CHAIRMAN: Good morning. The Chairman of this Commission was unavoidably detained, and he has asked me to take over the morning session. I would like to point out the Commission has had some very good discussions to-date, so good that we are a day and a half behind in our schedule. I fully recognise every delegate has the right to speak as often as he wishes to and for as long as he wishes to, because this Conference only occurs once in two years. On the other hand, there is a limitation to the amount of days we have, and the evening hours we have, and some of the subjects before us this morning have been fully discussed in earlier Conferences and also very fully discussed in the Council, and we have some excellent reports. I would hope to facilitate matters, and again it is up to you how you wish to speak, we are not going to tell you exactly how to say it, but if you would refer to the printed issue with very specific recommendations, if we could have some specific view rather than making general statements.
The first item before me for discussion is 10.1, the Regular Programme Evaluation, There is no document distributed on this item, I understand Mr, West, the Assistant Director-General, Programme and Budget, will give an oral report of this.
E, M, WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): This item is on the Agenda of the Conference because it was referred to this Conference by the 18th Session two years ago when they were discussing the medium-term objectives paper. In the medium-term objectives paper C 75/24, it was stated that there were certain problems about introducing Regular Programme evaluation, but that a start in resolving these problems would be made during 1976. So the Conference said, in effect, well, let us see next time whether you have done anything about this, and to what extent. When the present Director-General took office, one of the things he did was to review very carefully all the recommendations of the Conference, and he was very keen on implementation of this particular Resolution, because he considered it to be vital to his own desire to review thoroughly the programmes and structures of the Organization, He therefore directed that among other things a plan for Regular Programme evaluation should be drawn up and submitted to the Programme Committee and the Council, This was done and a council document CL 70/29 was considered by the Council in its autumn session of 1976, This document described the problems in developing a system of programme budget; indicated what we were already doing in the way of evaluative or review procedures, including the work of the Programme and Finance Committees themselves, and then proposed an approach to systematic evaluation of Regular Programme activities comprising ongoing as well as ex-post facto evaluation, with the purpose namely of providing for a feedback into the process of programme formulation and management. In the Director-General's mind this is the most important aspect of evaluation. The purpose of evaluation is not primarily to provide others with material for criticising what we are doing. There are no lack of critics at any time, and the criticism is very healthy and necessary, but ultimately what everybody wants is that we should do things in a way which will not invite subsequent criticism. So we have to have a mechanism which will not invite subsequent criticism. We have to have a mechanism which feeds back into the formulation stage, so we t try to avoid the mistakes in advance. Por this reason it is important not to rely solely upon external evaluators, although they have their uses, but to ensure that those implementing a programme; those formulating a subsequent programme, are themselves involved, consciously and continuously, in the process of evaluation.
As I have indicated, it is also necessary to have external evaluation. The external evaluation will be provided by the Evaluation Service, which the Council approves should be transferred to the Office of the Director-General - in fact, attached to Programme and Budget - and also of course by the Joint Inspection Unit, which will evaluate not only substantive programmes, but also the FAO evaluators. I have suggested that one of the main constructive themes that the JIU can do is to help the Evaluation Service to evaluate themselves. We must not get a complex that the evaluators know better than anybody, and can stand perpetually in judgement over others. Of course, if the JIU evaluate the evaluators in FAO, who is going to evaluate the JIU? Apparently you are going to do this at some time in the future, and you are best qualified to do so.
The system of evaluation which was proposed envisaged a series of evaluation reports. The principal report will be biennial reviews and an evaluation review of the regular programme, similar to and parallel with the Review of Field Programmes which is about to arise on your agenda.
There will also be special reports as necessary, requested by the Council or by the Programme and Finance Committees, which they will consider; and all the time, internally, there will be specific reports to the Director-General dealing with either substantive programmes from the point of view of substance or methods and means, such as the effectiveness of publications, or administrative procedings.
The Service has not yet of course been transferred and has not yet embarked on its tasks - although there has been some discussion already in the Programme of Finance Committees about these matters -and, if the Conference approves, this will be one of our first concerns in the beginning of the next biennium.
This, I think, is all that needs to be said on this subject, and all that can be said at this stage.
CHAIRMAN: As Mr. West rightly pointed out, the last Conference asked the Director-General to establish an evaluation system. You have now received a very detailed report from Mr. West. This matter, I think, is more for report than for general discussion, and we should not need to spend too much time on it. I hope we can complete this item in the next few minutes. However, if any delegates wish to comment on the remarks made by Mr. West or require further information, the floor is open.
S.S. MAHDI (India): I would have preferred to take the floor a little later, but as this matter has been raised now, and there is an awkward pause, I agree to be first speaker of the morning. In case I have any further point arising from the discussion, I may crave your indulgence to speak again later.
Evaluation of regular programmes has been under discussion for a long time, and we note with satisfaction that the stage of implementation has very nearly arrived, and in the next Conference at least we hope to see the results of the implementation. Mr. West, in his very brief, concise and informative introduction has referred to a chain of evaluators. First of all the Programme Managers, who are supposed to be continually self evaluating what they are doing. Then we have the Evaluation Service; then JIU; and then the governing bodies themselves. I note that it is not a formalized kind of hierarchy: the governing bodies may have the opportunity to look at what the Evaluation Service itself is doing, without waiting for the external evaluators to comment on the work of the evaluation service.
As this matter has been pending for a long time, we are all eager to see that action is expedited as early as possible - at least, that the basic features of this new activity are clarified within a year or a year and a half.
In this respect, perhaps I should mention something which is perhaps very obvious, and that is the independence of the external evaluator. While the process of self-evaluation continues, it is a day to day activity, and whenever an external evaluator is brought into the picture - and here I mean the Evaluation Service of FAO - it will have to be ensured that it acts in as independent a manner as possible. This should be ensured institutionally, as well as in the methods of work.
With these brief comments, we welcome this new activity, and we have a great deal of expectation of its results.
C. FARRAR (United States of America): If I may ask a procedural question before I speak, Mr. Chairman, are you intending to take the subject of AGRIS which is listed against this item, separately?
CHAIRMAN: Yes, we will have a separate introduction on the subject of AGRIS, because it is a separate item.
At the moment, we are just dealing with Mr. West's report on what the Director-General is doing in response to the request by the 18th Session of the Conference, on evaluation. This is the report, as I said before I had hoped there would be no lengthly discussion of this item because obviously
we must give the Director-General a couple of years experience of it, and the next Conference will be in a better position to ask specific questions. The AGRIS item will be next, after we complete this item.
C. FARRAR (United States of America): Thank you very much. Since I have the floor, I would like to simply acknowledge Mr. West's statement, and the progress made in strengthening the evaluation function, which we very much welcome. There may be some danger in the principal reports under the evaluation heading being divided between the Field Programme on the one hand and the Regular Programme on the other. It would be our hope that in actual practice the Evaluation Unit will look at substantive programme areas, taking into account what is being done both by the Field Programme and the Regular Programme, and relate these to each other. I am sure this can be done, but the division of the reports may tend to work against it.
R.W.M, JOHNSON (New Zealand): I am very grateful for this opportunity to take the floor again. I dare say I owe Mr. West an apology for perhaps introducing the subject earlier than I needed to do, in our discussion the other day. A little background research has confirmed everything he said to me then, and I must say that I am very satisfied with what I have discovered.
In commenting on it, however, I would like to say that I do feel that there is some confusion between programme evaluation and the evaluation of field, programmes and it may be that is where my original confusion arose. I believe that we need to be quite clear about this, that programme evaluation is something that involves some intellectual process with programme managers, and involves them very much in the activity - some kind of desk operation, I suppose - whereas the Review of Field Programmes is a physical thing, requiring visits, experts arriving on the spot, making their assessments and seeing whether the results are satisfactory to the host country. I think there is quite a difference here, and I still remain a little confused about the fact that the one evaluation unit will continue to have both tasks. That still leaves me a little unhappy - but perhaps the administrative problems that will be caused will be sorted out in the next biennium.
By and large, there is a need to maintain a balance between these two activities, and I would not like the Unit once it is transferred, to concentrate entirely on programme evaluation at the expense of field programme evaluation. I thought I was talking about field programme evaluation when I spoke the other day, and perhaps Mr. West may have thought that I was speaking of programme evaluation. I hope I have made it clear now. I do feel that this has to be sorted out properly, because I think that evaluation has to do with reporting to one's masters. In effect this meeting is the Parliament of FAO: we only meet only once every two years, and we must make our case in a very short period of time. I think it is still very important that we see quite clearly what is happening.
After all most of us are civil servants ourselves and our Parliaments meet for six months every year and we have to report on a very much more intensive basis over a much longer period of time and we understand the process involved. It is just a matter of making sure we go through what is required.
CHAIRMAN: Perhaps if Mr. West agrees, as there are three rather pertinent matters raised by three delegates, those could be answered now.
A. LOCHEN (Norway): 1 also would like to thank Mr. West for the introduction of this item. My delegation has only one question. What will be the relation of this new Regular Programme evaluation with the reviews of the divisions that have been taking place for many years in the Programme Committee and the Finance Committee. These results of these reviews were reported to the Council.
E.M. WEST (Assistant Director-General, Office of Programme and Budget): The debate has been very brief but in fact it has touched on all the major issues, some of which have been very difficult and will take some years to resolve. I do not pretend we have the answers because we have not. We are going to find them out in the course of work.
To take the last point first, there is obviously a connexion between what we are now going to try to do and what the Programme Committee has been doing for some time. The conclusion of the Programme Committee in its last Session was that they should continue with their traditional reviews because they were rather different in character. These were general reviews of certain sections of the Programme of Work and Budget which were designed to inform the Council of what was going on and the trends in activities. Perhaps in the course of experience we will find that they can be combined or the Programme Committee reviews can be dispensed with, and the Committee will confine itself to discussing the biennium Regular Programme Evaluation Report.
I thank the delegate of New Zealand for what he said. This links up to some extent with what the distinguished delegate of the USA said. One of the ideas we did discuss with the Programme and Finance Committees and in the Council was combining the two reports, the Review of Field Programmes and the Regular Programme Evaluation Report, precisely because it is important to see the interconnexion between the Regular and Field Programmes, and to give Governing Bodies an idea of whether they are working together or against each other, and which part is more effective.
It was felt that, at any rate, for some time we should continue with the Review of Field Programmes as a separate document. It is an established review; it has been very well received by Governing Bodies in the past. It covers a different range of approaches, some evaluative, some analytical and some almost speculative about trends in Field Programmes. It contains a lot of statistical information and it contains a lot of discussion, whereas at the moment neither we nor you know exactly what the first biennial report on the Regular Programme is going to look like. So we must wait a little while and see how things develop, and then the Governing Bodies will determine how they want the documents changed or combined. We on the inside feel that one of the most valuable things that evaluation can do is to determine how effective Regular Programme activities are in stimulating or supporting the Field Programmes.
Also I think our approach will be somewhat different from the Review of Field Programmes because I am going to try and submit to the Director-General in due course our reports for each of the following main purposes: to see how objectives, means employed and resource allocations should be modified in relation to the programmes as approved by the Conference in order to implement them effectively; to assess the relevance of things which have been going on for years and years and to see if we can in fact dispense with these or shift the resources to other things as a means of improving the formulation of future Programmes of Work and Budget and make them more concrete and more worth the dollars spent on them. Thirdly - and this is very broad of course - try to determine whether programmes (and here I am talking about Regular and Field combined) have been successful and if so why? Or if they have not been successful - why? And how we can improve them in the future? In these matters I do not think that the question of what governments like or do not like is going to be a handicap. On the contrary I think the governments are going to be very cooperative and enthusiastic in helping us because they are conscious of the fact that they are paying the budget as well. These are not dollars that come from heaven; everybody contributes to the Regular Programme, and if we can give them more value for money they will be satisfied. It is not a question of saying “No, this programme has not been successful or has not been economical, therefore you are not going to have more FAO projects in the future..” It is going to be, “we can do better than we have done in the past.” This, I think, will be welcomed. In fact, one of our aims is going to be to determine by questionnaire and other means what Governments really feel about our programmes, not what delegates often say politely in these meetings but what they really mean on the ground. This will be our approach to the Regular Programme and ultimately in a combined report which will emerge.
One thing we must avoid and that is the attitude of the successful surgeon who carried out an appendix operation in front of a lot of medical students. When the patient got back to the ward and woke up he said to the nurse, “Nurse I don't understand; I had an appendix operation but my throat is very sore ”, and she said “Well, you see the surgeon performed an appendectomy so brilliantly that the students applauded tremendously so as an encore he took out your tonsils”. We do not want to be too successful and become arrogant and cut out the tonsils as well as the appendix.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much Mr. West for your reply. I think that this may well complete the discussion on this item. I think we can summarise for the use of the Draft Committee that the Commission and the Conference note the report of Mr. West on behalf of the Director-General, outlining what the Organization will be doing in respect of evaluation as requested by the 18th Session of the FAO Conference. There was a pressing need to emphasize the evaluation of essential areas at both Headquarters and at Field and it will not be dealt with in a water-tight compartment, and the result is a very strong stress on the independence of the extraordinary evaluation which has been done in respect of the evaluation here. That has been strongly stressed by the delegate of India, and that I think completes the item.
We will now deal with AGRIS and the Assistant Director-General in charge of the department of general affairs and information will outline briefly what has been happening in respect of AGRIS activities.
H.W. MANDEFIELD (Sous-directeur général, Departement des affaires générales et de l'Information): Monsieur le President, en 1973 la Conference a approuvé une période expérimentale pour le Système international d'information sur les sciences et la technologie agricoles, à condition qu'en 1977 les résultats d'une évaluation indépendante soient présentés à la 19ème session, avec les propositions du Directeur général sur la base de cette évaluation.
L'évaluation indépendante du Système international d'information pour les sciences et la technologie agricoles, plus couramment connu sous le sigle AGRIS, a eu lieu cette année. Sur la base du rapport d'évaluation, qui est à la disposition des délégations qui le souhaiteraient, le Directeur général a présenté ses conclusions et ses recommandations dans le document C 77/27.
Dans ce document, j'aimerais attirer votre attention sur la chronologie et la genèse, qui remontent à neuf années, résumées sous la forme d'un calendrier graphique de ces neuf années en Annexe I au document C 77/27.
Les conclusions de l'équipe d'évaluation sont résumées aux paragraphes 13 à 24. Les recommandations de l'équipe d'évaluation, au nombre de onze, figurent aux paragraphes 25 et 26. Dans les paragraphes 27 à 33, le Directeur général propose un programme d'action sur la base de ces conclusions et recommandations, et enfin conclut en faisant appel à la poursuite de la collaboration des gouvernements, qui ne nous a jamais fait défaut depuis que ce programme a été conçu et lancé.
Voilà l'essentiel de ce que vous trouverez dans le document C 77/27.
Puisqu'on vient de parler de la nécessité de l'indépendance de l'évaluation, je ne voudrais dire qu'un seul mot: non seulement la FAO ne connaissait pas les quatre membres de l'équipe d'enquête qui ont été désignés par l’Unesco, mais ils ne se connaissaient pas entre eux, ce qui donne une valeur ajoutée à l'unanimité de leurs conclusions.
A notre connaissance, deux autres évaluations, encore plus indépendantes puisque nous n'en avons eu connaissance qu'au moment de leurs conclusions, ont été faites également par la Commission des Communautés économiques européennes, qui a confié cette évaluation au ZADI de Bonn et au PUDOC de Wageningen. Une autre évaluation a été faite également au Canada. Par conséquent, nous avons plusieurs évaluations indépendantes et j'aime à croire que nous n'avons pas été surévalués.
Le deuxième document est le rapport du Conseil, CL 72/REP, paragraphes 51 à 55. J'en citerai deux brefs extraits:
“Paragraphe 53: “Le Conseil souscrit aux recommandations formulées par l'équipe chargée de l'évaluation, ainsi qu'aux actions proposées par le Directeur général; 'il appuie la poursuite d'AGRIS et demande la participation active de tous les Etats Membres à ce programme qui offre un potentiel considérable pour transférer des technologies appropriées, particulièrement dans l'intérêt des pays en développement, et pour promouvoir la coopération technique entre ces pays”.
Paragraphe 54: “... le Conseil s'est déclaré satisfait des résultats obtenus à ce jour, a confirmé l'importance de ce programme pour le développement des infrastructures nationales de documentation agricole et a souligné la nécessité, pour les pays en développement, de recevoir une assistance technique pour la formation de documentalistes...”.
Un débat approfondi a eu lieu au Conseil sur cette question le 9 novembre dernier, et le procès-verbal de ce débat figure aux documents CL 72/PV-2 et PV-3, auxquels la plupart des membres ont sans doute tenu à se référer.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Mandefield, for that good introduction. As Mr. Mandefield has rightly pointed out, AGRIS has been discussed during the last three or four Conferences, so it is not a new item. The Report to the Experts was very thoroughly discussed in the Programme Committee and by the Council and we have a very good Conference document, C 77/27. I hope all delegates commenting on this will deal with specific rather than general points because we do not need another discussion, the Programme is already in operation. The floor is open for discussion. The delegate of the United States was worried about AGRIS being discussed so perhaps he would like the floor.
C. FARRAR (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your courtesy. We have looked carefully at the reports referred to in the introduction and at the proposals made by the Director-General, based on the evaluations.
We concur generally with the findings of the team and support the continuation of the Programme along the lines proposed by the Director-General. It remains true that the requirements of those in the developing countries, who are the ultimate users of the system we are most interested in, must continue to be given primary consideration in assessing its value.
Since the report before us makes specific reference to difficulties over gaining access to the material originating in the United States, we are pleased that in the last issue of the AGRINDEX there are seven thousand or more citations of US material, out of a total of sixteen thousand.
Because of a conversion programme which has been worked out between the National Agricultural Library, which participates in AGRIS from the United States, and the Coordinating Centre in FAO, we expect an even greater contribution will be possible in the future.
V. de ASARTA (Italie): Monsieur le President, la delegation italienne attribue un très grand intérêt au Système international d'information pour les sciences et la technologie agricoles dont au document C 77/27. Mon pays, en effet, a donné son adhésion à AGRIS, par l'intermédiaire de la Communauté économique européenne, dès le début de la période expérimentale de ce système, à savoir dès 1974.
La contribution italienne à l'input sur les bandes de données à la fin octobre se chiffrait à 11 274 items. En particulier, à ce moment, 282 périodiques agricoles et 242 publications scientifiques et techniques sont utilisés pour la sélection des travaux scientifiques et des articles de caractère technique.
Aussi mon pays a collaboré avec la Commission des Communautés européennes à toutes les initiatives concernant AGRIS, y compris une étude d'évaluation du système, exécutée - pour le compte des pays communautaires - par deux centres de documentation et information agricoles, respectivement d'Allemagne et des Pays-Bas (le ZADI de Bonn et le PUDOC de Wageningen).
Afin de faire connaître le susdit système et de vérifier les possibilités concrètes et l'utilité de l'accès à ce circuit mondial d'information en agriculture, des séminaires d'étude et des démonstrations pratiques sur terminaux ont été organisés. Des utilisateurs potentiels ont pris part à ces séminaires et démonstrations, soit au niveau scientifique d'experts des institutions de là recherche ou bien des universités, soit au niveau de cadres intermédiaires (techniques, vulgarisateurs, directeurs et fonctionnaires d'organisations agricoles, etc.).
D'après les activités déroulées jusqu'à présent, aussi bien que d'après les considérations exprimées par les utilisateurs directement intéressés à l'évaluation du système, on a pu remarquer l'intérêt unanime pour AGRIS et son utilité aussi pour l'élargissement des relations avec d'autres pays participants, en particulier avec ceux émergeants.
Pour ces derniers AGRIS pourra représenter une source importante de progrès.
Par conséquent, en harmonie avec ce qui est résulté au sein de la Communauté européenne, il faut souhaiter que les activités d'AGRIS soient poursuivies et améliorées de la part de la FAO, sur la base des propositions déjà mises au point et de celles qui sont en train d'être formulées.
A la suite de décisions specifiques qui seront éventuellement adoptées par la FAO (ou bien par la Communauté européenne), mon pays est prêt à renforcer son apport à AGRIS. En particulier, mon pays pourrait envisager de rassembler aussi la littérature non conventionnelle (le cas échéant moyennant la décentralisation des opérations d'input), tandis qu'il espère améliorer les opérations d'output en utilisant au mieux le personnel qualifié aussi bien que les expériences spécifiques qui ont été jusqu'à ce moment acquises en la matière.
R. PASQUIER (Suisse): AGRIS avait été lancé il y a quelques années comme une opération expérimentale. Il a été évalué de différentes façons mais surtout de manière indépendante. C'est cette évaluation indépendante qui donne des résultats positifs, des conclusions positives de nature à convaincre les pays qui étaient encore assez réticents vis-à-vis d'AGRIS.
Pour notre part, nous considérons AGRIS comme une oeuvre très utile, comme un service public international que 3a FAO est à même d'organiser et pour lequel elle est spécialement préparée puisqu'elle est l'Organisation attitrée pour ce genre d'activité.
Mais nous voudrions faire une remarque qui découle de ce que je viens de dire, c'est que nous avons actuellement un autre programme qui est encore á titre expérimental et qui est le programme de coopération technique FAO. Son évaluation, pour le moment, a été prévue par le Directeur général par les soins d'un consultant qui a été engagé par le Directeur général. Nous considérons cela comme une sorte d'autoévaluation qui est tout à fait justifiée, mais nous pensons que le PCT, pour quitter le stade expérimental, devrait passer également par une évaluation indépendante.
Nous proposons que les pays membres, que ce soit ici à la Conférence ou plus tard au Conseil, examinent cette proposition et la suivent si possible.
D. RICHTER (Germany, Fed. Rep. of) (interpretation from German): We are of the opinion shared by the Director-General that the report of the Independent Appraisal Team gives an adequate picture of the present stage of development of AGRIS. The recommendations of this Team are acceptable to us in principle, and we are also pleased to do this because a number of comments and suggestions which, in earlier discussions, were made by us with regard to the future development of AGRIS, are to be found in the Report of the Appraisal Team. I refer in particular to the refinement of the classification and indexing and the necessary intensification of communications between those centres making inputs and the Coordinating Centre.
In the discussion on AGRIS, we must also point out, from our point of view, that the technical subjects and areas, and the amount of literature convered by AGRIS are not yet up to the requirements of an industrialized country. As far as our own information and documentation systems are concerned, AGRIS is not yet an equivalent. We must consider this to be an additional task which our national documentation centres must carry out.
The value of AGRIS for the developing countries is very different, of course, and this hardly needs to be stressed. Wherever there are no or only inadequate information and documentation services as yet, AGRIS is extremely useful and fills a gap indeed.
In conclusion, I would like to point out that the Federal Republic of Germany will continue to endeavour to participate in the work of AGRIS in the present framework. The contribution of my country in 1977 reached the target of 10,000 documents. Further work on AGRIS, as far as we are concerned, should deal essentially with the improvement of its ability to be used, that is to say as soon as possible AGRIS should reach the operational level so that also income from the publication of AGRINDEX through APIMONDIA should increase.
F.D. MAAS (Israel): First of all we would like to express our thanks to the Committee for the fine work it has undertaken. We would also take this opportunity to thank Mr. Aubrac who has worked well at FAO. As far as I remember, he initiated this AGRIS system which has proved to be of great benefit to many countries.
My country was not on the list to be reviewed, and I regret this because we have a contribution to make not only through our inputs. In Israel we organize mainly the passive side, the distribution of this information, not only to centres and research stations, but an additional list of research may be undertaken.
However, our main concern is with the farmers' side, and we have organized a system in one of our farming centres called the Farm School Centre where the farmer can reach this material. We have a list of more than one hundred fairly intelligent farmers and farm leaders from the professional side who review each edition of the AGRIS publication. This is of great value.
One incidental benefit on the farmers' side was that in a certain way it supervised the scientists, because sometimes scientists can bring in an innovation to something which has already been established by others.
We have one request to make: if possible perhaps a further indication could be given in the publication indicating whether basic research is required or applied on field research. This would make the subject easier to understand and this proposal could be accepted at the outset by the AGRIS bureau.
CHAIRMAN: So far all speakers who have spoken have expressed their support for the Programme. Are there any other views after the delegate of Argentina has spoken?
D.C.P. EVANS (United Kingdom): In fact, I have got two or three points to make. We again, as other delegates have, support in principle the recommendations of the Director-General, but while we welcome the general lines of the reports and fully accept that the team did as good a job as was possible within the time scale, we would have wished for more time to be made available for this preparatory work. This would have enabled a deeper examination of the actual use made of AGRIS by a variety of user nations.
We would also like to inquire about the staffing implications of the report for FAO, since the detailed figures for redeployment of staff indicate a very heavy staff load over the next two years. We wish to be satisfied that FAO think they can without additional resources carry out all the tasks programmed.
As regards training proposals for users, we wish to point out the high cost of training proposed and the need to assure that training is absolutely appropriate to the circumstances of the receiver.
The report, in our view, does not perharps bring out this difficulty sufficiently clearly, and the financial implications in particular are only barely touched on.
We welcome the wide world coverage of the existing AGRIS network, but at the same time I wish to remind delegations of the existence of other major networks such as the CAB and Agri-documentation, which provide much the same spread of information in their respective fields. There is need to ensure as far as possible that the information contained within AGRIS is of real practical value to the user, and perhaps the report skated over this a little bit.
Finally, while accepting the general drift of the eleven major recommendations in the report, I would like to draw attention in particular to the proposals for the production of cumulative indices and the establishment of a list of cereals, R(7), both of which seem to us to involve a very great deal of expense of time and money but for no very clear benefit. The production of our cumulative index on Part 4 rapidly gets out of hand, and the production and continuous updating of a list of cereals is a colossal task, if done completely, while if not done completely is useless.
Sra. Doña A.C. BERTA de ALBERTO (Argentina): Mi delegación desea reiterar, en primer lugar, su apoyo al sistema de información internacional para la ciencia y la tecnologìa agrícolas, ya que sus resultados han sido altamente beneficiosos facilitando a los investigadores y técnicos del sector agropecuario que desarrollan sus tareas con distintas instituciones en nuestro país el mejoramiento de la calidad y el rendimiento de la producción de nuestros productos agrícolas. Este resultado se debe, indudablemente en gran parte, al esfuerzo cooperativo y organizado de los distintos países que participan en él.
Por estas razones,y en vista de las limitaciones presupuestarias existentes especificadas en el informe del Director General, nuestro país apoya el pedido de fondos adicionales, destacando en este sentido la responsabilidad especial que cabe a los países desarrollados de aumentar su participación en concordancia con sus mayores posibilidades a fin de poder mejorar este sistema tan valioso y util para todos.
Con respecto al desarrollo futuro de AGRIS, nuestra delegación quisiera sugerir y recomendar en lo posible la elaboración de normas de procedimientos que aseguren la uniformidad del lenguaje del sistema. En este sentido deseamos expresar que nuestro país está en inmejorables condiciones de colaborar con ese propósito en el ámbito de AGRIS.
Asimismo, quisiéramos destacar también la conveniencia de preparar glosarios multilingües, cuya elaboración podría encomendarse a un número restringido de países, siempre tomando en cuenta, desde ya, los campos de su competencia o especialidad de su región.
Finalmente, y dada la importancia que los sistemas y redes de información revisten para el proceso de transferencia de tecnología entre países en desarrollo, mi delegación desearía señalar el rol especial que asignamos al AGRIS en el marco de la próxima Conferencia sobre Cooperación Técnica entre países en desarrollo que se celebrará el año próximo en nuestro país.
B.de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): Just briefly to indicate our basic support for the conclusions, both of the team of experts and the assessment of the experts' evaluation by the Director-General. We feel that AGRIS has quite an important role to play in the transfer of technology to developing countries in the domain of agriculture.
Within Brazil, we ourselves try to make an effort in order to improve the information and documentation system for agriculture of a system within AGRIS, within the context of AGRIS.
As far as how to proceed from now on, we will agree first that it will be highly desirable that developed countries, in particular the United States, can cooperate more fully with AGRIS - it is essential in our view for AGRIS becoming fully productive as a global system for information.
The second point is that it will be useful to develop one single data base.
The third point is that in our view, we must be quite careful in moving from phase level 1 to level 2 to be sure that actions in level 2 are fully compatible with level 1.
Then we also feel that the National Centres linked with AGRIS must be fully consulted in the development of the system.
Then finally we feel that probably some improvements can still be made in terms of the titles in English of the recommendations and information.
As a general assessment, we would like again to say that we feel that AGRIS' work is particularly important as regards information in the context of a New International Economic Order.
H.W. MANDEFIELD (Sous-directeur general, Departement des Affaires genérales et de l'Information): Je voudrais remercier toutes les délégations des pays développés et des pays en voie de développement qui se sont félicitées du travail d'évaluation qui a été fait et du programme d'action proposé. Nous avons noté les nombreuses observations présentées, nous en tiendrons le plus grand compte, et je puis, dès maintenant, apporter quelques éléments d'information en réponse aux inquiétudes, aux voeux, aux questions qui ont été formulées.
On a parlé de l'importance qu'il y a à affiner le système de catégorisation par sujets, de façon à construire soit un thesaurus, soit un vocabulaire contrôlé, qui faciliteront la recherche des renseignements. Je voudrais dire ici que nous avons, dès maintenant, une première offre d'assistance du Centre de recherche sur le développement international (CRDI) qui est une fondation indépendante établie à Ottawa, et qui est toute disposée à nous aider en vue de perfectionner ce vocabulaire contrôlé. Sans en faire une condition, le CRDI souhaiterait qu'un lexicographe, un spécialiste de la terminologie et du thesaurus et des vocabulaires contrôlés, soit adjoint, par exemple, par un pays francophone, de façon à assurer que ce nouveau vocabulaire tienne compte des différentes langues véhiculaires des systèmes d'information actuels. Nous avons déjà reçu quelques indications positives d'intérêt et d'assistance éventuelle.
Autre exemple: le délégué d'Israël a proposé qu'on distingue les informations de science pure, de science appliquée et de résultats sur le terrain. Il faudra que nous y réfléchissions, mais nous le ferons avec beaucoup d'intérêt dans l'espoir de parvenir à une solution qui permettrait de distinguer ces différents niveaux qui se suivent et ne se mélangent pas.
Le délégué de l'Allemagne a exprimé le voeu qu'on arrive rapidement à la phase opérationnelle effective. Comme j'ai eu l'honneur de le faire remarquer au Conseil, cette phase opérationnelle effective est déjà en train de se créer de façon quasiment spontanée. Nous voyons déjà surgir des réalisations remarquables telles que l'AGRITROP (AGRIS Tropical). C'est une réalisation du niveau d'exploitation, avec fourniture de résumés analytiques en plusieurs langues et traduction automatique: c'est un des exemples de ce qui peut pousser sur ce semis qui s'appelle “AGRINDEX”.
Je suis heureux que l'on ait rappelé le nom de mon prédécesseur et ami, Raymond Aubrac, qui continue à porter à ce système un intérêt paternel ou grandpaternel. Nous comptons toujours sur ses conseils. Il fait d'ailleurs partie du Comité d'experts qui se réunira au printemps prochain.
Le Royaume-Uni a posé un certain nombre de questions et je voudrais confirmer les réponses que j'ai données à certaines d'entre elles lors de la dernière session du Conseil.
En ce qui concerne l'importance de la “formation des utilisateurs”, je voudrais renvoyer le délégué qui a posé la question à l'Annexe II du document C 77/27 (Recommandation): “Formation des utilisateurs”: 20 000 ou 50 000 dollars par séminaire. Cela figure dans la colonne “A financer au moyen de ressources extra-budgétaires”. Nous espérons ne pas manquer d'offres de ce genre, étant donné l'importance de cette formation.
Le même délégué á parlé d'un. Index cumulatif. J'ai le plaisir d'informer la Conférence du fait que cet Index cumulatif est actuellement sous presse, grâce à notre éditeur APIMONDIA, qui nous a lui-même proposé de le mettre sous presse. Il sera, comme on l'a dit, assez coûteux. En ce qui concerne la FAO, il ne le sera pas, puisque nous recevrons 800 exemplaires, que nous distribuerons aux Etats qui
participent à AGRIS, pour le prix de 15 000 dollars, c'est-à-dire un prix de faveur. Notre collaboration avec APIMONDIA a été, au cours de sa première année, exemplaire, et je voudrais rendre hommage à cette Maison d'édition qui nous a pporté un secours remarquable, nous permettant ainsi une importante réduction dans les frais d'édition.
M. le délégué du Royaume-Uni s'est demandé s'il y avait de ce fait quelque augmentation de personnel. Je voudrais le prier de se reporter à l'organigramme “GI” à la page 314 du texte français du document C 77/3 (page 290 du texte anglais). Dans la Division de la bibliothèque et des systèmes documentaires, vous verrez que la totalité du personnel de la Sous-Division des systèmes et projets compte dix postes professionnels, dont deux sont affectés à Vienne. Au total, huit professionnels seulement pour AGRIs. Il n'y a là aucune augmentation par rapport à l'exercice actuel, aucun nouveau poste.
Le Brésil a fait justement remarquer qu'il faut consulter les Centres nationaux pour qu'ils nous fournissent les données bibliographiques concernant la documentation agricole produite sur leur territoire. Nous avons l'intention de convoquer au printemps prochain une réunion des responsables de ces Centres nationaux, en liaison avec la 9ème session du Comité d'experts. Cela est prévu au programme et, là encore, nous espérons que les voyages et déplacements de ces fonctionnaires, du moins ceux qui viennent des pays en voie de développement, seront défrayés par un de nos bienfaiteurs.
En terminant, je voudrais dire que c'est grâce aux Etats Membres qu'en trois ans --ce qui est une période très courte pour une entreprise aussi ambitieuse -- AGRIS a fait ses preuves, a fait ses premières armes et a mérité la confiance des Etats.
C'est grâce aux Etats que son potentiel immense se réalisera et donnera, comme nous l'espérons, les fruits qu'on peut en attendre. Nous nous exercerons sans réserve pour que ces fruits tiennent les promesses des fleurs.
A. FASLA (Algérie): Je demande à la Commission de me pardonner de prendre la parole le dernier alors que les débats étaient presque terminés. Je dirai tout d'abord que nous appuyons le programme AGRIS. Je ne m'étendrai pas sur ce point, mais j'ai quelques brèves questions à poser.
L'information en elle-même est importante, mais elle l'est davantage si elle est synthétisée et si elle permet notamment aux pays en voie de développement d'accéder à la science et à la technologie qui sont nécessaires pour le développement de l'industrie agricole et alimentaire.
Je voudrais demander au Secrétariat si des efforts ont été faits en vue d'accéder aux informations que les Etats ou les grandes sociétés transnationales ne peuvent pas nous donner, ce que le Secrétariat compte faire pour obtenir ces informations au sujet desquelles on se retranche souvent derrière le ''business confidential“- le secret des affaires - alors qu'au niveau des Nations Unies une Commission des sociétés transnationales travaille sur cette question. Au sujet d'autres informations concernant la commercialisation, les impots agricoles et toutes sortes de mesures restrictives, comment le Secrétariat pense-t-il rendre l'information accessible aux pays en voie de développement, information que,pour une raison ou une autre,les pays développés ne veulent pas donner.
Troisièmement, le programme AGRIS pourrait être très important en effet aussi bien à la Conférence sur la coopération technique en pays en voie de développement,prévue l'année prochaine à Buenos Aires, ainsi qu'à la Conférence mondiale sur la science et la technique. La FAO pense-t-elle apporter sa contribution dans ce domaine? C'est ce que je souhaite,et j'aimerais avoir quelques éclaircissements sur cette question.
H.W. MANDEFIELD (Sous-directeur général, Département des Affaires générales et de l'Information): Le secret, c'est l'ennemi. Henri Laugier, un des parents du système AGRIS, a passé une grande partie de sa carrière à lutter contre le secret: les informations que nous publions dans AGRINDEX, que nous enregistrons sur des bandes magnétiques, nous proviennent des centres nationaux de liaison. Le délégué de l'Algérie a parlé des informations que l'on ne veut pas donner. Il existe cependant dans le monde un système qui s'appelle l'enregistrement des brevets. Nous espérons que les brevets entreront, par le truchement des centres d'input nationaux, dans le système.AGRINDEX. A partir du moment où on souhaite protéger une invention, on est bien obligé d'en faire part à un bureau d'homologation des brevets. Nous avons l'intention de poursuivre de plus en plus l'accroissement d'AGRINDEX dans le sens de ce que l'on appelle la littérature non conventionnelle ou non publiée. C'est là qu'il faut cueillir l'information naissante. Mais nous n'avons pas l'intention de faire de l'espionnage industriel, nous n'en avons ni le souhait, ni la vocation, ni les moyens. Il appartient aux Centres nationaux - c'est leur fonction - de nous fournir les informations utiles, soit pour la commercialisation, soit pour les techniques nouvelles. J'espère que tous ces gouvernements veilleront aussi bien à leurs droits qu'à leurs intérêts et à leurs devoirs.
En ce qui concerne les deux conférences que le délégué de l'Algérie a mentionnées, nous y participerons d'une façon très active. La contribution qu'apporte AGRIS est importante précisément pour les échanges d'informations parmi les pays en voie de développement ainsi que pour l'application de la science et de la technique.
A. LOCHEN (Norway): Excuse me for coming in so late on this item. My delegation only would like topropose the report of our Commission on this item comprise a thank you to the APIMONDIA Organization, Romania, for the part played by it in the production and distribution of AGRIS.
Κ. LUMBALA (Zaïre): Etant donné que l'évaluation d'AGRIS a été faite de façon indépendante et que les conclusions de cette évaluation ont été acceptées par le Conseil, ma délégation souscrit à ces vues et accepte les propositions du Directeur général en vue de la poursuite du Programme AGRIS. Mon pays, grâce au Centre de documentation agricole, collabore à l'édition d'AGRINDEX pour la fourniture d'informations sur le Zaïre, de même qu'il exploite celles contenues dans AGRINDEX et concernant d'autres pays 1/.
R.W.M. JOHNSON (New Zealand): The report of the independent appraisal team highlights several of the difficulties experienced by New Zealand in the initial stages. For example, lack of software compatible with the systems used and lack of training in the exploitation of the data-base in machine readable form. It is only since the provision of optical character recognition techniques that New Zealand has been able to provide any input.
In supporting the recommendations of the appraisal team, the following technical points may be useful in evaluating progress:
1. New Zealand can see many advantages in the provision of on-line search possibilities.
2. We consider it vital that the material from the United States National Agricultural Library be included.
3. We would find training sessions on the development and usage of machine-readable data most valuable.
4. A more refined approach to categorisation and indexing is needed. Present categories are too broad for information retrieval purposes and AGRINDEX is useful only for current awareness purposes at present. The use of an agricultural thesaurus would be of considerable assistance in providing a standard vocabulary of terms.
5. Any improvement in the supply of material in answer to requests would be appreciated.
6. Sensitive monitoring of input would be of value as there appears to be considerable variances in formats.
7. Meetings of AGRIS Liaison Officers would be constructive 2/.
CHAIRMAN: Perhaps at this point, if I may, I will try to sum up what will be in the report of this Commission. In general the Commission reiterated its support of AGRIS. It noted the progress and conflagrated participation of those countries whose are already participating and by those who have not started to participate. In principle the Commission has accepted the recommendations of the Expert Group. A number of very pertinent questions and suggestions have been put forth by delegates which have been noted by the Secretariat, and the explanation of Mr. Mandefield has defined what action has been taken in this respect. It was also stressed whilst very good work had been done by AGRIS we should not forget there are other information services which exist, such as CAB etc. in the various languages, and there should be a close cooperation between the various information services. There was also the last proposal put forward. There was emphasis stresssed by the delegate of Algeria with respect to trying to get information from non-governmental sources, in effect private corporations and businesses, and multi-nationals and others. And last, but very important, that the Commission, under Conference, of course, will express its appreciation to APIMONDIA for undertaking the responsibility of publishing Agrarian Index of AGRIS.
__________1/ Texte reçu avec demande d'insertion au procès-verbal
2/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request
I think I have covered everything that has been mentioned touched everything very briefly. The Drafting Group will embellish it, provide the nice language, and make it sound very good. With that thank you very much, we have completed that item.
CHAIRMAN: We now come on to the next item on the Agenda. The next item is the one dealing with decentralization to the country level. This document you have in front of you is C 77/INF/14. Mr. Yriart, the Assistant Director-General in charge of the Development Department will introduce the item. I want to draw attention to the delegations that many of your heads of delegations at the Plenary Session have already made reference to this very subject, and I hope where possible there will not be any general statements, but very specific comments because, in effect, this is a report of the progress to date. If you look at your document here you will find in the summary it says “This document contains a statement of the Director-General's views on the role and functions of the Regional Offices in relation to the strategy of decentralization to the country level. He has promised further reports as appropriate.”
J.F. YRIART (Assistant Director-General, Development Department): This item in the Agenda, Mr. Chairman, is here in great measure because of the priority to the issue that was assigned to it by the 18th Conference which thought that decentralization, and I am quoting, “Was necessary in order to transform FAO into a more effective and efficient agent for development.” The 18th Conference also said, and I quote again, “Decentralization could only be successfully achieved on a step-by-step basis”. I must remind you also, Mr. Chairman, that the previous Conference linked very firmly the questions of decentralization wich the use of national institutions. In the Conference itself perhaps the major stress was put on decentralization at the country level, with FAO representatives fully under the authority of the Director-General as a means of increasing the impact and efficiency of the Organization in developing countries.
Since the 18th Conference, Mr. Chairman, the Director-General presented his proposals to the 69th Session of the Council last July on actual new policies and new methods of work for the Organization, and one of the major proposals made by the Director-General dealt with decentralization. So in great measure, Mr. Chairman, the views of the Conference were in an accelerated manner put under execution by the Director-General.
The Director-General in making proposals to last July's Council examined three options for decentralization. One was to continue.with the programme of expansion, until then Programme of expansion of the Regional Offices. The second was to move the Regional Offices to Headquarters and to change them into comprehensive regional bureaux with responsibility and authority for handling the technical work in all sectors of the particular region. The third proposal was to upgrade the third option - was to upgrade the quality and strength of FAO representation at the country level. In the context of his new policy proposals, and his wish to re-establish the Organization's general approach and methods of work, bearing in mind that at the country level is where most of the action decisions which affect the state of food and agriculture are made, he chose the alternative of decentralization to the country level.
Decentralization to the country level permits to make the great impact where the decisions are made, and also to take fully into account that external aid must be in a form which the country itself sees as complementing its own development programmes and priorities. The Director-General felt in making his proposals that it was not a question of detracting from the importance of the Regional Offices. the Regional Offices are a point of support to the country representatives. They also continue to fill a very important role in regard to regional issues, such as integration movements, regional bodies, etc., which in themselves feed into and feed from the national policies of the governments.
I would like to be quite clear on this issue of the Regional Offices -and you have yourself mentioned, Mr. Chairman, document C 77/INF/14, which is submitted for your information- because in this gradual and pragmatic evaluation of decentralization and execution of the policies approved by the Council as submitted by the Director-General, there will be - shall I say - also a gradual adaptation of the Regional Offices to the tasks as now more clearly defined. These are their own tasks for which they bear major responsibility, in the context of regional action, regional bodies, and integration, and they are equally important supportive actions of the Regional Offices towards representations at country level.
We thought from that point of view that it would be useful to inform the Conference about the adaptation, and in a way strengthening by clearly focussing those matters which are the responsibility of the Regional Offices, thinking also that most probably the Conference - as has already happened - would focus more on the first priority already decided by the Council, when it was authorized to review and approve the representations of the Director-General, which is the question of representation at the country level.
I must add that the Director-General discarded the second option which he examined, which was of working through regional bureaux at Headquarters, thinking that this could hardly provide a closer identification of FAO activities with individual countries. In the policies which are being followed, this identification with the countries, with their plans and priorities, is essential, and to attempt it without a direct link at the country level seems very difficult.
The terms of reference which are known and which were submitted by the Director-General to the 69th Session of the Council, which approved making the country representatives an important element in giving Governments a direct link in the access to and utilization of FAO's Regular Programme also brings to the knowledge of the Governments all the possibilities and the many extra-budgetary programmes which are executed by FAO, and will evidently be helpful to the Governments in their efforts to make better use of these activities as well.
The country representative becomes a vital link in the greater use of national institutions, not only in linking with the institutions themselves, but in the identification of the institutions, for us, for FAO Headquarters, in order to know up to what point we can gradually come more to use the services of national institutions, even in the execution of our Regular Programme.
Needless to say, the building up of the programme of work of this Organization has to rely heavily on the knowledge and understanding of Government plans and priorities, and here again the information from the country representative - from the country to FAO - is most important, and the country representative will be in the main in charge of providing us with this information.
The 69th Session of the Council, in endorsing the Director-General's proposal, agreed that the most effective way of implementing decentralization was to up grade the quality and strength of FAO representation at the country level, providing the offices - which are fully funded by FAO - with the knowledge of all FAO's resources and expertise, properly selected and supported by a small auxiliary staff which can make a valuable contribution to establishing the better links which I have mentioned between a Government and FAO, and even with countries themselves, especially in the rural sector.
The Director-General, in implementing the Council's decision, has I think put forward - or brought about - a core of country representatives, which is the main representative at present of the efforts towards decentralization, and he has done this in a pragmatic approach with regard to the phasing of the new arrangements. This pragmatic approach with regard to the gradual putting into execution of the arrangements was commented on by the Council. The Director-General himself, in his opening statement before the deliberations of this Commission gave you a short progress report regarding the establishment of FAO offices in the countries, and he again described this process of decentralization which is taking place as an evolving and dynamic one. In the general debate on the Programme of Work and Budget, and also when the Commission considered Chapter 3 of the same document, many delegations commented on this process of decentralization through the establishment of FAO representatives. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I have taken very good note of the observations made, and it is my feeling that the direction in which the Organization is moving, and the decisions which have been taken and which are being taken by the Director-General, take fully into account the main policy reorientations that have only now been voiced by the delegations.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. You have heard the introduction by the Representative of the Director-General, and also his last comment, that careful note has been taken of the views expressed in Plenary and other discussions already held. The floor is now open for discussion.
A. FASLA (Algérie): Nous avons écouté en séance plénière la déclaration du Directeur général ainsi que l'introduction qui vient d'être faite sur la décentralisation, notamment au niveau des pays. J'ai beaucoup apprécié l'affirmation selon laquelle l'objectif est de diminuer, de limiter la bureaucratie au Siège pour renforcer les activités sur le terrain. C'est notre conception de la décentralisation, mais quelquefois les bonnes intentions sont dépassées par les événements et par la pratique. Il ne faudrait pas que la diminution de la bureaucratie au Siège aboutisse à la création de bureaucratie au niveau des pays.
Il est certain que dans nos pays nous avons des experts agricoles, des conseillers principaux agricoles qui font du bon travail, mais il est souhaitable, pour les pays qui en font la demande, d'avoir un représentant du Directeur général et que ce représentant puisse assurer aussi bien l'expertise qu'a faite le Conseiller agricole principal, que la charge administrative, diplomatique et protocolaire qui devrait être la sienne, étant donné qu'il devient un élément quelque peu autonome de la représentation en vigueur au niveau des pays dans le cadre du consensus 1970.
J'ai une question à poser: comment se réalisera la coordination au niveau des différentes institutions du système, au niveau des pays?
Nous avons tous, à des degrés différents, des programmes financés par le PNUD, et effectués soit directement par la FAO, soit en coopération avec d'autres institutions.
Notre délégation estime qu'il serait souhaitable que le système qui a fonctionné assez bien jusqu'à maintenant, tout au moins pour l'Algérie, continue, et nous souhaitons que l'autonomie dont disposera le représentant de la FAO permette de renforcer cette coordination et non pas de déboucher sur des tiraillements. Malheureusement, nous constatons assez souvent, au niveau des institutions du système, que chaque institution considère que c'est elle qui fait le travail de choix, que c'est elle l'institution la plus importante pour le programme de développement. Il est important qu'au moment où au niveau du système des Nations Unies on essaye de rendre l'appareil moins lourd, pour économiser aussi bien des ressources humaines que des ressources financières, il est donc important que les représentants de la FAO dans les pays oeuvrent pour assurer une coordination avec les institutions existantes, tant dans le cadre de la représentation du PNUD qu'au niveau national, car dans certains pays comme le notre, la FAO intéresse quatre ministères. Il est donc nécessaire qu'une coordination étroite soit établie entre ces quatre ministères et les représentants du Directeur général.
R. PASQUIER (Suisse): Nous sommes maintenant au point 10.2 de l'ordre du jour qui fait partie de la discussion sur le Programme de travail et budget.
Nous avons pour notre part considéré que la discussion sur la décentralisation au niveau des pays, sur le placement des représentants dans les pays, devait avoir lieu ici, et que les conclusions de cette discussion devaient se répercuter sur la discussion concernant le montant du budget.
Cela dit, je voudrais présenter trois séries de remarques.
Tout d'abord, nous sommes d'un avis semblable à celui de l'Algérie concernant la décentralisation. Notre délégation avait déjà affirmé, à la Conférence de 1975, qu'elle était favorable à la décentralisation, mais à une décentralisation d'activités concrètes, menées sur le terrain, avec un concours accru des institutions nationales, tandis que la décentralisation des bureaux, au niveau régional ou même au niveau national, ne mérite pas, à notre avis la même priorité, même si ces bureaux facilitent, dans une certaine mesure, les activités de terrain. Donc, sur ce point, nous rejoignons tout à fait les craintes de la délégation de l'Algérie.
En second lieu, lorsque nous avons abordé ce point concernant les représentants dans les pays, lors de la discussion précédente sur le budget, l'assistant du Directeur général, M. West, nous avait dit que la discussion sur les avantages des représentants autonomes par rapport aux représentants intégrés n'avait plus d'objet puisque la décision était de toute façon déjà prise.
Nous pensons que M. West était dans l'erreur lorsqu'il faisait cette affirmation, car pour ce qui dépasse les premiers dix-sept représentants dans les pays c'est la prérogative de la précédente Conférence de la FAO de prendre une décision appropriée.
M. West nous a dit aussi que le PNUD avait déjà décidé d'abolir les postes de conseillers agricoles principaux dans les bureaux du PNUD, qu'il le faisait même à un rythme plus rapide que ne le souhaiterait la FAO.
En fait, le Conseil d'administration du PNUD a décidé, en juin 1976, que budgétairement il acceptait la proposition de la FAO de reprendre à son compte le financement des Conseillers agricoles principaux et qui sont également les représentants de la FAO intégrés au bureau du PNUD. Mais cette décision d'ordre budgétaire n'avait pas comme corollaire automatique que ces représentants de la FAO intégrés au bureau du PNUD devaient devenir des représentants autonomes lorsque la FAO les financeraient entièrement.
D'autre part, à ce même Conseil d'administration, il avait été décidé qu'entre l'administrateur du PNUD et le Directeur général de la FAO devaient avoir lieu des discussions, et que le Conseil d'administration pourrait envisager de financer à nouveau partiellement des Conseillers agricoles principaux à l'avenir si la proposition lui en était faite. Donc, il n'y a pas une décision définitive à ce sujet, comme M. West le prétend.
Pour notre part, nous nous joignons aux délégations qui, dans les débats précédents de cette Commission, ont proposé que la mise en place des représentants dans les pays se fasse plus lentement que ce qui a été envisagé par le Directeur général, et qu'elle se fasse en étroite collaboration avec le PNUD pour limiter les frais administratifs. Il y a certainement des frais de télex, de secrétariat, de chauffeurs, etc. qui peuvent être réduits si le représentants de la FAO est intégré davantage au bureau du PNUD, même s'il est payé entièrement par la FAO.
En troisième lieu, nous pensons qu'il est important de définir explicitement les avantages pratiques attendus des représentants dans les pays, par rapport à ce qu'on obtient des Conseillers agricoles principaux en fait de services, car le moment venu, il faudra juger si ces avantages sont effectivement obtenus et s'ils justifient les coûts accrus de cette forme de représentation de la FAO. Il s'agit en effet d'obtenir, pour un coût donné, les meilleurs services possibles.
B.F. DADA (Nigeria): My delegation welcomes the initiative of the Director-General for setting into motion the decentralization of FAO activities to the country level. We would like to stress that the process should be expeditiously carried out. My country notes with concern the undesirable gap that has been created since the departure of the former FAO's Senior and Agricultural Adviser in Nigeria about one year ago. While the appointment of a new FAO country representative is yet to be made, the situation is undesirable and it is adversely affecting both on-going as well as new projects. Some new projects have indeed suffered considerable delay.
It will not be out of place at this juncture to recall that following the recent UNDP Financial crisis the Nigerian Government provided funds to the tune of six million niara or over nine million US dollars to keep the FAO project in Nigeria going.
However because of the gap I have referred to, implementation of the FAO projects has not been as effective as anticipated. This is why my country feels the urgent need for the appointment of suitable FAO country activities for Nigeria. It is hoped that the regional office will assist in correcting the present situation of requiring every small matter to be at FAO Headquarters. The recruitment of field experts for projects, which they now lack, will also be indirectly accelerated.
My delegation feels that in order to improve the relatively poor agricultural and food production in developing countries, the FAO programme could play a vital role in assisting these countries to help themselves. To ensure that this role is properly carried out efficient communication between FAO Headquarters, FAO Regional Offices and the government is important. It is in this light we look forward to the successful decentralization of FAO activities to the country level and my delegation would like this particular aspect to be accorded priority.
J.S. CAMARA (Guinée): Lorsque le Conseil de juin 1976 avait approuvé la proposition du Directeur général, c'est parce que les pays en développement, en apportant leur appui, fondaient un grand espoir sur cette question de la décentralisation dont on parlait dans cette enceinte depuis fort longtemps. Je pense donc que l'inquiétude manifestée par certains pays en voyant que la FAO a un représentant maintenant dans les pays en développement, n'a pas lieu d'exister.
Si les pays en développement ont appuyé la proposition du Directeur général, c'est parce qu'ils sentaient la nécessité d'avoir une représentation autonome facilitant les contacts entre les différents ministères et l'Organisation. Nous sommes pour la coordination avec le système des Nations Unies, notamment dans nos pays, et cette coordination doit être renforcée.
Il est clair également que le rôle de la FAO dans les pays en développement s'avère de plus en plus important, vu la politique même que les gouvernements développent dans les secteurs agricoles. Donc, avoir un représentant autonome ne peut qu'aider les pays à améliorer leurs relations privilégiées avec l'Organisation.
Lorsqu'on parle ici de budget, d'argent, on sous-estime un facteur qui fait qu'on ne peut pas comptabiliser ce que le représentant de la FAO peut rendre comme services aux gouvernements. Donc, ce n'est pas un argument valable pour prétendre qu'il faille arrêter ou ralentir la nomination de représentants. Comptabiliser cela veut dire essayer encore de tirer les dernières cartouches pour arrêter un processus irréversible.
Je suis d'accord avec ce qu'a dit M. West. Il faudrait peut-être que ce soit la Conférence qui fasse les nominations, mais cela ne s'oppose à ce qu'a dit le délégué de la Suisse. C'est un processus qui a commencé. Le Conseil l'avait adopté. On ne doit donc pas dire qu'il faille de nouveau voter sur quelque chose que nous avons déjà décidé. Le Conseil, sur mandat de la Conférence, avait décidé que le Directeur général devait poursuivre dans cette voie.
Notre collègue du Nigéria a dit son inquiétude à propos du fait que l'on n'avance pas. Il a donné son pays comme exemple. On ne peut pas freiner le Directeur général dans le processus d'une mise en application d'une décision des Etats Membres.
Ce que nous pouvons faire c'est, comme l'a recommandé le délégué de l'Algérie, de renforcer la coordination, et que la FAO fasse tout son possible pour que cette coordination soit maintenue au niveau des pays entre les différentes institutions.
R.L. TORRAS (Cuba): Mi delegación, al igual que lo hizo en ocasión de manifestarse sobre el Programa y Presupuesto, apoya la política de descentralización que está llevando a cabo la FAO y creemos oportuno - a su vez - dar nuestro apoyo a las intervenciones que han realizado las delegaciones de Argelia y Guinea.
De acuerdo a lo que ha manifestado la distinguida delegación de Argelia, entendemos que la descentralización si bien tiende a eliminar la burocracia aquí en la sede, lo cual fue apoyado en la Conferencia anterior, no debe ser éste un hecho que motive que esta burocracia vaya a los países o a las Oficinas Regionales.
Otro aspecto es que en ningún momento se ha puesto en tela de juicio que la política de descentralización no ha recibido el apoyo de todos los países - tal y como hemos escuchado - por lo que consideramos que en este sentido la intervención de la delegación de Guinea es muy oportuna, teniendo en cuenta que el Director General cuenta con un marco en el presupuesto ya aprobado en el bienio anterior para realizar estas actividades y nombrar a los representantes en los países, proceso que debería acelerarse. Además, si se tiene en cuenta que en días anteriores hemos escuchado que la representación del Asesor Agrícola Principal del PNUD en los países cesará para finales de año, se hace importante - en este sentido - que la FAO pueda acelerar los nombramientos de sus representantes en los países.
Esto no quiere decir que no se mantenga la coordinación dentro del Sistema de las Naciones Unidas con lo cual mi país está de acuerdo, todo lo cual juega un rol muy importante para que sea más eficaz la descentralización.
En lo tocante al documento que debatimos, el C 77/INF/14, si quisiéramos hacer referencia a lo manifestado en el párrafo 10 y es la coordinación entre los representantes regionales, los representantes en los países y la sede que, si bien en el párrafo 4 se manifiesta cuales son las funciones de las Oficinas Regionales, nos gustaría que se nos apuntaran más en qué forma se va a llevar a cabo la coordinación entre estos tres elementos.
Ahora bien, en lo que respecta al párrafo 11 donde dice que para las agendas futuras de las Conferencias Regionales se van a hacer en consulta con los representantes en los países y la Sede, nos gustaría que se nos explicara si las consultas a los representantes en los países van a estar vinculadas a consultas a los gobiernos de cada región, para así aunar intereses con vista a la confección de las agendas de las conferencias regionales próximas.
En cuanto al párrafo 13 es muy atinado lo que se ha planteado de crear un registro central de todos los fondos fiduciarios que tiene la Organización y que constituyen parte sustancial de los fondos que se destinan a la asistencia técnica en nuestros países; pero sería oportuno que a la vez los representantes de la FAO en los países tuvieran buena información de todo este registro central para que pudieran informar a los respectivos gobiernos, lo cual les sería muy util para la elaboración de proyectos en el futuro.
No queremos terminar, sin señalar que el documento que se nos presenta en general es muy útil y que no cabe duda que la política de descentralización que está llevando a cabo la FAO en los países y sobre todo la ayuda que prestará a los países en desarrollo va a ser de gran utilidad en el futuro.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): First I shall not deliver a lecture on the cencept of decentralization, I would merely mention our view that it is an enormously complex process or exercise. It should always be borne in mind that, speaking, as now, in the context of inputs, we are referring basically to one component of a whole process, the organizational component. Of course, we do not suggest that that component is not very important, we realize its importance hut we wish to stress this point.
We tend to agree with some of the previous speakers that the whole problem of decentralization should be based on a very pragmatic approach which, after all, should start somewhere, and if it is to start by preventing further increases in staff here in Rome at Headquarters, we would certainly welcome the decision which the Director-General has taken.
I would now like to comment briefly on paragraph where the functions of the Regional Offices are listed. Of course, seven out of eight functions basically relate to purely regional activities. However, the penultimate function on the list gives my delegation some concern. As drafted here, it seems to us to be very general, speaking in terms of the Regional Offices' function “to provide technical backstopping and lend political support to the FAO country offices in all their activities”. We are not absolutely sure what that means, “lend political support to the FAO country offices”. What political support might FAO country offices need?
Our main worry here is “technical backstopping”. We do not think it is needed except in some special cases, and to give you an example, the problem which comes to my mind is trypanosomiasis, where some technical backstopping might be provided by Regional Offices. But as it is drafted now, it sounds too general and one might even get the impression that literally all backstopping should be provided by Regional Offices. We do not think so. We would agree basically with the approach described in paragraph 6, we feel it is pragmatic.
We would refer to one point mentioned by Mr. Yriart in his introduction, in paragraph 14 there is the statement that “The use of national institutions is now a part of the policy of decentralization. “We would like to put it even more strongly, perhaps saying that national institutions should be the main avenue of that process.
Anyhow, there is one minor point I would like to mention in regard to paragraph 14 that, particularly in the context of Regional Offices, we should refer not only to national but also to regional institutions.
My last word is on the point raised by the Swiss delegation. It is not our feeling that the decision of the Council could now be questioned on a formal basis, since it was based clearly on the mandate given to the Council by the last Conference. Of course, the Conference, as the supreme authority, could revise, or change the position taken by the Council, but it is not our feeling that such a tendency prevails in our debate.
L. KABUYI (Zaïre): La délégation du Zaire appuie fortement la politique de décentralisation, car dans nos pays, ou d'autres institutions du système des Nations Unies se manifestent de facon autonome, il est nécessaire de prendre la même mesure pour la FAO.
Un représentant de la FAO dynamique dans un pays aide ce pays à- entreprendre les études nécessaires en vue du développement de la production agricole. Il conseille, suggère les actions qu'il serait utile d'identifier et d'élaborer. Il est par ailleurs le conseiller technique des responsables nationaux chargés de l'agriculture.
Dans mon pays, losqu'il s'est agi de créer un bureau de la FAO, les représentants du PNUD n'y ont rien vu d'anormal, ni l'objet d'une concurrence, étant entendu que la coordination est assurée au niveau des pays, même pour des activités entreprises par des organisations ne faisant pas partie de la famille des Nations Unies.
Ma délégation souhaite par contre que tout soit mis en oeuvre pour donner plus de dynamisme aux bureaux régionaux dont on ne sent vraiment pas l'activité au niveau des pays.
En outre, ma délégation appuie la politique de décentralisation, ce qui est une façon de lutter contre le bureaucratie du Siège.
Je tiens à- signaler que les frajs de fonctionnement des bureaux dans les divers pays sont en partie pris en charge par les pays qui en bénéficient.
A.BIN YUNUS (Malaysia): My delegation has studied the documents on the decentralization of FAO activities to the country level, and noted the statements made on this subject.
We welcome and endorse the Director-General's proposal as a positive step in the right direction. Closer and more fruitful contacts between FAO and Member Countries could be achieved through the appointment of FAO Country Representatives. However, we believe that, depending on this, such closer and fruitful contacts could also be achieved by direct links between Member Countries and the Regional Offices without having the medium of a Country Representative, In fact, wherever such an arrangement is possible, it should be in line with the Director-General's determination to minimize bureaucratic hierarchy, apart from a further saving in expenditure.
My delegation wishes to reiterate what has been said earlier on the need to further strengthen the Regional Offices. We believe that the Regional Offices have an important role to play, as stated in document C 77/LIM/14.
S. JUMA'A (Jordan) (interpretation from Arabic): I wanted my name to be deleted from the list of speakers, seeing that colleagues who have spoken before me have said enough on this subject. Therefore, I will only support what was said by Mr. Camara of Guinea and the delegate of Yugoslavia.
I would add one simple remark that the present document is for the clarification of certain information and not to re-open discussions on decentralization or centralization. The document should be taken on this basis and we should not revert to the discussion of subjects which could take up the time of Conference in repetition.
CHAIRMAN: I enjoyed the comments of the delegate of Jordan very much and appreciated his help in asking delegates to remember that this item has been discussed at considerable length so they should try to stick to specific points.
B.de AZEVEDO BRITO (Brazil): My delegation has already indicated on a number of occasions its support for the basic choice of the kind of decentralization that the Director-General is trying to advance, with the emphasis on decentralization at the national level. In this respect, we would like to make a few points.
First, on decentralization at national level, we feel that regional offices and Country Representatives have a very important role to play; therefore, national institutions should be promoted. In saying that, we would also like to give emphasis to the views of national institutions.
We feel decentralization at the country level is not only a question of the appointment of Country Representatives, the real decentralization is in the use of the national institutions of Member Countries, in particular the developing countries. We feel that the use of these national institutions is still very limited. A number of Headquarter's activities could very usefully be transferred to the field and this will be a way of controlling bureaucratic proliferation at Headquarters, although we agree with the Director-General that he has made very great efforts in order to control such proliferation.
On decentralization at the regional level, we would like to advance a few observations. We agree that the regional offices have a very important role in promoting cooperation among governments on common problems and identifying areas for common action. On the other hand, we feel that possibly more could be done in cooperation with regional bodies, not only the regional economic commissions but also - in accordance with each region - with the regional institutions specifically geared to the promotion of agricultural development.
For instance, in Latin America we have the Inter-American Institute of the Agricultural Science which has very important work to do. We would like that Institute to be associated more with the work of FAO, and for us this is an important point.
On the vexed topic of regional field projects, the degree of involvement of the Regional Offices is something we have to approach carefully, if we do not want to develop a kind of mini FAO's, which paragraph 19 of the document mentions. There must be a certain degree of involvement, but we feel, possibly depending on the projects, the main backstopping has to be at Headquarters, if we do not want to have a number of small FAO's spread by each of the regions. This is possibly one point which deserves our attention.
Like our colleague from Yugoslavia, I do not quite understand the reference to “political support to the FAO country offices” provided by the Regional Offices. Reference to this is made in paragraph 4, and probably there is an obscurity of language here which Μr· Yriart could surely clarify when he speaks. Those are all the points I wish to make at this stage.
F. D'ALMEIDA (Bénin): J'appuie fortement l'intervention des délégués du Brésil, de la Guinée et de la Yougoslavie.
Je voudrais insister sur le role que doit jouer le Bureau régional. Nous pensons qu'à notre niveau, c'est l'organisme qui nous permet le plus de nous retrouver au niveau régional et qui permet d'harmoniser et connaître les problèmes agricoles au niveau de la région. Nous pensons que dans le cadre du commerce régional, étant donné que le commerce est plutôt vertical, c'est par le Bureau régional de la FAO que nous arriverons à faire un commerce horizontal; nous arriverons ainsi à commercer entre nous.
Nous souhaiterions que, dans le cadre de la décentralisation, la région Afrique soit renforcée, de façon qu'on s'occupe réellement des relations entre les différentes organisations régionales.
Nous demandons aussi qu'il y ait au niveau régional des projets communs à plusieurs pays et nous pensons qu'il appartient au Bureau régional de coordonner ce genre d'activités et de promouvoir ce genre de coopération dans le développement agricole.
Y. LIKE (Ethiopia): We all know that agricultural production during the Second Development Decade of the United Nations fell far below the 4 to 5 percent annual gross it expected to roughly around 2.8 percent, and, even worse, during the 70s it fell even below that which took place within the Second Development Decade to about 1 percent. Some of the analysis that can be put behind this is not only the shortage of financial availability, particularly to developing countries, but also the lack of proper liaison between FAO and the respective developing countries, and one cannot enhance or improve this situation without strengthening and expanding Country Representatives, and yet we hear here some delegates say that country representation is growing faster than expected.
We do know during the 18th session that a gradual decentralization was necessary, yes, but our problem here is to find out how gradually this was meant to take place at the time. We think that the 47 Country Representatives planned for the coming biennium is, while we appreciate the Director-General's step in this direction, the minimum that should be achieved during this decade, and therefore I would strongly like to support what Guinea, Algeria and Cuba said earlier on this, although a lot of others have also stressed the importance of such Country Representatives.
A.Z.M. SHAMSUL ALAM (Bangladesh): We consider that decentralization of our activites at the country level is an appropriate step in the right direction. The first step in this connexion is the appointment of Country Representatives in all the Member Nations, but that is taking time, and as we understood during the previous discussion, it takes around a year to finalize appointments of Country Representatives. In this connexion, we would like to offer a suggestion. The process of appointment of a Country Representative may be expedited if the personnel, those who are working in the government, are taken on deputation, if every country is asked to make a nomination of 5, 6, 7 persons, and out of them, FAO selects one or two, one from each country, so in that case perhaps the process would be simpler, and it is easy also, if the persons are not considered satisfactory, and if they are not doing their work well, they can go back to their own government. If FAO directly recruits, after appointment, somebody becomes a permanent liability, and even if he is not good enough, he has to continue, even sometimes if he outlives his utility, he cannot be got rid of, but if the persons are selected from the government in different countries, there is a certain advantage.
The second point we want to make in this connexion about decentralization is that sometimes appointment of Country Representatives does not help that much. These Country Representatives, we find, whenever sometimes the representatives of FAO visit different countries, they move from ministry to ministry, from desk to desk, not knowing whom to contact, and we want to put forward a suggestion that we may request the governments in different countries to name some liaison officers of every ministry with whom the FAO Country Representative will have to deal. For instance, in our country, our Ministry of Agriculture is a different ministry, food is another ministry and rural development another ministry, and there are officers at various levels, so if the countries would nominate or name some liaison officers with whom the FAO Country Representatives will maintain regular liaison contact, his job becomes easier.
Thirdly, as we want to decentralize and we want to activate, the one bottleneck is a communication gap, what FAO is doing and where it can help and where the countries can ask for help. These things are not very much known. We want to suggest that some more small booklets be issued containing information material about the activities of FAO and the field in which FAO conducts activities and the technical work. Lots of booklets may be written and distributed in large numbers so that the various officers on various levels in the country are aware of the activities of FAO and can take advantage of them.
Another point we want to make is about decentralization of information regarding AGRIS. Under the present system, if any information is sought from the central office, it takes a pretty long time to get the information, and maybe the same type of information is wanted by a number of persons. We suggest that whatever articles or books are in our information bank, if copies are made and distributed to Member Countries and kept in one national library or an agricultural university library, any library nominated by the government of the country, and if whatever materials are now at Headquarters, these are given to the country governments. In that case, the reference to the Central Information Agency here would not be necessary and sometimes, maybe somebody who is working or writing an article, and needs that information and he gives a requisition for this, by the time he gets this information he has finished his article, so it becomes useless. If in the country headquarters, at least in one place, all these materials are available, then the reference to FAO Headquarters for the materials referred to in AGRIS would not be required and they would get it from there.
Lastly, it is hoped that with the decentralization of FAO activities to the country level, we hope FAO will be more active in its unending pursuit in the struggle for a better life and the eradication of hunger and malnutrition.
G. LYAKOV (Bulgarie): La delegation bulgare estime que le Programme de travail et budget pour 1978–79 met particulièrement l'accent sur le besoin d'une intensification des échanges entre le Programme régulier et celui du terrain, en orientant les activités et les ressources vers les réalisations concrètes de nouvelles grandes priorités adoptées par l'Organisation.
Ma délégation constate comme positive et opportune la nouvelle orientation de l'effort de la FAO à l'égard des pays membres par une intégration toujours plus poussée de l'assistance technique fournie par l'Organisation, compte tenu des priorités établies par les programmes nationaux pour le développement de l'agriculture des pays en voie de développement, par la mise en oeuvre de l'utilisation accrue des institutions nationales des pays membres et par la décentralisation au niveau des pays.
La délégation bulgare félicite donc pleinement la continuité du choix délibéré auquel elle a contribué par sa position constructive lorsque, il y a deux ans à peu près, ces nouvelles priorités d'action avaient été lancées par le Directeur général, priorités qui sont devenues la base des propositions du travail et budget de l'Organisation. Ceux-ci poursuivent d'ailleurs plus loins dans la même voie et formulent des propositions pour lier davantage les activités de l'Organisation et apporter son concours en vue d'assurer le soutien permanent et accru de la production agricole et alimentaire dans les pays en voie de développement.
Pendant la période située entre la 18ème et la 19ème sessions de la Conférence générale, le travail efficace et coordonné du Directeur général et du Conseil ont abouti à des propositions appropriées à l'utilisation accrue des institutions nationales et à l'établissement de bureaux de représentants dans les pays en voie de développement.
En tant que membre du Conseil à ses soixante-neuvième et soixante-dixième sessions, la Bulgarie a partagé et appuyé les considérations et les propositions sur les problèmes concernés et leur renouvelle aujourd'hui son appui.
Ma délégation note avec satisfaction l'attention dont font l'objet l'utilisation des institutions nationales et le programme de coopération technique comme éléments dynamiques et qualitativement nouveaux du Programme ordinaire et du programme de terrain. Elle approuve et soutient le recours dans des proportions accrues à l'utilisation des mêmes institutions pour des tâches multiformes et pour les activités différentes des programmes de terrain qui correspondront mieux aux nouveaux besoins des pays bénéficiaires.
La délégation bulgare fait sienne la suggestion exprimée dans le paragraphe 2.131 du rapport du Comité du Programme en ce qui concerne les tendances positives dans la coopération technique et l'adaptation des méthodes de la FAO pour leur faire une plus large place dans l'action de l'Organisation au niveau des pays, ainsi que pour l'ajustement des politiques, programmes et méthodes de travail de la FAO au niveau régional dont on s'occupera dans les années à venir.
Ma délégation estime que l'avis susmentionné du Comité du programme, ainsi que l'accord renouvelé du Conseil à sa soixante et onzième session - paragraphe 137 du rapport - sur l'accroissement prévu de l'emploi des institutions nationales et de coopération dans le cadre de tous les programmes de l'Organisation, méritent d'être pris en considération en vue de l'approbation de l'approche proposée sur la décentralisation.
En partant des propositions du Programme de travail et budget pour 1978–79, et en félicitant le Directeur général pour l'approche intégrée des objectifs majeurs de l'Organisation, ma délégation pense qu'à l'avenir on aura recours à un plus grand nombre de pays membres et à leurs institutions nationales pour réaliser les actions du Programme ordinaire et de celui du terrain.
En réaffirmant sa position claire et continue, la délégation bulgare estime nécessaire d'ajouter que le pays dispose des institutions nationales pouvant assumer différentes tâches comme la formation de spécialistes à tous les niveaux - par des cours, séminaires de brève durée et des cours de moyenne etlongue durées - dans les domaines de la chimie agricole, de la planification, de l'économie et de l'organisation de coopératives agricoles. Nos instituts nationaux de recherche peuvent apporter leur collaboration aux divers programmes sur le contrôle de l'érosion, la restructuration de la fertilité des sols et l'amélioration de la nutrition animale.
L.H. SMITH (Barbados): I would like to make three short points. One is that the Barbados delegation supports the process of decentralization, decentralizing the activities of the FAO, but we would hope in the process we do not have a mere transfer of staff and bureaucracy from the central office here in Rome to the various territories to which they would be assigned, and we hope careful selection would be made of persons to the offices of the Country Representatives. We would expect such persons to be able to work effectively, not only with UNDP Regional Representatives and local officials, but such persons should be prepared to familiarize themselves with the whole range of Technical Assistance Programmes and advise on how the FAO may be able to back up, or assist, in all these other Technical Assistance Programmes. Further, I think it is ultimately important to recognise unless there is a greater involvement by local and regional institutions in the work of FAO, and the FAO programmes, then it cannot be said we would achieve any decentralization without this process.
HA DONG (Vietnam): Puisque je prends la parole pour la première fois, ma délégation s'associe aux précédents orateurs pour vous féliciter de votre élection, M. le Président, et de la façon dont vous conduisez les débats; ainsi nous sommes certains que notre Commission mènera ses travaux à bonne fin.
Nous avons consacré beaucoup de temps pour examiner avec soin de très importants documents qui nous ont été distribués, et nous avons écouté avec beaucoup d'attention les sages opinions émises par les délégations amies.
Nous pouvons dès aujourd'hui assurer de notre appui total les propositions du Directeur général en ce qui concerne la décentralisation, la nouvelle orientation, le montant du budget et son utilisation, les mesures en vue de réduire les frais, et la Conférence mondiale pour la réforme agraire et le développement rural.
Le Vietnam, pays en développement particulièrement touché par la guerre, a besoin de fonds, de cadres, et de technologie. Nous concentrons tous nos efforts sur l'agriculture et l'alimentation pour augmenter le bien-être de notre peuple. La FAO, qui nous a déjà assistés efficacement, en même temps que les autres organismes internationaux, pourra nous être très utile en mettant davantage l'accent sur la formation des cadres, sur la documentation technique et sur l'organisation des échanges d'expériences entre les pays membres sur des sujets très concrets. Sur ce plan, notre pays pourra apporter sa modeste contribution. Mais lorsque se présentent des difficultés d'urgence, la FAO pourra apporter rapidement son aide par le Programme de coopération technique, comme elle l'a fait jusqu'ici, mais nous souhaitons que ce soit sur une plus grande échelle. A notre avis, la décentralisation pourra accélérer le processus de coopération par le fait que les représentants auront la possibilité de connaître plus vite la situation sur place.
CHAIRMAN: I have one more speaker. I would like to close the discussion and debate on this subject now. We have had a lengthy discussion. I would like to give the floor to Mr. Yriart. I am going to close the discussion until we hear from Mr. Yriart. If there are questions after, and response to his comments, we will then go back to discussion.
Β.E. MATAMOROS HUECK (Nicaragua): Siendo la primera vez que veo a usted presidiendo esta Comisión, deseo felicitarle por la importante elección de que usted ha sido objeto y además tomo con mucha atención los comentarios que usted hizo en su primera intervención al Presidente de esta Comisión, de que al final de esta reunión haya aún conservado su buen humor.
En cuanto al Documento C 77/14 que estamos considerando, nosotros apoyamos su concepto general en cuanto consideramos que las actividades de la descentralización de la FAO, constituye un nuevo enfoque que orienta las actividades de esta Organización hacia una mayor actividad en el campo.
En cuanto a las actividades y atribuciones que tiene el representante regional de la FAO, nosotros compartimos las mismas en sus aspectos generales. Sin embargo, nos parece que en cuanto se refiere a que sus atribuciones son promover la cooperación entre los gobiernos, debería también reforzar la cooperación ya existente entre ellos, y en relación a la misma, nuestra delegación desearía una aclaración de parte de la Secretaría en cuanto se refiere a las funciones y atribuciones del representante regional, que nosotros entendemos como el mayor representante de estado en la región de carácter técnico.
Aquí se dice que deberá ofrecer apoyo técnico y político a las oficinas de la FAO en los países. Mi delegación entendía que las atribuciones de la FAO y su competencia eran decidir en cuestiones de carácter técnico. No sé si la expresión aquí de carácter político se refiere a elaborar las políticas dentro de la competencia técnica. Lo que me parece es que debería puntualizarse este concepto.
En cuanto al párrafo 11 del documento, me parece que es muy pertinente que se elabore en colaboración con los representantes de los países en la región la agenda de las conferencias regionales, pero consideramos también que sería muy oportuno que se hiciera mención a la participación que en la elaboración de la agenda pudieran tener los gobiernos en ese sentido, pues creemos que son el sujeto y el objeto directamente interesados en la elaboración de los temarios.
En cuanto a las actividades de los fondos fiduciarios, me parece oportuno y conveniente, en cuanto creemos que sirven a asegurar la disponibilidad de recursos y también la existencia de un catálogo o centro de información respecto a los proyectos ya existentes para dar mejores orientaciones a los países y al mismo tiempo se ahorran recursos.
El párrafo 14 nosotros lo apoyamos plenamente,y creo que también no solamente es necesario reformar las instituciones nacionales, pero también aquellas subregionales, pues sabe muy bien que en América Latina, mi región, característicamente existen este tipo de oficinas. Por supuesto, consideramos que las condiciones económicas de las regiones deben tener un papel muy importante que desempeñar, sobre todo con la general actividad que se puede crear en cooperación con la creación del FIDA que esperamos.
J.F. YRIART (Assistant Director-General, Development Department): I would like to start with the Regional Office, which is a subject very near to my heart. I think, Mr. Chairman, that as I said in the introduction we sincerely have no doubt that the Regional Offices are becoming more important, because their tasks are better defined, and in defining better their tasks they will also be better able to use their resources. I would also like to remind you, as it is mentioned briefly in the document before you, that we continue, and I think with improved efficacy, to do unified programming work with the Regional Offices, where after the elaboration of the Programme of Work and Budget all the technical divisions and the departments and the Regional Offices take a unified look at the action to be carried out, and there is an inter-change of resources where the Regional Offices can call on divisions and divisions can call on the Regional Offices. This means an increased technical capability at the regional level. This increased technical capability at the regional level, what we hope, and we are doing already - the experience is small, after all there are still few Country Representatives - is that we can also plan it, or schedule it to support the Country Representatives, and this is what I have called the supportive function of the Regional Offices.In each country it is not a question that with regional resources of FAO we shall be able to deal into any field, but it is quite clear in the dialogues of our Representatives with the governments that there are certain sectors, or certain problems beyond those where we are probably executing already, projects where the governments would like some additional assistance.That may go only as far as identification of problems and preparation of projects, or it may go beyond into what could be a very small scale, very short perhaps emergency assistance to solve a concrete solution. That point of view I will recall to you; that there is another tool of work which is the Technical Cooperation Programme, which is also small scale, and a programme devoted to taking into account emergencies, things that cannot be otherwise planned but that in being taken care of at the moment, represent an important help to the government. The Country Representatives, the Regional Offices, will play an important role in helping governments best to use this instrument provided by the Organization. I would agree, Mr. Chairman, that we are not thinking at the time being, and I think that it would take a considerable transformation of the Organization before we could think, or even if we decided that it were proper, to back-stop our field
activities technically from Regional Offices. This is not what we are doing now. There has been a certain pragmatic approach to back-stopping, when possible, regional projects from Regional Offices. This has been mostly put into practice in the case of the Near East Cooperative Programme for specific reasons, because the programme carries also resources that have allowed us to strengthen the Regional Office. We have looked with sympathy, always considering what is the best solution. We have looked also with sympathy into the fact of letting Regional Offices execute or back-stop regional projects if the Headquarters of the project is at the same place as the Regional Office, otherwise it becomes very difficult. But we are very pragmatic about these things considering. Nevertheless, the main back-stopping function by far, technical back-stopping, is done in our system from Headquarters.
Looking at the regional second grade part of the functions of the Regional Offices, the regional part of the offices, I had hoped to have clarified this in my statement, that while system-wise the Regional Economic Commission, and with most of them joint divisions, joint agricultural divisions, which in a way come under the jurisdiction, on behalf of the Director-General, of the Assistant Director-General Regional Representative, so these Regional Economic Commissions are in the family structure a main object of the attention of the Regional Offices.
In the case of the Far East, the Director-General, in agreement with the executive sector of the Regional Commission, in a policy of trying to evolve systems in order to be more efficient, decided a few months ago to phase out the Joint Agricultural Division, and other arrangements have been made instead whereby, apart from those resources remaining in the Regional Office, the whole of the Regional Office works jointly in the aspects of rural development and the work of the Regional Commission, and this has proved very effective, but I assure you - as I have already said - that the Regional Offices are equally active and equally responsible for all other work with all other regional organizations. The delegate of Brazil mentioned the case of IICA, the Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences, which does most important work in Latin America, and with which the relations of the Organization as a whole and the Regional Office are especially close. We are also equally close with the integration movements in Latin America, where we have projects, and where we participate very closely in the agricultural sector work, and where the leadership corresponds to our Regional Office, very frequently with inputs from budgets carried out with extra-budgetary funds, at other times inputs from the Regular Programme - so the question of integration is very important.
I am embarrassed about the word “political” because, as the Chairman has mentioned beaurocrats, I think it is a beaurocratic dream. Perhaps it is the way we have tried to define the fact that undoubtedly the Senior Representative of the Director-General in the region is the Regional Representative, who is an Assistant Director-General - a member of the Director-General's immediate family - and, without detracting at all from the direct representation link that the country representative has with the Director-General, I can tell you that for major issues of policy of the Organization, evidently very frequently - not “very frequently”, that I think is wrong - but the Country Representative can well call on the Regional Representative to support him as well. The Director-General may very frequently see significant issues to be discussed by the Regional Representative with his Government. We of course agree that the Country Representative must be kept fully involved.
I would say that possibly in our beaurocratic realm this system of dealing with policy issues by very senior staff is the nearest we come to “politics”, and that is why that word is there. But I do not think that there is any other meaning than those policy issues, which involve the senior representative of the Director-General in the region.
Of course, I would like to say that when we mention “regional” organizations and “regional” integration movements, that brings in another facet of the work of the Regional Offices, where they have always been especially strong, and we have to have them properly staffed, and that is the question of trade, which is very frequently more adapted to work by the Regional Offices than by the Country Representative, who has only a more limited outlook of the Government to which he is acredited.It is true, we find, that in most regions there is considerable cohesion on policies, and certainly on objectives and aims and that the Regional Offices of FAO are doing very good work, in very strict coordination with the Regional Economic Commissions as well as the FAO Headquarters Commissions.
I said that perhaps the more important of the two main functions of the Regional Officers will be the back-stopping of the Regional Offices, the Country Offices, the Country Technical Work. But let me also say that the Country Representatives in their turn at certain points will be agents of the Regional Representative, especially in matters connected with regional work, in any relations with inter-regional organizations, with studies, with projects of regional importance, with subjects such as the question of trade, etc The Country Representatives will represent the Regional Office in many issues, in conversations, in dialogues with the Government, within the scope of a Regional Commission.
The same is true of the organization and especially of the preparation of the Regional Conference, which is of course of interest to various delegations. We have always thought that the Regional Conference should be very carefully prepared and I am even speaking of pre-agenda work, where the Regional Office of FAO has a very important function in trying to identify with the government, on issues which really lend themselves to more successful treatment at the regional level. This is part of the practically everyday activity of the Regional Representative. The day that the Regional Conference finishes, not only does he usually have a mandate with regard to future Conferences, but part of his work is always oriented to the identification of these regional issues.
We look in the future to the Country Representative, whose use will be fully ours, to play an important part in assisting the Regional Representative in this labour.
I do not think I have anything further to say about national institutions, except what I said at the beginning, that the use of national institutions is part of the essence of this approach to decentralization. The strength of our representation at the country level will in great measure be tied to the close work relationships that we can have with national institutions. This is at the country level; but equally, the presence of the Country Representative will be the biggest effective possibility that we will be able to identify and to actually achieve relations of collaboration with national institutions in developing countries. Coming from a developing country, I know very well that while it is frequently easy to identify the various issues, national institutions of developed countries who have great experience can be of great help to us. I know that the whole membership of the Organization, on many issues within FAO, in the thinking, in the philosophy of the United Nations, who have national institutions of excellence and special capabilities in the developing nations, can also participate in backing up international work. These facts are not very well known to everybody at the beginning, and from that point of view the accreditation of a Country Representative will give us a close link and a knowlege of the national technical, scientific and economic sectors and their institutions, which, I think, should in the not too far distant future greatly reinforce the use of national institutions from developing countries.
There has been some concern on the part of the delegations with regard to coordination at the country level, and also with the relationship of the United Nations at the country level, and I personally am very involved in my work with these issues. I would say that most delegates, when they speak about relationships between the members of the United Nations family at the country level, are asking us “how do you get along with UNDP?” and that is natural, because, in the work of the Organization, including technical assistance projects, the UNDP associated programmes are still the largest in any one single country.
May I say that with regard to coordination, the position of the Director-General is very firm. It is very firm in the United Nations system and it is a very firm relationship with his staff, and the coordination is a function and a responsibility of the government. In truth, if the government does not exercise that function, it cannot be replaced with an external element; and certainly not a foreign organization no matter if the government is a Member Government of the Organization, this is a prerogative of the government, and anything we can do to facilitate the government using this authority, should, I think, be done.
With regard to the UNDP associated programme: the Member Governments of the United Nations have agreed on a document called “The Consensus”, which among other things establishes the elationship between UNDP and the specialist agencies and programmes of the United Nations. There the role of the United Nations resident representative is defined as one of primus interpares, and this is a role to which the agencies adhere. In the discussions which have taken place during the phasing out of the old scheme and the establishment of the new scheme of Country Representatives, this principle that the resident representative of UNDP is primus interpares is one that has never been argued, this is the accepted principle.
I would like to call to your attention - as I have already had a chance to do in the Council - that the relationship of the FAO representative with the UNDP resident representative, and vice versa, is in a rather detailed and very satisfactory manner described in two documents. One is a letter from the Administrator of UNDP to his resident representatives, dated 10 November 1976, and the other is the pertinent paragraphs of the Letter of Appointment and Instructions that the Director-General issues to each Country Representative as he is appointed - those paragraphs on relationships with the resident representatives. In both cases, there was full consultations. The Administrator of UNDP presented the text of his letter for study by the Director-General, and that text was agreed upon by both of them. In the same manner the passage pertaining to the relationship of our representatives with the UNDP representative was submitted to the UNDP Administrator, and agreed by him.
There is a document which was submitted by the UNDP Administrator to his Council Meeting last June where ther is in one of the paragraphs this sentence which pleased me very much where the Administrator said he was happy to report to his governing council that there had been a meeting between the Director-General and himself on the relationship between the country representatives and the resident representatives.
With regard to coming together to be more efficient in favour of the country where the representatives are accredited, and that applies again to relations with UNDP, there is an understanding between the Director-General and the Administrator of UNDP that whenever possible physically and economically -because there may be limitations of the existing premises etc. - we shall try to have both representatives in the same premises, and we feel no difficulties in sharing certain services and sharing the cost of those services. Sometimes the difficulty stems from the fact that incoming FAO representation is staff-wise a little larger than the office of the Senior Consultant Advisor is to be, so you will find they will not fit into the premises that UNDP have and UNDP will not necessarily move so that we can come in, but there are places where they are together, and the goal is, if possible, when anybody has to move, to try and come together and also share certain services and bring the costs down.
I would like to say again Mr. Chairman, that the question of coordination within the whole UN system is a matter always under very active consideration and this is a matter that is considered in the Inter Agency Advisory Board, - what we call the IACB, which is chaired by the Administrator of UNDP and to which all the heads of agencies belong, and also in the Programme of Work Group which is chaired by UNDP and to which the other agencies belong. Last year it was reported Mr. Chairman to the Programme and Finance Committees (the Conference has their reports), and we have a report of the joint inspection unit on the question of country programming, and it is perhaps one of the little stages where most clearly all the details of a favourable coordination within the UN system appear. The joint inflation unit had many many recommendations, many observations to make, and I must say Mr. Chairman, that all the agencies and the UNDP agreed on joint comments to this report. So I would say this briefly as showing you that the spirit of trying to come together at the country level in order to enhance the usefulness to their government is so prevailing that to an external documentary evaluation of the practices of coordination of country programming etc.which sometimes in a way - although it is not a proper term, in a way place one against the other, because it would say the Agencies do this and UNDP does not and vice versa, nevertheless the Agencies and UNDP have come together and have been able to have a joint approach.
On the question of the - shall I say risen establishment of our country representatives and how did we first start speaking with UNDP about our country representatives, and what relevant importance could financial matters extraneous to that issue have had, let me say that with regard to the rhythm of the establishment of the country representatives, that the credit requested in the Budget by the Director-General is a well considered proposal which we feel takes into account not only the interest, the growing interest, - and at what speed is this interest growing and being represented by governments, but also certain bottlenecks that we find in the governments themselves in coming together with the Organization to establish these offices. It also takes into account our own possibilities in establishing, in recruiting the proper people, - because this is a fundemental decision the candidate we are going to present, - and it also takes into account a very practical view of how we can gear ourselves to give full support to that new office. We have seen Mr.Chairman and we are happy to state, because as you know the Budget estimates have to be worked on several months ahead of your meetings, and the figures that we ask you to authorize are now several months old, but I can tell you that of today we feel confirmed in our estimation, and our estimation taking duly into account all these factors, that we have mentioned is that we, the governments, want - we can say the opposite and whatever you like, - that they establish about one country office per month. This does not mean every month we establish one, but in the course of the year this is the average it is coming to. This would mean, Mr. Chairman, if this were absolutely true that by the end of the biennium we are now considering we would be slightly ahead of the credits we have, but we do not think so because there are delaying factors always.
May I mention the delaying factors. I have heard with interest and have noted it, and I have noted it not only from the policy point of view but also from the national point of view, and because there are cases in conversation with government established offices and I have heard some of the distinguished delegations that are concerned with delays, and I would make a joint appeal Mr. Chairman that they help us in establishing offices, because these offices of FAO are offices that due to the various interests of the governments and the really large activities of the countries which cover countrywise several sectors (although in FAO's definition it is always agriculture), there are various authorities in the government who are connected with the establishment of these offices, and from this there stems delays, delays at the country level.
But we are responsible for other delays, we have our own; but there are delays at the country level because there is to be born a real clearance and coordination between the different ministries before they accept the country representative. So not all the delays are ours, and we think and again I repeat, that the Budgetary provision, the percentage, which will mean we will end 1978/79 Biennium with 47 country representatives is approximately the amount of the credit that we have requested.
May I speak for a minute Mr. Chairman, about the question that the distinguished delegate of Switzerland was concerned about as to the financial history and the replacement of the SAA by the country representatives. Let me first put this in perspective, Mr. Chairman. The Director-General had a mandate from the 18th Conference to study the establishment of FAO country representatives fully under the authority of the Director-General of FAO and fully funded by FAO. This came, I was going to say, but it is not quite true, before any financial crisis of UNDP, but on this the financial crisis of UNDP had nothing to do because if you remember Mr. Chairman, it was unfortunately during the 18th Conference that this crisis in liquidity at the moment was known, and discussions in Commission II had already taken place and the recommendations of Commission II had already taken shape before anything was known. So this is where FAO was oriented from the minute that the Conference ended, to stop and consider as a study of the establishment of FAO country representations. It is in our dealing with UNDP, I must say, that in the question of phasing out of the SAA/FAO country representatives and the setting up of new offices there has been great harmony of FAO with the administrator of UNDP and his staff, and the phasing out and bringing in of country representatives is a matter of continuous dialogue, and with regard to con-tinous sources there is almonst a joint bookkeeping - not that I am a bookkeeper; I make mistakes. When my colleagues are speaking of FAO offices in months or years, or country reports on SAA in months or years, this is how our colleagues in UNDP and FAO keep a tally on things, and it is then reflected in our respective budgets.
Let me take some blame Mr. Chairman, for an issue which I do not think is important which is a question of working first - not the chicken or the egg, but the financial crisis in UNDP or SAA as the savings directive came simultaneously but before, as I explained, the financial crisis, because although in conversation with the UNDP Administrator and Secretariat there was no doubt that for him who had to take emergency financial measures there was going to be grants in his budgets to make savings with regard to SAA country representatives. There was no doubt about that, so already there was seen in the Budget of the UNDP a cut, but I take the blame for something else Mr. Chairman, and that is on this question of the SAA and their costs etc. This was very much in the of fing and was all fitted into the organizations concerned as to the future of this scheme. The fact is that even now the Governing Council of UNDP is engaged in a very difficult discussion about the expansion or even survival of the UNEDO regional technical advisers who are funded more or less in the manner that the SAA's were funded, so it is true that for the last two years in the concepts of UNDP all field relationships and representatives, as they call technical support, we had to phase out of that representation.
When we were discussing Chapter 3 I mentioned l the possibility at the request of one delegation, that country representatives be provided with a very small library. In this case we were talking of previous technical assistance experience.
We shall take very much into account some of the remarks of the delegates of Bangladesh and Cuba with regard to documentation, knowledge of trust funds and so on. I think I have said enough or even too much, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: No, Mr Yriart,you have not said too much. You have covered the field very well, although there are perhaps many other questions. I should like to close the discussion with a brief summary of the results of this morning's session. Again, the Drafting Group will be responsible for filling out the bare bones of the quick summary which I shall make now.
First we have a very good discussion which kept to specific points rather than broad generalities. There was certainly reiteration of the strong support for the action taken by the Director-General to strengthen the regional and country activities and to further the whole concept of decentralization. On this latter point, as well as increasing the number of country representatives to make more effective use of regional representatives, Mr. Yriat stressed these aspects.
There was also strong emphasis on making more effective use of the national institutions within the regions and countries as part of the decentralization effort. Specific suggestions have been made reflecting the views of different countries and different regions on their own specific problems. As Mr. Yrait said, those will be taken into consideration as further planning is carried out on field activities. There was also much emphasis on the need for backstopping by all who spoke of very close cooperation with the Director-General and his staff.
That completes our discussion on this item and also our work for this morning. I would like to thank Mr. Yriart for a very useful and helpful introduction and for the way in which he answered all the questions raised. We all know that not all the answers will be satisfactory, but he has an office, he is a gentle bureaucrat and safe to talk to.
I would like to leave you with the thought for the day. Having listened to the discussion on the dangers of bureaucrats, I am reminded that ''a rose by any other name smells sweetly”, and I would say “a bureaucrat by any other name smells sweetly'' With that, I shall close the meeting.
B.P DHITAL (Nepal): Thank you for allowing me to take the floor on this important topic - decentralization of FAO activities to the country level and its relationship to the Regional officer.
The Nepalese Delegation has made its position clear in the Plenary that the Regional and country level officers should be given sufficient authority to carry out their programme more effectively.
We are happy to note that the Director-General has taken some concrete steps in this regard. We support the Director-General's views on the role and functions of the Regional officer in relation to the strategy of decentralization to the country level. We look forward to further strengthening of these measures.
We strongly feel that the Regional Officer should play greater roles in affecting regional technical cooperation among developing countries. Also that the Regional offices should be equiped to provide technical back-stopping to the country offices.
The Regional Conferences should be used as effective media to work out policies and strategies that will meet the commun interests of Member Governments in the Region 1/
The meeting rose at 12.50 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 50
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.50 horas
1/ Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.
