II - ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMMES OF THE ORGANIZATION (continued)
II - ACTIVITES ET PROGRAMMES DE L’ORGANISATION (suite)
II - ACTIVIDADES Y PROGRAMAS DE LA ORGANIZACION (continuación)

CHAIRMAN: I may remind the delegates that the debate is open on Chapter 1 and 2 of the Programme of Work and Budget as contained in Document C 81/3.

L. FORSELL (Norway): With your permission the Norwegian delegation will make a combined statement on the priorities of the Programme in general and on a few specific issues in Chapter 1. Our position on the budget level will be indicated at a later stage.

The distinguished delegate of Nigeria in his statement yesterday stressed that there is a need for tools to combat the hunger in the world. And he concluded that first and foremost “the tool is money.” This is a challenge to the developed countries.

However, there are also challenges to the developing countries. First and foremost, the challenge to these countries is to carry out operational overall development plans of action where national food strategies are prepared as an integral part. Without such integral plans and programmes there can hardly be any balanced development, as stated by the Director-General in his statement to the Conference. FAO has assisted Member Governments in this kind of work, and my delegation will strongly support increased efforts from FAO in the field.

The World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development has pointed out the way to do it, with special attention to the underprivileged, in every sense of the word. Norway supports continued efforts to increase production of food in food-deficit areas. But even if the technical problems of production are very important, lack of political decision and lack of effective and just distribution may be the major constraints for increased food production and consumption.

FAO also has a responsibility for medium- and long-term goals and objectives. In this connexion my delegation looks forward to seeing the revised version of “Towards 2000”, and we would like to highlight the importance of this work. Furthermore, I think it is important that FAO’s work on long-range studies on agriculture can be continued.

As we all know, the food production in the African countries has fallen by 10 percent in the last decade. According to this I would like to underline the special priority of Africa in the proposals both for 1982-83 and in the medium-term objectives document. We support these proposals strongly.

Another very important issue is the energy problem in agricultural and rural development. My delegation will comment further on these problems late in the Conference. At the moment I will just indicate that we agree that greater emphasis is given to energy questions in FAO programmes.

However, Mr. Chairman, every organization the size of FAO will easily have some kind of - let me call it - “dead wood”. Other delegations - both from developed and developing countries - have mentioned these problems.

In the last few years FAO has tried to decentralize the work of the Organization mainly through FAO representatives. The Norwegian delegation is in favour of a balanced programme of decentralization and most important, including decentralization of authority to the FAO representatives.

In this connexion we look forward to getting more available information on the functioning and cost-effectiveness of the FAO representatives.

S.J. KAO (Lesotho): You will recall I made some general remarks the other day. I have one or two more remarks to make.

We note with satisfaction the net reduction of staff at the headquarters of FAO by 36 posts. This is an indication of the move to improve efficiency by reducing overheads and shifting the resources to where the need is greatest. However, this has not produced a net reduction in costs. More reduction should be effected, particularly when the decentralization programme is taken into consideration.

The priorities of this Organization are very difficult to rank because the food issue is delicate. However, the understanding is that assistance is not meant to be everlasting but to provide sufficient initiative and momentum for the local people to be self-reliant in food production.

In the Medium-term Objectives I would propose that small farmer development should receive a higher rating, second to soil and water conservation. This is because it is the support that those farmers can give to the rest of that other progress that determines the lasting success of the programme. For the same reason I further propose a specific programme for increasing the management capabilities of farmers under the livestock sector. This programme is not included but implied. My appeal is that it should be explicit.

Introduction of new technology as a key to improved food production has been stressed, and rightly so. However, full exploitation or application with maximum benefit of such technology calls for the creation of support facilities and institutions. For this reason I suggest that agrarian reform measures and the establishment of new structures should be accorded a higher rating on the priorities of the Medium-term Objectives.

I wish to indicate again, as the leader of my delegation did in Plenary, that most schemes which resulted in substantial food production have strong elements of agrarian reform and establishment of new structures. To this end research in social science disciplines relating to extension and training should be undertaken. Maybe this is where our success will start, the knowledge of what it is that the people will have to do and are capable of doing.

It is crystal clear that a farmer must now produce food for his family and up to ten more other families. It is this surplus food that is prone to food losses. It is this area which calls for additional resources to step up the handling of that food through storage, processing and distribution. Many delegations have referred to trade barriers. I wish to submit that national storage facilities are of equal importance.

With these remarks and the conviction that FAO should help people to implement their own self-reliant programmes I submit that Chapters 1 and 2 be adopted.

A.G. NGONGI NAMANGA (Cameroon): Although I am taking the floor for the first time at a rather late stage in the debate, permit me to congratulate you and the vice-Chairmen on your election. My delegation is confident that under your wise leadership, this Commission will arrive at useful conclusions which take into consideration the views of all delegations while respecting the decision of the majority.

The Cameroon delegation has had the opportunity to read in detail the Director-General’s Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium 1982-83. We read and reread his introduction to the document very carefully. We do hope everyone has done so.

In the Seventy-Ninth Session of the Council, Cameroon intervened at length on the summary Programme of Work and Budget and joined the great majority of the Council which directed the Director-General to prepare his final proposals on the basis of the summary Programme of Work and Budget. In reading the final document, we find that the wishes of the Council have been respected. The Programme of Work and Budget is comprehensive and consistent with the priorities and programmes approved by the Conference, Council and various technical Committees. There is not much to disagree on the priorities and programmes proposed.

Some delegations feel that the establishment of new FAOR’s should be delayed. How long, may I ask, do we expect the Director-General to wait before implementing the decisions of the Conference? How is it that delegations which do not have FAOR’s in their countries seem to doubt the usefulness of these offices? Probably in doing so, they wish to speak for those countries such as mine which have to work with these offices. When we find them not to be useful, we shall not hesitate to ask that they be closed.

On the budget level, my delegation feels that arguments are being made outside the scope of the document placed before us. Let me read out paragraphs 57 and 58 which give the essential considerations used in formulating the Programme of Work and Budget:

“57. FAO cannot, of course, hope to resolve all the agricultural problems of the world, and often our efforts will be marginal to other sources of technical cooperation, in particular from bilateral sources. On the other hand, our efforts must be judged by their qualitative and facultative value, as well as by their relative amount.

“58. I have therefore used my best judgement in eliminating obsolete or marginal activities, in order to concentrate on more essential and effective activities, in support of FAO’s four basic roles of providing an international forum for formulation and discussion of strategies and policies, an international data base, a major source with unique characteristics of technical advice and cooperation, and a large executive agent for development projects financed from a variety of sources, including the Regular Programme itself”.

I have not heard any delegation say that the elements contained in paragraph 58 are wrong. On the contrary we heard in Plenary many statements of praise for the ideas contained in para 58.

The proposed budget level is based on the costs of the programmes of the Organization for the biennium. Since we are all in general agreement that the programmes and priorities are correct, we should therefore reach the same general agreement on the budget level without trying to become magicians in guessing what the exchange rates will be on the day the budget will be adopted by the Conference.

On the regional repartition of the budget, my delegation is satisfied that the Director-General, taking into consideration the needs of all Member States, has made a fair and equitable distribution. The serious and alarming problems of one region do not call for an abandonment of other regions. Recently there was held in Paris a conference for the Least Developed Countries. The major developed countries pledged increased assistance to the Least Developed Countries; but this does not mean that countries such as mine which are not among the Least Developed Countries will now be forgotten. It is in this light that we judge the Director-General’s repartition of the Budget to be fair and equitable.

We therefore recommend that the Director-General’s Programme of Work and Budget be approved by this Commission and reported to Plenary together with the proposed budget level.

Turning to the technical programmes, we have a few comments to make. In Programmes 2.1.1 Natural Resources, 2.1.2 Crops and 2.3.1 Forest Resources and Environment we note that the problems of shifting cultivation are highlighted particularly as relates to Africa. We therefore expected to see on page 252 under Soil Management and Conservation a responsible officer to coordinate the planned activity on shifting cultivation. However, we have not seen such an officer. We do hope a redeployment of resources within AGL will permit the designation of such a person. Should that not be possible, my delegation suggests that such an additional post be created in the 1984-85 biennium. There should also be at the regional level one or more officers responsible for work on shifting cultivation.

In reading sub-programme 2.1.2.2 Crop Improvement and Management, we were happy to note that attention will be directed to Root and Tuber Crops, so we turned to page 254 AGP to see what personnel resources are planned for this important group of crops. To our surprise no such officer exists. We do suggest that such a post be created in the 1984-85 biennium and that for the 1982-83 biennium some in-house reassignments be made to fill the vacuum. I do not need to stress that there are vast areas of Africa, Asia and Latin America where cereal production can be only marginal while crops such as cassava, yams and cocoyams will do very well. There is also need for FAO to start or increase its activity on plantations.

My delegation commends FAO for the work being done under sub-programme 2.1.2.5. We have one such project for the prevention of food losses now in operation in Cameroon and the results are very encouraging. We do hope we shall benefit from the training course envisaged in paragraph 12 so that enough qualified extension staff will be available for the training of farmers in the construction of their own storage structures. My delegation supports very strongly the work on African Animal Trypanosomiasis under sub-programme 2.1.3.2, Animal Health. This Programme is of particular importance to my country. We do hope that funds will be available to assist Member States to develop the lands freed from the scourge of the tse-tse fly. We applaud the strong emphasis given to Research support in sub-programme 2.1.4.1. Inter-country research, with emphasis on shifting cultivation, should yield some fruitful results. This only strengthens the call made earlier to create a post of Technical Officer (shifting cultivation) to coordinate all these efforts on shifting cultivation.

If I speak much longer I will run the risk of exhausting my twenty minutes. Let me therefore make only brief comments on the Fishery and Forestry Programmes. My delegation supports the priorities established for fisheries. We would like to see increased emphasis on inland fisheries, especially for land-locked countries and countries such as mine whose marine resources are poor in fish.

In the Forestry Programmes my delegations supports ongoing work to control desertification, to increase fuelwood and above all to instil community consciousness in the management of forest resources. We would like to see wildlife management for meat production integrated into forestry projects.

I have been very lengthy, Mr Chairman, but this is a very important matter and the Cameroon delegation wished to make a modest contribution. We hope we have done so.

CHAIRMAN: I thank Cameroon for the concrete manner in which his remarks were made. I hope this is a good example of how we can proceed this morning.

M.A.M. IBRAHIM (Sudan) (original language Arabic): We would like to make some comments on Chapter 2 of this Programme of Work and Budget. Programme 2.1.1, Natural Resources, in our eyes is of capital importance, especially that the survey, the evaluation and the planning of land and water resources is essential in order to increase food and agricultural production. Although the cultivable area, whether it be for crops, forestry or pasture, is of about 150 million hectares, only 50 million hectares have actually been surveyed. One tenth has been surveyed through the special department set up for this purpose about 10 years ago. The rest has been surveyed by foreign firms.

With regard to the plant cover, we have a map which goes back to 1958, and here again we need to renew the information available on the vegetative cover of the Sudan and the various components of this cover.

The surface water study has been completed as far as the Nile Valley is concerned, but for seasonal water courses and for permanent water courses we do not have any specific study.

Also as far as ground water is concerned, we have little information available. This also applies to wildlife, which is not completely surveyed in my country. We therefore have the hope that this Programme will be given support and that the unit which was set up with the help of Canada in Sudan will make it possible to carry out the sensing and evaluation of our entire renewable resources and see what changes could affect them so as to control desertification and agricultural pests.

With regard to 2.1.3, Animal Resources, there the resources are very great in my country but the share they have in our economy is a very low one, and this is due to diseases such as foot-and-mouth disease and rinderpest which decimated our livestock. We therefore believe that the control of livestock diseases in Africa can only be carried out through regional projects, especially since we know that the livestock is being held by nomadic livestock men moving from one area to another, which brings with it always the danger of infection. That is why we try to set up regional projects for the control of the various diseases. We have received the support of a number of friendly sister countries in this respect. We give our support to Programme 2.1.3 and in particular 2.1.3.2, which pays particular attention to foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest and swinepest.

With regard to 2.1.3.5, Meat Development, we would like to give our support to this Programme as well, and on this basis we have set up in my country marketing facilities.

Now with regard to sub-programme 2.1.5.1.2 Development Support Communications, FAO helped the extension service in the Gezira Scheme to make use of the Rural Television Station by providing television sets for viewing the rural agricultural programmes. It also provided training of senior management in development communication. That is why we would like to thank FAO for this special effort. We stressed our support for this sub-programme in order to avail other countries to make use of it.

Y. KUROKOCHI (Japan): My delegation has postponed its request for the floor until this moment, as we wanted to hear the general atmosphere of this august Commission on the matters placed for its consideration. We now feel it appropriate to give some expression to its position on certain of the subjects now in question.

But before that, I should like to offer, on behalf of my delegation, my sincerest congratulations to you, Mr. Chairman and the two Vice-Chairmen, on your election to your respective posts. My delegation has already witnessed that under your guidance and leadership, Mr. Chairman, the deliberations have progressed with significant results and we are confident that this Commission will continue its work with fruitful results.

Now, we are discussing the Programme of Work and Budget for 1982-83. We join quite heartily the distinguished delegations which have already taken the floor in appreciating the work devoted by the Director-General and his staff to its preparation. We have found it quite well prepared and in many respects find ourselves in agreement with the intentions of the Secretariat.

But I should like to state that at both the 79th and 80th Sessions of the Council, my delegation made it clear that, after a most careful and sympathetic study, a high growth rate of 5.8 percent in real terms of the level of the budget for the next biennium does not come within the scope acceptable to circumstances surrounding the severe financial difficulties of my country, about which I must not take too much of this Commission’s precious time to explain in detail.

It is my Government’s view that all intended activities of FAO should tackle problems of food and agriculture of the world in an integrated and comprehensive manner within the framework of the United Nations. We are of the view, therefore, that international organizations, including FAO should make further efforts to increase their administrative effectiveness in a way similar to that of most individual states. When the world economy is in such a difficult situation as at present, my delegation feels obliged to stress this aspect still more.

My delegation is fully cognizant of the role that FAO has in recent years played and is soon to play in the field of food and agriculture. Still, my delegation is constrained in all candour to urge that FAO should try to reconsider its programme increase as well as its administrative costs. We appreciate FAO’s endeavour to reduce its administrative costs to a substantially low level. We also think that its programme increase should be evaluated on a sustainable basis and its operating costs further reduced.

In this connexion, may I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that in recent FAO biennial budgets, the rapid growth in real terms is especially clear on both the programmes of the TCP and FAO Country Representatives. We have no intention of denying the usefulness of these programmes. However, we are inclined to conclude that the growth of outlays for the TCP and FAO Country Representatives within the total budget could safely be reorganized and reevaluated on the basis of clarification in detail and breakdown on each country concerned where the TCP is introduced and FAO Country Representatives are stationed.

Having said this, more as part of the general debate, may I add that my delegation does not have much to argue about on Chapters 1 and 2 and does find them satisfactory, but wishes to reserve the right to make further comments on the matters of the TCP and FAO Country Representatives when it becomes necessary.

S.G. KAZIM: (United Arab Emirates) (original language: English): The delegation of the United Arab Emirates is glad to be able to give its support to the proposals contained in the Programme of Work and Budget for the years 1982 and 1983. Some delegations have already explained the reasons which justified an increase in the budget, an increase which is partly due to the increase in the number of Member countries. These countries certainly need additional aid in order to improve their food and agricultural situation and in order to find solutions for their problems. We must not forget that the problems which arise with regard to world food security and those of hunger are very serious problems which are acquiring more and more importance. Therefore, the increase in the budget must respond to these criteria and requirements. Since FAO is responsible for the solution of the problem of hunger in the world and has to try and fight against all food emergencies in the world, we feel that the Programme of Work and Budget as presented in document C 81/3 is an excellent programme, and I would like to thank you very much for your attention.

Sra. L. ELIZONDO C. (Nicaragua): Primero que nada, señor Presidente, quisiéramos disculparnos por no haber estado presentes cuando se nos concedió la palabra al comienzo de la sesión, pero problemas no de nuestra voluntad impidieron nuestra presencia a la hora indicada.

Nuestra delegación quisiera felicitar al Presidente y a los vicepresidentes por su elección a la Mesa de esta Comisión, y en este momento si usted lo permite, quisiéramos hacer nuestra intervención general en lo que rèspecta al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto presentado por el Director General.

La delegación de Nicaragua quisiera expresar su total apoyo y aprobación al incremento propuesto para 1982-83, el que consideramos de por sí sumamente modesto, por lo que se nos hace difícil comprender la posición de algunos países que, contrariamente a lo expresado por la gran mayoría de países aquí presentes, hablan de crecimiento cero o aun de recortes presupuestarios.

Consideramos que el mantener estas posiciones refleja un desconocimiento enorme de las múltiples necesidades que tenemos los países pobres, y de la importancia que tienen los programas de asistencia propiciados por la FAO para nuestros países.

Es indudable que el Programa de Labores y Presupuesto 1982-83 presentado por el Director General ha sido elaborado con sumo cuidado y refleja las prioridades y actividades principales que deben llevarse a cabo para aliviar a los países pobres de su tremenda carga, al brindarles los medios técnicos que permiten superar las restricciones propias del subdesarrollo. No podemos desconocer el hecho de que aun en medio de las dificultades originadas por la crisis mundial que atravesamos, los países ricos son cada vez más ricos y los pobres somos cada vez más pobres.

Estas dificultades deben de ser enfrentadas en su raíz y no hay que confundir las consecuencias con las causas. Es una actitud injusta y egoísta el tratar de resolver la crisis reduciendo los programas de ayuda; reducción que sólo afecta a los países mas necesitados del tercer mundo. Es necesario por tanto, señor Presidente, que se escuche aquí la voz de nuestros países y que se inste a los países que han mostrado reservas en su posición, a reconsiderar ésta, mostrando de esta forma su comprensión a los problemas que en materia alimentaria azotan a nuestros pueblos.

M. ZEIDAN (Liban) (langue originale: arabe): Mon intervention va se limiter pour le moment aux chapitres 1 et 2, donc je vais être très bref. A cet égard je voudrais notamment faire part de quelques observations sur le chapitre 2: les Programmes techniques et économiques sont variés et importants, et, étant donné leur diversité, ils peuvent être profitables à certains pays, à un groupe de pays, ou à des régions entières.

Après avoir etudié ces programmes et ces sous-programmes ainsi que les crédits qui leur sont alloues nous les approuvons tous, et notamment le programme 2.1.2 Cultures. Nous sommes d’accord avec la proposition visant à intensifier les activités dans le domaine des ressources génétiques afin d’améliorer les espèces cérealières, car c’est là une source essentielle pour augmenter la production.

Nous approuvons également le programme 2.1.4 concernant le développement de la recherche. Nous reconnaissons l’importance de la recherche pour l’amélioration de la production agricole, surtout s’il y a une vulgarisation dans ce domaine.

Le manque de personnel qualifié empêche de soutenir les recherches dans les pays en développement. Il faut donc surmonter ces difficultés, soutenir ces recherches, et il faudrait augmenter les crédits qui leur sont alloués.

Par conséquent nous souhaitons que davantage de travaux soient menés dans ces domaines, sur le plan international, régional et national. En effet, l’amélioration des ressources génétiques et l’intensification des recherches biochimiques sont très importantes. Les prévisions montrent qu’on ne peut vaincre la faim dans le monde que par ces moyens. Nous appuyons done ces programmes.

Ma dernière remarque concerne le Programme de développement rural 2.1.5. Nous approuvons le plan d’action proposé, car les problèmes de développement sont nombreux, et il faudrait leur faire face grâce à des decisions politiques. Nous voudrions à cet égard nous inspirer de la Conférence Mondiale sur la Réforme Agraire et le développement Rural qui nous a tracé la voie à suivre dans ce domaine. Ce que propose la FAO dans ce domaine n’est qu’une série de mesures visant à appliquer les programmes évoqués au cours de cette conférence et les idées qui y ont été exprimées.

J. HERNANDEZ COSSIO (Cuba): Señor Presidente, señores delegados, nos unimos a las delegaciones que precediéndonos en el uso de la palabra le han felicitado a usted y a los dos vicepresidentes por su merecida elección y, al hacerlo, mi delegación manifiesta su propósito de contribuir al mayor éxito de nuestros trabajos.

En el día de ayer usted, Sr. Presidente, nos sugirió y, particularmente permitió a las delegaciones que aún no hemos intervenido en esta Comisión, que a partir de esta novena sesión de trabajo pudiéramos exponer de forma combinada tanto las observaciones generales, como los criterios, acerca de los capítulos I y II del Programa. Asi trataremos de hacerlo en esta oportunidad.

En primer lugar, reconocemos los esfuerzos del Sr. Director General y de sus colaboradores al dotarnos del documento C 81/3, el cual consideramos un excelente material de trabajo cuya presentación y contenido están contribuyendo sin duda a facilitar nuestra labor y a avanzar hacia la consecución de los objetivos de la Organización.

La crítica situación económica y alimentaria mundial queda descrita con nítidos trazos en la Introduccion del mencionado documento y en el que se consignan cómo el continuo crecimiento demográfico, junto al deterioro progresivo de los precios de los productos agrícolas primarios de los países subdesarrollados, unido al elevado costo de la energía, al aumento de la carga del reembolso de la deuda y a un inmutable régimen de intercambio desigual, hacen por día más aguda la problemática de la alimentación y el desarrollo.

En este contexto, la ayuda de una Organización como la FAO, aunque limitada, es de inapreciable valor para quienes la requieren. En este sentido, deseamos llamar la atención especialmente sobre la Región de América Latina y el Caribe, donde la reducción de los fondos del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo se reflejaría en términos relativos de una forma desfavorable. El reconocido sentido de solidaridad de Cuba con los pueblos de Africa nos anima a apoyar la prioridad que en ese sentido le concede la FAO. No obstante ello, manifestamos nuestra preocupación con respecto a que una reducción de los fondos del PNUD entrañaría un significativo retroceso en el status de la situación de América Latina y del Caribe, lo que significaría una aceptación que tardaría largo tiempo en equilibrarse y para entonces los gastos necesarios serían mucho mayores.

Nuestra delegación suscribe el llamamiento que se nos hace, en el sentido de que los propios países en desarrollo adopten medidas más dinámicas para aumentar la producción de alimentos en el sentido, Sr. Presidente, de que ese llamamiento no ha de interpretarse como una excusa para suscribir la ayuda o disminuirla en lugar de incrementarla y contribuir como corresponde y, aunque sea parcialmente, a los requerimientos financieros externos de los países en vías de desarrollo.

Con relación a los Capítulos I y II, nuestra delegación aprecia el esfuerzo de la Organización por armonizar adecuadamente los destinos del presupuesto y confía en que se mantenga ininterrumpidamente la gestión de eliminar o disminuir todos aquellos gastos que no repercuten en incrementos de producción agrícola o alimentaria. Con independencia de cualquier ajuste que pudiera recomendar acertadamente alguna de las distinguidas delegaciones, estimamos que es correcta la distribución del presupuesto de estos Capítulos y nos basamos en el énfasis que se hace en el acápite 2.1: “Agricultura” y, en especial, en los subacápites 2.1.2 Cultivos; 2.1.5 Desarrollo Rural y 2.1.8 Política Alimentaria y Agrícola.

En el documento “La Agricultura hacia el Año 2000” constatamos que las tendencias actuales más negativas en materia de agricultura y alimentación persistirán al tiempo que la población mundial continuará creciendo hasta sobrepasar los 6 000 millones, coincidiendo con un proceso en que la producción de alimentos en muchos países en desarrollo se habrá estancado e incluso podría disminuir en algunos.

El Programa de Labores y Presupuesto que hoy examinamos intenta dotar a la Organización de recursos mínimos que le permitan contribuir a luchar contra tales tendencias.

Hemos escuchado con satisfacción cómo la inmensa mayoría de los países aquí representados han apoyado el incremento del presupuesto para 1982-83. Mi delegación también brinda, Sr. Presidente, su más decidido apoyo y aprobación a ese presupuesto y lo hacemos como muchos países subdesarrollados en momento en que nuestras economías dependientes de la exportación de productos agrícolas cuyos precios se han reducido considerablemente, cual es el caso del azúcar, se ven seriamente afectadas.

Ante la sombría situación de la alimentación y de la agricultura encarada por los países en desarrollo, nos sentimos en la necesidad de exhortar a quienes más tienen y en la mayoría de los casos más han tomado de la explotación colonial y neocolonial, a que contribuyan al incremento que se propone, más aún cuando, Sr. Presidente, esos aportes financieros regresan en medida considerable a esos propios países, pues ellos aportan el 58% de los expertos que utiliza la FAO, reciben el 67% de los ingresos por las becas de estudios y nada menos que el 75% de los pedidos de compra.

No es aceptable que se nos proponga la política del crecimiento cero, menos aún que se nos plantee la disyuntiva de escoger entre no aumentar el presupuesto o disminuir los aportes a otros organismos internacionales o disminuir la ayuda bilateral. Los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica mezquinamente regatean

los limitados recursos que han de aportar a la FAO, no titubean en aprobar fabulosos presupuestos de guerra e instan a otros gobiernos para que los sigan por ese camino absurdo y suicida. Rechazamos señor Presidente, esa política y como la inmensa mayoría de los pueblos del mundo instamos a trabajar por la paz y el desarrollo.

WANG SHOU RU (China) (original language Chinese): I would like to make a few comments on chapter 2 of the Programme of Work and Budget. The presentation is fairly comprehensive, and we agree with its contents.

However, the Chinese delegation would like to stress the following two points on this chapter. First, in the agricultural programme 2.1.1, Natural Resources, we emphasize that support should be given to the activities in soil improvement with rational application of fertilizers to increase the per-unit yield of crops.

The study of Agriculture: Toward 2000 prepared by the Organization shows that only 18 percent of the food requirements in developing countries can be met by expanding cultivated lands,while the other 82 percent has to be met through increasing the per-unit yield of crops.

At present the per unit yield is not high in a fairly large part of the cultivated land in many deve-loping countries, so there is a great potential for an increase of production in this regard.

The factors affecting the per unit yield vary in different conditions. Nevertheless, in many countries and regions improvement of soil conditions in low-yielding land and the increased rational use of fer-tilizers constitute the basis of raising production. For instance, crop yields will increase substan-tially when saline, red, yellow loamy and sandy soil is ameliorated. Of course this involves many complex problems. We hope that FAO will strengthen the organization of scientific research as well as exchanges of experience in various forms in the future implementation of programmes in this field.

The second point we would like to stress is the need to strengthen the training of medium-and high-level agricultural scientists and technicians from developing countries. We referred to this point briefly in our last intervention. We believe that in addition to appropriate policies, developing countries depend mainly on the extension of new technologies in developing agricultural production. This is mentioned in both the first paragraph of 2.1.4 of the Programme of Work and Budget and in Document C 81/3, that the two major obstacles hindering developing countries from using new technologies are, first, the absence of effective technical expansion system, and secondly the lack of trained personnel for scientific research. We consider that new agricultural technologies that farmers are ready to use must be economical in cost, quick in effects and easy to learn. To introduce such technologies it is necessary to strengthen the training of medium-high level scientific research personnel and field technicians in the developing countries in various ways, so as to make them acquainted with existing scientific research findings. The necessary equipment must also be provided in order to enable them to carry out applied agricultural research in local conditions and guide farmers in improving their production techniques step by step.

As for the specific forms of such training, we believe that training courses and study tours are two effective ways. In the case of any area of special interest to any country, scientific research workers and technical and management personnel from countries concerned can be organized on a study tour to one or two countries highly successful in that field for detailed study on the subject and also for discussion and exchange of experience within the study group. This will allow them to learn some-thing useful in a short period of time. We hope that the Organization will be able to mobilize any extra-budgetary resources available to strengthen this activity.

I. BARBOSA (Portugal): Je voudrais traiter en particulier du programme sur le crédit. Il s’agit d’un sous-programme du plus haut intérêt, en dépit de sa complexité et des difficultés qui en découlent, surtout quand il est destiné aux petits producteurs.

Ces difficultés, si bien soulignées dans les documents de cette Conférence, pourront être effectivement atténuées grâce aux actions prévues, en particulier de la formation du personnel ainsi que de la préparation professionnelle des vulgarisateurs et des producteurs auxquels doit être donnée l’instruction appropriée pour leur permettre de comprendre et d’accepter les enseignements qui leur sont transmis.

D’autre part, il est indispensable que les services fournis par une institution de crédit soient en étroite liaison avec les activités découlant de la production, de la commercialisation et des programmes relatifs aux coopératives, au rôle de la femme et, d’une manière générale, au développement rural.

Toutefois, c’est le vulgarisateur qui, dans le milieu rural, grâce à sa connaissance directe de l’agriculteur, est en mesure d’évaluer sa capacité de travail, son honnêteté et son intelligence, qualités qui le rendent apte à recevoir le crédit, à l’appliquer rationnellement et à l’amortir dans les délais fixés.

La seule garantie que peut offrir le petit agriculteur, c’est la garantie personnelle, car ses biens meubles sont toujours limités, et la structure agraire, en règle générale défectueuse, ne lui permet pas d’offrir ses biens immeubles, même si cette garantie était apparemment suffisante.

Et ce n’est qu’ainsi que le crédit - mot qui dérive du latin credo, credere, qui signifie croire -pourra jouer son véritable rôle dans le milieu rural. On sait cependant combien il est difficile de mettre en pratique ces méthodes qui, pour cela même, devront être préalablement expérimentées sous la forme de projets-pilotes.

Un autre aspect à considérer est le rôle important qui revient aux banques centrales. Mais qu’il me soit permis de vous rappeler, en me fondant aussi sur mon expérience personnelle, que l’attitude de ces banques à l’égard des institutions de crédit rural, est en général peu satisfaisante, étant donné qu^felles sont orientées principalement dans le sens de la concession du crédit commercial et industriel.

La conjugaison du crédit agricole et du crédit commercial au sein d’une même institution n’est pas à recommander car le crédit commercial exerce sur le crédit agricole une dangereuse “attraction magnétique”.

Je voudrais rappeler ici l’opinion d’un groupe de spécialistes, auteurs de la publication de la FAO, sur “le crédit agricole par l’intermédiaire des coopératives et autres institutions” (page 131):

“Néanmoins, ces tentatives de conclure un double mariage conduisent le plus souvent à traiter inégalement les deux épouses.....Considérant ce qui a été dit plus haut des crédits agricole et commercial, nul ne sera surpris d’apprendre que, dans un double mariage de cet ordre, ce sera vraisemblablement le crédit agricole que l’on négligera. Pour recourir à une autre métaphore, nous dirons que le maître bien servi et le maître négligé se dégageront d’eux-mêmes, si l’un d’eux exige moins de travail que l’autre et paie beaucoup mieux les services qu’on lui rend. C’est la raison pour laquelle plusieurs banques agricoles et banques populaires des régions visitées ont tellement concentré leur activité dans le secteur commercial que leur principal objet, c’est-à-dire le développement du crédit agricole, s’est de plus en plus effacé à l’arrière plan”.

Les travaux envisagés par la FAO dans ce secteur, parfaitement mis en évidence, sont pour nous un motif de satisfaction, et c’est pourquoi ma délégation forme des voeux pour la poursuite de ses actions, en dépit des difficultés non seulement techniques mais encore financières, auxquelles elles continueront de se heurter dans l’avenir.

En ce qui concerne le budget, il est certain que les fonds extra-budgétaires pour le crédit sont, à mon avis, très peu importants (2,5 millions de dollars). Les fonds pour l’éducation, la vulgarisation, la formation agricole, l’économie familiale et la commercialisation, sont destinés directement ou indirectement au crédit (avec lequel il y aura une étroite liaison) et représentent à peu près 67 % du total des fonds estimés sur le tableau de la page 107 du Document 81/3.

S. SHAMOUT (Jordan) (original language: Arabic): First I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, on your election to the chairmanship of this Commission, and I would also like to congratulate the two Vice-Chairmen, my colleagues from Sudan and Zaire. I hope that your efforts will be crowned with success, especially given the importance of this Commission.

The delegation of Jordan during the last two days has not spoken in this Commission and this is why my comments are going to be of a general nature. During the first meeting we heard a statement by the Director-General and he shed new light on the agenda items for this Commission. During the last two days we have also heard the statements and comments made by various delegations which were mostly concerned with the key problem, that is to say the Programme of Work and Budget for the biennium 1982-83. From the outset we were expecting differences in points of view on this subject and since this question has been discussed in the Finance and Programme Committees and in the Council, it appears that positions on this Programme of Work and Budget can be seen as follows. Some delegations stilì consider that the

increase in the Budget is in fact a minimal increase and that it does not correspond to the aspirations of developing countries and that the Organization, with these modest increases, cannot carry out all the tasks requested of it. However, this group unfortunately is forced to accept the situation as it stands and to accept the Budget at its present level.

The second category is that of those delegations who have accepted the level of the Budget as suggested because they believe that this increase is a reasonable one and meets the economic situation throughout the world. The third group of delegations has expressed reservations and continues to express reservations. This group of countries does not want to commit itself immediately to accept or reject this increase in programmes. It has put off the final decision to a time when the situation becomes clearer following the debates which will take place in this Commission. We hope that this group will be able to join the majority.

The fourth category of those who reject the Budget increases are those who insist on the principle of zero growth and who refuse any alternative solution. Their arguments on the subject are ones we do not find at all convincing.

It must be pointed out that groups 1 and 2 of this list come from developing countries but categories 3 and 4 belong to the developed or industrialized group of countries.

During previous conferences there have certainly been differences in views among the member countries on the level of the budget. However these differences in views hinged on whether the increase was to be 3 percent, 4 percent or 8 percent. Therefore, discussions in Commission II were based on the level of the increases and in the end a consensus arose and consolidated the cooperation between developed and developing countries in their fight against such scourges such as malnutrition and hunger throughout the world. Unfortunately during this general conference we see that the differences are more acute and we know the reason. Here we do not want to put the blame on one party or another or to hurt anybody, we would like to try to calm people and not to upset things; however we do totally reject the principle of zero growth because it is a principle of incompetence, of incapacity, which puts an end to any efforts toward development in agriculture and food which are, of course, our main concern.

The delegation of Jordan during the various preceding meetings joined the group of moderates in order to achieve a compromise which might be acceptable to all. Unfortunately we cannot reach a compromise with this moderate attitude because those who opt for the principle of zero growth do not want to climb down from that position; therefore mediation during this conference will unfortunately not be able to bear fruit.

Of course, the Secretariat and the Director-General in particular have been, as it were, accused or put in the dock because it has been said that they have taken into account the views of all countries but let us suppose that you or I had been the Director-General, what would the choice have been? I believe that there are two alternatives, either one accepts the majority’s point of view, i.e. accepting this increase, albeit a modest one, or the second alternative, i.e. the principle of zero growth. Those who refuse any increases to the Director-General are aware that if he had accepted the second alternative, he would have heard from the majority who were insisting on an increase, though a modest one, for the budget. This is why the Director-General, in any decision he has taken, has been obliged to apply democratic principles, ánd to respect the majority’s view and that is in fact what he has done. Therefore, I wonder whether this democracy as applied by the Director-General, is a mistake for which he should be blamed? No.

Jordan has always adopted a moderate position, and does not wish to criticize anybody, particularly those who have refused the principle of growth or rejected it, particularly as Jordan benefits considerably from bilateral aid provided by those countries. Nevertheless, given our duties as a member country of this Organization, we cannot jeopardize Jordan’s interests; we must take into account the interests of all developing countries and this is why we state our support for the level of the budget as presented. We hope that the countries who rejected this increase might change their views and should the worst come to the worst that they will abstain. We still hope that they will join the majority and accept its views.

Another point to be considered is World Food Day. Aid provided by FAO to developing countries particularly to celebrate Wòrld Food Day was the reason for the success of this event. This is why it is my pleasure, on behalf of my delegation, to thank all those who have helped us and particularly thank efforts undertaken by FAO to make that World Food Day a successful event, we will support any resolution which might be drawn up on this subject.

These were the general comments I wanted to make and we wish to retain the right to speak again.

T. MIRCEA (Roumanie): Prenant la parole pour la première fois, j’aimerais tout d’abord vous féliciter pour la brillante élection à la présidence de cette importante Commission de la Conférence. Mes félicitations s’adressent aux autres membres du Bureau.

Monsieur le Président, à titre de contribution au débat général, auquel nous n’avons pas pu prendre part jusqu’à présent, j’aimerais répéter ce que ma délégation a déjà dit à la session du Conseil qui a précédé cette Conférence et ce que dira sans doute le Chef de la délégation roumaine en séance plénière aujourd’hui.

Pour ce qui est du Programme de travail et budget, nous avons dit et nous répétons que la position constante de la Roumanie dans les organisations internationales, y compris la FAO, a toujours été de ne pas accepter à la légère des accroissements de dépenses, d’examiner attentivement les propositions, de voir commant les ressources financières des organisations peuvent être utilisées de façon toujours plus rationnelle et plus efficace.

L’examen attentif des propositions du Programme de travail et budget présenté par le Directeur général de la FAO, des conclusions auxquelles sont arrivés les organismes de la FAO, notamment le Comité du programme et le Comité financier, nous permet de voir que ces propositions sont judicieuses et réalistes et de nous prononcer en leur faveur au côté de la grande majorité des pays membres.

Mis à nart la nleine confiance que nous faisons au Directeur général, qui a fait preuve de hautes qualités en dirigeant les activités de la FAO dans une période difficile sur le plan international, nous avons en vue notamment les points suivants:

la spécificité du rôle de la FAO, le fait qu’elle est destinée à accorder une assistance aux pays en développement, en particulier par l’entremise des programmes de terrain, le niveau relativement bas des frais d’administration et les efforts constants du Directeur géneral pour perfectionner encore davantage l’appareil de la FAO, la haute priorité reconnue et accordée sur le plan national et international aux problèmes de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, la nécessité de stimuler sur le plan national les efforts et de les appuyer vigoureusement par l’entremise des organisations internationales qui font preuve d’efficacité - bien sûr la FAO peut être placée en tête de la liste de ces organisations efficaces.

Monsieur le Président, nous croyons que les propositions du Programme de travail et budget reflètent la préoccupation du développement continu et de la consolidation du role de l’Organisation en vue de l’augmentation de la production agro-alimentaire et de l’éradication du sous-développement.

En ce qui concerne les chapitres en discussion ce matin, nous pensons, pour ce qui est de l’agriculture par exemple, que les huit programmes comprennent l’ensemble des problèmes à résoudre dans les pays en développement et nous apprécions que dans l’activité qui concerne une meilleure utilisation des ressources naturelles, on envisage la croissance des surfaces arables par la mise en valeur des terres ayant une basse productivité et en général les terres restées en friche. Nous nous réjouissons du fait que dans un tel programme la surface arable des pays en développement augmentera considérablement mais nous croyons qu’il est nécessaire d’attirer l’attention sur la nécessitë de cultiver intégralement toutes les surfaces arables dont disposent ces pays en vue de l’accroissement et de la diversification de la production agricole, et de la création et du développement dans ces pays de capacités de moyens de production nécessaires à l’agriculture, au développement rural en général, à la mise en place de systèmes d’irrigation et de draînage et au développement des agro-industries.

Relativement à la recherche scientifique dans l’agriculture, nous croyons que celle-ci devrait être intensifiée dans la direction de l’amélioration et de la vulgarisation des variétés hybrides des plantes, des races d’animaux les plus productives s’adaptant aux zones de production.

Nous nous prononçons aussi pour accroître l’activité de la FAO pour faciliter le transfert sans restriction des résultats scientifiques dans les pays en voie de développement.

Quant à la politique alimentaire et agricole, nous pensons que l’on devrait appuyer de manière particulière la formation du personnel technique et supérieur tant sur place que dans d’autres pays en développement. En ce sens, la Roumanie peut organiser, avec la contribution de la FAO, des cours de perfectionnement d’une durée de 15 à 30 jours dans les domaines de la réalisation mécanique des travaux dans l’agriculture, de la pédologie, de l’agro-chimie, des irrigations et du draînage, de même que dans le secteur de l’industrie alimentaire. Nous avons déjà fait connaître à la FAO ces possibilités.

Pour ce qui est du domaine des pêches, il résulte du document examiné qu’il y aura un décalage d’environ 15 à 20 millions de tonnes entre la production possible et la consommation de poisson. Tenant compte du fait que le poisson est un aliment précieux et qu’il peut être obtenu dans n’importe quelle zone du monde, nous apprécions que dans le cadre relatif à l’accroissement des ressources on envisage le développement de la pêche, surtout pour la mise en valeur des zones économiques exclusives, par la coopération des pays en voie de développement en particulier.

De manière plus générale, nous croyons que dans la réalisation des programmes de la FAO il faut recourir beaucoup plus à la coopération horizontale, c’est-à-dire entre les pays en développement, aussi bien pour ce qui est des spécialistes que des équipements.

Monsieur le Président, étant donné les difficultés de notre délégation pour assurer sa participation à l’examen de tous les chapitres en discussion, j’aimerais vous indiquer maintenant que nous sommes d’accord avec ce qui nous est proposé par le secrétariat de la FAO, en particulier en ce qui concerne le chapitre V. Ma délégation a pris note avec satisfaction des activités prévues pour les années prochaines dans le point 5.1.: “Information et documentation”. Nous réaffirmons notre plein appui au système d’information de la FAO, tout particulièrement AGRIS et CARIS qui permettent aux pays en développement de bénéficier d’un apport pour renforcer leurs propres capacités nationales de documentation agricole.

C. LAMBERT (Canada): Monsieur le Président, la délégation canadienne désire unir sa voix à toutes celles qui vous ont déjà félicité pour votre élection à notre présidence. Nous sommes assurés d’ores et déjà du succès de votre importante mission.

Dans son intervention de ce matin, ma délégation voudrait faire quelques remarques générales sur le Programme de travail et budget.

Monsieur le Président, ma délégation a écouté avec une très grande attention les interventions des deux derniers jours ainsi que les explications données par le secrétariat. Force nous est de constater que deux thèses s’affrontent ici, dans un débat qui prend malheureusement l’allure d’un dialogue de sourds et qui risque en conséquence d’être stérile. Si tel devait être le cas, c’est toute notre Organisation qui en sortirait affaiblie.

Le Canada a déjà eu le privilège d’exprimer sa position sur le Programme de travail et budget lors des réunions du Comité des finances, du COFO, du COFI, du COAG, ainsi qu’au Conseil. Encore hier après-midi, mon ministre a lui-même exposé en séance plénière les motifs qui sous-tendent la démarche canadienne.

Je ne voudrais donc pas répéter ce qui a déjà été dit; mais, Monsieur le Président, ma délégation ne saurait laisser passer sous silence des interprétations de notre position qui, même si elles sont faites de bonne foi, n’en trahissent pas moins les faits, du moins le croyons-nous. Il nous apparaît essentiel de les rétablir, dans l’intérêt même du dialogue véritable que nous recherchons tous.

Avec votre permission, je m’attacherais donc à trois points.

D’abord la croissance zéro. Se prononcer en sa faveur, c’est s’attirer tous les anathèmes. Les interprétations d’intentions les moins charitables lui ont été prêtées. Et pourtant, nous n’y voyons pour notre part que l’expression, par une formule simple, d’un outil de gestion s’appliquant au seul budget administratif.

Un programme de travail aussi complexe que celui de la FAO nécessite d’être quantifié, si nous voulons être capables d’en parler raisonnablement.

La croissance est précisément le moyen, l’outil dont notre Organisation s’est dotée pour faire l’analyse de son programme. Or notre rôle, Monsieur le Président, c’estbien d’exprimer, par les organes directeurs, un niveau de croissance souhaitable. Nous en faciliterons d’autant la tâche du Directeur général, et des directeurs de programmes, en leur donnant une mesure dans laquelle ils devront donner les priorités. C’est là le plus sûr moyen d’arriver à identifier les programmes marginaux, et éventuellement de les supprimer, tout en s’assurant que le maximum des ressources est dirigé vers les programmes qui sont les plus importants.

Si nous acceptons ce qui précède, la question qui se pose est bien: pourquoi une croissance zéro?

Notre explication est simple, et tirée de notre expérience nationale. La croissance rapide des années soixante et du début des années soixante-dix a amené avec elle une croissance tout aussi rapide des appareils gouvernementaux. Invité à réexaminer la situation à la lumière d’unè économie plus lente, notre gouvernement a optá pour une

croissance nulle. Cela lui a permis de réaliser des économies substancielles, de retrouver dans certains cas une vigueur nouvelle, et cela sans pour autant priver ses citoyens des services auxquels ils sont en droit de s’attendre.

Or, il nous apparaît souhaitable et nécessaire qu’après une longue période de croissance importante, les organisations internationales ayant un rôle d’agent exécuteur consolident les acquis et s’assurent d’un rendement maximum.

Le Canada, pour sa part, croit sincèrement que la FAO a atteint ce niveau qui lui permet de remplir pleinement la mission très importante qui est sienne.

Dans ce contexte, Monsieur le Président, nous nous réjouissons des propos du Secrétaire général des Nations Unies, M. Kurt Waldheim, qui, commentant le budget 1982-83, déclarait que pour la première fois depuis 1954 le budget propose n’avait aucune croissance réelle. Cela était dû à l’adoption d’une politique budgétaire délibérément orientée vers le maintien et le renforcement de la crédibilité financière de l’Organisation.

Nous souhaitons vivement que cette pratique s’étende à toute la famille des Nations Unies, et une organisation aussi importante que l’Organisation mondiale de la santé a presque atteint cet objectif déjà. C’est seulement ainsi que chaque dollar américain investi bénéficiera tant aux pays industrialises qu’à ceux en voie de développement.

Un autre point, Monsieur le Président, sur lequel je serai beaucoup plus bref. Il s’agit du taux de change et du niveau du budget.

Nous avons dit que le niveau de croissance permettait d’évaluer quantitativement et comparativement le niveau de programme. Mais comment peut-on y arriver, si les bases de comparaison ne tiennent plus?

En effet, contrairement à la pratique courante dans la famille des Nations Unies, le Directeur général a choisi d’utiliser un taux de change différent pour le biennium, soit 1 175 lires pour un dollar américain. Nous regrettons vivement cette précision, car l’utilisation d’une double unité de mesure n’apporte rien à la compréhension du document de travail, tout au contraire. Qui plus est, cette présentation invite à penser que les tenants de la croissance zèro seront plus facilement convaincus. Mais je vous le demande, Monsieur le Président, qu’en sera-t-il si le dollar tombe d’ici la fin du biennium à 600 lires comme cela est déjà arrive? Je vous le répète, la croissance zéro est une mesure du niveau des programmes et non de celui des contributions. Or, le niveau des programmes augmente bien de 8 pour cent, tel qu’on nous l’indiquait au Conseil de juin dernier, Une croissance aussi importante est inacceptable pour ma délégation et c’est ce qui m’amène à mon troisième et dernier point.

Plusieurs délégations ont avancé la thèse qui veut que s’opposer au Programme de travail et budget de la FAO, c’est vouloir perpétuer la faim et la malnutrition dans le monde.

De tels propos ignorent que de nombreux grands contributeurs ont clairement indiqué en séance plénière, au Conseil du mois de juin et maintenant, une croissance réelle de leur assistance au développement. Je n’ai pas à parler pour eux. Je me contenterai de rappeler que le Canada dépensera l’an prochain 1,3 milliards de dollars en assistance au développement. De cette somme, 30 pour cent vont déjà au développement rural et agricole, selon les souhaits mêmes du Directeur général dans son discours d’ouverture. Enfin, le premier ministre, M. Trudeau, a annoncé que ce pourcentage s’élèvera jusqu’à 45 pour cent d’ici cinq ans.

Voilà, croyons-nous, des chiffres qui soutiennent avantageusement les propos tenus à Cancún.

E. L. ITON (Trinidad and Tobago): The delegation of The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago adds its congratulations to you, Mr. Chairman, and the two vice-chairmen on your election to office. We look forward to a fruitful outcome of the deliberations of this Commission.

Our delegation takes this opportunity to express the deep appreciation of our country for the contribution that FAO has made and is making to its agricultural development.

We endorse the Programme of Work for 1982-83 and consider the increase in the level of the budget modest. Consequently we give our support to them.

At this point we would like to make two specific comments included in Chapter 2. The first is with respect to sub-programme 2.1.2.4, Crop Production. We in Trinidad are delighted to express our gratitude for the assistance that is currently being given to us by FAO and we acknowledge the widsom

of this Organisation in appointing a technical secretary for the Caribbean/Plant Protection Committee. However, this person now resides in Santiago in Chile and is therefore not easily accessible to Caribbean countries. It is felt that if the Caribbean Plant Protection Committee is to be a vibrant organization responsive to the many needs of the Caribbean States, the technical secretary should be re-allocated to a country within the Caribbean.

Alternatively, a new technical secretary should be assigned to the region.

Our second comment is in respect of the sub-programme 2.1.3.1. Grassland Forage and Food Resources. Our delegation is of the opinion that in view of the disastrous decline in revenue from sugar cane cultivation due to competition from beet sugar, countries which rely heavily on sugar cane production for revenue should be given assistance by FAO in the rationalization of their sugar industries in order to overcome the balance of payments difficulties which most of these countries are currently experiencing. One of the alternative uses of sugar cane is the production of ruminant livestock. However, there are many factors involved in the feeding of sugar cane to livestock, of which there is inadequate knowledge. We believe that FAO can make a significant contribution to the accumulation of this vital knowlege and would like to see vigorous efforts being made in this direction by this Organization.

A.H. EL SARKI (Egypt (original language: Arabic): After having reviewed the economic and policy programme of document C 81/3, my delegation would like to talk about renewable sources and the need to supply the financial resources in order to make sure that the Programmes are applied and the need for coordination between the specialized agencies of the United Nations which are involved with energy.

We would also like to mention the importance of support for the seeding programme and particularly crops which do not require a great deal of energy.

We also think that great support should be given to scientific research and in the framework of agrarian reform to give support to the peasant population and particularly women in rural areas.

We should also like to express our support for technical cooperation and express our satisfaction on the Technical Cooperation Programme, particularly in the agricultural sector.

KIM TAE RYONG (Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of,): This is the first time for the delegation of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to take this floor.

First of all, on behalf of our delegation, I extend our warmest congratulations to you, Mr. Chairman,and to the Vice-Chairmen for your election as the Chairman and Vice-Chairmen of Commission II.

I think document C 81/3, the Director-General’s Programme of Work and Budget for 1982/83, has correctly reflected the present urgent demand for solving the current agricultural situation, particularly for fighting poverty, hunger and malnutrition. The struggle of the developing countries against poverty and hunger is none other than the struggle to eliminate past colonial remnants and consequences. Therefore, it is the due responsibility of all the developed countries and the international organizations to help and assist these developing and least developed countries financially and materially.

In this connexion, the increase of agricultural investment pointed out in Major Programme 2.1, Agriculture, of Chapter 2 of the document will, I think, greatly contribute to the quick improvement of agriculture and the stabilization of peoples’ lives and welfare in the developing countries.

Our delegation recognizes that the Director-General’s Programme of Work and Budget for 1982/83 is a reasonable and a very correct one, and our delegation expresses our full support to it.

H. REDL (Austria) (Original language: German): Yesterday I announced I would say something with regard to the various sub-paragraphs of Chapters 1 and 2. On sub-paragraph 2.1.3.3, I would like to refer to what the Director-General said in connexion with with the UN Conference on New and Renewable Sources of Energy. Within the framework of the special role of fertilizers in the fight against hunger, he stressed it was necessary to make all possible efforts in order to save energy, but at the same time we must understand that the share of world agriculture in the total consumption of energy is only 3.5 percent. Austria is in full agreement with the statement contained in the document concerning the use of fertilizers. As long as there are no reasonable alternatives or comparable technologies, fertilizers will have to be used to a greater extent in order to increase the efficiency of food production,

particularly in developing countries. However, all efforts need to be made in order to combine the use of chemical fertilizers with that of biological fertilizers and in this connexion, Austria would like to stress once again the importance of the FAO Fertilizer Programme, and we feel that the International Fertilizer Supply Scheme is of particular importance in this respect.

Now, with regard to sub-programme 2.1.2.3., starting with the Seed Resolution of the World Food Conference in 1974, Austria has been giving its active support to the FAO Seed Programme. We therefore welcome the proposal made by FAO to combine the various activities, and we believe that this is going to improve and simplify management and increase efficiency.

Now I would like to speak about sub-programme 2.1.1.6. We have noted with satisfaction that FAO is dealing more and more with the subject of environment and energy. In the course of this Conference, in Commission I we will have an opportunity of speaking about this subject from the European point of view. The need of increasing agricultural production without increasing energy and other costs for inputs too much and also the general concern with the maintenance of the environment leads us to attempt the mobilization of all the resources available.

Therefore, I would like to refer to what is said under sub-programme 2.1.4.2, that is to say the use of isotope research in agricultural research. Isotopes and radiation techniques have been shown to be a valuable tool as a supplement to traditional research methods and have been proved to do so over two generations. There are methods being used in many European countries on a practical level. The Joint FAO International Division in Vienna and the laboratory in the agency are working toward making these methods avilable to developing countries and also the integration of these methods in concurrent research. We believe that special importance attaches to these activities.

I would now like to deal with Programme 2.1.6.3., Food Quality and Standards. As far as Austria is concerned, the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission on a world-wide level and also within the European region is considered to be of particular importance. The importance and usefulness of work within the framework of Codex Alimentarius, both for developed and developing countries, should be given more consideration in the Public Information Programme of FAO.

With regard to special programme 2.3.1.1., this is particularly with regard to the need for maintaining forestry reserves in developing countries, and it appears particularly necessary that more education and training should be made available for the maintenance of forestry resources.

In this connexion I should like to mention that Austria is offering training courses, jointly organized with FAO, in the field of logging in mountainous areas.

F. VANAMSON (Suriname): In this sitting of Commission II, this is the first time the delegation of Suriname intervenes, but I still wish to congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, and the Vice-Chairmen, on your appointment.

We are glad that the topic of agricultural research in developing countries is, in a way, highlighted by the presentation of a special document for the agenda item 10.

We also want to stress the fact that in our opinion research must be given the highest priority.

We are living in a dynamic world, and to be able to react in the most suitable way on changes that affect the input-output ratio, research is needed. All the developing countries will gradually improve their living conditions, which will change the agricultural pattern from a more essential towards a more sophisticated one. However, during this change an uncontrollable element from outside can upset it. This was the case with the oil crisis. Therefore, a regular and careful analysis of the whole production column is needed. This analysis will indicate the weak links, and also counteract the protection of the outcome after it becomes possible to introduce a new element.

Consequently we are very much in favour of research coordination on a worldwide scale, but we also want to promote integrated research on a national scale. I would like to enhance my comments by stressing the two-way character of research. Efficient research must obtain its impulses from the farmer, but also research must find its way towards the farmer. This is the only way to help the farmer improve his yields and living conditions.

I would like to suggest we consider the Budget 1982-83 once more in the light of the important topic of agricultural research in developing countries.

H. MAURIA (Finland): Mr. Chairman, first I want to congratulate you and the Vice-Chairmen on your election to office, then I would like to make some general remarks and also some specific technical remarks, particularly on chapter 2, with a short reference also to Medium-term Objectives.

In our view the format of the Programme of Work and Budget document has been continuously improved, as a document of this importance must be. It now gives us a fairly good picture of the nature of the problem, of FAO’s objectives, and of the plans of action regarding each programme and sub-programme. I would say that the present division into sub-programmes seems in some single cases to be somewhat conservative, if I may say so, but I am sure these details will be kept under constant review in the technical departments.

We must be aware, of course, that FAO cannot resolve all the agricultural problems of the world, as is rightly pointed out in the document. Accordingly, the thrust of action to achieve concrete and permanent results on national levels will always be depending on the individual countries themselves, but in helping and advising them to find appropriate solutions to their problems FAO has its role to play.

Against this background, I note that the facts that can be read from the table on page 56 showing among other information, also the relative budget changes between chapters and programmes, are of particular interest. I refer here to a specific fact - namely that the relative share of the total budget for chapter 2 (Technical and Economic Programmes) is decreasing from the present biennium to 1982-83. This may be a temporary change, I do not know, but at least I hope so. However, keeping in mind the importance of the impact of the FAO work by the four main technical departments, I am somewhat confused. If this is an indication of the budget policy for the future, say into the medium-term, we feel it should be reconsidered. I want to stress that here I speak about relative changes within the budget frames.

Further, coming now into more specific technical matters, I would like to make a few comments on the major programme of Forestry. In our view the sub-programmes under this heading are of essential importance in the work of FAO. I will point out some problems mentioned in the document.

One is, for instance, that only some two and a half percent of all natural tropical forests are under intensive management at present. This is really an alarming fact. Further, there is a continued depletion of the forest cover of the world affecting the human habitat, despoiling watersheds, increasing the danger of floods and droughts, enhanding desertification, reducing the soil fertility and so on.

There is, indeed, a great need for changing the course in this regard and for making improvements in the forestry resources. Strengthening of institutions andpronounced training in forestry at all levels are measures that can contribute effectively to a positive change in the present situation.

Another field where the impact of forestry is useful is the contribution to rural development through the provision of fuel wood and other essential needs to rural people, and by providing off-farm income and employment to the community. We are satisfied to note that the work in the programme. Forestry for Rural Development will continue in identifying effective systems for forestry at the rural community level.

As regards the Budget level we will come back to this matter at a later stage in the Conference.

G. STREEB (United States of America): My delegation would like to make some comment on the specific paragraphs in the Introduction to chapters 1 and 2 of the document. I have many pages of questions here, but I think it is preferable for us to simply give those to the Secretariat and have them work with our delegation on the answers rather than to take the time of this group.

There are, however, several points that we would like to mention here on which we will raise questions, but again it is probably better if the answers should come to us outside this room so that we do not take up too much of our time, as I think they are mainly technical and not controversial.

Before I comment on the document, I would like to return to the subject of coordination which has been raised here several times, particularly by the Secretariat. I appreciate full well my delegation was amongst those at the summer ECOSOC session where there was quite a bit of concern about this subject, but nevertheless I want to make it clear that we are very much open to looking at the subject again, and to the extent that the Secretariat can document for us the extra costs and difficulties that they have stemming from some emphasis on coordination, we would welcome that, because while we in general think there is a need for greater coordination among various programmes to ensure they are mutually reinforcing, at the same time we do not want to carry this to the point when it imposes unnecessary costs and slows down the system. Therefore we would welcome a further exchange on that at some later date.

With regard to the document, I would like to make some comments on the Introduction. The United States does appreciate the Director-General’s straightforward and frank comments which facilitate consideration of his Programme of Work for 1982-83 in the proper perspective. Likewise, in general we support his basic strategies and priorities.

I would, however, like to point out areas where my Government’s views differ somewhat. Some of these concerns have already been expressed in the Programme Committee earlier this year.

With regard to programme 5 where the Director-General comments on the situation at the beginning of the decade, the recently-convened Committee on World Food Security did not share the Secretariat’s assessment that the world is suffering a crisis in the field of food and nutrition.

The CFS agreed that the world food situation is precarious but stated that the outlook for 1981 crops is encouraging. Record wheat yields are expected in several countries including Canada and the United States. We would also point out that in the list of variables that have “contributed to the negative overall experience of the developing world, particularly in the fields of food and nutrition”, the Director-General has not listed inapproppriate agricultural policies and lack of price incentives that characterized many developing countries’ agricultural sector.

On Paragraph 8 which describes the situation on food production in developing countries, we would like to recall that each country should try to work towards food self-reliance rather than food self-sufficiency. As I recall, this word appears at the end of the paragraph but then later, in paragraph 17, in fact, the word ‘self-reliance’ is then used, and we feel this is more appropriate because each country must assess and build upon the comparative advantages that may exist in its economy and for some countries it may be less expensive to import rather than to grow food.

On paragraph 10 which refers to the current food situation and makes some references to stocks, there is no international concensus as to the adequate world cereal stock level necessary for world food security. Moreover, the grain stock situation is a highly fluid one and it is extremely difficult to verify the actual levels of such stocks.

On world food security, paragraph 14, the Director-General’s estimates of food aid needs for 1985 we believe require additional documentation. In addition, the developing countries should invest in grain storage infrastructure - as well as some of the developed countries - only after evaluating the amount and quality of existing on-farm storage.

To return to a familiar topic which is the study Agriculture Toward 2000, the United States continue to question the use of data and conclusions based upon this study. We have had some experience of our own in producing a study for the year 2000 and we are well aware, even with the best of efforts in statistical and forecasting techniques, how shaky projections this far into the future can be. The Twentieth Session of the FAO Conference did not endorse the Secretariat’s study and recommended that further work be done on the report. The study remains a provisional one until it has been reviewed by the Conference and approved by its members. The United States cannot support either references to the first version of Agriculture Toward 2000 or to a second version which is still not approved by the FAO Conference.

Let me now turn to some of the specifics in Chapters 1 and 2; since all of our comments on the first chapter are quite detailed, I will skip those and jump to Chapter 2, and talk first of all on fisheries.

The United States supports the general priorities and thrust of the proposed fisheries programme for 1982-83. In particular, we would mention our support of the greater emphasis on Fisheries Policy in Chapter 2 Section 2.2.3. This programme includes funding for the Conference on Fisheries Management and Development which would be held in conjunction with the 1983 COFI meeting, it being felt that a review of the countries’ experience with extended fishery zones would be timely and extremely useful in 1983. Also included under the programme is support for the activities of the Department for short-term and quick assistance to developing countries in both drafting 200-mile fisheries legislation and development of relevant administrative capability. We have observed that this activity has been very practical and appreciated. We note that the economic analysis of the Fisheries Department is carried out under this programme. We feel that this work is extremely important since all fisheries developement and management efforts must be cost-effective. Furthermore, we support the continuation of the Country Profile series which provide a unique source of economic and background information about the fisheries sector of individual countries.

Regarding Major Programme 2.3 Forestry, we would commend the Forestry Department for its superior job of presenting a proposed programme of action as an integrated package. We think the priorities are right and approve the balance among the sub-programme areas.

I would like to add to footnote here that we have been very much concerned about a tendency of some other agencies in the United Nations system and specialized agencies, to get into the Forestry business. We have certainly made every attempt in these various bodies to stress that in terms of the basic Forestry problems this should be left to the FAO.

However, we cannot fail to note from the document that Forestry fares proportionately better from extra-budgetary funding than it does from funding of the Regular Programme. From “outside” dollars coming into the Organization for Technical and Economic programmes, the Forestry Department gets $1 out of every $8.40. The Organization itself, however, allots to Forestry but $1 out of every $10.20 in its Regular Programme budget. Perhaps this is evidence that the Forestry Department has earned the kind of confidence that attracts donor dollars.

The United States does feel, however, the need for enlightenment with regard to figures displayed in the 1982-83 sub-programme estimate tables for the Forestry Programme. These show that although under the Regular Programme Regional Offices will account for 396 out of a total of 580 budgeted man years or 68.2%, the Regular Programme dollar allotments to Regional Offices will add up to only about $2.4 million out of a total of $14.7 million for the major programme only about 16.3%. We ask the question: does this simply mean that the Organization gets more for its money at the Regional Offices than at Headquarters? Or what is the explanation?

On one specific aspect of the policy programme which is covered in 2.3.2.1 the development of forest industries, we do have some concern here that FAO may be stepping into the turf of the UNIDO programmes on industry, and we would encourage that this programme be re-evaluated to see if in fact this is the appropriate field for FAO.

I would now like to turn to the question of the Medium-Term Objectives very briefly, since we did not get a chance to cover this matter and it is included under this same agenda item. We would like to commend the Secretariat on the quality of the document. We do feel that it is faithful to the directives of the 1979 Council and that the ranking objectives by priority is a useful tool that will facilitate the evaluation by FAO's governing bodies of the progress and achievement of individual programmes, although clearly we may have to re-order the priorities as the biennium unfolds. While we are generally supportive, there are some items we would like to underline which do concern us. We feel that FAO should emphasize, where appropriate, the importance of policies designed to provide price incentives to farmers and the need for a larger role for the private sector in all aspects of agricultural production, food distribution, storage and processing. The Secretariat’s plans in commodity policy should recognize the adequacy of existing mechanisms for the discussion of many food and agricultural development issues, for example the International Wheat Council, the Food Aid Convention and the Committee on Food Aid policies and programmes, and others; and not to duplicate those of the international trade organizations such as UNCTAD. We recognize that FAO provides valuable support to UNCTAD and we urge the Organization to continue this support. In fact, from my own experience, probably the reverse is true, but in any case we hope that FAO will continue to cooperate in this work.

FAO’s information and analysis activities do not benefit only one groupof member countries exclusively, but should be designed to benefit all members of the Organization. Timely and accurate information, flows do benefit all and FAO’s activities in this area must be conducted towards this objective.

I should also like to indicate that objectives should not be based on documents, the conclusions of which have not been endorsed by the member countries or which contain referenees which have not met with the necessary consensus. I have already mentioned Agriculture Toward 2000 and would indicate such other concepts as the NIEO and so forth, on which some governments here at least have expressed reservations.

Similarly, in the policy area the Secretariat should refrain from presenting certain activities or initiatives as being universally supported when in fact no universal consensus yet exists as to the appropriate approach. Here I would cite the example of preparedness for acute and large-scale food shortages.

Finally, on the question of publication of this document, again we have generally found this to be useful but we are open-minded on this subject and if there are, again, specific examples where the difficulties arise in doing this separate documentation, we are prepared to look at the possibility of integrating it into the other documentation, so long as the presentation does not become too confusing.

V. ISARANKURA (Thailand): My delegation has carefully studied the Programme of Work and Budget of 1982-83. We are pleased to note that the budget has followed the strategies, policies and programmes unanimously agreed to by the last Session of the Conference. It was also agreed that the proposed

budget level and the modest programme increase of 2.9% per year was a most suitable one since it will help the Organization maintain a minimum level of programme activities.

Though we appreciate the need of developed countries to apply their economic policies in a world climate of increasing inflation, unemployment, and cuts in public expenditure, we would be interested to learn about these policies which urge people to produce more when countries are affected by inflation. Then why should we ask the FAO to work less when the world is affected by inflation and recession?

Before commenting on Chapters 1 and 2 of our Programme of Work and Budget, the Thai delegation would like first of all, with your permission, to express its appreciation to the Assistant Director-General for Programme and Budget for the lucid explanation that he offered on the various aspects of the budget level and its components yesterday.

The Thai delegation takes special note of his comments on the usefulness and effectivity of multilateral assistance and wishes to state its full agreement to his comments thereon.

In so doing, my delegation also wishes to take note of the excellent intervention of many delegations who expressed their support for the Programme of Work and Budget, the Technical Cooperation Programme and the effectivity of the services rendered by the Regional Office of FAO in Bangkok for which Thailand currently serves as the host.

On Chapters 1 and 2 of the Programme of Work and Budget, my delegation wishes to express our general agreement with the thrust of programmes proposed by the Director-General, expecially its stress on reaching disadvantaged sectors.

The Fifth National Economic Development Plan of the Government of Thailand, which came into effect in October of this year, plans to focus on the problem of equity in view of the persistence of problems of rural poverty as well as the problem of structural adjustment. This policy had the basic focus on people - it is the cornerstone of our whole plan. In fact, my Government has declared a “Rural Development Decade” and we have come up with a list of 200 poverty areas which will be singled out for special attention.

Thailand has divided its rural sectors into three broad areas: the backward poverty areas, the intermediate areas and so-called progressive areas. Our strategy is to focus on the backward poverty areas and the focus is on people.

It is here where FAO’s Programme of Work and Budget will be of assistance to us in reinforcing our efforts to help the poorest sectors.

Thailand is a food exporting country and we feel that it is to our interest, as well as to those countries with which we share our food, that we maintain and build up our capacity to produce even more food. For these reasons, we find the proposals on water development and management, especially for our rainfed areas, helpful to my country.

As in so many countries in Asia, Thailand finds the most pressing problems continue to be the need to generate rural employment and increase rural incomes. There is also pressure to satisfy rural energy needs particularly those of the poor. At the same time, we are faced by the spectre of disappearing forests.

Given these concerns, we find the programmes on forestry sector - Development and Management of Forests, Tree Improvement Plantations, Conservation of Wildlife and Development of Forest Industries - have addressed the key issues fully and squarely.

My delegation welcomes the Director-General’s proposals for the continuation of FAO’s work in the field of prevention of post-harvest losses as well as research development. In the years ahead, we will be needing even greater efforts in applying the results of adaptive research to field-level problems. Thailand therefore wishes to see a greater expansion for adaptive research in farming systems for the dry land areas.

Finally, my delegation also supports the Organization of the World Conference on Fishery Management and Development which is scheduled to be convened in 1983. However, my delegation should like to recommend careful planning and that arrangements be made so that the Conference will yield benefits to member countries.

G. DEBELE (Ethiopia): With regard to Chapters 1 and 2 of the Programme of Work and Budget for the coming biennium, our position is that consistent with our statements yesterday both in the Plenary as well as in the Commission, the cost increases depicted in relation to the forecast activities of the Organization shown in the said chapters should elicit no alarm in any honest supporter of the principles of FAO. The programme changes detailed under the various Major Programme headings too show only marginal escalations. Given the global inflationary trends and other difficulties entailed by growing demands, we find the increases to be nothing but modest.

To expect and urge the developing world to develop and attain self-sufficiency in food and agricultural production as soon as possible on the one hand, and to require at the same time the developing world to accept various theories which are tantamount to anti-development on the other hand, is only another measure as to the true nature of the unfair international relationships that prevail in our world of today. We realize that the sooner the developing world achieves self-sufficiency in food and agricultural production as well as in other fields the better it would be for all. But how could this be achieved in the face of artificial barriers deliberately installed by some across the road to development?

This man-made equation is, in our opinion, one among the greatest impediments that largely contribute towards the perpetuation of underdevelopment, and so on.

The other day, in this same hall, a sermon was preached to us, that is, to the so-called Third World. In particular Africa and the Group of 77 were the targets of the message which ran to the effect that if the Budget proposed for 1982-83 were to be accepted, then the consequence would be that we must be prepared to accept drastic cuts in bilateral aid from the country that the speaker represented. Moreover, the speaker warned that it would be of no avail if wailing and beating of breasts were to ensue from the situation that would inevitably arise as a result of accepting the Budget proposed for 1982-83. That statement came to an end with a story which the speaker claimed it derived from an African proverb to the effect that it is dangerous to try to milk a lion. My Delegation assures you that the story would have been pertinent if we still were in the colonial era. I am certain that the speaker was only referring to illusions of grandeur - past, present or otherwise. On the other hand, it can be dangerous today to try to continue to be predatorial.

The delegate who was telling us the other day about the dangers inherent in attempts at milking a lion ought to understand that we know from the records that his country is deriving benefits from this Organization seven times what it contributes annually. Consequently, we strongly urge that the first axe of the Director-Generalτs measure of cost-reduction would have to start with scaling down the derivative benefits of those countries whose reverse logic urges them to oppose the proposed Budget.

We shall come back to this issue should opposition to the Budget remain obstinate.

M. SALAMEH (Syria): In accordance with the general points I mentioned in the general conclusion of this document C 81/3 I give here more detailed points regarding Chapter 2.

I suggest the following five points regarding this Chapter 2: The first point I suggest, the addition of a fourth major programme in the name of nutrition, in addition to the agriculture, forestry and fisheries. This instead of having nutrition considered as an ordinary programme. The second point, to give more stress to food and nutrition education, namely what is called mass media, preventative medicine, even if dealt with more attention by other organizations. The third point, to give more stress also to wastes and losses of food through the food chain, whether from plenty of food or its scarcity in developing and developed countries. The fourth point, giving more help to developing countries in unification of their food classifications for trade, production, consumption and nutritional requirement purposes. The fifth point, I suggest to give more help to these developing countries in specifying their own food and enabling them to control and to apply their food standards.

Mrs. SAODAH SJAHRUDDIN (Indonesia): My delegation has studied with interest and satisfaction Chapter 1 and 2 of Document C 81/3 and we wish to convey our view that we do not have any problem to endorse the content of both Chapters, including its specified programmes and its proposed budget.

With respect to the technical and economic programmes we would like to make some brief comments on the following items. Regarding fisheries, in half of the developing coastal states, about 70 percent of the domestic supply of fish is provided by inland water fisheries. My delegation is of the opinion that this figure might be biased and misleading in relation to the recently announced recognition of the 200 mile extended fishing zone. In the case of my country, Indonesia, marine fish production in 1978,

1979 and 1980 was 1.2 million tons, 1.3 million tons and 1.4 million tons respectively, with an average domestic consumption of 1.2 million tons as compared to 0.43 million tons of freshwater fish for consumption, and production is 448 000 tons coming out of inland fishery.

Rural areas are always high in priority for agricultural development anywhere on this earth. It is for these reasons that my government has fully endorsed the statement and the Declaration of Principles and Programmes of Action of the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development.

There are numerous ways to restructure the informal and informed rules governing access to productive resources and opportunities on the land. Tenancy reform should be aimed at overcoming the disincentives to efficient input use and long-term investment in the land. A decentralised management system and a guaranteed minimum to share croppers should be introduced through a clearly written lease agreement.

With regard to forestry, forest product is becoming a rare commodity nowadays, because forest resources are already under pressure from billions of people striving to lift their standard of living. This situation places on governments and on their forest administration an even greater responsibility than ever before to avoid degradation and to manage every hectare of forest to the best advantage and in the best interest of all people.

In this connexion my delegation calls for better utilisation of forest resources by seeking to practice more efficient harvesting and processing techniques. International organizations as well as developed countries should spare no effort to help developing countries possessing substantial forest resources, with properly designing an inventory system which could be managed on a sustainable basis.

J. PILANE (Botswana): The Botswana delegation supports in general the programmes and sub-programmes outlined in Chapter 2. We have no specific comments on Chapter 1.

On sub-programme 2.1.1.2, Farm Management and Production Economics, the experience of Botswana on the collection of farm management data which has been going on for a number of years has shown that this type of data is very important for agricultural planning. We would therefore support this programme.

On sub-programme 2.1.1.4, Water Development and Management, in Botswana one of the major constraints to food production is lack of water, specially at certain periods of the year. This is constraining on farmers to stay longer and work longer on their fields. At present we have programmes designed to provide water at these farmers’ areas to enable farmers to work longer on their fields. As we believe this is a problem which may exist or is existing in other countries, we. believe that this programme will be beneficial to many countries.

On sub-paragraph 2.1.2.3 Seeds, availability of improved adaptable disease-resistant seeds is a major constraint in Botswana. We have a small programme in variety screening which has been ongoing but needs to be extended. External expertise in this area will be needed. We believe this programme will also be beneficial.

On sub-programme 2.1.3.1 Grassland, Forage and Feed Resources, Botswana is undergoing limited research in forage crops and it is my belief that we may gain a lot from this sub-programme. We are presently experimenting with a plant called luccena which has shown potential, and we feel this programme might also be complementary.

On programme 2.1.3.2, Animal Health, it is the belief of the delegation of Botswana that caution must be exercised to avoid duplication in the area of animal health. Experience exists in a number of countries, including Botswana, on such diseases as foot and mouth and control of the tse-tse fly. However, we feel that research on the tse-tse fly in particular must be strongly supported and will be beneficial. Here again we have an ongoing programme on tse-tse fly control, from which experience can be beneficial.

On sub-programme 2.1.5.1.1, Agricultural Education, Extension and Training, we feel this is a vital field which deserves even more attention than has been indicated in Chapter 2. For some time now in Botswana agricultural output has been exclusively dependent on both favourable climatic conditions and extensive methods of production. In the livestock sector this has led to overgrazing. As fertile land is limited crop production based on extension methods cannot be self-sustaining over a long period.

Agricultural extension in Botswana dates back to colonial days. Since independence agricultural training has been greatly intensified. This year alone the output of agricultural demonstrators is being doubled. The demand for farmers’ courses has greatly increased and in fact these demands are not always met. During the present plan period two more rural training centres will be built, bringing to five

the total number of rural training centres. The centres are used for training farmers and re-training agricultural extension agents. We have all emphasised the seriousness of the present food situation and the need for developing countries to step up their own food production.

Work on seeds agricultural research in general and agricultural education are vital if developing countries are to make any meaningful progress in the area of food production. I am however satisfied with the allocation made to seeds and crop management, as shown on page 86. But on page 102 we would have liked a shift of resources from sub-programme 2.1.5.3 to sub-programme 2.1.1.1.

M.A. AAZANU (Afghanistan): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, allow me to congratulate you on your election as Chairman of this important Commission. I also wish to extend my congratulations to the two Vice-Chairmen from the Sudan and Zaire. Under your leadership, I am sure this Commission will achieve its set objective.

Mr. Chairman, the delegation of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan has carefully studied the Director-General’s clear and concrete proposals for the Programme of Work and Budget 1982-83. My delegation fully supports the nature and objectives of the proposed programmes. All of them are of high priority in respect to the needs and aspirations of the developing countries which at present suffer severely from the rampage of hunger, malnutrition and mounting economic difficulties. Now is the time to assist them; tomorrow will may be too late.

In reviewing the proposals of the Director-General a number of its significant features stand out. Let me briefly outline these features. First, FAO’s activities, particularly its Special Action Programmes, are closer to the needs and priorities of the developing countries. Secondly, the programmes have validity and relevance with the realities of all the developing nations. Thirdly, the spread of the Programme of Work and Budget is balanced, in the sense that the critical elements of food and agricultural production are all covered. Fourthly, the mechanisms proposed for implementing the various programmes are based on the concepts of the new dimensions as agreed to in various fora by the international community. Fifthly, the proposed programmes have a practical orientation with good follow-up prospects by the governments of the developing countries, donors and financing institutions. Last, but not least, the proposed programmes are within the technical capabilities of the Organization. They are practical and realizable and not abstract and unmanageable.

The proposals of the Programme of Work and Budget are totally consistent with the mandate of FAO and the realities of the world in which we live, with the international development strategy and with the spirit of the resolutions of several recent major international gatherings, especially the North-South Dialogue at Cancun.

We cannot afford to adopt a passive attitude to FAO’s Programme of Work and Budget 1982-83. We must remain vigilant and translate hopes into actions and actions into fruitful results. If we do not move forward in promoting the programmes of this vital international Organization, the consequences of our failure will prove catastrophic for the largest part of humanity. Lack of consensus on our part will result in more hunger around the world. There will be a significant increase in social turmoil leading to incalculable political upheavals. None of us wants this to happen. Therefore, this is the time to act with determination and with unity.

The Director-General has not proposed a vast increase in the budget of this Organization for 1982-83. The increase is a very modest one and the minimum by which this Organization can meet its global responsibilities. In fact, if one compares it with the needs and priorities of the developing countries, the size of the budget is well below the level it should be.

The problem of food in the developing countries, especially in the least developed and landlocked countries, is extremely critical. If the international community does come forward with ideas, actions and the minimun of resources, disasters of major proportion are bound to emerge in many parts of our globe. The role of FAO in helping to circumvent such potential disasters is unique. As an international agency it can intervene in the development process in every member country. Let this point not escape our minds.

Many distinguished speakers from the Group of 77 have supported the Director-General’s Programme of Work and Bduget for 1982-83. The delegation of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan wished to associate itself with the statements made by the speakers from the Group of 77. At the same time, my delegation would like to request our friends and partners from the developed countries to reassess their position on the level of,the budget and give full support to the Director-General to carry out the heavy task expected from this Organization.

Mr. Chairman, let every member of this Organization rise to the occasion and do what the millions of small farmers and rural poor expect from them in terms of assistance required to be able to achieve self-reliance and a decent standard of living.

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the floor. If necessary, I may ask for the floor again as the debate goes on.

M. HOUYENGAH (Togo): C’est la premiere fois que la délégation togolaise prend la parole, aussi puis-je me permettre, Monsieur le Président de vous féliciter, vous et les autres membres du Bureau, pour votre brillante élection à la direction des travaux de notre commission.

La délégation togolaise donne son appui sans embage au Programme de travail et au budget 1982-83 de la FAO que le Directeur general nous a présenté et souhaite que les autres délégations en fassent autant, ceci afin de permettre à notre Directeur général, que nous avons réélu pour un nouveau mandat, de mener à bien la tâche combien difficile et délicate qu’est la direction de notre Organisation.

S’il n’est pas possible à présent de porter quelques amendements dont il devra être tenu compte pour le programme, la délégation togolaise souhaiterait que dans le prochain biennium, ou qu’au cours de l'exécution du présent Programme les points suivants soient pris en considération.

Il s’agit du Programme d’amélioration et du développement des semences: la delegation togolaise approuve les objectifs fixés par le Directeur général, et voudrait que la FAO aide les pays en voie de développement à asseoir des plan nationaux de production de semences en tenant compte des propriétés organoleptiques et des habitudes alimentaires des populations. Par la même occasion la délégation togolaise constate le besoin pressant de préserver les ressources phytogénétiques qui constituent le fondement de l’alimentation pour les génerations futures, et d’empêcher que ces ressources ne tombent sous le contrôle d’intérêts privés.

S’agissant du Programme international d’approvisionnement en engrais, la délégation togolaise souhaite que la FAO entreprenne des investigations en vue d’aider certains pays en voie de développement, surtout ceux qui disposent de la matière première, à monter des usines de fabrique d’engrais, et essayer ainsi de diminuer leurs coûts, facteur sine qua non de la généralisation de leur utilisation.

En ce qui concerne le budget, la délégation togolaise considère qu’il est acceptable; que l’augmentation est raisonnable et conforme à la situation économique actuelle. Elle déclare par consequent qu’elle appuie totalement le présent budget.

J. ALVAREZ GONZALEZ (España): Deseamos aprovechar esta primera intervención haciendo, en primer lugar, una breve referencia de tipo general al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto y Objetivos a Medio y Largo Plazo.

Nuestro país sigue padeciendo los efectos de una prolongada crisis económica a la que se está combatiendo en diversos frentes. Entre estos hay que señalar el de impedir aumentos de los presupuestos de mi país por encima de lo necesario. Esta política de austeridad se está desarrollando en los diferentes sectores económicos.

No obstante, del análisis de los documentos que estamos debatiendo, y de la reflexión sobre la grave-dad de algunos problemas mundiales que se pretenden combatir, llegamos a la conclusion de que es pre-ciso abordar los objetivos a medio plazo señalados, y aceptar los presupuestos asignados para su eje-cución. Esta ha sido la posición espafiola en el Pleno de la Conferencia y es la que deseamos dejar constancia en esta Comisión II.

Entrando en los aspectos concretos relacionados con los Capítulos I y II que ahora debatimos, deseamos hacer alguna manifestación:

Referente al tema sobre la Extensión y Capacitación, vemos con gran satisfacción la importancia que se le ha dado, tanto como objetivo prioritario como por su asignación presupuestaria.

Estamos convencidos de que para lograr una verdadera solución a los problemas actuales del hambre, es necesario ayudar a construir y poner en marcha, los motores e instrumentos del desarrollo de los países que lo precisen.

Creemos que uno de estos mptpres es disponer de una buena organización de extensión y capacitación. En este punto son diversos los mpdelos válidos hoy existentes y cada país debe desarrollar el más adecuado a sus circunstancias.

Nos atrevemos a señalar, sin embargo, que parece conveniente simultáneamente una amplia gama de programas presididos por un enfoque integral en el tratamiento de los problemas de las familias rurales, pues-to que dichos problemas están interrelacionados.

No es el momento de extenderse más en el tema, únicamente nuestro deseo es enfatizar en el aspecto ex-puesto, en la confianza de que ello esté contemplado en el propio objetivo a medio plazo.

Un segundo aspecto al que deseamos ref erirnos es lo relativo a la conservación y utilización de los recursos genéticos, campo en el cual la FAO puede desarrollar una actividad muy importante y significativa.

Los recursos genéticos deben ser considerados como recursos naturales limitados y perecederos que proporcionan los genes cada vez más utilizados por los técnicos en, la mejora vegetal, con el fin de producir finalmente nuevas variedades de plantas o productos de hibridación.

Mi delegación considera que estos recursos genéticos constituyen realmente un patrimonion internacional y por ello sugerimos la creación de un banco internacional de genes dependiente de la FAO, donde todos los países que lo deseen depositen duplicados de su material genético, asegurando su conservación y su libre utilización por cualquier país que lo necesite.

Estas palabras son simplemente repetición de las ideas ya expuestas por el Ministro de Agricultura y Pesca de mis país, en la vigésima Conferencia de la FAO en 1979, así como por el Jefe de mi delegación en su discursoen el Pleno de esta Conferencia. Ideas que esperamos encuentren el eco favorable para su contemplación en los Presupuestos que estamos analizando. Lo consideramos plenamente justificado por su directa relación con la seguridad alimentaria mundial.

The meeting rose at 13.10 hours
La séance est levée à 13 h 10
Se levanta la sesión a las 13.10 horas