CHAIRMAN: We will pick up where we left off yesterday and as I indicated at the end of the session, we have a list of speakers which has since been added to, but first on the list for this morning is Thailand.
Poonsup PIYA-ANANT (Thailand): My delegation would like to express our commendation to the staff for their preparation of the valuable programme review documents. It is noted that monitoring and evaluation of programmes implemented is one of the crucial stages in programme budgeting, which is also called the planning, programming and budgeting system. Hence high priority should be given, and comprehensiveness on monitoring and evaluating methodology and practices should be of great significance.
In this connection we would like to present some remarks about the review and evaluation programming. First, it is our view that clear presentation in the comparison of the actual outputs achievements, vis-à-vis targets set, will be of greater benefit. Such comparison would give light to project managers and the parties concerned to identify clearly the extent of actual achievement of the project and related shortcomings. Secondly, clear identification is also needed concerning the aspect of probable achievement of projects' immediate objectives and whether they are likely to lead to the achievements of the objectives of programmes. Such evaluation patterns and clear verifiable indicators and assumptions of achievement are of great significance in that the effectiveness in budget expenditures depend on how well the projects and programmes achieve the intended objectives that have been stated in the planning and programme process. In case the project or programme's objective is not to be achieved, problems and drawbacks will be easily identified and solved or replanned. And a project or programme may be discontinued if there are great constraints and problems without the possibility of achieving the objective. Then a decision can soundly be made whether to discontinue or phase it out and redeploy the budget for other worthwhile projects.
My delegation therefore would also like to express our view that the concept of certain effective evaluating systems such as the goal attainment approach and the systems approach should be integrated more intensively with the existing monitoring and evaluation work so as to increase the effectiveness in the review and evaluation and budget expenditures.
Another observation which my delegation would like to point out is related to the extent of priority to be given to livestock. In the review document a separate major programme has not been provided for livestock. Instead it appears under one of the programmes in the major agriculture programme, while agriculture, forestry and fisheries are treated as distinct major programmes. My delegation would also like to have livestock to be arranged as a major programme in view of its increasing significance in the developing agriculture-based countries for the following reasons: first, increased livestock is a great potential for the production of food and protein nutrient which are still far from sufficiency in most developing countries. Especially protein food and buffalo and cow milk relate to the better health condition of the poor and malnourished children. Secondly, a major improvement in livestock production in the developing countries would also generate more income to the poor farmers in addition to the meagre income from crops produced. The increase in livestock production would enhance the potential in the development of milk and meat products industry in these countries which is an approach of increasing importance in the aspect of agro-based industry. Such development would also help in reducing unemployment pressure and promote import substitution and would also help boost livestock products exports which will eventually help to alleviate the serious deficit in the balance of trade and balance of payments in most developing countries.
In the sixth five-year agricultural development plan, spanning 1987-1991, Thailand has given high significance to livestock as a major programme in light of the great virtue, as I have stated, and its importance in the diversification from traditional patterns of agricultural production. We therefore would also like to witness a major programme formulation and high priority provision for the livestock sector in the budget to support effectively the livestock sector in our country, as well as other developing countries.
M.M. SIDDIQUE ULLAH. (Bangladesh): We note that the Review document C 87/8 has been produced in response to the mandate given by the Twenty-third Conference. The document consists of 250 pages of discussion and a 20 page summary. We congratulate the Secretariat for such an elaborate presentation. The Review indicates that the Major Programme of Agriculture continues to claim the largest share of both the Regular Budget and the regular programmed allocation for technical and economic activities.
The real increase in allocation for this Major Programme during the biennium was up by 3.6% over the preceding biennium. We welcome the contnued importance of this Major Programme. However, the actual implementation is not quite clear. We fear that because of the financial constraints there may be a gap between planned allocation and actual utilization which would indeed be regrettable.
The Review indicates that the financial difficulties are likely to have an adverse effect on activities relating to training, seminar and expert consultations. Since these activities are the means of transfer of technology we consider this unfortunate.
Fisheries development is very important for Bangladesh. This sector is receiving increasing importance in our national planning. We believe there are many other countries which attach great importance to the fisheries sector. We note that the sector received a reduced allocation on both the Regular Budget and extra-budgetary resources. A serious decline in training activities has also been feared. Reduced importance has been attached to resource survey which is very vital for a sound and balanced exploitation of resources. We consider these developments disturbing, besides, they are also contrary to the wishes of the world community expressed in the Resolutions in the World Conference on Fisheries. We hope that these deficiencies will be made up during the next biennium.
In spite of some impressive gains in the Major Programmes on Forestry, the reduction in the number of training activities, seminars and expert consultations are disturbing developments. Curtailment of activities in the forestry sector at the time of growing ecological imbalance in many parts of the world with increasingly disastrous consequences for mankind is clearly unwelcome.
On the major programmes of Technical Cooperation and Development Support performance has been impressive, in particular, the efficiency and effectiveness with which FAO responded to the rehabilitation needs of African countries hit by the 1984 drought deserves appreciation. This shows once again that given the necessary support by all Member Nations FAO could continue to play an effective role in the alleviation of the misery of hunger and privation in the world. It is also mentioned here that the FAO Investment Centre has done an excellent job in identifying a large number of projects in developing member countries. This has helped the flow of investment from multilateral and bilateral sources to a large number of developing countries. We ask that FAO be given unqualified support to continue these activities.
The livestock sector is very important for Bangladesh, particularly because of a trémendous draught power shortage and scarcity of dairy products in the country. Therefore, I support the distinguished delegate from Thailand when he says that livestock should be treated as a Major Programme in the future. I believe that this should be seriously considered.
Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): Le document qui nous est soumis est un document particulièrement substantiel et particulièrement intéressant. Il touche évidemment à des domaines extrêmement variés et extrêmement multiples allant de la pêche à la détection en passant par le système d'alerte rapide et la fourniture de renseignements en matière de publications agronomiques (système CARIS et système AGRIS). Je crois cependant qu'il est impossible de toucher à tous les problèmes.
J'ai entendu, au cours de nombreuses interventions, souligner le fait qu'il fallait, dans le domaine de l'activité de la FAO, déterminer des priorités. Or nous sommes tous d'accord sur le fait que le secteur de l'agriculture au sens le plus large est un secteur prioritaire, mais je n'ai pas entendu jusqu'à présent beaucoup de propositions précises en ce qui concerne les secteurs qui, dans le cadre des programmes d'activité de la FAO, seraient non prioritaires. Je n'ai guère entendu de suggestions et de propositions sur ce point.
Or, manifestement, que ce soit le secteur de l'agriculture, le secteur des pêches, le secteur des forêts, il s'agit de programmes prioritaires pour l'ensemble du monde, et d'une nécessité vitale pour la plupart des pays en voie de développement.
Je voudrais me limiter à deux aspects particuliers: le TCP (le programme de coopération technique et de soutien au développement) et les trois rapports d'évaluation - dont le principe d'évaluation lui-même - qui nous sont soumis en annexe au document C 87/8.
Nous soutenons le programme de coopération technique parce que nous estimons que même s'il est réduit financièrement et budgétairement, il est particulièrement important dans son rôle de catalyseur d'autres sources de financement,.
Elaborer des projets est souvent chose difficile qui nécessite beaucoup de patience, beaucoup de mises au point, beaucoup de dialogues avec les partenaires. C'est certainement un domaine où des échecs sont inévitablement enregistrés. Dans ma pratique de responsable de la coopération, assumée pendant de nombreuses années, j'ai vu combien il était difficile de mettre des projets au point. Des projets, c'est un peu comme la vie des hommes: cela nécessite une longue gestation avant un accouchement et toute une évolution qui, selon la nature des projets, nécessite un temps plus ou moins considérable. Et je crois en effet que le programme de coopération technique est un peu la phase prénatale de la plupart des projets qui nécessite d'abord la rencontre d'un père et d'une mère, et ensuite les soins particuliers de celui qui porte le projet de façon à le faire éclore au jour dans de bonnes conditions et de lui permettre d'accéder à l'âge adulte après une période d'enfance suffisamment longue en fonction des besoins.
La FAO s'est préoccupée des programmes de coopération technique - que nous avons soutenus - parce qu'elle estimait (alors qu'un problème se pose à l'heure actuelle) que des sources de financement extérieures, soit de la coopération bilatérale, soit du PNUD, soit de la Banque mondiale ou d'autres organisations internationales, permettaient d'assurer le relais.
Je crois qu'il est important de retrouver le sens des projets de coopération technique et qu'un certain nombre d'organisations internationales, le PNUD notamment (comme j'ai déjà eu l'occasion de le dire à plusieurs reprises) évitent de devenir des agences d'exécution de ces projets mais qu'elles veillent au contraire à confier, dans le domaine de l'agriculture, dans le domaine des pêches, dans le domaine des forêts, ces projets à l'organisation spécialisée, en l'occurrence la FAO.
A plusieurs reprises, nous avons insisté sur le rôle des programmes de coopération technique et, à l'occasion de la discussion du Programme ordinaire, je voudrais à nouveau souligner toute l'importance que nous y attachons.
Je oudrais maintenant traiter et aborder brièvement les trois évaluations qui sont des documents particulièrement bien faits, et particulièrement bien étudiés.
Je voudrais tout d'abord me féliciter que, dans le premier document concernant la lutte contre la trypanosomiase africaine (document mis au point par un ressortissant belge, le Docteur Mortelmans et le Docteur Tjeelink, Directeur des services vétérinaires du gouvernement du Canada) on aborde de manière extrêmement précise et extrêmement concrète un problème difficile, délicat et important, qui est celui de la trypanosomiase animale africaine. Nous savons tous qu'il s'agit d'un programme à moyen et long terme qui nécessite une vigilance constante. Et je voudrais féliciter le Directeur général pour l'initiative qu'il a prise dans ce secteur d'évaluation externe. Je crois que la formule qui a été mise au point de s'adresser à des consultants spécialisés, que ce soit pour la trypanosomiase, que ce soit pour le problème des semences ou que ce soit pour le programme d'assistance pour la sécurité alimentaire, a fait ses preuves et qu'elle devrait pouvoir se développer dans l'avenir. La formule d'évaluation externe permet de porter un jugement serein, objectif et lucide sur un certain nombre de programmes.
Je crois que dans d'autres domaines prioritaires, il serait intéressant de poursuivre cette expérience et que les documents d'évaluation puissent être régulièrement soumis aux Etats Membres.
Nous avons parlé des priorités; nous avons pu constater que quelques membres de la FAO soutenaient que certains secteurs étaient moins prioritaires que d'autres. Des suggestions pourraient peut-être être faites sur le caractère moins prioritaire, ou non prioritaire de certains aspects du Programme ordinaire, de façon à ce que certaines évaluations externes puissent être faites, et certaines recommandations soumises.au Conseil.
Je voudrais, en clôturant ce bref exposé, féliciter le Secrétariat pour la qualité des documents qui nous ont été soumis; qui sont des documents non seulement intéressants à l’étude mais opérationnels pour l'action et qui permettent de tracer des pistes pour les orientations futures des activités du Programme ordinaire.
Václav DOBES (Czechoslovakia): On behalf of the Czechostovakian delegation allow me to express several comments on document C 87/8 Supplement I. This document, prepared by two external specialists gives very good information on the general situation in the control of African animal trypanosomiasis. The present status and spreading of this parasitosis, programmes prepared for this purpose in the past more than 10 years, as well as the results obtained in these programmes, are analyzed in detail. Special chapters deal with the main problems to be solved in the future period. I have some comments on the material:
(a) It is a pity that the adverse ecological, economic, health and social implications of animal trypanosomiasis are not quantified in detail: the weight of the arguments concerning the social importance depends on verbal evaluation rather than on actual data (that is direct and indirect damage in pecuniary value to express the cost: benefit ratio). The only cogent argument for increasing the degree of priority in the programmes of governments and the financing organizations is a competent and well-documented presentation of the enormous losses caused by trypanosomiasis.
(b) My delegation fully supports the idea to concentrate the available resources and efforts to the selected places where early and permanent results can be expected.
(c) It is stated several times in the report that the worsening of the still very fragile infrastructure of veterinary services in the affected countries is one of the weakest points of the whole action. We fully agree with this view, because without solid organization of the state veterinary service there is little hope that programmes of this type would succeed. We believe, therefore, that some co-financing international organizations' tendencies to privatize the veterinary service are in strong contradiction with the objectives of the national and international sanitation programmes and lead to further weakening or even disintegration of the existing veterinary infrastructure, already now characterized as "very fragile".
(d) My delegation fully agrees with the realistic standpoint of the FAO Secretary-General to this document.
(d) We suggest for consideration that support should be given mainly to the regional FAO institutions in Africa which is the region that will decide how successful the action for the control of this insidious parasitosis will be.
Mme Isabelle GANSORE (Burkina Faso): Permettez-moi tout d'abord de partager l'avis du Conseil lorsqu'il a examiné ce point lors de sa dernière session. En effet, nous partageons les préoccupations du Conseil sur les effets négatifs de la situation financière de l'Organisation sur la mise en oeuvre de certains secteurs du Programme ordinaire, notamment la formation.
Nous approuvons de façon générale les conclusions et les recommandations des rapports d'évaluation sur les trois programmes spéciaux de la FAO.
Nous voudrions particulièrement insister sur l'évaluation du Programme d'action pour la lutte contre la trypanosomiase animale africaine et sur la mise en valeur des zones en cause, ainsi que celle du Programme de développement et d'amélioration des semences.
En ce qui concerne la trypanosomiase animale, des efforts ont été entrepris par mon gouvernement avec l'aide de la FAO et des autres donateurs pour enrayer ce fléau qui constitue un problème majeur, essentiellement dans la moitié sud du pays.
Dans le cadre de la lutte, l'accent est mis sur la lutte intégrée, en particulier sur la lutte biologique et les techniques non polluantes, en plus des méthodes chimiques, grace aux résultats du CRTA.
Le Burkina Faso a abrité la 4ème session de la Commission de la trypanosomiase animale africaine à Ouagadougou en novembre 1986, au cours de laquelle d'importantes decisions ont été prises pour la redynamisation de cette instance, par l'adoption d'une recommandation tendant à ce que les réunions de la Commission se tiennent désormais au niveau des ministres chargés de l'élevage et de la santé animale, et précédées d'une réunion de techniciens.
Par ailleurs, à Bobo Dioulasso notamment, se trouve une école de formation de cadres intermédiaires dans la lutte contre la tsé-tsé pour les pays francophones. La mission d'évaluation a reconnu le rôle majeur joué par cette école et a regretté le manque de soutien financier pour la poursuite de son programme. A sa quatre-vingt-douzième session, le Conseil a souligné la nécessité d'une aide financière à cette école. Je me réfère au document C 87/LIM/19, parlant du Programme ordinaire 1986-87, à la page 2, paragraphe 5. Je souhaite que notre Commission fasse sien l'appel du Conseil à l'intention de la Conférence.
En ce qui concerne les semences, mon pays est conscient de leur importance dans la production agricole. L'objectif de notre politique dans ce domaine vise à assurer aux agriculteurs un approvisionnement sûr, régulier et suffisant en quantité et en qualité de variétés adaptées aux différentes zones écologiques du pays. Un effort est fait dans la collecte, la conservation et la distribution de variétés performantes, afin de constituer des banques de semences au niveau de chaque province, d'une part, et d'autre part, d'intégrer les paysans aux opérations de multiplication de semences à travers les groupements villageois et les coopératives agricoles.
Enfin, nous regrettons sérieusement la façon arbitraire dont sont menés les débats de notre Commission et nous souhaitons qu'un effort soit fait en ce sens en vue d'améliorer le climat.
Salimoen SOERJOATMODJO (Indonesia): The Indonesian delegation wishes to submit comments on FAO activities under the Food Security Assistance Scheme or FSAS and to refer in particular to the consultants' report on the evaluation of the Scheme, preceded by the Director-General's comments, as contained in document C 87/8 - Sup. 3. We welcome the report which has provided this Conference with valuable material for discussion and review.
First of all, the Indonesian delegation wishes to congratulate the Director-General for having taken the initiative to have an independent external evaluation undertaken of FSAS. We do feel that the timing of this evaluation has been most opportune, for two reasons at least, viz: First : the substantial, and in some respects even dramatic change in the world food situation and food security which has emerged during the ten-year period since the inception of FSAS in 1976; and Second; the adoption by the FAO Conference in 1983 of the wider concepts of food security, encompassing three most important areas, that is production, stability and access.
With regard to the first question the most remarkable feature has been the fact that while there has been a substantial increase of almost 26 percent in total world cereal production during the decade between 1976 and 1986, the performance of developing countries as a group in this respect has been even more significant, with production of cereals having increased by more than 35 percent to 943.5 million tons, or almost 28 percent of world grain production in 1986
In addition, total world cereal carry-over stocks have during the same period more than doubled to 398.6 million tons in 1986 and are forecast to increase further this year to 444.3 million tons, representing 26 percent of consumption, as compared to only 15 percent in 1976. Stocks held by developing countries as a whole are forecast to amount to 122 million tons this year, about 36 percent above the level of those in 1976.
While recognizing that such progress has not been shared equally among regions and countries (in fact, per caput food grain production has declined in several low-income food-deficit countries), these figures nevertheless indicate, or suggest, two most important developments, that is:
(a) Food security at the global level has considerably improved since the inception of FSAS a decade ago (and as a matter of fact conditions have changed from frequent, acute food shortages and tight supplies during most of the seventies to more-than-adequate food grain availabilities and depressed prices during the more recent years.
(b) Maybe even more importantly, developing countries as a group appear to have succeeded in adopting policies and programmes capable of accelerating growth in their food grain production and of strengthening their national food reserves.
As one could have expected, however, these rapid changes have also brought about the emergence of new challenges and as a result, the need for shifting of priorities in respect of national and international action programmes aimed at improving food security.
Thus, if during the seventies, the most pressing need in many countries of the developing world had been the stimulation of production growth, later on the need for assuring stability of supplies and of access to food for the population at large have increasingly called for more attention and effort from national governments.
Bearing this picture in mind and referring back to document C 87/8 - Sup. 3, the Indonesian delegation wishes to present the following views:
One, in endorsing the Consultants' assessment of the continued relevance of FSAS, we also wish to support the Consultants' recommendation, with which the Director-General is also in general agreement, and that is that: the scope of FSAS should be broadened in accordance with the wider concept of world food security in order to increase FAO's capacity in providing assistance to Member Governments in this broad area of food security in a more comprehensive, integrated and effective manner.
Two, we also wish to support the Director-General's view, that: to implement such broadened mandate, what is needed is the creation within the Organization, of a mechanism capable of coordinating in an effective manner FAO assistance in this area of food security, encompassing the three major elements of production, stability and access, without, however, bringing all the activities under the umbrella of a single programme.
Thirdly, we further agree with the suggestion that such coordinating functions could be entrusted to an upgraded steering committe, with membership at the level of Assistant Director-General.
Fourthly, we see the need for this programme to establish, or further strengthen, close cooperation with other programmes outside the Organization, which cannot be over-emphasized - in particular cooperation with such programmes or agencies as the World Food Programme, the World Bank, Regional Development Banks and IFAD; also other organizations within the United Nations family, particularly ESCAP which, for example, has recently been introduced in countries in the regions of Asia and the Pacific in collaboration with USAID, NOAA of the USA, an Agro-climatic Assessment Programme for drought-related food shortages; and other bilateral donors.
The Indonesian delegation is further in general agreement with the Director-General's views and comments as contained in paragraphs 40-45 of the document under consideration.
Abdel Helmy EL-SARKI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): I should first like to thank Mr Shah for his fine presentation of this document that we have before us; namely the Review of the Regular Programme, as well as Evaluation of the Action Programme for the Control of African Animal Trypanosomiasis, the Evaluation of the Seed Development and Improvement Programme and the Evaluation of the FSAS. We have a broad-ranging review here of the Regular Programme, as has become customary. We find an account of everything that has been achieved which gives us an overall picture of the accomplishments and some of the difficulties. We therefore have an idea of where we might go from here.
In perusing this document, my delegation wishes to welcome the decision to commission the evaluation of the three special action programmes - all the more so since this was done outside regular funding.
My country also wishes to pay tribute to achievements under Major Programme 2.1 - Agriculture, and the work carried out in the Sub-Programmes on Harvesting, World Development and Agricultural Development. Nevertheless, we regret the cutback in funding and in particular we wish to highlight the accomplishments under Programme 2.2 – Fisheries.
My country wishes to thank Mr Shah for his introduction. We support what he had to say regarding the need for decision makers to be made aware of the importance of controlling African animal trypanosomiasis because this concerns not only the livestock sector, but rural development in -general. We welcome the consultants who have dealt in particular with this whole realm. We are also convinced that it would be timely and appropriate to carry out control activity on trypanosomiasis, provided there is proper coordination between national and regional activity.
We also wish to see programmes designed to protect eco-systems being pursued. We think it is important to encourage contributions from donors for the Seed Improvement and Development Programme, SIDP. We also believe that priority should be given to traditional seeds at the. same time. We welcome the training component that has been included in this programme and also the progress made in the Food Security Assistance Scheme.
Peter A. WIESMANN (Suisse): La délégation suisse aimerait remercier très sincèrement le Secrétariat pour la documentation riche en informations et clairement présentée placée devant nous, ainsi que pour l'introduction claire de celle-ci par M. Shah.
Permettez-moi de limiter mon intervention à deux points qui nous, semblent particulièrement importants. Le premier se réfère au rôle insuffisant de l'assistance de la FAO à l'élaboration et la mise en oeuvre de politiques agricoles nationales tel que décrit au paragraphe 4.34 du document C 87/8. A notre avis, la FAO devrait participer activement aux tables rondes du PNUD ainsi qu'aux groupes consultatifs de la Banque mondiale. Mais pour pleinement assurer ce rôle, la FAO se doit de mettre en oeuvre les recommandations du rapport d'évaluation du PASA, qui vont d'ailleurs essentiellement dans la même direction que nos propositions de réforme contenues dans le document C 87/30.
Voici mon second point. Ma délégation félicite le Directeur Généeral et le Secrétariat d'avoir organisé trois évaluations externes dans des secteurs prioritaires à savoir la lutte contre la trypanosomiase, l'amélioration de la production des semences et le Programme d'assistance pour la sécurité alimentaire (PASA). Toutes trois ont été exécutées d'une façon très professionnelle. Mon pays a d'ailleurs demandé, depuis des années, que des évaluations externes soient organisées pour des programmes et projets de la FAO.
J'aimerais limiter mon intervention à l'évaluation du PASA, l'une des raisons en étant que la Suisse a toujours montré un grand intérêt pour ce programme et a été le second bailleur de fonds après les Pays-Bas. Le rapport d'évaluation du PASA identifie clairement les forces et les faiblesses de ce programme et donne d'importantes orientations pour améliorer son efficacité dans le futur. La Suisse est en faveur d'un concept large de sécurité alimentaire incluant les notions clés de production, stabilisation et accès. Nous pensons - et nous l'avons dit à plusieurs reprises - que l'approche par le biais d'une politique globale de #sécurité alimentaire permet un impact plus important que l'approche ponctuelle par projet utilisée par le PASA.
Nous constatons avec satisfaction que l'évaluation recommande que l'analyse des politiques et les conseils en matière de politique soient au centre des préoccupations du PASA. Il nous semble que les composantes principales du marché des aliments de base qui devraient être étudiées de façon approfondie sont les suivantes: premièrement, prix garantis aux producteurs; deuxièmement, importance d'une intervention par un office gouvernemental de l'alimentation; troisièmement, politiques de stockage et d'information, y compris de l'aide alimentaire; et quatrièmement, subventions ciblées pour les consommateurs les plus pauvres. Toutes ces études devraient tenir compte du contexte macro-éconornique.
Nous partageons entièrement l'opinion exprimée par le délégué des Pays-Bas selon laquelle la FAO, par le biais de ses représentants dans les pays en question, devrait prendre des initiatives dans le domaine de la politique de sécurité alimentaire. Et l'idée d'une équipe spéciale, comme le proposent les évaluateurs, devrait aussi être retenue pour remplir ce rôle. Le PASA doit recevoir les ressources humaines et financières requises et doit avoir un statut hiérarchique correspondant.
Nous n'excluons pas a priori la participation du PASA à l'exécution de projets spécifiques pour autant que ceux-ci soient réalisés dans le cadre de politiques alimentaires appropriées, car même de bons projets ne peuvent pas remplacer une bonne politique. Dans le passé, une attention trop grande a été donnée à la construction d'infrastructures de stockage sans politique correspondante. Cette orientation est compréhensible si on pense à la crise due à la sécheresse, sourtout au Sahel; mais nous sommes d'accord avec les évaluateurs qui pensent qu'il est temps d'avoir une approche plus globale. L'amélioration de la sécurité alimentaire est une tache centrale, non seulement des pays concernés mais aussi de la FAO; et nous pensons que le Secrétariat doit se donner les structures nécessaires pour mieux répondre aux pays et à leur population.
Dans ce contexte, nous aimerions aussi appuyer les propositions faites par le représentant des Pays-Bas, à savoir la préparation par le Secrétariat d'un nouveau mandat élargi pour le PASA, tenant compte des recommandations des consultants et des résultats de nos délibérations. Les structures internes de la FAO devraient être adaptées à ce nouveau mandat élargi, et nous invitons le Secrétariat à présenter des propositions précises à ce sujet à la prochaine session du CSA.
Nous notons d'ailleurs que la plupart des recommandations de cette évaluation, à l'exception peut-être de celles concernant l'adaptation des structures internes, ont déjà été reprises par le Directeur général dans son introduction au document C 87/8-Sup.3. Cela nous confirme dans notre conviction que de tels exercices d'évaluation contribuent avant tout à renforcer la FAO et à améliorer son impact.
Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): Allow me first of all to thank the Secretariat for this Fifth Review of the Regular Programme. My delegation largely subscribes to the views set out in this document and to the conclusions. Allow me to make some comments of a general nature. We welcome the very clear structure of C 87/8, which is divided up into the now traditional three parts: the performance report of the major programmes in part one; the special action programmes in part two; and the training activities of the Organization in part three which we consider to be of particular importance.
we welcome the evaluations undertaken of the Special Action Programmes for the Control of African Animal Trypanosomiasis; document C 87/8 - Sup.l, of the Seed Improvement and Development Scheme -Sup.2, and of the Food Security Assistance Scheme in Sup.3.
Allow me to come to some of the important points in the documents. First, we very much welcome the fact that within the framework of the programmes in the Major Programme, Section 2.1 - Agriculture, the Study, African Agriculture: the Next 25 Years has been produced. We also support in this connection any strengthening of activities in the field of technical cooperation between developing countries, TCDC. In this respect, we very much regret that there are financial constraints which have also curtailed the activities of the Major Programme: Agriculture and this is particularly true of the training programmes, item 1.9 and table 1.2.
The second point as we see from section 1.16 of the document, in 1986 more than 1600 work-months financed from the Major Programme 2.1 were used in order to support field projects within the framework of the Regular Programme. My delegation recognizes and indeed appreciates the fruitful interaction between the activities within the framework of trust funds and those of the Regular Programme. We see that these have constituted a very valuable source of knowhow over the past 40 years. Nonetheless we believe that 1600 work-months is a very high figure indeed to backstop field projects and we would like to ask the Secretariat to do its utmost to avoid that the servicing of the core activities under the Regular Budget does not suffer from the workload of the support given to the special programmes. In this connection we were somewhat surprised at what was said in Part I, the conclusions on page 7 of the document, according to which some 60 percent of the working time of the technical personnel is devoted to support of field projects, either directly or in advisory capacity. We are not sure that this high value is true in absolute terms. In the last analysis, it is possible to measure exactly how much time is spent only by means of a system of time recording. Have such time recordings been made of all staff of the FAO-Secretariat? In fact we assume that this is probably an estimate based on data collected on a random basis. If this is the case we would recommend that such figures obtained on a random basis not be generalized too much in this way.
Our third point, we consider that a little more than 14 percent of the budget allocation being devoted to TCP to be too high a figure and we will also point out under the agenda item "Review of. the Field Programmes" that for us the UNDP is the central agency for handling multilateral development cooperation.
Fourth, in the framework of the Major Programme 2.3, Forestry, we particularly welcome what has been done on the Tropical Forest Action Plan.
Fifth, in Major Programme 2.2, Fisheries, we very much welcome the fact that despite the cutbacks in the Regular Programme the results are nonetheless satisfactory as set out in paragraph 2.4.3.
Sixth, the Investment Centre has again achieved considerable success over the 1985-86 biennium and the total sum of US$ 3 billion is a very impressive figure.
Seventh, we are very happy that in the establishment of Country Representations the road towards dual accreditation has been taken and in that way some 105 Member States now have Country Representations. We are also very pleased to note the restraint of Country Representatives in making use of their powers in the TCP area; only 34 percent of the powers were used in 1986.
Eighth, we also hope that, as expressed in the document, the operative phase of FINSYS and PERSIS can shortly start and that will give us an overview at any time of the financial situation and the staffing levels of the Organization. In this respect I would once again like to emphasize how very much my country values the work of the working units in FAO dealing with statistics and data processing.
Ninth, the results of the evaluation of the Special Action Programmes, documents C 87/8 - Sup. 1-3, meet to a very large extent with our support. The evaluation report on the campaign against African Animal Trypanosomiasis seems to us a suitable point for discussion among donor experts and we support the suggestion that national coordination committees be established. Individual details would of course have to be discussed by experts.
Tenth, the development of the Seed Improvement and Development Scheme seems to us of great importance and we promote such projects in many partner countries. According to our view sustained success can only be achieved by a long-term commitment to this activity and a continuation of the willingness for dialogue.
Eleventh, we also welcome the external evaluation of the Food Security Assistance Scheme. The consultants were positive in their evaluation and this comes out clearly from the evaluation report. However, we do have some reservations about an extension of mandate as proposed by the consultants. To the extent that it is proposed to make changes to the administrative structure of the Scheme, we consider that the existing structures, which have served us well, should be left in place. So far as we are concerned, it would suffice if the action programme were executed on the same basis as so far and that improvements be made to the weak points that have been identified, particularly with regard to coordination between donor countries, the FAO and the recipient countries.
Jean-Pierre POLY (France): La délégation française souhaite tout d'abord féliciter, M. Shah pour sa brillante présentation du sujet et remercier le Secrétariat pour la richesse du document C 87/8. Ce document qui a conservé la structure et la présentation de la précédente version conformément aux recommandations formulées, fournit de nombreuses données factuelles sur les activités de l'Organisation.
Nous y notons en particulier le souci constant de la FAO de renforcer la capacité de suivi et d'évaluation des programmes.
Ma délégation souhaite rappeler à cet égard l'importance qu'elle accorde à l'évaluation des activités de l'Organisation et souligner le rôle accru que le Comité du Programme devrait jouer dans l'avenir pour permettre aux Etats Membres de mieux apprécier l'impact des projets mis en oeuvre.
Nous considérons en particulier que doivent être favorisées les évaluations indépendantes et externes de programmes d'action spéciaux telles qu'elles nous sont rapportées à l'occasion de cette Conférence en ce qui concerne la lutte contre la trypanosomiase animale africaine, le programme d'amélioration et de développement du secteur des semences et le programme d'assistance pour la sécurité alimentaire.
Ma délégation, qui attache une importance particulière à ces rapports d'évaluation a préparé une intervention spécifique à ce sujet; toutefois, pour alléger nos travaux, elle se propose d'en remettre le texte au Secrétariat qui en assurera la diffusion.
La délégation française se félicite de l'orientation constatée à travers une mobilisation importante du Programme Ordinaire au service des activités de terrain, qui traduit la volonté de l'Organisation d'apporter une aide concrète aux Etats Membres sous la forme de services consultatifs ou d'appui technique et opérationnel aux projets de terrain.
Il convient néanmoins de rappeler à ce sujet, que, malgré les liens étroits existants entre le programme de terrain et le programme ordinaire, ces deux programmes poursuivent des objectifs très différents.
Le Programme de terrain, ainsi que nous aurons l'occasion d'y revenir lors d'une prochaine intervention de notre délégation, doit répondre à des besoins précis tandis que le Programme ordinaire -qui traduit la capacité de réflexion, de synthèse et d'orientation de la FAO - vise des objectifs plus généraux dans une perspective à plus long terme.
Cependant le Programme de terrain, dont les moyens financiers sont trois fois supérieurs à ceux du Programme ordinaire, tend à façonner ce dernier selon des orientations qui reflètent davantage la diversité des besoins des Etats Membres que les priorités définies par notre Conférence.
Le renforcement proposé par la délégation française du rôle du Comité du Programme, vise à renverslatendance et à permettre au Programme ordinaire d'être - conformément à la vocation de la FAO - l'élément central susceptible d'impulser et d'orienter dans le sens des priorités définies au sein de l'Organisation, l'ensemble des programmes de développement agricole.
La délégation française a constaté que le rapport sur l'exécution des Grands Programmes permettait de recueillir de précieuses informations sur certaines activités essentielles de l'Organisation, le rôle des Bureaux Régionaux et l'articulation avec les activités du terrain.
Qu'il me soit donc permis, par un rapide survol du rapport, de présenter les observations suivantes:
Concernant le Programme Agriculture dont les moyens ont été réduits du fait des difficultés financières rencontrées, la délégation française remarque que 1!Organisation a su cependant préserver l'appui technique aux projets de terrain et dans une moindre mesure l'appui direct aux Etats Membres.
Par ailleurs, ma délégation se félicite de pouvoir constater que l'Afrique est restée l'une des priorités essentielles de ce programme.
De même l'effort croissant qui a été fait pour promouvoir et renforcer les réseaux de coopération technique et économique doit être souligné.
Enfin nous notons avec satisfaction que la FAO a pris des mesures pour accentuer ses activités d'aide aux pays pour l'élaboration des politiques d'ajustement structurel et pour les conseillers dans leurs négociations avec les institutions financières.
Concernant le Programme des Pêches, la délégation française considère comme autant d'éléments favorables l'intensification des activités de conseil technique, la priorité donnée à la formation, la vulgarisation de systèmes peu coûteux d'aquaculture, l'effort consenti en faveur du développement de la pêche artisanale, la promotion des politiques halieutiques permettant à la fois de planifier le développement des pêches et de rationaliser le choix budgétaire des investissements.
Concernant le Programme des Forêts, ma délégation souhaite rappeler tout l'intérêt qu'elle porte au Plan d'Action Forestier Tropical, au lancement duquel la France a contribué.
Dans le domaine forestier, les activités d'appui aux Etats Membres et le soutien technique aux projets ont été, à juste titre, développés.
Ma délégation encourage l'Organisation à persévérer sur la voie d'une meilleure intégration des activités forestières dans le développement rural en favorisant notamment une réelle participation des populations aux projets.
Concernant le Programme de Coopération Technique la délégation française considère que seul ce programme permet à la FAO de répondre rapidement et de manière souple à des besoins non prévisibles des Etats Membres. Les caractéristiques spécifiques de ce programme doivent donc être soigneusement préservées et les projets retenus doivent répondre aux critères définis par les organes directeurs concernant notamment la durée limitée et le coût modeste des projets.
Par ailleurs, ma délégation saisit cette occasion pour souligner tout l'intérêt de la contribution apportée par le Programme de Relèvement de l'Agriculture en Afrique à la relance de la production agricole dans les 25 pays bénéficiaires.
Je voudrais,enfin, apporter le soutien de la délégation française au Programme de décentralisation engagé par l'Organisation pour une utilisation optimale des compétences techniques de la FAO afin d'aider les gouvernements à formuler et à mettre en oeuvre des politiques nationales de développement agricole et rural.
Les Représentants de la FAO sont á l'évidence de plus en plus sollicités et jouent un rôle de plus en plus important grâce notamment à une meilleure répartition des responsabilités et à un échange d'informations plus suivi entre le Siège et les Bureaux Régionaux.
Ma délégation se félicite de cette évolution.
Telles sont les quelques observations de la délégation française qui saisit cette occasion pour rappeler qu'il serait illusoire d'arrêter comme il convient une véritable programmation respectueuse des priorités définies sans le gage des contributions nécessaires.
CHAIRMAN: There being no objection, the remainder of your statement will as you requested be included in the verbatim at the end of the discussion on this item.
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Mi Delegación aprecia en gran medida el documento C 87/8 y sus suplementos, presentados por la Secretaría. Al mismo tiempo deseamos felicitar al Sr Shah por su excelente presentación.
Hay algunos aspectos que merecen un comentario particular. En primer lugar, mi Delegación desea destacar que resulta lamentable que muchas actividades importantes de la Organización se han visto limitadas o suprimidas totalmente a causa de la insuficiente liquidez.
El Programa de Cooperación Técnica continúa siendo, como se demuestra en el examen del Programa Ordinario, uno de los principales instrumentos de la Organización en la promoción del desarrollo y la atención a situaciones de urgencia. Este Programa, cuya eficacia ha sido plenamente demostrada por el impacto benéfico que ha tenido en los países receptores, tanto desde el punto de vista de su capacidad de movilizar recursos humanos y materiales que existen en los países, a veces no explotados, como por la capacidad de atraer contribuciones suplementarias de otros donantes con fines de desarrollo o por situaciones de emergencia.
Además, debemos subrayar que por su razón de ser, este Programa permite a la FAO responder con rapidez a necesidades urgentes de los países. Es lamentable que a pesar de las bondades de este Programa, no pueda tener un incremento mayor en sus fondos.
Un tema de singular importancia, al que ya la FAO viene prestando atención, es el desarrollo de las raíces y tubérculos a partir de las especies autóctonas de los países, como parte de la estrategia de seguridad alimentaria. Sin embargo, estas actividades deben ser reforzadas y potenciarse en beneficio de los países en desarrollo.
Un programa que merece ser analizado con mayor detalle es el referido a la reducción de pérdidas posteriores a la cosecha, cuya evolución y desarrollo a nivel de los países tendrá, sin duda, un impacto benéfico como parte de las medidas a adoptar para la seguridad alimentaria. Somos del criterio de que este Programa sea examinado de manera particular en próximas reuniones.
Otra Delegación se ha referido a la importancia actual y perspectiva del desarrollo ganadero, tanto en lo que hace a la producción de leche como en la producción de carne. Es evidente, que en esto área de acción de la FAO, en la cual queda mucho por hacer, se requeriría de un mayor esfuerzo y una mayor acción de trabajo. Está demostrado que al nivel de los países en desarrollo de zonas tropicales y subtropicales es posible alcanzar buenos resultados productivos en la ganadería, mediante la aplicación de adecuados criterios de desarrollo, ingeniería genética y un manejo adecuado del ganado.
Mi Delegación ha examinado cuidadosamente las evaluaciones independientes realizadas en los programas de Lucha contra la Tripanosomiasis Africana, el de Seguridad Alimentaria y el de Desarrollo de Semillas, todos los cuales merecen nuestro respaldo por su calidad y objetividad de análisis y de las recomenda ciones propuestas. En lo que se refiere al Programa de Desarrollo y Mejoramiento de Semillas, mi país ha tenido experiencias muy positivas de la acción de la FAO, al asistirnos para organizar un Programa Nacional para el desarrollo de la producción de semillas de calidad, cuyos resultados son altamente positivos.
El seguimiento y evaluación de toda actividad constituye un elemento determinante de éxito y mi Delegación desea reconocer el esfuerzo que en este sentido viene realizando, el Director General y la Secretaría para el fortalecimiento de los sistemas de seguimiento y evaluación, respondiendo a las demandas de los países miembros. Ello permitirá un examen sistemático de la labor de la FAO en beneficio de todos.
Para concluir, mi Delegación desea respaldar las acciones propuestas para la lucha contra la tripanosomiasis africana, según lo expresado en el párrafo 5 del Documento C 87/LIM/1.9.
Dedan Robinson KAMAU (Kenya) : The Kenya delegation wishes to express the appreciation to the Secretariat for the various documents forming the basis of discussions on item 14 of the Conference agenda. Mr Shah's presentation of the document was lucid and we congratulate him for the clarity in his introduction. We note the documents provide in a synthesized manner information on performance of FAO programmes and activities in the fields of agriculture, fisheries, nutrition, forestry, water development and management.
In most developing countries, agriculture forms the axis around which economic and social development pivot. Stagnation in agriculturalgrowth therefore condems the countries to economic collapse and social destruction. The programmes focusing on increasing agricultural production, together with those emphasizing prevention of food losses require increased support. We therefore note with appreciation review discussions on plant genetic resources in paras 1.37 and 1.73 of document C 87/8.
We urge expansion of those programmes which are extremely important and hold much hope for increasing agricultural production. Training and documentation components of the programmes should be enhanced. FAO should promote establishment of genetic resource centres, intensified germplasm collection and gene banks, and help to improve the technical and professional capability within the member countries necessary to support these programmes.
The Independent External Evaluation Report on Seed Improvement and Development contained in document C 87/8-S2 has comprehensively outlined issues related to and affecting development and supply of seeds. We are in agreement with the observations in the report and we wish to support action proposals outlined in paragraph 3 sectionsa-f of the document. However, notwithstanding our support for action proposals, we wish also to reiterate the importance and necessity of ensuring that seed development research emphasises development of seeds best suited to given agro-ecological zones of the countries. Development of new improved seeds must be supported by improvement and expansion of commercial seed distribution and infrastructure along with seed quality control in various countries.
On food security it is important to note the observation of the Director-General at the April 1983 Eighteenth session of CFS that in many countries famines have afflicted people not because of deficiency in food availability at national level, but rather because of erosion of purchasing power of a given community in the nation, especially the rural workers. Often the situation
is aggravated by unfavourable terms of trade which not only substantially reduce capabilities of developing countries to hold strategic food reserves, but prohibits also acquisition or establishment of the infrastructure necessary to distribute food from surplus to deficit areas of the country. Stabilization of prices of commodities from developing countries is therefore one of the most important prerequisites to establishing food security requirement in the developing countries.
The 1984 FAO World Conference on Fisheries Management and Development helped stimulate awareness in various Member Nations of the role of fisheries development in: (i) creating additional employment opportunites; (ii) generating rising productivity that facilitates rise in real incomes, ultimately leading to improved living standards which subsequently assist in attaining equitable rural-urban balance in distribution of the benefits accruing from economic growth; and (iii) supply of food and nutritional requirements of the nation.
The Kenya delegation therefore accept the strategies and programmes of action adopted by the World Conference on Fisheries Management and Development and we shall lend our support to them. We however note with disappointment the observations in paragraph 2.10 of document C 87/LIM/19 that inadequacy of funding support is constraining effective implementation of several programmes, especially the action programmes approved by the World Conference on Fisheries Management and Development.
The information contained in Chapter 6 of document C 87/8 and the subsidiary document C 87/8 on Animal Health is well articulated. The Kenya delegation appreciates the elaboration of financial and other supportive resources deployed by the FAO in combatting a wide range of livestock diseases prevalent in the Africa region. Eradication of most of these diseases, including rinderpest, foot and mouth diseases, African swine fever, ticks and tick-borne diseases is critical to development in most countries in Africa.
The Kenya delegation notes the allocation of Regular Programme resources outlined on page 119 of document C 87/8 but regrets to note that tsetse trypanosomiasis control operations reflect a declining trend of allocation from 22 percent of the sub-programme budget in 1984-85 to 20 percent in 1986-87. Owing to the linkage between eradication of tsetse fly and trypanosomiasis and integrated human settlement and development in areas prone to this menace, the Kenya delegation would have appreciated at least retention of the budget component at the level of 22 percent if not higher. My delegation otherwise commends the Secretariat for the forward looking action oriented programmes outlined in the documents.
Carl THOMSEN (Denmark): Under this item on the agenda I should like first to make a statement on behalf of the Nordic countries; that is, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Denmark. This will be followed by a statement on behalf of the Danish delegation. Both statements will be related specifically to the external evaluations of the three Special Action Programmes. The Nordic statement covers remarks and observations of a more general nature with regard to the external evaluations as a whole, whereas the statement on behalf of my own delegation will be of a more specific nature in relation to two of the evaluation reports.
The Nordic countries would like to join others in welcoming this initiative of the Director-General as an example of what can be achieved by objective and independent assessments of the programme activities of the Organization. In our view, the input from external experts of international standing has provided valuable critical comments and useful suggestions for future improvements of the programmes in question. This should be of particular value to the management and to the Governing Bodies of the Organization when considering the future policy and programmes of the Organization.
We also wish to express our appreciation of the fact that the expert reports have been presented together with the comments of the Director-General. These comments on the recommendations of the experts, together with the proposals for follow-up action, have provided us with a good basis for understanding the overall situation, and for our considerations as to the best possible line of future action. In other words, we find ourselves in a better position to form an opinion about where we should go from here. This applies both with regard to the countries directly involved and in relation to the future activities of the FAO.
In view of this positive experience, the Nordic countries strongly recommend that such external evaluations of major on-going programmes should be continued. In our view they deserve high priority. Furthermore, it appears to us that the results of the exercise have demonstrated that objective and independent review by external experts can be of immense value in connection with the elaboration of the general policy and programmes of the Organization. In fact, this has been the basic contention underlying the proposal for a review which we have submitted under an earlier agenda item.
The following comments will be of a more critical nature. However, they are made with a view to assist in improving the functioning of the Organization. First, the results of the evaluations might, in our view, have led to more clearcut conclusions as to the future policy and priorities of the Organization in the programme areas concerned. Likewise, we would have liked to have seen more explicit links between the results and the Programme of Work.
Secondly, the impact of the activities of the FAO depends to a large extent on the organization of work and on the degree of cooperation between the different departments and divisions at headquarters. In our opinion, the results of the evaluations ought to lead to more organization-wide conclusions, for example, with regard to the need to move from a large number of individual projects to programme activities or so-called umbrella projects. The recommendation for closer links between the core programme and field programme activities to us also has wider implications. This has a bearing on the crucial issue of adequate technical backstopping, which has been referred to in our earlier comments concerning the Programme, of Work.
Thirdly, the impact of the activities of the FAO will also depend on the degree of active collaboration with other international agencies as well as with bilateral donors. In our view there should have been more explicit acknowledgement of the activities of other, agencies which would make it easier for us to appreciate and improve the division of work and cooperation which has been established. It would also provide a better understanding of the justification for the action proposed. A case in point is the trypanosomiasis network of the International Livestock Centre for Africa and the ILRAD Centre under the CGIAR in connection with the Action Programme for the Control of this disease.
I wish to conclude this part of my statement by repeating that the Nordic countries consider the external evaluations of Special Action Programmes to represent a very promising avenue. In our view, the FAO should proceed further in that direction and at the same time sharpen the edge of the conclusions drawn as well as widening the indications for other programme activities.
With your permission I shall now continue with a statement on behalf of the Danish delegation. As already indicated this statement will make some more specific comments concerning two of the evaluation reports, namely, the Report concerning the Seed Improvement and Development Programme and the Report on the Food Security Assistance Scheme. In our view the expert report on the Seed Programme is of a very high quality and provides very valuable recommendations. As stated in the Report, the Seed Programme is an important Programme which can make important contributions to the increased agricultural production in the developing countries. Precisely for this reason Denmark has, over the years, been one of the major contributors to this Programme. However, during later years the ability of the FAO to implement projects under the Programme has not been to our complete satisfaction. Therefore, we welcomed very much the initiative of the Director-General to organize an external review of this Programme. The critical comments made by the evaluation team correspond to the experience of DANIDA during the last couple of years. This applies in particular to the resource constraints within the FAO where the limited capacity of the Seed Unit has been over-stretched by the shift in focus from programme preparation to the preparation of a large number of individual projects. These projects have been formulated in isolation from other key activities in relation to crop development. There has also been a lack of coordination within FAO as regards the different aspects of crop production. In our view such coordination is essential for the adequate formulation of projects and for the correct assessment of the need for technical assistance including the need for training in order to ensure the satisfactory implementation of the Programme.
Denmark supports the recommendations made by the evaluation team and should like to stress the need for clarification of the priorities, the scope and the functions of the Programme. However, under the oresent circumstances DANIDA will not be able to support the new activities under the Seed Programme. The possibility of future contributions will depend on a successful implementation of the recommendations made by the evaluation team.
I shall then turn to the Report on the Food Security Scheme which we found equally excellent. The Danish delegation fully supports the recommendations made by the experts and in particular the wider concept of food security, which, as indicated several times already, encompasses both production of food, stability in supply as well as problems of access to food. We strongly support that this wider concept should form the basis for the formulation of policies with regard to food security. It is pointed out in the Report that in spite of the fact that the wider concept of food security was approved by the CFS as well as the Council and the Conference back in 1983, so far no redefinition or re-orientation of the scheme has taken place. In order to deal with the implementation of the new concept in an efficient way in our view there is need for a more clearly defined approach to food security and the role of the Food Security Scheme in this regard. Therefore, Denmark fully supports the proposal made by the Netherlands delegation concerning the need to prepare a new mandate for the Scheme in order to have the mandate discussed at the next meeting of the CFS. As other delegations, we find that one of the main tasks of the Food Security Scheme should be to assist member countries in formulating integrated food security policies on the basis of analytical and statistical information. The provision of such information is particularly important in the formulation of medium- and long-term policies.
Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the Food Security Assistance Scheme should give high priority to the coordination and integration of projects related to Food Security at the country level. My delegation welcomes the initiative already taken by the Director-General in order to implement the recommendations of the experts regarding the need for re-organization in order to strengthen the coordination between the different FAO units dealing with food security. In our view the implementation of the recommendations concerning the institutional arrangements within the FAO will be an essential step towards ensuring a more effective approach to food security.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, le ruego que me excuse, pero es que cuando voy a intervenir en esta Comisión me siento mal y debo hacer esfuerzos para superar la enfermedad democratica que estoy padeciendo.
Este tema es muy.importante, comprende numerosos documentos y la delegación de Colombia, al igual que lo ha hecho recientemente Dinamarca, había preparado una serie de notas para intervenir sobre todos los documentos con la esperanza de que hoy estuviera en la Presidencia uno de los vicepresidentes. Ahora tenemos que intertenir con mucho desagrado, y para evitar que usted incurra de nuevo en injustas interrupciones, que no vamos a tolerar, hemos decidido limitar nuestro comentario a un solo documento.
Vamos a referirnos solamente al documento C 87/8-Supl. 3, La Evaluación del PASA, pero para compensar un poco la reducción de nuestra declaración queremos apoyar, en primer lugar, lo que ha dicho nuestro colega y amigo de Dinamarca sobre la importancia de estas evaluaciones hechas por consultores externos que ojalá se sigan aplicando en el futuro cuando sea necesario y conveniente.
La delegación de Colombia registra complacida el hecho de que el informe de evaluación de estos prestigiosos consultores confirmen la importante labor realizada por el PASA en los últimos 10 años y estamos de acuerdo en que es necesario reforzar la actividad del PASA, para lo cual se requiere el apoyo constante y creciente de los donantes, entre los cuales reconocemos los aportes de Países Bajos, Noruega y Suiza,entre otros.
En relación con las responsabilidades de los países beneficiarios, esperamos que, como el Director General lo ofrece, éstos sean asistidos por la FAO que, sobre todo los países menos adelantados, puedan llevar a cabo las esenciales tareas de coordinación, adopción de políticas y procedimientos coherentes, tomen disposiciones adecuadas sobre información logística y sistema de distribución, así como para integrar la asistencia externa en los programas nacionales de seguridad alimentaria.
Para todo esto, los gobiernos de los países beneficiarios tienen buena voluntad y son conscientes de su importancia, pero muchos estados del Tercer Mundo carecen de recursos y medios que la FAO y los donantes deben ofrecerles para que el PASA cumpla sus funciones esenciales de contribuir a asegurar oportunamente a todas las poblaciones necesitadas la posibilitdad material y económica de obtener los mínimos alimentos básicos.
Estamos seguros de que los donantes acogerán con satisfacción y pondrán en práctica las recomendaciones de los consultores sobre el criterio mas pragmático y a más largo plazo para ofrecer la asistencia, la necesaria coordinación entre los donantes y también con los países receptores y el más decidido apoyo al concepto ampliado de seguridad alimentaria; concepto ampliado, afortunadamente concebido por el Director General en 1983 y apoyado por todos ios órganos rectores de la FAO y los demás organismos competentes del sistema de las Naciones Unidas.
La delegación de Colombia se complace en que los consultores afirmen que no existe discrepancia entre la FAO y el Banco Mundial en lo que se refiere a cómo ayudar a los países en desarrollo a mejorar su propia seguridad alimentaria nacional. Eso está bien porque teníamos dudas sobre el alcance de un documento al respecto presentado por el Banco Mundial en la reunión del Consejo Mundial de la Alimentación que tuvo lugar en Roma el año pasado.
La delegación de Colombia apoya las recomendaciones sobre la acción de la FAO, programas definidos, basados en el concepto ampliado y ampliación del mandato del PASA para que abarque los tres elementos esenciales: producción, estabilidad y acceso.
Apoyamos igualmente el reforzamiento de la dependencia del PASA, la creación de grupos especiales nacionales y la elevación del nivel del Comité Directivo de Seguridad Alimentaria.
Leif FORVELL (Norway): The Norwegian delegation would like to follow up the Danish intervention . made on behalf of the Nordic countries with some more specific remarks.
The Norwegian Parliament has repeatedly stressed the need to improve the effects and efficiency of both bilateral and multilateral development assistance. The strengthening of the relation, capability and capacity as well as the quality is seen as one way of achieving this. The interest in multilateral evaluations has increased since the Norwegian government in 1984 established a specific Ministry for Development Cooperation. Norway intends to support evaluation activities inside the multilateral agencies themselves and we should also like to see that the results of the evaluations are fairly utilized when guidelines for new projects are drawn up. In certain circumstances we should also like to carry out evaluations of specific aspects of the multilateral agencies’ activities, mosoly in collaboration with the agencies themselves or other bilateral donors. Our participation, together with FAO and UNDP on the automatic evaluation of agriculture is one example of this.
Let me take this opportunity to discuss in some further detail the experiences from and the output of the agriculture evaluation process. The study on agriculture contains much valuable information from more than one hundred different projects. The study gives many examples of what went wrong and which activities were successful. The main conclusions that may be drawn seem to be that careful choice of species and of technical assistance are prerequisites for being successful in this business.
These are examples of how the agriculture study gives relevant information which should be taken into account in the preparation offüurther projects. However we must also admit that we should have liked to see the evaluation improved even further. The presentational examples have perhaps detracted from a more complete analysis of experiences so far. Further, we hardly find a clear strategy for the future, although Annex 9 gives some ideas of regional strategies.
The agriculture study recommends strongly that future projects should be planned within a wider context than until now. The choice of species, and technical systems and their relevance according to economy, culture, organizations etc. are such examples. We should also like continuous monitoring and to see evaluations of the impact of certain projects which go beyond the actual targets of a specific project. Inter alia we should have liked to see a more over-all goal-oriented evaluation. Unfortunately the agriculture study in the opinion of my delegation fails to give this over-all goal-oriented analysis. Such a study should also take into account questions of an economic, cultural and organizational nature.
In light of FAO's role as a leading forum in international agricultural policy debate we should like to see FAO preparing over-all agricultural strategies for each region.
According to the evaluation of the Food Security Assistance Scheme we will broadly associate ourselves with the substantial content in the statement made by the Netherlands earlier in this debate.
Marc-André FREDETTE (Canada): There has been some debate about cost benefit in this room. There was even some debate as to whether one should debate cost benefit. One of the costs of the history of my country's interventions on this topic is that there is perhaps fatigue on both sides and the benefit might be that we might all save time by avoiding repetition. I will therefore refer for details to numerous past interventions in Conference and Council sessions. I will also immediately endorse the essence of the statement of Norway, Netherlands and Denmark on behalf of the Nordics. I would like, however, on behalf of the Canadian delegation to add a few remarks.
The Canadian delegation would like to thank the Secretariat for the preparation of this report. In the spirit of seeking continued improvements in the contents and presentation of the review, we would like to offer the following general comments.
Firstly, we see the review of the Regular Programme as one of the precious few opportunities for most member countries to comment on the concrete achievements of the Organization. This document should provide us with information on how well programmes are working and how well the resources have been used. The review should accordingly fully reflect a results-oriented approach. In this regard the document needs to go much further in identifying whether programmes are achieving their intended effects.
It is heartwarming to see that Canada's longstanding concerns about the positive role of evaluation and indeed the need for a results-oriented approach are reflected somewhat in the introduction of this document. For instance in page V of the English text the FAO is indeed now using some of our own language. However the body of the report clearly illustrates that monitoring and evaluation practices are still in their infancy at FAO, to borrow from the imagery of one of our colleagues.
One perhaps useful consideration would be in the packaging of the information: to consider restructuring the report in such a way that FAO activities are described in terms of specific measurable country targets. All FAO actions in each country would thus be identified in one comprehensive document.
The second major point 1 should like to make is that: we are strongly at odds with the suggestions made throughout the document, for instance in page xxi in the English text, that the assessment of programme effectiveness is an exercise of questionable value. We would certainly agree that this may be difficult but we know that there is a growing body of technical literature and experience to measure the effectiveness of technical programmes conducted by publicly accountable agencies. We encourage FAO to build indicators of effectiveness into programmes and activities at the planning stage. Because we do not recognize such practices in the proposed Programme of Work for 1988-89 biennium we would not be surprised to see the next Review like this faced with the difficulty of not having targets to compare against. Several statements in Plenary and in this Commission have referred to the need for such approaches and for some elements of the methodology required. The external evaluation of the Seed Improvement and Development Programme is an example of the general concerns. The consultants identified a lack of "specific programme targets"; yet there are no clear proposals to remedy the situation, as our Danish colleagues have already underlined.
We would also comment that in general we can agree with the indications given in the Review that FAO could improve its effectiveness through group networking, and here I refer to pages 53-57 in the English text. Given the development of many specialized parallel institutions and programmes, it is time that FAO's review of the Regular Programme provided some assessment of FAO's comparative advantage. In many ways the best summary of the spirit of our intervention is that evaluation is only as good as the use that is made of it. It is part of a package of management practices. It cannot improve by itself if it does not have the right elements before and after it to ensure that the seed will be planted in fertile ground. For instance, a number of references have been made already to the need for evaluation and for external evaluation, of the need for increased transparency, the need
for improved priority setting, including input from the membership in the early stages in the formulation of priorities, the need for improved coordination, the need to watch carefully, and hopefully to reduce, the level of cross-subsidization between the Regular Programme and the Field Programmes, the need to strengthen the role of the UNDP and the healthy inter-action which takes place between the FAO and the UNDP.
In conclusion, my delegation would like simply to point to the continuing need for this Organization to demonstrate the effectiveness of its programmes and to look to evaluation as the first priority. Earlier it was said that we do not have clear messages as to what priorities are made and as to what is or is not a priority. I would suggest that the message which seems to be emanating is that before we move to that stage clearly the first priority is evaluation of what we have achieved in the Organization, and then to look at what needs to be increased or decreased.
LI DACHUN (China) (original language Chinese): The Chinese delegation has carefully studied the relevant document C 87/8 and the relevant documents of the other three Special Action Programmes prepared by the Secretariat for the Council. We think these documents, which include some substantial content, have pointed out existing problems and recommended solutions, while reviewing achievements and results. This is helpful to us in reaching an overall understanding of the activities of the FAO Regular Programme, and in studying improved ways of continuing the programmes.
I should like to make the following points; Firstly, the Review of the Regular Programme is an essential part of the whole of FAO's evaluating activities. This Review not only summarizes the work of FAO but also offers an in-depth review of some sub-programmes carried out between 1980 and 1986, and the evaluation of extension of activities in respect of all technical programmes. We are pleased to notice that progress has been made in many aspects of this biennial Regular Programme. This is the result of the implementation of adjustment of programmes, staff reductions, reduction of administrative expenses and measures guaranteeing the priorities when FAO has faced financial difficulties. It therefore deserves approval and appreciation.
However, we have also noticed with concern that the overall reduction of technical programmes by FAO is close to 7 percent, due to financial difficulties. The effects will be seen more clearly in the next Review and so we hope that FAO and its Member Nations will make joint efforts to take measures concerning joint contributions to overcome the negative influence caused by financial difficulties.
Secondly, much of the Regular Programme's direct impact is achieved through field projects. We welcome the fact that 60 percent of FAO's staff time is spent on direct support of field projects. We have noticed that FAO in the past two years has continued to reinforce the relationship between the Regular Programme and the field projects, supporting improved efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the Special Action Programmes and enhanced cooperation between developing countries. We hope that FAO will further strengthen the coordination between the Regular Programme and the field programmes in order to improve work efficiency and to expand its impact.
Thirdly, Chapter 10 has summarized FAO's extension activities. Mastery of a vast technology is a prerequisite for improving the living standards of the rural populations and extension is a major means of transmitting the techniques and knowledge to producers. The active support of extension is a major item in FAO's technical programmes. We are happy to see that in recent years FAO has conducted a large-scale extension of activities in field training, the collection and publication of information, the conducting of seminars in workshops, in connection with research and studies, the provision of technical consultation, with the focus on small-scale farming, increased production and low-cost methods, field demonstrations, women workers and diverse publicity in respect of the current situation. The results are obvious and will-surely contribute to facilitating development at the scientific and technological level of developing countries.
Considering the fact that extension in many developing countries is inadequate because of methods of organization, management, funds and staff, we hope that FAO will continue to enhance its work in the extension of knowledge and technology, while emphasizing the maximum use of existing financial resources and instituions, to adapt the extension approach to the prevailing production system, rural structures, social customs and level of development of the recipient countries.
We should like to express our support of the text of 10.139 of Chapter 10, that FAO should now undertake a more comprehensive and definitive study of extension approaches. In this way the extension work can be promoted to a higher level through summing up and consolidating achievements and pinpointing what still needs to be improved.
Fourthly, the Chinese delegation has made a careful study of the documents concerned with external evaluation of the three Special Action Programmes: the Control of African Animal Trypanosomiasis and Related Development, the Seed Improvement and Development Programme and the Food Security Assistance Scheme, which were put into operation more than ten years ago. In the past decade FAO has carried out numerous activities under the three programmes and has achieved satisfactory results, which are warmly welcomed by all developing countries. These programmes are of significant importance to developing countries in connection with their food and agricultural production, the control of livestock disease and improvement in the capacity for self-reliance and food security. Therefore, we support independent and objective evaluations of the work that has been accomplished during the past decade, aiming to continue the work in a more efficient way. Of the 15 FAO Special Action Programmes, three have just been put to external evaluation. That is helpful for us to acquire extended knowledge of the achievements, the existing problems and the improvement measures of the programmes. Therefore this kind of evaluation is considered to be desirable. We appreciate the positive response of the Director-General to some of the recommendations.
CHAIRMAN: At this point the Chair would like to announce, first, that we have with us today a very distinguished group of visitors: the Committee on Food and Agriculture of the Bundestag of the Federal Republic of Germany. Their delegation is headed by Mr Sauter. We welcome the members of the delegations here to observe the proceedings.
Barthélémy BOUASSA-MOUSSADJI (Gabon): Prenant la parole pour la première fois au sein de cette Commission, je me permets de vous féliciter pour votre élection à la tete de celle-ci. Permettez-moi également de remercier le Directeur général pour la qualité des documents soumis à notre examen, et de féliciter M. Shah pour la clarté de l'exposé qu'il a fait hier. Les documents C 87/8 et leurs suppléments sont d'une importance capitale car ils permettent aux pays membres de notre Organisation d'apprécier à leur juste valeur l'impact des projets ainsi initiés. Il n'est pas besoin de rappeler que les documents relatifs à l'examen du Programme ordinaire et des Programmes de terrain constituent le fondement même des activités de notre Organisation.
La délégation gabonaise, ayant analysé attentivement le contenu des différents documents du point 14, apporte son soutien à leur contenu et à leur orientation.
Toutefois, sans négliger les différentes évaluations qui accompagnent le document principal, nous aimerions nous attarder sur le document C 87/8-Sup. 1 relatif à la lutte contre la trypanosomiase africaine et à la mise en valeur des zones libérées de tsé-tsé. Pourquoi, me direg-vous, cette évaluation? Tout simplement parce que mon pays, comme d'autres, situé en zone tropicale humide, est couvert à 85 pour cent de forêts, et n'est pas épargné par la mouche tsé-tsé. Son infestation est estimée à 100 pour cent et constitue un handicap sérieux pour le développement de l'élevage national, ce qui conduit le Gabon à rester tributaire de l'extérieur dans le domaine de la viande.
Face à cette infestation, mon pays s'est lancé dans la création de ranches dont le peuplement se fait à partir de bovins trypanotolérants importés des pays détenteurs.
Le plus important projet que doit abriter mon pays est un projet à vocation régionale de multiplication et de diffusion de bovins trypanotolérants; cela constituera pour la sous-région d'Afrique Centrale (UDEAC), une institution contribuant à la lutte contre la trypanosomiase. Nous lançons pour cela un appel à la FAO et à la coopération internationale pour nous aider à la mise en place de ce projet qui produira dans les années à venir les protéines animales nécessaires aux populations rurales de mon pays, étant entendu que mon pays,n'avait pas, jusqu'à il y a quelques années, une vocation pastorale. Les recommandations faites par les consultants rencontrent donc notre plein appui.
Toutefois, nous sommes inquiets de la diminution des ressources allouées à ce programme au cours de la période 1984-87, comme il est souligné à la page 19 de la version française.
Lorsque le rapport évoque les problèmes rencontrés dans les différents projets il apparaît que la FAO peut jouer un rôle considérable pour permettre aux décideurs de prendre conscience de l'importance de la maladie. Aussi, l'implantation à Ouagadougou de deux projets GCP/RAF/190 et 191/ITA aura permis, à un moindre degré, de tirer la sonnette d'alarme pour que les gouvernements des différents pays comme le mien essaient de se pencher sur cette maladie.
Le document fait état en page 25 de l'éducation et de la formation des techniciens. Si ce volet doit rester une priorité majeure du programme, il apparaît que l'école de lutte anti-tsé-tsé, installée à Bobo Dioulassoet qui a formé plusieurs cadres à tous les niveaux, meurt de sa plus belle mort, les pays donateurs ayant considérablement réduit, voire même arrêté, le versement de leurs contributions. Nous espérons que ces derniers reconsidéreront leur position, et nous encourageons le Directeur général et son équipe à poursuivre les négociations avec les donateurs habituels - et d'autres potentiellement - pour que cet institut reprenne ses activités. Aussi appuierons-nous toute résolution allant dans ce sens.
Pour terminer, la délégation gabonaise renouvelle son appui à l'évaluation du Programme ordinaire présentée par le Secrétariat.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): La délégation de mon pays souhaite s'excuser auprès de notre Commission de lui infliger une déclaration supplémentaire. Celle-ci aurait pu être évitée si notre Président avait été un bon rapporteur. Je plains la délégation israélienne de vous avoir choisi pour assurer une telle mission, celle-ci étant, semble-t-il, mal assurée.
Je dois dire en effet, Monsieur le Président, que vous avez une manière quelque peu cavalière d'interpréter les règlements de notre Organisation.
CHAIRMAN: You are on our list to speak to item 14. Please speak to the subject at hand, unless you have a point of order. If so please indicate under the Rules. If you wish to speak on item 14 please take your turn to speak on it. If instead you have a point of order please indicate so.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): Oui, merci Monsieur le Président, mais vous nous interrompez une nouvelle fois. Vous savez très bien que nous avions à parler d'un sujet qui nous préoccupe depuis hier et nous avions demandé la parole avant la fin de la séance d'hier. C'est donc sur ce point que nous voudrions porter notre motion d'ordre. Mais je dois dire que vous avez une manière quelque peu cavalière d'interpréter les règlements de notre Organisation. J'ai moi-même déjà présidé une Commission de la Conférence de la FAO alors que je venais d'arriver à Rome mais j'avais l'avantage, avant cela, d'avoir pris part à de nombreuses réunions de notre Organisation à Rome et hors de Rome, ce qui constitue sans nul doute une école.
Je voudrais rappeler ici très simplement que le Congo, qui est intervenu à la suite d'une motion d'ordre vendredi dernier, n'avait pas cru utile de nommer un pays quelconque et encore moins de critiquer la politique d'un Etat Membre, quelles que soient les relations actuelles de ces pays avec le nôtre.
Notre intervention de vendredi visait uniquement votre manière peu orthodoxe de conduire les débats, ce qui s'est encore vérifié hier quand vous n'avez pas cru utile de nous donner la parole.
Je regrette que la Commission II, qui a à débattre de grands sujets, voie ces délibérations entachées de nombreuses irrégularités qui sont du seul fait d'une présidence faible et tatillonne.
Compte tenu de ce qui précède, je demande ici que le nom de mon pays ne figure pas dans la déclaration du délégué d'Israël quelle qu'en soit la teneur.
Je continue à croire en outre qu'il n'appartient pas au Président de tous les membres de cette Commission d'assurer la liaison avec un Etat Membre non présent aux débats de cette Commission. J'espère que le record des motions d'ordre atteint par notre Commission sera un indicateur qui vous autorisera à céder de temps à autre votre marteau aux excellents Vice-Présidents de notre Commission.
CHAIRMAN: Your point that the Government of the Congo said nothing about the State of Israel on Friday is absolutely correct. If Israel in its statement did make a reference to the Congo the reference was a statement about inviting you, or the whole country, it was not very clear, to come visit. If you are requesting a right of reply the precedent that we would establish would be that every time a country is mentioned, that its name is used, there would be automatically a right of reply, no matter what was said..Let me read to you from the document provided to the Chair. It says: "Where a delegate wishes to reply to a criticism of his government's policy ...". If you wish to take the view that the statement that the delegate of Israel made yesterday, which invited you to visit his country, or a different area, is a criticism of your government's policy, this Chair will not decide what you construe as a criticism of your government's policy. If you view an invitation to visit any part of the world as an implicit implied criticism of your government's policy, fine, it is not for me to suggest what you wish to take as a criticism. If you wish to take that as a criticism of the policies of the Government of the Congo, then the Chair would, as we have found in previous right of reply requests, provide time at the end of the day's session so that you could be recognized for the purpose of a right of reply and you could explain why you are offended, why your Government's policies have been attacked, and why you take exception to that. That is perfectly within your right of reply and if you wish to do so the Chair will put you on at the end of today's session for a right of reply and you can state that you feel that is a criticism of your Government's policies. The precedent that would be set then is that any time a government's name is used it would have a right to give a speech at the end of the day. If that is what you wish to do, do it. If you wish to be put down for a right of reply on that at the end of today's proceedings, we will be glad to do it.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): Oui, si vous me donnez la parole, je pourrai m'expliquer plus amplement sur cette question.
CHAIRMAN: Perhaps it might be time-saving if we took a moment here for me to try to explain what theguidance is that the Chair has to follow in such matters. Under right of reply it says: "While there is no specific Rule of the General Rules of the Organization regarding the right of reply, the Conference at its Twelfth Session decided to adopt the procedure in use in the General Assembly of the United Nations. Under this procedure where a delegate wishes to reply to a criticism of his Government's policy, he should preferably do so on the evening of the day on which such criticism has been voiced after all those wishing to participate in the discussions have had an opportunity to do so. At the end of the afternoon's session the Chairman would accordingly announce: "This concludes our business for the day but before adjourning the meeting I shall give the floor to the delegate of …… who has asked to exercise the right of reply."
If you have listened carefully you will have observed that the first time we had a right of reply request I stated that following the General Rules of the United Nations procedure we were yielding for that. If you have checked the Verbatim Report you will see that the very phrase I just read off was the phrase that I read off before the statement made yesterday also before one of the earlier ones. That is trying to follow an orderly procedure. I do not think we are wise to get into an area of whether an invitation is an offence to a Government's policy. If you feel that way, fine, state so, but any country whose name was used would have to be given the same right and it could take whatever interpretation it wished to do so.
Now, as a point of clarification for you, the Chair does not have any control over what the representative of Israel says; the Chair personally has some disagreements with some things said in that; it is not for me to get into, but it is not in our control, only to make available that opportunity. I would hope that we would limit ourselves on such things, but if we want to have an end-of-the-day session and go into overtime, fine, but we have to go in proper order and we have to try to proceed so that the countries which wish to speak on the business that is before us can do so.
I must warn you that in a moment, we will have to adjourn because our time has expired, and we will come back on item no, 14.
Now, the delegation that is making some noise back there to my left, let me advise you what the rules say on a point of order. They are very clear.What you ought to do if you want to deal with the rules is get the document C 87/INF/2 and read it. Now the Chair has to operate on a presumption that the members of the Organization have a familiarity with the rules and are used to going by them and we have to go by them. Now, if you wish to make a point of order now, it is difficult for us to know whether it is 'a point of order or something else. The rules state that you stand up and hold up the. sign of the country. That is what they state in the rules. Cuba, you have a point of order; state: your point of order.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Sí, creo que hay algunas cuestiones de procedimiento. Ud. ha sido muy explícito en cuanto a orientarnos de cómo proceder. Sin embargo, yo quiero señalar algunas irregularidades, por ejemplo, en el Documento del acta de nuestra sesión en la tarde de ayer no escuchamos que se hiciera referencia a nuestro país, y por consiguiente, consideramos que hay una irregularidad en esta acta, que fue incluida, y por lo tanto, esta mención debe ser eliminada.
CHAIRMAN: On the point of order that Cuba was not mentioned in the Israeli statement and ought to have been, I have before me the English text, it is page 27 of the verbatim, and Cuba is mentioned. If Cuba feels, as the Congo does, that this is something on which you wish a right of reply, simply state so and we will put you on following the Congo. Is that what your point of order is?
Marcos I. NIETO LARA (Cuba): Me acojo al derecho de réplica y me inscribo junto al Congo.
CHAIRMAN: You may do so. You will be recognized at the end of the session and you can tell us why it is an offence of your government's policies, the gentleman's remarks about inviting you. You will go on immediately after the Congo.
Anyone else greatly offended today want to speak to us this evening? There are no mort, points of order. We will be coming back to speak on item 14.
The meeting rose at 12.45 hours
La seance est levée à 12 h 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas.
