périmètres ruraux, c'est-à-dire stationnés dans le périmètre du projet. Nos voyages dans les pays en développement, dans le cadre de notre aide bilatérale surtout, nous amènent à constater que beaucoup d'experts de la FAO ont leurs postes de travail habituels plutôt dans la capitale ou dans les grandes villes. Nous n'avons pas de statistiques à disposition nous permettant d'apprécier de manière objective cette tendance, mais il nous semble qu'un certain correctif devrait être apporté. Nous souhaiterions d'ailleurs obtenir du Secrétariat, d'ici à la fin de nos débats, pour éclairer l'opinion que peut avoir la Commission sur ce point, les statistiques sur le pourcentage des experts FAO stationnés ordinairement dans la capitale ou dans de grandes villes, et le pourcentage d'experts stationnés ordinairement dans le périmètre rural. Cela dit, le fait que nous critiquions ou que nous soulignions certains points faibles va dans le sens du progrès. Nous voudrions participer à la mise au point des approches qui permettent d'atteindre les objectifs le plus rapidement possible: ceci aussi bien dans le cadre de la FAO que dans le cadre de notre coopération bilatérale.
G.P. TIGGELMAN (Netherlands): I shall comment briefly on a few subjects of the Review, but first I would like to say that my delegation is of the opinion that the Review is an important document, and it welcomes the gradual coordination of activities financed by funds from the Regular Programme and extra-budgetary resources. We look forward to the announced integration of regular and field activities, since this will also give donors a better opportunity to coordinate their assistance with the programmes of recipient countries and FAO - that is, if such coordination is in accordance with the Technical Cooperation Programme which we discussed a few days ago.
In Chapter 2, under “Project Results” the backstopping of projects is mentioned. The general management of agricultural projects is improved, but we have seen that the backstopping from functions has become more difficult to obtain. This might increase the quality of the field work, and we believe that a solution must be found for the execution of this technical advisory part of FAO.
What is said about the transfer of skills is rather disappointing after 25 years of experience in this activity. My delegation believes that the problem of transfer of technical and management skills between expatriate and local experts, and through coordination amongst further studies, and for study, should be undertaken by FAO for national projects of a number of countries. Perhaps it is useful to also consult UNDP, which is studying the role of the expert in development cooperation. The transfer of skills seems to be the more important because we may expect an increasing demand, especially in the poorer and smaller countries for suitably trained manpower at the planning stage, and in the implementation and final running of projects, since more money has become - and we hope will become -available for improvements in agriculture, and also because developing countries are becoming more inclined, and rightly so, to prepare and carry out their own projects and programmes.
With regard to the regional programmes and projects, the Review's complaint about results so far is not very optimistic. My delegation shares the opinion that to first strengthen national institutions, and after that ensure cooperation between them, is preferable. It seems that education and training are areas for a research project, and there may also be possibilities for regional cooperation in tackling food problems.
My delegation considers Chapter 3, ''Training in Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry”, a good exposé of the problems of, and possible solutions to, increasing the number of trained technicians. We agree with what has been said about the training institutions and group training activities, and would suggest that these training facilities also receive regular assistance in future for further training of the teachers and for curriculum development. We also think it of great value that in development projects an “in-service” training component is included, and believe that this possibility for training and the transfer of skills is not fully exploited.
In the Chapter on ''Training for Women “we read that there was an increase in the number of women training at the technician and higher levels, but more must be done, and we agree with what is pointed out in the Director-General's Medium-Term Objectives and which also has been stressed by the delegate of Brazil that women who constitute a major part of the labour force in rural areas of the developing countries, but are among the most disadvantaged, must be included in most of the programmes for education and training.
Looking finally at Table 6 which gives information about the FAO-assisted field projects, we learn that 27 percent of the field projects are training projects. We are however of the opinion that still more training activities are necessary, and in the execution of most of the development projects the shortage of well-trained medium-level technicians is a bottleneck, and will be more so in the coming years when the emphasis will be on programmes and projects to increase food production and income, and to improve the nutritional level of the poorest population in the poorest food-deficit countries. The difficulty of finding trained personnel willing to work in these remote areas may become a serious obstacle for these poverty-oriented programmes.
In conclusion, Sir, some comments on the paragraphs on the Essence of Rural Development and the Role of External Assistance in Rural Development. My delegation agrees with the importance of the issues spelled out in the paragraphs 4.36, 37 and 38; the active involvement of the population in the identification and implementation of projects - the duration of rural development projects and therefore long duration of external assistance, and the introduction of appropriate technology. They are particularly important for the preparation of projects for the poorer rural people, the projects that are based on the wishes of these people and which they can carry out. We are still facing great problems in this field and we feel that more energy should be spent for studies in order to find good approaches to reach the target groups mentioned in the Review.
The vastness and complexity of the rural areas and their development does make cooperation necessary at international, national and local levels. We have already talked about the first during the discussion on the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development.
Of particular importance is the cooperation at national level and with the local community and the participation of the people in programming, planning and execution.I think that we are paying much attention to this “active involvement” of the people with words, but there are not so many good examples on how to do it. Although the primary responsibility for this lies with the people and the government in each rural area, we believe more external assistance seems useful for the building up of the necessary rural institutions at the local as well as the national level. This to achieve the degree of participation by the local population which is generally agreed to be an essential requirement for successful rural development, and also to improve the capacity for carrying out rural development projects. Such institutions could include farmers' organizations, rural youth clubs, women's organizations, rural development banks and credit cooperatives, production, marketing and purchasing cooperatives and services for rural extension, home economics, education and health. External assistance might also comprise assistance for socio-economic research in order to find ways that make active involvement of the target population possible.
CM. KASSAMI (Uganda): My delegation wishes to thank the Director-General for the clear and precise presentation in which document C 77/4 has been presented. We are satisfied that despite financial constraint brought about by the UNDP financial crisis FAO has attempted to fulfil her objectives. However, we would like to point out a few issues related to the implementation of the field programmes.
As regards cooperative arrangements we would like to point out that as FAO is the executing agency of UNDP's agricultural projects, UNDP's budgetary constraints will continue to affect the performances of FAO field programmes. Measures like the use of annual ceilings, have tended to limit the rate at which projects can be implemented, while the system of cost sharing is limited by the scarcity of foreign exchange in the least developed countries. We hope the international community will continue to address itself to this problem with an aim of reducing UNDP's financial constraints.
With regard to the number and origin of Field Staff, paragraphs 1–10 - 1–11, my delegation is convinced that the problems of developing countries are better appreciated by experts from developing countries. This observation is based on my country's cooperation with experts from other developing countries. It is for this reason that efforts should be made to enable young nationals from developing countries to gain experience through work with FAO. As has been pointed out in paragraph 1.12 some donor countries provide funds to FAO to enable their nationals to work with FAO through the Associate Expert Scheme. My delegation would like to propose that this scheme should be considered also for recipient countries, and that research in this direction should be made.
As regards training - (Chapter 3), we wish to emphasize the approach of “learning by doing”, and the strengthening of local institutions. We feel this is the best way to transfer technology and we are very happy with attempts to train at local level.
H. MAURIA (Finland): The development of field activities since the last conference two years ago has been interesting. There have been clearly visible elements of a new approach in the implementation of country programming towards small pragmatic arrangements on the country levels as we have seen from the very good document Review of Field Programmes which has been presented by the Secretariat.
There has been also a rather promising improvement in project results even if there are areas or problems still existing, and we are particularly satisfied with what has been explained in Chapter 3 about training in agriculture, fisheries and forestry, because we think that the training aspect in field projects should be emphasized more and more and try to be involved and implemented as much as possible while there is a real need for it, and we think that there is in many cases an urgent need for good training at the lowest level and also at technical level.
Regarding the overall development, there have been on the other hand shortcomings with regard to financing of field activities in the UN system, and particularly concerning the continuous decrease in project delivery in the UNDP sector. We regret that very much. On the part of the Secretariat and also in the report of the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee, it has been stated that these trends do constitute a problem for the execution of field programmes, and that I think we should be aware of. It is not within the competence of my delegation to provide any concrete solutions or proposals for a solution of this matter, but as my country is a contributor of UNDP funds and also a supporter of FAO, we feel that the organizations should concentrate their efforts to turn the current downward trend to an upward one.
We are satisfied to know from the report of the Finance Committee that the implementation of the censusat the field level has been taking place without difficulties, and that mutual agreement has been reached between the heads of UNDP and FAO on coordination in relation to the implementation of assistance cooperation, the implementation of FAO's new representative in the member countries. We subscribe also to the Committee's views that UNDP must remain a main source of funding of FAO field activities and programmes but that flexibility must similarly exist for other funding channels.
The efforts for the strengthening of the institutional backgrounds for the implementation of field programmes at both the organizational and at the country levels should be carried out in the spirit of mutual cooperation and of benefit to the receiving countries.
Mgr. Β. NOTARANGELO (Saint-Siège): Monsieur le President, Permettez-moi d'exprimer la sincère appréciation de la Délégation du Saint-Siège pour l'examen sérieux des programmes de terrain que la FAO nous a présenté.
Les questions qui y sont analysées et évaluées sont d'une importance décisive pour imprimer à l'activité future de la FAO une nouvelle orientation et un nouveau dynamisme.
Je me réfère en particulier aux programmes de formation dans le domaine de l'agriculture, des pêches et de la foresterie. Il nous semble important - comme nous a dit Paul VI dans l'Audience de vendredi dernier - de rappeler que “la FAO compte parmi ses objectifs premiers non seulement la production, mais aussi la promotion des zones rurales et des ruraux, surtout dans les pays en voie de développement”.
La Délégation du Saint-Siège se réjouit de constater les efforts déployés par la FAO et les résultats obtenus dans les secteurs de la formation technique et professionnelle.
Les renseignements concernant l'estimation quantitative et qualitative des activités de formation imposent toutefois des considérations qu'on entend soumettre à votre bienveillante attention, Monsieur le Président.
On a constaté que la faiblesse de plusieurs cours de formation est la conséquence de dans l'eabsence d'éléments culturels, pédagogiques et humains, même lorsque les connaissances et les expériences techniques apparaissent suffisantes.
Il ne s'agit certainement pas seulement de la préparation au niveau technique mais aussi aux niveaux social, culturel et politique afin de permettre soit una plus grande productivité des forces de travail, soit la participation active des jeunes et des adultes - des hommes et des femmes - cette réflexion vaut aussi pour établir une collaboration entre la production, les exploitations et les accès au marché, pour assurer les divers groupes sociaux dans les communautés locales rurales, d'un rapport de plus en plus vital et constant avec leurs propre pays et continent, dans la perspective d'une très claire interdépendance jusqu'au plan mondial.
Notre Délégation note avec satisfaction que la FAO considère la nécessité d'adapter les projets et les méthodes de formation aux différentes situations économiques et culturelles des peuples, en exigeant, autant que possible,des cadres de programmes régionaux pour éviter la dispersion des efforts.
A cet égard, un des engagements prioritaires devrait tendre à assurer la continuité du soutien à la formation permanente, selon l'indication de l'Encyclique “Mater et Magistra”: “Il est indispensable que les cultivateurs soient instruits, continuellement tenus à jour et techniquement assistés dans leur profession” (Mater et Magistra, No 129).
Il nous semble nécessaire, à ce propos, de souligner la valeur humaine et pédagogique de l'association des cultivateurs, comme sujets convaincus et responsables, aux programmes de formation. Cela pourrait contribuer à surmonter le conflit qui existe souvent entre les exigences réelles des personnes et des groupes, et les projets de formation.
Le Saint-Père nous a rappelé: “Il y a là un problème structurel et institutionnel en même temps qu'un besoin d'amélioration de la condition et de la formation de la classe paysanne, particulièrement des petits paysans et des jeunes ruraux''.
On peut souhaiter, en outre, que la promotion des femmes rurales soit conçue et adaptée aux besoins particuliers de leur vie, en stimulant, en tout cas, leur participation et leur concours.
Nous croyons que la réussite des programmes de formation serait mieux garantie si l'approche des techniciens et des éducateurs auprès des cultivateurs était inspirée de sentiments d'amitié et de collaboration. Aucun effort d'aide et de formation pourrait en fait substituer le rôle principal que les cultivateurs doivent jouer dans leur propre amélioration et dans la promotion humaine du milieu rural. A ce sujet permettez-moi d'évoquer ce que le Pape Jean XXIII nous a fixé comme un but de toute action éducative en ce domaine: “Les protagonistes du développement économique, du progrès social et de l'élévation culturelle des milieux agricoles et ruraux doivent être ceux mêmes qui sont intéressés,
c'est-à-dire les travailleurs de la terre” (Mater et Magistra 130). Un autre point est aussi objet de l'attention de notre Délégation: les changements profonds dans la notion des “aides” en vue d'un ystème de sécurité alimentaire mondiale.
Nous constatons avec satisfaction les modifications proposées dans les politiques des “aides “ aux pays en voie de développement. Ainsi on élabore graduellement un système international de redistribution des ressources avec l'apport, soit de capitaux, soit de facteurs nécessaires pour un développement organique et continu [dans le monde], y compris le développement agricole et alimentaire.
On voit avec plaisir qu'il y a une convergence entre pays de cultures et de traditions diverses - les pays déjà industrialisés et d'autres de récente prospérité - vers des critères communs de solidarité avec larges contributions qui répondent toujours plus aux principes de justice. Ces aides, en effet, sont réalisées avec la conscience de répondre à un devoir. De jour en jour on va affirmer que les exigences humaines seulement doivent être objectivement reconnues et qu'elles peuvent être fondamentales, satisfaites à travers une entente internationale et des engagements contraignants.
Nous espérons qu'une telle orientation nouvelle porte à une diminution graduelle des rapports directs et bilatéraux vers une croissante utilisation, de la part des gouvernements, des institutions multilatérales. Seulement un système solidaire de sécurité pourrait empêcher que les pays plus faibles soient soumis au jeu du marché.
Mais encore une fois il faut constater que la tâche fixée par la Conférence mondiale sur l'alimentation
de pourvoir un minimum de 10 millions de tonnes de céréales [donnés] comme aide alimentaire n'est pas encore réalisée.
Encore plus loin c'est la tâche fixée par la septième session de l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies
pour une réserve d'urgence de 500 000 tonnes de céréales.
Il faut dire, enfin, que plus important encore est l'appel général à changer les politiques des aides afin de garantir de plus larges contributions au secteur agricole en rapport aux autres secteurs de l'économie, en prenant en considération tous les différents facteurs de la production, surtout les investissements.
I. OZORAI (Hungary): Before dealing with some parts of the document, I must state that my delegation considers this report to be an excellent one, being more detailed than similar reports presented to preceding Conferences. We agree with the general approach to the report which tries sincerely to explore and reveal the achievements attained in the field programmes, together with their possible shortcomings. I consider it of importance, and it deserves to be emphasized, that the success of field programmes only partly depends on FAO as the executing agency. Their success is mostly due to the readiness of recipient countries, and their cooperation in the implementation of these projects.
As a general lesson from the field programmes, I think it should be stated that it is not only the scarcity of financial facilities that presents a major constraint to field programmes, but also the lack of expertise, management skill and the capacity of technical know-how in the recipient countries as well.
We agree, therefore, with the points specified in paragraphs 2.3 and 2.1.5 of the document on the transfer of know-how and technical skills.
I would like to deal with only a few points. First, as regards training programmes, the analysis of the FAO training programmes indicates their major deficiencies which have been described as a “top-.heavy pyramid” in the Director-General's foreword. Hungary has taken part in a number of programmes relating to technical training, in cooperation with either FAO or other international food organizations, and our experiences are in line with the statements in the document. But I would like to point out that the shortage of medium and low-level specialists in developing countries may be tackled in a more efficient way. To this end, there seem to be two alternatives: one is the local training of the potential specialists which might involve a lot of organizational and, I might add, language problems.
The other one is the training of the training staff which is perhaps less spectacular, but this approach seems to me to lead to very good results in the medium and long term. At least we are confident about this.
We fully agree that global, regional and multi-national education programmes must be attached to efficient national educational institutions. I would point out that several developed countries -either highly or moderately developed ones - are able to provide considerable assistance in the training of staff from the developing countries, even through programmes arranged in the developed countries themselves. We consider the TCDC as a good framework for this.
May I call the delegates' attention to the fact that the role of theoretical-type training is still regrettably great in high-level training, and, in our view, greater attention should be attached to the training of management specialists in all interested countries.
The next point I should like to raise is rural development. In this respect I should underline points 4.32 to 4.34 in the document which provide an excellent synopsis of the elements in rural development programmes.I would emphasize my delegation's viewpoint which has been expounded a number of times and on various occasions. That is that these programmes concerned with integrated rural development, agrarian reform and/or cooperative development are considered to be of paramount importance in increasing the agricultural output and income of small farmers.
The other feature I should like to mention is that these types of programmes are less capital-intensive than programmes designed directly to increase productive potentials and their medium and long-term impacts are beyond assessment. I suggest, therefore, that the Secretariat supplement the survey of field programmes at the next Conference session with an account of the results and efficiency of rural development projects.
I think that the World Conference on Rural Development and Agrarian Reform, to be held in 1979, will contribute substantially to this objective.
Finally, there were some flattering remarks in the review on the project HUNGARY/71/507, “Irrigated Agriculture in the Tisza River Valley”, concerning this project's management, as included in paragraphs 2.41 and 2.42, and the utilization of the fellowship component, included in paragraph 3.24.
We are very glad to see that FAO is using the experience gained in this project in other field programmes as well, and I would take this opportunity to repeat my Government's view that we would welcome a continuation of this successful project, and the utilization of its results in the developing countries' interest.
We are also prepared to cooperate in some other field programmes, assisting developing countries which may be interested in other fields, such as inland fisheries, cooperative development and so on. Once again, I consider the TCDC an excellent framework for this exercise.
D.C.P EVANS (United Kingdom): First of all, the Director-Genral is to be congratulated on producing an excellent working paper. The review is thinner, divided into more digestible parts than its predecessor, which is not always easy to achieve in Rome, and with a most excellent summary. Indeed, we can commend this summary on being extremely good and equal to anything else we have seen in these papers.
The paper also contains an objective analysis of FAO's field performance over the last two years and indicates clearly those areas on which they hope to concentrate in the future. We agree with most of the paper's conclusions, and particularly endorse the theme which runs through all the chapters of the need for continued investment on a substantial scale, and more concentration of this investment in the areas of the greatest need, which is the rural poor. Indeed, this thinking is very much in line with the United Kingdom's own aid policy and strategy.
We also support the suggestion made by the Programme Committee in their paper CL 77/4 that consideration should be given to the addition of charts and programmes to help a reader comprehend the evaluated material contained in this review. In that context, it would have helped very considerably if we had had more graphs and charts in this direction. A great deal of interesting and useful information is given, but in the brief time allotted, both in Council and the one and one-half days or whatever you allow us here at this Conference, there will not be time to discuss the issues raised.
In line, therefore, with your request, Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to give a written statement to the Secretariat if it is in line with your own feelings on specific aspects of the programme, but I would like very briefly to mention a word or two on the three chapters concerned.
Turning to Chapter 1, which is Current Trends and Outlook, the field programmes have already been reviewed in depth by COAG and I do not intend reviewing them again here.
In the Technical Cooperation Programme, we accept that as the Technical Cooperation Programme was started only a short while ago, it is too early as yet to assess results. Paragraph 1.59 refers here. We hope, however, that a review can be presented to the Council, perhaps some time in 1978, in order that Member Governments can establish how far the Technical Cooperation Programme has achieved its aim. My delegation suggests that consideration be given to the production of a quarterly information sheet saying what projects are under way and those contemplated, indeed, as such information sheet was originally proposed and a first and useful issue appeared in February, but we have seen no more than that since.
In Chapter 2, Assessment of Field Programmes, paragraphs 2.3 and 2.15 reveal that less than half of FAO's projects are achieving satisfactory results. It is impossible to recover the full data from the account given, and as I have said before, in those circumstances it would have been more valuable perhaps to do it in tabular form. We are happy, however, to note that the section gives a frank statement of the problems and shortcomings, many of which are by no means peculiarto FAO projects, and indeed are equally so for bilateral and multilateral projects, and we are happy that remedial measures are promised.
In Chapter 3, Training in Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, we feel that this was probably the highlight of this document. FAO indeed is to be congratulated that the main thrust of training activities has been at the technical level. In the past, this is the area which has been most neglected, and we welcome this new trend and are particularly grateful to those staff which have been able to carry this out. The review of the various types of training institutions contained in paragraphs 3.12 and 3.44 is interesting and most useful. We are particularly pleased to note that attention is being given to training at farm level and that farmer training centres are being established more frequently than in the past. There is, however, an implied though very regrettable reservation about the use of women in agricultural extension. In view of the very high number of female farm workers and indeed females who take farming decisions, we feel this should be increased.
The section on FAO's role - Past, Present and Future is perhaps a disappointment, and I refer here to paragraphs 3.45 and 3.51. Indeed, we all recognize on this floor that training is a crucial area, and though the general analysis given here is one with which we agree, the problems and difficulties are ones with which we are all too familiar. There is no real attempt to offer a solution or to clear and identify FAO's priorities. A clear, more definitive approach would indeed in this section have been most welcome.
Turning to the last Chapter, The Flow of Aid to Agriculture, paragraphs 4.4 to 4.24 highlight the increasing gap between estimates of aid needs and actual aid commitments. While we would agree that the essence of rural development lies in self-reliance, this self-reliance must be within the right environment of economic incentives and access to appropriate institutional support. It should not be interpreted as meaning isolation from technology, education, or other support services.
Paragraph 4.37 suggests that a perspective of 10 to 15 years is the right one in which agencies would seek to project their role in any particular area. This is the perspective which might not accord with the view of many delegates from the developing countries here and certainly is a much longer time scale than the United Kingdom generally has in view, but bearing in mind the complexity of this subject and the problems which have been eloquently spelled out in this document, a long-term investment is probably the best and indeed possibly the only answer.
We endorse the definition of appropriate technology as given in paragraph 4.38. This line is very much in support with our own policies and strategies in this direction.
C. FARRAR (United States of America): It is true that the Review of Field Programmes document is a relatively slender volume, considering the size and complexity of the activities it covers, even given the unfortunate decline in the dollar value of the Field Programme. With the exception of the responsibility and of the Evaluation Unit to cover both field and regular programmes, we expect that the value and the depth of studies such as this one will rise considerably in the future. We again urge the Evaluation Unit to define its work in terms of areas and activity that relate to a single set of objectives without primary regard for the source of budgetary support. The discussion in this document of the evaluation of FAO projects in 19 countries of the Near East Regional Projects and of the general subject of training contains a great deal of useful information at the level of project design and operation. Did the trainees attend all the sessions? Were the counterparts in place to learn about the technology available? Are regional institutions viable from the point of view of staff and subject coverage? and other questions of these kind. These are matters of very great importance, as Mr. West was pointing out earlier today. We miss, however, attention in depth to the impact of projects on the people who are proposed to be helped, even assuming that the projects are working fairly smoothly, questions such as are they providing inputs to meet the needs of rural people, particularly the poorer people in the poorer countries, who I think there is a growing consensus are the principle target group with which we are concerned.
I think my comment is somewhat similar to that of the Programme Committee to which Mr. Yriart referred to be concerned with not so much as to who is being trained in a particular project as what impact that training will have, who will benefit from it. In the future, we should like to see more attention devoted to making informed judgements on the very hard questions of who benefits so that member countries may know how the policies they adopt are affecting what happens in the real world as well as what is said in the documents. In order to accomplish this there will have to be very close cooperation between those responsible for these reviews and the technical specialists within the FAO and available to it. For example, a large part of the programme is ultimately concerned with improving the nutritional status of groups of people. In order to ascertain that this result is actually occurring, the Evaluation Unit will need to be able to draw on the highest skills of the nutrition experts in order to learn how to obtain needed information with reasonable cost and speed.
It was gratifying to note that an evaluation mission was able to call attention to the key role of women in agriculture in marketing potatoes in Lesotho, apparently in time to enable the project involved to be significantly resolved and revised and put back on track. Incidentally, that is an example of the kind of evaluation which we would wish to encourage more of. Quite clearly, however, the relative lack of women among trainees at higher levels, which is mentioned in the same place in the report, continues to be a matter of great concern. We hope that FAO will not simply wait for countries to come forward with more female candidates for training, but will remind and encourage them by pointing out that increasing the number of female trainees is an important means of achieving the social and economic goals of development. In order to help with judgments about the effectiveness of the role of FAO, we believe the Organization needs to have the capacity to look at the broad needs of a country for assistance in agriculture and related fields, and also to be able to assess whether those needs are being met either by FAO directly through activities FAO has designed or stimulated for financing by others, or by independent actions, whether taken by donor agencies or by the countries themselves. Only with this kind of integrated and extensive analysis will we be able to be sure that the resources brought to bear from many directions are in fact coalescing, to achieve the purposes for which the developing country has sought outside support and for which that support is being given.
S. JUMA'A (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): As a member of the Programme Committee I took part in the discussion of this important item. Although I did not agree with everything that was said with respect to the Programme Committee, I have something to say on behalf of my delegation. Undoubtedly, this document is one of the most important ones to be submitted to the Conference, first of all, because it sets out the difficulties and obstacles and problems which one has to overcome in implementing food programmes in member countries. It is difficult not to make mistakes. We must learn from our mistakes, and I would like to say that whereas I pointed out on several occasions in this paper the mistakes made by the Executing Agencies of FAO Field Programmes, as well as those made by financing organizations like UNDP, and even the mistakes made by recipient countries and some developing countries too. Everybody has a share of the blame to bear for these mistakes, and I thing the problems have been set out as clearly as they could be. That is important. That is why I am convinced that Chapter 1 of the Programme Committee's report on the question of introducing certain graphs and statistics is an important element for us, because these documents are not meant just for this Conference, they will be read elsewhere, especially in developing countries where this type of project and field programme is actually put into practice. I think that the profit we can draw from this document is greater elsewhere than here at the Conference. In spite of the fact that this document has a very pretty coloured cover it does not indicate that the
contents are as good as the outer binding. We need to improve the contents of this document, and I think that the Secretariat knows this, because improvements must be made constantly and regularly. It does not matter whether the cover will be red or green next time. It does not mean that the document will not take notice of certain information given to it by the Programme Committee. This all concerns the forms.
Turning to the substances of the problem I think the actual process of assessment needs to call upon more than one source. There is the financing; the programming and the beneficiaries. These three factors have to give their points of view in assessment as frankly as possible, because more than once the Organization through the Country Representative, or an expert, assesses the value of a project carried out in country X and often the person who is carrying out the assessment does not profit from the competent experts when carrying out his assessment. That is why I think that FAO should get the three parties concerned in this type of project to participate: the financing, implementation and beneficiaries, so that the assessment is not one of form solely.
Mr. Chairman, everybody knows that the projects implemented in developing countries are made up of three parts: the experts are the first component; equipment, machinery, tools, and then training and missions. First of all, I would like to say that the orientation in developing countries now is to cut down the number of outside experts, considering that most of these developing countries have produced experts who can replace those who used to come from outside in the past. This is due to the fact that the Organization has always had a tendency to multiply the number of experts employed on any given project, for reasons which I will not go into here. Nevertheless what is sure is that more than 80 percent of the budget for different projects found its way into the pockets of the various experts, and the country where the project was implemented did not really benefit from the presence of these experts. There were more experts than were necessary and the director of the project had to settle differences and problems that arose between the experts. This is a typical case, and I think there are several more. That is why we feel that when FAO provides assistance to member countries in preparing projects it should cut down the number of experts it sends.
Now turning to equipment, it is only natural that each project should require equipment. Nevertheless, custom has led FAO to buy its equipment in Rome. Quite often the buying of equipment was not carried out in the best possible way. It was done in a rather weird fashion, quite incomprehensible to others, and I think it is high time that developing countries, with the help of the Country Representative or the actual FAO Representative himself, be given the freedom of choosing where the equipment is to be bought; the company from which it is to be bought. The majority of the equipment bought by FAO for projects often comes from companies which have no representatives in the beneficiary countries. This is true for tractors. FAO has bought tractors from a firm which has no representation in the countries to which the tractors were sent and later on there was trouble because in a couple of years' time spare parts were needed and it was impossible to get parts in that country. Therefore, I think the final decision should lie with the beneficiary countries, so that they can choose where the equipment is to be bought and what quality equipment is to be bought. FAO should not be the sole body to decide, because there are several other factors that ought to be taken into account when buying equipment.
Now coming to training and missions. Developing countries are all very keen on training on the spot and the use of institutions and local companies for training in projects which are implemented by FAO, who should take this into account, especially since FAO cannot come into direct contact with the person, peasant farmer, except through intermediate bodies. In fact we cannot possibly expect FAO to provide training for farmers. What we want FAO to do is to help set up the organization and bodies that will do this, that is why FAO has to reconsider its policy in this field; it has to cut down the number of missions and academic study cycles, which are only profitable to heads of missions. I would like to recall what was said by a previous speaker here, we ought to ask ourselves whether we are training the person for his own profit or for the profit of the person who is providing the training. Training can only be a means to and not an end in itself. I think that the assessments which are carried out currently by FAO are better compared to those presented to previous Conferences. Nevertheless, these studies and assessment studies should be done with the help of national regional offices, and this would save us a great deal of money, and the Country Representative could play a bigger role here than an expert sent from a country to a country that he knows nothing about. This has happened more than once, and several missions have been obliged to stay for a long time in a country in order to familiarize themselves with the situation in a country before being able to carry out any assessment operations at all. Therefore, it is necessary to review all these factors that I have just quoted.
Look at these studies, they must be sent to UNDP, regional organizations, member states and other international organizations which finance projects in developing countries, and once again I would like to state that we must reconsider the whole problem of technical assistance. We are living in a world which is quickly changing and assistance given to developing countries 20 or 30 years ago has not the same effectiveness today. We must look at things differently today within the context of assistance and cooperation. So that both these can really benefit developing countries, we must be ambitious, because we must always try to profit from the experience of others, and, in particular, from developed countries, and I hope that the report of this Commission will underline the fact that developing countries really have the greatest possible need of the experience of developed countries for improving and carrying out projects.
E.F. MADSEN (Denmark): The “Review of FAO's Field Programmes” is an item to which the Danish delegation attaches great importance, because it deals with FAO's input, work and activities in the developing countries.
Document C 77/4 provides us with a clear and comprehensive picture of the field programmes carried out in the 1976–77 biennium. Also the Danish delegation has noted with satisfaction that the “Review of Field Programmes” 1976–77 as a document has reached a much better standard of presentation than previously. We also welcome the reduction in volume of the document.
On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, it is with some regret that we observe the decrease in the overall extra-budgetary expenditure from $246 million in 1975 to an estimated $186 million in 1977. It must give rise to concern that the overall extra-budgetary expenditure in real terms in 1977 will probably drop to about only 60 percent of the 1975 figure. My Government sincerely hopes that this unfortunate trend is a temporary one and that it will be reversed very soon.
Denmark has contributed substantially to the FAO Trust-in-Funds programme in recent years. Almost half of the total Danish multilateral assistance is channelled through FAO for projects.
We are pleased with our cooperation with FAO in this field. In our opinion multilateral assistance should concentrate on projects, well adjusted to the individual developing countries own level of development and aim at the benefit of the poorest parts of the population in the poorest countries.
The bulk of the multilateral projects that Denmark is contributing to, are in the least developed countries. The Danish Government fully subscribes to the common theme in many international debates, namely, that there is a pressing need to promote greater equity and social justice within countries, as well as among them. We hope that FAO will concentrate more means on this policy to the benefit of the poorer segments of society, particularly in rural areas.
In Denmark's collaboration with FAO in the field of technical assistance programmes training activities is playing an important role. The technology training within the dairy and meat industry, as well as postgraduate training courses, are programmes on which there has been a long and successful collaboration between FAO and DANIDA. The creation of viable national training institutions in the developing countries is the main purpose of these programmes and the sooner the necessary training activities can be carried out by these institutions the more successful the programme will be from the long-term view.
Training is also a major component of production-oriented field programmes. The transmission of production technology through the agricultural extension services in connection with the fertilizer projects provide excellent examples of relevant farmer training. DANIDA can thus endorse the views expressed in the Review of Field Programmes concerning training. The mentioned difficultyof dispersion of responsibilities for FAO's training activities is however a matter of concern.
We urge FAO to pay closer attention to and examine the problem of dispersion of responsibility for FAO's training activities among technical units, reducing the coherence and obscuring the focus of their objectives. While a certain degree of flexibility is essential for the development of training programmes in each technical discipline, close collaboration and exchange of experience between training units within the Organization is very important.
Before turning to the relationship between FAO and UNDP, I would like to warn against the present tendency with the UN system towards proliferation of separate special purpose funds and programmes. There is a risk that this may lead to disintegration of the UN developmental efforts. It was intended that UNDP should be the central funding organization, and it must be admitted that the UNDP has not up till now been able to live up to its role as the central funding organization.
At the 24th meeting of the UNDP Governing Council in Geneva last June the Council initiated a debate on the role and activities of UNDP: during its deliberations the Council also discussed the relationship between UNDP and the specialized agencies, including FAO. It was then, as it is now, the view of the Danish delegation that a primary role of UNDP is of course to raise funds and to see to the efficient use of these funds. However, it is our opinion that UNDP besides this function has a substantive role to play. Important general development strategies have been elaborated in the UN system during the last years, and in our mind UNDP could have an important function in ensuring the implementation of those strategies.
Also with regard to the initiating of multi-sectoral development programmes we find that UNDP could play a substantive role. We do in no way underestimate the technical competence of the specialized agencies, and we agree that the maximum use of this competence should take place. You can, however, not consider the development process to be exclusively concerned with specific sectors. Certain development problems have to be approached in a multi-disciplinary and multi-sectoral way. Coordination at the field level between UNDP and FAO is now more necessary than ever after the establishment of a Technical Cooperation Programme and after the appointment of FAO Representatives in developing countries. We have noted with satisfaction that the Director-General, Mr. Saouma has specifically recognized the UNDP Resident Representative as primus inter pares among mission chiefs of the United Nations Organizations. We have also been glad to hear that a consolidation at the field level has been reached and that the coordination of the work in the developing countries is generally running satisfactorily.
On the other hand, the question of coordination at Headquarters level does not seem to have been fully solved, and we are convinced that it is a prerequisite for a good cooperation in the field that there exist a smoothly working cooperation at the Headquarters level. Therefore we must encourage UNDP and all agencies actively to work for an amelioration of their relationships. In UNDP, ECOSOC and at the 31st UN General Assembly resolutions on the question of coherence in the UN system have been adopted. In these resolutions the UNDP and the specialized agencies are requested to strengthen their mutual coordination at all levels, which of course also includes Headquarters level.
Recently an Agency Task Force was set up at UNDP Headquarters in which respresentatives from ILO, WHO and Unesco are participating. We would welcome it if FAO found it possible to soon join this task force.
One of the questions which have been subject to discussions between the specialized agencies on the one hand and UNDP on the other hand is the question of agency overhead costs. Without going into the substance let me mention that we attach expectations to the results of the working group which the UNDP Governing Council decided to establish. In accordance with the decision taken at the 24th meeting of the UNDP's Governing Council in June this year, all specialized agencies are invited to take part in this working group. We therefore hope a common solution on the overhead question could be reached - a solution to which all involved parties including FAO can agree. Since it has been decided to establish this open-ended working group on overhead costs, my delegation believes that we, neither in this nor in any other national body, should deal with the question of overheads in a way that may prejudice the findings of the working group, the establishment of which has unanimously been endorsed by ECOSOC.
The Director-General raises the question whether the concept of a five-year programming cycle, pursued by UNDP, is realistic as long as pledging of resources by the donors is on an annual basis. I believe that we all support the present planning system based on five-year commitments and expressed in indicative planning figures. At the last UNDP Governing Council meeting the Danish Government said that it would like to see a more rational, a more equal and a more stable funding system, i.e. a system based on IDA and IFAD-type negotiations among governments contributing to the programme. This would permit executing agencies to plan their activities better and would minimize the risk for financial crises like the one we saw in 1976.
We believe that all FAO's activities, whether they derive from the regular budget or are financed from extra-budgetary resources, could be looked upon as part of a total picture, in order to achieve better coherence. This will undoubtedly make it easier for FAO and multilateral donor agencies to identify the project areas which need priority. We are therefore satisfied to note that document C 77/74 contains tables which cover the regular and extra-budgetary activities.
Let me add that further progress in this direction of improved coherence of the programmes will make it more attractive for potential donors to support the activities of the Organization, and this could result in more funds for its work.
B.P.DHITAL (Nepal): Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to take the floor to comment on the Review of Field Programmes for the biennium of 1976/77.
We appreciate the efforts made by the Secretariat in preparing the Review in a shorter but comprehensive form. The Nepalese delegation also joins with other delegates who spoke before us in voicing our concern with the rather unsatisfactory state of affairs in the transfer of technology. This would imply, among other things, that the efforts to develop local expertise and thereby increase self-reliance are still far from satisfactory.
The efforts to strengthen national institutions to carry out technical and research work need further stengthening. We would like to see that national institutions are assisted to build up their capabilities in preparing rural and agricultural projects.
Similarly, we hope that the experts from developing countries are encouraged to take up FAO assignments in field programmes. We are, however, rather disappointed to see, that while FAO engaged 1 406 professional staff on field projects financed from extra-budgetary resources as of March 1977, there is not a single expert from Nepal!
Coming to the training opportunities, we support the emphasis given on providing training only when a real need for it as an effective link with specific national training and production programmes is established.
Coming to some key issues relating to management' of field programmes, we strongly feel that national directors should be made responsible in managing the projects, while expatriate experts would be assisting them Expatriate experts must not be encouraged to replace the national staff. This will go against the very principle of development assistance to developing countries to develop by themselves. Similarly, the need for strengthening the national staff in formulation is obvious.
The other issue pertaining to country programming (paragraphs 2.51) also requires more flexibility to meet the changing requirements of other countries. We therefore support the emphasis on a more pragmatic approach, while waiting to continue country programming. We feel that it has a merit.
lastly, we congratulate the evaluation staff for preparing such a comprehensive report.
Sra. Doña A.C. BERTA de ALBERTO (Argentina): Con referencia al documento C 77/4 que estamos considerando, mi delegación desea expresar, en primer lugar, su apoyo en términos generales a este documento, pero también quisiera formular algunos comentarios y observaciones que ya fueron anticipados durante las sesiones del Consejo, a fín de contribuir a su análisis y extraer de él conclusiones útiles y prácticas que mejoren y hagan más eficaz la instrumentación de los próximos programas.
En primer lugar, con relación al Capítulo 3 que trata en general sobre las actividades de capacitación de la FAO, debemos expresar que mi delegación comparte la preocupación manifestada por el Director General en el punto (c), párrafos 3.47 y 3.48 acerca del papel de la FAO pasado, presente y futuro con respecto a los criterios y procedimientos seguidos en la selección de los participantes, que hasta ahora nan tendido a favorecer más a los funcionarios de los ministerios que al personal de campo. En este sentido, y uniéndonos en cierta forma a lo que ya han expresado otros oradores, deberíamos destacar no solo la conveniencia, sino también la necesidad de que en dicha selección se ponga especial cuidado, a fín de favorecer ai personal de campo, con objeto de que pueda materializarse a su regreso al país el deseado fruto multiplicador en su propio entorno.
Para lo que hace ahora a la distribución regional del fondo, mi delegación desea de manera muy especial reiterar la preocupación ya manifestada con respecto al documento C 77/3 en el sentido de la falta de equidad que se observa en dicha distribución. Al respecto, quisiéramos llamar la atención de la Conferencia, y de esta Comisión en particular, sobre el Cuadro 2, página 78, del apéndice estadístico sobre Distribución de los Proyectos de Campo, que reciben asistencia de la FAO y de las asignaciones de ayuda en enero de 1977, de lo cual surge que la participación de América Latina es muy inferior a la de otras regiones, y esto tanto en numero de proyectos como millones de dólares.
Finalmente, y sobre el tema básico de la cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo, quisiéramos hacer una breve observación con relación al párrafo 4.46, que analiza concretamente las posibilidades de la cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo en el sector agrícola. Esta observación va a ser breve porque el tema podrá ser objeto de un tratamiento más profundo y detallado al considerarse el punto 13 de la agenda, que está precisamente dedicado a este tema, como muy bien nos lo han recordado el señor Dahl e Yriarte al comienzo de esta sesión. Y esta observación es la siguiente: no nos parece lógico establecer en este campo programas o técnicas a priori, como parecía surgir del párrafo 4.46, sino más bien pensar en el establecimiento de un mecanismo que permita su función sobre la base del reclutamiento del país solicitante y el análisis de la capacidad del país que pueda atenderlo.
Este mecanismo debería tener los resortes necesarios para financiar la asistencia y para el debido contralor de la efectividad de la misma.
LI CHEN-HUAN (China) (interpretation from Chinese): The Chinese delegation would like to make a few remarks on the Review of Field Programmes. For a very long time now this Organization has been executing field projects which are numerous in number and involving many countries. It is necessary to sum up the experience regularly and in truth the work in time, so that the field programmes can play their due role in assisting the agricultural development of the developing countries.
We consider that practical effectiveness should be the point of departure for the evaluation of field projects. Whether a project is effective or not should merely be judged by the role it plays in being the recipient developing country towards its food and agricultural productions. One must take local conditions into account in the execution of an assistance project; namely the project should not only be compatible with the natural conditions of the locality, but should also meet the requirements of the recipient country, suit local, social, economic conditions and employ the counterpart staff to master the techniques introduced so that the technique can be further spent by the recipient country and local people through their own efforts, plus the fact that the role of a field project could be brought into full play to the benefit of the recipient country. Both the current and the previous reports of the Review of Field Programmes review that in the course of implementing the field projects it is hard to establish close cooperation with the departments and staff of the recipient country as well as with the local people, hard to involve the local people more actively and hard to identify a set of technical measures which are well tested and could be acceptable to the local people. All these factors have an important bearing on the effectiveness of assistance, and therefore should be studied and improved continuously.
J.S. KHAN (Pakistan): My delegation would like to join the earlier speakers in complimenting the Secretariat on producing once more a very useful and candid review of the Field Programmes for 1976/77, and we think that it is certainly in keeping with the high standards we have come to expect of this document.
We wish Mr. Chairman to offer some comments on the four chapters of this document. First on Chapter I we have noticed that the biennium under review was a period of difficult readjustment in FAO field programmes, particularly in view of the UNDP resource crisis, and the results of this are before us, they are mentioned in the document. For example the total extra-budgetary expenditures, which have been rising, fell for the first time during the current biennium, and this led to a drastic cut-back in the field staff. These are all matters of concern and regret but there is a point which has not been touched upon in the document in this connection to which I would like to draw attention, and that, Mr. Chairman, had an effect in the recipient countries also. It led to a slow-down of productive rates and this would have created problems of its own, because the projects prepared two years ago are going to cost more to implement in the years to come, and 1 think the Conference should note this seriously.
The growth of trust funds and other cooperative arrangements which donors, other than the UNDP, have helped to relieve the situation to some extent is to be welcomed, and we wish to place on record our sincere appreciation to all the donors concerned. This diversification of the resources of funds is perhaps one of the most positive features for the 76/77 biennium, and we hope that this trend will continue, and we also hope that when IFAD comes into being that a new dimension to this arrangement will be added.
We would also urge and we would expect that the projects and programmes to be funded from trust funds and cooperative arrangements would also be recipient rather than donor oriented, and that they would be in line with FAO's overall policies.
My delegation also agrees a most encouraging new development in relation to FAO's field programmes or the establishment of ICP. We said enough about ICP during our earlier intervention in the regular Programme of Work and Budget. There is only one point we want to draw attention to and that is the speedy procedures for approval of projects which have enhanced FAO's image in our country, and I hope these speedy procedures can be an object lesson in other field programmes.
If I now turn to Chapter 2 here we find the forthright structure of FAO's field programmes most constructive. Such critical self-examination is a help and a rewarding exercise, and this must be continued in the future in order to enable valid lessons to be drawn and to improve the quality of FAO's future cooperation activities. We have a few specific comments to make on this assessment. First of all with respect to the country project, we note with concern the continued familiar problems which keep coming up every biennium relating to delays in project approval, the recruitment of foreign experts and the transfer of skills, and I think all these problems point to the need for a continued improvement of procedures, not only by FAO but also by us, the recipient countries.
We find ourselves in agreement with the suggestion in paragraph 2.13 of the document that it may be opportune to resort increasingly to types of technical cooperation in which the bulk of technical and managerial responsibilities devolve on the national staff from the beginning, and this should be followed wherever possible.
Second point on this is the review of the regional projects in the Near East region, the special review which we found particularly useful because we are participating in several of these Near East cooperative projects, and the only point I want to draw attention to is that I think probably the review is unduly pessimistic. I think the projects have improved regional cooperation and they have promoted increasing regional self-reliance. Having said this we do appreciate that the difficulties and the drawbacks which are pointed out in the survey do provide food for serious thought, but since this review was undertaken at the request of the FAO Regional Conference for the Near East I think the advisable course would be to bring this review to their attention at the 1978 Regional Conference for the Near East, and request them to pay particular attention to the problems which are highlighted and urge them to advise ways and means of overcoming them, and ensuring a more effective cooperation to handle regional projects.
On the portion of the chapter relating to the key issues arising from the evaluation of field programmes we think that they are on the whole well identified, but we would like to stress the following four points.
First, we endorse the need for greater government management and execution of projects by countries which are in a position to do so, and in particular the suggestion in paragraph 2.4.5 which calls for more reliance on national staff and national institutions, supported, wherever necessary, by short-term consultants in place of longer-term resident expatriate experts.
We support those delegations who have preceded us and have drawn attention to the fact that the traditional experts/equipment/training package, as the basic ingredient of technical assistance, must be reconsidered. I think it could be replaced by a more selective acquisition of the individual elements of the package by developing countries.
In the same context, I think there is need for FAO now to give operation and life to the concept of UNDP's new dimensions and to protect technical cooperation amongst developing countries themselves.
A second point on this is that we also share the concern about the delays in project formulation and approval which lead to cost escalations, and therefore we support the need for the appraisal of current procedures and approaches. In this connexion, we feel that the conclusions in paragraph 2.4.9 and paragraph 2.5.0 deserve particularly careful consideration by all concerned.
Our third point is that we also concur with the suggestion for a more pragmatic approach towards the implementation of country programming. We think that such programming could provide for more flexibility. In my own country, we are now following a new approach for the UNDP second IPF cycle whereby in the initial, early stages, the broad priority areas in the various sectors in the economy are being identified, rather than specific projects, which we did in the first cycle. We feel this will help us to adjust more quickly to changing needs and to changing resource availabilities, and it will provide the necessary flexibility in preparing projects, as and when required.
The fourth and final point on this subject is that we agree that there is a need for a continuing review by FAO of its support to field programmes. Now that the first UNDP/IPF cycle has come to an end, my delegation would like to suggest that a detailed and comprehensive assessment of FAO's support activities during the first cycle be undertaken and analysed in the next issue of the Review of Field Programmes for the next biennium. This is so that valid lessons can be drawn, and the efficiency and effectiveness of field programmes could be improved.
If I may now turn to Chapter 3 on the assessment of training activities, we welcome the approach of selectivity, of picking up a special subject every biennium. We hope this will continue, and we commend the special examination of FAO's training activities in the current Review. My delegation thinks it is timely, in view of the importance being attached to training under FAO's new programmes and policies. Of course, we realize that training activities are of a very complex and varied nature, but nevertheless a useful attempt has been made to analyse them. This assessment deserves the close and careful attention not only of FAO and the donor agencies, but also of Member Governments, particularly of the recipient countries.
In this field, my delegation welcomes the increased attention by FAO to training at the country level and at the grass roots, with the emphasis on training the front line field workers and technicians, and the farmers themselves, wherever possible. We hope that this trend will continue and be further extended, so as to bring the field programme into even closer conformity with the Regular Programme.
We also note FAO's intention to contribute to the strengthening of the national institutions, but here we feel that not nearly enough has been done, and far more emphasis needs to be placed on this. It should be continued and intensified as a step towards promoting technical cooperation among developing countries, and towards modifying the classical form of technical cooperation.
The suggestion regarding the inclusion of agriculture, and relevant subjects, in the curricula of the educational systems of developing countries at all levels is very much taken by us. In fact, this is an approach we are currently attempting to introduce in our own educational system, and any help and advice from FAO would be most welcome.
Regarding the future orientation of training activities of FAO, as spelled out in paragraphs 3.5.1 to 3.5.5, we can broadly go along with the proposals made in the document. The only point we want to stress here is that we feel that, at the country level, the first priority should be given to identifying and supporting training at the grass roots or the vocational levels, in the context of the developing countries'own food production and rural development programmes.
In Chapter 4, on reconsideration I will reserve my comments, because there is a separate item on TCDC, and we shall give our detailed views at that time.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): Thanks to Mr. Mahajan and his colleagues, we are certainly again faced with a high standard of professional work, and I should like to give our compliments to the small, able and hard-working group.
I shall refrain from discussing Chapters 1 and 4; Chapter 1, in our view, contains basically either a factual review or issues with which we have already dealt, like the TCP or the IndustryCooperative Programme. On Chapter 4 we have already expressed some of our views in Commission I.
Let me only touch on a few issues from Chapter 2. It would perhaps be valuable if we were given an indication of the type of projects reviewed; in the nineteen countries there was an indication of 141 projects. I would assume that basically those projects could be considered as a classical or traditional expert/equipment/fellowship type of project, mostly covering training and education. At least, that is our feeling.
We would note, as many others have, relatively speaking, the poor performance of many aspects of projects. We hope very much that on this basis lessons will be learned, not only, as was rightly mentioned by the delegate of Pakistan, by FAO and donor agencies, but by the UN system in general, including, of course, the recipient countries.
I would now like to say a few words on Chapter 3. If our assessment is correct, then training activities of various kinds represent about one third, or up to 40 percent of all FAO activities, thus representing a very important aspect of the overall activities of the Organization. We have been given some rough indications of the capacities of the Organization, again roughly assessed at the level of 35 000 people to be trained, either way.
We note, with satisfaction, as was rightly expressed in paragraph 3.1.2, that the main contribution of FAO in the past was the assistance provided to the countries in the establishment of permanent facilities for agricultural education and training. We are pleased that in 1975/1976 55 institutions were supported.
The point I would now like to make is that one sentence contained in paragraph 26 is very indicative and I would like to quote it: “Prima facie this type of training -” and this refers to rural level training - “contributed to successful transfer of knowledge: its effect on the level of productivity and output-“ which is certainly essential - “is however conditioned by continuing institutional and material support.''
It is our view that the sentence I have just quoted contains one vital element of the durability of support in both senses, institutional and material. We feel that the institutional aspect is extremely important. In that sense, we would largely share the opinion of the Programme Committee that in the light of this, and bearing in mind all other relevant elements, the whole concept of grassroots training might perhaps need some further clarification and might need to be reconsidered.
As it stands, throughout the various documents of FAO, it sounds in a way unduly simplified as a concept. So we feel quite strongly that the institutional aspects should be taken fully into consideration when the concept of grassroots level training is to be considered.
P. BURI (Italy): The Italian delegation would express their sincere appreciation of the report of FAO's activities in the field programmes. We have remarked with satisfaction that during the last few years this sector was the object of special consideration on the part of the Organization.
Our delegation would like to insist on the priority they give to irrigation programmes. In this connexion, we would like to recommend those field programmes which take into consideration the possibility of reducing the waste of water in irrigation management by the adoption of modern techniques as regards both the manufacture of equipment and the actual management of modern irrigation systems. It is highly desirable that the countries which are most advanced in the use of rational methods for the exploitation of irrigation waters continue as in the past to offer their experience to developing countries, especially to those that do not have available large and constant supplies of this natural resource.
The Italian delegation feels that field programmes devised in this sense are viable and can be taken into consideration in the various regions of the world where field programmes are being carried out.
F. D. MAAS (Israel): We have studied with great interest this Review, as we did also the last time at the last Conference, and expressed our views during the discussions. We are in full agreement with one sentence which is printed in the statement of the Director-General which says, “The important thing is to identify, correct and learn from difficulties, and to apply the lessons elsewhere”. I will not say I am not going to criticize anything here, because I realize the difficulties. I myself have been a so-called expert for four or five years in several countries, but then I realized it is better to stay at home. I would say that FAO has taken on its shoulders an enormous responsibility by undertaking, according to this report, in 127 countries, 1 809 projects with an involvement of $647 million and the assistance of 1 406 experts from different countries, not taking into consideration the experts from FAO itself. This means that this would represent an enormous tax for a multinational company, I mean to say multinational here in a positive way, and I do not know if this report if it were given by the president or manager of such a company would make a great impact on the shareholders of his company, and we are the shareholders, but it is more the recipient countries to say their words, and some very strong remarks have been made here.
It is also a lesson for expanding countries, not only in the frame of FAO but also in our own bilateral assistance in which my country is also involved, and therefore, it was really of importance to compare, because also in bilateral assistance, as far as we are involved, we are not always happy, and reasons can be found, but also just to compare it, in 1977 we have trained in 23 courses on the spot a thousand trainees in foreign countries, 300 trainees have been in Israel and we are keeping 67 experts in 80 projects in different parts of the world. I give these numbers not to make an impression and to compare but to say that also what is said here very often applies to our own lessons.
Now, I said I am not going to criticize, but maybe some advice from our own experience could be of help to the people in FAO who run this enormous undertaking and maybe can lead to some improvement. In field projects, most of the field projects are in our countries themselves, because we now try to renew our whole agricultural system, but also in other countries we make a very strong division between what we call improvement projects where something existing has to be improved, let us say, to improve fields or outputs from livestock sectors or input problems and so onthat means to work on an existing experience and to arrive at a higher level -- and another line of projects which are new initiatives, and whereas improvement projects are easier to undertake, we have fewer difficulties in new initiatives; one faces difficulties, and many of them are expressed in this review here.
The main difficulty is the lack of understanding. Very often projects have been decided in very pleasant meetings or working lunches and working dinners between high-ranking officials -- sometimes ministers are involvedand it is decided to build a dam, to build this or that or villages and so on, and then the guest leaves the country, and one day some experts arrive and nobody knows exactly what is going on.
We have experiences in our country. I can definitely say that at a certain level, assistance which we have received from UNDP and FAO, for instance, in rainwater collection and in this sophisticated project of high-yielding flowers and vegetable production, and so on, there was a good understanding among some experts, but the country did not understand it, and it took 4 to 6 years after we finished the project that the people understood and realized the importance of such a project, and then certainly we had the experience, but then sometimes time passes, and this has to be taken into consideration.
If I can define our lessons, I would say -- and this was stated by many speakers here -- for a new project you need first a clear-cut definition and understanding of what it means and what it gives in national agriculture. You need to know exactly the inputs you need, you start with some inputs and others will come later, and as it was mentioned here, sometimes you buy a tractor or machine and there are no spare parts, and not only in developing countries but even in developed countries this can happen now, according to my own experience.
One has to know the desired results, and finally, if it is a production operation, we have to know the markets. Very often you succeed but you have no market for the stuff and then everybody is disappointed.
In our operations in Israel and outside, we see it as a necessity to have an operation staff, and number two is the training of all parties involved, high-ranking officials as well as farmers, what is called the grass roots level or some other level, cotton level, tree level, I do not know. I mean all the people who are involved have to be trained to get an understanding first of what is going on. You cannot decide in a ministry, we are going to, let us say, develop an export of flowers for $40 million, as we did in the last years, and nobody knows exactly what is going on and there is no understanding. Everybody has to understand it. And then the local staff involved has to be trained, and one has to rely on the local staff.
During this discussion, it was said in the most eloquent way by Jordan: You cannot rely on experts. I, myself, was an expert. Experts can assist you but experts will do better to stay at home, and when you need them, call them in for a week or a month and see what they do. I learn now what an expert does all the time. It is also in my profession to be adviser to a minister. What can you advise the minister each and every hour? Give him one good advice a year and it is enough. Let him act according to needs and the local people. I mean the people involved in developing countries and developed countries have to break their necks on these things, otherwise they will not succeed. It is very easy to send a team of 4 to 6 people to a foreign country and tell them to establish a plantation or livestock operation, and they can work on it to be as perfect as in Denmark or in Israel or in Holland, and then they go home and many times nothing will stay because the people did not understand it.
So FAO should learn this lesson and rely on local people, and as long as the local people cannot undertake such a thing, don't start with the operation. Concentrate on the training and leave the experts at home and call them in when you need them.
Finally, I want to say a few words on training. Training is a basic element, everybody knows it, and everywhere it is needed, but also here we need clear definitions. One part of training is basic training of so-called experts inside the country and sometimes it takes a short time, sometimes it takes a long time, this is one side, but the more important side is the training of the people involved, officials as well as farmers, and here we have found there is very often a lack of this message of exercising training. Training has to be exercised. Training is not just to get some knowledge, because in farming, Mr. Chairman, you know it as I know it, you have to be exact. What you have not done on a certain day, you cannot repeat on the next day, this has to be understood, and therefore, extension methods are essential and the definition of short and clear production messages, Do not come to a farmer, even if he is very intelligent, and tell him a hundred things. Tell him exactly through the radio or television or field days, whatever it is, tell him exactly what he has to do in the coming days and then come again to him, and we have also tried to express this in our Plenary statement, where we said we have been very much impressed in this field by the building of the so-called blueprints in the United Kingdom and in some other countries, because you know exactly what you have to do on Monday and Tuesday and Thursday and even on Saturday if it is needed, or Sunday, and this has to be taken in our minds if it is in the least developed country or if it is in a very highly developed country.
I thought some of this experience could be of help for this discussion.
A. RAMBOUX (Belgique): Beaucoup de bonnes choses ont été dites, notamment par le précèdent orateur et cependant je ne peux me taire. La FAO développe un important programme, et je dois exprimer les félicitations que méritent les documents qui nous sont présentés. Les idées exprimées sont impartiales. On exprime une volonté de changement et également une recherche de créativité.
Cette volonté de changement et cette recherche de créativité, comme l'ont dit plusieurs orateurs, sont indispensables dans un domaine aussi difficile que celui pour lequel nous nous efforçons de travailler.
Mon souci est de souligner un point qui fut déjà mentionné par certains orateurs, mais de façon assez différente, je veux parler de la participation des contreparties, et des possibilités de contrepartie. Il m'intéresserait vivement de savoir combien de projets se sont terminés valablement dans le temps imparti. La majorité des projets connaît une deuxième phase parfois une troisième et parfois d'autres. Les projets formulés en matière agricole sont généralement fort ambitieux. Il serait préférable, soit d'allonger la durée, soit de simplifier pour réduire les objectifs, afin de travailler plus en profondeur avec le pays.
Dans une précédente réunion, il a été mentionné par un assistant du Directeur général que les actions découlant de programmes de coopération technique étaient subordonnées à un financement préalable, ou tout au moins à une certitude quant à une possibilité de financement. Cette condition est insuffisante. L'action, le projet, son ampleur, sont à mesurer en fonction de la contrepartie disponible,de la contrepartie mobilisable. Certains pays sont gourmands. Ils demandent beaucoup de projets en matière agricole sans tenir compte des possibilités d'absorption.
Les transferts de technologie doivent être digérés par toutes les parties; dans la négative, il y a lassitude et pertes. La présence de représentants autonomes sera peut-être de nature à mieux juger les problèmes locaux et leur priorité, leur sélection.
Un mot encore, toujours dans le même secteur, il s'agit de la formation.Le Directeur général adjoint a souligné son importance dans le cadre des facteurs à la base de la réussite des projets. Beaucoup d'autres intervenants ont fait de même, et à ce sujet, j'ai été frappé de l'importance attachée à la question de la formation, lors de la réunion de juillet 1977 du groupe consultatif de la recherche agricole à Washington; de nombreux documents ont été présentés et discutés. Actuellement, des milliers de spécialistes locaux sont formés chaque année dans les centres internationaux de recherche agricole. Ils s'en retournent dans leur pays. Ils sont formés en Asie, en Afrique, en Amérique Latine. J'ai eu l'occasion de rencontrer des responsables de formation de cas centres internationaux de recherche agricole. La majorité font du très bon travail. Les résultats sont bons, mais ils m'ont fait part d'un souci qui est leur. Ils pensent que beaucoup de personnes formées dans les centres retournent dans leur pays et se livrent à des recherches dans un institut de recherche et ne sont pas en contact avec le terrain, avec le concret des choses.
Il y a là, me semble-t-il, un relai pour la formation à réaliser et l'intervention de la FAO. Ces gens formés à la recherche doivent nécessairement se pencher sur la vulgarisation. Ils doivent nécessairement servir leur pays. Je crois qu'ils pourraient faire davantage qu'ils ne font aujourd'hui. La FAO et les gouvernements locaux peuvent tirer parti de cette formation dans les centres internationaux de recherche.
Si j'ai pris la parole, c'est que le souci de ma délégation était de féliciter, encourager et conseiller en vue de jumeler l'effort des deux parties pour leur réussite.
D. BABA (Tchad): Plusieurs des orateurs qui m'ont précédé ont décortiqué les documents dont nous sommes saisis. Tout en louant l'excellent document que le Directeur général a bien voulu mettre à notre disposition, nous aimerions pour ne pas retarder le bon déroulement de la Conférence, préciser quelques-unes de nos observations.
Tout comme le Directeur général a fait la part des choses, qu'il s'agisse des donateurs, des donataires ou des experts, j'aimerais qu'on fasse confiance aux techniciens des pays en voie de développement et des autres pays, car ces techniciens savent ce qu'ils font et il est superflu, comme l'a souligné à juste titre le délégué d'Israël de les obliger à travailler avec des experts, cela éviterait des pertes de temps et certaines dépenses. Nous faisons nôtres les déclarations faites par le délégué de la Jordanie qui a très bien su expliquer pour les pays en développement les problèmes qui se posent à l'heure actuelle.
Un autre problème sur lequel je voudrais appeler l'attention des délégués ici présents, c'est que nous avons des projets qui durent 3, 4 et 5 ans; qu'ils sont pour la plupart dirigés par des experts, accompagnés de ce qu'on appelle chez nous des “homologues” c'est-à-dire des gens qui les relèveront plus tard.
Tant que l'expert est prés–ent, il y a suffisamment d'argent, les véhicules sont neufs, les engins tournent bien. Au départ de l'expert, cinq ans plus tard, les véhicules sont déjà amortis, les engins ne tournent pas, il n'y a plus d'argent et on veut que celui qui prend la relève soit opérationnel. Il faut tout de même être sérieux !
Il convient que la FAO revoie ce problème, ne serait-ce qu'en vue de trouver un petit pont de relève ou d'appui après le départ de l'expert.
Après les déclarations faites par le délégué d'Israël et surtout après les remarques pertinentes du délégué de la Jordanie, notre délégation attire l'attention sur le fait qu'il y a lieu de revoir ce problème de plus près, car s'il est utile de dépenser beaucoup d'argent pour un projet qui marche bien pendant cinq ans, mais qu'au bout de cinq ans on le laisse tomber sans savoir comment il pourra continuer, il y a là une question très importante sur laquelle le PNUD et la FAO devraient se pencher.
C'est pourquoi nous avons voulu apporter notre petite contribution en attirant l'attention des délégués sur cette situation généralisée dans nos pays.
S.S. MAHDI (India): First of all our delegation would like to record our appreciation of this document. We see that within its eighty-two pages, and in bold print, the document contains a mine of information and numerous valuable insights. In terms of quality the document not only continues the excellence of its predecessors, but shows further improvement. In this regard, I would ]ike to particularly take note of the summary which has been provided at the end.
With regard to the procedure of discussing this document I had a proposal that we should discuss it chapter by chapter, or in groups of chapters, but this has not come to pass. That would have allowed us to organize our discussions in a more cogent way. But, anyhow, I will follow the procedure which has already been adopted, although I do not envy the task of Mr. Mahajan who has to make a summary of the various comments made on various chapters, sub-chapters and subsections.
Coming to the comments, my first comment is about our project inputs. In this respect we have two comments: firstly, it is a matter of concern that the expenditure on personnel continues to be a dominant item, and it is likely to reach 67.4 percent of the total expenditure by the end of 1977. Now the question that arises is this: does it mean that there is a setback or a stabilization of the welcome trend which implied greater use of national personnel, and making use of expatriates for short-term contingencies; only if this is so this represents a retrograde step and is not compatible with the progressive self-reliance which we are aiming at.
Secondly, we also note that the proportion of experts from the developing countries continues to be small. It should have been much more than the present 37 percent, for the simple reason that the experience and expertise of one developing country is more relevant to another developing country. While making this comment, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to minimize the importance of transfer of skill and knowledge from a developed to developing countries. That should continue to remain a very important concern, and much of the technical cooperation is about this transfer. But at the same time we should be aware of what the experts of one developing country can do for the other countries.
With regard to the equipment my comments are in line with what has just been said from this floor by the delegate of Jordan. Here again, we note with concern that the diversification of sources of supply of equipment for the FAO assisted field projects has not reached a point which would include a tangible share from the developing countries. We fully realize that the Organization has to follow certain procedures and rules in this regard. We, however, feel that there is scope for taking into account the aspirations and capabilities of developing countries in the application of these rules and procedures, and yet to run the operations economically and efficiently. There is urgent need of making better known the use of the FAO-assisted projects on a systematic basis, and to facilitate the cooperation between new sources of supply from the developing countries and the Organization. In fact, we feel it is the duty of the organizations of the UN system ¡: to encourage such sources to come forward and make their contribution to the success of field projects.
Another question is that of the use of national institutions of developing countries and there is strengthening through such use. On this point I can afford to be very brief because the concept now appears to be well entrenched in the thinking of FAO. What we need now is substantial evidence of action. Unless this evidence is forthcoming constantly and convincingly, the subject will remain a mere slogan devoid of substance. In this context we would wish to see better sensitization of the FAO programme managers themselves, and continuing monitoring of the implementation of this context. I shall come to the question of suggesting that this item - the use and strengthening of national institutions to their best use - should be included as a distinct chapter in the next Review, if possible.
Turning to FAO's cooperation, with other programmes, I shall briefly touch on the FAO Banker's Programme, because this has not been commented on by other speakers. We note with satisfaction that the present membership is 52 banks, of which about two thirds are from the developing countries, and also that the request from Governments for assistance in project formulation has been on the increase, and more than 25 missions have been involved.
We however feel that the profitability aspect should not always be the overriding concern of the FAO Bankers'Programme. The Programme has expanded in a quantitative sense. We will watch with interest the quality improvements, especially in terms of which resources from this programme are made available to developing countries.
Turning now to Chapter 2: I would like to underline the assessment made in paragraph 2.6, and we also note with concern the delays in the pipeline. In 2.6, I would like to raise another question also. At the end of the paragraph, it is said that “delays in project negotiations and approvals even when these were caused by the fielding of the preparatory missions did not appear to have led to insignificant improvements in design in the majority of cases “. The question that arises is: In the light of this assessment how far the preparatory missions should become an essential part of the programme, and whether in many cases we could dispense with this kind of preparatory mission by strengthening our activities at country level which improve the capabilities at the country level for project formulation and for the preparatory work. This is the question which I raised, and I hope that I shall get some elaboration on this point.
We would also like to underline the conclusions in paragraph 2.41 on page 28, which concern the national management of projects. We are happyt to note that an experiment in Nigeria is now showing potential of being applied to other countries. We are very much in favour of having more and more national project management, because this is the real purpose of the transfer of skills and technical assistance. At the same time we are also happy to note that in certain cases use has been made of panels of experts, and we will recommend that such a device should be more and more used in appropriate cases.
Coming to Chapter 3, which deals with training, I am a little worried that this chapter, which forms a special chapter in the Field Programme Review, because of the discussion procedure has not received adequate attention. Given the constraints of time, I shall touch on only one aspect of this chapter, and that deals with training at the grassroots level. As the delegate of Yugoslavia has just mentioned, this is a concept which needs further elaboration, otherwise I am afraid that, like many other things, this might also become another slogan.
Training at the grassroots is primarily the tak of the Governments, and we would like to know more how FAO could really be of any real and tangible assistance. There could be many answers. Perhaps FAO could give more assistance to the institutions of the governments which are meant for training at grassroots level - but this is a very simple procedure, and we have no problems with it. At the same time we would like FAO to go deeper into this question, and I am glad to see that in paragraph 3.25 some of the related problems have been touched upon. Perhaps either because this concept is presented as something new in the Organization, or because of time constraints, these points which have just been mentioned in paragraph 3.25 could not be elaborated, although a few very interesting questions have been posed there. So what we would like in this regard is, since FAO is putting more emphasis on this concept, some more meditation in the Organization, some more analysis of experience of the countries, and some more consultations with the countries which have successful examples of grassroots training to be done, so that we can get a more detailed picture of what FAO's role should be. In that chapter, we are happy to note that an Indian example (in paragraphs 3.33 and 3.34) has been noted and described with appreciation.
One last remark about this chapter we find that the Review is a little unhappy about the fact that in many of the FAO training seminars and courses, the main audience has been the senior civil servants and people at middle policy level. It is true that we should emphasize training at the grassroots level, but this should not be to the exclusion of the kind of training that we provide to senior technicians or to senior officials. It is a question of finding a balance. Perhaps we should not go too much in one direction at the cost of other considerations.
A very brief word about the flow of transfers of resources to agriculture. This is a valuable topic, and we would like this work to continue.
Speaking to TCDC: this is a subject which we are going to discuss separately, and therefore I shall reserve the comments of this delegation for that occasion.
One final remark about the criteria for assistance at the country level. It has been mentioned here that there should be some concentration on the projects which deal with basic needs, or which are addressed to the poorest section of this society. We entirely agree with the spirit behind this exhortation, but at the same time we would like to mention that this is a goal - the goal of meeting the basic needs or improving the lot of the poorest section of society - which is a very long-term goal. This cannot be achieved with one project or with a few projects or with many projects over a shorter period.
Therefore, while we agree with the philosophy and with the objectives, at the same time we would like to emphasize that the governments themselves are striving in this direction. So, in the selection of topics we should not exclude the other needs of the governments and only concentrate on the things which directly affect the concept of basic need, or reaching the poorer section of society. It is a very long-term goal, and we cannot fragment it in terms of one or two subjects.
K. ALADEJANA (Nigeria): My delegation joins others in congratuling the Secretariat on the completion of such a very comprehensive document. We wish to however record the following comments: Firstly, much as my delegation would welcome experts recruited from developed countries to assist progress in developing countries, we would certainly prefer that the recruitment of those experts should only be made in developed countries when such experts are not available locally or in other developing countries.
There is no doubt that local experts are cheaper, they settle down more quickly and they can more easily appreciate the local problems of their colleagues from other less-developed countries. The advantages of local knowledge and easy adaptability greatly offset the extra experience or other qualifications that an expatriate expert may possess. We do hope that local talent will be explored in the evaluation work discussed during the session this morning.
• Secondly, the idea of associated experts on projects should be totally discarded. More often than not there is naturally such affinity between the expatriate expert and the expatriate associate expert, that this constitutes a barrier between the expert and his local counterpart. In many cases the associate expert is an apprentice, who then takes the place of the local counterpart staff. The result of this is a friction to the detriment of the project, and a necessity for further work to be undertaken after the normal life of the project has ended.
Thirdly, the absence of a country representative and the recent UNDP crisis had aversely affected most projects in my country, and this is why we again reiterate our support for the decentralization approach, and are pressing for the appointment of a country representative. We hope the Director-General will bear in mind the existing serious imbalance of regional representation of the FAO staff at all levels when making these appointments.
Fourthly, the importance of training cannot be overemphasized. We therefore commend FAO's increased activity in the field of training. Training begins with the trainer, and should therefore extend to the grassroots.
Due to lack of finance and the service of experts throughout the rural community there remains a serious gap between government and private funds and production, particularly in fishery and foresty. Necessary information and training will no doubt generate private investment in these fields, and governments themselves will encourage more investment in these fields. There is, however, a preference for paper qualification in most developing countries, and any fellowship which does not attract that qualification is not always popular.
Finally my delegation wishes to congratulate the FAO on the very important progress such as resource evaluation by remote technique recently carried out in Nigeria. It is hoped, however, that in selecting the future programmes both governments and the FAO will give priority to the areas of most need.
N.E. NORCOTT (Canada): I had an intervention to give incorporating many of the aspects and the points which were raised by the other speakers, and I do not think there is much point in going through them again simply for the sake of having the verbatims. But it does appear to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Director-General has been given a fairly clear mandate on FAO's projects administration, etc., and on training activities, and many of the interventions we have heard today have touched on particular aspects of the various points about those two areas in particular. I would think that when the Review of Field Programmes is prepared for the next biennium I would think that the document could reflect many of the concerns that have been raised here today. Several delegates have raised specific points about training, specific points about project implementation, specific points about the role of experts, etc., and we would think that it would be appropriate that those concerns be reflected in the document prepared for the next Conference, in order that we will have a better assessment of how well FAO has been able to cope with these problems, and the problems encountered at that time, in order that we would have a better understanding of how the Organization is moving in its activities and where improvements could be made.
CHAIRMAN: Before I give the floor to the Assistant Director-General, I would like to ask whether any of the Delegates intend to take the floor tomorrow morning, because I announced at the beginning of this afternoon's session that we intended to have two meetings for these discussions, so if I could have an indication. I see there are several delegations who intend to take the floor tomorrow, but I understand that none of these delegations are prepared to take the floor now, but in any case I give the floor to the Assistant Director-General, Development Department, to answer the questions put to him now, and we will continue tomorrow with the Review of Field Programmes.
J.F. YRIART (Assistant Director-General, Development Department): Actually, Mr. Chairman, I think for the sake of brevity, if I reply tomorrow morning after the rest of the speakers I will give you a much shorter reply, having carefully analysed the preceding questions, and I will reply to the group.
CHAIRMAN: As you please, Mr. Yriart. Then I think the time has come to adjourn now.
The meeting rose at 17.50 hours
La séance est levée à 17 h 50
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.50 horas
