CHAIRMAN: We resume our discussion on the Progress Report on International Agricultural Adjustment.
Erland CARLSSON (Sweden): I.would like to thank the Secretariat for having prepared a useful Progress Report under this agenda item. My delegation has read the document with great interest and can agree with much of what is said in the text, but will make some observations, mostly in relation to measures taken in our country. However, first of all I would like to say that we tend to agree with the proposal that the frequency of the preparation of progress reports be changed to every four years, for the reasons stated in the document
In relation to Guideline 1, it is stated in the Report inter aliathat agricultural policies in many developed countries continue to be characterized by high levels of protection and subsidization. It is also stated that the effect of this is that their farm sectors produce too much. However, in this connection it would be fair to note that many developed countries have recently taken or are in the process of taking action with the purpose of reducing output of price supported products.
At least in Sweden such actions have been rather successful, for instance, as regards meat, milk and grains. To some extent these aspects are discussed in relation to Guideline 7, but it seems appropriate to deal with them also when dealing with Guideline 1.
As regards Guideline 7, in relation to paragraph 125 dealing with beef imports in developed countries, it might be of interest that Sweden is a net importer of beef as a result of various measures, including restrictive price policies. In paragraph 133, which speaks about export and import policies in the cereals sector that have been isolating domestic markets from world market events, it is also noted that certain domestic policies may work in the other direction.
In that connection, I would like to mention that Sweden has taken measures to reduce production of cereals from the 1987 crop by means of a fallowing scheme. This scheme is to be followed in the coming years by measures to stimulate alternative use of land. It might also be of interest that Swedish support prices for cereals were reduced by between 8 and 9 percent in 1986 because of the difficulties on the world market.
Finally, Sweden would like to underline what is said in paragraph 181 about the serious implications for world food security in the long-term of policy induced surpluses on the world level.
The GATT Uruguay Round negotiations are of great importance in achieving a better international environment, including also short-term measures to restore the balance on the world markets for agricultural products.
Aziz YAACOB (Malaysia): Allow me at the outset to congratulate the Secretariat on the very interesting document so succinctly summarized by Professor Nurul Islam. We note the difficulties faced by many developing countries in trying to adopt adjustment measures along the guidelines prepared by FAO in recent years.
The poor performance of agricultural commodity prices has severed the capacity of many developing nations to earn enough to service their debts and get on track on to the growth path. As such, it is not surprising that the 4 percent growth target for agriculture as laid down by Guideline 1 could not be met by many developing countries. Many, short of financial and physical resources, have had to turn to aid but such aid appeared to stagnate. So Guideline 2 for greater financial flow to the agricultural sector may also not be met.
Progress in meeting the other guidelines appears satisfactory, at least for Malaysia, as we constantly seek to provide adequate infrastructure and support services, greater rural and women participation and measures to increase food production, and to achieve a more equitable income sharing.
These last two guidelines pertaining to increased food production and equitable distribution of income cannot, from our experience, be undertaken regardless of considerations of comparative cost advantage and involving sacrifice of economic growth in the long run. We believe other developing nations are attempting the same but may be constrained in varying degrees by lack of resources.
Perhaps it is time to examine the experiences of various developing countries that have adopted adjustment measures, and the implications and problems of adopting these measures, including the conditionality package of the IMF, and to assess the effectiveness and consequences. Has the conditionality package provided the right panacea to structural problems of developing countries, or has it created adverse recessionary tendencies not anticipated before? Until a more enlightened presentation of the effects of these adjustment measures is made, we propose that countries applying such adjustment measures should do so on a gradual and more moderate basis that will not disrupt the demand foundation of their economies and avoid the setting of recessionary tendencies.
The package of adjustment measures cannot be homogeneous. FAO should include in their excellent study an examination of the appropriate adjustment package for developing countries at different levels of development, varying degrees of openness, and encountering different sets of problems. Adjustment packages for low-income countries necessarily must differ from those in the middle developing bracket. Middle developing nations such as Malaysia face problems not only associated with declining agricultural terms of trade externally, but also internally, caused by appreciation in the real effective exchange rates that are disadvantageous to tradeable agriculture relative to the non-tradeable industrial products that enjoy an over-extended period of protection that makes their rates of return much higher than those of agriculture. The consequence is that resources, both labour and capital, flow out of agriculture into industries, while, the immobile factor, land, gets increasingly.abandoned.
Agriculture needs industries to pull it out of its lethargy, but this cannot occur so long as industries remain a protected sector and cannot achieve international competitiveness to expand into the world market and provide the effective linkage for supply sources from the agricultural sector. The lack of sectoral planning and of inter-sectoral implications of policies undertaken in sectors outside agriculture is evident in many developing countries, including Malaysia. FAO's involvement and in-depth examination of this issue and the lack of sectoral planning may be pertinent.
Touching on Guideline 7 which calls for refraining from further imposition of trade barriers, our delegation is happy to note the many nations among the developed world that have joined in the chorus. We respect and support the call for reviewing protectionist policies in the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations, particularly by countries which themselves currently indulge in heavy subsidization and protection of their agricultural sectors.
We hope this interest does not arise merely because of the urgent need to dispose of surplus agricultural production, but that it will be a sustained commitment that will continue even after their surplus stocks are disposed of. We do not wish to see agricultural developing countries losers in what may turn out to be a game, either from the influx of cheap disposal of surplus cereals that will lower prices of outputs which are the lifelines of developing countries, or from subsequent protectionist enhancement that inhibit developing countries' exports once the stocks are disposed.
We therefore request the participants to the Uruguay Round to ascertain their long-term commitment to the spirit of the Uruguay Round. The hope for success of adjustment measures currently undertaken by the developing nations depends greatly on the achievements of the Uruguay Round and the quest for freer trade.
We would agree with the proposal of the Secretariat to change the reporting to once in every four years.
Frank CRAWFORD (Australia): It is sometimes difficult when dealing with the same issues on a daily basis to stand back and discern the longer term thrust and direction of events. In my own case, I have returned only recently to the agricultural scene. I was for some time chairman of the Joint Working Party of the OECD Trade and Agricultural Committee, until 1980. In the years since then the European Community has changed from being the largest importer of temperate zone agricultural products to being one of the largest exporters. In that period also the budgetary costs of United States agricultural support programmes has increased ten-fold. There has been an enormous increase in the foreign indebtedness of developing countries. At the same time their ability to service that debt has been undermined by the agricultural protectionism practiced by the major money lenders.
In short, the condition of world agricultural trade has deteriorated even further in the 1980s. Fortunately, some influential policy forums, such as the OECD, are now beginning to give more attention to the wider economic policy aspects of agriculture, not because of any miraculous conversion of the agricultural protection lobby, but rather because the costs of agricultural protectionism are becoming so insupportable both in domestic and global terms that the issue can no longer be regarded as the exclusive domain of agriculture ministries.
It is also true, however, that talk of agricultural adjustment in the past has not taken us very far. There are arguments of epic proportions virtually every year within the EC membership, and between them and the EC Commission on price support levels and so on. And all too often what were represented as courageous steps forward have been overtaken by still further increases in production with surpluses dumped on world markets, displacing and driving down the prices of agricultural exports from other countries, mainly developing countries, but also including some others, such as my own, for whom agricultural trade is the key to economic and social development as a whole.
In recent years the United States has also increased on a massive scale its agricultural support expenditures. Cereals, cotton and rice have been added to the meat, dairy products and sugar as examples of US intervention into agricultural commodity markets. Irrespective of the motives, the effects of the US export enhancement programme on Australia, Canada, Argentina and some other developing countries caught in the crossfire has been no less crippling than if we had been the primary target.
Japan, the third major force in agricultural protectionism, is a strong supporter of world trade liberalization, although not, it would appear, of that sector of world trade on which the developing countries and other markets depend in order to pay for their imports of manufactures from Japan.
We recognize, of course, that the developed agricultural protectionist countries have made some efforts to assist agriculture in many developing countries through the Lomé Convention by assistance with agricultural research and extension, by special assistance programmes for the poorest countries, and so on. But these are mere crumbs from the feast of agricultural protectionism. The direct budgetary expenditures by the United States, the European Community and Japan alone exceed US 70 billion dollars per year. Non-budgetary welfare costs are equally staggering. A 1986 World Bank report estimated that non-budgetary transfers from consumers, paid by way of higher prices, were US 20 billion dollars in the United States and around US 40 billion dollars in the European Community. In the United States in 1986 Federal Government spending for farmer support combined with other transfers from consumers has been estimated to be equivalent to around US 1 200 dollars per year for each non-farm family.
It is important that organizations such as FAO expose such unpublicised, if not hidden, costs of agricultural protectionism. It seems to my delegation that the questions which the international community must face are, firstly, why are marginal farmers of the protectionist countries more deserving than more economically efficient farmers elsewhere? What is the economic rationality and morality of dispossessing low cost farmers of their livelihood while higher cost producers else where, who often have second jobs, are heavily subsidized to maintain production that is not needed in their own countries and that is either used as animal feed or dumped on world markets? Where should we put our economically efficient farmers when they are bankrupted by agricultural protectionism? Do we put them into our manufacturing industries and increase protection for those industries to cut back on imports of manufactures from the US, the EC and Japan? Would that kind of reaction help or hinder world economic growth and adjustment? To what extent would the payment surplus countries contribute to the reduction of global payments imbalances if they applied to their agriculture and agricultural trade policies the same principles and standards which they espouse to payments-deficit countries in respect of the management of their non-agricultural sectors?
We know that the European Community's Common Agricultural Policy is having the general effect of worsening employment in the EC as a whole. What is the full cost in terms of unemployment in urban communities and economic growth foregone in order to maintain marginal farmers under the present mechanisms of protectionism? What is the rationale for a payments surplus country such as Japan denying its consumers reasonable access to food imports and taxing their food to eight times and higher than the level of world food prices?
I mentioned that there has been some significant agricultural adjustment in some agricultural protectionist countries. The problems arise in the main with the rate of adjustment and inappro-priateness of the mechanism of agricultural support and adjustment. There is normally an increasing recognition in Europe of the need to move to more production-neutral income supports focused more directly on the relatively poorer section of the farming community. We acknowledge also the need for agricultural adjustment to be fostered in all countries and not only in the most protectionist countries. The Secretariat's paper notes that the trend towards the reform of agricultural prices policies in the developing countries is continuing. It also notes, however, that policy measures applied by several major developing countries typically have had the effect of taxing agriculture. Certainly it is clear that the corruption of world agricultural markets by the major agricultural protectionists has made it extremely difficult for the developing countries to implement their agricultural reform programmes. Having been denied fair access at fair prices, having been denied the opportunity to trade their way out of onerous and debt servicing burdens, the developing countries have all too often had to increase the cost of agricultural inputs such as agricultural equipment, which in other circumstances would have been imported at lower cost.
My own country also has had to reassess the extent to which assistance to our manufacturing industries impacts on our farm income and agricultural competitiveness. In our case that protection, mainly in the form of import tariffs, continues to be reduced.
In a major statement to the GATT in Geneva three weeks ago our Prime Minster, Mr Hawke, announced that Australia was prepared to negotiate a broad package of measures to reduce overall levels of effective assistance to Australian industry as part of a broadly based multilateral approach. In addition to tariff reductions, he said this would involve a preparedness to phase out all of our quantitative restrictions, including tariff quotas, import licensing and embargoes. The Prime Minister also had the privilege while in Geneva of presenting on behalf of the Cairns Group of Fair Trading Countries the Group's proposals for agricultural trade reform. The thrust of those policies has already been outlined in earlier statements at this Conference. I mention them here to underline the fact that this unprecedented negotiating group of developed and developing countries is simply not prepared to sit on the sidelines and leave the question of agricultural trade reform to the super powers. The Cairns Group has now established its credentials as a third force in agricultural trade negotiations.
In conclusion, in order to concentrate today on the need for attitudinal change towards agricultural reform, I have had to forego comment on the several other aspects of agricultural adjustment reported on in the Secretariat paper. Nevertheless, I would like to commend the Secretariat for its analyses of those issues and developments, and more generally for the very high standard of professionalism manifested in the papers prepared for agenda items 6 and 8 in particular.
We would not object to future progress reports on international agricultural adjustment being prepared every four years instead of every two years. Nevertheless, we would want to retain agricultural adjustment on the agenda for the next Conference as a separate item or sub-item under that of the State of Food and Agriculture. The food and agriculture item is of considerable importance and complexity in its own right, and if we are to address that and agricultural adjustment in the same statements, the adjustment issue would very likely be buried in the myriad of other aspects of the food and agriculture situation.
More than ever before we shall need in 1989 a clear focus for debate on international agricultural adjustment at a time when the Uruguay Round Agricultural Trade Negotiations will be at a critical point. It is particularly important for the Cairns Group of countries, and I would think for other developing countries. In short, we can agree to foregoing a separate paper on agricultural adjustment at the next Conference, provided agricultural adjustment is listed as a separate agenda item and on the understanding that it will be covered, to some extent, in the Secretariat's paper on the State of Food and Agriculture.
V.K. SIBAL (India): We should like in the first instance to express our appreciation for the quality and comprehensiveness of the document under discussion, and its very clear presentation by Dr Islam who we are very glad to see again in this forum.
The document under consideration is the sixth Progress Report prepared by FAO on the implementation of the Guidelines and Targets for international agricultural adjustment. In the introductory part of the document, it has been suggested that as the Report inevitably duplicates a number of other regular FAO reports, and there are also many areas covered by the Guidelines where no significant changes occur as frequently as every two years, the frequency of the preparation of Progress Reports on the implementation of Guidelines and Targets for IAA be changed to every four years instead of every two years, as at present.
Before'taking a view on the periodicity of monitoring of implementation of these Guidelines and Targets, it is necessary to go into the background of the formulation of these Guidelines.
The IAA was a major theme of the Seventeenth Session of the FAO Conference in 1973 which identified the broad objectives of the IAA.
The Eighteenth Session of the Conference in 1975 accepted eleven Guidelines, to further the achievement of the objectives for IAA and to provide a global policy framework. At the Nineteenth, Twentieth, Twenty-first and Twenty-second Sessions of the FAO Conference the progress of action on the agreed Guidelines on the basis of reports prepared by the FAO Secretariat was considered. These reports showed that, while some progress had been made towards the achievement of the objectives of International Agricultural Adjustment during the period since 1974, this progress had nevertheless fallen short of expectations.
The Twentieth Session of the Conference had agreed that the Guidelines should be reviewed and revised in the light of developments since their adoption in 1975. A Contact Group constituted by the Eighty-second Council had reached a consensus on twelve guidelines - except one part of Guideline 10 - which were considered by the Twenty-second Session of the Conference, which reaffirmed the continued validity of the objectives of the IAA identified by its Seventeenth Session and endorsed the twelve revised Guidelines and Targets as a global policy framework.
Continued relevance of the Guidelines has thus been emphasised on various occasions. This view has also been accepted in the Document, in paragraph 5, which says that the Guidelines bring together many aspects of food and agriculture development that are more often considered only separately. As such, we are of the view that the continued monitoring of the performance in relation to the Guidelines remains essential. Further, the main objective of the Guidelines was not merely to secure a faster growth of world agricultural production, but to ensure a more balanced growth and also to ensure that action for achievement of the balanced growth is taken both by the developing and the developed countries. As the action taken on different Guidelines reveals, while the developing countries have been making their maximum efforts to improve their food and agriculture situation, they have in many cases not been able to reach the targets. One of the many reasons for their not achieving the targeted rate of growth may be that the developed countries have failed to fulfil their obligations of assisting them through trade liberalisation and adequate external assistance. The monitoring of the Guidelines provides an opportunity to identify such problems and make efforts to take appropriate remedial measures.
From this point of view, we are not in agreement with the suggestion in the paper to review the progress of implementation of Guidelines once in four years. Two years are a sufficiently long period for monitoring the progress, and increasing it to four would rob the reviews of the necessary immediacy and urgency and make them historical rather than operational in perspective.
There is also another consideration for reviewing the progress of implementation of the Guidelines on a biennal basis. In case the FAO suggestion for a review after four years is accepted, the next progress report will be due at the 1991 FAO Conference session. By that time, the International Development Strategy for the third Development Decade launched by the UN General Assembly would have lapsed on 31 December 1990 and, if the UN General Assembly so decides, a new IDS for the fourth Development Decade will be launched from 1 January 1991. The monitoring of the implementation of the Guidelines by the 1989 FAO Conference could provide some useful suggestions which could be appropriately incorporated in the International Development Strategy for the fourth Development Decade.
The document brings out some important problems facing world food agriculture today, the most important of these being that, while the developing countries have been making efforts to uplift their agriculture, the support from the developing countries as stipulated in the Guidelines has been lacking.
The document has brought out that there is slackening in the growth of food and agricultural production in the developing countries after 1984, paragraph 8. This is a matter of great concern. It is a matter of anguish that agricultural policies in many developed countries continue to be characterised by high levels of protection and subsidies which distort producers' incentives and consequently tend to keep excessive resources in agriculture.
Particular mention in this context may be made of Guidelines 7 to 12. As the document has observed, while there have been some modest improvements in trade liberalisation, they have been completely overshadowed by restrictive and trade-distorting measures recently taken by a number of countries. India has constantly expressed itself against protectionist measures by the developed countries and we would like to place on record our firm opposition to such measures on this occasion too.
The Indian delegation would like to highlight the need for containing and reversing the growing protectionist policies and support the need for removal of tariff and non-tariff barriers which restrict the flow of exports from the developing countries. The flow of these exports from the developing countries would help them to earn valuable foreign exchange.
In the matter of food aid to developing countries, Guideline 11 provides that consideration should be given to the upward revision of the food-aid target of 10 million tonnes, taking into account the estimated requirement of 17 to 18.5 million tonnes of cereals, which provides a useful indicator of the overall requirements of food aid by 1985. Little effort seems to have been made by the international community to review the food-aid target or further to strengthen the International Emergency Food Reserve. These are important problems which have not been addressed with the required sense of urgency so far.
There have also been attempts to link food aid with structural adjustments in the developing countries. We would like to emphasize that the right to food is a basic and universal human right which should be guaranteed to all people. The food security compact enshrines the objective though we are far from reaching it. All major international conferences in the sphere of food and agriculture have underscored the urgent need for eradication of hunger within the shortest possible time. The eighth Non-aligned Summit in 1986 strongly condemned the use of food aid as an instrument of political pressure and cautioned against any kind of conditionality for supply of food aid. While the developing countries should be free to utilise the food aid for purposes of structural and sectoral adjustments according to their needs, any effort to influence their decision through a process of multilateral consultations amounts to interference in their internal affairs through the multilateral agencies. Therefore, the Indian delegation is opposed to the linkage between structural adjustments and food aid Further, several sectoral adjustments are needed not only on the part of the developing countries, but also on the part of the developed countries, to ensure the regular flow of food aid and other external assistance to developing countries to enable them to achieve their production goals.
The progress of action on Guideline 12 dealing with external assistance to developing countries is also a matter of concern to us. It has been brought out in the Report that official commitments to agriculture have stagnated in the last few years in real terms, and in 1985 were as much as 30 percent below thé already inadequate targete While there is need for greater effectiveness in the use of external financing on the part of the developing countries, efforts should also be made to increase the flow of assistance to them to enable them to make adequate investments in agriculture. There is also need for initiation of efforts for a review of the targets of external assistance as suggested in the Guidelines.
These are urgent issues and their biennial review in the view of the Indian delegation is useful to take stock of progress in respect of them. We are, therefore, not in favour of extending the periodicity of this review to four years.
Khamsing SAYAKONE (Laos): Tout d'abord je voudrais féliciter très sincèrement M. Islam pour son exposé très clair sur un sujet aussi vaste et aussi complexe que celui de l'ajustement agricole international
Nous avons étudié ce document avec intérêt et avons mesuré son importance.
Avant tout je voudrais vous dire que ma délégation appuie entièrement la proposition qui consiste à présenter les rapports non plus tous les deux ans mais tous les quatre ans; comme vous le savez, les changements qui se produisent dans le développement de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture, notamment dans le domaine de la production, du développement rural, des échanges,sont trop graduels pour être évaluas tous les deux ans.
o La ligne d'orientation N 1 qui propose que la procédure alimentaire et agricole dans les pays en
développement, en particulier dans les pays les moins avancés, devrait progresser pendant la quatrième au lieu de la troisième décennie des Nations Unies pour le développement à un taux moyen annuel de 4 pour cent au moins est, selon nous, une nécessité en vue de répondre aux besoins nutritionnels et à la demande croissante de la population de ces pays. Ce taux d'accroissement est d'autant plus nécessaire que le taux d'accroissement annuel de la population mondiale est de l'ordre de 2 pour cent et que les besoins mondiaux en produits alimentaires de 1985 à l'an 2000 n'augmentent pas moins de 3 pour cent . Mais cet objectif n'est pas si facile à atteindre car il dépend de plusieurs facteurs. C'est vrai qu'il appartient à la population elle-même de briser le cercle vicieux de la pauvreté et de la malnutrition et aux gouvernements de sensibiliser toutes les forces productives de la nation au service du développement. Mais il appartient aussi à la communauté internationale de créer l'environnement politique et économique plus favorable à la production alimentaire et agricole.
Comme vous le savez, pendant ces dernières années, à cause de la morosité de l'environnement politique et économique, le taux d'accroissement de la production agricole avait tendance à diminuer chaque année: 1,3 pour cent en 1986 contre 2,4 pour cent en 1985, c'est-à-dire qu'on est loin encore de l'objectif fixé de 4 pour cent.
Un autre point que j'aimerais souligner est celui des facteurs qui intluencent la disponibilité des produits alimentaires. Si l'on obtient le taux d'accroissement annuel des produits alimentaires et agricoles de l'ordre de 4 pour cent pendant les années à venir comme il en était dit auparavant c'est bien; mais si on assure une meilleure disponibilité de ces produits c'est mieuxl
Les facteurs qui influencent la disponibilité des produits alimentaires sont nombreux. Je me permets de n'en citer que quelques-uns qui, à-mon avis, sont essentiels: ce sont les infrastructures de transport, de stockage et de conservation des produits. En effet, les produits récoltés doivent être transportés rapidement du centre du premier stockage aux industries pour éviter les pertes qui découlent des conditions climatiques ou du fait que les produits sont rapidement périssables.
D'autre part, la quantité et la qualité des centres de stockage et de conservation doivent correspondre à un minimum d'exigence car une très forte proportion des récoltes se perd malheureusement dans le monde, surtout dans les pays sous-développés, du fait de l'insuffisance et des mauvaises conditions de moyens de conservation.
En République démocratique populaire Lao, les pertes après récolte de riz (entre la moisson, le battage, le séchage, l'emmagasinage et l'usinage) sont estimées à un pourcentage qui varie entre 20 et 30 pour cent.
Il serait donc beaucoup plus important pour augmenter les disponibilités alimentaires de concentrer les efforts d'amélioration sur la diminution des pertes de stockage et de conservation que d'essayer d'augmenter une production qui, en grande partie, sera perdue après la récolte.
Pour les autres lignes d'orientation, je suis d'accord, Monsieur le Président, d'ajuster en se référant aux observations et remarques qui ont été décrites dans le document de base.
E. Patrick ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): Our delegation wishes to record our appreciation to the Secretariat for both the quality of the documentation and presentation to this Commission. My delegation considers this topic to be among the most important agenda items of this Conference, for, as we said last week in the Plenary, to what avail if all the technical assistance that we receive in the developing world through multilateral and bilateral channels to increase our agricultural output if we are then denied market outlets for our produce? Of course, we recognize that market access - in fact, market distortion - is an issue for both developed and developing countries. As the Secretariat has noted in this paper, modest improvements in trade liberalization have been completely overshadowed by the restricted and trade distorting measures taken by a number of countries. We are told that: "The best hope for the future lies in the new Uruguay Round of GATT multilateral trade negotiations in which agricultural products are to be covered for the first time". It seems to my delegation that the time has come to put FAO more firmly into the agricultural trade negotiation process.
At the country level, Trinidad and Tobago have learned the hard way that it is folly to plan ambitious production programmes without regard to the marketing aspects. Surely this lesson applies with at least equal force at the international level? Here we must remember that the global economy is inextricably intertwined and interdependent. We cannot remain unaffected by one another's decisions. In this repect, we should note, for example, the rapidity with which so-called non-traditional export commodities may assume the market constraints faced by traditional agricultural exports. The New York Times, for example, of 1 February 1987 cites the figure of 19 Caribbean countries with programmes to produce cut flowers for export to the United States of America at the time of the Costa Rican difficulties with CVI. If all these efforts yield increased output as anticipated by individual countries, then the non-traditional products may well become neo-traditional products, thereby further facilitating the very process of reverse flows of income and resources out of the region that they intended to overcome.
I wish I could be as sanguine as the Secretariat in its expression of hope for the future from the Uruguay Round in respect of international agricultural adjustment. The Uruguay Round has not yet really got under way because of disputes on procedural issues and on agricultural subsidies. Once again the focus of attention seems to be on commodities exported mainly by the developed countries -cereals, dairy products, etc. We hope for more consideration of developing countries' interests. As in the past, the interests of the developed nations still tend to dominate negotiations concerning the system of international economic relations.
In the context of growing economic interaction and interdependence, we in the developing world are becoming highly dependent upon the performance of the external sector of our economies, yet most of us will face growing difficulties in operating in the competitive and undoubtedly hostile environment of the international markets unless major reforms are implemented to modify radically the structure of power that dominates the global system of economic relations. In this regard, only a few minutes ago Australia painted for us the current scenario across the globe in the matter of agricultural protectionism. My delegation is of the opinion that this is the challenge facing us in this forum
and the context within which a reassessment, if any, of this Organization's role and function must be viewed. I take it that we may assume that we all agree that one of our main purposes is to start to push the agricultural economies of the developing world on the path towards agricultural diversi- fication and food security. In the understanding of the Trinidad and Tobago delegation, this process entails moving away from the present pattern of world protection and trade relations in which the centre absorbs and transforms, at the same time adding value to, the agricultural raw materials produced in the periphery which it re-exports to the periphery in the form of manufactured goods. These manufactures come back to us in the periphery together with food. The structure and production are an existing fact, of course, in the periphery, which, as well as massive production subsidies at the centre, caused to be cheaper than domestic food production in most parts of the developing world.
The challenge is to so order things as to secure radical changes in this structure while ensuring an orderly and continuous increase in global agricultural output and incomes and with the minimum of social upheaval and distress in either the developed or the developing world. It is necessary to appeal to the developed countries for greater understanding and implementation of appropriate policy decisions in favour of the developing countries in the adjustment process. The alternative to such a positive response can only be the widening of the development gap. This becomes very obvious when we monitor the technological links within the developed countries on multi-purpose use of agricultural raw materials and by-products while the developing countries, are, in the first instance, merely asking for access to external markets. For example, the science report in the Times of 13 November 1987 refers to growing support for an agricultural refinery in the United Kingdom to process farm products for industrial use. The idea is to utilize not only crop residues but whole crops - for example, cereals - as foodstock for the manufacture of chemicals for the people, plastics and pharmaceutical industries. The article speaks of counteracting the present cost of storing agricultural surpluses by redirecting the expenditure as subsidies - now billions of dollars in some countries - to the new industrial plants. We cannot halt the scientific endeavours, but we in the developing countries have to be on the alert in respect of the implications for new policy decisions which flow from these developments. I submit that the time has come to move from the mere monitoring of progress in the field of international agricultural adjustment in this forum. We can no longer afford to divorce the question of increased production from the issue of market access. My delegation considers, therefore, that, as we look to the future, there is need for a shift in emphasis of FAO away from being largely a forum for debate and resolution of international agricultural policy issues towards a more active role as an activist and arbiter in the formulation, negotiation and implementation of policy measures in the area of international agricultural adjustment. FAO may well have to be the fourth force, with a more neutral voice, but of course intervening in a special way on behalf of the developing countries.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Al intervenir sobre este tema, los representantes de Colombia sentimos gran satisfacción, inmenso placer, al ver en el podium a nuestro distinguido y eminente amigo el Profesor Nurul Islam, hasta hace poco Subdirector General de la FAO, Jefe del Departamento de Asuntos Económicos y Sociales.
Cuántas ocasiones tuvimos con el profesor Islam de participar en actividades sobre el ajuste agrícola internacional, y cómo pudimos admirar la inteligencia, la consagración y la gran capacidad de trabajo del profesor Islam. Al haberse ausentado de la FAO, el profesor Islam deja una huella incancelable porque además de sus condiciones intelectuales y profesionales, tiene excelentes calidades humanas y está dotado de independencia que es una característica fundamental para los funcionarios de una Organización como la nuestra. Ud. profesor Islam será recordado siempre, aquí en la FAO, por los representantes de Colombia y seguramente por muchísimos otros colegas con carino y gratitud muy sinceros.
Después de que en el año 1975, la Conferencia adoptó estas orientaciones y objetivos sobre el Reajuste Agrícola Internacional, que más adelante revisamos en 1983, a juicio de la delegación de Colombia parece evidente que ya muchas de estas orientaciones han sido superadas, son obsoletas. Creemos que es necesario concentrarlas, reducirlas, limitarlas, fortalecerlas y en aquellos aspectos más actualizados, como lo acaba de decir nuestro colega de Trinidad y Tobago. Todo ello dirigido a tratar de defender mejor los intereses y las aspiraciones de los países en desarrollo.
Queremos apoyar al colega de Australia en el sentido de que si bien un propio informe como éste, no se presente a la próxima Conferencia, sí de todas maneras el ajuste sea uno de los temas de la Conferencia del año 1989, cuando esperamos que la Ronda Uruguay estará en un punto verdaderamente interesante. Pensamos que estas orientaciones y objetivos deben actualizarse, sobre todo a la luz de acontecimientos importantes que han empezado a producirse en la Comunidad Internacional, a partir de diciembre de 1986, cuando la Comunidad Económica Europea adoptó nuevo Reglamento, que según esa importante Comunidad, está dirigido a suprimir progresivamente los subsidios y a reducir los grandes excedentes de que hoy se dispone en todos los países de la Comunidad Económica Europea.
Posteriormente en 1987, el comunicado de la reunión de Ministros de la OCDE también hizo promesa, estuvo lleno de buenas intenciones en ese mismo sentido. Siguió en junio, la Cumbre de Jefes de Estado de los países industrializados del mundo que tuvo lugar en Venecia, y también hemos participado en ese proceso países en desarrollo como Colombia a través del Grupo CAIRNS, Grupo CAIRNS en el que países en desarrollo y en vías de desarrollo están igualmente empeñados en lograr una progresiva liberalización del comercio internacional.
Por eso, pensamos que estas orientaciones y objetivos deberían ponerse a tono con estas nuevas manifestaciones que están teniendo lugar, a fin de que toda esa proliferación de palabrerío se pueda convertir en realidad, en hechos concretos y positivos.
Desgraciadamente, este documento confirma la desafortunada paradoja que sigue existiendo en el mundo de excedentes en los países industrializados y hambre y malnutrición en muchos países en desarrollo. Estamos volviendo hacia atrás.
Después de que en los primeros cuatro años del decenio de los ochenta se logró alguna mejora en esa situación, ahora sabemos ya que de nuevo en el sur del Sahara, y particularmente en Etiopía, hay graves amenazas de crisis Ojalá que la FAO con el Programa Mundial de Alimentos y todos los demás organismos competentes y Gobiernos de países donantes, puedan intervenir oportunamente para que la situación al sur del Sahara no adquiera las características de gravedad que tuvo en el año 1985
En relación con la responsabilidad que corresponde a los países en desarrollo para lograr que estas orientaciones y estos objetivos logren fines concretos, en los párrafos 10, 12, y 13 de este documento se hace referencia a los esfuerzos que estamos haciendo los países en desarrollo. Comprendemos que, sobre todo, ante la reiterada falta de voluntad política de los estados industrializados, nos corresponde asumir actitudes como las que estamos realizando. Estamos asignando más alta prioridad a la agricultura y el máximo de los recursos posibles en los planes nacionales de desarrollo porque esos esfuerzos, que presenta muy bien este documento, sean realidades.
Nos duele lo que dijo en Plenaria el honorable Secretario de Agricultura del primer contribuyente de la FAO, quien afirmó que los países en desarrollo deberán acomodarse a vivir en el futuro con un flujo menor de recursos externos. Esa afirmación que lamentamos, está en contraste con el párrafo 21 del documento, párrafo 21 que apoyamos y debe constar en nuestro Informe, porque sigue siendo crucial la ayuda financiera exterior a la agricultura en los países en desarrollo.
Si en realidad van a cumplirse los buenos propósitos de los estados industrializados, convendrá que los enormes excedentes de que hoy disponen no sean destruidos, como parece que está sucediendo en alguno de esos países, sino que se tenga en cuenta una propuesta que la delegación de Colombia y otras delegaciones, hicimos en la última reunión del Consejo Mundial de la Alimentación, que tuvo lugar en un gran país del tercer mundo, en el país de mi vecino de la izquierda, en Pekín, China. Propusimos allá que esos excedentes se utilizaran para proyectos de desarrollo en los países del tercer mundo o que la FAO, con la cooperación del Consejo Mundial de la Alimentación y del Programa Mundial de Alimentos, pudiera tener en cuenta la necesidad y conveniencia de hacer el mejor uso posible de esos grandes excedentes.
El párrafo 20 habla,trece años después de la Conferencia Mundial de la Alimentación que tuvo lugar en 1974, todavía de las dos metas que fijamos en ese año, ya lejos de nuestros recuerdos. Si bien es cierto que se han superado ambas metas, la de diez millones en ayuda alimentaria y la de 500 000 toneladas de cereales en los aportes a la RAIE, es igualmente claro que la situación ha cambiado, que es más dramática y que convendrá que sigamos solicitando la colaboración eficaz y oportuna de los donantes para que la situación alimentaria y agrícola en el mundo no se precipite de nuevo con la pérdida de la vida de millones de seres humanos.
Pensamos que con esta modesta declaración nuestra, hemos contribuido a que la FAO siga ofreciendo a través de estas orientaciones y estos objetivos un marco propicio dentro del cual se puedan reconocer más las aspiraciones y los derechos de los países del tercer mundo.
Guy FRADIN (France): Le rapport qui nous est presente observe avec juste raison que son contenu fait en partie double emploi avec la situation mondiale de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture et avec les rapports présentes à divers comités de la FAO.
Notant en outre que dans beaucoup de domaines de l'ajustement agricole international les changements sont très graduels, le Secrétariat nous propose que les examens à venir sur ce sujet ne soient présentés que tous les quatre ans. Ma délégation appuie fermement cette proposition de même qu'elle appuie la proposition présentée par notre collègue des Pays-Bas sur la révision de ses lignes d'orientation visant à inclure la nécessité d'une politique agricole dans les pays en voie de développement.
Ma délégation souhaite en tout état de cause que cet examen ne soit pas seulement limité à un bilan, mais s'attache plus que par le passé à une analyse des causes qui expliquent ce bilan, et des contraintes qui le conditionnent. Nous notons par exemple que la présentation des niveaux de production et de consommation par habitant ne prend pas en compte l'évolution démographique et le phénomène d'urbanisation. Dans le cas de l'Afrique c'est une des contraintes qui modère l'amélioration constatée.
En ce qui concerne les facteurs du développement agricole, nous observons que l'examen des lignes d'orientation fait ressortir principalement de grandes questions: les relations économiques extérieures des pays en voie de développement et leurs programmes de développement agricole et rural tels qu'ils sont mis en oeuvre et appuyés par l'aide internationale.
S'agissant des relations économiques extérieures des pays en voie de développement, il apparaît qu'elles sont étroitement conditionnées par le déséquilibre des marchés agricoles mondiaux et par l'endettement croissant.
Le déséquilibre des marchés internationaux est présenté comme la résultante, pour l'essentiel, des politiques de soutien à la production et à la commercialisation mises en oeuvre par les pays développés. Ma délégation a déjà eu l'occasion, à de nombreuses reprises, depuis notre dernière conférence, et notamment au moment des travaux de celle-ci, lors de l'examen de la politique des prix agricoles, d'exprimer son désaccord avec l'approche du Secrétariat en la matière, approche qui lui paraît inadaptée aux problèmes qui nous occupent, celui du développement agricole et de la sécurité alimentaire.
Ma délégation fait observer une nouvelle fois que la relation de cause à effet en la matière n'est pas si évidente ni si directe que le laisse penser le Secrétariat ou la déclaration de notre collègue australien tout à l'heure. Cette relation aurait mérité en tout état de cause une réflexion plus élaborée que la simple affirmation du paragraphe 35.
Sans revenir en détail sur cette question, nous rappelons notre attachement à une réduction globale et équilibrée des mesures de soutien à l'agriculture, d'une mise en oeuvre par les pays développés dont ma délégation reconnaît volontiers la necessité pour soulager les tensions des marchés internationaux. Elle estime cependant que les problèmes économiques des pays en voie de développement, et notamment les plus pauvres ne seront pas pout autant résolus, en particulier, les problèmes des recettes d'exportation liés aux produits tropicaux ainsi que ceux résultant de la concurrence existant entre les pays en voie de développement eux-mêmes. Une fois encore, ma délégation rappelle que, d'une manière ou d'une autre, l'agriculture des pays les plus pauvres devra être protégée des aléas des marchés internationaux.
Je souligne à cet égard la déclaration faite hier par notre collègue et mon voisin de la délégation de la Finlande, ou même, lors du dernier Conseil, de la délégation de la Suisse.
L'endettement en revanche a des conséquences immédiates sur l'économie agricole des pays en voie de développement, puisqu'il apparaît malheureusement - et je renvoie au paragraphe 43 - que très souvent ce soient les investissements du secteur agricole et rural qui pâtissent les premiers des difficultés budgétaires du pays. Ceci est particulièrement regrettable, puisque nous observons, au pragraphe 40 et dans le tableau de la page 9, que lorsque les dépenses publiques consacrées à l'agriculture ont diminué - comme dans le cas du Proche-Orient ou de l'Amérique latine - le taux de croissance ou la production agricole a baissé. Par contre, lorsque les dépenses publiques ont augmenté, comme en Afrique, le taux de croissance de la production agricole s'est accru.
S'agissant des programmes de développement agricole et rural et de l'aide dont ils bénéficient, l'expérience montre que leur analyse ne peut se faire d'un simple point de vue quantitatif. Les lignes d'orientation 3, 4, 5 et 6 indiquent quelles doivent être les caractéristiques essentielles de ces programmes.
La principale est axée sur la notion de développement des filières agro-alimentaires à partir des structures existantes, ce que nous appuyons, tout en notant que le document ne fait pas référence aux problèmes spécifiques des industries agro-alimentaires.
Ces filières doivent s'appuyer sur la dynamique propre aux organisations locales d'agriculteurs et s'intégrer dans les plans nationaux. Elles doivent assurer la continuité des relations entre les villes et la campagne. A cet égard des instruments efficaces de gestion des marchés sont nécessaires pour dynamiser et contrôler le développement des filières. De plus, le bon fonctionnement de ces filières est indispensable à l'accroissement des échanges entre les pays en voie de développement.
Le rapport note, en ce qui concerne l'aide internationale qu'en raison de leurs problèmes budgétaires, de nombreux pays en voie de développement ne sont plus en mesure de couvrir les frais locaux et les dépenses de fonctionnement des projets en cours, les nouveaux investissements ne faisant qu'aggraver la situation. Ceci montre bien que, plus que jamais, il est nécessaire d'avoir une approche économique globale au sein de chaque pays, et non une vue partielle et superficielle au travers des projets de développement.
Je retiens pour l'essentiel de cette analyse de la situation agricole mondiale que les perspectives d'amélioration sont liées d'une part à un accroissement des marchés internationaux, avec la réserve, ou plutôt le commentaire que j'ai fait sur ce sujet au début de mon intervention, et d'autre part à un renforcement des investissements liés aux programmes de développement agricole des pays.
J'observe que c'est dans le but de faire face à ces deux contraintes que la France a proposé une initiative dont M. Guillaume, Ministre de l'agriculture, nous a exposé les grandes lignes en séance plénière au début de la semaine dernière.
Avant de terminer, la délégation souhaite faire une mention particulière de la ligne d'orientation N° 7 relative aux échanges commerciaux de produits agricoles.
Je voudrais tout d'abord commenter les paragraphes 36 et 37, et rappeler qu'en matière d'évaluation des degrés de soutien à l'agriculture la plus grande prudence s'impose. D'abord parce que, à notre connaissance, et contrairement à ce que pourraient laisser penser certaines déclarations entendues dans cette enceinte, il n'existe pas d'agriculture un tant soit peu performante qui n'ait été soutenue d'une manière ou d'une autre. En tout état de cause, les études menées en la matière par les Etats-Unis et citées par le document ne sont qu'une estimation parmi d'autres et ne sauraient constituer, telles quelles une référence universelle.
S'agissant des chiffres publiés par l'OCDE, ma délégation, fait remarquer qu'ils le sont sous la responsabilité du Secrétaire général qui précise que les incertitudes sur les chiffres sont telles qu'elles ne permettent pas de comparaison par pays. Le Secrétariat de la FAO a bien voulu le préciser, mais seulement au paragraphe 116; il nous paraissait donc judicieux de le rappeler
Je rappelle par ailleurs que le travail d'évaluation quantitative et qualitative est toujours en cours. Je rappelle enfin que si nous ne doutons pas que la FAO se soit depuis longtemps intéressée au problème des équivalents des subventions à la production, il convient de noter que ce concept remonte à la méthode normale élaborée au Deuxième Comité du GATT, avant les négociations du Kennedy Round et qui sont précisées dans le paragraphe 13 du document Corn. 203 du 22 novembre 1960.
En ce qui concerne le paragraphe 114, nous ne croyons pas qu'il faille s'étonner que très peu de mesures concrètes aient été prises dans le cadre des négociations commerciales multilatérales. En 1987 devaient être identifiés les problèmes et en 1988 doit démarrer la négociation. Ma délégation fait néanmoins observer que la Communauté Economique Européenne a déjà pris un certain nombre de mesures dans le cadre de la réforme qu'elle a entreprise de sa politique agricole commune. Ces mesures sont citées au paragraphe 119, mais leur effet n'est effectivement pas encore mesurable puisqu'elles ont été prises en mai 1987.
Ma délégation ne partage pas non plus l'avis du Secrétariat sur l'évolution du SPG et fait observer que cette question est liée à la négociation sur les produits tropicaux au GATT, négociation qui fait l'objet d'un traitement privilégié et plus rapide.
Pour conclure, ma délégation souhaite réaffirmer l'attachement qu'elle porte à une intervention qualifiée de la FAO dans le domaine des échanges commerciaux agricoles, au niveau de l'analyse des causes, des contraintes, des conséquences et de la réflexion prospective sur les améliorations envisageables. Il nous paraît que le simple bilan des mesures de soutien à l'agriculture, avec tout ce qu'il a d'incertain, voire de partial, n'est pas suffisant. Nous souhaitons quant à nous, que, détachée de tout dogmatisme, la FAO puisse apparaître comme un partenaire incontesté des réflexions en la matière.
Petrus A. L. DE RIJK (Netherlands): Our delegation considers the evaluation of the progress made during the last two years of the items dealt with and in the twelve Guidelines and Targets for International Agricultural Adjustment in itself a useful document. It provides an opportunity for a comprehensive assessment of the main directions of change in world agriculture in relation to the objectives set.
But, as is indeed pointed out correctly in the document, there is too much of an overlap with other reviews, regularly published by FAO, and especially with other documents for this session of the Conference. We refer to the State of Food and Agriculture, the second progress report on the WCARRD Programme of Action and the Agriculture: Toward 2000 Study. We therefore support the proposal to limit the frequency of this progress report. We also suggest that future progress reports on international agricultural adjustment should not appear in combination with the report on the WCARRD Programme of Action or with updated versions of the Agriculture : Toward 2000 Study. Moreover, some thought should be given to the possibility of combining in overlapping years the traditional State of Food and Agriculture publication with this document on International Agricultural Adjustment.
By avoiding duplication, studies can be presented to the Conference which are of a more specific nature dealing with areas where changes occur or should occur. An example of such a study was the price policy document presented to the last Conference.
In line with recent developments, presentation of a document relating to relevant aspects of the required liberalization of trade and agricultural products or a document concerning the implications of such adjustments in developing countries would have been most appropriate. They most likely still are for the next Conference.
By 1991, supposedly the date the next progress report on International Agricultural Adjustment will be discussed, a revision of the set of guidelines might be useful. For our part, we consider that an explicit target-setting of the abolition of hunger and malnutrition should be included. It seems to us that progress in this field should be the most essential criterion for an adequate international agricultural adjustment. At the same time increasing concern about the impact of agriculture production on the environment might be incorporated.
Another guideline which could be elaborated on deals with the requirements in relation to an adequate agriculture policy in developing countries. Guideline 1 now limits itself to the non-rational use of resources in agriculture in developed countries, resulting in too much production. But as paragraph 35 indicates, non-rational use of resources caused by disincentives to agriculture are the cause of the depressed production in many developing countries.
FAO did pioneering work., on measuring the government support to agriculture in developed countries by means of the producer subsidy equivalents. Some form of these PSEs could even become of operational use in the GATT trade negotiations concerning agricultural products.
Analysis and monitoring of the required adjustment of non-rational use of resources in developing countries is at least as important and it is an area in which FAO should become involved.
As to the monitoring of the guidelines, we shall limit our comments here to paragraph 69. Among other things, reference is made there to the need for more research on dry land grain crops such as millet and sorghum in Africa and elsewhere. We would like to stress the importance of this research, as very often there is no alternative to increased production of these cereals but imports.
Moreover, the continuing research on wheat in the exporting countries resulting in ever decreasing production costs might, in the long run, make imports of wheat more and more attractive, even with adequate price policies for sorghum and millet, if sufficient research on these crops is lacking.
A.H. Mofazzal KARIM (Bangladesh): We have carefully gone through document C 87/21. We are of the opinion that the document presents a panoramic view of world agriculture in recent years. The scenario is one of pluses here and minuses there. In any case the conclusion is clear. It indicates that the steady growth rate achieved in the 1970s and early 1980s has atrophied in recent times. Such a situation warrants immediate attention of all concerned.
The Bangladesh delegation deeply appreciates the illuminating and objective analysis of facts contained in the document, and expresses its sincere thanks to Professor Nurul Islam for his very lucid presentation.
In spite of some heavy odds, Bangladesh has made meaningful strides in recent years for the development of agriculture in particular and rural uplift in general. Most of these are in consonance with the FAO guidelines and targets. Without going into detail, some of these can be briefly enumerated here.
First, through administrative decentralization the participation of people in development work has been ensured in the rural areas. The administrative unit thus created at the semi-urban grass root level is headed by an elected chairman. This is an autonomous local body which is independent of bureaucratic control and is responsible for agriculture, communication, health, family planning, primary education and so on.
Second, through land reforms, not only have ceilings been fixed for ownership of land but also minimum wages for agricultural labourers have been determined and the rights of share croppers protected.
More recently, through a countrywide drive, the Government has started distributing government owned arable land among landless peasants. One interesting feature of such land distribution is that land is allotted to both husband and wife of a family, who own it jointly. This is done in order to safeguard the right of the woman in the family.
Third, through the system of support prices for agricultural produce, we have attempted to ensure a fair price for the growers. The system of government procurement is there for all major crops.
Fourth, with the privatization of fertilizer, pesticide and insecticide distribution systems, farmers have got easy access to inputs.
Fifth, the process of infrastructure building is being accelerated through the execution of a number of development projects. Thus, electricity is reaching more villages in the far flung areas through the rural electrification board and communication system geared up through the food-for-work and other programmes of the Government.
I need not prolong the list of activities that currently charge the development atmosphere in Bangladesh. However, it may be noted that many of the reforms, such as decentralization of administration, land reforms, privatization of input distribution systems, etc, are recent innovations. They are expected to show good results after the necessary time lag has passed.
In conclusion, I should like to say that if all member countries follow the FAO guidelines and targets which were adopted by the Conference in 1975 and updated in 1983, it may not be difficult to make progress in agriculture by disadvantaged countries such as Bangladesh. Agriculture may thus soon escape from the stagnation and atrophy in which it is caught.
As regards frequency of the preparation of the Progress Report, we approve the proposal of the Secretariat to prepare it every four years, with the modification suggested by the Australian delegation.
N. MUKUTU (Zambia): Dr Islam and the Secretariat have produced a very useful document. The Guidelines for encouraging and maintaining the international agricultural adjustment are very useful indeed. They show how countries in the region are performing with regard to the key development indicators.
It may be useful to make my delegation's initial remarks on the period of reporting. We concur with the Secretariat that a four-year reporting system might give more the significant and more discernible structural and physical shifts in performance. The advantage of a two-year reporting system were that it enabled government to react quickly to improve situations before they drifted too far out of hand. We will have to see how a four-year system will enable us to make timely decisions. But, again, the Secretariat has indicated that there are other documents such as the annual State of Food and Agriculture report and the annual reports to the Committee on World Food Security, etcetera, which periodically indicate the state of affairs.
I am glad to note that a number of the Guidelines, such as Guidelines 1, 7, 8, 9 and 10, in essence address the vexing problem of food and agricultural production in developing countries and the trade with developed countries. It is quite clear from the assessments in the relevant Guidelines that developed countries are either subsidizing their agricultural production excessively and to the detriment of trade with developing countries and/or are imposing a galaxy of protectionist restrictions against goods from the Third World.
It cannot be overemphasized that unless developing countries can export their products to the north they will continue to beggars of funds and food aid. My delegation is convinced that the producer subsidy equivalents (PSEs) in the EEC, the United States of America and indeed in Nordic countries must be quite unfavourable for developing countries. Yet these are the large groups of countries we look to for our development. I agree with the delegate from Poland that we need many examples on subsidization.
Guideline 2 is useful but it could be more useful if it were quantified. The target of financial flows and other resources to the agricultural sector should be targeted as a percentage of GDP. The preferable GDP should be given in the Guideline as an aim.
With regard to the reference to the environmental concerns in Guideline 2, my delegation supports the principle of incorporating environmental impact assessment procedures in every rural development project. In fact, my delegation would like to have a clear description of the state of the environment in each developing country before a project starts to be implemented in order that monitoring could be done on a yearly basis. In this regard I agree with the observation of the delegate from the United Kingdom.
Guideline 3 with regard to providing more land to the rural masses and with regard to appropriate pricing policies and other incentives is crucial for developing countries and should be monitored closely. Also important in this regard is the information package by extension officers and the overall infrastructure.
My delegation supports Guideline 4, especially with regard to the need for farmers to form their own trade unions, sometimes called farmers' bureaux, thereby enhancing their bargaining power vis-à-vis the urban dweller's organized trade union, which bargain for lower consumer prices.
My delegation feels that Guideline 6 with its special emphasis on food subsidies to a particular group could be difficult to implement. My delegation would like to benefit from the experience of those who are implementing this aspect successfully.
I should like to conclude my remarks by making two short observations. The first is that it is pleasing to note from the document under discussion that, at least when seasons are favourable, agriculture and food production in developing countries responds markedly and that trade among developing countries is also improving. This is a good sign.
My second observation is to appeal to developed countries to make it possible for the reintroduction of international commodity agreements, many of which are now in disarray.
My delegation is in full support of the main forecasts of the observations made by the delegate of Ausiralia.
Fritz-Otto HAASE (Federal Republic of Germany) (original language German): My delegation wisbes Co thank the FAO Secretariat for presenting document C 87/21. To a considerable extent we can endorse what it says. Permit me, however, to comment on some of the problems that it addresses.
The improvement in the food situation for the developing countries as a whole referred to under Guideline 1 is to be greatly welcomed. It is true that the high production target of an annual increase in agricultural production of 4 percent was not fully reached. On the other hand, considerable success was recorded in that that total production grew between 1980 and 1986 annually at the rate of 3.6 percent as against 3 percent in 1970-80 and per capita production in the same period by 1.5%. These achievements are all the more noteworthy in view of the adverse overall economic conditions prevailing generally. We believe that they result from corresponding policy changes in the countries concerned. Therefore, we welcome the fact that, as the document states, there is a continuing trend towards agricultural price policies designed to increase and in part to diversify production.
We share the concern of the Secretariat regarding developments in several developing countries. After all, from 1980 to 1986 per caput production dropped in 56 of the 94 developing countries examined, nor do the latest reports from African countries indicate any fundamental shift towards a lasting improvement in the food situation in that region.
There are also some developments in the agriculture of developing countries referred to in Guidelines 2, 3 and 6 with which we share the concern of the FAO Secretariat. This applies in particular to the decreasing share of the total public expenditure accounted for by agriculture and the scant success in the endeavour to improve access to land and water, inputs and services, and the efforts, so important but so difficult, to bring about a more balanced and more even distribution of income. There needs to be close monitoring of fertilizer use development in developing countries. The approximately 3 percent drop in 1985 was faced with a considerable increase in 1984, about 11 percent, with the general trend being upwards. The further adjustment in developed countries' agricultural policies referred to in Guidelines 1, 7, 8 and 9 is indeed indispensable. There is broad consensus on that in all international fora and in the individual countries.
My Government too sees no point in producing surpluses for which there is no market demand. My Government supports the decisions of the OECD Council of Ministers in May of this year and the conclusion of the World Economic Summit in Venice in June. My Government hopes that the principles agreed to there will be reflected in the outcome of the Uruguay Round of GATT. It will be of decisive importance that the problem of agricultural surpluses be solved by common action concerted worldwide.
The report refers to several measures designed to curb production already taken by the EEC and other industrialized countries in recent years. These efforts should not be undervalued (paras.119 and subsequ.). First, since incomes are inadequate and unemployment is high, these policies have entailed considerable social hardships for farmers and the expenditure of considerable budgetary funds.
Second, price policy measures partly take effect with a time lag and, thus, their effects can be hidden by biological-technical progress. Moreover, they can only impinge fully on the parlous situation of world agricultural trade if the global action I have referred to occurs. In any case, in the European Communities, the milk quota system has already led to a considerable reduction of milk production. The decisions of December 1986 will lead to a further reduction of production and also livestock numbers, so that the balance on the EEC milk market could be achieved again. This should make circumstances considerably easier on world markets for milk products and beef.
The PSE model referred to in Guideline 1 for the calculation of comparable standards of state agricultural support is now being further evolved so that measures to reduce production, such as production quotas and set asides, can be countered along with other measures reducing state support to agriculture.
In conclusion, I should like to say on behalf of my delegation that we support the proposal in para 6 of the document that the progress report be submitted only every four years for the reasons adduced by the FAO Secretariat.
Víctor E. MACHINEA (Argentina): Mi delegación considera que a este nivel de la crisis agrícola internacional no es fundamental explicitar cuál ha sido el grado de perjuicio que ha tenido que sufrir la economía de nuestro país, y la de aquellos que nos acompañan en el reclamo permanente ante todos los foros internacionales.
Argentina ha contribuido a la seguridad alimentaria mundial merced al denodado esfuerzo de los productores rurales que lograron incrementos importantes en la productividad y producción agrícola, y frente a estos esfuerzos, el incremento en los volúmenes de exportación se vio paradójicamente contrarrestado por una significativa disminución de los ingresos de divisas y consecuentemente una agobiante situación económico financiera que nos compromete para el cumplimiento de nuestras obligaciones externas.Argentina ha recibido con beneplácito los objetivos perseguidos en la propuesta de los Estados Unidos de desmantelamiento de los subsidios a un plazo cierto, como así también la voluntad política de la Comunidad en ofrecer indicadores que podían aliviarnos de la crisis en la que estamos sumergidos. Nuestro país, conjuntamente con los demás países que integran el "Grupo Cairns", hemos elaborado una propuesta de reforma estructural profunda del comercio y la producción agropecuaria a largo plazo, pero que fundamentalmente incluye decisiones y medidas con impacto a corto plazo en los mercados, con el objetivo de aliviar la situación de los productores agrícolas y permitir así su subsistencia. Esta también toma en cuenta la situación doblemente desventajosa de los países en desarrollo.
Frente a esta propuesta de reforma estructural reconocida como necesaria e imprescindible para un reordenamiento comercial, nos encontramos con el crecimiento, en este ultimo año, de esfuerzo presupuestario de países que incrementan sus exportaciones subsidiadas. Frente a una guerra comercial que crece, se reconoce la necesidad de cambios y, mientras tanto, la economía de nuestros países sigue destruyéndose dadas las exigencias financieras internacionales que aplican tasas de interés en sus préstamos, reflejando la ineficiencia de aquellos países que en definitiva reclaman responsabilidad en la administración presupuestaria. Realmente, creo que ha llegado el momento de cumplir con la voluntad política expresada, que beneficiará el objetivo más importante de los pueblos: la paz en desarrollo.
Mi delegación ve pertinente que el balance sobre esta temática se haga cada cuatro años, pero el análisis de las causas de la crisis y el monitoreo de las políticas agrícolas deberán ser discutidos cada dos años.
WU TIANXI (China) (original language Chinese): Document C 87/21 has further reviewed the progress of international agricultural adjustment in the past two years in terms of production, consumption, trade and assistance, thus deepening our understanding of the present situation in world agriculture.
First, according to the information provided by this document, the international agricultural adjustment has not gained much progress. Despite the fact that many developing countries, based on the requirements of the Guidelines, have undertaken significant reforms of their agricultural policies, particularly pricing policies for both inputs and outputs, and have obtained certain positive achievements, the share of agriculture in total public expenditure has tended to decline, the growth of food and agricultural production has slackened and equitable distribution of income has become more difficult due to the unfavourable influences of the heavy debt burdens, decrease of income from trade of agricultural products and lack of sufficient external assistance. Many developed countries, confronted with surplus production, export reduction and product overstocking, are also adjusting their agricultural policies towards high protectionism and subsidization. This is in the opposite direction of the Guidelines of the international agricultural adjustment, causing irrational utilization of domestic resources and negative impacts on the agricultural development of developing countries. We are deeply concerned about these trends which are unfavourable to the world agricultural development.
Secondly, we have also noticed that since the beginning of the 1980s, the international trade of agricultural products has been on the decline, with weakened market demands and more restrictions on the market. The prices of agricultural products have been continuously going down, large quantities of agricultural products are overstocked, and the terms of trade of agricultural products have been deteriorating. The direct cause for this situation is the implementation by some developed countries of protectionist policies which have brought about difficulties for the economy of both developed and developing countries.
Concerning the issue of protectionism, we believe that specific analyses and different solutions instead of simplified methods need to be sought for, while taking into consideration the characteristics, nature and current situation of each product of each country. For the developed countries which are already troubled with severe structural surpluses, it is inappropriate to adopt measures of tariff-barriers or non-tariff-barrier measures and to give unrestrained large amounts of subsidies to promote production and export, because they create burdens on themselves as well as intensify competition. It is now wise to take measures to eliminate protectionism and gradually reduce and abolish subsidies of this nature.
We have seen with interest that efforts have been made worldwide to improve the international trade of agricultural commodities. The new round of GATT multilateral trade negotiations will include the trade of agricultural products as a principal item. There were also some new developments in this year's UNCTAD meeting on implementation of Integrated Programme for Commodities and establishment of Common Fund for Commodities. There have been increasing trade activities between developing countries themselves. We hope that through these negotiations, substantial progress will be obtained in improving trade of agricultural products.
We believe that it is of no avail merely to adopt some remedial measures to do away with protectionism. The fundamental way is to combine trade with development, and to seek rational adjustment of trade during development and thus to achieve common development. Developing countries possess a vast market to be explored as well as many other elements for development, including their population and resources. At present, their development is still at a low level. Economic development, income increase and continuous expansion of people's purchasing power are the basis for developing trade of agricultural products. It is in the long-term interests of developed countries to try to help developing countries develop their economy and explore new markets in various ways by speeding up technical and capital transfers, alleviating their debt burdens and granting favorable terms in trade of agricultural products. We hope our discussion will result in a deeper understanding of the issue and also positive action to follow.
Thirdly, the capital and technical transfer from developed countries to assist developing countries in economic development is an important principle concerning the South-North relations, which has been established in the more than four decades since World War II and has been widely acknowledged by the international community. We have taken note of the changes in food aid in cereals and external financial assistance to developing countries in recent years. The food aid in cereals began to fall after 1984/85 and the official commitment of external financial assistance showed no sign of growth, particularly in 1985 when the official commitments were 30% below the already inadequate target. Considering the current real economic situations of developing countries, we are deeply concerned about this issue and would like to appeal to developed countries to make greater efforts in assistance.
Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to express our support to the proposal in Paragraph 2 of Document C 87/21 that the biennial progress reports on implementation of the Guidelines and Targets for International Agricultural Adjustment shall be prepared every four years in future instead of every two years. We would also like to propose that these progress reports and the progress reports of WCARRD be prepared alternately, so as to avoid repeated discussions at the Conference.
In the meantime, we hope that the progress reports contributed to the Conference will include necessary analyses of the key points raised in the reports besides providing full explanation of the situation. This will help delegates have better deliberations on the issues and their solutions.
C. Reynaldo TREMINIO CHAVARRIA (Nicaragua): El documento presentado sobre la situación del reajuste agrícola internacional, nos proporciona amplia información relativa a los diferentes factores restrictivos que en los últimos años han intervenido en el desarrollo agrícola y la alimentación. Estos factores corresponden a la aplicación de bajos precios internacionales para los productos básicos, a las subvenciones a la exportación por los países desarrollados y al proteccionismo creciente, que han determinado el endeudamiento externo para los países en desarrollo, provocándoles una baja capacidad para financiar sus importaciones de alimentos como de insumos y bienes de capital, fundamentales para la explotación agrícola y eficiente de la tierra.
Lacapacidad inversionista de los países en desarrollo sigue en descenso. Las posibilidades de rehabilitación y mejoramiento de la infraestructura productiva son limitadas y el desarrollo tecnológico de la producción exige mayores niveles de suministros agrícolas.
La búsqueda de la estabilidad de los mercados mundiales para los productos agropecuarios, debe ser un punto de discusión y de análisis central en ese tipo de encuentros. Lamentablemente, la negociación de acuerdos internacionales sobre el particular, dentro del Programa Integrado de la UNCTAD, no ha sido concretada.
Aunque los países en desarrollo han tomado iniciativas en mejorar el comercio agrícola, esto no significa que el ritmo de crecimiento se haya superado. Más bien, tiende a estancarse a consecuencia de la recesión económica y el descenso del comercio agrícola mundial. A la par, se presentan políticas de subsidios a la exportación por los países desarrollados, que chocan con este esfuerzo de comercialización recíproca.
La seguridad alimentaria mundial tropieza con todas estas dificultades. Los avances logrados de carácter global se reconocen, pero los problemas aún persisten con gravedad, tales como la crisis de abastecimiento por falta de disponibilidades en algunas zonas, problemas de desastres naturales en otras, o problemas de acceso por insuficiente oportunidad de empleo e ingresos. En los últimos tres anos, la ayuda alimentaria se ha mantenido superior a los diez millones de toneladas, de acuerdo con el objetivo fijado en 1984; sin embargo, es bastante inferior a las necesidades globales.
La ayuda alimentaria no debe ser utilizada como arma política de presión; más bien, debe ser espontánea y solidaria. La seguridad alimentaria debe ser siempre una línea de atención en esta Conferencia, profundizando sobre los diferentes elementos económicos y financieros que inciden en el cumplimiento de los objetivos. El apoyo financiero externo a la agricultura es vital para los países en desarrollo, y deben considerarse los aspectos siguientes: la rehabilitación actual de la infraestructura productiva, la finalización de proyectos prioritarios para la producción de alimentos de primera necesidad, y como elemento fundamental para estas acciones, debe incorporarse el desarrollo tecnológico, entendiéndose como el sistema que integra la generación de tecnologías, el desarrollo genético, la producción de semillas y la asistencia técnica.
Es importante expresar en esta Conferencia, no sólo los aspectos económicos y. financieros que agravan y limitan las posibilidades reales de los países pobres. Es vital y urgente hacer un llamado a la conciencia de los gobiernos desarrollados y con excedentes económicos de que es necesario promover la ayuda externa solidaria, y enfrentar con entendimiento y buena fe la problemática de la deuda exterior, que agobia con mayor fuerza las economías de los países en desarrollo. Así mismo, orientar sus esfuerzos y recursos a promover la distensión y el desarme nuclear como elementos fundamentales que garanticen la vida y el porvenir de la humanidad.
Es fundamental estimular la relación soberana entre los países, su independencia e integridad; hacer un alto a las actitudes neocolonialistas e imperialistas para que la ruta hacia la paz sea estable y duradera, permitiendo a los pueblos del mundo alcanzar el bienestar social y económico y la seguridad de vida para las futuras generaciones.
Observamos satisfactorio el Informe elaborado por la FAO sobre el Reajuste Agrícola Internacional. Consideramos importante para la Conferencia contar bienalmente con un informe analítico más integral de la situación del reajuste y el estado mundial de la agricultura y la alimentación. Este análisis permitiría conocer con mayor claridad, las diferentes connotaciones y efectos de la economía y el comercio mundial sobre el desarrollo agrícola y alimentario.
Apoyamos la propuesta de la FAO de concentrar esfuerzos en un análisis de cuatro años sobre el reajuste agrícola internacional, pero recomendamos que el informe bienal sobre el estado mundial de la agricultura y la alimentación, recoja las variaciones económicas y financieras de mayor peso que influenciarían en la agricultura.
Moses Mike MUKOLWE (Kenya): I should like to put on record our appreciation for the work done by Dr Islam, who has been associated with the progress report on International Agricultural Adjustments for a very long time. As stated by the distinguished delegare from Colombia, we feel that there is a gap which might be created.
Coming to the periodicity of this report, it is fair that as much information as possible should be tapped for inclusion in the final analysis of such an important document. For that reason, we feel very strongly that the two-year period is good enough in that the current biennium can pick up as much information as possible. However, the distinguished delegate from Australia did bring up the point that, even if we went to four years, at least an agenda item reporting on the situation is vital. The reason that our discussions are repetitive may be because of finance or because the flow of information is not regular but comes in trickles. I would still go by that reasoning, but we feel that the pick-up of information is very important.
The imbalances of world food production and supply are not a healthy situation and remain an embarrassment for both the world of plenty and that of shortages. Policy changes must be pursued to balance the situation. This is where FAO faces the challenge and must push actions so that positive results are forthcoming.
Regarding Guidelines, and commenting on a few here and there, I should like to point out that in the developing countries, and particularly in my country, we definitely place emphasis on agriculture, and of late we have had some temporary surpluses which we have managed to put in the intra-trade or in triangular trade in our region, and this has been a great contribution to world food security.
We have recently also looked at long-term policy issues within the government in a publication entitled "Economic Management for Renewed Growth". This gives government policies in our effort to further agricultural production in our country and in relation to other factors that affect agriculture, particularly trade, which many delegations have spoken of during our debate.
Looking at Guideline 2, I would go along with the other delegates who have stressed the emphasis of planning on environmental impact assessment.
On Guideline 3, particularly where our governments have emphasized and increased the flow of resources into agriculture, my country is one of those that has definitely done this, and we feel very strongly that the research area should be given a leading role so that farming systems that would be sustainable can be generated with a view to preserving the environment or the natural resources that we exploit. We have in mind agro-forestry and other farming systems that are sustainable .
On Guideline 4, we have the District Focus of Rural Development to mobilize the grass roots rural organizations to have people's participation and exploit their resourcefulness. Several groups are included in this, particularly the cooperatives, the informal groups, women's groups, youth and credit area organizations to deliver the inputs to such groups. At para 80 of the document the District Development Committees are referred to - erroneously, I think - as "Councils". I hope this will be picked up by the Secretariat for correction. We are in agreement that women should be fully integrated in our development, and this has been a very important area within our country, both from the political angle and that of the government. This also includes the youth groups. At paragraph 91 the Kenya self-help training groups are referred to. The correct term is "village polytechnics". Of late we have recognized another informal sector, which is referred to as "Jua Kali", the informal sector that enhances the interest of self-employed entrepreneurs to advance innovations in technology to produce goods and services, in both rural areas and urban areas. Their skills can be upgraded progressively with time.
Guidelines 5 and 6 are a question of looking at the food which we produce for the nation which requires a lot of monitoring so Chat the consumption patterns can be generated and the use of diversified crops be included so that the tendency to rely on one particular crop as a staple food is eliminated. We feel strongly that as we increase the consumption or bring in many more crops or foodstuffs which can be diversified, their safety to the public is very important, so food safety controls are very important and we have a department dealing fully with food code standards development .
On Guideline 7, on which many delegations have already intervened, we are very pleased to hear what has been said by the delegates from Finland, Italy, the USA and others who have mentioned that there is a hope in the negotiations. We only hope that these particular negotiations could be accelerated.
We emphasize the horticultural export market in our efforts to diversify. This is in line, because our two commodities, coffee and tea, have led us to some problems due to the price they receive on the international markets. This affects the repercussions which result for us and particularly the small farming community who produce these commodities.
On Guideline 8, which refers to remuneration to producers and consumers, we feel - and this was harped on by the delegate of Australia - that honesty of trade among trading partners is important. We would like to echo this in that of late we find there are so many fiddlers along the line and the exporting countries find themselves not getting their true dues as far as market values are concerned. Of late in my country stern approaches or regulations will be taken against such dealers, if found, but I only appeal to the international community that honesty should be the practice.
On Guideline 9, I wish also to state that regional cooperation in trade is fully reflected in our operations, that is the preferential trade area which we support in our region, the PTA. Recently, we have had to host a PTA trade fair in Nairobi and this is one way of bringing the trade message to the region which we represent.
In conclusion, I hope we can intervene on other agenda items where we have quite a number of overlapping items for discussion.
P.N. BAIGENT (New Zealand): Document C 87/21 is a useful summary of progress, and in some cases lack of progress, in key areas where change is required in order to achieve acceptable development in agriculture and to combat hunger and poverty in the developing world. New Zealand fully supports the objective of achieving a 4% annual growth rate in food and agricultural production and we note with concern the fact that some countries are falling well short of this objective. The fact that some other countries have easily exceeded the target is clear evidence that, with the right mix of development instruments, 4% is not an unrealistic growth rate.
We support the view expressed by many other delegations that steady growth in production and fulfilment of national objectives is not merely a function of improved infrastructure but also of policies.
I propose to comment in more detail on the question of national policies for agriculture, particularly macroeconomic issues, in Agenda item 10. But two specific issues, namely price policies and protectionism, feature strongly in this document and merit further discussion here. We note the conflict in many developing countries between the basic objectives of providing cheap food for consumers and adequate incentives for producers. This is particularly in regard to paragraph 14. Furthermore, when high prices are used to encourage production, the response is not related to demand and the production tap does not automatically shut off when that magical self-sufficiency point is reached.
New Zealand is painfully aware of the effect these policies have had in developed countries. We are not surprised to see therefore in paragraph 33 that the same problems are emerging in some developing countries where price policies are having to be used to diversify agricultural production so as to avoid surplus cereal production.
History, especially recent histroy, is littered with examples where bureaucrats and politicians got price signals wrong. It is difficult and at times dangerous to pick winners. That is why we in New Zealand believe firmly that market forces are the only reliable way of establishing true price relativities and of efficiently allocating resources.
Having decided that principle, the policy challenge is one of establishing a national economic framework in which market forces can successfully operate and comparative advantage can prevail. It also required removal of protectionist policies in other countries which force international prices to levels much lower than the cost of production in those countries. We therefore fully endorse the work FAO is doing to increase the awareness of the problems of protectionism, particularly in relation to developing countries. After all, as Dr Islam pointed out in his introduction, it was FAO that pioneered the work on measurement of assistance provided to agriculture through the concept of producer subsidy equivalents. These measures help to highlight the distortions of policy and hopefully encourage countries to move towards more rational policies.
We add our voice to those who have so convincingly put the case for trade and policy reform. We exhort all countries to work for real and urgent progress in the present GATT round and to honour their commitment to standstill and rollback.
New Zealand is a committed member of the Cairns Group of agricultural fair trading countries.
We fully support the proposals which that group of developed and developing countries has agreed as a way forward for agriculture in the GATT round.
While on trade, we support the goal of promoting increased trade and cooperation among developing countries. FAO should continue to help those countries to capitalize on the complementarity which exists between their economies.
The New Zealand delegation shares the concern expressed yesterday by the UK delegation about preoccupation in parts of this document with self-sufficiency. We agree that self-reliance is a more appropriate term. Under that umbrella, developing countries can encourage growth in those sectors in which they have the greatest comparative advantage. In many instances, this will be food-producing sectors, but in others it will involve a mix of economic activity. Either way, through will be export led development.
We also strongly oppose the view expressed by a few earlier speakers that border protection is necessary for successful development in developing countries. Indeed, our experience indicates the opposite is true. As argued earlier, successful development requires the encouragement of comparative advantage need not fear competition from imports. The fact that they presently fear that competition is a reflection of the high subsidies and import barriers imposed by other developed countries. The policy response is thus removal of those distortions and not erection of barriers by developing countries. Furthermore, border protection by developing countries is doomed to failure. Highly subsidized agriculture is only possible in developed economies which have sufficient wealth to carry the cost or where comparative advantage lies in sectors other than those being supported. As New Zealand found to its detriment in the early eighties, agriculturally dependent countries simply cannot compete in the food subsidy race.
We note that the 1980s have been an unfavourable period for commodity agreements. The fact that such agreements are most difficult to negotiate at a time when they are most needed is not surprising. In our view, they address the symptoms of surpluses and trade imbalance and not the protectionist policies that are at the heart of the problem. There may be situations when commodity agreements are a short term palliative but they are no substitutes for the reform of agricultural policies and the liberalization of trade in agricultural products.
In conclusion, we agree that the frequency of preparation of these progress reports could be changed from one to four years. However, we also agree with the Australian delegation that agricultural adjustment, particularly policy and trade reform, should appear as a separate agends item at the next Conference.
Sra. Delia CHEVALIER VILLAMONTE (Panamá): Permítame, en primer lugar, felicitar a la Secretaría por el excelente informe, base de nuestras deliberaciones.
Mi delegación considera que éste es uno de los temas más importantes de nuestros debates y, por ello, lamenta que las orientaciones y objetivos del reajuste agrícola no hayan podido aplicarse adecuadamente, a pesar de los esfuerzos en ese sentido, realizados por los gobiernos de los países en desarrollo.
Mi propio país se ha visto afectado debido, por un lado, a que los recursos financieros públicos que dedica a la agricultura, vía la ampliación y el mejoramiento de los servicios de apoyo a la productión, están supeditados a los procesos de renegociación de la deuda externa y que, tal como se indica en el párrafo 14 del documento, desembocan en la implementación de medidas de reajuste estructural que afectan adversamente a la ejecución de programas gubernamentales de apoyo a los sectores productivos agropecuarios y a otros de tipo social, contemplados en el Plan de Desarrollo Quinquenal del país.
Por otro lado, debemos agregar la grave situación económica producto de la aplicación,por varios países industrializados, de políticas proteccionistas de subsidios, así como de otras medidas que distonsionan los mercados. En el caso de Panamá, y a título de ejemplo, cabe destacar la disminución en casi un 40 por ciento de su cuota azucarera.
Igualmente deseamos expresar que a pesar de la gran expectativa y de las esperanzas puestas por los países en desarrollo en la nueva Ronda del GATT, visto que por primera vez la casi totalidad de productos agrícolas están contemplados en estas negociaciones, no notamos avances significativos que indiquen que las mismas alcanzarán los resultados positivos que todos esperamos.
Para terminar, nuestra delegación se une al consenso en torno a la propuesta de la Secretaría de presentar a la consideración de la Conferencia el informe sobre el reajuste agrícola cada cuatro años.
The meeting rose at 12.45 hours
La séance est levée à 12 h 45,
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas
