Statements

FAO and the State of World Agriculture
Hubert Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota

Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States, 10 September 1999



Thank you, Gus, for your kind introduction. I would also like to thank Ed Schuh and Carla Carlson of the Hubert Humphrey Institute for their outstanding efforts in arranging our visit and for providing the opportunity to address you today. It is very fitting that former Senator George McGovern is also here today and I look forward to his remarks. He was a long-time friend and colleague of Senator Humphrey, the namesake of this Institute. Senator McGovern and Senator Humphrey were both champions in the fight against hunger, both domestically and internationally, during their tenure in the United States Senate. I am glad to say that this interest and commitment to the world’s hungry have not waned. As the US Ambassador to FAO and other UN food agencies in Rome, Senator McGovern today continues to be a strong advocate, within the halls of FAO and within the US Government, for improving global food security.

Today has been a wonderful opportunity for me to meet with Minnesota’s agricultural leaders. These leaders come from production, marketing, finance—all aspects of the agricultural industry. They also highlight the great diversity of agriculture in your state. According to USDA data, Minnesota is among the top five US producers of such diverse agricultural products as sugar beets, sweet corn, green peas, oats, soybeans, turkeys, hogs and milk.

These are difficult times for many farmers in Minnesota and elsewhere as commodity prices have fallen significantly from their peak two years ago. But with the diversity in production and the strong agricultural processing and related industries centered here in Minnesota there is a solid basis to maintain a vibrant agricultural sector. I look forward to the rest of my visit here in your state, particularly tomorrow when I can see firsthand some of this production diversity.

I am also pleased to be on the campus of the University of Minnesota. As I travel around the world, I am struck by the long history of the US Land Grant Universities in promoting agricultural development both here and abroad. I have seen what you have done—increasing food production, reducing hunger and protecting the environment. Over the past five years there have been nearly 30 FAO-sponsored fellows studying forestry, agricultural economics, veterinary science and other agricultural subjects here at the University of Minnesota. A number of your faculty have provided important technical advice to FAO programmes and projects. This country and this state have so much to offer to the world of agriculture. I hope that in the future we can continue to strengthen the links between FAO and institutions such as the University of Minnesota.

I have been requested to address the subject of FAO and the state of world agriculture. This is a broad topic, but there is one underlying theme that is clear as we look across the broad spectrum of issues related to agriculture, fisheries and forestry. This theme is "change." The state of world agriculture has been constantly marked by dramatic change, a change that is now faster than ever.

All over the world agriculture is rapidly opening to world market forces as a result of a combination of political evolution, financial and economic globalization, trade negotiations and technological change. With the economic difficulties being experienced by agricultural producers today in Minnesota, these global changes can easily be a cause for fear.

However, change should not be seen as a cause for fear but as an opportunity for progress. Compared with 50 years ago, tremendous change has been witnessed by the agricultural sector right here in Minnesota, with positive results. Improved technology, greater reliance on global markets, higher value products, new uses for farm products and greater specialization have all transformed agriculture in this state. FAO is part of this change as we facilitate the growing international involvement of Minnesota’s agricultural producers.

As you know, FAO’s mandate is global. To succeed with the mandate of promoting agricultural and food production and fighting hunger, there is a need to learn from and involve farmers, agriculturists, scientists and decision-makers everywhere – including Minnesota. And, I assure you, your involvement will be to your own benefit in many ways.

With the globalization of agricultural and food markets, the need for international awareness and for recognized international definitions and benchmarks has become more essential than ever. Responding to these needs, FAO has gradually become a strong, vital and neutral tool for the promotion and smooth operation of agricultural trade. As when, 54 years ago, it was founded to help rebuild world agriculture after the Second World War, FAO today is at the forefront of international agricultural cooperation. In this role, FAO contributes significantly to the increasing involvement of American agriculture and food industries in global markets.

US food and agricultural producers cannot avoid dealing with the internationalization of their markets. As US domestic farm support programs have been reduced, farm income has become more and more tied to export sales. US farm exports peaked at an annual value of over $60 billion three years ago. But the reliance of US producers on world markets has exposed farmers here to new risks from a volatile international economy.

The Asian financial crisis has caused hardship in that region. The crisis has also seriously reverberated in US commodity markets. USDA recently forecast a significant decline in US agricultural exports this year, down $11 billion—nearly one-fifth from the peak of just three years ago. In this rapidly changing global environment, international cooperation through organizations like FAO is more important than ever in order to facilitate international trade and development.

I will focus today on a few of the key areas where FAO makes a crucial positive difference for America’s food, agriculture, forestry and fisheries producers. These include: 1) collecting and disseminating information on production, trade and nutrition; 2) setting international safety and other standards to facilitate trade; 3) controlling transboundary agricultural pests and diseases; 4) promoting and facilitating agricultural research; and 5) providing policy advice and development assistance in developing countries.

In the changing global environment information is critical. Information and communications technology has been a major driving force behind the globalization of agriculture. FAO maintains the world’s most comprehensive database of international statistics on agricultural production (including fisheries and forestry), trade and nutrition. The data are available through our Internet site which received a monthly average of 6 million "hits" over the last five months. These databases serve American farmers and producers, foresters and fishermen-- the entire range of the food industry. About half of the requests originate in North America, and it is also the case for 55 per cent of the 12 million statistical records downloaded every month from FAO’s statistical databases (FAOSTAT).

A concrete example of the value of data collection and dissemination is FAO’s involvement with the Chinese census of agriculture, the information from which will greatly assist in production and marketing decisions both in China and among its trading partners. FAO technical assistance helped to train over two million enumerators for the Chinese census of agriculture. To put this into perspective, there were more people counting farmers and farm activity in China than there are farmers in Canada and the United States combined.

FAO’s Global Information and Early Warning System (GIEWS) identifies potential crisis situations arising from natural and man-made disasters and monitors ongoing agricultural production using a combination of high-tech satellite monitoring along with traditional on-the-ground observations. This objective information on the food availability situation allows both private voluntary organizations and bilateral donors to react more quickly in crisis situations. These assessments often provide the first comprehensive look at developing food emergencies as well as valuable information for the United States, which is the largest food aid donor in the world.

Moreover, FAO’s data collection and dissemination activities are not always visible directly to American producers—as a matter of fact, they may be benefiting from our work without knowing it. As Under Secretary Schumacher can certainly attest, the US Department of Agriculture uses significant amounts of FAO information to augment and improve their own statistics on global agriculture. Our joint efforts prevent duplication and ultimately result in both better information and savings for American taxpayers.

As trade grows, international standards and their harmonization are vital for the free flow of products. Exporters here in Minnesota, like Pillsbury and General Mills, and everywhere benefit significantly when they can rely on a single set of rules and standards for their products in overseas markets. Packaging, labeling, and food additives can be standardized to ease movement of food products around the world. As the world’s leading agricultural exporter, the United States, perhaps more than any other country, can see the benefit from consistent international standards.

FAO has a long history in its scientific role in establishing international standards relating to plant health and food safety and quality matters. As a result of the Uruguay Round Agreements on agricultural trade, FAO’s role has been broadened and enhanced. Of particular US interest is the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) which set food safety, quality and phytosanitary standards for the food trade.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission has established over 200 food standards, 45 Codes of Practice, and 2,500 maximum limits for residues for agricultural and veterinary chemicals. The United States and many other agricultural exporting countries have for many years used a system of certification based on the model established in the International Plant Protection Convention to assure foreign customers that their imports are free of harmful plant pests. Increasingly, both CODEX and IPPC are viewed as the appropriate fora for the application of science-based standards to difficult questions about international trade and have a direct link to dispute settlements under the WTO Agreements on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Technical Barriers to Trade.

FAO also provides assistance and training to many developing countries to improve their food safety capabilities, bringing their national standards up to and in line with those of Codex Alimentarius. This is vital for improving health and nutrition in developing countries and this, in turn, facilitates trade, clarifies the rules and requirements for US exporters and helps to protect American consumers. FAO is working today with the US Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and American universities to assist Central American countries in developing comprehensive food safety systems to assure improved safety and quality of produce imports into the United States from this region.

With rising world agricultural trade, new threats to agriculture from both old and new pests and diseases are evident everyday. These problems are particularly serious in many developing countries, but no region or country is immune. Diseases like foot and mouth disease and swine fever have, in recent years, devastated production in some of the most agriculturally advanced countries of the world. This global threat to both food security in the poorest countries of the world, and to world agricultural trade in general, is why in 1994 I proposed that FAO redouble its efforts in this area through the Emergency Prevention System against transboundary animal and plant pests and diseases (EMPRES).

The old adage "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is nowhere more evident than in the EMPRES Programme. FAO’s field level work on the transboundary monitoring and control of disease is of immense value to the US. Our work on the Tropical Bont Tick, Classic Swine Fever, and the Carambola fruit fly in the Caribbean is an immediate example in the prevention and control of direct threats to the North American continent.

The Tropical Bont Tick was introduced in the Caribbean in the 19th century. In addition to direct damage to animals from the severe bite of the tick, it also is the vector for heartwater, a serious infectious disease in cattle, sheep and goats. According to a USDA study, the further spread of the Tropical Bont Tick in the Caribbean and to the mainland of North and South America could lead to annual livestock losses of $762 million. As a point of comparison, FAO’s Tropical Bont Tick eradication program is a relatively modest expense over a six-year period of only $20 million to eradicate the tick from the Caribbean region. Funding is from a number of sources including farmers, international donors and governments in the region as well as FAO.

Where these types of preventive actions are not taken, large-scale eradication programs can be quite expensive. The US Government has spent nearly $700 million over the past four decades to eradicate the New World Screwworm from the southern United States and Mexico. By taking early action, as we are doing with the Bont Tick, before these pests and diseases reach the United States, international cooperation saves considerable American public and private resources.

The ease of international travel and increased levels of trade have increased the threat of infectious diseases and pests for US and global agriculture. Distance from centers of certain diseases is no longer a safeguard for American producers. While FAO’s monitoring and control efforts in Asia and Africa on diseases such as rinderpest, foot and mouth disease, African swine fever have an immediate effect on food security in some of the poorest regions of the world, they also serve to reduce the US threat of these and other diseases.

Scientific research and technological improvements have allowed US farmers and ranchers to expand production dramatically. The unparalleled agricultural research capability of the US has certainly led the way in enhancing productivity. However, we should not ignore the great benefits that US farmers and agricultural researchers have also gained from international agricultural research, in particular from research undertaken within the auspices of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). CGIAR research has led to the introduction of new, improved and high-yielding plant varieties on US farms. In 1993, 73% of the total US rice acreage was sown with varieties that owe their ancestry to the International Rice Research Institute, one of the 16 international centers associated through the CGIAR. About 20% of the total US acreage of wheat were of varieties developed originally by CIMMYT – the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center in Mexico. FAO is one of the co-sponsors of CGIAR and maintains the Secretariat of CGIAR’s Technical Advisory Committee, an important priority-setting body in the system. In addition, FAO also has recently taken on the responsibility to provide better coordination of the National Agricultural Research Systems in developing countries, a further potential source of important agricultural knowledge.

New agricultural research is critical for the future of global agriculture. We have made great progress in the past but much more remains to be done. If used properly, today’s existing food production technologies could ensure food security to current world population. This is why FAO’s Special Programme for Food Security concentrates on proven available technologies to increase food production substantially and sustainably. However, although the rate of world population growth is now steadily decreasing, the absolute number of people continues to rise at such a rate that nearly 8 billion people will have to be fed by 2020. Therefore new technologies can and should contribute significantly to world food security, as long as they offer a responsible way to enhance productivity in agriculture and food production with appropriate social, economic, environmental and ethical safeguards to avoid negative effects.

Biotechnology with the relevant biosafety and bioethics holds great promise for improving agricultural productivity and reducing environmental stress caused by agricultural production. Scientists at the University of Minnesota are involved in the full range of biotech research, spanning the horizon from enhancement of production, improved food product attributes, to addressing serious and legitimate environmental concerns.

Again, in this work, we can recognize a direct link to FAO activities. FAO’s work in the conservation of plant genetic resources is essential to ensure that the results of biotechnology research and investment, whether public or private, contribute to overall awareness and orderly access to these resources, and therefore to future agricultural productivity and competitiveness. I should note that FAO’s Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture is the only permanent UN inter-governmental forum dealing specifically with matters related to the conservation and utilization of genetic resources.

Not all people around the world benefit from globalization and the rapid changes taking place in agriculture. There remain over 800 million undernourished people in the world, of which over 200 million are children under the age of five. At FAO the priority of priorities is to improve world food security. At the World Food Summit held at FAO headquarters in November 1996, over 100 Heads of State and Government and representatives of 186 countries committed to cut by half the number of malnourished by 2015.

America has a long and noble history in the fight to eliminate world hunger. America has generously supported humanitarian efforts throughout the world. If we are to achieve the goals of the World Food Summit, the US and other countries will need to continue their global moral commitment. I have no doubt that this commitment will continue, but I should also like to highlight an economic aspect which is often overlooked in the shadow of the moral dimension.

The worldwide efforts led by FAO to improve agriculture in developing countries also have a long-term economic payoff for the US. Today, two out of every five dollars earned by US agriculture exports are from developing countries. These same countries are the fastest growing markets for US farmers as well. Achieving economic growth in many developing countries, where the majority of the population lives in rural areas, requires agricultural development; with agricultural development comes economic growth and the resulting purchasing power to become markets for imports – agricultural and otherwise - from countries like the US.

It is clear that the challenges brought on by the globalization of agriculture demand change in the institutions serving international agriculture. At FAO there has been a dramatic structural revitalization to meet these challenges, making the Organization much more cost-effective and responsive to the problems facing our member countries.

FAO is a leader within the UN System on management reform issues. In the past four years major changes have been made in its services and operations. FAO was the only major UN specialized agency to cut its budget in 1996-97, by 3.4% in nominal terms, and maintained a zero nominal growth budget in 1998-99. FAO has cut posts by 14% in total. There has been a 25% cut in posts at FAO Headquarters in Rome, accompanied by the downgrading and abolishment of many middle management positions. However, countries like the US, which were under-represented among our professional staff, have seen their situation improved. Indeed, the number of US professional staff members has grown from 95 in July 1995 to 130 in July this year. We have also improved the ratio of professional to support staff, eliminated unessential meetings and publications, reduced travel expenses by 25%, all the while actually increasing support for US priority programs like Codex Alimentarius, plant and animal genetic resources, post-harvest management and early warning of food shortages. In this effort, FAO has tried to clearly heed the call of its diverse membership. I believe the results indicate a measure of success amid change.

Thus, we have returned to the theme of change. To close, therefore, I should emphasize once again that my visit to Minnesota has been a most pleasant change for me. I have relished these contacts with farmers, scientists, agribusiness leaders, with students and educators, and with local, state and national officials. I sincerely hope that this review of FAO’s role, of global needs and initiatives, and of their link and relevance to the United States and to Minnesota will spark an interest to learn more, to maintain and indeed strengthen a commitment to agriculture, to fighting hunger, to positive change.