QUESTIONNAIRE TO MEMBER NATIONS
Preliminary Analysis based on Responses received by 27 July 1998
Appendix 1 - List of Respondents
Appendix II - Text of Questionnaire to Member Nations
1. A preliminary analysis of the responses to the Strategic Framework Questionnaire (copy attached), which was sent to the whole membership of FAO on 4 June 1998, with a requested deadline of 3 July, was carried out on the basis of returns received until 27 July 1998. At that date, 76 Member Nations had replied, plus the European Union, making for a total of 77 responses (see appendix 1, list of respondents, classified by region). This is over 40 percent of the FAO membership. Most major contributor countries have replied (17) and, on a regional level, there is a noticeable predominance of the Europe and North America region (27 responses, including the European Union), thus accounting for nearly all member countries in the region. Replies received from developing countries (in total, 49 responses) were fairly evenly distributed between the regions. The response rate to the questionnaire is expected to improve over time, and responses should continue to stream in through the summer. A reminder is being sent to those countries which have not responded as yet, so that a more complete picture can be presented in due course.
2. As can be seen from Appendix 1, most countries provided a single global response but some availed themselves of the possibility left open to them in the questionnaire to respond on a sectoral basis (agriculture, fisheries, forestry, environment and nutrition). In such cases, a process was used to consolidate the response at country level, based on selecting the codes (A, B, C or D) with highest frequency in the responses given. In those (rare) cases, where frequencies evened out, the response from the Ministry of Agriculture was given a higher weight and was selected. The same process was used in the case of one country whose Ministry for Environment sent five separate sets of responses for each of its five departments.
3. Also, it is to be noted that some of the developed countries provided two answers, one from their national point of view and another which they deemed should be the one appropriate for developing countries - in every case, giving a higher vote to the "others" than for itself. Since the questionnaire analysis is predicated on the principle that it is a survey of Members' own (national) opinions, the code answer corresponding to the national point of view was entered into the database in every case.
4. The analysis followed two lines of investigation. One was based on a simple frequency count of all the responses to each question, and then further disaggregating the responses by class of respondents: divided by region and by economic groupings. The other line of investigation consisted in putting together all the written comments in direct relation to each concerned part of the questionnaire and in addressing these to the extent possible in the first draft of the Strategic Framework.
5. Finally, a check on the patterns of "sectoral" responses was carried out as there were some differences noted at country level but once added up, no significant variations between them and the global, consolidated responses emerged, thus obviating the need to carry out a separate analysis on the sectoral responses as such.
Part A of the Questionnaire: Global Goals of Member Nations
6. As can be seen from table 1 below, there was massive support for the Member Nations' Goals.
Global Goals |
total # |
Fully agrees % |
Agrees but not as stated % |
Disagrees % |
1. Access of all people at all times to
sufficient...food.. Africa Asia & Pacific Europe & N. America L.America & Carib. Near East All Respondents |
13 15 22 13 7 70 |
85 93 73 92 86 84 |
15 7 27 8 14 16 |
0 0 0 0 0 0 |
2. The continued and sustainable contribution of
agriculture.. Africa Asia & Pacific Europe & N. America L.America & Carib. Near East All Respondents |
13 15 23 13 7 71 |
77 80 52 85 86 72 |
23 20 43 15 14 27 |
0 0 4 0 0 1 |
3. The conservation, improvement and sustainable
utilization...of natural resources.. Africa Asia & Pacific Europe & N. America L.America & Carib. Near East All Respondents |
13 15 22 13 7 70 |
85 87 86 85 100 87 |
15 13 14 15 0 13 |
0 0 0 0 0 0 |
7. For each goal, however, about a dozen countries disagreed not with the substance but
with the wording. Disagreement came mostly from the OECD group and is summarized as
follows:
· for the first goal the general tendency was for a strengthening of the wording (i.e. "by at least 2015", "by 2015 at the latest" or "to eliminate hunger by 2015");
· for the sustainable development goal, the divergence was generally minor in terms of substance but the range of wording proposed presented a potentially difficult negotiation on the words to be finally adopted (one country manifested disagreement with the substance of this goal); and
· for the conservation goal, the comments were related to the precise wording and not to substance.
8. There was a general concern as to whether the proposed formulations adequately
covered major elements of the various international conferences and that the Secretariat's
editing would trigger a reopening of the debates. This puts in question the advisability
of attempting to summarize the goals of Member Nations when they have already been debated
at length in other fora.
9. A number of additional global goals were also suggested which often
did not really add new goals as such, but tended to emphasize one or the other aspect of
the three proposed goals, elevating them to the status of separate goals (for example,
poverty eradication, capacity-building, protection of biological diversity, equitable
participation of women and men etc.).
Part B of the Questionnaire: Goals-related Areas
of Work for FAO
10. As shown in Table 2 below, a clear majority of countries have attached a high or very high degree of priority to all the goals-related areas of work identified for FAO. The work areas are ranked according to the percentage level of positive responses and shown in descending order of priority:
11. Basically only one sub-area -1.2 (ii) : "regular assessments and analyses of trends in food security, agriculture, fisheries, forestry, natural resources and scientific knowledge (ii) For your country"- was rated at a much lower level of priority. The reason, as confirmed by the comments, appears to be that a number of countries perceived this work area to be a national prerogative and responsibility. Also, it is noteworthy that these were mostly countries belonging to the Europe & North America region, with only a few countries from other regions expressing the same opinion.
TABLE 2: GOALS RELATED AREAS OF WORK FOR FAO: Level of priority
Area of work for FAO: (abbreviated headings) |
Respondents who have rated the Level of Priority as Highest or High |
|
number |
% of total responses |
|
1.2 Regular assessments of trends (i) Globally | 76 |
100 |
1.3 A central place for Food Security on the international agenda | 75 |
100 |
4.1 Improved management of natural resources | 76 |
99 |
4.2 Supporting the adoption of policies based on the recognition of costs and benefits | 75 |
99 |
5.2 Encouraging governments to target disadvantaged groups | 74 |
97 |
5.3 Assistance in disaster-related emergencies | 73 |
97 |
1.1 Provision of a global set of data | 73 |
97 |
2.1 Agreement on and monitoring international standards | 74 |
96 |
2.2 Adoption of national policies to meet accepted standards | 74 |
96 |
3.1 Sectoral policy advice and assistance | 72 |
96 |
5.1 Policies supporting more equitable access by all to natural resources | 72 |
96 |
3.2 Facilitating the adoption of sustainable packages | 72 |
95 |
1.2 Regular assessments of trends (ii) For your country | 66 |
89 |
12. With regard to the importance attached by Member Nations to the role of FAO as a
supplier of services in the various goal-related areas, the ratings were generally
positive, particularly in the areas of data collection and assessment (area no. 1) and
securing agreement on and monitoring international standards (area no.2). Results are
shown below in a descending order of priority:
TABLE 3: GOALS RELATED AREAS OF WORK FOR FAO: FAO's Role as a Provider of
Services
Area of work for FAO (abbreviated headings) |
Respondents who have rated FAO's role as Central or Major |
|
number |
% of total response |
|
1.2 Regular assessments of trends (i) Globally | 76 |
100 |
1.1 Provision of a global set of data | 74 |
98 |
1.3 A central place for Food Security on the international agenda | 73 |
96 |
2.1 Agreement on and monitoring international standards | 72 |
94 |
5.3 Assistance in disaster-related emergencies | 66 |
88 |
3.1 Sectoral Policy Advice and assistance | 65 |
87 |
4.2 Supporting the adoption of policies based on the recognition of costs and benefits | 64 |
84 |
4.1 Improved management of natural resources | 63 |
82 |
5.2 Encouraging governments to target disadvantaged groups | 62 |
82 |
5.1 Policies supporting more equitable access by all to natural resources | 59 |
79 |
3.2 Facilitating the adoption of sustainable packages | 59 |
78 |
2.2 Adoption of national policies to meet accepted standards | 56 |
74 |
1.2 Regular assessments of trends (ii) For your country | 43 |
58 |
13. An analysis of the regional and economic patterns of negative responses in the lowest
ranked of the six areas above was carried out to attempt to "explain" the
relatively less favourable rate achieved in these areas. The results of the analysis,
based on the number of respondents which rated FAO's role as "minor" or
"little", is shown below:
Areas of work for FAO |
Respondents who have rated FAO's role as "minor" or "little" (number) |
|||||||
All respondents |
Economic |
Regional |
||||||
OECD |
non-OECD |
Europe & N.America |
Africa |
Asia & Pacific |
L.America & Carib |
N.Africa & N. East |
||
5.2 | 13 |
8 |
5 |
8 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
4.1 | 14 |
10 |
4 |
9 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
5.1 | 16 |
12 |
4 |
9 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3.2 | 17 |
14 |
3 |
13 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
2.2 | 20 |
11 |
9 |
11 |
2 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
1.2 (ii) | 31 |
23 |
8 |
20 |
1 |
4 |
4 |
2 |
14. Clearly the negative ratings are largely due to the group of developed countries, and
in most cases are easily explained by the fact that they naturally see no role for FAO
providing services to their respective countries in areas of work for which they have the
necessary capacity and which are deemed to be a function of national sovereignty (or, in
some cases, delegated to the European Union). Some developing countries have joined this
point of view, particularly in Asia and Latin America, where they felt they have already
developed sufficient national capacity to deal with the matters unaided. All other
countries, who directly benefit from FAO assistance, have tended to reply positively. The
result, to some extent, was predictable and is in line with what developed countries
themselves expected when they consistently gave a higher rating to work areas "as
seen from developing countries' point of view".
15. A complete picture of the regional distribution of responses to the
goals related work areas is presented in Table 5 below.
TABLE 5: GOALS-RELATED AREAS OF WORK FOR FAO Regional Distribution of
Responses
LEVEL OF PRIORITY | FAO ROLE | |||||||||
% Responses | % Responses | |||||||||
Total # | Highest | High | Reduced | Least | Total # | Central | Major | Minor | Little | |
INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENT |
||||||||||
1.1 Provision of a global set of data | ||||||||||
Africa | 15 | 67 | 27 | 7 | 0 | 15 | 80 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
Asia & Pacific | 15 | 73 | 20 | 7 | 0 | 15 | 67 | 27 | 7 | 0 |
Europe & N. America | 26 | 85 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 85 | 15 | 0 | 0 |
L. America & Caribbean | 13 | 54 | 46 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 77 | 23 | 0 | 0 |
Near East | 6 | 67 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 83 | 0 | 17 | 0 |
All countries | 75 | 72 | 25 | 3 | 0 | 75 | 79 | 19 | 3 | 0 |
1.2 Regular assessments of trends (i) Globally | ||||||||||
Africa | 15 | 60 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 93 | 7 | 0 | 0 |
Asia & Pacific | 15 | 67 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 80 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
Europe & N. America | 26 | 81 | 19 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 81 | 19 | 0 | 0 |
L. America & Caribbean | 13 | 85 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 92 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
Near East | 7 | 57 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
All countries | 76 | 72 | 28 | 0 | 0 | 76 | 87 | 13 | 0 | 0 |
1.2 Regular assessments of trends (ii) For your country | ||||||||||
Africa | 15 | 73 | 20 | 7 | 0 | 15 | 33 | 60 | 7 | 0 |
Asia & Pacific | 15 | 60 | 33 | 0 | 7 | 15 | 33 | 40 | 13 | 13 |
Europe & N. America | 25 | 64 | 16 | 12 | 8 | 26 | 4 | 19 | 27 | 50 |
L. America & Caribbean | 13 | 69 | 23 | 8 | 0 | 13 | 31 | 38 | 23 | 8 |
Near East | 6 | 83 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 40 | 20 | 40 | 0 |
All countries | 74 | 68 | 22 | 7 | 4 | 74 | 23 | 35 | 20 | 22 |
1.3 A central place for food security on the international agenda | ||||||||||
Africa | 15 | 53 | 47 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 80 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
Asia & Pacific | 15 | 53 | 47 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 60 | 40 | 0 | 0 |
Europe & N. America | 26 | 42 | 58 | 0 | 0 | 26 | 50 | 42 | 4 | 4 |
L. America & Caribbean | 13 | 62 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 85 | 8 | 8 | 0 |
Near East | 6 | 83 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
All countries | 75 | 53 | 47 | 0 | 0 | 75 | 68 | 28 | 3 | 1 |
POLICY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS |
||||||||||
2.1 Agreement on and monitoring international standards | ||||||||||
Africa | 15 | 60 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 60 | 33 | 7 | 0 |
Asia & Pacific | 15 | 53 | 47 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 60 | 40 | 0 | 0 |
Europe & N. America | 27 | 78 | 19 | 4 | 0 | 27 | 70 | 26 | 4 | 0 |
L. America & Caribbean | 13 | 77 | 8 | 15 | 0 | 13 | 54 | 23 | 23 | 0 |
Near East | 7 | 57 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 71 | 29 | 0 | 0 |
All countries | 77 | 68 | 29 | 4 | 0 | 77 | 64 | 30 | 6 | 0 |
2.2 Adoption of national policies to meet accepted standards | ||||||||||
Africa | 15 | 67 | 27 | 7 | 0 | 15 | 27 | 60 | 13 | 0 |
Asia & Pacific | 15 | 53 | 40 | 7 | 0 | 15 | 20 | 73 | 7 | 0 |
Europe & N. America | 27 | 52 | 44 | 4 | 0 | 27 | 11 | 48 | 37 | 4 |
L. America & Caribbean | 13 | 69 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 31 | 31 | 31 | 8 |
Near East | 7 | 71 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 17 | 67 | 17 | 0 |
All countries | 77 | 60 | 36 | 4 | 0 | 76 | 20 | 54 | 24 | 3 |
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY DEVELOPMENT | ||||||||||
3.1 Sectoral policy advice and assistance | ||||||||||
Africa | 15 | 73 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 40 | 53 | 7 | 0 |
Asia & Pacific | 14 | 57 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 36 | 57 | 7 | 0 |
Europe & N. America | 27 | 56 | 33 | 11 | 0 | 27 | 33 | 37 | 19 | 11 |
L. America & Caribbean | 13 | 62 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 54 | 46 | 0 | 0 |
Near East | 6 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 0 |
All countries | 75 | 64 | 32 | 4 | 0 | 75 | 40 | 47 | 9 | 4 |
3.2 Facilitating the adoption of sustainable packages | ||||||||||
Africa | 15 | 60 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 33 | 60 | 7 | 0 |
Asia & Pacific | 15 | 53 | 40 | 7 | 0 | 15 | 27 | 60 | 13 | 0 |
Europe & N. America | 27 | 30 | 63 | 7 | 0 | 27 | 15 | 37 | 33 | 15 |
L. America & Caribbean | 13 | 69 | 23 | 8 | 0 | 13 | 62 | 31 | 8 | 0 |
Near East | 6 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 0 |
All countries | 76 | 49 | 46 | 5 | 0 | 76 | 32 | 46 | 17 | 5 |
SUSTAINABLE UTILIZATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES | ||||||||||
4.1 Improved management of natural resources | ||||||||||
Africa | 15 | 93 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 53 | 47 | 0 | 0 |
Asia & Pacific | 15 | 60 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 47 | 47 | 7 | 0 |
Europe & N. America | 27 | 56 | 44 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 22 | 44 | 30 | 4 |
L. America & Caribbean | 13 | 69 | 23 | 8 | 0 | 13 | 38 | 38 | 23 | 0 |
Near East | 7 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 43 | 43 | 14 | 0 |
All countries | 77 | 70 | 29 | 1 | 0 | 77 | 38 | 44 | 17 | 1 |
4.2 Supporting the adoption of policies based on the recognition of costs and benefits | ||||||||||
Africa | 15 | 67 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 27 | 73 | 0 | 0 |
Asia & Pacific | 15 | 47 | 47 | 7 | 0 | 15 | 40 | 47 | 13 | 0 |
Europe & N. America | 27 | 41 | 59 | 0 | 0 | 27 | 19 | 59 | 15 | 7 |
L. America & Caribbean | 13 | 62 | 38 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 38 | 38 | 23 | 0 |
Near East | 6 | 67 | 33 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 50 | 33 | 17 | 0 |
All countries | 76 | 53 | 46 | 1 | 0 | 76 | 30 | 54 | 13 | 3 |
RURAL POVERTY AND FOOD INSECURITY |
||||||||||
5.1 Policies supporting more equitable access by all to natural resources | ||||||||||
Africa | 15 | 73 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 40 | 60 | 0 | 0 |
Asia & Pacific | 15 | 60 | 33 | 7 | 0 | 15 | 27 | 53 | 20 | 0 |
Europe & N. America | 26 | 77 | 19 | 4 | 0 | 26 | 23 | 42 | 27 | 8 |
L. America & Caribbean | 13 | 62 | 31 | 8 | 0 | 13 | 23 | 62 | 15 | 0 |
Near East | 6 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 17 | 50 | 33 | 0 |
All countries | 75 | 68 | 28 | 4 | 0 | 75 | 27 | 52 | 19 | 3 |
5.2 Encouraging governments to target disadvantaged groups | ||||||||||
Africa | 15 | 73 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 47 | 40 | 13 | 0 |
Asia & Pacific | 15 | 53 | 40 | 7 | 0 | 15 | 47 | 47 | 7 | 0 |
Europe & N. America | 26 | 69 | 27 | 4 | 0 | 26 | 23 | 46 | 27 | 4 |
L. America & Caribbean | 13 | 77 | 23 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 54 | 31 | 15 | 0 |
Near East | 7 | 100 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 43 | 57 | 0 | 0 |
All countries | 76 | 71 | 26 | 3 | 0 | 76 | 39 | 43 | 16 | 1 |
5.3 Assistance in disaster-related emergencies | ||||||||||
Africa | 15 | 80 | 13 | 7 | 0 | 15 | 87 | 13 | 0 | 0 |
Asia & Pacific | 15 | 60 | 40 | 0 | 0 | 15 | 47 | 53 | 0 | 0 |
Europe & N. America | 25 | 56 | 40 | 4 | 0 | 25 | 32 | 40 | 16 | 12 |
L. America & Caribbean | 13 | 69 | 31 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 46 | 38 | 15 | 0 |
Near East | 7 | 71 | 29 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 86 | 14 | 0 | 0 |
All countries | 75 | 65 | 32 | 3 | 0 | 75 | 53 | 35 | 8 | 4 |
Region | Country | Global Response | Sectoral Responses | Date received 1998 |
Africa total: 15 |
Botswana Burkina Faso Cape Verde Chad Comoros Côte d'Ivoire Gambia Guinea Liberia Mozambique Rwanda South Africa Tanzania Tunisia Zimbabwe |
1 1 1 |
2 2 2 2 |
03/07 03/07 26/06 12/06 20/06 25/06 25/06 29/06 29/06 03/07 25/06 23/06 22/06 30/06 07/07 |
Asia & Pacific total: 15 |
Australia Bangladesh Cambodia China Indonesia Japan Korea, Rep.of Laos Myanmar New Zealand Pakistan Samoa Sri Lanka Thailand Tonga |
1 1 1 1 1 |
2 2 3 |
02/07 30/06 25/06 30/06 02/07 24/07 02/07 03/07 23/06 26/06 01/07 03/07 01/07 24/06 08/07 |
Europe & North America total: 27 |
Armenia Austria Belgium Bosnia & Herz Bulgaria Canada Cyprus Denmark EC Finland France Germany Greece Iceland Ireland Israel Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal Romania Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom USA |
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 |
2 |
14/07 29/06 03/07 01/07 02/07 03/07 30/06 09/07 27/07 30/06 03/07 06/07 26/06 04/06 08/07 30/06 24/06 03/07 06/07 30/06 24/06 08/07 03/07 03/07 18/06 29/06 02/07 |
Latin America & Caribbean total: 13 |
Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Guatemala Guyana Honduras Jamaica Mexico Nicaragua Peru Suriname Uruguay |
1 1 1 1 |
2 2 3 |
30/06 02/07 07/07 06/07 23/06 03/07 25/06 29/06 03/07 01/07 01/07 30/06 10/07 |
Near East total: 7 |
Iran Lebanon Libya Oman Qatar Syria Yemen |
1 1 1 1 1 1 |
3 | 22/06 24/06 25/06 01/06 25/06 22/06 28/06 |