II - ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMMES OF THE ORGANIZATION (continued)
II - ACTIVITES ET PROGRAMMES DE L’ORGANISATION (suite)
II - ACTIVIDADES Y PROGRAMAS DE LA ORGANIZACION (continuación)

CHAIRMAN: The Sixth Meeting of Commission II is open. This morning we are debating Chapters 3 to 7 of the Programme of Work and Budget.

V. KRENTOS (Cyprus): I would like specifically to touch upon the Programme of Work and Budget in general and less specifically to come to some points which I hope are pertinent to most national programmes in agricultural development.

It is our strong belief that this document provides a comprehensive coverage of the real global issues which beset many countries, including my own country. I think it provides a complete kit which in turn supplies the tools for the solution of many of the problems which we in agriculture are faced with.

As always, we have looked upon FAO as providing not just a forum for perorations but rather the thrust for action in implementing our agricultural development programmes.

It is most gratifying that this document provides food for thought for each one of us and in detail provides the means of augmenting our efforts, in developing agriculture. In that sense we fully support the programme of Work and Budget.

I would like to touch briefly on two general points. The first is the question of coordination on the FAO level, which I think is the most crucial aspect for implementing the various and varied agricultural programmes in various countries. I think it is absolutely essential that FAO should look in the most practical and the most effective way to strengthen the national efforts, the national institutions, in achieving what they are set to do. On the question of energy we are somewhat concerned about the proliferation of interests from many directions. At this point I repret to say that they have not seen to that coordinating spirit and that sense of direction which would be an essential part in making a project of this kind a success. I think that in the last few years, a number of organizations, both international and national, have been very much interested in getting into the field of energy and particularly the field of solar energy or the alternative sources of energy without, I think any concrete plan and sense of direction.

I am glad that recently there has been a meeting in Paris which is trying to coordinate these activities, but we would rather like to see the practical products of these efforts, and we shall look forward in the future toward cooperating in the area of solar energy and utilization for improving agricultural production and also other sources of energy which are likely to help us in combatting the energy crisis.

Now I turn to the international agricultural institutions which have in some countries, including my own, played a very important role in the development of the agricultural sector. However, we would like to aDproach agricultural research from a very practical aspect. In other words, it is essential that we should endeavour to carry out applied agricultural research and not just carrying out research for the sake of research. We cannot afford the luxury of carrying basic agricultural research. We can leave that to the countries that can afford to do that, and in that sense, I think, we on the national level have to be very careful so that we coordinate our research activities with the extension activities as well so that the information and the results arrived at in the fields on the experimental level should reach the farmer in the fastest possible time.

With these remarks I would like in closing to reserve my right to come back again on other points which are likely to come up on these two specific aspects, energy in agriculture and also on the structure of agricultural research in helping the effort, whether it is national, regional or global, in developing our agricultural resources.

However, before closing, Mr. Chairman, I think you have been doing an excellent job and I am sure that today we can wrap up the work of this meeting very quickly by 11 o’clock so that we can be given the opportunity to come back afresh early in the afternoon.

H. REDL (Austria) (Original language German): Chapters 3 to 7 now before us call for the tollowing two brief comments from the Austrian delegation. First of all, I would like to stress the need for capital investment in the agriculture of developing countries, and the conclusions which have been arrived at under 3.2 we believe to be correct.

The Technical Cooperation Programme, Chapter 4, plays a very important part, especially for short-term aid, in particular in cases of emergencies. The Programme has proved its usefulness in the past. In this connexion, we welcome the introduction of continued monitoring of this programme and this is going to cover all of the projects which were approved in 1978-79. The trend to use TCP projects more and more in connexion with the investment programmes of governments could be strengthened further.

I would like to say that Austria agrees just as much with the proposals in Chapters 3 to 7 as it did in Chapters 1 and 2.

R. SCHIFFNER (Germany, Federal Republic of) (Original language German): This morning, I would like to speak quite briefly on Chapter 4, that is to say, the Technical Cooperation Programme. In the Council we have already voiced certain doubts concerning growth rates of this programme, and I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to state quite clearly that in my government’s view UNDP is the central institution for financing and coordination of technical cooperation within the UN System. We do not think that FAO should neglect in general the tasks, which is clearly described in Chapters 2 and 3. The increase proposed for TCP has as a consequence that the share of this programme in the total budget has increased from 11.7 to nearly 13 percent, and we are of the opinion that this increase in the long run is really going to shift the balance between various programmes in a way which is not in line with our thinking. We should not forget in this connexion that in addition to the expenditure for technical assistance we have to add to the expenditure from the regular budget the overhead costs which arise for technical assistance projects which amounted to $10.5 million in the last biennium.

The Director-General in explaining his proposal pointed out inter alia that UNDP funds are given on a retroactive basis and that they are dwindling. I do not know whether this is a proper justification to give, because the fact that other organizations find themselves in financial difficulties does not necessarily have as a consequence that FAO has to go into this breach. It may be perfectly true that the rate of growth of UNDP will not be as great as in the past, but there will still be a certain growth.

As far as the third UNDP planning cycle is concerned from 1982 to 1986, an annual growth rate of 8 percent is being expected, that is to say, about $5.1 billion, while in the preceding planning cycle the increase was somewhat higher.

In 1980 FAO received more than double the funds from UNDP than the next executing agency receiving extra-budgetary funds from the UNDP.

The second remark I would like to make refers to the problem of evaluation, which I would like to mention in connection with TCP, but which has also a more general aspect and which we will have to deal with again under Item 11 of the Agenda. But I would like to point out right now that according to our view, Resolution No 1 which the Council adopted at its Seventy-fourth Session provided for an overall assessment of the TCP after a five-year period. The information which we have in document C 81/8, C 81/4 and Cl 80/4, is a step in that direction and we appreciate this, but we also believe that this information is not adequate, it is not permitting a true assessment, and we therefore express the hope that the Secretariat will take the necessary measures to undertake further effort in that direction, and we would like to hear from the Secretariat at what time we can expect results.

The problem of evaluation by external bodies is something we have mentioned several times, and we did state that we are in favour of FAO taking measures in this direction. In particular, we are thinking of the participation of organisations such as the Joint Inspection Unit.

A comment made by the Director-General in the Introduction to document C 81/8 induces us to say we are not fully in agreement with what is stated there. He points out that the Joint Inspection Unit when assessing the internal evaluation system of FAO gave a positive judgement of this system, and that it seemed to give its support to the consensus to the last Conference Session - that is to say, that evaluation of the FAO Programme by external bodies did not appear necessary. Quite frankly, in the documents available to us from the Joint Inspection Unit we do not find anything which permits this conclusion. We would be glad if some clarification on this point could be given.

These are all the comments I would like to make now since we are a bit short of time.

K. CHOUERI (Liban) (langue originale arabe): Je voudrais tout d’abord appuyer d’une façon générale la récapitulation des prévisions du budget par programme tel que cela figure dans le document en discussion (p. 182 du texte arabe, 159 du texte français), et afin de ne pas perdre beaucoup de temps je voudrais m’arrêter notamment aux deux programmes suivants, à savoir:

- e programme 3.4 concernant les représentants de la FAO,

- et le chapitre 4 concernant la coopération technique.

Pour ce qui est du programme 3.4 concernant les représentants de la FAO, la délégation de mon pays voudrait appuyer le contenu de ce programme. En effet, nous avons étudié les justifications qui le sous-tendent, nous avons compris la nature même du problème exposé dans ce document et les objectifs visés par la FAO qui a par ailleurs très bien défini les responsabilités assumées par les représentants régionaux.

Nous avons également étudié le plan d’action qui se rapporte à ce problème. Nous considérons à cet égard que, parmi les réalisations les plus importantes de la FAO figure la création de postes de représentants au niveau national. En effet, l’efficacité de ces représentations a été prouvée. Elles correspondent aux besoins et aux désirs des pays en développement. Elles ont renforcé l’autorité de la FAO de façon équilibrée et progressive, et ont permis de résoudre sur place les nombreux problèmes que rencontre le secteur agricole dans les pays concernés. Ceci s’applique très bien à la représentation de la FAO dans mon pays, qui nous a rendu des services considérables dans le secteur agricole aussi bien public que privé. A cet égard nous voudrions dire que la meilleure évaluation que nous pouvons effectuer du travail de ces représentants devrait provenir tout d’abord des gouvernements eux-mêmes. A cette étape nous ne pouvons pas faire autrement. Par la suite, les choses peuvent en arriver au niveau de l’Organisation.

Par conséquent, nous approuvons la création de nouvelles représentations ainsi que les crédits qui leur sont nécessaires. Il faudrait également dire que nous approuvons la création de représentations à double accréditation dans plusieurs pays, en raison des économies appréciables qui pourraient en découler.

A cet égard, nous rendons hoщmage à la réduction qu’a effectuée le Directeur général dans les dépenses au siège en contrepartie d’une augmentation des dépenses du personnel de terrain.

Nous voulons également souligner que nous n’avons remarqué aucun double emploi entre les activités entreprises par les bureaux régionaux de la FAO et les représentants de la FAO dans les pays. Nous considérons au contraire que leurs activités se complètent.

Je passe enfin au chapitre 4 intitule “Programme de Coopération Technique” pour lequel les crédits budgétaires ont été augmentés. La raison en est la pression découlant des demandes de plus en plus nombreuses provenant des pays membres qui veulent bénéficier des projets spécifiques entrant dans le cadre du projet de coopération technique, et la nécessite de répondre rapidement à ces demandes.

Ce programme demeure à nos yeux l’une des meilleures réalisations que le Directeur général ait pu enregistrer depuis le début de son mandat. A notre avis, ce programme a rendu des services appréciables car il permet de déployer de véritables activités sur le terrain et les justifications présentees dans le document C 81/3 nous confirment dans cet avis.

Le plan d’action proposé dans ce cadre pour la pérlode biennale 1982-83 bénéficie done de notre appui entier et sans réserve.

Ceci dit, j’aimerais que vous me permettiez de reprendre la parole ultérieurement au cours des débats.

Y. KUROKOCHI (Japan): I should like to make just a few brief comments on certain points. My delegation finds itself in broad agreement with the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany, so I should like to avoid going into too much detail on the points that have already been presented.

I should simply like to say that the points of interest that have been presented by the worthy delegate from the Federal Republic of Germany are very close to ours.

I should like to take up the Technical Cooperation Programme. It has quite a few merits that recommend it, but my delegation is amazed at the considerably rapid growth of the budget for this Programme. We are somewhat fearful that there may in future arise cases of duplication with programme that the United Nations Development Programme might implement. Therefore, my delegation would like its views placed on record that the budget for the Technical Cooperation Programme should be increased with much caution, and that in implementing the budget as much care should be taken as our good sense permits.

As for the FAO Country Representatives, my delegation is inclined also to cherish some fears that in future there may be created effects of duplication with the United Nations Development Programme Resident Representatives and/or Regional Office of FAO.

From the point of view of guaranteeing effective use of financial resources throughout the United Nations family organizations, the objective of decentralisation - which is in itself commendable - should be put into practice as FAO steadily promotes close-ties of cooperation with UNDP representatives.

May I recall that yesterday when my delegation was given the floor I made a certain remark, and in line with the points that I have just given I should like to repeat one sentence which I presented yesterday: “We are inclined to conclude that the growth of outlays for the Technical Cooperation Programme and FAO Country Representatives within the total budget could safely be reorganized and re-evaluated on the basis of clarification in detail and breakdown on each country concerned where the technical cooperation programme is introduced and the FAO Country Representatives is stationed”.

P.S. McLEAN (United Kingdom): Since the United Kingdom delegation did not intervene in the debate yesterday on Chapter 2, I would like to make it clear that we support the general thrust of the programmes for agriculture, fisheries and forestry, even though we share many of the concerns expressed by a number of delegations on some aspects of these programmes. In view of the time constraint, I shall severely limit my observations on Chapters 3 to 7, particularly since I share many of the views expressed already by the delegates of the Federal Republic of Germany and Japan.

On Chapter 3, Development Support Programmes, my delegation notes that the increase in the programme as a whole at over 13 percent is very high and we particularly note the increase in the investment support programme of about 22.8 percent which I understand is foreseen for costs for the training of staff in developing countries, for temporary recruitment, for consultant travel and contractual and other services. We see this as a very large increase indeed and we would have welcomed further clarification as to how this is divided, and particularly on such matters as the number of additional consultants to be engaged and their travel expenses.

We note also that there is a large increase to cover the cost of additional representation overseas. We accept this as a policy agreed in the past by Conference and it is to be welcomed as part of the decentralization which we from the United Kingdom have always supported. But we are more than a little concerned about the relationship between this policy and the continuing work of the Regional Offices of FAO to which the delegate of Japan referred, and we question what activities in the Regional Offices could not now be covered by Country Representatives if necessary, with some supplementary assistance from Headquarters or through double accreditation, as the delegate of Lebanon has suggested. We believe that the role of the Regional Office vis-à-vis the role of the Country Representative requires further review and constant attention by the Organization.

As I have said, the Federal Republic of Germany has made a very interesting intervention on TCP and I will not do more than simply underline one particular aspect of this. We too find the increase of over 16 percent very high, even accepting that it reflects the priorities of the Organization and we also accept that those activities do not appear to conflict in any way with the general responsibility placed on the UNDP for technical cooperation within the United Nations system. However, we would have welcomed rather more information on the level of demand and the nature of demand for TCP justifying this very large increase in activity since, as others have said, it suggests some effective switching of demand from UNDP funded activities, thus in turn affecting the use made of FAO and its services by UNDP.

One final point, if I may. We note a very large programme of meetings over the coming biennium, reflecting FAO’s wide-ranging interests and we note also that these are on the whole of a very specialized nature. We believe it is important to ensure that the number of meetings and consequently their expense is kept to an absolute minimum consistent with the criteria that meetings should be convened where the results are likely to have real and lasting values. We suggest that each Head of Department should continue to undertake a searching review of its programme and examine the need for each meeting in the light of such criteria.

A.R. SIAFFA (Sierra Leone): I would like to touch briefly on Chapters 3, 4 and 5. The Sierra Leone delegation is in full agreement with FAO’s field programme planning and liaison activities in the agricultural, forestry and fisheries sectors. The assistance this programme provides governments in planning and preparing programmes and formulating technical assistance projects, administering the Technical Assistance Programmes, cooperation in the mobilization of resources for development assistance to the agricultural sectors - all these are positive contributions to the development efforts of member governments.

Then, coming to Programme 3.2, Investment Programmes, the Sierra Leone delegation commends the efforts of FAO for the support it provides through its Investment Centre in strengthening the capacities of member governments in identifying and preparing investment projects in agriculture, fisheries, and agro-industries for presentation to possible funding institutions and agencies.

Coming to Programme 3.4, FAO Representatives, we endorse the need for FAO Representatives at the country level to coordinate at the national level the various field activities within the country, and by providing guidance in project identification and formulation. We in Sierra Leone have enjoyed a very fruitful experience by the establishment of the FAO Representative’s Office in our country.

Coming to Chapter 4, Technical Cooperation, during the initial contribution under general statements on the Programme of Work and Budget, my delegation recognized the importance of TCP and the unique role it plays to alleviate urgent and short-term problems. My delegation wishes to express its profound thanks to FAO for the assistance received in the past and present under this programme. We believe very strongly that TCP is one of the most important programmes of this Organization and deserves to be fully supported in terms of financial inputs, etc.

Coming to Information and Documentation, Programme 5.1, my delegation appreciates the services provided under Programme 5.1.1, Public Information. The plan of action proposed under News Media, Information Materials Production and Ceres is welcome and has our full support.

D.H.J. ABEYACOONASEKERA (Sri Lanka): I should like to comment very briefly on three items in the Programme of Work and Budget first, the role of the Investment Centre; second, The Technical Cooperation Programmes; third, Field Representatives of FAO. Speakers before me from developing countries have touched on these aspects and what I propose to say now is to stress their importance, as far as my country is concerned and what the proposals made for improving the programmes would mean to the developing countries in general.

What we have heard at various fora, during the last 10 or 15 years, has been that while there has been financial assistance available from bilateral and multilateral sources, many developing countries lacked the expertise to prepare projects suitable for presentation to obtain assistance. In fact, this is a common comment (one of the blatant remarks) by many missions that visited countries, saying that if you have a pipeline of projects, there is no end to the assistance one could give; but this is the shortcoming and I think the FAO’s Investment Centre, which has qualified experts in various fields, performs a very useful function in assisting developing countries to formulate suitable projects for implementation.

Furthermore, the record of work done by the Investment Centre during the last 15 years has also been remarkable. Nearly 400 projects have been formulated and a total of nearly $17.5 billion has been lent towards agricultural and rural development. Besides lending through multilateral sources, it has also established links with regional banks such as the African Development Bank, the Inter-American Bank and enlarged its role to such an extent that it continues to play an effective role in the lending policies of various agencies. In fact, what we are distressed to see is that at a time when we are trying to build up an Investment Centre with the necessary expertise, a reduction in the amount of financial assistance that should be given to developing countries would mean that we would have a vast source of untapped, unutilized resources within FAO. This is something that most developing countries would not like to see happen, so the increases proposed for the next biennium, to my mind are very moderate, and will enable many developing countries besides my own to formulate projects and get

whatever assistance they can from either the regional banks, or the World Bank so that no one could say that assistance could not be given due to lack of projects.

As regards the country representatives of FAO, my country was a beneficiary under this scheme. During the last three years, the progress that this office has made has been quite satisfactory; I would not say remarkable because to be remarkable one would have to have more funds by ways of assistance from various sources, for implementation and evaluation. But in a climate of restricted financial assistance and with a pipeline of projects which do not have the necessary funds to support, as we witnessed during the last one and one-half years, the role the FAO can play particularly in a country would be limited. However, linking on with the other item that I wish to touch on, the Technical Cooperation Programme, I find that the Regional Officers play a very important part in assisting national governments to implement the Technical Cooperation Programmes which are pursued under the FAO’s Regular Programme.

I have to raise one question however. The opening of a country representative office, besides satisfying the main objectives which have been listed in this document, like establishing a liaison point between FAO and the client country, unless there are important development programmes or projects in that country, and if a vast number of small projects, as those under the TCP Programme, are to be implemented, I feel that there will be a heavy load of work for the FAORs. I mentioned this earlier at the Finance Committee meeting too. Sometimes they could be overloaded with work and complaints of inadequate staff could be often heard. It is true that CRs should rely to a great extent on the national governments, offices in the various departments and I feel the further strengthening of the offices would be necessary if there is to be an increase in the amount of work.

About the TCP programme itself, my country has been a beneficiary on many occasions. As rightly pointed out by my colleagues from the developing countries, this is one programme which in times of need comes to the assistance of countries and in its rapid implementation we have had good results. To cite one example. In 1979 (Sri Lanka) reeled under severe cyclone and much damage was done to our teak and coconut plantations. Vast areas of paddy lands were destroyed, including government seed farms. On a request we made to the Director-General we received prompt assistance to put up stores for seed paddy. Even seed paddy was offered from a neighbouring country, since the seed farms nor destroyed. Similarly, on other occasions too the response from the FAO to a request that we made under this programme had been very willingly accepted and executed. So I think a programme like this to an Organization is necessary. While these are very small projects I think the impact they have on a country, particularly in those particular areas where the damage due to sudden disaster like floods and prolonged droughts, these programmes and assistance are always valued and appreciated.

Besides these comments I do not want to take much of your time. I think in the agenda before us, these are three items on which many countries, particularly developing countries in my region, have been benefited and I would therefore strongly support whatever finacial resources are being allocated for the programmes under reference, should be endorsed, since they are beneficial to most of us.

K. TANOUCHEV (Bulgarie): Prenant pour la première fois la parole devant cette Commission, je voudrais me joindre aux délégations qui sont déjà intervenues pour vous féliciter de votre élection, Monsieur le Président, à la présidence de cette Commission et pour la manière dynamique et compétente dont vous dirigez les débats.

Ne pouvant précéder l’allocution du Chef de la délégation bulgare à la séance plénière, je ne ferai qu’un bref commentaire: notre délégation estime que le programme de travail présenté est bien équilibré, qu’il tient compte des activités prioritaires de l’Organisation. Nous appuyons ce programme dans son ensemble, ainsi que les sous-programmes énumérés dans les différents chapitres.

En conséquence, nous acceptons le niveau du budget et nous pensons que ce niveau produira les ressources nécessaires pour l’accomplissement du programme de travail de l’Organisation, pour la période 1982-83.

P. GUERIN (France): Je voudrais exprimer la position de la délégation française sur le Programme de coopération technique.

Aux yeux de la délégation française, l’utilité du Programme de coopération technique est indéniable, puisqu’il est le seul programme permettant à la FAO de répondre rapidement à des requêtes non prévi-sibles - j’insiste bien: non prévisibles - des gouvernements. A ce titre, l’accroissement de son budget proposé pour le prochain biennium se justifie pleinement.

Mais il nous apparaît nécessaire de veiller au maintien d’une certaine rigueur dans la sélection des requêtes à financer, et surtout de maintenir les caractéristiques qui donnent à ce programme toute sa justification.

Faire face aux situations d’urgence, accélérer la mise en oeuvre des investissements en jouant un rôle de catalyseur et de mobilisateur des financements internes et externes, bilatéraux ou multilatéraux, sont à nos yeux les deux missions essentielles du Programme de coopération technique. A cet égard, nous considérons que la répartition des fonds entre les différentes catégories de projets mérite un commentaire.

A propos de la formation notamment, il a été constaté un certain recul de la part consacrée à la formation jusqu’en 1980 et il semble qufun redressement s’amorce en 1981. Nous souhaitons vivement que ce redressement se confirme, qu’il soit poursuivi pendant le second biennium. Il nous semble en effet que la formation est un des moyens les plus efficaces de faire en sorte que la mise en oeuvre des investissements dans les pays se réalise le plus rapidement possible. Il faut toujours essayer de faire en sorte que la capacité d’accueil des financements soit la plus forte possible.

Les urgences. Bien évidemment, c’est un des domaines importants de l’action du Programme de coopération technique. Nous considérons que la part qui lui est réservée est correcte.

Les investissements. Bien sûr c’est l’objet essentiel de ce Programme.

Les divers. J’avoue que je me pose quelques questions. Je sais certes que ce poste des divers est consacré essentiellement aux missions d’experts. Je sais qu!en principe les missions d’experts, financées au titre de ce Programme, sont limitées dans leur durée à 12 mois. Je me demande si cette durée ne pourrait pas être raccourcie, car lorsque l’on s’aperçoit que certaines missions sont demandées pour l’elaboration de politiques de développement en general et non pas pour des projets precis, on comprend que les missions soient de longue durée, mais cela ne me paraît pas entrer dans les fonctions de ce Programme de cooperation et cela ne me paraît pas non plus entrer dans le champ des requêtes non prévisibles des gouvernements. Cela me paraît rentrer dans les activités plus normales de l’Organisation et des pays concernés.

Quant à la répartition entre zones, la délégation française se réjouit de voir l’Afrique en bonne position dans cette répartition. Je ne vais pas m’étendre là-dessus, tout le monde connaît la situation difficile de ce continent. Nous nous félicitons de la part importante prise par l’Afrique dans ce Programme.

D. BETI (Suisse): Dans ma déclaration introductive aux travaux de la Commission II, je veux vous assurer de notre collaboration pour que vous puissiez mener à bien les travaux de cette Commission. Malheureusement, le fait que notre délégation soit très restreinte m’oblige de temps à autre à aller ailleurs, ce qui peut causer des contre-temps, et je m’en excuse auprès de vous et de tous mes collègues.

Je voudrais prendre une position sur deux points concernant les chapitres III et IV du Programme de travail et budget pour 1982-83.

Ma délégation appuie de façon générale les efforts de décentralisation entrepris par la FAO ces der-nières années. C’est, nous semble-t-il,un moyen important pour donner plus dfimpact aux activités de terrain de l’Organisation. Le système des représentants par pays peut, dans ce sens, apporter les avantages souhaités, notamment en ce qui concerne l’amelioration de la qualite des projets, et une plus grande efficacité dans leur execution.

Pour que ces avantages soient atteints et que la décentralisation soit effective, il est évident que l’appui fourni par les représentants doit être avant tout opérationnel, technique et administratif, Il est évident aussi que la délégation de compétence, de pouvoir de décision et de responsabilité du Siège au bureau des représentants doit être réelle et appropriée. Il est evident en outre que le lien entre les représentants de la FAO et les représentants résidents du PNUD doit rester étroit. Il va de soi que le choix des candidats pour les postes de représentants de la FAO est également essentiel et déterminant.

Or, la lecture des documents de la Conférence ne nous éclaire pas beaucoup, et sûrement pas suffisamment sur ces différents points.

Nous pensons dès lors que le Secrétariat devrait nous aider à mieux saisir et comprendre ce programme des représentants de la FAO dans tous ses éléments essentiels. Aussi nous lui demandons de bien vouloir communiquer aux participants de la Conférence:

1 - la liste des pays qui jouissent déjà de la présence d’un représentant et si possible des pays auxquels sont attribués les 12 représentants supplémentalres à installer dans le prochain biennium.

2 - la composition en personnel des bureaux existants, le coût de chaque bureau, sur quel budget sont payés ces frais, et ceci en rapport avec le coût total des projets exécutes par la FAO dans les pays concernés.

3 - des indications précises sur les compétences, le pouvoir de décision et les responsabilités qui sont délégués par le Siège aux représentants de la FAO dans les pays.

En ce qui concerne l’extension prévue de ce Programme, ma délégation la considère pour le moins comme trop rapide. Nous aurions souhaité que le Directeur général prenne plus de temps pour établir l’ensemble du réseau des représentants. Ceci lui aurait permis d’être complètement certain que l’extension se fasse dans les meilleures conditions possibles, et c’est précisément sur ce point que nous ne sommes pas, quant à nous, entièrement rassurés pour l’instant.

Mais en nous fournissant les éléments d’information que nous avons mentionnés ci-dessus, et en le faisant dans toute la mesure du possible pendant cette session de la Conférence, le Secrétariat pour-rait nous apporter une aide précieuse dans la compréhension de ce Programme des représentants de la FAO et par là nous aider à “avaler”, si je puis dire, moins douloureusement, l’amère pilule de 1!augmentation et de l’extension rapide du Programme.

En ce qui concerne le Programme de coopération technique, lorsqu’il a été institué par la Conférence de la FAO il y a quelques années, mon pays avait exprimé des critiques à l’égard de cette décision, estimant que les programmes et projets de terrain devraient continuer à être financés sur des ressources extra-budgétaires, qu’elles viennent du PNUD ou de fonds fiduciaires bi-multilatéraux. Notre point de vue concernant les objectifs au financement desquels doivent servir les budgets ordinaires des organisations internationales n’a pas changé entre temps fondamentalement et je tiens à le souligner ici.

Cependant, le Programme de coopération a fait son chemin depuis sa création. Nous l’avons observe attentivement pendant ces dernières années, notamment par l’intermédiaire de nos représentants bila-téraux. Nous ne cachons pas aujourd’hui que nous y avons découvert quelques aspects positifs.

Ainsi le Programme de coopération technique peut intervenir opportunément dans des situations d’urgence. Ainsi le Programme de coopération technique peut suppléer temporalrement à des retards qui peuvent se produire dans la mise à disposition du financement pour des projets bi-multilatéraux, avantages dont ont pu profiter de temps en temps certains projets de programmes spéciaux de la FAO que nous finançons sur fonds fiduciaires.

En outre, le Programme de coopération technique peut combler des lacunes rencontrées dans des projets en cours d’exécution. Et finalement, le Programme de coopération technique peut effectivement favoriser les investissements dont beaucoup de pays en développement ont un énorme besoin.

Les quelques constatations favorables nous permettent dès lors de vivre plus paisiblement avec le Programme de coopération technique, sans que notre position de principe à son égard ait changé pour autant.

Notre attitude nous est aussi facilitée par la constatation que de toute évidence nos partenaires des pays en développement sont pleins d’éloge pour l’appui que leur apporte le Programme de coopération technique.

Par conséquent, nous ne sommes pas opposés au maintien du Programme de coopération technique au niveau actuel. Nous nous demandons toutefois s’il est vraiment justifié de l’étendre aux proportions proposées. Nous nous demandons également si le moment est bien choisi pour accroître le Programme de coopération technique de plus de 16 pour cent, alors que l’augmentation de 8 pour cent de l’ensemble du budget ordinaire se trouve être fortement contestée.

En outre, nous avons quelque peu l’impression que les critères de selection fixes pour le Programme de coopération technique sont, comme l’ont fait remarquer plusieurs orateurs avant moi, depuis quelque temps interprétés de façon plutôt extensive. Si tel ne devait pas etre le cas, nous aimerions que le Directeur général puisse nous rassurer à ce sujet, qu’il puisse nous aider à corriger cette impression, bref qu’il nous offre une plus grande transparence de ce Programme de coopération technique.

Nous nous permettons de lui suggérer deux moyens par lesquels il peut facilement, nous semble-t-il, permettre à tous les membres ici présents une compréhension suffisante du Programme de coopération technique.

D’une part, il serait utile de connaître les critères de sélection sur la base desquels la FAO approuve ou refuse aujourd’hui - et je précise bien aujourd’hui - le financement de projets dans le cadre du Programme de cooperation technique.

D’autre part, il serait en outre utile de disposer de la liste des projets approuvés en 1981 dans le cadre de ce Programme, en nous indiquant, projet par projet, le critère qui a présidé à son approbation.

Nous remercions à l’avance le Directeur général pour les efforts qu’il voudra bien déployer pour nous procurer ces informations, si possible durant la présente session.

CHAIRMAN: I would like to make an announcement regarding the Drafting Committee for Commission II. This will work under the chairmanship of Mr. T. Ahmad from Pakistan. The members of the Drafting Committee have been selected taking due respect of their regional groupings. They will be Senegal, Cameroon, Bangladesh, France, Sweden, United States of America, New Zealand, Lebanon and Cuba. The Drafting Committee consists of these nine members. A written draft Report will be available by the beginning of next week. The arrangements for the Drafting Committee will be communicated later.

H.A. LAM (Mauritanie): Etant donné que c’est la première fois que ma délégation prend la parole, permettez-moi, Monsieur le Président, de vous féliciter pour votre élection à la présidence de notre commission.

La délégation de mon pays félicite le Directeur général pour cet important rapport Budget et programme, et nous l’appuyons solidement.

Ma délégation voudrait intervenir plus précisement sur les chapitres 3 et 4 c’est-à-dire l’action dans les pays en développement, la représentation de la FAO dans les pays membres, et le Programme de coopération technique.

L’efficacité, la rapidité et la souplesse de procédure avec lesquelles les ONG interviennent dans mon pays ne peuvent que nous obliger à appuyer la proposition tendant à créer un fonds fiduciaire spécial pour financer rapidement des projets de développement rural intéressant les populations pauvres.

Si les pays en développement ont, dans leur ensemble, soutenu le Programme de coopération technique et reconnu son efficacité, il est tout à fait logique de voir sur le budget une consolidation de ce programme.

Le Programme de coopération technique, par son caractère d’urgence et son aspect pratique, a permi d’aider mon pays a résoudre des problèmes pressants.

Le Directeur général, dans sa déclaration, nous a informé que le budget du troisième cycle du PNUD est en diminution pour la période 1981-82.

Mon pays appuie fortement le Programme de coopération technique, et recommanderait d’ailleurs que le plafond d’allocations soit relevé.

S’agissant des représentations de la FAO dans les pays membres, ma délégation ne peut que souscrire aux positions du Liban et de Chypre et nous pensons que cette représentation joue un rôle très important d’abord de conseil ensuite de coordination dans les rapports FAO-pays membres. Je saisis cetté occasion pour rappeler que la representation de la FAO en Mauritanie a constamment assisté avec effica-cite et diligence les services techniques, et assuré une coordination entre le siège et notre pays.

Au stade actuel de nos débate, voilà les remarques de ma délégation.

LE PRESIDENT: Je passe maintenant la parole au représentant du Maroc et je voudrais ajouter que j’ai été fortement impressionné lors de sa première intervention par la brièveté de sa déclaration; néanmoins je voudrais le prier de bien tenir compte du fait que à 11 h nous seront obligés de lever la séance.

A. BOUZOUBAA (Maroc): Je limiterai mon intervention en disant que j’aρρrouve les déclarations de la délégation du Liban et des autres délégations qui ont appuyé le Programme de coopération technique ainsi que la représentation de la FAO. Je m’étendrai ultérieurement sur les raisons de cette approbation.

T. AHMAD (Pakistan): Since there is a question of time constraint, I would only speak on two important issues under discussion, that is the TCP and the Field Representative Offices.

To begin with, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, may I briefly quote from the speech of the leader of my delegation which was delivered in the Plenary the other day. He said: “It has been repeatedly stressed at various international fora and summit conferences that the problem of hunger cannot be resolved unless developing countries themselves increase their food production, adopt and implement policy measures to achieve this objective. We fully subscribe to this view. The challenge to hunger and malnutrition can best be met by substantial advances in agriculture in developing countries where there is a tremendous gap between actual achievements and potential. That some countries have the will, the natural resources and the capability of doing so has been demonstrated by their actual performance”. That was the part I wanted to quote from the leader of my delegation to bring home the point that any agricultural development and development in the field of food in developing countries needs help, not only financial help but also help in terms of expertise. The technical knowledge and the reservoir of knowledge which the FAO has and the other donor countries have has to be transferred to the developing countries if they are to achieve something.

My delegation thinks that in this context the TCP has been and is doing a tremendous amount of work. There is a universal recognition of the fact that TCP has proved to be a very efficient programme and has responded very, very quickly to the needs of developing countries, has provided them with the requisite technical support, has mobilized investments, and as Switzerland pointed out, has generally acted as a catalytic agent and has received appreciation from all the recipient countries. Under these circumstances, we fully support the TCP and feel that the 16 percent programme increase is justified if the really needed field programme is to be continued. We recognize that not only the developing countries but even most developed countries are appreciative of this programme, and consequently we are a little surprised that when the quality of the programme, when the thrust of the programme is appreciated and supported from all corners why there is hesitancy to support the increase, a very viable, very limited increase in the programme.

Under the circumstances, we feel that it is too premature to presume that there will be any duplication in the TCP Programme and the UNDP Programme because we feel that there is a tremendous gap between what has been achieved in the developing countries and what is their potential, and to bridge this gap between the actual achievement and the potential, we need to mobilize resources, we need to divert technologies, we need to train people, we need to have as many catalytic agents as possible working in this area, and we feel that it is too premature to think that there can be any duplication; Japan was concerned about this aspect. We think it is too premature because there is still a wide gap there, there is a huge cleavage between the potential and the achievement, and we think it should be filled by more aid, more support to the TCP programme.

Similarly, talking of the Field Country Representatives and Regional Offices, it was mentioned that there should be evaluation of the programme. What better evaluation can there be than the fact that all the recipient countries, all the developing countries wholeheartedly support the programme? They not only support the Country Representatives but they want more. The countries that do not have want more, and a country like my own, which is fortunate in having a FAO Country Representative, appreciates the work this Office is doing, the way it is coordinating the activities between the FAO and my country, the way the Office is providing a bridge between Headquarters and the authorities to implement the projects within the country, the way the Field Office acts as a catalyst in all activities of food and agriculture within the country. We really appreciate all the work that has been done there, and we are also aware that all other developing countries that have these Country Representatives are very happy with them and want more of them.

We support the general viewpoint that there should be decentralization and the field activities and ‘. the Field Offices should be strengthened, but we are surprised that there is on one side a demand for decentralization and on the other side, the very institutions which can halp in this decentralization are being constrained, are being reduced in size and in numbers. We subscribe to the point of view that there should be decentralization; we feel that the Country Offices should be strengthened and that the Regional Offices should ftave the requisite authority.

But a note of warning here: when we say “decentralization”, we do not mean that the inherent constitutional or institutional powers with the Director-General or with the Council or with the Programme or Finance Committees or with the Conference should be delegated to the Regional and Country Offices. We mean that the normal work which can be done at Headquarters over and above the constitutional authority inherent in these governing bodies can be very easily delegated to the Country and Regional Offices so that they can respond more quickly and more speedily to the needs of the developing countries, can advise them, can be more flexible and can respond much more quickly.

Under these circumstances, we feel that the requisite expansion proposed in the programme funds for the Country Offices is justified, and we think that since it has been receiving universal acceptance from all the developing countries who are the recipients, who are the ones affected by them, who are the ones benefitted by them, we feel this programme should be expanded in the Programme of Work and Budget.

CHAIRMAN: Before adjourning, I would like to make two last announcements. The buses leaving for Vatican City will depart at 11.15 hours in front of Building A, and immediately after the audience the buses will return to FAO.

The second announcement concerns the work load for this afternoon. I still have the following countries on my speakers’ list: Turkey, Yugoslavia, Tunisia, Ethiopia, Nigeria, El Salvador, Peoples Democratic Republic of Yemen, Botswana, Kuwait, Peru, Congo, Zambia. That brings us to a list for this afternoon of 12 countries, and I think there have been a number of questions that might be answered subsequently by the respective Assistant Director-Generals. It may take us towards tha latter part of this afternoon, but I would like to make a cautious warning now that if we have a long list of speakers, we will be obliged to extend our session so that we definitely conclude our debate on the Programme of Work and Budget today, even at the risk of an evening session, however long and late it may last.

The Meeting is adjourned until 2.30 this afternoon.

The meeting rose at 11.00 hours
La séance est levée à 11 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 11.00 horas