A. RAMI (Maroc): M. le Président, tout en renouvelant les félicitations de la délégation marocaine pour votre nomination à la présidence de cette Commission, je voudrais également féliciter le Directeur général et ses collaborateurs pour 1 excellente ventilation des programmes de travail et de terrain 1983-84.
Permettez-moi d'aller dans le même sens en citant quelques aspects de l'expérience de mon pays dans ce domaine. En effet, le Royaume du Maroc a pu mesurer à sa juste valeur depuis bientôt trois décennies l'aide des organes de la FAO dans le domaine agro-alimentaire. En plus des interventions du Programme ordinaire, plusieurs projets d'investissement ont été identifiés et exécutés avec la collaboration de la FAO et avec le concours des organismes de financement, notamment dans le domaine de l'irrigation.
Cet effort sans précédent a permis de maintenir l'autosuffisance alimentaire dans le domaine des fruits et légumes et d'améliorer l'autosatisfaction de nos besoins en sucre et en produits laitiers, malgré la pression démographique.
Ces niveaux de production ont été maintenus en dépit des effets de la sécheresse que traverse notre pays depuis trois années consécutives. Au cours des toutes dernières années, notre attention s'est portée sur les zones pluviales productrices des denrées de base indispensables à notre sécurité alimentaire, telles que les céréales et les huiles.
L'intervention du Centre d'investissement, complétée par les actions du PCT, nous ont aidés à identifier plusieurs projets d'investissement dans les zones pluviales et à établir les plans sectoriels de développement des céréales et oléagineux. Ces plans orientent désormais nos actions en matière d'investissement dans ces secteurs. En plus, l'expérience acquise au contact avec les équipes de terrain de la FAO permet à nos propres cadres techniques de formuler et d'identifier de nouveaux dossiers d'investissement, ce qui va dans le sens des nouvelles orientations de coopération développées dans le chapitre quatre.
En conclusion, et à travers l'esquisse rapide du cas de mon pays, la délégation marocaine suggère à votre commission que l'évaluation du programme de terrain gagnerait à l'avenir à être complétée par l'établissement, conjointement avec les pays bénéficiaires, de véritables bilans nationaux de coopération avec la FAO qui serviront de base à la programmation par pays des activités futures de l'Organisation compte tenu des stratégies et des priorités arrêtées.
N.K. BASNYAT (Népal): FAO's Field Programme Review is a very comprehensive document with essential elaborations and statistical support. I must congratulate the Secretariat for this sort of excellent review.
At this stage I would like to submit a few submissions regarding the Field Programme. The Review has very well highlighted the crucial contributions of project management in making the best possible use of whatever limited resources available are at the disposal of FAO, but it is a matter of great concern to countries such as ours, which have benefited well from FAO's Field Programme, that FAO's Field Programme has declined during the biennium 1982-83 and we feel that this should be increased.
Regarding the Fertilizer Distribution Programme, the Fertilizer Distribution Programme must be tied with providing irrigation facilities. Once fertilizer use is introduced, provision should be made so that the farmers get it easily at their door, and in time and in adequate quantity.
The proper marketing of surplus food grains should be supported in such a way that the benefit of surplus produce should not be taken away by the middle men when the farmers institutions, like cooperatives, receive substantial support from the FAO in the developing countries, and if I can talk of my own country where the cooperative has to play a very vital role so far as fertilizer distribution is concerned at the grass root level, we feel that under the Field Programme also the cooperative should be supported.
We also feel that the field programme in itself should be increased in all the developing countries and the authority to the national directors and to project managers should be increased so that they can decide about organizing studies and fellowship programmes and even with regards to equipment.
P. OLMOS MORALES (Uruguay): Mi delegación desea expresar en una breve intervención algunos de los lineamientos básicos de nuestra opinion con respecto al tema que nos ocupa.
En primer lugar, nuestra complacencia por la presentación de este documento, por lo cual felicitamos al Director General y a la Secretaría; realmente ha constituido un instrumento valioso para el análisis de este tema.
Mi delegación desea expresar su preocupación, que ya han señalado otros distinguidos colegas, en cuanto a las disponibilidades de fondos para los programas de campo de FAO. En ese sentido creo que todos los países miembros de la Organización debemos hacer los máximos esfuerzos posibles para procurar una ampliación de los fondos disponibles para estos programas en las distintas formas y posibilidades.
Asimismo deseo expresar nuestro apoyo a los lineamientos planteados en el capítulo 4o sobre novedades en materia de asistencia técnica y cooperación.
Nuestra delegación en el Plenario manifestó su apoyo a los aspectos generales que se señalan en este documento. Merece nuestra especial consideración el acertado análisis realizado de la situación por países.Y en cuanto a algunos de los lineamientos de la cooperación de los programas de campo, mi delegación expresa su apoyo a una participación más creciente por parte de los países receptores en cuanto a la asignación de la dirección nacional de proyectos de campo.
La experiencia realizada y la proyectada en mi país avalan los lineamientos expuestos en el documento. En ese sentido consideramos que es imprescindible una mayor integración de parte de técnicos nacionales a nivel de codirección o de dirección nacional de proyectos a fin de que estos mantengan una adecuada continuidad y al mismo tiempo pueda realizarse una efectiva transmisión de conocimientos y tecnología por parte de los expertos del exterior. En ese sentido nuestra delegación apoya estos conceptos expresados en el documento.
Por último, debemos recalcar nuestro apoyo en lo que se refiere a los programas de campo, al estímulo y a la formulación más estrecha en cuanto a la cooperación entre países en desarrollo. En ese sentido la experiencia realizada en distintos programas ha tenido un efecto multiplicador y catalítico de la cooperación tecnica horizontal entre instituciones nacionales de los países en desarrollo. Por ello nuestro apoyo y nuestra complacencia por las conclusiones señaladas en este capítulo.
N.V.K. WERAGODA (Sri Lanka): We have read with interest the Director-General's Review of Field Programmes for 1982-83. The presentation is lucid and clear, and the Secretariat should be complimented for the very high quality of this report. I wish to make a few specific remarks on the four chapters in this document.
On Chapter One, the most significant message here is the decline in FAO'sfield programmes during the current biennium from its peak in 1981, due largely to a decline in the flow of UNDP resources - the largest single source of support for FAO' activities. The future prospects seem to indicate that this trend will continue.
We are pleased to note, however, that Trust Fund activities will continue and perhaps even expand steadily. We are grateful to those donor countries who have to some extent rescued the field programmes from a further slowdown of activities. We note that the regional distribution of FAO' field programmes has more or less remained constant and we commend the importance attached to the most afflicted region of Africa. We also note that the delivery under the Technical Cooperation Programme has expanded, although it remains small in terms of the total field programmes.
The activities of the FAO Investment Centre have increased during the biennium but wenote from the proposed Programme of Work and Budget that there is a considerable reduction in staffin the Division, presumably due to anticipation of a reduction in the number of projects theCentre will becalled upon to formulate and evaluate.
We note that over the years the Centre has built up an efficient core of professional staff capable of undertaking such work in developing countries, and it would be a pity if maximum use of the Centre was not made due to a decline of resources. We hope that the negotiations which presumably will be continued for the replenishment of UNDP resources will result in a much larger share of resources being allocated to FAO. We say this because since follow-up on projects is very important, the cutbacks on UNDP funds would further jeopardise this situation.
We also appreciate the thrust of FAO's field programmes concerning channelling of resources to enhance food security. In this regard the Food Security Assistance Scheme which commenced in 1976 has served a very useful purpose and we would agree with the proposals made by the Director-General to have country-specific food security assistance schemes which he intends to place before the World Food Security Committee.
The Sri Lanka delegation also noted the recent developments in FAO's technical assistance and cooperation. We agree with the trend for resource surveys and appaisal towards resource utilization management and conservation, as it helps to broaden the area of activity from production to other areas of field intervention. What comes out clearly is that FAO's field programmes concerning agriculture and rural development will in future be impaired by the lack of sufficient resources. We hope that the present shortfalls in resources will be a temporary phenomenon and that all efforts will be made by those in a position to assist developing countries, either through multilateral or bilateral agencies which should respond for the sake of the goals of FAO's programmes to which we are committed.
F. ROHNER (Suisse): Qu'il me soit tout d'abord permis de me joindre à tous les collègues qui m'ont précédé pour remercier M. Lignon de l'excellente documentation que sa direction nous a préparée et de l'introduction très franche qu'il a faite vendredi dernier. Je puis dire tout de suite que ce rapport répond à notre attente et à nos principales préoccupations.
Quant au montant actuel des ressources dont dispose la FAO pour le financement de ces programmes de terrain nous le considérons, nous aussi, comme préoccupant. Le fléchissement des ressources en provenance du PNUD n'est cependant pas dû uniquement à la stagnation, voire à la réduction des ressources du PNUD en général, mais également, me semble-t-il, à la réduction très marquée de la proportion des chiffres indicatifs de planification que les pays bénéficiaires du PNUD réservent aux projets de la FAO
L'explication de cette tendance ne peut, en dernière analyse, être fournie que par les pays récipiendaires eux-mêmes.
L'augmentation des fonds fiduciaires paraît-elle, par contre, à première vue du moins, plus encourageante? Nous nous demandons toutefois si, vu la stagnation générale de l'aide publique au développement international, cette expansion de l'aide multibilatérale n'est pas en train de se faire au détriment des contributions multilatérales pures. Le document sur l'examen des programmes de terrain qui nous est soumis contient, bien qu'il ne soit pas particulièrement volumineux, une quantité tout à fait remarquable de renseignements sur les activités de terrain et la manière dont celles-ci se déroulent. Il y a là, sur une cinquantaine de pages, matière à alimenter un débat d'une semaine au minimum. Je sais que nous n'avons pas tout ce temps à notre disposition, et j'essaierai en conséquence de me limiter à quelques remarques générales et à un certain nombre de commentaires plus spécifiques.
Ce qui nous a sans doute le plus frappés, à la lecture du document en question, c'est la franchise avec laquelle vous faites état des problèmes que la FAO rencontre dans l'exécution de certains de ces projets de terrain. Je tiens ici au nom de ma délégation à en féliciter et remercier très sincèrement les auteurs. Nous constatons avec grande satisfaction l'importance croissante qu'attache la FAO au travail d'évaluation. En plus, les conclusions du chapitre sur l'évaluation nous montrent que les services responsables ont non seulement pris connaissance des problèmes que rencontrent certaines opérations sur le terrain, mais qu'ils sont également déterminés à tirer les conséquences qui s'imposent tant en ce qui concerne la poursuite des projets en question que la conception et la formulation de nouveaux projets du même type.
Ma délégation reconnaît tout à fait l'utilité et l'importance du travail d'évaluation qu'effectue la FAO par les différents représentants sur le terrain, et ceci en étroite collaboration - cela se comprend - avec les directeurs nationaux et les chefs d'équipe de la FAO. L'auto-évaluation a certes des avantages indéniables, mais elle a également - et le rapport qui nous est soumis le reconnaît sans hésitation - d'importantes limitations. Il est donc tout à fait normal qu'une institution comme la FAO, et son service d'évaluation propre, qui effectue un travail nettement plus approfondi et plus détaillé que les responsables directs de l'exécution et du suivi des opérations, ne pourra toujours effectuer qu'un nombre limité d'évaluations par an. Mais il nous semble malgré tout que le nombre de quarante soit, vu le nombre impressionnant de projets en cours, plutôt faible.
Nous estimons par ailleurs que le travail du service d'évaluation ne devrait pas être limité aux projets financés sur ressources extrabudgétaires, mais également porté, sous une forme appropriée bien entendu, sur les projets financés par le PCT.
Pour ce qui est des programmes d'action spéciaux, la Suisse, vous le savez, figure l'ordonnateur -je puis dire traditionnel - elle a notamment participé à la mise en oeuvre des programmes d'assistance à la sécurité alimentaire de prévention et de réduction des pertes après récolte,de l'amélioration de production de semences, ainsi que la formation de gestionnaires de projets. Les contributions de la Suisse, je me permets de le rappeler ici, sont accordées sous forme non liée, principe au maintien duquel nous avions toujours attaché une très grande importance. Nos versements annuels à ce programme se situent actuellement entre trois à quatre millions de dollars par an. Les projets que nous finançons font l'objet de revues régulières entre les services compétents de la FAO et de la Suisse. Au cours de la dernière réunion de consultation qui s'est tenue au mois de mai dernier à Rome, nous avons eu une fois de plus l'occasion de procéder à un échange de vues
détaillé, et je m'empresse de le dire, très fructueux sur les différents projets en cours, et notamment sur les problèmes que certains d'entre eux rencontrent dans leur exécution, et des mesures prises ou à prendre en vue de les surmonter.
Les problèmes qui ont pu être identifiés correspondent en fait assez largement à ceux que nous a cités M. Lignon vendredi dernier. Ils sont en partie dus à certaines faiblesses dans la conception et la formulation des projets, mais aussi, dans certains cas, à la participation insuffisante tant des gouvernements que des populations bénéficiaires. Aussi, les perspectives de suivi ne sont-elles pas toujours apparues comme suffisantes. Cette réunion nous a en outre donné l'occasion de faire le point sur le suivi et l'évaluation des projets où il nous semblait que certaines améliorations étaient encore possibles. Je tiens ici à remercier tous les services intéressés de la FAO de l'excellent esprit de collaboration et du dévouement dont ils ont toujours fait preuve à notre égard.
Nous sommes tout à fait conscients qu'il ne doi pas toujours être facile de répondre à toutes les exigences et préférences des différents donateurs. C'est du reste la raison pour laquelle nous nous sommes toujours prononcés en faveur d'une plus grande harmonisation des procédures relatives aux différents fonds fiduciaires. Aussi avons-nous pris bonne note des efforts que les services de la FAO sont en train de faire dans cette direction, et serons-nous intéressés d'étudier les propositions que la FAO pourra nous soumettre ou soumettre aux donateurs à cet effet. Nous sommes persuadés que ces mesures permettront d'augmenter encore l'impact des différents programmes en question.
M. B. SY (Sénégal): Je voudrais à mon tour me féliciter de la qualité du document qui nous est présenté, le C 83/4. L'intérêt de ce document résulte de l'importance que les pays en développement, notamment ceux situés en Afrique, accordent aux programmes de terrain élaborés par la FAO. Ces programmes de terrain sont, en fait, un compromis dynamique entre une situation paradoxale qui caractérise notre monde actuel et les objectifs légitimes qu'ont certains pays en difficulté. En effet, les difficultés que traverse notre monde actuel résultent d'une série de paradoxes qu'il convient d'analyser correctement.
Le premier paradoxe est que des pays baignent dans une abondance alimentaire et une prospérité économique dépassant souvent leurs besoins essentiels, tandis que d'autres, beaucoup plus nombreux du reste, offrent un triste tableau de souffrance et de misère. La conséquence de cette situation est qu'en réalité à la place d'une politique d'entraide dynamique, concrète et efficace, les premiers, c'est-à-dire les pays nantis, préfèrent s'orienter en priorité vers de somptueuses dépenses d'armements au moment où, dans les seconds, près de 450 millions d'âmes luttent désespérément contre la sous-alimentation et la faim.
Un deuxième paradoxe est que toutes les réunions internationales, de quelque nature qu'elles soient, offrent toujours l'occasion de faire des déclarations d'intention et des serments de combattre et de soigner les maux d'injustice et de sous-développement qui rongent la communauté internationale, mais, en définitive, nous avons l'impression que le mal s'aggrave d'année en année.
Le troisième paradoxe que je citerai parmi tant d'autres que je passerai sous silence et qui ne sont pas moins importants est que tous les Etats s'accordent à reconnaître que la paix dans le monde et l'équilibre de celui-ci dépendent d'une répartition davantage équitable et juste de toutes les ressources dont regorgent certaines parties de notre planète, cependant que l'on constate, au grand mépris des pays pauvres, que, de nos jours, la sécurité militaire et le protectionnisme à outrance prennent très nettement le pas sur les politiques d'intégration par cercles concentriques et de solidarité entre toutes les nations, pourtant seuls gages de notre équilibre.
A la lumière de tout ce qui précède, on peut se demander où va notre monde. Cette question aurait été difficile s'il n'y avait, fort heureusement, des organismes comme celui de la FAO qui s'intéressent d'une manière beaucoup plus concrète et pratique sur le terrain à des problèmes importants de survie et élaborent des projets comme ceux que nous avons à étudier ce matin.
Cette détermination de la FAO, à l'image de son Directeur général dont la déclaration en plénière est une source intarissable de réflexions, â lutter pour aider les pays pauvres à sortir du sous-dévelop mentndémique, à vaincre la sous-alimentation et la faim, mérite donc qu'on s'attarde davantage sur ses projets de terrain pour souhaiter que la tendance au fléchissement des ressources du PNUD soit révisée correctement,et là il est heureux d'entendre, comme l'autre jour, que l'Organisation des Nations Unies a décidé d'accroître ses ressources de 1 pour cent, encore que nous souhaiterions que cette mesure ait un impact réel et rapide sur les programmes de terrain de la FAO.
S'agissant plus précisément de ces programmes, la délégation sénégalaise formule le voeu ardent que de nettes améliorations soient apportées à leur évaluation, que les aides à la sécurité soient renforcées.
Dans le domaine de l'évaluation des projets de terrain, mon avis rejoint celui exprimé par d'autres délégués, selon lequel la collaboration entre les bureaux régionaux de la FAO et les organes compétents des pays bénéficiaires soit renforcée dans le sens de plus de responsabilisation de ces derniers, déjà trop conscients de l'importance des progrès. Le choix des experts mériterait également d'être plus sélectif, de manière à ce qu'ils soient non seulement des hommes très qualifiés, mais surtout imprégnés des réalités et des particularités de leur localité d'intervention. De même, la durée de leur mission gagnerait à être envisagée de manière à correspondre aux nécessités pratiques et techniques exigées par la mise en oeuvre opérationnelle des projets envisagés.
Quant à l'aide à la sécurité alimentaire, deux considérations fondamentales doivent être appréhendées. Premièrement,que l'aide apportée aux pays nécessiteux ne soit plus considérée comme une sorte de charité, mais comme une oeuvre humanitaire indispensable à la survie de notre planète. Seconde considération, l'aide alimentaire est presque un devoir de la part de ceux qui en ont les moyens. La plupart des besoins actuels et des difficultés qu'éprouvent les pays en développement confrontés au système international selon lequel les plus forts ont bouleversé les traditions de vie des plus faibles en leur imposant des besoins qu'ils ne connaissaient pas auparavant.
Sur la base de ces considérations des efforts soutenus devraient être consentis en vue de la réalisation des projets de terrain élaborés par la FAO, notamment ceux relatifs à l'amélioration des techniques de production et à la formation des cadres ruraux et des paysans, afin de leur permettre de prendre progressivement en charge leur propre destinée.
Le Sénégal, en ce qui le concerne - et c'est le cas de la plupart des pays en développement et des pays africains en particulier -, a conçu, conformément aux sages recommandations de la FAO, une stratégie de sécurité alimentaire. Elle consiste essentiellement en une diversification intensive et extensive des cultures vivrières, en des mesures d'incitation à la production agricole, en la mise au point des mécanismes et des modalités indispensables au stockage des produits et denrées alimentaires. Naturellement, les conditions climatiques de la zone sahélienne à laquelle appartient le Sénégal, ainsi que les difficultés économico-financières auxquelles il se trouve confronté, sont autant de facteurs limitants pour la solution desquels la solidarité internationale, à travers les projets de la FAO et l'assistance du PNUD, sera particulièrement nécessaire. En conclusion, la délégation sénégalaise, reconnaissant les efforts importants consentis par la communauté internationale, et notamment par la FAO, souhaite que ceux-ci soient renforcés, afin que, tous ensemble, les Etats construisent un monde beaucoup plus juste et équilibré.
H. MALTEZ (Panamà): Deseamos antes que nada expresar a la Secretaría, como ya realizado por otras delegaciones, nuestra complacencia por la presentación del documento en examen y añadir que, gracias a su forma y contenido, nos ha sido posible conocer la evolución y las tendencias de las actividades operacionales de los Programas de Campo para el bienio 1982-83 de manera ágil y clara.
La Delegación de Panamá participa en esta ocasión no sólo con el objeto de expresar su aprobación y apoyo al documento anteriormente citado, sino también para efectuar algunas consideraciones de orden programático y conceptual a tal propósito.
En primer lugar deseamos manifestar nuestra preocupación por la marcada tendencia a la reducción de las actividades de campo como resultado directo de una sensible disminución de las contribuciones con que se financian dichos Programas. Se trata a nuestro juicio de una circunstancia que mueve a serias reflexiones teniendo en cuenta la situación alimentaria de muchos de nuestros países en desarrollo, los esfuerzos realizados en tal sentido y la fe y la esperanza puesta - como hemos tenido ocasión de observar en las intervenciones de los países beneficiados - en la ejecución de los Programas antes mencionados por parte de la FAO.
Nuestra delegación ya ha señalado anteriormente, en esta reunión y en otras, su preocupación por una posible exagerada tendencia hacia el bilateralismo de parte de algunos países en lo referente a las actividades de campo y quiere en esta ocasión recalcar la importancia que, a nuestro juicio, merece el principio de la interdependencia global en la solución de los problemas particularmente los que se refieren a la producción de alimentos y al concepto de seguridad alimentaria.
Deseamos además aprovechar la ocasión para manifestar que, fieles a nuestra tradiciony principios, desaprobamos todo intento de utilizar las necesidades de los países en desarrollo, especialmente las alimentarias, como elementos de presión en el rejuego de la política internacional y que consideramos tales circunstancias como peligrosas para la lucha contra el hambre en el mundo y para la paz entre las naciones.
La Delegación de Panamá, sin embargo, siguiendo la política tradicional de su Gobierno, confía en la capacidad de los pueblos para encontrar soluciones dignas a los problemas de tipo económico, financiero y político necesarias para combatir el flagelo del hambre y las dificultades inherentes al desarrollo.
Es dentro de este contexto de lo hasta aquí considerado que exhortamos a los países desarrollados y tradicionalmente contribuyentes a encontrar dentro de la actual situación de crisis las fórmulas que les permitan continuar aportando y aumentar progresivamente sus contribuciones a fin de que los Programas de Campo regresen a la tendencia que caracterizó el bienio anterior.
M. NIETO Y LARA (Cuba): Permítame que felicite al Director General y a la Secretaría por el valioso documento que nos ha presentado de forma excelente.
Muy brevemente queremos exponer que nuestra delegación se suma y apoya los criterios planteados por otros Delegados respecto a la reducción de ayuda al desarrollo a través del Programa de Campo. La reducción de los fondos del PNÜD ha obligado en la mayoría de los casos a limitar y a dejar de incrementar los proyectos prioritarios para los países en vías de desarrollo, lo que, sin duda, contribuirá a agravar la situación actual.
Nos parece que, si realmente se desea ayudar al desarrollo de los países de bajos ingresos, esta ayuda debe hacerse a través de la vía multilateral que no implica compromiso de carácter político y para ella FAO y el PNUD han demostrado ser vehículos idóneos.
Es preocupante que, al igual que expreso el distinguido Delegado de Colombia, la falta de aportaciones al FIDA, Organización que ha visto reducidos sensiblemente sus fondos y en consecuencia sus operaciones destinadas a la incrementación de proyectos en su casi totalidad serán dedicados a la seguridad alimentaria y al desarrollo rural. Es sabido que uno de sus principales contribuyentes no ha situado los fondos comprometidos propiciando un estancamiento en las actividades del FIDA lo que no se justifica en modo alguno.
Nuestra delegación considera muy útil aumentar la participación de expertos e instituciones nacionales por cuanto ello permite un mejor conocimiento de las realidades y hacer un uso más eficaz de los fondos disponibles, a la vez que se propende a la elevación técnico-científica de los elementos nacionales.
En nuestra opinión, la cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo constituye un campo muy amplio en el cual hemos avanzado apenas y el" cual es necesario desarrollarlo y fortalecerlo. Nuestro país está dispuesto a apoyarlo plenamente.
Tal como expresara nuestra delegación en el Plenario, Cuba ha puesto a disposición de los países en vías de desarrollo sus experiencias con un alto espíritu de solidaridad. En la actualidad más de catorce mil colaboradores civiles cubanos que incluyen médicos, constructores, maestros, ingenieros, economistas y técnicos de otras especialidades prestan su servicio en más de treinta países gratuitamente, en la mayoría de ellos, y más de diecinueve mil jóvenes procedentes de ochenta países del Tercer Mundo estudian en nuestro país. Esto constituye un ejemplo de lo que puede hacerse basado en una política de principio solidario y respeto mutuo.
La alternativa de la CTPD es incuestionablemente una alternativa viable que merece todo nuestro apoyo dado que, si un país como el nuestro no dispone de fondos financieros, puede hacer su contribución al desarrollo de otros países con sus experiencias y recursos humanos.
H. MAURIA (Finland): First I want to join all the other speakers who have commended the document before us. It is continuing the long series of excellent reviews of field programmes published by FAO.
The field programme activities have always been considered as the main thrust of the multilateralaid in terms of technical assistance to developing countries. FAO'sfield programmes have shownover a long period of time a growing trend, which has been highly appreciated by all member countries.
Now, however, the present biennium is witnessing a marked shortfall in the volume of UNDP resources and a clear drop in UNDP allocations to FAO.
This is in our view a most worrying development in view of the deteriorating food situation of many developing countries and the mounting challenge of food security. The Secretariat has also indicated in the document the scope of the problems that will face the field programme work in consequence of the decrease in extra-budgetary funds.
My Minister stated last week in Plenary that Finland in accordance with its consistent policy regarding the UN system as a whole has increased its pledge to UNDP. We see that this on the part of many other countries should be a very necessary measure.
Concerning the trends of extra-budgetary resources, we welcome very much the steady increase in the volume of Trust Fund resources. My Government has been participating actively in the multi-bilateral cooperation with FAO for a number of years.
We note with satisfaction the reported increase in the investment activities of FAO, which has led to more projects financed and investment generated. Accordingly we support the efforts to build up the pipeline of potential investment projects.
Finally I want to say that we attach great importance to the assessment of field projects explained in Chapter Two of the document. The information provided here is illuminating and to the point and we thank particularly the Secretariat for this valuable information. The report shows that most projects are subject to continuous examination of facts. The results of the assessment process are very interesting, revealing the kind of problems occuring in the field work and the rate of performance of the projects. We support the assessment work and would like to see the work being further improved and deepened, and we would ask the Secretariat to utilize all experience deducted from the process to further benefit the field programmes.
A. HAMZA (Saudi Arabia) (original language Arabic): In the name of God, the Merciful and the Compassionate, I would like to thank you for giving the floor to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and I should like to thank the Organization and all those who contributed to the fine preparation of this document which contains the review of the field programmes.
Last week a number of speakers indicated the fact that the field programmes were suffering from cut-backs in UNDP resources, which are the main source of funding for the field programmes, as indicated in the document itself.
The delegation of Saudi Arabia would like to see concerted efforts to encourage donor countries to continue to support the programme. My delegation also supports the efforts to expand Trust Fund projects through bilateral or multilateral assistance, because these approaches have proved their value.
On page 12 the report indicates that the agricultural sector accounts for over three-quarters of the field programme's expenditures, but since most of these crops are subject to pests and diseases my delegation would like to see stress made on the pest and disease control programmes by increasing the expenditure on research in this field.
Mr Chairman, many countries may not lack the necessary resources for food production if efforts are made to exploit those resources properly. The national development of the agricultural sector in every country is the most efficient way of achieving food security, but these countries need skilled labour and modern technology. My delegation hopes that the future field programmes will include more of these components and that national skills will play an important role in this field.
E. MARTENS (Belgique): Je voudrais féliciter le service qui a produit un document d'une si haute qualité tant du point de vue de la forme que du contenu et de la présentation.
L'examen de programmes de terrain a retenu toute notre attention, et ma délégation voudrait faire les remarques suivantes.
D'abord, les répercussions des réductions de ressources du PNUD nous inquiètent beaucoup, mais plus spécialement la tendance vers la baisse de la part affectée au financement du programme FAO/PNUD. L'allocation des fonds du PNUD est tombée de 30 pour cent à 21,7 pour cent pour le biennium 1982-83. La délégation suisse a très bien expliqué cela. L'augmentation des fonds fiduciaires a partiellement neutralisé cette perte.
L'importance des fonds extra-budgétaires pour les activités de la FAO est essentielle: ma délégation regrette une fois de plus que les données pour 1982-83 n'aient pas été incorporées dans les tableaux du Programme de travail et budget pour 1984-85, afin de permettre une comparaison de leur évolution, plus particulièrement au niveau de la répartition par programmes et sous-programmes.
Les fonds extra-budgétaires représentent 59 pour cent des prévisions totales des fonds pour 1984-85, et plus de 90 pour cent de ces fonds extra-budgétaires seraient affectés aux programmes techniques et économiques, constituant ainsi la base des programmes de terrain.
Dans le cadre des priorités, ces fonds extra-budgétaires pourraient nous fournir un indice.de l'orientation qu'elles devraient prendre. L'interdépendance des programmes ordinaires et des programmes de. terrain ne peut pas être négligée. Il n'est pas exceptionnel que des limitations imposées par le Programme ordinaire ne permettent pas toujours d'utiliser pleinement les ressources extra-budgétaires et d'effectuer les surveillances requises.
Dans cette optique, il nous paraît assez difficile de traiter les programmes séparément.
En faisant l'examen de l'allocation des fonds extra-budgétaires, il en ressort une importance accrue donnée à l'agriculture, au développement rural et aux forêts. Les prévisions pour 1984-85 vont dans le même sens, mais les priorités du Programme ordinaire ne convergent pas tout à fait avec celles de ces fonds.
Je voudrais me référer tout particulièrement au Programme des forêts.
Quoique le niveau des fonds extra-budgétaires indique déjà une importance accrue et que des cris d'alarme au forum international aient été lancés pour la conservation, la restitution et le développement de cette ressource vitale, il ressort que les forêts ne reçoivent pas encore toute l'attention qu'elles méritent. La forêt constitue pour environ 2 milliards de personnes, ce qui représente près de 2/3 de la population des pays en voie de développement, la seule source d'énergie, principalement sous forme de bois de feu. Dans une période où le coût d'autres sources énergétiques ne laisse guère de choix aux utilisateurs du bois de feu, ce problème s'aggrave de plus en plus et l'écart entre l'offre et la demande s'agrandit chaque année.
Dans l'étude "Agriculture: Horizon 2000", il est mentionné que les forêts et les plantations forestières joueront nécessairement un rôle plus important que par le passé dans l'accroissement de la production vivrière et qu'elles apporteront une contribution encore plus grande à la production agricole. Les systèmes d'agro-foresterie intégrée offriront des possibilités intéressantes de tirer davantage de nourriture des zones boisées comme l'indique la même étude.
Une nouvelle dimension est ajoutée par les actions menées dans le cadre du sous-programme Développement agro-sylvo-pastoral. J'espère sincèrement que notre préoccupation de voir attribuer une plus haute priorité au Programme des forêts ne restera pas inscrite dans le désert, le même désert qui, par manque d'une attention plus poussée, risque de s'étendre encore davantage si l'on n'intervient pas dans l'immédiat.
En raison de l'importance que la foresterie peut revêtir dans le cadre du développement rural, ma délégation appuie totalement et sans réserves l'accent qui a été mis tant par le Conseil de la FAO que par la Conférence des Nations Unies au sujet des sources d'énergie nouvelles et renouvelables, notamment sur le programme intitulé: La forêt au service du développement rural. L'accent qui est mis sur le rôle de la femme dans ce même programme reçoit toute notre attention.
Toutefois, ce programme tellement vital ne paraît pas encore trouver une place correspondante à l'intérieur du grand Programme des forêts.
Mon gouvernement se félicite de sa participation concrète aux activités de ce programme.par le biais du financement d'un projet de reboisement aux îles du Cap-Vert. J'ai pu constater moi-même l'impact et l'effet qu'une telle action peut susciter dans une zone écologique caractérisée par des conditions tellement adverses de pluviométrie qu'on les croirait impossibles.
Enfin, je veux mentionner que notre contribution à ce seul pro-jet pour 1982-83 représente déjà plus de 10 pour cent du montant total des ressources extra-budgétaires attribuées aux programmes de forêts au service du développement.
Le fait que mon intervention a été plutôt concentrée sur le Programme des forêts ne veut nullement dire que ma délégation néglige l'importance des autres programmes. J'ai déjà fait allusion dans une intervention antérieure aux programmes et activités qui attirent notre attention particulière. Je veux quand même les énumérer une fois de plus, ne serait-ce que pour insister sur leur importance: en premier lieu, le Programme d'assistance à la sécurité alimentaire; le Programme engrais mais avec un accent spécial sur les intrants connexes; la prévention des pertes alimentaires et la protection des végétaux en général; la commercialisation agricole et le crédit; le développement forestier.
C'est grâce à nos contributions complémentaires, sous forme de fonds fiduciaires, que nous pouvons participer plus directement et plus activement à la plupart des programmes de terrain que je viens de mentionner. Les dépenses d'exécution pour le biennium 1982-83, financées sur nos allocations fiduciaires, peuvent être estimées à plus de 16 millions de dollars, ce qui représente au moins 5 pour cent du total des fonds fiduciaires alloués à la FAO.
Pour conclure, quelques observations isolées.
D'abord, l'augmentation des opérations de secours d'urgence au détriment de l'aide au développement nous inquiète, et surtout l'influence que cette tendance peut avoir sur le PCT.
La formule de l'évaluation des projets de terrain par les représentants et par les examens extérieurs reçoit notre appui.
Le renforcement de la sécurité alimentaire par une approche intégrée nous est une décision qui a tout notre soutien, ainsi que l'application du programme au niveau des pays.
Nous regrettons que bon nombre de projets aient des difficultés de reprise par les gouvernements bénéficiaires. L'identification des projets et surtout leur formulation finale devraient probablement prendre beaucoup plus en considération la capacité d'absorption du bénéficiaire.
C. VIDALI CARBAJAL (Mexico): Muchas gracias, señor Presidente. Nuestra delegación apoya el informe presentado sobre los Programas de Campo con el documento C 83/4. Manifestamos nuestra profunda preocupación, como lo han hecho numerosas otras delegaciones, por la disminución de la corriente de recursos del CTPD, que ha afectado a las actividades de campo de FAO, y que las entregas a los fondos fiduciarios no han podido compensar. Dicha tendencia desfavorable debe revertirse, porque los Programas de Campo tienen una relevancia fundamental para procurar, entre otros, elementos importantes para la asistencia necesaria de seguridad alimentaria en los países en desarrollo. Las evaluaciones realizadas del Programa de Campo han sido positivas y no vemos por qué deba castigarse un Programa que ha operado con eficiencia, reduciendo las entregas que recibe.
Nos congratulamos de que las actividades del Programa se enmarquen en las políticas para las estrategias regionales y nacionales de los países receptores, lo cual es apuntalado por las Oficinas Nacionales y Regionales de FAO, que demuestran nuevamente su utilidad indiscutible.
Por último, señor Presidente, el cambio del concepto de asistencia técnica al de cooperación técnica nos parece sumamente pertinente pues permite una participación más directa de los países en desarrollo receptores en la ejecución de las actividades de los programas además de fomentar la cooperación entre los mismos países en desarrollo.
J.M. SCOULAR (United Kingdom): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to congratulate the Secretariat yet again on a very good and useful report. I would like to go through the report briefly Chapter by Chapter, if I may.
On Chapter One, we fully support the continuing and growing emphasis on Africa in the regional distribution of field programmes. We have already spoken in Plenary of the grave problems there, and of our current concentration of our Aid Programme on that continent.
On Chapter Two, we find Chapter Two of great interest to the United Kingdom, especially because it sets out a technique of subjective assessment of projects which we are about to try out on our own evaluation reports. Our criteria are rather different, I understand, from those set out here, but it is very interesting to see someone else trying to tackle this very difficult problem in a very similar way. We in the UK and the FAO face very much the same sort of problem here, and, therefore, commend FAO'stempt todo something which is inherently very difficult.
We appreciate the effort also in this Chapter to examine the projects on a qualitative basis, but we note the different results obtained from FAO Representatives on the one hand, and FAO's Evaluation Service on the other. We have a high regard for FAO' Evaluation Service. We think that the results brought out in this paper underline two points: first, that people directly involved in a project are not always, perhaps, the best people to evaluate it. This is not surprising. And, second, that there is a case to be made, very often, for external evaluation.
It is also perhaps a little unfortunate that the criteria used by the Evaluation Service are slightly different from those used by the FAO field staff. It would be easier to compare the two approaches if similar sets of criteria were used. We appreciate the problems involved in this, of course.
We also looked at the evaluation of the 77 projects, which in the great majority of cases were still ongoing projects. Rural development projects have an impact over a considerable period of time, and it must affect the value of the evaluation department's work, as the evaluations are carried out before even the capital phase has been completed. We would like, therefore, to see some evaluation assessments carried out some years after the project has been implemented, to get the longer view.
The comments in the text about the lessons to be learned from the evaluation of these 77 projects are very useful, but we suggest that a more comprehensive report might be carried out at a later stage, with the emphasis on the lessons that are learned, and the action that FAO has taken to implement its findings.
To turn now to Chapter Three, we agree with the need for reappraisal of food security concepts and approaches. The new definition of Food Security, in para.3.5, and I quote "all people at all times having both physical and economic access to the basic food they need", and the three specific aims needed to achieve this objective: control of production, stability of markets, and access to markets, are valuable in their simplicity, but there are, of course, deep-rooted complexities in the actual problems.
In this Chapter also, the recent inclusion of assessment of the potential of rainfed-crop-production is, in our view, an important step forward, but we must remember that projects of this kind merely provide planning tools for further action. There is a risk that they may come to be seen as an end in themselves.
FAO are also correct in highlighting the importance of improving food crop seeds, in paragraphs 3.14-3.19. It would be valuable here for FAO to indicate the far-reaching benefits that the simple selection, multiplication and distribution of local improved materials can have in this programme.
M.E. JIMENEZ ZEPEDA (El Salvador): En primer lugar deseamos expresar nuestros agradecimientos a la Secretaría por el excelente documento que somete a nuestra consideración.
El documento C 83/4 nos indica desde su inicio la situación lamentable en que se encuentran los programas de campo de la FAO al señalar que los mismos han disminuido notablemente en el presente bienio como consecuencia de la reducción de los recursos del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo, situación que preocupa fundamentalmente a nuestra delegación y a la cual no le vemos una solución a corto plazo, a menos que se tome conciencia de la importancia y conveniencia de la ayuda multilateral evitando incrementar las desviaciones de los recursos hacia la ayuda bilateral.
La continuación de esta tendencia será desastrosa para los países en desarrollo, para los cuales los programas de campo de la FAO representan un elemento importante en sus respectivos planes de desarrollo.
Afortunadamente, tal como menciona el Director General en su prólogo al documento, la entrega con cargo a fondos fiduciarios ha continuado aumentando durante el bienio y ello ha permitido contrarrestar en parte los efectos negativos de la disminución de los fondos del PNUD.
Con relación a dichos fondos fiduciarios, compartimos totalmente la opinión expresada por el distinguido delegado de Colombia y nos complació asimismo lo mencionado por el distinguido delegado de Dinamarca a este respecto.
La delegación de El Salvador estima que, a pesar de la difícil situación financiera con que nos enfrentamos, la FAO ha sabido orientar sus programas en forma adecuada, permitiendo obtener el máximo posible dentro de estas limitaciones. Por ello aplaudimos el apoyo que la Organización proporciona a la cooperación técnica entre países en desarrollo. En nuestra opinión la FAO debe continuar fomentando esta cooperación permitiendo de esta forma que los países en desarrollo tomemos nuestras propias decisiones que nos lleven a alcanzar el nivel de desarrollo deseado. Ello posiblemente contribuirá a evitar algunas de las dificultades con que tropiezan los proyectos, tales como la insuficiencia en el apoyo gubernamental requerido para la apropiada ejecución de los mismos.
La especial atención que la FAO dedica a proyectos de campo destinados a contribuir con la seguridad alimentaria merece nuestro más entusiasta apoyo y ratificamos nuestra identificación con el nuevo concepto de seguridad alimentaria presentado por el Director General, así como al programa de acción propuesto.
Sin embargo, no podemos menos que lamentar que nuevamente dificultades de tipo financiero frenen los esfuerzos de la FAO en este importante campo de acción.
Queremos insistir en la conveniencia de utilizar cada vez más expertos provenientes de países en desarrollo, fomentando de esta menerala capacitación de nuestros técnicos.
Asimismo deseamos insistir en el uso de directores nacionales de proyectos; estimamos que de esta manera los resultados que se obtengan serán más fructíferos al trabajar con un mejor conocimiento de las realidades específicas de cada uno de nuestros países.
Para concluir, queremos unirnos a lo expresado recientemente en forma tan acertada por el distinguido delegado de Bélgica en cuanto a la importancia que debe darse al desarrollo forestal; compartimos plenamente:su preocupación y solicitamos a la FAO continúe los esfuerzos en esta actividad básica.
G. ERICSSON (Sweden): As the Director-General said in his introduction, the Review of Field Programmes has traditionally met with interest and provided for a constructive dialogue in the Conferences. The analysis presented has given us a possibility to discuss how to adapt development cooperation to the everchanging situation in the countries and in the relation between the partners in that cooperation. The paper before us gives again a good basis for such a debate, and the Swedish Delegation will commendthe Secretariat for the comprehensive analysis before us now.
Our comments will refer to Chapters One, Two and Four. Let me say from the beginning that we can subscribe to and support what is said in the document. In many cases it gives valuable complementary views to our experiences from bilateral cooperation. I will restrict myself to some comments of a more general nature, mostly underlining what is already said in the document.
Chapter One, and to some extent Chapter Four, deals with the resource situation. We are concerned too at the negative trend in UNDP resource allocation. We urge donors which now channel a comparatively small portion of their total flow of aid via UNDP, if possible to increase that portion. As bilateral donors we normally cooperate with a restricted number of countries, too often the same countries. The global nature of the UN operations is a guarantee for a more fair global coverage.
The FAO share of the UNDP resources has been declining during a number of years. It has to be said again that this to a great extent goes back to the developing countries and their choice of priorities when it comes to the utilization of the UNDP country frame. With the possible increasing priority on agriculture and rural development, after a period of oer-emphasis on the modern urban sector, there should be possibilities to regain some of what has been lost of UNDP resources to FAO activities.
The shortfalls in UNDP resources have up to now considerably been compensated by increasing allocations on a Trust Fund basis. The Trust Fund allocations can be classified as follows:-
On the one hand they are used for global or regional activities in support of selected sub-programmes in the Regular Programme. The resources in the Regular Programmes function as seed money, as is said in the introduction to the Review of the Regular Programme. The extrabudgetary resources strengthen the capacity of the Organization to create awareness of the problems and to spread knowledge of strategies and methodologies to overcome them.
On the other hand the Trust Funds are used for national development projects financed from bilateral donors, so called multibilateral, or financed by the country itself from its own resources or from resources set aside by financing institutions, primarily development banks. These are so called unilateral Trust Fund projects.
The Swedish cooperation with FAO on the Trust Fund basis which began during the Sixties, was from the beginning in the form of multibilateral projects. As our bilateral development cooperation grew and took the form of long-term cooperation with a selected number of countries, so called Programme Countries, we were forced to increase our own management resources in a decentralized way by establishing SIDA Offices in the Programme Countries. We were thus able to take the full responsibility for the execution of the Country Programmes and the multibilateral part of our co operation with FAO has gradually decreased. But it has been compensated up to the very last years by increasing funds to global and regional activities, among them the Special Action Programmes, and we do hope that we will be able to keep this extrabudgetary support at about the same level as now.
Our aim with this support has to a certain extent also been egoistic. The FAO, as the global focal point for agriculture and rural development with a vast knowledge and experience and high professional capacity, is in a better position to solve problems and devise strategies and methodologies, and to get them spread to the benefit of the developing countries and bilateral agencies. Thus we have been able to draw upon the results from this cooperation in our bilateral activities.
I have elaborated on this issue because we feel that this may indicate a changed role of FAO, even more of a consultative nature. The time may now be ripe for a more serious discussion on co operation between FAO and the bilateral agencies whereby FAO provides consultancy input in the formulation, appraisal and evaluation of bilateral projects. The complicated procedures to reach agreement via Trust Fund arrangements have not worked in favour of such a development. This issue is dealt with in para. 1.32 and 1.33 where it refers to the importance and promising increased co operation with the development banks. We strongly support all measures to overcome these difficulties. Simple procedures will be crucial to FAO's ability to adapt to the changing situation.
Mr Chairman, I have so far dealt with the resource situation, different ways to try to increase the flow of funds to agriculture and rural development as well as aspects on how to make the role of FAO even more efficient in that process, but even with the best will it still seems that we will have to live with a stagnant resource flow for years to come due to the global recession, at least in the medium-term perspective. In that situation the problem has to be tackled also from another angle - how to make more efficient use of existing resources. The issue is dealt with in both of the two Reviews. It refers to the whole spectrum of development cooperation from the careful selection of relevant projects, taking into account the diverse situation in the country as has been described in the document, the proper design based upon realistic goals and precise objective, efficient management and a monitoring evaluation process as a tool for continuous planning and, if needed, flexible redesign. In the selection of projects of all types the WCARRD principles have to be applied to the extent possible. The implications for the target groups, as identified in the WCARRD Action Programme has to be kept in sight.
The issue of our absorbtive capacity figures in the Review of the Field Programmes, I would say again, as this was often brought up in our discussions some years ago, the reference is to weaknesses in the institutional set-up and manpower resources in some developing countries. I would like under this heading also to include the economic absorbtive capacity of the country itself to absorb technical assistance and investment projects. In the selection of projects much more awareness must be excercised, awareness of the burden on the national economy as a whole, during the implementation and especially in the long-term perspective. "Burden" in this case means the continuous need of local financing over the government budget, but even more the need for foreign exchange from the countries' own resources to cover operations.
Lastly, Mr Chairman, we want to give our full support to what is presented in Chapter Four, section D - From Assistance towards Cooperation in Field Projects. We have for a long time argued that all projects are the countries' own projects supported to a bigger or lesser extent by resources from outside. We have thus been in favour of full government execution. At the same time we have recognized that FAO has been moving ahead of other UN organizations in that direction. We note with satisfaction that the Secretariat will pursue a further development along these lines. We are convinced that such a development will help in the process now under way of increased production also with different types of funding agencies besides the UNDP.
E.BJORDAL (Norway): We find the Reviewof Field Programmes 1982-83 very interesting and will make some brief remarks on a few aspects within the programmes.
For example we notice with satisfaction that activities are more centered around the small farmer and fisherman, that integrated development support plays a larger role, and that nationals of the developing countries are more involved in real co-operation within the projects. Technical co operation between developing countries is increasing due to FAO efforts. More stress is laid on utilizing resources for production instead of studying and registering resources.
All these trends our delegation find positive and we will be happy to see FAO go further in the same direction. Hopefully the next field programme report will also deal more with programmes improving the position of women in agriculture.
However, there are causes for concern, several of them connected with shortness of funds. It is worrying to read that 800 identified projects in Africa have no funding. It seems FAO has to be careful not to raise expectations by taking up studies of still many more ideas.
Additionally we find it quite disturbing that follow-up prospects appear to have diminished for projects already underway. It seems to be a growing problem in bilateral as well as multilateral, development cooperation to provide sufficient funds for future maintenance and recurrent costs. Assuming that most existing projects are still important to the countries concerned, we feel that follow-up of investments already made must be secured before new projects are started. New activities should only be taken up after thorough assesments of future expenditures and of the possibilities to meet these costs.
The role of FAO as catalyst has been referred to. Our delegation find this role central and we find that highly qualified advisory services might be even more important in the future than some individual projects.
The review on pages 8 and 9 refers to the increasing involvement of the World Bank in rural development financing. Today as we all know, this is one of the main fields of the World Bank, and it seems obvious to our delegation that FAO could contribute considerably in the implementation of rural development projects. In paragraph 1.33 on page 9 certain legal and other constraints preventing full contribution from FAO and other UN agencies are mentioned. Our delegation feels that Member States of these agencies have reason to expect that everything is done to overcome such obstacles quickly and efficiently. In the present situation all ways and means must be tried to achieve maximum results, and flexibility and joining of resources of international agencies should be welcomed by Member States.
Many delegations have expressed concern about the stagnation in UNDP finances. As you know, Norway is a staunch supporter and a large contributor to UNDP. Out of the total development assistance, more than 50 percent is allocated to and administered by multilateral agencies. Ay delegation deplores the decline in UNDP resources and the subsequent consequences for the work of FAO.
H. OGUT (Turkey): Before making comments on the field programme implementation during the last biennium, please allow me to extend our compliments to the Secretariat for preparing an excellent document under review, on the field programmes, and to Mr Lignon for his introduction of the topic. My remarks will be brief and confined to one or two general aspects of field programme implementation of FAO.
First, on the linkage between the Regular Programme and the Field Programmes of the Organization. My delegation believes that FAO's field programme activities represent a major part in the overall technical assistance extended by FAO. In some cases Regular Programme inputs are required to promote field project implementation. Field project execution by FAO at the country level also needs policy guidance and supervision of Headquarters as well as of the country offices which are financed out of Regular Programme resources. Thus a linkage between the Regular Programme and Field Programme in respect of policy and priority setting as well as during implementation of projects is of utmost importance to the Organization.
A closer look at field programme implementation during the last biennium shows that while the consistency between these two programmes in the UNDP has been ensured, there is still room for improvement in bringing Trust Fund programmes in line with the Regular Programmes in terms of priority and policies to the greatest extent possible.
My second comment mainly deals with the role which the Field Programme implementation plays in promoting technical cooperation among the developing countries. While we note with satisfaction the efforts made during the last biennium in the field, we suggest that inter-country projects should be further encouraged by FAO. The field programme inputs should be made available to developing countries wishing to undertake cooperation projects in the field of project formulation, implementation and monitoring.
Thirdly and lastly, I wish to mention that FAO' field programme activities need a longer term planning based on the individual country programmes. Thus we propose that country programmes be prepared for FAO's project assistance. We believe that country programmes will also enable the Organization to monitor the implementation of the field programmes more successfully.
H. REDL (Austria) (original language German): We thank the Director-General for the clear introduction to the document. Austria has studied this document with great interest and would like to express the following ideas. We welcome the fact that the experience of the different countries is taken into account in field programmes. The projects should correspond to the true needs of the recipient countries and take into account their degree of economic development. We believe that follow-up is, of course, of great importance. The assessment should be carried out by the competent authorities of FAO. The country representative and the recipient countries themselves should work together.
Finally, my delegation, along with many of the previous speakers, fully agrees with what is found on page 76, namely that technical assistance should constantly shift towards technical cooperation.
E. PORTE (Liberia): The Liberian delegation joins others in extending appreciation to the Secretariat for the very clear way in which this document was presented. We note with concern the decline of FAO' field programmes during the current bienn-ium from their peak in 1981 and welcome the good news of the likely increase in the donations to UNDP as the main source of support for FAO's field activities. It is our hope that this increase will continue in order that FAO may assist needy countries in feeding their hungry populations.
We would like to extend our appreciation to Denmark, the United States of America and other donor countries for their contributions to the Trust Fund. The Liberian delegation notes with interest the emphasis on field programmes in Africa where food problems are most acute. While my delegation is appreciative of the food assistance kindly given to African countries, the urgent need to transfer technology and experience gained in self-sufficiency in food cannot be over-emphasised.
We therefore appeal to the international community to give more assistance aimed at making the Continent self-sufficient in food in the shortest possible span of time.
S. ZAHARIEV (Bulgaria): The Review of Field Programmes presented in this excellent document which we discuss today is of great importance. The Field Programmes are one of the fundamental activities of FAO. The FAO was created 38 years ago with the aim to struggle against hunger of the world and it provides a number of projects in the field of most needy countries with the concrete aim of increasing their food production. For this period of time a great part of the projects which were started have been completed. We do not have a detailed document to see how effective the various projects have been towards making the needed increase in food production. Let us hope that for the most part all these investments from FAO, UNDP and other sources, have been efficiently used.
We also hope that the Organization has learned a lesson from the unsuccessfully completed projects and will avoid such cases in the future. To be clear, I wish to explain that by "unsuccessful projects" we understand the ones which have been unrealistically planned, staffed with not the best experts available, and which did not reach their objectives. We think these are the major shortcomings of this Organization in field work in its history to date. That is why we took the liberty of drawing attention of the Secretariat of FAO to them because possibly they could be refined over the period of time with which we are now concerned.
We also wish to express preoccupation because we note a decline in resources allocated to field programmes of FAO. The concern about the economic crisis in developed countries is reflected more seriously on the life of the developing countries. The need for a new economic order on which there have been so many discussions in international fora has still not been achieved. As a result there is a lack of sufficient resources where they are needed for the Organization to perform its task in ensuring to the needy the possibility to grow bread. We do not think the amount of money spent over the period of the Field Programmes 1982-83, is sufficient. We understand, however, the difficulty of accumulating more resources for FAO' budget. What we have already suggested is that available resources for development, especially for the field programmes, should be used efficiently. We feel one way of doing this could be cutting travel costs by combining missions to several countries, by having the best qualified experts in the field with a possibility of carrying out several tasks when requested and by following exactly and realistically the objectives of the projects.
We are sure that the Secretariat has also its own view of the points and we are ready to support any suggestions on it.
With that, I would like to add the name of my country to this, approving the FAO work in the field for the period 1982-83.
A.S.OULD MOLOUD (Mauritanie): Ma délégation est préoccupée par la réduction des fonds du PNUD, qui entraîne une réduction des activités sur le terrain au moment même où l'Afrique au sud du Sahara a connu cette année une des plus mauvaises années de sécheresse comparable à celle de 1972-73, début des années de sécheresse. La situation est encore moins brillante pour le cheptel qui n'a pas été reconstitué depuis les années de sécheresse 1972-73. De plus, la situation financière du FIDA, pour le moment précaire, ne fait que nous préoccuper. Pour mieux remédier à la réduction de ces fonds et à la situation du FIDA, il serait souhaitable d'utiliser les ressources humaines disponibles dans les pays du tiers monde, notamment les experts nationaux en remplacement des expatriés qui coûtent souvent plus cher, l'utilisation des experts de pays africains dans des pays africains, qui coûtent souvent moins cher que les expatriés.
En terminant, la campagne agricole 1983-84 ne pourra, dans mon pays, couvrir que 5 pour cent des besoins en céréales.
En ce qui concerne les projets, ils sont souvent mal conçus, sans que la cible principale soit prise en considération, ce qui mène à des excès de ces mêmes projets. Souvent on accuse les pays bénéficiaires en voie de développement de ne rien faire pour l'augmentation de la production alors qu'ils n'en portent pas la responsabilité, comme le savent très bien les représentants des Nations Unies et des pays donateurs. En Mauritanie, le coût de production de certains produits est souvent 3, 4, voire 5 fois plus élevé que celui du produit importé de l'extérieur. Les aléas climatiques difficiles ne facilitent pas la tâche des encadreurs ou des agriculteurs.
J. MCHECHU (Tanzania): My delegation is appreciative of the extensive review and consistency of the 1982-83 biennial field programmes, but we are very much concerned by the shortfall in UNDP resources which have affected reduction in personnel and sharp cutbacks in the project's equipment. This situation may continue in 1984-85 regardless of the fact that Trust Fund and TCP delivery has steadily increased. We therefore appeal to Member Nations and major donors to continue support of the UNDP and reverse the current decline which is bound to affect the continued needs of the developing countries.
We wish now to make a few general and specific comments in a way to support previous comments made by other delegations.
We are quite satisfied with the allocation of the field programmes to the regions and on component basis. However, we wish to suggest that project evaluation before the end of each project should be emphasized. The projects with long gestation periods such as livestock projects deliberately required efforts to be made to ensure replacement of equipment in order to ensure smooth continuity and delivery of services at the end of such projects.
With regard to rural development we feel that there is room for further development. The priority on institution building-and small farmer productive activity is pertinent but this effort must now be integrated with cooperative management. We wish also to suggest that smallholder surveys may be necessary to collect baseline data reagrding real farmers' demands and problems and to devise delivery of a package to improve the small farmer productive activities.
We note with appreciation also the increased request by Member Nations in the field of training and agricultural planning and project analysis. However, more assistance will need to be directed towards this field and also towards market developing and pricing systems.
Finally we note with great satisfaction the emphasis on multi-disciplinary approaches towards livestock, fisheries and forestry activities and programmes related to food supplies. However, the area of livestock disease control with regard to tick-borne diseases needs to be given fresh impetus by FAO as these are the major killers of livestock in developing tropical countries like Tanzania.
KIM MUN DYOK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea): First of all on behalf of the delegation of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, I would like to congratulate you, Mr Chairman, and the Vice-Chairmen on your election. I would like to thank Mr Lignon for his kind introduction and also the Secretariat for the excellent document before us, Review of Field Programmes, which analyzes in detail the field activities for two years.
In the past two years, 1982-83, FAO has made a considerable contribution to the development of agriculture of Member States by making an effective utilization of the available resources. The fact that in spite of the fall in the main resources there was no fall in the expenditure on training, which forms an important part of TCP projects, is very significant.
Current agricultural situation demands to strengthen the role of the field programmes. In this context our delegation holds that in line with the UNDP and Trust Fund, more impetus should be given to the TCP. In this regard I would like to reiterate our full support to the Director-General's Programme of Work and Budget for 1984-85. I think that technical cooperation among developing countries plays an important role in the stregthening of the field programme. Developing countries have already gained good experiences and have technique in the agricultural field. Therefore, if they exchange each other's experience and cooperate they can achieve excellent success in agricultural development.
Finally, from the view of contributing to the activities of FAO, I would like to repeat that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea will be prepared to provide training of agro-technicians for the developing countries and send our technicians to them. The training may include, in particular, the workshops, seminars and study tours on irrigation and effective use of draught-animals.
S. OKWAKOL (Uganda): As many delegates from various countries last week voiced their concern over the document Field Programmes 1982-83 as presented by the Secretariat, the Uganda delegation would like to register its reaction to the Review of Field Programmes.
Our delegation has noted that FAO field activities declined during 1982-83 as compared to the 1981-82 biennium because of the falling UNDP flow of contribution. However, it was nice to hear last Friday from the UNDP observer, that UNDP resources will be increased by 1 percent for 1984-85.
In the presentation before us we noted that the level of Trust Fund activities were increasing, though this did not fill up the gap created by the UNDP shortfall. The Uganda delegation is appreciative however of the assistance so far received through this Fund, for instance, FAO/Italian Trust Fund for the purchase of agricultural machinery and FAO/Swedish Trust Fund for the Rural Household Tree Planting.
We would like also to re-emphasize the role of the TCP in filling key technical and emergency gaps during the biennium under review.
The Uganda delegation noted with satisfaction the objectivity and frankness of the field programmes assessment which clearly highlighted the issues and problems encountered. The responsibility of FAO Representatives in the design, monitoring and evaluation of projects was also stressed. In order that useful information is gathered on a regular basis, our delegation proposes that in future FAO assists recipient countries in establishing monitoring and evaluation units where they do not exist and strengthening those that exist.
M. FENWICK (United States of America): I join with my colleagues to express this morning the endorsement of this budget, these programmes, these field programmes. I think we can be proud of what the FAO has done in this regard, happy that we are involved together on such a constructive enterprise and I think the Secretariat and all concerned deserve our thanks but we have heard detailed remarks concerning the different aspects and sections of the Review and I would like to direct my few remarks to something a little more for the future, what I hope our next review will contain.
In the first place I think we can be happy that we see an increased emphasis on development towards self-reliance in all the countries. The need for this and the desire for it on the part of the countries concerned has been expressed in many, many places, in Lagos Report and in many other places and I think we can be happy that these field programmes are leading in that direction and the FAO direction generally but I do think also that we must concern ourselves a little bit more clearly and with more emphasis, on direction of programmes to the poorest of the poor. We have in this planet between 450 and 600 million people with absolutely no purchasing power at all, they are hopeless and we must direct our attention to the kinds of programmes that will enable them to be income-producing and independent and to see some hope for the future. It has been well said in our Programme Committee that this is a burden that the world economy can no longer support easily. We must direct ourselves to correcting and trying to solve that problem. I think there will be no lasting progress until we have somehow tried to solve this. How can we do it?
Here I would like to go back to the first thing I ever said when I came to FAO as an accredited representative of my country. We must have a whole new programme that will cost nothing, and it is called Listen. We must have a little humility. We have made mistakes in our own country, as our Secretary of Agriculture pointed out. We have not done everything right even for our own country. Let us have a little more humility as we approach others, and because we are talking to somebody who is illiterate let us not for one minute think that he can be ignored. These are the fanners who are going to have to make these programmes work. If we want more production we must elicit the cooperation of the farmers. It is no use not listening. Because somebody is illiterate does not mean he can be ignored. We have to pay attention to what people think, and above all perhaps we must pay attention to what works. We must look around this world, look at country after country, and see what works, what people are doing when they have a chance to do something, what are governments more and more doing. This I think is perhaps the most important thing we can do. We can observe. We can listen to some of theheads of state and important ministers in developing countries and their remarks to the governments themselves. The governments in those countries, what are you doing about taxation, what are you doing about infrastructure, if you want more agricultural production are you paying attention to these things.
We have had very brilliant speeches from the ministers of governments in Sub-Saharan Africa that we ought to be paying attention to. I would like to say that another African country has suggested that it would be good to include in the reports contributions that those governments have made to their development, that when a development programme comes to their countries they often give time and space and all kinds of services and they are not reported as part of the development of the programme. I think that would be a very fine suggestion. That came too, from one of our African colleagues.
We must talk frankly among friends who trust one another. As a delegate said, we are working with people, not for them. This has to be the whole attitude. But let us look at what does work. Let us take two countries. One in Sub-Saharan Africa is self-sufficient in food. What is it doing? To begin with, it had a President who was himself a farmer. It had a Cabinet which either had a farmer in every ministerial post or it had a deputy who sat next to him. It had a free market system. The only interference of the Government was to make a very sensible industry factory for the processing of certain materials. That worked in that country. Let us take another country in Africa, not Sub-Saharan. They were struggling with a poverty rate of 73 percent but they decided to do something about it. Yes, they got aid, but what did they do themselves, how did their budget reflect what they wanted for their people? Agriculture, education, health, those were the elements of the budget of that country. Family planning, I may say, was a large part of the work of that country. What is the result? They moved some years ago from a controlled agricultural economy to a free market economy.What is the result? The result is 21 percent are still below the poverty level, but that is better than 73 percent, and the poverty level has doubled.
We are going to have to pay some attention to this sort of thing. We must listen to the ministers of agriculture from Asia and Africa who have told us what they are planning to do. One after the other, countries who have been devoted to the controlled economy system are turning in agriculture to the free market economy. What is the result? Just yesterday another country moved to private farming commission, 12 percent of the farmers producing 44 percent of the meat. This is what works.
We should stop talking about and trying to fool people with ideologies that simply do not work. In other words, our budget, our programmes, are moving in a sensible direction. If we care about human beings - and what else are we doing if we do not care about them, what are we doing if we sit here gathered from all over the world if we do not care and listen and respect and work with loving kindness with those with whom we must work.
M. TICOF (Greece): I would like to express to the Secretariat the appreciation of my delegation for the excellent document on Field Programmes. As the document points out, there is a main negative aspect concerning the field programme activities of FAO, especially related to the decline in the contribution of UNDP financing for technical assistance. Such a decline has a negative effect at least in two ways. It could delay FAO activities in technical assistance in case the rate of increase of funds from other resources is proved inadequate. Second, it confirms the last ten-year trend of a shift from multilateral aid to bilateral aid. Such a shift could in no sense be considered as valuable taking into account the risk of political and economic pressures that may be expected from the donors to the recipient countries. We agree with the distribution of funds among the main sectors of production. Also we would agree with the regional distribution of field programmes giving priority to the African region.
As the review points out, field programmes could have a great contribution to the world food situation. This is a very interesting point, especially in relation to the revised concept of world food security which the Director-General has proposed. Field programmes can contribute directly to the national and regional aspects of this new concept of food security both by assisting developing countries to set up their integrated agricultural and food policies and by promoting the regional cooperation of developing countries.
In this context we would like to stress the need for giving top priority to training at national and regional level. Such training addressed mainly to rural populations could greatly contribute to the development efforts of developing countries.
Also it is important to emphasize the need for the establishment of institutions for agricultural research at regional level. Such institutions could promote agricultural research better adapted to the needs of the participating countries.
The full participation in scheduling and decision making of developing countries in each region should be encouraged in accordance with the concept of technical cooperation.
Lastly, taking into account that the seed production programmes are of great importance in the expansion of food production for developing countries, it would be useful if FAO examined the idea of establishing regional seed production centres.
T. AHMAD (Pakistan): May I join other delegates who have expressed their deep concern about the declining trend in the UNDP resources. We feel that this is a trend which has to be reversed or arrested if the activities of FAO in the field in developing countries are to be effective and useful.
We notice with concern that the decline from 1981 to 1983 has been almost 37 percent in real terms. We appreciate the fact that Trust Funds have expanded to fill in some of the gaps. However, the gap still remains despite the Trust Fund expansion and expansion in the activities of TCP field activities.
We wish to join in what the delegate of Norway said this morning on this issue and we deplore this declining trend in UNDP resources.
Speaking of TCP, we find that TCP has done unique work in this direction by filling in some of the gaps and also by showing how responsive it is to the needs of developing countries. We have been constantly appreciative of the TCP, particularly because of its flexibility and because of the fact that it meets the needs, even the short-term emergency needs, of the developing countries. The document brings out very meaningfully how the TCP projects rate much higher than other projects even at the time of implementation and execution and also because of the involvement of recipient countries in the TCP projects.
Speaking about the assessment in Chapter Two, we feel that the assessment by FAO Representatives is very candid and very transparent, and we appreciate the fact that the subjectivity which is referred to as regards the field representatives has been brought out as a very open indicator, though we do wish that there would be more objectivity. But we also feel that the field representatives are doing excellent work in this direction and the qualitative examination of the projects as well as the numerical indicators that they were using for this assessment is very instructive and a step in the right direction. By looking at the assessment, both of the field representatives and the evaluation missions, a number of issues have been brought out which we think are very relevant, and it is necessary to disseminate this information.
One of the things that we think has been highlighted by both the assessments is the requirement for flexibility. We feel that what is required is the in-built flexibility even at the time of the formulation of the projects. In this connexion we also feel that it would perhaps be useful to give more responsibility to the field representatives and to the national directors, so that they
can bring in flexibility of the projects at the time of implementation, and we think this should be institutionalized.
We also feel that the problems in the implementation of the projects which have been so candidly brought out in this document should be disseminated for information, particularly of the recipient countries. We are aware of the fact that while formulating projects such problems which have been encountered during the evaluation missions are taken care of when formulating the projects. But we have a specific proposal. We suggest that there may be a check list of such problems which are encountered during the implementation of the projects, and this check list may be circulated to the recipient countries and to the countries in which these projects are going to be implemented. I am sure that in a number of cases developing countries, when they became aware of problems in other countries of a similar nature when the projects were being implemented, would be in a position right from the start to improve the ground work for the implementation of the projects.
Speaking of food security, we feel that, as given out in paragraph 3.81, the Food Security Action Programme within the FAO, as suggested by the Director-General, would be a step in the right direction, and we are anticipating and looking forward to it.
Before concluding we would like to say that we find this document, Review of Field Programmes, very candid, very objective, very instructive and very useful. However, we feel perhaps there is a need for more emphasis, more study and more analysis of this document, particularly at the level of the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee. To be candid and honest, during the Programme Committee we found that while looking at the new Programme of Work and Budget one was left with very little time to give adequate attention to this document. We had the same feeling in the Council. Perhaps we mentioned this in the Programme Committee, but we also mention it again, that this is one of the most useful documents which gives an insight into the working of FAO field activities and perhaps because of the usefulness of the document a little more time can be devoted to its analysis in depth by the governing bodies of FAO.
C.di MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Es la primera vez que tomo la palabra en esta Comisión y quisiera felicitarle por su elección, señor Presidente.
A estas alturas del debate quisiera expresar en muy pocas palabras mi alegría y mi aprecio por el documento preparado por la Secretaría; es uno de estos documentos fundamentales en la vida de la FAO porque expresa de una manera muy concisa, muy clara una situación compleja y preocupante; por lo tanto, apoyamos este documento que demuestra la adaptación de la FAO a la disminución de recursos que desgraciadamente hubo, y por esto la FAO tiene que ser elogiada.
No obstante, hemos leído con mucha preocupación lo que indica el Director General en el preámbulo de este documento, en el cual se habla de inversión de tendencia. Esperemos que sea una inversión de tendencia que a su vez se invierta, o sea que los recursos del PNUD no sólo no continúen disminuyendo, sino que empiecen otra vez a subir.
Estamos convencidos que la disminución de la ayuda multilateral en el mundo no es sólo un efecto de la crisis mundial y de la recesión en la que nos encontramos, es también una causa, y esto lo expuso muy claramente en su discurso el señor Kreisky; desgraciadamente la falta de poder adquisitivo por parte de los países en desarrollo es uno de los elementos que determinan y ponen más grave la situación financiera mundial.
Yo creo que para salir de la crisis es necesario un esfuerzo colectivo en favor de los países en desarrollo y se debería comenzar a volver a alimentar las fuentes de ayuda multilateral, entre las cuales está el PNUD.
De todas maneras, queremos expresar nuestra gratitud a los países que, alimentando los fondos fiduciarios, están tratando de disminuir los efectos de esta disminución de fondos del PNUD.
Queremos aprovechar también la oportunidad para expresar nuestro convencimiento de la utilidad de la cooperación entre los países en desarrollo, o sea la colaboración Sur-Sur.
Otro punto sobre el cual queremos expresar nuestro apoyo es que para los programas de campo se utilicen al máximo los recursos de los países y los mismos técnicos de los países. Tenemos técnicos muy preparados en los países que por sí solos se encuentran frente a dificultades, pero que con la ayuda y el encuadramiento de la FAO pueden conseguir resultados mayores procedentes de técnicos que vengan de fuera.
Mrs HOANG THI CU (Viet Nam): Our delegation has studied document C 83/4 very carefully, and would like to congratulate the Secretariat for its valuable work. We are also grateful to Mr Lignon for his clear presentation of the document. We also associate ourselves with many delegations in voicing our deep concern on the decline of FAO's Field Programmes, due to the drop in UNDP resources. We would like to urge traditional donors to increase their contribution for the sake of elimination of hunger throughout the world. We quite agree with the Panama delegation in saying that it is not an appropriate approach to take advantage of the requirements on food of developing countries to impose political pressure upon them. Field programmes are considered as direct assistance for developing countries. Therefore, we are looking forward to seeing an increase in the future. In FAO agriculture has a high priority, and we have concentrated our internal and external input to promote food production. We highly appreciate FAO's performance of field programmes. With the present . limited resources we think it is necessary for us to discuss ways to make field programmes more and more effective, and for this purpose I would like to make some suggestions. In executing field projects more consideration should be given to make full use of local and technical staff, and to support the flexible percentage of the fund for equipment to meet different requirements of recipient countries. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
T.E.C. PALMER (Sierra Leone): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. Taking the floor at this late hour one has to be very brief, and my predecessors who have taken the floor before me have already highlighted some of the most important points in the document. It is rather voluminous, but it is very interesting and very informative.
I would just like to dwell on one or two issues, and these are, taking them by Chapters, the first being the trends, recent trends and developments in terms of the Field Programmes. First, the resources. We notice with concern the declining trend in UNDP resources, especially so that FAO' Field Programmes hinge on the support that could be got from the UNDP, and unfortunately, even though we see an increasing trend in contrast, an increasing trend of Trust Fund resources, we do not see this increasing trend matching up, if not compensating enough, the declining trend of the UNDP resources. It is not just saying it out here, perhaps a little bit more clarification could be given at the field level as to how this, in fact, is affecting FAO'sield programmes, because we from the recipient developing countries see quite a lot of this kind of cross-matching or resources and field programme desires. Perhaps this might help other delegations to see more exactly the impact of this decline in resources of UNDP that is being felt on the field programmes. For this reason we also appreciate the increasing use of TCP, particularly in the Resource Sector, especially for the field programmes, because we see how this flexible quick action adaptable programme could bridge several gaps which, in fact, are now widening up with this decline in resource impact.
The second Chapter, which deals with Assessments; we have three basic issues here. First, we welcome the objectivity and the frankness of the assessments of both the FAO and the evaluation missions. What is needed at this stage, and this is where we support our colleague from Pakistan, is built-in flexibility, both in the design and implementation of projects, right from the start, the design, there should be a built-in flexibility.
A third point we would like to see: we would like to make comments on, is on the third Chapter on Food Security. We see the role of FAO' technical assistance as being very important, very practical, and this, in fact, lends weight to our request and, in fact, our pleas, that FAO's Food Security Assistance Scheme should be strengthened and supported. It is not just in terms of technical manpower, but also in terms of finance and physical inputs. Moreover, such assistance should be integrated with investment support, because we believe if we are to identify food security problems, and we do not follow this up with practical programmes, we shall run the risk of having very good ideas only for the shelves. For this reason we would like to see an integrated programme, such as is referred to in the Director-General's proposal during the last Committee on Food Security, and I refer specifically to the Food Security Compact, a sort of action which would go from identification through implementation, and perhaps even one stage further, investment. So at this stage we would just like to add to this Review one basic point, which is the need to formulate and implement more vivid programmes at the grass root level, because this is what, first of all, convinces the recipient. This is what allows the recipients to be involved, and this is what, in fact, allows for the government to take firm positive action at national, sub-regional, and even regional levels.
Lastly, we would like to highlight the importance of the expanding use of national staff, particularly at identification stages. It is not just getting them as directors of projects, but we want them to be involved right at the inception of the projects, because this will allow for involvement, both at the national level and, in fact, people would see exactly how the project evolves, and where to make necessary amendments if at all there is a necessity to do so. Thank you very much Mr Chairman.
M.A. MEDANI (Sudan) (original language Arabic): On behalf of my country, the Democratic Republic of the Sudan, I should like to pay tribute to the various field programmes as drawn up by the Director-General and his associates, and I would like to convey our appreciation for the expanded concept of Food Security, and the importance of ensuring such security in.all countries. We know full well
that this problem goes beyond the capability of each country taken individually and threatens agricultural land. Desertification is amongst the most serious problems in this regard. The President of my country, Jaafar Mohamed Al Nimeri has, in fact, stressed this particular problem menacing some countries especially in Africa in his Address to the Conference. We know that solutions cannot always be found at the level of the individual nations. Collective efforts and cooperation with the specialised Agencies are, therefore, essential, and an African plan is at this juncture required to deal with the problem of encroaching desertification in order to protect agricultural land, to achieve Food Security, which is an aim and objective which we all share. I hope that this proposal will obtain your agreement and be included in those put forward by the Conference. Thank you very much.
O. BILBEISI (Jordan) (original language Arabic): Mr Chairman, the reduction in the budgetary allocations can be some bad news, but it should not be a reason why we should decrease the number and level of field projects. Our experience is that one of. the most important projects implemented by the FAO has been suspended in my country, since the funds were no longer available. The Organization's interest in research studies and development of technology should be translated into support to research bodies in the Near East in two ways: first of all by support activities and secondly, by training in all its forms, especially exchange of information amongst the various countries at all levels; thirdly, recently the integrated rural development approach, and especially the integrated agricultural development has always been in the interest of recipients of international aid, be this multilateral or bilateral. Therefore, we would like the Organization to take this into account and give priority to those projects which are based on integrated atricultural development.
Fourthly: at the level of implementation we have had some bad experiences with some external assistance projects which have been unbalanced in terms of public services field projects allocations. A large share of these goes to experts' salaries. We need to strike a measure of balance among experts'salaries, training resources, equipment allocations and any other item.
G. FRADIN (France): J'ai déjà eu l'occasion de m'exprimer vendredi sur les programmes de terrain, je vous remercie de me donner une nouvelle fois la parole.
Je veux simplement appuyer sur une suggestion faite par mon collègue de la délégation du Pakistan, sur l'examen des programmes de terrain par le Comité des programmes et le Comité financier. Ma délégation souhaite aussi que ces deux Comités aient le temps nécessaire pour examiner de façon approfondie ces programmes de terrain.
L. SMITH (Barbados): There are just two or three matters on which I would like to make comments on behalf of the Barbados delegation. Firstly I think the aspect of having to realize part of the Trust Funds to make up for shortfall in the allocation of UNDP funds to FAO must imply that there is, in terms of development finance, a reduction in the total amount of funds available, and therefore although this is temporary it is still un undesirable situation in that there is a need for a larger contribution from the UNDP financing towards FAO to support the various field programmes.
Secondly, Mr Chairman, the question of flexibility in projects at the formulation stage is a matter on which the Barbados delegation, whilst it supports, would like to issue a word of caution, because we must not forget that from time to time political personalities and priorities change, and if there is too much flexibility within an FAO-funded programme or supported programme there could be a reordering of the priorities making use of that flexibility which is allowed for in the programme, and which could result in the detriment or the failure of a particular programme which is supported by the FAO.
Thirdly, the question of field programmes. We feel that there are two areas in which the FAO can probably perform at a much higher level. I think it is time for field programmes to take a look at trying to provide a higher component of equipment, software and hardware equipment, so as to support national programmes and national institutions both in the areas of administering these programmes as well as executing them, and at the same time to provide training of personnel at the national level in the use of these modern pieces of equipment and establishing suitable systems for management and the execution of national programmes. We feel that a considerable improvement can be achieved by concentrating and providing modern equipment at the national level and training the nationals, and this would ensure a greater degree of cooperation and functioning of national personnel and FAO assisted projects.
I think finally Mr Chairman, we would like to commend the FAO for the document they have provided. We recognize that the distributions of the allocations are desirable with emphasis being given to the African continent where the problems of food production are most severe, and we in general support this document as provided by the FAO.
Finally one area which we feel is a matter of concern not highlighted necessarily within this budget, is that there is an area of cooperation and research in national agricultural raw materials which, or the national level, there may be a desire to diversify the use of these materials. Take for example a developing country which may want to diversify the use of fibre from sisal of the fibre from cane rind into the manufacture of paper from that fibre, or the production of detergent from sugar or some projects like that. Where the country has the raw material but does not have the research capability or technology, we think there must be some consideration given to this type of research and development within an underdeveloped country to assist it, and to utilize the technology and science and capabilitv of developed countries and combine it by way of using national research personnel and national efforts to try to provide a diversification for some of the raw materials that they may be interested in finding other uses or other formulations for. I think this is a particularly difficult area at the present time because, as can be expected, the developed countries may have this raw material available to them and therefore may not by involved in that type of research, whereas the underdeveloped country may have the raw materials in which they want to diversify but do not have the technical or science capability in order to achieve this end,
A. MOGNI (Italy): Mr Chairman, distinguished delegates, as a representative of the Italian Government in this Commission today, I would like to express to you all my appreciation for the quality of the documentation prepared by FAO and for the very interesting points raised by my colleagues on this occasion.
There is no doubt that Italy as a donor country is making a dramatic financial effort in supporting the activities of economic and technical cooperation set up by the international organizations, and among them particularly by FAO, It is clear that over the last few years Italy has decided to increase substantially its financial aid in favour of the emerging countries by allocating very important resources through the multilateral channel both in the form of voluntary contributions to support the general activities of the international organizations, and in the form of financing specific programmes of the cooperation, the so called multi bilateral operations in which the Italian managerial capacities and technical expertise could be properly mobilized and put at the disposal of the world development. For this purpose it seems to me worthwhile to remember that Italy is contributing substantially to the overall FAO activities of assistance, particularly in what we deem to be the most strategic and challenging fields of intervention like the integrated rural development, the increase of the overall food output both in terms of quantity and of quality, in the field of irrigation, in the field of agricultural mechanization, in the field of utilization of fertilizers, in the field of animal health, rural extension, food security, prevention of food losses, improvement of feeder and rural roles, agricultural research and food technology, not to mention dissemination of technical information and training.
The Italian financial aid is allocated according to agreed flexible geographical priorities in relation to the different and changing local situation of necessity or even emergency. In this context we are giving particular attention to the Sudan Sahelian countries and to the least developed countries in the other corners of Africa as well as Asia and Latin America.
Of course the international community and everybody is aware of the fact that today, and even more in the future, the available resources,.even though relevant in quantity, are of course limited, so it is necessary that the funds should be utilized according to the basic criteria of selection, concentration of efforts, efficiency and efficaciousness in the utilization of resources. This is why we estimate it is very useful for the international organizations, particularly for FAO and for the donor countries, to strengthen the role and the potentially positive input of the phase represented by the evaluation process, and for this purpose not only the economic aspect should be scrutinized according to the rules of the economic return or cost and benefit analysis, but also the non-economic aspects should be analyzed carefully like, for instance, the social and cultural impact of the project on the local communities, the capacity of the recipient countries to absorb the new proposed technology, the degree of efficiency of the local administration and so on. In this evaluation process we stress the great importance of training, the peculiar relevance of the direct involvement of the local communities in executing the project and in keeping it alive when the international support is over, and the particular aspect represented by the maintenance of the equipment in inter-function.
R.S. LIGNON (Sous-Directeur généal, Département du développement): Compte tenu des délais qui nous sont impartis et du nombre très important d'rateurs qui ont pris la parole, si vous le permettez, M. le Président, je ne répondrai pas ponctuellement à chaque question, mais j'ssaierai de grouper les réponses aux questions qui ont été posées, par différentes rubriques.
Je voudrais tout d'abord vous dire combien ce débat a été particulièrement fructueux et de haut niveau, pour le Secrétariat, pour moi-même et pour mes collègues, et beaucoup de recommandations et de suggestions qui ont été présentées seront certainement prises en compte dans les années à venir.
Si vous le permettez, je voudrais d'abord revenir sur le problème des ressources. On dit que, en 1984, la reconstitution des fonds du PNUD augmenterait de un pour cent. Il est bien clair qu'il ne s'git pas d'n renversement de tendance, quand on considère la dévaluation, l'augmentation des services, l'augmentation même des frais de fonctionnement du PNUD lui-même. Il est bien clair qu'un pour cent d'augmentation ne signifie pas qu'il y aura davantage d'argent l'an prochain et de projets qui pourront être financés par le PNUD.
Le second point que je voudrais évoquer aussi c'est que,non seulement les crédits du PNUD baissent et que dans un proche avenir on ne voit pas encore ce renversement de tendance, mais, comme des orateurs l'ont souligné de façon excellente, je voudrais dire que la part de l'agriculture aussi a baissé dans les chiffres de planification du PNUD et que, de. ce fait, la part confiée â la FAO pour exécution a été aussi réduite.
Je voudrais rappeler, de ce point de vue, que la diminution de la part de l'agriculture dans les projets financés par le PNUD traduit le fait que, quelquefois, les gouvernements et les responsables politiques n'insistent peut-être pas assez pour témoigner de la priorité qu'ils donnent à l'agriculture, et je voudrais appeler l'attention sur ce point. Je crois nécessaire de souligner combien l'agriculture et le développement rural sont des priorités de très nombreux pays, et quelquefois l'on est inquiet lorsque l'on regarde les statistiques de constater comment la part de l'agriculture décroît dans-les activités du PNUD, alors que l'agriculture est non seulement dans la réalité le secteur le plus important du développement rural mais est aussi celui sur lequel le gouvernement met l'accent.
Je voudrais aussi clarifier un point. Il a été dit quelquefois qu'il était possible que la décroissance des crédits disponibles de la reconstitution du PNUD était liée à l'augmentation des fonds fiduciaires. Si vous vous référez au tableau 1 de l'annexe du document qui est sous vos yeux, vous vous apercevrez qu'entre 1977 et 1981 les crédits du PNUD ont augmenté en même temps que les fonds fiduciaires. Il est donc un peu trop simple de dire que la diminution des crédits disponibles au PNUD est étroitement liée à l'augmentation des fonds fiduciaires. Je pense qu'il y a d'autres explications dans le détail desquelles il serait peut-être difficile d'entrer dès maintenant. Mais il faut bien voir que la diminution des crédits du PNUD n'est pas seulement liée à l'augmentation des fonds fiduciaires.
Je voudrais dire quelques mots maintenant des problèmes d'évaluation dont ont parlé de nombreux orateurs. Je pense que ce problème de l'évaluation, comme cela est dit dans l’avant-propos du Directeur général, est l'un des problèmes qui nous préoccupent beaucoup. Si nous considérons que les projets que la FAO a exécutés au cours du dernier biennium ont été utiles et efficaces, nous ne mésestimons pas non plus les difficultés rencontrées. Il faut continuer sans relâche dans cet effort d'améliorer les résultats des projets en étroite collaboration avec les pays bénéficiaires et les autres associés dans l'action de développement.
Les procédures d'évaluation auxquelles nous procédons engagent toujours à la fois le pays bénéficiaire et l'institution qui a financé le projet, qu'il s'agisse du PNUD ou qu'il s'agisse de pays donateurs dans le cadre de fonds fiduciaires, et c'est ce que ces revues tripartites font régulièrement. D'ailleurs, tous les délégués qui représentent des pays qui participent aux fonds fiduciaires savent combien ces revues tripartites annuelles et générales donnent lieu à des examens très approfondis au niveau des programmes et permettent de les améliorer régulièrement. Cela a été dit mais il convenait de le souligner.
Egalement au niveau de l'évaluation, nous essayons de faire de notre mieux pour que les résultats des évaluations que nous entreprenons puissent bénéficier, par un procédé de feedback, d'une meilleure définition et mise en oeuvre des projets, par un certain nombre de réunions auxquelles participent tous ceux qui sont engagés dans l'exécution des projets, division, unité technique comme unité financière, comme par exemple le département de développement des opérations de terrain.
On a quelquefois fait remarquer que l'évaluation que nous vous avons soumise aurait été plus claire si les mêmes critères avaient été utilisés pour les représentants de la FAO et pour les projets qui ont été examinés par unité d'évaluation.
Il faut bien se rendre compte que les deux types d'évaluation sont complémentaires mais relativement différents. Dans le premier cas, il s'agit d'évaluation beaucoup plus qualitative, dans le cadre d'un programme et d'une priorité englobant l'ensemble du programme dans le pays. Dans le second cas, il s'agit de projets en général de plus grandes dimensions et qui avaient été particulièrement choisis parce que l'on supposait qu'ils devaient donner lieu à une évaluation plus précise. Il faut considérer ces deux évaluations comme complémentaires l'une de l'autre et donnant une évaluation assez correcte de l'ensemble du programme de terrain de la FAO.
Pour rester dans le domaine de l'évaluation, on a pensé qu'il y avait peut-être un trop petit nombre d'évaluations qui avaient été faites par le service. Je voudrais rappeler que le Service d'évaluation de la FAO est l'un des plus anciens et des plus importants des agences d'exécution des Nations Unies et que le PNUD vient d'établir récemment sa propre unité d'évaluation. Si l'on s'en tient à 40 projets, c'est qu'il faut se rendre compte qu'une évaluation en profondeur demande une préparation très soigneuse. L'évaluation proprement dite demande aussi une préparation particulièrement bien exécutée et qu'elle complète les évaluations qui ont déjà été faites par ailleurs.
Je voulais faire ces quelques commentaires pour vous dire quel est le soin avec lequel nous essayons de faire des évaluations et d'en tirer le plus grand profit dans les projets à venir.
Je voudrais dire un mot à propos des problèmes de nutrition et de sécurité alimentaire, ainsi que sur les forêts. Tout cela est indiqué dans le document. Je voudrais rappeler que les pourcentages qui sont donnés dans les tableaux, à propos des forêts et de la nutrition, sont des pourcentages qui ne reflètent pas la réalité, dans la mesure où lorsqu'on classe des projets qui sont par eux-mêmes multidisciplinaires - par exemple lorsqu'on parle de développement rural intégré - il est difficile d'évaluer complètement la part qui revient aux forêts et la part de la nutrition.
Notamment dans la catégorie Ressources naturelles, un grand nombre de projets ont des composantes forestières importantes et le chiffre de 10 pour cent ne reflète pas la réalité de ce qu'est l'action forestière dans le programme de la FAO. Il en est de même pour la nutrition. Il y a très peu de projets nutritionnels au sens strict du terme, et la nutrition intervient dans un très grand nombre de projets, notamment dans les projets de développement qui entrent dans le programme du suivi de la Conférence mondiale sur la réforme agraire et le développement rural. Il en est de même aussi en ce qui concerne les programmes de sécurité alimentaire.
Quelques orateurs ont signalé que la FAO devrait coopérer en matière d'élaboration des programmes de sécurité alimentaire. Je puis vous assurer que cela se fait sur le terrain.
Pour rester un moment de plus sur le problème de la coordination au niveau du terrain, qui a été évoqué par de nombreux délégués, je peux vous dire que nous n'avons jamais entendu parler de problèmes graves de coopération et de coordination entre les différentes agences et les représentants résidents du PNUD sur le terrain. A plusieurs reprises, le Directeur général de la FAO et l'Administrateur général du PNUD ont envoyé des lettres aux représentants de la FAO et au Représentant résident du PNUD pour souligner l'intérêt qu'ils avaient l'un et l'autre à ce que cette opération soit bien établie. Je puis donc vous assurer qu'il n'y a pas de problème de coordination au niveau du terrain et qu'en général tout se passe très bien.
Enfin, je voudrais dire que nous avons beaucoup apprécié les commentaires qui ont été faits sur le glissement de l'action d'assistance de la FAO vers une action de coopération au travers de la coopération entre pays en développement et au travers de nouvelles dimensions de la participation des nationaux aux actions de développement. C'est un point sur lequel la FAO est particulièrement diligente et elle joue un rôle catalytique particulièrement important. Parmi les institutions des Nations Unies, c'est elle qui a un rÔle de leader. Nous continuerons dans cette direction parce qu'il est clair que la participation de nationaux, depuis l'identification des projets à travers leur définition et leur mise en oeuvre, est indispensable. C'est une démarche que nous poursuivrons. Il est clair aussi qu'il faut procéder avec une certaine prudence dans certains cas, lorsque le pays n'est pas encore à même de faire face à ce mécanisme. C'est la raison pour laquelle à plusieurs reprises - certains délégués l'ont souligné - le programme de terrain a contribué à renforcer les institutions locales, notamment dans le domaine de la préparation des projets, au travers des actions menées par le Centre des investissements, ou toute autre action de formation, et aussi au travers du renforcement des institutions, comme étant une des composantes du projet.
CHAIRMAN : Thank you for your very elaborate answers which very fortunately will make the summing up exercise much easier.
All the 55 delegations who have intervened on this subject were thankful for the document and expressed their gratitude for the information contained and the clarity with which the information has been presented. The usefulness of this document has led the delegations to suggest that there is need for more time to discuss the field programme in future.
On the whole the delegations regretted the fact that the UNDP resources continued to decline, even though there seems to be compensation by the growth of the Trust Funds but that compensation was not sufficient to make up for the decline in UNDP resources. At the same time very careful note was taken of the role played by the Technical Cooperation Programme in minimizing the damaging effects of the shortfall in UNDP resources. The role of the Investment Centre in this regard was underlined and seen as a useful tool to introduce what was called seed money and therefore would provide an avenue through which more funds could come into the field programme of FAO.
On the evaluation, satisfaction was expressed at the attention that FAO was paying to the exercise of evaluation and assessment and also the fact that all concerned were involved in the evaluation and assessment exercises, especially the FAO country offices as well as the Regional Offices, but more importantly the local personnel that were involved in the projects. There was a feeling expressed that it was necessary to introduce flexibility, not only at evaluation but also this should start at the conception, at the formulation, implementation and finally at the evaluation of these programmes. This could be achieved much more meaningfully if local personnel were also involved.
Under the question of food security which comes under chapter three, the reformulated concept of food security was thoroughly appreciated, along with the Action Programme in which the seed development and the provision of more inputs was regarded as reinforcing elements.
The use of local personnel as managers in projects, as well as consultants was highly appreciated and this was seen as leading from technical assistance to cooperation and this was seen as a way to reinforce and support technical cooperation in developing countries.
Of course, in the Programme of Work and Budget there was an indication from many delegations that not enough emphasis had been put on forestry, even though Mr Lignon has answered on this question but it seems that the Secretariat will still have to pay attention to the fact that delegations are not satisfied that enough attention has been put on forestry.
There were also indications that there was need to emphasize more and more the projects on the role of women and women's programmes.
I should at this stage like to thank all the delegates who played a part in these debate. I think we have now completed our review of the field programme.
The meeting rose at 13.00 hours
La séance est levée à 13 h 00
Se levanta la sesión a las 13.00 horas
