Les anuncio que la primera reunión y sesión de trabajo del Comité de Redacción de nuestra Comisión I, se celebrará hoy día 14 a las 18.00 horas, también en el Salón de Alemania.
La lista que compone dicho Comité es la siguiente: India, como Presidente del Comité de Redacción; Afganistán, Australia, Camerún, Colombia, Francia, Hungría, Kenya, Países Bajos, Nicaragua, Tailandia, Estados Unidos de América y la República Popular Democrática del Yemen.
Les anuncio asimismo que las candidaturas para la elección de los Presidentes y Miembros del Comité del Programa y del Comité de Finanzas tendrán que estar presentadas'hoy antes de las 12.00 horas. Los formularios respectivos se encuentran como anexos al Documento CL 85/2 y tendrán que entregarse en la Oficina del Secretario General de la Conferencia, Oficina B-202.
Todos los formularios deben ser cumplimentados y firmados por el Delegado del país cuyo candidato presenta para su nominación.
EL PRESIDENTE: Pasamos ahora al Tema 7 de nuestra Agenda: Reajuste Agrícola Internacional, integrado por dos subtemas, el 7.1 Cuarto Informe sobre la Situación, y el 7.2 Revisión y Actualización de las Orientaciones y los Objetivos del Reajuste Agrícola Internacional.
En vista de la inseparable interrelación de estos dos subtemas y conforme a lo que fue planteado por el Comité General de esta Conferencia, les solicito traten ambos subtemas de manera conjunta. Los documentos preparados por la Secretaría de la FAO sobre estos puntos son el C 83/21 y el C 83/22 respectivamente.
Paso ahora la palabra al Dr Nurul Islam para que introduzca el tema.
N. ISLAM (Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Policy Department): As you have just mentioned, Mr Chairman, I will introduce both the documents together on agenda items 7.1 and 7.2.
Document C 83/21 is the fourth biennial report on progress in International Agricultural Adjustment. Let me first recall that the basic purpose of International Agricultural Adjustment is to be an input into agricultural policy harmonization at the international level. The eleven policy guidelines adopted by Conference in 1975 represent a consensus statement of goals and policy approaches at national and international level. FAO member governments have agreed to take into account these goals and policy approaches in formulating their own policies.
I will now go quickly over the main findings of our investigations concerning progress in IAA under the eleven guidelines. Since these guidelines are now proposed to be reviewed and up-dated, a subject to which I will return later, this year's progress report focuses on achievements and failures over the period since the adoption of the guidelines.
The 4 percent food production growth rate of the developing countries advocated in Guideline 1 continues to be an elusive target, notwithstanding some progress achieved during 1974-82 compared with the record in earlier years. A slow-down in population growth helped to raise the growth rate of the per capita food production to 1.0 percent p.a. On the negative side, progress was very unevenly distributed and the number of countries with declining per capita food production continues to be very large, particularly in Africa.
Guideline 2 calls for increased resource allocations to agriculture. Here the record is mixed. The longer-term growth of 10-11 percent p.a. in fertilizer consumption of the developing countries was interrupted and a small decline occurred in 1981/82, due mostly to the unfavourable overall economic environment, notably the declining prices in many primary commodities, budgetary retrenchment and balance of payments difficulties. Data inadequacies prevent a full investigation of the flows of financial resources, but available data indicate rapid increases in expenditure on agricultural research. By contrast, agriculture continues to receive a share in total national investment which is well below that warranted by the importance of the sector. Amongst the countries for which data on planned public expenditures were available, 24 recorded an increase -some of them as high as 15 percent per annum - whereas 13 recorded a decline as low as -8 percent p.a. Two-thirds of the countries spent no more that 10 percent of their total planned public expenditure on agriculture.
In relation to Guideline 3 on producer incentives and rational use of resources, real producer prices for major food commodities which were rising in the first half of the 1970s did not maintain this trend in the second half. Other agricultural commodities fared better for a time, following increases in international prices in the immediate post-1975 period before the onset of sharp declines in more recent years. In many developed countries the degree of support to domestic production continued unabated during the second half of the 1970s: structural surpluses in some sectors, e.g. dairy, sugar, etc., posed serious policy problems, both domestic and international.
Concerning Guidelines 4 and 5 on nutritional standards, integrated nutritional policies, etc. the data show that for the developing countries as a whole per capita calorie supplies improved somewhat and coverage of 100 percent of average calorie requirements was achieved. But, as in the case of food production, progress has been very uneven with several countries experiencing declines. Nearly 60 percent of the developing countries' populations (excluding China) still live in countries with per capita calorie supplies well below average requirements. An increasing number of countries ar~in the process of adopting nutritional policies and incorporating nutritional considerations into their agricultural and rural development projects with the assistance of FAO. While this is an encouraging development, there are still serious weaknesses in implementation.
The gains in per capita calories of the developing countries were based, inter alia, on rapidly growing food imports. Overall, there has been no clear-cut tendency for countries with weak balance of payments to favour domestically produced food at the expense of imported food, as advocated in Guideline 6. Regional self-sufficiency in basic food continued to decline, except in the Far Eastern region.
In relation to Guidelines 7 and 9 on agricultural trade and agricultural export earnings of the developing countries, the data show that the volume of world agricultural exports did indeed accelerate in the second half of the 1970s until it was halted by the world economic recession. However, such improvement reflected significantly the increased food exports of the developed market economies and the increased imports of both the developing countries and of the developed centrally planned economies. Developing country agricultural exports grew much more slowly in volume terms and their export earnings declined in both 1981 and 1982, due mostly to drastic falls in their export prices. These developments reflect both the world economic recession, internal weaknesses in the agricultural sector of the developing countries themselves and failure to achieve any real progress in liberalizing access to markets.
Some progress was achieved in enhancing the world food security situation as Guideline 8 advocates. But such progress has been slow and remained limited to certain areas. World cereal stocks rose at the end of the 1982/83 crop year to 21 percent of world annual consumption, but they are expected to decline to below 18 percent by the end of the crop year 1983/84, due to acreage limitations and to unfavourable weather in the major exporting country. The stocks held by the developing countries have remained nearly constant at around 100 million tons and, by implication, they have declined as a proportion of their annual consumption.
External assistance to agriculture continues to be well below the target of $8.3 billion annually at 1975 prices which, according to Guideline 10, was to be achieved in the period 1975-80. However, commitments did increase from $ 3.5 billion in the mid-1970s to $ 5.3 billion pa in 1980 before falling back to $ 5.1 billion in 1981.
In the area of food aid, cereal shipments have tended to stabilize at around 9.0 million tons annually, some 10 percent below the target of 10 million tons indicated in Guideline 11. Forecasts for 1983/84 are for a still lower level, 8.7 million tons. In the meantime, cereal deficits of the developing countries continued to increase and the proportion of imports covered by food aid declined drastically. Failure to achieve any real progress in food production and consumption in many countries, particularly in Africa, means that food aid requirements will continue to increase in the foreseeable future. Estimates for 1985 put these requirements at 20 million tons annually, more than twice present levels.
This brief review of achievements and failures in international agricultural adjustment since theadoption of the guidelines, indicates that progress achieved sofar has been slow and uneven. Reneweforts are required for progress to become more wide spread and to beincreasingly directed tobenefit the most vulnerable countries and population groups.
I will now refer briefly to the process which has led to the preparation of the draft up-dated and revised guidelines presented in document C 83/22. As delegates will recall, the Conference agreed at its Twentieth Session that the guidelines should be reviewed and revised in the light of developments since their adoption in 1975. The Director-General submitted proposals following this decision of the FAO Conference for revision of the Guidelines to a Government Consultation held in March 1981. The Consultation made progress towards an agreed formulation, but consensus was not reached on all the guidelines. The full report of the Consultation was submitted, however, to the Eighty-Second Session of the FAO Council. The Council appointed a contact group composed of members of the Council to review the report of the Experts Consultation and to endeavour to reach agreement and consensus on those guidelines on which there had earlier been no consensus. The Contact Group succeeded in reaching consensus and the Council decided that the draft guidelines should be submitted to the present Session of the FAO Conference for its consideration and adoption if it so decides.
I wish to draw the attention of the Conference to the following points contained in document C 83/22. The document on the revision of guidelines, as agreed to by the contact group established for the Council for the purpose and as considered by the Council last year, does include a number of reservations by one or two member governments in respect of a few selected guidelines on which consensus was not reached. The Conference may adopt the guidelines if it so desires along with the reservations as recorded in the document submitted by the Conference.
In relation to the consideration by the Conference of Guideline 10, there are no new developments to report on the possibility of making a legally binding agreement on the International Emergency Food Reserve.
The Council also requested that the Conference take into account the suggestion that Guideline 1 could include as the main purpose of International Agricultural Adjustment the following phrase: "To promote the establishment of a new international economic order".
Finally the Council requested that the Conference could review the draft of Guideline 7 "in the light of results which might be achieved with regard to trade in specialized fora of the United Nations system, particularly GATT and UNCTAD". As the Conference is aware, certain declarations and resolutions were adopted by these two Organizations on the issues of trade and protectionism since the draft Guideline 7 was drawn up. I refer to the Ministerial Declaration of the GATT adopted in November 1982 and Resolution 59 (VI) adopted at UNCTAD VI in June of this year. Taken together, these more recent developments include commitments or objectives regarding the halting and reduction of protectionism; improved access to markets; need for discipline in export competition; and emphasis on the export needs of the developing countries. These aspects of an improved international trading system are also incorporated in the draft guideline as presented in the document before you. In deciding whether any changes in the draft are necessary, the Conference will no doubt wish to take into account these similarities regarding objectives as well as the desirability of formulating the guideline in as succinct a form as possible.
Discussion in the Conference will be helpful in guiding FAO'S further work in the area of International Agricultural Adjustment. In this connection I would like to inform delegates that the Director-General will submit FAO's contribution to the Review and Appraisal of the International Development Strategy for the Third Development Decade which will be carried out by the General Assembly in 1984. The submission from FAO will incorporate the deliberations of the FAO Conference under this item and other related agenda items such as the State of Food and Agriculture, World Food Security and WCARRD in Commission I, as well as the discussions in Commission II under Agenda Item 16.
EL PRESIDENTE: A nombre de la Comisión, felicito y agradezco al Dr. Islam por su brillante presentación. Antes de otorgarles la palabra, deseo puntualizar muy brevemente algunos aspectos.
Todas las naciones, estamos convencidos, han tenido largo tiempo para revisar, analizar y discutir este asunto. Estamos convencidos, por otro lado, de que el Grupo de Contacto querrá ratificar sus concienzudas y largamente debatidas conclusiones. Esperamos congruencia intelectual y moral. Entendemos también que estas orientaciones no son compulsorias sino solo son eso, Orientaciones, e indicaciones breves y comprensivas surgidas del consenso habido en un número considerable de discusiones y reflexiones sobre la agricultura y la alimentación cuya situación, actualmente, como todos sabemos, no es positiva, principalmente, para los países en desarrollo.
El progreso general alcanzado en torno a los aspectos de las once Orientaciones han sido lentos y desiguales.como bien lo preciso el Dr. Islam. Sinceramente, esperamos que esta Conferencia pueda adoptar las once Directrices, si así lo decide, incluyendo eventualmente aquellas posibles reservas que se han suscitado. No quiero repetir aquí los puntos claros y objetivos que en la presentación del Dr. Islam se hicieron y se recordaron. Simplemente lo subrayo con el deseo de que esta Comisión haga progresos en ese tema, de manera que pueda trascender, de la manera más efectiva posible, a todas las conciencias del mundo.
¿Hay en este momento algún comentario? Paso la palabra a la delegación de México.
B. PAREDES RANGEL (México): Queremos notificar a la Comisión del copatrocinio de las delegaciones de México, Jordania, Siria, República Arabe del Yemen, Nicaragua, Cabo Verde, Benin, Tanzania, Honduras, Barbados, Etiopía y Cuba al respecto de un Proyecto de Resolución en materia de seguimiento de la Conferencia Mundial de Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural, en virtud de que la oportunidad para el anuncio de las resoluciones que señala la Conferencia, nos lleva a hacerlo en el día de hoy.
Subrayamos la importancia de esa Resolución que le da seguimiento ala Resolución 7/79 impulsa los planteamientos de las resoluciones de la Organización Internacional del Trabajo núm. 87 y 141.
EL PRESIDENTE: Le suplico que para que la Secretaría pueda tomar debida nota de aquellos que están apoyando esta notificación de Proyecto de Resolución, vuelva a darle lectura.
B. PAREDES RANGEL (México): Con todo gusto. Los países son: México, Jordania, Siria, República Arabe del Yemen, Nicaragua, Cabo Verde, Benin, Tanzania, Honduras, Barbados, Etiopía y Cuba que copatrocinan el Proyecto de Resolución en cuanto al seguimiento de los progresos realizados eu la aplicación del Programa de Acción de la Conferencia Mundial sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural.
M. ZJALIC (Yugoslavia): Mr Chairman, since we now have the agenda item Guidelines for International Agricultural Adjustment, my delegation feels that this Commission should propose that the Conference should adopt the revised Guidelines in the form of a resolution.
My delegation wishes to announce its proposal to submit a draft resolution for the consideration of this Commission and the Conference.
H.M. CARANDANG (Philippines): The Philippine delegation would like to join the delegate of Yugoslavia in his proposal for the adoption of the text on the International Agricultural Adjustment which has been tabled before this Commission. We would gladly sponsor that resolution and hope that it will not cause very much difficulty in this Commission.
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): Simplement une question posée au Secrétariat en ce qui concerne le deuxième projet de résolution que le délégué de la Yougoslavie a manifesté l'intention de déposer, en particulier sur les lignes d'orientation. Lors des premières lignes d'orientations, adoptées je crois il y a une dizaine d'années maintenant, peut-être plus, a-t-on poursuivi la procédure de la résolution pour l'adoption des lignes d'orientation? Si oui, il est évident qu'à partir du moment où on modifie ces lignes, il faut prendre aussi la procédure de la résolution.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, pero no entiendo cuál es la pregunta concreta porque creo que usted mismo dio la contestación.
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): La question est très simple: les lignes d'orientation actuelles ont-elles été adoptées par la voie d'une résolution précédemment? Si oui, il est normal que pour les modifier il y ait également résolution. Merci.
N. ISLAM (Assistant Director-General, Economie and Social Policy Department): The answer is yes. The guidelines were adopted by a resolution.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, somos conscientes de que la Conferencia optó en 1975 por las primeras y originales orientaciones mediante una resolución, pero el documento C 83/22 indica que el Consejo, al recoger los resultados de los trabajos de contacto, pide a la Conferencia que adopteestos textos revisados que surgieron del Grupo de Contacto y que fueron acogidos normalmente por el Consejo, creemos que si no hubieran modificaciones sustanciales y si, como lo esperamos, los países que aún mantienen las reservas las retiraran, podría no ser necesario un proyecto de resolución. Esto lo veríamos al final de la discusión sobre el documento C 83/22.
EL PRESIDENTE: ¿Hay alguna aclaración? Si no la hay procederemos a dar el uso de la palabra para el tratamiento del tema siguiente y de los respectivos subtemas 7.1 y 7.2.
Voy a dictar despacio el nombre de las delegaciones que quieren hacer uso de la palabra, de manera que la Secretaría pueda tomar debida nota de ellas: Argentina, India (por supuesto ya había solicitado el uso de la palabra anteriormente), Bangladesh, Colombia, Grecia, República de Corea, Francia, Kenya, China, Canadá, República Federal de Alemania. Australia, Senegal, Argelia, Italia, Estados Unidos.
Tiene, en primer lugar, la palabra la delegación de Argentina.
R.C. SERSALE DI CERISANO (Argentina): En primer lugar queríamos agradecer al Dr. Islam la introducción del tema, creemos que estamos ante uno de los trabajos más importantes y profundos que haya realizado la FAO, y también queremos expresar nuestro reconocimiento por ello.
Queremos ser muy breves por ahora, hemos estudiado muy profundamente este tema, y en razón de ello queremos anunciar, con gran satisfacción, que Argentina levanta las reservas a las orientaciones 3 y 4 que hiciera en su oportunidad. Esperamos también con ello contribuir a una rápida, pero también decidida aprobación de la orientación actualizada del .documento C 83/22. En caso de ir a debate nos gustaría volver a intervenir; por ahora es todo y queremos apoyar la propuesta que hiciera la delegación de Colombia.
H. L. CHAWLA (India): At the moment I am speaking in relation to document C 83/21. We are grateful to Professor Islam for his able and lucid exposition of the position regarding international agricultural adjustments. FAO's document on the subject is again comprehensive and well prepared.
The agricultural situation in most recent years as depicted in paragraph 7 of the document is quite depressing. The decline in resource transfers in rural terms, stagnation of food aid and lack of any significant progress on the removal of barriers to the expansion of developing countries trade may be regarded as unfortunate.
The magnitude of struggle being made, and the difficulties faced by low-income developing countries, should be duly appreciated. There have been favourable references to agricultural progress in India and the Far East Region, in the Review under guidelines 1 and 2. It is to be appreciated, however, that this has been possible on the basis of great stresses and strains. To make the point, on the basis of the experience of my country, over 25 percent of the current five-year planned outlay of almost US$ 97 billion is earmarked for agriculture and irrigation. Apart from that a significant proportion of outlay in other sectors has been invested with a view to meeting the growing need of agriculture, energy, imports, and infrastructure. The country is training itself to the maximum extent. However, the problems are formidable. For achieving further increases in production, more and more difficult sources of irrigation have to be tapped. Productivity has to be increased in semi-arid and arid areas. The economy of small and marginal farmers, which is capital starved, has to be toned up. This problem must be noted by the world community including developed countries, even though many of them are grappling with difficulties within their own economies.
Under Guideline 3 reference has been made to the appropriate incentives to farmers. We appreciate the importance of this policy instrument. From January 1980 until now, the Government of India has raised support prices of paddy by 28 percent, wheat by 31 percent and pulse crops, legumes, 30-60 percent. The support prices of oilseed have also been raised, but these policies have their implications. Over 40 percent of our population is below the poverty line, earning less than what may be regarded as essential for desirable calorie intake. Large price increases erode consumption of those whose incomes cannot be protected against inflation.
Another aspect is that hefty increases in the price of oil, transport costs, and the rising prices of imports like pesticides, reduce the incentive effect of increases in support prices. Over a period of time the prices of fertilizers and their feed stock have also moved up with an adverse effect on their consumption, particularly by the small and marginal farmers.
The point to be stressed, therefore, is that the limitations faced by developing countries in accelerating agricultural production through price incentives, and subsidies on imports should be duly appreciated.
The emphasis on the improvement of nutritional levels, food self-sufficiency laid under guidelines 4 to 6 is well taken. High density of population, low land/man ratio, unemployment and under-nutrition are closely linked phenomena.
In India we are trying to improve the situation and give high priority to agricultural and rural development programmes. Food and cash aid is being provided by the Government of India to various States for national rural employment programmes. More recently an allocation of 5 billion Rupees has been made for expanding employment opportunities especially for the landless rural labour. We are however aware of the magnitude of the problem of the employment situation and the alleviation of rural malnutrition is huge. Large investment would be required to tackle this problem. As regards these remaining guidelines including increased investment flows and food aid, the Indian delegation will take the floor later when this will be taken up, because I have received this paper.
A.H.M. ABDUL HYE (Bangladesh): First of all, I would like to thank Professor Islam for his lucid presentation of documents C 83/21 and C 83/22. It is admitted that the objective of an internationally coordinated policy adjustment to regulate instability and enhance the capacity of the agricultural system to adapt to change is difficult to achieve. This is all the more so in times of worldwide recession, rising unemployment and growing protectionism in the developed countries and falling export earnings and increasing indebtedness in the developing countries.
However, it is also recognized that in the absence of coordinated action for agricultural adjustment, the objectives of ameliorating hunger and malnutrition, effacing poverty and achieving equitable rural development will continue to be elusive. It is in this context that the fourth Progress Report on International Agricultural Adjustment as contained in Conference document C 83/21 is of great interest to us. The Progress Report examines major developments in the areas of production, nutrition, trade and international assistance in the light of the eleven Guidelines during the past eight years, that is since 1975. The period under review was characterized by economic instability with high commodity and input prices and inflation in the early 70s and a serious recession in 1975, followed by a weak recovery from 1975 to 1980, which gave way to another onset of serious recession.
Since in the last eight years we went through serious fluctuations in national economies which affected international economic relations, we can only think of trends and not a trend in the major development in the years incorporating the eleven Guidelines.
The attempt by the Secretariat to approve the monitoring of major trends and agricultural adjustment should therefore be considered as tentative. It is heartening to note from the Report that during the eight years under review, the annual growth rate of food production in the developing countries
as a whole was 3.2 percent, which though short of the target of 4 percent was an improvement over the preceding period. However, the Report's findings about the flow of resources to agriculture in the developing countries in this period do not seem to present a correct picture. This is perhaps due to adoption of inappropriate methodologies and the very limited scope of the study in terms of countries covered. If the estimate of resource flows is based on a different set of variables or mix of variables, then a different picture will emerge. For instance, under the broad head "Investments in Agriculture", two subheads may be added, e.g., public sector expenditure and private sector expenditure. The public sector expenditure in turn may be broken up into current and capital expenditures. If the methodology is corrected in this manner, then it might be said that resource flows in the agricultural sector in the developing countries are either increasing or have remained steady at a significant level.
My country, Bangladesh, makes about 33 percent of public sector expenditure available for agricultural development, and we cannot think of any food-deficit country that is deliberately reducing expenditure in this vital sector. We feel rather uneasy at the findings of the Report under this guideline, that is Guideline 2, because it gives the impression as if in the face of food shortages and stagnating agricultural production, food-deficit countries are not doing their utmost.
Under Guideline 3, the Report has concluded that there was no general increase in price incentives for the farmers in the developing countries in recent years. There are several misconceptions involved here: firstly, governments in most of the developing countries do not directly control agricultural commodity prices; only procurement prices are offered which are meant to ensure that market prices for the major commodities remain at a reasonable level. If these prices are lower than the market prices, producers do not have to sell to governments. Incentives given through government prices therefore work indirectly, and this should be taken into account while making an assessment of the incentives given in the developing countries for the producers in the agricultural sector.
Of a more fundamental nature is the error in attempting to deflate producer prices by the consumer price index to show the alleged decline in producer prices over the base period, that is before 1975. If the objective is to see whether producer prices serve as incentives, then estimated cost and return on particular commodities should have been made and would have given a more accurate picture. Alternately, analysis of the trend in purchasing power of farm prices in terms of either consumer goods or of purchase inputs may be more relevant.
I am not making any statements on the other guidelines, nor on the revised updating of the guidelines. If time permits, I will intervene at a later period. I will conclude by reiterating the views that International Agricultural Adjustment incorporating the eleven Guidelines for national and international actions on nutrition, production, aid and trade are based on the existence of the interdependence in world agriculture and, by extension, in world economy. Unless this interdependence is reflected in the policy measures of both the developed and developing countries, International Agricultural Adjustment will continue to be elusive.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sr. Presidente, en el año 1975 se adoptaron en la Conferencia las once Orientaciones, que ahora son doce, y se hizo en un momento en que la situación alimentaria y agrícola mundial, se hallaba en plena crisis, crisis que había merecido consideración muy particular en la Conferencia Mundial de la Alimentación que se había celebrado un año antes.
Entonces dijimos, y así lo reconoce el documento C 83/21, que se trataba de orientaciones para adelantar una acción nacional e internacional basada en la interdependencia de la agricultura mundial, interdependencia entre todos los países.
Desgraciadamente, hemos comprobado en el transcurso de los años lo mismo que ya hemos manifestado en algunas de nuestras declaraciones anteriores: que esa interdependencia no ha existido y que, por el contrario, los países desarrollados, grandes productores, toman sus propias medidas sin tener en cuenta los intereses y las necesidades de los países en desarrollo.
La delegación de Colombia quiere confirmar su positivo aprecio por estas orientaciones, por este marco normativo internacional, por este conjunto de medidas que, si se hubiera aplicado siquiera en mínima parte, habría evitado llegar a la difícil y progresiva situación preocupante en que se encuenvtran los países del Tercer Mundo.
En efecto, en el párrafo 6 del documento C 83/21, se dice que no se realizaron esas medidas, que nose aplicaron ni siquiera en lo más mínimo esas orientaciones. Y, naturalmente, ello ha sido debido a la actitud de los países desarrollados que no han querido colaborar con nosotros en la aplicación de estas orientaciones.
En los párrafos 7 y 8 del documento C 83/21 se describe claramente en qué consiste esa actitud negativa de los países desarrollados que ha agravado la recesión, como la acentuación del proteccionismo y del aumento y la diversificación de las subvenciones y de otras asistencias a la producción, el crecimiento de los tipos de interés que conllevó el mayor endeudamiento en nuestros países, el deterioro en las relaciones de intercambio y, naturalmente, la consecuencia triste del aumento de las importaciones de alimentos por parte de nuestros países, lo cual como se dice en el párrafo 9, ha conllevado a la crisis, porque ha habido una falta de respuesta política, una carencia de voluntad política.
Han pasado diez meses desde que en el Consejo de fines del año pasado nos ocupamos de estas Orientaciones, y por ello quisiéramos hacer referencia a tres o cuatro de ellas, para confirmar el hecho de que nada ha mejorado en este campo.
La Orientación Primera recuerda siempre la meta, el objetivo establecido en la estrategia internacional para el desarrollo sobre la necesidad de que aumente la producción en un cuatro por ciento en los países del Tercer Mundo. Y esa misma cifra ya se había adoptado en la Conferencia Mundial de la Alimentación. Es decir, que han pasado ya diez años y sólo se ha logrado en términos optimistas alrededor de un 3 por ciento en los últimos ocho años.
Quisiera la Delegación de Colombia pedir a los miembros de esta Comisión que, como dice el primer apartado del párrafo 45 del Informe del Consejo de la FAO, se nos permitiera agregar ahora en la orientación primera la referencia al nuevo orden económico internacional, que en opinión de la Delegación de Colombia, debe ser la finalidad principal del reajuste agrícola internacional.
Con ánimo transaccional, estamos dispuestos a aceptar que en la Orientación Primera se incluya el nuevo orden internacional en minúscula, que ha sido la última reserva que han expresado algunos países, porque entendemos que ya está maduro el tiempo para que se reconozca la necesidad de este nuevo orden económico internacional.
Sobre la Orientación 2, el aumento de los recursos financieros, todos sabemos que esta orientación se ha cumplido en sentido contrario. Se nos pide siempre que seamos nosotros los responsables del aumento de nuestra producción, cuando es evidente que los países en desarrollo estamos haciendo notables esfuerzos en este terreno, cuando es sabido que estamos concediendo alta prioridad a la agricultura en nuestros planes de desarrollo, y que estamos asignando más recursos a esta finalidad dentro de nuestras posibilidades. Pero esto, todo esto, no es suficiente.
Ojalá que esta Comisión en la parte pertinente del informe insista sobre la necesidad de que se aumenten los recursos financieros que permitan incrementar y diversificar la producción en los países en desarrollo.
Vamos a pasar ahora, Señor Presidente, al Documento C 83/22, sobre el cual, en primer lugar, queremos agradecer a la distinguida Delegación de Argentina la actitud constructiva que ha asumido al retirar las reservas que ese importante país había manifestado sobre la Orientación 11. Creemos que ese gesto altruista y positivo de Argentina debe ser imitado por otro país tal como lo vamos a solicitar más adelante.
Como dijo el Sr. Islam en su presentación muy adecuada, en marzo de 1981 se llevó a cabo una consulta que fue presidida por el entonces Embajador de Francia Sr. Batault, y de esa consulta surgieron algunas discrepancias que fueron luego consideradas por un Grupo de Contacto en el Consejo, Grupo de Contacto en el cual participó la Delegación de Colombia.
Tras interesantes e intensas discusiones en aquel Grupo,de Contacto logramos un compromiso en el cual fue necesario transigir y ceder en busca de un acuerdo.
La Representación de la Comunidad Económica Europea tuvo una activa participación en ese Grupo de Contacto, y desgraciadamente, como se dice en el párrafo 43 del Informe del Consejo, la Delegación de un importante país, de los Estados Unidos, no quiso participar en ese Grupo de Contacto y prefirió mantener sus reservas después de que habíamos logrado el acuerdo en el Grupo de Contacto. Insistimos cordialmente ante el distinguido representante de ese país para que reconsideraran su actitud, pero no fue posible lograrlo. Y quisiéramos insistir sobre ello y con toda consideración deseamos hacer referencias a las reservas que ese país hace particularmente a las orientaciones 8, 9 y 10.
En la Orientación 8, que se refiere a los productos básicos, dice este documento que la reserva de los Estados Unidos se basa en el hecho de que entonces la nueva Administración todavía no había decidido su política en materia de productos básicos.
Quienes asistimos a la reciente reunión del Comité de Productos Básicos, fuimos testigos del diálogo, de la controversia que se suscitó entre la Comunidad Económica Europea, los Estados Unidos y otros países desarrollados sobre la situación. Situación que la Delegación de Colombia definió como coyuntural.
Allí nos pareció tener la impresión, en ese Comité de Productos Básicos, de que sí había política de productos básicos en unos y otros países.
Ojalá haya coherencia, como estoy seguro que la habrá, en una Delegación tan respetable para demostrar ahora que al haber definido ya su política en esa materia, está en condiciones de ayudarnos a obtener la unanimidad que estamos persiguiendo, retirando la reserva sobre la Orientación 8.
En las Orientaciones 8 y 9, que están relacionadas, también encontramos reservas que se refieren al Programa de Arusha, de autosuficiencia colectiva, que está vinculado a la Orientación 10 sobre Seguridad Alimentaria Mundial.
Estimamos nosotros que las últimas intervenciones de la respetable representación del país que mantiene estas reservas - y así lo dicen también los propios textos de ellas - demuestran que están apoyando plenamente los objetivos de la seguridad alimentaria mundial. Y siendo así, no podemos entender por qué desean insitir en mantener su reserva por la totalidad del texto de la Orientación 10.
Queremos insistir también en que los distinguidos representantes de la Comunidad Económica Europea participaron de manera muy activa y decisiva en ese grupo de contacto. Diez meses después, quisiéramos reconocer que la actitud de la CEE no sólo es coherente con lo que sus representantes apoyaron allá con nosotros en el Grupo de Contacto, sino que va a ser aún más positiva y nos va a ayudar con mayor determinación en el propósito del requerimiento hecho por la Delegación de Colombia para que estas doce Orientaciones tal como surgieron del Consejo de diciembre pasado, sean recomendadas por unanimidad para la adhesión de esta Conferencia.
D. MOUTSATSOS (Greece): Mr Chairman, as we are discussing items 7.1 and 7.2 of our Agenda, I should like to inform you that the representative of the EEC Commission will make a statement on behalf of the 10 Member States of the Community on item 7.2 this afternoon.
KWANG-HEE KIM (Korea, Republic of): The delegation of Korea highly commends the Secretariat for their preparation of the report and Dr Islam for his lucid introduction on this highly complex subject before us. The report clearly examines and monitors major trends and events of world agriculture in accordance with the Guidelines set out in 1975.
Concerning the Secretariat's view on the basic objective of the Guidelines stated in paragraph 9, we agree that the objective of an internationally coordinated policy adjustment is an ambitious one, but without it the basic objective of ameliorating and eradicating hunger will remain as elusive as it has been during the last decade or so, as stated in paragraph 9.
I will make a grief remark Guideline by Guideline.
On Guideline 1, as stated in paragraphs 10 to 14, the annual growth rate of food production in the developing countries as a whole was 3.2 percent during the last 8 years against a target of 4 percent growth rate. Though this achievement falls short of the target it is still encouraging if we take into account the 2.8 percent growth rate during the previous 8-year period before 1974 and the 1 percent increase on a per capita basis during 1974 to 1982 due to the decrease in population growth.
On Guideline 2 concerning the total flow of financial and other resources into agriculture, we agree that it is a very difficult and complex task to set a standard and quantify the total flow of financial and other resources into agriculture within the total economy in a given year. However, we do not agree with the classification of resource flows as stated in paragraph 15. For instance, public sector expenditure on agriculture and public expenditure on national agricultural resources: as far as my country is concerned, research expenditure is also included in public sector expenditure.
In this connection, I briefly touch on the practice which we use in my country in this respect. We set an annual budget and a financial support plan for the agricultural sector once the annual budget is approved. This includes investment, public expenditure and also all forms of financial support related to the agricultural sector by financial sources and by the types of support. Our plan is composed of two major components, direct cost and indirect support cost. The direct cost includes public expenditure by national or provincial government and also subsidy components to the agricultural sector. Once the direct cost is spent, it is not returned to the Government coffer sat a later stage. Indirect support cost, including short-term and long-term loans and finance for government intervention when we need price support, is required for certain agricultural commodities.
When we look at the magnitude of the total financial flow into the agricultural sector in 1982 in Korea, this amounts to 10 percent of GNP in terms of national income account, and the share of agriculture out of annual total budget is around 4.5 percent or 5 percent on average. The share of agriculture out of social and economic development among the total annual budget is 27 percent to 30 percent on average. The share of agriculture out of total gross fixed investment in terms of national account is 10 percent, as I have already stated.
We share the concern expressed in paragraph 20 that the share of agriculture is below the weight of the sector in the national income and greatly below its share on total population and labour force.
Concerning Guideline 3, in paragraph 27it states that a more complete study of developed and developing countries' price policies is under way in FAO. In this connection I should like to pose a question on the nature of the study. Will this study be applicable or effective when we apply it to individual countries?
On Guideline 4, specifically paragraph 47, it is very encouraging to note that FAO's programme for prevention of post-harvest losses has continued to develop in the context of national effort to minimise post-harvest losses, and that the effort will be directed not only to cereals but also to fruits and vegetables next year.
On Guideline 7 concerning access to markets and assurance of supplies, we share the concern expressed in paragraph 62 that volume of world agricultural trade has been growing higher than that of all commodities while agriculture share in the total value of world exports declined from 17.2 percent in 1974-76 to 15.2 percent in the 1979-81 period due to low export unit value of agricultural commodities compared to other industrial goods. This implies deterioration of terms of trade of agricultural products and also agricultural income.
We are also concerned about the unfavourable development of agricultural trade for developing countries shown in Table 7.1 on page 23.
We agree that only a few selected agricultural products have been included in the general system of preference which is designed to promote market access of developing countries to developed countries.
We think that more agricultural products should be covered under the GSP.
As stated in Guideline 11, food aid should have a clearly defined role in the transfer of agricultural resources to developing countries. This principle should be kept so long as there is a need for food aid in the developing countries.
Turning now to the new guideline, I would like to come back to this if time allows. For the moment, may I suggest that if the reservation or comment is not withdrawn, the new guideline should be adopted as the text stands, with the reservation included.
EL PRESIDENTE: Se ha tomado nota de esa pregunta, y quizas al finalizar esta sesión, podamos dar la contestación debida.
P. ELMANOWSKY (France): Si j'interviens ce matin, c'est qu'à partir de 14 h 30 le Groupe de contact va se reunir et je suis donc ainsi amené à parler plus tôt que je l'aurais souhaité et en tout cas à parler avant que la communauté dans son ensemble intervienne pour refléter les positions des uns et des autres.
Tout d'abord, s'agissant de la première partie de notre discussion de ce matin, le quatrième rapport d'ajustement agricole (le document C 83/21), j'adresserai tout d'abord mes remerciements au Secrétariat. C'est un document fort intéressant, aussi complet qu'il peut l'être en la matière et qui s'efforce de présenter les résultats ligne par ligne de manière que la présentation soit différente de celle que nous avons pu voir lors de l'examen mondial de la situation de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation car, en définitive, l'un et l'autre documents se recoupent.
Premièrement, on doit reconnaître que l'impact et les résultats des lignes d'orientation ont été, au cours des années qui viennent de s'écouler, assez limités. Ces dernières sont assez limitées parce que, il faut avoir le courage de le reconnaître, les gouvernements, qu'ils soient de pays développés ou de pays en développement, en tiennent assez peu compte et j'aimerais bien que l'on me cite un ministre qui, de quelque pays qu'il soit, au moment où il définit sa propre politique agricole, va avoir dans sa main les lignes d'orientation. Mais ceci est humain. De toute façon nous constatons des résultats modestes, mais je signale en passant, sans reprendre l'examen en détail de chacune de ces lignes, que la lecture du document au paragraphe 33 et à la note de bas de page correspondant à ce paragraphe 33 du document C 83/21, m'a plongé dans un abîme de perplexité. Heureusement que pour la plupart des orateurs cela n'a pas dû faire de difficultés puisqu'ils ont travaillé sur le texte anglais, mais sur le texte français vous allez voir la manière dont on a traduit les pays ACP, c'est-à-dire les pays d'Afrique, Caraïbes et Pacifique. Dans le texte français on indique que la CEE est un grand importateur de sucre à des conditions préférentielles en provenance des pays d'Asie à économie centralement planifiée. Effectivement on retrouve le A d'Afrique qui est devenu Asie. Le C de Caraïbe est devenu Centralement et Pacifique est devenu Planifié. Mais je vous avoue que c'est évidemment assez compliqué à découvrir si l'on ne se reporte pas à toutes les versions dans les différentes langues. Donc il y aura une correction à faire dans le document.
J'en viens maintenant à la révision proprement dite des lignes d'orientation, le document C 83/22. La communauté vous donnera notre position d'ensemble, mais de même que l'a dit M. Bula Hoyos pour la Colombie tout à l'heure, comme l'a dit aussi le délégué de l'Argentine qui est intervenu le premier, je crois que l'on pourrait souhaiter que ces lignes d'orientation, telles qu'elles nous ont été présentées par le Conseil, soient adoptées purement et simplement. Bien sûr M. Islam nous a signalé qu'il y avait encore quelques points en suspens qui sont relativement mineurs et sur lesquels je vais vous donner notre position.
Sur le premier point: que les lignes d'orientation ont pour objectif la mise au point d'un nouvel ordre économique mondial, sans vouloir entrer dans la discussion, je dirai simplement que les lignes d'orientation agricole ne peuvent pas avoir pour objectif la mise au point du nouvel ordre économique international. Je crois qu'elles ne peuvent en être qu'un élément car il faut tout de même être modeste, ce n'est pas la FAO, même avec la plus grande bonne volonté, qui peut construire un nouvel ordre économique mondial.
Deuxièmement, il y a; si je me souviens bien, la ligne d'orientation 7 où l'on dit que la situation pourrait être réexaminée à la lumière des résultats qui pourraient être obtenus en matière de commerce après les réunions du GATT et de la CNUCED. Pour le moment le GATT n'a pas encore conclu, la CNUCED a sorti une résolution. A mon sens, le mieux que l'on puisse faire, c'est d'insérer dans la ligne d'orientation à l'endroit approprié: "conformément à la déclaration ministérielle du GATT et à la résolution 159.6 de la CNUCED" et je crois qu'en mettant, simplement "conformément" ou "dans le cas de" on arriverait à régler le problème.
La ligne d'orientation 10 dans laquelle subsistent certains crochets relatifs à la "Convention juridique obligatoire': je crois qu'il faudrait faire sauter cette portion de phrase relative à la Convention juridique obligatoire puisque c'est un des points relatifs aux mesures internationales qui relèvent de la sécurité alimentaire au titre du point 6.1 ou 6.2. L'examen à nouveau du contexte élargi de la sécurité alimentaire doit refaire l'objet de propositions nouvelles du Directeur général dans le cadre du mois de mars et donc on ne peut pas en trancher maintenant. Voilà ce que j'avais finalement à vous dire et je souhaite qu'on n'ouvre pas un débat sur les lignes qu'on a tenté de réviser; essayons d'adopter ceci et ce sera le mieux que nous puissions faire.
M. MUKOLWE (Kenya): As before, I would like to compliment the Secretariat on their work in monitoring progress in international agricultural ajustment. The paper before us is well written and we support some of the points already made, but I would like to make a few of my own comments, particularly in relation to Guideline 1. The food situation in Africa has been very disappointing. Africa today produces 10 percent less food than she produced 10 years ago. This is a deplorable situation.
Guideline 2, paragraph 23 - the resource flow to agricultural research should be directed to the most essential research needs of the countries concerned. In Africa, a multi-disciplinary approach would be best but, of course, only in essential areas. The need to develop indigenous manpower must be emphasized. With reference to paragraph 26, there was no growth in fertilizer consumption in Africa during the periods 1974/75 and 1981/82, yet this is the continent with the most serious food problems. If we do not buy fertilizer because of difficulties in our balance of payments and budgetary situation, how shall we then be able to pay for the food imports we need? Are we going to starve? This is of grave concern for my delegation.
Guideline 3, paragraph 28 - we must underline the fact that attractive output prices alone may not be an incentive to production without measures to pay promptly for what the farmers have produced, particularly the small-scale farmer. We have already made this point in an earlier intervention. Future policies in this area should take this seriously into consideration.
On Guideline 4, paragraph 46 - policies and programmes integrating the nutritional aspects of development must receive sufficient budgetary allocation and international financing, otherwise it will be a waste of effort as seems to be implied by paragraph 46 as it now stands.
Turning to Guideline 8, paragraph 79 - the impact of high real interest rates on the economies of third world countries is dangerous. These interest rates have their origin in the domestic policies of the industrial countries, particularly the United States of America. Under these circumstances it is not easy for us in the third world to succeed in our agricultural adjustment programmes, which have a direct link with the external world. What is required for that paragraph is a policy change in the industrialised countries and supportive international policies for better management of an independent world economy.
Guideline 11, food aid - here we compliment the donors for their food aid efforts. Although some internationally agreed targets in food aid have not been reached, their efforts have been very positive and we thank them for this. We hope these targets will be attained in the near future.
My delegation is rather concerned that there is no guideline on population and population growth rates. It is pointless and meaningless to talk every day, particularly as we have been in this forum, on the need to increase food production, especially in the developing countries, while being silent on the need to reduce population growth rates. There is a need for a guideline to reflect this. We suggest that reference to this problem could be slotted in one of the other guidelines, but if this is impossible, perhaps we should make it into an additional guideline, guideline 12.
ZENG XIANRONG (China) (original language Chinese): Having read the document and listened to the presentation given by Professor Islam, we in general agree with the appraisal and analysis of the "Overview" contained in Document C 83/21, paragraphs 4-9. Paragraph 7 of the document correctly points out, "the underlying weakness of the system and the lack of any real progress in international agricultural adjustment became apparent again at the end of the decade". Much data are used in the document to expound the fact that the existing international economic system has obstructed the smooth implementation of the guidelines for international agricultural adjustment. This once again shows how necessary it is to reform the current international economic system.
We hold that monitoring should be aimed not only at presenting a large amount of data and facts, but also at deeply analysing factors for successful development and constraints so as to find solutions accordingly. The lack of any real progress in international adjustment cannot simply be attributed to inappropriate agricultural policies. In fact it more directly results from the adverse effects in the course of continuous recession of the world economy, such as shifting of economic crisis onto developing countries by some developed countries; adoption of high interest rate and agricultural protectionist policies and cutting down of aid to agriculture.
The guidelines for international agricultural adjustment involve the problems of production, consumption, trade, aid and food security. When some of them were discussed under other agenda items, we expressed our views thereupon. Today I shall confine myself to comments on the question of international trade for agricultural products.
Paragraph 80 of the document points out, "Over one-third of the export earnings of non-oil producing developing countries is derived from agricultural products". But now, their export volume is shrinking, prices are falling and the terms of trade for agricultural products are deteriorating. Paragraph 87 further stressed, "The agricultural trade position of the developing countries has deteriorated catastrophically in the past two years. This has strained available financing facilities to the limit". This cannot but arouse our concern. We in the past already said in the forum of FAO that "The rational solution to the problem of agricultural trade of the developing countries can generate far greater income for them than the current external assistance". This is also one of the important means to help the developing countries expand their agriculture self-reliant capabilities, which I think is worth our serious consideration.
At UNCTAD VI held last June and at the Annual Conferences of IMF and World Bank, because of the rigid stand taken by some developed countries, the world agricultural trade issue was not properly solved. No progress has been made on the relevant international negotiations. This is detrimentral to the development of world agriculture. We hope that these developed countries would negotiate earnestly on the basis of equality and cooperate with the developing countries to find desirable solutions, adopt wise policies, soften and even lift those irrational restrictions on imports of agricultural products from developing countries and extend preferential trade terms and rational price treatment so as to promote further progress of world trade for agricultural products.
World agricultural trade is one of the factors which must be considered in formulating rational agricultural policies and development programmes. It should also be an important component in agricultural policies and development programmes and thus should be discussed and studied at relevant international fora. In our view, FAO has the rich experience and the necessary means to handle these matters. We hope that FAO will, from the angle of helping evolve correct agricultural policies, continue its endeavours in further studying and finding solutions so as to make positive contributions to resolving the agricultural trade problems of the developing countries.
M. GIFFORD (Canada): The Fourth Report on International Agricultural Adjustment provides a very good review of agricultural developments over the past eight years. The Secretariat is to be congratulated for providing an excellent analysis which contains a number of interesting insights.
Given the difficult international economic environment over the period, we should take some satisfaction from the progress achieved. The agricultural sectors of many developing countries registered significant progress, as did their export performance, until the recent recession hit us all. We recognize, of course, that progress was uneven, but we feel that nevertheless we should acknowledge where progress has been made. In particular, in reviewing the Secretariat document, we were encouraged by the remarkable growth in agricultural research which is taking place in the developing countries. We believe that this augurs well for the future, provided the results of this research get transmitted down to the grassroots farming community.
Turning to the developed countries, there have been adjustments over the past eight years, particularly by those countries which primarily depend on agricultural exports. Following the 1973 commodity boom, countries such as Canada were urged to produce to fill import gaps and to play our share in improving world food security. However, in the past couple of years we have seen international prices drop to levels below the cost of production of even the most efficient producer. More recently, we have seen some strengthening of the feed grain and oilseed markets, but some commodities are still in a chronic supply/demand imbalance, the dairy market, of course, being the classic case.
It is therefore apparent that many developed countries need to take a hard look at the appropriateness of their current agricultural policies.
Turning to international trade, it is evident that trade has provided a valuable spur to economic development up to the beginning of this decade. We can subscribe to much of the comments under Guideline 7 which notes the reality that obstacles to agricultural trade are widespread and that these obstacles prevail in both developed and developing countries.
We subscribe to the view that of course we now have a much greater interdependence of our economies, and thus no country can afford to ignore the international implications when it develops its own domestic agricultural policies.
While the recent multilateral trade negotiations only made limited progress in reducing agricultural non-tariff barriers, we are encouraged, however, by the GATT Ministerial Meeting of November last year which established a Committee on Trade and Agriculture with a mandate to consider, "all measures affecting trade, market access and competition and supply in agricultural products including subsidies and other forms of assistance." This Committee is charged with developing concrete recommendations. The work is now launched, and this Conference should lend its support and encouragement to the GATT work programme.
Looking towards the next decade, the developing countries will register the main growth in food demand as a result of higher population, increasing urbanization and greater purchasing power which will evolve from development. Part of this demand for food will be met within the country, but imports will have an important role.
The experience of the last decade clearly demonstrates that while it is possible for rapid growth developing countries to achieve impressive increases in food production, it is still quite difficult for such production to keep pace with the rate of growth in demand for food.
Obviously, it is in the interests of all countries, developed and developing, to see a reduction in trade barriers so as to facilitate the expansion of both agricultural and industrial trade.
In concluding, I cannot help but be struck by the brief reference in paragraph 47 regarding post harvest losses, and comparing this rather cryptic comment with the much more extensive references to the level of food aid. If we could reduce post harvest cereal losses by only one percent of the world production, this would represent an increase of supplies equivalent to a virtual doubling of existing food aid shipments. So I think the document tends to lose its perspective sometimes.
Much concern is expressed in the report at the recent stagnation of food aid. However, it seems to me that this is a development which was bound to occur. To be perfectly frank, many national aid agencies had a bias against food aid. Many national aid agencies prefer to invest their scarce resources in projects which address the long term objective, improving the domestic agricultural capacity of the developing countries. Food aid, and particularly programmed food aid, is thus regarded as a transitory measure.
In Canada's case, the percentage of official development assistance devoted to agriculture and rural development is scheduled to increase to 45 percent by 1985. At the same time, bilateral and multilateral food aid is targeted to decline from about 20 percent in recent years to about 14 percent by 1985, even though the resources devoted to food aid will increase in absolute term--and this, of course, is because of the overall growth in Canada's ODA.
Finally, let me say that rather than worrying about the absolute level of food aid, I think perhaps we should be more concerned that an overall basis of only about 10 percent of bilateral aid is currently going into the agricultural sector broadly defined.
This would appear to be much too low, given the critical importance of agriculture in the development process.
So much for the first agenda item, as regards the second agenda item, on the guidelines, the Canadian delegation will revert back to this at a later stage.
E. SCHRODER (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): Although it is very difficult to monitor and assess the progress which has been made, or has failed to have been made, in such a complex area such as the adjustment of agrarian structures, allocation of funds, trade facilities, production increases, and improvement of the food situation, the document presented by the FAO Secretariat is a very good one. We would like to express to it our appreciation for this document. My delegation would now like to express its views on some points of the document C 83/21.
Guidelines 2 and 3 deal with the priority which governments should give to the agricultural sector. In line with the decisions which were taken by various fora of the United Nations, my Government is of the opinion that the development of the agricultral sector has a key role in the overall development of developing countries. In its cooperation with the developing countries, the promotion of -agricultural development is therefore one of its technical priorities.
My delegation shares the assessment expressed in paragraphs 16, 20 and 29 of document C 83/21, that the agricultural sector in many developing countries gets less public funds than it needs, and that producer prices in those countries over the last few years have hardly been an incentive for increased production.
Special attention is given by my delegation, just as the Canadian delegation, to the problem of crop losses before, during and after the harvest, as dealt with in paragraph 47. A reduction of these losses would make an essential contribution to an improvement of the food situation and also of food security in many countries. The statement made in the first sentence of this paragraph that a reduction of crop losses by 5 percent of world cereal production, would increase availability by 80 million tons, does not really indicate very much. It would have been more useful to express the desired reduction as a percentage of the crop losses as they are estimated at present. It is therefore suggested that this relationship should be expressed when dealing in future with the subject of reducing crop losses.
Paragraph 66 of the same document, refers to the negative effect of consumption taxes for tropical beverages in certain developed countries. In the Federal Republic of Germany also, there are internal levies on coffee and tea. However, studies undertaken in the Federal Republic indicate that the effects on consumption are however insignificant. This is shown very clearly by the fact that in an area of the Federal Republic, in Eastern Friesia per capita consumption of tea is ten times more than the consumption in other parts of the Federal Republic. This high consumption of tea is due entirely to consumption habits and prices have no impact there, because the tea prices in Eastern Friesia are exactly the same as elsewhere in the Federal Republic of Germany, and the level of incomes is comparable to the incomes in other parts of the country. So far, the effects of consumption taxes for tropical beverages are over assessed in the document, at least, as far as my country is concerned.
Paragraph 68 mentions the functioning of the GSP of the EC and of the Lomé Convention. We are of the opinion, that the Stabex model of the EEC as it is practiced in Lomé II, that is to say, stabilization of individual commodities cannot be expanded to all developing countries and to other commodities. The Federal Republic of Germany is rather in favour of a global stabilization of export earnings, which would cover a much greater number of commodities than Stabex, and which would provide for an aggregate stabilization of commodity export earnings for all developing countries without any differentiation according to regions.
We feel that such a solution would be more suitable in order to ensure a stabilization of export earnings over the long-term for the developing countries.
With regard to item 7.2, the revision and up-dating of guidelines for international agricultural adjustment, the representative of the EEC Commission is going to make a statement on behalf of the European Commnunity this afternoon, as was indicated before. Therefore, we are not going to dwell on that point at present .
G. MACKEY (Australia): With regard to paper C 83/21 the Australian delegation shares many of the views expressed by the Canadian delegation about the quality of the paper as a review of developments over the last eight years. We think, in particular, that the paper rightly concentrates considerable attention on the importance of trade and it draws attention to some of the barriers to freer trade which we believe are well made in paragraphs 34 and 78, in particular.
Turning to the second paper which it now seems is going to have a fuller discussion later in the day, at this stage I would just like to make a few points. First of all in relation to guideline 1, the suggestion that there may be an inclusion of a phrase to the effect to promote the establishment of a new international economic order, Australia would have to agree with the statement of the delegate of France, that this should not be seen as the main purpose of the concept of international agricultural adjustment, and if anything, it would be no more than an element in the progress that should be aimed for.
On guideline 2, we have some query as to whether the inclusion in the footnote of the tentative figures, or targets if you will, are appropriately included.
On guideline 7, Australia would agree that it may be sufficient to refer only to being in the framework of a resolution such as 59 (VI) of UNCTAD. We also query in guideline 7 the reference in the first sentence to "particularly developed countries". We believe that the emphasis should be on all countries displaying the necessary political will.
On guideline 8, the second sentence appears to imply a more than equitable share of the burden of world food imbalances being borne by exporting countries. We do not have any particular words to suggest there at this stage, but it is a point that we flag, because it seems to imply more responsibility for the exporting countries than for the world community at large.
Those are the points we would like to make at this stage, and we may have something further to say as the debate on this topic develops.
P. SENGHOR (Senegal): Permettez-moi tout d'abord, puisque c'est ma première intervention au sein de cette importante Commission I, de vous adresser au nom de la délégation sénégalaise nos félicitations pour votre élection à la Présidence de cette Commission, qui, dis-je, est importante et fondamentale pour la Conférence puisqu'elle traite des voies et moyens à entreprendre en vue de résoudre les problèmes qui nous réunissent tous ici aujourd'hui. Nous sommes convaincus et c'est cela la raison de notre présence ici que sous votre direction le but de nos travaux sera atteint.
Le Sénégal est sans doute le pays sahélien où le problème céréalier, caractérisé par un déficit considérable,(230 à 570 000 tonnes durant les dix dernières années) est actuellement le plus sérieux. La production céréalière (mil, sorgho, paddy, maïs) a évolué depuis 1960, entre 380 000 tonnes (82-83) et 950 000 tonnes (78-79), la moyenne se situant autour de 660 000 tonnes.
La production céréalière calculée sur le taux quinquennal n'aura donc augmenté aue de 1,7 Pour cent pour le courant des deux dernières décennies soit un taux très inférieur à celui de l'accroissement démographique qui est de 2,7 pour cent par an.
Avec une offre céréalière à la fois irrégulière et stagnante et une demande croissante le recours aux importations prend une ampleur inquiétante. Conscient du problème, le Gouvernement sénégalais dans son programme de développement rural, a pris des mesures qui s'imposent en vue de résoudre le problème du déficit à la base. Ce programme, tout en essayant de se conformer aux recommandations de ce document C 83/21, met surtout l'accent sur le problème fondamental de la maîtrise de l'eau, problème sans la résolution duquel notre agriculture sahélienne restera toujours tributaire des conditions climatiques devenues de plus en plus défavorables. Ainsi donc le Sénégal et ses voisins se sont mis d'accord pour une lutte intégrée contre ce fléau de la sécheresse au Sahel en entreprenant d'investir prioritairement pour la maîtrise de l'eau.
Je voudrai terminer en disant que bien que ces 11 lignes d'orientation nous guident assez bien dans notre recherche de solutions au problème de développement rural, elles restent un peu trop dans la généralité. D'où la nécessité d'y apporter quelques amendements.
S. ALI KETRANDJI (Algérie): Les lignes d'orientation soumises à l'examen de cette commission s'inscrivent dans un contexte précis: celui de la récession qui s'est durablement installée en 1975, qui met en relief le défaut radical de coordination des politiques au niveau international et aggrave le caractère inégal de l'interdépendance des nations. Compression de la demande effective, restrictions budgétaires, inflation et instabilité monétaire dans les pays développés; dégradation spectaculaire des termes de l'échange net et des revenus, accroissement rapide des dettes, stagnation des exportations et accroissement des importations alimentaires dans les pays en développement.
L'évolution de ces indicateurs rend plus que jamais nécessaires, pensons-nous, les objectifs dégagés à travers les lignes d'orientation de l'ajustement agricole international et au delà, ceux de l'instauration du nouvel ordre économique international, comme le souligne d'ailleurs le texte de révision et de mise à jour des lignes d'orientation. En fait les objectifs poursuivis par l'AAI sont relativement faciles à formuler: il s'agit d'équilibrer l'offre et la demande alimentaire mondiales avec pour corollaires bien sûr, des prix rémunérateurs pour les uns et équitables pour les autres dans des conditions de stabilité des marchés. Il es t évident que cet objectif suppose un accroissement des productions alimentaires et agricoles dans les pays en développement, un ajustement subséquent de ces mêmes productions dans les pays développés et un transfert des ressources et des technologies fixé par la Communauté internationale à 8,5 milliards de dollars par an au moins et aussi longtemps que celle-ci l'aurait jugé nécessaire, ainsi qu'un niveau d'aide en valeurs réelles correspondant aux besoins de cet ajustement. Dans l'ensemble, pratiquement aucun de ces objectifs n'a été atteint. Seuls des pays développés ont pu mettre en oeuvre des politiques d'encouragement
aux producteurs, au prix de forts excédents et de la fermeture des frontières aux produits en provenance des pays en développement; l'instabilité et l'imprévisibilité des prix sur les marchés mondiaux a également été le prix de ces encouragements. L'irrationalité du point de vue de l'ajustement agricole international réside ici dans le fait d'encourager à tout prix la production même lorsque les coûts relatifs sont élevés, quitte à nuire aux producteurs des pays en développement. Les excédents sont alors écoulés vers ces mêmes pays en développement ou utilisés dans des programmes d'aide alimentaire; ces deux facteurs entraînant ou aggravant la distoration aux niveaux alimentaires nationaux. Sans parler de l'investissement politique ou de l'immixion dans les formulations des stratégies alimentaires nationales qu'ils peuvent susciter dans le chef des principaux pays donateurs. Selon une logique implacable, les pays qui subissent les services de la dette les plus lourds, et disposent de réserves internationales les plus faibles, sont également ceux qui enregistrent des taux de croissance alimentaire et agricoles les plus bas, et des taux d'accroissement des importations alimentaires et agricole les plus élevés. Cela n'est pas fortuit. Il est injuste dans ces conditions d'incriminer une inadéquation des politiques intérieures en ce qui concerne le défaut d'autosuffisance alimentaire. Le document C 83/21 souligne l'intérêt de la coopération régionale en matière d'autosuffisance alimentaire, en application du programme d'Arusha pour l'autonomie collective. Il faut regretter le peu d'échos favorables qu'a eu auprès des principaux pourvoyeurs d'aide alimentaire l'expérience de commerce alimentaire direct menée par les pays en développement et dont mon pays l'Algérie était partie prenante.
C'est l'occasion de rappeler avec force que pour nous, la coopération Sud-Sud n'est pas exclusive de la coopération Nord-Sud; elle en est le complément nécessaire. Et cette nécessité de renforcer la coopération Sud-Sud s'impose avec toute sa clarté si l'on tient compte par exemple du fait que l'engagement des transferts au secteur agricole de 8 milliards de dollars et demi par an au moins, n'a pas été atteint. Et il s'agit encore uniquement d'engagements et non de décaissements réels. Compte tenu aussi de la diminution des engagements à des conditions de faveur depuis 1981, qui traduit un durcissement des positions des principaux bailleurs de fonds. Nous entendons dire que l'aide alimentaire décourage la production. En fait celle-ci diminue par rapport à l'ensemble des importations, comme vous le savez,et elle est si insuffisante qu'une telle affirmation perd toute crédibilité. Malgré le résultat modeste ou inexistant des objectifs poursuivis, les lignes d'orientation gardent leur impérieuse nécessité, il faut les poursuivre, les consolider car elles fixent les conditions minimales au déblocage de la situation agricole mondiale en vue d'enrayer la faim dans le monde. Le document C 83/21 qui les enrichit et les complète à la lumière des faits nouveaux survenus depuis 1975 expurgé des réserves introduites et nous saluons à ce propos les retraits des réserves de l'Argentine, ne peuvent qu'emporter notre adhésion.
E. MAMMONE (Italie): La délégation italienne voudrait tout d'abord adresser ses félicitations concernant la présentation bien équilibrée contenue dans le rapport C 83/21 sur les progrès intervenus dans le domaine des ajustements agricoles internationaux. L'analyse systématique des résultats récents obtenus dans la direction indiquée dans la ligne d'orientation est admirable, tout particulièrement si l'on considère les difficultés inhérentes à l'établissement d'indicateurs statistiques propres pour l'estimation de certaines tendances.
La délégation italienne voudrait demander, sans prendre trop de temps à la Conférence (surtout parce que nous ne pensons pas faire en ce moment de déclaration sur les lignes d'orientation car nous attendons tout d'abord la déclaration faite par la suite par le représentant de la CEE au nom des pays membres) et nous voudrions seulement nous arrêter un instant sur la ligne d'orientation simple qui concerne l'amélioration nutritionnelle des couches les plus misérables de la population. La lecture du paragraphe 49 est choquante, elle nous démontre que la santé des futures générations de la population humaine est en grand danger. Il faut continuer à suivre et soigner avec une attention toute particulière l'évolution de la situation dans ce secteur. C'est pour cela que nous voudrions demander dans le prochain rapport que le secrétariat nous donne des renseignements, si possible chiffrés, sur les projets nutritionnels spéciaux qui ont été entrepris tant sur le plan national que par le biais de l'aide bilatérale et multilatérale en ce domaine. Nous voudrions que dans ces renseignements on ne se borne pas à nous fournir des données en termes de calories, mais aussi en termes de composantes nutritionnelles.
S.P. MUKERJI (India): Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, for giving my country another opportunity to give expression to our views on this very important item. My country and my delegation fully support the revised guidelines for International Agricultural Adjustment. My delegation feels that this is a very articulate and up-to-date enunciation of the various problems and their solutions which are needed in the current world situation. My delegation feels that FAO is doing a signal service to the future of humanity by articulating these guidelines and bringing them up to date from time to time so that the conscience of the international community is kept sensitive to the problem that mankind is facing and the manner in which we have to face this challenge. I feel that these Guidelines on International Agricultural Adjustments reiterate the thrust which FAO has been giving on the concept of World Food Security. These are the two singular achievements of the FAO in keeping the conscience of mankind addressed to the grave situation which we may be facing on this planet in the context of rising population and declining agricultural production. These guidelines very ably and competently cover not only the subjects of food production and food security but also the problems of social and economic injustice that may be prevailing within national boundaries as well as outside and between nations, and if these guidelines are properly implemented, not only will there be a very reasonable and safe level of World Food Security achieved, but also the quality of the life in the vast rural population of the developing countries is bound to improve.
While going through the guidelines, my delegation would like to point out that the Revised Guidelines are much better than the existing ones because they specifically and in no uncertain terms bring out the various problems which have arisen since the last set of Guidelines were issued. We should not be disheartened if we have not individually as nations and collectively as a regional or global family been able to come up to the standards set by the Guidelines. Nonetheless, the fact that the Guidelines have been set before us shows us the direction in which progress is to be made and we are happy to see that progress is being made on various fronts.
It is true that under Guideline 1, 4 percent rate of growth of food grain production has not been achieved by a majority of countries, but the rate of growth of food grain production in a number of developing countries is going up, and thanks to the guidance given by the FAO and the bilateral and multilateral assistance that has been flowing in between developing countries, my delegation is hopeful that the rate of growth will continue to go up. In this respect, the example set by my country, India, in the field of agricultural production and increasing agricultural productivity especially for small and modular farmers is noteworthy.
In Guideline 1, my delegation is happy to note that, apart from the rate of growth of food grain production, the concept of world food security, especially addressed to the developing countries, has also been enshrined. We fully support this guideline.
As far as Guideline 2 is concerned, not only the emphasis on agricultural inputs like fertiliser, pesticides, seeds etc., but also the fact of the need to use those inputs more efficiently has been very ably and appropriately indicated. Our feeling is that, while in many of the developing countries, the grants, aid and efforts that are put in are increasing quantitatively, more efficient utilization of those inputs is not yet fully emphasized, and it is very good that in Guideline 2 efficient use of inputs has been indicated.
In Guideline 3, the concept of agricultural structural reforms in order that those who till the land and those who cultivate the land also have access to land and other resources such as inputs, markets, irrigation, and education, is very appropriate. This, we feel, will go a long way, if implemented, towards improving the quality of life in the rural areas.
In Guideline 4, the participation of the rural people through cooperatives and associations is a policy which my country has been very assiduously following for the last several decades. We feel that without the participation of the people and their involvement in agricultural production our efforts may not register very much.
In agriculture, our womenfolk are the major participants. The reference to female status is therefore very appropriate and we fully endorse this.
In Guidelines 5 and 6 reference has very appropriately been made not only to production but to nutrition, and not only to nutrition but also to ensuring that income is generated amongst the poorer sections so that they are able to have access to food grain which is produced.
Guidelines 7 and 8 refer to international trade in agricultural commodities. It is well known to everybody in this forum that of late, whereas the. prices of manufactured goods and petroleum products or crude petroleum have declined by only 2 percent to 4 percent, the decline in agricultural commodities' international price, on which the export of developing countries depends, has declined by as much as 15 percent to 16 percent. This adverse balance of trade against the agricultural sector in general and against the developing countries in particular will have to be corrected by a conscious international effort by both developing as well as developed countries.
In Guideline 9 reference has been made to collective self-reliance, to which my country and our Prime Minister, Mrs Gandhi, have been fully committed. We feel that this is an area in which, if a conscious and systematic attempt is made for the exchange of knowledge, technology and assistance among developing countries, the day of self-reliance will not be far off.
In Guideline 10, world food security has been referred to. We fully endorse the plan of action which has been proposed by the Director-General of FAO, and we feel that no stone should be left unturned in implementing the plan of action in the field of world food security. However, we feel that, so far as the International Emergency Food Reserve is concerned, the target of five hundred thousand tons which has been indicated is wholly inadequate in the face of the natural calamities which have been overtaking a large number of poorer countries. I might in this context recall the recommendation of the Seventh Conference of over 100 Heads of State of non-aligned countries which was held in Delhi in March 1983 to the effect that the International Emergency Food Reserve should be immediately increased to 750 000 tons and should be increased to about 2 000 000 tons by 1985. I have mentioned these recommendations so that they might be kept in view and so that the inadequacy of the level of 500 000 tons as IEFR is not lost sight of.
On Guideline 11 we fully agree that the target of annual future aid to the developing countries should be raised from 10 000 000 tons to the requirements of 17 to 18.5 million tons of cereals. Actually the requirement of food aid is about 20 million tons, but if this target of 17 to 18.5million tons is kept, we have no objection.
Guideline 12 has referred to the aid and foreign investment to agriculture through external assistance. I feel that, out of the several inputs such as fertiliser, irrigation, seeds, pesticides, technology, implements and so on, agricultural credit is one of the most important, because without the loans, crop loans, short-term or medium-term loans for irrigation and other agricultural inputs, the farmers cannot invest on their land and will not be able to make use of the technology that is gradually evolving. Therefore, this call to the international financing agencies to increase their loan and investment facilities in the developing countries is very appropriate, and we fully endorse it.
Our Prime Minister, Mrs Gandhi, stated in her address to the United Nations General Assembly on the 20th of September last: "The advanced countries have held consultations regarding their own problems and the accumulated burdens of the economically weakest. Nothing concrete has emerged. The Williamsburg Summit and UNCTAD VI have shown up once again the fear of the unfamiliar, of lowering easy, safe, existing protective barriers and relaxing their existing rules."
I feel that the statement has a very topical and urgent importance in the context of international agricultural adjustment, and it would be very appropriate for us to keep these words in mind.
My delegation endorses fully the revised guidelines and hopes that they will be acceptable to all concerned, and that they will be not only acceptable on paper but will be implemented on the ground. We suggest that these Guidelines should be of a dynamic nature and should be reviewed and revised from time to time as the situation demands.
A.R. PIRES (Cap-Vert): Ma délégation tient avant tout à féliciter le Secrétariat pour les documents présentés, notamment C 83/21 et 22 et la présentation qui en a été faite par le Prof. Islam.
Nous voulons avant de commencer notre déclaration, appuyer d'abord la déclaration faite par le Sénégal, étant ancien pays membre du CILSS, en ce qui concerne les efforts menés conjointement par les pays du Sahel, membres du CILSS, pour réduire la dépendance alimentaire et améliorer les conditions de vie des ruraux.
Ma délégation tient également à appuyer le document "Ajustement agricole international" et les nouvelles lignes d'orientation révisées.
Permettez-moi de souligner quelques points qui paraissent à nos yeux revêtir une attention toute particulière: 1) Objectifs d'augmentation de la production agricole nationale, notamment en produits vivriers; 2) augmentation des ressources au profit du secteur agricole; 3) amélioration de la situation et des conditions de production et de vie du secteur des agriculteurs, les plus pauvres en général; 4) participation des producteurs agricoles, notamment des femmes, au processus de prise de décision dans le domaine qui les concerne; 5) mise en place d'une politique intégrée en matière d'alimentation et de nutrition; 6) meilleure organisation de la redistribution des bénéfices et mesures de soutien et d'assistance en faveur des groupes vulnérables, notamment les ruraux pauvres, les femmes, etc.; 7) favoriser les échanges entre les pays du tiers monde, la coopération Sud-Sud en matière de commercialisation. Là, nous tenons à appuyer la position défendue par le délégué de l'Algérie; 8) mise en place d'une véritable sécurité alimentaire mondiale; 9) l'augmentation de l'aide alimentaire mondiale qui s'impose; 10) amélioration judicieuse et renforcée de l'assistance aux pays en voie de développement en matière d'agriculture.
T. NASSAR (Jordan): Mr Chairman, I should like to express some comments regarding documents C 83/21 and C 83/22. Firstly, I should like to thank the Secretariat of FAO for these two document which are well prepared and clearly presented.
The FAO General Conference in 1975 adopted Guidelines of International Agricultural Adjustment which was an epoch-making event that should be hailed, because these Guidelines represent a general framework, the gist of which should be taken into account by Member States in planning domestic policies in the field of food production and agricultural produce. Moreover, we have also been well aware that these Guidelines have been by no means rigid. We have believed, on the contrary, that experience gained from applying them Would determine appropriate changes and necessary amendments. By the same taken, our Conference this year when adopting a new wording for the Guidelines cannot be considered as making a final decision: experience will dictate necessary changes and amendments.
The study contained in document C 83/21 has illustrated that the performance of Member States with regard to the Guidelines adopted in 1975 was unsatisfactory, despite some improvements in certain instances - a fact which gave birth to the idea of changing or amending the aforementioned guidelines. FAO took a successful step when, to this end, it convened a high-level government consultation attended by a number of developing and developed countries representing all the regions. Yet the consultation was inconclusive.
Moreover, the Council of the FAO, in its November 1982 Session, set up a contact group comprised of a number of Member States of the Council, in a serious attempt to agree upon an acceptable wording for the proposed guidelines. We are gratified to note that the contact group has agreed upon these guidelines. The Council also has agreed, to present the draft guidelines and the new wording to our Conference this year.
The delegation of my country has closely followed these developments, and is pleased that the proposed guidelines contain numerous elements which are apt to ensure their success in the future. In their present form they are more in keeping with present and future circumstances, thereby deserving our support. It is noteworthy that the FAO Conference in 1975 adopted these guidelines in the form of a resolution, so changing or amending them should follow the same pattern: i.e., through a resolution adopted by the General conference.
EL PRESIDENTE: Muchas gracias, señores, les voy a transmitir la lista de oradores que tenemos para esta tarde: Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Cuba, Pakistán, Lesotho, Polonia, Estados Unidos, Comunidad Economica Europea, China (que lo hace por segunda ocasión) y Canadá (también por segunda ocasión).
Les recuerdo que a las 14.30 horas se reunirá en el salon Alemania el Grupo de Contacto constituido para tratar el proyecto de resolución sobre el concepto de seguridad alimentaria. Les textos corregidos, con las modificaciones formuladas, están disponibles en inglés, francés y español en dicho salόn Alemania a partir de las 14 horas.
Les advierto que también hoy por la tarde deberán concluir nuestros trabajos en relación a este tema 7 de nuestra Agenda y, por tanto, les suplico que moderen y concreten sus intervenciones de hoy por la tarde.
Les agradezco su atención y nos veremos aquí a las 14.30 horas.
The meeting rose at 12.30 hours.
La séance est levée à 12 h 30.
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.30 horas.
