DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: As in the past, the Secretariat has prepared two documents for this agenda item. The first one, the State of Food and Agriculture 1993, identified as C 93/2, is based on information available to the Secretariat up to late July. The second one, identified as C 93/2- Sup.l, contains information to late September. The Director-General's Statement to the Conference yesterday also speaks to the State of Food and Agriculture. As the Director-General stated, the two years since the last Conference have seen major transformations in the political and economic environment surrounding agriculture.
In the industrial world, several countries have undergone crucial changes at the highest political level. Unforeseen financial instability and political problems have slowed the process of integration in western Europe. Countries in eastern and central Europe and the former USSR have continued the process of reform while experiencing, to varying degrees, political and economic disruptions, declines in industrial production and growing poverty and food insecurity problems. Economic activity in the OECD countries has remained stubbornly depressed, with high and increasing unemployment, and uncertain prospects for early recovery. Indeed, as has been the case on every occasion when I have introduced this topic, I must report that the earlier growth estimates for the OECD countries again have been revised downwards significantly. According to the latest International Monetary Fund estimates and forecasts, these economies are expected to expand by only 1.1 percent this year, instead of 1.7 percent previously reported, and by only 2.2 percent in 1994 instead of 2.9 percent.
Nevertheless we have also seen signs of renewed optimism in many Third World countries. Economic growth in the developing countries as a whole has outpaced that of industrial countries. There have been, however, wide regional variations. On the one hand, China has been growing at two-digit rates, perhaps faster than desired; southeast Asian economies have continued rapid expansion; and a number of countries, particularly in Latin America and the Caribbean, seem to be on the way to recovery after years of strenuous adjustment efforts.
On the other hand, we have seen widely fluctuating economic performances in the Near East region and continuing regression in much of Africa. While prospects for the mid-term remain optimistic for Asia and moderately so for
Latin America and the Caribbean and the Near East/North Africa, only slight gains in per caput incomes are expected in sub-Saharan Africa.
Thus, contrasting influences have shaped the climate for agricultural development and nutrition. The depressed state of industrial countries' economies is constraining their domestic and import demand for agricultural products while limiting the availability of donor resources for agricultural development. This pressure on resources for development comes at a time when there has been a surge in man-made disasters and many devastating natural disasters. Together these disasters have led to an unprecedented demand for emergency relief to which the donors have had to respond. On the other hand, the improved economic situation and prospects in many developing countries imply gains in domestic food demand and import capacity, important components of food security. In this mixed picture of gains and losses the situation in sub-Saharan Africa appears especially worrisome. The period since the last Conference has seen a cumulative 4.2 percent fall in per caput income, further aggravating an already precarious food security situation.
Turning now to the supplies of agricultural products, the last two years have been generally poor on a global basis. World crop and livestock production is declining in 1993 following very slow growth last year. World cereal production in 1993 is now forecast to fall by 3.5 percent, in contrast to the 1.5 percent in your document, reflecting mainly a sharper than previously forecast decline in the United States in its coarse grain production. The world catch of fish and shellfish levelled off in 1992 following declines in both 1990 and 1991. Production of the main forestry products has also remained relatively depressed.
While faltering agricultural performances are less of a problem for many developed countries where concerns are usually about excess supply, they are a worrisome matter for much of the developing world. The population of the developing countries has increased by about 4 percent since 1991, an incremental 170 million people, yet agricultural production has only risen by 2.6 percent for the same period. The welcome recovery in food and agricultural production in this year in Africa will still be inadequate even to regain the region's per caput output levels of 1991.
Turning to trade, the developing countries have continued to increase their exports in volume terms at almost twice the rate of the developed countries. However, developing countries' export unit values have continued to decline as primary commodity prices, particularly theirs, have trended downward. This has meant that the terms of trade, both net barter and income of the developing countries have continued to deteriorate.
The GATT Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, now seemingly stalemated as we approach the 15 December deadline, could, if successful, open markets and provide relief for exporting developing countries. Instead, with any agreement still elusive, protectionism and subsidization, particularly by the developed countries, remains heavy, further contributing to depressed commodity prices
Mr Chairman, you will have noticed a number of changes in the format and presentation of the documents before you that take into account comments and suggestions made at previous Council and Conference meetings. I hope we have succeeded in making the documents more readable and informative. I may add that the final SOFA publication is expected to be available by the end of the year in this revised form.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your very interesting and comprehensive statement. May I now invite comments from the floor.
Chrysanthos LOIZIDES (Cyprus): It is a real pleasure for me to congratulate you, Mr Chairman, and the two Vice-chairmen on your election to Commission I. I also want to thank Mr Hjort for his informative introduction of this item.
I wish to begin this brief intervention by expressing the high appreciation of my delegation to the FAO Secretariat for preparing document C 93/2 on The State of Food and Agriculture 1993. The wide and comprehensive information presented in this document, both at the global and regional levels, together with the specific reviews for developing and developed country-regions and selected countries within each region, in our view is very useful indeed.
Evidently, the multi-dimension picture transmitted through the pages of the document is nothing less than the reflection of the current situation of food and agriculture in our planet, and this picture is certainly sad and alarming. Humanity is still faced with the hard reality of chronic undernutrition affecting almost 800 million people, that is, 20 percent of the population of the developing countries. As clearly indicated in Exhibit 2, page 5, in 86 developing countries out of a total of 125, the rate of change in the per caput food production during 1991-92 ranges between zero to minus 10 percent, which means that more than two-thirds of all developing countries recorded stagnant or declining levels of per caput food production.
Food shortage conditions are more acute in Africa, where the per caput agricultural production was reduced by an average rate of 6 percent. Likewise, 14 African countries are currently facing exceptional food emergencies. Similar conditions are also recorded in certain countries of Asia, Latin America and Europe, namely among the ex-socialist countries. It is noteworthy that many of the countries with food emergency needs are also being affected by civil strife.
Table 3 on page 3 6 shows that 31 low-income food-deficit countries, most of them in Africa, have very limited capacity to finance food imports. It also shows that 47 countries are highly dependent on agricultural exports. On the other hand the figures on Table 4, page 49, reveal very clearly, that despite the significant improvements in yields and production levels of agricultural products, originating from the aforementioned countries, corresponding incomes have been reduced during the last decade due to price decreases, namely for tropical products such as coffee, cocoa, sugar and natural rubber.
Likewise, the transformation process in most of the countries of Eastern Europe and the former USSR is encountering major obstacles. The gross domestic product in real terms is registered with a continuous decline during the last four years, as shown in Figure 1, page 26, and in many of these countries social stability and trade performance are characterized by a high degree of uncertainty.
The external debt situation of developing countries is also an alarming reality, closely related to food security and undernutrition.
As stated in Box 1, page 29, the total external debt of 116 developing countries, estimated to be US$ 1 418 billion at the end of 1991, was projected to reach US$ 1 510 in 1992, i.e. an absolute increase of US$ 92 billion within a year. For the severely indebted low-income countries the ratio of debt to gross national product is estimated to be 113 percent, while the ratio of debt service to exports is estimated to be 22 percent during 1992. These figures are very indicative of the extremely difficult financial conditions in most of the developing countries. Under such conditions the prospects for poverty alleviation, which is widely recognized as a prerequisite for combating undernutrition, are surely very limited.
Another important element, mentioned in Box 1, paragraph 4, is that the debt originating from agriculture-related projects represents approximately 6 percent of the total external debt of the aforesaid countries. Although the loans for agriculture are usually provided on concessional terms, it is evident that the external finance for agriculture is very low. However, the wide agricultural sector is expected to play a crucial role in the process of overall development, especially in countries where a large part of the population depends on this sector, from the viewpoint of employment, food and income.
In the light of these observations, we share the view that there is considerable scope for improvement in specific issues affecting agricultural development, such as terms of trade, increased agricultural investments, where needed, utilizing the so-called idle resources in developed countries, including the expected peace dividend, savings from disarmament, and the expansion of regional and interregional cooperation.
In this respect I wish to emphasize the role of FAO, the leading international agency for promoting cooperation and providing policy and training assistance aimed at increasing agricultural and rural development, particularly in the low-income food-deficit countries.
José Antonio OCAMPO GAVIRIA (Colombia): Quisiera referirme en mi intervención, Señor Presidente, a dos conjuntos de temas. El primero de ellos tiene que ver con las apreciaciones que trae el documento sobre el sector cafetero, donde constatamos una apreciación incorrecta sobre el manejo de la política cafetera en nuestro país. Y, el segundo, sobre los efectos que están teniendo las políticas proteccionistas de los países desarrollados sobre algunos de los mercados más sensibles para nosotros.
Sobre el primero de estos temas, en la página 8, se dice lo siguiente: "Las reducciones más fuertes de producción se registraron en Brasil, Guatemala y México, mientras que en Colombia se obtuvo una nueva cosecha sin precedentes, debido principalmente a las subvenciones otorgadas por el Fondo Nacional del Café".
Yo quiero, Señor Presidente, resaltar el hecho de que si bien en varios países productores de café en los últimos años se han utilizado, en efecto, subvenciones o subsidios. Ese no es el sistema que se emplea en Colombia. El Fondo Nacional del Café es el fondo de estabilización de precios, de productos de exportación más exitoso a nivel nacional que existe posiblemente en el mundo en desarrollo. Es un fondo que ha operado exitosamente desde el año 1940 y que a lo largo de su historia ha hecho grandes contribuciones a las finanzas públicas; y, por el contrario, rara
vez, y ésta no ha sido ciertamente la situación durante la coyuntura reciente, ha recibido apoyo del Gobierno Nacional.
Es esencialmente un mecanismo que funciona estableciendo gravámenes a los productores de café durante las épocas de altos precios internacionales para utilizar esos ingresos durante los períodos de bajos precios internacionales. Ese es el instrumento que ha sido utilizado durante la coyuntura reciente. Durante el período de fuerte reducción de los precios internacionales, que se inició a raíz del colapso del Acuerdo Internacional del Café, a mediados de 1989, el Fondo Nacional del Café permitió que Colombia utilizara los ahorros que habían hecho los propios apicultores en el Fondo Nacional del Café, para sostener el precio interno del grano y ajustarse sólo en forma gradual, como se ha venido haciendo desde entonces, a la caída que habían venido experimentando los precios internacionales.
En varios momentos, efectivamente, hemos otorgado a los productores del café un precio interno que excede significativamente del precio internacional. Pero eso no es ningún subsidio ni subvención, ni se le puede llamar por ninguno de esos nombres; es simplemente una forma de utilizar los ahorros forzosos que hicieron los caficultores en sus épocas de abundancia.
Le ruego por tanto, Señor Presidente, que en la versión final de este documento se suprima en la referencia al sistema cafetero de Colombia la palabra "subvención", ya que es una apreciación incorrecta sobre nuestro mecanismo de manejo cafetero.
Por lo demás, Señor Presidente, yo quiero resaltar el hecho de que la existencia de este Fondo Nacional del Café de Colombia es un ejemplo que bien valdría la pena resaltar en su documento, acerca de cómo se puede a nivel nacional manejar crisis internacionales tan profundas como la que ha experimentado a nivel de la economía mundial el sector cafetero. Precisamente por la ausencia de mecanismos de esta naturaleza en el resto de países productores, ellos no han tenido alternativas diferentes al trasladarle a sus productores la fuerte baja en las cotizaciones internacionales del grano que, como bien resalta el informe, ha sido la más fuerte de cualquiera de las commodities del mundo en desarrollo o, si consideran que se deben adoptar algunas medidas de fomento, dedicar recursos fiscales explícitos a ese propósito, dando lo que en la práctica así ha sido, un sistema de subsidios o subvenciones que han utilizado muchos países productores pero, como ya lo he resaltado, no mi país.
Yo quiero, por otra parte, Señor Presidente, como también lo haré en mi presentación ante el conjunto de la Asamblea, resaltar la importancia que tiene para todos los países cafeteros el reciente Pacto de Retención que fue firmado bajo el liderazgo de los países productores latinoamericanos: Colombia, Brasil, Centroamérica, y algunos otros productores sudamericanos, el grueso de los productores africanos, y algunos productores asiáticos.
El Señor Director General hizo en su presentación ante la Asamblea una apreciación correcta sobre la ausencia de mecanismos de estabilización a nivel internacional. Por diversas causas que no son del caso analizar con detenimiento aquí, los pactos de productos primarios, entre los cuales uno de los ejemplos más destacados era el café, han entrado desde hace ya varios años en un proceso de crisis, quizás irreversible; pero ninguno de los otros mecanismos que ha sido diseñado y propuesto a nivel internacional, desde hace dos o tres décadas, ha podido entrar en el escenario para cumplir el papel estabilizador que antes desempeñaban los
acuerdos de los productos primarios. Algunos analistas simplistas de algunas agencias internacionales nos han tratado de decir que la solución a este problema son los mercados de futuros; pero cuando se trata de estabilizar ciclos de precios, Señor Presidente, que tienen lugar a lo largo de 20 ó 25 años, como ocurre en el caso del café, yo quiero que primero me demuestren cuál es el mercado de futuros que puede entrar a jugar el papel que previa e históricamente han desempeñado los acuerdos de productos primarios.
Por eso, Señor Presidente, mi pais fue promotor de la renovación del Acuerdo Internacional de Café aun sabiendo, como lo sabíamos antes de la ruptura del Pacto, que eramos el país más fuerte para enfrentar la crisis cafetera internacional precisamente porque contábamos con el mejor instrumento del manejo interno del mundo cafetero como era el Fondo Nacional del Café. Aun así promovimos el Pacto Internacional y una vez que se rompió el Pacto, demostramos que eramos el más fuerte para manejar la crisis cafetera, y lo seguimos demostrando día tras día; pero aun así, seguimos creyendo que solamente mediante la colaboración entre países productores y consumidores, a través de un acuerdo de productos primarios, es posible estabilizar los ingresos de los productores de países en desarrollo y, especialmente, de los países en desarrollo más pobres que no tienen acceso al tipo de instrumentos que a lo largo de nuestra historia hemos podido diseñar.
Desafortunadamente no ha sido propico el ambiente para la renovación del Acuerdo y por eso, sabiendo que históricamente es un instrumento subóptimo los países productores decidimos tomar el camino independiente de buscar una reactivación de corto plazo en los precios internacionales, sabiendo que de otra manera la producción mundial de café está condenada a un colapso sin paralelo en la historia del producto a nivel internacional.
Esa es la política que hemos seguido y que no ha sido comprendida por el principal país consumidor del café, y por esta razón queremos hoy en día decir en esta Asamblea que lamentamos profundamente su retiro de la Organización Internacional del Café bajo el pretexto de que los países productores habíamos tomado una iniciativa a la cual nos vimos abocados por la fuerza de las circunstancias.
El segundo tema, señor Presidente, al cual quiero referirme, es el del resurgimiento del proteccionismo que ha condenado a varios de nuestros productos de exportación a una situación crecientemente difícil. Entre ellos quisiéramos mencionar, en primer término, el banano, producto para el cual a partir del primero de julio del presente año entró en vigencia un nuevo arreglo en la Comunidad Económica Europea que significó para los países exportadores de América Latina, de los cuales Colombia y Costa Rica son los principales exportadores a la Comunidad, un sacrificio muy importante. Significó una reducción del orden de un 20 por ciento en las cantidades que veníamos exportando a la Comunidad y la pérdida de un estatus de libre comercio que había venido prevaleciendo con cerca de la mitad de los países de la Comunidad Europea. Algunos con el arancel que la Comunidad había consolidado en el GATT y otros, el caso particular de Alemania, sin arancel alguno.
El establecimiento del régimen de la Comunidad ha tenido dos efectos que quisiéramos resaltar aquí. El primero ha sido frenar uno de los crecimientos más dinámicos de las exportaciones de varios países latinoamericanos, entre ellos Ecuador, Colombia y Costa Rica, como los principales productores latinoamericanos de la fruta; pero también varios
otros países centroamericanos, y como ya comenzaba a perfilarse, algunos países tradicionalmente no exportadores de banano, como Venezuela y México. Pero, segundo, y más importante, han puesto a las comercializadoras de banano de nuestros países bajo el yugo de las empresas comercializadoras europeas.
Como es del conocimiento de todos ustedes, el mercado mundial del banano ha sido tradicionalmente dominado, o fue dominado, por unas cuantas empresas multilaterales. Gracias a un esfuerzo empresarial sin precedentes en la historia de nuestro país, y de algunos otros países de la Región, los productores pudieron organizarse como comercializadoras exitosas de banano, y nuestras comercializadoras de banano habían logrado concentrar el 80 o el 85 por ciento de las exportaciones crecientes de la fruta, tanto a Estados Unidos como a la Comunidad Económica Europea.
Este esfuerzo de crear comercializadoras propias en productos tradicionalmente dominados por comercializadoras de países desarrollados, lo veíamos como uno de los grandes desarrollos de ese producto, y nos hemos encontrado con la sorpresa, Señor Presidente, de que el nuevo régimen de la Comunidad corta de raíz lo que había sido ese proceso exitoso para poner a las comercializadoras independientes nuestras con un crecimiento dinámico en los últimos años bajo dependencia total de las comercializadoras Europeas a las cuales se les asigna las cuotas. Las cuotas son un régimen oprobioso para los exportadores, pero cuando se le asignan las cuotas a los países compradores son doblemente oprobiosas. Queremos llamar la atención sobre este hecho que duplica los costos que el nuevo régimen tiene para nuestros países.
Por último quiero decir que esta tendencia se ha venido acrecentando en varios otros productos. Quisiera entre otras cosas resaltar, porque somos también parte demandante ante el GATT, el nuevo régimen tabacalero de los Estados Unidos, que establece la obligación a las empresas productoras de cigarrillos de utilizar un 75%, como mínimo, de tabaco norteamericano, o los subsidios que establece este país a la producción algodonera, que conjuntamente con otros desarrollos han implicado que el grueso del ajuste en la producción mundial de algodón ha recaído sobre los países en desarrollo y en particular sobre los países latinoamericanos, entre ellos el mío.
Este Organismo, como todos los organismos internacionales, debe convertirse en un defensor a ultranza de un ambiente más libre para el comercio agrícola internacional. Porque ese ambiente es el único que es compatible con los intereses de los países en desarrollo.
P. VAN STEEKELENBURG (EEC): Firstly, let me congratulate you, Mr Chairman, and your two Vice-chairmen, on being elected to these very important posts. I am sure we shall have very successful sessions under your chairmanship. I also thank Mr Hjort for his substantial introduction to the various issues.
I wish to make a statement on behalf of the European Community and its Member States on agenda item 6.1.
As underlined by our Commissioner for Agriculture, Mr Steichen, in his speech at the Plenary session, we are very happy to be able to participate now fully in the important work of FAO, and to contribute to the realization of its objectives.
We have looked with great interest at the excellent report of the State of Food and Agriculture, and we share the worries expressed in it concerning the very modest increase in global agricultural production. This is particularly so in developing countries where the increase of 1.7 percent - I refer to the old document, we do not have the supplement available, I am sorry - is largely eroded by population growth and no less than two-thirds of the countries recorded stagnant or declining levels of per caput food production. It is good to see that in Africa, where there is the highest concentration of poor production, some bright spots can also be found, notably Nigeria and Ghana.
One of the most worrying aspects of the gloomy picture of Africa being the continent most seriously affected, with 14 countries facing exceptional food emergencies, is the fact that half of these are also having civil strife and armed conflict. This fact does not allow one to expect substantial improvements at short notice, whatever the international donor community undertakes. Therefore, it is no surprise to see that, of Africa's total cereals imports of close to 20 million tonnes in 1992-93, a third was food aid. In other regions of the world, this ratio of total imports to food aid was much lower: in Asia only 8 to 9 percent of the 3 5 million tonnes was food aid, the rest being commercial imports.
Although, according to the Report, external assistance to agriculture has declined in real terms over the last couple of years, you may be interested to note that the European Community has continued to emphasize agricultural development in its aid programmes. On top of that, the latter's grant element is usually more than 90 percent. There are no plans to change our policies in this respect.
The EC Member States have largely the same approach, although in some cases the grant element may be at a somewhat lower level. Provisional figures for 1991 indicate that the average grant element of EC Member States is more than 80 percent of total official development aid commitments.
Concerning the overall economic environment, you may have noticed that all legal obstacles to the Maastricht Treaty have now been lifted; this important step towards European union came into effect on 1 November, just a few days ago. We all look forward to further reinforcement of the European Union in economic, monetary and political terms, and we are convinced that a united Europe can make an important contribution to stability and economic growth on a global scale.
As regards the reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy and its impact on production, farm incomes and farm structures, as well as on the environment, we much appreciate the analysis provided by the Secretariat. As is rightly indicated in its Report, the total effect of the measures aimed at reduced production of arable crops, meat and dairy products are hard to forecast. Nonetheless, it should be anticipated that total production of cereals will be reduced considerably and exports will, therefore, progressively decrease as carry-over stocks may become smaller. Such stock reductions can also be expected in other countries once the Uruguay negotiations have come to a conclusion. The availability of food for emergency situations may become an important issue.
On the other hand, the European Community and its Member States are fully aware of the global benefits which should result from more liberalized international trade and are therefore committed to bringing the Uruguay Round to a successful conclusion. The Community continues its efforts to
this end, in order to come to a final agreement which will be equitable and take due account of the interests and possibilities of all parties to the negotiations.
In this context, it may be recalled that the EC has always indicated its readiness to consider, in priority terms, special food aid to low-income, food-deficient countries in case the outcome of the GATT negotiations has an adverse effect on the balance of world markets for agricultural products, thus affecting substantially their food import capacities. Concerning the relations between the European Community and its Member States on one hand and its partners in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific on the other, the present fourth Lomé Convention covers the period 1990-1999. Its financial protocol for the first half which represents about 14 billion dollars should be renewed for the second five-year period. It is likely that during this process some other provisions of the Convention may be changed, so as to further improve coherence and efficiency of its various instruments.
It has been said before on other occasions, but I think it is necessary to repeat here, that aid provided by the EC and its Member States‚ for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and to the members of the Commonwealth of Independent States is not at the expense of ongoing actions and programmes for developing countries. For the latter, the commitments are there and remain unchanged. Any fears on this perspective are unfounded. Aid to Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS is on top of ongoing programmes for other areas.
The International Conference on Nutrition adopted a Plan of Action that provides guidelines for governments working together with other agents, non-government and private sector donors to reduce hunger and all forms of malnutrition. The food security approach that has been one of the guiding principles of the Community's developmental cooperation efforts for well over 10 years now is to a large extent built on similar principles to those in the Plan of Action. It is no exaggeration to say that the EC looks very attentively at the Plan of Action, a number of whose principles we have advocated and complied with over many years. The Declaration and the Plan of Action should guide us in the fixing of our priorities in this field.
Ulrich D. KNŰPPEL (EEC): I would like to add a word on bananas as the delegate from Colombia has addressed the question.
You are well aware that this matter has been raised on many occasions already, in the CCP, in COAG and in Council meetings. I can, therefore, be brief.
I had to address this question also at the Council meeting last week. Interested parties can look to the verbatim report of 3 November to see this report.
I have three remarks. While it is true that imports into the Community under the new banana regime have decreased compared with last year's imports, it is also true that there was a remarkable increase in prices in the Community and, according to all reports, the benefits of those increases in prices go to a large extent to the exporting countries. I think that this fact should also be acknowledged.
The second aspect is that the GATT Panel on the new Community regime has started work and will probably deliver its report at a very early stage, much earlier than under normal GATT procedures.
Thirdly, the Community has started GATT negotiations under Article XXVIII of GATT. As Colombia is part of those negotiations, Colombia will be fully in a position to exercise its GATT rights. The case is the same for all other GATT contracting parties which have either an initial negotiating right, a principal or a substantial interest.
Mme Yvette LANGRAND (France): Je voudrais tout d'abord, Monsieur le Président, vous présenter mes vives félicitations concernant votre élection.
Ce document sur la situation mondiale de l'alimentation et de l'agriculture témoigne de la capacité de l'Organisation à présenter les forces et les faiblesses de la production et des échanges agricoles et agro-alimentaitres.
Le contact d'inquiétude et d'espoir à la fois que nous faisions au cours de la 26ème session est sensiblement le même en 1993:
- une production céréalière mondiale à peu près stable avec une légère amélioration des exportations des pays en développement;
- une amélioration de la croissance dans certains pays asiatiques notamment, mais aussi dans certains pays d'Amérique latine et d'Afrique;
- une légère régression de la malnutrition chronique.
Mais les facteurs d'inquiétude sont toujours là et d'autres apparaissent.
Peu de situations s'améliorent dans les 47 pays les moins avancés (PMA) qui connaissent leur quatrième année consécutive de ralentissement de l'activité économique.
L'Afrique subsaharienne, malgré certains progrès de la production agricole globale, reste largement dépendante de l'aide internationale, et notamment de l'aide alimentaire.
D'autres facteurs négatifs sont signalés à juste titre.
Les difficultés économiques des pays développés entraînent une baisse de leurs importations et freinent les exportations des PED. L'aide internationale connaît par ailleurs un certain essoufflement lié à ces difficultés.
La dégradation des terres et la pénurie d'eau sont aggravées par les déplacements de populations dus aux tensions qui se manifestent dans le monde.
La relative stabilité de la production céréalière que nous évoquions ne signifie pourtant pas que la sécurité alimentaire soit assurée à terme pour tous les pays et toutes les couches de la population.
La tendance de l'évolution démographique à moyen terme dans une grande partie des pays d'Afrique et d'Asie, notamment, entraînera certainement une forte augmentation de la demande d'approvisionnement globale.
D'autre part, les guerres civiles et les catrastrophes naturelles qui touchent particulièrement le continent africain entraînent à la fois, avec le déplacement des producteurs, la diminution de la production des pays en guerre, l'augmentation des besoins insolvables et la dégradation des capacités de production des sites dans lesquels elles sont regroupées.
C'est dire que nous devons prendre garde:
- d’un côté, à maintenir un potentiel de production alimentaire suffisant dans les pays développés;
- de l'autre, à encourager les pays en développement à atteindre l'autosuffisance alimentaire.
A cet égard, l'étude faite au chapitre "contexte économique et perspectives de l'agriculture" est particulièrement intéressante dans votre document.
Tout indique que l'économie des pays en développement, pour se développer, a besoin de la bonne santé de l'économie des pays développés, et qu'elle devrait s'appuyer sur la capacité de soutien économique et financier, et sur la capacité d'importations de ces derniers, pour réduire dans le temps l'écart de revenus entre les pays les plus riches et les pays les plus défavorisés.
Il est d'autant plus nécessaire pour les pays en transition d'Europe centrale et orientale de recevoir l'appui des organisations multilatérales pour poursuivre la réorganisation de leurs économies. Certains de ces pays pourraient en effet, compte tenu de leurs ressources naturelles, jouer un rôle moteur dans les échanges internationaux et élargir le cercle des pays solvables susceptibles d'aider leurs voisins moins favorisés.
Pour atteindre l'autosuffisance alimentaire, des plans d'action traduisant une forte volonté nationale de réduire la pauvreté et de donner, notamment aux ruraux, les moyens de se prendre en charge eux-mêmes ont permis d'améliorer les revenus et l'emploi.
Ces plans s'intègrent dans des programmes d'ajustement structurel qui, dans le secteur agricole, prennent de plus en plus en compte les risques que font courir à la sécurité alimentaire certaines mesures de libéralisation des marchés intérieurs.
Concernant la libéralisation que beaucoup opposent au protectionnisme comme le remède à tous les maux des pays en développement, M. le Ministre de l'agriculture et de la pêche français a indiqué hier la position française dans les négociations en cours.
Notre délégation précisera ses préoccupations concernant les menaces que font peser les mesures de libéralisation sans pondération sur les productions agricoles des pays dont l'économie est fragile, dans ses interventions ultérieures, notamment celle concernant le point 2 sur la sécurité alimentaire.
Il est en effet de mieux en mieux admis que les producteurs agricoles des pays en développement, qui sont les moins protégés du monde, doivent
bénéficier de conditions stables de production et de commercialisation de leurs produits. Il convient donc d'accorder une priorité élevée à l'assistance en matière de stratégie alimentaire et de politique agricole.
Dans cet esprit, la France a décidé de poursuivre son soutien à l'Organisation dans le domaine de la formation à l'analyse et à la mise en oeuvre des politiques agricoles.
Il nous paraît indispensable que les nations soient armées pour lutter efficacement contre la faim et la pauvreté, deux défis qui sont évoqués dans le document "Agriculture Horizon 2010".
Ma délégation n'interviendra pas sur ce point particulier. Mais elle tient cependant à vous dire dès maintenant combien est grande sa satisfaction concernant la qualité d'un document qui constitue une base de réflexion tout à fait intéressante sur les perspectives qu'offrent l'agriculture et son environnement à moyen terme.
Le monde a devant lui des problèmes majeurs: la réduction de la pauvreté, l'amélioration de l'accès à la nourriture, la préservation des ressources naturelles, ces grands thèmes déjà évoqués par la CNUED et par la CIN dont l'étroite interaction est mise en évidence dans ce document.
Certains chiffres appellent une mobilisation accrue des organisations internationales : c'est le cas, en particulier, des données concernant les populations qui seront, en 2010, au-dessous du minimum nutritionnel, compte tenu de l'insuffisance des productions locales; c'est le cas aussi des données concernant les forêts dévastées et le rapport entre la terre et l'homme.
La prise de conscience de ces interactions incite de plus en plus les Etats à raisonner dans ce grand ensemble qu'est le système écologique et économique mondial.
Le document 2010 est pour nous l'outil de réflexion et de travail que nous attendions. Et nous vous en remercions.
J. HAKI (Tanzania): First, may I, on behalf of my delegation, extend the warmest congratulations to you, Mr Chairman, on your election to the Chair of this important session of the Commission. We sincerely believe that your wisdom will guide our deliberations to a fruitful outcome.
We also wish to extend similar warm congratulations to the Vice-chairman of this Commission and to the Deputy Director-General on his comprehensive overview of the food and agriculture situation for 1993. Furthermore, we commend the Secretariat on producing a very comprehensive and informative report, C 93/2, and the Supplement, on the State of Food and Agriculture. The tables and graphics contained in Part I of the report are particularly informative. This document is a clear manifestation of FAO's undisputed leadership in the knowledge of the world's food and agricultural situation.
Our delegation has taken a particularly keen interest in paragraphs 122-157 of the report "Biotechnology: challenges and opportunities for the 1990's". We note that biotechnology in the developed world is mostly a preserve of the private sector. This situation will inevitably lead to increased secrecy of research findings. It will, therefore, hinder the free flow of scientific information. We are also equally concerned that the involvement
of the private sector might lead to the choice of research agendas which are predominantly beneficial to the First World and might be detrimental to the Third World.
While we acknowledge the many positive contributions or outcomes that might be obtained or gained from biotechnology approaches, such as those mentioned in paragraphs 131-143, we are understandably deeply concerned about the issues raised in paragraphs 146-149 and in particular paragraph 152.
The prospects for genetically engineered coffee or pyrethrum are real and are not far away. This will be the final death knell in our already dying commodity export-based economies.
We therefore count on the FAO to take initiatives to guide biotechnological research to responsible application and for the benefit of all mankind. We also hope that the FAO will provide the requisite technical advice and training in the use of biotechnology to developing countries in order either to raise crop productivity or create opportunities for crop diversification.
The issue of biotechnology will be with us for many years to come. Collective responsibility is imperative.
Eberhard SCHMAUZ (Germany) (Original language German) : May I first of all congratulate you, Mr Chairman, and the Deputy Chairmen of this Commission, on your election. Your long experience in FAO matters is most likely the best precondition for the successful completion of our work in Commission I. I would like to thank the Secretariat for the document they have prepared and its Supplement, which gives an overview on the State of Food and Agriculture and the situation in the nutritional sector. I would also like to thank you, Mr Hjort, for your presentation of this document.
The delegation of the European Commission mentioned a whole series of subjects in its presentation which are important from the point of view of the Community. It also mentioned the alarming situation in food production in some regions and the concerns that this raises. Therefore, I would like to limit my statement just to a few crucial points.
The percentages given in Table 1 of document C 93/2 on page 3 show the serious trend of food supply, especially in Africa, Eastern Europe and in the former Soviet Union. However, they say little about the per capita food production in absolute terms. A more important but also depressing picture can be gleaned from the per capita consumption in various agricultural product groups in the various regions of the world. On the basis of the FAO statistics available the per capita consumption of cereals, fruit, vegetables, meat and milk was calculated for 1982 and 1990, and the situation is then as follows. In industrialized countries, consumption was 1.8 kg per day, and that is almost twice as much as the consumption in developing countries, where 990 grams were available. In Africa, the figure is only 700 grams per capita. Daily per capita consumption of staple food and processed products, excluding cereals, is twice as high in industrialized countries as far as fruit and vegetables are concerned as it is in developing countries. The daily consumption of milk and meat products as an essential source of protein, aside from fish, is only 20 percent in developing countries of what it is in the industrialized countries. As far as fish consumption is concerned, the developing countries' figures are considerably lower.
These statistics are not surprising really. Nor is the fact that the African continent has the lowest supply. They show from a somewhat different perspective how precarious the food situation is in some regions, the most affected being the developing countries in Africa and the Far East.
In a whole series of countries this situation is exacerbated not least through political instability, wars and natural disasters.
The Federal Republic of Germany has taken greater account of these conditions in its development aid in the last few years. Food aid globally, in other words bilateral measures, as well as the German contribution to the World Food Programme, as well as its contribution within the framework of the EC, has increased from 500 million DM in 1990 to 575 million DM in 1991 and 665 million DM in 1992. Humanitarian aid in the food sector to central, eastern and southern Europe, as well as to the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union, is not included in these programmes of assistance.
Part II of the document gives an interesting overview for some countries in the various regions and shows what the agricultural performances have been.
Against this background, may I now make some comments on the changes in the agricultural sector in the East German areas of the Federal Republic of Germany, the so-called new federal states (Länder). The process that was and is going on there at the moment shows numrous parallels with the reform efforts in eastern and central Europe and in the former Soviet Union.
Since the establishment of German unity two totally different agricultural structures are being amalgamated in a worldwide unique process. In the western Länder the average size of full-time farms was about 3 0 hectares in 1990 as against a size in the former German Democratic Republic of several thousand hectares per farm of state-owned farms and agricultural provinces' cooperatives. Similar differences existed in livestock numbers. Whilst in the old Federal Republic there was a continuous, slow process of structural change, in the new Länder we witnessed a total breakdown of the structures from a centrally-planned economy to a market economy.
My government has supported the restructuring in the new Länder since 1990 with a whole series of measures to stabilize markets and reorganize farm structures. For structural promotion, the Community had also made available resources in the framework of its programmes. A priority agricultural policy concern of my government is the speedy establishment of an efficient market-oriented and environmentally-friendly agriculture. Measured against the partly disastrous situation in agriculture in the former DDR from where we started, considerable progress has already been made. In spite of extensive measures to improve the agrarian structure, supported by considerable financial resources and accompanied by social measures, the process of adaptation in the new Länder is far from completion.
Adjustment of farm structures continues. However, the time of drastic changes is over. The property conflicts continue at the level of owners disappropriated between 1945 and 1990 and with the former agricultural producer cooperatives which in their former form were discontinued. There has been progress also in the drastic reduction of labour. From 850 000 in the former German Democratic Republic working in the agricultural sector, we now have a figure of only 200 000. The new Länder have about one-third
of the agricultural surface in Germany, one-sixth of livestock numbers and a share of about 18 percent in the value added by the agricultural sector. The number of farms in the new Lander has more than quadrupled. Plant and animal production were again amalgamated and environmental pollution reduced. Of the present 22 000 farms with different legal forms 86 percent are individual enterprises and companies managing about 28 percent of the farm land. The average farm size is about 150 ha.
My government will continue effectively to accompany the process of adaptation in the new Lander with the help of the EC partners. We are also making efforts to share our experience with other countries undergoing a process of reform, to provide aid for them in order to try and avoid as much as possible mistakes being committed in the process of reform and to avoid repeating mistakes that might have happened before.
Tao-Jin KWON (Korea, Republic of): Before making my comments on the state of food and agriculture, may I congratulate Mr Redl on his election as Chairman of Commission I. In addition, I would like to thank Mr Hjort for giving us a clear and succinct summary of the state of food and agriculture.
In relation to the statement on the world's food and agriculture, my greatest concern lies in the fact that we might be threatened with a crisis in world food security. I am worried that the poor people of many countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America may face even more difficult situations due to the reduction of food stocks following the formidable damage done to many of the world's major bread-basket regions by adverse climatic conditions this year.
As we all know, the majority of the developing countries earn their foreign exchange by exporting agricultural products, yet developing countries are continuing to face formidable obstacles to provide the food they need because there is no sign of international prices for agricultural commodities taking a turn. In addition, they have experienced many difficulties in their efforts to invest in the industrial sector to create employment opportunities.
I am of the opinion that our long-term goals to free countries from hunger and starvation and to stabilize the foundation for global parity can be realized through a balanced agricultural sector in every nation.
Agro-fisheries serve the function of providing employment, economic help, food aid, balanced development of land and environmental conservation. In the developing countries, the agricultural sector is more important than others because it is the foundation of economic development. In this sense, I regret the fact that there has been an imbalance in countries and regions between agricultural and rural development. I hope that FAO will provide global measures to correct this situation. We cannot overlook the tragedy of 40 000 children dying of hunger and starvation every day in Asia, Africa and Latin America. We must protect the global environment, the very basis of the resources for agricultural production, which has been increasingly weakened especially in the developing countries. I hope that the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Negotiations will bring about a result whereby a desirable basis for the agro-fishery industry will be maintained throughout the world.
I further hope that the outcome of the Uruguay Round will provide favourable conditions to enable food-deficit countries to go forward in an effort to improve their national food security situation. Moreover, I believe that FAO and other related international organizations perform a valuable catalytic function by guiding the different actions of different countries. This must be expanded to enable them to contribute in this direction.
In this regard, I have high esteem for the leadership of FAO in their efforts to conduct public debates in order to find solutions for sustainable development, agricultural development, to increase the role of women in agriculture, to improve nutritional status and to preserve plant and genetic resources as well as marine biological resources. However, with regard to the conservation of marine biological resources, it would be most appropriate to give consideration to the legitimacy of sustainable development and where necessary, step-by-step regulatory measures should be taken.
In conclusion, I urge WFP and other international organizations to fight the battle of food security with renewed energy. I urge all member countries to provide every possible support and participation in these efforts.
J.A.M. VAN SLUISVELD (Netherlands): I would like to join previous speakers in congratulating you, Mr Chairman, and the two Vice-chairmen on your election. I also want to thank the Deputy Director-General for his clear introduction of document C 93/2, The State of Food and Agriculture. This document gives us an interesting and useful view of the developments in world agricultural production, consumption, trade and of the influences of world economic trends in the agricultural sector.
In many developing countries, agriculture is the most important sector of the economy. This sector depends very much, however, on external economic developments such as international prices, currencies, interest rates, and the relationship between world supply of and demand for their agricultural products. As the Representative of the European Community on behalf of its Member States has already said, the increase in agricultural production was modest. This was in the framework of the limited average economic growth at global level during the last biennium. In spite of this increase there is still reason for special attention for a considerable number of countries, especially developing ones. The still existing commodity problem, the restricted access to the markets of developed countries and the low world market prices for imported products weigh heavily on the economies of many developing countries and their further development. We hope that the Uruguay Round which has not yet come to a positive conclusion - because we are sure that this will bring about many other reforms - will be beneficial for the world economy.
In this connection, I want to mention developments in the Central and Eastern European countries and in the countries of the former Soviet Union, which are extremely important for the whole economy. In the developing countries there were many positive developments since the last Conference of FAO, but in the weakest economies the situation is still causing grave concern. Among other reasons, civil strife is often the cause of a disastrous situation in a number of countries, and we hope this strife can be brought to an end soon.
Bernardo PALESTINI (Italy): Mr Chairman, the Italian delegation congratulates you on your appointment as Head of Commission I, whose task is to discuss the main problems of food and agricultural policy. We are sure that our meetings will be successful thanks to your experience and competence. We also congratulate the Secretariat on the document submitted for our examination.
With reference to document C 93/2, the first chapter provides us with a summary of the world situation. It offers a world economic review according to countries and according to food and agricultural production, agricultural trade, foreign assistance in food aid, fisheries and forestry. The overall picture is described in document C 93/2-Sup.l and the perspectives envisaged therein at first sight are not very encouraging.
The preliminary estimates for different commodities show for 1993 a decline of 1.5 percent in the global production of cereals. In particular, wheat is expected to increase by an average of 1.6 percent while a sustained decline is expected for other cereals. Nevertheless export prices are expected to diminish due to heavy stocks in exporting countries and increased production in some countries like Australia and Argentina. The decline in export prices will seriously affect developing countries who are vulnerable owing to less diversification of their production.
On the other hand, to obtain a reduction of stocks in major producing countries is only possible up to a certain point in order to be able to deal with food emergencies. It is thus essential to make the necessary policy adjustments to improve the necessary distribution channels to provide food where and when it is most needed.
As far as Italy is concerned, notwithstanding the economic momentum, aid to the developing countries will continue with more regard being paid to multilateral programmes. Environmental programmes which affect many developed countries and also some of the developing ones are taken into consideration, whereas production increase will have to be comparable with the preservation of natural resources. In this connection, I would just like to say a few words on forestry and the timber trade.
The marketing of timber has taken off. after two years stagnation. This is particularly meaningful as the steady decrease in trade in tropical wood was due to the fact that exporting countries preferred to have their products processed by national enterprise and encouraged the sale of completed or half-completed products. It is worth pointing out, however, that commercial activities are not the main cause of deforestation.
Silvicultural practice is the most effective and direct remedy to establish the principle of sustainable management of forests. The role of FAO in promoting such programmes is of paramount importance. It is essential to exercise certain control on wood products in order to be sure that wood is taken from forests managed in accordance with sustainable principles, thus preventing irregular and unqualified taking out of wood. The decision of importing countries in any case should not look like an imposition clashing with the interests of the exporting countries. The various controls must discourage a marketing of forestry products which is against the preservation of forests, and would encourage a shift towards their cultivation. Biotechnology in forestry is of interest even if various species are related to longer cycles than agricultural ones. We recall the important results of micropropagation and selection of clones.
Finally, we would point out that modern techniques are of fundamental importance in establishing an improvement throughout all sectors capable of overcoming food deficiencies.
Antti NIKKOLA (Finland): My delegation would like to congratulate you Mr Chairman, and the two Vice-chairmen, on their election. We also thank Mr Hjort for his introduction. I have only some very short comments on the item before us.
Firstly, my delegation thanks the Secretariat for the most informative document C 93/2. One of the selected issues in the SOFA deals with the decline in the export prices in agricultural commodities. The prices on several commodities which are of the utmost importance in the exports of developing countries practically collapsed in the 1980s and during the last few years.
Coffee and cocoa are the worst examples. There is no doubt that one of the main reasons has been the collapse of the economic provisions of international commodity agreements. It is true that international commodity agreements with price provisions are not fashionable nowadays. However, it is in the nature of agricultural production that even relatively small changes in supply and demand cause wide price fluctuations. That is the reason why domestic agricultural prices of at least the most important products are, in one way or another, stabilized in practically all national economies. We should ask ourselves why this stabilization policy could not be extended to international prices. Or should we accept large price swings in the future? At the same time we must take into account that more permanent changes in supply and demand must be reflected in price levels.
Paragraph 76 of the Secretariat's document states that an increase in protection as defined by the so-called producer subsidy equivalent has increased output in the developed countries. This kind of conclusion is, I think, questionable. Output is mainly determined by the production price level and production costs. On the other hand, the producer subsidy equivalent can increase - for example, due to the decline of the world market price, which decline has no effect on output.
Parviz KARBASI (Iran, Islamic Republic of): In the name of God. Mr Chairman, it is my pleasure to congratulate you on your election and to thank Mr Hjort for his brief and clear information. I should also like to thank the Secretariat for the document which has been prepared, which gives a very interesting and clear indication of the state of food and agriculture.
On the one hand we hear of the sad situations of debt and the downward trend of agricultural exports in developing countries. We hear of the increasing population in the developing countries, at a rate of 4 percent. We hear of the tragic situation of the coffee and banana markets in developing countries and the overall global economic downturn. On the other hand, since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, we hear talk in all UN agencies about sustainable development. It seems that these issues are far apart from each other.
At the present time, the population of the developing countries is 4.1 billion, while in the developed countries the figure is 1.2 billion. Itwill not be easy for the developed countries when over the next 30 years
the population of the developing countries will increase to approximately 7 billion while the population of the developed countries, with the wealth and technology, may be around 1 billion. If the world does not take the necessary steps to solve these problems, it will be a waste of time to talk about sustainable development, a waste of time to talk about the environment, because, when people are hungry, they eat the forest, they eat the pasture. There will be deterioration, there will be pollution.
We believe it is time for important decisions to be taken in the world community to harmonize these issues. There should be a great change in the FAO organization. The delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran should put all its emphasis into the field of human resources development in all fields of agriculture, fisheries and forestry. FAO should strengthen existing networks and create new networks. FAO should initiate all possible subregional, regional and international cooperation.
Antonio CABRALES (El Salvador): Mi nombre es Antonio Cabrales y soy el Ministro de Agricultura de El Salvador. Tuve la honra de estar aquí en la 25° período de sesiones de la Conferencia en 1989 cuando en aquella ocasión en el debate general manifesté que nos sentíamos muy optimistas en cuanto al futuro de la agricultura, especialmente latinoamericana y creo que yo podría interpretar también, la agricultura mundial. Digo esto porque comenzaba la ola del nuevo pensamiento a nivel mundial en cuanto a los errores del pasado, que en América Latina fueron de treinta a cuarenta años de equivocadas políticas económicas y que comenzamos a cambiar precisamente como en 1989. Dijimos que si a los agricultores se les daba la oportunidad podrían producir tres, cuatro y cinco veces más de lo que se estaba produciendo. Hoy regreso aquí a la FAO, cuatro años y medio después, y nuevamente es una honra estar aquí con todos los colegas ministros de agricultura del mundo, especialmente el estar en esta histórica elección de un nuevo Director General de la FAO para los próximos seis años.
Felicito por este documento. Creo que es una buena base de discusión. Pero quiero decir esta mañana que sigo optimista, sin embargo vengo un poco frustrado de los acontecimientos de los últimos cuatro años y medio. Si vemos muy rápidamente el panorama de la agricultura, y especialmente creo que no difiere mucho la latinoamericana de la del mundo, ha sido seriamente afectado por fenómenos políticos, económicos y sociales en los últimos 30-40 años. Primero con la guerra fría que causó tantos problemas al mundo, especialmente en América Latina, el expansionismo soviético, la guerra Norte-Sur. En Latinoamérica, ustedes saben, fuimos invadidos por guerras de terrorismo, guerrillas, creando una enorme inestabilidad, pérdida de confianza del sector productivo, fuga de capitales, descapitalización del agro, etc. Luego, el alza del petróleo en los años setenta incrementa la deuda externa enormemente y pone presiones muy grandes a todos los gobiernos.
Pero me voy a referir más a las políticas económicas. Como ustedes saben, por más de treinta y pico de años en América Latina tuvimos un modelo económico, de desarrollo económico, basado en la sustitucion de importaciones que provocaba grandes intervenciones estatales y creo que lo más nefasto fueron las intervenciones en los precios, tanto en los precios macro como en los precios micro. Se violó, creo yo, el principio más sagrado de cualquier economía en el mundo que es la manipulación de los precios. Cuando se tocan los precios se toca el corazón de cualquier economía. Los tipos de cambio eran manipulados, las tasas de interés, aranceles elevadísimos para proteger industrias inexistentes, que realmente
no merecían tanta elevación de aranceles, controles de precios, especialmente los granos básicos, leche, carne, etc., precios de garantía. Y cuando venía la escasez por toda esta política equivocada, entonces solicitábamos grandes donaciones de alimentos, que únicamente venían a distorsionar más los precios existentes. Esto demuestra claramente, y yo lo dije en 1989 aquí en la FAO, que en mi país nunca había habido política agrícola. Poco a poco me fui dando cuenta que era la misma situación en toda América Latina. Nunca había existido política agrícola. Lo que confundíamos con política agrícola eran programas agrícolas, que es muy distinto a una política agrícola. La política que teníamos en toda América Latina era una política de desarrollo económico, basada en un modelo económico que era el de sustituir importaciones y cuya macropolítica económica era totalmente antiagraria. Entonces, ¿cómo podemos esperar que un agro se desarrolle si hay políticas económicas antiagrarias? y antiagrarias porque los bajos tipos de cambio y los altos aranceles son políticas eminentemente antiagrarias. Por eso los economistas decían que había protección efectiva negativa hasta en un 40 por ciento en ciertos rubros. La verdad es que el optimismo venía en esa ocasión porque sabíamos lo que había que hacer y se comenzaron a corregir esas políticas.
En mi país tenemos cuatro años y medio de haber corregido totalmente esas políticas. Hoy la protección efectiva al agro es de más del 20 por ciento y no menos del 30-35 por ciento. Claramente una situación muy distinta de la que había prevalecido por más de treinta años.
Los programas de estabilización y ajuste estructural han dado magníficos resultados. Hemos logrado cambiar de crecimientos negativos a crecimientos hoy positivos - este año esperamos un cinco por ciento de crecimiento económico - también en muchos países de América Latina. Creo que Edouard Saouma, Director de la FAO, mencionó que cosas muy optimistas estaban ocurriendo en todo el mundo a medida que se van corrigiendo estas políticas.
Los precios ahora no se ponen desde los escritorios de los ministros de economía y de agricultura, sino que están saliendo hoy del mercado, de economías de mercado. Es así que en 1990 el sector agrícola en mi país creció en un 7,4 por ciento. En 1991 en un 7,5 por ciento. El fenómeno que comienza a suceder es que en los últimos dos años tenemos ya estancado el crecimiento en el agro, pero sí hemos podido ver que la economía de mercado funciona; que hemos podido dar precios de incentivo al productor, y al haber más producción se han mantenido los precios estables al consumidor. Las leyes de oferta y demanda funcionan.
Si en un país como El Salvador, después de doce años de guerra, en apenas uno o dos años de aplicar adecuadas políticas económicas, tanto macro como micro, aboliendo controles de precio, precios de garantía, etc. y aplicando también políticas sectoriales adecuadas, tenemos hoy autosuficiencia en granos básicos a tan corto plazo, se puede decir que es un pequeño milagro alemán, como en Alemania después de su guerra. Sin embargo los economistas dicen que no hay tales milagros sino que sencillamente son buenas políticas económicas. Yo creo estar de acuerdo con ellos, pero aquí viene mi frustración. Desde 1992, y en 1993, el agro se ha estancado y se debe en parte, nosotros creemos, por un lado, a que también hemos logrado gracias a Dios, la paz en nuestro país. Ya vamos a cumplir casi un año de paz. Retorna la confianza y retorna de tal magnitud que ahora la construcción es uno de los sectores de mayor inversión en nuestro país. Retornan los capitales que se habían fugado y en cierto modo esa confianza ha afectado muchísimo al tipo de cambio, volviéndolo muy estable, quitando un poco la
competitividad de nuestras exportaciones. Pero creemos que podemos vivir con ello y sabremos la forma de manejarlo.
Más limitante es la situación del comercio, porque aquí es donde todavía existen distorsiones de precios que están fuera de nuestro control. Podemos corregir las nacionales en todos nuestros países, pero no podemos corregir las de los países desarrollados, que están fuera de nuestro control. Y aquí es donde nos encontramos con otras distorsiones de precios, en productos básicos, que tanto nos preocupa, y especialmente preocupa a la FAO lo que es la seguridad alimentaria. En productos como el arroz, como el maíz, como la leche. Todos sabemos aquí lo que se dice de que cada vaca holandesa tiene dos mil dólares per capita de subsidios. Podemos imaginar cuántos países subdesarrollados no tienen mil dólares per capita de ingresos. Estas distorsiones afectan mucho y no podemos competir con ellos, los países en desarrollo; y son distorsiones que, como vuelvo a repetir, no podemos corregir.
Las últimas cifras del señor Peter Sutherland, Director del GATT, dicen que en Estados Unidos hay 360 dólares de subsidios per capita para sus 360 millones de habitantes; que la Comunidad Económica Europea anda por 460 dólares per capita de subsidios; que el Japón anda por 600 dólares per capita de subsidios. También las últimas cifras que tengo yo, proporcionadas por un documento del Banco Mundial, es que hay 475 billones de dólares, que es el costo de las barreras del libre comercio. Sólo la Ronda Uruguay, si fuese exitosa, tiene un costo de 190 billones de dólares por las barreras al comercio internacional.
En cuanto al tema específico de seguridad alimentaria, que tanto nos preocupa, y como tantos otros colegas han manifestado, no vamos a poder proteger los bosques tropicales si no tenemos políticas adecuadas de seguridad alimentaria. Quiero dar otro ejemplo que causa frustración. Desde 1990 hemos aplicado el mecanismo de las bandas de precios en mi país, mecanismo totalmente legal en el GATT. Este mecanismo lo hemos aplicado para el maíz, para el arroz y para el sorgo. Sólo tenemos tres bandas de precios existentes en El Salvador, con un módico arancel de apenas un 20 por ciento para el maíz, maíz que en su mayoría ha sido importado en los últimos 20-30 años de los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica, que nos han proporcionado maíz amarillo para la industria avícola, ganadera, etc.
Eso lógicamente distorsionaba los precios internos. Entonces aplicamos la banda de precios recientemente con un módico 20 por ciento, después de haber retirado aranceles generales del país que llegaban al 300 por ciento y que ahora están en un mínimo del 30 por ciento. Pero recientemente fuimos obligados a retirar este mecanismo de bandas de precios, si no no podríamos firmar la PL 480.
Esto es frustrante, puesto que se hallan políticas adecuadas exitosas y nos vemos, por otro lado, de repente obligados a abolir políticas que no existieron por cuarenta años. Hoy damos demostración de que son exitosas y nos vemos obligados a abolirías.
Vuelvo a repetir, estamos corrigiendo todos estos errores del pasado. Hemos logrado la seguridad alimentaria en nuestro país y estamos, precisamente con la ayuda de la FAO, tratando de establecer una política nacional de agricultura sostenible. Hemos abierto nuestra economía totalmente. Somos un país en el que hay cero subsidios agrícolas y esperamos llegar a un arancel uniforme de un 20 por ciento el próximo año. Hemos tomado muy en serio la apertura, hemos creído que podemos competir en el mercado internacional,
pero vemos con mucha preocupación que los países desarrollados se vuelven más proteccionistas.
Qué situaciones tan contradictorias. Yo pregunto: ¿queremos o no combatir el hambre en el mundo? ¿Queremos o no proteger los bosques tropicales? ¿Queremos o no entrar realmente al libre comercio?
Yo no tengo duda alguna de que los países en desarrollo somos pobres, no por falta de recursos naturales, ni mucho menos por falta de capacidad empresarial. Hemos sido empobrecidos por nuestras propias equivocadas políticas y por equivocadas políticas a nivel internacional. Hemos hecho la parte que nos corresponde corrigiéndolas. Pedimos que se corrijan a nivel internacional esas otras políticas que siguen siendo vigentes y que deben de corregirse. Si corregimos las distorsiones y especialmente las de precios, no tengo duda de que la agricultura mundial tiene solución. Nuestro país tiene boca con que hablar porque somos el país más densamente poblado en toda la América continental, desde Canadá hasta Chile, y si hemos podido en poco tiempo volvernos totalmente autosuficientes en materia alimentaria, lo podemos hacer en el mundo. No le tengo miedo a las cifras cuando hablamos de aumento de población. Los productores agrícolas en el mundo tienen capacidad de producir dos, tres y cuatro veces más, siempre y cuando los precios sean correctos. Lo que necesitamos son precios correctos y eso sólo se puede lograr con políticas nacionales e internacionales adecuadas. Sigo optimista pero un poco frustrado.
ZHANG XIGUI (China) (Original language Chinese): Firstly, Mr Chairman, may I congratulate you on your election as Chairman of this Commission. I am convinced that under your chairmanship, as well as that of the two Vice-Chairmen, and with the active participation of the member countries, this Commission's work will be crowned with success. We would also like to thank Mr Hjort, Deputy Director-General, for his detailed explanations and analysis of the food and agricultural situation. We would also like to thank the Secretariat for having prepared document C 93/2 on The State of Food and Agriculture. It is a very analytical document, containing a wealth of information.
The food and agricultural situation at present forces us to use words such as "concern", "preoccupied" and so on. Unfortunately, these terms have been used a lot in order to describe the state of food and agriculture in 1992 after a period of stagnation. The increase has only been 1.4 percent. Furthermore, this increase is not distributed fairly. It is concentrated mainly in northern America, Oceania and northern Europe. In Africa there has been a 6 percent reduction in agricultural production.
Mr Chairman, you know definitely that the food and agricultural problem of the whole world is a very complex one. A solution does not depend only on the agricultural sector, nor on those countries with a food deficit; the solution to this problem really depends on joint efforts by many countries in many regions, and by the entire international community. We believe that the main problems in food and agriculture have to be given priority so that adequate measures can be adopted. I am referring to the following problems which need priority.
First of all, there is imbalance in development. In many LDCs, poverty is a very serious problem. Food and agriculture, especially in Africa, give rise to concern all over the world. There has not been an adequate improvement. Millions of people are still being threatened by hunger.
Secondly, unfavourable external conditions as far as agricultural development is concerned; the burden of debt in LDCs has not been improved at all.
According to a World Bank report, until the end of 1992 the 116 developing countries accumulated a foreign debt of US$ 110 000 billion. There is, on the other hand, a trend towards the reduction of foreign aid to LDCs, especially as far as food aid is concerned. Furthermore, there is a serious distortion in world trade of agricultural products and protectionism in the trade of agricultural products. Tariff and non-tariff barriers are extremely serious obstacles as well as a fall in prices. All these factors only make the terms of trade of LDCs even more serious.
I should also point out that the rapid increase in population, soil erosion and the reduction in resources, as well as political conflicts and domestic wars, directly affect sustainable development of food and agriculture in these countries.
We would like to make an appeal to industrialized countries for them to strengthen their cooperation with LDCs in order to reduce the debt-servicing in developing countries and increase their aid in agriculture to these developing countries. This will help to improve the agricultural development conditions in these countries. At the same time, we also hope that developing countries will redouble their efforts in order to improve their ability to become self-sufficient and to overcome the obstacles to their agricultural development.
Furthermore, we hope that the FAO and the other agencies of the United Nations in the fight against hunger and poverty, in order to attain sustainable development, will be able to play an important role.
A.W. KAZI (Pakistan): I join other distinguished delegates in congratulating the Chairman on his election to chair this Commission. Whilst all the Commissions set up by Conference are important, we consider the assignment of this Commission to be of the utmost importance, since it has to deal with policy issues in the field of food and agriculture. It is basically the quality of such recommendations that will provide us with a realistic and meaningful edifice to tackle the enormous problems confronting the sector, especially in the developing countries.
I would not like to waste the Commission's precious time by repeating the facts and figures and the write-up given in FAO's excellent document C 93/2 with its supplement. I will accordingly restrict myself to some of the vital aspects which this Commission must keep in mind whilst finalizing these recommendations.
One: the FAO Report about the declining growth rate is a matter of deep concern. This should be highlighted in our recommendations.
Two: the FAO's Report also shows that while the overall performance in this sector has deteriorated, the developing nations have perceived improvement. While this is welcome news, no doubt, we should not take this for granted, for the simple reason that in the developing nations it is not only the vagaries of the weather but also the international trade situation which determines the development of such nations.
Three: the terms of trade for the developing nations continue to deteriorate and no tangible progress is possible unless something positive is done in this regard. Much has been said about the coming Uruguay Round. While we all look forward to something positive coming out of it, may I suggest to the Commission that it comes up with concrete proposals in order to bring the necessary pressure on the participants of the coming Conference to adopt global rather than restricted policies. This is what we need.
Four: the expanding population in the developing nations is also a major problem and the reason for the unsatisfactory economic growth. The Commission should assign a high priority to this aspect while formulating the Commission's recommendations.
Five: apart from the steps for increasing crop productivity and production, greater attention is required to be given to measures to prevent crop losses. One potential threat is that of locusts. Since July this year my country, Pakistan, and neighbouring India have been under massive locust attack. These locusts originated in the Sahara Desert of Africa. The attack almost destroyed our outstanding crops. It was with great effort and with the active support and assistance of FAO and some donor agencies that we were able to avert what would have been total catastrophe.
We would suggest FAO revitalize its role as a coordinator in combating the locust scourge which confronts not only Pakistan and India but also the countries of Africa and the Middle East. This is all the more important since, with the massive breeding this year, we are afraid for next year also.
Lastly, I would like to say that the additional and ever-increasing cost of sustainable development in developing countries is a serious handicap which needs funds. The Commission should arrive at proposals for an arrangement which will ensure the availability of sufficient resources to developing countries to meet these costs.
Arnaldo BADILLO ROJAS (Venezuela): En nombre de nuestra Delegación, señor Presidente, permítame felicitarlo por su elección y desearle éxitos en su gestión al frente de esta Comisión.
A partir de la lectura del documento en discusión, señor Presidente, hemos elaborado dos planteamientos que queremos poner en conocimiento de la Secretaría y de las delegaciones aquí presentes.
En primer lugar, consideramos que el Informe constituye una valiosa referencia sobre la situación de la agricultura y la alimentación en el mundo, así como sobre sus perspectivas inmediatas, por lo cual felicitamos a la Secretaría por su elaboración.
En segundo lugar, nos preocupa sobremanera la conclusión sobre las perspectivas de largo plazo de la economía y la agricultura de los países en desarrollo y, en especial de los menos desarrollados. El Informe concluye que el cuadro económico mundial de un gran número de países pobres es sombrío, en especial el correspondiente a los 47 países menos desarrollados. Las gestiones de muchos países en desarrollo, dice el Informe, destinadas a aliviar su deuda a través de acuerdos de reestructuración o programas de desarrollo con el auxilio de fondos externos, se frustran ante la imposibilidad de llevar a cabo programas de reajuste.
Por otro lado, señor Presidente, en el documento se afirma que los procesos de reajuste, liberalización y expansión del comercio son, o parecen ser, la fuente del dinamismo económico en algunos países en desarrollo, y vemos allí también que otros países en desarrollo que no llevan propiamente procesos ortodoxos de ajuste estructural también muestran un gran dinamismo. Nos preguntamos entonces, ¿qué es lo que está determinando realmente la recuperación en esos países? Es una respuesta satisfactoria la afirmación contenida en el punto 3 del párrafo 23 de que, a mayor comercio mayor recuperación, y si esto es así, entonces ¿cómo lograr las ventajas de la liberalización y el comercio países que no pueden pagar el costo social y político del condicionamiento que conlleva el ajuste estructural o el costo de abrirse y encontrar luego los mercados cerrados como consecuencia del proteccionismo?
¿Cuáles son los caminos a seguir? ¿Qué puede hacer la FAO dentro de su misión y fines específicos para orientar a los países en desarrollo en este sentido?
Celebramos la formulación de algunos planteamientos en el documento que pudiesen apuntar hacia algunas salidas, pero sentimos que las orientaciones no son todavía totalmente claras.
En el párrafo 35 del documento se propone investigar en profundidad el peso de los factores coadyuvantes de la expansión del comercio y de los problemas que conlleva la expansión mundial del comercio agrícola, y se ofrece allí para 1994 un estudio a fondo del estado de la alimentación y la agricultura en 1994, que centrará su atención, y esto lo subrayo muy particularmente en la experiencia vivida por los países que dependen de las exportaciones agrícolas. Compartimos plenamente esta proposición y expresamos a la vez nuestro deseo de que con ayuda de la FAO pudiésemos ir un poco más allá y que a partir de ese análisis y de ese estudio pudiese la FAO llegar a conclusiones y señalar caminos más claros para formular estrategias de producción agrícola compatibles con los procesos de transición hacia economías más abiertas e integradas en el comercio internacional.
Es necesario que los valiosos resultados y conclusiones derivados de los estudios de la FAO se den a conocer no sólo como planteamientos aislados, sino que podamos integrarlos en cuerpos más amplios y coherentes de proposiciones enriqueciendo así la búsqueda de salidas más realistas a nuestros problemas de producción y comercio agrícola. Si no lo hacemos así, seguiremos viendo en diferentes campos solamente planteamientos aislados subsectoriales o por productos, cuya compatibilidad, vistos en su conjunto, desconoceremos y resultarán por ello difíciles de implementar efectivamente.
La FAO, pensamos, debe hacer un esfuerzo por integrar estas conclusiones y recomendaciones en sistemas coherentes de pensamiento y de concepción sobre el desarrollo agrícola. Pensamos, señor Presidente, que la FAO debe hacer algo más de abstracción y construir sobre los valiosos principios que han guiado su acción en las dos últimas décadas. Por supuesto sin llegar al extremo de otras instituciones internacionales de aspirar a tener una teoría exclusiva del desarrollo, pero sí disponer de una concepción más elaborada del desarrollo agrícola y alimentario que, integrada con la visión de instituciones como el PNUMA, el Banco Mundial, el FIDA, etcétera, nos permita ser más efectivos en la búsqueda de soluciones y, a la vez, más integrados en el esfuerzo por el desarrollo con las demás instituciones especializadas del sistema de las Naciones Unidas.
Ms Carol KRAMER (United States of America): Mr Chairman, congratulations on your election. I am echoing all the previous delegates in wishing you well in the Commission here. Also, congratulations to Mr Hjort upon his presentation. The Secretariat is also to be congratulated for the comprehensive character and their even-handed treatment of the global food and agricultural situation in this year's report. We would like to comment particularly favourably upon the format and presentation of the report. The concise bullets and the appropriate charts and tables are very effective.
I would like to make a few points, the first regarding the global cereals situation. The Secretariat's description of the global cereals situation generally corresponds to the estimates of the United States at the time of the Secretariat's preparation of the document for this Conference. Our most recent estimates, however, show some tightening of cereal supplies. The US estimates now show the 1993 and 1994 ending stocks to be equal to approximately 17.4 percent of consumption. When this is considered in relation to projected growth and consumption caused by population, it may imply a potentially lower stock-to-consumption ratio for 1994 and 1995. The US Department of Agriculture has announced that US producers participating in 1994 price and income support programmes for wheat grain, sorghum, barley and oats will not be required to idle land under the Acreage Reduction Programme. The area reductions required for maize have been reduced to 5 percent. It was 10 percent in 1993. The programme for rice has not yet been announced but a 5 percent reduction was required in 1993.
Regarding US crop prospects, let me summarize briefly how the excessive rainfall that we have had in this past year in the US Midwest and how the drought in the southeast this summer have reduced the prospects for major grain and oilseed crops. Smaller coarse grain and soybean crops had already been expected for 1993 because of the abundant supplies that were carried over from the large 1992 crops, but the prospects for the resulting crops from this year's bad weather have further been weakened.
US coarse grain production, as of mid-October, was forecast at 205 million metric tonnes, which is about one-quarter less than in 1992. Maize production is expected to reach only about 177 million tonnes, or 64 million tonnes less than in 1992. US coarse grain stocks are forecast to fall to about 34 million tonnes by .the end of the 1993-94 marketing year, which is a 46 percent decline from a year earlier. That leaves stocks roughly equal to their level at the beginning of 1992-93. Soybean output is expected to be down about 14 percent to a little over 51 million tonnes.
A moderate increase for US wheat production had been projected earlier, but we now forecast a 1.5 percent decline to 65.9 million tonnes, which is about 1 million tonnes less than in 1992. US wheat stocks, however, are forecast to rise to almost 19 million tonnes by the end of the 1993/94 trading year. That represents a better than 30 percent increase in these stocks over the previous year, an increase much larger than forecast earlier resulting from greatly reduced expectations for exports.
Regarding food aid, we continue to expect US grain supplies to be more than adequate to meet both commercial export and food aid requirements. That includes the 4 million tonnes of wheat carried in the US Food Security Wheat Reserve - the maximum authorized. The reserve is available for distribution through the PL 480 food aid programme when domestic supplies of wheat are limited or when emergency situations require urgent humanitarian assistance.
For the fiscal year which began in the United States on October 1, a programme level of US$ 1 598 million has been established for PL 480 food assistance. Based on current price estimates this is expected to provide for approximately 6.4 million metric tonnes of food aid shipments. Of this, it is expected that 2.8 million tonnes will be provided through concessional credit sales and 3.6 million tonnes will be available through humanitarian and emergency donations and government grants. Additional US food assistance will be made available through the donation of government-owned commodities and the Food for Progress Programme.
I would like to make a couple of quick points about the implications of the State of Food and Agriculture situation report for FAO programme priorities. The State of Food and Agriculture report for 1993 re-emphasizes the critical necessity for FAO Programme priorities to be effectively identified and implemented. The specific profiles of different regions and sometimes particular countries provide insights into the particular problems and needs, but all within the context of FAO priorities. Sustainable growth in agricultural productivity and the assurance of genuine food security at national, household and individual levels for all peoples must remain the fundamental priorities of the Food and Agriculture Organization.
Specifically the US supports programmes and projects to provide critical follow-up to the two important Conferences of the past two years, that is UNCED and the ICN. We sincerely believe that the objective of enhancing food security and sustainable development are complementary and not competitive. In addition, we support efforts to invest now in the vital business of preserving plant and animal genetic resources.
Finally we fully support the objectives of trade liberalization as representing the best and most equitable chance for generalized growth. Therefore, the success of GATT remains critical to the Member Nations of the FAO.
CHAIRMAN: We shall now adjourn but I first have some announcements. Regarding our working hours, normally we shall start at 9.30 in the morning until 12.30. In the afternoon we shall continue at 2.30 and finish, if possible, at 5.30. Tomorrow morning we shall start at 9 o'clock. This is especially important for those countries which have expressed a wish to speak tomorrow morning. We shall start at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning because we shall have to break off our discussions at 10.45 because of the Audience. In the afternoon we shall continue at 2.30 but, if necessary, we shall continue without a break until 7 o'clock in the evening.
Secondly, I would wish to remind you that the Council recommended that the number of resolutions be kept to a minimum and that they should only deal with matters requiring a formal decision by the Conference.
The meeting is adjourned until 2.30.
The meeting rose at 12.45 hours.
La séance est levée à 12 h 45.
Se levanta la sesión a las 12.45 horas.
