CHAIRMAN: We open this morning's proceedings by resuming the discussion, of the Field Programmes which was nearing its conclusion when we ended the Session yesterday afternoon. At that time there was a feeling that it would be appropriate for delegates to look over the resolution which was circulated in the latter part of the afternoon, with a view to allowing delegates to consider whether any of them would wish to make a further contribution to our discussion on the Field Programmes. The floor is now open to any delegate who wishes to take up the discussion.
M. SCHUWEILER (United States of America): Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that Members of the Secretariat are seeking to consult with some delegations with regard to matters still before us. Have you been consulted on this, Mr. Chairman?
CHAIRMAN: No, I have not. The Chair has no knowledge of this and neither has Mr. Yriart.
M. SCHUWEILER (United States of America):I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but at the time of your introduction I was consulting with another delegation here. Are we now on the subject of this proposed resolution?
CHAIRMAN: Yes, in the sense that I opened the proceedings by indicating that we had suspended the discussion at the end of yesterday afternoon on the basis that delegates will have an overnight opportunity to consider the terms of the resolution, and on that basis decide whether they wish to make a further contribution to the discussion in this Commission.
M. SCHUWEILER (United States of America): If there are no other delegations who wish to speak, it would seem important to make brief comments on the terms of the Draft Resolution as it stands. I would again want to emphasize that the small comments we have are small and primarily technical, and not to be interpreted in any way as indicating that we are not sympathetic to this resolution; we are.
I would like if I may, Mr. Chairman, referring to the preamble part of the Resolution and specifically the third paragraph which reads, "Recalling also the relevant parts of the resolutions of the U. N. General Assembly", we would suggest the Drafting Committee, when it comes to this resolution, should amend the third paragraph by inserting after the words "Recalling also the relevant parts of the resolutions. . . " the words "as adopted by the U. N. General Assembly".
On page 3 of the Resolution regarding the first action paragraph which begins, "Noting", we would propose that the paragraph be changed to read, "Noting with concern the declining proportion of agricultural activities in the UNDP country programmes". The point is that as originally drafted the language suggests that the declining proportion of agricultural activities may be attributable to UNDP allocations; that is allocations by the UNDP Secretariat. Yet we know that is not the way in which UNDP resources are allocated; rather they are allocated by the recipient countries. Again, Mr. Chairman, I propose that the language of that paragraph should read, "Noting with concern the declining proportion of agricultural activities in the UNDP country programme".
Also I wish to suggest a few small changes, Mr. Chairman, on page 4 of the Draft Resolution. In the second line of the third paragraph we would propose to strike out the word "UNDP", and insert instead the words "recipient governments". So that paragraph then would read "Request the Director-General to transmit this resolution to the UNDP Administrator, and through him, to the UNDP Governing Council, drawing the Council's attention to the need for recipient governments to take fullest advantage of FAO's key advisory and executing role in the food and agricultural sector".
Finally, one small proposed insert and appropriate change to paragraph 4. We would propose that the introduction be changed to read:"Requests international development institutions and donor countries to give due consideration to", and then each of the sub-paragraphs to be technically amended to read "increasing", and then "increasing", "supporting" and so forth, to make it consistent with the introductory paragraph. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
J. F. YRIART (Assistant Director-General, Development Department): Mr. Chairman, if I dare ask for the floor at this time it is because I am afraid that perhaps I have been partially responsible for what seems to be a slight misunderstanding in the proposal of some of the amendments moved by the honourable delegate of the United States. I tried to explain, and we tried to make the point in the Review, Mr. Chairman, that there are various facts that have been affecting the decline in the volume of UNDP agricultural activities that FAO executes for UNDP, and perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the lesser of the reasons is that the governments are giving less importance to agriculture. The more important matters are the organizations being chosen for the execution of agricultural projects, amongst them direct execution by UNDP. Also, other agencies are chosen, sister agencies with whom we are glad to cooperate but whom we feel in certain types of projects should not have the lead role, especially in rural development projects; we feel it is amply justified that this should be taken by FAO in cooperation with the other agencies. It is, Mr. Chairman, exactly this sort of problem that I have tried to convey, and if I dare speak now I think it is perhaps because I feel I was misunderstood. And this has caused the amendment submitted by the honourable delegate of the United States on page 3, "Noting with concern the falling share of FAO in UNDP allocations". He says "the declining proportion of agricultural activities in UNDP Country programmes". I do not know, Mr. Chairman, that this is a factually correct statement. In general, the share of agriculture in the country programmes has not declined but the projects have been given for execution either to UNDP or to other agencies. Now the question of saying "the falling share", perhaps it is specialized wording, but it is correct wording and this is why when I saw the Resolution it did not surprise me. I think we have also mentioned in the Review of the Field Programme the falling share of FAO in UNDP allocations. UNDP over so many months makes allocations to the agencies that represent an estimate for future activities for a certain period. These activities are the sum of the projects that have been approved for execution by that agency. So it is correct; this is how we foresee the future based on the total allocations which represent the value of the projects approved for our execution. So it is not that UNDP itself makes financial decisions with regard to the Programme.
If you will allow me a further intervention, Mr. Chairman, with regard to paragraph 3 at the top of page 4, where it now says, "drawing their attention to the need for UNDP to orient their assistance activities", etc. , I understand that now the amendment would make it read, "drawing the Council's attention to the need for recipient governments to orient their assistance activities". Again, Mr. Chairman, it is exactly the same point. There is a wide influence of the UNDP on the governments in the matter of execution of projects and this is how they are given for execution to other agencies. The same thing happens in the regional programmes where naturally UNDP decides on execution, so it is not the governments that have to orient their assistance activities to take fullest advantage of FAO's key advisory and executing role; it is also UNDP. I am afraid that these are the points we have not made clear enough but we have tried in the Review of Field Programmes, and again I think this the Draft took into account.
J. BIDAUT (France): Ma delegation tient à préciser que le projet de résolution C 79/LIM/35, qui est soumis à notre Commission pour un premier examen, constitue une initiative tout à fait intéressante et, dans l'ensemble, ma délégation est prête à l'appuyer.
Néanmois, il y a un ou deux points sur lesquels ma délégation aimerait insister et présenter quelques amendements qui touchent plus à la forme que sur le fond; mais, cependant, le premier amendement, je pense, a quelque peu à voir avec le fond de la question. Ma délégation s'attachera surtout aux dispositifs de la résolution, bien que les propositions d'amendement proposées par la délégation des Etats-Unis nous paraissent dignes d'intérêt et méritent une étude approfondie bien entendu. Ma délégation attire l'attention tout d'abord sur le paragraphe 1 du dispositif où on ne vise guère que les investissements d'aide extérieure. Il paraît essentiel, non seulement à ma délégation, mais en fonction des interventions qui ont été faites par les pays en développement dans cette enceinte, que le rôle de l'investissement consenti par les pays mêmes soit cité dans le cadre d'une analyse globale. On ne peut guère isoler un facteur de l'autre.
Par conséquent, ma proposition d'amendement, qui porterait d'ailleurs sur le plan de la formulation,
se présenterait ainsi:"Invite le Directeur général à analyser les tendances et politiques actuelles
en matièred'investissementen faveur du développement agricole dans les pays en développement en
général et entre autres de l'aide publique au développement agricole en ce qui concernele
texte tel qu'il est prévu continue.
D'autre part, en ce qui concerne le paragraphe 3, ma délégation souhaiterait une formulation pour la ligne n 3 du texte français: ". . . en appelant leur attention sur la possibilité pour le PNUD de tirer pleinement parti du rôle décisif que peut jouer. . . ".
Et, pour terminer, sur le paragraphe 5, en page 5 du texte français: "demande instamment aux institutions le financement - je cite: "à caractère multilatéral", et le texte se poursuit tel qu'il est conçu.
Parce qu'il apparaît à ma délégation que la fin de ce paragraphe: ". . . financée essentiellement sur une base volontaire", porte ici sur les crédits du PNUD, "avec l'aide en capital et les investissements". Il s'agit là d'autres formes d'investissements multilatéraux - sans doute fait-on allusion à la Banque mondiale - mais il est évident qu'il paraît très difficile de lier à l'avance l'ensemble des institutions de financement dans la mesure où elles ont déjà des programmes en cours ou des négociations avec les Etats, constamment menées, pour que des actions à caractère bilatéral continuent et que même d'autres actions soient initiées. Par conséquent, il paraît donc difficile de ne pas mentionner dans ce paragraphe 5 qu'il s'agit bien là d'une institution de financement à caractère multilatéral.
M. ZJALIC (Yugoslavia): My delegation wishes to reiterate its support for the draft resolution as it stands and the suggestion submitted by the Resolutions Committee.
This resolution covers our discussions and the views of the majority of delegations. This is a sort of action programme which offers the open question we put here in our discussion, and which opens the field for the future work of our Organization.
S. SID AHMED (Sudan): My delegation is glad that Dr. Yriart has explained the points about the proportion of UNDP agricultural allocation. In the developing countries we are most eager to develop agriculture, agro-industry and other sectors. We should, therefore, perhaps call for increased overall allocations to the UNDP to satisfy the increasing requirements of the different sectors. Alternatively, we support the draft resolution as it stands.
J. L. AUSMAN (Canada): We have a suggestion for the last paragraph of the preamble which might help overcome the problem noted by the Assistant Director-General. If one takes the wording that the delegate of the United States proposed: "Noting with concern the declining proportion of. . . " we then suggest the words "FAO related activities in UNDP country programmes".
We should also like to support the United States suggestion with respect to paragraph 3, and note simply that although the FAO Secretariat is not a member of UNDP per se, many of the delegations who will be joining in in accepting this resolution are, and it is perhaps a little awkward for us to recommend to our own governmental colleagues a policy in another organization. It is really a question of form more than substance, but it is very difficult for us to ask our colleagues elsewhere to change their policy. If, indeed, the UNDP as a governing body has taken a decision that agriculture is as important, or alternatively is less important than some other sector, this is so because the Member Governments have so decided.
W. A. F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of)(interpretation from German): My delegation also feels that this is a very interesting initiative and we agree in principle, with the proposal. However, we wish to make at the present stage of discussion a few preliminary comments which refer to the form and the text of the draft resolution.
I wish to refer to the third paragraph of the preamble. The United States delegation proposed the addition of the words as adopted by the UN General Assembly. We would support this, otherwise I wonder whether we should not list the different resolutions in question. There are quite a number which have to do with this whole problem.
Our second remark relates to the proposals made by the Resolutions Committee and we consider their suggestion an improvement.
With regard to the proposal on paragraph 3 by Canada, we did not hear the proposal clearly, and we should like to hear it again. The text might help overcome the various difficulties which delegations seem to have with the text.
As for the proposal made by the French delegation on the first operative paragraph, we feel that that is very interesting indeed. I think this would broaden the text.
As for operative paragraph 3, we agree with what was stated by the delegate of Canada. It is a very special situation when the members of one organization make recommendations to members of another organization. It is quite apparent that this recommendation can in no way influence the basic attitudes or approaches of our country in another forum, and I feel this point was well stated by the delegate of Canada.
With regard to the amendments to paragraph 4 suggested by the United States delegation, we feel that this could be an improvement on the text.
In paragraph 5 again we have an improvement to the text proposed by the French delegation. On this paragraph we also have a proposal of our own to make. We expect rather positive reactions on the part of financing institutions if we would use the words "Invites financing institutions. . . " rather than "Urges. . . ".
J. F. YRIART (Assistant Director-General, Development Department): Again, I feel a little responsible because the Secretariat was asked by the sponsoring delegations whether, procedure-wise, it was proper for one governing body to address a resolution to another. It is quite correct, and the resolution with our advice has observed the form in the United Nations. Also, it is not infrequent that our own governing bodies, the Conference and the Council, also consider resolutions addressed to them by the UNDP Governing Council, sometimes directly and sometimes through ECOSOC. So there is such a communication between governing bodies, and I do not think this would be found strange.
With regard to the amendment by the French delegation to paragraph 5, by adding at the end the financing of institutions of a multi-lateral character, it would put us in the predicament that the major part of the funding of the Special Action Programmes today is done not by multi-lateral financing institutions but by governments. This has been referred to here. In the case of Belgium and The Netherlands, they have referred to their contributions to these programmes which, in everyday parlance, we call "multibi's".
So we will have a clash in paragraph 5 that we tried to urge more support to the FAO Special Action Programmes and at the same time exclude the present support from governments which is bilateral in character. I am also sure that the French delegate would not wish to see the considerable assistance that his own government renders to agriculture ignored, since most of the assistance France renders to agriculture is bilateral and not multilateral.
CHAIRMAN: It seems to me that at this stage the ground that everyone wants to cover has been covered here in the Commission, that is to say those delegates who have wanted to have made suggestions and there have been comments and counter-suggestions - and it is pretty difficult for the whole Commission to turn itself into a Drafting Committee - so if people find it satisfactory what I propose to do now is to ask our colleague the Secretary to read out the Canadian amendments since one delegate at least did not pick those up in their entirety. After that I suggest we close the debate on this item, leaving to the Drafting Committee to pick up all the thoughts and to proceed as a Drafting Committee would. I invite the Secretary to read the Canadian amendments.
K. C. WRIGHT (Secretary of Commission II): The two amendments proposed by Canada are: on page 3 the last preambular paragraph would read as follows: "Noting with concern the declining proportion of FAO-related activity in UNDP Country Programmes". The second change proposed by Canada would be in paragraph 3 at the top of page 4. The entire paragraph would read as follows: "Requests the Director-General to transmit this Resolution to the UNDP Administrator, and through him, to the UNDP Governing Council, requesting them to take fullest advantage of FAO's key advisory and executing role in the food and agriculture sector".
CHAIRMAN: It has been put to me now that the discussion here in Commission II may not yet have reached the stage in which it could appropriately be referred to the Drafting Committee, the course which appealed to me as being a practical means of bringing the discussion to a close to the satisfaction of all delegates. I am perfectly happy to respond to any alternative suggestion, and if any delegate would like to take the floor again of course I am in the hands of the Commission.
B. O. M. CHIYABWE (Zambia): Without wasting time I would just like to say that we support the views expressed by Mr. Yriart regarding this Resolution. I think he has gone to great lengths in explaining the implications of this Resolution. I want to put it on record that we do not have any hard feelings about the slight amendments that have been proposed by various delegations. We would wish that this Resolution should be adopted as it is.
P. BUNE (Fiji): I wish to add my support to those who have asked for the retention of the Resolution. I take the, point made by Canada, but I believe sometimes the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, and I think this is a case for harmonization of policies, and it is quite within our competence to draw the attention of the UNDP Council to these matters.
I think the explanation given by the Director-General for Development does clarify the situation, and the amendment proposed by the US delegation might not truly reflect the concerns of the authors of this Resolution, so I would therefore support the retention of the Resolution as it is.
S. TAZI (Maroc) (Interprétation de l'arabe): Ma délégation souhaite prendre la parole à ce stade pour saluer toutes les délégations des pays arabes et islamiques. C'est la Nouvelle Année pour nous, c'est l'Hégire. Nous entrons dans le quinzième siècle de l'Hégire et nous espérons que cette célébration apportera la prospérité dans le monde entier sur la base de la justice et de la compréhension mutuelles.
Je voudrais formuler un certain nombre de commentaires qui portent sur le projet de résolution. Dans le texte en langue arabe et dans les autres textes, au second paragraphe du Préambule, (le texte a été examiné par ma délégation), l'on semblerait rappeler que la responsabilité du développement agricole incombe en premier lieu aux pays en développement. L'assistance et la coopération internationales jouent. néanmoins un rôle essentiel en ce qui concerne la qualité et le soutien pour les ressources humaines et matérielles en vue d'accélérer les investissements de ce secteur de l'économie nationale. Ceci est très logique et nous apportons bien entendu notre appui car l'autonomie ou suffisance, en quelque sorte, est certainement le moyen fondamental qui nous permet de nous tirer de cette stagnation économique; soyons donc logiques avec nous-mêmes. Disons que les résultats que nous pouvons atteindre, et qui sont évoqués dans les derniers paragraphes du Dispositif devraient être compatibles avec les paragraphes du Préambule, car ces pays qui demandent une assistance bilatérale ou multilatérale, ces pays en développement demandent cette assistance, et il faut mettre à leur disposition les moyens qui leur permettront d'arriver à leur véritable autonomie; notamment placer leurs produits sur le marché et leur permettre d'élargir les échanges extérieurs de leur commerce extérieur et, ce qui serait bien préférable, il faudrait que nous ajoutions au Préambule un paragraphe supplémentaire demandant à tous les pays développés de faciliter les échanges commerciaux des pays en développement avec les pays développés. Autrement dit, d'ouvrir leurs marchés, car nous pensons que cela faciliterait l'accroissement des revenus et des devises étrangères des pays en développement et qu'il conviendrait également de faire appel aux différentes nations, aux différents pays, à l'humanité, afin que l'on commence des négociations en vue de conclure un accord international sur les céréales et un accord sur l'aide alimentaire. Ce sont là me semble-t-il des moyens fondamentaux qui peuvent efficacement soutenir l'assistance internationale et le commerce international des céréales.
CHAIRMAN: I am not sure about the procedural aspects of this suggestion you have made. It may be more appropriate for that kind of suggestion to be worked into the deliberations of Commission I where the general aspects of trade and inter-relation of countries in the trading field are covered.
J. S. CAMARA (Guinée): Lorsque ma délégation, en même temps que d'autres, a présenté cette résolution elle était convaincue qu'elle n'aurait pas soulevé de difficultés au sein de cette Commission, et qu 'au contraire elle aurait été adoptée à l'unanimité. Nous avons fait également référence au dispositif dans le paragraphe 2. 3 et c'était pour tenir compte de ce que nous avons entendu dans les déclarations des chefs de délégation ou dans les commissions, le rôle, la responsabilité des Etats Membres, le rôle que doit prendre l'agriculture dans notre plan de développement, les efforts que nous devons y consacrer. C'est donc tout cela que nous avons essayé de résumer en tenant compte des opinions exprimées. Nous avons voulu faire des recommandations non seulement á nos gouvernements (parce que nous invitonsles pays en développement à consacrer de plus larges parts de leurs ressources au secteur de 1 agriculture), mais nous avons essayé également d'attirer l'attention de certaines institutions (qui ont te louées ici) et dont nous apprécions les efforts ainsi que leur responsabilité. Nous avons parle longuement de la responsabilité effective du PNUD, de ce qu'il représente et je pense, lorsque nous faisons des suggestions de ce genre et que l'on nous propose d'autres types d'amendements, que cela ne peut a mon sens qu'affaiblir ce projet. Nous appuyons les commentaires faits par M. Yriart et également par les autres collègues qui appuient cette résolution qui ne devrait pas être sujette aux amendements proposés.
Nous pensons que les auteurs devraient plutôt les retirer car cette résolution n'agresse personne, au contraire elle fait partie de différentes suggestions du Programme que la FAO est en tram de renforcer avec la collaboration de donateurs et pour venir en aide aux pays en développement. Cette résolution ne devrait attirer aucune espèce de foudres ou de difficultés. Nous pensons qu'elle devrait être adoptée sans les amendements proposés.
L. C. J. MARTIN (United Kingdom):I do appreciate the feelings and thoughts which have been expressed in the last half hour or so. However, with respect to Mr. Yriart, who is a very good friend of mine, and who is most certainly ingenious, I cannot quite agree with the way he interpreted the way in which various parts of the UN system talk to each other. It is one thing for the General Assembly, or for ECOSOC, to address themselves to the specialized agencies. When it goes back the other way it is another matter of just how you do it. And, frankly, I doubt if this resolution as it stands will really help the sponsors in what they meant to do. It does in places read as though FAO is telling UNDP, telling various other parts of the United Nations system what they should do. Now, on the
contrary I think we should proceed by argument. As I said I fully appreciate the concern of the authors of this resolution. All I am saying is that probably this is not quite the way to talk to the UNDP, or to talk to other parts of the system. This is why I think that some of the amendments that have been suggested are certainly worth consideration. It would help our cause a great deal more if we did not appear to be dictating to the remainder of the UN system, and this is why, Mr. Chairman, I for one fully agree with the suggestion that you threw out half an hour or so ago, that this present text with all the various amendments that have been suggested should be referred to the Drafting Committee. I am quite sure that we can come out of this without any ģreat problems. What I am quite unsure about is that if we adopted this resolution now it would not help us. So I suggest that we come back to your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, and ask the Drafting Committee to look at this resolution with all the various amendments. In a way I think they are mostly semantic. I would say to those who have spoken in the last quarter of an hour or so, I would say particularly to what the distinguished representative of Guinea said, let us have another look at this. I am sure that we can come out of it with a resolution that is satisfactory to all of us.
CHAIRMAN:I find myself in the position of the unhappy lady in the song, torn between two lovers. The position at the moment is that having made the suggestion that perhaps this thing could most appropriately be advanced more quickly and more satifactorily in the drafting group, a number of delegations have indicated that they would like to speak first. I now have on the list a further seven delegations who would like to make a contribution. In the spirit of compromise and diplomacy that should exist between us, can I perhaps appeal to those who are not yet on the list to hold back for a little while and let us consider after we have heard the seven delegations how we should then proceed.
M. SCHUWEILER (United States of America):In the interest of proceeding as rapidy as we can, as you have suggested, I limit my remarks to thanking you for this opportunity to speak again. I shall, of course, want to reserve my position, in the event we need to, to speak further, but I terminate my comments at this point.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, distinguished delegate of the United States. That approach is very much appreciated.
K. CHOUERI (Liban)(interpretation de l'arabe):C'est avec beaucoup d'attention que j'ai suivi le déroulement du débat sur ce projet de résolution. Ce projet de résolution a été présenté par le Ghana, la Guinée, l'Indonésie, la Tunisie, le Zaïre. Nous avons écouté les précisions et les éclaircissements apportés par M. Yriart sur un certain nombre de points. Nous avons également écouté les échanges de vues, les interventions de nos collègues.
Ma délégation voudrait faire chorus avec ce qu'a dit le représentant de la Yougoslavie et celui de la Guinée. Nous appuyons ce projet de résolution tel quel, il reflète bien les opinions et avis qui ont été émis hier lors du débat sur cette question.
Pour ce qui est des amendements présentés et qui portent sur le paragraphe III par exemple, nous demandons au Directeur général de transmettre la présente résolution à l'administrateur du PNUD. La délégation de notre pays ne voit pas dans ce paragraphe un empiétement sur les fonctions des autres organisations, nous ne sommes pas en train de piétiner leurs plates-bandes, nous pensons simplement que cette résolution prépare la voie à notre Organisation pour qu'elle fasse des choix éclairés.
S. SID AHMED (Sudan): We also would not like to prolong the discussion and would refer our reaction to the amendment of the Canadian delegation, that they use the key advisory and executing role of FAO in Food and Agriculture to the drafting Committee.
M. A. OROZCO DEZA (México): Nuestra delegación quisiera también ser bastante breve, de acuerdo con lo que usted ya nos indico. Pero sí deseamos remarcar la necesidad de que esta Resolución sea aprobada tal y como se ha presentado.
Creemos que la exposición del señor Yriart ha sido lo suficientemente clara en relación al párrafo 3, básicamente, en donde el hecho de que se trasmita esta Resolución y se señale a la atención del PNUD, no quiere indicar que se esté forzando a este Organismo a que tome una decisión.
En la segunda línea del texto en español de esta Resolución, se manifiesta claramente que es un señalamiento, por lo que nuestra delegación no observa ningún problema. Quisiéramos adherirnos plenamente a las propuestas de varias delegaciones de que sea aprobada tal como se ha presentado, y si, como algunas de las delegaciones que se oponen a que sea aprobada, menciona que las enmiendas son de forma, creo que debemos proceder a aprobarla y evitar que vaya al Comité de Redacción a generar, quizás, todavía más problemas.
R. B. RYANGA (Kenya):When this resolution was brought up we expected that everybody here would come out in full support of it, because we have all being saying that we want to increase food production; we want to reduce and abolish imbalances and lessen the gap between the have's and the have not. Now the amendments that are being proposed are going to weaken the resolution and also confuse the issue. I think Dr. Yriart's explanations have made the whole case clear and, after all, UNDP and the whole system are not external bodies which can be expected to look at things from the FAO with hostility. They are also concerned that the work of this Organization should go on fruitfully.
My delegation, therefore, is of the view that the present text of the resolution covers exactly those points which should be emphasized, and that this resolution should be adopted exactly as it is. In fact, my delegation feels that there would be no need actually to have a drafting committee to go through this whole thing again and create more problems, and I would call on the other delegations to adopt this resolution the way it is.
A. DA. SILVEIRA (Togo): Ma délégation voudrait apporter sa voix à celle des délégués qui ont approuvé l'intervention du Dr Yriart au sujet du projet de résolution. Ici, le problème qui nous préoccupe se situe au niveau de la terminologie, et comme les voix sont partagées, je suis très gêné. Je suis tenté d'abonder dans le sens de la dernière position du Dr Yriart, à savoir de revoir la terminologie, et puis d'adopter le texte tout de suite. Je crois que c'est mieux que de le renvoyer à une commission spécialisée, ce qui ferait traîner les choses.
W. KlSAMBA-MUGERWA (Uganda):My delegation feels that Mr. Yriart has taken his rightful duty to point out the implications of the amendments as tabled by the distinguished delegate of the USA. Other amendments as suggested by some distinguished delegates are in a form rather than of a substantive nature. My delegation feels that we cannot turn Commission II into a drafting committee. Each of us have different scholastic backgrounds, and as such we may end up with as many resolutions as the number of delegates in this house.
Mr. Chairman, my delegation supports the resolution as drafted. We would like to end by emphasizing that as the distinguished delegate of the UK has put it we would not like FAO dictating to UNDP. Mr. Yriart's interventions were along the same lines, to avoid these dictatorial aspects and also to avoid making such suggestions to UNDP. With that, we appeal to delegations who have some reservations to support the resolution as drafted.
P. LAOWHAPHAN (Thailand):Thailand is not a co-sponsor of the draft resolution submitted to this Commission, but we have studied it attentively and feel that the area has been discussed thoroughly. So my delegation would like to add its voice to those of previous speakers in favour of adopting this draft resolution as it is.
R. B. SINGH (Nepal): We have heard with inerest the deliberations and interventions of delegates regarding this resolution. My delegation would like to be brief, we support the draft resolution as it stands, as it in no way suggests that the FAO dictate to any agency of the UN system. The intention seems to be quite clear and I think Mr. Yriart also made it even clearer.
Therefore, this resolution should be adopted here in the Commission rather than sending it to the Resolutions Committee for re-drafting, from where it has already come with certain suggestions. So my delegation feels that it should be adopted as it stands.
Mme F. LARBI (Tunisie): Je vais être très très brève. Ma délégation appuie les commentaires présentés par M. Yriart, et pense que cette résolution devrait être présentée telle quelle.
F. LEGAULT (Gabon): La délégation gabonaise, qui a suivi avec intérêt les explications du Directeur général adjoint, du Département du développement, explications claires et pertinentes qui apportent toute la lumière sur certaines inquiétudes, approuve la résolution sous sa forme actuelle.
Sra. Dra. M. IVANKOVICH DE AROSEMENA (Panamá): Solamente unas breves palabras. Mi delegación, después de haber escuchado las palabras explicativas del señor Yriart y de haber escuchado la aclaración del delegado de Guinea, que fue uno de los países que presento la Resolución, considera que la Resolución debe ser aprobada tal cual está.
P. D. TANOE (Côte-d'Ivoire): Ma délégation voudrait saluer l'heureuse initiative prise par certaines délégations pour permettre d'avoir en plus un autre moyen qui devrait tendre à accroître la production agricole, surtout en faisant des propositions qui tendent à lui offrir de meilleures chances de succès. C'est dans ce contexte que ma délégation apporte son appui complet au projet de résolution soumis à notre examen, et cela sous sa forme actuelle, en ne souhaitant pas que son contenu soit affaibli.
D'ailleurs, elle se félicite que ce projet de résolution ne fasse l'objet véritablement d'aucune réserve. Toutes les délégations qui ont pris la parole ici pour vous faire part de leurs réflexions l'ont soutenu. Mais si véritablement de simples problèmes de forme se posaient, peut-être qu'au niveau du Comité de rédaction des solutions heureuses pourraient leur être trouvées.
H. SY MOUSSA (Mauritanie): La délégation de mon pays appuie le projet de résolution dans sa forme actuelle.
R. SAAD EL DINE (Syria):(interpretation from Arabic): My delegation finds that the point of view of Canada cannot be construed that this Draft Resolution gives the impression that we are imposing anything on any other organization. The Canadian amendment does not require that we refer this Draft Resolution to the Drafting Committee, therefore my delegation feels that we should support the Draft Resolution as presented by the Resolutions Committee.
A. AFEWORK (Ethiopia): The Draft Resolution under discussion, in the view of my delegation, reflects the key role that FAO should play. Any further revisions or amendments of this draft would, in the view of my delegation, water down the emphasis and focus of the Resolution. We would therefore like to support the view that the Draft Resolution should be adopted as submitted.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): I just want to make a brief comment on para. 3. I have not been here all the time, but it appears to me that there is considerable unanimity on what it is desired to do in para. 3, but that there has been some difference of opinion as to the best way to achieve the objective which is aimed at in this paragraph.
My delegation would prefer that the paragraph be modified somewhat, not at all to weaken it, but to attain the same objective in a way which would seem to be more appropriate, if there is a doubt as to whether there is any question of dictation or requiring another organization to do something, to obviate that doubt. Therefore, it seems to me that a formulation somewhere along the lines which have
already been proposed which I will just read would be something which we could support:"Requests the Director-General to transmit this Resolution to the UNDP Administrator, and through him, to the UNDP Governing Council, requesting them to take the fullest advantage of FAO's key advisory and executing role in the food and agriculture sector". I think that gives the message very clearly.
I have a slight hesitation about telling another organization that there is a need to orient their assistance activities in a certain way. We certainly have no problem with the general import of the message.
A. B. HARLAND (United Nations Development Programme): I have hesitated in taking the floor and speaking on a Resolution of the Commission but I feel duty bound for my organization to make a few observations which may help delegations. These are based upon facts, as reviewed by the Administrator, based upon the ACC sector classification which has various shortcomings, and thus any data provided must be reviewed very carefully. The information we have is that for the agricultural sector as a whole - and I am talking about country programmes, regional and inter-regional programmes - these data show that there has been a decrease in programming in UNDP assistance from 29. 2 percent of total UNDP expenditure in the period 1972-73 to an average of 27. 2 percent in 1977-78.
The fall of FAO's share of the total expenditure has paralleled this fall in the share of the agricultural sector. So the point I am making is that there has been a decline in the proportion of agriculture in UNDP programmes. This is a fact based upon a careful analysis that the Administrator has made, because he is just as concerned about the decline in agricultural programmes and projects as the Director-General, and he has studied this matter very carefully.
The second point I would wish to make is the use of the word "allocations". Allocations are made after a programme or a project is approved. Therefore, any resolution which refers to UNDP allocations must first of all address itself to the source of these allocations, namely the country programmes, the national country programmes or the inter-regional country programmes.
I hope that these two comments of mine will be helpful to delegations.
J. S. CAMARA (Guinee): Je remercie très sincèrement le représentant du PNUD pour la déclaration qu'il vient de faire. En tant que pays bénéficiaire et à la lumière des événements qui se sont déroulés ces dernières années, nous disons que la coopération entre la FAO et le PNUD doit être prioritaire, car c'est un secteur clé pour la croissance et pour l'indépendance des pays en voie de développement. Nous demandons au paragraphe 3 que l'orientation et la tendance que nous connaissons ces dernières années- orientation due soit aux gouvernements des pays, soit à la tendance qui se manifeste également même au sein de l'institution concernée - soient modifiées avant que nous ne parvenions à une phase assez critique. Au travers des rapports du PNUD et de la FAO que nous avons pu voir, une tendance à une nette diminution de la part de la FAO dans les programmes et dans les investissements en provenance du PNUD se manifeste.
Nous ne voulons pas imposer quelque chose au PNUD et à son Conseil d'administration, même si ce sont les mêmes gouvernements qui se retrouvent dans l'une comme dans l'autre institution; mais je ne pense pas qu'attirer l'attention sur ce point représente un diktat; il s'agit simplement, je le répète, d'attirer l'attention sur une nécessité - mot français assez clair dans sa signification - et non pas de demander, comme le délégué de l'Irlande vient de le faire, une modification "dans la mesure du possible", car c'est ce que nous ne voulons pas. Il ne s'agit pas de dire "dans la mesure du possible"; le possible existe. Le PNUD et la FAO ont les moyens techniques, les compétences et les connaissances nécessaires actuellement.
Il ne faut donc pas parler de "mesure du possible". Nous demandons au contraire qu'on le fasse, puisque c'est possible de le faire. Je ne peux pas, en tant que coauteur de cette résolution, accepter la proposition que vient de faire le délégué de l'Irlande, car sans vouloir imposer quoi que ce soit, nous demandons qu'on fasse ce qui doit être fait.
H. MENDS (Ghana): Mr. Chairman, certain members in the Plenary have had the unqualified advantage of at least getting the gist of the speeches that have been made by the delegates of the delegations, and no doubt for agriculture to really get moving in these developing countries we need massive doses of investment, not only in the land but in the resources and other foodstuff that must go into agriculture, and UNDP has been one of the major agencies that have come to the aid of these development countries, assisting FAO in investment albeit in a small way in agricultural programmes there. Of late we have noted that its share had been dwindling, and to refer specifically to the resolution before us, I believe it is just a question for the Director-General to transmit the resolution to the UNDP administrator and draw his attention to the need for UNDP to reorient. If anything is going to come out of this Conference, then I think it is about the right thing to do to reorient assistance activities to the fullest advantage to the only organization charged in this world with agricultural production and improving agricultural activities in these developing countries. Perhaps Mr. Chairman if I could refer, I would to all intents and purposes suggest that we retain the wording as it is, if there is a genuine desire and the will to help developing countries get out of this rut, but if words, being strictly things as they are, create some problems in this form, I would humbly suggest that we allow the Contact Group to look at it and then get a compromise wording, but sincerely I do not see any problem. My delegation at least does not find any difficulty with the wording viewed in terms of the need of political will, and the genuine desire of the world community to get the developing countries out of incessant food shortages, malnutrition and poverty.
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, there are two speakers still on the list and it seems to me that we have reached a stage where it is well worth offering one more suggestion. The situation seems to me, from the Chair, to be that there is substantial unanimity about the objectives of the Resolution. Secondly, and quite clearly, there are some problems which it is difficult to discern from here as to whether they are problems of substance or problems of working. I think the third thing that is absolutely clear, distinguished delegates, is that it is impossible to finally resolve the terminology from the floor of the Commission. So if I may, I offer for consideration whilst the next speakers have the floor and bearing in mind that it would be appropriate for Mr. Yriart to speak again, that if there are problems in ι referring the matter back to the Drafting Committee, and given that it cannot be resolved here to everybody's satisfaction, could I appeal to the sponsors of the Resolution and those who have the most difficulties of substance to get together a little later on and see if they can resolve their problems, thus helping us all in the Commission to get the results that we all want. In short I am moving away from the "Drafting Group" suggestions and moving into the "informal contact group" suggestion, because it. seems to me at this stage that it. might advance the cause rather more quickly.
K. M. KHUDHEIR (Iraq) (Interpretation from Arabic): Mr. Chairman, we have had a lengthy discussion, and I would like sincerely that we should concentrate on the objectives of this Draft Resolution so that we would not waste time again between the UNDP and the FAO.
AMIDJONO MARTOSUWIRYO (Indonesia): Mr. Chairman, referring to the development of the debate, and referring to your suggestion and the proposal made by my colleague from Ghana, of course as a sponsor of this Draft Resolution my delegation insist that we have to adopt this as a base. However, we do agree that it is apparent that your suggestion for consulting the Contact Group might smooth the way and we can solve it quickly.
SI YOUCEF (Alégrie): Nous ne souhaitons pas prolonger le débat. Nous voulons tout simplement souligner que les amendements proposés par certaines délégations ne touchent pas le fond du problème, c'est pourquoi nous rejoignons totalement les déclarations des délégués de la Yougoslavie et de la Guinée. Nous n'allons pas nous étendre. plus longuement sur cette question qui a déjà fait l'objet de nombreuses interventions. Aussi la délégation de mon pays voudrait appuyer en conséquence le projet, de résolution tel qu'il nous a été présenté.
J. F. YRIART (Assistant Director-General, Development Department):I think, Mr. Chairman, that we have a difference of perception with my distinguished friend from UNDP, certainly not in regard to the ACC classification but what goes beyond che ACC classification. When we come to classification of the ACC, it does not include in its agricultural sector certain recognised components such as agricultural education, agricultural planning, ground water and natural resources and agricultural processing, among others. This is why, Mr. Chairman, in good faith within our calculations we have come to the conclusion that the total - and now I am afraid to use the word "allocations" - the total assistance in the agricultural sector has remained more or less stable for the last few years. Now the share of FAO, Mr. Chairman, has gone down; it is pointed out in paragraph 1. 14 of the Review of Field Programmes, and it has gone down in matters which are within the direct responsibility of FAO; for example, in plant production and protection, in land and water use for agriculture and in agricultural planning. Mr. Chairman, you must understand our reaction when we find that we do not become the executing agents for projects such as plant production and protection, such as water for agriculture and agricultural planning. This is where we have gone down.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the interruption is because I wanted to check on what I have said about the means of communication between the agencies. I hope that my very distinguished friend, the delegate of the United Kingdom, at least gives me - and I know he does - some credit for trying to improve communications. I have in front of me now a decision of the UNDP Governing Council of June 1978, decision 25/8 Role & Activities of UNDP, requesting the Administrator, the participating and executing agencies and the regional commissions. I have here another one of the Governing Council of this year, in July 1979, Recruitment and Use and Prospects of Reducing the Costs of UNDP-financed Experts. Paragraph 3 invites the Administrator, the agencies and the governments to give active consideration, etc. , and I think, Mr. Chairman, that we do value this possibility to communicate between ourselves, not only between the secretariats, which is easy, but also the governing bodies.
Finally, I hope I am not out of order in saying that there is no procedural problem here, because we could find many more resolutions, so I hope there will be no further obstacles in our discussions to prevent us adopting this resolution. I really think all the ingredients are in the discussion to enable us to approve the wording of the resolution.
CHAIRMAN:It certainly seems to me that we have all the ingredients for getting an agreed resolution. After some very rapid informal consultations between the sponsors and those who have indicated some difficulties, it does seem that unanimity of objective has been established. If it is
acceptable to delegates I suggest that we temporarily suspend our consideration of this item, after the delegate of India has spoken, since he has indicated a wish to do so. So that there is no misunderstanding, if I may, I should like to ask the delegate of Ghana as the sponsor, and the delegate of the United States as one who has some difficulties, to get together as quickly as they can, and later in the day inform the Commission where they have got to.
RAMADHAR (Chairman, Group of 77):I must apologize for having asked for the floor at this late stage, but we in the Group of 77 have considered this resolution with considerable care and we have examined it thoroughly. We feel that this resolution is of vital importance for this Organization, as well as for having cordial and coordinated dialogue between this Organization and UNDP.
After the clarification given by Mr. Yriart, it is quite clear that this king of dialogue between one organization and another is a common feature of the UN system, and there is nothing wrong in that.
I have no objection to your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that the delegates of Ghana and the United States should get together, but I would like to say on behalf of the Group of 77 that this resolution has the full backing and support of that group, and I would urge the adoption of this resolution at this stage in the form in which it has been presented, and if some countries have reservations those reservations could go into the report.
CHAIRMAN: We are now in the situation where we have a firm proposal on behalf of a substantial groupi of countries that there be no further discussion, even informally, and that reservations, if there ara to be reservations, of the countries which have some difficulties with the terms of the resolution simply be entered as reservations in the report. That does introduce a new element into the way in which the discussion has been proceeding, and that is why I draw specific attention to it.
Does any delegate wish to make a further contribution to the discussion at this stage? It would seem to me to mean that, if that suggestion is acceptable, we would not proceed with the idea of an informal group to consider the terms of the resolution. I do not want to labour the point, but this is something new which has been put by the delegate of India, and I therefore explain the significance of what has been said.
W. A. F. GRABISH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of)(interpretation from German): I must say that I quite understand the line of thinking of the delegate of India. I must also acknowledge that a great deal of effort has been made in the drafting of this resolution. Furthermore, proposals have been put forward to improve it. I would just like to mention the proposal on paragraph 3 of the preamble and whether we should not add the words 'as adopted' or whether we should list all the different resolutions. I think that is a matter in which we should seek advice by the Legal Counsel of the Organization as there are various matters involved here. There were other comments made also which could improve the resolution as a whole.
My delegation would be very happy if some sort of informal contact could be arranged so that we might arrive at a consensus. This is what we always strive for, and we do not want a situation where just a few delegations, even for formal reasons, feel compelled to make reservations. It is quite obvious that the Commission cannot give its final and definitive support to this draft resolution. The definitive decision lies with the Conference.
If I may come back to the possibilities that are before us, the first is that the drafting Committee should examine this draft resolution, but if that does not suit the majority of delegations informal contacts could be arranged, and a contact group could try to solve the points, which give rise to some difficulties, so that we can finally arrive at a consensus.
M. SCHUWEILER (United States of America): I merely wish to endorse and support the proposal of the Federal Republic of Germany.
AMIDJONO MARTOSUWIRY (Indonesia): I really doubt whether the Drafting Committees has the right to decide or recommend what should be appropriate and could be approved by this Committee. The Drafting Committee has to cover all the points in the discussion, and at this stage we do not have any consensus. I would prefer that we should have informal group consultations, and that the proposal of the delegate of India be accepted.
T. HAYAKAWA (Japan): I should just like to say that I am in complete agreement with what the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany has said.
H. MENDS (Ghana): It is unfortunate that we have arrived at such an impasse. I thought we had a good thing going 'for us. This is a very simple resolution, the ingredients are all there, and everybody agrees with the need for coordination with UNDP, so I think an informal group, if it discusses for about ten minutes, could come up with a resolution which has popular support. The resolution would really be weakened if we had to have some reservations which might have to be made as a formality. I would therefore appeal to my colleague from India, and perhaps if we had a break for ten minutes we we could resolve the problem and agree in toto with the wording.
CHAIRMAN: That seems to me to be a singularly sensible suggestion. On the other hand, I do not want to acquire the reputation of a chairman who has denied free speech to delegates who have indicated they would like to speak. Could I propose that after we have heard from the delegates of Guinea, Israel and the United Kingdom, we do break for ten minutes and see where we can get to.
J. S. CAMARA (Guinée): Puisque vous avez décidé une suspension de séance, je ne pense pas que ma déclaration apportera quoi que ce soit. Contrairement à ce qu'a dit le délégué du Ghana, j'étais prêt à appuyer la proposition faite par notre Chef du Groupe des 77, le délégué de l'Inde. Je pense que l'on a trop tendance à créer des groupes de contact. Dès qu'il y a un petit problème on crée un groupe de contact. Cela pourrait nous amener à en avoir tant que nous ne saurions plus où en arriver. Le délégué de la République fédérale d'Allemagne a dit qu'il n'y a pas de problèmes. C'est le mot qu'il a employé. Je ne comprends donc pas pourquoi certaines délégations s'opposent à ce que nous adoptions cette résolution. Vous venez de dire que vous ajournez la réunion pendant dix minutes, mais je ne sais pas si nous pourrons arriver à un accord. Je réitère mon appui à l'Inde dont la solution est la meilleure.
Y. ABT (Israel): My delegation wholeheartedly supports the suggestion of the delegate of Ghana and your suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that we have a ten-minute break to solve the problem. We do not believe that there is a major problem here.
L. C. J. MARTIN (United Kingdom): We really are getting into an extremely stupid situation. I think the whole of the Commission probably wants to vote for the essence of this Resolution. If there were a vote now some of us would be obliged to abstain. If we took ten minutes to recover our senses and have a cup of coffee we might be able to vote for it.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. May I say from the Chair I never thought for one moment the delegate of the United Kingdom would take leave of his senses.
The meeting was suspended from 11. 45 hours to 12. 30 hours
La séance est suspendue de 11 h 45 à 12 h 30
Se suspende la sesión de las 11. 45 horas a 12. 30 horas
CHAIRMAN: I thank you all for your great tolerance. I hope you were not too greatly inconvenienced by the informal discussions and the break for a short time in an effort to maintain the comity and personal relationships which we esteem so much in FAO. The informal group has had a long, difficult and friendly discussion, the outcome of which is that there is agreement on only one point. It is not dramatic so I will announce it immediately. The agreement is that in operative paragraph 5 immediately after the word "Urges" which begins the paragraph we insert the word "appropriate" so that the beginning phrase of operative paragraph 5 now reads: "Urges appropriate financing institutions to utilize FAO's Special Action Programmes. . . ".
On all other points in relation to preambular paragraphs and operative paragraphs the division of views which was reflected in this discussion remains. So what is before us in the concluding stages of the discussion is the Resolution as drafted and presented to the Commission in Document C 79/LIM/35 with one amendment, the insertion of the word "appropriate" as the second word in operative paragraph 5.
That seems to me to mean that our next move is what we do with the Resolution. I imagine this is, agree to it, or say many agree to it, or agree to it on the basis that some countries may wish to express reservations either now or at the time when the matter comes before the Plenary at the time of the adoption of the Report. On those procedural matters I am in the hands of the Commission. Does anyone want the floor?
RAMADHAR (India): We are grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, for the efforts you have made to reach a consensus, but in spite of your efforts the position remains more or less the same; as you yourself mentioned we agreed to add a word to paragraph 5 and we hope with this accommodation there will be no reservations on this Resolution. With these words I propose this Resolution be adopted.
CHAIRMAN: The question before the Commission is that the Resolution be adopted.
J. S. CAMARA(Guinee): Je désire appuyer fermement la proposition faite par le délégué de l'Inde et je voudrais que nous passions à l'adoption de cette résolution, ainsi que cela avait été antérieurement proposé. Mais malheureusement, malgré vos efforts, Monsieur le Président, nous ne sommes pas parvenus à un consensus. Nous devrions adopter cette résolution dès maintenant.
W. A. F. GRABISCH (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): My delegation regrets that we have been unable to arrive at a compromise. At this juncture, I should like to raise the formal question, has the time really come to adopt this Draft Resolution? If I understand our procedure correctly, it seems to me that the Drafting Committee still has to prepare a Draft Report on the discussion we have had. This report will be sent back to us and in this report of the Drafting Committee the different views will certainly be reflected. If I remember rightly the text of the Draft Resolution will be annexed to the Drafting Committee's report. If that is the procedure I must say this gives us time to get in touch with our respective governments. That is why we should like to say that for the time being all we have is a preliminary consideration of the Draft Resolution. The final position of our government can be stated only later.
CHAIRMAN: Before I call the delegate of Ghana, I think it would be appropriate, since a point of procedure has been raised which bears importantly on matters of substance, to seek advice from the Secretariat on what appropriate procedures should be followed, and I invite Mr. West to speak.
E. M. WEST (Director (ADG), Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): What the delegate from the Federal Republic of Germany said was broadly correct, with one qualification. It is necessary for the Commission to conclude its debate in order to instruct the Drafting Committee as to what goes into its Draft Report. The Drafting Committee will decide what to say in its report on the basis of the debate, whether it is, that everybody agrees, the great majority, the majority, whether some disagree, some reserved, or whatever, and the report traditionally represents whatever views delegates want to have represented. The Drafting Committee makes recommendations in its Draft Report. The Draft Report comes back and the Commission has to decide whether to accept the Drafting Committee's version of whether it was unanimity or a majority or whatever. In the body of its report at its conclusion the Drafting Committee will set forth in the final report presented to you the Draft Resolution. The Draft Resolution should be presented to the Commission with such amendments as eight have been agreed in the debate. Therefore the Draft Resolution which will appear in the Draft Report will be the one just announced by the Chairman, that is the same as presented plus the word in the fifth paragraph agreed just now. However, the Drafting Committee will not make any further amendment to the Draft Resolution as adopted this morning. When the report o comes to you in Commission II you have to reach a decision on what to submit to the Plenary. At that stage if you wish there can be proposals for further amendments. There could be, exceptionally but feasibly, a vote. Finally, whatever you submit to the Plenary will be subject to the same procedure. There might be amendments or a vote, but the Drafting Committee cannot change the draft resolution. That is the point I want to be quite precise about. The rest is flexible, and it is obviously desirable for governments to have the opportunity to seek instructions between now and the final vote in the Plenary. That applies to every item in every commission, not just to this one.
H. MENDS (Ghana): I had the privilege of participating in the informal group discussion, and therefore had the privilege also of sharing the views of others about this Draft Resolution. But my main concern is what has been happening over the last two weeks. It is a fact that more resources must go into agriculture if anything is going to be done to remove hunger and malnutrition from this world. If these are not mere words, if the big men who have come to the floor to speak are truly sincere about their concern for developing countries and their inability or their dwindling capacity to increase food production, this is the time to do something about it. I believe the UNDP is one of the important agencies which must address itself serously to the problem we have been discussing, and I therefore wholeheartedly support the draft resolution as it stands. I believe the draft resolution must be adopted, and governments must be really serious about the words they have used during the past few days in this Conference. My delegation will support the resolution.
CHAIRMAN: I think we have reached the stage at which it would be appropriate for the resolution as amended by the single word to go forward to the Drafting Committee, there to be married into the report of the proceedings of the Commission.
Κ· CHOUERI (Liban) (interprétation de l'arabe): Avant votre résumé, je voulais dire que nous discutions de sujets qui se rapportaient à la FAO. Si nous sommes ici, c'est précisément pour sauvegar-der les droits de cette Organisation et lui permettre d'oeuvrer vers les objectits. J'avais l'intention de dire que la proposition présentée par mon collègue, le Dr Grabish de la République fédérale d'Allemagne, nous ramène au point de départ. Le Comité de rédaction nous ramènera à nouveau au point de départ. Nous avons fait constater dans le passé que toute réserve pouvait être incorporée dans le projet de rapport. C'est tout ce que j'avais à dire.
CHAIRMAN: Before we break, there are three things to be done. The first is that I do offer warm thanks to all delegates for the nature of the debate and the general climate of relationships in what has been a difficult morning for us. Secondly, the delegate of India has informed the Chair of its regret that it was not able to inject into the proceedings on the discussion of the field programmes the statement of the Indian delegation. The Indian delegation has requested that the intervention that it would have made, had it been able, be incorporated in the proceedings of Commission II· I understand that this is a normal and acceptable procedure, and I have the text here.
Finally, the representative of the World Federation of Trade Unions has asked for an opportunity to address the Commission on matters relating to the field programmes. As he is not now present, if we can find an appropriate break in the proceedings later on, I think it would be the proper course to allow him to make his address.
R. C. SOOD (India): The Indian delegation would like to congratulate the FAO Secretariat on the review of field programmes undertaken by them in the document C 79/4· The review is comprehensive and thought provoking.
The Technical Cooperation Programme has broadened the work of the FAO by enabling it to make small but critical interventions at the country level more directly and expeditiously, and reflects the spirit of FAO in action. It is satisfactory that FAO/World Bank Cooperative Programme as well as other activities of the Investment Centre are being maintained to identify investment opportunities in the developing countries. It is a pity that the relative share of project expenditure administered by FAO in the clearly identifiable agricultural, forestry and fisheries projects finalised by UNDP has fallen progressively from 92 percent in 1972-73 to under 87 percent in 1978-79· It is heartening that performance of various projects has by and large been found satisfactory.
The Indian delegation would like to react to some of the issues envisaged in the review and in the earlier discussion:
It is a matter of concern that the role of technical assistance in promoting agriculture and rural development is not being adequately recognised under aid programmes. The share of technical assistance for agriculture in total development assistance has been falling from year to year, from 16 percent in 1973 to only 9 percent in 1977· Increase in expenditure on FAO field programmes in real terras during 1978 is a mere 2 percent above the 1970 level. This would hardly seem to reflect adequate concern with the situation regarding food and hunger painted as grim by the Director-General in his address to the Conference.
A matter of serious concern is the declining share of UNDP in its total commitments for technical assistance within the UN system, the share of agricultural projects in total UNDP expenditure, and the share of FAO in UNDP allocations. It would appear that agriculture, in spite of the serious food situation in the developing countries, is not found a glamorous enough proposition to deserve more than lip-service. It would in our opinion he desirable if, considering the overwhelming priority for food, a reasonable percentage of UNDP funds - say 40 percent - should be earmarked for programmes for agriculture and rural development. The level of investment is being ensured in our own plans in India. Adequate emphasis on lending for agriculture is part of the World Bank strategy and there is no reason why UNDP should not accept the sane approach.
Increased use of expertise, contracts and purchases available in the developing countries is a healthy trend. A fund of experience is available within the developing countries which in the ultimate analysis is more relevant to the needs of the other developing countries at a comparable level of development. A good beginning has been made but much more requires to be done. Between 1976 and 1978, the percentage share of field experts drawn from developing countries has increased from 31 percent to only 33 percent. The percentage share of developing countries in contracts was only 36. 7 percent in 1978. Volume of purchase orders placed with developing countries was a mere 7·5 percent. There is need for accelerating progress in this regard so that developing countries' capacities are more adequately utilised.
Certain valuable suggestions have been made regarding the selection and use of national institutions. The selection of national institutions for contractual work continues to rely heavily on the knowledge and experience of technical officers who are familiar with the work of various institutions through their personal contacts. It is encouraging to see that efforts are being made to systematise this Knowledge with more active collaboration of developing countries themselves. The FAO representatives are important tools in this regard.
Procedures adopted by FAO in the review of regular and field programmes has also come in for consideration. It has been suggested that external evaluation may be more satisfactory as compared with international evaluation. Whereas this sounds like a good proposition as such, our fear is that this may develop into a fault-finding exercise in post-mortem, which may cramp action and tie the concerned experts down to paper work devoted to the requirements of auditors. What is needed instead is a constructive, on-going assessment directed at improvement of the programme. A more worthwhile assessment of the projects may be possible by the beneficiary countries instead, and it may be worthwhile that a suitable procedure should be systematised.
And finally, I would like to emphasise that the thrust of all programmes should be to generate self-help among the countries concerned, particularly through programmes like strengthening of extension -as what matters in the ultimate analysis is what we can get the farmers to do.
In conclusion, the Indian delegation would like to lend its support to the Resolution C 79/LIM/35 introduced by Indonesia, Ghana, Guinea, Tunisia and Zaire, as it highlights the need for greater flow of resources to agriculture and related activities, as well as special action programme. 1/
The meeting rose at 12. 50 hours.
La séance est levée à 12 h 50.
Se levanta la sesión alas 12. 50 horas.
1/Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
