CHAIRMAN: We "begin the afternoon session and resume our consideration of the Review of Field Programmes.
W. KISAMBA-MUGERWA (Uganda): In our earlier intervention we expressed gratitude upon the election of the chairman and his assistants to preside over this very important meeting. We are happy that each of you is given an opportunity to use his experience at this vital time.
My delegation has studied Doc. C 79/4 and would like to congratulate the Secretariat on producing this valuable document. To my delegation it is simple, clear and easy to understand, it brings out clearly and systematically the achievements, constraints and areas that need attention, especially in respect to host countries. We hope that this document will give clear guidelines to both FAO and host countries in improving field programmes to achieve their basic objectives.
The points which we raise on this item are merely for emphasis. Regarding the TCP and Trust Fund facilities, ray delegation finds the procedure somewhat slow, though some delegates appreciated the FAO/UNDP speed with which the Technical Cooperation Programme is being handled. We are quite aware of the procedural difficulties and the care required, together with the high demand but we feel some steps should be undertaken to cut down the bureaucracy.
As you are aware, food and agricultural programmes need accurate timing, this being a critical sector; if the assistance required does not readily come, the programme is normally jeopardized.
My delegation is happy with FAO's efforts in promoting investment for Food Production and Nutrition as presented in this Doc. 079/4· This is very important in the sense that technical assistance for other elements such as transport, farm machinery and farm inputs are indeed major constraints in implementing Food and Agriculture programmes.
My delegation is in full support of the Director-General's policy of decentralization, hoping that it will not only expedite project processing and implementation, but will in the long run accomplish a major objective in technical assistance by expediting the strengthening of institutional capabilities in the developing countries to the point that developing countries can initiate and sustain development programmes with minimum external assistance. This will of course relieve budgetary problems which have been a key factor in our deliberations in Commission II.
We would like to make one remark on External Evaluation which has been advanced by some delegations here. We are of the opinion that this will create unnecessary delay, which we are trying to cut down to the possible minimum. Secondly, it will again encroach on FAO's meagre financial resources when in our opinion FAO is competent and has the technical knowhow to undertake evaluation. We believe that with our remarks made during this 20th Session, coupled with the ability of the Director-General and his staff, the point of external evaluation services does not arise.
H. L. CLAVERIE RODRIGUEZ (Venezuela): Antes de nada quisiera agradecer al señor Yriart y al señor representante del PNUD por la completísima presentación del tema en discusión que nos presentaron en la mañana de hoy. La delegación de Venezuela quiere agradecer altamente las deferencias del Director General en atención a las indicaciones que produjo la 19a Conferencia, en relación con la presentación de la materia comprendida en el Programa de Campo, y la cual vemos resumida en esta ocasión o presentada en el documento C 79/4: Examen de los Programas de Campo, en su nuevo formato y contenido.
Por ello estamos muy agradecidos al Director General por haber tomado en cuenta las indicaciones de la 19a Conferencia.
La delegación de Venezuela quería presentar, a un nivel muy general, algunas materias que se han tocado en el día de hoy. Creemos que las mismas ya han sido tocadas cuando se habló del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto pero muchas de ellas nos vemos obligados a retomarlas en la tarde de hoy. Entre ellas, quisiéramos referirnos al proceso de evaluación de los Programaste Campo y al Programa de Cooperación Técnica. En cuanto al primero, nuestra delegación tiene una idea muy definida. Creemos que es responsabilidad de los países y de la Casa el evaluar el desarrollo de los proyectos de Campo que se adelanten entre la Casa y cada uno de los países.
No somos partícipes de quitar a la Casa la potestad individual de cada uno de los contratantes, de los países, la posibilidad de evaluar el desarrollo de los proyectos. Rechazamos y vemos con preocupación la posibilidad de que se recurra a una evaluación externa de los programas.
Y en cuanto al Programa de Cooperación Técnica, nos ha llamado la atención el hecho de haber oído, en la mañana de hoy, que hubiera la posibilidad de poner un límite a las actividades, en el futuro, en el Programa. En este sentido, nuestra delegación muestra su preocupación porque se pueda limitar, en el futuro, el Programa; porque pueda tener una finalización el Programa cuando estamos convencidos de que el alcance del mismo, por el contrario, debería reforzarse.
América Latina ha sido, como con otras regiones representadas en esta Casa, uno de los beneficiarios de las emergencias del Programa de Cooperación Técnica, no sólo con la fiebre porcina, con el problema de la cual sufrimos, y estamos sufriendo actualmente, sino en muchos programas de emergencia que, con los recursos propios del Programa de Cooperación Técnica, han sido atacados con toda eficiencia por el Director General. Por ello, no creemos que dicho Programa debe verse frenado sino, por el contrario, debe reforzarse con los recursos al alcance de la Casa.
Deseamos, dentro de este margen general en que estamos desenvolviendo nuestra intervención, y con su permiso, demostrar y apoyar los programas de descentralización de la FAO. El Preámbulo, al que se alegó aquí esta mañana, de nuestra Constitución establece como finalidad fundamental de las actividades de la FAO, el aumento de la producción alimentaria para satisfacer las necesidades en el mundo, en este área.
Es imposible que esta meta se cumpla si no se instrumentalizan todos los recursos que se le puedan dar a la Organización. Dentro de esta instrumentalización, una de las actividades que hemos apoyado con mayor calor ha sido la descentralización. Con ella, creemos que se estructura un canal de comunicación de la Casa con los Gobiernos, que indudablemente, producirán y producen efectos muy positivos y pragmáticos a los fines de adelantar los proyectos de campo que cada uno de los países contrata con la Organización.
En este sentido, queremos dar nuestro apoyo decidido al uso de las instituciones nacionales, cada vez mayor, en las actividades de la FAO; y nuestro apoyo también, sin restricciones, a las actividades del Departamento de Inversiones.
En este sentido, queremos dejar constancia de que no estamos de acuerdo con la marginación que se quiere hacer de las actividades del PNUD con las relaciones con la FAO. Por el contrario, creemos que las mismas deben seguir pero en ningún momento deben restringir los Programas que por otras vías de finan-ciamiento pueda institucionalizar o adelantar la Casa. En este sentido, queremos dar nuestro apoyo al uso de las instituciones financieras regionales que haga la FAO.
Para finalizar, queremos dar nuestro apoyo, demostrar nuestra simpatía por las relaciones cada vez mayores, que tiene la FAO, con el Fondo Internacional de Desarrollo Agrícola. Creemos que esta relación no se debe desenvolver solamente en los niveles que hasta ahora ha venido alcanzando sino que debe expresarse y debe cristalizar en acciones más beneficiosas para cada uno de los proyectos.
Apoyamos igualmente la asistencia técnica a los países en desarrollo y vemos con interés y simpatía, la Resolución presentada en la mañana de hoy por Indonesia con el apoyo de otros países africanos y asiáticos.
SI YOUCEF (Algérie): Monsieur le Président, la délégation algérienne tient tout d'abord à féliciter les rédacteurs du document qui nous a été présenté avec beaucoup de clarté.
Le sens de notre intervention d'aujourd'hui est d'attirer l'attention sur la nécessité de mettre en place des projets de mise en valeur intégrés sur les bases à la fois écologiques et économiques s'inscri-vant dans le cadre des plans nationaux de développement. Ces projets doivent non seulement faire participer les populations concernées, mais aussi recevoir leur adhésion, afin d'éviter que les projets étudiés restent lettres mortes. Ces projets doivent enfin se baser sur un inventaire précis et complet de l’ensemble des resources, des usages et des besoins, ce qui implique un programme d'étude, de recherche et de formation approprié.
La délégation algérienne se déclare satisfaite du contenu du document présenté, mais nous souhaiterions que les aspects d'intégration soient plus renforcés, de même que doit être renforcé le degré de participation des agents nationaux du développement. Les activités qu'exerce l'O. A. A. en particulier doivent être présentées en tant que soutien à la formation.
Ma délégation ne s'attardera pas sur ces points, qui ont été soulevés par de nombreuses délégations.
Nous voudrions cependant intervenir sur la question relative à l'évaluation des programmes de terrain. Nous tenons à affirmer qu'il n'est pas nécessaire que cette évaluation se fasse en dehors des structures de l'O. A. A. ; que cette organisation, en collaboration avec les structures nationales concernées, continue à se charger de l'évaluation des projets. Cette procédure a déjà fait la preuve de son efficacité, et nous nous en déclarons très satisfaits. Ma délégation considère ce point comme très important.
Les Gouvernements concernés par ces projets et l'O. A. A. disposent du personnel qualifié pour entreprendre cette évaluation.
Avant de conclure, nous tenons à rendre hommage aux efforts déployés par l'O. A. A. pour atteindre les objectifs assignés, malgré toutes les contraintes et les difficultés que l'on connaît.
R. B. SINGH (Nepal): Mr. Chairman, this is the first intervention of my delegation today on the Review of Field Programme. We would like to thank you for giving us this opportunity.
My delegation take this opportunity to congratulate the Secretariat in putting out an excellent review document of the Field Programme for the year 1978-79. We also would like to thank the Assistant Director-General of FAO and the UNDP representative for giving us the comprehensive and clear picture of the Field Programme.
It is needless to mention, Mr. Chairman, as to how important these field programmes are and can be for agricultural development in general and food production in particular in the developing countries.
Along with the technical assistance provided by UNDP/FAO the developing countries themselves are putting their conscious efforts and their own available inputs as much as possible, for the field programmes are the ones that need careful coordination. This is where the country representative of FAO and his role can be of immense importance and crucial.
However, the need and demand of technical assistance for effective field programmes are increasing and becoming a challenge for FAO and its limited financial resources. The donor countries, however, have to be sympathetic in developmental programmes like these that have direct bearings for more food production. This view has already been voiced by many distinguished delegates in this Commission.
Technical cooperation programmes have indeed shown a very meaningful impact in developing countries for its speedy implementation, whereas in the usual process before any project implementation takes place one has to go through several channels and processes which take a long time. We realize, Mr. Chairman, that the financial constraints to such useful programmes are causing great concern to FAO, which has to meet the challenge.
Technology transfer alone is not enough in solving the problems of more food production. There are other vital inputs that are required as a package. No matter whatever we say but water, water alone is a very important factor and we also know that it needs a massive capital investment. Allow me to say, Mr. Chairman, in the context of Nepal a traditional hill irrigation system has some of the better technology that we are using. What it needs really is a further modification to make them more lasting ones against landslides. That may not require very heavy investments but some useful technical assistance, assistance know how might be of immense value. This is just one example. There are several others.
Most of the developing countries have their own special physical features and characteristics which establish the particular needs of the country in its developmental efforts. Since the very spirit and concept of such technical assistance programmes or TCP are to help to develop and sustain the local resources, the donor countries, therefore, we hope would render top priority to such vital needs of production oriented assistance programmes and support with its maximum resources possibleUNDP/FAO in carrying out these programmes, and thereby fulfilling the needs and aspirations of the developing nations in the struggle of solving the problem of hunger.
I said hunger, Mr. Chairman, and did not mention the problems of malnutrition, simply because at least in my country, and so could be the case in many other countries, the problem of feeding people with two meals a day to maintain them is essential, rather than talking of nutritional food. Whereas we are conscious of the value and needs of nutritional food as well.
To cater to the developmental programmes the available national expertise and the national institutions must be fully utilized and developed. This would mean at the one hand helping to strengthen the national institutions and its infrastructure to develop its own skill and capabilities in carrying out the developmental programme, and, on the other hand, it might also mean to reduce the cost of international expertise of the institution. This can be done with cooperation of UNDP/FAO technical assistance programme.
We realize, Mr. Chairman, that food production is not the only developmental front. We talk of post-harvest losses, losses not only in quantity but in quality as well, because of lack of modern warehouses, tranportation facilities, conditions of high humidity causing Phytotoxin, and so on. In my country, Mr. Chairman, transportation of a bag of fertilizer to the mountain country costs three to four times more than the cost of the bag of fertilizer itself. Now the question is what do we do? If we do not take the needed inputs, that is fertilizer, improved seeds, to the mountains, how are we going to feed our people up there? Nepal is surplus in food in the southern plain but deficient in the northern mountains where we have many more mouths to feed. As I mentioned transportation of either food, grain or fertilizer or improved seeds is, for that matter not that easy. Migration of people from the hills to the southern plains are causing several other problems in the country. So to keep the people up there in the mountains they have to be engaged in agricultural development programmes. It could be programmes of cereal production wherever possible, or horticulture or livestock development, and apart from that, some kind of income generating activities must be launched. Hill agricultural development, therefore, is a problem there. This is the reason why the leader of our delegation, when making his policy statement in the Plenary, mentioned the need for establishing an International Hill Agricultural Research Centre in Nepal for which His Majesty's Government is willing to offer possible cooperation, because the development of the appropriate hill agriculture technology has become a dire need for us. We appeal to FAO to consider this matter sympathetically and we also appeal to bilateral agencies with the resources to provide their capital and technical assistance for hill agriculture research and technology development, which can be shared by countries in a similar condition in our region.
Before I conclude, my delegation would like to endorse wholeheartedly the views expressed by the delegate of Zambia this morning.
NGA MA MAPELA (Zaïre): Le document que nous examinons constitue, à notre avis, la preuve tangible de la longue expérience et de la compétence que possède la FAO pour accomplir, comme il se doit, les tâches rentrant dans le cadre de ses activités dans les pays en développement.
Ceci dit, ma délégation voudrait rappeler ce que nous avions déjà dit au sujet de l'évaluation des activités de la FAO, dans les domaines de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture. Comme l'ont souligné la quasi-totalité des délégations ici présentes, entre autre lorsque nous avons examiné le programme de travail et budget pour le prochain Biennium, ma délégation pense à juste titre que la tâche de l'évaluation des activités de la FAO dans les pays en développement incombe aux gouvernements des pays bénéficiaires, lesquels gouvernements peuvent être assistés par les représentants de la FAO dans les pays, ou dans le cas de non-représentation de la FAO, par le service du Bureau régional de la FAO. En fait ma délégation voit mal comment on pourrait recourir aux services des consultants externes pour effectuer l'évaluation des activités de la FAO sur le terrain. Nous pensons que ce serait là un manque de confiance vis-à-vis des gouvernements et vis-à-vis du Secrétariat de la FAO.
Nous tenons à souligner que si dans l'avenir il était confié cette tâche d'évaluation à des services extérieurs à la FAO, ce serait vraiment là un cas de double emploi, double emploi que nous condamnons. Ce qui se produit d'ailleurs lorsque le PNUD exécute parfois lui-même, ou confie à d'autres organismes, l'exécution de projets qu'il finance et qui entrent dans le domaine des activités de la FAO.
Pour terminer, ma délégation voudrait appuyer pleinement les commentaires et les propositions qui ont été faits ce matin à la fin de la séance par le Président.
Enfin, nous appuyons le projet de résolution présenté ce matin par l'Indonésie, le Canada, la. Zambie et la Guinée.
K. CHOUERI (Liban) (interprétation de l'arabe): Lors de mon intervention ce matin et au moment où j'ai présenté mes commentaires concernant le chapitre 2 du document C 79/4, je disais qu'il y a une amélioration très nette dans le processus d'évaluation des programmes de terrain, et ceci par rapport au précédent Biennium. Après avoir écouté les discussions en cours en sein de cette Commission en ce qui concerne les travaux d'évaluation de ces programmes, je voudrais renouveler la position de mon pays, que j'ai déjà exprimée hier au sujet de la discussion du programme ordinaire.
En résumé, notre position est la suivante: nous appuyons la procédure existante d'évaluation; nous ne pensons pas que l'évaluation extérieure pourrait représenter une amélioration. A notre avis, les résultats de l'évaluation extérieure ne seront pas différents de ceux de l'évaluation intérieure. Nous faisons confiance à tous les services qui s'occupent de l'évaluation au sein de l'Organisation. D'autre part, l'évaluation extérieure donnerait lieu à des dépenses dont nous n'avons pas besoin en ce moment.
Mme F. LARBI (Tunisie): Ma délégation estime que l'examen des programmes de terrain pour l'exercice 78/79 procède d'une analyse de haute qualité des grands problèmes politiques concernant l'aide fournie à l'agriculture en général et aux programmes de terrain administrés par la FAO en particulier. Nous relevons avec plaisir les nettes améliorations de la gestion et de l'application des programmes de terrain, ainsi que le soin avec lequel les diverses évaluations ont été examinées et vérifiées à la lumière d'informations qualitatives provenant de sources variées bien informées.
Aussi estimons-nous qu'il ne serait pas nécessaire d'avoir recours à des organes extérieurs pour opérer l'évaluation de nos programmes, surtout que nous sommes convaincus que le Directeur général n'épargnera aucun effort pour obtenir le maximum d'objectivité dans l'appréciation des activités de l'Organisation, tant au Siège que sur le terrain.
Par ailleurs, ma délégation se félicite de l’utilisation accrue des capacités des pays en développement pour l'exécution des programmes de terrain de la FAO et du recours croissant aux institutions nationales,
Enfin, ma délégation voudrait faire part de ses préoccupations devant la diminution de la part de la FAO dans les crédits alloués par le PNUD aux projets agricoles et, en général, de la part du PNUD lui-même dans les montants totaux alloués à l'assistance technique dans le système des Nations Unies. Nous espérons vivement que cette situation s'améliore à l'avenir.
J. R. GOMEZ RICAÑO (Cuba): Sr. Presidente: Desea también nuestra delegación unirse a los que le han felicitado por su elección y, a la vez, felicitar a la Secretaría por el valioso Documento sobre el Examen de los Programas de Campo 1978-79 que ha puesto en nuestras manos, así como por la ágil y práctica introducción que nos ha hecho el Sr. Yriart.
Puesto que los programas de campo constituyen uno de los frentes de acción de la FAO en su trabajo directo con los países miembros, hemos leído y analizado con atención los 4 capítulos que lo integran, o sea: Tendencias actuales y perspectivas; Evaluación de Proyectos de Campo; Empleo de instituciones nacionales y Producción de Alimentos y Desarrollo Rural.
Del Documento en general resalta su forma de exposición muy directa, objetiva y crítica, fácilmente en-tendible, además, por los numerosos gráficos que contiene,
Sobre la labor desarrollada en el bienio que ahora finaliza, estimamos que en comparación con lo que discutimos en la Conferencia anterior, se han dado casos muy positivos en la labor de la FAO descrita en los 4 capítulos mencionados.
Llama la atención cómo en la objetividad de que hablamos, se hace un examen desapasionado y respetuoso a los países de los programas que en ellos se llevan a cabo. Se señalan aspectos en los cuales se han obtenido éxitos; se señalan deficiencias, que aun persisten y se señalan medidas para irlas resolviendo. Por ejemplo, en la tendencia de los gastos, se observa cierto estancamiento en términos reales, como lo expresa el Director General con relación a 1970 pues el incremento verdadero ha sido solamente del 2 por
ciento. Sin duda hay que insistir más en que se aumenten los fondos para el proximo bienio, tanto los del programa ordinario como los extrapresupuestarios. En lo referente a la evaluación de los proyectos de campo, estimamos que la misma refleja tanto los aspectos positivos como los que aún se muestran negativos, en los conceptos que se han tomado en consideración dentro de la evaluación, o sea: objetivos; diseño del proyecto; participación del gobierno; resultados y transferencias de técnicas, así como señalándose las perspectivas futuras a juicio de la FAO.
La evaluación, repetimos, es objetiva y crítica; los problemas que aún subsisten se resolverán seguramente con una mayor y mejor participación de los gobiernos en los proyectos de que son beneficiarios y una mayor y cada vez, si cabe, mejor insistencia y asistencia por parte de la FAO. Pero la evaluación nos satisface como está presentada.
En este punto, Sr. Presidente, es bueno que digamos que en cuanto al sistema de evaluación, Cuba participa del criterio de que las mismas continúen llevándose a cabo por comisiones conjuntas constituidas por funcionarios de la FAO y de los sectores de gobierno involucrados en el proyecto de que se trate o en todo caso contratando personal nacional. No debe olvidarse aquí el valor que tienen los criterios de los representantes de la FAO en los países. El Documento C 79/4 que estamos examinando es un buen ejemplo de un buen trabajo conjunto entre FAO y los países.
Somos opuestos a la utilización de consultores externos, pues nos parecen innecesarios a la luz de los variados aspectos, aparte de los técnicos, sobre todo los de índole nacional e intrínsecos de cada pro-yecto que sólo los que lo han formulado y ejecutado son capaces de tener en cuenta a la hora de la evaluación.
Sobre el empleo de constituciones y personal nacional, aun con las deficiencias que se advierten en el Documento y que habrán de resolverse también con más interés por parte de los países y mayor ayuda de la FAO en la asistencia técnica, en capacitación y adiestramiento junto con el resto de la comunidad internacional en programas de este tipo, somos del criterio de utilizarlos cada día más por las evidentes ventajas que ofrece a los países. Ello refuerza, además, la formación de personal y mecanismos para una mejor utilización, tanto de los programas de amplio alcance como los relativos a la cooperación técnica en los países y entre países de una misma región o de similares condiciones ecológicas, sociales, etc.
No queremos finalizar, Sr. Presidente, sin mencionar que los logros obtenidos en la producción de alimentos, la nutrición y el desarrollo rural, aunque reconocemos la labor desplegada por la FAO, son aún insuficientes para que nuestras poblaciones mejoren, aunque sea un poco, su nivel de vida.
Τ·TAFARI(Ethiopia): First of all, my delegation extends its appreciation to the Secretariat for the excellent work done in the preparation of document C 79/4, the Review of Field Programmes.
Next, my delegation would like to make a brief remark related to the future evaluation of FAO field programmes. He know that evaluation is an important element of any projects or programme cycle. Evaluation of projects and programmes not only enables us to measure our achievements, but more important, it helps us to identify constraints so that corrective measures could be taken for better implementation of future programmes of a similar nature. The question as to who should evaluate depends on a number of factors. It could be done through internal evaluation, external evaluation, or a combination of the two. As to which method to use depends on the objectivity of the result wanted and the cost involved. The idea entertained by some delegates that the evaluation of field programmes be done through external evaluation would simply increase bureaucracy, increase cost, etc.
Like most other delegations, my delegation strongly believes that FAO has had the necessary experience and expertise to do the task effectively and efficiently. It is the feeling of my delegation that FAO, together with the respective recipient countries, would do rather a better job in undertaking evaluation of the field programmes instead of an external evaluation proposed
by some delegates. Thank you.
J. GODIN DIAZ (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia agradece al Sr. Yriart la claridad con que nos ha presentado el tema de instrucciones, así como a la Secretaría por la magnífica elaboración del texto, que refleja la opinión del 19° período de sesiones de la Conferencia de la FAO.
Sobre el documento C 79/4 que se nos ha presentado a consideración deseamos hacer unos comentarios de carácter general. En él se ha mencionado la necesidad de incrementar la asistencia a la agricultura en términos efectivos. La delegación de Colombia piensa que, no sólo se debe hacer mención, sino hacer
énfasis, repito, énfasis, sobre la urgencia de aplicar efectivamente la ayuda técnica a la agricultura, ya que nos preocupa el hecho de constatar que la tendencia existente en las organizaciones internacionales que de una u otra forma tienen que ver con el desarrollo, es el retroceso en el numero de proyectos que se dedican al sector agrícola. En este área pensamos que es labor de la FAO reforzar las políticas de los Gobiernos de los países en desarrollo en lo concerniente a lograr la autosuficiencia. Por esto consideramos también que ese Programa de Cooperación Técnica de la FAO debe estar encaminado a lograr este objetivo, de importancia vital para las naciones del Tercer Mundo.
Hemos observado, y en este sentido agradecemos las palabras del colega de España, que en la distribución de los proyecto de campo de la FAO que reciben asistencia de ella, así como en el empleo de las instituciones nacionales, nuestra región de América Latina se ha visto menos favorecida, como podemos constatar en el cuadro 2 y en el párrafo 3. 9, respectivamente. Hacemos este comentario con ánimo constructivo, ya que nos gustaría que en el futuro fuesen tenidas en cuenta nuestras observaciones.
La delegación de Colombia piensa que es importante que se intensifique la asistencia técnica entre países en desarrollo, teniendo en cuenta afinidades tales como la misma lengua y civilización, que podrían facilitar la consecusión de los objetivos propuestos.
Compartimos y apoyamos la opinión del Director General de que la función principal de la FAO consiste en ayudar a los países de estructura, su capacidad institucional y capacitar su mano de mano de obra, así como en mejorar su acceso a los conocimiento técnicos y a la experiencia del desarrollo, que podrían aprovecharse según sus propias prioridades y necesidades.
Z. GHOSHEH (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): Mr. Chairman, my country's delegation wishes to thank the FAO representatives, the Director-General and the Secretariat, for all the various statements and for the effort made and put into the Review of Field Programmes. It is very much in line with the recommendations emanating from the previous General Conference and we find it a very comprehensive and satisfactory report.
We would like to comment on a few items of features contained in this document. First of all the activities of the Organization in the area of technical assistance and the conservation of various capacities in developing countries and institutions in order to enable those countries to devise progress of action and to implement them in the very limited framework involving very little external assistance, a procedure which we feel is a most salutary one and has had a very proximate start and we will as always add self-sufficiency and this has been most welcome to us all, particularly when it is a matter of further development in the areas in using the potential of the developing countries as described in the document. Here we find these classifications accept and adjust new technological know-how procedures, and it has of course national experts which is a further pointer to progress in this area. These development experts have an in-depth knowledge of their own country's problems and issues. Further, the conservation of national institutions in the World Organization helps to implement programmes, and we should not forget the role of the regional representative who helps us to implement the targets we have set; the need to enhance a technological cooperation between developing countries. And this is also with respect to transfer facilities to these countries, provided that the appropriate priorities of these programmes is taken into account, and the fact that administrative measures which the Organizations also have to dovetail always under the sign of decentralization, but are necessary to closely define activities.
Fourthly, the classification of various agricultural activities contained in Chapter 4 of this paper, the Organization of Activities for 79/80, this also has been welcomed by us, together with the fact that the Organization is focusing on food production. Thank you very much.
M. DESSOUKI (Egypt) (interpretation from Arabic): Mr. Chairman, I would not want to repeat what we have already said in connection with the Field Programme. We spoke on the Programme of Action and Budget and the Review of the Regular Budget, but I would like to say something in connection with the evaluation of the Regular Programme and the Field Programme. We feel that those bodies which have to carry out these evaluations should be in the countries themselves, in the national institutions. There is no doubt whatsoever that calling in any outside consultant may lead to such a person getting the information from the country concerned anyway, which would mean a loss of time and money. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Organization, through its various technical bodies and its wide know-how in this field, could assume this task in the most efficient manner.
F. CHOUDHURY (Bangladesh): I join the other distinguished delegations in congratulating the FAO Secretariat for preparing this excellent document No. C 79/4, that is the Review of Field Programmes.
I would draw attention to the TCP. It is gratifying to note that under the caption "Outlook for the Eighties" recognizes that - and I quote - "There is ample evidence to suggest that developing countries at all levels of development need a much larger flow of resources in real terms to accelerate food production and increase income and employment opportunities for the poor". Here I would underline the portion "increase income and employment opportunities for the poor". This is really the remedy for a country like ours. You know, sir, that Bangladesh has a very big rural population, and of this big rural population about 45 percent is landless agricultural labour force. In short, there is a swing in harvesting. There is not much problem for this group to find employment opportunities, their problem is when there is no scope for agricultural employment. Their long period of unemployment or under-employment is in the dry season, December to May, and the rainy season is from August to November. We have taken care of most of the unemployment problems for the period December to May through rural work programmes and other national governmental programmes. In addition we have the World Food Programme supported programme of food-for-work in which we also get support from other bilateral resources like the USA, Canada, and so on. This programme has proved very successful because in addition to creating employment opportunities, this programme has been able to do a good job in creating and maintaining infrastructures for the better utilization of land and water resources. But we have not as yet been able to create much needed employment opportunities in the monsoons, that is in the lean period of August to November, since earth work based employment has been very limited. In this period we have to find out the viable alternatives. In this particular field, my delegation would request technical assistance to create and develop income-generating and employment-creating opportunities in this lean period of the rainy season.
I now have a short comment on the Chapters "Use of National Institutions". My delegation fully supports FAO"s policy to increasingly use the national institutions of developing countries. This policy has been in practice during the last two and a half years. I think that in addition to the areas in which these institutions have been used, new areas in the work of FAO should be identified where institutions of developing countries could be profitably utilized. For example, these institutions could be used for participation in the regular programme of FAO.
In this connection, I would also ask for the employment of a larger number of individual experts, that is consultants, from developing countries for carrying out specific studies such as are often undertaken by FAO. Here, there is a particular advantage in having a consultant from a neighbouring country or from the same Region, as he has a more intimate knowledge of the social, economic and other situations prevailing in that country at the time.
My last comment is on nutrition. It is very encouraging to note that in addition to cereal production increasingly more attention has been paid to other food items such as meat, milk and fish.
I should like to mention fish production specifically. The exploitation, processing and marketing of sea fish in my country has tremendous possibilities. Yet our progress in this field is still in a primary stage, and some special action programme is required in order to exploit fully the prospects of marine fishing.
Another problem we have been facing of late is that the usual and time-honoured large fishery stocks in inland waters, mainly in marshy lands and small rivers, has become depleted by alarming proportions during the last few years. One of the reasons for this seems to be the use of pesticides and certain types of chemical fertilizers, but there has not been any systematic study to find out the real cause for the growing loss of this important protein.
Proverbially, Bangladesh used to be known as the land of rice and fish. While we know of the very good prospects for increasing our inland rice, we are worried about the gradual loss of the existing stocks of fish and wonder if this situation calls for any special study in order to take remedial measures to stop the current loss of this fisheries resource.
Srta. M. ELENA BORASCA (Argentina): Sean mis primeras palabras de felicitación a la Secretaría por la calidad del documento C 79/4, cuyo contenido, en líneas generales, compartimos y apoyamos.
Mi delegación entiende que la asistencia técnica juega un rol determinante en la promoción agrícola y rural, ya que la misma favorecerá la transferencia de tecnología y actuará como acelerador de inversiones en este campo. Por eso compartimos las preocupaciones del Director General, debido a las tendencias poco alentadoras respecto al volumen de compromisos, aunque después de haber escuchado al distinguido representante del PNUD, confiamos en que se hallarán en breve plazo modos de acción adecuados para superar esta situación.
Nosotros compartimos la competencia de la FAO en estos temas y llamamos la atención de esta Asamblea, tal como hemos hecho en otras ocasiones, sobre el peligro que reviste la duplicación de funciones y la superposición de responsabilidades, en detrimento de la eficacia de los proyectos.
Apoyamos calurosamente las consideraciones del Director General respecto a la utilización de instituciones nacionales para canalizar las actividades de la FAO. Sobre este punto, sin embargo, lamentamos profundamente la escasa participación de América Latina en estos acuerdos, y en eso, nos unimos a la representación de España y de Colombia que se han expresado en el mismo sentido. Pensamos que debería pensarse una política de apoyo a las mismas instituciones existentes en la región, a efectos de que se utilicen al máximo sus posibilidades con un criterio racional.
Al referirse a este tema, el señor Representante del PNUD mencionó que la baja cooperación con América Latina se debió a divergencias con la FAO sobre el empleo de instituciones nacionales. Creo haber entendido correctamente.
Si es así, solicito a la Secretaría que nos dé más detalles sobre el tema. Por último, queremos apoyar lo manifestado por las delegaciones que nos precedieron en el uso de la palabra en materia de asistencia técnica entre países en desarrollo. Compartimos también lo manifestado por la delegación de Venezuela en materia de cooperación técnica, porque como ya lo hemos dicho en esta Conferencia, vemos en la cooperación técnica un instrumento efectivo e indispensable para el avance económico de los países en desarrollo.
R. SAAD-EL-DINE (Syria) (interpretation from Arabic): The Review of Field Programmes document is an excellent one, and we thank the Secretariat for its presentation. Wo have a few points on which we should like to comment in this Review.
In the first place, we are impressed by the analysis which shows that technical assistance is declining, but the role of technical assistance in agriculture is something fully recognized in aid programmes, and it is a lofty target of action for the benefit of developing countries, in order to help them draw up development programmes and strengthen them with advice from experts from outside, thus leading to self-sufficiency.
We ask why we find this decline in technical assistance? As to the evaluation of field programmes, we feel this is very satisfactory, looking at the results of the work done in this connection. We see that there is a vast increase for the present biennium, and a further source of satisfaction is we see improvements in programmes from year to year, although the percentage of programmes in this framework is only 6 percent. Nevertheless, this highlights the serious way in which the Secretariat, the Organization, and above all the Director-General, tackle social, and economic development programmes in developing countries and in all areas.
I wish to draw attention, as other delegates have done, to the fact that the evaluation process of field programmes should always be in the hands of existing bodies in the recipient countries. This will help us economize, and such money saved can be set aside for other areas. This is also in line with the policy of the Organization to cut down on expenses as much as possible, and using staff of the Organization also means they are much better in this kind of work. To work together in connection with national and governmental bodies is also an excellent idea, and we see that much progress has been made along these lines, and we wish to pay tribute to the organizers, "but we should like to draw attention to the difficulties that the Organization has to face in this area. All this leads to a certain lack in the designing of contracts and the member states have to speed this up. We also have to bear in mind we must simplify procedures and the planning of agreements, so as to bring these into line with the targets set by the Organization.
P. MASUD (Pakistan): Permit me first of all to express our great pleasure at seeing you in the Chair, Mr. Chairman. We are sure that under your able guidance the Commission will reach constructive and useful solutions.
We feel that the Review of Field Programmes for 1978-79 has, as in the past, proved very useful in identifying and analysing critical policy issues relating to assistance to agriculture in general and field programmes administered by the Food and Agriculture Organization.
We do not wish to go into great detail on each programme, but would simply confine ourselves to issues which we feel are of importance.
First - and we think this is of great importance, and we would like to draw it to the attention of Commission II - is the one relating to commitments to technical assistance within the UN system. We have a feeling that the role of technical assistance in promoting investments is not being adequately recognized in aid programmes. FAO's role in influencing the flow and direction of resources to agriculture therefore deserves full recognition, and in this connection we support the draft resolution which was submitted by ray colleague this morning.
Another feature that we should like to highlight is the role of governments in the implementation of field programmes. There appears to be a dire need for greater involvement of governments in the formulation, implementation and evaluation of field projects.
Very briefly, we support the strengthening of national institutions, the Technical Cooperation Programme, and the recommendations relating to the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Developments.
To cut a long story short, we support the conclusions of the Programme Committee, particularly the need for greater flexibility in relation to the inclusion of local and recurrent costs, simplification of lending procedures, and shortening of the project cycle.
Coming to the subject of external evaluation, my delegation spoke on the subject in connection with the Regular Programme. I am again constrained to say a few words on this proposal in relation to the field programmes, but I must make it clear that we are not opposed to independent evaluation, but before agreeing we must know what such evaluation constitutes. Who is independent and who is not is a difficult question. It is not always necessary or true that someone from outside the Organization is likely to be more independent. For a good evaluation, which would be our main objective, whoever carries out the evaluation exercise must be fully familiar with the Organization. If this is not possible there is a likelihood of the evaluators basing their findings on such knowledge that would have drastic consequences for all concerned. Again I ask, who could be more independent than the independent sovereign States which constitute this august gathering? What we are doing at the moment is what we are proposing when we talk about independent evaluation. What we briefly suggest is following the bureaucratic axiom, when in doubt, delegate. Consequently, While in favor of objective evaluation which we feel is already being done, we are not in favour of " independent" evaluation.
Lastly on the subject of nutrition, the delegate of Norway raised a few important points which we feel deserve the attention of this Commission.
A. M. F. FERNANDO (Sri Lanka): I wish to congratulate you, Sir, on being in the chair and trust that you will no doubt give your authority to the debate that will take place on this subject.
My delegation has read this document C 79/4 with interest, and we also would like to compliment Mr. Yriart for the remarks he made prior to the debate on this document. The document is valuable, informative and a very good review. I would not go so far as to say it is excellent, because if excellent it means we have no comments. We would like to reiterate some remarks we made earlier in this Commission regarding the Review of the Regular Programme. We would like to take the opportunity of following similar procedures in the remarks we made regarding those items.
Firstly, the Technical Cooperation Programme is very valuable. It is stated in the document that the idea is to meet relatively small and unforeseen development needs. Now at the same time we would like to stress that the average time taken is 6 months between requests and the commencement of operations in the field, and we would like this speeded up.
The coming to technical assistance and use of machinery, we think that this is very important and the purpose of the national institutions and thir capabilities is to sustain the development action programme. While agreeing that national institutions anywhere like in this Organization, cannot function properly without adequate trained staff to run them, we think it is very important the training aspect should be emphasised.
We also accept the idea of decentralization. After all, in a review of field programmes it is very important FAO countries and regional representatives must actively take part in the implementation of that programme.
If I may be permitted I should like to know how often FAO country representatives are transferred. I believe the present representative in my country is rather new, and if people are transferred quite often it might in some cases upset some of the Programmes undertaken in my country.
Finally, we support the draft resolution put forward by Indonesia and others in implementation of the report and in regard to evaluation I associate myself with the remarks made by the delegate of Pakistan and suggest this should be done with the cooperation of the representatives of the various countries of the FAO.
S. SID AHMED (Sudan): Allow me to congratulate you, Sir, and express our pleasure with the able way in which you are conducting our deliberations.
I would like to express our high appreciation of the report, in form and content. We are pleased to note that the judgement of FAO has shown there is progress in the efficiency of the project. This is a certificate not only in the interest of FAO but in that of developing countries. This means our capacity to absorb projects is increasing simultaneously with our appetite for ever more additional projects. We also interpret the unprecedented success of the field project as connected with the role played by field representatives in different countries. We have taken note of the constraints referred to on pages 25, 26, 27 concerning the role of the government, and we shall try to alleviate them as best we can.
Some few months ago we had the pleasure in the Sudan to play host to His Excellency the Ambassador of USA to FAO to whom we showed some of our FAO projects, and he expressed his pleasure at the success of these projects. We would welcome similar visits from Ambassadors and representatives of Member countries.
I would think this is the sort of evaluation that might be needed by certain donor countries to be assured of what we are trying to put through and the success of FAO projects in both regular and field programmes. We therefore are opposed to the notion of having outside evaluation, for the cost entailed, both directly and indirectly. These evaluations of course will definitely tax the time of people at Headquarters and in the countries involved.
Finally, our delegation supports the draft resolution put forward this morning by Indonesia.
R. B. RYANGA (Kenya): FAO field programmes are very important indeed, and my government attaches great importance to them not only in their preparation but also in their implementation and evaluation. we attach this importance to them for many reasons, but also because in some cases they are spearhead developments in areas and aspects which otherwise would not have received attention at the time. We have many examples of projects done by FAO which have opened up areas we ourselves would have delayed for some time.
We would like to emphasise the need for technical assistance aimed at bringing out the capabilities of recipient nations and also the more effective use of technology. We have come to this conclusion after our experience with programmes of this kind because we have found that after a project has been studied and has been going on, the project itself opens up other areas and therefore requires that more qualified people be put in the programme in order to make sure the work of FAO and the country is not dissipated and remains unused because of lack of personnel.
My delegation also supports the Director-General's decentralization programme because this will among other things allow for flexibility in the execution of programmes. We feel this is important because quite often on the ground a programme might not "be working well and if it is possible for adjustments to be made on the spot it is very useful to have this amount of flexibility.
We also think there is a need for increased flexibility in external lending in order to make money more accessible for most of the people who need it. We feel that the current criteria and procedures for lending make it difficult in some cases to extend a system to all people who would require it.
we are also encouraged by the increasing emphasis on nutritional conservation in agricultural and rural development projects because of increased emphasis on the production of food in the countries which today will need more production. My delegation also is of the view that the use of national institutions and other inputs of personnel should be strengthened and expanded, not withstanding our earlier remarks about this.
So far as evaluation is concerned, it in the view of my delegation that this can be done adeq-lately by the FAO Secretariat and the recipient countries concerned.
Finally, I should like to support the resolution contained in Doc C 79/LIM 35 of 20 November 1979·
V. MRISHO (Tanzania): May I first of all congratulate the Director-General for his very lucid Review of the Field Programmes and report which actually indicates achievements and reasons for drawbacks during the 1973-9 biennium. In general terms, my delegation has noted that this review has adequately covered all the important aspects and activities of FAO in relation to cooperation with other national institutions and developing countries. The review also demonstrates that besides various problems such as scanty numbers and possible ability of technical staff in developing countries coupled with the difficulty of local experte being confronted with day to day responsibilities FAO has been able to stimulate and actually dispense technical assistance to Member developing countries with the basic target of narrowing the existing gap in technical personnel requirements while determining a basis for forming local capacities of such personnel in this connexion. In this connexion, Mr. Chairman, my delegation appreciates FAO's efforts so far in the field of technical cooperation and assistance; the use or utilization of national institutions, FAO's involvement in technical cooperation among developing countries, and the very important technical co-operation, which has actually demonstrated FAO's attention towards tackling Member countries' immediate problems.
Mr. Chairman, may I also say that looking at FAO's crucial responsibilities indicates that there is need to invest about 8. 1 billion dollars every year in order to reach a 4 per cent production growth rate of food. The review of the Field Programme indicates FAO has made a considerable start in acting as a catalyst for resource involvement, through arrangements with the World Bank, IFAD and other bilateral donors and finance institutions, and through the Special Action programme. The level that FAO has so far reached should be considered as the beginning of FAO's involvement in investment activities. This should be expanded to cover several problem areas.
Mr. Chairman, without need to go into a detailed analysis of the Review of the Field Programme, may I conclude by saying that the problems and drawbacks experienced during 1978-79 should lead the way to FAO's endeavour to implement the hunger eradication strategies. Close attention to nutritional requirements should spearhead our improved agricultural production programme-and better food storage and distribution should be looked into more seriously in order to ensure food for all.
Mr. Chairman, I also take the opportunity to say that my delegation fully supports the resolution submitted by Ghana, Guinea, Indonesia, Tunisia and Zaire and call other delegations to give it similar response.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished delegate of Tanzania. Before calling the next speaker I advise the Commission that I have received a note from a delegation asking how we propose to handle the resolution which has been to the Resolutions' Committee and I understand re-circulaced to all delegations this afternoon. I am advised by the Secretariat that the usual practice is that the resolution in now taken up in the Drafting Committee in association with its consideration of the Report of the proceedings here, and that it can then be further discussed when the Commission is considering adoption of the Report.
C. B. SESAY (Sierra Leone): My delegation wishes to join other delegations in congratulating the FAO Secretariat, and the Director-General in particular, for the informative document C 79/4. We have found the document on the Review very comprehensive, and we only wish to make general comments on some of the aspects covered in the Report. We have noted with satisfaction the realization of FAO of the concern of developing countries over what always happens after the financial disbursement of projects. Mr. Chairman, we are in full agreement that the sources of any development project should not be judged only by the achievement of such targets, but also by the positive impacts it has on the social economic life of the people for whom the project is intended. we are further in agreement that the real test of any development project lies not in the result of the activities during the lifetime of the project, but in the follow-up and development that takes place after the project terminates. This brings me to the point of the imperative need to formulate projects in a way that they are absorbable into pertinent existing national institutions after the disbursement period. The importance and usefulness of the TCP projects in developing countries have been exhaustively discussed by earlier speakers in this Commission. We fully share their views in this regard, and we join them in appealing to the FAO to continue giving wider scope to these programmes. We, however, wish to make one or two observations:
That further use is made of local expertise and institutions in the implementation of these TCP projects, as we believe that less consultants' fees will be involved and more confidence created in the individual countries to assist in helping themselves.
That the programmes before they are strengthened financially, to absorb more projects because of this quick practical approach.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, we fully support FAO's increasing use of national institutions in the formulation and implementation of development projects, because of the attendant advantages which have already been highlighted by other delegates in this Commission.
In conclusion we again wish to commend the Director-General and his team of experts for the informative document on the Review of Field Programmes 1978-79. My delegation fully supports the resolution in C 79/LIM/35 sponsored by Ghana, Guinea, Indonesia, Tunisia and Zaire.
J. BERTELING (Netherlands): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Sir, assessing an assessment is difficult. It is difficult with an internal assessment, but also with an external assessment. The advantage of the latter is that neutral persons inform the Secretariat much more than delegations, in fact, of the positive and negative aspects of the activities and provide a fresh approach to the problems involved.
An internal evaluation has the advantage that those people active in the implementation of a programme are closely involved and are forced to auto-evaluation of themselves and their work. What is even more needed, as was stated by the delegation of Zambia, is the participation of the recipient countries in the evaluation process. They know the real impact of the projects, and for the future we would like to stress this aspect.
Another difficulty in assessing this review is the need for more knowledge of the individual country. My delegation expects that in further developing the relationships between FAO and the Netherlands, also through coordinating bi- and multi-lateral development activities in the agricultural field, and through a closer participation of the Netherlands an analysis will be structured accordingly in many countries, and I consider, therefore, the suggestion just made by the representative of the Sudan as a very useful one.
Mr. Chairman, in various places it is mentioned that the FAO percentage of UNDP projects is steadily declining. My government attaches great importance to the agricultural development, and, therefore, deplores this trend for which there seems to be at least two major reasons. One, is lesser emphasis on agricultural development by the developing countries themselves since they decide on the use of UNDP resources and, secondly, the executing of mainly agricultural projects by other agencies than FAO; The former, my delegation agrees with the remarks in paragraph 2. 56 in the document where it is stated that governments have the exclusive responsibility to decide upon their own priorities, but that organizations like FAO have a certain responsibility to direct the attention of governments to specific groups of needs. And to the latter remark and reasons for the trends I mention, my delegation has stated before both here in FAO and in the UNDP Governing Council, that governments should influence strongly the choice of the executing agency but that there is in principle no role for UNDP to act itself as an executing
agency, and as far as other executing agencies are involved, my delegation agrees with the statement in paragraph 1. 14 that the criteria employed in designating executing agencies for individual projects should be made as clear as possible.
My delegation notes with some regret the large expansion of the equipment components in the assistance supplied. More emphasis should be maintained for institutional building and training which was evident in the analysis of difficulties experienced in the implementation and execution of investment projects in which FAO was involved.
Finally, my delegation want to state once more the necessity to maintain the close link of programmes and activities undertaken under the Regular Budget with the field programmes.
J. L. AUSMAN (Canada): Canada wishes to associate itself with a number of delegations, particularly those recipients of assistance which have commented on the effectiveness of FAO field activities, including most notably, in our view, the process of institution building at the national level. The goal of achieving self-reliance through institution building will have numerous long-term benefits, including the arrest of the brain drain, and a more cost effective implementation of future projects.
With respect to relations between FAO and UNDP, we have full confidence in the Secretariat in both agencies that they will arrive through their normal informal consultations at an understanding on the use of FAO's capacities and expertise. We are able to accept the resolution contained in LIM/35 with two exceptions: firstly, we note that the Resolutions Committee had some problems with paragraph 3. We are not sure how this is being resolved. We also have a problem with this paragraph, probably the same one, in fact, and we will be interested in how the contact group you spoke of will be dealing with it. Secondly, we have a small suggestion, with respect to the last preambular paragraph which we will give to a member of that group.
W. A. F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): In the introduction to the Plan of Action on World Food Security in Commission I the Director-General considered this the most important single subject on the agenda of this Conference. We feel that the review of field activities of the Organization is also a very important item on the agenda. You will understand, Sir, that my delegation, in discussing this important item of the agenda, is particularly interested in such a debate to hear direct from the recipient countries how they judge the field activities of our Organization. We are interested in what satisfies them, we are interested in what they feel are shortcomings, and what proposals and suggestions for improvements they might have. We have already heard much of this and further statements of their experiences would be beneficial to the Organization and also to my country in its bilateral cooperation with many developing countries.
My delegation notes with satisfaction a further improvement of the document and we are grateful to the Secretariat for its presentation. We should like to encourage the Secretariat to continue with the critical identification and analysis of policy measures with respect to the support of agriculture in general, and the programmes administered by FAO in particular. We do not doubt that this clearly set out and concrete document will be read with great interest also outside FAO.
To avoid repetitions, may I also say that my delegation largely supports the various comments that were made and the views that were expressed during the debate by the delegates of China, Switzerland, the Netherlands, the United States of America and other speakers before me.
My delegation welcomes the fact that FAO field programme expenditures show an upward swing and that the approval of projects by UNDP has also been speeded up. What is also satisfactory is that field programmes with trust funds have kept pace with inflation.
We share the view expressed in paragraph 1. 9 referring to bottlenecks with regard to the absorptive capacity. After the World Food Council in particular has been tackling this question in depth at its last session and made an appropriate recommendation on this point, we hope that improvements will be brought about in this very important field.
With respect to the decline in agricultural projects to which the UNDP representative referred, he also pointed out that many developing countries have given priority to industrial projects, and that, therefore, UNIDO funds as spent by the UNDP have also increased.
We hope that in particular on the basis of the recommendations emanating from the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development the agricultural sector and rural development in general will be given the necessary priority. The decision to do this of course, is in the hands of the recipient countries themselves.
Speaking about the programme on technical cooperation which many delegations described as a very effective means of the Organization, we, together with a number of other delegations, have some questions. I am sure the Secretariat will gladly answer directly. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, we would like to hand these questions to the Secretariat.
With respect to the use of national institutions in Chapter 3, we would like to say something on paragraph 14, page 76 of the English text, and express the hope, that negotiations and bureaucratic procedures should be reduced as much as possible. Perhaps one of the bottlenecks to which also referred Dr. Yriart in his excellent introduction, could be seen in the special situation of personnel in a number of countries. We also hope for further improvement of the involvement of recipient countries as stated in paragraph 20, page 77 of the English text of the document. The real test of a project, as the document points out, lies in the post-project phase.
On page 80, paragraph 32 rightly points out the difficult situation with which many developing countries are faced with respect to the agricultural and nutritional situation. Higher priority to this sector and the full incorporation of all measures in overall development planning are a prerequisite in order to arrive at a sustained improvement. This decision, of course, is in the hands of the countries concerned.
As we have recently pointed out at the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, my country is prepared to help developing countries in project identification and formulation also on a bilateral basis. Rural development and increase of food production are areas of concentration in our development policy. Approximately 50 percent of the funds made available for technical cooperation flows to the agricultural sector and The Federal Government is prepared to further increase the share of rural development projects in the total volume of financial cooperation.
CHAIRMAN: Before we continue, could I clear up a potential misunderstanding of my own about something said by the delegate of Canada? I understand his belief to be that the sequence of consideration of the resolution is that it is considered in some specially formed committee. My understanding of the Secretariat advice is that the sequence from now on is that the resolution is considered in conjunction with the report of the Commission which will be considered in a normal drafting committee. I am not quite sure how to handle that last advice.
I understand from Mr. Yriart that we are both right.
M. SCHUWEILER (United States of America): It is with regard to the matter of procedure for dealing with the resolution that I have asked to speak again. I spoke this morning, but since then the resolution has been tabled for consideration and we are uncertain that we understand the procedure. Normally we would have thought that the resolution would be discussed in the Commission and then referred to the Drafting Committee. Then on the basis of that discussion, the Drafting Committee would undertake to make such changes and additions to the resolution as seemed appropriate.
We are prepared to associate ourselves with the procedure suggested by the Secretariat but only with the understanding that we will have an opportunity in the Drafting Committee to suggest small changes and/or additions to the resolution.
I would emphasize that basically we are highly sympathetic to the purposes and intent of the resolution as we understand it. We have some small changes to suggest. We would make them now if that is the desire of the Chair, or we could do it in the course of the work of the Drafting Committee.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I think perhaps the most satisfactory way of proceeding at this stage would be to allow our Secretariat advisers to reflect upon that proposition while we hear from the delegate of Nigeria. Providing that suggestion meets with general approval and is within the rules of procedure, it seems tu me it would be a sensible course to take and would avoid reopening the whole of the discussion here in the Commission.
A. OSENI (Nigeria): My delegation joins the other delegates who have had the floor in commending the FAO Secretariat for producing this lucid document. We also thank Mr. Yriat for an excellent introduction.
My delegation congratulates the Director-General on the TCP programme which we would like to describe as "instant assistance". This should be further strengthened. We support the strengthening of national capabilities for development and commend the Director-General's policy of decentralization of Field Programme activities.
I would also like to mention the effectiveness of the FAO country office which has facilitated communications with FAO and the initiation of FAO Programmes in the country. My delegation shares the view of the delegate of Spain on the transfer of technology that more attention needs to be paid to technical manpower development either by formal training or by on-the-job training, if the training on the job is by skilled and practical men.
We agree with the policy guidelines outlined in the document; in particular we support the use of local consultants and national institutions. My delegation commends cooperation between FAO and the World Bank in some of the projects in Nigeria and commends FAO's efforts to coordinate programmes from other international agencies like UNEP and also from trust funds. Cooperation in agriculture should be spearheaded and further strengthened by FAO for the effective use of the meagre resources available from technical assistance.
My delegation feels that to a great extent it is the responsibility of the recipient countries to ensure that there is no unnecessary overlapping in the technical assistance programmes and they should aim at seeking complementary projects.
My delegation feels that more attention needs to be paid by FAO to the training of extension workers. We welcome the fact that FAO accepts responsibility for rural development programmes, as indicated in paragraph 2. 56.
On evaluation, my delegation agrees fully with the view expressed by the delegate of Pakistan.
Finally, my delegation appeals for an increase in funds for Regular and Field Programmes and supports the draft resolution submitted by Ghana, Guinea, Indonesia, Tunisia and Zaire.
CHAIRMAN: We now return to the question of drafting and informal groups. The formal position is that if people have points of real substance about the resolution, it is appropriate for those to be raised at this time in the discussion. On the other hand I am advised that there is an informal Contact Group addressing itself to the terms of the Resolution, and that is something to be taken into account by delegates deciding how to approach the matter at this stage.
J. L. AUSMAN (Canada): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could tell us who is on this informal Contact Group. Could you tell us who is on the Informal Contact Group because we are aware of one ourselves and we wanted to know if it was the same one or a different one.
CHAIRMAN: Despite the combined brilliance of the Bench, we do not know. The serious answer to your question is that we will find out and let you know.
W. A. F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): Mr. Chairman, as far as I am informed for Commission II, the one we are attending here perfectly happily, by the way - we are happy with the Chairman and everybody - we have not yet set up a Contact Group, and we have not seen the need for that either, and I just wonder, Sir, if it is necessary. Many delegations are talking about LIM 35, the Draft Resolution. I am quite familar with that, and that also applies to other delegations. I have only just set eyes on the thing. Might I suggest, Sir, that we gather here tomorrow morning when we can perhaps turn our attention to this particular item. I mean if we ended a bit earlier today, that is with your summing up now. But according to schedule anyway we still have time tomorrow, and tomorrow morning perhaps we can usefully turn to this text and scrutinize it and see if there is such a thing as consensus, and if we really need a Contact Group for this Commission, or whether the Drafting Committee on the basis of the comments that come from the floor could perhaps prepare a better proposal and then put it to us here.
CHAIRMAN: I think that characterizes the common sense and the graciousness we are accustomed to expect from that quarter. May I suggest that we follow the suggestion of the distinguished delegate, and at this time invite Mr. Yriart to make such comments as he would wish to make on the proceedings so far, and when we resume tomorrow morning we will take up the discussion on the Resolution after distinguished delegates have had an opportunity to consider it overnight.
J. F. YRIART (Subdirector General, Departamento de Desarrollo): Me excuso si el comentario inmediatamente después de determinada la discusión no es tan estructurado como hubiera deseado; pero voy, sin embargo, a tratar de tener en cuenta los puntos salientes que han expresado los señores delegados, y lo primero que debo decir - y esto es muy importante - es que nosotros, terminada la Conferencia, seguimos trabajando no solo sobre el informe de la Conferencia en el caso del examen del programa de campo, sino que atesoramos también el verbatim de la reunion. Porque para nosotros éste es un diálogo, en la naturaleza del diálogo tripartito que se produce normalmente con respecto a la apreciación de los programas de campo y los proyectos. Y aquí están representadas las tres partes: están representados, en primer lugar, los beneficiarios de las actividades de campo; en segundo lugar están representados aquellos que otorgan recursos para ejecutar - palabra que a mí no me gusta y que en inglés se usa siempre - los donantes multilaterales. Y en ese sentido, también la FAO es un pequeño donante multilateral, donante bilateral, y nuestro principal donante que es evidentemente el PNUD. Y también está representada la agencia de ejecución, en este caso tratándose de nuestro Programa de Campo, la FAO.
El documento que presentamos - y nosotros siempre tratamos de presentarlo con honestidad y candidez, aunque no necesariamente siempre con mayor éxito en cuanto a calidad, y ya entraremos sobre eso -este documento, nosotros deseamos que sirva el propósito de provocar este diálogo tripartito. Creo que en los últimos ocho años este diálogo ha sido fructuoso, y esto se verá reflejado en los próximos dos años, en las medidas que toman todas las partes, las tres partes, para mejorar identificación, formulación y ejecución de programas y proyectos. Ese diálogo se verá reflejado, y dentro de dos años la Conferencia tendrá oportunidad de discutir la apreciación que nosotros hemos hecho de los adelantos o de los retrasos que han habido en el diálogo tripartito que en el día de hoy tiene una expresión muy importante.
Este ha sido el sistema que hemos seguido con buen éxito, y que por lo que yo he oído de la discusión que ha habido hoy, sigue siendo un sistema que es adecuado para la mayor parte de los países participantes en el diálogo tripartito. Para la FAO de un lado, totalmente adecuado. Para los países beneficiarios, me da la impresión de que es abrumadoramente adecuado, y para los donantes también, en su gran mayoría, han mostrado que éste es un Ejercicio dentro de lo humanamente posible, fructuoso.
Por eso, en lo que me es personal, debo rechazar inequívocamente todo factor extraño que a este diálogo saque de su equilibrio natural, o peor aun, que afecte al principal responsable del diálogo, que son los países beneficiarios. Y justamente, hablemos con claridad, propuestas que se han hecho sobre evaluaciones independientes, vienen principalmente a afectar a los beneficiarios, y de eso creo que no hay duda, porque son los beneficiarios los que en esta ocasión de examen del Programa de Campo, han mostrado su deseo de continuar dentro del modelo que hemos venido siguiendo en los últimos años.
Ahora bien, eso no quiere decir, de ninguna manera, que vamos a congelar el modelo; de ninguna manera. Creo que también se ha reconocido que por la parte del Director General se hacen amplios esfuerzos para mejorar la calidad de nuestro trabajo y de nuestros esfuerzos; y así trataremos de seguir haciéndolo.
Una delegación ha tenido críticas sobre la calidad del documento que hemos presentado, y esas críticas también serán debidamente tenidas en cuenta. Desgraciadamente, el distinguido delegado que las hizo y que por a la Institución a que pertenece su Gobierno, tiene evidentemente una gran experiencia en estos problemas que tienen que ver con la apreciación y el seguimiento de Proyectos de Campo, debiera de saber que en gran medida encontramos muchas dificultades para establecer criterios mucho más rígidos en cuanto a la apreciación de los Proyectos de Campo.
Porque estos Proyectos de Campo para los Gobiernos no vienen a consumar el desarrollo, sino que son, digamos, pequeños insumos, pequeñas contribuciones que, como traté de explicar en la introducción que hice del Examen, aunque son pequeñas y de valor monetario reducido, pueden tener gran influencia y esto fue mencionado varias veces en la discusión si son aplicadas, en el momento oportuno en el tiempo, y a la solución de debilidades y cuellos de botella cuya desaparición del problema tiene altos efectos catalíticos.
El cometido que nos dio la 19a sesión de la Conferencia leído incautamente podría significar que se nos pidió que dijéramos en forma concreta como las actividades de campo han resultado en el aumento de producción y alimentos. Eso sería verdaderamente una interpretación incauta de la decision de la Conferencia. Por lo mismo que he dicho antes, sería verdaderamente una imaginación fantástica que nos llevaría a pensar que, como resultado de nuestros proyectos de asistencia técnica (a), (b) o (c) se ha producido un aumento de tantas toneladas en la producción de cereales, de carnes o de lo que sea.
El problema, como he tratado de explicarlo, es bien otro. Es, hasta que punto nosotros ayudamos al Gobierno en el momento oportuno, a solucionar aquellas debilidades que en la intención de llevar adelante programas de desarrollo rural y de aumento de la producción, lo ponen, a él, al Gobierno, en mejores condiciones de hacerlo.
Es dentro de este panorama que nosotros apreciamos el impacto de nuestros Programas de Campo y es dentro de esta incertidumbre de lo pequeño pero concreto, en un mar a ser incentivado por el Gobierno, que encontramos muy difícil llegar a parámetros y resultados concretísimos.
No niego que los proyectos en sí, uno por uno, pueden ser merecedores de evaluación, y tenemos en ese sentido, un competente Servicio de Evaluación, que cuando las partes en el proyecto - y volvemos de nuevo a las tres partes - deseen evaluar el proyecto en cuanto a eficiencia y efectividad del uso de los insumos. A la obtención de resultados concretos en cuanto al esfuerzo humano, en cuanto a la utilización de equipos, en cuanto a la manutención dentro del programa de trabajo del proyecto, en cuanto a la obtención de las metas en el tiempo, nosotros lo hacemos; y lo evaluamos para el Gobierno, con la participación del Gobierno y con el conocimiento del donante, si el donante es separado. ,
Y en el fondo, esas evaluaciones de proyectos de las que hay cientos, son uno de los pilares principales en que se basa también el examen del Programa de Campo; y justamente es con el PNUD que principalmente hacemos esta evaluación individual de los proyectos.
Un señor delegado preguntó si tal vez el hecho de que los proyectos mostraran en este momento un grado de mejoramiento en la calidad, no podría referirse a que hemos aplicado con mayor flexibilidad los criterios mencionados en la Introducción al Capítulo II. Permítame decir, en primer lugar, que aceptamos que los criterios tienen un alto grado de subjetividad, también subjetividad de las tres partes. Sin embargo, pensamos que con la que le damos a nuestros representantes, con la experiencia que ellos están tomando en sus respectivos países, y con el asesoramiento que nos dan sobre los proyectos a efectos de preparar este examen bianual - lo que hacen en estrecha consulta con los gobiernos - pensamos que esto reduce, en parte, la subjetividad en la aplicación de los criterios.
Sin embargo, estamos siempre abiertos, y más bien invitamos a los señores delegados, a que nos den sugerencias sobre el mejoramiento de los criterios que utilizamos para la apreciación de los proyectos.
Otro señor delegado mencionó el hecho de que hemos reducido estos criterios a una graduación en tres puntos, cuando habíamos tenido antes una graduación de cinco puntos. Creo que puedo decir que la alteración que hemos hecho en ese sentido ha sido fruto de la experiencia, y justamente en un esfuerzo por disminuir la subjetividad en la apreciación de los proyectos.
Un señor delegado se refirió a un punto concreto del Programa del Examen del Programa Regular, y esto lo hizo cuando tratábamos ese tema; y al comenzar hoy la discusión del nuestro, me recordó que los puntos que había presentado no habían sido contestados, por más que creo que el señor West, había dicho, al tratarse el tema anterior, que esos puntos - que tenían también estrecha vinculación con el Examen del Programa de Campo - serían tratados por mí hoy. Así que paso ahora a hablar de, esos dos o tres puntos.
Uno de ellos se refiere al párrafo 211 del Examen del Programa de Campo que está reflejado en el Programa Regular, y que es el problema de las demoras que tenemos en la contratación de expertos y en la adquisición de equipos. En el Examen del Programa Regular, un tanto incautamente, decimos que para el Programa de Cooperación Técnica hemos logrado imponer mejoras a estos problemas. Se me preguntó entonces, por qué esas mejoras no podían ser también aplicadas a otros programas. Lo que puedo decir es que problemas como el de reclutamiento, que es manifiestamente serio; como el de adquisición de equipos, igualmente serio, merecen la continua atención de la Organización. Hace unos meses, bajo la presidencia de un colega mío, se ha hecho un Ejercicio Interno que ha tenido el objetivo de tratar de prever en aquellas acciones administrativas y financieras de las que nosotros somos responsables, las demoras que pueden sucederse en contratación o compras de equipo. Y dentro del margen de lo legal, y lo legal en este caso es lo que el auditor externo nos permite, tomar providencias de antemano, posiblemente desde el primerísimo momento, para que cuando el proyecto está verdaderamente aprobado estos dos grandes temas contratación de los expertos y adquisición de equipos - estén avanzados, al punto - como se diría en una carrera de caballos - de largar la carrera.
Ahora bien, ¿por qué dijimos que en el Programa de Cooperación Técnica hemos aplicado mejoras?No las hemos aplicado en todo, pero en el Programa de Cooperación Técnica, como nosotros somos dos de las partes - somos no sólo la agencia de ejecución, sino que somos también el donante - verdaderamente, se nos facilita mucho el poder solucionar muchos cuellos de botella. Porque con esto quiero significar que las demoras no son sólo de nuestras relaciones, sino, primero, de nuestras incompetencias, y segundo, de nuestras relaciones con los países beneficiarios que tienen que aprobar la gente, que aprobar los equipos, que tienen que construir edificios para poner los equipos, pero también tenemos demoras con los donantes, de toda índole, pero hacemos todo lo posible.
Otra pregunta que se me hizo en esa ocasión, Sr. Presidente, es sobre el Centro de Inversiones y el criterio que nosotros seguimos en materia de inversiones. No hay duda, Sr. Presidente, que cuando nosotros asistimos a los gobiernos a preparar proyectos que de antemano ellos han acordado que serían considerados por una institución financiera, estamos aplicando, en esas misiones y formulaciones, el criterio de las organizaciones financieras que posteriormente van a evaluar esos proyectos de los gobiernos y aprobarlos. Sin embargo, Sr. Presidente, como lo manifesté cuando se estudiaba el Capítulo 3 del Presupuesto, la Organización tiene sus propios criterios, y es evidente que en la relación diaria con las organizaciones financieras con que trabajamos tan estrechamente en materia de orientación de los proyectos en cuanto a objetividad, en materias tales como préstamos sectoriales, etc. , nuestra posición es la posición de nuestros órganos rectores y es la que poco a poco tratamos de influir a los órganos financieros.
En cuanto a la orientación de los trabajos que hacemos en inversiones, Sr. Presidente, debo decir que cada vez más y aceleradamente, estamos preparando proyectos cuyos beneficiarios son los pobres en el campo rural, los pequeños productores y la gente sin tierra. En 1974 sólo el 33 por ciento de los proyectos preparados por el Centro de Inversiones y financiados por el Banco Mundial tenían estos objetivos y en ese momento el valor total de esos proyectos fue de 170 millones de dólares. El año pasado, Sr. Presidente, el valor total de los proyectos, con un contenido predominante de desarrollo rural y de atención a los problemas de los pequeños agricultores, de la gente sin tierra, fue de 1 400 millones de dólares, preparados por el Centro de Inversiones y aprobados por el Bando Mundial. Si eso, Sr. Presidente, es verdad para el Banco Mundial, en una escala menor es todavía más verdad en el caso del SIDA.
También, Sr. Presidente, mi Delegación, acompañada por otras, mostró una gran preocupación por los objetivos nutricionales del programa de campo. En ese sentido, como ya hemos manifestado, hemos confesado (si puedo usar esa palabra), el examen del programa de campo del ejercicio que les hemos presentado fue hecho para y principalmente destinado al Comité de Agricultura de COAG
En este momento, Sr. Presidente, con SIDA, con la Agencia SIDA de Desarrollo Internacional, se está haciendo un esfuerzo en este caso metodológico de evaluación sobre proyectos nutricionales. La nota sobre los 39 proyectos a que se refiere el examen del programa de campo está a disposición de los Sres. Delegados, si desean solicitarla.
El punto crucial es la introducción de la consideración de los problemas nutricionales en un momento muy temprano de la ejecución del proyecto, pues de los contrario no sería posible lograr los objetivos. También, Sr. Presidente, es necesario que el proyecto en sus objetivos de desarrollo rural, contemple en forma especializada los objetivos nutricionales.
Finalmente, Sr. Presidente, quisiera referirme al problema de la pérdida de adjudicación, o del relativo monto de adjudicación por parte del PNUD para proyectos agrícolas, a ser ejecutados por la FAO. Escuché con mucha atención las explicaciones y los razonamientos de mi distinguido amigo el Sr. Representante del PNUD. Quiero, sin embargo Sr. Presidente, decir a la Comisión y hacer notar al Sr. Representante del PNUD que no estamos en el caso de que cuando la FAO trae recursos adicionales para el tratamiento de problemas de la agricultura la cifra de planificación con que cuentan los gobiernos se puede reservar para otros destinos. Yo creo, Sr. Presidente, que para la Conferencia de la FAO, incluso en el seno de las Naciones Unidas y por lo tanto en los gobiernos en sí, el desarrollo rural, la producción de alimentos, en fin, la agricultura, tiene primera prioridad en el uso de todos los recursos, o no tiene primera prioridad en el uso de todos los recursos. Y esa es la preocupación, e'se es el dilema que esperamos que los Sres. Delegados enfrenten y sobre el cual se pronuncien. Porque lo que sucede, Sr. Presidente, es que en sutilezas tales como inversiones o asistencia técnica u otros objetivos, la agricultura tiene o no tiene primera prioridad, según de donde provengan los recursos. Entonces, Sr. Presidente, por ahí vamos por mal camino. Pero permítame, Sr. Presidente, decirle una cosa más. Hemos dicho en el Documento sobre el Programa y también en el examen del Programa de Campo, y el Sr. Representante del PNUD muy gentilmente lo reconoció, que en aquellos países donde la FAO tiene acreditado un representante, se ha expandido el programa de la FAO con el PNUD. Qué extraño ! digo yo, ante las consideraciones de que, si hay recursos de la FAO, los del PNUD se reservan para otra cosa. Ante las consideraciones de que tal vez el gobierno ya no se interesa más en los problemas básicos, porque esté pensando en el procesamiento de productos agrícolas. La experiencia que tenemos es de que los programas de asistencia a la agricultura, de asistencia técnica a la agricultura en un país florecen cuando se tiene
la ayuda de un representante; y florecen en todos sus aspectos. La consecuencia a que yo llegaría, Sr. Presidente, y que también he oído en el Consejo de Administración del PNUD, es que en efecto estos representantes que tenemos la suerte de poner a disposición de los gobiernos, con una capacitación adecuada para su función, son de gran valor para los gobiernos en la asistencia que prestan sobre todo a las autoridades sectoriales para identificar problemas y formular sus proyectos. Es decir que como he oído en los últimos dos años en el Consejo de Administración del PNUD, esta asistencia a los gobier nos, que en el lenguaje burocrático de las Naciones Unidas se llama apoyo sectorial, es lo más importante que podemos hacer para asistir al gobierno en la mejor utilización de todos los recursos disponibles, en este caso, para él en cuanto a asistencia técnica.
Así que, Sr. Presidente, yo creo verdaderamente que el problema de la pérdida de producción por nuestra parte de los recursos que el PNUD ha podido destinar a la agricultura, es un problema que ciertamente hay que ahondar.
También estamos de acuerdo con los Sres. Delegados que dijeron que eso en gran medida es materia de acuerdo y de estudio entre el PNUD y la FAO. Pero, Sr. Presidente, lo que no creo es que este descenso en las adjudicaciones de FAO sea normal. Yo me permito rogar a la Conferencia que tenga en cuenta en un pronunciamiento en favor de la prioridad que requiere la agricultura en el campo de la asistencia técnica y de todos los recursos multilaterales o bilaterales, y que se aplique igual prioridad para la agricultura en todos los casos.
Igualmente, Sr. Presidente, sería desleal si no dijera que creo que los proyectos de asistencia técnica en materia del sector agrícola ejecutados por la FAO tienen decididamente una eficacia mayor que los ejecutados por organizaciones sin igual experiencia, organizaciones que no tienen igual acceso a la información, experiencia y tecnología de todo el mundo; y sobre todo, Sr. Presidente, organizaciones que no tienen detrás un programa de campo que, afortunadamente cada vez más, estamos orientando de mejor forma, ya que cada uno de nuestros proyectos está respaldado por un apoyo que va mucho más allá del costo del proyecto en sí.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr. Yriart. We have had a long day and I think it would be appropriate to postpone discussion of this item and resume tomorrow morning.
The meeting rose at 17. 30 hours.
La séance est levée à 17 h 30.
Se levanta la sesión a las 17. 30 horas.
