EL PRESIDENTE: Les presento mis excusas por el retardo, debido a ciertas consultas que espero producirán resultados satisfactorios para todos. Confío en que ahora todos los miembros de la Comisión dispondrán en sus respectivos idiomas de los dos documentos básicos para la discusión del tema de esta mañana. Se trata, como todos ustedes saben, del tema 12 "Programa de Labores y Presupuesto y objetivos a plazo medio". El primer documento es el Rep. 1 que contiene 72 párrafos; luego acaba de salir el documento que complementa al anterior REP.l Sup. 1. Como es costumbre, los textos del documento en los distintos idiomas se ajustarán, se adaptarán al texto original. Particularmente en esta ocasión parece que la linda lengua francesa, la lengua de Molière, ha sufrido algún menoscabo, pero la Secretaría está procediendo, junto con la Delegación francesa, a hacer los ajustes necesarios. También en castellano hay alguna pequeña corrección que ya algunos delegados de América Latina y el Caribe y yo mismo hemos indicado a la Secretaría. Ruego a aquellas delegaciones que en sus idiomas respectivos tengan problemas semejantes, se lo comuniquen a la Secretaría para proceder a las correcciones necesarias.
En primer lugar, voy a conceder la palabra al Sr. Hartford Jennings, Representante de la Delegación de los Estados Unidos de América, quien, como ustedes recordarán, fue elegido por esta Comisión para presidir el Comité de Redacción que está integrado por trece miembros.
H.T. JENNINGS (Chairman, Drafting Committee): As Chairman of the Drafting Committee I am extremely pleased to be able to present this first section of the report of this Commission to you covering agenda item 12. I would like to begin by recognizing the efforts of the members of the Drafting Committee. It has taken long hours and hard work on the part of each and every member of the Committee to produce the text which you find before you and the members of the Commission. As Chairman of the Committee, however, I am perfectly happy in saying that I believe the result is one that can be commended to the Commission. Certainly perhaps none of the members of the Committee is entirely satisfied with every line but I do believe that the Committee as a whole feels that the report in this forum accurately, fully and concisely reflects the discussions on this question which took place in the Commission and we therefore commend it to you.
EL PRESIDENTE: Estoy seguro de que todos los miembros de la Comisión anticiparán su agradecimiento a usted y a los miembros del Comité de. Redacción. Su presentación ha sido objetiva y realista. Vamos a iniciar ahora la discusión de estos temas.
H. HØSTMARK (Norway): I am speaking on behalf of the Nordic delegations that are present in this Committee. We have very carefully studied the draft placed before us and with great interest since we were not members of the Drafting Committee and in spite of that, or maybe because of that, we do find this draft is, as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee just stated, a balanced and on the whole an accurate reflection of what took place during our deliberations here in this Committee. Of course, the language in a report like this would not win a Nobel literature prize just as always, when the Committee draws a horse it comes out a camel but we are not here to win prizes; we are here to give a substantive report of our debate and I think the Drafting Committee has achieved just that. If we, the full Committee, under your leadership should start discussing each paragraph of this report we might be able to make some scholastic changes but then again we might
not. What is certain is that it would take a very large amount of time, time that to the Nordic members of the Committee could more profitably be spent discussing the more important agenda items ahead of us.
Accordingly, on behalf of the Nordic countries, I would propose that this report, C 85/II/REP/1 and Sup.l, that is paragraphs 1 through 78 be placed by you before the Committee for adoption en bloc. It goes without saying that since the only language I really understand is the English language my proposal concerns the English text and the others would be, in case my proposal is given assent by the Committee, adjusted accordingly.
J. WINKEL (Federal Republic of Germany): The suggestion that has just been made by my Norwegian colleague is very interesting indeed. In order to facilitate the work we still have to do in connection with the Field Programme, and as you know I will chair that part of the Committee session, I would plead for adoption of that proposal to adopt both of these documents en bloc without starting a discussion once again. Of course, I must agree with my Norwegian colleague who said we cannot win a literature Nobel prize with this but perhaps we can get a Nobel peace prize if we manage to finish our work on time:
A. QADIR (Pakistan): As Vice-Chairman of Commission II I have an interest in seeing that the report that has emerged from the Drafting Committee should be adopted in total and with the unanimous support of the Commission. To this effect I would like to support the proposal made by the representative of Norway and the representative of the Federal Republic of Germany that the document be adopted in toto and unanimously by all members of this Commission.
The Drafting Commission headed by Mr Jennings, on which all shades of opinion were represented, has worked with dedication and devotion, often burning the midnight oil, and has produced a document that is not only balanced but commendable. I therefore hope that the Commission would endorse the report in the way the Norwegian delegate and the delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany have proposed that we deal with this item.
EL PRESIDENTE: Señores, han oído ustedes la propuesta constructiva que ha hecho nuestro colega y amigo el Sr. Hostmark de Noruega a nombre de los países nórdicos, propuesta que ha sido apoyada por los colegas y amigos Winkel de la República Federal de Alemania y el Embajador Qadir de Pakistán, nuestros dos distinguidos Vicepresidentes.
Si por una vez puedo abandonar mi condición de neutralidad, como Presidente quiero sumarme a esta propuesta y sumarme así al pleno apoyo de la Mesa Directiva de esa Comisión a esa iniciativa totalmente positiva.
Si no hay ningún comentario entiendo que esta Comisión decide adoptar en pleno el C 85/II/REP/1 con suplemento.
It was so decided
Il en est ainsi décidé
Así se acuerda
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
En nombre de toda la Comisión deseo reiterar mi más sincero y cordial agradecimiento al Sr. Jennings, del que tengo las mejores referencias acerca de la manera objetiva y dinámica como viene presidiendo el Comité de Redacción y a todos los demás miembros de ese Comité, que han sacrificado su pasado fin de semana para trabajar de manera intensa más de 24 horas en la preparación de este texto.
Las traducciones y la impresión, particularmente en casos como este, se hacen de manera muy rápida. Puedo asegurarles que la Secretaría tomará las precauciones necesarias para que los textos se presenten en versión final en todos los idiomas, de manera satisfactoria.
Quiero también agradecer muy sinceramente a todos los colegas que están en esta Sala; con casi todos ellos me he permitido entrar en contacto haciendo uso del privilegio de la amistad personal que a ellos me une. Como ya lo dijeron algunos de los que han intervenido antes, muchos de esos colegas me manifestaron que no estaban plenamente satisfechos, en uno u otro sentido, de manera que por ello quiero agradecerles sinceramente que hayan superado esas observaciones, justas desde su punto de vista, para sumarse a este consenso y rendir así un valioso servicio a esta Comisión, a toda la Conferencia y a la Comunidad Internacional.
Como es costumbre, al final de este Informe sobre el Tema 12 irá el Proyecto de Resolución sobre las asignaciones presupuestarias. Ese Proyecto de Resolución se presentará mañana en las primeras horas de la mañana a la luz de los últimos acontecimientos, cuestiones técnicas en las que yo creo que sólo la Secretaría habrá de decidir cómo va a presentar este Proyecto de Resolución, y así, les invito a que mañana en la Plenaria todos participemos en la adopción de esta parte de nuestro informe, y, en lo que es más importante, en la votación sobre el Proyecto de Resolución que contendrá las asignaciones presupuestarias.
No quiero dejar este sitio sin hacer una observación personal en contra de mi costumbre. Estoy muy reconocido al distinguido colega y amigo Harold Hostmark de Noruega. Con él he tenido muchas actividades comunes y su actitud de hoy es fruto de la experiencia, respeto y prestigio que se ha ganado como el Presidente del CPA particularmente, y además esa propuesta corresponde al espíritu pragmático y positivo que caracteriza siempre a los respetables países nórdicos.
Draft Report of Commission II, Part 1, and Part 1 Sup.l was adopted.
Le projet de rapport de la Commission II, première partie, avec son supplément est adopté.
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión II, parte 1 y su suplemento es aprobado.
Joachim Winkel, Vice-Chairman of Commission II,
took the chair.
Joachim Winkel, Vice-Président de la Commission II,
assume la présidence.
Ocupa la presidencia Joachim Winkel,
Vicepresidente de la Comisión II.
CHAIRMAN (original language German): We will now continue our discussions on item 14.
M. NIETO (Cuba): Deseo saludar sinceramente al Sr. Lignon y, por su intermedio, también a la Secretaría por la excelente presentación del Tema y por el completo documento que ha sido puesto a nuestra disposición.
Mi delegación celebra y respalda ese Informe en toda su extensión y sustentamos esta afirmación y este criterio al considerar que en el bienio actual, en las actividades de campo de la Organización, se han dado pasos importantes.
En la gestión prioritaria de la FAO para incrementar la producción de alimentos y en la seguridad alimentaria, encontramos muy adecuada la orientación de sus actividades. De igual forma constatamos una mayor atención a las actividades de ganadería y montes que consideramos una actuación acertada.
Con el ánimo de enriquecer los trabajos en las actividades de campo, entiendo que éstas pudieran reforzarse con un aumento del seguimiento y la evolución de los proyectos en curso o concluidos de manera que una acción tomada en un momento determinado mantenga su repercusión en los países tanto en el tiempo como en el espacio, aprovechando a plenitud todo el efecto multiplicador que se deriva de la aplicación de los proyectos, a veces con el apoyo externo o a veces a partir de las posibilidades locales. Esto es posible en la medida que tanto las Oficinas Regionales como los Representantes Permanentes sean suficientemente apoyados y respaldados. Merece destacarse que el 40 por ciento de las asignaciones para proyectos de campo se hayan destinado al Continente Africano, lo que demuestra la clara interpretación de la situación crítica de la alimentación y de la región y de la necesidad urgente de socorrerla.
En otro ángulo del Informe, apreciamos la constante preocupación de la FAO por elevar el nivel y la capacidad de los expertos y consultores que participan en los programas de campo, poniendo de relieve el esfuerzo realizado para tratar de contrarrestar en parte las limitaciones financieras impuestas y que las restricciones de carácter cuantitativo sean suplidas en cierta medida por una mejoría cualitativa.
El tema del PCT, que ha sido tratado aquí en diversas oportunidades, al parecer algunas delegaciones consideran que no ha quedado suficientemente claro y por esta razón le pido que me permita referirme brevemente a este aspecto.
Como ya dije en intervenciones anteriores, nuestra experiencia en materia de aplicación de proyectos de PCT es altamente positiva y ponderamos la bondad del programa, sobre todo para los países subdesarroliados.
Continuamos lamentando que el PNUD y el FIDA no tengan una recuperación financiera como era de esperar. El FIDA sigue esperando que se le repongan sus fondos, sin que se vislumbre una solución en corto plazo. Al parecer, la predisposición de ciertos países hacia estas organizaciones de ayuda al desarrollo no les permite ver la magnitud de las necesidades en cuanto a la solución del hambre y la miseria en el campo, respondiendo a políticas que merecen nuestra censura y rechazo.
A pesar de todas las políticas y restricciones financieras, las actividades de campo de la Organización se vieron incrémentadas en este bienio con respecto al anterior, demostrando la preocupación y dedicación del Director General en hacer'un uso racional y eficaz de los recursos.
En contraposición a estas ideas, hemos escuchado en esta sala que unos pocos delegados han puesto en tela de juicio el trabajo de la FAO argumentando falta de transparencia en los informes que se nos presentan para su examen o cuando se ha señalado que la FAO no sobresale por su buen trabajo.
Mi delegación considera que la inmensa mayoría de los países miembros reconoce como muy encomiable la labor de la FAO, respaldándola con el otorgamiento de toda su confianza. Creemos, señor Presidente, que debemos hacer un llamado a la unidad de todos para que reflexionemos con justeza y arrivemos a conclusiones válidas, y que en este 40° Aniversario de la FAO, es decir 40 años de servicio a los nobles intereses, la Organización salga de este período de sesiones más fortalecida, más dinámica y más activa para que continúe en su noble tarea de luchar, junto a todos los países miembros de buena voluntad, por erradicar el hambre y la miseria y por el bienestar de la humanidad.
MOHD YASSIN MOHD SALLEH (Malaysia): I would like first of all to congratulate Mr Lignon for his excellent introduction of the Review to this Commission. I would like also to pay tribute to the FAO Secretariat for preparing a comprehensive Review of Field programmes for 1984-85.
The Review is well written and provides an in-depth evaluation of many field projects carried out in the different countries. My delegation notes with interest the share of field activities in Africa which reached 40 percent in terms of project expenditure. They expect an increase in the future due to the present food crisis and the increase in training projects under the FAO ' s field programmes for the biennium 1984-85.
It is also noted that the quality of the project management and performance of counterpart staff is a critical implementation factor in determining project results. My delegation is rather concerned by the fact that projects undertaken in LDC's usually produce less satisfactory results than those located elsewhere and that large-scale multi-disciplinary projects are more likely to run into difficulties. On the other hand smaller, shorter-duration projects were assessed as more efficient on the average. But then this is to be expected given the narrower and more limited objectives of such intervention programmes.
My delegation is convinced that the FAO Secretariat takes due note of the shortcomings and pitfalls of project implementation and performance that are revealed in the evaluation reports and the conclusions as contained in the Review. Nevertheless my delegation wishes to emphasize the urgent need to formulate appropriate concrete steps to ensure that future field programme activities do not encounter the same problems. Where problems are related to recipient countries steps must be taken to minimize this as situations warrant. In this connection my delegation would like to make three specific suggestions, namely: (i) the experience and expertise gathered by the FAO in the course of implementing field activities should be fully brought to bear in the planning, execution and management of ongoing projects in order to obviate any likelihood of failure; (ii) Since funding is limited proper criteria should be noted in the selection of projects and then concerted efforts should be made to ensure their success; (iii) It is to be noted that developing countries have, over the years, acquired and developed expertise in various areas covered by and related to the field programmes and this should be utilized in the context of promoting intercountry collaboration through TCP.
My last point is on the Forestry Programme. My delegation wishes to reiterate the support it has given in the Council to the emphasis on forestry development in the Review. I would also hasten to comment on the need to pay particular attention to forestry development in the tropics. The effective conservation and wise use of the highly complex tropical rain forests requires careful appraisal and management of the resources, which tend to be beyond the capability of most developing countries. Consequently FAO's comprehensive project in Brazil, notably and I quote: "the large scale attempt to manage a natural humid tropical forest on a rational scientific basis in a timely pilot Amazonian area" is of great importance and interest to other tropical countries, and there should be adequate opportunities to share the expertise developed and the information generated. FAO undertook to promote and support a similar project in the Asia and Pacific region and also to facilitate inter-regional cooperation in this endeavour, as time is of the essence in the development of the appropriate knowledge and technology necessary for the effective conservation and wise use of the rapidly decreasing natural tropical forest resources for a sustained yield of social economic benefits for the largest possible number of people.
R. MACINTOSH (Canada): Without wishing to offend Mr Lignon who has given a very fine introduction, we would like to begin by referring to Mr Shah's comments at the close of yesterday's debate on the Review of the Regular Programme, in particular his mention of the position Canada had taken on the carry-over of funds for TCP. While we would leave it to the members of the Commission to judge the relevance of references to statements made five years ago, you may be assured that in view of the energy of Mr Shah's archivists we shall certainly be choosing our words very carefully today.
We would like to express our thanks to the Secretariat for this most informative and well structured document. As an overview comment may we say that we regard both the presentation and the content as an improvement over previous editions and therefore hopefully indicative of a refreshing spirit of self-examination to which my delegation, for one, will be ready to give every possible measure of encouragement.
Today we would like to address ourselves to two sets of issues raised by the document. First that of the quality of evaluation that is reflected in the document and secondly the remarks made in the document and by certain other speakers regarding the flow of concessional resources to the agricultural sector of developing countries. With regard to the quality of evaluation I would merely like to recall our points registered at the last Council meeting. At that time the Canadian delegation put forth three basic perspectives from which we felt the merits of any evaluation had to be treated. First we should be interested in the degree of candour that is evidenced in the narratives given. Second we should take note of the amount of objective, as distinct from subjective, information material contained in the assessment. Third we should examine the extent of effort that has been made to identify in a rigorous and credible fashion the areas of improvement which suggest themselves from the analysis. From the perspective of candour we very much appreciate the relatively greater willingness this year to share frankly with us information on field programme delivery including that information which indicates certain problems or deficiencies that have been encountered. With regard to the objectivity of the information presented however, we are not convinced by the arguments of some to the effect that the evaluatio of technical cooperation projects cannot or should not be subject to the same measurements of economic impact as other areas of development assistance. Indeed we remain rather disappointed at what appears to be the general scarcity of such data in this document, nor even the indication or an assurance that the acquisition of such material was at least regarded as a matter of importance to those concerned. Indeed some of the criteria used to measure what is euphemistically called 'project outputs' or 'project defects' is not readily apparent from the document before us. What passes for impact assessment seems to be a sort of in-house scoring scheme, the rules of the game for which appear by their very nature to be likely to lead to judgements of a less than scientific nature.
We would find it far more useful, in coming to an appreciation of the value of FAO's programmes, to have provided to us additional information on such questions as the impact on yields, as the result of newly introduced cultivation practices, the amount of disease reduction as the consequence of certain livestock projects or multiplier effects involved by virtue of training initiatives in terms of the stock of trained manpower or the rate of adaption of new inputs. It is this kind of thing that is surely more important than mere performance reports. We want to know that the projects really did make a useful contribution and how they did so, not just whether the expert arrived at his post on time and carried out "X" number of field trials or had "Y" number of trainees attend the workshop he conducted. We are full well aware that getting this information for every single project undertaken is not feasible or practical and also that the time frame involved in evaluation may be longer than one biennium but we do not feel that a move in the direction I have cited is unwarranted in the name of more genuinely helpful evaluation.
In connection with the third perspective, that of determining the areas where improvements might be useful, we feel the document has much to commend itself in pointing to the need to take better account of recipient country situations, particularly from the standpoint of realistic project design and prospects for follow-up. In fact we would be tempted to broaden this consideration somewhat by suggesting that the policy environment for agricultural development be taken into account in mounting projects as well as the range of activities of other donors in the sector and their respective experiences.
The second area of concern is once again the remarks made in the document and in the discussions we have had concerning the flow of concessional resources to the food and agricultural sector. In all frankness we believe there is room for a greater measure of balance in some of the comments made particularly in assessing the distinction between cause and effect in accounting for apparent changes in the level of those flows. The amount of ODA resources being put at present at FAO's disposal by extra-budgetary sources of funding can in one sense be seen as something of a scientific phenomenon. These flows can be seen to thrive in certain conditions and not in others. Accordingly FAO has been seen as a relevant and useful.executing mechanism by some funding sources while it has not been so seen by a number of others - indeed I would say by most others. I am afraid in the documents and in the debate so far there has been a tendency to externalize the reasons for the so-called "unreliable flow of ODA resources to agriculture in general and to accomplish this through FAO in particular." Perhaps nowhere is this tendency so evident as in the repeated inclination to blame UNDP for such a large share of FAO's problems in delivering technical assistance to the food sector. Certainly we join all speakers in their sense of concern for UNDP's overall resource position. My Government has worked diligently towards a more secure funding base
for UNDP financing including the championing of a replenishment system that would ensure resource flows over a multi-year period. The other day we announced a very major real increase in our UNDP contribution. We will continue to work towards these goals and we therefore cannot accept the argument that whatever constraints UNDP has suffered from in the past justify a larger role for assessed budgets in assuming the functions of technical assistance funding. Additionally we are concerned that an incorrect impression is being promulgated on UNDP's alleged unwillingness to concentrate on the food sector in its resource allocations. As I understand the situation, the allocations made to one sector or another are made by the beneficiary countries themselves in drawing up their country programmes. These programmes are tied to the recipient's own economic and social development priorities. UNDP reflects the priorities of the beneficiary states, not of UNDP staff. Moreover, we are puzzled by the concern for duplication and lack of coordination which has supposedly resulted from the evolution of the UNDP Office of Project Execution (OPE).
We will leave aside the observations that we have not often found FAO in the forefront of many campaigns to roll back the scourge of duplication, except perhaps to say that the evidence of this preoccupation has been very slight indeed when it comes to ensuring for instance that TCP initiatives or objectives are consistent with UNDP country programmes. The fact remains that the UNDP Office of Project Execution has consistently enjoyed the full support of the UNDP Governing Council and the General Assembly since it was first set up.
We detect a certain contradiction in members criticizing a funding agency such as UNDP for establishing a project-executing capacity while at the same time fully endorsing that an executing agency such as FAO establish and expand a funding facility in the form of TCP. The frequently negative reference to UNDP is but one example of this tendency to externalize problems in sustaining full programme levels.
Although the document suggests that comfort is to be taken from the rapid growth of Trust Funds under FAO auspices, thereby compensating for the drop in UNDP resources, there can in fact be little comfort in such a narrow range of donors accounting for such a high percentage of Trust Fund arrangements, and with even some of those donors increasingly expressing their concern over the FAO mechanism relative to opportunities to accomplish similar ends through. other agencies, or via the bilateral route.
Like the delegation of Denmark that spoke yesterday, Canada has serious doubts regarding the cost effectiveness of using the FAO, notwithstanding the highly trained and dedicated staff which the agency possesses. Canada wishes only the best for FAO's field programmes and recognizes the oftentimes excellent contribution they have made in responding to recipients' needs, as well as the potential role they could play in overcoming the bottlenecks and constraints of the development process in a large number of countries. We are concerned however that a more harmonious modus vivendi will have to be found in relation to FAO's fund resources before a greater level of stability will be established. In circumstances where FAO development projects are seen to be of highly developed impact, as evidenced from sound and objective evaluation, where the instruments of accountability and transparency are solidly in place, and finally where the implementation of projects is clearly cost effective in relation to other modes of technical assistance delivery, we are confident that the source levels could in fact be stabilized and that the facilities of FAO could be more amply utilized for the benefit of the entire community of FAO's membership.
R. MARTINEZ MUÑOZ (Colombia): Nos complace intervenir bajo su dirección, señor Presidente; usted representa a la República Federal de Alemania gran país al cual Colombia está unida por gratos lazos de cooperación y amistad.
La delegación colombiana considera que este documento representa las progresivas y claras mejoras que se han venido introduciendo en las importantes actividades de campo de la Organización. Ahora los proyectos corresponden a las verdaderas prioridades decididas por los gobiernos, y los expertos han mejorado notablemente en sus capacidades y condiciones.
Apoyamos el uso creciente de consultores y expertos de los países en desarrollo, así como de nuestras instituciones nacionales porque consideramos que todo ello cumple la función de capacitar cada vez mejor al personal de los países en desarrollo y contribuye a liberarnos de la dependencia de expertos de países desarrollados a que antes estábamos sometidos.
Desafortunadamente debemos lamentar la disminución de fondos del PNUD por tercer año consecutivo; nos complace, en cambio, el aumento de los gastos con cargo a los Programas de fondos fiduciarios que en 1984 superaron casi en un 30 por ciento las actividades realizadas con fondos de la FAO/PNUD.
En los fondos fiduciarios los Países Nórdicos están a la cabeza. En el Consejo pasado oímos una declaración a nombre de esos Países Nórdicos según la cual ellos harán un alto prudente en esa generosa contribución a fondos fiduciarios.
Al reconocer y agradecer la importante fūnción de los Países Nórdicos en este campo, la delegación de Colombia de manera muy cordial y respetuosa desearía solicitar a los cuatro nobles Países Nórdicos que no descontinúen, sino que insistan en su actuación positiva a este respecto.
En relación con la distribución geográfica de los proyectos de campo la delegación de Colombia considera que es importante que a la Región de América Latina y el Caribe se le conceda la importancia que merecen 33 países de esa área del mundo.
Pensamos que las actividades de la FAO en apoyo a las inversiones es muy importante y por ello apoyamos la labor del -Centro de Inversiones y especialmente del Program de Cooperación FAO/Banco Mundial.
La delegación colombiana apoya plenamente las funciones de los propios representantes de la FAO en los países. Conceptuamos que ese aspecto importante de la política de descentralización del Director General que comenzó hace diez años, en 1976, ha producido los mejores resultados.
Los representantes de la FAO en los países son válidos interlocutores de los gobiernos y realizan tareas de gran significación.
La delegación de Colombia considera también que las Oficinas Regionales pueden seguir prestando una valiosa cooperación en las actividades de campo no sólo a través de los proyectos subregionales y regionales, sino también mediante la cooperación de los Oficiales establecidos en la sede de las Oficinas Regionales en contacto con los gobiernos a través de los representantes de la FAO en los países.
La delegación de Colombia desea apoyar plenamente con todo entusiasmo la declaración del distinguido representante de Suëcia en apoyo a aquellas personas minusválidas que por estar afectadas en uno u otro sentido merecen especial atención. Creemos que la FAO, a través de sus actividades de campo, puede ofrecer oportunidad que contribuya a la rehabilitación de esos minusválidos. La delegación de Colombia considera que la iniciativa de Suecia al respecto corresponde al sentido humano y generoso que caracteriza a los representantes de los Países Nórdicos, la cual coincide con la política social del gobierno colombiano en esta materia.
Por ello confiamos que esta Comisión apoyará plenamente el párrafo que ha sido propuesto por la delegación de Suecia para que sin debilitarlo ni alterarlo figure adecuadamente en el informe de esta Comisión.
O. LINDSTAD (Norway): We wish to congratulate the Secretariat for its clear and comprehensive document which is presented to us. We are particularly happy to see that more efforts are being made to increase food production among small farmers, and to learn that the key roles played by women in this respect are recognized and integrated in development activity to a much greater degree than they were just a few years ago. However, we still have a long way to go.
Regarding the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development, it is stated that: "It in fact led to a thorough review and re-examination of both the content and modalities of all FAO's main field projects." I hope that soon this can be said about more than FAO's field programmes.
We have some comments on the Chapters on Forestry and on Training. I shall start with Forestry.
The analysis in the document shows the broad spectrum of forestry activities and the improved integration of other fields of activity. The reorientation towards community forestry and fuel-wood production must be welcomed. In this process two aspects should however be recognized; one, the multi-purpose role of forestry must be emphasized - the protective and the productive role of forests should not normally be separated in isolated areas, but increasingly combined; two, the long production cycles in forestry necessitate early investment. It seems too often to be the case that plantations are established when resources are already depleted. This creates the need for using fast growing species which are not always the best species for the actual purposes in the long run.
Turning to Chapter Four, C., Some Recent Features of Training in Field Projects, lack of knowledge need not be the major obstacle to development but very often is. FAO has for a long time recognized the importance of training and the extension services. To my delegation, it seems necessary to translate this recognition into actual efforts. I am not here thinking of increasing the quantity, but primarily of improving the quality.
In paragraphs 4.29 to 4.45, impressive information and figures are given about how many have been trained, who has been trained and how they are being trained. At the end of the Chapter some consideration has been given to the registered or assumed outcome of all this training but not very much. Large amounts of resources have readily been used on training, and this calls for thorough studies of the outcome of these allocations. We all know that it is difficult to measure real achievements in education, training and extension work - but it still has to be done. In paragraph 4.27 the document gives an overview of the previous assessment of FAO's training activities, the latest being held in 1979-80. The FAO's inter-departmental work group on training is currently following FAO's efforts in this field. In spite of all this, perhaps the time will soon be ripe for a new in-depth study of FAO's training activities with the quality and outcome of training as the focal points. In such a study substantial use should be made of evaluators from outside FAO.and the UN System, here in the three apartheid groups. Experience shows that when evaluators study the work of their own or related institutions, elements of self-defense easily get into analyses and appraisals.
Finally, the Norwegian delegation wishes to support the initiative taken by the Swedish delegation concerning disabled persons.
Mme M. LOURDES DUARTE (Cap-Vert): La délégation du Cap-Vert tient à féliciter M. Lignon pour la présentation du document et le Secrétariat pour sa qualité. Ce document nous permet d'analyser l'importance, le suivi et les tendances des activités opérationnelles de la FAO pendant le biennium 1984-85.
D'après ce bilan, les programmes de terrain qui ont subi une relative amélioration par rapport au biennium précédent restent encore insuffisants face aux besoins de l'Afrique et des pays en développement en général.
Nous saisissons cette occasion pour remercier les donateurs des fonds fiduciaires qui constituent la principale source de financement des activités de terrain de la FAO; en particulier ma délégation remercie l'Italie qui, dans le cadre des fonds fiduciaires, finance quelques projets en cours d'exécution au Cap-Vert, notamment le projet de soutien au service national de production animale, le projet de soutien à l'Institut national de coopération et le projet de réorganisation du service national de vulgarisation agricole.
Nos remerciements s'adressent également à la Belgique, principal donateur du fonds fiduciaire pour le projet de reboisement au Cap-Vert.
L'Afrique une fois encore a absorbé une part croissante des activités de terrain, environ 40 pour cent. D'autre part, il est préoccupant d'observer la diminution des fonds du PNUD. Nous nous réjouissons du rôle accru de l'aide aux activités forestières et de la participation nationale aux projets de terrain.
Avant de terminer permettez-moi de féliciter la délégation suédoise et d'appuyer sa déclaration à propos des préoccupations de ce pays envers les personnes handicapées.
Enfin nous félicitons la FAO pour la place accordée à la formation et á la CTPD et lui recommandons de poursuivre la même voie dans l'examen des programmes de terrain ultérieurs.
P. WIESMANN (Suisse): J'aimerais m'associer à tous ceux qui m'ont précédé pour féliciter le Secrétariat de la préparation du document C 85/4, qui est bien structuré et informatif. J'aimerais aussi remercier M. Lignon pour son excellente présentation de ce document.
Ma délégation aimerait surtout exprimer sa satisfaction de la façon honnête avec laquelle les auteurs du rapport ont présenté et commenté les résultats de l'évaluation interne des programmes. Mais nous sommes aussi de l'avis qu'une amélioration, surtout dans la direction d'une meilleure appréciation des effets des programmes pour le développement, est désirable.
Dans mon intervention, j'aimerais faire quelques commentaires sur quatre points: premièrement, sur les aspects financiers des programmes; deuxièmement, sur l'évolution de la coopération au développement; troisièmement, sur la coopération technique entre pays en développement; et quatrièmement, sur l'assistance forestière.
Sur le premier point - les aspects financiers - après avoir pris note des intéressants commentaires des orateurs qui nous ont précédés, nous pourrons être brefs. Si l'apport aux programmes de terrain de la FAO financés par le PNUD s'est contracté en termes réels, il faut signaler que divers pays, année après année, exercent une influence en sens inverse en augmentant en valeur réelle leur contribution au PNUD. La Suisse fait partie de ces pays. En 1986, elle accroîtra, en termes réels, d'environ 5 pour cent sa contribution au PNUD - ou de 8 pour cent, en valeur nominale, en francs suisses. Au cours de ces trois dernières années, la Suisse a en outre accru, en valeur réelle, ses contributions sous forme de fonds fiduciaires au bénéfice des programmes de terrain de la FAO. Cet accroissement a été d'environ 5 pour cent par an.
Deuxième point: l'évaluation de la coopération au développement, telle que nous la présente le Directeur général, nous a grandement intéressés. Elle suscite de notre part plusieurs commentaires et une question. nous sommes heureux de constater que les capacités augmentent dans les pays en développement au point qu'on en vient à parler - je cite le paragraphe 4.4 du document -dans les pays en développement les plus avancés, d'une coopération technique devenant "complémentarité technique", d'un transfert de connaissances qui est loin d'être à sens unique. Au fur et à mesure qu'augmentent les capacités dans les pays en développement, la FAO sait adapter la forme de sa coopération selon les principes de la subsidiarité de l'aide, et nous l'en félicitons. Elle fait appel à ces capacités en mobilisant soit des experts, soit des institutions des pays en développement. L'appel fait à des institutions, qu'il s'agisse de firmes d'ingénieurs, d'organisations non gouvernementales ou d'institutions scientifiques, nous paraît particulièrement profitable à trois titres:
Premièrement, tout en exécutant son mandat, l'institution choisie accumule de l'expérience et accroît encore sa capacité.
Deuxièmement, un mandat donné à une institution locale - au tarif local de rémunération, généralement beaucoup plus bas que le tarif international - a pour conséquence de permettre à cette institution de financer, avec le montant octroyé par la FAO, bien plus de services d'experts que lorsqu'on a recours à des spécialistes expatriés.
Troisièmement, cette pratique contribue globalement à réduire la fuite des cerveaux ou leur sous-emploi.
Cette même évolution de la coopération technique de la FAO, considérée sous un autre angle, relève de la place croissante que prend un certain type d'aide financière par rapport à la coopération technique directe au sein de nombreux projets. L'aide financière dont nous parlons ici consiste en transferts de fonds dans les pays en développement pour financer la composante d'assistance technique locale dont nous venons de parler et, dans une plus faible mesure, pour financer les investissements.s
Disons d'emblée que nous ne sommes pas opposés à cet aspect de l'évolution. De même que les banques de développement ont des composantes de coopération technique dans leurs projets, les organisations spécialisées des Nations Unies peuvent avoir des composantes d'aide financière dans les leurs, l'objectif étant, dans tous ces cas, de maximiser les effets du financement apporté.
Mais nous souhaitons connaître la position du Directeur général sur cette modification progressive de l'importance relative des deux composantes au sein des projets soutenus par la FAO et sur ses implications à long terme.
Mon troisième point est la coopération technique entre les pays en développement (CTPD). Nous recommandons à la FAO de conserver son appui à cette forme de coopération que, soit dit en passant, nous appuyons aussi avec succès dans le cadre de la coopération bilatérale suisse. Si nous recommandons à la FAO de persévérer, c'est parce qu'il s'agit d'une approche complexe où l'équilibre des relations entre partenaires au sein d'un réseau joue un grand rôle. Remarquons aussi que certains réseaux de la CTPD sont faits pour durer et doivent donc s'institutionnaliser tandis que d'autres réseaux peuvent disparaître une fois l'objectif atteint. Ces aspects et bien d'autres exigent des partenaires beaucoup d'habileté. Nous voudrions ici leur souhaiter plein succès, d'autant plus sincèrement que nous voyons dans ces réseaux de la CTPD à la fois l'une des meilleures formes d'assistance technique mutuelle et l'une des meilleures formes d'autodéveloppement à long terme dans les domaines techniques.
Quatrième point: il est évident que des efforts considérables ont été faits pour la promotion de la foresterie communautaire, soit par réorientation de nombreux projets en faveur des ruraux pauvres, soit par le lancement de nouveaux programmes. Mentionnons les vastes projets en cours au Népal, à El Salvador et au Sénégal. Bien que des projets d'une telle ampleur posent des problèmes d'organisation, il faut reconnaître qu'ils sont nécessaires pour faire face à une situation économique et écologique extrêmement grave qui nécessite donc des interventions rapides et étendues.
Nous sommes satisfaits de constater que le nombre de projets ayant une composante portant sur le bois de feu a quintuplé de 1980 à 1985. A propos de ce secteur, nous voudrions souligner ce qui suit: les' reboisements villageois qui visent la production de bois de feu sont d'un intérêt plus particulier car ils procurent en peu de temps - de quatre à six ans - des avantages tangibles pour la population concernée; ces avantages motivent les villageois et les incitent à protéger les plantations et à les renouveler. Lorsque les conditions d'une région s'y prêtent, les reboisements villageois peuvent inciter les autorités et la population à procéder à des reboisements à une plus grande échelle, avec ou sans aide extérieure. Du même coup, les programmes de bois de feu deviennent ainsi des instruments de lutte contre l'érosion et même la désertification.
Enfin, la délégation suisse tient à appuyer pleinement l'initiative suédoise concernant les handicapés.
Horst WETZEL (Federal Republic of Germany) (original language German): My delegation encourages FAO to place the evaluation of field projects on an even broader basis, if possible. In addition to the joint evaluation missions with UNDP or the Trust Fund donors as well as the recipient countries, a large number of FAO field projects have been evaluated by FAO Representatives on the spot.
We welcome the frankness with which the results have been classified as "good", "satisfactory" and "not satisfactory". These efforts to evaluate the work of the Organization carried out in the field should, in our view, be further strengthened and continue to be considered for future work. Here again, it would seem wise to resort more frequently to the Joint Inspection Unit for external evaluation, in accordance with repeated suggestions that we have made.
Mr Chairman, you will understand that we are particularly interested in learning from developing countries during this discussion how they evaluate Field Programmes. The concerns of the FAO Secretariat on the decline of UNDP funds that has been going on for years - that is to say the resources of UNDP assigned to FAO for the agricultural sector - are only part of the problem, because the point is that it is the developing countries themselves who determine which share of the UNDP funds available they would wish to use for carrying out agricultural programmes and projects. Here the Canadian delegate has just made some very wise comments. This decline, however, has been partly set off by
the gratifying development of Trust Funds. We were satisfied to note that the volume of FAO Field Programmes has slightly increased in 1984-85 as compared with the 1982-83 biennium. However, the effectiveness of both multilateral and bilateral field programmes could still be enhanced, in our view, by a better coordination, particularly on the country level.
For the Government of my country, the UNDP continues to be the central source of funds for multilateral technical cooperation. The Federal Government is providing bilateral assistance through the channel of its own development assistance agencies. In these programmes, an important share is taken by the support of rural development, a share which has continually risen in recent years from 20.6 percent of Government pledges under financial and technical cooperation in 1982 to 26 percent in 1984. The pledges for 1984 attained a volume of DM.804.5 million, DM.44 million more than the year before. Food and agriculture will also in future have priority in our fruitful cooperation with developing countries.
In conclusion let me refer to the proposals made yesterday by the Swedish delegation in favour of the handicapped. Let me stress that we fully endorse these proposals.
R.W.M. JOHNSON (New Zealand): We welcome the information given in the four Chapters of the document C 85/4. My brief remarks today are largely confined to Chapter Two. This Chapter continues the reporting comments in earlier conferences and meetings on the evaluation of field projects. We welcome the dual approach of combining the FAO Representatives' assessments with the synthesis of evaluation reports for the period 1980 to 1984. This approach gives an extensive review of the global activities of the many field programmes together with more detailed and in-depth analysis of the evaluation report. We look forward to further detailed evaluations along the lines suggested by the Canadian delegate. The results of these reviews are not all likely to be favourable. We do not expect them to be so. The important point is that these review procedures are in place and appear to be working. This can only be useful as project requests, project designs and project implementation can be undertaken with the ultimate need for evaluation to be fully incorporated. In this way there can be some assurance that resources are being directed to these projects that contribute to the objectives of food production, food security and growth in national income.
I believe the statements in paragraphs 2.93 to 2.103 are a worthwhile summary of this point of view, and a confirmation of the important role for the evaluation system. We support the Secretariat in this work.
Chapters Three and Four while less analytical than Chapter Two also add to our knowledge of the work of FAO in the area of forestry and other special activities. Reviews of these and other similar activities should be the subject of study in future reports to the Conference.
S. DJELLOULI (Tunisie-) : Au nom de la Délégation tunisienne, je voudrais vous adresser mes vifs compliments alors que vous présidez notre séance de travail.
Je tiens à féliciter M. Lignon pour sa parfaite introduction du sujet et pour ses commentaires clairs et précis. Mes remerciements vont également au Secrétariat pour la qualité des documents présentés et leur distribution dans les délais.
Le document C 85/4 concernant l'examen des programmes de terrain pour l'exercice 1984-85 rencontre l'approbation de ma délégation. Il ressort de l'étude de ce document que la FAO avait exécuté, au début de 1985, environ 2500 projets de terrain répartis dans 141 pays et d'un coût total de plus de 1 700 millions de dollars. L'examen de ces chiffres est impressionnant et nous tenons à rendre hommage au Directeur général pour ce tour de force qui caractérise sa persévérante volonté de réussir avec les moyens relativement modestes dont dispose l'Organisation.
Cependant, il y a lieu de souligner que durant la période considérée le nombre des petits projets de courte durée s'est accru depuis l'exercice précédent. Ils représentent en effet 70 pour cent des projets en exécution. Ceci met nettement en évidence les possibilités et les avantages que l'on peut tirer du PCT, qui constitue de ce fait une source importante pour les programmes de terrain.
Il est également à souligner le rôle important que joue le Centre d'investissement de la FAO dans l'aide et le soin qu'il apporte á la formulation des projets d'investissement destinés à être financés par la Banque mondiale ou d'autres institutions de financement.
En parlant de financement, je voudrais signaler les inquiétudes de ma délégation en constatant que les allocations du Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement (PNUD) à la FAO sont en nette régression. Alors qu'en 1970 le PNUD finançait près de 90 pour cent des activités de terrain de la FAO, cette part a chuté à 40 pour cent en 1984. Cette situation demeure préoccupante car elle affecte considérablement la coopération technique multilatérale du secteur agricole.
Dans le même ordre d'idée, nous sommes très préoccupés et inquiets à propos des problèmes survenus dernièrement concernant les difficultés de reconstitution des ressources du FIDA. Nous pensons que ce problème est grave et mérite une attention toute particulière, compte tenu du rôle que joue le FIDA; surtout en matière d'aide et de promotion des petits et moyens agriculteurs.
En ce qui concerne le rôle des femmes dans le développement, la Constitution tunisienne et notre Code du statut personnel font une large place à la femme dans la société et au sein de la famille. A cet effet, nous avons un Ministère de la famille et de la promotion de la femme. Nous appuyons en conséquence tout programme visant à l'essor économique et social de la femme rurale.
Pour les handicapés et leur participation active dans les programmes de développement, la proposition du délégué de la Suède est louable et mérite toute notre attention.
En ce qui concerne le chapitre 11 du document C 85/4, qui traite de l'évaluation et de l'efficacité et de la performance des projets de terrain, ma délégation estime que dans leur ensemble les résultats sont positifs.
Pour le chapitre III qui concerne l'assistance aux projets forestiers, ma délégation note avec satisfaction que cette assistance est en constante progression, et ceci grâce au soutien accru des fonds fiduciaires.
Enfin, l'analyse du dernier chapitre du document cité fait ressortir que la FAO entreprend des efforts louables pour faire participer les cadres nationaux à l'élaboration et à la direction des projets de terrain. Cependant, nous pensons qu'il reste beaucoup à faire dans le cadre de cette action, notamment au niveau des pays les moins avancés. En effet, ce sont les cadres nationaux qui seront appelés à assurer la relève des experts internationaux et c'est de ces premiers que dépendra la poursuite des activités entreprises et la préservation des acquis.
M.A. COMMINS (Australia): In our view the report represents a fair and frank assessment of areas of FAO's operational activities and we certainly welcome it. As mentioned by Mr Lignon in his very helpful introduction, the analysis in the report is based on two different approaches. The first of these which draws on assessments by FAO field representatives, can only provide in our view, and in the apparent absence of verifiable indicators of project performance and the necessary degree of detachment, insights into achievements and weaknesses, common problems and so on. The second approach, involving a more detailed synthesis of reports of individual evaluation missions carried out by the FAO Evaluation Service, represents, in our view, a more systematic and coherent approach to the exercise.
As acknowledged in the Review, the former and more subjective approach indicates a better catalogue performance than the latter method. Understandably, the more complex multi-functional projects are the most difficult to implement. Without wishing to labour performance figures, some of which may be of questionable value, it is apparent from our reading of the Review that there continue to be weaknesses in the field programmes of FAO. We are, however, confident that once identified they will be progressively overcome.
The basic problem which has affected all development agencies, including Australia's, is the apparent lack within FAO of an appropriate framework for project planning and implementation. As we mentioned in the last meeting of the Council, this is sometimes known as the project planning and management cycle and covers the managerial concepts and systems needed to organize multipurpose and multi-functional development programmes from the initial identification and definition stage to the final follow-up and analysis of action stage. Cost benefit or cost effectiveness is an integral part of this process and special stress is placed on proper project planning, design and close monitoring which are usually the main factors hindering the attainment of project objectives. In our view, these techniques can be applied to technical assistance activities in a cost-effective way.
From our reading of the report, it acknowledges and identifies deficiencies in a number of these inter-related parts of the project cycle but perhaps falls short in making comprehensive recommendations concerning specific ways of overcoming them. We believe, however, that the comprehensive guidelines on the evaluation of technical assistance projects prepared by the Evaluation Unit for use by Headquarters and field staff should help the Organization to deliver its field programmes in a more efficient and cost-effective way.
More than ever before, donors are facing increased and competing demands on their finite resources, especially in the field of agricultural and rural development. Donors are obliged to make difficult choices based on objective criteria relating to how their funds should be allocated. In this context and as a contributor to FAO's Trust Fund Programmes, we welcome the increased recognition that FAO is now giving to evaluation as an important means of improving the qualitative aspects of its field programmes. We join with Japan in requesting regular in-depth and independent evaluations of FAO field activities, including the TCP.
Turning now to the declining resources from the UNDP, we would like to point out that that Organization is also responsible to its governing bodies and a number of us here are also members of them.
We would also like to point out that the establishment of the OPE was carefully reviewed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and fully debated in the UNDP Governing Council in which a consensus was reached expressing support for the OPE. We feel that statements criticizing actions of another institution without perhaps knowing fully the reasons for them will not enhance the level of cooperation and coordination which we would all like to see within the United Nations System in delivering assistance to those in need.
We join with Denmark, the Federal Republic of Germany, Canada, New Zealand and others in requesting closer cooperation at the field level between FAO, UNDP and other UN agencies and bilateral donors.
Finally, we join with others in supporting Sweden's initiative regarding support for the disabled.
M. MOMBOULI (Congo): C'est avec un vif intérêt que la délégation congolaise a analysé les documents relatifs à ce point 13 de l'ordre du jour de notre Conférence, consacré à l'examen des programmes de terrain 1984-85 de la FAO. Parmi ces documents d'intérêt, nous citerons les sections pertinentes du rapport de la 59ème session du Comité des programmes, celles du rapport de la 88ème session du Conseil, ainsi que le document principal C 85/4 qui nous a été si brillamment présenté par M.Lignon, que nous tenons à féliciter.
Ainsi que nous le rappelions antérieurement à l'occasion de l'examen du Programme ordinaire et de l'analyse de l'évaluation du Programme de coopération technique de la FAO pour 1984-85, dans le processus de programmation, de suivi et de contrôle des projets et programmes en général, l'évaluation et l'examen revêtent à nos yeux une importance capitale pour la simple raison qu'ils permettent de recenser les progrès accomplis dans l'exécution des programmes et projets, et de déceler les insuffisances et leurs causes profondes auxquelles on doit par la suite s'efforcer de trouver les moyens de déblocage. Cette façon de voir les évaluations et les examens vaut, une fois de plus pour notre part, pour ce qui concerne cet examen du programme de terrain 1984-85 de la FAO.
Nous avons pris bonne note une fois de plus de l'objectivité avec laquelle le secrétariat a su analyser les tendances actuelles des programmes de terrain de la FAO.
La baisse persistante des projets financés par le PNUD continue à nous préoccuper, bien que le niveau des activités de la FAO financées par les fonds fiduciaires ait continué à augmenter parallèlement, étant donné que ces fonds fiduciaires ne comblent pas encore totalement le vide créé par la réduction des ressources du PNUD.
Nous continuons à apprécier les activités engagées par l'Organisation dans le cadre du PCT et nous nous félicitons de l'action dynamique déployée par le Centre d'investissement en matière de préinvestissement.
Nous avons noté avec satisfaction la part importante des activités entreprises par la FAO en faveur de l'Afrique subsaharienne et qui représente actuellement 40 pour cent de l'ensemble des programmes de terrain. Nous saisissons, cette occasion pour rappeler une fois de plus l'importance que nous accordons aux programmes de relance de l'agriculture en Afrique, garants plus sûrs de la sécurité alimentaire de notre continent dont les besoins actuels en secours alimentaires d'urgence restent encore à satisfaire. Nous nous félicitons de la solidarité exprimée par les ressortissants d'autres régions d'Afrique.
Nous apprécions à sa juste valeur le processus de nomination des directeurs de projets et d'experts nationaux engagés par la FAO et l'encourageons à développer cette politique qui cadre bien avec la conjoncture de contraction actuelle de certaines de ses sources de financement, le PNUD en particulier.
Nous nous félicitons de l'importance accordée dans le présent examen au développement forestier et souhaitons qu'autant d'importance soit accordée par l'Organisation dans ses programmes futurs aux cultures appelées faussement cultures secondaires, parmi lesquelles les plantes à tubercules et la banane plantain sont dans bon nombre de nos pays les cultures de base de l'alimentation.
Comme l'ont dit plusieurs délégations avant nous, une attention particulière doit continuer à être donnée à l'épineux problème des pertes après récolte.
Pour que les priorités, politiques, programmes que nous avons tous indiqués jusqu'ici à l'Organisation se traduisent au bout du compte par des tonnes de produits alimentaires agricoles, il faut, aussi bien à la FAO qu'aux Etats, des moyens. Parmi ces moyens indispensables, nous évoquerons dans ce propos les ressources financières.
Tout en appuyant l'action du Centre d'investissement de la FAO, nous restons profondément préoccupés par les difficultés auxquelles se trouvent actuellement confrontés l'AID et le FIDA, et nous lançons un vibrant appel aux pays des catégories I et II, membres du FIDA, pour conclure sans plus tarder les négociations relatives à la deuxième reconstitution des ressources de cette institution.
Nous exhortons la FAO à poursuivre l'examen périodique de ces programmes.
Nous appuyons le principe visant à ce que notre Conférence adopte une résolution sur les handicapés physiques, telle que proposée par la délégation suédoise.
C'est avec une oreille particulièrement attentive que nous avons entendu dire que l'on doit tenir compte du rapport coût-efficacité dans les projets financés dans le cadre des programmes de terrain de notre Organisation.
Cela est tout à fait légitime, mais qu'il me soit permis de rappeler tout de même que les projets agricoles ont la particularité de ne pas être immédiatement rentables, comme le sont les projets industriels. De ce fait, on doit en tenir compte et ne pas s'attendre à appliquer aux projets agricoles la rigueur mécanique des institutions bancaires traditionnelles.
Dans leurs interventions d'hier après-midi, certaines délégations nous ont révélé que la FAO n'a pas été citée par leurs pays comme une des agences multilatérales les plus efficaces pour lesquelles il a été envisagé une augmentation de leurs contributions.
Quand nous nous rappelons par ailleurs que ces mêmes délégations sont celles-là mêmes qui sont partisanes du concept de la croissance zéro du budget des organisations du système des Nations Unies et qu'elles sont opposées à l'augmentation des ressources du PCT, notre tension ne peut que monter à son paroxysme lorsque nous apprenons enfin, de la bouche de ces mêmes délégations, qu'elles ne sont pas disposées à augmenter leurs fonds fiduciaires à la FAO. Tout compte fait, c'est sur tous les tableaux que l'on veut asphyxier l'Organisation. Dans ces conditions, nous nous demandons si c'est bien la meilleure manière de nous y prendre pour faire face à notre ambitieux projet commun arrêté en 1974 lors de la Conférence mondiale de l'alimentation et que nous avons récemment réaffirmé à Paris, projet visant à 1'eradication de la faim et de la malnutrition de la surface de notre planète d'ici la fin du XXe siècle.
Nous y répondons par la négative et nous lançons à la place un solennel appel pour l'union de toutes nos forces des quatre coins du monde afin que se réalise un jour ce beau et noble projet, digne des nations du monde éprises de paix et de justice.
CHAIRMAN (original language German): I would like to say something concerning procedure. The delegation of the United Kingdom has asked me whether it would be possible for them to speak now because this delegation would have difficulties in taking the floor later. I would like to please ask you to accept this request. I see that no one is objecting to this. Therefore, I call now on the United Kingdom. Thank you for your understanding.
J.D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): Mr Chairman, I would like first of all to express my pleasure at seeing you in the Chair and thank you for your cooperation. I would also like to thank the meeting for its kindness in allowing me to speak at this point.
Looking at the report on the field programmes we were gratified by the share of the field programme resources which is directed to Africa and we note with pleasure that the amount directed to Africa is likely to increase.
We find that Chapter Two of document C 85/4 contains some useful information which could be used to improve project design and we hope there is a system operating within FAO to ensure that the findings of evaluation are actually used in future programme design. We believe that future reviews should contain more information on evaluation procedures and methods and a deeper analysis of the results and lessons learned.
On the basis of the information contained in document C 85/4 we consider the assessment and evaluation procedures being used by FAO could be made more rigorous. For example, those closely involved with programmes should not be called upon to evaluate them.
It would also be appropriate in this item to reiterate the United Kingdom's support for the central role of the United Nations Development Programme as the main vehicle for technical cooperation in the United Nations System. We do however support the concept of Trust Funds and the Technical Cooperation Programmes run by FAO, firstly because we consider that it is necessary to have a flexible response which can quickly draw upon FAO's unique expertise, and secondly because we believe that it is necessary for an organization like FAO to run in-house programmes of this sort so that it remains aware of the real problems faced by farmers.
Having said this we do however consider some of the criticism of UNDP to be misplaced and possibly based on a misunderstanding of the way in which UNDP funds are allocated. Under the UN country programming system the level of UNDP funding for agriculture represents an aggregation of decisions taken by individual recipient countries. If the level of UNDP funding for agriculture is to increase, individual countries will have to choose to increase the priority they give to agriculture. Certainly some countries in this Commission which have called for increases in UNDP funding for agriculture have chosen in their domestic programmes to give greater priority to other sectors. This is of course quite understandable and realistic but it has to be remembered in the concept of this debate.
Finally I would like briefly to return again to the question of overhead costs. The figures given by Mr Shah at the end of our consideration of the last agenda item were only partially helpful. In our view it is not realistic to calculate programme costs on the narrow basis he chose. For example, it is not sufficient to base calculations only on the cost of professional grades. The cost of general service grades must also be included, as must a proportion of the cost of rent, heating, common services, etc. Mr Shah's comments on the TCP were very interesting. Choosing one basis of calculation we could produce a similar figure of 2 to 3 percent for a comparable United Kingdom bilateral programme but we would not consider this to be a true realistic assessment of the overheads. As we said, we calculate these on FAO's programmes to be in the region of 27 to 31 percent of the operational programmes. It appears to us that regrettably there is a conceptual fallacy in the approach used by the Secretariat which does not facilitate their efforts to present the real overhead costs to Council and Conference. This is a very important issue which has to be examined in depth. The format of our discussions in this Commission does not make this easy. Because of this the United Kingdom would therefore like to propose that the subject of overhead costs be considered and discussed in depth by the Finance Committee and that a special report on this susbject of overhead costs should be prepared for consideration by Council and Conference.
M. MUKOLWE (Kenya): I welcome the lucid preparation and presentation of the document before us C 85/4, Review of Field Programmes, and we as a delegation do support it wholeheartedly. We commend the efforts of the Director-General and his Secretariat in reinforcing linkage between Regular and Field Programmes. It is worrying to note that since 1981 FAO's share of the UNDP funds has been dwindling and yet the African food crisis continues to worsen. Surely there is an urgent need for increased funds. On the other hand it is encouraging to note that Trust Funds have increased, making it possible to fund the programme under review. We commend those multinationals who have honoured their obligations to fight malnutrition. The remarks made by Denmark and probably others who have echoed the same in earlier interventions are a bit worrying and I hope they will be reconsidered by those nationals. We commend FAO action and subsequent design of rehabilitation programmes in the 21 African countries badly hit by the previous drought. Long-term solutions in the context of rural development involving the target groups in decision-making and planning are the only hope and the principles and recommendations in the WCARRD should be echoed and followed to the letter. Project design, implementation and subsequent monitoring and evaluations are very important tools to apply and we welcome the independent evaluation mission report. However, the disinguished delegate from New Zealand and others have very much dwelt on the project management systems that should be applied, but as the distinguished delegate from Congo mentioned, there are certain areas where measurements of what the tools can apply can be very, very deceptive. But we still support the procedures. Let us also point out that' efforts should be directed to training the nationals in such procedures in order to build up local capabilities in project management.
The lower rungs, and particularly the grass roots as we refer to them, which will involve the womens' groups and women in general in developing countries, would be the targets, so that they can understand simple projects that they need to undertake in their own region, and even at the higher rungs and particularly institutions of higher learning and individuals who are engaged in agriculture should be encouraged to take part in this so that development in toto is meaningful.
The fight against desertification should be intensified on the African continent if we are to survive and I am glad this sector has been reflected fully with in the amount of money and the concentration that it should take. Food, fuel and timber are running out very fast and the environment deteriorates very fast also and we should at all costs turn our attention to this very, very important area in our survival. The cause of environmental destruction is traced to poverty and subsequently poverty is traced back to about five groups: the landless poor, the small-scale farmers, the urban poor, the poor rural workers and lastly, the handicapped. My Government has this in view and it is incorporated in our national development programmes. This prompts me to support the Swedish draft resolution on the disabled which is worth reflecting in our discussions in this Session.
The meeting rose at 12.45 hours.
La séance est levée à 12 h 45.
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas.
