CHAIRMAN: We now commence the 8th meeting of Commission II, continuing our review of the Regular Programme.
J. H. MASON (Liberia): delegation finds the document very suitable, for which we commend the Director-General and his staff. However, we found that both documents could have been combined to prevent overlapping.
Fisheries: we are in agreement with the document and we invite FAO to play a very serious role in Liberia in the areas of inland and marine fisheries because fish is our cheapest form of animal protein and we need FAO's support in conducting an inventory and study of the situation for development and decentralisation. Liberia happens to be one of the few countries selected by ACC Task Force and we are pleased to note here that this programme has received great momentum. The Government supports the programme fully and has implemented it in the Ministry of Agriculture programme using extension as the rain thrust to reach the subsistence farmer.
Food crops: due to the increasing cost of fuel, we in Liberia are becoming interested in introducing draft animals for the subsistence farmer, especially in the area of lowland rice cultivation and we greatly need FAO's assistance.
Forestry: as regards forestry and our Programme, my delegation has carefully looked at the Review and compared objectives and achievement under each programme, and it has found that in some cases no achievement has been recorded and in other cases the achievements have simply been glossed over, so that it is difficult to determine what has been achieved during the biennium. An example on that forest resource programme is FAO's objective to improve their silviculture, silviculture treatment of tropical forests.
There is nothing to be found anywhere in the Review where the achievement of FAO in this regard has been mentioned. Mr. Chairman, the proper management of tropical forests in a number of countries depends on good silviculture. In the West African region where Liberia is it depends on good silviculture. In the West African regions, where Liberia is, we have not yet acquired a suitable solution to many of our problems. FAO is aware of this and needs to give it more serious attention.
More developing countries are wood deficient countries mainly due to the increasing exportation of paper in spite of the enormous forestry sources. Therefore developing countries are interested in any progress achieved in studies done by FAO for the eventual production of these products in the developing countries. It is therefore important that information in this regard should be given as wide publicity as possible.
On page 52 of the English version of the Review, mention is made of work done to promote the use of lesser known species by the use of prevention efforts which require the minimum of capital investment and expertise in chemical treatment. We in Liberia are interested in this project considering that there are over 200 species in our forest producing 20 percent of the export timber volume. Due to the increasing cost of fuel, we in Liberia are becoming interested in the use of wood to provide power for rural electricity. We would all like FAO to give this some attention since it will also be of interest to many developing countries that are faced with the balance of payment deficit.
On page 54 of the English version of the Review mention is made of practical manuals, guidelines, case studies and other tools on forest sector investments analysis and development planning. My delegation hopes that these will be distributed to all FAO member countries as soon as possible.
Another thing, UNDP support is declining. This will affect adversely the FAO field programmes especially when increased support for these programmes is required in fulfilment of various objectives of FAO in the eradication of hunger and malnutrition. Therefore, we in Liberia strongly recommend that the Director-General be empowered to approach UNDP to increase support for field programmes.
E. O. BURNS (Australia): Mr. Chairman, we would like to commend the Director-General for his efforts to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Organization.
Australia as a significant contributor to the Regular Budget, is naturally interested in seeing that waste is minimised and effort directed to priority areas.
We agree with the Director-General that the evaluation of the Regular Programme should be a continuous process of internal assessment concerning the entire spectrum of FAO's technical, economic and development support activities.
As the Director-General points out, with such a wide and complex undertaking, it is prudent to begin cautiously, maintain flexibility in approach, and adopt simple and practical methods.
Our examination of the document indicates that those principles have been well understood and applied, and we would like to congratulate all staff associated with the Review.
Of course, it would be surprising if the format of a new Review document of this nature did not give rise to some constructive comment.
We note a certain similarity between the Review's assessment of results and the sections dealing with Progress Made contained in the Programme of Work and Budget 1980/81 but we understand that this problem is recognized and that remedies are under consideration.
It would be useful if future reviews could concentrate more on in-depth reviews of programmes.
These should focus in particular on the extent of achievement and impact, with added reference to the efficiency of implementation.
In general, therefore, we would like to see a deepening of the analytical and feedback value of the document.
In the interests of achieving an efficient and informative review procedure, FAO should, we believe, to the extent practicable achieve standardization of its review methods and procedures.
There is no substitute for well thought out inspection procedures, which allow for comprehensive and objective analyses and result in clear action-oriented statements aimed at identifying inadequacies and shortcomings.
On the other hand, of course, care should be taken to ensure that review and evaluation functions do not absorb a disproportionate share of total resources; and that appropriate use is made of the technique of random checks.
We would not wish these suggestions to be interpreted as serious criticism of the report. Our reaction to the Report, overall, is favourable.
F. E. K. CHANDLER (Canada): I would, like others congratulate the Secretariat on the preparation of the Review of the Regular Programme for 1978/79 and I fhave a few general comments to make.
My delegation considers that a good start has been made by FAO in instituting this system of evaluation. The overall exercise brings together the Review of the Regular Programme, the Review of the Field Programmes, the Medium Term Objectives and the Programme of Work and Budget. We agree with the Director-General in his foreword when he says that the work carried out under the Regular Budget is not
easily amenable for systematic and objective evaluation. An important response to this circumstance is that taken by the Director-General. He has placed responsibilities for monitoring and evaluation of the Regular Programme activities directly on the heads of departments, division directors and their staff. It is our view that governments in the developing countries where the activities take place must also develop their own means to judge the performance and impact of agency programmes as they relate to various objectives. The objectives to be considered are those which FAO has developed at the countries and the national objectives of the developing countries.
The introduction to the Review points to the similarities between the Review's assessment of results and the section dealing with progress made and contained in the Programme of Work and Budget for 1980/81. It concludes that the Conference may find material in the budget to be superfaluous. We do not find this duplication to be a problem at this point in time. While one must consider the cost of including such material in the budget, it is important to have it there since not all who read the budget document are as familiar with the wide experience of FAO's Programmes as is the Secretariat.
The introduction also points to conceptual problems as well as a constraint on the analytical content of the Review of Field Programmes and the Review of Regular Programmes. It is suggested that these two Reviews may be combined into a single document and that this might enhance the scope and depth of the evaluation of both.
My first impression is that to the extent possible, the Secretariat should Keep the evaluations of both Programmes separate from each other. The question is not one of a single document or two, but one of using the results of a valuation for guides for a future programme. The needs of the Conference are perhaps best served by two clearly differentiating evaluations which identify the use of resources in each Programme, and to the extent possible the results achieved in each.
Many other delegations have commented on the various Programmes, so I will refrain from doing so or covering a wide gambit, and restrict myself to two points. The first is the evaluation of the sub-programme of Food Information System, also referred to as a Global Information in Early Warning System of Food and Agriculture. In the view of my delegation this Programme is a useful FAO endeavour. Several major constraints however, do exist. There is a weakness in the quality of data received, particularly from many countries who are prone to suffer food shortages, and this puts restraints on analytical results, results of incomplete country coverage. A number of significant producing consumer countries do not participate in the Programme. It has been recommended that greater priority be placed on monitoring potential food emergency situations in the immediate future, thus down-playing a food aspect of the Programme. We hope that these major constraints can be overcome, and we support the direction proposed for this Programme.
As a last point, I would like to mention a question which, although it might be a problem for agricultural development rather than a problem of nutrition, is the question of mal-distribution, but it is critical for any improvement in nutrition to overcome this problem and we would like to see emphasis given in the Work Programmes in this regard.
MOHD. ZUKI BIN HAJI KAMALUDDIN (Malaysia): Malaysia would like to congratulate FAO in its efforts in producing Documents C 79/8 - Review of the Regular Programme - which is before us. In general, we are in agreement with the format adopted in preparing the Review. However, we have one humble suggestion to make which we believe can improve the presentation of future Reviews. Our suggestion relates to the need to have reliable Quantitative measures for monitoring and evaluation. The key word is quantitative. On the other hand, we must not forget about the qualitative aspect of the Review, which is also necessary and important in its own right. What we would like to see is a beautiful marriage between the quantitative and the qualitative aspects of the Review of the Regular Programme in the next biennial session of this Conference.
The use of appropriate quantitative measures in monitoring and evaluation would enable a meaningful assessment to be made about the various programmes. The quantitative measures Malaysia have in mind are far broader based than just the value of assistance provided or granted under each programme. We would like to see the inclusion inter alia of such measures as impact on the beneficiaries, rate of increase in output, and rate of adoption of a particular technique.
If FAO has not yet developed such measures, perhaps the Organization would consider liaising or cooperating with other international agencies in the development of such measures in the very near future.
Malaysia's particular concern about the lack of quantitative measures used for monitoring and evaluating the programmes of the regular budget is derived from the implementation of the WCARRD's programme of action. FAO, as the lead agency for the implementation of this programme of action, must be ready with the necessary and appropriate quantitative measures. Malaysia recently participated in the Inter-Country Consultation and the Implementation of the First Phase of the Follow-Up Action on WCARRD which was organized by the FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Far East in Bangkok. During the consultations, many of the participating countries requested FAO to help them carry out their WCARRD commitments regarding monitoring and evaluation. If FAO were to respond to this request, it must develop the required techniques and methodology.
Let me now say a few words about some of the programmes. Malaysia is of the opinion that while the preparation of global maps on various topics such as soil erosion and irrigation potential has merits in itself, the need is greater and would be more relevant to developing countries if FAO were to concentrate its efforts and attention on preparing detailed maps relating to the natural resources and problems of the developing countries. There is an escalating demand for such maps to be used in the planning of development projects. We are, indeed, pleased to note that this has been done in a few countries, and we hope that this work will be extended at a faster rate to cover more developing countries.
FAO should be congratulated on the development and preparation of a questionnaire on production statistics tailored for individual countries. These have facilitated the work of the cooperating national agencies in completing the questionnaires, but these have not produced the number of requests for data and information from other commissions of FAO. The myriad number of questionnaires received by national agencies has led to a rather unnecessary increase in the workload of these agencies, an increase which is affecting the more urgent work of the development planning carried out by their limited trained personnel. Perhaps FAO might wish to review the entire system of data collection so that the statistical requirements of the Organization and its committees and commissions are satisfied through a single questionnaire.
Malaysia is pleased to note that agriculture and inland fisheries are to be given due consideration. We have recognized the importance and the impact that the development of projects in agriculture and inland fisheries will have on the income of the rural people, so much so that agriculture and inland fisheries will be a major programme in our national agricultural policy which is now being drafted.
As our Minister of Agriculture stated to the Plenary Session, Malaysia hopes that the implementation of the EEZ programme will not overshadow or subordinate the continued progress of the FAO programme for the development of agriculture and inland fisheries.
On the subject of fisheries, Malaysia noted that the topic "economics of fishing" has not been given its due recognition. At present this topic has not been included in the various programmes of the Fisheries Department of FAO. Malaysia is certain tht the inclusion of the economic aspects of the fishing industry will enable an evaluation of the programmes to be made more meaningful.
Finally, Malaysia would like to suggest to FAO that it should be more selective in its choice of activities for inclusion in the in-depth review section of document C 79/8. The items selected in the present Review no doubt reflect a cross-section of the activities of the Regular Programme of FAO. However, it would have improved the in-depth review if more important and relevant activities were chosen for a first presentation. Malaysia would like the present method to be continued before any decision is taken on the need for an independent evaluation of the Regular Programme. This is because FAO should be given an opportunity to improve further on its efforts.
G. NIELSEN (Denmark): My delegation would like to concentrate our remarks on the Seed Improvement and Development Programme. We think the programme can play an important role in rural development in line with the recommendations of the WCARRD Conference. As the programme expands, it is necessary to ensure an integrated approach where the Seed Programme is supporting other efforts and is in line with an overall strategy for agricultural and rural developments.
Let me illustrate what I mean by pointing to page 113, paragraph 4. 19, where it says that the initiative was taken to establish up to now 12 permanent national seed production and training centres, and it is mentioned that these are used on a continuing basis for short-term courses and in-service training. My delegation is of the opinion that such production and training should be done within the already existing framework, so far as is possible.
The strength of specific programmes such as this is that they can be very precise in their work, but their long-term impact can be hampered if they become separate programmes. They depend on training centres and other programmes for part of their work, so we do not regret what is said on page 116, paragraph 4. 32, where it says "Because of financial and staff limitations, the establishment of new production and training centres needs to be discouraged and preference given to the strengthening of existing ones. "
If, as I hope, that means that seed production and training projects in the future will be encouraged in connexion with already existing institutions, this is a sound development. So if FAO is able to overcome the financial and staff limitations, it is our hope that more time will be devoted to work on the integration into existing institutions.
Finally, pointing to paragraph 4. 34 on page 117, I should like to mention that Denmark has indicated to FAO that in the future we intend to support this programme on what is called in the document a piecemeal basis. We strongly believe that this programme can develop as a sound programme without a fund of its own, just as has been the case with the Fertilizer Programme.
J. R. GOMEZ RICAÑO (Cuba): Gracias, Sr. Presidente. En primer lugar, desearíamos felicitar a la Secretaría por la valiosa introducción que nos ha ofrecido de la evaluación del Programa Ordinario. Por otra parte nuestra delegación ha seguido con interés las intervenciones de los delegados de los diferentes países, que se han referido aquí a los diversos aspectos que contiene el Documento C 79/8. En nuestra opinion, durante el Bienio que está proximo a terminar, la FAO, acatando el dictamen del Comité de Montes, es una Conferencia que concentra acertadamente los recursos del Programa ordinario en esferas de vital importancia para lograr avances en la rama forestal de los países, sobre todo los subdesarro-llados. Tanto la forma de evaluación, como la estructura, forma y contenido del Documento son aceptables, pero nos parece que debe llamarse la atención sobre la necesidad de disponer de mayor información y más tiempo para que la evaluación que se ofrezca en el proximo período de sesiones de la Conferencia sea más completa y profunda. Igualmente sería util reunir en un solo documento el análisis comparativo de la evaluación de los programas ordinarios y del Programa de equipo, no solo para eliminar repeticiones, sino para hacer más comprensible la labor llevada a cabo.
Por otra parte, a través del análisis del Documento, nos percatamos del singular impacto que tiene en un país el Programa Genético referido a montes, donde se obtuvieron importantes logros y tiene subpro-gramas de recursos forestales, industrias forestales e instituciones de planificación estadística de comercios forestales. El Programa de Cooperación Técnica ha demostrado su gran eficacia en la rápida solución de problemas diversos surgidos en los países beneficiarios y que han significado mejorar una cosecha, mitigar el hambre ante los fenómenos naturales, etc. Al reconocer esto debemos decir que al PTC se le debe dar una mayor flexibilidad en lo referente a la problemática que compete a la FAO para conceder ayudas ante catástrofes naturales o para prevenir posibles calamidades en los cultivos en todos los países de que se trate. Y lo mismo podemos decir de los programas de cooperación técnica. La FAO debe hacer todo lo posible para que se aumenten los fondos de este Programa, pues realmente constituye una ayuda concreta a los países que la soliciten. Igualmente podemos decir del Programa de Inversiones que se prevé para el próximo Bienio, inversiones que son insuficientes para hacer frente a la variada y compleja necesidad de los países subdesarrollados.
Sobre el valor que ha significado para los países miembros toda la ayuda que han recibido del Director General de la FAO, poco hay que añadir, como no sea sugerir que se aumenten sus poderes administrativos y económicos y que los pedidos que se reciban de los países interesados se promuevan y ejecuten lo más rápidamente posible.
Estamos de acuerdo en que se mantengan las oficinas regionales, pero sólo para aquellas cuestiones de carácter global que incidan sobre toda la región. No hay duda de que todo lo que atañe a este capítulo es de gran importancia y todo lo que se aporte constituirá un gran apoyo, en aras a conseguir un mejor funcionamiento de todos los órganos de la FAO, obteniendo con ello los mejores resultados, con vistas también a una mejor centralización.
Finalmente, vemos muy bien los servicios que se han prestado a los países a través del Programa, capítulo IV, titulado "Mejoramiento y desarrollo de semillas y recursos genéticos", dada su gran importancia para el aumento de la producción agropecuaria y forestal, para lo que sugerimos se dediquen mayores recursos financieros a dichos servicios en el Bienio 1980-81.
B. O. JOBE (The Gambia): First of all, I would wish, like previous speakers, to begin by congratulating the Secretary-General and his staff for giving us the most informative document C 79/8 which not only gave us a general over-view of the activities of the Organization but also a positive and concrete picture of what the Organization has been doing over the years. My delegation endorses the general concept reflected in the document. My delegation however would wish to dwell briefly on three points.
Firstly, my delegation would wish to lend its support to the previous delegations who have already opposed dividing the regular and field divisions as these are inextricably linked. This will alienate criticism but will give a more comprehensive document. On this point I wish to endorse the views expressed by the delegate of Switzerland on the production of a single report to cover both the regular and the field programmes.
My second point is on independent evaluation. I wish to join delegates from all the developing countries who have pointed out that there is no need under present circumstances to establish such a procedure. In my humble view not only is it too early in the day to establish such a process but it would appear to my delegation that it invites duplication of effort vis-a-vis the evaluation process, and we have not yet been advised of the magnitude of the costs involved.
O. C. P. EVANS (United Kingdom): I want to talk specifically about the second part of this very important and valuable document. Indeed we welcome it and hope that the systematic evaluation and information on these various programmes will continue in the future.
In regard to Seed Improvement and Development, Chapter 4, there is no doubt of the beneficial effect of high-quality seed of improved and adapted varieties, therefore we fully support SIDP programme.
The provision of planting material for breeding selection and bulking up programme is valuable, while more importance should be placed on the use of improved seed together with factors that maximize those effects. As an evaluation exercise, Chapter 4 does not give many figures with which to judge success. It might help the presentation to divide its activities into research, production and training. Unfortunately no figures are given where progress can be measured, such as the number of projects, or the amount of seeds distributed. Neither can we rightly from the start fully subscribe to the basic premise on which this chapter is based. Paragraph 4. 1 states "the use of good quality seed, associated with an adequate supply of water and fertilizers, is the quickest and most rewarding way of increasing crop production and productivity. " Unless basic management levels, fertilizers, time of planting and weeding, to mention a few points, are adequate, the use of good seed will not bring the required return. Getting these factors right alone can increase yield at very little cost.
In the Objectives, the identification of best varieties and promising local varieties suggests a large research component; but does not indicate whether the funds for this research come from the regular programme.
We fully endorse the statement made in Design for Implementation that improving technical infrastructure for furthering the release of varieties is most essential. This extension element needs stressing as the initial work is valueless without successful dissemination.
We fully endorse and welcome the establishment of the centres which are mentioned in paragraph 4. 19 but indeed it would have helped to know where these centres are and how successful they are in improving production skills.
We endorse in particular paragraph 4·24, Progress and Implementation, because this is the only part of the whole section where results are quoted. At least for that aspect alone it remains quite significant.
It would be of interest under the Assessment of Achievement and Impact to have a break-down of seed supply to each facet providing evaluation of programmes of provision of seed and planting material referred to in paragraph 4. 30, as clearly the success of the programme lies in the ratio between each in each country concerned. In Issues for the Future the integration of improved seed with other management techniques goes without saying, although liaison, perhaps, rather than integration between SIDF and Genetic Resources would be better. The umbrella type arrangements are like asking somebody to buy something without knowledge of the product. This may be all right for the donors who do not have the appropriate expertise, but for those that do it is not satisfying. There is a step in the right direction quoted in paragraph 4. 36 that recently an attempt was made to send field missions to assess the impact on training in food production in countries programmes where seed improvement activities were first established. We must ask however why limit it to the effects of training, why not investigate the use of new and improved seed sources in breeding; and selection on production.
Turning to Genetic Resources, Chapter 5, this programme can clearly be of great value to breeders in
particular and agriculture in general and is welcomed and indeed encouraged. Unlike the previous programme it is almost impossible to evaluate performance directly at the present time. The international aspect of this work cannot be over-emphasized, and the success of the programme depends on the free exchange of information and material. The establishment of regional or national gene banks is necessary but should not be allowed to cloud the international aspects of this programme. The creation of gene banks on crop basis at certain centres, for example, an International Institute, would be of great value.
In the section on Agricultural Research aspects of the budget for the regular programme 4 percent is for research and most of this is spent in the research support programme divided into three sections -research development, atomic energy and CARIS.
Under Research Development the FAO supports the CGIAR system and has strengthened the national research systems of seven countries (not named in the review). In a further four countries FAO has improved research institutions but again the countries and institutions are not mentioned. No information is given to enable us in this section to assess the effectiveness of these programmes. We are however satisfied with the work within the CGIAR system because of our intimate involvement with it, and fully endorse FAO to continue to provide support. We are however, sceptical of the large programme under atomic energy, and have said so before, as much of the work seems geared to justifying the existence of this agricultural programme. CARIS still struggles along while existing publications are incomplete and add little to other information systems such as the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureau. On balance, FAO is not geared to carry out operational research, and we believe it should continue to support the CGIAR system and continue with CARIS but we need more evidence that its programmes under development are effective for endorsing research continuation.
In the last chapter 8, on Food Information System, this programme is ahead of its time but with improved technology, agro-meteorology and remote sensing and satellite imagery of information, should increase and therefore the ability to produce information and forecasts is likely to need assistance. The evaluation does not under-estimate the problems and difficulties it faces. This is a field where FAO as an international organization can operate more successfully as it is accepted by countries of differing political persuasion without major reservation. Although difficult to evaluate in precise terms, the programme should be regarded as a means to enable FAO to take a more effective part in organising world food distribution.
D. CRUMP (New Zealand): Our delegation would like to compliment the Secretariat on the production of the Review of the Regular Programme 1978/79 Document C 79/8· We support the concept of review and evaluation even though euch an evaluation is not easy to achieve. We would support the mixture of the evaluation methods used in producing this review, including the use of self-evaluation. The general methods adopted in presenting the review are, we think, most appropriate. There is the systematic presentation of objectives, achievement and impact and links with other programmes and issues for the future.
We were interested in all the aspects of the Review but especially pleased with the section on seed improvement and development selected for intensive study. One of the priorities of the New Zealand aid programme has been in the field of technology. A seed technology centre has been established by New Zealand at Massey University. At this centre work was especially for the purpose of training seed technologists in Asian and Pacific countries.
The review of Seed Technology and Development will assist us in re--assessing our own programme for the future.
We are not in total agreement with the Directory-General's suggestion that both the field programme and the regular programme might be reviewed in a single report. We feel that a single report may tend to mask the strengths, and weaknesses that are now apparent in the two reports. We would rather have two separate reports as at present.
K. M. KHUDHEIR (IRAQ) (interpretation from Arabic): The delegation of my country would like to stress the importance of evaluation and of the review but we should be very cautious and we should like to give the following comments. The delegation endorses that the Organization should follow a much more effective system of evaluation through stressing the importance of exchanging information especially among the representatives of FAO and the coordination among the local personnel and the personnel in the same area, to consolidate the presentation of a better review for the countries concerned.
There is another important comment which is directly linked with the review. Since we see that the regional office in Cairo is paralysed for the time being we must not allocate any funds for this region unless this is shifted.
F. CHODDHURY (Bangladesh): First, one comment on Part 2, Chapter 4, Seed Improvement and Development Sub-Programme. My delegation recognizes the importance of good quality seed in increasing crop production. This is all the more significant in a food-deficit country like Bangladesh. We have been making consistantly hard efforts to double our food production within the 1980s, but we have many constraints in ensuring that a good and timely supply of good quality of seed to our farmers. As is well known most of our farmers are of small and medium levels and the small or marginal farmers constitute by far the greatest measure. So inadequacy of finance and institutioned arrangements are particularly felt by us in this regard. If the country is struck by a natural calamity like flood or cyclone or drought, the capacity of small farmers to hold grain to be used as seed is almost totally lost. So in our country, particularly for rice production the problem is not that much of developing high yields or pest-resistant variety of seed, because besides a number of E. D. varieties our Rice Results Institute has developed a number of good quality seeds which have proved very successful and encouraging for the future. Of course, I do not mean to say that we can relax our efforts in evolving better and better seed, but what I want to say is that whatever achievement has been made in the level already in the results of seed could not yet be fully utilized in the farmers' fields. So at this point in time we will need to find out suitable cultivators and help develop their holding diversity of good quality seed. We fully recognize FAO's efforts in this field through the Seed Implementation and Development Programme for the last six years.
In these four broad categories of programme we would call for paying more attention to countries situated like ours to increase financial and technical assistance in developing and improving storage and distribution of good quality seeds both at the national level as well as at the farmer's level.
Υ. H. AL-HABASITY (Yemen, Arab Republic of) (Interpretation from Arabic): Since I am taking the floor for the first time, allow me in the name of my country to extend our congratulations on your election to this important Committee.
My country supports fully the Programme of Work and Budget for 1980-81. As for the document on the Review of the Regular Programme, I would like to second what has been said by the distinguished delegation of Iraq. We would like to commend the Director-General, Dr. Eduoard Saouma and his associates for the commendable efforts extended in order to achieve the lofty and noble goals for which our Organization, FAO, has been established.
So long as the Regional Office in Cairo is paralyzed and does not serve the countries of the region, we do not find that there is any need to allocate any funds in the budget for this Regional Office until it is moved to another location. It is worthy of note that my government has stated that we give the Director-General the necessary executive mandate to take these measures. My colleague from Iraq has previously suggested the establishment of the International Iraqui Bank for development without any interest, and we shall give loans to developing countries in their development efforts, and we should support this point of view.
Sra. Doña M. SPEELMANS ARENAS (Venezuela): La delegación de Venezuela está de acuerdo, en líneas generales, con el análisis programático que se hace en el documento C 79/8.
Sin embargo, quisiera de nuevo recalcar la importancia de algunos temas y programas de la Organización.
Recalcamos la importancia de la conservación de los recursos naturales renovables, de la necesidad de su clasificación y de la importancia de la utilización de la teledetección como instrumento idoneo para la rápida ordenación de los suelos y recursos naturales renovables de los países en desarrollo.
Como también favorecemos una utilización más amplia de los medios audiovisuales y de la radio en la transmisión de los conocimientos.
Pensamos además que es imperativo dirigir las políticas y programas de la FAO hacia las mujeres y los jóvenes en las zonas rurales, ya que, juntos, componen las tres cuartas partes de los recursos humanos que los países en desarrollo disponen.
Igual importancia damos a la introducción más amplia de las pequeñas industrias y de transformación en el sector forestal, como medida para adaptar este sector a la dinámica del factor economico de cada país.
H. SY MOUSSA (Mauritanie): Ma délégation a examiné avec attention le Programme ordinaire concernant les activités de la FAO dans le domaine des peches, notamment le chapitre VII du document C 79/8. Mon pays dispose d'une énorme potentialité halieutique dont la mise en valeur constitue notre préoccupation, surtout dans la période actuelle que traversent les Etats du Sahel.
Tout programme de mise en valeur suppose par l'Etat une connaissance de l'état actuel de nos ressources. Nous attirons l'attention de la FAO sur les difficultés rencontrées par nos Etats dans la collecte des données statistiques, le traitement des données, la diffusion de l'information.
Nous souhaitons, dans le cadre des activités des deux années à venir, que l'accent soit mis davantage sur l'aide à accorder pour la mise en place des systèmes de collecte des données et des moyens de traitement. Nous vous faisons part de notre préoccupation de voir la région ouest-africaine dotée d'un Centre de données d'information statistiques. A cet effet, notre pays est disposé à abriter la banque de données et d'informations statistiques dans l'enceinte de notre Centre national de recherches océanographiques, l'un des plus importants de la cote ouest-africaine,
A. M. F. FERNANDO (Sri Lanka): We have listened with interest to the many speakers that have preceeded us both in the morning and this afternoon, and I wish particularly to comment on the document that is before us, that is 79/8. Many speakers have spoken of the importance of this document and I think we should congratulate the Secretariat for bringing this document out for the first time. Of course, this being the first analysis of the Review of such programmes I think we should avoid two factors; one is overlapping and the second the cost factor. Many delegations have spoken on the various aspects, agriculture, fisheries and forestry. Some have stressed the seed improvement and development programme; some have stressed the aspect of fertilizers; some on water irrigation and others on post harvest losses. We would like a combination of all the elements of FAO because when we think of FAO we think only of food and agriculture whereas I think equal attention should be given both in the regular and the feed programme to fisheries and forestry.
There are two other aspects I would like to speak on and which have again been mentioned by other delegates, one is the Technical Cooperation Programme which should be improved, and the other is the fact of investment. Of course we notice that in such programmes there is always a time lag between the formulation of the programme and the operation. We would also like to stress in the activities the importance of the small farmer and the small fisherman.
Finally, we notice that this review is based either on the programme and activity or on activity basis. We wonder whether it could not be improved if it was accounted on a country basis.
One final comment, that is we have been taking up in this Commission the Programme of Work and Budget as the first item. My suggestion is that the regular food programme might be taken up before the budget because then we would be in a position to comment as we know what has been happening in the previous biennium.
I hope that will receive the attention of the Secretariat.
S. TAZI (Maroc) (interprétation de l'arabe): On a beaucoup parlé ce matin, au cours des interventions que nous avons entendues, des programmes d'évaluation de la FAO. Si cette évaluation est faite par les divers bureaux régionaux et par le Siège, et également par des étrangers, par des évaluateurs étrangers en quelque sorte, ma délégation ne voit pas de contradiction entre l'un et l'autre. Ce qui est essentiel, ce n'est pas de comparer une méthode à une autre, mais bien plutôt de comparer des méthodologies d'évaluation. Nous pensons qu'une évaluation interne devrait se faire de manière continue et être appliquée en collaboration avec ceux qui exécutent les divers projets et programmes. En d'autres termes, nous devrions abandonner peu à peu l'évaluation des documents et aller sur le terrain pour évaluer les programmes; ne pas le faire d'après des documents mais aller trouver les cultivateurs et apprendre d'eux comment leur vie personnelle est affectée par les programmes que l'on applique autour d'eux. Et cependant, une évaluation appropriée pourrait être améliorée indépendamment de l'Organisation, en ce sens que cette évaluation devrait être neutre et objective. Mais, cette évaluation, il ne faudrait pas qu'elle soit coûteuse, et elle ne devrait pas non plus être liée aux fluctuations du budget. Nous devrions plutôt nous consacrer à la mise en oeuvre et à l'amélioration des programmes fondamentaux qui sont la fonction première de notre Organisation.
Avec votre autorisation, la délégation du Maroc estime que la FAO devrait avoir un système de suivi des diverses études et programmes préparés dans l'intérêt des divers Etats Membres. Nous estimons que la FAO, dans sa situation actuelle, ne peut pas toujours suivre et contrôler l'utilisation définitive de
nombreuses études régionales. Très souvent, au contraire, ces études mènent à la formulation, à l'élaboration de certains projets mais elles doivent être financées par d'autres organisations, ou par une organisation avec laquelle la FAO collabore, ou avec le Fonds international pour le développement agricole, par exemple, et en pareil cas la FAO peut et doit procéder à cette surveillance dans l'exécution des programmes, ou du moins essayer de savoir quels sont les services qui débouchent sur les projets. Si par exemple des projets ont été élaborés pour le financement international, ils doivent être suivis. Nous constatons au contraire qu'un grand nombre d'études et de programmes sont simplement laissés de coté, ne mènent pas à un projet véritablement mis en oeuvre et qui mérite un financement. Ceci est du malheureusement à la situation économique actuelle et à la nécessité de mobiliser toutes les ressources financières possibles, à un moment où nous savons que ces dernières diminuent d'année en année. Ajoutons encore les difficultés qui se présentent tant à l'échelon national qu'à l'échelon bilatéral pour la mobilisation de ces ressources. Si nous devons continuer à entasser ces études sur un rayon sans en tirer des projets d'application pratique, ceci est naturellement un gaspillage de fonds que l'on pourrait utiliser à d'autres projets plus utiles. C'est pourquoi il me semble inutile d'accumuler ces études sur nos régions; ce qu'il faut c'est procéder à un choix plus sagace de projets finançables véritablement et réalisables, et là je dois mentionner que la délégation du Maroc approuve également ce que l'Irak et le Yémen ont dit au sujet du Bureau régional pour le Proche Orient.
H. CARANDANG (Philippines): I think at this stage of the debate, I can be very brief. The Philippine delegation finds the Review of the Regular Programme useful. It gives the reader a better grasp of what FAO is doing, and a chance to see how FAO has been carrying out programmes by priorities over the past biennium, and with what degree of success. Of course, as has been said, evaluation is important but then there are other considerations. An evaluation can be so thorough and effective that it becomes too voluminous and extensive so that nobody has either the desire or the energy to read through the whole evaluation which invariably ends up in the dead file cabinets of our offices.
On the other hand, an evaluation could be so very simple that we would not really see how the evaluation had been faring. So before we make any decision on what kind of evaluation to make, since we are just beginning this experiment, I suggest that we have this kind of study every two years and a more in-depth study on a five year basis, which merits the support of many delegations.
I would like to say a few words regarding the Seed Improvement Programme. We find that the success of this programme depends on how a farming programme is carried out and the institutionalisation of the transfer technology to the people concerned who have to apply this. We find that the training programme has indeed been geared to transfer the technology and knowledge that is easily applicable to the different regions who are interested, and in spite of the difficulties mentioned in paragraph 4. 2 about the problem of setting up training centres, we see that some degree of success has been achieved in paragraphs 4. 18 and 4. 19 regarding the institutionalisation of the training programmes for the seed centre. We would just like to wish the programme more power and more success.
V. ISARANKURA (Thailand): First of all, the Thai delegation wishes to join previous speakers in congratulating the Secretariat on the preparation of the detailed and comprehensive document C 79/8·
As a developing country, Thailand has always been in favour of the TCP since its conception in 1976. The assistance which Thailand has benefited from under the categories of Emergency, Training, and Investment totalled $625 000.
In this respect, we wish to thank the Director-General and his assistant for South East Asia and the Far East regional office, as well as all the staff members concerned for their assistance, and in particular for their prompt action where it concerned emergencies.
It is our further hope that during this coming biennium our requests will be given due consideration and as prompt a reply as previously.
The Thai delegation wishes to draw the attention of this Commission in particular to page 60, para. 2. 12 in the English text of the review document on the strengthening of the TCP unit. Thailand strongly supports the proposal made under this item.
While endorsing the role the FAO regional office can play to help increase the productivity of the small farmers, as emphasized by the fourteenth session of the Regional Conference of Kuala Lampur last year, the Thai delegation also wishes to see the FAO, through its regional office, conducting studies on rural marketing with a view to finding ways of developing this important aspect of agricultural development which would greatly benefit our small farmers.
F. BREWSTER (Barbados): My delegation just wishes to make a few comments of a general nature. We feel that the document before this Commission is a very good beginning to a series of work and information documents which will be of great help to delegates.
I would like to join other delegations in congratulating the Secretariat on producing this valuable document, C 79/8. Evaluation is an exercise which every Organization must include in its programmes if it is to remain dynamic. My delegation feels that the Director-General's objective of stimulating wide ranging comment on his new initiative has been achieved, and no doubt the Secretariat will be in a very strong position for the future to produce a better document.
My delegation supports the mixed approach to this evaluation exercise. We feel that the internal review, together with inputs from member countries, is in the present circumstances the most appropriate evaluation procedure. However, this is not to rule out an external review where it is clear that this approach would be in the best interests of FAO.
On the matter of the merging of the two documents C 79/8 and C 79/4, my delegation feels that separate publications are required in these early stages, and the delegate of New Zealand has made the point quite lucidly on this matter.
My delegation just wishes to endorse in a general way the document before us.
A. LOVATO (Observer for International Seed Testing Association): In order to assist you in the very difficult task of evaluating the work of FAO I would like to contribute by describing some features of the very close collaboration between the FAO Seed Improvement and Development Programme and ISTA.
At the request of the FAO Seed Programme, ISTA has been compiling a list of experts willing to serve in FAO projects. I understand that presently more than 20 ISTA experts from both developing and developed countries are serving on FAO assignments. ISTA is also assisting FAO in developing practical guidelines on seed testing, and several ISTA experts from both developing and developed countries assisted daring the last year in the implementation of national and regional training courses.
Finally, ISTA has been setting up a special expert group to advise FAO on the modernization of the seed laboratory at FAO headquarters. We are very happy to render such assistance, since it helps in the introduction of ISTA methods and rules properly to identify the quality of seeds offered to farmers. In this way ISTA is able to contribute, through FAO, to increasing crop production.
R. SAAD-EL-DINE (Syria) (interpretation from Arabic): In my turn, I wish to join all those who have preceded me in order to pay tribute to the considerable efforts made by the Secretariat in the preparation of document C 79/8 which reviews the biennial programmes for the year 1978-79· These programmes, particularly the main programme 2. 1, could be considered one of the main technical FAO programmes, in addition to the fact that this document was prepared effectively and with accuracy which is appreciated.
However, we wish to refer to the following points. On page 2 of the Arabic translation under "Natural Resources", in the para. 1. 7 on "Technical Assistance" it says that the Soil Map of the World was prepared in 1978 which can detemine the seed resources and their potential ·
As this work was gigantic, the definition of the soil potential is rather exaggerated because of the technical reasons connected with the map itself. I hope that such plans could be implemented at a regional level through the remote sensing within the framework of the Organization for the years 1981-82, considering the high importance of this project and the effective plan for deriving benefit from it.
My second point refers to sub-programmes such as the experiments for improved seeds and minerological resources. The results of these tests will not go beyond the research centres unless they are used by fanners and unless agricultural extension programmes transfer these seeds to the farmers, for extension programmes should be within the overall programmes of the FAO for the years 1981-82.
As for the regional office programmes, in spite of their importance as an effective instrument of decentralization for the benefit of members, the allocation of funds to all these offices will remain frozen and ineffective, and will be just a mere freezing of the Organization's funds.
This applies to the Near East Regional Office whose activities are now frozen, and this leads me to mention that my delegation supports all delegations in not allocating further funds to that regional office before a decision is taken for the transfer of its headquarters.
CHAIRMAN: First of all I want to thank all the delegations, there have been nearly 16 interventions today and I want to thank all of them for the valuable comments they have made.
Before I request Mr. West to intervene and then Dr. Bommer, Mrs. Marin and then officers of FAO, I would only like to refer to two groups of problems. You have welcomed such a review, and have paid well-deserved compliments to FAO staff.
There has, however, been a divergence of opinion about the methodology of review, and the relative importance of external versus internal reviews and the number of reviews one should make, whether it should be done jointly by FAO and the country concerned, whether it is a country programme, and so on, and I am sure we will hear the views of the Secretariat about that.
All I would like to say is in any dynamic organization, by and large, we have to leave it to the administration to decide at any particular point of time what kind of review is best suited to achieve the objectives. We have to steer clear of two possibilities. One is complacency in action and in breeding arising from purely internal evaluations which may or may not be very critical; and on the other hand, too many external evaluations which will keep the staff busy with paperwork, because every external evaluation means preparation of documents and so on. I have seen situations where there are far too many reviews and evaluations and where there is practically paralysis due to analysis and one has to avoid that kind of situation also.
Therefore, between the two ends of the spectrum of an in-breeding situation with a situation where the staff are wholly employed with providing documents for the new teams, one has to strike a balance in order to achieve the purpose of the operation and go on moving forward. I am sure the officers of FAO would give serious thought and will also give us the benefit of their views on the matter.
There have been a number of comments on the contents of the Programme, its format, its methods of presentation, whether the field programmes and field reviews and regular programmes reviews should be one document or two different documents, or whether Part I and Part II of this document should be printed separately and so on. A large number of views have been expressed by delegations, which I am sure at the time of the preparation of the next review the Organization would certainly take into consideration.
I want to make some remarks about one section which leaves issues for the future. I am doing this not for the purpose of getting any immediate reaction from the officers of the Secretariat, I do not want a response immediately to some of the points I am going to make, but I do think for the sake of the record it is important that certain additional issues to those which have already been referred to by distinguished delegates should be mentioned.
I would first take up the area of socio-economic research. Some delegates have made points about the importance of the relevant socio-economic research as an aid to policy formulation, and after all one of the purposes of FAO is to assist, particularly, developing countries in evolving public policies which can keep agriculture moving.
Here I feel not enough adequate attention is being paid to three issues.
The first is a more detailed sector-wise constraints analysis, socio-economic constraints, the institutional inadequancies, and of course the technological constraints and the public policy constraints. This is needed for making a particular analysis of why there is a gap between potential and actual farm aids. Far too often there are too many generalizations. I have seen farming books written by many people where there are sweeping generalizations. One does not understand why there is a rapid progress in wheat production, with zero technology, and on the other hand there has not been the same kind of progress with a similar technology in the production of rice. People do give sweeping answers as to why this has happened.
This needs a detailed socio-economic analysis, and this cannot be done by FAO alone, but will have to be done through the national agencies, but FAO could stimulate the relevant socio-economic research for understanding the size of the gap under a particular agro-ecological condition- the gap and the constraints responsible for it.
Simultaneously when I emphasis constraints as we all know in many developing countries there are institutional inadequacies for assisting numerous small farmers, often with fragmented holdings, and I think a number of speakers just a little while ago referred to it, are responsibile. What is the answer? There is no use is saying "Help the small farmer". It is essential to help the small farmer with some subsidies, but quite frequently what he needs more is services which can help him to overcome the handicaps of the small farm and maximise the benefits of intensive agriculture which open up for small farms. Let me give you one exmple of an institutional solution to a complex problem.
Rice has frequently been mentioned as an important area for research by FAO and for strengthening the staff, but one problem in rice cultivation is the fact that you need many varieties even in an area depending on the proper sequence of the farm, whether one is on the higher side of a relator or on the lower side of a developing water stagnatiion, water starvation and so on, and one should be helping small farmers to crop the correct variety of rice from a community nursery programme - nurseries from which seedlings are distributed, not seeds but seedlings of the right variety so that they can be transplanted.
I will just give one example of an institutional approach to a complex social problem arising from land ownership, the size of the holdings and co on. Unless mors thought is given to this, simple lip service to small farmers in saying they are very important will not be of much help. This is where the socio-economic group will have to carry out simple case studies and see for example where some countries have made tremendous progress in the production, of rice in the last ten years, but many other countries have stagnated from the time the FAO established an international rice commission. Why is it so? What are the reasons? And so on. Somewhat deeper analytical work will have to be done by an international socio-economic group.
A second point about the futurology - or looking to the future - is that there is a reference in the report to the global irrigation study as an input to the document on Agriculture in the Year 2000. In order to be useful, this global irrigation study should give information, though I do not know the scope of this study, but I believe it is important that this particular study also contains two priority elements. One is the energy requirements for achieving an irrigation target, particularly the surface water and lift irrigation sources and so on. The energy requirements quite frequently become a major impediment in getting the benefit from any available water source, so there is some idea to enable those countries where there is an irrigation potential projected to have at least a macro- level analysis of the energy requirements of pumping that water and taking advantage of that water, unless it is surface water flowing through gradient sources, which is necessary.
The second point which emerged at the meeting taken by Dr. Brommer this morning to discuss water supply in drought-affected areas is a question of developing the water security plan, to complement the food security plan. It is particularly important in arid and semi-arid areas, but I think an irrigation study of the water required for crops, the water required for farm animals and human beings will have to he given some consideration.
The third aspect I want to deal with is the section dealing with crops.
Many delegates have already made important comments, but I feel that the whole development of this analytical report on crop improvement will have to deal with two aspects. One of course is raising the ceiling of yield further, the high-yielding varieties as they are called. How do you raise the ceiling?
The other very important aspect is the stability of production. One aspect of stability is dealt with. For example, horizontal resistance, the enduring form of resistenee is dealt with, integrated pest management is dealt with, and some delegates emphasise these but if you take variable grain production from year to year on a shorter term basis, there are three important factors which control availability. Pest and disease impediments is one. The other is the variability due to weather, through floods, typhoons, cyclones, etc., and the third, of course, is public policies. Public policies may stimulate or retard production, as we all know. We know price incentives have promoted production, and so on.
I feel that the crop improvement programme will have to place considerable emphasis on the high yeld and high stability technology, as stability of performance is as important as increased yield, otherwise the risk will be very high since most countries do not have an insurance plan and small farmers are not insulated against crop failure. Very few countries have an insurance programme. Therefore the stability aspect will have to be dealt with in detail, and the step being taken to narrow the difference between the potential, actual and experimental yield - I use the words here of potential and actual farm yield, but the experimental yield is actually the duty of the crop improvement programme.
I want to say a word about post-harvest losses technology. Delegates have rightly welcomed this programme, and I feel also that it is very important that we must say what we produce. But post-harvest technology programmes, particularly cutting down on food losses, have rightly placed considerable stress on quantitative losses, say through pest damage and so on, but the qualitative deterioration during storage through afrotoxin production and various micro-toxins is, in fact, one of the most serious problems in many countries of Asia which have a high humidity and high rainfall, inadequate drying and afrotoxins. And this affects the poorer section of the community more because, as you can see in many poor countries, if you go to a place where they sell eatables, the rotten fruit, the rotten banana, will be sold cheaply and therefore the poor child which has little money in its pocket buys the rotten banana or the rotten fruit. There is not only this, there is inadequacy of calories or energy inadequacy, or the qualitative damage done to the liver. Many unknown liver ailments are now traced to the widespread prevalence of micro-toxins. It is not only in crops like paddy. In many of these areas micro-toxins are present in corn, and so on. So the qualitative aspects of food losses must receive as much emphasis as the quantitative losses which, because they are dramatic, because they can be seen, are immediately recognized. It is very important that this be taken care of.
The other aspect of the post-harvest technology work of FAO, in my view, which requires somewhat greater attention, is the problem of delivery systems. Food processing has been mentioned, storage and so on, but most methods of post-harvest technology or post-harvest processing escalate the costs of the products: they escalate costs of the product to a stage when the consumption base becomes very narrow, confined to the people. For example, in most developing countries perhaps 10 per cent of the population can afford canned or bottled fruit juice, because at the cost of the can or the bottle. Even here in Rome, with the packets of jam we have in our hotels, the packaging consumes more in energy than the energy which is used to produce the jam in nature. So modern post-harvest technology, in many cases, not only makes agriculture a negative energy-producing phenomenon, but also increases the cost. Do we only produce foodstuffs in developing countries for export? The common answer is that we immediately look for an export market, and the export market is, again, an affluent nation with already well-fed people.
Therefore, if we want to increase the home consumption of processed food we must have a technology of processing which is low cost and a delivery system which is low cost. For example, a vending machine where a person takes his own container to get the juice will immediately cut down the cost by half to the consumer.
I feel that FAO, as part of its Nutrition Programme must stimulate much more research on post-harvest technology techniques which are less-energy consuming and therefore less expensive, and secondly which can widen the consumer base for important processed food in the countries which produce them.
Next I come to a remark about animal health care. This has received considerable emphasis in the documentation, and many delegates have rightly welcomed the programmes for tripanosomiasis, tick-borne diseases, and so on. In this context, I should like to suggest to FAO through its regions offices they identify in each region a few of the major diseases where they can have action programmes of total eradication, I think the World Health Organization deserves great praise for having practically eliminated a serious malady like smallpox from the world by a systematic inmunization programme.
In many cases, whether it is foot-and-mouth disease, where Denmark has been helping many developing countries to produce vaccines, or rinderpest, or marax disease in poultry, wherever there is a dependable vaccine or preventive mechanism, I feel that FAO, through its regional offices, should take this up, because this can be done only on a regional basis. Some of these diseases go from one country to another, and there must be action on a systematic basis planned to eradicate the major diseases, not to control them but completely to eliminate them by systematic immunization.
I now come to a few comments on Part Two and the specific programmes which have been taken up for in-depth analysis. Several comments have been made on seed improvement and development. I should just like to add one or two more. There must be much more emphasis in training programmes on seed pathology. We find now, wherever the new technology high-yielding varieties are coming in, seed-borne diseases are spreading very fast. This is because of the centralized seed producing systems, and when they distribute the seed all over the country, when seed-borne diseases are present, particularly internal seed-borne diseases which are more difficult to control, they spread very rapidly. The International Centre for Seed Pathology in Copenhagen have been doing a tremendous amount of work in training people from developing nations on seed pathology. I believe that it is an area which requires added emphasis in the training programme, and what is important is that at the end of the training in each training programme there must be a little bit of in-built provision for giving to the trainee some essential equipment. For example, if he is going to do seed pathology he may need
a microscope. This may not make much sense to people from affluent countries, but sometimes even a simple microscope is absent in the place from which the trainee comes, so as a result when he goes back there is a prolonged gap in the utilization of his knowledge, and meanwhile he may even get changed to some other position.
Therefore, to be effective, these training programmes must be supported at the end of the training where appropriate. I do not say this applies everywhere, but there must be some financial provision to allow the trainee to take back with him some elementary but crucial and essential equipment with which he can immediately apply his knowledge. I have seen the difference between programmes which contain that small provision and those which do not, and there is a tremendous difference in efficacy.
The next point I should like to suggest under Seed Improvement and Development is a point I made earlier in the context of institutional procedures to overcome certain difficulties. In many developing countries, including my own, the seed development programmes are very slow in taking off, but I think we do have institutional procedures. For example, the Seed village concept, and how to organize the farmers in an area to become professional skilled seed producers, the small farmers, and so on. The institutional procedure necessary for a successful seed production programme is exceedingly important.
A third point is the need for incorporating in the Seed Improvement and Development Programmes an appropriate provision for taking full advantage of the social and economic strengths of a poor nation. In many of these countries, the finger skills of rural women really are remarkable. You have seen their handicrafts, and so on. They are enormously skilled, and this could be utilized very effectively in the Seed Improvement programme, but by and large rural women are by-passed in such programmes. Take the hybrid cottonseed industry in India: 100 per cent hand pollination is all done by illiterate women. Similarly, one can produce flowers, such as hybrid petunias which can be exported also.
What I am saying is that in the common syllabus one must tailor the training programme to maximize the social and economic strength of the area. Similarly, China now has gone into a big programme of raising a potato crop from two-sexual seeds, because in potatoes seed tuber production is very difficult and it is the source of many diseases, but the two -sexual seed looks like a tomato seed, and once you have developed a variety through the two -sexual seed which can be homogeneous, you can raise seedlings and transplant them. In other words, there must be a training programme so the trainees can explore new frontiers of seed technology by which they can optimize employment opportunities and diversify the employment base in those countries. This provides an enormous opportunity which we are missing by and large, and that is why I want to stress it.
Of course, many delegates, the last of whom was the United Kingdom delegate, have made a point about the crucial role of management, that is the crucial role of non-monetary inputs in addition to cash inputs, like fertilizers, and so on. Unless there is improved management where there is an optimum blend of non-monetary and cash inputs, our cost of production will be very high.
I must say a few words about Genetic Resources. We are very happy to read in Chapter Five about the progress of the programme. The International Board for Plan Genetic Resources deserves considerable praise for the work they have done in collaboration with FAO, but I think this is just a beginning, and there is need for greater urgency in the programme, take a crop like rice: it has been estimated by rice genetists that there are at least 100 000 different strains, distinct genetic strains, of rice in the world. The International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, which has done commendable work in rice collection, is now nearly 20 years olds. In the last 18 or 19 years they have been able to collect about one-third, that is 33 000 or so. So the task is still vast.
Meanwhile, in many of these countries where variability occurs there is a displacement of local cultivars with so-called improved varieties, so there has to be greater urgency in terms of collection and, of course, preservation. I should also like to suggest that FAO, in coordination with Unesco, should consider a programme of maintaining some of the centres of maximum variability of crops. The Biosphere Programme of Unesco, many countries have implemented, but there are also areas of considerable genetic diversity of important crops. What I am talking about is seed preservation, not only of their environment, not only the seeds in their cold storage, but the environment which has been responsible for the generation of considerable variability, and some kind of a gene sanctuary.
There are excellent opportunities, and if we miss them we simply forego a unique natural endowment, and I am sorry to say Unesco itself has not given much thought to the use of crop genetic centres in seed preservation centres. Take the Lake Chitikaka region in Peru-Bolivia, which has been a wonderful source of availability for potato solinum groups. All that area will disappear. Then rubber from Malaya and Sri Lanka. All of them got original rubber centuries ago. Then there is the Amazon belt in Brazil. In many of these areas I feel it will be too late if we do not have a programme such as the biosphere preserve programme for some important genetic source variability.
I am glad that FAO has also started a programme for animal genetic resources and tree genetic resources. These are exceedingly important. Therefore, the establishment of national gene banks, international storage reservoirs through international institutes and like the USDA Fort Collins set-up seed preservation in certain environments, these must all form part of a coordinated strategy of preserving for posterity the fruits of thousands of years of natural and, in some cases, human selection.
I want to make a mention of the Legislation Branch which deserves our compliments, in my view, for an outstanding performance. They have formerly mentioned the stress under which they are operating but the work they have done is impressive. They seemed a little discouraged in the last paragraph of their remarks. I make one request on behalf of the Legislation Branch that FAO should make a priority study of modem legislation for achieving even levels of productivity. There are productivity Acts in Sri Lanka for example which has a Minimum Productivity Act. These are designed to emphasize that an individual owner has every right to use the land effectively but no right to abuse the land and destroy its potential and fertility. There are many developing and developed countries which have different procedures. Take for example the abuse of land for brickmaking. In many lands and cities you find the land used indiscriminately for brickmaking, as construction grows, brickmaking goes up. One could utilise these opportunities into more detailed guidelines. So the optimum scientific use of land to achieve minimum productivity levels would minimise the gap between potential and actual use. This is an area of public policy, particularly in countries where land is not socialised or owned by the community but by numerous small peasants. The Legislation Branch could compile available information and develop guidelines for legislation on achieving new productivity.
Fish Data and statistics: We are happy this work has been taken up in a serious way. The Fish Statistics Division may also develop some sort of early-warning system for identifying areas of what I would call aquatic di ssectification - this term is used for the process which destroys or diminishes the political use of land. Similarly to my mind it could apply to the process which destroys the biological potential of water, inland or sea coast for pollution and so on. An early-warning system and data on fish catches would be valuable for countries in a position to put in gear aquatic dissectification; before it comes too expensive and too late to do anything about it.
Lastly, Food Information System. This has been rightly praised and welcomed by everyone, and is a valuable document out of FAO as part of the early-warning food information system. But there is a greater possibility here of linking up the food information system early warning with the time reaction system. There are two levels, one with the help of the World Meteorological Organization, FAO is a participant in its Applied Climate Services, and early warning can be followed up by timely action. Other aspects of the food information system which would be valuable are more detailed information on consumption and distribution trends, consumption in terms of use for animal products and general trends in consumption patterns and distribution.
Although we are all aware of the fact that in this area FAO depends upon feed-back national data systems which provide primary data which is fed into the FAO system.
I have taken more time because I thought the whole area called Issues for the Future stimulated me into thinking I must share my own thoughts in this matter for what they axe worth. Some of the floor staff are seised with them, but they may like to consider them when they are developed further.
E. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): I am very happy indeed that this document has stimulated ideas about the future from many delegates and also just now from yourself, Mr. Chairman, and if I may say so, the range and potential depth of the ideas you have expressed are fascinating. Perhaps we can get some further stimulus from the debate on the medium term objectives later because some of them will require some consideration over the medium term. Partly because of that, neither I nor my colleagues will attempt to reply to the many points of substance which have been raised during the debate. We can deal with them during the medium-term programme or perhaps in future documentation for COAG, COPO and COFI. It is important that out of this evaluation document if it can be considered at the General Conference we should get stimulus for our future policy planning and programming. That is the main purpose of evaluation, to improve our planning and our programming and implementation for the future.
I have asked Mr. Bommer and Mrs. Marin to be ready to reply to certain questions in the debate rather than substantive ideas which need the follow-up I have mentioned. I have not asked my other colleagues to reply on this occasion, not only to cut down the time but because you will have an opportunity in discussion of the Review of Field Programmes and discussion of the separate items on some of our action programmes, to pursue the points raised.
I shall attempt to deal with the general questions that arose about the improvement of the document in future, and also the handling of the item and the associated items in the future. On format, the great majority of speakers favour the combination of the two reviews, the regular and field programme reviews. One or two express reservations about this. Now on this 1 would like to comment first of all, perhaps it is not realised generally that the same team of people in the Development Department in the Evaluation Service and major departments have worked on both documents, particularly the evaluation service. So there should not be any idea in people's minds that different groups of people produce different documents and if we combine them somehow the expertise and skill applied to one will not be applied to the combined one.
Secondly, I would like to assure you that despite appearances my role in the Review of Regular Programmes has not been to interfere with the substance of the evaluation. Had Mr. Ayazi the Chief of the Evaluation Service not been stretched out on hard boards, as some of his colleagues may have wished, he would have been here and answering many of the points raised. My role, believe it or not, has been with the direct knowledge and full backing of the Director-General to push the evaluation services and the departments and divisions into improving more auto-criticism of their activities in the document, rather than less.
Now what we do in the future will depend partly on the results of the study we are going to carry out and submit to the Programme and Finance Committees on handling of certain material which is duplicated to a certain extent in this document and in others. For example, whether to include a large section on performance in Part 1 of this document and/or in the Programme of Work and Budget. Secondly, whether to include in the Programme of Work and Budget large sections of the medium-term objectives as in the medium-term objective document. We want to give you as much information as possible to enable you to carry out your sovereign responsibilities but not to produce more documentation than is absolutely essential. So one of the major factors is how to trim down documentation rather than increase it. This will be one of the factors in the exercise.
Another thing we must take into account is the point raised by one delegation that we should try to relate what we do for the Conference with what we do for COAG, COPO and COFI because they receive in-depth studies of major programmes in their sectors and we can improve the information provided to them while cutting down documentation which you have to absorb if we consider the problem in its entirety. 1 can assure you therefore the Director-General will study all the views expressed very carefully, while taking into account the view of the majority.
On another question which is related, on the question of the order of the debate in which you take the budget, the review of the Regular Programme and Field Programmes, the medium term objectives, 1 should like to say while it seems logical one should deal first with the medium-term objectives, secondly with the review of the past biennium, and lastly with the Programme of Work and Budget, it has been tried and found wanting in the past, and the Director-General would advise not to return to past practice. If I may mention one or two reasons, they are as follows. The Programme of Work and Budget is the only document on which a vote is required and by a two-thirds majority. By your decision you like to have a summary programme of work and budget produced by March in the Conference year which is the first document that has to be produced, the other documents are produced later.
Secondly, the preparation of the documents is, as pointed out earlier, carried out by essentially the same team. They cannot carry it all out at the same time, there has to be a certain sequence. Thirdly, the Budget is the only one you have to vote on. If you spend many days discussing the medium-term objectives and the review of the two programmes, and then come to the Budget, you cut down the time available to express your full views on the budget, to seek the instructions of your government, or to have informal consultations in Conference as has happened in the past. An important thing about taking the Budget first is you can all hear each other on what you have to say about the Budget level. You can have consultations among yourselves, you can consult your governments and get instructions about voting in good time for the vote. That is the main reason why in the past it was decided to take the Budget first, to give plenty of time for dialogue, for consultation and obtaining instructions for the vote. You will have noted on this occasion there has been a number of delegations who have said they were waiting to hear people's views before they made up their minds. That is a very important consideration for you and the Director-General, so I think he would advise, however logical it may seem, you should not reverse the order established only two conferences ago. I have a constructive suggestion to make, that there is nothing to prevent you making your contributions to the budget debate in the logical order you want. It might mean a longer budget debate in two or three parts but you could make your interventions deal with medium-term objectives, review of programmes, and allocation for the next biennium. In fact, many delegations are already doing this. They tend to repeat the same ideas, not only on the budget debate but in this debate, field programmes and finally in the medium term objectives.
I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, what new you are going to be able to say in the debate on the medium-term objectives. However, such is the invention and the articulateness of delegates that I have no doubt we shall have a good debate on the medium-term objectives.
I come now, to the question of auto-evaluation. In the Director-General's view it is absolutely essential to the success of the evaluation process. It has the extremely important function, first of all, of obliging all of us in the Secretariat to think very carefully about our objectives and to define them better. And that is the foundation of all that we are trying to do. If we do not do that we are never going to improve our programming or our performance. So you must make the managers themselves think about their objectives. In thinking about their objectives they will inevitably think about the substance of the programmes and the means of carryng them out. It is all very well for us externally within the Secretariat, or in other bodies, to instruct them, to criticize them, but this is not the way to get them to think constructively about the form of carrying our their own improvement. We have serious people, serious technicians who are concerned to make things better. Of course one does tend to get resistance, but in this connection I should like to deny a rumor. It is true that some people found it difficult to criticize themselves. It is true that there was one person, whom I shall not, of course, name, who was so furious about being told that the purpose of the exercise was not to ask for more staff and more travel money, that he threw himself to the ground and missed. We are more efficient than that, Mr. Chairman. On the whole I would express the personal view, with all due humility, that the results of this exercise in auto-evaluation were surprisingly good, and I think as a first effort it is perhaps outstandingly good compared to what has happened to similar attempts elsewhere. However, I would agree with those delegates who would say that this is not enough, there has to be more than this, it has to be more effective and more critical if it is to achieve the proper result. Furthermore, we tend to see things in a certain way, and there are other ways of seeing it. For example, there is the story of the delegate who went to the restaurant upstairs, ordered soup, and when it came complained that there was a dead fly in his soup, and the FAO waiter, who perhaps is influenced by FAO staff, said, "Yes, it must be the hot water that killed it". Now, that was not the answer that the delegate wanted but it was the way the waiter saw it. Well, we must try and avoid that mistake of an inward-looking parochial kind of view. The question is how far can we go, and by what means can we go to remedying that parochial view? We have to be careful about it because we have to remember that our efforts are very marginal to the total development effort by member countries and by donor countries, and we must not exaggerate the extent to which, by looking more critically at ourselves we find the answer to development. The logic of looking more critically at our efforts is also that we should look more critically at the efforts of recipient governments and of donors. However, we will try, and in this we will be assisted, as some delegates have pointed out, by certain external sources; the Programme Committee; the Finance Committee; COAG; COFI; COFO; the Council; yourselves; individual country consultations; seminars, and so forth. There is also the external auditor and the external auditors of other countries and a group whose existence I think was not mentioned, and that is the Joint Inspection Unit. I was asked a question about the cost of using external consultants. I can tell you that our estimate is that the Joint Inspection Unit's activities will have cost us alone, just us, in the neighbourhood of $725 000 in the current biennium. Yet your evaluation of the JIU, as quoted in the appendix to the document which you have, shows that you were not very satisfied on the whole with the quality of their output. To employ other external consultants would, I would calculate, cost something in the same region, but with even more dubious results because it is very difficult for someone who does not know the Organization or the substance of its work very well, to make any judgements which can be of value to you in assessing FAO programmes.
Furthermore, there is the question of the intervention in the management of the Organization and its programmes by the Director-General, which has been mentioned by a number of delegates, and it was fairly obvious, I think, that although only one or two delegations mentioned this idea of external evaluation, the great majority were contrary to that point of view.
In conclusion I would say that I, and I am sure the evaluation service and those who have been intimately connected with the evaluation process over the past two years will have been greatly encouraged by the nature and the tone of this debate. I think it is particularly important that the debate has been so constructive, in order to encourage that process of auto-evaluation. Once Programme Managers get the feeling that your reaction is not simply to criticize destructively or to seek to cut their allocations, but to put forward good ideas about future programming and implementation, and to put forward constructive ideas about how to improve performance, they will respond to you with even more satisfying auto-evaluation in the future, and I can certainly assure you that the evaluation service will make every effort to make those improvements in the document, which are forecast in our document, and which you have supported in your discussions.
D. F. R. BOMMER (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): I can follow Mr. West's general reply with some specific answers to specific questions. First of all, I want to take up an answer which has been implied by the Forestry Department, Mr. Flores not being here in the meeting, to the Swedish delegation on the meeting of tropical deforestation in Gabon, to inform the delegation that FAO has, at the request of UNEP, been fully involved in the preparation of the forthcoming meeting. Actually FAO has advised on the selection of consultants and expert representation. At the present time a FAO selected and UNEP financed consultant is drafting a secretarial paper within our Forestry Department. Further on it is planned that FAO will be represented at the highest forestry level we can provide, the ADG of Forestry, at the meeting and one of his division directors. Plans are underway together with UNEP to monitor the total situation of tropical forest destruction. The same delegation had asked very detailed information on our Panel of Experts on Agricultural Mechanization. The reply is the following: (a) the terms of reference of this Panel is to advise the Director-General on measures to promote collaboration between FAO, national and international institutions, bilateral agencies and industry in the establishment of efficient and appropriate mechanization in developing countries. And to obtain extra-budgetary funds for action programmes in connection with the objectives, (b) The membership - these are all experts selected on an individual capacity. The composition is one-third of these experts are agricultural engineers from
developing countries, and another third comes from agricultural engineers, from national and international institutions and a third group comes from agricultural engineers from industry again from developing and developed countries. So far sixty experts have been nominated. Each meeting consists of about ten to fifteen experts we select and invite to specific topics of consideration for the respective meetings. We had two meetings: the foundation meeting and the first technical meeting, and our next meeting will be on the invitation of the British Government in the UK on spare parts supply, availability and maintenance, a very important question in all mechanization programmes in developing countries. I hope this might be enough. We have certainly further information to provide on what the Panel is working, training aspect, information aspect, tillage mechanization, small-scale farming, etc.
The distinguished delegate from Morocco asked on our involvment in dairy training in Franco-phone Africa. For his information a mission was sent in July-August this year to assess the requirements for training for Franco-phone African countries. The matter is under active consideration and the recommendations will be incorporated into the dairy training programme in the immediate future. The report will be completed shortly.
I think the same delegation asked, or actually made the comment, I must say, on project formulation and assistance in range development as an integral part of the total agricultural production system, with the integration of livestock farming, and called for interdisciplinary missions. We fully support this view, but certainly I must, as in many other cases in which integration was mentioned, refer to that our activities are performed on request of member countries. So if a member country asks us on a very specific topic we will assist the respective country on this topic, certainly bringing forward the necessity of integration, but usually the integration is mainly in the hands of the respective country, and certainly we are ready to assist in any way, but if the request is on a fully integrated programme we are happy to react and to send respective interdisciplinary integrated missions.
The same delegation asked if FAO had a fund or could establish one to assist countries in cases of calamities to re-establish, for instance, their herds of animals lost by droughts or similar events. We can only say that we do not have such funds available in FAO and it would probably be difficult to raise them. You know that we have various programmes to assist countries in emergency situations, but certainly such large-scale re-stocking activities would have to come through respective programmes assisted by development banks, the World Bank and other banks in collaboration with us. We would certainly be happy to integrate and collaborate with them.
I think most of the other questions were very much related to the Seed Programme, the Programme on Genetic Resources and on research, and I will take them up in sequence. First of all, the Programme on Genetic Resources. I think a specific question yesterday came from the US delegation and one was raised today by the UK in relation to germplasm activities. Finally, a point was made by Dr. Swaminathan, our Chairman, on genetic resources activities.
First, probably the wording in the document on how genetic resources activities should be integrated in the future with the Seed Development Programme is somewhat wrongly expressed and I think it was put much better by one delegation that there should be close collaboration. But I wish to explain that this sentence originated with the following idea: the Genetic Resources Programme had concentrated so far on the collection, conservation and documentation of important genetic resources materials of various crops. The period is now coming in which the International Board on Plant Genetic Resources (IBPGR) and FAO's programme will look much more strongly into the evaluation of genetic resources and how it is organized. That is the first point on which we are coming into much closer contact with the Seed Development Programme.
The second is that the genetic resource material which is requested in somewhat larger quantities and also in small quantities by member nations to be sent to them or to their responsible institutions could be handled by our seed laboratory located here in Rome in this building. This seed laboratory will work much more closely in the future with the Genetic Resources Programme than it has in the past, when the effort has been more on the collection and conservation. So the whole sentence means this type of closer collaboration in which the three aspects, genetic resources collection, conservation and documentation, seed distribution and evaluation and finally seed development, must come closer together. This is our intention as one aspect of integration of various activities.
I want to refer specifically to the comments made by the UK delegation in encouraging us to use international research centres, as gene banks. I can inform and assure the delegate that these international centres were looked upon from the beginning by the International Plant Genetic Resources Board as major gene banks, when appropriate and if the centres are willing to serve. Very typically, IRRI is functioning as a major gene bank for rice.
In other centres similar agreements have been reached and are pursued. In other cases, we have to be clear that major world collections are not in the hands of any international centre, but at major national institutions; a typical example is wheat, there are two big nations - the USA and the USSR -having the major wheat collections in their hands. There would be no merit to assign to another centre the responsibility for this crop, instead of working with these national programmes, to make sure that the material is internationally available and exchangeable.
In other cases like maize, we have an even more diversified situation, though it calls for a diversified approach taking full note of the existing national collections and those which should be established in an international sphere.
A third step which the Conference will certainly discuss at a later stage in future years is that somehow a system must be developed in which international responsibility is established for these major collections of genetic resources, irrespective of where they are located, to make sure that these collections are maintained, made internationally available and not lost, as has been the danger in past years, through perhaps the very simple decision of purely one institution, or even a professor going into retirement. This might decide that a very important collection for the world is lost and forgotten because there was no international agreement and commitment from the respective governments for its maintenance.
Regional activities under genetic resources are very much established in collaboration with national programmes, in some cases through bilateral action, regional genetic resources centres have been established. An example is CATIE in Costa Rica which shall serve the countries of Meso-America.
I wanted to make a brief reference to the comment of Dr. Swaminathan. I think we fully share with him the concern and challenge to put areas under nature conservation in order to protect the natural variability of important plans and crops.
On the other side, I must say I would be happy to pursue immediately such a programme if this Conference could assure me that it would provide us with the respective resources, because I think to ask the countries concerned to do it from their own resources would mean a quite expensive exercise for them. So it is a question of financial availability to go very much more in this direction.
We are approaching it more carefully. On the other side, I want to put in a word of caution because a large amount of genetic material, dealing specifically with crop genetic resources is not present in this form in nature. It is present in primitive forms of agriculture, and it would mean preserving areas of primitive agriculture. This is a very difficult task to carry out. If you think that by and large many of the important cereals of this world have originated in West Asia, these countries are developing fast in modern agriculture, it would be difficult to ask Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran and those countries to maintain areas with primitive agriculture for the purpose of keeping the natural selection and primitive strains going. This was certainly not the point Dr. Swaminathan mentioned, he referred to rubber which originated in the tropical forests of the Amazon. It is a similar story with cacao and other tropical tree crops. The IBPGR has not yet approached strongly this question but would be encouraged to do so if considerably larger resources could be envisaged in this field to encourage the countries concerned to take respective action.
I shall conclude here with genetic resources and turn to the seed programme. The delegation of Jordan said on the seed programme that there was mention in the document of training courses in 1979 and they asked what happened to those courses. Fifteen out of the seventeen courses have been completed, two had to be postponed in early 1980. Of these fifteen courses five have been performed in the Far East region, four in the Latin American countries, three in Africa and three
in the Near East. Similar detailed information was requested by the UK delegation: where are the national seed centres located with which we have collaborated or which we have strenghthened? The countries in 1978-79 were: Vietnam, Bhutan, Afghanistan, both Yemens, Sudan, Ethiopia, Mali, Niger, Upper Volta, Gambia, Honduras and El Salvador. In 1980 we have plans for: Peru, Madagascar, Somalia,, Lesotho and Swaziland.
The UK delegation asked further on for a more quantified information on the whole programme. To give some figures: from 1974 to 1979 the Seed Development and Improvement Programme assisted 32 Governments in the formulation of national seed programmes and related projects. From 1973 to 1979, 159 seed projects were implemented with a total allocation of $64, 6 million. These were supported by UNDP, by governmental and non-governmental donors and through the FAO Technical Cooperation Programme. The area on which improved seeds have been grown under the programme has increased from 51 000 hectares in 1976, to 127 000 hectares in 1977-78. The amount of seed in tonnes went from 127 000 in 1976 to 218 000 in 1977-78. These are some figures to illustrate the impact of the programme.
I want to come back to a specific question from the delegate of Jordan and say that it is planned to set up a national short course in seed technology in Jordan in October 1980. Part of the answers I have given has replied already to the delegate of Denmark who asked us specifically about the setting up of training centres which are all part of existing national institutions. In line with the indications of the Danish delegation, and contrary to piecemeal approach, the Secretariat is presently developing an "umbrella" programme on "Improved Seed Production" based on the recommendations of the DANIDA Expert Group on Seeds which met in November this year. This proposal will be submitted to DANIDA and we hope for positive reactions.
There was a similar specific question from the delegation of Bangladesh. The Seed Improvement Programme has formulated a seed programme in cooperation with international institutions during November 1979 in Bangladesh. The programme is now being finalised and will be submitted for donor approval during early 1980.
This might be enough on the rather extensively discussed seed programme, a discussion for which we were very grateful and we appreciated hearing the reaction of the Commission on this programme.
I just want to give a last reply to the delegate of the United Kingdom who commented on the programme on Research Support of the Organization. First of all, I would repeat what I have said on a number of other occasions in COAG, in the Programme Committee as well as a few days ago in this Commission, that the budget allocation for the Research Support Programme in our Programme of Work and Budget is the tip of an iceberg and deals solely with the activities of our links with the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, with integrated activities, servicing research systems in developing countries and certainly with the specific sub-programme, together with the International Atomic Energy Agency. A considerably larger activity in support of research is going on in all substantive programmes of this Organization, and they are not listed under the budget figure under "Research Support" in the Programme of Work and Budget. So the total amount which goes to Research Support is considerably larger than the four percent mentioned by the UK delegation.
The delegate asked specifically about large research projects and support activities in various countries. My reply to this is that the countries in which in the past biennium research reorganization was effective were: Algeria, Tanzania and Senegal.
The countries, in which restructuring of research have been assisted or is in progress are in the Caribbean and in Syria. Major institution building projects have been reviewed and evaluated in Somalia, in Ethiopia, Sri Lanka and in Libya.
Finally I wanted to react too to his disappointment to CARIS - something which I do not fully understand. As I have mentioned earlier in a reply to the US delegation there was the intention to set up a new research information system within the new organization, International Service for National Agricultural Research, supported by UK and USA within the CGIAR. This could be prevented only by recognizing that systems such as CARIS are already operational. It would therefore be more logical, if USA and UK instead of criticising here would be willing to support more strongly CARIS development in FAO. Then there would be no need to build up a new programme in a new organization which would unnecessarily duplicate what is already going on. But there might be some misunderstanding in what I have heard from his comments.
Also I am somewhat puzzled with his comments to our joint programme with the International Atomic Energy Agency. I just wanted to know if the UK delegation makes the same statement in the governing bodies of the IAEA on our joint programme, or if the delegation there takes a completely different stand. This would be important for us to know. So far we can only say that the programme of the
Joint Division in Vienna is supported one fourth only by FAO and three fourths by the International Atomic Energy Agency and that the programme is very much geared to various priorities of our Programme of Work and Budget such as Trypanosomiasis control, soil water relations, integrated pest control etc.
I think these are the major comments I had to make to the various questions raised, but certainly I am ready to follow suit if I have left out anything. I have only left out to comment about the important catalogue of additional issues for the future introduced by the Chairman. These issues really merit, I think, a lengthy discussion, but I do not want to keep the meeting here with this subject I have referred only to one of the points you have made. Some of the major elements you have mentioned are already under consideration in our programme, but certainly many would ask for increased activities if you only think of major eradication programmes of animal diseases. I would fully support this, and I think the Organization would be ready to go forward if we could establish, I think, a clear financial support for such eradication programmes.
On the other side many of those subjects you have mentioned should be fully recognized in future discussions too in the Committee on Agriculture. I think they merit very much full recognition there, as part of future discussion in this Committee.
Mrs. L. MARIN (FAO staff): Thank you for this opportunity to speak in response to some of the queries made on the integration of women in rural development. I, too, want to say that I also, as as the Vice-Chairman of the FAO Inter Divisional Working Group of Women in Development, therefore some of the questions really Mr. Bommer should answer about agriculture but I guess I am going to have to answer because they have already given us an input.
The last time that I sat on this podium was four years ago in 1975. Many of you will remember the discussion that we had which led to the Resolution on the Integration of Women in Agriculture and Rural Development, so I cannot forget it and I assure you that FAO has not forgotten it.
The greatest concern that we heard from the questions that were posed by the delegations was that the statements actually in this Field Programme Review were rather weak in reporting the concrete data and the specific percentages and so forth about the role of women in the particular programme. The major point was that the impact of the role of women should be considered in all programmes, and that the extent to which women have access to particular training I believe was mentioned and to other development programmes. Then again they wanted to know the extent to which they are being integrated in the FAO Regular Programme.
There also seemed to be concern in some of the statements that FAO had not perhaps implemented the Resolution, or was not implementing it. I think we can quite agree because it is rather obvious that some of these statements did not include the impact upon women, and I shall try to speak on this.
However, I would like to say a general thing. Perhaps those of you in your own countries find it is true that when you have a new policy and an accepted policy, an integration of women in rural development is an accepted policy in FAO and an adopted one which you have to adopt, there is also a time lag between the establishment of the policy and the application of the policy, and I think that is true in FAO both in project formulation and in our Programmes in the Regular Programme. It is hard to separate the two as many of you have said. I think advocation of this kind requires a change not only on the part of FAO staff but also in the national government, and I think it calls for both a change in attitude, and it also calls for a change in the preparation of documents; it calls for a change in ways of implementing projects and programmes, and it calls for a change in ways of correcting data and in ways of reporting on the programme, and I think it may have happened that many of the programmes simply have not had or collected the kind of data. When they talk about people they say they mean both men and women, so I think it becomes a matter of setting up the right kind of data collection.
Just to be correct on the record, there was a statement made that the resolution called upon FAO, upon the Director-General, to include in the Council Conference documents some documentation on the impact of women in development, and I just want to have you recall that in the Nineteenth Session of the FAO Conference in 1977, the Review of Field Programmes did include a section on training for women. I think that was the only official report.
Now I need to make some general statements and then I would like to give some specific answers to those questions made. I want to assure you that there has been considerable progress in FAO in the last four years, and believe me I am rather surprised as Vice-Chairman of this Inter Divisional Working Group, Mr. West or some one of them did not see this Draft Report. If they had you can be assured there would have some impact statements, but I wish to say that in the last four years FAO has intensified its
efforts, and I have proof of this because we have just completed - and many of you have mentioned the fact that this should be done independently in the different units - we have just completed a review and an analysis of the programmes not only for the last two years but for the last five years, and also we have made our projections for the next five years. This is UN decade for women 1975-85, and these documents have been prepared (and this partially answers another question) as an input to the World Conference on the UN Decade for Women being held in Copenhagen next July 1980.
We have also prepared summaries; we have a rather long analysis and these are from all the Divisions and Departments of FAO, because we do keep an accumulative inventory, and we have also used this inventory as the beginning of a monitoring system to motivate a greater extent of integration into the Regular Programme and into the Field Programme, so these documents which are not Conference documents, are available for any or all of you. Some are in French, some are in Spanish, but you can certainly request them and we shall see that you have copies.
The Director-General set up the FAO Inter-Divisional Working Group in 1976 and it has on its membership, representation from all the technical units and it serves a coordinative capacity and also is a systematic way of monitoring what is going on. I would say in a general way that one of our greatest accomplishments was the promotion of the inclusion of the separate agenda item on the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, and that, you know, was of the integration of women in rural development always understanding that it should also be included not only as a separate item but within all the other agenda items.
So as a follow-up - just briefly because this will be discussed, - I just want you to know that the Inter Divisional Working Group has now or is now, together with the Rural Development Working Group establishing a task force of women in development specifically for ensuring an appropriate follow-up of the Programme on Action adopted by WCARRD. Now in essence you have the watchdog and you can be assured that there will be every concern to include this. Much of it also depends on the response that we get from the countries and the interest shown by the countries in projects and so forth.
One of the questions was asked specifically about training. The first one I think was what the impact was on training under the Crop Programme. This was the reply given to me. This was about the dairy training programme, and it is directed mainly at national institution building in the field of milk technology, laboratory techniques, hygienic milk handling and so forth. Candidates for the courses are proposed by governments, and the numbers probably reflect the employment of women in the dairy industry. There is 8 percent in Latin America, 4 percent in Africa, 3 percent in Asia, and 0. 3 percent in the Near East region. Governments are being encouraged to increase the proportion of women candidates for these courses and, knowing the kinds of analyses that have been done, these kinds of percentages are true in many other areas.
Under 1. 31, on the Livestock Programme, similarly there are a number of training courses, and governments should be encouraged to increase the number of women proposed for training.
Going back to the question of crops, the AGP Division reported that they have just started keeping track of the number of women in their training courses in 1978, and in that year out of 272 participants in training courses organized by them 19 were women, that is about 7 percent. The statistics for 1979 are not yet finalized, but there is a tendency to be an increase in the percentage of women.
It has to be taken into account that nominations to our training activities are done by governments and that female participants are not always available, depending on the subject and the country concerned. For example, we are now in the process of organizing a study tour on vegetable production under protected cultivation to Syria, and this is for women only. We have contacted the governments in the Near East and North Africa, and while some indicated their interest, others informed us that they had no female participants to propose. I raise this in detail because this is an example that seems to permeate many of the training activities.
Another example which they did not give me but which came out of our analysis is the livestock programme in Tanzania wherein seven women took part in an FAO training course in animal husbandry. One woman was awarded an FAO fellowship and sent for higher education abroad. In Uganda, women and men were admitted to the veterinarian faculty, and this is the trend in many of the countries. More and more women are being admitted to colleges of agriculture to study agriculture or veterinary courses.
Another question with relation to achievement and impact of women was in agricultural education extension and training. We do have an inter-divisional working group on training, and I assure you they are considering women in their reports. I do not have all the data here, but those reports are available. As many of you know, the agricultural extension programmes deal with the entire family, so men, women and youths are considered.
There is also our small farmers programme. Many of you have heard about the programme that we have in Asia and the Far East, conducted mainly by our Regional Officer there, and out of some 238 groups which have been formed, about 10 percent are actually women's groups, and almost all of the groups in some way or another have the participation of women. So again I think it is a matter of reporting and perhaps learning to include them in reports.
The same is true with agrarian reform activities, and it is hardly necessary to mention the importance of marketing and credit. This is one of the most responsive units in the House for initiating programmes. In West Africa they have had some very special seminars and training courses for the women in West Africa, and now I understand they are even going to have a woman - I do not know the exact title -but it will be someone specializing in marketing and credit in the African Regional Office to service the countries in Africa. There is a seminar also being formed in Haiti, and also in other parts of South America.
There was a question asked about the scheme in 1. 63 for agricultural credit development. This is looked upon as one of our very important channels for ensuring income-generating projects where women are mostly involved, and we have two such projects now ongoing in Tanzania and in India, and there are many others which are projected.
I believe there was a question asked about nutrition, 1. 68 and when I called Dr. Sabry he said "I thought everybody knew that our target audience was very much the rural woman". and when we look at the next section on 1. 70 we see an explanation that "particular attention in these activities was given to the promotion of local institutions, to the role of women in nutrition improvement, and to benefits for children and other vulnerable groups. " So this is certainly well covered.
The question asked about our involvement in the UN Decade World Conference being held I have partially answered. We looked at the preparation we were making for the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development as really partially an input also to this upcoming world conference, and with that in mind we had six case studies done of the situation of women around the world. We took it region by region. We commissioned the studies to be done by people in the countries, and we had many national surveys done by institutions. All of this literature and documentation was used by the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, but it was also made available to the United Nations. In addition to the studies that we have done, we have done a study on the legal status and the effect of laws and legislation upon rural women, and this will be made available to them in the form of a document. We have prepared four summary papers for the preparatory meetings in each region which are being organized by the regional commission. One of those meetings has been held, and the staff will be attending all of the other meetings.
I was going to give some specific examples of the kind of things that are going on in the meetings, but for the sake of time we will not go into it now. I would just like to say one more thing: there was a specific reference to fisheries and forestry. Fisheries and Forestry have set out what they call focal points which screen all of their projects to ensure that they have included components which benefit women, and they have considerable statistics, and are also doing some work on women in agricultural production, and a series of other things.
In closing, I have been asked to make a comment. Mr. Skoufis wished me to say in regard to the question on the status of women in FAO that in last Friday's session he made a full report, and this will come out in the verbatim statements of last Friday's session for any of you who wish to see it.
The meeting rose at 17. 40 hours
La seance est levée â 17 h 40
Se levanta la sesión a las 17. 40 horas
