CHAIRMAN: I shall now give the floor to Mr. West for his comments on some of the points made by the delegations.
E. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I am sorry that you have to face another set of remarks on behalf of the Secretariat, but it does fall to me to sum up on behalf of the Director-General on the whole of the budget debate. Although the Director-General has not been able to be present throughout this debate he has been kept in touch with the views you have been expressing and with the general progress of the debate. He will have been pleased no doubt to note your satisfaction with the presentation of the document.
He will have been even more pleased to have noted the virtually unanimous support for the Programme of Work and Budget in its entirety.
The consensus which was expressed in the Council on strategies, priorities, programmes and means of action has been confirmed. Indeed, it has been strengthened.
The major programmes have been strongly supported and virtually every delegation including even those which proposed to abstain on the budget level, have recommended increases for certain programmes or particular activities. This is in a way embarrassing. I would judge that on the basis of what has been said, a programme increase of double the amount, at least double the amount, which has been proposed could have been justified in terms of priority demands. This does not even include some programme requirements which are not covered by the budget.
The main one is of course for follow-up of the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. We have had some increase in the Programme of Work and Budget for this, but this increase will only enable us to strengthen the main lines of our activities in this field. There is a considerable gap, however, between the increased budget and what we have been asked to do, not only in the Programme of Action on the World Conference but also by you at this meeting.
Another major item which is not budgeted is follow-up of the Programme of Action arising from the UN Conference on Science and Technology in Development. This could be very considerable in scope. Since our activities are in fact already directed towards a transfer of science and technology in our fields of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, it may be that, to a large extent, we can absorb additional technical inputs demanded from us, by adjustments in the programmes we have proposed to you.
We are however deeply disturbed by the fact that the decisions of the UN Conference and the action taken so far by the United Nations, impose a very heavy burden upon Agencies for purely coordination activities, involving many meetings, much documentation and much travel.
I was, incidentally, fascinated that one of the delegations which intends to abstain on the budget level, and which proposed that in order to increase proposed expenditures on technical programmes we should out other expenditures, nevertheless indicated that increased coordination was, in their view, of very high priority.
I wonder, however, whether that delegation realises that in the next biennium, the bill for coordination of science and technology activities could, if we wanted to accept to the utmost all the demands being put to us, amount to no less than one million dollars. This is for coordination alone, not including the cost of the additional staff in the UN which is under discussion in New York. On a personal note I find it somewhat cruel to suggest that our technical activities could and should be increased within a budget level which is stated to be too high, while at the same time we are being pressed, not only in Commission II here, but elsewhere to spend far more on coordination. In this connexion, Mr. Chairman,
I would venture to remark that the Director-General is virtually unique in the extent to which he has resisted the temptation to exploit the decisions of world conferences by requesting additional staff in headquarters and additional funds.
There are other world conferences ahead of us, in particular on energy. This is obviously of great importance, and your remarks in this debate have confirmed this. We will cooperate to the full. At the same time, you should be aware that we are already being asked for inputs for which no external finance has been provided. We either have to restrict our efforts or make adjustments in our Programme of Work and Budget in order to absorb this extra effort.
In this connection it has been suggested that room can be found for additional activities by reducing administrative and other non-technical activities. As you see from what I have said, what room there might be from programme and other savings, is already under pressure. Even the existing programme is threatened by unbudgeted cost increases to which I will refer in a moment. But before we go to those, we have to consider the additional programme demands to which I have just referred. You can be sure, therefore, that the Director-General will lose no opportunity and will be quite ruthless in squeezing out whatever economies he can find within the proposed Programme of Work and Budget.
On the other hand, I must say frankly that with the professional expertise such as I have, that the suggestions made at this meeting do not carry us very far. For example, it has been suggested that we could cut publications. It is an objective which we are trying to follow, but with discrimination as between technical material which is useful to Member Governments and target groups for development, and other publications, mainly documentation, which are ephemeral in character. We have a strong internal committee for this purpose and we will keep up the pressure. But we must be careful not to damage one of the major tools for the transfer of science and technology, namely the dissemination of information.
Similarly, some suggestions have been made that we should cut meetings. We fully agree but the kind of meetings we would like to cut are not those under our control, such as the proposed meetings on Trypanosomiasis, or some other major technical programmes or substantive subjects. but the ever-growing number of meetings called in North America and other European capitals which involve a large amount of senior officers' time for the purposes of coordination. All too often it is coordination of the non-existent. It is very easy for those who do not have anything substantive at stake to agree to have it coordinated. But when something on-going, concrete and effective is threatened with delay or blockage, in the interests of a development theory held by Governments or of burearcratic ambition, we would prefer to avoid the expense if we can.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether this can be translated, but my feeling is that the motto of the central coordinators is: "If two wrongs don't make a right, try a third. "
It has also been suggested that we should save money on administrative costs. You have heard the answers given on the rise in our administrative costs. I will not therefore labour that issue, preferring to speak about the question of staff as raised by the representative of the Host Government.
When His Excellency Ambassador Borin spoke in the last Council session of his concern that the Organization might next suggest that we would expect the Host Government to pay the salaries of our staff, I think this was generally recognized as a good example of the ironic wit for which the Ambassador is well known for his talent. At least, Mr. Chairman, I presume that it was intended as such, given the tremendous contribution that the Organization makes directly and indirectly in the provision of foreign exchange and in the employment of 1, 500 Italian nationals in the Secretariat, approximately half the total headquarters staff. They in particular were no doubt amused by the Ambassador's remark.
I think they would, however, be less amused by the suggestion made yesterday by the Italian representative that they should, by reducing their salaries, contribute to reducing the very inflation which developments in the Italian economy are obliging us to face in the next biennium.
That, Mr. Chairman, is the main point to which I am now coming, but before I do so, I should simply like to remark that the question of remuneration is not within the control of the Director-General but comes under the International Civil Service Commission.
As I have indicated, Mr. Chairman, what I was leading up to was the question of cost increases. We will certainly have to try to reduce the impact of cost increases in the next biennium.
I have chosen my words carefully - reduce the impact, not reduce the costs. I say that because we cannot in fact reduce the costs; we cannot in fact do that, since they are going up all the time. We are in fact seriously under-budgeted for the cost increases which we are going inevitably to incur in he next biennium. Why is this?
At the time the Programme of Work and Budget was finalized in the middle of 1979, inflation in the host country was in the region of 13 percent per annum. It was also in the neighborhood of a double-digit figure in the United States, and I mention the United States of America because we use the dollar. Inflation in the host country has now reached the annual rate of over twenty percent. The cost estimates in the Programme of Work and Budget have, however, remained unchanged since they were first prepared at the beginning of 1979·
That applies particularly to wage indexes for General Service staff. The three wage indexes budgeted for 1979 have all become due earlier than expected. It is possible that we shall have an unbudgeted wage increase before the end of the year. We shall thus probably be underbudgeted for wage indexes
in the base we have taken for use for 1980-81 by some $340 000.
In view of the four-month delay in the application of post adjustments for professional staff, the effects of current increased inflation on post adjustments will not be seen until 1980, but the post adjustments for 1980-81 will almost certainly appear sooner and cost more than budgeted.
Inflation will also affect services, for example telephones - and you heard about a 20 percent increase this morning - electricity; postal services; and travel.
In 1978-79 air travel increased by between 30 percent and 40 percent depending on the routes used. This is more than double what was included in the budget for 1978-79· Of this increase, a 12 percent increase was only recently announced and could not therefore be included in the Programme of Work and Budget for 1980-81. Por 1980-81 a cost increase of only 10 percent has been provided for, and there will be more increases to come.
It is clear, therefore, that we are seriously underbudgeted for travel as well as for other service items, and it is even more clear that the cost increases as a whole are considerably underbudgeted.
In most other organizations, at least judging by my experience, additions would have been proposed. At this Conference the Director-General has not proposed additions. In the circumstances, it is really unrealistic to suggest that there will be much, if any, scope for increasing programme expenditures in addition to the demands I have mentioned for futher programme activities, further coordination activities, and underbudgeted cost increases.
In this situation, the Director-General considers that he has been extraordinarily restrained. In this situation, he has made it olear that it would be unreasonable to call for a lower budget level, especially if a higher degree of programme activity is unanimously supported, as it appears to be.
Finally, there is the question of the adjustment for currencies. We have been anxiously watching the market to see what rate the Director-General should recommend to you to be used in calculating this budget. The market is very unstable, for reasons of which you will be aware. It has been fluctuating within a bracket of several points in the last few days. The rate at the closing of the Milan market yesterday and again today was 829 lire to the US dollar. If this rate were used, the appropriations resolution would alter as follows:
Chapter 1 - 22 013 000
Chapter 2 - 124 810 000
These figures will appear in the reports so there is no need for you to take them down immediately.
Chapter 3 - 40 044000
Chapter 4-32 638000
Chapter 5 - 44 948000
Chapter 6 - 12 607000
Chapter 7 - 600000
Total - 277 66 million
Chapter 8 - 40 160 000
Total - 317 82 million
The total effective working budget would be 277 66 million.
We will, however, attach to your Draft Report a Revised Resolution taking account of any further developments. It may, in fact, be necessary to make a further change before the Plenary votes, but probably the budget total will remain around the figure I have mentioned, that is, approximately $6 million more, $277. 66 million or $278 million.
Returning to the substance of the programme, I do want to emphasize one or two points which you have been discussing in the last few hours of your debate. The Director-General is very grateful indeed for the unanimous support expressed by those who have reservations on the budget level. He hopes in the light of the discussions and in the light of the information I have given, but more particularly in the support given to the substance of the programme during the debate, those countries which have reservations will now feel convinced that we really have made a tremendous effort to produce the most needed and the most effective programme within the most moderate budget level which could be proposed in the circumstances.
He hopes that you will give him the authority to go ahead, adjusting as and when he can without sacrificing the effectiveness of the highest priorities to take account of development that may occur. He hopes that you will not seek, even in a minimal way, to hamper his implementation of those highest priorities which you have a identified, such as the implementation of the decentralization programme, TCP, the follow-up of the World Conference, by asking for additional bureaucratic controls, monitoring and the like. He hopes that you will entrust him with the task, without undue monitoring necessities, of trying to accommodate the extra cost that we are going to feel in every sector of our programme, again whilst not damaging the content of the substance.
He hopes that in this he will have the support of practically every delegation, and I hope that will be seen when we come to vote in the Plenary.
NGA MA MAPELA (Zaíre): Ma délégation voudrait remercier le membre du Secrétariat d'avoir bien voulu donner des éclaircissements sur certains points qui ont été soulevés lors des débats. Nous espérons en conséquence que le programme de travail et le budget pour 1980-1981 seront approuvés par acclamations.
Puisque j'ai la parole, je voudrais rappeler aux délégations qui vont siéger au Comité de rédaction qu'elles devront tenir compte notamment des commentaires que vous avez fait avant midi et au cours de la journée d'hier lorsque vous avez résumé les débats. Elles devront aussi, à notre avis, tenir pleinement compte des explications et des commentaires qui ont été faits par les membres du Secrétariat au sujet de nos discussions.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much for those helpful comments. With that, we come to the conclusion of our discussion of the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium. We have had nearly 16 hours of discussion, and over 150 interventions have been made. About 85 countries have participated in the discussion. We are very grateful to you because I think that is indicative of the deep commitment of various delegations to the programme and work of FAO.
I should also like to thank the Director-General and his able staff, the Assistant Director-General Mr West, and his colleagues, for the clarity with which they have answered in great detail the various points made by delegates. I am aware that some delegations may have the feeling that a certain particular point made by them might not have been answered, but I am confident that the officers of FAO, after the General Conference, will certainly go carefully into all the points made in the verbatim records and take them into consideration while actually implementing the programme, because I know there is a series of in-house reviews being done here, and we are sure, Mr West, that you and your colleagues will take into consideration such comments as you might not have had time to refer to in your already detailed replies.
With those remarks, I think we should commend to the Conference the Appropriations Resolution with such change as Mr. West said will be necessitated by the extremely fluid currency exchange situation, because this is the kind of thing which continually occurs.
We are aware of the fact that some countries have not been able to support the budget in the sense that they have announced their intention to abstain from voting. A few other governments are still considering this. But I also feel happy that there has been complete unanimity with reference to relevance of the programmes, the excellence of their execution, and the need for further rapid expansion in the activities of FAO. This is but natural because we are dealing with the first among the hierarchical needs of man, namely food, and as has been pointed out on several occasions it is
rather ironic that although food is the first among the hierarchical needs of man, the FAO budget is probably the smallest of the United Nations agencies. When compared with WHO, UNESCO, etc., FAO's budget is indeed moderate. So I hope on behalf of our Commission we can commend the Appropriations Resolution to the General Conference.
After listening to 15 hours of debate here, I must say I see the appropriateness of the term "spaceship earth" coined by Buckminster Fuller to indicate our planet, a planet of finite resources where people have different demands. We have a large number of countries represented here which are trying to provide their people with a human existence and a human wage. There are others who are equally struggling to maintain for their own people the high standards of living which their people have acquired through centuries of hard work. So we have both situations in the world, and naturally we find attitudes which are somewhat varied.
If you look at the FAO publication "Agriculture: toward 2000" you find that in another 20 years from now the number of farmers of poor nations will be two thousand million as against eighty million in developing nations, that is 25 to 1. Obviously, the emphasis on programme needs will vary, and this is only to be expected.
I should like to add my personal words of request to those countries. As Chairman of Commission II, it is my earnest hope, on the basis of the discussions which have taken place here during the last three days, that those countries which are still making up their minds will find it possible to support the budget as presented by the Director-General, and that those countries which are unable to vote in favour and have to abstain will also be able to carry the sense of this Commission's discussions to their respective governments so that the appropriate decisions can be taken.
Well, distinguished delegates, before I pass on to the next item on our Agenda, I would like briefly to refer to the International Year of the Child. I think one or two delegations particularly from the Scandinavian countries did mention about nutrition and children and the fact that although 1979 is the International Year of the Child probably more children are going to bed hungry during 1979 than in preceding years. The Secretary General of the United Nations whose message was read out on the opening day particularly called attention to the World Food Conference Resolution that by 1984 at least children, women and men should not go to bed hungry. We all know this and inasmuch as we have not been able to provide hungry children with adequate food at least we can learn something from them. I would like to read to you a little poem on children, learning from children, by Rabindranath Tagore who won the Nobel Prize for Literature many years ago. The poem is in Bengali, but this is an English translation:
Child, how happy you are sitting in the dust
Playing with a broken twig all the morning;
I smile at your play with that little bit of broken twig
I am busy with my accounts adding up figures by the hour
Perhaps you glance at me and think what a stupid game to spoil your morning with Child, I have forgotten the art of being absorbed in sticks and mudpiles I seek out costly playthings and gather lumps of gold and silver With whatever you find, you create glad games:
I spend both my time and my strength over things I can never obtain; In my frail canoe I struggle to cross the sea of desire; And forget that I too am playing a game. . .
Since we are dealing with the budget, I mention this, although we cannot eliminate hunger from children, we can do much to learn from them when talking about figures and budgets.
With this we come to the end of item 11 of the Agenda and we move on to item 12·
J. H. MASON (Liberia): This document is just reaching the desks of most of the delegates here and we have not had a chance to review the document. I have just seen it for the first time two minutes ago so I would suggest that we have a few more minutes to run through it.
CHAIRMAN: I shall request Mr West, the Assistant Director-General, to introduce the paper.
E. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): This first issue of the review of the Regular Programme is a new addition to the system of regular programme evaluation initiated by the Director-General. The other elements in the system are auto or self-evaluation undertaken internally by programme managers, studies initiated by the Director-General for the purpose of policy and programme formulation, review of selected sub-programmes or activities by the governing bodies themselves, by the Programme and Finance Committee, and assessment of special topics by outside consultants. As the Pro- gramme Committee has noted, these mechanisms plus a review of the field programme - the one with the nice picture on the cover - constitute an evaluation system more comprehensive than those existing in other UN Agencies.
Coming back to the review of the Regular Programme we recognize that as a first attempt this document may have some shortcomings. The analytical content of the review, especially the assessment of impact, is not as complete as we would have wished to make it. There are a number of reasons for this; firstly, at the request of the Governing Bodies the review covers, could I say, the entire spectrum of the Programme of Work and Budget instead of being selective. Given the length of the document it is hardly possible to treat every programme in depth. Secondly, the time frame of the review which corresponds to the Programme of Work and Budget is short, whereas in fact it takes some time for the output of regular programme activities to be absorbed in field activities or in the programmes and plans of member nations. It is only then when that has been achieved one can truly asses the impact of FAO activities.
The review is in two parts: part one is a performance report, not a budgetary performance report where you give information on the state of expenditure leading up to requests for supplements. It is a report on our performance in carrying out the activities approved by the previous Conference. Although it is only a performance report we have in fact in this evaluation review tried to sharpen the objectives of each programme, review the strategy for implementation, and highlight major achievements in the form of advice and assistance rendered to member countries, training, field projects and technical publications. As far as possible the linkages with other programmes have been identified. A special feature of the performance report is the section on issues on each major programme in which performance cutting across programmes is highlighted, including future orientation envisaged for various components of the major programme.
Part two of the review contains a more critical and in-depth evaluation offive sub-programmes. I would stress that this is different in character from the first part. The difference between the first and second parts is intentional in the sense that we are trying to comply with the directives of Governing Bodies. Where applicable the second part also focusses on the field component of the sub-programmes under review and links up with the field programme. Two of the sub-programmes reviewed - Seeds and Genetic Resources - were chosen because both attract considerable extra-budgetary resources. They can show the linking between the Regular Programme and extra-budgetary resourves. The Food Information System was selected because of potential input into other FAO programmes which rely almost exclusively on extra-budgetary resources, e. g. Food Security Assistance Scheme and OSRO. The sub-programme on Fish Data and Statistics was chosen for review because it is entirely confined to the collection, compilation and dissemination of data, almost exclusively financed from the Regular Programme budget, and is a traditional type of Regular Programme activity. Legislation was included because we thought it might be interesting to examine an activity originally orientated towards research and documentation but which has branched out into a serious field programme. We think this selection provides a cross section of the Regular Programme which could be indicative of problems as well as achievements in other similar sub-programmes.
Coming back to the quality of the review, there are a number of ways in which we can and will attempt to strengthen the analytical content. Before we can do that, however, we have to confront two problems, one is selectivity, the other the time frame. We think if we attempt to cover the entire Programme of Work and Budget in more depth the document would be of intractable magnitude and complexity. If we still have to cover the whole Programme of Work and Budget it would be much as you see it now. The indication if you want more in-depth programming is not to cover the whole Programme of Work and Budget but be more selective. If the Conference still wants some sort of performance report covering the whole Programme of Work and Budget it could be done on a major programme basis only, but even then it would be an overview of major accomplishments and problems. The overview could cover the last year of the previous biennium and the first year of the current biennium, i. e. two completed years of activity instead of as at the moment one and a quarter, for if this document is to be got ready in time for the Council and Conference it has to be completed more or less by the Spring. This was completed more or less in the Spring of this year, so whatever is there about accomplishment in the
last nine months of this year is estimate and guesswork. If we cover two completed years 1977/78 instead of 1978 and part of 1979 we will have more evidence on which to base a full analysis. In any case, in the next issue we will attempt to provide you with more charts and tables, as suggested by the Programme and Finance Committees. The rest of the review would be limited as to in-depth evaluation of selective programmes, sub-programmes, or special topics of importance which cut across more than one programme. The time frame for such in-depth review we think however, should be not less than five years so that it can cover field activities as well as Regular Programme activities and provide some indication of impact. This would however raise some question of overlap with the Review of the Field Programme. It has been suggested the two reviews could be combined into one document, we hope to the advantage of both in that the linkage between the Regular and Field Programmes to which many delegations have attached importance, would be facilitated.
I have made this introduction, Mr Chairman, because unfortunately the Chief of the Evaluation Services, which operates as an independent service under my general supervision, is ill. He is very sorry he cannot be here today. However, with the assistance of the other members of the small evaluation service I shall be happy to provide answers and clarification on the points raised in the discussion.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Mr West, for the introduction. We will have the whole of Monday and, if necessary, one session on Tuesday for discussing the Regular Programme, as you will have seen from your timetable.
I suggest we may divide the Regular Programme into part one and part two for the discussion. We could take part one and then part two. Chapters 4 to 8 dealing with 5 different programmes, could be discussed separately. Therefore, those delegations who would like to speak on part one would you kindly put up your nameplates so that we can note them.
3. LATIF (Bangladesh): This document has just been received this morning. We have hardly had a chance to go through it in detail, but this is my initial intervention. I would like to intervene again later in the course of our meetings.
On the very first page it appears this has been a good time to undertake a Review of the Regular Programme in great detail, but this is a Review of the Regular Programme only, not in particular spheres. Take, for example, Seed Programme - there are also others going on under the extra Budgetary Programme or the Field Programmes. A Review, unless it is combined with all types of financing that is involved, the analsis of the impact and achievements will not be complete. This is my first observation. A Review of the Regular Programme alone will not give the totality of the situation.
Secondly, it seemed that the size of the Regular Programme was over 73 million and the percentage allocation to natural resources, crops, livestock, research, rural development have also been shown. Now, this percentage, I question whether this percentage allocation followed in the national criteria, or just evolved out of the programme requirements.
CHAIRMAN: Is it the wish of the House, as suggested by the delegate of Liberia, that you need more time for this item, and would you like to start the discussion on Monday morning? It looks like delegates are reluctant to come forward. We do want to have a good discussion on the Regular Programme and the Field Programme.
W. JOHNSON (united States of America): I first ask for the other delegates to make up their minds about whether they want to discuss it this afternoon or not. My delegation is prepared to comment on both Mr. West's very helpful introduction and also on the document itself. I am prepared to go on, Mr. Chairman, unless you choose to postpone discussion of the document until Monday?
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I would prefer you to continue and make your comments.
W. JOHNSON (United States of America): To begin with we are very interested in the proposal that the Assistant Director-General West has just made concerning the terms of reference of this Review of the
Regular Programme. We have said in the past on many occasions that we think it is desirable to examine both the Field Programme and the Regular Programme in some depth. We realise the difficulties that the Secretariat has had in preparing these documents and, in particular, this new one because of the time frame. My delegation would like to go on record as supporting the idea of a 5-year review period, and then the review of selected programmes and components of the Regular Programme for the 2-year period -the full 2-year period preceding the current year. In that way we could, I think, get a good over-view of all programmes, and an in-depth review of selected programmes for the preceding 2 years. We would like to take the opportunity to carry out a joint review of both the Regular and Field Programme on the occasions of these meetings.
So to reiterate we welcome this new Document C 79/8, Review of the Regular Programme 1978-79, as an important new element in the evaluation of FAO programmes. Together with the document reviewing FAO field programmes, this new evaluation tool gives member nations an improved and broader overview of FAO programmes and the implementation of policies and priorities.
The United States believes that evaluation is very important in assuring programme effectiveness. We, therefore, welcome the steps taken by the Director-General to strengthen FAO's internal evaluation programme. As noted in the Introduction of C 79/8, auto-evaluation, special reviews, and the Review of the Regular Programme comprise three mutually-supporting elements of FAO's current evaluation procedures. The United States concurs in the Director-General's view that these are important, mutually-supporting elements, and we look forward to learning in more detail the nature of the methodology employed in each element of these evaluations.
Regarding the conceptual framework of C 79/8, we believe that modelling the structure on that of the Programme of Work and Budget was logical and was probably the most useful approach that could have been taken. The format of having the Review divided into two parts, one consisting of a general performance report on the Regular Programme and the other a more in-depth review of five selected sub-programmes likewise seems appropriate and helpful. We do not believe that it is likely to be possible to give in-depth reviews of all the sub-programmes.
On the whole, we found this new Document, this first effort, well prepared and very informative as a first response to the call of member nations for a programme of continuing evaluation of the Regular Programme. For the future we would hope that questions regarding the quality of the services delivered to countries and their impact on programme goals might be dealt with more fully.
Apparently there was insufficient time to do this in this first document.
Now I have some remarks about particular subsections of the Report, and with your permission, Chairman, I will go ahead with these.
The United States approves of the priorities as outlined in paragraphs 1. 171 - 1. 175 and is satisifed that the distribution of Regular Programme resources is equitable among the three technical programmes. However, we would express a reservation of judgment in approving the new programme 2. 3. 4 (Forestry for Rural Development) which is discussed in paragraph 1. 176. We would hope that such a new programme would result from new extra-budgetary resources, rather than from a shift of resources from the three on-going programmes. Perhaps an alternative would be to include a rural development element in each of the present three programmes, rather than set up a separate new programme. In reference to para. 1. 195 under Forest Industries, it might be of interest to mention that the North American Forestry Commission (NAFC) is now preparing a manual on medium-level logging technology. Started this autumn under contract, the manual will concentrate on machines and tools available in the developing countries and is expected to be available in a year or so.
Next, Mr. Chairman, turning to fisheries we note the fishery material is contained in two parts, the first in Section Β of Chapter 1, and the second part in Chapter 7, which is a detailed review of the Fish Data and Statistics Programme.
We found this review of the Fisheries Programme to be extremely helpful, particularly since it provides some specifics concerning the accomplishments and activities of the Department of Fisheries. It would have been even more helpful had greater detail been provided, particularly with respect to the programme of fishery exploitation and utilization, which absorbs the largest part of the regular programme budget. It would, for instance, have been helpful to have had some details concerning the organization and assignment of staff members in this particular programme.
The attention being paid to developing a programme of assistance to developing countries who are in the process of implementing their newly established Extended Economic Zones for fisheries is most welcome. It, however, does lead to a question concerning the emphasis that will now be placed on assistance with respect to small commercial fisheries, which had been an item of major priority within the Fisheries Department.
With respect to the programme concerning fishery policy, one can generally support the longer-range planning activities that are assigned to this programme, and one welcomes the candor in the report that the work on planning was less successful than desired. It is, however, somewhat disturbing to see in the report on this programme no mention of the role of economics within the Fisheries Department. That is not to say there is not any economics in the Fisheries Department's activities, but we have not been able to find it in the report. We would certainly encourage the Department to continue the preparation of country profiles as an item of usefulness to all countries, developing and otherwise.
The final section in the first part, dealing with Issues for the Future, is particularly helpful in terms of the forthcoming meeting of the Committee of Fisheries. It was helpful to have available an indication of the organizational weaknesses to which the Department is going to address itself with respect to future issues. However, one might have expected to have found greater attention paid to the problems of regional fisheries organizations, of funding and staffing, and of the relative role of Headquarters in Rome, as compared to regional commissions and organizations.
The chapter dealing with fish data and statistics was particularly helpful because of the detail that it contained. These statistics activities are particularly important now in view of extended jurisdiction, the increasing pattern of fisheries management, and the need to know where and what fish are being caught. FAO is the only possible source for world-wide data, and their efforts towards computerization must be encouraged.
Apart from the statistical volumes on fish catches and commodities, the effort to establish a third volume dealing with fishing fleets and fishermen is very welcome and very much needed. We would welcome the reinvigoration of the Advisory Board for Information and Data, since it can be a very effective two-way communication concerning the importance of fishery statistics.
Next, integrated pest control. Paragraph 1. 19 which is on page 6 of the English version of C 79/8 describes the FAO/UNEP Cooperative Global Programme for Development and Integrated Pest Control in Agriculture. It is our understanding that almost all of the funds for this programme are provided by UNEP and without this funding from UNEP the Global Programme would be essentially limited to periodic meetings of the expert panel.
It is our further understanding that the Global Programme currently consists of only three inter-country programmes, as follows: (1) cotton in Africa, the Near East and a few Latin American countries; (2) grain crops in the Sahelian region of Africa; and (3) rice crop in South and South-East Asia. If our information is correct, only the cotton programme is reasonably well off the ground, and FAO headquarters is badly understaffed in plant protection and pest control so that it is having a hard time handling even these three projects.
Next a brief remark concerning the role of women. Resolution 10/75, The Role of Women in Rural Development, adopted by the 18th Session of the FAO Conference, requested that information on progress and projections on the integration of women in all FAO programmes be submitted periodically to the Council and the Conference. In that connection we request the following specific information relating to C 79/8. In paragraph 1. 6 on page 2 of the English version under Natural Resources Training, how many of the participants receiving training were women, especially those receiving training in small farm management? What are the projections for the next biennium? Does the Secretariat have any recommendations on how this activity could be serviceable to women?
The same questions may also be raised with respect to the activities described in paragraphs 1. 17, 1. 18, 1. 30, 1. 31, 1. 55, 1. 62 and 1. 63.
Paragraph 1. 56 on page 17 of the English version concerning Rural Development Achievements and Impact raises these questions: what does the inventory and analysis of FAO training programmes reveal with respect to benefits to women? Are any modifications of the programme being made to make the activities more responsive to women's needs as a result of the evaluation?
Then on paragraph 1. 61 on page 18, could specific examples of progress be cited concerning home economics and social programmes?
Next, on genetic resources, which is in paragraph 5. 25 on pages 125 to 126 under Genetic Resources -Issues for the Future, it is suggested that cooperation with the Seed Industry Development Programme might increase the efficiency and effectiveness with which the limited resources at the disposal of the Organization are deployed in these closely related areas. In our view, FAO should move very cautiously with plans for merging or interlocking germplasm collection, maintenance, and evaluation, with the Seed Industry Development Programme. Germplasm maintenance objectives and the objectives of research and development programmes using germplasm are not always consonant, and one may not mesh very well with the other.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes the remarks that I want to make at this time. As the discussion develops, we may wish to make a further intervention later.
KONG CAN-DONG (China) (interpretation from Chinese): Document C 79/8 before us is the first relatively complete and systematic review of the various aspects of FAO's Regular Programme and provides a number of fairly detailed and concrete examples. The Chinese delegation considers that it is useful for member States in their understanding and review of the work of the Organization as well as in discussing and considering the Programme of Work and Budget for the next biennium.
We would like to express our thanks to the Secretariat for the large amount of work it has put in, in this regard. Naturally, as the first review of the Regular Programme, the document leaves room for improvement, such as how to bring about a better division of labour and coordination in regard to such documents as the Review of Field Programmes and the Programme of Work and Budget, et cetera. All this can be constantly improved through practice.
The document shows that this Organization has made progress to a very great extent in all aspects by following the policy of doing more practical work for the developing countries. It is indeed gratifying to us that at the end of each major programme the document makes suggestions for improvement under the title "Issues for the Future". This is helpful to us in exploring better ways of work.
Here we would like to offer a few observations. Paragraph 1. 121 of the document mentions that experience shows that the need for the application of improved technologies is more urgent than ever. We deem it conducive to the developing countries, agricultural development for the FAO to recommend and assist in the introduction or trial of advanced technologies and to set up demonstration projects in areas of agriculture at the request of member States and in line with the concrete circumstances while, as mentioned in the document, the governments concerned should be responsible for applying such technologies on a wide scale.
In regard to the training of national staff in the developing countries, paragraph 1. 123 of the document considers that although noticeable progress has been made, it still cannot meet the needs for properly strengthening training which should be geared to improving existing technical levels in production. That is, the needs could mainly be for middle and lower level personnel or, by taking into account the needs of some countries, they could also be high level technical personnel who would pass on the new technology that they have learned to technicians of lower levels in their own countries.
It is suggested in paragraph 1. 135 of the document that there is a need for more flexibility in the Programme to cater for the different requirements of the developing countries. We consider it wholly reasonable to proceed more from the concrete circumstances prevailing in the developing countries and adopt measures more suited to them as long as they comply with the basic objectives of the relative programmes.
CHAIRMAN: The composition of the Drafting Committee is now complete, the two delegations from Latin America who will serve on the Committee are Cuba and Colombia. The composition of the Drafting Committee is as follows: Chairman, Denmark, Mr. Glistrup; Ivory Coast and Kenya from Africa; Sri Lanka and Philippines from Asia; Bulgaria and France from Europe; Canada from the North American region; Sudan and Algeria from the Near East; Cuba and Colombia from Latin America; New Zealand from Oceania and the South West Pacific.
Would delegates like to adjourn now and re-convene on Monday morning? That seems to be the wish of delegates.
J. H. MASON (Liberia): I would suggest that it is the consensus of the meeting that we adjourn now and I propose that we use additional time on Monday to make up for the time we have lost today.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the suggestion. I hope delegations will carefully study this very important document as well as the one on field programmes as it will help the Organization to have your comments.
The meeting rose at 16. 00 hours.
La séance est levée à 16 heures.
Se levanta la sesión a las 16. 00 horas.
