B.J.AL-QADOU (Iraq) (original language Arabic): On examining document C 81/4, the Review of the Field Programmes, we noted that the Secretariat made considerable efforts in preparing this excellent paper. It gives an overview of Field Programmes for the 1980-81 period in a very fair and frank manner, and also pinpoints what the Organization did in the implementation of these programmes and describes the difficulties that arose in the course of their implementation, whether these difficulties were due to a lack of local medium-level staff, a lack of inputs, or for other reasons.
The document was also very frank talking about the outcome of the project evaluation reports.
The document says in para. 2.48 “that roughly one-third of the projects have had only a very weak level of transfer of skills, and that 40 percent of the projects appear to be poorly designed.”
It is also pointed out in paras. 2.51 and 2.52 that the planning of the projects was inadequate and was the weakest link. Design was in all cases the weakest link, which underscored the importance of making greater effort to improve the design of large, multidisciplinary projects at the formulation stage - in other words it was necessary to clearly define the procedures which will have to be followed by the Organization in order to be able to cope with these weaknesses and overcome them; particularly this was not only stressed in the Review of the Field Programmes, but was also referred to at other points of the report.
Does this mean that more time and more funds will be put in for the inception of the design stage and preparation? Will that then be enough to obviate such problems in the launching and undertaking, which for the recipient countries will mean that they will get more funds and more time so as to overcome the difficulties which will arise in the course of the implementation of the project particularly if you take into account that the developing countries have a crying need for these financial resources, these funds, and time and effort.
If this applies to the major projects what is the picture going to be for the small ones? We feel that the proposal to have the Organization participate in all cases, particularly at the initial preparatory planning and design stages of the project, is perhaps not enough because the nature of the intervention of the Organization and the level at which the Organization intervenes has not been clearly defined.
I still have a few other points, and these will take the form of questions.
I have something more to say about our area, the Near East. How can the Secretariat explain the drop in the share of the Near East Region in Field Programme Projects. We know these projects were 24 in 1978-79, and for 1980-81 they were only 19 as compared with 24 for the previous period, whereas the region, as you know, does comprise developing countries which are deserving of more attention.
We would want for this drop in the number of projects not to reflect in any way whatsoever a waning interest or importance on the part of the Organization in development of the agricultural sector in that part of the world.
My second question deals with the Near East Region, which enjoys a special status as to projects financed from the Trust Fund. I would like to know what are the Organization plans for allocating a greater importance to such projects? How does FAO intend to take part in these project assessments to avoid the negative effects of past mistakes.
Thirdly, as far as my country is concerned: we found a backlog in the sending out of experts to participate í’ ‘‘‘ design and execution of certain projects. The delay in the arrival of these experts is costing us a lot because the financial resources thus frozen could have been allocated to other activities. We request the Secretariat to give the necessary attention to this particular point.
My fourth and last point relates to the memorandum of understanding that was signed with the Organization last week. This agreement is a new framework for the implementation of projects funded by the Trust Fund and it helps us scrutinize all the delays that were brought about in the implementation of the projects. We would like this whole procedure to be further broadened so that it will be possible to have this new form of cooperation. It is a new experiment, and our whole interplay and relations with the Organization could be assessed and evaluated at some later stage.
In closing, let me reiterate my thanks to the Secretariat for the very high quality of this document.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia se va a referir al documento C 81/4 que es verdaderamente rico en elementos que permiten no sólo evaluar los niveles y las tendencias del Programa de campo de la FAO, sino también hacer recomendaciones para mejorar esas actividades.
Pensamos que en nuestro informe se debe señalar la preocupación que causa la perspectiva de considerarle disminución de las actividades de campo en los años venideros. Sobre todo, después de que en 1980 esas actividades alcanzaron niveles excepcionales, que habían alentado a los países en desarrollo, países que con esa disminución están viendo frustradas sus esperanzas de una continuación creciente y positiva del trabajo de Campo.
Esa lamentable disminución contrasta con los esfuerzos de la FAO por mejorar la eficacia y consolidar el impacto de los programas de campo.
Una vez más será necesario recomendar que en todo ese proceso se tenga en cuenta particularmente los intereses y necesidades de los países en desarrollo, a fin de que éstos sufran el menor perjuicio posible.
Pensamos que es necesario reconocer las mejoras que se han logrado en la ejecución de los proyectos realizados por la FAO y en el papel que en esa mejora han desempeñado los funcionarios propios representantes de nuestra Organización en los países.
La carencia de recursos externos es uno de los principales problemas que afecta el aumento de la producción en los países en desarrollo. Por ello, será necesario que en el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto se asignen mayores recursos para el Centro de Inversiones, con el objeto de fortalecer la cooperación con las diversas instituciones de financiación, que vienen basando sus planes de preinversión, en buena parte, en el apoyo del Centro de Inversiones de la FAO. Esto estaría de acuerdo con la orientación que en los últimos años han tenido las actividades de campo de la FAO hacia la inversión.
Debe preocuparnos la disminución en las entregas por parte del PNUD, que sigue siendo la principal fuente de financiación de los programas de campo. Del 80 por ciento en 1973 ha pasado al 60 por ciento en 1980. Afortunadamente, hay cierta compensación por los fondos fiduciarios y la contribución de los bancos y otros fondos para asistencia en preparación de proyectos, todo lo cual es necesario para los países en desarrollo que generalmente carecen de recursos y de conocimientos necesarios para identificar y preparar proyectos viables.
Las fluctuaciones en las asignaciones y entregas del PNUD vienen causando notables perjuicios a los países y tambien a la FAO. La reducción forzosa de los presupuestos de proyectos en curso, a veces muy significativas y arbitrarias, afecta el desarrollo de los países que han confiado en le ejecución total y adecuada de un buen proyecto. Por su parte, la FAO tiene así problemas de personal, mayores costos administrativos y más gastos generales. La víctima final es el país beneficiario.
La importancia de salvaguardar los intereses de los países beneficiarios se hace más imperativa ante el hecho de que, según parece los recursos del PNUD, para el tercer ciclo de planificación de 1982 a 1986 van a ser inferiores por lo menos en un 25 por ciento al monto previsto por el Consejo de Administración del PNUD.
Además, la parte de ejecucion que venía correspondiendo a la FAO en la asistencia técnica total costeada por el PNUD ha seguido disminuyendo. En los últimos diez años esa participación de la FAO ha descendido del 30 al 24 por ciento.
Las preocupaciones continúan porque la participación de la FAO también sigue disminuyendo en la ejecución de proyectos financiados por el PNUD, con sectores plenamente identificados correspondientes a la agricultura. En diez años del 85 por ciento esa participación ha disminuido al 76 por ciento.
Clara y enfáticamente los representantes de gobiernos debemos transmitir al PNUD nuestra inquietud por la disminución de la participación de la FAO en ejecución de proyectos definidamente agrícolas que corresponden al campo especializado de la FAO.
El PNUD conoce bien y debería respetar adecuadamente la experiencia, los conocimientos y la gran capacidad operativa de la FAO, elementos positivos que los países en desarrollo reconocen en favor del desempeño de nuestra Organización.
La disminución de la participación de la FAO se ha desviado a la propia Oficina de Ejecución del PNUD y a otras dependencias del sistema de las Naciones Unidas. Consideramos que todo ello es inconveniente; que produce duplicación de servicios y resta eficacia. Será necesario apoyar a la FAO, porque es indiscutible su función guía y su gran liderazgo en este campo.
En cuanto a los fondos fiduciaries, nos parece excelente que los criterios de los donantes se hayan acercado cada vez mas a las prioridades y programas generales de la FAO. Esto permitirá un mejor uso de esos fondos fiduciarios con mayores beneficios para los países receptores.
La importancia de los programas de campo de la FAO está representada esencialmente en los 1 780 expertos dedicados a la ejecución de 2 200 proyectos.
Del cuadro 2, capítulo 1, tomamos nota de que esas labores de campo han ido aumentando para Africa y Asia y el Pacífico, y disminuyendo para América Latina y el Cercano Oriente. Sin duda, esto corresponde a las diversas condiciones de la situación mundial en distintas regiones del mundo. Sin embargo, quisiéramos pedir que esa disminución regional ojalá se fuera produciendo gradualmente, sin excesos, en forma ordenada y coherente para evitar grandes perjuicios a los países de esas regiones que aún necesitan de la asistencia técnica.
La delegación de Colombia opina que debe estimularse la expansión de las actividades de campo dentro del marco del Programa de Acción Especial para el Desarrollo y Ordenación de la Pesca en Zonas Económicas Exclusivas.
Ojalá que continúe el apoyo de los Fondos Fiduciarios a este Programa Especial. En el campo del ZEE la FAO tiene un sector propicio para ayudar a los países en desarrollo a que se preparen a hacer el mejor y más productivo uso de los recursos del mar, en espera de que se firme la Convención que algún día habrá de surgir de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas sobre los derechos del mar.
Nos parece muy bien que sigan disminuyendo los expertos residentes a largo plazo; expertos de alto nivel, por períodos breves, o consultores, podrán ser más útiles, ya que la mayoría de los países en desarrollo han superado la etapa de asistencia técnica tradicional, hoy desplazada por numerosos factores.
En general, contamos en nuestros países con expertos nacionales que pueden complementar muy bien esas actividades de los expertos de alto nivel a plazo breve.
Nos parece acertado que la FAO venga concediendo, dentro del marco del acuerdo con el FIDA, apoyo técnico a ese Fondo y a los demás organismos de financiación.
El FIDA ha estado desafortunadamente ausente hasta ahora en esta Conferencia; sin embargo hemos visto en el orden del día de hoy, que al final de la mañana un representante de este organismo intervendría en la Plenariaj ojalá que nos dé’ buenas noticias sobre la reposición de los fondos del FIDA que nos preocupa muy sinceramente.
A la delegación de Colombia le complace que recientemente se hayan concluido las negociaciones para reanudar la cooperación con el Banco Interamericano de Desarrollo. Nuestro BID venía trabajando bien con la FAO. Esperamos que ahora se reactivará esa colaboración para beneficio de los países de America Latina y del Caribe.
En el Capítulo dos, al evaluar los proyectos de campo por países, los representantes de la FAO ban hecho consideraciones interesantes. El Cuadro I refleja el mejoramiento general que se ha obtenido en la ejecución de los proyectos. Casi todos los factores, con algunas excepciones a las cuales nos referiremos después, han contribuido a mejorar el rendimiento de la ejecución de proyectos de campo. Sobre-sale el PCT en esa evaluación. Más del 70 por ciento de los proyectos PCT estaban bien concebidos y facilitaban la labor complementaria.
Sobre la conveniencia de vincular las actividades de un proyecto, con las posibles actividades complementarias de desarrollo en el país, apoyamos el criterio flexible que habrá de seguirse, particularmente en los proyectos de larga duración.
Será necesario, dentro de lo posible ir adaptando los objetivos de los proyectos a los cambios que se puedan producir en las prioridades y estrategias nacionales. Desafortunadamente la participación de los gobiernos sigue siendo el punto más débil del rendimiento de los proyectos. La delegación de Colombia piensa que es indispensable hacer un llamado encarecido a los gobiernos beneficiarios.
El grado de participación de los gobiernos, la manera efectiva cómo se realice esa participación, el desempeño del personal homólogo, el suministro oportuno y eficaz de materiales y servicios, son factores insustituibles en la buena ejecución de todo proyecto. También deberemos pedir a los gobiernos que al hacer las peticiones de proyectos, traten de ajustar cuidadosamente los objetivos de esos proyectos a la capacidad y a los recursos del propio país, ya que proyectos con objetivos demasiados ambiciosos, generalmente resultan un fracaso, especialmente para el país beneficiario.
Con su venia, señor Presidente, haré algunas breves consideraciones sobre el Capítulo cuarto, porque estamos de acuerdo con lo manifestado por nuestro colega de Argentina en la intervención de ayer tarde, sobre el hecho de que, a la luz de las nuevas dimensiones es satisfactorio registrar el hecho de que todos los proyectos de campo ejecutados por la FAO se encuentran bajo la dirección general del gobierno beneficiario.
Es positiva también la acción de la FAO en favor del incremento de designar nacionales de los países beneficiarios, como directores de los proyectos. Todo ello contribuye al propósito saludable de la FAO de estimular a los países en desarrollo para que administren directamente sus actividades técnicas. Esa mayor responsabilidad nacional, si es debidamente utilizada, traerá notables beneficios a los países receptores.
Dentro de ese orden de ideas, debemos apoyar el hecho de que “en el presente bienio la FAO haya ampliado el uso de expertos nacionales en los proyectos de campo”. En general, hay que estimular la tendencia en la FAO a seguir ocupando más expertos de países en desarrollo en las actividades de campo.
El Cuadro I del Capítulo cuarto, indica que del 31 por ciento en 1973, los expertos de países en desarrollo, han aumentado el 43 por ciento en 1981. Ha sido un 12 por ciento mas; esperamos que en el bienio 82/83, esos expertos de países en desarrollo serán mas de la mitad, superarán el 50 por ciento. Así la FAO cumplirá lo establecido por la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas, en relación con la decisión de que el 50 por ciento de los expertos propuestos por los organismos especializados, procedan de países en desarrollo.
La delegación de Colombia concede también mucha importancia al incremento del uso de las Instituciones Nacionales, en la ejecución de los proyectos de campo. La Conferencia actual deberá insistir en la decisión de nuestra Conferencia anterior acerca de la llamada “discriminación positiva” en favor de las Instituciones Nacionales de países en desarrollo.
Sobre las Compras en los Países en Desarrollo, está bien que la FAO haya venido aumentando el volumen de las compras en esos países. Aquí también hay que aplicar la misma “discriminación positiva”, naturalmente cuando puedan obtenerse equipos iguales en cuanto a su calidad y precio. Los Directores de Equipo de la FAO y los Directores Nacionales de los proyectos tendrán facultades y conocimientos para avanzar en esta materia.
En esta forma, señor Presidente, la delegación de Colombia ha expuesto algunas ideas sobre los programas de campo de la FAO, con la esperanza de contribuir a fortalecer la excelente labor que nuestra Organización viene realizando.
Esperamos que alguna de nuestras consideraciones puedan ser incluidas en el Informe, porque opinamos que cada vez será más necesario procurar que, como se está logrando, las actividades de campo produzcan reales y positivos beneficios a los países receptores del Tercer Mundo.
D. BETI (Suisse): Etant donné que le programme ordinaire et les programmes de terrain sont dans la pratique étroitement lies, il est difficile de prendre position sur le contenu du document C 81/8 et sur le document C 81/4, sans s’exposer au risque de se répéter, Aussi, ma délégation a-t-elle choisi de ne pas s’exprimer sur l’examen du programme ordinaire, non pas parce qu’elle n’attache pas d’importance à cette partie des activités de la FAO, au contraire, mais plutôt, pour faire gagner du temps à notre Commission, d’une part, et parce que les remarques que je vais faire d’autre part, concernent précisément les deux programmes, mais sont plutôt centrées sur les activités de terrain de la FAO.
Inévitablement, dans le cadre de ce débat sur les programmes de terrain, je toucherai aussi des informations qui figurent dans les documents C 81/8, et je vous prie de bien vouloir m’en excuser.
En ce qui concerne les programmes d’action spéciaux de la FAO, la Suisse figure parmi les six principals sources de financement extra-budgétaires de ceux-ci. Depuis plusieurs années déjà elle contribue à la mise en oeuvre des programmes d’assistance à la sécurité alimentaire, de prévention contre les pertes de récolte, d’amélioration de la production de semences, ainsi que de formation de gestionnaires de projets. Les contributions sont accordées sous forme non liée, regie qui est par ailleurs valable pour quasiment toute l’aide au développement accordée par la Suisse.
A titre d’information, je peux ajouter qu’une part essentielle, voire prépondérante de l’aide de mon pays, est consacrée au même domaine de développement.
C’est dire l’importance que nous attachons à l’amélioration de la situation dans les pays en développement, précisément dans ces domaines qui entrent dans les principaux objectifs de la FAO.
Quant à la mise en oeuvre concrète des projets faisant partie de ces programmes spéciaux, nous avons lu avec intérêt ce qui figure dans les documents. Si vous me permettez de m’exprimer au moyen d’une image, je dirai que nous nous sommes trouvés, en lisant ce document, dans la situation du délégué qui a laissé à son conjoint le soin de lui préparer le sac de voyage pour se rendre à un meeting. Arrivé à destination, il constate que le sac a bien été préparé avec habileté et amour; il y découvre énormément de choses, toutes rangées de main de maître, mais certaines placées dans le sac de telle façon qu’elles sautent aux yeux, alors que d’autres sont plutôt cachées. Une bonne partie des objets dont il a besoin se trouve dans le sac, certains mêmes en double ou en triple, toutefois, quelques-uns non moins indispensables font défaut. Bref, le pauvre délégué est oblige de courir à gauche et à droite pour se procurer ce qui manque dans le sac, la brosse à dent par exemple, alors qu’il ne saura que faire des objets que le sac contient en double, le rasoir notamment. Dans quelques cas, il devra même téléphoner à son conjoint pour lui demander de lui envoyer d’urgence dans un petit sac complémentaire, certains objets qu’il ne peut pas se procurer ailleurs.
En résumé, reconnaissant la qualité des deux documents C 81/4, et C 81/8, la quantité de renseignements qu’on y trouve, ainsi que les progrès faits quant à leur élaboration, qu’il nous soit permis d’ajou’ter qu’à notre avis, on n’a pas pêché par excès d’autocritique, et ici, nous pouvons parler en connaissance de cause, puisque nous participons directement à la réalisation de plusieurs programmes d’action spéciaux.
En fait, dans la réalité, nous avons rencontré dans l’exécution des projets faisant partie de ces quatre programmes, et particulièrement du programme d’assistance à la sécurité alimentaire et de celui de prévention contre les pertes de récolte, un certain nombre de problèmes dont j’aimerais résumer les causes en trois points.
Premièrement, nous sommes conscients qu’il n’est pas facile pour la FAO de venir à bout de ce que j’appellerai les individualismes de chaque pays donateur. Chacun a ses préférences quant aux pays bénéficiaires, ses particularités quant aux caractéristiques des projets, ses exigences quant aux modalités de mise en oeuvre, et j’en passe.... La Suisse ne fait pas exception. Cependant, qu’on veuille bien nous croire, nous ne demandons à’ la FAO que ce qui nous est demandé sur le plan national. Nous ne sommes pas plus exigeants à l’égard de la FAO que nous le sommes envers nous-mêmes.
A ce sujet, nous sommes en contact permanent avec le Secrétariat de la FAO. Des solutions viables et acceptables de part et d’autre ont déjà pu être trouvées; des progrès ont été faits. Mais il ne fait pas de doute que notre soutien financier aux programmes d’action spéciaux ne pourra être maintenu que dans la mesure où la FAO pourra satisfaire à nos exigences sur le plan de l’exécution opérationnelle et administrative des projets.
Le deuxième point est ce que nous pensons précisément en ce qui concerne l’exécution opérationnelle et opérative des projets par la FAO. Si nous avons pu constater des progrès, et nous aimerions le reconnaître ici publiquement, il n’en reste pas moins que des améliorations sont encore nécessaires et doivent encore être possibles. Je ne m’étendrai pas sur ce point, car il s’agit de questions d’ordre plutôt technique que nous avons régulièrement l’occasion de discuter directement avec les services compétents de la FAO.
J’aimerais seulement à ce propos mentionner que, dans ces discussions nous recontrons, dans les collaborateurs de la FAO, des partenaires ouverts et compétents, toujours disposés à rechercher avec nous des solutions appropriées aux problèmes qui se posent.
Le troisième point est le suivant: des mesures d’ordre technique et de formation, soient-elles très bien conçues et parfaitement exécutees, restent souvent à mi-chemin en ce qui concerne leur efficacité et leur impact sur le développement, si elles ne sont pas accompagnées, voire précédees, de mesures d’ordre politique et social. Il est évident que ni le pays donateur, ni la FAO, n’ont de prise sur ces dernières mesures, et il est juste qu’il en soit ainsi.
Pour terminer avec les Programmes d’action spéciaux et leur réalisation, il est hors de doute que nous, pays bénéficiaires, pays donateurs et FAO, sommes dans le même sac. Plusieurs délégations, notamment celle du Sénégal hier, ont souhaité le renforcement de ces Programmes d’action spéciaux. Ce souhait, nous pouvons le partager, dans la mesure oú il s’agira non seulement d’une augmentation quantitative et financière, mais également d’une amélioration qualitative et à tous points de vue. Nous sommes, quant à nous, disposés à participer aux efforts en vue d’atteindre cet objectif.
En ce qui concerne le Programme de coopération technique, j’aimerais rappeler la position de principe ainsi que l’attitude pratique et pragmatique de la Suisse à ce sujet. Elles sont reproduites dans le verbatim n° 6 de notre Commission. Je me permets de féliciter à ce point et de remercier le secrétariat pour la précision minutieuse, je dirais presque suisse, avec laquelle notre déclaration de l’autre jour a été reproduite. Nous avons déjà souligné les aspects positifs que nous reconnaissons au PCT. J’y ajouterai, après la lecture du document C 81/4, le fait qu’en 1980 51 pour cent des fonds alloués par le PCT ont bénéficié aux pays les moins avancés et le plus gravement touchés auxquels nous accordons une attention particulière et également nos activités bilatérales.
En ce qui concerne les informations fournies dans les documents, nous les trouvons riches en détails, intéressantes et souvent significatives. Nous regrettons, par contre, comme plusieurs délégations qui se sont exprimées avant nous, que les données fournies restent essentiellement dans ce qui est quantifiable, voire chiffrable. Nous savons qu’il n’est pas facile d’apprécier de façon satisfaisante le vrai développement atteint par un projet, du fait que ce développement ne se manifeste généralement pas de manière complètement chiffrable. Nous pensons toutefois que la FAO peut faire mieux dans cette voie. Nous aimerions alors encourager la FAO à poursuivre dans cette direction, ainsi que M. West en a exprimé l’intention dans sa déclaration.
Dans le débat sur le Programme de travail et budget 1982-83, nous avions formulé deux demandes précises au sujet du PCT. Monsieur de Mèredieu, dans sa déclaration de vendredi dernier, a répondu à ì’une des deux. Nous pouvons accepter cette réponse. Quant à la deuxième question, la lecture attentive de la déclaration de M. de Mèredieu figurant dans le verbatim n° 7 ne nous a pas révélé d’éléments de réponse. Le délai d’à peine un jour imparti au secrétariat pour satisfaire à notre demande était bien trop court, nous en convenons bien volontiers. Nous aimerions simplement ici rappeler cette demande: il s’agit de la deuxième question formulée à la page 9 du verbatim n° 6. Si nous tenons beaucoup à recevoir cette réponse dans les meilleurs délais, ce n’est pas seulement parce qu’une question exacte que nous pensons avoir le droit de poser ne devrait pas rester sans réponse précise, c’est surtout - contrairement à ce que semble penser le secrétariat, tout au moins si nous interprétons de façon correcteles propos tenus hier à ce sujet par M. West - parce que nous estimons que nous avons besoin entre autres de ces éléments d’information pour mieux voir l’ensemble du problème et établisur une base plus complète et transparente, notre politique à l’égard d’un programme aussi important que le PCT.
En ce qui concerne la décentralisation et les représentants de la FAO, ici encore, pour ne pas nous répéter, nous aimerions rappeler notre position qui est reproduite dans le verbatim no° 6.
Quant aux trois questions précises que nous avions posées dans le cadre du débat sur le Programme de travail et budget 1982-83, la première a reçu sa réponse par la liste des pays qui bénéficient déjà d’un bureau de, représentants de la FAO. Monsieur West nous l’avait promise hier, et nous venons de la recevoir. Nous l’en remercions et aimerions lui dire combien nous apprécions cette
disponibilité qui est apte à relancer le dialogue entre les différents partenaires participant à cette Conférence, dialogue que nous voulons le plus ouvert et le plus franc possible et auquel nous tenons autant que tous les autres participants.
Quant aux pays qui doivent en principe bénéficier des services des douze représentants FAO supplémentaires prévus dans le Programme de travail et budget 1982-83, nous comprenons que, pour les raisons évoquées par M. de Mèredieu, la liste ne nous soit pas fournie avant l’aboutissement des négociations en cours.
Par contre, la réponse donnée à notre deuxième question, il nous serait difficile de l’accepter comme definitive. Il est évident que le renvoi quelque peu superflu au paragraphe 5.86 du document C 81/8 que le secrétariat nous a suggéré en guise de réponse ne saurait nous éclairer sur un seul des éléments contenus dans notre question. Ici encore nous attribuons le manque de précision dans la réponse donnée à la brièveté du délai imparti, car nous admettons volontiers que les représentants du secrétariat sur le podium ne puissent pas disposer ad hoc dans leurs dossiers de tous les renseignements qui leur sont demandés. Nous comptons sur V esprit d’ouverture démontré hier par le secrétariat, et notamment par M. West, et sommes certains qu’aucun effort ne sera ménagé pour procurer à tous les membres ici présents les renseignements que nous avons demandés.
Il en va bien entendu de même pour la troisième question que nous avions soumise concernant les représentants FAO.
Pour terminer sur ce sujet, encore un mot particulièrement à l’adresse de nos partenaires des pays en développement.
Les déclarations de ma délégation devraient, me semble-t-il, avoir fait toute la lumière sur notre attitude essentiellement positive à l’égard de l’établissement du réseau des représentants de la FAO. Aucun doute ne devrait plus planer sur ce point. Nous prenons note avec satisfaction de la déclaration unanime des pays en voie de développement en faveur de la présence d’un représentant FAO dans leur pays. Nous admettons également qu’ils soient, en tant que bénéficiaires, les juges privilégiés des avantages que leur offrent ce représentant FAO. Si nous demandons néanmoins à être mieux renseignés à ce sujet, et nous pensons que nous sommes en droit de le faire, cela est dû notamment à une certaine frustration de notre part, car en tant que pays développé nous ne pouvons bénéficier des avantages d’un représentant FAO. Ce n’est donc que par une information aussi concrète, précise et complète que possible que nous pouvons participer à cette expérience fort importante sur le plan de l’organisation d’une institution comme la FAO, et également une expérience dont nous pourrions profiter pour notre coopération bilatérale.
C’est le but des questions que nous avions posées et nous attendons les réponses avec beaucoup d’intérêt.
Ma délégation se réserve le droit de revenir sur d’autres points à un stade plus avancé du débat.
G. ERICSSON (Sweden): On behalf of the Swedish delegation I would like to begin our comments on document C 81/4 with a little more general statement on the relation between the Regular Programme and the Field Programme. The Field Programme presents the important direct FAO contribution in the medium and long term to overcome hunger and malnutrition and to support a balanced development of the rural areas in developing countries. With this view in mind the role of a large proportion of the Regular Programme, as distinct from FAO mandatory functions directed towards all member countries, is to pave the way for and to support field programme activities in developing countries, multinational as well as bilateral. It is encouraging to see how this part of the Regular Programme has during the last biennia been deliberately directed to fulfil more efficiently this role, with the Special Action Programme, in priority areas functioning as a bridge between the Regular Programme and field activities.
It goes without saying that a biennial comprehensive review of field programmes is an important exercise to allow an objective and candid analysis of the planning and implementation of field activities and. to evaluate their performance and to give us as member countries an opportunity to discuss the further directions of the work of this Organization.
We would like to congratulate the Secretariat for the clear and concise document before us, which presents an excellent basis for discussion of the FAO field activities and for conclusions on what measures to take to make them even more efficient.
In the following I would like to comment briefly on some more specific issues brought forward in the document.
In Chapter 1, Section A, figures are presented which show that the FAO part as well as the overall allocation to agriculture, forestry and fisheries of the UNDP funds is still declining. Given the FAO’s competence and mandate within the UN System and the obvious need for even greater allocation for the development of these sectors the trend is disturbing.
In the second document before us now, C 81/28, Development Assistance for Food Production and Rural Development, an analysis is given of the reasons thereof. It also gives information on the steps taken by the Director-General as a follow-up of Conference Resolution 6/79. Further, the document indicates that the prospects may seem a little bit brighter when looking at the third UNDP programming cycle.
We commend the Director-General and the Secretariat for the initiatives which have been taken to change the trend.
Our government is prepared to increase the allocations to rural development and to least developed countries, as stated by our Minister of Agriculture in the Plenary session. On the other hand, we have found in the bilateral cooperation among our partners a preference to use flexible’ Swedish funds for industrial projects or other more spectacular projects within the modern sector of the economy. The importance of the developing countries themselves giving priority to the agricultural sector in a broad sense and at an appropriate technological level must also be underlined.
During the period of declining UNDP funds, Trust Fund Contributions have been increasing, but as stated in the review, it is more difficult to forecast Trust Fund allocations, which make a steady flow of UNDP Funds all the more important in order not to disrupt the machinery for planning and implementation of field activities.
Before leaving Document C 81/28 I would also like to stress what is said in paragraphs 21 and 22 on new approaches to aid programming, for instance, less restrictions on local and recurrent cost financing and on the shifting of allocations among projects and project components, more of programme or sector support, more attention to rehabilitation of older projects and lastly more of gradual building up of the projects/programmes from what is already existing in regions rather than introducing new methods. We believe that such approaches have a special relevance under present economic circumstances.
As can be seen from Section F in Chapter one - I am now back to C 81/4 - FAO activities in support of investment have increased during the last two biennia. The broadened cooperation with a number of financing institutions is strongly supported by our delegation and we also appreciate the follow-up of UNDP projects with investment potential. In our bilateral cooperation, we do not make any clear distinction between technical assistance and investment. In the multinational development cooperation, where the funds are coming from different sources, it is important to establish close links with the two. We therefore strongly endorse what has been said in paragraphs 1.64 to 1.66 in Section G of Chapter One.
In the introduction to Chapter Two, Assessment of Field Projects, it is stated in paragraph 2.3 that the bulk of field activities, in terms of manpower and funds, takes place within relatively large-scale projects with support duration of up to three or four years. Such projects, it is said, very often present considerable problems in planning and implementation. Most of such problems are complex and interrelated. From Swedish experience a flexible attitude is required. New and unexpected problems may arise that must be dealt with continuously on the basis of an integrated overview of problems. This requires a long-term perspective. To that effect, Swedish aid policies have explicitly taken into consideration the fact that major rural development projects will require continuous supports over a minimum of 10 years. We have also experienced that the more successful rural development projects are those of long duration, projects that have started on a small scale and then have continuously expanded, into activities conducive to solving problems that may not have been evident at the outset of the project.
The assessment of field projects has been made against six performance criteria, and for each of these criteria, a number of big projects has been scored on a scale of 1 to 5, representing a ranking order of poor/satisfactory/good. This has proved to be a useful approach, and it is quite impressive that FAO managed to assess the multitude of very different projects in a uniform manner, thereby giving an overview of achievements and problems which form a basis for further analysis of problems and difficulties identified as common.
However, this ranking system may be even more useful if the performance criteria also include some notion of target groups, that is, small farmers, landless, unemployed, etc. This could be seen as one step of incorporating WCARRD principles in the design and evaluation into field programmes.
Section D of Chapter Two summarizes the conclusions drawn from the assessment and gives practical proposals how to improve project formulation and design of field projects, proposals which are also relevant for the work within bilateral agencies.
And then I am coming to my last point, New Dimensions, which are dealt with in Chapter Four. Let me first say that we feel strongly that the FAO has been in the forefront among UN Agencies in the support of these new approaches and we commend the Secretariat for early recognition of the need of changing the mode of operations to promote self-reliance by transferring responsibilities for planning and implementation of field projects to the recipient countries themselves. The paragraphs of reference here are 4.6 to 4.9. To save time, I am not going to repeat what is stated in them but just give our full support to even more deliberate efforts to introduce these changes in the operation of field projects. Even if the concept is accepted within FAO, it has, as is also stated in the document, still a long way to go until they are brought into practice.
It has only been possible to touch upon a few of the constructive proposals and views expressed in the Review of Field Programmes. I will conclude this statement by reiterating our satisfaction with the document and the presentation by the Secretariat.
P. BOURGOIS (PNUD): Je vous remercie de l’occasion qui m’est donnée d’intervenir sur l’examen du programme de terrain.
La documentation, ainsi que les interventions faites, montrent bien le rôle central que joue le PNUD en matière de coopération technique dans le système des Nations Unies.
En 1980 les fonds que le PNUD a alloués à la FAO pour l’exécution de projets s’élevaient à 195 millions de dollars, soit près de 55 millions de plus que le budget régulier de l’organisation, et un peu moins que le double des sommes que la FAO a mobilisées comme fonds fiduciaires et autres arrangements multi-bilatéraux. Les chiffres du PNUD pour 1981 seront probablemente du même ordre de grandeur, et le programme aura à peu de choses près fourni le montant d’assistance qui avait été prévu pour le cycle de programmation 1977-1981. Ceci était mon premier point.
Ce qui est préoccupant, c’est que, pour la deuxième année consécutive et très probablement pour l’année à venir, les ressources - li sont essentiellement les contributions volontaires des gouvernements - n’ont pas atteint le taux de croissance de 14 pour cent qui continue d’être l’objectif du Conseil du PNUD.
Et là je vous demanderai de considérer les nombreux chiffres, pourcentages et projections que j’ai lus avec circonspection, non qu’ils soient faux, - les chiffres sont ceux du PNUD - mais ils cherchent à prouver et cela dans une toile de fond qui semble se vouloir sombre. Ici on prend des dollars ajustés au taux d’inflation, là des dollars fin 1980, ailleurs des dollars de novembre 1981, ou on extrapole sur cinq ans les chiffres décevants d’aujourd’hui. C’est probablement inévitable, mais il faut se souvenir à tout moment que l’on parle de dollars qui varient et de contributions surtout en monnaies nationales.
Pour un programme de 700 millions environ, ces variations sont très importantes. Ainsi, entre décembre 1980 et novembre 1981, les contributions - les mêmes contributions - ont perdu quelque 70 millions de dollars. Le PNUD n’est pas le seul affecté. Evidemment pour des raisons différentes, les chiffres donnés par le Directeur général dans sa déclaration liminaire sur le budget régulier courant de la FAO indiquent que pour un programme établi à 440 millions de dollars, il dispose en fait, au taux actuel’ de 366 millions. Je pourrais citer le PAM, l’UNICEF, le FNUAP, etc. affectés par les variations des taux de change, sans même parler de l’inflation. Il en serait de même, en fait, pour des fonds fiduciaires de la FAO exprimés en dollars ou en coûts réels.
Si j’insiste, c’est que la documentation peut donner l’idée que le PNUD est à présent en crise financière. Ce n’est pas le cas, le PNUD a des réserves, et grâce à un système d’informations financières moderne, peut ajuster à tout moment allocations et dépenses.
Comme l’administrateur en a informé les directeurs exécutifs des agences, les projets approuvés pourront être exécutes conformément aux budgets approuvés. Le PNUD honorera ses engagements concernant les projets approuvés.
Une préoccupation sérieuse pour les ressources à venir, mais une situation financière saine était mon deuxième point. Il est donc difficile de comprendre les références faites à la nécessité de “terminer” les contrats de quelque 3 à 400 experts. Si cela veut dire que leur contrat prend fin comme prévu dans les projets, c’est compréhensible, mais si cela veut dire qu’il a fallu mettre fin à des contrats prématurément, quelle est l’explication, puisque les fonds sont là? Inutile de dire qu’au PNUD nous sommes très préoccupés par de telles déclarations, mais cela peut être dû à une traduction en anglais “terminated” de ce qui a été dit en français. En fait, nous serions désireux d’éclaircir ce point.
Ce qui est préoccupant e’est la mobilisation des ressources nécessaires pour l’avenir immédiat. Le Conseil du PNUD avait prévu de doubler le volume d’aide exprimé en dollars pour le nouveau cycle 1982-86 par rapport au précédent. Cela signifie une augmentation annuelle et une cumulation des contributions de l’ordre de 14 pour cent.
En fait, nous abordens le trosième cycle avec des contributions substantiellement au-dessous de ce volume qui est nécessaire pour programmer à 100 pour cent des CIP approuvés. Le conseil a fixé le niveau de programmation, pour le moment, à 80 pour cent. Mais de là à dire que pour les cinq ans du cycle de programmation il ne sera pas possible d’atteindre l’objectif prévu originellement serait trop pessimiste. Ce serait ignorer les efforts que déploie l’administrateur pour redresser la situation. Et, à ce propos, je dois mentionner en particulier les efforts qu’il fait pour qu’enfin soit reconnue l’importance de consacrer une part accrue à l’assistance technique dans l’aide au développement. Il met l’accent à ce propos sur l’assistance en matière de production alimentaire et de développement rural. La décision prise par le Conseil, l’année dernière, l’éclat donné cette année à l’appel des 50 prix Nobel, la visite récente de l’administrateur au Parlement européen, reflète l’action énergique entreprise par le PNUD sur ce thème.
Quand on se réfère aux difficultés de mobiliser les ressources requises, il ne faut pas - et e’est là mon message - jeter le manche après la cognée. Au contraire, il faut ne ménager aucun effort pour que donneurs traditionnels et potentiels réalisent que la désaffection que certains semblent montrer pour le multilatéral véritable aura des conséquences graves, non seulement sur les programmes courants, mais surtout à moyen et à long terme sur le développement économique même. Ceci était mon quatrième point.
Prenons maintenant la question du pourcentage des ressources du PNUD consacré à des projets exécutes par la FAO. Je crois qu’après ce que je viens de dire il n’y a pas de doute que le Secrétariat du PNUD et le Conseil aimeraient voir une plus grande part du programme consacrée au renforcement de la production agricole et au développement rural. Mais nous devons reconnaître la souveraineté des décisions des gouvernements. Il serait erroné d’affirmer que, parce que les approbations des projets sont la responsabilité du PNUD, il est responsable de la part qui va vers la FAO. Non, les projets doivent être tout d’abord préparés et approuvés par les gouvernements.
Considérant la modicité des ressources du PNUD, il ne peut être exclu que ces mêmes gouvernements tiennent compte des autres ressources qui sont à leur disposition par des fonds fiduciaires ou autres. Il est aussi possible qu’en raison de l’accroissement très rapide de ces fonds, une attention particulière ait été donnée dans le développement des projets pour ces fonds. Je sais, par expérience personnelle, qu’il faut un temps considérable pour développer des projets correspondant aux désirs des bénéficiaires et des donneurs. Même si cela a été le cas, l’avenir n’est pas aussi sombre.
J’attire votre attention sur le paragraphe 37 du document C 81/28. L’ampleur de la réallocation des ressources du PNUD pour le troisième cycle vers les pays ayant des revenus par habitant de moins de 500 dollars ne peut être minimisée. Près de 80 pour cent des ressources pour les CIP par pays y seront consacrés. La liste des 65 pays comprend tous ceux ayant un déficit alimentaire. Nombre d’entre eux voient leurs CIP plus que doublés. Il serait surprenant qu’ils ne consacrent pas une part plus importante de ces CIP à des activités dans le domaine de la FAO.
La brièveté du paragraphe que j’ai mentionné couvre sans doute, en fait, un élément essentiel du redressement de la part de la FAO dans les activités du PNUD, mais aussi du travail considérable qui devrait être fait pour une utilisation optimum des ressources mises à la disposition de ces pays, et cela même en tenant compte des contraintes présentes portant sur les ressources.
Dans ce contexte, les 3 pour cent en 1980, 2 pour cent en 1981 des activités dans le domaine agricole qui vont à l’OPE sont seulement à mentionner pour référence, d’autant plus qu’il s’agit essentiellement de projets mis en oeuvre par des institutions telles le CIMMYT ou le Groupe consultatif en matière de recherche agricole Internationale auquel participe du reste la FAO.
Je reconnais que Vallocation de certains projets pluridisciplinaires est parfois difficile et suscite des critiques de l’une ou de l’autre des organisations concernées; ceci est typique par exemple dans le domaine de l’eau, malgré les nombreuses réunions interagences qui se sont penchées sur cette question. La plus récente vient de se tenir à New York, je n’ai pas encore les résultats.
Le point suivant portera sur les remarques dans la documentation concernant les variations dans le volume d’approbation de projets au cours des deux cycles de programmation. Il y a certainement un problème. Cela, lit-on, affecte négativement la bonne mise en oeuvre de l’assistance fournie. Au vu des courbes qui nous ont été montrées, j’ai d’abord pensé que c’étaient des courbes de contributions. En fait, il est difficile de dire si l’effet de dent de scie, regrettable, est dû au système de programmation ou au fait qu’en 1975 et de nouveau en 1980, les contributions n’ont pas atteint les prévisions. Il est possible que la combinaison de ces deux facteurs ait joué.
Il faut noter que le système de programmation continue, maintenant adopté, devrait entraîner une amélioration, mais le problème essentiel qui demeure à résoudre est celui des ressources.
Enfin, plusieurs références ont été faites aux relations entre les représentants résidents et le représentant de la FAO. Comme l’a clairement indiqué le Directeur général dans sa documentation, ces relations ont été définies par la lettre qu’il a signée conjointement avec l’administrateur, et nous nous en félicitons. Le reste, ce sont des relations humaines, et, Monsieur le Président, si je peux ouvrir une parenthèse pour commenter sur la petite histoire que nous a racontée Monsieur West hier, j’ai été quélque peu surpris par sa conclusion, car je croyais qu’il allait nous dire que, le représentant de la FAO ayant pu enfin réaliser son souhait de rentrer à Rome, quand il est arrive il s’est fait sérieusement gourmander pour abandon de poste. Car n’y a-t-il rien de pire que de voir le système des Nations Unies représenté dans un pays par un seul représentant, et cela par le représentant du PNUD?
Je passe maintenant à une question plus sérieuse, car il est certain que c’est dans les relations humaines que devra se développer une coopération harmonieuse entre nos représentants. Je sais qu’il n’est pas de bon ton ici de mentionner le mot “coordination”, qui irrite l’épiderme ou provoque les sourires, et pourtant nos représentants doivent faire plus que coopérer entre eux; ils doivent être à même de présenter aux gouvernements qui, eux, ont la prérogative de coordonner, des avis harmonisés. C’est bien le sens des remarques de S.E. Madame Gandhi, quand elle a insisté sur la nécessité d’une approche multidisciplinaire pour le développement.
Je crois que ces remarques montre; combien au PNUD nous attachons d’importance à l’action des institutions du système des Nations Unies. Certes, la coopération technique et ses modalités de mise en oeuvre sont en pleine évolution pour répondre aux besoins des pays en développement, qui eux-mêmes évoluent. Il est probable que les modifications inévitables qu’entraînent ce que le PNUD appelle les “nouvelles dimensions” - exécution des projets par les gouvernements, rôle du personnel national dans les projets, la CTPT - n’ont pas encore pleinement été ressenties. L’important est que ce système s’adapte avec dynamisme. Mais pour le moment, des ressources accrues sont nécessaires. Tout ce qui est dans la documentation et tout ce qui a été dit, prouvent qu’une augmentation de ressources pour une assistance réellement multilatérale est essentielle. Les autres assistances doivent être additionnelles pour le système des Nations Unies, puisque la multilatéralité est sa raison d’etre. La mobilisation de ces ressources pour le PNUD n’est pas un problème du seul PNUD; c’est - et cela est clair - le problème de nous tous. Pour vous qui connaissez l’action que nous poursuivons, il est important que vous disiez que l’augmentation des ressources du PNUD est indispensable, que ce soit partie intégrante de vos conclusions, et cela au moment même où l’Assemblee générale des Nations Unies examine, elle aussi, les activités de ce programme. Le meilleur exemple de l’harmonisation qui doit exister dans ce grand système des Nations Unies, ne serait-il pas que les secrétariats au siège, nos représentants au niveau des pays et les organes intergouvernementaux, parlent avec le même son de voix, pour le développement économique et le progrès social.
Ceci est mon espoir et ma conclusion.
E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme, Budget and Evaluation): In the same humorous spirit I should like to reply to the representative of the UNDP that the FAO representative did not abandon his post and did not get hell as he suggested he should have had. What he left was a desert island to which he was never assigned. The significant thing is he did not say that the UNDP Resident Representative preferred to stay on his desert island.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): First of all a word of thanks to Mr. de Meredieu for his very lucid presentation of the documents that are now before us.
Referring first to the Review of the Food Programme document I have to say that in our view it continues the remarkable tradition of well prepared, frank assessments of the various aspects of field activities, not necessarily only those carried out by FAO, but at the same time providing us with an overview showing, for example, in clear terms the composition of the IDA and whatever is necessary for our first consideration of the FAO field activities.
We feel the material is well-organized in four chapters, Current Trends and Outlook; Assessment of Field Projects - which is a permanent assessment of all such reviews; then Food Crop Production and Improvement; and specially welcome, a chapter on so-called New Approaches.
I will not dwell too much overall on the IDA floor, not because the issue is not important, there is no question of that, but we feel our views have been expressed here and elswhere in clear terms, and we only hope that this very important issue will be given very much prominence in the forthcoming global negotations.
I have only a single concern, that the agriculture share still continues to decline overall for the IDA and is still lagging far behind the internationally agreed estimates.
Here perhaps I could express some regret it has remained stagnant for some years at a very low level, and especially I have in mind the achievement of developing countries in increasing food production in the last decade. When we read they achieved 2.2 or 2.3 percent it becomes clear, to our minds at least, that the support to their own efforts has been at the level which we have all agreed it should have been, then perhaps those countries could have achieved a growth rate very near to 4 percent, which we all agreed was the real minimum.
Turning to UNDP as the still basic centre, which the UNDP representative himself said, of funding for FAO field activities, I would just repeat three main concerns.
The primary concern is of course with the overall bleak prospects for overall UNDP resources in the next programming cycle if the present trends are allowed to continue. It is indeed alarming to see-that under this assumption the next cycle funds could be much as 20 percent less than in the present one, in real terms of course.
We are equally concerned with the share of agriculture in UNDP resources. Here there is a conflict between theory and practice, and in theory I fully agree with what most of the delegates have said, and especially what was said by the UNDP representative. Yes, governments are responsible in the final analysis in deciding the type of project they want UNDP to finance, but in the course of very complex and usually fairly lenthy negotiations between the various parties, and first of all government and UNDP representatives, the influence of the other side of UNDP and agencies to a lesser degree, is very highly emphasized. We therefore hope that the action taken by the Director-General and the very positive response by the Administrator of UNDP and the UNDP Council, as well as the fact that the Director-General recently addressed the UNDP Resident Representatives orally to draw their attention to the really burning food issues, will give fruitful results. We merely wish to place on record our satisfaction with the action taken by the Director-General with regard to Resolution 6/79 and as I have already indicated, we are equally satisfied with the positive response from UNDP and its Administrator. We very much hope that the UNDP Governing Council and the Administrator will continue, as the UNDP Representative especially emphasized, their efforts and will spare no efforts to achieve the 14 percent annual target in the next programming cycle.
We must be concerned with the regular irregularities in the flow of UNDP allocations in the course of a cycle which certainly have a negative impact on the efficiency of FAO and other agencies in general, in the field.
On the other trust funds I shall be very brief. We see prospects that are not as bleak as in the case of UNDP but still we do still see some cause for conern. As we have all realized, I hope, the problem with all FAO action programmes is the lack of resources, and there is no exception. It may be worth stressing again that the lack of resources continues to exist despite the fact that the international community on many occasions, in the United Nations General Assembly as well as elsewhere - I have in mind the WCARRD Conference, the FAO Conference Special Resolution 6/79, WFC Meetings and many others -agreed, and even in many instances specified FAO action programmes and that they required full support. Despite these facts and some indirect support also of IBS, the level of resources continues, as I have said, to be very low and certainly not adequate, in fact highly inadequate, for the activities, that we agreed should be carried out.
We can only hope that the Conference will continue the same action initiated through Resolution 6/79 and will express in strong terms indeed its concern and will urge governments to take all possible steps to increase in general their contributions to the UNDP and to support as soon as possible FAO action proposals.
Turning now to the assessment of projects, we very much value this part which is a permanent one of the review of Regular Programmes. We realize that, though the method is slightly different as compared to the one applied in the last Review, we still have at least some indications of the progress achieved. We specially see the decrease in the number of projects ranked as poor and subsequent increase in the category of satisfactory projects. To a certain degree we are concerned with the first tendency with regard to transfer of skills and we feel that it needs to be very carefully studied.
With regard to the assessment based on the project evaluation missions, we are aware that the purpose of those missions is to call first of all to identify and as far as possible to solve the problems in the field; and secondly to draw the necessary experience and thus improve future programmes and implementation of the projects.
On TCP, though perhaps FAO representatives may have been somewhat biased, still the rank attached to the TCP efficiency is so high that we feel it needs to be stressed again.
Coming now to Chapter Four, which as I have already indicated, we value very highly because it presents some very challenging ideas, I agree with my friend from Sydney that we are aware that FAO has been in recent years in the forefront in all these respects that we now consider as new approaches or new dimensions. There is no question that we are reasonably satisfied with the progress achieved and especially I would like to stress the quite remarkable progress achieved with regard to the experts from developing countries. We are also aware of the progress achieved in the use of national institutions and work done in support of TCDC activities, but in these last two respects we think that we are still at the beginning and perhaps, in the course of the next biennium and subsequent biennia, we shall be able to make much visible progress. Indeed I think that as we indicated in both our Plenary speech and in my first intervention in this Commission this is perhaps the only way to produce lasting effects the way to approach in a less traditional, less classical way, technical assistance and especially give the highest prominence to institutional support projects. It applies equally to the FAO training activities financed out of the Regular Programme.
J. NEUMANN (Czechoslovakia): I wish to inform this meeting about our contribution to co-operation and to the aid to developing countries in the field of periodical organization of training seminars which are held in our country in the frame: FAO/UNDP Programmes for specialists from the developing countries. This year we have prepared a seminar on the woodworking industry with special orientation to projecting and control of integrated woodworking plants. This seminar, held at the Forestry and Wood University in Zvolen for a month was attended by 25 specialists from the English-speaking countries of Africa and Middle East. The theoretical and practical parts were well-combined and the participants visited Czechoslovak forest establishments where they could see modern farms of forest management, as well as some progressive plants of the woodworking industry, including plants for the production of fibre boards and fibre cement boards which were interesting for many specialists from developing countries. During the trips, attention was paid to the problems of wood chemistry. This seminar is intended to be organized either every year or every other year, in accordance with the technical and pedagogical requirements of FAO Centre.
I also wish to note, Mr. Chairman, that we do not intend to confine our efforts related to the training seminars only to the field of forest and wood; we can extend our offer to cover other fields as well.
In the first place, this applies to animal production/protection of the health of farm animals which now has a priority position in the plans of our organization. Therefore we are preparing a seminar on selected problems of veterinary medicine with special regard to the problems of the tropical regions of African countries. This training course is to be held in the summer at the University of Veterinary Medicine in Brno which has all prerequisites needed for fulfilling the mission of such a seminar.
Another seminar is being prepared on the problems of the biological fixation of nitrogen. This theme was chosen in keeping with the attention paid at present by the FAO to the problems of land fund and its further improvement. Our special plant production research institutes and the University of Agriculture in Prague are involved in the preparations for the seminar.
Finally, the close co-operation with the Joint FAO/ECE Timber Committee resulted in the requirement for organizing a training course on the mechanization of the production of forest seedlings which is planned to be held in 1983. During this course we intend to familiarize participants with our advanced forest seed production technology and progressive practices.
R.W.M. JOHNSON (New Zealand): My colleagues in New Zealand have read the document under consideration and have provided the following comments:
One of the major concerns which emerges from the paper is the problem of diminishing resources and the consequent restriction of activity. The effectiveness of investment in projects must be critical in the allocation of these resources. Discipline in selection can only be achieved when there is a reasonable assessment of likely cost effectiveness of that particular investment. There is obviously a greater and greater need to reassess the value of ongoing commitments and to examine quite critically the likely impact of potential developmental opportunities.
As far as new initiatives are concerned, it is not clear whether they replace previous commitments or whether they merely broaden the already very wide area of involvement which is a feature of FAO activity. We suggest greater attention should be paid to restriction of activity and to selectivity in involvement directing the diminishing flow of resources into those particular projects which have potential for positive progress.
As far as internal evaluation is concerned it is pleasing to note the attempts which have been made to analyse performance. In this respect, it is noted that factors over which FAO has some control, that is project design and delivery, tend to perform best. On the other hand, government involvement does not rate so well. We suggest therefore that this factor requires further attention, perhaps along the following lines. Are there available alternative approaches or strategies which could be developed for the countries concerned? Are there factors operating other than the critical shortage of trained manpower? What is the position with regard to the supply and quality of counterparts? Could long-term manpower strategies be developed further? And finally, could criteria be developed for assessing the capability of local contributions and performance?
May I briefly return to the topic of project evaluation which is also relevant to this topic. I believe a metaphor like a “string of sausages” hardly conveys the correct impression of the ranking procedures we seek. I believe we are looking at a kind of infant industry type argument in our aid programmes. We are providing aid to stimulate or catalyse the process of agricultural development. Without this extra assistance nothing would happen; with it some take-off of development or change is initiated.
We could think of development investment as the seed of a legume plant. FAO assistance is equivalent to the innoculent without which the plant will not commence growth. Once the plant is established the plant produces its own nitrogen supply and the outside aid can be withdrawn!
N. J. DORENBOS (Netherlands): Document C 81/4 describes in a clear way FAO’s field programme. The text does not call directly for very controversial issues to be raised, neither for comments on progressive new ideas. This is not meant to be a criticism, but rather a conclusion that the report 81/4 is a reflection of a continuous programme development.
Some specific remarks seem appropriate: firstly, a possible stagnation of the aid funds channelled through FAO. Secondly a UNDP mini crisis or should I say a slowly evolving UNDP crisis before us. Thirdly, and also very important, a reduction in the FAO personnel engaged in projects of 3 to 5 years duration. As regards this latter, it must be noted that in the report a seemingly ‘low key approach’ is taken. On the other hand it is also noted that increasing use is being made of expertise available in the recipient countries. The word self-reliance seems appropriate in this respect.
We wonder if it is correct to observe that within FAO there is a tendency towards increasing the use of short-time, highly qualified consultants, in spite of the more customary 3 to 5 years project approach? For instance, it is stated on page 29 in the report “small scale projects form a large part of the operational programme and which involve short and discreet interventions with clear and immediate objectives”. Also the small scale, short duration projects seen to score higher marks than other projects. In case this trend continues, this may or even must lead to some kind of policy change within FAO’s operation division. It would be interesting to hear in which way FAO will tackle this new dimension, both policy-wise and in terms of personal structuring.
We feel that inadequate mention is made of the subject of project evaluation. There is no mention of what in fact was missing at the project identification stage. Therefore using an expression by an FAO Representative on page 31 “stretched to the limit in coping with a massive aid programme, necessitating a constant stream of missions, consultants and advisers”. This calls for additional comments.
May I turn to TCP now. Of course with its limited resources available TCP is not in a position to supply substantial support to all and every project and to give it a healthy start. However, it is refreshing to note the idea that also now FAO Representatives have the possibility of acting quickly on unforeseen problems and also are able to start small-scale activities with ex-post evaluation. A similar approach is used by the Netherlands for the Embassy where also their ambassador is also able to use a sort of oil can to start such type of activity and I must say our experience has been very rewarding. That is one aspect. But we feel also TCP could be of great assistance by participating upon the restraints and identifying the type of total assistance required. For instance, pre-project activity for large-scale projects could be seen as one of the benefits in which TCP becomes more and more involved. This would not only apply to multilateral projects but also here may be a function for the support of bilateral activities as the Netherlands has recently experienced in the field of fertilizer with Nepal. Again it goes without saying that the FAO Representative, having the authority and the confidence of the recipient countries, must play an important role also again in this identification stage.
J.L.F. BUIST (United Kingdom): You have asked us to discuss two rather different subjects together and inevitably this means longer statements if each is to have full weight. I will begin by looking at the wider horizon dealt with in Paper 28 and its first corrigendum and then go on to questions about the field programmes.
Paper 28, for which we were grateful, concentrates perhaps understandably on questions of direct interest to FAO but it is immportant to set them in the wider context of aid from all sources to renewable natural resources development. We are glad to see from the correcting paper issued that aid to agriculture is still rising fast. Last year it topped $ 10 billion for the first time. I realise that the figures are only preliminary, and for the reason I shall come to they do not tell the full story. But they are nevertheless encouraging and I would not share the pessimism of the Yugoslav delegate who I think described such flow, as stagnating.
Now no one could fail to be struck by the growing weight in the total of the multilateral lending agencies. Their total aid commitments surpass $ 17 500 million every year and their commitments to agriculture alone exceed $5 billion. So it is important that their work should have the full backing of all members, especially at a time when most of them are again seeking fresh resources for new commitments.
As the British Alternate Governor for the Inter-American and Asian Development Banks and the African Development Fund, I am perhaps preoccupied by this question. In all of these institutions aid for renewable natural resources is their first priority, ranging from 30 percent or so to over 46 percent last year for the African Development Fund. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how the developing countries investment needs in agriculture could be met at all without the World Bank, the Regional Banks and Funds and IFAD. So I have some suggestions about how this Conference might encourage these institutions in their work. First, we should clearly call for urgent confirmation from those concerned of the replenishment arrangements for IFAD as these stand after informal discussions on the fringe after the recent IMF/IBRD annual meeting. I share the view of the Colombian delegate on this.
Secondly, all who are members of these bodies, including the more advanced developing countries, should consider how they might help further to enlarge their resources and to concentrate them on the poorest countries. There are two ways of doing this. First by contributing actively as donors; some non-regional developing countries do this, along with us, in the African Development Fund, and some regional developing countries intend to do the same with the next Asian Development Fund; second by refraining from, making calls on scarce concessional resources in these institutions-and I am glad to say that the better-off African and Asian countries, and indeed even India, refrain accordingly in their two regional institutions and there is the same possibility in the Inter-American Development Bank. These efforts make it easier for us and other traditional donors to play our own part. In addition, thirdly, there is plenty of scope for expanding co-financing in a more organized way towards agricultural and natural resources development with new donors and their agencies, where these cannot belong to, or do not wish to join, these institutions. Again the African Development Fund leads the way here. But we should like to see more interest among surplus oil producing countries in longer-term regular arrangements with the Asian Development Bank. This would incidentally help to compensate for the natural variations in agricultural commitments of these agencies of the newer donors which are shown in the documentation.
I said earlier that the tables we have understate the aid which goes to agriculture. That is particularly so for the bilateral DAC donors, many of whom, like ourselves, provide non-project or programme assistance. This is of course available for use in any sector. We should like this Conference to invite recipient countries to devote an adequate share of their non-project aid and indeed of their general external borrowing in support of their agricultural investments.
Turning now to the UNDP, we share the concern of the Colombian and other delegations about FAO’s part in the contracts which have been financed by this Institution. But there is some encouragement to be found for FAO in that its share of the total project expenditure has remained pretty steady over the last four years at about 24-25 percent. However, FAO is clearly losing business to direct contractors and we fear that this is because it is not as competitive as it should be. It is also true that as agriculture is so important FAO ought to have more than a quarter share of the total. But the explanation for the relatively low priority given by individual countries to the FAO projects in their IPFs is not far to seek. As the UNDP observer has reminded us, it is the governments who decide this and they take into account other resources available to them. Among those resources is of course the TCP. The bigger the TCP the more likely it is that a country will turn away from giving FAO proper ranking in its UNDP Indicative Programme. Why should governments bother setting aside UNDP money for FAO when they know that they can get their schemes financed from the TCP? From this point of view the faster expansion of the TCP, for which several delegations have called, could actually threaten FAO’s extra budgetary activities, and as less than 70 percent of the TCP will go to the poorest regions, Africa and Asia, whereas they can expect 80 percent or more of the UNDP, one should be cautious about encouraging a trend which could actually result in FAO losing more on the swings than is gained by its developing country members on the roundabouts.
On the question of the UNDP resources I have much sympathy with the appeal of our Yugoslav colleague and the UNDP observer for greater efforts to reach the target increase of 14 percent a year. As I have said before, increases in budgets for executing agencies like FAO may unfortunately constrain what we can do to help raise the budgets of other agencies, including the UNDP which should be the central focus of all technical assistance in the UN System. We were reassured by the UNDP observer’s firm statement that money was available for all existing approved projects and thus that there was no need for premature termination of the contracts of experts financed from that source.
More generally, we are glad FAO is represented full-time on the UNDP inter-agency task force. We hope that this will help both organizations to work more effectively together in the future. We ourselves endorse the multi-disciplinary approach as usually, though not always, appropriate and we think it gives the best likelihood of successful design and planning to which the delegations of Iraq and Colombia have rightly drawn attention.
I turn now to the Programmes and I will comment chapter by chapter on the Review. On Chapter 1 we, like the Swedish delegation, are glad to note the growing emphasis given to the Field Programmes. Although there have been fluctuations in FAO/UNDP operations, the actual delivery of expenditure seems to be much smoother than the sharp movements in allocations.
The regional distribution of external allocations for FAO field projects given in Table 2, paragraph 1.26, seems satisfactory to us, and especially the increased allocation for Africa from 34 to 37 percent. But we would like to ask the FAO Secretariat if this is really adequate in view of the serious situation that has developed in that continent and which has already been discussed in this Conference.
The balance of allocations to the natural resources sub-sectors, which are set out in paragraph 1.28 and 1.29, seem satisfactory. But it is not clear how these allocations were made. Are they in response to demand from the developing country or as a result of a previously planned FAO exercise? We think that FAO may find it necessary and should be encouraged to select priority areas within the natural resources sector so that maximum value is obtained from the resources available.
On Part E this section is necessarily brief but extremely important as it incorporates technical advances between developed world technology and the developing countries. It would have been useful to have cross-referenced data on the various subject areas mentioned, since this would help to reduce possible duplication of work between donors and aid agencies.
We fully support the FAO/World Bank Cooperative Programme, as this ensures maximum cooperation and a higher level of planning for field programmes and projects.
Now for Chapter 2. This chapter does not pretend to give a detailed assessment of field projects. It admits that any overall assessment must necessarily be selective and that some subjectivity cannot be excluded. So despite the fact that assessments have been made on six standardized performance factors set out in paragraph 2.7, we wonder whether more accurate results might not be obtained by external evaluation of a limited number of projects using much more rigorously defined criteria. I found the suggestions of the New Zealand delegation very interesting on this and hope that they will be followed up closely by the Secretariat.
Like the delegate of Iraq we are encouraged by the frankness of the criticisms expressed particularly in government involvement in the projects and in follow-up in project delivery problems. We feel the assessment based on project evaluation reports which is set out in paragraphs 2.43 to 2,78 has gained more value from being carried out by external assessment teams. The conclusions in paragraphs 2.68 to 2.78 address themselves to the critical difficulties faced by donor agencies in ensuring government support and suitably qualified staff as well as the problems caused by an overrigid definition of projects and the inability to adjust them to changing circumstances. We accept the findings and we wish to draw attention particularly to the difficulties caused by lack of local support in the field.
Turning now to Chapter 3 on Food Cron Production and Improvement, the Twentieth Conference recommended, as I recall, that some detailed case study should be included in future reviews. We are sorry that this has not yet been done and that we roust therefore wait until the next Conference before a similar paper to this is produced. Proper evaluation of the individual elements in the programme is vital. So we would like to see detailed case studies and suggest that the Council could see them at an earlier date than the next Conference. I would like to know how the studies are planned and when they are expected to reach fruition.
We support the general approach set out in paragraphs 3.5 and the four main categories of action suggested. The statements appearing in these sections are very realistic. They make an effort to assess the importance of different kinds of cooperation. They do refer repeatedly to the need for follow-up action and the need for local inputs, which we welcome.
The Secretariat have indicated their intention to concentrate activities in the future on more specific and narrowly defined activity, for instance training of trainers, rather than just training programmes per se. So we are puzzled to find, for instance in Chart 7, that 37 percent of the projects in 1980-81 dealt with general crop development, whereas only 18 percent dealt with the much more specific area of crop loss prevention. We should like to see a shift of activity towards more precisely defined areas of work of this kind. We have some doubts whether general crop programmes covering a wide variety of cereals crops, such as the 31 percent of activity covered in Chart 8, are really in the best interests of either FAO or those that it is assisting.
Finally on Chapter 4, this clearly recognizes the need for developing countries to play a large part in their own development. We shall continue to support greater use of their own capacity in technical cooperation work. We welcome in principle the concept of direct government execution of technical assistance projects in appropriate circumstances; but wherever this approach is agreed we believe that most careful account should be taken of the actual capacities of the receiving governments when planning the project. The developing countries sometimes face a special problem when their own experts are recruited, either for local service or for service in other developing countries. This can leave a technological and management gap in the country of origin.
ISKANDAR DZAKURNAIN bin BADARUDDIN (Malaysia); My delegation would like to commend the Secretariat for the excellent review of FAO’s operational activities as contained in document C 81/4 and questions relating to the financing of these activities as contained in document C 81/28. We support the approach priorities of the field programmes as put forward by the Director-General. However, we would like to make some brief general comments regarding it. The international community has continued to accord priority to agriculture and rural development, but as stated by the Director-General in his foreword to document C 81/4 it is very disturbing that after record levels of field activities reached in 1980 the prospects are that it will decline considerably in the coming years, partly due to the lowering of levels of resources to FAO’s field programme and partly due to the restricted flow of development assistance both from UNDP and other sources. There is no doubt that FAO field activities have benefited many developing member countries in their effort for increasing productivity. While FAO is making all efforts to find possible ways of increasing the effectiveness of field programmes, the negative prospects for the field programmes is of greatest concern to all of us. The slight increase for agriculture in the following programme cycle will be insufficient to meet the demand for agricultural development in the future from the developing countries.
The Review of Field Programmes indicates that continued support is required for FAO to carry on with the programmes and activities which are useful and necessary for the continued development of this sector. Developing countries look to FAO for assistance and guidance, knowing that FAO has the competence and the backstopping required for the planning and implementation of multidisciplinary programmes that are characteristic of agricultural development today. There is every justification that these programmes and activities be given the necessary support. A decline in the Organization’s ability to support these efforts of the developing countries due to the lack of resources would definitely retard the development process of these countries.
We therefore support the appeal made by the Director-General, as contained in paragraphs 39 - 43 of Document C 81/28. As mentioned by many distinguished delegates before me, my delegation feels that as regards Field Programmes, developing nations should be strongly encouraged each to use their own nation’s approach to project implementation. In using the national reserve for project formulation and implementation, the Organization is helping directly the developing member countries in building up their self-reliance in the managerial, technical and administrative capabilities required for the process of developing. My delegation is therefore very pleased to note the success of this approach and hopes that experience in its implementation could be used in. other developing member countries. They could even utilize this expertise in their own TCDC Programmes.
Another encouraging aspect of the Field Programme implementation is the reorientation of its modalities and contents towards the integrated rural development approach. My delegation feels that only through such reorientation would projects be able to complement and strengthen the development process, which covers a wide spectrum of disciplines and is supported by various activities. We are pleased to note also the FAO’s continued determination to give direct support to countries which adopted the rural development approach in their food and agricultural development programmes.
The assessment made on FAO’s Field Programmes indicates a number of weaknesses. However, my delegation is confident that, aware of these weaknesses, FAO would make the necessary improvement based on the experience gained. We therefore subscribe fully to some of the findings of the assessments and hope they will serve as a guidance in all future field programmes.
As we mentioned earlier in our intervention, assistance towards the effort of improving and accelerating food production especially in developing countries should be increased.
Efforts by organizations like the FAO must be strengthened to carry out the field programmes successfully, especially those related to food and agricultural development. It is for this very reason that my delegation gives its support to the activities of the field programmes so that they will continue to improve in efficiency and effectiveness.
Ms. C. McASKIE (Canada): Due to the lateness of the hour, my delegation would like to confine its remarks for the moment to document C 81/4, the Review of the Field Programme, and come back this afternoon with comments on C 81/28,
First of all, my delegation would like to commend the FAO for its work in the field, not only as described in the document before us but as seen personally by myself and by other representatives of my Government. FAO projects have a generally high reputation amongst donor agencies, and FAO experts are well thought of by recipients and donor countries alike. Canadian development assistance personnel receive considerable cooperation from the FAO, both in the field and at Headquarters. FAO is known to our own aid agency as very cooperative, opening its doors in Rome to provide information which helps us in our own project preparation and in cooperating in the field. This, as we see it, is FAO’s proper role as an executing agency for governments through the Trust Funds Programme and for the UN Development System through the central funds of the UNDP and as a professional and specialised agency providing advice on food and agriculture programmes where required and not as a funding agency in itself.
We support the emphasis on training in the document under discussion and the emphasis on the increased involvement of national personnel. Investment in the past by donors and recipients has tended to emphasise capital assistance. It is now recognised, however, that it is the development of human resources and the investment in human capital which will be the critical factor in development. In this connection we note that 30 percent of expenditure on UNDP-funded projects, however, is related to the purchase of equipment. This we would recommend as a maximum, as the emphasis of the programme must remain on technical assistance. We believe that this will be a topic of discussion at the next Governing Council of the UNDP, as this is a problem experienced by all agencies.
On the link between technical cooperation and investment, my delegation would like to add a word of caution. There are a great many pre-investment projects which have been concluded in the UN System which are still waiting for investors for the main project itself. Agencies must be careful in entering into such projects to ensure that follow-on financing is assured. My delegation has read with interest the table on page 81 on the number of field experts currently in posts. I see that in 1981 there are 1,800 experts in the field. Information not given on how many of these are UNDP-funded, but as UNDP funds two-thirds of the Technical Programme, according to Chart 1 on page two, I hope I am safe in assuming that at least 1,200 if not more of the experts are UNDP-funded. We were informed last week that the current funding situation of the UNDP would result in the loss of 400 FAO experts. It would seem from the. figures I have quoted that if contracts last on average two to three years each, then it would be normal practice for several hundred contracts to terminate every year. My delegation would be grateful, therefore, for clarification on this point, particularly since the Observer from the UNDP himself raised the same question. There is, obviously, some confusion in the minds of delegates on the comment that was made earlier.
While we are looking at the Field Programme, it is worth commenting on the support of FAO field administration. I would like to add my voice to all those governments who have supported the work of the Country Representatives of the FAO. What has not been mentioned, however, is the administrative support and the Offices for those FAO Representatives. As stated by my Minister in his statement in Plenary, my Government supports the General Assembly Resolution 32/197 which passed by consensus and which recommended that steps be taken to unify the Country Offices of the various UN development organizations and agencies. Why should both the FAO and the host government, which makes a substantial contribution to the cost pay for separate offices when one single set of offices could house the representatives of all agencies along with the UN Resident Coordinator at some considerable savings and hopefully increased efficiency of communications? Some aspects of coordination can save money rather than cost money.
Finally, I would like to turn briefly to the chapter on Assessments and Evaluation of Field Programmes. Evaluation of the Regular Programme was covered in yesterday’s debate, but as pointed out by Mr. West, there is of course a difference in approach between evaluation of General Programmes and evaluation of specific projects. We are therefore pleased to note the information provided in document C 81/4, Chapter Two, which is evidence of the increasing importance placed on evaluation by the FAO. We must not allow ourselves to become complacent, however. It is our belief that field activities lend themselves to outside evaluation in addition to the internal procedures already being followed, and in this connexion I would like to support the comments made by the delegations of New Zealand and the United
Kingdom. In addition, the next stage of course is how the results of such evaluation are fed back into the system itself. Without such procedures, evaluation can be meaningless and we welcome in this respect the comments in the latter part of Chapter Two.
M. A. M. IBRAHIM (Sudan): First of all, I wish to offer my heartiest congratulations to the Secretariat. They have provided us with an excellent document here, C 81/4. I have a few remarks to make on Chapter One of that document.
My delegation is highly satisfied with the number of field programmes carried out in 1980 and the level of funds allocated for programme delivery. My delegation would have liked the volume of delivery of field projects financed by extra-budgetary resources to have increased in the course of the coming year because of the importance of Field Programmes in developing countries.
Paragraph 1.12 of this document, says that a decline is expected in late 1981 and during 1982. The reasons here are the reductions in the resources that UNDP allocates to the projects. We think that any reduction in these resources will obviously decrease the Organization’s role as regards its assistance for developing countries, and for all these reasons our delegation wholeheartedly supports the delegate who said that there would be disastrous consequences if this reduction in UNDP funds allocated to the implementation of such projects is carried out.
Turning to 1.19, the FAO Cooperative Programme in the Near East region, as our country was one of the beneficiaries of this Programme, we have already indicated our satisfaction with the way in which this Programme was carried out. We would like to thank all the brother countries who have financed the Project which was carried out in conjunction with them. The cooperative programme should be expanded and supported by the necessary funds it needs in order to continue to play its vital role in assisting agricultural development in our area.
In paragraph 1.20 on the TCP, I am sure all acknowledge its successful achievements, all delegates have expressed their satisfaction with the results achieved by the TCP. For that reason we ask that the TCP continue with more and more funds at its disposal.
We would also say that the Government of Sudan wishes to thank the FAO and the Director-General for the very speedy response by the Organization to all the aid requests during various natural disasters affecting Sudan.
Turning to 1.35 and 1.36 on the question of staff, the personnel component, we think that the allocations here will be reduced, we welcome this but if we turn to paragraph 1.39, it refers to equipment purchases, and we think we need to increase the allocations for this item.
Now we go to paragraphs 1.53 to 1.63. The Organization has played a very important role as regards investment. This is particularly important for developing countries which need this foreign capital flow, which is vital to their requirements.
The FAO Investment Centre which has entered into a close relationship with the financing agencies is playing a key role, as we see it, from the developing countries’ angle.
At the end of last October a mission from the FAO Investment Centre came to the Sudan to prepare a project to be financed by IFAD. Here and now I can say my country is particularly grateful to IFAD for the assistance it has given to the Sudan and the allocations that have been granted.
Turning to Chapter Four of this document, the New Approach in the implementation of field Programmes my delegation wishes to support all the measures taken in this respect in assisting the developing countries in the implementation of their objectives for development.
I believe that the Organization gives great importance to this, and I would also say we wish to support the efforts undertaken by the Organization to resort more and more to national staff in the implementation of these programmes.
D.H.J. ABEVAGOONASEKERA (Sri Lanka): My delegation wishes to compliment the Secretariat for the lucid and brief presentation of the Review of Field Programmes contained in document C 81/4.
It contains a very useful in-depth analysis of the field programmes in FAO which covers nearly two-thirds of the total FAO programmes.
The implementation of the Field Programme involves three parties - FAO, the financial organizations, and the beneficiary. It is the degree to which these three parties cooperate which will determine the quality or extent of the achievements. Any shortfall in interests and resources would therefore affect the success of these programmes. The present Review has quite rightly based its analysis on these considerations.
We notice that the choice of topics listed in the document is both important and relevant to the context in which we should discuss the Field Programme.
For example, in Chapter Three on Food Crop Production and Improvement weightage has been given to crop production and livestock development. They are appropriate and in keeping with the priorities given to this sector by developing countries.
In the chapter on Assessment of Field Projects the role played by the FAO country representatives has to be appreciated. This is a new role for them, and we have no doubt their comments would be useful and should be taken note of by FAO, the financing agencies and the recipient governments.
Of course, the most important aspect of any evaluation exercise is the assessment of the impact of these programmes on developing countries. As has been suggested by some of my colleagues, by concentrating on a few common areas where development needs are most acute, progress should be made in the future to enable this review to be more complete and useful to Member Nations.
In the chapter on financial resources available to Field Programmes, we notice that a gradual reduction in resources is forecast. The impact of such a trend on FAO’s work needs no comment.
We also find that the share of UNDP in agriculture has dropped from 34.8 percent to 30.2 percent from 1972 to 1979, and also the share of agricultural projects in the total UNDP commitment has dropped from 85 percent to 74 percent.
I do hope that we will not be made to infer that the importance attached to agriculture by the UNDP is declining. We are hopeful, however, that the current food and agriculture situation in the world will enable those in a position to do so to demonstrate their goodwill and intentions.
R. GARCELL (Cuba): La Secretaría aos ha dotado, entre otros, Sr. Presidente, de tres documentos muy importantes, el C 81/3, el C 81/4 y el C 81/8, los cuales necesariamente se relacionan entre sí.
Al abordar en esta Comisión el C 81/4, llamamos la atención en algunos aspectos que resultan preocupantes. En primer lugar, nuestra delegación observa la disminución que se manifiesta en la principal fuente de financiamiento de los programas de campo, me refiero al PNUD, que ha disminuìdo su participación en los últimos siete años, lo cual en términos absolutos significa una variación de 120 millones en 1973 a 77 millones en 1980, a precios constantes de 1975.
Nuestro país reconoce la necesidad de muchos pueblos de Africa.
En la medida, señor Presidente, que los aportes del PNUD disminuyan en forma relativa y absoluta, esa disminución se registra con mayor intensidad en América Latina, que ha pasado a una participación del 11 por ciento en el bienio 1980-81, en lugar del 15 por ciento que registró en el bienio 1978-79.
Nuestra delegación, señor Presidente, apoya la política consistente en que los Programas de campo no sólo se limiten a los resultados operativos de los proyectos, sino que simultáneamente abarquen el estudio y apreciaciones de los resultados relativos al desarrollo rural integral, siendo ésta una forma de aprovechar al máximo la presencia de los expertos de FAO para coadyuvar a mejorar las condiciones ambientales de los campesinos y pobladores rurales conforme a la Conferencia Mundial de Reforma Agraria.
Los objetivos de los programas de campo deben ser bien concebidos, prácticos y medibles y evitar la experíencia que refleja el párrafo 2.33, cito: “Proyectos generales y vagos”.
Nos satisface observar que a lo largo de todo el documento C 81/4, la FAO describe crítica y autocríticamente los inconvenientes que aún tienen las ejecuciones de los proyectos, entre los que cito: a) Errores iniciales de concepción; b) Metas, a veces excesivas, y en otras ocasiones metas vagas e inconcretas; c) Falta de adaptabilidad de los proyectos a las verdaderas condiciones locales y nacionales; d) Falta de apoyo a los gobiernos, etc.
Confiamos en la labor cada vez más satisfactoria que viene realizando la FAO para solucionar los inconvenientes tan complejos que se presentan en la ejecución de los Programas de campo.
Para terminar, señor Presidente, nuestro país es partidario decisivamente de que sean los propios países en vías de desarrollo los más indicados para determinar y decidir en que invertir los aportes de la FAO y rechazamos las vías de una evaluación externa, que ha sido expuesta por algunos pocos países donantes de nuestr a Oreanización.
P. GUERIN (France): Ma délégation s’associe pleinement aux remerciements adressés au Secrétariat par toutes les délégations qui m’ont précéde pour son excellente présentation du document C 81/4. Ce document a effectivement le grand mérite d’aborder franchement les difficultés rencontrées à la fois par la FAO et par les pays bénéficiaires. Il donne des informations précieuses sur un certain nombre de points et notamment sur les activités extra-budgétaires de l’Organisation.
Le financement des programmes de terrain mis en oeuvre avec le concours de l’Organisation, est en constante évolution, nous le constatons. Les financements extra-budgétaires prennent ainsi une place pré-pondérante dans les activités menées par la FAO.
Les programmes de terrain atteignaient en 1980, 280 millions de dollars environ; ils seront en 1981 proches de 295 millions de dollars soit un total de plus de 580 millions de dollars pour 80-81. Par rapport au précédent biennium, ces mêmes programmes de terrain sont en augmentation puisqu’il y a deux ans le total s’élevait à environ 420 millions de dollars.
Cette évolution en dollars courants constitue tout de même un progrès significatif, et la perspective d’une plus grande priorité donnée à l’avenir à l’agriculture et au développement rural, et grâce aux appels lancés, notamment par le Directeur général, en faveur de cette priorité, devrait permettre à cette tendance croissante de se poursuivre.
Parmi les composantes des ressources extra-budgétaires, le programme PNUD/FAO tient toujours une place de choix. S’élevant à 167 millions de dollars, par rapport à 131 millions de dollars en 1979, il est donc en augmentation sur la période passée.
Ma délégation tient à indiquer à ce propos que la contribution française au PNUD pour 1982 sera en progrès de plus de 26%. Cela répond à l’appel qui a été lancé tout à l’heure par l’observateur du PNUD, et cela constitue la manifestation significative des intentions exprimées par le Gouvernement français lors de récentes rencontres internationales.
Quant au fonds fiduciaire, nous constatons que depuis 1974, il suit pratiquement un processus de doublement tout les trois ans. Il faut sans doute voir dans ce progrès sensible la volonté des pays donateurs d’affecter directement à des opérations sur le terrain les ressources nouvelles qu’ils sont en mesure de dégager.
J’en viens maintenant à différents points abordés dans ce document.
L’évaluation de l’introduction dans la mise en oeuvre des projets des nouvelles dimensions de la coopération technique est encourageante. La tendance à confier davantage l’éxecution de projets ou de partie de ceux-ci aux bénéficiaires, institutions ou organismes sous-régionaux, apparaît bonne, même si, de ce fait, le rôle apparent de la FAO s’allège; car en fait la FAO aura rempli une grande partie de sa mission en donnant aux pays bénéficiaires la capacite de prendre en main eux-mêmes leurs responsabilités.
Le contenu des projets a également changé depuis quelques années. Les experts de substitution en mission de longue durée diminuent en nombre car se multiplient les missions d’appui très diversifié pour des tâches spécialisées. Cela nous semble également aller dans le bon sens.
La composante “investissement” joue par ailleurs un rôle croissant. Le PCT prépare souvent l’intervention du PNUD et du Fonds fiduciaire. Ces derniers permettent la réalisation d’opérations de pré-investissement qui catalysent ensuite les ressources d’institutions et d’organismes financiers.
Cet effet multiplicateur correspond tout à fait, nous semble-t-il, à ce qu’attendent de la FAO les Etats membres, tant bénéficiaires que contributeurs, mais l’apport extérieur d’investissements ne prend sa pleine efficacité~que si du côté du pays d’accueil, tous les éléments nécessaires à la mise en oeuvre et au succès sont réunis. En matière de développement rural, la valorisation des ressources humaines est l’essentiel. Cette action ne peut pas toujours être traduite en termes chiffrés, mais il nous semble que l’impact global pourrait cependant en être évalué.
L’évaluation des projets qui sont présentés avec beaucoup de franchise, je le reconnais et j’en suis tout à fait content, laisse apparaître encore des lacunes dans la conception et la définition des projets. Ceci me paraît assez grave, car les efforts entrepris en matière de formation - et nous sommes très favorables à cette orientation prise par l’Organisation - donc ces efforts de formation de concepteurs, d’animateurs de projets, n’ont peut-être pas finalement été suivis des résultats escomptés. Ne serait-il pas possible d’évaluer les retombées de ces efforts de formation, de voir quels sont les obstacles qui font que les cadres formes par l’Organisation he puissent pas, dans leur pays, donner leur pleine efficacité? D’autres délégations l’ont dit avant moi, mais je crois que e’est un problème important.
Il y a aussi des difficultés, semble-t-il, dans l’execution des projets. Cela devrait être plus facile à réparer. A cet égard, le rôle des représentants locaux de la FAO n’est certainement pas négligeable. Une évaluation de leur action est néanmoins souhaitable. Elle sera possible sans aucun doute pour le prochain rapport, puisque la période de mise en place pour certains d’entre eux sera alors suffisante pour juger de leurs efforts.
Quant au Centre d’investissement, qui joue un rôle essentiel et efficace dans les dispositifs d’ensemble de la FAO, je me demande pourquoi il n’est pas davantage utilisé pour la préparation de certains projets, notamment des projets du PAM. Le PAM fait un excellent travail, et loin de moi l’idée de le critiquer, mais il n’a pas toujours les moyens - je crois qu’il le reconnaît lui-même - de préparer correctement les projets au plan technique. Le Centre d’investissement pourrait jouer un rôle dans ce sens, car il ne faut jamais manquer l’occasion d’utiliser l’aide alimentaire pour l’intégrer dans les projets de développement. Cette approche cohérente est indispensable pour asseoir la production, notamment la production vivrière, sur des bases solides. N’oublions pas non plus que l’aide alimentaire peut permettre de dégager en monnaie locale des financements qui viendraient compléter des financements extérieurs. C’est un problème qui est d’ailleurs évoqué dans ce document.
Pour terminer, il me paraît nécessaire d’insister sur les Recommandations exprimées lors des dernières Conférences internationales, celle de Nairobi sur les énergies nouvelles et renouvelables, et celle de Paris sur les pays les moins avancés. Ces Recommandations soulignent l’importance, en vue d’une meilleure cohérence des actions de la Communauté internationale, de mettre en place des concertations appropriées au niveau des Etats bénéficiaires, par la création de sortes de tables rondes regroupant les différents donateurs bilatéraux et multilatéraux. La FAO, dans les domaines de sa compétence, peut trouver dans ces instances une occasion nouvelle d’affirmer sa vocation d’animateur. Les efforts de ses équipes peuvent avoir, dans ce processus de concertation, la chance d’être multipliés, et elles pourraient également bien sûr faire bénéficier de l’universalité de leur expérience les autres donateurs dans l’intérêt premier des pays bénéficiaires.
Dans le même sens la FAO gagnerait, nous semble-t-il, à se rapprocher encore davantage des organisations régionales existantes et à en favoriser les activités sectorielles sur des thèmes précis. Par exemple pour les pays sahéliens groupés au sein du CILSS: - une action en faveur d’un système d’informations statistiques amélioré, pour l’évaluation des stocks vivriers nationaux publics, privés ou villageois -une étude destinée à une gestion rationnelle des ressources forestières, seraient de la plus grande utilité.
A ce propos,le dispositif décentralisé de la FAO sur le terrain devrait être plus souple et ses moyens répartis en conséquence pour une meilleure efficacité opérationnelle. C’est ainsi que le bureau de Ouagadougou, en Haute-Volta, pourrait voir sa vocation élargie et ses moyens renforcés. Cette ville est en effet le siège de nombreuses institutions régionales, outre le CILSS que j’ai nommé, en particulier de la Commission Economique pour l’Afrique de l’Ouest, dont le rôle dans l’élaboration d’une politique agricole commune au niveau de la région peut être capital.
A. ACUÑA (Panamá): Haremos algunas puntualizaciones, avanzada ya la hora del debate, sobre el documento C 81/4: Examen de los programas de campo 1980-81, que discutimos en estos momentos. Mi delegación confiere a este tema su justa dimensión en cuanto a lo positivo que son las evaluaciones de los niveles y tendencias de las actividades operativas de esta Organización. El documento nos presenta el creciente progreso que ha alcanzado la FAO en cuanto a eficiencia e impacto cada vez mayor de los programas de campo en los países. Este es un hecho de trascendental importancia, y no debemos permitirnos, en ninguna circunstancia, su deterioro.
Consideramos indudablemente de gran importancia la estrecha colaboración entre los Gobiernos Miembros y la FAO, con el propósito de lograr un progreso constante y estable. En esta estrecha colaboración, sin lugar a dudas, ha venido a desempeñar un papel cada vez más creciente e importante, la política de descentralización de la Organización a través de los representantes de la FAO en los países. Estamos conscientes, que el conocimiento real de los problemas de cada uno de los países por parte de estos representantes, constituye una solución rápida y adecuada de los mismos. Países actualmente beneficiarios de estos representantes pueden dar fe de nuestra aseveración. Es por esta consideración que la delegación de Panamá considera pertinente señalar lo peligroso que es el hecho de que los niveles de las actividades de campo lleguen a correr peligro en los años venideros. Nos resulta pues difícil aceptar pasivamente esta situación, ante la gravedad del problema de la producción alimentaria mundial, y en especial, en los países en desarrollo.
Consideramos que no está de más insistir en este peligro, y por otra parte creemos oportuno recalcar la positiva y correcta orientación de las actividades de campo de la FAO hacia la inversión. De igual manera, consideramos satisfactorio el progreso en la aplicación de los conceptos aprobados por la Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural; aspecto éste que debatiremos más adelante en otro tema del programa, y sobre el cual, aceptamos desde ahora que tenemos mucho que hacer.
En estos dos últimos temas, Panamá viene presentando un creciente interés, como lo demuestran las actuales solicitudes de asistencia que se están formulando en esta Organización así como la presentación de unas próximas solicitudes. Deseamos recalcar que a la delegación de Panamá le preocupa grandemente la notable reducción que se viene realizando en los fondos del PNUD destinados al sector agrícola. A pesar de las necesidades y prioridades por todos reconocidas, se considera una reducción real de un 30 por ciento. A este respecto, quisiéramos recordar a esta Comisión que la Conferencia Regional de la FAO para América Latina, celebrada en La Habana en 1980, hizo un llamamiento al PNUD para que realizara un programa regional de proyectos concordados entre el PNUD y la FAO.
La reducción contemplada para el nuevo ciclo de programación pone en grave peligro la posibilidad de realizar los proyectos regionales prioritarios de los gobiernos de nuestra región. También quisiéramos referirnos al hecho de que la parte de ejecución que corresponde a la FAO en asistencia técnica proveniente del PNUD ha seguido disminuyendo e insistimos en este hecho. Esto es lamentable, si tenemos en cuenta la competencia y el mandato que el sistema de las Naciones Unidas confiere a la FAO, y como bien expresa el documento, no existe ni dentro ni fuera del sistema de las Naciones Unidas ningún organismö ni ninguna empresa que tenga la amplitud de conocimientos y experiencia operativos que’ posee la FAO, para ocuparse directamente de los temas implicados, en los países en desarrollo.
Vemos y señalamos con marcada preocupación que en el cuadro N° 2 del documento sobre la distribución regional de las asignaciones externas para proyectos de campo de la FAO, la asignada para América Latina bajó de un 15 por ciento en el bienio 1978-79 a un 11 por ciento en el bienio 1980-81.
Mi delegación si bien acepta y respeta porque comprende las prioridades regionales, abogamos paralelamente a este hecho, que se mantengan como mínimo los niveles logrados, y consideramos que éstas son las consecuencias negativas de presentes y futuras escaseces de recursos. Especial referencia queremos hacer al punto b) del capítulo III referente a la Extensión, Enseñanza y Capacitación. En la declaración de nuestro Ministro de Desarrollo Agropecuario a la Plenaria, señaló cuatro lineamientos básicos de política del sector público agropecuario panameño, y dentro de ello, hizo alusión a este tema puntualizando, al respecto, que debía utilizarse la experiencia acumulada mundial y nacionalmente, respetando los perfiles culturales de nuestros países, de tal manera que se pudiera implementar un sistema que permitiera adoptar tecnologías adecuadas en consonancia con las necesidades alimentarias tipificadas en una canasta básica familiar.
Queriendo señalar además, en este tema y en base a la experiencia vivida, que dentro del tema de la extensión, la enseñanza y la capacitación, se le preste creciente atención al importante aspecto que tiene que ver con las actividades de las comunicaciones de apoyo al desarrollo, pareciéndonos muy importante lo señalado por el distinguido representante de Suecia sobre una más larga duración de los proyectos de desarrollo. Y lo consideramos así porque en la práctica llegamos a comprobar, en no muchos casos, que por una falta de adecuada y previsible duración, no llegan a consolidarse proyectos de este tipo.
Y por último para terminar, con marcada preocupación esta delegación ha escuchado la propuesta de que se hagan evaluaciones externas. Nos ratificamos en lo que expresamos en nuestra primera intervención en esta Comisión II, en el sentido de que la mejor evaluación que se le pueda realizar a los programas de la FAO, a cualquier programa, es y debe ser fundamentalmente con la activa participación de los países beneficiarios, y no por medio de evaluaciones externas, porque de ser cierto, no le hallamos realmente ningun sentido a este tipo de evaluación.
J. DAHL HANSEN (Denmark): Like other speakers before me, I want to congratulate the Secretariat with the documents before us - C 81/4 and C 81/28. Document C 81/4 provides a comprehensive picture and good analysis of the field programmes carried out by FAO in the period 1980-81 biennium and offers an excellent basis for discussing the field activities of FAO in the developing countries.
We attach great importance to these activities and I think this is evidenced by the fact that we are one of the largest contributors to FAO’s trust fund programmes. The total disbursements under our cooperative programme with FAO for the period 1970-80 has been approximately $50 million. The disbursement for this year will amount to a little more than $6 million. This figure represents about half of the entire Danish assistance for projects and programmes undertaken in cooperation with the UN specialized agencies. I would revert to our cooperation with FAO after having offered some comments on the documents before us.
First, as to FAO’s falling share of UNDP allocations. It is pointed out in Document C 81/28 that this trend might be reversed as a consequence of a decision by the UNDP Governing Council to allocate 80 percent of its resources to countries with a per capita GNP of up to $500 million. Furthermore I would like to reiterate what was stated by my Head of delegation in his general intervention in Plenary, namely “that increased contributions to UNDP through a more even burden sharing could prevent that UNDP resources available for execution by FAO would decrease”. Finally, at the same time as we appreciate the initiatives taken by FAO and UNDP to bring about an increased priority to agricultural development in national development plans, I want to endorse the view expressed by the Secretariat in Document C 81/28 that the most important factor influencing the flow of aid to agriculture is the extent to which the developing countries themselves would accord priority to this sector in their development plans and allocations of resources, both internal and external.
With regard to the regional distribution of FAO’s allocations to field programmes, we note with satisfaction the increasing focus on the countries most in need for assistance, and I think in particular of the African countries as others before me have pointed out. We appreciate that this trend is planned to continue in the coming biennium. Furthermore I wish to support the view expressed by Finland, Sweden and others, that priority should be given to the least developed countries.
Now regarding the breakdown by categories, and here I am referring to Table 3 on page 12 in Document 81/4, we wish to express our concern about the diminishing importance of nutrition field activities.
As to the assessment of field projects we agree with the conclusions on pages 44-46 in Document C 81/4, in particular with regard to the necessity of clarity and realism in project proposals, the need for careful preparation, and the importance of support by recipient governments.
This leads me to the ‘new dimensions’ approach in project implementation, a matter to which also our delegation attaches the utmost importance. We welcome the increasing involvement of recipient countries in project management, for example in the form of more government officials from developing countries as project directors. We also want to emphasize the importance of technical cooperation among developing countries, TCDC.
Now, I would briefly return to the so-called multi-bilateral or trust fund cooperation between Denmark and FAO. According to the guidelines for this cooperation, which were worked out jointly in 1978, the cooperation will concentrate on certain specific subject areas in which we, Denmark, have special technical expertise to offer. Furthermore our cooperation will also concentrate on fewer and larger projects. So far we have four areas of cooperation assigned and those are a fertilizer programme, a seed production programme, ticks and tickborne diseases, and a small scale fishery programme. We attach considerable expectation to this new approach of concentration and long-term programming and I think I can say we have already attained good results.
In earlier interventions in Commission II at this Conference our delegation has stressed the importance of training and agricultural extension. Training activities have always played a very important role in our cooperation with FAO. One example of this is the training component which is integrated in, our dairy programme covering countries in four regions, that is Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Pacific.
Finally, I wish to say that part of the documentation before us is dealing with the cooperation between FAO and UNDP. I intend to come back to this subject in a statement which I will deliver on behalf of the Nordic countries under Agenda Item 15 dealing with the relations with other international organizations.
C. FRENCH (United States of America): The United States commends the Secretariat for the useful document, C 81/4, which among other things is much better presented than similar documents of the past. We are especially appreciative of the increased emphasis on institutional building and training. Also the experimentation in the new directions section in Chapter Four and the other programme innovations are welcome. The assessment material is improved and we applaud that. The detailed analysis through case examples is promising and we look forward to seeing that. We found the broad review of field activities concerned with food crops to be helpful. We encourage continued emphasis on field programme evaluation and assessment, using the most advanced techniques, including external evaluation. We think the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand delegations made substantive suggestions on this issue. We liked the emphasis placed on increased involvement of the host country government talent. Also the increasing percentage of field experts from developing countries is encouraging. The increased use of short-term experts as reflected in the analysis of the project in-put mix is supported. We note the management problems of the Secretariat caused by fluctuations in funds and the anticipation that this problem may increase; that seems inevitable. We urge the Secretariat to use the most advanced management techniques to handle this problem as effectively as possible.
Now we would like to direct our remarks to Document C 81/28 which, as my British colleague has said, is of prime importance, primarily to FAO. However, we would be remiss if we did not commend the Director-General’s efforts to strengthen ties between the FAO and the UNDP. Certainly the various efforts outlined in Document 28 are impressive. As noted in the document decisions on the use of UNDP resources are made by the recipient countries themselves, a philosophy with which we are in substantial agreement. Moreover, we are pleased that developing countries are increasingly recognizing the importance of agricultural development to their economies. The food sector strategies that are being developed in many countries should help countries place higher priority on the development of the agricultural sector and thus complement the activities of UNDP and FAO.
A principle objective of United States development assistance is improved nutrition in rural development and over one-half of the United States bilateral assistance programme is directed towards activity in these sectors. As we have indicated in prior sessions we find the analysis of development assistance flows in both document CL 78/21 and C 81/28 to be somewhat incomplete. While this latter report provides figures on disbursement and commitment by OPEC donors there is no explanation why these flows have been eratic, if not actually declining in the 1975-80 period. Also, the data from the centrally planned economies are still not available. Hopefully they will be forthcoming. In the absence of an analysis of ODA flows from the OPEC and any information at all on ODA funds from centrally planned economies, the document provides an inadequate picture of the development assistance picture.
We recognize the difficulty of giving comparable data and for accounting of the resources for development assistance. However, the rather pessimistic tone of this report might be sharply tempered by more complete data. Also it would be helpful in future reports on the resource flows for food production and rural development if we could include statistics on the development resources made available to the agricultural sector by developing countries themselves in their domestic budgets. For example, this could be as was agreed to by all the members in the WCARRD Action Programme.
The meeting rose at 13.00 hours.
La seance est levee à 13 h 00.
Se levanta la sesiôn a los 13.00 horas.
