New Zealand appreciates the FAO focus on the regional and country office network and the efforts of FAO to deliver at scale at country level through a modern and efficient FAO decentralised offices network, responding to the aspirations of countries in attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  

We recognise that within region there is great diversity of priorities and needs of different countries. We note however that the most vulnerable of the region, which includes the SIDS, really need a strong voice and that the increased focus of FAO in this region is a focus that New Zealand supports.  We do agree with the view that the presence of country offices should take into account not only country incomes but also vulnerability such as susceptibility to natural disasters and climate change.

We recognise that the sub-regional office in the SWP is therefore very important in working with the Pacific SIDS and we are fully supportive of measures that enable the sub-regional office to have greater flexibility and response within the SWP region.  To this end, we do support greater flexibility and increased agility at regional and sub regional level including a share of pooled resources at both regional and sub regional level to support this.

We do support that criteria for resources allocation to country offices needs to be transparent and clear criteria for the allocation and that country offices needs to be able to respond to unique country situations  and differing needs, so requires flexibility to do this, but with transparency.

We would like to raise the issue of the findings from the recent Report of the Joint Inspection Unit (the JIU report) where it is stated that the functions and responsibilities of the regional, sub regional and country offices are not considered within the FAO basic texts and are only referred to in the organisations Administrative Manual.  It is also noted that FAO does not provide an overview of its offices outside of headquarters and does not offer a clear indication of the relationship between regional, sub regional and country offices and headquarters.  We recommend that the APRC should reinforce a recommendation that the Council present the Conference at its forty-fourth session with a proposal on the necessary changes to the relevant part of the Basic Texts regarding the functions and responsibilities of the decentralised offices.

We also ask for more details on how the current regional and sub regional offices have taken up and /or are using the centralised corporate functions of FAO HQ?  We also seek information regarding the accountability of the country offices through the oneFAO approach in the move towards increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the decentralised offices.

We do agree to an inclusive consultation regarding the process going forward for the reform of the regional /sub regional and country offices with full transparency as to what is possible going forward; what decisions have already been made and what will be the process of decision making and prioritisation with the limited resources?  It is essential that expectations are well managed throughout any consultation process including full disclosure of what the impacts of consultation can be. We are very keen to see where the accountability lies within the various options. We seek confirmation on the consultation process regarding transparency on the how the results of consultation will be managed.

We also recognise that for FAO to maximise its impact it needs to be working with other agencies in the region and countries and part of the consultation phase should be ensuring that duplication is avoided.

Could FAO please clarify the current status of Country, Sub Regional and Regional offices and the impacts of the various options on these?

What is the proposed timing of the consultations and who will be consulted?   For the Pacific it is essential that there is an appropriate process and timing for the consultations and that all countries in the region are given the opportunity to participate.

Can the FAO respond as to whether a decision has already been made to open offices in PNG and Timor Leste or will this be determined after the consultation?

More detail on the role of the regional, sub regional and country offices in the development and management of regional knowledge hubs would be appreciated.

Australia thanks FAO for its ongoing transparency in addressing current challenges to meeting the specific needs of countries through its Decentralized Office Network. It is crucial that initiatives at FAO, at both the decentralised office and country levels, progress with impartiality and accountability in alignment with FAO’s Strategic Framework 2022-31.

Australia supports the objectives of this work – to increase effectiveness and efficiencies in delivery of programs and projects. We also support FAO’s consideration of countries incomes plus other factors including whether they are SIDS, susceptible to natural disasters, climate change, protracted crisis, etc in determining resources allocated to offices.

Australia requests details on what criteria FAO proposes define and determine countries with large programmes and/or major economic, environmental and social challenges (in Table 3 Model 1). How would a small island developing state, that also has critical susceptibility to climate change and natural disasters, be characterised in this table for resourcing? Indeed we recommend FAO provide a more detailed explanation of the benefits of the revised country office model to SIDS.

In seeking to understand how the proposed changes would impact country office resourcing in Asia and the Pacific region, Australia further requests that this proposal be mapped against country offices to indicate how it will impact staff profiles (i.e., which office would stand to gain staff and which would potentially lose staff, under the cost-neutral proposal).

In addition, we also request clarity on the difference between a National Correspondent and a National Professional Officer in level and qualification (and how this differs from the term ‘core staff’).

We note the proposed flexibility in having pooled resources at regional levels for agile approaches, and encourage FAO to also consider pooling resources at a sub-regional level to enhance tailored responses. This will facilitate better autonomy for sub-regional offices and provide greater transparency for members into the projects, financial and human resources and needs of subregional and country offices.

We note with interest the proposal for FAO to open Representations in Papua New Guinea and Timor-Leste and encourage consultation with both the countries concerned and established partners for a coordinated approach.

We welcome the proposition that this proposal will be cost-neutral on the regular programmed budget but at the same time remain conscious of cost and staffing implications that stem from applying the new model set out in table 3. Turning to extrabudgetary resources and the yearly allocation of non-earmarked funds, further detail is required to determine impacts to staffing resources, how effects can be managed, and what improvements are expected.

We request further detail on the proposed yearly allocation of non-earmarked resources to support local capacity for project/programme development and implementation and to help bridge the geographical divide between subregional and country offices. How would this figure be determined (as a percentage of the country office yearly figure or a dollar-figure or some other way) and what would be the reporting requirements?

We also seek further information on the difference between this yearly allocation and the ‘advance funding’ proposal of approximately 12 per cent of staff costs in the region. The paper identifies that this ‘advance funding’ would be for programme development support, interventions to address administrative bottlenecks, specific risks arising, which sounds to have some crossover with the yearly allocation. We suggest that FAO give consideration to pooling this ‘advance funding’ at the subregional level to provide more flexibility.

Finally, Australia notes the findings and recommendations in the report of the Joint Inspection Unit in its recently concluded Review of management and administration in the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations regarding decentralisation, delegation of authority and including the functions and responsibilities of decentralised offices in the basic texts. Australia urges FAO to give full consideration to these findings, some which build upon previous reviews and audits, in developing a strategy for the operation and resourcing of country offices. Australia requests a transparent and inclusive process of consultation with Members, and other interested stakeholders such as other regional institutions, to inform and develop a roadmap for country office reform.  Further we underscore the need for reporting to Members at relevant governing body processes.

Japan expresses its gratitude for providing our comments on this Agenda item.

Given that the proposals presented in the policy paper for the Country Offices Network under this agenda item doesn’t mean requesting the additional budget to the Members, Japan agrees in general with the concept of allowing flexibility in the deployment of FAO staff at the Regional offices to the Country offices based on the Regular Programme.

On the other hand, the proposed model of staffing for flexibility does not provide sufficient explanation including;

- whether it is possible to maintain budget neutrality,

- whether it is possible to flexibly reassign staff without causing problems in the personnel system,

- the rationale for the proposed model classification method and the number of staff to be assigned to it,

A more explanation from the FAO Secretariat, including at least the above-mentioned points, is necessary to assess the validity of the proposed model. Japan requests FAO to provide these explanations to the Members, and also to provide an opportunity to incorporate the thoughts and views of the Members on the flexibility of staffing, such as in the form of informal consultations.

It should be underscored that the FAO Country Offices Network is a matter that is being considered at the global level, not by each unit of Regional Offices, and thus, the decision must be taken through mutual discussions of the FAO governing bodies. As the Asia and the Pacific Regional Conference, we should refrain from making any pre-judgment on whether to support or oppose the proposal in the paper of this agenda.

Therefore, Japan does not agree with the proposal by the FAO Secretariat on this agenda item. For the decision on this agenda item by the APRC, Japan proposes that  the APRC 37 takes note of the proposal, and we request FAO to provide further explanation on this matter.