CHAIRMAN: We have the names of 15 nations here as speakers for this morning. Before I call upon the delegate of Kenya to make his presentation, I should like to mention that the discussions for finalizing the membership of the Drafting Committee are in progress and it is to be hoped that by this evening we shall know the composition.
Dedan Robinson KAMAU (Kenya): Mr Chairman, on behalf of the Kenya delegation, permit me to congratulate you on your election as Chairman of this Commission.
The documents before us, C 87/2 and C 87/2-Sup.1, with other references made, have attempted to analyse the situation and trends in both food and agriculture, and to some extent economic development globally, regionally and nationally, by referring to specific member countries or groups of countries. We commend the Secretariat for the strenuous efforts they have made to produce such well researched and informative documents.
In our view, the conclusions drawn indicate a gloomy situation for areas in developing countries where those living under the absolute minimum poverty line continue to increase in number.
The list of those requiring food imports is also increasing. As we talk of the food crisis, other dimensions such as the energy crisis, population growth, desertification and other vagaries of nature become imminent and threaten further to impoverish the target groups. The sum total points to increased stress on the environment and continued reduction in food production by units. These areas will be discussed later under the appropriate agenda items.
This spiral occurrence of events is partly due to the policies pursued in each country as well as to those emanating from outside, such as general agricultural commodity trade and terms of trade. The situation is further compounded by the occurrence of natural disasters such as droughts and floods. The problem of external debts and debt servicing remains a nightmare for developing countries, thus discouraging investment in agriculture.
Kenya belongs to the Eastern Africa sub-region where a number of countries are facing food problems. Through our statement at the Plenary we appealed for assistance to be provided internationally to avoid a repeat of the catastrophic events in this sub-region in the years 1983 and 1984.
At paragraph 65 of document C 87/2, and also at paragraph 30 of C 87/2-Sup.1, our country is among those mentioned as having food surpluses. Our major concern is how to sustain the surpluses in the face of unabated post-harvest losses and rising population. Kenya has had to take another look into the long-term policy implications in relation to socio-economic development for which agriculture must play a leading role. Agriculture changes and adjustments are taking place through improvement in the delivery system to farmers and ranchers. Great emphasis is placed on research, extension and marketing by providing the infrastructure, institutions, inputs and the incentives which favour increased agricultural production.
The concept of what is referred to as "District Focus for Rural Development" encourages grass root participation in decision-making and implementation of projects and programmes.
As we intensify our food production and agriculture as a whole, land-use farming systems must be incorporated to foster development without destruction. We believe that the nation's food requirements must be met from domestic production to enable the country to be self-sufficient in the basic foodstuffs, to carry a calculated food security in each area of the country and to ensure proper distribution of food supplies to all areas of our country.
We would like to make a few comments on commodity trade in areas that affect Kenya. Our major foreign exchange earners are coffee and tea, and their performance is related to changes in the international commodity prices. At the moment both tea and coffee prices are declining and this affectsnet earnings by producers. Kenya is seeking and encouraging commodity diversification to avoid reliance on the two major crops of coffee and tea. We have in mind the development of horticulture, pyrethrum, sisal and various livestock production areas. However, the present situation entails discrimination of commodities produced in the Third World regions through various legislations and other restrictions which remain a barrier to increased trade and our efforts towards diversification. Therefore, we look forward to trade negotiations that would liberalize trade and other measures that would enhance international cooperation and development, particularly in regions that have been disadvantaged during the past decades.
John Redman GOLDSACK (United Kingdom): We have read with great care the documents C 87/2 and C 87/2-Sup.1 on the State of Food and Agriculture, and we have listened intensively to the contributions to the debate and heard much with which we can agree. A number of speakers, including the Director of Policy Analysis Division in his introductory remarks, have referred to the general economic environment, and it is on this aspect of the papers that I would like to make a few observations.
We feel that the paper veers a little towards the gloomy side in describing the economic environment faced by debtors. Of course there have been difficulties and uncertainties, but on the positive side there has been steady, if unspectacular, growth in world output and world trade in every year since 1982; inflation and interest rates have come down; oil prices have fallen to the benefit of most debtors; and other commodity prices have this year shown signs of a modest recovery.
The new element since the report was written is, of course, the turmoil in recent days in world stock markets and, to a lesser extent, currency markets. Whether this is the onset of the financial crisis that some have predicted is too early to say. The outlook for economic growth will now be weaker, but the impact depends in part on confidence effects and on the policy response. Debtors can-take comfort from the fact that the financial disturbance has so far been accompanied by falling interest rates rather than the increases some had predicted.
The causes of debt problems and their solutions do not lie solely in the hands of creditor countries, as the report in places implies. In many debtor countries, inappropriate structural policies, distortions in prices, interest rates and exchange rates, overexpansionary fiscal policies and runaway inflation have been an important cause of debt difficulties, not least through capital flight. Many debtors are now courageously tackling these problems but they have to persevere with reforms and others have to join them if a lasting solution to the debt problem is to be found.
In these circumstances we feel it is unjust to accuse creditor countries of not addressing the debt problem with sufficient urgency. There have been a considerable number of initiatives to help the poorest, most indebted countries. Ways are being explored of expanding the menu of options and instruments available for debt restructuring in middle income debtors, provided satisfactory adjustment efforts are being made, but we feel that paragraph 31 goes too far in suggesting that there is support for a generalized, officially-financed scheme of debt relief.
Paragraph 20 of document C 87/2 touches on the subject of subsidies, and I would draw the attention of this Commission to the statement made by my Minister in Plenary yesterday. He pointed out that subsidies not only overload our own budgets and create food mountains but also deprive efficient producers, often in poorer countries, of their export markets.
Food aid all too often means dumping surpluses thereby inducing dependence on imports which the recipient countries cannot then afford to buy. This is why the United Kingdom is so anxious that the GATT Uruguay Round on agriculture should succeed and why we have already worked hard and successfully to achieve major reforms in the Community's own food aid policies.
Amadou M. KAMARA (Sénégal): Monsieur le Préaident, ma delegation souhaiterait rse joindre lauxr délégations qui l'ont précédée pour vous adresser ses félicitations pour votre élection Mes félicitations vont également au Secrétariat de la FAO pour la qualité du document C 87/2 et du document C 87/2 Sup 1.
Je voudrais souligner la pertinence du diagnostic établi sur la situation mondiale de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture, qui fait que ma délégation souscrit évidemment entièrement au contenu des documents soumis à notre examen.
Il y a cependant deux questions qui préoccupent ma délégation et qui ont trait à la situation décrite en Afrique et,bien sûr, à la situation dans mon pays.
La première a trait à la politique des prix. Il y a quelques années, toutes les analyses effectuées sur les politiques agricoles en vigueur dans les Etats africains mettaient l'accent sur l'inadéquation de la politique des prix. A l'époque, l'on trouvait que cette politique des prix était trop peu incitative pour les producteurs ruraux. Ce diagnostic, de l'avis de ma délégation, était alors exact, ce qui a conduit la plupart des Etats africains à augmenter les prix aux producteurs. Une telle politique, qui s'est avérée adéquate pour redresser le niveau de production des principaux produits en Afrique,a eu comme conséquence de donner un coup de fouet à la production.
Je voudrais illustrer ce que je viens de dire par le cas de l'arachide qui, dans mon pays, en répondant aux effets d'une telle politique, a trouvé depuis trois ans des niveaux de production de plus en plus élevés. Paradoxalement, la situation des cours mondiaux pour l'huile, donc les oléagineux, n'a cessé de se détériorer, ce qui fait que le Sénégal, à l'instar de beaucoup de pays africains, se trouve confronté à des déficits extrêmement importants au niveau d'une filière qui est essentielle dans notre économie. Je ne m'étends pas plus sur cette première question.
La deuxième question qui nous préoccupe a trait au bilan qui est établi dans le document sur la mise en oeuvre du Programme des Nations Unies pour le Redressement Economique et Social de l'Afrique. Le bilan qui est fait nous montre qu'au terme d'une année d'application l'on peut conclure que les flux financiers qui sous-tendaient les programmes d'investissements qui sont présentés dans ce Programme couvrent difficilement le niveau de financement que l'on avait escompté. Il semble que de ce côté également il faille que notre commission rediscute et réapprécie la situation qui en résulte.
C'étaient les deux questions que ma délégation voulait soulever et les deux points qu'elle souhaitait examiner au cours de nos travaux.
Ms. Roberta van HAEFTEN (United States of America): The Secretariat has presented a useful and generali well balanced review of the world economic situation and the state of world food and agriculture in the point of view of the United States. We appreciate the emphasis on macro-economic factors since they can both affect agricultural performance and the success of agricultural policy reforms.
The United States shares the Secretariat's concern about distortions in the world economic environment Our concern about agricultural trade problems in particular lead the United States to call for their inclusion in the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations where we hope to achieve substantial trade liberalization. Resolution of trade problems requires reduction of obstructions to world trade.
The United States remains firmly anti-protectionist and President Reagan recently reaffirmed his opposition to protectionist legislation. However, others must also commit themselves to fair trade policies in order to generate public support for an open trading system.
We also share the Secretariat's distress about the influence of unfavourable macro-economic factors, in particular foreign debt, and how they can undermine a country's ability to sustain policy reform. We recognize the difficulty incurred by structural adjustments, especially in an uncertain and fluctuating world economic environment. We endorsed in general at the Venice Summit the proposal for a new structural adjustment facility. We also support a general capital increase for the World Bank. Further, Treasury Secretary Baker recently announced a US proposal for a fund within the IMF to help cushion the adverse effects on IMF stand-by programmes of external, unforeseen developments such as weaker commodity prices, lower export volumes, natural disasters and sustained higher interest rates.
Countries themselves, however, also have an important role to play in helping to strengthen their own food and agricultural sectors. In many countries macro-economic policy, as well as agricultural policy reform is first and foremost among the actions that are needed to be undertaken. Many delegations here have stressed the need for policy reform in the developed countries, the need for countries to reduce agricultural subsidies and to liberalize their agricultural trade. United States agrees with this, but a renewed commitment to sound economic policies and programmes in many of the developing countries is also necessary if they are to increase their own agricultural production, improve access to food and alleviate malnutrition.
We believe that FAO has a role to play in the current economic situation, particularly by developing countries to improve their analysis and formulation of agricultural policies. Assisting countries improve their information and food oroduction, food consumption and other statistics so that they have a better basis for evaluating the current food and agricultural situation in their countries and evaluating alternative policy options, is another area in which FAO can be of great assistance. Unfortunately often such data improvement efforts, because they seem less glamorous, are neglected to the detriment of improved policy formulation. As far as detailed exchanges of views and external debt issues, the United States feel that these are more approprjately handled in other bodies such as the IMF Interim Committee and the IMF World Bank Development Committee.
I also have available with me other detailed information on recent events in US agriculture, but in the interest of brevity I will avoid going into details on this at this time.
Ernst ZIMMERL (Austria) (original language German): I would first like to congratulate the Chairman, on behalf of the Austrian delegation, on his election.
I would also like to thank the Secretariat for the very comprehensive and clear documentation with which we have been provided.
From the very beginning of mankind the main concern has been .reflected in the work and action of the FAO which was founded in 1946. These things have since then been discussed by the concert of nations. A number of years ago the World Food Conference decided that world hunger would have to be discontinued and done away with and solved within a decade, but unfortunately we have now found that this ambitious target is one that has not been achieved. It would seem that the problem has not become larger since 1974 according to provisions given by FAO. If we compare with the figures of ten years ago, one billion more people are being fed by farming. What is actually behind these figures though is really indicated if you look at trends in world population. Over the last thirteen years it has not been possible to get rid of hunger and under nutrition within a decade because the number of hungry has not actually gone up in real terms, but as there are more people being fed it has been made clear that mankind has taken up this great challenge and achieved some of its targets. The worldwide trend, greater hunger in developing countries, has been broken but we cannot yet say whether it has been broken for ever.
Further great efforts are required by all countries to make sure that we do not only maintain the current situation, but so that we can build on the successes over the past decade, the idea here being that we can actually remove hunger by the end of this century. Problems in developing countries are of diverse causes depending on the areas. These causes can be within agriculture or outside agriculture. There might be large population growth, there are bad distribution systems, a lot of money is being spent on arms, lack of jobs, unemployment, a bad infrastructure, loss of harvest, low purchasing power and low earnings for the farmers and their inability, therefore, to buy food. It would appear that food has to be given priority in the policies of individual countries, so that the farmers can get a fair price for their goods which would induce them to produce more. This would give them better inputs as well and this would also lead to an improvement in infrastructure.
We should also mention here that the question of unemployment is of prime importance. In the short term it is important to make sure that all measures for rehabilitation of agriculture will be taken, particularly in Africa. As part of this, the African farmer has to get the necessary inducements so that he can produce more food and this can be done over a sustained period. There are certain examples here which show that this is a promising way forward. Lasting solutions will only be achieved, however, if food and agricultural policies are framed not in isolation, but as part of an integrated development policy. If we can actually solve these problems, it would really be up to FAO to play a role as prime mover. This could be done through technical aid projects, it could be done in all areas of food and agriculture. Such projects would strengthen domestic efforts and they would support training and development. These would also be a means of new technologies being made available to farmers.
Ms. Barbara MARTIN (Canada): The report and debate under this item provides the backdrop against which the more detailed discussions under other agenda items take place. In the Canadian view the debate under this item is an opportunity to review global and regional trends, to determine issues of concern and to set directions for the future. As such, the report and debate should provide the basis from which to develop the broad policy guidelines for FAO programmes. It is within this context that I wish, first, to comment on the reports tabled under this item and the importance my delegation attaches to them. We appreciate the up-dated information found in the supplement which provides a brief survey of most recent developments that are cause for grave concern. However, Canada is disappointed with the structure of this year's Report on the State of food and Ariculture. We recognize that the documents under items 8, 9 and 10 are directly related to the substance of the debate under this item and that, in order to avoid duplication, the range of issues raised in the report were reduced. We applaud the attempt to rationalize the documentation of the FAO conference. However, in this case the Report falls short of the quality of the Report produced for the 23rd Session. We, therefore, encourage the Secretariat to return to the format developed in 1985 which included a substantial analysis of current trends in agriculture, the inter-relationships of different economic, financial and natural factors and the effect of these on agriculture.
Further, a summary and conclusions section should be reintroduced. this section should relate directly to the process of setting priorities and policy directions for FAO programming. Despite global food suppluses, there are still people who are not only hungry, but who are dying of hunger. This tragic irony is at the heart of our debate. The problem is related to production and the natural and economic factors which affect it, but more significantly it is related to distribution and purchasing power. Obviously, these are complex matters.
Agricultural production and trade has an impact on the overall economic well-being of almost every country and vice versa. Canada too is affected. Our farming sector has been adversely affected by the global economic environment. But not only are we concerned about our domestic situation, Canadians are also deeply concerned about the plight of people who feel the impact of the current environment much more profoundly, as an issue of life and death. As a result, Canada seeks to balance our approach to food and agriculture issues, to take into account our own concerns while, at the same time, working towards solutions to the problems faced by many developing countries. We believe that by working together our countries can overcome these problems.
There are three pillars to agricultural development: first, appropriate domestic policies; secondly, a fair trade environment for agriculture; and thirdly, effective resources transfer mechanisms, bilateral as well as multilateral.
The basis for agricultural development is of course national policies which ensure adequate access to the necessary Infrastructure, technology and inputs such as fertilizer, as well as incentives to producers. It is critical to note in this context that there is a need for a balanced approach to rural development taking into account the growth of rural populations. Not all can be employed in agricultural production: many will need to be absorbed in agro-industrial development efforts. The WCARRD Report provides a number of valuable insights in this regard. It is in this area of policy development and support for programme implementation that FAO has a critical role to play.
The second pillar of agricultural development is a fair agricultural trade environment. Agricultural trade reform is a trade priority issue for Canada. Trade tensions pose serious risks to the broader trading environment that affect us all. Our farm sector is suffering. We too are adversely affected by depressed commodity crisis, by subsidies and by low international demand.
But also Canada appreciates that the impact of agricultural trade distortions on developing countries has been particularly severe. We have therefore been working actively in the Cairns Group of agricultural exporters to seek solutions.
Over the past year, notably with the launching of the Uruguay Round and the landmark agreements at the Venice Summit and in the OECD, there has been a growing consensus on the need for fundamental reform in the agricultural sector. This is encouraging, but this momentum needs to be maintained and cultivated in the new round of multi-lateral trade negotiations. In these negotiations Canada is seeking more secure and predictable access to markets and a significant reduction in all agricultural subsidies that distort trade.
The debt crisis has seriously affected the availability in many countries of resources for agricultural development. In Africa the crisis is acute. Clearly, external financial support plays a crucial function in the implementation of national policies. The international economic environment has had a negative impact on many countries' ability to contribute to ODA and other resource flows. It is nonetheless important that the international community continue to seek solutions to the debt crisis and continue to support the efforts of developing countries. Already there has been some movement: at the IMF to triple the Structural Adjustment Facility; in the Paris Club, where special arrangements are being made for the poorest debtors; and at the World Bank, where there is a consensus on the need to negotiate a general capital increase with the IDA Eighth Replenishment.
For our part, Canada has contributed significantly in multilateral fora: at the Venice Summit, where our Prime Minister presented ideas on how to relieve the debt burden of the poorest countries and urged undertakings to reform agricultural trade; in the Uruguay Round, where Canada has begun a programme of consultations and training designed to enable developing countries better to pursue and protect their trading interests in the MTN and in the Paris Club, where we have supported longer re-scheduling periods and concessional interest rates for the poorest. We are also providing resources to bilateral channels and have taken steps to forgive the ODA debts of thirteen countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, a measure worth $ 672 million.
Clearly there is much that must be done to address the serious food shortages in the current international economic environment which has had such a serious effect on agricultural production and trade. This underlines the crucial role which the FAO and its subsidiary organs must play in the immediate future to alleviate basic need and in the long term to overcome the root causes of food shortages and hunger. It must coordinate with other agencies within the UN system which have mandates to handle agricultural trade and resource flow issues. It must focus sharply its own programmes and activities on the priority issues which are within its realm of competence, and it must ensure that these priorities, as they are identified by Member States in the course of this debate, are reflected in the Programme of Work and Budget.
Jean BANTSIMBA (Congo): La delegation de mon pays tient d'abord à vous présenter ses félicitations à l'occasion de votre élection à la tete de notre commission que vous dirigez avec compétence depuis le début de ses travaux. Nos félicitations vont également à l'endroit du Secrétariat pour l'excellente qualité des documents présentés sur la situation mondiale de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture en 1987, une situation peu brillante caractérisée par une crise dont la persistance réserverait un avenir plus sombre aux pays en développement et dont les faits saillants se manifestent à travers la dégradation des termes de l'échange des pays en voie de développement, notamment la concurrence féroce entre exportateurs qui est exacerbée par les subventions pratiquées par certains pays développés et qui réduit considérablement les chances des pays en développement qui ont les coûts de production généralement les plus élevés; l'état d'endettement de ces derniers les déséquilibre et renforce les déséquilibres dans la production et la distribution des aliments.
Cette situation de crise qui se maintient depuis quelques années ne pourrait qu'assombrir de plus belle la situation des pays en voie de développement si la communauté internationale ne prend pas des mesures tendant à réduire les disparités existant entre les deux groupes de pays, les pays développés et les pays sous-développés. Cette tendance entraînerait un blocage plus ou moins sérieux de l'économie mondiale compte tenu du fait que la circulation des produits et des biens entre les deux groupes des deux sphères ne se ferait plus de manière correcte.
Aussi, l'appel que nous lançons s'adresse aux pays des deux grands groupes, le groupe du Nord et le groupe du Sud, de telle sorte qu'ils trouvent des mécanismes susceptibles d'harmoniser les politiques en matière de commerce des produits agricoles et de commerce de produits manufacturés parce que les intrants dont dépendent pour la plupart les pays sous-développés vis-à-vis des pays développés contribuent dans une certaine mesure à accroître l'endettement des pays sous-développés.
Ainsi donc, notre appel que nous réitérons doit tendre vers la mise sur pied des mécanismes de concertation qui tendront à réaliser un équilibre grâce auquel l'économie mondiale puisse se relancer afin que les investissements qui pourraient se dégager de l'économie au travers des mécanismes mis en place puissent être réinvestis dans l'agriculture des pays en développement.
Mme Malika SACI (Algérie): La délégation algérienne s'associe aux félicitations qui vous ont été adressées pour votre accession à la présidence de la commission et exprime sa satisfaction pour la qualité du travail fourni par le Secrétariat.
Tout a été dit dans cette enceinte sur la situation mondiale de l'agriculture et de l'alimentation. Permettez-moi de présenter quelques réflexions sur ce sujet.
Les documents C 87/2 et C 87/2-Sup.1 sont lucides et dans l'ensemble sans complaisance aucune. Leur contenu nous interpelle.
C'est un constat d'échec, non pas de la FAO, mais de la communauté internationale qui n'a. pas pu ou pas assez voulu conduire un développement solidaire.
La situation mondiale de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture en 1987 est inquiétante à plus d'un titre. C'est une crise structurelle et, par ailleurs, elle perdure. Elle s'inscrit dans un contexte de tension économique internationale dont les caractéristiques sont décrites dans les documents que nous examinons et qui ont été exposées par les honorables délégués qui m'ont précédée.
Rappelons ces caractéristiques: le déficit de la balance des paiements, la récession, le protectionnisme et surtout la dette extérieure dont le poids ne cesse de peser sur les économies fragiles des pays en voie de développement.
La situation de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture a régressé au cours de la décennie écoulée. En 1976 déjà, la FAO signalait la détérioration de cette situation en Afrique; en 1983, la famine et la sécheresse s'y installaient.
Or, déjà en 1974, la Conférence mondiale de l'alimentation fixait à la communauté internationale l'objectif de l'élimination de la faim dans le monde avant 1985. En 1980, la stratégie internationale pour la troisième décennie des Nations Unies pour le développement repoussait cette échéance à la fin du siècle. C'était là, déjà, le signe de l'incapacité de la communauté internationale à se mobiliser pour réaliser l'objectif prioritaire entre tous: vaincre la faim et assurer la sécurité alimentaire à tous.
Nous arrivons à la situation actuelle: dans certaines régions du monde, il faut parler de dégradation de la qualité de la vie, d'appauvrissement et même de pauvreté absolue.
Nous vivons une situation paradoxale: malgré l'existence de stocks dont le volume pose problème, 350 à 510 millions d'êtres humains sont gravement sous-alimentés.
Qu'avons-nous fait pour faire face à cette catastrophe? Une aide alimentaire en augmentation de 11 pour cent; des contributions à la réserve alimentaire internationale d'urgence en augmentation de 28 pour cent, ceci dans le registre des actions ponctuelles.
A long terme, que proposons-nous? Des mesures d'ajustement structurel qui ont conduit à une dégradation des niveaux nutritionnels dont pâtiront les adultes de demain par millions et par ailleurs, des décisions qui, de sommets en sessions extraordinaires ne finissent pas d'alimenter le chapitre des bonnes intentions.
Aussi, la délégation algérienne estime que les paragraphes 24 et 25 du document C 87/2, pour ne citer que ceux-ci,sont par trop optimistes. L'évolution des politiques n'est pas des plus encourageantes et l'Accord du Louvre, le Sommet de Venise et la réunion ministérielle de l'OCDE n'ont apparemment pas encore modifié le paysage économique international.
Et pourtant, l'aide existe, bilatérale ou multilatérale. Son volume n'est pas négligeable et ses formes sont multiples. Laissons de côté ses modalités d'attribution ou ses moyens d'acheminement. Essayons seulement de trouver ici le meilleur moyen pour éviter sa dispersion afin de renforcer son efficacité, d'optimiser ses résultats et de mieux l'insérer dans le processus de développement. Nous pourrions par exemple envisager de concentrer les institutions spécialisées qui gèrent cette aide.
Dans le cas précis de l'Afrique, à nouveau menacée par la famine, et dans une optique d'intégration régionale il serait peut-être utile que ces institutions spécialisées oeuvrent de concert et plus étroitement avec l'OUA afin de réaliser le Plan d'action des Nations Unies pour le redressement économique et le développement de l'Afrique, par une utilisation optimale de toutes les ressources disponibles.
Ce programme connaît actuellement quelques difficultés à sa première année d'existence.
Devant les résultats décevants de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture, il est vain de croire qu'une action sur le seul secteur agricole apportera des résultats durables si le climat économique international n'est pas assaini. Ce serait, comme l'a si bien dit un délégué, mettre un plâtre sur une jambe de bois.
Seul un nouvel ordre économique international pourra arrêter la dégradation des conditions économiques que subissent les pays en voie de développement et les ancrer au processus de développement mondial.
Michael Joseph RYAN (Australia): Mr Chairman, I should like to congratulate you on your election to the Chair and to compliment the Secretariat on the preparation of the documentation before us on this item.
As so often has occurred in the recent past when the subject of international agricultural trade has been under discussion in this forum, the view of the Australian Government has been largely identical with that expressed by the Secretariat. We agree fully with the analysis provided by Mr Hjort in his introduction on the causes of the current critical situation facing international agricultural trade. Australia realizes that while the causes of the present problems are very complex, there are five fundamental imbalances in national and international economic, agricultural and trade policies. These imbalances are: large domestic budget deficits; big imbalances in trade flows; a continuing rise in domestic protectionism; massive domestic agricultural subsidies; and, finally, unbalanced policies within the developing countries themselves. We recognise that in focusing on agricultural trade and agricultural policy, we are dealing only with one part of a complex and inter-related, international and humanitarian problem.
We have now reached a situation where countries must be prepared to impose political discipline in seeking a solution. We believe several strategies need to be deployed to bolster and reinforce political discipline, especially by leading Western industrialised nations. I refer here to the United States, the EEC and Japan not because these nations are the only ones who have contributed to this problem, and who must indeed resolve it - after all they account for over 80 percent of OECD agricultural protectionism - but recognizing that we all have a part to play in the process of world agricultural reform.
The problem of world food policy failure in the 1980s is very largely a creature of the economic, agricultural and trade policies of the Western industrial world. If there is any issue on which world leadership is desperately needed, it is in agricultural policy. However, exhortation will not change the level of political discipline. We also need to take cognizance of realpolitik. It must be shown that there are distinct political benefits to be gained by change.
The Australian Government believes that four steps are necessary to strengthen the political discipline needed to address this critical world problem. First, we should dramatize the costs to key political constituencies. Secondly, we must show that there are indeed logical, effective and politically palatable ways out of our difficulties. Thirdly, we must multilateralize the solution so that the adjustment costs to individual nations will be substantially offset by the benefits of international reform. Lastly, we must reinforce the positive developments, as I shall indicate in a moment, which are indeed taking place in a number of the countries involved.
I would just like briefly to comment on the dramatization of the problem. It is necessary to demonstrate that there is indeed a crisis, a crisis looming in world hunger and malnutrition, a burgeoning crisis in the international economic order and particularly in the distorted and chaotic international commodity markets.
For instance, the costs of farm programmes have escalated dramatically to US$ 56 billion or in that order in the United States. The direct costs in the European Community are somewhere around US$ 23 billion, the cost of the common agricultural policy having doubled in the last five years. In Japan and in other countries, the costs of farm programmes are rising quite dramatically.
It is not sufficient simply to point out the nature of the problem to demonstrate that there is indeed a crisis and to show that the costs of the crisis are rising dramatically. It is not even enough to point to the Thai rice farmers or the Philippines sugar producers who have been deprived of any means of earning income. Nor the African country which has worked hard to generate a small exportable maize surplus, only to find that there is no market left for its product. It is not sufficient to emphasize the loss of export income in debt-ridden Latin American economies. Of course, it is not sufficient to talk of the damage being done to Australia and Australian farmers.
It is also important to point out to domestic constituencies the kind of problems and costs that they are facing. It is a lamentable fact that in the final analysis political discipline will come primarily from domestic concerns.
Delegates will recall that Australia has referred, on several occasions this year in this forum, to the initiative launched by the Australian Prime Minister in Davos last January. Some of the points made in that statement have been overtaken to some extent by events, indeed some welcome progress has been made. But the fundamental policy prescriptions contained in the initiative remain relevant if a solution is to be found to our current problems. Some of those points which we believe are still very, very relevant are: first, a commitment to halt subsidy escalation and freeze and progressively reduce administered internal agricultural farm prices; the narrowing of the gap between international and domestic prices which we believe should be expedited by measures aimed at containing supplies. That is in the short-term. Then farm income support measures should be separated as far as possible from producer prices for farm output. The development of an accepted set of principles to liberalize world agricultural trade, through reform of the domestic agricultural policies of national governments is a point. Finally, there is the negotiation within the Uruguay Round of effective disciplines on the operation of direct and indirect agricultural subsidies and price support programmes and increased market access.
The first of these steps relates to a commitment to halt subsidy escalation and to freeze and progressively reduce administrative prices. We are happy to say that this took place in Punta del Este in Uruguay at the launching of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations.
Since that launch, that commitment has been reinforced, most noticeably in the communiqué from the OECD Ministerial Council Meeting in Paris and, of course, at the Venice Summit. A number of countries have individually committed themselves to work very hard to achieve these objectives.
So I believe that we have made some small progress in recent times. I think we can see some good signs happening in modest progress, some turning points in some countries, but there is still a lot: of worry on our part on the mood in the United States. It is in the United States that we see less optimistic signs of change than in any other country. Certainly the mood of Congress at the present time is not conducive to further moderation of the international agricultural price war.
If we look at Japan, we have seen from the Japanese Government), a. constructive report by the Japan Agricultural Policy Council, which contains a firm commitment to reducing internal prices in order to move them in the direction of the international market price. We have seen some signs of that in practice in the decision last year to freeze the rice price and the decision marginally to reduce internal support prices for beef. So we are seeing some early progress, as I said.
We have also seen an agreement amongst the OECD countries on a set of principles to liberalize world agricultural trade through the reform of domestic agricultural policies by member countries. Those important principles are a set of principles with which I think few of us would have any cause to quibble.
Australia has twin goals to pursue in this matter: the reform of domestic agricultural policies; and the cementing of the process of reform into an international agreement under the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations.
As delegates will be aware, the United States tabled its negotiating proposals for agriculture in July, the European Community did so last month and, like previous GATT rounds, these major powers have now been engaged by a new group, the Cairns Group of agricultural fair trading countries. This group accounts for one-quarter of world agricultural exports and its membership embraces countries from the east, the west, the north and the south. Three weeks ago in Geneva the group presented its negotiating proposals for the Uruguay Round. Very simply, the aims or the proposals contain three elements: long-term objectives of the elimination of subsidies and market barriers within ten years at the most; a framework for the rules and parameters necessary during the phase-down period and a set of priorities for change; finally, an immediate relief from the worst subsidies and market distortions.
Unlike the proposals of the United States and the Community, the Cairns Group proposal focuses in detail on the reform period and the mechanisms required to achieve a free and open agricultural trading system. It gives priority to phasing out those measures which most disrupt trade and provides for the greatest distorters to make the greatest contributions to reform.
We have made some progress but it is most important to reinforce the direction of change and to encourage to the utmost its acceleration. This process will not just benefit farmers in general, Australian farmers or farmers from the Third World but it will benefit citizens of all countries. It will in fact benefit citizens of all member countries of FAO.
CHAIRMAN: I would thank the Australian delegate particularly for what he mentioned about the objectives and functions of the Cairns Group.
Per Harald GRUE (Norway): On behalf of my delegation I shall use this opportunity to congratulate the Chairman on his election as chairman of this Commission. My delegation also welcomes the documents which we are presently discussing, we find them very informative and useful.
Let me first briefly comment on the trade in agricultural commodities. I think there is no reason for me to describe the present situation in world food markets. Like other countries we feel that improvement in these markets is a question of the utmost concern to the agricultural sector and to world society as a whole. In her statement to the Conference, the Norwegian Minister of Agriculture mentioned that the UNCTAD Session this summer gave some positive results and that the new GATT Round offers hope for improvements. We intend to take an active part in these negotiations and hope among other things that additional preferences for the least developed countries will be achieved.
I would like to draw your attention then to paragraph 32 of the document. It is pointed out there that the report, Our Common Futureby the World Commission on Environment and Development has wide implications for agricultural and natural resource policies.
Wè note with satisfaction that FAO in general concurs with the main thrust of the report and the analysis it contains. It is even more satisfactory that FAO considers the Commission's report useful in its efforts to consolidate and further expand environmentally conscious programmes promoting sustainable development.
Norway truly values the recent FAO initiatives relating to the evironment, the conservation of natural resources, and development, inter-alia ,the World Soil Charter, the WCARRD Programme of Action, the International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, the Strategy for Fisheries Management and Development, and the Tropical Forestry Action Plan.
However, having expressed our acknowledgement of the initiatives taken by FAO, it is nevertheless appropriate to underline that these initiatives can just be considered as a first step in making FAO an even more effective instrument in securing sustainable development.
One should note that the report of the World Commission implies much more fundamental and far-reaching effects for world agriculture and for FAO.
In this perspective I wish to draw attention to some of the Report's main conclusions and the recommendations for follow-up action. The Commission suggests that a first step is the recognition that most of the problems of ecology and economy which until now we have dealt with separately are in fact closely linked and require integrated action on a global scale. The World Commission calls for an integration of environment policies and development strategies. A framework for this integration may be found in the concept of sustainable development. Although pursued differently in different countries, sustainable development should be a global objective. It will require far-reaching changes making the pattern of trade, capital investment, technological development and management of natural resources more equitable and better synchronized to environmental imperatives. This in turn makes a functioning multilateral system essential.
Agriculture is in crisis in both north and south through soil erosion and water pollution in all continents, and with soil acidification in Europe and desertification in Africa, Asia and Latin America. The World Commission points out several specific signs of this crisis.
First, farm subsidies in the north cost large sums and result in over-use of land. These subsidies are adversely affecting the agricultural segment in developing countries in several ways. Second, an increasing population in the developing countries is forced to move to and utilize marginal land, giving it little time to recover. Third, poor planning and management of irrigation systems often leads to salinization and water-logging of soils, and the use or mis-use of fertilizers and pesticides damages water resources and affects human health.
The goal is to preserve the resource base while providing livelihood security for the poor. Wiser land use, alternatives to chemicals, improved methods of water management, the safeguarding of forests, and increased attention to fisheries and aquaculture - all must be addressed by governments and producers alike.
Ecological security must be central to the work of FAO and all other appropriate international agencies. The application of the concept of sustainable development to the effort to ensure food security requires systematic attention to the renewal of natural resources. It requires a holistic approach focused on eco-systems at national, regional and global levels with coordinated land use and careful planning of water usage and forest exploitation.
The goal of ecological security should be embedded firmly in the mandates of FAO and other UN organizations that: deal with agriculture, as well as all other appropriate international agencies. It will also require an enhancement and re-orientation of international assistance.
To achieve the needed change in attitudes and reorientation of policies and institutions, the World Commission on Environment and Development believes that an active follow-up of the report is imperative. With this in mind the Commission calls for the UN General Assembly upon due consideration to transform the report into a UN Programme of Action on Sustainable Development.
At the national level governments should take appropriate responsibility for environmental protection and sustainable development in the key ministries and legislative committees where priority decisions are made. Regional institutions and the UN system are warned to reform their fragmented sectorial biases and to cooperate closely to ensure that their programmes promote sustainable development.
In my opinion, it is necessary that FAO and its Member Nations should seriously consider what consequences the World Commission's recommendations will have. In this respect, I think we should consider the effect on FAO's work, the effect on the Organization as such, and FAO's role in the UN system in general. The World Commission represents a challenge for FAO. The report calls for a re-orientation and restructuring of FAO's work in the coming years.
Nguen SRISURUKSA (Thailand): Mr Chairman, this is the first time that I take the floor so I should like first of all to associate myself with the previous speakers in expressing my congratulations to you on your election. I am fully confident that with your able guidance our deliberations will produce a fruitful outcome.
I should also like to thank the Secretariat for preparing the comprehensive and clear documents before us.
We have all recognized the food and agricultural problems facing us at the present time due mainly to the low world price of commodities, accompanied by low purchasing power, together with rising debt, trade protectionism and subsidies. Moreover, some countries have suffered serious setbacks with floods and droughts.
It appears to me that the world economy, especially food production, has shown some improvement in terms of growth rate which is still relatively low, even though the growth rate in some countries is negative.
It is clear that the decline in oil prices, real interest rates and rates of inflation failed to stimulate world economic growth to a satisfactory level. The world food and agricultural production showed a marginal improvement in 1986 and 1987 compared with that of the previous year.
The question may be raised as to how we can solve the above problems which all of us have acknowledged. In many aspects of agricultural policy time is an important but often neglected factor. The longer we wait to move decisively to increased stabilization of food and agricultural production and towards freerer world trade, the more obstacles there will be and the more difficult it will be to remove them. I believe that with the Organization's capacity it is necessary to form or establish a small group of experts or an agricultural development policy group who, based on national and regional needs, would review, monitor and evaluate agricultural development policies for the benefit of the members of the Organization.
My delegation also believes that one of the major causes of the difficulties facing world agriculture, both production and trade, is the lack of willingness on the part of some developing countries and some industrialized nations to restructure their food and agriculture policies and their domestic industries in the face of changing comparative advantage.
I wish to draw your attention to the trade problems facing us. For example, textiles and clothing are classic examples of developed countries which try to induce forced competitiveness in this industry, in which case these should have been allowed, even encouraged, to phase out.
Another example is subsidization. Agricultural subsidization is another classic example of certain major countries trying to induce distortion, competitiveness, in the world agricultural markets and to generate additional pressure for additional protectionist measures. A particular concern of Thailand is subsidies and other protectionist measures given to rice, cassava, maize, soybean, and cotton which are our principal export items and the main income source of farmers, especially of the small and poorer farmers.
Allow me to address this meeting on my country's agricultural situation and our agricultural development policy. 1986 was considered to be the year of recovery for Thailand. The Thai economy showed strong signs of improvement. Her gross domestic product grew at 3.8 percent in 1986 compared with 3.2 percent in 1985, while this year it was estimated at 5.3 percent. This has been due to the shift in the economic structure which moves further away from agriculture towards industry, especially export-oriented industries. The Thai Government will continue to introduce a number of measures with a view to boosting the economy and upgrading farm products, while remaining, cautious with regard to budget deficits. These measures will coincide with our continuing efforts to increase productivity, expand and diversify, and use a higher degree of processing, better systems of marketing and distribution, to promote exports, mobilize domestic savings and nationalize its industries and government enterprises.
Above all, the Thai Government has made it clear that the private sector should play a major role in steering the country's economy, especially on agricultural and rural development, as well as job creation for the poor, called Joint Public and Private Sector Development Programme. The Thai Government will limit its role to that of a facilitator which, among other things, will try to provide better incentives to the private sector.
Erland CARLSSON (Sweden): I would like to commend the Secretariat for having prepared two excellent background papers. The document on the "State of Food and Agriculture" concentrates on a number of very important aspects and seems to provide the key facts necessary to get a picture of the agricultural situation in the world. Since the documentation in our opinion is so complete, I just want to make a few brief remarks.
My delegation would like particularly to underline the need to discuss the agricultural problems within and not in isolation from the context of the general economy. One aspect of this that is very well covered in the documents concerns the debt servicing problems in several countries. In this connection, that is, when we are discussing the state of food and agriculture in the world, one has to realize the negative effects of the debt problem, first of all, of course, on the economies and the people of the countries concerned, but also on efforts to restore the balance on the world market. Here I refer, inter alia,to paragraphs 9,10 and 29 in the document concerning the effects of non-realized imports. This aspect certainly adds to the already strong arguments in favour of relief measures, especially as regards the most vulnerable countries.
The part of the paper that deals with policy developments in our opinion is written in a skillful and balanced way. The need for policy change is apparent. At the same time, we recognize the fact that some corrective action has already been taken, not only in the form of internationally agreed principles, but also by way of concrete unilateral adjustment measures in both developing and developed countries, including Sweden. As concerns developed countries, in addition to the long-term objectives of a progressive and concerted reduction of agricultural support, as stated by the OECD ministers in May this year, it is important to take immediate steps to deal with the present surplus situation as regards several agricultural products. Concrete progress towards resolving this fundamental problem in our opinion is a necessary first step in order to reach the negotiating objectives in the GATT Uruguay Round with respect to market access and export competition.
Tsutomu TAKAHASHI (Japan): To begin with let me join with other delegates in congratulating you on your appointment as Chairman of this important Committee. I also thank the Secretariat for presenting the documents, which are very lucid and instructive.
Looking at document C 87/2 and others, you see a number of discouraging facts in the state of food and agriculture. For example, while the world stock of cereals is ample, the stock level in developing countries is reported to be at a record low this year. World trade of agricultural commodities remains stagnated, and it has negative economic effects not only on developing countries, but also on some developed countries. As to developing countries, populations suffering from hunger have increased in recent years and are forecast to grow by the year 2000. Furthermore, rural poverty has hardly been eradicated, and agrarian reform has shown little progress. Thus, many problems remain to be solved with regard to world food and agriculture.
Given these situations, my country is of the view that various measures should be continually taken towards solving the world food and agricultural problems. In this connection, I appreciate the efforts which have been made so far by FAO and which I expect will be continued in the future.
A number of countries called for the adjustment of policy in developed countries so that it will contribute to the development of world food and agriculture.
My country is of the view that in making an adjustment in world food and agriculture and in promoting agricultural reform concrete measures should be decided on and implemented under the responsibility of each country in the light of the natural, economic and social conditions affecting its agriculture, and that measures should be carried out in a manner that is both flexible and balanced.
The principal objective of Japan's agricultural policy is to assure a basic food supply capacity within the country with appropriate planning for the combination of domestic production with imports. In implementing this policy Japan intends to improve the productivity of its agriculture to the greatest extent possible and also to reduce price differences between domestic and foreign agricultural products. To this end, my Government in principle, has, not raised the government support prices of the major agricultural products for ten years and, especially since last year, has, in fact, lowered them. In this connection, Japan has cut the agricultural budget by seventeen per cent over the last six years.
As for trade, too, Japan has been striving to improve market access to the greatest extent possible by such means as the easing of import restrictions and reduction of tariff rates. In particular, recognizing that expansion of exports of agricultural products is of great importance to the economies of developing countries, Japan has reduced or abolished the tariffs on a substantial number of agricultural products that are imported from developing countries.
Japan, being the world's largest net importer of agricultural products, has been striving to expand and develop agricultural trade thereby, I believe, contributing greatly to the development of world trade of these products. Moreover, Japan intends to continue to participate positively in the negotiations of the GATT Uruguay Round so as to contribute to the promotion of agricultural trade and to the harmonious development of agriculture in every country. In this regard, Japan is of the view that we should not limit our discussions of the scope of negotiations to the current surplus problem and its solution only, we should expand the discussion to cover the reverse supply-demand imbalance in food which could occur on a long-term basis. Therefore, it is essential to formulate fair and balanced GATT rules and disciplines which can cope with situations both of surplus and of shortage.
With regard to the problems involved in the developing countries, while Japan is of the view that the problems of those countries should primarily be solved by their own efforts, we also recognize the importance of the support of the international community. With this in mind, my Government has been promoting technical as well as financial cooperation bilaterally and multilaterally. Accordingly, our official development assistance related to agriculture, forestry and fisheries expanded by more than ten times between 1976 and 1985, reaching 762 million. Along with this Japan has also been providing food aid as, in principle, transnational or emergency measure.
In view of further contributing to the assistance of developing countries, my Government established the Third Medium-Term ODA Target in 1985, calling for the- doubling of ODA in seven years, and has been implementing that plan on a steady basis. For example, the amount of ODA in 1986 was 5 billion 634 million US dollars against the 3 billion 797 million US dollars in previous years, accounting for a 5° percent increase. Japan recently decided to advance its implementation by at least two years. In addition, especially for Sub-Saharan African countries and other least developed countries, Japan is resolved to provide non-project-type grant assistance amounting to approximately 500 million US dollars over the next three years.
In its ODA expansion, my Government will continuously give priority to cooperation for agricultural and rural development. While continuing to cooperate, with greater emphasis, for the increase of food production particularly for food-deficit countries, Japan intends to undertake cooperation with regard to other sectors such as up-land farming, animal husbandry and horticulture for countries in particular, cooperation for integrated development of agriculture and rural areas is required, giving due regard to respective long-term development plans, etc. of each country. In addition, Japan intends to extend cooperation to further raise agricultural productivity, to improve marketing and processing technique, ans so on. In doing so, my Government, prior to the implementation of this cooperation, intends to keep up close policy dialogue with the counter-developing countries so as to maximize the effect of cooperation.
N.V.K. Keerthiratne WEKAGODA (Sri Lanka): Mr Chairman, first of all on behalf of the delegation of Sri Lanka let me congratulate you on being elected Chairman of this Commission and state how happy and pleased we are to see you occupy that esteemed position. We are quite confident that with your ability and experience you can steer this Commission's discussions to a very fruitful and useful conclusion.
The delegation of Sri Lanka would also like to place on record its appreciation for the high quality of the documents prepared by the FAO Secretariat for discussion under this item, "State of Food and Agriculture ."
In brief, the state of food and agriculture for 1987 is not very encouraging. According to the most recent estimate of FAO's Global Information and Early Warning System, the world cereal output will decline by about 4 percent in 1987. This is partly due to deliberate cutbacks in some developed countries in order to overcome surplus stocks and low prices, and partly due to sharp deteriorations in weather conditions, which have widely curtailed production in Asia and Africa.
It is also estimated that as a result of decline in production, world cereal stocks will fall by over 10 percent during 1987-88 for the first time in four years. This is all the more important for our region because the stocks of rice held by developing countries will fall to their lowest level for a decade and will be insufficient to provide a security buffer stock against any crop failures in 1988.
It is against this rather gloomy background of the world food and agriculture situation that we in this forum have to deliberate and arrive at some constructive conclusions.
In this context it will be necessary to channel more and effective assistance from the developed countries to meet the needs of the developing countries. Assistance in the form of food aid should be carefully programmed to serve only as a catalyst to result in further development on its own in the recipient country lest it generates more of dependency than self-reliance.
Debt and aid should be considered as two components of the same equation. The debt service ratio of countries with debt servicing problems, according to IMF data, has deteriorated sharply to nearly 38 percent, the worst figure since the debt crisis in 1982. It is heartening to note that some positive steps to resolve this problem have been taken, but much more needs to be done to bring adequate relief to those countries that are really suffering under the debt burden.
Tied to this is agricultural trade. The developing countries should be provided with an encouraging environmental trade, in order to build, generate employment and therefore income, and then repay its debts.
Turning to the more specifics of the food production situation in the Asia Pacific region where Sri Lanka belongs, it is heartening to note that the region as a whole has done extremely well with regard to food production.
Let me state briefly how Sri Lanka has fared as a member of this region. During the last decade bur yield in rice production has increased by 38 percent and total production has increased by 55 percent This is due to several reasons. Some of them are the increase in the extent of irrigated land, better water management practices and, of course, the use of improved technology coupled with the increased use of inputs such as fertilizer. However, in 1987 we have had our dose of misfortune of drought which has affected the region. Our crop production has gone down to the pre-1979 level.
I have gone into some detail on Sri Lanka since there is no reference to Sri Lanka and the Asia Pacific region in the document prepared by the FAO Secretariat.
We would also like to highlight the reference in the FAO document that the challenge lies not only on the supply side, but also on demand; that is, to generate sufficient income growth to sustain a changing pattern of demand for a higher quality diet.
Sri Lanka has embarked upon several off-farm income generating employment activities based on agricultural raw materials to meet this requirement.
With regard to increasing agricultural production, I would also like to refer to some of the policy recommendations such as a reduction in subsidies on inputs like fertilizer. This type of recommendation in the name of structural adjustments is offered, but it is prudent to study whether this is advisable in situations where we expect to generate food production through the means of the small farmer. This type of policy may be self-defeating.
CHA CHOL MA (Democratic People's Republic of Korea): Mr Chairman, I should first of all like to express my thanks to you on your unanimous election as Chairman of Commission I of the 24th Conference
I have the honour to speak at this Commission of the great significance where the problem of world food and agriculture which is related to the fate of mankind is being discussed. We are satisfied with the excellent document which has been prepared by the Conference Secretariat.
The problems of agriculture and food are vital to peoples'lives, and constitute a major part in the building of a civilized and new society, which is the unanimous aspiration of mankind.
Today the problem of agriculture poses a more urgent and important problem to developing countries which were under Colonial subjugation in the past. Food and agricultural problems are highly important and urgent problems which developing countries should solve without fail when building a new society. Unless the food problem is solved through agricultural development, developing countries can neither consolidate their national independence, nor attain their independent development. In the solution of the food problem, the problem of agriculture poses a more urgent problem in the light of an ever-increasing global food crisis. Today a large number of people in the world are starving, and about fifteen million children die of the disease of malnutrition in developing countries every year. This situation demands that developing countries put the main stress on the solution of the food problem, the problem of agriculture.
The Extraordinary Ministerial Conference of non-aligned countries on South-South cooperation, held in Pyongyang, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, on 9-13 June 1987 has approved unanimously the necessity and task of South-South cooperation. The Ministers reaffirmed their full and unwavering commitment to economic cooperation among the developing countries and the principle of collective self-reliance. we deem it necessary to develop South-South cooperation in agriculture so that self-sufficiency in food can be attained. A large number of developing countries are not yet free of hunger and poverty. Some countries are trying to subordinate these countries economically and to dominate them politically by using food as a weapon. Therefore, developing countries must improve agriculture and solve the problem of food. This is important in delivering their peoples from hunger and poverty and in defending their independence.
Developing countries must set the inspiring objective of achieving complete self-sufficiency in food as soon as possible, and of achieving it by undertaking joint ventures in agriculture in various forms and means, and in close cooperation with each other in the construction of irrigation systems, in the improvement of farming techniques, in research on agricultural science and in the production of farm machinery. This is a most suitable type of cooperation for them.
My delegation is of the view that these items"are of urgent need in the solution of the world food programme and are in full conformity with the desire and aspirations of the developing countries. My delegation maintains that these should be fully supported and the Programme of Work and Budget approved by developing countries.
A.H. Mofazzal KARIM (Bangladesh): At the outset I, on my own behalf and on behalf of the Bangladesh delegation, congratulate you warmly, Mr Chairman, on your assumption of the office of Chairman of this Commission, a responsibility which I am sure you are quite capable of shouldering with your experience, wisdom, sagacity and dynamism. I also take this opportunity to thank the FAO Secretariat for presenting a well-written Working Paper which covers the whole gamut of the issues involved.
This Conference is being held at a time when my country is still struggling hard to come out of the morass of economic stagnation caused by this year's catastrophic floods, when the incidence of another famine looms large over Ethiopia and most of the Third World countries are facing starvation and malnutrition of an ever-increasing magnitude. In such a situation the only redeeming feature is that the food stock is not bad at aggregate level. This phenomenon propels us to solve the food problem globally. This phenomenon once again reminds us that as members of a family of nations we have a duty and a responsibility to each other. The primary concern, therefore, is to save Ethiopia in particular, and other countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America in general, from the jaws of an impending famine.
How can we do that? By pursuing policies of trade protectionism and trade barriers? By high-rise tariff walls and unfavourable terms of trade? By continuously reducing the flow of aid? Certainly not. Aid worth thousands of billions of dollars for agricultural developmet is likely to go waste unless an integrated approach is adopted to face all issues responsible for, and resulting from, slow growth. We say this because we strongly believe that agriculture - or any economic activity for that matter - is not an exercise in isolation independent of all other forces acting for and against this progress.
In this regard, FAO in its turn I believe has a pioneering role to play. It is gratifying to note that FAO has already taken cognizance of the situation and responded sharply in helping the developing countries to come out of it.
We hope that FAO will continue such efforts in all relevant international fora. Coupled with such multilateral and bilateral problems as protectionism and debt servicing, there are other serious problems typical of agriculture that have been hindering and will continue to stagnate agricultural development. From our experience, for example, I may talk about floods. Perhaps one cannot imagine the plight of a farmer or the peril befalling a nation unless one has experienced the all-pervading destruction wrought by floods. This year, for instance, Bangladesh had planned to produce food grains that would have enabled the country to achieve near self-sufficiency. However, unfortunately the colossal damage done by this year's unprecedented floods has resulted in a food gap to the tune of nearly 3.5 million tons. Thus, unless long-term measures are taken to solve these perennial problems facing agriculture, no country, I am afriad, can make any real headway in agriculture, and food autarky is bound to remain a dream. These measures are not necessarily unilateral. There are programmes that demand joint action by countries in a neighbourhood. For all this, policy advice needs to be framed and steps taken by such august bodies as the FAO.
From the long-term may I turn to the short-term measures in respect of floods and such other natural calamities. Needless to say, the developing countries all of a sudden are caught in an endemic situation when disasters befall them. They are then forced to cut their development budgets and galvanize all their resources to provide instantaneous succour and relief to the distressed areas. It might therefore be considered whether disaster-preparedness programmes could be funded by international agencies and other donors on a priority basis. At the same time, such "save the soul" programmes as the Vulnerable Group Feeding Programmes should continue to receive priority in order to save millions from malnutrition and emaciation.
This year FAO has brought the small farmer into the limelight during the observance of the World Food Day. Thanks to FAO, on behalf of the small farmers, none of whom, incidentally, are present in the Conference for obvious reasons. The small farmers will expect that the focus remains at least for some time to come, at least until such time as they learn to stand on their own two feet. This esteemed body may adopt policy decisions not only to protect the interests of the small farmers but also with a veiw to ameliorating their condition. After all, small farmers are small in ability but not in number in the developing countries - nay, in the whole world.
Mention has already been made of storage, transportation and marketing problems. You know, Mr Chairman, how acute these problems are in the developing countries. It is only befitting that these problems receive due attention along with the problems of production.
May I say a last word about research in agriculture? This is one area where Bangladesh and many other developing countries have some achievements. Nobody can deny that success in agriculture depends on progress in the agricultural research system. The research institutes are beset with problems, not so much of manpower but of financial resources. I can assure you, Sir, that, given adequate resources, many of these research institutes can do wonders, and have been doing wonders, in plant genetics, plant protection and so on. It is a pity that quite often we lose sight of this lifeblood in the manner that we overlook such ancillary issues as pricing, marketing, storage, etc.
Jae Ok LEE (Korea, Republic of): Mr Chairman, the delegation of the Republic of Korea would like to express sincere congratulations on your election as Chairman of Commission I.
On behalf of the Korean Government I should like to express some comments on the world food and agricultural situation which we are all faced with now. First, the most serious problem involved in agriculture yet remaining to be solved may be specified as the imbalance of food supply among regions. It is regrettable for us to note that many developing countries, especially in the African region, are now suffering from shortage of food and malnutrition, while some developed countries are trying to deal with excess food supply.
To solve such an imbalance of food supply, my Government firmly believes that the FAO Conference discussions should concentrate on detailed cooperation schemes for the transfer of advanced technology and capital from developed countries. In this context, the Korean Government has established ESCAP cooperation funds for the transfers of capital and technology aiming at increases in the rate of food self-sufficiency in developing countries. The Korean Government also has invited many foreign trainees every year, while Korean experts actively participate in the agricultural development of other countries under TCDC programmes initiated by the FAO.
Even though the efforts of the FAO have gradually improved the world food situation, the results are not evenly reflected in all member countries, making our collaboration of utmost importance. The Korean Government believes that the FAO must continue to play an important role in improving the world food situation and in developing the rural sector through the exchange of valuable experiences and views with each other.
Asefa WOLDEGIORGIS (Ethiopia): The Ethiopian delegation has examined this background document before us this morning, document C 87/2, with the addition of Supplement 1. The Ethiopian delegation fully agrees with the contents of the document. Although there remains much to be done to address the world food problem, and, while not intending to go into the details at this stage, we appreciate also the special emphasis placed on parts of the African region with regard to the current food situation.
Despite our numerous activities in the past to meet successfully the challenge of agricultural development and food security, particularly in developing countries, we are still confronted with critical constraints which require our concerted regional and global efforts. These constraints in agricultural developments, which are strongly linked to several social, economic and political factors, are not unknown to many of us here. In order to assess the regional and particularly national problems in Ethiopia I would simply call to mind the major constraints upon which our efforts have focused to mitigate the problems. The impediments to productive rural economy in Ethiopia have caused declines in agricultural yields, occasioning cyclical famine, particularly in the course of the past decade. In the event, many people were placed directly at risk. Many lost their means of production and were forced to abandon their homes.
The constraints which have caused widening food gaps and massive food imports into the country and which eroded the comparatively favourable physical agricultural environment are largely man-made and also a legacy of the past. The major root causes which have greatly contributed to the present agricultural problems in the country are well documented. These include, to name a few: the vagaries of climate; low-technology agriculture, decimating the favourable production environment; illiteracy, which stood at some 97 percent in 1974; the nature of the traditional settlements in very widely scattered and isolated homesteads and overpopulation in degraded, drought-prone areas; and injudicious use of natural resources. Concurrently, one may allude here to population policy, locust swarms and other migrant pests.
Within the context I have just mentioned, and giving top priority to reversing the decline in the agricultural sector by attacking and removing the major root causes, the Government has spared no effort to adopt the necessary policies and take some bold measures accordingly to ensure a degree of food security for its people. The country's agriculture, which is now given the highest priority, has its policies and strategies very clearly identified and formulated in the national Ten-year Perspective Development Plan and in the Three-year Food Self-sufficiency Programme, launched in 1984 and 1987 respectively, with emphasis on irrigated agriculture and improved dry-land farming management techniques, intensifying the farming practices in both existing and and new farm land.
In connection with irrigated agriculture, Ethiopia has water resource potential capable of harnessing over three million hectares of land, but what prevails in the country currently is almost exclusive reliance on the rains, with irrigated farming very minimal, or about 100 000 hectares.
Besides our successful land reform programme, an important point and a laudable achievement in the course of the past decade, which we feel duty bound to report to this body, is our literacy campaign. Illiteracy, one of the impediments to increasing output, and which stood at the high level of some 97 percent in 1974, has now dropped to less than 30 percent. Under our agricultural development programme, some 18 percent of our rural population - or about 6.5 million people - are now "villagised", enjoying all sorts of social and economic services.
With regard to population policy, this has also increasingly and rightly come to the forefront nowadays in the minds of policymakers. In order to feed the projected growing population and to expand income in developing countries, it is understandable to conceive that local food production rates must satisfy adequately the growing demands for agricultural products over time.
In this connection, we must understand that a planned population policy cannot be viewed in isolation from a general development policy. Development itself is the basis for an effective solution to the population problems. Particularly in the Third World countries, well-established mass organizations in both urban centres and rural communities, with the active participation of the people in the social, economic and political functions, have a significant power base in facilitating effective implementation of population policies.
In this regard Ethiopia has responded to the challenge by laying down the social base to tackle the problem effectively. In order to get out of the current food gap, the Government of Ethiopia is not under the illusion that this problem should be left to the assistance of the international donor community. Outside assistance is supplementary to our national efforts and we shall continue our efforts to overcome the problem.
In this connection, despite the favourable rain during our cropping season of the past autumn, the main rains during the following cropping season last summer have been below normal, both in intensity and coverage in most parts of the Central and Northern Highlands.
With this in view and. with the threats from locust swarms, we have undertaken to increase the national food security reserve from 50 000 tonnes to a total of 92 000 tonnes and the commercial purchase of 100 000 tonnes of food grains put through for emergencies. The Government estimate of the food aid requirement for 1988 remains unchanged at 950 000 tonnes. So far, firm food aid pledges against the 1988 emergency amount to 347 000 tonnes.
In the face of the present agricultural constraints in developing countries and the difficult problems ahead of us, I should like to stress here that we should give more of what we have given to this Organization and other similar organizations in the past to help grow more food and improve food security situations at all levels and have a better fed world.
Emile DETRAUX (Belgique): Monsieur le Président, la Belgique se réjouit de votre élection à la présidence de cette commission, et vous présente à cette occasion ses plus vives félicitations.
A cette date, notre intervention sera très brève, se faisant en quelque sorte à titre conservatoire. En effet, compte tenu que, selon nous, des liens évidents existent entre les trois sujets étudiés au sein de cette commission, à savoir: la situation mondiale de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture, l'ajustement agricole international, l'agriculture "Horizon 2000", dans le but d'éviter des redites, nous souhaiterions intervenir d'une manière plus élaborée plus tard dans le débat.
Roberto NICOLAI (Italie): Nous avons le plaisir de vous féliciter pour votre élection et la façon dont vous conduisez le débat.
La délégation italienne a examiné avec beaucoup d'intérêt les documents rédigés par le Secrétariat et désire exprimer son appréciation pour leur clarté et la façon exhaustive avec laquelle a été maîtrisée cette matière délicate. Nous sommes conscients de la complexité de l'ensemble des données qui doivent être étudiées, mais comme il ressort du document même, nous devons tenir compte des aspects essentiels pour l'évolution future de la situation générale de l'agriculture et des problèmes auxquels l'humanité doit faire face pour surmonter les problèmes de la faim et de la malnutrition.
Dans ses grandes lignes, l'analyse internationale examine, de la part des pays industrialisés et grands producteurs, les mesures destinées au soutien des productions respectives aussi bien qu'à l'emplacement sur le marché international, l'opinion qui en découle est que l'état de crise structurelle qui altère aujourd'hui le système agro-alimentaire mondial doit être attribué à ces politiques qui conditionnent entre autres le volume des échanges et le niveau des prix."
Certes, la poussée productive a déterminé un déséquilibre croissant entre la demande et l'offre et, par conséquent, la formation de surplus, surtout dans le secteur des céréales, des produits laitiers, des viandes bovines et du sucre. Toutefois, comme l'analyse internationale le démontre, la situation actuelle voit aussi le changement des rapports entre pays en voiede développement et pays industrialisés en ce qui concerne les produits agricoles. Le schéma classique sur la base duquel certains pays fournissaient des technologies et des machines, et les pays en voie de développement étaient fournisseurs de produits agricoles et de matières premières a enregistré des changements profonds qui ont caractérisé l'évolution des pays en voie de développement. En outre, le processus de la croissance démographique considérable et la migration dans les villes des populations rurales a provoqué une augmentation importante de la demande de produits alimentaires et contribué par ailleurs à une réduction de la production agricole.
Ce n'est pas le lieu ici d'évoquer le cercle vicieux de l'endettement progressif de ces pays. Aujourd'hui, on assiste au phénomène de diminution de la production des matières premières agricoles en provenance de certains pays en voie de développement et, par ailleurs, aux besoins de débouchés de la part d'autres pays. Cette série de facteurs rend la solution de ces problèmes difficile. Nous sommes conscients de la bonne volonté et de la compréhension mutuelle. Nous ne doutons pas que des solutions adéquates nous permettront d'atteindre les objectifs qui sont communs à tous.
Plus particulièrement, en ce qui concerne le secteur céréalier, l'Italie en tant que membre de la CEE, dans son effort pour limiter les excédents, a connu depuis 1981 jusqu'à nos jours une diminution d'environ 500 000 hectares, avec une réduction des productions malgré les augmentations de rendement, de plus de 8 millions de quintaux.
De l'analyse objective des données disponibles, nous croyons que ressort très clairement le rôle incommensurable qui est dévolu à la FAO pour l'aide qu'elle peut apporter aux gouvernements dans la mise en place des politiques agricoles en ce qui concerne l'exploitation de toutes possibilités locales d'agriculture; en outre, nous désirons rappeler l'effort poursuivi par exemple dans le secteur des tubercules-racines et du plantain dans l'analyse des besoins et dans la formulation des suggestions dans les différents secteurs agricoles ainsi que pour l'aide à la formation et à la recherche.
V.K. SIBAL (India): At the outset we would like to express our appreciation for the quality of the documents under discussion, C 87/2 and C 87/2-Sup.1, and also, the very clear presentations. The picture which emerges from this document arouses a certain amount of concern and disquiet. The provisional estimates of food and agricultural production show that 1987 was a poor year, although it is heartening to note that Asia will be able to accommodate the worst monsoon season for some years without major difficulty. Although propects for world economic growth are somewhat better than envisaged earlier, nevertheless the resolution of the problems of debt faced by many developing countries is nowhere in sight. The picture of economic growth, particularly in the middle-income indebted countries and sub-Saharan Africa is a matter of anxiety. The need for debt restructuring rather than debt rescheduling cannot be overstated in this context. The slow growth in import demand together with rising and increasing protectionism and import substitutions are retarding attempts of the indebted countries to service their external debts.
There is a dire need for increasing the flows of ODA in this situation to achieve the targeted level of 0.7 percent of GNP for donor countries, increases in the capital of the World Bank and IMF's structural adjustment facilities.
The regional overview of food and agricultural production in 1987 has brought into focus the current worsening situation in Ethiopia, Mozambique and Angola. We hope that FAO and the international community will rise to the occasion and provide the requisite assistance effectively and expeditiously.
India is suffering from an unprecedented drought because of a serious failure of the monsoons. We have geared ourselves to meet the situation under a well-planned strategy and are confident that with this plan and the comfortable level of stocks we shall be able to meet the situation, though there will be serious pressure on our stocks and losses in milk production will have to be compensated for.
There are increases in the value of agricultural trade, but these increases are somewhat illusory because they have to be balanced in the light of the dollar depreciation and greater trading activities in the developed and industrial countries. However, the problems of the developing countries in trade continue unabated. The exports of developing countries have declined by 6 percent, while imports have increased by 2.7 percent. It is a stark reality that the share of developing countries in world trade continues to decline from 34 percent of total exports in 1980 to, as the document says, 29 percent in 1985 and 25 percent in 1986. The terms of trade continue to be adverse.
We recognize with a degree of satisfaction some promising policy developments. The Louvre Accord, the OECD Ministerial meeting in May, the Venice Summit and the Uruaguay Round at GATT negotiations are positive developments, but the Indian delegation is concerned that the continuing problems of debt protectionism and the need to restore economic growth have not been addressed with sufficient urgency.
The regional economic growth in Asia and the Pacific has been well maintained during recent years. The main factors of growth have been: improved technology, the greater use of inputs, incentives for production, and the opening up of export markets. The. Indian delegation is concerned over the prevailing world economic trends, the slow growth of output and international trade, increasing interest rates and intensified protectionist pressure. The worsening global debt situation dominated the deliberations of the Finance Ministers of developing countries who met in Washington in September 1987. At that meeting India emphasized the need for liberalization of the World Bank's lending policies, along with a substantial increase in the Bank's capital. The Ministers demanded that all debts of developing countries be restructured and not merely rescheduled since rescheduling had not helped the problems of developing countries and had only postponed them.
It is in the common interest of all countries to reactivate economic negotiations and broaden cooperation in the economic field for the benefit of all countries. At the non-Summit meeting in Harare in September 1986 it was felt it was necessary to continue and intensify efforts to revive the dialogue with the developed countries and to re-invigorate international economic cooperation. There is an urgent need for developed and developing countries to work together and examine the various options available for the revival of north-south dialogues for sustained global economic development and growth especially in the developing countries. The non-Summit was of the view that this initiative would provide a good basis for agreement at the political level between the developed and the developing countries regarding actions and mechanisms which would promote balanced and sustained world economic growth and development. The Summit reiterated the need for an early convening of the International Conference on Money and Finance for Development. The initiatives indicated in the Declaration of the Summit need serious pursuit.
SAMBA MOOMI-TE-AVELELA (Zaire): C'est de tout coeur que la délégation du Zaïre vous félicite à l'occasion de votre élection à la tête de la première commission de notre Conférence. Nos félicitations sont liées à nos remerciements pour les documents que le Secrétariat nous a présentés. Aussi la délégation du Zaire approuve les principales conclusions des documents C 87/2 et Sup. 1 qui sont soumis à notre examen.
Le Zaïre; à l'instar des précédents orateurs, soutient que l'environnement économique actuel freine la croissance de la production agricole. Vivement conscient de l'interdépendance entre la croissance économique, la production vivrière et l'amélioration de l'alimentation, le Zaïre insiste sur la mise en place d'un nouvel ordre économique et d'un programme de coopération régionale et Sud-Sud en matière d'alimentation et d'agriculture qui contribueraient à rendre nos pays auto-suffisants du point de vue de la production vivrière.
Ce programme de coopération régionale et Sud-Sud doit à notre humble avis faire progresser la coopération technique entre pays en développement, au sens large du terme, c'est-à-dire encourager les échanges et le partage des capacités entre toutes les parties, dans un intérêt commun. Bref, ce programme doit permettre à nos pays d'asseoir leurs économies sur des bases plus solides.
Jean-Jacques RATEAU (CEE): Je vous remercie de bien vouloir me donner la parole pour me permettre de vous présenter le point de vue de la Communauté et de ses Etats membres sur l'évolution de la politique agricole en Europe. Mais auparavant permettez-moi de vous féliciter pour votre élection et pour votre façon de conduire les travaux de cette Commission.
Comme vous le savez, la politique agricole commune est, en quelque sorte, la pierre angulaire de la construction européenne. Ceci vous explique les efforts qui ont été consentis, depuis 30 ans, pour assurer son succès mais aussi les précautions qu'il convient de prendre pour l'adapter aux situations nouvelles. Voilà pourquoi, depuis plusieurs années et plus particulièrement depuis 1984, la Communauté a engagé une réforme de la politique agricole commune pour assurer la maîtrise de la production agricole et de la dépense budgétaire.
Les aménagements apportés à la PAC au cours de ces dernières années l'ont été autour des trois objectifs suivants: la maîtrise de la production et des dépenses; la préservation du modèle européen de l'agriculture et la définition des perspectives pour cette agriculture; la concertation internationale.
En ce qui concerne la maîtrise de la production et des dépenses, les mesures proposées depuis 1980 vont dans le sens: d'une politique de prix plus restrictive; d'une intervention moins permanente et plus limitée; et d'une limitation du soutien par la fixation de quotas et de seuils de garantie contraignants, renforçant la coresponsabilité des producteurs. Jusqu'à présent, cette réforme a été appliquée en priorité dans les secteurs des céréales, du lait, des oléagineux et de la viande bovine. Elle a déjà donné lieu à des résultats et permis la limitation des dépenses de soutien. Malheureusement, ceux-ci ont été occultés en partie par la présence sur les marchés communautaires de stocks agricoles accumulés depuis plusieurs années.
Ces mesures se sont d'ores et déjà traduites: a) par la baisse des prix de soutien d'environ 10 pour cent en termes réels au cours des 4 dernières campagnes. Cette baisse est même de 17 pour cent en termes réels si l'on tient compte de l'incidence des mesures connexes. Des mesures spéciales ont d'ailleurs dû être prises par la Communauté pour alléger la charge des producteurs et éviter ainsi que cette baisse n'ait des effets trop négatifs sur leurs revenus; b) ces mesures se sont traduites aussi par une maîtrise accrue de la production des produits laitiers depuis 1984, maîtrise qui permettra d'équilibrer le marché à partir de 1989. Dès la première campagne, l'application des quotas a permis d'inverser la courbe ascendante de la production de lait et comparée à celle de 1983, la production a diminué de 3,5 pour cent en 1986-87; c) par une responsabilité accrue des exploitants agricoles à l'égard de la production et du marché. En-effet, à la notion de "coresponsabilité" introduite depuis plus de 10 ans et qui a permis d'obtenir une autonomie financière complète dans le secteur du sucre, s'est ajoutée depuis 1981 celle de "stabilisateur budgétaire" avec l'introduction de seuils de garantie et de production dans le secteur laitier et les secteurs de productions végétales .
A la lumière des premiers résultats obtenus, la Communauté étudie actuellement une proposition qui vise, selon les cas, à renforcer les stabilisateurs existants et/ou d'en introduire d'autres dans les secteurs où les mécanismes de marché ne suffisent pas à assurer la maîtrise de la production. C'est le cas pour les secteurs des protéagineux, de la viande ovine, du vin, de certains fruits et légumes et du tabac. Pour les secteurs de la viande bovine et des céréales, les mécanismes actuels devraient être renforcés.
En ce qui concerne la préservation du modèle européen d'agriculture, il est de l'intérêt même de l'agriculture et des agriculteurs d'assurer la maîtrise de la production et de la dépense agricoles. Ces objectifs sont donc poursuivis par une politique cohérente où l'on retrouve des préoccupations liées: au revenu agricole; au maintien du modèle d'exploitation familiale; à la cohérence de la Communauté et à l'insertion de l'agriculture européenne dans le contexte mondial.
A cet effet, des mesures d'accompagnement appropriées ont déjà été adoptées. Elles concernent en particulier le renforcement de la politique sociostructurelle et l'avenir du monde rural au sujet duquel un rapport assorti de propositions sera présenté dans les prochaines semaines.
En ce qui concerne la concertation internationale, celle-ci s'impose naturellement à la Communauté. En effet, étant le premier importateur mondial et le deuxième exportateur de produits agricoles, la Communauté ne pourra poursuivre, ni parachever le processus d'adaptation de la PAC que si, d'une part, les partenaires de la communauté empruntent aussi résolument la même voie et si, d'autre part, un effort commun de tous les producteurs est fait pour stabiliser les marchés internationaux. Cela implique que les autres pays producteurs prennent également des mesures pour maîtriser leur production et adapter, de manière concertée, leur offre à la demande en réduisant leur soutien à l'agriculture. Conformément aux engagements pris à Punta del Este en septembre 1986, à l'OCDE en mai dernier et au Sommet des pays industrialisés en juin à Venise, la Communauté a présenté au GATT, il y a quelques jours, la position qu'elle entendait défendre dans les négociations de l'Uruguay Round.
La déclaration qui sera faite au nom de la Communauté., mardi prochain, dans le cadre du débat général de la Conférence, expliquer a certains aspects de la proposition que la Communauté a présentée au GATT dans le secteur de l'agriculture et des produits de base. Ainsi, malgré les difficultés considérables, notamment au niveau des petits agriculteurs, qu'entraîne la réforme mise en oeuvre, la Communauté poursuit celle-ci dans le respect de ses engagements internationaux avec le ferme espoir que ces efforts permettront d'assainir durablement la situation des marchés agricoles tant à l'intérieur de la Communauté que sur les marchés internationaux.
Giuseppe VASTA (Observateur de l'Organisation de coopération et développement économiques): D'abord, je voudrais vous féliciter pour votre élection et pour votre façon de conduire les travaux de cette commission. Je félicite aussi le Secrétariat pour son excellente documentation.
Je me suis permis de demander la parole pour éviter que le silence de la part de l'OCDE soit mal interprété. Plusieurs délégués ont parlé de la réunion des ministres de l'OCDE de mai dernier et plusieurs ont manifesté leur espoir que les promesses des ministres de l'OCDE, les résultats de l'Uruguay Round et du Sommet de Venise puissent donner des résultats valables. A ce sujet, je me permets d'observer que la question du protectionnisme des agriculteurs et exportateurs mérite un examen très sérieux. Si un train passe à une certaine allure, il est certes impossible de l'arrêter avec un fort coup de frein, cette façon de procéder pourrait causer des désastres très graves. Il faut donc procéder avec beaucoup de prudence.
Je me suis permis de dire cela mais je vous annonce aussi que le Directeur de l'agriculture de l'OCDE viendra prochainement présenter une intervention plus précise et détaillée sur ces graves problèmes.
H.W. HJORT (Director, Policy Analysis Division): First of all I would like to express appreciation for the very many positive comments on the content and format of the documents.
There have been a few matters brought to our attention that need change. In particular, we have noted that one Member Nation has been named incorrectly in paragraph 5 of document C 87/2, and we apologize for that.
We have had discussions to emphasize that, in paragraph 31, we were referring to a proposal, not an actual call on the part of the United Nations. With respect to paragraph 73, we have also had a suggestion to make a minor editing change, and some updated information has been provided by Japan with respect to the area of diversified rice fields in paragraph 174. We appreciate those modifications and changes.
I also recall the intervention on the part of the observer for the Organization of African Unity and the additional information that was provided with respect to events surrounding the United Nations Priority Programme for Economic Recovery, those events that he brought to our attention having taken place after the time of the writing and dispatch of the basic documents for printing.
There also were two suggestions, or a specific request in one case from the delegation of the Federal Republic of Germany, with respect to the information on oil exporting and non-oil exporting countries, and a query as to whether information could be added to tables such as 1 and 3. Yes, that point can be taken into account and in the full SOFA document we can so reflect that.
Incidentally, the documents before you are augmented, corrections made, and will finally become the so-called full SOFA document.
The delegate from Canada suggested that an alternative format be used specifically, that we go back to the format used in 1985, as she recognized that the reason for the particular format this time was to minimize duplication and overlapping with this document and those that are to follow. Before the Conference, in fact before this Commission, our proposals to change the reporting frequency for some of the other documents that you will be discussing later and the decision on the format for reporting at the next Conference will in part be influenced by that. We certainly have no desire to be duplicative in our documentation.
I was particularly appreciative of the intervention by the delegate of Mexico in giving us a briefing on recent developments among selected importing countries with respect to trade liberalization negotiations. We have noted that at least two countries have made some suggestions for possible study. I refer specifically to those from Peru and Malaysia, which will be taken under consideration.
Finally, there was the point of the delegate from the United Kingdom that we were a little too gloomy with respect to the debt situation. There were views expressed on the other side, particularly with respect to the delegate from Algeria, suggesting that we were perhaps too optimistic. In general, looking at the magnitude and the consequences of the debt situation on the prospects of food and agriculture and recognizing that there has been some progress, the overall conclusion in my view is that in these documents we certainly are not too gloomy. It is a very difficult problem, which is having a fundamental impact on a large number of countries, at least half of which are struggling with debt servicing problems, and those consequences are expremely severe. That is not, however, to say that one should not give credit and probably we are remiss in not including in our supplement an update that recognizes that some of the most recent initiatives being taken, including, as we are reminded by the delegate of Canada, certain write-offs of debts by Canada and some other countries.
I believe that covers the main points and comments.
CHAIRMAN: We have had an interesting and business-like discussion on agenda item 6.1, "State of Food and Agriculture", yesterday afternoon and this morning. In all, 47 countries and three observers participated in the discussions.
During the discussions a number of points have been raised by the participants. Widespread concern was expressed by Member Nations on four specific aspects: first, about the importance of trade in relation to the food and agricultural scene in the world as brought out in the documentation placed before the Commission; second, the emerging situation in relation to food and agriculture, particularly in Africa and Latin America; third, the crippling effect that the external debt burden is imposing especially on the developing countries; and, lastly, the deleterious effects of the agricultural subsidies in the richer countries and the effects of their protectionism and non-tariff trade barriers on food trade.
Generally, the consensus was that the initiatives that have been launched in the Uruguay Round in Punta Del Este and also the ongoing discussions in different fora were welcomed by the participants, and there was unanimity that FAO with its information and expertise should play a bigger and more positive role in the ongoing trade negotiations.
There was also a reference to the Brundtland Commission Report and the need for giving greater attention to ecology and forestry.
Another factor that emerged from the discussions was the role that the monsoons and the rains seem to play in the quantum world agricultural production. In the long term, the FAO was the first in this area to have directed efforts toward devising and implementing, with the active collaboration of Member Nations, schemes, programmes and projects for better weather forecasting and, wherever possible, for providing protective irrigation for servicing standing crops at critical stages, for directing research efforts to develop moisture stress resistance on drought-resistant varieties of cultivars and for evolving location-specific packages of practices for dryland or rainfed farming on a watershed basis in order to optimize the available rainwater and to ensure that these packages win widespread adoption at ground level.
I am grateful to all Member Nations for their participation and cooperation, which has helped us to save one session in completing agenda item 6.1. When we reassemble we will take up item 6.2, the locust menace, and that will enable us to partly make up time in order to adjourn tomorrow morning when many of the distinguished delegates will be attending the audience with the Pope.
K.S. MULHERIN (Secretary, Commission I): I wish to announce that the consultations regarding the formulation of the Drafting Group have been concluded, and I shall read out the list of the members of the Drafting Group in alphabetical order: Algeria, Cyprus, Denmark, Iraq, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Panama, Peru, Spain, Sweden, United States of America, Yugoslavia and Zambia. I might add that it was our intention to convene the first session of the drafting group tomorrow evening immediately after the conclusion of the discussion in this Commission. It is hoped that we will be considering the draft report on the item just concluded, SOFA. The drafting group will elect its own Chairman.
The meeting rose at 12.45 hours
La seance est levée à 12 h 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas
