CHAIRMAN: As agreed we will start now on the discussion of the chapters in the Programme of Work and Budget, chapters 1 and 2, and we will then later discuss the other chapters from chapter 3 onwards, but before I do that I would just draw your attention to a Draft Resolution which has come out and which has passed the Resolutions Committee. You will find it in document C 77/LIM/5 dated 17th of November, and I propose that one of the speakers will probably introduce it during our discussions this afternoon.
H. MAURIA (Finland): During the first part of our discussion on the Programme of Work and Budget my delegation did not make any statement because I think that we have made ourselves quite clear during the two last Council meetings regarding our support of the format of the Programme of Work and Budget, and also regarding policy and priority issues introduced by the Director-General.
It would go too far now and take up too much time to go through scrutinizing all the various programme issues, but I would still like to point to some programmes which are of particular interest to my delegation. My remarks regarding programmes will cover not only the period of the next biennium, but will have also a medium-term aspect. Therefore, I shall promise, Mr. Chairman, to avoid coming back during the item on medium-term objectives when they are produced under programme choices.
Under agriculture I would mention especially the following programmes which we feel deserve high priority. First the farm management, and in the context of this programme, the training programmes.
Another programme is production and utilization of quality seeds. Regarding reduced or post-harvest food losses, my delegation has already, on various occasions, stressed its view about the priority of this programme.
A further programme is crop genetic resources, which is very important in our view, and the International Scheme for the Coordination of Dairy Development, in which my country has been actively involved over a number of years.
I would further mention rural development which was particularly mentioned by my Minister in the Plenary earlier this morning. In this connexion, I should mention the scheme for agricultural credit development, SACRED, which we are all so involved in.
Nutrition is a programme where we agree fully with what the delegate of Norway said yesterday. Under fisheries, we are in agreement with the main issues in the last Committee on Fisheries and with the manner in which they are reflected in the Programme of Work and Budget. Under forestry, first and foremost we are in full agreement with the concentration of resources which has clearly been undertaken. The resources will now be directed to a few major programmes which we wholeheartedly support, mainly the Programme on the Development of Tropical Forestry and, further, the establishment of medium and small scale forest industries in development countries, the strengthening of local institutions in forestry, and the developing role of forestry in rural development. These are all issues on which we have commented at earlier Council meetings this year.
In connexion with all these forestry programmes, we would stress the great need for training, particularly at the intermediate and worker level. We see this list of programmes as being particularly important and the presentation of the programmes in general in the Programme of Work and Budget is clear and concise and has been a great help to us.
We find the medium-term outlook in connexion with each programme very explicit and the presentation of extra-budgetary funds estimated to be available is also a very welcome improvement which should merit further elaboration on the part of the Secretariat.
As regards the level of the budget, we have already given this our support in the Council meeting last week, but we may still have reason to come back to this item and to the issues involved at a later stage of the discussion. I trust this will be possible.
CR. BENJAMIN (United States of America): Regarding chapter 1, General Policy and Direction, we would note that FAO's regular budget is supplemented by trust funds and other extra-budgetary funds, but it is often burdened by these funds from other sources. In a number of cases there are waivers, reductions or under-costing of overhead costs. There should be greater consistency in the shares borne by source, and we believe that all trust funds should share in the costs.
We question why Programmes 1. 1. 1, 1. 1. 2, 2. 1. 9 and 2. 3. 9 should not be funded by extra-budgetary resources. Another example appears in Programme 1. 3 where only the WFP and the UNDP assist in financing.
We would note, too, the statement of the Director-General concerning his efforts to increase the number of women on the professional staff. The United States will continue to try to nominate qualified women candidates and we encourage other Member Nations to do the same. Without the strong leadership of the Director-General and the policy-making bodies of the FAO, progress will continue to be very slow.
Turning to chapter 2, regarding agriculture, FAO should take more active steps in the selection and design of programmes to improve the status of rural women and to recognize their involvement as equals with men in the agricultural process. In addition, FAO's overall programmes should be reviewed to see if they can contribute to UNFPA or FAO population programmes.
FAO needs to strengthen its own nutrition activities, as has been mentioned, I believe, by others, and to provide full support to the initiatives that the developing countries have taken with respect to a range of activities aimed at improving the state of those who do not have the means or cannot obtain adequate food for their subsistence.
The presently inadequate level of nutrition activities is reflected in the low level of resources anticipated for field programmes in the table on page 89. Were it not for OSRO activities, the extra-budgetary support would be extremely small.
We have some specific suggestions on the steps that FAO might take to move more positively in that direction: (i) review all elements of the Programme of Work, to estimate their impact on the nutrition of people in the affected countries; (ii) develop mechanisms for assessing, monitoring and evaluating such programme impacts; (iii) develop rapid and relatively inexpensive criteria and measures for assessing the extent, seriousness and causes of malnutrition in population segments most at risk, and report progress both to the ACC Sub-Committee on Nutrition and the next session of the Ad Hoc Committee on Food and Nutrition Policies; and (iv) consider progress and results in relation to the above in FAO's regional conferences and in COAG.
The United States has always supported FAO's basic work in the gathering, analyzing and dissemination of agricultural information, Programme 2. 1. 7. These programmes have been increasingly beneficial as FAO has moved towards universality of membership. The limited extra-budgetary resources projected in the table on page 92 indicate that countries have given the strengthening of statistical activities no priority in the country programming process. In the future, the United States would welcome more attention by FAO to statistical information that would support its emphasis on a poverty-oriented strategy.
The role of FAO in commodities policy, Programme 2. 1. 8, is an important one. We endorse the supportive efforts of FAO with respect to the UNCTAD Integrated Programme for Commodities. We believe these activities should be continued, although constant evaluation is required so that FAO can assess its own commodities programme. We are aware that a substantial amount of personnel resources is devoted to this area. The completion of the preliminary phase of UNCTAD's IPC in February might provide an appropriate time for reassessment.
Going back a little to Programme 2. 1. 1, the United States suggests that FAO resources might be more effectively utilized if (1) a study of irrigation potential would be concentrated on specific, localized problem areas rather than on a global scale; and (2) if training activities in fertilizers would be aimed at strengthening national extension programmes, rather than conducted directly by FAO at the farmer level, if that is proposed.
Realizing the need to place less dependence on chemical pesticides, and to encourage the use of alternative pest control techniques, we would recommend that FAO might reduce, in budgetary terms, its emphasis on the provision of chemical pesticides, and increase its spending on technical and training assistance within the limitations of available resources.
Such assistance might include: (a) the establishment, operation and improvement of integrated pest management systems; (b) the establishment, operation and improvement of schemes for the regulation of pesticide usage; and (c) the collection of use, efficacy and safety data on pesticides.
Regarding Programme 2. 1. 2, we would hope that the emphasis of FAO's work on farm mechanization, storage and structures will be on the identification and promotion of techniques that are appropriate for the small farmer, as should be FAO's assistance in livestock production, Programme 2. 1. 3.
We would ask: to what extent are the Meat and Dairy Development Schemes, originally funded from extra-budgetary resources, now dependent upon the regular programme? We were unable to tell.
With regard to research support activities, Programme 2. 1. 4, the United States would stress the importance of assistance to countries in the development and strengthening of their own research capacities.
With regard to Programme 2. 1. 5, it would be helpful if information could be supplied on the extent of Regular Programme budget support for population activities. Have FAO programmes, for example, been reviewed to see if they can be adapted, to foster population programmes and complement the work of other bodies in the UN system?
On page 85 of document C 77/3, the large allocation of fifty-seven man years for programme management suggests a top-heavy management structure for which we would appreciate an explanation.
Regarding Fisheries, we believe that FAO should strengthen the national fisheries programmes through its regional bodies. The objective is to develop, utilize and manage the living marine resources of developing nations with the extended fishery jurisdictions.
Greatest emphasis should be placed on (1) development and improvement of small-scale fisheries at the local level through strengthening local extension programmes including aquaculture; (2) improvement of data collection and analysis capabilities for developing nations through the resources evaluation programme; and (3) increasing the capability of FAO regional bodies through the resources management programme to coordinate assessments of fishery resources, collect necessary statistical information and, where appropriate, perform a resource management function.
Finally, with regard to the Forestry programme, Programme 2. 3, we note that forestry activities can provide opportunities for rural employment. We would like a close examination by the Director-General to see if these programmes are in keeping with that objective.
G. ERICSSON (Sweden): At this stage of our discussion, we want only to highlight a few specific issues with regard to chapter 2 of the Programme of Work and Budget. Regarding agriculture, we have two comments. Our main statement on the Programme of Post-Harvest Losses has been given in Commission I. In connexion with the Programme of Work and Budget, we want, as we already did in the last Conference, to emphasize the importance of action in this field which deals with handling and storage of harvest on the farm and village level to the consumers' level. Sufficient Regular Programme resources must be allocated from the beginning. In the longer perspective, we do hope that a bigger share of the total allocation will be from Regular Programme resources.
There is, however, one field of action; some may look upon it as two separate fields, which justifies an increasing interest in the FAO work programme. This is the question of land capability and water potential and the proper use of land and water resources. They go together and they form the basis for land use planning aiming at the sustained use of our national resources. Land and water are dealt with in several different sections of the Programme of Work and Budget. What we now are proposing is the concentration on a more integrated approach, and we want to see such an approach further developed in the FAO Secretariat during the period of work we are now discussing.
Coming to Forestry, Sweden welcomes the new dimensions in the Programme of Work and Budget on forestry development. A closer technical cooperation between the agriculturists, water and land use planners and foresters is of the utmost importance. It is only through a balanced long-term approach to our national resources that we can meet the demands required by agriculture.
It is gratifying for Sweden to notice that one of our joint activities with FAO, the programme for village forestry, is now coming into a phase of practical implementation. We feel sure that all parties concerned can find ways and means of making this programme successful. Technical, social, political and administrative coordination is a difficult task anywhere, but in the international area, certainly FAO encompassing almost all of these aspects should continue its leadership role.
Regarding Fisheries, our delegation is somewhat concerned about the reduction in the budget for fisheries development. New political development on the rights of the sea, new techniques in fish cultivation, all these would justify a higher resource allocation to this sector. However, we do not now suggest any reallocations within the Regular Programme budget, but we hope that our comments will be taken into consideration by the Secretariat, and further we are prepared to continue our cooperation with the Department of Fisheries on a trust fund basis during the biennium.
G. ESCARDO PEINADOR (España): En relación con el capítulo primero y segundo que estamos discutiendo, nosotros tendríamos que hacer un comentario de tipo general sobre las diversas actividades en los programas, ya que los encontramos en general bastante equilibrados. Solamente al ver las asignaciones que se hacen a la region europea, me ha despertado una inquietud que comparten conmigo otras delegaciones y que me ha movido a presentar el Proyecto de Resolución que sometemos a la consideración de ustedes. Este Proyecto de Resolución está basado en los siguientes hechos.
Nosotros hemos mantenido siempre, y constantemente se ha repetido en esta Conferencia, la necesidad de una cooperación técnica entre países y entre regiones. Somos unos convencidos de la necesidad de la transferencia de tecnologías de unos países a otros, y así se ha expresado también en la última Conferencia Regional de Bucarest. Como ustedes conocen, tenemos establecidas dentro de la Oficina Regional Europea unas redes científicas de investigación sobre determinados productos y actividades. Recientemente hemos tenido en mi país unas reuniones evaluatorias de las redes ya establecidas y he podido comprobar la presencia y la colaboración de representantes de países fuera de la Región - quiero recordar entre otros, Egipto, Ghana, Irán, Irak - que han cooperado en todos los debates que hemos tenido y han mostrado un interés muy principalmente en las redes referentes al girasol y el olivar.
Como consecuencia de esto, al contemplar el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto que se nos presenta y al ver que en general a la región europea se le asigna una cifra que en su totalidad es el 0, 8 por ciento del presupuesto total, yo me pregunto ¿de qué manera podemos seguir nuestras actividades que no sólo tienen utilidad para nuestra región, - actividades tales como el riego, las referentes a estructura agraria y las anteriormente citadas redes de investigación de productos, tales como el olivo, girasol, maíz, avena, trigo duro, etc. , la lucha por la fiebre aftosa, estableciendo zonas tapón para evitar propagaciones con todas estas escasas cifras que se nos asignan?
Movidos por estas preocupaciones y en mi calidad de Presidente de la Comisión Europea de Agricultura, visité al Director General y le expresé mis preocupaciones, haciéndole bien patente que de ninguna manera solicitábamos un aumento en el presupuesto, sino que dentro de las disponibilidades existentes se posibilitasen las formas de continuar desarrollando las actividades europeas. El Director General con ese sentido de ecuanimidad que le caracteriza, se dio cuenta de las razones que le expongo, y ello es lo que nos ha movido, con el apoyo y conocimiento de otras delegaciones presentes - Francia y Bélgica principalmente, que han tenido la amabilidad de apoyarnos -a presentar a ustedes este Proyecto de Resolución en que no solicitamos absolutamente ningún aumento en las cifras presupuestarias, sino que se solicita la forma para que la Región Europea pueda seguir desarrollando la labor que hasta ahora viene haciendo, no sólo dentro de las áreas menos desarrolladas de la región, más deprimidas, sino también en aquellas otras regiones con las que podemos cooperar y llevaremos a cabo con ellas uno de los fines constitutivos de esta Organización.
S. H. PRAKOSO (Indonesia): In general, we can support the programme of work under Major Programme 2. 1, namely, on agriculture. Our delegation would like to set forth a couple of points relating to the very serious problems most developing countries are now facing, which we find rather elusive in the programme.
That is the problem of rain-fed agriculture referred to briefly in our country's statement in the Plenary. We do not mean to say that irrigation is not important and that we have no problems in this field. Yes, we still have many problems related to effective and efficient use of water and land for productive cropping in irrigated agriculture which we would like FAO to give due attention to.
But rain-fed agriculture covers the biggest part of the cultivated areas, at least four times the irrigated agriculture, in developing countries, and in these rain-fed regions there are cultivation practices which are wasteful and detrimental to the productivity and potentials of natural resources.
I would like to mention two wasteful cultivation practices in this regard. One is the generally known shifting cultivation, and the other is what I would prefer to call creeping agriculture. It is true that shifting cultivators are destroying valuable forest resources because of the “slash and burn“ practices, but they usually do not till the soil, so that the danger of soil erosion is less serious -except in steep terrains in heavy rainfall regions - than in the case of “creeping agriculture “.
In this latter case, farmers are more advanced in cultivation techniques and tilling the soil more intensively year in and year out, and stay for many years in the same place. But lack of soil conservation, and deprived of services and facilities which their fellow farmers in irrigated areas have been enjoying, such as extension, credit, fertilizer, feeder, roads, marketing facilities and so on, these farmers are not in a position to maintain the fertility or productivity of their lands.
So after a number of years their lands are rapidly exhausted, and moreover, particularly in sloping terrains, erosion brings fatal consequences also to lower regions, causing disruption of the water régime of river basins and silting of irrigation systems and lower parts of rivers, which aggravate the danger of floods. So this problem of rain-fed agriculture is becoming very urgent and acute in most developing countries. We therefore urge FAO to give the highest priority in its Programme of Work to this problem, particularly rain-fed agricultural development in the higher watersheds of river basins. We know that some start has been made by FAO but somehow it seems that it comes to a dead end. We are aware, of course, that various elements or aspects of this complex problem are being dealt with by some offices or units or disciplines, but it seems to us that there is no focus on this problem, and no proper mechanism exists to coordinate and integrate the various activities, particularly as it also needs coordination with the activities in other major programmes, namely Forestry.
Another point we wish to raise is in respect to the question of reduction of post-harvest losses. We read in document C 77/3 on page 67, and paragraph 18(b) that the activities under this programme will cover all stages between havesting and delivery to the consumer- in our opinion there is still a serious gap which has to be covered - namely after the raw food materials, raw foodstuffs, have been bought or obtained by the families. The treatment of the foodstuff in the homes kitchens has to be looked after properly because it is there where much of the valuable foodstuff is also wasted, in terms of nutritional value, in quantity as well and quality.
One may argue that this problem is covered by the home economics and/or nutrition programme, but if you want to launch an overall attack on the problems of post-harvest food losses the last leg of the journey of the food before it is consumed, as we just mentioned, should also be included.
Touching on nutrition, we wish to raise one point. When planners speak of diversification of agriculture they usually think only in terms of agricultural commodity exports, namely to diversify agriculture in order to fit better into changing international market situations. But never did they deal with this question of diversification in relation to the nutritional needs of the local community where the crops are grown, they never link cropping patterns and plans with nutrition improvement programmes of local communities. How can we improve the nutrition in local communities efficiently and effectively if food of adequate nutritional value is not locally available, particularly if we deal with poor rural people? We hope that the Programme of Work and Budget of FAO does not overlook this important problem too. And also here again it is a matter of proper coordination and interlinking of programmes of various units in the house so as to arrive at a comprehensive approach to the complex food problems we are facing in developing countries.
Mr. Chairman, in regard to rural development we wish to reiterate what has been stressed by the Chairman of the Conference in his opening statement, that there should be a policy of positive bias in favour of the most seriously disadvantaged sectors of our rural population, also referred to by the distinguished delegate from Pakistan yesterday. So far technical assistance activities of FAO and other agencies have been concentrating on the improvement of the delivery of mechanism systems such as extension, input services, credit, etc, to farmers. But one overlooks to help the farmers to build up and strengthen their receiving mechanism so that farmers, particularly small farmers, tenants and landless labourers will be enabled to make full and effective use of the inputs, advice, credit, etc. , made available to them. This means organizing farmers into functional groups so as to enable them to finally help themselves and to build up systematically their cooperative or collective efforts into cooperatives and the like. In this regard we wish to commend the initiative by the regionol office for Asia and the Far East to launch the Small Farmers Development Programme, based on the aforementioned principles and which has been progressing very encouragingly. We are hopeful that the establishment of CIRDAP will give a further boost to this excellent programme. Commenting on the major programme on fisheries, Mr. Chairman, if we read it from document C 77/3 it seems everything is fine. But our past experience has witnessed, at least in Asia and the Far East, that there was a considerable imbalance between marine fisheries and inland fisheries, including aquaculture, in regard to financial resources, budgetary as well as extra-budgetary. We all agree that marine fish catch should be increased, and the trend is that it has been increasing all the time. But the majority of the people who suffer from protein under-nourishment who live in rural areas are not in the position to eat marine fish. It never reaches them. The marine fish products are only acceptable to urban dwellers, particularly well-to-do people, of course, except in small fishermen villages along the coasts, but they are generally still mal-or undernourished too. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, unless aquaculture and inland fisheries are forcefully enhanced in the rural areas of developing countries so that enough fish is locally available, the strategy formula, as mentioned under paragraph 3 (a) (ii) on page 102 of document C 77/3 which reads, I quote, " increase and improve their availability and consumption of protein from fisheries" remain a lip service.
There is great potential in the rural areas, particularly in humid tropical regions for aquaculture development. We know that something is said about aquaculture on page 109, paragraph 19 of the same document. But we wish to emphasize strongly that aquaculture should be given the highest priority.
There is a dearth of experience and wisdom among rural people and farmers in a number of developing countries in the field of aquaculture. We suggest, Mr. Chairman, that FAO make a scientific but practical study on these aquaculture wisdoms of farmers, not just for the sake of academic exercise but to form a basis or spring board to disseminate them widely. Let us not be ashamed to learn from the small farmers, and let us not pretend to know everything and maintain paternalistic attitudes.
Let us, therefore, share responsibilities with Member Nations and have close consultations at grassroots levels as outlined by the Director-General in this regard. Mr, Chairman, Regional Fisheries Commissions are most suitable and appropriate fora or mechanisms to promote Technical Cooperation among developing countries. This can be realized if more initiative be left to the member nations and full opportunity be given to them for active participation in the programme formulation and implementation, so that they really feel responsible for the joint endeavour with FAO, and not feel that FAO is something separate from themselves.
In regard to forestry, Mr. Chairman, we have one or two comments. We fully agree with the concentration of resources under this major programme on assistance to Member Nations on the four points mentioned under paragraph 8 page 111, particularly in regard to the last point, namely to make more efficient forestry's role in rural development and employment. We wish to raise a couple of points. In the past in most, if not in all developing countries policies in the various sectors of agriculture, such as forestry and livestock, fisheries, crops etc. , were seldom properly interlinked, so were forest policies completely separate from rural development policies. Forest management objectives and activities were usually overlooking the local communities surrounding or adjacent to forest areas. They were usually orientated towards contributing as much as possible to the GNP and to foreign exchange earnings or savings rather than contributing in a direct way to the welfare of the local communities. Only if forest operations need manpower, only then they think of the local people who are expected to supply the labour forestry needs. We wish to emphasize in this connexion that unless there is an integration, or at least a synchronization of forest policies and rural development policies, valuable forest resources will become an easy victim of the struggle of farming populations for survival in rain-fed areas, particularly in higher water-shed regions of river basins. In other words unless local communities can derive direct benefits from the forests in satisfying their needs for securing a minimum level of living, farmers will consider forest areas merely as land reserves to be encroached upon sooner or later for their survival as their farmland is exhausted. It is not only in terms of timber and fuel wood, as mentioned under paragraph 8 (d) on page 119 that forests can contribute to local communities, but also we should not overlook that forests constitute an arsenal or organic material. This organic material is a new material par excellence for making compost, organic fertilizer and good for maintaining or improving soil standards. As we have pointed out earlier it is the problem of not being able to maintain soil fertility that motivates farmers in rain-fed areas to destroy forests in search of new land. Of course, services and facilities such as extension, credit, fertilizers, pesticides, feeder roads, etc. , should reach those backyards of the country as soon as possible, otherwise forestry will not be able to protect itself completely against the struggle for survival of rapidly expanding farming population.
Besides, Mr. Chairman, the introduction of systems of agri-silviculture will contribute additional food for the local people, and this was mentioned under paragraph 8 (d) page 119, but agri-silviculture can only be successful if there are experienced farmers available who are able to practice rather advanced farming methods and techniques. So shifting cultivators are not in that advanced stage. In other words settlements of shifting cultivators is a separate problem to be tackled if we want to save our natural valuable resources. We are glad that this new orientation of forest policies, namely forestry for community developments, the underlying idea of which was born for the first time back in Asia in 1973, is now gaining ground and gradually foresters as well as international institutions and aid agencies all over the world are adopting this new policy and approach. I am happy to mention here, Mr. Chairman, that the Swedish Government, through CIDA, in close cooperation with FAO is organizing a workshop in Indonesia on Forestry for Local Community Development.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, this mómentum will culminate next year when the 8th World Forestry Congress will be held in Jakarta in Indonesia in October 1978 and the theme is Forests for People.
J. S. KHAN (Pakistan): Mr. Chairman, yesterday in our intervention we expressed our broad agreement with the order of priorities in the sections on the programme and budget and we have also supported the Programme of Work as presented. My delegation has also given its views on FAO investment activities on the TCP, on decentralization and on post-harvest losses in our earlier statement and also in Commission I. So in this current intervention I intend to confine myself to our views on areas of particular interest to us or those which we think require greater attention and emphasis in chapter 2. Mr. Chairman, on the major programme of agriculture we have five points to make. The first on irrigation and water. My delegation strongly supports paragraph 23 at page 61 of document C 77/3, which places particular emphasis during the next biennium on the rehabilitation and improvement of existing irrigation schemes and reclamation of waterlogged and saline soils.
Mr. Chairman, we think that better off-farm and on-farm water management could improve land and water productivity levels at relatively nominal costs, and this activity is parallel with the activity now being followed regarding prevention of post-harvest losses. Under that, while FAO must continue to pay attention to increased food production, there is also growing concern for saving what is produced.
Similarly, while there must be attention and importance given to new irrigation schemes, at the same time we must save water and improve existing irrigation schemes. This must have equal importance.
The second point is on crop production, where we support the overall priority to food crops. However, within this, we think that the emphasis on seed development programmes is commendable, because we are convinced of the immediate gains from the timely evaluation, multiplication and distribution of good quality seed in developing countries.
Our third point on this is regarding fertilizers. Here we support the continuation of the IFS as well as the consolidation of the fertilizer activities in a new Unit. We also wish to draw attention to the good work being done by the Fertilizer Commission, which has become a valuable focal point for discussing the international fertilizer situation, and we would like to draw attention to the recommendation of the 72nd Session of the Council, that adequate resources should be made available to the Commission for carrying out this work. It is not clear from the document whether this is being done, but we would urge that adequate resources be provided to the Fertilizer Commission.
The fourth point is regarding livestock. Here we support the continuation of the ISCDD, as well as the late development scheme. There is only one additional point, we would like to stress the need for more emphasis on the development of rural poultry in developing countries.
The fifth and final point on agriculture is regarding rural development and a rural poor strategy. Of course, we have given our general views on this in our earlier intervention, but we would like to “flag'' some points in addition.
First of all, we welcome the assumption of the leading role by FAO in this field from 1 January 1978 - which is as it should be. We think that the stress on strengthening of agricultural education, extension, credit and marketing, together with training at grass-roots level, is correct, because we think these are fields in which FAO can play a particularly useful role.
Another point on rural development - and I think this was flagged by Canada this morning - is the need for more emphasis on development of cooperatives. We think that cooperatives are of paramount importance, not only as a means of improving agricultural productivity, but also as an instrument for improving agricultural marketing and of improving agricultural credit facilities.
My delegation noted the clarification given by Mr. West on this point, but I still think it could do with emphasis, because we think that cooperatives are an important means of improving and ensuring the access of small farmers to modern technology.
One final point on rural development: I think there should be more concern with the area approach to rural development, and while FAO is attempting to improve productivity by small farmers through an integrated approach, it should also pay attention to the less favourable environment such as the rain-fed areas and the semi-arid areas and the mountainous regions.
With regard to the programme on fisheries, we broadly support the proposed programme, by my colleagues from Indonesia. We wish to stress that more importance should be placed on inland fisheries,
because they have enormous potential. Within this particular field, we think FAO could do more to help us in the development of fish culture - for example, in saline waters and in waterlogged areas. I think this is a problem common to many countries in the Near-East region.
Finally, on the programme on forestry. Here again, we are in broad agreement with the proposed programme, but, as was emphasized by my leader in his statement to Plenary yesterday, we only wish to flag three points:
Firstly, there should be more emphasis on quick afforestation, but it is important to bear in mind the need for more acceptable ecological balance, for soil preservation, and for improving growing needs for wood, timber and fuel.
The second point is the importance which we attach to improved logging techniques and efficient forest exploitation, and the third point is the importance we attach to upland watershed management and rehabilitation of forestry.
That is all I wish to say for the moment. We may come back on the other chapters.
H. REDL (Austria) (interpretation from German): As this is the first time I have spoken in this Commission, I would like to congratulate you, Sir, very warmly on your election and to assure you of the full support of the Austrian delegation. I wish also to congratulate your Deputy and to thank the Secretariat for the excellent preparation of our work.
I would like now to return to what we were doing yesterday, and to say that we support what has already been said by the delegates from Spain, Poland and Hungary. We believe that the activities of the European regions should be enhanced for the greater good of all. The inclusion of national institutions in the work of FAO is something which we very much welcome. In the European region. we have seen that scientific cooperation and forestry cooperation has shown how very useful such cooperation is, not only for the European region, but also for the developing countries.
The delegate for Nicaragua yesterday also mentioned the special importance of the work in connection with pesticides. Austria very particularly supports this work within the framework of FAO, and thereafter within the framework of the scientific network for pesticides of the European Agricultural Commission.
We have also heard with great satisfaction that the means available for the development of grains has been increased. Austria has been supporting FAO for many years in this connection, and I would like to point out that something like $ 164 500 000 is being used for work in Africa, for training courses in Asia, and also the training of teachers. The Director-General is asking for further support for this Programme. I would like to point to the statement made by the head of the African delegation on Tuesday, 15 November.
May I be allowed to express a few criticisms in respect of home economics? We have listened with satisfaction to the statement that the work of farmers' women should be regarded with respect. However, we find that this work, especially in the European region, is not really being sufficiently recognized in the FAO Budget. As far as counselling and training are concerned, we do support the activities which are provided for there. We base our opinion on the experience of the first Forestry Training Course in 1975, in Austria. At the present time, together with the relevant department of FAO, we are preparing a second training course in 1978. There again, we feel that - especially where forestry is concerned - training, education and counselling should be given more attention than in the past.
We also support the activities suggested in the fertilizer sector. We believe it is desirable to create an administration to facilitate the best possible use of fertilizers.
I wish also to point out that the Austrian delegation is in full support of the resolution in document C 77/LIM/5, and I would like to speak on this subject again when that matter is raised for discussion.
R. S. KAMARA (Sierra Leone): As the debate on the Programme of Work and Budget has just commenced I would be grateful for the opportunity to speak further on this subject later, and make only a brief remark now.
My delegation findslittle need to contradict the introductory statement of the Director-General and the general remarks now being made on the budget presentation chapter by chapter.
The West Coast of Africa may not be considered to rate highly in potential for animal production, compared with other regions of Africa, but the fact still remains that certain progress has so far been made for increasing animal production in the region. Whilst we join other speakers in appreciation for the provisions made to boost livestock productivity by FAO, my delegation would like to see more attention focused on West Africa to supplement national efforts now taking place. We wish to record our joy at the steps being taken towards the control of Trypanosomiasis. But, bearing in mind the difficulties associated with the practibality of this undertaking in the humid tropics, my country, like others similarly affected, consider the need for increasing the production of Trypanosomiasis-tolerant breeds of cattle, much more relevant and profitable for the region. We would therefore like to see FAO's programmes in this direction, such as the International Meat Development Scheme, as well as others undertaken by member nations of the region, through either bilateral or multilateral contacts, greatly strengthened.
Our comments for tick and tick-borne disease control for the region are also similar to what I have already expressed. In other words, Mr. Chairman, it is my delegation's considered opinion that not enough is being done for West Africa in the field of livestock production, even though much is being done by FAO elsewhere. One reason may be because West Africa is often considered a difficult region but we must bear in mind that even people in the polar regions have also a right to survive, and the recent experience of drought in the Sahel should make us double our efforts towards self reliance for livestock products in West Africa.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, with regard to forestry, and the forestry sectors of the Programme, my delegation fully agrees with the observation made by the delegate of Indonesia. It is true that forestry should be made to serve people at all stages of their development if proper meaning could be given to rural development and the role of forestry in the everyday activities of the rural population.
As I have said, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to bore you, and we hope that we can always come back and ask that you continue to be friendly disposed towards us.
F. SHEFRIN (Canada): Now, Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in full agreement with the general proposal made by the delegate from Indonesia when he said that the FAO Programme should be directed more and more to the poorest or the poorer people. This is the position we have taken in Canada in our aid programmes bilaterally, and also which we have emphasized in the international agencies. We fully agree with the delegate of Indonesia when he puts that emphasis, and it may be that the Director-General in the next few years will find himself re-orientating his own programme more and more in that direction.
This morning I raised a number of questions. I think, quite rightly, I said I was not asking for an immediate answer, and Mr. West said let us discuss them when we are discussing the Chapters, and the delegate from Pakistan anticipated with me (and I am glad we agree) that on the question of cooperatives there is a partial answer given by Mr. West which I cannot argue with, when he says some of this work is being absorbed in the area of the rural development and farm credit. That does not quite answer the question and the role of the cooperatives, especially in development. As you know, Mr. Chairman, just recently the World Food Programme submitted a report to the Committee for Food Aid in which the whole concept of food aid and cooperatives was discussed, and how the food aid could be used to assist in the development of cooperatives. I hope that perhaps we can have a little more explanation from some of the officials concerned with this item.
I also made a reference this morning to pesticides, and here I will read a statement which was prepared for our use by our pesticides experts. This important role played by the FAO/WHO Experts Committee on Pesticide Residues in establishing acceptable daily intakes of pesticide residues is generally acknowledged. Attention has been focused several times on the inadequate support given by the FAO pesticide programmes. Suggestions for the improvement in the efficiency in this Committee were made by the 8th Session of the CODEX Committee on Pesticide Residues and these were supported by the 11th Session of the CODEX Alimentarius Commission and by the FAO Committee of Experts in Agriculture. The ad hoc Government Consultation on Pesticides in Agriculture and Public Health, Resolution X, requested the Director-General of FAO to take remedial action to strengthen the programme. This has not been done in fact, according to the note of my colleague who attended the meeting about three weeks ago in Rome. It seems there has been a decrease in emphasis. There are essentially only two people working in the pesticide unit with the aid of a research assistant. The developing countries are the losers in the long run since they are anxious to have the benefits of developed countries' experience in pesticides. Many of the recommendations from both the ad hoc consultations are of vital importance to these countries as well as to developed countries, and especially the developing countries because they are the hardest hit by the pesticide shortages and lack of standardization of registration requirements, etcetera. I hope as I said earlier this morning, as I spell out in more detail the views of our colleagues who are the experts in this field, we may be able to get a more specific answer in this respect.
Now let me go on to some of the other points of the Programme. In the past support for the genetic resources activity within the FAO has varied. The activities are thought to be essential, although it is felt it would be difficult to meet the stated objectives with the resources allocated to it. The impetus of the formation of the International Board of Planned Genetic Resources has initiated a new push in this area and the FAO Programme has been integrated with this. Canada has participated in the international programme and will be providing storage space for use in the long-term seed preservation of genetic stock with responsibility for millets and oats. We would like to have a little more of an explanation and background on this activity in the FAO.
In the case of the grassland forage and feed resources activity, it is correctly pointed out by the FAO experts that the feed base is a prerequisite for improvement of the overall livestock programme. There is a tendency to place too much stress on the number of livestock and to take for granted the required feed supply. Actually the feed supply and water should regulate any production increase, and the feeling is appearing in the FAO paper - and again I give this reaction - that we must increase livestock production looking at the problems related to the increase of livestock production, but just do not increase it for the sake of it being a good thing.
The estimate is made that the carrying capacity of the geographical area under consideration for increasing livestock is that of 120 million head of cattle. Our people feel that although they have no detailed knowledge of the areas, on the basis of the information provided they think those figures are far too optimistic, and the feeling is that we should not have too many optimistic forecasts that provide promises which may not be able to be fulfilled in this respect.
While the control of animal health is an essential aspect, animal nutrition and genetic resistance to parasites and disease should receive careful attention. Thus there would be a slight shift from animal health to genetic resources which would provide a more balanced programme for the long-term time period.
In respect to nutrition, the feeling of our people is that in essence the FAO nutrition programme is satisfactory as far as it goes, and they take into consideration the fact that the division has not had a Director for some time, although the Acting Director has done a splendid job and is very complementary in what he is trying to do. As to the potential for success, all the nutritional programmes seem to have set aims which they can attain in the biennium. There are not enough details to evaluate whether the techniques which will be used will be appropriate. With respect to the resources needed to meet the objectives, these seem to match very well the programme of the objectives stated. As far as management goes, it seems to be good in terms of matching the objectives of programmes and budget.
The other point I would like to raise, Mr. Chairman, relates to the present development in respect of the joint activity between WHO and FAO, and the understanding of the establishment of a joint WHO/FAO unit in nutrition. We would like to have more information on the most up-to-date developments in this area.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, my colleague, Mr. Steneker, would like to say a few words in respect of forestry, so if I may I will turn over the microphone to him.
G. A. STENEKER (Canada): The Canadian delegation likes to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to say a few more words on the subject of agro-forestry. What I have to say is for the purpose of information in that it deals with the establishment of the International Council for Research in Agroforestry. The subject was already discussed, I believe, at the Forestry Committee Meeting in October. It is an activity which is not mentioned in the Programme of Work and Budget. However, as agro-forestry is an important aspect of the Forestry Programme, I would like to take this opportunity to bring this up.
In July 1975, the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), a Canadian Crown Corporation, set up a project for the identification of new research initiatives in tropical forestry which could significantly improve tropical land management, which would furthermore assess the inter-dependence between forestry and agriculture in low-income tropical countries and which could propose research for optimizing land use.
The IDRC project report “Trees, Food and People - Land Management in the Tropics “, identified a number of tropical forestry problem areas of major importance. The study led to the conclusion that first priority should be given to agroforestry, the management system which combines agricultural crops, tree crops and forest plants and/or animals simultaneously or sequentially.
Despite the growing awareness of the need for “hard facts“ to apply agro-forestry effectively, relevant research remains sporadic, widely scattered and largely uncoordinated. The IDRC project report therefore recommended the establishment of an internationally financed support unit for agroforestry, now known as the International Council for Research in Agroforestry (ICRAF).
The primary role of ICRAF was envisaged as being supportive and catalytic. It would not carry out research itself but would collect, screen and disseminate hard facts relevant to agroforestry. It would recommend to interested donors the financing of research in appropriate institutions or itself contract for research.
It was proposed that ICRAF be established by charter as an autonomous, international body, governed by trustees, managed by a small staff of experts in the essential disciplines and employing consultants when required, to broaden its field of competence. The overall annual cost was estimated at $2. 1 million.
The need for such a service has been appreciated and the initiative was well received by a number of international agencies. A Steering Committee agreed, in June 1977, to proceed with the establishment of ICRAF.
A Board of Trustees of the Council has been appointed consisting of equal representation from developing and developed countries. FAO will hold a permanent seat on this board. Permanent headquarters are now being sought by the Council in a developing country.
D. VASILIU (Roumanie): Ainsi que le chef de la délégation roumaine l'a fait remarquer en séance plénière, nous partageons l'opinion que le Programme de travail et budget pour les prochaines deux années, tel qu'il a été formulé par le Directeur général, correspond aux nécessitée actuelles et futures de l'activité de la FAO. C'est pour cela que nous sommes favorables à son adoption par la Conférence.
En même temps, nous avons remarqué que certaines améliorations possibles et d'autres aspects d'importance indiscutable auraient pu être mieux reflétés dans le Programme pour la période que je viens de citer. En disant cela, nous pensons à l'élaboration des programmes par régions et notamment la région européenne. Il aurait été possible, á notre avis, de mettre mieux en évidence l'existence en Europe aussi des pays en développement dont les problêmes, et notamment oeux de l'agriculture, sont différents de ceux des autres pays de la région européenne.
D'autre part, il aurait été souhaitable de mieux faire apparaître le rôle que pourrait avoir la coopération européenne dans le domaine de l'agriculture pour le soutien des efforts de développement agricole des pays en développement d'autres régions du monde.
C'est en partant de ces remarques que nous considérons que l'on aurait pu ajouter, â côté des actions proposées dans le document cité, d'autres actions d'une égale importance.
Les recommandations de la 10ème Conférence régionale de la FAO pour l'Europe auraient dû être davantage prises en considération. Lors de cette Conférence, la Roumanie, ainsi que d'autres pays européens, a présenté toute une série de propositions concernant des domaines qui constituent des priorités dans la coopération et l'activité de la FAO en Europe. Il n'est pas nécessaire d'entrer dans les détails puisque ces propositions sont présentées dans le rapport de la Conférence régionale, â savoir le document ÎRC/76/REP.
Ce que nous voudrions souligner c'est que ces priorités devront être reflétées de façon plus élaborée dans les programmes de la FAO, sinon pour 1978/79· tout au moins dans les années qui suivront, tout en tenant compte de leur intégration appropriée dans les objectifs á moyen et á long terme de la FAO.
C'est dans ce contexte, Monsieur le Président, que la délégation roumaine donne son appui au projet de résolution qui vient d'être soumis par la délégation espagnole et qui nous est présenté par le Secrétariat dans le document C 77/LIM/5.
Toutefois, en analysant la résolution, nous avons vu qu'il existe certaines différences entre le texte français et le texte anglais. Notamment dans le cinquième paragraphe du préambule, dernier alinéa, dans le texte français on utilise le terme “pays en développement“ tandis que dans le texte anglais on utilise l'expression “pays moins industrialisés “.
Nous sommes d'avis, Monsieur le Président, que l'expression “pays en développement“ devrait être utilisée dans tout le texte. Cela serait d'ailleurs en conformité avec l'acte final de la CSCE, ainsi qu'avec les recommandations de la 10ême Conférence régionale de la FAO pour l'Europe.
CHAIRMAN: We have taken note of the comments of the delegate of Romania that we should use the French text as the basis for these words instead of the English text. As the delegate correctly pointed out, the English text reads “the less industrialized countries of the region“ whereas the French text reads “en particulier celles qui bénéficient aux pays en développement? If everyone agrees, we shall use the French text as the basis. There seem to be no objections to this. We shall continue our discussion.
A. J. PECKHAM (United Kingdom): I wondered - none too seriously - whether to propose that if we stated our sessions a quarter of an hour late, we could exercise a self-denying ordinance and only speak for 10 minutes. If we started 30 minutes late, then we should limit ourselves to 5 minutes. Since we started about 20 minutes late this afternoon; I have five pages of tightly written typescript before me, therefore I shall try to limit myself to 10 minutes.
First, I have to waste two minutes to refer back to what was said this morning in the summing up. Like one or two other speakers, I regret that the person concerned is not here, but I did not say this morning that the United Kingdom was opposed to the setting up of country representatives. I said I doubted if, in fact, the total number could be achieved as quickly as was set out in the budget. I want to make it quite clear, I was only talking about the realism of budgeting for that number.
Secondly, Mr. West reminded me of the arrangement made with the UNDP two years ago. I see Mr. West is now present, I wanted to remind him that in my statement I was reminding FAO of this agreement, and I hope he has now got the message.
I shall now proceed with the other matters of substance. On Chapters 1 and 2 I shall deal with forestry first because I can dispose of it more quickly. That is not to say that I regard forestry as less important. We regard it as of the utmost importance.
I think I can reduce my comments to four points; in doing so, the detailed matter I shall hand over to the officials concerned, but the four points I want to make on forestry are firstly to underline the special needs of arid zones and the role of fodder crops; secondly, to underline the protective role of forests in sustaining rational land use as an area of emphasis in rural development; thirdly, that there should be increased emphasis on forest management, especially of the tropical high forest; and fourthly, special emphasis on the training of middle management personnel, particularly, I think, in Latin America.
Those are my four commente on forestry, I have a lot of other detailed comments which I shall not bore this meeting with, but which I would be very happy to pass on to the officials concerned, should they like to have them.
Now I turn to the rather more difficult question of agriculture. I shall not remark on the paragraphs with which we agree, and there are very many. My first comment is on paragraph 2. 1. We find the section on the medium term outlook unexceptional; it says the right things in the right way. But I hope that pious postulations will be followed by practical deeds which will put the FAO objectives into effect.
Secondly, with regard to paragraph 2. 1. 1. , we think we should give more attention to the development of farming systems appropriate to hillsides in the wet, tropical countries; possibly a workshop on soil conservation, management and shifting conservation in Asian countries might be timely in conjunction with Forestry Department.
Thirdly, in regard to paragraph 2. 1. 2, we are glad to see that in the action proposed-paragraph 18, of cetera - there is an attempt to set out priorities in terms of sectors in which it is believed the greatest impact can be made in the immediate future.
We note and agree that the needs of small farmers are paramount, and whilst so many of them are working mainly at subsistence level, we doubt whether they will change to a cash level, thereby selling larger surpluses, until marketing systems exist which are capable of absorbing the surpluses, without disastrous effects on prices.
My next point concerns livestock, a specialism which is the direct responsibility of neither the agriculturist nor the veterinarian. Closer integration, in our view, is needed internationally in all livestock projects. We are particularly interested in the International Meat Development Scheme as a means of coordinating bilateral effort and multilateral input in a defined programme for any particular country. Although the approach is a good one, and we believe it will work, the present methods of producing country reports leave much to be desired. Frequently a report on a country with a list of recommendations for projects has been allocated before some interested donors have even received the report, or it avoids being seen before it reaches the country representative in Rome.
We think a better system of informing interested donors is urgently needed, leading to greater understanding on the allocation of projects to interested parties.
The next point is on the question of African trypanosomiasis. We are pleased to see that this programme will be given increased priority. Nevertheless, we would prefer to see the programme carried out on a more coordinated basis and that FAO should produce a more defined programme as well as doing more to coordinate bilateral efforts.
The problem of trypanosomiasis is an international one in Africa and it cannot be tackled successfully on any other basis if lasting continental-wide control is to be achieved.
I think I am almost through and I think I have got another couple minutes to go, so I will go on to another point.
Paragraph 2. 1. 4. on rural developments: We are rather disappointed on the notes in paragraphs 16 to 28 about marketing. There seems to be a lack of appreciation that for the small farmer it is the local market that matters, where he sells his surplus and buys what he wants. Export crop prospects are less important in this regard. I am just wanting to make that point and I hope whoever is concerned will pick it up.
Finally, with regard to the information service, paragraph 2. 1. 7, we note the note of realism in the statement that many countries do not have a comprehensive system of collecting agricultural information, but if I may say so, it is an open question how far poorer countries can afford this or indeed how necessary it is to collect this information on a national basis, and we would hope that the demand for information to feed the computers will be kept to the absolute minimum.
C. THOMSEN (Denmark): With regard to Chapter II, my first remark is related to the Programme on crops; particularly in view of the remarks made by Mr. West before lunch, we feel it necessary to reiterate that we very much support the activities proposed concerning post-harvest losses, both in the medium-term and in the coming biennium, as action proposed here, but that in our view is not incompatible with some concern about the way arrangements are being made for financing these activities, and as I have already tried to indicate, we would have preferred in the presentation as it
appears for the proposed programmes on page 69 that this post-harvest loss activity had been included in the table itself instead of being referred to in a footnote, and we can see no reason why it should not enter into the table in the future. I mean even if there are uncertainties about the final amount available, we understand that the extra-budgetary indication in any case is an estimate. That is really what we had in mind.
My second remark is related to livestock. I would like to confirm that we continue to support the importance of training in animal and milk processing, particularl- as part of the milk and meat schemes, and here I would like to join in the remarks just made by the United Kingdom.
My next remark is related to the programme on rural development and under this, first to agricultural education, extension and training, we fully support that the FAO should give high priority to training activities, as it is stated in the medium-term outlook part. We have also noted with satisfaction that under the action proposed, training extension and education will be an integral part, or shall I limit it to training or foremost training will be an integral part of all programmes and as auch will receive high priority.
We also support the proposal for coordination of training activities within the FAO. We agree that there is a need for this. It seems to us that this is perhaps more than anything else a problem of management of operations, and I shall follow the experience of the proposed focal point in the Human Resources Division with great interest.
I move on to the section or sub-programme on agrarian reform and rural development. Although the emphasis in the programme proposed is on the World Conference, we believe that it is equally important to build up capacity in the Organieation to assist countries with their problems in this area, to be able to take advantage of the awareness which we hope will be created by the World Conference, and furthermore, FAO will have a special obligation as a lead agency of the ACC in the agency task force in this matter. We therefore consider it important that the services concerned, in particular the Human Resources Division, should be strengthened to be able to perform these tasks. At the same time, we realize that rural development is not limited to this particular Division but should be a matter of concern for many parts of the Organization. In this sense, the Organization is also here faced with a managerial problem, and an approach similar to that proposed for education and training should be considered.
I move on to the programme on nutrition. As far as the nature of the problem here is concerned, we would like to make the remark that we of course agree that it is of utmost importance to increase food production in countries or areas where there are shortages, but at the same time it is very important to ensure that the increased production will benefit the poorest parts of the populations, and for this reason my delegation takes a great interest in the nutrition programme. In the past the role of nutrition in the work of the Organization has been modest if you look at it as a percentage of the total budget, and this small percentage which is devoted to nutrition activites would also include expenses for such items as food standards and food science services. At the previous Conference my delegation spoke in favour of strengthening a nutrition input in the FAO, but we have noted that the development has been in the opposite direction. This percentage of the Regular Programme budget now presented which is devoted to nutrition has in fact declined compared to the previous biennium, if you look at the food Polioy and Nutrition Division. The staff of this Division has been reduced, and as referred to by Canada, the Division has been without a director for some time now.
We also note that the meeting activities and the proposed publications within this field are very few. We find that this is an unsatisfactory trend if the Organization is going to take up its role as the lead agency among the United Nations Organizations in the area of nutrition, and we hope that in the future it will be possible to pay more attention to this area. In this connexion, we fully agree with the recommendations stated by the United States delegate in his statement on nutrition.
I shall then move on to the programme on forestry and first state our general agreement with the new orientation of this part of the programme. With regard to the programme on forest resources, like other delegations before me, we consider it to be most important that the emphsasis here is moved from large industrial plantations to smaller village community plantations. This is just as much for the provision of fuel and building materials as it is a source of employment, but we would like to emphasize the importance of training at grass roots level in this connation.
With regard to the programme on forest industries, we feel it is important to continue the activities with email-scale forest industries, as they may provide a solution to many developing countries, particularly if suitable technology can be found not only for sawmills but also for small-scale paper mills. Investment support services may play an important role for this development, possibly by way of subcontracting, and again training and education of workers and technicians for the interested parties concerned will be of paramount importance.
However, generally we feel that it is perhaps well to urge a note of caution when we talk about forestry.
Experience has proved that it takes a long time to implement plans and ideas in this field to get results, and we should not be over-optimistic in our expectations in the short run or else we risk disillusion and disappointment.
I would like to make a few remarks on Chapter 3 as well, Mr. Chairman, if you think this appropriate. It is in relation to the section on investment, and I would like to say here that I am authorized to speak on behalf of all the Nordic countries: Norway, Sweden, Finland and my own.
CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, we had intended to deal with Chapter 3 in the next round, so if you would agree to wait until we go to the next round.
K. CHOUERI (Liban) (interpretation de l'arabe): Nous venons aujourd'hui d'aborder les détails du chapitre 1. 2 de ce document; nous sommes d'accord sur les allocations budgétaires consacrées au programme: politique, direction générale. Ces allocations sont dues surtout à l'utilisation de la langue arabe.
En ce qui touche le chapitre 2 relatif aux programmes techniques et économiques, je vais essayer de traiter de certains de ces programmes. En ce qui concerne l'agriculture (grand programme 2, 1), nous savons que ce programme tend à l'augmentation de la production agricole, cela au moyen des investissements accrus. Nous sommes d'accord sur le montant alloué à tous ces programmes.
En ce qui concerne le programme 2. 1. 2, des ressources naturelles, nous sommes d'accord pour mettre l'accent sur l'aménagement des sols, sur les engrais et également sur l'étude concernant l'irrigation. Et à ce propos, nous reconnaissons la nécessité d'élargir l'emploi des engrais, puisque le revenu de ces engrais permettra aux pays en développement de reprendre des programmes qui tendent à l'amélioration du niveau de vie des petits agriculteurs.
En ce qui concerne le programme 2. 1. 2. , nous sommes d'accord sur les allocations budgétaires à ce programme puisqu'elles tendent à la production de plantes et semences améliorées.
Notre délégation voudrait également mettre l'accent sur le programme de la réduction des pertes alimentaires après récolte. Et sur l'évaluation des programmes de lutte contre les effets néfastes de certains de ces programmes.
En ce qui concerne le programme 2. 1. 5. , : développement rural, nous l'appuyons puisqu'il tend à la formation, à la vulgarisation, au développement agricole et à l'investissement.
Nous voulons ici mettre l'accent sur l'investissement, puisque la mise sur pied d'une stratégie nationale et d'allocation de crédits aux banques bénéficie de notre appui.
Je voudrais enfin vous féliciter des initiatives prises par le Directeur général en vue d'organiser le séminaire sur la planification agricole qui aura lieu à Rome, en 1978, et qui tend à mettre l'accent sur l'investissement agricole, conformément à la résolution de la Conférence régionale qui s'est tenue à Tunis.
G. WEILL (France): Le délégué de l'Espagne a présenté avec beaucoup d'éloquence un projet de résolution relatif à l'activité en Europe. Il a souligné à cette occasion l'efficacité d'un dispositif mis en place à l'échelon européen pour favoriser la diffusion des informations en matière agronomique et pour faciliter la publication des résultats de recherches. Ce projet de résolution, si bien présenté par le délégué de l'Espagne, est également présenté par la délégation de la France. Je n'y insisterai pas sinon pour retenir cet aspect particulier de l'activité ainsi soulignée, je veux dire le renforcement de la recherche agronomique. Cette activité nous paraît extrêmement importante et nous sommes très favorables au Programme 2. 1. 4. qui a précisément trait à la recherche.
La recherche agronomique est incontestablement un facteur de développement de la production agricole; c'est également, à notre avis, un domaine privilégié de la coopération internationale, et la FAO a un role important à jouer dans ce domaine. Certes, les modalités de cette recherche internationale peuvent varier énormément. Nous avons entendu le délégué du Canada nous parler de la mise en place d'un centre international de recherche en matière de forets, mais il faut être conscient de l'intérêt de la formule, souple, légère et ouverte, mise en place sous l'égide de la FAO pour favoriser les contacts entre
chercheurs, pour favoriser les échanges en matériel végétal et pour favoriser la publication des résultats. Comme cela a été très bien dit par le délégué de l'Espagne, cette coopération n'est pas limitée aux pays européens; elle s'étend aux autres pays ayant à traiter des mêmes problèmes.
Je dirai, en voulant rester bref que la lutte contre la trypanosomiase ne figure pas aux programmes 2. 1. 3 et 2. 1. 4. Mais je voudrais, comme l'un des orateurs précédents, souligner son importance dans les pays africains. Il est incontestable qu'elle nécessite un effort de coopération internationale auquel la FAO peut et doit concourir.
Enfin, je voudrais faire, en ce qui concerne la recherche internationale elle-même, une suggestion, à savoir qu'en matière végétale il y aurait incontestablement un plan fort important de cette recherche se rapportant au palmier; comme le délégué du Canada, je dirai que je suis trop heureux de pouvoir utiliser la compétence de nos instituts de recherche car il s'agit du palmier melanococca à propos duquel il faudrait favoriser la prospection et la recherche de matériel végétal. De même, il semble qu'un effort international puisse et doive être entrepris en matière de défense des cultures; pour le cocotier par exemple il serait souhaitable d'entreprendre une étude d'un prédateur contre un parasite appelé Aceiria Guerreronis que l'on rencontre aussi bien en Amérique centrale qu'en Afrique et dans certains pays du sud-est asiatique. C'est donc véritablement le type de parasite contre lequel une action internationale doit pouvoir être utilement entreprise sous l'égide de la FAO.
F. D. MAAS (Israel): Mr. Chairman, first I would like to support the declaration for assistance of commonwealth european countries on the initiative of the Spanish delegation. I have stressed on various occasions the importance of European work for European countries and also for FAO as a whole, and I hope this can be accepted.
Coming now to our subject, first I noted, maybe some explanation can be given, at least percentagewise, the programme is number two on agriculture, forestry and fishery, percentagewise came down in this biennium. The budget allocation was 47. 3 percent and in this coming year it is 44. 8 percent. Maybe through inflation it is even more or less, I cannot say, but this is a fact that is inside the book.
Coming to some details which I would like to mention: first regarding the dissemination of information which one can find on page 90, 91 and 92. This information on production and prices on the market is very important in view of the fluctuations which we realize since the last time. Certainly FAO material is not the only source which countries receive, we too have our daily information service from the outside world, but I am asking if it would not be possible to dispatch some of these price reviews by telex for countries interested, and not by post when it arrives two or three weeks later and sometimes it takes even months, I mean in the modern world the telex should be used, and I understand that costs are involved but maybe there are countries which would be interested in this type of information to get it as quickely as possible.
My second remark is connected to pesticides; pesticides which have been mentioned several times. In the English text it is page 68. Mr. Chairman, my delegation is not very happy with the action programme proposed and numbered 23, but I do not want to go into details, I mean it was also said during the discussion; one has to be careful with pesticides, and so on and so on. I agree to all this but pesticides play an important role and if we speak on crop losses and special action we know at least fifty percent of the losses which occur in developed and developing countries are during closed period, it cannot be changed and pesticides play an enormous role. I agree, I mean, pesticides are like alcohol and tobacco, they are not very healthy but they give a good feeling to mankind or to plants and we use them, and we cannot overcome this input by wording and definitions of integrated control and resistant varieties and all such things which have their value, but if we look very carefully on the scenery, the agricultural scenery and what happens in the fields it would be better if FAO and countries would give their due respect to the application, the right application of pesticides and related fields, and not to waste too much money on very important things for the future to come but certainly not for today and for tomorrow. At least this is our opinion, and we have also assisted in the past FAO with pesticides application courses and support and we shall go on with this if so desired.
Finally I have a question, Mr. Chairman, which maybe can be answered somewhere?
On various occasions, both during Plenary and in today's discussions, people have rightly said that FAO activities should be applied to the farmer in the field - to the small man, at grass-roots level, and so on. Certainly I agree with this: but I ask myself, how far can this Organization go? We find difficulty even when talking at country-representative level, and that level certainly does not go
down to the farmer or grass-roots level. We do not reach these people at the first, second, third or perhaps even fourth or fifth level. These discussions are very important but they are not directly for the farmer. My question - if it can be answered - is, where is the limit of FAO activities towards the farmer? - What can the Organization do for the farmer? Is it restricted to a kind of world ministry for the assistance of agricultural ministries in other organizations?
J. L. SAULT (Australia): We would in general support the proposals which are outlined in Chapters I and 2, but we do have some comments on specific items. Taking these roughly in the sequence in which they appear in the document:
Firstly, we have already registered our view that the reduction of food losses should be given high priority.
As regards the programme on nutrition, we note that there has been a modest increase proposed, and we would hope that adequate funds for the food standards and quality control work will be ensured.
We also note that one of the difficulties of coming to grips with the subject of nutrition is the number and complexity of the networks and organizations involved. This seems to be thrown into relief in the Programme Committee's Report.
Looking at some of the economic programmes, we support the work of the Food Information Service and the programme supporting the UNCTAD negotiations. Australia subscribes to the concept of rationalizing all aspects of activity in international fora, and therefore we support FAO's aims of providing information on agriculture, fisheries and forestry projects within its Charter. This information assists in formulating acceptable solutions on production and distribution problems to be negotiated in UNCTAD. We believe that communication of statistical and other relevant information is one of the important functions of FAO.
On world food security, we subscribe to the principle in the mode proposed in the international undertaking. We support the continuation of FAO's activities in this field.
Looking at the proposed study, Agriculture Towards 2000, while we see some merit in considering development issues twenty years ahead in a broad way, we have serious reservations about the value of detailed projections as far ahead as this. Our doubts stem from our own experience and the innumerable factors on a world scale which influence the course of developments in agriculture. As recent history has shown, random events outside the agricultural sector can have immense consequences for agriculture and the increasing inter-dependence of national economies increases the probability of the occurrence of such events. Such consideration suggests that a pragmatic approach should be exercised over the amount of resources put into a study such as Agriculture Towards 2000.
Regarding the major programme on fisheries, we have one query to raise here. We have noted that the fisheries policy expenditure on item 2. 2. 3, is severely reduced. There is a drop of about $411 000 in real terms on a budget of just over $1. 9 million for the last biennium. Possibly this is part of a drive to make regional fishery bodies financially self-supporting, but we would seek clarification on the reduction, and whether it is the result of a reduction in expenditure of FAO regional fisheries bodies.
J. RUTKOWSKI (Poland): I would like to say just a few words with reference to the Resolution presented by the distinguished delegate of Spain.
First of all I would like to say that we fully support this Resolution, and I would like to appeal to the delegates from other countries to support it as well and adopt it.
We have problems in Europe, in spite of the fact that that may sound a little strange - immediate problems for immediate solution and problems for the future. We attach great importance to scientific cooperation, and we believe there is a potential in Europe. There is traditional cooperation, and there is the will to do it, and I think we can do it in the European region in cooperation with other countries of the world, for the benefit of all of them. I do not want “examples“ of this cooperation because such examples are well known too, and have been mentioned by, other delegates.
When we organize this cooperation, some support is needed from the Organization - some logistic and some financial support. If there are some activities connected with FAO, then we cannot ask the Government to allocate additional money for them, because the Government would normally say “this is done within the framework of the Organization for which we are paying a certain contribution “. Therefore, I think that the budget for Europe is a very modest one. We are not trying to obtain more money in this Resolution, as I understand it, but to get some understanding of our problems for the future, and as much help as possible. The amount of money allocated for Europe - 0. 8 percent - is very small. I am naturally not relating it to the contribution of the European region, because they are different criteria; but one could wonder why we are considered so unimportant in the programme of FAO.
The delegates of Spain and France have so eloquently presented this problem and this resolution, that I do not need to say anything more about it,
A. LOPES RIBEIRO (Portugal): The Portuguese Delegation strongly supports the draft Resolution submitted to this Commission by the Delagation of Spain. It is needless to emphasize the importance of such a draft Resolution, not only for the European region but for the Organization as well - as several before me have said.
RAMADHAR (India): In my intervention on Chapter 2, I would like to raise some issues which are common to other Chapters also. I would also like to touch on the particular subject of rural credit, at page page 82 of chapter 2 of document C 77/11.
My delegation welcomes the recent attempts by the Director-General in reorientating FAO's activities towards making them more relevant to the needs of the developing countries. How far FAO's activities are actually relevant can, however, be best judged by using certain well-defined criteria. I may mention here some on which there is broad agreement. These are:
1. Does it facilitate technical cooperation among the developing countries?
2. Does it encourage the use of “national institutions “?
3. Does it promote self-reliance in technical and financial matters?
4. Does it lead to decentralization within FAO'S programme?
Let me briefly discuss each of the four criteria serially.
First is the issue regarding technical cooperation. It is now widely recognized that the old type of technical assistance promoted in the 1960s is now far outmoded, A new dimension in technical assistance is that of facilitating technical cooperation among the developing countries themselves. Any institutional arrangements from any programme which facilitates technical cooperation should therefore be an important element of FAO's Programme of Work and Budget, For example, the recently set up Asian and Pacific Regional Agricultural Credit Association would go a long way towards facilitating technical, economic and financial cooperation among the countries of the region. We therefore welcome FAO's initiative in promoting the associations of this type and urge the Director-General to give all possible assistance to enable these associations to be self-reliant in the shortest possible time. I may mention that in the case of the Asia and Pacific Regional Agricultural Credit Association, not merely financial institutions such as agricultural development banks have sought membership, but also central banks and, more importantly, government ministries. In this sense these associations are much more than non-governmental bodies. They have many of the characteristics of inter-governmental organizations. Hence it is proper that FAO should give these bodies all the assistance it can within its Programme of Work and Budget.
The potentials of using national institutions is one subject which has been much discussed, but it is not clear whether this potential has been fully exploited by FAO. Do the technical divisions within FAO really take all precautions not to send an expatriate expert to a country where there is adequate capacity within the national institutions to undertake the technical work? Does FAO really make a sincere effort to sub-contract work to such capable national institutions? An assurance from the Director-General on this issue would be very welcome. I am, however, glad to note that there are some notable examples of FAO making commendable advances in sub-contracting work to national institutions. Our delegation is particularly pleased to note that in the field of agricultural credit and banking in the Survey of Training Facilities for Bank Personnel, promoted by the Agricultural Services Division with SIDA assistance, the main work has been assigned to the national institutions in Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka and Nepal. The Indian Delegation is also pleased to note that under the Scheme for
Agricultural Credit Development (SACRED) FAO will try to mobilize bilateral assistance specifically for strenthening national agricultural credit institutions, SACRED, together with the four Regional Agricultural Credit Associations, which form the two mutually supporting elements of the Agricultural Banking and Credit Programme, will go a. long way towards using fully the potentials of national institutions. We welcome this type of FAO activity and trust that in other fields, such as economic research, agricultural education, agro-industries, etc. , FAO will be able to develop similar programmes with greater emphasis on the use of national institutions.
Promoting self-reliance in technical and financial matters is yet another criterion which should be used in judging the relevance of the Programme of Work of FAO, It is sometimes sad to hear that development projects, after the completion of their life-cycles of five years or more, often leave the country without leaving behind appropriate infrastructure or institutions which are capable of continuing the good work undertaken by these projects. It is important to realize that the development projects are specifically aimed at encouraging the local capacity to implement the project, rather than merely an arrangement for demonstration effect. Here again, the type of activities which it is envisaged will be undertaken under the Regional Agricultural Credit Associations and SACRED are the ones which need to be encouraged. If the national agricultural credit institutions are adequately strengthened they would serve not merely as efficient channels for international assistance in the field of agriculture but, much more importantly, they would help mobilize local resources and, as is well known, the development of local resources is a precondition for achieving self-reliance in the developing countries. It is only through the mobilization of domestic resources that investment in the agricultural sector can be accelerated for achieving our declared objectives.
Decentralization is yet another criterion which is often lost sight of in judging the effectiveness of FAO programme. There has been general agreement in the Council as well as in the Conference that decision-making within FAO should be progressively relegated to the regions, sub-regions and finally to the countries themselves. Here again, the pattern of arrangements which is envisaged under the Regional Agricultural Credit Associations should particularly be noted. Much of the work of these associations is expected to be undertaken in the region with active assistance from the FAO Regional Offices. This will encourage the FAO Regional Offices to have direct contact not merely with the governments but also with the financial institutions and central banks. In turn this will assist the FAO Regional Offices to know what the needs of the countries are, and thereby help improve the programming function within FAO.
Mr. Chairman, the time has now come for FAO to be more innovative in evolving institutional arrangements for seeking greater involvement of countries in FAO's programme. Unless there is involvement of countries and national institutions in FAO's programme it will be very difficult for FAO to stop and reverse the deepening process of irrelevance of FAO's programme to the needs of the developing countries. It is in this context that the Indian Delegation has welcomed and fully supported the programme for setting up of Regional Agricultural Credit Associations, and we trust that in view of overwhelming support that FAO has got through the widespread participation of countries in the two meetings held in Asia and Africa, the Director-General will find it possible to give these associations all the support which they have asked for and very well deserve.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, once again. There are other issues related to these chapters, on which my delegation would like to intervene later.
The meeting rose at 17. 25 hours
La seance est levée à 17 h 25
Se levanta la sesión a las 17. 25 horas
