I. MAJOR TRENDS AND POLICIES IN FOOD AND AGRICULTURE (continued)
I. PRINCIPALES TENDANCES ET POLITIQUES EN MATIERE D'ALIMENTATION ET D'AGRICULTURE (suite)
I. PRINCIPALES TENDENCIAS Y POLÍTICAS EN LA AGRICULTURA Y LA ALIMENTACION (continuación)

6. World Food and Agriculture Situation (continued)
6. Situation mondiale de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture (suite)
6. Situación alimentaria y agricola en el mundo (continuación)

6.1 State of Food and Agriculture (continued)
6.1 Situation de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture (suite)
6.1 El estado mundial de la agricultura y la alimentación (continuación)

Kiala Kia MATEVA (Angola): Monsieur le Président, en premier lieu, comme mes prédécesseurs, je voudrais vous féliciter à l'occasion de votre élection à la présidence de cette importante Comiission. Je voudrais également associer à ces félicitations, d'une part, M. Dutia, qui a présenté d'une manière claire et précise un résumé relatif aux documents qui font l'objet de notre analyse et, d'autre part, le Secrétariat, qui a acrampli sa noble tâche.

La délégation angolaise constate avec satisfaction que le document C 89/2 et annexes reflète la réalité que nous vivons dans nos pays respectifs et elle appuie sans réserve la FAO dans son effort de recherche de moyens pour combattre la faim et la malnutrition ainsi que les effets néfastes à l'environnement qui, aujourd'hui, constituent un crime contre l'humanité.

Je ne voudrais pas m'étendre sur tous les points que mes prédécesseurs ont largement abordés. Je leur demande de faire miennes leurs remarques sur les documents en question et sur la situation mondiale de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture. Mais quelques points ont retenu mon attention. Dans le cas particulier de l'Angola, les grandes zones de production céréalière sont affectées par des actions déstabilisatrices dont les origines viennent de l'extérieur. Les paysans sur lesquels nous avons placé nos espoirs ont abandonné les zones rurales à cause des attaques répétées menées par l'UNITA à l'intérieur. Ceux qui y sont restés vivent dans l'insécurité. Tenant compte de la situation que mon pays traverse et que tout le monde connaît, malgré les efforts consentis, par exemple la mise en oeuvre d'un programme d'assainissement économique et financier, la résolution des problèmes alimentaires et agricoles passe obligatoirement par le progranme de paix proposé par mon gouvernement et approuvé par la Conférence des chefs d'Etat qui s'est tenue à Gbadolité, en République du Zaïre.

Deux catastrophes naturelles sont venues rendre la situation alimentaire et agricole encore plus difficile. Permettez-moi d'attirer votre attention sur le fait qu'alors qu'on s'y attendait le moins, l'année agricole 1988-89 a connu, à partir de janvier, une longue période de sécheresse en pleine saison pluvieuse. Cette calamité a complètement détruit nos récoltes. La deuxième catastrophe naturelle est due aux inondations le long des cours d'eau provoquées par de fortes pluies qui se sont abattues dans le centre du pays; non seulement elles ont détruit les cultures maraîchères mais elles ont en outre provoqué des maladies endémiques telles que le choléra et les autres maladies que nous connaissons.

Comme conséquence aux différentes situations citées plus haut, deux conférences ont été organisées en vue d'apporter une assistance supplémentaire à l'Angola. La première, qui s'est réalisée au mois de mai 1988 à Genève, a permis au gouvernement de recevoir des donateurs et organisations non gouvernementales une aide alimentaire et non alimentaire évaluée à environ 110 millions de dollars, La deuxième et dernière conférence a été organisée récemment à Luanda, en septembre de l'année en cours. Celle-ci a donné aussi des fruits mais un peu plus réduits.

Je profite de cette occasion pour remercier, une fois de plus, les agences spécialisées des Nations Unies et tous les pays donateurs parmi lesquels je citerai l'Italie, le Canada, le Danemark, l'Espagne, la Norvège, la République fédérale d'Allemagne, le Royaume-Uni, la Suède, la FAO, notre Organisation, et le PAM qui ont bien voulu répondre spontanément à notre appel.

La FAO, dans la sagesse africaine, est vue comme un foyer constitué des trois pierres que nos braves paysans utilisent pour la préparation de leur nourriture. Les trois pierrres sont l'agriculture, la pêche et les forêts.

Je voudrais limiter mon propos à la foresterie et à l'environnement. Dans le document C 89/2 Sup. 2, on nous demande des avis et des directives pour la mise au point des politiques et des programmes pratiqués et opérationnels en vue d'un développement durable et sans danger pour l'environnement des trois composantes mentionnées.

Je voudrais rappeler que l'environnement, qui est un sujet d'actualité, a été un des thèmes abordés lors du 9ème sommet des pays non alignés qui s'est tenu le 7 septembre 1989 à Belgrade, République socialiste et fédérative de la Yougoslavie.

Un document composé de 11 points a été élaboré et adopté, et qui, me semble-t-il, répond en quelque sorte aux préoccupations du document C 89/2 Sup. 2. Celui-ci pourra éventuellement servir de source d'inspiration pour nos futurs travaux.

S'agissant de la foresterie, une conférence a été organisée en juin 1989 dans mon pays en vue de trouver des formes pratiques pour l'utilisation rationnelle des ressources forestières, de proposer une stratégie et de déterminer les lignes maîtresses pour une politique forestière intégrée.

L'une des conclusions auxquelles est arrivée la Conférence a été la nécessité d'établir un plan directeur pour l'activité forestière. Le gouvernement de mon pays fera appel une fois de plus à l'assistance technique de la FAO pour son élaboration et sa mise en oeuvre.

Un dernier point a retenu mon attention: il s'agit du point 41 du document C 89/2 Sup. 1. En plus des graves problèmes qu'elle connaît, voilà que vient d'apparaître en Afrique un nouveau parasite, la lucilie bouchère; le document reconnaît que le parasite risque de frapper le cheptel et même la population de l'Afrique en premier lieu, ainsi que celle du Moyen-Orient et de l'Europe méridionale. De plus, du fait des conditions clirtatiques tropicales ou subtropicales, cet insecte peut se propager rapidement, mais le document ne nous présente pas de chiffres indicatifs sur les ravages causés, chiffres qui permettraient à nos autorités politiques d'être sensibilisées. De fait, le document semble être dépassé aujourd'hui puisque je crois avoir entendu hier que l'insecte s'est propagé dans d'autres pays.

Je remercie le représentant de la Libye et de l'Egypte qui ont bien voulu nous donner des informations sur les actions menées pour combattre la lucilie bouchère.

A cette occasion, je demande à la FAO de passer à l'action c'est-à-dire à la mise en application des recommandations adoptées en juin 1989, et ce, avant que ce phénomène ne devienne un désastre pour l'Afrique et le monde.

Aloysius FONSECA (Holy See) : I must begin my intervention with a note of apology because I handed in my name so late. I have to be grateful to you for considering my request.

This morning delegates have already heard what the Holy Father had to say on the environment. I prefer to restrict myself to the other aspects which we are examining in these documents. To my mind, documents C 89/2 and C 89/2, Sups. 1 and 2, give us an invaluable insight into the state of food and agriculture, against the background of the prevailing international economic system. Without going into a detailed discussion of the many issues raised in these pages, this observer prefers to highlight and accentuate some of the crucial problems raised when these pages .are considered from a more humanistic and social, as well as ethical, approach in the search for a solution.

One can hardly doubt that the external debt problem has assumed an importance in recent years that one could hardly have expected a few years ago. However, for the first time in international relations, especially between creditors and debtors, has it now been accepted that the debt overhang is a real obstacle to the developing world in its efforts to overcome its frustrations in achieving economic self-sufficiency, at least in regard to satisfying the basic essential needs of its population.

While the Baker Plan regarded external debt as a problem of illiquidity, Mr Brady of the United States Treasury has finally and openly accepted the debt overhang as a problem of insolvency, in which case debt reduction becomes absolutely necessary, or at least one of the viable ways of helping debtor countries to invest the amounts saved in order to repay the remaining portion of their debts.

On this aspect, we should remind ourselves of what the Mexican delegate had to say in his intervention. This is possible precisely because the commercial banking system in developed countries is in a much better position today to cope with the problem of a cut-back in the debt. Given the global interdependence economy in which we live today, and the fact that barriers between the nations and regions are falling apart, makes it all the more imperative to take such remedies without fear or hesitation and in a spirit of solidarity so strongly recommended in the last encyclical Sollecitudo Rei Socialis of Pope John Paul II.

Similarly, in the spirit of accommodation and unity, the possibility of increasing the exports of the developing world to the advanced industrial countries becomes almost an obligation on the part of those who can afford to make such concessions. Obviously, the GATT and the Uruguay Round frameworks could be inspired with the same consideration of human solidarity which in no way obstructs the functioning of a more liberalized system, but in fact sustains and promotes its development.

Another important issue raised in the global survey of the FAO document relates to the high rates of interest Which can have a crippling effect on economic and comercial relationships. However, the real point is not whether the market sets such high interest rates, but whether such high interest rates are justifiable. If one approaches the problem from the economic assumption that the entrepreneur borrows with the intention of paying back his debt out of the productive use of his investment, obviously the rate of interest must be linked to the productivity of that investment.

Unfortunately interest rates today are used for controlling inflation or for obtaining funds for covering government deficits. This assumption may be questioned, but it is worthwhile examining the matter because even a great economist like Keynes pleaded for low interest rates to overcome employment and to increase investment.

Finally, it is good to know that, as the document once again emphasizes, there is enough food to go around to feed the world's population, despite the shortages in some parts or regions of the globe. The most disastrous aspect of this problem is that many of the hungry do not have incomes enough to buy the food that is available. Besides the food security scheme of the FAO however, the food security scheme of the FAO provides a safeguard in cases of emergencies. But this only proves that nature is not niggardly, and the fact that even today so many millions live in a situation without adequate diet or nutrition leads one to conclude that the real cause is man-made and reflects on a certain amount of human indifference and apathy to those stricken with starvation. Once again, there is need of a deep motivating force to eradicate such an inhuman crisis without delay. Fortunately, our world is, I believe, much more aware of these problems, and there is today a much greater sense of obligation to help others in need. But such a force could be used, and should be used more effectively by an organization like FAO to achieve its objectives and suggest policy measures based on such convictions.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the distinguished observer of the Holy See. We have by now concluded our debate on Item 6.1 on our Agenda of the State of Food and Agriculture. Fifty-seven countries and three observers have spoken on this issue. But to address the specific point, the representatives of Egypt, Libya and Iraq ask for the floor.

Yousef Ali Mahmoud HAMDI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): We are pleased to see you in the Chair, and therefore we would like to congratulate you and the Vice-Chairman on your election. The Group of the Arab Countries participating in the Conference have studied the deteriorating agricultural situation in the Palestinian occupied territories and its relation to the negative effect on the agricultural production and hence the food security of the Palestinian people. From there, the Arab Group will submit our draft resolution to the Conference which requests the Director-General to study the food and agricultural situation in the Palestinian occupied territories and to give particular attention to this situation.

Ali ARHOUMA (Libya) (original language Arabic): I think that the person in charge of submitting the draft resolution is outside the room now, and therefore we might as well wait for him a few minutes until he comes back. We request that you postpone this for a few minutes so we can have the person in charge come in and submit the draft resolution.

Tawfik Ahmad Hassan Al MESH-HEDANI (Iraq) (original language Arabic): I would like to congratulate you on your election to preside over this Commission. I would like also to congratulate the Vice-Chairman and would like also to thank the Conference for the election of my country as Vice-Chairman of this Commission.

Concerning what has been said by the Aral) Republic of Egypt, I would like to approve what he said concerning the draft resolution which will be submitted by the Arab Group. Since this draft resolution is of interest to a large number of agricultural workers and farmers in the Palestinian occupied territories and they need the help of the Organization in order to overcame hunger and poverty which is spreading among these people who have been suffering from colonization for a long time in these territories.

CHAIRMAN: As we all know, resolutions presented to this Conference before coming to this Commission for discussion and eventual approval of adoption have to be discussed by the Resolutions Committee, and only after analysis by this Resolutions Committee do they come back to this Committee to be discussed. We will now indicate also that they will present the resolutions on sustainable development and, of course, this resolution will be presented in the name of the Nordic Group, if I'm not wrong. This resolution will also follow the same path.

Ali ARHOUMA (Libya) (original language Arabic): I would like to make a correction. This is not a draft resolution which we want to present, but we simply wanted to emphasize and highlight the situation existing in the occupied Palestinian territories, which is a very difficult situation in which most of the farmers in these areas find themselves. We wanted to support what has been said by the representative of Egypt. We feel that FAO has a very vital role to play in improving the food and agricultural situation in the occupied Arab territory.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the distinguished representative of Libya. I apologize if I have misinterpreted the statement by the distinguished representative of Egypt. I thought I heard that the Arab countries would like to present a resolution on this issue. If not so, I apslogize for having misinterpreted.

Yousef Ali Mahmoud HAMDI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): The Arab Group is, in point of fact, going to present a draft resolution to the Resolutions Committee, of course, after having mentioned this subject during this Plenary session.

CHAIRMAN: I thank the distinguished delegate of Egypt for his clarification. One last point in the discussion of our item: Pakistan had informed the Chair that he wishes to add to his statement a small point and that this addition ought to be included in the verbatim record. If the Committee does not see any difficulty in that it will be done. As I see no objections, it will be done.

Shahid NAJAM (Pakistan) : My delegation will like to particularly invite the attention of this Commission to para 16 of the document C 89/2-Sup 2 which embodies apprehensions of environmental damage being accentuated, as a result of the economic structural adjustment programmes and will stress that the magnitude of the proximity and immediacy of the twin problems of agricultural development and hunger as against the mounting population pressure faced by the developing countries, out of sheer necessity entails that poverty and hunger be accorded priority. The long-term objectives such as sustainable management of natural resources are important and have, essentially, to be incorporated in the overall economic development plan. However, at this point in time, when the threats of hunger and poverty loom large on the horizon in most of the developing countries, we will like to caution that it will not perhaps be appropriate to link the aid and assistance for economic adjustment programmes with conditionalities of environmental considerations. This is an important issue and needs to be given serious thought.

We would also advert the attention of the Commission to paras 30 and 38 of document C 89/2-Sup. 2 which, inter alia, indicate the difficulties of assessing the magnitude, complexity and accuracy of the extent of various modes of environmental degradation and hope that FAO, in conjunction with other Agencies, will take appropriate measures and provide necessary assistance to the developing countries in this regard so that necessary policy and plans could be formulated on a more rational basis for arresting and reversing the environmental degradation trend.

6.2 International Agricultural Adjustment: Progress Report on Guidelines 7, 8 and 12
6.2 Ajustement agricole international: Rapport intérimaire sur les lignes d'orientation 7, 8 et 12
6.2 Reajuste agrícola internacional: Informe parcial sobre las orientaciones 7, 8 y 12

CHAIRMAN: The Commission will recall that the guidelines on international agricultural adjustment date back to 1975 and were revised in 1983. The last Conference considered that the periodicity of progress reports should be reduced from every two years to once every four years. However, the Conference also decided on an exceptional basis to review at this session the guidelines covering international agricultural trade, the guidelines covering the stability of world markets, the access of developing countries to food imports on reasonable terms, and lastly, the guideline on external assistance to agriculture in the developing countries. The item will be introduced by Mr Dutia, Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Policy Department.

B.P. DUTIA (Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social Policy Department) s As you said Mr Chairman, document C 89/18 monitors progress regarding the implementation of Guidelines 7, 8, and 12 on International Agricultural Adjustment. As the delegates will recall, the Guidelines on International Agricultural Adjustment are intended to assist and facilitate policy harmonization. The policy guidelines adopted by the Conference in 1975 and revised in 1983 represent a statement of goals and policy approaches at national and international level.

The three guidelines which the Conference agreed should be reviewed at this session include Guideline 7 which refers to the policies affecting international agricultural trade and market access; Guideline 8 which refers to the stability of world markets for agricultural products, access of food-importing developing countries to food supplies on reasonable terms; and Guideline 12 which refers to the external assistance to agriculture of the developing countries.

Guideline 7, which deals with agricultural trade and protectionism, the report on that is given in the documents. Delegates have already discussed under agenda item 8, progress in the GATT Multilateral Trade Negotiations and in particular its implications for FAO, in relation to the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the International Plant Protection Convention. Under this item therefore, they may wish to focus on agricultural policies with a bearing on international trade. Overall, recent developments in this field reveal a mixed picture. Over the last two years, certain industrialized countries have introduced changes in their agricultural policies which have the effect of reducing barriers to trade, reducing subsidies on production, and limiting growth of agricultural support expenditures. In the GATT context, the decisions on negotiations on agriculture reached by the Trade Negotiations

Committee held in April 1989, and the resumption of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations, revive the possibility of improvements in the conditions of international agricultural trade. Of particular importance is the agreed "framework approach" comprising interrelated long-term elements and guidelines for reform, short-term elements and arrangements on sanitary and phytosanitary regulations. Moreover, with the resumption of the negotiations, certain progress has been achieved in the negotiations on tropical products. Overall, however, the level of support provided to agriculture through the policies of most industrialized countries has remained extremely high, and mainly in the form of measures which involve distortions to trade.

As regards the greater stability of world markets for agricultural products, which is the subject of Guideline 8, recent years have witnessed a great number of national and international efforts toward agricultural policy reform mainly to enhance the role of market forces in the functioning of the narkets of major commodities. In parallel, the role of International Commodity Agreements as a means of market stabilization has tended to diminish, and indeed no new commodity agreements with market stabilization provisions have been negotiated during the past two years. Moreover, tensions and discords regarding the operations of some of the existing commodity agreements have persisted. A positive development in this area however is the entry into force on 16 June 1989 of the Agreement establishing the Common Fund for Commodities which was adopted as long ago as June 1980. It is expected that the Fund will become operational in the second half of 1990. Guideline 8 also calls for access by importing countries to supplies of food on reasonable terms. As the delegates have already noted under Agenda Item 6.1, supplies on world food markets have been tightening, reflecting in part climatic factors and in part the implementation of production controls in some developed countries. Access by low-income food-deficit countries to commercial and non-commercial food imports has become more constrained due to rising world market prices and falling food aid availabilities.

External assistance to the agriculture of developing countries remained grossly inadequate, and the overall target for external assistance indicated in Guideline 12 and originally set to be achieved in the period 1975 to 1980, remains far from being fulfilled. Commitments of external assistance to agriculture in 1987 reached in real terms the lowest level since the early 1980s. This stagnation in the flow of external assistance to agriculture reflected in part the drastic fall since the early 1980s in the total flow of external resources to developing countries. Agriculture however maintained since the early 1980s its share of about one-fifth in total Official Development Finance, and also the share of concessional loans in total official assistance to agriculture remained at a level of around 70 percent.

In conclusion, progress in the areas covered by the three guidelines has been slow, uneven, and on the whole not as satisfactory as it should be. Major adjustments are necessary and fundamental improvements in the domestic policies and external environment for the food and agriculture sector should form some of the vital objectives and elements of a long-term strategy for the food and agriculture sector, which will be discussed under the next agenda item.

Mr (Chairman, the Secretariat looks forward to comments and views of the delegates on the issues covered in this document.

CHAIRMAN: I thank Mr Dutia for his presentation and now open the debate on this item.

Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colonobia): Señor Presidente, en su excelente presentación, como todas las suyas, el Dr. Dutia, para concluir, ha utilizado un lenguaje benévolo, que corresponde a la prudencia y ponderación que caracteriza a las personalidades asiáticas, al decir que la marcha del reajuste agrícola internacional ha sido lenta, desigual e insatisfactoria. Nosotros pensamos que un solo adjetivo habría resumido más realísticamente esa situación, diciendo que todo ha sido completamente nulo, que no hay ningún progreso del cual podamos complacernos. Han sido catorce años, señor Presidente, durante los cuales hemos girado en orden a un marco teórico, que no ha hecho sino crear ilusiones, despertar esperanzas y expectativas, que han venido quedando convertidas sólo en señuelos, sin que hayan logrado jamás ni siquiera el mínimo avance hacia su cumplimiento.

En espera del séptimo informe completo, que se presentará a la próxima Conferencia, este informe limitado y excepcional sobre tres orientaciones del reajuste no agrega nada nuevo, como siempre; ninguna de las orientaciones se vienen cumpliendo. Los países en desarrollo siguen esperando que los Estados industrializados se decidan a aportar una efectiva y real voluntad política, que permita el cumplimiento de las orientaciones y de los objetivos del reajuste agrícola internacional.

La orientación 7 parece que ahora está confundida con la Ronda Uruguay. De todas maneras, no se cumple. Han aumentado las barreras arancelarias y no arancelarias; los subsidios a las exportaciones continúan campantes; la misma OCDE, según el párrafo 3 del documento, reconoce que el apoyo a la agricultura sigue siendo alto; los costos de los subsidios, que habían disminuido en 1987, subieron de nuevo en 1988. El párrafo 4 dice textualmente que "el nivel de apoyo proporcionado a la agricultura por medio de las políticas de la mayor parte de los países industrializados ha seguido siendo sumamente elevado (...); la competencia por los mercados mediante programas de subsidios a la exportación no ha disminuido o hasta se ha intensificado". Víctimas de todo ello, los países en desarrollo, que progresivamente pierden mercados, asisten, impotentes, a la depresión de los precios de sus productos de exportación, y así padecen serias agresiones a sus ya débiles economías.

A principios del año pasado, hicimos un alto, abrimos un compás de espera en nuestras críticas permanentes a la política de subsidios a la exportación, política funesta aplicada por algunos países industrializados, pero particularmente por la Comunidad Económica Europea. Abrimos ese compás de espera porque teníamos confianza en que las buenas intenciones surgidas de la "cumbre" de Jefes de Estado de la CEE, reunidos en febrero de 1988, pusieran fin a esos subsidios, que han arruinado la economía de muchos países en desarrollo. La CEE inventó los famosos "umbrales" y nosotros nos colocamos a la sombra de esos umbrales, en espera de los resultados; seguimos esperando.

¿Qué ha pasado? ¿Podrá, acaso, el representante de la CEE explicar, ampliar el contenido, un poco ambiguo, del párrafo 9? Nos permitimos llamar la atención de los miembros de la Comisión sobre esta redacción, un poco sibilina y difícil de comprender, del párrafo 9, que en su primera parte habla de control de la producción y establecimiento de controles jurídicamente vinculantes, y al final parece que es tan excesiva la producción en la Comunidad Económica Europea, que se está recurriendo a la jubilación anticipada de los agricultores.

Quisiéramos que el representante de la CEE, si lo considera posible, explicara qué quiere decir en realidad tocio este párrafo 9. Quisiéramos saber, desde luego, si en la CEE se siguen aplicando todavía los subsidios como en años anteriores, de ingrato recuerdo, o si aún esos subsidios tienen mayor intensidad o si, como se ha prometido, se están atenuando, aunque sea progresivamente, para que así se vaya modificando esa política comercial, tan desastrosa y desafortunada.

Señor Presidente y distinguidos colegas, hemos usado estos adjetivos y verbos altisonantes no sólo porque corresponden a nuestro temperamento combativo latinoamericano, sino porque ha sido la reacción justa nuestra frente a la famosa política agrícola conún de la Comunidad Económica Europea. Pero quisiéramos, con honestidad, reconocer que el tono de estos comentarios más bien pertenece al pasado; los representantes de Colombia confiamos en que la CEE, respetable fuerza política y económica, en verdad -sea a la sombra de los "umbrales" o, ahora, de los "estabilizadores", término nuevo que también aparece en el párrafo 9, por cualquiera de esos medios- va a terminar definitivamente con los subsidios, porque esa Comunidad está integrada por doce respetables países, a los cuales todos reiteramos la admiración, respeto y simpatía del Gobierno de Colombia.

Señor Presidente, Colombia se ha asociado con un respetable Grupo de países desarrollados y en desarrollo en el Grupo de Cairns, y en el seno de este Grupo, como lo han dicho varios representantes de gobiernos miembros del Grupo Cairns, estamos haciendo propuestas que esperamos merezcan la mejor atención de la Comunidad Internacional.

La Orientación 8, nos hace recordar que durante años, durante décadas, se ha acuñado la frase ideal de "precios remunerativos para los productores y equitativos para los consumidores ". Ese lema se ha convertido en el programa de numerosos ministros de agricultura de tantos países. Cada vez que un ministro de agricultura toma posesión de s¡u alto cargo, suele presentar entre los puntos fundamentales de su programa, esa referencia a los precios remunerativos para los productores y equitativos para los consumidores. Naturalmente ese es un término que tiene muy profundo contenido social, humano y económico también; pero para lograr ese equilibrio providencial los gobiernos han depositado cierta confianza en los Convenios Internacionales de Productos Básicos.

Bien, este documento, de los párrafos 22 a 39, refleja un panorama desolador que demuestra como todos los acuerdos logrados hasta ahora, muchos a base de grandes esfuerzos y prolongadas controversias, ninguno de esos acuerdos funcionan prácticamente y de todos modos ninguno de esos acuerdos representan los verdaderos beneficios que habían esperado los países en desarrollo.

En términos benévolos, podríamos decir, la primera frase del párrafo 22 parece sintetizar y justificar esa lamentable situación a que nos hemos referido. Dice esta primera frase del párrafo 22: "la década de los ochenta ha sido un período especialmente desfavorable para la negociación de acuerdos internacionales sobre productos". Este documento que tiene fecha de agosto de 1989, está completamente desactualizado sobre la real e inquietante situación del café, en relación con la triste suerte que ha corrido el Acuerdo Internacional sobre el Café. "Las graves tensiones y disensiones con respecto a algunos acuerdos internacionales", de que habla la última frase del párrafo 22, ha tenido ulteriores desarrollos verdaderamente dramáticos en el caso del café.

En el párrafo 24 se habla de 120 - 140 centavos de dólares y por eso este documento es obsoleto, se ha mandado recoger y debe actualizarse. Luego se habla de 115 y 145 centavos de dólares para los precios de la libra del café; pero eso era en agosto y ahora estamos en noviembre. Sólo dos meses después esos precios están por debajo de la mitad, son cincuenta por ciento inferiores a las cifras que la FAO cita en este documento. Si las últimas informaciones son correctas, el precio está oscilando alrededor de 70 centavos de dólar por libra.

La terminación del Pacto Cafetero, por razones que preferimos omitir, ha causado un verdadero caos en el mercado internacional. Cincuenta países, todos en desarrollo naturalmente, de Asia, Africa y América Latina y el Caribe, asisten impotentes al derrumbarse de sus economías, después de que el Acuerdo del Café las había preservado en buena medida, aún entre altos y bajos, durante 27 años.

Uno de los pocos acuerdos internacionales sobre productos que funcionaban, el del café, ha tenido así un entierro triste y deplorable.

Si los precios actuales del café aunque no bajaran más, lo cual es probable, se conservasen en esos niveles durante 12 meses, los países productores perderían cerca de 5 mil millones de dólares.

Cordialmente les invito a comparar esa cifra con el monto de la asistencia que se ofrece a esos mismos países.

En Colombia el café sigue siendo la base de nuestra economía. Por cada centavo de dólar que baja la libra del café los colombianos perdemos 15 millones de dólares. En esas condiciones, la caída vertiginosa de los precios del café representa otro factor más de perturbación social y económica que se agregará a los tantos otros que la opinión pública ampliamente conoce y que el Presidente de Colombia, Virgilio Barco, viene afrontando con valor y decisión universalmente reconocido.

Pero aquí ya no queremos hablar más del café porque tradicionalmente ese grano se trata en la Oficina Internacional del Café en Londres, y además porque no deseamos prejuzgar sobre la tenue esperanza que podría surgir sobre la posibilidad de que se vuelva a un Acuerdo Cafetero con cláusulas económicas y reactivación del sistema de cuotas para tratar de recuperar en parte las economías de tantos países en desarrollo.

En resumen, todas las referencias a los Acuerdos Internacionales sobre Productos, confirman que la Orientación 8 sigue siendo teoría y espejismo.

Hemos tomado mucho tiempo, señor Presidente, y por ello vamos a concluir con una brevísina referencia a la últina orientación considerada la 12, dirigida hacia el fortalecimiento de la Asistencia Exterior. Para calificar el cumplimiento de esta Orientación 12 bastaría el párrafo 40 que citamos: "las corrientes totales de recursos netos a los países en desarrollo en 1987 descendieron casi a la mitad, 47 por ciento, en relación con los precios y tipos de cambio de 1986", apenas un año antes.

El párrafo 43 indica que la meta de 8.300 millones de dólares, meta fijada con tanta fatiga, nunca ha sido alcanzada, esas asignaciones son inferiores en un 35 por ciento.

Nò obstante estos comentarios, con algo de optimismo los Representantes de Colombia esperamos que el Informe global que estudiaremos en la Conferencia de 1991 nos ofrecerá un panorama menos desolador.

Señor Presidente, cuando en el seno de una Organización como la FAO estudiamos temas como éste, es apenas natural que nos interese cuál ha sido la función de esta Organización en relación con estas actividades. Sabernos que la FAO, por su propia naturaleza de Organización Internacional, debe someterse a ciertas limitaciones en sus actividades frente al respeto que exige la soberanía y la independencia de los gobiernos; sin embargo quisiéramos saber, señor Presidente, hasta dónde ha sido posible que la FAO haya participado en el pasado y pueda hacerlo en el porvenir para ver si se logra modificar esta situación.

En relación con la primera orientación, creo que no es el caso de hacer preguntas al Doctor Dutia porque ya tratamos en esta misma Comisión la función de la FAO en la Ronda Uruguay en el GATT.

Sobre la Orientación 8, quisiéramos preguntar al Doctor Dutia y a sus colaboradores, si la FAO, a través de los grupos intergubernamentales de productos que funcionan en el seno del Comité de Problemas de Productos Básicos ha tenido alguna función, tiene la posibilidad de cumplir acciones, de suministrar estadísticas, de preparar documentos que puedan contribuir a que esos acuerdos por productos no se sigan desmoronando completamente como lo indica este documento.

Naturalmente, sobre la últina orientación, la 12, en cuanto a la Asistencia Exterior, a la FAO sólo le toca observar, registrar los hechos y presentarnos con la realidad y crudeza camo lo hace en este documento, y por lo cual estamos agradecidos a la Secretaría de la FAO.

Los representantes de Colombia, señor Presidente, pensamos que por el momento hasta 1991 deberemos afirmar en nuestro Informe sobre este tema, que la Conferencia lamenta que este informe parcial sobre el cumplimiento de las recomendaciones 7, 8 y 12, sea completamente insatisfactorio y que la Conferencia espera que los países industrializados que son los que pueden aportar voluntad política para movilizar esa situación, que esos países que poseen todos los recursos y todas las posibilidades asuman actitudes flexibles y constructivas.

Con la esperanza de que el Informe global que se nos presentará en la próxima Conferencia sea mucho menos negativo que este Informe parcial.

J. Dawson AHALT (United States of America): The United States appreciates the opportunity to comment on this important agenda item. Although the united States maintains its reservations about the revised 1983 Guidelines, we commend the Secretariat for its work on this report. We should especially like to draw the Conference's attention to the Secretary's comments regarding developments in the Uruguay Round.

The United States strongly supports the long-term objectives for agriculture in the Uruguay Round as outlined in the April framework which the Secretariat spoke of earlier, namely, the call for "substantial progressive reductions in agricultural support and protection, sustained over an agreed period of time". We feel that this Conference should give a strong endorsement to these objectives.

We believe that achieving a more rational economic footing for agricultural policies will be beneficial for all nations, but especially for developing countries. Only by acting together can we hope to eliminate the tangled web of trade-distorting agricultural policies that now exist. The United States believes that the Uruguay Round offers the opportunity to reach major reforms. We cannot let this chance pass us by.

In October of this year, last month, the United States submitted a comprehensive proposal to the GATT on agricultural reform. We believe that this proposal will bring the changes needed to establish a fair and market-orientated trading system and bring all policies affecting agricultural trade under international disciplines.

The proposal covers all major policy areas, market access, export: subsidies, domestic production-related support:, and sanitary and phytosanitary measures. This proposal relates to all agricultural and fisheries products. We feel that this proposal can form the basis for a productive negotiation in the final year of the Uruguay Round.

As the Secretariat has already mentioned, of particular interest to this body is the proposal on sanitary and phytosanitary measures. The United States has proposed the establishment of an international process for consultations and dispute settlement, taking into account the best scientific information available through established international organizations. Scientific criteria alone should be the basis for such measures. Organizations such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the International Plant Protection Convention - both of which are affiliated with FAO - could play the key role in this process.

Regarding tropical products, the United States participated in the mid-term review package of concessions for tropical products, by offering a 25 percent tariff reduction on 49 products. President Bush signed the proclamation implementing our offer on 28 September, and the tariff reductions took effect on 18 October.

Successful liberation of agricultural markets along the lines described in our recent Uruguay Round proposal will help dampen extreme price swings in commodity prices. We believe that, through market liberalization and the resulting more efficient allocation of resources, the world has a better chance of achieving more predictable prices for commodities than would occur under a system of commodity agreements that often create trade and production distortions by impeding and masking market signals.

We must recognize that, as economies develop, history shows that prices for raw materials almost inevitably fall in relation to prices of other goods. This is a reason to open markets so that the most efficient and lowest cost producer is the one which produces the commodity. This system will allow all the world's nations, both producers and consumers, to get a better retiren from their investments.

Finally, we would like to clarify one point raised in the document about the Export Enhancement Programme. Recent legislation in the United States did not raise the ceiling by 2.5 billion, as could be inferred from the Secretariat's report, but instead established a multi-year ceiling on the programme of 2.5 billion.

Flori jan KOVAC (Yugoslavia): The Yugoslav delegation supports the Progress Report on Guidelines 7, 8 and 12 and would like to emphasize that the document is highly analytical and transparent, and, according to our assessment, it provides a useful synthesis of global and regional trends regarding the principal features of international agriculture.

The objectives of international agricultural adjustment are being implemented very slowly, if at all. Crises in the global economy can have far-reaching consequences for the agricultural development of many developing countries over the next decade.

On the other hand, it is the laudable commitment of some industrialized countries to reduce trade barriers and subsidies on production, and to limit the growth of agriculture support expenditures, as well as the conclusions of the negotiations on agriculture within th€i framework of the Trade Negotiations Committee and the continuation of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations. Particularly encouraging is the progress made so far in negotiations on some tropical products, as well as on those just mentioned by the United States of America.

The Yugoslav delegation's assessment would be that, since the last session of the General Conference, a number of substantial changes have been made in agricultural policies: first of all, the important decision of the Japanese Government to eliminate certain import restrictions; EEC measures taken at the Conference of Heads of Government in February 1988; and the reduction of price support for wheat and coarse grains by some developed countries.

However, despite all positive efforts, these measures still do not allow for stable trade, especially as far as the developing countries are concerned. In addition to what has been done so far, further efforts must be invested to ensure greater stability of the market of agricultural products, combined with the maximum use of appropriate commodity agreements.

Another reason for concern lies in the faci: that, despite considerable efforts made so far, and even though, globally speaking, prices are following an upward trend, the aggregate level of world agricultural prices was down 10 percent in 1988 in relation to 1980. The prices of major tropical products, such as coffee, cocoa and tea, fell considerably in the past two years. Volatile prices make it difficult to conclude agreements between producers and consumers at prices envisaged thereunder. This is further aggravated by the stance of some developed countries on free trade.

Although hardly unexpected, the fact that the past two years did not see any negotiations on new agreements and that some of the existing agreements have come under a great deal of pressure, must draw the attention of all those present, and inspire concern in most.

In such a situation, we must welcome the long-awaited start of the operation of the Common Fund for Commodities and the results of its first session held in July this year. Such positive aspirations, and an additional effort by all countries to use adequate measures to ensure greater market stability and, in particular, provide low-income countries with access to food stocks, are absolutely necessary in this time of great food shortages in the world.

Low stocks of grain on the world market led to price hikes in 1988-89 and confronted many developing countries with unsurmountable problems. The expected reduction in food aid, regardless of amount, further aggravates the already difficult situation. In view of the enormous debts of the majority of developing countries, price growth, reduced aids, frequent natural and man-mde disasters, the developing countries, even given maximum efforts on their part, still depend to a large extent on foreign assistance, both bilateral and multilateral.

In conclusion, on behalf of the Yugoslav delegation, I would like once again to give FAO credit, first of all, for making an exception and putting the Progress Report on Guidelines 7, 8 and 12 on the agenda as a special item, regardless of the understanding that reports on international adjustment in agriculture would be reviewed every four years.

And secondly, I would like to express our appreciation once again for the comprehensiveness and impartiality of the analyses presented.

Shahim AHMED (Bangladesh): First of all, let me thank the FAO Secretariat for presenting this detailed document on a very important agenda item. As the 20th Century is drawing to a close, the problem of food insecurity is becoming more acute. However, we note that world farmers are producing more than ever. Food insecurity does not result from an overall insufficiency in food, but it exists nevertheless because many people throughout the world do not have either the ability to grow adequate foodstuffs nor sufficient funds available to them in order to purchase or import their urgent food requirements. The world food situation continues to show a paradox of widespread food scarcities in a large number of food deficit countries amidst plenty of surplus in a few industrialized countries.

It is in this specific context of global food and agricultural situation that we feel an improvement in international econonic trading environment is required. The international cooperation to achieve a balanced situation in production, consumptian in trade and food grains may fulfil the interests of exporting and importing countries in terms of providing benefits both to the producers and the consumers. Special consideration as to the interest of developing countries should be given so that their food grain production protentials can be explored.

NI HONGXING (China) (original language Chinese): In recent years, the agricultural terms of trade of the developing countries has continued to worsen and external financial resources have continued to decrease. Therefore, the Secretariat, in accordance with a resolution of the last. Conference, prepared document C 89/18 which reviews progress on Guidelines 7, 8 and 12. Such a review is most necessary. I would like now to make a few observations.

First, on Guidelines 7 and 8: according to the information in the document, in the areas of the elimination of protectionist measures and improvement of international agricultural terms of trade, progress has not been very good.

We know that some developing countries think that surplus production and over-stocking of agricultural products have taken measures in reducing exports, and have adopted policies cutting down production and have reduced production subsidies for certain agricultural products, and as a result, have reduced the protectionist measures of tariff and non-tariff barriers. Even so, the different subsidies for agricultural products are still considerable and trade protectionism remains extremely serious.

In addition, as a couple of years ago, North America's food production was greatly reduced and food prices rose. The continuous downward trend in the price of agricultural products in the 1980s has been checked somewhat, but the overall price level of agricultural produce is still quite low. The price of cash crops of great export importance to the developing countries has remained at a lew level.

Therefore, in terms of trade of the developing countries, agricultural commodities have not only not improved; they have on the contrary worsened. It is even more difficult for agricultural commodities from developing countries to gain international market accesss.

On top of this, the food prices have produced negative impact on most developing countries, in particular the low income and food deficit countries. For this we are deeply concerned.

we are of the opinion that the problem of agricultural protectionism arises mainly due to the fact that developed countries use their economic and technological superiority to provide large amounts of subsidies for agricultural production and exports.

These measures give rise, on the one hand, to the irrational use of resources within these countries, adding to their own burden, and on the other hand, intensifying unfair competition in the international trade of agricultural products, inhibiting agricultural production of developing countries which really have a natural resource advantage.

Therefore, the developed countries should make further efforts to progressively reduce and eliminate the various production and export subsidies, and in the end eliminate trade protectionism and prenote the development of international trade in agricultural products.

We have noted with interest that widespread efforts to improve agricultural trade are now being exerted worldwide.

The new round of multilateral trade negotiations in GATT view agricultural products and tropical products as important topics to be negotiated, and agreement in principle has been reached. Useful progress has been achieved in implementing trade agreements of certain agricultural products with a positive impact.

UNCTAD has begun to take practical and active productions in implementing the integrated programme commodity and establishing the common Fund. However, we have also noted that due to the conflict of interests between importing and exporting countries, many international agricultural trade negotiations have reached an inpasse. Trade agreements on some agricultural products have not played the role they should have due to lack of necessary funds. Seme plans have remained at the stage where they are just words and ideas on paper.

We hope that the international community, in particular the developed countries will make greater efforts to be action-orientated, and based on full consideration of the specific situation of the developing countries and their development needs seek common ground while reserving differences, and through negotiations achieve substantive progress in stabilizing the international market for agricultural products.

We reaf firm that merely taking a few isolated measures to eliminate protectionism will be of no avail. The fundamental solution is the integration of trade and development, seeking in the course of development the rational adjustment and development of trade.

The developing countries possess, in such areas as population and resources, the conditions necessary for development, and have vast markets ready to be opened up.

Therefore, the developed countries should proceed from long-term interest; accelerate the transfer of technology and funds; reduce the burden of debt of the developing countries; give them preferential treatment in agricultural trade, and open new markets for them,

We hope that through discussions we may arrive at a deeper understanding and take positive action.

Second, on Guideline 12: we are of the opinion that the developed countries are duty-bound to help the developing countries develop their agricultural production. This is also an internationally important principle in North-South relations universally accepted by the international community.

However, we note with concern that in recent years growth in external assistance to the agriculture of developing countries has been very slow. In particular, the assistance of international financial institutions to the agriculture of developing countries has gone down a great deal in the past two years.

Food aid has also gone down considerably. In 1987 multilateral and bilateral official assistance commitments for agriculture of the developing countries have dropped sharply. They were 7 percent of US$ 1 billion less than in 1986, calculated in terms of constant prices of 1975.

In 1988 the level of multilateral assistance commitments, especially the preferential loan components, has continued to fall sharply. In addition, delivery of external assistance has also been slow, about which we have misgivings. If this trend is not checked, prospects for attaining the targets set out in the guidelines will only grow dimmer and dimmer.

In light of the real difficulties and needs of the developing countries and the situation of external assistance to their agriculture, we therefore appeal to the international community, and, above all, to developed countries through an increase in their external financial assistance commitments and the early delivery of their financial commitments to make even greater efforts.

Antti NIKKQLA (Finland): My delegation would like to present some short remarks on the issues under this agenda item.

With regard to the GATT Uruguay Round, my country supports the view that the Round should result in better market access to the export products of developing countries. Our own concrete proposal in Geneva concerning tariff reductions in tropical products is aimed at this goal.

Concerning Guideline 8, it is a fact that the international food market covers only about 5 percent of all world production. Therefore, relatively small changes in total production of sane products may bring out large fluctuations in the quantities and prices on the world market. As an example, I can mention dairy products. The possibility of an individual country influencing the stability of world markets is small. That is one reason why in the past various measures have been developed to safeguard food safety and to maintain a certain level of self-sufficiency in national food production. To find a long-lasting solution for food trade policies, this tension between the potential instability of agricultural world markets and the basic need for food security must be solved.

As to the external assistance to developing countries, Finland's target has been to increase her total development assistance and to reach in the 1980s the level of the UN recxmmendation of 0.7 percent of GNP. Finland has reached this target this year, in 1989. The share of agricultural projects has recently been from 10 percent to 15 percent of our total assistance. Our Government is conscious of the importance of agricultural projects and will increase their proportion in coming years. Having increased the quantity of development assistance in recent years, ray Government will in the future concentrate on the improvement of the quality of aid.

Jamil Al-DABAGH (Iraq) (original language Arabic): I should like to thank the Secretariat for introducing this document which includes the three guidelines concerning trade exchange, agricultural adjustment and external aid to developing countries.

Concerning Guideline 7 on international trade policies, it seems to me that, as was said by my colleagues, the progress nade in the negotiations taking place, such as the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations or other negotiations, are very slow. I think that the distortions which prevail in the international market for agricultural products have a direct and indirect effect on the agricultural and economic development plans of developing countries. The example given by our colleague from Colombia concerning the unjustified decrease of coffee prices in the world has a negative effect on the returns of this developing country from foreign currencies, and accordingly their agricultural and economic development plans have been largely affected. I think that in most cases in all these distortions, fluctuations or adjustments requested to certain policies, there are certain adjustments that should be put within the economic and agricultural policies of developing countries. All these, in fact, are due to the fluctuations and distortions which prevail in the international market, particularly since the Food Security Conference which was convened in this country in 1974.

The distortions in the international market have a direct effect on the developing countries, in particular on the food importing countries among them. In fact, we are very much concerned about the improvement of the international system. We all know that a large number of developing countries, including Iraq, are food importing countries, and these imports, although they vary from one country to another, increase year by year. As a result, the foreign currencies needed to import these food products increase, and this leads to shortages in our foreign currency. Therefore, we reiterate what we have said before: Iraq commends FAO and would like to affirm that the Organization should focus its efforts at all levels in order to reach a trade system which is reasonable and which would guarantee the legitimate rights of the developing countries.

As for the stability or instability of prices at the international level, this is a result of the distortions which prevail in this market, and I will not go into this in detail because we all know the reasons for these distortions.

Finally, I should like to affirm that a number of economic and development policies which are adopted by developing countries, and which are adopted by Iraq itself - and I have been in agriculture in Iraq for more than 20 years -have affected our plans, be they the annual plans, or the five-year plans, especially for the development of agriculture in Iraq and the development of the economy in general.

Noboru SAITO (Japan) : I should like to make some comments on individual guidelines. In the first place, regarding Guideline 7, my country has made efforts to improve the market access of agricultural commmodities, including the abolition of import restrictions for beef and citrus fruits, as described in paragraphs 8 and 18 of document C 89/18.

We are fully aware that the most important task in the Uruguay Round negotiations is the formation of a new trade order for agricultural products through the establishment of the new GAIT rules and disciplines, which would cover all measures influencing the relevant trade. In formulating these rules and disciplines, we consider it necessary to take fully into consideration those roles of agriculture such as food security and conservation of the environment, from the standpoint that my country owes more than half of the foodstuffs abroad and that also it is a big cereal importing country.

My country expressed our basic aspects for the Uruguay Round agricultural negotiation group in September, mainly consisting of non-trade concerns such as food security. Further details will follow by the end of this year. We should like to participate actively in the Uruguay Round negotiations for the successful finalization in 1990 in order to contribute to smooth agricultural trade in the world and harmonized development of world agriculture.

Regarding Guideline 8, the Cammon Fund Secretariat is now under review for management procedures. At the same time, for the better utilization of the second CF account resources, discussions are taking place on the status of designated ICB. My country will watch the progress of the discussions on future management procedures.

Finally, regarding Guideline 12, my country stresses support for agriculture and rural development as one of the most important areas of Official Development Aid and has actively promoted it. My country will aim at increasing the total amount of ODA during the period 1988 to 1992 to more than US$ 50 billion, thus more than doubling the total amount of ODA disbursed in the past five years. Thus my Government tries to improve the ODA both in quantity and quality and also promotes development aid for food and agriculture as one of the most important areas in this field.

Chang Hyuk SUH (Korea, Republic of): On behalf of the Korean Government, I should like to express some comments on international agricultural adjustment programmes.

First, I wish to acknowledge the long-term necessity and importance of agricultural adjustment policy to develop the agricultural sector, but I urge that international society must endeavour to eliminate several problems which will be faced in the process implementation, such as the increase of external debt, decrease of agricultural income and employment, and the aggravation of food security.

Secondly, agricultural adjustment policy must take into consideration every country's specific agricultural situations, as the policies which are implemented have direct effects on their small-scale farmers.

It takes a long period of time and large government budgetary support to establish an agricultural production basis and realize agricultural development.

In developed countries, higher efficiency in agriculture has been attained over the past several decades through effective implementation of structural adjustment policies and large payment of government subsidies.

On the other hand, in developing countries, the agricultural sector still remains at the infant stage, with large farm population and chronic low agricultural productivity due to insufficient financial resources. Therefore, developing countries must be provided sufficient time to enable their agricultural sector to achieve balanced development with other industrial sectors.

Furthermore, the higher import-dependent developing countries suffer from infant structure; small land holdings, labour intensive production, and low level of agricultural technology and productivity.

In addition, they also have comparatively higher farm populations and greater weight on farm production than that of developed countries. Thus, the further market opening without any structural adjustment in agriculture would hinder the agricultural development and threaten the subsistence level of the farmer's livelihood. We must also realize that this may deteriorate economonic development of developing countries.

Korea has consistently expanded trade liberalization, and will pursue further market opening in the future in line with the degree of agricultural development in our country. However, the economic circumstances of Korea indicate a transit era in which advanced and infant industry co-exsist. Particularly, the level of agricultural development remains at the infant stage due to the structural weakness.

Considering the present farm operator's aids and their average farm sizes, at least fifteen years are required to restructure our country.

In view of economic and agricultural development, improving the agricultural structure which remains at the infant stage will be the most important task of trade policy to meet the fundamental goal of GATT and the Uruguay Round agricultural negotiations for further free trader I believe, in view of this, developed countries should allow developing countries to have the grace period required for structural ad justment so they may reduce the adverse impacts of the rapid expansion of market opening, and further to implement long-term objectives for trade liberalizations.

Ernesto Pablo DE LA GUARDIA (Argentina): Nuestra Delegación desea, en primer lugar, formular algunos comentarios con relación al informe sobre los resultados obtenidos respecto a la orientación 7.

Queremos reaf irmar, como lo hemos hecho al tratar el Punto 6.1 de la agenda de esta Comisión, la importancia que nuestro pais le otorga al efectivo cumplimiento de los objetivos de desmantelamiento de las barreras al acceso y de los subsidios a las exportaciones, contenidos en esta orientación.

Coincidimos con el documento en expresar nuestra preocupación por el continuo crecimiento de los gastos totales en apoyo a la agricultura por parte de los países de la OCDE, particularmente de aquellos destinados a subsidiar las exportaciones.

Nuestra posición respecto a las modalidades de la reforma en el comercio agrícola es bien conocida, y no vamos a repetirla aquí. Sin embargo, queremos insistir una vez más en la importancia que un acuerdo satisfactorio en las negociaciones del GATT tiene para nosotros.

Observamos con complacencia las medidas de reforma adoptadas por el Japón en 1988, particularmente en lo que concierne a la apertura gradual de las importaciones de carne de bovino, tanto procesadas como sin procesar, y solicitamos a ese país el mayor de los esfuerzos para ampliar el espectro de productos incluidos en sus políticas de reforma

Disentimos en cambio con la importancia dada en el documento a las reformas recientes en las políticas de la Comunidad Económica Europea, ya que éstas no modifican en lo esencial sus efectos distorsionantes en los mercados internacionales.

Son bien conocidos los perjuicios que las mismas causan a los países exportadores de productos primarios. Sin embargo, no debemos dejar de recordar que la política agrícola común perjudica ante todo a los propios países miembros de la Comunidad, Sus consumidores deben pagar precios significativamente más altos que los del mercado mundial, y sus contribuyentes deben hacerse cargo del costo presupuestario de la P.A.C. Pero estos costos constituyen sólo una parte del cuadro: para medir los costos económicos reales de la P.A.C, deben agregarse además todas las ganancias y pérdidas en términos de eficiencia económica, tanto en los mercados de productos como en los mercados de factores, que resultan de las políticas de precios administrados.

Creemos también necesario mencionar el efecto perjudicial que tiene para nuestro país la política de los Estados Unidos de imponer restricciones a las importaciones de determinados productos agrícolas al amparo del Waiver de 1955.

Nuestro sector más afectado es el vinculado con la producción azucarera. En efecto, las exportaciones de azúcar al mercado de Estados unidos adquirieron en el pasado reciente una gran importancia para la Argentina, en particular para sus economías regionales. Sin embargo, como consecuencia de las cuotas de importación impuestas por los Estados Unidos en 1982 los ingresos por exportaciones de azúcar desde nuestro país a ese mercado se redujeron de 210 millones de dólares en 1981 a 41 millones en 1983 y a sólo 14 millones en 1987.

Esta política de los Estados Unidos contraiviene además el Artículo XI del GATT, ya que no cumple las condiciones que dicho artículo exige a la parte contratante que pretende mantener una restricción cuantitativa.

Apreciamos la intención puesta de manifiesto por los Estados Unidos en su propuesta ante el GATT sobre reforma agrícola, porque sabemos el esfuerzo que su cumplimiento significará para ese país en términos del desmantelamiento de políticas como la anteriormente mencionada. Por lo tanto, y tal como dijo el Señor Ministro de Australia en su intervención en el plenario: "no debemos darle a los Estados Unidos la posibilidad de retractarse".

En definitiva, lamentamos que algunas de las principales partes en las negociaciones para liberalizar el comercio agrícola no hayan dado muestras todavía de una real voluntad política para efectuar las reformas recomendadas por la Orientación 7.

Con referencia al párrafo 12 del Infame, nuestro país, luego del cambio de gobierno, modificó su política de retenciones a las exportaciones de productos agrícolas. En este sentido impuso nuevas retenciones justificadas por razones de urgencia fiscal, pero que serán progresivamente reducidas según un cronograna que será informado por escrito a esta Secretaría.

En relación a la orientación 12, cuyos principios apoyamos firmemente, sólo efectuaremos el siguiente comentario: nos parece esencial que las inversiones en los sectores agrícolas de los países en desarrollo se dirijan hacia explotaciones con ventajas comparativas, para que la consecución del objetivo de la autosuficiencia alimentaria no vaya en contra de la racionalidad económica.

Rolf AKESSON (Sweden): I will refrain from comments on the degree of progess regarding implementation in general, and I will allow myself just a few specific comments on the three guidelines at hand.

Guideline 7 on agricultural protection is not easy to monitor since it lacks quantitative objectives or indicators. We think perhaps some aggregate measure of support could be used in this respect. The study referred to from the OECD contains a lot of information on producer subsidy equivalents which is one such measure - originally developed by FAO by the way - and discussions are also going on in GATT for such a measure of aggregate support for possible use in the Uruguay Round.

Anyway, we agree with the Secretariat opinion that policy developments during the last years present a mixed picture. Although there have been several positive developments, there is no reason to be satisfied, which I think is clearly shown by the commitments and objectives made especially in the GAIT. A result in the GATT negotiations in line with these commitments in Punta del Este in 1986 and in Geneva in April of this year would certainly give rise to a rather positive evaluation of the performance concerning this guideline at our next monitoring exercise.

Guideline number 8 on greater stability of world markets is also difficult to evaluate. We don't know which aspect of world markets is going to be more stable and we don't have any reference for finding out whether the level of stability actually has increased or decreased. One obvious line of analysis concerns world market prices but I do not think that has been pursued in the Secretariat document. Instead we have a general discussion of commodity agreements which is relevant but perhaps a little bit misleading. Commodity agreements is, after all, one, but not the only way to reduce instability, and commodity agreements without specific economic clauses could very well contribute to some extent to this objective by regular analysis and discussions of markets and policies which tend to increase transparency and reduce uncertainty, A case in point is the 1987 Sugar Agreement which in fact provides not only regular market and policy discussions but also has a fairly ambitious work programme on specific issues, and I guess the same is valid for some other canmodity agreements as well.

On the second part of these guidelines about access on reasonable terms for developing countries, we agree that there are factors such as higher world market prices and less food aid, that must be seen as contrary to such an objective, irrespective of whether or not they are caused by policy changes. But this is not really enough for a fair .analysis. Prices and import costs rose from what has been considered very lw levels for several years and the decline of food aid comes from a level which has been far above commitments made in the Food Aid Convention. In fact there has - I think also in this organisation - been concern expressed about the possible harmful effects of over-supply and low prices on the long-term agricultural development of developing countries.

In guideline 12 on development assistance for the agricultural sector, we seem to be confronted with an easier task since it contains specific figures against which to measure actual developments, but a single straightforward answer is still not possible. Hiere are no agreed definitions of agriculture; there are data problems due to time lags between commitments and disbursements, and there is no specific date for the attainment of the objectives.

Be that as it my, more important - it seems to us at least - is the total flow of development assistance, not only because of possibilities of substitution between assistance to different sectors and purposes but also because, after all, the external financing of investments also in the agricultural sector is a fairly small part compared to domestic sources, Unfortunately we run into difficulties concerning definitions here as well, but the general picture is rather disappointing. What is particularly deplorable is that developed countries as a group are still only half way towards the 0.7 ODA target and haven't really made any progress during the last decade, although some individual developed countries have a significantly different record in this respect. while the ODA concept is by no means the only useful one, we think it deserves to be mentioned along with others, particularly since it is the only one for which a target has been established.

Pascal BRIODIN (France): Je serai bref. Ma délégation vous est reconnaissante, Monsieur le Président, de lui permettre d'intervenir sur ce point très intéressant et très animé de nos débats. Elle tient à féliciter le Secrétariat de la qualité des documents présentés.

Trois lignes d'orientation sont discutées sous ce point 6.2, les lignes 7, 8 et 12.

Ma délégation souhaite revenir plus tard sur les lignes 8 et 12; mais puisque la ligne 7 traite des questions commerciales et de politique agricole, questions qui relèvent de la compétence communautaire, je vous demande de bien vouloir, sur ces aspects communautaires, passer la parole au représentant de la Commission afin qu'il s'exprime au nom de la Communauté et des Etats Membres.

Chairman: I have a request from the delegation of France that the observer from the European Commission speak in the name of members of the Commission on Guideline 7. If this Commiission sees no objection to that, I will give the floor to the observer from the European Community. My understanding then will be that other members of the Commission who have asked to take the floor afterwards - I already have a list of three names - will not address the subject. Of course I shall not deny the floor to any member country, but if the observer from the Commission will speak in the name of the members of the Commission, I take it that the other members will not address this subject? That is just a vague question to which I do not want any specific answer, but what often happens is that we have the Commission speaking and then every one of the members of the Commission speaking on the same subject, which is a kind of awkward situation.

Gérard KIELY (EEC) : Thank you, Mr Chairman, and may I also thank the delegations of the Commission for giving me the opportunity of speaking on this point.

I shall confine my remarks, as stated, to Guideline 7 on behalf of the European Community.

To begin with, I should like to point out that the European Community is the largest importer in the world of food and agricultural products. This is of particular importance for developing countries considering that the Community accounts for 43 percent of agricultural exports of all developing countries.

A significant proportion of these imports benefit from special import concessions which in certain instances amount to unrestricted duty-free access to the Community. Ihese concessions were extended further in July 1989 in the area of tropical products.

The issues relating to Guideline 7 are ones which are central to the present round of GATT negotiations. The outcome of these negotiations, therefore, will have major implications for the objectives of Guideline 7. The Community is fully committed to a successful, tangible and effective outcome to the Uruguay Round of multilateral negotiations in line with the objectives of the Punta del Este Declaration, and we welcome the progress made towards achieving this objective at the mid-term review in Geneva. It has long been recognized in the Community that the many programmes designed by governments to assist agriculture contribute to the global problem of market surpluses and instability.

The Community initiated a reform of its own agricultural policies as far back as 1984. The underlying philosophy of these reforms has been that of gearing production to market requirements in terms of both quantity and quality. This process of reform has continued right up to the present day and has undoubtedly, through its growing contribution towards stabilizing markets, both domestic and international, made a substantial contribution towards advancing the GATT negotiations on agriculture and hence the objectives of Guideline 7. However, much has yet to be done before a final agreement can be reached in the negotiations. Indeed, one could say that the more difficult negotiations have yet to take place.

Considering that a central objective of the negotiations is the reduction in agricultural support and protection, we believe that it is essential that agreement be reached on measuring support and protection and hence reductions therein. The Community has already made a submission to GATT on the aggregate measurement of support, an approach in which we strongly believe.

This approach facilitates the undertaking of commitments on support and protection reduction, while at the same time it allows a certain degree of flexibility to the parties concerned and will ensure that they know exactly the consequences of their commitments.

Improved and more operational rules and disciplines are at the centre of GATT reforms, and the Community is fully committed in this regard. Among others, it would be necessary to incorporate into the present system newly developed rules and disciplines regarding protection and export.

The harmonization of sanitary and phytosanitary standards is also an issue which the Community considers imperative. Agreement on liberalizing trade will be flawsd if a situation exists whereby sanitary and phytosanitary measures lead to unduly restricted trade. There are many organizations which may have a contribution to make in regard to this harmonization process, and this issue will have to be addressed in the GATT forum in the future.

With regard to developing countries, the community believes that they should be part of the overall disciplined approach being discussed in GATT, taking account however of their level of development and development requirements. Therefore this Community is willing to examine with an open mind the request of developing countries for some form of a preferential and differential treatment including measures for the poorest net food importing countries.

As regards agriculture, this round of negotiations is the most comprehensive and significant to date. The Community will make its appropriate contribution to ensure their success, both in terms of reaching an acceptable agreement and of the impact of that agreement on the liberalization and stabilization of markets.

However, the Community confirms its attachment to a support system which allows internal prices to be different from world market prices and at the same time allows an increase in the sensitivity of agriculture to market signals.

The Community's proposals are meant to be practical rather than reflecting ideological positions. The Community hopes therefore that trading partners will examine them in detail on their own merits. Too many occasions for agricultural reforms were lost in the past because of arguments about principles which prevented the examination of concrete and long-term offers which were on the table.

Finally, in reply to some observations regarding community policy on agriculture, I should like to point out that a ceiling has been placed on agricultural expenditure in the Community, and indeed expenditure on agriculture is lower than the financial allocation due, among other factors, to the reforms of agricultural policy which have already been implemented.

I should also like to point out that export support has been substantially reduced in the case of many products. Further more, since 1986, global agricultural support has been reduced by 10 percent in the arable sector and by 15 percent in the livestock sector, and I should like to emphasize that this reduction in support is due to measures taken internally; in other words, the level of reductions is in no way related to the exchange rate or world market price changes.

E. DETRAUX (Belgique): A ce stade, je ne sais si je dois m'exprimer en tant que membre de la Communauté européenne ou en tant que membre du Bureau de l'OCDE.

Je vais prendre la première option. Nous avons entendu différents sentiments à propos de ces lignes d'orientation, celui de M. Dutia, celui de Monsieur l'ambassadeur Bula-Hoyos. Moi je dirais qu'il faut raison garder, c'est-à-dire qu'à ce stade tout est sur la table et il ne faut pas se précipiter dans des solutions qui ne seraient pas acceptables pour l'ensemble de la communauté internationale.

Eh ce qui concerne la ligne d'orientation No 7, je suis certain que vous avez lu avec attention le texte qui a été accepté par les Ministres du GATT le mois dernier, et je dois dire que lorsque l'on compare cette ligne d'orientation No 7 et ce qui a été accrédité par les Ministres au mois d'avril dernier à propos de l'agriculture, il me semble - en réalité j'en suis sûr - que cela colle d'une façon parfaite à cette ligne d'orientation No 7. Par conséquent, je pense que nous sommes engagés dans la bonne direction en ce qui concerne cette ligne d'orientation et qu'il me semble un peu superfétatoire de faire des commentaires quelque peu négatifs à cet égard.

Je prends maintenant mon chapeau de membre du Bureau du Comité de l'agriculture de l'OCDE et je suis un peu mal à l'aise lorsque je vois dans le paragraphe 3 du document C 89/18, le chiffre de 270 milliards de dollars comme étant le soutien apporté à l'agriculture au sein des pays de l'OCDE,

Par ailleurs, je me permets de faire remarquer que dans d'autres documents, et notamment dans le discours de M. Saouma, Directeur général de la FAO, ce chiffre est devenu 290 milliards de dollars. Il faut donc être tout à fait clair en la matière. C'est un chiffre qui ne peut pas être retenu comme argent comptant. Il s'agit - et nous en remercions la FAO, nous membres de l'OCDE - d'un chiffre qui a été extrapolé à partir d'études faites au sein de cette Organisation. Mais c'est un chiffre extrapolé, donc c'est un ordre d'idées qui ne repose pas sur des critères entièrement objectifs. Je prierais donc le Secrétariat de bien vouloir mettre en "footnote" ce qui a été dit au sein de l'Organisation de l'OCDE, à savoir que ce chiffre repose sur une méthodologie qui a des limites, etc. Je suis certain que le Secrétariat trouvera dans le texte de l'OCDE ce qui a été dit à ce propos. Mais je crois qu'il est important de ne pas mettre en exergue ce chiffre.

En ce qui concerne la ligne d'orientation No 8: Les accords internationaux de produits, il est évident - et je suis tout à fait d'accord avec ce qui a été dit par le Représentant de la Suède à propos de la ligne d'orientation NO 7 -mais en ce qui concerne plus particulièrement cette ligne d'orientation, est-ce que si l'on s'engage dans ce qui est dit notamment au paragraphe 22, cela ne va pas à l'encontre de la philosophie générale qui sous-tend tous nos travaux, à savoir une libéralisation du commerce des produits agricoles? C'est une question de fond que je pose. Est-ce que l'on doit aller dans le sens d'une plus grande libéralisation sans accords internationaux, ou au contraire doit-on essayer de maîtriser les marchés internationaux? Je crois qu'il faudra discuter plus avant de cette question.

J'en reviens à ce qu'a dit le délégué de la Suède. Il est tout à fait opportun, mais il est extrêmement difficile en fin de compte, d'avoir une appréciation rigoureuse à propos de ces lignes d'orientation. Là je plaide en tant que membre du Bureau de l'OCDE. Nous avons essayé, au sein de cette Organisation au moyen du système ESP, de concentrer sous un seul chiffre tous les soutiens à l'agriculture. Je me demande s'il ne serait pas opportun que l'Organisation de la FAO s'engage dans une voie similaire afin que l'on puisse apprécier d'une manière plus rationnelle si les lignes d'orientation sont réalisées ou non.

D.A. BUCKLE (United Kingdom) : In the light of the comments made by the European Commission, I do not propose to comment on GATT and the Common Agricultural Policy. I will, therefore, confine my comments to Guidelines 8 and 12.

Guideline 8 makes reference to a number of international commodity agreements. I would like to say that the United Kingdom does not believe that agreements embracing market-intervention arrangements are a long-term solution to developing countries' commodity problems.

ICA' s designed to stabilize commodity prices by market intervention have invariably failed. Reference has already been nade to agreements aimed at stabilizing coffee and cocoa markets which have run into serious difficulty. The result has been that the markets for these commodities have fallen dramatically as chronic over-production, encouraged by unrealistic price expectation, has depressed prices. We are of the view that these agreements have exacerbated problems for developing countries. The united Kindgdom believes that the emphasis for the future should be on efficient working of markets, and on strengthening and restructuring the economies of commodity-dependent developing countries.

Turning to Guideline 12., the paper is confessedly incomplete. However, I did notice that the Director-General drew some attention to the 1987 figures in his Opening Address to the Conference. It will, therefore, be useful to put this part of the paper in context and to bring the facts up to date.

The Development Assistance Committee's preliminary figures for 1988 are now available. They show that aid from the developed donors last year rose by no less than 16 percent in nominal terms over 1987, to US$ 48 billion.

This rise involved a remarkable jump of 6.7 percent in real terms. DAC members now provide 85 percent of all world aid, a significant rise over previous years. Indeed, aid from DAC members has shewn a steady real increase throughout the last ten years.

Despite their economic difficulties, the CMEA donors managed to keep their aid steady last year at about US$ 5 billion dollars. However, aid from OPEC donors fell by US$ 1 billion dollars to $2.3 billion. In real terms, it is now only one-fifth of its size in 1981. We all understand the economic problems so many of these countries face. It is, therefore, very encouraging to salute the special efforts nade by so many poor and debt-distressed OPEC countries to maintain the cash level of their pledges in the new Replenishment of the International Fund for Agricultural Development.

By contrast, we are disappointed that one or two of the better-off OPEC donors felt obliged to make shortcuts in their pledges, thus reducing the total to be provided to the poorest peasants and farmers in the world. More ominously, I hear it is likely that these countries might make similar cuts in their pledges to the Ninth IDA Replenishment, which will go largely to the poorest countries in Africa and Asia. We understand their problems, but we appeal to them to make a special effort, not least since there might be a knock-on effect in FAO's work if World Bank concessional aid is constrained.

Of course, this deals only with soft aid. Total resource flows to developing countries rose by 6 percent in 1988, and net official flows rose by 8 percent. Official development finance went up to US$ 67 billion. Even export credits returned to positive net figures for the first time since 1985. Medium-term and long-term credit disbursement reached about US$ 20 billion. Private direct investment was just under this figure. The one black spot, of course, was commercial bank lending, but that traditionally is general-purpose finance and does not directly affect agriculture.

All this relates only to flows generally. Figures for agriculture alone are not yet available. Yet those in the paper before us do not show too bad a picture. Commitments to agriculture in real terms are at least as high as a decade ago - much higher than in 1974/75 - and the concessional share of these continues to rise. Moreover, the Secretariat paper ignores food aid which, of course, includes food-for-work projects in rural areas, as well as direct supply for consumption in the countryside. It also ignores the agricultural goods and inputs supplied to individual countries and paid for by structural adjustment credits, because these are not normally recorded.

All in all, we should see help to structural and sectoral adjustment as complementary to direct assistance for agriculture. This is particularly important, because the sale of general imports paid for by adjustment assistance of course provides money to pay for recurrent and maintenance costs. We think paragraph 50 of the paper in front of us rightly stresses both this and the shift to a programmed approach, with a decrease in traditional projects. For many countries this will surely be the right mix for several years to come.

Enrique MONTERO C. (Chile): En el documento C 89/18 se examinan los progresos realizados con respecto a la aplicación de las orientaciones 7, 8 y 12, aprobadas por la Conferencia en 1975 y revisadas y actualizadas en 1983. La evolución en las esferas de estas tres orientaciones determinan en gran medida el medio ambiente exterior del sector de la agricultura y la alimentación de los países en desarrollo. Los reajustes en este ambiente comercial internacional constituyen, como ya lo hemos destacado, elementos vitales de la estrategia a largo plazo para el sector de la agricultura y la alimentación.

Del análisis del documento se puede concluir que ninguno de los objetivos establecidos en estas tres orientaciones, ha sido alcanzado satisfactoriamente. Esta preocupación ya la han manifestado otras delegaciones en esta sala.

Lo establecido en la orientación 7 y 8 relativo a las barreras a la importación, subsidios a la exportación y estabilidad de los mercados, son el resultado fundamentalmente de las políticas adoptadas por los países desarrollados, y el cumplimiento de estas orientaciones está estrechamente relacionado con los avances que se puedan lograr dentro de las negociaciones multilaterales actualmente en desarrollo en el GATT.

Por esto, es conveniente alentar el apoyo que ha estado prestando la FAO a la Secretaría del GATT, y en especial en el diseño y aplicación de políticas no proteccionistas; tomando debidamente en cuenta los efectos que pueden tener en los países en desarrollo más pobres los incrementos de los precios como consecuencia de la mayor orientación al mercado.

Shahid NAJAM (Pakistan): The Pakistan delegation would, in particular, like to speak on progress regarding the implementation of Guideline 7. A few comments on Guideline 8 and Guideline 12 will also be made.

Briefly, Guideline 7 envisages: developed countries should refrain from imposing new tariffs or non-tariff barriers to the imports of agriculture and agro-based products, particularly from developing countries; accessibility of products of the developing countries to international markets be ensured; restraint from reducing export subsidies and in particular from measures hampering trade of developing countries be exercised by the developing countries.

However, the document reveals that agricultural support in OBCD countries remains high, mainly in the form of measures which involve distortions to trade. In major commodity sectors, competition for rnarkets by means of export subsidy programmes has been unabated or has even increased. It has also been pointed out in the document that the aggravation of problems of market accessibility in agricultural trade is manifest from the large number of disputes before GATT.

This is certainly not a happy state of affairs. Although some measures have been undertaken by individual countries in a regional or bilateral context in deference to the Uruguay Round, yet these have not been able to mitigate the enormity of imperfections in international trade. It hardly needs emphasis that the success in multilateral trade negotiations remains the crucial factor in the revitalization of the economic growth of many developing countries, with significant dependence on agriculture export earnings. For negotiations to produce viable economic order conducive to the growth of the economies of the developing countries, we would reiterate: (1) special and differential treatment to developing countries should constitute an integral element of international trade and be enshrined in GATT rules and disciplines; (2) specific measures must be adopted for the improvement of market access to developing countries through reduction of export barriers and better competitive environment for agricultural exports; (3) all subsidies and assistance for exports in agriculture granted by the developing countries should eventually be eliminated; (4) the need for developing countries to orient their policies to the market signals is not denied.

However, more time would be needed, particularly for the least developed countries, to eliminate subsidies. In this connection, government measures in developing countries on assistance, whether direct or indirect, to encourage agriculture and rural development should not be construed as agricultural subsidies.

(5) agriculture should be brought under the principle of non-discrimination and most-favoured nation rule which is the cornerstone of GATT; (6) a suitable mechanism should be evolved to ensure transparency, proper surveillance and monitoring of actions taken in the field of agriculture, affecting the international market and trade.

Finally, the trade liberalization package should cover all commodities and processed agricultural products. If this is not done, there is a likelihood that the Multilateral Trade Negotiations would degenerate into narrow bargains based on certain commodity groups of interest to particular countries.

This may benefit a small number of famers mainly in rich countries, but ignore the wellbeing of a much larger number of poor farmers in developing countries.

It is only if concrete measures and actions are taken in an integrated fashion that negotiations and guidelines will improve the situation for the developing économies.

As regards Guidelines 8 and 12, we would appeal and request FAO to continue making concerted efforts for compliance, and in particular, for the consistent flow of external assistance to the developing countries so that sufficient food supplies are ensured.

Hatmut STALB (Germany, Federal Republic of) (original language German): In view of the fact that the Commission of the European Community has already spoken to Guideline 7, I will concentrate on Guidelines 8 and 12. With respect to Guideline 8, the Federal Government is of the opinion that the aim of stabilizing world markets has to be further pursued in the interest of both consumer and producer countries. Experience in the past, however, has shown that international commodity agreements containing market intervention regulations not in line with the underlying supply and demand situation, will prevent this target from being achieved. Therefore, measures aiming at stabilizing world markets, such as increasing trade liberalization - as we are also striving towards in the context: of the Uruguay Round -, improved access to markets and measures aiming at diversification, improved marketing and distribution, are necessary.

A prerequisite for achieving more stabilized markets is a better knowledge of import, requirements and export availabilities of various goods and products. With regard to food supplies for low income and food deficit countries, the instruments available should be fully utilized and implemented.

Guideline 12 quite rightly refers to the strong decline of net resource f low, particularly private investments have shown a narked drop. Nevertheless in this connection, we should also bear in mind the quality of public development aid both at recipient and donor levels which was improved greatly.

The meeting rose at 17.45 hours
La séance est levée a 17 h 45
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.45 horas

________________
1 Statement inserted in the verbatim records on request.