CHAIRMAN: If there are no further interventions on the Regular Programme, we could take up the next item, namely, the Review of Field Programmes, document C 79/4, and I now have pleasure in requesting Mr. Yriart, Assistant Director-General, to introduce the paper.
J. F. YRIART (Subdirector General, Departamento de Desarrollo): Este año en el examen de los programas de campo, tanto en su presentación como en su contenido, toman en debida consideración las sugerencias y recomendaciones de la 19 sesión de la Conferencia. En el examen se han incluido gráficos y cuadros-resúmenes que, según la opinión expresada por el Comité del Programa y por el Consejo, ayudan a aclarar y dar mayor impacto al análisis de los varios asuntos comprendidos en el Documento. Pero esto también ha hecho resaltar más claramente la dura realidad actual. Estoy seguro, Sr. Presidente, que en primer lugar impresionará a la Comisión el estancamiento, aun la desaceleración, del volumen efectivo de los recursos externos que se destinan a actividades de cooperación técnica en el campo de la agricultura. Esto podría o no considerarse como un índice de la importancia relativa que se ha dado a un sector clave como la agricultura, en lo que se refiere a estrategias de inversion nacional en los países en vías de desarrollo. Sin embargo, es un hecho que no puede pasar desapercibido y necesita un atento examen de las repercusiones que indudablemente tiene sobre el desarrollo agrícola.
La FAO, naturalmente, Sr. Presidente, no es la única fuente de asistencia técnica en el campo de la agricultura. Más aún, los aportes que puede hacer a través de la cooperación técnica son sólo marginales, en términos de valor comparado con la totalidad de inversiones materiales y humanas.
La gran mayoría de estas inversiones tienen origen local en casi todos los países en vías de desarrollo, sin embargo, marginalidad en términos monetarios no significa necesariamente que los aportes de cooperación técnica sean también marginales en su impacto sobre el modelo y el ritmo del desarrollo.
Si los conocimientos y experiencias colectivos que emergen de las intervenciones de los representantes de los países en desarrollo en los foros internacionales no son erróneos, entonces hay que reconocer que las deficiencias en instituciones nacionales, en abastecimiento y utilización de mano de obra entrenada, en encuestas sobre recursos existentes, en el desarrollo de paquetes tecnológicos para zonas áridas y semiáridas, en la información socioeconómica necesaria para la formulación e implementación de proyectos de desarrollo, son todos factores que constituyen todavía grandes obstáculos para que los países confíen en sus propias fuerzas y para que puedan eficazmente absorber ulteriores inversiones en la agricultura, provengan éstas de fuentes nacionales o internacionales. Estimaciones independientes llevadas a cabo por el Banco Mundial, el FIDA y los Bancos Regionales para el Desarrollo, respaldan esta hipótesis
La cooperación técnica mira justamente a llenar estos vacíos, a elevar progresivamente los niveles tecnológicos de sofisticación para impedir el estancamiento o las insuficiencias que se presentan en la producción agrícola frente a la creciente presión de la población sobre las tierras cultivadas. La cooperación técnica juega un rol igualmente significativo en la promoción de la diversificación de las actividades agrícolas, y en la asistencia a la explotación y manejo racional de los recursos forestales y pesqueros.
Para nosotros, ésta es la razón fundamental para mantener un nivel razonablemente alto de aportes de cooperación técnica en el marco total de las inversiones destinadas a acelerar la producción alimentaria y el desarrollo rural en el Tercer Mundo. Es éste, de hecho, el mensaje fundamental que emerge este año del examen de los Programas de Campo. Ello explica la preocupación expresada, por el Director General en la Introducción, con respecto a las tendencias que entorpecen la cooperación técnica dentro y fuera del Sistema de las Naciones Unidas, y sobre las cuales el examen insiste repetidamente en los capítulos 1, 2, 3 y 4.
Si deploramos el hecho de que la contribución del PNUD para proyectos agrícolas haya disminuido acentuadamente en términos reales, o el hecho de que el PNUD haya venido ejecutando él mismo proyectos agrícolas o que los haya asignado a otras agencias de Naciones Unidas para su ejecución, no es por un vano capricho de gloria para la FAO.
EStos proyectos pertenecen esencialmente a los países que lo solicitan o los inician, y el rol de la FAO se limita a ser el de un interlocutor técnico.
Es justamente para el desempeño cabal de dicho rol que el Director General ve desfavorablemente y con profunda preocupación la manera casual con que el PNUD se asigna responsabilidades por proyectos de alta tecnología agrícola o los asigna a Organizaciones que no poseen ni cuantitativa ni cualitativamente la experienoia técnica y a nivel de países que la FAO puede aportar a actividades de cooperación técnica que son propias de su competencia.
EL otro asunto sobre el cual deseo llamar la atención se refiere a la participación de los Gobiernos en la planificación y ejecución de los proyectos de cooperación técnica. Menciono en particular los párrafos 2·11 al 2. 19 del capítulo 2 del Examen. Eh contraposición al panorama generalmente alentador en otros aspectos, las estimaciones de los proyectos de campo hechas durante este Bienio y el anterior nos dan sobre este aspecto una visión un tanto sombría. Dichas estimaciones demuestran que el obstáculo más común consiste en las dificultades que varios países encuentran para movilizar sostenidamente los servicios de personal local hacia proyectos de la FAO. En esos países, la disponibilidad de personal del calibre requerido ha aumentado mucho en las dos últimas décadas; sin embargo las condiciones de trabajo en el terreno y las estructuras salariales a nivel nacional hacen que buena parte de ese personal prefiera transferirse al sector privado o busque posibilidades en otros países donde las alternativas de empleo son más atractivas. Aquellos que continúan trabajando para sus propios Gobiernos, desean a menudo trabajar en la capital con cargos administrativos o de coordinación. Muchas personas en estos cargos - frecuentemente funcionarios públicos de competencia técnica - deben desempeñar tantas tareas de otra índole que su contribución al trabajo del proyecto se ve muy disminuida. Además, los cambios continuos de un departamento a otro afectan la continuidad en la participación de los Gobiernos, tanto a nivel de política como de coordinación.
Todo esto es intrínseco a la naturaleza misma del nivel de desarrollo de cada país, pero las consideraciones a las cuales he aludido anteriormente tienen una repercusión directa sobre la calidad del liderazgo, la capacidad de gestión, así como sobre el personal de las instituciones nacionales desig nadas para ejecutar proyectos de asistencia técnica en nombre del Gobierno. La falta de fondos y los complejos procedimientos presupuestarios para el desembolso de los fondos asignados debilitan aún más la eficiencia de dichas instituciones. Lo anterior se aplica tanto al capital como a gastos recurrentes, y afecta a la calidad de los bienes de capital como edificios, equipos, personal, transporte y otras facilidades a disposición de las instituciones. El mandato de estas instituciones y sus relaciones en la jerarquía nacional son otros criterios para valorar sus capacidades y que están en correlación directa con el uso final o mercado de sus servicios. Tomando como medida todos estos criterios, podemos afirmar que hay instituciones que no están todavía adecuadamente equipadas para desempeñar un rol efectivo en la programación y ejecución de proyectos o programas de desarrollo.
Me gustaría llamar la atención de esta Comisión sobre otros asuntos muy importantes analizados en el Examen, pero además de medir los factores tiempo y brevedad, creo que eso no sería del todo pertinente. Esta Comisión ha demostrado siempre un interés particular en el examen de los programas de campo de la FAO, y su espíritu de análisis nos ha inspirado a dar al presente documento esa calidad de objetividad y excelencia analítica que han caracterizado las ediciones anteriores. Confío en que el Documento C 79/4, ahora en sus manos, haya sido detenidamente analizado por todos los interesados, de tal manera que todos los argumentos importantes serán puestos de relieve automáticamente a medida que procedamos en la discusión.
Estamos constantemente buscando soluciones para estos y otros problemas bastante complejos con los que, tanto los Gobiernos miembros como nosotros, nos enfrentamos. Apreciamos cualquier aporte, en particular de los países en desarrollo, con miras a que nuestras, o mejor dicho, sus actividades de campo sean más eficaces y más adecuadas a sus necesidades.
Α. Β. HARLAND (united Nations Development Programme): The Administrator and his colleagues have carefully reviewed the Director-General's Review of Field Programmes for 1978-79 and Mr. Morse has asked me to congratulate the Director-General on both the presentation and content of this document. The report raises various issues of fundamental concern to the UN development system some of which have been addressed by the Administrator in his recent statement to the Second Committee of the General Assembly earlier this month. I am referring particularly to the role of technical co-operation in promoting investment and the growing understanding that it has not been adequately recognised in aid programmes. Although there has been an annual average increase in the level of contributions to UNDP of about 5 % since 1975 there has been, if I may quote the Director-General in a specific reference to funds for the agricultural sector, "an undertone of stagnation in real terms in the overall volume of resources for multilateral technical assistance since 1972". In the meantime, there are hundreds of millions of people in the developing countries who live lives of despair, suffering the ravages of hunger and disease. It is a situation which the conscience of humankind can no longer tolerate.
Although, as I indicated there have been progressive increases in contributions to UNDP since 1975, the Pledging Conference which took place in New York last week for the UNDP reflected the precarious state of many national economies. The increase in pledges actually made for 1980 over 1979 amounted to an increase of approximately 11% A larger than usual number of the important donors were unable to announce their pledges for 1980· The estimate of total pledges for 1980, taking into account those donors which have yet to announce their pledges, is approximately $725 million, about 7 % less in monetary terms than the amount which would have been forthcoming if the target set by the UNDP Governing Council and the UN General Assembly on planning purposes at the beginning of the current cycle had been met. I need not add that the estimated increase in the level of contributions for 1980 does not even keep pace with world inflation. The Administrator will continue his rigorous efforts to ensure that when the final figures are available the results will be more encouraging.
The Administrator during the past year has met with numerous Government officials and presented the case for increased resources for technical co-operation in almost every international forum. In this connexion, UNDP submitted a paper to the Preparatory Committee for the New International Development Strategy on the role of technical co-operation in the development process urging those officials responsible for determining the level of aid flows to give due weight to the importance of technical assistance. It is generally acknowledged that the UN development system has a far greater capacity to deliver technical assistance than at its present level. Only the financial resources to carry out this task are lacking. UNDP and its partner agencies collectively represent a highly efficient and effective source of technical knowledge and experience which may well be unparalleled by any bilateral programme. This has been forcefully demonstrated in the Review by the Director-General of FAO in which he has reported on the progress which has been made by FAO in such areas as increased seed production, forestry, fisheries, nutrition, etc. Yet the lack of resources continues to plague the UN development system, limiting its capacity to utilize its full development potential.
Under the UNDP country programme process it is the sovereign prerogative of governments to determine priorities for the utilization of the resources made available by UNDP. It would appear from our review of country programmes that some recipient governments have in recent years accorded a higher priority in the utilization of UNDP resources to sectors other than agriculture than they have in the past. This does not mean that the governments are not giving high priority to agriculture nor that they are giving less attention to specific areas in the agricultural sector such as the processing of agricultural products and the development of both internal and external markets for primary and processed agricultural products. But the data does show that where there are alternative sources of finance, for example from Trust Fund, FAO's Technicalol Co-operation Programme or the FAO fertilizer programme, governments are drawing upon these resources for agriculture, while giving higher priority to other sectors in the UNDP country programme. The Administrator agrees with the Director-General that there are a large number of developing countries where much more basic works need to be undertaken in the agricultural and food production sector. Furthermore, the emphasis given to agriculture, food production and rural development in global priorities endorsed by a number of United Nations Conferences, the most recent being the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, would call for strengthening these activities in future country programmes. This matter was discussed extensively by the Deputy Administrator of UNDP, Mr. G. Arthur Brown, and the Director-General during· the Deputy Administrator's recent visit to Rome. As a result of these discussions, the Administrator directed UNDP's Resident Representatives to bring to governments' attention the recommendation of the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, and to urge that governments, in preparing their country programmes under the next programming cycle, give increased attention to programmes and projects which will advance rural development. In this regard, the Administrator intends to continue to give very close attention to the participation of each agency in multi-disciplinary projects, and
in particular, those projects for assistance to the rural poor. Only after consultations with all parties involved, governments, concerned specialized agencies and the UNDP itself are we taking decisions as to the designation of a lead agency, and this process will of course he continued. In these long-term and sometimes complex projects, while planning is a necessary prerequisite to initial operations, the executing agency may change as project activities move into more sectoral areas, particularly agriculture.
I should further like to bring to your attention our review of country programmes showing that the industrial sector is being accorded a higher priority by governments in requesting assistance from UNDP than in the past. This has resulted in a considerable increase in UNIDO'S share of total UNDP project expenditure during this second IPF cycle. From 1977 through 1981, UNIDO derives the major part of its technical co-operation expenditures financed by UNDP. This may also help to explain why governments in programming UNDP resources are increasing their emphasis on that sector. The Director-General has informed UNDP that in those countries where PAD has a Country Representative, the FAO share in UNDP' s programmes has increased. The Administrator welcomes this report in view of the essential importance of the field of competence represented by FAO.
There are several other aspects of the review on which I would like to comment. Concern has been expressed about UNDP's own role in project execution. However, some 80 % of the project expenditure in the agriculture sector incurred directly by UNDP is accounted for by global projects, mainly in support of international agricultural research. It is stated in the review, quite correctly, that an increased proportion of technical co-operation funds in agriculture is being allocated for global projects like the International Crop Research Institute within the framework of the C. G. I. A. R. In this instance, the Governing Council specifically assigned responsibility for project execution to UNDP. FAO has played an important role in determining the activities of the various international agricultural research centers through its own membership in CGIAR and will certainly do so in the future. I think that all can agree as to the effectiveness of the CGIAR for the mobilization of financial resources and in bringing together the inputs and expertise of the UN system and those of external sources.
The study to which I referred showed that UNDP executed projects in the agricultural sector accounted for less than $1. 5 million of expenditure in 1978· In each case, there was a sound basis for UNDP execution. Generally it was at the specific request of the government. In other cases, the agricultural component was part of a large multi-disciplinary project or one involving overall economic planning. The Administrator firmly believes that the small amount of expenditure involved in co-operation with other organizations concerned is not a major incursion into FAO's area of technical or operational competence.
I would add further that I have with me a complete analysis, except for the Latin-American region, of those projects where there may be some difference of opinion between UNDP and FAO on the designation of the executing agency. I will be pleased to review this material with the Secretariat.
In a brief statement it is not possible to cover all aspects of the UNDP-FAO relations. But before concluding, I would like to refer to three other points made in the review. The first concerns government execution, use of national institutions and nationals of developing countries. The Administrator welcomes the emphasis that FAO is giving to this aspect of new dimensions of technical cooperation. He is still concerned that the UN development system is not moving ahead fast enough with government execution and use of nationals. Together with our agency partners we are scheduling a one-day meeting in December to discuss various approaches and guidelines which have been prepared by UNDP in consultation with agencies on these subjects.
In July 1980, the Administrator proposes convening a global meeting of Resident Representatives at which a principal theme will be the application of new dimensions, government execution, use of national institutions, consultants and nationals of developing countries. There are difficulties in these areas, as the Director-General himself has noted in the review. For example, the number of candidates for expert assignments from developing countries rejected by governments was significantly higher than the number of those from the developed countries who were rejected. I hope that this is not a result of longstanding attitudial barriers. On our part, we in UNDP, are doing our utmost to overcome these obstacles.
My second point concerns the excellent collaboration we have had with FAO on evaluation excercises. FAO has taken the lead role in a study on agriculture training which is about to be completed and published.
Third, I would like to refer to the experiment which is being carried out jointly by UNDP and the FAO Investment Centre. The results of this experiment are very encouraging and UNDP hopes to be able to continue to work closely with FAO in this work. We look forward to the Governing Council's approval of a continuation and possible expansion of this arrangement with the FAO Investment Centre.
In conclusion may I thank the Director-General for his excellent report. We in UNDP share the concerns that he has so forcefully made in his review of field programmes. The Administrator has asked me to reassure delegations that he will continue to work in close cooperation with the Director-General on the development of agricultural programmes. On the matter of financial resources, he is concerned that the precarious state of many national economies may prevent the international community from meeting the agreed aggregate target of a 14 percent annual increase in resources made available to UNDP, and he intends to continue to press his case for more resources at every opportunity and in every international forum.
While I have the floor I would appreciate it if I could make a brief statement on behalf of the Executive Director of UNICEF who has asked me to represent him at this meeting.
"UNICEF has become somewhat concerned that a certain degree of complacency may be developing in respect to provision of a balanced diet on the basis that if food provides sufficient calories, protein and vitamins and minerals usually are present in adequate amounts. This is often true for adults, but often it is not. It is less often true for young children, and this important exception is sometimes neglected or mentioned in passing. Moreover, in practice we are usually talking about adding to the food of people who are already on a low-cost, poor quality diet. Usually their problem will not be solved by adding only foods that are themselves very poor protein, and micro-nutrients. Thus in projecting agriculture towards 2000, we would plead for more attention to seeing that nutritionally balanced supplies are available and nutritionally balanced diets are consumed.
A second area of special concern is availability of foods to lower income families. Where possible, these families should be encouraged and helped to grow more of their own foods with an eye to providing a sufficient and balanced diet. In parallel with larger-scale food production efforts, adequate support should also be provided for these smaller-scale local efforts and particularly small cultivators and home-cultivators".
KONG CAN-DONG (China) (interpretation from Chinese): The Chinese delegation wishes to avail itself of this opportunity to express its heartfelt thanks to the Secretariat for preparing such a substantial document on the Agenda Item, and to Mr. Yriart for his introduction.
I would like to make a few observations on some of the questions referred to in the document.
(1) We are pleased to note that the second biennium has seen a quantative and qualitative increase in FAO's attitude to the old projects. There has also been greater involvement of the developing countries in staff recruitment, sub-contracts, equipment, procurement and use of national institu-tions. There has been a marked increase in investment resources mobilized to support agricultural development in the developing countries.
The majority of field projects being carried out are geared to promoting food production in the developing countries. The Chinese delegation would like to express its appreciation for the progress made by the Organization in the field work and all the policies pursued to enhance the technical capabilities of developing countries.
(2) With regard to the field work carried out by the Organization, document C 79/4 raises a number of questions and recommendations that are worth considering. These will provoke all parties concerned to look into the problem, take appropriate measures and improve future work. As the document points out, the success or failure of the Field Programme and it s actual results depends on the work and the consideration of the donor, the executing agency and the recipient countries. In this respect, special attention should be paid to taking various measures for improvement which are suited to the actual conditions of the recipient developing countries. We will further study the facts and recommendations contained in the document so as to draw maximum benefit from them. We think that it is possible in the future to provide delegates with case studies of well executed field projects of different types which will prove useful to analysis and evaluation of the work concerned. (3) In the area of world food production at present technical assistance is an important factor that cannot be overlooked in promoting agricultural development in all countries, especially in developing countries. It is at the same time a contributing factor to the setting up of a new international economic order. It is not only a means by which investment flows to agriculture may be stepped up, but should also contribute to raising the technical level in all areas relating to food and agriculture production. However, as the document indicates in real terms and in relation to assistance of other categories, the increase in technical assistance to agriculture has been slow. This we feel is indeed a cause of great concern.
(4) With respect to the rectification and execution of field projects, recommendations contained in the document include simplification and rectification procedures by donor institutes or countries, the provision of their policies to developing countries and rendering of assistance with greater flexibility so as to achieve tangible practical results. These are recommendations that will no doubt receive serious consideration.
We feel however, that there are two questions that are especially worth studying. The first is that all field programmes should be aimed at achieving practical results. The content and farmer assistance to developing countries should be determined by actual needs of recipient developing countries and should be rendered through various channels. The second point concerns the simplification of all procedures in shortening of project cycles at present in all forms of assistance, whether technical or capital aid. The procedures seem too complicated and the project cycle much too long. Correction of this state of affairs is a wish shared by all developing countries, as is borne out by the fact that FAO and TCP have been so well received by developing countries.
J. BIDAUT (France): Ma delegation remercie le Directeur general pour l’ intéressant document C 79/4 qui présente un reflet général des activités extra-budgétaires accomplies dans le cadre de l'Organisation. En effet le financement des programmes de terrain mis en oeuvre par l'Organisation pour l'Alimentation et l'Agriculture, a subi au cours des récentes années certaines évolutions. En fait, les financements extra-budgétaires prennent une part prépondérante dans les activités en rapport au Programme ordinaire. Nous constatons que pour l'année 1978, soit un demi-biennium, les financements extra-budgétaires atteignent plus de 210 millions de dollars, dont 189 proviennent du Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement, le PNUD. Nous avons constaté que les financements PNUD, après un fléchissement du à des difficultés financières, reprennent de l'ampleur au niveau des engagements, notamment depuis 1978 et 1979. Cependant, le Programme ordinaire doit garder toute sa place et son originalité dans les activités de terrain. Il serait fâcheux qu'il se voit attribuer une place secondaire et qu'il devienne trop dépendant des autres programmes, financés de manière extra-budgétaire.
Pour ma délégation, ces deux catégories d'activité gardent un aspect de complémentarité indispensable et nécessaire à la bonne conduite de l'ensemble des opérations de développement.
En ce qui concerne la programmation du PNUD, ma délégation considère comme utile de rappeler que ce sont les Etats bénéficiaires eux-mêmes qui, dans la mise en oeuvre de leurs chiffres indicatifs de planification, (CIP), fixent leurs priorités et déterminent les différents volumes et projets sectoriels à insérer dans ce programme. Parfois les priorités du programme PNUD ne reflètent pas toujours et tout à fait les priorités d'un plan national. Cela est tout à fait normal. Le secteur rural par exemple peut recevoir des concours essentiels de la part du pays lui-même bien entendu, de la part d'autres sources de financement, et ainsi d'autres secteurs économiques peuvent bénéficier d'une part notable dans le CIP/PNUD. Les choix et équilibres restent bien de la compétence des Etats, ainsi que l'ont indiqué dans cette enceinte plusieurs délégations.
D'autre part, les apports essentiels en matière d'investissements dans le domaine rural ne peuvent venir, sans aucun doute, que de la part des pays en développement. Les sources de financement sont à même de concourir à la réalisation de certains grands projets. Mais dans les opérations "au ras du sol", les Etats sont bien les responsables de leur propre développement.
Ma délégation désirerait aussi présenter une observation en ce qui concerne l'évaluation, relative aux programmes de terrain bien entendu. Le problème de l'évaluation a déjà été évoqué hier pour le programme ordinaire. Ma délégation considère qu'en la matière il n'y a pas de solution unique. Sans aucun doute, toutes les voies et moyens peuvent être utilisés pour un accomplissement judicieux de cette tâche d'évaluation.
En ce qui concerne le projet du programme ordinaire, une certaine évolution a été constatée dans l'évaluation. D'après le rapport qui est soumis, en 1972/1973, 37% des projets étaient considérés comme satisfaisants; en 1976/77, cette proportion devient 40% et en 78/79 c'est plus de 60 % des projets qui sont jugés satisfaisants. Cela peut indiquer que des progrès considérables ont été accomplis dans la qualité de l'exécution et des choix des projets. Mais cela peut aussi indiquer qu'une plus grande souplesse peut être utilisée dans les critères d'appréciation de cette évaluation.
A cet égard, qu'il me soit permis de rappeler qu'à notre Conseil a été présenté un rapport sous la cote CL 76/7 qui a été réalisé par le Corps commun d'inspection sur un sujet très particulier: "les programmes régionaux de formation du MWATA et de GAROUA relatifs à la conservation de la faune africaine". Ce rapport a été repris sous le timbre de l'Organisation et, semble-t-il, le Corps commun d'inspection s'est montré à la hauteur de sa tâche.
Une autre remarque en ce qui concerne le programme de coopération technique CPT. Il n'entre pas dans mon propos de le juger à ce stade puisqu'il ne fait pas partie directement des programmes de terrain. Cependant, une part importante lui est consacrée dans le rapport. Et un aspect a été évoqué, qui est relatif à la tentation de reconduire une nouvelle phase d'un projet qui vient à expiration -ceci au paragraphe 2. 36. C'est un problème que le PCT, le PNUD et les aides bilatérales connaissent bien, surtout lorsqu'il s'agit d'opérations qui comportent une forte part d'assistance technique. Si une telle procédure peut encore paraître concevable lorsqu'il s'agit, dans les pays dits les moins avancés, de projets difficiles à réaliser, il semble peu aisé d'orienter le PCT dans cette voie. En effet les objectifs initiaux qui lui ont été assignés d'opérations ponctuelles de durée limitée, destinés à remplir une tâche très définie, ne permettent pas d'envisager, aux yeux de ma délégation, la prise en charge d'une phase n° 2, voire n° 3, du même projet. Si une telle prolongation, dans des cas très particuliers, apparaît indispensable, -ce qui sans aucun doute peut se présenter- elle devrait être assurée sur d'autres ressources afin de laisser au CPT toute sa disponibilité, conformément aux objectifs lors de sa création.
Les institutions nationales des pays bénéficiaires se voient confier un rôle de plus en plus étendu dans la mise en oeuvre des projets. Ceci apparaît une direction tout à fait souhaitable, de l'avis de ma délégation, et cette pratique ne peut qu'être étendue.
Il apparaît également judicieux que, dans les programmes de terrain, une place de choix soit réservée aux opérations à caractère régional ou sous-régional, intéressant plusieurs pays, comme les actions telles que la lutte contre la trypanosomiase, l’onchocercose, qui permettent l'amélioration des conditions de vie de toute une région géographique. De telles actions se prêtent particulièrement aux formes de cofi-nancement faisant intervenir plusieurs sources financières: les sources nationales, bien entendu au premier plan, et également des sources bilatérales et multilatérales.
A cet égard les actions réalisées sous l'égide du CILS -Comité inter-Etats de lutte contre la sécheresse dans les pays du Sahel -fournissent des expériences positives d'opérations réussies, et de concertation parfaitement conduite. Le Comité inter-Etats, qui réunit les gouvernements bénéficiaires, effectue la coordination des différents apports extérieurs et joue un rôle de catalyseur de manière encore plus complète que tout autre organisme extérieur ne pourrait le faire.
Parmi d'autres activités de cette nature, qui englobent une vaste zone géographique il paraît interessant de citer l’EMASAR c'est-à-dire le programme dàménagement écologique des parcours arides et semi-arides d'Afrique, du Proche-Orient et du Moyen-Orient, qui vise à l'aménagement écologique, à la production fourragère et à la protection de l'équilibre de l'environnement, ce qui normalement doit conduire à l'amélioration des conditions de vie des populations dans les régions arides et semi-arides, de manière satisfaisante.
Pour conclure, ma délégation constate avec satisfaction, dans l'analyse des programmes de terrain, que la part réservée aux 36 pays les moins favorisés représente plus de 33 % du total des projets nationaux, démontrant ainsi l'attention particulière dont ils font l'objet de la part de l'Organisation et de la communauté internationale.
M. BUENO GOMEZ (España): La Delegación española quiere felicitar en primer lugar a los autores del Documento que estamos analizando, por la claridad con que han sabido reflejar las sugerencias y recomendaciones formuladas en el 19° período de sesiones de esta Conferencia.
Asimismo queríamos felicitar a D. Juan Felipe Yriart, por la presentación de este Documento.
Si nos permitimos hacer aquí ahora algunos comentarios al Documento, es exclusivamente guiados por un espíritu constructivo. Somos conscientes de que la finalidad básica de la asistencia técnica consiste en reforzar la capacidad institucional de los países en desarrollo, para que ellos puedan ser protagonistas de su propio desarrollo. Vemos por lo tanto que en el bienio 1978-79 solamente el 18 por ciento de los proyectos de campo de FAO se han dedicado a instituciones y servicios rurales y esto nos parece que es una cifra en cierto modo baja. A nuestro juicio estos programas son los que inciden más directamente en aquella finalidad básica a que nos hemos referido y confiamos en que, dentro de sus posibilidades, el Director General pueda reforzar esta actividad de las instituciones y servicios; ya que, repetimos, constituyen la condición sine qua non para garantizar el éxito en la aplicación del resto de los proyectos de cooperación técnica.
Reconocemos la creciente necesidad de los servicios de consultores de alto nivel, para ayudar a formular solicitudes de crédito para los proyectos adecuados; pero no olvidemos que esos proyectos han de ser desarrollados, y en esa fase juegan un papel decisivo los cuadros medios de nivel técnico intermedio.
Realizando esta idea con la conveniencia por todos reconocida del intercambio de experiencia entre países en desarrollo y de estos con los desarrollados, creemos que se debería prestar mayor atención en estos programas de campo al intercambio de cuadros medios, especialmente entre países que tengan idioma común y afinidades culturales.
También pensamos que la FAO debería ensayar en algunos casos el empleo de unidades completas de técnicos de distinto nivel, que tengan experiencia y capacidad de ejecución en un tipo específico de trabajo, con el doble objetivo de realizar una tarea de dimensiones determinadas y de formar un equipo local completo. Creemos que ésta sería una forma excelente para logar una transferencia rápida técnica.
Finalmente, la Delegación española quisiera felicitar al Director General por los progresos logrados en tan corto tiempo en el programa de cooperación técnica.
Asimismo confiamos que aumente el número de proyectos acogidos a este programa en la Región Latinoamericana, pues creemos que en este sentido la región aun no ha sido suficientemente atendida en los últimos años, teniendo en cuenta no sólo su potencial para satisfacer las necesidades alimentarias del mundo, sino también por el volumen de los beneficiarios potenciales que se encuentran en el estrato de las personas menos favorecidas.
T. HAYAKAWA (Japan): We would like to associate ourselves with the other delegations in commending the work of the Secretariat which gives us a detailed explanation on agricultural development assistance on both a bilateral and multilateral basis, in Doc. C 94/4. We recognize the importance of technical cooperation in the field of agricultural and rural development, and we think that with a view to promoting self-reliance and development among developing countries: it is quite important for these countries to implement food projects through the introduction of external resources from UNDP and others in cooperation with FAO which is in a position to provide useful information and able personnel.
With regard to the increase of agricultural projects implemented by other organizations which are pointed out in the document, we would say this phenonemon reflects the decentralized project implementation of various international organizations such as UNDP, regional economic commissions, and others.
We appreciate these movements and activities, as they tend to promote the Asiatic agricultural development under existing circumstances, and meet the needs of each region of the world. However, the importance of the effective use of knowhow and technical cooperation systems which are to be provided by FAO can never be ignored. In this connexion we think that it is necessary to promote the cooperation between FAO and various other organizations including regional economic commissions.
Finally, we appreciate the role of the TCP of FAO and hope in the near future we will have more detailed information which will explain how TCP projects in developing countries have given impact to agricultural production and thus helped to increase small farmers' incomes in those countries.
A. HURT (Belgique): Ma délégation voudrait féliciter la FAO et son Directeur général du travail effectivement accompli dans les programmes de terrain, qui deviennent de plus en plus efficaces et mieux adaptés au besoins c'est-à-dire qui ont de plus en plus d'impact sur la production alimentaire et sur la nutrition.
Plus spécialement encore, nous félicitons la FAO parce qu'elle remplit avec ténacité cette tâche difficile d'attirer des capitaux vers un investissement agricole toujours ingrat, et ceci dans le cadre de la réforme agraire et du développement rural; quant au lien entre la coopération technique et l'investissement proprement dit nous savons combien cette conjonction est difficile à obtenir dans les faits.
Nous voudrions insister, bien que cela ait déjà été fait ce matin sur la plus-value que revêt un programme de terrain quand il s'intègre bien dans les plans nationaux, disons pas seulement dans les plans nationaux mais ainsi quand il coincide avec les souhaits, les désirs et les besoins nationaux comme ils sont exprimés au niveau des autorités nationales.
Dans les critères améliorés de l'estimation des programmes tels qu'ils figurent dans le document C 94/4, figurent: la clarté des objectifs, le transfert des compétences, les perspectives de suivi, mais aussi le degré de participation gouvernementale.
Ne serait-il pas opportun de provoquer cette participation avant la mise en route des projets, plutôt que comme souvent dans le passé, de la constater peu après, comme objet de critère qualitatif.
Ne pourrait-on pas aussi suggérer un autre terme pour ce degré de participation qui serait appelé le degré de cohérence avec les plans nationaux.
De même, un autre critère d'appréciation efficace pourrait être le degré de participation effective de la population au projet. Cette participation en effet comporte des effets exemplaires et multiplicateurs, qui catalysent les énergies, et qui permettent au projet de s'intégrer de lui-même dans les autres secteurs complémentaires; par exemple s'il s'agit d'un projet de production agricole, l'intégration se fera vers l'élevage, la reforestation, la lutte contre la désertification et l'établissement d'une infrastructure nécessaire pour écouler la nouvelle production.
Nous attirons également l'attention sur les petits agriculteurs et sur les éleveurs modestes souvent ignorants des possibilités de crédit et de commercialisation: de là, nous suggérons encore un autre critère d'évaluation qui serait le degré d'accroissement du niveau socio-économique des populations rurales pauvres; ce niveau devrait pouvoir mesurer l'ampleur du décollement d'une économie de subsistance à une économie d'échange et de surplus.
La Belgique a une contribution importante aux programmes de terrain à travers ses fonds fiduciaires; aussi ma délégation examinera-t-elle avec soin toutes les propositions de programmes de terrain qui iraient dans le sens des trois vecteurs que nous avons exposés ci-dessus: Premièrement, le degré de participation gouvernementale, qui dépend étroitement du degré de cohérence avec les plans nationaux et leurs tactiques spécifiques; deuxièmement, le degré de participation de la population dans son entiéreté, et troisièmement l'accroissement du niveau socio-économique des populations rurales les plus pauvres.
Cet ensemble, remarquons-le, se situe dans le cadre de la nouvelle stratégie internationale de développement.
ABDUL RAHMAN BIN HAJI ABBAS (Malaysia): Malaysia's intervention on this item of the agenda will be a brief one, as most of the relevant points have already been raised by us during our interventions in the debate on the Programme of Work and Budget and on the Review of the Regular Programme. The two important points which we would like to repeat here are as follows: FAO needs to develop quantitative measures for assessing the results of its field programmes. The present qualitative measure is far too subjective for a meaningful inter -activity comparison to be made. Furthermore, the re-grouping of the project rankings, based on a 5 point system, into three categories of "satisfactory, fair and poor" leaves much to be desired. We do not see the need for the re-grouping of the project rankings into categories, and would like FAO to go back to the use of the 5- point system in the preparation of the Reviews in the next biennium.
The use of national institutions and local experts should be pursued with increased vigour in the implementation of the field in the next biennium. If there is a local attitudinal barrier towards the use of national institutions and local experts within the countries concerned the FAO should utilize the experience and expertise that exist in such institutions to prepare projects in another developing country in the spirit of TCDC.
Let me now say a few words about Chapter 4 of the Review. The spirit of the suggestion from the 19th Session of the FAO Conference is to request FAO to identify how much food production has increased as a result of the technical assistance provided by FAO. However, such information is not available in the document. We would like FAO to attempt to make an assessment of the increase in the food output in developing countries as a consequence of the technical project implemented in these countries when it is preparing the Review for the next biennium. This is because we are concerned about the rising trend in the dependence of developing countries on food imports in the last few years.
FAO is to be congratulated for being instrumental in raising the consciousness of the world on the need to increase the level of investment in food production and rural development in the developing countries. But the increase in the quantum of investment funds per se is less relevant than the need to raise food production physically. In this respect it is clearly the responsibility of FAO to prepare properly the projects which it submits for investment by other international agencies.
D. BETI (Suisse): Au sujet du document C 79/4 nous aimerions nous limiter à quelques brèves observations. Ceci ne doit pas cependant signifier que nous attachons moins d'importance aux programmes de terrain qu'aux programmes ordinaires. Le contraire serait plutôt le cas. Toutefois, plusieurs de nos remarques faites au sujet du programme ordinaire, sont toutes aussi valables pour les programmes de terrain. Nous nous limiterons donc à les rappeler sans en faire de nouveau l'exposé.
Tout d'abord nous aimerions exprimer notre satisfaction au sujet du document C 79/4, qui nous sembre contenir l'essentiel des programmes de terrain sans dépasser les limites de ce qui est encore assimilable. Ce qui manque, évidemment, c'est une vue claire de l'interdépendance et de l'interaction entre les programmes de terrain et les programmes ordinaires. Nous avons déjà exprimé nos souhaits au sujet d'un unique rapport et d'un examen commun. Nous aimerions simplement les rappeler ici.
Quant au rôle principal de la FAO nous ne pouvons que nous rallier à la definition qu'en donne le Directeur général, dans l'introduction du document C 79/4 étant entendu qu'il soit dûment tenu compte de l'importance primordiale de la participation de la population concernée elle-même dans la poursuite des objectifs mentionnés dans l'introduction et ceci conformément au programme d'action de la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural.
La délégation de la France a, lors de l'examen du Programme et budget 1980/81, rappelé que la FAO doit, dans la large gamme des apports de différents genres qu'on lui demande, choisir et non additionner. Nous partageons ce point de vue, et nous sommes heureux de lire dans l'introduction au document C 79/4 que le Directeur général lui-même estime que l'utilité de la FAO sera jugée sur l'impact de ses activités de terrain sur la production alimentaire et la nutrition, plutôt que sur ses études, ses publications, ses réunions et une foule d'autres activités même si celles-ci peuvent avoir leur juste place dans l'ensemble des activités de la FAO. Il s'agit là d'un choix important que nous approuvons pleinement.
Nous avons lu avec tout le soin voulu le chapitre 2 sur l'évaluation des projets de terrain. Nous avons écouté attentivement les multiples interventions de ces derniers jours sur la question des évaluations. Nous ayons pris note de la position du Secrétariat sur le même sujet. Nous nous voyons malheureusement obligés de revenir rapidement sur cette question afin d'éviter que notre silence soit pris comme une approbation. Nous regrettons en effet de devoir dire que les explications du Secrétariat au sujet des évaluations ne nous ont pas convaincus. Nous continuons de penser que la FAO aurait intérêt à faire effectuer de temps en temps des évaluations indépendantes dans ses programmes et projets. Afin de clarifier notre point de vue nous aimerions cependant souligner que dans notre esprit des évaluations indépendantes, telles que nous les aurions souhaitées, ne devraient pas remplacer mais compléter l'auto-évaluation en cours qui, nous le répétons, nous semble valable et devrait être poursuivie.
On constate dans le document que "le coût du personnel internationnal constitue le principal élément des dépenses consacrées aux projets". Ce fait reste inquiétant à notre avis. Mais nous devons admettre qu'il y a une lueur d'espoir. D'une part, parce que la proportion du coût des experts par rapport à celle de l'équipement a tendance à changer en faveur de ce dernier. D'autre part, parce que l'accroissement sensible du coût des experts experts expatriés aura, comme exprimé dans le document, pour effet que l'on confiera dans le projets de plus en plus de responsabilité aux cadres et personnel nationaux, tendance heureuse que nous appuyons pleinement. A ce propos, il nous est agréable de lire que "90 projets environ sont actuellement administrés par des directeurs nationaux". Cela est encore peu mais c'est un excellent début.
Dans ce contexte, nous aimerions réitérer notre appui à une utilisation croissante des institutions nationales; nous connaissons nous-mêmes, dans la coopération bilatérale les multiples objectifs qui peuvent s'opposer au recours aux institutions nationales. Mais le Directeur général dans son introduction du document C 79/4 nous assure que "je ferai tout ce que je peux pour écarter les obstacles qui nous empêcheraient d'utiliser plus complètement les institutions nationales à l'avenir". Nous exprimons notre plein appui à cette détermination.
Quant aux modalités d'exécution des projets, des problèmes existent encore pour concilier les procédures et règlements nationaux avec ceux de la FAO. Or, une expérience a été tentée, selon le paragraphe 2. 47, à la page 36 de la version française en vue de modifier la procédure de contrat. Essai fort intéressant, de la durée d'un an et qui prendra fin sous peu. Nous serions très intéressés de connaître, le moment venu, les résultats de cette expérience et aimerions être tenus au courant de la suite qu'aura cet essai.
Nous discuterons de la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural au point 16 de l'ordre du jour de la Conférence, Ici nous voudrions seulement souligner l'importance que nous attachons à ce que tous les programmes et projets actuellement en cours soient réexaminés et réactualisés en fonction du programme d'action adopté par cette importante conférence mondiale du mois de juillet.
M. SCHUWEILER (United States of America. ): It seems important to begin by helping to put into perspective the importance of this subject. FAO, as we know, has mobilized a large and rapidly growing volume of resources for its work in food and agriculture in rural development. In the 1976-1977 biennium these resources amounted to about $ 500 million; grew to about $ 700 million during 1978-79 and are expected to exceed $ 850 million during the period 1980-81, It is estimated that almost 90 percent of these resources are used to finance or to otherwise support FAO's field activities. As in the past, we have found the Review of Field Programmes for 1978-1979 highly interesting and informative and I should add thought-provoking. But, as acknowledged by the Secretariat itself we have found the document generally one which provides very little in the way of an interpretative analytical evaluation of FAO's field programme activities. As such we feel it falls short of what is needed by Member Governments to evaluate the effectiveness of selected individual projects and the overall field porgramme.
While the Secretariat's review document sounds many notes of alarm regarding various trends in conditions which affect FAO's field operations, and I should quickly add that we share the Secretariat's concern with regard to many of these matters, we find that some of the conclusions drawn in the Review are unclear, questionable or misleading, and too often are not supported by objective evidence in the form of selected empirical examples. Even more than in the past we have found that the 1978-1979 Review tends to report rather than to analyze, evaluate and interpret.
We are also concerned that various important issues continue to be inadequately addressed in the Review. For example, and in particular, we should like to know, or have the Review help us to better understand, what is the impact of FAO Field Programme activities in meeting the needs of the rural poor; the small disadvantaged farmers; and the landless workers. Also, what has been the experience of FAO and others, and in the light of past experience, what are the possibilities and limitations in trying to deal with these problems? Without such information it is difficult to judge the value and priority importance of many FAO activities. While it is more or less neglected in the 1978-79 Review, the United States is pleased to see increasing evidence from other sources of information that FAO, under the Director-General's personal leadership, is moving more and more in action orientated directions, towards the solution of country-specific problems of the rural poor.
Having made these general comments I now should like to address selected specific parts of the Review of Field Programmes 1978-79. First, with regard to that section of the Review which is entitled Current Trends and Outlook, pages 1-19. For a combination of reasons, but primarily perhaps because most of the discussion of this subject and the related statistical tables -which are presented on pages 1-3 -are in terms of percentages rather than actual dollar amounts, we think that the first part of this Review tends to understate the importance of funding by the United Nations Development Programme relative to that of trust fund and other sources of financing for FAO activities. It should be noted, as is shown in Table 1 in the statistical appendix, which appears at the end of the Review, that FAO field activities financed by the UNDP in 1978 amounted to $ 129 million, or more than 60 percent of the total extrabudgetary expenditures for that year.
With reference to the discussion of expenditure trends and FAO's role in technical cooperations, the implication is drawn in the Review that the importance of FAO technical assistance in promoting agricultural and rural development is not adequately recognized in development financing. We think that conclusion is an oversimplification of the problem which is discussed on pages 3-7. In this connexion we agree with the Programme Committee that these trends need deeper analysis than that provided in the Review, and continued monitoring.
On page 12, paragraph 1. 27, it is pointed out that expenditure on equipment showed a significant increase as a part, of the total project input mix during 1978, increasing from 21 per cent in 1977 to over 27 per cent in 1978. We find this highly disturbing. We believe that FAO/UNDP resources should be used much more exclusively for technical assistance, the purpose for which they are donated. Countries desiring to direct these scarse resources to equipment financing should be encouraged to look to the World Bank and other financial institutions which are in the business of financing equipment and other capital project requirements.
In this connexion, we would note FAO cooperative, collaborative stance and growing role in relation to financial institutions, both national and international, and say that this role deserves to be encouraged, and we would wish to compliment the Investment Centre for stepping up its assistance to national development banks.
Also of special note is the FAO/UNDP initiative described on page 13 to provide follow-up, to bring technical assistance projects with investment potential to the feasibility stage and to ensure the interest of potential donors or financial institutions.
Of particular related interest is the report on page 149 of the Director-General's proposed Programme of Work and Budget for 1980-81, paragraph 11, that the Inter-American Development Bank has indicated an interest in drawing on FAO's investment development resources for assistance in implementing a greatly expanded lending programme designed for the particular benefit of the rural poor. A shift in this direction, not only in the Latin-American region but in all regions, is most important. We think that this should receive widespread support from all member governments, especially in view of the fact that all delegations from the developing countries, but one, acknowledged, at the recent World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, that there is an urgent need to solve the problems of the rural poor for more equitable development. We would like to have the Secretariat comment on the possibilities and limitations of effecting such a shift in the priorities of its investment work and to report on the related issues more fully in future issues of the Review.
Another chapter which we should like to speak directly about is that section of the report entitled "Food Production, Nutrition and Rural Development", pages 52-71. This chapter of the Review was written as a response to the suggestion of the Nineteenth Session of the FAO Conference that the Review of Field Programmes for the current biennium provide an informed judgement on the impact of FAO's field activities on food production, nutrition and rural development.
Quite clearly, I regret to say, this chapter of the Review, falls far short of a satisfactory response to the Conference request. It is not the fault of the authors, however. In the section entitled "Impact of Technical Assistance on Food Production", pages 52-57, for example the authors apparently tried to do their best to make something out of very inadequate information. What is needed is information of a kind which could become available probably only by introducing a system which employs the most up-to-date concepts and methodologies for evaluation. Lacking such information, the authors sought to draw conclusions and to make assertions, - for example on page 56, paragraphs 4. 11 and 4. 12, which are too often unsupported in the Review by facts or analysis.
In the section "Nutritional Considerations in Field Projects", pages 57-60, the authors also point up by implication the need for a more satisfactory system of project design and evaluation. On the basis of a desk review of 39 field projects they conclude on "that (a) as currently formulated, the projects did not identify target groups specifically enough; and (b) additional data required for the analysis of effects on nutrition of target groups were seriously lacking. " It is significant to note the authors concluded that in only nine of the 39 projects were small farmers, migrants and landless workers targeted as direct beneficiaries, and as reported on page 60, the authors drew similar conclusions regarding the findings of field evaluations of three other projects.
The Review concludes with a discussion of constraints on investment for increasing food production, pages 60-69. This is perhaps the most analytical, thought-provoking section in the Review. Unfortunately, it does not explicitly analyse FAO's experience in trying to overcome these constraints, nor does it seek to draw lessons regarding the possibilities and the limitations for future action, except in ways which are too general to be persuasive.
We believe that the Secretariat's suggestions on page 69 regarding a shift towards sector or institution financing may have considerable merit and deserve careful consideration, especially in connexion with decisions taken at the most recent session of the World Food Council, calling for development of national food strategies.
In conclusion, we found the Review of Field Programmes 1978-1979 disappointing, particularly since over the years in the past the Review has shown increasing promise. Perhaps because of the heavy workload imposed on the Secretariat by the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development there was not sufficient time or recources to succeed in both responsibilities. Given the outstanding work done by the Secretariat on the World Conference, however, and the fact that there are new responsibilities now placed on the Secretariat growing out of the World Conference for the development of indicators, criteria and methods for monitoring and evaluation of rural development and for assisting governments in introducing systematic procedures for this purpose, our Government feels that there is reason to believe that the Review of Field Programmes 1980-1981 may show substantial improvement over the one we have now under consideration.
Κ. CHOUERI (Liban) (interprétation de l'arabe): Nous remarquons que les propositions formulées par la Conférence générale lors de sa dix-neuvième session ont été pleinement reflétées dans ce document. Ces propositions ont été également reflétées dans les graphiques et tableaux qui sont extrêmement clairs et précis. C'est la raison pour laquelle nous félicitons le Directeur général, ainsi que M. Yriart, pour l'excellence de ce document.
Nous remarquons que le Directeur général guide cette Organisation dans la voie qui lui a été tracée depuis son élection. A ce moment-là, n'avait-il pas dit qu'il allait s'occuper des programmes de terrain et leur donner une priorité toute particulière, et ce par l'amélioration de l'efficacité de ce programme et par l'élimination de la bureaucratie ? De l'examen des chapitres de ce document, nous voyons que la FAO accorde une importance capitale à ces activités.
Nous remarquons également que les dépenses de programmes de terrain ont augmenté en 1978 par rapport à ce qu'elles étaient en 1977, ainsi que l'importance du personnel affecté aux programmes de terrain. Le personnel des pays en développement est passé de 23 pour cent en 1971 à 33 pour cent en 1978. Bien sûr, comme nous finançons ces programmes, nous devons procéder à l'évaluation de ces dépenses, et elle fait apparaître que la situation s'est améliorée par rapport aux exercices précédents.
J'aimerais analyser certains aspects du chapitre premier de ce document, pour voir la préoccupation résultant du manque de ressources financières allouées au secteur agricole. Nous remarquons que les fonds fiduciers ont doublé, bien que l'apport d'autres ressources diminue. Nous avons remarqué également qu'il y a eu un changement dans les tendances d'investissement car, depuis cinq ans, la Banque mondiale ainsi que les institutions internationales et régionales de financement sont devenues parties intégrantes de l'octroi de prêts au développement agricole et rural. A ce propos, nous devons rendre hommage aux efforts déployés par la FAO qui ont permis de délimiter les possibilités d'investissement dans le cadre de l'assistance technique, dans l'élaboration des projets d'investissement et leur exécution, et la formation du personnel qualifié pour s'acquitter de cette tâche.
En ce qui concerne le chapitre II relatif à l'évaluation des programmes variés, nous remarquons la détermination du Directeur général sur l'existence d'une influence directe des activités de la FAO sur le terrain parallèlement aux autres activités, et nous rendons hommage ici au rôle joué par la FAO dans l'apport de capitaux au secteur agricole.
Je vais passer au chapitre III relatif à l'utilisation des institutions nationales. Malgré les obstacles et les écueils qui se dressent sur cette voie - puisque les négociations sont longues, les coûts sont très grands, les capacités techniques doivent être recherchées - malgré toutes ces difficultés et ces écueils, l'utilisation des institutions nationales n'a fait que croître, puisqu'il y a une augmentation de 47 pour cent dans le domaine des contrats. Nous nous félicitons de la détermination du Directeur général d'avoir de plus en plus recours aux institutions nationales ainsi qu'aux experts-conseils et aux moyens de production venant des pays en développement.
Encore une fois, nous adressons nos félicitations au secrétariat pour l'excellent document préparé.
T. BEN SOUDA KORACEE (Maroc): Ma délégation s'associe aux autres délégations qui l'ont précédée pour remercier MM. Yriart et Bruce Harland pour leur très intéressant exposé; comme nous félicitons également la direction de la FAO pour l'excellent travail accompli et pour le document élaboré.
L'examen des programmes de terrain, objet du document C 79/4, met en relief la stagnation, voire la diminution, des moyens budgétaires mis à la disposition des programmes de terrain, ce que nous déplorons vivement.
Mais il faut relever aussi que le nombre d'interventions a augmenté. Nous pensons que c'est là la preuve d'une meilleure efficacité et d'une meilleure gestion de notre Organisation.
J'aimerais toutefois faire quelques observations en tant que pays bénéficiaire de l'aide de la FAO.
Premièrement, nous constatons que, dans les budgets allouée aux programmes de terrain, la part réservée aux experte étrangers est disproportionnée et laissée aux réalisations proprement dites. Ceci entame parfois l'éfficacité de l'intervention. Un remède pourrait être apporté à ce problème et consisterait dans un effort de réduction au minimum de la durée de présence des experts étrangers, grâce à un choix judicieux de ces mêmes experts.
Et ceci m'amène justement à ma deuxième observation qui concerne le choix des experts. Nous estimons que ce point est essentiel. L'expert devrait, à notre avis, être dans toute la mesure du possible déjà au courant dee réalités du pays concerné, afin de perdre le moins de temps possible dans la phase
de diagnostic et de pré-étude. L'adjonction à l'équipe de consultants, de sociologues et de techniciens nationaux, devrait aboutir à une réduction trés importante de la durée de la phase de diagnostic et de collecte de renseignements et, par là, à l'allégement des charges dues à la présence des experts étrangers.
Troisième observation: le rapport fait état de lenteurs d'exécution des programmes, lenteurs dues aux procédures bureaucratiques des pays bénéficiaires. Cela est probablement vrai, mais je voudrais également relever les lenteurs administratives de notre Organisation et souhaiterais que les rouages administratifs, par lesquels passent les requêtes, soient simplifiés au maximum.
Quatrièmement, le programme d'EMASAR, auquel le délégué de la France a fait allusion, nous paraît revêtir une grande importance pour des pays comme le mien qui disposent de vastes zones de parcours arides ou semi-arides, nécessitant des interventions urgentes pour en améliorer la production et relever le niveau de vie de leurs populations. Nous souhaiterions que son champ d'action soit élargi et ses moyens renforcés, afin de lui permettre de jouer pleinement son rôle.
K. M. KHUDHEIR (Iraq) (interpretation from Arabic): My delegation feels that there could be better preparation of the document as well as the analysis which is not complete in the field of activities and objectives which try to improve the food situation in the world. We hope to get further details concerning Table 2 in the document, which shows that a proportion of the implementation of the project in 78-79 has been 15 percent only, even though this type of programme has been in force for a long time already. We hope that FAO will take all necesary measures to avoid such delays, and we hope that the FAO will, in the implementation of these programmes, be able to keep up with enthusiasm in the collection of capitals, because it is really high time for the FAO to apply new projects in the developing countries, and for these projects and programmes to help to create a new international economic order for which we are working.
Ms. B. POULSEN (Denmark): Denmark attaches great importance to the Review of Field Programmes because it is an opportunity to examine the input, work and achievements of FAO in the developing countries. The document before us, C 79/4, provides a comprehensive picture of the field programmes for the years 1978-79.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Nineteenth Conference, the document provides an assesment of progress and the use of national institutions and various activities in Chapter 3, and in Chapter 4 examines the impact of FAO field activities in food production and nutrition. We welcome this new approach.
When reviewing the field programmes at the Conference two years ago we were faced with a decrease in the overall budgetary expenditure which was largely due to the financial difficulties UNDP encountered in 1975. This trend of decreasing the budgerary expenditure has been reversed over the biennium we are reviewing here, and although the expenditure has not reached the height of the expenditure in the middle of this decade, it is an encouraging sign.
On the other hand there is a rapidly growing need for, and demand for technical assistance from FAO. This is an acknowledgement of the great value of FAO's programmes, and it is indeed a challenge to the Organization and to the donors. Denmark has contributed substantially to the FAO trust fund programmes over the years. Under the agreement of 1969 between the Danish Government and FAO concerning the financing of mutually agreed programmes and projects to be executed by FAO, the total disbursements for the period of 1970-78 have amounted to approximately $41 million which represent about half of the entire Danish multilateral assistance for projects in the period. The Danish authorities are very pleased with the cooperation we have with FAO in this field.
According to these guidelines, Denmark will concentrate its assistance in a few priority areas in which she has a special interest and which demand special technical expertise.
A few priority areas have been assigned, fertilizer programmes, feed production, small scale fisheries and tick and tick-borne diseases, and negotiations are under way to work out projects in this field. We attach considerable expectation to this new approach in multiple cooperation. In view of the Danish Goverment's overall consideration for FAO in the future, any planning and executing multilateral assistance will be to secure the general project, will contribute to the promotion of integrated rural development, and especially to enhance the actual participation of the poorer segments of the population as well as the participation of women. In selecting projects for financing by Denmark, the Danish Government will attach great importance to the relevance of the project to integrate this rural development in accordance with the decisions of WCARRD Conference this summer.
I should also like to stress the importance of the training activities which have been carried out as part of our multilateral cooperation with FAO. Recent discussions have demonstrated that our wish to integrate these training activities in the overall development effort concurs with FAO's approach to training activities. We think that more and more emphasis must be put on the potential impact of these activities on development in the individual countries. I would like to say that this approach is already applied to activities like the dairy training programme which has just been prolonged for another five-year period, and for the African Meat Training Programme now under preparation.
We appreciate that the Technical Cooperation Programme mentioned under the Field Programme Review often provides an effective and quick response to emergencies, but I would like to refer to the Danish statement in the Plenary Session and to reiterate that the TCP should not develop to a permanent aid programme. We urge FAO in each case on request for TCP to consider carefully whether TCP is the right answer to that request, or whether financing from other sources for instance a trust fund - would not be more relevant. I would like to add here that my delegation is in agreement with the main points and the remarks made by the USA delegation on Chapter 4 on the question of nutrition and food production as representated by agrarian reform and rural development.
I would like now to put the question of FAO's relationship to UNDP, and I would like to take this opportunity to point out that it has for a long time been the decision of the Danish Government that UNDP does, and indeed shall play an important role in the operation of development activities of the UN system. The prime role of UNDP is to raise funds. UNDP also has an important coordinating role to play in relation to other agencies of the UN Development System. The Director-General was quite clear on this point in his Resolution 32 recommending that UNDP country programming should be used as a frame for reference in all operational activities channelled through the UN system.
UNDP Coordination can also help to secure that the development priorities of the recipient countries are mirrored in the operation and effort of the UN system.
Therefore, my delegation considers it of importance that FAO as well as other Specialized Agencies continue to expand their cooperation with UNDP.
AMIOJOWO MARTOSUWIRYO (Indonesia): My delegation would like to compliment the FAO on the excellent document under discussion. On behalf of my delegation, I should like to make a general remark.
My delegation notes with appreciation that the role of FAO in assisting developing countries with agriculture and rural development has been increasing. The Review of Field Programmes reveals many facts which encourage FAO and other international organizations like UNDP, and of course developing countries, to make more effort and take more action.
No doubt all of us are fully aware of the necessity for the developing countries to produce more food, which is vital, and to develop their agriculture further in order that they can meet their steadily increasing consumption requirements. My delegation is convinced of the fact that developing countries have made strenuous efforts to increase their food production and reduce their food imports and thus economize on the use of foreign exchange earnings. However, food shortages, hunger and malnutrition continue to exist in a number of developing countries. It is true that elimination of hunger and malnutrition in the world - and I would like to stress "in the world" - is not the responsibility of the developing countries alone. It is the responsibility of the international society, including FAO and other international organizations such as UNDP. Although those various kinds of external assistance are supplementary in nature, they appear still to be necesary and, as a matter of fact, developing countries count on them to a large extent in their efforts to multiply food production and further develop their agriculture.
In this context, FAO is the right international organization as, over the years, it has accumulated invaluable expertise and experience and the capability to render its services to developing countries according to the urgency and necessity.
It is worth mentioning that various kinds of assistance from advanced countries are greatly appreciated. We note also the fall in the share of FAO in UNDP allocations.
in the light of the foregoing, my delegation, together with the delegations of Guinea, Ghana and Zambia, prepared a draft resolution on development assistance for food production and rural development. The draft resolution is merely to request FAO, UNDP and other international organizations, and developed countries, to assist and to increase their contribution in their efforts to help developing countries
to produce more food. The relevant parts of the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly, the World Food Conference and the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development and other international organizations should be stressed. The draft resolution requests the Director General, UNDP and donor countries to make more effort so as to enable us to reach our target, as with the target for prevention of food losses and others.
My delegation hopes that that the draft resolution will be adopted by this Commission and then by the Conference.
J. S. CAMARA (Guinée): Ce qui frappe dans le document C 79/4 c'est d'abord sa clarté. Ce document n'est pas volumineux, il se lit rapidement et d'une façon qui permet la compréhension immédiate de sa teneur.
Le rôle de la FAO a été souligné ces jours-ci tant en salle plénière qu'en Commissions et nous pensons, comme le Directeur général l'a dit lui-même dans son introduction, que la FAO ne peut pas résoudre à elle seule tous les problèmes tel que celui des évaluations. Je pense qu'en signalant ces problèmes avec franchise et dans un esprit constructif, nous pouvons faciliter les rapports entre les parties intéressées. C'est une collaboration qui réduira au munimum certaines de ces institutions. Je crois que le Directeur général a bien expliqué le rôle de la FAO. Son role est peut-être de créer le scandale dans une époque où l'on fait des déclarations et où très souvent nous ne pensons pas aux actions concrètes. Malgré ces difficultés, l'Organisation nous montre l'effort consenti par les uns et par les autres aux pays en développement. Nous tenons à féliciter le personnel du Secrétariat dans ce sens.
On a évoqué également le Programme de coopération technique (PCT) en disant qu'on ne souhaiterait pas que cela devienne une institution ou un programme fixe de cette Organisation. Nous ne cesserons jamais de répéter que nous ne sommes pas d'accord avec cette façon de penser en ce qui concerne le Programme technique, car, depuis bientôt quatre ans que ce Programme technique existe aucun document en est venu informer l'importance qu'il revêt pour les pays en développement. C'est grâce à lui que la FAO intervient rapidement dans son assistance aux pays qui souvent doivent attendre de longues périodes avant d'avoir accès à cette assistance. Nous pensons donc que le Programme technique doit être renforcé dans cette Organisation.
Nous passons ensuite au rôle essentiel des représentants de la FAO. Sans la décentralisation la lourde machine ne pourrait pas fonctionner. Par leur présence, les représentants, qui sont souvent d'excellents conseillers pour les ministres de l'agriculture de nos pays, facilitent l'identification et la formulation des recettes et des projets. Je pense donc que leur présence est salutaire et nous insistons pour que les représentations soient renforcées. Ainsi que l'a souligné le Directeur général, la FAO a cessé d'être une grande bibliothèque de l'agriculture pour devenir une Organisation active et présente sur le terrain, en décentralisant ses actions et en étant présente là où c'est nécessaire.
Ce document représente pour nous une évaluation des activités de la FAO et complète les documents que nous avons étudiés il y a deux jours. Je pense que le problème de l'évaluation doit relever essentiellement de ceux qui se trouvent sur le terrain, de ceux qui participent à l'action.
Je pense que le Directeur général est en train de faire un effort sur l'utilisation des institutions nationales. Ceci diminuerait le coût pour les pays en développement. Je pense que c'est une voie à suivre et que dans le cadre de la coopération technique entre pays en développement, l'Organisation devrait renforcer son action.
Pour terminer, j'aborderai deux autres points. Il s'agit, en premier lieu, des liens étroits entre la FAO et le PNUD mais chacun d'entre nous ne souhaite que cela, et pas uniquement un lien entre le PNUD et toute institution de financement comme la Banque mondiale, les institutions régionales de financement, les banques africaines ou asiatiques. Nous pensons qu'il faut renforcer le Centre d'investissement. La FAO ne doit pas devenir un instrument sous la responsabilité du PNUD. Les gouvernements eux-mêmes ne le souhaitent pas. Il ne faudrait pas que l'on nous chante toujours la même chanson: que le rôle du PNUD doit être prioritaire. Nous savons ce qui se passe sur le terrain.
Pour terminer, j'en viendrai à un projet de résolution que mon collègue de l'Indonésie a déjà présenté et dont nous sommes les co-auteurs. Je ne répéterai pas ce qu'il a dit. Je souhaiterai inviter cette Commission a apporter un soutien massif à ce projet de résolution.
Α·Ρ·Μ. DE FREITAS (Brazil):I had an opportunity to take part in the discussion of both the Regular and Field Programme in the last meeting of the Programme Committee. Nevertheless I would like to express the appreciation of the Brazilian delegation of the work done by the Secretariat both in the preparation and the carrying out of the programmes carried out by FAO in the developing oountries. I would also express special appreciation for the work of guidance and coordination by Mr. West and Mr. Yriart in this respect.
Brazil has been a beneficiary of the Regular and Field Programme s, so is familiar with the work of FAO in different activities. Yesterday the Brazilian Minister of Agriculture and the Director-General of FAO signed an agreement to establish an office of the Organization in our capital city Brasilia.
We think the presence of an FAO representative is essential for the coordination of the different FAO projects in the country and for the identification of new opportunities for collaboration between FAO and Brazil. In the recent past you had an excellent example of prompt collaboration provided by FAO to Brazil in the case of African swine fever. The joint effort was highly fruitful, and today that disease is completely eradicated from Brazil.
As regards, in particular, the document under consideration the Review of Field Programmes, I would like to make some brief comments. We regret the decrease in real terms of the UNDP participation in FAO projects. Although this decrease had been more than compensated by trust funds, we agree with the Banish delegation that a greater participation of UN related organizations in the activities of FAO would be desirable.
We would like to commend the good results of TCP projects, and express our appreciation for the efforts of the Director--General in this respect. The Brazilian delegation agrees with both the distribution of TCP projects by regions and the categories of activities as on page 31.
I would like to express our agreement with the delegate of Guinea concerning the continuation of TCP. It is important and has already been accepted by most of the delegates, and it should be maintained.
As regards the use of developing countries' capacity, we know certain difficulties are unavoidable when the question arises of making use of experts from developing countries. They are scarce, and they are much needed in their own countries. Sven so, we believe much more could still be done in this area.
I also think on the question of purchase orders for equipment and supplies for field projeots the greatest efforts should be exerted in trying to identify possible sources of supplies in developing countries. Some of them have already attained a medium level of development and are capable of providing different types of equipment, especially in the agricultural area.
On nutrition and malnutrition, the Brazilian delegation agrees with the remarks in the Document in the sense that not only should production of food be increased but also information on contamination, hygienic living conditions and in many oases the introduction and encouragement of new eating habits should be undertaken if we are to fight malnutrition effectively. FAO could develop action in this area.
In conclusion, I would like to compliment the Secretariat for the preparation of the two documents discussed here yesterday and today.
Miss E. (Norway)s First of all we would like to congratulate the Secretariat on the document before us, which gives a comprehensive olear and interesting overview of FAD' s field programmes. We would like to limit our comments to one - in our view extremely important - problem which is in fact raised in the report, and which was briefly touched upon already by the U. S delegate.
In Chapter 4 of the document special focus is put on the under-privileged and how to identify the real beneficiaries of project activities. As a partial response to Resolution 8/77 of the 19th FAO Conference 39 different FAO projects in 9 countries were studied to determine their likely impact on the nutritional status of the target groups. We have already stated in the COAG that we find the preliminary results of this study alarming. The conclusions are cited on page 59 of Doc. C 79/4, and we interpret them to say that only few of the 39 projects are likely to have a positive nutritional impact on the poor - i. e. on the population groups that are most affected by hunger and malnutrition. This is a very serious situation.
"Raising the levels of nutrition" is the first purpose of this Organization according to the
Preamble of the FAO Constitution and - in fact - during this Conference we are constantly talking about fighting hunger and malnutrition. If only a small part of the activities of the FAO has a direct impact on hunger and malnutrition in the world it must indeed call for closer examination of the work of the Organization.
I would therefore like to ask the Secretariat to answer the following questions: will the exercise be repeated - both as far as the 39 desk studies are concerned - but also the three in-depth studies that are mentioned on page 59? Are the reports - or at least the methodological framework - from the completed studies available to member nations who might wish to carry out similar exercises within their own bi-lateral programmes? How does the Secretariat interpret the results? What consequences are the studies going to have for the future orientation of the work of the FAO
We are aware of the efforts of the Food Policy and Nutrition Division to develop a methodology to incorporate nutritional considerations into development projects. This is, however, a modest exeroi se compared to the reactions we would have expected from such alarming results as came out of the review of the 39 projects.
Although running the risk of being labelled as moralistic, I feel that our interests in alleviating the plight of the poor, at the core of which is hunger, must lead us seriously to analyse the root causes of hunger and malnutrition. This work has already been started in the framework of the WCARRD Conference. The next step is however the more painful one; the ruthless examination of our actions and projects, relating them to the noble goals we have set. We feel that the analysis I just mentioned is doing precisely that. Now we must be willing to continue this examination, in spite of the shortcomings that are revealed, and to work actively to adjust the projects till they are in fact doing what they purport to dot alleviating the plight of the poor in an effective and lasting way.
P. LAOWHAPAN (Thailand): Let my delegation at the outset express their thanks to the ADG, Mr. Yriat, and the delegate of UNDP for their comprehensive and lucid introductions, also convey our compliments to the Secretariat for the preparation of a very valuable document for our basic discussion this morning.
My delegation would like to make very brief comments on a few points in this document. We learnt with great satisfaction the success achieved by FAO so far in the field programme 1978/79· From the statistical point of view FAO field programme expenditure shows an increase of 120 percent in 1978 over 1970 at current prices, but in real terms it increased only 2 percent of the actual cost of the present and this figure must be taken into consideration.
Regarding the use of national institutions we are pleased to know of the sizeable increase in their use particularly in developing countries in recent years. In this connexion my delegation feels that FAO might strengthen the role of the regional office as well as the national institutions taking into consideration the decentralization of those institutions.
Concerning the analysis of the Field Programme, we compliment the FAO on this analysis and generally agree with the conclusions.
While the evaluation is important, we believe that the countries which are the beneficiaries are the best to evaluate the projects as it affects them directly.
As has been expressed earlier on the Regular Programme, we do not consider that there is a need for external evaluation.
M. ZJALIC (Yugoslavia): My delegation is pleased to note that the Director-General has prepared Doc. C 79/4 whose comprehensive and analytical approach together with proposals and suggestions for futuro work represents an important and remarkable help to delegates in their work on this Conference.
We share the Director-General's concern with the negative elements in the current biennium especially with the fact that the role of the technical assistance is not adequately recognized in aid programmes, that the share of technical assistance has been falling every year, that the real value of FAO expenditure on UNDP-supported projects has been below the 1970 level.
We strongly feel, Mr, Chairman, that the central purpose of technical assistance is to strengthen the national institutions in developing countries to the point that they can initiate and sustain development programmes. External technical assistance, this being also an important way for transfer of technology should be primarily concentrated on solving problems that cannot be solved by national institutions.
In this light we see the role of the international personnel engaged in the technical assistance. We are fully aware that such an approach leads towards the self-reliance of developing countries and towards the affirmation and practical application of the spirit of the new international economic order.
An analysis of the current trends and policies in regard to the official development assistance and of the role of financial sources within the united Nations system, as well as the other sources, appears to be in our view a prerequisite for the readjustment of political measures aimed at satisfying the growing need for the development assistance in the development of agriculture·
As for assessment of field projects, we think that there has been an important improvement in this area. Further improvement in this area could be found through cooperation of FAO Country Representatives and the respective governments. Also we feel that it is necessary to do more towards the objectiveness of the assessment measures and practices. As we have already expressed we think that Country Representatives of FAO, then FAO itself, the Organization and the FAO staff, together with governments are those who are not only qualified but fully responsible for the assessment and the evaluation of the project.
In the Investment Sector we expect further development of the sectorial approach instead of single project approach and further simplifications in preparation of the investment projects. Our experience in this field has shown that it is much easier to solve administrative end organizational problems in providing external financial means for investment in programmes for development of certain sectors than compared with a single project.
As for TCP, we once again compliment the Director-Gene ral on the operational effectiveness of this programme, especially in dealing with emergencies.
B. E. PHIRI (Zambia): We do not like to go over the same ground that other delegates have covered because most of what they have said we would have wished to say ourselves. But there are one or two points we would like to mention, if only to emphasize the points.
The first is that we are very happy with what FAO is doing in the field of technical cooperation programmes. Although this is a very small sector within FAO we feel that it is doing a very good job. in developing countries.
My country has benefited from the technical cooperation programme, and we have been impressed much more by the quick response that is given when assistance is requested. We feel that if FAO assistance were given with that speed possibly we would be making headway in improving food production and the rural development.
In many cases with no more kind of assistance it takes months, sometimes years, before the very beginning of a project is started. Most of the time we have missions coming to recipient countries to gather information before assistance is going to be given, and by the time assistance is actually provided sometimes the priorities in the country have changed. Sometimes there have been certain developments which would render the project that had been envisaged to start with, obsolete. So we feel that we commend FAO for the quick response that they give through the technical cooperation assistance programme and we hope that this programme will be given increasing support over the years.
We also wish to highlight the fact that the presence of FAO representatives in developing countries is of immense assistance in that there is a direct link between the recipient countries and FAO. We hope that the presence of FAO representatives will be made use of more and more to try and reduce the length of preparation that at the present time takes place when assistance is given. We feel that both donor countries as well as recipient countries should make more and more use of the Permanent Representatives in their countries so that we hasten the implementation of projects when they are prepared. Coupled with this we think that the youth of national institutions should also be highlighted, and this is why when we made our intervention on the Review of Regalar Programme we mentioned that evaluation should be done as it is at present by the recipient country and FAO. This is, as we mentioned earlier, to try and reduce the time in which the project can be implemented, evaluated and, in fact, assessed.
But we noticed that there is some kind of in-fighting among international institutions, the donors. There is this in-figthing for récognition. One institution wants to have a brand of its name on the particular project to say, "We are the ones who did that", or "we are the ones who did the other thing".
But in trying to come to grips with this we find that it is the recipient country which suffers. The donor agencies can go on squabbling for recognition but there is no progress taking place in the developing countries. So we feel by reducing the stages, the chain of consultation before a project is implemented will help the recipient countries to make headway. So that we do not stall, we do not mark time by trying to sort out who is going to do this, or who is going to do the other thing. This is more so when it comes to collection of data for preparing a project. We have noticed that even where adequate data is available, say in FAO, the World Bank will want to send its mission to a country before they are going to consider a project, to collect data. And they are going to collect the same information which has already been provided to FAO or IFAD, or to UNDP. So we would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that possibly there should be a central bank of information on various countries, so that donor agencies, or any kind of donors, bilateral donors or multilateral donors, could have access to this bank of information on a particular country and, thereby, reduce the period of preparing and implementing the project.
I want to end on the note that has already been mentioned by Indonesia, that Indonesia, Ghana and Zambia have decided to table a resolution in this Commission for adoption. We hope that it will not cause any problems to any delegation. It is a straightforward resolution. I would mention one or two things which have prompted us to prepare this resolution. The Conference did agree, Mr. Chairman, to have special funds, special account, for the prevention of food losses. The amount was $ 20 million. At that time, 1977, we from the developing countries who thought that we would benefit from this requested that the amount that had accrued as a result of the exchange rate which was recoverable for the Organization should be transferred to set up this fund for prevention of food losses. But we found that there was opposition to that suggestion, and we only agreed to transfer a certain amount and hoped that adequate contributions would be forthcoming to establish this account. But we feel rather disheartened that up to this time we have not reached the 20 million target we had set ourselves in 1977· Therefore, we have decided that we shoull have a resolution merely to prompt government and the donor agencies to double their efforts, so that some of the noble ideas that keep coming up in these Conferences can be implemented, can be met. There is also a $ 20 million target for seed improvement and development scheme. It may appear that we are very fond of the figure 8 20 million, but it happened to be another 8 20 million, but there too there are are no funds, not adequate funds, Mr. Chairman. We come to decide on certain figures, but once we go home, it ends there. We say one thing in the Conference but when we get back there is very little that we do or we do not do the whole thing. To be able to implement the decisions that we reach in the Conference. This, therefore, disheartens us, particularly being the poor countries and we rely on our rich brothers to help us so that we too can improve our production, can improve our food production and agricultural development in general.
There is another field, this is trypanosomiasis. I would take Africa, possibly because I am coming from Africa.
There are large tracts of land in that continent which are not habitable today because of this disease, both for human and animal habitation, but we need money to fight this kind of disease and liberate the land for human and animal habitation, and we do not have the resources. We can only look at our rich brothers to help. Of course we do know that possibly we are making too many demands, but if we do not make these demands what is the future for us?
We are appealing to them to consider our plight. We do know that they have their own problems, but we do also know that they do have the resources. They can give out, they can help and we can make this world a better place where to live.
So we hope that this draft resolution which we have submitted will be accepted and endorsed by this Commission for the benefit of all of us, both the developed and the developing countries.
CHAIRMAN: Unfortunately due to pressure of other work I shall not be able to participate in this Commission for the rest of the week. Our three Vice-chairmen will take on the duties of the Chairman, Mr. Kelly of Australia will chair this afternoon and tomorrow; Mr. Gomez and Mr. Palñer will chair on subsequent days.
Since I shall not have an opportunity to participate in the discussions on the Field Programmes, I would like to make a few brief remarks. First of all, as the last speaker eloquently put it, as an exceedingly important aspect of FAO's work one cannot underestimate the crucial role of technical assistance, technical cooperation, TCDC and the whole sector of allied activities
connected with the transfer of know-how, the imparting of relevant skills, human resources development in its entirety. In fact, one of the reasons for the stagnation of agriculture in many of the developing countries has been the feeling that agriculture is a profession which requires mainly brawn or energy and no brain. As soon as anyone gets educated he feels the time has come to leave the village, to go to the town or city. This dichotomy has been partially responsible for the recent stagnation. In the Field Programmes of FAO, the technical bilateral programmes and so on, the major emphasis has been on achieving a marriage between brain and brawn, and I feel that the new policies of using national institutions, national experts for consultancy are another important aspect of this thrust.
What has also been happening is that as soon as professional skills are imparted, the developing country invariably loses some of its best talent because of what one may call the growing privileges and salaries gap between the salaries of international organizations and national organizations, or the salaries of the developed countries' institutions and the developing countries' institutions. So the developing country is on the horns of a dilemma, it may get people trained and it loses them.
That is why I welcome the growing emphasis by the FAO as well as other international organizations, on using more and more national institutions for getting work done. There may be inadequacies, but I think we should also put some money into building up infrasucture, certain basic facilities which are essential for national institutions to undertake regional and international responsibilities.
I believe that the entire area of skill formation, the integration of brain and brawn, the ending of the divorce between intellect and labour, these are exceedingly crucial and should receive the highest attention in technical cooperation missions.
Two particular points were referred to this morning which I want to take up and on which I want to give my own views. One was referred to by the delegate of Norway as an alarming situation; that is the report on nutrition to which the delegates of the United States, Denmark and Norway and several other countries referred to correctly. The delegates of the United States and Norway did well to stress the point contained in paragraph 4.26, in other words the single study which was conducted on a project relating to small farmers and landless labourers led to the conclusion which I would have expected, namely that it could not really benefit the intended beneficiaries.
I say this from considerable experience, it is totally wrong to have a project which links the landless labourer with others. In the past we have made this mistake and the hope was that the landless labourer would benefit from a project designed to help small farmers by increased wage employment. What is intended here is that if a person has a single crop system with 120 per year of employment, we somehow hope that we may be able to raise it to 200 or 240 days, either by multiple cropping or mixed farming and so on.
Now, in practice this does not happen. If we really want to improve the nutrition level of landless labourers, who are really the ones at highest risk, because unlike the industrial labourers, they are not organized, they do not have collective bargaining power, the unorganized labour farm sector will have to receive special attention.
I would ask the representative of UNDP who is here also to convey my request to his Administrator and to Mr. Yriart that they should design a project, solely a regional project, it may be one in Asia or Africa, or Latin America, purely to benefit the landless agricultural labourer. If you take rural sectors and you want to divide them by target orientation, you get approximately four major groups in most villages: the rural artisans who are to be helped in a different way; the land-owning class who can be helped by improved agriculture and animal husbandry; the landless agricultural labourer and the rural woman. The rural woman does a considerable amount of horizontal cutting-across of sectors.
If we want to help the landless labourers, we must develop an appropriate technology to do so. For example, the answer to many of the landless labourer problems has been improved opportunities for wage employment or improved opportunities of self-employment through animal-husbandry programmes. How do you improve animal husbandry - which is a land-based occupation - for a landless labour family? What kind of technology do we have? Are we establishing further in-feed banks? Are we establishing the appropriate health care services? Are we establishing the appropriate marketing services?
If you want to help the landless labourers, introduce them to aquaculture and mariculture, there are enormous opportunities there. But how do you do it? Can you take pawns and help labourers induce breeding techniques? Can you give them the most profitable sector of the occupation, namely fish seed production? Similarly in forestry, similarly in animal husbandry. For example, if you take mushrooms, the production round major cities, it could be a very profitable occupation for landless labour families, but the land will have to be given, pasturized, composted and seeded with spawn. Certain services will have to be organized.
Therefore I do not particularly care for additional evaluation because I can give you in writing the same conclusions as those which will emerge. What is necessary now is to go into the root cause of why we have not succeeded in certain tasks. Why - as the UNDP Administator's representative was saying - in spite of all these hypocritical statements are we shedding our crocodile tears for the poor but are not making progress? Because our basic methodology is wrong. That is why 1 feel that unless we make a departure and go into the problem in depth and then design projects which are beneficiary oriented, which can go into the problems of the landless peasants, how we can help them through an integrated approach to self-employment and wage employment, we shall not be able to make progress.
I would like earnestly to appeal to the FAO in its many initiatives, to start a project on landless agricultural labour, perhaps in a region or as a national project, in suitable areas. It must be designed very carefully and there is tremendous scope, I can tell you, if you really want to do it.
One final point about research. Chart 6 in the publications shows that 3 percent of the budget of the Field Projects goes to research. It has already been mentioned, both by Mr. Yriart and the UNDP representative, that the CGIAR, the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, is spending a considerable amount of money through the national centres. But there is, I think, a big gap here. There is international research from the international centres, there are some national research organizations, but very little adaptive research because agriculture is a location specific phenomenon, and there are so many problems. We have already seen the countries which took up large developmental projects based upon global data or macro-data, have come to grief. There is the problem in Indonesia now that the third bio-type of the brown plant hopper has arisen. Ten years ago we never used to talk about the brown plant hopper in rice culture, today, with the changing ecology of the field, it has become a new disease and past problems naturally become important.
This is only natural, to find new soil health problems, new weed problems, new pest and disease problems. One set of problems is overcome and a new set of problems arises. As I mentioned yesterday, the related photo insensitivity and thermal insensitivity of these new varieties makes them come to green development at a stage when there may still be high atmospheric humidity or rainfall because the earlier varieties were season bound. The present varieties are period-fixed with more problems of grain drying and aphro-toxin production, therefore there is need for strong national research systems. Any country which feels that it can have a dynamic and sustained agricultural production programme without strong national research and extension back-up will meet with only shortlived success. There can be a considerable amount of political fanfares, projects may be started, but they will be doomed within a short period of time.
It is the duty of FAO to strengthen national research systems, because while international research can develop concepts, material, these must be adapted for local conditions. This gap will have to be filled by FAO. I am, of course, informed that a new organization is being started by CGIAR called ISNARS, the Liternational Service for National Agricultural Research Systems. I am not aware what its scope or functions will be, but if that organization will fulfil this need, then it is good. But FAD should get in touch with CGIAR and the other bilateral and multilateral agencies and they must step in, because we feel the need for this.
Many delegations who have spoken here are in a hurry, they want to make quick progress, but there is no magic wand, no miracle. Although the newspapers christened some varieties "miracle varieties", there is no miracle, no short-cut to progress. There is only hard and systematic work to be done. There must be an analysis of problems, an impact analysis, an action-reaction analysis. One will have to foresee what is going to come because when we provoke change, not all the aspects of that change are favourable, many are but some are unfavourable. One must minimize the unfavourable changes.
So I would really like to hope that in the subsequent discussion the distinguished delegates will give further thought to these problems, and with the ability of FAO and a bi-multilateral kind of cooperation we can come to grips with the real problems in the new decade, because we are now talking about the programmes for the 80's, that have been called the new international economic order. If you really want to achieve a new international economic order of progress in the 80's we will have to give a very sensitive, particular analysis to the way certain projects did not take us to the desired call, and learn appropriate lessons. I am sure Mr. Yriart and all engaged in this exeroi se will be very helpful.
The meeting rose at 12.45 hours
La séance est levée à 12.45h
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas
