LE PRESIDENT: Il est tard, et vous avez fait ce que j'avais demandé, c'est-à-dire étudier le texte C 85/LIM/27, la résolution sur l'Afrique. Cela a demandé un certain temps pour vous rendre compte du contenu de ce texte que je vous propose maintenant. Plusieurs pays m'ont fait savoir que ce texte étant relativement long et comportant un assez grand nombre d'articles, il devra être examiné plus en détail. Vous vous souvenez (et j'ai fait un effort louable dans ce sens je crois) que l'on pourra rapidement discuter de ce texte ce matin et qu'après l'on prendra l'autre texte ou bien j'ai dit que s'il y a des difficultés on prendra le point suivant sur notre programme, en premier, et ensuite on discutera de ce texte de résolution.
Je crois que c'est maintenant ce second aspect qui se présente parce qu'il y a plusieurs pays qui veulent encore étudier ce texte. Ce que je voudrais donc vous proposer c'est que vous continuiez à étudier ce texte puisqu'il y a des pays qui ont pour le moment encore des questions à poser, et qu'il serait utile qu'on réunisse un petit groupe informel qui discuterait avec moi des possibilités d'aboutir à un texte qui pourrait vous être proposé demain. J'espère que cela se passera ainsi et que l'on pourra en discuter au sein de notre Comité et que l'on pourra, je l'espère, se mettre d'accord.
Donc, si vous êtes d'accord sur cette procédure qui consiste à continuer et à étudier ce texte,dans le même temps on ferait le nécessaire avec le Secrétariat pour réunir des représentants de plusieurs groupes ou régions et au sein de ce petit groupe tout à fait informel, non officiel on essaierait de se mettre d'accord et d'arriver à un texte qui vous serait soumis en principe demain pour discussion. Si cette idée n'est pas une idée lumineuse, elle n'en est pas moins correcte, et si elle peut vous convenir, je vous la propose plus ou moins formellement et dans ce cas on passerait donc maintenant au point suivant de l'ordre du jour.
J. TCHICAYA (Congo\): Comme vous le savez, nous avons eu à proposer à notre Commission un projet de texte. Nous avons dit pendant les débats que nous ferions une proposition le moment venu et qu'elle suivrait les voies habituelles. Nous croyons que nous avons devant nous un texte, qui nous a été distribué seulement ce matin et que toutes les délégations n'ont pas eu le temps de l'examiner afin de donner leur avis.
Je souscris donc au fait que nous renvoyions l'examen de ce texte à plus tard. Mais je ne sais pas quelle sera la procédure que nous allons adopter; vous venez de proposer de constituer un sous-groupe officieux qui pourrait examiner le projet. Je signale que de toute façon, le projet qui est adopté ici, devra être soumis au Comité de rédaction qui aura donc à en négocier les termes. Donc, je ne sais pas si nous ne ferions pas double emploi en proposant à nouveau que le texte soit examiné par un sous-groupe. Je crois que s'il y a des propositions à faire elles pourraient être faites au niveau du Comité de rédaction pour qu'il puisse, à ce niveau, examiner ce texte et le peaufiner pour l'ensemble de notre Commission. Voilà ce que je voulais dire, mais je souscris à votre proposition de le renvoyer à plus tard pour permettre à tous les délégués d'avoir le temps d'en prendre connaissance.
LE PRESIDENT: Y a-t-il encore des délégations qui désirent prendre la parole? Si ce n'est pas le cas, je crois qu'il n'est pas nécessaire de s'étendre plus longuement car ainsi que l'a fait remarquer l'Ambassadeur du Congo , nous avons maintenant une période de répit et nous déciderons, pendant cette période de répit, comment nous allons procéder. Cela dépendra de vos réactions, de la façon dont nous allons procéder et de la procédure à suivre. On pourra toujours l'adapter selon vos voeux puisque le Président est toujours entre vos mains, chers Collègues. Je voudrais maintenant vous proposer de passer à l'examen du point 8 "Rapport sur l'état de l'ajustement agricole international, y compris le protectionnisme agricole."
Chers Collègues, voilà encore un point important. Il faut constater que nous avons quand même encore quelques points importants à traiter dans cette Commission. Je voudrais maintenant demander au Dr Islam de faire son introduction sur ce point 8.
N. ISLAM (Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Policy Department): Document C 85/21 is the Fifth biennial report of progress in international agricultural adjustment. However, it is the first report prepared on the basis of the Guidelines as revised in 1983 by the 22nd Session of the FAO Conference. Let me first recall that the Guidelines on International Agricultural Adjustment are intended to assist and facilitate agricultural policy harmonization at the local level. The policy guidelines adopted by the Conference in 1975 and revised in 1983 represent a statement of goals and policy approaches at the national and international level. FAO member governments have agreed to take into account these goals and policy approaches in formulating their own policies.
You had the occasion of reviewing agricultural production performance and overall policy environment during the discussion just concluded on the world food and agricultural situation, so I make only a fleeting reference to those aspects of international agricultural adjustment.
The period to 1984 has seen agricultural production growth in developing countries as a whole accelerate to 3.9 per cent per annum, and thus come close to fulfilling the 4 per cent target advocated in Guideline 1.
However, I wish to underline the failure of the low-income countries as a group, with the exception of India and China , to participate in the acceleration of agricultural production growth and to benefit materially from the resulting increase in global food supply. I wish also to highlight some developments in policy reform in recent years. Many developing countries are re-examining their food and agricultural policies, including pricing policies, in enhancing their effectiveness as incentives to increase production.
Guideline 2 calls for increased resource allocation to the agricultural sector in developing countries. Here, the record is mixed. The small decline in fertilizer use which occurred in 1981/82 was reversed in the subsequent two years which, however, registered growth rates well below the longer term rate of over 11 per cent per annum.
Foreign assistance in fertilizers continues to represent a small proportion of total fertilizer consumption in the developing countries. In the last two years it has tended to decline below the levels reached in the second half of the 1970s. The expansion of total land under cultivation, and extension of irrigation, was slower in the early 1980s than in the preceding decade. The agricultural sector continues to receive financial resources, approximately 10 per cent of total investment allocations on average. This is still quite,inadequate considering the weight of the sector in the national economy and labour force in the majority of developing countries. The same picture of inadequate allocations is also present in the case of public expenditure, of which agriculture received only 7.2 per cent of the total in 1982.
In both these cases, however, the data are admittedly incomplete, and these estimates of allocation need to be interpreted with caution.
Guidelines 3 and 4 are concerned in some detail with policy issues which are covered by the worker programme of action. These policy objectives continue to be pursued by the developing countries with varying degrees of success and intensity. In general, greater attention is being paid to the position of small farmers and landless peasants than to the need to enhance the participation in the development process of rural people, including women and youth.
Guidelines 5 and 6 deal with nutritional policies, food consumption and food self-sufficiency. Greater emphasis is now being given by governments to food policies, and there is increased awareness of the need to integrate the nutritional goals in the agricultural development programmes and strategies. Some countries have set up in their government structures special units for food and nutrition policy and planning. The use of food subsidies and income supplements as a means of promoting the nutritional standards of the poor came increasingly under pressure in the context of economic adjustment programmes which many countries had to adopt.
The policy orientation is to make existing subsidies more efficient and less costly, to improve targeting intervention. Concerning per capita food availability, it is to be noted that rapid improvements by the second half of the 1970s of the developing countries as a whole outside China were not repeated in the early 1980s. Indeed, several countries experienced drastic declines in per capita food availability, particularly in Africa. Food self-sufficiency has tended to stabilize in most country groups at the levels reached in the late 1970s. However, this reflected little gains in food production, foreign exchange scarcity faced by many countries and its impact on slowing down food imports.
This year in the context of Guideline 7 somewhat more space and emphasis has been given to the question of agricultural protectionism in accordance with the Eighty-fourth Council recommendation. That progress in this area should be examined by the Conference. Unfortunately we do not have to report any significant achievements towards reducing protectionism, which has continued to be persistent, wider spread and stronger in recent years. The only encouraging sign is the fact that there is a willingness to critically scrutinize in a multilateral context all measures affecting agricultural trade, and to seek ways and means of bringing them under more operationally effective rules of discipline under the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs.
However, the ways and means for achieving this still remain to be agreed upon, and this means that activities have also fbcussed on clarifying attitudes for a possible new round of multilateral trade negotiations. At a special session of the contracting parties held from 30 September to 2 October a consensus decision on the preparatory process was reached, but the modalities and scope for the new round still remained to be defined.
The same lack of progress is also evident in efforts to improve international market stability, as stated in Guideline 8. It is significant that no new international commodity agreements with market stabilization have been negotiated successfully in the past few years. Guideline 9 advocates greater ECDC and TCDC in food and agriculture. There has been some progress in agricultural trade expansion among the developing countries. In 1980/82 this trade accounted for 31 per cent of their total exports, compared with 21 per cent ten years earlier. However, there are very serious obstacles to further expansion of such trade, including availability of supplies, access to markets, and competition from subsidized exports from developed countries.
In the food security and food aid areas the combination of plentiful global supplies and the occurrence of severe emergencies in Africa have resulted in over-fulfillment of food aid targets. At the same time there has been an increasing concern with assuring access to food supplies by needy countries and needy population groups. In the area of external assistance to agriculture, defined in this narrow definition, the targets set by Guideline 12 of 8.3 billion, with 6.5 on concessional terms at 1975 prices have not been achieved. Total official commitments were approximately 5.5 billion in 1975 prices, in both 1982 and 1983. However, in those related activities not covered under the narrow definition of agriculture - that is, forestry, input industries, regional development, etc. - total commitments were about 8.5 to 8.7 billion in 1982/83 at 1975 prices.
In conclusion, I should like to emphasize that we have attempted to strike a balance in this document between length and comprehensiveness which is not very easy in view of the wide range of subjects covered in the guidelines. We trust that the document provides sufficient information for your discussions. We look forward to your comments and suggestions for improvements.
CHAIRMAN: You said "sufficient information". I am sure there will be more sufficient information in this absolutely remarkable and very fat document. I thank you for your introduction, which was objectively quite remarkable, because you succeeded in putting in a few phrases more than 50 pages of this document. You have condensed that into a few minutes. I just hope that this example of being brief will be followed by all of you, dear colleagues and friends. Of course we have here a very important document again. It is very well done. I hope that we can succeed again in being as brief and concise as possible. I always say "as possible". . That would be a good thing, because afterwards we still have a lot to do, as you know. Stressing che importance of this document, we cannot forget that we still have a few other things to do afterwards. Therefore, it would be positive if you could be as short as possible. (Continues in French.)
Je voudrais maintenant continuer en français et vous inviter à prendre la parole et à faire vos commentaires pour le document C 85/21, Rapport sur l'état de l'ajustement agricole international, y compris le protectionnisme agricole.
M. SUBRAMANIAN (India\): At the outset let me compliment the Secretariat and Dr Islam on what you very rightly referred to as a comprehensive, and at the same time, a very relevant and useful document.
I think the basic issue before this Commission is to review whether in following the guidelines which were listed at the 17th Session of the FAO Conference, and subsequently on international adjustment, the Member Countries have adequately taken into account the problems of the developing countries with regard to their growth rates in agriculture, the access, particularly of their rural poor, to food and nutrition, and whether international trade has been so regulated as to provide an opportunity for the developing economies to make the necessary financial adjustments in their own growth process.
I am somewhat amused to find that, as has been mentioned in the Report paragraph 28, page 10, there has been some concern expressed in the developing countries for the United States and the European Economic Community to reduce their subsidies. I wish this concern had arisen as a result of their loyalty to No. 1 of the Guidelines which have been formulated. As this paragraph would show in the Report, they have initiated changes which will lead to curtailment of production, not because of their concern for unfair competition against producers in the developing world, but rather out of concern for their own budgets, out of concern for their own inflation rates, or out of concern for their own monetary reform. It seems to me that we should look at these policies in the context of what FAO has urged, to look at the subsidy reduction in the budgets of all countries in terms of promoting development. I would like to mention that in India , in the formulation of the agricultural development strategies of the 7th Development Plan of India, we have decided that we would use these subsidies as promoters, or initiators, of development. We would use subsidies only in those areas where new crops are being promoted or new technologies are being initiated and that these subsidies would be used to make farmers adjust to new development strategies in agriculture. They could not be used as measures to distort price structures or cost structures in agricultural ' commodities.
I think India , which is still a developing country, has had the courage to support the guidelines followed in this Conference and to readjust its economic policy. I think there is no reason why developing economies should not think in terms of looking at subsidies as growth promoters rather than adjusters for the budget balance. We are also convinced that subsidies, particularly in the developing economies, will have to continue to help to support target groups, such as small farmers, dry land area projects, and various other programmes where new strategies for agricultural and technological development will not be able to be adopted without some initial support.
It seems to me that commodities themselves could be used in trade as promoters of development. India is, indeed, grateful to the European Economic Community, to the World Bank, and the USA and various other friendly nations of the world present here, for commodity aid which we have used for the purposes of promoting development. We have not looked at commodity aid as only a temporary resort, as something to prevent famine. We are not looking at commodity aid as a means of balancing
our commodity budget. We are looking at commodity aid as an investment. In the case of dairy development,as you are well aware, India used the sole proceeds of its commodity aid for investment in this sector. We are trying to do the same for fertilizers and edible oils which a number of friendly European nations, the United States and Canada have provided to us. We are using commodity aid to promote development in rural areas. Therefore, I would urge this Conference to recognize the need for a policy shift from provision of subsidies for agricultural commodities which might distort international trade, to one of commodity aid surpluses in the developing countries. While such surpluses are needed in the short term by other countries, whether they are developing or developed, they could be transferred with the available resources from the economically sound nations to promote long-term agricultural investment in the right direction, which is, in fact, one of the guidelines presented here. I think it is very important for us to ensure that the growth rates which need to be attained are supported by investments through commodity aid.
I do not see any other way of promoting this growth rate, except by way of adhering to two minimum requirements. One is minimum investment in agriculture, without which the share of agriculture in the Gross Domestic Product cannot be ensured, and the other is the need for higher productivity per hectare.
I would call upon this Conference not only to concentrate on total food production and surpluses available from various countries, but to identify those countries which should grow more per hectare than they are doing. In so doing, I think FAO would be able to take up its Forestry Programmes with more success. I see no way that a greater amount of land can be used for afforestation and protection of the environment, unless productivity per hectare of crops is increased, reducing the size of cultivated areas. India is one country which would like to increase its productivity per hectare. In comparison to China and to Indonesia , our productivity of paddy per hectare is lower. There is no reason why a country like India should not think in terms of adjustments which not only consider the need for a certain commodity balance, but also what I would call a balance in the use of crop area. This would require technological changes, and as our Prime Minister has pointed out, the need for technological improvement is there in all. developing countries, and much more so in the area of agriculture. This is where FAO plays a very important role through its various Technical Cooperation Programmes.
I believe FAO should recognize the need to bring improved technology to various nations in the developing world. These technologies have to be those which are relevant to the soil and water management problems of that country, and which will promote mixed farming systems. Appropriate post-harvest technology will ensure that losses in terms of food and nutrition, which are occurring because of poor storage and handling, are considerably reduced. Even a country like India, which has large surpluses, needs to go far in ensuring that the post-harvest technologies are updated, and that our losses are not of the kind occurring at the present time.
I would call upon this Conference to draw the attention of the delegates to the need for a greater flow of financial aid, both bilateral, as well as multilateral, for these purposes to promote technology transfers for farmers, and to create better handling and storage facilities for tha post-harvest period.
In terms of services to the farmers, I fully support the call given in these Guidelines to ensure that the services in credit, input, marketing, and water irrigation are made available to the sections of the community often deprived such as small or marginal farmers, or others who may be generally considered the weaker participants of the community. We in India are aware of the need for a development plan which not only focusses attention on growth, but also focusses attention on equity. Our Ministry of Agriculture has a Department of Rural Development which tries to see that the administrative structure is oriented to give adequate access to the rural poor to all the goods and services which are provided. We have in fact a package of programmes which are especially designed to ensure that the rural poor have access to services, as well as access to food, and I would ask this Conference to positively support in all developing nations what we have called in India "The Food for Work Programme". I do not find any specific reference to the need for this
type of programme in the document. I would urge the Conference to carefully consider the experience of India in the Food for Work Programme where public works are undertaken to promote employment generation in the rural sector. The additional income so created is used to enable the rural poor to purchase the grain they need to maintain and upgrade their nutrition levels. It is in fact a package comprising agricultural production, employment, income generation and equitable distribution.
In fact, Mr Chairman, I am glad to say that our Prime Minister, to whom the problem of large wheat surpluses because of bumper crops was posed, has decided not to export these surpluses. He believes it would be better to provide subsidized food to the rural poor rather than subsidize the exports to countries abroad. I think it is necessary that we support the suggestion made by the Director-General and his colleagues that food subsidies not be eliminated, but that they be used to bring better nutrition to the rural poor rather than have market prices depressed, to the detriment of any adjustment policy which might be attempted.
Finally, I believe that in the case of agricultural trade flows one must recognize that the dependency of the developing countries on imports of specific commodities will have to diminish over a period of time. The self-sufficiency concept, to the extent that it is consistent with the capability of the soil of the country concerned to produce effectively the quantities required, should be supported. I will end by referring to an area where we have given specific attention in our Seventh Development Plan. We used to import substantial quantities of edible oil to bridge the gap between demand and production. But we have decided that with the large area in our country which is suitable for the production of edible oils, we would progressively try to become self-sufficient. I would reiterate here that we are not doing it because we have an inefficient production programme or make inefficient use of our resources. I support the document's thrust that nothing should be done which would involve an inefficient use of resources just for the sake of self-sufficiency. We in India believe that self-sufficiency should go along with the most productive use of inputs for maximizing productivity per hectare.
Here I would like to finally call on this Conference to pay adequate attention not only to the two areas, the fertilizer area as well as the pesticide area, (FAO has set up a Fertilizer Commission, and it is discussing very shortly the Compact on Pesticides), but also to the need of supplying good quality seed to farmers. This is one important area to which I think we have not given adequate attention. Unless improved varieties of seed are made available to people in the developing countries, the use of fertilizer and pesticides may not really give them the increased production they want. I would request the FAO to investigate whether it is true that, in addition to inadequate attention to land and water use, there is inadequate attention being given to the development of new seed varieties and the replacement of old varieties in the various research programmes. Unless the genetic resources are improved, I am afraid that the growth rates which we have contemplated will not be achieved by a large number of those countries. I would ask this Conference to recognize the need for provision and supply of improved seed varieties, both at the national as well as the international level, and to request the Director-General to initiate appropriate measures to review the availability of improved seed for various important crops in the participating nations, and assist them in the development of appropriate seed strategies for fulfilling the needs of their farmers.
In conclusion, I would recommend this document for acceptance with particular emphasis on the need for the developing economies to recognize the role of commodity assistance, not so much as a means of balancing international trade, but as a means of promoting agricultural development in the areas where growth 'is feasible and necessary for the developing economies of the world.
P.A.L. de RIJK (Netherlands\): Our delegation considers the evaluation of the progress made during the last four years of the items dealt with under the Twelve Guidelines and Targets for International Agriculture Adjustment to be a useful document. It especially provides an overview of the evolution of major factors that influence the agricultural sector, the economic situation of the farmers, the general nutrition situation, as well as the export earnings of the developing countries. We noticed that the results of the evaluation are mixed. While the total growth of the food and agricultural production in the review periods practically reached its target of four percent, this was mainly the result of the substantial progress made in China and India . In fact, the per capita growth rate in the
other developing countries turned from positive to negative. On the positive side we find that progress is being made in relation to the attention that is paid to the small farmer and the partici-
pation of rural people. Positive results are also seen in the global world food security situation, -the food aid level and the economic and technical cooperation among developing countries. On balance, a negative judgement is made on the level of agricultural investment allocated by developing countries themselves, as well as the level of external assistance to the agricultural sector they receive from other donor countries. The progress made on improved income distribution in developing countries, on diminishing of protectionism in. developed countries, and in the field of commodity agreements has also been insufficient.
The excellent analysis of the development of the food and agriculture situation under Guideline 1 supplements in a useful way the reports under agenda items 1 and 11. The structural and more recent problems in Africa can be clearly retrieved. The long-term decline in per capita food and agriculture production in that continent has accelerated in the review periods, and the self-sufficiency ratio for cereals has declined from 92 percent in the period 1969-71 to less than 75 percent in 1983. To complicate recovery, the debt service ratio has almost doubled in only four years, while exports are declining. The tables providing the distribution of countries for a given parameter are particularly useful. They allow, among other things, quantification of the number of countries where the situation deteriorates. Table 1.3, for example, indicates that in the review periods 29 developing countries had a lower per capita food production as compared with the period 1970 to 1980. Remarkably, these countries are equally spread over sub-Saharan Africa, the Near East and the Northern African Region, and also Latin America. While we realize the technical difficulties involved, we suggest to the Secretariat that it find some way of comparing food supplies per capita in Table 1.5 with the calorie needs for the different groupings.
Our delegation is in agreement with the aim of limiting protection in agriculture in order to arrive at the most rational use of resources. Under the agenda item dealing with agriculture price policies, we will elaborate on the complexity of the relating item, Protection in Agriculture. Here we only want to illustrate these complexities by pointing out that in Guideline 1 itself an element is provided that adjusts a certain degree of protection for at least certain agricultural products. The fourth sentence reads, and I quote, "Developed countries, while aiming in their agriculture policies for the most rational use of resources, should endeavour to take into account the special needs and interests of developing countries and the need to ensure world food security". This implies that protection of food crops in developed countries.seems not only allowed, but may be even required in case world food security is threatened by world food shortages.
As to the producer subsidy equivalents presented in Table 1.7 as the criterion for the degree in which irrational use of resources prevails, we have some problems. First of all, we regret that on so sensitive an item, no explanation has been given of the methods of calculation used, nor has the underlying data base been provided. This has not been the case in other FAO documents where this Table has been presented. Such information could have eliminated our doubts as to the validity of the producer-subsidy equivalents now presented. Secondly, we assume that what is defined as government support in paragraph 26 is limited to the more direct measures, like domestic support programmes and trade measures. While in principle this could be a useful indicator, it does not provide a balanced picture. Using a broad definition of government support, the study that is being done in OECD arrives at estimates of producer-subsidy equivalents that are very different from those presented here. We therefore suggest that not one, but several indicators be used to describe the irrational use of resources. The value of proper indicators of producer-subsidy equivalents can measure the degree of protection for various products in certain developed countries or economic groupings, but,the effects of protection are rather complicated. A proper evaluation of Guideline 1 would therefore have to include, in our opinion, an analysis of the evolution of trade flows in agricultural products between the developing countries and their developed trade partners.
Our delegation especially appreciated the progress made in the wider and more equitable access of the small farmers to means of production as described under Guideline III, as well as the progress made on effective participation of those farmers, including women, in decision-making for the rural development as described under Guideline IV.
K. SHIOZAWA (Japan\): To begin with, I would like to commend the efforts of the Secretariat for having analyzed and compiled the comprehensive progress report on the International Agricultural Adjustment. However, I would like to point out some inadequate descriptions in the document. With
regard to Table 1.7, which is referred to in paragraph 26 of the document, we feel that this Table is not appropriate. In a comparative analysis of the agricultural problems of each country with different natural, economic and social conditions, the uniform producer-subsidy equivalent method is used. We think such a method has real limitations,thereby misleading people.
Specifically, my delegation thinks that the quotation in table 1.7 referring to the international comparison of subsidies given to commodities is not fitting. I would like to reiterate the limitations of the PSE method. Firstly, PSE is based on many assumptions, and therefore it is not proper to use it as an indicator for international comparisons. Secondly, PSE does not clearly reflect the particularity of agriculture in each country, such as the self-sufficiency level of agricultural products.
In paragraph 98 of the document, reference is made to Japan 's quota for beef. This rather brief sentence seems to indicate that Japan 's quota for beef is allocated to specific countries, while, on the contrary, the quota is allocated on a global basis. In this regard, I should like to ask the Secretariat to make an adjustment in that sentence.
Mr Chairman, please allow me to touch upon the question of protectionism in agricultural trade, which is referred to in paragraphs 91 through to 113 in regard to Guideline 7. My Government has always recognized the extreme importance of the steady development of world agricultural trade. In this regard, we believe it important to review the constraints on trade such as protectionism and to find effective and realistic measures for solving the problem. Each country's agriculture is closely interconne'cted with the economics of that country, and accordingly each country's agriculture has its own characteristics which have to be taken fully into account.
If I may further explain our recent measures, my Government has been periodically taking measures to open up our market to facilitate access by foreign countries. Just last July we formulated the outline of a new action programme for trade liberalization, including the abolition of taxing for 1 850 items, and we are now making our best efforts to implement it.
As GATT has started working on the formulation of new rules for all measures which might affect agricultural trade, such as import restrictions, import levies and export subsidies, my Government is ready to participate positively in that work and contribute to its progress.
J.R. GOLDSACK (United Kingdom\): The U.K. accepts the report as a well presented factual analysis of the progress made on the 12 Guidelines which were revised and extended in 1983. We would like, however, to comment on a few aspects of some of the Guidelines.
Under Guideline 1 the target of an average annual growth rate of food and agricultural production in developing countries of 4 percent has been nearly achieved, but only if India and China are included. When they are excluded, the other developing countries' performance drops to 2.3 percent annual growth, a decline over the previous decade's average of 3.1 percent. Growth in per capita production also becomes negative if China and India are excluded. Despite the fact that one half of the population of, developing countries is contained within the borders of the best performing countries, India and China, the sad fact is that the vast majority of most needy countries are falling behind.
In Guideline 2 there is a welcome acknowledgement of the need for agriculture in developing countries to obtain a greater proportion of investment resources. Its share in national investment and public expenditure totals of these countries is encouraging, although its absolute level is low and does not match the importance that agriculture has in GDP figures. Of course, it is important that any expansion o.f the resources devoted to agriculture is used effectively and that all sectors of the economy have balanced investment programmes. The emphasis on the importance of agricultural research should be supported. Policies to improve the organization of research, the dissemination of results, and the availability of trained personnel should be considered.
Under Guideline 3 we support the emphasis on the role of the small farmer in agricultural development and the provision of incentives to them. The variety of institutions and methods reported here to be used and to be successful suggest that future schemes should be devised with special reference to national institutional and social characteristics.
In Guideline 5 no figures are given on the nutritional status of the population of developing countries, although they have been given in previous reports. Past evidence indicates that the overall nutritional situation in developing countries is unsatisfactory. Although there are many pitfalls in the implementation and evaluation of integrated nutritional policies, it is something which should be pursued with the aid of the developed world.
In Guideline 6 we support the importance given to targeting vulnerable groups to improve nutritional standards and the realization of the difficulties involved in effective targeting. The processing of cheaper.foodstuffs and the simple mechanization of that processing would be an important step towards significant welfare and nutritional improvements.
Guideline 8. International commodity agreements become increasingly difficult to estabish and sustain as the markets they are intended to govern become more unstable. Since 1980 most commodity markets have reached new depths in price levels and new heights in volatility. The result can be severe fluctuations in the income levels of domestic producers and the foreign exchange levels of governments. It is essential that every effort is made to re-establish international stabilizing agreements, but adjustment on the individual domestic fronts is also necessary in order to encourage production and consumption adjustment to changing market conditions.
Guideline 9. The current African food crisis. ed forth unprecedented response from the world community in terms of food aid supplies.buthas also highlighted the importance of timely action. Many developing countries have a growing interest in regional food reserves, and the Committee on Food Security has proposed a discussion on pre-positioning of stock. While emergency action should, of course, be improved, attention should not be drawn away from the longer-term solutions to food security problems.
Finally, under Guideline 10, we support the proposition that food aid is a transitional development tool. It is a more effective tool, too, if more triangular transactions are used to draw those developing countries with food surpluses into the supply process. FAO has a role in this by disseminating information on the location of suitable surpluses. Attempts to find ways of integrating financial and food aid should also be supported.
C. CHARANVATTANAKIT (Thailand\): First of all, on behalf of my delegation, I would like to express our appreciation to the Secretariat for the able and lucid introduction of this agenda item on the progress report on International Agricultural Adjustment. The document is comprehensive and well prepared.
It is exactly two years ago that the guidelines and targets for International Agricultural Adjustment were revised, but my delegation notes with regret that no significant progress in their implementation has been made since then. At the present state when the world economy is still beset with uncertain-ties, the uneven and fragile recovery in some developed countries fails to stimulate the world economy as a whole. In particular, the economies of developing countries continue to stagnate and their growth rates continue to decline. This situation has been made worse by the increasing indebtedness of the developing countries, their shortfalls in domestic food production especially of those in Africa, their falling export earnings caused by the continued fluctuation in the prices of primary commodities, which in real terms have remained at an all time low. The plight of the developing countries is further compounded by growing protectionism in the developed world which restricts market , access and free and fair trade.
As a food-exporting developing country which depends heavily on exports of agricultural commodities for its foreign exchange earnings, Thailand is deeply concerned about the present world economic situation particularly in agricultural and commodities trade. Thailand is of the view that, although efforts have been made by international and specialized agencies such as FAO, GATT and individual governments to stabilize world agricultural production and trade, there is nevertheless an increasing trend towards growing disregard for international rules and guidelines through unilateral actions, to the detriment
of developing producer countries. At this juncture, my delegation would like to take this opportunity to lend its voice in support of the appeal to all countries and international agencies to be more resolute and committed in the joint determination to rectify the situation we are all grimly facing today. Thailand urges that together we further harness our efforts, individually and collectively, towards achieving a freer, more open and more stable trading system for the common benefit of all countries, both producers and consumers.
Turning to the performance with respect to the guidelines, my delegation admits that the objective of an internationally coordinated policy adjustment to regulate instability and enhance the capacity of the agriculture system to adapt to change is difficult to achieve. However, since the concept of International Agricultural Adjustment is based on the interdependence of the developed and developing countries in the field of food and agriculture, progress in the application of the guidelines and the achievement of its target would represent an essential element in the establishment of a new international economic order. My delegation would like to stress that it is necessary that constant review be carried out so that necessary adjustments can be made to reflect the latest changes in the situation.
At our last Conference in 1983, the Thai delegation fully supported the revised and updating of guidelines and targets for the International Agricultural Adjustment and emphasized its concern with Guideline No.7 which rightly states that all countries, particularly developed countries, should display the necessary political will to refrain from imposing new tariff and non-tariff barriers on the imports of agricultural and agro-based products, especially those from developing countries. In this regard, my delegation notes with regret that too little attention is being given to this specific issue. On the contrary, the developed countries have taken new measures leading to increased barriers against agricultural products from the developing countries, such as tariff escalation, export subsidies, "grey area" measures, waivers from GATT rules etc., which, in turn, have created serious adverse and distorting effects on world trade, and particularly on the export performance and the economic development of the developing countries.
There is also a need for renewed commitment to improve the situation regarding world hunger and malnutrition. In this connection, my delegation would like to urge the developed countries to remain committed to the ideal of free trade and encourage them to pursue policies that would promote economic dynamism, thereby enabling greater market access for agricultural goods from developing countries. I would like to take this opportunity to submit the following suggestions to minimize the agricultural trade problems before us.
Firstly, the developed countries, especially the high cost producing countries, should be called upon to reduce their commodity surpluses through the reduction of planting acreage or through stock-piling arrangements that would lessen the pressure on commodity prices in international markets.
Secondly, the developed countries should be called upon to abolish or reduce their trade barriers, whether tariffs or non-tarrifs, for imports of agricultural commodities so that the natural increases in demand for agricultural commodities will not be unduly impeded.
Thirdly, the developed countries should be called upon to reduce or restrain export subsidies for agricultural commodities in order to allow the more efficient producing countries to compete in international markets.
Mr Chairman, the three points of recommendation which I have just outlined are interlinked and mutually reinforcing. It is my firm conviction that these recommendations cannot fail but contribute to price stability, increased market access, and increased investment in agriculture.
In conclusion, Mr Chairman, I would like to reiterate that general economic recovery in itself will not be enough to resolve the agricultural trade issues. The international community must be called upon to exert a coordinated effort in harmonizing agricultural policy measures and in resolving the long-standing issues of commodity trade, particularly in stimulating adequate growth of the agricultural export trade in developing countries.
R. TREMINIO (Nicaragua\): Un análisis del Informe sobre el Reajuste Agrícola Internacional permitió a mi delegación establecer algunos planteamientos que trataré de exponer brevemente en esta oportunidad.
Señor Presidente: la crisis económica internacional de los últimos años ha golpeado seriamente las posibilidades de crecimiento agrícola y de oferta alimentaria en los países en desarrollo. La recu-peración es difícil y será más crítica si no se adecúan las políticas, mecanismo y relaciones del mercado internacional.
El proteccionismo agrícola y el dumping limitan el acceso al progreso y el bienestar social a los países pobres. Estas medidas crean tensiones y dificultan la armonía entre los gobiernos.
Es importante corregir estas restricciones y buscar soluciones a corto y mediano plazo a la problemática de los países en desarrollo. Caso contrario, el problema se agudiza, la deuda crece, y por consiguiente, el mundo subdesarrollado tendrá un horizonte incierto. Es necesario que los países desarrollados den muestras contundentes de voluntad política para eliminar barreras arancelarias o no arancelarias a las importaciones de los productos agrícolas, y en particular de los productos provenientes de los países en desarrollo y de la actitud para mejorar el acceso a los mercados internacionales. Es necesario señalar que medidas tales como el empleo indiscriminado de subsidios a la exportación y medidas análogas, crean serios problemas y dificultan el comercio y el acceso a los mercados.
Las posibilidades de llevar a la práctica políticas agrícolas efectivas al interno de los países en desarrollo son limitadas mientras no se cuente con un ordenamiento y equilibrio más justo de mercado, y no se respeten los acuerdos de comercio internacional o se sigan imponiendo sanciones económicas y políticas en perjuicio del desarrollo de estos países. La posibilidad podría existir en la medida que se establezcan políticas y mecanismos adecuados de participación en la división internacional del trabajo y de relaciones de respeto mutuo entre los gobiernos, sin interferencia en su soberanía e independencia.
La autosuficiencia alimentaria ha sido un objetivo difícil de alcanzar en los países en desarrollo. Cumplir con este objetivo llevaría a inducir una política financiera e inversionista dirigida y sostenida en la agricultura.
En estos países, los alimentos en su mayoría son producidos por pequeños agricultores que trabajan bajo grandes restricciones de ecología, tierra y capital. Necesariamente habría que tomar políticas y medidas graduales de transformación que lleven a estos productores hacia condiciones tecnológicas y de recursos para mejorar la productividad y la producción de alimentos, y para promoverles en su bienestar social y económico.
Es importante entonces, enfocar programas integrales de atención tecnológica a la producción cam-pesina. La investigación y transferencia de tecnología, la capacitación, la divulgación, el suministro de insumos, el acceso a la tierra, al crédito, a la asistencia técnica y a otros servicios de apoyo vistos integralmente permitirían desarrollar una acción positiva para este sector. Un esfuerzo de este tipo reclamaría el apoyo internacional en lo que se refiere al desarrollo tecnológico y al suministro de insumos básicos, como semillas mejoradas y fertilizantes.
Otro elemento para lograr objetivos de mejoramiento en la productividad y producción, está rela-cionado con l,as inversiones. Es importante el desarrollo del riego, el ordenamiento agroecológico, y la adecuación de tierras aptas para la producción. Este esfuerzo también reclamaría el apoyo solidario de los gobiernos y organismos internacionales.
La reforma agraria, en su contexto integral, es una línea apropiada para ordenar y fortalecer la infraestructura productiva de los diferentes sectores sociales de producción.
Señor Presidente: la estrategia de desarrollo agropecuario nicaragüense contempla como uno de sus objetivos fundamentales, el logro de la seguridad alimentaria y nutricional para nuestro pueblo. En este sentido, tomando como eje fundamental la reforma agraria, se impulsan las líneas siguientes:
Ampliación y fortalecimiento de la infraestructura productiva bajo riego y secano. El desarrollo inversionista por la ejecución de proyectos alimentarios y de agroexportación. Tecnificación de la producción campesina, donde se enfoca integralmente la investigación, la asistencia técnica, los servicios de apoyo a la producción como el crédito, el acopio y el abastecimiento de insumos. Expansión y fomento de áreas agroecológicas aptas para la producción agrícola y alimentaria. El desarrollo semillista como línea estratégica para asegurar los planes de producción. La investigación y transferencia de tecnología a diferentes sectores de producción. Y la divulgación agrícola como herramienta para masificar conocimientos técnicos en el manejo de la producción.
Estas líneas han sido iniciadas y las estamos desarrollando con grandes sacrificios. La FAO, gobiernos y otros organismos internacionales apoyan estos esfuerzos, y el pueblo nicaragüense está dispuesto a responder.
WU TIANXI (China\) (original language Chinese): Document C 85/21 and the presentation we have just heard from Professor Islam help us to review once again the general situation of world agricultural development during the past biennium from the point of view of the policy perspective, and have deepened our understanding of the current situation. We are glad to see that the Guidelines for the International Agricultural Adjustment have resulted in some progress on several aspects.
World food and agricultural production over the past two years has been developing at the expected rate. Economic and technical cooperation among the developing countries in the sphere of agriculture is forging ahead smoothly. The shipment of food aid has reached and surpassed the target of ten million tons for the first time in the past ten years. All this is an indication that so long as we have reached a common understanding and are determined to pursue set policies, we shall obtain positive results.
We have also read with great interest the section in the Progress Report on indicators for the monitoring of agrarian reform and rural development. These new Guidelines, supplemented in the light of the proposals put forward at the previous Conference, are an indispensable link in ensuring the realization of the objectives of the International Agricultural Adjustment. The experience of many countries in this connection has proved that agrarian reform and rural development have close links and therefore cannot be separated, because the former is an important prerequisite of the latter. As long as the landless farmers and those with little land acquire the necessary means of production in the reform and participate in the process of development, they will generate immense spiritual and material power, thereby propelling agricultural development in a sound direction.
As conditions become ripe, agricultural reform is inevitable. Positive results can be achieved in the reform in diversified ways so long as they reflect the interest of the farmers, and are acceptable to them. We hope to see more progress in these spheres.
We noted that our discussion concentrated also on the subject of protectionism in trade. This is indeed a matter of urgency at present, and a matter which requires proper solutions. Protectionism has hindered.the development of international trade, and exerted an extremely negative . influence on agricultural production, which is moving fast towards commodity production. At the same time, protectionism affects the interests of both the developed and the developing countries, and of the importing and exporting countries. Therefore, any extemporaneous solution cannot solve the problem. We believe that when talking about trade protectionism we should not only look into the consequences brought about by it, but should objectively analyse its origin so as to identify the proper solutions
In order to protect their agricultural development, and ensure survival, some of the low-income developing countries have been forced to adopt certain protective measures in trade. We should not intervene in this. However, certain countries with a secure and superior economic position are intensifying tariff barriers while encouraging dumping of their products and providing subsidies. Such a practice is by its very nature a reflection of the strong bullying of the weak, and disregards the interests of other countries. Therefore, it should be opposed. Even for those countries themselves, it is just an expedient they adopt in their own immediate interests to the detriment of
their long-term interests. As a consequence, this can only lead to more intense trade rivalry and the adoption of retaliatory measures by both sides, and it is more than likely that it will end with mutual losses. We wonder what benefit they can gain from such a practice. China has been consistent in its position of opposing such trade protectionism practicing the law of the strong bullying the weak. We consider that protectionist measures directed against developing countries should be reduced and eventually abolished, that the agro-products and manufactured goods from developing countries should be given more opportunities to enter the world market, and that a rational international price level should be safeguarded to ensure a steady income for farm products from the developing countries so that international trade on agricultural products can be conducted on the basis of equality, mutual benefit and equity.
We hope that our deliberations will result in useful recommendations for the upcoming international consultations on these issues, and in promoting international trade development and progress in the International Agricultural Adjustment.
Mme L. OUEDRAOGO-GUIGMA (Burkina Faso\): La delegation du Burkina. Faso remercie le Secrétariat de nous avoir présenté un document assez complet quant aux informations qui s'en dégagent. Notre délégation appuie fortement ce document.
Néanmoins, nous aimerions faire une petite remarque en ce qui concerne la page 17, paragraphe 43, où il est dit: "Le Burkina Faso a adopté une nouvelle législation (1984), en vue d'améliorer les droits fonciers." Nous pensons que ce n'est pas une nouvelle législation simple, parce qu'il y a toujours eu de nouvelles législations les années antérieures. Il serait souhaitable de parler d'une nouvelle politique agricole ayant plutôt à son actif la réforme agraire et foncière dans laquelle se situe maintenant la nouvelle législation dont il est question là. Des stratégies sont mises en place pour améliorer et garantir les droits fonciers.
R. PRESTIEN (Federal Republic of Germany) (original language German): My delegation is grateful to the FAO Secretariat for the presentation of document C 85/21, the Fifth Progress Report on international Agricultural Adjustment. To a very considerable extent we can endorse what it says. I should like to start by making a few comments of a general nature.
First, the document is based on the general economic development since 1983. It states that the economic recovery achieved to date has still not been strong enough. That also tallies with our analysis of the situation. Second, we agree with the statements made in paragraph 3 of the document, to the effect that in the first four years of this decade agriculture has developed remarkably well. We are glad that the 4 percent growth target for agricultural production every year has been achieved by developing countries as a whole.
Third, my delegation regards the drop in the growth rate of fertilizer consumption, as referred to in paragraph 5 of the document, as being unfavourable.
Fourth, we are glad to see that the situation of landless peasants and small farmers, and the parti-cipation of the agricultural population, particularly women, in decision-making, is now the subject of enhanced attention. We agree with the document's statement in paragraph 7 to the effect that in some countries reforms in policy are necessary.
Fifth, we welcome the fact that world cereal stocks account for 18 percent of estimated world consumption, which are deemed necessary for maintaining world food security. We strongly support the idea of regional cooperation in this field.
Sixth, in regard to what is stated in paragraph 9 of the document, we regard this as evidence that in the field of food aid the international community is able to respond quickly and effectivvely to acute emergencies
Seventh, we are glad to see that economic and technical cooperation between developing countries is developing to an increased extent. This strengthens us in our view that a liberalized world trade is a necessary prerequisite both for a global economic recovery within the framework of the world economy, and also for the creation of stable economies in developing countries.
Eighth, paragraph 11 of the document states that external assistance to agriculture in the developing countries is inadequate. I cannot accept this for my country. I have already drawn attention to that under Agenda Item 7.1.
Ninth, I cannot agree to what paragraph 13 of the document states on protectionism as far as the Federal Republic of Germany is concerned. In 1984,the imports of my country from developing countries were 11 percent higher than in the previous year, and increased to DM 70 billion. From 1980 to 1984, inclusive, they even increased by 29 percent. In 1984, 16 percent of my country's total imports were from developing countries. Our trade balance in goods from developing countries now shows a considerable deficit to the benefit of developing countries. The Federal Republic of Germany has thus strengthened the foreign exchange posición of developing countries. In 1984, our imports from Africa even went up more than proportionally by 15 percent to DM 23.6 billion. My country's imports from developing countries increased in a way which particularly benefitted non-OPEC countries. Imports from these countries also went up proportionally by 19 percent.
It is often stated that developed countries import almost only or mostly primary commodities from developing countries. For a long time that has not been true of the Federal Republic of Germany. Imports of processed and semi-processed products from developing countries increased by 20 percent in 1984, whereas the increase of imports of primary commodities was only 3 percent. Over the previous 5-year period our imports of processed products from developing countries went up by as much as 60 percent. More than a third of the goods - in fact 36 percent of the goods we buy from developing countries - are processed and semi-processed products, which shows that for the Federal Republic of Germany developing countries have become major suppliers of processed and semi-processed products. In the imports statistics of the Federal Republic of Germany, food commodity imports from developing countries are gaining momentum. They increased last year by 19 percent. Their share in total imports from developing countries now accounts for about 20 percent; that is, a value of DM 14.2 billion. A considerable percentage of these were imported under the favourable conditions of the GSP under the Lomé Agreement between the ACP countries and the EEC. Their share in total imports also increased by 14 percent last year. This indeed applies both to industrial and to agricultural products. DM 7.2 billion is the value of these imports for which favourable tariffs are granted. This accounts for about 10 percent of total imports from developing countries.
This means that the Federal Republic of Germany pursues a liberal, and certainly not a protectionist import policy vis-à-vis the developing countries as a whole. What I have said applies even more strikingly to the imports statistics of the European Community as a whole. The Representative of the Commission of the European Communities will be able to give you more detailed information on that.
With regard to the data in Table 1.7, the Producer Subsidy Equivalents for Major Commodities in Selected Developed Countries, we feel that a considerable measure of reticence is called for in approaching this table. The document does not explain what the basis for the calculations is. According to our analysis, there are differences between the results submitted here, and the results so far achieved in the on-going discussion of these issues in OECD. I think that what we need first of all is to have a consensus on the basis of calculation before starting a detailed discussion on the figures.
There are a number of other comments which my delegation would like to make on the 12 guidelines. To save time I shall not submit these in detail now. With your agreement, Mr. Chairman, I shall simply give them to the Secretariat so that they can be included with my speech today in the verbatim record
(a) Guideline 1 requests at least a 4 percent growth of agricultural production in developing countries and, moreover, adequate economic adjustment of developed countries in favour of developing countries to facilitate the former's access to the latter's markets. The strong position of the Federal Republic of Germany as a demander on world markets has already led to far-reaching processes of adjustment in the past in our domestic economy which were regulated by market conditions themselves. The domestic market of my country thus meets to the largest extent the adjustment to changes in world economic structures, as requested in Guideline 1, without requiring specific government measures
(b) We concur with the statements in paragraph 30 of the document before us, which note that it is an encouraging sign that the share of agricultural investment in total investment has been maintained, compared with 1975-76.
(c) We concur with the statements concerning Guideline 3, according to which some progress has been made to give small farmers and landless peasants greater access to the means of production, in particular land. We agree with the statements in paragraphs 42 to 54 that this progress must be further enhanced.
(d) This also applies to the statements in paragraphs 55 to 66 of Guideline 4. As it has been recognized that more than 60 percent of all food producers throughout the world are women, it seems important for us to appreciate the role of women in agriculture in an adequate way and in accordance with their great importance, and to draw the necessary conclusions therefrom for a greater partici-pation of women in the decision-making process.
(e) We concur with the statements in paragraphs 67 to 74 and 75 to 80 of Guidelines 5 and 6. We welcome the fact that increased attention is being given by governments to integrated agricultural and food policies and also welcome the efforts towards a higher domestic production, in particular of locally available traditional crops. We attach great importance to regional cooperation, as stated in paragraph 88.
(f) As regards the discussion about the question of trade obstacles and protectionism, as reflected in paragraphs 91 to 113 of Guideline 7, I have already stated our position. We share the view that the work towards further trade liberalization must take place within the framework of GATT, as stated in paragraphs 105 to 113. We consider the statements in Guideline 8 regarding market stabilization a valuable contribution to discussion. We must put up with the fact that it will not be possible before long to negotiate a new International Wheat Agreement containing economic provisions. The on-going negotiations, however, allow us to recognize already now an improvement in the status quo regarding market transparency and consultation mechanisms. This can also make, in connection with a newly negotiated Food Aid Convention, a contribution to market stabilization and thus to world food security - in the interests of importing, developing countries. Both agreements under the purview of the International Wheat Agreement seem therefore very important to us.
(g) We welcome the success achieved in economic and technical cooperation between developing countries, as outlined in paragraphs 126 to 142 of Guideline 9.
(h) We also welcome the successes achieved in the field of world food security, as stated in paragraphs 143 to 158 of Guideline 10. My government took an active share in the improvements within the framework of the STABEX system.
(i) We concur with the statements concerning Guideline 11 to the effect that food aid should be a transitional development tool. However, we do not agree with the statements in paragraph 159 regarding the assumption that the higher levels of food aid will not continue to be supplied in the future. In our opinion, the community of donors has clearly shown in the last few years that it is prepared and in a position to respond quickly to emergency situations and thus overfulfill its commitments.
(j) I have already stated our position on Guideline 12. Traditionally, my country attaches a particularly great importance to "rural development" in development cooperation efforts. Our contributions did not decline but were consistently increased in the last few years.
M. GARIJO HIERRO (España): En cuanto al proteccionismo, Sr. Presidente, quisiera comentar que puede ser compatible coyunturalmente la coexistencia de una reducción de las medidas tradicionales de proteccionismo a sectores productivos agrarios que han llegado a ser excedentarios, con un aumento de. los subsidios a la exportación y con una mayor incidencia en los mercados internacionales de esos mismos productos y esto por dos motivos principalmente: primero, debido a que cuando se constata que unos excedentes que parecían ser coyunturales llegan a ser estructurales, se toman por una parte medidas de ajuste de la producción combinadas con reformas estructurales del sector en cuestión y, por otra parte, se acude a los mercados internacionales para deshacerse de unos excedentes que se han acumulado en varias campañas y ya no parece que vayan a poder tener salida en el mercado interior.
La segunda causa a la que me quiero referir es la inercia en la producción del sector en cuestión, por lo que esta producción puede seguir creciendo durante un cierto tiempo hasta que van entrando en funcionamiento y se van consolidando las medidas adoptadas para el ajuste estructural.
Con tales consideraciones creo que puede justificarse la coincidencia coyuntural en el tiempo y dentro de un mismo sector productivo agrícola de una reducción del proteccionismo y una mayor incidencia en los mercados internacionales y una mayor utilización de subsidios a la exportación durante un tiempo.
Por otra parte quisiera decir que cuando se ha constatado en España una situación excedentaria en ciertos sectores productivos agrarios, se han adoptado medidas de reestructuración de estos sectores, así como incluso reducciones de ciertos precios de garantía en términos reales, a fin de ajus-tar la producción.
Por útlimo hemos de tener presente que los resultados de las políticas de ajuste se obtienen a medio y largo plazo al tener que compaginarse las medidas coyunturales con medidas estructurales que resuelvan los problemas de fondo de los sectores productivos agrícolas.
C. PINHIERO SILVA (Cap-Vert): La délégation du Cap-Vert attache la plus grande importance à ce point de l'ordre du jour appuyant sans réserve les douze lignes d'orientation du plan d'ajustement agricole international.
C'est avec une profonde préoccupation que mon pays constate la progressive dégradation de la pro-duction agricole de l'Afrique subsaharienne durant les quinze dernières années.
Le Cap-Vert est un pays très vulnérable, frappé par une persistante sécheresse depuis une quinzaine d'années. La faiblesse des ressources naturelles associée à des conditions climatiques difficiles constitue l'une des plus grandes limitations au développement du secteur agricole, entraînant des déficits structurels permanents en ce qui concerne la production des aliments de base, particulièrement la céréale maïs.
Malgré ces contraintes le Cap-Vert s'honore de constater que quelques-unes des préoccupations majeures émanant des lignes d'orientation et objectifs de l'ajustement agricole international sont déjà en exécution ou en cours d'exécution dans le pays. J'aimerais très rapidement énumérer quelques-unes de ces actions:
L'importance accordée dans le cadre du plan national de développement au secteur agricole; l'aug-mentation progressive des ressources financières allouées les dernières années à la production en général et à la recherche agricole en particulier; la définition d'une politique d'utilisation des terres privilégiant les petits exploitants sans ressources; la promotion du coopérativisme; l'établissement d'une politique des prix devenant accessibles aux couches les plus démunies des denrées de base comme le mais et les haricots; l'utilisation judicieuse de l'aide alimentaire comme un outil important donnant une impulsion aux programmes nationaux de développement.
Dans la concrétisation de ces objectifs l'aide internationale bilatérale et multilatérale, particulièrement à travers la FAO, a joué un rôle irremplaçable. Son intensification Íes prochaines ann,ées s'avère indispensable dans le sens de l'accomplissement des projets de programme assignés dans le cadre du deuxième plan national de développement.
Pays pauvre et petit dans la modestie de ses ressources, le Cap-Vert accorde tout son soutien à l'ajustement agricole international.
Sra. O.C. FERNANDEZ (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia limitará sus observaciones a las cuestiones del proteccionismo agrícola, que es uno de los hechos que más gravemente afectan el comercio internacional de productos agrícolas.
Tradicionalmente los países en desarrollo eran productores de materias primas y los Estados desarro-llados producían los bienes industriales. Esos eran los dos canales de intercambio correccionados, que si bien con dificultades para los países en vías de desarrollo garantizaban al menos teóricamente una cierta independencia. Ahora no solamente se ha agudizado nuestra independencia de los países industrializados de insumos, maquinarias y granos, sino que también esos Estados se han dedicado a producir materias primas y alimentos en una competencia desleal.
Estos hechos sumados a las desafortunadas prácticas de subsidios y otras formas de asistencia a la producción y exportación que aplican muchos países desarrollados, han desatado una verdadera guerra comercial de la cual son víctimas impotentes los Estados del tercer mundo. Estos métodos, que todos debemos condenar, vienen causando una gran depresión de precios de los principales productos agrí-colas de exportación del mundo en desarrollo con daños inmensos a nuestras economías y también con perjuicios notables a las sociedades de esos propios Estados industrializados. Además, todo esfuerzo por aumentar las exportaciones resultará vano ante el creciente proteccionismo que practican algunos países del mundo desarrollado.Se requieren mejores términos de intercambio y más amplios accesos de nuestros productos a los importantes mercados de los países avanzados. No obstante, que en todas las instancias se viene clamando contra el proteccionismo y hasta se logran promesas de los países industrializados a muy alto nivel, debemos lamentar que haya sido muy lánguido el resultado de ese proceso.
Excepcionalmente en materia de comercio los Estados desarrollados suelen dividirse coyunturalmente cuando se enfrentan sus propios intereses, pero siempre se unen para oponerse a las justas reivin-dicaciones del mundo en desarrollo. Como consecuencia de estas actitudes nuestros países están atravesando una profunda crisis caracterizada, sobre todo, por la necesidad de importar grandes cantidades de alimentos, y reducir las áreas sembradas, por los bajos niveles tecnológicos, por la carencia de insuficiente flujo de recursos económicos y por otros aspectos que determinan las precarias condiciones de vida de las poblaciones rurales.
Ante esta situación que no se modifica, sino que se agrava, corresponde a los países en desarrollo aumentar su oferta agrícola interna y buscar a su vez cierto grado de especializaciones que permitan incrementar el comercio entre nuestros Estados.
No podemos continuar siendo importadores netos de productos básicos provenientes del mundo desarrollado. Debemos buscar un mayor autoabastecimiento regional en nuestras áreas respectivas.
Por todas estas consideraciones, Sr. Presidente, la delegación de Colombia reitera su condena al proteccionismo y pide que esta Comisión así lo exprese en nuestro informe.
E. PARDO (Argentina): Agradecemos a la Dirección General de la FAO el exhaustivo'documento CL 85/21, sobre Reajuste Agrícola Internacional, quinto informe sobre la situación.
Por lo que se refiere a la orientación 1, nos alegramos de que dos de los países en desarrollo, que tienen algunas de las mayores concentraciones poblacionales del mundo (me refiero a China y a la India\) se hayan caracterizado por un impresionante crecimiento de la producción agrícola. Pero también subsiste la preocupación, porque el resto de los países en desarrollo, como un grupo, hayan sufrido una importante contracción de su ritmo de crecimiento. También es preocupante que los paí ses de ingresos bajos sólo tuvieran crecimientos insignificantes en la disponibilidad de alimentos per capita. Coincidimos plenamente con el informe, respecto a que una gran protección y el pago de subsidios deforman las iniciativas del productor y tienden a conservar los recursos en actividades de baja productividad, comparándolos con otros usos y estimulando un empleo de ellos que no es racional
No podemos sino reiterar nuestra preocupación frente a la tendencia a la clausura de mercados ante la competencia extranjera en los países desarrollados por los crecimientos de sus costos internos, y su repercusión en una producción muy cara se agrava pesadamente en consumidores y contribuyentes de los propios países desarrollados, sumándolos así a los costos que los países en desarrollo, productores y exportadores eficientes, sufren en torno al cierre de accesos a terceros mercados
Respecto a la orientación 2, constatamos con preocupación la caída de la ayuda en fertilizantes a los países en desarrollo. Constatamos también que la investigación en los mismos continúa muy retrasada con respecto a los países desarrollados.
En cuanto a la orientación 3, nos hemos notificado de la existencia de retrasos en materia de reforma agraria, crédito agrícola, comercialización tecnológica nueva y mejorada y en enseñanza de capa-citación agrícola.
En lo que respecta a la orientación 4, me permitiría destacar que en nuestro país, en lo referente a organizaciones en las que participa plena y efectivamente la población rural, se pueden citar las cooperativas, que se consideran en América Latina como de primer nivel. Se las puede clasificar en dos regiones. Las primeras son pampeanas, que se encuentran administradas por campesinos a nivel de ingresos medios, en su mayoría propietarios y cuyas actividades son múltiples, que van desde la comercialización, exportación y distribución de carnes, etc., hasta la financiación e industrialización, frigo‐ríficos, aceites y lácteos, servicios sociales, adecuación de transportes en puertos propios. Tienen además una actividad de participación institucional a través de los municipios y en el gobierno nacional, en decisiones políticas relacionadas con la economía del país.
En cuanto a las no pampeanas, en este momento se encuentran experimentando un reordenamiento. No obstante, algunas, a nivel regional, en algunas provincias realizan la actividad agropecuaria a través de este tipo de organizaciones. Cabe destacar el caso de provincias especializadas en viticultura y en horticultura.
Respecto a la orientación 5, nos alegra constatar que los gobiernos den cada vez mayor importancia a la política alimentaria y a los problemas de la planificación. Pero lamentamos que ello sea con-secuencia de una agudización de la falta de divisas para pagar los alimentos importados. Volvemos así, una vez más, a la asimetría, que caracteriza las relaciones comerciales entre países subdesarrollados y países en desarrollo. Estos últimos no consiguen las indispensables divisas, por una irracional configuración del intercambio, que desconoce cuanto aconseja la ciencia clásica y moderna y la más elemental previsión satisfactoria que permita superar la presente situación crítica de la economía internacional.
En cuanto a la orientación 7, constatamos, una vez más, repito, la irracionalidad de la existencia de más barreras proteccionistas, más desorganización arbitraria del comercio internacional y un plan amplio de subsidios a las exportaciones y medidas análogas, que dificultan el comercio internacional.
Notamos una vez más que recae en la mayoría de los países de economía de mercados y especialmente en las organizaciones de integración económica de algunos de ellos, la responsabilidad de una situación que por su permanencia e intensificación impide el buen funcionamiento de los mercados internaciona‐les, agrava los problemas de las economías de los países en desarrollo, contribuye a intensificar su endeudamiento externo y además incide con peso notable sobre los contribuyentes y consumidores de los propios países desarrollados con el costo de oportunidades adicionales, y desvía recursos que podrían dedicarse a implementar su propia productividad y competitividad internacional.
Me permito destacarle ahora, Sr. Presidente, el efecto del proteccionismo de los países desarrollados sobre los ingresos por exportaciones de la Argentina . Informarle que la caída de los precios de cereales y de oleaginosas en 1985 y la caída para 1986 implica una reducción en el ingreso por exportaciones del 8,4 por ciento en 1985 y del 11,9 por ciento en 1986, mientras que el volumen ha crecido en un 17,4 por ciento entre 1984 y 1985 y crecerá entre 1985 y 1986 todavía un 1 por ciento más. Partiendo de 1984 como base, en 1985 la pérdida de ingresos por exportaciones, debido a la caída de precios, se puede estimar en 822 millones de dólares y 879 millones de dólares para 1986. En el caso de las carnes vacunas, se han reducido tanto el volumen como los precios de exportación, debido a superofertas de carnes protegidas por la CEE. Las cifras son de por sí elocuentes. El ingreso en dólares por este concepto se redujo un 6,7 por ciento entre 1981 y 1985. En 1984 la pérdida de ingresos fue de 200 millones de dólares y de otros 200 millones de dólares que se calcula para 1986. Las perspectivas futuras no se presentan muy halagüeñas.
Sr. Presidente, quisiera pasar ahora a las negociaciones del GATT. Al respecto, cuánto derroche de talento, audacia, sutileza y argumentación, para tan pocos avances en materia de multilateralismo y liberalización.
Con estos precedentes, Sr. Presidente, con qué pocas expectativas enfrentamos la nueva rueda de con-versaciones en el campo de los productos agrícolas, y sin embargo, cuán indispensable sería que se alcanzase algún éxito con la misma.
Al respecto, el endeudamiento externo, que liga a los países a las economías de mercado, como deudo-res y acreedores, no podrá tener una solución satisfactoria sino en la medida en que se encuentre una solución satisfactoria para acrecentar las exportaciones de los países en desarrollo, especialmente las de los exportadores de productos agropecuarios.
En cuanto a la orientación 9, contemplamos con satisfacción los progresos de los aspectos comerciales de la agricultura, de la cooperación económica entre países en desarrollo, pero notamos con asombro el progreso también de los países desarrollados por adaptarse a los cambios y condiciones económicas sociales y técnicas, a través de la presencia y agravamiento de los subsidios a la exportación, dados por los países desarrollados, para colocar excedentes en trigo, arroz, carnes, aceites vegetales, grasas y azúcar.
En relación a las orientaciones 10 y 11, quisiera destacar nuestro apoyo al Comité de Acción para la Seguridad Alimentaria Regional, que en una reunión llevada a cabo en la capital de mi país del 27 al 29 de agosto de 1985 aprobó un plan de trabajo para los próximos dos años. Ese plan centra su activi-dad en tres áreas específicas: el apoyo a los planes alimentarios nacionales de emergencia para paliar el hambre y la desnutrición, la profundización de las actividades referidas al comercio interregional y el establecimiento de un programa regional de asistencia igual que un organismo permanente en ese campo para graves emergencias agropecuarias.
Por otra parte, quisiera destacar también que en nuestro país, para paliar el déficit alimentario y para construir una sociedad más justa y solidaria, nuestro Gobierno incrementó a mediados de 1984 el Programa Alimentario Nacional. Hasta la fecha ya se han entregado canastas, o paquetes, de complementación alimentaria que contienen alrededor de quince kilogramos de alimentos, representando cada uno de ellos un tercio de las calorías que una familia tipo necesita para alimentarse satisfactoriamente al cabo de un mes.
Asimismo, se pretende revalorizar el papel de la madre como principal agente de salud y como administradora del hogar. Para lograr estos fines, se desarrollan reuniones mensuales, durante las cuales se reciben conocimientos sobre alimentación óptima de la familia y el aprovechamiento al máximo de los valores nutritivos de los alimentos que reciben, constituyendo además estas reuniones mensuales un marco de educación social y de participación comunitaria.
La acción para solucionar el problema alimenticio no se limita a la distribución gratuita o subsidiaria de alimentos, sino que también permite el desarrollo individual, comunitario y familiar.
Finalmente, Sr. Presidente, deseo reiterar el agradecimiento de mi delegación por el excelente documento C 85/21 y las conclusiones que de él pueden inferirse.
Le PRESIDENT: Nous sommes à peu près arrivés à la fin de la matinée et nour allons donc donner la parole, cet après-midi, aux autres orateurs déjà inscrits.
The meeting rose at 12.25 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 25
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.25 horas
