CHAIRMAN: The meeting is called to order. I apologize to the Commission for being late. That is not my attitude but I did it for a good purpose. We are engaged now on Item 17, C 91/4, and this is a sub-item with documents C 91/4-Sup.l and C 91/4-Sup.2 on UNDP support costs, the successor arrangements. To be practical about this, Mr Rinville will introduce the item as a whole and then discussion will follow. It is up to each delegate to take the matters as a whole if they want to but if there are delegates who want to split them in two parts then I would willingly give them the floor in a second round but I think we should go through all those who wish to speak and then we will go through the supplementary comments on the UNDP. I know there are three or four delegations at least who wish to split. We will now make a start and Mr Rinville has the floor.
F. RINVILLE (Sous-directeur général, Département du développement): Le document C 91/4 se rapporte à la fois à l'examen du contenu et des résultats du Programme de terrain de la FAO et aux politiques régissant les activités opérationnelles de l'Organisation. Il souhaite donc être la bonne réponse aux souhaits exprimés par la vingt-cinquième Conférence et en particulier aux conclusions de l'examen de la FAO qui demandait plus d'information sur les activités de terrain, en particulier en matière de politique pour les orientations futures.
Cette fois-ci, l'examen du Programme de terrain est un document très exhaustif un peu plus important que la dernière fois. A côté des considérations traditionnelles sur les principales tendances, le contenu, les caractéristiques particulières et les performances du Programme de terrain de la FAO le document contient aussi une présentation relativement détaillée de l'impact, au niveau des principes d'action de la FAO, des mesures prises au titre des conclusions de l'examen de la FAO, des récentes décisions de l'Assemblée générale (en particulier la Décision 44/211 de décembre 1989) ainsi que de la dernière décision de juin 1991 du Conseil d'administration du PNUD; cette décision concernant essentiellement les nouvelles modalités de remboursement des dépenses d'appui aux projets financés par le programme.
L'examen du Programme de terrain tel qu'il vous est présenté se veut être un document complet en lui-même; sa lecture devrait suffire pour le travail qui vous est proposé dans cette session. Toutefois, pour tenir compte de l'évolution presque quotidienne des travaux de préparation à la mise en oeuvre des décisions prises, notamment de l'Assemblée générale et du Conseil d'administration du PNUD, deux suppléments ont été préparés depuis l'édition de l'examen, c'est-à-dire, depuis l'édition du document 91/4.
Le premier supplément, document C 91/4-Sup.l, fait le point sur l'état d'avancement des travaux préparatoires à la mise en oeuvre de la Décision 91/32 du Conseil d'administration du PNUD de juin 1991 sur le remboursement aux agences de dépenses d'appui.
Le second supplément, document C 91/4-Sup.2, présente la proposition du Directeur général relative à une révision des modalités de remboursement des dépenses d'appui technique et administratif que la FAO apporte aux projets financiers sur des fonds fiduciaires, c'est-à-dire des fonds apportés par des pays membres qui veulent participer à des opérations de développement dans des pays en développement.
Comme contribution à la discussion qui va s'engager sur l'examen du Programme de terrain, je ferai quelques remarques sur les points les plus importants de ces documents qui sont, comme vous l'avez probablement vous-même constaté, étroitement liés à l'examen du Programme ordinaire et au nouveau Plan à moyen terme.
D'abord, sur les grandes tendances, le contenu et les performances du Programme de terrain; ensuite, je parlerai du Chapitre 1 de nature plus politique puisqu'il concerne les principes d'action de notre Organisation dans le domaine opérationnel.
Vous noterez que 1990 fut une année record en termes de volume du Programme de terrain avec plus de 400 millions de dollars de réalisations, plus exactement 407, pas loin du volume record de 1981 en termes réels.
Tous les programmes sont sous le signe de la croissance au titre du présent biennium. Le Programme FAO/PNUD a été de 176 millions de dollars et devrait dépasser 180 millions de dollars en 1991 alors que les réalisations sur fonds fiduciaires ont approché en 1990 200 millions de dollars, calculés sur la même base que le Programme FAO/PNUD, c'est-à-dire en incluant les engagements. Dans les deux cas, les perspectives à court terme sont satisfaisantes.
Des indications récentes laissent toutefois penser que les ressources futures du PNUD (et cela nous le savons à la suite des débats qui ont eu lieu à New York) seraient moins importantes que prévu: on parle d'une croissance de 3.5 pour cent plutôt que 8 pour cent souhaités par l'Administrateur du PNUD. Cela aura des répercussions réelles dans deux ou trois ans.
De son côté, le Programme de coopération technique reste plus sollicité qu'il n'a de fonds: 36 millions de dollars pour 1990 et 30 millions en 1989. A propos de ce programme, l'examen en fait évaluation et de nombreux exemples en soutiennent l'efficacité.
Les tableaux analytiques des activités de terrain de la FAO, tels qu'ils apparaissent au Chapitre 2, mettent en évidence que le transfert de savoir-faire de la FAO, y compris dans le domaine de l'analyse des politiques, porte principalement sur le développement et l'amélioration des cultures et sur l'Afrique où près de 50 pour cent de toutes les activités de coopération technique de la FAO se concentrent. Il est de plus en plus fait appel au potentiel humain des pays en développement eux-mêmes, que ce soit pour désigner des directeurs et des experts nationaux dans les projets, ou que ce soit pour associer les chercheurs. Dans cet esprit, nous insistons
sur tout ce que peut produire de bon la coopération technique entre pays en développement, et elle est encouragée notamment par le Programme de coopération technique.
Parlons maintenant du Centre d'investissement. Ses activités sont très diversifiées et se maintiennent à un haut niveau. En 1990, ce sont 38 projets pour plus de 2,5 milliards de dollars d'investissements qui ont été approuvés, dont près de 1,5 milliard de dollars de crédits et prêts de différentes sources (Banque mondiale, FIDA, les banques régionales de développement et autres institutions financières) le reste étant apporté par les pays bénéficiant de ces investissements eux-mêmes. Ce centre, avec les qualités qui lui sont unanimement reconnues, est unique en son genre dans la famille des agences des Nations Unies et il conforte la présence et le travail technique de la FAO sur le terrain.
Vous avez été satisfaits, je le pense, de trouver dans notre document un compte rendu des débats sur le Programme de terrain qui étaient à l'ordre du jour des Comités techniques de la FAO: forêts, agriculture, pêche et Comité de Sécurité Alimentaire. Les résumés de ces discussions qui ont été de nature très concrète paraissent venir à point dans cet examen, dans la mesure où ils en sont un complément utile.
La partie "évaluation" du document, Chapitre 3, a - comme d'habitude - été préparée par le service d'évaluation de la FAO avec le professionnalisme et la compétence qui en ont fait la réputation. De plus en plus de projets font l'objet d'une évaluation indépendante, et ici les résultats de quelque 200 missions d'évaluation de projets sont présentés jusqu'à un niveau de détail relativement fin. Notre satisfaction, justifiée par les succès obtenus par la majorité des projets, ne peut toutefois être totale dans la mesure où un certain nombre de faiblesses signalées nécessitent correction et nous y veillerons. La FAO prend très au sérieux de telles leçons et en tire parti.
Comme je l'ai dit, ce chapitre contient aussi un examen complet du Programme de coopération technique basé sur l'analyse d'un échantillon de 57 projets. J'espère, M. le Président, que la Conférence saura apprécier que cette évaluation est sous le signe à la fois de la transparence et de la franchise, portant sur un programme auquel les pays récipiendaires sont très attachés et qui se caractérise par de bonnes performances et une efficacité reconnue.
Le sujet qui a été choisi pour être le thème spécial du présent examen est celui de la protection de l'environnement et du développement durable. Cette préoccupation doit maintenant être totalement présente tout au long du cycle des projets, de sa formation jusqu'à sa réalisation. Bien sûr, ne pourra pas être considéré comme bon un projet qui, ensuite, mourrait avec sa fin. Seul un projet qui entraînera une opération de développement durable qui se survivra à elle-même sera considéré comme un projet réussi. Ce domaine recoupe en fait tous les principaux Programmes de terrain puisqu'il doit être maintenant pris en compte dans tous les projets de la FAO, comme je l'ai dit, sur toute la longueur du cycle. Cela est expliqué en détail au Chapitre 4 qui montre combien les efforts de la FAO ont été importants ces dernières années pour que ces aspects fondamentaux soient totalement pris en compte dans le corps des projets. Tous les principaux Programmes de coopération technique ont été concernés comme la protection
des ressources naturelles et le développement durable. Comme noté dans le texte, ce chapitre devrait être lu conjointement avec le document C 91/30 relatif au développement durable et à l'environnement.
J'en viens maintenant à l'innovation la plus significative de cet examen biennal, à savoir l'examen sélectif des principes d'action présentés au Chapitre 1. Les faits et les considérations exposés dans ce chapitre sont en fait porteurs de conséquences pour l'ensemble des activités . opérationnelles.
Face à une politique générale de coopération technique qui évolue, la FAO n'a pas été statique. Elle a bougé et s'est adaptée ces dernières années en prenant un certain nombre de mesures importantes: pour une part, en résultat de l'examen de la FAO conclu à la vingt-cinquième Conférence, et, pour une autre part, en réponse à un ensemble continu de Résolutions de l'Assemblée générale dont la plus récente, la Résolution 44/211, couvre un ensemble très large de questions qui touchent en profondeur les principes d'action du Programme de terrain. Tout cela matérialisé, repris, concrétisé dans la récente décision du Conseil d'Administration du PNUD de juin 1991 sur les dépenses d'appui, que ce nouveau Chapitre 1 et le Supplément 1 couvrent de manière assez détaillée.
J'espère que cet examen complet des principes d'action répond à vos souhaits de voir que de tels aspects et leurs effets sur le Programme de terrain figurent en bonne place au sommaire des rapports de la FAO sur les activités opérationnelles. C'est ce que nous avons tenté de faire dans ce document et nous poursuivrons nos efforts dans ce sens dans le futur comme nous saisirons toutes les occasions pour vous tenir informés.
La première partie du chapitre passe en revue la traduction en termes opérationnels des conclusions de l'examen de la FAO approuvées à la vingt-cinquième Conférence de 1989 dans les limites autorisées par la difficile situation financière de la FAO. Dans le même temps, l'Organisation poursuivait, en collaboration étroite avec le bureau du Directeur général pour la coopération économique internationale et avec grande détermination, la mise en oeuvre des nombreuses mesures préconisées par la Résolution 44/211 de l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies. Vous trouverez cela dans ce même chapitre.
En ce qui concerne la décision du Conseil d'Administration du PNUD sur le remboursement des dépenses d'appui, nous avons souhaité vous donner la mesure de notre participation soutenue à la longue maturation de ce dossier. La FAO y a joué un rôle important et même prépondérant en assurant la présidence de la Task Force inter-agences. Le Directeur général lui-même s'est adressé au Conseil d'administration du PNUD pour appeler son attention sur l'importance politique fondamentale d'une telle décision et sur la sous évaluation de ses conséquences possibles, dont la première est l'impact potentiellement grave d'une telle décision sur l'avenir même de la coopération technique pour le développement du système des Nations Unies dans son ensemble.
La décision dont je parle maintenant, Décision 91/32 annexée au Supplément 1, est vraiment très compliquée et nous espérons que la description sommaire qu'en donne notre document vous sera utile. A cause de sa nature complexe, sa mise en oeuvre ne sera pas facile (ni pour le PNUD, ni pour les agences) et un vaste programme de formation de tous les
personnels associés à l'exécution des projets sera nécessaire, dont le coût, qui sera important, n'a fait l'objet à ce jour d'aucune prévision.
Comme vous le noterez dans le Supplément 1, les agences proposent d'unir leurs moyens pour organiser ensemble ces formations qui concerneront des centaines de personnes.
Les différents aspects de la décision, en nature de prestations individualisées et en crédits réservés par grands groupes de prestations, sont présentés dans la dernière partie du Chapitre 1. Il est clair qu'ils entraîneront des changements importants dans la manière dont la FAO apportera dans le futur son assistance technique aux projets financés par le PNUD, et ce ne sera pas sans une conséquence et sans conséquence très substantielle pour l'Organisation.
Le Groupe de travail interne de la FAO sur les dépenses d'appui fait une première évaluation de ces conséquences potentielles et le résultat provisoire de cet exercice est présenté dans le Supplément 1.
Dans le cadre du Groupe de travail inter-agences, la FAO et ses agences soeurs ont organisé un grand nombre de réunions avec le PNUD pour parvenir à des définitions claires et communes des termes de la décision et élaborer les modalités pratiques pour sa mise en oeuvre. Si chacun y met du sien pour résoudre les problèmes rencontrés, de façon pragmatique, beaucoup reste cependant à faire dans un temps très court si l'on considère que tout devrait être prêt pour une mise en oeuvre effective au 1er janvier 1992.
Il reste que l'une des tâches essentielles auxquelles la FAO, les autres agences et le PNUD doivent faire face est, comme je l'ai dit plus haut, la formation des personnels qui sera à peine engagée au moment de l'échéance théorique. Et cela coûtera plusieurs millions de dollars en termes de temps passé par les personnels, en coûts de missions et autres, un sujet dont il faudra bien débattre lors de la trente-neuvième session du Conseil d'administration du PNUD dans le contexte des mesures de transition considérées comme absolument nécessaires.
Pour en venir à un problème souvent évoqué de l'exécution nationale, un facteur important qui reste à déterminer est le taux de croissance de l'exécution nationale dans le secteur d'activités de la FAO. La dernière décision du Conseil d'administration du PNUD sur ce sujet, Décision 91/27 de juin 1991, appelle une approche prudente où la FAO et les autres agences doivent être totalement associées aux réflexions des représentants du PNUD sur la manière de développer cette modalité pays par pays. Nous sommes très attentifs au respect de cette Résolution qui ne parait pas avoir été encore totalement entendue partout, dans tous les pays, par tous les représentants résidents du PNUD, et nous sommes en relation étroite avec les services du PNUD de New York pour suivre l'évolution de cette question attentivement.
Malheureusement, comme je le dis, de nombreuses informations en provenance de nos représentants font apparaître que des représentants du PNUD prennent des décisions unilatérales en vue de développer l'exécution nationale sans procéder à la consultation obligatoire; et ils le font souvent par le biais de l'accroissement des capacités opérationnelles des bureaux du PNUD, des recrutements de personnel et un appel accru au Bureau de service des projets.
En ce qui concerne notre analyse des conséquences de la Décision 91/32 pour la FAO, le taux d'exécution nationale pourrait atteindre en 1996 quelque chose comme 40 pour cent. Mais ces évaluations ne sont basées que sur des supputations qui devront être confirmées par l'expérience car les conclusions que l'on peut en tirer devront être ajustées dans le temps à mesure que l'expérience les confirmera. Essentiellement, les activités de la FAO de support au PNUD relèveront de moins en moins de l'administration de projets et de plus en plus d'un soutien technique direct à la,fois aux projets et aux programmes comme les examens sectoriels, les analyses des politiques, les missions de programmation, etc.
En fin du Supplément 1, C 91/4-Sup.l, sont traitées les nouvelles modalités des remboursements des dépenses d'appui aux projets financés par le Fonds des Nations Unies en matière de population. Les activités de la FAO dans ce domaine sont de nature différente de celles financées par la PNUD et font donc l'objet d'un traitement particulier. On peut considérer que, dans ce domaine, les mesures adoptées sont satisfaisantes.
Il est apparu opportun d'engager, parallèlement à l'introduction des nouvelles modalités des remboursements des dépenses d'appui du PNUD, un processus de révision du mode de calcul des frais d'agence liés à l'exécution de projets financés sur fonds fiduciaires.
Il est proposé d'engager cette analyse et de faire des propositions avec l'objectif de dégager une solution qui prenne bien en considération les caractéristiques et les mérites propres des projets financés sur fonds fiduciaires en associant pleinement les partenaires concernés à l'élaboration de ces propositions.
Bien que l'objectif principal de notre démarche soit d'améliorer la qualité du soutien technique et administratif de la FAO aux programmes sur fonds fiduciaires, et de faire en sorte que ces projets soient réussis, il est néanmoins important d'éviter une pression financière excessive de ces activités sur le Budget ordinaire de l'Organisation et il faut développer une approche très spécifiquement orientée sur l'analyse des différentes prestations et d'une juste affectation de leur coût. Il ne sera toutefois pas perdu de vue que les nouvelles modalités ne devront pas être trop compliquées et devront être faciles à comprendre et à appliquer afin que des dépenses techniques et administratives ne soient pas dispersées dans des problèmes de complexité.
La proposition qui vous est soumise consisterait à engager les analyses nécessaires dès maintenant pour être en mesure de recommander un dispositif viable et pratique aux prochaines réunions des Comités financier et du Programme en 1992. Ainsi on pourrait en assurer une mise en oeuvre provisoire et expérimentale d'ajustement après mai 1992 (pour les nouveaux projets). La confirmation formelle du nouveau dispositif interviendrait en 1993 après son adoption par le cent-deuxième Conseil en novembre 1992.
Pour conclure, je souhaite confirmer que les politiques déployées par l'Organisation en matière d'activités opérationnelles feront maintenant toujours l'objet d'un développement particulier dans tout rapport présenté par le Secrétariat sur les activités opérationnelles. Nous rapporterons de même aux Comités et au Conseil sur tout nouveau développement du dossier des dépenses d'appui du PNUD et sur toute conséquence envisageable pour la
FAO. Il en sera de même pour le problème du remboursement des frais d'agence liés à la mise en oeuvre de fonds fiduciaires, comme je viens de le dire.
Mes collègues et moi-même sommes à votre disposition pour tout complément que vous pourriez souhaiter sur ces importants documents et dont, je dois le reconnaître, certaines parties sont complexes et difficiles.
CHAIRMAN: I thank Mr Rinville for his introduction. As I said before, delegates should feel free to deal with this item in one speech or two, I hope most will only do it in one; otherwise we may get into trouble later on, but it is up to each delegate. The item is open for discussion. The following are the speakers on the list: Colombia, Denmark, Congo, Finland, China, Germany, Sweden, USA, UK, Canada and France. I give the floor to the first delegate.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): El Sr. Rinville ha hecho una excelente declaración que facilita nuestra participación en el debate sobre este tema. Las orientaciones que usted ha dado son, como siempre, prácticas. Trataremos de hacer una sola declaración y ojalá no ocupar demasiado tiempo.
Los representantes de Colombia pensamos que este nuevo examen confirma la evolución muy favorable que vienen cumpliendo las actividades de campo de nuestra Organización. Actividades que el Gobierno de Colombia considera pilar fundamental dentro del conjunto de la labor de la FAO. Afortunadamente están ya muy lejos hacia atrás los tiempos, hasta principios de los años sesenta, cuando las actividades de campo eran apenas como cierto espejismo para los países beneficiarios, ya que los expertos que generalmente se enviaban a nuestros países, carecían de nivel técnico, no hablaban los idiomas de nuestras poblaciones, sus estómagos no resistían nuestras comidas autóctonas, les incomodaba el clima y las demás condiciones de vida del Tercer Mundo. Era así como debían cumplir el contrato de permanecer dos o tres años en cada país, sin llegarse a compenetrar ni entender con los representantes de los gobiernos, y mucho menos con las gentes del campo.
Obviamente, actividades sobre el terreno cumplidas en esa forma, carecían de toda eficacia y beneficio para los países en desarrollo. Esos expertos que después volvían a Roma, muchas veces se traían copias de informes anteriores de otros expertos que habían trabajado más o menos en esas mismas lamentables condiciones y, basados en esos informes, presentaban el resultado de su misión. Además, el apoyo técnico de la Sede, indispensable y básico, les era ofrecido desde aquí por burócratas encallecidos que en esos tiempos disfrutaban de la tranquilidad de vivir en esta ciudad, sentados en sus cómodos escritorios, o con sus pipas humeantes en los bares, restaurantes y en la terraza de este edificio con esa fantástica vista de las ruinas del Imperio Romano. Y ofrecían ese apoyo técnico basado en indicadores obsoletos. Se inspiraban en ese panorama para hacer diagnósticos y recomendaciones con desconocimiento completo de la realidad económica, de los problemas sociales, humanos, y de todo orden, de la población de los países para los cuales decían, o creían, estar en condiciones de trabajar.
Todo eso particularmente a partir de 1976, bajo un nuevo concepto pragmático, ha venido siendo superado. Hoy la FAO ha logrado la designación de más de 400 Directores Nacionales en sus Programas de Campo, asi como 850 oficiales de proyectos nacionales. La FAO apoyó desde sus comienzos la modalidad de avanzar hacia la plena ejecución nacional de los proyectos financiados por el PNUD.
El párrafo 1.59 de este documento contiene cifras comparativas relativas a los últimos ciclos de comparación; cifras que esperamos se incrementarán en el futuro.
Los representantes de Colombia estamos de acuerdo en que aún algunos países beneficiarios no disponen de personas con conocimientos técnicos suficientes, ni de capacidad institucional adecuada para asumir toda la responsabilidad de la ejecución. Por ello, hemos sostenido siempre que aunque la plena ejecución nacional debe ser el objetivo final, eso tiene que ser un proceso gradual pero con sentido de avance, en el cual las experiencias y los conocimientos de la FAO deben ser utilizados por los gobiernos en las etapas de identificación, preparación y, si fuese necesario, también ejecución de los proyectos.
Hay que explorar todos los medios que permitan a los gobiernos utilizar el oportuno asesoramiento de la FAO que asegurará la calidad en la ejecución de los buenos proyectos. Como lo dice este documento, seguramente es cierto que hayan surgido problemas en cuanto a la presentación de informes y rendición de cuentas en algunos países. Pero no conviene generalizar. La FAO debe intensificar su asistencia a esos países para que progresivamente vayan superando y solucionando favorablemente esos problemas que son marginales: presentación de informes, rendición de cuentas, aspectos marginales frente a la gran importancia que el Gobierno de Colombia atribuye a la ejecución nacional mediante la cual se incrementa la capacitación de nuestro propio personal y se fortalecen nuestras instituciones nacionales, con la esperanza de que pronto podamos librarnos completamente de la dependencia de expertos externos a que antes estábamos totalmente sometidos, y así ojalá nunca más volvamos a la etapa colonialista, hasta un poco folclorística, de la asistencia técnica a que hicimos referencia en esta declaración.
A los representantes de Colombia nos complace que aun en medio de la grave crisis financiera de nuestra Organización, el volumen de gastos del Programa de gastos de la FAO haya alcanzado cifras excepcionales. Durante el bienio, aumentaron las entregas FAO/PNUD de los fondos fiduciarios y del PCT. Sin embargo, nos preocupa que la parte del Programa del PNUD correspondiente a la FAO siga reduciéndose. Sería una lástima que las perspectivas bastante alentadoras del futuro se afectaran considerablemente por las nuevas disposiciones del PNUD relativas a los gastos de apoyo. De todos modos, el crecimiento de todos los programas principales durante el bienio es demostración de la confianza múltiple de las instituciones de financiación y de todos los gobiernos donantes y beneficiarios, en la eficacia del Programa de Campo de la FAO.
Ese general aprecio positivo a las actividades de campo, parece estar reflejado en este documento, sobre todo en la parte primera que contiene el análisis de los recursos de las misiones de evaluación. El Servicio de Evaluación trabaja eficazmente. Lamentamos que la falta de recursos haya impedido fortalecer ese Servicio. No obstante, estamos seguros de que el nuevo puesto profesional y el Inspector Superior de Campo contribuirán a
que el Servicio de Evaluación siga mejorando aún más sus importantes tareas. Convendrá intensificar progresivamente la participación de las Oficinas de la FAO en los países, en el asesoramiento directo a los ministerios e instituciones gubernamentales, y en el apoyo a los Programas de Campo de la Organización.
Para que esa participación sea verdaderamente eficaz, será necesario que las Oficinas en los países sean reforzadas con el incremento del personal profesional de categoría superior que está disponible para atender las solicitudes de los gobiernos. Esto se hace más imperioso ahora, cuando a partir del próximo bienio lamentablemente se debilitarán las Oficinas Regionales.
Una vez más, lamentamos que la crisis financiera haya impedido al Director General su propósito inicial de reforzar más ampliamente ese personal de las Oficinas en los países, lo cual además corresponde a las recomendaciones dimanantes del examen de algunas de las actividades de la FAO.
El modesto aumento de sólo seis puestos, tres de ellos apenas de categoría superior, es insuficiente para lograr adecuadamente ese reforzamiento. Las Oficinas en los países deben contar con un suficiente y adecuado servicio de apoyo operacional y profesional. Está muy bien que las actividades de campo se enfoquen hacia el mayor estímulo y apoyo a la cooperación técnica, y apoyo entre países en desarrollo. Las CTP y CTPD, así como las Redes de Cooperación, representan ahora una especie de refugio para los Estados del Tercer Mundo frente al descenso de los recursos para la cooperación internacional. Los Estados industrializados en su mayoría vienen reduciendo inexplicablemente, o desviando en forma persistente, que nos inquieta por sus graves repercusiones en el futuro largo plazo.
La creciente cooperación con las Organizaciones no gubernamentales es otro filón que la FAO aún no ha explorado suficientemente. Las ONG internacionales y los países industrializados en general, es cierto que suelen tener muchos recursos, personal técnico, experiencias y conocimientos que pueden ser utilizados en las operaciones de campo de la FAO, pero también las ONG nacionales son importantes, tienen un capital que es valioso y de significación excepcional. Esas ONG nacionales, aunque cuentan con menos recursos, tienen la ventaja del conocimiento directo de las condiciones de vida de los países, de sus gentes, de sus hábitos, de la idiosincracia y de las sensibilidades de la población. Todo lo cual sumado representa un valioso capital. Por ello, nos complace que, como lo dice el párrafo 1.55: "Las Direcciones Técnicas y Económicas de la FAO mantienen amplias y valiosas relaciones con las ONG de los países receptivos y donantes". Creemos que este concepto es necesario que se mantenga porque ese conjunto de ONG vienen contribuyendo a la ejecución de muchos proyectos en los que sólo la participación activa y eficaz de la comunidad y de los grupos de población, permite obtener resultados satisfactorios y sostenibles.
A fin de atender a sus juiciosas directrices, y para no extendernos demasiado, sólo nos resta reconocer que estos exámenes del Programa de Campo han venido mejorando cada bienio y siguen las orientaciones de los órganos rectores, lo cual asegura que esos progresos que los representantes de Colombia reconocemos, sinceramente se prolongarán y se consolidarán en el futuro.
John PONTOPPIDAN (Denmark): Denmark channels half its development assistance, i.e., in 1991 more than US$500 million, through multilateral agencies.
While we in DANIDA have a fairly clear picture of the agencies' performance at headquarters level, our knowledge of their performance in the field has until now not been based on sufficiently comprehensive information.
It was in order to provide the basis for a more systematic analysis of agency field effectiveness and to make possible relevant comparisons between agencies that DANIDA decided to ask a Danish consulting company (COWIconsult) to make a study of the field effectiveness of 11 agencies' operations in four developing countries. Among these agencies, FAO was included.
Another main objective of the study was the elaboration of a monitoring system, which will enable us on a continuous basis to follow multilateral field activities in a comprehensive and systematic manner.
The study, which consists of 10 agency specific reports and a general report, was published earlier this year and has been presented within the UN System. I should like to stress that the views expressed in the reports are not official Government positions but are meant as contributions to the international dialogue.
The general study suggests that a more clear-cut division of labour among multilateral agencies be established. This division of labour should be based on the comparative advantages of the different multilateral agencies. This should increase the transparency of development co-operation both internationally and at country level. It would undoubtedly lead to more effective use of resources and greater impact of development.
A key implication of the study suggestions is that the UN specialized agencies concentrate their activities at two levels: one, policy advice plan formulation, and capacity building assistance within important sub-sectors of government affairs; and, two, technical assistance to socially and/or institutional complex programmes and experimental activities, including pilot projects.
The study further states that for years there has been increasing competition between the multilateral agencies in financing as many projects as possible, often without any overall and coherent planning. The authors of the study call the project sitic disease.
Turning briefly to the specific report about FAO, the two main suggestions as to how FAO could improve its role in the division of responsibilities among multilateral agencies are as follows: FAO should enforce a concentration of its field operations within the field and sub-sectors where the agency globally has its relative strengths. This would require stronger direct links between FAO's technical departments and its field operations.
FAO should support programme cooperation aimed at long-term capacity-building between the specialized divisions and FAO Headquarters and their counterpart institutions in developing governments.
Now turning to the report on FAO's Field Programmes 1990-91, document C 91/4, we welcome this document, which we find makes a good basis for our deliberations under this Agenda Item. We have studied with special interest the sections dealing with the "up-stream" activities in FAO. As stated in paragraph 1.31, both UNGA Resolution 44/211 and the FAO Review process stress the importance of expanding the above activities comprising policy and sectoral/sub-sectoral advice and review services, as well as strengthened programming efforts. We have noted that paragraph 1.36 states that "the expansion of the "up-stream" activities continues to be promoted under Field Programmes, along with the necessary strengthening of the database, and the coordination of in-house country information for this purpose". This expansion, as indicated earlier in my statement, is a development which we fully support and which we can only urge FAO vigorously to pursue.
As indicated in paragraph 1.39, UNGA Resolution 44/211 further places particular stress on steadily changing the pattern of technical assistance from a project towards a programme-dominated approach. This is an approach which Denmark for several years has been pursuing in our Trust Fund cooperation not only with FAO but also with other UN agencies. Therefore we urge FAO to intensify its efforts to concentrate its field activities based on a programme approach which is interlinked and coordinated with FAO's Regular Programme activities. Because of this interlinkage between the two programmes, we support the idea to unite the two reports in future.
I would now like to turn to another very important issue: the recent UNDP Governing Council Decision 91/32 on Support Costs Successor Arrangements. This issue as you indicated is being dealt with not only in the main report in front of us, but also in two supplements.
Denmark welcomes the new support cost arrangement. It should contribute to a development, where competition among agencies for project finance is reduced. This will lead to less emphasis by the agencies on their project-executing role and thus enable them to focus more on their central mandates.
The new system is evidently, as is pointed out in the documents in front of us, rather complicated. This has been necessary in order to achieve the objectives of reducing competition for projects and improving the quality of backstopping, to which TSS-I and TSS-II will contribute.
I should like to stress that the calculations in the documents of the proportion of TSS-I and TSS-II allocated to FAO are misleading. It was very clear from the discussions at the Twenty-eighth UNDP Governing Council that there is no predetermined distribution of TSS-I and TSS-II funds among agencies and only a very rough one among countries. Distribution is alone to be determined by development needs. This is spelt out in Annex IV of the UNDP decision, where it is stated in paragraph 12 on TSS-I that " there will be no pre-allocation of resources by sector or agency", and in paragraph 19 on TSS-II that "TSS-II resources will not be apportioned by agency or sector".
With regard to national execution, my Government, together with a number of others, is firmly of the view that, although national execution should increase and be the ultimate goal, the process must be gradual. The capacity of recipients to execute varies considerably.
It must, however, be envisaged, and indeed is desirable that mixed national and agency execution is increasingly applied. The new method of calculating AOS, splitting the costs into components with different rates of compensation, should facilitate the use of mixed execution.
I will briefly comment on the proposals contained in document C 91/4-Sup.2, Support Costs Arrangements for Trust Fund Donors. As a large Trust Fund donor to FAO, we have studied the document with special interest. It is our position that, as in the case of the new UNDP support costs arrangement, the burden-sharing between the donor and the executing organization should remain unchanged. Therefore, Denmark cannot accept that the share for AOS and possible TSS-II expenses, which the donor has to pay, exceeds 13 percent on average for executed Trust Fund projects.
We do not oppose an investigation as indicated in paragraph 11 of the document, be carried out so long as it is understood that it respects the above-mentioned burden-sharing. Further, we find that a possible new support costs arrangement between Trust Fund donors should be of a common nature for all donors.
Lastly, a possible new arrangement should only cover new projects and not on-going projects including new phases.
I should now like to make some comments in connection with factor 3, Part 1, of the report in front of us which deals with evaluations.
The Director-General in his Foreword welcomes the effort to assess the sustainability of the results of projects, which he finds is a key factor in determining their ultimate success.
We agree that the importance of sustainability of the results of projects cannot be underestimated. Therefore, in our view, it gives rise to concern, when we learn from the report that, though the evaluation findings point to improvements in the performance of UNDP and Trust Fund field projects in 1987-88, a number of serious weaknesses have been found to persist. Here I refer to page xvii in the summary where it is stated that "concerning the sustainability of project results, just over half of the projects evaluated were judged likely to be sustainable after project completion". We therefore agree with the conclusion that improvements in project design must take into account, increasingly, those factors that influence sustainability, that is, the policy and institutional environment in which projects are placed.
More specifically, we see a problem in the fact described in paragraph 3.19 that the time available for 32 percent of all missions during 1989-90 was found to be insufficient in relation to their terms of reference. In our view, more realistic time resources thus have to be allocated to evaluations. Instead of implementing many evaluations of individual projects, in our opinion it would be more advantageous and cost-effective to concentrate more on evaluations of a sectoral and/or thematic nature. Further, we would recommend that FAO gives a higher priority to ex-post evaluations, which would give a more realistic picture of the actual sustainability of the projects.
Chapter 3, Part 2, of the report describes TCP activities. The Danish policy position regarding TCP activities has already been expressed in the Nordic statement concerning the Programme of Work and Budget 1992-93.
On this occasion I shall limit myself to commending the Secretariat for the detailed description of those activities. We can only urge that this line be continued and that the greatest possible transparency in regard to TCP activities be achieved. We therefore support the suggestions for improvements mentioned in paragraph 3.115.
With these comments, I should like to thank the FAO for a relevant report of its field activities in 1990-91. We look forward to further discussions of this important item.
Michel MOMBOULI (Congo): M. le Président, pour commencer, permettez-nous tout d'abord de remercier M. Rinville pour la brillante présentation qu'il vient de nous faire en introduisant ce point 17 de notre ordre du jour consacré à l'examen des Programmes de terrain 1990-91 de la FAO, examen auquel nous attachons beaucoup de prix. M. le Président, à l'instar des éditions précédentes, le présent examen procède à l'évaluation de toute une foule de programmes sectoriels de terrain. Il serait à notre avis fastidieux d'essayer de faire des appréciations particulières et détaillées sur chacun de ces programmes. Nous n'en aborderons donc que certains que nous aurons triés sur le volet en raison de l'importance plus élevée que nous leur accordons.
Pour aller de l'avant, nous aimerions tout d'abord rappeler l'importance que nous attachons à la collaboration étroite et constante qui continue d'exister entre la FAO et le PNUD.
Tout en nous félicitant de constater que le PNUD reste la principale source de financement de projets de la FAO, nous insistons pour que toutes les mesures soient prises afin que les Etats Membres de notre Organisation, et en particulier les pays en développement, puissent tirer meilleur parti des avantages comparatifs et de l'expérience incontestée de la FAO pour les activités financées par le PNUD.
Dans le cadre de cette collaboration existant entre la FAO et le PNUD, notre attention a été naturellement retenue par la Résolution 91/32 du Conseil d'administration du PNUD concernant les nouvelles dispositions relatives aux dépenses d'appui.
Dans ce cadre, tout en nous félicitant du fait que l'exécution de projet soit de plus en plus confiée aux pays bénéficiaires, et même en fonction de leurs capacités opérationnelles, nous souhaitons que l'accent soit mis en conséquence sur le volet formation du personnel et des cadres desdits projets, et que parallèlement, la FAO continue à jouer son rôle habituel d'assistance dans la mise en place de telles capacités opérationnelles et dans la fourniture des services consultatifs, et à participer à l'exécution desdits projets.
Nous pensons nous aussi que le transfert de ces capacités opérationnelles doit être progressif. Dans cette perspective, nous suggérons une prise en charge conjointe des coûts qui en résulteront par la FAO et le PNUD.
Par ailleurs, même si cela semble encore difficile à faire, nous souhaiterions que le Secrétariat essaie de se pencher sur l'incidence financière des décisions du Conseil d'administration du PNUD sur le régime et les dépenses d'appui de la FAO, même s'il ne s'agit, dans un
premier temps, que d'une estimation grossière. A ce titre, les deux documents C 91/4-Sup.1 et C 91/4-Sup.2 mis à notre disposition récemment sont de bon augure.
Nous appuyons la proposition du Secrétariat quant au regroupement de l'examen du Programme ordinaire avec celui des Programmes de terrain au titre du point 3 de la procédure Budget Programme.
Bien que nous en ayons déjà parlé lors de nos précédentes interventions, nous aimerions tout de même saisir cette occasion pour souligner l'intérêt particulier que nous attachons au Programme de coopération technique, un programme dont l'efficacité n'a d'égales que sa souplesse et son caractère catalytique.
Nous nous réjouissons des diverses activités menées par la FAO pour faire face au nombre de plus en plus élevé des situations d'urgence parmi lesquelles figurent celles liées à la lutte contre les acridiens et la lucilie bouchère en Afrique.
Nous demandons que, dans les exercices futurs, la FAO continue d'accorder à l'Afrique toute la priorité qu'elle mérite. Les approches de CTPD et de CEPD ainsi que les problèmes d'intégration des femmes dans le développement et le rôle des ONG ont tout notre appui.
L'introduction du Chapitre spécial consacré aux aspects des Programmes de terrain concernant les développements durables et la protection de l'environnement nous satisfont.
Nous appuyons les activités menées par le Centre d'investissement de la FAO.
Ms Anna-Liisa KORHONEN (Finland): At the Conference two years ago the Finnish delegation, in its statement on this same subject, pointed out some specific problems concerning the general lines of Field Programme management. We feel that the concern then expressed is still valid. We wanted especially to underline the importance of the policy advisory role of the FAO in the Field Programmes. At the same Conference also the Review Resolution 10/89 recommended inter alia that the FAO was to be more prominent in this advisory role. We are pleased to note that this line of thinking has been generally accepted and integrated into the Medium-Term Plan and the Programme of Work and Budget. This appreciation was expressed in the Nordic statements on these Agenda Items yesterday and the day before. But as regards the Field Programmes we do not see that this new policy advisory role, which eventually should guide the planning process, is properly integrated in the document now before us. We understand that it takes time to accomplish this task and that a transfer period is required. But at least some general ideas or visions on how this task is to be worked out should have been elaborated at this stage.
As a second main concern - a logical consequence of the above-mentioned -the Finnish delegation feels that the national execution of programmes ought to have been more visible and clearly presented as a general goal for Field Programmes. We find that document C 91/4 still continues to concentrate on quantitative argumentation and financing aspects of the FAO Field Programme Qualitative argumentation and assessment of the comparative advantage or sustainability of FAO solutions to the problems of agriculture
and environment are not included in the document. As a matter of fact, the discussion of FAO's excellent capacity in proposing solutions to the specific problems of the developing countries is altogether absent from the document.
As regards the UN General Assembly Resolution 44/211 on operational activities of the UN system, the FAO document we are handling now indicates that the FAO interpretation of it is not entirely constructive. For instance, no statement on a genuine striving for field coordination is given in the document. Paragraph 1.20 states that the FAO fully cooperates with the UN Secretariat, but it does not explain what this actually means. Paragraph 1.24 again states, when dealing with cooperation with country offices, that what more often is required is an improved institutional environment within which the respective participants can bring to bear their full capacities under the team-leadership concept. This seems to imply that the host country should take action. However, the spirit of the UN Resolution clearly states that the operational organizations should come up with ideas and that they should improve their joint performance as a system in the field.
As we see it when studying the document on Field Programmes, the FAO seems to measure performance not in terms of quality, but in terms of expenditure. The document does include a theoretical chapter on sustainability. But it does not in fact describe what sustainability means in agricultural, forestry, fisheries and environmental fields of technical assistance projects and programmes. The assessment FAO makes deals with its project preparation, implementation and management performance and the sustainability of the different part of its project cycle.
This is dealt with in Chapter 3 and more specifically in paragraphs 3.14 and 3.34. This does not correspond with our interpretation of the concept.
One more concern we have regards the description of TCP given in paragraph 2.36. We find it very superficial and not convincing. What is the relationship between the "priority ranking" of the projects and programmes financed by the countries from their UNDP IPFs and financed directly by FAO TCP funding? We also have doubts in terms of efficient cooperation and utilization of scarce resources. What role the recipients have in the planning of these resources is unclear.
Turning now to the proposals before the Conference on the new Support Cost Arrangements and the planned Trust Fund study, I should like to make the following comments; the new Support Cost Arrangements to be applied from 1 January 1992 have important implications to the FAO Field Programmes. My delegation has warmly welcomed the reform of the old Support Cost Arrangement, even if we agree that the new system is more complicated than the old one. We believe that the change correctly reflects the principles outlined in the UN General Assembly Resolution 44/211 aiming at making the system of UN operational organizations an efficient machinery to assist the less developed countries in their development efforts. As stated in the document C 91/4, the arrangement consists of several different parts of services to be reimbursed to the implementing agencies; time will be required before the new arrangement is fully operational.
It is clearly stated in the document and its supplements that FAO is very much aware of the consequences of the changes to its important Field Programmes. My delegation would like to encourage FAO to fully participate
in the coordination with the other specialized agencies and the negotiations with UNDP concerning the operationalization of the new arrangement according to the plans outlined in the documents. We are, however, a bit surprised by the high costs calculated for the relevant training of FAO's field staff and government officials involved. In our opinion, whatever the arrangement applied in financial administration, the competence of the field staff in all operational offices requires continuous on-the-job training. Crash courses can be given if needed, but the lessons from the arrangement are learned essentially only by doing.
To our disappointment, the documents discuss the financial aspects of the new arrangement at length but very little on the conclusions for FAO of how to further improve its competence to readily and efficiently service the developing countries' needs in the sectors of FAO's specific comparative advantage. The issue is not to compare with the recipient governments the share of funds that the national execution modality will use, but to assess how the substantive advice and expertise can be provided on their request.
Let me also underline that my Government does not endorse the efforts to further mobilize additional donor support through Trust Funds. In our opinion, the extra-budgetary funding of development activities has a tendency to distort the focus of the activities or at least not directing them towards the needs and priorities of the recipient countries. As to the Director-General's proposal for developing a revised system of support costs reimbursement for the Trust Fund Projects, my delegation has serious reservations with regard to the proposal. In our view this session of the Conference cannot go along with the proposal. We also think that it would be more fruitful to take into account the discussion and decisions that the UNDP Governing Council will take in May 1992 on this matter on the basis of a proposal which UNDP's Secretariat is preparing at the moment on the Support Cost Arrangements of Trust Funds. I thank you Mr Chairman.
John Bruce SHARPE (Australia): We commend the Secretariat for producing this very useful document C 91/4 which is comprehensive and sets out clearly the results of the evaluation process that has been undertaken within FAO.
The Field Programmes of FAO are an integral part of FAO's work and it is important that they continue to be effective and relevant. The evaluation process is important in ensuring this and it is hoped that FAO will continue to strengthen the process and maintain efforts to improve project performance.
Australia is pleased to see that FAO has increased the focus on environment and sustainable development aspects of field projects and the emphasis now being given to policy advisory work and women in development.
Australia is particularly interested in the outcome of the Review of the Technical Cooperation Programme carried out by FAO's Evaluation Service and the conclusions at page 106. They contain suggestions for improvement of the Technical Cooperation Programme and nominate specific areas which require further strengthening. They are: follow-up to project results, systemic monitoring and assessment of the quality of project results, wider dissemination of information on TCP project results, improved work planning
for project implementation, clarifying project categories in relation to TCP criteria and functions. Australia supports these suggestions for improvement and would wish to see them implemented.
Turning very briefly to the Supplement to Agenda Item 17 concerning Support Cost Successor Arrangements, Australia considers that FAO and the other agencies should be commended for the constructive nature of the support costs implementation negotiations. We also consider that the setting up of collaborative training arrangements between the five agencies and UNDP is to be commended. The costing estimates for the training programmes, however, appear to be quite high. We would appreciate details of their composition. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
Harald HILDEBRAND (Germany) (Original language German): The document we are studying, C 91/4, describes the FAO Field Programme in a self-critical and global manner. Our delegation would like to thank the Secretariat for the preparation of this document and to thank Mr Rinville for the presentation he has made under this item of our Agenda.
We noted with pleasure that the global volume of the FAO Field Programmes in 1990 increased considerably. Our satisfaction about the growth of Trust Fund cooperation and the confidence it inspires is mixed nonetheless with concern about the long-term future in view of the difficult financial position of the Regular Programme of Work and Budget and the consequent weakening of the structures of the Organization. This could likewise question project execution at high quality level. This concern is one more reason for our delegation to appeal to all those parties involved to do everything in their power to bring to an end FAO's financial crisis by fulfilling their commitments.
We read with great interest the comments on development of sustainable agriculture. The evaluation of the important consequences to the environment of any activities of an agricultural, forestry or fisheries nature is, in our opinion, of great importance for the future activity of our Organization. We would like to encourage FAO to take any measures necessary in this respect in order to ensure that all project activities respect the environment.
Another sector of activities receive our special attention, and I refer to the presentation of the political development of FAO's Field Programmes taking into account the results of the Review of the Organization, which concluded at the Twenty-fifth Conference in 1989. We have noted with great satisfaction that FAO has taken on board the results of this Review and are now at the stage of putting these results into practice.
The Report to Member States, which for our delegation is of extreme importance, and the role played by the Council and Conference in this respect have undoubtedly been strengthened and the Organization should be congratulated on this. In this respect, we should also mention cooperation within the United Nations system in an effort to avoid duplication of work and in an effort to improve the efficiency of development work within the entire family of the United Nations. Improvements have been noted here as well and we would like to welcome these developments.
Without going into great detail about this intensive cooperation within the system I would like to record that my country has made its voice heard within the various bodies of the United Nations in order that these efforts are made to avoid duplication and improve efficiency. The document we are studying has given us the impression that the constructive contribution that FAO can make in this respect has improved both quantitatively and qualitatively speaking. Together with an improved project quality in our opinion we should have an improvement in national abilities in order to strengthen project implementation at the level of national institutions and in the respective beneficiary countries.
In our opinion, we have always used this principle with great success in our bilateral cooperation work. Therefore, we welcome the progress that has been made in this regard by FAO during the last biennium.
In the Governing Council of UNDP, my Government participated actively in the elaboration of the new arrangements for the reimbursement of support costs in the United Nations system. Successful implementation of these new provisions in the system can only be successful, in our opinion, if all the participating bodies work together in a constructive manner and if the necessary amendments are implemented with flexibility and taking into account local situations.
To conclude, within the Regular Programme it is necessary to have structures and financial resources which should be made available. We are convinced that under these conditions, and with the goodwill of all parties involved, considerable success will be assured in the long term and at the same time we will have an improvement in the efficiency of the Organization. A lot could still be said about the document before us, but I would like to stop here and thank you once again for your attention.
Bo WILEN (Sweden): The Secretariat should be commended for the new format of the Review of the Field Programmes. My delegation would like to thank Mr Rinville for his interesting presentation of the Report.
The Report differs from earlier versions in the sense that more emphasis is put on policy and strategic issues and trends affecting the forward planning, and less on detailed presentation of specific evaluation exercises. It thus presents a good basis for an extensive discussion on future directions of the Field Programmes.
Mr Chairman, my delegation would like to start by commenting on policy advice, sectorial and sub-sectorial analysis and strengthened technical support - that is, paragraphs 1.31 to 1.38.
The importance of such expounded upstream activities is stressed both in the FAO Review and in the United Nations General Assembly Resolutions. Considering the small portion of UN funds in the overall ODA, it is the more important that they are used where they can best support national development, and the most obvious comparative advantage refers to such activities where assembled, analyzed and structured knowledge from the specialized agencies can support the formulation of realistic plans and programmes. It is more important in an era of structural adjustment.
Mr Chairman, what is said under Towards a Programme approach in paragraphs 1.39 to 1.44 may be something new to the UN family, although it has been a guiding principle of Swedish development cooperation for a number of years.
Paragraph 1.40 indicates a certain hesitancy on the part of FAO to discontinue ad hoc activities, but the argument is strong for responding in the first instance to requests for field projects in areas of high priority, both in Regular Programmes and Field Programmes, where an increased professional competence is systematically being built up.
Three selection areas of emphasis are brought forward in the United Nations General Assembly Resolutions and dealt with in paragraphs 1.45 to 1.55. Promotion of TCDC has increasingly been of concern for FAO although the volume of support has been low. It may be difficult in many cases to distinguish between TCDC activities and more formal Regional Programmes as part of FAO's work, but generally a more positive attitude to TCDC may be justified. Increased cooperation with NGOs should be supported, although it may be more difficult for UN agencies to cooperate on the national level with NGOs. Such cooperation often involves more or less open political implications.
Now to the most important questions about national capacity building and the move towards national execution. The FAO attitude is still as ambiguous as it has always been. On the one hand the FAO is said to be in the forefront of the UN family. On the other hand, a number of difficulties are raised and a slow process towards the direction of national execution is proposed. For many years the Swedish approach has been that the country's national authorities are fully responsible for planning and execution of their developing programmes and projects. Support from outside may be requested and provided for by international or bilateral financial and technical assistance.
The agency is organized for the external support, the flow of funds, recruitment and employment of short- and long-term expertise and may provide certain services, such as procurement, as agreed. With such a view a statement like "the project has enjoyed a good cooperation from the government", which has figured in earlier Field Programme Reviews, in fact is an anomaly. It is in fact the FAO that cooperates with a government. FAO projects and entities in themselves would be impossible. It is time for FAO to be even more serious in its efforts to turn over to real national execution. In all FAO supportive projects the element of national capacity-building should be prominent. Reference is made to more country-specific approaches, although the countries differ very much with regard to national capacity and thus demands for support, projects and programmes still have a tendency to be rather similar. An even greater degree of adaptation to specific national demands is called for.
About the new support costs arrangements I will be brief. My delegation supports what has already been said by the distinguished delegates of Finland and Denmark. Thus, my delegation believes inter alia that the change in the system correctly reflects the principles outlined in the UN General Assembly Resolution 44/211. We encourage FAO to fully participate in the coordination with our specialized agencies and in the negotiations with UNDP concerning the operationalization of the new arrangements.
As to the Director-General's proposal for developing a revised system of support costs through investments for Trust Fund projects, my delegation has reservations. It would be premature to go ahead and take a decision now. We think it would be fruitful to take into account the discussions and decisions the UNDP Governing Council will have in May 1992 on the basis of the proposal the UNDP Secretariat is preparing at present on the support costs arrangements for Trust Funds.
A few words on Chapter 2, dealing with current trends and outlook. The Field Programme is financed by extra-budgetary funds from three sources, UNDP, Trust Funds and TCP. The UNDP funds are recovering after the liquidity crisis at the beginning of the 1980s but have still not reached the level of 1981-82. The FAO share of total UNDP expenditure continues to fall and is now down to 17 percent. Trust Funds contribute more to the Field Programmes than UNDP and have done so for a number of years. Among them, the unilateral ones constitute the second largest category beside the government-cooperative programme. To an increasing extent this means FAO execution of programme components financed by the World Bank or other developing financial institutions. This again indicates that in future FAO may have to function as a consultant amongst other consultants in execution of field projects.
In Table 2.4 the distribution of extra-budgetary resources to the main programme areas is prevented. Crops have decreased and forestry increased, both by 3 percent, but most surprising and less satisfactory is that the policy analysis does not show any increase. Conceptual and theoretical work in Headquarters has to result in more activity in the field at country level.
We have now come to the investment support activities. In paragraph 2.112 it is stated that investment projects are increasingly difficult to find. This underlines again what has been proved during many years: the problem is not lack of money but relevant and planned projects. It follows that there are strong links between technical assistance and investment, both in the pre-investment phase and in the planning and implementation of investment projects. A number of investment projects have failed and become a burden to the countries because they have not been relevant to the economic and policy environment. A thorough and realistic analysis in these respects is a must to ensure that a project is truly viable. Further, the social and environmental relevance of the investment projects calls for particular attention as noted in paragraph 2, part 110.
The Chapter on Assessment of Field Projects includes an extensive and useful analysis of project sustainability. Table 3.6 brings forward reasons most commonly given as to why projects are not likely to be sustainable. It is the result of 94 evaluation missions during 1988-90. It comes out clearly that policy on economic and institutional capacity in the recipient country has been too weak. This is an aspect which is now and then referred to but in spite of that often overlooked in the planning of projects and programmes, and it is the recipient country itself that ultimately has to pay for such mistakes. Of the total number of projects where judgements on sustainability were made, about half were deemed sustainable. A weak point is that the judgement referred to projects ongoing or close to termination. An interesting evaluation project would be to go back to a number of different projects which were terminated five to ten years ago and see how sustainable they have been.
About TCP: from paragraphs 108 to 109 it can be noted that TCP seems to be used for functions agreed upon by the Conference. Sweden once supported the establishment of TCP and has appreciated the need for some flexible money for quick responses to requests under the categories in paragraph 3.108. However, TCP should not be allowed to grow at the expense of other Regular Programme activities.
Last but not least, the issue of sustainable development and environmental protection aspects of FAO Field Programmes. Since the 1989 Conference, in pursuance of Conference Resolution 3/89, FAO has taken a number of measures to adapt to the heightened focus on environment and sustainable development aspects. These refer both to internal administrative and organizational aspects and policy and strategic work in the long- and medium-term perspective. What has been done is still very much on a conceptual and theoretical level. At this stage the increased emphasis should be welcomed. The responsibility to gear the world towards sustainable development falls particularly heavily on FAO, which is active within agriculture, rural development, fishery and forestry. The FAO Den Bosch Conference is one good example of steps taken in the right direction. Nevertheless, it is at present difficult to see which course should be taken to overcome cultural and socio-economic obstacles in the rural economy to measure increased and sustainable production. Here a further effort must be made to strengthen the existing knowledge and competence in FAO.
Haruo ISHII (Japan): On behalf of my delegation, I would like to make a brief comment on this Agenda Item.
The UNDP support cost successor arrangement had been discussed not only as a financial issue but also as one that would effect basic relationships among beneficiary countries, UNDP and specialized agencies in the UN system such as FAO.
Under the UNDP support cost successor arrangement introduced from 1992 onwards, specialized agencies are to execute TSS-I, technical support at the programme level and TSS-II, technical support at the project and get support cost of 2 percent from each sector. Developing countries will basically administer and operate the projects.
In this context, my country recognizes the importance of facilitating national execution and FAO should take into account the following points:
First, FAO should exploit its accumulated technical skill and know-how and elevate its expertise in the field of food and agriculture. In doing so, FAO can show its presence in TSS-I and TSS-II sectors.
Secondly, in transitional duration, even in AOS sector, FAO should be ready to cooperate with the countries which need its support in order to carry out the projects efficiently and effectively.
Thirdly, we are of the view that there are some points which we have to consider in this arrangement, and we should look after this arrangement continuously. Therefore, FAO should keep in touch with other organizations concerned and consult with them.
- 231 -
Ms Robin MEYER (United States of America): The US delegation appreciates this opportunity to discuss the detailed analysis of the Field Programme contained in this review. We believe that today's discussion will serve as a basis for better priority setting, development of clear criteria for the selection of TCP projects and improvements in project design. We also believe that this discussion will encourage further use of evaluation as a management tool, both to monitor implementation and to identify effective ways of addressing agricultural development problems. In my remarks now I will focus on Chapter Three of the Review, the Assessment of Field Projects. The United States delegation will defer its comments on the sustainable development portion of the Review until the agenda item on environment and sustainable development. We would also like to discuss the operational activities for development in the second round of interventions.
We are pleased that the proportion of evaluation reports rated "good" or "satisfactory", on the basis of criteria set out in the FAO guidelines, has increased from the 1985-86 biennium to the 1989-90 biennium. We are surprised, however, by the statement that projects subject to evaluations tend to be those that need corrective action, either due to operational difficulties or as a basis for follow-up measures. We understand that it is UNDP policy, for example, to clearly separate project management considerations, such as whether to redesign or extend a project, from the planning of evaluations, which are required for all projects over US$1 million.
We are also concerned that the analysis of project design and the assessment of project effects are still inadequate. It is essential that an individual skilled in project design and evaluation participate in major evaluations of large or complex projects, whether it be a UNDP or FAO officer, or an outside consultant. There is also a need for more ex post evaluation of the development impact of FAO projects.
We believe that both the quality and sustainability of FAO projects would improve if they were identified and formulated in the context of an overall programme strategy for achieving sectoral and subsectoral objectives. This would make it possible to integrate both those projects aimed at providing production inputs, services or physical facilities, on the one hand, and projects primarily aimed at institution-building, policy formulation or organizational improvement, on the other. It is no accident that UNDP projects, developed within a country programme framework, however imperfect, has a much higher percentage of satisfactory ratings than trust fund projects with respect to project design.
Turning now to the Technical Cooperation Programme, we believe that TCP projects also would benefit from integration within a broader programme framework. Such a programme orientation would assure greater complementarity to other development activities, a more effective catalytic role, and more systematic follow-up by recipient governments and FAO.
We have noted with interest the results of the desk study of 58 completed TCP projects. The study confirms our view that, in the absence of more specific guidelines, TCP criteria do not provide an adequate framework for the selection of TCP activities.
We have noted, in particular, that TCP managers appear to be unclear as to whether every TCP project should meet all the TCP criteria. How else to explain that half of the projects reviewed did not meet the requirement that TCP place emphasis on small-scale producers? Arguing that this requirement is unduly stringent only calls attention to the fact that other criteria are subject to similarly broad and flexible interpretation.
For instance, the requirements that projects should be assigned a high priority, and be assured of the fullest possible participation by the Government, apply to all projects - TCP as well as UNDP, and trust fund projects. The desk study provides no indication that TCP projects address higher priority needs and receive more effective support from governments than other projects.
We are surprised that all of the 58 projects reviewed were found to have adhered to the requirement that TCP projects should address only urgent problems. Of the twelve TCP projects described in the four boxes and Annex 3 of Chapter Three, urgency was evident in only three of the projects. These projects were related, in part, to an emergency situation.
Even these three emergency-related projects had questionable aspects. The first tried to link the rehabilitation of a water network damaged by an earthquake with surveys of the agricultural sector which apparently were not completed. The second, approved in response to extensive hurricane damage, financed the continuation of expertise provided under an earlier non-emergency TCP project. The third project - on regional coordination of locust control activities - clearly could, and should, have been part of a long-term preventive control programme.
In the case of the remaining nine projects, there was no indication of the urgency of the problem being addressed. We are concerned that there appear to be no concrete guidelines to define "urgency" in non-emergency situations.
In the case of two of these projects, however, FAO could have argued that lives were saved by quick action on a tsetse control strategy, and that reductions in massive post-harvest losses in fruit and vegetables had a quick "pay-off" in terms of increased income for small producers. The United States suggests that perhaps one justification for TCP funding of non-emergency activities, therefore, might be that they are expected to have an immediate impact on the health and welfare of the target beneficiaries.
A similar justification, however, could not be given in the case of four other projects which aimed to improve pasture and forage crops, to develop new soil conservation measures, to plan forestry development, and to strengthen agricultural extension services through media development. These projects do not appear to be "urgent" relative to other development needs, or to have had an immediate impact on target beneficiaries.
It appears to us that these four TCP projects were approved simply because they fell within one of the six broad functional categories defined in paragraph 3.76 of Chapter Three, namely that of "mobilizing or paving the way for larger external technical assistance". As a matter of fact, we see a risk that the TCP project may inadvertently predetermine the structure of
the longer-term follow-on project before adequate study of the development problem being addressed, and of alternative approaches to its solution, has been completed.
Thus we believe that clear guidelines should be developed for determining when it is appropriate for a TCP project to pave the way for a longer-term technical assistance project, and when it would be more effective for TCP to finance instead an in-depth study of the problem. The factors to be considered should include the "urgency" of the problem at hand, whether it can be solved without addressing complex policy, institutional or managerial issues, and the extent to which a TCP project might short-circuit the process of designing a follow-on UNDP technical assistance project.
Similar guidelines should be developed for projects falling within the other functional categories. Two of the twelve projects described in Chapter Three fall in the category of "bridging between two externally-financed technical assistance projects". One project was designed to facilitate the transfer of a rice hulk gasification technology, which itself was developed under a previous TCP project. The other project, designed to improve farming practices, continued work started under a prior TCP project and an earlier Italian-funded project. In both instances, it appears that the projects were intended to "bridge" between an earlier TCP project and a yet-to-be identified follow-on project.
This brings us to the desk study finding that the duration of activities is unsatisfactory in up to 30 percent of the projects reviewed. This was the case of the previously mentioned pasture and forage development project, as it failed to anticipate the need for seed trials over a number of years. The lesson to be drawn is not that the time limit on the duration of TCP projects should be extended but, rather, that such projects with a long gestation period should not be financed by TCP in the first place. Similarly, "bridging" projects should not be undertaken unless a follow-on project is already in the planning stage.
To conclude, the desk study clearly demonstrates the need for the Conference and the Secretariat to rethink what should be the role of TCP, outside of meeting clear-cut emergency needs. A number of questions should be raised, including what should be the catalytic or gap-filling role of TCP, within or outside the context of a programme-based approach? Which TCP criteria should apply to all projects, and in which instances should projects meet only one of a set of alternative criteria? The outcome of such a review should be a consistent set of criteria and implementing guidelines for the selection of TCP projects.
Again, the United States delegation appreciates this opportunity for a candid and constructive discussion on the Field Programme. The comprehensive document which the Secretariat has prepared deserves no less.
Ms C. SEYMOUR-SMITH (United Kingdom): I would first like to thank the Secretariat for the production of this very useful document C 91/4 and to thank Mr Rinville for his very clear introduction.
We have on many occasions said that Britain considers the Field Programme as the cutting-edge of FAO's work and that it is the area where FAO can make its greatest impact on the problems of developing countries. We have
also stressed the need for the Field Programme to be cost-effective and that expenditure should give maximum developmental value for money. These were the themes of the United Kingdom intervention at the FAO Conference in 1989. Those same themes remain relevant today.
Paragraphs 1.9, 1.39, 1.40 and others touch on the progress towards implementing a number of the recommendations made in the Review of Certain Aspects of FAO's Goals and Operations and themes evoked in recent United Nations General Assembly Resolutions - including Resolution 44/211. However, this progress has been hindered by the severe financial constraints faced by the Organization. My delegation appreciates the difficulties involved in managing change at a time of constant or declining financial resources. However, prioritization is about reducing resources to some activities and increasing them for others. We are therefore disappointed by the slow pace in responding to some of the recommendations. We would like to have seen more rapid progress towards decentralization - including increased delegation of responsibility - to regional and country offices, and on moves towards a programme-related approach. Such a shift to fewer, larger projects links in fully with the view expressed at COAG, that the quality of projects could be improved by limiting their number. This is brought out in paragraph 2.121 of the paper.
My delegation has long advocated that FAO should concentrate on activities which fall within its comparative advantage. One such area lies in the coordination of regional activities which cross geographical and political boundaries. In this context, we wish to congratulate FAO for the crucial role it played in eradicating the screwworm from North Africa. This was a task which fell naturally to FAO and we consider that the Organization responded extremely well.
We are also very pleased to note the emphasis given by FAO to integrating environment and conservation activities within the overall Field Programme. "Environment" and "development" are integral components of a broad strategic objective - sustainable development - and cannot be regarded as separate entities. We also welcome paragraph 4.2 and FAO's shift in emphasis towards addressing sustainability issues, not just at the project level but also at policy formulation and strategic programme and planning levels. However, paragraph 4.16, in referring to environmental projects, appears to dilute the argument that FAO is moving towards a fully integrated approach to the environment.
We also noted with interest Table 3.6 in Chapter 3, in which lack of project sustainability is more frequently related to a poor institutional setting than to physical or ecological factors. We hope that FAO will, in future, give greater emphasis to the institutional aspects of its Field Programme.
We do, however, have one question about the environment and sustainability. We would like to know how many recommendations of the Task Force on Strengthening the Aspects Related to Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection in FAO's Programmes have been accepted by FAO and will be implemented.
We note that funding for livestock activities fell to 9 percent of field activities in the 1988-89 biennium, but recovered somewhat to 11 percent in 1990 as shown in Table 2.4. My delegation would like to underline the
concern expressed by COAG at the sharp decline in support for the livestock sub-sector during the second half of the 1980s. This trend is clearly seen in the activities of a range of institutions and donors, not just FAO, but in our opinion has gone too far.
If I may, I would now like to turn to evaluation aspects.
We remain somewhat cautious of the reliance which can be placed on some of the evaluation findings in view of the high level of self-assessment. Table 3.2 shows encouraging figures on the key evaluation elements and the quality of assessments. We cannot however tie this up with the statement at paragraph 3.19. This paragraph highlights weaknesses in the evaluation work, such as inadequate project monitoring data, particularly for assessing development effects; insufficient time allowed for missions to carry out their field investigations and report writing; and inadequate familiarity of mission members, especially team leaders. May we suggest, in the light of the weaknesses identified, that FAO undertake a more rigorous procedure for evaluations by first ensuring the availability of good project data; secondly, by building a sufficient time-scale around the terms of reference; and thirdly, by employing independent consultants trained in the techniques of ex post impact evaluation and preferably familiar with the geographic region concerned. With good impact evaluations providing feedback, such as lessons learned and recommendations to country programme managers, the weaknesses in project design and implementation could be more effectively and more quickly strengthened. FAO should ensure that the lessons learned and recommendations are taken into account during future project appraisal.
The difficulties highlighted in paragraphs 3.23, 3.24 and 3.26 of the paper suggest that greater resources need to be directed to improving the project design and implementation. Steps need to be taken to redirect resources and - dare I mention - prioritization.
I mentioned at the start of my intervention the need for the Field Programme to be cost-effective. As we see it, the weakness of Chapter III Part I of the Review is the absence of any information about impact effectiveness in relation to costs. No indication is given of whether the programmes can be considered cost-effective, as distinct from achieving narrow technical objectives. Recipients have no indication whether they have received value for money from FAO assistance or whether the results have been worth the costs. Without such judgements we are not going to learn the lessons of experience. We consider that this is an area that FAO should address.
My delegation would find it extremely useful if FAO could make the evaluation reports generally available, or at least distribute summaries which include the lessons learned, together with recommendations. These summaries could then be considered by the relevant Technical Committees, enabling them to tackle questions such as impact on a technical level.
We welcome the evaluation of three projects within the TC Programme, having earlier expressed concern at COAG that only one TCP project had been evaluated out of 160 evaluation studies between 1988 and 1990. This is a step in the right direction. We are, however, less impressed by the desk study of 58 TCP projects selected. But our overall concern is that such a
study, largely based on documents placed on file by interested parties during the implementation phase, cannot hope to be as objective as a full evaluation carried out by evaluators with no previous interest in the project.
We fully acknowledge that the two previous external evaluations carried out in 1978 and in 1985 proved useful in setting up and implementing new procedures of guidelines. They did not however pay any great attention to what we see as a very important issue; that is, the issue of the impact the TCP projects have. What we have had since 1986 is a small coordinating unit within the Field Programme Development Division which processes the TC requests and recommends projects for approval by the Director-General. It also has responsibility to monitor the overall implementation and effectiveness of the programme. The effectiveness is based on checking that the criteria established, based on the 1983 guidelines, have been adhered to. Similarly the Desk Review mentioned earlier does not cover any ex post impact of the TCP input. In our view it is essential, in order to assess the impact and the value for money to the recipients, that it does. We learn lessons from such impact evaluation which should be fed back and taken account of before any further projects of the same ilk are undertaken. In our view, the identification of impact, effectiveness, value for money to recipients, and lessons to be learned for the future, can only be achieved if FAO directs resources into independent evaluating the TCP. Independent evaluation will ensure that its effectiveness is brought to light and, be the results good or not, this the only way forward.
I have one final comment: this concerns support costs arrangements. We will have the chance to address this as a separate agenda item so I will not rehearse the arguments here.
That said, the new arrangements for reimbursement of UNDP support costs will have a profound and lasting impact on the way in which FAO approaches the Field Programme. Also under consideration is the system of support costs for other Trust Fund Projects and these are addressed in document C 91/4-Sup.2. We have been concerned for some time that the growth in Trust Funds and the associated cost of support for these Trust Funds has diverted money from the Regular Programme and hence from FAO's "core activities". We will be addressing this issue in more depth when we come to discuss paper C 91/4-Sup.l and 2, upon which we will make a separate intervention.
David DRAKE (Canada): The Canadian delegation would like to thank M. Rinville for his introduction, and welcomes the documents prepared by the Secretariat on the Field Programme. Our delegation commends the Secretariat on its attempts to improve the format of the document and make it more useful for all concerned. We particularly appreciate the increased level of analysis over past years, and look forward to further strengthening of the analytical component in future Field Programme reports.
The Canadian delegation strongly supports the effort made to address sustainable development in the document. While this is ultimately the kind of theme which should be reflected throughout the document, rather than in one particular section, my delegation feels that in view of the effort which the Organization will be undertaking to incorporate sustainable development into its programming in the next biennium it would be useful to have a similar section in the Field Programmes Report for 1992-93.
We also very much welcome the increased attention to evaluation in this report, and we continue to encourage the Secretariat further to strengthen its evaluation and monitoring capacity for the Field Programme.
We would suggest, however, that in our opinion the methodology employed by the Secretariat may not fully support many of the conclusions made in the report about the success of its evaluations. In our view, the 88 percent success rate for evaluations highlighted in paragraph 3.14 is not entirely supported by the information given. In our own experience, which is similar to that of other donors, the success rate is closer to 60 percent.
The 88 percent rate claimed is somewhat surprising to us in view of contrasting comments made in the report itself that (a) the analysis of project design was judged to be inadequate in 20 percent of the evaluation reports (paragraph 3.16); (b) in almost one-third of the reports (32 percent) the recommendations were not fully operational or practical (paragraph 3.18); (c) mission members, especially team leaders, were inadequately familiar with evaluation concepts, techniques and technology on 31 percent of the missions (paragraph 3.19); and (d) insufficient time in relation to the terms of reference was noted in 32 percent of field missions (paragraph 3.19). Given these factors, we suspect that the FAO's proportion of successful evaluations is actually somewhat less than claimed and possibly fairly close to our own levels. My delegation generally supports the points just made by the delegation of the United Kingdom on evaluation. We should also like to take this occasion to thank the Danish delegation for the DANIDA studies on FAO Field Programmes which our International Development Agency, CIDA, has found extremely useful.
The Canadian delegation appreciates the section on assessment of the TCP in document C 91/4. Our delegation encourages the Secretariat to continue any cost-effective evaluation measures which could further contribute to the financial and programme transparency of the TCP.
We would like to comment briefly on the section assessing the TCP. The Secretariat has stated in document C 91/4 that project implementation and expertise provided by FAO for TCP were positively assessed in 80 percent of the cases reviewed. However, in 18 of the 58 projects assessed, about 30 percent, the outputs were less than fully satisfactory. Furthermore, follow-up information was available for only 9 of the 58 cases. Like the delegation of the United Kingdom and others who have spoken before, in general we consider this assessment information to appear to be lacking sufficient critical effectiveness indicators. Furthermore, we would note that the source for the assessments was not external evaluations but TCP terminal statements put forward by FAO staff directly associated with the projects. We would submit that the assessment of TCP projects contained in this report is not as conclusive as our delegation would have hoped.
The Canadian delegation especially welcomes the references to the integration of women in development in document C 91/4. We would like to see additional emphasis on the efforts of the Secretariat systematically to integrate women in development into the Field Programme in future reports. We appreciate that there will be a separate document submitted to the Conference on the integration of women in development. However, my delegation encourages the Organization to move in a concerted fashion towards mainstreaming discussion of women in development throughout the
documentation submitted to the governing bodies to better reflect the Organization's attempts to integrate women and women's concerns throughout its programmes and activities.
We also note that the document pays increased attention to the actual and potential role of NGOs in the Field Programme, and would welcome further strengthening in this area in future particularly, as my delegation hopes, if the peoples' participation programme is approved by the Conference.
Finally, at the institutional level, we would highlight the important contribution made to the Field Programme through the useful process of reviewing Field Programmes at the Technical Committee level. While the treatment of the subject throughout the four committees was somewhat uneven, we feel that review of Field Programmes by the Technical Committees was a helpful process which should continue. We also commend the Secretariat on the introduction of its helpful annual compendium, or yearbook of field projects.
The Canadian delegation will comment on the UNDP successor support costs issue under the separate agenda item allotted for this subject.
Jean-Pierre POLY (France): La délégation française se félicite de l'ampleur et de la couverture du Programme de terrain de la FAO, en croissance ininterrompue depuis six ans. Elle se réjouit du capital de confiance dont continue à bénéficier notre Organisation auprès de l'ensemble des bailleurs de fonds, comme en atteste le niveau des participations des fonds fiduciaires et, dans une moindre mesure, du PNUD. Cette croissance continue du Programme de terrain, même si elle est susceptible de marquer le pas en 1991, tranche singulièrement avec la "croissance zéro" du Programme ordinaire, dans laquelle s'installe notre organisation, et elle contribue à permettre à la FAO d'apporter une réponse concrète aux requêtes des Gouvernements.
Pour ma délégation, la période biennale écoulée se caractérise à la fois par la réussite spectaculaire de certains projets qui ne doit pas éclipser toutefois les difficultés de quelques programmes, par l'évolution des principes d'action du Programme de terrain, selon les conclusions de l'Examen et le résultat des négociations consacrées aux arrangements liés à l'exécution des projets du PNUD, par l'étroitesse enfin des liens entre le Programme de terrain et le Programme ordinaire de l'Organisation.
Ce Programme de terrain est en effet un vaste programme avec des réussites spectaculaires et des faiblesses préoccupantes, comme en témoignent les considérations suivantes.
Concernant les résultats du Programme de terrain, comment ne pas saluer tout d'abord la rapidité et l'efficacité avec lesquelles la FAO a su faire face à la menaçante flambée de la lucilie bouchère en Afrique du Nord dans le cadre d'un programme qui a à la fois consacré l'intérêt d'une coopération renforcée entre les institutions (la FAO, le FIDA, l'AIEA) dans le cas d'espèce et suscité un élan de solidarité internationale auquel mon pays se félicite d'avoir participé de façon substantielle.
Depuis 1989, la FAO, grâce à son Centre d'intervention anti-acridienne d'urgence (CIAV) et, aidée, il est vrai, par des conditions climatiques favorables, a su également faire reculer le péril que font courir les
sautereaux et les criquets aux récoltes des pays d'Afrique du Nord-Ouest, de l'Ouest, et du Moyen-Orient. Ces succès incontestables ne doivent pas nous empêcher de nous interroger sur les faiblesses de certains programmes importants dont la mise en oeuvre reste attendue, je pense là par exemple au Programme d'assistance à la sécurité alimentaire (PASA) ou dont la restructuration a fait l'objet de longs débats dans cette enceinte - je cite à ce niveau le Plan d'action forestier tropical (PAFT). Il semble en effet que l'Organisation éprouve quelques difficultés à se départir de ses missions traditionnelles d'appui technique pour se hisser au rang du conseil en politique agricole et alimentaire des Gouvernements, selon une recommandation maintes fois réitérée.
Considérons maintenant l'évolution des principes d'action du Programme de terrain.
Ma délégation se félicite des dispositions prises d'ores et déjà par le Secrétariat pour mettre en oeuvre les conclusions de l'Examen de la FAO.
Notre Conférence dispose en effet désormais du répertoire complet des activités opérationnelles de l'Organisation, outil qui facilite la coordination des programmes de coopération bilatérale et multilatérale.
D'autre part, la gestion informatisée du Programme de terrain de l'Organisation se met enfin en place (avec d'ailleurs le concours extrabudgétaire de la France).
Il n'en demeure pas moins que d'autres progrès sont attendus: tout d'abord, le renforcement du rôle et des moyens des bureaux de la FAO dans les pays est plus nécessaire que jamais dans le contexte de l'exécution nationale des projets.
L'approche par programmes, déjà citée par plusieurs délégations, et recommandée par l'Assemblée Générale des Nations Unies, doit être encouragée et préférée à une approche par projets, même s'il est vrai que l'Organisation reste tributaire des requêtes des Gouvernements.
Pour faciliter cette évolution souhaitable du Programme de terrain, la FAO doit être en mesure (et nous partageons l'avis du Secrétariat) de participer pleinement et systématiquement aux exercices de programmation par pays patronnés par le PNUD, aux tables rondes et aux travaux préparatoires du Groupe consultatif organisés par la Banque mondiale.
Sans épiloguer à ce stade - nous y reviendrons - sur la décision du Conseil d'Administration du PNUD relative aux arrangements futurs concernant les dépenses d'appui, arrangements dont ma délégation relève la complexité certaine et dont notre Conférence ne pourra guère évaluer l'impact avant sa prochaine session, la délégation française rappelle qu'elle y trouve une raison supplémentaire pour inviter notre Organisation, là encore, à évoluer vers un rôle d'avis et de conseil en politiques et stratégies de développement, dans le contexte de l'exécution nationale des projets.
Ma troisième remarque ira aux relations étroites entre le Programme ordinaire et le Programme de terrain.
La délégation française a déjà souligné la complémentarité nécessaire entre le Programme de terrain et le Programme ordinaire et le rôle important du Comité du Programme, gardien de la cohérence des activités de l’Organisation.
De plus, en raison des difficultés financières de la FAO ces dernières années, force est de constater que les capacités opérationnelles du Programme de terrain ont été obérées pour colmater les brèches d'un Programme ordinaire dont l'assise budgétaire restait fragile. Par son programme de fonds fiduciaires, mon pays et d'autres pays ont largement participé à cette consolidation des services de l'Organisation dans des secteurs susceptibles de connaître d'utiles prolongements au plan opérationnel. En ce qui concerne la France par exemple la nutrition intégrée des plantes, (stockage-conditionnement) ou dans le domaine de la gestion informatisée des projets dont j'ai parlé tout à l'heure.
Cet appui extrabudgétaire au Programme ordinaire ne peut être indéfiniment poursuivi et le Budget de l'Organisation doit prendre de nouveau en charge, dans la limite des moyens disponibles, les activités qui lui incombent permettant ainsi le redéploiement des fonds fiduciaires afin d'aider notre Organisation à développer de nouvelles activités.
En conclusion, la délégation française souhaite que les services de l'Organisation, dont les moyens au Budget ordinaire doivent être restaurés et dont le concours doit faciliter la mise en oeuvre de l'exécution nationale des projets, permettent à la FAO de répondre à une demande d'assistance croissante et évolutive.
Gerard P. KHOJANE (Lesotho): It is gratifying that, after a long time, during the 1990-91 biennium FAO's Field Programme expenditures were near record levels in spite of the fact that they could have been higher according to the high demands of the developing countries in recent years.
While FAO/UNDP and TCP deliveries cannot be under-rated and continue to enjoy our usual support, we, however, wish to highlight the increasing importance of Trust Funds; particularly at the time when FAO is facing unprecedented problems in collecting assessed contributions from Member States for its Regular Programmes. As long as due attention is paid to priority considerations of FAO, as laid down by the appropriate Governing Bodies, and as long as a fair distribution is accorded to all developing countries in need, the use of more Trust Funds should be encouraged. We therefore once more call upon all donor countries who have not yet done so to favourably consider active participation in the Trust Fund Programmes.
We wish to congratulate FAO's Secretariat for having successfully coordinated the generous support of the bilateral and international donors in the fight against the dangerous outbreak of the New World Screwworm in North Africa. The value of coordination in the New World Screwworm Operation in North Africa was truly recognized by all who were involved, as testified to by their highly favourable individual and joint reports. It is also pertinent to compliment the 13 donor countries and six international agencies, listed in paragraph 2.32 in document C 91/4, which contributed the required funds to make the Programme the success it was.
In another related matter, we naturally feel delighted that the threat and damage done by the desert locust plague which had affected most North-West, West, and Eastern Africa and parts of the Near East has diminished. Thanks to FAO's assistance, through its now dissolved Centre for Locust Operations (ECLO) after its successful mission against desert locusts and grasshoppers, we remain confident that should a need arise FAO's standby arrangements will enable it to quickly respond to any future threat of locusts and/or other migratory pests.
We believe it is about time - perhaps after a long time - to recognize the immense potential role of FAO's Freedom from Hunger Campaign/Action for Development (WFHC/AD) as an important channel to reach out to small scale farmers of the rural communities through non-governmental organizations. This role should be even more strengthened after the proposed merger of Freedom from Hunger Campaign/Action for Development with the Office for Inter-Agency Affairs (IAA) to form a consolidated Office for External Relations (OER). Indeed, we should admit that international nongovernmental organizations are in many ways becoming active protagonists on the development scene and FAO's increased cooperation with them is a desired goal.
The 1990-91 biennium's encouraging performance of FAO's Freedom from Hunger Campaign/Action for Development (WFHC/AD) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) reflected in paragraph 2.41 of document C 91/4, modest as it may appear, could herald a promising future. It could be particularly so if the proposed merger of Freedom from Hunger Campaign/Action for Development with the Office for Inter-Agency Affairs into the Office for External Relations could promote agricultural cooperatives with the purpose of offering alternative participatory arrangements for the provision of inputs and services to small scale farmers and for alleviation of poverty. Our feeling is that FAO and the majority of non-governmental organizations have a common purpose on this issue and their joint and coordinated efforts could guarantee success.
Mr Chairman, permit me now to address the important question of the Review of FAO's Technical Cooperation Programme during the period 1986-90. We beg to be allowed to do so, perhaps taking a little more of the Commission's valuable time. We are unable to resist this temptation mainly because FAO's Technical Cooperation Programme is one of the Programmes very close to our hearts. Another reason is that a Lesotho project was included among the 58 FAO TCP projects which were selected for review to assess the relevance and usefulness of the TCP arrangement to the developing countries.
While we are grateful for having been included in this important exercise, we nevertheless regret that there are statements which place the Government of Lesotho out of context for the apparent failure of project TCP/LES/8956(D). Paragraph 3.97 read with Box 2 on page 98 and 3.101 read with the footnote on page 101 of document C 91/4 are a case in point. Reference to this question should by no means be interpreted as lack of appreciation for the Secretariat's understanding and effort to correct the impressions which might have been created in reading the paragraphs referred to. It should rather be seen as a further attempt to place things in their proper perspective.
On the bright side, positive conclusions of the systematic and scientific Reviews of the FAO Technical Cooperation Programme in 1978, 1985 and 1990 should dispel any doubts about the relevance and effectiveness of the
Programme in meeting unforeseen and urgent requirements of the developing Member Countries which could not be adequately met by other means. In any case, we continue to believe that the best judges are still the beneficiaries of the Programme and the beneficiary developing Member Countries have consistently expressed satisfaction with the TCP and the manner in which it is being operated.
In our attempt to set the record straight concerning Project TCP/LES/8956(D) we have the following to say; soil erosion in Lesotho is one of the major national enemies. As a result, soil and water conservation works are very high on national priorities and, of course, is one of the Government of Lesotho's priorities. In line with the Government's policy, specific plans to develop comprehensive watershed management programmes in order to integrate soil and water conservation activities are in place. They, in fact, have been in place for quite a while. The idea is to minimise any further washing away of soil and to rehabilitate the already eroded areas. The request for TCP/LES/8956(D) project from FAO in itself was the expression of this policy. There are other bilateral and multilateral projects on soil and water conservation in Lesotho. We are still looking for more in view of the magnitude of the problem.
However, the Lesotho Government, like many other governments of the developing countries, particularly the least developed among them, suffer from an acute shortage of manpower and the required expertise to meet all its commitments of personnel inputs into even higher priority projects despite all its good intentions. In our opinion, this is one of the needs which must seriously be addressed when formulating a project for Lesotho in order to obtain any meaningful results. We believe it is one of the considerations again in formulating other projects relating to many other developing countries. I thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: This is the last speaker this morning but please two minutes more. I have on the list for the afternoon meeting first the Netherlands, then Ethiopia and then Malaysia, and I would like to have an indication of who wants to speak in the afternoon. The second point is that I have noted four delegations who want to speak on the successor arrangements but I will come to that later. We adjourn now and meet at 2.30 this afternoon.
The meeting rose at 13.00.
La séance est levée à 13 h.
Se levanta la sesión a las 13.00 horas.
